Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-g7gxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-08T10:28:40.916Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Morphological and physio-chemical studies on dwarf Herefords

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 March 2009

E. S. E. Hafez ,
M. E. Ensminger  and
W. E. Ham
E. S. E. Hafez
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Science, Washington State University, Pullman, Washington, U.S.A.
M. E. Ensminger
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Science, Washington State University, Pullman, Washington, U.S.A.
W. E. Ham
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Science, Washington State University, Pullman, Washington, U.S.A.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Thirty-six Hereford dwarfs, ‘comprest’, dwarf-like, and eight controls were available. Body and skin measurements were taken and the types of head abnormalities and cardiovascular activities were recorded. Haematological tests and chemical analysis of blood and hair were carried out.

Typical dwarfs showed characteristic head abnormalities with varying degrees either at birth or later in life, possibly as a result of different stages of development at which the defective gene(s) comes into operation. There were progressive changes (qualitative and quantitative) in the expression of dwarf characteristics. Typical dwarfs were chronic bloaters, with pot-shaped belly or with normal belly. Atypical dwarfs were either stunted, showing (miscellaneous) deleterious genes or ‘comprest’ types. The daily live-weight gain of typical dwarfs ranged from 0·71 to 1·69 with an average of 1·26 lb. (controls 1·72 lb.). Body, head, and limb indices in typical dwarfs are similar to those of the ‘comprest’ and the control animals at comparable weights. Volume index was higher in the control than in the typical dwarfs. In the bloater dwarfs the width of the body at the shoulder region was considerably narrower. Skins of the typical dwarfs were thinner. The bloater dwarfs showed a diurnal bloat cycle (in relation to feeding time) as judged by body circumference. The severity of bloat was irregular.

There was no significant difference between typical dwarfs and control animals in rectal temperature, pulse rate, blood, specific gravity, prothrombin time, sedimentation rate, red cell count, electrophoretic pattern of serum proteins, serum creatine and creatinine and calcium/phosphorus ratio in hair samples. Typical dwarfs had slower respiration rate, lower blood haemoglobin, haematocrit, and white blood count than did the controls. Post-mortem examination of dwarfs did not show similar causes of death in each case. The heart of the dwarfs was spheroid, showing severe dilation in most cases.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Agricultural Science , Volume 53 , Issue 3 , December 1959 , pp. 339 - 346
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1959

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

Arthaud, R. L., Koch, R. M. & Arthaud, V. H. (1957). J. Anim. Sci. 16, 1028.Google Scholar
Bogart, R. (1959). ‘Improvement of Livestock’. New York: MacMillan Co.Google Scholar
Bolin, F. M., Buchanan, M. L., Shumard, R. F. & Eveleth, D. F. (1957). Vet. Med. 52, 327.Google Scholar
Buchanan, M. L., Bolin, F. M., Burnham, J. J. & Eveleth, D. F. (1956). Bull. N. Dak. Agric. Exp. Sta. no. 403.Google Scholar
Carroll, F. D., Gregory, P. W. & Rollins, W. C. (1951). J. Anim. Sci. 10, 916.Google Scholar
Cornelius, C. E., Tyler, W. S. & Gregory, P. W. (1956). Proc. Soc. exp. Biol., N.Y., 92, 522.Google Scholar
Crenshaw, W. W., Pipes, G. W., Ruppert, H. L. Jr. & Turner, C. W. (1957). Res. Bull. Mo. Agric. Exp. Sta. no. 621.Google Scholar
Eveleth, D. F., Bolin, F. M. & Buchanan, M. L. (1956). Vet. Med. 51, 495.Google Scholar
Folin, O. & Ciocalten, V. (1927). J. Biol. Chem. 73, 627.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gregory, P. W., Roubicek, C. B., Carroll, F. D., Stratton, P. O. & Hilston, N. W. (1953). Hilgardia, 22, 407.Google Scholar
Hafez, E. S. E., Fletcher, D. W. & O'Mary, C. C. (1958). J. Anim. Sci. 17, 1140, abstract.Google Scholar
Hafez, E. S. E., O'Mary, C. C. & Esminger, M. E. (1958). Heredity, 49, 111.Google Scholar
Hammond, J. (1955). Farm Animals—Their Breeding, Growth and Inheritance. London: Edward Arnold and Co.Google Scholar
Julian, L. M., Tyler, W. S., Hage, T. J. & Gregory, P. W. (1957). Amer. J. Anat. 100, 269.Google Scholar
King, E. J. & Armstrong, A. R. (1934). Canad. Med. Ass. J. 31, 376.Google Scholar
Leuchtenberger, C., Schrader, F., Hughes-Schrader, S. & Gregory, P. W. (1956). J. Morph. 99, 481.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lucas, K. (1950). Relationship of thyroid, adrenals and pituitary weights to body development in comprest and conventional types of fat Hereford steers. Thesis M.S., Colorado State University, Fort Collins.Google Scholar
Pahnish, O. F., Stanley, E. B. & Safley, C. E. (1955). J. Anim. Sci. 14, 200.Google Scholar
Pahnish, O. F., Stanley, E. B., Safley, C. E. & Roubicek, C. B. (1955). Bull. Ariz. Agric. Exp. Sta. no. 268.Google Scholar
Phillips, R. A. (1946). Clinical Method for the Goleman Junior Clinical Spectrophotometer. Maywood, Ill.: Coleman Elec, Co.Google Scholar
Snedecor, G. W. (1956). Statistical Methods, 5th ed.Ames, Iowa: The Iowa State College Press.Google Scholar
Stonaker, H. H. (1958). Bull. Color. Exp. Sta. no. 501–5.Google Scholar
Warwick, E. J. (1958). J. Anim. Sci. 17, 922.CrossRefGoogle Scholar