Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-7cvxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T19:37:30.803Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The effect of daylength on the growth of lambs 4. Daylength extension to 20h under practical conditions

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 September 2010

R. Jones ,
J. M. Forbes ,
C. F. R. Slade  and
M. Appleton
R. Jones
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Physiology and Nutrition, University of Leeds, Leeds LS2 9JT
J. M. Forbes
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Physiology and Nutrition, University of Leeds, Leeds LS2 9JT
C. F. R. Slade
Affiliation:
Liscombe Experimental Hubandry Farm, Dulverton, Somerset TA22 9PZ
M. Appleton
Affiliation:
Liscombe Experimental Hubandry Farm, Dulverton, Somerset TA22 9PZ
Get access

Abstract

1. Four experiments were performed to study the effects on the growth of lambs of extending natural daylength to 20 h with dim artificial light, under management conditions similar to those on commercial farms.

2. Thirty-six female lambs aged 6 months were given a concentrate ration at a restricted level in groups of nine; there was significantly faster live-weight gain in the two groups that received extra light but no effect on carcass weight or linear measurements.

3. Forty-eight castrated male lambs were fed either ad libitum or at a restricted level on a concentrate diet; half were given additional light. Feeding ad libitum gave faster growth than restricted feeding but there were no significant effects of daylength.

4. One hundred and fourteen lambs of mixed sex were offered silage ad libitum plus one of three concentrate supplements at an average of 0·25 kg per head per day. Half were exposed to 20·h daylength from mid-October until slaughter in mid-January. There were no effects of light treatment on growth or carcass weights.

5. The fourth experiment was a repeat of the third and again there were no effects of extended daylength.

6. It is concluded that this method of controlling daylength is not appropriate for commercial use.

Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Production , Volume 35 , Issue 1 , August 1982 , pp. 9 - 14
Copyright
Copyright © British Society of Animal Science 1982

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

Agricultural Research Council. 1965. The Nutrient Requirements of Farm Livestock. No. 2, Ruminants. Agricultural Research Council, London.Google Scholar
Forbes, J. M., Brown, Wendy B., Al-banna, A. G. M. and Jones, R. 1981. The effect of daylength on the growth of lambs. 3. Level of feeding, age of lamb and speed of gut-fill response. Anim. Prod. 32: 23–28.Google Scholar
Forbes, J. M., Driver, P. M., Brown, Wendy B., Scanes, C. G. and Hart, I. C. 1979. The effect of daylength on the growth of lambs. 2. Blood concentrations of growth hormone, prolactin, insulin and thyroxine, and the effect of feeding. Anim. Prod. 29: 43–51.Google Scholar
Forbes, J. M., El Shahat, A. A., Jones, R., Duncan, J. G. S. and Boaz, T. G. 1979. The effect of daylength on the growth of lambs. 1. Comparisons of sex, level of feeding, shearing and breed of sire. Anim. Prod. 29: 33–42.Google Scholar
Hackett, M. R. and Hillers, J. K. 1979. Effects of artificial lighting on feeder lamb performance. J. Anim. Sci. 49: 1–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hulet, C. V., Price, D. A. and Foote, W. C. 1968. Effects of variation in light, month of year and nutrient intake on reproductive phenomena in ewes during the breeding season. J. Anim. Sci. 27: 684–690.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Leining, Kay B., Bourne, R. A. and Tucker, H. A. 1979. Prolactin response to duration and wavelength of light in prepubertal bulls. Endocrinology 104: 289–294.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Meat and Livestock Commission. 1975. Sheep Carcass Classification. Meat and Livestock Commission, Bletchley, Milton Keynes.Google Scholar
Peters, R. R., Chapin, L. T., Emery, R. S. and Tucker, H. A. 1981. Milk yield, feed intake, prolactin, growth hormone, and glucocorticoid response of cows to supplemented light. J. Dairy Sci. 64: 1671–1678.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Peters, R. R., Chapin, L. T., Leining, K. B. and Tucker, H. A. 1978. Supplemental lighting stimulates growth and lactation in cattle. Science, Wash., D.C. 199: 911–912.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Roche, J. F. and Boland, M. P. 1980. Effect of extended photoperiod in winter on growth rate of Friesian male cattle. Ir. J. agric. Res. 19: 85–90.Google Scholar