Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-hc48f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T19:01:07.640Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Biometric properties of lactations in ewes raising single or twin lambs†

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 September 2010

G. Torres-Hernandez  and
W. D. Hohenboken
G. Torres-Hernandez
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Science, Oregon State University, Corvallis, Oregon 97731, USA
W. D. Hohenboken
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Science, Oregon State University, Corvallis, Oregon 97731, USA
Get access

Abstract

The lactation curves of 21 single- (SR) and 28 twin-rearing (TR)ewes were fitted and milk production was estimated by the model Y = axb e−cx, developed in England for dairy cattle. In addition, persistency of lactation of SR and TR ewes was compared using five procedures reported in the literature. Results indicated that the coefficients that characterize the shape of the lactation curve (b and c values) were of similar magnitude to those reported in dairy cattle, thus denning a curve of similar shape. Lactation curves of SR and TR ewes were essentially parallel throughout lactation, with more milk production from TR ewes. The correlation between total milk production estimated by this model and that based on the sum of partial lactations was 0·98, but variability of milk production as estimated by the latter method was slightly less. Lactations of SR ewes had similar persistency to those of TR ewes.

Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Production , Volume 30 , Issue 3 , June 1980 , pp. 431 - 436
Copyright
Copyright © British Society of Animal Science 1980

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

Barnicoat, C. R., Logan, A. G. and Grant, A. I. 1949. Milk secretion studies with New Zealand Romney ewes. Part II. Milk yields of ewes and factors influencing them. J. agric. Sci., Camb. 39: 47–55 (references p. 248).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barnicoat, C. R., Murray, P. F., Roberts, E. M. and Wilson, G. S. 1956. Milk secretion studies with New Zealand Romney ewes. Part VI. Yield and composition of ewe's milk in relation to growth of the lamb. J. agric. Sci., Camb. 48: 12–18 (references pp. 34-35).Google Scholar
Cobby, J. M. and Le du, Y. L. P. 1978. On fitting curves to lactation data. Anim. Prod. 26: 127–133.Google Scholar
Corbett, J. L. 1968. Variation in the yield and composition of milk of grazing Merino ewes. Aust. J. agric. Res. 19: 283–294.Google Scholar
Doney, J. M. and Peart, J. N. 1976. The effect of sustained lactation on intake of solid food and growth rate of lambs. J. agric. Sci., Camb. 87: 511–518.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frood, Moira J. and Croxton, D. 1978. The use of condition-scoring in dairy cows and its relationship with milk yield and live weight. Anim. Prod. 27: 285–291.Google Scholar
Gardner, R. W. and Hogue, D. E. 1964. Effects of energy intake and number of lambs suckled on milk yield, milk composition and energetic efficiency of lactating ewes. J. Anim. Sci. 23: 935–942.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gardner, R. W. and Hogue, D. E. 1966. Milk production, milk composition and energetic eflSciency of Hampshire and Corriedale ewes fed to maintain body weight. J. Anim. Sci. 25: 789–795.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hadjipieris, G., Jones, J. G. W., Wimble, R. H. and Holmes, W. 1966. Studies on feed intake and feed utilization by sheep. II. The utilization of feed by ewes. J. agric. Sci., Camb. 66: 341–349.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Langlands, J. P. 1973. Milk and herbage intakes by grazing lambs born to Merino ewes and sired by Merino, Border Leicester, Corriedale, Dorset Horn and Southdown rams. Anim. Prod. 16: 285–291.Google Scholar
Louca, A. 1972. The effect of suckling regime on growth rate and lactation performance of the Cyprus Fat-tailed and Chios sheep. Anim. Prod. 15: 53–59.Google Scholar
Louda, F. and Doney, J. M. 1976. Persistency of lactation in the Improved Valachian breed of sheep. J. agric. Sci., Camb. 87: 455–457.Google Scholar
Madsen, O. 1975. A comparison of some suggested measures of persistency of milk yield in dairy cows. Anim. Prod. 20: 191–197.Google Scholar
Peart, J. N. 1968. Some effects of live weight and body condition on the milk production of Blackface ewes. J. agric. Sci., Camb. 70: 331–338.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Peart, J. N., Doney, J. M. and Smith, W. F. 1979. Lactation pattern in Scottish Blackface and East Friesland × Scottish Blackface cross-bred ewes. J. agric. Sci., Camb. 92: 133–138.Google Scholar
Rao, M. K. and Sundaresan, D. 1979. Influence of environment and heredity on the shape of lactation curves in Sahiwal cows. J. agric. Sci., Camb. 92: 393–401.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Torres-Hernandez, G. and Hohenboken, W. 1979. Genetic and environmental effects on milk production, milk composition and mastitis incidence in crossbred ewes. J. Anim. Sci. 49: 410–417.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wilson, L. L., Varela-Alvarez, H., Hess, Christine E. and Rugh, M. C. 1971. Influence of energy level, creep feeding and lactation stage on ewe milk and lamb growth characters. J. Anim. Sci. 33: 686–690.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wood, P. D. P. 1967. Algebraic model of the lactation curve in cattle. Nature, Lond. 216: 164–165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wood, P. D. P. 1968. Factors affecting persistency of lactation in cattle. Nature, Lond. 218: 894.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wood, P. D. P. 1969. Factors affecting the shape of the lactation curve in cattle. Anim. Prod. 11: 307–316.Google Scholar
Wood, P. D. P. 1970. A note on the repeatability of parameters of the lactation curve in cattle. Anim. Prod. 12: 535–538.Google Scholar
Wood, P. D. P. 1976. Algebraic models of the lactation curves for milk, fat and protein production, with estimates of seasonal variation. Anim. Prod. 22: 35–40.Google Scholar
Wyatt, R. D., Gould, M. B. and Totusek, R. 1977. Effects of single vs simulated twin rearing on cow and calf performance. J. Anim. Sci. 45: 1409–1414.Google Scholar