ebv debate

[Poorbuthappy]

More and more convinced that it should be all or nothing. This should not be for individual farmers to decide. If it needs to be population wide to be effective then the levy should pay for it or it should be compulsory.

I've held off up to now cos the word only upsets some people - but 1 thing the Stabiliser breed have right imo is that everyone who signs up to the society has to record.

 

[neilo]

More and more convinced that it should be all or nothing. This should not be for individual farmers to decide. If it needs to be population wide to be effective then the levy should pay for it or it should be compulsory.

It doesn't need to be population wide to be effective, it just makes the whole thing more accurate as more data is added. A bit like overfed rams at sales, the demand has to come from the buyers. If they are willing to keep paying for unrecorded sheep, or pumped up rams, then they will be produced for them.

A bit daft when the 'saviours' of the commercial sheep industry then come from heavily marketed breeding programs, on the strength of their recording and selection methods and selling at a handsome premium on the back of it. There are breeders in any/most of the UK breeds who would have more robust ebvs than any of the recently formed marketing companies (whether UK or NZ genetics), and plenty that are producing functional rams off forage diets that will serve lots of ewes, just the same as there's.

 

[NZDan]

I've held off up to now cos the word only upsets some people - but 1 thing the Stabiliser breed have right imo is that everyone who signs up to the society has to record.

Is that not because the breed(Brand) is owned by the developers? The Meatlinc is the same/similar.
The Meatmaster breed in SA has performance recording as compulsory. I believe the Texel in NZ has just made it compulsory as well.
The Coopworth here not only has compulsory performance recording but has compulsory selection standards, Sire rams must be in the top 15% for index, they must use sire referencing and 40% of all ewes must be culled by 4th lambing.
http://www.coopworthgenetics.co.nz/

 

[M-J-G]

I've held off up to now cos the word only upsets some people - but 1 thing the Stabiliser breed have right imo is that everyone who signs up to the society has to record.

Plus they have had a focused on figures since their origin, in theory their EBVs should be further advanced than those of most other beef breeds.

 

[NZDan]

Plus they have had a focused on figures since their origin, in theory their EBVs should be further advanced than those of most other beef breeds.

Not necessarily, Leachmans have never been in the bigger is better camp for EBVs, even in the early days they selected bulls that had the right balance of traits rather that just the 'best'.

 

[neilo]

Is that not because the breed(Brand) is owned by the developers? The Meatlinc is the same/similar.
The Meatmaster breed in SA has performance recording as compulsory. I believe the Texel in NZ has just made it compulsory as well.
The Coopworth here not only has compulsory performance recording but has compulsory selection standards, Sire rams must be in the top 15% for index, they must use sire referencing and 40% of all ewes must be culled by 4th lambing.
http://www.coopworthgenetics.co.nz/

Surely there's a little room for type too? I've seen several flocks that have bred purely on figures in the past, regardless of the type, and it's been a fast road to some pretty awful sheep.

I would suggest a little compromise on the constant drive for performance doesn't go amiss. To be forced to only ever use rams with top 15% indexes (for example) would be nonsense IMO. I regularly use rams outside that, to bring an exceptional trait on, and will do even more now since the weightings that make up our index have been changed.

 

[Jackson4]

Is that not because the breed(Brand) is owned by the developers? The Meatlinc is the same/similar.
The Meatmaster breed in SA has performance recording as compulsory. I believe the Texel in NZ has just made it compulsory as well.
The Coopworth here not only has compulsory performance recording but has compulsory selection standards, Sire rams must be in the top 15% for index, they must use sire referencing and 40% of all ewes must be culled by 4th lambing.
http://www.coopworthgenetics.co.nz/

You just couldn't do that here.. alot would argue if selection was neccassary

It doesn't need to be population wide to be effective, it just makes the whole thing more accurate as more data is added. A bit like overfed rams at sales, the demand has to come from the buyers. If they are willing to keep paying for unrecorded sheep, or pumped up rams, then they will be produced for them.

A bit daft when the 'saviours' of the commercial sheep industry then come from heavily marketed breeding programs, on the strength of their recording and selection methods and selling at a handsome premium on the back of it. There are breeders in any/most of the UK breeds who would have more robust ebvs than any of the recently formed marketing companies (whether UK or NZ genetics), and plenty that are producing functional rams off forage diets that will serve lots of ewes, just the same as there's.

You need to advertise more neil if people dont advertise it and use it then people wont use it.

 

[NZDan]

Surely there's a little room for type too? I've seen several flocks that have bred purely on figures in the past, regardless of the type, and it's been a fast road to some pretty awful sheep.

I would suggest a little compromise on the constant drive for performance doesn't go amiss. To be forced to only ever use rams with top 15% indexes (for example) would be nonsense IMO. I regularly use rams outside that, to bring an exceptional trait on, and will do even more now since the weightings that make up our index have been changed.

The "type' is factored in by allowing (what I think is a generous) 15%(just dropped from 10% recently). Bearing in mind that in a 500 ewe flock weaning 135%,(most would be weaning over 150%) then 15% of the rams is 50. A 500 ewe flock is probably using 3 or 4 new rams per year. Selecting 3 or 4 rams from 50 should be pretty damn easy.
They are also allowed to bring in out side genetics as long as they back cross to Coopworth sires twice, many breeders have at some stage added a little Texel, Finn, East Freisian or Romney to there flocks, while maintaining the core Coopworth type. I beleive 40% of Coopworths carry Myomax/T+.

 

[Ysgythan]

Well what a load of bollix.

"40% of all ewes must be culled by 4th lambing."

Chicking Bobby calves about is nothing compared to compulsory euthanasia of productive ewes, even if proportionally...

@neilo I'm with you. Type is not only important, it's crucial. EBVs tell you things that type can't, but it should not be to its exclusion.

 

[M-J-G]

Not necessarily, Leachmans have never been in the bigger is better camp for EBVs, even in the early days they selected bulls that had the right balance of traits rather that just the 'best'.

I don't mean their performance is better than anyone else, simply that they have a better recored base.

 

[NZDan]

Well what a load of bollix.

"40% of all ewes must be culled by 4th lambing."

Chicking Bobby calves about is nothing compared to compulsory euthanasia of productive ewes, even if proportionally...

@neilo I'm with you. Type is not only important, it's crucial. EBVs tell you things that type can't, but it should not be to its exclusion.

So you don't cull ewes? You retain them all?
Yes type is crucial, but like I pointed out 3 or 4 rams from a possible 50-60 gives plenty of room for type selection, if there is not enough of good type in a group of 50 I'd suggest there is some thing seriously wrong with the flock. Type and EBVs must go hand in hand one with out the other is just daft.
Most cull stud sheep simply move to the commercial flock or are sold as breeding ewes.
I would have thought you'd understand sheep breeding a little better than to make weird assumptions like that.

 

[Poorbuthappy]

Surely there's a little room for type too? I've seen several flocks that have bred purely on figures in the past, regardless of the type, and it's been a fast road to some pretty awful sheep.

I would suggest a little compromise on the constant drive for performance doesn't go amiss. To be forced to only ever use rams with top 15% indexes (for example) would be nonsense IMO. I regularly use rams outside that, to bring an exceptional trait on, and will do even more now since the weightings that make up our index have been changed.

Back to the issue of selecting by individual traits rather than index.

 

[Ysgythan]

So you don't cull ewes? You retain them all?
Yes type is crucial, but like I pointed out 3 or 4 rams from a possible 50-60 gives plenty of room for type selection, if there is not enough of good type in a group of 50 I'd suggest there is some thing seriously wrong with the flock. Type and EBVs must go hand in hand one with out the other is just daft.
Most cull stud sheep simply move to the commercial flock or are sold as breeding ewes.
I would have thought you'd understand sheep breeding a little better than to make weird assumptions like that.

I consider culling/drafting/deselection a failure to select the right sheep in the first place. The better your flock the less you'd need to do that, not more. I'm certainly not going to work to a 40% deselection quota. It's deselecting for the right reasons that counts not the accountancy of it.

 

[$Sheep]

Hey the Coopworth selection policy is to ensure continual genetic improvement. Those ewes that miss the cut to stay on in the elite flock if still fit to breed would move across to a multiplier flock or go into a general commercial flock. The first criteria of selection must always be functionality and fit-for-purpose with maintaining type also being important. Àny seedstock breeder focusing solely upon index would invariably stumble as the core principles of breeding would eventually be violated.

 

[neilo]

I consider culling/drafting/deselection a failure to select the right sheep in the first place. The better your flock the less you'd need to do that, not more. I'm certainly not going to work to a 40% deselection quota. It's deselecting for the right reasons that counts not the accountancy of it.

I agree that a compulsory number on it is daft, but 40% of my pedigrees would be down the road by their fourth lambing, not because of ebvs, but continual flock improvement (I hope) generally. When I try a ram and he disappoints, his daughters won't generally get near their fourth lambing. Did I tell you about those unrecorded rams I've bought over the years....... (Getting back on topic).

However, four out of the five ewes I've just flushed were past their fourth lambing, and I certainly wouldn't take any breed society politicians advice as to when they should be culled.

 

[Ysgythan]

Hey the Coopworth selection policy is to ensure continual genetic improvement. Those ewes that miss the cut to stay on in the elite flock if still fit to breed would move across to a multiplier flock or go into a general commercial flock. The first criteria of selection must always be functionality and fit-for-purpose with maintaining type also being important. Àny seedstock breeder focusing solely upon index would invariably stumble as the core principles of breeding would eventually be violated.

Forgive me then, when you talked about culling I had thought that to mean a one way ticket to the abattoir.

I follow the logic of increasing progress through shortening the genetic interval, but surely there's a risk of over zealous deselection affecting longevity in the long run and producing sheep that are burnt out by the time they have all their teeth?

 

[Ysgythan]

Talking about self fulfilling prophesies, "Pointless Celebrities" is on...

 

[$Sheep]

Forgive me then, when you talked about culling I had thought that to mean a one way ticket to the abattoir.

I follow the logic of increasing progress through shortening the genetic interval, but surely there's a risk of over zealous deselection affecting longevity in the long run and producing sheep that are burnt out by the time they have all their teeth?

As a commercial sheep farmer it is important the ewe flock has a good fit with environment hence longevity is highly valued therefore we have a preference to breed replacements from the older cohort of ewes.
Up until now there has not been an ebv for longevity however I understand it is soon to be introduced. I would imagine the Coopworth seedstock breeders would make appropriate adjustments in how different traits are appraised and perhaps this may cause a change in selection criteria acknowledging longevity as a valued trait.

 

[Ysgythan]

That's the point though isn't it. Culling is a good thing, until, you do it for the sake of it and without an intelligent plan, or have a quota.

 

[JD-Kid]

intresting talked to a breeder the other night and she likes the coopworths (they are not a coopworth stud) but is a bit pee'd at what they are doing with the breed sounds like the rule books are not being followed

longevity ummm studs have to be run under harder standard mangerment most studs get looked after just a wee bit better than standard flock sheep had ewes at our last place that could last out for many years full mouth here we had the same ewes with teeth probs by year 3 and culled by year 5 so what lasts in one area may not last in others and would be a worthless trat to have in recording