Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-lj6df Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-19T06:41:10.984Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The effects of partial suckling on the lactation performance of Chios sheep and Damascus goats and the growth rate of the lambs and kids

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 March 2009

M. Hadjipanayiotou  and
A. Louca
M. Hadjipanayiotou
Affiliation:
Agricultural Research Institute, Nicosia, Cyprus
A. Louca
Affiliation:
Agricultural Research Institute, Nicosia, Cyprus
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

Two trials with 82 and 54 Chios ewes and one with 44 Damascus goats were conducted during 1973–4 to study the effects of partial suckling on lactation performance and the growth rate of the lambs and kids. The treatments studied were: (a) continuous (24 h a day) suckling; (b) partial (8 h a day) suckling and (c) partial with decreasing duration of suckling from 8 h daily to residual suckling, i.e. 20 min after each milking.

No significant differences were found in either the 35-day milk yields (commercial milk yield+milk sucked) of ewes or the 70-day milk yields of goats between animals suckling continuously and those suckling partially. However, the 35-day and 70-day commercial milk yields of ewes and goats on the partial suckling treatments were significantly higher than those of ewes and goats on the continuous suckling treatment. Residual suckling of ewes from 36 to 120 days after lambing resulted in an increase in the total milk yield but not in the milk sold. Significant differences in milk yields were found between ewes nursing one and those nursing two lambs. The corresponding mean values for the 35-day milk yield were 78 and 94 kg and those for the 120-day milk yield 205 and 238 kg.

Up to weaning (35 days for sheep and 70 days for goats) the growth rate of lambs and kids on the partial suckling treatments tended to be poorer than that of those on continuous suckling. After weaning, however, the growth rate of the partially suckled lambs and kids as well as that of the lambs on residual suckling from 36 to 120 days were as good as that of those suckling continuously so that the differences in the final weight were not significant.

It is concluded that partial suckling in sheep and goats is profitable in the early stages of lactation provided that the milk left to the young and the intake of solid feed are sufficient to sustain satisfactory growth.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Agricultural Science , Volume 87 , Issue 1 , August 1976 , pp. 15 - 20
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1976

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

Agricultural Research Council (1965). The Nutrient Requirements of Farm Livestock, No. 2. Ruminants. London: Agricultural Research Council.Google Scholar
Folman, Y., Volcani, R. & Eyal, E. (1966). Mother–offspring relationships in Awassi sheep. 1. The effect of different suckling regimes and time of weaning on the lactation curve and milk yield in dairy flocks. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 67, 359–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harvey, W. R. (1960). Least squares analysis of data with unequal subclass numbers. US Department of Agriculture, ARS 20–8.Google Scholar
Lawlor, M. J., Louca, A. & Mavrogenis, A. (1974). The effect of three suckling regimes on the lactation performance of Cyprus Fat-tailed, Chios and Awassi sheep and the growth rate of the lambs. Animal Production 18, 293–9.Google Scholar
Louca, A. (1972). The effect of suckling regime on growth rate and lactation performance of the Cyprus Fat-tailed and Chios sheep. Animal Production 15, 53–9.Google Scholar
Louca, A., Mavrogenis, A. & Lawlor, M. J. (1975). The effect of early weaning on the lactation performance of Damascus goats and the growth rate of the kids. Animal Production 20, 213–18.Google Scholar