Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-mzp66 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-02-06T13:47:57.109Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A comparison of three terminal sire breeds for crossbred lamb production 2. Carcass evaluation

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 September 2010

G. M. Webster ,
M. Ellis  and
B. G. Merrell
G. M. Webster
Affiliation:
Department of Agriculture, The University, Newcastle upon Tyne NE1 7RU
M. Ellis
Affiliation:
MAFF/ADAS, Redesdale EHF, Rochester, Otterburn, Newcastle upon Tyne NE19 1SB
B. G. Merrell
Affiliation:
MAFF/ADAS, Redesdale EHF, Rochester, Otterburn, Newcastle upon Tyne NE19 1SB

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. 173 - 175
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., Kempster, A. J., Guy, D. R.. and Jones, D. W. 1987. Carcass composition of crossbred lambs by ten sire breeds compared at the same carcass subcutaneous fat proportion. Animal Production 44: 99–106.Google Scholar
Cuthbertson, A., Harrington, G. and Smith, R. J. 1972. Tissue separation—to assess beef and lamb variation. Proceedings of the British Society of Animal Production (New Series) 1: 113–122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harvey, W. R. 1977. User's Guide, for LSM L76. Mixed model least-squares and maximum likelihood computer program. Ohio State University, Columbus. (Mimeograph).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
Kempster, A. J., Croston, D. and Jones, D. W. 1981. Value of conformation as an indicator of sheep carcass composition within and between breeds. Animal Production 33: 39–49.Google Scholar
Merrell, B. G., Webster, G. M. and Ellis, M. 1990. A comparison of three terminal sire breeds for crossbred lamb production. 1. Growth performance and carcass classification. 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. 169–172.Google Scholar
More O'Ferrall, G. J. and Timon, V. M. 1977a. 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
More O'Ferrall, G. J. and Timon, V. M. 1977b. A comparison of eight sire breeds for lamb production. 2. Lamb carcass composition. Irish Journal of Agricultural Research 16: 277–284.Google Scholar
Wolf, B. T., and Smith, C. 1983. Selection for carcass quality. In Sheep Production (ed. Haresign, W.), pp. 493–514. Butterworths, London.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