Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2brh9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T03:48:40.722Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The maternal influence on size in sheep

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 March 2009

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

Extract

The influence of the maternal environment on the size of lambs from birth to 8 months has been studied by reciprocally crossing the large Border Leicester and the small Welsh Mountain breeds of sheep and by transferring fertilized eggs between ewes of these breeds.

Ewes which lambed later in the spring gained more weight during the last 6 weeks of pregnancy than did the earlier-lambing ewes. The birth weight of the lambs was not, however, affected by either the date of lambing or the ewes' gain in weight during the last six weeks of pregnancy.

Significant breed differences in gestation length were recorded; these were 144·7 days for the Border Leicester and 147·1 days for the Welsh Mountain. Border Leicester ewes carrying pure-bred Welsh lambs had an average gestation of 149·6 days, while Welsh Mountain ewes carrying pure-bred Border Leicester lambs had an average gestation of 146·0 days. From the births of ‘transferred’ lambs, it appeared that the genetically smaller lamb was a cause of a longer gestation period. On the other hand, within groups, both live weight and length of ‘cannon bone’ of the lambs at birth increased when the gestation period was longer.

The maternal environment affected foetal growth when the genotype for size of the foetus was different from that of the mother. The mean live weight and ‘cannon-bone’ length of cross-bred lambs born to Border Leicester ewes were 1·08 lb. and 0·37 cm. greater at birth than those of cross-bred lambs born to Welsh ewes. Comparable figures for the maternal influence from the results of transferring eggs from one breed to the other were 1·96 lb. and 0·33 cm. On the other hand, within breeds, there was no effect on the size of the lambs at birth of variations in the size of the ewes. The length of the ‘cannon bone’, which grows relatively rapidly during the early stages of growth (an early-maturing part of the body), was less influenced by the maternal environment than the late-maturing live weight.

Mature ewes produced larger lambs at birth than young ewes. The mean differences at birth in weights and in lengths of ‘cannon bone’ of the lambs born to young and mature ewes were 1·38 lb. and 0·31 cm. respectively.

From these and other experiments, the conclusions were drawn that: (i) the maternal influence on the size of young at birth is greater, in the larger species which have longer gestation periods, than the effect of the genotype of the young; (ii) the maternal organism competes with the foetus for nutrients, thus limiting the size of the young at birth; and (iii) the maternal organism may also influence pre-natal foetal growth by means of some internal secretion or metabolic substance.

The amount of milk consumed by the lambs had a marked effect on their live weight gains during the first half but not during the second half of lactation. Variations in milk consumption by the lambs did not affect the growth in length of their ‘cannon bones’. The influence of the post-natal maternal environment is largely exerted through the milk yield of the ewe and causes of variation in this milk yield were reflected in the post-natal maternal influence estimated in these experiments.

The total milk yield of ewes was affected by their date of lambing, that of late-lambing ewes being less than the yields of ewes which lambed earlier in the season.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Agricultural Science , Volume 48 , Issue 1 , October 1956 , pp. 36 - 60
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1956

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

Ali, K. T. (1952). Anim. Breed. Abstr. 21, 1318.Google Scholar
Barnicoat, C. R., Logan, A. G. & Grant, A. I. (1949). J. Agric. Sci. 39, 44, 237.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barns, H. H. F. & Swyer, G. I. M. (1952). Brit. Med. J. 2, 914.CrossRefGoogle 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
Campbell, R. C. (1954). Personal communication.Google Scholar
Carlyle, W. L. & McConnell, T. F. (1902). Bull. Wise. Agric. Exp. Sta. no. 95.Google Scholar
Cassard, D. W., Gregory, P. W., Wilson, J. F., Rollins, W. C. & Weir, W. C. (1953). J. Anim. Sci. 12, 140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Castle, W. E. (1936 a). Science, 83, 627.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Castle, W. E. (1936 b). Amer. Nat. 70, 209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Castle, W. E. & Gregory, P. W. (1929). J. Morph. 48, 81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chapman, A. B. & Lush, J. L. (1932). J. Hered. 23, 473.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Child, C. M. (1920). Biol. Bull., Woods Hole, 39, 147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coop, I. E. (1950). J. Agric. Sci. 40, 311.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coop, I. E. & Clark, V. R. (1952). N.Z. J. Sci. Tech Agric. 34, 153.Google Scholar
Cotes, P. M. (1954). J. Endocrin. 10, xiv.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Donald, H. P. & McLean, J. W. (1935). N.Z. J. Sci. Tech. Agric. 17, 497.Google Scholar
Fuller, J. G. & Kleinheinz, F. (1904). Ann. Rep. Wise. Agric. Exp. Sta. no. 48.Google Scholar
Gregory, P. W. & Castle, W. E. (1931). J. Exp. Zool. 59, 199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gregory, P. W. & Goss, H. (1933 a). Amer.Nat. 67, 180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gregory, P. W. & Goss, H. (1933 b). J. Exp. Zool. 66, 155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gregory, P. W. & Goss, H. (1933 c). J. Exp. Zool. 66, 335.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gregory, P. W. & Goss, H. (1934). Proc. Amer. Soc. Anim. Prod. p. 208.Google Scholar
Hammond, J. (1932). Growth and the Development of Mutton Qualities in the Sheep. Edinburgh: Oliver and Boyd.Google Scholar
Hammond, J. (1934). J. Exp. Biol. 11, 140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hammond, J. (1944). Proc. Nutr. Soc. 2, 8.Google Scholar
Hammond, J. (1950). An. Fac. Med. Montevideo, 35, 810.Google Scholar
Hammond, J. & Marshall, F. H. A. (1952). Marshall's Physiology of Reproduction, vol. 11, chap. 23. London: Longmans.Google 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, 371.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hoblacher, L. J. (1933). Proc. Amer. Soc. Anim. Prod. p. 163.Google Scholar
Humphrey, G. C. & Kleinheinz, F. (1907). Ann. Rep. Wise. Agric. Exp. Sta. no. 25.Google Scholar
Hunter, G. L., Adams, C. E. & Rowson, L. E. (1955). J. Agric. Sci. 46, 143.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Joubert, D. M. & Hammond, J. (1954). Nature, Lond., 174, 647.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kean, G. R. & Henning, W. L. (1949). J. Anim. Sci. 8, 362.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kincaid, C. M. (1943). J. Anim. Sci. 2, 152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lopyrin, A. I., Loginova, N. V. & Karpov, P. L. (1950). Dokl. Akad. Nauk SSSR, 74, 1019.Google Scholar
Marshak, A. (1936). J. Exp. Zool. 72, 497.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McLean, J. W. (1948). Proc. N.Z. Soc. Anim. Prod. no. 86.Google Scholar
Mumford, F. B. (1901). Bull. Univ. Missouri, no. 53.Google Scholar
Munro, J. (1955). J. Agric. Sci. 46, 131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Neidig, R. E. & Iddings, E. J. (1919). J. Agric. Res. 17, 19.Google Scholar
Owen, J. B. (1953). Nature, Lond., 172, 636.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pálsson, H. & Vergés, J. B. (1952). J. Agric. Sci. 42, 1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Peirce, A. W. (1934). Aust. J. Exp. Biol. Med. Sci. 12, 7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Phillips, R. (1928). Welsh J. Agric. 4, 121.Google Scholar
Phillips, R. W. & Dawson, W. M. (1937). Proc. Amer. Soc. Anim. Prod. p. 296.Google Scholar
Snyder, F. F. (1934). Johns Hopk. Hosp. Bull. 54, 1.Google Scholar
Starke, J. S. (1951). D.Sc. Thesis, University of Pretoria.Google Scholar
Starke, J. S. (1953). S. Afr. J. Sci. 49, 245.Google Scholar
Terrill, C. E., Sidwell, G. M. & Hazel, L. N. (1948). J. Anim. Sci. 7, 181.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thomson, A. M. & Thomson, W. (1949). Brit. J. Nutr. 2, 290.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thomson, W. & Thomson, A. M. (1953). Brit. J. Nutr. 7, 263.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Venge, O. (1950). Acta Zool., Stockh., 31, 1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Verges, J. B. (1939). Proc. 4th Int. Congr. Anim. Breed., Zürich.Google Scholar
Wallace, L. R. (1948). J. Agric. Sci. 38, 93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Walton, A. & Hammond, J. (1938). Proc. Roy. Soc. B, 125, 311.Google Scholar
Watts, R. M. (1935). Amer. J. Obstet. Gynec. 30, 174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wishart, J. & Hammond, J. (1933). J. Agric. Sci. 23, 463.CrossRefGoogle Scholar