Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-s2hrs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-03T05:39:27.895Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Studies on the production of beef from zebu cattle in East Africa IV. Variation in blood haemoglobin and its response to the feeding of dicalcium phosphate

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 March 2009

K. Lampkin  and
D. A. Howard
K. Lampkin
Affiliation:
East African Veterinary Research Organization, Muguga, P.O. Box 32, Kikuyu, Kenya
D. A. Howard
Affiliation:
Department of Veterinary Services, P.O. Kabete, Kenya
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Lactating Boran type zebu cows had high haemoglobin levels during the week after calving, after which these levels dropped sharply and then continued to decline more gradually until their calves were weaned. Some recovery was made during the subsequent dry period.

Cows fed 1 oz. dicalcium phosphate daily were constantly lower in blood haemoglobin level than their controls, and significantly so between the 14th and 20th weeks of the lactation. No differences were observed in weekly weight changes or in estimated milk yields.

Calf haemoglobins decreased gradually with age until relatively adult levels were reached at about a year of age. Initial content during the week of birth was lower than at a few weeks old. There was no difference in the blood haemoglobins of calves suckling on treated and untreated cows.

Individual variation was high in all groups. Some implications of seasonal effects and altitude are discussed.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Agricultural Science , Volume 59 , Issue 2 , October 1962 , pp. 245 - 249
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

Allcroft, W. M. (1941). J. Agric. Sci. 31, 320.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burdin, M. L. & Howard, D. A. (1955). Unpublished data.Google Scholar
Duckworth, J. & Rattray, G. B. (1948). Emp. J. Exp. Agric. 16, 14.Google Scholar
Gonzaga, A. C. (1939). Philipp. J. Anim. Ind. 6, 353.Google Scholar
Gourlay, R. N. (1959). Brit. Vet. J. 115, 277.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Greig, W. A. (1952). Brit. J. Nutrit. 6, 280.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Greig, W. A. (1960). Vet. Rec. 72, 1149.Google Scholar
Holman, H. H. (1944). J. Comp. Path. 54, 26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holman, H. H. (1955). Brit. Vet. J. 111, 440.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lampkin, G. H., Horrocks, D. & Robebtshaw, M. J. (1961). Unpublished data.Google Scholar
Lampkin, G. H., Howabd, D. A. & Burdin, M. L. (1961). J. Agric. Sci. 57, 39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lampkin, G. H. & Lampkin, K. (1960). J. Agric. Sci. 55, 229.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mullick, D. N. & Pal, A. K. (1943). Indian J. Vet. Sci. 13, 146.Google Scholar
Murty, V. N. & Kehar, N. D. (1952). Indian J. Vet. Sci. 22, 251.Google Scholar
Walker, C. A. (1958). J. Agric. Sci. 51, 119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar