Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-mkpzs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-03T19:38:38.824Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Variation in the duration of gestation in the goat

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 March 2009

A. Asdell
A. Asdell
Affiliation:
(Animal Nutrition Institute, School of Agriculture, Cambridge University, andMassey Agricultural College, Palmerston North, New Zealand.)
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

(1) A large series of data on the duration of gestation in the goat has been analysed and the constants calculated.

(2) The frequency curve is unimodal and symmetrical, suggesting a single factor or a variety of factors acting simultaneously as the cause for birth.

(3) Slight breed differences exist in the duration of gestation in the goat as in other species examined.

(4) There is a continuous variation in the duration of gestation with the time of year at which conception occurs. Spring conceptions give shorter gestations than autumn conceptions.

(5) There is a distinct difference in the duration of gestation for young and older dams. This is related to the age of the dams and not to the order of the births. Gestation is shorter in the young animal than in the older.

(6) In the goat the size of litter has little or no effect on the duration of gestation.

(7) Constants for duration of gestation in other species have been obtained. Variability increases with the duration of oestrus and about half the variability in any species with a long oestrous period may be ascribed to this cause.

(8) The factors involved in fixing the duration of gestation in the species examined are evidently the same in all cases, and probably culminate in a single agency responsible for terminating gestation.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Agricultural Science , Volume 19 , Issue 2 , April 1929 , pp. 382 - 396
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1929

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

(1)Asdell, . J. Amer. Med. Assoc. 89, 509 (1927).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(2)Sabatini, . Jahrb. f. wiss. u. prakt. Tierzucht, 3, 1 (1908).Google Scholar
(3)Hart, Berry. Edinb. Med. J. 11, 291 (1913) and 12, 401 (1914).Google Scholar
(4)Spencer, Earl.J. Roy. Agric. Soc. England, 1, 165 (1840).Google Scholar
(5)Tessier, . Mem. de I'Inst. Roy. de France, 3, 1 (1817).Google Scholar
(6)Reid, . Lancet, ii, p. 78 (1850).Google Scholar
(7)Richards, . Modern Milk Goats, Philadelphia, p. 161 (1921).Google Scholar
(8)Mayall, . Sheep and Goats, London, p. 104 (1912).Google Scholar
(9)Crepin, . La Chèvre, Paris (n.d.).Google Scholar
(10)Holmes-Pegler, . Book of the Goat, London (1910).Google Scholar
(11)Davies, . Goat Keeping for Milk Production, London (1920).Google Scholar
(12)Wellmann, . Landw. Jahrb. 39, 409 (1910).Google Scholar
(13)Issmer, . Arch. f. Gyn. 35, 310 (1889).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(14)Ahlfeld, . Monat. f. Geb. 34, 180–266 (1869).Google Scholar
(15)Schlichting, . Arch. f. Gyn. 16, 203 (1880).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(16)Marshall, and Hammond, . Ministry of Agric. Research Monographs, No. 2, 2nd ed. London (1926).Google Scholar
(17)Marshall, . Biol. Rev. 2, 129 (1927).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(18)Asdell, . Physiol. Rev. 8, 313 (1928).CrossRefGoogle Scholar