Hostname: page-component-6dbcb7884d-4tctr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-02-14T01:21:38.701Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Size of Animal in Relation to Productivity with Special Reference to the Ruminant—Economic aspects

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 September 2010

R. D. Baker ,
R. V. Large  and
C. R. W. Spedding
R. D. Baker
Affiliation:
Grassland Research Institute, Hurley, Berks, SL6 5LR
R. V. Large
Affiliation:
Grassland Research Institute, Hurley, Berks, SL6 5LR
C. R. W. Spedding
Affiliation:
Grassland Research Institute, Hurley, Berks, SL6 5LR
Get access

Extract

The economic significance of size in animal production processes manifests itself mainly through an influence on the biological efficiency of the animal population or the individual animal. Within limits, those factors affecting biological efficiency are also ones which have a dominant effect on financial efficiency. These effects relate almost solely to total financial returns and the cost of feeding livestock per unit of product. However, size of animal may have a major impact on the need for resources other than feed, particularly labour and capital, and these aspects also merit some consideration.

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. 35 - 42
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

Braude, R. 1970. The future of animals as sources of human food Pigs-whither? Proc. Nutr. Soc. 29: 262–270.Google Scholar
Brody, S. 1945. Bioenergetics and Growth. Reinhold, New York.Google Scholar
Cartright, T. C. 1970. Selection criteria for beef cattle for the future. J. Anim. Sci. 30; 706–711.Google Scholar
Donald, H. P., Read, J. L. and Russell, W. S. 1970. Influence of litter size and breed of sire on carcass weight and quality of lambs. Anim. Prod. 12: 281–290.Google Scholar
Ferguson, K. A. 1962. Ch. II in The Simple Fleece ed. Barnard, A.. Melbourne University Press. Google Scholar
Jaap, R. G. 1966. Response to selection for growth rate varies with strains. Proc. 13th Wld's Poult. Congr., Kiev, pp. 80–83.Google Scholar
Jaap, R. G. and Mum, F. V. 1968. Erratic opposition and egg defects in broiler type pullets. Poult. Sci. 47: 417–423.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Joandet, G. E. 1969. Comparative consumption of feed of Charolais and Aberdeen Angus cows under grazing conditions. Proc. 2nd Wld Conf. Anim. Prod. Bruce Publishing Co., St. Paul, Minn., p. 355 (Abstr.).Google Scholar
Kleiber, M. 1965. Metabolic body size. In Energy Metabolism (ed. Blaxter, K. L.) AAP Publication, No. 11, pp. 427–435. Academic Press, London. Google Scholar
Klosterman, E. W. 1972. Beef cattle for maximum efficiency. J. Anim. Sci. 34: 875–880.Google Scholar
Large, R. V. 1970. The biological efficiency of meat production in sheep. Anim. Prod. 12: 393–401.Google Scholar
Linzell, J. L. 1972. Milk yield, energy loss in milk and mammary gland weight in different species. Dairy Sci. Abstr. 34: 351–360.Google Scholar
Meat and Livestock Commission. 1972a. Beef Improv. Serv. Records Rep. No. 29.Google Scholar
Meat and Livestock Commission. 1972b. Planned Crossbreeding and Lamb Carcase Weights. Information Leaflet.Google Scholar
Milk Marketing Board. 1971. Rep. Breed. Prod. Organisation No. 21.Google Scholar
Molinuevo, H. A. 1969. Crossbreeding as a means of increasing efficiency in beef production. Proc. 2nd Wld Conf. Anim. Prod., Bruce Publishing Co., St. Paul, Minn., p. 305 (Abstr.).Google Scholar
Ryder, M. L. and Stephenson, S. K. 1968. Wool Growth. Academic Press, Lond. and New York.Google Scholar
Spedding, C. R. W., Large, R. V. and Walsingham, J. M. 1972. The importance of the size of female in sheep. Wld Rev. Anim. Prod. 8: 90–96.Google Scholar