Evaluation of sheep genetic resources in North America: Lamb productivity of purebred, crossbred and synthetic populations

7Citations
Citations of this article
5Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

Abstract

Lamb weights and daily gains from divergent genetic types of established purebreds, e.g., Dorset (D), Lincoln (L), Rambouillet (Ra), Suffolk (Su) and Targhee (T), and fecund-type breeds, e.g., Finnsheep (F) and Romanov (Ro), their reciprocal crosses and Suffolk sired specific cross Su(F x Ro) were evaluated. Also evaluated were lambs of the Outaouais (O) and Rideau (R) Arcott breeds and their reciprocal crosses, in addition to Synthetic I (1/2 F, 1/2 L), Synthetic II (1/2 D, 1/2 Ra) and Synthetic III (1/4 F, 1/4 L, 1/4 D, 1/4 Ra) populations. The established purebreds produced heavier lambs at birth and weaning, Arcott breed crosses gained weight more rapidly resulting in heavier lambs at 140 d, and fecund-type breeds produced lighter lambs (P <0.05). In general, daily gains and lamb weights of all genetic types were similar, except that fecund-type breeds produced significantly lighter lambs. Lamb weights of T were most at birth, and Su at weaning and 140 d, while F lambs weighed the least (P <0.05). Within established purebreds, Su weighed the most and D weighed the least, while L, Ra and T lambs were intermediate. Daily gains including weaning and 140-d weights of F and R cross lambs benefited from 7-9% heterosis, while the Arcott breed cross lambs not only benefited from 5-8% heterosis, but were comparable with Su lambs. At the same time, lamb performance of Su(F x Ro) was similar to the average of their parental breeds. Lambs of synthetic populations relative to the average of their respective parental breeds weighed 8-24% more at 140 d, suggesting heterosis retention.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Shrestha, J. N. B., Boylan, W. J., & Rempel, W. E. (2008). Evaluation of sheep genetic resources in North America: Lamb productivity of purebred, crossbred and synthetic populations. Canadian Journal of Animal Science, 88(3), 391–398. https://doi.org/10.4141/CJAS07049

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free