Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-5r2nc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-02-08T20:17:24.771Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Size of Animal in Relation to Productivity Nutritional aspects

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 September 2010

W. Holmes
W. Holmes
Affiliation:
Wye College (University of London), Ashford, Kent, TN25 5AH
Get access

Extract

With our increased knowledge of genetics and our ability to control breeding populations of farm animals we are now in a position to select for optimum size if we can define it. A consideration of size in relation to nutritional efficiency therefore becomes relevant. (I confine myself to nutritional efficiency since this was my remit, but of course there are many non-nutritional aspects of productivity which also may be related to size, e.g. larger animals need less labour or housing per unit of production; smaller animals may yield more suitable carcasses for some markets, and these may indeed be more important economically than nutritional efficiency.) Nutritional efficiency will be considered in relation to energy use, since energy is normally the limiting nutrient, and the concentration of the other nutrients, proteins, minerals and vitamins can be varied by adding supplements to the diet.

Type
55th Meeting, Harper Adams, 18 to 22 September 1972 Symposium: Size of Animal in Relation to Productivity with Special Reference to the Ruminant
Information
Proceedings of the British Society of Animal Production (1972) , Volume 2 , January 1973 , pp. 27 - 34
Copyright
Copyright © British Society of Animal Production 1973

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Alderman, G., Morgan, D. E., Griffiths, J. R., Holmes, W., Brown, W. O., Raven, A. M., McDonald, P., Edwards, R. A. and Lessells, W. J. 1972. Report of the Ruminant Energy Requirements Working Party in Nutrient Standards for Ruminants. MAFF, London.Google Scholar
Allen, D. M. and Lewis, W. H. E. 1970. Central performance tests of Hereford bulls. Budapest. EAAP, Budapest.Google Scholar
AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH COUNCIL. 1965. The Nutrient Requirements of Farm Livestock. No. 2. Ruminants. Agricultural Research Council, London.Google Scholar
Brody, S. 1945. Bioenergetics and Growth. Reinhold Publ. Corp. New York.Google Scholar
Curran, M. K. and Holmes, W. 1970. Prediction of the voluntary intake of food by dairy cows. 2. Lactating grazing cows. Anim. Prod. 12: 213–224.Google Scholar
Curran, M. K., Wimble, R. H. and Holmes, W. 1970. Prediction of the voluntary intake of food by dairy cows. 1. Stall fed cows in late pregnancy and early lactation. Anim. Prod. 12: 195–212 Google Scholar
Donald, H. P., Russell, W. S. and Taylor, ST. C. 1962. Birth weights of reciprocally crossbred calves. J . agric. Sci., Camb. 58: 405–412.Google Scholar
Gould, S. J. 1966. Allometry and size in ontogeny and phylogeny. Biol. Rev. 41: 587–640.Google Scholar
Hajipieris, G., Jones, J. G. W., Wimble, R. H. and Holmes, W. 1966. Studies on feed intake and utilisation by sheep. II. The utilisation of feed by ewes. J . agric. Sci., Camb. 66: 341–349.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holmes, W. 1970. Animals for food. Proc. Nutr. Soc. 29: 237–244.Google Scholar
HolmeS, W. 1971. Efficiency of food production by the animal industries. Ch. 14, in Potential Cros Production (ed.Wareing, P. F. and Cooper, J. P.). Heinemann, London.Google Scholar
Huxley, J. S. 1958. Evolutionary processes and taxonomy with special reference to grade. Uppsala Univ. Arsskr. 21–23.Google Scholar
Joblin, A. D. H. 1970. Efficiency of feed conversion in Friesian and Angus steers. Proc. N.Z. Soc. Anim. Prod. 30: 23–31.Google Scholar
Johansson, I. 1961. Genetic Aspects of Dairy Cattle Breeding. Univ. Illinois Press, Urbana.Google Scholar
Johansson, I. 1964. The relation between body size, conformation and milk yield in dairy cattle. Anim. Breed. Abstr. 32: 421–435.Google Scholar
Kleiber, M. 1961. The Fire of Life. Wiley, John, New York.Google Scholar
Kleiber, M. 1965. Metabolic body size. In Energy Metabolism (ed.Blaxter, K. L.). Academic Press, London.Google Scholar
Leitch, I., Hytten, F. E. and Billewicz, W. Z. 1959. The maternal and neonatal weights of some mammalia. Proc. Zool. Soc. Lond. 133: 11–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Linzell, J. L. 1972. Milk yield, energy loss in milk, and mammary gland weight in different species. Dairy Sci. Abstr. 34 (5): 351–360. CGoogle Scholar
Macdonald, M. A. 1957. Slaughter weight of beef cattle for theoretical maximum efficiency. N.Z. J. Sci. Tech, A. 38: 706–708.Google Scholar
Macdonald, M. A. 1958. Beef Cattle Production. Massey Agricultural College, Palmerston North, New Zealand.Google Scholar
Mason, I. L. 1971. Comparative beef performance of the large cattle breeds of Western Europe. Anim. Breed. Abstr. 39: 1–29.Google Scholar
MEAT AND LIVESTOCK COMMISSION. 1972. Cattle Facts 1972. MLC, Bletchley.Google Scholar
Roy, J. H. B. 1970. The Calf. Uiffe, London.Google Scholar
ROYAL DAIRY SHOW. 1968. J . R. Ass. Br. Dairy Fmrs, 72: 110–142.Google Scholar
Taylor, ST. C. S. 1968. Time taken to mature in relation to mature weight for sexes, strains and species of domesticated mammals and birds. Anim. Prod. 10: 157–169.Google Scholar
Tulloh, N. M. 1963. Comparative breed studies on beef cattle. Aust. J. Agric. Res. 14: 882–97.Google Scholar
Wright, N. C. 1954. The ecology of domesticated animals. Ch. 5 in Progress in the Physiology of Farm Animals, (ed. Hammond, J.). Butterworths, London.Google Scholar