Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dzt6s Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T19:14:17.118Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Influence of litter size and breed of sire on carcass weight and quality of lambs

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 September 2010

H. P. Donald ,
J. L. Read  and
W. S. Russell
H. P. Donald
Affiliation:
A.R.C. Animal Breeding Research Organisation, Edinburgh EH9 3JQ
J. L. Read
Affiliation:
A.R.C. Animal Breeding Research Organisation, Edinburgh EH9 3JQ
W. S. Russell
Affiliation:
A.R.C. Animal Breeding Research Organisation, Edinburgh EH9 3JQ
Get access

Summary

In order to obtain a wide range of live weights, two Oxford Down, two Southdown, and two Soay rams of recent feral origin, were used to sire lambs from 169 crossbred ewes. These ewes had been bred from Blackface ewes mated to Border Leicester, Dorset Hora, Clun Forest, Finnish Landrace and Tasmanian Merino rams. Of the 282 lambs weaned by the crossbred ewes, 61 were singles, 166 twins, 51 triplets and 4 quadruplets. Carcass data were obtained from all but three of them.

Oxford Down cross lambs were, in terms of fitted values, 10 kg heavier and 4 days younger than Soay cross lambs and 6 kg heavier and 2 days younger than Southdown cross lambs when slaughtered. Twins and triplets were 1·4 and 2·1 kg, respectively, lighter than singles and were 37 and 58 days older than singles. Ewes of the heaviest groups produced heavier lambs in a shorter time than ewes of the lightest groups.

The Soay cross lambs showed a higher killing-out percentage, less tail fat, and more kidney fat, than the Southdown and Oxford Down cross lambs.

Carcass characters made little if any difference to the price paid for the lambs which depended mainly on weight. Receipts from lambs were highest when the most fertile ewes were mated to the largest rams.

Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Production , Volume 12 , Issue 2 , May 1970 , pp. 281 - 290
Copyright
Copyright © British Society of Animal Science 1970

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

Ahmedov, N. M. 1968. [Comparative morphology of the skeletal musculature and fat deposits of the Asiatic mouflon (Ovis orientalis Gmelin 1774) and Balbas sheep.] Izv. Akad. Nauk azerb. SSR Ser. biol. Nauk, 1968, (2) 59–66.Google Scholar
Barton, R. A. 1967. A review of meat research at Massey University. Sheep Farming Annual, Massey Univ. 1967: 127–139.Google Scholar
Bradford, G. E. 1967. Genetic and economic aspects of selecting foi lamb carcass quality. J. Anim. Sci. 26: 10–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Butterfield, R. M. 1964. Relative growth of the musculature of the ox. In Symposium on Carcass Composition and Appraisal of Meat Animals. CSIRO, Melbourne.Google Scholar
Bywater, E. H. 1944. Sheep for long leys. Proc. Brit. Soc. Anim. Prod: 25–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Callow, E. H. 1948. Comparative studies of meat. II. The changes in the carcass during growth and fattening, and their relation to the chemical composition of the fatty and muscular tissues. J. agric. Sci., Camb. 38: 174–199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Callow, E. H. 1961. Comparative studies of meat. VII. A comparison between Hereford, Dairy Shorthorn and Friesian steers on four Ievels of nutrition. J. agric. Sci., Camb. 56: 265–282.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cartwright, T. C., Butler, O. D. and Cover, Sylvia. 1958. The relationship of ration and inheritance to certain production and caicass characteristics of yearling steers. J. Anim. Sci. 17: 540–547.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cole, J. W., Ramsay, C. B., Hobbs, C. S. and Temple, R. S. 1963. EfTects of type and breed of British, Zebu and dairy cattle on production, palatability and composition. I. Rate of gain, feed efficiency and factors affecting market value. J. Anim. Sci. 22: 702–707.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Desvignes, A., Cattin-Vidal, P. and Poly, J. 1966. [Comparison of the value of various types of commercial crossing for the production of fat lambs. I. Weight gain of lambs.] Annls Zootech. 15: 47–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Donald, H. P., Read, J. L. and Russell, W. S. 1968. A comparative trial of crossbred ewes by Finnish Landrace and other sires. Anim. Prod. 10: 413–421.Google Scholar
Elsley, F. W. H., McDonald, I. and Fowler, V. R. 1964. The efTect of plane of nutrition on the carcasses of pigs and lambs when variations in fat content are excluded. Anim. Prod. 6: 141–154.Google Scholar
Hammond, J. 1952. Farm Animals. 2nd ed.Arnold, London.Google Scholar
Kirton, A. H. 1967. Conformation and lamb carcass quality. Sheep Farming Annual, Massey Univ. 1967: 113–126.Google Scholar
Kirton, A. H., Carter, A. H., Clarke, J. N., Sinclair, D. P. and Jury, K. E. 1968. Breeds of sire for export lamb production. Sheep Farming Annual, Massey Univ. 1968: 39–48.Google Scholar
Kirton, A. H. and Pickering, F. S. 1967. Factors associated with differences in carcass conformation in lamb. N.Z. Jl agric. Res. 10: 183–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pálsson, H. and Vergés, J. B. 1952. Eifects of the plane of nutrition on growth and the development of carcass quality in lambs. I. The eifects of high and low planes of nutrition at different ages. J. agric. Sci., Camb. 42: 1–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pálsson, H. and Vergés, J. B. 1952. Effects of the plane of nutrition on growth and the development of carcass quality in lambs. II. Effects on lambs of 30 lb carcass weight. J. agric. Sci., Camb. 42: 93–149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Spedding, C. R. W. 1968. Practical implications of genetic and environmental influences: sheep. In Growth and Development of Mammals (ed. Lodge, G. A. and Lamming, G. E.), pp. 451–465. Butterworth, London.Google Scholar
Wallace, L. E. 1948. The growth of lambs before and after birth in relation to the level of nutrition. III. Results. J. agric. Sci., Camb. 38: 367–401.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zubairov, M. M. 1966. [The ability of sheep of various breeds to deposit fat.] Ovtsevodstvo, 12: (11) 18–19.Google Scholar