Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7czq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-26T19:50:26.275Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Prolificacy and 50-day lamb weight of ewes in the Cambridge sheep breed

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 September 2010

J. B. Owen ,
Sarah R. E. Crees ,
Janet C. Williams  and
D. A. R. Davies
J. B. Owen
Affiliation:
Department of Agriculture, University College of North Wales, Bangor LL57 2UW
Sarah R. E. Crees
Affiliation:
Department of Agriculture, University College of North Wales, Bangor LL57 2UW
Janet C. Williams
Affiliation:
Department of Agriculture, University College of North Wales, Bangor LL57 2UW
D. A. R. Davies
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Husbandry, Veterinary Field Station, University of Liverpool, Leahurst, Neston, South Wirral L64 7TE
Get access

Abstract

The paper describes the results of the analysis of over 3000 records of Cambridge sheep kept on 11 farms over a 12-year period. The heritability of the number of lambs born per ewe increased from a low value for the 1-year-old ewes to a high value for the 3-year-old ewes; the multiple age value for 2-, 3- and 4-year-old ewes was 0·33 (s.e. 0-121). Heritability estimates for number of lambs surviving were lower, but showed the same trend of increasing values with increasing ewe age. This trend in heritability was also evident for the mean 50-day lamb weight, as a trait of the ewe, which had a multiple age value of 0·20 (s.e. 0·151). The estimates of heritability of various measures of early lamb mortality were relatively low. Date of first oestrus showed a variable heritability although the multiple age value was 0·42 (s.e. 0·149).

Prolificacy was strongly correlated with various measures of early lamb mortality although the correlation with the final number of lambs weaned was positive. Prolificacy was positively correlated with the ewe's mature weight and the ewe's date of first oestrus and the genetic correlation with mean 50-day lamb weight was slightly positive.

The effect of increases in prolificacy on numbers of lambs weaned was markedly curvilinear with maximum numbers of lambs weaned at an intermediate level of prolificacy.

Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Production , Volume 42 , Issue 3 , June 1986 , pp. 355 - 363
Copyright
Copyright © British Society of Animal Science 1986

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

Adalsteinsson, S. 1979. The independent effects of live-weight and body condition on fecundity and productivity of Icelandic ewes. Anim. Prod. 28: 13–23.Google Scholar
Bradford, G. E. 1985. Selection for litter size. In Genetics of Reproduction in Sheep (ed. Land, R. B. and Robinson, D. W.), pp. 3–18. Butterworths, London.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown, K. W. M. 1981. Cambridge sheep database operational aspects and the development of a selection index. M.Sc. Thesis, Univ. Wales.Google Scholar
Clarke, J. N. 1972. Current levels of performance in the Ruakura fertility flock of Romney sheep. Proc. N.Z. Soc. Anim. Prod. 32: 99–111.Google Scholar
Dufour, J. J., Fahmy, M. H., Adelakoun, V. and Matton, P. 1982. Ovarian and estrous activity throughout the year in pregnant and nonpregnant ewes selected for extended breeding season. Can. J. Anim. Sci. 62: 1101–1108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Falconer, D. S. 1963. Quantitative inheritance. In Methodology in Mammalian Genetics (ed. Burdette, W. J.), pp. 193–216. Holden-Day, San Fransisco.Google Scholar
Falconer, D. S. 1981. Threshold characters. In Introduction to Quantitative Genetics, pp. 301-311. Longmans, London.Google Scholar
Forrest, P. A. and Bichard, M. 1974. Analysis of production records from a lowland sheep flock. 3. Phenotypic and genetic parameters for reproductive performance. Anim. Prod. 19: 33–45.Google Scholar
Hanrahan, J. P. 1976. Response to selection for litter size in Galway sheep. Ir. J. agric. Res. 15: 291–300.Google Scholar
Hanrahan, J. P. 1980. Ovulation rate as the selection criterion for litter size in sheep. Proc. Aust. Soc. Anim. Prod. 13: 405–408.Google Scholar
Hanrahan, J. P. and Owen, J. B. 1985. Variation and repeatability of ovulation rate in Cambridge ewes. Anim. Prod. 40: 529 (Abstr.).Google Scholar
Hanrahan, J. P. and Piper, L. R. 1982. Nature of the genetic control of ovulation rate and its relationship with litter size. Proc. Eur. Ass. Anim. Prod., Leningrad, pp. 1–11.Google Scholar
Harvey, W. R. 1977. User's guide for LSML 76. Mixed model least-squares and maximum likelihood computer program. Ohio State Univ., Columbus. (Mimeograph).Google Scholar
Hossamo, H. E., Owen, J. B. and Farid, M. F. A. 1985. The genetic improvement of Syrian Awassi sheep with special reference to milk production. J. agric. Sci., Camb. 105: 327–337.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mann, T. J. L., Smith, C., King, J. W. B., Nicholson, D. and Sales, D. I. 1984. Comparison of crossbred ewes from five crossing sire breeds. Anim. Prod. 39: 241–249.Google Scholar
Martin, T. G., Nicholson, D., Smith, C. and Sales, D. I. 1981. Phenotypic and genetic parameters for reproductive performance in a synthetic line of sheep. J. agric. Sci., Camb. 96: 107–113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mavrogenis, A. P. 1985. The fecundity of Chios sheep. In Genetics of Reproduction in Sheep (ed. Land, R. B. and Robinson, D. W.), pp. 63–67. Butterworths, London.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
More O'Ferrall, G. J. 1976. Phenotypic and genetic parameters of productivity in Galway ewes. Anim. Prod. 23: 295–304.Google Scholar
Owen, J. B. 1976. Sheep Production. Bailliere Tindall, London.Google Scholar
Owen, J. B. 1982. Selection for prolificacy in sheep. Prod. 6th int. Conf. Anim. Poultry Prod., Zagazig, Egypt, Vol. I, pp. 1–8.Google Scholar
Young, L. D., Dickerson, G. E. and Fogarty, N. M. 1985. Evaluation and utilization of Finn sheep. In Genetics of Reproduction in Sheep (ed. Land, R. B. and Robinson, D. W.), pp. 25–38. Butterworths, London.CrossRefGoogle Scholar