Hostname: page-component-7bb8b95d7b-fmk2r Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-09-11T20:52:41.175Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Analysis of production records from a lowland sheep flock 3. Phenotypic and genetic parameters for reproductive performance

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 September 2010

P. A. Forrest  and
Maurice Bichard
P. A. Forrest
Affiliation:
School of Agriculture, The University, Newcastle upon Tyne, NEl 7RU
Maurice Bichard
Affiliation:
School of Agriculture, The University, Newcastle upon Tyne, NEl 7RU
Get access

Summary

Phenotypic and genetic parameters for reproductive performance in a flock of Clun Forest ewes have been estimated. Average litter size (ALS) appeared to be more repeatable than the number of lambs born per ewe mated and present at lambing (NLBEM), and the estimates obtained by regression (0·15 and 0·14) were slightly higher than those from the analyses of variance (0·12 and 0·09). The repeatability of barrenness was very low (0·05). It was concluded that little scope existed for the improvement of reproductive performance from a regular policy of culling.

Estimates of heritability by analysis of variance and a method for all-or-none traits were 0·12 and 0·11 for ALS, and 0·15 and 0·10 for NLBEM, whereas barrenness was less heritable (0·07). An estimate of 016 was found for the heritability of ALS performance over two years. The phenotypic correlation between body weight and reproductive performance were positive yet small (ALS:+0·16; NLBEM:+0·10), while at the genetic level ALS was more strongly related to body weight (+0·21) than NLBEM (-0·04). The genetic regressions indicated that an increase of 5 lambs per 100 ewes lambing would accompany genetic gain of 5 kg in ewe body weight, while an increase of 1 lamb per ewe lambing would lead to a correlated response in body weight of 5 kg.

Selection for ALS on the basis of dams' performance, within the flock studied, would be expected to yield a rate of progress of 2% per annum.

Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Production , Volume 19 , Issue 1 , August 1974 , pp. 33 - 45
Copyright
Copyright © British Society of Animal Science 1974

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

REFERENCES

Bampton, P. 1972. An analysis of performance records from Suffolk and Clun Forest flocks. Report to Meat and Livestock Commission, 1971. (Mimeograph).Google Scholar
Bichard, M. and Cooper, M. McG. 1966. Analysis of production records from a lowland sheep flock. 1. Lamb mortality and growth to 16 weeks. Anim. Prod. 8:401–410.Google Scholar
Bradford, G. E. 1972. Genetic control of litter size in sheep. J. Reprod. Fert., (Suppl.) 15: 23–41.Google ScholarPubMed
Ch'ang, T. S. and Rae, A. L. 1970. The genetic basis of growth, reproduction, and maternal environment in Romney ewes. I. Genetic variation in hogget characters and fertility of the ewe. Aust. J. agric. Res. 21: 115–129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coop, I. E. and Hayman, B. I. 1962. Live-weight productivity relationship in sheep. II. Effect of live-weight on production and efficiency of production of lamb and wool. N.Z. Jl. agric. Res. 5: 265–277.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Forrest, P. A. and Bichard, M. 1974. Analysis of production records from a lowland sheep flock. 2. Flock statistics and reproductive performance. Anim. Prod. 19: 25–32.Google Scholar
Hallgrimsson, S. 1966. Fertility in sheep. Heritability and Repeatability. Commission on Sheep and Goat Production. European Assoc. for Animal Production. (Mimeograph).Google Scholar
Johansson, I. and Hansson, A. 1943. The sex ratio and multiple births in sheep. LantbrHogsk.Annlr 11: 145–171.Google Scholar
Kennedy, J. P. 1967. Genetic and phenotypic relationships between fertility and wool production in 2 year old Merino sheep. Aust. J. agric. Res. 18: 515–522.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lush, J. L. 1956. Query. Biometrics 12: 84–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mechling, E. A. and Carter, R. C. 1969. Genetics of multiple births in sheep. J. Hered. 60: 261–266.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Morley, F. H. W. 1951. Selection for economic characters in Australian Merino sheep. I. Estimates of phenotypic and genetic parameters. Scient. Bull. Dep. Agric, New South Wales, No. 73.Google Scholar
Purser, A. F. 1965. Repeatability and heritability of fertility in hill sheep. Anim. Prod. 7: 75–82.Google Scholar
Reeve, E. C. R. and Robertson, F. W. 1953. Factors affecting multiple births in sheep. Anim. Breed. Abstr. 21: 211–224.Google Scholar
Robertson, A. 1959a. Experimental design in the evaluation of genetic parameters. Biometrics 15: 219–226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Robertson, A. 1959b. The sampling variance of the genetic correlation coefficient. Biometrics 15: 469–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Robertson, A. 1962. Weighting in the estimation of variance components in the unbalanced single classification. Biometrics 18: 413–417.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Robertson, A. and Lerner, I. M. 1949. The heritability of all-or-none traits: viability of poultry. Genetics, Princeton 34: 395–411.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Shelton, M. and Menzies, J. W. 1970. Repeatability and heritability of components of reproductive efficiency in fine-wool sheep. J. Anim. Sci. 30: 1–5.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Turner, H. N. 1969. Genetic improvement of reproduction rate in sheep. Anim. Breed. Abstr. 37: 545–563.Google Scholar
Yalcin, B. C. and Bichard, M. 1964. Crossbred sheep production. II. The repeatability of performance and scope for culling. Anim. Prod. 6: 85–90.Google Scholar
Young, S. S. Y., Turner, H. N. and Dolling, C. H. S. 1963. Selection for fertility in Australian Merino sheep. Aust. J. agric. Res. 14: 460–482.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Youssef, A. A. 1956. Selection for fertility in the Romney Marsh sheep. Ph.D. Thesis, Univ. Newcastle upon Tyne.Google Scholar