Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-qsmjn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-16T09:15:29.765Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Responsiveness of ewe genotypes to varying nutritional management, and conventional genotype × environment interactions in sheep

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 September 2010

W. D. Hohenboken ,
J. N. Clarke ,
P. V. Rattray ,
J. F. Smith  and
M. Wheeler
W. D. Hohenboken
Affiliation:
Ruakura Agricultural Research Centre, Private Bag, Hamilton, New Zealand
J. N. Clarke
Affiliation:
Ruakura Agricultural Research Centre, Private Bag, Hamilton, New Zealand
P. V. Rattray
Affiliation:
Whatawhata Hill Country Research Station, Private Bag, Hamilton, New Zealand
J. F. Smith
Affiliation:
Ruakura Agricultural Research Centre, Private Bag, Hamilton, New Zealand
M. Wheeler
Affiliation:
Ruakura Agricultural Research Centre, Private Bag, Hamilton, New Zealand
Get access

Abstract

An experiment was conducted during 2 years to evaluate industry Coopworth, industry Romney and Waihora Romney ewes (a strain selected for 10 years for increased ewe productivity) in a variety of nutritional and management treatment combinations. Waihora Romneys were most productive with small and inconsistent differences between industry Romneys and Coopworths. Conventional cross-classified analyses of variance did not reveal large, consistent nor economically important ewe genotype × nutritional treatment or year interactions. Additional analyses were designed to investigate whether the ewe genotypes responded to changes in the nutritional and(or) management environment with similar quantitative changes in production. A sensitive genotype would be one that responded to environmental changes with relatively large changes in productivity; a stable genotype would be one whose changes in production in response to a variable environment were smaller. By several statistical procedures designed to assess relative ‘sensitivity’ v. ‘stability’, Waihora Romney ewes appeared to be the most stable, with industry Romney and Coopworth ewes similar in their sensitivity.

Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Production , Volume 47 , Issue 2 , October 1988 , pp. 253 - 262
Copyright
Copyright © British Society of Animal Science 1988

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

Clarke, J. N. and Meyer, H. H. 1977. The performance of exotic sheep crosses: progress report. Proceedings of the Ruakura Farmers' Conference 29: 34–41.Google Scholar
Clarke, J. N. and Meyer, H. H. 1982. Implications of experimental results in the crossbreeding of sheep in New Zealand. Proceedings of the World Congress on Sheep and Beef Cattle Breeding, Palmerston North, New Zealand, Vol. 1, pp. 133–146.Google Scholar
Freeman, G. H. 1973. Statistical methods for the analysis of genotype-environmental interactions. Heredity 31: 339–354.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gunn, R. G. 1986. A note on the comparative reproductive performance of Friesland × North Country Cheviot and North Country Cheviot ewes on two levels of pasture prior to mating. Animal Production 42: 287–289.Google Scholar
Hight, G. K., Gibson, A. E., Wilson, D. A. and Guy, P. L. 1975. The Waihora sheep improvement programme. Sheepfarming Annual 38: 67–89.Google Scholar
Hill, J. 1975. Genotype-environment interactions — a challenge for plant breeding. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 85: 477–493.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rattray, P. V., Jagusch, K. T., Smith, J. F., Winn, G. W. and MacLean, K. S. 1981. Effects of genotype, liveweight, pasture type and feeding level on ovulation responses in ewes. Proceedings of the New Zealand Society of Animal Production 41: 174–182.Google Scholar
Smeaton, D., Scobir, G. M., Bywater, A. C., Hockey, H-U. P. and Davis, G. H. 1985. Sheep — Romneys, Coopworths, Perendales. Comparison of the three main breeds. Proceedings of the Ruakura Farmers' Conference 37: 30–35.Google Scholar