Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-m6dg7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-07T06:58:11.884Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Factors affecting calving difficulty and gestation length in cows mated to Chianina bulls and factors affecting the birth weight of their calves

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 September 2010

A. Wilson ,
M. B. Willis  and
C. Davison
A. Wilson
Affiliation:
Faculty of Agriculture, University of Newcastle upon Tyne, Newcastle upon Tyne, NE1 7RU
M. B. Willis
Affiliation:
Faculty of Agriculture, University of Newcastle upon Tyne, Newcastle upon Tyne, NE1 7RU
C. Davison
Affiliation:
Farmers Livestock Services, Town End Farm, Gosforth, Cumbria
Get access

Summary

Imported semen from 10 Italian Chianina bulls was used to inseminate beef and dairy cattle throughout England and Southern Scotland. A total of 2134 records of calving performance were subjected to least squares analyses. Dystocia score was significantly affected by county of birth, parity of dam, sire, type of birth, birth weight (P < 0·001), season of birth and sex of calf (P < 0·01). There were no significant effects of breed or size of cow. Serious dystocia was encountered in 3% of calvings, with the incidence for individual sires ranging from 1·7% to 6·7%. Arithmetic mean gestation length was 284·2 days and it was significantly affected by county, sire (P < 0·05), sex of calf (P < 0·01), and type of birth (P < 0·001). Arithmetic mean birth weight of the calves was 41·2 kg and this was significantly affected by all main effects studied except season of birth and type of herd.

Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Production , Volume 22 , Issue 1 , February 1976 , pp. 27 - 34
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

Andersen, H. and Plum, M. 1965. Gestation length and birth weight in cattle and buffaloes: a review. J. Dairy Sci. 48: 1224–1235.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bellows, R. A. 1968. Reproduction and growth in beef heifers. A.I. Dig. 16: 6–7, 17.Google Scholar
Brinks, J. S., Olson, J. E. and Carroll, E. J. 1973. Calving difficulty and its association with subsequent productivity in Herefords. J. Anim. Sci. 36: 11–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crowley, J. P. 1965. The effect of Charolais bulls on calving performance. Ir. J. agric. Res. 4: 205–213.Google Scholar
Dreyer, D. 1973. [Progeny testing based on ease of calving and small calf losses: results and experiences]. Tierzüchter 25: 58–61.Google Scholar
Edwards, J. 1966. The Charolais report: the results of field trials in England and Wales to compare Charolais bulls with bulls of British beef breeds when crossed with dairy cows. Milk Marketing Board, Thames Ditton, Surrey.Google Scholar
Hanset, R. 1966. [Heritability of duration of gestation in Central and Upper Belgian cattle]. Annls Méd. vét. 110: 149–200.Google Scholar
Harvey, W. R. 1960. Least-squares analysis of data with unequal subclass numbers. US Department of Agriculture, ARS—20-8. (Mimeograph).Google Scholar
Hendy, C. R. C. and Bowman, J. C. 1970. Twinning in cattle. Anim. Breed. Abstr. 38: 22–37.Google Scholar
Laster, D. B., Glimp, H. A., Cundiff, L. V. and Gregory, K. E. 1973. Factors affecting dystocia and the effects of dystocia on subsequent reproduction in beef cattle. J. Anim. Sci. 36: 695–705.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Milk Marketing Board. 1960. The incidence of difficult calving in Ayrshire and Friesian heifers. Rep. Prod. Div. Milk Mktg Bd, No. 10, pp. 98–99.Google Scholar
Milk Marketing Board. 1970. Rep. Breed. Prod. Org. Milk Mktg Bd, 1969/70, No. 20. MILK MARKETING BOARD. 1971. Rep. Breed. Prod. Org. Milk Mktg Bd, 1970/71, No. 21.Google Scholar
Ministry Of Agriculture, Fisheries And Food. 1973. Final report of the Limousin and Simmental Tests Steering Committee, on calving surveys, No. 2. (Mimeograph).Google Scholar
Monteiro, L. S. 1969. The relative size of calf and dam and the frequency of calving difficulties. Anim. Prod. 11: 293–306.Google Scholar
Preston, T. R. and Willis, M. B. 1970. Intensive Beef Production. Pergamon, Oxford.Google Scholar
Schultze, A. B. 1965. Can big calves affect breeding performance? A.I. Dig. 13: 8.Google Scholar
Vandeplassche, M., Herman, J., Bouters, R. and Spincemaille, J. 1965. [Preventive obstetrics in cattle]. Vlaams diergeneesk. Tijdschr. 34: 161–173.Google Scholar