Hostname: page-component-7479d7b7d-c9gpj Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-15T18:41:59.014Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Performance of lambs from three crossbred ewe types

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 September 2010

N. D. Cameron ,
C. Smith  and
F. K. Deeble
N. D. Cameron
Affiliation:
AFRC Animal Breeding Research Organisation, West Mains Road, Edinburgh EH9 3JQ
C. Smith
Affiliation:
AFRC Animal Breeding Research Organisation, West Mains Road, Edinburgh EH9 3JQ
F. K. Deeble
Affiliation:
Agricultural Development and Advisory Service, Coley Park, Reading RG1 6DT
Get access

Abstract

The performance of predominantly Suffolk-sired lambs from Border Leicester (BL), Bluefaced Leicester (BFL) and ABRO Damline (DL) crossbred ewes was compared on 18 commercial and college farms throughout England and Wales. The comparison took place over the 5-year period 1977 to 1981 and was the second stage in a comparative study on the productivity of the crossbred ewes. A total of 1277 crossbred ewes were involved with data on up to 3 years lambings per ewe, giving a total of 3522 mating records and 4864 lamb records.

The BFL lambs were heaviest and the DL lambs were lightest. The DL lambs had the lowest survival rates, and the BFL lambs the highest. The BFL lambs were slaughtered earlier (12 days) and at heavier weights (1·4 kg) than the DL and BL lambs, and had slightly heavier carcasses. The DL and BFL carcasses had better MLC carcass classifications than the BL, resulting in an advantage of 4 p/kg of carcass.

In productivity per ewe, the BFL litters had the highest slaughter and carcass weights and the highest income per litter, with the DL litters intermediate. An attempt was made to express productivity per unit of sheep weight maintained, taking account of ewe weight, litter size and the lamb slaughter date. On this index, the DL were marginally superior to the BFL, and both were superior to the BL.

Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Production , Volume 39 , Issue 1 , August 1984 , pp. 81 - 87
Copyright
Copyright © British Society of Animal Science 1984

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

Atkins, K. D. 1980. The comparative productivity of five ewe breeds. 1. Lamb growth and survival. Aust. J. exp. Agric. Anim. Husb. 20: 272–279.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cameron, N. D. and Deeble, The Late F. K. 1983. A note comparing lambs from three crossing-ram breeds. Anim. Prod. 37: 301–303.Google Scholar
Cameron, N. D., Smith, C. and Deeble, The Late F. K. 1983. Comparative performance of crossbred ewes from three crossing sire breeds. Anim. Prod. 37: 415–421.Google Scholar
Dalton, D. C., Knight, T. W. and Johnson, D. L. 1980. Lamb survival in sheep breeds on New Zealand hill country. N.Z. Jl. agric. Res. 23: 167–173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harvey, W. R. 1960. Least-squares analysis of data with unequal subclass numbers. U.S. Dep. Agric, ARS-20-8. (Mimeograph).Google Scholar
Hight, G. K. and Jury, K. E. 1970. Hill country sheep production II. Lamb mortality and birth weights in Romney and Border Leicester × Romney flocks. N.Z. Jl. agric. Res. 13: 735–752.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hocking, R. R. 1976. Analysis and selection of variables in linear regression. Biometrics 32: 1–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meat and Livestock Commission. 1981. Commercial Sheep Production Yearbook 1980-81. Meat and Livestock Commission, Bletchley, Milton Keynes.Google Scholar
Notter, D. R. and Copenhaver, J. S. 1980. Performance of Finnish Landrace crossbred ewes under accelerated lambing. II. Lamb growth and survival. J. Anim. Sci. 51: 1043–1050.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scottish Agricultural Colleges. 1981. Farm management handbook 1981/82. Publ. Scott. Agric. Coll., No. 81.Google Scholar
Smith, G. M. 1977. Factors affecting birth weight, dystocia and preweaning survival in sheep. J. Anim. Sci. 44: 745–753.Google Scholar