Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dzt6s Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T06:41:34.815Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A contribution to the study of the problem of low fertility among Merino ewes in South Africa

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 March 2009

G. L. Hunter
G. L. Hunter
Affiliation:
University of Natal, Pietermaritzburg, South Africa
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

During the 12 months from September 1955 to August 1956, the reproductive tracts and ovaries of 4094 adult Merino ewes, recovered from the municipal abattoir at Pietermaritzburg, were examined. The great majority of the ewes had been consigned to the abattoir from one of three regions, between which differences in the nutritional value of the natural vegetation at different times of the year are recognized. From observations of the occurrence in the ovaries of active corpora lutea, it appeared that in some areas, mating Merino ewes during autumn and early winter is likely to result in the greatest percentage of ewes conceiving and in the highest lambing percentages. There was a suggestion, however, that in the more arid karoo areas, the percentage of ewes ovulating, as well as the mean ovulation rate per ewe, may remain relatively constant throughout the year. It seems likely that the low fertility of ewes of this breed may be due partly to the practice of introducing the rams into the flock at a time of year (spring and summer) in which many of the ewes are anoestrous, a practice which is often adopted in South Africa in order to avoid the poor growth rates which are known to occur among young lambs as a result of the high temperatures and the internal parasite infestations that are comcommon in the summer months. A need, in different areas, for extensive experimental evidence of the most suitable season for mating, is indicated.

No evidence of nutritional effects on fertility, either within or between areas, was obtained, but it is suggested that a higher proportion of ewes in certain areas may be capable of lambing in autumn as a result of more effective selection for this trait in these areas. There is also evidence that lack of fertilization of ova and early embryonic death may contribute significantly to the breed's low fertility.

Corpora lutea were observed more frequently in the right ovary than in the left. In gravid uteri, a greater proportion of foetuses were found in the right horn and, in addition, significantly more ova apparently migrated from the left ovary to the right horn than from the right ovary to the left horn. The numbers are given of large (diameter > 4 mm.) and medium (diameter 2–4 mm.) follicles observed in the ovaries both of non-pregnant ewes and of ewes in different stages of pregnancy, these stages having been estimated from measurements of foetal crownrump lengths.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Agricultural Science , Volume 52 , Issue 3 , June 1959 , pp. 282 - 295
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1959

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

Acocks, J. P. H. (1953). Mem. Bot. Surv. S. Afr. (Div. Botany, Dep. Agric.), no. 28.Google Scholar
Arthur, G. H. (1956). J. Comp. Path. 66, 345.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Asdell, S. A. (1946). Patterns of Mammalian Reproduction. New York: Comstock.Google Scholar
Averill, R. L. W. (1955). Proc. Soc. Stud. Fertil. 7, 139.Google Scholar
Badenhorst, D. F. (1951). Fmg in S. Afr. 26, 131.Google Scholar
Bonsma, F. N. (1939). Publ. Univ. Pretoria (Series I: Agriculture), no. 48.Google Scholar
Bonsma, F. N. (1944). Fmg. in S. Afr. 19, 311, 395.Google Scholar
Clark, R. (1934). Anat. Rec. 60, 125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cloete, J. H. (1939). Onderstepoort J. Vet. Sci. 13, 417.Google Scholar
Curson, H. H. & Maré, G. S. (1934). Onderstepoort J. Vet. Sci. 3, 477.Google Scholar
Curson, H. H. & Quinlan, J. (1934). Onderstepoort J. Vet. Sci. 2, 657.Google Scholar
De Baca, R. C., Warnick, A. C., Hitchcock, G. H. & Bogart, R. (1954). Tech. Bull. Ore. Agric. Exp. Sta. no. 29.Google Scholar
De Klerk, J. C. (1940). Fmg in S. Afr. 15, 216.Google Scholar
Desai, R. N. & Winters, L. M. (1951). Indian J. Vet. Sci. 21, 177.Google Scholar
Du Toit, P. J., Louw, J. G. & Malan, A. I. (1940). Onderstepoort J. Vet. Sci. 14, 123.Google Scholar
Dutt, R. H. (1954). J. Anim. Sci. 13, 464.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
El-Sheikh, A. S., Hulet, C. V., Pope, A. L. & Casida, L. E. (1955). J. Anim. Sci. 14, 919.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Engela, D. J. & Bonsma, H. C. (1938). Fmg in S. Afr. 13, 432.Google Scholar
Farming in South Africa (1956). Fmg in S. Afr. 32 (8), 22.Google Scholar
Farming in South Africa (1957). Fmg in S. Afr. 33 (1), 52.Google Scholar
Grant, R. (1934). Trans. Roy. Soc. Edinb. 58, 1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hafez, E. S. E. (1950). Nature, Lond., 166, 822.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hafez, E. S. E. (1952). J. Agric. Sci. 42, 189.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hammond, J. (1921). J. Agric. Sci. 11, 337.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hammond, J. (1952). 6th Int. Congr. Anim. Husb., Copenhagen, sect. 3, p. 38.Google Scholar
Hammond, J. (Jr.) (1944). J. Agric. Sci. 34, 97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hart, D. S. (1956). Res. Publ. Lincoln Coll. no. 51.Google Scholar
Henning, W. L. (1939). J. Agric. Res. 58, 565.Google Scholar
Hugo, W. J. (1949). Fmg in S. Afr. 24, 5.Google Scholar
Hulet, C. V., Voigtlander, H. P., Pope, A. L. & Casida, L. E. (1956). J. Anim. Sci. 15, 607.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnstone, I. L. (1952). 2nd Int. Congr. Physiol. Path. Anim. Reprod. and A. I., Final Report, p. 69.Google Scholar
Joubert, D. M. (1954). J. Agric. Sci. 44, 5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Joubert, D. M. (1956). J. Agric. Sci. 47, 382.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kelley, R. B. (1937). Bull. Coun. Sci. Induatr. Res. Aust. no. 112.Google Scholar
Kelley, R. B. (1946). Bull. Coun. Sci. Industr. Res. Aust. no. 205.Google Scholar
Kelley, R. B. & Shaw, H. E. B. (1943). Bull. Coun. Sci. Industr. Res. Aust. no. 166.Google Scholar
Kennedy, J. F. & Bettenay, R. A. (1950). Aust. J. Agric. Res. 1, 76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kotzé, J. J. J. (1958). Fmg in S. Afr. 33 (11), 27.Google Scholar
Küpfer, M. (1928). 13th and 14th Rep. Div. Vet. Educ. Res., Onderstepoort, p. 1211.Google Scholar
Laing, J. A. (1957). Progress in the Physiology of Farm Animals, vol. III, chap. 17 (ed. Hammond, J.). London: Butterworths.Google Scholar
Malan, A. P. & Curson, H. H. (1936). Onderstepoort J. Vet. Sci. 7, 239.Google Scholar
Marshall, F. H. A. (1908). Trans. Highl. Agric. Soc. Scot. 20, 139.Google Scholar
Morley, F. H. W. (1954). Aust. Vet. J. 30, 125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pastoral Review (1948). 16 03, p. 189. (Anim. Breed. Abstr. 16, 842.)Google Scholar
Quinlan, J. & Maré, G. S. (1931). 17th Rep. Div. Vet. Serv. Anim. Ind., Onderstepoort, p. 663.Google Scholar
Quinlan, J., Steyn, H. P. & De Vos, D. (1941). Onderstepoort J. Vet. Sci. 16, 243.Google Scholar
Robinson, T. J. (1957). Progress in the Physiology of Farm Animals, vol. III, chap. 18. (ed. Hammond, J.). London: Butterworths.Google Scholar
Roux, L. L. (1936). Onderstepoort J. Vet. Sci. 6, 465.Google Scholar
Roux, L. L. & Hoffman, F. E. (1937). Fmg in S. Afr. 12, 116.Google Scholar
Starke, J. S. (1953). S. Afr. J. Sci. 49, 245.Google Scholar
Underwood, E. J. & Shier, F. L. (1941). J. Dep. Agric. W. Aust. 18, 13. (Anim. Breed. Abstr. 10, 106.)Google Scholar
Underwood, E. J., Shier, F. L. & Davenport, N. (1944). J. Dep. Agric. W. Aust. 21, 135. (Anim. Breed Abstr. 13, 209.)Google Scholar
van Rensburg, C. T. (1956). Fmg in S. Afr. 32 (4), 61.Google Scholar
van Rensburg, S. W. J. (1957). Breeding Problems and Artificial Insemination. Pretoria: Libagric.Google Scholar
van Rensburg, S. W. J. (1958). Personal communication.Google Scholar
Wallace, L. R. (1951). N. Z. J. Agric. 83, 377. (Anim. Breed. Abstr. 20, 731.)Google Scholar
Watson, R. H. & Radford, H. M. (1955). Aust. Vet. J. 31, 31. (Anim. Breed. Abstr. 23, 1765.)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
White, R. G. & Roberts, J. A. F. (1927). Welsh J. Agric. 3, 70.Google Scholar
Williams, S. M. (1954). J. Agric. Sci. 45, 202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Williams, S. M., Garrigus, U. S., Norton, H. W. & Nalbandov, A. V. (1956). J. Anim. Sci. 15, 978.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Winters, L. M. & Feuffel, G. (1936). Tech. Bull. Minn. Agric. Exp. Sta. no. 118.Google Scholar
Yeates, N. T. M. (1949). J. Agric. Sci. 39, 1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar