Breeding your own replacement ram.

[Sandpit Farm]

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?

This is a good point. When a lamb is born, you cannot base it's figures on anything OTHER than historical data. Data on the lamb itself then carries more weight. We would know how we expect that lamb to perform (and usually they meet expectations).... Where it gets interesting is the variation in performance between the 100 or so lambs born from that ram.

As we know correlations to other traits, we can predict what muscling EBVs will be even without actual data. Again, usually they meet expectation. The only aspect that is affected is the accuracy values.... Which is like an error bar really

 

[Ysgythan]

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.

They themselves used to quote 50% a few years back.

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.

You wouldn't though would you.

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.

You're missing the point. I'm prepared to cull stuff, I don't "nurse" any old rubbish on, but consider that if I get rubbish and/or have to cull that's a failure of selection a generation before.

 

[Ysgythan]

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.

I see your points entirely. I record without chasing figures. The figures are what they are pretty much at random. We do get lambs quite high up in figures even then, but that's because we've been doing it since 2007 and we do ET.

To get consistent top 5% lambs is just like showing, feeding competitions or any other "elite" you have to breed for it. You can't just let it to chance. For others that's fine, for us the risk is greater than the reward.

But this isn't about us or our stock. There just aren't enough people recording. If you want more you have to cut flocks of 20 or less sheep some slack, not in terms of the figures themselves, but financially or it will never do what it says on the tin and we're all wasting our time.

 

[neilo]

I see your points entirely. I record without chasing figures. The figures are what they are pretty much at random. We do get lambs quite high up in figures even then, but that's because we've been doing it since 2007 and we do ET.

To get consistent top 5% lambs is just like showing, feeding competitions or any other "elite" you have to breed for it. You can't just let it to chance. For others that's fine, for us the risk is greater than the reward.

But this isn't about us or our stock. There just aren't enough people recording. If you want more you have to cut flocks of 20 or less sheep some slack, not in terms of the figures themselves, but financially or it will never do what it says on the tin and we're all wasting our time.

On your last point I will agree with you. The cost, per sheep sold, in a small flock is fairly prohibitive as things are. However, I do appreciate that some of the admin costs are the same whether someone has 5 ewes or a hundred, and a scanning visit costs nearly as much to scan 10 lambs as it does 100.

 

[Ysgythan]

On your last point I will agree with you. The cost, per sheep sold, in a small flock is fairly prohibitive as things are. However, I do appreciate that some of the admin costs are the same whether someone has 5 ewes or a hundred, and a scanning visit costs nearly as much to scan 10 lambs as it does 100.

So what's it all about? Is this good for the industry? Or not? It's tempting to say that if it's all it's cracked up to be that money would be found.

 

[M-J-G]

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.

In a like for like basis the larger population gives more data and thus better indicator, of course it does that's what system is about, processing the data provided.

This is not always in keeping with larger breeders though, a small breeder can still be part of a large population through genetic links, and can be better referenced than a larger isolated one.

If you are being told otherwise by a technical advisor from signet I suggest that he's not the individual to seek advice from.

It shouldn't be down to pedigree breeders alone IMO, as it's like putting bank robbers in charge of a safe, plus most pedigree systems are not what this type of system is designed for, it's for vast volumes of commercial data, not exclusively from non commercially run perdigee populations, recording breeders is obviously required, but it needs to be validated against actual slaughter and economical data. This in turn would help the small breeders as it would validate their tup's genetic ability in a working class situation against those from other breeds and other breeders, although it might upset a few if a favoured sheep doesn't perform well . But EBVs aren't for the sellers benefit, they are there
for the buyer.

But to get back to your original point about the EBV system being Prejudice about small breeders, this isn't entirely accurate, it just tends to work better with larger populations, but they don't all have to be under the same large breeder, they can be made up of well linked smaller breeders.

 

[Ysgythan]

In a like for like basis the larger population gives more data and thus better indicator, of course it does that's what system is about, processing the data provided.

This is not always in keeping with larger breeders though, a small breeder can still be part of a large population through genetic links, and can be better referenced than a larger isolated one.

If you are being told otherwise by a technical advisor from signet I suggest that he's not the individual to seek advice from.

It shouldn't be down to pedigree breeders alone IMO, as it's like putting bank robbers in charge of a safe, plus most pedigree systems are not what this type of system is designed for, it's for vast volumes of commercial data, not exclusively from non commercially run perdigee populations, recording breeders is obviously required, but it needs to be validated against actual slaughter and economical data. This in turn would help the small breeders as it would validate their tup's genetic ability in a working class situation against those from other breeds and other breeders, although it might upset a few if a favoured sheep doesn't perform well . But EBVs aren't for the sellers benefit, they are there
for the buyer.

But to get back to your original point about the EBV system being Prejudice about small breeders, this isn't entirely accurate, it just tends to work better with larger populations, but they don't all have to be under the same large breeder, they can be made up of well linked smaller breeders.

But if you compare the committed small flock to the committed large flock the committed large flock always wins. Call it bias rather than prejudice if you wish.

You first have to determine whether you want take up to improve. If so you u must acknowledge the bias and do something about it.

 

[Sandpit Farm]

I see your points entirely. I record without chasing figures. The figures are what they are pretty much at random. We do get lambs quite high up in figures even then, but that's because we've been doing it since 2007 and we do ET.

To get consistent top 5% lambs is just like showing, feeding competitions or any other "elite" you have to breed for it. You can't just let it to chance. For others that's fine, for us the risk is greater than the reward.

But this isn't about us or our stock. There just aren't enough people recording. If you want more you have to cut flocks of 20 or less sheep some slack, not in terms of the figures themselves, but financially or it will never do what it says on the tin and we're all wasting our time.

It is cheaper now. Small flocks will
Definitely benefit. The savings are made by you inputting data directly to BASCO

 

[Sandpit Farm]

In a like for like basis the larger population gives more data and thus better indicator, of course it does that's what system is about, processing the data provided.

This is not always in keeping with larger breeders though, a small breeder can still be part of a large population through genetic links, and can be better referenced than a larger isolated one.

If you are being told otherwise by a technical advisor from signet I suggest that he's not the individual to seek advice from.

It shouldn't be down to pedigree breeders alone IMO, as it's like putting bank robbers in charge of a safe, plus most pedigree systems are not what this type of system is designed for, it's for vast volumes of commercial data, not exclusively from non commercially run perdigee populations, recording breeders is obviously required, but it needs to be validated against actual slaughter and economical data. This in turn would help the small breeders as it would validate their tup's genetic ability in a working class situation against those from other breeds and other breeders, although it might upset a few if a favoured sheep doesn't perform well . But EBVs aren't for the sellers benefit, they are there
for the buyer.

But to get back to your original point about the EBV system being Prejudice about small breeders, this isn't entirely accurate, it just tends to work better with larger populations, but they don't all have to be under the same large breeder, they can be made up of well linked smaller breeders.

Yes.... www.ramcompare.com

8000 records from commercial lambs born in commercial flocks from recorded terminal rams.

 

[Ysgythan]

It is cheaper now. Small flocks will
Definitely benefit. The savings are made by you inputting data directly to BASCO

Yes that helps. But:
£x proven sire semen
£x sweeper cost
AI
Signet membership
Visit fee for recording

It mounts up and that's just financially. The cost of a low first time conception and using a cheap sweeper could be substantial and deferred.

 

[Ysgythan]

Yes.... www.ramcompare.com

8000 records from commercial lambs born in commercial flocks from recorded terminal rams.

It's the mothers that need recording. How can you buy paint if you don't know anything about the canvass?

 

[Sandpit Farm]

Yes that helps. But:
£x proven sire semen
£x sweeper cost
AI
Signet membership
Visit fee for recording

It mounts up and that's just financially. The cost of a low first time conception and using a cheap sweeper could be substantial and deferred.

We pay £95 signet cost and then £2.50/ewe.

Scanning is optional but would be £175

AI, sweeper and sire semen aren't costs associated with performance recording. If you are talking about linkage, you could achieve that with the Texel breed very easily and you'd probably be well linked anyway.

 

[Sandpit Farm]

It's the mothers that need recording. How can you buy paint if you don't know anything about the canvass?

I believe something is known about the performance of the ewes. Those that have no figures I believe are analysed as a management effect and a second year of data with provide more information on the ewes in the trial. So if the lambs from two different years perform badly from different sires on the same ewe, that ewe takes some of the flack.

 

[Sandpit Farm]

There is compelling evidence everywhere that performance recording will increase the performance of you select for it. If you are selling unrecorded rams for strong money already, it is natural that you'd want to slate the system... especially if you feel your rams wouldn't perform as well when ranked.

Basically the issues raised about progeny testing and biases against small flocks have been answered. Even the cost point can be put to bed... yet people STILL come up with reasons why performance recording is a load of crap.

I know it's frank.... but it's my opinion. There's nothing wrong with selling tups for strong money and why would you risk your reputation by recording and potentially being ranked low... however it is clear that, for the good of the industry, we need to embrace science and stop breeding poodles.

 

[M-J-G]

But if you compare the committed small flock to the committed large flock the committed large flock always wins. Call it bias rather than prejudice if you wish.

You first have to determine whether you want take up to improve. If so you u must acknowledge the bias and do something about it.

Bias suggests that there is an element of prejudice or unfairness, but without the data or links, but I fail to see how a system being run without a critical mass of data can be classed as unfair.

If all else were equal, yes larger flock wins, I think that one is getting boring now as it has been well covered.

But smaller flocks can in some cases, still have better EBVs that larger ones, which is what you seemed to be in disagreement with at the start.

 

[M-J-G]

The main issue I have with the ram compare is that it is high index rams, I believe for the study to work it needs to have sires of low medium and high indices and compare from there.

As it stands there is more of a comparison between high index rams of different breeds than there is a validation of the rams index.

As to how much is known about the ewes, who cares? A commercial farmer doesn't know about his ewes potential index, he will just look at how the lamb's do off the batch that got turned put with that ram. The study doesn't need to be more complex than that really.

They do need to do thousands of rams for 10 years before I would give it much credit though.

 

[neilo]

The main issue I have with the ram compare is that it is high index rams, I believe for the study to work it needs to have sires of low medium and high indices and compare from there.

As it stands there is more of a comparison between high index rams of different breeds than there is a validation of the rams index.

As to how much is known about the ewes, who cares? A commercial farmer doesn't know about his ewes potential index, he will just look at how the lamb's do off the batch that got turned put with that ram. The study doesn't need to be more complex than that really.

They do need to do thousands of rams for 10 years before I would give it much credit though.

Each host farm puts one of his own 'farm choice' rams in as well, who may be high, low or unknown index.

 

[M-J-G]

Each host farm puts one of his own 'farm choice' rams in as well, who may be high, low or unknown index.

Still a bit grey, really.

 

[neilo]

Still a bit grey, really.

Of course, but there aren't unlimited funds available.

There was a trial, some years back, using a large number of recorded mules that came out of the Longwool project, with low, medium and high index rams of the main terminal sire breeds used and lambs taken through to slaughter. IIRC it was yet another trial that backed up the science, but still the nay sayers carried on.

 

[liammogs]

The only problem with ebvs there not 'policed' if that makes sence! Yea there an aid, but it all depends on the farmers honesty!

Ill never forget a charolais cattle breeder telling me 'oh ill be putting this bull calfs birth weight at 40kg it puts him +10 for calving ease when the calf was a monster' and another end of the scale farmer just hasnt got time to record things so he has no ebvs, i know there a guide and a aid at times how can people purchase on figures when they can be bent to suit themselves?