Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-xbtfd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-19T12:33:01.416Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The effect of level of nutrition during pregnancy and during lactation on lamb and wool production of grazing sheep

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 March 2009

I. E. Coop
I. E. Coop
Affiliation:
Lincoln College, University of New Zealand
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Seven different experiments over 3 years and involving a total of 1750 ewes have been designed to study the effects of high and low levels of nutrition during pregnancy and during lactation on grazing sheep. The trials were run as nearly as possible under typical fat-lamb producing conditions. Commencing with breeding ewes in average store condition before tupping, a live-weight gain of 25–40 lb. from tupping to lambing was adopted as a standard of a high level of feeding and a gain of ± 5 lb. was considered to be a low level of feeding. Differential feeding was obtained by keeping the ewes on high-quality pasture as a high level of nutrition, and by stocking heavily on poor pasture as a low level. Under these conditions the following results were obtained:

(1) Level of nutrition during pregnancy. The high level of nutrition during pregnancy increased birth weight by about 0.5 lb., but had little if any influence on the rate of growth and the weaning weight of the lambs, irrespective of the subsequent level of nutrition. The high level did not reduce ewe and lamb mortality and there was some evidence to the contrary when the high plane was applied early, leading to large live-weight gain.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Agricultural Science , Volume 40 , Issue 4 , October 1950 , pp. 311 - 340
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1950

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

Barnicoat, C. R., Logan, A. G. & Grant, A. I. (1949).J. Agrie. Sci. 39, 44.Google Scholar
Clunies Ross, I., Graham, N. P. N., Turner, H. N., Carter, H. B. & Munz, H. (1937). G.S.I.R. (Australia), Pamphlet No. 71.Google Scholar
Curson, H. H. & Malan, A. P. (1935). Onderstepoort J. Vet. Sci. 4, 481.Google Scholar
Dumaresq, J. A. (1938, 1940). Tasm. J. Agric. 9, 113; 11, 1.Google Scholar
Ewer, T. K. & Sinclair, D. P. (1950). Private communication.Google Scholar
Ferguson, K. A., Carter, H. B. & Hardy, M. H. (1949).Aust. J. Sci. Res. B, 2, 42.Google Scholar
Mabé, G. S. & Bosman, V. (1934). Onderstepoort J. Vet. Sci. 3, 199.Google Scholar
Marston, H. R. (1948). Aust. J. Sci. Res. B, 1, 362.Google Scholar
McMahon, P. R. & Henderson, A. E. (1946–1950). Wool Survey Reports. Lincoln College, N.Z.Google Scholar
McMahon, P. R. (1945). Wool Metrology Laboratory Special Report, no. 1. Lincoln College, N.Z.Google Scholar
Snell, M. G. (1933). Proc. Amer. Soc. Anim. Prod. p. 178.Google Scholar
Thomson, A. M. & Thomson, W. (1949). Brit. J. Nutr. 2, 290.Google Scholar
Thomson, W. & Fraser, A. H. H. (1939). Scot. J. Agric. 22, 71.Google Scholar
Underwood, E. J. & Shier, F. L. (1942). J. Agric. West Aust. 19, 37.Google Scholar
Underwood, E. J. & Shier, F. L.Cariss, H. G. (1943).J. Agric. West. Aust. 20, 288.Google Scholar
Verges, J. B. (1939). Suffolk Sheep Society Yearbook.Google Scholar
Wallace, L. R. (1948). J. Agric. Sci. 38, 93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar