Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-fscjk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T05:34:59.123Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Water content and turnover of identical twin Bos indicus and B. taurus in Kenya

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 March 2009

W. V. Macfarlane  and
B. Howard
W. V. Macfarlane
Affiliation:
Waite Agricultural Research Institute, Glen Osmond, South Australia
B. Howard
Affiliation:
Waite Agricultural Research Institute, Glen Osmond, South Australia
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The water content and turnover of six pairs of identical twin cattle were measured in the Kenya highlands. Three pairs were stall fed, and one twin of each pair received water daily. Their water turnover averaged 14.21./24 hr. while the others watered each 4 days had an average turnover of 12.41./24 hr. These stall-fed animals used 74-132 ml./kg.0.82/ 24 hr., about one-third the water turned over by grazing cattle (261-364 ml./kg.0.82/24 hr.). There was little relationship between estimates of water intake measured from the trough and that derived from tritium dilution.

Members of each grazing pair differed in weight by an average of 4.2% and their total body water by 5.9%, whereas the water turnover differed by only 2.2% amongst the twin pairs.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Agricultural Science , Volume 66 , Issue 3 , June 1966 , pp. 297 - 302
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1966

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

Adolph, E. F. (1949). Science, 109, 579.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bowler, R. B. (1944). Biochem. J. 38, 385.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ferguson, K. A. & Dowling, D. F. (1955). Auat. J. Agric. Res. 6, 640.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Garrett, W. N., Meyer, J. H. & Lofgreen, S. P. (1959). J. Anim. Sci. 18, 116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Knapp, B. J. & Robinson, K. W. (1954). Aust. J. Agric. Res. 5, 568.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ledger, H. T. (1963). Personal communication.Google Scholar
Macfarlane, W. V. (1964). Handbook of Physiology-Environment, 4, 509. American Physiological Society, Washington D.C.Google Scholar
Macfarlane, W. V., Morris, R. J. H. & Howard, B. (1963). Nature, Lond., 197, 270.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Macfarlane, W. V., Morris, R. J. H., Howard, Beth, McDonald, Janet & Btotz-Olsen, O. E. (1961). Aust. J. Agric. Res. 12, 889.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morris, R. J. H., Howard, Beth & Macfarlane, W. V. (1962). Aust. J. Agric. Res. 13, 320.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Payne, W. J. A. & Hancock, J. (1957). Emp. J. Exp. Agric. 25, 321.Google Scholar
Payne, W. J. A. & Hutchinson, H. G. (1963). J. Agric. Sci. 61, 255.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Phillips, G. D. (1961). Res. Vet. Sci. 2, 202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Richmond, C. R., Langham, W. H. & Trujillo, T. T. (1962). J. Cell. Comp. Physiol. 59, 45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vaughan, B. E. & Boling, E. A. (1961). J. Lab. Clin. Med. 57, 159.Google Scholar