Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-8bhkd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T14:32:08.676Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Some maternal factors associated with dystocia in Belgian Blue cattle

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 August 2016

R. D. Murray ,
T. A. Cartwright ,
D. Y. Downham  and
M. A. Murray
R. D. Murray
Affiliation:
Department of Veterinary Clinical Science and Animal Husbandry, University of Liverpool Veterinary Field Station, Leahurst, Nestori CH64 7TE
T. A. Cartwright
Affiliation:
Department of Veterinary Clinical Science and Animal Husbandry, University of Liverpool Veterinary Field Station, Leahurst, Nestori CH64 7TE
D. Y. Downham
Affiliation:
Mathematical Sciences, University of Liverpool, Liverpool L69 3BX
M. A. Murray
Affiliation:
132, Nezvbattle Abbey Crescent, Eskbank, Midlothian EH22 3LP
Get access

Abstract

Measurements of conformation and pelvic characteristics of pedigree Belgian Blue cows were compared in cattle from 11 herds. In seven herds comprising 56 cows caesarean sections were routinely used to deliver pedigree calves and in four herds comprising 52 cows they were given the opportunity to calve naturally per vaginum. Cows in the seven herds were approximately 10 months younger than those in the other herds. External pelvic measurements were linear distances between the tuber coxae, between the tuber coxarum and the tuber ischium, between the tuber ischii, the vertical distance between the underside of the tail and the tuber ischii, and heights of the tuber coxae and tuber ischii from the floor. Internal pelvic measurements were the vertical distance between the ventral body of the sacrum and the pubic symphysis and the horizontal distance between the wings of the ileum at the widest point of the pelvic inlet, both made with a Rice pelvimeter. Condition scores were assessed for all cows. There were correlations (P < 0·001) between internal pelvic height and width, external measurements, and age. For cattle that calved unassisted, pelvic height (P < 0·05) and area (P < 0·05) were significantly larger than those delivered by elective caesarean section. From internal pelvic measurements of 74 cows, those which always delivered live calves had a larger pelvic area (P < 0·01) than cows that delivered a dead foetus following any parturition.

Keywords

animal welfareBelgian Bluedystociapelvic measurements
Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Science , Volume 69 , Issue 1 , August 1999 , pp. 105 - 113
Copyright
Copyright © British Society of Animal Science 1999

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

Ali, T. E., Burnside, E. B. and Schaeffer, L. R. 1984. Relationship between external body measurements and calving difficulties in Canadian Holstein Friesian Cattle. Journal of Dairy Science 67: 3034–3044.Google ScholarPubMed
Allen, D. 1990. Suckled calf production. In Planned beef production and marketing, pp. 188–218. Blackwell Scientific Publications Ltd, Osney Mead, Oxford.Google Scholar
Anderson, K. J., Brinks, J. S., Lefever, D. G. and Odde, K. G. 1993. The factors associated with dystocia in cattle. Veterinary Medicine 88: 764–776.Google Scholar
Arthur, P. F., Makarechian, M. and Price, M. A. 1988. Incidence of dystocia and perinatal calf mortality resulting from reciprocal crossing of double-muscled and normal cattle. Canadian Veterinary Journal 29: 163–167.Google ScholarPubMed
Basarab, J. A., Rutter, L. M. and Day, P. A. 1993. The efficacy of predicting dystocia in yearling beef heifers. I. Using ratios of pelvic area to birthweight or pelvic area to heifer weight. Journal of Animal Science 71: 1359–1371.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Belcher, D. R. and Frahm, R. R. 1979. Effect of pelvic size on calving difficulty in percentage Limousin heifers. Journal of Animal Science 49: (supplement 1) 152.Google Scholar
Bellows, R. A., Gibson, R. B., Anderson, D. C. and Short, R. E. 1971. Precalving body size and pelvic area relationships in Hereford heifers. Journal of Animal Science 33: 455–457.Google ScholarPubMed
Cook, K. 1985. Dystocia in pure and cross bred cattle. Proceedings of the British Cattle Veterinary Association 1984/85, pp. 123–126. British Cattle Veterinary Association, Frampton-on-Severn, UK.Google Scholar
Deutscher, G. H. 1985. Using pelvic measurements to reduce dystocia in heifers. Modern Veterinary Practice 66: 751–755.Google Scholar
Hanset, R. and Jandrain, M. 1979. Selection for double-muscling and calving problems. In Calving problems and early viability of the calf (ed. Hoffman, B., Mason, I. L. and Schmidt, J.), pp. 91–104. Martinus Nijhoff, the Hague, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
Johnson, S. K., Deutscher, G. H. and Parkhurst, A. 1987. Relationships of pelvic structure, body measurements, pelvic area and calving difficulty. Journal of Animal Science 66: 1081–1088.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Laster, D. B. 1974. Factors affecting pelvic size and dystocia in beef cattle. Journal of Animal Science 38: 496–503.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
MacNeil, M. D. 1988. Consequences of selection for growth and tissue development on maternal qualities. In Third world congress of sheep and beef cattle breeding, June 19-23, Paris, volume 1, pp. 415–435. Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique, Paris.Google Scholar
Menissier, F. and Foulley, J. L. 1979. Present situation of calving problems in E.E.C.: incidence of calving difficulties and early calf mortality in beef herds. In Calving problems and early viability of the calf (ed. Hoffman, B., Mason, I. L. and Schmidt, J.), pp. 30–85. Martinus Nijhoff, The Hague, The Netherlands.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morrison, D. G., Williamson, W. D. and Humes, P. E. 1986. Estimates of heritabilities and correlations of traits associated with pelvic area in beef cattle. Journal of Animal Science 63: 432–437.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Murray, R. D. and Ward, W. R. 1993. Welfare implications of modern artificial breeding techniques for dairy cattle and sheep. Veterinary Record 133: 283–286.Google ScholarPubMed
Nie, N., Bent, D. H. and Hadlai Hull, C. 1970. SPSS: statistical package for the social sciences. McGraw-Hill Book Company (UK) Ltd, London.Google Scholar
Price, T. D. and Wiltbank, J. N. 1978. Dystocia in cattle. A review and implications. Theriogenology 9: 195–219.Google Scholar
Rice, L. E. and Wiltbank, J. N. 1972. Factors affecting dystocia in beef heifers. Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association 161: 1348–1358.Google ScholarPubMed
Rutter, L. M., Ray, D. E. and Roubíček, C.B. 1983. Factors affecting dystocia in Charoláis heifers. Journal of Animal Science 57: 1077–1083.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Schwabe, A. E. 1985. Prevalence of dystocia in different breeds and its relationship to pelvic dimension. In Proceedings of the British Cattle Veterinary Association 1984/85, pp. 113–119. British Cattle Veterinary Association, Frampton-on-Severn, UK.Google Scholar
Schwabe, A. E. and Hall, S. J. G. 1989. Dystocia in nine British breeds of cattle and its relationship to the dimensions of the dam and calf. Veterinary Record 125: 636–639.Google Scholar
Short, R. E., Bellows, R. A., Staigmiller, R. B. and Carr, J. B. 1979. Multiple linear and non-linear regression analyses of factors causing calving difficulty. Theriogenology 12: 121–130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sieber, M., Freeman, A. E. and Kelley, D. H. 1989. Effects of body measurements and weight on calf size and calving difficulty of Holsteins. Journal of Dairy Science 72: 2402–2410.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sutherland, C. D. 1985. Veterinary considerations relative to the parturition of Belgian Blue cattle and their crosses. In Proceedings of the British Cattle Veterinary Association 1984/85, pp. 127–131. British Cattle Veterinary Association, Frampton-on-Severn, UK.Google Scholar
Van Donkersgoed, J. 1992. A critical analysis of pelvic measurements and dystocia in beef heifers. Compendium on Continuing Education for the Practicing Veterinarian: Food Animal Practice 14: 405–409.Google Scholar
Van Donkersgoed, J., Ribble, C. S., Booker, C. W., McCartney, D. and Janzen, E. D. 1993. The predictive value of pelvimetry on beef cattle. Canadian Journal of Veterinary Research 57: 170–175.Google ScholarPubMed
Van Donkersgoed, J., Ribble, C.S., Townsend, H. G. G. and Janzen, E. D. 1990. The usefulness of pelvic area measurements as an on-farm test for predicting calving difficulty in beef heifers. Canadian Veterinary Journal 31: 190–193.Google ScholarPubMed
Weiss, N. and Hassett, M. 1987. Nonparametric statistics. In Introductory statistics, second edition, pp. 596–645. Addison-Wesley Publishing Company, Reading, Massachusetts, USA.Google Scholar