I.1;iW .2.8IIIiii 12.5_ :: !iii IHH~ I.:: W nll_

"'~~W.... IIIII~ 1I111~ I

'IIII'~ 11111 1.4 111111.6 ""'1.25 111111.4 111111.6

MICROCOPY RESOLUTION TEST CHART MICROCOPY RESOLUTION TEST CHART NATIONAL aUREAU OF STANDARDS-J963-A NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDARDS-J963-A " .L ,.I:.' ,.t' I ., , f,· SINDHI·JERSEY and SINDHI·HOLSTEIN ~"'"

~ '.:;1- ::J l:;~ -.'~ ~]~; CROSSES 1""; >OJ r~ r.:..> <'J r· ~:-i ~ r. ,L. C') ~, TM~ir External Form (, {' a:ncf~Internal Anatomy Compared With Those of Purebred Jerseys and Holsteins

Technical Bulletin No. 1236

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

hV{:J$y:.,C,ri' ,ck,-\,.c

l\ ~' .... ~ j __ _ CONTENTS

Page INTRODUCTION______~ ____ .. ______1 MATERIALS AND METHODS______2 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION ______-_ 3 Variability in Body Form and Anatomical Stl'ucture____ 8 Basis for Comparisons Among Breed Groups______11 Comparisons of Body Form Among Jersey and Sindhi- Jersey Crossbred Groups______19 Comparisons of Internal Anatomy Among Jersey and Sindhi-Jersey Crossbred Groups______21 Comparisons of Effects of Crossing Jerseys and Holsteins WIth Sindhis, in Body .Fol'm and Internal Anatomy__ __ 22 Relative COI;nbin.ing ~bility of Jerseys and Holstems in Crosses WIth Smdbls______23 General Discussion- ______24 SUMMARY -______.. _ 24 LITERATURE CITED ______.______26

Washington, D.C. Issued J IlDUIlry":1961 For sale by the Superintendent of Documents,/.. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington 25, D.C.-l:'rice 15 cents

m !,,,;,~ ,<,SINDHI·-1ERSEY '" and SINDHI-HOLSTEIN ":'l, CROSSES:~ Their External Form and Internal Anatomy Compared With Those of Purebred Jerseys and Holsteins

By W. W. SWETT, C. A. MATTHEWS, and R. E. McDoWELL, Dairy Cattle P.e­ search Branch, Animal Husbandry Research Division, Agricultural Researt;h Service I

INTRODUCTION

Observations suggesting the Zebu cattle possess qualities which make them particularly adaptable to tropical or subtropical climates have led to various studies of these cattle in different parts of the world. The results of these studies have been reviewed by McDowell et a1. (?J, 3, 4).2 In connection with cooperative experiments designed to develop_dairy cattle better able to withstand the heat in the Southern United States, Red Sindhi cattle, a type of Zebu from India, were imported and crossed with European breeds of dairy cattle. It has been shown that the Sindhi-Jersey crossbreds have greater heat tolerance than Jerseys (3,6). Studies of the w(,ight, growth, and external characteristIcs of Jerseys and the Sindhi-Jersey crossbred females from threo stations also have been reported by McDowell etal·(4). This report deals with comparisons of the weight, body form, and internal anatomy of representative samples of three groups of Sindhi-Jersey crossbreds and one group of Sindhi-Holstein cross­ breds with purebred Jersey and Holst'3in cows of approximately the same average age. The primary purpose of this portion of the study was to determine the effects of crossing these breeds on the internal anatomy of the cows. It appeared also that some anatomical

I The authors gratefully acknowledge the assistance of J. H. Book, who was resp,0nsible forcoUecting most of the data on Sindhi crossbreds. Italic numbers In parentheses refer to Literature Cited, p. 26. 1 2 TECHNICAL BULLETIN 1236, U.S. DEPT. OF AGRICULTURE characteristics peculiar to Sindhi crossbred cows might help to ex­ plain their greater heat tolerance and their characteristic growth pattern. Consideration was given to body weight and to the external measurements of body form of Sindhi-.Jersey crosses to show wherein the results based on small sam}?les followed the pattern of reported results for larger groups of whlch they were a part (4-). Only cows from the Beltsville herds, reared and maintained under essentially the same conditions of management, were included in the study. MATERIALS AND METHODS

Data on the Silldhi crossbred cows were obtained by the same pro­ ~ram used for more than 25 years to study the external form and mtel'l1al anatomy of Holstein and Jersey cows at the time of their removal from the Beltsville herds. This program includes more than 30 body measurements taken prior to slaughter and a similar number of anatomical weights or measurements obtained after slaughter. Most of the external and internal measurements are adequately described in tables. By way of further explanation, thickness of hide was measured as a double thickness over the 13th rib. Diameter of the trachea was measured as a lateral dimension at the throat. Slope of rump, usually measured with a clinometer, is the angle of inclination from horizontal made by a line from the highest pomt on the hip to the highest point on the pinbone. . Calcul..tted values were obbtined from vfLrious aute mortem and post mortem measurements. Body wedge in depth is the ratio of depth of patmch to depth of fore chest. obtained by dividing the former by the latter. 'Wedge in width and wedge in circtlll1ference were obtained by dividing the paunch measurement by the corresponding chest measure­ ment. Thoracic index is the ratio obtained by dividing the depth by the width of fore chest. Abdominal index was determined by dividing the depth by the width of paunch. Leg~iness is the percentage uf the total 11eight below the tmdersm:face of tIle chest. It was determined by subtracting the depth of fore chest from the height at withers, di­ viding the difference by the height at withers, and multiplying by 100. Head ratio is the proportion obtained by dividing head length by head width. Two head ratios were determined-A, using the wiath at the forehead, and B, the width at the eye leve1. The ratio of body weight to chest circumference (heart girth) was obtained by dividing the former by the latter. Empty body weight is the difference between the weight immediately before slaughter and the weight of the contents of the digestive tract. Dressing 1?ercentage was calculated on the basis of live weight and on the baSIS of empty body weight. Ordinarily, body measurement.s were obtained not more than 6 to S hours after a full feeding. Body weight was'determined at the tim.e of measuring. Body weight was recorded again immediately before shLughter for use only in the calculation of net or empty body weight. .... The plan of the study was to obtain ante mortem and post mortem data on representative samples of 10 cows from each Sindhi crossbred group, and to compare these data with data available on purebred Jersey and Holstein cows fwm the Beltsville herds slaughtered at approximately the same average age. By the time the Sindhi cross­ SINDHI-JERSEY AND SINDHI-HOLSTEIN CROSSES 3 breeding work was terminated, data had been obtained from ten % Jersey-I,4 Sindhi cows, ten ljz Jers~y-1h Sindhi cows, nine 14 Jersey­ %, Sindhl cows, one lis Jersey-% Sindhi cow, and nine lh IIolstein-lh S-indhi cows. ~ Data' for the % Jersey-% Sindhi and % .Jersey-% Sindhi cows were combined to represent the highest amount of Sindhi lJlheritance available for these studies. Although this group is referr~d to as the % Jersey group, the average amount of Jersey inheritance is 23.75 percent. 'Vhile the:lis Jersey cow devi n.ted from the purebred .Jerseys III some measurements slightly more tlutn did most of the 1,4 Jersey cows, usually two or three 1./t Jersey cows deviated more than did the 1/s Jersey crossbred. For brevity in subsequent discussions the crossbred groups are refened to as the % J, 1/2 J, 1/.1 J, and ljz II groups. The average age of the three groups was approximately 3 1h years. Therefore, the data for all Jersey cows slnughtered at Beltsville between 3 and 4: yen,rs of age were used for comparison. There were 14 cows in this group, and they were shtughterecl at an average age of 43 months. The nine 112 II crossbred cows were slaughtered at an average age of 37 months. 'l'hi1'1:een Holstein cows previously slaughtered for anatomical studies at 13eltsvj]Je were withbl 3 months of the average age of the 112 II crossbreds. They also averaged 37 months of age and were used for comparison. Eight of the ten % J cows were sired by three purebred .Jersey buns and out of1/2 J da ms. The other two wen' reciprocal crosses. The 112 J cows were sired by two pmebred Sindhi lmlls and out of pure­ bred Jersey darns. The 1,4 J cows were by two purebred Sindhi sires and out of 1.12 J darns. The one lis .J cow in the Same group was sired by a purebred 8inclhi bull and out of a 1;,'1 J darn. The % H cows were by two purebred 8inl111i sires and ont of purebred Holstein darns. The group of 14 .Tersey cows used for comparison were by 13 different sires. Eight different sires were represented in the group of 13 Holsteins used for comparison with the Sindlu­ Holstein crossbreds.

RESULrrs AND DISCUSSION Means, standard deviations, and coofTicients of variation were deter­ mined for each item of "weight, measurement, Rnd body proportion, and for each item of weight or meaSUl"ement of internal anatomy, for all groups. The means for the ante mortem and post mortem items are shown in tables 1 and 2, respectively. Coefficients of va.ria­ tion for weights, measurements, ancl calculated proportions a.re shown in tables 3 and 4. Datil. for the three groups of Jersey crossbreds are arranged in the order of diminishing proportions of Jersey inheritance. The items of measurement were grouped to facilitate discussion of the data and the results of the analysis. Insofar as possible, grouping of the ante mortem items "was made on the basis of simila,rlty of dlmension, body location, or type of calculated body proportion. The post mortem items were grouped 011 the basis of body mass, skeletal size, anatomical location, and physiological func­ tion. The grouping of items shown in tabJes"l and 2 are used throughout the report. ~

TABLE I.-Average ante -mortem weights, measurements, and body proportions oj 'IHndhi-Jersey, Sindhi-Holstein, Jersey, and Holstein cows

Jersey comparisons Holstein comparisons Item Unit Purebreds I "J ~1 ~J Purebreds I ~H ItIj Cows______No.______14 10 10 10 13 9 Age______~ro ______~ 43 42 44 41 37 37 to.! Live weight______Lb______957 965 946 870 1,250 I, 164 Body heights: ~ Withers______Cm___ -- - -- 121. 4 133.4 128.7 Back ______do______123.6 122.9 124. 8 ... 119.7 119.3 120. 9 116.8 131. 6 125.3 ~ Rips ______-- _do__ --- -_ 122. 4 123. 5 124.2 121. 3 134. 7 128.3 w Pinbones______do___ - --- 120. 8 118.4 118.9 114.4 130. 5 123.2 C) Body lengths: Cl Withers to hips ______do_ ------85. 9 83. 5 83. 5 80. 2 93.9 85.8 Rips to pinbones______do__ -- --- 45.0 42. 6 41. 9 37.2 45.2 42.6 ~ Withers to pinbones ______do__ -_ - __ 130.9 126. 1 125. <1 117.4 139.1 128. 4 t::I Rhoulder to pinbones ______Ao ______155.4 149.0 149. 3 140.7 166.6 151. 1 to.! Loin______do______34.4 34.9 31. 7 29.8 36.3 32.4 "d !'3 Rump ___ ~ ______~ ______.. ______do______38.6 38.0 35.6 33. 1 39.1 36. 1 Body depths: o Fore chest ______- __ do_ ------67.8 66.5 66.9 63.7 71. 1 69.4 I%j Rear chest______- __do__ - ___ _ 66.2 65.6 66. 9 61. 1 70. 3 67.8 Pauftch______do______66.0 66.6 64.5 61.6 71. 0 69.4 Body widths: Fore chest ______- __do __ -- - -- 40. 1 40. 1 39.6 38.9 46. 5 44. 5 Rear chest______- __ do_____ -- 55. 9 56.2 53.2 51. 3 61. 1 60.4 It". Paunch ______-- _do__ - ___ _ 62. 3 60. 7 56. 1 54. 4 66.2 66. 1 Loin______do__ --- __ 33.3 33. 3 33. 1 32. 3 37.7 36.5 ~ to.! Pelvicl-Iipswidths:______- __do ______50.7 48~9 47. 6 44. 0 54. 4 50. 3 Thurl~ ______~ ______do______43. 3 41. 8 40. 2 39. 8 50. 5 44.5 l~nbones ______do ______30. 3 28. 9 27.5 27.0 38.9 32.6

]a l'

Body circumferences: Fore chest ______do______Rear chest ______do______178.0 176.5 175.1 168. 3 192.51 187.0 I Paunch______do______200. 4 199.9 194.2 186.7 2H.-(f 211.3 209. Z 210.9 201. 5 193.5 224.2 224.2 ~ Head measurements: -~ Length____------____ - ______do__ .- __ ~ I Width of forehead ______do______47.0 48.6 50. 0 49.6 52. 9 52.. 7 17.15 17.40 17.75 1~.50 e Width at eye leveL ______~ ___ do______18.69 18. 94 22.27 21.60 21.45 21. 05 23.40 21. 61 Circumference of muzzle __ ------______do_--- ___ _ 44.5 40. 9 39. 2 ~ Miscellaneous measurements: 39.1 49. 0 43.3 t:t '"I Circumference or shinbone ______do______Diameter of trachea_ - ______do______15.96 15.70 15.60 15.50 18.63 17.28 aI Thickness of hide (double) ______do______4. 88 4. 90 .5.43 4. 74 5, 77 5. 61 ~ Slope of rump__.. ______Degree____ _ .91 .85 .98 1. 05 .92 1.04 2. 39 9. 03 ;Body wedge.'!: 10. 34 13.76 6.39 9.12 =~ "'f DepthWidth ______------_------_-- __1_____------_ . 973 1.003 . 964 . 967 . 999 1.000 1. 55',' circumference______.. ___ _ 1.519 1. 416 1. 404 1. 426 1. 489 ~ 1. 176 1.19.'5 1. 151 1. 151 1.165 1.198 t:1 1>~:~;:~~tfnd~~~~~______1. 702 Abdominal index ______1.667 1. 699 1.646 1. 532 1.563 ~ 1. 063 1. 101 Miscellaneous ratios: 1. 157 1. 136 1.075 1.. 049 Leggine.'!s_____- -______Percent ___ ._ Head ratio-A ______45.14 45.91 46. 36 47.55 46.75 46.08 .-~ Head ratio-B ______2. 75 2. 90 2.82 2.68 2.83 2.79 II: Weight to heart girth______2.12 2.25 2.33 2.36 2.26 2.44 37 g 5. 1 5.47 5.31 5. 14 6.49 0.22 ~

t:oJ ~ g 0 I

c:n TABLE 2.-Average post mortem weights and measurements oj anatomical struct'ure oj Sindhi-Jersey, Sindhi-llolstein, ~ Jersey, amd Holstein cows >-3

Jersey comparisons, lIolstein comparisons Item Unit ; Purebreds Purebreds ~H }~J WI ~H S ~ Cows ______No.______10 13 9 Age______14, 10 10 til 1\'10______43 42 44 41 37 37 <1 Live weight ______--- ___ --­ Lb______946 870 1,250 1, 164 957 965 ~ l\Ieasurements of mass: t'l Empty body weighL ______------___do______809 822 837 761 1,016 1,015 ___do______Dressed carcass weighL ______481 469 512 478 043 634 ~ Dressing percentage-A ______PercenL ___ 50.0 48.6 54. 1 55.0 51. 5 54. 4 ___ do______.... 61. 1 62.8 63.3 62.4 t-:) Dressing percentage-B ______------59.4 57.0 .,. Thoracic cavity measurements: Maximum depth ______------Cm ______45. 6 44.8 45.5 4,1. 9 48.0 45. 2 C> Maximum length______-_ -_ ------___ do______72. 5 66, 9 66. 8 64. 6 77. S 69. 3 Width at 7th rib ______do______32.0 33. 6 30.8 29.7 36.8 32. 7 <1 Thoracic organ weights: 1:il Lungs______------Gm ______2,059 3,488 2, 513 IIeart ______2, 545 2,390 2,381 t:;j ___ do ______1,574 1,510 1,356 1, 125 2,018 1,474 t'l Blood weight ______do______15,449 22,961 20,207 "d 16,964 20,861 17,060 ;3 Brain weight______------___ do______4,18 430 429 405 407 418 StomachItuTllen weights: ______o ___ do______5, 520 5,992 5,021 4,690 8,01.'5 6,904 I>j IteticuluTll______- ______------___ do______957 1,039 930 839 1, 175 984 > Otnasum______do______3,497 3,719 2,767 2,413 4, 509 3,366 Abomasutn ______do______1,458 1,560 1,152 1,030 1,615 1,211 Total ______do______12,310 9, 866 8,967 15,313 12, 460 ~ 11,408 c::

~ ~

,. " Intestine lengths: Small intestine. __ -______Meters____ _ Large intestine_____ - ______do______42. 8 44.1 38.7 37.2 44.3 39.6 TotaL ------______do______10.5 11. 0 lO.3 9.4 11.7 10.4 Other abdominal weights: 53. 3 55.1 49.0 46.5 56.0 50.0 Liver______Gm______Spleen_ ------______do______5, 770 6,237 5,665 4,577 6,677 6,.205 Pancress_ ------______do______732 684 691 582 837 323 683 Kidneys______---- ______do______294 267 227 442 322 ~ Endocrine gland weights-A: 804 832 823 771 1,081 945 Pituitary ------______do______~ 2. 57 2.30 I Thyroid___ ------______do______2.33 1. 87 3.13 2.35 Coj Adrenals_ ------______do______24.3 20.6 18.1 16.6 26.4 22.2 tzJ Endocrine gland weights-B: 22.7 20,6 20.2 17.9 20.9 20.6 l:d PineaL ------______do______~ Parathyroids _____ -- ______do______.27 .28 .28 .29 .28 .29 ~ Thymus______-______do ______.07 .05 .06 .06 .08 162 .04 80 93 85 249 177 ~ t::1

~ t::1 I!l I 111 0 t<

~ !2l 0 l:d 0 r:/l W tzJ UJ

'"-l 8 TECHNICAL BULLETIN 1236, U.S. DEPT. OF AGRICULTURE Variability in Body Form and Anatomical Structure The coefficients of va,riation for the six breed groups were averaged for each !mte mortem item and group of items (table 3) . As a ~roup, body heights had the lowest average coefficient (2.7). Val'iabihty for head length also was low (3.3). Average coefficients of variation were 3.9 for body depths and for body circumferences, 4.3 for body lengths, and 4.6 for head widths and for body wedges. Evidence that body widths 'were more variable than other dimensions is shown by the avera~e coefficients for pelvic widths (5.2), body widths (6.2), and the deptll-width ratios (6.9). Live weight and the item showing ratio of weight to heart girth (average coefficients of 9.7 and 6.7, respeetively) are measurements of mass rather than of skeletal size. Diameter of trachea and thickness of hide, with average coefficients of 8.7 and 12.91 are not actually m!'.asuremeuts of body SIze. A num­ ber of the pelvIn ltnd body widths and items such as live weight, ratio of weight to heltrt girth, trachea diameter, and possibly hide thick­ ness appear to ha;ve been affected to some degree by condition of flesh. Slope of rump, with the very high coefficient of variability of 60.7, is an expression. of position-not a me.asure of size or scale-­ and is essenti!Llly UUlt/reeted by condition of flesh. ",Vith few excep­ tions, skeletal measurements of body scale had coefficients of variation averaging less than 5.0, whereas mel1Surements 1l0t representing body SCIlla and particul!trly those affected to the greatest extent by cOllcli­ tion of flesh had greater variability.

TABLE 3.-00efficients of 'Variation for ante mortem weights, measure­ ments, and body proportiol1,s of Sindhi-Jersey, Sindhi-Holstein, Jersey, and Holstein cows

Jorsey compnrison3 Holstein compnrisons Aver- Item age, nil groups Punr ~J ~J ~J Pure- ~n breds ------breds -- Agc______-- -- 7.3 23.0 17.3 24. 0 4.1 11.5 14.5 Livc wcighL______10.3 6. 5 8.1 17.0 8.2 8.2 9.7 ------.- Bod"\\ iincrs heights:______Bnck______2. 9 2. 1 2.3 3.8 1.8 1.6 2. 4 Hips______2. 8 2.4 1.8 3. 7 1.8 1.7 2. 4 3. 5 2. 8 1.8 4. 4 1.9 2. 6 2. 8 Pinbone.~ ______• ______3.1 3.0 2.5 4.5 1.8 2.7 2.9 ------Avcrngc______--- 3.1 2. 6 2. 1 4. ] 1.8 2. 2 2. 7 --= --= ----= Body lcngths: WiLhcl's to hips ______3. 15 5.6 4. 0 5. 0 2.8 3. 7 4. 1 Rips to pinboncs______3.1 5. 1 5. 4 6.0 3. 5 3. 6 4. 5 Withcrs to pinboncs••. ___ 2.5 4.3 3.7 4.5 2.5 3.3 3.5 Rhouldcr to pinboIlcs______3.0 2. 7 2. 7 4.4 2.3 3. 2 3. I LO~l ______Ru m p ______. ___ 7. 7 6.0 5.7 6. 7 6. l 4. 0 6.0 --4. 2 --3.9 --4. 6 --3.6 --2. 9 --6.1 4. 2 A vcmgc ______4. 0 4. 6 4.4 5. 1 3.4 4. 0 4.3 =..~ --= = = = = Body dcpLh~: Forc chcsL ____ .. _• ______2_ 7 2. 9 2.1 5.8 3.4 2. 1 3. 2 Rcnr chest ______3.3 3. (i 3. 9 6.0 2. 9 2.9 3.8 SlNDm-JECSE'Y AND SINDm'-HOLSTEIN CROSSES 9

TABI'}} 3.-Ooef/icients of variation for ante mortem, weigMs, m(jasure­ menta, and 'body proportions of Sindhi-Jersey, Sindhi-Holctein, Jersey, and Holstein cows-Continued

1f1t11flY comparisons Holstein comparisons Aver- Item ago, all groups Pure- ~1 ~J 1,(1 Pure- ~H breds bleds ------BodyPaunch depths-Continued______--4.7 --4.6 --3.9 --6.6 --3.1 --5.1 4. 7 A verage ______3. 6 3. 7 3. 3 6. 1 3.1 3.4 3. 9 -- --= ----- Body widths: -- Fore chest.______9.6 7.9 7.7 9. 0 6. 3 5. 8 7. 7 Rear chcsL______5. 9 2.6 4.9 3. 6 Paunch______6.3 4.3 4. 6 Loin______7. 3 6. 2 9.0 8. 3 6.9 3.5 6. !J 6.8 3. 8 3.6 7. 7 4. 6 7. 0 5. I'i ------Average______7.4 5. 1 6. 3 7.8 5.5 5. 0 6. 2 =-=------.- PelvicHipswidths:______Ii. 2 4. 3 3.0 6.8 4.3 3.7 4. 6 Thuds______3. 9 3. 9 3. 2 5. 8 3.7 5. 2 4. 3 Pinbolle.~ ______5. 9 6.2 4. 8 6.1 7. 7 9.4 6. 7 ------Average______5.0 4. 8 3. 7 6.2 5. 3 6.1 5. 2 ------= = -- Body circumferences: Fore chest______4. 6 2.5 3.0 6. 8 3. 1 2• .4 3. 7 Rear chcsL______Paunch______4. 5 l.8 3.2 5. 8 3.5 2.7 3. ij --5. 4 --2.7 --4. 8 --6.1 --4. 1 --3. 9 4. 5 Average ______4.8 2.3 3. 7 6.2 3. 6 3.0 3. 9 = --= = = -- HeadLength measurements:______3.6 3.6 2.2 4. 0 3. 1 3. 1 3. 3 Width of forehead ______4. 4 6.5 3. 6 6.0 5. 6 3. 8 5.0 Width at eye leveL______3.4 5.6 3.0 5. 1 3. 7 4. 3 4. 2 Circumference of muzzle __ 9. 5 5.6 2. 2 5. 3 5. 2 3.8 5. 3 Misccllaneous measurements: Circumference of shinbone_ 4.6 5.2 2.5 7.3 5.0 5. 3 5. o Diameter of trachea______8. 8 9. 6 5. 3 16. 7 5.0 6. 6 8. 7 Thickness of hide (double)_ 14. 3 ]8.8 7. 1 12.4 14.1 10.6 12.9 Slope of rump______177.0 34.9 35: 0 15.6 53. 7 48. 1 60. 7 = ----= = -- Body wedges: Depth______4.1 4.3 3.3 3. 8 2.8 4. 9 3. 9 Width ______5. 3 8. 7 6. 2 8.0 7.0 3.9 6.5 Circumference______--3.0 --3.0 --4.0 --4.3 --3. 9 --2. 7 3. 5 Average______4.1 5.3 4. 5 5.3 4. 6 3. 8 4.6 = ----= . ----­-­ D~th-\\idth ratios: horacie index ______9.0 9.5 8. 1 7.1 5.4 5. 8 7.5 Abdominal index ______6. 4 7. 8 7.0 7.5 4. 8 4.6 6.4 ------•• Average ______7.7 8. 6 7.5 7.3 5. 1 5.2 6.9 = ------= --= Miscellaneous ratios: . Legginess ______1.9 3.8 2.2 4.0 2. 6 1.5 2.7 Head ratio-A______3.9 5.5 2.7 4.3 4.0 3.8 4.0 Head ratio-B______3.2 3.8 2. 5 3.6 3.0 3.2 3. 2 Weight to heart girth_____ 6.7 6.1 4. 3 10.7 5.8 6.3 6. 7 10 TECHNICAL BULLETIN 1236) U.S. DEPT. OF AGRICULTURE Corresponding averages for the post mortem measurements of in­ ternal anatomy are shown in table 4. Depth, length, and width of thoracic cavity are essentially measurements of skeletal size. The coefficients for those measurements averaged 4.9-the only group to average less than 5.0. The average coefficient for dressing percent­ a~ was 5.6. Following in ascending order of magnitude, the coeffi­ CIents u.vel'aged 7.4 for brn.in weight and for total intestine length; 9.7 for live weight; and 11.2 and 13.7, respectively, for empty body weight and carcass weight, which represents body muss. Coefficients a.veraged 12.6 for weight of thoracic Ol'fSans (heart and lungs) ; 13.6 for blood weight; 14.6 for weight of aodominal organs (liver, pan­ creas, spleen, and kidneys) i and 20.9 und 41.9, respectively, for weight of endocrine gland groups A and B. Vadability in the internal organs was much ~eater than in the measurements of external body form-even tliose Items of body meas­ urement most affected by eli frerences in condition of flesh.

TABL}, 4.-0oefficients of vOJl'iat-ion for 7)ost mortem weights, mecu;ure­ '11wnts, and 'body proportions of Sindhi-Jersey, Sindhi-HolsteVn, Jersey, and HolsteVn cows

J orsey comparIsons Holstein comparisons Aver- Item age, nll -.­ group. Pure- ~J ~J UJ Pure- 3-iH breds breds: ------. Age ______7. 5 24.6 ]6.4 2,.1.. 7 4. 2 11.5 14. 8 J.Jive weight (antc mortem) _.. ]0. 3 6.5 8. ] 17.0 8. 2 8.3 9. 7 ------M:ensurements of mass: Empty body weighL_____ 13.6 7.5 8. 0 18.6 9. 8 9.4 11.2 Dressed carcnss weight____ ]5.7 ]0.1 10.0 21. 5 13. 1 11. 5 13. 7 Dressing percentage-A___ 7.9 7.6 5. 6 5.8 7. 3 5. 9 6. 7 Dressing percentage-B___ 5.4 4.6 3. 2 3. 8 4.0 5. 1 4. 4 ------Thoracic cavity mensurc­ -- mcnts: Maximum depth______- '1.8 4.6 3. 2 5. 2 3.3 4.6 4.3 Maximum Jength______'I. 2 5.4 3.8 6.5 3. 1 3.8 4.5 Width at 7th rib______6.0 11. 2 3.9 6.7 3.3 5.0 6.0 ------Average______5.0 7.1 3. 7 6. I 3.2 4.5 4. 9 ------ThoracicLungs______organ weights: ]2.7 23.0 14.3 13.4 7.8 L4.3 14.3 Heart.______8. 9 10. 2 9.4 14.1 11. 2 12.0 11. 0 ------Average ______10.8 16.6 11.8 13. 8 9. 5 ]3.2 12.6 ------BLood weight______22.3 ]2.2 6.8 15.2 10.2 14.7 13.6 Brain weight______8. 6 14.3 3. 1 5.8 7.1 5.6 7.4 ------Stomach weights: Rumen______20. 7 21. 7 13.5 17.0 9.7 26. 1 18. 1 Reticulum______22. 8 16.1 1.4.2 15. 1 14.3 22. 6 17.5 Omnsum______17.1 19. 6 20.0 25.0 14.2 22.4 19.7 Abomnsum____ . ______12. 6 23.3 15. ~ 14.1 8.7 13.9 14.7 TotaL ______16.1 ]8.9 l3.7 15.9 9.2 22. 4 16.0 SINDHI-JERSEY AND SINDHI-HOLSTEIN CROSSES 11

TABLE 4.-Ooeflicient8 of 'Variation for p08t mortem 1oeight8, measure­ ment8, and 'body proportions of Sindhi-Je1'8ey, Sindhi-Hol8tein, J er8ey, and H olsteim. COW8-Continued

Jersey comparisons Holstein comparisons Aver, Item age, all groups PnI'C- ~J %1 UJ Pnrc- %H brcds brcds ------Intestine length: Small intestine ______9. 8 6.9 6.2 6. 9 8. 1 8. 7 7.8 Large intestinc ______TotaL ______13.5 10.2 6. 1 8. 5 7.3 9.3 9. 2 10.1 6.7 5. 5 7.0 7.3 7.9 7.4 ------Other abdominal organ -- Liverweights:______13,5 12.5 18.5 16.6. 11. 9 15.2 14.7 Spleen______~ ______9. 5 15.6 8.1 14.4 14. 6 13.2 12. 6 Pancreas______15.2 20. 7 17.1 18.2 16.8 11. 7 16.6 !\]dneys__ ------,.. 13.7 11. (j 14.0 22.2 13.5 12.3 14.6 ------~verage------~----- 13.0 15.1 14,4 17.9 14.2 13.1 14.6 ------Endocrinc gland weights­ ~: Pituitary______20.2 10.9 12.5 14.4 17.9 25, 1 16.8 Thyroid______23.5 23.3 32. 8 23.3 24, 2 37.4 27.4 ~drenals ______16.6 17.0 21. 4 21. 0 16.7 17.8 18.4 ------~verage ______-- -- 20. 1 17.1 22.2 II). 6 11).6 26.8 20.9 ------Endocrine gland weights- PinealB: ______44.4 32. 1 28.6 41. 4 21. 4 20. 7 31. 4 Parathyroids______Thyrnus ______85. 7 21. I) 33.3 33.3 25.0 50.0 41. 5 48.7 47.3 35.6 39,8 74. 0 70. 9 52.7 ------~vcragc------______51).6 33.8 32.5 38.2 40.1 47.2 41.9

In order to obtain a general idea of the differences in variability between the crossbred Rnd purebred cows, separate averages of the coefficients of variation for the ante mortem items of measurement shown in table 3 were determined for the four groups of crossbreds, the two groups of purebreds, and the six breed groups combined. For the 40 indivIdual items (not including age or slope of rump), the averages were 5.06 for t.he crossbreds, 4.81 for the purebreds, and 4.96 for the six breed groups combined. For the 30 post mortem items shown in table 4 (not includrng age) , the average coefficients of variation were 15.38 for the four groups of crossbreds, 15.65 for the two groups of purebreds, and 15.46 for the six breed groups combined. Despite differences in individual items, variability was about the same for the crossbred cows as for the purebreds. Basis for Compal"isons Among Breed Groups The differences between means for the various breed ~oups were expressed in standard deviation units calculated as the dIfference be­ tween two means divided'by the standard deviation common to both. The significance of the difference between any two means was de­ termined by applyin~ the t-test. Differences expressed in standard deviation units permtt direct comparisons between one kind of meas­ 12 TECHNlCAL BULLETIN 1236, U.S. DEPT. OF AGRICULTURE urement and another for the relative effects of different degrees of 8indhi inheritance. In addition to serving as a common denominator for widely different kinds of measurements, these standard deviation units also indicate level of significance when a number of comparisons have thesame degrees of freedom. Although the significance of difference between two means-indi­ cated by asterisks ill tables 5 through 8-was calculated by the t-test, differences in standard deviation units are significant If they are greater than 0.86 in comparisons between the groups of 14 Jerseys and 10 crossbreds, greater than 0.94 in comparisons between the Jersey crossbred groups of 10 cows each, or greater thl1n 0.90 in com­ parisons between the groups of 13 Holsteins and 9 crossbreds. Differ­ ences in standard deviation units in the same comparisons are highly significant if they are greater than 1.17, 1.29, or 1.23, respectively. Exceptions exist when missing measurements reduced the number of observations for one of the means.

TABLE 5.-0omparuJ01UI of ante mortem weights, measurements, and body proportions among. 8i~hi-Je1'8ey tmd Jersey COW8 [DUference!l expressed in standard deviation units]

Deviation trom Jersey values 1 Deviation trom H J vnIues Item "J HJ ~J "J JiJ Jlge ______O. 14 +0.19 -0.29 -0.22 -0.34 Live weight ______+.09 -. ]2 -.72 +.27 -.71 Bo~t~:~~~~~ ______Back______-0.20 +0.38 -0.54 -0.69 -0.89 -.13 +.39 -.76 -.60 -1. 17* Hips ______+.27 +.53 -.22 -.27 -.70 Pinboncs______-.67 -.55 -1. 46** -.17 -1. 08* Jlverage______-.18 +.19 -.75 -.43 -.96 BOM lengths: ithers to hips____ -0.62 -0.75 -1. 64** 0.00 -0.91 Hips to pinbones___ -1. 36** -1. 71** -4.32** +.32 -2.09** Withers to pinbones_ -1.11* -1. 42** -3.18** +.14 -1. 62** Shoulderbones ______to pin­ Loin ______-1. 46** -1.41** -2.75** -.05 -1. 64** +.23 -1. 12* -1. 89** +1. 62** -1. 01* Rump ______-.40 -1.86** -4.96** +1. 53** -1.74** Jlverage______-.79 -1. 38 -3.13 +.59 -1.50

Body de~ths: Fore c est______-0.7I -0.52 -1. 48** -0.27 -1. 15* Rear chest______~ Paunch______-.25 +.28 -1. 78** -.49 -1. 81 ** -, +.22 -.51 -1. 25** +.76 -.87 Jlverage______-.25 -.25 -1. 50 .00 -1. 28 Body widths: Fore chest ______-0.01 -0.14 -0.33 +0.15 -0.23 Rear chest___ .. _____ +.11 -.89* -1. 38** +1. 43** -.62 PaunchLoin ______-.36 -1.30** -1. 74** +1. 05* -.36 .00 -.13 -.42 +.20 -.38 Jlverage______-.07 -.62 -.97 +.71 -.40 II

SINDm-JERSEY AND SINDm-HOLSTEIN CROSSES 13 TABLE 5.-0omparisona of ante mortem weights, measurements, and body proportions among Sindhi-Jersey and Jersey cows-Continued

Deviations from Jersey values I Deviation tmm ~ J values Item

~J ~J UJ ~J UJ

PelvicHips widths: ______-0.75 -1.40** -2.30** +0.73 -1. 38** Thurls______-.93* -2.10** -]. 43** +1. J2* -.14 Pinbones ______-.79 -1. 71 ** -J.56** +.86 -.22 Average~ ______-.82 -1. 74 -1.77 +- 90 -.58 - Body circumferences: Fore chilst ______-0.21 -0.40 -1. 00· +0.29 -0.76 Rear chest______-.06 -.76 -1. 39·· +1. 11* -.85 Paunch______+.18 -.72 -1. 37** +1.18· -.75 Average______-.03 -.63 -1. 25 +.86 -.79

HeadLength measurements:______+0.91* +1. 97·· +1. 38*· -0.92 -0.25 Width of forehead __ +.27 +.85 + 1. 4.6·· -.38 +.83 Width at eye leveL -.68 -1. 15* -1. 34·· +. 16 -.45 Circumference of muzzle ______-1. 04* -1. 65·· -1. 56·· +. 98· -.03 Miscellaneous meas­ urements: Circumference of shinboue ______-.34 -.58 -.50 +.15 -.12 Diameter of trachea______+.04 +1. 51*· -.23 -1. 36·· -1. 22· Thickness of hide (double) ______-.42 +.63 +1. 06· -1. 03· +.65 Slope of rump______+1.75·- +2.00-· +3.26-- -.39 +1. 15· Body wedges: Depth______---___ +0.73 -0.24 -0.16 +1. 03- +0.09 Width______-.36 -1.68** -1. 61" +.92 -.12 Circumference _____ +.53 -.62 -.60 +1. 07- .00 Average______+.30 -.85 -.79 +1. 01 -.01 D'tjth-Width ratios: horacic index _____ -0.23 -0.02 -0.37 -0.22 -0.42 Abdominal index ___ +.50 +1. 28*- +.97- -.67 -.25 Average______­ +.14 +.63 +.30 -.45 -.34 Miscellaneous ratios: Leggincss______+0.59 +1. 31-- +1. 74-- -0.31 +0.78 Head ratio-A_____ +1. 17" +.74 +.55 +.67 -1.33·- Head latio-B_____ +1. 22-· +3.34-- +3.12" -1. 05- +.37 Weight to heart girth_ +.28 -.19 -.51 +.56 -.40 Minimum for signifi­ cance: P~.OI----_------_ 1. 17 1. 17 1. 17 1. 29 1. ~9 P~.05-_-- ______.86 .86 .86 .94 .94 P~.lO--- ______.71 .71 .71 .78 .78

I --=P~.Ol (highly significant); -=P~.05 (significant). No te&t~ Qf signifi.­ c~nCe were calculated for averale values. 14 TECHNICAL BULLETIN 1236, U.S. DEPT. OF AGRICULTURE

TABLE 6.-00mpo:risons of antemortem weights, measurements, and body 'Propor~imuJ between Sindhi-Holsteiln and Ho18tein cows· and relatVve combining ability of Jerseys and Ho18tein.'J with Sin'lhis [Di1rerences expressed in standard deviation units]

Estimates of relative combining ablUty Deviation of Item J.2 H from Apparent Blndhl breed Inde. D1ttcrences favorlng- Holstein values I FromJ.2I FromJ.2H Jersoy Holstein crosses crosses

Age ______"_._ O. 00 45 37 ------Lh'e weight___ ~ ______-.86 935 1,078 ------1. 50 Body heights: Withers______Back______-2.11·· 126.1 123.9 O. 78 ------­ -2.79·· 122.0 119.0 1.06 ------Hips______--- -2.21.·· 126. I 122.0 I. 28 ------Pinbones______-2.65·· 117.0 116.0 .35 ------­ Avcrage ______-2.44 ------.------­ .87 ------­ Body lengths: Withers to hips______-2.82·· 81. 2 77.8 1.12 ------Hips to pinbone!!______-1. 67·· 38. 8 40.0 ------O. 73 Withers to pinbones___ -2.81·· 119.9 117. 8 .56 ------­ Shoulder to pinboncs___ -3.65·· 143. 1 135.6 1. 74 ------Loin______-2.07·· 29.1 28.5 Rump______.31 ------­ -1. SO·· 32. 6 33. 1 ------.31 Average ______-2.47 .45 1======1======1======:1=====1===== Bo:!:~t~~~______-0. 82 66~ 1 67.7 ______0.85 Rear chc!!t______-1. 22· 67. 5 65.3 O. 99 ______Paunch______-.58 63.0 67.7 ______1. 67 \------\------\------\------\------Average______-.87 ______.51 \======\======11======\======\===== Body widths: Fore chest ______-0.72 39.1 42.5 -..,.------1. 06 Rear chest ______-.28 50.4 59.7 ------3.37 Paunch______-.02 49. 9 66. 1 ------­ 3. 77 Loin______--______-.56 32. 8 35.3 .,..------1. 25 Average______-.40 2.38 1======1======1======1=====1======Pelvic widths: Hips______---- -1. 92-­ 44. 4 46.1 O. 79 Thurls______-2.94·· 37.0 38. 5 .86 Pinbones______-2.09·· 24. 7 26.3 .71 Average______-2.32 .78 \======\======1======\======1===== Body circumferences: Fore chest ______-1. 02- 172.2 181.5 1. 48 Rear chest ______.38 188. 0 208. 7 2. 77 Paunch______-.00 193.8 224. 2 3.09 Average______-.47 2.45 1======'1======4======,\=====1======See footnotes at end of table. SINDffi-JERSEY AND SINDffi-HOLSTEIN CROSSES 15

TABLE 6.-00mpam01l8 of ante mortem weights, measurements, and body p1'oportions between Sindhi-Holstein and Holstein cows· and relative combining ability of Jerseys and Holsteins wUh Sindhis­ Continued.

Estimates or relaU".e combining ablUty IDeviation or Item ~lIrrom Apparent Slndhl breed Index DIITereuces ravorlng- Holstein values I FromJ..!!J }'rom ~1I Jersey IIolstelu crosses crosses - HeadLength mel\Surements:______-0.11 52.9 52.5 O. 20 -----_ .... - Width of forehead_____ +.27 18.35 19.19 ... ------1. 03 Width of eye levcL ____ -2.02** 20. 63 19.82 1. 01 ...... --- Circumference of --- muzzle ______-2.57** 33.8 37.6 -1------... 1. 39 Miscellaneous mCl\Sure­ ments: Circumference of shinbone__ .______-1.46** 15.24 15.93 -...... ~-- .89 Diameter of trachea___ -.50 5.98 5. 45 1. 55 ------Thickness of hide ______+ 1. 00* 1. 03 1. 16 ------1. 78 Slope of rump______+.71 18.29 11. 85 1. 65 ------BodyDepth wedges:______Width______+0.03 O. 955 1. 001 ------­ 1. 23 +.72 1. 275 1. 552 ------3. 24 Circumference______+.81 1. 126 1. 23l ------­ 2. 60 Average ______+.52 2.36 ------~------­ D~th-width ratios: horacic index______+0.36 1. 696 1. 59'1 0.90 ------Abdominal index ______-.51 1. 25.1 L 023 3.68 ------Average ______-.08 ------... -,...- ... ------2.29 ------MiscellaneousLegginess ______ratios: -0.45 '17. 58 45.41 2.21 -.... ------Head rntio-A______-. ,14 2. 80 2. 74 1. 47 _...1_----- Head ratio-B______+2.49** 2. 54 2. 62 ------1. 21 Weight to heart girth__ -.72 5. 25 5.95 ------2.04 Minimum for significance: P<.Ol ______1.2:) P<.05______------P<.lO______.90 ------­ .75 ------

I u=P<.Ol (highly significant); *=P<.05 (significant.). No tests of signifi­ cance were calculated Cor average values or estimates of combining ability. 16 TECHNICAL BULLETIN 1236, U.S. DEPT. OF AGRICULTURE

TABLE 7.-0ompari8o'TUJ of post 'TIWrtem, weights and measurements of (p/,(J,tomicalstructwre a'TIWng Sindhi-Jersey and Jersey (lOWS [Differences expressed in standard deviation units]

Deviations from Jorsey values I DevIation from ~ J values I Item

~1 ~J }(1 ~1 Ul ---- Age ______-0.14 +0.19 -0.29 -0.22 -0.34 Live weight (ante mortem) _~______+.09 -.12 -.72 +.27 -.71 Measurements of mass: Empty body weight_ +.17 +.30 -.39 -.23 -.69 ])r~~d carcass weight- ______-.18 +.47 -.03 -.86 -.41 ])ressingage-A percen______t­ -.37 +1. 12* +1. 35** -1. 62** +.29 ])ressin/l: percent- age-B______-.79 +.62 +1. 20** -1. 75** +.81 Thoracic cavity ­ measurement8: Maximum depth___ -0.34 -0.05 -1. 65** -0.35 -1. 89** Maximum length___ -l. 69** -2.00** -2.23** +.05 -.64 Width at 7th rib ___ +.57 -.73 -1. 16* +1. 01 * -.64 Average______-.48 -.93 -1. 68 +.24 -1. 05 Thoracic organ weights: Lungs______-0.36 -0.50 -1. 59** +0.02 -1.04* Heart______-.43 -1.62"'* -3.02** +1. 09* -l. 61** - Average______-.40 -1. 06 -2.31 +.56 -l. 32 . Blood weighL ______+1.17* +0.03 -0.46 +1. 92** -0.87 Brain weight______+.24 +.38 -.42 +.02 -1. 26*

StomachIlumenweights:______+0.39 -0.51 -0.82 +0.94 -0.45 Reticulum______+.42 -.15 -.64 +.72 -.70 Omasum______+.34 -1. 26** -1. 80** +1. 47** -.61 Abomasum______+.45 -1. 60** -2.46** +1. 43** -.76 TotaL ______+.44 -.94'" -1. 46** +1. 28'1< -.65 Intestine lengths: Small intestine_____ +.33 -l. 14* -1. 55** +1.94** -.62 Large intestine _____ TotaL______+.38 -.18 -.97* +.76 -1. 33** +.36 -.96* -1. 47** +1. 86** -.83

Other abdominal Liverorgan______weights: +0.60 -0.12 -1. 55** +0.62 -1. 19* Spleen______-.54 -.63 -1. 98** -.08 -1. 54** Pancreas______-.54 -1. 18* -2.09** +.49 -.92 Kidneys______+.26 +.17 -.24 +.08 -.36 Average______-.06 -.44 -1. 46 +.28 -l.00 =- See footnote. at end ot table. \\ SINDHI-JERSE-Y AND SINDffi-HOLSTEIN CROSSES 17 TABLE 7.-00mparisons 01 post mortem weights and measurements 01 anatomical structure among Sindhi-Jersey and Jersey cows-Con.

Deviations trom .rersey values I Deviation trom ~ J values I Item ~J }iJ ~J "J ~1

Endocrine gland weights-A: Pituitary______-0.63 -0.55 -1. 63** -0.11 -1. 63** Thyroid______.____ -.70 -1.07>1­ -1.55** -.30 Adrenals______+.46 -.56 -.63 -1. 25** +.12 -----.56 Average______-.63 -.75 -1. 48 +.15 -.83 Endocrine gland PineaLweighL'!-B: ______+0.09 +0.10 +0.17 O. 00 +0.10 Parathyroids. ______-.51 -.26 -.23 -.73 .00 Thymus______-1. 37** -1.11* -1. 22** -.35 -.23 Average ______- - -.60 -.42 -.43 -.36 -.05 ~nnjmum for sigllifi­ cance: r<.OL ______. 1. 17 1. ] 7 1. 17 1. 29 1. 29 P<.05______.­ .86 .86 .86 .94 .94 P<.l0______.71 .71 .71 .78 .78

I **=P<.Ol (highly significant); *=P<.05 (significant). No tests of significallce were calculated for average vlllues.

TABLE 8.-00mpaliso1UJ of post mortem weights and measurements of anat07nical st1'ucture bet'ween Sindhi-Holstein cows, and relative comoming ability of Jerseys and Holstein with Sindhis [Differences expressed in standard deviation units]

Estimates or relBth'c combining ability Deviation ot Item !-1!RCrom Apparent Slndbl breed Index DIl!crences ta\'orlng- IIolstclll values I From~J From ~R Jersey Holstein crosses crosses Age______- ___ 0.00 45 37 ------Livetem) weight ______(ante mOf­ -,86 935 1,078 ------1. 50 Measurements of mass: Empty body weighL __ -.01 865 1,014 ------1. 55 Dressed carcass weight_ -.12 543 625 -----,--- 1. 12 DressingA______percentllge- +.84 58.1 57.4 1. 28 ------DressingB______percentage- -.31 62.8 61. 5 .46 ------Thoracic cavity meas­ urements: Maximum depth ______-I.• 55** 45.4 42.4 1. 59 Maximum length______------3.36** 61. 1 fin. 9 .05 - .... ------Width at 7th rib ______-2.92** 29.6 28.6 .63 -.... ------Average ______-2.61 .75 --- .... ------See footnote. at end of table. 18 'TECHNICAL BULLETil{ 1236, U.S. DEPT, OF AGRICULTURE

TABLE 8.-Oomparisons of post mortem weights and measurements of a'twt01nical struct1t1'e between Sindhi-Holstein cows, and relative combining ability of J 81'8eys and Holstein with Sindhis-Con.

Estimates oC :elnUve combining nbillty DovlntionoC Item H II Crom Apparent Sind hi breed Index Differences Cnvorlng- IIolstcln values I FromHJ FromJ,~H Jersey lIolstcln crosses crosses

Thoracic organ weights: I~ungs ______-3.16** 2,217 1,538 2.13 Heart______-2.64** 1,138 930 1.22 Averagc______-2.90 ------1. 67 Blood weight______-1. OG* 17, 15{i 17, 453 0.11 Brain weighL______+.40 -140 429 .40 Stomach weights: Rumen______-0.86 4,522 5, 793 ______1. 12 Ueticulum______-1. 00* 903 793 0.59 ______Omasum.. ______-I. GG** 2,037 2,223 ______. 29 Abomn.sum ______.3G ______Totru ______-2. G5** 86G 807 -]. 38** 8,324 9,607 ______.69 Intestlne lengths: Small intestinc______-1.35** 3,464 3,484 .OG Large intcstine______-1. 51** 1,012 901 1. 09 ______TotaL ______-1.51** 4,476 4, 386 .21 ______Other abdominal organ Liverweights:______-0.55 5, 560 5, 733 O. 20 Spleen______-1.39"'* 650 529 1. 38 l>ancrcas______-1. 92** 211 202 .16 Kidneys______-1. 01* 842 809 .27 Avcrage______- L 32 .40 1======1======:1======'1=====1======Endocrine gland weights-A: Pituitary______-1.36** 2. 09 1. 57 1. 03 ______Thyroid______-.58 11. 9 18.0 ______O. 94 Adrenals______-.10 17.7 20. 2 .68 Average______-. G8 .26 ______1======1======1======1======1===== Endocrine gland weights-B: PineaL ______+0.17 0.29 O. 30 O. 12 Parathyroids______-1. 89** .05 .00 1. 66 Thymus______-.44 24 106 .73 1------1------,1------1------1------Average______-.72 .76 Minimum for signifi­ cance: P<.OL______• 1. 23 ------<~------P<.05______.-__ _ . no P<.10______.75

I **=P<.Ol (highly significant) i *=P<.05 (significtlnt). No tests of signifi­ cance wcrc calculated for averagc valucs or cstimatcs of combining ability. SL.~Dm-JERSEY AND SlNDHI-HOLSTElN CROSSES 19 In some of the comparisonsbt.he data fail to demonstrate, with the limited number of cows availa. le, It significant difference between two means, although the recognizable differences are large enough to sug­ gest definite tendencies that might be significant in otl'er or larger samples. As an aid in evu.luating such differences in tables 5 through 8, it may be noted thn,t differences in standard deviation units exceed p= <0.10 if they are greater than 0.71 in comparisons between the groups of 14: Jerseys and 10 crossbreds, greater than 0.78 in compari­ sons between the Jersey crossbred groups of 10 eac1l, or greater than 0.75 in comparisons between the groups of 13 Holsteins and 9 crossbreds. Averages of the differences in stamhrd deviation mlits are shown for ~TOUpS of measurements or weights in tables 5 t'hrough 8. Tests of slgnihcance were not calculated for these average yalues. How­ e\'er, the minimmn differences in standard deviation units for diil'erent le;vels of significance, as described in t.he preceding pfLmgmphs, may be used for an approximate evaluation of t.hese group avem~es. For example, average va.1nes greater tlUlIl 0,85 would be signifIcant for differences between Jersey and crossbred ~JTOUpS. These approxima­ tions underestimn,te the real levels of sigl1lfic:Ulce.

Comparisons of Body Form Among Jersey and Sindhi­ Jersey Crossbred Groups None of the Sindhi-Jersey groups was significantly difrerent from the purebred Jerseys in live weight, fwd there was relatively little difference in the measurements of body height. In t.he % .J :m<1 % J groups none of the heights differed significa,ntly. In the l;.j J ~roup the heights tended to be lower, but only the difference for height at pinbones was siCTnific..'tut. The crossbr~s were consistently shorter of body than were the purebred Jerseys. In the % J cows, difl'erences were significallt; for lengths from hips to pinbones, wit.hers to pinbones, and shoulder to pinbones. In the lh J cows differences were significant also for lengths of loin and rump. In the % ,T cows, differences in lengths were highly significant; for etLch of the six measurements. Shortness of body has been emphasized in reports of other studies of Sindhis and Sinc1hi crosses (93,5). Differences in body depth between purebred Jerseys and the % J or % J cows were not significant. Depth was less in the 14 J group, n,nd the differences were highly signiHc:LIlt for each of the three measurements. In the measurements of body widths, the % J cows were essent.ially the same as the purebred Jerseys. Cows in the 1/2 J group were nar­ rower than the J?urebmds; differences in widths of rear chest and paunch were sigmfic..'tnt. Cows in the ¥OJ, J group showed eyen &!:'eater ., differences from the purebreds in the same measurements. lJiffer­ ences front the purebreds in widths of fore chest and loin were not siCTnificant in :tny of the crossbred groups. :in the pelvic widths, t.he % J group tended to be slightly nal'l'ower than tho ptu'Cbred Jerseys. In the 1/2 J and lit J groups this narrow­ ness was more pronounced, the differences from the purebred Jerseys 20 TECHNICAL BULLETIN 1236, U.S. DEPT. OF AGRICULTURF, being highly significant for all width measurements (hips, thurls, and pinbones). lfeasurements of body circumference were essentially the same in the % J group as in the purebred Jerseys, tended to be slightly less in the 112 J' group and were significantly less for all girths in the 1,4 J crossbreds. Head length was significantly greater in all of the crossbred groups than in the purebred J'erseys. Head width at the forehead became pr0.l~ressively greuter as the proportion of Sindhi blood increased, while head width at the eye level became progressively smaller. Both differl'nces in width were highly significant in the 1,4 J group. Ci1'­ cllluference of muzzle was slgnifiClll1tlv smaller in aU the crossbred groups than in the purebred Jerseys, the greatest differences occurring ill the % J and the 1,4 J gronps. None of the groups of Sindhi crossbreds differed significantly from the purebred Jerseys in cir­ cumference of shinbone. The Sindhi crossbreds did not differ materially from the purebred Jerseys in wedge shape itS determined by either depths or circum­ ferences, but the wedge shape determined by widths was much less in the 1;2 J and 1,4 J' groups than in the purebreds. Thoracic index was almost the same for all the crossbred groups as for the purebreds, but abdominal index was relatively greater in the 112 J and lJ1 J groups. The di fl"erenc('s for both wedge shape (width) and abdominal mdex apparently resnH('d from the relatively narrow paunches in the 1;2 J and 1;;'1 J crossbreds. Head ratio A. (ratio of length to width at forehead) was relatively hi~h in the % J cows but dlminished with the increase in Sindhi bloocl. On the contrary, head ratio B (based on width at eye level) was much greater' in each group of Sindhi crossbreds than in t.he purebred Jerseys. The ratio of body weight to heart girth didllot differ significantly from the purebreds in any of the crossbred grou!>s. Legginess was sil-,'1uficl!.utly greatel' in the 1h J and l;;'! J crossbreds than 1Il the p\lrebred Jerseys. One of the most marked and consistent dill'erenccs between the crossbred and purebred .Terse~7s was in the slopt; of rump. 1'he d.ifrerel?ce "yas Ill!'erhly significant III [tIl erroups nncllncrensecl progressIvely 111 the 1;2 and 1,4 J groups. T'he rcsnlts from this analysis of body measurements obtained prIOr to slaughter are similar to the results reported by McDowell (4) on a largm' sampling of the Sindhi-.Tersey crossbred and Jersey herds at BeUsyilJe, although McDowell used measurements taken approxi­ mately 3 months after first calving whereas the measurements for , this analysis were obtained on cows about a year older, after they had cOll1plct'cd one. or more lactations. .As ill the present analysis, McDowell fOllnd that the greatest effects from including various proportions of Sindhi inheritance in .Tersey crosses were decreases in measnrements of body lcngth, increases in slope of rum!> and head length, and a decrease in circumference of muzzle. .Also, SIgnificantly smaller values for measnremcnls of body depths, widths, and cir- • cumfcrences and for pelvic widths were found in the 112 J and 1,4 J grOUps. Compared w.ith theresllHs from McDowell's sampling, the present analysis of the effects of Sindhi breeding shows greater de­ creases in pelvic widths and smaller decreases in body heights and body depths. Nevertheless, t:hese comparisons furnish no reason to SINDm-JERSEY AND SINDm-HOLSTEIN CROSSES 21 doubt that the present analysis was from a representative sampling of the Sindhl-Jersey and Jersey herds at Beltsville. The differences between average. mcasurcments for the 1/2 J group and those .for the % J and ~. J groups (tablc 5 ~ show tha~ ~nost of the % J differences were posItIve whereas most of the '* J differences were negative. Notable exceptions wcrc the measurements of body height and depth of fore chest and rear chest, which show minus differences for both the % J and the J/1 J groups. This may be evi­ dence of heterosis in the first crossbred gcneration (lf2 J group). For

most measm:ements of body length1 the minus differences for the 1/1 J group far exceed thcllus differences for the % J group. This may be further evidence 0 heterotic effects in the 112 J group. All of the measurements of body length and body depth were significantly smaller in the lit J group than in the l;2 ,J group. )Iany measurements of pelvic widths, body widths, and body cir­ cumferences were significantly higher in the :Y.i J group than in the l;2 J gmup. In gClleral tllCse plus clifl'erences exceeded the corre­ sponding minus differences between the 112 J group and the lit J group. If tho comparative magnitude of the differences between the 112 J measurements and the '1J~ J and ¥,1 J measurements are accept­ abloindkatol's of heterosis, it appears that hetcrotic effects were specific for some body measllrements and not for others. Compal"isons of Internal Anatomy Among Jersey and Sindhi·Jersey Crossbred Groups Nono of the Sincllli-Jersey crossbred groups differed appreciably from the purebred Jerseys in empty body weight or in weight .of carcass. However, both the 112 J and the 1/1 ,J crossbl'eds were sig­ nificantly higher in dressing percentage as calculated on the basls of Eve weight, but only the Iii ,J group was significantly higher ·when calculated on the basis of empty body ,,-eight. All measurements of the thoracic cavity were significant'l}' less in the lIb J crossbreds than .in thepllrebreds. ,]~his difference ,,,as vcry marked in the case of length of thol'aeic cayil'y, for which the differences were highly significant in all of the crossbred gronps. Lung weight was signifi­ ca:ntly lowet· in the 14 J group. ~ Heart weight was significantly lower in both the 112 J and % ,r crossbreds. No appreciable differ­ ences were sllOwn for weights of blood or bmin in any of the groups, except that blood weigllt was higher in the % J gronp than in the .Jerseys. Diil'erences in weighl's of rnmen and reticulum were not significant in any of Iho crossbred groups as compared with the purebred Jerseys, but both the omasnm and Iho abomasnm were much smaller in the 112 J group and especially .in the l/t ,J group than in the Jerseys. Lengths of small ancl of t,otal intestine were significantl~T less in the % J and 1,4 J crossbreds than in the Jerseys. Len~th of large intes­ tine also was less in the 1,4 J gt·oup. Although the dIfferences were not significant, all of the pal'ls of the sl'omach and intestine tended to bo larger in the % J crossbrcds than in the pUl'ebreds. 'Veights of liver, splct'n, and pancreas wem substantially lower in the '/1 J crossbreds than in the purebreds. nifferencesin kidney weight were l10t significant ill any of the groups. 'Yeights of pitui­ 22 TECHNICAL BULLE'I'IN 1236, u.s. DEP'I'. OF AGRICULTURE tary, thyroid, and adrenals were all substantially lower in the 1,4 .1 group than in the Jerseys, Imel thyroid weight 'Nas lower in the1fz .1 ~r~up. No appreciable differences were noted in the weights of pineal l)Q(1y or parathyroids, but the thymus weight was significantly lower in all. of I:he crossbred groups than in the .Jerseys. The % J group clifl'ered from the 112 .J group in ha\ring significantly higher stomach weights, intestine lengths, heart weight, and weight of blood, and smaller dressing percentages. The 1;.1 J group differed from the % J group in having significantly smaller weigh!; of lungs, "'eight of llelu-t, and depth of Ihoracic ca.vity; shorter large intestines; and lower weights for liver, spleen, and pituitary. Indication of heterosis in the 112 .1 crossbred group by minus diifer­ ences from the % .1 gronp to the lit .J group lhat exceed plus difl'er- ~ enccs to the ~%. J gronp, are Jess for anatomica.l weights and measure­ ments than for measnrement·s of body form. Hems that suggest • heterosis in the % J group are depth of thol"llcic ca.vity and the weights of lungs, hear!:., bram, li"OI', spleen, and pituitary.

Comparisons of Effects of Cr.ossing Jerseys and Hol- .. steins With Sindhis, in Body Form and Intel'nal Anatomy .. In some respects, the effects on body form of crossing Sinc1his wit.h Holsleins were similar to those of crossing Sindhis with Jerseys. (tables 5 anc1I3). In both, the crossing resulted in It much shoder body, a greatly.reduced width of pelvis, a narrow head (at eye level), • and :t smaller muzzle, but body weight was essentially unchanged. On the ot.her hllnd, there were some rather prononnced differences. Body heights were snbsl:antiltlly dec.reased inlhe 112 II crossbreds as compared to Holsteins, whereas in the l/Z ,T crossbreds they 'were not materially nffecte~1. In the % H crossbreds there 'was essentially no ('ffecl; 011 bodY-WIdth measmements and very little on body-depth measlm::ments. CircnmJerence of fore chest (hear!; girth) was slightly • I'cdncccl. A1thou~h in the Sindhi-Jerseys there was a marked length­ (·ning of t.he hell([, there was no appreciable chnng-e in the Sinclhi- ... Ho]stpins. :Marked reductions in head width Wllhout change in length l'{'sulted in heads with quite different overall proportions in the l/~ II c.ows. A decrease. in the circumference of shinbone ill the 1/1 II ('ows indicated a lighten- bone strnctnre. Trachea diameter was ('ssentially unaffected. No appreciable chan~e occurred in Ihe body wedges in the 112 H group, whereas in the fiindhi-.Jerseys wedge as determined by width ~ was si~niHca.ntly reduced. Thoracic and Ilbdominal indexes also were Nisentmlly unafl'ected in the. 112 J( groups whereas in the Sindhi­ .Ters{'ys abdominal inde.x 'was sllbst.ajltilllly increased as a result. of a re(\\Ic,tion jn paunch width. Slope of rUlllp and .Iegginess were not materially Idfcetec1. This is ill rontrast 10 the results in the Sindhi- A .ferspy crosses, where substantial illel"eaSes in both ratios occurred. As in the i;indhi-.}prs{'ys, only 11- slight change occurred in ratio of .I liY{~ weight to heart. girth. In the measnrements of anatomical structure, also, the effects 0]1 somo items were similar for both groups of crossbreds. Aside from SINDID-JERSEY AND SINDID-HOl'STEIN CROSSES 23 a slight increase in dressing pel'centalJ'e, based on live weight, little effeot was indicuted for Ole items of bocly mass. In both groups, there was a marked reduction frollt the pUl'ebreds in maximum length of thoracic cavity, in weight of heart, and in the weights of omasum and nbomasum. Reductions occurred also in length of intestines--espe­ ciany the smaU intestine-and in the weight of pancreas. In both groups, brain weight was essentially unaffected. For many of the other items the effects of crossing were different in the two groups. The reductions from the purebreds were more marked in the Smdhi-lIolsteins than in the Sindhi-Jerseys in width and depth of thoracic cavity und weights of lungs, spleen, and par­ athyroids. Reductions in the Shldhi-IIolsteins were greater, also, for Jengths of large and total intestine and for weights of reticulum, blood, kidneys, and pituitary.

Relative Combining Ability of Jel"Seys and Holsteins in Cl"OSSeS With Sindhis It was apparent that the measurmnents of conformation and anatomy for the 1h H crossbred cows were not entirely parallel with those for the 1/2 J' -crossbred cows. These differences were studied by computing apparent Sindhi breed indexes from the liz J and Jersey data and from 1;he 1/2 II and Holstein data and making comparisons between them. The apparent Sindhi index for (lJach item was cal­ culated as twice the lWel'age v111ue for the % ,J or % H crossbred group minus the average value for the Jersey or Holstein parent group. Data for Sindhi cows with which to compare these indexes were not l1yuilable. But it was assumed that, except for possibilities of sampling error, data from the Holstein crosses and data from the Jersey crosses should lurvc given equal I\,pparent Sindhi indexes unless there werc differences in the combining abilit.y of Sindhi matings to ,Jersey cows and Sindhi matings to Holstein cows. If the apparent Sindhi index for a certain Hem computed from liz J crosses was greater than th(~ index computecl from1Jz H crosses, it might be as­ sumed that this :item or characteristic developed to a relatively greater extent in .Jersey crosses than in Holstein crosses. Differences between the weights or measurements in Sindhi indexes computec} from .Jersey crosses and from Holstein crosses were ex­ pressed in standard deviation units in order to lutve a comIIion denominator for comparin~ the ma~nitude of the differences between ILpparent Sindhi indexes 1:01' the clifferent items. No attempt was made to apply statistical tests of significance. The results of com­ parisons between Sindhi-Jersey and Sindhi-Hoistein crosses are shown in tables 6 and 8. In general, the % J crosses were taller and longer of body than might have been expected from Sindhi-Jersey matings or else the Sindhi-Holstein crosses were shorter in height aJl(1 in body len!!th than might have been expected from Sindhi-Holstein mntings. Either condition might have been possible. At any rate, heights and lengths were more outstanding in Jersey croSses than in Holstein crosses. Differences favoring the 1h 1I crosses were oven greater for body widths and circumferences and for tho ratios showmg wedge shape 24 TECHNICAL BULLETIN 1236, U.S. DEPT. OF AGRICULTURE as measured by width and circumference. The abdominal index was relatively greater in 1,4 J crosses. Comparisons indicate that height, legginess, and narrowness of body in proportion to depth were de­ veloped to 'Il. greater extent in the 112 J than in the ¥2 H crosses. The lh H crosses were above expectation in empty body weight, and in the weights of carcass, rumen, and thyroid. The % J crosses ex­ ceeded expectancy in measurements of thoracic cavity, in heart and lung weights, and slightly in the weights of several other internal orga.ns and endocrine glands. In general, it appears that the lh J crosses were relatively more highly developed mternally than were the lh H crosses. General Discussion Ithas been shmvn by McDowell et at (4) that Sindhi-Jersey cross­ breds, when kept under the same environmental conditions, grow faster than Jerseys, at least up to 12 months of age, and that the:y tend to maintain a higher condItion of flesh at all ages. Rathore (5) a.lso showed that the fleshing tendency of Sindhis is notable in cross­ breds with as IQW as 25 percent of Sindhi blood. McDowell et a1. (3) demonstrated that Smdhi-Jersey crossbred cows are more heat .. tolerant than Jerseys. The results of this study provide evidence that increasing the pro­ portion of Sindhi inhelitance has the effect of reducing the size of digestive and certain other internal organs independent of differences in empty body weight. These results would seem to justify a que.<;tion as to the possibility that the digestive organs of Sindhis may have greater efficiency for digestin~ and assimilating the nutrients used in growth and body tissue development. The results also may explain the lower metabolic heat production in Sindhi crosses reported by Johnson et al. (1). The smaller digestive orgaDs may limit the capacity for feed, thus avoiding peaks m feed intake and resulting in a more constant metabolic heat production. This would appenr to be advantageous under hot conditions. If this is the case, the smaner digestive organs might be one of the characteristics responsible for the greater neat tolerance exhibit.ed by Zebu types of cattle. Further work to provide information 011 these points would be desirable.

SUMMARY All Sindhi-Jersey and Sindhi-Holstein crossbreds included in this study were from the herds at Beltsville. Their inclusion was de­ .. termined by the availability of post mortem intemal anatomy data. Comparisons were made of three 10-cow groups of Sindhi-Jersey crossbreds with 14 purebred Jerseys of comparable a($es. Nine Sindhi-Holstein crossbreds were compared with 13 ptu·cl;red Hol­ steins slaughtered at comparable ages. Although there were differences in individual items" variability was nearly the same for the crossbreds as for the purebreds in the measurements of both body form and internal anatomy. Variability in all breed groups was much greater for the weights of most of the internal organs than for the measurements of body size. SINDID-JERSEY AND SINDm-HOLSTEIN CROSSES 25 The most marked effects on body form of crossing Sindhis with Jerseys appear to be a great decrease in body length; a reduction in body depths; a decrease in widths~specially of the rear chest, paunch, and pelvis; an increase in head length accompanied by an mcrease in WIdth at forehead and a decrease in width at eye level; an increase in legginess; and a large progressive increase in slope of rump. In anatomical structure the most striking deviation was the re­ duction in length of thoracic cavity in all crossbred groups. This is compatible with the differences noted in this and other studies with respect to external body lengths. The weights of heart, omasum, and abomasum also were substantially lower in both the 112 J and the 1,4 J crossbreds-especially the latter. Other important differences, primarily in the :1,4 J group, were the higher dressmg percentages, tho more shallow. thoracic cavity, the shorter intestines, and the lower weights for lungs, liver, spleen, pancreas, pituitary, thyroid, and adrenals. Thymus weight was relatively small in all crossbred groups. Externally, the % J crossbreds exceeded the 112 J crossbreds in lengths of 10m and rump; some of the widths and circumferences­ especially the posterior measurements of the body and pelvis; and the body wed1!es.. The l4 J crossbreds were notably smaller than the 112 J crossDreds in body length, depth of rear chest, width at hips, and head ratio as measured at the forehead. They also had more sloping rumps. The l.;2 J crossbreds exceeded both the % and * J crossbreds to a significant degree in only one measurement-diameter of trachea. •• The chief differences in anatomical structure between the % J and the 1;2 J crossbreds were the substantially higher weights of blood, omasum, and abomasum; the greater lengths of small and total intestine; and the lower dressing percentages. The 1,4 J crossbreds differed from the 1;2 J crossbreds primarily in having a more shallow chest cavity; lower weights of heart, brain, spleen, and pituitary; and a shorter large intestine. In the Smdhi-Jersey crossbreds there was some indication of heterosis in the heights, lengths, and depths of body. Indications of heterosis in internal anatomical structure were less apparent. A comparison of the 112 J and the 1;2 H crossbreds with purebreds shows that there were outstanding effects of crossbreeding on body form that were common to both groups. Body lengths were de­ creased, pelvic widths were less, the heads at the eye level were narrower with greatly increased head ratios, and the muzzles were smaller, but the body weights were not materially changed. However, body heights were substantially reduced in the % H group wllereas heights in the .1;2 J group were essentially unaffected. In anatomical structure, also, lengths of thoracic cavity were ~eatly reduced in both the 1;2 J and 1/2 H crossbreds as compared with purebreds. There were also marked reductions in heart weight, in the weights of omasum and abomasum, and in the length of small intestine. However, there were marked reductions in width of chest cavity and in weights o! lungs, spleen, pituitary, and parathyroids in the 112 H crossbreds, which were less pronounced m the lh J crossbreds. There are indications that t.he Holsteins and Jerseys differed with respect to their combining ability in crosses with Sindhis. The Hol­ 26 TECHNICAL BID.~~~:;";l':r 1236, U.S. DEPT. OF AGRICULTURE stein influence was manifested primarily in relatively ~reater body widths,cireumferences, and wedges; empty body weIght, carcass weight and weight of rumen. The J'erseys, on the contrary, tended to produce comparatively greate. r ranginess, legginess, and flatness of body with relatively greater weights of heart, lungs, and a number of other internal organs and glands. i

LITERATURE CITED

(1) JOHNSTON, J. E., LEWIS, C. L., SMITH, J. W., and SCHEIN, M. W. 1955. lolEOHANISMS OF THERlolAL BALANCE IN JERSEY, HOLSTEIN, AND RED SINDHI-HOLSTEIN f1 COWS. La. Agr. Expt. Sta., Ann. Prog. Rpt. 30-32. (2) McDoWELL, R. E., LEE, D. H. K., McMULLAN, H. W., FOHRMAN, M:. H., and SWETT, W. W. 1954. BODY WEIGHTS, BODY MEASUREMENTS AND SURFACE AREA OF JERSEY AND SINDHI JERSEY (ft) CROSSBRED FEMALES. Jour. Dairy Sci. 37: 1420--1428. (3)--- LEE, D. H. K., FOHRMAN, M. H., SYKES, J. F., and ANDERSON, R. A. 1955. RECTAL '.rEMPERATURE AND RESPIRATORY RESPONSES OF JERSEY .AND SINDHI-JERSEY (fl ) CROSSBRED FEMALES TO A STANDARD HOT ATKOS­ PHERE. Jour. Dairy Sci. 38: 1037-1045. (4)--- JOHNSON, J. C., SCHEIN, M. W., and SWETT, W. W. 1959. GROWTH AND EXTERNAL CHARACTERISTICS OF JERSEYS AND RED SINDHI­ JERSEY CROSSBRED FEKALES. Jour. Anim. Sci. 18: 1038-1052. (5) RATHORE,. A. 1949. DIFFERENCES IN GilOWTH OF RED SINDHI AND CROSSES OF RED SINDHI WITH JERSEY, BROWN SWISS. HOLSTEIN-FRIESIAN AND GUERNSEY OATTLE. Ph. D. Thesis, Iowa State College, Ames, Iowa. (6) SCHEIN, M. W., McDOWELL, R. E., LEE, D. H. K., and HYDE, C. E. 1957. HEAT TOLERANCE OF JERSEY AND SINDHI-JERSEY CROSSBRED IN LOUISI­ ANA AND MARYLAND. Jour. Dairy Sci. 40: 1405-1415. (7) SWETT, W. W., and GRAVES, R. R. 1939. RELATION BETWEEN CONFmM-A-TION AND ANATOMY OF COWS OF UN­ KNOWN PRODUCING ABILITY. Jour. Agr. Res. 58: 199-235.

U.I. IOVER"MENT ,RINTIHI O'PlCI, tI"