Hostname: page-component-5c6d5d7d68-thh2z Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-08-15T16:10:11.437Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

The size of lambs at birth—a study involving egg transfer

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 February 1962

G. Wiener
Affiliation:
A.R.C. Animal Breeding Research Organisation, Edinburgh, 9
Get access

Extract

The influence of maternal and genetic factors on the size of lambs at birth and on their gestation length has been studied from the results of two experiments involving the transfer of fertilised eggs from one breed of sheep to another. In the first experiment, eggs were transferred reciprocally between old ewes of the large Lincoln breed and of the small Welsh Mountain breed. Results are based on 20 transfer lambs and 14 normally born singles. In the second experiment, 35 pure Lincoln and 28 pure Welsh lambs were born as a result of transferring eggs into 18-month-old nulliparous Scottish Blackface sheep.

The breed type of the lamb was found to be the most important factor influencing weight and cannon length at birth, although maternal-foetal interactions were present. As the maternal environment became poorer, genotypic differences remained distinct but decreased in magnitude. The maternal environment provided by 4th parity Lincoln ewes, if judged by lamb's size at birth, was better than that provided by 4th parity Welsh ewes, and this in turn was better than that provided by 1st parity Blackfaces. Lincoln and Welsh lambs in the same maternal environment differed in average birth weight by 5·7, 3·8 and 3·0 1b. respectively in the Lincoln, Welsh and 1st parity Blackface maternal environments. Lincoln and Welsh lambs, each in their own normal maternal environment, differed by 6·5 lb. The maternal influence on cannon length was similar but small. Gestation length of Lincoln lambs in Welsh recipients was almost 4 days shorter than that of Welsh lambs in Lincoln recipients. In the Blackface maternal environment, Lincoln and Welsh lambs differed little in gestation length but males were, on average, carried about a day longer than were females.

At the individual level, weight of (Blackface) recipient ewe had a somewhat greater effect on lamb's size than had weight of (Lincoln or Welsh) donor ewe. The magnitudes of these ‘genetic’ and ‘maternal’ effects were comparable with those found at the level of group means; even so, donor's and recipient's weight together accounted for only a small part of the individual variation in lamb's size about the group means.

It was concluded that a ewe was able to respond to progressively greater demands made by a lamb or lambs of progressively larger (combined) potential size—but in accordance with the law of diminishing returns—and that the upper limit of maternal accommodation must be considerable. By contrast, the upper limit of mean genetic size at birth appears to be not far above the mean size of single lambs born to their natural mothers in good condition. A model has been constructed from which mean birth weight of lambs can be predicted.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © British Society of Animal Science 1962

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

1Brumby, P. J., 1960. The influence of the maternal environment on growth in mice. Heredity, 14: 1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
2Dickinson, A. G., 1960. Some genetic implications of maternal effects—an hypothesis of mammalian growth. J. agric. Sci., 54: 378.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
3Hancock, J. L. & Hovell, G. J. R., 1961. The transfer of sheep ova. J. Reprod. Fertil, 2: 295.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
4Hunter, G. L., 1956. The maternal influence on size in sheep. J. agric. Sci., 48: 36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
5Hunter, G. L., Adams, C. E. & Rowson, L. E., 1955. Inter-breed ovum transfer in sheep. J. agric. Sci., 46: 143.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
6Joubert, D. M. & Hammond, J., 1958. A crossbreeding experiment with cattle, with special reference to the maternal effect in South Devon-Dexter crosses. J. agric. Sci., 51: 325.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
7Mckeown, T. & Macmahon, B., 1956. Sex differences in length of gestation in mammals. J. Endocrin., 13: 309.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
8PÁlsson, H. & VergÉs, J. B., 1952. Effects of the plane of nutrition on growth and the development of carcass quality in lambs. Part I. The effects of high and low planes of nutrition at different ages. J. agric. Sci., 42: 1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
9Terrill, C. E. & Hazel, L. N., 1947. Length of gestation in range sheep. Amer. J. vet. Res., 8: 66.Google ScholarPubMed
10Venge, O., 1950. Studies of the maternal influence on the birth weight in rabbits. Ada Zool. (Stockh.), 31: 1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
11Walton, A. & Hammond, J., 1958. The maternal effects on growth and conformation in Shire horse-Shetland pony crosses. Proc. Roy. Soc. B, 126: 311.Google Scholar