Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-hc48f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T05:54:15.472Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Studies on the efficiency of mating in the sheep I. The effect of paddock size and number of rams

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 March 2009

D. R. Lindsay  and
T. J. Robinson
D. R. Lindsay
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Husbandry, University of Sydney, Sydney, N. S. W.
T. J. Robinson
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Husbandry, University of Sydney, Sydney, N. S. W.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

A factorial experiment is described in which seventy-two spayed crossbred ewes were used in four successive tests at intervals of 15 days in a study of factors affecting the detection of oestrus. Variates introduced in each test were: (a) number of rams to eighteen ewes (one or three); (b) size of mating paddock (17 acres or ⅕ acre); (c) dose of oestrogen (oestradiol benzoate, ODB: 10·0, 15·6, 24·4 μg.).

All ewes were primed with progesterone for 12 days prior to ODB injection and joining. The number of ewes detected in oestrus and the mean number of ewes served per ram were recorded.

In the four successive tests, thirty-two, fortyseven, forty-six and forty-one ewes were served (P < 0·05). Three rams working together detected ninety-eight ewes in oestrus while rams working individually detected sixty-eight (P < 0·001). Size of mating paddock had no significant effect (17 acres, 89; Jacre, 77).

The mean number of ewes marked per ram when used singly was indistinguishable from the mean number when rams were in groups of three (8·5 and 9·3). This resulted in multiple coverage of oestrous ewes when group joined (average 2·3 rams per ewe).

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Agricultural Science , Volume 57 , Issue 1 , August 1961 , pp. 137 - 140
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1961

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

Biggers, J. D. (1951). J. Endocrin. 8, 169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fisher, B. A. & Yates, F. (1957). Statistical Tables. Edinburgh: Oliver and Boyd.Google Scholar
Hafez, E. S. E. (1951). Nature, Lond., 167, 777.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haughey, K. G. (1959). Sheepfarming Annual (N.Z.), p. 17.Google Scholar
Inkster, I. J. (1956). Proc. Ruakura Farmers' Conf. p. 20.Google Scholar
Inkster, I. J. (1957). Proc. N.Z. Soc. Anim. Prod. 17, 72.Google Scholar
Lambourne, L. J. (1956). Proc. Ruakura Farmers' Conf. p. 16.Google Scholar
Lindsay, D. R. & Robinson, T. J. (1961). J. Agric. Sci. 55, 141.Google Scholar
Radford, H. M., Watson, R. H. & Wood, G. F. (1960). Aust. Vet. J. 36, 57.Google Scholar
Robinson, T. J. (1959). Reproduction in Domestic Animals, chap. 9, vol. 1. Ed. by Cole, H. H. & Cupps, P. T.New York and London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Robinson, T. J. & Moore, N. W. (1956). J. Endocrin. 14, 97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Watson, R. H. (1957). Proc. Aust. Soc. Anim. Prod. 1, 82.Google Scholar