Importance of Selection in Breeding for Romney Wool

Poverty Bay Herald, Volume LX, Issue 18257, 28 November 1933, Page 8

Importance of Selection in Breeding for Romney Wool

OEIUCnOV of l.«ree«J iuu Hoik acau.i .•» halo-buiis. !i > birlbeout Pomps. in Romney Hocks '• ?u easy matter. This conclusion !• itii ■ t-;e! at oy Dr. F W Dry as a result of breeding experiments at Massey College, and under tli<; heading of "Halo-Hair - m the Eomnov Ram ” in the current issue of the Journal ot Agnculture, he • reviews this year 's breeding c--|>« nincuts, which nre supplementary to those of previous years, on lire matter. Jle states that in some of the I!>3M experiments, like was mated with like, and in others the parents differed in classification .for abundance of halo-hairs. * ‘l-’rom the point of view ot hereditary factors/’ the writer states, ■•the situation revealed is complicated, as was, indeed, anticipated. For breeding practice, as was likewise not unexpected, the conclusion that can be drawn is simple, selection in any direction having largely been effective. As reported previously, there is great variation from Jamb to lamb in the collection of succession a I fibres that take the place of the shed halo-hairs, but follicles that begin by putting forth halo-hairs are apt to continue to produce extremely objectionable fibres, either komps, shed in their turn, or coarse persistent hairy fibres.

A Quick Reward. “The facts about succession in these follicles have not yet been presented in more than n preliminary way, bul what is known supports the commonsense conclusion that halo-hairs should be tolerated no more than is unavoidable in the management nl a dock. Halo-lmirs are, oil course, perfectly easy to see in the early days of life, and it is clear that keen selection against them will quickly bring its reward. The problem of the coarsest of the kemp group of hairy fibres is therefore not a difficult one. It should, however, be emphasised anew tnai kemp hairiness is one thing and non- ! kemp hairiness another, and that the latter is of the greatest economic importance. It is only appropriate that selection against kemp hairiness should, be the easier.” After detailing breeding experiments made, the article makes Unfollowing comments on the breeding results: — “Lambs may have, more halo hairs than either parent or less than either [parent. As usually happens with quantitative characters, it is not possible to relate any very simple story about the hereditary factors determining Ihe abundance of halo-hairs. This is true for height in man, for body weight in fowls, and also for average fineuess in wool —as can, indeed, be most readily believed in the light of what has already been placed on record about the fibre types of the Romney lamb. The Stud Rams. “On. the whole, the offspring are similar, in their grading for halos, to the average of their parents, but in this limited scries of experiments the lambs have less than their parents rather than .more.” it was pointed out here that lambs with no halo-hairs had at least one parent with none. All but two of the many-halo lambs produced in these experiments had at least one parent with many. When both parents have had no halo-hairs, only a few of tlie lambs have had any halos at all on the back, and then their numbers have been very small. Although the results of mating the many-halo ram with no-halo ewes indicate that we could not expect all no-halo rams to be so successful, the one no-halo ram tried did very well in keeping down the number of halos when mated with the many-halo and medium-halo ewes. Jn conclusion, Dr. Dry states. —“The argument for selection against halohairs is strengthened. While it is repeated that kemp hairiness is not so important as non-komp liairncss, at the same time .it .is emphasised that selection against halo-hairs is an easy matter. Especially is it desirable to know how abundant were the halo-hairs upon rams used in stud breeding.