Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-cfpbc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-19T05:27:40.964Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Genetic parameters for birth difficulty, lamb vigour and lamb sucking ability in Suffolk sheep

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2023

JM Macfarlane ,
SM Matheson  and
CM Dwyer
JM Macfarlane*
Affiliation:
Sustainable Livestock Systems, Scottish Agricultural College, West Mains Road, Edinburgh EH9 3JG, UK
SM Matheson
Affiliation:
Sustainable Livestock Systems, Scottish Agricultural College, West Mains Road, Edinburgh EH9 3JG, UK
CM Dwyer
Affiliation:
Sustainable Livestock Systems, Scottish Agricultural College, West Mains Road, Edinburgh EH9 3JG, UK
*
* Contact for correspondence and requests for reprints: jenny.macfarlane@sac.ac.uk
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This study investigates the genetic basis of lamb vigour (defined as neonatal lamb activity and sucking ability) and lambing difficulty as potential traits to be included in selection programmes to improve ewe and lamb welfare. Scores for lamb birth difficulty, vigour and sucking ability were collected shortly after birth on 1,520 lambs born in 2006 in 19 different flocks that were members of the UK Suffolk Sire Referencing Scheme. Scores evaluated each trait on a scale of 1 to 4; 1 being no assistance given either during birth or to suck, or excellent vigour, through to 4 where a large degree of assistance was required, or poor vigour. Genetic parameters (heritabilities, genetic correlations) were estimated by fitting an individual animal model using ASREML. Variance components obtained from univariate and bivariate analyses were averaged to provide genetic parameter estimates. Heritabilities for birth difficulty and vigour were moderate but heritability for sucking ability was not significant. The genetic correlation between vigour and sucking ability was positive and high, that between vigour and birth difficulty moderately negative, and that between birth difficulty and sucking ability not significant. Birth difficulty and vigour could be included in Suffolk breeding programmes to help reduce health and welfare problems associated with these traits in Suffolk sheep, and in flocks producing crossbred lambs sired by Suffolk rams. Further work is required to evaluate correlations between these traits and performance traits and to comprehensively validate the scoring system once more data become available.

Keywords

animal welfarebirthgeneticssheepsuckingvigour
Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Welfare , Volume 19 , Issue S1: Proceedings of the UFAW International Symposium ‘Darwinian selection, selective breeding and the welfare of animals’ Bristol, 2009 , May 2010 , pp. 99 - 105
Copyright
© 2010 Universities Federation for Animal Welfare

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, G 1958 Behaviour of newly born lambs. Proceedings of the Australian Society for Animal Production 2: 123–125Google Scholar
Binns, SH, Cox, IJ, Rizvi, S and Green, LE 2002 Risk factors for lamb mortality on UK sheep farms. Preventive Veterinary Medicine 52: 287–303Google ScholarPubMed
Boissy, A, Bouix, J, Orgeur, P, Poindron, P, Bibe, B and Le Neindre, P 2005 Genetic analysis of emotional reactivity in sheep: Effects of genotypes of lambs and of their dams. Genetics Selection Evolution 37: 381–401CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Clement, V, Bibe, B, Verrier, E, Elsen, J, Manfredi, E, Bouix, J and Hanocq, E 2001 Simulation analysis to test the influence of model adequacy and data structure on the estimation of genetic parameters for traits with direct and maternal effects. Genetics Selection Evolution 33: 369–395CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cloete, SWP 1993 Observations on neonatal progress of Dormer and South African Mutton Merino lambs. South African Journal of Animal Science 23: 38–42Google Scholar
Cloete, SWP and Scholtz, AJ 1998 Lamb survival in relation to lambing and neonatal behaviour in medium wool Merino lines divergently selected for multiple rearing ability. Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture 38: 801–811CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cloete, SWP, Scholtz, AJ, Gilmour, AR and Olivier, JJ 2002 Genetic and environmental effects on lambing and neonatal behaviour of Dormer and SA Mutton Merino lambs. Livestock Production Science 78: 183–193CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dwyer, CM 2003 Behavioural development in the neonatal lamb: Effect of maternal and birth-related factors. Theriogenology 59: 1027–1050CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dwyer, CM 2008a Genetic and physiological effects on maternal behavior and lamb survival. Journal of Animal Science 86: E246–258CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dwyer, CM 2008b The welfare of the neonatal lamb. Small Ruminant Research 76: 31–41Google Scholar
Dwyer, CM and Lawrence, AB 2005a Frequency and cost of human intervention at lambing: an interbreed comparison. Veterinary Record 157: 101–104CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dwyer, CM and Lawrence, AB 2005b A review of the behavioural and physiological adaptations of extensively managed breeds of sheep that favour lamb survival. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 92: 235–260CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dwyer, CM, Calvert, SK, Farish, M, Donbavand, J and Pickup, HE 2005 Breed, litter and parity differences in the morphology of the ovine placenta and developmental consequences for the lamb. Theriogenology 63: 1092–1110CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dwyer, CM, Lawrence, AB and Bishop, SC 2001 Effects of selection for lean tissue content on maternal and neonatal lamb behaviours in Scottish Blackface sheep. Animal Science 72: 555–571CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dwyer, CM, Lawrence, AB, Brown, HE and Simm, G 1996 The effect of ewe and lamb genotype on gestation length, lambing ease and neonatal behaviour of lambs. Reproduction Fertility Development 8: 1123–1129CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Everett-Hincks, JM, Lopez-Villalobos, N, Blair, HT and Stafford, KJ 2004 The effect of ewe maternal behaviour score on lamb and litter survival. Livestock Production Science 93: 51–61CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fisher, MW and Mellor, DJ 2002 The welfare implications of shepherding during lambing in extensive New Zealand farming systems. Animal Welfare 11: 157–170Google Scholar
Fozi, MA, Van der Werf, JH and Swan, AA 2005 The importance of accounting for maternal genetic effects in Australian fine-wool Merino breeding. Australian Journal of Agricultural Research 56: 789–796CrossRefGoogle Scholar
GenStat 9 Committee 2006 GenStat Lawes Agricultural Trust, Rothamstead Experimental Station. Genstat: Harpenden, UKGoogle Scholar
Gilmour, AR, Gogel, BJ, Cullis, BR, Welham, SJ and Thompson, R 2002 ASREML User Guide Release 1.0. VSN International Ltd: Hemel Hempstead, UKGoogle Scholar
Kilgour, RJ and Haughey, KG 1993 Pelvic size in Merino ewes selected for lamb-rearing ability is greater than that of unselected Merino ewes. Animal Reproduction Science 31: 237–242CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Knight, TW, Lynch, PR, Hall, DRH and Hockey, HUP 1988 Identification of factors contributing to the improved lamb survival in Marshall Romney sheep. New Zealand Journal of Agricultural Research 31: 259–271CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lambe, NR, Conington, J, Bishop, SC, Waterhouse, A and Simm, G 2001 A genetic analysis of maternal behaviour score in Scottish Blackface sheep. Animal Science 72: 415–425CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maniatis, N and Pollott, GE 2002 Maternal effects on weight and ultrasonically measured traits of lambs in a small closed Suffolk flock. Small Ruminant Research 45: 235–246CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Matheson, SM, Rooke, JA, McIlvaney, K, Jack, M, Ison, S, Bunger, L and Dwyer, CM 2010 Development and validation of on-farm behavioural scoring systems to assess birth assistance and lamb vigour. Animal in preparationGoogle Scholar
Mellor, DJ and Stafford, LR 2003 Assessing the welfare status of newborn farm animals. Animal Welfare 12: 695–698Google Scholar
Nawaz, M and Meyer, HH 1992 Performance of Polypay, Coopworth, and crossbred ewes 1. Reproduction and Lamb Production. Journal of Animal Science 70: 62–69CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nowak R and Poindron 2006 From birth to colostrums: early steps leading to lamb survival. Reproduction Nutrition Development 46: 431–446Google Scholar
Owens, JL, Bindon, BM, Edey, TN and Piper, LR 1985 Behaviour at parturition and lamb survival of Booroola Merino sheep. Livestock Production Science 13: 359–372Google Scholar
Sawalha, RM, Conington, J, Brotherstone, S and Villaneuva, B 2007 Analyses of lamb survival in Scottish Blackface sheep. Animal 1: 151–157Google ScholarPubMed
Simm, G, Lewis, RM, Collins, JE and Nieuwhof, GJ 2001 Use of sire referencing schemes to select for improved carcass composition in sheep. Journal of Animal Science 79: E255–E259CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wolf, BT, McBride, SD, Lewis, RM, Davies, MH and Haresign, W 2008 Estimates of the genetic parameters and repeatability of behavioural traits of sheep in an arena test. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 112: 68–80CrossRefGoogle Scholar