- Location
- Dumfries & Galloway
Sheep Scanning
- Thread starter lincolnred
- Start date
- Location
- East Ayrshire
????Atleast I've got sheep... Our lead is a John Deer salesman
cotswoldcs
Member
- Location
- Bang In the heart of the Cotswolds
Scanned our ewes over two separate days but only just worked out figures today
0 - 18 (1.8%)
1 - 231 (23.2%)
2 - 643 (64.6%)
3 - 98 (10.3%)
4 - 1 (0.1%)
Total 996 ewes @ 183.73%
182 ewe lambs @ 72.53% (59 barren)
NZ Texel cross ewes and NC Mule ewes, Early April lambing start
Much better result than last year. Back to where I'd like to be with scanning. Aiming for a high twinning rate and this year is good but but not our highest. Only second year of tupping ewe lambs so still learning but more than happy with the result. Our first year we only scanned @ 65.5% !
0 - 18 (1.8%)
1 - 231 (23.2%)
2 - 643 (64.6%)
3 - 98 (10.3%)
4 - 1 (0.1%)
Total 996 ewes @ 183.73%
182 ewe lambs @ 72.53% (59 barren)
NZ Texel cross ewes and NC Mule ewes, Early April lambing start
Much better result than last year. Back to where I'd like to be with scanning. Aiming for a high twinning rate and this year is good but but not our highest. Only second year of tupping ewe lambs so still learning but more than happy with the result. Our first year we only scanned @ 65.5% !
beardface
Member
- Location
- East Yorkshire
Similar to mine at that. I did very well with the gimmers last year at 115% and only 70% this year only thing I can put it down to is I sheared the previous year after weaning but didn't have time last year with this lot.
- Location
- East Ayrshire
Impossible to say without knowing your sheep, but no reason why not.
I'm scanning almost 800 hill ewes on Saturday and triplets normally range from 0 to 6 depending on the year.
Edited to remove scanners name as I'm not sure you're being fair naming him in the context you have.
- Location
- Dumfries & Galloway
I'd say you've buggered up, not the scanner man.
I wouldn't worry about the 1 triplet... but on 300 ewes I'd be pee'd off with 29 empties and such a high number of singles.
Especially in lowland ewes.
I also wouldn't be naming the scanner man at this stage, and I advise you remove his name from your post.
I wouldn't worry about the 1 triplet... but on 300 ewes I'd be pee'd off with 29 empties and such a high number of singles.
Especially in lowland ewes.
I also wouldn't be naming the scanner man at this stage, and I advise you remove his name from your post.
how do I do that?
- Location
- South east scotland
Very possible. You have more singles than twins and 29 empties in 300 ewes the scanner man isnt the issue here.
- Location
- Dumfries & Galloway
On your own post, you can click edit. Or if on your phone click on the 3 dots in the bottom left of your post... then select edit.
It'll reload your post in the box you originally typed it in. You can alter it, then hit save.
If that's how its played on Farming forum then i'll remove his name if you think so.....
Reason we are bothered the result's not right is what happened as he left.
Scanner gave us his bill with a note to say " there may be more lambs than scanned" becus they were 'muddy'. First we'd heard of it.
Fair enough it's not an exact science etc etc but why not tell us from the start, or during the scan. Would have been good to know he was not confident in his results when we were drafting off. He didn't say a word until after the ewes were gone and he was giving us the bill. He said he was sure the empties were correct, but the others could have more. Not his fault. And that was that.
This is a new flock, half ewe lambs (which account for most of the empties and good number of the singles). We want to keep improving, and are grateful for constructive advice.
So we have to decide what to do now
What would you do if you were told by the scanner that these results may not be right. Have another scan? Or feed as if they're singles, having been told they may not be?
Is this what scanning is for?
Reason we are bothered the result's not right is what happened as he left.
Scanner gave us his bill with a note to say " there may be more lambs than scanned" becus they were 'muddy'. First we'd heard of it.
Fair enough it's not an exact science etc etc but why not tell us from the start, or during the scan. Would have been good to know he was not confident in his results when we were drafting off. He didn't say a word until after the ewes were gone and he was giving us the bill. He said he was sure the empties were correct, but the others could have more. Not his fault. And that was that.
This is a new flock, half ewe lambs (which account for most of the empties and good number of the singles). We want to keep improving, and are grateful for constructive advice.
So we have to decide what to do now
What would you do if you were told by the scanner that these results may not be right. Have another scan? Or feed as if they're singles, having been told they may not be?
Is this what scanning is for?
My scanner quite often says they may more triplets than scanned if the sheep aren't empty enough (or me distracting him as I don't get to talk to many people over winter!) Just feed them as scanned you might have some triplets in the twins (they are usually fine, one year I manged to turn more lambs out than scanned because they where on wet silage) but I have rarely had twins scanned as singles. Over feeding the singles thinking there could be come carrying twins could be a disaster.
Last edited:
I scanned my late lambers last week
300 Mules and cheviot x 190% 3 empty (only 20 triplets)
100 Welsh 125% 5 empty
Really happy with that for outside lambing ewes.
300 Mules and cheviot x 190% 3 empty (only 20 triplets)
100 Welsh 125% 5 empty
Really happy with that for outside lambing ewes.
- Location
- Easter ross
You haven’t said when they’re due or maybe I missed it. Think once they get passed 90-100 days then it’s a lot trickier
- Location
- East Ayrshire
There's a lot more information in this post explaining why you might be concerned about accuracy, had you put it in your original post you might have got more sympathetic replies.
It does seem strange to me for the scanner not to have mentioned the mud and/or late(?) scanning date during the scan if he thought it was an issue, but I still think it's unfair to name him when he could still be 100% spot on.
1 triplet
162 twins
283 singles
25 geld mainly all shearlings except for 2 x 1 crop ewes
Very happy with how the hill ewes scanned up 20% on last year
Hopefully have plenty of replacements to choice from next year
162 twins
283 singles
25 geld mainly all shearlings except for 2 x 1 crop ewes
Very happy with how the hill ewes scanned up 20% on last year
Hopefully have plenty of replacements to choice from next year
Not late scanning. Rams out 16/1
- Location
- Dumfries & Galloway
It's called professional etiquette.
At this point you can't name and shame, because you don't know if he is right or wrong. If you run him and his business down but it turns out his scanning is correct, how will you feel? And more importantly how would you feel if you were him and someone did this to you!?!
You also withheld an awful lot of information from your first post. You never mentioned ewe lambs, or the man's comments of the ewes being dirty...