Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-g8jcs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-30T19:36:17.826Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Effects of crossbreeding and certain environmental factors on multiple births, wool production and growth in sheep

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 September 2010

M. H. Fahmy  and
C. S. Bernard
M. H. Fahmy
Affiliation:
Canada Department of Agriculture, Research Station, Lennoxville, Quebec, Canada
C. S. Bernard
Affiliation:
Canada Department of Agriculture, Research Station, Lennoxville, Quebec, Canada
Get access

Summary

Multiple birth percentage and wool production were studied on 338 ewes (907 lambing and 873 shearing records) representing two purebreds, Oxford (O) and Suffolk (S), and four crossbreds, O × S, S × O, Cheviot (C) × O and C × S mated to purebred and crossbred rams during 9 years. Oxford ewes had 24–32% (P<0·01) fewer multiple births than ewes of the other groups, while little difference between S and the crossbreds was observed. The heterosis of the OS and SO groups was 14·6 ± 4·1%. Multiple births tended to increase 0·8% for each kg increase in body weight of the dam (r = 0·13). The repeatability estimate for multiple births was 0·24. Fleece weight was significantly affected by age and by breed group, with OS and SO crosses producing 17% more wool than their parental breeds. The repeatability of fleece weight was estimated at 0·52 ± 0·15. Fleece weight was significantly correlated with multiple birth percentage (0·09) and body weight (0·32).

Suffolk ewes averaged 9·5 kg heavier than O ewes throughout their reproductive life. The two reciprocal crosses were heavier than both parental breeds. Suffolk ewes reached their maximum body weight at 4 years of age while Oxfords continued to gain weight up to 6 years.

Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Production , Volume 16 , Issue 2 , April 1973 , pp. 147 - 155
Copyright
Copyright © British Society of Animal Science 1973

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

Blackwell, R. L. and Henderson, C. R. 1955. Variation in fleece weight, weaning weight and birth weight of sheep under farm conditions. J. Anim. Sci. 14: 831–844.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Botkin, M. P. and Paules, L. 1965. Crossbred ewes compared with ewes of parent breeds for wool and lamb production. J. Anim. Sci. 24: 1111–1116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
De Haas, H. J. and Dunlop, A. A. 1969. The effects of some variables on the components of reproduction rate in the Merino. Aust. J. agric. Res. 20: 549–559.Google Scholar
Desai, R. N. and Winters, L. M. 1951. An appraisal of factors affecting fertility in sheep. Indian J. vet. Sci. 21: 177–189.Google Scholar
Donald, H. P., Read, J. L. and Russell, W. S. 1963. Heterosis in crossbred hill sheep. Anim. Prod. 5: 289–299.Google Scholar
Fahmy, M. H., Galal, E. S. E., Ghanem, Y. S. and Khishin, S. S. 1969. Crossbreeding of sheep under semi-arid conditions. Anim. Prod. 11: 351–360.Google Scholar
Gabriel, K. R. 1963. Analysis of variance of proportions with unequal frequencies. J. Am. statist. Ass. 58: 1133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holtmann, W. B. and Bernard, C. 1969. Effect of general combining ability, and maternal ability of Oxford, Suffolk and North Country Cheviot breeds of sheep on growth performance of lambs. J. Anim. Sci. 28: 155–161.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Inskeep, E. K., Barr, A. L. and Cunningham, C. J. 1967. Repeatability of prolificacy in sheep. J. Anim. Sci. 26: 458–461.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kennedy, J. P. 1967. Genetic and phenotypic relationships between fertility and wool production in 2-year-old Merino sheep. Aust. J. agric. Res. 18: 515–522.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kramer, C. Y. 1957. Extension of multiple range tests to group correlated adjusted means. Biometrics 13: 13–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mechling, E. A. II, and Carter, R. C. 1969. Genetics of multiple births in sheep. J. Hered. 60: 261–266.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Miller, K. P. and Dailey, D. L. 1951. A study of crossbreeding sheep. J. Anim. Sci. 10: 462–468.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mullaney, P. D., Brown, G. H., Young, S. S. Y. and Hyland, P. J. 1970. Genetic and phenotypic parameter for wool characteristics in fine-wool Merino, Corriedale and Polwarth sheep. II. Phenotypic and genetic correlations, heritability, and repeatability. Aust. J. agric. Res. 21: 527–540.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Purser, A. F. 1965. Repeatability and heritability of fertility in hill sheep. Anim. Prod. 7: 75–82.Google Scholar
Reeve, E. C. R. and Robertson, F. W. 1953. Factors affecting multiple births in sheep. Arum. Breed. Abstr. 21: 211–224.Google Scholar
Sidweix, G. M., Everson, D. O. and Terrill, C. E. 1962. Fertility, prolificacy and Iamb livability of some purebreeds and their crosses. J. Anim. Sci. 21: 875–879.Google Scholar
Sidwell, G. M. and Miller, L. R. 1971. Production in some purebreeds of sheep and their crosses. I. Reproductive efficiency in ewes. J. Anim. Sci. 32: 1084–1089.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Turner, H. N. 1969. Genetic improvement of reproduction rate in sheep. Anim. Breed. Abstr. 37: 545–563.Google Scholar
Vesely, J. A. and Peters, H. F. 1964. Fertility, prolificacy, weaned lamb production, and lamb survival ability in four range breeds of sheep. Can. J. Anim. Sci. 45: 75–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yalcjin, B. C. and Bichard, M. 1964. Crossbred sheep production. II. The repeatability of performance and the scope for culling. Anim. Prod. 6: 85–90.Google Scholar
Young, S. S. Y., Turner, H. W. and Dolling, C. R. S. 1960. Comparison of estimates of repeatability and heritability for some production trait on Merino rams and ewes. I. Repeatability. Aust. J. agric. Res. 11: 257–275.CrossRefGoogle Scholar