Hostname: page-component-784d4fb959-2gr9v Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-07-15T17:06:29.080Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A survey of management practices and flock performance and their association with flock size and ewe breed type on Irish sheep farms

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  03 August 2017

A. BOHAN ,
L. SHALLOO ,
P. CREIGHTON ,
T. M. BOLAND  and
N. MCHUGH
A. BOHAN*
Affiliation:
Animal & Grassland Research and Innovation Centre, Teagasc, Moorepark, Fermoy, Co. Cork, Ireland School of Agriculture & Food Science, University College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland
L. SHALLOO
Affiliation:
Animal & Grassland Research and Innovation Centre, Teagasc, Moorepark, Fermoy, Co. Cork, Ireland
P. CREIGHTON
Affiliation:
Animal & Grassland Research and Innovation Centre, Teagasc, Athenry, Co. Galway, Ireland
T. M. BOLAND
Affiliation:
School of Agriculture & Food Science, University College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland
N. MCHUGH
Affiliation:
Animal & Grassland Research and Innovation Centre, Teagasc, Moorepark, Fermoy, Co. Cork, Ireland
*
*To whom all correspondence should be addressed. Email: alan.bohan@teagasc.ie
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

A detailed survey was undertaken to assess the rate of production and current management practices on Irish sheep farms and quantify their associations with flock size and ewe breed type. A total of 39 questions relating to the farm production system and farm management practices were devised, including: producer age, location, farm size, livestock numbers and type, in addition to flock management data such as flock breeding policy, lamb finishing strategy, flock health, lambing date, winter housing and feeding practices. A total of 717 sheep producers were surveyed across 45 different discussion groups. The surveyed respondents were sub-divided into four groups depending on flock size (very small, small, medium and large) and into three groups depending on ewe breed type (maternal, terminal and hill). The average survey respondent was 48 years old, with a flock size of 150 breeding ewes on a farm size of 58 ha. The average stocking rates were 6·55 and 3·14 ewes/ha and weaning rates were 1·44 and 1·02 lambs per ewe joined to the ram for the lowland and hill flocks, respectively. Relative to very small flocks (<62 ewes), larger flocks (>190 ewes) had higher stocking rates (6·98 v. 5·66 ewes/ha) and ewe to ram ratios (40 v. 30), and tended to lamb later in the year. The rate of technology adoption such as faecal egg sampling and pregnancy scanning was greater on larger flocks compared with smaller flocks. Flocks with maternal ewe breeds had higher scanning and weaning rates, and drafted a greater proportion of lambs off grass compared with flocks with terminal and hill ewe breeds. Flocks with maternal and terminal ewe breed types were more likely to winter house ewes, lamb indoors, test silage quality and have a handling unit compared with flocks with hill-type ewe breeds. Results from the present study provide a bank of knowledge on current Irish sheep industry performance and show that flock size and ewe breed type have a significant impact on key flock performance variables.

Information

Type
Animal Research Papers
Information
The Journal of Agricultural Science , Volume 155 , Issue 8 , October 2017 , pp. 1332 - 1341
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2017 

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

Anderson, R. R. (1975). Mammary gland growth in sheep. Journal of Animal Science 41, 118–123.Google Scholar
Bartley, D. J., Jackson, E., Johnston, K., Coop, R. L., Mitchell, G. B. B., Sales, J. & Jackson, F. (2003). A survey of anthelmintic resistant nematode parasites in Scottish sheep flocks. Veterinary Parasitology 117, 61–71.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bisdorff, B. & Wall, R. (2008). Sheep blowfly strike risk and management in Great Britain: a survey of current practice. Medical and Veterinary Entomology 22, 303–308.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bohan, A., Shalloo, L., Creighton, P., Earle, E., Boland, T. M. & McHugh, N. (2016). The effect of stocking rate and prolificacy on profitability of a lowland sheep enterprise. In Teagasc National Sheep Conference 2016, Shearwater Hotel Ballinasloe, Co. Galway, pp. 12–18. Oak Park, Carlow, Ireland: Teagasc.Google Scholar
Bord Bia, (2016). Irish meat and livestock exports. In 2015–2016 Export Performance and Prospects: Irish Food, Drink & Horticulture, p. 14. Dublin, Ireland: Bord Bia. Available from: http://www.bordbia.ie/industry/manufacturers/insight/publications/MarketReviews/Documents/Export-Performance-and-Prospects-2016.pdf (verified 6 April 2017).Google Scholar
Casas, E., Freking, B. A. & Leymaster, K. A. (2004). Evaluation of Dorset, Finnsheep, Romanov, Texel, and Montadale breeds of sheep. II. Reproduction of F1 ewes in fall mating seasons. Journal of Animal Science 82, 1280–1289.Google Scholar
Coleman, J. (1958). Relational analysis: the study of social organizations with survey methods. Human Organization 17, 28–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Connolly, L. (1999). Competitiveness of Irish Sheep Production. Dublin, Ireland: Teagasc.Google Scholar
Connolly, L. (2000). Labour on sheep farms. In Proceedings of the 27th meeting of the Irish Grassland and Animal Production Association, p. 82. Kells, Co. Meath, Ireland: Irish Grassland and Animal Production Association.Google Scholar
CSO (2013). Farm Structure Survey 2013. Cork, Ireland: Central Statistics Office. Available from: http://www.cso.ie/en/releasesandpublications/ep/p-fss/farmstructuresurvey2013/detailedanalysis/farmstructure/ (verified 6 April 2017).Google Scholar
DAFM (2015). Sheep Technology Adoption Programme 2015. Dublin, Ireland: DAFM. Available from: http://www.agriculture.gov.ie/media/migration/farmingsectors/sheepandgoats/stap2015/STAP2015TandCs120215.pdf. (verified 6 April 2017).Google Scholar
DAFM (2016). National Sheep and Goat Census 2015. Dublin, Ireland: DAFM. Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine. Available from: https://www.agriculture.gov.ie/media/migration/animalhealthwelfare/animalidentificationandmovement/NationalSheepGoatCensus2015290716.pdf (verified 6 April 2017).Google Scholar
Davis, G. H. (2004). Fecundity genes in sheep. Animal Reproduction Science 82–83, 247–253.Google Scholar
Davis, G. H. (2005). Major genes affecting ovulation rate in sheep. Genetics, Selection, Evolution 37, (Suppl. 1), S11–23.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Davis, G. H., Balakrishnan, L., Ross, I. K., Wilson, T., Galloway, S. M., Lumsden, B. M., Hanrahan, J. P., Mullen, M., Mao, X. Z., Wang, G. L., Zhao, Z. S., Zeng, Y. Q., Robinson, J. J., Mavrogenis, A. P., Papachristoforou, C., Peter, C., Baumung, R., Cardyn, P., Boujenane, I., Cockett, N. E., Eythorsdottir, E., Arranz, J. J. & Notter, D. R. (2006). Investigation of the Booroola (FecB) and Inverdale (FecX(I)) mutations in 21 prolific breeds and strains of sheep sampled in 13 countries. Animal Reproduction Science 92, 87–96.Google Scholar
Dawson, L. E. R. & Carson, A. F. (2002 a). Effects of crossbred ewe genotype and ram genotype on ewe prolificacy, lamb viability and lamb output in the lowland sector. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 139, 169–181.Google Scholar
Dawson, L. E. R. & Carson, A. F. (2002 b). Effects of crossbred ewe genotype and ram genotype on lamb carcass characteristics from the lowland sheep flock. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 139, 183–194.Google Scholar
Diskin, M. G. & McHugh, M. P. (2010). Improving the efficiency and profitability of your sheep flock In Technical Updates Sheep Production (Eds Diskin, M. G. & McHugh, M. P.), pp. 1–5. Athenry, Co. Galway, Ireland: Mellows Campus, Teagasc. ISBN: 1-84170-582-9 Available from: https://www.teagasc.ie/media/website/publications/2010/ImprovingEfficiencyProfitabilitySheepFlock.pdf (verified 6 April 2017).Google Scholar
Dwyer, C. M., Lawrence, A. B., Brown, H. E. & Simm, G. (1996). Effect of ewe and lamb genotype on gestation length, lambing ease and neonatal behaviour of lambs. Reproduction, Fertility and Development 8, 1123–1129.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Earle, E., McHugh, N., Boland, T. M. & Creighton, P. (2016). Effect of ewe prolificacy potential and stocking rate on primiparous flock performance. Small Ruminant Research 143, 53–60.Google Scholar
Eblex (2012). The Breeding Structure of the British Sheep Industry 2012. Kenilworth, UK: Stoneleigh Park. Available from: https://www.farminguk.com/content/knowledge/British%20Sheep%20Breeding%20in%202012(5313-4650-4940-808).pdf (verified 6 April 2017).Google Scholar
Feder, G. (1985). The relation between farm size and farm productivity: the role of family labor, supervision and credit constraints. Journal of Development Economics 18, 297–313.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fogarty, N. M., Ingham, V. M., Gilmour, A. R., Cummins, L. J., Gaunt, G. M., Stafford, J., Hocking Edwards, J. E. & Banks, R. G. (2005). Genetic evaluation of crossbred lamb production. 1. Breed and fixed effects for birth and weaning weight of first-cross lambs, gestation length, and reproduction of base ewes. Australian Journal of Agricultural Research 56, 443–453.Google Scholar
Good, B., Hanrahan, J. P., Crowley, B. A. & Mulcahy, G. (2006). Texel sheep are more resistant to natural nematode challenge than Suffolk sheep based on faecal egg count and nematode burden. Veterinary Parasitology 136, 317–327.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hanrahan, J. P. (1994). Evaluation of crossbred ewe types: ovulation rate and prolificacy. In Proceedings of the Irish Grassland and Animal Production Association Annual Meeting, Co. Offaly, Ireland, pp. 21–22. Dublin, Ireland: Irish Grassland and Animal Production Association.Google Scholar
Hanrahan, J. P. (2001). Breed Evaluation: Performance of Crossbred Ewes. End of Project report: Sheep Series No. 13 Project, No. 2549. Athenry, Co. Galway, Ireland: Teagasc.Google Scholar
Hanrahan, J. P. (2007). Association between ewe breed type and longevity in a lowland production system. In Proceedings of the Agricultural Research Forum 2007 (Ed. Diskin, M. G.), p. 72. Tullamore, Ireland: Agricultural Research Forum.Google Scholar
Hanrahan, J. P., Gregan, S. M., Mulsant, P., Mullen, M., Davis, G. H., Powell, R. & Galloway, S. M. (2004). Mutations in the genes for oocyte-derived growth factors GDF9 and BMP15 are associated with both increased ovulation rate and sterility in Cambridge and Belclare sheep (Ovis aries). Biology of Reproduction 70, 900–909.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hennessy, T. & Moran, B. (2016 a). Teagasc National Farm Survey: 2015 Results. Dublin, Ireland: Teagasc. Available from: https://www.teagasc.ie/media/website/publications/2016/Income-Estimates-2015.pdf (verified 10 April 2017).Google Scholar
Hutson, G. D. (1982). Flight distance in Merino sheep. Animal Science 35, 231–235.Google Scholar
Johnston, W. S., MacLachlan, G. K. & Murray, I. S. (1980). A survey of sheep losses and their causes on commercial farms in the north of Scotland. The Veterinary Record 106, 238–240.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Just, R. E., Zilberman, D. & Rausser, G. C. (1980). A putty-clay approach to the distributional effects of new technology under risk. In Operations Research in Agriculture and Water Resources (Eds. Yaron, D. & Tapiero, C.), pp. 97–121. Amsterdam, the Netherlands: North Holland Publishing Company.Google Scholar
Keady, T. W. J., Hanrahan, J. P. & Flanagan, S. (2009). An evaluation of two grassland based systems of mid-season prime lamb production using prolific ewes of two genotypes. Irish Journal of Agricultural and Food Research 48, 87–101.Google Scholar
Kearney, B. (2010). The Past, Present and Future of Irish Agriculture. IIEA Working Paper. Dublin, Ireland: IIEA. The Institute of International and European Affairs. Available from: http://www.iiea.com/events/the-past-present-and-future-of-irish-agriculture (verified 10 April 2017).Google Scholar
McHugh, N. & Diskin, M. G. (2010). Irish breed comparison studies – a review. In Technical Updates on Sheep Production (Eds Diskin, M. G. & McHugh, M. P.), pp. 117–120. Moorepark, Fermoy, Co. Cork, Ireland: Animal & Grassland Research and Innovation Centre, Teagasc. Available from: https://www.teagasc.ie/media/website/publications/2010/IrishBreedComparisonStudies.pdf (verified 10 April 2017).Google Scholar
Michelena, P., Sibbald, A. M., Erhard, H. W. & McLeod, J. E. (2009). Effects of group size and personality on social foraging: the distribution of sheep across patches. Behavioral Ecology 20, 145–152.Google Scholar
MLA (2013). Australia's Sheep Meat Industry Fast Facts 2013. Sydney, New South Wales, Australia: MLA.Google Scholar
Morgan, E. R., Hosking, B. C., Burston, S., Carder, K. M., Hyslop, A. C., Pritchard, L. J., Whitmarsh, A. K. & Coles, G. C. (2012). A survey of helminth control practices on sheep farms in Great Britain and Ireland. The Veterinary Journal 192, 390–397.Google Scholar
Morison, J., Hine, R. & Pretty, J. (2005). Survey and analysis of labour on organic farms in the UK and Republic of Ireland. International Journal of Agricultural Sustainability 3, 24–43.Google Scholar
Nieuwhof, G. J., Conington, J., Bűnger, L., Haresign, W. & Bishop, S. C. (2008). Genetic and phenotypic aspects of foot lesion scores in sheep of different breeds and ages. Animal 2, 1289–1296.Google Scholar
O'Donovan, K., O'Brien, B., Ruane, D., Kinsella, J. & Gleeson, D. (2008). Labour input on Irish dairy farms and the effect of scale and seasonality. Journal of Farm Management 13, 38–53.Google Scholar
O'Neill, R. G., O'Connor, M. & O'Reilly, P. J. (2004). A survey of antibodies to pestivirus in sheep in the Republic of Ireland. Irish Veterinary Journal 57, 525–530.Google Scholar
O'Shea, J., Kavanagh, A. J. & Reid, P. (1988). Labour use on Irish dairy farms. Irish Grassland and Animal Production Association Journal 22, 112–120.Google Scholar
Penning, P. D., Parsons, A. J., Newman, J. A., Orr, R. J. & Harvey, A. (1993). The effects of group size on grazing time in sheep. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 37, 101–109.Google Scholar
Russel, A. J. F. (1971). Relationships between energy intake and productivity in hill sheep. Proceedings of the Nutrition Society 30, 197–204.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Snowder, G. D. & Glimp, H. A. (1991). Influence of breed, number of suckling lambs, and stage of lactation on ewe milk production and lamb growth under range conditions. Journal of Animal Science 69, 923–930.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Speijers, M. H. M., Carson, A. F., Dawson, L. E. R., Irwin, D. & Gordon, A. W. (2010). Effects of sire breed on ewe dystocia, lamb survival and weaned lamb output in hill sheep systems. Animal 4, 486–496.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Swanson, T. J., Hammer, C. J., Luther, J. S., Carlson, D. B., Taylor, J. B., Redmer, D. A., Neville, T. L., Reed, J. J., Reynolds, L. P., Caton, J. S. & Vonnahme, K. A. (2008). Effects of gestational plane of nutrition and selenium supplementation on mammary development and colostrum quality in pregnant ewe lambs. Journal of Animal Science 86, 2415–2423.Google Scholar
Teagasc (2013). Sectorial Road Map: Mid-season Lamb Production. Dublin, Ireland: Teagasc. Available from: https://www.teagasc.ie/media/website/publications/2013/2896/SheepRoadMap2020.pdf (verified 10 April 2017).Google Scholar
Teagasc (2016). Teagasc National Farm Survey Results 2015, Sheep Enterprise: Mid-Season Lamb. Dublin, Ireland: Teagasc. Available from: https://www.teagasc.ie/media/website/publications/2016/sheep2015.pdf (verified 10 April 2017).Google Scholar
Teagasc Specialist Service (2016). e-Profit Monitor Analysis: Dry Stock Farms 2015. Dublin, Ireland: Teagasc. Available from: https://www.teagasc.ie/media/website/publications/2016/eProfit-Book.pdf (verified 10 April 2017).Google Scholar