Hostname: page-component-54dcc4c588-64p75 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-10-01T17:21:34.721Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Crossbred sheep production I. Factors affecting production from the crossbred ewe flock

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 September 2010

B. C. Yalçin  and
Maurice Bichard
B. C. Yalçin
Affiliation:
School of Agriculture, University of Newcastle-upon-Tyne
Maurice Bichard
Affiliation:
School of Agriculture, University of Newcastle-upon-Tyne
Get access

Extract

Donald (1962) has recently pointed out the paucity of available data on production from British sheep, though some information is available for hill sheep (see for example Donald, 1958; Purser and Roberts, 1959; Purser and Young, 1959; Dalton, 1962). Most of these refer mainly to the Scottish Blackface and Welsh Mountain breeds. Hill sheep form approximately 40% of the national flock of over 11 million breeding ewes. Another 40% of ewes are found in crossbred flocks mainly kept on the lowlands; these produce fat lambs and hoggets with wool as a secondary product. Very little information has so far been published on these crossbred ewes, exceptions being work reported by Bywater (1945) and Rennie (1957). This is the first of three papers to be presented with the object of providing such information, and is based mainly on the work of Yalçin (1963). It is hoped that these papers will be of use on two counts:

1. To provide a documentation of one specific cross, the Border Leicester × Cheviot ewe and her Suffolk-cross lambs under North of England grassland conditions.

2. To analyse the usefulness of keeping production records within such flocks as aids to good commercial management, to culling and to selective breeding.

In this paper the traits studied are body weight, fleece weight and litter size of the ewes, and the weights of the lambs between birth and slaughter or weaning. Estimates were obtained for the effects upon some of these traits of age and live-weight of ewe, and of sex, year and type of birth and rearing of the lambs. The usefulness of such correction factors is considered within recording schemes. In subsequent papers the effects on production of differences between crossbred ewes and between the rams used as fat lamb sires will be considered.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Production , Volume 6 , Issue 1 , February 1964 , pp. 73 - 84
Copyright
Copyright © British Society of Animal Science 1964

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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

REFERENCES

Blackwell, R. L. & Henderson, C. R., 1955. Variation in fleece weight, weaning weight, and birth weight of sheep under farm conditions. J. Anim. Sci., 14: 831.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bogart, R., De Baca, R. C., Calvin, L. D. & Nelson, O. M., 1957. Factors affecting birth weights of crossbred lambs. J. Anim. Sci., 16: 130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bonsma, F. N., 1939. Factors influencing the growth and development of lambs, with special reference to cross-breeding of Merino sheep for fat-lamb production in South Africa. Publ. Univ. Pretoria, Series 1, no. 48.Google Scholar
Bywater, T. L., 1945. Sheep for long leys. Proc. Brit. Soc. Anim. Prod., 1944, p. 25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cadmus, W. G., 1949. Sheep records for greater profits. Ext. Bull. Oreg. agric. Exp. Sta., no. 182.Google Scholar
Coop, I. E. & Hayman, B. I., 1962. Live-weight-productivity relationships in sheep. II. Effect of live-weight on production and efficiency of production of lamb and wool. N.Z. J. agric. Res., 5: 265.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dalton, D. C., 1962. Characters of economic importance in Welsh Mountain sheep. Anim. Prod., 4: 269.Google Scholar
De baca, R. C., Bogart, R., Calvin, L. D. & Nelson, O. M., 1956. Factors affecting weaning weights of crossbred spring lambs. J. Anim. Sci., 15: 667.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dickson, G. R., 1959. The more efficient grazing of ewes and lambs. J. Brit. Grassl. Soc., 14: 172.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Donald, H. P., 1958. Crossbred lamb production from cast-for-age Blackface ewes. Proc. Brit. Soc. Anim. Prod., 1958, p. 77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Donald, H. P., 1962. Effect on production records of sex of lamb, twinning, and dam's age in a grassland flock. Anim. Prod., 4: 369.Google Scholar
Felts, V. L., Chapman, A. B. & Pope, A. L., 1957. Estimates of genetic and phenotypic parameters for use in a farm flock ewe selection index. J. Anim. Sci., 16: 1048 (Abstr.).Google Scholar
Grvens, C. S. Jr, Carter, R. C. & Gaines, J. A., 1960. Selection indexes for weaning traits in spring lambs. J. Anim. Sci., 19: 134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harrington, R. B., Whiteman, J. V. & Morrison, R. D., 1958. Estimates of some sources of variation in the body weights of crossbred lambs at different ages. J. Anim. Sci., 17: 743.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hazel, L. N., 1946. The covariance analysis of multiple tables with unequal subclass numbers. Biometrics Bull., 2: 21.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
More O'Ferrall, G. J. & Vial, V. E., 1962. Body weight-fleece weight relationships in Irish sheep. Irish J. agric. Res., 1: 157.Google Scholar
More O'Ferrall, G. J. & Vial, V. E., 1963. Correction factors for use in sheep flock recording. Irish. J. agric. Res., 2: 13.Google Scholar
Owen, J. B., 1957. A study of the lactation and growth of hill sheep in their native environment and under lowland conditions. J. agric. Sci., 48: 387.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Purser, A. F. & Roberts, R. C., 1959. The relationship of hogg weight to the subsequent performances of Scottish Blackface ewes. Anim. Prod., 1: 107.Google Scholar
Purser, A. F. & Young, G. B., 1959. Lamb survival in two hill flocks. Anim. Prod., 1: 85.Google Scholar
Reeve, E. C. R. & Robertson, F. W., 1953. Factors affecting multiple births in sheep. Anim. Breed. Abstr., 21: 211.Google Scholar
Rennie, G. K., 1957. The performance of three sheep breeds on the Yorkshire Wolds, 1950–54. Exptl.Husb., no. 2: 37.Google Scholar
Sharafeldin, M. A., 1960. Factors affecting litter size in Texel sheep. Meded. Landb-Hogesch. Wageningen., 60 (3): 1.Google Scholar
Starke, J. S., Smith, J. B. & Joubert, D. M., 1958. The birth weight of lambs. Sci. Bull. Dept. Agric. S. Afr., no. 382.Google Scholar
Stevens, P. G. & Wright, G. M., 1952. Some variations in the fleece of Romney Marsh stud ewes. Proc. N.Z. Soc. Anim. Prod., 11: 18.Google Scholar
Thomson, W. & McDonald, I., 1955. The relation of weaning weight to birth weight of lambs. Proc. Brit. Soc. Anim. Prod., 1955, p. 38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Turner, H. N., 1956. Measurement as an aid to selection in breeding sheep for wool production. Anim. Breed. Abstr., 24: 87.Google Scholar
Wallace, L. R., 1961. Influence of liveweight and condition on ewe fertility. Proc. Ruakura Fmrs. Conf. Wk., 1961, p. 14.Google Scholar
Wright, G. M. & Stevens, P. G., 1953. Lifetime wool production and breeding performance of Romney Marsh and Corriedale ewes. N.Z. J. Sci. Tech. (A) 34: 430.Google Scholar
Yalçin, B. C., 1963. A study of some aspects of crossbred sheep production in Great Britain. Ph.D. Thesis, Univ. Newcastle-upon-Tyne.Google Scholar
Yates, F., 1934. The analysis of multiple classifications with unequal numbers in the different subclasses. J. Amer. Stat. Assn., 29: 51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar