Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-sxzjt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-18T18:42:54.362Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Effects of rapid inbreeding and of crossing of inbred lines on conception rate, prolificacy and ewe survival in sheep

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 September 2010

G. Wiener
Affiliation:
AFRC Institute of Animal Physiology and Genetics Research, Roslin, Midlothian EH25 9PS
G. J. Lee
Affiliation:
AFRC Institute of Animal Physiology and Genetics Research, Roslin, Midlothian EH25 9PS
J. A. Woolliams
Affiliation:
AFRC Institute of Animal Physiology and Genetics Research, Roslin, Midlothian EH25 9PS
Get access

Abstract

The effects of four generations of inbreeding, to achieve inbreeding coefficients (F) of 0·25, 0·375, 0·50 and 0·59, on conception rate, prolificacy, litter weight at birth and survival of breeding females, have been studied in sheep. Crosses of inbred lines were also examined. Three breeds, Scottish Blackface, Cheviot and Welsh Mountain, and the crosses among these breeds, were involved. Analyses were carried out both for the data overall and within inbred lines.

Conception rate at the first oestrus at which the ewe was mated (in each year) declined almost linearly from 0·71 (F2 generation - inbreeding F = 0·0) to 0·44 (F = 0·59) with line crosses showing 0·78 conception rate. The corresponding results following up to three rounds of services at successive oestrous periods were 0·91, 0·74 and 0·97 respectively. Analyses within lines showed a steeper rate of decline in conception rate to 0·33 (F = 0·59) following first services and 0·63 following up to three successive periods. This indicates that the lines with the best conception rates survived the inbreeding process better.

Prolificacy, the number of lambs born per ewe lambing, dropped from 1·73 (F = 0·0) to 1·37 (F = 0·25) and thereafter more slowly to 1·24 (F = 0·59). Line crosses were no better than the initial non-inbred generation (F2 and the purebred equivalent O2). Within-line analysis gave the same results.

The effects of inbreeding on litter weight at birth mirror closely those for prolificacy.

Ewe survival declined linearly with inbreeding. There was a 1·2-fold increase in the risk of death for every increase in the inbreeding coefficient (F) of 0·1 (analysed by using a proportional hazard model).

In general, there were no significant differences between purebred and crossbred sheep in the effects of inbreeding. For conception rate, prolificacy and litter weight (for which the point was examined) the changes with inbreeding could not be explained, statistically, in terms of dominance alone, suggesting, therefore, that epistasis is also involved.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © British Society of Animal Science 1992

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

Cox, D. R. 1972. Regression models and life-tables. Journal of Hie Royal Statistical Society 343:187220.Google Scholar
Doney, J. M. 1958. Effects of inbreeding on four families of Peppin Merinos. II. The influence of inbreeding on age trends. Australian Journal of Agricultural Research 9: 252259.Google Scholar
Doney, J. M. 1966. Inbreeding depression in grazing Blackface sheep. Animal Production 8:261266.Google Scholar
Falconer, D. S. 1989. Introduction to quantitative genetics. 3rd ed. Longman, London.Google Scholar
Harvey, W. R. 1977. Users' guide to LSML 76. Mixed model least squares and maximum likelihood program. Ohio State University, Ames.Google Scholar
Kalbfleisch, J. D. and Prentice, R. L. 1980. The statistical analysis of failure time data. Wiley, New York.Google Scholar
Lamberson, W. R., Thomas, D. L. and Rowe, K. E. 1982. The effects of inbreeding in a flock of Hampshire sheep. Journal of Animal Science 55: 780786.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lax, J. and Brown, G. H. 1967. The effects of inbreeding, maternal handicap, and range in age on 10 fleece and body characteristics in Merino rams and ewes. Australian journal of Agricultural Research 18: 689706.Google Scholar
Lax, J. and Brown, G. H. 1968. The influence of maternal handicap, inbreeding, and ewe's body weight at 15-16 months of age on reproduction rate in Australian Merinos. Australian Journal of Agricultural Research 19: 433442.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Liebenberg, O. and John, M. 1973. Umfang und Auswirkungen der Verwandtschaftszucht beim Merinofleischschaf — untersucht an Eliteherden der Bezirke Halle, Magdeburg und Leipzig. Archiv fur Tierzucht 16:423431.Google Scholar
McCarthy, J. C. 1967. The effects of inbreeding on the components of litter size in mice. Genetical Research, Cambridge 10: 7380.Google Scholar
McGloughlin, P. 1980. The relationship between heterozygosity and heterosis in reproductive traits in mice. Animal Production 30:6977.Google Scholar
Nitter, G. 1978. Breed utilisation for meat production in sheep. Animal Breeding Abstracts 46:131143.Google Scholar
Thompson, R. 1981. Survival data and GLI. Applied Statistics 30: 310.Google Scholar
Wiener, G. and Hayter, S. 1975. Maternal performance in sheep as affected by breed, crossbreeding and other factors. Animal Production 20:1930.Google Scholar
Wiener, G., Lee, G. J. and Woolliams, J. A. 1992a. Effects of rapid inbreeding and of crossing of inbred lines on the body weight growth of sheep. Animal Production 55: 8999.Google Scholar
Wiener, G., Lee, G. J. and Woolliams, J. A. 1992b. Effects of rapid inbreeding and of crossing inbred lines on the growth of linear body dimensions in sheep. Animal Production 55: 101114.Google Scholar
Wiener, G., Woolliams, C. and Macleod, N. S. M. 1983. The effects of breed, breeding system and other factors on lamb mortality. 1. Causes of death and effects on the incidence of losses. Journal of Agricultural Science, 100: 539551.Google Scholar
Woolliams, J. A. and Wiener, G. 1981. The effect of breed type and inbreeding on characteristics of the fleece and skin of 12-week-old lambs. Animal Production 32: 922.Google Scholar