Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-jbqgn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-27T09:28:22.987Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Puberty in the buffalo-cow

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 March 2009

E. S. E. Hafez
E. S. E. Hafez
Affiliation:
Faculty of Agriculture, University of Cairo, Egypt
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Thirty-five buffalo heifers were tested daily with fertile males to ascertain the age and live weight at first possible oestrus and conception. Patterns of sexual behaviour were recorded while rectal palpation was carried out to define the conditions of the ovaries and to diagnose pregnancies. The mammary gland development, as well as the intensity of lactation, were noted post partum.

1. Pubertal matings were allowed with less certainty than adult matings. The signs of oestrus were intensified by the recurrence of heat and association with the male. Homosexuality was only observed in the first and second oestrus.

2. The average age of first oestrus, first conception and first calving were 406, 647 and 963 days respectively. The body weight at first oestrus and first conception were 198 and 319 kg. respectively.

3. The number of services/conception ranged from 1 to 7 with an average of 4·25. The number of silent heats/female ranged from 1 to 4 with an average of 1·65. The period elapsing from first oestrus to first conception ranged from 52 to 438 days. Before conception, there was a period of anoestrus which ranged from 115 to 314 days, this was probably due to weak oestrus symptoms.

4. The live weights at 28, 84, 140, 196, 252 and 308 days were correlated with the age and live weight at first oestrus as well as the live weight at first conception.

5. All the buffalo-cows except two which showed oestrus conceived. Fourteen animals calved normally while fourteen aborted after 131–318 days. The gestation period ranged from 312 to 321 days with an average of 316 days. The birth weight of young ranged from 33 to 40 kg. Seven animals were not lactating while seven gave 1–2 kg. of milk.

6. Puberty phenomenon is a gradual phenomenon and is attained in steps: sexual desire, ovulation, oestrus, conception, pregnancy then lactation.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Agricultural Science , Volume 46 , Issue 2 , August 1955 , pp. 137 - 142
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1955

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

Andrews, F. N. & McKenzie, F. F. (1941). Res. Bull. Mo. Agric. Exp. Sta. no. 329.Google Scholar
Asdell, S. A. (1946). Patterns of Mammalian Reproduction. Ithaca, N.Y.: Comstock.Google Scholar
Asdell, S. A. & Crowell, M. F. (1935). J. Nutr. 10, 13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blandau, R. J. & Money, W. L. (1943). Anat. Rec. 86, 197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blton, C. T. (1939). Anat. Rec. 74, 199.Google Scholar
Engle, E. T., Crafts, R. C. & Zeithaml, C. E. (1937). Proc. Soc. Exp. Biol., N.Y., 37, 427.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fulton, J. F. (1950). A Text-Book of Physiology, 16th ed.London: Saunders.Google Scholar
Hafez, E. S. E. (1951). Nature, Lond., 168, 1046.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hafez, E. S. E. (1952 a). Proc. IInd Int. Congr. Physiol. Pathol. Repr. A.I. (Copenhagen), p. 101.Google Scholar
Hafez, E. S. E. (1952 b). J. Agric. Sci. 42, 189.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hafez, E. S. E. (1952 c). Indian J. Vet. Sci. 22, 257.Google Scholar
Hafez, E. S. E. (1953). Emp. J. Exp. Agric. 21, 217.Google Scholar
Hafez, E. S. E. (1954 a). J. Agric. Sci. 44, 165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hafez, E. S. E. (1954 b). Acta zool., Stockh., 35, 177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hafez, E. S. E. (1954 c). Res. Bull. Cairo, Faculty of Agric. no. 37.Google Scholar
Hafez, E. S. E. (1955). Unpublished data.Google Scholar
Hafez, E. S. E. & Kamar, G. A. R. (1955). J. Agric. Sci. (in the Press).Google Scholar
Hammond, J. (1927). Reproduction in the Cow. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hammond, J. Jr. (1944). J. Agric. Sci. 34, 97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hammond, J. & Marshall, F. H. A. (1952). Marshall's Physiology of Reproduction, 3rd ed. Edited by Parkes, A. S.. London: Longmans.Google Scholar
Kelley, R. B. (1946). Bull. Coun. Sci. Industr. Res. Aust. no. 205.Google Scholar
Khishin, S. S. (1951). Emp. J. Exp. Agric. 19, 185.Google Scholar
Long, J. A. & Evans, A. M. (1920). Anat. Rec. 18, 244.Google Scholar
McKenzie, F. F. (1928). Res. Bull. Mo. Agric. Exp. Sta. no. 118.Google Scholar
Schmaltz, G. (1921). Das Geschlechtsleben der Haussaugetiere. Berlin.Google Scholar
Simmons, K. & Greulich, W. W. (1943). J. Pediat. 22, 518.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Snedecor, G. W. (1950). Statistical Methods. Ames, Iowa: Iowa State College Press.Google Scholar
Stone, C. P. & Barker, R. G. (1940). Proc. Soc. Exp. Biol., N.Y., 44, 48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Warnick, A. C., Wiggins, E. L., Casida, L. E., Grummer, R. H. & Chapman, A. B. (1951). J. Anim. Sci. 10, 481.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Warren, E. P. & Bogart, R. (1952). Tech. Bull. Ore. Agric. Exp. Sta. no. 25.Google Scholar
Wiggins, E. L., Casida, L. E. & Grummer, R. H. (1950). J. Anim. Sci. 9, 277.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wiggins, E. L., Warnick, A. C., Grummer, R. H., Casida, L. E. & Chapman, A. B. (1951). J. Anim. Sci. 10, 494.CrossRefGoogle Scholar