Hostname: page-component-84b7d79bbc-7nlkj Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-26T07:48:35.086Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Skin structure and milk production of British dairy cattle

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 June 2009

T. Nay  and
D. McEwan Jenkinson
T. Nay
Affiliation:
Department of Zoology, University of Sydney, Australia
D. McEwan Jenkinson
Affiliation:
Department of Physiology, The Hannah Dairy Research Institute, Ayr, Scotland
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

The possibility of using a skin measurement as an index of potential milkproducing capacity in cattle was re-examined. Skin specimens were obtained by biopsy from 7 dairy herds, and each of 5 anatomical measurements was correlated with (1) milk yield and (2) butterfat percentage.

Only one of the pooled within-herd relationships was statistically significant. This relationship indicated that within the breeds studied, cows with the least hair follicle depth would be expected to give the highest milk yield. It is suggested that a more extensive investigation of this relationship might yield results of practical value in assessing milk-producing capacity and in progeny testing.

Type
Original Articles
Information
Journal of Dairy Research , Volume 31 , Issue 1 , February 1964 , pp. 53 - 58
Copyright
Copyright © Proprietors of Journal of Dairy Research 1964

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

REFERENCES

Burcev, A. V. (1937). Usp. zootekh. Nauk, 4, 137.Google Scholar
Carlisle, D. B. (1954). Quart. J. micr. Sci. 95, 79.Google Scholar
Findlay, J. D., Goodall, A. Myfanwy & Yang, S. H. (1950). J. Dairy Res. 17, 22.Google Scholar
Findlay, J. D. & Jenkinson, D. McEwan (1960). J. agric. Sci. 55, 247.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Finzi, A. & Cenni, B. (1962). Riv. Zootec. Milano, 35, 152.Google Scholar
Fisher, R. A. (1948). Statistical Methods for Research Workers. Edinburgh: Oliver & Boyd.Google Scholar
Hayman, R. H. & Nay, T. (1961). Aust. J. agric. Res. 12, 513.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Linzell, J. L. (1959). Physiol. Rev. 39, 534.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mahadevan, P. (1951 a). J. agric. Sci. 41, 80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mahadevan, P. (1951 b). J. agric. Sci. 41, 94.Google Scholar
Nay, T. (1959). Aust. J. agric. Res. 10, 121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nay, T. & Hayman, R. H. (1956). Aust. J. agric. Res. 7, 482.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nay, T. % Hayman, R. H. (1963). Aust. J. agric. Res. 14, 294.CrossRefGoogle Scholar