You are not logged in.
DRO

# Coarser wool is not a necessary consequence of sheep aging: allometric relationship between fibre diameter and fleece-free liveweight of Saxon Merino sheep

McGregor, BA and Butler, KL 2016, Coarser wool is not a necessary consequence of sheep aging: allometric relationship between fibre diameter and fleece-free liveweight of Saxon Merino sheep, Animal, no. In Press, pp. 1-10, doi: 10.1017/S1751731116001038.

Attached Files
Title Coarser wool is not a necessary consequence of sheep aging: allometric relationship between fibre diameter and fleece-free liveweight of Saxon Merino sheep McGregor, BA Butler, KL Animal In Press 1 10 10 Cambridge University Press Cambridge, Eng. 2016-05-26 1751-732X allometric coefficient scaling sheep skin follicles wool The mean fibre diameter (MFD) of wool is the primary determinant of price, processing performance and textile quality. This study determines the primary influences on MFD as Saxon Merino sheep age, by allometrically relating MFD to fleece-free liveweight (FFLwt). In total, 79 sheep were grazed in combinations of three stocking rates and two grazing systems (GS: sheep only; mixed with Angora goats) and studied over 3 years. Measurements were made over 14 consecutive periods (Segments), including segments of FFLwt gain or FFLwt loss. Using shearing and liveweight records and dye-bands on wool, the FFLwt and average daily gain (ADG) of each sheep were determined for each segment. The mean and range in key measurements were as follows: FFLwt, 40.1 (23.1 to 64.1) kg; MFD, 18.8 (12.7 to 25.8) μm. A random coefficient restricted maximum likelihood (REML) regression mixed model was developed to relate the logarithm of MFD to the logarithm of FFLwt and other effects. The model can be written in the form of ${\rm MFD}\,{\equals}\,\rkappa \left( {{\rm GS,}\,{\rm A}{\rm ,}\,{\rm Segment}{\rm .Plot,}\,{\rm Segment,}\,{\rm ADG}} \right){\times}{\rm FFLwt}^{{\left( {\ralpha \left( {{\rm GS}} \right){\plus}\rbeta \left(\rm A \right){\plus}\rgamma \left( {{\rm Segment}{\rm .Plot}} \right)} \right)}}$ , where $\ralpha \left( {{\rm GS}} \right)\,{\equals}\,\;\left\{ {\matrix{\!\! {0.32\left( {{\rm SE}\,{\equals}\,{\rm 0}{\rm .038}} \right)\,{\rm when}\,{\rm sheep}\,{\rm are}\,{\rm grazed}\,{\rm alone}} \hfill \cr \!\!\!\!{0.49\left( {{\rm SE}\,{\equals}\,{\rm 0}{\rm .049}} \right)\,{\rm when}\,{\rm sheep}\,{\rm are}\,{\rm mixed}\,{\rm with}\,{\rm goats}} \hfill \cr } } \right.$ β(A) is a random animal effect, γ(Segment.Plot) a random effect associated with Segment.plot combinations, and κ a constant that depends on GS, random animal effects, random Segment.plot combination effects, Segment and ADG. Thus, MFD was allometrically related to the cube root of FFLwt over seasons and years for sheep, but to the square root of FFLwt for sheep grazed with goats. The result for sheep grazed alone accords with a primary response being that the allocation of nutrients towards the cross-sectional growth of wool follicles is proportional to the changes in the skin surface area arising from changes in the size of the sheep. The proportionality constant varied systematically with ADG, and in sheep only grazing, was about 5 when sheep lost 100 g/day and about 6 when sheep gained 100 g/day. The proportionality constant did not systematically change with chronological age. The variation in the allometric coefficient between individual sheep indicates that some sheep were more sensitive to changes in FFLwt than other sheep. Key practical implications include the following: (a) the reporting of systematic increases in MFD with age is likely to be a consequence of allowing sheep to increase in size during shearing intervals as they age; (b) comparisons of MFD between sheep are more likely to have a biological basis when standardised to a common FFLwt and not just to a common age; eng 10.1017/S1751731116001038 079999 Agricultural and Veterinary Sciences not elsewhere classified 06 Biological Sciences 07 Agricultural And Veterinary Sciences 970107 Expanding Knowledge in the Agricultural and Veterinary Sciences C1 Refereed article in a scholarly journal C Journal article ©2016, Cambridge University Press No 2016-11-01 http://hdl.handle.net/10536/DRO/DU:30084108