Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-m6dg7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-07T21:06:19.024Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Competition in utero between twin lambs

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 March 2009

H. P. Donald  and
A. F. Purser
H. P. Donald
Affiliation:
Agricultural Research Council's Animal Breeding Research Organisation, Edinburgh
A. F. Purser
Affiliation:
Agricultural Research Council's Animal Breeding Research Organisation, Edinburgh
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

1. The weights at birth of 822 pairs of twin lambs have been studied with respect to the differences between males and females. Data were obtained during five lambing seasons from various breeds and crosses in five flocks.

2. The sex distribution of twin pairs came close to the ratio .

3. Analyses made within season and within the major breed categories showed that sex differences were small relative to other sources of variation, but that there was a significant effect of sex of co-twin on birth weight. The following average differences were found (the sex of co-twin being indicated in brackets):

These differences had an average S.E. of 0·078 lb. (Table 3). The sex difference in litters of mixed sex was twice as large as that obtained from like-sexed litters.

4. The data for particular flocks and seasons suggest that in addition to these average effects, there may be some interaction between sex and breed or season which can cause deviations from the averages.

5. These results are interpreted to mean that there is competition between twins for some element of growth in limited supply; and that in twins of mixed sex, the result tends to favour the male.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Agricultural Science , Volume 48 , Issue 2 , December 1956 , pp. 245 - 249
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1956

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

Barcroft, J. (1946). Researches on Pre-Natal Life. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Beatty, R. A. (1956). Nature, Lond., 178, 48.Google Scholar
Chapman, A. B. & Lush, J. L. (1932). J. Hered. 23, 473.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Donald, H. P. & McLean, J. W. (1935). N.Z. J. Sci. Tech. 27, 497.Google Scholar
Essen-Möller, E. (1930). Acta obstet. gynec. scand. 9, 107.Google Scholar
Johansson, I. & Hansson, A. (1943). LantbrHögsk. Ann. 2, 145.Google Scholar
Karn, Mary N. (1952). Ann. Eugen., Lond., 16, 365.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Karn, Mary N. (1953). Ann. Eugen., Lond., 17, 233.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rasmussen, K. (1941). Sci. Agric. 21, 759.Google Scholar
Reynolds, S. R. M. (1949). Physiology of the Uterus. New York: Hoeber.Google Scholar