Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rdxmf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T17:00:28.611Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Effects of the level of early productivity on the lifespan of ewes in contrasting flock environments

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 May 2016

F. Douhard ,
N. B. Jopson ,
N. C. Friggens  and
P. R. Amer
F. Douhard*
Affiliation:
UMR Modélisation Systémique Appliquée aux Ruminants, INRA, AgroParisTech, Université Paris-Saclay, 75005, Paris, France
N. B. Jopson
Affiliation:
AbacusBio Limited, 442 Moray Place, Dunedin 9058, New Zealand
N. C. Friggens
Affiliation:
UMR Modélisation Systémique Appliquée aux Ruminants, INRA, AgroParisTech, Université Paris-Saclay, 75005, Paris, France
P. R. Amer
Affiliation:
AbacusBio Limited, 442 Moray Place, Dunedin 9058, New Zealand
*
†E-mail: [email protected]
Get access

Abstract

Selection for high levels of prolificacy has allowed substantial improvements in the production efficiency of New Zealand (NZ) sheep farms, but the consequences on ewe lifetime performance are mostly unknown. In this study, the relationship between the level of prolificacy early in ewes’ productive lives and their probability to survive later (i.e. stayability) was evaluated in two contrasting NZ flock environments. Records were obtained from 6605 ewes from four ram breeder flocks representing either a moderate (n=2) or a highly variable (n=2) nutritional environment. All ewes lambed for the first time at 2 years of age and were mated the following year. The number of lambs born during the first 2 years of productive life (NLB2–3) was used as a measure of early prolificacy. Effects of NLB2–3 on stayability to 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 years old were analysed using logistic regression. Curvilinear effects (logit-transformed) were detected (P<0.05) until stayability to 6 years and to 8 years old in the highly variable and the moderate environment, respectively. The NLB2–3 that resulted in maximum expected stayability to various ages was 3.9 to 4.2, and 4.5 to 4.7 lambs in the highly variable and in the moderate flock environments, respectively. In addition, ewe stayability was reduced when the proportion of the litter that survived from birth to weaning (i.e. ewe rearing ability) was submaximal during the early productive life. High prolific ewes had a low rearing ability whatever the environment whereas the rearing ability of lowly prolific ewes was apparently more sensitive to the nutritional environment. The poor maternal performance of ewes with low levels of NLB2–3 led to a premature culling by breeders whereas the high early reproductive effort associated with high levels of NLB2–3 seemed to be at the cost of ewes’ survival, even in the moderate flock environment. In conclusion, the flock environment influenced the level of early prolificacy beyond which ewe longevity was reduced. It is suggested that further selection for high and early prolificacy in NZ flocks is likely to impair ewes’ lifetime productivity.

Keywords

early productive lifeewesprolificacystayabilityflock environment
Type
Research Article
Information
animal , Volume 10 , Issue 12 , December 2016 , pp. 2034 - 2042
Copyright
© The Animal Consortium 2016 

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

Amer, PR, Jopson, NB, Cocks, J and Scarlet, AL 2007. Impact of early age litter size on subsequent litter output in ewes. Proceedings of the New Zealand Society of Animal Production 67, 39–43.Google Scholar
Amer, PR, McEwan, JC, Dodds, KG and Davis, GH 1999. Economic values for ewe prolificacy and lamb survival in New Zealand sheep. Livestock Production Science 58, 75–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Amer, PR, Sise, JA, Jopson, NB and Bray, AR 2009. Background effects on ewe lambing and weaning performance in well recorded breeding flocks. Proceedings of the New Zealand Society of Animal Production 69, 115–117.Google Scholar
Annett, RW, Carson, AF, Dawson, LER, Irwin, D, Gordon, AW and Kilpatrick, DJ 2011. Comparison of the longevity and lifetime performance of Scottish Blackface ewes and their crosses within hill sheep flocks. Animal 5, 347–355.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Beef+Lamb New Zealand 2013. Ewe body condition scoring (BCS) handbook. Beef+Lamb New Zealand, Dunedin, New Zealand.Google Scholar
Borg, RC, Notter, DR and Kott, RW 2009. Genetic analysis of ewe stayability and its association with lamb growth and adult production. Journal of Animal Science 87, 3515–3524.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bradford, GE 1985. Selection for litter size. In Genetics of reproduction in sheep (ed. RB Land and DW Robinson), pp. 3–18. Butterworths, London, UK.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Byrne, TJ, Ludemann, CI, Amer, PR and Young, MJ 2012. Broadening breeding objectives for maternal and terminal sheep. Livestock Science 144, 20–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Conington, J, Bishop, SC, Grundy, B, Waterhouse, A and Simm, G 2001. Multi-trait selection indexes for sustainable UK hill sheep production. Animal Science 73, 413–423.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gaillard, J-M, Festa-Bianchet, M, Delorme, D and Jorgenson, J 2000. Body mass and individual fitness in female ungulates: bigger is not always better. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B: Biological Sciences 267, 471–477.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hohenboken, WD and Clarke, SE 1981. Genetic, environmental and interaction effects on lamb survival, cumulative lamb production and longevity of crossbred ewes. Journal of Animal Science 53, 966–976.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hothorn, T, Bretz, F and Westfall, P 2008. Simultaneous inference in general parametric models. Biometrical Journal 50, 346–363.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kenyon, PR, Thompson, AN and Morris, ST 2014. Breeding ewe lambs successfully to improve lifetime performance. Small Ruminant Research 118, 2–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lee, GJ and Atkins, KD 1996. Prediction of lifetime reproductive performance of Australian Merino ewes from reproductive performance in early life. Animal Production Science 36, 123–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lee, MA, Cullen, NG, Newman, SAN, Dodds, KG, McEwan, JC and Shackell, GH 2015. Genetic analysis and genomic selection of stayability and productive life in New Zealand ewes. Journal of Animal Science 93, 3268–3277.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lemaître, J-F, Berger, V, Bonenfant, C, Douhard, M, Gamelon, M, Plard, F, Gaillard, J-M, Lyon, D and De Biome, L 2015. Early-late life trade-offs and the evolution of ageing in the wild. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B: Biological Sciences 282, 1–10.Google ScholarPubMed
McIntyre, SB, Newman, S-AN, Young, EA and McEwan, JC 2012. Genetic and phenotypic parameters for stayability in a New Zealand research flock. Proceedings of the New Zealand Society of Animal Production 72, 152–155.Google Scholar
Mekkawy, W, Roehe, R, Lewis, RM, Davies, MH, Bünger, L, Simm, G and Haresign, W 2009. Genetic relationship between longevity and objectively or subjectively assessed performance traits in sheep using linear censored models. Journal of Animal Science 87, 3482–3489.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Morris, ST and Kenyon, PR 2004. The effect of litter size and sward height on ewe and lamb performance. New Zealand Journal of Agricultural Research 47, 275–286.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mysterud, A, Steinheim, G, Yoccoz, NG, Holand, ØH and Stenseth, NC 2002. Early onset of reproductive senescence in domestic sheep, Ovis aries . Oikos 2, 177–183.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nussey, DH, Froy, H, Lemaitre, J-F, Gaillard, J-M and Austad, SN 2013. Senescence in natural populations of animals: widespread evidence and its implications for bio-gerontology. Ageing Research Reviews 12, 214–225.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
R Core Team 2015. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Retrieved June 18, 2015, from http://www.r-project.org/.Google Scholar
Rauw, WM, Thain, DS, Teglas, MB, Wuliji, T, Sandstrom, MA and Gomez-Raya, L 2010. Adaptability of pregnant merino ewes to the cold desert climate in Nevada. Journal of Animal Science 88, 860–870.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rose, G, Kause, A, Mulder, HA, van der Werf, JHN, Thompson, AN, Ferguson, MB and van Arendonk, JAM 2013. Merino ewes can be bred for body weight change to be more tolerant to uncertain feed supply. Journal of Animal Science 91, 2555–2565.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Safari, E, Fogarty, NM and Gilmour, AR 2005. A review of genetic parameter estimates for wool, growth, meat and reproduction traits in sheep. Livestock Production Science 92, 271–289.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scales, GH, Burton, RN and Moss, RA 1986. Lamb mortality, birthweight, and nutrition in late pregnancy. New Zealand Journal of Agricultural Research 29, 75–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scaramuzzi, RJ and Radford, HM 1983. Factors regulating ovulation rate in the ewe. Journal of Reproduction and Fertility 69, 353–367.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Young, MJ and Amer, PR 2009. Rates of genetic gain in New Zealand sheep. Proceedings of the Association for the Advancement of Animal Breeding and Genetics 18, 422–425.Google Scholar
Young, MJ and Thomson, BC 2014. Robustness as a breeding objective for sheep in New Zealand. In Breeding focus 2014: improving resilience (ed. S Hermesch and S Dominik), pp. 129–140. Animal Genetics and Breeding Unit, University of New England, Armidale, Australia.Google Scholar
Supplementary material: File

Douhard supplementary material

Tables S1-S3

Download Douhard supplementary material(File)
File 25.8 KB