Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-pftt2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-24T20:14:28.027Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

A description of the growth of sheep and its genetic analysis

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 August 2016

R.M. Lewis*
Animal Biology Division, Scottish Agricultural College, West Mains Road, Edinburgh EH9 3JG, UK
G.C. Emmans
Animal Biology Division, Scottish Agricultural College, West Mains Road, Edinburgh EH9 3JG, UK
W.S. Dingwall
Animal Biology Division, Scottish Agricultural College, West Mains Road, Edinburgh EH9 3JG, UK
G. Simm
Animal Biology Division, Scottish Agricultural College, West Mains Road, Edinburgh EH9 3JG, UK
Present address: Department of Animal and Poultry Sciences, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg, VA 24061-0306, USA.
Get access


The Gompertz is one of a family of growth functions that, when the environment (e.g. food, housing) is non-limiting, provides a useful description of growth as a comparatively simple, single equation. It has three parameters of which the important ones are mature size, A, and the rate parameter, B. Estimates of A and B, however, are highly correlated and defining their separate values for individual animals is problematic. This problem was explored using five methods for estimating the parameters, or transformations of them, to describe the growth of two genotypes of Suffolk sheep kept under non-limiting conditions. One genotype was under selection for high lean growth rate and the other was its control. Live weights that were collected at least fortnightly from near birth to 150 days of age over a 9-year period on 1934 lambs were used. The Gompertz form adequately described the growth of the great majority of the lambs evaluated. When considering A and B as a lumped parameter, Z = A·B, and fitting Z, B and an initial condition (a transformed birth weight) as the parameters, the problems in estimation were substantially overcome as shown by a low correlation of Z with estimates of B both within and across animals. Usefully Z has a biological interpretation in that Z/e is the maximum daily growth rate. Since the Gompertz form adequately described growth in these sheep, the extent of genetic co-variation for the growth parameters values (A, B, Z) was estimated to determine if they were amenable to selection. A weighted univariate animal model was fitted. Mature size, A, and the rate parameter, B, were moderately heritable (0·37 (s.e. 0·04) and 0·38 (s.e. 0·05), respectively) as was live weight at 150 days of age (0·31 (s.e. 0·06)). However there was a substantial negative genetic relationship between A and B (–0·48). Z was highly heritable (0·72 (s.e.0·05)). After 9 years of selection, the genotype selected for high lean growth rate was heavier (P < 0·001) at 150 days of age (5·2 kg) and at maturity (6·6 kg), with a maximum growth rate (Z/e) that was 1·12 times that of the control. Our lumped parameter Z, in effect a rate parameter scaled for mature size, avoided problems in estimating A and B and, in so doing, offers a general and robust description of lamb growth amenable to selection.

Breeding and genetics
Copyright © British Society of Animal Science 2002

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.)


Admassu, D. and Ahlgren, I. 2000. Growth of juvenile tilapia, Oreochromis niloticus L. from lakes Zwai, Langeno and Chamo (Ethiopian rift valley) based on otolith microincrement analysis. Ecology of Freshwater Fish 9: 127137.Google Scholar
Akbas, Y. and Yaylak, E. 2000. Heritability estimates of growth curve parameters and genetic correlations between the growth curve parameters and weights at different age of Japanese quail. Archiv für Geflugelkunde 64: 141146.Google Scholar
Arseneau, M. J., Ouellet, J. P. and Sirois, L. 1998. Fruticose arboreal lichen biomass accumulation in an old-growth balsam fir forest. Canadian Journal of Botany 76: 16691676.Google Scholar
Bajzer, Z. 1999. Gompertzian growth as a self-similar and allometric process. Growth, Development and Aging 63: 311.Google ScholarPubMed
Brody, S. 1945. Bioenergetics and growth. Reinhold, New York.Google Scholar
Clark, S. T., Odell, D. K. and Lacinak, C. T. 2000. Aspects of growth in captive killer whales (Orcinus orca). Marine Mammal Science 16: 110123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cullis, B. R. and McGilchrist, B. R. 1990. A model of the analysis of growth data from designed experiments. Biometrics 46: 131142.Google Scholar
Emmans, G. C. 1988. Genetic components of potential and actual growth. In Animal breeding opportunities (ed. Land, R.B., Bulfield, G. and Hill, W. G.) British Society of Animal Production occasional publication no. 12, pp. 153181.Google Scholar
Emmans, G. C. 1989. The growth of turkeys. In Recent advances in turkey science (ed. Nixey, C. and Grey, T.C.) Poultry science symposium no. 21, pp. 135166. Butterworths, London.Google Scholar
Emmans, G. C. 1997. A method to predict the food intake of domestic animals from birth to maturity as a function of time. Journal of Theoretical Biology 186: 189199.Google Scholar
Emmans, G. C. and Fisher, C. 1986. Problems in nutritional theory. In Nutrient requirements of poultry and nutritional research (ed. Fisher, C. and Boorman, K. N.), pp. 939. Butterworths, London.Google Scholar
Ferguson, N. S. and Gous, R. M. 1993a. Evaluation of pig genotypes. 1. Theoretical aspects of measuring genetic parameters. Animal Production 56: 233243.Google Scholar
Ferguson, N. S. and Gous, R. M. 1993b. Evaluation of pig genotypes. 2. Testing experimental procedure. Animal Production 56: 245249.Google Scholar
France, J., Dijkstra, J., Thornley, J. H. M. and Dhanoa, M. S. 1996. A simple but flexible growth function. Growth, Development and Aging 60: 7183.Google Scholar
Friggens, N. C., Shanks, M., Kyriazakis, I., Oldham, J. D. and McClelland, T. H. 1997. The growth and development of nine European sheep breeds. 1. British breeds: Scottish Blackface, Welsh Mountain and Shetland. Animal Science 65: 409426.Google Scholar
Genstat 5 Committee. 1998. Genstat 5, release 4.1 (PC/ Windows NT). Rothamsted Experimental Station, Harpenden, UK.Google Scholar
Gilmour, A. R., Cullis, B. R., Welham, S. J. and Thompson, R. 1998. ASReml user guide. NSW Agriculture, Orange, NSW, 2800, Australia.Google Scholar
Gilmour, A. R., Thompson, R. and Cullis, B. R. 1995. Average information REML, an efficient algorithm for variance estimation in linear mixed models. Biometrics 51: 14401450.Google Scholar
Gous, R. M., Moran, E. T., Stilborn, H. R., Bradford, G. D. and Emmans, G. C. 1999. Evaluation of the parameters needed to describe the overall growth, the chemical growth, and the growth of feathers and breast muscles of broilers. Poultry Science 78: 812821.Google Scholar
Hammond, J. 1932. Growth and development of mutton qualities in the sheep. Oliver and Boyd, Edinburgh.Google Scholar
Hancock, C. E., Bradford, G. D., Emmans, G. C. and Gous, R. M. 1995. The evaluation of the growth-parameters of 6 strains of commercial broiler-chickens. British Poultry Science 36: 247264.Google Scholar
Jamrozik, J. and Schaeffer, L. R. 1997. Estimates of genetic parameters for a test day model with random regressions for yield traits of first lactation Holsteins. Journal of Dairy Science 80: 762770.Google Scholar
Knap, P. W. 2000. Time trends of Gompertz growth parameters in ‘meat-type’ pigs. Animal Science 70: 3949.Google Scholar
Lewis, R. M. and Brotherstone, S. 2002. A genetic evaluation of growth in sheep using random regression techniques. Animal Science 74: 6370.Google Scholar
Lewis, R. M., Emmans, G. C., Simm, G., Dingwall, W. S. and FitzSimons, J. 1998. A description of the growth of sheep. Proceedings of the British Society of Animal Science 1998, p. 47.Google Scholar
Mignon-Grasteau, S., Piles, M., Varona, L., Rochambeau,, Poivey, J. P., Blasco, A. and Beaumont, C. 2000. Genetic analysis of growth curve parameters for male and female chickens resulting from selection on shape of growth curve. Journal of Animal Science 78: 25152524.Google Scholar
Oberbauer, A. M., Arnold, A. M. and Thonney, M. L. 1994. Genetically size-scaled growth and composition of Dorset and Suffolk rams. Animal Production 59: 223234.Google Scholar
Ott, R. L. 1993. An introduction to statistical methods and data analysis, fourth edition. Duxbury Press, Belmont, CA.Google Scholar
Parks, J. R. 1982. A theory of feeding and growth of animals. Springer-Verlag, Berlin.Google Scholar
Perotto, D., Cue, R. I. and Lee, A. J. 1992. Comparison of nonlinear functions for describing the growth curve of three genotypes of dairy cattle. Canadian Journal of Animal Science 72: 773782.Google Scholar
Schaeffer, L. R. and Dekkers, J. C. M. 1994. Random regressions in animal models for test-day production in dairy cattle. Proceedings of the fifth world congress on genetics applied to livestock production, Guelph, vol. 18, pp. 443446.Google Scholar
Simm, G. and Dingwall, W. S. 1989. Selection indices for lean meat production in sheep. Livestock Production Science 21: 223233.Google Scholar
Simm, G., Lewis, R. M., Grundy, B. and Dingwall, W. S. 2002. Responses to selection for lean growth in sheep. Animal Science 74: 3950.Google Scholar
Taylor, St C. S. 1965. A relation between mature weight and the time taken to mature in mammals. Animal Production 7: 203220.Google Scholar
Taylor, St C. S. 1980. Genetic size-scaling rules in animal growth. Animal Production 30: 161165.Google Scholar
Taylor, St C. S., Thiessen, R. B. and Murray, J. 1986. Interbreed relationship of maintenance efficiency to milk yield in cattle. Animal Production 43: 3761.Google Scholar
Winsor, C. P. 1932. The Gompertz curve as a growth curve. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 18: 1–8.Google Scholar
Zygoyiannis, D., Kyriazakis, I., Stamataris, C., Friggens, N. C. and Katsaounis, N. 1997. The growth and development of nine European sheep breeds. 2. Greek breeds: Boutsko, Serres and Karagouniko. Animal Science 65: 427440.Google Scholar