Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t8hqh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-27T17:38:10.044Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The influence of four levels of feeding on the position and eruption of incisor teeth in sheep

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 March 2009

G. Wiener  and
A. F. Purser
G. Wiener
Affiliation:
A.R.C. Animal Breeding Research Organisation, Edinburgh, 9
A. F. Purser
Affiliation:
A.R.C. Animal Breeding Research Organisation, Edinburgh, 9
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The distance between the front of the incisor teeth and the front of the maxillary pad (incisor bite measure) was measured in 140 sheep about 1 year old. The sheep consisted of seven breed types—the offspring of Blackface ewes by Wiltshire, Border Leicester, Lincoln and Blackface rams, and of Welsh ewes by Welsh, Wiltshire and Suffolk rams. Within each breed type the effects of four different feeding treatments lasting 7 months were studied. These produced small but very significant differences in bite measure. Differences between breed types were significant only in respect of the division between the two breeds of dam. Effect of breed of dam, however, was confounded with any effect due to differences in origin.

The proportion of permanent central incisors which had replaced milk teeth when the animals averaged a little more than a year old was affected both by the level of treatment during the experiment and by breed.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Agricultural Science , Volume 49 , Issue 1 , May 1957 , pp. 51 - 55
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1957

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

Brown, G. T. (1949). Dentition as Indicative of the Age of the Animals of the Farm, 9th ed.London: Murray.Google Scholar
Donald, H. P. & Wiener, G. (1954). Vet. Rec. 66, 479.Google Scholar
Hitchin, A. D. (1948). Dent. Rec. 68, 251.Google Scholar
King, J. W. B., Watson, J. H. & Young, G. B. (1956). (Personal communication).Google Scholar
Muir, G. W., Deakin, A., Macmillan, A. A. & Freeborn, S. G. (1937). Publ. Canad. Dep. Agric. no. 588.Google Scholar
Nordby, J. E. (1931). Nat. Wool Gr. 21, no. 2.Google Scholar
Nordby, J. E. (1935). Nat. Wool Gr. 25, no. 5.Google Scholar
Nordby, J. E., Terrill, C. E., Hazel, L. N. & Stoehr, J. A. (1945). Anat. Rec. 92, 235.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smithfield Club (1954). Prize Sheet for Smithfleld Show. Bath: Smithfield Club.Google Scholar
Wiener, G. & Donald, H. P. (1955). J. Dairy Res. 22, 127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar