Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-cf9d5c678-p4zth Total loading time: 0.288 Render date: 2021-08-05T12:06:24.636Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "metricsAbstractViews": false, "figures": true, "newCiteModal": false, "newCitedByModal": true, "newEcommerce": true, "newUsageEvents": true }

Rearing twin and triplet lambs on the ewe

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 September 2010

C. B. Gallo
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Husbandry, University of Liverpool, Veterinary Field Station, Neston L64 7TE
D. A. R. Davies
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Husbandry, University of Liverpool, Veterinary Field Station, Neston L64 7TE
Get access

Abstract

The performance of 32 Cambridge (C) and Suffolk × Cambridge (S × C) twin and triplet rearing ewes and their progeny was investigated from lambing until the lambs reached slaughter weight. The ewes and lambs were housed and penned in individual family groups until 35 days after lambing. From 7 to 35 days the effect of rearing type was studied in combination with feeding the ewes a complete diet containing either 250 (diet 250) or 400 (diet 400) g milled hay per kg. After 35 days ewes and lambs grazed pasture. Ewes suckling triplets produced slightly more milk at 20 days 4·3 v. 4·1 (s.e.d. 0·20) kg/day and significantly more at 30 days 4·1 v. 3·7 (s.e.d. 0·18) kg/day, but consumed similar amounts of dry matter (3·9 kg/day) and so tended to lose more body condition. The latter was also a feature of ewes given diet 400 which produced similar milk yields but had lower complete diet intakes than those on diet 250. S × C had higher yields than C ewes.

Triplet lambs grew faster than twins 361 v. 290 (s.e.d. 9·0) g/day to 35 days but during the outdoor period triplet males but not females grew as fast as their twin counterparts 337 v. 317 for males and 269 v. 302 for females (s.e.d. 12·7) g/day. A selection of male twin and triplet lambs was slaughtered within the range 39 to 42 kg when 102 and 105 days old respectively. Triplet lambs had a lower killing-out proportion 0·458 v. 0·477 (s.e.d. 0·0085) and hence carcass weight but all carcasses qualified for Meat and Livestock Commission certification.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © British Society of Animal Science 1988

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

Blaxter, K. L. and Wainman, F. W. 1964. The utilization of the energy of different rations by sheep and cattle for maintenance and for fattening. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 63: 113128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boaz, T. G., Jones, R. and Smith, C. 1980. A note on a comparison of crossbreds from two prolific sheep breeds. Animal Production 31: 323325.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boyazoglu, J. G. 1963. Aspects quantitatifs de la production laitiere des brebis. Annales de Zootechnie 12: 237296.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Christian, K. R. and Coup, M. R. 1954. Measurement of feed intake by grazing cattle and sheep. VI. The determination of chromic oxide in faeces. New Zealand Journal of Science and Technology 36: 328330.Google Scholar
Cowan, R. T., Robinson, J. J., McDonald, I. and Smart, R. 1980. Effects of body fatness at lambing and diet in lactation on body tissue loss, feed intake and milk yield of ewes in early lactation. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 95: 497514.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Donald, H. P., Read, J. L. and Russell, W. S. 1970. Influence of litter size and breed of sire on carcass weight and quality of lambs. Animal Production 12: 281290.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Doney, J. M., Peart, J. N. and Smith, W. F. 1981. The effect of interaction of ewe and lamb genotype on milk production of ewes and on growth of lambs to weaning. Animal Production 33: 137142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Doney, J. M., Peart, J. N., Smith, W. F. and Sim, D. A. 1983. Lactation performance, herbage intake and lamb growth of Scottish Blackface and East Friesland × Scottish Blackface ewes grazing hill or improved pasture. Animal Production 37: 283292.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Flamant, J. C. and Labussier, J. 1972. Premieres observations sur les aptitudes laitieres des brebis de race Romanov. Annales de Zootechnie 21: 375384.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gardner, R. W. and Hogue, D. E. 1964. Effects of energy intake and number of lambs suckled on milk yield, milk composition and energetic efficiency of lactating ewes. Journal of Animal Science 23: 935942.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gibb, M. J. and Treacher, T. T. 1978. The effect of herbage allowance on herbage intake and performance of ewes and their twin lambs grazing perennial rye grass. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 90: 139147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gibb, M. J. and Treacher, T. T. 1980. The effect of ewe body condition at lambing on the performance of ewes and their lambs at pasture. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 95: 631640.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gibb, M. J. and Treacher, T. T. 1982. The effect of body condition and nutrition during late pregnancy on the performance of grazing ewes during lactation. Animal Production 34: 123129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hadjipieris, G. and Holmes, W. 1966. Studies on feed intake and feed utilization by sheep. I. The voluntary feed intake of dry, pregnant and lactating ewes. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 66: 217223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hinch, G. N. 1983. Milk production and suckling behaviour of high fecundity ewes. New Zealand Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries, Agricultural Research Division Annual Report 1981–1982, pp. 221222. (Animal Breeding Abstracts 52: 221, Abstr.).Google Scholar
Kovnerev, I. P. 1974. [Biological reserves of Romanov sheep.] Ovtsevodstvo 11: 2930. (Animal Breeding Abstracts (1975) 43: 348, Abstr.).Google Scholar
Land, R. B. and Robinson, D. W. 1985. Genetics of Reproduction. Butterworths, London.Google Scholar
Lawes Agricultural Trust. 1977. Genstat V, Mark 4.01. Rothamsted Experimental Station, Harpenden.Google Scholar
Loerch, S. C., McClure, K. E. and Parker, C. F. 1985. Effects of numbers of lambs suckled and supplemental protein source on lactating ewe performance. Journal of Animal Science 60: 613.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCance, I. 1959. The determination of milk yield in the Merino ewe. Australian Journal of Agricultural Research 10: 839853.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maxwell, T. J., Doney, J. M., Milne, J. A., Peart, J. N., Russel, A. J. F., Sibbald, A. R. and McDonald, D. 1979. The effect of rearing type and prepartum nutrition on the intake and performance of lactating Greyface ewes at pasture. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 92: 165174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meat and Livestock Commission. 1981. Lamb Carcase Production. Planning to Meet Your Market. Meat and Livestock Commission, Bletchley.Google Scholar
Meat and Livestock Commission. 1983. Feeding the Ewe. Sheep Improvement Services, Meat and Livestock Commission, Bletchley.Google Scholar
Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. 1973. The Analysis of Agricultural Materials. Her Majesty's Stationery Office, London.Google Scholar
Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. 1974. Increasing prolificacy in ewes. Drayton Experimental Husbandry Farm Review, pp. 3240.Google Scholar
Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. 1983. Energy allowances and feeding systems for ruminants. Reference Book 433. Her Majesty's Stationery Office, London.Google Scholar
Moore, R. W. 1966. Genetic factors affecting the milk intake of lambs. Australian Journal of Agricultural Research 17: 191199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nikolaev, A. I. and Magomedov, I. M. 1976. [Milk production of Romanov sheep.] Zhivotnovodstvo 3: 3840. (Animal Breeding Abstracts (1976) 44: 414 Abstr.)Google Scholar
Owen, J. B., Davies, D. A. R. and Ridgman, W. J. 1969. The effects of varying the quantity and distribution of liquid feed in lambs reared artificially. Animal Production 11: 19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Owen, J. B., Lee, R. F., Lerman, P. M. and Miller, E. L. 1980. The effect of the reproductive state of ewes on their voluntary intake of diets varying in straw content. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 94: 637644.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pearson, D. 1973. Laboratory Techniques in Food Analysis. Butterworths, London.Google Scholar
Peart, J. N. 1967. The effect of different levels of nutrition during late pregnancy on the subsequent milk production of Blackface ewes and on the growth of their lambs. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 68: 365371.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Peart, J. N. 1968. Some effects of live weight and body condition on the milk production of Blackface ewes. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 70: 331338.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Peart, J. N. 1982. Lactation of suckling ewes and does. In Sheep and Goat Production (ed. Coop, I. E.), pp. 119132. Elsevier Scientific Publishing Company.Google Scholar
Peart, J. N., Edwards, R. A. and Donaldson, E. 1972. The yield and composition of the milk of Finnish Landrace × Blackface ewes. I. Ewes and lambs maintained indoors. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 79: 303313.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Peart, J. N., Edwards, R. A. and Donaldson, E. 1975. The yield and composition of the milk of Finnish Landrace × Blackface ewes. II. Ewes and lambs grazed on pasture. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 85: 315324.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Robinson, J. J., McDonald, I., McHattie, I. and Pennie, K. 1978. Studies on reproduction in prolific ewes. 4. Sequential changes in the maternal body during pregnancy. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 91: 291304.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Statistical Analysis System Institute. 1982. Users' Guide: Statistics. SAS Institute Inc., Cary NC.Google Scholar
Tissier, M., Thériez, M. and Molénat, G. 1975. [Variation in the voluntary feed intake of ewes during late pregnancy and early lactation. I. Study of two hay diets of different quality.] Annales de Zootechnie 24: 711727.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Treacher, T. T. 1978. The effects on milk production of the number of lambs suckled and age, parity and size of ewe. In Milk Production in the Ewe (eds. Boyazoglu, J. G. and Treacher, T. T.), pp. 3140. European Association of Animal Production, Brussels.Google Scholar
8
Cited by

Send article to Kindle

To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Rearing twin and triplet lambs on the ewe
Available formats
×

Send article to Dropbox

To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

Rearing twin and triplet lambs on the ewe
Available formats
×

Send article to Google Drive

To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

Rearing twin and triplet lambs on the ewe
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response

Please enter your response.

Your details

Please enter a valid email address.

Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *