Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gvvz8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-28T01:54:07.206Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Bone distribution patterns in sheep selected for high and low weaning weight

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 September 2010

D. Perry ,
J. M. Thompson  and
R. M. Butterfield
D. Perry
Affiliation:
NSW Agriculture, Trangie, NSW 2823, Australia
J. M. Thompson
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Science, University of New England, NSW 2351, Australia
R. M. Butterfield
Affiliation:
Department of Veterinary Anatomy, Sydney University, NSW 2006, Australia
Get access

Abstract

The change in the proportional distribution of bone weight within the carcass skeleton from birth to maturity was examined in rams and ewes from flocks of Australian Merino sheep selected for high (weight plus) and low (weight minus) weaning weight and from a randomly selected control flock. Data from 140 animals (106 immature, 34 mature) were used. Shape parameters for the long bones of the limbs in the 34 mature animals were derived by determining the allometric relationship between bone length, diameter and individual bone weight.

Selection for increased and decreased weaning weight resulted in a concomitant increase and decrease in mature size and total bone weight. In the weight plus group, total bone as a proportion of body weight also increased but selection had little effect on the proportional distribution of bone weight within the skeleton at any stage of maturity. This was the product of similar growth patterns within the skeletal system aiming towards a similar mature distribution pattern for each strain.

Within the strains of different mature size there was a difference between mature rams and ewes in both total bone weight as a proportion of body weight and in the proportional distribution of this bone weight. This was associated with differences in the maturing patterns of the bones of the hindlimb and the pelvic girdle.

Neither selection nor sex affected the relationship between bone shape and bone weight, although the difference in bone weight between the strains and sexes at maturity meant that they also differed in bone shape at this point.

Keywords

body measurementsbone weightselective breedingsheep
Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Production , Volume 55 , Issue 1 , August 1992 , pp. 129 - 135
Copyright
Copyright © British Society of Animal Science 1992

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

Alexander, R. McN., Jayes, A. S., Maloiy, G. M. O. and Wathuta, E. M. 1979. Allometry of limb bones of mammals from shrews (Sorex) to elephant (Loxodonta). Journal of Zoology, London 189: 305–314.Google Scholar
Berg, R. T., Andersen, B. B. and Liboriussen, T. 1978. Growth of bovine tissues. 4. Genetic influences on patterns of bone growth and distribution in young bulls. Animal Production 27: 71–77.Google Scholar
Butterfield, R. M. 1988. New concepts of sheep growth. Department of Veterinary Anatomy, University of Sydney.Google Scholar
Butterfield, R. M., Griffiths, D. A., Thompson, J. M., Zamora, J. and James, A. M. 1983. Changes in body composition relative to weight and maturity in large and small strains of Australian Merino rams. 1. Muscle, bone and fat. Animal Production 36: 29–37.Google Scholar
Butterfield, R. M. and Thompson, J. M. 1983. Changes in body composition relative to weight and maturity of large and small strains of Australian Merino rams. 4. Fat depots and bones. Animal Production 37: 423–431.Google Scholar
Callow, E. H. 1962. The relationship between the weight of a tissue in a single joint and the total weight of the tissue in a side of beef. Animal Production 4:37–46.Google Scholar
Davies, A. S. 1975. A comparison of tissue development in Pietrain and Large White pigs from birth to 64 kg live weight. 3 Growth changes in bone distribution. Animal Production 20: 45–49.Google Scholar
Davies, A. S. 1979. Musculoskeletal growth gradients: a contribution to quadrupedal mechanics. Zentralblatt fur Veterinarmedizin. Reihe C. Anatomia, Histologia, Embryologia 8: 164–167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davies, A. S., Tan, G. Y. and Broad, T. E. 1984. Growth gradients in the skeleton of cattle, sheep and pigs. Zentralblatt fur Veterinarmedizin. Reihe C. Anatomia, Histologia, Embryologia 13: 222–230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davis, G. P. 1988. Genetic relationships between lamb growth and lifetime productivity in Merino sheep. Ph.D. Thesis, University of New England, Australia.Google Scholar
Harte, F. J. and Coniffe, D. 1967. Studies on cattle of varying growth potential for beef production. II. Carcass composition and distribution of “lean meat”, fat and bone. Irish Journal of Agricultural Science 6:153–170.Google Scholar
Jones, S. D. M., Price, M. A. and Berg, R. T. 1978. Effects of breed and sex on the relative growth and development of bone in cattle. Canadian Journal of Animal Science 58:157–165.Google Scholar
McMahon, T. A. 1973. Size and shape in biology. Science, Washington 179:1201–1204.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
McMahon, T. A. 1975. Allometry and biomechanics: limb bones in adult ungulates. American Naturalist 109: 547–563.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pattie, W. A. 1965. Selection for weaning weight in Merino sheep. 1 Direct response to selection. Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture and Animal Husbandry 5: 353–360.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Prud'hon, M., Benevent, M., Vezinhet, A. and Dulor, J. P. 1978. Croissance relative du squelette chez l'agneau. Influence du sexe et de la race. Annales de Biologie Animale, Biochimie et Biophysique 18: 5–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Prud‘hon, M. and Teyssier, J. 1982. Effect of genotype on the relative growth and distribution of bone in male lambs within 25-100 days. Proceedings of the second world congress on genetics applied to livestock production, Madrid, vol. 7, pp. 444–448.Google Scholar
Robelin, J. 1978. Developpement differentiel du squelette chez les bovins. Annales de Biologie Animale, Biochimie et Biophysique 18: 1–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schmidt-Nielsen, K. 1984. Scaling: why is animal size so important? Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Seebeck, R. M. 1973. The effect of body weight loss on the composition of Brahman cross and Africander cross steers. II. Dissected components of the dressed carcass. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 80:201–210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Taylor, St C. S. 1980a. Genetic size-scaling rules in animal growth. Animal Production 30:161–165.Google Scholar
Taylor, St C. S. 1980b. Genetically standardised growth equations. Animal Production 30:167–175.Google Scholar
Thompson, J. M., Butterfield, R. M. and Perry, D. 1985a. Food intake, growth and body composition in Australian Merino sheep selected for high and low weaning weight. 2. Chemical and dissectible body composition. Animal Production 40: 71–84.Google Scholar
Thompson, J. M., Parks, J. R. and Perry, D. 1985b. Food intake, growth and body composition in Australian Merino sheep selected for high and low weaning weight. 1. Food intake, food efficiency and growth. Animal Production 40: 55–70.Google Scholar
Truscott, T. G., Lang, C. P. and Tulloh, N. M. 1976. A comparison of body composition and tissue distribution of Friesian and Angus steers. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 87:1–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar