Lanark texel sales, today.

[andybk]

You'll not feed a bad one into a good one, I'm not sure how you think meal will make a difference if a lamb is faulty?

Thought picking out top end lambs was difficult, last year had a better show of sheep.

not necessarily faulty , but many feed the meat onto them at these sales , only for it to disappear over the next 6 months . One of the Charollais main men only fed half the amount one year due to other family issues , nearly everyone at Builth that year commented how his sheep had gone back and put it down to the ram he was using , The sheep were simply the same as before just not done to the same degree . and i thought some may have cut the feeding back due to difficult sales this year for the ring men.

 

[Ysgythan]

Apologies if I offended you was not my intention. There are plenty of good solid breeders out there. I buy off them.

I know, accepted. There is a lot of broad brush sniping that goes on. It’s necessary to point that out sometimes. My view is that dismissing the extreme in favour of the opposite extreme is pointless.

I don’t lamb outside on the top of the Black Mountain, but my system to weaning is that of a typical early lambing flock. They get turned out a lot earlier than the Easter lamb trade boys.

how many farmers do you think come and have a look at them in early June?

 

[irish dom]

I've seen plenty of sheep in the top 1% that can only be described as screws, in fact the load of rubbish that often makes it to Blessington, wouldn't get a bid at the UK national sales, which is why a lot of ROI breeders venture across the water to buy breeding stock.

Bit of a sweeping statement there but I think you'll find alot of the men buying sheep in the UK are returning there to sell their sons and getting on fairly well. Plenty of the stuff bought in the UK is fairly disappointing. But it's the old saying if it comes from far away it must be better. Alot of the UK customers who buy at blessington wouldn't agree with you. Or does the Irish accent in their bleat put you off.?

 

[puppet]

I am well out of even the 4 figure tups circle but to buy something on character and presence is akin to the art or drinks world where prices spiral upwards based on what prices have been achieved before and rich buyers want to be part of that elite group. Think Damien Hirst and a pickled cow
There is some New Zealand bottled water which bubbles up through volcanic springs and comes in only 200ml as it is £45/litre. The experts waxed lyrical about it with all the usual jargon until they did a blind tasting when they chose Wessex tap and Co-op 20p/litre as their favourite.
The tup was in the top 1% genetics which it absolutely should be. Just like a Premier footballer, locomotion and straight legs should be thrown in at that level.
At the end of the line someone has to eat the progeny which has to be born easily, stand up, sook and grow from grass. Hopefully my next Texel tup 10th removed from him will retain a few genes

 

[neilo]

You'll not feed a bad one into a good one, I'm not sure how you think meal will make a difference if a lamb is faulty?

I've seen plenty of sheep in the top 1% that can only be described as screws, in fact the load of rubbish that often makes it to Blessington, wouldn't get a bid at the UK national sales, which is why a lot of ROI breeders venture across the water to buy breeding stock.

The bags of feed are what makes those 'screws' into a decent looking sheep, which then all goes when they are run more naturally.

Just on figures, I would look at lamb that had huge growth figures, negative muscle and gigot ebvs, coupled with an extreme negative fat ebv, and run a mile. For an animal with those ebvs to handle anything like, he will have been hard pushed.
Those figures indicate to me that his lambs, from mule type ewes, wouldn't be likely to finish at slaughter weights without hard feed. I'm sure it will push the Texel breed forward.

 

[neilo]

The tup was in the top 1% genetics which it absolutely should be. Just like a Premier footballer, locomotion and straight legs should be thrown in at that level.
At the end of the line someone has to eat the progeny which has to be born easily, stand up, sook and grow from grass. Hopefully my next Texel tup 10th removed from him will retain a few genes

I would suggest it is important to look at the individual trait ebvs that make up that top 1% index:

 

[puppet]

Give me your interpretation of those figures which relate to his parents. We have all seen that sons do not always turn out like fathers.
I have seen more bull EBVs and the accuracy is always a worry at 37 to 77%

 

[yellowbelly]

As @puppet says above, will somebody go through those figures, for us luddites/mere mortals on here who never pay more than three figures for a tup, and explain why he's 350,000 gns worth?

I can understand why the fat index is a minus figure, but I'd expect no other minus figures in a 'world beater'

 

[neilo]

As @puppet says above, will somebody go through those figures, for us luddites/mere mortals on here who never pay more than three figures for a tup, and explain why he's 350,000 gns worth?

I can understand why the fat index is a minus figure, but I'd expect no other minus figures in a 'world beater'

I very much doubt the figures had a large part to play in his price tag, that would be down to perceived 'character', with a Top 1% badge being a useful accolade to help marketing of progeny.

The Texel society now run their own analysis in house, so I have no idea how they weight individual traits to calculate that final index, but they clearly put most weighting on growth rates.
The 72% accuracy would be about right for a lamb that has relations that are recorded and that has been recorded himself (I did see a lamb with an accuracy of 31% in the Welshpool catalogue, which likely only ever had parentage and a birth weight recorded).

From the ebvs listed in the catalogue, he is predicted to have huge (seriously huge) growth but, at slaughter weights, he would have below average loin muscle depth and lean meat yield in the hindquarter, whilst having very, very low fat cover.
I'll leave it to you guys to decide if that makes him a world beater.

 

[Ysgythan]

The bags of feed are what makes those 'screws' into a decent looking sheep, which then all goes when they are run more naturally.

Just on figures, I would look at lamb that had huge growth figures, negative muscle and gigot ebvs, coupled with an extreme negative fat ebv, and run a mile. For an animal with those ebvs to handle anything like, he will have been hard pushed.
Those figures indicate to me that his lambs, from mule type ewes, wouldn't be likely to finish at slaughter weights without hard feed. I'm sure it will push the Texel breed forward.

That’s the nub. There’s two sides to this. You see an animal that needs a push, they see an animal that can take a push. You say that’s EBVs seeing through whats going on, I say it was thanks to EBVs that they spotted such bloodlines.

 

[puppet]

Here is an old pal of mine.

Presence -yes still standing this morning.
Character - crabbit as a bear if handled.
Legs - 4, all pointing downwards so far.
Feet - wish the grass was longer.
Head - Swede turnip with stalks still visible.
EBV - top 10% (accuracy 10%)
Ears are good- pointy and symmetrical.

Must be worth at least £3.........?

 

[Ysgythan]

This is his father, a shearling. Of those progeny less than a third are his joint owner’s and the offspring of females sold in lamb.

If you have 300 odd lambs by a sire who is himself top 1%, mostly got by embryo transfer, and you record, your best lambs are bound to have good figures because you’re throwing so many repeating and linked data sets at BLUP.

on the other hand this year we had 50 lambs in total, by 4 sires, 3 of which we own and aren’t used in other flocks. The shitty end of the recording stick if you will.

Now I know we could take a couple of easy steps to radically improve the figures of our top lambs - buy semen from high index high accuracy tups, keep their sons and line breed, push the best lambs and ignore the poor ones but say they’re all one management group etc. but we just record what we have, we don’t “teach to the test” and won’t start now. I’ve seen too many good commercial tup producers totally ruin their flocks by chasing indexes.

it’s a big ask to get punters to understand EBVs let alone explain how they might want to cut some slack for small flocks who aim for consistency and don’t want to cull half their lambs.

 

[andybk]

genuine question regard ebv data ,
assume that 21 week is the mark point along with scanning (8 week will be down to maternal milk in part) , what happens to the numbers if say you push everything and kill (or dont record ) all the poorest before you get to the 21 week weights which will make them look better that they actually are . I see quite a lot in the 60+kg bracket . I realise over large numbers it will eventually even out , but on small numbers of progeny does it not skew figures .

 

[Ysgythan]

genuine question regard ebv data ,
assume that 21 week is the mark point along with scanning (8 week will be down to maternal milk in part) , what happens to the numbers if say you push everything and kill (or dont record ) all the poorest before you get to the 21 week weights which will make them look better that they actually are . I see quite a lot in the 60+kg bracket . I realise over large numbers it will eventually even out , but on small numbers of progeny does it not skew figures .

your figures will go down because BLUP expects to see the bottom end. If they’re all top end you don’t get the big variation from your average which really boosts index of your top lambs. For some reason I don’t understand it’s always the f**kers that die between 8 week weights and scanning that end up amongst your top figures.

 

[Highland Mule]

your figures will go down because BLUP expects to see the bottom end. If they’re all top end you don’t get the big variation from your average which really boosts index of your top lambs. For some reason I don’t understand it’s always the fudgeers that die between 8 week weights and scanning that end up amongst your top figures.

So if you take the ones that look best and foster them onto a milky ewe (splitting twins to give them more, obviously), and take a few of the poorer ones and put them into the foster pen, would that help? And presumably you could get confused about birth dates too, or record a slightly lower birth weight (easier lambing?) and a slightly more optimistic one later (higher growth?)

Are any of these things checked by the society, or is it open to abuse like it seems to be for cattle?

 

[Ysgythan]

So if you take the ones that look best and foster them onto a milky ewe (splitting twins to give them more, obviously), and take a few of the poorer ones and put them into the foster pen, would that help? And presumably you could get confused about birth dates too, or record a slightly lower birth weight (easier lambing?) and a slightly more optimistic one later (higher growth?)

Are any of these things checked by the society, or is it open to abuse like it seems to be for cattle?

its all rubbish

 

[andybk]

your figures will go down because BLUP expects to see the bottom end. If they’re all top end you don’t get the big variation from your average which really boosts index of your top lambs. For some reason I don’t understand it’s always the fudgeers that die between 8 week weights and scanning that end up amongst your top figures.

how about a largely used ai ram for example used over many flocks , so all the less astute dont kill crap but the top ones do

 

[andybk]

So if you take the ones that look best and foster them onto a milky ewe (splitting twins to give them more, obviously), and take a few of the poorer ones and put them into the foster pen, would that help? And presumably you could get confused about birth dates too, or record a slightly lower birth weight (easier lambing?) and a slightly more optimistic one later (higher growth?)

Are any of these things checked by the society, or is it open to abuse like it seems to be for cattle?

prefer french system myself , independent testing facility for all breeds and sheep / cattle , treated fed the same , and ai from top rams / bulls available to all pedigree breeders , if needed through an independently operated company , and fairly easy to understand indexes , Signet is getting better , but is a long way from being a easy to understand recording system for the masses

 

[neilo]

prefer french system myself , independent testing facility for all breeds and sheep / cattle , treated fed the same , and ai from top rams / bulls available to all pedigree breeders , if needed through an independently operated company , and fairly easy to understand indexes , Signet is getting better , but is a long way from being a easy to understand recording system for the masses

That's what RamCompare is doing, adding another layer of data to the analysis, including carcass data. It all feeds back into related animals' ebvs.

The more 'easy to understand' you make it, the more watered down it becomes. The subject of this thread is a case in point. His 'index', the simple to understand single number at the end, is in the top 1% of the breed. The individual trait ebvs would mean I was hanging him up and certainly not doing a repeat mating, obviously missing out on my windfall sale.

 

[neilo]

So if you take the ones that look best and foster them onto a milky ewe (splitting twins to give them more, obviously), and take a few of the poorer ones and put them into the foster pen, would that help? And presumably you could get confused about birth dates too, or record a slightly lower birth weight (easier lambing?) and a slightly more optimistic one later (higher growth?)

Are any of these things checked by the society, or is it open to abuse like it seems to be for cattle?

There is no way these things can be checked by a Society, not that it is anything to do with a breed society normally as you don't need to be 'pedigree' to performance record. Integrity is obviously important and liers will be caught out by data coming in from related animals elsewhere in the recorded population or, in the worst cases, if/when the progeny of said animals are recorded.