Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-g7gxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-05T09:44:01.277Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

A study of milk production of the grazing ewe, with emphasis on the experimental technique employed

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 March 2009

J. B. Coombe
Affiliation:
School of Agriculture, University of Melbourne
I. D. Wardrop
Affiliation:
School of Agriculture, University of Melbourne
D. E. Tribe
Affiliation:
School of Agriculture, University of Melbourne

Extract

1. Milk yields of grazing ewes with single lambs were estimated using two methods—the traditional lamb-suckling technique, and a technique involving hand-milking following stimulated let-down by intravenous injection of posterior pituitary gland extract (known as the oxytocin technique).

2. The oxytocin technique gave significantly higher figures for milk production than did the lamb-suckling technique (P < 0·01), and this persisted throughout lactation. Variation between ewes was similar for both techniques.

3. The two techniques are discussed in relation to the errors involved, and their accuracy and convenience of application to field conditions.

4. Differences in milk yield between Border Leicester x Merino ewes, and Romney Marsh x Merino ewes, estimated by either technique, were not significant. Correlation coefficients between lamb growth rate and milk yield of the ewe, measured by either technique, were high up to 7 weeks of age.

5. Where the ewes were under the same nutritional conditions before and after lambing, milk yield was not related to the live weight of the ewe, or birth weight of the lamb.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1960

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

Barnicoat, C. R., Logan, A. G. & Grant, A. I. (1949). J. Agric. Sci. 39, 44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barnicoat, C. R., Murray, P. F., Roberts, E. M. & Wilson, G. S. (1956). J. Agric. Sci. 48, 9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Benson, G. K. & Folley, S. J. (1956). Nature, Lond., 177, 700.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Benson, G. K. & Folley, S. J. (1957). J.Endocrin. 14, xl.Google Scholar
Bonsma, F. N. (1939). Publ. Univ. Pretoria Agric.Series 1, No. 48.Google Scholar
Burris, M. J. & Baugus, C. A. (1955). J. Anim. Sci. 14, 186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davies, H. L. (1958). Proc. Aust. Soc. Anim. Prod. 2, 15.Google Scholar
Fuller, J. G. & Kleinheinz, F. (1904). Rep. Wisc. Agric. Exp. Sta. p. 48.Google Scholar
McCance, I. (1959). Aust. J. Agric. Res. 10, 839.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Munro, J. & Inkson, R. H. E. (1957). J. Agric. Sci. 49, 169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Neidig, R. E. & Iddings, E. J. (1919). J. Agric. Res. 17, 19.Google Scholar
Owen, J. B. (1957). J. Agric. Sci. 46, 131.Google Scholar
Peirce, A. W. (1934). Aust. J. Exp. Biol. 12, 6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Peirce, A. W. (1936). Aust. J. Exp. Biol. 14, 187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Peirce, A. W. (1938). J. Coun. Sci. Industr. Res. Aust. 11, 229.Google Scholar
Snedecor, G. W. (1946). Statistical Method. Iowa State College Press.Google Scholar
Turner, H. G. (1955). Aust. J. Agric. Res. 6, 145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wallace, L. R. (1948). J. Agric. Sci. 38, 93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar