Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-dlnhk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-23T12:31:33.808Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The relative size of calf and dam and the frequency of calving difficulties

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 September 2010

L. S. Monteiro
L. S. Monteiro
Affiliation:
A.R.C. Animal Breeding Research Organisation, West Mains Road, Edinburgh EH9 3JQ
Get access

Summary

The frequencies of calving difficulties were computed for 458 calvings of first and second parity Friesian, Ayrshire and Jersey dams with pure and crossbred progeny in all possible combinations. It was found that heavier breeds of dams have higher frequency of difficult calvings. For each breed of dam there is also a direct relationship between the mean birth weight of the calves and the frequency of calving difficulties associated with the breed or cross of calf.

An index of calving difficulties calculated in the form of a discriminant function which combined both the birth weight of the calf and the calving weight and parity of the dam was: Z = log BW−0· log DW−0·10 P,

where Z is the index of calving difficulties, BW and DW are respectively the birth and dam weight and P the parity variable withthe values of one for second parity and zero for the first.

Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Production , Volume 11 , Issue 3 , August 1969 , pp. 293 - 306
Copyright
Copyright © British Society of Animal Science 1969

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

Arthur, G. H. 1966. Recent advances in bovine obstetrics. Vet. Rec. 79:630–639.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Benesh, F. and Wright, J. G. 1957. Veterinary Obstetrics. Bailliére, Tindall and Cox, London.Google Scholar
Crowley, J. P. 1965. The effect of Charolais bulls on calving performance. Ir. J. agric. Res. 4: 205–213.Google Scholar
Donald, H. P. 1963. Perinatal deaths among calves. Anim. Prod. 5: 87–95.Google Scholar
Donald, H. P., Russell, W. S. and Taylor, St C. S. 1962. Birth weights of reciprocally crossbred calves. J. agric. Sci., Camb. 58: 405–412.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ekman-Bjäresten, I. 1965. Crossbreeding experiments with Swedish Polled cattle. Jord. bröda Djur. 21: 81–89.Google Scholar
Fagot, V. 1965. Dystocie et pelvimetrie. Zootechnia 14: 60–64.Google Scholar
Hansen, L. H. 1966. The incidence of dystocia and postparturient disorders in Jersey cattle after crossbreeding with Charolais bulls. Br. vet. J. 122: 273–278.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lindhé, B. 1968. Crossbreeding for beef with Swedish Red and White cattle. Part I. Performance under varying field conditions. LantbrHögsk. Annlr 34: 467–515.Google Scholar
Milk Marketing Board. 1960. The incidence of difficult calvings in Ayrshire and Friesian heifers. Rep. Prod. Div. Milk Mktg Bd 10: 98–9.Google Scholar
Milk Marketing Board. 1966. The Charolais Report. Breeding and Production Organisation, Milk Marketing Board, Thames Ditton, Surrey.Google Scholar
Nielsen, J. 1965. [The relationship between external measures of pelvic dimensions and the size of the pelvic inlet in dairy cattle.] Forsøgslaboratoriets årbog (1965) 239–261.Google Scholar
Seal, H. 1964. Multivariate Statistical Analysis for Biologists. Methuen and Co, London.Google Scholar