Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-qsmjn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-23T17:58:23.759Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Growth and carcass characteristics of crossbred lambs by ten sire breeds, compared at the same estimated carcass subcutaneous fat proportion

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 September 2010

A. J. Kempster ,
D. Croston ,
D. R. Guy  and
D. W. Jones
A. J. Kempster
Affiliation:
Meat and Livestock Commission, PO Box 44, Queensway House, Bletchley, Milton Keynes MK2 2EF
D. Croston
Affiliation:
Meat and Livestock Commission, PO Box 44, Queensway House, Bletchley, Milton Keynes MK2 2EF
D. R. Guy
Affiliation:
Meat and Livestock Commission, PO Box 44, Queensway House, Bletchley, Milton Keynes MK2 2EF
D. W. Jones
Affiliation:
Meat and Livestock Commission, PO Box 44, Queensway House, Bletchley, Milton Keynes MK2 2EF
Get access

Abstract

An evaluation was carried out over a 5-year period in 10 commercial flocks of Scottish Blackface, Scottish Half-bred and Mule ewes to evaluate 10 sire breeds: Border Leicester, Dorset Down, Hampshire Down, He de France, North Country Cheviot, Oxford Down, Southdown, Suffolk, Texel and Wensleydale. An average of 43 sires was used per sire breed.

The analysis involved a total of 3360 lambs of which one-third had the left side dissected. Sire breeds were compared when their progeny were slaughtered at the same estimated carcass subcutaneous fat proportion (approx. 120 g/kg).

Carcass weights were related to the adult body size of the sire breeds with a range of 4 kg between Southdown and Wensleydale crosses. Crosses by the conventional meat sire breeds tended to have higher daily carcass-weight and lean-tissue gains than those by Border Leicester and Wensleydale sires. Texel and Suffolk crosses did not differ significantly in carcass weight, daily carcass-weight gain, daily lean gain or age at slaughter (P > 0·05).

Significant sire-breed × dam-breed interactions were recorded for daily carcass-weight gain and daily lean gain (P < 0·05). Dorset Down and Southdown crosses tended to grow relatively faster when from Mule dams; Texel crosses grew relatively faster when from Blackface dams.

There was relatively little difference between sire breeds in visually assessed carcass conformation; all the means were within two points on a 15-point scale. Texel crosses had a higher carcass lean proportion than other crosses: their advantage over Suffolk crosses was 22 g/kg.

Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Production , Volume 44 , Issue 1 , February 1987 , pp. 83 - 98
Copyright
Copyright © British Society of Animal Science 1987

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

Cameron, N. D. and Drury, D. J. 1985. Comparison of terminal sire breeds for growth and carcass traits in crossbred lambs. Animal Production 40: 315–322.Google Scholar
Conniffe, D. and Moran, M. A. 1972. Double sampling with regression in comparative studies of carcass composition. Biometrics 28: 1011–1023.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Croston, D., Kkmpster, A. J., GUY, D. R. and Jones, D. W. 1987. Carcass composition of crossbred lambs by ten sire breeds compared at th e same carcass fat proportion. Animal Production 44: 99–106.Google Scholar
Cuthbertson, A., Harrington, G. and Smith, R. J. 1972. Tissue separation — to assess beef and lamb variation. Proceedings of the British Society of Animal Production (New Series) 1: 113–122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kempster, A. J. 1981. The indirect evaluation of sheep carcass composition in breeding schemes, population studies and experiments. Livestock Production Science 8: 263–271.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kempster, A. J., Cook, G. L. and Grantley-Smith, M. 1986. National estimates of the body composition of British cattle, sheep and pigs with special reference t o trends in fatness: a review. Meat Science 17: 107–138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kkmpster, A. J., Croston, D. and Jones, D. W. 1981. Value of conformation as an indicator of sheep carcass composition within and between breeds. Animal Production 33: 39–49.Google Scholar
Kempstfr, A. J. and Cuthbertson, A. 1977. A survey of the carcass characteristics of the main types of British lamb. Animal Production 25: 165–180.Google Scholar
Meat and Livestock Commission. 1974a. Planned Crossbreeding and Lamb Carcass Weights. Meat and Livestock Commission, Bletchley, Milton Keynes.Google Scholar
Meat and Livestock Commission. 1974b. Standard Conditions of Deadweight Purchase for Cattle, Sheep, Pork and Cutter Pigs. Meat and Livestock Commission, Bletchley, Milton Keynes.Google Scholar
Meat and Livestock Commission. 1984. Sheep Yearbook. Meat and Livestock Commission, Bletchley, Milton Keynes.Google Scholar
More O'Ferrall, G. J. and Timon, V. M. 1977a. A comparison of eight sire breeds for lamb production. 1. Lamb growth and carcass measurements. Irish Journal of Agricultural Research 16: 267–275.Google Scholar
More O'Ferrall, G. J. and Timon, V. M. 1977b. A comparison of eight sire breeds for lamb production. 2. Lamb carcass composition. Irish Journal of Agricultural Research 16: 277–284.Google Scholar
Veseiy, J. A., Kozub, G. C. and Peters, H. F. 1977. Additive and non-additive genetic effects on growth traits in matings among Romnelet, Columbia, Suffolk and North Country Cheviot breeds. Canadian Journal of Animal Science 57: 233–238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Visscher, A. H. and Bekedam, M. 1984. Influence of the Texel breed on sheep production in Europe. European Association for Animal Production Meeting, The Hague.Google Scholar
Wolf, B. T., Smith, C., King, J. W. B. and Nicholson, D. 1981. Genetic parameters of growth and carcass composition in crossbred lambs. Animal Production 32: 1–7.Google Scholar
Wolf, B. T., Smith, C. and Sales, D. I. 1980. Growth and carcass composition in the crossbred progeny of six terminal sire breeds of sheep. Animal Production 31: 307–313.Google Scholar
Wood, J. D., MacFie, H. J. H., Pomeroy, R. W. and Twinn, D. J. 1980. Carcass composition in four sheep breeds: the importance of type of breed and stage of maturity. Animal Production 30: 135–152.Google Scholar