Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t8hqh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T15:35:08.608Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Analysis of body measurements of newborn purebred Belgian Blue calves

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 December 2009

I. Kolkman ,
G. Opsomer ,
S. Aerts ,
G. Hoflack ,
H. Laevens  and
D. Lips
I. Kolkman*
Affiliation:
Department of Agro- and Biotechnology, KaHo Sint-Lieven, Hospitaalstraat 23, B-9100 Sint Niklaas, Belgium Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Department of Reproduction, Obstetrics and Herd Health, Ghent University, Salisburylaan 133, B-9820 Merelbeke, Belgium
G. Opsomer
Affiliation:
Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Department of Reproduction, Obstetrics and Herd Health, Ghent University, Salisburylaan 133, B-9820 Merelbeke, Belgium
S. Aerts
Affiliation:
Department of Agro- and Biotechnology, KaHo Sint-Lieven, Hospitaalstraat 23, B-9100 Sint Niklaas, Belgium
G. Hoflack
Affiliation:
Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Department of Reproduction, Obstetrics and Herd Health, Ghent University, Salisburylaan 133, B-9820 Merelbeke, Belgium
H. Laevens
Affiliation:
Department of Agro- and Biotechnology, KaHo Sint-Lieven, Hospitaalstraat 23, B-9100 Sint Niklaas, Belgium
D. Lips
Affiliation:
Department of Agro- and Biotechnology, KaHo Sint-Lieven, Hospitaalstraat 23, B-9100 Sint Niklaas, Belgium
*
†E-mail: [email protected]; [email protected]
Get access

Abstract

At calving, purebred animals of the Belgian Blue (BB) breed are compromised by the incompatibility in size and shape of the dam and her calf, resulting in a very high incidence of dystocia problems. To clarify which body parts of the calf are of decisive importance to allow natural delivery and to investigate both the mean value as well as the variation among these body sizes within this breed (variation being an important condition for selection), measurements of nine body parts (body weight at birth (BW), body length (BL), length of the head (LH), shoulder width (SW), hip width (HW), heart girth (HG), withers height (WH) and the circumference of the fetlock of both the front (CFF) and the hind leg (CFH)) were assessed in 147 newborn purebred BB calves on 17 farms. Simple and partial correlations were assessed and we examined whether environmental factors (gender of the calf, parity of the cow, type of calving, season of birth and time of measurement after birth) were significantly associated with these specific calf measurements. The mean BW was 49.2 ± 7.1 kg. The average BL was 56.4 ± 4.5 cm and the mean LH was 24.4 ± 2.3 cm. Measurements obtained for SW and HW were 22.4 ± 2.2 and 22.9 ± 2.1 cm, respectively, whereas the mean WH was 71.1 ± 4.7 cm. Measurements of circumferences revealed a CFF of 17.9 ± 1.1 cm, a CFH of 18.0 ± 1.0 cm and a mean HG of 78.0 ± 5.4 cm. Partial correlations of the BW with eight body measurements were significant (P < 0.01) and ranged between 0.17 and 0.85; 0.42 and 0.88; and 0.24 and 0.88 when corrected for gender, parity and type of calving, respectively. BL (P < 0.01) and the CFF and CFH (P < 0.001) are larger in bull calves than in heifer calves. Calves born through caesarean section had broader SW (P < 0.01) and HW (P < 0.01) when compared with calves born after natural calving (defined as born per vaginam without assistance or with slight traction). Sizes of calves born out of multiparous cows were generally larger than of calves born out of heifers (SW: P < 0.001; HW: P < 0.05). As SW and HW are the broadest points of a BB calf, they are both candidates for being the limiting measures for calving ease, but the difference between HW and SW for the total data set was not different from zero (P > 0.05). In contrast to male calves in which no significant difference (between HW and SW) could be found, female calves show the difference between HW and SW that was significantly different from zero (P < 0.001); thus, in female calves, the HW is the most limiting factor of the calf’s body. The significant variation in some body measures between the calves and the strong correlation within these sizes raises the possibility of selection towards smaller calves aiming to limit the dystocia problem in the BB breed. Furthermore, on the basis of our results, we were able to build equations for the farmer to use at the moment of calving containing the LH, the CF and the calf’s gender to estimate SW and HW, the limiting body parts of the calf to be born naturally. Together with the knowledge of the pelvic size of the dam, this information gives the obstetrician or the farmer a more accurate prediction of the probability of natural calving at parturition.

Keywords

Belgian Blue calves, body measurements, calving ability
Type
Full Paper
Information
animal , Volume 4 , Issue 5 , May 2010 , pp. 661 - 671
Copyright
Copyright © The Animal Consortium 2009

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

Anderson, P 1990. Minimizing calving difficulty in beef cattle. Proceedings Minnesota Beef Cattle Improvement, Association Annual Beef Cattle Conference, MN, USA, 21, 1–15.Google Scholar
Anderson, LH, Bullock, KD 2000. Pelvic measurements and calving difficulty. Cooperative Extension Service Bulletin, University of Kentucky, KY, USA, 1–3.Google Scholar
Arthur, PF, Makarechian, M, Price, MA 1988. Incidence of dystocia and perinatal calf mortality resulting from reciprocal crossing of double-muscled and normal cattle. The Canadian Veterinarian Journal 29, 163–167.Google ScholarPubMed
Bellows, RA, Gibson, RB, Anderson, DC, Short, RE 1971a. Precalving body size and pelvic area relationships in Hereford heifers. Journal of Animal Science 33, 455–457.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bellows, RA, Short, RE 1978. Effects of precalving feed level on birth weight, calving difficulty and subsequent fertility. Journal of Animal Science 46, 1522–1528.Google Scholar
Bellows, RA, Short, RE, Anderson, DC, Knapp, BW, Pahnish, OF 1971b. Cause and effect relationships associated with calving difficulty and calf birth weight. Journal of Animal Science 33, 407–415.Google Scholar
Berger, PJ, Cubas, AC, Koehler, KJ, Healey, MH 1992. Factors affecting dystocia and early calf mortality in Angus cows and heifers. Journal of Animal Science 70, 1775–1786.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Berry, DP, Lee, JM, MacDonald, KA, Roche, JR 2007. Body condition score and body weight effects on dystocia and stillbirths and consequent effects on postcalving performance. Journal of Dairy Science 90, 4201–4211.Google Scholar
Brinks, JS, Olson, JE, Carroll, EJ 1973. Calving difficulty and its association with subsequent productivity in Herefords. Journal of Animal Science 36, 11–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burfening, PJ, Kress, DD, Friedrich, RL, Vaniman, DD 1978a. Phenotypic and genetic relationships between calving ease; gestation length, birth weight and preweaning growth. Journal of Animal Science 47, 595–600.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burfening, PJ, Kress, DD, Friedrich, RL, Vaniman, DD 1978b. Calving ease and growth rate of Simmental-sired calves. I. Factors affecting calving ease and growth rate. Journal of Animal Science 46, 922–929.Google Scholar
Casas, E, Keele, JW, Fahrenkrug, SC, Smith, TPL, Cundiff, LV, Stone, RT 1999. Quantitative analysis of birth, weaning, and yearling weights and calving difficulty in Piedmontese Crossbreds segregating an inactive myostatine allele. Journal of Animal Science 77, 1686–1692.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Colburn, D, Deutscher, G, Nielsen, M, Adams, D, Olson, P 1997. Effects of sire EPD, dam traits and calf traits on calving difficulty and subsequent reproduction of two-year-old heifers. Nebraska Beef Cattle Report, Lincoln, CA, USA, 20–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Colburn, D, Deutscher, G, Olson, P 1996. Winter temperatures may affect calf birth weights. Nebraska Beef Cattle Report, Lincoln, CA, USA, 23–25.Google Scholar
Coopman, F, Gengler, N, Groen, AF, de Smet, S, Van Zeveren, A 2004. Comparison of external morphological traits of newborns to inner morphological traits of the dam in the double muscled Belgian Blue Beef Breed. Journal of Animal Breeding Genetics 121, 128–134.Google Scholar
Dawson, WM, Phillips, RW, Black, WH 1947. Birth weight as a criterion of selection in beef cattle. Journal of Animal Science 6, 247–257.Google Scholar
Deutscher, GH, Colburn, D, Davis, R 1999. Climate affects birth weight and calving difficulty. Nebraska Beef Cattle Report, Lincoln, CA, USA, 7–9.Google Scholar
Echternkamp, SE 1993. Relationship between placental development and calf birth weight in beef cattle. Animal Reproduction Science 32, 1–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fiems, LO, de Campeneere, S, van Caelenbergh, W, Boucqué, ChW 2001. Relationship between dam and calf characteristics with regard to dystocia in Belgian Blue double-muscled cows. Animal Science 72, 389–394.Google Scholar
Freking, B 2000. Heifer Management. Beef Progress Report-1. Kerr Center for sustainable Agriculture, OK, USA, 1–9.Google Scholar
Grobet, L, Poncelet, D, Royo Martin, LJ, Brouwers, B, Pirottin, D, Michaux, C, Ménissier, F, Zanotti, M, Dunner, S, Georges, M 1998. Molecular definition of an allelic series of mutations disrupting the myostatin function and causing double muscling in cattle. Mammalian Genome 9, 210–213.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Grobet, L, Royo Martin, LJ, Poncelet, D, Pirottin, D, Brouwers, B, Riquet, J, Schoeberlein, A, Dunner, S, Ménissier, F, Massabanda, J, Fries, R, Hanset, R, Georges, M 1997. A deletion in the myostatin gene causes double muscling in cattle. Nature Genetics 17, 71–74.Google Scholar
Hanset, R 2004. Genetisch trends in witblauw: toename van bespiering, maar verlies aan gestalte gaat onverminderd door. VeeteeltVlees 6, 18–19.Google Scholar
Hanset, R 2005. Evolutie vleesproductiekenmerken: trendanalyse in BWB wijst op constante toename uitval. VeeteeltVlees 1, 26–27.Google Scholar
Herd Book Blanc Bleu Belge (HBBBB) 2008. Functional and zootechnical indexes (1st and 2nd visits) and Linear score. Retrieved from http://www.hbbbb.be/pdf/publication_index_2008_site.pdfGoogle Scholar
Hindson, JC 1978. Quantification of obstetric traction. The Veterinary Record 15, 327–332.Google Scholar
Houghton, PL, Corah, LR 1989. Calving difficulty in beef cattle: a review. Cooperative Extension Service Kansas State University, Manhattan, Kansas State, 1–9. http://www.oznet.ksu.eduGoogle Scholar
Johanson, JM, Berger, PJ 2003. Birth weight as a predictor of calving ease and perinatal mortality in Holstein cattle. Journal of Dairy Science 86, 3745–3755.Google Scholar
Kambadur, R, Sharma, M, Smith, TPL, Bass, JJ 1997. Mutations in myostatin (GDF8) in double muscled Belgian Blue Cattle. Genome Research 7, 910–916.Google Scholar
Karim, L, Coppieters, W, Grobet, L, Valentini, A, Georges, M 2000. Convenient genotyping of six myostatin mutations causing double muscling in cattle using a multiplex oligonucleotide ligation assay. Animal Genetics 31, 369–399.Google Scholar
Kolkman, I, De Vliegher, S, Hoflack, G, Van Aert, M, Laureyns, J, Lips, D, de Kruif, A, Opsomer, G 2007. Protocol of the caesarean section as performed in daily bovine practice in Belgium. Reproduction of Domestic Animals 42, 583–589.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Laster, DB 1974. Factors affecting pelvic size and dystocia in beef cattle. Journal of Animal Science 38, 496–503.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Laster, DB, Glimp, HA, Cundiff, LV, Gregory, KE 1973. Factors affecting dystocia and the effects of dystocia on subsequent reproduction in beef cattle. Journal of Animal Science 36, 695–705.Google Scholar
McGuirk, BJ, Going, I, Gilmour, AR 1998. The genetic evaluation of beef sires used for crossing with dairy cows in the UK. 2. Genetic parameters and sire merit predictions for calving survey traits. Animal Science 66, 47–54.Google Scholar
McPherron, AC, Lee, SJ 1997. Double muscling in cattle due to mutations in the myostatin gene. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA 94, 12457–12461.Google Scholar
Mee, JF 2008. Prevalence and risk factors for dystocia in dairy cattle: A review. The Veterinary Journal 176, 93–101.Google Scholar
Meijering, A 1984. Dystocia and stillbirth in cattle: a review of causes, relations and implications. Livestock Production Science 11, 143–177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ménissier, F, Foulley, JL 1979. Present situation of calving problems in the EEC: Incidence of calving difficulties and early calf mortality in beef herds. In Calving Problems and Early Viability of the Calf (ed. B Hofmann, IL Mason and J Schmidt), pp. 30–85. Martinus Nijhoff, The Hague, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
Morrison, DG, Humes, PE, Keith, NK, Godke, RA 1985. Discriminant analysis for predicting dystocia in beef cattle. I. Comparison with regression analysis. Journal of Animal Science 60, 608–616.Google Scholar
Nelson, LA, Beavers, GD 1982. Beef × beef and dairy × beef females mated to Angus and Charalois sires. I. Pregnancy rate, dystocia and birth weight. Journal of Animal Science 54, 1138–1149.Google Scholar
Norman, HD, Wright, JR, Kuhn, MT, Hubbard, SM, Cole, JB, VanRaden, PM 2009. Genetic and environmental factors that affect gestation length in dairy cattle. Journal of Diary Science 92, 2259–2269.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Olivier, WM, Cartwright, TC 1968. Double muscling in cattle, a review of expression, genetics and economic implication. Technical Report 12, Department of Animal Science, Texas A&M University, TX, USA.Google Scholar
Thomson, DB, Wiltbank, JN 1983. Dystocia in relationship to size and shape of pelvic opening in Holstein heifers. Theriogenology 20, 683–692.Google Scholar
Wang, Y, Miller, SP, Wilton, JW, Sullivan, P, Banks, LR 2000. The relationship between birth weight and calving ease in a beef herd. Ontario Beef Research Update 14–17.Google Scholar
West, HJ 1997. Dimensions and weight of Belgian Blue and crossbred calves and the pelvic size of the dam. The Veterinary Journal 153, 225–228.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wilson, TW, Rossi, J 2006. Factors affecting calving difficulty. Bulletin 943 Cooperative Extension, University of Georgia, GA, USA, 1–4.Google Scholar
Zollinger, B, Hansen, D 2003. Calving school handbook. Animal Sciences Publication 110, 13–22.Google Scholar