Flushing

[Owain2014]

Hi all,

Do people use buckets or cake when flushing, ewes are in good condition but I was just thinking of giving them some Crystalyx high energy tubs a few weeks before tupping.

What’s buckets do you find good if you use them?

Cheers all.

 

[countrylad]

Use 18% ewe rolls, but only on thinner ewes. If ewes are in good condition (3.5 for lowland) they will not benefit from any extra feed

 

[Estate fencing.]

Use 18% ewe rolls, but only on thinner ewes. If ewes are in good condition (3.5 for lowland) they will not benefit from any extra feed

I’m not sure I would agree with that. Thin ewes are easy to have rising plan of nutrition but fit ewes need some extra energy to flush. I’ve always flushed ( fit mules) on extra energy buckets and never scanned below 200%

 

[neilo]

I’m not sure I would agree with that. Thin ewes are easy to have rising plan of nutrition but fit ewes need some extra energy to flush. I’ve always flushed ( fit mules) on extra energy buckets and never scanned below 200%

All trials that I've seen show no response to flushing ewes over CS 3.5 or so. I've certainly never flushed fit ewes, but usually chuck some Chrystallix blocks out if they are a bit leaner and on old pp (couch) grass.

Your fit mules would probably still do over 200% if you didn't give them the extra energy, as long as trace elements were all OK.

 

[farmerm]

All trials that I've seen show no response to flushing ewes over CS 3.5 or so. I've certainly never flushed fit ewes, but usually chuck some Chrystallix blocks out if they are a bit leaner and on old pp (couch) grass.

Your fit mules would probably still do over 200% if you didn't give them the extra energy, as long as trace elements were all OK.

Ours don't should we blood test for trace elements?

 

[neilo]

Ours don't should we blood test for trace elements?

I would think it good practice, to see what YOUR land may (or may not) be deficient in. It isn't going to change much from one year to another, so doesn't need doing often. Alternatively, you can just listen to the various mineral/drench salesmen and treat them anyway with buckets/blocks/drenches/boluses.

I know trace element deficiencies are the most important factor effecting scanning numbers here. The best way to address them is less clear.

 

[Stewartry hill]

Do you really want a scan over 200%?

 

[neilo]

Do you really want a scan over 200%?

I would do, if I had a system where I had the cost of housing and indoor lambing. Lambing outside, no thanks.

 

[Global ovine]

Ours don't should we blood test for trace elements?

See @neilo reply for that question.
However very few flocks of any breed or cross are genetically the same to respond identically to an increase in body weight to achieve the same gain in ovulation rate, eventually lambs on the ground. The 2.1 extra eggs shed per kilogram of body weight (1.9 extra lambs due to partial litter loss) is a general rule across all common commercial breeds of UK origin. Fat and obese ewes are at the top end of the curve showing diminishing returns, ie. a waste of feed.
Between flock differences in response, if all trace elements are adequate, are due to the breeders goals for selection on litter size, be they hill sheep breeders and/or BFL breeders. Increase genetic uniformity for fecundity will only exist if one or both of those breeds have very little genetic diversity (highly inbred and few significant progenitor sires).
The UK has a high proportion of pedigree breeders to commercial farmers and don't all do everything off the same page. The genetic difference between breeders would also be expected to be large when the majority of breeders do not measure and rank phenotype for selection. Therefore some flocks of Mules will not be equal to other flocks.