Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-p2v8j Total loading time: 0.001 Render date: 2024-05-28T02:54:57.423Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Milk-secretion studies with New Zealand Romney ewes. Parts III and IV

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 March 2009

C. R. Barntcoat ,
A. G. Logan  and
A. I. Grant
C. R. Barntcoat
Affiliation:
Massey Agricultural College, Palmerston North, New Zealand
A. G. Logan
Affiliation:
Massey Agricultural College, Palmerston North, New Zealand
A. I. Grant
Affiliation:
Massey Agricultural College, Palmerston North, New Zealand
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Milk production is of fundamental and practical importance to the sheep industry. Reports indicate considerable differences in milking ability between ewes of different breeds as well as between ewes of the same breed.

Milking capacity of ewes is dependent on both nutritional and hereditary factors, probably the nutritional factor being the more important. Under commercial farming conditions milk yield might affect not only the growth rates of ‘fat’ lambs and the quality of their carcases, but eventually also the constitution of the ewe lambs retained in the flocks for breeding purposes. It therefore appeared that milking ability of Romney ewes in New Zealand would be a matter worthy of investigation.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Agricultural Science , Volume 39 , Issue 2 , April 1949 , pp. 237 - 248
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1949

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

Bonsma, F. N. (1939). Univ. Pretoria Publ. Series I, Agrio. no. 48.Google Scholar
Bonsma, F. N. (1944). Pretoria Bull. Agric. Res. Inst., no. 251.Google Scholar
Bonsma, F. N. & Oosthuizen, P. M. (1935). S. Afr. J. Sci. 32, 360.Google Scholar
Brody, S. (1943). Bioenergetics and Growth. Reinhold, New York.Google Scholar
Crowther, C. (1915). Rep. Brit. Ass. no. 779.Google Scholar
Donald, H. P. (1937). Etmp. J. Exp. Agric. 5, 349.Google Scholar
Donald, H. P. & Mclean, J. W. (1935). N.Z. J. Sci. Tech. 17, 497.Google Scholar
Enzmann, E. V. (1933). Anat. Bee. 56, 224.Google Scholar
Falconer, D. S. (1947). J. Agric. Sci., 37, 224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fuller, J. G. & Kleinheinz, F. (1904). Rep. Wis. Agric. Exp. Sta. p. 48.Google Scholar
Gaines, W. L., Davis, H. P. & Morgan, R. F. (1947). J. Dairy Sci. 30, 273.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Godden, W. & Ptjddy, C. A. (1935). J. Dairy Res. 6, 307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hainan, T. & Garner, F. H. (1944). The Principles and Practice of Feeding Farm Animals, pp. 230–55. Longmans, London.Google Scholar
Hammond, J. (1932). Growth and Development of Mutton Qualities in the Sheep. Oliver and Boyd, Edinburgh.Google Scholar
Hammond, J. (1940). Farm Animals. Arnold, London.Google Scholar
Huggett, A. St G. (1941). Physiol. Rev. 21, 438.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lane, J. H. & Eynon, L. (1931). J. Soc. Chem. Ind., Lond., 50, 85.Google Scholar
Lines, E. W. & Peirce, A. W. (1931). Bull. Coun. Sci. Industr. Res. Aust. no, 55.Google Scholar
Maule, J. P. (1937). Emp. J. Exp. Agric. 5, 298.Google Scholar
Maynard, L. A. (1937). Animal Nutrition. McGraw-Hill, New York.Google Scholar
McDowell, E. C. (1928). Science, 68, 650.Google Scholar
McMahon, P. R. (1945). Wool Research. Spec, rep.no. 1, Wool Metrology Lab., D.S.I.R. (N.Z.).Google Scholar
Mitchell, H. H. (1947). J. Animal Sci. 6, 365.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McMeekan, C. P. (1939). J. Agric. Sci. 30, 276.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Montanaro, G. (1940). Anim. Breed. Abstr. 8, 46.Google Scholar
Muhlberg, (1936). Dtsch. landw. Tierz. 38, 698 (cited by Bonsma, 1939).Google Scholar
Niedig, R. E. & Iddings, E. J. (1919). Exp. Sta. Rec. 41, 177.Google Scholar
Peirce, A. W. (1934 a). Bull. Coun. Sci. Industr. Res. Aust. no. 84.Google Scholar
Peirce, A. W. (1934 b). Aust. J. Exp. Biol. Med. Sci. 12, 6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Peirce, A. W. (1936). Aust. J. Exp. Biol. Med. Sci. 14, 187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Peirce, A. W. (1938). J. Coun. Sci. Industr. Res. Aust. 11, 229.Google Scholar
Peirce, A. W. (1945). Aust. J. Exp. Biol. Med. Sci. 23, 295.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Riddet, W., Campbell, I. L., McDowall, F. U. & Cox, G. A. (1941). N.Z. J. Sci. Technol. (A) 23, 80 and 99.Google Scholar
Ritzmann, E. G. (1917). Exp. Sta. Rec. 38, 472.Google Scholar
Ritzmann, E. G. (1919). Bull. N.H. Coll. Ag. Exp. Sta. Tech. no. 14.Google Scholar
Rowland, S. J. (1938). J. Dairy Res. 9, 30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scheingraber, M. (1933). Cited by Bonsma, 1939.Google Scholar
Shrewsbury, C. L., Harper, C., Andrews, F. N. & Zelle, H. R. (1942). J. Anim. Sci. 1, 126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thompson, W. & Fraser, A. H. H. (1939). Scot. J. Agric. 22, 71.Google Scholar
Verges, J. B. (1939). Yearbook. Suffolk Sheep Soc., Ipswich.Google Scholar
Wallace, L. R. (1944). Proc. Brit. Soc. Anim. Prod. p. 58.Google Scholar
Wallace, L. R. (1948). J. Agric. Sci. 38, 93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar