Hostname: page-component-5c6d5d7d68-sv6ng Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-08-27T06:10:30.081Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

On the relative growth and development of various breeds and crosses of sheep

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 March 2009

John Hammond
John Hammond
Affiliation:
From the Institute of Animal Nutrition, School of Agriculture, Cambridge University.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Records of the live and carcase weights of sheep exhibited at the Smithfield Show from 1893 to 1913 have been treated statistically. The results show the average weights, rates of growth, and proportions of the carcase in the different breeds of sheep at 9 months and at 21 months of age (see Tables II and V).

On the average of all breeds the rate of growth declines from 4·7 lbs. per week from birth to 9 months of age to 1·7 lbs. per week from 9 to 21 months of age.

The carcase percentage increases with age on the average from 61 per cent, at 9 months to 65 per cent, at 21 months and with it the percentage of fat from 5·7 per cent, at 9 months to 64 per cent, at 21 months. On the other hand the proportions of pluck, skin and alimentary canal (“Unaccounted for”) decrease with age.

Ratios of early maturity are given for the various breeds and the factors which affect it are discussed.

The average weights, rates of growth and proportions of the carcase are given for the different crosses of sheep (see Tables IX and XIII).

From a comparison of crossbreds with pure breeds it would appear that crossing leads to increase in live weight and probably more early maturity. There is an indication that the proportions of carcase, fat and pluck are less but the proportions of skin and alimentary canal are greater in crossbreds than in the pure breeds of sheep.

There is greater variation in live weight in the Cheviot and Blackface breeds than in the Leicester, Southdown, Hampshire and Suffolk breeds; in the latter breeds variability decreases but in the former breeds it increases with age.

Variability in live weight at 9 months old has steadily increased from 1893 to 1913 but at 21 months old there has been little change.

Some parts are more variable in their proportion to live weight than are others. Fat and alimentary canal are most variable, skin and pluck slightly less variable, while the proportion of carcase is less variable even than live weight.

The variability of the proportions of carcase, pluck and alimentary canal increase while the variability of the proportions of fat and skin decrease with age.

Within a breed and among animals of the same age the heaviest sheep generally have the highest carcase and fat percentage and the lowest percentage of pluck, skin and alimentary canal.

A high proportion of carcase is correlated with a high proportion of fat and a low proportion of skin and alimentary canal at 9 months old. At 21 months old the same holds true with the exception that the sheep with the highest carcase percentage have not the most fat.

The proportion of pluck does not appear to be correlated with any other part of the body except inversely with the live weight.

During the period 1893–1913, although individual breeds show differences, the majority have increased in live weight at 9 months old but at 21 months old have remained practically constant in weight.

The sheep exhibited in 1840 were very much fatter than those shown in the Carcase Classes of to-day and are probably comparable with those of the present-day Live Classes. Since 1840 Leicesters have shown a great increase and Southdowns a small increase in weight.

The carcase percentage of sheep both at 9 and 21 months of age has steadily decreased during the period 1893–1913; this has been attended by an increase in the proportion of pluck, skin and alimentary canal.

There is an indication that the influences which affect sheep in their first year of life (store period) affect their ultimate size.

The seasonal variation in the weight attained by sheep is dependent on the rainfall; a high rainfall through increased root and fodder crops causing increased live weight.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Agricultural Science , Volume 11 , Issue 4 , October 1921 , pp. 367 - 407
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1921

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

(1)British Breeds of Live Stock, Board of Agriculture and Fisheries, London, 1913; and McConnell, Note book of Agricultural Facts and Figures, London, 1904Google Scholar
(2)Voitellier, . Bul. Mens, d. l'Off. Renseignements Agricoles, Year 12, No. 1, 01 1913; Plumb, Judging Farm Animals, New York, 1916; Freyer, Arbeiten der Deutsch. Landw. Gesell., Heft 292.Google Scholar
(3)Meek, . The Veterinarian, 1901.Google Scholar
(4)Donaldson, . The Rat. Memoir of Wistar Institute of Anatomy, No. 6, Philadelphia, 1915.Google Scholar
(5)Hammond, . Journ. Agric. Sci., 10, Part III, 1920.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(6)British Rainfall, Symonds and Wallis, London, 1892–1913.Google Scholar
(7)Agricultural Statistics, Board of Agriculture and Fisheries, 1892–1913.Google Scholar
(8) Long. Journ. Bd. of Agric. and Fisheries, 21, Ap. 1914.Google Scholar
(9)Diffloth, . Zootechnie Spéciale, Paris, 1908, p. 279.Google Scholar
(10)Ritzman, . Journ. of Agric. Research, 11, 1917.Google Scholar
(11)Murray, . Chemistry of Cattle Feeding and Dairying, London, 1914.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(12)Donaldson, . The Rat, Philadelphia, 1915, p. 90.Google Scholar
(13)Jackson, and Lowrey, . Anat. Record, 6, 1912, p. 449.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(14)Kern, and Wattenberg, . Journ. Landw. 26 and 28, 1878 and 1880. (Quoted from Armsby, The Nutrition of Farm Animals, New York, 1917.)Google Scholar
(15)Auernheimer, . Ztschr. Fleisch- u. Milch-hygiene, No. 12, 1910.Google Scholar
(16)Punnett, and Bailey, . Journ. of Genetics, 8, No. 1, 1918.Google Scholar
(17)Armsby, . The Nutrition of Farm Animals, New York, 1917.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(18)Müller, . Deutsche Landw. Tierzucht, Year 18, No. 1, 1914.Google Scholar
(19)Jackson, . Amer. Journ. Anatomy, 15, 1913–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(20)Hatai, . Amer. Journ. Anatomy, 15, 1913–1914.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(21)Malsburg, . Dents. Gesell. f. Zuchtungskunde, 15, Hanover, 1911.Google Scholar
(22)Winter, . Univ. Coll. of N. Wales, Bangor, Bul. VII, 1912.Google Scholar
(23)Hammond, . Journ. Agric. Science, 10, Part III, 1920.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(24)East, and Hayes, . Conn. Agr. Exp. Sta., Bul. 167, 1911.Google Scholar
(25)Heape, . Journ. Roy. Agric. Soc. of England, 3rd Series, 10, 1899.Google Scholar
(26)Humphrey, and Kleinheinz, . Wisconsin Agric. Exp. Sta. Rpt. 1907.Google Scholar
(27)Mumford, . Missouri Agr. Exp. Sta., Bul. 53, 1901.Google Scholar
(28)Punnett, and Bailey, . Journ. Genetics, 8, No. 1, 1918.Google Scholar
(29)Ritzman, . Journ. Agric. Research, 11, 1917.Google Scholar
(30)Hammond, . Journ. Agric. Science, 10, Part III, 1920.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(31)Robertson, . Amer. Journ. Physiol, 41, No. 5, 1916.Google Scholar
(32)Jackson, . Amer. Journ. Anatomy, 15, 1913–1914.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(33)King, . Anal. Rec., 9, No. 10, 1915.Google Scholar
(34)Hammond, . Journ. Agric. Sci., 10, 1920.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(35)Boycott, and Damant, . Journ. Physiol., 37, 1908.Google Scholar
(36)Seeberger, . Jahrb. wiss. u. prakt. Tierzucht, 4, 1909.Google Scholar
(37)Mancia, . Moderno Zooiatro, 29, No. 8, 1918.Google Scholar
(39)Joseph, . Journ. Exp. Med., 10, 1908.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(40)Hatai, . Amer. Journ. Anat., 15, 1913–1914.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(41)Joseph, . Journ. Exp. Med., 11, 1909.Google Scholar
(42)Livingstone, . Journ. Exp. Med., 19, 1914.Google Scholar
(43)Tridon, . L'Hygiène de la Viande et du Lait, 8, No. 1, 1914.Google Scholar
(44)Cline, . Communications to the Board of Agriculture, London, 4, 1805.Google Scholar
(45)Lawes, and Gilbert, . Journ. Roy. Agric. Soc. of England, 21, 1860.Google Scholar
(46)Mackenzie, and Marshall, . Journ. Bd. of Agric. and Fisheries, 25, 1918.Google Scholar
(47)Smith, Meade. Physiology of Domestic Animals, Philadelphia, 1889.Google Scholar
(48)Colin, . Physiologie compared des animaux, Vol. II, Paris, 1888.Google Scholar
(49)Jackson, . Amer. Journ. Anat., 15, 1913–1914.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(50)Hopkins, . Journ. of Physiol., 44, 1912.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(51)Hatai, . Amer. Journ. of Physiol, 18, No. 3, 1907.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(52)Osborne, and Mendel, . Journ. Biol. Chem., 18, No. 1, 1914.Google Scholar
(53)Osborne, Mendel, Ferry, and Wakeman, . Amer. Journ. of Physiol., 40, No. 1, 1916.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(54)Morgulis, . Amer. Nat., 47, 1913.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(55)Watson, and Hunter, . Journ. of Physiol., 33, 1905–1906.Google Scholar
(56)Henseler, . Kühn-Archiv, Univ. Halle, Bd. v, 1914.Google Scholar
(57)Jackson, and Stewart, . Journ. Exp. Zool. No. 1, 1920.Google Scholar
(58)Waters, . Proc. Soc. Prom. Agric. Sciences, 1909.Google Scholar
(59)Trowbridge, , Moulton, and Haigh, . Missouri Agric. Exp. Sta., Bul. 28, 1918.Google Scholar
(60)Aron, . Philippine Journ. Sci., B. Med. Science, 6, No. 1, 1911. (Quoted from Exp. Sta. Rec. 25.Google Scholar