Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-tf8b9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-26T09:53:34.197Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Effect of early weaning one lamb in a triplet lamb rearing system

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 September 2010

C. B. Gallo  and
D. A. R. Davies
C. B. Gallo
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Husbandry, University of Liverpool, Veterinary Field Station, Neston, South Wirral L64 7TE
D. A. R. Davies
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Husbandry, University of Liverpool, Veterinary Field Station, Neston, South Wirral L64 7TE
Get access

Abstract

Thirty-seven Cambridge (C) and Suffolk (S) × C ewes and their lambs were housed and penned individually in family groups for 35 days post partum and then grazed on pasture until the lambs reached slaughter weight. Lambs were reared as twins (TR-TW). The lambs weaned at 35 days were artificially reared and formed the TR-AR group.

Dry matter intake of the complete diet and hay offered ad libitum during the housing period was unaffected by rearing type. TR-TR and TR-TW ewes produced more milk at 10 days than TW-TW ewes, 4·4 and 4·2 v. 3·6 (s.e.d. 0·257) kg/day. From 35 days onwards the decline in milk yield tended o t be greater in the TW-TW and TR-TW ewes which also gained more condition than TR-TR ewes, 0·33 and 0·37 v. 0·01 (s.e.d. 0·139) of a score.

TW-TW lambs grew faster than TR-TW and TR-TR lambs during the housed period, 336 v. 295 and 292 (s.e.d. 9·8) g/day but after 35 days TR-TW, TR-AR and TW-TW lambs had similar growth rates, 348, 350, and 348 (s.e.d. 14·2) g/day respectively whereas TR-TR lambs grew less quickly at 310 g/day. Forty-two male lambs were slaughtered. TR-AR lambs had a higher killing-out proportion and carcass fat content than naturally reared animals. In the latter group carcass fat content was negatively related to time reared as triplets and the kidney knob and channel fat weight was significantly lower in the TR-TR group. Crossbred lambs grew faster, had a higher killing-out proportion and greater weight of m. longissimus dorsi and m. psoas major in the half carcass.

It is concluded that weaning one lamb at 35 days provides a suitable alternative system for rearing triplets and that it is possible to produce good quality carcasses with some desirable reduction in fat content from lambs reared as triplets throughout their life.

Keywords

carcass qualityearly weaninglamb production
Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Production , Volume 52 , Issue 1 , February 1991 , pp. 141 - 148
Copyright
Copyright © British Society of Animal Science 1991

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

Blaxter, K. L. and Wainman, F. W. 1964. The utilization of the energy of different rations by sheep and cattle for maintenance and for fattening. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 63: 113–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown, T. H. 1964. The early weaning of lambs. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 63: 191–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cuthbertson, A., Harrington, G. and Smith, R. J. 1972. Tissue separation to assess beef and lamb variation. Proceedings of the British Society of Animal Production 1: 113–122.Google Scholar
Doney, J. M. and Munro, J. 1962. The effect of suckling, management and season on sheep milk production as estimated by lamb growth. Animal Production 4: 215–220.Google Scholar
Fraser, A. E. 1982. Trends in meat market requirements: implications for producers. Proceedings the New Zealand Society of Animal Production 42: 99–103.Google Scholar
Gaixo, C. B. and Davies, D. A. R. 1988. Rearing twin and triplet lambs on the ewe. Animal Production 47: 111–121.Google Scholar
Kempster, A. J., Croston, D., Guy, D. R. and Jones, D. W. 1983. A comparison of ten sire breeds for sheep meat production. 2. Tissue growth and distribution. Animal Production 36: 504 (Abstr.).Google Scholar
Kempster, A. J. and Cuthbertson, A. 1977. A survey of the carcass characteristics of the main types of British lamb. Animal Production 25: 165–179.Google Scholar
Lawes Agricultural Trust. 1977. Genstat V, Mark 4.01. Rothamsted Experimental Station, Harpenden.Google Scholar
Mcclelland, T. H. and Russel, A. J. F. 1972. The distribution of body fat in Scottish Blackface and Finnish Landrace lambs. Animal Production 15: 301–306.Google Scholar
Meat and Livestock Commission. 1981. Lamb Carcass Production. Planning to Meet Your Market. Meat and Livestock Commission, Bletchley.Google Scholar
Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. 1973. The Analysis of Agricultural Materials. Her Majesty's Stationery Office, London.Google Scholar
Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. 1983. Energy allowances and feeding systems for ruminants. Reference Book 433. Her Majesty's Stationery Office, London.Google Scholar
Pearson, D. 1973. Laboratory Techniques in Food Analysis. Butterworths, London.Google Scholar
Theriez, M., Villete, Y. and Castrillo, C. 1982. Influence of metabolizable energy content of the diet and of feeding level on lamb performances. I. Growth and body composition. Livestock Production Science. 9: 471–485.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wardrop, I. D. 1960. The post-natal growth of the visceral organs of the lamb. Part II. The effect of diet on growth rate, with particular reference to the parts of the alimentary tract. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 55: 127–132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wolf, B. T., Smith, C. and Sales, D. I. 1980. Growth and carcass composition in the crossbred progeny of six terminal breeds of sheep. Animal Production 31: 307–313.Google Scholar
Wood, J. D., Macfie, H. J. H., Pomeroy, R. W. and Twinn, D. J. 1980. Carcass composition in four sheep breeds: the importance of type of breed and stage of maturity. Animal Production 30: 135–152.Google Scholar
Wood, J. D., Macfie, H. J. H. and Brown, A. J. 1983. Effects of body weight, breed and sex on killing out percentage and non-carcass component weight in iambs. Meat Science 9: 89–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar