Waidalerams August 2015 Newsletter

Well it’s that time of the year again, where I write what I call my annual newsletter.   However as most of you know there is some news in it, but it’s mostly full of my thoughts on many different topics.   I do hope you find it interesting and/or amusing, but hopefully not boring.  I actually have some topics listed this year, so it might be a bit more structured this year, who knows!

Season
It’s been a pretty tough summer for most of us on the east coast.  We were restricted to around 50% irrigation for most of the season and stopped altogether in early march.  Which may sound pathetic, but the problem is when you rely on irrigation, you don’t have 20 tonne of silage in a pit in case you have a drought, nor do you sow green feed crops in the spring as you pay a lot for water and are geared to grow grass all through the summer, so not having water made life very difficult and more so when you don’t have any  animals you can get rid of (because my whole operation is essentially all stud sheep there really is no excess stock I can get rid of when dry).  

Like most of us, I suspect, my income was back massively this last year, primarily from having to kill lambs at much lighter weights and selling the majority as stores.  In fact I was down to winter stock numbers in early march.   So income dramatically down and expenditure considerably up (yes dairy farmers sheep farmers also had another tough year, not our first in the last 10 years).  I fed sheep nuts to the ewes for the first time this year to ensure I had them at good weights for mating.  My winter crops were/are probably only around 60% yield of what I normally expect to have, which meant off farm grazing for ewe hoggets again this winter.  It’s been hard, but fortunately, the winter while bloody cold, has been kind, in that there has been little wastage of feed owing to a dry winter.  The lack of rain is going to be an issue, although getting a bit recently.   However I am the first to acknowledge while it’s been a challenge this last summer and winter, I know it’s a picnic compared to what farmers are facing in North Canterbury and can only hope that there will be some relief this spring for all of us.  We at least got some rain early enough in the autumn to get some grass and crops growing (with some urea) before winter came. 

Ironically my hoggets went in to the winter as good as they have ever done.   I took the second weight of my lambs early (lw6 weight), not much more than 6 weeks after weaning so I could cull them and get rid of the culls.  Note you need to wait at least 6 weeks until after weaning your lambs to weigh them again to ensure that both sire and dam have an equal genetic influence (i.e. 50/50), if you do it earlier than 6 weeks after weaning, the dam’s milking ability is the predominant factor affecting weight and distorts growth bvs.  Thanks to some irrigation (50%)  I managed to keep grass in front of those I retained, fully expecting them to be going backwards from mid-march onwards; but I took a punt and applied 50kg urea on the whole farm in mid-march when there was no rain, and then got some rain days later with some follow up showers, which resulted in me having grass in front of my lambs all through Autumn.   I actually could stop supplementing my ewes when mating started.

Our scanning was not brilliant this year, about on par with last year, to be expected with the dry I guess (although my ewes were in pretty good order when they went to the ram and a few guys told me as I had fed sheep nuts to my ewes that I would have a great scanning, so I was hoping for a super scan!!!). Hopefully, the Romneys will still wean close to 160 because as I have said before lower scans seem to be offset by lower losses (within reason of course and unusual climatic events).  Lamb survivability in the modern Romney is a strength it has over pretty much any other breed these days.  I have heard scientists say that we need to be working on reducing the difference between scanning and weaning as high losses is something that greenies might start highlighting in the future, so apart from the immediate economic loss to us as farmers, this could be an issue for the marketing of our product in the future.

The most significant change this last year, is my living arrangements. Since Mid-April of this year I have been alternating between living one week in Christchurch and one week back down at the farm.    I have done this so as I can share care of my daughter while she finishes high school in Christchurch.  Not the most opportune time for this to happen, but something that I felt I had to do for my daughter’s sake, hopefully I am making a difference?   As a result I have employed Jake Gollan on a part time basis, who lives on the farm with his partner Rawinia.  I still run the whole operation but Jake is obviously responsible for carrying out the day to day jobs that need to be done when I am not there.  My contact details are still the same as I have an internet phone which enables me to have the same number 036148388 where ever I am.  Obviously this arrangement is somewhat taxing financially, so all of you who prefer to give rather than receive, please feel free to pay twice as much for your rams this year (from me of course), the sentiment will be greatly appreciated!!!   Employing Jake has freed me up a bit and taken away the one man band reason I haven’t been able to visit a lot of you in the last coupler years and to be fair I have already visited a number of clients and certainly hope to see a lot more before my sale.  I would add that where I live in Christchurch, 8 Everest Street, Burnside is only about 5 minutes’ drive from the airport, so if you need a bunk for the night don’t hesitate to ask.

Our Seventh on Farm Sale will be at 3pm on Wednesday 25 November 2015 this year

It’s hard to believe; seventh on farm sale.  A helmsman sale which I anticipate will again be run in conjunction with AGonline.  Videos of all rams and performance data will be loaded on the internet around 3 weeks before the sale, so for those of you who come to the sale you can sort through them to a smaller number that might interest you on the day (quite a few clients are doing this now) and of course for those of you who can’t make the sale, you can still sort out, select and buy good rams without attending the sale.  Note you can bid on them from the time they are loaded, leave auto bids etc. if you want, with the auction finishing on the day of the sale, you can actually bid in real time against those bidding on the day of the sale (because it’s a helmsman sale not your traditional auction).

I have had the odd debate about whether you can select rams based on a 20 second video (with rival breeders primarily I might add) and my answer if you are stockman you can, you may have to repeat the video a few times to check everything, but you can see pasterns, shoulders, hindquarter, colour, how it walks etc.  It’s a bit harder with Romneys, but again I do ensure we open the wool on each ram at the beginning of the video so you are not taking a total pot shot on wool either.  I give you a weight at the time of cataloguing to give you a guide to assess size. To know more about how the helmsman sale works in conjunction with Agonline, you are more than welcome to call me or take a look at my website: www.waidalerams.co.nz.   Please note that if you haven’t seen my sheep before and you can’t make it on sale day, then come and have a look at my hoggets prior to the sale at your convenience and if they are of the type etc that you want, then I guarantee that you will be able to confidently select the rams you like based solely on the videos and performance data loaded on the internet.

This year I probably will have a few more rams for sale as I doubt I will take Romneys to the Fielding Ram Fair unless they drastically change the marketing of the sale and perhaps the type of sale, as it’s just slowly getting worse every year with less people attending, it’s getting to the point where it would be a poor turnout for a grey power meeting.   I have been supporting it out of principle and loyalty as I think it’s bloody stupid that if you want an exceptional ram that you have to visit every stud, you should be able to go to one sale and see them all, but there comes a time (which I think is now) where it just makes so much more sense to have my top rams in my own sale.  Accordingly I may put up 175 rams, comprising of approximately 80 plus Romneys, 40 Southdowns, 45 South Suffolk and 10 Lincolns. 

I think this year will be the first time since having an on farm sale that I can honestly say that all breeds will be the best line up that I have ever put up.  I obviously only put up what I think are good rams, but previously there has always been one breed where I think I have put up a better line up before.  The Romneys I am proud to say are again bloody good, they are more consistent blockier type, not lighter in weight, but generally a thicker deeper type of sheep.  The blackies are basically by two sires; an expensive south Suffolk I bought coupler years ago and little brick Suffolk (also two years ago) who has bred really well; they are deep thick meaty rams, not massive but still weighing.  The Southdowns’ are particular pleasing, I think best line up for a few years, very consistent and good type, all of them are by ram lambs I used.  On top of that the Lincolns, while only 10 of them, are very good, ideal for crossing over merinos to produce a half bred or indeed as a few are doing now, crossing a merino back over the half bred then using the best progeny extensively over their merinos.

Some significant sires of sale rams this year:

 16-1156-11  222-13  984-12

 

872-13   1130-11

 

 

 

These are just few of the sires obviously; go to my website, click Stud ram sires and 2014 for respective breeds and you can see pictures and videos of the majority of the sires.  I would point out that 984-12 above is a total outcross that I bought for 4000 from a flock that ranks highly on SILACE (and particularly for survivability).  I was a bit dubious as to how he would breed as he was the only good sheep I saw there (including his keepers, I wouldn’t have used any of them), but he has bred well: thick grunty rams with very good SIL figures across the board, the biggest portion of Romney rams for sale are by him.  222 is my keeper, used as a lamb, the breeder of his sire advised me last year that he has the myomax gene in his background, which means that at some stage way back a breeder either mistakenly or intentionally used a Texel.  I am not that bothered as its well back and further the horse has well and truly bolted, it won’t be long before it’s essentially through all Romney flocks.  222 is helluva grunty ram, with spring, depth etc; there will be some good rams by him in the sale. Note also 785-13 is Southdown ram lamb I used, who bred particularly well, to see what he looks like you will have to go to the website.

On Line Sale: Our Helmsman sale will be run in conjunction with Agonline for the sixth straight year.   Already mentioned this above.  Not hundreds of others rushing to follow me doing this, primarily because there is a lot of work to do it and secondly you need to make sure your animals are ready for sale at the time of taking the video (in my case around the end of October) because if they are not it doesn’t matter how fancy the technology you use is, if your animals look shit on the video, who will be interested in buying them? I was asked for my thoughts on a bull sale, that was copying what I do a coupler years ago: firstly they used photos not videos, which I don’t advocate, a photo can make the animal appear better or worse than what they are, a video doesn’t, but their major issue was their bulls weren’t ready to be sold, at least at the time of taking the photos, as they looked bloody awful.[so1]   Again on sale day there will be a television in the corner of the woolshed whereby you can ask to view the video of the ram you may be interested in to get a better idea as to how he may move. 

The Christchurch Ram Fair which I normally take 2 to 4 four Southdowns is on Friday 27 November 2015, just two days after my on farm sale.  These rams will be on display at my on farm sale.   They will also be loaded on Agonline.co.nz, so you can bid on them with the highest bid before the sale being the reserve at the sale, no one has done this to date, but it’s an easy way to buy a good piggy for perhaps $1200.  I support this sale for the same reasons as I was supporting the Fielding Romney Ram Fair.  I pushed for the sale being shifted earlier so that a commercial farmer could buy a bloody good ram, but if they do miss out they can still go and buy good rams privately, whereas in January if you miss out, it’s a lot more difficult as they most likely have already been sold.  However the problem for me with this sale is that I am not what I facetiously call a “hobby ram breeder”, all my ram lambs of all breeds run in one big mob until culling in February, then in one mob until the beginning of June, when they go on breaks.  I don’t and won’t feed grain to them, those on breaks get a bit of baleage and that’s it. When the sale was in January my rams would be more or less as heavy and big as my competitors, but in November, the last two years, they have been 10 to 15 kgs behind, which to be frank, it doesn’t really matter how good your rams are if they are that far behind you are not going to have a good sale.  So this year my top five piggies have been living on their own since beginning of June in what I call my hobby ram breeder paddock, still no hard feed, but just a very small mob to see if I can compete size wise with my competitors, we will see, they were around 90 kgs late July, so my hobby paddock might be working.

Visiting Clients:  As I have someone working on the farm part time, I have already been to some clients (not as many as I would have liked) but I do expect to get to see a lot more before the sale.  As I just turn up, if you don’t want to see me and then you see my heavily sign written truck coming up your drive, you had better hide quickly! 

Amazing new developments in Waidale’s breeding program!!!! Nothing new to advise here, at Waidale I Still:
·         don’t drench the adult ewes (those that don’t handle it are culled, our pragmatic worm resistance program), we are slowly reaping the rewards from this policy: and
·         practice an extended drench program of 6 to 8 weeks on our lambs (except for those we cull and kill); and
·         cull all year around for conformation constitution etc, all good breeders should be doing this; and
·         only use sires that look as they should and have good SIL figures: a good ram with poor figures will not be used and similarly a poor ram with great figures will also not be used. Too many breeders use poor rams with great figures, not at Waidale! and
·         practice the dying art of stockmanship which ensures our flock is of a consistent type that reflects the type of sheep I want to breed, i.e. good on feet legs, good jaw, good eyes, good colour, good length, good width, good depth, good hind quarters etc.  (All these things affect the future productivity of your flock, if you don’t maintain it, in the short term not a significant impact, but long term major impact).   You do this for long enough your phenotype will reflect the genotype, which greatly increases the likelihood that a ram you like the look of will actually pass on the production traits you see in that ram; and
·         have all flocks (except the Lincolns) SIL recorded; and
·         footrot and cold tolerance profile sires to ensure I am not using a dud ram  (some people wrongly slag this footrot test, it does not mean you won’t get footrot, but I know from my experience with the Lincolns that it has merit, straight Whydid Lincolns rarely profile anything but the highest i.e. 1.1 and they are very rarely lame.  We are also are on a farm that would have more footrot challenge than most, and accordingly we have been culling all the time for years on this.  You need a footrot challenge to ensure you are breeding sheep that have some resistance to it; and
·         eye muscle scan all rams I keep through the winter; and
·         collect viascan data on all culled lambs killed; and
·         cull all Romney ewes that have two singles in a row; and
·         mate our ewe hoggets for 18 days only; and
·         tag all lambs at birth to ensure accurate pedigrees which in turn promotes greater accuracy in SIL figures; and
·         wean in excess of 150% with the Romneys, more like 160 these days, almost irrespective of what they scan; and
·         have an honest upfront attitude.  I pride myself on my directness and my honesty; and
·         have an extensive website www.waidalerams.co.nz, which details all of the above and more; it’s worth a look.

Beef and Lamb Genetics Form in Napier

I attended this in the last week of July.  It was interesting.  I think a lot of what they are doing is of value, so long as it’s tempered with some good stockmanship.  I do think it’s better to have this entity than not and as such I would encourage everyone to vote for its continuance.   You may have seen the recent feature on me in the New Zealand Farmer, the Press (it must have been a slow news’ week as it apparently was everywhere) but my main message was clearly the importance of stockmanship.

Some significant issues that came out of the forum:

Adult weight index, DPA
There was massive debate at this forum about weighing adult sheep to get a breeding value, and the importance of condition scoring ewes at the time of weighing.  Condition scoring is required to differentiate between for an example a skinny slab sided composite ewe of 65kg (note I am taking the piss here, apparently there is the odd skinny slab sided Romney ewe around as well) and a fat grunty meaty Romney ewe of 65kg, one you want and of course one you don’t.   The problem I have with such a breeding value is that I consider it largely redundant for a good stockman as I can look at a sheep and tell you if it’s going to leave big slab sided mongrels or little wee buggers etc. My eye is as accurate if not more so and probably more importantly my eye is more timely as even if you collate all such data it’s only when you have an adult progeny on the ground of the sire ram that you can have confidence in the breeding values.

 It seems many breeders are looking for SIL to solve everything, but personally I would sooner see Beef and Lamb concentrate on those things I cannot see, for example fertility (nlbbv) and survival (surbv), these are traits that I can’t look at a sheep and go yes fertile etc.

Zoetis

Zoetis were there trying to peddle the sheep 5k, and shepherd plus etc.  The technology is in theory good, but economically it just doesn’t stack up.   It costs me about 750 dollars to tag and record my lambs (ignoring labour), but if I DNA tested my ewes, my sires, electronically tagged my progeny and of course DNA tested my lambs, I worked out I would have a bill of around 59000 (admittedly about 23000 would be one off as once ewes done once) but still a helluva cost as you can see.

Zoetis also used an example of testing a 120 rams, of which the top 20, after being sheep 5k tested, changed significantly and they said based on this example there was a gain of $40000, I think, in production.  But this is crap as I am sure that at least half of those top 20, if not more, would quite simply not be good enough to use in my flock as they would have faults that I wouldn’t bring into my flock.  The reality at home is I might have 5 or 6 ram lambs I think are good enough to use (that’s all) in the stud.  Again as I said last year I see the benefit of sheep 5k (apart from marketing which is how most use it) is to test the few I want to use to make sure there isn’t something that is bad, for example one has piss poor fertility, then I wouldn’t use the ram, but the problem is still the time it takes to get results.  It is still around 6 weeks which is quite simply too slow to be of any value as I have a window of about 2 weeks max between selection and mating: to select the lambs you want to use in January would mean I am often not using the best lambs.  They assured me they are working on reducing the turnaround time. 

We continue to provide samples of all Romney sires to Agresearch which means that we will be well connected when I eventually do use sheep 5K to get genomic breeding values (the connectivity improves accuracy).  There is one breeder I know of who uses every DNA test under the sun but if it wasn’t for all his other off farm businesses, his sheep farm would in my view go broke, and breeding good rams requires much more than DNA testing to breed good sheep (Yes stockmanship!!!!).  However if there is a philanthropist out there (or collectively a group) who would like to donate say $70000 a year to my stud operation to utilise all the science, then I am more than happy to accept it!

SIL meat index DPM

Again this index is still a waste of time, unless you are killing around 15 to 20 cull lambs of all sires you use through Alliance and getting the individual viascan results being fed into SIL.   Firstly very few do this, with droughts last year, I didn’t even bother doing it.  Secondly as I learnt last year no across flock reports at present incorporate this data, as there is so little of it and SIL software doesn’t presently have the capability to do it in SILACE run.  Accordingly this index is very reliant on an eye muscle scan which is only an indication of eye muscle not the meat yield of the whole sheep and if no eye muscle reading, it extrapolates and predicts based on weaning weights etc, accordingly it becomes so bloody unreliable as to whether a high DPM means meat or not, that it’s a joke.

Heterosis (Hybrid vigour)

They intend to make SILACE the sole across flock report, which will incorporate viascan data in the future and they are going to eliminate those effects that are attributable to hybrid vigour as opposed to superior genetics, which it does not at present.  Any composite or cross bred in SILACE is unfairly advantaged over a purebred as there a significant productivity gains that are solely due to Hybrid Vigour.  This adjustment is very important as they propose that the only across flock report in the future will be a SILACE across all breeds, cross breeds etc. At present you can get across flock reports within breeds, but they intend to do away with this.

Condition Scoring
Trevor cook gave a demonstration and talk on this.  I always cull gutless and skinny ewes, but mostly on eye.  I haven’t handled all ewes to condition score them on a scale of 1 to 5, but after listening to this I think it’s probably one of the most practical and easy gains we can make in lambing percentage, by simply ensuring all ewes are a condition score of 3 or more.  I can’t remember the exact percentage gain, but it’s significant.  There is a ewe Body Condition Scoring handbook on beef and lamb website that sets it all out.  It’s certainly something I will put more focus on.

Meat Industry:  Nothing much is happening, although I am looking forward to these special shareholders meeting of Alliance and Silver Fern Farms to discuss the merits or otherwise of a merger, which hopefully will provide us with the transparency that I have been banging on about for a while.  I heard Keith Cooper recently, now he has stepped down, and the thing that resonated most with me is if you adhere to the cooperative model and all the principles associated with it (which arguably aren’t adhered to at the moment), then it simply doesn’t make any sense to have two cooperatives as logically one should achieve the same for all its shareholders.

I intend to put myself up as a candidate for the one of the upcoming vacancies on the Alliance Board this year.  I have in the past considered doing this but wasn’t sure I would have the time to do it (being a one man band with the farm) but ironically now owing to my change in living circumstances and that I have now quit the Romney Council, I do have the time to do this.  I would like to think that someone like me can add value as I am passionate sheep breeder, I am well educated, (practised as a lawyer for 6 years, not sure if this is positive or not, depend on who you are I guess) but I think my strongest attribute is my ability to digest what I am being told quickly and then not being afraid to question the rationale behind it to ensure what is being done is the right thing (Those of you who know me would appreciate I have an opinion on most things and fairly direct in putting across if need be).  I am certainly not doing this as a career move, if I don’t think I am doing any good, I would quit.   I do think that if I got elected (which is the biggest hurdle in my plan) that I stand for fairness and equity to all shareholders of a cooperative (i.e. no preferential groups) and obviously transparency as to why things are done.  I am not putting myself forward as pro or anti merger, but I am someone with an open mind who considers it important that shareholders are kept informed of what are the obstacles to a merger or why it doesn’t make sense to or what needs to happen for a merger or something else to occur.   I feel this lack of accountability and transparency is one of the reasons why no progress is made as we feel there is always some hidden agenda behind what we are being told.

Wool:  Wool levy failed last year, but I still make money out of growing good quality wool off my Romneys irrespective of that levy, so if you are not then I am afraid you certainly haven’t got the right sheep.   Unless you are not shearing at all, then why not grow a good dual purpose sheep that produces meat and decent nett cheque for wool after shearing.  The falling exchange will hopefully help our cause further.

I have heard that Landcorp have negotiated a deal with the Merino Company whereby they getting something like a 25 cent premium for their crossbred wool.  I don’t know this for a fact but a wool broker has confirmed that they do have some deal like this.   Firstly this sort of deal offends my sense of fairness and equity: how can a company provide a premium to one major player for a product that I can assure you that won’t be any better than others who supply them.  To do this they are either making a loss on the Landcorp wool or more likely they are underpaying their other suppliers, i.e. one supplier is subsidising the other.  If I sold my wool to the Merino Company and found this out, I would tell them to stick their company where the sun don’t shine.

Incidentally a wool broker has also told me that while they do get a premium, the premium is well and truly offset by the marketing charges they require you to pay, so giveth with one hand but taketh away with the other, if this is correct then perhaps they are not actually better off.

Some say why don’t we get together and do the same.  It almost sounds like forming a cooperative doesn’t it.  Firstly, I think it’s wrong to pay a premium for a product that is no different to another.   There needs to be something you are paying for, a genuine quality differential or some back story perhaps that allows you to get more money for the product.  Secondly I am not an advocate of the “if you can’t beat them join them” attitude, I would sooner campaign against the unjustness and discourage farmers from supplying the company in question.  Thirdly it’s a lot harder to get many different farmers to come together and supply an entity than for one entity like Landcorp to issue a directive to be complied with as unfortunately there will always be farmers who waiver or back out or don’t supply what is requested etc: accordingly it’s not as easy as it sounds to do.

Sorting up ewes so only the best are being bred for replacements.

Apart from buying bloody good rams off me for a fortune, this is one of the quickest and most cost effective ways of improving the quality of your flock.   Basically you need to work out how many ewes you need to put to a Romney (or whatever breed is your capital flock) to give you the required number of ewe lambs you need to go back into the flock as replacements (allowing for a reasonable culling percentage say 50%), the rest you simply put to a terminal sire so there is no chance of keeping ewe lambs out of those inferior ewes.  I assure you that doing this for a few years will reap dividends as the quickest way to improve overall production is getting rid of the rubbish.

You simply need to go through your ewes prior to mating to sort them into the two mobs.   If you are in a cross breeding regime such as Romdales, then this is also the time to sort those ewes that look more like a Romney and put a Perendale across them and those that look like a Perendale and put a Romney across them, (you get all the hybrid vigour this way, not the watered down version of a Romdale, plus you can source true genetics in terms of breeding values not figures that may have been distorted by hybrid vigour).   Personally I doubt there is a Coopdale, Perendale or Composite flock that wouldn’t benefit from at least one cross of a good Romney every few years (if not more often).

For clients who buy all their rams off me I am more than happy to come and assist you to do this, we just need to organise a time well in advance so that I can indeed do it.   For non-clients I am more than happy to do it, subject to time constraints, but I would expect to be remunerated for my time.  Please note I am not saying you need me to do it, I am just offering my services if you want.  If you wanted you could take it further and select an elite mob of ewes, paying top dollar for a few good rams (preferably from me) to improve your flock.   Note I won’t be culling your ewes and rams and then picking rams for you from some breeder who is actually paying that person commission for selling his rams (this does happen)!!

Stockmanship Video

For a few years now this has been a goal of mine to create a generic video (i.e. not breed specific) from start (jaw undershot and overshot etc) right through to back pasterns and tail settings etc and obviously explaining why it’s important.  I feel that it would be about two hours in length, but could be compartmentalised into say 15 minute segments (so people don’t fall asleep, like you are now perhaps doing just reading about it), with differing commentary perhaps for the age groups it’s being played to (for example high school kids through to university students).  I believe practical workshops could be run in conjunction with use of this as a teaching video.  On top of this simple academic tests could be created and given after the showing of such a video.

I think the key to doing this properly is to actually have a sheep that shows how an animal should look like and a sheep that shows how it should not look like.  In other words you need a sheep that has for example, good teeth; is not overshot or undershot or light jawed etc, but similarly you need a sheep that demonstrates each of these faults as well so someone can actually see what this looks like and not simply rely on some commentary to understand it.

If this is done properly, it’s something that can be of value for many years to come and something that could be incorporated into high school Ag programmes and more importantly incorporated as part of the syllabus of all Ag based commerce and/or science degrees.  By its inclusion in such degrees I believe not only will it be an aid in teaching people about how an animal should look, but it will reinforce the importance of stockmanship in being a good sheep farmer.  I would argue now that as stockmanship is not part of such degrees many graduates come out who don’t know and more importantly don’t think stockmanship is important, being part of the degree would give it credibility.

I have had a various communications with Scott Champion the CEO of Beef and Lamb who is essentially behind it, but at the moment its quite circular as to how much it will cost to do (which is difficult to work out when hasn’t been done before).   I believe there will be a lot of filming by the time you go through finding sheep with good traits but more importantly good examples of the bad traits.    It’s this point that brings me to seek assistance: firstly I believe we need a big mob of ewe hoggets (ideally thousands) which have had little culling as lambs, so as we can go through them to find good examples of all faults, so if anyone would like to volunteer their flock for this or knows someone who may be able to help, I would greatly appreciate the assistance.  Secondly I believe this is a resource that will be around for a long time, so there is a real opportunity for one off naming rights for an entity that is prepared to put the money up to do it.  Accordingly if you know anyone who may be interested in such an opportunity I would greatly appreciate being put in contact with the appropriate person.

Stock Companies Commission

This is something that is starting to bug a few of us.  I pay 9% commission for my ram sale and I know one of the reasons you pay commission is certainty of payment so I am not the one out of pocket if someone doesn’t pay, but I do think that 9% these days is too bloody high.  I have a very good local agent who does a lot in terms of organising sale etc and I am very grateful for that as without him the sale wouldn’t happen.  However I do the rest, catalogue, newsletters, mailing, preparation for the sale.

We normally divide up my database of farmers with the idea that lists are giving to local stock agents to ring the farmers in their area and simply ask if they would like a lift to my sale (I don’t want a hard sell at all, just an offer to be picked up, taken to sale and returned), you obviously could have a few beers in the knowledge you weren’t driving.  A mate of mine told me at last year’s sale as all the agents were coming in, “they should have car pooled” as all arriving in own car with no one in it.

What I would like to find out if I am living in a dream world or not as I think the majority of farmers, with a bit of notice would gratefully accept such an offer.  I personally don’t think many agents are making such an offer as requested.   Accordingly I would appreciate it if you could take the time to send me an email to ike@waidalerams.co.nz to say whether you would accept such an offer or not from your agent.  You can ring me if you prefer.  Please be reassured that this is not smart arse marketing gimmick, I really want to know because if it’s as I think, then I will be having a very pointed discussion about what I expect for the commission I am paying.  I know it’s not like bulls where the money is significantly higher, but surely it’s all part of the service an agent provides to get your lambs, steers etc.

Even the stock standard commission of 6% should be less these days.  I know in our area there are stock and station agents selling lambs at on farm sales for considerably less than 6%.  Landcorp are probably using their size to demand less commission, the bigger you are logically the easier it is to negotiate a reduction.  In any event it won’t change unless we all as farmers start putting the heat on the companies and voting with our feet, always an action that gets the most attention.

My Cull Stud Romney Ewe Lambs:  I do have surplus ewe lambs for sale.   One client takes about 90 every year, didn’t last year because of the drought, so if there is anyone out there who is interested in purchasing a 150 or so good ewe lambs for $20 more than my average kill price of lambs for the season, then contact me as soon as possible, first in first served.

Science and cross breeding:  I have given my views on a number of issues over the years including myomax, carla saliva test, sheep 5k and 50k, footrot test,  worm star, CT Scanning, SIL Ace index, cross breeding and closed flocks among other things.  For those of you who have not received a newsletter from me before, simply go to my website www.waidalerams.co.nz  click on Newsletters in the menu and then open up the 2012 Newsletter (mostly), I think you will find it interesting reading.

Catalogues will be posted out first week of November for my on farm sale to be held at 3pm on Wednesday 25 November 2015.  All rams offered and any going to Fielding (unlikely) or Piggies going to Christchurch will be uploaded at www.agonline.co.nz  around this same time (about 3 weeks before the sale): all you will have to do is go to that site and click on the Waidalerams sale icons to get there.  

If anyone has any questions about anything I have written please feel free to contact me, I welcome the discussion.  But if I don’t see you before, I look forward to an agent bringing you to my sale or under your own steam and having one or more beers with you.

---

 [so1]

Rural Supply Coops-relevancy to today’s farmer?

I recently read an article about the demise of rural supply cooperatives.  Neal Shaw, the CEO of Ashburton Trading Society said “I would go so far as to say it is essentially the issue of young farmers coming through and lacking the understanding of why co-ops were formed”

 This may be true to a point in that there may be farmers out there who don’t understand why cooperatives were formed, but I would argue that the way a lot of rural cooperatives are run these days its not that easy to simply understand why the cooperative was started in the first place.

Firstly, generally rural trading cooperatives were formed to create buying power:  a lot of farmers become shareholders of the cooperative which in turn allowed that entity to use its bulk buying power to secure the product as cheap as it possibly can.   

Accordingly the advantage of joining the cooperative was that you were purchasing the product from your cooperative that had sourced it as cheap as it possibly could and in all likelihood you wouldn’t be able to buy yourself individually cheaper anywhere else.

But is that the case today?   I would say no way.    The rural trading cooperative that I am a member of often isn’t and hasn’t been for a number of years the cheapest place to purchase whatever I am buying.  If it is a significant purchase I do shop around; you have to otherwise I would waste a lot of money buying it from my cooperative.  Is this right, of course its not.

The question is why is this?  Personally I am so sick of reward schemes.  I don’t want to accumulate rewards to buy goods I really don’t need or are simply buying to get rid of the rewards before they expire, its gimmicky crap.    Sell everything in the store at the lowest possible price (which by the very nature of a cooperative, it should not be cheaper anywhere else, except perhaps another cooperative that is more efficiently run) and forget the stupid rewards, this to me is the basic tenet of why a cooperative was set up (and incidentally I think also one of the reasons why vet clubs were started, but that’s another story).

The second reason I have also already alluded to is how efficiently it is run.  Again my coop owns premises all over the place; always seem to have loads of staff and seemingly carries a load of product which traditionally is considered more the domain of the “townie” as opposed to that of the farmer (i.e. one could argue not focused solely  on its core demographic)  Now I don’t know if the cooperative I am member of is efficiently run or not (I hope so), but given that they continually push their rewards schemes, do always seem to have a lot of staff around, own a lot of buildings etc and the clincher being they don’t sell goods cheaper than anywhere else I can buy them, then isn’t any wonder why there are farmers who question the relevance today of a rural trading cooperative and as such probably can’t understand why they were formed in the first place.

Using Sheep Improvement Limited (“SIL”) figures to buy Rams!!!

It’s that time of the year again, so I thought I would outline some of my thoughts on SIL performance figures and what to be aware of when buying rams!!

 Again I would point out that I am ram breeder with my own sale so I am not a neutral commentator, but as such I do think I have  a good practical understanding of the value, reliability and pitfalls of such figures.

 Dual Purpose Production (“DPP”) or Dual Purpose Overall (“DPO”) indexes

When you buy rams make sure you see the SIL printout as to how the indexes are calculated.    The reason this is important is there is no one format: a breeder can get certain sub indexes included or indeed what is more common at the moment excluded.   Accordingly if comparing indexes between breeders (which is not a good idea for lots of reasons) one of which is that you may not be comparing apples with apples, it could be apples with oranges.

 “Dual purpose Adult Size” index (“DPA”)

A number of breeders at present exclude the DPA from their DPP or DPO indexes.   The DPA is an index which in theory gives you an economic value of the genetic component of a animal’s size, the lower this figure (i.e. a high negative number) the worse the DPP or DPO as a high negative figure in theory means a ram will leave progeny that will have a high mature adult weight, which many argue we now do not want.   According many breeders exclude this figure as it significantly lifts the overall index of the ram, which is fine provided they advise you of this, not so fine if they don’t!!!   

 Some are genuine for excluding it as the index itself is, in my view, at present a complete waste of time.   Firstly if you don’t weigh your ewes (which is still the majority of breeders) SIL then calculates this DPA figure based on the rams early growth breeding values eg the weaning weight breeding value (‘Wwtbv”) and the live weight 8 (8 months old) breeding value (“lw8bv”): if a ram has a particularly high lw8bv, then SIL will give that ram a high negative DPA based on the assumption that such high early growth will mean bigger adult sheep.    This is true for some sheep, but not all; accordingly the DPA figure is a waste of time because it can’t be relied on.  I had a great example myself with one of my best breeding Romney rams in the last 10 years: he had phenomenal early growth (450 grams a day for 3 months), but he himself as an adult was not a big sheep nor in fact were the majority of his progeny (he actually reduced the size of our ewes), but he had a lousy DPA.   

Secondly many reading this will simply say weigh your ewes: but the problem with this is there is a big difference between a fat 65kg ewe and a skinny 65 kg ewe, which SIL does not differentiate between when such data is entered.     Clearly a big frame skinny ewe is not what we want, but it is treated the same as the fat one on a DPA index.    This is why I still don’t enter such data into SIL.  SIL acknowledges this and is looking at introducing some sort of system of body condition scoring at the time of weighing ewes, the problem of course being the subjectivity of the person scoring the ewe at the time.    

In my view still by far the most reliable way at present of assessing the adult size of ram’s progeny is to look at the ram himself, big ram (frame wise not necessarily simply heavy ram) probably big ewes.

Dual Purpose Meat Index (“DPM”) and Terminal Sire Meat Index (“TSM”)

It is defined as being calculated as an aggregate of hindquarter, forequarter and loin yield percentage.  

 

How do you get such data?  From Alliance viascan: so you have to get the data back on cull progeny and enter that into SIL.  Problem with this: firstly not a lot of breeders are doing this. Secondly, even if you do, you need a reasonable sample size to give you some credible data: this use to be 20 to 25 progeny of a sire (but it seems 15 is being more commonly talked about now).  If you only have a few then it could distort your results and reduce the accuracies.  

Without any Viascan data, the index is calculated by an extrapolation of an eye muscle scan, which may be correct or not as a good eye muscle does not necessarily mean a good hindquarter (in fact in my view because of the emphasis on eye muscle scanning in the last 10 years many breeders now have a sheep with a good eye muscle scan and poor or average hindquarters). 

If there is no other data then they somehow extract a DPM index from the growth figures (wwtbv and lw8bv). 

Accordingly I consider this DPM to be complete waste of time as it can be all to hell.  In fact surprisingly I recently found out that the SILACE analysis (that I get my figures from for my terminal rams) excludes the viascan data (apparently owing to a lack of such data). 

Number of Lambs Born Breeding value  (“nlbbv”)

Again you need to ask how this is calculated.  I personally base my figures on a SIL analysis where the Reproduction calculations includes LW8 (as I understand it, the science is clear that there is a correlation between such size and fecundity).  However some breeders don’t and specifically have nlb bvs based on analyses that exclude LW8 from Reproduction.    I reiterate it’s not wise to be comparing indexes between breeders (unless interalia there are strong linkages between the flock in questions) but if you are, ensure you are comparing apples with apples.    

The other important thing to remember is that the ram hogget or 2th you are looking at has nlbbvs which are a prediction of what genetically he may do.  Until that ram itself has progeny on the ground lambing themselves you don’t know what sort of fertility he is going to leave.  It’s purely an estimate based on his sire, dam, and siblings etc fertility performance.   

SIL Rankings

When looking at the figures check what their rankings are out of.   Generally most breeders put up rankings based all their male lambs or indeed all animals born that year.  However sometimes breeders put up rankings simply on those they have retained through the winter or indeed worse what they are offering for sale.    Some only give you rankings and not the actual breeding values.    I think if you are looking for something in particular to improve on perhaps fertility, wool, growth etc then you should ask to see the actual values, particularly if the ranking is based solely on what is being offered for sale as the ranking could suggest that its much better genetically than what it is.

My basic advice when buying rams, is first pick a breeder who has breeding policy in line with what you want to achieve, who you believe in and trust: if you don’t, don’t go there.  Secondly select two to three times as many rams that you want to buy of the type that you like i.e. if you want 4 rams pick out 8 to 12 that you like the look of.  Thirdly use the figures to whittle them down to the ones you purchase, focusing on the traits that are important to you.   This way you should get a consistent type with good figures. When using SIL I believe that you should focus more on breeding values and much less on indexes because as you can see from above, indexes can be pretty unreliable at times.   I always say if you know what the deficiencies are in SIL it is of use.

Are we having the wool levy being pulled over our eyes?

I have been reading the numerous article and letters, like most of us I suspect, on the pros and cons of another wool levy,  more pros as it would seem the wool levy group has a reasonable budget judging by the coverage in the farming magazines.

 I was certainly someone who was sitting on the fence on this. In theory it’s a great idea, we collectively contribute funding to a body that has our best interests at heart; such a body then makes intelligent prioritised and relevant decisions as to what is in our best interests.    In theory it’s fantastic!!!  Just like a cooperative for a meat company!

 The levy group make a number of blanket statements as to how the money will be used for Communication, Education and Innovation with a number of bullet points under each of these headings.    But again everything they say is generic statements for example one bullet point under the heading Communication: “provide industry leadership and a shared vision for the sector- industry direction, unity and alignment”.   It’s hard to disagree with such statement; the problem is how you achieve this goal, there is no detail as to how this maybe achieved.  We probably need such detail given we had a wool levy for many many years prior to 2009, which, despite it (which was considerably more in dollar terms than what is proposed now),  wool continued to decline to some very low levels in both price and demand, so how will the introduction of this wool levy be any different?

 Education:  again one bullet point under this heading: “provide funding for promoting awareness of wool to ensure that retailers, consumers and those that influence buying decisions have an understanding of wool and an incentive to use it”   Hard to disagree with such a goal, but realistically even if the whole $4.6 million proposed was used to achieve this one goal, would you make any traction?  Synthetic manufacturers of substitute products for wool (best example carpet), as I understand it, spend millions on promoting their product, including bigger margins and cash incentives for turnover of product, will 2.7 million (figure suggested) be anything but a drop in the bucket, unless its done comprehensively and properly is there any point in doing it all.  Not to mention the obvious; what indeed is the best way of educating these people when one considers you are competing against entities that have much deeper pockets than we ever will.  For example do you drive it from the consumer end or push it from the producer end, do you get celebrities or do you educate the young (possible in New Zealand perhaps, but in other countries with 2.7 million).  There are endless questions as to how you do this and whether you will achieve anything at all if you don’t have the budget to succeed.

 Another heading is “Innovation”: half a million for essentially research and development purposes.    Again great, but if you have a good idea, is there not numerous ways to get funding for this now.   There seem to be a number of government funding avenues now if the idea you want to research and develop is credible: why will another half million all of sudden make such a difference to wool innovation.  Perhaps it will but I have my doubts.

 It seems to be the norm in our industry that generic statements are made without providing the detail as to how you achieve these goals.  The Meat Industry Excellence Group, the Red Meat Sector report and now this wool levy.    To be credible and get people on your side you need detail as to how one intends to achieve such goals, particularly in light of the fact that all these issues are not new, in fact they continually come up on a regular basis with seemingly no solution.

 I have no doubt that those who are pushing for the reintroduction of the wool levy and well meaning in their intent, but if introduced its success depends on the people driving it.  I understand that entities like these take up a lot of time and often the people you want to be running it are simply too busy running their own operation to put their hand up and those who do have the time and make themselves available are not always the best people for the job.

 As you can tell from what I have written I am probably going to vote no, as firstly I think the amount of the levy is simply not enough to achieve anything: if you don’t have enough money to do something comprehensively and properly then realistically attempting to do something on half hearted basis is a waste of time (which I think the budget proposed is far from enough).  Secondly, like everything it’s only as good as the people running it, and I need more detail as to who this would be and how they intend to go about achieving these goals as in my experience history shows that when its not your money one is spending its easy to spend the money on the wrong things in the wrong way.

 

 

New Meat Industry group Started “MIANG”

MIANG stands for “Meat Industry Advanced Nothing Group” and it has a massive membership as many of us are members by default!!!   I have been saying this as a joke for a few months, but unfortunately it is fast becoming or already is the reality of what is happening. 

It’s been over since 6 months since I last wrote anything, but a phone survey call one evening a week or so ago incensed me enough to start again. 

It was some farming survey and the second question was along the lines:  if you were to get an extra $25 for a lamb would you be prepared to pay $10 per lamb for the next two years to consolidate the industry?  My immediate reply was what a stupid loaded question: is this survey being carried out on behalf of the Meat Industry Excellence Group (“MIEG”)?  To which I was finally advised it was.   It was an unbelievably ridiculous question in my eyes, of course if you simply answer the question you would have to answer yes, $25 more for each lamb, and invest $20 to get it.  However the real question is how is the extra $25 achieved, where are the arguments and data that backs up the rationale that consolidation will achieve this and will that extra $25 continue long term beyond consolidation; or will it as being suggested, by the two coops at least, with the present market conditions prevailing, what we will get extra in two years time anyway.  This question simply assumes that the $25 is reality.    

It seems to me that MIEG through such a survey is endeavouring to get statistical data to say x percentage of farmers are in favour of consolidating the industry, which based on such questions, if you answer without questioning any of the assumptions behind,  should be 100%.   The above was not the only loaded question like this I was asked.

I personally think consolidation and the merging of the coops is probably required and have argued why previously, but I know there are many more people out there who are much better informed than I as to the pro and cons of doing this.    But what really continues to bug me is why can’t everyone be upfront and transparent about it all, treat all of us with respect and detail the pro and cons, don’t just feed us with generic unjustified statements “Consolidation will result in greater returns blah blah blah….” without any detailed argument as to why it will or indeed the details as to how we go about it. 

 

Again, we are told that we need to take greater ownership in the process to reap higher returns for our lamb, but again I personally have not seen any detail as to how and why this statement will result in us receiving more money for our lamb.    These are the questions and statements that have been made for decades now and again are being asserted now, but what we are never told is the detail of how we go and about it and why it will achieve this amazing generic conclusions we are constantly fed.  I am not saying that consolidation should not happen, but treat us with some respect and detail how, why and the costings associated with it.   After all if we are making a major change on our farm, don’t we all try to get the best information before making a change that is essentially irreversible?  We don’t just take some consultant’s assertion that is what we should do: now that I think of it, there are people out there that probably do this, but not me! 

The former MIEG members who were elected to the SFF and Alliance cooperatives in the last elections: I felt that was always going to be waste of time. It was déjà vous as that’s exactly what the Meat Industry Action Group did and what did they achieve?  I understand there is still one member of that group on a board.   The problem is no matter how well intentioned you are, if you in the minority on such a board you are pushing the proverbial uphill from the get go.   

I also believe that given those new directors were put forward by MIEG and asked to be supported by farmers on a clear mandate; they have been very conspicuous by their lack of public comment on the whole situation.   The argument for not doing so, namely commercial sensitivity and confidentiality does not cut the mustard for me; in my view Directors of both Coops should be keeping us more informed than they do on these issues, with detail, it’s their duty to shareholders.    

We as shareholders want to know what are the difficulties; its their duty to inform us beyond the generic statements made (Mr Young recently stated in the Farmers weekly that “the complexity of the Market surprises MIE founder” but he doesn’t tell us anything about what these complexities are?)   Surely they could tell us why things are more complex than first thought, or why it doesn’t make sense economically, why it will take time, why other members of the board are not interested in a merger?  I want things to be transparent, I want to be informed, and I want to know what the true situation is.  If we are all transparent about what we are trying to achieve, which means detail about why this should happen and how, then we can be trust what is being said and et everyone on board and actually move forward as opposed to the same old.

Just a quick comment on the upcoming vote on the Wool levy, much of the above apply to this issue also.   Same old generic statements and claims with no detail as to how it’s achieved.   The cynic in me looks at the fact that we had a Wool levy for many many years prior to it being voted out and looked what happened to wool.  Now miraculously if it’s reinstated its going to save the industry?   There is something to be said for the fact that if it’s your money you are playing with you tend to utilise it much better!

Genetics Merger- beef and lamb etc

I have been reading the various promo articles (and in particular the recent one in the Farmers weekly of 28 October by Gerard Hall) as to why the proposed merger of Ovita, SIL (sheep improvement Limited) and Beef and Lamb should go ahead and I have also attended a coupler road show meetings on it.

 Let me say at the outset that I do support such a merger.  However I do think the various advocates of this merger tend to significantly overstate not only its significance in the development of the sheep industry to date, but also I think its contribution to it in the future.  An example of such a statement:

 The above entities are “the glue that holds together sheep genetics research and development in NZ and supports industry improvement.  These are the key ingredients in the profitability and competitive positioning of sheep and beef farming”

 The claim is made that for a $100 lamb SIL has been responsible for contributing an extra $14 more profit compared to the animals 20 years ago.  I am not saying the SIL hasn’t contributed something or been used as one of many tools to get there, but in my view the introduction of composites containing breeds of Fin etc with the resulting high lambing percentages made all other breeds focus on fertility to the point now for example the Romney breed, which is still the dominant breed in NZ, their lambing percentages and in particular number of lambs to  weaning (i.e. high survivability rates)  must be well in excess of $14 per lamb more than 20 years ago.

 People need to remember that genetics are one component of sheep farming, I would suggest it contributes around 10%, others (i.e. beef and lamb) may argue around 20%.    The balance, 80 to 90% is stockmanship, which is not only knowing what a good sheep looks like, but includes how you manage your stock, which in turn includes a basic judgment as to when you should shift them through to what pasture species, farming systems, fencing etc, all these things as a sheep or beef farmer you hone to try and maximum production out of your stock.  You assess the value of what you do by how your animals perform; it is your subjective assessment that makes the difference! 

 I believe it is the stockmanship aspect that is increasingly becoming a lost skill and accordingly as much attention, if not more, than the smaller genetic component, needs to be put on this to educate all of us and in particular those who we hope to continue with the industry into the future.  Ideally such education needs to be taught in tandem with SIL and sheep genomics etc and taught in high schools and Universities.    Some basic examples of what I mean;

·         I use a rough tool to measure dry matter in a paddock to determine how big a break I need to feed x amount of ewes or hoggets, but whatever the figure I get its only a really rough guide, if the weather is warm your stock need less, if its wet and cold they need more, if its been very wet for a while they need a bigger break still, these are judgements you should make every day.  The drymatter measurement tool is useful guide but ultimately the important judgement is the daily assessment of your stock; and

·         Making an assessment as to how subdivide your farm, a fence in the right place can make a huge difference to the utilisation of the pasture, i.e. if it’s a shady area or wet area etc.   I consider this a stockmanship assessment that has major impact on your production; and

·         An assessment of an animal’s structure, i.e. the phenotypic look of the animal is something that impacts on productivity down the track.   Simplistically an overshot or undershot sheep can’t eat enough to perform.    Dark skin, black spots on ears and face will ultimately affect productivity as not culling for it will mean that the black becomes so prevalent that you end up with inferior wool with loads of black in it.  Poor shoulder conformation if not culled for will have a significant effect on ease of lambing in future generations; this being one of my concerns about Alliance’s Viascan yield assessment, you need a good shoulder to get the premium but this maybe at the expense of lambing ease in future generations of sheep.  I could go on for ages about the various phenotypic traits of an animal and how if not culled for will ultimately affect the productivity of the flock in the future.

 There are loads more examples because it obviously comprises 90% of what we do.  Objective measurements or breeding values from SIL or indeed sheep genomic chips don’t or at best provide us with a rough guide on these decisions.

 The same article mentioned above talks about Shepherd plus, Sheep 50K, Sheep 5k etc.  I like many ram breeders provide DNA samples from sires to the present entity and presumably to the future entity to develop gene markers and refine the present ones so the accuracy of these tests can be significantly higher, but one of the major stumbling blocks to the use of them is cost and accuracy.  I would argue that unless you are an entity subsidised by the rest of us, then any breeder who utilises such tests on the scale advocated would, based on a cost benefit analysis, simply disregard the use of them.  Some presently use such science more as a marketing tool than as mechanism to improve their genetics.    Take the Shepherd plus, I can’t remember the exact pricing for this, but the cost to simply sort out sire parentage (let alone sire and dam) is ridiculous and, if you are good breeder, you still have to record and identify the mother in the normal manner, so what’s the point!!!!  Two things need to happen before such science can truly contribute to the development of the industry; the accuracy needs to continually climb and the cost of utilising such tests needs to keep coming down, there will be a point that it makes economic sense, but I am pretty sure we are not there yet.

 As stated above I am not against the merger and the continuing development into genetic markers etc, but I do believe that it’s not the panacea as some people seem to be portraying it in the media.   I do believe it can contribute, but as much emphasis needs to be placed on educating all of us on what I consider the basics of stockmanship, it’s a vital aspect of being a good farmer that can never be replaced by one or many objective tests, it is an art that needs to be learnt and as such it’s the new entity’s responsibility to also ensure that this aspect is also taught in high schools, universities and any other forum (i.e. field days) that farmers may attend or more importantly those who will be farmers of the future.

Some thoughts on some common ram marketing claims

As we are coming into the ram selling season, I thought it might be of interest to sheep farmers to give my thoughts on the merits or otherwise of some of the claims that are often used to suggest one’s rams are better than someone else’s.

I would like to make it clear that I am a passionate ram breeder and as such I am not a neutral independent commentator on the following; however I would like to think my opinion is a well informed and an objective view

Firstly, you do need to cast a cynical eye over what is often being claimed as sometimes it’s nothing more than marketing dribble used to sell rams and adds little (being polite here) or no genetic value to the rams. 

Myomax:   This is a Texel specific gene test only, so if someone is advertising Romneys or any non Texel breed (e.g. suffolks) with a single and/or double copy of this gene, then they are not pure, they are crossbreds: e.g. a Romney that has had a Texel put through them; it could be ½  Romney, ¾ Romney etc.  If it has a double copy it would have to of had a Texel put through the flock at least twice.   Good luck to anyone who wants to do this, but be aware of what you are buying.  If you buy any rams with a myomax gene, then check that the breeder is also testing for the blind gene that is associated with Texels to ensure you don’t bring that into your flock.   One other point about myomax is that one copy gives you roughly a 10% gain in the eye muscle area, but what needs to remembered if you buy a ram with a lousy eye muscle, 10% more of a crap eye muscle may not be as good as a ram with a good eye muscle and no myomax gene. 

Worm Star test:  This is approximately 80% about growth and 20% about worms.  So I personally consider the name of this to be somewhat misleading as it’s principally about growth rates, simplistically it could be renamed the growth star test. A scientist has advised me on more than one occasion, if a sheep does have good growth rates then logically it is probably handling any worm burden better than those that don’t.  The most reliable data you get from SIL is in fact ebvs on growth rates (young stock at least), so this test adds little, if not nothing, in my view. 

CT Scanning:   For CT Scanning to add genetic value to the rams you buy, the breeder needs to be scanning a sufficient sample size of each sire they use, say 20 to 25 sons (some may argue a few less) and if they do, then they are providing you with good information.  However I am personally unaware of anyone scanning these sorts of numbers per sire.  The reason being is because of cost, but unfortunately CT scanning only a few rams simply provides you with phenotypic information, i.e. what the animal looks like as opposed to genotypic information (the genetic makeup of the animal).  In other words genetically you don’t know whether the ram at issue has the genes to provide you with more meat or not, it may do but it may not. You need to find out how many rams per sire the breeder is scanning before assessing whether it adds any genetic value to the rams you are considering buying. 

We only keep twin ewes and use twin rams:  Where you have a stud breeder who records all the information they should do and are on SIL, then this is just a crap marketing statement that adds no value to the rams you buy, in particular in terms of fecundity.  Simplistically the easiest way to demonstrate why is:  you have two rams, one a single, the other a twin, the single is out of ewe that has had 6 sets of twins and then this single ram, while the twin is out of ewe that has had 6 singles in a row, then has this set of twins (note in reality I would hope that most breeders would have culled such a ewe after two singles in a row, if it’s not a terminal breed).   Accordingly if you are looking for the ram that is likely to provide you with most fecund progeny (i.e. more multiples), then clearly the single ram is the one you would take hands down.   SIL’s ebvs for number of lambs of born would also back this up.  Accordingly such a policy in a stud programme is likely limiting that stud’s progress.   Note hypothetically  if two rams are exactly the same with one being a twin, the other a single, then I too would take the twin every time. 

All rams for sale from top 35% born, or 25% born:  This always makes me laugh, without more information how is this impressive!.  In reality on its own this simply means they have retained 25 or 35% of what was born, for sale.  If from top 25%, then  based on what: that their still alive, which makes them better than the others or top 35% on SIL which means that they will be selling some awful rams that have good figures.  I don’t know anyone who is culling their best ones and selling their bottom 25%.   Personally I would be more impressed with someone selling 50% of their rams born, if when you go and look at them, they are impressive with good consistent figures, which would suggest to me such rams are more likely to pass on the characteristics and performance I am looking for because of the depth of quality in the stud.

We only retain ewe hoggets that get in lamb:  On the surface this sounds impressive, but you need to ask how long is the ram put out with them.  I, for instance, only put ram lambs out with them for 17/18 days and usually get around 60% in lamb, if I put them out for two rounds I am pretty confident a very high percentage would get in lamb.  I don’t, because I don’t want to lamb for months and I want to wean my hogget lambs the same time as the ewes.  Accordingly you need to ask more questions about this before determining whether this is something that is impressive and is of value to you. 

Sheep 50k and sheep 5K:  I don’t intend to go into the merits and economics of these genetic tests in this article, however please note the fact someone advertises that they have or are using such tests means nothing on its own.  If they have, then ask to see the results of these tests to see that they are using sires or selling rams that are coming up well on the traits and performance that you are looking to improve on in your flock.   The cynic in me is of the opinion that there are some breeders using science to market their rams as opposed to improving their genetics.  

 

There are a lot more things I could talk about but this is supposed to be an article not a book.