Hostname: page-component-5c6d5d7d68-lvtdw Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-08-19T11:34:39.024Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Comparison of Texel-and Suffolk-sired lambs out of Finnish Landrace × Dorset Horn ewes under grazing conditions

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 March 2009

M. G. A. Latif  and
E. Owen
M. G. A. Latif
Affiliation:
Department of Agriculture and Horticulture, University of Reading, Earley Gate, Reading RG6 2AT
E. Owen
Affiliation:
Department of Agriculture and Horticulture, University of Reading, Earley Gate, Reading RG6 2AT
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

Two hundred and ten Finn–Dorset ewes were mated to ten rams, five Suffolks and five Texels, in 2 years, to evaluate Texel rams as fat lamb sires. Three hundred and ninetyseven lambs were born and used in the study until the 6th week of age, after which 155 lambs were available for the rest of the experiment. From 6 weeks of age they were grazed with their dams and weighed weekly until slaughtered at 30 kg (females) or 36 kg (males) live weight. Carcasses were assessed by the Meat and Livestock Commission and a random sample of 16 left sides were fully dissected.

Fertility and prolificacy of the ewes were 95 and 190% respectively, and were not affected by sire breed. Texel-sired lambs did not differ from Suffolk in birth weight, weight at 6 weeks, growth rate from 6 weeks to slaughter, overall growth rate or age at slaughter. Except for growth rate from birth to 6 weeks, sex difference was significant (P < 0·05) in all growth estimates.

No significant breed or sex difference was found in dressing percentages or carcass weight for age. Mean dressing percentage was 47·4 ± 3·48 and 47·5 ± 3·78 for Texel and Suffolk crosses, respectively. Texel cross carcasses had significantly (P < 0·05) lower fat scores and males did not differ from females. Texel cross carcasses had significantly (P < 0·05) higher lean and bone percentages, but significantly (P < 0·01) lower total fat percentage.

Apart from demonstrating the capacity to produce leaner lambs compared with Suffolk, the results suggest that Texel sires offer the possibility of producing heavier carcasses without excess fat production.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Agricultural Science , Volume 93 , Issue 1 , August 1979 , pp. 235 - 239
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1979

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

Animal Breeding Research Organization (1975). A note on the ABRO experiments evaluating six sire breeds for lowland slaughter lamb production. Edinburgh.Google Scholar
Bowman, J. C. (1966). Meat from sheep. Animal Breeding Abstracts 34, 293–319.Google Scholar
Bradfield, P. G. E. (1968). Sex differences in the growth of sheep. In Growth and Development of Mammals (ed. Lodge, G. A. and Lamming, G. E.). London: Butterworths.Google Scholar
Cuthbertson, A., Harrington, G. & Smith, R. J. (1972). Symposium: Aspects of carcass evaluation – tissue separation to assess beef and lamb variations. Proceedings of the British Society of Animal Prodicction, 113–122.Google Scholar
Donald, H. P., Read, J. L. & Russell, W. S. (1968). A comparative trial of crossbred ewes by Finnish Landrace and other sires. Animal Production 10, 413–421.Google Scholar
Land, R. B. & McClelland, T. H. (1971). The performance of Finn–Dorset sheep allowed to mate four times in two years. Animal Production 13, 637–641.Google Scholar
Large, R. V. (1970). The biological efficiency of meat production in sheep. Animal Production 12, 393–401.Google Scholar
Meat and Livestock Commission (1975). Sheep carcass classification. Milton Keynes, England.Google Scholar
More, O'Ferrall G. J. (1975). Effect of breed of ram on fertility of ewes and perinatal mortality of lambs. Irish Journal of Agricultural Research, 13, 341–343.Google Scholar
Morgan, J. A. & Owen, J. B. (1973). The nutrition of artificially reared lambs. 3. The effect of sex on the performance and carcass composition of lambs subjected to different nutritional treatment. Animal Production 16, 49–59.Google Scholar
Nelder, J. A. (1975). Glim manual. Applied Statistics 24, 259–261.Google Scholar
Owen, J. B. (1976). Sheep Production. London: Bailliere Tindall.Google Scholar
Rae, A. L. (1952). Crossbreeding of sheep. II. Crossbreeding for lamb and mutton production. Animal Breeding Abstracts 20, 287–299 (review).Google Scholar
Robinson, J. J. & Ørskov, E. R. (1975). An integrated approach to improving the biological efficiency of sheep meat production. World Review of Animal Production 9, 63–76.Google Scholar
Snedecor, G. W. & Cochran, W. G. (1974). Statistical Methods, 6th ed.Ames, Iowa: Iowa State University Press.Google Scholar
Spedding, C. R. W. (1976). The relevance of various measures of efficiency. In Meat Animals Growth and Productivity (ed. Lister, D., Rhodes, D. N., Fowler, V. R. and Fuller, M. F.). New York and London: Plenum Press.Google Scholar
Terrill, C. E. (1974). Review and application of research on crossbreeding of sheep in North America. 1st World Congress on Genetics Applied to Livestock Production, Madrid, 765–777.Google Scholar
Timon, V. M. (1974). The evaluation of sheep breeds and breeding strategies. In Proceedings of the Working Symposium on Breed Evaluation and Crossing Experiments with Farm Animals (ed. Minkema, D.). Holland: Zeist.Google Scholar
Timon, V. M. (1975). Assessment of British and European sheep breeds as a basis for the development of new ‘synthetic’ lines. In Applied Genetics and British Agriculture (ed. Walton-Evans, M. J. and Jones, S. D. M.). Reading University Agricultural Club.Google Scholar