Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-x24gv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-09T09:32:27.031Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A study of the lactation and growth of hill sheep in their native environment and under lowland conditions

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 March 2009

J. B. Owen
J. B. Owen
Affiliation:
University College of North Wales, Bangor
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

1. A method is described suitable for the estimation of the milk yield of sheep under natural grazing conditions.

2. The yields obtained from Welsh Mountain sheep in two environments are shown.

3. A close but diminishing relationship is shown to exist between the milk yield of the ewe and the growth of the lamb. Evidence is given of the effect of milk yield at later stages.

4. The estimation of the ewe's milk yield from the weight of the young lamb is discussed. These estimates are used in conjunction with actual milk records in the present study.

5. The ewe's milk yield is shown to be significantly related to nutrition, body weight, udder size and the lamb's birth weight.

6. The relation of milk yield to weight gain during lactation, fleece weight and fleece type were mainly non-significant.

7. From the limited data available, it seems that milk yield has a fairly high repeatability and heritability.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Agricultural Science , Volume 48 , Issue 4 , April 1957 , pp. 387 - 412
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1957

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

Aritman, C. (1941). Yüks. Zir. Enst. çaliṣm. no. 122.Google Scholar
Bailey, G. L. & Broster, W. H. (1954). J. Dairy Res. 21, 5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barnicoat, C. R., Logan, A. G. & Grant, A. I. (1949). J. Agric. Sci. 39, 44.Google Scholar
Bettini, T. M. (1952). Riv. Zootec., Firenze, 25 (14), 116.Google Scholar
Bonelli, P. (1950). Relas. Congr. Int. Allev. Ovino. Roma, 2, 219.Google Scholar
Bonsma, F. N. (1939). Univ. Pretoria Publ. Agric. no. 48.Google Scholar
Borrego, J. D. (1953). Rev. Ciênc. Vet. Lisboa, 48, 6.Google Scholar
Burris, M. J. & Baugus, C. A. (1955). J. Anim. Sci. 14, 186.Google Scholar
Charletlery, G., Leroy, A. M. & Zelter, S. Z. (1953). C.R. Acad. Agric. Fr. 39, 353.Google Scholar
Cole, L. J. & Kuhlman, A. H. (1929). Bull. Dep. Agric. S. Aust. no.211.Google Scholar
Coop, I. E. (1951). J. Agric. Sci. 40, 311.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crozier, W. J. & Enzmann, E. V. (1935). J. Gen. Physiol., 19, 249.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dasaat, P. & Mason, I. L. (1954). Caryologia, vol. suppl. 1954.Google Scholar
Davies, G. M. (1954). Ph. D. thesis, University of Wales.Google Scholar
Donald, H. P. & McLean, J. W. (1935). N.Z. J. Sci. Tech. 17, 497.Google Scholar
Doney, J. M. (1955). Ph.D. thesis, University of Wales.Google Scholar
Douglas, J. W. B. (1954). Lancet, no. 267, p. 685.Google Scholar
Edwards, J. (1936). J. Dairy Res. 7, 211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Espe, D. & Smith, V. R. (1952). Secretion of Milk. Ames, Iowa: Iowa State Coll. Press.Google Scholar
Falconer, D. S. (1947). J. Agric. Sci. 37, 224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fuller, J. G. & Kleinheinz, F. (1904). Ann. Sep. Wis. Agric. Exp. Sta. no. 21, p. 48.Google Scholar
Gaines, W. L., Davis, H. P. & Morgan, R. F. (1947). J. Dairy Sci. 30, 273.Google Scholar
Glemann, A. & Linden, F. (1953) Tierzucht, 7, 230.Google Scholar
Gorb, T. V. & Semenchenko, Z. P. (1950). Soviet. Zootech, 5, 52.Google Scholar
Gowen, J. W. (1933). J. Agric. Sci. 23, 485.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hammond, J. (1927). The Physiology of Reproduction in the Cow. Cambridge.Google Scholar
Hammond, J. (1928). The Growth and Development of Mutton Qualities in the Sheep. Edinburgh: Oliver and Boyd.Google Scholar
Hammond, J. (1940). Farm Animals. London: Arnold.Google Scholar
Hytten, F. E. (1954). Brit. Med. J. no. 4867, p. 912.Google Scholar
Johanson, I. & Hansson, K. (1940). K. Lantbr. Akad. Tidskr. 79, 127.Google Scholar
Lauprecht, E. & Döring, H. (1950). Milchwissenschaft, 5, 383 and 416.Google Scholar
Lush, J. L., Culbertson, C. C. & Hammond, W. H. (1931). Poland China J. 18, no. 6.Google Scholar
Mahadevan, P. (1951). J. Agric. Sci. 41, 80.Google Scholar
Mason, I. L. & Dassat, P. (1954). Z. Tierz. ZuchtBiol. 62, Heft. 3.Google Scholar
McDowell, J. L. (1930). Circ. U.S. Dep. Agric. no. 114.Google Scholar
McMeekan, C. P. (1936). N.Z. J. Agric. 05, 06 and 07.Google Scholar
McMeekan, C. P. (1939). J. Agric. Sci. 30, 276.Google Scholar
Montanaro, G. (1940). Anim. Breed. Abstr. 8, 46.Google Scholar
Niedig, R. E. & Iddings, E. J. (1919). J. Agric. Res. 17, 19.Google Scholar
Phillips, R. W. (1937). Bull. Mass. Agric. Exp. Sta. no. 339.Google Scholar
Phillips, R. W. & Dawson, W. M. (1937). Amer. Soc. Anim. Prod. p. 298.Google Scholar
Pierce, A. W. (1934a). Aust. J. Exp. Biol. Med. Sci. 14, 187.Google Scholar
Pierce, A. W. (1934b). Bull. Coun. Sci. Industr. Res. Aust. no. 84.Google Scholar
Pierce, A. W. (1938). J. Coun. Sci. Industr. Res. Aust. 11, 229.Google Scholar
Pierce, A. W. (1945). Aust. J. Exp. Biol. Med. Sci. 23, 295.Google Scholar
Ritzmann, E. G. (1917). Exp. Sta. Rec. 38, 472.Google Scholar
Ritzmann, E. G. (1919). Tech. Bull. N.H. Agric Sta. no. 14.Google Scholar
Robinson, J. F. (1953). A Survey of Blackface sheep. Publ. Scottish Hill Farm. Res. Committee.Google Scholar
Rollins, W. C. & Guibert, H. R. (1954). J. Anim. Sci. 13, 517.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shrewsbury, C. L., Harper, C., Andrews, F N. & Zelle, M. R. (1942). J. Anim. Sci. 1, 126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Snell, M. G. (1933). Proc. Amer. Soc. Anim. Prod. p. 178.Google Scholar
Swett, W. W., Miller, F. W., Graves, R. R. & Creech, G. T. (1932). J. Agric. Res. 45, 577.Google Scholar
Thomson, W. & Thomson, A. M. (1953). Brit. J. Nutr. 7, 263.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wallace, L. R. (1948). J. Agric. Sci. 38, 93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Williams, G. L. (1953). Personal communication.Google Scholar