Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-cphqk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-02-06T13:50:13.044Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A comparison of three terminal sire breeds for crossbred lamb production. 1. Growth performance and carcass classification

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 September 2010

B. G. Merrell ,
G. M. Webster  and
M. Ellis
B. G. Merrell
Affiliation:
MAFF/ADAS, Redesdale EHF, Rochester, Otterburn, Newcastle upon Tyne NE19 1SB
G. M. Webster
Affiliation:
Department of Agriculture, The University, Newcastle upon Tyne NEl 7RU
M. Ellis
Affiliation:
Department of Agriculture, The University, Newcastle upon Tyne NEl 7RU

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. As you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Poster Abstracts
Information
BSAP Occasional Publication , Volume 14: New Developments in Sheep Production , January 1990 , pp. 169 - 172
Copyright
Copyright © British Society of Animal Production 1990

References

REFERENCES

Cameron, N. D. and Drury, D. J. 1985. Comparison of terminal sire breeds for growth and carcass traits in crossbred lambs. Animal Production 40: 315–322.Google Scholar
Croston, D., Guy, D. R., Jones, D. W. and Kempster, A. J. 1983. A comparison of ten sire breeds for sheep production. 1. Growth performance and carcass classification. Animal Production 36: 504 (Abstr.).Google Scholar
Kempster, A. J., Croston, D., Guy, D. R. and Jones, D. W. 1987. Growth and carcass characteristics of crossbred lambs by ten sire breeds, compared at the same estimated carcass subcutaneous fat proportion. Animal Production 44: 83–98.Google Scholar
More O'Ferrall, G. J. and Timon, V. M. 1977. A comparison of eight sire breeds for lamb production. 1. Lamb growth and carcass measurements. Irish Journal of Agricultural Research 16: 267–275.Google Scholar
Payne, R. W., Lane, P. W., Ainsley, A.E., Bicknell, K. E., Digby, P. G. N., Harding, S. A., Leech, P. K., Simpson, H. R., Todd, A. D., Verrier, P. J., White, R. P.Gower, J. C., Tunnicliffe Wilson, G. and Paterson, L. J. 1987. Genstat V Reference Manual. Oxford University Press, Oxford.Google Scholar
Visscher, A. H. and Bekedam, M. 1984. The development of the Texel breed in the Netherlands.Proceedings of the 35th Meeting of the European Association for Animal Production,The Hague, Vol. 2, paper 4.1 (Abstr.).Google Scholar
Webster, G. M., Ellis, M. and Merrell, B. G. 1990. A comparison of three terminal sire breeds for crossbred lamb production. 2. Carcass evaluation. In New Developments in Sheep Production (ed. Slade, C. F. R. and Lawrence, T. L. J.), Occasional Publication, British Society of Animal Production, No. 14, pp. 173–175.Google Scholar
Wolf, B. T., Smith, C. and Sales, D. I. 1980. Growth and carcass composition in the crossbred progeny of six terminal sire breeds of sheep. Animal Production 31: 307–313.Google Scholar