Hostname: page-component-7b7567c8c-fvjsw Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-15T20:07:25.681Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Body size and conformation in identical twin cattle

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 September 2010

C. S. Taylor and
W. C. Rollins
C. S. Taylor
Affiliation:
A.R.C. Animal Breeding Research Organisation, Edinburgh, 9
W. C. Rollins
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Husbandry, University of California, Davis, California, U.S.A.
Get access

Summary

The variation and covariation of 12 linear body measurements within 60 pairs of monozygotic twin heifers is analysed in terms of a twin's mean size over a two-year period.

Possibly all the covariation, and two thirds, on average, of the variation can be accounted for by a single factor common to all the measurements.

Interpretation of this factor shows that a twin is a more or less proportional replicate of its identical co-twin. This proportionality, however, is somewhat distorted because of relatively greater differences in the later maturing body parts.

Finally it is shown that the predominant differences in both size and shape can simultaneously be described as twin lagging behind identical co-twin by 0±11·8 days' growth.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Production , Volume 5 , Issue 1 , February 1963, pp. 77 - 86
Copyright
Copyright © British Society of Animal Science 1963

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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

REFERENCES

Bailey, W., 1956. A comparison of genetic and environmental principal components of morphogenesis in mice. Growth, 20: 63.Google ScholarPubMed
Bartlett, M. S., 1950. Tests of significance in factor analysis. Brit. J. Psych. {Stat. Sect.), 3: 7.Google Scholar
Bartlett, M. S., 1951. A further note on tests of significance in factor analysis. Brit. J. Psych. {Stat. Sect.), 4: 1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bunt, C. & Banks, C., 1947. A factor analysis of body measurements for British adult males. Ann. Eugen., 13: 238.Google Scholar
Hotelling, H., 1933. Analysis of a complex of statistical variables into principal components. J. Educ. Psych., 24: 417.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johansson, I. & Hildeman, S. E., 1954. The relationship between certain body measurements and live and slaughter weight in cattle. Aram. Breed. Abstr. 22: 1.Google Scholar
Kendall, M. G., 1961. A Course in Multivariate Analysis. Charles Griffin & Co., London. 2nd ed., p. 185.Google Scholar
Lawley, D. N., 1946. Chapter XXI of The Factorial Analysis of Human Ability by Godfrey H. Thomson, Univ. of London Press, London, 2nd ed.Google Scholar
Smith, C., King, J. W. B. & Gilbert, N., 1962. Genetic parameters of British Large White bacon pigs. Anim. Prod., 4: 128.Google Scholar
Tanner, J. M. & Burt, A. W. A., 1954. Physique in the infra-human mammalia: A factor analysis of body measurements of dairy cows. J. Genet., 52: 36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Taylor, St. C. S., 1962. Identical twins and developmental stability. Anim. Prod., 41: 144.Google Scholar
Taylor, St. C. S., 1963. Accuracy in measuring cattle with special reference to identical twins. Anim. Prod., 5: 105.Google Scholar
Touchberry, R. W., 1951. Genetic correlations between five body measurements, weight, type and production in the same individual among Holstein cows. J. Dairy Sci., 34: 242.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wright, S., 1934. The method of path coefficients. Ann. Math. Stat., 5: 161.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wright, S., 1954. Chapter 2 of Statistics and Mathematics in Biology. Edited by Oscar Kempthorne et al., Iowa State College, Ames, la.Google Scholar