Breeding your own replacement ram.
- Thread starter Guiggs
- Start date
M-J-G
Member
Prejudice suggests a preconceived opinion, which isn't totally the case.
The EBV system favours larger populations, not necessarily the larger flock or herd. It's the overall volume of data and it's the level of cross referencing that matters.
I had a discussion in the past, when I worked in the sector, where a cattle breeder was wrongly told that she could not have an animal with good figures and reliability because she only had 4 cows. When in actual fact she only used commonly used AI sires and her cows were all sired by commonly used AI bulls throughout most of their 5 generation pedigree.
Her reliabilities were better than most large scale breeders before she even entered any data due to the levels cross herd referencing and the amount of data from different environments.
EBVs do favour large closed systems to small closed ones, but in many circumstances they do work just as well in smaller scale situstions.
M-J-G
Member
I take it you mean in different flocks rather than the same rams being inconsistent breeders.
I guess it will depend on where the flock's starting point is. If it's very high a ram will be more like to bring them down, if it's low the ram will have a better chance of pulling the average up.
Take your example of four cows. You hope for four good calves. If you get them, even with top figures AI sires 2 of which will be above average of your herd, two below. That will have a huge impact on their individual figures even though it's a breed wide scheme. Consistency also penalises the whole herd as the high figures depend on variance from the herd average and breed average.
We aim to sell 30 ram lambs a year with very little if any wastage and none run around as shearlings. We rarely achieve it, but that's the aim. We're very selective and cull accordingly. We will take no chances with our stock tups - they have to be right on their legs. There are plenty of men though selling 30 shearlings from 60 even 100 ram lambs born. If they are recording, what's a few more to cull for poor figures on top of the ones that go off their legs or go wrong another way. The average line is a lot less relevant to them. Generally the survivors will be the better figured rams.
M-J-G
Member
On the cow example, with using such widely used genetics the herd average will be better linked and therefore better referenced leading to the figures being based on more data.
Consistency is not penalised if you have adequate genetics links to other breeders for cross referencing.
No, sorry, you're wrong. However well linked to the breed population they are, half of your stock will be below average and in a small consistent herd that will lead to good animals having poor figures.
M-J-G
Member
Within your genetic average yes, but that won't marry in with the breed average.
Woolless
Member
- Location
- Berwickshire, Scottish Borders
They might be below the herd average, which is an irrelevance in this case, but if they are from high index stock on both sides and their raw data is pretty close to each other, then they will still be above average, surely?
- Location
- north Wales
How about cheviot ewes scanning in the hundred and forties %, and their Aberfield x daughters at 126% ? That's one place I've heard of [emoji21]
They may be but half will have low figures relative to the other half as they are below flock average. I know this because my girls have got a couple of ewes and we record them. The Signet man told me all about it.
M-J-G
Member
Which Signet man is telling that?
Last edited:
- Location
- Montgomeryshire
They will have low figures relative to the other half as, within any flock, half wil obviously be above average and half below. Are Texel ebv's not based across the whole breed though? It would be perfectly possible for a small, well connected flock, to have all their sheep within the top 25%+.
It would, but that shows how the system penalises a small consistent flock.
- Who buys on figures? Very few
- Who gives a decent premium for figures? Other figures breeders, so even fewer
- Who of them looks beyond top 5% or even 1%? None
The result? You get good stock in small flocks that are penalised on figures.
- Location
- Montgomeryshire
Who buys on figures? Maybe not many in Carlisle or Builth, but the vast majority of on farm buyers use them, or at least take them into account, IME. One might suggest that being open minded enough to use the additional information they provide would be more likely in those enlightened enough to avoid buying rams at the feeding competitions......
Could it be that those that see the benefit of doing so, are quietly buying directly from farms, or sitting in the queue of trailers heading towards each Innovis sale? IF you run everything as one contemporary group, there will surely still be variation in performance across even a small flock, obviously not as much as you might see in a large flock. Provided the flock has reasonable genetic linkage with other recorded flocks, the ebvs will still be compared with those other flocks, and thus with the whole breed. If those related genetics are all performing better in one flock (large or small) than in the others, would it be wrong to assume that the general standard of management was better in that flock? I would certainly expect the physical performance of my pure lambs to be lower than the same genetics born into some other flocks that I know of (large and small), as they are run in bigger mobs, get to receive a small challenge from cocci, worms, orf, etc, and are expected to thrive on that green stuff. That lower physical performance certainly doesn't mean the genetics are any poorer, as is seen when those genetics move onto farms that receive, let's call it, 'better' management.
I had a cr*p Spring a couple of years ago, and the physical performance of my early lambs wasn't as good as usual. We had twin ram lambs that came out as the top two index lambs in the breed that year, despite only having eye muscles of around 30mm. I know Sam Boon had some folks stirring the pot when the report came out, as how could the system give lambs like that a high index, when their own 38mm lambs were marked lower. One of those lambs went to a farm in Aberdeenshire, whose management would be 'better'. He bred the top eye muscle lamb in Scotland that next year, with a 39mm eye muscle. Ebv's work....
Who buys on figures? Maybe not many in Carlisle or Builth, but the vast majority of on farm buyers use them, or at least take them into account, IME. One might suggest that being open minded enough to use the additional information they provide would be more likely in those enlightened enough to avoid buying rams at the feeding competitions......
IF you run everything as one contemporary group, there will surely still be variation in performance across even a small flock, obviously not as much as you might see in a large flock. Provided the flock has reasonable genetic linkage with other recorded flocks, the ebvs will still be compared with those other flocks, and thus with the whole breed. If those related genetics are all performing better in one flock (large or small) than in the others, would it be wrong to assume that the general standard of management was better in that flock? I would certainly expect the physical performance of my pure lambs to be lower than the same genetics born into some other flocks that I know of (large and small), as they are run in bigger mobs, get to receive a small challenge from cocci, worms, orf, etc, and are expected to thrive on that green stuff. That lower physical performance certainly doesn't mean the genetics are any poorer, as is seen when those genetics move onto farms that receive, let's call it, 'better' management.
I had a cr*p Spring a couple of years ago, and the physical performance of my early lambs wasn't as good as usual. We had twin ram lambs that came out as the top two index lambs in the breed that year, despite only having eye muscles of around 30mm. I know Sam Boon had some folks stirring the pot when the report came out, as how could the system give lambs like that a high index, when their own 38mm lambs were marked lower. One of those lambs went to a farm in Aberdeenshire, whose management would be 'better'. He bred the top eye muscle lamb in Scotland that next year, with a 39mm eye muscle. Ebv's work....
They work, they work against small flocks. You haven't got an answer.
Signet should register as a charity as the breed societies and breeders have given it an awful lot of money for no return.
Put it another way, are those on farm buyers paying enough extra to cover the extra costs? Are they enlightened enough to make it worthwhile? Innovis sell for four figure averages but are culling a high percentage of their lambs, if they can fatten them. Build that in and the headlines aren't so impressive.
Of course there's a variation in performance, the point is that the variation in figures is artificially high due to the circumstances. In a statistical model known false results are a significant impediment. The distortion gets lost in big flocks like yours.
And the point about management is that the drop in figures is artificial and greater than the effect again due to circumstances.
In Beltex and Charolais the poly-tunnel system may be king, giving you a hook to hang your prejudiced hat on, but it's not the same in every breed. There are also small flocks run to make a profit, who do so off grass without feeding ad lib. When you have 20 ewes and sell ram lambs you can't afford a single passenger. Every one of them has to be able to rear a twin born ram lamb for sale that year. I've been to big flocks where to do that they accept that half the lambs will be sent on the hook and take a scatter gun approach, some will come right. Once they see them they concentrate on them to the detriment of the others. These are the flocks with huge figures for individuals. I wonder why? I can't afford that largesse.
These really are simple concepts and it does the cause of performance recording no good for people like you to adopt the "I'm alright Jack" attitude.
M-J-G
Member
In a system where volume of data is critical, you'd have to be strategic in how you get a smaller population to compete. I'd assumed that was generally accepted by those who understand the system.
I am only talking in terms of how the system is designed to work, I'm not saying that the system actually works well, but that's mainly due to it being starved of data due the the lack of commercial recorded flocks and commercial data.
However small flocks/herds can have as good a figures and reliabilities as larger ones if it is done strategically.
I'd be keen to talk to the signet advisor who says different
Exactly! As it is the system is reaching its peak in terms of participants from market forces and limited support from breed societies alone. There's a huge untapped resource in smaller flocks (there's a lot more of them) and if performance recording is to work that has to be acknowledged and addressed.
They can get up there as @neilo says into the top 25% if not higher, there will always an inbuilt advantage for large flocks though from pure weight of numbers. The same strategies adopted by small flocks to improve figures can be also be adopted by large flocks but the results will always be multiplied up for them.
- Location
- Montgomeryshire
What proportion do they cull? I did hear them quote 10% at one time, but it may have changed by now. Certainly not a 'high percentage' and I would suggest shows a lack of selection pressure as a result of trying to keep shareholders happy.
I've never understood this 'every one must count' attitude. Everyone has to count on my system too, with a larger flock. They all count towards the flock's profitability, or otherwise.
Nursing every one of your bottom end lambs along, and every flock has a bottom end, to get them to a breeding sale, doesn't make them good rams. Don't get me wrong, the enterprise would be more profitable with less wastage, but I happen to believe that a ram should be good enough to do what is needed of him in a commercial flock, not just good enough to get as far as sale day.
dogandstick
Member
- Location
- on the horizon
Genetic variation no doubt affects performance, the question is does recording correctly identify that at all times. With each individual made up from a mix of 16 great great grandparents no doubt a lot of variation is thrown in. Does recording put too much emphasis on historic data rather than the individual actual performance?
- Location
- Derbyshire
If you have genetically similar lambs in two flocks that perform differently, what can you put that down to anything OTHER than management???
I don't get it..... If everyone plays football in two countries with very different populations, you'd expect the best footballer to come from the country with the greatest population. That is the only bias against small flocks. It is simply genetic diversity.
I would suggest that if your Texels don't do very well on figures when you performance record them, it is one of two things. Either there is not enough data on them and their relatives so, even though they perform well, they are corrected toward an average by the 'risk averse' system..... Or....... They just simply don't perform very well genetically when compared to sheep of the same breed. If it is the former, you just need another year of data and (if they ARE good) they will climb up the rankings.