Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-swr86 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-19T02:50:51.151Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Growth and herbage consumption of grazing Merino and Border Leicester lambs reared by their mothers or fostered by ewes of the other breed

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 September 2010

J. P. Langlands
J. P. Langlands
Affiliation:
C.S.I.R.O., Pastoral Research Laboratory, Armidale, N.S.W., 2350, Australia
Get access

Summary

Eight Border Leicester castrated male lambs (wethers) were fostered on to 8 Merino ewes (MB) at birth, and 10 Merino wethers were fostered on to Border Leicester ewes (BM). Two additional groups of 10 wethers consisted of Border Leicester lambs (BB) and Merino lambs (MM) reared by their natural mothers. The lambs and ewes grazed together and growth rate, and milk and herbage consumption of the lambs were recorded.

Live-weight gains to weaning at 74 days were 275, 245, 204 and 184 g/day for groups BB, MB, BM and MM respectively. Lambs reared by Border Leicester ewes received more milk and consumed less grass than lambs of similar genotype reared by Merinos, but BM lambs consumed less milk than BB lambs. Merino lambs also consumed less grass than Border Leicester lambs.

It was concluded that Merinos grew more slowly than Border Leicester lambs primarily because of their lower voluntary food intake. The lower milk production of Merino ewes was considered to be of secondary significance since if herbage is available ad libitum, lambs with high voluntary intakes will compensate for the lack of milk by consuming more forage.

Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Production , Volume 14 , Issue 3 , June 1972 , pp. 317 - 322
Copyright
Copyright © British Society of Animal Science 1972

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

Corbett, J. L. 1968. Variation in the yield and composition of milk of grazing Merino ewes. Aust. J. agric. Res. 19: 283–294.Google Scholar
Hodge, R. W. 1966a. The relative pasture intake of grazing lambs at two levels of milk intake. Aust. J. exp. Agric. Anim. Husb. 6: 314–316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hodge, R. W. 1966b. The apparent digestibility of ewes milk and dried pasture by young lambs. Aust. J. exp. Agric. Anim. Husb. 6: 139–144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hodge, R. W. and Doyle, J. J. 1967. Diet selected by lambs and yearling sheep grazing on annual and perennial pastures in southern Victoria. Aust. J. exp. Agric. Anim. Husb. 7: 141–143.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Joyce, J. P. and Rattray, P. V. 1970. The intake and utilisation of milk and grass by lambs. Proc. N.Z. Soc. Anim. Prod. 30: 94–105.Google Scholar
Langlands, J. P. 1967. Studies on the nutritive value of the diet selected by grazing sheep. II. Some sources of error when sampling oesophageally fistulated sheep at pasture. Anim. Prod. 9: 167–175.Google Scholar
Langlands, J. P. 1969. Studies on the nutritive value of the diet selected by grazing sheep. IV. Variation in the diet selected by sheep differing in age, breed, sex, strain and previous history. Anim. Prod. 11: 369–378.Google Scholar
Royal, W. M. 1968. Equipment for collection of faeces from sheep. Proc. Aust. Soc. Anim. Prod. 7: 450–454.Google Scholar
Spedding, C. R. W., Brown, T. H. and Large, R. V. 1963. The effect of milk intake on nematode infestation of the lamb. Proc. Nutr. Soc. 22: 32–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar