Ewe breeding for reduced mastitis

[dconlon]

The rate of post turnout mastitis in my Mule x Texel flock is twice that of my Mule flock. We've had a particularly bad year for mastitis this year so I'm wondering about an alternative to the Mule x Texel which will still produce a tighter skinned lamb but with less mastitis.

I'd be really interested in how much post turnout mastitis others are getting on their farms in non Texel bred ewes (e.g. Lleyn, Cheviot Mule, Suffolk Mule) vs. their straight Mule ewes.

We are a lowland spring lambing farm, our turnout fields have shelter and we put out salt for the lambs. We never have a significant number of cases before turnout so I think lambing shed hygiene is okay. It's always a week or two after turnout that the mastitis problems start. This year lambing was particularly good but mastitis has been particularly bad (14% of Texel bred ewes, 7% of Mule ewes) - perhaps due to late frosts. I'm looking at nutrition too but am wanting to move away from the Mule x Texel considering that the Mule flock always suffers so much less in the same conditions. It may be that we switch back to the Mule but keen to try something else first!

 

[M-J-G]

The rate of post turnout mastitis in my Mule x Texel flock is twice that of my Mule flock. We've had a particularly bad year for mastitis this year so I'm wondering about an alternative to the Mule x Texel which will still produce a tighter skinned lamb but with less mastitis.

I'd be really interested in how much post turnout mastitis others are getting on their farms in non Texel bred ewes (e.g. Lleyn, Cheviot Mule, Suffolk Mule) vs. their straight Mule ewes.

We are a lowland spring lambing farm, our turnout fields have shelter and we put out salt for the lambs. We never have a significant number of cases before turnout so I think lambing shed hygiene is okay. It's always a week or two after turnout that the mastitis problems start. This year lambing was particularly good but mastitis has been particularly bad (14% of Texel bred ewes, 7% of Mule ewes) - perhaps due to late frosts. I'm looking at nutrition too but am wanting to move away from the Mule x Texel considering that the Mule flock always suffers so much less in the same conditions. It may be that we switch back to the Mule but keen to try something else first!

A mate of mine who breeds Texels says that the more bare legged and bellied the Texel the more mastitis you'll get.

I ran texel x ewes 30 years ago and mastitis cases were rare, but they were a woolier breed then.

 

[Frank-the-Wool]

Good luck with breeding a sheep resistant to Mastitis.
It always seems to be more to do with environmental conditions than breed factors.
This year has been truly bad and very hard to put it down to a single reason.
Last year had virtually none. The one difference was last year the sheep had hardly enough to eat all summer, this time far too much grass!!

I am not sure they have been giving any more milk, but it is possible the lambs have weaned themselves earlier this year so causing fuller udders that have been more prone to mastitis.

 

[Aspiring Peasants]

Tend to get more mastitis in texels than mules but not much more. In this area it was very cold in April and ewes were lying with their bags on frozen ground which didn't help. Also notice less in ewes lambing outside but that could be due to them lambing later when it is warmer or it could be down to less risk of cross infection.

If the bulk of cases are happening 2 weeks after turnout I still think the original infection could have come from the shed

 

[gatepost]

I am part of the mastitis genomic Texel trial, so far genes have been identified which give somewhere between 15 and 30 % more resistance, the rest is environmental, I have run Texel x ewes for years now on very hard high ground, and found no difference between wool and no wool, but certainly individual rams will leave daughters who are more or less susceptible, hence the need to breed replacements out of ewes that have some longevity in them, a real problem with Et work involving nothing but young sheep, if you are thinking of breeding your own replacements, then I would suggest you look at the age of the rams dam first, and discount ETs.

 

[easyram1]

We are very confident that our NZ Texels are much less likely to get Mastitis than their UK cousins and this obviously has a knock on effect on their female descendants. Evidence is all anecdotal from happy clients but the Athenry trial ram by Teagasc in Ireland shows that for the 5 years of the trial the 'cull'rates' of pure NZ Texels and Suffolks are less than their Irish cousins. Obviously mastitis is one of the reasons for culling. As a policy ewes with mastitis or wonky udders are culled not used as 'Flushing ewes'.

 

[dconlon]

Sorry to hear that you had a bad year for Mastitis too @Frank-the-Wool, I do think that the cold April was a factor as you say @Aspiring Peasants - our vet said it'd been a bad year for it generally in this area and put that down to the cold. Some food for thought if we decide to stay on Texels there - I can definitely see how breeding replacements out of ewes will some longevity would select for a bit of resilience.

Thank you all for your replies - I appreciate it.

 

[Jonny_2]

We started with Lleyns in 2013, mainly buying in with our first homebred shearlings lambing in 2017. Don’t suffer to bad with mastitis (got one serious case this year out of 170) but there udder confirmation is terrible, in both what we’ve bought and bred. Saggy udders, cone teats and poor placement. Onto our third cross gimmers now so see how they go!

We seem to get between 5 and 10 ewes lamb down every year with a hard udder that never produces any milk and blame this on sub clinical mastitis which gets missed. Cautious that our replacement rate is too high we put a brown tag in any ewe that’s udder isn’t great but will pass another year or two and she goes to a Suffolk tup

 

[Global ovine]

We are very confident that our NZ Texels are much less likely to get Mastitis than their UK cousins and this obviously has a knock on effect on their female descendants. Evidence is all anecdotal from happy clients but the Athenry trial ram by Teagasc in Ireland shows that for the 5 years of the trial the 'cull'rates' of pure NZ Texels and Suffolks are less than their Irish cousins. Obviously mastitis is one of the reasons for culling. As a policy ewes with mastitis or wonky udders are culled not used as 'Flushing ewes'.

This apparent difference between the flocks of the UK and NZ raises the questions; what is the difference and why would this exist?

1. What is the difference? The best and most up to date study I can find is: https://researcharchive.lincoln.ac....ossbred sheep 2018.pdf?sequence=3&isAllowed=y

This widely referenced study quoted studies carried out in the UK, one of which claims that over 50% of a flock can suffer from subclinical mastitis, whereas only up to 5% are affected clinically in NZ. Obviously the higher the subclinical incidence the higher the clinical prevalence.

2. Why would this difference happen? This is my opinion from my understanding of both sheep industries.

With heritabilities ranging from low to moderate, a large environmental component exists. Much of the dominant sheep regions in NZ are low summer rainfall/drought prone, whereas sheep are found throughout the UK and often the main land use in wetter western hill country regions. NZ may have an advantage most years.
The Texel breed has an anecdotal reputation in both countries as being more susceptible than the widely used Maternal breeds. Texels are now found widely in maternal mixes in both countries, as a part component in NZ and usually as one half of a cross bred ewe in the UK. Therefore the Texel influence is greater in the UK with 26% of ram usage being Texel (2021 AHDB Sheep Breeds Survey).
The NZ ram breeding industry is very different to the UK. NZ sheep breeders run much larger pedigree flocks usually in conjunction with large commercial flocks. Nearly all are fully recorded. Because of this scale, each ewe has less value to its owner than in the UK. Therefore if it offends, cull it and its progeny if the problem has a genetic link. A ewe with udder problems would never contribute to the genepool once identified, irrespective of how beautiful she appeared. Since 1984 (NZ's economic revolution) anything which caused additional cost is eliminated. Thus we see nowadays less animal health problems because these have been reduced at their source, genetically, even though the environmental factors remain dominant and constant. Genomic tests for Resistance will shorten this process, but the outcome will be similar, but only for that particular problem.

Selection against a trait is much easier where the challenge is greater. Therefore the UK theoretically should be able to make big gains fast. But I fear that the pedigree industry generally is not driven by the welfare of the commercial industry, but where individual animal prices are the goal. There are some notable exceptions to this trend. However change is driven by those who pay. Once a problem is associated with a breed/strain, its popularity wains, as seen in the UK Suffolk with difficult births and lack of enthusiasm of new borns to suck. It would be a pity if the playing of "wack a mole" occurs as problem are identified, instead of addressing them across the board for the benefit of the whole industry.
At least there area few options out there, its just up to the buyers to find them.