Pelvimetric profiles in crossbred cows of Andaman and Nicobar Islands

P PERUMAL; A K DE; D BHATTACHARYA; K MUNISWAMY; J SUNDER; A KUNDU; S K ZAMIR AHMAD

doi:10.56093/ijans.v89i6.91119

Authors

P PERUMAL Scientist, ICAR-Central Island Agricultural Research Institute, Port Blair, Andaman and Nicobar Islands 744 105 India
A K DE Scientist, ICAR-Central Island Agricultural Research Institute, Port Blair, Andaman and Nicobar Islands 744 105 India
D BHATTACHARYA Principal Scientist, ICAR-Central Island Agricultural Research Institute, Port Blair, Andaman and Nicobar Islands 744 105 India
K MUNISWAMY Scientist, ICAR-Central Island Agricultural Research Institute, Port Blair, Andaman and Nicobar Islands 744 105 India
J SUNDER Principal Scientist, ICAR-Central Island Agricultural Research Institute, Port Blair, Andaman and Nicobar Islands 744 105 India
A KUNDU Director, ICAR-Central Island Agricultural Research Institute, Port Blair, Andaman and Nicobar Islands 744 105 India
S K ZAMIR AHMAD Principal Scientist, ICAR-Central Island Agricultural Research Institute, Port Blair, Andaman and Nicobar Islands 744 105 India

https://doi.org/10.56093/ijans.v89i6.91119

Keywords:

Andaman and Nicobar Islands, Body weight, Crossbred cows, Pelvimetry

Abstract

A study was conducted in crossbred cows maintained at

organised dairy farm of the institute to select cows based on the external pelvimetric measurements associated with body weight for breeding purpose. Cows (32) selected were divided in to 4 groups based on age, viz. Gr I (24â€“36 months), Gr II (37â€“48 months), Gr III (49â€“53 months), Gr IV (>53 months) with 8 cows in each group. Overall mean area of pelvic inlet and outlet was 235.61Â±4.74 and 147.90Â±5.21 cm2, respectively. The study concluded that pelvimetric parameters and body weight were significantly higher in Gr IV than other younger animals (Gr I, II and III). These pelvimetric parameters and body weight increased as age advanced and differed significantly between the age groups. The body weight was positively correlated with pelvic area (r=0.92) and age (r=0.88). These findings will be helpful in selection of crossbred cows for breeding purpose in Andaman and Nicobar Islands.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Bellows R A and Short R E. 1994. Reproductive losses in the beef industry. Factors Affecting Calf Crop. (Ed.) Fields M J and Sands R S. CRC Press, Baton Rouge. pp. 109. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1201/9781003069119-8

Chantaraprateep P, Prateep P, Lohachit C, Bodhipaksha P, Virakul P and Kunavogkrit A. 1984. Pelvimetry in swamp buffalo and indigenous cattle cow. Journal of Thailand Veterinary Medical Association 35(4): 307.

Choy Y H, Lee J G, Mahboob A, Choi T J and Rho S H. 2017. Genetic correlation between live body measurements and beef cutability traits in Hanwoo steers. Asian Australasian Journal of Animal Science 30(8): 1074–80. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5713/ajas.16.0692

Çilek S and Tekin M E. 2005. The environmental factors affecting milk yield and fertility traits of Simmental cattle raised at the Kazova state farm and phenotypic correlations between these traits. Turkish Journal of Veterinary and Animal Science 29: 987–93.

Craig J F. 1930. Flemings Veterinary Obstetrics. 4th Edition. Bailliere Tindall and Cox.

Deutscher G H. 1995. Reducing calving difficulty by heifers and sire selection and management. ‘Proceedings of range beef

cow symposium’. University of Nebraska-Lincoln. Pp. 1.

Deutscher G H. 2011. Pelvic measurements for reducing calving difficulty. Product of Extension Beef Cattle Resource Committee. http://www.iowabeefcenter.org.

Hornsveld M. 1996. Applied anatomical aspects of the African buffalo. Proceedings of symposium on the African Buffalo as a game ranch animal. (Ed) Penzhorn B L. Wildlife Group of the South African Veterinary Association, Pretoria. pp. 6–20.

Khan H, Zamir S, Rind M M, Rind R and Riaz M. 2003. Use of Shaeffer’s formula for the prediction of body weight of slaughtering cattle. Journal of Animal and Veterinary Advances 2(3): 176–78.

Lalrintluanga K and Lallianchhunga M C. 2012. Pelvimetry in local breed of cows in Mizoram. Indian Journal of Animal Research 46(2): 199.

Noakes D E, Parkinson T J and England G C W. 2001. Arthur‘s Veterinary Reproduction and Obstetrics. 8th Edn. Elsevier Limited, Philadelphia, USA. Pp. 205.

Oliveira C A, Bombonato P P, Baruselli P S, Oliveira J F S and Souza A O. 2001. Pelvimetry and pelvilogia in crossbred buffaloes (Bubalus bubalis). Pelvimetry pelvilogy and mixed in female buffaloes (Bubalus bubalis). Brazilian Journal of Veterinary Research and Animal Science 38(3): 114. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1590/S1413-95962001000300004

Perumal P and Rajkhowa C. 2013. Pelvimetry in ThoTho (Bos indicus) cows. Indian Veterinary Journal 90(11): 39–41.

Perumal P, Chamuah J K and Rajkhowa C. 2013. Pelvimetry of mithun (Bos frontalis) cows. Indian Veterinary Journal 90(6): 123–25. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1155/2013/165348

Perumal P. 2013. Pelvimetry in swamp buffalo cows of Nagaland. Indian Journal of Animal Sciences 83(9): 932–33.

Rice L E and Wiltbank J N. 1970. Dystocia in beef heifers. Journal of Animal Science 30: 1042.

Roberts S J. 1971. Veterinary Obstetrics and Genital Diseases. 2nd edn. Published by CBS, New Delhi, India.

Schwabe A E and Hall S J G. 1989. Dystocia in nine British breeds of cattle and its relationship to the dimensions of the dam and calf. Veterinary Record 115: 242–45.

Waziri M A, Gabakan Y J and Mustapha A R. 2011. Pelvimetry of Kuri and Bunaji cows in Maiduguri metropolitan slaughterhouse, Northern Nigeria. Sokoto Journal of Veterinary Sciences 9(2): 7.