Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-j824f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-08T04:22:41.403Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Effects of shelter, exposure and level of feeding over winter on the productivity of Welsh Mountain ewes and lambs

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 September 2010

W. I. Robinson ,
W. Brown  and
I. A. M. Lucas
W. I. Robinson
Affiliation:
University College of North Wales, Bangor
W. Brown
Affiliation:
University College of North Wales, Bangor
I. A. M. Lucas
Affiliation:
University College of North Wales, Bangor
Get access

Summary

Pregnant Welsh Mountain ewes were kept over winter on a hill. All were penned individually, either in a shed or out of doors. In Experiments 1 and 2 different levels of digestible organic matter (DOM) were given in each environment and in Experiment 3 only a single level was offered. In Experiment 2 all ewes were grazed together after lambing; in Experiment 3 some from each treatment were moved to a shed after lambing and their milk yields recorded between 10 and 15 days later.

In a fourth experiment on low land, pregnant ewes were either housed or kept in an exposed or a sheltered paddock. All were grazed together after lambing.

The results indicated that the requirement of indoors penned sheep to maintain body weight and produce a single lamb is 9·5 g DOM/kg live weight per 24 hr at 16 weeks pre-partum, rising to 15·0 g DOM/kg live weight per 24 hr at 1 week pre-partum. A 10% weight loss during pregnancy would be expected in ewes receiving 75 to 80 % of these requirements. Low intakes during pregnancy reduced wool growth and lamb birth weights.

Outdoor exposure reduced pre-partum ewe weight by about 1·5 kg, and so was equivalent to a 10% reduction in daily DOM intake. The magnitude of this effect was not changed significantly by level of feeding. Exposure did not affect wool growth and its influence on lamb birth weight and growth was variable.

Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Production , Volume 17 , Issue 1 , August 1973 , pp. 21 - 32
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

Blaxter, K. L. 1964. Problems of cold environments. Proc. 6th int. Congr. Nutr., Edinburgh, 1963 (ed. Mills, C. F. and Passmore, R.), pp. 227–242. E. and S. Livingstone Ltd, Edinburgh and London.Google Scholar
Blaxter, K. L., Graham, N. McC, Wainman, F. W. and Armstrong, D. G. 1959. Environmental temperature, energy metabolism and heat regulation in sheep. 2. The partition of heat losses in closely clipped sheep. J. agric. Set, Camb. 52: 25–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coop, I. E. 1962. The energy requirement of sheep for maintenance and gain. 1. Pen fed sheep. J. agric. Sci., Camb. 58: 179–199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coop, I. E. and Drew, K. R. 1963. Maintenance and lactation requirements of grazing sheep. Proc. N.Z. Soc. Anim. Prod. 23: 53–62.Google Scholar
Doney, J. M. and Russel, A. J. F. 1968. Differences amongst breeds of sheep in food requirements for maintenance and live weight change. J. agric. Sci., Camb. 71: 343–349.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Graham, N. McC, Wainman, F. W., Blaxter, K. L. and Armstrong, D. G. 1959. Environmental temperature, energy metabolism and heat regulation in sheep. 1. Energy metabolism in closely clipped sheep. J. agric. Sci., Camb. 52: 13–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gunn, R. G. 1970. A note on the effect of broken mouth on the performance of Scottish Blackface hill ewes. Anim. Prod. 12: 517–520.Google Scholar
Kneale, W. A. 1969. Levels of nutrition for pregnant ewes. Great House Review, 1969, pp. 16–20. National Agriculture Advisory Service of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, London.Google Scholar
Anglands, J. P., Corbett, J. G., Mcdonald, I. and Pullar, J. D. 1963. Estimates of the energy required for maintenance by adult sheep. Anim. Prod. 5: 1–9.Google Scholar
Langlands, J. P. and Sutherland, H. A. M. 1968. An estimate of nutrients utilized for pregnancy by Merino sheep. Br. J. Nutr. 22: 217–227.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Peart, J. N. 1967. The effect of different levels of nutrition during late pregnancy on the subsequent milk production of Blackface ewes and on the growth of their lambs. J. agric. Sci., Camb. 68: 365–372.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Robinson, J. J., Eraser, C. and Bennett, C. 1971. An assessment of the energy requirements of the pregnant ewe using plasma free fatty acid concentrations. J. agric. Sci., Camb. 77: 141–145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Robinson, J. J., Foster, W. H. and Forbes, T. J. 1969. The estimation of the milk yield of a ewe from body weight data on the suckling lamb. J. agric. Sci., Camb. 72: 103–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Russel, A. J. F., Doney, J. M. and Reid, R. L. 1967a. The use of biochemical parameters i n controlling nutritional state in pregnant ewes, and the effect of undernourishment during pregnancy on lamb birth weight. J. agric. Sci., Camb. 68: 351–358.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Russel, A. J. F., Doney, J. M. and Reid, R. L. 1967b. Energy requirements of the pregnant ewe. J. agric. Set., Camb. 68: 359–363.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Russel, A. J. F., Gunn, R. G. and Doney, J. M. 1968. Components of weight loss in pregnant hill ewes during winter. Anim. Prod. 10: 43–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Treacher, T. T. 1970. Effects of nutrition in late pregnancy on subsequent milk production in ewes. Anim. Prod. 12: 23–36.Google Scholar
Wallace, L. R. 1948. The growth of lambs before and after birth in relation to the level of nutrition. Parts 2 and 3. J. agric. Sci., Camb. 38: 244–302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Winfield, C. J., Brown, W. and Lucas, I. A. M. 1968. Some effects of compulsory exposure over winter on in-lamb Welsh Mountain ewes. Anim. Prod. 10: 451–463.Google Scholar
Winfield, C. J., Brown, W. and Lucas, I. A. M. 1969. Sheltering behaviour at lambing by Welsh Mountain ewes. Anim. Prod. 11: 101–105.Google Scholar