| Literature DB >> 26419655 |
Ingrid Hunter Holmøy1, Steinar Waage2.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Perinatal mortality is a major cause of loss in the sheep industry. Our aim was to explore time trends in crude population stillbirth and neonatal mortality rates in Norway. We used data on 6,435,715 lambs from flocks enrolled in the Norwegian Sheep Recording System (NSRS) from 2000 through 2010 for descriptive analysis of trends. Longitudinal patterns of mortality rates were compared for lambs within different levels of variables suspected to be associated with perinatal loss.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2015 PMID: 26419655 PMCID: PMC4588273 DOI: 10.1186/s13028-015-0155-6
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Acta Vet Scand ISSN: 0044-605X Impact factor: 1.695
Fig. 1Regions of Norway
Number of ewes registered with a lambing date in the Norwegian Sheep Recording System each year from 2000 to 2010, numbers excluded for various reasons, and final numbers of ewes and lambs included in the current study
| Year | Exclusions | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ewes with a lambing date | Ewes with no lambsa | Ewes with >1 recordb | Ewes in flocks with incomplete recordsc | Ewes in the study | Lambs in the study | |
| 2000 | 281,380 | 2150 | 563 | 2036 | 276,631 | 554,007 |
| 2001 | 292,341 | 2053 | 1073 | 1938 | 287,277 | 580,445 |
| 2002 | 293,317 | 3137 | 865 | 1576 | 287,739 | 587,199 |
| 2003 | 295,714 | 3150 | 592 | 1092 | 290,880 | 601,980 |
| 2004 | 290,680 | 2277 | 972 | 1722 | 285,709 | 598,821 |
| 2005 | 291,193 | 3752 | 582 | 2337 | 284,522 | 598,771 |
| 2006 | 283,146 | 3311 | 297 | 1235 | 278,303 | 593,825 |
| 2007 | 272,728 | 2443 | 251 | 1479 | 268,555 | 573,721 |
| 2008 | 274,219 | 3851 | 215 | 2065 | 268,088 | 575,752 |
| 2009 | 292,088 | 21,443 | 124 | 1636 | 268,885 | 582,797 |
| 2010 | 288,536 | 17,187 | 154 | 1084 | 270,111 | 588,397 |
aThere was a lambing date in the registry, but the ewes were excluded because no lambs (stillborn or liveborn) were recorded
bThere were two or more records for the same ewe in the same year; one record was kept when records were identical; all were deleted when records were different
cAll ewes were excluded in flocks with missing lambing records for several ewes
Distribution of flocks and ewes enrolled in the Norwegian Sheep Recording System in 2000 and 2010 by flock size
| Flock size | 2000 | 2010 | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| n | % | n | % | ||
| Flocks enrolled | <26 | 1009 | 20.4 | 547 | 15.0 |
| 26–125 | 3651 | 73.9 | 2602 | 71.2 | |
| 126–250 | 268 | 5.4 | 451 | 12.3 | |
| >250 | 13 | 0.3 | 54 | 1.5 | |
| Ewes enrolled in flocks | <26 | 17,044 | 6.2 | 8355 | 3.1 |
| 26–125 | 214,086 | 77.4 | 170,358 | 63.1 | |
| 126–250 | 41,542 | 15.0 | 73,551 | 27.2 | |
| >250 | 3959 | 1.4 | 17,847 | 6.6 | |
Distribution of ewes enrolled in the Norwegian Sheep Recording System in 2000 and 2010 by various characteristics
| 2000 | 2010 | |
|---|---|---|
| % | % | |
| Litter size | ||
| 1 | 22.9 | 17.7 |
| 2 | 55.9 | 51.3 |
| 3 | 19.3 | 26.8 |
| 4 | 1.7 | 3.8 |
| >4 | 0.2 | 0.4 |
| Age of ewe (year) | ||
| 1 | 21.4 | 23.1 |
| 2 | 24.0 | 24.0 |
| 3 | 19.4 | 18.7 |
| 4 | 15.4 | 13.7 |
| 5 | 10.3 | 9.8 |
| 6 | 6.3 | 6.7 |
| >6 | 3.2 | 4.0 |
| Lambing ease | ||
| Normal | 78.3 | 75.0 |
| Assistance, not dystocia | 11.0 | 12.0 |
| Assistance, dystocia | 10.7 | 13.0 |
| Time of lambing | ||
| Prior to April 1 | 1.1 | 2.2 |
| April 1–15 | 10.5 | 14.0 |
| April 16–30 | 39.0 | 40.2 |
| May 1–15 | 39.3 | 35.2 |
| May 16–31 | 9.4 | 7.9 |
| After May 31 | 0.7 | 0.5 |
| Breed | ||
| Norwegian White | 77.1 | 80.4 |
| Spæl | 17.6 | 13.0 |
| Old Norwegian breedsa | 1.4 | 2.2 |
| Otherb | 3.9 | 4.4 |
Percentage distribution does not include missing values. Missing values: age for 8 ewes in 2000 and 1337 ewes in 2010; lambing ease for 2217 ewes in 2000 and 479 ewes in 2010; breed for 937 ewes in 2010
aIncludes Furbearing Sheep, Old Norwegian Sheep, Old Spæl
bIncludes Blazed Sheep, Fuglestad Pied, Grey Trønder, Texel, Cheviot, Oxford Down, Suffolk, Merino, Finnish Landrace, Blackface, Dorset, Charollais, Romney, and various crossbreeds
Fig. 2Trends in stillbirth and neonatal mortality rates of live born lambs 0 to 5-days-old and 6 to 14-days-old in flocks enrolled in the Norwegian Sheep Recording System, 2000–2010
Fig. 3Trends in stillbirth rates for lambs born in litters of 1, 2 and 3 lambs in flocks enrolled in the Norwegian Sheep Recording System, 2000–2010
Fig. 4Trends in neonatal mortality rates of 0 to 5-days-old lambs born in litters of 1, 2, 3 and 4 lambs in flocks enrolled in the Norwegian Sheep Recording System, 2000–2010
Fig. 5Trends in neonatal mortality rates of 6 to 14-days-old lambs born in litters of 1, 2, 3 and 4 lambs in flocks enrolled in the Norwegian Sheep Recording System, 2000–2010
Fig. 6Trends in neonatal mortality rates of 0 to 5-days-old lambs born in April and May 2000–2010 in flocks enrolled in the Norwegian Sheep Recording System (upper). National average temperature (middle) and national average precipitation (lower) in April and May 2000–2010
Fig. 7Trends in stillbirth rates (upper) and neonatal mortality rates (lower) of 6 to 14-days-old lambs born in April and May 2000–2010 in flocks enrolled in the Norwegian Recording System
Fig. 8Trends in stillbirth rates in flocks with <26, 26–125, 126–250 and >250 lambing ewes registered in the Norwegian Sheep Recording System, 2000–2010
Fig. 9Trends in neonatal mortality rates of 0 to 5-days-old lambs in flocks with <26, 26–125, 126–250 and >250 lambing ewes registered in the Norwegian Sheep Recording System, 2000–2010
Fig. 10Trends in neonatal mortality rates of 6 to 14-days-old lambs in flocks with <26, 26–125, 126–250 and >250 lambing ewes registered in the Norwegian Sheep Recording System, 2000–2010