Guess the latest breed?

[reverand]

I breed Charollais. However my point was that a lot of breeders, of many breeds, are doing very similar to Innovis with their normal breeding & selection methods, just not necessarily attributing a number to so many traits. Is that degree of 'recording' really of value, if a stockman is responsible for the culling decisions that remove those animals from the selection pool, or not? Where a geneticist sitting in an office is making the decisions, I can see the merit, but I'd rather the (very able) stockmen made those decisions. Breeding purely on a bar chart has never ended well IME, whatever the species.

I am not knocking your breeding program for one minute.
I assume they score individuals feet regardless of wether it's being kept or not simply to build up a huge genetic library that in the future that could maybe identify bad feet in a potential lamb even before they put the tups out. I maybe wrong, knowledge is power

 

[Ysgythan]

For what it's worth I think Innovis' greatest achievement will be to open up the market for sensibly reared rams. They've always been there, but have always been cheap. Innovis have turned the ram selling rule book on its head and are getting a decent average for rams that would struggle to sell anywhere else.

 

[Al R]

I am not knocking your breeding program for one minute.
I assume they score individuals feet regardless of wether it's being kept or not simply to build up a huge genetic library that in the future that could maybe identify bad feet in a potential lamb even before they put the tups out. I maybe wrong, knowledge is power

I'm with @neilo on this, they definetly don't cull hard enough.
A friend of mine culled a bull that was from impeccable breeding lines but the first heifer born from him had a prolapse, he didn't survive more than a few hours from when she calved. No heifers or bulls were kept unless from EX breeding and if their was a slight fault it was gotten rid of instantly! Brutal but it paid off in the long run as they have a fantastic herd!

 

[reverand]

I'm with @neilo on this, they definetly don't cull hard enough.
A friend of mine culled a bull that was from impeccable breeding lines but the first heifer born from him had a prolapse, he didn't survive more than a few hours from when she calved. No heifers or bulls were kept unless from EX breeding and if their was a slight fault it was gotten rid of instantly! Brutal but it paid off in the long run as they have a fantastic herd!

Im all for culling hard

 

[Ysgythan]

Im all for culling hard

If you have to cull hard you chose wrong ones in the first place.

 

[neilo]

I'm with @neilo on this, they definetly don't cull hard enough.

I'm not saying that they don't necessarily cull hard enough, I don't know what numbers they cull or why. Just that the culling done by most stockmen breeders negates the need to necessarily 'record on 23 traits' or whatever they do now. Some things don't need a numerical value put on them, and doing so doesn't necessarily make anything any better. The only time you need to put a value on such things, is if breeding decisions are made by someone with a clipboard. Just because so many things are recorded, it doesn't necessarily translate into anything better for the ram buyer, just a bit more marketing fluff to tell them, IMHO.

 

[reverand]

If you have to cull hard you chose wrong ones in the first place.

What a thing to say!
Hows the perfect flock going by the way

 

[neilo]

If you have to cull hard you chose wrong ones in the first place.

Maybe, but not everyone manages to breed all good ones, and some people have different ideas of what makes for a culling offence (as discussed in the CS thread for example).
There is always a better end and a poorer end, and a limited market. I would cull perfectly good sheep, at my lower end, rather than suddenly try to pitch 120 shearlings on the market where I might only sell 80-90 normally.

 

[Ysgythan]

What a thing to say!
Hows the perfect flock going by the way

Selection is important and the failure to select properly leads to the need to cull in some instances. Culling therefore can suggest poor selection. Culling "hard" as I see it, zero tolerance for faults, is a waste because no fault is 100% heritable (except infertility) and your throwing away that animals potential in positive traits. So no I don't believe in culling hard because what you are left with is mediocrity across a range of traits. That's fine in a hill flock, but if you want more performance on low ground you have to be a bit more subtle and open to compromise.

This is a forum isn't it? More than one opinion is still allowed?

 

[Danllan]

If you have to cull hard you chose wrong ones in the first place.

A self fulfilling statement; but I guess it's the 'hard' bit that makes it so, because if there is anyone running a decent flock who doesn't need to cull at all, I've never heard of him.

That written, there is a bloke down the valley who never culls*; but that's because he has a different 'philosophy' to most others, along the lines of 'Numbers trump quality', and he has a hell of a work load; but he'll tell you that his 'time' doesn't cost him anything, so it doesn't matter.

*but his sheep do a fair bit for him...

 

[Ysgythan]

A self fulfilling statement; but I guess it's the 'hard' bit that makes it so, because if there is anyone running a decent flock who doesn't need to cull at all, I've never heard of him.

That written, there is a bloke down the valley who never culls*; but that's because he has a different 'philosophy' to most others, along the lines of 'Numbers trump quality', and he has a hell of a work load; but he'll tell you that his 'time' doesn't cost him anything, so it doesn't matter.

*but his sheep do a fair bit for him...

I've not said no culling at all. If I could sell all females draft and none on the cull I'd be chuffed, but it will never happen.

It's the notions of culling "hard", or culling as an end in itself, or culling being some sort of magic I'm not comfortable with. Culling is a subsidiary function of selection. Selection is all important. Culling isn't a virtue, albeit sometimes necessary.

There's also a distinction to be drawn as @neilo does between drafting (selling on excess replacements before they enter the flock, purely selling on age or de-selection), scrapping (where it's sell whilst you can) and culling (where you deliberately put ewes you could sell as breeders into the killers or abattoir). How many ship on known problems as "right mouths and unders"?

 

[Danllan]

I've not said no culling at all. If I could sell all females draft and none on the cull I'd be chuffed, but it will never happen.

It's the notions of culling "hard", or culling as an end in itself, or culling being some sort of magic I'm not comfortable with. Culling is a subsidiary function of selection. Selection is all important. Culling isn't a virtue, albeit sometimes necessary.

There's also a distinction to be drawn as @neilo does between drafting (selling on excess replacements before they enter the flock, purely selling on age or de-selection), scrapping (where it's sell whilst you can) and culling (where you deliberately put ewes you could sell as breeders into the killers or abattoir). How many ship on known problems as "right mouths and unders"?

Ahhh... my misunderstanding; to me 'culling' in the sense of this discussion has always meant just 'removing' a beast from the flock, whether to go for slaughter, mart or even from the 'A' flock in to the 'B' flock.

 

[Ysgythan]

Ahhh... my misunderstanding; to me 'culling' in the sense of this discussion has always meant just 'removing' a beast from the flock, whether to go for slaughter, mart or even from the 'A' flock in to the 'B' flock.

You're not alone. Culling does mean much more than sending for slaughter although that makes these discussions difficult.

 

[Al R]

I've not said no culling at all. If I could sell all females draft and none on the cull I'd be chuffed, but it will never happen.

It's the notions of culling "hard", or culling as an end in itself, or culling being some sort of magic I'm not comfortable with. Culling is a subsidiary function of selection. Selection is all important. Culling isn't a virtue, albeit sometimes necessary.

There's also a distinction to be drawn as @neilo does between drafting (selling on excess replacements before they enter the flock, purely selling on age or de-selection), scrapping (where it's sell whilst you can) and culling (where you deliberately put ewes you could sell as breeders into the killers or abattoir). How many ship on known problems as "right mouths and unders"?

We had 138 go as culls last year, 120 were perfect apart from dropped 1 tooth. They all went to slaughter as the price was higher that day in the Mart. A shame as some cracking ewes there but the price was higher so why not?

 

[Ysgythan]

@Jem

We had 138 go as culls last year, 120 were perfect apart from dropped 1 tooth. They all went to slaughter as the price was higher that day in the Mart. A shame as some cracking ewes there but the price was higher so why not?

Exactly, its more the other way that I'm referring to - culls being sold as drafts...

 

[Al R]

@Jem


Exactly, its more the other way that I'm referring to - culls being sold as drafts...

It would be considered a massive crime around here to sell bad udders/prolapsed or any other problems as breeders. We put a big X on their back if their no good, the dealers can do with them what they want then!

 

[neilo]

@Jem


Exactly, its more the other way that I'm referring to - culls being sold as drafts...

I had a conversation with a relatively new Charollais breeder a few years back, discussing milkiness in the breed over a cuppa. He was telling me about some fella from whom he'd bought several ewes at 'production' sales. He said the vendor always stated that he had vigourously culled out anything that didn't milk well, yet all the ewes he'd bought had been p*ss poor in that regard.
I raised an eyebrow and asked if the chap had stated where he'd culled those poorer performing individuals. The penny dropped a few minutes later.

 

[reverand]

Selection is important and the failure to select properly leads to the need to cull in some instances. Culling therefore can suggest poor selection. Culling "hard" as I see it, zero tolerance for faults, is a waste because no fault is 100% heritable (except infertility) and your throwing away that animals potential in positive traits. So no I don't believe in culling hard because what you are left with is mediocrity across a range of traits. That's fine in a hill flock, but if you want more performance on low ground you have to be a bit more subtle and open to compromise.

This is a forum isn't it? More than one opinion is still allowed?

I agree the term culling hard , I suppose, can mean different things to different people. A repeat offender of lameness ,here , goes. To my mind If the ewe is quality in every other way and the foot is sound, she will get a second chance. Is that hard culling, there are plenty who would consider that very hard and some very soft cull policy.
It also depends on the reason for potential cull. You wouldn't cull"hard" for sheep length for instance, although it's desirable you are likely to kill out more good animals than bad

 

[Ysgythan]

I agree the term culling hard , I suppose, can mean different things to different people. A repeat offender of lameness ,here , goes. To my mind If the ewe is quality in every other way and the foot is sound, she will get a second chance. Is that hard culling, there are plenty who would consider that very hard and some very soft cull policy.
It also depends on the reason for potential cull. You wouldn't cull"hard" for sheep length for instance, although it's desirable you are likely to kill out more good animals than bad

Yes, it's a loose term.

 

[johnflimston]

Anyone go to sale at Innovis Aberystwyth today? What was trade like?