Hostname: page-component-5c6d5d7d68-sv6ng Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-08-19T12:03:22.492Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The fleece of the Scottish Blackface sheep III. The relative importance of the fleece components

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 March 2009

J. M. Doney
J. M. Doney
Affiliation:
Hill Farming Research Organization, Edinburgh
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The relative importance of variation in the components of wool production to variation in wool production itself was estimated by two methods of analysis. About 30% of the attributable variation in total fleece weight was found to be due to variation in surface area and 70% was due to wool production per unit skin area. Between 50 and 60% of the variation amongst sheep in the latter character was found to be due to variation in fibre weight, the rest being attributed to variation in number of fibres per unit area (fibre density). The variation in mean fibre weight was further partitioned into 50 to 70% due to variation in mean cross-sectional area and the remainder to variation in mean fibre length.

Variation in wool production per unit skin area was also analysed according to growth period and position on the body. The results are discussed in relation to the partition of variance in wool production of other breeds.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Agricultural Science , Volume 61 , Issue 1 , August 1963 , pp. 45 - 53
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1963

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

Doney, J. M. & Smith, W. F. (1961 a). J. Agric. Sci. 56, 365.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Doney, J. M. & Smith, W. F. (1961 b). J. Agric. Sci. 56, 375.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Doney, J. M. & Weiler, H. (1959). Aust. J. Agric. Res. 10, 287.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dun, R. B., (1958). Aust. J. Agric. Res. 9, 802.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Henderson, A. E. & Hayman, B. I. (1960). Aust. J. Agric. Res. 11, 851.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Li, C. C. (1956). Biometrics. 12, 190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schinckel, P. G. (1956). Aust. J. Agric. Res. 7, 57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schinckel, P. G. (1957). Aust. J. Agric. Res. 8, 512.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Turner, Helen N. (1956). Anim. Breed. Abstr. 24, 87.Google Scholar
Turner, Helen N. (1958). Aust. J. Agric. Res. 9, 521.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wildmak, A. B. (1954). Microscopy of Animal Textile Fibres. Leeds: Wool Ind. Research Association.Google Scholar
Wright, S. (1934). Ann. Math. Statist. 5, 161.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Young, S. S. Y. & Chapman, R. E. (1938). Aust. J. Agric. Res. 9, 363.CrossRefGoogle Scholar