THE COMPARATIVE PRODUCTION PERFORMANCE OF SOUTH AUSTRALIAN AND PEPPIN EWES

By R. B. DUN *, and L.T. HAYWARD-~

Summary A comparison has been made of fleece production of South Australian and two flocks of Peppin Merino ewes. The 3 strains differed significantly in most fleece and body measurements, the most important differences being as follows: (i) The South Australian ewes led clearly on production, averaging 9 l 61 lb clean wool per head as against 9 l 29 lb for Stud Peppin and 7 025 lb for Random Peppin. (ii) There was little difference in body size between the three flocks. (iii) The marked superiority of the South Australian over Random Peppin in clean fleece weight was principally due to increased fibre diameter, although staple length was important. (iv) The financial return per head from wool favoured the South Australian ewes by 15 shillings per head, relative to Random Peppin.

I. INTRODUCTION During the last ten years, pastoralists in Western have shown increasing interest in the South Australian Merino. The obvious causes of this trend are: (i) The marked reduction in the price margin between fine, medium, and strong Merino . (ii) A growing appreciation of the superior wool production of the South Australian strain (Weston 1959; Dunlop et al 1960; Dunlop, private communica- tion, 1961). South Australian sheep were introduced to Trangie Research Station in 1960, anticipating our need for information on their performance relative to Peppin . This paper presents some early results comparing the productive performance of the two strains. II. THE SHEEP South Australian. Ewes ( 100, drawn at random from the visually selected portion of the 1957 drop) were purchased from a station in the Port &4ugusta area. The strain was chosen as typifying a high quality ’ Bungaree * blood flock. Pep@. Use was made of 1957 drop ewes from two Research Station flocks which, except for 3 months separation for mating and lambing, has been run with the South Australian ewes. (i) Stud. As. top stud ewes (Regd. Flock No. 78), their wool production is 10 to 20 per cent. above flock Peppins.

* N.S.W. Department of Agriculture, Trangie Agricultural Research Station. *i’ South Australian Department of Agriculture, Adelaide.

178 (ii) Random This closed flock was commenced in 1953 from second stud ewes. The selection of breeding replacements is done at random. Although typical of good quality flock sheep, they are phenotypically handicapped in this comparison (approximately 3 per cent. in clean fleece weight) by the 25 per cent. visual culling of the Studs and South .Australians.

III. THE COMPARISON

(a) Fleece Measurements Table 1 gives the wool production figures for the 12 months, June 1960 to June 1961 ( 18 inches of rain recorded). The 3 strains differed significantly in most measurements, the important point being the markedly heavier fleeces cut by the South Australian ewes. Despite a lower price per pound for the broad crimping wool, the South Australian ewes exceeded the Random Peppins by 15 shillings per head in estimated wool return.

(b) Body Measurements When skeletal measurements were made off shears, the South Australian ewes were longer in body and leg (Table 2). Their leaner condition resulted in their weighing slightly less than the Peppins. Other significant strain differences resulted from the widely placed hocks, open faces, and plain bodies of the South Australian.

(c) The Components of Fleece Weight An analysis of the measurements contributing to the differences in clean fleece weight between South Australian, Stud, and Random flocks is shown in Table 3 (analysis according to the method described by Turner 1958). The South Australian advantage over Random Peppin is associated with a 40 per cent. difference in wool per unit area, resulting principally from a marked rise in fibre diameter, with the fibre length increase cancelling an estimated drop in fibre density. The Stud Peppin advantage stems from entirely different sources, namely folds and density. It is interesting that single character selection within the Random Peppin strain has produced fleece changes almost identical to those demonstrated in this strain comparison. Selection for low number of crimps per inch rapidly produces a South Australian type sheep (Dun 1958)) while selection for increased wrinkle produced a Stud Peppin type (Dun, unpublished data, 1961) . (d) Fertility Table 4 gives details of lambing performance in 1960 and 1961. Results are not comparable as the flocks were mated by different methods. The figures are presented in order to show that as the flocks showed similar fertility, the level of dry ewes has not influenced the fleece comparison.

. IV. CONCLUSION An imperfect picture of the differences between South Australian and Peppin sheep has been presented in that the sheep were not grown together and their breeding management necessitated the loss of comparative data on fertility.

179 TABLE 1 COMPARATIVE FLEECE MEASUREMENTS

Greasy Strain Fleece Wt. Yield (lb) (W

South 13.92 +- 0.29 68*98 t 1.15 Mean and fiducial limits P < 0.05 Stud Peppin 13.27 +- 0.38 69*91 -+ 1.15

Random Peppin 11*08 +- O-43 65a39 t 2.50 Stud, Rand. 1 :I:*, *** 2 $ ) ** Ranking of, and statistical significance of Stud Peppin Rand., S.A. the difference between 2 :g $ * ,i means (t tests) Random Peppin S.A., Stud 3 t, t 3 t, t South Australia 2mO34 32-396

Variance Stud Peppin 1 l 945 17.751

Random Peppin 32*433 * 0*05 > P > 0.01 **0*01 >P>O*OOl *** p .< ().()()l Fleece Value-Clean fleece weight multiplied by 1959-60 Sydney average

TABLE 2 COMPARATIVE BODY MEASUREMENTS FOR

Parameter Strain Body Weight Length Depth (lb) (in.) (in.) South Australian 100.36 t 1.92 25*25 +- 0*22 11.52 +- O*lO Mean and fiducial limits P < 0.05 Stud Peppin 103a52 -+- 2.11 25*12 -+ 0.21 11.62 -+ Oa13

Random Peppin 103.74 t 3991 24.67 +- 0.35 11.57 -+ 0*18

South Australian Stud, Rand. l%, * 3$, $ Ranking of, and 3”f, $ statistical significance of the difference Stud Peppin Rand., S.A. 2*, t l$, * between means. (t 28,* ~-~ tests) Random Peppin S.A., Stud 3t, I- 2$, I l$, $ _- ~--- South Australian 904750 1.214 09238

Variance Stud Peppin 59*802 0.609 09240 -- Random Peppin 81.929 0.656 o* 166 * 0*05 > P > 0.01 ** O*Ol > P > O*OOl *** p < ().()()l -t- Significantly less than $ Not significantly different from Length-Spinous process of 1st thoracic vertebra to sciatic tuber. Depth-Spinous process of 1st thoracic vertebra to sternum (vertical). Width-Between coxal tubers-between the lateral tuberosities of the humeri-on average. Condition-

180 FOR SOIJTH AUSTRALIAN AND PEPPIN EWES

Clean Staple Crimps per Fibre Fleece Value Fleece Wt. Length Inch Diameter (lb) m-0 ( U ) (0

9.61 +- 0*26 10.92 +- 0*23 7.20 +- 0.26 26*33 -+ ll8 4.15 t O*ll

9.29 +- 0.30 9*77 t 0*25 ll43 +- 0.52 21.58 t 1*39 4.37 +- 0.14 . - 7.25 +- 0.37 947 +- 0.40 lle52 -+ l-02 21.76 +- 4.06 3.39 2 0.19 -

1 5 , :g** *** 1*** ** 1 **:$ 9 3 I=, -I- 9 2 t , *** -

2 w*, j- 2 $ , *** 1*** * 2 I, “f 9 _ - 3 -I-, -I 3 I-, t 1 ***, z 3 t, $ 3 t, t _ - 1.722 1*330 l638 3 0448 0.316 _ - 1*211 Om817 39570 3 0782 0*247 - _ Oe720 0.852 5.620 IO*601 00 186 - $ Not significantly different from “f Significantly less than price for each A.W.R.C. Type (Australian Wool Bureau Statistics)

SOUTH AUSTRALIAN AND PEPPIN EWES Width Leg Length (in.) (in.) Condition Hocks Folds Face Cover

7966 +- 0.07 15.20 -+ Oil 223~1 +- 3.7 2.13 +- 0.19 3.20 +- 0.26 2.05 -+ 0.15

7955 +- O-09 14*93 +- 0912 213.7 +- 4-O 2.50 +- 0.23 7913 2 0.53 2.50 -+ 0.25

7.52 2 0.17 14.69 t 0.27 207.9 +- 7.1 2.70 -+ 0954 4935 -+ 1.04 2-90 +- 0.57 -- 1*, $ 1 $ -4, **:I: 3t, “f 3”F, t 3”r, I------

1 *** 2*, -f 2$, -I- 2 $, ** 9 2 7, ** --

1 *** * :;< 1 ** ** 3$, $ 3?, =: 9 t 2 9 ‘f 9

0.116 0.304 335-9 1*62 09549 -- o- 102 0.208 217*4 09708 4949 0.858

0.154 09374 268.8 le585 5.69 1,767

Length x Depth x Width Body Weight Hocks-Visual score-l (good) to 6. Folds-Visual score- 1 (plain) to 9. Separate scores for neck and side added together. Face Cover-Visual score-l (open) to 6.

181 T ABLE 3

PERCENTAGE DEVIATION IN CLEAN FLEECE WEIGHT AND ITS COMPONENT MEASUREMENTS, COMPARING SOUTH AUSTRALIAN WITH RANDOM PEPPIN, AND STUD PEPPIN WITH THE RANDOM PEPPIN FLOCK

Clean Surface Area Fibre Flock compared with Fleece Contributions from:- Cross-sectional Fibre Density * Random Peppin Weight Area Length Body Weight Skin Folds w (N) vu w (W (A) Percentage deviation +32*6 -2.2 -53 +44*0 j +19*5 +23 94 South I Australian S.E. 3.7 le6 1=4 496 2.2 Percentage deviation +2&l -1 l 4 +12+? -1.8 +695 +12-o Stud Peppin s E. 4*1 1.8 1.6 495 2.3

* Density was not measured but was calculated from the approximate relationship, N = W - (S + R + A -I- L) TABLE 4

FERTILITY RECORDS FOR SOUTH AUSTRALIAN AND PEPPIN FLOCKS

Number Wet Wet Ewes Twins Triplets Lambs of Ewes * Losing Lambs? Mothered 8 Mothered$ Motheredq’ Type of Service Ewes Year Mated (W (%I (%I (%I (%I - Flock joining in S. Aust. - 1960 83 4 3 0 81 3% rams, 12 wk South 97 Australian Flock joining at Trangie 1961 88 9 31 1 108 3% rams, 6 wk

1960 82 7 29 0 98 Stud 54 Single ram joining-one Peppin ram to 50 ewes for 6 wk 1961 80 5 41 2 111 I I 0 100 Artificial insemination 1960 83 11 35 for 3 weeks Random 23 Peppin Backstopped for a further 1961 87 5 32 0 109 3 weeks-l ram to 50 I ewes -i- Ewes losing lambs prior to mothering (2-7 days after birth)-expressed as a percentage of the number of wet ewes. % Expressed as a percentage of the number of ewes mothering live lambs. * Expressed as a percentage of the number of ewes mated. Nevertheless, striking differences in productivity are apparent for more accurate demonstration. If the present strong demand for broad crimping, “utility” Merino wool continues, then the South Australian breeder has provided the means to capitalise rapidly on the association between strong wool and high fleece weight.

V. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS We wish to thank Mr. John Edkins, manager of “Carriewerloo,” for making ewes available from the station flock. Our thanks are also due to Mr. Jim Paynter, School of Wool Technology, University of N.S.W., for providing the information on wool price, and for his discussion relative to the economic implication of these results.

VI. REFERENCES

DUN, R. B. ( 1958) .-The influence of selection and plane of nutrition on the components of fleece weight in Merino sheep. Aust. J. Agric. Res., 9: 802-8 18. DUNLOP, A. A., DOLLING, C. H. S., and KENNEDY , J. F. (1960).-Efficiency of conversion of feed to wool in five Merino strains. Aust. J. Agric. Res., 11: 576-584. T URNER, H. N. (1958).-Relationships among clean wool weight and its components. I. Changes in clean wool weight related to changes in the components. Aust. J. Agric. Res. 9: 521-552. , WESTON, R. H. (1959).-The efficiency of wool production of grazing Merino sheep. Aust. J. Agric. Res. 10: 865-885.

184