Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-fbnjt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-19T03:45:31.934Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Effects of Texel or Rouge de l’Ouest genes in lowland ewes and rams on ewe prolificacy, lamb viability and weaned lamb output

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 August 2016

A. F. Carson ,
L. W. McClinton  and
R. W. J. Steent
A. F. Carson
Affiliation:
Agricultural Research Institute of Northern Ireland, Hillsborough, Co. Down BT26 6DR
L. W. McClinton
Affiliation:
Agricultural Research Institute of Northern Ireland, Hillsborough, Co. Down BT26 6DR
R. W. J. Steent
Affiliation:
Agricultural Research Institute of Northern Ireland, Hillsborough, Co. Down BT26 6DR
Get access

Abstract

An evaluation of the effects of the proportion of Texel or Rouge de l’Ouest (Rouge) genes in ewes (0, 0·5 or 1·0; the remainder being Greyface (Border Leicester × Scottish Blackface)) on prolificacy, lamb viability and lamb output was undertaken. A comparison of Texel and Rouge sires was carried out on Greyface, Texel and Rouge ewes. Prolificacy was higher in Greyface compared with Texel ewes (P = 0·06) but was lower in Greyface compared with Rouge ewes (P < 0·001). Prolificacy was similar in Greyface and Texel × Greyface ewes mated to Texel rams and in Greyface and Rouge × Greyface ewes mated to Rouge rams. The level of dystocia was similar in Greyface and Texel × Greyface ewes but significantly higher in Texel ewes (P < 0·001). The proportion of Rouge genes in the ewe had no effect on the level of dystocia. Litter weight of lambs at birth was significantly heavier in Greyface (P < 0·001) and Texel × Greyface (P < 0·01) ewes compared with Texel ewes. The proportion of Rouge genes in the ewe had no significant effect on litter weight. Lamb mortality (no. of lambs born dead and died birth to weaning) was significantly greater with Rouge ewes compared with the other ewe breed types (P < 0·001). The number of lambs which died from birth to weaning was lower with Texel × Greyface compared with Greyface ewes (P < 0·01). Expressed on a unit metabolic weight basis, Greyface ewes produced a significantly greater weight of lamb compared with Texel (P < 0·05) and Rouge ewes (P < 0·001). Texel × Greyface ewes produced a significantly greater weight of Texel-sired lamb compared with Greyface (P < 0·01) and Texel ewes (P < 0·001).

Sire had a significant effect on a number of parameters. The number of productive ewes was significantly lower in ewes mated with Texel sires (P < 0·001). Lamb birth weights and pre-weaning growth rates were greater with Rouge sires (P < 0·05). Number of lambs weaned per ewe lambed was significantly greater with Texel sires (P < 0·01). Overall weight of weaned lamb produced per ewe was not significantly affected by sire breed.

Keywords

growthlambsmortalityprolificacysheep breeds
Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Science , Volume 68 , Issue 1 , February 1999 , pp. 69 - 78
Copyright
Copyright © British Society of Animal Science 1999

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

Bodin, L. and Elsen, J. M. 1989. Variability of litter size of French sheep breeds following natural or induced ovulation. Animal Production 48: 535–541.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cameron, N. D., Smith, C. and Deeble, F. K. 1983. Comparative performance of crossbred ewes from three crossing sire breeds. Animal Production 37: 415–421.Google Scholar
Clark, J. N. 1982. The utilisation of breed resources in the improvement of sheep productivity. In Proceedings of the second world congress of genetics applied to livestock production, Madrid, vol. 5, pp. 635–654.Google Scholar
Croston, D., Kempster, A. J., Guy, D. R. and Jones, D. W. 1987. Carcass composition of crossbred lambs by ten sire breeds compared at the same carcass subcutaneous fat proportion. Animal Production 44: 99–106.Google Scholar
Grommers, F. J., Elving, L. and Eldick, P. van. 1985. Parturition difficulties in sheep. Animal Reproduction Science 9: 365–374.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hanrahan, J. P. 1994. Evaluation of crossbred ewe breed types: ovulation rates and prolificacy. Proceedings of the 20th annual research meeting, Irish Grassland and Animal Production Association, pp. 21–22.Google Scholar
Johnston, S. D. 1995. The effects of genotype and nutrition on lamb production. Ph.D. thesis, The Queen’s University, Belfast. Google Scholar
Johnston, S. D., Steen, R. W. J., Kilpatrick, D. J., Lowe, D. E. and Chestnutt, D. M. B. 1999. A comparison of sires of Suffolk and Dutch Texel breeds and ewes of Greyface, Suffolk Cheviot and Dutch Texel breeds in terms of food intake, prolificacy and lamb growth rates. Animal Science In press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kempster, A. J., Croston, D. and Jones, D. W. 1987. Tissue growth and development in crossbred lambs sired by ten breeds. Livestock Production Science 16: 145–162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Latif, M. G. A. and Owen, E. 1979. Comparison of Texel-and Suffolk-sired lambs out of Finnish Landrace × Dorset Horn ewes under grazing conditions. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 93: 235–239.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leymaster, K. A. and Jenkins, T. G. 1993. Comparison of Texel- and Suffolk-sired crossbred lambs for survival, growth and compositional traits. Journal of Animal Science 71: 859–869.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lyness, S. E., Carson, A. F. and Hepper, P. 1996. Neonatal behavior of Dutch Texel and Rouge de l’Ouest lambs. Proceedings of the 23rd annual meeting of the Fetal and Neonatal Physiological Society, p. 11.Google Scholar
McCance, I. 1959. The determination of milk yield in the Merino ewe. Australian Journal of Agricultural Research 10: 839–853.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McGuirk, B. J. and Bourke, M. E. 1978. Hybrid vigour and lamb production. 1. Reproductive performance of the purebred and crossbred matings. Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture and Animal Husbandry 18: 745–752.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mann, T. J. L., Smith, C., King, J. W. B., Nicholson, D. and Sales, D. I. 1984. Comparisons of crossbred ewes from five crossing sire breeds. Animal Production 39: 241–249.Google Scholar
Maund, B. A., Duffell, S. J. and Winkler, C. E. 1980. Lamb mortality in relation to prolificacy. Experimental Husbandry 36: 99–112.Google Scholar
Meat and Livestock Commission. 1996. Sheep year book. Meat and Livestock Commission, Milton Keynes.Google Scholar
Merrell, B. G. and Hedley, B. A. 1994. Comparative performance of castrated male lambs from two crossing-ram breeds. Animal Production 58: 484 (abstr.).Google Scholar
More O’Ferrall, G. J. 1975. Effect of breed of ram on fertility of ewes and perinatal mortality of lambs. Irish Journal of Agricultural Research 13: 341–367.Google Scholar
Russel, A. J. F. 1984. Means of assessing the adequacy of nutrition of pregnant ewes. Livestock Production Science 11: 429–436.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Steen, R. W. J. 1989. A comparison of soyabean, sunflower and fishmeal as protein supplements for yearling cattle offered grass silage-based diets. Animal Production 48: 81–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ward, W. R., Murray, R. D., White, A. R. and Rees, E. M. 1995. The use of blood biochemistry for determining the nutritional status of dairy cows. In Recent advances in animal nutrition (ed. Garnsworthy, P. C. and Cole, D. J. A.), pp. 29–52. Nottingham University Press.Google Scholar
Wolf, B. T., Smith, C. and Sales, D. I. 1980. Growth and carcass composition in the crossbred progeny of six terminal sire breeds of sheep. Animal Production 31: 307–313.Google Scholar
Wylie, A. R. G., Chestnutt, D. M. B. and Kilpatrick, D. J. 1997. Growth and carcass characteristics of heavy slaughter weight lambs: effects of sire breed and sex of lamb and relationships to serum metabolites and IGF-1. Animal Science 64: 309–318.CrossRefGoogle Scholar