Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-hvd4g Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-07T11:53:22.423Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A comparative trial of crossbred ewes by Finnish Landrace and other sires

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 September 2010

H. P. Donald ,
J. L. Read  and
W. S. Russell
H. P. Donald
Affiliation:
A.R.C. Animal Breeding Research Organisation, West Mains Road, Edinburgh 9
J. L. Read
Affiliation:
A.R.C. Animal Breeding Research Organisation, West Mains Road, Edinburgh 9
W. S. Russell
Affiliation:
A.R.C. Animal Breeding Research Organisation, West Mains Road, Edinburgh 9
Get access

Extract

1. A comparison lasting 3 years has been made of 5 types of crossbred ewes produced by mating Border Leicester, Clun Forest, Dorset Horn, Finnish Landrace and Tasmanian Merino rams to Scottish Blackface ewes. Data from a total of 576 ewe years became available.

2. In body weight at mating time when they were 7, 19 or 31 months old, the Border Leicester and Dorset Horn crossbred ewes were heaviest, followed by Cluns. Finnish and Merino crossbreds were about 15–20% lighter than the Border Leicester crossbreds.

3. In fleece weight, Finnish crossbreds were lower by about 1·0—1·5 lb relative to Border Leicester crossbreds.

4. In fertility, Finnish crossbreds were highest with 1·5, 2·0 and 2·3 lambs born per ewe lambing at ages 1, 2 and 3 years respectively. The corresponding averages for the combined Border Leicester, Clun and Dorset Horn crossbreds were 1·1, 1·6 and 1·6 and for Merino crossbreds 1·0, 1·1 and 1·2. Numbers weaned were similarly ranked.

5. Lambs out of crossbred ewes showed a sequence of group differences in weight at birth and at weaning corresponding to those shown by their mothers at mating time. The heaviest lambs were produced by Dorset Horn and Border Leicester crossbreds, and the lightest by Merino crossbreds. As a percentage of ewe weight at mating, lamb weight at weaning was highest for the Finnish group.

6. In terms of litter weight at weaning, fitted values for the Merino group were the lowest while those for the Finnish group were the highest. The other three groups gave similar and intermediate values.

Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Production , Volume 10 , Issue 4 , November 1968 , pp. 413 - 421
Copyright
Copyright © British Society of Animal Science 1968

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

Donald, H. P. and Read, J. L. 1967. The performance of Finnish Landrace sheep in Britain. Anim. Prod. 9: 471–476.Google Scholar
Gjedrem, T. 1967. Phenotypic and genetic parameters for weight of lambs at five ages. Acta Agric. scand. 17: 199–216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gjedrem, T., Hals, Fr., Liland, P. J., Rio, T. and Rønningen, K. 1966. Purebreeding and crossbreeding with Merino and Columbia. Meld. Norg. Landbrukshøgskole 45: No. 19, pp. 17.Google Scholar
Packham, A. and Triffitt, L. K. 1966. Association of ovulation rate and twinning in Merino sheep. Austr. J. agric. Res. 17: 515–520.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Purser, A. F. and Young, G. B. 1964. Mortality among twin and single lambs. Anim. Prod. 6: 321–329.Google Scholar
Rennie, G. K. 1957. The performance of three sheep breeds on the Yorkshire Wolds. 1950–54. Exp. Husb. 2: 37–42.Google Scholar
Sidwell, G. M., Everson, D. O. and Terrill, C. E. 1962. Fertility, prolificacy and lamb livability of some pure breeds and their crosses. J. Anim. Sci. 21: 875–879.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Skårman, S. 1963. Crossbreeding experiments with sheep. LantbrHògsk. Annlr 29: 63–98.Google Scholar
Watson, R. H. and Radford, H. M. 1966. Seasonal variation in fertility in Merino ewes. The reproductive wastage associated with mating in winter, spring, summer, or autumn. Austr. J. agric. Res. 17: 335–345.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wiener, G. 1966. Genetic and other factors in the occurrence of swayback in sheep. J. comp. Path. 76: 435–447.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Yalçin, B. C. and Bichard, M. 1964. Crossbred sheep production I. Factors affecting production from the crossbred ewe flock. Anim. Prod. 6: 73–84.Google Scholar