Hostname: page-component-cb9f654ff-c75p9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-08-28T19:38:22.520Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A study of subclinical worm infestation in sheep: part III. The effect on wool production

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 March 2009

C. R. W. Spedding  and
T. H. Brown
C. R. W. Spedding
Affiliation:
The Grassland Institute, Hurley, Berks
T. H. Brown
Affiliation:
The Grassland Institute, Hurley, Berks
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

1. The results of five experiments, comparing the wool production of worm free and infected sheep, are described.

2. Worm-free sheep produced (a) 12·0–38·8% higher total fleece weights and (b) 17·2–43·2% more clean, dry wool per unit area than infected sheep. None of the infestations was higher than occurs naturally in the field, but the greatest effects were associated with a low level of nutrition.

3. It is suggested that the precise effect of worm infestation on wool production will depend upon the age of the host when first infected, the size of the infestation and the rate of wool growth at the time when the infestation is at maximum.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Agricultural Science , Volume 49 , Issue 2 , August 1957 , pp. 229 - 233
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1957

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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

REFERENCES

Carter, H. B., Franklin, M. C. & Gordon, H. McL. (1946). J. Coun. Sci. Industr. Res. Aust. 19, 61–64Google Scholar
Coop, I. E. (1953). J. Agric. Sci. 43, 456–472Google Scholar
Galpin, N. (1947). J. Agric. Sci. 37, 275.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Galpin, N. (1948). J. Agric. Sci. 38, 303–14CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kauzal, G. (1936). Aust. Vet. J. 12, 107–110Google Scholar
Lockhart, L. W. (1954). Aust. J. Agric. Res. 5, 565–7Google Scholar
Palmer, N. (1944). Rep. Proc. B.S.A.P. 2nd meeting, pp. 62–5.Google Scholar
Pálsson, H. & Vergés, J. B. (1951). J. Agric. Sci. 42, 1–92, 93–149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sarles, M. P. (1944). Tech. Bull. U.S. Dep. Agric. No. 875.Google Scholar
Short, B. F. (1955). Aust. J. Agric. Res. 6, 863–72Google Scholar
Spedding, C. R. W. (1953). Emp. J. Exp. Agric. 21, 255–61Google Scholar
Spedding, C. R. W. (1954). J. Comp. Path. 64, 5–14Google Scholar
Spedding, C. R. W. (1955). J. Brit. Grassl. Soc. 10, 35–43CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Spedding, C. R. W. (1956 a). J. Helminth. 29, 179–86CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Spedding, C. R. W. (1956 b). Rep. Proc. B.S.A.P. pp. 30–37.Google Scholar
Spedding, C. R. W. (1956 c). Outlook on Agric. 1, 101–119CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Spedding, C. R. W. & Brown, T. H. (1956). J. Agric. Sci. 48, 286–293Google Scholar