Mating Conditions and Management Practices Influence Pregnancy Scanning Outcomes Differently between Ewe Breeds
Sheep production in southern Australia may vary by breed, time of year, production output (wool, meat, or both), region and seasonal influence. Sheep producers with flocks of approximately 300–500 ewes (<i>n</i> = 58) were recruited across southern Australia to take part in a survey and...
| Main Authors: | , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
MDPI AG
2022-10-01
|
| Series: | Animals |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://www.mdpi.com/2076-2615/12/21/2908 |
| _version_ | 1797469414008815616 |
|---|---|
| author | Amy L. Bates Shawn R. McGrath Susan M. Robertson Gordon Refshauge |
| author_facet | Amy L. Bates Shawn R. McGrath Susan M. Robertson Gordon Refshauge |
| author_sort | Amy L. Bates |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | Sheep production in southern Australia may vary by breed, time of year, production output (wool, meat, or both), region and seasonal influence. Sheep producers with flocks of approximately 300–500 ewes (<i>n</i> = 58) were recruited across southern Australia to take part in a survey and mating variables were collected from over 30,000 ewes between October 2020 and August 2021. A Bayesian Network (BN) was developed to identify the interrelatedness and most influential variable on pregnancy and fetal number (of pregnant ewes) outcomes under different scenarios. The BN analysis indicated a low association between the variables explored, however, were breed dependent. In wool-based breeds a mating liveweight of 60–69.5 kg predicted the lowest non-pregnant and greatest number of fetuses, and in shedding ewes 70–79.5 kg predicted the lowest non-pregnant rate and 90–99.5 kg the greatest number of fetuses. Pregnancy rate and fetuses per ewe were optimized at ram percentages of 1.5% for Composite and Merino ewes and 2% for Maternal ewes. A mating BCS 4 resulted in greatest pregnancy rate and number of fetuses across all breeds. Curvilinear relationships between mating liveweight, BCS and ram percentage were observed with pregnancy rate and fetal number. Practically, reproductive potential is best managed on a breed basis and with consideration of all variables explored. |
| first_indexed | 2024-03-09T19:21:04Z |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj.art-6bda62630f384f33a2d06374abffbe6e |
| institution | Directory Open Access Journal |
| issn | 2076-2615 |
| language | English |
| last_indexed | 2024-03-09T19:21:04Z |
| publishDate | 2022-10-01 |
| publisher | MDPI AG |
| record_format | Article |
| series | Animals |
| spelling | doaj.art-6bda62630f384f33a2d06374abffbe6e2023-11-24T03:23:36ZengMDPI AGAnimals2076-26152022-10-011221290810.3390/ani12212908Mating Conditions and Management Practices Influence Pregnancy Scanning Outcomes Differently between Ewe BreedsAmy L. Bates0Shawn R. McGrath1Susan M. Robertson2Gordon Refshauge3School of Agricultural, Environmental and Veterinary Sciences, Charles Sturt University, Wagga Wagga, NSW 2678, AustraliaSchool of Agricultural, Environmental and Veterinary Sciences, Charles Sturt University, Wagga Wagga, NSW 2678, AustraliaSchool of Agricultural, Environmental and Veterinary Sciences, Charles Sturt University, Wagga Wagga, NSW 2678, AustraliaNew South Wales Department of Primary Industries, Cowra, NSW 2794, AustraliaSheep production in southern Australia may vary by breed, time of year, production output (wool, meat, or both), region and seasonal influence. Sheep producers with flocks of approximately 300–500 ewes (<i>n</i> = 58) were recruited across southern Australia to take part in a survey and mating variables were collected from over 30,000 ewes between October 2020 and August 2021. A Bayesian Network (BN) was developed to identify the interrelatedness and most influential variable on pregnancy and fetal number (of pregnant ewes) outcomes under different scenarios. The BN analysis indicated a low association between the variables explored, however, were breed dependent. In wool-based breeds a mating liveweight of 60–69.5 kg predicted the lowest non-pregnant and greatest number of fetuses, and in shedding ewes 70–79.5 kg predicted the lowest non-pregnant rate and 90–99.5 kg the greatest number of fetuses. Pregnancy rate and fetuses per ewe were optimized at ram percentages of 1.5% for Composite and Merino ewes and 2% for Maternal ewes. A mating BCS 4 resulted in greatest pregnancy rate and number of fetuses across all breeds. Curvilinear relationships between mating liveweight, BCS and ram percentage were observed with pregnancy rate and fetal number. Practically, reproductive potential is best managed on a breed basis and with consideration of all variables explored.https://www.mdpi.com/2076-2615/12/21/2908pregnancy scanningmating condition scoremating liveweightram percentageBayesian networksheep |
| spellingShingle | Amy L. Bates Shawn R. McGrath Susan M. Robertson Gordon Refshauge Mating Conditions and Management Practices Influence Pregnancy Scanning Outcomes Differently between Ewe Breeds Animals pregnancy scanning mating condition score mating liveweight ram percentage Bayesian network sheep |
| title | Mating Conditions and Management Practices Influence Pregnancy Scanning Outcomes Differently between Ewe Breeds |
| title_full | Mating Conditions and Management Practices Influence Pregnancy Scanning Outcomes Differently between Ewe Breeds |
| title_fullStr | Mating Conditions and Management Practices Influence Pregnancy Scanning Outcomes Differently between Ewe Breeds |
| title_full_unstemmed | Mating Conditions and Management Practices Influence Pregnancy Scanning Outcomes Differently between Ewe Breeds |
| title_short | Mating Conditions and Management Practices Influence Pregnancy Scanning Outcomes Differently between Ewe Breeds |
| title_sort | mating conditions and management practices influence pregnancy scanning outcomes differently between ewe breeds |
| topic | pregnancy scanning mating condition score mating liveweight ram percentage Bayesian network sheep |
| url | https://www.mdpi.com/2076-2615/12/21/2908 |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT amylbates matingconditionsandmanagementpracticesinfluencepregnancyscanningoutcomesdifferentlybetweenewebreeds AT shawnrmcgrath matingconditionsandmanagementpracticesinfluencepregnancyscanningoutcomesdifferentlybetweenewebreeds AT susanmrobertson matingconditionsandmanagementpracticesinfluencepregnancyscanningoutcomesdifferentlybetweenewebreeds AT gordonrefshauge matingconditionsandmanagementpracticesinfluencepregnancyscanningoutcomesdifferentlybetweenewebreeds |