Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7czq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-26T19:45:51.345Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A comparison of the performance of suckled lambs with lambs weaned at seven weeks of age and either grazed or given concentrates

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 September 2010

W. Rutter
W. Rutter
Affiliation:
North of Scotland College of Agriculture, Aberdeen
Get access

Summary

1. Seventy-two Blackface ewes with 96 Greyface (Border Leicester ♂ × Blackface ♀) lambs were allocated to three groups. Twenty-four ewes with 32 suckling lambs were set-stocked on 2·4 hectares (ha) of grass (A); 32 lambs were weaned and set-stocked on 2·4 ha of grass (B) and 32 lambs were weaned, housed and given concentrates (C). Beef cows with calves were used to control the grass in the two grazing groups.

2. The average initial live weight of the lambs was 18 kg. Treatments had a significant effect on performance, the live-weight gains per lamb over the initial 35 days being 11·2, 9·1 and 5·9 kg for groups A, B and C respectively. The total gains over 70 days, when the suckled lambs (A) were weaned, were 17·6, 15·5 and 14·3 kg.

3. The total live-weight gain per ha from lambs and calves over 88 days was higher on treatment B than on treatment A. The lambs weaned on to grass took 9 days longer than the suckled lambs to reach a slaughter weight of 42 kg and had significantly poorer killing-out percentages.

4.The lambs given concentrates had an overall food conversion efficiency of 4·89 kg concentrates per kg live-weight gain.

Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Production , Volume 12 , Issue 4 , November 1970 , pp. 543 - 549
Copyright
Copyright © British Society of Animal Science 1970

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

Baird, D. M., Mccampbell, H. C. and Sell, O. E. 1960. Pelleted vs. non-pelleted creep feeding and stilbestrol implantation of early-weaned lambs on winter temporary pasture. J. Anim. Sci. 19: 1303 (Abstr.).Google Scholar
Barnicoat, C. R., Murray, P. F., Roberts, E. M. and Wilson, G. S. 1956. Milk secretion studies with New Zealand Romney ewes. VIII. Experiments on the early weaning of lambs. J. agric. Sci., Camb. 48: 22–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown, T. H. 1964. The early weaning of lambs. J. agric. Sci., Camb. 63: 191–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jordan, R. M. and Wedin, W. F. 1961. Lamb production as affected by forage mixture and grazing management of perennial pastures. J. Anim. Sci. 20: 898–902.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Munro, Joan. 1962. A study of the milk yield of three strains of Scottish Blackface ewes in two environments. Anim. Prod. 4: 203–213.Google Scholar
Owen, J. B. 1957. A study of the lactation and growth of hill sheep in their native environment and under lowland conditions. J. agric. Sci., Camb. 48: 387–412.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Snedecor, G. W. 1959. Statistical Methods, 5th ed., p. 286. Iowa State College Press, Ames, la.Google Scholar
Wardrop, I. D., Tribe, D. E. and Coombe, J. B. 1960. An experimental study of the early weaning of lambs. J. agric. Sci., Camb. 55: 133–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar