Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-hc48f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T19:00:06.014Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Nutrient partitioning in Merino rams with different wool growth rates

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 September 2010

P. B. Cronjé  and
M. Smuts
P. B. Cronjé
Affiliation:
Irene Animal Production Institute, P/Bag X2, Irene 1675, South Africa
M. Smuts
Affiliation:
Department of Animal and Wildlife Science, University of Pretoria, Pretoria 0002, South Africa
Get access

Abstract

The aim of this experiment was to determine whether there is any physiological basis for concerns that selection for fleece mass may decrease fitness by increasing the partitioning of nutrients to wool at the expense of other body functions.

Forty-five Merino rams (24 months old) were given food at an ad libitum and a maintenance level of nutrition. Animals were grouped into high, average or low clean fleece growth-rate categories on the basis of measurements made during the ad libitum feeding period. During ad libitum feeding, high producers grew proportionately 0·42 more clean fleece, and deposited proportionately 0·36 more energy and 0·42 more nitrogen (N) as greasy fleece than average producers. This was achieved by partitioning a higher proportion of N consumed to wool (0·08 v. 0·06), and not by increased energy or N retention. High producers adapted to the maintenance diet by decreasing clean wool growth rate proportionately by 0·32. There were no differences between high and average wool producers in clean wool growth rate or the percentage of N or energy intake partitioned to wool at the maintenance level of feeding. Although there were no differences in initial live mass between groups, low producers gained proportionately 0·45 more live mass during the experiment than average producers.

It was concluded that Merino rams of high clean-wool production potential are not more efficient, but partition more of the available nutrients to wool production at the cost of body tissue deposition.

Keywords

nutrient partitioningsheepwool production
Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Production , Volume 59 , Issue 1 , August 1994 , pp. 55 - 60
Copyright
Copyright © British Society of Animal Science 1994

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

Association of Official Analytical Chemists. 1984. Official methods of analysis. 14th ed. Association of Official Analytical Chemists, Arlington, Virginia.Google Scholar
Ahmed, W., Dun, R. B. and Winston, R. J. 1963. The efficiency of conversion of feed to wool in Merino flocks selected for and against fleece weight. Australian journal of Experimental Agriculture and Animal Husbandry 3: 269–275.Google Scholar
Butler, L. G. and Maxwell, W. M. C. 1984. A review of the efficiency of conversion of feed into wool. Animal Breeding Abstracts 52: 475–485.Google Scholar
Clark, C. M., Mackenzie, D. D. S., McCutcheon, S. N. and Blair, H. T. 1989. Physiological responses to selection for greasy fleeceweight in Romney sheep. New Zealand journal of Agricultural Research 32: 29–36.Google Scholar
Cloete, S. W. P., Delport, G. J., Erasmus, G. J., Olivier, J. J., Heydenrych, H. J. and Toit, E. du. 1992. Environmental and genetic trends in clean fleece mass, live mass and fibre diameter in selection and control flocks involving a selection experiment for increased clean fleece mass in South African Merino sheep. South African journal of Animal Science 22: 50–57.Google Scholar
Cronjé, P. B. 1992. Differences in nitrogen and urea metabolism between goats bred for fibre production (Angora goat) or meat production (Boer goat). South African journal of Animal Science 22: 143–148.Google Scholar
Committee, Genstat V. 1987. Genstat 5 reference manual. Clarendon Press, Oxford.Google Scholar
Graham, N. McC. and Searle, T. W. 1982. Energy and nitrogen utilization for body growth in young sheep from two breeds with differing capacities for wool growth. Australian journal of Agricultural Research 33: 607–615.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hamilton, B. A. and Langlands, J. P. 1969. Efficiency of wool production of grazing sheep. 1. Differences between Merino sheep selected for high and low fleece weight. Australian journal of Experimental Agriculture and Animal Husbandry 9: 249–253.Google Scholar
Hough, G. M., Williams, A. J., McDowell, G. H. and Annison, E. F. 1988. Blood metabolites in ewes selectively bred for high or low clean fleece weights: possible use for selection of superior animals. Proceedings of the Australian Society of Animal Production 17: 422.Google Scholar
Langlands, J. P. and Hamilton, B. A. 1969. Efficiency of wool production of grazing sheep. 2. Differences between breeds and strains varying in age. Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture and Animal Husbandry 9: 254–257.Google Scholar
McCutcheon, S. N., Mackenzie, D. D. S. and Blair, H. T. 1987. Nitrogen metabolism and plasma urea concentrations in fleeceweight-selected and control Romney rams. Australian journal of Agricultural Research 38: 917–926.Google Scholar
National Research Council. 1975. Nutrient requirements of domestic animals, no. 5. Nutrient requirements of sheep. National Academy of Sciences, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
Thomson, B. C, Dellow, D. W. and Barry, T. N. 1989. The effect of selection for fleece weight upon urea metabolism and digestive function in Romney sheep. Australian journal of Agricultural Research 40: 1065–1074.Google Scholar
Turner, H. N. 1959. Ratios as criteria for selection in animal or plant breeding, with particular reference to efficiency of food conversion in sheep. Australian Journal of Agricultural Research 10: 565–580.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weston, R. H. 1959. The efficiency of wool production of grazing sheep. Australian journal of Agricultural Research 10: 865–885.Google Scholar
Williams, A. J. 1979. Speculations on the biological mechanisms responsible for genetic variation in the rate of wool growth. In Physiological and environmental limitations to wool growth (ed. Black, J. H. and Reis, P. J.), pp. 337–354. University of New England Publishing Unit, Armidale, Australia.Google Scholar
Williams, A. J. and Winston, R. J. 1965. Relative efficiencies of conversion of feed to wool at three levels of nutrition in flocks genetically different in wool production. Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture and Animal Husbandry 5: 390–395.Google Scholar