Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dk4vv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T19:53:03.787Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Inter-breed relationships of birth weight and maternal and paternal weight in cattle

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 September 2010

C. S. Taylor  and
J. Murray
C. S. Taylor
Affiliation:
AFRC Animal Breeding Research Organisation, Edinburgh EH9 3JQ
J. Murray
Affiliation:
AFRC Animal Breeding Research Organisation, Edinburgh EH9 3JQ
Get access

Abstract

The inter-breed relationship of birth weight and maternal and paternal weight in cattle was examined using published data on over 200 different breeds from a total of over 500 experiments. This collection of data was far from optimal for estimating genetic between-breed regressions and should have contained fewer breeds and more experiments on the same breed. Nevertheless, it was established that the mean mature weights of bulls and cows maintained a constant ratio throughout the range of breed size but mean calf weight declined relative to mean sire and mean dam weight as breed size increased.

When considered in conjunction with other results on litter weight at birth, the best relationship to use appeared to be that of proportionality to dam weight to the power 0·83, which could uniformly be applied to both breeds and species. The constant of proportionality found for cattle was 0·197 which can be compared with estimates of 0·183 for sheep, 0·185 for dogs and 0·165 on average for mammalian species.

Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Production , Volume 44 , Issue 1 , February 1987 , pp. 55 - 64
Copyright
Copyright © British Society of Animal Science 1987

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

Brody, S. 1945. Bioenergetics and Growth. Reinhold, New York.Google Scholar
Donald, H. P. 1963. Perinatal deaths among calves in a crossbred dairy herd. Animal Production 5: 87–95.Google Scholar
Donald, H. P. and Russell, W. S. 1970. The relationship between live weight of ewe at mating and weight of newborn lamb. Animal Production 12: 273–280.Google Scholar
Kirkwood, J. K. 1985. The influence of size on the biology of the dog. Journal of Small Animal Practice 26: 97–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kleiber, M. 1961. The Fire of Life. Wiley, New York.Google Scholar
Leitch, I., Hytten, F. E. and Billewicz, W. Z. 1959. The maternal and neonatal weights of some Mammalia. Proceedings of the Zoological Society of London 133: 11–28Google Scholar
Marlowe, T. J. 1962. Weights and grades of beef cattle and their relation to performance. Bulletin Virginia Agricultural Experiment Station, No. 537.Google Scholar
Meyer, H. 1964. [Causes of birth weight variation in calves.] Zuchtungskunde 36: 303–316.Google Scholar
Monteiro, L. S. 1969. The relative size of calf and dam and the frequency of calving difficulties. Animal Production 11: 293–306.Google Scholar
Scheffe, H. 1959. The Analysis of Variance, Chap. 7. Wiley, New York.Google Scholar
Taylor, St C. S. 1971. The effect of body size on production efficiency in cattle. Breed comparisons and inter-breed relationships. Annales de Genetique el de Selection Animale 3: 85–98.Google Scholar
Taylor, St C. S. and Hnizdo, E. 1987. Multibreed designs. 3. Inter-breed relationships. Animal Production 44: 39–53.Google Scholar