Australian Whites

glasshouse said:

Dont know what you find funny
Wool is a fantastic renewable biodegradable resource , far better than all that man made shyte thats polluting the planet.

Click to expand...

Whilst I agree - there are fibre clothes that can be manufactured cheaply and at scale and don't incur the costs of manually removing it from a sheep - eg bamboo, hemp......

I wonder if methane output is correlated to a sheep's ability to digest forage? No idea if there is any work on this, but to me more methane suggests more enteric bacteria (or harder working ones) which might suggest that the sheep can digest/convert rougher forage?

Perhaps I should go and see if there is some funding available to find out..........

ringi said:

The economic benefits (if any) will be higher stocking rates without reducing grouth rates or less winter feed without reducing grouth rate. I would not expect to see any good evidence until many generations have been selected for low methane.

Breeding for feed convertion is proven for dairy cattle. I don't know of any large enough trails to show if methane is a predictor of feed conversion, but as the methane production uses up feed, it likely is.

Remember how long it took to get real world edvidance that selecting for low FEC was useful.

I believe @Tim W is doing both methane measurments and feed conversion trails, so hopefully this data will be published.

Click to expand...

I am not currently directly involved in any Feed Conversion trials but there are some taking place alongside CH4 measurements and other efficiency metrics in the Breed 4Change project ---

I'm pretty sure the PAC chambers will be on display at the NSA Sheep Event if anyone wants to find out more about the project

ringi said:

The economic benefits (if any) will be higher stocking rates without reducing grouth rates or less winter feed without reducing grouth rate. I would not expect to see any good evidence until many generations have been selected for low methane.

Breeding for feed convertion is proven for dairy cattle. I don't know of any large enough trails to show if methane is a predictor of feed conversion, but as the methane production uses up feed, it likely is.

Remember how long it took to get real world edvidance that selecting for low FEC was useful.

I believe @Tim W is doing both methane measurments and feed conversion trails, so hopefully this data will be published.

Click to expand...

So how do you get higher stocking rates or lower feed requirement if there is no evidence of improved feed efficiency from lower methane production? Certainly as far as methane suppressant feed additives are concerned, trials have consistently shown no increase in feed efficiency or weight gain. There are already enough dangerous people out there spouting off and trying to control livestock production who have no hard evidence or facts, please don't join the club.

Tim W said:

All the commercial breeders I've spoken to that have used them(NZ & Aus) have very little good to say about them
I'm disappointed by the lack of any comparative trials...the USB was eating quality but there is never any comparative data offered
Good marketeers though
@NZDan has 1st hand experience

Click to expand...

Hi
I dont go on this forum much and I wont become a regular contributor but in response to the string of postings, I make the following comments.
When using new genetics imported primarily for use as a dam line sire, the evaluation of these genetics takes time as we need to see how the daughters of the imported genetics and the progeny of these daughters perform. LFPL are lambing the first ewe lambs sired by the imported genetics in April and early May this year so patience is required before judgement can be passed.

When embarking on a breeding programme such as that which LFPL have undertaken, it is naive to think that every new sire introduced will be a winner and when introducing sires that are Dam line sires, this evaluation will take time. Over the past 30 years I personally have moved and either farmed or been closely associated with the farming of genetics from;
Britain to Australia (Charollais), South Africa to Australia (Ile de France) Britain to Canada (Ile de France, East Friesian), Australia to New Zealand (Charollais and Ile de France), Britain to New Zealand (Lacaune, East Friesian, Manech x, Kerry Hill, Easycare, Blue faced Leicester, Charollais, Texel, Beltex, Ouessant, Valais), Portugal to Britain (Assaf).
My experience is that when a breed is moved into a totally new environment it will often surprise and disappoint in equal measure and often in ways that you did not anticipate. It is therefore important to approach such undertakings with an open mind. What is evident is that many NZ shedding sheep and some Australian shedding sheep are very well recorded and offer new unrelated breeding lines that have evolved in under extensive management systems. Problems will be imported that must be culled but valuable genes may also be imported.

To give an example of what can be achieved, the Charollais genetics I imported into Australia in 2005 are now present in NZ, all lamb outdoors, ewe lambs lamb outdoors, DWG off grass alone is very good, (no concentrate ever fed) carcass quality including IMF is outstanding, feet and legs are now OK (no foot trimming and very little lameness) and survivability is commercially acceptable. To get to this stage has involved a lot of cross breeding with Kiwi sheep and much culling. But there are now some extremely good Charollais sheep present in NZ. Any of you who think that these improvements can be made without crossing with other breeds are naive - it is possible but the numbers required (5,000 ewes or more) and time taken (25-30 years at least) make this uneconomic. As we practice trait based selection - these traits are linked to profit drivers, then introgressing desirable genes is the most practical way forward.

Back to LFPL. Trait based selection is the policy that LFPL is following. If it doesn't work it will be culled. If it does it will stay. The English (apart from British) sheep industry is changing quickly as BPS is reducing significantly. The future (2030 and beyond) will be very different from the past that we have all become accustomed to. We have a choice to either keep doing the same or to look to the future and have a go at doing things differently. LFPL have chosen to adopt the latter strategy. Yes it is risky, yes it is expensive, yes we will be criticized often by people who for reasons known only to themselves, choose to criticise without full knowledge of the facts. That is life. LFPL will be releasing data as it comes to hand on the progress of the sheep breeding operation.

Finally, the methane debate. The consumer is the ultimate arbitrator of the type of product that the sheep industry must produce. If the consumer turns their back on lamb in favour of poultry, pork or beef then we wont be needing sheep farmers. Love or hate supermarkets but they retail most lamb and supermarkets make a profit by retailing a product that consumers want to purchase.
So if the projected consumer demand 2030 and beyond is for lamb that is produced by farms that are "net zero" according to a carbon calculator that the retailer and their customers have confidence in, those who choose to disregard this approach may have trouble selling their lamb through the usual channels. Lamb is a luxury product, it must eat well and come with the provenance which the consumer finds attractive, high welfare, low carbon foot print, forage/fodder based, low chemical / medicines use. Your call. LFPL have decided to include selection for low methane emissions as an important trait for the future. LFPL to date have invested their own money into this project as they believe that ultimately the consumer will require lamb to have amongst many other attributes, a lower carbon footprint. We may be wrong but selection for low methane also selects of more efficient sheep - a win win.

Listen to this webinar. Improving flock productivity and the efficiency of productivity will greatly reduce the methane emissions per kg lamb carcass which should tick boxes with the companies that want to purchase your lamb. Breeding for low methane emissions is additional to the above and may become very relevant for upland and hill farmers who may struggle to significantly improve on the former. As far as the oil and gas industry is concerned, they also must be bought into line but dont lose sight of the consumer who buys your lamb. If your lamb is perceived by the consumer to be killing the planet then your sheep farming days might be limited. If you can demonstrate that your lamb is part of the solution not part of the problem, you may remain a sheep farmer for a little while longer. Your future is in your hands.

SteveHants said:

I wonder if methane output is correlated to a sheep's ability to digest forage? No idea if there is any work on this, but to me more methane suggests more enteric bacteria (or harder working ones) which might suggest that the sheep can digest/convert rougher forage?

Perhaps I should go and see if there is some funding available to find out..........

Click to expand...

12 years research already done Mini summary at

sheepwise said:

So how do you get higher stocking rates or lower feed requirement if there is no evidence of improved feed efficiency from lower methane production? Certainly as far as methane suppressant feed additives are concerned, trials have consistently shown no increase in feed efficiency or weight gain. There are already enough dangerous people out there spouting off and trying to control livestock production who have no hard evidence or facts, please don't join the club.

Click to expand...

Better genetics. Ask your ram breeder what he is doing about all these things?

glasshouse said:

Dont know what you find funny
Wool is a fantastic renewable biodegradable resource , far better than all that man made shyte thats polluting the planet.

Click to expand...

I absolutely agree. The manufacturers donseem to.

easyram1 said:

12 years research already done Mini summary at

Low methane sheep genetics

More than 100 farmers, rural professionals and international researchers recently took part in a webinar about breeding toward low-methane genetics as part of Beef + Lamb New Zealand’s Cool Sheep programme.

beeflambnz.com

Better genetics. Ask your ram breeder what he is doing about all these things?

Click to expand...

You missed my point completely. Yes better genetics and systems lead to better efficiencies but there is no evidence to suggest lower methane producing animals do.

sheepwise said:

You missed my point completely. Yes better genetics and systems lead to better efficiencies but there is no evidence to suggest lower methane producing animals do.

Click to expand...

Dr Rowe described the ways in which lower methane sheep differ from high methane ones. This knowledge has been gained though a 12-year programme ......... demonstrating in practice that genetic gain was not adversely affected by adding methane emissions to the selection index.​

She said 'We learnt that low methane sheep are leaner and have a slightly different fatty acid profile in their milk and fat. They have less carcase fat and an improved dressing out percent, while high methane sheep have slightly higher Body Condition Scores (BCS). Lower methane sheep grow more wool. Low methane sheep were also shown to have larger intakes than high methane animals despite high methane animals having larger rumens than either the low methane flock or the control animals.
Sheep bred for low methane emissions as part of selection lines are also proving to perform economically better than sheep bred for high methane emissions. When compared using the New Zealand Maternal Worth (NZMW) index, the low selection line is around $12 more profitable than the high selection line'.

Yes you are correct. The 12 years work within the quoted Woodlands Research Flock merely showed that you could have significant methane reductions without impairing financial performance.
So to answer your question directly, various management decisions - such as lambing ewe lambs, using more productive ewes with say smaller body weights and greater ewe longevity - will improve not only your profits but also your own farm carbon footprint that some - like all major supermarkets- think is a good thing. The choice is one all sheep farmers can make for themselves

easyram1 said:

Dr Rowe described the ways in which lower methane sheep differ from high methane ones. This knowledge has been gained though a 12-year programme ......... demonstrating in practice that genetic gain was not adversely affected by adding methane emissions to the selection index.​

She said 'We learnt that low methane sheep are leaner and have a slightly different fatty acid profile in their milk and fat. They have less carcase fat and an improved dressing out percent, while high methane sheep have slightly higher Body Condition Scores (BCS). Lower methane sheep grow more wool. Low methane sheep were also shown to have larger intakes than high methane animals despite high methane animals having larger rumens than either the low methane flock or the control animals.
Sheep bred for low methane emissions as part of selection lines are also proving to perform economically better than sheep bred for high methane emissions. When compared using the New Zealand Maternal Worth (NZMW) index, the low selection line is around $12 more profitable than the high selection line'.

Yes you are correct. The 12 years work within the quoted Woodlands Research Flock merely showed that you could have significant methane reductions without impairing financial performance.
So to answer your question directly, various management decisions - such as lambing ewe lambs, using more productive ewes with say smaller body weights and greater ewe longevity - will improve not only your profits but also your own farm carbon footprint that some - like all major supermarkets- think is a good thing. The choice is one all sheep farmers can make for themselves

Click to expand...

Sounds suspiciously like the difference between well bred efficient sheep and lower quality less efficient sheep,

easyram1 said:

She said 'We learnt that low methane sheep are leaner and have a slightly different fatty acid profile in their milk and fat. They have less carcase fat and an improved dressing out percent, while high methane sheep have slightly higher Body Condition Scores (BCS)

Click to expand...

Will not work for anyone selling stores or fat in lifestock markets as will reduce prices by having lower body conditions. But could be helpful for people selling deadweight to get better grading.

glensman said:

Sounds suspiciously like the difference between well bred efficient sheep and lower quality less efficient sheep,

Click to expand...

Yes it may "just" be a more defined method of measuring "efficient sheep" when comparing rams. Having a single number for "efficient sheep" will feed nicely into EBVs.

glensman said:

Sounds suspiciously like the difference between well bred efficient sheep and lower quality less efficient sheep,

Click to expand...

They took an initial 1000 ewe flock and divided it into 2 halves - one of low emitters and high emitters. 10 years and 3 generations later they had reduced methane emissions by 11% from the start whilst still increasing the overall economic performance of both the divided flocks. Lots of interesting info on the web

ringi said:

Will not work for anyone selling stores or fat in lifestock markets as will reduce prices by having lower body conditions. But could be helpful for people selling deadweight to get better grading.

Click to expand...

The reduction in BCS was pretty minimal ie a total of 0.1 if I recall correctly over 10 years and 3 generations in the low emitters

Wishanger1 said:

Anyone know if these are available yet in the UK? I heard rumours someone had imported embryos in 2022?
Vowed i would never touch sheep but having seen them delivering superb results in Albury Wodonga when visiting if i can get my hands on some here ill swap some of my cattle for sheep. They beat all the current Uk hair sheep alternatives hands down.

Click to expand...

They are rubbish imho. Bad feet, sh!t temperament, poor performance. If you think they beet existing UK shedding breeds then you're delusional or been conned.

unlacedgecko said:

I'd reserve judgement until there's some concrete results from the Low Footprint Lamb trial. But anecdotally, the dorper element gives them shite feet and lots of lameness.

Click to expand...

Dorpers have better feet than AWs in my experience.

ringi said:

Low methane is likely to be related to better conversion of feed into meat.

Click to expand...

The evidence is the opposite is true, low methane sheep have smaller rumens I looked at using methane measurement as a proxy for feed efficiency but the correlation was very small and more efficient sheep tended to have higher methane out put.

neilo said:

With respect, that’s absolute tosh. The whole ruminant methane as a cause of climate change argument is nonsense, and those using the PAC chamber are just pandering to that idea and doing a disservice to the industry IMO. They are purely trying to score a sales point and should hang their heads in shame as far as I’m concerned.

That goes for all the heavily marketed breed/composite organisations that are jumping on board, not just those selling Aussie Whites.

Click to expand...

Well said @neilo

NZDan said:

The evidence is the opposite is true, low methane sheep have smaller rumens I looked at using methane measurement as a proxy for feed efficiency but the correlation was very small and more efficient sheep tended to have higher methane out put.

Click to expand...

Makes sense.