Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-x4r87 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-25T08:56:01.363Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Maternal performance of oxford and suffolk breeds, of sheep, and their crosses†

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 September 2010

M. H. Fahmy
M. H. Fahmy
Affiliation:
Agriculture Canada, Research Station, Lennoxville, Quebec J1M 1Z3, Canada
Get access

Abstract

The proportion of ewes lambing of those exposed to the ram, litter size and weight at lambing, and at weaning, pre-weaning lamb mortality and changes in ewe weight during suckling, were studied in 326 ewes (931 lambings) representing two pure breeds, Oxford and Suffolk, and four crossbreds, Oxford♂ × Suffolk♀, Suffolk♂ × Oxford♀, North Country Cheviot♂ × Oxford♀ and Cheviot♂ × Suffolk♀, mated to purebred and crossbred rams during 9 years. The proportional fertility in the Oxford and Suffolk ewes (0·82 and 0·85 respectively) was lower than that of Suffolk × Oxford (0·93), Oxford × Suffolk (0·94), Cheviot × Oxford (0·88) and Cheviot × Suffolk (0·88) ewes. Litter sizes of Suffolk ewes at birth and at weaning were 1·6 and 1·3 lambs, 0·3 (0·22) and 0·3 (0·27) lambs largeir than those of the Oxford ewes, respectively. The corresponding figures for litter weight were 1·29 kg (0·22) and 11·8 kg (0·36). Oxford ewes lost 0·10 of their weight during nursing compared with 0·14 for the Suffolk and the two reciprocal crosses. The estimates of heterosis in litter size and litter weight at birth were 0·085 and 0·082, and at weaning were 0·13 and 0·18 respectively.

The results showed that Oxford crosses were better in performance than the pure Oxford, whereas the Suffolk crosses were similar in performance to the pure Suffolk, except in the proportion of ewes lambing of those exposed and pre-weaning mortality, in which the crosses were 0·07 and 0·20 superior to the pure Suffolk, respectively.

Breed of sire had a significant effect on litter weight at birth and at weaning, whereas the interaction breed of sire × breed of dam was a significant source of variation on litter size and litter weight at birth and at weaning. Litter performance at birth was significantly lower in 2-year-old ewes and in ewes sired by 3-year-old or older rams than in other age groups

Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Production , Volume 35 , Issue 3 , December 1982 , pp. 327 - 333
Copyright
Copyright © British Society of Animal Science 1982

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

Botkin, M. P. and Paules, L. 1965. Crossbred ewes compared with ewes of parent breeds for wool and lamb production. J. Anim. Sci. 24: 1111–1116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dickerson, G. 1969. Experimental approaches in utilising breed resources. Anim. Breed. Abstr. 37: 191–202.Google Scholar
Fahmy, M. H. and Bernard, C. S. 1973. Effects of crossbreeding and certain environmental factors on multiple births, wool production and growth in sheep. Anim. Prod. 16: 147–155.Google Scholar
Holtmann, W. B. and Bernard, C. 1969. Effect of general combining ability and maternal ability of Oxford, Suffolk and North Country Cheviot breeds of sheep on growth performance of lambs. J. Anim. Sci. 28: 155–161.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Land, R. B., Russell, W. S. and Donald, H. P. 1974. The litter size and fertility of Finnish Landrace and Tasmanian Merino sheep and their reciprocal crosses. Anim. Prod. 18: 265–271.Google Scholar
Levine, J. M. and Hohenboken, W. 1978. Crossbred lamb production from Columbia and Suffolk ewes. I. Ewe production and lamb traits. J. Anim. Sci. 47: 89–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nitter, G. 1978. Breed utilisation for meat production in sheep. Anim. Breed. Abstr. 46: 131–143.Google Scholar
Rae, A. L. 1952. Crossbreeding of sheep. II. Crossbreeding for lamb and mutton production. Anim. Breed. Abstr. 20: 287–299.Google Scholar
Sidwell, G. M., Everson, D. O. and Terrill, C. E. 1962. Fertility, prolificacy and lamb livability of some pure breeds and their crosses. J. Anim. Sci. 21: 875–879.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sidwell, G. M. and Miller, L. R. 1971. Production in some pure breeds of sheep and their crosses. I. Reproductive efficiency in ewes. J. Anim. Sci. 32: 1084–1089.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Turner, Helen N. 1969. Genetic improvement of reproduction rate in sheep. Anim. Breed. Abstr. 37: 545–563.Google Scholar
Vesely, J. A. and Peters, H. F. 1974. Lamb production from ewes of four breeds and their two-breed and three-breed crosses. Can. J. Anim. Sci. 54: 543–549.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wiener, G. and Hayter, Susan. 1975. Maternal performance in sheep as affected by breed, crossbreeding and other factors. Anim. Prod. 20: 19–30.Google Scholar