Sheep Scanning

[Farmer Keith]

Would a figure of % of twins alongside the traditional total lamb % not be really helpful in comparing scans. For a 500 ewe flock scanning at 200% 400 twins 50 singles and 50 triplets is clearly miles better than 250 twins 125 singles and 125 triplets or whatever.

 

[Woolless]

I think I've asked this in a previous year, but why do some people take empties out before working out the percentage? Unless they're early lambers who have had more chances and will be scanned again then it gives a false result.

@Junior's scan is bloody good whatever way you look at it!

 

[beardface]

Any suggestions how to get less triplets but without dropping the empty percentage? Over the years we've stopped flushing, mineral tubs etc. Most lamb as hoggs. Put a couple of hill cheviots over some ewes which i think could help over time but that lot was 220%. So another year scanned the first lot of 559, 12 empty 145 triplets and 209% overall including 160 gimmers. Ewes are mostly first cross texels out mules. Obviously more dead lambs come out the triplets and price of feeding now its not ideal. Maybe just one of these things but would rather drop it 10%+

Do you breed your own replacements? Is so selecting mostly single lambs for a couple years might help drop prolificacy.

 

[Woolless]

Old blackies to the blue absolutely terrible, a dud tup bought this year that was given both turns. Half empty.
Mule ewes a nice 176%.
Some old blackies kept pure 161%
Blue ewes more singles than anything which is nice. 150%.

Given the way the ewe trade stacks up against the hogg trade currently, I would say there are worse times to be landed with a few extra empty ewes. I've learnt the hard way to swap tups in single-sire groups after a cycle.

 

[hubbahubba]

Do you breed your own replacements? Is so selecting mostly single lambs for a couple years might help drop prolificacy.



Yeh everything is homebred and i try and pick twins. I could maybe try that.

 

[AftonShepherd]

@Junior's scan is bloody good whatever way you look at it!

Agreed, just noticed a couple of posts recently doing the same thing and it's not something I'd ever have thought of doing

 

[Woolless]

Agreed, just noticed a couple of posts recently doing the same thing and it's not something I'd ever have thought of doing

We're too honest for our own good!

 

[Dachie]

Old blackies to the blue absolutely terrible, a dud tup bought this year that was given both turns. Half empty.
Mule ewes a nice 176%.
Some old blackies kept pure 161%
Blue ewes more singles than anything which is nice. 150%.

Had the same happen to me last year hellish scanning cos of 2 dud blues on the swales nothing worse than watching the empties stack up and seeing they have been raddle marked as well.

 

[Sheepfog]

Agreed, just noticed a couple of posts recently doing the same thing and it's not something I'd ever have thought of doing

Agreed. But it’s helpful to know what % is in the ewes going through the shed/field. Or, put another way for very prolific flocks, how many singles to triplets so you can work out how many pets you might get!

 

[neilo]

Given the way the ewe trade stacks up against the hogg trade currently, I would say there are worse times to be landed with a few extra empty ewes. I've learnt the hard way to swap tups in single-sire groups after a cycle.

Someone with veterinary training might suggest fertility testing the rams before single sire mating, to reduce the risk?
I know my vet does, but then the practice’s website describes him as having an special interest in electrojaculation.

 

[Nithsdale]

Agreed. But it’s helpful to know what % is in the ewes going through the shed/field. Or, put another way for very prolific flocks, how many singles to triplets so you can work out how many pets you might get!

With the scanning sheet in your hand you can do all that without nudging numbers. You don't need to know the overall % with the empties removed to know how many triplets or singles there are - just read the relevant section of the sheet Infront of you...

 

[Skintagain]

Someone with veterinary training might suggest fertility testing the rams before single sire mating, to reduce the risk?
I know my vet does, but then the practice’s website describes him as having an special interest in electrojaculation.

Kinky

 

[Farmer Keith]

Someone with veterinary training might suggest fertility testing the rams before single sire mating, to reduce the risk?
I know my vet does, but then the practice’s website describes him as having a special interest in electrojaculation.

It’s the ones who don’t publicise it on the website you have to watch.

 

[AftonShepherd]

Wonder if he prefers the ram or the bull probe?

 

[Dachie]

Wonder if he prefers the ram or the bull probe?

Do you have a preference???

 

[neilo]

Wonder if he prefers the ram or the bull probe?

He has one of which, which they share with a neighbouring practice.

I guess that's called 'sharing the love', and I'm not really sure I want to know what goes on when they meet up.

 

[AftonShepherd]

Do you have a preference???

No, both disgust me equally. You?

 

[Dachie]

No, both disgust me equally. You?

There are something's that are just not for sharing in public forums and should be found out for ones self rather than by recommendation.

 

[Bruce Almighty]

Scanned 569 mix Mules and Suffolk X on Sunday
14 Empty
109 Singles
355 Twins
91 Triplets
197% with empties out
Fingers crossed for the ewe lambs next week

With empties included it’s 192%

I think I've asked this in a previous year, but why do some people take empties out before working out the percentage? Unless they're early lambers who have had more chances and will be scanned again then it gives a false result.

see above

 

[AftonShepherd]

With empties included it’s 192%

see above

Indeed, and still a very good scan by any standards. Still seems strange to me not including empties initially. I was told in the past that any ewes lost or culled between drawing the stock and scanning should be counted too, but I've never gone that far.