Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-tf8b9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-23T14:37:55.637Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Reproductive performance of group-synchronized Merino d'Arles and Romanov crossbred ewes. 1. A note on the effects of lactation on fecundity

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 September 2010

F. J. Galindez ,
M. Prud'hon  and
G. Reboul
F. J. Galindez
Affiliation:
Station de Physiologie Animale, Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique, Place Viala, 34060 Montpellier-Cedex, France
M. Prud'hon
Affiliation:
Station de Physiologie Animale, Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique, Place Viala, 34060 Montpellier-Cedex, France
G. Reboul
Affiliation:
Station de Physiologie Animale, Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique, Place Viala, 34060 Montpellier-Cedex, France
Get access

Summary

Fifty-six Merino d'Aries and 56 Romanov × Merino crossbred lactating ewes were divided into two treatment groups, one (T1) with a ewe-to-ram ratio of 48: 1 (24 Merino and 24 crossbred) and the other (T2) of 64: 1 (32 Merino and 32 crossbred).

Intravaginal sponges with 40 mg FGA (Searle) were inserted in two subgroups at 8-day intervals and withdrawn after 12 and 16 days in situ, in four equal groups at 4-day intervals. A dose of 400 IU pregnant mare's serum gonadotrophin (PMSG) was applied at sponge withdrawal.

Fertility after two oestrous cycles was equally satisfactory in both treatments, though it was lower in treatment group T2. This could be due to the significantly low (P<0·01) number of Merino ewes raddled by the T2 ram (0·33 Merino against 0·92 crossbred) suggesting preferential behaviour by the ram in this treatment.

Comparisons between breeds show a slight superiority in the fertility of crossbred ewes and a highly significant superiority in prolificacy These results suggest that using the described method, 2% of rams seems more than adequate to mate with progestagen-synchronized ewes with a satisfactory fertility level. It is, however, recommended to use homogeneous groups of ewes.

Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Production , Volume 24 , Issue 1 , February 1977 , pp. 113 - 116
Copyright
Copyright © British Society of Animal Science 1977

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. Nutrient Requirements of Farm Livestock. No. 2, Ruminants. Agricultural Research Council, London.Google Scholar
Brice, G. 1975. [Use of progestagen treatment in sheep.] In Joumees d'Etudes sur la Maitrise des Cycles Sexuels chez les Ovins, Montpellier, pp. 143–152.Google Scholar
Bryant, M. J. and Tomkins, T. 1975. The flock-mating of progestagen-synchronized ewes. 1. The influence of ram-to-ewe ratio upon mating behaviour and lambing performance. Anim. Prod. 20: 381–390.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Colas, G., Brice, G. and Guerin, Y. 1974. [Recent achievements in sheep artificial insemination.] Bull. tech. Inf. Ingrs Servs agric, No. 294, pp. 795–800.Google Scholar
Dawe, S. T., Beunet, N. W., Donnely, F. B., Ferguson, B. D., Rive, J. P., Roberts, B. C. and Trinmer, B. I. 1970. The comparative reproductive performance of ewes joined to one or three per cent of rams. Proc. Aust. Soc. Anim. Prod. 8: 317–320.Google Scholar
Galindez, F. J., Prud'Hon, M. and Reboul, G. 1975. [Evaluation of an intensive system of mating and its effect on the fertility of a flock of Merino sheep synchronized with fluorogesterone acetate (cs 9880) and PMSG.] Agron. trop. 25: 207–219.Google Scholar
Inskeep, E. K. 1974. Artificial insemination in sheep. Part 1. Artificial insemination and preservation of ram semen. Bull. W. Va Univ. agric. Exp. Stn, No. 629, pp. 5–28.Google Scholar
Jennings, J. J. and Crowley, J. P. 1972. The influence of mating management on fertility in ewes following progesterone-PMS treatment. Vet. Rec. 90: 495–498.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jennings, J. J. and Crowley, J. P. 1975. The influence of the mating behaviour of rams on fertility in progestagen-PMS treated ewes in late anoestrus. In Proc. int. Symp. Physio-pathology of Reproduction and Artificial Insemination in Small Ruminants, Thessaloniki, Greece, May 1974, pp. 29–33.Google Scholar
Lightfoot, R. J. and Smith, J. A. C. 1968. Studies on the number of ewes joined per ram for flock matings under paddock conditions. I. Mating behaviour and fertility. Aust. J. agric. Res. 19: 1029–1042.Google Scholar
Prud'Hon, M., Galindez, F. and Reboul, G. 1975. [Oestrus induction and paddock mating in Aries Merino ewes: effects of season, lactation and the ram: ewe ratio on fertility and prolificacy.] In ldres Journees de la Recherche Ovine et Caprine. Vol. 2: Espece Ovine, pp. 293–302.Google Scholar
Rouger, Y. 1969. [The level of sexual behaviour in the ram and its individual variations.] In Vie Congr. int. Reprod. anim. Insem. artif, Paris, 1968. Vol. II, pp. 1663–1665.Google Scholar