Hostname: page-component-7bb8b95d7b-pwrkn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-09-16T18:01:55.712Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A comparison of sires of Suffolk and Dutch Texel breeds and ewes of Greyface, Suffolk Cheviot and Dutch Texel breeds in terms of food intake, prolificacy and lamb growth rates

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 August 2016

S. D. Johnston ,
R. W. J. Steen ,
D. J. Kilpatrick ,
D. E. Lowe  and
D. M. B. Chestnutt
S. D. Johnston*
Affiliation:
Agricultural Research Institute of Northern Ireland, Hillsborough, Co. Down BT26 6DR The Queen’s University of Belfast BT9 5PX
R. W. J. Steen
Affiliation:
Agricultural Research Institute of Northern Ireland, Hillsborough, Co. Down BT26 6DR Department of Agriculture for Northern Ireland, Newforge Lane, Belfast The Queen’s University of Belfast BT9 5PX
D. J. Kilpatrick
Affiliation:
Department of Agriculture for Northern Ireland, Newforge Lane, Belfast The Queen’s University of Belfast BT9 5PX
D. E. Lowe*
Affiliation:
Agricultural Research Institute of Northern Ireland, Hillsborough, Co. Down BT26 6DR
D. M. B. Chestnutt
Affiliation:
Agricultural Research Institute of Northern Ireland, Hillsborough, Co. Down BT26 6DR Department of Agriculture for Northern Ireland, Newforge Lane, Belfast The Queen’s University of Belfast BT9 5PX
*
† Present address: Department of Agriculture for Northern Ireland, 18 The Square, Ballyclare, Co. Antrim BT39 9BB.
‡Corrrsponding author.
Get access

Abstract

A comparison was made over 2 years of sires of Suffolk and Dutch Texel breeds and ewes of Greyface (Border Leicester × Scottish Blackface), Suffolk Cheviot and Dutch Texel breeds in terms of food intake, prolificacy and lamb growth rates under a grass-based system of production. Suffolk Cheviot ewes consumed significantly more silage dry matter than the Greyface ewes in both years of the study. There was no overall difference between Greyface and Suffolk Cheviot ewes in terms of prolificacy. However lambs from Suffolk Cheviot ewes had a higher growth rate than lambs from Greyface ewes from birth to weaning in year 1 (P < 0·01). In the comparison of the three ewe breeds sired by Dutch Texel rams in year 2, Dutch Texel ewes produced a similar number of lambs to the other genotypes but had a higher incidence of difficult lambings, higher lamb mortality and consequently a lower number of lambs weaned. Purebred Dutch Texel male lambs had lower growth rates than crossbred Dutch Texel lambs (143 compared with 158 glday for lambs from Greyface ewes and 166 (s.e. 13.4) glday for lambs from Suffolk Cheviot ewes in year 1 and 183 compared with 251 and 248 respectively (s.e. 10.9) glday in year 2). Lambs sired by Suffolk rams had higher growth rates than those sired by Dutch Texel rams (252 compared with 224 (s.e. 5.4) glday) in year 2.

Keywords

genotypesgrowthprolificacysheep
Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Science , Volume 68 , Issue 4 , June 1999 , pp. 567 - 575
Copyright
Copyright © British Society of Animal Science 1999

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

Bowman, J. C. 1966. Meat from sheep. Animal Breeding Abstracts 34: 293–319.Google Scholar
Carter, A. H. and Kirton, A. H. 1975. Lamb production performance of 14 sire breeds mated to New Zealand Romney ewes. Livestock Production Science 2: 157–166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hanrahan, J. P. 1993. Growth and carcass traits of crossbred lambs: differences among terminal sire breeds. In Proceedings of the nineteenth annual research meeting of the Irish Grassland and Animal Production Association, pp. 93–94.Google Scholar
Hight, G. K. and Jury, K. E. 1970. Hill country sheep production. II. Lamb mortality and birth weights in Romney and Border Leicester × Romney flocks. New Zealand Journal of Agricultural Research 13: 735–752.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
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
Latif, M. G. S. and Owen, E. 1979. Comparison of Texel- and Suffolk-sired lambs out of Finnish Landrace × Dorset Horn ewes under grazing conditions. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 93: 235–239.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
More O’Ferrall, G. J. 1974. Effect of breed of ram on fertility of ewes and perinatal mortality of lambs. Irish Journal of Agricultural Research 13: 341–343.Google Scholar
More O’Ferrall, G. J. and Timon, V. M. 1975. A comparison of sheep breeds and crosses for ewe productivity. Irish Journal of Agricultural Research 14: 285–296.Google Scholar
More O’Ferrall, G. J. and Timon, V. M. 1977a. A comparison of eight sire breeds for lamb production. 1. Lamb growth and carcass measurements. Irish Journal of Agricultural Research 16: 267–275.Google Scholar
More O’Ferrall, G. J. and Timon, V. M. 1977b. A comparison of eight sire breeds for lamb production. 2. Lamb carcass comparison. Irish Journal of Agricultural Research 16: 277–284.Google Scholar
Numerical Algorithms Group. 1994. Genstat 5 release 3 reference manual. Oxford Scientific Publications, Clarendon Press, Oxford.Google Scholar
Rastogi, R., Boylan, W. J., Rempel, W. E. and Windels, H. F. 1982. Crossbreeding in sheep and evaluation effects for lamb growth. Journal of Animal Science 54: 524–532.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sidwell, G. M. and Miller, L. R. 1971. Production in some purebreeds of sheep and their crosses. II. Birth weights and weaning weights of lamb. Journal of Animal Science 32: 1090–1094.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, G. M. 1977. Factors affecting birth weight, dystocia and preweaning survival in sheep. Journal of Animal Science 44: 745–753.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Snowder, G. D. and Glimp, A. 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
Steen, R. W. J. 1989. A comparison of soya-bean, sunflower and fish meals as protein supplements for yearling cattle offered grass silage-based diets. Animal Production 48: 81–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vesely, J. A. and Peters, H. F. 1972. Lamb growth performance of Romnelet, Columbria, Suffolk and N.C. Cheviot breeds and all single and three-breed crosses among them. Canadian Journal of Animal Science 52: 283–293.CrossRefGoogle Scholar