Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-skm99 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-30T01:14:14.567Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Lamb production from diverse genotypes. 1. Lamb growth and survival and ewe performance

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 August 2016

N. M. Fogarty ,
D. L. Hopkins  and
R. van de Ven
N. M. Fogarty
Affiliation:
Orange Agricultural Institute, Orange, NSW 2800, Australia
D. L. Hopkins
Affiliation:
Agricultural Research Station, Cowra, NSW 2794, Australia Meat Science, Department of Animal Science, University of New England, Armidale, NSW 2351, Australia
R. van de Ven
Affiliation:
Orange Agricultural Institute, Orange, NSW 2800, Australia
Get access

Abstract

Growth and survival of 3673 female and cryptorchid lambs representing the range of types (second cross, first cross and Merino) produced in the Australian lamb industry are reported. The lambs were sired by a selection of Poll Dorset (D; no. = 7), Texel (T; no. = 10), Border Leicester (BL; no. = 12) and Merino (M; no. = 12) rams and born to Border Leicester × Merino (BLM) and Merino (M) dams, which resulted in six lamb genotypes (D×BLM, T×BLM, D×M, T×M, BL×M and M×M). The second cross lambs (D×BLM, T×BLM) were heavier at birth, weaning and post-weaning and had higher growth rates, than first cross lambs (D×M, T×M, BL×M), which were higher than M×M lambs (P< 0·01). For post-weaning weight (cryptorchids at 156 days) second cross lambs were 4·2 (s.e. 0·3) kg heavier than comparable sired first cross lambs, with the BL×M 2·6 (s.e. 0·5) kg lighter than other first cross types and the MxM a further 4·2 (s.e. 0·6) kg lighter. The average advantage of D over T crosses was 1·0 kg for post-weaning weight, with greater variation amongst individual sires.

Lamb survival to weaning was 76% and it was affected by birth weight and birth type (P< 0·01). Sire breed had no significant effect on lamb survival, whereas lambs from BLM ewes had higher survival than those from M ewes (P< 0·01).

Overall the proportion of ewes lambing was 84% with a mean litter size of 1·77. There was no difference infertility between AI (thawed frozen semen and laparoscopic insemination) and natural (single sire) mating, although the M were higher than the BLM ewes (P< 0·01). Gestation length was 2·3 days shorter (P< 0·01) for BLM than M ewes and there was no difference between D and T sire breeds. There was little effect of birth type on gestation length but it increased with birth weight within birth type categories. Between year repeatability of gestation length for ewes was 0·33 (s.e. 0·05).

Keywords

crossbredslamb productionMerinosurvivalTexel
Type
Ruminant nutrition, behaviour and production
Information
Animal Science , Volume 70 , Issue 1 , February 2000 , pp. 135 - 145
Copyright
Copyright © British Society of Animal Science 2000

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.)

References

Banks, R. G. 1994. LAMBPLAN: genetic evaluation for the Australian lamb industry. Proceedings of the fifth world congress on genetics applied to livestock production, Guelph, vol. 18, pp. 15–18.Google Scholar
Banks, R. G., Shands, C, Stafford, J. and Kenney, P. 1995. LAMBPLAN superior sires, central progeny test results: 1991, 1992, 1993 and 1994 matings. Meat Research Corporation, Sydney, Australia.Google Scholar
Cotterill, P. and Roberts, E. M. 1979. Crossbred lamb growth and carcass characteristics of some Australian sheep breeds. Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture and Animal Husbandry 19: 407–413.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cruickshank, G. J., Muir, P. D., MacLean, K. S., Goodger, T. M. and Hickson, C. 1996. Growth and carcass characteristics of lambs sired by Texel, Oxford Down and Suffolk rams. Proceedings of the New Zealand Society of Animal Production 56: 201–204.Google Scholar
Donnelly, J. R. 1984. The productivity of breeding ewes grazing on lucerne or grass and clover pastures on the tablelands of southern Australia. III. Lamb mortality and weaning percentage. Australian Journal of Agricultural Research 35: 709–721.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Donnelly, J. R., McKinney, G. T. and Morley, F. H. W. 1985. The productivity of breeding ewes grazing on lucerne or grass and clover pastures on the tablelands of southern Australia. IV. Lamb growth. Australian Journal of Agricultural Research 36: 469–481.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ellis, M., Webster, G. M., Merrell, B. G. and Brown, I. 1997. The influence of terminal sire breed on carcass composition and eating quality of crossbred lambs. Animal Science 64: 77–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fogarty, N. M. 1972. Crossbreeding for lamb production. 1. Survival and growth of first cross lambs. Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture and Animal Husbandry 12: 234–239.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fogarty, N. M., Gilmour, A. R. and Hopkins, D. L. 1997. The relationship of crossbred lamb growth and carcass traits with LAMBPLAN EBVs of sires. Proceedings of the Association for the Advancement of Animal Breeding and Genetics 12: 304–309.Google Scholar
Fogarty, N. M., Hopkins, D. L. and Hoist, P. J. 1995. Variation in lamb survival, growth and leanness of diverse crossbred lamb genotypes. Proceedings of the Australian Association of Animal Breeding and Genetics 11: 198–202.Google Scholar
Fogarty, N. M., Hopkins, D. L. and Ven, R.van de. 2000. Lamb production from diverse genotypes. 2. Carcass characteristics. Animal Science 70: 147–156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gilmour, A. R., Thompson, R., Cullis, B. R. and Welham, S. J. 1997. ASREML. Bulletin 3, NSW Agriculture, Orange, NSW, Australia.Google Scholar
Hopkins, D. L. and Fogarty, N. M. 1998. Diverse lamb genotypes. 1. Yield of saleable cuts and meat and the prediction of yield. Meat Science 49: 459–475.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kempster, A. J., Croston, D., Guy, D. R. and Jones, D. W. 1987. Growth and carcass characteristics of crossbred lambs by ten sire breeds, compared at the same estimated carcass subcutaneous fat proportion. Animal Production 44: 83–98.Google Scholar
Kleeman, D. O., Dolling, C. H. S. and Ponzoni, R. W. 1981. The contribution of maternal environment and lamb genotype to growth of lambs from Merino, Poll Dorset X Merino and Border Leicester X Merino ewes. Australian Journal of Agricultural Research 32: 965–973.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kleeman, D. O., Dolling, C H. S. and Ponzoni, R. W. 1984. Effect of breed of dam, type of birth and sex of lamb on efficiency of conversion of food to lamb and wool in Merino, Poll Dorset X Merino and Border Leicester X Merino ewes. Australian Journal of Agricultural Research 35: 579–594.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kleeman, D. O., South, M. L. H., Dolling, C. H. S. and Ponzoni, R. W. 1983. Survival, growth and wool production of South Australian strong-wool Merino and first-cross Merino lambs from birth to 16 months of age. Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture and Animal Husbandry 23: 271–279.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leymaster, K. A. and Jenkins, T. G. 1993. Comparison of Texel- and Suffolk-sired crossbred lambs for survival, growth and compositional traits. Journal of Animal Science 71: 859–869.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
McGuirk, B. J. and Bourke, M. E. 1978. Hybrid vigour and lamb production. 1. Reproductive performance of the purebred and crossbred matings. Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture and Animal Husbandry 18: 745–752.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maxwell, W. M.C. 1984. Current problems and future potential of artificial insemination programmes. In Reproduction in sheep (ed. Lindsay, D. R. and Pearce, D. T.), pp. 291–298. Australian Academy of Science and Australian Wool Corporation, Canberra.Google Scholar
Mortimer, S. I. and Atkins, K. D. 1997. Improvement of Merino reproductive performance through bloodline substitution and crossing. Proceedings of the Association for the Advancement of Animal Breeding and Genetics 12: 404–407.Google Scholar
Schall, P. 1991. Estimation in generalized linear models with random effects. Biometrica 78: 719–727.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Taylor, P. J. and Atkins, K. D. 1997. Genetically improving fleece weight and fibre diameter of the Australian Merino-the Trangie QPLU$ project. Wool Technology and Sheep Breeding 45: 92–107.Google Scholar
Tilbrook, A. J., Cameron, A. W. N. and Lindsay, D. R. 1987. The influence of ram mating preferences and social interaction between rams on the proportion of ewes mated at field joining. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 18: 173–184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wolf, B.T., Smith, C. and Sales, D. I. 1980. Growth and carcass composition in the crossbred progeny of six terminal sire breeds of sheep. Animal Production 31: 307–313.Google Scholar
Wylie, A. R. G., Chestnutt, D. M. B. and Kilpatrick, D. J. 1997. Growth and carcasss characteristics of heavy slaughter weight lambs: effects of sire breed and sex of lamb and relationships to serum metabolites and IGF-1. Animal Science 64: 309–318.CrossRefGoogle Scholar