Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-v9fdk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-08T00:27:44.832Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The effect of daylength on the growth of lambs. 1. Comparisons of sex, level of feeding, shearing and breed of sire

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 September 2010

J. M. Forbes ,
A. A. El Shahat ,
R. Jones ,
J. G. S. Duncan  and
T. G. Boaz
J. M. Forbes
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Physiology and Nutrition, University of Leeds, Leeds LS2 9JT
A. A. El Shahat
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Physiology and Nutrition, University of Leeds, Leeds LS2 9JT
R. Jones
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Physiology and Nutrition, University of Leeds, Leeds LS2 9JT
J. G. S. Duncan
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Physiology and Nutrition, University of Leeds, Leeds LS2 9JT
T. G. Boaz
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Physiology and Nutrition, University of Leeds, Leeds LS2 9JT
Get access

Abstract

Two experiments were carried out with crossbred lambs which had been weaned in July when 16 weeks old. From early September they were kept in a light-proof building with 12 h artificial light per day for 3 weeks and then half were exposed to 16 h and half to 8 h light per day for a further 16 weeks.

Experiment 1 included 72 lambs (48 castrated males and 24 females) and half in each daylength were fed on a concentrated ration ad libitum; the other half were restricted to 70 g/kg live weight0·75 per day. Half of each group were shorn. Lambs kept in 16 h light per day grew significantly faster than those in short daylength at both levels of feeding. Food conversion ratio was best in the 16 h restricted sheep. Unshorn lambs had heavier carcasses than shorn lambs. Long daylength stimulated general growth of the animal without markedly affecting carcass composition, irrespective of level of feeding, whereas ad libitum feeding resulted in much fatter carcasses than did restricted feeding. Gut fill was significantly greater in long-daylength sheep.

Experiment 2 included 24 individually penned castrated male lambs, 12 of which were sired by Suffolk rams and 12 by Oxford rams; all were fed at the restricted level. Long daylength significantly stimulated weight gain, especially in the Oxford-cross lambs, but the increase in carcass weight was not significant in this experiment due to the large effect on gut fill.

It was concluded that long daylength stimulated growth and gut fill by some central control mechanism and not merely by encouraging more eating.

Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Production , Volume 29 , Issue 1 , August 1979 , pp. 33 - 42
Copyright
Copyright © British Society of Animal Science 1979

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

Agricultural Research Council. 1965. The Nutrient Requirements of Farm Livestock. No. 2, Ruminants. Agricultural Research Council, London.Google Scholar
El-Shahat, A., Jones, R., Forbes, J. M. and Boaz, T. G. 1974. The effect of day length on the growth of lambs at two levels of feeding. Proc. Nutr. Soc. 33: 83A–84A (Abstr.).Google ScholarPubMed
Forbes, J. M., El Shahat, A. A., Driver, P. M., Jones, R. and Boaz, T. G. 1975. Effect of daylength on the growth of lambs. Proc. Br. Soc. Anim. Prod. (New Series) 4: 102 (Abstr.).Google Scholar
Gordon, J. G. 1964. Effect of time of year on the roughage intake of housed sheep. Nature, Lond. 204: 798–799.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hoersch, T. M., Reineke, E. P. and Henneman, H. A. 1961. Effect of artificial light and ambient temperature on the thyroid secretion rate and other metabolic measures in sheep. J. Anim. Sci. 20: 358–362.Google Scholar
Hulet, C. V., Price, D. A. and Foote, W. C. 1968. Effects of variation in light, month of year and nutrient intake on reproductive phenomena in ewes during the breeding season. J. Anim. Sci. 27: 684–690.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Morris, T. R. 1967. Light requirements of the fowl. In Environmental Control in Poultry Production (ed. Carter, T. C.), pp. 15–39. Oliver and Boyd, Edinburgh.Google Scholar
Tarttelin, M. F. 1968. Cyclical variations in food and water intakes in ewes. J. Physiol., Lond. 195: 29P–31P (Abstr.).Google ScholarPubMed