Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-q99xh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-28T10:21:55.332Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Effects of breed and age on the performance of crossbred hill ewes sourced from Scottish Blackface dams

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  29 October 2010

R. W. Annett ,
A. F. Carson ,
L. E. R. Dawson ,
D. Irwin  and
D. J. Kilpatrick
R. W. Annett*
Affiliation:
Agriculture Branch, Agri-food and Biosciences Institute (AFBI), Large Park, Hillsborough, Co. Down, BT26 6DR, Northern Ireland, UK
A. F. Carson
Affiliation:
Agriculture Branch, Agri-food and Biosciences Institute (AFBI), Large Park, Hillsborough, Co. Down, BT26 6DR, Northern Ireland, UK
L. E. R. Dawson
Affiliation:
Agriculture Branch, Agri-food and Biosciences Institute (AFBI), Large Park, Hillsborough, Co. Down, BT26 6DR, Northern Ireland, UK
D. Irwin
Affiliation:
Agriculture Branch, Agri-food and Biosciences Institute (AFBI), Large Park, Hillsborough, Co. Down, BT26 6DR, Northern Ireland, UK
D. J. Kilpatrick
Affiliation:
AFBI Biometrics Division, Newforge Lane, BT9 5PX, Belfast, UK
*
†E-mail: [email protected]
Get access

Abstract

The aim of this study was to evaluate the effects of age and breed on the reproductive performance and lamb output of crossbred hill ewes relative to purebred Scottish Blackface (BF). BF ewes were compared alongside Swaledale (SW) × BF, North Country Cheviot (CH) × BF, Lleyn (LL) × BF and Texel (T) × BF ewes on six commercial hill farms across Northern Ireland, on which all the ewes were born and reared. Ewes were mated to a range of sire breeds, balanced across breeds, for up to five successive breeding seasons. Mature live weight of adult BF, SW × BF, CH × BF, LL × BF and T × BF ewes was 52.8, 54.9, 60.3, 55.6 and 58.6 kg (P < 0.001), respectively. Compared with the pure BF, the number of lambs born per ewe lambed was higher with LL × BF and SW × BF (P < 0.05), whereas the number of lambs weaned per ewe lambed was greater for LL × BF and T × BF (P < 0.01). Total litter weight at birth of all the crossbred ewes was heavier (P < 0.01) than the pure BF, except in primiparous 2-year-old ewes. Lambs born to CH × BF and T × BF dams were 0.24 to 0.35 kg heavier at birth (P < 0.01) than the other ewe breeds, whereas lambs born to CH × BF, LL × BF and T × BF dams were, on average, 1.7, 1.3 and 1.5 kg, respectively, heavier (P < 0.01) at weaning than those from BF dams due to their higher (P < 0.05) average daily gain. Compared with the pure BF, total weaned lamb output per ewe lambed was 3.7, 4.8, 6.7 and 5.4 kg heavier (P < 0.05) for SW × BF, CH × BF, LL × BF and T × BF, respectively. However, as a result of the heavier live weight of the crossbred ewes, production efficiency (lamb output per kilogram live weight (W) and lamb output per kilogram metabolic live weight (W0.75)) was higher (P < 0.001) for LL × BF ewes only. For all ewe breeds, litter size at birth per ewe lambed, total lamb birth weight per ewe lambed and litter size at weaning increased (P < 0.001) with age up to 5 years, but decreased in 6-year-old ewes. Average lamb weaning weight and total weaned lamb output per ewe lambed increased (P < 0.001) with age up to 4 years . Production efficiency of the 6-year-old ewes was lower (P < 0.01) than the younger ewes. This study shows that adopting a flock replacement policy based on crossing BF ewes with LL, SW, T and CH sires can lead to significant improvements in the productivity of hill flocks.

Keywords

crossbreedinghill flocksprolificacylamb output
Type
Full Paper
Information
animal , Volume 5 , Issue 3 , March 2011 , pp. 356 - 366
Copyright
Copyright © The Animal Consortium 2011

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

Agricultural and Food Research Council (AFRC) 1993. Energy and protein requirements of ruminants. An advisory manual prepared by the AFRC Technical Committee on Responses to Nutrients. CAB International, Wallingford, UK.Google Scholar
Al-Nakib, FMS, Findlay, RH, Smith, C 1986. Performance of different Scottish Blackface stocks and their crosses. Journal of Agricultural Science Cambridge 107, 119–123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Al-Nakib, FMS, Bateman, N, Findlay, RH, Smith, C, Thompson, R 1997. Comparative performance of British hill sheep breeds and their crosses. Journal of Agricultural Science Cambridge 128, 199–206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bateman, N, Sales, DI 1981. Reproduction in crossbred ewes derived from 5 hill breeds. Animal Production 32, 382.Google Scholar
Cameron, ND, Smith, C, Deeble, FK 1983. Comparative performance of crossbred ewes from three crossing sire breeds. Animal Production 37, 415–421.Google Scholar
Carson, AF, Irwin, D, Kilpatrick, DJ 2001. A comparison of Scottish Blackface and Cheviot ewes and five sire breeds in terms of lamb output at weaning in hill sheep systems. Journal of Agricultural Science Cambridge 137, 221–233.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carson, AF, Dawson, LER, Irwin, D, Kilpatrick, DJ 2004. The effect of management system at lambing and flock genetics on lamb output and labour requirements on lowland sheep farms. Animal Science 78, 439–450.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cloete, SWP, Scholtz, AJ, Ten Hoope, JM, Lombard, PJA, Franken, MC 1998. Ease of birth in relation to pelvic dimensions, litter weight and conformation of sheep. Small Ruminant Research 31, 51–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Connolly, L 2000. Economic performance in Irish sheep production. End of Project Reports, Sheep Series No. 9. Teagasc Athenry, Co., Galway, Ireland.Google Scholar
Dawson, LER, Carson, AF 2002a. Effects of crossbred ewe genotype and ram genotype on ewe prolificacy, lamb viability and lamb output in the lowland sector. Journal of Agricultural Science Cambridge 139, 169–181.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dawson, LER, Carson, AF 2002b. Effects of crossbred ewe genotype and ram genotype on lamb carcass characteristics from the lowland sheep flock. Journal of Agricultural Science Cambridge 139, 183–194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dawson, LER, Carson, AF, Moss, BW 2002. Effects of crossbred ewe genotype and ram genotype on lamb meat quality from the lowland sheep flock. Journal of Agricultural Science Cambridge 139, 195–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dawson, LER, Carson, AF, McClinton, LOW 2003. Comparison of the carcass characteristics and meat quality of lambs produced from Texel and Rouge de l’Ouest ewes and their crosses. Animal Science 77, 57–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Donald, HP, Read, JL, Russell, WS 1963. Heterosis in crossbred hill sheep. Animal Production 5, 289–299.Google Scholar
Dwyer, CM, Lawrence, AB 1998. Variability in the expression of maternal behaviour in primiparous sheep: effects of genotype and litter size. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 58, 311–330.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
European Commission 2006. Study on environmental consequences of sheep and goat farming and of the sheep and goat premium system. Final report prepared for the European Commission Directorate-General for Agriculture and Rural Development, July 2006.Google Scholar
Friggens, NC, Shanks, M, Kyriazakis, I, Oldham, JD, McClelland, TH 1997. The growth and development of nine European sheep breeds. 1. British breeds: Scottish Blackface, Welsh Mountain and Shetland. Animal Science 65, 409–426.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fogarty, NM, Dickerson, GE, Young, LD 1984. Lamb production and its components in pure breeds and composite lines. 2. Breed effects and heterosis. Journal of Animal Science 58, 301–311.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fogarty, NM, Hopkins, DL, van de Ven, R 2000. Lamb production from diverse genotypes. 1. Lamb growth and survival and ewe performance. Animal Science 70, 135–145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
GenStat 2008. Release 11.1. Lawes Agricultural Trust, Rothamsted Experimental Station, Harpenden, Hertfordshire, UK.Google Scholar
Gunn, RG, Doney, JM, Smith, WF, Sim, DA 1986. Effects of age and its relationship with body size on reproductive performance in Scottish Blackface ewes. Animal Production 43, 279–283.Google Scholar
Hanrahan, JP 2007. Association between ewe breed and longevity in a lowland production system. Proceedings of the Agricultural Research Forum, Tullamore, Co. Offaly, Ireland, p. 72.Google Scholar
Kenyon, PR, Stafford, KJ, Jenkinson, CMC, Morris, ST, West, DM 2007. The body composition and metabolic status of twin-and triplet-bearing ewes and their fetuses in late pregnancy. Livestock Science 107, 103–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mann, TJL, Smith, C, King, JWB, Nicholson, D, Sales, DI 1984. Comparison of crossbred ewes from five crossing sire breeds. Animal Production 39, 241–249.Google Scholar
Minter, CM 1993. An evaluation of artificial insemination on breeding performance in a commercial pedigree flock of Lleyn ewes. Animal Production 56, 441.Google Scholar
O’Connor, CE, Lawrence, AB, Wood-Gush, DGM 1992. Influence of litter size and parity on maternal behaviour at parturition in Scottish Blackface sheep. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 33, 345–355.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Owen, JB, Whitaker, CJ 1987. A comparison of crossbred ewes raised from Welsh Mountain dams by three sire breeds: Cambridge, Border Leicester and Lleyn. Journal of Agricultural Science Cambridge 109, 159–164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pollott, GE, Stone, DG 2006. The breeding structure of the British sheep industry 2003. A report prepared for the Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) for the review of the National Scrapie Plan, 2004.Google Scholar
Russel, AJF, Doney, JM, Gunn, RG 1969. Subjective assessment of body fat in live sheep. Journal of Agricultural Science Cambridge 72, 451–454.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Simm, G, Conington, J, Bishop, SC 1994. Opportunities for genetic improvement of sheep and cattle in the hills and uplands. In Livestock production and land use in hills and uplands (ed. TlJ Lawrence, DS Parker and P Rowlinson), pp. 51–66. Occasional publication no. 18, British Society of Animal Production, Edinburgh, UK.Google Scholar
Taylor, CS 1985. Use of genetic size-scaling in evaluation of animal growth. Journal of Animal Science 61 (Suppl. 2), 118–143.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ulyatt, MJ, Lassey, KR, Shelton, ID, Walker, CF 2005. Methane emission from sheep grazing four pastures in late summer in New Zealand. New Zealand Journal of Agricultural Research 48, 385–390.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vaughan, EK, Long, SE, Parkinson, TJ, Smith, KC, Noakes, DE 1997. Ovarian hypoplasia in Lleyn ewes. Veterinary Record 140, 100–101.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Vesely, JA, Peters, HF 1974. Lamb production from ewes of four breeds and their two-breed and three-breed crosses. Canadian Journal of Animal Science 54, 543–549.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wallace, JM, Bourke, DA, Aitken, RP, Cruickshank, MA 1999. Switching maternal dietary intake at the end of the first trimester has profound effects on placental development and fetal growth in adolescent ewes carrying singleton foetuses. Biology of Reproduction 61, 101–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Waterhouse, A, Logue, DN, Roger, LC 1992. The effects of increased prolificacy on lamb and ewe mortality in an intensive hill sheep system. In Neonatal survival and growth (ed. MA Varley, PEV Williams and TLJ Lawrence), pp. 176–178. Occasional Publication No. 15, British Society of Animal Production, Edinburgh, UK.Google Scholar
Wolf, BT, Smith, C 1983. Selection for carcass quality. In Sheep production (ed. W Haresign), pp. 493–514. Butterworths, London, UK.Google Scholar