Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-mkpzs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T05:43:47.905Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Studies on the production of beef from zebu cattle in East Africa II. Milk production in suckled cows and its effect on calf growth

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 March 2009

K. Lampkin  and
G. H. Lampkin
K. Lampkin
Affiliation:
East African Veterinary Research Organization, Muguga, Kenya
G. H. Lampkin
Affiliation:
East African Veterinary Research Organization, Muguga, Kenya
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

1. The estimation of milk yield in a herd of suckled zebu cattle has been described.

2. Milk yield was found to be relatively stable when compared with weight at calving and subsequent live-weight change.

3. Under constant conditions, there was a negative correlation between milk yield and live-weight change in the cows, compared with a positive correlation when both characters were affected by seasonal changes.

4. Variation in milk yield was reflected in the growth rate of the calves, but considerably greater quantities of milk were required to increase growth without the aid of extra grass.

5. It was concluded that, under the present conditions, calf growth rate could be increased more efficiently by the improvement of nutrition than by selection for high milk yield in the dams.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Agricultural Science , Volume 55 , Issue 2 , October 1960 , pp. 233 - 239
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1960

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

Barnicoat, C. K., Logan, A. G. & Grant, A. I. (1949 a). J. Agric. Sci. 39, 44.Google Scholar
Barnicoat, C. R., Logan, A. G. & Grant, A. I. (1949 b). J. Agric. Sci. 39, 237.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barnicoat, C. R., Murray, P. F., Roberts, E. M. & Wilson, G. S. (1956). J. Agric. Sci. 48, 9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bonsma, F. N. (1939). Publ. Univ. Pretoria Agric. no. 48.Google Scholar
Bonsma, F. K. & Oosthuizen, P. M. (1935). S. Afr. J. Sci. 32, 360.Google Scholar
Gifford, W. (1949). J. Anim. Sci. 8, 605.Google Scholar
Hunter, G. L. (1956). J. Agric. Sci. 48, 36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
King, J. W. B. (1953). Proc. Brit. Soc. Anim. Prod. p. 76.Google Scholar
Knapp, B. (Jr). & Black, W. H. (1941). J. Agric. Res. 63, 249.Google Scholar
Konkoly, Th. S. & Bárczy, G. (1954). Allattenyésztés, 3, 5. Abstracted in Anim. Breed. Abstr. 23, 135, 1955.Google Scholar
Lampkin, G. H. & Lampkin, K. (1960). J. Agric. Sci. 55, 229.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nelms, G. E. & Bogart, R. (1956). J. Anim. Sci. 15, 662.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shrewsbury, C. L., Harper, C., Andrews, F. N. & Zelle, M. R. (1942). J. Anim. Sci. 1, 126.Google Scholar
Smith, A. D. Buchanan & Donald, H. P. (1937). J. Agric. Sci. 27, 485.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Snedecor, G. W. (1946). Statistical Methods. Iowa State College Press: Ames, Iowa, U.S.A.Google ScholarPubMed