Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-g7gxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-03T05:15:26.562Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The effect of suckling, management and season on sheep milk production as estimated by lamb growth

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 June 1962

J. M. Doney  and
Joan Munro
J. M. Doney
Affiliation:
Hill Farming Research Organisation, Edinburgh, 12
Joan Munro
Affiliation:
Hill Farming Research Organisation, Edinburgh, 12
Get access

Extract

1. The mean daily live-weight gains of lambs from the 1956–59 flock records were used to estimate the milk yield of ewes during the first six weeks of lactation.

2. The yield was affected by the number of lambs suckled but not by the number born. Ewes rearing twins on the hill gave a higher yield than those rearing singles (145%–155%). Good grazing raised the yield to twice that of ewes rearing singles on the hill.

3. In 3 out of the 4 years the utilised yield was remarkably constant in the case of ewes rearing single lambs, but ewes rearing twins on the hill were more variable. Ewes rearing twins on low ground did not show any significant seasonal differences.

4. From an experiment on 36 ewes it was confirmed that twin-rearing ewes produce more milk than single-rearing ewes in all environments. There was no difference between ewes rearing one lamb whether born as a single or as a twin. Leaving two lambs on the ewe for a few days to establish a high level of milk yield did not benefit the remaining lamb after its twin was removed.

Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Production , Volume 4 , Issue 2 , June 1962 , pp. 215 - 220
Copyright
Copyright © British Society of Animal Science 1962

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

Alexander, G., & Davies, H. L., 1959. The relationship of milk production to the number of lambs born or suckled. Aust. J. agric. Res., 10: 720.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cunningham, J. M. M., Edwards, R. A., & Simpson Margaret, E., 1961. Rearing lambs on a synthetic diet. Anim. Prod., 3: 105.Google Scholar
Davies, H. L., 1958. Milk yield of Australian Merino ewes. Proc. Aust. Soc. Anim. Prod., 2: 15.Google Scholar
Jones, D. N., 1958. Performance of Blackface sheep at Glensaugh. Trans. R. Highl. agric. Soc. Scot., 6th series, 6: 87.Google Scholar
Large, R. V., 1959. Nutrition of the lamb. J. Brit. Grassl. Soc., 10: 35.Google Scholar
Mason, I. L., & Dassat, P., 1954. Milk, meat and wool production in the Langhe sheep of Italy. Z. Tierz. ZüchtBiol., 32: 197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Munro, Joan, 1956. Studies on the milk yields of Scottish Blackface ewes. J. agric. Sci., 43: 131.Google Scholar
Munro, Joan 1962. A study of the milk yield of three strains of Scottish Blackface ewes in two environments. Anim. Prod., 4: 203.Google Scholar
Owen, J. B., 1957. A study of the lactation and growth of hill sheep. J. agric. Sci., 48: 387.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wallace, L. R., 1948. The growth of lambs before and after birth. J. agric. Sci., 38: 93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar