Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-dlnhk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-20T11:42:31.384Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Comparison of the productivity of Texel and Rouge de l’Ouest ewes and their crosses

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 August 2016

L. E. R. Dawson ,
A. F. Carson  and
L. O. W. McClinton
L. E. R. Dawson*
Affiliation:
Agricultural Research Institute of Northern Ireland, Hillsborough, Co. Down BT26 6DR, UK
A. F. Carson
Affiliation:
Agricultural Research Institute of Northern Ireland, Hillsborough, Co. Down BT26 6DR, UK Department of Agriculture for Northern Ireland and The Queen’s University of Belfast, Newforge Lane, Belfast BT9 5PX, UK
L. O. W. McClinton*
Affiliation:
Agricultural Research Institute of Northern Ireland, Hillsborough, Co. Down BT26 6DR, UK
*
†E-mail:[email protected]
†E-mail:[email protected]
Get access

Abstract

An experiment was undertaken to compare the productivity of crossbred ewes, produced by crossing Texel sires with Rouge de l’Ouest (Rouge) dams and Rouge sires with Texel dams, relative to purebred Texel and Rouge ewes. The purebred and crossbred ewes were crossed with Rouge and Texel sires. The proportion of productive ewes was similar in the purebred and crossbred ewes with an average figure of 0·92. Irrespective of crossing sire, Rouge ewes produced 0·48 more lambs per ewe lambed than Texel ewes (P < 0·001). The two crossbred ewe types (Texel ✕ Rouge and Rouge ✕ Texel) each produced similar numbers of lambs (on average 1·92 lambs per ewe lambed). Individual heterosis values for ewe fertility and prolificacy were small and not significant (–1·67 for the proportion of productive ewes and –3·14 for the number of lambs born per ewe lambed). Maternal heterosis values were also not significant but were of larger magnitude (6·26 for ewe fertility and 3·12 for prolificacy). Lamb mortality (number of lambs born dead per ewe lambed) at birth was similar for purebred Rouge (0·44) and Texel (0·30) ewes and was significantly reduced by crossbred matings and mating the crossbred ewes (individual heterosis –30·68, P < 0·10; maternal heterosis –80·23, P < 0·001). Individual and maternal heterosis values for lamb growth rate from birth to six weeks were 8 (P < 0·05) and 4 (P > 0·05) respectively. Lamb growth rate from birth to weaning was significantly lower in lambs from Texel ewes compared with those from the other genotypes (P < 0·05). Individual and maternal heterosis values for live-weight gain from birth to weaning were 5 (P < 0·10) and 5 (P < 0·01). The results of the current study demonstrate the superior performance of purebred Rouge ewes compared with purebred Texel ewes in terms of prolificacy and lamb growth rate from birth to weaning. However, both breeds had high lamb mortality at birth. Crossbreeding led to the production of hybrid ewes which had relatively high prolificacy with low levels of dystocia and lamb mortality.

Keywords

crossbreedingheterosisRouge de l’OuestsheepTexel.
Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Science , Volume 75 , Issue 3 , December 2002 , pp. 459 - 468
Copyright
Copyright © British Society of Animal Science 2002

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

Al-Nakib, F. M. S., Bateman, N., Findlay, R. H., Smith, C. and Thompson, R. 1997. Comparative performance of British hill sheep breeds and crosses. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 128: 199–206.Google Scholar
Al-Nakib, F. M. S., Findlay, R. H. and Smith, C. 1986. Performance of different Scottish Blackface stocks and their crosses. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 107: 119–123.Google Scholar
Cameron, N. D., Smith, C. and Deeble, F. K. 1983. Comparative performance of crossbred ewes from three crossing sire breeds. Animal Production 37: 415–421.Google Scholar
Carson, A. F. and Dawson, L. E. R. 2000. Effects of hill flock genetics on lamb output and carcass quality. In The 73rd annual report, Agricultural Research Institute of Northern Ireland, pp. 31–40.Google Scholar
Carson, A. F., McClinton, L. W. and Steen, R. W. J. 1999a. Effects of Texel or Rouge de l’Ouest genes in lowland ewes and rams on ewe prolificacy, lamb viability and weaned lamb output. Animal Science 68: 69–78.Google Scholar
Carson, A. F., Moss, B. W., Steen, R. W. J. and Kilpatrick, D. J. 1999b. Effects of the percentage of Texel or Rouge de l’Ouest genes in lambs on carcass characteristics and meat quality Animal Science 69: 81–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fahmy, M. H. 1996. Growth, fertility, prolificacy and fleece weight of Romanov, Finnsheep and Booroola purebreds and their first cross and backcross with the DLS breed. Animal Science 62: 479–487.Google Scholar
Fahmy, M. H. 1982. Maternal performance of Oxford and Suffolk breeds, of sheep, and their crosses. Animal Production 35: 327–333.Google Scholar
Fogarty, N. M., Dickerson, G. E. and Young, L. D. 1984. Lamb production and its components in pure breeds and composite lines. II. Breed effects and heterosis. Journal of Animal Science 58: 301–311.Google Scholar
Grommers, F. J., Elving, L. and Eldick, P. van. 1985. Parturition difficulties in sheep. Animal Reproduction Science 9: 365–374.Google Scholar
Hohenboken, W. and Cochran, P. E. 1976. Heterosis for ewe lamb productivity. Journal of Animal Science 42: 819–823.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnston, S. D., Steen, R. W. J., Kilpatrick, D. J., Lowe, D. E. and Chestnutt, D. M. B. 1999. A comparison of sires of Suffolk and Dutch Texel breeds and ewes of Greyface, Suffolk Cheviot and Dutch Texel breeds in terms of food intake, prolificacy and lamb growth rates. Animal Science 68: 567–575.Google Scholar
Kempster, A. J., Croston, D. and Jones, D. W. 1987. Tissue growth and development in crossbred lambs sired by ten breeds. Livestock Production Science 16: 145–162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Land, R. B., Russell, W. S. and Donald, H. P. 1974. The litter size and fertility of Finnish Landrace and Tasmanian Merino sheep and their reciprocal crosses. Animal Production 18: 265–271.Google Scholar
Latif, M. G. A. and Owen, E. 1979. Comparison of Texel-and Suffolk-sired lambs out of Finnish Landrace ✕ Dorset Horn ewes under grazing conditions. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 93: 235–239.Google Scholar
Long, T. E., Thomas, D. L., Fernando, R. L., Lewis, J. M., Garrigus, U. S. and Waldron, D. F. 1989. Estimation of individual and maternal heterosis, repeatability and heritability for ewe productivity and its components in Suffolk and Targhee sheep. Journal of Animal Science 67: 1208–1217.Google Scholar
McGuirk, B. J. and Bourke, M. E. 1978. Hybrid vigour and lamb production. I. Reproductive performance of the purebred and crossbred matings. Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture and Animal Husbandry 18: 745–752.Google Scholar
McGuirk, B. J., Bourke, M. E. and Manwaring, J. M. 1978. Hybrid vigour and lamb production. 2. Effects on survival and growth of first-cross lambs, and on wool and body measurements of hogget ewes. Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture and Animal Husbandry 18: 753–763.Google Scholar
Maijala, K. and Osterberg, S. 1977. Productivity of pure Finnsheep in Finland and abroad. Livestock Production Science 4: 355–377.Google Scholar
Maund, B. A., Duffell, S. J. and Winkler, C. E. 1980. Lamb mortality in relation to prolificacy. Experimental Husbandry 36: 99–112.Google Scholar
Meat and Livestock Commission. 1984. Sheep yearbook. Meat and Livestock Commission, Milton Keynes.Google Scholar
Nitter, G. 1978. Breed utilization for meat production in sheep. Animal Breeding Abstracts 46: 131–143.Google Scholar
Numerical Algorithms Group. 1994. Genstat 5 release 3 reference manual. Oxford Scientific Publications, Claredon Press, Oxford.Google Scholar
Oltenacu, E. A. and Boylan, W. J. 1981. Productivity of purebred and crossbred Finnsheep. 1. Reproductive traits of ewes and lamb survival. Journal of Animal Science 52: 989–997.Google Scholar
Owens, J. L., Bindon, B. M., Edney, T. N. and Piper, L. R. 1985. Behaviour at parturition and lamb survival of Booroola Merino sheep. Livestock Production Science 13: 359–372.Google Scholar
Sidwell, G. M., Everson, D. O. and Terrill, C. E. 1962. Fertility, prolificacy and lamb viability of some pure breeds and their crosses. Journal of Animal Science 21: 875–879.Google Scholar
Sidwell, G. M. and Miller, L. R. 1971. Production in some pure breeds of sheep and their crosses. 1. Reproduction efficiency in ewes. Journal of Animal Science 32: 1084–1089.Google Scholar
Simm, G. 1998. Genetic improvement of cattle and sheep. Farming Press, Ipswich.Google Scholar
Visscher, A. H. and Bekedam, , 1984. The development of the Texel breed in the Netherlands. Proceedings of the 35th meeting of the European Association for Animal Production, The Hague, The Netherlands, pp. 6–9.Google Scholar
Wolf, B. T., Smith, C. and Sales, D. I. 1980. Growth and carcass composition in the crossbred progeny of six terminal sire breeds of sheep. Animal Production 31: 307–313.Google Scholar
Young, L. D. and Dickerson, G. E. 1991. Comparison of Booroola Merino and Finnsheep: effects on productivity of mates and performance of crossbred lambs. Journal of Animal Science 69: 1899–1911.Google Scholar