Hostname: page-component-7479d7b7d-t6hkb Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-15T21:41:04.775Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

The influence of season and nutrition on the sulphur content of wool from Merino and Cheviot sheep

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 March 2009

J. M. Doney
Affiliation:
Hill Farming Research Organization, 29 Lauder Road, Edinburgh, 9
C. C. Evans
Affiliation:
Hill Farming Research Organization, 29 Lauder Road, Edinburgh, 9

Summary

Sulphur content, expressed as a percentage of clean dry wool weight, was measured at monthly intervals in two breeds of sheep, Cheviot and Merino x Cheviot backcross (¾ Merino, ¼ Cheviot), offered an equivalent annual amount of feed in three ways—constant level, natural grazing cycle and reversed grazing cycle. The relationships between S content and wool growth rate or nutrient intake differed with both breed and nutrient cycle, but all the results could be explained satisfactorily on the basis of a constant optimum composition for each individual with sulphur impoverishment related to lack of balance between follicle activity rate and high-S substrate availability.

The difference in mean maximum S content between breeds (3·87% and 3·81% for Cheviot and ‘Merino’ respectively) was much smaller than the difference between individuals within the breeds (4·05·3·72% and 3·92·3·66%). The seasonal depression within individuals varied with nutrition and wool growth rate, Cheviot sheep showing the greatest depression and lowest values (2·89 and 3·28% for Cheviot and 'Merino, respectively in the reversed cycle group). There was no consistent seasonal trend in the relationship between clean and unscoured wool weight.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1968

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

Doney, J. M. (1966). Breed difference in response of wool growth to annual nutritional and climatic cycles. J. agric. Sci., Camb. 67, 2530.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Doney, J. M. & Eadie, J. (1967). The wool growth response to the annual cycle of grazing intake in Cheviot wethers. J. agric. Sci., Camb. 69, 411–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gillespie, J. M., Reis, P. J. & Schinckel, P. G. (1964). The isolation and properties of some soluble proteins from wool. IX. Aust. J. biol. Sci. 17, 548–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gillespie, J. M. & Reis, P. J. (1966). The dietaryregulated biosynthesis of high-sulphur wool proteins. Biochem. J. 98, 669–77.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Reis, P. J. (1965a). The growth and composition of wool. III. Variations in the sulphur content of wool. Aust. J. biol. Sci. 18, 671–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reis, P. J. (1965b). Variations in the sulphur content of wool. In Biology of the Skin and Hair Growth (ed. Lyne, A. G. and Short, B. F.), 365–75. Sydney: Angus and Robertson.Google Scholar
Reis, P. J. & Schinckel, P. G. (1963). Some effects of sulphur-containing amino acids on the growth and composition of wool. Aust. J. biol. Sci. 16, 218–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reis, P. J. & Williams, O. B. (1965). Variations in the sulphur content of wool from Merino sheep on two semi-arid grasslands. Aust. J. agric. Res. 16, 1011–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ross, D. A. (1964). Wool production and sulphur content. N.Z. Jl agric. Res. 7, 663–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rydee, M. L. & Stevenson, S. K. (1967). Wool Growth. Academic Press.Google Scholar
Short, B. F., Wilson, , Patbicia, A. & Schinckel, P. G. (1965). Proliferation of follicle matrix cells in relation to wool growth. In Biology of the Skin and Hair Growth. (Ed. Lyne, A. G. and Short, B. F.), 409–26. Sydney: Angus and Robertson.Google Scholar