Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-v9fdk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T14:01:58.840Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Vigour of lambs newly born to outdoor wintering ewes

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 August 2016

R. Wassmuth ,
A. Löer  and
H.-J. Langholz
R. Wassmuth
Affiliation:
Institute of Animal Husbandry and Genetics, University of Göttingen, Albrecht-Thaer-Weg 3, D-37075 Göttingen, Germany
A. Löer
Affiliation:
Institute of Animal Husbandry and Genetics, University of Göttingen, Albrecht-Thaer-Weg 3, D-37075 Göttingen, Germany
H.-J. Langholz
Affiliation:
Institute of Animal Husbandry and Genetics, University of Göttingen, Albrecht-Thaer-Weg 3, D-37075 Göttingen, Germany
Get access

Abstract

The aim of the present investigation was, to examine whether outdoor wintering of lambing ewes is a successful and animal friendly production system. The welfare and growth performance of winterborn lambs in outdoor husbandry were assessed in two winter periods (1995/96, 1996/97) when a total of 353 lambs were born into three different husbandry systems. System 1 consisted of 75 lambs from 26 (winter 1) and 29 (winter 2) ewes and was wintered outdoors with access to a lambing shelter with a straw bedded floor. System 2 included 120 lambs from 52 (winter 1) and 54 (winter 2) ewes which were born in an uninsulated barn with access to an outdoor yard. System 3 was kept in an uninsulated barn with no access to the outside and consisted of 158 lambs from 52 (winter 1) and 54 (winter 2) ewes. The lambs were of five different genetic origins which were equally distributed over the three husbandry systems. The genetic groups included purebreds from the hardy ‘Rhönschaf’ (RHO) and from the ‘German Blackface’ (GBF) mutton breed and the reciprocal crosses of these breeds (GBF ✕ RHO, RHO ✕ GBF). The fifth group were crossbreds between rams of the small-framed French mutton breed ‘Charmoise’ (CHA) and Rhönschaf-ewes (CHA ✕ RHO). The time period between parturition and first standing (‘time to stand’) and the time period from birth to first sucking (‘time to suck’) were considered as vigour traits. Vigour was visually assessed and scored. The rectal temperature was measured 3 h post partum. Live-weight gains were estimated from birth to 25 and 42 days of life. No differences between the different husbandry systems were observed in the measured traits. Outdoor-born lambs showed the same vigour and were able to maintain homeothermy as well as those born indoors. Ewes sought the shelter prior to lambing which might have favoured the early vigour of lambs and thus, their ability to maintain homeothermy. The visually assessed vigour score was in good accordance with the vigour traits time to stand and time to suck. The breed of the ewe had a significant effect on lamb vigour, lambs from hardy RHO ewes showing a better vigour than lambs from GBF ewes. Hybrid vigour estimates of time to stand and time to suck were 0·17 and 0·20, respectively, but were not statistically significant.

Crossbred lambs between GBF and CHA mutton rams and hardy RHO ewes had a good vitality and growth performance. Outdoor wintering with a lambing shelter did not adversely influence survival of newborn lambs or their subsequent growth performance.

Keywords

animal welfarelambinglambssheepvigour
Type
Ruminant nutrition, behaviour and production
Information
Animal Science , Volume 72 , Issue 1 , February 2001 , pp. 169 - 178
Copyright
Copyright © British Society of Animal Science 2001

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

Arnold, G.W. and Morgan, P.D. 1975. Behaviour of the ewe and lamb at lambing and its relationship to lamb mortality. Applied Animal Ethology 2: 25–46.Google Scholar
Atroshi, F. and Österberg, S. 1979. The behaviour of Finnsheep during and shortly after birth. Acta Agriculturæ Scandinavica 29: 258–262.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Balliet, U. 1993. Produktionstechnische Analyse extensiver tiergebundener Grünlandnutzungssysteme in der Bundesrepublik Deutschland. Doctoral thesis, University of Göttingen, Germany.Google Scholar
Bareham, J.R. 1976. The behaviour of lambs on the first day after birth. British Veterinary Journal 132: 152–162.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Beaver, J.M. and Olson, B.E. 1997. Winter range use by cattle of different ages in southwestern Montana. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 51: 1–13.Google Scholar
Behrens, H. 1982. Verhütung von Verlammungen und Aufzuchtverlusten. Deutsche Schafzucht 2: 24–27.Google Scholar
Behrens, H., Scheelje, R. and Wassmuth, R. 1983. Lehrbuch der Schafzucht, sixth edition. Paul Parey Verlag, Hamburg and Berlin.Google Scholar
Burgkart, M. 1982. Möglichkeiten der Reduzierung von Aufzuchtverlusten bei Schafen über Management-Maßnahmen. Der Tierzüchter 5: 190–192.Google Scholar
Charles, D.R. 1994. Comparative climatic requirements. In Livestock housing (ed. Wathes, C.M. and Charles, D.R.), pp. 3–24. CAB International, Wallingford.Google Scholar
Croston, D. and Pollot, G. 1994. Planned sheep production, second edition. Blackwell Scientific Publications, Oxford.Google Scholar
Dalton, O.C. 1975. Breed performance study. Whatawhata Hill Country Research Station, annual report, 1974–1975.Google Scholar
Dennis, S.M. 1974. Perinatal lamb mortality in Western Australia. Australian Veterinary Journal 50: 443–453.Google Scholar
Hinch, G.N. 1997. Genetics of behaviour. In The genetics of sheep (ed. Piper, L. and Ruvinsky, A.), pp. 353–374. CAB International, Wallingford.Google Scholar
Huffmann, E.M., Kirk, J.H. and Pappaioanou, M. 1985. Factors associated with neonatal lamb mortality. Theriogenology 24: 163–171.Google Scholar
Krogmeier, D., Wenzlaff, O., Dzapo, V. and Wassmuth, R. 1990. Heterotische Effekte beim Schaf-Zusammenhänge zwischen der Vitalität neugeborener Lämmer und ausgewählten Stoffwechselparametern-Ergebnisse eines reziproken Kreuzungsversuchs. Züchtungskunde 62: 52–65.Google Scholar
Lomb, C. 1984. Die Konzentration von Thyroxin und Trijodthyronin neugeborener Lämmer und ihrer Mütter sowie ihre Beziehung zu der perinatalen Überlebensfähigkeit des Lammes. Doctoral thesis (vet. med. ), University of Gießen, Germany.Google Scholar
Lynch, J.J., Hinch, G.N. and Adams, D.B. 1992. The behaviour of sheep—biological principles and implications for production. CAB International, Wallingford.Google Scholar
O’Doherty, J.V. and Crosby, T.F. 1997. The effect of diet in late pregnancy on colostrum production and immunoglobulin absorption in sheep. Animal Science 64: 87–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rensing, S. 1985. Untersuchungen zur Merkmalsbeziehung zwischen Fruchtbarkeit und Vitalität beim Schaf. Doctoral thesis, University of Göttingen, Germany.Google Scholar
Sauer, S. 1988. Vitalitätscharakteristik von Reinzucht- und Kreuzungslämmern in der postnatalen Phase. Doctoral thesis (vet. med. ), University of Gießen, Germany.Google Scholar
Schlolaut, W. and Wachendörfer, G. 1992. Handbuch der Schafhaltung. DLG-Verlags-GmbH, Frankfurt am Main, 5. Auflage.Google Scholar
Simon, K.-H. 1997. Gesundheit und Fruchtbarkeit von Milchkühen, Service-Vertrag zur Bestandsüberwachung und Gesundheitsvorsorge. Züchtungskunde 69: 464–470.Google Scholar
Slee, J. 1987. Sheep. In Bioclimatology and the adaptation of livestock (ed. Johnson, H.D.), pp. 229–244. Elsevier Science Publishers BV, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
Slee, J. and Springbett, A. 1986. Early post-natal behaviour in lambs of ten breeds. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 15: 229–240.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, F.V., Van-Toller, C. and Boyes, T. 1966. The “critical period” in the attachment of lambs and ewes. Animal Behaviour 14: 120–125.Google Scholar
Statistical Analysis Systems Institute. 1990. SAS/STAT user’s guide, volume 2, GLM-VARCOMP, version 6·0, fourth edition. SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC.Google Scholar
Webster, A.J.F. 1994. Comfort and injury. In Livestock housing (ed. Wathes, C.M. and Charles, D.R.), pp. 49–68. CAB International, Wallingford.Google Scholar
Weller, J.I. and Ron, M. 1992. Genetic analysis of fertility traits in Israeli Holsteins by linear and threshold models. Journal of Dairy Science 75: 2541–2548.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wenzlaff, O. 1988. Fruchtbarkeit und Vitalität beim Schaf¬Vermuteter Merkmalsantagonismus unter besonderer Berücksichtigung von Schilddrüsenfunktion und Glutathionstoffwechsel. Gießener Schriftenreihe Tierzucht und Haustiergenetik 52, Verlag Paul Parey.Google Scholar
Werhahn, E. and Klobasa, F. 1982. Aufzuchtverluste bei Lämmern und Versorgung der Lämmer mit mütterlichen Abwehrstoffen. Der Tierzüchter 11: 462–463.Google Scholar
Whateley, J., Kilgour, R. and Dalton, D.C. 1974. Behaviour of hill country sheep breeds during farming routines. Proceedings of the New Zealand Society of Animal Production 34: 28–36.Google Scholar
Winfield, C.J., Brown, W. and Lucas, I.A.M. 1969. Sheltering behaviour at lambing by Welsh Mountain ewes. Animal Production 11: 101–106.Google Scholar