Article

The predictive value of pelvimetry in beef cattle.

Veterinary Infectious Disease Organization, Saskatoon, Saskatchewan.
Canadian journal of veterinary research = Revue canadienne de recherche vétérinaire (Impact Factor: 0.85). 08/1993; 57(3):170-5.
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT To elucidate reasons for failure of pelvimetry to predict dystocia, we collected data from 1146 heifers and 210 cows in five beef cow herds in Saskatchewan. We assessed the reliability of pelvic area measurements, the generalizability of findings, various modifications of the technique, and the statistical association between pelvic area measurements and dystocia. The repeatability (kappa) of pelvic area measurements between and within veterinarians for the Rice and Krautmann pelvimeters were low to moderate, indicating pelvic area measurements were imprecise. The positive predictive values and sensitivities of pelvic area measurements were consistently poor across herds, years of study, breeds of heifers, times of measurement, various pelvic area cut-off points, and sires. Various modifications of the technique, including pelvic area/calf birth weight ratios, pelvic area/heifer weight ratios, and Ko's calving prediction equation were also poor on-farm tests for predicting dystocia. Although the mean pelvic area in heifers with dystocia was smaller than those without dystocia, there was a large overlap in the distribution of their measurements. Far too many heifers with a small pelvic area had no dystocia (false positives) and far too many heifers with a large pelvic area had dystocia (false negatives) for pelvimetry to be useful. We conclude there is little evidence to justify the continued use of pelvimetry as an on-farm test to reduce dystocia in beef cattle.

1 Follower
 · 
460 Views
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Calf deaths caused by dystocia (calving difficulty) result in a $600 million annual loss to U.S. beef producers (Bellows and Short, 1994). Therefore, methods to reduce dystocia must be investigated, understood, and utilized to decrease the incidence and degree of calving difficulty. A review of early research was presented at the 1989 Range Beef Cow Symposium at Rapid City (Deutscher, 1989) indicating the major cause of dystocia in first calf heifers was a disproportion between the size of calf at birth (birth weight) and the cow's birth canal (pelvic area). A pelvic area/ birth weight ratio developed in Nebraska was suggested as a method to estimate the size of calf a heifer could deliver without assistance. At the 1993 Range Beef Cow Symposium in Cheyenne, Dr. R. A. Bellows presented an extensive overview of research conducted at Miles City on numerous factors affecting calving difficulty. He concluded the following: 1) high calf birth weights were the main cause of dystocia, 2) dam pelvic area must be adequate to deliver calf, 3) selection for pelvic size will increase frame size and calf birth weight, 4) low nutrition will not reduce dystocia, 5) maternal uterine environment affects calf birth weight, 6) exercise during gestation did not affect dystocia, 7) early obstetrical assistance increased calf survival and dam subsequent pregnancy rate, and 8) hormones of calf and dam are involved in calving difficulty. This paper will not review all the above factors but instead will try to expand on the most important and will summarize the latest research on dystocia. It will also recommend some strategies for selection and management of heifers and bulls to reduce calving difficulty.
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Veterinarians play an important role in reproductive management of dairy herds across the United States; however, in many cases, their involvement in reproductive management of beef herds has been limited. The reasons for this vary; however, there are ways for veterinarians to become more actively involved in reproductive management of US beef herds. Veterinarians can have an impact on producers' profits by implementing their skills and knowledge to beef heifer development programs. This article provides an overview of the services veterinarians can provide to beef cattle producers that pertain to reproductive management of replacement beef heifers.
    Veterinary Clinics of North America Food Animal Practice 11/2013; 29(3):667-78. DOI:10.1016/j.cvfa.2013.07.010 · 1.75 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: This article describes a study of the behaviour of double muscled Belgian Blue (BB) cows during the peri partum period to assess the differences in pain perception in cows calving per vaginam vs cows delivering by caesarean section (CS). In one herd, a total of 30 multiparous cows, of which 17 delivered by CS and 13 calved per vaginam, were closely observed at approximately 1 month before calving and at days 1, 3 and 14 after parturition. The main behavioural indicators of pain were alertness, transition in posture from standing to lying and vice versa, aggressive behaviour, vocalization, rumination quality, reaction on wound and vulva pressure and the percentage of visible eye-white. The main significant differences were lower overall activity and more transition in posture in animals that delivered by CS than in cows that calved naturally. Less time was spent on eating and ruminating in the CS group, their total resting time was longer and their total standing time was shorter. These significant differences were only observed on the first day after calving. Cows of the CS group reacted significantly more when pressure was put on the left flank on the first, third and fourteenth day after calving, whereas animals that calved per vaginam showed more reaction when pressure was put on the area around the vulva, but only on the first day. Based on the results of the present study, we can conclude that there are some significant short-term behavioural differences between BB cows that calve naturally and those that deliver by CS, but in general, the differences are subtle and of short duration.
    Reproduction in Domestic Animals 02/2010; 45(1):160-7. DOI:10.1111/j.1439-0531.2008.01295.x · 1.18 Impact Factor

Preview

Download
11 Downloads
Available from