Hostname: page-component-7dd5485656-hw7sx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-10-31T01:33:03.289Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The effect of suckling regime on growth rate and lactation performance of the Cyprus Fat-tailed and Chios sheep

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 September 2010

Avraam Louca
Avraam Louca
Affiliation:
Agricultural Research Institute, Nicosia, Cyprus
Get access

Summary

Seventy-two Cyprus Fat-tailed and Chios ewes with their lambs were used over a 2-year period to study the effects of three suckling regimes on the lactation performance of ewes and growth rate of lambs. The regimes studied were continuous or 24-hr a day suckling, 12-hr suckling and no suckling. The lambs were weaned at the age of 10 weeks. All the ewes, including those suckling, were handmilked throughout the trial twice daily.

Highly significant differences in milk yield (milk sucked by lambs plus milk withdrawn by hand) and lactation length were found between the Fat-tailed and Chios ewes, the respective average milk yields being 159 and 265 kg and the corresponding lactation lengths, 158 and 209 days. There were no significant differences between breeds in the live weight or average daily gain of lambs up to the age of 20 weeks. Suckling for 12 rather than 24 hr a day had no adverse effects on the milk yield of ewes or the growth rate of lambs. The no-suckling regime, however, adversely affected milk yield and lactation length but the effects were less pronounced for the Chios breed.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Production , Volume 15 , Issue 1 , August 1972 , pp. 53 - 59
Copyright
Copyright © British Society of Animal Science 1972

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

Agrotis, A. C. 1968. Sectional report of the Animal Husbandry Services. Min. of Agric. and Natural Resources, Nicosia, Cyprus.Google Scholar
Christodoulou, J. 1958. Sheep and goats and their place in the economy of Cyprus. Countryman, Nicosia, 12: (10): 23–25.Google Scholar
Folman, Y., Volcani, R. and Eyal, E. 1966. Mother-offspring relationships in Awassi sheep. 1. The effect of different suckling regimes and time of weaning on the lactation curve and milk yield in dairy flocks. J. agric. Sci., Camb. 67: 359–368.Google Scholar
Labussiere, J. 1969. The amount, composition and significance of various milk fractions obtained successively during the mechanical milking of ewes. Annls Zootech. 18: 185–196.Google Scholar
Labussiere, J. and Petrequin, P. 1969. The relation of milking efficiency in the ewe to reduction in yield at time of weaning. Annls Zootech. 18: 5–15.Google Scholar
Mason, I. L. 1967. Sheep Breeds of the Mediterranean. Commonwealth Agricultural Bureaux, England.Google Scholar
Maule, J. P. and Shevki, M. 1935. The breeding and management of sheep in Cyprus. Cyprus agric. J. 30: 88–95.Google Scholar
Morao, M., RAZ, A. and EYAL, E. 1970. Mother-offspring relationships in Awassi sheep. IV. The effect of weaning at birth, or after 15 weeks, on lactational performance in the dairy ewe. J. agric. Sci., Camb. 75: 183–187.Google Scholar
Owen, J. B., Da Vies, D. A. R. and Ridgman, W. J. 1969. The effects of varying the quantity and distribution of liquid feed in lambs reared artificially. Anim. Prod. 11: 1–9.Google Scholar
Papadopoulos, J. C. 1958. Sheep and goats in Cyprus. Countryman, Nicosia, 12: (10): 6–11.Google Scholar
Papadopoulos, J. C. 1965. Annual Report of the Department of Animal Husbandry. Min. of Agric. and Natural Resources, Nicosia, Cyprus.Google Scholar
Peart, J. N. 1968. Lactation studies with Blackface ewes and their lambs. J. agric. Sci., Camb. 70: 87–94.Google Scholar
Phillips, D. S. M. 1965. Further experiments on the effect of pre-milking stimulus on dairy cow production. Proc. N.Z. Soc. Anim. Prod. 25: 52–64.Google Scholar