Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-g8jcs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-23T05:36:37.408Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Comparison of terminal sire breeds for growth and carcass traits in crossbred lambs

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 September 2010

N. D. Cameron  and
D. J. Drury
N. D. Cameron
Affiliation:
AFRC Animal Breeding Research Organisation, West Mains Road, Edinburgh EH9 3JQ
D. J. Drury
Affiliation:
AFRC Animal Breeding Research Organisation, West Mains Road, Edinburgh EH9 3JQ
Get access

Abstract

Performance records for the progeny of matings of Oxford, Texel, Texel-Oxford, Charollais, Charmoise and Meatlinc rams with crossbred ewes were analysed. The lambs, born from 1980 to 1982, were randomly allocated to three slaughter groups: (1) slaughter at fixed weights of 36 and 38 kg for ewe and castrated lambs; (2) slaughter according to estimated fat cover; (3) slaughter at a fixed age of 4·5 or 5·5 months with half-carcass dissection. The analyses were by least squares and effects were fitted for terminal sire breed, breed of maternal grand sire, year of birth, age of dam at lambing, birth-rearing type and sex of lamb and all two-way interactions. The results followed a well-established pattern where weight for age rankings were constant from birth, through weaning, to slaughter. Progeny of Oxford rams were the heaviest, followed by Texel-Oxford, Meatlinc and Charollais, Texel and Charmoise in that order. Lambs sired by rams of low mature weight reached a fixed weight at a later age than those sired by rams of high mature weight. They also reached a similar degree of fat cover at an earlier age and at lighter weights than the larger breeds. The carcass traits indicated that Texel crosses had a higher lean and lower fat proportion than would be expected from their growth and mature weight.

The comparative performance of crossbred lambs from 15 terminal sire breeds was assessed, at the same proportion of carcass subcutaneous fat, by combining the results of three experiments.

Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Production , Volume 40 , Issue 2 , April 1985 , pp. 315 - 322
Copyright
Copyright © British Society of Animal Science 1985

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

Bradford, G. E. 1974. Breeding plans for improvement of meat production and carcass merit in the meat breeds of sheep. Proc. 1st Wld Congr. Genet. Appl. Livest. Prod., Madrid, Vol. 1, pp. 725–738.Google Scholar
Croston, D., Guy, D. R., Jones, D. W. and Kempster, A. J. 1983. A comparison of ten sire breeds for sheep meat production. 1. Growth performance and carcass classification. Anim. Prod. 36: 504 (Abstr.).Google Scholar
Cuthbertson, A., Harrington, G. and Smith, R. J. 1972. Tissue separation — to assess beef and lamb variation. Proc. Br. Soc. Anim. Prod. (New Ser.) 1: 113–122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fell, H. 1979. Intensive Sheep Management. Farming Press, Ipswich.Google Scholar
Harvey, W. R. 1960. Least-squares analysis of data with unequal subclass numbers. U.S. Dep. Agric, ARS-20–8. (Mimeograph).Google Scholar
Hocking, R. R. 1976. Analysis and selection of variables in linear regression. Biometrics 32: 1–49.Google Scholar
McClelland, T. H. and Russel, A. J. F. 1972. The distribution of body fat in Scottish Blackface and Finnish Landrace lambs. Anim. Prod. 15: 301–306.Google Scholar
Meat and Livestock Commission. 1981. Lamb Carcase Production: Planning to Meet Your Market. Meat and Livestock Commission, Bletchley, Milton Keynes.Google Scholar
Wolf, B. T. 1982. An analysis of the variation in the lean tissue distribution of sheep. Anim. Prod. 34: 257–264.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. Anim. Prod. 31: 307–313.Google Scholar