Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-qxdb6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-26T23:38:21.528Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The intake of milk by suckled, newborn lambs and the effects of twinning and cold exposure

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 March 2007

G. E. Thompson
G. E. Thompson
Affiliation:
Agricultural Research Council Institute of Animal Physiology, Babraham, Cambridge CB2 4AT
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

1. Clun Forest ewes with single and twin lambs were exposed to neutral (20°) or cold (−1°) environmental temperatures, beginning soon after parturition, for 4 d. The intakes of milk, lactose and glycerides by the lambs were calculated from measurements of the rate of displacement of tritiated water (injected into the lambs) by non-radioactive water in milk from the ewes, and measurements of the concentration of lactose and glyceride glycerol in small samples of milk.

2. The yield of milk from ewes bearing twin lambs was greater than the yield from single-bearing ewes in the neutral environment but, in both environments, twin lambs had lower intakes of milk and milk lactose and glycerides, and gained body-weight more slowly, than single lambs. Milk from twin-bearing ewes had a lower lactose concentration than milk from single-bearing ewes.

3. Cold exposure reduced the intake of milk and milk lactose, and reduced the rate of weight gain, of single and twin lambs. Glyceride intake was not different in the two environments.

4. There appears to be a conflict between reduced supply of milk by the ewe and increased demand for milk by the lamb in cold temperatures. Such a conflict is sharpened when twin lambs are born.

Type
Papers on General Nutrition
Information
British Journal of Nutrition , Volume 50 , Issue 1 , July 1983 , pp. 151 - 156
Copyright
Copyright © The Nutrition Society 1983

References

REFERENCES

Alexander, G. (1961). Australian Journal of Agricultural Research 12, 1152–1174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Alexander, G. (1962). Australian Journal of Agricultural Research 13, 100–121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Alexander, G. & Williams, D. (1966). Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 67, 181–189.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Armstrong, D. G., Blaxter, K. L., Clapperton, J. L., Graham, N. McC. & Wainman, F. W. (1960). Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 55, 395–401.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dove, H. & Freer, M. (1979). Australian Journal of Agricultural Research 30, 725–739.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eggstein, M. & Kuhlmann, E. (1974). In Methods of Enzymatic Analysis, pp. 1825–1831 [Bergmeyer, H. U., editor]. New York: Verlag Chemie.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Faulkner, A., Thomson, E. M., Bassett, J. M. & Thompson, G. E. (1980). British Journal of Nutrition 43, 163–170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fleet, I. R., Linzell, J. L. & Peaker, M. (1972). British Veterinary Journal 128, 297–300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Folch, J., Lees, M. & Sloan-Stanley, G. H. (1957). Journal of Biological Chemistry 226, 497–509.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gibb, M. J. & Penning, P. D. (1972). Animal Production 15, 177–182.Google Scholar
Hartmann, P. E., Trevethan, P. & Shelton, J. N. (1973). Journal of Endocrinology 59, 249–259.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Houston, D. C. & Maddox, J. G. (1974). Veterinary Record 95, 575.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnston, W. S., Maclachlan, G. K. & Murray, I. S. (1980). Veterinary Record 106, 238–240.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Joyce, J. P. & Blaxter, K. L. (1964). British Journal of Nutrition 18, 5–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Joyce, J. P., Blaxter, K. L. & Park, C. (1966). Research in Veterinary Science 7, 342–359.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCance, I. & Alexander, G. (1959). Australian Journal of Agricultural Research 10, 699–719.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Macfarlane, W. V., Howard, B. & Siebert, B. D. (1969). Nature 221, 578–579.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Martal, J. & Djiane, J. (1977). Journal of Steroid Biochemistry 8, 415–417.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Peart, J. N., Edwards, R. A. & Donaldson, E. (1975). Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 85, 315–324.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Samson, D. E., Slee, J., Thompson, G. E., Goode, J. A. & Flint, A. P. F. (1983). Animal Production 36, 1–6.Google Scholar
Thompson, G. E., Bassett, J. M., Samson, D. E. & Slee, J. (1982). British Journal of Nutrition 48, 59–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thompson, G. E. & Goode, J. A. (1981) Animal Production 32, 245–250.Google Scholar
Thompson, G. E., Hartmann, P. E., Goode, J. A. & Lindsay, K. S. (1981). Comparative Biochemistry and Physiology 70A, 13–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar