Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-m6dg7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-08T11:30:38.421Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A comparison of the progeny of three breeds of fat lamb sires

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 March 2009

R. M. Seebeck
R. M. Seebeck
Affiliation:
School of Agriculture, University of Melbourne, Parkville, N. 2, Victoria, Australia
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Many trials have been carried out in Australia to assess comparative values of breeds of rams and owes for fat lamb production in various environments and for different markets. Although general trends have appeared, there is much conflicting evidence in the reports of these trials as to the order of superiority of breed for a particular environmentmarket situation, especially for that of the rams. Much of this conflicting evidence arises because no completely satisfactory method of assessment of superiority has been used. Many of the studies undertaken to compare different breeds of ram have used as their basic criterion the returns per ewe (for example, McConnell, 1910; Elliot, 1926; Colebatch & Scott, 1927; Coleman, 1927; Cook, 1934; Thompson, 1951; Coleman & McDonald, 1952). In this situation random fluctuations in lambing percentages and in percentages of lambs surviving to slaughter can affect the order of superiority of the breeds. In view of the comparatively small numbers of sheep often used in the breed comparison groups (and this is, of course, particularly true in the case of rams), these deviations can bo sorious. For example, McConnell (1910) found that Border Leicester x lambs had a higher return per ewe than Southdown x lambs, but in 1911, the same author found the reverse situation which appears to have been due to a reversal in order of lambing percentages.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Agricultural Science , Volume 64 , Issue 1 , February 1965 , pp. 19 - 29
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1965

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

Anderson, R. A. (1958). J. Agric. S. Aust. 62, 214.Google Scholar
Blackwell, R. L. & Henderson, C. R. (1955). J. Anim. Sci. 14, 831.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bogart, R., De Baca, R. C., Calvin, L. D. & Nelson, O. M. (1957). J. Anim. Sci. 16, 130.Google Scholar
Bradford, G. E., Weir, W. C. & Torell, D. T. (1960). J. Anim. Sci. 19, 493.Google Scholar
Clarke, E. A. & McMeekan, C. P. (1952). N.Z. J. Sci. Tech. (A), 33 (5), 1.Google Scholar
Colebatch, W. J. & Scott, R. C. (1927). J. Agric. S. Aust. 31, 118, 254, 399, 492.Google Scholar
Coleman, J. M. (1927). Agric. Gaz. N.S.W. 38, 365.Google Scholar
Coleman, J. M. (1932). Agric. Gaz. N.S.W. 43, 39.Google Scholar
Coleman, J. M. (1934). Agric. Gaz. N.S.W. 45, 185.Google Scholar
Coleman, J. M. & Clark, A. R. (1952). Agric. Gaz. N.S.W. 62, 193.Google Scholar
Coleman, J. M. & McDonald, J. (1952). Agric. Gaz. N.S.W. 63, 345.Google Scholar
Cook, L. J. (1934). J. Agric. S. Aust. 37, 1232.Google Scholar
Coop, I. E. & Clark, V. R. (1952). N.Z.J. Sci. Tech. (A), 34, 153.Google Scholar
Coop, I. E. & Clark, V. R. (1957). N.Z.J. Sci. Tech. (A), 38, 928.Google Scholar
Donald, H. P. (1958). Proc. Brit. Soc. Anim. Prod. p. 77.Google Scholar
Elliot, E. A. (1926). Agric. Gaz. N.S.W. 37, 289.Google Scholar
Elliot, E. A. (1935). Agric. Gaz. N.S.W. 46, 93.Google Scholar
Hammond, J. (1932). Growth and the Development of Mutton Qualities in Sheep. Edinburgh: Oliver and Boyd.Google Scholar
Harrington, R. B., Whiteman, J. V. & Morrison, R. D. (1958). J. Anim. Sci. 17, 743.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hazel, L. N. & Terrill, C. E. (1945). J. Anim. Sci. 4, 331.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hazel, L. N. & Terrill, C. E. (1946). J. Anim. Sci. 5, 318.Google Scholar
Jamison, H. M., Carter, R. C., Gaines, J. A. & Kincaid, C. M. (1961). J. Anim. Sci. 20, 154.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Karam, H. A., Chapman, A. B. & Pope, A. L. (1953). J. Anim. Sci. 12, 148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McConnell, P. (1910). N.Z.J. Agric. 1, 360.Google Scholar
McConnell, P. (1911). N.Z. J. Agric. 2, 276.Google Scholar
Mason, I. L. & Dassat, P. (1954). Z. Tierz. Zucht-Biol. 62, 197. (Anim. Breed. Abstr. 22, 223, 1954).Google Scholar
Mathews, J. W. (1920). Agric. Gaz. N.S.W. 31, 761, 846.Google Scholar
Miller, W. B. (1939). J. Dept. Agric. Vict. 37, 453, 471,Google Scholar
Miller, W. B. & McHugh, J. F. (1955). J. Dep. Agric. Vict. 53, 385, 426.Google Scholar
Muirhead, D. B. (1956). J. Agric. S. Aust. 60, 193.Google Scholar
Naryan, N. L., Naryan, S. & Khandekar, N. C. (1959). Indian Vet. J. 36, 345. (Anim. Breed Abstr. 28, 147, 1960.)Google Scholar
Neville, W. E., Chapman, A. B. & Pope, A. L. (1958). J. Anim. Sci. 17, 763.Google Scholar
Pálsson, H. & Verges, J. B. (1952). J. Agric. Sci. 42, 1.Google Scholar
Papadopoulos, J. C., & Robinson, T. J. (1957). Aust. J. Agric. Res. 8, 471.Google Scholar
Pattie, W. A. & Donnelly, F. B. (1962). Aust. J. Exp. Agric. Anim. Husb. 2, 251.Google Scholar
Rempel, W. E., Comstock, R. E., Reimer, D., Salmela, A. B. & Hanke, H. (1959). J. Anim. Sci. 18, 1467.Google Scholar
Robinson, T. J., Binet, F. E. & Doig, A. G. (1956). Aust. J. Agric. Res. 7, 345.Google Scholar
Seebeck, R. M. & Campion, E. J. (1964). Aust. J. Agric. Res. 15, 471.Google Scholar
Shelton, M. & Campbell, F. (1962). J. Anim. Sci. 21, 91.Google Scholar
Sims, H. J. & Webb, G. C. (1945). J. Dep. Agric. Vict. 43, 1, 277, 288.Google Scholar
Starke, J. S., Smith, J. B. & Joubert, D. M. (1958). Scientific Bulletin of the Department of Agriculture of South Africa, no. 382. (Anim. Breed. Abstr. 27, 1959).Google Scholar
Thompson, D. S. (1951). Tas. J. Agric. 22, 156.Google Scholar
Tribe, D. E. & Seebeck, R. M. (1962). J. Agric. Sci. 59, 105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Walker, D. E. & McMeekan, C. P. (1944). N.Z.J. Sci. Tech. (A), 26, 51, 99.Google Scholar
Wallace, L. R. (1948). J. Agric. Sci. 38, 93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar