Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rdxmf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-23T07:12:51.084Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Effect of twin birth on growth of cattle

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 September 2010

W. S. Russell
Affiliation:
ARC Animal Breeding Research Organisation, West Mains Road, Edinburgh EH9 3JQ
Get access

Summary

About 350 single- and 250 twin-born female Ayrshire cattle were compared on the same feeding regime in respect of 12 linear body measurements at 3-monthly intervals up to 36 mo of age, and some two-thirds of them up to 48 mo. The twins were purchased from a wide variety of farms, and it is unlikely that their dams were significantly better fed, in pregnancy, than the dams of single calves.

The effects of month and year of birth and age at first calving (including some pregnancy and lactation effects) were estimated by least-squares procedures. The trends of the differences between single and twin-born animals were analysed as percentages of current and of mature size. Earliness of maturing had no apparent effect. For the traits of height and girth, twin-born animals were smaller than single-born by nearly 2 % of mature size (3 % of current size) at 3 mo of age and for the other traits the difference was around 1 %. By 12 mo the differences were generally about half their initial value and remained at this level, except for head width where the difference declined to zero around 2 years of age.

It is concluded that twin-, compared to single-born, cattle are subject to a small degree of permanent stunting in most linear measurements.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © British Society of Animal Science 1976

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

Allden, W. G. 1970. The effects of nutritional deprivation on the subsequent productivity of sheep and cattle. Nutr. Abstr. Rev. 40: 11671184.Google ScholarPubMed
Dickinson, A. G., Hancock, J. L., Hovell, G. J. R., Taylor, St C. S. and Wiener, G. 1962. The size of lambs at birth—a study involving egg transfer. Anim. Prod. 4: 6479.Google Scholar
Donald, H. P. 1953. A study of variation in twin cattle. I. General description. J. Dairy Res. 20: 355360.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Donald, H. P., Russell, W. S. and Taylor, St C. S. 1962. Birth weights of reciprocally cross-bred calves. J. agric. Sci., Camb. 58: 405412.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gilmore, L. O. 1952. Dairy Cattle Breeding. Lippincott, New York.Google Scholar
Kay, R. M., Little, W. and Kitchenham, B. A.A. comparison of the growth performance and blood composition of twin and singleton calves. Anim. Prod. 22: 1925.Google Scholar
Matassino, D. and Marati, M. A. 1964. [Liveweight at birth of calves of the Marche breed and factors affecting it.] Produz. anim. 3: 263303.Google Scholar
Meyer, H. 1964. [Causes of birth weight variation in calves.] Züchtungskunde 36: 303316.Google Scholar
Russell, W. S. 1973. Compreg User's Guide, IU/RC Series Report No. 5. Program Library Unit, University of Edinburgh.Google Scholar
Russell, W. S. 1975. The growth of Ayrshire cattle: an analysis of linear body measurements. Anim. Prod. 21: 217226.Google Scholar