Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-l7hp2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-26T20:17:07.620Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Comparative performance of crossbred ewes from three crossing sire breeds

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 September 2010

N. D. Cameron ,
C. Smith  and
F. K. Deeble
N. D. Cameron
Affiliation:
ARC Animal Breeding Research Organisation, West Mains Road, Edinburgh EH9 3JQ
C. Smith
Affiliation:
ARC Animal Breeding Research Organisation, West Mains Road, Edinburgh EH9 3JQ
F. K. Deeble
Affiliation:
Agricultural Development and Advisory Service, Coley Park, Reading RG1 6DT
Get access

Abstract

The performance of crossbred ewes sired by Border Leicester (BL), Bluefaced Leicester (BFL) and ABRO Damline (DL) crossing sires was compared. The dams of the crossbred ewes were of three hill breeds (Scottish Blackface, Swaledale and Welsh Mountain). Contemporary comparisons were made on 18 commercial and college farms throughout England and Wales from 1977 to 1981. A total of 1 277 crossbred ewes were involved with data on up to three years' lambings per ewe, giving a total of 3 522 mating records. The analyses were by least squares, fitting constants for terminal ram breed × farm × year of birth of ewe groups, sire breed, dam breed, age of crossbred ewe and all two-way interactions.

The DL crossbred ewes were lighter at mating than the other crossbreds at each age. The proportion of 1-year-old crossbred ewes lambing was highest for the DL (0·78), compared to BFL (0·73) and BL (0·62), indicating earlier sexual maturity. Over all ages, the DL crossbreds were more prolific with 1·79 lambs per ewe lambing compared to BFL (1·63) and BL (1·53) and more lambs were weaned (1·33, 1·29 and 1·19 respectively). The total litter weight at both birth and weaning of the DL crossbreds was greater than the BL crossbreds but less than the BFL crossbreds at each age. For prolificacy and early sexual maturity, the DL cross is superior to both breeds. In overall production, the DL cross had no advantage over the BFL cross, as the litters of the DL crossbred ewes were lighter than the BFL litters at both birth and 10 weeks of age

Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Production , Volume 37 , Issue 3 , December 1983 , pp. 415 - 421
Copyright
Copyright © British Society of Animal Science 1983

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

Boaz, T. G., Jones, R. and Smith, C. 1980. A note on a comparison of crossbreds from two prolific sheep breeds. Anim. Prod. 31: 323–325.Google Scholar
Bradford, G. E. 1972. Genetic control of litter size in sheep. J. Reprod. Ferl., Suppl. 15, pp. 23–41.Google Scholar
Cameron, N. D. and Deeble, the Late F. K. 1983. A note comparing lambs from three crossing-ram breeds. Anim. Prod. 37: 301–303.Google Scholar
Donald, H. P. and Read, J. L. 1967. The performance of Finnish Landrace sheep in Britain. Anim. Prod. 9: 471–476.Google Scholar
Donald, H. P. and Russell, W. S. 1970. The relationship between live weight of ewe at mating and weight of newborn lamb. Anim. Prod. 12: 273–280.Google Scholar
Harvey, W. R. 1960. Least-squares analysis of data with unequal subclass numbers. U.S. Dep. Agric, ARS-20-8. (Mimeograph).Google Scholar
Hocking, R. R. 1976. Analysis and selection of variables in linear regression. Biometrics 32: 1–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scottish Agricultural Colleges. 1981. Farm management handbook 1981/82. Publ. Scott. Agric. Coll., No. 81.Google Scholar
Smith, C., King, J. W. B., Nicholson, D., Wolf, B. T. and Bampton, P. R. 1979. Performance of crossbred sheep from a synthetic Dam Line. Anim. Prod. 29: 1–9.Google Scholar