Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jn8rn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T19:50:34.409Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The intake of silage and grazed herbage by Masham ewes with single or twin lambs and its repeatability during pregnancy, lactation and after weaning

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 September 2010

J. E. Newton  and
R. J. Orr
J. E. Newton
Affiliation:
Grassland Research Institute, Hurley, Maidenhead, Berkshire SL6 5LR
R. J. Orr
Affiliation:
Grassland Research Institute, Hurley, Maidenhead, Berkshire SL6 5LR
Get access

Abstract

The intake of silage, concentrates and grazed herbage, and the performance of 16 Masham ewes carrying and suckling either single or twin lambs, was measured during the last 7 weeks of pregnancy, during lactation and after weaning.

There was no difference in intake between ewes with singles or twins in pregnancy, lactation or after weaning. The metabolizable energy intakes, from silage and concentrates, of the ewes with singles and twins were 101 and 100 MJ per head per day in weeks 7 and 6 pre partum, 21·4 and 19·9 MJ in weeks 3 and 2 pre partum, and 24·4 and 23·8MJ in the 1st week of lactation. The intakes from grass and concentrates were 32·3 and 338MJ in weeks 5 and 6 of lactation for the ewes with singles and twins respectively, and 13·8 and 15 2M J from grass alone after weaning. There was no effect of ewe live weight on intake and, although the ewes with singles were producing less milk than those with twins, their intakes were similar.

The same ewes consistently ate the most feed. The overall coefficient of concordance was 05 6 and the coefficients for mid- and late-pregnancy, late pregnancy and early lactation, and early- and mid-lactation were 0·57, 0·62 and 0·66 respectively. The ewes with twins that consistently ate the most lost less weight in pregnancy, produced similar litter weights and suckled lambs that grew faster. Their levels of intake and production were high: the growth rate from 0 to 6 weeks of age of the twin lambs suckling the large-eaters was 721 g/day compared with 631 g/day for those suckling the small-eaters. During lactation the ewes with singles appeared t o consume more metabolizable energy than their maintenance, milk yield and live-weight gain requirements justified, whereas the group of smaller-eating ewes with twins put on more weight than expected from their intakes.

Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Production , Volume 33 , Issue 2 , October 1981 , pp. 121 - 127
Copyright
Copyright © British Society of Animal Science 1981

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
Blaxter, K. L., Wainman, F. W. and Davidson, J. L. 1966. The voluntary intake of food by sheep and cattle in relation to their energy requirements for maintenance. Anim. Prod. 8: 75–83.Google Scholar
Bowman, J. C. 1973. Discussion on body size and efficiency. Proc. Br. Sot: Anim. Prod. (New Ser.) 2: 43–44.Google Scholar
Boyazoglu, J. G. 1963. Aspects quantitatifs de la production laitiere des brebis. Annls Zootech. 12: 237–296.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Campling, R. C. 1964. Factors affecting the voluntary intake of grass. Proc. Nutr. Soc. 23: 80–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cowan, R. T., Robinson, J. J., Greenhalgh, J. F. D. and McHattie, I. 1979. Body composition changes in lactating ewes estimated by serial slaughter and deuterium dilution. Anim. Prod. 29: 81–90.Google Scholar
Foot, Janet Z. and Russel, A. J. F. 1979. The relationship in ewes between voluntary food intake during pregnancy and forage intake during lactation and after weaning. Anim. Prod. 28: 25–39.Google Scholar
Freund, J. E. 1973. Modern Elementary Statistics. Prentice-Hall, New Jersey.Google Scholar
Gibb, M. J. and Treacher, T. T. 1978. The effect of herbage allowance on herbage intake and performance of ewes and their twin lambs grazing perennial ryegrass. J. agric. Sci., Camb. 90: 139–147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Graham, N. McC. 1969. The influence of body weight (fatness) on the energetic efficiency of adult sheep. Aust. J. agric. Res. 20: 375–385.Google Scholar
Hadjipieris, G. and Holmes, W. 1966. Studies on feed intake and feed utilization by sheep. I. The voluntary feed intake of dry, pregnant and lactating ewes. J. agric. Sci., Camb. 66: 217–223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hodgson, J. and Rodriguez, J. M. 1971. The measurement of herbage intake in grazing studies. Rep. Grassld Res. Inst., 1970, pp. 132–140.Google Scholar
Jones, G. M. 1972. Chemical factors and their relation to feed intake regulation in ruminants: a review. Can. J. Anim. Sci. 52: 207–239.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kleiber, M. 1936. Problems involved in breeding for efficiency of food utilization. Rec. Proc. Am. Soc. Anim. Prod., pp. 247–258.Google Scholar
Leaver, J. D., Campling, R. C. and Holmes, W. 1969. The effect of level of feeding on the digestibility of diets for sheep and cattle. Anim. Prod. 11: 11–18.Google Scholar
Mather, R. E. 1959. Can dairy cattle be bred for increased forage consumption and efficiency of utilization? J. Dairy Sci. 42: 878–885.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, Department of Agriculture and Fisheries for Scotland and Department of Agriculture for Northern Ireland. 1975. Energy allowances and feeding systems for ruminants. Tech. Bull. 33. Her Majesty's Stationery Office, London.Google Scholar
Newton, J. E. and Fenlon, J. S. 1979. The performance of Masham ewes. Anim. Prod. 29: 69–79.Google Scholar
Owen, J. B. and Ingleton, Jean W. 1963. A study of food intake and production in grazing ewes. II. The interrelationships between food intake and productive output. J. agric. Sci., Camb. 61: 329–340.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vera, R. R., Morris, J. G. and Koong, L.-J. 1977. A quantitative model of energy intake and partition in grazing sheep in various physiological states. Anim. Prod. 25: 133–153.Google Scholar