Hostname: page-component-84b7d79bbc-fnpn6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-08-01T01:38:54.410Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Factors affecting patterns of development and their assessment

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 September 2010

R. M. Seebeck
R. M. Seebeck
Affiliation:
CSIRO, Division of Tropical Animal Science, Tropical Cattle Research Centre, PO Box 5545, Rockhampton 4701, Australia
Get access

Abstract

The effect of rate of growth on the development of animals is examined in terms of it being related to variation from a pattern of development described by the allometric hypothesis. For this purpose, aliometry is expressed in terms of an extension to the shape/size concept originally proposed by Mosimann.

It is shown that such an effect of rate of growth would bias estimates of the development pattern, depending on the experimental design. However, within the framework of the method, a procedure for both removing the bias and actually estimating the effect of rate of growth on development is available.

A previously described test for one type of deviation from aliometry is shown to be incorrect by simulation.

An alternative test for the adequacy of the allometry hypothesis is developed, based on factor analysis of residual matrices from multivariate analysis of variance (the latter being used so that effects of treatment and concomitant variables can be taken into account).

Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Production , Volume 37 , Issue 1 , August 1983 , pp. 53 - 65
Copyright
Copyright © British Society of Animal Science 1983

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Butterfield, R. M., Pryor, W. J. and Berg, R. T. 1966. A study of carcase growth in calves. Res. vet. Sci. 7: 417–423.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dixon, W. J. ed. BMDP Biomedical Computer Programs. University of California Press, Los Angeles.Google Scholar
Evans, D. G. and Kempster, A. J. 1979. The effects of genotype, sex and feeding regimen on pig carcass development. I. Primary components, tissues and joints. J. agric. Sci., Camb. 93: 339–347.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Geraert, E. 1979. Differential growth formulae. Biol. Jb. Dodonaea. 47: 87–95.Google Scholar
Hopkins, J. W. 1966. Some considerations in multivariate allometry. Biometrics 22: 747–760.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huxley, J. S. 1932. Problems of Relative Growth. Methuen, London.Google Scholar
Lawes Agricultural Trust. 1977. Genstat V, Mark 4.01. The Statistics Department, Rothamsted Experimental Station, Harpenden, Hertfordshire.Google Scholar
MacFie, H. J. H. 1978. Quantifying breed difference in shape. In Patterns of Growth and Development in Cattle. Current Topics in Veterinary Medicine, Vol. 2 (ed. Boer, H. de and Martin, J.) pp. 691–704. Nijhoff, The Hague.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Madansky, A. 1959. The fitting of straight lines when both variables are subject to error. J. Am. statist. Ass. 54: 173–205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Margsalia, G. and Bray, T. A. 1964. A convenient method for generating normal variables. SIAM Rev. 6: 260–264.Google Scholar
Morrison, D. F. 1976. Multivariate Statistical Methods. 2nd ed. McGraw Hill, New York.Google Scholar
Mosimann, J. E. 1970. Size allometry: size and shape variables with characterisations of the log normal and generalised gamma distributions. J. Am. statist. Ass. 65: 930–945.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mosimann, J. E. 1975a. Statistical problems of size and shape. I. Biological applications and basic theorems. In Statistical Distributions in Scientific Work. Vol. 2 (ed. Patil, G. P., Kotz, S. and Ord, J. K.), pp. 187–217. D. Reidel Publishing Company, Dordrecht, Holland.Google Scholar
Mosimann, J. E. 1975b. Statistical problems of size and shape. II. Characterisations of the lognormal and gamma and dirichlet distributions. In Statistical Distributions in Scientific Work. Vol. 2 (ed. Patil, G. P., Kotz, S. and Ord, J. K.), pp. 219–239. D. Reidel Publishing Company, Dordrecht-Holland.Google Scholar
Mossimann, J. E. and James, F. C. 1979. New statistical methods for allometry with application to Florida red-winged blackbirds. Evolution, Lancaster, Pa. 33: 444–459.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rao, C. R. 1971. Taxonomy in anthropology. In Mathematics in the Archaeological and Historical Sciences (ed. Hodson, F. R., Kendall, D. G. and Tautu, P.), pp. 19–29. Edinburgh University Press, Edinburgh.Google Scholar
Seebeck, R. M. 1966. Composition of dressed carcases of lambs. Proc. Aust. Soc. Anim. Prod. 6: 291–297.Google Scholar
Seebeck, R. M. 1973. The effect of body-weight loss on the composition of Brahman cross and Africander cross steers. I. Empty body weight, dressed carcass weight and offal components. J. agric. Sci., Camb. 80: 201–210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Seebeck, R. M. 1978. A survey of allometric analysis. In Patterns of Growth and Development in Cattle. Current Topics in veterinary Medicine, Vol. 2 (ed. Boer, H. de and Martin, J.), pp. 639–657. Nijhoff, The Hague.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Seebeck, R. M. 1983. sysnova Version 9 Reference Manual. Tech. Pap., Commonw. sci. ind. res. Org., Canberra. In press.Google Scholar
Seebeck, R. M. and Tulloh, N. M. 1966. The representation of yield of dressed carcass. Anim. Prod. 8: 281–288.Google Scholar
Sprent, P. 1972. The mathematics of size and shape. Biometrics 28: 23–37.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Teissier, G. 1960. Relative growth. In The Physiology of Crustacea. Vol. 1. (ed. Waterman, T. H.), pp. 537–560. Academic Press, New York.Google Scholar
Turner, M. E. 1978. Allometry and multivariate growth. Growth 42: 434–450.Google ScholarPubMed
Veitch, L. G. 1978. Size, shape and allometry in Uca; a multivariate approach. Math. Scient. 3: 35–45.Google Scholar