Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-wq2xx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-16T16:24:21.511Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Birth weights of reciprocally cross-bred calves

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 March 2009

H. P. Donald ,
W. S. Russell  and
C. S. Taylor
H. P. Donald
Affiliation:
A.R.C. Animal Breeding Research Organisation, Edinburgh, 9.
W. S. Russell
Affiliation:
A.R.C. Animal Breeding Research Organisation, Edinburgh, 9.
C. S. Taylor
Affiliation:
A.R.C. Animal Breeding Research Organisation, Edinburgh, 9.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

This study is based on 1015 live single calves brod by artificial insemination in a herd of Ayrshire, Friesian, Jersey and two-breed and three-breed cross cattle derived from them. Birth weights, subjected to a least squares analysis, show little effect of year or season of calving. Males were 6·0 lb. heavier than females; second and later parity calves were 6·6 lb. heavier than first parity calves.

Over the range of breeds and crosses studied, heredity was the principal determinant of mean birth weight. No evidence of heterosis was found— means for crossbred calves, however, differed in reciprocal crosses. They deviated from the mean of the parents in the direction of the maternal weight at birth. If 0 is the mean birth weight of the dam's breed or cross and 0 of the sire's breed, the mean weight of offspring is closely estimated by

This expression may not apply to the crossing of breeds differing much more in weight than the Jersey and Friesian breeds. In such crosses it is likely that small dams depress foetal growth more than large dams promote it. The maternal influence on birth weight in cattle as expressed above is in both qualitative and quantitative agreement with the maternal influence as derived from egg transfer studies in sheep.

It is a pleasure to record the authors' heavy obligations to many friends for help during the course of this long experiment. The Milk Marketing Board, in the persons of Dr J. Edwards, C.B.E., Mr T. O'Sullivan, and their colleagues at the A.I. centres made the breeding programme possible. Much time has been saved and much statistical computation cut short by the help afforded us at the Rothamsted Statistical Department by Dr F. Yates and his staff, particularly Mr J. H. A. Dunwoody. Responsibility for the animals on the farms fell at first upon Mr W. S. Biggar, and from 1950 upon Mr J. S. Tavernor. They were aided by many of whom mention must be made of Mr H. L. Williams, Mr R. Pringle and Mr R. Simpson. In the preparation of this paper the authors have been much influenced by the work and criticism of their colleagues.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Agricultural Science , Volume 58 , Issue 3 , June 1962 , pp. 405 - 412
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1962

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

Arnold, P. T. D. & Becker, R. B. (1953). Bull. Fla. Agric. Exp. Sta. no. 529, 23 pp.Google Scholar
Attriol, P., Dumont, B.-L., Lefebvre, J. & Duplan, J.-M. (1961). Sommaire: Syndicat de Contrôle de Performances des Élevages Nivernais.Google Scholar
Brandt, G. W. (1958). Diss. Abstr. 19, 643.Google Scholar
Brekke, T. (1941). Tidskr. norske Landbr. 48; (2). Abstract in Züchtungskunde (1942). 17, 205.Google Scholar
Burris, M. J. & Blunn, C. T. (1952). J. Anim. Sci. 11, 34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cox, D. F., Legates, J. E. & Cockerham, C. C. (1959). J. Anim. Sci. 18, 519.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davis, H. P., Plum, M. & Brost, B. (1954). J. Dairy Sci. 37, 162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dickinson, A. G. (1960). J. Agric. Sci. 54, 378.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dickinson, A. G. (1961). Anim. Prod. 3, 301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dickinson, A. G., Hancock, J. L., Hovell, G. J. R., Taylor, St C. S. & Wiener, G. (1962). Anim. Prod. 4, 64.Google Scholar
Dinkhauser, F., Trampen, K. & Bergmann, H. (1944). Züchtungskunde, 19, 23.Google Scholar
Donald, H. P. (1943). Vet. Rec. 55, 297.Google Scholar
Flade, J. E. (1958). Arch. Tierz. 1, 35.Google Scholar
Foote, W. D., Tyler, W. J. & Casida, L. E. (1959). J. Dairy Sci. 42, 305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gerlaugh, P., Kunkle, L. E. & Rife, D. C. (1951). Bull. Ohio Agric. Exp. Sta. no. 703, 33 pp.Google Scholar
Hollander, W. F. (1960). J. Cell. Comp. Phys. 56, 61. (Suppl. 1).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hunter, G. L. (1956). J. Agric. Sci. 48, 36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Joubert, D. M. (1959). S. Afr. J. Sci. 55, 192.Google Scholar
Joubert, D. M. & Bonsma, F. N. (1957). Bull. S. Afr. Dept. Agric. Sci. no. 371.Google Scholar
Joubert, D. M. & Bonsma, J. C. (1959). S. Afr. J. Agric. Sci. 2, 215.Google Scholar
Joubert, D. M. & Hammond, J. (1958). J. Agric. Sci. 51, 325.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Knapp, B. (Jr)., Baker, A. L., Quesenberby, J. R. & Clarke, R. T. (1942). Bull. Mont. Agric. Exp. Sta. no. 400.Google Scholar
Knapp, B. (Jr)., Lambert, W. V. & Black, W. H. (1940). J. Agric. Res. 61, 277.Google Scholar
Koch, R. M. & Clarke, R. T. (1955 a). J. Anim. Sci. 14, 775.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Koch, R. M. & Clarke, R. T. (1955 b). J. Anim. Sci. 14, 786.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Koch, R. M. & Clarke, R. T. (1955 c). J. Anim. Sci. 14, 979.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Koch, R. M., Gregory, K. E., Ingalls, J. E. & Arthaud, R. L. (1959). J. Anim. Sci. 18, 738.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Low, D. (1842). The Breeds of the Domestic Animals of the British Isles. Vol. 1: The Horse and the Ox. London: Longman, Orme, Brown, Green and Longman.Google Scholar
Mascal, L. (1662). The Government of Cattel. London.Google Scholar
McDowell, R. E., Fletcher, J. L. & Johnson, J. C. (1959). J. Anim. Sci. 18, 1430.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reynolds, W. L., Koger, M., Kirk, W. G. & Peacock, F. M. (1959). J. Anim. Sci. 18, 1467 (abstract).Google Scholar
Thompson, D'A. W. (1942). On Growth and Form. New Ed. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Touchberry, R. W. & Tabler, K. A. (1952). J. Dairy Sci. 35, 498 (abstract).Google Scholar
Tyler, W. J., Chapman, A. B. & Dickerson, G. E. (1947). J. Dairy Sci. 30, 483.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Venge, O. (1950). Acta. zool. Stockh. 31, 1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Walton, A. & Hammond, J. (1938). Proc. Roy. Soc. B, 125, 311.Google Scholar
Woodward, R. R., Clark, R. T. & Cummings, J. N. (1947). Bull. Mont. Agric. Exp. Sta. no. 401.Google Scholar