Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-cjp7w Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-03T08:14:31.289Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Genotype-environment interactions in the wintering of lambs

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 March 2009

J. W. B. King ,
J. H. Watson  and
G. B. Young
J. W. B. King
Affiliation:
A.R.G. Animal Breeding Research Organisation, Edinburgh 9
J. H. Watson
Affiliation:
A.R.G. Animal Breeding Research Organisation, Edinburgh 9
G. B. Young
Affiliation:
A.R.G. Animal Breeding Research Organisation, Edinburgh 9
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

An experiment to investigate the differential response of lambs of various breeds and crosses to different planes of nutrition is described.

Two groups of twin lambs were used comprising Blackfaces and their crosses ( x Lincoln, Wiltshire and Border Leicester rams) and Welsh and their osses ( x Suffolk and Wiltshire rams).

From October to January, each cross was divided between high and low planes of nutrition. Approximately half of the twin pairs were split and the remaining pairs distributed between the environments. Significant differences were found between the crosses and twin pairs of the same cross for body weight, body measurements and wool production but not for various blood characters. For almost all characters studied, plane differences were found. There was, however, only one significant (P < 1%) cross-plane interaction—for non-protein nitrogen concentration in the blood.

At the end of January, each plane was subdivided to produce high-high, high-low, low-high and low-low groups. The lambs remained in these groups until May. As before, differences between crosses were found for body weights and measurements, and wool characters but not for most blood characters. The majority of characters were affected by plane of nutrition. Cross-plane interactions were not found except in antibody response to Erisipelothrix rhusiopathia vaccine (P < 5%).

At the end of May the high-high group were slaughtered and the remaining three groups fattened on grass until each reached the same average weight as the high-high group. Carcass measurements showed that all the crosses shared a striking ability to recover from previous poor nutritional treatments. One significant (P < 5%) interaction of cross and plane was found in weight of cannon bone.

The most characteristic feature of the results has been the similarity of response of the different genotypes to the different nutritional environments. The few interactions found to be statistically significant by conventional methods are difficult to interpret because of the many tests of significance carried out in the analyses.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Agricultural Science , Volume 53 , Issue 2 , October 1959 , pp. 156 - 171
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1959

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

Bodansky, A. (1933). J. Biol. Chem. 101, 93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cantarow, A. & Trumper, M. (1955). Clinical Biochemistry, 5th ed.Philadelphia and London: W. B. Saundors Comp.Google Scholar
Cohen, B. & Smith, A. H. (1919). J. Biol. Chem. 39, 489.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation of Australia (1956). Eighth Annual Report.Google Scholar
Falconer, D. S. (1952). Amer. Nat. 86, 293.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Falconer, D. S. & Latyszewski, M. (1952). J. Genet. 51, 67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fiske, C. H. & Subba Row, Y. (1925). J. Biol. Chem. 66, 375.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hammond, J. (1932). Growth and Development of Mutton Qualities in the Sheep. Edinburgh: Oliver and Boyd.Google Scholar
Keyes, A., Brozek, J., Herschel, A., Mickelsen, O. & Taylor, J. L. (1950). The Biology of Human Starvation, 2 vols. Minneapolis: The University of Minnesota Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
King, J. W. B. & Young, G. B. (1955). J. Agric. Sci. 45, 331.Google Scholar
Morley, F. H. W. (1956). Aust. J. Agric. Res. 7, 140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mulligan, W. & Jennings, F. W. (1953). J. Comp. Path. 63, 282.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Palsson, H. & Verges, J. B. (1952). J. Agric. Sci. 42, 93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sanders, G. P. (1939). J. Dairy Sci. 22, 841.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Somogyi, M. (1930). J. Biol. Chem. 87, 339.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Somogyi, M. (1945). J. Biol. Chem. 160, 61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Warwick, E. J. (1951). Rice, Breeding and Improvement of Farm Animals, chap. 22, 4th ed.New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co. Inc.Google Scholar
Wiener, G. & Purser, A. F. (1957). J. Agric. Sci. 49, 51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Woodward, G. E. & Fry, E. G. (1932). Biochem. J. 47, 465.Google Scholar