Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-8ctnn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T07:22:56.026Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

527. A study of variation in twin cattle: II. Fertility

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 June 2009

H. P. Donald  and
D. Anderson
H. P. Donald
Affiliation:
The Agricultural Research Council, Animal Breeding Research Organization, Edinburgh
D. Anderson
Affiliation:
The Agricultural Research Council, Animal Breeding Research Organization, Edinburgh
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

1. Results from a uniformity trial with fifteen pairs each of one-egg and two-egg twins and pairs of half-sibs are described.

2. Intra-pair variance in age at the first observed heat was less for the one-egg than for the other pairs but not significantly so. The slowest growing pairs showed delay in onset of heat.

3. 71·8% of the intervals between heats shown by unserved heifers were 17–27 days in length. No genetic variation and no individuality could be detected in either this character or the number of services per conception.

4. The variance in the gestation period was less within the one-egg than within the other pairs but not significantly so.

Type
Original Articles
Information
Journal of Dairy Research , Volume 20 , Issue 3 , October 1953 , pp. 361 - 369
Copyright
Copyright © Proprietors of Journal of Dairy Research 1953

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

(1)Asdell, S. A. (1946). Patterns of Mammalian Reproduction. London: Constable.Google Scholar
(2)Asdell, S. A. (1952). Vet. Rec. 51, 831–3.Google Scholar
(3)Bentley, O. G. & Phillips, P. H. (1951). J. Dairy Sci. 34, 396–403.Google Scholar
(4)Bravel, W. J., Rife, D. C. & Salisbury, S. M. (1952). J. Dairy Sci. 35, 179–194.Google Scholar
(5)Chapman, A. B. & Casida, L. E. (1937). J. Agric. Res. 54, 417–35.Google Scholar
(6)Dempster, E. R. & Robertson, A. (Personal communication).Google Scholar
(7)Donald, H. P. (1943). Vet. Rec. 55, 297Google Scholar
(8)Donald, H. P. (1953). J. Dairy Res. 20, 355Google Scholar
(9)Duckworth, J. (1949). Emp. J. Exp. Agric. 17, 23–27.Google Scholar
(10)Dziux, P. J., Hervey, M. C., Brundage, A. L. & Donker, J. D. (1952). J. Anim. Sci. 11, 740 (Abstr.).Google Scholar
(11)Hammond, J. & Marshall, F. H. A. (1952). Ch. 23, Marshall's Physiology of Reproduction, 3rd ed. vol. 2. London: Longmans Green and Co.Google Scholar
(12)Jafar, S. M., Chapman, A. B. & Casida, L. E. (1950). J. Anim. Sci. 9, 593–601.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(13)Masuda, S., Onishi, N. & Kudo, A. (1950). Res. Bull, zootech. Exp. Sta. no. 56. [Abstr. in Anim. Breed. Abstr. 19, 639]Google Scholar
(14)Quinlan, J., Roux, L. L. & Aswegen, W. G. van (1939). Onderstepoort J. vet. Sci. 12, 233–249.Google Scholar
(15)Wheat, J. D. & Riggs, J. K. (1952). J. Hered. 43, 99–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(16)Wille, R. (1944). Berl. Münch. tierärztl. Wschr./Wien tierärztl. Mschr. 1–3. [Abstr. in Anim. Breed. Abstr. 12, 196]Google Scholar
(17)Young, G. B. (1953). Vet. Rec. 65, 271Google Scholar