Hostname: page-component-5c6d5d7d68-sv6ng Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-08-08T10:52:58.797Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Breed differences in response of wool growth to annual nutritional and climatic cycles

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 March 2009

J. M. Doney
J. M. Doney
Affiliation:
Hill Farming Research Organisation, 29 Lauder Road, Edinburgh, 9.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Nine Cheviot and nine ¾ Merino, ¼ Cheviot sheep were fed at similar annual maintenance levels. The annual ration was provided in three ways–in simulation of the ‘natural’ intake cycle, the reversed intake cycle or as a constant daily ration. Liveweight curves for both breeds corresponded fairly closely with the feed intake curves but considerable genotype/environment interaction was found in the response of unscoured wool growth to variation in feed intake.

After an extended period of adjustment, the between sheep variation in intake, in the Merino group, was reflected in variation in wool-growth rate at all times. In the Cheviot group, intake and wool growth were related in summer but not in winter. It is suggested that not only is the efficiency of wool growth subject to genetic control but that the modification of efficiency in response to variation in environmentally controlled metabolic processes is also a function of the genetic background.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Agricultural Science , Volume 67 , Issue 1 , August 1966 , pp. 25 - 30
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1966

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

Coop, I. E. & Hart, D. S. (1953). Proc. N.Z. Soc. Anim. Prod. 12, 113.Google Scholar
Doney, J. M., (1964). J. Agric. Sci. 62, 59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Doney, J. M. & Smith, W. F. (1961). J. Agric. Sci. 56, 365.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ferguson, K. A. (1962). Aust. J. Biol. Sci. 15, 720.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ferguson, K. A., Carter, H. B. & Hardy, M. H. (1949). Aust. J. Sci. Res. B, 2, 42.Google Scholar
Hart, D. S. (1961). J. Agric. Sci. 56, 235.Google Scholar
Hutchinson, J. C. D. (1965). Biology of the Skin and Hair Growth no. 34, p. 565. Angus and Robertson, Sydney.Google Scholar
Hutchinson, J. C. D. & Manika, Wodzicka-Tomaszewska (1961). Anim. Breed. Abstr. 29, 1.Google Scholar
Lindner, H. R. & Ferguson, K. A. (1956). Nature, Lond., 177, 188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marston, H. R. (1948). Aust. J. Sci. Res. B, 1, 362.Google Scholar
Morris, L. R. (1961). Nature, Lond., 190, 102.Google Scholar
Patterson, D. S. P. (1963). Res. Vet. Sci. 4, 230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reid, R. L. & Mills, S. C. (1962). Aust. J. Agric. Res. 13, 282.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Slee, J. & Carter, H. B. (1961). J. Agric. Sci. 57, 11.Google Scholar
Williams, O. B., & Schtnckel, P. G. (1962). Proc. Aust. Soc. Anim. Prod. 2, 33.Google Scholar
Wodzicka, Manika (1960). Aust. J. Agric. Res. 11, 75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar