Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-q99xh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T02:37:52.707Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Performance of different Scottish Blackface stocks and their crosses

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 March 2009

F. M. S. Al-Nakib ,
R. H. Findlay  and
C. Smith
F. M. S. Al-Nakib
Affiliation:
Edinburgh School of Agriculture, West Mains Road, Edinburgh, EH9 3JG
R. H. Findlay
Affiliation:
AFRG Animal Breeding Research Organisation, West Mains Road, Edinburgh, EH9 3JQ
C. Smith
Affiliation:
AFRG Animal Breeding Research Organisation, West Mains Road, Edinburgh, EH9 3JQ
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

The performance of different stocks of Scottish Blackface sheep and their crosses was compared on a harsh Scottish hill experimental farm. The strains were the Stanhope farm stock (a control flock, closed for 30 years), stock from local Breeders, and first crosses and back-crosses of Stanhope stock with stocks represented by rams purchased at Lanark market. Some 3892 ewe records were available with 1837 lamb performance records. Estimated effects for the three types of stock and of heterosis in the Stanhope and Lanark cross were derived statistically. The local Breeders' stock had the heaviest lambs at weaning and the Stanhope stock the lightest. The local Breeders' stock also had the heaviest ewes and higher litter size but had lower fertility and lower lamb survival. Output expressed relative to ewe weight was highest for the cross-bred stock. Heterosis was positive for all traits studied except survival but was statistically significant only for ewe weight and lamb birth weight. If the Stanhope stock was representative of Scottish Blackface sheep of 30 years ago, breeding by Scottish Blackface breeders has led to an estimated improvement of 9% in the output per ewe exposed, and 5% in efficiency of production.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Agricultural Science , Volume 107 , Issue 1 , August 1986 , pp. 119 - 123
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1986

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

Barlow, R. (1981). Experimental evidence of interaction in animals. Animal Breeding Abstracts 49, 715–737.Google Scholar
Eijke, E. D. (1975). Studies in sheep production records. 8. Estimation of genetic change. Acta Agricullurae Scandinavica 25, 252–260.Google Scholar
Fogarty, N. M., Dlckeron, G. E. & Young, L. D. (1984). Lamb production and its components in purebreeds and composite lines. II. Breed effect and heterosis. Journal of Animal Science 58, 301–311.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harvey, W. A. (1972). Least squares and maximum likelihood general purpose programmes. 252K mixed model version. Ohio State University (Mimeo).Google Scholar
Hight, G. K., Gibson, A. E., Wilson, D. A. & Gay, P. L. (1975). The Waihora sheep improvement programme. Second conference of New Zealand Federation of Livestock Breeding Groups, Sheep Farming Annual 1975, pp. 57–208. Massey University, Palmereton North, New Zealand.Google Scholar
Hohenboken, W. D. & Cochran, P. E. (1976). Heterosis for ewe lamb productivity. Journal of Animal Science 42, 819–823.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hohenboken, W. D., Corum, K. & Bogart, R. (1976). Genetic, environmental and interaction effects in sheep. I. Reproduction and lamb production per ewe. Journal of Animal Science 42, 317–323.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hohenboken, W. D., Kennick, W. H. & Bogart, R. (1976). Genetic, environmental and interaction effects in sheep. II. Lamb growth and carcass merit. Journal of Animal Science 42, 307–316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
James, J. W. (1975). Genetic considerations in large field experiments. In Developments in Field Experimental Design and Analysis (ed. Bofinger, V. J. and Wheeler, J. L.), pp. 155–167. Slough: Commonwealth Agricultural Bureaux.Google Scholar
Nitter, G. (1974). Results of crossbreeding experiments with sheep for intensive fat lamb production. Proceedings of World Symposium on Breed Evaluation and Crossing Experiments, Zeist, Holland, pp. 459–474.Google Scholar
Nitter, G. (1978). Breed utilization for meat production in sheep. Animal Breeding Abstracts 46, 131–143.Google Scholar
Purser, A. F. (1980). Comparison of expected and realised responses in three sheep selection experiments. In Selection Experiments in Laboratory and Domestic Animals (ed. Robertson, A.), pp. 21–30. Slough: Commonwealth Agricultural Bureaux.Google Scholar
Purser, A. F. & Roberts, R. C. (1960). The relationship of hogg weight to the subsequent performance of Scottish Blackface ewes. Animal Production 1, 107–111.Google Scholar
Purser, A. F. & Young, G. B. (1960). Lamb survival in two hill flocks. Animal Production 1, 85–91.Google Scholar
Timon, V. M. (1974). The evaluation of sheep breeds and breeding strategies. Proceedings of World Symposium on Breed Evaluation and Crossing Experiments, Zeist, Holland, pp. 367–387.Google Scholar