Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-mlc7c Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-04T19:48:25.212Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Some responses of hill ewes and lambs to artificial shelter

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 September 2010

G. R. Miller
G. R. Miller
Affiliation:
University School of Agriculture, Newcastle upon Tyne
Get access

Extract

1. Experiments were done to assess the reaction of sheep to small artificial shelters and to study the effect of these shelters on the live-weight gain of young lambs in the springs of 1958, 1959 and 1960.

2. Lambs sought shelter particularly when it was raining. They were sensitive to high wind speed and low temperature but did not usually shelter in mild dry weather.

3. Ewes were indifferent to rain and remained in the open in wet weather while many of their lambs sheltered. They occasionally used the shelters for shade in warm sunny weather when their lambs usually went with them.

4. Because of these differences between ewes and lambs in their response to shelter, during wet weather ewes were less closely associated with their lambs where they had access to shelter than where there was no shelter.

5. In the wet spring of 1958, lambs with access to shelter gained weight more slowly than those without shelter. It is postulated that the lambs with shelter may have consumed less milk than the others due to a weaker social bond with their dams.

6. None of the experiments showed that shelter improved the live-weight performance of young lambs.

Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Production , Volume 10 , Issue 1 , February 1968 , pp. 59 - 66
Copyright
Copyright © British Society of Animal Science 1968

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

Alexander, G. 1962. Temperature regulation in the new-born lamb. IV. The effect of wind and evaporation of water from the coat on metabolic rate and body temperature. Aust. J. agric. Res. 13: 82–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cresswell, E., Thomson, W. and Gill, J. C. 1964. The effect of shelter and of tallow dressing of the fleece on fattening Scottish Blackface lambs. Emp. J. exp. Agric. 32: 51–54.Google Scholar
Doney, J. M. 1963. The effects of exposure in Blackface sheep with particular reference to the role of the fleece. J. agric. Sci., Camb. 60: 267–273.Google Scholar
Gordon, H. M. and Whitlock, H. V. 1939. A new technique for counting nematode eggs in sheep faeces. J. Court, sci. ind. Res. (Ausi.), 12: 50–52.Google Scholar
Hughes, G. P. and Reid, D. 1951. Studies on the behaviour of cattle and sheep in relation to the utilisation of grass. J. agric. Sci., Camb. 41: 350–366.Google Scholar
Latham, P. R. 1874. On fencing and shelter of mountain sheep walks. Trans. Highl. agric. Soc. Scot., 4th ser. 6: 114–118.Google Scholar
Miller, G. R. 1962. Some effects of shelter, with particular reference to the performance and behaviour of sheep. Ph.D. Thesis, Univ. Newcastle upon Tyne.Google Scholar
Munro, J. 1962. The use of natural shelter by hill sheep. Anitn. Prod. 4: 343–349.Google Scholar
Nägeli, W. 1946. Weitere Untersuchungen über die Windverhältnisse im Bereich von Windschutzstreifen. Mitt. Schweiz. Anst. forstl. Versuchsw. 24: 659–737.Google Scholar
Panfilov, Y. 1936. [Experiments and research of All-Union Research Institute for Agri-Forestry Melioration and Forest Management.] No. 6: (Shelterbelts), State Tech. Printing Office, Moscow.Google Scholar
Snedecor, G. W. 1956. Statistical Methods. 5th ed. Iowa State College Press, Ames, Ia.Google Scholar
Tribe, D. E. 1949. Some seasonal observations on the grazing habits of sheep. Emp. J. exp. Agric. 17: 106–115.Google Scholar
Warwick, B. L. and Cartwright, T. C. 1958. Adjustment of milk lamb weaning weights to a standard age. J. Anim. Sci. 17: 521–526.Google Scholar