II-lQ t WI~

1~Il~ 2~ 2

r~ ~ shy ~ 120 M shy

1811111125 1111114_ 1111~middot6

MICROCOPY RESOLUTION TEST CHART NATIONAL BURt~U Of STANOAROSmiddot1963middotA

10 t W I~II~ 2 w 12

I-L Iipound shyM ~ 11_ 2011

11111125 1111114 1111116

MICROCOPY RESOLUTION TEST CHART NA110NAL BUREAU or SlANOAROS-196)A

-------

lefhnical Bulletin No 990 September 1949

Effect of Inbreeding on Body Size Anatomy and Producing Capacity of Grade

Holstein Cows 1

By V V SWITl ~elli(lr IlllirllllllSWlldlll(ll C A lIATJlUWl dairy hlilballlllla lull 11 H lioHJI~LN I(lIll Dil1ision of DairV ((litle BreedillY Fccdiny rrnl Mcmayelllout Bltrcltlt uf Dairy Indll~try AfIcIturul Resalch Admini~tlltionmiddot

CONTENTS Puge Pagetqtrolt1udfon_ __________________ 1 Anatomy )f (he ~11llt1e Holstein

Jpipw 01 Ii tmiddotPlmiddotattJlmiddot~________ ______ 1 cows used in this experiment as Ilxllelimentai lroe~duJe Hnd ta COlllllllfd with thnt of I~egisshy~ used________________________ 3 tpred flolsteill COYS__________ 20s Pedigle~ Showing ehulneWr Statistical anai~sis of coneshy~ (aninb~ing---------------- 4 latilIl between coefficient of inshy

Agz$lI1d~llnber of cows in the breeding nnd form anatomy

bull ~ -CdSred ouP8--______________ 7 and prudl1ction_______________ 2middot1 I V~hts d meaSlllenICnts used Valiability ill sire of body allli

Q 1111 II Ill i8___________________ 7 its parts in ol1tbred and inbred cows ________________________ 2IIlPrespltlltlo and dlscllflSiol of 11-General discussion_____________ 29 ~ Eirs~~I)~e~tii~g-~7l--Si~-~r 8 Smumar) and eoncillsiuns________ 31

tc ~w II her body parts______ 14 LitllIItUle citeli_________________ 34 = ~

INTRODUCTION

The study on which this report is based was undertaken in an atshytempt to measure the di fferences in animal form and internal anatomy between outbred dairy cows and cows representing various intensities of inbreeding lind if possible to detellnine the significance of such differences from the standpoint of fnnct-ional ability

REVIEW OF LITERATURE

Numerous attempts have beel1 madt by other investigators to measshyure the Gpecilic effects of inbceding in vtllious species of animals Much of the available jnformation peltaining to the effects of inbreedshying on the size and structure of the animals has been obtained throngh studies of labomtory animals A long-time well controlled study of

1 Suhmitted for publication 1[arcn 1949 TE Woodward forlllerly senior dairy husbandman who retired July 311944

bull calculated all of the (offticients of inbreeding 11sed in tllis stUdy ~R GIaYeS who retired March 301946 was head of the Division of Dairy Cattle BIeeding Feeding lind Management while most of the experimental wQrk was i~ progress

837616deg-4amp--1

2 TECRNICALfULLETIN 990 U S DEPl Ol AGRICULlURE

close inbreeding in guinea pigs conducted by the Bureau of Animal Industry United States Department of Agriculture provided an abundance of valuable fundamental data Various analyses of these (lata which included control animals of a strain maintained without inbreeding and animals of highly inbred fanr~lies and their crosses showed size and weight differences which constitute the pdncipal diffelentiating characteristics between them (3)8

In order to determine the extent to which anatomical differences contribute to the weight differences noted and also whether 01 not anatomical differences are inherited Eaton (3) subjected some 600 guinea pigs to lin exhaustive anatomical study which involved the weighing 01 measuring of nearly all of the internal organs of the body The 600 aninlllls induded replesentuties of the vlllious inbred families and their hybrids as weH as of the control group which was not inbred At the beginning of the anatomical study three inbred families were in the twentY-lixth to thirtieth genellltions of brother-sister matings

]10111 the weights reported by Eaton it appears that the animals in the three inbred families were definitely smaller (about 20 pr-lcent on the a~1ge) tluln those in the cOIlL~ol Oloup He concluded thut organs sllch as the lungs and livet were definitely proportional to li~ weight that the heart spleen kidneys adrenals and testicles weril more nearly uniform in weight leganl1ess of body weights thtlt the- adrenaJs were hwersely proportional to li e weight and tl~l th~ a shya remarkable degree of uniformitv ill intestine length ~tonmiddotfSgtunc1 that the weight or pituitary body followed in general the nyC ~etght~ The weights of lungs thyroid and ac1renals showed tIle gneatestari- ability weights of blood heart liver kidneys spleenQ)litultary and testicles showed medium vatiability and the length dt1l1te-tines and spleell measurements were the least variable The degt1ie ofiari- ability in organ size was about 15 percent lower in the inbi~ an1hlalsJi than in those in the control group Tn geIletttl the olgansrele rela- tiyely largtl-in proportion to body weight-in flle Hnes having the ~ sma lIer Ii e weight ~

In It later report Eaton (4) showed that despite large differences in live weight bptween the inbred families there was very EUle differshye)lCe in the weights 01 lengths of the leg bones However the leg bones were definitely 101lger and heavier in the control animals (nonshyinbred) than in the inbretl animals Variability was rnuch less for length than fOL weight of bOlles was low for all bone measurements and was not matelially different in the inbred strains tllln in the control stock Correlation with lin eight was higher for weight than for length of leg bones These reults appeal to ilH1icate that inbLeeding affects body weight to a much greater extent than it does skeletal size

The eileet of inbreeding must not be confused with that of faulty llutrition yet Eaton~s findings are interesting in view of the observashytion made by Vaters (8) more than 30 years ago Waters observed that a growing animal kept unler extremely adverse circumstances with reference to llutrition would remain nnclerweigllt but would beshy

Italic numbers in purentheses rrfer to Literuture Cited p 34

bull

bull

bull

3 INBREEDlNG Ol GRADE HOLSrEIN COWS

come tall llnd narrow-signifying that the impulse to make skeletal

bull growth is stronger than the impulse to increase in weight

Many breeders of cattle and other liyestock haye practiced inshybreeding to a limited extent and have drawn vllrious conclusions with regard to its desirability In most cases interpretation of the results with cattle has been based on small numbers of animals llnd short periods of time This probably is because few breeders have had the facili ties for ~arrying on iltensi ve inbeedin~ prnctices over the len~th of time reql1lred to obtalll results lllvolvmg numerous sUCCeSSlye genenltions

A fe leports ()iving the results of organized inbreeding experishyments with cattle iUlVC appeaLed Voodward and Graves (9) found that biL-th weight was lowered anel that rate of growth and mature size appeared to be reduced by i 1I1H(edi ng Dickerson (~) reported that bire weight was 10wered by inbreeding but that the difference in size decleaser with age Bartlett Reece and Lepllrd (1) conshyduded that netltel bilmiddotth weight nOl rate of growth was depressed by inbreeding in R family 01 Holsteins and that type was unaffected The results of a more complete analysis by Voodward and Graves

bull

(10) confirm in genelal those previously reported by the same authors They indicat~ that intensive inbleecling lowered breeding efficiency loweled the bilth weight of cahes and tended f( -educe their vigor and resu1tedin smaller mature eows though the effect was not as marked relatively~ at maturity as at birth The results showed markeclredulttions in both milk and butterfat production in the fifth alld sixth generations of highly inbred cows although in the earlier genelatiol1s level of prodllction had been well maintained

EXPERIME~TAL PROCEDURE A~D DATA USED

Tho Beltsville inbreeding ex[)(middotriment on which the reports of WoodwardHnd Gmyes (910) were based was begun in 1913 and conshytinlled untill9J-a DUling th(middot last 20 years of this period it was earried on concllLlelltly with a study of the interrelationships between body form internal anatomy and producing ability in dairy cattle

In the latter study which is still under way at Beltsville cows that have demonstrated their producing capacity and are to be removed from the herd are first measmed 11l detail in order to record body tonforlllntion in terms 01 body dimensions and proportions Then they are slaught~lec1 and fill of their internal organs endocrine glands and body parts are weighed or measured The same plan is carried on at a number of State experiment stations that are cooperating in the stlldy sLUnrnary (6) 01 the breecl averages for body weight and dimensions and fOt the size of the internal organs and body parts-basecl on the first 593 cows studied that had records of proshycluction-afforcls a basis for comparing the body form and anatomy of cows representing- different breeds and families and of cows kept uncler various environmental conditions

As the cows in the inbreeding experiment-both inbted and outshybred-were removed from the herd they were handled according

bull to the above-described plan by which ante-mortem amI post-mortem data were obtained Some of the cows went ou of the herd during

2 TECRNICALfULLETIN 990 U S DEPl Ol AGRICULlURE

close inbreeding in guinea pigs conducted by the Bureau of Animal Industry United States Department of Agriculture provided an abundance of valuable fundamental data Various analyses of these (lata which included control animals of a strain maintained without inbreeding and animals of highly inbred fanr~lies and their crosses showed size and weight differences which constitute the pdncipal diffelentiating characteristics between them (3)8

In order to determine the extent to which anatomical differences contribute to the weight differences noted and also whether 01 not anatomical differences are inherited Eaton (3) subjected some 600 guinea pigs to lin exhaustive anatomical study which involved the weighing 01 measuring of nearly all of the internal organs of the body The 600 aninlllls induded replesentuties of the vlllious inbred families and their hybrids as weH as of the control group which was not inbred At the beginning of the anatomical study three inbred families were in the twentY-lixth to thirtieth genellltions of brother-sister matings

]10111 the weights reported by Eaton it appears that the animals in the three inbred families were definitely smaller (about 20 pr-lcent on the a~1ge) tluln those in the cOIlL~ol Oloup He concluded thut organs sllch as the lungs and livet were definitely proportional to li~ weight that the heart spleen kidneys adrenals and testicles weril more nearly uniform in weight leganl1ess of body weights thtlt the- adrenaJs were hwersely proportional to li e weight and tl~l th~ a shya remarkable degree of uniformitv ill intestine length ~tonmiddotfSgtunc1 that the weight or pituitary body followed in general the nyC ~etght~ The weights of lungs thyroid and ac1renals showed tIle gneatestari- ability weights of blood heart liver kidneys spleenQ)litultary and testicles showed medium vatiability and the length dt1l1te-tines and spleell measurements were the least variable The degt1ie ofiari- ability in organ size was about 15 percent lower in the inbi~ an1hlalsJi than in those in the control group Tn geIletttl the olgansrele rela- tiyely largtl-in proportion to body weight-in flle Hnes having the ~ sma lIer Ii e weight ~

In It later report Eaton (4) showed that despite large differences in live weight bptween the inbred families there was very EUle differshye)lCe in the weights 01 lengths of the leg bones However the leg bones were definitely 101lger and heavier in the control animals (nonshyinbred) than in the inbretl animals Variability was rnuch less for length than fOL weight of bOlles was low for all bone measurements and was not matelially different in the inbred strains tllln in the control stock Correlation with lin eight was higher for weight than for length of leg bones These reults appeal to ilH1icate that inbLeeding affects body weight to a much greater extent than it does skeletal size

The eileet of inbreeding must not be confused with that of faulty llutrition yet Eaton~s findings are interesting in view of the observashytion made by Vaters (8) more than 30 years ago Waters observed that a growing animal kept unler extremely adverse circumstances with reference to llutrition would remain nnclerweigllt but would beshy

Italic numbers in purentheses rrfer to Literuture Cited p 34

bull

bull

bull

3 INBREEDlNG Ol GRADE HOLSrEIN COWS

come tall llnd narrow-signifying that the impulse to make skeletal

bull growth is stronger than the impulse to increase in weight

Many breeders of cattle and other liyestock haye practiced inshybreeding to a limited extent and have drawn vllrious conclusions with regard to its desirability In most cases interpretation of the results with cattle has been based on small numbers of animals llnd short periods of time This probably is because few breeders have had the facili ties for ~arrying on iltensi ve inbeedin~ prnctices over the len~th of time reql1lred to obtalll results lllvolvmg numerous sUCCeSSlye genenltions

A fe leports ()iving the results of organized inbreeding experishyments with cattle iUlVC appeaLed Voodward and Graves (9) found that biL-th weight was lowered anel that rate of growth and mature size appeared to be reduced by i 1I1H(edi ng Dickerson (~) reported that bire weight was 10wered by inbreeding but that the difference in size decleaser with age Bartlett Reece and Lepllrd (1) conshyduded that netltel bilmiddotth weight nOl rate of growth was depressed by inbreeding in R family 01 Holsteins and that type was unaffected The results of a more complete analysis by Voodward and Graves

bull

(10) confirm in genelal those previously reported by the same authors They indicat~ that intensive inbleecling lowered breeding efficiency loweled the bilth weight of cahes and tended f( -educe their vigor and resu1tedin smaller mature eows though the effect was not as marked relatively~ at maturity as at birth The results showed markeclredulttions in both milk and butterfat production in the fifth alld sixth generations of highly inbred cows although in the earlier genelatiol1s level of prodllction had been well maintained

EXPERIME~TAL PROCEDURE A~D DATA USED

Tho Beltsville inbreeding ex[)(middotriment on which the reports of WoodwardHnd Gmyes (910) were based was begun in 1913 and conshytinlled untill9J-a DUling th(middot last 20 years of this period it was earried on concllLlelltly with a study of the interrelationships between body form internal anatomy and producing ability in dairy cattle

In the latter study which is still under way at Beltsville cows that have demonstrated their producing capacity and are to be removed from the herd are first measmed 11l detail in order to record body tonforlllntion in terms 01 body dimensions and proportions Then they are slaught~lec1 and fill of their internal organs endocrine glands and body parts are weighed or measured The same plan is carried on at a number of State experiment stations that are cooperating in the stlldy sLUnrnary (6) 01 the breecl averages for body weight and dimensions and fOt the size of the internal organs and body parts-basecl on the first 593 cows studied that had records of proshycluction-afforcls a basis for comparing the body form and anatomy of cows representing- different breeds and families and of cows kept uncler various environmental conditions

As the cows in the inbreeding experiment-both inbted and outshybred-were removed from the herd they were handled according

bull to the above-described plan by which ante-mortem amI post-mortem data were obtained Some of the cows went ou of the herd during

3 INBREEDlNG Ol GRADE HOLSrEIN COWS

come tall llnd narrow-signifying that the impulse to make skeletal

bull growth is stronger than the impulse to increase in weight

Many breeders of cattle and other liyestock haye practiced inshybreeding to a limited extent and have drawn vllrious conclusions with regard to its desirability In most cases interpretation of the results with cattle has been based on small numbers of animals llnd short periods of time This probably is because few breeders have had the facili ties for ~arrying on iltensi ve inbeedin~ prnctices over the len~th of time reql1lred to obtalll results lllvolvmg numerous sUCCeSSlye genenltions

A fe leports ()iving the results of organized inbreeding experishyments with cattle iUlVC appeaLed Voodward and Graves (9) found that biL-th weight was lowered anel that rate of growth and mature size appeared to be reduced by i 1I1H(edi ng Dickerson (~) reported that bire weight was 10wered by inbreeding but that the difference in size decleaser with age Bartlett Reece and Lepllrd (1) conshyduded that netltel bilmiddotth weight nOl rate of growth was depressed by inbreeding in R family 01 Holsteins and that type was unaffected The results of a more complete analysis by Voodward and Graves

bull

(10) confirm in genelal those previously reported by the same authors They indicat~ that intensive inbleecling lowered breeding efficiency loweled the bilth weight of cahes and tended f( -educe their vigor and resu1tedin smaller mature eows though the effect was not as marked relatively~ at maturity as at birth The results showed markeclredulttions in both milk and butterfat production in the fifth alld sixth generations of highly inbred cows although in the earlier genelatiol1s level of prodllction had been well maintained

EXPERIME~TAL PROCEDURE A~D DATA USED

Tho Beltsville inbreeding ex[)(middotriment on which the reports of WoodwardHnd Gmyes (910) were based was begun in 1913 and conshytinlled untill9J-a DUling th(middot last 20 years of this period it was earried on concllLlelltly with a study of the interrelationships between body form internal anatomy and producing ability in dairy cattle

In the latter study which is still under way at Beltsville cows that have demonstrated their producing capacity and are to be removed from the herd are first measmed 11l detail in order to record body tonforlllntion in terms 01 body dimensions and proportions Then they are slaught~lec1 and fill of their internal organs endocrine glands and body parts are weighed or measured The same plan is carried on at a number of State experiment stations that are cooperating in the stlldy sLUnrnary (6) 01 the breecl averages for body weight and dimensions and fOt the size of the internal organs and body parts-basecl on the first 593 cows studied that had records of proshycluction-afforcls a basis for comparing the body form and anatomy of cows representing- different breeds and families and of cows kept uncler various environmental conditions

As the cows in the inbreeding experiment-both inbted and outshybred-were removed from the herd they were handled according

bull to the above-described plan by which ante-mortem amI post-mortem data were obtained Some of the cows went ou of the herd during

4 lECffNICAL BULLELIN 000 U s DEPr 01lt AGHlCULTUHE

the 10-yenl period befolc the COnfOll11ntion-lllIutoIllY-PIodudioll relashytionship study was begun III faet no body-lmllI alld inte11ll1-lInlltshyomy data wero obtained on Ilny of lI1(~fol1ndation cows in the in- bull breedil1f experimerlt nor on sOl11e of the other cows in the eurlier lCne Ill t lOllS Subsequently it became legullll plHctice to include the rows hom the inbl(((ling cxpelitnlllt in the anatomical tl1dy and It

hicrh perc(ntnge of the infivicillul tows wel(~ sLlidied In ol(lel to Ilvoid so far as possible vlIlilltions whieh IIlight leslllt

from tho illclusion of Illlimais ll~prespnting too great It mixtllre of blecd IUlcestIY the 11Ilaomilal study wml limited to grade Holsteins illld only those eows Well inelll(ed thllt had at lellst 50 percent of Hoisteinllllcesi Iy and less than jmiddotO percent of th~ all(estTY of any olh(I bl((c Ante-rnOItpll1 1111(1 postmoltem data PIl nbhtined for 71 gla(llt Holshills of which 2~ Wll~ olllblld and 4) lI(1 illbred rhe lallelllad illl)l(Nling (odli(i(nl~ Ilnging flom U5 to (4( pel((lIt 115 ltl(ulaicd by th Wlight fOlllIula (7)

The 71 trlade Hol~t(ills WPIl divided into 1 grollps on the basif) of intensity 01 inbl(NIiIl Olle glOIlP (olltainld all of tIll 2~ ollthll(I eows 101 eonvlni(Il(( in tabulating the data thlsl anilllahl wIe ghln a va lue of 0 (01 i nbleN i ng 1I1d w(le gIOqwd IIndll thl Iwadshy109 olllbred The sl(on( gIOUp (ontailled 15 inbl((1 (ows with illshyblP(dillg (odlililnts of 10 to~I [Itnlllt IIH thild grollp (olltained 7 (os withinblwling (()(fIililllt~ of )(l to W pellIIlI Hld till fOlllth gIIJUp ill(lu(l( 7 (OS wit h ilbreeding (oplki(llts (If fiO 10 (in 1)(1((111

Tllll lowls illdiidllal (OlfIiliPllt anong themiddotW ilthlNI (ows wa~ 1~5 p(I((nt alld olth ~ had (oefli(i(nts Iwlow 11 1)(1(1111 In till ~ IOllP~ HlbitlHlily Sl lip to ~h()1 dlgl((~ of illiJINdillg among Ihl itlblld (O$ ( 1O--W ln~I) and fin (il) Ill( ()ll1ieiell IS of i n hl(~l(l i1Ig for bull t h U liollS gIOll ps of il(m~ ~llld iNl i 11II(a~(d ill ilHIlmenls of apploxishymallly Hi 110111 on( inblCd gIOll] to Iht IJ(gtXI

Thl trrolljl of ollillltd cows in(lld(d H h 1(gi~I(IWI HolsIlill Rils oul of gludt Holsl(in dalll~ (j by 1(gi~t(I((lllolst(middotin sins Ollt of gIadl oIltIl1~(Y 01 glHtll hI~() da m~ ~ b glath Holst (i n si IIS Ollt of gIa(l( Holstein dallls and ~ oth(ls of IIllkllOWIl all((~ITy that were jlldged 10 1)( thl((-qulIl-tenHolsl(in lthongh flip sin alld dalll of (aeh outbl(( (ow (1( lIlHIlabd tlwtP waS ~Onl( linll)J(middotedillg in Ihl sil( of 2 of Ihl (ow and a vHripd alllolilit of lill(brllding and inbreeding in the da illS 0 f St e Ia 1() f till (0 ws

PEDICHEES SIIOWIN CI(HACIEH OF INIIIIEEIgtINC

S(lInl lxnll1pl(~ 01 pldigl((I~ alp illlludld h(I1 10 illustrat( 111lt lhHIlldlI of SOlllP of nlt IImtillg~that plOducpd aliolls degree of illshybnNling 1h(s( silllplifitd pldigllI4 ~how olll thost all(l~tol~ involld in ealllIlnt iOIl4 101 till (o((li(ilnt of inblNling ~IHny of the illblNI animll~ I rile 10 Ill( Hols(ein siJ(~ rphan VOOdllpsl Lad 11th U))lH7 till finmiddot sin IIS(( ill IIH illbn((ling lxpllillllnt Til IiiI following pCdigllI (xalllplt~ Ihi~ il( will ]w I(I(II((] tll a~ Lad

bull

5 lNBREEDLiG OF GRADE HOLSTEIN COWS

EXAMPLE A

bull f94-B-----shy4()ls_____ - -l 94-R______ _

A -8ol bull - - - - bull bull A-95 ------ ______ A-I3______ _

A-13______ _ - ---~-+ -

Example A is the pNligtl( of 2 eows (A-B4 and A9l) with 12l perltmiddotlnt a8 tIlt eoellicient of inbll(ding the lowest among the 49 inbred (()ws The inbreeding WtlS through (ow A-l~ Although the sire 4()-B waS an inbred son of H-l-B this did not ailed the inbreeding eOlfficients of Ihe daught(~Is of A-l1 bCltHISe thele was 110 relationship bet WN11 $l-I~B and A-la

EXAMPLE B

97 fLud---- bull --- middotmiddot2 ---------1 LUd_________ _

------_ --shy

------- -

Exam ple B is u simple illustration of a si l(middot-to-cltughter mating which gives all inbreeding cocfJiciellt of 250 percent

EXA)lPLE C

bull fLad------shy

94-13------ fLac----- shyA-21A25 t----------t ______ LUd------shyA-26 __ _ A-3~ fLad------- --------- shyA-38 --- l ___ r~c---~~~-

Example C is a simplified pedigree of fie cows with an inbreeding coefficient of 328 percent The dams of all five cows had inbreeding coefficients of 25ll percent

EXAMPLE D

fLad 94-B _____ l fLad------ shy

A-36l --- --- ~ --l- ------ ---e~~-~~~~~~ ~ A53 A-65(---~ fLncL--- --

9l-B______ l fLad_______ _A-68J --------- t fLad-------shy

----------- ILnd-------- -----------l---------middot -----------l ---------

Example D is asimplified pedigree of four cows that had inbreeding coefficients of 453 p-lcent bull

bull

6 TECHNICAL BULLETJN 990 U S DEPT OF AGRICULTURE

EXA~PLE E

bull 2iHIH

_--148bullbullbull

bull

bull

i

bull

bull

bull

INBREEDDrG OF GRADE HOLSTEIN emv

Example E shows the pedigree of the cow A-148 tl11lt had an inbreedshying coetlicient of 6Ui percent This waS the highest in the group and the inbreeding coeffident of 581 petcent for her dam was next to the highest fotmiddot the cows included in this study Coefficients for other female Ilncpoundstors of A-148 were 504 percent for cow A-106 379 pershycent for cow A-SO~ 328 percent for cow A-26 lind 250 percent for cow A-3

AGE AND NUMBER OF Cows IN THE INURED GROUPS

Thirty-fouL of the 71 cows in this stUlly were under 5 years of age (averaomiddote 3 years 10 months) ancl37 were over 5 years (averae 8 years 6 lllont11s) at the time of slaughtetmiddot [n the outbred group tllere were 10 under 5 years (average 3 yenls 8 months) and 12 ovel 5 yenrs (average 9 yellS 4 months) In the gronp with the lowest inbreeding coelikients (below 30) thele were 6 cows under 5 yetlS (I1vernge 1 years) llnd 9 cows over 5 ~enrs (nvelge S yeals H months) The middle inbte(l glOUP (eoetliclents betwlen 30 und 49) contained 14 cows unclet 5 yeats (nveluge 3 yetUS 11 months) tnelI3 cows over 5 yealS (average 8 yenls) ihe 11ighly inbred group laquo(oeflicients betwten 50 and (9) contained 4 cows unclrr 5 years (ayetage 3 years 6 months) and 3 eow oyer 5 yetl~s omiddotf age (averuge 6 yetli 3 110nths) The unishyrOlmity of di~tlibution in number of (OS with resped to age in the 1 groups indi~Htes that age llilferemes lle 1I0t a serious dishubing factor III intelpleting the effects of inbreeding in this study

VEIGlITS AND MEASUREMENTS USED IN ANALYSIS

Thidy-one different wtigllts 01 measurements for eaeh animal were used ill this Rnnlysis They include 3 body measurements taken just prior to slaughttl live weights tnken at 3 different periods of life und 25 w(middotights and measurements of organs llnd body parts obtained after slallhter

Althongh 35 external body measurements were obtained prior to slaughter in otdet to minimize detail only 3 (height at withers width of hips and length from withers to pinoone) were selected to represhystnt the 3 body dimensions height width and length The live ~eights used ere taken at 18 1110nths of age at apploxilluttely 3 months aHel first calving and again when the animal was measured prior to slaughter Uddfl capaeity was determined by filling the seeretotY systenl with fluid and meilsuring the quantity held

Records of milk and buttelint produCtion also were used Since most ot the production reeords were made lIUling the first lactation and commenced at nges ranginp from 2 to 2~~ yep S those that were made at other ages were adjusted to the baSI of the average age of first calving whiehwns 2 years 2 months and 10 clays The vario1s items weLpound c1hicled into six grou ps as follows (1) Those representing bod~ weight Otmiddot mnss (2) those whidl indiCate keletn1 size (3) the internal organs (4) the endolrineglnIHI (5) the udelll and (6) miik llnd butttdut produetioll records AWl~ilge values were ued as a basis for comparison

8 lECHNICAIJ BU~LErlIN 000 U S DEPl OF AaIUCUW~UHE

PRESENTATION AND DISCUSSION OF RESULTS

rhe data hae blen tabulated in fOllr glOllp~ (table 1) according bull to the intensity of inbreeding of the cows included In the study Averages fOl ~~ach item of weight and meaSlllllIlellt are given fOl tlie outby~d grollp andf~)l ellc) of th~ three inble(~ groups The average coef6CHllt of Ilbreedlllg IS shown III eaeh ease for the number of cows [epresented in each item of weight or meaSu~elllellt Pelcentllges mkulated 011 the basis of 100 pCIeent for thl outbled glOUP ale givell to lhow the changes ill size of elleh item of weight 01 IIItaSUIelllent as illb[eeding was intemiified

C0l11palllble tlata showing the relative Illtlll~I than the adua] Inagnishytude of th( vlllious ittllls of weight 01 tnNIHlIlellllnt all~ given ill tuble 2 in whi(h the data are IlItangltI ill tIlt Same manllel as in table 1 The values given Ieprcsent the numbcr of units of weight (ll measurement JOt eueh 100 pounds 0 f elll pty body weight of the unimal Empty body weight iR the diflellnce between tl1e live weight of the IInimal illdllldiately uefore slaughtel alld the weight of the contents of the dil(sthe tliltt Scvtllll itemgt givell in tuble 1 WtI( omittedholll tuble 2 llH tltey wem not nHtj(d by empty body w(ight ut slallghlN TIll llull1blI of anilllais 1lPINillItillg S01lle items i II table 2 ~Hfi Silla1IlI tha n i II table I blea IIHe (lIlpl) bod)~ weight waS 1I0t detell1lI llNi for nil cows

bull

bull

5 lNBREEDLiG OF GRADE HOLSTEIN COWS

EXAMPLE A

bull f94-B-----shy4()ls_____ - -l 94-R______ _

A -8ol bull - - - - bull bull A-95 ------ ______ A-I3______ _

A-13______ _ - ---~-+ -

Example A is the pNligtl( of 2 eows (A-B4 and A9l) with 12l perltmiddotlnt a8 tIlt eoellicient of inbll(ding the lowest among the 49 inbred (()ws The inbreeding WtlS through (ow A-l~ Although the sire 4()-B waS an inbred son of H-l-B this did not ailed the inbreeding eOlfficients of Ihe daught(~Is of A-l1 bCltHISe thele was 110 relationship bet WN11 $l-I~B and A-la

EXAMPLE B

97 fLud---- bull --- middotmiddot2 ---------1 LUd_________ _

------_ --shy

------- -

Exam ple B is u simple illustration of a si l(middot-to-cltughter mating which gives all inbreeding cocfJiciellt of 250 percent

EXA)lPLE C

bull fLad------shy

94-13------ fLac----- shyA-21A25 t----------t ______ LUd------shyA-26 __ _ A-3~ fLad------- --------- shyA-38 --- l ___ r~c---~~~-

Example C is a simplified pedigree of fie cows with an inbreeding coefficient of 328 percent The dams of all five cows had inbreeding coefficients of 25ll percent

EXAMPLE D

fLad 94-B _____ l fLad------ shy

A-36l --- --- ~ --l- ------ ---e~~-~~~~~~ ~ A53 A-65(---~ fLncL--- --

9l-B______ l fLad_______ _A-68J --------- t fLad-------shy

----------- ILnd-------- -----------l---------middot -----------l ---------

Example D is asimplified pedigree of four cows that had inbreeding coefficients of 453 p-lcent bull

bull

6 TECHNICAL BULLETJN 990 U S DEPT OF AGRICULTURE

EXA~PLE E

bull 2iHIH

_--148bullbullbull

bull

bull

i

bull

bull

bull

INBREEDDrG OF GRADE HOLSTEIN emv

Example E shows the pedigree of the cow A-148 tl11lt had an inbreedshying coetlicient of 6Ui percent This waS the highest in the group and the inbreeding coeffident of 581 petcent for her dam was next to the highest fotmiddot the cows included in this study Coefficients for other female Ilncpoundstors of A-148 were 504 percent for cow A-106 379 pershycent for cow A-SO~ 328 percent for cow A-26 lind 250 percent for cow A-3

AGE AND NUMBER OF Cows IN THE INURED GROUPS

Thirty-fouL of the 71 cows in this stUlly were under 5 years of age (averaomiddote 3 years 10 months) ancl37 were over 5 years (averae 8 years 6 lllont11s) at the time of slaughtetmiddot [n the outbred group tllere were 10 under 5 years (average 3 yenls 8 months) and 12 ovel 5 yenrs (average 9 yellS 4 months) In the gronp with the lowest inbreeding coelikients (below 30) thele were 6 cows under 5 yetlS (I1vernge 1 years) llnd 9 cows over 5 ~enrs (nvelge S yeals H months) The middle inbte(l glOUP (eoetliclents betwlen 30 und 49) contained 14 cows unclet 5 yeats (nveluge 3 yetUS 11 months) tnelI3 cows over 5 yealS (average 8 yenls) ihe 11ighly inbred group laquo(oeflicients betwten 50 and (9) contained 4 cows unclrr 5 years (ayetage 3 years 6 months) and 3 eow oyer 5 yetl~s omiddotf age (averuge 6 yetli 3 110nths) The unishyrOlmity of di~tlibution in number of (OS with resped to age in the 1 groups indi~Htes that age llilferemes lle 1I0t a serious dishubing factor III intelpleting the effects of inbreeding in this study

VEIGlITS AND MEASUREMENTS USED IN ANALYSIS

Thidy-one different wtigllts 01 measurements for eaeh animal were used ill this Rnnlysis They include 3 body measurements taken just prior to slaughttl live weights tnken at 3 different periods of life und 25 w(middotights and measurements of organs llnd body parts obtained after slallhter

Althongh 35 external body measurements were obtained prior to slaughter in otdet to minimize detail only 3 (height at withers width of hips and length from withers to pinoone) were selected to represhystnt the 3 body dimensions height width and length The live ~eights used ere taken at 18 1110nths of age at apploxilluttely 3 months aHel first calving and again when the animal was measured prior to slaughter Uddfl capaeity was determined by filling the seeretotY systenl with fluid and meilsuring the quantity held

Records of milk and buttelint produCtion also were used Since most ot the production reeords were made lIUling the first lactation and commenced at nges ranginp from 2 to 2~~ yep S those that were made at other ages were adjusted to the baSI of the average age of first calving whiehwns 2 years 2 months and 10 clays The vario1s items weLpound c1hicled into six grou ps as follows (1) Those representing bod~ weight Otmiddot mnss (2) those whidl indiCate keletn1 size (3) the internal organs (4) the endolrineglnIHI (5) the udelll and (6) miik llnd butttdut produetioll records AWl~ilge values were ued as a basis for comparison

8 lECHNICAIJ BU~LErlIN 000 U S DEPl OF AaIUCUW~UHE

PRESENTATION AND DISCUSSION OF RESULTS

rhe data hae blen tabulated in fOllr glOllp~ (table 1) according bull to the intensity of inbreeding of the cows included In the study Averages fOl ~~ach item of weight and meaSlllllIlellt are given fOl tlie outby~d grollp andf~)l ellc) of th~ three inble(~ groups The average coef6CHllt of Ilbreedlllg IS shown III eaeh ease for the number of cows [epresented in each item of weight or meaSu~elllellt Pelcentllges mkulated 011 the basis of 100 pCIeent for thl outbled glOUP ale givell to lhow the changes ill size of elleh item of weight 01 IIItaSUIelllent as illb[eeding was intemiified

C0l11palllble tlata showing the relative Illtlll~I than the adua] Inagnishytude of th( vlllious ittllls of weight 01 tnNIHlIlellllnt all~ given ill tuble 2 in whi(h the data are IlItangltI ill tIlt Same manllel as in table 1 The values given Ieprcsent the numbcr of units of weight (ll measurement JOt eueh 100 pounds 0 f elll pty body weight of the unimal Empty body weight iR the diflellnce between tl1e live weight of the IInimal illdllldiately uefore slaughtel alld the weight of the contents of the dil(sthe tliltt Scvtllll itemgt givell in tuble 1 WtI( omittedholll tuble 2 llH tltey wem not nHtj(d by empty body w(ight ut slallghlN TIll llull1blI of anilllais 1lPINillItillg S01lle items i II table 2 ~Hfi Silla1IlI tha n i II table I blea IIHe (lIlpl) bod)~ weight waS 1I0t detell1lI llNi for nil cows

bull

bull

6 TECHNICAL BULLETJN 990 U S DEPT OF AGRICULTURE

EXA~PLE E

bull 2iHIH

_--148bullbullbull

bull

bull

i

bull

bull

bull

INBREEDDrG OF GRADE HOLSTEIN emv

Example E shows the pedigree of the cow A-148 tl11lt had an inbreedshying coetlicient of 6Ui percent This waS the highest in the group and the inbreeding coeffident of 581 petcent for her dam was next to the highest fotmiddot the cows included in this study Coefficients for other female Ilncpoundstors of A-148 were 504 percent for cow A-106 379 pershycent for cow A-SO~ 328 percent for cow A-26 lind 250 percent for cow A-3

AGE AND NUMBER OF Cows IN THE INURED GROUPS

Thirty-fouL of the 71 cows in this stUlly were under 5 years of age (averaomiddote 3 years 10 months) ancl37 were over 5 years (averae 8 years 6 lllont11s) at the time of slaughtetmiddot [n the outbred group tllere were 10 under 5 years (average 3 yenls 8 months) and 12 ovel 5 yenrs (average 9 yellS 4 months) In the gronp with the lowest inbreeding coelikients (below 30) thele were 6 cows under 5 yetlS (I1vernge 1 years) llnd 9 cows over 5 ~enrs (nvelge S yeals H months) The middle inbte(l glOUP (eoetliclents betwlen 30 und 49) contained 14 cows unclet 5 yeats (nveluge 3 yetUS 11 months) tnelI3 cows over 5 yealS (average 8 yenls) ihe 11ighly inbred group laquo(oeflicients betwten 50 and (9) contained 4 cows unclrr 5 years (ayetage 3 years 6 months) and 3 eow oyer 5 yetl~s omiddotf age (averuge 6 yetli 3 110nths) The unishyrOlmity of di~tlibution in number of (OS with resped to age in the 1 groups indi~Htes that age llilferemes lle 1I0t a serious dishubing factor III intelpleting the effects of inbreeding in this study

VEIGlITS AND MEASUREMENTS USED IN ANALYSIS

Thidy-one different wtigllts 01 measurements for eaeh animal were used ill this Rnnlysis They include 3 body measurements taken just prior to slaughttl live weights tnken at 3 different periods of life und 25 w(middotights and measurements of organs llnd body parts obtained after slallhter

Althongh 35 external body measurements were obtained prior to slaughter in otdet to minimize detail only 3 (height at withers width of hips and length from withers to pinoone) were selected to represhystnt the 3 body dimensions height width and length The live ~eights used ere taken at 18 1110nths of age at apploxilluttely 3 months aHel first calving and again when the animal was measured prior to slaughter Uddfl capaeity was determined by filling the seeretotY systenl with fluid and meilsuring the quantity held

Records of milk and buttelint produCtion also were used Since most ot the production reeords were made lIUling the first lactation and commenced at nges ranginp from 2 to 2~~ yep S those that were made at other ages were adjusted to the baSI of the average age of first calving whiehwns 2 years 2 months and 10 clays The vario1s items weLpound c1hicled into six grou ps as follows (1) Those representing bod~ weight Otmiddot mnss (2) those whidl indiCate keletn1 size (3) the internal organs (4) the endolrineglnIHI (5) the udelll and (6) miik llnd butttdut produetioll records AWl~ilge values were ued as a basis for comparison

8 lECHNICAIJ BU~LErlIN 000 U S DEPl OF AaIUCUW~UHE

PRESENTATION AND DISCUSSION OF RESULTS

rhe data hae blen tabulated in fOllr glOllp~ (table 1) according bull to the intensity of inbreeding of the cows included In the study Averages fOl ~~ach item of weight and meaSlllllIlellt are given fOl tlie outby~d grollp andf~)l ellc) of th~ three inble(~ groups The average coef6CHllt of Ilbreedlllg IS shown III eaeh ease for the number of cows [epresented in each item of weight or meaSu~elllellt Pelcentllges mkulated 011 the basis of 100 pCIeent for thl outbled glOUP ale givell to lhow the changes ill size of elleh item of weight 01 IIItaSUIelllent as illb[eeding was intemiified

C0l11palllble tlata showing the relative Illtlll~I than the adua] Inagnishytude of th( vlllious ittllls of weight 01 tnNIHlIlellllnt all~ given ill tuble 2 in whi(h the data are IlItangltI ill tIlt Same manllel as in table 1 The values given Ieprcsent the numbcr of units of weight (ll measurement JOt eueh 100 pounds 0 f elll pty body weight of the unimal Empty body weight iR the diflellnce between tl1e live weight of the IInimal illdllldiately uefore slaughtel alld the weight of the contents of the dil(sthe tliltt Scvtllll itemgt givell in tuble 1 WtI( omittedholll tuble 2 llH tltey wem not nHtj(d by empty body w(ight ut slallghlN TIll llull1blI of anilllais 1lPINillItillg S01lle items i II table 2 ~Hfi Silla1IlI tha n i II table I blea IIHe (lIlpl) bod)~ weight waS 1I0t detell1lI llNi for nil cows

bull

bull

i

bull

bull

bull

INBREEDDrG OF GRADE HOLSTEIN emv

Example E shows the pedigree of the cow A-148 tl11lt had an inbreedshying coetlicient of 6Ui percent This waS the highest in the group and the inbreeding coeffident of 581 petcent for her dam was next to the highest fotmiddot the cows included in this study Coefficients for other female Ilncpoundstors of A-148 were 504 percent for cow A-106 379 pershycent for cow A-SO~ 328 percent for cow A-26 lind 250 percent for cow A-3

AGE AND NUMBER OF Cows IN THE INURED GROUPS

Thirty-fouL of the 71 cows in this stUlly were under 5 years of age (averaomiddote 3 years 10 months) ancl37 were over 5 years (averae 8 years 6 lllont11s) at the time of slaughtetmiddot [n the outbred group tllere were 10 under 5 years (average 3 yenls 8 months) and 12 ovel 5 yenrs (average 9 yellS 4 months) In the gronp with the lowest inbreeding coelikients (below 30) thele were 6 cows under 5 yetlS (I1vernge 1 years) llnd 9 cows over 5 ~enrs (nvelge S yeals H months) The middle inbte(l glOUP (eoetliclents betwlen 30 und 49) contained 14 cows unclet 5 yeats (nveluge 3 yetUS 11 months) tnelI3 cows over 5 yealS (average 8 yenls) ihe 11ighly inbred group laquo(oeflicients betwten 50 and (9) contained 4 cows unclrr 5 years (ayetage 3 years 6 months) and 3 eow oyer 5 yetl~s omiddotf age (averuge 6 yetli 3 110nths) The unishyrOlmity of di~tlibution in number of (OS with resped to age in the 1 groups indi~Htes that age llilferemes lle 1I0t a serious dishubing factor III intelpleting the effects of inbreeding in this study

VEIGlITS AND MEASUREMENTS USED IN ANALYSIS

Thidy-one different wtigllts 01 measurements for eaeh animal were used ill this Rnnlysis They include 3 body measurements taken just prior to slaughttl live weights tnken at 3 different periods of life und 25 w(middotights and measurements of organs llnd body parts obtained after slallhter

Althongh 35 external body measurements were obtained prior to slaughter in otdet to minimize detail only 3 (height at withers width of hips and length from withers to pinoone) were selected to represhystnt the 3 body dimensions height width and length The live ~eights used ere taken at 18 1110nths of age at apploxilluttely 3 months aHel first calving and again when the animal was measured prior to slaughter Uddfl capaeity was determined by filling the seeretotY systenl with fluid and meilsuring the quantity held

Records of milk and buttelint produCtion also were used Since most ot the production reeords were made lIUling the first lactation and commenced at nges ranginp from 2 to 2~~ yep S those that were made at other ages were adjusted to the baSI of the average age of first calving whiehwns 2 years 2 months and 10 clays The vario1s items weLpound c1hicled into six grou ps as follows (1) Those representing bod~ weight Otmiddot mnss (2) those whidl indiCate keletn1 size (3) the internal organs (4) the endolrineglnIHI (5) the udelll and (6) miik llnd butttdut produetioll records AWl~ilge values were ued as a basis for comparison

8 lECHNICAIJ BU~LErlIN 000 U S DEPl OF AaIUCUW~UHE

PRESENTATION AND DISCUSSION OF RESULTS

rhe data hae blen tabulated in fOllr glOllp~ (table 1) according bull to the intensity of inbreeding of the cows included In the study Averages fOl ~~ach item of weight and meaSlllllIlellt are given fOl tlie outby~d grollp andf~)l ellc) of th~ three inble(~ groups The average coef6CHllt of Ilbreedlllg IS shown III eaeh ease for the number of cows [epresented in each item of weight or meaSu~elllellt Pelcentllges mkulated 011 the basis of 100 pCIeent for thl outbled glOUP ale givell to lhow the changes ill size of elleh item of weight 01 IIItaSUIelllent as illb[eeding was intemiified

C0l11palllble tlata showing the relative Illtlll~I than the adua] Inagnishytude of th( vlllious ittllls of weight 01 tnNIHlIlellllnt all~ given ill tuble 2 in whi(h the data are IlItangltI ill tIlt Same manllel as in table 1 The values given Ieprcsent the numbcr of units of weight (ll measurement JOt eueh 100 pounds 0 f elll pty body weight of the unimal Empty body weight iR the diflellnce between tl1e live weight of the IInimal illdllldiately uefore slaughtel alld the weight of the contents of the dil(sthe tliltt Scvtllll itemgt givell in tuble 1 WtI( omittedholll tuble 2 llH tltey wem not nHtj(d by empty body w(ight ut slallghlN TIll llull1blI of anilllais 1lPINillItillg S01lle items i II table 2 ~Hfi Silla1IlI tha n i II table I blea IIHe (lIlpl) bod)~ weight waS 1I0t detell1lI llNi for nil cows

bull

bull

8 lECHNICAIJ BU~LErlIN 000 U S DEPl OF AaIUCUW~UHE

PRESENTATION AND DISCUSSION OF RESULTS

rhe data hae blen tabulated in fOllr glOllp~ (table 1) according bull to the intensity of inbreeding of the cows included In the study Averages fOl ~~ach item of weight and meaSlllllIlellt are given fOl tlie outby~d grollp andf~)l ellc) of th~ three inble(~ groups The average coef6CHllt of Ilbreedlllg IS shown III eaeh ease for the number of cows [epresented in each item of weight or meaSu~elllellt Pelcentllges mkulated 011 the basis of 100 pCIeent for thl outbled glOUP ale givell to lhow the changes ill size of elleh item of weight 01 IIItaSUIelllent as illb[eeding was intemiified

C0l11palllble tlata showing the relative Illtlll~I than the adua] Inagnishytude of th( vlllious ittllls of weight 01 tnNIHlIlellllnt all~ given ill tuble 2 in whi(h the data are IlItangltI ill tIlt Same manllel as in table 1 The values given Ieprcsent the numbcr of units of weight (ll measurement JOt eueh 100 pounds 0 f elll pty body weight of the unimal Empty body weight iR the diflellnce between tl1e live weight of the IInimal illdllldiately uefore slaughtel alld the weight of the contents of the dil(sthe tliltt Scvtllll itemgt givell in tuble 1 WtI( omittedholll tuble 2 llH tltey wem not nHtj(d by empty body w(ight ut slallghlN TIll llull1blI of anilllais 1lPINillItillg S01lle items i II table 2 ~Hfi Silla1IlI tha n i II table I blea IIHe (lIlpl) bod)~ weight waS 1I0t detell1lI llNi for nil cows

bull

bull

bull TAutI- L-If(cl oj iulJleedillg on 8iZ(l of body and its pWis allli on eC0Id8 of milk and butte~fat p7oduation e0shy

pies8ed in actual units of Ioeigltt 01 111 easul(ment ~ I------~-------------------------------------------------------------------

bull I Inbred groups with inbreeding coefficients of- Re1ation of weight~ or measurement for o i Outbred group each inbred group

to that of the outshys 10 to 29 percent 30 to 49 perccnt 50 to 69 percent bred group ~ I

I tII

Wlight or 11I(IlSlIfllII(lIt lIl I tl=

First SecondlThird tlAerage Average AVeragc Aycragc inbred inbred inbred 11 weight or weig1lLor wcightor weight or

Cows Cows Cows group group group ZIllCIllureshy mcasureshy mcasureshy lllCllSurcshy (10- (30- (50- 0loow 1____mcnt mcnt ment mentI 29) 49) 69) ~ ---- --1-- --- shy0

- lVIIII- Per- IPer- Per- lIl cent cent c-entilody wli)ht or mass I ber 1 POllnds I Number I Pounds INumber Pounds Number Pounds 11

Lin weight aUS months 15 86300 15 (235) 76500 27 (392) 771 00 7 (545) 74400 8861 893 882 tl Live weight about 3 _ pjmonths aftcr 1st cuIL__ 18103000 il4 (230)1 98700 26 (389) 97000 7 (545) 93500 958 942 908

0Licwcigh(ntslullghter__ 221123800 115 (235)116700 27 (392)113900 7 (545)II0400 943 920 89 2 t Enptybodyweight______ 2011~357 15 (23~) 94957 27 (392) ~~703 7 (545) 88460 91 7 856 854 (Jl

92 2 370 84 7 ~~a~~~~~~~~~~~~--~l~~~-~-5 (230) 57102 27 (392) v3862 7 (545) 52472 ------shy ~ 125 896 87 3

0 Skeletal size ICentillletersl Icentimetersl CentimeterslI Icenli

n

~ Highl 111 yithers________ 22 I~3 77 Il~ (235) 13L 48 27 (392) 13247 7 (54 5) 1~2 86 98 3 990 993 (JlIdlhof hIJls____________ 22 v495 Iv (235) 5362 27 (392) 5491 7 (545) v4 50 976 999 992 I~englh withers to pinshybones ________________ _ 20 141 85 14 (233) 13846 27 (39 2) 13953 7 (54 5) 14146 976 98 4 997 Depth of thoracic cavitv

(maximum) __________~_ 22 49 49 15 (235) 47 38 27 (392) 47 59 7 (54 5) 48 25 957 962 975 Width of thoracic cavity

(7th rib) ____________~_ 34 50 98 5 97522 35 37 15 (235) 3517 27 (39 2) 34 83 7 (545) 994 Se~ footnote at Ind of tuble ~

bull bull bull

~rr~JlL 1-Eliect oiwJ1eeding on size 0 body and its pm-ta and on records of milk and butterfat production ercprused in actuaZ units of weight or 1nea8u1emen~ontinued

o

8 Irj

Outbred group ~ 30 to 49 percent 50 to 69 percent ~

leight or IlIClIliUrelllent tzlc ~ IrjCows

~ 0) 0)

o N1I111- i J I Pershy Pershy Pershy

ber Pounds Nu11Iber Pounds Nllmber Pounds INumber Pounds lent rent rent SIAlngth of thoracic cavity 80 5 5l~~~~)~ _ 21_ ~~ ~ ~~~ ) __~bullbull 7 (30l~L ~~T ~ 1bull1 11~ 1

1

~ ~ tI

Internal or~ans Pountis

p

Pounds I Pounds I POUllM ~ Weight of henrt__________ 2] 433]5 (235) 4]6 27 (392) 374 Ii (545) 366 96 1 86 4 84 5 oWeight of lungs_______ _ _ 21 83] 15 (235) 953 27 (392) 963 Ii (54 i5) 946 1147 1159 1138 Isj

~eght of liver___________ 0 15 O l~ (23~) 1544 127 (392) 14 77 7 (~4~) 1431 1029 984 953 gtClghtofstomachs_____ _1 362 1ltgt (23ltraquo 3533 27 (392) 3432 7 (gt4raquo 3303 974 94 6 91 1 0 arams Grams Grams Grams e

Weight of brain__________ 22 4285 15 (235) 4255 27 (392) 4078 7 (545) 3853 9931 952 899 o Weight of 5ploen_________ 21 8642 15 (235) 8753 27 (392) 8242 7 (545) 8202 101 3 954 949 t

c Weight of kidneys________ 22 ]2460 14 (233) 12132 26 (392) 11804 7 (545) 1 1961 974 94 7 960 ~

]lEeters jVeters ltleters Meters Imiddot ~ d 0Longth oCntetinM bull ___ 21 5amp 84 15 (235) 5amp 06 7 (39 ) 5786 7 (5U) 6083 os 7 31103 4 Irj

Avcragc _______________ ------ ---------- --- ______1__________ --------- ---------- --------1----------1 1010) 97 4 ~ I I I --shy

bull bull

--

---------- --------- ---------- --------- ---------- ------------------

--

--------

--

bull Endp~rille gla~ds I Grams I (rolllS I (trams Grams

eIght of pltUltary _____ 22 359 15 (235) 34726 (39 3) 331 l7 (545) 288 96 7 922 802 ight of pillCaL ______ 1 12 2517 11 (23 7) 2middot17318 (389) 249414 (554) 2500 983 991 993 Wtightof thyroid__ bull __ _o O 347 14 (242) 385 126 (38 9) 354 7 (545) 463 1110 1020 1334 eght of parathyroids _ 111 13]8 7 (25 9) 162918 (400) ]111 5 (559) 0760 123 6 843 577 WeIgh t of pllllcrells__ bull _ _ 21 -145 5 14 (23 0) 386 lt1 27 (39 2) 364 1 7 (545) 355 0 86 7 81 7 797 Weight of ndroullls _______ 22 285 14 (233) 30 0 27 (392) 29 7 7 (545) 288 1953 104 2 101 1

Averllg( ____ _______ bull __ bull - - ---- ~--- -- -------1middot -- -- ---------- -------- ---------- 1036 939 91 9 -~- --- shy---- ~

Udder I lIj tlW~~ight of udder (lcctllt-l Po u (Ids Poundsl Pounds Pounds tlIIlg) _____ _bull __ bull _ bull bull _ 9 4216 7 (198) 31 13 8 (358 3533 3 (507) 2282 73 8 838 54 1 t7

Weight of udder (dry) _ __ ]3 2783 8 (26 7) 2648 18 (4035 2254 3 (54 9) 1923 95 1 81 0 69 1 ~-__- alAverage ___ ________ t __ - _ - -- - ---- -- - - ~- -- _-- - _----- -----_ ----------- 845 824 61 6

-- ---- ~ Capacity of udder (lactatshying) _______ bull ____ __ bull __ C4 5414 6(189) 5267 5 (362) 5715 3 (50 7~ 3815 973 1056 70 5 lIjCapllt-ity of udder (dry) ___ 9 38 02 7 (26 9) 3074 14 (41 2) 3243 2 (533 4782 809 853 1258 gtshy

~ Averag____ bull __ bull _ _ __ ----- -- ----- --------- ----_ _--- --------- ---------- --- ---- ------- -- 891 955 982

Hlllio of cnpacity to weight Pcrrcnt Percellt Perrelli Pcrcent m (I11ctatJlJgL ___________ 4 145 97 6 (18 9) 167 72 5 (36 2) 180 74 3 (507) 16595 114 9 1238 113 7

Ratio of capacity to weight(dry) _________________ ~ 9 132 14 7 (269) 122 92 14 (41 2) 135 29 2 (53 3) 22672 930 1024 171 6 ---- z

ACTllgC _____ bull ________ 1040 1131 142 7 ------ ---------- --------- ---------- --------- ---------- -------- ---------- g Production records Pounds Pounds Pounds Poundsllilk____ _______ bullbullbull _____ ~ 21 12306 15 (235) 13202 24 (39 2) 12635 6 (52 8) 11343 1073 102 7 922

ButtcrfaL_______________ 21 459 15 (235) 466 24 (392) 427 101 5 930 82 6 Average _______________

6 (528)1 379

104 4 979 874

1 Figures ill parentheses show thc average inbreeding coefficient of the cows represented

bull bull

--

---------- --------- ---------- --------- ---------- ------------------

--

--------

--

bull Endp~rille gla~ds I Grams I (rolllS I (trams Grams

eIght of pltUltary _____ 22 359 15 (235) 34726 (39 3) 331 l7 (545) 288 96 7 922 802 ight of pillCaL ______ 1 12 2517 11 (23 7) 2middot17318 (389) 249414 (554) 2500 983 991 993 Wtightof thyroid__ bull __ _o O 347 14 (242) 385 126 (38 9) 354 7 (545) 463 1110 1020 1334 eght of parathyroids _ 111 13]8 7 (25 9) 162918 (400) ]111 5 (559) 0760 123 6 843 577 WeIgh t of pllllcrells__ bull _ _ 21 -145 5 14 (23 0) 386 lt1 27 (39 2) 364 1 7 (545) 355 0 86 7 81 7 797 Weight of ndroullls _______ 22 285 14 (233) 30 0 27 (392) 29 7 7 (545) 288 1953 104 2 101 1

Averllg( ____ _______ bull __ bull - - ---- ~--- -- -------1middot -- -- ---------- -------- ---------- 1036 939 91 9 -~- --- shy---- ~

Udder I lIj tlW~~ight of udder (lcctllt-l Po u (Ids Poundsl Pounds Pounds tlIIlg) _____ _bull __ bull _ bull bull _ 9 4216 7 (198) 31 13 8 (358 3533 3 (507) 2282 73 8 838 54 1 t7

Weight of udder (dry) _ __ ]3 2783 8 (26 7) 2648 18 (4035 2254 3 (54 9) 1923 95 1 81 0 69 1 ~-__- alAverage ___ ________ t __ - _ - -- - ---- -- - - ~- -- _-- - _----- -----_ ----------- 845 824 61 6

-- ---- ~ Capacity of udder (lactatshying) _______ bull ____ __ bull __ C4 5414 6(189) 5267 5 (362) 5715 3 (50 7~ 3815 973 1056 70 5 lIjCapllt-ity of udder (dry) ___ 9 38 02 7 (26 9) 3074 14 (41 2) 3243 2 (533 4782 809 853 1258 gtshy

~ Averag____ bull __ bull _ _ __ ----- -- ----- --------- ----_ _--- --------- ---------- --- ---- ------- -- 891 955 982

Hlllio of cnpacity to weight Pcrrcnt Percellt Perrelli Pcrcent m (I11ctatJlJgL ___________ 4 145 97 6 (18 9) 167 72 5 (36 2) 180 74 3 (507) 16595 114 9 1238 113 7

Ratio of capacity to weight(dry) _________________ ~ 9 132 14 7 (269) 122 92 14 (41 2) 135 29 2 (53 3) 22672 930 1024 171 6 ---- z

ACTllgC _____ bull ________ 1040 1131 142 7 ------ ---------- --------- ---------- --------- ---------- -------- ---------- g Production records Pounds Pounds Pounds Poundsllilk____ _______ bullbullbull _____ ~ 21 12306 15 (235) 13202 24 (39 2) 12635 6 (52 8) 11343 1073 102 7 922

ButtcrfaL_______________ 21 459 15 (235) 466 24 (392) 427 101 5 930 82 6 Average _______________

6 (528)1 379

104 4 979 874

1 Figures ill parentheses show thc average inbreeding coefficient of the cows represented

---------

------ ---------- ---------- --------- --------- -------- --------- --------

---------------------- ---------------------

TABLE 2-Effect 0 inbreeding on size 0 body and its 7Jarts e1ple88ed in units 0 weight or mea8Ulement per 100 ~ pounds of empty bodyllJeiqht

Inbred groups with inbreeding coefficients of- Relation of weight to5 or measurement for

Outbred group each inbred group ~ to that of the10 to 29 percent 30 to 49 percent 50 to 69 percent outbred group ~

t

Weight or measurement tr7Average Average Average Average c per 100 per 100 per 100 per 100 First Second Third t

t pounds pOllnds pounds pounds inbred inbred inbred tCows Cows Cows Cows l emIgtty empty empty empty group group group ~

body body bod body (10-29) (30-49) (50-69J sa weight weight weight weight

= =

flu1l- Per- Per- Per-~o

Bodv weiht or mass ber Pounds Number Pounds Number Pounds Number Pounds cent cent cent c Live w~ight at sJaughter__ 20 121 09 15 (235) 12320 27 (39 2) 128 61 7 (545) 12485 101 7 1062 103 1 Weight of carcass________ 20 61 00 15 (23 5) 60 10 27 (39 2) 6059 7 (545) 5946 985 993 975 l

----- ---------------- -------------Average _______________ tj1001 1028 100 3 tlt

Il

Centi- Centi- Centi- Centi- 3 Skeletal size meters lIIeters meters lIIeters

Height at withers________ o20 1302 15 (23 5) 1398 27 (39 2) 1507 7 (54 5) 1515 1074 1157 1164 JWidth ofhips____________ -- 20 5 35 15 (235) 568 27 (39 2~ 623 7 (545) 620 1062 1164 1159

Length withers to pinbones 20 1376 14 (233) 14 81 27 (392 15 85 7 (54 5) 1610 1076 1152 1170 ~ Depth of thoracic cavity E(maAimum) ____________ 20 4 79 15 (23 5) 5 05 27 (392) 541 7 (54 5) 634 1054 1129 1324 o Width of thoracic cavity

(7th rib) ______________ 20 345 15 (23 5) 373 27 (392) 396 7 (54 5) 393 1081 114 8 1139 Length of thoracic cavity

(maximum) ____________ ~ 20 785 15 (235) 8 73 27 (392) 923 7 (54 5) 928 1112 1176 1182 tlt

Average __________________________________________________ 107 7 1154 1190--------- _------ ---------r------shy

bull j bull

bull bull

bull bull bull Internal organs Pounds Pounds I Poullds Poullds

Weight of hearL ________ bull 20 42 15 (235) 44 27 (392) 42 7 (54 5) 41 1048 1000 976 Weightoflungs__________ 20 81 15 (235) 101 27 (392) 109 7 (545) 108 1247 134 6 1333 eght of lhr_______ __ 19 1 46 1~ (23~) 1 63 27 (39 2) 1 67 7 (54 5) L 63 1116 1144 1116 C1ghtof stomachs __ ___ 19 348 1 (23) 373 27 (392) 389 7 (545) 374 1072 111 8 1075

Grams Grams Grams Grams Weight of brain___ bull _ _ 20 41 74 15 (23 5) 45 24 27 (392) 4641 7 (M 5) 4381 Im~4 1112 1050 Wcightofsplccn_________ 20 8269 15 (235) 927] 27 (392) 9305 7 (545) 9318 1121 112 5 1127 Weight of kidncys________ 20 12016 14 (233) 12757 26 (392) 13303 7 (545) 13594 1062 110 7 1131 ~

Meters JleteTs JldlTS Jfeters Length of intestincs_ __ _ _ 20 576 15 (235) 6 17 27 (392) 559 7 (545) 693 1071 1144 120 3 ~

l

112SAveragc______ - - __ ___ ~-~l------- ---1--- -- -----1---- ----- --- -----1- -- ---- _J ___ bullbull -- -------- --- 110 3 113 7 tgtj

l Z

Endocrine glands Grams Grams Grams Grams ~

Weight of pituitary____ ___ 20 35 15 (235) 37 26 (393) 37 7 (54 5) 33 1057 1057 943 Weight of pincaL________ 12 0250 11 (237) 026718 389) 0291 4 (554) 0289 1068 1164 1156

o gtj

Weight of thyroid_______ - 19 335 14 (24 2) 4 00 26 (38 9) middott 01 7 (545) 531 1194 1197 158 5 oWeight of parathyroids___ 11 _0130 7 (259) 017818 (400) 0123 5 (559) 0086 1369 946 662 0 eght of pancrc~-------1 20 4289 14 (230) 41 04 27 (392) 41 23 7 (~4_ 5) 4005 95_ 7 961 934 gt

lfClght of adrcnals_______ 20 268 14 (233) 315 27 (392) 334 7 (a4 5) 324 1175 12461 1209 l -- Average_______________I______ 1__________ ---------- --------- --------- -------- -------- ------ 1137 1095 108 2 l o

rdder Pounds Pounds Pounds Pounds ~ Weight of udder (lactating) 7 4 46 7 (198) 324 8 (358)1 4 19 3 (507)1 251 720 939 563 tjWeight of udder (dry) ___ _ 13 269 8 (267) 282 18 (403) 246 3 (549) 2 12 1048 914 788 Z

887 927 676 oc~~-~~~~-(~~~-j--~--- ----------1---------- --------T-------- -------- --------- -------- =a o

ing)__________________ 4 520 6 (189) 556 5 (362) 685 3 (507) 4 15 I 1069 131 7 798 rP

c~-~~d-e-~~~~~~~ _____ ~ ____ ~~~~____ ~_~~~~~~ ___~~~~__ ~~_~~~~~~ __ ~~~~__I-~-~~~~~~ --~~~~J 1 ________________~____________~______~________~----~I----- 1

Figures in parentheses show the average inbreeding coefficient for the cows represented ~

0)

I

14 LECHNTCAL BULLETIN 990 U S DFlP~l OF AGRTCUULURE

EFFECT OF INBREEDING ON SIZE OF COW AND HER BODY PARIS

For the items representing body mass a defillH~ decline in the per centages bused on actual units accompanied an increase in the coeillshydent of inbreeding (table 1) Averages of the percentages for the five items representing body mass for the three inbred groups are 925 896 and 873 L-espectively showing Llt as inbrceding became more intense the size of the animal decreased On an average the animals having til) highest degree of inbreeding were nearly 13 percent below the outbred animals in size Thi~ is somewhat less than the 20 pershycent decline in guinea pigs reported by Eaton (3) where inbreeding was carried on for many generations In this connection it should be stated that the data on inbreeding of dairy cows were compiled enshytirely on the basis of coefficient of inbleedmg without regard to the generation despite the fact thnt in some cases high coefficients occurred In the early generations

Empty body weight is a basic value representing body weight unshyaffected by fill thus it is significant that the downward trend in percen~ages was nearly the same for empty body middotweight as for the other Items representing body weight That IS the empty body wei~ht was 854 percent as great in the group of cows having the highshyest mbreeding coeflicients 50-6raquo as in the_ ontbred gronp whelf-as the average of all items representing body size was 873 percent as great It is noteworthy also that the decline in weights taken after first calving is almost the same as the decline in weights taken at time of slaughter wllich shows that the eftect of inbreeding was essentially as glmiddoteat in early life as at the time of slaughter The question of whether or not the inbred animals middotwere in relatively poorer condition may be raised It is difficnlL to obtain an accurate measure of the degree of flesh or fatness but such differences did not appear to have been a seriously disturbing factor

In view of the marked downward trend in percentages for body weight with intensifiecl inbreeding a tabulation was made to detershymine whether or not the period during middotwhich the cows in the various groups were present in the herd had any influence on their body size at time of slaughter It lyaS found that 11 of the ontbred cows were slaughtered prior to the end of 1934 and 11 at later dates in the first inbred group (10-29)7 were slaughtered before and 8 after the end of 1934 in the secone) inbred group (30-49) 12 were slaughtered before and 15 after that date and in the most highly inbred group (50-69) 2 were slaughtered before and 5 after the end of 1934 Therefore in view of the fact that the outbred animals were so well distributed throughout the period of time covered by the experiment there is no reason to believe that as a class they had any advantage over the inbred animals with respect to any changes in environmental conditions that may have occurred Both the outbled and the inbred cows were kept in the same herd rhus if the inbred animals were smaller than the outbred animals it would appear that the difference was the result of inbreeding mthel than of any differences in environment

The trends in percentages based on units of weight or measurement pel 100 pOllnds of empty body weight may be expected to differ conshysidernbly from those based on actual units as they have a somewhat diffewnt sigllifi(nnce III general so long as the size or the body 01 of

bull

bull

bull

bull

bull

bull

INBREEDING OF GRADE HOLSlEfN COVS 15

any of its palmiddotts declines 01 increases in the same proportion as the animals empty body weight the percentages showing the relative size (last 3 columlls in table 2) will all be applox imately 100 If an organ or part declines rebrularly with inbreeding to a ~reatel relative degree than empty body weight the percentages will tJe below 100 and will u~ve a downward trend Similarly if t~le organs lt1 body parts deshyelms more slowly than empty body weJ~ht remlllll stationary 01

increase in size wIth increased intensity of l1lbleecling while the empty body weight declines they will represent a higher proportion of the total animal structure and the percentages will bf above 100 Uuder these circulllstances an upward trend in percentages will occur if the Qlgan weights remain stationary 01 if their inneases ale progressive

It JUtS been noted that the downward trend in percentages based on actual units was nearly the same on an averagc tor empty body weight as for the other items representing body size Howdver the pershycentages based on units per 100 pounds of empty body eight were all neat lOO-the ttvclllges TOl the three inbred groups being 1001 1028 ancl 1003 respectively (table 2)-il1dicating again that live weight and weight of carcass declined in almost the same proportion as empty body weight

Of the six items representing skeletal si~le three are body dimensions (height width and length) measured before slaughter and three are dimensions of the thoracic cltvity (depth width and length) obtained by measUlmiddotjng the dressed calcass In the case of every item the pershycentages based 011 actual units are all close to 100 and there is no sigshynificant trend with increase in inbree~ing The averages of the pershycentages for the six itCims are 984 988 and 991 respectively for the three inbred gloups (table 1) which shows that inbreeding had no appreciable effect on skeletal size as indicated by the measurements selected regardless of whether they were external body measurements of the living animal 01 of the thoracic cavity obtained after slaughter As explained previous1y when any body part re111[1ins unchanged by inbreeding while the empty body weight declines the percentages based on empty body weight that show proportional size are above 100 and show an upwllrd trend In this case the avernges of the percentshyages for the six measured items are 1077 1154 and 1190 respectively (table 2) The actual skeletal size of the anima1s was not affected to any appreciable extent by inbreeding but the relation of size of body frame to mass was definitely increased

For the internal organs the results were less consistent Some of the Olgans increased anel some decreased in size with inbreeding The brain showed an actual decline of about 10 percent but became larger in relation to body mass The heart (auricles attached) decreased in size in almost the Sltme proportion as the body mass items (including empty body middotweight) i consequently the relative size of the heart reshymained essentially lffichungecl It is 110t surprising that size of heart closely follows the body mass in view of the Tact that the heart is related to functional demands and consequently to body mass since it serves all of the tissues of the body

The actual weight of the lungs was substantially greater in the inshybred groups than in the outbrccl group but the welght did not change 11pplccinbly as the coefficient of inbreeding increased The relative weight of lungs however was definitely greater in the inbred groups

16 TECHNICAL BULLETIN 990 U S DEPT OF AGRICULTURE

and showed a tendency to inctense with intensity of inbreeding The percentages were 1247 1846 und 1333 respectively in the three inbred groups as compared with the outbred group (table 2) bull

The weigat of liver remained more stable than some of the other organs In the first inbred group the liver wrlslightly heavier than in the outbted group but the weight decreased slightly as inbreeding became more intense However the weight of liver did not decline as rapidly as the net weight of the animal with the result that the JiveI leplesented a cOllsiderably higher proportion of the total animlll strucshyture in all inbred groups than in the outbted group Chall~es in the w~ight of spleen followed ueady the same course as the changes in the weight of liver

There was a steady decline III welght of stomachs (total for rumen reticulum omaSllm and abomasum) as the coefficient of inbteeding inshycreased but the decline did not keep pace with the derline in body muss The stomachs therefore represented a higher proportion of the totul body in the inbred gwups though there was no definite trend as inshytensity of inbreeding increased

Length of intestines was Hot significantly affected bly inbreeding In two inbred groups the length was almost the same as in the outbred ~rollp and in one inbred group it was slightly greater thun in the outshybred group In relation to net or empty body weight the length of intestmes increased ptogressively with illbreec1ing to become 1071 1l4~ and 1203 peleent respectively as compared with 100 percent for the outbred group (table 2)

Weight of kidneys was slightly lower in all of the inbred groups though the weight did not declillc appreciably as intensity of inshyblreeding increased The kidlllYs were lelatively larger in all of the bull inbred groups than ill the olltbrecI group and the pereentages based on empty body weight showed an upward trend (table 2)

In view of the1ll ixed results for themiddot eight items representing internal organs too much significance should not be lttached to averages However there waS a very slight tendency for the organs to be smaller in the cows in the two most highly inbred groups as indicated by pershycentages of 1010 974~ and 961 respectively for the three groups (table 1) In relation to total animal stluellre however the organs averaged about 12 percent greater in the inbred groups than in the outbted group but there was no appreciable trend III percentages among the three inbred grOllps (table 2)

It has been implied (1) that inheritance for any given quality or function may depend to a very great extent on the inheritance of an endocrine btlance More and mOLe attention therefore is being paid to the endocline glands in studies of physiology and anatomy The possible effect of intense inbreeding on the endocline lands obviously is of much interest The pituitary body is considered to be in a sense the control center of the endocrine system and it directly affects various physiological functions such as growth reproduction and lactation For this reaSon the possible effect of inbreeding on this gland is of particular intelest lhc weight of the pituitary body declined progressively as the intensity of inbreeding increased

In the first two inbred groups hi(h ine1ude coefficients up to 49 penellt the c1eeline eoinficlNl (losel) with the decline for live weight bull bllt in the third Qt Illost highly inblecl grollp the pitllitalV body was redllced iruizl to HO2 IllITlnl of its -iz( in the outbred glOup (table 1)

bull

bull

bull

INBREEDING OF GHADE HOLSTElN COWS 17

This is a gteltter reduction than that of live weight empty body weight wei~ht of carcass ot weight of heart wh1(h of nil items disclissed lip to tHis point have shown the most pronounced reduction Pituitary wei~ht not only showed the most malmiddotked reduction in actual weight but It became sIl1ttlletmiddot in relation to empty body weiht in unimals that were greatly reduced in body size The reduction 1Il size of pituitary body was grettte~ than tl(l reduction in milk production and slightly greater thun the reduction in butterfat prod uction

Of course it is not possible without extensive assay work to deshytermine whtther otmiddot not the functional activity of the pituitary body was reduced to the Same degree liS its weght An llccurate IIpplllisal of the significance of the reduced size of pituitary with respect to reductions in body size and in milk and butterfat production is not I)ossible in view of the marked hlCrease ill thYlOid size in the highly inbred cows llnd the fact that the Ildlenals middotwere essentially ulluUected The grlat vIl6ability in size of the endocline glands suggests the possishybility of some endocrine dysfuHction or unbalance

No ilPpreciable change occlllTed in the actual weight of the pineal body us It result of inbtmiddoteeding This means of course that the pineal was somewhat heavier in Ielation to 1Il1pty body weight in the inbred groups than in the outblcd group The weiht of thyroid was considembh rcater in the inbled IY[OUPS

than in th~ outbled gLmiddotOUp The thyroicl ~as by far the largestin the most highly inbred group but the inctcastgt in size was not entirely consistent with the in(rease in int(gtlsity of inbrelding The thYlOid was ~lctllaJly one-third largpound[o in the most highly inbred group (50-69) than ill the outbred group (table 1) In relation to empty body weight the thyroid inClellsed greatly although Hot entirely regularly with inbreeding as the percentages of 1194 119i and 1585 indicate (table 2)

The parathYlOids were lingel in the first inbred group than in the outbred group but as inbrc(ding increased in intellsity the weight of the pamthYLoids deCLlased with extreme rapidity to rellch a minshyimum of 5i pCI(cnt of tlH weight of palatl1yroids recoldedfol thl outbrcd group (table 1) This ltleelinl was so lI11eh more rapid than the decline in empty body wei~ht that the relative size aho reached a minimnm of l(j~ pelcent of thl izl ill the olltbred group (table 2)

The pancreas might with logic bl inclultlld either with the internal organs or with tlw (1Hlocrirl( glulld It is inellded with the r bullbulldo crine glands b((ause it ha lwen inclndlcl in this group in previous stutlhl rite paLlCreas applars to have undergone a minkef1 reduction 1n size with inbrCedillf The pancreas was -mall in all the inble(1 lOUpS und thl nmiddotduetwn in w(light was Plogtlshe although the difshyfeLlnee betw(tn tl-~ outbled gl)up anel the first inbred group was paltiCuladr st _Ilg- The fact (hat the pancreas was relatively sl1utllpl in (lit of Oll inbled gloups than in the Olltbred gloup is indicated by percentages of 9)T 961 and 984 (table 2) Th i~ is the ollly item so fal discussed exctpt weight of carcass for which the relathe size was consistently lower in all inbred groups than in the outlwed group

Th( size or the ldrpna1s llpparpntly was not affected materinlly by inbreC(ling- There was a YCLT slight dec-line in alttull weight as inshybtccding b(CiUlll rnOte intenc but the weight waS higher in every

S37l1G-Hl--3

bull bull bull Internal organs Pounds Pounds I Poullds Poullds

Weight of hearL ________ bull 20 42 15 (235) 44 27 (392) 42 7 (54 5) 41 1048 1000 976 Weightoflungs__________ 20 81 15 (235) 101 27 (392) 109 7 (545) 108 1247 134 6 1333 eght of lhr_______ __ 19 1 46 1~ (23~) 1 63 27 (39 2) 1 67 7 (54 5) L 63 1116 1144 1116 C1ghtof stomachs __ ___ 19 348 1 (23) 373 27 (392) 389 7 (545) 374 1072 111 8 1075

Grams Grams Grams Grams Weight of brain___ bull _ _ 20 41 74 15 (23 5) 45 24 27 (392) 4641 7 (M 5) 4381 Im~4 1112 1050 Wcightofsplccn_________ 20 8269 15 (235) 927] 27 (392) 9305 7 (545) 9318 1121 112 5 1127 Weight of kidncys________ 20 12016 14 (233) 12757 26 (392) 13303 7 (545) 13594 1062 110 7 1131 ~

Meters JleteTs JldlTS Jfeters Length of intestincs_ __ _ _ 20 576 15 (235) 6 17 27 (392) 559 7 (545) 693 1071 1144 120 3 ~

l

112SAveragc______ - - __ ___ ~-~l------- ---1--- -- -----1---- ----- --- -----1- -- ---- _J ___ bullbull -- -------- --- 110 3 113 7 tgtj

l Z

Endocrine glands Grams Grams Grams Grams ~

Weight of pituitary____ ___ 20 35 15 (235) 37 26 (393) 37 7 (54 5) 33 1057 1057 943 Weight of pincaL________ 12 0250 11 (237) 026718 389) 0291 4 (554) 0289 1068 1164 1156

o gtj

Weight of thyroid_______ - 19 335 14 (24 2) 4 00 26 (38 9) middott 01 7 (545) 531 1194 1197 158 5 oWeight of parathyroids___ 11 _0130 7 (259) 017818 (400) 0123 5 (559) 0086 1369 946 662 0 eght of pancrc~-------1 20 4289 14 (230) 41 04 27 (392) 41 23 7 (~4_ 5) 4005 95_ 7 961 934 gt

lfClght of adrcnals_______ 20 268 14 (233) 315 27 (392) 334 7 (a4 5) 324 1175 12461 1209 l -- Average_______________I______ 1__________ ---------- --------- --------- -------- -------- ------ 1137 1095 108 2 l o

rdder Pounds Pounds Pounds Pounds ~ Weight of udder (lactating) 7 4 46 7 (198) 324 8 (358)1 4 19 3 (507)1 251 720 939 563 tjWeight of udder (dry) ___ _ 13 269 8 (267) 282 18 (403) 246 3 (549) 2 12 1048 914 788 Z

887 927 676 oc~~-~~~~-(~~~-j--~--- ----------1---------- --------T-------- -------- --------- -------- =a o

ing)__________________ 4 520 6 (189) 556 5 (362) 685 3 (507) 4 15 I 1069 131 7 798 rP

c~-~~d-e-~~~~~~~ _____ ~ ____ ~~~~____ ~_~~~~~~ ___~~~~__ ~~_~~~~~~ __ ~~~~__I-~-~~~~~~ --~~~~J 1 ________________~____________~______~________~----~I----- 1

Figures in parentheses show the average inbreeding coefficient for the cows represented ~

0)

I

14 LECHNTCAL BULLETIN 990 U S DFlP~l OF AGRTCUULURE

EFFECT OF INBREEDING ON SIZE OF COW AND HER BODY PARIS

For the items representing body mass a defillH~ decline in the per centages bused on actual units accompanied an increase in the coeillshydent of inbreeding (table 1) Averages of the percentages for the five items representing body mass for the three inbred groups are 925 896 and 873 L-espectively showing Llt as inbrceding became more intense the size of the animal decreased On an average the animals having til) highest degree of inbreeding were nearly 13 percent below the outbred animals in size Thi~ is somewhat less than the 20 pershycent decline in guinea pigs reported by Eaton (3) where inbreeding was carried on for many generations In this connection it should be stated that the data on inbreeding of dairy cows were compiled enshytirely on the basis of coefficient of inbleedmg without regard to the generation despite the fact thnt in some cases high coefficients occurred In the early generations

Empty body weight is a basic value representing body weight unshyaffected by fill thus it is significant that the downward trend in percen~ages was nearly the same for empty body middotweight as for the other Items representing body weight That IS the empty body wei~ht was 854 percent as great in the group of cows having the highshyest mbreeding coeflicients 50-6raquo as in the_ ontbred gronp whelf-as the average of all items representing body size was 873 percent as great It is noteworthy also that the decline in weights taken after first calving is almost the same as the decline in weights taken at time of slaughter wllich shows that the eftect of inbreeding was essentially as glmiddoteat in early life as at the time of slaughter The question of whether or not the inbred animals middotwere in relatively poorer condition may be raised It is difficnlL to obtain an accurate measure of the degree of flesh or fatness but such differences did not appear to have been a seriously disturbing factor

In view of the marked downward trend in percentages for body weight with intensifiecl inbreeding a tabulation was made to detershymine whether or not the period during middotwhich the cows in the various groups were present in the herd had any influence on their body size at time of slaughter It lyaS found that 11 of the ontbred cows were slaughtered prior to the end of 1934 and 11 at later dates in the first inbred group (10-29)7 were slaughtered before and 8 after the end of 1934 in the secone) inbred group (30-49) 12 were slaughtered before and 15 after that date and in the most highly inbred group (50-69) 2 were slaughtered before and 5 after the end of 1934 Therefore in view of the fact that the outbred animals were so well distributed throughout the period of time covered by the experiment there is no reason to believe that as a class they had any advantage over the inbred animals with respect to any changes in environmental conditions that may have occurred Both the outbled and the inbred cows were kept in the same herd rhus if the inbred animals were smaller than the outbred animals it would appear that the difference was the result of inbreeding mthel than of any differences in environment

The trends in percentages based on units of weight or measurement pel 100 pOllnds of empty body weight may be expected to differ conshysidernbly from those based on actual units as they have a somewhat diffewnt sigllifi(nnce III general so long as the size or the body 01 of

bull

bull

bull

bull

bull

bull

INBREEDING OF GRADE HOLSlEfN COVS 15

any of its palmiddotts declines 01 increases in the same proportion as the animals empty body weight the percentages showing the relative size (last 3 columlls in table 2) will all be applox imately 100 If an organ or part declines rebrularly with inbreeding to a ~reatel relative degree than empty body weight the percentages will tJe below 100 and will u~ve a downward trend Similarly if t~le organs lt1 body parts deshyelms more slowly than empty body weJ~ht remlllll stationary 01

increase in size wIth increased intensity of l1lbleecling while the empty body weight declines they will represent a higher proportion of the total animal structure and the percentages will bf above 100 Uuder these circulllstances an upward trend in percentages will occur if the Qlgan weights remain stationary 01 if their inneases ale progressive

It JUtS been noted that the downward trend in percentages based on actual units was nearly the same on an averagc tor empty body weight as for the other items representing body size Howdver the pershycentages based on units per 100 pounds of empty body eight were all neat lOO-the ttvclllges TOl the three inbred groups being 1001 1028 ancl 1003 respectively (table 2)-il1dicating again that live weight and weight of carcass declined in almost the same proportion as empty body weight

Of the six items representing skeletal si~le three are body dimensions (height width and length) measured before slaughter and three are dimensions of the thoracic cltvity (depth width and length) obtained by measUlmiddotjng the dressed calcass In the case of every item the pershycentages based 011 actual units are all close to 100 and there is no sigshynificant trend with increase in inbree~ing The averages of the pershycentages for the six itCims are 984 988 and 991 respectively for the three inbred gloups (table 1) which shows that inbreeding had no appreciable effect on skeletal size as indicated by the measurements selected regardless of whether they were external body measurements of the living animal 01 of the thoracic cavity obtained after slaughter As explained previous1y when any body part re111[1ins unchanged by inbreeding while the empty body weight declines the percentages based on empty body weight that show proportional size are above 100 and show an upwllrd trend In this case the avernges of the percentshyages for the six measured items are 1077 1154 and 1190 respectively (table 2) The actual skeletal size of the anima1s was not affected to any appreciable extent by inbreeding but the relation of size of body frame to mass was definitely increased

For the internal organs the results were less consistent Some of the Olgans increased anel some decreased in size with inbreeding The brain showed an actual decline of about 10 percent but became larger in relation to body mass The heart (auricles attached) decreased in size in almost the Sltme proportion as the body mass items (including empty body middotweight) i consequently the relative size of the heart reshymained essentially lffichungecl It is 110t surprising that size of heart closely follows the body mass in view of the Tact that the heart is related to functional demands and consequently to body mass since it serves all of the tissues of the body

The actual weight of the lungs was substantially greater in the inshybred groups than in the outbrccl group but the welght did not change 11pplccinbly as the coefficient of inbreeding increased The relative weight of lungs however was definitely greater in the inbred groups

16 TECHNICAL BULLETIN 990 U S DEPT OF AGRICULTURE

and showed a tendency to inctense with intensity of inbreeding The percentages were 1247 1846 und 1333 respectively in the three inbred groups as compared with the outbred group (table 2) bull

The weigat of liver remained more stable than some of the other organs In the first inbred group the liver wrlslightly heavier than in the outbted group but the weight decreased slightly as inbreeding became more intense However the weight of liver did not decline as rapidly as the net weight of the animal with the result that the JiveI leplesented a cOllsiderably higher proportion of the total animlll strucshyture in all inbred groups than in the outbted group Chall~es in the w~ight of spleen followed ueady the same course as the changes in the weight of liver

There was a steady decline III welght of stomachs (total for rumen reticulum omaSllm and abomasum) as the coefficient of inbteeding inshycreased but the decline did not keep pace with the derline in body muss The stomachs therefore represented a higher proportion of the totul body in the inbred gwups though there was no definite trend as inshytensity of inbreeding increased

Length of intestines was Hot significantly affected bly inbreeding In two inbred groups the length was almost the same as in the outbred ~rollp and in one inbred group it was slightly greater thun in the outshybred group In relation to net or empty body weight the length of intestmes increased ptogressively with illbreec1ing to become 1071 1l4~ and 1203 peleent respectively as compared with 100 percent for the outbred group (table 2)

Weight of kidneys was slightly lower in all of the inbred groups though the weight did not declillc appreciably as intensity of inshyblreeding increased The kidlllYs were lelatively larger in all of the bull inbred groups than ill the olltbrecI group and the pereentages based on empty body weight showed an upward trend (table 2)

In view of the1ll ixed results for themiddot eight items representing internal organs too much significance should not be lttached to averages However there waS a very slight tendency for the organs to be smaller in the cows in the two most highly inbred groups as indicated by pershycentages of 1010 974~ and 961 respectively for the three groups (table 1) In relation to total animal stluellre however the organs averaged about 12 percent greater in the inbred groups than in the outbted group but there was no appreciable trend III percentages among the three inbred grOllps (table 2)

It has been implied (1) that inheritance for any given quality or function may depend to a very great extent on the inheritance of an endocrine btlance More and mOLe attention therefore is being paid to the endocline glands in studies of physiology and anatomy The possible effect of intense inbreeding on the endocline lands obviously is of much interest The pituitary body is considered to be in a sense the control center of the endocrine system and it directly affects various physiological functions such as growth reproduction and lactation For this reaSon the possible effect of inbreeding on this gland is of particular intelest lhc weight of the pituitary body declined progressively as the intensity of inbreeding increased

In the first two inbred groups hi(h ine1ude coefficients up to 49 penellt the c1eeline eoinficlNl (losel) with the decline for live weight bull bllt in the third Qt Illost highly inblecl grollp the pitllitalV body was redllced iruizl to HO2 IllITlnl of its -iz( in the outbred glOup (table 1)

bull

bull

bull

INBREEDING OF GHADE HOLSTElN COWS 17

This is a gteltter reduction than that of live weight empty body weight wei~ht of carcass ot weight of heart wh1(h of nil items disclissed lip to tHis point have shown the most pronounced reduction Pituitary wei~ht not only showed the most malmiddotked reduction in actual weight but It became sIl1ttlletmiddot in relation to empty body weiht in unimals that were greatly reduced in body size The reduction 1Il size of pituitary body was grettte~ than tl(l reduction in milk production and slightly greater thun the reduction in butterfat prod uction

Of course it is not possible without extensive assay work to deshytermine whtther otmiddot not the functional activity of the pituitary body was reduced to the Same degree liS its weght An llccurate IIpplllisal of the significance of the reduced size of pituitary with respect to reductions in body size and in milk and butterfat production is not I)ossible in view of the marked hlCrease ill thYlOid size in the highly inbred cows llnd the fact that the Ildlenals middotwere essentially ulluUected The grlat vIl6ability in size of the endocline glands suggests the possishybility of some endocrine dysfuHction or unbalance

No ilPpreciable change occlllTed in the actual weight of the pineal body us It result of inbtmiddoteeding This means of course that the pineal was somewhat heavier in Ielation to 1Il1pty body weight in the inbred groups than in the outblcd group The weiht of thyroid was considembh rcater in the inbled IY[OUPS

than in th~ outbled gLmiddotOUp The thyroicl ~as by far the largestin the most highly inbred group but the inctcastgt in size was not entirely consistent with the in(rease in int(gtlsity of inbrelding The thYlOid was ~lctllaJly one-third largpound[o in the most highly inbred group (50-69) than ill the outbred group (table 1) In relation to empty body weight the thyroid inClellsed greatly although Hot entirely regularly with inbreeding as the percentages of 1194 119i and 1585 indicate (table 2)

The parathYlOids were lingel in the first inbred group than in the outbred group but as inbrc(ding increased in intellsity the weight of the pamthYLoids deCLlased with extreme rapidity to rellch a minshyimum of 5i pCI(cnt of tlH weight of palatl1yroids recoldedfol thl outbrcd group (table 1) This ltleelinl was so lI11eh more rapid than the decline in empty body wei~ht that the relative size aho reached a minimnm of l(j~ pelcent of thl izl ill the olltbred group (table 2)

The pancreas might with logic bl inclultlld either with the internal organs or with tlw (1Hlocrirl( glulld It is inellded with the r bullbulldo crine glands b((ause it ha lwen inclndlcl in this group in previous stutlhl rite paLlCreas applars to have undergone a minkef1 reduction 1n size with inbrCedillf The pancreas was -mall in all the inble(1 lOUpS und thl nmiddotduetwn in w(light was Plogtlshe although the difshyfeLlnee betw(tn tl-~ outbled gl)up anel the first inbred group was paltiCuladr st _Ilg- The fact (hat the pancreas was relatively sl1utllpl in (lit of Oll inbled gloups than in the Olltbred gloup is indicated by percentages of 9)T 961 and 984 (table 2) Th i~ is the ollly item so fal discussed exctpt weight of carcass for which the relathe size was consistently lower in all inbred groups than in the outlwed group

Th( size or the ldrpna1s llpparpntly was not affected materinlly by inbreC(ling- There was a YCLT slight dec-line in alttull weight as inshybtccding b(CiUlll rnOte intenc but the weight waS higher in every

S37l1G-Hl--3

14 LECHNTCAL BULLETIN 990 U S DFlP~l OF AGRTCUULURE

EFFECT OF INBREEDING ON SIZE OF COW AND HER BODY PARIS

For the items representing body mass a defillH~ decline in the per centages bused on actual units accompanied an increase in the coeillshydent of inbreeding (table 1) Averages of the percentages for the five items representing body mass for the three inbred groups are 925 896 and 873 L-espectively showing Llt as inbrceding became more intense the size of the animal decreased On an average the animals having til) highest degree of inbreeding were nearly 13 percent below the outbred animals in size Thi~ is somewhat less than the 20 pershycent decline in guinea pigs reported by Eaton (3) where inbreeding was carried on for many generations In this connection it should be stated that the data on inbreeding of dairy cows were compiled enshytirely on the basis of coefficient of inbleedmg without regard to the generation despite the fact thnt in some cases high coefficients occurred In the early generations

Empty body weight is a basic value representing body weight unshyaffected by fill thus it is significant that the downward trend in percen~ages was nearly the same for empty body middotweight as for the other Items representing body weight That IS the empty body wei~ht was 854 percent as great in the group of cows having the highshyest mbreeding coeflicients 50-6raquo as in the_ ontbred gronp whelf-as the average of all items representing body size was 873 percent as great It is noteworthy also that the decline in weights taken after first calving is almost the same as the decline in weights taken at time of slaughter wllich shows that the eftect of inbreeding was essentially as glmiddoteat in early life as at the time of slaughter The question of whether or not the inbred animals middotwere in relatively poorer condition may be raised It is difficnlL to obtain an accurate measure of the degree of flesh or fatness but such differences did not appear to have been a seriously disturbing factor

In view of the marked downward trend in percentages for body weight with intensifiecl inbreeding a tabulation was made to detershymine whether or not the period during middotwhich the cows in the various groups were present in the herd had any influence on their body size at time of slaughter It lyaS found that 11 of the ontbred cows were slaughtered prior to the end of 1934 and 11 at later dates in the first inbred group (10-29)7 were slaughtered before and 8 after the end of 1934 in the secone) inbred group (30-49) 12 were slaughtered before and 15 after that date and in the most highly inbred group (50-69) 2 were slaughtered before and 5 after the end of 1934 Therefore in view of the fact that the outbred animals were so well distributed throughout the period of time covered by the experiment there is no reason to believe that as a class they had any advantage over the inbred animals with respect to any changes in environmental conditions that may have occurred Both the outbled and the inbred cows were kept in the same herd rhus if the inbred animals were smaller than the outbred animals it would appear that the difference was the result of inbreeding mthel than of any differences in environment

The trends in percentages based on units of weight or measurement pel 100 pOllnds of empty body weight may be expected to differ conshysidernbly from those based on actual units as they have a somewhat diffewnt sigllifi(nnce III general so long as the size or the body 01 of

bull

bull

bull

bull

bull

bull

INBREEDING OF GRADE HOLSlEfN COVS 15

any of its palmiddotts declines 01 increases in the same proportion as the animals empty body weight the percentages showing the relative size (last 3 columlls in table 2) will all be applox imately 100 If an organ or part declines rebrularly with inbreeding to a ~reatel relative degree than empty body weight the percentages will tJe below 100 and will u~ve a downward trend Similarly if t~le organs lt1 body parts deshyelms more slowly than empty body weJ~ht remlllll stationary 01

increase in size wIth increased intensity of l1lbleecling while the empty body weight declines they will represent a higher proportion of the total animal structure and the percentages will bf above 100 Uuder these circulllstances an upward trend in percentages will occur if the Qlgan weights remain stationary 01 if their inneases ale progressive

It JUtS been noted that the downward trend in percentages based on actual units was nearly the same on an averagc tor empty body weight as for the other items representing body size Howdver the pershycentages based on units per 100 pounds of empty body eight were all neat lOO-the ttvclllges TOl the three inbred groups being 1001 1028 ancl 1003 respectively (table 2)-il1dicating again that live weight and weight of carcass declined in almost the same proportion as empty body weight

Of the six items representing skeletal si~le three are body dimensions (height width and length) measured before slaughter and three are dimensions of the thoracic cltvity (depth width and length) obtained by measUlmiddotjng the dressed calcass In the case of every item the pershycentages based 011 actual units are all close to 100 and there is no sigshynificant trend with increase in inbree~ing The averages of the pershycentages for the six itCims are 984 988 and 991 respectively for the three inbred gloups (table 1) which shows that inbreeding had no appreciable effect on skeletal size as indicated by the measurements selected regardless of whether they were external body measurements of the living animal 01 of the thoracic cavity obtained after slaughter As explained previous1y when any body part re111[1ins unchanged by inbreeding while the empty body weight declines the percentages based on empty body weight that show proportional size are above 100 and show an upwllrd trend In this case the avernges of the percentshyages for the six measured items are 1077 1154 and 1190 respectively (table 2) The actual skeletal size of the anima1s was not affected to any appreciable extent by inbreeding but the relation of size of body frame to mass was definitely increased

For the internal organs the results were less consistent Some of the Olgans increased anel some decreased in size with inbreeding The brain showed an actual decline of about 10 percent but became larger in relation to body mass The heart (auricles attached) decreased in size in almost the Sltme proportion as the body mass items (including empty body middotweight) i consequently the relative size of the heart reshymained essentially lffichungecl It is 110t surprising that size of heart closely follows the body mass in view of the Tact that the heart is related to functional demands and consequently to body mass since it serves all of the tissues of the body

The actual weight of the lungs was substantially greater in the inshybred groups than in the outbrccl group but the welght did not change 11pplccinbly as the coefficient of inbreeding increased The relative weight of lungs however was definitely greater in the inbred groups

16 TECHNICAL BULLETIN 990 U S DEPT OF AGRICULTURE

and showed a tendency to inctense with intensity of inbreeding The percentages were 1247 1846 und 1333 respectively in the three inbred groups as compared with the outbred group (table 2) bull

The weigat of liver remained more stable than some of the other organs In the first inbred group the liver wrlslightly heavier than in the outbted group but the weight decreased slightly as inbreeding became more intense However the weight of liver did not decline as rapidly as the net weight of the animal with the result that the JiveI leplesented a cOllsiderably higher proportion of the total animlll strucshyture in all inbred groups than in the outbted group Chall~es in the w~ight of spleen followed ueady the same course as the changes in the weight of liver

There was a steady decline III welght of stomachs (total for rumen reticulum omaSllm and abomasum) as the coefficient of inbteeding inshycreased but the decline did not keep pace with the derline in body muss The stomachs therefore represented a higher proportion of the totul body in the inbred gwups though there was no definite trend as inshytensity of inbreeding increased

Length of intestines was Hot significantly affected bly inbreeding In two inbred groups the length was almost the same as in the outbred ~rollp and in one inbred group it was slightly greater thun in the outshybred group In relation to net or empty body weight the length of intestmes increased ptogressively with illbreec1ing to become 1071 1l4~ and 1203 peleent respectively as compared with 100 percent for the outbred group (table 2)

Weight of kidneys was slightly lower in all of the inbred groups though the weight did not declillc appreciably as intensity of inshyblreeding increased The kidlllYs were lelatively larger in all of the bull inbred groups than ill the olltbrecI group and the pereentages based on empty body weight showed an upward trend (table 2)

In view of the1ll ixed results for themiddot eight items representing internal organs too much significance should not be lttached to averages However there waS a very slight tendency for the organs to be smaller in the cows in the two most highly inbred groups as indicated by pershycentages of 1010 974~ and 961 respectively for the three groups (table 1) In relation to total animal stluellre however the organs averaged about 12 percent greater in the inbred groups than in the outbted group but there was no appreciable trend III percentages among the three inbred grOllps (table 2)

It has been implied (1) that inheritance for any given quality or function may depend to a very great extent on the inheritance of an endocrine btlance More and mOLe attention therefore is being paid to the endocline glands in studies of physiology and anatomy The possible effect of intense inbreeding on the endocline lands obviously is of much interest The pituitary body is considered to be in a sense the control center of the endocrine system and it directly affects various physiological functions such as growth reproduction and lactation For this reaSon the possible effect of inbreeding on this gland is of particular intelest lhc weight of the pituitary body declined progressively as the intensity of inbreeding increased

In the first two inbred groups hi(h ine1ude coefficients up to 49 penellt the c1eeline eoinficlNl (losel) with the decline for live weight bull bllt in the third Qt Illost highly inblecl grollp the pitllitalV body was redllced iruizl to HO2 IllITlnl of its -iz( in the outbred glOup (table 1)

bull

bull

bull

INBREEDING OF GHADE HOLSTElN COWS 17

This is a gteltter reduction than that of live weight empty body weight wei~ht of carcass ot weight of heart wh1(h of nil items disclissed lip to tHis point have shown the most pronounced reduction Pituitary wei~ht not only showed the most malmiddotked reduction in actual weight but It became sIl1ttlletmiddot in relation to empty body weiht in unimals that were greatly reduced in body size The reduction 1Il size of pituitary body was grettte~ than tl(l reduction in milk production and slightly greater thun the reduction in butterfat prod uction

Of course it is not possible without extensive assay work to deshytermine whtther otmiddot not the functional activity of the pituitary body was reduced to the Same degree liS its weght An llccurate IIpplllisal of the significance of the reduced size of pituitary with respect to reductions in body size and in milk and butterfat production is not I)ossible in view of the marked hlCrease ill thYlOid size in the highly inbred cows llnd the fact that the Ildlenals middotwere essentially ulluUected The grlat vIl6ability in size of the endocline glands suggests the possishybility of some endocrine dysfuHction or unbalance

No ilPpreciable change occlllTed in the actual weight of the pineal body us It result of inbtmiddoteeding This means of course that the pineal was somewhat heavier in Ielation to 1Il1pty body weight in the inbred groups than in the outblcd group The weiht of thyroid was considembh rcater in the inbled IY[OUPS

than in th~ outbled gLmiddotOUp The thyroicl ~as by far the largestin the most highly inbred group but the inctcastgt in size was not entirely consistent with the in(rease in int(gtlsity of inbrelding The thYlOid was ~lctllaJly one-third largpound[o in the most highly inbred group (50-69) than ill the outbred group (table 1) In relation to empty body weight the thyroid inClellsed greatly although Hot entirely regularly with inbreeding as the percentages of 1194 119i and 1585 indicate (table 2)

The parathYlOids were lingel in the first inbred group than in the outbred group but as inbrc(ding increased in intellsity the weight of the pamthYLoids deCLlased with extreme rapidity to rellch a minshyimum of 5i pCI(cnt of tlH weight of palatl1yroids recoldedfol thl outbrcd group (table 1) This ltleelinl was so lI11eh more rapid than the decline in empty body wei~ht that the relative size aho reached a minimnm of l(j~ pelcent of thl izl ill the olltbred group (table 2)

The pancreas might with logic bl inclultlld either with the internal organs or with tlw (1Hlocrirl( glulld It is inellded with the r bullbulldo crine glands b((ause it ha lwen inclndlcl in this group in previous stutlhl rite paLlCreas applars to have undergone a minkef1 reduction 1n size with inbrCedillf The pancreas was -mall in all the inble(1 lOUpS und thl nmiddotduetwn in w(light was Plogtlshe although the difshyfeLlnee betw(tn tl-~ outbled gl)up anel the first inbred group was paltiCuladr st _Ilg- The fact (hat the pancreas was relatively sl1utllpl in (lit of Oll inbled gloups than in the Olltbred gloup is indicated by percentages of 9)T 961 and 984 (table 2) Th i~ is the ollly item so fal discussed exctpt weight of carcass for which the relathe size was consistently lower in all inbred groups than in the outlwed group

Th( size or the ldrpna1s llpparpntly was not affected materinlly by inbreC(ling- There was a YCLT slight dec-line in alttull weight as inshybtccding b(CiUlll rnOte intenc but the weight waS higher in every

S37l1G-Hl--3

bull

bull

bull

INBREEDING OF GRADE HOLSlEfN COVS 15

any of its palmiddotts declines 01 increases in the same proportion as the animals empty body weight the percentages showing the relative size (last 3 columlls in table 2) will all be applox imately 100 If an organ or part declines rebrularly with inbreeding to a ~reatel relative degree than empty body weight the percentages will tJe below 100 and will u~ve a downward trend Similarly if t~le organs lt1 body parts deshyelms more slowly than empty body weJ~ht remlllll stationary 01

increase in size wIth increased intensity of l1lbleecling while the empty body weight declines they will represent a higher proportion of the total animal structure and the percentages will bf above 100 Uuder these circulllstances an upward trend in percentages will occur if the Qlgan weights remain stationary 01 if their inneases ale progressive

It JUtS been noted that the downward trend in percentages based on actual units was nearly the same on an averagc tor empty body weight as for the other items representing body size Howdver the pershycentages based on units per 100 pounds of empty body eight were all neat lOO-the ttvclllges TOl the three inbred groups being 1001 1028 ancl 1003 respectively (table 2)-il1dicating again that live weight and weight of carcass declined in almost the same proportion as empty body weight

Of the six items representing skeletal si~le three are body dimensions (height width and length) measured before slaughter and three are dimensions of the thoracic cltvity (depth width and length) obtained by measUlmiddotjng the dressed calcass In the case of every item the pershycentages based 011 actual units are all close to 100 and there is no sigshynificant trend with increase in inbree~ing The averages of the pershycentages for the six itCims are 984 988 and 991 respectively for the three inbred gloups (table 1) which shows that inbreeding had no appreciable effect on skeletal size as indicated by the measurements selected regardless of whether they were external body measurements of the living animal 01 of the thoracic cavity obtained after slaughter As explained previous1y when any body part re111[1ins unchanged by inbreeding while the empty body weight declines the percentages based on empty body weight that show proportional size are above 100 and show an upwllrd trend In this case the avernges of the percentshyages for the six measured items are 1077 1154 and 1190 respectively (table 2) The actual skeletal size of the anima1s was not affected to any appreciable extent by inbreeding but the relation of size of body frame to mass was definitely increased

For the internal organs the results were less consistent Some of the Olgans increased anel some decreased in size with inbreeding The brain showed an actual decline of about 10 percent but became larger in relation to body mass The heart (auricles attached) decreased in size in almost the Sltme proportion as the body mass items (including empty body middotweight) i consequently the relative size of the heart reshymained essentially lffichungecl It is 110t surprising that size of heart closely follows the body mass in view of the Tact that the heart is related to functional demands and consequently to body mass since it serves all of the tissues of the body

The actual weight of the lungs was substantially greater in the inshybred groups than in the outbrccl group but the welght did not change 11pplccinbly as the coefficient of inbreeding increased The relative weight of lungs however was definitely greater in the inbred groups

16 TECHNICAL BULLETIN 990 U S DEPT OF AGRICULTURE

and showed a tendency to inctense with intensity of inbreeding The percentages were 1247 1846 und 1333 respectively in the three inbred groups as compared with the outbred group (table 2) bull

The weigat of liver remained more stable than some of the other organs In the first inbred group the liver wrlslightly heavier than in the outbted group but the weight decreased slightly as inbreeding became more intense However the weight of liver did not decline as rapidly as the net weight of the animal with the result that the JiveI leplesented a cOllsiderably higher proportion of the total animlll strucshyture in all inbred groups than in the outbted group Chall~es in the w~ight of spleen followed ueady the same course as the changes in the weight of liver

There was a steady decline III welght of stomachs (total for rumen reticulum omaSllm and abomasum) as the coefficient of inbteeding inshycreased but the decline did not keep pace with the derline in body muss The stomachs therefore represented a higher proportion of the totul body in the inbred gwups though there was no definite trend as inshytensity of inbreeding increased

Length of intestines was Hot significantly affected bly inbreeding In two inbred groups the length was almost the same as in the outbred ~rollp and in one inbred group it was slightly greater thun in the outshybred group In relation to net or empty body weight the length of intestmes increased ptogressively with illbreec1ing to become 1071 1l4~ and 1203 peleent respectively as compared with 100 percent for the outbred group (table 2)

Weight of kidneys was slightly lower in all of the inbred groups though the weight did not declillc appreciably as intensity of inshyblreeding increased The kidlllYs were lelatively larger in all of the bull inbred groups than ill the olltbrecI group and the pereentages based on empty body weight showed an upward trend (table 2)

In view of the1ll ixed results for themiddot eight items representing internal organs too much significance should not be lttached to averages However there waS a very slight tendency for the organs to be smaller in the cows in the two most highly inbred groups as indicated by pershycentages of 1010 974~ and 961 respectively for the three groups (table 1) In relation to total animal stluellre however the organs averaged about 12 percent greater in the inbred groups than in the outbted group but there was no appreciable trend III percentages among the three inbred grOllps (table 2)

It has been implied (1) that inheritance for any given quality or function may depend to a very great extent on the inheritance of an endocrine btlance More and mOLe attention therefore is being paid to the endocline glands in studies of physiology and anatomy The possible effect of intense inbreeding on the endocline lands obviously is of much interest The pituitary body is considered to be in a sense the control center of the endocrine system and it directly affects various physiological functions such as growth reproduction and lactation For this reaSon the possible effect of inbreeding on this gland is of particular intelest lhc weight of the pituitary body declined progressively as the intensity of inbreeding increased

In the first two inbred groups hi(h ine1ude coefficients up to 49 penellt the c1eeline eoinficlNl (losel) with the decline for live weight bull bllt in the third Qt Illost highly inblecl grollp the pitllitalV body was redllced iruizl to HO2 IllITlnl of its -iz( in the outbred glOup (table 1)

bull

bull

bull

INBREEDING OF GHADE HOLSTElN COWS 17

This is a gteltter reduction than that of live weight empty body weight wei~ht of carcass ot weight of heart wh1(h of nil items disclissed lip to tHis point have shown the most pronounced reduction Pituitary wei~ht not only showed the most malmiddotked reduction in actual weight but It became sIl1ttlletmiddot in relation to empty body weiht in unimals that were greatly reduced in body size The reduction 1Il size of pituitary body was grettte~ than tl(l reduction in milk production and slightly greater thun the reduction in butterfat prod uction

Of course it is not possible without extensive assay work to deshytermine whtther otmiddot not the functional activity of the pituitary body was reduced to the Same degree liS its weght An llccurate IIpplllisal of the significance of the reduced size of pituitary with respect to reductions in body size and in milk and butterfat production is not I)ossible in view of the marked hlCrease ill thYlOid size in the highly inbred cows llnd the fact that the Ildlenals middotwere essentially ulluUected The grlat vIl6ability in size of the endocline glands suggests the possishybility of some endocrine dysfuHction or unbalance

No ilPpreciable change occlllTed in the actual weight of the pineal body us It result of inbtmiddoteeding This means of course that the pineal was somewhat heavier in Ielation to 1Il1pty body weight in the inbred groups than in the outblcd group The weiht of thyroid was considembh rcater in the inbled IY[OUPS

than in th~ outbled gLmiddotOUp The thyroicl ~as by far the largestin the most highly inbred group but the inctcastgt in size was not entirely consistent with the in(rease in int(gtlsity of inbrelding The thYlOid was ~lctllaJly one-third largpound[o in the most highly inbred group (50-69) than ill the outbred group (table 1) In relation to empty body weight the thyroid inClellsed greatly although Hot entirely regularly with inbreeding as the percentages of 1194 119i and 1585 indicate (table 2)

The parathYlOids were lingel in the first inbred group than in the outbred group but as inbrc(ding increased in intellsity the weight of the pamthYLoids deCLlased with extreme rapidity to rellch a minshyimum of 5i pCI(cnt of tlH weight of palatl1yroids recoldedfol thl outbrcd group (table 1) This ltleelinl was so lI11eh more rapid than the decline in empty body wei~ht that the relative size aho reached a minimnm of l(j~ pelcent of thl izl ill the olltbred group (table 2)

The pancreas might with logic bl inclultlld either with the internal organs or with tlw (1Hlocrirl( glulld It is inellded with the r bullbulldo crine glands b((ause it ha lwen inclndlcl in this group in previous stutlhl rite paLlCreas applars to have undergone a minkef1 reduction 1n size with inbrCedillf The pancreas was -mall in all the inble(1 lOUpS und thl nmiddotduetwn in w(light was Plogtlshe although the difshyfeLlnee betw(tn tl-~ outbled gl)up anel the first inbred group was paltiCuladr st _Ilg- The fact (hat the pancreas was relatively sl1utllpl in (lit of Oll inbled gloups than in the Olltbred gloup is indicated by percentages of 9)T 961 and 984 (table 2) Th i~ is the ollly item so fal discussed exctpt weight of carcass for which the relathe size was consistently lower in all inbred groups than in the outlwed group

Th( size or the ldrpna1s llpparpntly was not affected materinlly by inbreC(ling- There was a YCLT slight dec-line in alttull weight as inshybtccding b(CiUlll rnOte intenc but the weight waS higher in every

S37l1G-Hl--3

16 TECHNICAL BULLETIN 990 U S DEPT OF AGRICULTURE

and showed a tendency to inctense with intensity of inbreeding The percentages were 1247 1846 und 1333 respectively in the three inbred groups as compared with the outbred group (table 2) bull

The weigat of liver remained more stable than some of the other organs In the first inbred group the liver wrlslightly heavier than in the outbted group but the weight decreased slightly as inbreeding became more intense However the weight of liver did not decline as rapidly as the net weight of the animal with the result that the JiveI leplesented a cOllsiderably higher proportion of the total animlll strucshyture in all inbred groups than in the outbted group Chall~es in the w~ight of spleen followed ueady the same course as the changes in the weight of liver

There was a steady decline III welght of stomachs (total for rumen reticulum omaSllm and abomasum) as the coefficient of inbteeding inshycreased but the decline did not keep pace with the derline in body muss The stomachs therefore represented a higher proportion of the totul body in the inbred gwups though there was no definite trend as inshytensity of inbreeding increased

Length of intestines was Hot significantly affected bly inbreeding In two inbred groups the length was almost the same as in the outbred ~rollp and in one inbred group it was slightly greater thun in the outshybred group In relation to net or empty body weight the length of intestmes increased ptogressively with illbreec1ing to become 1071 1l4~ and 1203 peleent respectively as compared with 100 percent for the outbred group (table 2)

Weight of kidneys was slightly lower in all of the inbred groups though the weight did not declillc appreciably as intensity of inshyblreeding increased The kidlllYs were lelatively larger in all of the bull inbred groups than ill the olltbrecI group and the pereentages based on empty body weight showed an upward trend (table 2)

In view of the1ll ixed results for themiddot eight items representing internal organs too much significance should not be lttached to averages However there waS a very slight tendency for the organs to be smaller in the cows in the two most highly inbred groups as indicated by pershycentages of 1010 974~ and 961 respectively for the three groups (table 1) In relation to total animal stluellre however the organs averaged about 12 percent greater in the inbred groups than in the outbted group but there was no appreciable trend III percentages among the three inbred grOllps (table 2)

It has been implied (1) that inheritance for any given quality or function may depend to a very great extent on the inheritance of an endocrine btlance More and mOLe attention therefore is being paid to the endocline glands in studies of physiology and anatomy The possible effect of intense inbreeding on the endocline lands obviously is of much interest The pituitary body is considered to be in a sense the control center of the endocrine system and it directly affects various physiological functions such as growth reproduction and lactation For this reaSon the possible effect of inbreeding on this gland is of particular intelest lhc weight of the pituitary body declined progressively as the intensity of inbreeding increased

In the first two inbred groups hi(h ine1ude coefficients up to 49 penellt the c1eeline eoinficlNl (losel) with the decline for live weight bull bllt in the third Qt Illost highly inblecl grollp the pitllitalV body was redllced iruizl to HO2 IllITlnl of its -iz( in the outbred glOup (table 1)

bull

bull

bull

INBREEDING OF GHADE HOLSTElN COWS 17

This is a gteltter reduction than that of live weight empty body weight wei~ht of carcass ot weight of heart wh1(h of nil items disclissed lip to tHis point have shown the most pronounced reduction Pituitary wei~ht not only showed the most malmiddotked reduction in actual weight but It became sIl1ttlletmiddot in relation to empty body weiht in unimals that were greatly reduced in body size The reduction 1Il size of pituitary body was grettte~ than tl(l reduction in milk production and slightly greater thun the reduction in butterfat prod uction

Of course it is not possible without extensive assay work to deshytermine whtther otmiddot not the functional activity of the pituitary body was reduced to the Same degree liS its weght An llccurate IIpplllisal of the significance of the reduced size of pituitary with respect to reductions in body size and in milk and butterfat production is not I)ossible in view of the marked hlCrease ill thYlOid size in the highly inbred cows llnd the fact that the Ildlenals middotwere essentially ulluUected The grlat vIl6ability in size of the endocline glands suggests the possishybility of some endocrine dysfuHction or unbalance

No ilPpreciable change occlllTed in the actual weight of the pineal body us It result of inbtmiddoteeding This means of course that the pineal was somewhat heavier in Ielation to 1Il1pty body weight in the inbred groups than in the outblcd group The weiht of thyroid was considembh rcater in the inbled IY[OUPS

than in th~ outbled gLmiddotOUp The thyroicl ~as by far the largestin the most highly inbred group but the inctcastgt in size was not entirely consistent with the in(rease in int(gtlsity of inbrelding The thYlOid was ~lctllaJly one-third largpound[o in the most highly inbred group (50-69) than ill the outbred group (table 1) In relation to empty body weight the thyroid inClellsed greatly although Hot entirely regularly with inbreeding as the percentages of 1194 119i and 1585 indicate (table 2)

The parathYlOids were lingel in the first inbred group than in the outbred group but as inbrc(ding increased in intellsity the weight of the pamthYLoids deCLlased with extreme rapidity to rellch a minshyimum of 5i pCI(cnt of tlH weight of palatl1yroids recoldedfol thl outbrcd group (table 1) This ltleelinl was so lI11eh more rapid than the decline in empty body wei~ht that the relative size aho reached a minimnm of l(j~ pelcent of thl izl ill the olltbred group (table 2)

The pancreas might with logic bl inclultlld either with the internal organs or with tlw (1Hlocrirl( glulld It is inellded with the r bullbulldo crine glands b((ause it ha lwen inclndlcl in this group in previous stutlhl rite paLlCreas applars to have undergone a minkef1 reduction 1n size with inbrCedillf The pancreas was -mall in all the inble(1 lOUpS und thl nmiddotduetwn in w(light was Plogtlshe although the difshyfeLlnee betw(tn tl-~ outbled gl)up anel the first inbred group was paltiCuladr st _Ilg- The fact (hat the pancreas was relatively sl1utllpl in (lit of Oll inbled gloups than in the Olltbred gloup is indicated by percentages of 9)T 961 and 984 (table 2) Th i~ is the ollly item so fal discussed exctpt weight of carcass for which the relathe size was consistently lower in all inbred groups than in the outlwed group

Th( size or the ldrpna1s llpparpntly was not affected materinlly by inbreC(ling- There was a YCLT slight dec-line in alttull weight as inshybtccding b(CiUlll rnOte intenc but the weight waS higher in every

S37l1G-Hl--3

bull

bull

bull

INBREEDING OF GHADE HOLSTElN COWS 17

This is a gteltter reduction than that of live weight empty body weight wei~ht of carcass ot weight of heart wh1(h of nil items disclissed lip to tHis point have shown the most pronounced reduction Pituitary wei~ht not only showed the most malmiddotked reduction in actual weight but It became sIl1ttlletmiddot in relation to empty body weiht in unimals that were greatly reduced in body size The reduction 1Il size of pituitary body was grettte~ than tl(l reduction in milk production and slightly greater thun the reduction in butterfat prod uction

Of course it is not possible without extensive assay work to deshytermine whtther otmiddot not the functional activity of the pituitary body was reduced to the Same degree liS its weght An llccurate IIpplllisal of the significance of the reduced size of pituitary with respect to reductions in body size and in milk and butterfat production is not I)ossible in view of the marked hlCrease ill thYlOid size in the highly inbred cows llnd the fact that the Ildlenals middotwere essentially ulluUected The grlat vIl6ability in size of the endocline glands suggests the possishybility of some endocrine dysfuHction or unbalance

No ilPpreciable change occlllTed in the actual weight of the pineal body us It result of inbtmiddoteeding This means of course that the pineal was somewhat heavier in Ielation to 1Il1pty body weight in the inbred groups than in the outblcd group The weiht of thyroid was considembh rcater in the inbled IY[OUPS

than in th~ outbled gLmiddotOUp The thyroicl ~as by far the largestin the most highly inbred group but the inctcastgt in size was not entirely consistent with the in(rease in int(gtlsity of inbrelding The thYlOid was ~lctllaJly one-third largpound[o in the most highly inbred group (50-69) than ill the outbred group (table 1) In relation to empty body weight the thyroid inClellsed greatly although Hot entirely regularly with inbreeding as the percentages of 1194 119i and 1585 indicate (table 2)

The parathYlOids were lingel in the first inbred group than in the outbred group but as inbrc(ding increased in intellsity the weight of the pamthYLoids deCLlased with extreme rapidity to rellch a minshyimum of 5i pCI(cnt of tlH weight of palatl1yroids recoldedfol thl outbrcd group (table 1) This ltleelinl was so lI11eh more rapid than the decline in empty body wei~ht that the relative size aho reached a minimnm of l(j~ pelcent of thl izl ill the olltbred group (table 2)

The pancreas might with logic bl inclultlld either with the internal organs or with tlw (1Hlocrirl( glulld It is inellded with the r bullbulldo crine glands b((ause it ha lwen inclndlcl in this group in previous stutlhl rite paLlCreas applars to have undergone a minkef1 reduction 1n size with inbrCedillf The pancreas was -mall in all the inble(1 lOUpS und thl nmiddotduetwn in w(light was Plogtlshe although the difshyfeLlnee betw(tn tl-~ outbled gl)up anel the first inbred group was paltiCuladr st _Ilg- The fact (hat the pancreas was relatively sl1utllpl in (lit of Oll inbled gloups than in the Olltbred gloup is indicated by percentages of 9)T 961 and 984 (table 2) Th i~ is the ollly item so fal discussed exctpt weight of carcass for which the relathe size was consistently lower in all inbred groups than in the outlwed group

Th( size or the ldrpna1s llpparpntly was not affected materinlly by inbreC(ling- There was a YCLT slight dec-line in alttull weight as inshybtccding b(CiUlll rnOte intenc but the weight waS higher in every

S37l1G-Hl--3

18 ~-ECH)~lCAL BULLE~1N 990 U S DEP~ O AGRICULTURE

inbrfltl ~IOllr than in the outbrccl group_ 111e uchenllls represented a Slibstuntially ~Icater proportion of the total animal structUle in ull of the inblld gIOllpS than in the olltbrcd glOUP

Tnkcn as Il wholeuro the endocrine ~Iallds show a wide variety of (hau~es III actual wcight the pineal body and adrenals underwent only slight PlHIl1reS till thyroid showed II lmbstantial itltrellse and the pitllitalY body pnlllthYLOicis and paneleas wCIe LeciuCed in size to slIth an lXtlllt thnt they became not only lldually smallll but also sllllllkl ill 1(lation to total IInimnl structure liS till (octlieient of il1shyb(((diJlg beetllJ1(l ~Telltel Hcll again gIOliP llYClHges lose some of tlllil llllalling in dlw of the icif indiidllal vtnHtions However nvcrng(s of tw PlI((ntnglsindkllt( that th~l cntoerillc Tantis became actually smllll(I in thl high(ri_nbrpd g-toups although th( w(leflOl11 Hto 1a lWl(nt highet IlInmiddotllltion to total animal structlllC in the inbred gl(1I1PS thall in th(t ol1tlw(d group

One OIgUl for which infOll1lntion wns desil(d particulally was the U(ldPI rn-foltlll1Httlr this WtlS the 01)( fol which it as most diflicult to obtain lOmllllahlt data heCilUimiddot of the ll(lt lthngNi that occur in the nllUIlIIIlQ glands as n tCslilt of (hangls in lactating tetivity Not ollly was it 11t ((SSU Iy to ohla i n t1lP data whln (ows (Iei II iliollS slagps of lndntion but lHany WlI( ilallgiltllttl hell the nddtls WPI( (lntilply illaltti( Thl nllmbpl of (ows was 1Iot lII~C )Ollglt to justify ~ clussililutlon 01 tllp basis 01 stage of lactation hut tw (( WlLl diidlll into t~() gl~HII)-thos( thtt el(~ ladl~(ing alld (host that W(IP dnlt til( i11l11 01- S H lllit PI Data are available for ~7 lada t j ng a 11(1 f(I +Z lion bda ill udltIlIS

TIlt l(sids intliltltt that til( lirl(t of illbLNdill~ on the size of till Udelll was glpatl than 011 lin) of the o(h(I intlll1al otgans ((l(l((1in( glnmls Ol othlI hody parts-with th( p051bl( lx(pptiofl ot tllt paltdhloids Till Indaling Ulhltt~ Ieadwd a weight in the Inost Itirhly iilhl(d IOUp that wns little mOI( than half the udder w(light hI the olltblttl glOIlP TIl( I(tiuction of weight in the dlY uddlls as 1l10lP 1(gIlIlllllld sOIl1lwhat llsS (stnIll( On an alIar( tlll siz( of till uddpI 1(I(h(( a Ilpi in (lip IlOst highly inllltd group thai wns lps-- t hun t ()middotthilds tIll aetnal wirht nnd apploximately twothirds til( Iplati( w((rhl of tht dltl( I in the outblpd group

(al1lwily Ill tIw nddlll (lisl(Ins dll((- and lgt((r(Hng- (ll1l1(lnts) was ItIlImilll In IIUjSlllill till l1Il0l1l11 of fluid it would hold The pIsibhmiddot ((1((( 01 inht(pdlll 011 dd( (llpacitr is lIot (lll1a(((I PtlsilY [II t]f IUltnting Illldpls IIH (lpaltitr S((I11S to IlHp 11(1(1 rNlu(pd in till hilaquohlv latl(t) (OS hlo in tilt nOlllll(talill lIddll~ it lIS 10 illtll~ IiIS two i1lbld groups but ill(llalgtpd to 12) [gt(1((1I( in the t hill inhlld group On Hll lPIUgl the (apaeity s((ms to [laW- b(en nlltttlll io only t limilNl estlnt by inbLtNling and the results are i II(o1lsisr(nt

Ill( ((middotation of eapacit o wpig-llt thai is III Ilumhtr of pOllnds of fluid lwld 10t (tleh pOlnd 01 IIddlL is (lXPllSSld in r)l((nta~( Tthc IWI(middot(l1tng-( gin~ il1I id)H of the porosity of til uddpl tisSIW PoI()sitY is Illf(ltNl to It to(lsidI1Ibll tI Pg((l bv the S((l( inl (leti vi-y of he ghnd lactating ld((1- usuallyhHing n hig-hPI ((q)lCity inI(lalion to w(igbt--othel thi1lS INinA (laquoual-than ltII) 11(1lt1(15 Ill( incllmiddot gtidttnl plllpnwj(s 111 tIll (jS in Hlis ~tl1l1y Iangp 110111 (jI to 2gt2 whh-h ntlllll~ thllt OIlW whlltS lwtd only tiltl( IllOt( than 11111 thlil

bull

bull

bull

bull

bull

bull

LBREEDI~O OF GUADE HOLSTpoundlN COWS 19

own weight of injected fluid while others hlld 2~ times their weight The perCllltage of capacity to weight wns g(iWlIlIy highetmiddot in the inbred than in the outbred cows and the VHhl( tentlld to be plOgL~Sshy~iyely greater with the more intense inbreedillg-ltspecially in tlle lin (middotows

1he milk production records lre ery slightly higher in the first two inbred gTOUpS than ill till outbllll lOUP but were lower in the most highly inbred group whi(b PlOdllCl(~ H~ pel(eut a lllu(h l11i~k as the Olltured IOUp Buttelfat IHodmtloll was almost the same 111

thl first il1l)1(( glOUP aii in thl otllHed group but dllllaslllllguhlrly nnd IlHlLkedl to ~lti IWlClllt with imleasNl inbreeding The pershy((lItal of bllttednt in till milk s11Oeltl n decline with inereased il1shybllldTug which was 1l101( markell thun till d((line i~ milk )ro(~uction but les plonoul1(NI tltnn the dlelllH In total buttelfat PIO( Il(itlon

Attlntioll igt eallld to tIl( fad tlltlt yhi( this stllll is based on the ulill1uls Il~ed in tltl inblpptiing (splrillHnt on hith Vooltiw(lld and (~la(~l (LO) ha(~ LlpoIted till maln~llp of the nllioll$ groups WaS dWtllnt Thi (lIlll about as a r(slilt of the fnet thnt this study inllmlld only tht anima Is tOr whidl tha iIN1 po~t 1110rtl1l1 ancl HlIatomieal dIJa WNt tllilabll lind (t1so the fad that only those co- (1 i IwhHlld wlthh htl d at IttIt ~)(l lWltPII t Holst(gti 1 aj((middotst ry aIHlllsS thall m lWItlnt of tIll alHP(ry of nl1Y otlwL btppd The leshysllts llllt rppOlpd thlllfoll llP blld on 11 (ollsit(Lably smaller 1ll1l11111I of Hnilllal Thpy arp fOl that Ilaon putieularly signifknnt a tlH so doply lounnn till glIIP1nl nllllings of the other study with lguld to milk and hlllttllat PIOtI((iOI

TIH ditfllPllll 1)(middottWllll the llsllltgt n[ the two analyses is almost eHIlIphmiddot Ollt of dlglL Till [()tal (lldiIlP froll the ol~ble(l co to tho( lin dllg illbltNling tmflj(illlt- 01 50 01 aJomiddote is 7S pelCenr for llilk llllll 17-1 iOL bllttldat in this -I([Y as Colllpared with 122 and IIU Plj((llt 1(lSpelt jYely Tor the study balNI on ttl larger numbetmiddot of (ow

Thllp alp It 11 II 111 Ill I of Oblllltiol about tlw l(stdts obtainell that ~tlUl wOlthy (J t d iHlsiol llml petlIlnt iOIl tthough (()ll(ll1~ionlt ITO

not WIlIlllItlmiddotl (Olllltllt tlllndy Ita 11((11 lIIad( on the poible ~hniti(llll( of th~ fa that till pitllitnlY hody-whitll Bupposedly is 1 highly illljJ()[tlll1t tUtltI illlOl1tlOltillf hody ~I()wt 11 alld till d(-elopshyllllll tllH 11llIltillllI ~l r tIll IIUlllllIy glUHb~was Ol Ir U~ PlllPllt a lul III til( hlhh Jllbl(d tllll tlH (Jllthnd (ow whLle bod llS nIHI u~ldll dllI()Plll~llt PIl alUOII [lIl itplII h(lil~ marked 1el1ine as illhlllding Ib illllHhd )Li1k plo(llllt iOlltlS lot proportionshyatllmiddot lldl1ll(l with inlJnmiddot(ding bllt ImttlIlllt prodlletioll dedined to ltlnHl( tltl innll tX(llt liS wpight of pituitary

TIll higlHl puptlmiddotitips or llddtrs 1n dll highly inhrld eow may inshyltlitall diltlllI1ll In till lultuIe or tll( lllllmlary ti~ul alld may han ulllt to H)llH lStPllt til Hlllkpd lPdlldioll in lld(tl weiht Tlll is slltltthing of a sll~glstio1 lllll thM thl lIiOre pOIons typ~ of ti-tll nuLY Ill lOIHIucip to gnmiddotHtll plOdUlrion jWl unit of lllldll ize On tIll OthlmiddotlmiddotlwIHl 11wl( is a p()-~ibility that tlpu(ity may hl(1 1gt((11

alldltl lOIlIlwhnt by (hnnJls in (Itt (lliltII( or llltalirin Udllll ((tpilI-it whith ()UITId in till (mu of tllP studv It is liktl also that thi ilIlJulality of nstdr (nil Ill attli111Ild in pHIt to the ~llIan llmul)(l of alliuw J lPP1Plltll1 both in the Inctatin and in the nOl1-Ja(Vu i It glUl1V5

20 TECI-LHCAL BULLErLI 990 U S DEPl OF AGRICULTURE

ANATO~IY OF THE GRADE HOLSTEIN COWS IX THIS EXPERI(ENT AS COMPARED

WITH THAT OF RpoundCISTERED HOLSTEIN COWS

The fOtegoing tabulationSllncl discussions have shown the most noteworthy differences in body size and anatomy between outbred cows bull ll1d those representing IlIiom intensities of inbreeding All cows ill this study wele glade Holsteins-that is cows with 50 percent or mOI( of Holstein ancestry and with less than 50 peretnt of the nncestry of any other breed fiuch a discussion would be lacking in completeshynesS if it did not show the extent to which these glad( animals diffNcd ill size and anatomy Trom a population of registeled Holstein cows

In n prcvj()us study of body form anatomy and plOdllcing capaeity of 593eows (6) data ele included for 75 registpl(d ITOls((ins from the Bpltsville herd The av~raglS TOI these [egist(lpd Holsteins were used as It basis fOl comparison with thl Iade Holsteins in the plesent study Avelages fOl items showing size of body and body ptlLtS and percentnges showing the relation of size in the olltbled mcl the inbred gllllie Holsteins to that in legist(ICd Holst(ins are given in tabl( 3

The chief point of int(Iestin this to11lparison is the dtglee of difshyference betwe(n the outblld glad(middot Holst(ins and the registered Holshysteins since the chang(s in ize of body and body parts that ocullcd with inbreeding alt(gtudy haw been dis(llltsecI

In body mass the outbnd glad(gt Hol-tel11S ere nbout 6 percent smaller than the legisteled Holstlins They differed even less on an Itvemge in tnpaSUlenllnts of skeletal size

The dil(lelHPs ele mlleh less eonsist(nt for the items listed under internal organs and the aYNage cliti(lence was greater than for either bod mass 01 skpletal size The brain WaS of almost the SHme size ill the OlltbtNI gmde Holsteins as in the registered Holsteins bullbut all of the other ftlms w(rl sma lieI The gre~tf~st differences ocshyClIlTlc1 in conne(tion with weights of kidneys hellt and lungs

The enc1ocline glands also showed S0111e madcd individual difshyferences and amiddot(taged lL~ penent small(l in the outbled grade Holshysteins AlI of the endotIil1( glands wel( smallel in the olltl)lcc1 gmc1e HolsHins the ll(atest difhI~nce being in weight of adrenals which aTelllgNI about27 lWI((nt smaller

Theuro trends in avC[age 1llIClnblles for the vndous gronps of items are sil1lilnl ro thOfC shown in tabl( 1 In tabl( 3 howev(gtr t11( Pl1shyclItuglS for tl1l thl(P inbtlcl gronps arC nil Slllalt(L becnl1se tl1(Y were caieulated on the basi of thplall(1 tCrlsteled Holsteins rather thaI) on tl1euro smaller Olltbl((1 gll(h llolsteiuE

Approxillllltlly OM-third of till (OWS in the olltbred group were sirtd bv regi~tellll H()lt(in lmlls and W(I( out of grade Jersey or grntil GuelllscT (ow It would S(LlII logi(lI I to as-ume that if they had had n higher pcr((ntllge or Holst(ill iltHltl(l of JPISey 01 Guernsey ancestry the (ows in til( outbtld group would hae been larger 011 all HWn1e anll the effects of inblleltling would have been more pr onOlll1Cecl

bull

bull bull bull lllIiB a-Anatomy of Olltblcd and inbred g)ade noliitei1~ COlOS C07nlarcd with tltat of registered Holstei1t cows

- middot1

Wcightor mCIISllrelllclIt

__ bull ____ --------

]3()(1r wlight or mllss Live wliHht Ill lilllllghtcr laquo _____ _ Ell1pty body wciht Wlight of lIlnIl8S

AylrHgc___________________________

Sk(Ililll size lhight Ilt withlra Width of hips __ _ L(lIgth wither to pill)Oll(S cO

Depth of thvlIleic (~ILYity (llluximulII) Width of thorll(ic (avity (7th rib)__ Lellgth of t iJormi( jLjjy (1Iluxi III II 111)

vlrIIge __ _

Sce foutrlo(middot fit (111 oi tflble

Avemgc wcight or 1I1CllSUrcIJlCllt

----+----~

l I Itffr~~l~~~ Outhred 0 (1 I groupgroup

----------- shy1nbred groups hllin~ illbrcecling

coefliciclltii of--shy ___~ _I I

10 to 29 30 to 49 percent percen t

1--- 1 -middot1---- 1middot-----1

I POImillPOlmill POll1lci1 1 aal 12a8 1167 I ~~9 ~of1 ~a5 7~ I 94l57

h)I)bull)01 61 n 4) 571 02 _____I~____I _____

I c--- I emiddot _ bullbull Oc

Po II lids

50 to 69 percell t

Po II Ids Ini) 110middot

8870a 884 60 5as 62 524 72

Relation of weight or mCllSureshyment for the ouUmfi group and the inbred groups to that of the registered group

First Secon d Qulbred inbred inbred

group grouJl grouJl(10-29) (30-49) (50-69)

~ 1----1--shy

~ P(rC(lIt Perccnt IPercellt Pcrcent gtshy

92 5 8721 85 1 824 ~ 950 871 81 4 81 I 94 4 87 1 82 1 80 0 i

Z til ~ 02 02

Third oinbred Z group

Oellilllc(r~ C(IIillilrll CClllillctcr~ CClllilllclcr~ Celltlllelus ()137 58 1a377 laJ 48 13247 13286

5705 54 95 53 62 5491 Fi4 50 S ~14-131 1middot1185 13846 la953 14146 U1

FiO48 4n 49 47 38 47 59 48 25 i8 a3 a5 37 a5 17 34 83 34 50 8207 8082 82 13 81 62 81 j4

===1======1======1==== t~-

I_ 1---1---1---1---- o l40 87 I 829 81 2

_shy -1 --=1 il=-==I==I===I=== sect 2

bull bull

t5

~ lABM 3~~middot1Iatomy oj ollbred and inbred vade 110181ein cows compared willi tllat oj regutered lJolstei11 cows-ConLillued

neiation of weight or ~neasur~ g Aerago weigh t or IllPI1SUrelllent lIlent for the outbred group i

ancl the ilbrcd groups to that o( the registered group ~

Weight (If Illeasurellleut IX)----- I inbred group lIlving jnhreeding 1 I d coethcltllts 0(- ]irsl Second Third

Hegisterd Outimd ~ __ ~ _ ~__~_IOutbredlmiddot inbred inbred inbred toolst-clIl group gt-3group I group group group group

I 10 to 29 30 to 49 50 to 69 (10-29) (30-49) (50-69) sa percent percent percent ltgt

ltgt ---~-

_0 I11tcrnal organs 1Potnds Pounds POllids Pounds Pounds Percellt lPcrcent Percent PercentWeight of heart__ ___ _ _____ bull __ 4 no I 13 116 371 ~ 366 884 849 763 7lt17Weight of IlIngs_ _ ____ 944 831 953 963Wlight of imiddotcr ___ __ _________ bullbull 940 880 101 0 1020 1002 fIJ502 J5 OJ 1(i44 1477 1431 90 J 988 946 91 6 Weight of stolllllchs_ bullbull _ ____ bullbull __ __ 3857 36 27 3533 3432 3303 940 B6 890 856 ~

to 0

Grams Grallls Grams Grams GrewlS ~Weight of brain ____ bullbull ______________ 431 5 428 5 4255 4078 3853Weight of spleen_ bull __ bull ___________ bull ____ 893945 I 8fl4 2 875 3 8242 I

99 al 9861 94 5j oWeight of kidncys ____________________ 820 2 91 4 926 87 2 86714294 12400 12132 1 180 4 1 196 I 872 84 9 826 83 7 gt

Meiers JIleters iJetas JJeters VeiNS o

Length of intestine______ bullbull ___ 60 87 58 84 58 OU 57 8u 999 = I 6083 9671 954 9511 gA crugc __________________________ - ~ -_ 926 935 90 2 890 ~ -I d

0 tl

bull

bull bull bull I

Grams Grams I Grams Grallts I Grams1~lIdocrine ghndsWeight of pituitary____________________ 359 347 331 288 935 904 8j)2 750384Weight of pineaL _____________________ 2494 2500 899 883 891 893 Weight of thyroid _____________________ 876 97 2 894 117028 2517 2473

39 () 347 385 354 463 543Weight of parathyroids _______________ 14 1318 1629 111 1 0700 94 1 U64 794

Weight of pLuleredS____________________ 503 7 4455 3864 3641 355 0 884 76 7 723 705 Weight of adrenals ____--- _____________ 390 285 300 297 288 731 769 76 2 738

878 910 821 so 0Avcrllge_________ ---- _- - --- - - -- ----- ---- ---- - -1---_---- --------------------t----- -- --- z

J ~

bull I Averages for the registered Holstein group were based Oil duia obtained from 75 cows slaughtered at Beltsville prior to JUlie 30 1936 E Sec Literature (it~d (6) z o

~ o g

I z

~

~

___________ ________ _____

24 TECHNICAL BULLETIN 990 U f) DEPT UF AGRICULTURE

STATISTICAL ANALYSIS OF CORRELATION BETWEEN COEFFICIENTS OF

INBltEEDING ND FOltM ANATO~rY AND PRODUCTION

COIlelation coefficients were calculated between the legree of inshy bullbreeding and meusures of body size orgull and gland size Ilnd proshyducing ubilit~middot in the data from 49 cows with various degrees of inbreeding fhe results of this IInalysis as shown in table 4 indicate definite lelationships in lelathely few of the items studied

lABLt 4-00rrelation between intensity of inbleeding (lIlId fonn anatomy and P1otiuotion 1

VtJight or 1I1eaSurell1ent

Body weight or II1ILSS Live weight at 18 month _____ bull c __

Live weight abOllt 3 months afur lilt calL bull Live weight at Inllghter Empty body weight Weight of carCIL~S _

Skeletal size Height at witherIL________ bull Width of hips bullbull ______ _ ___ Length withers to pinbone~__ Depth of thoracic cavity (IIInxilUlIlII) Width of thoracic cavity (7th rib) _bullbull I_ength of thorlLcic cavity (maximum)

Interunl organs Wpight of hearL ___ Weight of lungs ____ ~ Weight of liver ___ Weight of stomachsbull Weight of brain __ bull Weight of spleen bullbull__ 1eight of kidney~_

En~~~~f~~o~I~~ltS~incs bull bull bull - bullbull ~ _ - -1 Weight of pituitary _ _ ___ __ Weight of pineaL__ Weight of thyroid ____ bull Weight of parathyroid~__ Weight of pancrelLS __ Weight of adrenals_________ _ __ ______ _

Cdder Weight of udder (Iactating) ____ ________ _ Weight of udder (dry) _________________ ___ _ Capncity of udder (lactating) ________ bullbull ___ _ Capncity of udder (dry) ____ _ Ratio of capncity to weight (lactating) ___ _ Ratio of capacity to weight (dry)

Production ~Iilk bull bull _ __ bullbull

Butterfat Icbullbullbull __ _ ___ bullbullbull _

Percentage of butterfat ill milk ___ ------ _____1

11111-Coefficient ofber of correlationcows

49 -0 0449plusmnl1 0962 47 -1174plusmn 0970 49 OOOOplusmn 0000 49 -1945plusmn 0927 49 -1843plusmn 0931

49 +0393plusmn 0962 49 +1278plusmn 0948 48 + 1464plusmn 0953 49 + 0446plusmn 0962 49 - 1039plusmn 0953 49 - 0924 plusmn 0955

49 - 2886plusmn 0883 bull49 -0420plusmn 0962 49 - 3217 plusmn 08U4 -19 - Hi25plusmn 0938 49 - 2740plusmn 0891 49 - 01342plusmn 09UO -17 - 02Ul plusmn 0983 49 + 0961 plusmn 0955

48 -1461plusmn 0953 33 - 0488plusmn 1171 47 - 0889plusmn 097U 32 -2165plusmn 1136 48 - 1635plusmn 0948 48 -0256plusmn 0973

18 -1217plusmn 1566 29 -2066plusmn 1199 Jl -3249plusmn 1612 23 + 2J09plusmn 1326 14 OOOOplusmn 0000 23 +4113plusmn 1168

45 -2610plusmn 0937 015 -3394plusmn 0890 45 -3141 plusmn 09011

-------------------------------------~--~-------------I [h olltiJred (OW$ arc not induclp(1 in th(middotsp correlation studies bull

bull

bull

bull

INBREfJDl~a 01 GHAD HOLSTEIN COWS 25

The (~OIIllutions showed thut meusures of producing ability wete more definitely Iltleeted by intensive inbreeding than mcu8meS of body size 01 otgnn Ilnd gland size The negative correlation coef1ieient showing decreases itl milk production with incIenses in degree of inshybreeding was slightly below the level of significanee However the ne~utive cOllelatioll coetlicilnts with buttednt percentage in the milk and with tobd uutterfllt production were si~nificant Probnbly these (oettkienis undelestilllnte the Ildvlls( etleds of inbreeding FOI lxtllllple the cow with tlw hi~lllst cortlilient of inbreeding (A-148) had 8n(t a smallulld(l and liO lit tie Illilk secretion thut no attempt WitS

uHllle to milk hl1 dl11in~ flu ~o days b(t((n the finl( of fitst calving tlnd till t illl( of sillught(l

)lmt of the (olIClntion (o(flililnts betw(en t11l dlgll( of inbreeclinl llnd lI1eaSlIles of body 01 Rkeletal size and the size cif internal organs and ~lall(ls (1( lI(gativc but Hot signifieantly so The correlations with SOllie of till 1l((HSllllS of skeletal size udder capacitYI and the mtio of ca paeiy to wei~ht were positive The ollly sigmficlmt or l1eltly silnlfiltllf Ill~atie relationships were b(t((11 d(lrtee of inshybleedill~~nd til( li~htli of the blain heart and Ihel N()~igllitiCllllt lllati()n~hil) (le fOlilld bttWl(~ll inhnsity of inble((ling and the siZt of Illl of t Ie ell(lo(lill( Ialld~

VH1AIlI LITY l~ SIZ~ OF BOllY Mill ITS PAHTS l~ OLlBIIEU iU INUllED Cows

(Iol(illlt to eight (11) the plillljpal etied of illblledilllt I 11 I I b Igtf II III alltolllatltH r Ilia nn~ lOlll()ZygOllS SOIlH~ (onl lllabons 0 t Ie fudors which wele hltllozygous j n the original lIIlldom-ored stock lli~ statlllI(nt implies a resllltin~ increase in uniformity in the inshybl(d stock This was borne out by the analytical studies of Eaton (3) which showed fOl guillea pigs that the degree of variability in organ ~ize was about 15 perCent 10Wll in th( inbted animals than hl the ~onttol lOUP

Coellieiellts of variation wen detlll1 ined Jot the vadollS items lepleshys(Jlting siz( of til( body and its PIlts 101 Ih( outbl((l cows and for thos( rlpl(Helltin~ dillrr(nt intll1iti( (toetlicients) of inbreeding Ill( Ielttlt art ghl1I ill table J

20 TECI-LHCAL BULLErLI 990 U S DEPl OF AGRICULTURE

ANATO~IY OF THE GRADE HOLSTEIN COWS IX THIS EXPERI(ENT AS COMPARED

WITH THAT OF RpoundCISTERED HOLSTEIN COWS

The fOtegoing tabulationSllncl discussions have shown the most noteworthy differences in body size and anatomy between outbred cows bull ll1d those representing IlIiom intensities of inbreeding All cows ill this study wele glade Holsteins-that is cows with 50 percent or mOI( of Holstein ancestry and with less than 50 peretnt of the nncestry of any other breed fiuch a discussion would be lacking in completeshynesS if it did not show the extent to which these glad( animals diffNcd ill size and anatomy Trom a population of registeled Holstein cows

In n prcvj()us study of body form anatomy and plOdllcing capaeity of 593eows (6) data ele included for 75 registpl(d ITOls((ins from the Bpltsville herd The av~raglS TOI these [egist(lpd Holsteins were used as It basis fOl comparison with thl Iade Holsteins in the plesent study Avelages fOl items showing size of body and body ptlLtS and percentnges showing the relation of size in the olltbled mcl the inbred gllllie Holsteins to that in legist(ICd Holst(ins are given in tabl( 3

The chief point of int(Iestin this to11lparison is the dtglee of difshyference betwe(n the outblld glad(middot Holst(ins and the registered Holshysteins since the chang(s in ize of body and body parts that ocullcd with inbreeding alt(gtudy haw been dis(llltsecI

In body mass the outbnd glad(gt Hol-tel11S ere nbout 6 percent smaller than the legisteled Holstlins They differed even less on an Itvemge in tnpaSUlenllnts of skeletal size

The dil(lelHPs ele mlleh less eonsist(nt for the items listed under internal organs and the aYNage cliti(lence was greater than for either bod mass 01 skpletal size The brain WaS of almost the SHme size ill the OlltbtNI gmde Holsteins as in the registered Holsteins bullbut all of the other ftlms w(rl sma lieI The gre~tf~st differences ocshyClIlTlc1 in conne(tion with weights of kidneys hellt and lungs

The enc1ocline glands also showed S0111e madcd individual difshyferences and amiddot(taged lL~ penent small(l in the outbled grade Holshysteins AlI of the endotIil1( glands wel( smallel in the olltl)lcc1 gmc1e HolsHins the ll(atest difhI~nce being in weight of adrenals which aTelllgNI about27 lWI((nt smaller

Theuro trends in avC[age 1llIClnblles for the vndous gronps of items are sil1lilnl ro thOfC shown in tabl( 1 In tabl( 3 howev(gtr t11( Pl1shyclItuglS for tl1l thl(P inbtlcl gronps arC nil Slllalt(L becnl1se tl1(Y were caieulated on the basi of thplall(1 tCrlsteled Holsteins rather thaI) on tl1euro smaller Olltbl((1 gll(h llolsteiuE

Approxillllltlly OM-third of till (OWS in the olltbred group were sirtd bv regi~tellll H()lt(in lmlls and W(I( out of grade Jersey or grntil GuelllscT (ow It would S(LlII logi(lI I to as-ume that if they had had n higher pcr((ntllge or Holst(ill iltHltl(l of JPISey 01 Guernsey ancestry the (ows in til( outbtld group would hae been larger 011 all HWn1e anll the effects of inblleltling would have been more pr onOlll1Cecl

bull

bull bull bull lllIiB a-Anatomy of Olltblcd and inbred g)ade noliitei1~ COlOS C07nlarcd with tltat of registered Holstei1t cows

- middot1

Wcightor mCIISllrelllclIt

__ bull ____ --------

]3()(1r wlight or mllss Live wliHht Ill lilllllghtcr laquo _____ _ Ell1pty body wciht Wlight of lIlnIl8S

AylrHgc___________________________

Sk(Ililll size lhight Ilt withlra Width of hips __ _ L(lIgth wither to pill)Oll(S cO

Depth of thvlIleic (~ILYity (llluximulII) Width of thorll(ic (avity (7th rib)__ Lellgth of t iJormi( jLjjy (1Iluxi III II 111)

vlrIIge __ _

Sce foutrlo(middot fit (111 oi tflble

Avemgc wcight or 1I1CllSUrcIJlCllt

----+----~

l I Itffr~~l~~~ Outhred 0 (1 I groupgroup

----------- shy1nbred groups hllin~ illbrcecling

coefliciclltii of--shy ___~ _I I

10 to 29 30 to 49 percent percen t

1--- 1 -middot1---- 1middot-----1

I POImillPOlmill POll1lci1 1 aal 12a8 1167 I ~~9 ~of1 ~a5 7~ I 94l57

h)I)bull)01 61 n 4) 571 02 _____I~____I _____

I c--- I emiddot _ bullbull Oc

Po II lids

50 to 69 percell t

Po II Ids Ini) 110middot

8870a 884 60 5as 62 524 72

Relation of weight or mCllSureshyment for the ouUmfi group and the inbred groups to that of the registered group

First Secon d Qulbred inbred inbred

group grouJl grouJl(10-29) (30-49) (50-69)

~ 1----1--shy

~ P(rC(lIt Perccnt IPercellt Pcrcent gtshy

92 5 8721 85 1 824 ~ 950 871 81 4 81 I 94 4 87 1 82 1 80 0 i

Z til ~ 02 02

Third oinbred Z group

Oellilllc(r~ C(IIillilrll CClllillctcr~ CClllilllclcr~ Celltlllelus ()137 58 1a377 laJ 48 13247 13286

5705 54 95 53 62 5491 Fi4 50 S ~14-131 1middot1185 13846 la953 14146 U1

FiO48 4n 49 47 38 47 59 48 25 i8 a3 a5 37 a5 17 34 83 34 50 8207 8082 82 13 81 62 81 j4

===1======1======1==== t~-

I_ 1---1---1---1---- o l40 87 I 829 81 2

_shy -1 --=1 il=-==I==I===I=== sect 2

bull bull

t5

~ lABM 3~~middot1Iatomy oj ollbred and inbred vade 110181ein cows compared willi tllat oj regutered lJolstei11 cows-ConLillued

neiation of weight or ~neasur~ g Aerago weigh t or IllPI1SUrelllent lIlent for the outbred group i

ancl the ilbrcd groups to that o( the registered group ~

Weight (If Illeasurellleut IX)----- I inbred group lIlving jnhreeding 1 I d coethcltllts 0(- ]irsl Second Third

Hegisterd Outimd ~ __ ~ _ ~__~_IOutbredlmiddot inbred inbred inbred toolst-clIl group gt-3group I group group group group

I 10 to 29 30 to 49 50 to 69 (10-29) (30-49) (50-69) sa percent percent percent ltgt

ltgt ---~-

_0 I11tcrnal organs 1Potnds Pounds POllids Pounds Pounds Percellt lPcrcent Percent PercentWeight of heart__ ___ _ _____ bull __ 4 no I 13 116 371 ~ 366 884 849 763 7lt17Weight of IlIngs_ _ ____ 944 831 953 963Wlight of imiddotcr ___ __ _________ bullbull 940 880 101 0 1020 1002 fIJ502 J5 OJ 1(i44 1477 1431 90 J 988 946 91 6 Weight of stolllllchs_ bullbull _ ____ bullbull __ __ 3857 36 27 3533 3432 3303 940 B6 890 856 ~

to 0

Grams Grallls Grams Grams GrewlS ~Weight of brain ____ bullbull ______________ 431 5 428 5 4255 4078 3853Weight of spleen_ bull __ bull ___________ bull ____ 893945 I 8fl4 2 875 3 8242 I

99 al 9861 94 5j oWeight of kidncys ____________________ 820 2 91 4 926 87 2 86714294 12400 12132 1 180 4 1 196 I 872 84 9 826 83 7 gt

Meiers JIleters iJetas JJeters VeiNS o

Length of intestine______ bullbull ___ 60 87 58 84 58 OU 57 8u 999 = I 6083 9671 954 9511 gA crugc __________________________ - ~ -_ 926 935 90 2 890 ~ -I d

0 tl

bull

bull bull bull I

Grams Grams I Grams Grallts I Grams1~lIdocrine ghndsWeight of pituitary____________________ 359 347 331 288 935 904 8j)2 750384Weight of pineaL _____________________ 2494 2500 899 883 891 893 Weight of thyroid _____________________ 876 97 2 894 117028 2517 2473

39 () 347 385 354 463 543Weight of parathyroids _______________ 14 1318 1629 111 1 0700 94 1 U64 794

Weight of pLuleredS____________________ 503 7 4455 3864 3641 355 0 884 76 7 723 705 Weight of adrenals ____--- _____________ 390 285 300 297 288 731 769 76 2 738

878 910 821 so 0Avcrllge_________ ---- _- - --- - - -- ----- ---- ---- - -1---_---- --------------------t----- -- --- z

J ~

bull I Averages for the registered Holstein group were based Oil duia obtained from 75 cows slaughtered at Beltsville prior to JUlie 30 1936 E Sec Literature (it~d (6) z o

~ o g

I z

~

~

___________ ________ _____

24 TECHNICAL BULLETIN 990 U f) DEPT UF AGRICULTURE

STATISTICAL ANALYSIS OF CORRELATION BETWEEN COEFFICIENTS OF

INBltEEDING ND FOltM ANATO~rY AND PRODUCTION

COIlelation coefficients were calculated between the legree of inshy bullbreeding and meusures of body size orgull and gland size Ilnd proshyducing ubilit~middot in the data from 49 cows with various degrees of inbreeding fhe results of this IInalysis as shown in table 4 indicate definite lelationships in lelathely few of the items studied

lABLt 4-00rrelation between intensity of inbleeding (lIlId fonn anatomy and P1otiuotion 1

VtJight or 1I1eaSurell1ent

Body weight or II1ILSS Live weight at 18 month _____ bull c __

Live weight abOllt 3 months afur lilt calL bull Live weight at Inllghter Empty body weight Weight of carCIL~S _

Skeletal size Height at witherIL________ bull Width of hips bullbull ______ _ ___ Length withers to pinbone~__ Depth of thoracic cavity (IIInxilUlIlII) Width of thoracic cavity (7th rib) _bullbull I_ength of thorlLcic cavity (maximum)

Interunl organs Wpight of hearL ___ Weight of lungs ____ ~ Weight of liver ___ Weight of stomachsbull Weight of brain __ bull Weight of spleen bullbull__ 1eight of kidney~_

En~~~~f~~o~I~~ltS~incs bull bull bull - bullbull ~ _ - -1 Weight of pituitary _ _ ___ __ Weight of pineaL__ Weight of thyroid ____ bull Weight of parathyroid~__ Weight of pancrelLS __ Weight of adrenals_________ _ __ ______ _

Cdder Weight of udder (Iactating) ____ ________ _ Weight of udder (dry) _________________ ___ _ Capncity of udder (lactating) ________ bullbull ___ _ Capncity of udder (dry) ____ _ Ratio of capncity to weight (lactating) ___ _ Ratio of capacity to weight (dry)

Production ~Iilk bull bull _ __ bullbull

Butterfat Icbullbullbull __ _ ___ bullbullbull _

Percentage of butterfat ill milk ___ ------ _____1

11111-Coefficient ofber of correlationcows

49 -0 0449plusmnl1 0962 47 -1174plusmn 0970 49 OOOOplusmn 0000 49 -1945plusmn 0927 49 -1843plusmn 0931

49 +0393plusmn 0962 49 +1278plusmn 0948 48 + 1464plusmn 0953 49 + 0446plusmn 0962 49 - 1039plusmn 0953 49 - 0924 plusmn 0955

49 - 2886plusmn 0883 bull49 -0420plusmn 0962 49 - 3217 plusmn 08U4 -19 - Hi25plusmn 0938 49 - 2740plusmn 0891 49 - 01342plusmn 09UO -17 - 02Ul plusmn 0983 49 + 0961 plusmn 0955

48 -1461plusmn 0953 33 - 0488plusmn 1171 47 - 0889plusmn 097U 32 -2165plusmn 1136 48 - 1635plusmn 0948 48 -0256plusmn 0973

18 -1217plusmn 1566 29 -2066plusmn 1199 Jl -3249plusmn 1612 23 + 2J09plusmn 1326 14 OOOOplusmn 0000 23 +4113plusmn 1168

45 -2610plusmn 0937 015 -3394plusmn 0890 45 -3141 plusmn 09011

-------------------------------------~--~-------------I [h olltiJred (OW$ arc not induclp(1 in th(middotsp correlation studies bull

bull

bull

bull

INBREfJDl~a 01 GHAD HOLSTEIN COWS 25

The (~OIIllutions showed thut meusures of producing ability wete more definitely Iltleeted by intensive inbreeding than mcu8meS of body size 01 otgnn Ilnd gland size The negative correlation coef1ieient showing decreases itl milk production with incIenses in degree of inshybreeding was slightly below the level of significanee However the ne~utive cOllelatioll coetlicilnts with buttednt percentage in the milk and with tobd uutterfllt production were si~nificant Probnbly these (oettkienis undelestilllnte the Ildvlls( etleds of inbreeding FOI lxtllllple the cow with tlw hi~lllst cortlilient of inbreeding (A-148) had 8n(t a smallulld(l and liO lit tie Illilk secretion thut no attempt WitS

uHllle to milk hl1 dl11in~ flu ~o days b(t((n the finl( of fitst calving tlnd till t illl( of sillught(l

)lmt of the (olIClntion (o(flililnts betw(en t11l dlgll( of inbreeclinl llnd lI1eaSlIles of body 01 Rkeletal size and the size cif internal organs and ~lall(ls (1( lI(gativc but Hot signifieantly so The correlations with SOllie of till 1l((HSllllS of skeletal size udder capacitYI and the mtio of ca paeiy to wei~ht were positive The ollly sigmficlmt or l1eltly silnlfiltllf Ill~atie relationships were b(t((11 d(lrtee of inshybleedill~~nd til( li~htli of the blain heart and Ihel N()~igllitiCllllt lllati()n~hil) (le fOlilld bttWl(~ll inhnsity of inble((ling and the siZt of Illl of t Ie ell(lo(lill( Ialld~

VH1AIlI LITY l~ SIZ~ OF BOllY Mill ITS PAHTS l~ OLlBIIEU iU INUllED Cows

(Iol(illlt to eight (11) the plillljpal etied of illblledilllt I 11 I I b Igtf II III alltolllatltH r Ilia nn~ lOlll()ZygOllS SOIlH~ (onl lllabons 0 t Ie fudors which wele hltllozygous j n the original lIIlldom-ored stock lli~ statlllI(nt implies a resllltin~ increase in uniformity in the inshybl(d stock This was borne out by the analytical studies of Eaton (3) which showed fOl guillea pigs that the degree of variability in organ ~ize was about 15 perCent 10Wll in th( inbted animals than hl the ~onttol lOUP

Coellieiellts of variation wen detlll1 ined Jot the vadollS items lepleshys(Jlting siz( of til( body and its PIlts 101 Ih( outbl((l cows and for thos( rlpl(Helltin~ dillrr(nt intll1iti( (toetlicients) of inbreeding Ill( Ielttlt art ghl1I ill table J

bull bull bull lllIiB a-Anatomy of Olltblcd and inbred g)ade noliitei1~ COlOS C07nlarcd with tltat of registered Holstei1t cows

- middot1

Wcightor mCIISllrelllclIt

__ bull ____ --------

]3()(1r wlight or mllss Live wliHht Ill lilllllghtcr laquo _____ _ Ell1pty body wciht Wlight of lIlnIl8S

AylrHgc___________________________

Sk(Ililll size lhight Ilt withlra Width of hips __ _ L(lIgth wither to pill)Oll(S cO

Depth of thvlIleic (~ILYity (llluximulII) Width of thorll(ic (avity (7th rib)__ Lellgth of t iJormi( jLjjy (1Iluxi III II 111)

vlrIIge __ _

Sce foutrlo(middot fit (111 oi tflble

Avemgc wcight or 1I1CllSUrcIJlCllt

----+----~

l I Itffr~~l~~~ Outhred 0 (1 I groupgroup

----------- shy1nbred groups hllin~ illbrcecling

coefliciclltii of--shy ___~ _I I

10 to 29 30 to 49 percent percen t

1--- 1 -middot1---- 1middot-----1

I POImillPOlmill POll1lci1 1 aal 12a8 1167 I ~~9 ~of1 ~a5 7~ I 94l57

h)I)bull)01 61 n 4) 571 02 _____I~____I _____

I c--- I emiddot _ bullbull Oc

Po II lids

50 to 69 percell t

Po II Ids Ini) 110middot

8870a 884 60 5as 62 524 72

Relation of weight or mCllSureshyment for the ouUmfi group and the inbred groups to that of the registered group

First Secon d Qulbred inbred inbred

group grouJl grouJl(10-29) (30-49) (50-69)

~ 1----1--shy

~ P(rC(lIt Perccnt IPercellt Pcrcent gtshy

92 5 8721 85 1 824 ~ 950 871 81 4 81 I 94 4 87 1 82 1 80 0 i

Z til ~ 02 02

Third oinbred Z group

Oellilllc(r~ C(IIillilrll CClllillctcr~ CClllilllclcr~ Celltlllelus ()137 58 1a377 laJ 48 13247 13286

5705 54 95 53 62 5491 Fi4 50 S ~14-131 1middot1185 13846 la953 14146 U1

FiO48 4n 49 47 38 47 59 48 25 i8 a3 a5 37 a5 17 34 83 34 50 8207 8082 82 13 81 62 81 j4

===1======1======1==== t~-

I_ 1---1---1---1---- o l40 87 I 829 81 2

_shy -1 --=1 il=-==I==I===I=== sect 2

bull bull

t5

~ lABM 3~~middot1Iatomy oj ollbred and inbred vade 110181ein cows compared willi tllat oj regutered lJolstei11 cows-ConLillued

neiation of weight or ~neasur~ g Aerago weigh t or IllPI1SUrelllent lIlent for the outbred group i

ancl the ilbrcd groups to that o( the registered group ~

Weight (If Illeasurellleut IX)----- I inbred group lIlving jnhreeding 1 I d coethcltllts 0(- ]irsl Second Third

Hegisterd Outimd ~ __ ~ _ ~__~_IOutbredlmiddot inbred inbred inbred toolst-clIl group gt-3group I group group group group

I 10 to 29 30 to 49 50 to 69 (10-29) (30-49) (50-69) sa percent percent percent ltgt

ltgt ---~-

_0 I11tcrnal organs 1Potnds Pounds POllids Pounds Pounds Percellt lPcrcent Percent PercentWeight of heart__ ___ _ _____ bull __ 4 no I 13 116 371 ~ 366 884 849 763 7lt17Weight of IlIngs_ _ ____ 944 831 953 963Wlight of imiddotcr ___ __ _________ bullbull 940 880 101 0 1020 1002 fIJ502 J5 OJ 1(i44 1477 1431 90 J 988 946 91 6 Weight of stolllllchs_ bullbull _ ____ bullbull __ __ 3857 36 27 3533 3432 3303 940 B6 890 856 ~

to 0

Grams Grallls Grams Grams GrewlS ~Weight of brain ____ bullbull ______________ 431 5 428 5 4255 4078 3853Weight of spleen_ bull __ bull ___________ bull ____ 893945 I 8fl4 2 875 3 8242 I

99 al 9861 94 5j oWeight of kidncys ____________________ 820 2 91 4 926 87 2 86714294 12400 12132 1 180 4 1 196 I 872 84 9 826 83 7 gt

Meiers JIleters iJetas JJeters VeiNS o

Length of intestine______ bullbull ___ 60 87 58 84 58 OU 57 8u 999 = I 6083 9671 954 9511 gA crugc __________________________ - ~ -_ 926 935 90 2 890 ~ -I d

0 tl

bull

bull bull bull I

Grams Grams I Grams Grallts I Grams1~lIdocrine ghndsWeight of pituitary____________________ 359 347 331 288 935 904 8j)2 750384Weight of pineaL _____________________ 2494 2500 899 883 891 893 Weight of thyroid _____________________ 876 97 2 894 117028 2517 2473

39 () 347 385 354 463 543Weight of parathyroids _______________ 14 1318 1629 111 1 0700 94 1 U64 794

Weight of pLuleredS____________________ 503 7 4455 3864 3641 355 0 884 76 7 723 705 Weight of adrenals ____--- _____________ 390 285 300 297 288 731 769 76 2 738

878 910 821 so 0Avcrllge_________ ---- _- - --- - - -- ----- ---- ---- - -1---_---- --------------------t----- -- --- z

J ~

bull I Averages for the registered Holstein group were based Oil duia obtained from 75 cows slaughtered at Beltsville prior to JUlie 30 1936 E Sec Literature (it~d (6) z o

~ o g

I z

~

~

___________ ________ _____

24 TECHNICAL BULLETIN 990 U f) DEPT UF AGRICULTURE

STATISTICAL ANALYSIS OF CORRELATION BETWEEN COEFFICIENTS OF

INBltEEDING ND FOltM ANATO~rY AND PRODUCTION

COIlelation coefficients were calculated between the legree of inshy bullbreeding and meusures of body size orgull and gland size Ilnd proshyducing ubilit~middot in the data from 49 cows with various degrees of inbreeding fhe results of this IInalysis as shown in table 4 indicate definite lelationships in lelathely few of the items studied

lABLt 4-00rrelation between intensity of inbleeding (lIlId fonn anatomy and P1otiuotion 1

VtJight or 1I1eaSurell1ent

Body weight or II1ILSS Live weight at 18 month _____ bull c __

Live weight abOllt 3 months afur lilt calL bull Live weight at Inllghter Empty body weight Weight of carCIL~S _

Skeletal size Height at witherIL________ bull Width of hips bullbull ______ _ ___ Length withers to pinbone~__ Depth of thoracic cavity (IIInxilUlIlII) Width of thoracic cavity (7th rib) _bullbull I_ength of thorlLcic cavity (maximum)

Interunl organs Wpight of hearL ___ Weight of lungs ____ ~ Weight of liver ___ Weight of stomachsbull Weight of brain __ bull Weight of spleen bullbull__ 1eight of kidney~_

En~~~~f~~o~I~~ltS~incs bull bull bull - bullbull ~ _ - -1 Weight of pituitary _ _ ___ __ Weight of pineaL__ Weight of thyroid ____ bull Weight of parathyroid~__ Weight of pancrelLS __ Weight of adrenals_________ _ __ ______ _

Cdder Weight of udder (Iactating) ____ ________ _ Weight of udder (dry) _________________ ___ _ Capncity of udder (lactating) ________ bullbull ___ _ Capncity of udder (dry) ____ _ Ratio of capncity to weight (lactating) ___ _ Ratio of capacity to weight (dry)

Production ~Iilk bull bull _ __ bullbull

Butterfat Icbullbullbull __ _ ___ bullbullbull _

Percentage of butterfat ill milk ___ ------ _____1

11111-Coefficient ofber of correlationcows

49 -0 0449plusmnl1 0962 47 -1174plusmn 0970 49 OOOOplusmn 0000 49 -1945plusmn 0927 49 -1843plusmn 0931

49 +0393plusmn 0962 49 +1278plusmn 0948 48 + 1464plusmn 0953 49 + 0446plusmn 0962 49 - 1039plusmn 0953 49 - 0924 plusmn 0955

49 - 2886plusmn 0883 bull49 -0420plusmn 0962 49 - 3217 plusmn 08U4 -19 - Hi25plusmn 0938 49 - 2740plusmn 0891 49 - 01342plusmn 09UO -17 - 02Ul plusmn 0983 49 + 0961 plusmn 0955

48 -1461plusmn 0953 33 - 0488plusmn 1171 47 - 0889plusmn 097U 32 -2165plusmn 1136 48 - 1635plusmn 0948 48 -0256plusmn 0973

18 -1217plusmn 1566 29 -2066plusmn 1199 Jl -3249plusmn 1612 23 + 2J09plusmn 1326 14 OOOOplusmn 0000 23 +4113plusmn 1168

45 -2610plusmn 0937 015 -3394plusmn 0890 45 -3141 plusmn 09011

-------------------------------------~--~-------------I [h olltiJred (OW$ arc not induclp(1 in th(middotsp correlation studies bull

bull

bull

bull

INBREfJDl~a 01 GHAD HOLSTEIN COWS 25

The (~OIIllutions showed thut meusures of producing ability wete more definitely Iltleeted by intensive inbreeding than mcu8meS of body size 01 otgnn Ilnd gland size The negative correlation coef1ieient showing decreases itl milk production with incIenses in degree of inshybreeding was slightly below the level of significanee However the ne~utive cOllelatioll coetlicilnts with buttednt percentage in the milk and with tobd uutterfllt production were si~nificant Probnbly these (oettkienis undelestilllnte the Ildvlls( etleds of inbreeding FOI lxtllllple the cow with tlw hi~lllst cortlilient of inbreeding (A-148) had 8n(t a smallulld(l and liO lit tie Illilk secretion thut no attempt WitS

uHllle to milk hl1 dl11in~ flu ~o days b(t((n the finl( of fitst calving tlnd till t illl( of sillught(l

)lmt of the (olIClntion (o(flililnts betw(en t11l dlgll( of inbreeclinl llnd lI1eaSlIles of body 01 Rkeletal size and the size cif internal organs and ~lall(ls (1( lI(gativc but Hot signifieantly so The correlations with SOllie of till 1l((HSllllS of skeletal size udder capacitYI and the mtio of ca paeiy to wei~ht were positive The ollly sigmficlmt or l1eltly silnlfiltllf Ill~atie relationships were b(t((11 d(lrtee of inshybleedill~~nd til( li~htli of the blain heart and Ihel N()~igllitiCllllt lllati()n~hil) (le fOlilld bttWl(~ll inhnsity of inble((ling and the siZt of Illl of t Ie ell(lo(lill( Ialld~

VH1AIlI LITY l~ SIZ~ OF BOllY Mill ITS PAHTS l~ OLlBIIEU iU INUllED Cows

(Iol(illlt to eight (11) the plillljpal etied of illblledilllt I 11 I I b Igtf II III alltolllatltH r Ilia nn~ lOlll()ZygOllS SOIlH~ (onl lllabons 0 t Ie fudors which wele hltllozygous j n the original lIIlldom-ored stock lli~ statlllI(nt implies a resllltin~ increase in uniformity in the inshybl(d stock This was borne out by the analytical studies of Eaton (3) which showed fOl guillea pigs that the degree of variability in organ ~ize was about 15 perCent 10Wll in th( inbted animals than hl the ~onttol lOUP

Coellieiellts of variation wen detlll1 ined Jot the vadollS items lepleshys(Jlting siz( of til( body and its PIlts 101 Ih( outbl((l cows and for thos( rlpl(Helltin~ dillrr(nt intll1iti( (toetlicients) of inbreeding Ill( Ielttlt art ghl1I ill table J

bull bull

t5

~ lABM 3~~middot1Iatomy oj ollbred and inbred vade 110181ein cows compared willi tllat oj regutered lJolstei11 cows-ConLillued

neiation of weight or ~neasur~ g Aerago weigh t or IllPI1SUrelllent lIlent for the outbred group i

ancl the ilbrcd groups to that o( the registered group ~

Weight (If Illeasurellleut IX)----- I inbred group lIlving jnhreeding 1 I d coethcltllts 0(- ]irsl Second Third

Hegisterd Outimd ~ __ ~ _ ~__~_IOutbredlmiddot inbred inbred inbred toolst-clIl group gt-3group I group group group group

I 10 to 29 30 to 49 50 to 69 (10-29) (30-49) (50-69) sa percent percent percent ltgt

ltgt ---~-

_0 I11tcrnal organs 1Potnds Pounds POllids Pounds Pounds Percellt lPcrcent Percent PercentWeight of heart__ ___ _ _____ bull __ 4 no I 13 116 371 ~ 366 884 849 763 7lt17Weight of IlIngs_ _ ____ 944 831 953 963Wlight of imiddotcr ___ __ _________ bullbull 940 880 101 0 1020 1002 fIJ502 J5 OJ 1(i44 1477 1431 90 J 988 946 91 6 Weight of stolllllchs_ bullbull _ ____ bullbull __ __ 3857 36 27 3533 3432 3303 940 B6 890 856 ~

to 0

Grams Grallls Grams Grams GrewlS ~Weight of brain ____ bullbull ______________ 431 5 428 5 4255 4078 3853Weight of spleen_ bull __ bull ___________ bull ____ 893945 I 8fl4 2 875 3 8242 I

99 al 9861 94 5j oWeight of kidncys ____________________ 820 2 91 4 926 87 2 86714294 12400 12132 1 180 4 1 196 I 872 84 9 826 83 7 gt

Meiers JIleters iJetas JJeters VeiNS o

Length of intestine______ bullbull ___ 60 87 58 84 58 OU 57 8u 999 = I 6083 9671 954 9511 gA crugc __________________________ - ~ -_ 926 935 90 2 890 ~ -I d

0 tl

bull

bull bull bull I

Grams Grams I Grams Grallts I Grams1~lIdocrine ghndsWeight of pituitary____________________ 359 347 331 288 935 904 8j)2 750384Weight of pineaL _____________________ 2494 2500 899 883 891 893 Weight of thyroid _____________________ 876 97 2 894 117028 2517 2473

39 () 347 385 354 463 543Weight of parathyroids _______________ 14 1318 1629 111 1 0700 94 1 U64 794

Weight of pLuleredS____________________ 503 7 4455 3864 3641 355 0 884 76 7 723 705 Weight of adrenals ____--- _____________ 390 285 300 297 288 731 769 76 2 738

878 910 821 so 0Avcrllge_________ ---- _- - --- - - -- ----- ---- ---- - -1---_---- --------------------t----- -- --- z

J ~

bull I Averages for the registered Holstein group were based Oil duia obtained from 75 cows slaughtered at Beltsville prior to JUlie 30 1936 E Sec Literature (it~d (6) z o

~ o g

I z

~

~

___________ ________ _____

24 TECHNICAL BULLETIN 990 U f) DEPT UF AGRICULTURE

STATISTICAL ANALYSIS OF CORRELATION BETWEEN COEFFICIENTS OF

INBltEEDING ND FOltM ANATO~rY AND PRODUCTION

COIlelation coefficients were calculated between the legree of inshy bullbreeding and meusures of body size orgull and gland size Ilnd proshyducing ubilit~middot in the data from 49 cows with various degrees of inbreeding fhe results of this IInalysis as shown in table 4 indicate definite lelationships in lelathely few of the items studied

lABLt 4-00rrelation between intensity of inbleeding (lIlId fonn anatomy and P1otiuotion 1

VtJight or 1I1eaSurell1ent

Body weight or II1ILSS Live weight at 18 month _____ bull c __

Live weight abOllt 3 months afur lilt calL bull Live weight at Inllghter Empty body weight Weight of carCIL~S _

Skeletal size Height at witherIL________ bull Width of hips bullbull ______ _ ___ Length withers to pinbone~__ Depth of thoracic cavity (IIInxilUlIlII) Width of thoracic cavity (7th rib) _bullbull I_ength of thorlLcic cavity (maximum)

Interunl organs Wpight of hearL ___ Weight of lungs ____ ~ Weight of liver ___ Weight of stomachsbull Weight of brain __ bull Weight of spleen bullbull__ 1eight of kidney~_

En~~~~f~~o~I~~ltS~incs bull bull bull - bullbull ~ _ - -1 Weight of pituitary _ _ ___ __ Weight of pineaL__ Weight of thyroid ____ bull Weight of parathyroid~__ Weight of pancrelLS __ Weight of adrenals_________ _ __ ______ _

Cdder Weight of udder (Iactating) ____ ________ _ Weight of udder (dry) _________________ ___ _ Capncity of udder (lactating) ________ bullbull ___ _ Capncity of udder (dry) ____ _ Ratio of capncity to weight (lactating) ___ _ Ratio of capacity to weight (dry)

Production ~Iilk bull bull _ __ bullbull

Butterfat Icbullbullbull __ _ ___ bullbullbull _

Percentage of butterfat ill milk ___ ------ _____1

11111-Coefficient ofber of correlationcows

49 -0 0449plusmnl1 0962 47 -1174plusmn 0970 49 OOOOplusmn 0000 49 -1945plusmn 0927 49 -1843plusmn 0931

49 +0393plusmn 0962 49 +1278plusmn 0948 48 + 1464plusmn 0953 49 + 0446plusmn 0962 49 - 1039plusmn 0953 49 - 0924 plusmn 0955

49 - 2886plusmn 0883 bull49 -0420plusmn 0962 49 - 3217 plusmn 08U4 -19 - Hi25plusmn 0938 49 - 2740plusmn 0891 49 - 01342plusmn 09UO -17 - 02Ul plusmn 0983 49 + 0961 plusmn 0955

48 -1461plusmn 0953 33 - 0488plusmn 1171 47 - 0889plusmn 097U 32 -2165plusmn 1136 48 - 1635plusmn 0948 48 -0256plusmn 0973

18 -1217plusmn 1566 29 -2066plusmn 1199 Jl -3249plusmn 1612 23 + 2J09plusmn 1326 14 OOOOplusmn 0000 23 +4113plusmn 1168

45 -2610plusmn 0937 015 -3394plusmn 0890 45 -3141 plusmn 09011

-------------------------------------~--~-------------I [h olltiJred (OW$ arc not induclp(1 in th(middotsp correlation studies bull

bull

bull

bull

INBREfJDl~a 01 GHAD HOLSTEIN COWS 25

The (~OIIllutions showed thut meusures of producing ability wete more definitely Iltleeted by intensive inbreeding than mcu8meS of body size 01 otgnn Ilnd gland size The negative correlation coef1ieient showing decreases itl milk production with incIenses in degree of inshybreeding was slightly below the level of significanee However the ne~utive cOllelatioll coetlicilnts with buttednt percentage in the milk and with tobd uutterfllt production were si~nificant Probnbly these (oettkienis undelestilllnte the Ildvlls( etleds of inbreeding FOI lxtllllple the cow with tlw hi~lllst cortlilient of inbreeding (A-148) had 8n(t a smallulld(l and liO lit tie Illilk secretion thut no attempt WitS

uHllle to milk hl1 dl11in~ flu ~o days b(t((n the finl( of fitst calving tlnd till t illl( of sillught(l

)lmt of the (olIClntion (o(flililnts betw(en t11l dlgll( of inbreeclinl llnd lI1eaSlIles of body 01 Rkeletal size and the size cif internal organs and ~lall(ls (1( lI(gativc but Hot signifieantly so The correlations with SOllie of till 1l((HSllllS of skeletal size udder capacitYI and the mtio of ca paeiy to wei~ht were positive The ollly sigmficlmt or l1eltly silnlfiltllf Ill~atie relationships were b(t((11 d(lrtee of inshybleedill~~nd til( li~htli of the blain heart and Ihel N()~igllitiCllllt lllati()n~hil) (le fOlilld bttWl(~ll inhnsity of inble((ling and the siZt of Illl of t Ie ell(lo(lill( Ialld~

VH1AIlI LITY l~ SIZ~ OF BOllY Mill ITS PAHTS l~ OLlBIIEU iU INUllED Cows

(Iol(illlt to eight (11) the plillljpal etied of illblledilllt I 11 I I b Igtf II III alltolllatltH r Ilia nn~ lOlll()ZygOllS SOIlH~ (onl lllabons 0 t Ie fudors which wele hltllozygous j n the original lIIlldom-ored stock lli~ statlllI(nt implies a resllltin~ increase in uniformity in the inshybl(d stock This was borne out by the analytical studies of Eaton (3) which showed fOl guillea pigs that the degree of variability in organ ~ize was about 15 perCent 10Wll in th( inbted animals than hl the ~onttol lOUP

Coellieiellts of variation wen detlll1 ined Jot the vadollS items lepleshys(Jlting siz( of til( body and its PIlts 101 Ih( outbl((l cows and for thos( rlpl(Helltin~ dillrr(nt intll1iti( (toetlicients) of inbreeding Ill( Ielttlt art ghl1I ill table J

bull bull bull I

Grams Grams I Grams Grallts I Grams1~lIdocrine ghndsWeight of pituitary____________________ 359 347 331 288 935 904 8j)2 750384Weight of pineaL _____________________ 2494 2500 899 883 891 893 Weight of thyroid _____________________ 876 97 2 894 117028 2517 2473

39 () 347 385 354 463 543Weight of parathyroids _______________ 14 1318 1629 111 1 0700 94 1 U64 794

Weight of pLuleredS____________________ 503 7 4455 3864 3641 355 0 884 76 7 723 705 Weight of adrenals ____--- _____________ 390 285 300 297 288 731 769 76 2 738

878 910 821 so 0Avcrllge_________ ---- _- - --- - - -- ----- ---- ---- - -1---_---- --------------------t----- -- --- z

J ~

bull I Averages for the registered Holstein group were based Oil duia obtained from 75 cows slaughtered at Beltsville prior to JUlie 30 1936 E Sec Literature (it~d (6) z o

~ o g

I z

~

~

___________ ________ _____

24 TECHNICAL BULLETIN 990 U f) DEPT UF AGRICULTURE

STATISTICAL ANALYSIS OF CORRELATION BETWEEN COEFFICIENTS OF

INBltEEDING ND FOltM ANATO~rY AND PRODUCTION

COIlelation coefficients were calculated between the legree of inshy bullbreeding and meusures of body size orgull and gland size Ilnd proshyducing ubilit~middot in the data from 49 cows with various degrees of inbreeding fhe results of this IInalysis as shown in table 4 indicate definite lelationships in lelathely few of the items studied

lABLt 4-00rrelation between intensity of inbleeding (lIlId fonn anatomy and P1otiuotion 1

VtJight or 1I1eaSurell1ent

Body weight or II1ILSS Live weight at 18 month _____ bull c __

Live weight abOllt 3 months afur lilt calL bull Live weight at Inllghter Empty body weight Weight of carCIL~S _

Skeletal size Height at witherIL________ bull Width of hips bullbull ______ _ ___ Length withers to pinbone~__ Depth of thoracic cavity (IIInxilUlIlII) Width of thoracic cavity (7th rib) _bullbull I_ength of thorlLcic cavity (maximum)

Interunl organs Wpight of hearL ___ Weight of lungs ____ ~ Weight of liver ___ Weight of stomachsbull Weight of brain __ bull Weight of spleen bullbull__ 1eight of kidney~_

En~~~~f~~o~I~~ltS~incs bull bull bull - bullbull ~ _ - -1 Weight of pituitary _ _ ___ __ Weight of pineaL__ Weight of thyroid ____ bull Weight of parathyroid~__ Weight of pancrelLS __ Weight of adrenals_________ _ __ ______ _

Cdder Weight of udder (Iactating) ____ ________ _ Weight of udder (dry) _________________ ___ _ Capncity of udder (lactating) ________ bullbull ___ _ Capncity of udder (dry) ____ _ Ratio of capncity to weight (lactating) ___ _ Ratio of capacity to weight (dry)

Production ~Iilk bull bull _ __ bullbull

Butterfat Icbullbullbull __ _ ___ bullbullbull _

Percentage of butterfat ill milk ___ ------ _____1

11111-Coefficient ofber of correlationcows

49 -0 0449plusmnl1 0962 47 -1174plusmn 0970 49 OOOOplusmn 0000 49 -1945plusmn 0927 49 -1843plusmn 0931

49 +0393plusmn 0962 49 +1278plusmn 0948 48 + 1464plusmn 0953 49 + 0446plusmn 0962 49 - 1039plusmn 0953 49 - 0924 plusmn 0955

49 - 2886plusmn 0883 bull49 -0420plusmn 0962 49 - 3217 plusmn 08U4 -19 - Hi25plusmn 0938 49 - 2740plusmn 0891 49 - 01342plusmn 09UO -17 - 02Ul plusmn 0983 49 + 0961 plusmn 0955

48 -1461plusmn 0953 33 - 0488plusmn 1171 47 - 0889plusmn 097U 32 -2165plusmn 1136 48 - 1635plusmn 0948 48 -0256plusmn 0973

18 -1217plusmn 1566 29 -2066plusmn 1199 Jl -3249plusmn 1612 23 + 2J09plusmn 1326 14 OOOOplusmn 0000 23 +4113plusmn 1168

45 -2610plusmn 0937 015 -3394plusmn 0890 45 -3141 plusmn 09011

-------------------------------------~--~-------------I [h olltiJred (OW$ arc not induclp(1 in th(middotsp correlation studies bull

bull

bull

bull

INBREfJDl~a 01 GHAD HOLSTEIN COWS 25

The (~OIIllutions showed thut meusures of producing ability wete more definitely Iltleeted by intensive inbreeding than mcu8meS of body size 01 otgnn Ilnd gland size The negative correlation coef1ieient showing decreases itl milk production with incIenses in degree of inshybreeding was slightly below the level of significanee However the ne~utive cOllelatioll coetlicilnts with buttednt percentage in the milk and with tobd uutterfllt production were si~nificant Probnbly these (oettkienis undelestilllnte the Ildvlls( etleds of inbreeding FOI lxtllllple the cow with tlw hi~lllst cortlilient of inbreeding (A-148) had 8n(t a smallulld(l and liO lit tie Illilk secretion thut no attempt WitS

uHllle to milk hl1 dl11in~ flu ~o days b(t((n the finl( of fitst calving tlnd till t illl( of sillught(l

)lmt of the (olIClntion (o(flililnts betw(en t11l dlgll( of inbreeclinl llnd lI1eaSlIles of body 01 Rkeletal size and the size cif internal organs and ~lall(ls (1( lI(gativc but Hot signifieantly so The correlations with SOllie of till 1l((HSllllS of skeletal size udder capacitYI and the mtio of ca paeiy to wei~ht were positive The ollly sigmficlmt or l1eltly silnlfiltllf Ill~atie relationships were b(t((11 d(lrtee of inshybleedill~~nd til( li~htli of the blain heart and Ihel N()~igllitiCllllt lllati()n~hil) (le fOlilld bttWl(~ll inhnsity of inble((ling and the siZt of Illl of t Ie ell(lo(lill( Ialld~

VH1AIlI LITY l~ SIZ~ OF BOllY Mill ITS PAHTS l~ OLlBIIEU iU INUllED Cows

(Iol(illlt to eight (11) the plillljpal etied of illblledilllt I 11 I I b Igtf II III alltolllatltH r Ilia nn~ lOlll()ZygOllS SOIlH~ (onl lllabons 0 t Ie fudors which wele hltllozygous j n the original lIIlldom-ored stock lli~ statlllI(nt implies a resllltin~ increase in uniformity in the inshybl(d stock This was borne out by the analytical studies of Eaton (3) which showed fOl guillea pigs that the degree of variability in organ ~ize was about 15 perCent 10Wll in th( inbted animals than hl the ~onttol lOUP

Coellieiellts of variation wen detlll1 ined Jot the vadollS items lepleshys(Jlting siz( of til( body and its PIlts 101 Ih( outbl((l cows and for thos( rlpl(Helltin~ dillrr(nt intll1iti( (toetlicients) of inbreeding Ill( Ielttlt art ghl1I ill table J

___________ ________ _____

24 TECHNICAL BULLETIN 990 U f) DEPT UF AGRICULTURE

STATISTICAL ANALYSIS OF CORRELATION BETWEEN COEFFICIENTS OF

INBltEEDING ND FOltM ANATO~rY AND PRODUCTION

COIlelation coefficients were calculated between the legree of inshy bullbreeding and meusures of body size orgull and gland size Ilnd proshyducing ubilit~middot in the data from 49 cows with various degrees of inbreeding fhe results of this IInalysis as shown in table 4 indicate definite lelationships in lelathely few of the items studied

lABLt 4-00rrelation between intensity of inbleeding (lIlId fonn anatomy and P1otiuotion 1

VtJight or 1I1eaSurell1ent

Body weight or II1ILSS Live weight at 18 month _____ bull c __

Live weight abOllt 3 months afur lilt calL bull Live weight at Inllghter Empty body weight Weight of carCIL~S _

Skeletal size Height at witherIL________ bull Width of hips bullbull ______ _ ___ Length withers to pinbone~__ Depth of thoracic cavity (IIInxilUlIlII) Width of thoracic cavity (7th rib) _bullbull I_ength of thorlLcic cavity (maximum)

Interunl organs Wpight of hearL ___ Weight of lungs ____ ~ Weight of liver ___ Weight of stomachsbull Weight of brain __ bull Weight of spleen bullbull__ 1eight of kidney~_

En~~~~f~~o~I~~ltS~incs bull bull bull - bullbull ~ _ - -1 Weight of pituitary _ _ ___ __ Weight of pineaL__ Weight of thyroid ____ bull Weight of parathyroid~__ Weight of pancrelLS __ Weight of adrenals_________ _ __ ______ _

Cdder Weight of udder (Iactating) ____ ________ _ Weight of udder (dry) _________________ ___ _ Capncity of udder (lactating) ________ bullbull ___ _ Capncity of udder (dry) ____ _ Ratio of capncity to weight (lactating) ___ _ Ratio of capacity to weight (dry)

Production ~Iilk bull bull _ __ bullbull

Butterfat Icbullbullbull __ _ ___ bullbullbull _

Percentage of butterfat ill milk ___ ------ _____1

11111-Coefficient ofber of correlationcows

49 -0 0449plusmnl1 0962 47 -1174plusmn 0970 49 OOOOplusmn 0000 49 -1945plusmn 0927 49 -1843plusmn 0931

49 +0393plusmn 0962 49 +1278plusmn 0948 48 + 1464plusmn 0953 49 + 0446plusmn 0962 49 - 1039plusmn 0953 49 - 0924 plusmn 0955

49 - 2886plusmn 0883 bull49 -0420plusmn 0962 49 - 3217 plusmn 08U4 -19 - Hi25plusmn 0938 49 - 2740plusmn 0891 49 - 01342plusmn 09UO -17 - 02Ul plusmn 0983 49 + 0961 plusmn 0955

48 -1461plusmn 0953 33 - 0488plusmn 1171 47 - 0889plusmn 097U 32 -2165plusmn 1136 48 - 1635plusmn 0948 48 -0256plusmn 0973

18 -1217plusmn 1566 29 -2066plusmn 1199 Jl -3249plusmn 1612 23 + 2J09plusmn 1326 14 OOOOplusmn 0000 23 +4113plusmn 1168

45 -2610plusmn 0937 015 -3394plusmn 0890 45 -3141 plusmn 09011

-------------------------------------~--~-------------I [h olltiJred (OW$ arc not induclp(1 in th(middotsp correlation studies bull

bull

bull

bull

INBREfJDl~a 01 GHAD HOLSTEIN COWS 25

The (~OIIllutions showed thut meusures of producing ability wete more definitely Iltleeted by intensive inbreeding than mcu8meS of body size 01 otgnn Ilnd gland size The negative correlation coef1ieient showing decreases itl milk production with incIenses in degree of inshybreeding was slightly below the level of significanee However the ne~utive cOllelatioll coetlicilnts with buttednt percentage in the milk and with tobd uutterfllt production were si~nificant Probnbly these (oettkienis undelestilllnte the Ildvlls( etleds of inbreeding FOI lxtllllple the cow with tlw hi~lllst cortlilient of inbreeding (A-148) had 8n(t a smallulld(l and liO lit tie Illilk secretion thut no attempt WitS

uHllle to milk hl1 dl11in~ flu ~o days b(t((n the finl( of fitst calving tlnd till t illl( of sillught(l

)lmt of the (olIClntion (o(flililnts betw(en t11l dlgll( of inbreeclinl llnd lI1eaSlIles of body 01 Rkeletal size and the size cif internal organs and ~lall(ls (1( lI(gativc but Hot signifieantly so The correlations with SOllie of till 1l((HSllllS of skeletal size udder capacitYI and the mtio of ca paeiy to wei~ht were positive The ollly sigmficlmt or l1eltly silnlfiltllf Ill~atie relationships were b(t((11 d(lrtee of inshybleedill~~nd til( li~htli of the blain heart and Ihel N()~igllitiCllllt lllati()n~hil) (le fOlilld bttWl(~ll inhnsity of inble((ling and the siZt of Illl of t Ie ell(lo(lill( Ialld~

VH1AIlI LITY l~ SIZ~ OF BOllY Mill ITS PAHTS l~ OLlBIIEU iU INUllED Cows

(Iol(illlt to eight (11) the plillljpal etied of illblledilllt I 11 I I b Igtf II III alltolllatltH r Ilia nn~ lOlll()ZygOllS SOIlH~ (onl lllabons 0 t Ie fudors which wele hltllozygous j n the original lIIlldom-ored stock lli~ statlllI(nt implies a resllltin~ increase in uniformity in the inshybl(d stock This was borne out by the analytical studies of Eaton (3) which showed fOl guillea pigs that the degree of variability in organ ~ize was about 15 perCent 10Wll in th( inbted animals than hl the ~onttol lOUP

Coellieiellts of variation wen detlll1 ined Jot the vadollS items lepleshys(Jlting siz( of til( body and its PIlts 101 Ih( outbl((l cows and for thos( rlpl(Helltin~ dillrr(nt intll1iti( (toetlicients) of inbreeding Ill( Ielttlt art ghl1I ill table J

bull

bull

bull

INBREfJDl~a 01 GHAD HOLSTEIN COWS 25

The (~OIIllutions showed thut meusures of producing ability wete more definitely Iltleeted by intensive inbreeding than mcu8meS of body size 01 otgnn Ilnd gland size The negative correlation coef1ieient showing decreases itl milk production with incIenses in degree of inshybreeding was slightly below the level of significanee However the ne~utive cOllelatioll coetlicilnts with buttednt percentage in the milk and with tobd uutterfllt production were si~nificant Probnbly these (oettkienis undelestilllnte the Ildvlls( etleds of inbreeding FOI lxtllllple the cow with tlw hi~lllst cortlilient of inbreeding (A-148) had 8n(t a smallulld(l and liO lit tie Illilk secretion thut no attempt WitS

uHllle to milk hl1 dl11in~ flu ~o days b(t((n the finl( of fitst calving tlnd till t illl( of sillught(l

)lmt of the (olIClntion (o(flililnts betw(en t11l dlgll( of inbreeclinl llnd lI1eaSlIles of body 01 Rkeletal size and the size cif internal organs and ~lall(ls (1( lI(gativc but Hot signifieantly so The correlations with SOllie of till 1l((HSllllS of skeletal size udder capacitYI and the mtio of ca paeiy to wei~ht were positive The ollly sigmficlmt or l1eltly silnlfiltllf Ill~atie relationships were b(t((11 d(lrtee of inshybleedill~~nd til( li~htli of the blain heart and Ihel N()~igllitiCllllt lllati()n~hil) (le fOlilld bttWl(~ll inhnsity of inble((ling and the siZt of Illl of t Ie ell(lo(lill( Ialld~

VH1AIlI LITY l~ SIZ~ OF BOllY Mill ITS PAHTS l~ OLlBIIEU iU INUllED Cows

(Iol(illlt to eight (11) the plillljpal etied of illblledilllt I 11 I I b Igtf II III alltolllatltH r Ilia nn~ lOlll()ZygOllS SOIlH~ (onl lllabons 0 t Ie fudors which wele hltllozygous j n the original lIIlldom-ored stock lli~ statlllI(nt implies a resllltin~ increase in uniformity in the inshybl(d stock This was borne out by the analytical studies of Eaton (3) which showed fOl guillea pigs that the degree of variability in organ ~ize was about 15 perCent 10Wll in th( inbted animals than hl the ~onttol lOUP

Coellieiellts of variation wen detlll1 ined Jot the vadollS items lepleshys(Jlting siz( of til( body and its PIlts 101 Ih( outbl((l cows and for thos( rlpl(Helltin~ dillrr(nt intll1iti( (toetlicients) of inbreeding Ill( Ielttlt art ghl1I ill table J

----

bull bull

~ TABLE 5-Variability in size oj body and its parts in outbled a11d inbred cows ecpressed as coefficients oj variation

~lt----~---~lt--- ~ ~~---- _- -------~--~

Inbred group with inbreeding coefficients of- o Outbred group ~

10 to 29 percent 30 to 49 percent 50 to 69 percent o gt

Weight or lI1easuremcnt t

tllCacffi- Coeffi- Coeffishyj Coem- c CO cient of cient of cient of cient of ~ 0 bull Gows Cows Cowst vana- varia- varia- variashy tlI tion tion tion tion 8

-------~ -J sa

Body weight or mass ilTumber Number Number ccNumber ocLive weight at 18months_________ bull __ _______ __ _ )5 950 15 1002 27 670 7 11 34 Live weight about 3 months after 1st caIL__ ____ _ 18 1073 14 882 26 857 7 853 Live weight at slaughtcr_________ ____ - 22 8 79 15 9_ 46 27 949 7 1029 ~ Empty body weight ___ bull _ __ _______ 20 7 58 15 1077 27 983 7 1051 Weight of carcass _________ __ 22 n19 15 12 11 27 13 16 7 19 79 1l -- tlAIragc _______ _ - - ~ 956 _-- _- 1024 ----_ - 955 -------- 1029 to

8kcllmiddottal size ~ Height at wIther_____ _ __ bull ________ ___ bull __ _ 22 2 50 15 259 27 1 84 7 1 97Width of hips ______ bull ______ bull ___________ _ o

22 360 15 580 27 417 7 468 ~ Length withers to pinbones_-_____ _______ _ 20 280 14 3 23 27 a36 7 415 Depth of thoracic cavity (maximum) ____ _ 22 353 15 553 27 439 7 552 ~ Width of thoracic cavity (7th rib) ______ _ 22 426 15 551 27 388 7 488 Xl Length of thoracic cavity (maximum) __ _ 22 385 27 419 7 536 o

2771 15 1 c A cragc ___ bullbull ___________ bull __ 324 ________1

442 3 64 1-- ______ t443 8-t-- -----1 --------1

----c Xl tl

bull

bull bull

___________________________________________ _

bull Internal organs I 7 HMWeight of hearL __________ bull __ bullbullbull __________________ 21 11 18 15 1212 27 11 50

21 17 27 1761 7 1233 lungs--- bull --------------------------- 21 1542 15WeightWeight ofof liver____ bull _______________________________ 20 1510 15 1938 27 12 76 7 8 70

Weight of stomachs__ _____________________________ 21 ~ 1390 15 19 16 27 16 77 1248 Weight of brain ____ _____________________________ 22 794 15 907 27 1035 7 701 Weight of spleen____ _____________________________ 21 17 Ii 15 11 97 27 18 75 7 2208 Weight of kidneys__ ____________________________ 22 1537 14 1590 26 1543 7 14 23

558 8971084 27 7Length of intestines_______------------------------- 21 855 15 Z tili i _~--i

Average_______________________ bull_____________________ _ 1308 j------bullbull 149gt ------ -I lt 59 1217 tJ= ~

Endocrine glands = i I I I EWeight of pituitary________________________________ 22 19 98 15 1 19 57 I 261 20 14 7 1854 z Weight of pineaL_____________________ -____________ 12 2987 11 31 00 18 2945 4 14 97 I)

Weight of thyroid_________________________________ 20 2352 14 3024 26 21 32 7 2504 Weight of parathyroidl__ __________________________ 11 3821 7 61 57 18 3767 5 2391 ~ Weight of pancreas____ ___ _ ____________________ 21 1424 14 1908 27 1511 7 1548 I)Weight of adrennls_____________________________---- 22 2936 14 2421 27 2623 7 2223

gt1-- I = I ~udderAvCrage---------------------------------------- ________ 25 86 _______I~--n --- 2499 -------- 2003

~ Weight of uelder (Iactating)------------------------- g 5883 7 3027 I 8 4462 3 707 I Weight of udder (dry)______________________________ 13 31 26 8 2877 18 4085 3 1726 Ul

gt3Capacity of udder (lactating) __ _____________________ 4 3379 6 24 16 5 2798 3 3721 II Capacity of udder (dry)____________________________ 9 5355 7 4031 14 5329 2 538 ZRato of capac~ty to weght (Iactating)_______________ 4 ~O 89 ~ 2873 5 287 3 3452 RatIO of eapaClty to weight (dry)____________________ 9gt1 77 3243 14 33 ~2 2 904 o

Average ________________________________________ ______--Ul --u~-l uo --- -u---f ~

Production~nlk 21

20 96 15 15 89 24 19 97 6 17 4021 Percentage of butterfat in milk_____________________ _ 21 7 97 15 6 72 24 5 15 61 9 03Butterfat_ bull ________ -- --------------------------shy

1636 ________ j 1302 ________ U 82 ____---- 14 84 _~verage------------------------------------------------ i----------------------------------------~----~~----~--

28 TECHNICAL BULLETIN 000 U S DEPT OF AGRICULTURE

Individual items differ greatly with regard to variability in size For example the coetlicients of variation for height at withers for the outbred group and the three inbred groups were 250 259 184 and 197 lespectively while the corresponding coefficients for weight of parathyroids were 3821 6157 3161 and 2391 Probably there are at least two reasons for the high variability in the latter case (1) The extreme smallness of the glands makes accurate dissection diffishycult and (2) a smaller number of animals is represented In addishytion differences in the IlmOullt of aceessory parathyroid tissue might also uffect variability On the other hand weight of adrena]s which is obtained with eompaLatively great uniformity and accuracy is repshyresented by essentially the same nUlI1ber of animals as height at withers and has the cOlllpallltively high coefficients of 2936 2421 2623 and 2223 respeetjvely~ for the same foul groups

It is regrettable that some of the items-particularly those pershytaining to weight amI capacity of udder-are represented by so few anilbals III snch instances the coetlicients of variation between varishyOllS ~maU groups may be largely a matter of chance ]llrthermore there is a tendency fOL coetlieients calculated for very small groups to be somewhat lower than th0se calculated for larger groups The reasons for dividing the data on udders into those that were lactating and those that were dry should require no further explanation

Vllriability among the items representing body mas~middot WitS relatively uniform There vas TIttle difference among the items There was a very sl ight tendency for variability to be greater in the inbred groups than in the outbred group but no significimt trend can be detectedshyeither in individual items or in group ayerages of vltriation coeffishycients-as the degree of inbreeding increased

Among the items selected to represent skeletal size the variation vas very low in every ease-much lower than in any other group of items There was II sl ight teldency also for variability to be greater in tlw inbred gronps thanip the outbrec1 group The variation is slightly greatelill the mp[lSUlpmpnts of thoracic cavity than in the measurl1lentf of IIPight width nndlength ill the living animal

Among the eight HelllS IPpresenting interllal organs the variation wa 111l1(h hmiddotss unifortn On an average weights of spleen and of ]un~rs showe( the greatpst variation length of intestines the least Variation was high ~tlso for weights of stomaehs and kidneys On the whole variation was substautially greater for the internal organs than for the items of body size lind mnch greater than pound01 the items representing skeleta 1size There was a tendency fol the variation to be lower in the most highly inblPc1 group than In the outbred ~lOUr lind the less intensely inbred groups but the variation was slightly higher-on un tyernge and ill some of the individual items-for the groups with inbreeding coefTicients of 10 to 29 percent and 30 to 40 peleent thlIl in the olltbrec1 glonp middotWeil1t of heart and weight or kidlleys shopcl little change with inbleeding middotWeight of liver flllctuated but cleelinecl markeelly The reason for the lower coefficient of variation for wight of spItcn ill -hc group of cows with inbreeding coefficients 0110 to 2D pPlcent is not known

The copfiitipllts of va Iintion ere almost twiee as great on an average for the endoelille glands as for Cillh~Inal orgalls POl the endocrine glands as a whole the gloup of (OWS itl inbllediII o coefficients of 10 to 20 perelnt showed greater variation thau thQ Qutpoundred group but

bull

bull

bull

bull

bull

bull

INBR~EDING OF GRADE HOISlEIN COWS 29

as inbleediIlg increased the coeflicient of varitltion declined proshygressively to a point considetably below the averRge for the outbred group In this respect the averages follow much the same pattern as those fOl the internal organ items although the trend is magnified considerably by the high coeflicients for palllthYloids The items represented by the smaller number of cows tend to show the highest coeflicients of variution yet even those items with close to maximum numbers showed greater vllriability in most cases than items in any of the groups previously discussed

Although the weight of pituitary was definitely reduced by inbreedshying it did not become mukec11y less variable The thyrOId on the other hllnd WllS much lalger in the highly inbred group thaI) in the onthred group and its vltriabilty was not greatly c1umged The weights of pineal and of ac1renllls which showed little change in weioht as a lesult of inbreeding were tJnsiderably less variable in the highly inbred group than in the outbred group 01 in the less highly inshyblec1 groups

In view of the smitH number of cows represented and the great variashytion in stage of lactation-even among lactating cows-a very high degree of vUliatioll for items peltaining to weight Hnd capacity of uclder is to be expected and little significance can be attached to any but the most marked differences in leslllts Weight was more variable in the lactating udders except in the most highly inbred group Capacshyity of udder was much more variable in the dry cows except in the most highly inbred group Trends in variability with increase in intensity of inbreeding are not definite for weight or capacity of uc1del HoweveL both were less variable in the low inbred (10-29) group than in the outbred or in the middle inbred (30-49) group anc110wer on an average in the highly inbred (50-69) group than in any of the other crroups

Milk and butterfat prodllction varied to essentially the same extent in each grOllp of cows thlltis inbreeding affected variubmty in these items to only a slight extent Percenbtge of butterfat vltried much less than milk and bntterfat ploduction and there was no clear-cut trend with inbreeding In fact the highest variation was in the most highly inbled group

A comparison of the averages for the various groups of items shows that there is a tendency-particularly for internal organs and enshydocrine glands-for the low inbred group to be more variable than the ontbred group but for vRliability to decline as inbreeding was llllthel intensified Combinecl averages for all of the 34 items in table 5 show that the coeflicient of vaLiation was only 8695 percent as high for all inbred gronps and only 7082 percent as high for the most highly inbred group as for the olltbJed group Corresponding avershyages for the 31 items pertaining to the animals anatOluy-omitting the 3 items relati ng to producing capa~ity-are 8690 and 6916 percent

These resu1ts are in close accord WIth those lepolted by Eaton (3) which SllOW that the deglee of vnliability was about 15 percent lower in the inbred animals than in the controls

GENERAL DISCUSSION

It is not to he expected that the results of this study wBl be identical fOL body size and production with those lcpolted by Woodward Rnd

30 TECHNICAL BULLETIN 990 U S DEPT OF AGRICULTURE

Graves (10) because this study includes only cows having nt least 50 percent of Holstein ancestry and less than 50 percent of the ancestry of any other breed and also because this study includes only the cows for which post-mortem data were avai1nble In view of the smaller numbers of cows represented in this study it is surprising that the results agree so well

This study shows that inbreeding affected live weight at 18 months alhlost itS much as it affected live weight at time of slaughter and empty body weight and carcass weight Live weight nt 18 months was about 14 percent lower or the highly inbred group than for dle Oltshybreuroc1 ~roup The study by Voodwtllcl und Graves (10) indicated that the bIghly 1l1bred animals wile about 25 percent below the weight of the outbled animuls at birth lLnd up to Q months about 17 percent below from 12 to 24 months and that they tell(led to catch up with advance in age

In disclissing the effect of inbreedillg on body size and production Iecords the possible influellt of It breed factor must not be overlooked About one-thitd of tIle cows ill the outbled grollp wete sired by tegisterp(] Holstein bulls Inltl were out of grade Jersey or grade Guernshysey cows The llse of Holstein sires undoubtedly tended to increase the size of the offspring paltieulully in the eady genelutions and to countenct the effects that inblceding may have lUHlin reducing body size Similarly the Holstein c1HlIactl~ristics fOt higher milk producshytion and lower butterfat tests may have minimized the tendency for inbreeding to leduce the milk production but accelerated the decline in butterfat test Any improvements that may have occurred in feedshying Illtctices probably had no SifrJ1i1iCllnt eflect on the results in view of the fact that the cows in all except the most highly inbred groups were tttrly well distributed with respect to time throughout the long period covered by the experiment

Another point thnt cnnnot be evaluated but shoulcl not be ovedookec1 is the fact that essentiilily all of the inbreeding tlllces to the one sire Tohun Woodclest Lad 11th 103987

It has been 110tNI that skeletal size was not appreciably affected by inbreeding and that variability for all of the VIlliotls skeletal dimenshysions was very milch lower than tOL any other group of items As previously stated Waters (8) concluded some 30 years ago that the impulse was strongeL Tor skeletal growth than for increase in weight On the other hanel n cliflerence between weight and skeletal growth probably should be expeeted in view of the fact that from birth to maturity cattle seldom if ever double their height at withers whereas body weight Increase some 15 to 20 times during the same period This basis of reasoning 11oeer does not explain why width of hips which normally inCI(lHSeS to nearly ~~f2 times the measurement at birth (5) was not reduced to It greater extent

The marked decline in body weight with inbreeding while skeletal dilllensions remained practically unchang(gtd raises a number of quesshytions There is reason to believe that the inbred animals were as wen feel as the outbred ones That being the case what was the cause of tIle decline in boely size Apparently it was not the result of deficiency in size of the digestive organs as the size of stomachs declined less than body size the length of iltestines lemained virtually unchallged and both became lllrger in relation to empty body weight as inbreeding

bull

bull

bull

31

bull

bull

bull

LfBREEDlSG ot GRADE HOLSTEIN COWS

inclcased Pmlmps it waS due to 80mI il111lrited chlllllcteristic that resulted in l~ss eflililnt utilization of feed A look tit the changes in size of endocrine glands shows that the thyroid was malkldly helliel and the pnll(teas was much lightN in the highly inbred ltows than in the ontbred one In view of the thyroids control OYPJ JltP of oxidashytion and the cliglstie functions of the pancreatic fluid the changes noted in these glands possibly IIIlly be of some significance

The question might ulso be tlis(gtc as towhethlr the inctlllslC1 size of the thYlOid might indicute a goihous conditioll The lIulrked deelcase in size of pituitary is of course sllggestin of 1 tlelIeaSl ill tllluoratioll of the gJ(Hrth-stimlllllting hOImone though it is not delll why this WOllid not all(ltt skelNal growth ns well as illtIIIlSC in body weight Agaill thele COIllN to lIlind the qnestion Vhy was there not It

Ieduction ill the altililluis and thYloids if the pitllitaties had beell deficient lhNe is l1lu(h in tIl datil to suggest tlw ()((lIlJellle of n dysfunction in tlH~ emiddotnlio(rine system IPsultillg floll1 inuleeding which may have uepn itt I(ast partly Ilsponsible for the smaller body size ill inbred cows D(fill ite proof 1owell is lacki IIg us assays of tilE endocline glands wele not made

The results obtnillNl with eOws were in fllirly dose agleemlnt with those teporllmiddotd by J~at()n fOl gil i n~a pis inn 1II1111II onmiddotsplmiddotets lrot exam pie thelc wus It substantial ((( i ne in body tgtight with lnbl(edshying the organs in lIt sllaller animals were I utget in propoltiolt to body Wlig-ht and sk(letal size was aif(gtCted to n smltiler cleglle than body weig-ht Also the weights of pituitary and heart declined in much the same malllleL as live weight and the length of intestines and weight of spleen were not aflected materially Trends for other OIgans wele not in sudt dose agreement In both species the vllrishyability in organ size WaS high in the case of weight of lungs thyroid and acllennls and low for intestine length Eaton ShOWlmiddotd that vnrishyilbility on all averag-e waS about 15 percent lower in the inbred animals than ill contlols AVIctagesof the coefficients of variation for all of the items listed in table 5 arl about 13 percent lowlr for all three inbred group thim 101 til( outbled glOU p a nd about 29 pel(lnt lower for the most highly inbllc group (5()-69) than for the outbred gtOltp

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

SevPlItY-Otle ~lHdl Holitlin eow fOr which IlIpaSlllpments of body size llJlutOlny lind producing (tgtIHity wete lInill1ble were diided into -t groups Oil t hI basis of the intensities (coeffi(ients) of inbreedshying An ontbJed gJlmp (olltuined 22 (ows The +9 inbJNI cows inshycluded 27 with illht(eding (olflkiellts of 29 penem Qt less 15 with (oefficients i)etw(gtell 30 and 49 perleut il)(luie al1(i7 with (oefJicients of 50 p(r(cnt OL above Analyses of aVlilnble data w(te made to detershymine the lffeet of inbtl~edillg on (1) the Jllagnitude and (2) the arishyability of more than gO itpoundIIIS Iepl(sentiug 11ieaSUIements of body weight and skPIltal size ize of organs and endocrille glands lind milk ante butterfat plodu(tion ~

Inbteeding lISliltNI in a de(ine of approximately 15 percent ill body weight 01 IllHlgtlgt bllt did not aflect skelltal size to any sigllifiCant extent Hom~ of titl illtetl1al oqraml-llotably thp ei~ht of heart-were

reduced in the most intenely inbted cows almost to the same extent

32 lpoundOlLlICAL BULLEIIN 090 U 8 DEPT O~ AGHICULlUH~~

as body maSS ~eight of blain and weirht of empty stomu(hs wele ledueed ab()It 10 plIlenLWpirht or Illllgs waH definitely 1l(utCI ill the inbled cows alld Itnltil of ilrtestinls was only slightly alpoundected

The endocli ne glllnds~011 all a lIage w(Ie I((itl((d ill izl Greatmt Iedlldions wele in weirhts of pHIathYIoids pituitalY aud pancleas no significallt chunge O(cUIIcd ill wPights of pineul 01 MIItIII1 lind the heaiest thyroids wele folllld in the most intensely inbled gtOllP

Yeight of uddlt WIIS greatly redu(ed in tht 1I10te intells(ly inbred (OW bllt changes in udder lHpHlity well~not consistent Howevel the lelution of cal)ueitv to wtight (porosity) of udd(I in(IIused witll j nbl(led illg Mi I PIO~III(tion WaS substa ntially lowered (78 pennnt) in the hirhly illiJrld tOWs ilnd bull(efat l)Jodlldioll slwwld 1111 even glPlIter lIC(IlUSP (lTA IWI((t)

It is of illtPlpst I hat tl( pituitary body which supposNlIy is (lostly tied IlP with tl( physiology of grow h a Iltl lalta I ion liP(1 i lIld in weight to HO~ [gtel(tn till t he most II igh I) ill UI(( goll P I hll I 11 ilk and blltt rla ( plOduction dNIi IINI to )~~ a neI l-iHi pelCent respecti v~ly and thut the itellls 1(PlI(~llt ing body I1I11S (((lil1(gt(1 to H7 ptIcellt ol~ the valtwR leprlsenlNl by the olltbl(lI groupreight of whit I ciecrpasl(lo an C(I reatl lxtent (to nearly (it) IWI(ellt) bllt Ihis 1lI1ly ha( bpn (ollll)ensatNI 101 to sOllie lxtellt ill t 1l llIatter of plodllcing ability by II gn~atll (Pglll of pooity ill till manllllfll~T tissue whieit iH inditapil by Ilw high relntioll of capacity 10 wcight of uddpl in the 1I101 highly inbtNI glOUPS Tht difiPlcnt ptrpds of inblceding 011 size of various pnd()(Iilll~ glauds (pituitIUy thyroid and ndl(lIals) sugglsl IIw possi bilit that It 11Itk 01 lndo(line balallee might hal existed

Itwould SetIll logieal to assume that if the outbred (OS had had II

higher pplClntlglt of Holstltin instead of Jlislty and Guelllscy ancestry some of UWli( lfllets of IIlIJlPNllllg wOllld huc belll more PlOIlOUl1cpd

As inbreeding ilHI(asld lind the si7p of the (ow became smaller the organs and body pllrtS 011 lI1l ltV(lllgC eallll to represent a lalgN proportioll of the total allimal stluetlllC They did not dec-line ali much as did empty body wlight To jnst whal cxt(llt this tendency (an be attributed to inblceding callnot bc deterlllined tl(culately as It ()((lllS to SOIll( ltIPglN in IllOSt clIses whell (os ale glouped on the basis of live wlight Mot not n blc txpptions wele weights of pa mthylOids pall(TPlIS and til( wlgtight and cnpaeity of the udder These glnnds wele reelmeel in size lllativlly mOle than (Illpt body night

PhI ontbpd gra(p Hoistei 11 (OWS i Jlclulti(din I h is study WHe only glightlv sm all I in weight and sk(lltal 8i7( than 75 registered Holstein eowR RfaughtPlNI at B(I tsvi Ill in lilnd ips of (on fonnation ami a natonlY in Ielation to ploducing (aplIeily hut tlwil intCII1l11 olgan and (specially tlHit lnltlo(Iine glands diHplpd to a glpatH (xh~llt PEl ((ntagls showing the 1llation of olltbled glad( (OS to lEyeniShp( (OWS a vtmge 1140 fOl body wpighl 01 III ass l6S iOI skehmiddottttl SIZe f)2(i for i ntplna I Olga ns n nd H7R fol endocli ne glands Hi 71 was sma 1111 ill the olltblld ziade lOWS than ill thl rpgiHtlIpd (OW8 for ((Iy item (Olll PlINl

(OIIplatioll (opflicilllts showed that produtillg ability was more a(nIHlly aff((tld by inttl1siw inbt(NUng than 1l1(aSUl(S of body or ~ktINal siu and internal organs 01 gland size although most of thl

bull

bull

bull

bull

bull

bull

lNBREEDIXG OF GUADE aOLSlE1N COWS 33

items undet these IH~adings indicated Sltlme decrease in size with intensity of inbreeding

Valiubility ~xplessed ilS coeftieilmts of vUlintion dittered greatly for the vurious items 1or example the coeflidents of vlllintlOl1 fot weight of llcilenals wert IlpproxinHlttly to times as great us those fot height ut withelb both in the outbled group ilnd in the three inbled glOltl)S Coelticients for some of the otlltl endocrine glands IIlId fo weig It Illld capacity of udder were tvcn higher tlum those fOl weight of aclcnuls

Inbleetiinlr apparently did lIot (e(Iell( lIliubility in body IllaSS OJ skeletal Silllellsiolsj in bet thete is SOllIe indication that YIlrillshybility inClctlSec1 slightly fOl ome of the~~ ittlIIs as illbleedillg bNUltle tI10L~ intemw IlIb(((d ing did lot $llb~tantia II) ledllce Illiubi Iityi II the ihtelllId olgam CX(middotjlt that lhc lItLugC was IOWN ill the I11mt highly inuIcd glOup than til lht outUllmiddottl or th( othcl two inulNl gLOUpS The gtpl(([l Ill IiIOSt H1illbl( ill the hitrllly inbred IOUp

In the ~ndoclin( gland itellls Ilinbilit wus lleal~y twic~ as high 1 in tho intellml otgnn itcl1s lind the urtIage for the most highly inshybred (toutgt WaS 1Cs than fo1 any other trlOllp Individual items ditl(trd glpatl) in ariability ()

The high llliability in itltllS pertaining 0 weight and capaeity of udder il ptobtly tlUt in lalgp IIIPIIII( to ditf(ItI1(ps in slllW of laet~tioll at slanghtpI niH to till small 11I111bl~ of (ows reples~ntld illlaCh grollp Weight of Ilaquo((lel was llut Hlinble in tIH 1I10Hi highly ltlulld glOllp flip 11111( wm tue rOl tHpueity of dJy IlddlJs but not for calll~ily 01 la(tatillg Itddcls

VariabilIty in Iltilk 11Iid buttelfat pllllluctioll 01 in pelceltage of but(plfat did not dl(IPlIllliUJliJillIntly with iJlbleedil)tr

lhan~(s ill vlltiability ith intensity of inbleedil7cT also ditfplld gngtatJy for individual ittlns The body mass and sln-Ietal size ittnlH welc 1I0t grrlltly ldlccled Atllong thtmiddot inttltlal olgans weight of Iwart weght o~ ~idlleys l~nd length of intestines showed little challge whIle w(lgllt of- 11c1 dltcltned matkedlr

bullJ1)ong tho (nu()(line gland valiability ill weihts of pituitlllY thyroid and Pllllt(middotUS WaS not signincalllly atll(illll)y inbleedillcT dcshybpitl tl)(~luct ~hat tlte J)itllittIYWl (cdu(ed and the thyroid l~ llshy

erNuCCl 11 weIght (Ight 01lt ptntal adlenuls and parathyroids W(gtI(~ (eRnitely less vHtiaull in thl highly inbled group despite the fact that tlte lettllil w(lights of pillPtI tllld tdlellds were not appleshyciably dr((ted

(light of uddel lH)td a vY 1l1lHh IO(Ipd vflliability ill the most highly IlIut((1 glOUP

In 1 nUlIIbtI of (alt~ thelc a~ a dp(lilll in flriabilit within tlw threl inbrtd groups but liullmiddot if tIll wlll1I till lnulmiddot(middot1I gloups wCle (OIll p(u((l wit h the OurbPr glOltp Thii lp~lIltNI fJl)1Il tIl tendenc fOt nLiability 0 btl high ill tilt glOIlP of (os haing inblceding ((wtli(ients tllugillg hom 10 to ~0 IWIllnt

(orllbillNl a(Ii1gt~ fol nIl of tIIP ~~ item stu(i((J show that the (o~fli(ilnt of llinliol waS apPloximately l~ lWl(nt less fol all inblQd gtoup and aPPtoximnlely ~(l pClccnt less for the most highly inbrNI group tlmn for the outblpd group

34 rECfL~lCAL BULLBTIN 990 U S l)EPT 01lt AGJUCULlURE

LITERATURE CITED

(1) BAIlTLETl J W REECE R P nnd LEP-IW O L 1)42 rlJE lliINE-lt o~ JNlIREFDING O~ BIRTH WpJGHT RATE 0 GROWTH bull

A~D TnE Ot DAIRY CATrLE Jour Anim Sci 1 (3) 2Ot~212 () j)lCKJlSOV G g

lWO EnECIS O r-UKEEDl~G l~ OAIRY CAlvrLE (IKOGKESS REIOKT) AbshystlmiddotltCt Jour Dafry ScI 23 (6) 546-547

(l) AIO~ O N llXl8 Wl-IGllTS Hm MEA8UKMENTIt 0 THt 1lCI( ND ORGAN8 m MAI11I1E

l~lIIU1l 110 CIIOSSUlIoIl (lUINt IOS Amer Jour Aunt 63 (2)273-295

(4) 19il) COllIAIIATIE XALYSIS Ot TIU llESClltMENT8 O TUE LUlU IIO-S

Ot INllllto tUuns Ot Otl-ta NOS SII THEIR llYlIlt1U8 8 AnEC1EII II AlllLY SEX~II Am ~1ller Jour Aunt 64 (3) -tSCHOO

(5) HnSDJJ A e WH GunW1U SrA~IIARlJs OR DAIRY CAMU Mo A~rr EXpt Sta Bul

am 12 pp llIus (tI) SWElvr W W MAlrIIEWS O A MIlLEII F W null GR-ES R R

19~7 middotUTIONs Rt(OlIIlto I l1n STell lk rug CO~Hm~ITION AND 1011 Qt ~Ila llAIUY cows ILIXG U(OJIIIS 0 lII01ll10TION (utH~ll To Jlmiddot~t t() 1110) P S Thllt Agr Bur DnllY Indus HDIM-5S) Jpp (PrOclssed)

(7) 1lIINtlI ( W wm I1UIIIOoO 1-1UlIAmiddotImiddotIO~H 1II~rlnES IttIUOUlCTlON 11UUlAIlY G1ANII

jIUlWTII ~O 1_(~TlOl( Glowlh 3 (H) ~a-3Hi ll1l1s (lt) WITJoRS II J

loon TH~ 1~~Ll~N(E m SI1IUIIO~ ll()S TH ~lIAI ~OIII Soc PWIlI A~Imiddot Hd 1gt(0(30 7tH18 illw

(Ill VOOllWltIl I K nnd (lRts It H 19~ sUrt 1UmiddotWITS OF llfllltE~orNll GII)E GtRSSty A~O OIlAI) HOLS1ttN-

tlmsI~ CTTIt U~ Dpt Agt Ttch Bul Ha) 2 pp iJlus bull I to) ~---- lind GltAmiddotES R H

It1-t(t 1t8nlS tit 1~IltElJl~(l GIID~ UOLSTJoIS-FIIUSI( tAl1middotU U S PtpL fl reel Hul 1)2 m JlP illl1s

( II I RWHT S If)a ~SlItII AIYI$ Qt TilE PIlIt IlIttJlIS O LInS-fO(K 1 TilE

MtASlt~~ltt(1 In l-lllU~llINO -SII 11~InO~SHII Jonr Heletl 14 (8) a~H8 lIlns

U S GOVEH tNT INIHG OHlst un

For ~Ilh by fhl ihlJwrintenltl~ot oC DOCIIIIlllltS t S Gonrolllcut Prlntlu (jlllceWlIshlugton 2 0 C - Prlce 1 cents bull

bull bull

___________________________________________ _

bull Internal organs I 7 HMWeight of hearL __________ bull __ bullbullbull __________________ 21 11 18 15 1212 27 11 50

21 17 27 1761 7 1233 lungs--- bull --------------------------- 21 1542 15WeightWeight ofof liver____ bull _______________________________ 20 1510 15 1938 27 12 76 7 8 70

Weight of stomachs__ _____________________________ 21 ~ 1390 15 19 16 27 16 77 1248 Weight of brain ____ _____________________________ 22 794 15 907 27 1035 7 701 Weight of spleen____ _____________________________ 21 17 Ii 15 11 97 27 18 75 7 2208 Weight of kidneys__ ____________________________ 22 1537 14 1590 26 1543 7 14 23

558 8971084 27 7Length of intestines_______------------------------- 21 855 15 Z tili i _~--i

Average_______________________ bull_____________________ _ 1308 j------bullbull 149gt ------ -I lt 59 1217 tJ= ~

Endocrine glands = i I I I EWeight of pituitary________________________________ 22 19 98 15 1 19 57 I 261 20 14 7 1854 z Weight of pineaL_____________________ -____________ 12 2987 11 31 00 18 2945 4 14 97 I)

Weight of thyroid_________________________________ 20 2352 14 3024 26 21 32 7 2504 Weight of parathyroidl__ __________________________ 11 3821 7 61 57 18 3767 5 2391 ~ Weight of pancreas____ ___ _ ____________________ 21 1424 14 1908 27 1511 7 1548 I)Weight of adrennls_____________________________---- 22 2936 14 2421 27 2623 7 2223

gt1-- I = I ~udderAvCrage---------------------------------------- ________ 25 86 _______I~--n --- 2499 -------- 2003

~ Weight of uelder (Iactating)------------------------- g 5883 7 3027 I 8 4462 3 707 I Weight of udder (dry)______________________________ 13 31 26 8 2877 18 4085 3 1726 Ul

gt3Capacity of udder (lactating) __ _____________________ 4 3379 6 24 16 5 2798 3 3721 II Capacity of udder (dry)____________________________ 9 5355 7 4031 14 5329 2 538 ZRato of capac~ty to weght (Iactating)_______________ 4 ~O 89 ~ 2873 5 287 3 3452 RatIO of eapaClty to weight (dry)____________________ 9gt1 77 3243 14 33 ~2 2 904 o

Average ________________________________________ ______--Ul --u~-l uo --- -u---f ~

Production~nlk 21

20 96 15 15 89 24 19 97 6 17 4021 Percentage of butterfat in milk_____________________ _ 21 7 97 15 6 72 24 5 15 61 9 03Butterfat_ bull ________ -- --------------------------shy

1636 ________ j 1302 ________ U 82 ____---- 14 84 _~verage------------------------------------------------ i----------------------------------------~----~~----~--

28 TECHNICAL BULLETIN 000 U S DEPT OF AGRICULTURE

Individual items differ greatly with regard to variability in size For example the coetlicients of variation for height at withers for the outbred group and the three inbred groups were 250 259 184 and 197 lespectively while the corresponding coefficients for weight of parathyroids were 3821 6157 3161 and 2391 Probably there are at least two reasons for the high variability in the latter case (1) The extreme smallness of the glands makes accurate dissection diffishycult and (2) a smaller number of animals is represented In addishytion differences in the IlmOullt of aceessory parathyroid tissue might also uffect variability On the other hand weight of adrena]s which is obtained with eompaLatively great uniformity and accuracy is repshyresented by essentially the same nUlI1ber of animals as height at withers and has the cOlllpallltively high coefficients of 2936 2421 2623 and 2223 respeetjvely~ for the same foul groups

It is regrettable that some of the items-particularly those pershytaining to weight amI capacity of udder-are represented by so few anilbals III snch instances the coetlicients of variation between varishyOllS ~maU groups may be largely a matter of chance ]llrthermore there is a tendency fOL coetlieients calculated for very small groups to be somewhat lower than th0se calculated for larger groups The reasons for dividing the data on udders into those that were lactating and those that were dry should require no further explanation

Vllriability among the items representing body mas~middot WitS relatively uniform There vas TIttle difference among the items There was a very sl ight tendency for variability to be greater in the inbred groups than in the outbred group but no significimt trend can be detectedshyeither in individual items or in group ayerages of vltriation coeffishycients-as the degree of inbreeding increased

Among the items selected to represent skeletal size the variation vas very low in every ease-much lower than in any other group of items There was II sl ight teldency also for variability to be greater in tlw inbred gronps thanip the outbrec1 group The variation is slightly greatelill the mp[lSUlpmpnts of thoracic cavity than in the measurl1lentf of IIPight width nndlength ill the living animal

Among the eight HelllS IPpresenting interllal organs the variation wa 111l1(h hmiddotss unifortn On an average weights of spleen and of ]un~rs showe( the greatpst variation length of intestines the least Variation was high ~tlso for weights of stomaehs and kidneys On the whole variation was substautially greater for the internal organs than for the items of body size lind mnch greater than pound01 the items representing skeleta 1size There was a tendency fol the variation to be lower in the most highly inblPc1 group than In the outbred ~lOUr lind the less intensely inbred groups but the variation was slightly higher-on un tyernge and ill some of the individual items-for the groups with inbreeding coefTicients of 10 to 29 percent and 30 to 40 peleent thlIl in the olltbrec1 glonp middotWeil1t of heart and weight or kidlleys shopcl little change with inbleeding middotWeight of liver flllctuated but cleelinecl markeelly The reason for the lower coefficient of variation for wight of spItcn ill -hc group of cows with inbreeding coefficients 0110 to 2D pPlcent is not known

The copfiitipllts of va Iintion ere almost twiee as great on an average for the endoelille glands as for Cillh~Inal orgalls POl the endocrine glands as a whole the gloup of (OWS itl inbllediII o coefficients of 10 to 20 perelnt showed greater variation thau thQ Qutpoundred group but

bull

bull

bull

bull

bull

bull

INBR~EDING OF GRADE HOISlEIN COWS 29

as inbleediIlg increased the coeflicient of varitltion declined proshygressively to a point considetably below the averRge for the outbred group In this respect the averages follow much the same pattern as those fOl the internal organ items although the trend is magnified considerably by the high coeflicients for palllthYloids The items represented by the smaller number of cows tend to show the highest coeflicients of variution yet even those items with close to maximum numbers showed greater vllriability in most cases than items in any of the groups previously discussed

Although the weight of pituitary was definitely reduced by inbreedshying it did not become mukec11y less variable The thyrOId on the other hllnd WllS much lalger in the highly inbred group thaI) in the onthred group and its vltriabilty was not greatly c1umged The weights of pineal and of ac1renllls which showed little change in weioht as a lesult of inbreeding were tJnsiderably less variable in the highly inbred group than in the outbred group 01 in the less highly inshyblec1 groups

In view of the smitH number of cows represented and the great variashytion in stage of lactation-even among lactating cows-a very high degree of vUliatioll for items peltaining to weight Hnd capacity of uclder is to be expected and little significance can be attached to any but the most marked differences in leslllts Weight was more variable in the lactating udders except in the most highly inbred group Capacshyity of udder was much more variable in the dry cows except in the most highly inbred group Trends in variability with increase in intensity of inbreeding are not definite for weight or capacity of uc1del HoweveL both were less variable in the low inbred (10-29) group than in the outbred or in the middle inbred (30-49) group anc110wer on an average in the highly inbred (50-69) group than in any of the other crroups

Milk and butterfat prodllction varied to essentially the same extent in each grOllp of cows thlltis inbreeding affected variubmty in these items to only a slight extent Percenbtge of butterfat vltried much less than milk and bntterfat ploduction and there was no clear-cut trend with inbreeding In fact the highest variation was in the most highly inbled group

A comparison of the averages for the various groups of items shows that there is a tendency-particularly for internal organs and enshydocrine glands-for the low inbred group to be more variable than the ontbred group but for vRliability to decline as inbreeding was llllthel intensified Combinecl averages for all of the 34 items in table 5 show that the coeflicient of vaLiation was only 8695 percent as high for all inbred gronps and only 7082 percent as high for the most highly inbred group as for the olltbJed group Corresponding avershyages for the 31 items pertaining to the animals anatOluy-omitting the 3 items relati ng to producing capa~ity-are 8690 and 6916 percent

These resu1ts are in close accord WIth those lepolted by Eaton (3) which SllOW that the deglee of vnliability was about 15 percent lower in the inbred animals than in the controls

GENERAL DISCUSSION

It is not to he expected that the results of this study wBl be identical fOL body size and production with those lcpolted by Woodward Rnd

30 TECHNICAL BULLETIN 990 U S DEPT OF AGRICULTURE

Graves (10) because this study includes only cows having nt least 50 percent of Holstein ancestry and less than 50 percent of the ancestry of any other breed and also because this study includes only the cows for which post-mortem data were avai1nble In view of the smaller numbers of cows represented in this study it is surprising that the results agree so well

This study shows that inbreeding affected live weight at 18 months alhlost itS much as it affected live weight at time of slaughter and empty body weight and carcass weight Live weight nt 18 months was about 14 percent lower or the highly inbred group than for dle Oltshybreuroc1 ~roup The study by Voodwtllcl und Graves (10) indicated that the bIghly 1l1bred animals wile about 25 percent below the weight of the outbled animuls at birth lLnd up to Q months about 17 percent below from 12 to 24 months and that they tell(led to catch up with advance in age

In disclissing the effect of inbreedillg on body size and production Iecords the possible influellt of It breed factor must not be overlooked About one-thitd of tIle cows ill the outbled grollp wete sired by tegisterp(] Holstein bulls Inltl were out of grade Jersey or grade Guernshysey cows The llse of Holstein sires undoubtedly tended to increase the size of the offspring paltieulully in the eady genelutions and to countenct the effects that inblceding may have lUHlin reducing body size Similarly the Holstein c1HlIactl~ristics fOt higher milk producshytion and lower butterfat tests may have minimized the tendency for inbreeding to leduce the milk production but accelerated the decline in butterfat test Any improvements that may have occurred in feedshying Illtctices probably had no SifrJ1i1iCllnt eflect on the results in view of the fact that the cows in all except the most highly inbred groups were tttrly well distributed with respect to time throughout the long period covered by the experiment

Another point thnt cnnnot be evaluated but shoulcl not be ovedookec1 is the fact that essentiilily all of the inbreeding tlllces to the one sire Tohun Woodclest Lad 11th 103987

It has been 110tNI that skeletal size was not appreciably affected by inbreeding and that variability for all of the VIlliotls skeletal dimenshysions was very milch lower than tOL any other group of items As previously stated Waters (8) concluded some 30 years ago that the impulse was strongeL Tor skeletal growth than for increase in weight On the other hanel n cliflerence between weight and skeletal growth probably should be expeeted in view of the fact that from birth to maturity cattle seldom if ever double their height at withers whereas body weight Increase some 15 to 20 times during the same period This basis of reasoning 11oeer does not explain why width of hips which normally inCI(lHSeS to nearly ~~f2 times the measurement at birth (5) was not reduced to It greater extent

The marked decline in body weight with inbreeding while skeletal dilllensions remained practically unchang(gtd raises a number of quesshytions There is reason to believe that the inbred animals were as wen feel as the outbred ones That being the case what was the cause of tIle decline in boely size Apparently it was not the result of deficiency in size of the digestive organs as the size of stomachs declined less than body size the length of iltestines lemained virtually unchallged and both became lllrger in relation to empty body weight as inbreeding

bull

bull

bull

31

bull

bull

bull

LfBREEDlSG ot GRADE HOLSTEIN COWS

inclcased Pmlmps it waS due to 80mI il111lrited chlllllcteristic that resulted in l~ss eflililnt utilization of feed A look tit the changes in size of endocrine glands shows that the thyroid was malkldly helliel and the pnll(teas was much lightN in the highly inbred ltows than in the ontbred one In view of the thyroids control OYPJ JltP of oxidashytion and the cliglstie functions of the pancreatic fluid the changes noted in these glands possibly IIIlly be of some significance

The question might ulso be tlis(gtc as towhethlr the inctlllslC1 size of the thYlOid might indicute a goihous conditioll The lIulrked deelcase in size of pituitary is of course sllggestin of 1 tlelIeaSl ill tllluoratioll of the gJ(Hrth-stimlllllting hOImone though it is not delll why this WOllid not all(ltt skelNal growth ns well as illtIIIlSC in body weight Agaill thele COIllN to lIlind the qnestion Vhy was there not It

Ieduction ill the altililluis and thYloids if the pitllitaties had beell deficient lhNe is l1lu(h in tIl datil to suggest tlw ()((lIlJellle of n dysfunction in tlH~ emiddotnlio(rine system IPsultillg floll1 inuleeding which may have uepn itt I(ast partly Ilsponsible for the smaller body size ill inbred cows D(fill ite proof 1owell is lacki IIg us assays of tilE endocline glands wele not made

The results obtnillNl with eOws were in fllirly dose agleemlnt with those teporllmiddotd by J~at()n fOl gil i n~a pis inn 1II1111II onmiddotsplmiddotets lrot exam pie thelc wus It substantial ((( i ne in body tgtight with lnbl(edshying the organs in lIt sllaller animals were I utget in propoltiolt to body Wlig-ht and sk(letal size was aif(gtCted to n smltiler cleglle than body weig-ht Also the weights of pituitary and heart declined in much the same malllleL as live weight and the length of intestines and weight of spleen were not aflected materially Trends for other OIgans wele not in sudt dose agreement In both species the vllrishyability in organ size WaS high in the case of weight of lungs thyroid and acllennls and low for intestine length Eaton ShOWlmiddotd that vnrishyilbility on all averag-e waS about 15 percent lower in the inbred animals than ill contlols AVIctagesof the coefficients of variation for all of the items listed in table 5 arl about 13 percent lowlr for all three inbred group thim 101 til( outbled glOU p a nd about 29 pel(lnt lower for the most highly inbllc group (5()-69) than for the outbred gtOltp

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

SevPlItY-Otle ~lHdl Holitlin eow fOr which IlIpaSlllpments of body size llJlutOlny lind producing (tgtIHity wete lInill1ble were diided into -t groups Oil t hI basis of the intensities (coeffi(ients) of inbreedshying An ontbJed gJlmp (olltuined 22 (ows The +9 inbJNI cows inshycluded 27 with illht(eding (olflkiellts of 29 penem Qt less 15 with (oefficients i)etw(gtell 30 and 49 perleut il)(luie al1(i7 with (oefJicients of 50 p(r(cnt OL above Analyses of aVlilnble data w(te made to detershymine the lffeet of inbtl~edillg on (1) the Jllagnitude and (2) the arishyability of more than gO itpoundIIIS Iepl(sentiug 11ieaSUIements of body weight and skPIltal size ize of organs and endocrille glands lind milk ante butterfat plodu(tion ~

Inbteeding lISliltNI in a de(ine of approximately 15 percent ill body weight 01 IllHlgtlgt bllt did not aflect skelltal size to any sigllifiCant extent Hom~ of titl illtetl1al oqraml-llotably thp ei~ht of heart-were

reduced in the most intenely inbted cows almost to the same extent

32 lpoundOlLlICAL BULLEIIN 090 U 8 DEPT O~ AGHICULlUH~~

as body maSS ~eight of blain and weirht of empty stomu(hs wele ledueed ab()It 10 plIlenLWpirht or Illllgs waH definitely 1l(utCI ill the inbled cows alld Itnltil of ilrtestinls was only slightly alpoundected

The endocli ne glllnds~011 all a lIage w(Ie I((itl((d ill izl Greatmt Iedlldions wele in weirhts of pHIathYIoids pituitalY aud pancleas no significallt chunge O(cUIIcd ill wPights of pineul 01 MIItIII1 lind the heaiest thyroids wele folllld in the most intensely inbled gtOllP

Yeight of uddlt WIIS greatly redu(ed in tht 1I10te intells(ly inbred (OW bllt changes in udder lHpHlity well~not consistent Howevel the lelution of cal)ueitv to wtight (porosity) of udd(I in(IIused witll j nbl(led illg Mi I PIO~III(tion WaS substa ntially lowered (78 pennnt) in the hirhly illiJrld tOWs ilnd bull(efat l)Jodlldioll slwwld 1111 even glPlIter lIC(IlUSP (lTA IWI((t)

It is of illtPlpst I hat tl( pituitary body which supposNlIy is (lostly tied IlP with tl( physiology of grow h a Iltl lalta I ion liP(1 i lIld in weight to HO~ [gtel(tn till t he most II igh I) ill UI(( goll P I hll I 11 ilk and blltt rla ( plOduction dNIi IINI to )~~ a neI l-iHi pelCent respecti v~ly and thut the itellls 1(PlI(~llt ing body I1I11S (((lil1(gt(1 to H7 ptIcellt ol~ the valtwR leprlsenlNl by the olltbl(lI groupreight of whit I ciecrpasl(lo an C(I reatl lxtent (to nearly (it) IWI(ellt) bllt Ihis 1lI1ly ha( bpn (ollll)ensatNI 101 to sOllie lxtellt ill t 1l llIatter of plodllcing ability by II gn~atll (Pglll of pooity ill till manllllfll~T tissue whieit iH inditapil by Ilw high relntioll of capacity 10 wcight of uddpl in the 1I101 highly inbtNI glOUPS Tht difiPlcnt ptrpds of inblceding 011 size of various pnd()(Iilll~ glauds (pituitIUy thyroid and ndl(lIals) sugglsl IIw possi bilit that It 11Itk 01 lndo(line balallee might hal existed

Itwould SetIll logieal to assume that if the outbred (OS had had II

higher pplClntlglt of Holstltin instead of Jlislty and Guelllscy ancestry some of UWli( lfllets of IIlIJlPNllllg wOllld huc belll more PlOIlOUl1cpd

As inbreeding ilHI(asld lind the si7p of the (ow became smaller the organs and body pllrtS 011 lI1l ltV(lllgC eallll to represent a lalgN proportioll of the total allimal stluetlllC They did not dec-line ali much as did empty body wlight To jnst whal cxt(llt this tendency (an be attributed to inblceding callnot bc deterlllined tl(culately as It ()((lllS to SOIll( ltIPglN in IllOSt clIses whell (os ale glouped on the basis of live wlight Mot not n blc txpptions wele weights of pa mthylOids pall(TPlIS and til( wlgtight and cnpaeity of the udder These glnnds wele reelmeel in size lllativlly mOle than (Illpt body night

PhI ontbpd gra(p Hoistei 11 (OWS i Jlclulti(din I h is study WHe only glightlv sm all I in weight and sk(lltal 8i7( than 75 registered Holstein eowR RfaughtPlNI at B(I tsvi Ill in lilnd ips of (on fonnation ami a natonlY in Ielation to ploducing (aplIeily hut tlwil intCII1l11 olgan and (specially tlHit lnltlo(Iine glands diHplpd to a glpatH (xh~llt PEl ((ntagls showing the 1llation of olltbled glad( (OS to lEyeniShp( (OWS a vtmge 1140 fOl body wpighl 01 III ass l6S iOI skehmiddottttl SIZe f)2(i for i ntplna I Olga ns n nd H7R fol endocli ne glands Hi 71 was sma 1111 ill the olltblld ziade lOWS than ill thl rpgiHtlIpd (OW8 for ((Iy item (Olll PlINl

(OIIplatioll (opflicilllts showed that produtillg ability was more a(nIHlly aff((tld by inttl1siw inbt(NUng than 1l1(aSUl(S of body or ~ktINal siu and internal organs 01 gland size although most of thl

bull

bull

bull

bull

bull

bull

lNBREEDIXG OF GUADE aOLSlE1N COWS 33

items undet these IH~adings indicated Sltlme decrease in size with intensity of inbreeding

Valiubility ~xplessed ilS coeftieilmts of vUlintion dittered greatly for the vurious items 1or example the coeflidents of vlllintlOl1 fot weight of llcilenals wert IlpproxinHlttly to times as great us those fot height ut withelb both in the outbled group ilnd in the three inbled glOltl)S Coelticients for some of the otlltl endocrine glands IIlId fo weig It Illld capacity of udder were tvcn higher tlum those fOl weight of aclcnuls

Inbleetiinlr apparently did lIot (e(Iell( lIliubility in body IllaSS OJ skeletal Silllellsiolsj in bet thete is SOllIe indication that YIlrillshybility inClctlSec1 slightly fOl ome of the~~ ittlIIs as illbleedillg bNUltle tI10L~ intemw IlIb(((d ing did lot $llb~tantia II) ledllce Illiubi Iityi II the ihtelllId olgam CX(middotjlt that lhc lItLugC was IOWN ill the I11mt highly inuIcd glOup than til lht outUllmiddottl or th( othcl two inulNl gLOUpS The gtpl(([l Ill IiIOSt H1illbl( ill the hitrllly inbred IOUp

In the ~ndoclin( gland itellls Ilinbilit wus lleal~y twic~ as high 1 in tho intellml otgnn itcl1s lind the urtIage for the most highly inshybred (toutgt WaS 1Cs than fo1 any other trlOllp Individual items ditl(trd glpatl) in ariability ()

The high llliability in itltllS pertaining 0 weight and capaeity of udder il ptobtly tlUt in lalgp IIIPIIII( to ditf(ItI1(ps in slllW of laet~tioll at slanghtpI niH to till small 11I111bl~ of (ows reples~ntld illlaCh grollp Weight of Ilaquo((lel was llut Hlinble in tIH 1I10Hi highly ltlulld glOllp flip 11111( wm tue rOl tHpueity of dJy IlddlJs but not for calll~ily 01 la(tatillg Itddcls

VariabilIty in Iltilk 11Iid buttelfat pllllluctioll 01 in pelceltage of but(plfat did not dl(IPlIllliUJliJillIntly with iJlbleedil)tr

lhan~(s ill vlltiability ith intensity of inbleedil7cT also ditfplld gngtatJy for individual ittlns The body mass and sln-Ietal size ittnlH welc 1I0t grrlltly ldlccled Atllong thtmiddot inttltlal olgans weight of Iwart weght o~ ~idlleys l~nd length of intestines showed little challge whIle w(lgllt of- 11c1 dltcltned matkedlr

bullJ1)ong tho (nu()(line gland valiability ill weihts of pituitlllY thyroid and Pllllt(middotUS WaS not signincalllly atll(illll)y inbleedillcT dcshybpitl tl)(~luct ~hat tlte J)itllittIYWl (cdu(ed and the thyroid l~ llshy

erNuCCl 11 weIght (Ight 01lt ptntal adlenuls and parathyroids W(gtI(~ (eRnitely less vHtiaull in thl highly inbled group despite the fact that tlte lettllil w(lights of pillPtI tllld tdlellds were not appleshyciably dr((ted

(light of uddel lH)td a vY 1l1lHh IO(Ipd vflliability ill the most highly IlIut((1 glOUP

In 1 nUlIIbtI of (alt~ thelc a~ a dp(lilll in flriabilit within tlw threl inbrtd groups but liullmiddot if tIll wlll1I till lnulmiddot(middot1I gloups wCle (OIll p(u((l wit h the OurbPr glOltp Thii lp~lIltNI fJl)1Il tIl tendenc fOt nLiability 0 btl high ill tilt glOIlP of (os haing inblceding ((wtli(ients tllugillg hom 10 to ~0 IWIllnt

(orllbillNl a(Ii1gt~ fol nIl of tIIP ~~ item stu(i((J show that the (o~fli(ilnt of llinliol waS apPloximately l~ lWl(nt less fol all inblQd gtoup and aPPtoximnlely ~(l pClccnt less for the most highly inbrNI group tlmn for the outblpd group

34 rECfL~lCAL BULLBTIN 990 U S l)EPT 01lt AGJUCULlURE

LITERATURE CITED

(1) BAIlTLETl J W REECE R P nnd LEP-IW O L 1)42 rlJE lliINE-lt o~ JNlIREFDING O~ BIRTH WpJGHT RATE 0 GROWTH bull

A~D TnE Ot DAIRY CATrLE Jour Anim Sci 1 (3) 2Ot~212 () j)lCKJlSOV G g

lWO EnECIS O r-UKEEDl~G l~ OAIRY CAlvrLE (IKOGKESS REIOKT) AbshystlmiddotltCt Jour Dafry ScI 23 (6) 546-547

(l) AIO~ O N llXl8 Wl-IGllTS Hm MEA8UKMENTIt 0 THt 1lCI( ND ORGAN8 m MAI11I1E

l~lIIU1l 110 CIIOSSUlIoIl (lUINt IOS Amer Jour Aunt 63 (2)273-295

(4) 19il) COllIAIIATIE XALYSIS Ot TIU llESClltMENT8 O TUE LUlU IIO-S

Ot INllllto tUuns Ot Otl-ta NOS SII THEIR llYlIlt1U8 8 AnEC1EII II AlllLY SEX~II Am ~1ller Jour Aunt 64 (3) -tSCHOO

(5) HnSDJJ A e WH GunW1U SrA~IIARlJs OR DAIRY CAMU Mo A~rr EXpt Sta Bul

am 12 pp llIus (tI) SWElvr W W MAlrIIEWS O A MIlLEII F W null GR-ES R R

19~7 middotUTIONs Rt(OlIIlto I l1n STell lk rug CO~Hm~ITION AND 1011 Qt ~Ila llAIUY cows ILIXG U(OJIIIS 0 lII01ll10TION (utH~ll To Jlmiddot~t t() 1110) P S Thllt Agr Bur DnllY Indus HDIM-5S) Jpp (PrOclssed)

(7) 1lIINtlI ( W wm I1UIIIOoO 1-1UlIAmiddotImiddotIO~H 1II~rlnES IttIUOUlCTlON 11UUlAIlY G1ANII

jIUlWTII ~O 1_(~TlOl( Glowlh 3 (H) ~a-3Hi ll1l1s (lt) WITJoRS II J

loon TH~ 1~~Ll~N(E m SI1IUIIO~ ll()S TH ~lIAI ~OIII Soc PWIlI A~Imiddot Hd 1gt(0(30 7tH18 illw

(Ill VOOllWltIl I K nnd (lRts It H 19~ sUrt 1UmiddotWITS OF llfllltE~orNll GII)E GtRSSty A~O OIlAI) HOLS1ttN-

tlmsI~ CTTIt U~ Dpt Agt Ttch Bul Ha) 2 pp iJlus bull I to) ~---- lind GltAmiddotES R H

It1-t(t 1t8nlS tit 1~IltElJl~(l GIID~ UOLSTJoIS-FIIUSI( tAl1middotU U S PtpL fl reel Hul 1)2 m JlP illl1s

( II I RWHT S If)a ~SlItII AIYI$ Qt TilE PIlIt IlIttJlIS O LInS-fO(K 1 TilE

MtASlt~~ltt(1 In l-lllU~llINO -SII 11~InO~SHII Jonr Heletl 14 (8) a~H8 lIlns

U S GOVEH tNT INIHG OHlst un

For ~Ilh by fhl ihlJwrintenltl~ot oC DOCIIIIlllltS t S Gonrolllcut Prlntlu (jlllceWlIshlugton 2 0 C - Prlce 1 cents bull

28 TECHNICAL BULLETIN 000 U S DEPT OF AGRICULTURE

Individual items differ greatly with regard to variability in size For example the coetlicients of variation for height at withers for the outbred group and the three inbred groups were 250 259 184 and 197 lespectively while the corresponding coefficients for weight of parathyroids were 3821 6157 3161 and 2391 Probably there are at least two reasons for the high variability in the latter case (1) The extreme smallness of the glands makes accurate dissection diffishycult and (2) a smaller number of animals is represented In addishytion differences in the IlmOullt of aceessory parathyroid tissue might also uffect variability On the other hand weight of adrena]s which is obtained with eompaLatively great uniformity and accuracy is repshyresented by essentially the same nUlI1ber of animals as height at withers and has the cOlllpallltively high coefficients of 2936 2421 2623 and 2223 respeetjvely~ for the same foul groups

It is regrettable that some of the items-particularly those pershytaining to weight amI capacity of udder-are represented by so few anilbals III snch instances the coetlicients of variation between varishyOllS ~maU groups may be largely a matter of chance ]llrthermore there is a tendency fOL coetlieients calculated for very small groups to be somewhat lower than th0se calculated for larger groups The reasons for dividing the data on udders into those that were lactating and those that were dry should require no further explanation

Vllriability among the items representing body mas~middot WitS relatively uniform There vas TIttle difference among the items There was a very sl ight tendency for variability to be greater in the inbred groups than in the outbred group but no significimt trend can be detectedshyeither in individual items or in group ayerages of vltriation coeffishycients-as the degree of inbreeding increased

Among the items selected to represent skeletal size the variation vas very low in every ease-much lower than in any other group of items There was II sl ight teldency also for variability to be greater in tlw inbred gronps thanip the outbrec1 group The variation is slightly greatelill the mp[lSUlpmpnts of thoracic cavity than in the measurl1lentf of IIPight width nndlength ill the living animal

Among the eight HelllS IPpresenting interllal organs the variation wa 111l1(h hmiddotss unifortn On an average weights of spleen and of ]un~rs showe( the greatpst variation length of intestines the least Variation was high ~tlso for weights of stomaehs and kidneys On the whole variation was substautially greater for the internal organs than for the items of body size lind mnch greater than pound01 the items representing skeleta 1size There was a tendency fol the variation to be lower in the most highly inblPc1 group than In the outbred ~lOUr lind the less intensely inbred groups but the variation was slightly higher-on un tyernge and ill some of the individual items-for the groups with inbreeding coefTicients of 10 to 29 percent and 30 to 40 peleent thlIl in the olltbrec1 glonp middotWeil1t of heart and weight or kidlleys shopcl little change with inbleeding middotWeight of liver flllctuated but cleelinecl markeelly The reason for the lower coefficient of variation for wight of spItcn ill -hc group of cows with inbreeding coefficients 0110 to 2D pPlcent is not known

The copfiitipllts of va Iintion ere almost twiee as great on an average for the endoelille glands as for Cillh~Inal orgalls POl the endocrine glands as a whole the gloup of (OWS itl inbllediII o coefficients of 10 to 20 perelnt showed greater variation thau thQ Qutpoundred group but

bull

bull

bull

bull

bull

bull

INBR~EDING OF GRADE HOISlEIN COWS 29

as inbleediIlg increased the coeflicient of varitltion declined proshygressively to a point considetably below the averRge for the outbred group In this respect the averages follow much the same pattern as those fOl the internal organ items although the trend is magnified considerably by the high coeflicients for palllthYloids The items represented by the smaller number of cows tend to show the highest coeflicients of variution yet even those items with close to maximum numbers showed greater vllriability in most cases than items in any of the groups previously discussed

Although the weight of pituitary was definitely reduced by inbreedshying it did not become mukec11y less variable The thyrOId on the other hllnd WllS much lalger in the highly inbred group thaI) in the onthred group and its vltriabilty was not greatly c1umged The weights of pineal and of ac1renllls which showed little change in weioht as a lesult of inbreeding were tJnsiderably less variable in the highly inbred group than in the outbred group 01 in the less highly inshyblec1 groups

In view of the smitH number of cows represented and the great variashytion in stage of lactation-even among lactating cows-a very high degree of vUliatioll for items peltaining to weight Hnd capacity of uclder is to be expected and little significance can be attached to any but the most marked differences in leslllts Weight was more variable in the lactating udders except in the most highly inbred group Capacshyity of udder was much more variable in the dry cows except in the most highly inbred group Trends in variability with increase in intensity of inbreeding are not definite for weight or capacity of uc1del HoweveL both were less variable in the low inbred (10-29) group than in the outbred or in the middle inbred (30-49) group anc110wer on an average in the highly inbred (50-69) group than in any of the other crroups

Milk and butterfat prodllction varied to essentially the same extent in each grOllp of cows thlltis inbreeding affected variubmty in these items to only a slight extent Percenbtge of butterfat vltried much less than milk and bntterfat ploduction and there was no clear-cut trend with inbreeding In fact the highest variation was in the most highly inbled group

A comparison of the averages for the various groups of items shows that there is a tendency-particularly for internal organs and enshydocrine glands-for the low inbred group to be more variable than the ontbred group but for vRliability to decline as inbreeding was llllthel intensified Combinecl averages for all of the 34 items in table 5 show that the coeflicient of vaLiation was only 8695 percent as high for all inbred gronps and only 7082 percent as high for the most highly inbred group as for the olltbJed group Corresponding avershyages for the 31 items pertaining to the animals anatOluy-omitting the 3 items relati ng to producing capa~ity-are 8690 and 6916 percent

These resu1ts are in close accord WIth those lepolted by Eaton (3) which SllOW that the deglee of vnliability was about 15 percent lower in the inbred animals than in the controls

GENERAL DISCUSSION

It is not to he expected that the results of this study wBl be identical fOL body size and production with those lcpolted by Woodward Rnd

30 TECHNICAL BULLETIN 990 U S DEPT OF AGRICULTURE

Graves (10) because this study includes only cows having nt least 50 percent of Holstein ancestry and less than 50 percent of the ancestry of any other breed and also because this study includes only the cows for which post-mortem data were avai1nble In view of the smaller numbers of cows represented in this study it is surprising that the results agree so well

This study shows that inbreeding affected live weight at 18 months alhlost itS much as it affected live weight at time of slaughter and empty body weight and carcass weight Live weight nt 18 months was about 14 percent lower or the highly inbred group than for dle Oltshybreuroc1 ~roup The study by Voodwtllcl und Graves (10) indicated that the bIghly 1l1bred animals wile about 25 percent below the weight of the outbled animuls at birth lLnd up to Q months about 17 percent below from 12 to 24 months and that they tell(led to catch up with advance in age

In disclissing the effect of inbreedillg on body size and production Iecords the possible influellt of It breed factor must not be overlooked About one-thitd of tIle cows ill the outbled grollp wete sired by tegisterp(] Holstein bulls Inltl were out of grade Jersey or grade Guernshysey cows The llse of Holstein sires undoubtedly tended to increase the size of the offspring paltieulully in the eady genelutions and to countenct the effects that inblceding may have lUHlin reducing body size Similarly the Holstein c1HlIactl~ristics fOt higher milk producshytion and lower butterfat tests may have minimized the tendency for inbreeding to leduce the milk production but accelerated the decline in butterfat test Any improvements that may have occurred in feedshying Illtctices probably had no SifrJ1i1iCllnt eflect on the results in view of the fact that the cows in all except the most highly inbred groups were tttrly well distributed with respect to time throughout the long period covered by the experiment

Another point thnt cnnnot be evaluated but shoulcl not be ovedookec1 is the fact that essentiilily all of the inbreeding tlllces to the one sire Tohun Woodclest Lad 11th 103987

It has been 110tNI that skeletal size was not appreciably affected by inbreeding and that variability for all of the VIlliotls skeletal dimenshysions was very milch lower than tOL any other group of items As previously stated Waters (8) concluded some 30 years ago that the impulse was strongeL Tor skeletal growth than for increase in weight On the other hanel n cliflerence between weight and skeletal growth probably should be expeeted in view of the fact that from birth to maturity cattle seldom if ever double their height at withers whereas body weight Increase some 15 to 20 times during the same period This basis of reasoning 11oeer does not explain why width of hips which normally inCI(lHSeS to nearly ~~f2 times the measurement at birth (5) was not reduced to It greater extent

The marked decline in body weight with inbreeding while skeletal dilllensions remained practically unchang(gtd raises a number of quesshytions There is reason to believe that the inbred animals were as wen feel as the outbred ones That being the case what was the cause of tIle decline in boely size Apparently it was not the result of deficiency in size of the digestive organs as the size of stomachs declined less than body size the length of iltestines lemained virtually unchallged and both became lllrger in relation to empty body weight as inbreeding

bull

bull

bull

31

bull

bull

bull

LfBREEDlSG ot GRADE HOLSTEIN COWS

inclcased Pmlmps it waS due to 80mI il111lrited chlllllcteristic that resulted in l~ss eflililnt utilization of feed A look tit the changes in size of endocrine glands shows that the thyroid was malkldly helliel and the pnll(teas was much lightN in the highly inbred ltows than in the ontbred one In view of the thyroids control OYPJ JltP of oxidashytion and the cliglstie functions of the pancreatic fluid the changes noted in these glands possibly IIIlly be of some significance

The question might ulso be tlis(gtc as towhethlr the inctlllslC1 size of the thYlOid might indicute a goihous conditioll The lIulrked deelcase in size of pituitary is of course sllggestin of 1 tlelIeaSl ill tllluoratioll of the gJ(Hrth-stimlllllting hOImone though it is not delll why this WOllid not all(ltt skelNal growth ns well as illtIIIlSC in body weight Agaill thele COIllN to lIlind the qnestion Vhy was there not It

Ieduction ill the altililluis and thYloids if the pitllitaties had beell deficient lhNe is l1lu(h in tIl datil to suggest tlw ()((lIlJellle of n dysfunction in tlH~ emiddotnlio(rine system IPsultillg floll1 inuleeding which may have uepn itt I(ast partly Ilsponsible for the smaller body size ill inbred cows D(fill ite proof 1owell is lacki IIg us assays of tilE endocline glands wele not made

The results obtnillNl with eOws were in fllirly dose agleemlnt with those teporllmiddotd by J~at()n fOl gil i n~a pis inn 1II1111II onmiddotsplmiddotets lrot exam pie thelc wus It substantial ((( i ne in body tgtight with lnbl(edshying the organs in lIt sllaller animals were I utget in propoltiolt to body Wlig-ht and sk(letal size was aif(gtCted to n smltiler cleglle than body weig-ht Also the weights of pituitary and heart declined in much the same malllleL as live weight and the length of intestines and weight of spleen were not aflected materially Trends for other OIgans wele not in sudt dose agreement In both species the vllrishyability in organ size WaS high in the case of weight of lungs thyroid and acllennls and low for intestine length Eaton ShOWlmiddotd that vnrishyilbility on all averag-e waS about 15 percent lower in the inbred animals than ill contlols AVIctagesof the coefficients of variation for all of the items listed in table 5 arl about 13 percent lowlr for all three inbred group thim 101 til( outbled glOU p a nd about 29 pel(lnt lower for the most highly inbllc group (5()-69) than for the outbred gtOltp

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

SevPlItY-Otle ~lHdl Holitlin eow fOr which IlIpaSlllpments of body size llJlutOlny lind producing (tgtIHity wete lInill1ble were diided into -t groups Oil t hI basis of the intensities (coeffi(ients) of inbreedshying An ontbJed gJlmp (olltuined 22 (ows The +9 inbJNI cows inshycluded 27 with illht(eding (olflkiellts of 29 penem Qt less 15 with (oefficients i)etw(gtell 30 and 49 perleut il)(luie al1(i7 with (oefJicients of 50 p(r(cnt OL above Analyses of aVlilnble data w(te made to detershymine the lffeet of inbtl~edillg on (1) the Jllagnitude and (2) the arishyability of more than gO itpoundIIIS Iepl(sentiug 11ieaSUIements of body weight and skPIltal size ize of organs and endocrille glands lind milk ante butterfat plodu(tion ~

Inbteeding lISliltNI in a de(ine of approximately 15 percent ill body weight 01 IllHlgtlgt bllt did not aflect skelltal size to any sigllifiCant extent Hom~ of titl illtetl1al oqraml-llotably thp ei~ht of heart-were

reduced in the most intenely inbted cows almost to the same extent

32 lpoundOlLlICAL BULLEIIN 090 U 8 DEPT O~ AGHICULlUH~~

as body maSS ~eight of blain and weirht of empty stomu(hs wele ledueed ab()It 10 plIlenLWpirht or Illllgs waH definitely 1l(utCI ill the inbled cows alld Itnltil of ilrtestinls was only slightly alpoundected

The endocli ne glllnds~011 all a lIage w(Ie I((itl((d ill izl Greatmt Iedlldions wele in weirhts of pHIathYIoids pituitalY aud pancleas no significallt chunge O(cUIIcd ill wPights of pineul 01 MIItIII1 lind the heaiest thyroids wele folllld in the most intensely inbled gtOllP

Yeight of uddlt WIIS greatly redu(ed in tht 1I10te intells(ly inbred (OW bllt changes in udder lHpHlity well~not consistent Howevel the lelution of cal)ueitv to wtight (porosity) of udd(I in(IIused witll j nbl(led illg Mi I PIO~III(tion WaS substa ntially lowered (78 pennnt) in the hirhly illiJrld tOWs ilnd bull(efat l)Jodlldioll slwwld 1111 even glPlIter lIC(IlUSP (lTA IWI((t)

It is of illtPlpst I hat tl( pituitary body which supposNlIy is (lostly tied IlP with tl( physiology of grow h a Iltl lalta I ion liP(1 i lIld in weight to HO~ [gtel(tn till t he most II igh I) ill UI(( goll P I hll I 11 ilk and blltt rla ( plOduction dNIi IINI to )~~ a neI l-iHi pelCent respecti v~ly and thut the itellls 1(PlI(~llt ing body I1I11S (((lil1(gt(1 to H7 ptIcellt ol~ the valtwR leprlsenlNl by the olltbl(lI groupreight of whit I ciecrpasl(lo an C(I reatl lxtent (to nearly (it) IWI(ellt) bllt Ihis 1lI1ly ha( bpn (ollll)ensatNI 101 to sOllie lxtellt ill t 1l llIatter of plodllcing ability by II gn~atll (Pglll of pooity ill till manllllfll~T tissue whieit iH inditapil by Ilw high relntioll of capacity 10 wcight of uddpl in the 1I101 highly inbtNI glOUPS Tht difiPlcnt ptrpds of inblceding 011 size of various pnd()(Iilll~ glauds (pituitIUy thyroid and ndl(lIals) sugglsl IIw possi bilit that It 11Itk 01 lndo(line balallee might hal existed

Itwould SetIll logieal to assume that if the outbred (OS had had II

higher pplClntlglt of Holstltin instead of Jlislty and Guelllscy ancestry some of UWli( lfllets of IIlIJlPNllllg wOllld huc belll more PlOIlOUl1cpd

As inbreeding ilHI(asld lind the si7p of the (ow became smaller the organs and body pllrtS 011 lI1l ltV(lllgC eallll to represent a lalgN proportioll of the total allimal stluetlllC They did not dec-line ali much as did empty body wlight To jnst whal cxt(llt this tendency (an be attributed to inblceding callnot bc deterlllined tl(culately as It ()((lllS to SOIll( ltIPglN in IllOSt clIses whell (os ale glouped on the basis of live wlight Mot not n blc txpptions wele weights of pa mthylOids pall(TPlIS and til( wlgtight and cnpaeity of the udder These glnnds wele reelmeel in size lllativlly mOle than (Illpt body night

PhI ontbpd gra(p Hoistei 11 (OWS i Jlclulti(din I h is study WHe only glightlv sm all I in weight and sk(lltal 8i7( than 75 registered Holstein eowR RfaughtPlNI at B(I tsvi Ill in lilnd ips of (on fonnation ami a natonlY in Ielation to ploducing (aplIeily hut tlwil intCII1l11 olgan and (specially tlHit lnltlo(Iine glands diHplpd to a glpatH (xh~llt PEl ((ntagls showing the 1llation of olltbled glad( (OS to lEyeniShp( (OWS a vtmge 1140 fOl body wpighl 01 III ass l6S iOI skehmiddottttl SIZe f)2(i for i ntplna I Olga ns n nd H7R fol endocli ne glands Hi 71 was sma 1111 ill the olltblld ziade lOWS than ill thl rpgiHtlIpd (OW8 for ((Iy item (Olll PlINl

(OIIplatioll (opflicilllts showed that produtillg ability was more a(nIHlly aff((tld by inttl1siw inbt(NUng than 1l1(aSUl(S of body or ~ktINal siu and internal organs 01 gland size although most of thl

bull

bull

bull

bull

bull

bull

lNBREEDIXG OF GUADE aOLSlE1N COWS 33

items undet these IH~adings indicated Sltlme decrease in size with intensity of inbreeding

Valiubility ~xplessed ilS coeftieilmts of vUlintion dittered greatly for the vurious items 1or example the coeflidents of vlllintlOl1 fot weight of llcilenals wert IlpproxinHlttly to times as great us those fot height ut withelb both in the outbled group ilnd in the three inbled glOltl)S Coelticients for some of the otlltl endocrine glands IIlId fo weig It Illld capacity of udder were tvcn higher tlum those fOl weight of aclcnuls

Inbleetiinlr apparently did lIot (e(Iell( lIliubility in body IllaSS OJ skeletal Silllellsiolsj in bet thete is SOllIe indication that YIlrillshybility inClctlSec1 slightly fOl ome of the~~ ittlIIs as illbleedillg bNUltle tI10L~ intemw IlIb(((d ing did lot $llb~tantia II) ledllce Illiubi Iityi II the ihtelllId olgam CX(middotjlt that lhc lItLugC was IOWN ill the I11mt highly inuIcd glOup than til lht outUllmiddottl or th( othcl two inulNl gLOUpS The gtpl(([l Ill IiIOSt H1illbl( ill the hitrllly inbred IOUp

In the ~ndoclin( gland itellls Ilinbilit wus lleal~y twic~ as high 1 in tho intellml otgnn itcl1s lind the urtIage for the most highly inshybred (toutgt WaS 1Cs than fo1 any other trlOllp Individual items ditl(trd glpatl) in ariability ()

The high llliability in itltllS pertaining 0 weight and capaeity of udder il ptobtly tlUt in lalgp IIIPIIII( to ditf(ItI1(ps in slllW of laet~tioll at slanghtpI niH to till small 11I111bl~ of (ows reples~ntld illlaCh grollp Weight of Ilaquo((lel was llut Hlinble in tIH 1I10Hi highly ltlulld glOllp flip 11111( wm tue rOl tHpueity of dJy IlddlJs but not for calll~ily 01 la(tatillg Itddcls

VariabilIty in Iltilk 11Iid buttelfat pllllluctioll 01 in pelceltage of but(plfat did not dl(IPlIllliUJliJillIntly with iJlbleedil)tr

lhan~(s ill vlltiability ith intensity of inbleedil7cT also ditfplld gngtatJy for individual ittlns The body mass and sln-Ietal size ittnlH welc 1I0t grrlltly ldlccled Atllong thtmiddot inttltlal olgans weight of Iwart weght o~ ~idlleys l~nd length of intestines showed little challge whIle w(lgllt of- 11c1 dltcltned matkedlr

bullJ1)ong tho (nu()(line gland valiability ill weihts of pituitlllY thyroid and Pllllt(middotUS WaS not signincalllly atll(illll)y inbleedillcT dcshybpitl tl)(~luct ~hat tlte J)itllittIYWl (cdu(ed and the thyroid l~ llshy

erNuCCl 11 weIght (Ight 01lt ptntal adlenuls and parathyroids W(gtI(~ (eRnitely less vHtiaull in thl highly inbled group despite the fact that tlte lettllil w(lights of pillPtI tllld tdlellds were not appleshyciably dr((ted

(light of uddel lH)td a vY 1l1lHh IO(Ipd vflliability ill the most highly IlIut((1 glOUP

In 1 nUlIIbtI of (alt~ thelc a~ a dp(lilll in flriabilit within tlw threl inbrtd groups but liullmiddot if tIll wlll1I till lnulmiddot(middot1I gloups wCle (OIll p(u((l wit h the OurbPr glOltp Thii lp~lIltNI fJl)1Il tIl tendenc fOt nLiability 0 btl high ill tilt glOIlP of (os haing inblceding ((wtli(ients tllugillg hom 10 to ~0 IWIllnt

(orllbillNl a(Ii1gt~ fol nIl of tIIP ~~ item stu(i((J show that the (o~fli(ilnt of llinliol waS apPloximately l~ lWl(nt less fol all inblQd gtoup and aPPtoximnlely ~(l pClccnt less for the most highly inbrNI group tlmn for the outblpd group

34 rECfL~lCAL BULLBTIN 990 U S l)EPT 01lt AGJUCULlURE

LITERATURE CITED

(1) BAIlTLETl J W REECE R P nnd LEP-IW O L 1)42 rlJE lliINE-lt o~ JNlIREFDING O~ BIRTH WpJGHT RATE 0 GROWTH bull

A~D TnE Ot DAIRY CATrLE Jour Anim Sci 1 (3) 2Ot~212 () j)lCKJlSOV G g

lWO EnECIS O r-UKEEDl~G l~ OAIRY CAlvrLE (IKOGKESS REIOKT) AbshystlmiddotltCt Jour Dafry ScI 23 (6) 546-547

(l) AIO~ O N llXl8 Wl-IGllTS Hm MEA8UKMENTIt 0 THt 1lCI( ND ORGAN8 m MAI11I1E

l~lIIU1l 110 CIIOSSUlIoIl (lUINt IOS Amer Jour Aunt 63 (2)273-295

(4) 19il) COllIAIIATIE XALYSIS Ot TIU llESClltMENT8 O TUE LUlU IIO-S

Ot INllllto tUuns Ot Otl-ta NOS SII THEIR llYlIlt1U8 8 AnEC1EII II AlllLY SEX~II Am ~1ller Jour Aunt 64 (3) -tSCHOO

(5) HnSDJJ A e WH GunW1U SrA~IIARlJs OR DAIRY CAMU Mo A~rr EXpt Sta Bul

am 12 pp llIus (tI) SWElvr W W MAlrIIEWS O A MIlLEII F W null GR-ES R R

19~7 middotUTIONs Rt(OlIIlto I l1n STell lk rug CO~Hm~ITION AND 1011 Qt ~Ila llAIUY cows ILIXG U(OJIIIS 0 lII01ll10TION (utH~ll To Jlmiddot~t t() 1110) P S Thllt Agr Bur DnllY Indus HDIM-5S) Jpp (PrOclssed)

(7) 1lIINtlI ( W wm I1UIIIOoO 1-1UlIAmiddotImiddotIO~H 1II~rlnES IttIUOUlCTlON 11UUlAIlY G1ANII

jIUlWTII ~O 1_(~TlOl( Glowlh 3 (H) ~a-3Hi ll1l1s (lt) WITJoRS II J

loon TH~ 1~~Ll~N(E m SI1IUIIO~ ll()S TH ~lIAI ~OIII Soc PWIlI A~Imiddot Hd 1gt(0(30 7tH18 illw

(Ill VOOllWltIl I K nnd (lRts It H 19~ sUrt 1UmiddotWITS OF llfllltE~orNll GII)E GtRSSty A~O OIlAI) HOLS1ttN-

tlmsI~ CTTIt U~ Dpt Agt Ttch Bul Ha) 2 pp iJlus bull I to) ~---- lind GltAmiddotES R H

It1-t(t 1t8nlS tit 1~IltElJl~(l GIID~ UOLSTJoIS-FIIUSI( tAl1middotU U S PtpL fl reel Hul 1)2 m JlP illl1s

( II I RWHT S If)a ~SlItII AIYI$ Qt TilE PIlIt IlIttJlIS O LInS-fO(K 1 TilE

MtASlt~~ltt(1 In l-lllU~llINO -SII 11~InO~SHII Jonr Heletl 14 (8) a~H8 lIlns

U S GOVEH tNT INIHG OHlst un

For ~Ilh by fhl ihlJwrintenltl~ot oC DOCIIIIlllltS t S Gonrolllcut Prlntlu (jlllceWlIshlugton 2 0 C - Prlce 1 cents bull

bull

bull

bull

INBR~EDING OF GRADE HOISlEIN COWS 29

as inbleediIlg increased the coeflicient of varitltion declined proshygressively to a point considetably below the averRge for the outbred group In this respect the averages follow much the same pattern as those fOl the internal organ items although the trend is magnified considerably by the high coeflicients for palllthYloids The items represented by the smaller number of cows tend to show the highest coeflicients of variution yet even those items with close to maximum numbers showed greater vllriability in most cases than items in any of the groups previously discussed

Although the weight of pituitary was definitely reduced by inbreedshying it did not become mukec11y less variable The thyrOId on the other hllnd WllS much lalger in the highly inbred group thaI) in the onthred group and its vltriabilty was not greatly c1umged The weights of pineal and of ac1renllls which showed little change in weioht as a lesult of inbreeding were tJnsiderably less variable in the highly inbred group than in the outbred group 01 in the less highly inshyblec1 groups

In view of the smitH number of cows represented and the great variashytion in stage of lactation-even among lactating cows-a very high degree of vUliatioll for items peltaining to weight Hnd capacity of uclder is to be expected and little significance can be attached to any but the most marked differences in leslllts Weight was more variable in the lactating udders except in the most highly inbred group Capacshyity of udder was much more variable in the dry cows except in the most highly inbred group Trends in variability with increase in intensity of inbreeding are not definite for weight or capacity of uc1del HoweveL both were less variable in the low inbred (10-29) group than in the outbred or in the middle inbred (30-49) group anc110wer on an average in the highly inbred (50-69) group than in any of the other crroups

Milk and butterfat prodllction varied to essentially the same extent in each grOllp of cows thlltis inbreeding affected variubmty in these items to only a slight extent Percenbtge of butterfat vltried much less than milk and bntterfat ploduction and there was no clear-cut trend with inbreeding In fact the highest variation was in the most highly inbled group

A comparison of the averages for the various groups of items shows that there is a tendency-particularly for internal organs and enshydocrine glands-for the low inbred group to be more variable than the ontbred group but for vRliability to decline as inbreeding was llllthel intensified Combinecl averages for all of the 34 items in table 5 show that the coeflicient of vaLiation was only 8695 percent as high for all inbred gronps and only 7082 percent as high for the most highly inbred group as for the olltbJed group Corresponding avershyages for the 31 items pertaining to the animals anatOluy-omitting the 3 items relati ng to producing capa~ity-are 8690 and 6916 percent

These resu1ts are in close accord WIth those lepolted by Eaton (3) which SllOW that the deglee of vnliability was about 15 percent lower in the inbred animals than in the controls

GENERAL DISCUSSION

It is not to he expected that the results of this study wBl be identical fOL body size and production with those lcpolted by Woodward Rnd

30 TECHNICAL BULLETIN 990 U S DEPT OF AGRICULTURE

Graves (10) because this study includes only cows having nt least 50 percent of Holstein ancestry and less than 50 percent of the ancestry of any other breed and also because this study includes only the cows for which post-mortem data were avai1nble In view of the smaller numbers of cows represented in this study it is surprising that the results agree so well

This study shows that inbreeding affected live weight at 18 months alhlost itS much as it affected live weight at time of slaughter and empty body weight and carcass weight Live weight nt 18 months was about 14 percent lower or the highly inbred group than for dle Oltshybreuroc1 ~roup The study by Voodwtllcl und Graves (10) indicated that the bIghly 1l1bred animals wile about 25 percent below the weight of the outbled animuls at birth lLnd up to Q months about 17 percent below from 12 to 24 months and that they tell(led to catch up with advance in age

In disclissing the effect of inbreedillg on body size and production Iecords the possible influellt of It breed factor must not be overlooked About one-thitd of tIle cows ill the outbled grollp wete sired by tegisterp(] Holstein bulls Inltl were out of grade Jersey or grade Guernshysey cows The llse of Holstein sires undoubtedly tended to increase the size of the offspring paltieulully in the eady genelutions and to countenct the effects that inblceding may have lUHlin reducing body size Similarly the Holstein c1HlIactl~ristics fOt higher milk producshytion and lower butterfat tests may have minimized the tendency for inbreeding to leduce the milk production but accelerated the decline in butterfat test Any improvements that may have occurred in feedshying Illtctices probably had no SifrJ1i1iCllnt eflect on the results in view of the fact that the cows in all except the most highly inbred groups were tttrly well distributed with respect to time throughout the long period covered by the experiment

Another point thnt cnnnot be evaluated but shoulcl not be ovedookec1 is the fact that essentiilily all of the inbreeding tlllces to the one sire Tohun Woodclest Lad 11th 103987

It has been 110tNI that skeletal size was not appreciably affected by inbreeding and that variability for all of the VIlliotls skeletal dimenshysions was very milch lower than tOL any other group of items As previously stated Waters (8) concluded some 30 years ago that the impulse was strongeL Tor skeletal growth than for increase in weight On the other hanel n cliflerence between weight and skeletal growth probably should be expeeted in view of the fact that from birth to maturity cattle seldom if ever double their height at withers whereas body weight Increase some 15 to 20 times during the same period This basis of reasoning 11oeer does not explain why width of hips which normally inCI(lHSeS to nearly ~~f2 times the measurement at birth (5) was not reduced to It greater extent

The marked decline in body weight with inbreeding while skeletal dilllensions remained practically unchang(gtd raises a number of quesshytions There is reason to believe that the inbred animals were as wen feel as the outbred ones That being the case what was the cause of tIle decline in boely size Apparently it was not the result of deficiency in size of the digestive organs as the size of stomachs declined less than body size the length of iltestines lemained virtually unchallged and both became lllrger in relation to empty body weight as inbreeding

bull

bull

bull

31

bull

bull

bull

LfBREEDlSG ot GRADE HOLSTEIN COWS

inclcased Pmlmps it waS due to 80mI il111lrited chlllllcteristic that resulted in l~ss eflililnt utilization of feed A look tit the changes in size of endocrine glands shows that the thyroid was malkldly helliel and the pnll(teas was much lightN in the highly inbred ltows than in the ontbred one In view of the thyroids control OYPJ JltP of oxidashytion and the cliglstie functions of the pancreatic fluid the changes noted in these glands possibly IIIlly be of some significance

The question might ulso be tlis(gtc as towhethlr the inctlllslC1 size of the thYlOid might indicute a goihous conditioll The lIulrked deelcase in size of pituitary is of course sllggestin of 1 tlelIeaSl ill tllluoratioll of the gJ(Hrth-stimlllllting hOImone though it is not delll why this WOllid not all(ltt skelNal growth ns well as illtIIIlSC in body weight Agaill thele COIllN to lIlind the qnestion Vhy was there not It

Ieduction ill the altililluis and thYloids if the pitllitaties had beell deficient lhNe is l1lu(h in tIl datil to suggest tlw ()((lIlJellle of n dysfunction in tlH~ emiddotnlio(rine system IPsultillg floll1 inuleeding which may have uepn itt I(ast partly Ilsponsible for the smaller body size ill inbred cows D(fill ite proof 1owell is lacki IIg us assays of tilE endocline glands wele not made

The results obtnillNl with eOws were in fllirly dose agleemlnt with those teporllmiddotd by J~at()n fOl gil i n~a pis inn 1II1111II onmiddotsplmiddotets lrot exam pie thelc wus It substantial ((( i ne in body tgtight with lnbl(edshying the organs in lIt sllaller animals were I utget in propoltiolt to body Wlig-ht and sk(letal size was aif(gtCted to n smltiler cleglle than body weig-ht Also the weights of pituitary and heart declined in much the same malllleL as live weight and the length of intestines and weight of spleen were not aflected materially Trends for other OIgans wele not in sudt dose agreement In both species the vllrishyability in organ size WaS high in the case of weight of lungs thyroid and acllennls and low for intestine length Eaton ShOWlmiddotd that vnrishyilbility on all averag-e waS about 15 percent lower in the inbred animals than ill contlols AVIctagesof the coefficients of variation for all of the items listed in table 5 arl about 13 percent lowlr for all three inbred group thim 101 til( outbled glOU p a nd about 29 pel(lnt lower for the most highly inbllc group (5()-69) than for the outbred gtOltp

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

SevPlItY-Otle ~lHdl Holitlin eow fOr which IlIpaSlllpments of body size llJlutOlny lind producing (tgtIHity wete lInill1ble were diided into -t groups Oil t hI basis of the intensities (coeffi(ients) of inbreedshying An ontbJed gJlmp (olltuined 22 (ows The +9 inbJNI cows inshycluded 27 with illht(eding (olflkiellts of 29 penem Qt less 15 with (oefficients i)etw(gtell 30 and 49 perleut il)(luie al1(i7 with (oefJicients of 50 p(r(cnt OL above Analyses of aVlilnble data w(te made to detershymine the lffeet of inbtl~edillg on (1) the Jllagnitude and (2) the arishyability of more than gO itpoundIIIS Iepl(sentiug 11ieaSUIements of body weight and skPIltal size ize of organs and endocrille glands lind milk ante butterfat plodu(tion ~

Inbteeding lISliltNI in a de(ine of approximately 15 percent ill body weight 01 IllHlgtlgt bllt did not aflect skelltal size to any sigllifiCant extent Hom~ of titl illtetl1al oqraml-llotably thp ei~ht of heart-were

reduced in the most intenely inbted cows almost to the same extent

32 lpoundOlLlICAL BULLEIIN 090 U 8 DEPT O~ AGHICULlUH~~

as body maSS ~eight of blain and weirht of empty stomu(hs wele ledueed ab()It 10 plIlenLWpirht or Illllgs waH definitely 1l(utCI ill the inbled cows alld Itnltil of ilrtestinls was only slightly alpoundected

The endocli ne glllnds~011 all a lIage w(Ie I((itl((d ill izl Greatmt Iedlldions wele in weirhts of pHIathYIoids pituitalY aud pancleas no significallt chunge O(cUIIcd ill wPights of pineul 01 MIItIII1 lind the heaiest thyroids wele folllld in the most intensely inbled gtOllP

Yeight of uddlt WIIS greatly redu(ed in tht 1I10te intells(ly inbred (OW bllt changes in udder lHpHlity well~not consistent Howevel the lelution of cal)ueitv to wtight (porosity) of udd(I in(IIused witll j nbl(led illg Mi I PIO~III(tion WaS substa ntially lowered (78 pennnt) in the hirhly illiJrld tOWs ilnd bull(efat l)Jodlldioll slwwld 1111 even glPlIter lIC(IlUSP (lTA IWI((t)

It is of illtPlpst I hat tl( pituitary body which supposNlIy is (lostly tied IlP with tl( physiology of grow h a Iltl lalta I ion liP(1 i lIld in weight to HO~ [gtel(tn till t he most II igh I) ill UI(( goll P I hll I 11 ilk and blltt rla ( plOduction dNIi IINI to )~~ a neI l-iHi pelCent respecti v~ly and thut the itellls 1(PlI(~llt ing body I1I11S (((lil1(gt(1 to H7 ptIcellt ol~ the valtwR leprlsenlNl by the olltbl(lI groupreight of whit I ciecrpasl(lo an C(I reatl lxtent (to nearly (it) IWI(ellt) bllt Ihis 1lI1ly ha( bpn (ollll)ensatNI 101 to sOllie lxtellt ill t 1l llIatter of plodllcing ability by II gn~atll (Pglll of pooity ill till manllllfll~T tissue whieit iH inditapil by Ilw high relntioll of capacity 10 wcight of uddpl in the 1I101 highly inbtNI glOUPS Tht difiPlcnt ptrpds of inblceding 011 size of various pnd()(Iilll~ glauds (pituitIUy thyroid and ndl(lIals) sugglsl IIw possi bilit that It 11Itk 01 lndo(line balallee might hal existed

Itwould SetIll logieal to assume that if the outbred (OS had had II

higher pplClntlglt of Holstltin instead of Jlislty and Guelllscy ancestry some of UWli( lfllets of IIlIJlPNllllg wOllld huc belll more PlOIlOUl1cpd

As inbreeding ilHI(asld lind the si7p of the (ow became smaller the organs and body pllrtS 011 lI1l ltV(lllgC eallll to represent a lalgN proportioll of the total allimal stluetlllC They did not dec-line ali much as did empty body wlight To jnst whal cxt(llt this tendency (an be attributed to inblceding callnot bc deterlllined tl(culately as It ()((lllS to SOIll( ltIPglN in IllOSt clIses whell (os ale glouped on the basis of live wlight Mot not n blc txpptions wele weights of pa mthylOids pall(TPlIS and til( wlgtight and cnpaeity of the udder These glnnds wele reelmeel in size lllativlly mOle than (Illpt body night

PhI ontbpd gra(p Hoistei 11 (OWS i Jlclulti(din I h is study WHe only glightlv sm all I in weight and sk(lltal 8i7( than 75 registered Holstein eowR RfaughtPlNI at B(I tsvi Ill in lilnd ips of (on fonnation ami a natonlY in Ielation to ploducing (aplIeily hut tlwil intCII1l11 olgan and (specially tlHit lnltlo(Iine glands diHplpd to a glpatH (xh~llt PEl ((ntagls showing the 1llation of olltbled glad( (OS to lEyeniShp( (OWS a vtmge 1140 fOl body wpighl 01 III ass l6S iOI skehmiddottttl SIZe f)2(i for i ntplna I Olga ns n nd H7R fol endocli ne glands Hi 71 was sma 1111 ill the olltblld ziade lOWS than ill thl rpgiHtlIpd (OW8 for ((Iy item (Olll PlINl

(OIIplatioll (opflicilllts showed that produtillg ability was more a(nIHlly aff((tld by inttl1siw inbt(NUng than 1l1(aSUl(S of body or ~ktINal siu and internal organs 01 gland size although most of thl

bull

bull

bull

bull

bull

bull

lNBREEDIXG OF GUADE aOLSlE1N COWS 33

items undet these IH~adings indicated Sltlme decrease in size with intensity of inbreeding

Valiubility ~xplessed ilS coeftieilmts of vUlintion dittered greatly for the vurious items 1or example the coeflidents of vlllintlOl1 fot weight of llcilenals wert IlpproxinHlttly to times as great us those fot height ut withelb both in the outbled group ilnd in the three inbled glOltl)S Coelticients for some of the otlltl endocrine glands IIlId fo weig It Illld capacity of udder were tvcn higher tlum those fOl weight of aclcnuls

Inbleetiinlr apparently did lIot (e(Iell( lIliubility in body IllaSS OJ skeletal Silllellsiolsj in bet thete is SOllIe indication that YIlrillshybility inClctlSec1 slightly fOl ome of the~~ ittlIIs as illbleedillg bNUltle tI10L~ intemw IlIb(((d ing did lot $llb~tantia II) ledllce Illiubi Iityi II the ihtelllId olgam CX(middotjlt that lhc lItLugC was IOWN ill the I11mt highly inuIcd glOup than til lht outUllmiddottl or th( othcl two inulNl gLOUpS The gtpl(([l Ill IiIOSt H1illbl( ill the hitrllly inbred IOUp

In the ~ndoclin( gland itellls Ilinbilit wus lleal~y twic~ as high 1 in tho intellml otgnn itcl1s lind the urtIage for the most highly inshybred (toutgt WaS 1Cs than fo1 any other trlOllp Individual items ditl(trd glpatl) in ariability ()

The high llliability in itltllS pertaining 0 weight and capaeity of udder il ptobtly tlUt in lalgp IIIPIIII( to ditf(ItI1(ps in slllW of laet~tioll at slanghtpI niH to till small 11I111bl~ of (ows reples~ntld illlaCh grollp Weight of Ilaquo((lel was llut Hlinble in tIH 1I10Hi highly ltlulld glOllp flip 11111( wm tue rOl tHpueity of dJy IlddlJs but not for calll~ily 01 la(tatillg Itddcls

VariabilIty in Iltilk 11Iid buttelfat pllllluctioll 01 in pelceltage of but(plfat did not dl(IPlIllliUJliJillIntly with iJlbleedil)tr

lhan~(s ill vlltiability ith intensity of inbleedil7cT also ditfplld gngtatJy for individual ittlns The body mass and sln-Ietal size ittnlH welc 1I0t grrlltly ldlccled Atllong thtmiddot inttltlal olgans weight of Iwart weght o~ ~idlleys l~nd length of intestines showed little challge whIle w(lgllt of- 11c1 dltcltned matkedlr

bullJ1)ong tho (nu()(line gland valiability ill weihts of pituitlllY thyroid and Pllllt(middotUS WaS not signincalllly atll(illll)y inbleedillcT dcshybpitl tl)(~luct ~hat tlte J)itllittIYWl (cdu(ed and the thyroid l~ llshy

erNuCCl 11 weIght (Ight 01lt ptntal adlenuls and parathyroids W(gtI(~ (eRnitely less vHtiaull in thl highly inbled group despite the fact that tlte lettllil w(lights of pillPtI tllld tdlellds were not appleshyciably dr((ted

(light of uddel lH)td a vY 1l1lHh IO(Ipd vflliability ill the most highly IlIut((1 glOUP

In 1 nUlIIbtI of (alt~ thelc a~ a dp(lilll in flriabilit within tlw threl inbrtd groups but liullmiddot if tIll wlll1I till lnulmiddot(middot1I gloups wCle (OIll p(u((l wit h the OurbPr glOltp Thii lp~lIltNI fJl)1Il tIl tendenc fOt nLiability 0 btl high ill tilt glOIlP of (os haing inblceding ((wtli(ients tllugillg hom 10 to ~0 IWIllnt

(orllbillNl a(Ii1gt~ fol nIl of tIIP ~~ item stu(i((J show that the (o~fli(ilnt of llinliol waS apPloximately l~ lWl(nt less fol all inblQd gtoup and aPPtoximnlely ~(l pClccnt less for the most highly inbrNI group tlmn for the outblpd group

34 rECfL~lCAL BULLBTIN 990 U S l)EPT 01lt AGJUCULlURE

LITERATURE CITED

(1) BAIlTLETl J W REECE R P nnd LEP-IW O L 1)42 rlJE lliINE-lt o~ JNlIREFDING O~ BIRTH WpJGHT RATE 0 GROWTH bull

A~D TnE Ot DAIRY CATrLE Jour Anim Sci 1 (3) 2Ot~212 () j)lCKJlSOV G g

lWO EnECIS O r-UKEEDl~G l~ OAIRY CAlvrLE (IKOGKESS REIOKT) AbshystlmiddotltCt Jour Dafry ScI 23 (6) 546-547

(l) AIO~ O N llXl8 Wl-IGllTS Hm MEA8UKMENTIt 0 THt 1lCI( ND ORGAN8 m MAI11I1E

l~lIIU1l 110 CIIOSSUlIoIl (lUINt IOS Amer Jour Aunt 63 (2)273-295

(4) 19il) COllIAIIATIE XALYSIS Ot TIU llESClltMENT8 O TUE LUlU IIO-S

Ot INllllto tUuns Ot Otl-ta NOS SII THEIR llYlIlt1U8 8 AnEC1EII II AlllLY SEX~II Am ~1ller Jour Aunt 64 (3) -tSCHOO

(5) HnSDJJ A e WH GunW1U SrA~IIARlJs OR DAIRY CAMU Mo A~rr EXpt Sta Bul

am 12 pp llIus (tI) SWElvr W W MAlrIIEWS O A MIlLEII F W null GR-ES R R

19~7 middotUTIONs Rt(OlIIlto I l1n STell lk rug CO~Hm~ITION AND 1011 Qt ~Ila llAIUY cows ILIXG U(OJIIIS 0 lII01ll10TION (utH~ll To Jlmiddot~t t() 1110) P S Thllt Agr Bur DnllY Indus HDIM-5S) Jpp (PrOclssed)

(7) 1lIINtlI ( W wm I1UIIIOoO 1-1UlIAmiddotImiddotIO~H 1II~rlnES IttIUOUlCTlON 11UUlAIlY G1ANII

jIUlWTII ~O 1_(~TlOl( Glowlh 3 (H) ~a-3Hi ll1l1s (lt) WITJoRS II J

loon TH~ 1~~Ll~N(E m SI1IUIIO~ ll()S TH ~lIAI ~OIII Soc PWIlI A~Imiddot Hd 1gt(0(30 7tH18 illw

(Ill VOOllWltIl I K nnd (lRts It H 19~ sUrt 1UmiddotWITS OF llfllltE~orNll GII)E GtRSSty A~O OIlAI) HOLS1ttN-

tlmsI~ CTTIt U~ Dpt Agt Ttch Bul Ha) 2 pp iJlus bull I to) ~---- lind GltAmiddotES R H

It1-t(t 1t8nlS tit 1~IltElJl~(l GIID~ UOLSTJoIS-FIIUSI( tAl1middotU U S PtpL fl reel Hul 1)2 m JlP illl1s

( II I RWHT S If)a ~SlItII AIYI$ Qt TilE PIlIt IlIttJlIS O LInS-fO(K 1 TilE

MtASlt~~ltt(1 In l-lllU~llINO -SII 11~InO~SHII Jonr Heletl 14 (8) a~H8 lIlns

U S GOVEH tNT INIHG OHlst un

For ~Ilh by fhl ihlJwrintenltl~ot oC DOCIIIIlllltS t S Gonrolllcut Prlntlu (jlllceWlIshlugton 2 0 C - Prlce 1 cents bull

30 TECHNICAL BULLETIN 990 U S DEPT OF AGRICULTURE

Graves (10) because this study includes only cows having nt least 50 percent of Holstein ancestry and less than 50 percent of the ancestry of any other breed and also because this study includes only the cows for which post-mortem data were avai1nble In view of the smaller numbers of cows represented in this study it is surprising that the results agree so well

This study shows that inbreeding affected live weight at 18 months alhlost itS much as it affected live weight at time of slaughter and empty body weight and carcass weight Live weight nt 18 months was about 14 percent lower or the highly inbred group than for dle Oltshybreuroc1 ~roup The study by Voodwtllcl und Graves (10) indicated that the bIghly 1l1bred animals wile about 25 percent below the weight of the outbled animuls at birth lLnd up to Q months about 17 percent below from 12 to 24 months and that they tell(led to catch up with advance in age

In disclissing the effect of inbreedillg on body size and production Iecords the possible influellt of It breed factor must not be overlooked About one-thitd of tIle cows ill the outbled grollp wete sired by tegisterp(] Holstein bulls Inltl were out of grade Jersey or grade Guernshysey cows The llse of Holstein sires undoubtedly tended to increase the size of the offspring paltieulully in the eady genelutions and to countenct the effects that inblceding may have lUHlin reducing body size Similarly the Holstein c1HlIactl~ristics fOt higher milk producshytion and lower butterfat tests may have minimized the tendency for inbreeding to leduce the milk production but accelerated the decline in butterfat test Any improvements that may have occurred in feedshying Illtctices probably had no SifrJ1i1iCllnt eflect on the results in view of the fact that the cows in all except the most highly inbred groups were tttrly well distributed with respect to time throughout the long period covered by the experiment

Another point thnt cnnnot be evaluated but shoulcl not be ovedookec1 is the fact that essentiilily all of the inbreeding tlllces to the one sire Tohun Woodclest Lad 11th 103987

It has been 110tNI that skeletal size was not appreciably affected by inbreeding and that variability for all of the VIlliotls skeletal dimenshysions was very milch lower than tOL any other group of items As previously stated Waters (8) concluded some 30 years ago that the impulse was strongeL Tor skeletal growth than for increase in weight On the other hanel n cliflerence between weight and skeletal growth probably should be expeeted in view of the fact that from birth to maturity cattle seldom if ever double their height at withers whereas body weight Increase some 15 to 20 times during the same period This basis of reasoning 11oeer does not explain why width of hips which normally inCI(lHSeS to nearly ~~f2 times the measurement at birth (5) was not reduced to It greater extent

The marked decline in body weight with inbreeding while skeletal dilllensions remained practically unchang(gtd raises a number of quesshytions There is reason to believe that the inbred animals were as wen feel as the outbred ones That being the case what was the cause of tIle decline in boely size Apparently it was not the result of deficiency in size of the digestive organs as the size of stomachs declined less than body size the length of iltestines lemained virtually unchallged and both became lllrger in relation to empty body weight as inbreeding

bull

bull

bull

31

bull

bull

bull

LfBREEDlSG ot GRADE HOLSTEIN COWS

inclcased Pmlmps it waS due to 80mI il111lrited chlllllcteristic that resulted in l~ss eflililnt utilization of feed A look tit the changes in size of endocrine glands shows that the thyroid was malkldly helliel and the pnll(teas was much lightN in the highly inbred ltows than in the ontbred one In view of the thyroids control OYPJ JltP of oxidashytion and the cliglstie functions of the pancreatic fluid the changes noted in these glands possibly IIIlly be of some significance

The question might ulso be tlis(gtc as towhethlr the inctlllslC1 size of the thYlOid might indicute a goihous conditioll The lIulrked deelcase in size of pituitary is of course sllggestin of 1 tlelIeaSl ill tllluoratioll of the gJ(Hrth-stimlllllting hOImone though it is not delll why this WOllid not all(ltt skelNal growth ns well as illtIIIlSC in body weight Agaill thele COIllN to lIlind the qnestion Vhy was there not It

Ieduction ill the altililluis and thYloids if the pitllitaties had beell deficient lhNe is l1lu(h in tIl datil to suggest tlw ()((lIlJellle of n dysfunction in tlH~ emiddotnlio(rine system IPsultillg floll1 inuleeding which may have uepn itt I(ast partly Ilsponsible for the smaller body size ill inbred cows D(fill ite proof 1owell is lacki IIg us assays of tilE endocline glands wele not made

The results obtnillNl with eOws were in fllirly dose agleemlnt with those teporllmiddotd by J~at()n fOl gil i n~a pis inn 1II1111II onmiddotsplmiddotets lrot exam pie thelc wus It substantial ((( i ne in body tgtight with lnbl(edshying the organs in lIt sllaller animals were I utget in propoltiolt to body Wlig-ht and sk(letal size was aif(gtCted to n smltiler cleglle than body weig-ht Also the weights of pituitary and heart declined in much the same malllleL as live weight and the length of intestines and weight of spleen were not aflected materially Trends for other OIgans wele not in sudt dose agreement In both species the vllrishyability in organ size WaS high in the case of weight of lungs thyroid and acllennls and low for intestine length Eaton ShOWlmiddotd that vnrishyilbility on all averag-e waS about 15 percent lower in the inbred animals than ill contlols AVIctagesof the coefficients of variation for all of the items listed in table 5 arl about 13 percent lowlr for all three inbred group thim 101 til( outbled glOU p a nd about 29 pel(lnt lower for the most highly inbllc group (5()-69) than for the outbred gtOltp

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

SevPlItY-Otle ~lHdl Holitlin eow fOr which IlIpaSlllpments of body size llJlutOlny lind producing (tgtIHity wete lInill1ble were diided into -t groups Oil t hI basis of the intensities (coeffi(ients) of inbreedshying An ontbJed gJlmp (olltuined 22 (ows The +9 inbJNI cows inshycluded 27 with illht(eding (olflkiellts of 29 penem Qt less 15 with (oefficients i)etw(gtell 30 and 49 perleut il)(luie al1(i7 with (oefJicients of 50 p(r(cnt OL above Analyses of aVlilnble data w(te made to detershymine the lffeet of inbtl~edillg on (1) the Jllagnitude and (2) the arishyability of more than gO itpoundIIIS Iepl(sentiug 11ieaSUIements of body weight and skPIltal size ize of organs and endocrille glands lind milk ante butterfat plodu(tion ~

Inbteeding lISliltNI in a de(ine of approximately 15 percent ill body weight 01 IllHlgtlgt bllt did not aflect skelltal size to any sigllifiCant extent Hom~ of titl illtetl1al oqraml-llotably thp ei~ht of heart-were

reduced in the most intenely inbted cows almost to the same extent

32 lpoundOlLlICAL BULLEIIN 090 U 8 DEPT O~ AGHICULlUH~~

as body maSS ~eight of blain and weirht of empty stomu(hs wele ledueed ab()It 10 plIlenLWpirht or Illllgs waH definitely 1l(utCI ill the inbled cows alld Itnltil of ilrtestinls was only slightly alpoundected

The endocli ne glllnds~011 all a lIage w(Ie I((itl((d ill izl Greatmt Iedlldions wele in weirhts of pHIathYIoids pituitalY aud pancleas no significallt chunge O(cUIIcd ill wPights of pineul 01 MIItIII1 lind the heaiest thyroids wele folllld in the most intensely inbled gtOllP

Yeight of uddlt WIIS greatly redu(ed in tht 1I10te intells(ly inbred (OW bllt changes in udder lHpHlity well~not consistent Howevel the lelution of cal)ueitv to wtight (porosity) of udd(I in(IIused witll j nbl(led illg Mi I PIO~III(tion WaS substa ntially lowered (78 pennnt) in the hirhly illiJrld tOWs ilnd bull(efat l)Jodlldioll slwwld 1111 even glPlIter lIC(IlUSP (lTA IWI((t)

It is of illtPlpst I hat tl( pituitary body which supposNlIy is (lostly tied IlP with tl( physiology of grow h a Iltl lalta I ion liP(1 i lIld in weight to HO~ [gtel(tn till t he most II igh I) ill UI(( goll P I hll I 11 ilk and blltt rla ( plOduction dNIi IINI to )~~ a neI l-iHi pelCent respecti v~ly and thut the itellls 1(PlI(~llt ing body I1I11S (((lil1(gt(1 to H7 ptIcellt ol~ the valtwR leprlsenlNl by the olltbl(lI groupreight of whit I ciecrpasl(lo an C(I reatl lxtent (to nearly (it) IWI(ellt) bllt Ihis 1lI1ly ha( bpn (ollll)ensatNI 101 to sOllie lxtellt ill t 1l llIatter of plodllcing ability by II gn~atll (Pglll of pooity ill till manllllfll~T tissue whieit iH inditapil by Ilw high relntioll of capacity 10 wcight of uddpl in the 1I101 highly inbtNI glOUPS Tht difiPlcnt ptrpds of inblceding 011 size of various pnd()(Iilll~ glauds (pituitIUy thyroid and ndl(lIals) sugglsl IIw possi bilit that It 11Itk 01 lndo(line balallee might hal existed

Itwould SetIll logieal to assume that if the outbred (OS had had II

higher pplClntlglt of Holstltin instead of Jlislty and Guelllscy ancestry some of UWli( lfllets of IIlIJlPNllllg wOllld huc belll more PlOIlOUl1cpd

As inbreeding ilHI(asld lind the si7p of the (ow became smaller the organs and body pllrtS 011 lI1l ltV(lllgC eallll to represent a lalgN proportioll of the total allimal stluetlllC They did not dec-line ali much as did empty body wlight To jnst whal cxt(llt this tendency (an be attributed to inblceding callnot bc deterlllined tl(culately as It ()((lllS to SOIll( ltIPglN in IllOSt clIses whell (os ale glouped on the basis of live wlight Mot not n blc txpptions wele weights of pa mthylOids pall(TPlIS and til( wlgtight and cnpaeity of the udder These glnnds wele reelmeel in size lllativlly mOle than (Illpt body night

PhI ontbpd gra(p Hoistei 11 (OWS i Jlclulti(din I h is study WHe only glightlv sm all I in weight and sk(lltal 8i7( than 75 registered Holstein eowR RfaughtPlNI at B(I tsvi Ill in lilnd ips of (on fonnation ami a natonlY in Ielation to ploducing (aplIeily hut tlwil intCII1l11 olgan and (specially tlHit lnltlo(Iine glands diHplpd to a glpatH (xh~llt PEl ((ntagls showing the 1llation of olltbled glad( (OS to lEyeniShp( (OWS a vtmge 1140 fOl body wpighl 01 III ass l6S iOI skehmiddottttl SIZe f)2(i for i ntplna I Olga ns n nd H7R fol endocli ne glands Hi 71 was sma 1111 ill the olltblld ziade lOWS than ill thl rpgiHtlIpd (OW8 for ((Iy item (Olll PlINl

(OIIplatioll (opflicilllts showed that produtillg ability was more a(nIHlly aff((tld by inttl1siw inbt(NUng than 1l1(aSUl(S of body or ~ktINal siu and internal organs 01 gland size although most of thl

bull

bull

bull

bull

bull

bull

lNBREEDIXG OF GUADE aOLSlE1N COWS 33

items undet these IH~adings indicated Sltlme decrease in size with intensity of inbreeding

Valiubility ~xplessed ilS coeftieilmts of vUlintion dittered greatly for the vurious items 1or example the coeflidents of vlllintlOl1 fot weight of llcilenals wert IlpproxinHlttly to times as great us those fot height ut withelb both in the outbled group ilnd in the three inbled glOltl)S Coelticients for some of the otlltl endocrine glands IIlId fo weig It Illld capacity of udder were tvcn higher tlum those fOl weight of aclcnuls

Inbleetiinlr apparently did lIot (e(Iell( lIliubility in body IllaSS OJ skeletal Silllellsiolsj in bet thete is SOllIe indication that YIlrillshybility inClctlSec1 slightly fOl ome of the~~ ittlIIs as illbleedillg bNUltle tI10L~ intemw IlIb(((d ing did lot $llb~tantia II) ledllce Illiubi Iityi II the ihtelllId olgam CX(middotjlt that lhc lItLugC was IOWN ill the I11mt highly inuIcd glOup than til lht outUllmiddottl or th( othcl two inulNl gLOUpS The gtpl(([l Ill IiIOSt H1illbl( ill the hitrllly inbred IOUp

In the ~ndoclin( gland itellls Ilinbilit wus lleal~y twic~ as high 1 in tho intellml otgnn itcl1s lind the urtIage for the most highly inshybred (toutgt WaS 1Cs than fo1 any other trlOllp Individual items ditl(trd glpatl) in ariability ()

The high llliability in itltllS pertaining 0 weight and capaeity of udder il ptobtly tlUt in lalgp IIIPIIII( to ditf(ItI1(ps in slllW of laet~tioll at slanghtpI niH to till small 11I111bl~ of (ows reples~ntld illlaCh grollp Weight of Ilaquo((lel was llut Hlinble in tIH 1I10Hi highly ltlulld glOllp flip 11111( wm tue rOl tHpueity of dJy IlddlJs but not for calll~ily 01 la(tatillg Itddcls

VariabilIty in Iltilk 11Iid buttelfat pllllluctioll 01 in pelceltage of but(plfat did not dl(IPlIllliUJliJillIntly with iJlbleedil)tr

lhan~(s ill vlltiability ith intensity of inbleedil7cT also ditfplld gngtatJy for individual ittlns The body mass and sln-Ietal size ittnlH welc 1I0t grrlltly ldlccled Atllong thtmiddot inttltlal olgans weight of Iwart weght o~ ~idlleys l~nd length of intestines showed little challge whIle w(lgllt of- 11c1 dltcltned matkedlr

bullJ1)ong tho (nu()(line gland valiability ill weihts of pituitlllY thyroid and Pllllt(middotUS WaS not signincalllly atll(illll)y inbleedillcT dcshybpitl tl)(~luct ~hat tlte J)itllittIYWl (cdu(ed and the thyroid l~ llshy

erNuCCl 11 weIght (Ight 01lt ptntal adlenuls and parathyroids W(gtI(~ (eRnitely less vHtiaull in thl highly inbled group despite the fact that tlte lettllil w(lights of pillPtI tllld tdlellds were not appleshyciably dr((ted

(light of uddel lH)td a vY 1l1lHh IO(Ipd vflliability ill the most highly IlIut((1 glOUP

In 1 nUlIIbtI of (alt~ thelc a~ a dp(lilll in flriabilit within tlw threl inbrtd groups but liullmiddot if tIll wlll1I till lnulmiddot(middot1I gloups wCle (OIll p(u((l wit h the OurbPr glOltp Thii lp~lIltNI fJl)1Il tIl tendenc fOt nLiability 0 btl high ill tilt glOIlP of (os haing inblceding ((wtli(ients tllugillg hom 10 to ~0 IWIllnt

(orllbillNl a(Ii1gt~ fol nIl of tIIP ~~ item stu(i((J show that the (o~fli(ilnt of llinliol waS apPloximately l~ lWl(nt less fol all inblQd gtoup and aPPtoximnlely ~(l pClccnt less for the most highly inbrNI group tlmn for the outblpd group

34 rECfL~lCAL BULLBTIN 990 U S l)EPT 01lt AGJUCULlURE

LITERATURE CITED

(1) BAIlTLETl J W REECE R P nnd LEP-IW O L 1)42 rlJE lliINE-lt o~ JNlIREFDING O~ BIRTH WpJGHT RATE 0 GROWTH bull

A~D TnE Ot DAIRY CATrLE Jour Anim Sci 1 (3) 2Ot~212 () j)lCKJlSOV G g

lWO EnECIS O r-UKEEDl~G l~ OAIRY CAlvrLE (IKOGKESS REIOKT) AbshystlmiddotltCt Jour Dafry ScI 23 (6) 546-547

(l) AIO~ O N llXl8 Wl-IGllTS Hm MEA8UKMENTIt 0 THt 1lCI( ND ORGAN8 m MAI11I1E

l~lIIU1l 110 CIIOSSUlIoIl (lUINt IOS Amer Jour Aunt 63 (2)273-295

(4) 19il) COllIAIIATIE XALYSIS Ot TIU llESClltMENT8 O TUE LUlU IIO-S

Ot INllllto tUuns Ot Otl-ta NOS SII THEIR llYlIlt1U8 8 AnEC1EII II AlllLY SEX~II Am ~1ller Jour Aunt 64 (3) -tSCHOO

(5) HnSDJJ A e WH GunW1U SrA~IIARlJs OR DAIRY CAMU Mo A~rr EXpt Sta Bul

am 12 pp llIus (tI) SWElvr W W MAlrIIEWS O A MIlLEII F W null GR-ES R R

19~7 middotUTIONs Rt(OlIIlto I l1n STell lk rug CO~Hm~ITION AND 1011 Qt ~Ila llAIUY cows ILIXG U(OJIIIS 0 lII01ll10TION (utH~ll To Jlmiddot~t t() 1110) P S Thllt Agr Bur DnllY Indus HDIM-5S) Jpp (PrOclssed)

(7) 1lIINtlI ( W wm I1UIIIOoO 1-1UlIAmiddotImiddotIO~H 1II~rlnES IttIUOUlCTlON 11UUlAIlY G1ANII

jIUlWTII ~O 1_(~TlOl( Glowlh 3 (H) ~a-3Hi ll1l1s (lt) WITJoRS II J

loon TH~ 1~~Ll~N(E m SI1IUIIO~ ll()S TH ~lIAI ~OIII Soc PWIlI A~Imiddot Hd 1gt(0(30 7tH18 illw

(Ill VOOllWltIl I K nnd (lRts It H 19~ sUrt 1UmiddotWITS OF llfllltE~orNll GII)E GtRSSty A~O OIlAI) HOLS1ttN-

tlmsI~ CTTIt U~ Dpt Agt Ttch Bul Ha) 2 pp iJlus bull I to) ~---- lind GltAmiddotES R H

It1-t(t 1t8nlS tit 1~IltElJl~(l GIID~ UOLSTJoIS-FIIUSI( tAl1middotU U S PtpL fl reel Hul 1)2 m JlP illl1s

( II I RWHT S If)a ~SlItII AIYI$ Qt TilE PIlIt IlIttJlIS O LInS-fO(K 1 TilE

MtASlt~~ltt(1 In l-lllU~llINO -SII 11~InO~SHII Jonr Heletl 14 (8) a~H8 lIlns

U S GOVEH tNT INIHG OHlst un

For ~Ilh by fhl ihlJwrintenltl~ot oC DOCIIIIlllltS t S Gonrolllcut Prlntlu (jlllceWlIshlugton 2 0 C - Prlce 1 cents bull

31

bull

bull

bull

LfBREEDlSG ot GRADE HOLSTEIN COWS

inclcased Pmlmps it waS due to 80mI il111lrited chlllllcteristic that resulted in l~ss eflililnt utilization of feed A look tit the changes in size of endocrine glands shows that the thyroid was malkldly helliel and the pnll(teas was much lightN in the highly inbred ltows than in the ontbred one In view of the thyroids control OYPJ JltP of oxidashytion and the cliglstie functions of the pancreatic fluid the changes noted in these glands possibly IIIlly be of some significance

The question might ulso be tlis(gtc as towhethlr the inctlllslC1 size of the thYlOid might indicute a goihous conditioll The lIulrked deelcase in size of pituitary is of course sllggestin of 1 tlelIeaSl ill tllluoratioll of the gJ(Hrth-stimlllllting hOImone though it is not delll why this WOllid not all(ltt skelNal growth ns well as illtIIIlSC in body weight Agaill thele COIllN to lIlind the qnestion Vhy was there not It

Ieduction ill the altililluis and thYloids if the pitllitaties had beell deficient lhNe is l1lu(h in tIl datil to suggest tlw ()((lIlJellle of n dysfunction in tlH~ emiddotnlio(rine system IPsultillg floll1 inuleeding which may have uepn itt I(ast partly Ilsponsible for the smaller body size ill inbred cows D(fill ite proof 1owell is lacki IIg us assays of tilE endocline glands wele not made

The results obtnillNl with eOws were in fllirly dose agleemlnt with those teporllmiddotd by J~at()n fOl gil i n~a pis inn 1II1111II onmiddotsplmiddotets lrot exam pie thelc wus It substantial ((( i ne in body tgtight with lnbl(edshying the organs in lIt sllaller animals were I utget in propoltiolt to body Wlig-ht and sk(letal size was aif(gtCted to n smltiler cleglle than body weig-ht Also the weights of pituitary and heart declined in much the same malllleL as live weight and the length of intestines and weight of spleen were not aflected materially Trends for other OIgans wele not in sudt dose agreement In both species the vllrishyability in organ size WaS high in the case of weight of lungs thyroid and acllennls and low for intestine length Eaton ShOWlmiddotd that vnrishyilbility on all averag-e waS about 15 percent lower in the inbred animals than ill contlols AVIctagesof the coefficients of variation for all of the items listed in table 5 arl about 13 percent lowlr for all three inbred group thim 101 til( outbled glOU p a nd about 29 pel(lnt lower for the most highly inbllc group (5()-69) than for the outbred gtOltp

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

SevPlItY-Otle ~lHdl Holitlin eow fOr which IlIpaSlllpments of body size llJlutOlny lind producing (tgtIHity wete lInill1ble were diided into -t groups Oil t hI basis of the intensities (coeffi(ients) of inbreedshying An ontbJed gJlmp (olltuined 22 (ows The +9 inbJNI cows inshycluded 27 with illht(eding (olflkiellts of 29 penem Qt less 15 with (oefficients i)etw(gtell 30 and 49 perleut il)(luie al1(i7 with (oefJicients of 50 p(r(cnt OL above Analyses of aVlilnble data w(te made to detershymine the lffeet of inbtl~edillg on (1) the Jllagnitude and (2) the arishyability of more than gO itpoundIIIS Iepl(sentiug 11ieaSUIements of body weight and skPIltal size ize of organs and endocrille glands lind milk ante butterfat plodu(tion ~

Inbteeding lISliltNI in a de(ine of approximately 15 percent ill body weight 01 IllHlgtlgt bllt did not aflect skelltal size to any sigllifiCant extent Hom~ of titl illtetl1al oqraml-llotably thp ei~ht of heart-were

reduced in the most intenely inbted cows almost to the same extent

32 lpoundOlLlICAL BULLEIIN 090 U 8 DEPT O~ AGHICULlUH~~

as body maSS ~eight of blain and weirht of empty stomu(hs wele ledueed ab()It 10 plIlenLWpirht or Illllgs waH definitely 1l(utCI ill the inbled cows alld Itnltil of ilrtestinls was only slightly alpoundected

The endocli ne glllnds~011 all a lIage w(Ie I((itl((d ill izl Greatmt Iedlldions wele in weirhts of pHIathYIoids pituitalY aud pancleas no significallt chunge O(cUIIcd ill wPights of pineul 01 MIItIII1 lind the heaiest thyroids wele folllld in the most intensely inbled gtOllP

Yeight of uddlt WIIS greatly redu(ed in tht 1I10te intells(ly inbred (OW bllt changes in udder lHpHlity well~not consistent Howevel the lelution of cal)ueitv to wtight (porosity) of udd(I in(IIused witll j nbl(led illg Mi I PIO~III(tion WaS substa ntially lowered (78 pennnt) in the hirhly illiJrld tOWs ilnd bull(efat l)Jodlldioll slwwld 1111 even glPlIter lIC(IlUSP (lTA IWI((t)

It is of illtPlpst I hat tl( pituitary body which supposNlIy is (lostly tied IlP with tl( physiology of grow h a Iltl lalta I ion liP(1 i lIld in weight to HO~ [gtel(tn till t he most II igh I) ill UI(( goll P I hll I 11 ilk and blltt rla ( plOduction dNIi IINI to )~~ a neI l-iHi pelCent respecti v~ly and thut the itellls 1(PlI(~llt ing body I1I11S (((lil1(gt(1 to H7 ptIcellt ol~ the valtwR leprlsenlNl by the olltbl(lI groupreight of whit I ciecrpasl(lo an C(I reatl lxtent (to nearly (it) IWI(ellt) bllt Ihis 1lI1ly ha( bpn (ollll)ensatNI 101 to sOllie lxtellt ill t 1l llIatter of plodllcing ability by II gn~atll (Pglll of pooity ill till manllllfll~T tissue whieit iH inditapil by Ilw high relntioll of capacity 10 wcight of uddpl in the 1I101 highly inbtNI glOUPS Tht difiPlcnt ptrpds of inblceding 011 size of various pnd()(Iilll~ glauds (pituitIUy thyroid and ndl(lIals) sugglsl IIw possi bilit that It 11Itk 01 lndo(line balallee might hal existed

Itwould SetIll logieal to assume that if the outbred (OS had had II

higher pplClntlglt of Holstltin instead of Jlislty and Guelllscy ancestry some of UWli( lfllets of IIlIJlPNllllg wOllld huc belll more PlOIlOUl1cpd

As inbreeding ilHI(asld lind the si7p of the (ow became smaller the organs and body pllrtS 011 lI1l ltV(lllgC eallll to represent a lalgN proportioll of the total allimal stluetlllC They did not dec-line ali much as did empty body wlight To jnst whal cxt(llt this tendency (an be attributed to inblceding callnot bc deterlllined tl(culately as It ()((lllS to SOIll( ltIPglN in IllOSt clIses whell (os ale glouped on the basis of live wlight Mot not n blc txpptions wele weights of pa mthylOids pall(TPlIS and til( wlgtight and cnpaeity of the udder These glnnds wele reelmeel in size lllativlly mOle than (Illpt body night

PhI ontbpd gra(p Hoistei 11 (OWS i Jlclulti(din I h is study WHe only glightlv sm all I in weight and sk(lltal 8i7( than 75 registered Holstein eowR RfaughtPlNI at B(I tsvi Ill in lilnd ips of (on fonnation ami a natonlY in Ielation to ploducing (aplIeily hut tlwil intCII1l11 olgan and (specially tlHit lnltlo(Iine glands diHplpd to a glpatH (xh~llt PEl ((ntagls showing the 1llation of olltbled glad( (OS to lEyeniShp( (OWS a vtmge 1140 fOl body wpighl 01 III ass l6S iOI skehmiddottttl SIZe f)2(i for i ntplna I Olga ns n nd H7R fol endocli ne glands Hi 71 was sma 1111 ill the olltblld ziade lOWS than ill thl rpgiHtlIpd (OW8 for ((Iy item (Olll PlINl

(OIIplatioll (opflicilllts showed that produtillg ability was more a(nIHlly aff((tld by inttl1siw inbt(NUng than 1l1(aSUl(S of body or ~ktINal siu and internal organs 01 gland size although most of thl

bull

bull

bull

bull

bull

bull

lNBREEDIXG OF GUADE aOLSlE1N COWS 33

items undet these IH~adings indicated Sltlme decrease in size with intensity of inbreeding

Valiubility ~xplessed ilS coeftieilmts of vUlintion dittered greatly for the vurious items 1or example the coeflidents of vlllintlOl1 fot weight of llcilenals wert IlpproxinHlttly to times as great us those fot height ut withelb both in the outbled group ilnd in the three inbled glOltl)S Coelticients for some of the otlltl endocrine glands IIlId fo weig It Illld capacity of udder were tvcn higher tlum those fOl weight of aclcnuls

Inbleetiinlr apparently did lIot (e(Iell( lIliubility in body IllaSS OJ skeletal Silllellsiolsj in bet thete is SOllIe indication that YIlrillshybility inClctlSec1 slightly fOl ome of the~~ ittlIIs as illbleedillg bNUltle tI10L~ intemw IlIb(((d ing did lot $llb~tantia II) ledllce Illiubi Iityi II the ihtelllId olgam CX(middotjlt that lhc lItLugC was IOWN ill the I11mt highly inuIcd glOup than til lht outUllmiddottl or th( othcl two inulNl gLOUpS The gtpl(([l Ill IiIOSt H1illbl( ill the hitrllly inbred IOUp

In the ~ndoclin( gland itellls Ilinbilit wus lleal~y twic~ as high 1 in tho intellml otgnn itcl1s lind the urtIage for the most highly inshybred (toutgt WaS 1Cs than fo1 any other trlOllp Individual items ditl(trd glpatl) in ariability ()

The high llliability in itltllS pertaining 0 weight and capaeity of udder il ptobtly tlUt in lalgp IIIPIIII( to ditf(ItI1(ps in slllW of laet~tioll at slanghtpI niH to till small 11I111bl~ of (ows reples~ntld illlaCh grollp Weight of Ilaquo((lel was llut Hlinble in tIH 1I10Hi highly ltlulld glOllp flip 11111( wm tue rOl tHpueity of dJy IlddlJs but not for calll~ily 01 la(tatillg Itddcls

VariabilIty in Iltilk 11Iid buttelfat pllllluctioll 01 in pelceltage of but(plfat did not dl(IPlIllliUJliJillIntly with iJlbleedil)tr

lhan~(s ill vlltiability ith intensity of inbleedil7cT also ditfplld gngtatJy for individual ittlns The body mass and sln-Ietal size ittnlH welc 1I0t grrlltly ldlccled Atllong thtmiddot inttltlal olgans weight of Iwart weght o~ ~idlleys l~nd length of intestines showed little challge whIle w(lgllt of- 11c1 dltcltned matkedlr

bullJ1)ong tho (nu()(line gland valiability ill weihts of pituitlllY thyroid and Pllllt(middotUS WaS not signincalllly atll(illll)y inbleedillcT dcshybpitl tl)(~luct ~hat tlte J)itllittIYWl (cdu(ed and the thyroid l~ llshy

erNuCCl 11 weIght (Ight 01lt ptntal adlenuls and parathyroids W(gtI(~ (eRnitely less vHtiaull in thl highly inbled group despite the fact that tlte lettllil w(lights of pillPtI tllld tdlellds were not appleshyciably dr((ted

(light of uddel lH)td a vY 1l1lHh IO(Ipd vflliability ill the most highly IlIut((1 glOUP

In 1 nUlIIbtI of (alt~ thelc a~ a dp(lilll in flriabilit within tlw threl inbrtd groups but liullmiddot if tIll wlll1I till lnulmiddot(middot1I gloups wCle (OIll p(u((l wit h the OurbPr glOltp Thii lp~lIltNI fJl)1Il tIl tendenc fOt nLiability 0 btl high ill tilt glOIlP of (os haing inblceding ((wtli(ients tllugillg hom 10 to ~0 IWIllnt

(orllbillNl a(Ii1gt~ fol nIl of tIIP ~~ item stu(i((J show that the (o~fli(ilnt of llinliol waS apPloximately l~ lWl(nt less fol all inblQd gtoup and aPPtoximnlely ~(l pClccnt less for the most highly inbrNI group tlmn for the outblpd group

34 rECfL~lCAL BULLBTIN 990 U S l)EPT 01lt AGJUCULlURE

LITERATURE CITED

(1) BAIlTLETl J W REECE R P nnd LEP-IW O L 1)42 rlJE lliINE-lt o~ JNlIREFDING O~ BIRTH WpJGHT RATE 0 GROWTH bull

A~D TnE Ot DAIRY CATrLE Jour Anim Sci 1 (3) 2Ot~212 () j)lCKJlSOV G g

lWO EnECIS O r-UKEEDl~G l~ OAIRY CAlvrLE (IKOGKESS REIOKT) AbshystlmiddotltCt Jour Dafry ScI 23 (6) 546-547

(l) AIO~ O N llXl8 Wl-IGllTS Hm MEA8UKMENTIt 0 THt 1lCI( ND ORGAN8 m MAI11I1E

l~lIIU1l 110 CIIOSSUlIoIl (lUINt IOS Amer Jour Aunt 63 (2)273-295

(4) 19il) COllIAIIATIE XALYSIS Ot TIU llESClltMENT8 O TUE LUlU IIO-S

Ot INllllto tUuns Ot Otl-ta NOS SII THEIR llYlIlt1U8 8 AnEC1EII II AlllLY SEX~II Am ~1ller Jour Aunt 64 (3) -tSCHOO

(5) HnSDJJ A e WH GunW1U SrA~IIARlJs OR DAIRY CAMU Mo A~rr EXpt Sta Bul

am 12 pp llIus (tI) SWElvr W W MAlrIIEWS O A MIlLEII F W null GR-ES R R

19~7 middotUTIONs Rt(OlIIlto I l1n STell lk rug CO~Hm~ITION AND 1011 Qt ~Ila llAIUY cows ILIXG U(OJIIIS 0 lII01ll10TION (utH~ll To Jlmiddot~t t() 1110) P S Thllt Agr Bur DnllY Indus HDIM-5S) Jpp (PrOclssed)

(7) 1lIINtlI ( W wm I1UIIIOoO 1-1UlIAmiddotImiddotIO~H 1II~rlnES IttIUOUlCTlON 11UUlAIlY G1ANII

jIUlWTII ~O 1_(~TlOl( Glowlh 3 (H) ~a-3Hi ll1l1s (lt) WITJoRS II J

loon TH~ 1~~Ll~N(E m SI1IUIIO~ ll()S TH ~lIAI ~OIII Soc PWIlI A~Imiddot Hd 1gt(0(30 7tH18 illw

(Ill VOOllWltIl I K nnd (lRts It H 19~ sUrt 1UmiddotWITS OF llfllltE~orNll GII)E GtRSSty A~O OIlAI) HOLS1ttN-

tlmsI~ CTTIt U~ Dpt Agt Ttch Bul Ha) 2 pp iJlus bull I to) ~---- lind GltAmiddotES R H

It1-t(t 1t8nlS tit 1~IltElJl~(l GIID~ UOLSTJoIS-FIIUSI( tAl1middotU U S PtpL fl reel Hul 1)2 m JlP illl1s

( II I RWHT S If)a ~SlItII AIYI$ Qt TilE PIlIt IlIttJlIS O LInS-fO(K 1 TilE

MtASlt~~ltt(1 In l-lllU~llINO -SII 11~InO~SHII Jonr Heletl 14 (8) a~H8 lIlns

U S GOVEH tNT INIHG OHlst un

For ~Ilh by fhl ihlJwrintenltl~ot oC DOCIIIIlllltS t S Gonrolllcut Prlntlu (jlllceWlIshlugton 2 0 C - Prlce 1 cents bull

32 lpoundOlLlICAL BULLEIIN 090 U 8 DEPT O~ AGHICULlUH~~

as body maSS ~eight of blain and weirht of empty stomu(hs wele ledueed ab()It 10 plIlenLWpirht or Illllgs waH definitely 1l(utCI ill the inbled cows alld Itnltil of ilrtestinls was only slightly alpoundected

The endocli ne glllnds~011 all a lIage w(Ie I((itl((d ill izl Greatmt Iedlldions wele in weirhts of pHIathYIoids pituitalY aud pancleas no significallt chunge O(cUIIcd ill wPights of pineul 01 MIItIII1 lind the heaiest thyroids wele folllld in the most intensely inbled gtOllP

Yeight of uddlt WIIS greatly redu(ed in tht 1I10te intells(ly inbred (OW bllt changes in udder lHpHlity well~not consistent Howevel the lelution of cal)ueitv to wtight (porosity) of udd(I in(IIused witll j nbl(led illg Mi I PIO~III(tion WaS substa ntially lowered (78 pennnt) in the hirhly illiJrld tOWs ilnd bull(efat l)Jodlldioll slwwld 1111 even glPlIter lIC(IlUSP (lTA IWI((t)

It is of illtPlpst I hat tl( pituitary body which supposNlIy is (lostly tied IlP with tl( physiology of grow h a Iltl lalta I ion liP(1 i lIld in weight to HO~ [gtel(tn till t he most II igh I) ill UI(( goll P I hll I 11 ilk and blltt rla ( plOduction dNIi IINI to )~~ a neI l-iHi pelCent respecti v~ly and thut the itellls 1(PlI(~llt ing body I1I11S (((lil1(gt(1 to H7 ptIcellt ol~ the valtwR leprlsenlNl by the olltbl(lI groupreight of whit I ciecrpasl(lo an C(I reatl lxtent (to nearly (it) IWI(ellt) bllt Ihis 1lI1ly ha( bpn (ollll)ensatNI 101 to sOllie lxtellt ill t 1l llIatter of plodllcing ability by II gn~atll (Pglll of pooity ill till manllllfll~T tissue whieit iH inditapil by Ilw high relntioll of capacity 10 wcight of uddpl in the 1I101 highly inbtNI glOUPS Tht difiPlcnt ptrpds of inblceding 011 size of various pnd()(Iilll~ glauds (pituitIUy thyroid and ndl(lIals) sugglsl IIw possi bilit that It 11Itk 01 lndo(line balallee might hal existed

Itwould SetIll logieal to assume that if the outbred (OS had had II

higher pplClntlglt of Holstltin instead of Jlislty and Guelllscy ancestry some of UWli( lfllets of IIlIJlPNllllg wOllld huc belll more PlOIlOUl1cpd

As inbreeding ilHI(asld lind the si7p of the (ow became smaller the organs and body pllrtS 011 lI1l ltV(lllgC eallll to represent a lalgN proportioll of the total allimal stluetlllC They did not dec-line ali much as did empty body wlight To jnst whal cxt(llt this tendency (an be attributed to inblceding callnot bc deterlllined tl(culately as It ()((lllS to SOIll( ltIPglN in IllOSt clIses whell (os ale glouped on the basis of live wlight Mot not n blc txpptions wele weights of pa mthylOids pall(TPlIS and til( wlgtight and cnpaeity of the udder These glnnds wele reelmeel in size lllativlly mOle than (Illpt body night

PhI ontbpd gra(p Hoistei 11 (OWS i Jlclulti(din I h is study WHe only glightlv sm all I in weight and sk(lltal 8i7( than 75 registered Holstein eowR RfaughtPlNI at B(I tsvi Ill in lilnd ips of (on fonnation ami a natonlY in Ielation to ploducing (aplIeily hut tlwil intCII1l11 olgan and (specially tlHit lnltlo(Iine glands diHplpd to a glpatH (xh~llt PEl ((ntagls showing the 1llation of olltbled glad( (OS to lEyeniShp( (OWS a vtmge 1140 fOl body wpighl 01 III ass l6S iOI skehmiddottttl SIZe f)2(i for i ntplna I Olga ns n nd H7R fol endocli ne glands Hi 71 was sma 1111 ill the olltblld ziade lOWS than ill thl rpgiHtlIpd (OW8 for ((Iy item (Olll PlINl

(OIIplatioll (opflicilllts showed that produtillg ability was more a(nIHlly aff((tld by inttl1siw inbt(NUng than 1l1(aSUl(S of body or ~ktINal siu and internal organs 01 gland size although most of thl

bull

bull

bull

bull

bull

bull

lNBREEDIXG OF GUADE aOLSlE1N COWS 33

items undet these IH~adings indicated Sltlme decrease in size with intensity of inbreeding

Valiubility ~xplessed ilS coeftieilmts of vUlintion dittered greatly for the vurious items 1or example the coeflidents of vlllintlOl1 fot weight of llcilenals wert IlpproxinHlttly to times as great us those fot height ut withelb both in the outbled group ilnd in the three inbled glOltl)S Coelticients for some of the otlltl endocrine glands IIlId fo weig It Illld capacity of udder were tvcn higher tlum those fOl weight of aclcnuls

Inbleetiinlr apparently did lIot (e(Iell( lIliubility in body IllaSS OJ skeletal Silllellsiolsj in bet thete is SOllIe indication that YIlrillshybility inClctlSec1 slightly fOl ome of the~~ ittlIIs as illbleedillg bNUltle tI10L~ intemw IlIb(((d ing did lot $llb~tantia II) ledllce Illiubi Iityi II the ihtelllId olgam CX(middotjlt that lhc lItLugC was IOWN ill the I11mt highly inuIcd glOup than til lht outUllmiddottl or th( othcl two inulNl gLOUpS The gtpl(([l Ill IiIOSt H1illbl( ill the hitrllly inbred IOUp

In the ~ndoclin( gland itellls Ilinbilit wus lleal~y twic~ as high 1 in tho intellml otgnn itcl1s lind the urtIage for the most highly inshybred (toutgt WaS 1Cs than fo1 any other trlOllp Individual items ditl(trd glpatl) in ariability ()

The high llliability in itltllS pertaining 0 weight and capaeity of udder il ptobtly tlUt in lalgp IIIPIIII( to ditf(ItI1(ps in slllW of laet~tioll at slanghtpI niH to till small 11I111bl~ of (ows reples~ntld illlaCh grollp Weight of Ilaquo((lel was llut Hlinble in tIH 1I10Hi highly ltlulld glOllp flip 11111( wm tue rOl tHpueity of dJy IlddlJs but not for calll~ily 01 la(tatillg Itddcls

VariabilIty in Iltilk 11Iid buttelfat pllllluctioll 01 in pelceltage of but(plfat did not dl(IPlIllliUJliJillIntly with iJlbleedil)tr

lhan~(s ill vlltiability ith intensity of inbleedil7cT also ditfplld gngtatJy for individual ittlns The body mass and sln-Ietal size ittnlH welc 1I0t grrlltly ldlccled Atllong thtmiddot inttltlal olgans weight of Iwart weght o~ ~idlleys l~nd length of intestines showed little challge whIle w(lgllt of- 11c1 dltcltned matkedlr

bullJ1)ong tho (nu()(line gland valiability ill weihts of pituitlllY thyroid and Pllllt(middotUS WaS not signincalllly atll(illll)y inbleedillcT dcshybpitl tl)(~luct ~hat tlte J)itllittIYWl (cdu(ed and the thyroid l~ llshy

erNuCCl 11 weIght (Ight 01lt ptntal adlenuls and parathyroids W(gtI(~ (eRnitely less vHtiaull in thl highly inbled group despite the fact that tlte lettllil w(lights of pillPtI tllld tdlellds were not appleshyciably dr((ted

(light of uddel lH)td a vY 1l1lHh IO(Ipd vflliability ill the most highly IlIut((1 glOUP

In 1 nUlIIbtI of (alt~ thelc a~ a dp(lilll in flriabilit within tlw threl inbrtd groups but liullmiddot if tIll wlll1I till lnulmiddot(middot1I gloups wCle (OIll p(u((l wit h the OurbPr glOltp Thii lp~lIltNI fJl)1Il tIl tendenc fOt nLiability 0 btl high ill tilt glOIlP of (os haing inblceding ((wtli(ients tllugillg hom 10 to ~0 IWIllnt

(orllbillNl a(Ii1gt~ fol nIl of tIIP ~~ item stu(i((J show that the (o~fli(ilnt of llinliol waS apPloximately l~ lWl(nt less fol all inblQd gtoup and aPPtoximnlely ~(l pClccnt less for the most highly inbrNI group tlmn for the outblpd group

34 rECfL~lCAL BULLBTIN 990 U S l)EPT 01lt AGJUCULlURE

LITERATURE CITED

(1) BAIlTLETl J W REECE R P nnd LEP-IW O L 1)42 rlJE lliINE-lt o~ JNlIREFDING O~ BIRTH WpJGHT RATE 0 GROWTH bull

A~D TnE Ot DAIRY CATrLE Jour Anim Sci 1 (3) 2Ot~212 () j)lCKJlSOV G g

lWO EnECIS O r-UKEEDl~G l~ OAIRY CAlvrLE (IKOGKESS REIOKT) AbshystlmiddotltCt Jour Dafry ScI 23 (6) 546-547

(l) AIO~ O N llXl8 Wl-IGllTS Hm MEA8UKMENTIt 0 THt 1lCI( ND ORGAN8 m MAI11I1E

l~lIIU1l 110 CIIOSSUlIoIl (lUINt IOS Amer Jour Aunt 63 (2)273-295

(4) 19il) COllIAIIATIE XALYSIS Ot TIU llESClltMENT8 O TUE LUlU IIO-S

Ot INllllto tUuns Ot Otl-ta NOS SII THEIR llYlIlt1U8 8 AnEC1EII II AlllLY SEX~II Am ~1ller Jour Aunt 64 (3) -tSCHOO

(5) HnSDJJ A e WH GunW1U SrA~IIARlJs OR DAIRY CAMU Mo A~rr EXpt Sta Bul

am 12 pp llIus (tI) SWElvr W W MAlrIIEWS O A MIlLEII F W null GR-ES R R

19~7 middotUTIONs Rt(OlIIlto I l1n STell lk rug CO~Hm~ITION AND 1011 Qt ~Ila llAIUY cows ILIXG U(OJIIIS 0 lII01ll10TION (utH~ll To Jlmiddot~t t() 1110) P S Thllt Agr Bur DnllY Indus HDIM-5S) Jpp (PrOclssed)

(7) 1lIINtlI ( W wm I1UIIIOoO 1-1UlIAmiddotImiddotIO~H 1II~rlnES IttIUOUlCTlON 11UUlAIlY G1ANII

jIUlWTII ~O 1_(~TlOl( Glowlh 3 (H) ~a-3Hi ll1l1s (lt) WITJoRS II J

loon TH~ 1~~Ll~N(E m SI1IUIIO~ ll()S TH ~lIAI ~OIII Soc PWIlI A~Imiddot Hd 1gt(0(30 7tH18 illw

(Ill VOOllWltIl I K nnd (lRts It H 19~ sUrt 1UmiddotWITS OF llfllltE~orNll GII)E GtRSSty A~O OIlAI) HOLS1ttN-

tlmsI~ CTTIt U~ Dpt Agt Ttch Bul Ha) 2 pp iJlus bull I to) ~---- lind GltAmiddotES R H

It1-t(t 1t8nlS tit 1~IltElJl~(l GIID~ UOLSTJoIS-FIIUSI( tAl1middotU U S PtpL fl reel Hul 1)2 m JlP illl1s

( II I RWHT S If)a ~SlItII AIYI$ Qt TilE PIlIt IlIttJlIS O LInS-fO(K 1 TilE

MtASlt~~ltt(1 In l-lllU~llINO -SII 11~InO~SHII Jonr Heletl 14 (8) a~H8 lIlns

U S GOVEH tNT INIHG OHlst un

For ~Ilh by fhl ihlJwrintenltl~ot oC DOCIIIIlllltS t S Gonrolllcut Prlntlu (jlllceWlIshlugton 2 0 C - Prlce 1 cents bull

bull

bull

bull

lNBREEDIXG OF GUADE aOLSlE1N COWS 33

items undet these IH~adings indicated Sltlme decrease in size with intensity of inbreeding

Valiubility ~xplessed ilS coeftieilmts of vUlintion dittered greatly for the vurious items 1or example the coeflidents of vlllintlOl1 fot weight of llcilenals wert IlpproxinHlttly to times as great us those fot height ut withelb both in the outbled group ilnd in the three inbled glOltl)S Coelticients for some of the otlltl endocrine glands IIlId fo weig It Illld capacity of udder were tvcn higher tlum those fOl weight of aclcnuls

Inbleetiinlr apparently did lIot (e(Iell( lIliubility in body IllaSS OJ skeletal Silllellsiolsj in bet thete is SOllIe indication that YIlrillshybility inClctlSec1 slightly fOl ome of the~~ ittlIIs as illbleedillg bNUltle tI10L~ intemw IlIb(((d ing did lot $llb~tantia II) ledllce Illiubi Iityi II the ihtelllId olgam CX(middotjlt that lhc lItLugC was IOWN ill the I11mt highly inuIcd glOup than til lht outUllmiddottl or th( othcl two inulNl gLOUpS The gtpl(([l Ill IiIOSt H1illbl( ill the hitrllly inbred IOUp

In the ~ndoclin( gland itellls Ilinbilit wus lleal~y twic~ as high 1 in tho intellml otgnn itcl1s lind the urtIage for the most highly inshybred (toutgt WaS 1Cs than fo1 any other trlOllp Individual items ditl(trd glpatl) in ariability ()

The high llliability in itltllS pertaining 0 weight and capaeity of udder il ptobtly tlUt in lalgp IIIPIIII( to ditf(ItI1(ps in slllW of laet~tioll at slanghtpI niH to till small 11I111bl~ of (ows reples~ntld illlaCh grollp Weight of Ilaquo((lel was llut Hlinble in tIH 1I10Hi highly ltlulld glOllp flip 11111( wm tue rOl tHpueity of dJy IlddlJs but not for calll~ily 01 la(tatillg Itddcls

VariabilIty in Iltilk 11Iid buttelfat pllllluctioll 01 in pelceltage of but(plfat did not dl(IPlIllliUJliJillIntly with iJlbleedil)tr

lhan~(s ill vlltiability ith intensity of inbleedil7cT also ditfplld gngtatJy for individual ittlns The body mass and sln-Ietal size ittnlH welc 1I0t grrlltly ldlccled Atllong thtmiddot inttltlal olgans weight of Iwart weght o~ ~idlleys l~nd length of intestines showed little challge whIle w(lgllt of- 11c1 dltcltned matkedlr

bullJ1)ong tho (nu()(line gland valiability ill weihts of pituitlllY thyroid and Pllllt(middotUS WaS not signincalllly atll(illll)y inbleedillcT dcshybpitl tl)(~luct ~hat tlte J)itllittIYWl (cdu(ed and the thyroid l~ llshy

erNuCCl 11 weIght (Ight 01lt ptntal adlenuls and parathyroids W(gtI(~ (eRnitely less vHtiaull in thl highly inbled group despite the fact that tlte lettllil w(lights of pillPtI tllld tdlellds were not appleshyciably dr((ted

(light of uddel lH)td a vY 1l1lHh IO(Ipd vflliability ill the most highly IlIut((1 glOUP

In 1 nUlIIbtI of (alt~ thelc a~ a dp(lilll in flriabilit within tlw threl inbrtd groups but liullmiddot if tIll wlll1I till lnulmiddot(middot1I gloups wCle (OIll p(u((l wit h the OurbPr glOltp Thii lp~lIltNI fJl)1Il tIl tendenc fOt nLiability 0 btl high ill tilt glOIlP of (os haing inblceding ((wtli(ients tllugillg hom 10 to ~0 IWIllnt

(orllbillNl a(Ii1gt~ fol nIl of tIIP ~~ item stu(i((J show that the (o~fli(ilnt of llinliol waS apPloximately l~ lWl(nt less fol all inblQd gtoup and aPPtoximnlely ~(l pClccnt less for the most highly inbrNI group tlmn for the outblpd group

34 rECfL~lCAL BULLBTIN 990 U S l)EPT 01lt AGJUCULlURE

LITERATURE CITED

(1) BAIlTLETl J W REECE R P nnd LEP-IW O L 1)42 rlJE lliINE-lt o~ JNlIREFDING O~ BIRTH WpJGHT RATE 0 GROWTH bull

A~D TnE Ot DAIRY CATrLE Jour Anim Sci 1 (3) 2Ot~212 () j)lCKJlSOV G g

lWO EnECIS O r-UKEEDl~G l~ OAIRY CAlvrLE (IKOGKESS REIOKT) AbshystlmiddotltCt Jour Dafry ScI 23 (6) 546-547

(l) AIO~ O N llXl8 Wl-IGllTS Hm MEA8UKMENTIt 0 THt 1lCI( ND ORGAN8 m MAI11I1E

l~lIIU1l 110 CIIOSSUlIoIl (lUINt IOS Amer Jour Aunt 63 (2)273-295

(4) 19il) COllIAIIATIE XALYSIS Ot TIU llESClltMENT8 O TUE LUlU IIO-S

Ot INllllto tUuns Ot Otl-ta NOS SII THEIR llYlIlt1U8 8 AnEC1EII II AlllLY SEX~II Am ~1ller Jour Aunt 64 (3) -tSCHOO

(5) HnSDJJ A e WH GunW1U SrA~IIARlJs OR DAIRY CAMU Mo A~rr EXpt Sta Bul

am 12 pp llIus (tI) SWElvr W W MAlrIIEWS O A MIlLEII F W null GR-ES R R

19~7 middotUTIONs Rt(OlIIlto I l1n STell lk rug CO~Hm~ITION AND 1011 Qt ~Ila llAIUY cows ILIXG U(OJIIIS 0 lII01ll10TION (utH~ll To Jlmiddot~t t() 1110) P S Thllt Agr Bur DnllY Indus HDIM-5S) Jpp (PrOclssed)

(7) 1lIINtlI ( W wm I1UIIIOoO 1-1UlIAmiddotImiddotIO~H 1II~rlnES IttIUOUlCTlON 11UUlAIlY G1ANII

jIUlWTII ~O 1_(~TlOl( Glowlh 3 (H) ~a-3Hi ll1l1s (lt) WITJoRS II J

loon TH~ 1~~Ll~N(E m SI1IUIIO~ ll()S TH ~lIAI ~OIII Soc PWIlI A~Imiddot Hd 1gt(0(30 7tH18 illw

(Ill VOOllWltIl I K nnd (lRts It H 19~ sUrt 1UmiddotWITS OF llfllltE~orNll GII)E GtRSSty A~O OIlAI) HOLS1ttN-

tlmsI~ CTTIt U~ Dpt Agt Ttch Bul Ha) 2 pp iJlus bull I to) ~---- lind GltAmiddotES R H

It1-t(t 1t8nlS tit 1~IltElJl~(l GIID~ UOLSTJoIS-FIIUSI( tAl1middotU U S PtpL fl reel Hul 1)2 m JlP illl1s

( II I RWHT S If)a ~SlItII AIYI$ Qt TilE PIlIt IlIttJlIS O LInS-fO(K 1 TilE

MtASlt~~ltt(1 In l-lllU~llINO -SII 11~InO~SHII Jonr Heletl 14 (8) a~H8 lIlns

U S GOVEH tNT INIHG OHlst un

For ~Ilh by fhl ihlJwrintenltl~ot oC DOCIIIIlllltS t S Gonrolllcut Prlntlu (jlllceWlIshlugton 2 0 C - Prlce 1 cents bull

34 rECfL~lCAL BULLBTIN 990 U S l)EPT 01lt AGJUCULlURE

LITERATURE CITED

(1) BAIlTLETl J W REECE R P nnd LEP-IW O L 1)42 rlJE lliINE-lt o~ JNlIREFDING O~ BIRTH WpJGHT RATE 0 GROWTH bull

A~D TnE Ot DAIRY CATrLE Jour Anim Sci 1 (3) 2Ot~212 () j)lCKJlSOV G g

lWO EnECIS O r-UKEEDl~G l~ OAIRY CAlvrLE (IKOGKESS REIOKT) AbshystlmiddotltCt Jour Dafry ScI 23 (6) 546-547

(l) AIO~ O N llXl8 Wl-IGllTS Hm MEA8UKMENTIt 0 THt 1lCI( ND ORGAN8 m MAI11I1E

l~lIIU1l 110 CIIOSSUlIoIl (lUINt IOS Amer Jour Aunt 63 (2)273-295

(4) 19il) COllIAIIATIE XALYSIS Ot TIU llESClltMENT8 O TUE LUlU IIO-S

Ot INllllto tUuns Ot Otl-ta NOS SII THEIR llYlIlt1U8 8 AnEC1EII II AlllLY SEX~II Am ~1ller Jour Aunt 64 (3) -tSCHOO

(5) HnSDJJ A e WH GunW1U SrA~IIARlJs OR DAIRY CAMU Mo A~rr EXpt Sta Bul

am 12 pp llIus (tI) SWElvr W W MAlrIIEWS O A MIlLEII F W null GR-ES R R

19~7 middotUTIONs Rt(OlIIlto I l1n STell lk rug CO~Hm~ITION AND 1011 Qt ~Ila llAIUY cows ILIXG U(OJIIIS 0 lII01ll10TION (utH~ll To Jlmiddot~t t() 1110) P S Thllt Agr Bur DnllY Indus HDIM-5S) Jpp (PrOclssed)

(7) 1lIINtlI ( W wm I1UIIIOoO 1-1UlIAmiddotImiddotIO~H 1II~rlnES IttIUOUlCTlON 11UUlAIlY G1ANII

jIUlWTII ~O 1_(~TlOl( Glowlh 3 (H) ~a-3Hi ll1l1s (lt) WITJoRS II J

loon TH~ 1~~Ll~N(E m SI1IUIIO~ ll()S TH ~lIAI ~OIII Soc PWIlI A~Imiddot Hd 1gt(0(30 7tH18 illw

(Ill VOOllWltIl I K nnd (lRts It H 19~ sUrt 1UmiddotWITS OF llfllltE~orNll GII)E GtRSSty A~O OIlAI) HOLS1ttN-

tlmsI~ CTTIt U~ Dpt Agt Ttch Bul Ha) 2 pp iJlus bull I to) ~---- lind GltAmiddotES R H

It1-t(t 1t8nlS tit 1~IltElJl~(l GIID~ UOLSTJoIS-FIIUSI( tAl1middotU U S PtpL fl reel Hul 1)2 m JlP illl1s

( II I RWHT S If)a ~SlItII AIYI$ Qt TilE PIlIt IlIttJlIS O LInS-fO(K 1 TilE

MtASlt~~ltt(1 In l-lllU~llINO -SII 11~InO~SHII Jonr Heletl 14 (8) a~H8 lIlns

U S GOVEH tNT INIHG OHlst un

For ~Ilh by fhl ihlJwrintenltl~ot oC DOCIIIIlllltS t S Gonrolllcut Prlntlu (jlllceWlIshlugton 2 0 C - Prlce 1 cents bull