Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-l7hp2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-25T21:58:31.560Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Wool growth as affected by nutrition and by climatic factors

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 March 2009

I. E. Coop
Affiliation:
Canterbury Agricultural College, University of New Zealand

Extract

The weight, length and quality (fineness) of wool produced at different times of the year and under different nutritional conditions has been determined over a period of three years by clipping at monthly intervals the wool grown on delineated skin areas of sheep. The treatments consisted of

(a) wet ewes, grazing on pasture all the year, subjected to high and low levels of feeding during the ‘dry’, pregnancy and lactation periods;

(b) dry ewes and lambs fed differentially on grazing during the winter and spring;

(c) wet ewes fed in stalls on a diet of constant composition at rates sufficient to maintain constant effective body weight (i.e. making allowance for pregnancy increase and fleece weight increase). A small number of these ewes was also subjected to increased environmental temperature during the winter.

The experiments have shown the existence of a marked seasonal rhythm in wool growth having a maximum in January (midsummer) and a minimum in July (midwinter). Changes in weight of wool grown are caused by sympathetic changes in both length and diameter. At the same level of feeding the rate of wool growth in midwinter is about onethird of that in midsummer.

The nutritional demands of pregnancy reduce the rate of wool growth in winter and those of lactation delay the rise in production in spring. Nutrition also plays an important part in determining the time of the maximum and minimum. In dry sheep the maximum tends to occur before midsummer when pasture growth is at its best, but lactation in wet sheep prevents the expression of a maximum early in the summer, so that in these ewes it generally occurs after weaning, and therefore after midsummer. The level of nutrition also determines within limits the magnitude of the maximum and minimum.

The fundamental cause of the seasonal rhythm of wool growth remains obscure. Nutrition, pregnancy and lactation can modify the rhythm, but it exists strongly even when variations due to these are eliminated. The seasonal rhythm of solar radiation has recently been shown to influence rate of wool growth, particularly during winter, and though this is undoubtedly one factor it is not the only one. Temperature has been suggested elsewhere as a possible cause, but the experiments described do not support the theory that environmental temperature has any direct effect on wool growth. It is suggested, however, that the seasonal rhythm of temperature may be a second factor.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1953

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

Bell, D. S., Spencer, D. A. & Hardy, J. I. (1936). Bull. no. 571. Ohio Agric. Exp. Sta.Google Scholar
Burns, R. H. (1931). J. Text. Inst. 22, 2, 9.Google Scholar
Coop, I. E. (1950). J. Agric. Sci. 40, 311.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Duerden, J. E., Murray, C. A. & Botha, B. (1932). 18th Rep. Dir. Vet. Serv. Anim. Ind., S. Africa Agric. Dep. Part II, 973.Google Scholar
Ferguson, K. A. (1949). Aust. J. Sci. Res. B, 2, 438.Google Scholar
Ferguson, K. A., Carter, H. B. & Hardy, M. H. (1949). Aust. J. Sci. Res. B, 2, 42.Google Scholar
Ferguson, K. A. (1951). J. Endocrinology, 7, lxi.Google Scholar
Fraser, K. M. (1931). J. Coun. Sci. Industr. Res. Aust. 4, 204.Google Scholar
Galpin, N. (1948). J. Agric. Sci. 37, 275.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hardy, J. I. & Tennyson, J. B. (1930). J. Agric. Res. 40, 457.Google Scholar
Hart, D. S. (1950). J. Agric. Sci. 40, 143.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hart, D. S. (1953 a). Nature, Lond., 171, 133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hart, D. S. (1953 b). Personal communication.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maqsood, M. (1950). Nature, Lond., 166, 647.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marston, H. R. (1948). Aust. J. Sci. Res. B, 1, 362.Google Scholar
Oloufa, M. M., Bogart, R. & McKenzie, F. F. (1951). Ore. St. Agric. Exp. Sta. Tech. Bull. no. 20.Google Scholar
Roberts, J. A. F. (1930). J. Text. Inst. 21, T. 127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sackville, J. P., Bowstead, J. E., Larose, P. & Tweedie, A. S. (1938). Canad. J. Res., Sect. D, 16, 153, 166, 361.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Slen, S. F. & Whiting, F. (1952). J. Anim. Sci. 11, 166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yeates, N. T. M. (1949). J. Agric. Sci. 39, 1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar