Hostname: page-component-7b7567c8c-tnzcf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-15T03:55:52.697Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The performance of Masham ewes

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 September 2010

J. E. Newton and
J. S. Fenlon
J. E. Newton
Affiliation:
Grassland Research Institute, Hurley, Maidenhead, Berkshire SL6 5LR
J. S. Fenlon
Affiliation:
Grassland Research Institute, Hurley, Maidenhead, Berkshire SL6 5LR
Get access

Abstract

The performance of two flocks of crossbred Masham ewes (Tees-water × Dales Bred) was measured for 6 and 4 years respectively. The ewes in Flock 1 were mated with Dorset Down rams and the ewes in Flock 2 with Suffolk rams.

The overall mean mating weight of each flock was 68-0 kg with no consistent year-to-year variation. The mating weight repeatability values for ewes entering the flocks as 2-year-olds were 0·532 (±0·0681) and 0·524 (±0·1118) for Flocks 1 and 2 respectively.

Mean litter size increased with age, but repeatability was low. Over- all litter weights for singles, twins and triplets were 5·89, 9·88 and 12·43 kg respectively. Two-year-old ewes had lighter litters than mature ewes. Repeatability for litter weight in Flock 1 was 0·337 (±0·0755).

Lamb growth rate to 4 weeks of age was lower for 2-year-old ewes in both flocks and the repeatability was 0·322 (±0·0947) in Flock 1. For ewes having twin lambs, significant correlations (P < 0·01) were found between mating weight and birth weight and between birth weight and lamb growth rate to 4 weeks of age.

Perinatal mortality was higher for lambs with a birth weight below 3·9 kg, but overall lamb mortality was only 8%: this low figure was probably due to the relatively high birth weight of the twin and triplet lambs.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Production , Volume 29 , Issue 1 , August 1979, pp. 69 - 79
Copyright
Copyright © British Society of Animal Science 1979

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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

REFERENCES

Barnicoat, C. R., Logan, A. G. and Grant, A. I. 1949. Milk-secretion studies with New Zealand Romney ewes. Parts I and II. J. agric. Sci., Comb. 39: 44–55 (references, p. 248).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barnicoat, C. R., Murray, P. F., Roberts, E. M. and Wilson, G. S. 1957. Milk secretion studies with New Zealand Romney ewes. Parts V-XI. J. agric. Sci., Camb. 48: 9–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bichard, M. and Cooper, M. McG. 1966. Analysis of production records from a lowland sheep flock. 1. Lamb mortality and growth to 16 weeks. Anim. Prod. 8: 401–410.Google Scholar
Donald, H. P. and Russell, W. S. 1970. The relationship between live weight of ewe at mating and weight of newborn lamb. Anim. Prod. 12: 273–280.Google Scholar
Forrest, P. A. and Bichard, M. 1974. Analysis of production records from a lowland sheep flock. 2. Flock statistics and reproductive performance. Anim. Prod. 19: 25–32.Google Scholar
Glover, A. F. 1971. Milk Production in the Ewe—a Review, pp. 22–31. New Zealand Veterinary Association, Wellington.Google Scholar
Johansson, I. and Hansson, A. 1943. The sex ratio and multiple births in sheep. LantbrHogsk. Annlr 11: 145–171.Google Scholar
Maijala, K. 1967. Causes of variation in litter size of Finn-sheep ewes. Suotn. maatal. Seur. Julk. 109:136–143.Google Scholar
Meat and Livestock Commission. 1972. Sheep Improvement Scientific Study Group Report. Meat and Livestock Commission, Bletchley, Bucks.Google Scholar
Meat and Livestock Commission. 1978. Data summaries on upland and lowland sheep production. Meat and Livestock Commission, Bletchley, Buckinghamshire (Mimeograph).Google Scholar
Newton, J. E., Young, N. E. and Betts, J. E. 1974. Lamb production from temporary grassland. Tech. Rep. No. 15, Grassld. Res. Inst., Hurley, Maidenhead, Berkshire.Google Scholar
Newton, J. E., Young, N. E. and Betts, J. E. 1977. Sheep from lowland grass. A comparison of Masham and Welsh Mountain ewes for a high output sheep system on a commercial scale. Tech. Rep. No. 20, Grassld. Res. Inst., Hurley, Maidenhead, Berkshire.Google Scholar
Newton, J. E., Young, N. E. and Orr, R. J. 1976. A comparison of the sown swards of perennial ryegrass S.24 and Italian ryegrass RvP in a two-year lamb production system, with different breeds of sheep. J. agric. Sci., Comb. 87: 605–616.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Starke, J. S., Smith, J. B. and Joubert, D. M. 1958. The birthweight of lambs. Scient. Bull. Dep. Agric. S. Afr., No. 382.Google Scholar
Turner, H. N. and Dolling, C. H. S. 1965. Vital statistics for an experimental flock of Merino sheep. II. The influence of age on reproductive performance. Aust. J. agric. Res. 16: 699–712.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Turner, H. N. and Young, S. S. Y. 1969. Quantitative Genetics in Sheepbreeding. Macmillan, Melbourne.Google Scholar
Yalçin, B. C. and Bichard, M. 1964a. Crossbred sheep production. I. Factors affecting production from the crossbred ewe flock. Anim. Prod. 6: 73–84.Google Scholar
Yalçin, B. C. and Bichard, M. 1964b. Crossbred sheep production. II. The repeatability of performance and the scope for culling. Anim. Prod. 6: 85–90.Google Scholar
Young, N. E. and Newton, J. E. 1975. A comparison between rotational grazing and set stocking with ewes and lambs at three stocking rates. Anim. Prod. 21: 303–311.Google Scholar