Abstract #340
Section: Small Ruminant
Session: Small Ruminant
Format: Oral
Day/Time: Tuesday 9:45 AM–10:00 AM
Location: 318
Session: Small Ruminant
Format: Oral
Day/Time: Tuesday 9:45 AM–10:00 AM
Location: 318
# 340
Why and when should dairy ewes be shorn: Open, pregnant, or neither?
G. Caja*1, L. Cordón1, S. González-Luna2, A. A. K. Salama1, X. Such1, E. Albanell1, A. Contreras-Jodar1, J. de Lucas2, 1University Autonoma of Barcelona, Bellaterra, Barcelona, Spain, 2University Nacional Autonoma of Mexico, Cuautitlán, México.
Key Words: dairy ewe, shearing, milk
Why and when should dairy ewes be shorn: Open, pregnant, or neither?
G. Caja*1, L. Cordón1, S. González-Luna2, A. A. K. Salama1, X. Such1, E. Albanell1, A. Contreras-Jodar1, J. de Lucas2, 1University Autonoma of Barcelona, Bellaterra, Barcelona, Spain, 2University Nacional Autonoma of Mexico, Cuautitlán, México.
Lactational responses to summer shearing were studied in 73 dairy ewes of 2 breeds (MN, Manchega, n = 43; LC, Lacaune, n = 30). Ewes were electronically identified and managed under intensive conditions, grazing during the day (6 h/d) followed by night shelter (straw bedded pens) and fed hay and concentrate. Treatments were: SO (shorn open, d −15 mating), SP (shorn pregnant, d 100 pregnancy) and FW (full wool, not shorn). Ewes lambed once-a-year (September), suckled their lambs (28 d) and were milked twice daily (d 29 to 180) in a 2 × 12 milking parlor with electronic milkmeters (DeLaval, Tumba, SE). Milk recording was done at each milking and milk samples collected (DIM 5, 14, 28, 35, 49, 63 and 160) for composition (NIR system; Foss, Nordersted, DE) or coagulation traits (Optigraph; Ysebaert, Frepillon, FR). According to usual breed traits, the milk of MN being richer in components whereas LC ewes yielded more milk and lambs were heavier. Regarding shearing treatments, no differences (P = 0.99 to 0.54) were found in prolificacy (1.64 ± 0.13 lambs/ewe), lamb birth weight (4.20 ± 0.14 kg), ADG (248 ± 12 g/d) nor yield (2.69 ± 0.10 kg/d) and composition of sucked milk. Ewe BW after lambing was also similar between treatments (69.0 ± 0.12 kg; P = 0.99), but BCS of SP ewes was greater than for SO and FW, that did not differ (2.66 ± 0.07 vs. 2.43 ± 0.07; P < 0.001). Although milk yield throughout lactation did not vary by treatments (1.71 ± 0.09 kg/d; P = 0.99), shearing response varied by breed. The LC SP ewes produced 19% more milk (P < 0.001) than the SO or FW ewes, which was not observed in MN ewes (P = 0.99). No differences in milk composition, BW and BCS were detected during lactation (P = 0.99 to 0.23). Moreover, cheese-yield indexes did not differ between treatments but, in both breeds, the SP ewes had numerically richer milk (P = 0.99 to 0.58) and higher indexes (P = 0.23 to 0.01) than SO and FW ewes. In conclusion, shearing dairy ewes at late-pregnancy (d 100), during summer, may be a recommended practice for increasing milk yield of high yielding ewes, without negative effects on milk composition nor cheese-yielding traits. Acknowledgment: Project AGL-2013–44061-R (MINECO, Spain).
Key Words: dairy ewe, shearing, milk