Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gxg78 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-03T18:06:50.777Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The fleece of the Scottish Blackface sheep. IV. The effects of pregnancy, lactation and nutrition on seasonal wool production

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 March 2009

J. M. Doney
J. M. Doney
Affiliation:
Hill Farming Research Organization, Edinburgh
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Pre-mating, pregnancy and lactation periods correspond approximately with summer, winter and spring and any effects either of physiological status or nutritional conditions are confounded with the natural rhythm of wool growth. Within this framework, barren ewes produced slightly more wool than in-lamb ewes in winter and considerably more during the period of lactation. Improved nutrition during winter produced no increase in wool production, although it had a marked effect on live-weight maintenance. During lactation, improved nutrition resulted in an increase in wool production. The implications of the nutritional and seasonal rhythm of wool productions are discussed in relation to the adaptation of the breed to its environment.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Agricultural Science , Volume 62 , Issue 1 , February 1964 , pp. 59 - 66
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1964

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

Coop, I. E. (1953). J. Agric. Sci. 43, 456.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Denny, J. E. F. M. & Hunter, G. L. (1958). S. Afr. J. Agric. Sci. 1, 381.Google Scholar
Doney, J. M. (1958). Aust. J. Agric. Res. 9, 252.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Doney, J. M. & Munro, Joan (1962). Anim. Prod. 4, 215.Google Scholar
Doney, J. M. & Smith, W. F. (1961). J. Agric. Sci. 56, 365.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ferguson, K. A., Caster, H. B. & Hardy, M. H. (1949). Aust. J. Sci. Res. B, 2, 242.Google Scholar
Galpin, N. (1947). J. Agric. Sci. 37, 275.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hart, D. S. (1961). J. Agric. Sci. 56, 235.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hutchinson, J. C. D. & Wodzicka, Manika (1961). Anim. Breed. Abstr. 29, 1.Google Scholar
Jones, J. M., Dameron, W. H., Davis, S. P., Warwick, B. L. & Patterson, R. E. (1944). Bull. Tex. Agric. Exp. Sta. no. 657.Google Scholar
Maeston, H. R. (1948). Aust. J. Sci. Res. B, 1, 363.Google Scholar
Radford, H. M., Watson, R. H. & Wood, G. F. (1960). Aust. Vet. J. 36, 57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Robinson, T. J. (1961). J. Agric. Sci. 57, 129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ross, D. A. (1962). Aust. J. Agric. Res. 13, 924.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ryder, M. L. (1956). J. Agric. Sci. 47, 129.Google Scholar
Slee, J. & Carter, H. B. (1961). J. Agric. Sci. 57, 11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Story, L. F. & Ross, D. A. (1960). N. Z. J. Agric. Res. 3, 113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Williams, O. B. & Schinckel, P. G. (1962). Proc. Aust. Soc. Anim. Prod. 2, 33.Google Scholar
Wodzicka, Manika (1960). Aust. J. Agric. Res. 11, 75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar