Dairy Cattle Reference
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Load more
Recommended publications
-
Breed Relationships and Definition in British Cattle
Heredity (2004) 93, 597–602 & 2004 Nature Publishing Group All rights reserved 0018-067X/04 $30.00 www.nature.com/hdy Breed relationships and definition in British cattle: a genetic analysis P Wiener, D Burton and JL Williams Roslin Institute (Edinburgh), Roslin, Midlothian EH25 9PS, UK The genetic diversity of eight British cattle breeds was not associated with geographical distribution. Analyses also quantified in this study. In all, 30 microsatellites from the FAO defined the cohesiveness or definition of the various breeds, panel of markers were used to characterise the DNA with Highland, Guernsey and Jersey as the best defined and samples from nearly 400 individuals. A variety of methods most distinctive of the breeds. were applied to analyse the data in order to look at diversity Heredity (2004) 93, 597–602. doi:10.1038/sj.hdy.6800566 within and between breeds. The relationships between Publishedonline25August2004 breeds were not highly resolved and breed clusters were Keywords: British cattle; breeds; diversity; microsatellites Introduction 1997; MacHugh et al, 1994, 1998; Kantanen et al, 2000; Arranz et al, 2001; Bjrnstad and Red 2001; Beja-Pereira The concept of cattle breeds, rather than local types, is et al, 2003). said to have originated in Britain under the influence of The goal of this study was to use microsatellite Robert Bakewell in the 18th century (Porter, 1991). It was markers to characterise diversity levels within, and during that period that intensive culling and inbreeding relationships between, a number of British cattle breeds, became widespread in order to achieve specific breeding most of which have not been characterised previously. -
SOUTHERN ONTARIO ORCHID SOCIETY NEWS November 2015, Volume 50, Issue 10 Celebrating 50 Years SOOS
SOUTHERN ONTARIO ORCHID SOCIETY NEWS November 2015, Volume 50, Issue 10 Celebrating 50 years SOOS Web site: www.soos.ca ; Member of the Canadian Orchid Congress; Affiliated with the American Orchid Society, the Orchid Digest and the International Phalaenopsis Alliance. Membership: Annual Dues $30 per calendar year (January 1 to December 31 ). Surcharge $15 for newsletter by postal service. Membership secretary: Liz Mc Alpine, 189 Soudan Avenue, Toronto, ON M4S 1V5, phone 416-487-7832, renew or join on line at soos.ca/members Executive: President, Laura Liebgott, 905-883-5290; Vice-President, John Spears, 416-260-0277; Secretary, Sue Loftus 905-839-8281; Treasurer, John Vermeer, 905-823-2516 Other Positions of Responsibility: Program, Mario Ferrusi; Plant Doctor, Doug Kennedy; Meeting Set up, Yvonne Schreiber; Vendor and Sales table coordinator, Diane Ryley;Library Liz Fodi; Web Master, Max Wilson; Newsletter, Peter and Inge Poot; Annual Show, Peter Poot; Refreshments, Joe O’Regan. Conservation Committee, Susan Shaw; Show table, Synea Tan . Honorary Life Members: Terry Kennedy, Doug Kennedy, Inge Poot, Peter Poot, Joe O’Regan, Diane Ryley, Wayne Hingston, Mario Ferrusi. Annual Show: February 13-14, 2016 Next Meeting Sunday, November 1 , Floral Hall of the Toronto Botanical Garden, Sales 12 noon, Cultural Snapshots by Alexsi on the stage Program at 1 pm Up to seven Round table discussion topics are planned: Large greenhouse growing and potting, Growing on the windowsill and under lights, Potting media, Growing under lights, Growing setups for apartments, Growing in a small greenhouse, and How to show your orchids. There should be time to take in five discussions. -
"First Report on the State of the World's Animal Genetic Resources"
Country Report of Australia for the FAO First Report on the State of the World’s Animal Genetic Resources 2 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY................................................................................................................5 CHAPTER 1 ASSESSING THE STATE OF AGRICULTURAL BIODIVERSITY THE FARM ANIMAL SECTOR IN AUSTRALIA.................................................................................7 1.1 OVERVIEW OF AUSTRALIAN AGRICULTURE, ANIMAL PRODUCTION SYSTEMS AND RELATED ANIMAL BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY. ......................................................................................................7 Australian Agriculture - general context .....................................................................................7 Australia's agricultural sector: production systems, diversity and outputs.................................8 Australian livestock production ...................................................................................................9 1.2 ASSESSING THE STATE OF CONSERVATION OF FARM ANIMAL BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY..............10 Major agricultural species in Australia.....................................................................................10 Conservation status of important agricultural species in Australia..........................................11 Characterisation and information systems ................................................................................12 1.3 ASSESSING THE STATE OF UTILISATION OF FARM ANIMAL GENETIC RESOURCES IN AUSTRALIA. ........................................................................................................................................................12 -
Zoo Animal Welfare: the Human Dimension
WellBeing International WBI Studies Repository 10-2018 Zoo Animal Welfare: The Human Dimension Justine Cole University of British Columbia David Fraser University of British Columbia Follow this and additional works at: https://www.wellbeingintlstudiesrepository.org/zooaapop Part of the Animal Studies Commons, Nature and Society Relations Commons, and the Population Biology Commons Recommended Citation Justine Cole & David Fraser (2018) Zoo Animal Welfare: The Human Dimension, Journal of Applied Animal Welfare Science, 21:sup1, 49-58, DOI: 10.1080/10888705.2018.1513839 This material is brought to you for free and open access by WellBeing International. It has been accepted for inclusion by an authorized administrator of the WBI Studies Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. JOURNAL OF APPLIED ANIMAL WELFARE SCIENCE 2018, VOL. 21, NO. S1, 49–58 https://doi.org/10.1080/10888705.2018.1513839 Zoo Animal Welfare: The Human Dimension Justine Cole and David Fraser Faculty of Land and Food Systems, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada ABSTRACT KEYWORDS Standards and policies intended to safeguard nonhuman animal welfare, Animal welfare; zoo animals; whether in zoos, farms, or laboratories, have tended to emphasize features keeper; stockperson; of the physical environment. However, research has now made it clear that attitudes; personality; well- very different welfare outcomes are commonly seen in facilities using being similar environments or conforming to the same animal -
Detecting and Managing Suspected Admixture and Genetic Drift in Domestic Livestock: Modern Dexter Cattle - a Case Study
Detecting and managing suspected admixture and genetic drift in domestic livestock: modern Dexter cattle - a case study Timothy C Bray Cardiff University C a r d if f UNIVERSITY PRIFYSCOL C a e RDY|§> A dissertation submitted to Cardiff University in candidature for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy UMI Number: U585124 All rights reserved INFORMATION TO ALL USERS The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted. In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion. Dissertation Publishing UMI U585124 Published by ProQuest LLC 2013. Copyright in the Dissertation held by the Author. Microform Edition © ProQuest LLC. All rights reserved. This work is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code. ProQuest LLC 789 East Eisenhower Parkway P.O. Box 1346 Ann Arbor, Ml 48106-1346 Table of Contents Page Number Abstract I Declaration II Acknowledgements III Table of Contents IV Chapter 1. Introduction 1 1. introduction 2 1.1. Molecular genetics in conservation 2 1.2. Population genetic diversity 3 1.2.1. Microsatellites 3 1.2.2. Within-population variability 4 1.2.3. Population bottlenecks 5 1.2.4. Population differentiation 6 1.3. Assignment of conservation value 8 1.4. Genetic admixture 10 1.4.1. Admixture affecting conservation 12 1.5. Quantification of admixture 13 1.5.1. Different methods of determining admixture proportions 14 1.5.1.1. Gene identities 16 1.5.1.2. -
Animal Rights Without Controversy
05__LESLIE_SUNSTEIN.DOC 7/20/2007 9:36 AM ANIMAL RIGHTS WITHOUT CONTROVERSY JEFF LESLIE* CASS R. SUNSTEIN** I INTRODUCTION Many consumers would be willing to pay something to reduce the suffering of animals used as food. Unfortunately, they do not and cannot, because existing markets do not disclose the relevant treatment of animals, even though that treatment would trouble many consumers. Steps should be taken to promote disclosure so as to fortify market processes and to promote democratic discussion of the treatment of animals. In the context of animal welfare, a serious problem is that people’s practices ensure outcomes that defy their existing moral commitments. A disclosure regime could improve animal welfare without making it necessary to resolve the most deeply contested questions in this domain. II OF THEORIES AND PRACTICES To all appearances, disputes over animal rights produce an extraordinary amount of polarization and acrimony. Some people believe that those who defend animal rights are zealots, showing an inexplicable willingness to sacrifice important human interests for the sake of rats, pigs, and salmon. Judge Richard Posner, for example, refers to “the siren song of animal rights,”1 while Richard Epstein complains that recognition of an “animal right to bodily integrity . Copyright © 2007 by Jeff Leslie and Cass R. Sunstein This article is also available at http://law.duke.edu/journals/lcp. * Associate Clinical Professor of Law and Director, Chicago Project on Animal Treatment Principles, University of Chicago Law School. ** Karl N. Llewellyn Distinguished Service Professor, Law School and Department of Political Science, University of Chicago. Many thanks are due to the McCormick Companions’ Fund for its support of the Chicago Project on Animal Treatment Principles, out of which this paper arises. -
Death-Free Dairy? the Ethics of Clean Milk
J Agric Environ Ethics https://doi.org/10.1007/s10806-018-9723-x ARTICLES Death-Free Dairy? The Ethics of Clean Milk Josh Milburn1 Accepted: 10 January 2018 Ó The Author(s) 2018. This article is an open access publication Abstract The possibility of ‘‘clean milk’’—dairy produced without the need for cows—has been championed by several charities, companies, and individuals. One can ask how those critical of the contemporary dairy industry, including especially vegans and others sympathetic to animal rights, should respond to this prospect. In this paper, I explore three kinds of challenges that such people may have to clean milk: first, that producing clean milk fails to respect animals; second, that humans should not consume dairy products; and third, that the creation of clean milk would affirm human superiority over cows. None of these challenges, I argue, gives us reason to reject clean milk. I thus conclude that the prospect is one that animal activists should both welcome and embrace. Keywords Milk Á Food technology Á Biotechnology Á Animal rights Á Animal ethics Á Veganism Introduction A number of businesses, charities, and individuals are working to develop ‘‘clean milk’’—dairy products created by biotechnological means, without the need for cows. In this paper, I complement scientific work on this possibility by offering the first normative examination of clean dairy. After explaining why this question warrants consideration, I consider three kinds of objections that vegans and animal activists may have to clean milk. First, I explore questions about the use of animals in the production of clean milk, arguing that its production does not involve the violation of & Josh Milburn [email protected] http://josh-milburn.com 1 Department of Politics, University of York, Heslington, York YO10 5DD, UK 123 J. -
The Effect of Gestation on Milk and Buttekfat
THE EFFECT OF GESTATION ON MILK AND BUTTEKFAT PRODUCTION IN DAIRY CATTLE DISSERTATION Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate School of The Ohio State University By WILLIAM MATHIAS ETGEN, B. S., M. S. The Ohio State University 1958 Approved by Adviser Department of Dairy Science ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I wish to express my sincere appreciation to my adviser and friend, Dr. Thomas M. Ludwick, Professor in the Department of Dairy Science, Ohio State University, and Project Leader of the Ohio NC-2 Dairy Cattle Breeding Project. I am greatly indebted to Dr. Ludwick for the inspiration, time, guidance, and technical assistance in planning this project and editing the manuscript. My sincere thanks are expressed to Dr. Fordyce Ely, Chair man of the Department of Dairy Science, Ohio State University, for his interest in this project and for his help in editing the manuscript. To Dr. George R. Johnson, Chairman of the Department of Animal Science, Ohio State University, I extend my thanks for his reading of the manuscript. I wish to express my appreciation to Dr. D. Ransom Whitney, Professor in the Department of Mathematics and Director of the Statistics Laboratory, Ohio State University, for his assistance in the statistical analysis of this project. Also, I am greatly indebted to Herman Rickard, Earl Rader, Don Richardson, Ervin Akins, Dr. Edwin Hess, Harry Barr, Dr. Harry Donoho, and Dr. C. M. Clifton. These persons have given unsparingly of their time and efforts in all phases of the study. ii CONTENTS PAGE INTRODUCTION........................................... 1 REVIEW OF LITERATURE.................................. -
Reasonable Humans and Animals: an Argument for Vegetarianism
BETWEEN THE SPECIES Issue VIII August 2008 www.cla.calpoly.edu/bts/ Reasonable Humans and Animals: An Argument for Vegetarianism Nathan Nobis Philosophy Department Morehouse College, Atlanta, GA USA www.NathanNobis.com [email protected] “It is easy for us to criticize the prejudices of our grandfathers, from which our fathers freed themselves. It is more difficult to distance ourselves from our own views, so that we can dispassionately search for prejudices among the beliefs and values we hold.” - Peter Singer “It's a matter of taking the side of the weak against the strong, something the best people have always done.” - Harriet Beecher Stowe In my experience of teaching philosophy, ethics and logic courses, I have found that no topic brings out the rational and emotional best and worst in people than ethical questions about the treatment of animals. This is not surprising since, unlike questions about social policy, generally about what other people should do, moral questions about animals are personal. As philosopher Peter Singer has observed, “For most human beings, especially in modern urban and suburban communities, the most direct form of contact with non-human animals is at mealtimes: we eat Between the Species, VIII, August 2008, cla.calpoly.edu/bts/ 1 them.”1 For most of us, then, our own daily behaviors and choices are challenged when we reflect on the reasons given to think that change is needed in our treatment of, and attitudes toward, animals. That the issue is personal presents unique challenges, and great opportunities, for intellectual and moral progress. Here I present some of the reasons given for and against taking animals seriously and reflect on the role of reason in our lives. -
Dairy Cow Unified Scorecard
DAIRY COW UNIFIED SCORECARD Breed characteristics should be considered in the application of this scorecard. Perfect MAJOR TRAIT DESCRIPTIONS Score There are four major breakdowns on which to base a cow’s evaluation. Each trait is broken down into body parts to be considered and ranked. 1) Frame - 15% The skeletal parts of the cow, with the exception of rear feet and legs. Listed in priority order, the descriptions of the traits to be considered are as follows: Rump (5 points): Should be long and wide throughout. Pin bones should be slightly lower than hip bones with adequate width between the pins. Thurls 15 should be wide apart. Vulva should be nearly vertical and the anus should not be recessed. Tail head should set slightly above and neatly between pin bones with freedom from coarseness. Front End (5 points): Adequate constitution with front legs straight, wide apart, and squarely placed. Shoulder blades and elbows set firmly against the chest wall. The crops should have adequate fullness blending into the shoulders. Back/Loin (2 points): Back should be straight and strong, with loin broad, strong, and nearly level. Stature (2 points): Height including length in the leg bones with a long bone pattern throughout the body structure. Height at withers and hips should be relatively proportionate. Age and breed stature recommendations are to be considered. Breed Characteristics (1 point): Exhibiting overall style and balance. Head should be feminine, clean-cut, slightly dished with broad muzzle, large open nostrils and strong jaw. 2) Dairy Strength - 25% A combination of dairyness and strength that supports sustained production and longevity. -
An HSUS Report: the Welfare of Animals in the Meat, Egg, and Dairy Industries
An HSUS Report: The Welfare of Animals in the Meat, Egg, and Dairy Industries Abstract Each year in the United States, approximately 11 billion animals are raised and killed for meat, eggs, and milk. These farm animals—sentient, complex, and capable of feeling pain and frustration, joy and excitement—are viewed by industrialized agriculture as commodities and suffer myriad assaults to their physical, mental, and emotional well-being, typically denied the ability to engage in their species-specific behavioral needs. Despite the routine abuses they endure, no federal law protects animals from cruelty on the farm, and the majority of states exempt customary agricultural practices—no matter how abusive—from the scope of their animal cruelty statutes. The treatment of farm animals and the conditions in which they are raised, transported, and slaughter within industrialized agriculture are incompatible with providing adequate levels of welfare. Birds Of the approximately 11 billion animals killed annually in the United States,1,2,3,4,5 86% are birds—98% of land animals in agriculture—and the overwhelming majority are “broiler” chickens raised for meat, approximately 1 million killed each hour.6 Additionally, approximately 340 million laying hens7 are raised in the egg industry (280 million birds who produce table eggs and 60 million kept for breeding), and more than 270 million turkeys8 are slaughtered for meat. On factory farms, birds raised for meat are confined by the tens of thousands9,10 in grower houses, which are commonly artificially lit, force-ventilated, and completely barren except for litter material on the floor and long rows of feeders and drinkers. -
Judging Dairy Cattle
Judging Dairy Cattle The primary function of the dairy cow is the economical production of milk. It has been proven that quality type or form is directly related to function. In other words, a dairy cow with good quality type has the potential to efficiently and economically produce milk. Your task, as a producer of dairy cows, is to breed good quality cows. In this leaflet we will work towards these objectives to help you accomplish your task. Learn the desirable points of conformation in a quality dairy cow and heifer. Show you how to determine if a particular animal possesses these desirable points. The first step is to learn the parts of the dairy animal. Parts of the Dairy Cow Judging the Dairy Cow 4-H Manitoba 2019 Once you know the parts of the body, the next step to becoming a successful dairy judge is to learn what the ideal animal looks like. In this section, we will work through the parts of a dairy cow and learn the desirable and undesirable characteristics. Holstein Canada has developed a scorecard which places relative emphasis on the six areas of importance in the dairy cow. This scorecard is used by all dairy breeds in Canada. The Holstein Cow Scorecard uses these six areas: 1. Frame / Capacity 2. Rump 3. Feet and Legs 4. Mammary System 5. Dairy Character When you judge, do not assign numerical scores. Use the card for relative emphasis only. When cows are classified by the official breed classifiers, classifications and absolute scores are assigned. 2 HOLSTEIN COW SCORE CARD 18 1.