Maternal constraint and the birthweight response to mid-pregnancy shearing

Pregnancy shearing has been shown to increase lamb birthweights. However, results have been variable between studies. It has been suggested that the birthweight response to pregnancy shearing is greatest in conditions in which the unshorn dam gives birth to lambs of low birthweight. This study was designed to examine the birthweight response under 2 differing maternal treatments (one designed to restrict fetal growth and the other designed not to limit fetal growth), with the aim of explaining the variation observed in pregnancy shearing studies. Mixed aged Romney cross ewes were either shorn during mid pregnancy ( n = 55) or left unshorn ( n = 50). At shearing, ewes were split into either a ‘maintenance’ group (64 kg at shearing and fed to permit total ewe liveweight gain equivalent to expected conceptus growth during mid- to late-pregnancy) ( n = 52) or a ‘low’ group (54 kg at shearing and fed to permit total ewe liveweight to increase at half the expected conceptus growth during mid- to late-pregnancy) ( n = 53), respectively. Mid-pregnancy shearing was found to increase the birthweights of singletons (5.6 v . 4.9 kg, P < 0.05) but not twins, and of lambs born to maintenance group ewes (by 0.6 kg, P < 0.05), but not low group ewes. Additionally, mid-pregnancy shearing had no effect on the thermoregulatory capacity of twin-born lambs. When the results of this study are considered with those of previous New Zealand pregnancy shearing studies, they suggest that there are 2 criteria (and not one, as previously suggested) that must be met to achieve a response to pregnancy shearing. Firstly, the dam must have the potential to respond [i.e. have been destined to give birth to an otherwise lightweight lamb(s)], and secondly, the ewe must have the means to respond (i.e. an adequate level of maternal reserves and/or level of nutrition to partition towards additional fetal growth). Keywords: thermoregulatory capability, survival. Australian Journal of Agricultural Research 53(5) 511 - 517 Full text doi:10.1071/AR01130 © CSIRO 2002