Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-gb8f7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-30T00:58:51.712Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A crossbreeding experiment with cattle, with special reference to the maternal effect in South Devon—Dexter crosses

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 March 2009

D. M. Joubert  and
John Hammond
D. M. Joubert
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Husbandry, University of Pretoria
John Hammond
Affiliation:
School of Agriculture, University of Cambridge
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

An investigation was carried out to determine the extent of the maternal influence on size of calves at birth and during subsequent stages of growth, by making reciprocal matings between large South Devon and small Dexter cattle. As a preliminary to the experimental results, data concerning the respective parent breeds were analysed. From the first part of the study the following information was obtained:

1. The mean weight at birth of purebred South Devon calves was 100·3 ± 1·47 lb. with a tendency, though not statistically significant, for male calves to be heavier. Calves born during the months April to July appeared to be heavier than those born at other times, but the age of the dam had no definite effect on the birth weight of offspring. It was found, however, that the sire may influence birth weight to a significant degree.

2. The mean period of pregnancy for South Devon females, carrying purebred foetuses, was 287·0 ± 0·42 days, the tendency being for males to be carried longer, but the difference of 0·97 days was not statistically significant. A statistically significant difference indicated that winter calvers carry their foetuses longer as a rule, but though heifers have shorter gestation periods than cows, the difference of 1·6 days was not significant.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Agricultural Science , Volume 51 , Issue 3 , December 1958 , pp. 325 - 341
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1958

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

Adams, C. E. (1953). Thesis, Cambridge University.Google Scholar
Anantakrishnan, C. P. & Lazarus, A. J. (1954). Indian J. Dairy Sci. 6, 23.Google Scholar
Anderson, A. L. (1951). Introductory Animal Husbandry, rev. ed. New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Asdell, S. A. (1946). Patterns of Mammalian Reproduction. New York: Comstock.Google Scholar
Barcroft, J. (1944). Proc. Nutr. Soc. 2, 14.Google Scholar
Barcroft, J. & Kennedy, J. A. (1939). J. Physiol. 95, 173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bonsma, F. N. (1939). Publ. Univ. Pretoria, Agric. Ser. 1, no. 48.Google Scholar
Bonsma, J. C. (1949). J. Agric. Sci. 39, 204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brackel, W. J., Rife, D. C. & Salisbury, S. M. (1952). J. Dairy Sci. 35, 179.Google Scholar
Brody, S. (1945). Bioenergetics and Growth. New York: Reinhold.Google Scholar
Burris, M. J., Blunn, C. T. & Baker, M. L. (1950). J. Anim. Sci. 9, 635.Google Scholar
Burris, M. J. & Blunn, C. T. (1952). J. Anim. Sci. 11, 34.Google Scholar
Campbell, R. M., Innes, I. R. & Kosteblitz, H. J. (1953). J. Endocrin. 9, 68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Copeland, L. (1930). J. Dairy Sci. 13, 257.Google Scholar
Davis, H. P., Plum, M. & Brost, B. (1954). J. Dairy Sci. 37, 162.Google Scholar
Dawson, W. M., Phillips, R. W. & Black, W. H. (1947). J. Anim. Sci. 6, 247.Google Scholar
De Abreu, J. C. (1949). Rev. Agric., Piracicaba, 24, 231.Google Scholar
Donald, H. P. (1954). Personal communication.Google Scholar
Dowling, D. F. (1949). J. Agric. Sci. 39, 374.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eckles, C. H. (1919). Res. Bull. Mo. Agric. Exp. Sta. no. 35.Google Scholar
Eckles, C. H. (1920). Res. Bull. Mo. Agric. Exp. Sta. no. 36.Google Scholar
Fisher, R. A. (1948). Statistical Methods for Research Workers, 10th ed.Edinburgh: Oliver and Boyd.Google Scholar
Fitch, J. B., McGilliard, P. C. & Drumm, G. M. (1924). J. Dairy Sci. 7, 22.Google Scholar
Gregory, K. E., Blunn, C. T. & Baker, M. L. (1950). J. Anim. Sci. 9, 338.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hammond, J. (1932). Growth and Development of Mutton Qualities in the Sheep. London: Oliver and Boyd.Google Scholar
Hammond, J. (1935). Trans. Dynam. Developm., Moscow, 10, 93.Google Scholar
Hammond, J. (1940). Farm Animals. London: Edward Arnold.Google Scholar
Hammond, J. (1950). An. Fac. Med. Montevideo, 35, 810.Google Scholar
Herman, H. A. & Spalding, R. W. (1947). J. Dairy Sci. 30, 545.Google Scholar
Hilder, R. A. & Fohrman, M. H. (1948). J. Agric. Res. 78, 457.Google Scholar
Hunter, G. L. (1956). J. Agric. Sci. 48, 36.Google Scholar
Hunter, G. L., Adams, C. E. & Rowson, L. E. (1955). J. Agric. Sci. 46, 143.Google Scholar
Ibsen, H. L. (1928). J. Exp. Zool. 51, 51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ineichen, B. (1946). Dissert. Vet. Med. Fakul., Univ. Zurich.Google Scholar
Jaffar, S. M., Chapman, A. B. & Casidy, L. E. (1950). J. Dairy Sci. 9, 593.Google Scholar
Joubert, D. M. (1951). Fmg in S.Afr. 26, 339.Google Scholar
Joubert, D. M. (1953). S. Afr. Jersey Gaz. 4, no. 7, 41.Google Scholar
Joubert, D. M. (1954). J. Agric. Sci. 44, 5.Google Scholar
Joubert, D. M. (1956 a). J. Agric. Sci. 47, 59.Google Scholar
Joubert, D. M. (1956 b). J. Agric. Sci. 47, 382.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Joubert, D. M. & Bonsma, J. C. (1958). S.Afr. J. Agric. Sci. (in the Press).Google Scholar
Knapp, B., Lambert, W. V. & Black, W. H. (1940). J. Agric. Res. 61, 277.Google Scholar
Knapp, B. & Nordskog, A. W. (1946). J. Anim. Sci. 5, 62.Google Scholar
Knapp, C. E. & Hayden, C. C. (1934). Bull. Ohio Agric. Exp. Sta. no. 166.Google Scholar
Knott, J. C. (1932). J. Dairy Sci. 15, 87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Koch, R. M. & Clark, R. T. (1955). J. Anim. Sci. 14, 775.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Koger, M. & Knox, J. H. (1947). J. Anim. Sci. 6, 461.Google Scholar
Lambart, A. (1951). Dissert. Vet. Med. Fakul., Justus Liebig-Hochsch., Giessen.Google Scholar
Lamming, G. E. & Rowson, L. E. (1952). Proc. R. Soc. Med. 46, 387.Google Scholar
Lee, D. H. K. (1953). F.A.O. Devel. Paper, Agric. no. 38.Google Scholar
Luscombe, A. H. (1953). Ann. South Devon Herdb. Soc. 7, 40.Google Scholar
McKeown, T. & Record, R. G. (1953). J. Endocrin. 9, 418.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pomeroy, R. W. (1955). Live-weight growth. Ch. 9, Progress in the Physiology of Farm Animals, ed. Hammond, J.. London: Butterworths.Google Scholar
Reid, J. T. (1953). Proc. Cornell Nutr. Conf. p. 88.Google Scholar
Rowson, L. E. (1951). J. Endocrin. 7, 260.Google Scholar
Rowson, L. E. & Dowling, D. F. (1949). Vet. Rec. 61, 191.Google Scholar
Shelby, C. E., Clark, R. T. & Woodward, R. R. (1955). J. Anim. Sci. 14, 372.Google Scholar
Starke, J. S., Smith, J. B. & Joubebt, D. M. (1958). Sci. Bull. Dep. Agric. S. Afr. (in the Press).Google Scholar
Tentawy, A. O. & Ahmed, I. A. (1953). Alex. J. Agric. Res. 1, 15.Google Scholar
Turpitt, W. G. (1954). Personal communication.Google Scholar
Venge, O. (1950). Ada zool., Stockh. 31, 1.Google Scholar
Walton, A. & Hammond, J. (1938). Proc. Roy. Soc. B, 125, 311.Google Scholar
Westermark, H. (1926). Acta obstet. gynec. scand. 4, 249.Google Scholar
Willett, E. L., Black, W. G., Casida, L. E., Stone, H. W. & Buckner, P. J. (1951). Science, 113, 247.Google Scholar
Willett, E. L., Buckner, P. J. & Larson, G. L. (1953). J. Dairy Sci. 36, 520.Google Scholar
Wilson, J. (1909). Sci. Proc. R. Dublin Soc. 12, 1.Google Scholar
Winters, L. M. & Feuffel, G. (1936). Tech. Bull. Minn. Agric. Ezp. Sta. no. 118.Google Scholar
Woodward, R. R. & Clark, R. T. (1950). J. Anim. Sci. 9, 588.Google Scholar