Trivers & Willard studied wild reindeer and concluded that the condition/'quality' of the mother around conception may create hormonal/chemical triggers that affect the gender of the offspring. Therefore, if it was a good grazing season, the population could 'afford' to produce more males which would increase competition in adulthood to ensure continuation of only the strongest, fittest animals. If environmental conditions were poor, they hypothesised that more females would be produced to reflect the likelihood that infant mortality would be higher under poor environmental/grazing conditions. Therefore, if lots of males were produced during drought, the population would suffer more than if there was a skew towards females, as more females would reach adulthood in the latter scenario.
So, if a captive diet is more nutritious per calorie than the wild equivalent, if the weight of captive females is always much higher than wild counterparts, or if there is no seasonal fluctuation in nutritional content in the diet, there could be a case for linking this to a gender skew in terms of captive births. As in, if every year is a 'good' year in terms of food availability then, if the hypothesis is correct, any species following this would likely produce more males. It is interesting that some of the criticism of the theory posits that the reverse should be true, and we definitely see examples of species where in captivity the skew is towards females, although this is rarer.
The problem is that the levels of inbreeding in some captive populations where there is a gender skew don't exist in the same way in the wild, so in the case of the gaur it is difficult to identify whether there is a genetic trigger as well or instead.
It's an old, much challenged theory, so this 2004 paper is a good update:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1691777/pdf/15306293.pdf
The original hypothesis (not free on scholar, so here's the Wikipedia):
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trivers–Willard_hypothesis