Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-t5tsf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-08T04:24:40.724Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Reproductive performance at first lambing and in twice-yearly lambing in a flock of Finnish Landrace sheep in Finland†

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 September 2010

H. Goot  and
K. Maijala
H. Goot
Affiliation:
Institute of Animal Science, Agricultural Research Organization, Bet Dagan, Israel
K. Maijala
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Breeding, University of Helsinki, 00710 Helsinki 76, Finland
Get access

Summary

1. The reproductive performance of 128 first-lambing ewes born during 1966–71, and of 118 ewes kept on a twice-yearly lambing system during 1968–1972/73, in a commercial flock of Finnish Land-race sheep in Finland, was analysed.

2. The first-lambing ewes were exposed to the ram throughout the year, except in June and July. Out of 95 ewes born between January and May, 92 (97%) lambed at the age of 376·4 ± 29·9 days, and out of 20 born between July and September, 15 (75%) lambed when 323·8 ± 50·4 days old.

3. The average litter sizes at first lambing were 1·6, 1·9 and 2·6 for ewes with average ages of 324, 388 and 534 days, respectively; the 5-mo litter weights averaged 41·7, 45·7 and 70·5 kg per ewe for the three groups.

4. In the twice-yearly lambing system 55% of ewes lambed once within a calendar year and 45% lambed twice. The number of consecutive lambings and the number of lambs born per ewe per year were 1·52 ± 0·29 and 4·03 ± 1·18, respectively. The consecutive lambings of the 118 ewes, over a period of 1½ to 5½ yr, did not indicate any decline in reproductive performance.

5. The estimated lambing-to-conception interval in consecutive lambings was 116·6 ± 64·3 days; February had the lowest conception rate (0·7%) and November the highest (20·8%); April (16·5%) and September (15·5%) were similar.

6. Litter size was not affected by year, age of ewes, or lambing period. The mean lamb mortality up to 14 days of age, based on 1168 lambs born dead or alive, was 12·8% and the annual ewe wastage averaged 21·9%

7. For ewes which lambed twice within a calendar year, the lambing to conception interval was 71·7 ± 24·7 days. Such ewes produced 5·0±1·4 lambs per calendar year and the combined 5-mo weight of both litters was 168·2 ± 43·2 kg per ewe.

Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Production , Volume 25 , Issue 3 , December 1977 , pp. 319 - 329
Copyright
Copyright © British Society of Animal Science 1977

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
Dyrmundsson, Ó. R. 1973. Puberty and early reproductive performance in sheep. I. Ewe lambs. Anim. Breed. Abstr. 41: 273–289.Google Scholar
Dyrmundsson, Ó. R. and Lees, J. L. 1972. Attainment of puberty and reproductive performance in Clun Forest ewe lambs. J. agric. Sci., Camb. 78: 39–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goot, H. 1973. Finnsheep in Finland. Spec. Pubh agric. Res. Orgn, Bet Dagan No. 28.Google Scholar
Maijala, K. 1967. Causes of variation in litter size of Finn-sheep ewes. Suom. maatal. Seur.Julk. 109: 136–143.Google Scholar
Maijala, K. and Kangasniemi, R. 1972. Experiences of out-of-season and twice-a-year lambings in Finnsheep. Wld Rev. Anim. Prod. 8 (3): 84–89.Google Scholar
Maijala, K. and Oesterbero, S. 1976. Productivity of pure Finnsheep in Finland and abroad. Proc. 27th Ann. Meet. Ear. Assoc. Anim. Prod., Zurich. G20S28: 1–33.Google Scholar
Purser, A. F. 1965. Repeatability and heritability of fertility in hill sheep. Anim. Prod. 7: 75–82.Google Scholar
Sokal, R. R. and Rohlf, F. J. 1969. Biometry. Freeman, San Francisco.Google Scholar
Watson, R. H. and Gamble, L. C. 1961. Puberty in the Merino ewe with special reference to the influence of season of birth upon its occurrence. Aust. J. agric. Res. 12: 124–138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar