1sheepdoggal Posted February 8, 2008 Report Share Posted February 8, 2008 Ive been doing a little research on the St. Croix breed, and as most things, all the sites Ive visited, only tell the pro's about their chosen breed. Ive got St. Croix/ Katahdin's (50/50) and this years lamb crop will be 75/25 I think thats the way it works? What I didnt know, was that they consider them a "rare" breed sheep, and they are on the threatened list. Not that that matters, I was still interested in putting together a pure herd of them before finding that out, and dont know what good that info is good for anyway. Wonder if that fact though, will drive the prices of good genetics of breeding stock up. Any way, heres the pro's, wondered if any of you were familiar with the breed, and could point out any of the cons. As of yet, Ive not had anything to complain about in my 50/50's but I think they are a bit lighter than Id like for them to be as sheep to work my dogs on, and think the St Croix, are not necessarily a heavier shepp, just more sensible than the katahdin. No Shearing Both Sexes Polled Parasite Resistant Reduced Foot-rot Fine-grained, low-fat meat Non-selective grazers Heat and Cold Tolerant Good Flocking Instinct Good Temperament Excellent Lamb Production Early Puberty High Lambing Percentage Year-round Breeding Lamb at 12 months Good mothers Good milk production High survivability St Croix crosses produce more pounds of lamb Any other info, good or bad would be appreciated. I under stand there are 2 breeders in SC. Is anyone aware of any in NC? I will be looking for registered sheep. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Fosher Posted February 8, 2008 Report Share Posted February 8, 2008 Please! Allow me to rain on your picnic. Sorry, but here goes. Parasite Resistant: Bollocks, plain and simple. There is no parasite resistant breed of sheep. There are parasite resistant individuals within breeds. The Katahdin is the only breed that I am aware of where the breed association is trying to identify genetically parasite resistant individuals. I'm not sure how that program is going. Reduced Foot-rot: Reduced from what? Fine-grained, low-fat meat: Or to put it another way, take forever to develop a level of finish that is acceptable to the commercial lamb trade. Some never do. Non-selective grazers: Give me 100 sheep of any breed and two years later and I will show you 95 non-selective grazers and five carcasses. Heat and Cold Tolerant: If your idea of a bad cold snap is four nights in a row when the temperature gets down to 45. Good Flocking Instinct Good Temperament Excellent Lamb Production: Don't even know what to make of these claims. Good flocking compared to what? What is good flocking -- sheep that have to be in physical contact with one another at all times? Sheep that can spread out over a paddock and find the best grazing with minimal competition amongst themselves? Similarly, what's a good temperament? What is "excellent" lamb production? Early Puberty: Remember to castrate your ram lambs! High Lambing Percentage: I think the St. Croix would be considered moderately prolific and very responsive to management. In other words, if you throw them out into conditions where range sheep would wean 1.2 lambs, the St. Croix might wean 1.5. Give higher levels of nutrition and shepherding, the range ewe might come up to 1.5, and the St. Croix might nose 2. Year-round Breeding: At low latitudes, anyway. Lamb at 12 months: Like the lambing percentage, probably will be more affected by management than genetics. You need a certain level of feed to drive that productivity, and given it nearly any breed of sheep will lamb at 12 months. Good mothers Good milk production High survivability St Croix crosses produce more pounds of lamb: Again, without knowing what they're using as a baseline, it's pretty hard to say whether any of these claims are accurate or meaningful, and more importantly, what portion of any trait is truly a breed trait versus adaptation or management. I sincerely doubt that a statistically average St. Croix ewe, bred to a St. Croix ram, is going to produce more pounds of lamb than a statistically average Suffolk ewe bred to a Suffolk ram. If they each produce two lambs and the St. Croix lambs hit 70 pounds at 150 days and the Suffolk lambs hit 120 at the same age, the Suffolk wins. Of course, you'll have a lot more feed in the Suffolk lambs than in the St. Croix, but again, this sort of claim is meaningless unless you know what they're comparing them to. Any other info, good or bad would be appreciated. I under stand there are 2 breeders in SC. Is anyone aware of any in NC? I will be looking for registered sheep. Hair sheep, including the St. Croix, can produce decent enough lambs for some markets, but they will never produce top flight market lambs. As for how they are to work with dogs, I've only found minor difference among the hair breeds I've worked, with the exception of Barbados which have always seemed to be possessed by Satan and part kangaroo. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cynthia P Posted February 8, 2008 Report Share Posted February 8, 2008 A little rain from me too: All breed clubs pronounce the second coming when promoting a breed I have about 15 St. Croix and 45 Dorper/St. Croix and about 150 woolies (RideauXDorset mainly); Parasite resistant: no more so than others in my flock...ones that aren't parasite resistent dont' do well and generally head to the sales barn Feet: Some good some bad...cull that bad...make sure the ram has good feet...makes for better feet; Black feet so they are supposed to be harder than white hoofs...maybe a old farmers tale? Growth: I have a 10 month old that is maybe 45 lbs; most are up around the 70 lb mark....my dorset crosses generally make that by 70-90 days; takes forever to get them over 80 and the ewes are about 110-120 lbs...so they are easy to care for...but market lambs, not so much Early maturation: I would agree that the 15 ewes bred by accident and lambed December were from a hair sheep....damn ram lambs...I second the castrating early Non selective grazers...I would say they like to browse more than the woolies so if you have bushes and trees you want to get rid of..have at it...but if you have thistles, they are selective Year round breeding...The lambs tend to dry off quicker than the RideauXDorset...that may be cause they only have one or two instead of two to four...so consequently when lambing in January in the north, less tend to stick to the ground as lambsicles...I would say that they would be better than something like the North country or Border Cheviots that are very seasonal Heat and cold tolerant....at -35C they are hunchier than the woolies...at +35C they are in the shade with the woolies I like them to herd with, they are relatively sensible...if they act like barbados they become burger...However I don't have to listen to my friends complain about the "burrheads"that are hard to herd when we work the St. croix or drop croix but if you want to do market lambs before 12 months your kidding yourself...and you will be discounted by most sales barns (not a problem if you sell privately) for hair sheep; Can solve that problem by a terminal sire such as texel or charlais. I always say, get a sheep you like to look at and suits your needs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1sheepdoggal Posted February 8, 2008 Author Report Share Posted February 8, 2008 Thank you guys, thats what I wanted to know. As I said, the sites Ive been looking at, all are very up beat and positive about the breed, and I needed to hear what others that have had experience with the breed knew. I thought it all sounded to good to be true. I had noticed, that my crosses are VERY slow growing. Ewes at almost 2 yrs are maybe if Im lucky, 140lbs. And the ram, at 2 is probably about 180-190lbs. I checked with a few folks that show sheep, and they said that to even grow them for show, wouldnt be a good idea, as they dont have many show judges that can judge the hair sheep very well. I really dont want to deal with the woolies any more, Ive had enough of the suffolk and colombians, and for some reason, I just keep over looking the dorpers. I dont know what it is about them, I just dont care for them. So am still in the process of researching breeds of hair sheep. Any suggestions as to what others I might should look at? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pipedream Farm Posted February 8, 2008 Report Share Posted February 8, 2008 There are many studies looking at parasite resistance in sheep, some have found differences between breeds prior to selection for resistance. That does not mean selection for resistance cannot be made within your own flock and preferred breed. Microarray analysis of selection lines from outbred populations to identify genes involved with nematode parasite resistance in sheep Resistance to Internal Parasites in Lambs of Hair Sheep Composite Breeds These results confirm high levels of parasite resistance in Caribbean hair sheep and a moderate level of resistance in Katahdins. Dorper crossbred lambs were not more resistant that Dorset crosses, but the Dorper appears to express a degree of resilience to infection that may reduce symptoms of parasitism in moderately infected animals. Genetics of Resistance to Haemonchus contortus infections in sheep Heritabilities for summary traits were estimated from a REML analysis that included fixed effects of year and season plus effects of either sex (for lambs) or age category (for ewes). Heritability estimates for MBW, MPCV, and MLFEC were 0.74, 0.57, and 0.27 respectively (all P < 0.01), in lambs, and 0.24 (P < 0.1), 0.25 (P < 0.05) and 0.55 (P < 0.01), respectively, in ewes. Across-year repeatability estimates in ewes for MBW, MPCV, and MLFEC were 0.83, 0.54 and 0.56, respectively (all P < 0.01). Resistance was antagonistically associated with estimated breeding values for growth in ewes but not in lambs. Fertility and prolificacy in ewes were not related to resistance. Breed differences in resistance to H. contortus were also evaluated in 4 to 6-mo-old crossbred Dorset and Dorper, straightbred Katahdin, and Barbados Blackbelly x St. Croix lambs. Dorpers were not more resistant than Dorsets but appeared to cope better, with higher PCV and similar BW during infection compared to Dorsets. Katahdin and barbados Blackbelly x St. Croix lambs were more resistant with lower FEC. Genes controlling resistance to gastrointestinal nematodes in ruminants Quantitative trait loci for internal nematode resistance in sheep: a review Mark Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pipedream Farm Posted February 8, 2008 Report Share Posted February 8, 2008 Bill, With all your hair sheep bashing I've often wonder if the hair sheep you had were good or bad examples of the breed. Our katahdin lambs grow at the same rate as lambs from a nearby nice flock of cheviot x texels (both are grass fed, low imput). Also, your market may be driven by size/weight, ours is driven by other factors; otherwise our customers would never have stopped eating lamb from the store prior to buying from us. Many of our customers state they cannot stand the taste of the lamb from the store. Mark Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1sheepdoggal Posted February 8, 2008 Author Report Share Posted February 8, 2008 I honestly dont have a parasite problem with my sheep, and havent wormed them in over a year. I have been using a feed that has a natural wormer in it, that you can feed throughout the year, even while breeding, lambing and lactating. Summer and winter. I feed it every day, or most every day, you can skip a week or so, if your out, but Ive attributed not having a problem with parasites to the sheep being relitivly resistant, being as they are a St. Croix Katahdin cross, and the fact that I feed this stuff. I was worming every 90 days when I first brought the herd out here, but then as they dwindeled off ( I lost a handful when I first brought them out here from Utah, because some didnt acclimate to all the changes, and I didnt know ya had to worm so much more out here than out west. Out there we wormed twice a year wether they needed it or not) and I sold a bunch. As my numbers increase, Im not sure I'll be able to afford to continue to feed this stuff, but for now, I figure if it aint broke, dont fix it. Thanks Mark, for all the data, interesting reading. It'll came in handy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mbernard2424 Posted February 8, 2008 Report Share Posted February 8, 2008 Hair sheep, including the St. Croix, can produce decent enough lambs for some markets, but they will never produce top flight market lambs. As for how they are to work with dogs, I've only found minor difference among the hair breeds I've worked, with the exception of Barbados which have always seemed to be possessed by Satan and part kangaroo. Oh God Bill, you make me laugh! What a PERFECT description of a Barb. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cynthia P Posted February 8, 2008 Report Share Posted February 8, 2008 Also, your market may be driven by size/weight, ours is driven by other factors; otherwise our customers would never have stopped eating lamb from the store prior to buying from us. Many of our customers state they cannot stand the taste of the lamb from the store. Mark I really think it is what you want the sheep for. If you have a good market for freezer orders than hair sheep fit well. They have a good percentage of fat (although most pasture raised lamb regardless of breed is not as fatty as the grain fed feedlot type); The pasture raised lamb I think has a better taste than grain fed lambs; I too have very good comments about my pasture raised lamb; others like a milder flavour. I understand that hair sheep are supposed to be milder...although I could never tell between my breeds when I eat them. Hair sheep don't need shearing which is a bonus. Choose from a breeder that does EBVs (data related to growth and maternal indexs); I like my dorper/croix crosses because they are slightly larger, still fairly sensible...and pretty! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mbernard2424 Posted February 8, 2008 Report Share Posted February 8, 2008 I honestly dont have a parasite problem with my sheep, and havent wormed them in over a year. I have been using a feed that has a natural wormer in it, that you can feed throughout the year, even while breeding, lambing and lactating. Summer Darci, "Natural" wormer or not, you are still worming them and in my opinion, continual use of a wormer, natural or not, is probably not a great idea. I periodically go through my sheep and using FAMACHA decide whether they need worming or not. It makes no sense to worm any animal if the worms are not there. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pearse Posted February 8, 2008 Report Share Posted February 8, 2008 There are many studies looking at parasite resistance in sheep, some have found differences between breeds prior to selection for resistance. That does not mean selection for resistance cannot be made within your own flock and preferred breed. Microarray analysis of selection lines from outbred populations to identify genes involved with nematode parasite resistance in sheep I read this paper and found it unconvincing. They took four individuals from two flocks, one that had been bred for parasite resistance since 1986. They exposed them to parasites, took a section of gut, looked at gene expression and found statistically significant differences in over 100 genes. First of all, microarray studies (especially the way they did this one using bovine cDNA libraries and Northern dot blots) are notorious for throwing up false positives. More significant though is that they have selected these animals for what it bound to be multigenic Quantitative Trait Loci, so god only knows what they actually selected for. Perhaps the different gene expression had more to do with feed conversion differences that they had inadvertently selected for. Maybe a stronger case could have been made by taking a flock whose breeding was similar, exposing them to the same environment, scoring them for parasite load and doing the microarray analysis (and do it blindly without knowing which samples were from resistant and which from animals with a high parasite burden). Then analyze the data to see if you can spot patterns and, if you can, only then look to see if any of those patterns correspond to resistance. The differences would be more subtle but (in my opinion anyway) more significant looking at natural variation within a population rather than differences between populations - even though that is the way these studies are often done. Not saying they aren't on to something. Just saying, I wouldn't rank this paper all that highly. Resistance to Internal Parasites in Lambs of Hair Sheep Composite BreedsThese results confirm high levels of parasite resistance in Caribbean hair sheep and a moderate level of resistance in Katahdins. Dorper crossbred lambs were not more resistant that Dorset crosses, but the Dorper appears to express a degree of resilience to infection that may reduce symptoms of parasitism in moderately infected animals. Genetics of Resistance to Haemonchus contortus infections in sheep Heritabilities for summary traits were estimated from a REML analysis that included fixed effects of year and season plus effects of either sex (for lambs) or age category (for ewes). Heritability estimates for MBW, MPCV, and MLFEC were 0.74, 0.57, and 0.27 respectively (all P < 0.01), in lambs, and 0.24 (P < 0.1), 0.25 (P < 0.05) and 0.55 (P < 0.01), respectively, in ewes. Across-year repeatability estimates in ewes for MBW, MPCV, and MLFEC were 0.83, 0.54 and 0.56, respectively (all P < 0.01). Resistance was antagonistically associated with estimated breeding values for growth in ewes but not in lambs. Fertility and prolificacy in ewes were not related to resistance. Breed differences in resistance to H. contortus were also evaluated in 4 to 6-mo-old crossbred Dorset and Dorper, straightbred Katahdin, and Barbados Blackbelly x St. Croix lambs. Dorpers were not more resistant than Dorsets but appeared to cope better, with higher PCV and similar BW during infection compared to Dorsets. Katahdin and barbados Blackbelly x St. Croix lambs were more resistant with lower FEC. Genes controlling resistance to gastrointestinal nematodes in ruminants Quantitative trait loci for internal nematode resistance in sheep: a review Read these two too and I'd just like to point out that differences in MHC Class II alleles have been proposed as being significant markers of resistance/susceptibility to various cancers, Alzheimers, AIDS, gastric ulcers, etc etc etc and almost always later shown to have no prognostic significance at all. They are more a marker of lineage. The interferon-gamma (IFNG) linkage might be more promising. It has been shown to be important for control of Leishmaniasis in mouse models and in at least one of the studies cited variations near this locus accounted for 30% of the variation in nematode resistance. But, the truth of the matter is likely to be like many production traits including herding behavior in Border Collies. Within population variation is likely to remain almost as significant as between population variation, and while it will be possible to select for parasite resistance (or more realistically resistance to specific parasites in a specific flock in a specific geographic location rather than breed wide) it will be difficult to do while maintaining other desirable production traits. Interesting papers though. Thanks for posting them. Pearse Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kelpiegirl Posted February 8, 2008 Report Share Posted February 8, 2008 Major Histocompatability Complex- Pearse, you are bringing me back to my immunology days! Oh, one thing, besides parasite resistance, what of the animal's ability to handle a parasite load? What if some animals are naturally resistant to allowing parasites to increase to pathogenic conditions, and still others, can have a gut LOAD of parasites, but still perform well? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pipedream Farm Posted February 8, 2008 Report Share Posted February 8, 2008 Pearce, The main point of posting these few papers is in response to .. The Katahdin is the only breed that I am aware of where the breed association is trying to identify genetically parasite resistant individuals.I was trying to show there is more research going on in this area than is generally known amongst flock owners. I came across a large long running study in Australia with merino's to increase resistance and attempting to unravel the genetics. Mark Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1sheepdoggal Posted February 8, 2008 Author Report Share Posted February 8, 2008 I really think it is what you want the sheep for. I can keep about 60 head as a breeding herd, and sell off lambs as I need to and to the couple of smallish freezer market minorities groups that I sell to need, the rest can go to the sale barn. So what Cythina says about being discounted because of the breed, does hold some weight for me there. I had hoped to seek a market for show lambs as well, but the woolies seem to be taking most of the market there, and as I was told, there arent many judges that can judge them properly, so less folks interested in the breed that I had choosen. And, laugh if ya want, I really like keeping sheep. I like them. Also, they are training tools and work for my dogs. The more I think about it, the more I am becoming interested in the St. Croix/Dorper crosses that Ive seen. But for the same token, was looking into breeding a pure breed sheep. ( though that was because I was looking at a different market, for show) Too though, crossing, can bring out the best of the two, so that is a prospect to think about as well. All this thinking and research comes from the need to start to build back up my herd, and wanting to open new markets for myself, learn more about sheep keeping, as well as bring a good piece of meat to the table. So, during this discussion so far, and in a very short time, it seems as if my main reason if I really want to look at it without all the romanticism, is meat production. But I refuse to keep wollies any more. It is a small operation, so I am looking for the best feed converters, with the least physical problems, that produce a fairly lean tasty meat, polled, no shearing, high lambing percentage, good mothers, year round breeding potential, and good lamb production, with an easy temperment. Not necessarily in that order. I am open to suggestions, and am enjoying the different attitudes and perspectives from different folks that are keeping and raising different types of sheep, for simaler reasons. So, dont let me stop you! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Fosher Posted February 8, 2008 Report Share Posted February 8, 2008 Mark, Size does matter -- at least to the extent that cost of final product matters. And it matters greatly to me because where I make my money is on the difference between the cost of production and the sale price. Let's say I have two lambs raised under identical conditions -- pasture born, raised on mother's milk and grass. Come November when it's time to market those lambs, one weighs 110 lbs and dresses a 52 percent carcass (not uncommon with my Texel cross lambs) and one weighs 85 lbs and dresses a 48 percent carcass (which roughly mirrors my experience with the Dorper X Katahdin lambs I raised). Both have had the same level of inputs. The hair sheep lamb will have a major advantage over the Texel cross, because the hair sheep ewes are more prolific. Let's take that into consideration. Suppose it costs me $60 to overwinter a ewe. The hair sheep ewe flock brings 1.9 lambs to market. The Cheviot/Coopworth/Dorset/everything else under the sun flock brings about 1.75 lambs to market. That means I have about $31.58 per lamb in ewe keep on the hair flock and $34.29 in per lamb in ewe keep on the wool flock. Let's assume that all costs post-birthing costs are identical. Technically not quite correct, because the faster-growing wool lambs will consume more pasture than their smaller counterparts, and a little more mineral and so forth, but the differences are pretty minuscule until you start talking about tens of thousands of lambs. Again, based on my experience, the cost of bringing a wet lamb to market on grass is about $65. So the day comes when our two lambs get on the truck. The cost of production on the hairsheep lamb was $31.58 plus $65, or $96.58 -- about $1.14 per lb. liveweight. The wooly lamb has a cost of production of $99.29 -- or about 90 cents per pound of liveweight. Advantage has switched from hair to wool. Assume that it costs the same amount to truck the lambs to slaughter. For the sake of argument, let's use the figure of $10 per head. Now we get to the slaughterhouse. Slaughter fees are $25 per head and $40 per head to cut and wrap. This is what it cost me this year at the slaughterhouse I used; many plants charge for cutting and wrapping by the pound of hanging weight, so we can analyze that next. The costs so far are $171.58 for the hair sheep lamb. and $174.29 for the wooly. The hair sheep lamb will dress out at 41 lbs, or about $4.18 per lb, hanging weight. The wooly lamb will dress out at 57 lbs, or about $3.06 per lb, hanging weight. If the slaughterhouse charges 65 cents a pound to cut and wrap, the fixed costs up to slaughter are $131.58 for the hair sheep and $134.29 for the wooly. Cutting and wrapping the hair sheep will cost $26.65 for a grand total of $158.23 or $3.85/lb hanging weight. For the wooly, cutting and wrapping would be $37.05 for a grand total of $171.43, or $3.01 per pound hanging weight. My customers seem pretty comfortable paying $4 per lb hanging weight for custom cut lamb. So on the hair sheep I either lose $7.38 or make $6.15, depending on which cutting and wrapping charge I pay. On the wooly lamb I make $54.72 or $56.43, depending on the cutting and wrapping charge. That gives the wooly lamb an economic advantage of at least $48.57 as a direct-market animal. These figures are all based on my experience with both kinds of sheep. I know Mark you reject the hypothesis that hair sheep grow slower and finish smaller than meat-breed wool sheep, but that has been my experience. You say I must be basing this on bad hair sheep, and I wonder if you might have exceptionally good ones (or not so good woolies to compare them to). The place where I think that hair sheep would shine would be in hothouse lamb production. The ewes are prolific and milky, and the lambs grow like crazy if they are on their mothers and have good access to creep. When slaughtering suckling lambs at 45 to 60 pounds, the wooly lambs had virtually no growth advantage, and only a slight ko percentage advantage, but not enough to overcome the additional prolificacy of the hair sheep. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mona Howard Posted February 8, 2008 Report Share Posted February 8, 2008 I had some purebred St. Croixs in Arizona. They were nice to work and they could take the heat while being worked better than almost anything else I've tried. They had a poor carcass in my opinion. The only thing I liked about them was that they stayed fresh for a good time and the heat resistance. They were decent mothers and twinned. The lambs didn't grow any faster than a barb. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1sheepdoggal Posted February 8, 2008 Author Report Share Posted February 8, 2008 The lambs didn't grow any faster than a barb. Yep Mona, thats been my experience with these crosses that I have as well. But I had thought that the St. Croix were bigger by a good margin then the katahdin. I dont think year before last lambs ( we didnt lamb last year) were more than about 55 to 75lbs depending on gender) by 6 months. They were and these are on pasture. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pipedream Farm Posted February 9, 2008 Report Share Posted February 9, 2008 Bill, One of the great things about sheep is there are breeds that do better in some areas than others; which is why there are so many breeds. Your experiences with each breed may not be the same as another in a different environment. Just because a breed didn't work well for your management, environment, market, and production goals doesn't mean that breed is worthless for all producers (which is the way you represent hair sheep every time you post). For smaller flocks the cost of shearing will cut into profits more than it will for larger flocks (I don't see shearing in your analysis, your ewes still need to be maintained and it's an expense woollies have that hair don't). BTW our katahdins typically finish out heavier than 85 lbs and dress out more than 45% and when we had a KatahdinxDorper ram the lambs were typically a bit bigger. Size does matter in some markets but in others it's not the most important aspect in making the sale and without a sale it makes no difference how big the lamb was. Oh, my market is willing to pay >$5/lb hanging weight. Mark Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marilyn T Posted February 9, 2008 Report Share Posted February 9, 2008 In my experience, St. Croix are very hard to make into decent sized sheep. I traded weathers in order to get some hair sheep to work with the dogs. They resembled starving african children compared to my NC cheviot crosses. They were that way for the whole first year. When they grew up ( Maybe between their 3 and 4 year old year, they are still significantly smaller than my ewes. When you put one wool with them, they work like wools except for shedding. If you get them by themselves, they are more like hair sheep. The only 'good' thing I have to say is that they are weathers, and can't get accidently bred. That means I have sheep to work when lambs start to come. For selling, I'll stick with my NCC's. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Fosher Posted February 9, 2008 Report Share Posted February 9, 2008 Bill, One of the great things about sheep is there are breeds that do better in some areas than others; which is why there are so many breeds. Your experiences with each breed may not be the same as another in a different environment. Just because a breed didn't work well for your management, environment, market, and production goals doesn't mean that breed is worthless for all producers (which is the way you represent hair sheep every time you post). I don't think that's a fair criticism. In this very thread I've pointed out a production system in which I think hair sheep are an excellent choice. In the past I've written that I thought that Katahdins make an excellent maternal breed for fat lamb production, but feel that they need to be bred to a terminal sire breed to improve carcass quality (muscling) and size. I am not alone in my criticism of hair sheep, though. Nearly every commercial sheep producer (>350 ewes) I know who has dabbled with them has been disappointed with carcass size and quality both in pure hair sheep lambs, and in hair-wool crosses. This disappointment runs from the Pacific Northwest, both sides of the Cascades through the Central Valley of California, to the Upper Midwest to the Mid Atlantic to New England. Breeds have been Dorper, Katahdin, St. Croix, Royal White, Dorpcroix, and various mixtures. The exceptions have been among people who were selling breeding stock and some in Texas who were running sheep in arid conditions, and whose only other realistic choice were Rambouillets or dry lotting meat breed wool sheep. This disappointment is shared by feeders and packers, which is the reason you see hair sheep discounted at sale barns and packers all over the country. There does seem to be a pocket in the mid-Atlantic and neighboring Pennsylvania where people are very happy with small commercial flocks of hair sheep, say 100 to 200 ewes. And there are dog trainers and cattlemen all over the country using hair sheep in specialized applications with good results. For instance, Greg Judy in southern Missouri runs about 300 hair sheep ewes to condition pasture for his beef herd and is very happy with them, three years in. I will be very interested to hear what the experiences of Stan Potratz at Premier is with the hair sheep they just brought in. Stan is one of the most intelligent sheep producers in the country, and if he sees some potential there that certainly gets me thinking. What I can't stand is the sort of breed propaganda that was posted here, and the wild statements that you hear that hair sheep are parasite resistant. Jean-Marie Luginbuhl from NC State made that very statement at the Vermont Grazing Conference last month in a parasite workshop. He should know better. The point of the financial exercise above is that a lot of proponents of hair sheep say that the answer to the discounts taken at sale barns and packers is to direct or niche market your hair sheep lamb, and I was trying to show that hair sheep don't necessarily carry the day that way either. If you have a system where hair sheep are profitable and they're the sheep you want to use, by all means, have at it. As you say, the neat thing about sheep is that there are lots of different breeds that fill lots of different functions. For smaller flocks the cost of shearing will cut into profits more than it will for larger flocks (I don't see shearing in your analysis, your ewes still need to be maintained and it's an expense woollies have that hair don't). Our experience was that about a third of the adult high percentage Dorpers needed shearing every year, and all of the yearlings did. Most of them shed out better as they matured. The ones that were higher percentage of Katahdin didn't need shearing. Our shearer charged extra for the hair sheep because of additional wear on the combs and cutters, and the wool was worthless except as mulch. But even if you assume that shearing woolies is all expense and that the wool has no value as a revenue stream, the most I've paid in recent years for shearing is $3.50/head. Lambs are marketed unshorn, so the total shearing cost per lamb is about $2 -- not enough to change my analysis. Moreover, my wool has been selling for $1/lb for the last three years, or about $5-$7 per ewe. So wool is actually a net gainer of about 85 cents to $2 per lamb for me, even if we were to assume that I could get identical production out of hair sheep lambs. Small flocks will pay more for shearing, and some effort is required to command high prices for wool. I acknowledge that for most flocks, particularly small ones, wool will be a cost center, not a profit center. BTW our katahdins typically finish out heavier than 85 lbs and dress out more than 45% and when we had a KatahdinxDorper ram the lambs were typically a bit bigger. How about some figures? Size does matter in some markets but in others it's not the most important aspect in making the sale and without a sale it makes no difference how big the lamb was. Oh, my market is willing to pay >$5/lb hanging weight. I have never had any problem selling a lamb. Even the most horrible, stunted runts will sell. In fact, any rational business consultant will tell you that there is no market risk in lamb production. You can always ship a lamb to the sale barn and it will sell. There is market price risk. So I don't buy that woollies are a market risk item. If you can sell all the lambs you produce at better than $5 a pound hanging weight, good on you. I can only get that price for lambs that are less than 40 lbs hanging weight, and the revenues are eaten up by the per-head costs that remain more or less unchanged. Every operation needs to look at its whole system and find the points where it has an advantage and exploit that advantage. I suspect that your overwintering costs are much lower than mine, and I know your growing season is at least a month longer. So the very things that kill hair sheep as an economic prospect for me are where your advantage lies. Your cost of production is probably lower than mine across the board. I have a hard time believing that you wouldn't end up with a better bottom line with faster growing, higher yielding sheep. But perhaps your hair sheep are performing better relative to meat-breed wool sheep in your hotter climate than they did here and the scales are tipped. It's hard to say, because I've never seen a proponent of hair sheep carry through the sort of exercise I did. They generally fall back to things that can't be quantified, like the meat tastes better, or my market demands hair sheep. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Fosher Posted February 9, 2008 Report Share Posted February 9, 2008 Another thing that needs to be figured into the economic analysis of any sheep breed is the cost of the stock. Last I knew, registered Dorpers and Katahdins -- even those without production records or EPDs -- were selling for about 25 to 100 percent more than similar purebred meat-breed wool sheep such as Dorsets, Suffolks, and Texels. (Unless you're talking about show sheep.) That premium needs to be figured into the replacement cost of every ewe in the flock, and increases annual depreciation cost of the flock itself. Even if you are producing your own replacements, then you need to consider the opportunity cost of marketing a ewe lamb when considering its cost to to replace its mother. I am not anti hair sheep. I just have yet to see very many circumstances where they live up to their hype. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rebecca, Irena Farm Posted February 9, 2008 Report Share Posted February 9, 2008 I totally understand warning people about the hype. I have wool sheep which I cull heavily every year and I could advertise almost all the same things now. But, hair sheep do excellently here. Wool sheep, not so much. I look around and them's the facts. Sheep in general are cold weather beasts but hair sheep give you much leeway into the very hot humid side of climate ranges. There are a few St. Croix flocks around here and most of them look quite nice. Yes, you still have to cull to get the results you want - I tell newbies that every time - be aware that each generation you'll be cutting out duds. In my experience though, flocks of hair sheep adapt quicker to the usual management system around here. It's taken me ten years to settle on a combination of wool sheep that will suit my needs here and still, well, you know, live through summer without needing vast amounts of chemicals pumped into them every three weeks. And I don't think the cull percentage I go through would be acceptable to a commercial producer - I'm using my time as a "hobby" person to develop a core of ewes that will take me into the commercial level someday, but at the moment I'm not holding on to any illusions that it's more than a hobby. The best market around here for a small flock owner is typically for a small lamb - either for the niche metro market or the ethnic individuals who buy by type of sheep, not by hanging weight (point-n-pay). I know someone who has a flock of pure Barbs and she's got reservations on all her lambs before they are weaned - they don't care what they look like. I'd estimate they sell at 50 pounds lv and she sells for $125 - and they leave her farm live or she has a nice clean setup for those who want to slaughter on site. I know another who raises St. Croix Romanov crosses (litters of microscopic spotty lambs!) and in spite of the outlay at the start, in hand raising about 30% of the lambs, she still makes a good bit of egg money. It makes a hugmongous difference to a small flock having to factor in shearing. One year I set aside a day for the shearer, my husband took off work - and he didn't come. That happened twice more before we got him out, and for the privilege of all the lost time he charged $250 to do the flock ($3.00/head if memory serves). That was many years ago, too - prices have gone up in response to gas prices. That's money down the toilet for me - my wool is worthless, as I pasture raise them all year, and have not one but two hay feeding times (mid summer and winter). I could "raise wool" also but I'd have to restructure things and invest in expensive management systems that I just can't see clear to, with maybe 25 head of sheep. That's what we are talking about after all - not a huge commercial operation, which I know is the near and dear to you Bill, but just someone who wants easy care sheep. When people want to raise less than 100 head around here, I gladly point them to the hair sheep. It's like telling someone who wants to get into trialing, buy a nice older trained dog to help you learn, then you'll get hooked and pretty soon that person will be out there with a puppy they raised and trained themselves breaking into the Finals. Maybe hair sheep aren't all that and a bag of chips, but they lamb easy (the scary part to a newbie in sheep), fatten like pigs if you manage them like they manage cows around here, and the wool isn't a consideration (also a very difficult thing to manage, for a newbie). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pipedream Farm Posted February 9, 2008 Report Share Posted February 9, 2008 Bill, There are lots of examples where you've bashed hair sheep without hard facts; here's just one... ....in fact, I think hair sheep get more lice than wool sheep... No livestock breed ever lives up to the breed org's hype; the well established breeds have gone through this hype and now everyone knows the truth. Dorpers and some katahdins do not shed clean; any katahdins in our flock that do not shed clean get culled and we select rams that shed clean. We now rarely have a katahhdin that needs to be clipped. My attitude is what's the point of a hair sheep if it needs to be clipped? As far as our growth rates and finishing weights, I cannot find the book where we kept these numbers for the first couple of years. Our target weight is 90 lbs, we sell the live lamb to our customers and as a courtesy deliver it to the butcher for them. Our customers are responsible for paying the butchering costs which currently run $85/head. Who says you need to buy registered stock? There are pure bred flocks of hair sheep out there that are not registered and therefore do not command the inflated prices. It just takes more time for find them. I can say that we've seen quite a few flocks of katahdins that we wouldn't want on our place; they were too scrawny and short in the body. This seems to be more the norm that what we have here. We recently added RomneyxBorder Leicesters to our farm; while they are not a meat breed we will be able to compare our hair sheep to woollies under the same management system. Mark Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Fosher Posted February 9, 2008 Report Share Posted February 9, 2008 Well Mark, the comment about the lice was based on my experience with them in two separate flocks. Everything I have said about hair sheep is based on my experience with them, which is admittedly somewhat limited and in both cases involved sheep that were moved to New England from the mid-Atlantic. Perhaps I could have made something of these sheep given enough time and effort, but it wasn't a project that interested me when I could get more economically viable sheep off the shelf, so to speak. I suspect you'll find that the Romney x Border Leicester produces a nice lamb with decent muscling but that doesn't grow very quickly. Again, with your longer growing season, that may not be so much of an issue for you as it is for me. The larger frame will give a bit more genetic potential for growth. The Border Leicester will add some prolificacy to the Romney. For market lamb production, I'd consider crossing them to a fast-growing forage-based terminal sire like the Ile de France, Shropshire (if you can still find decent ones) or even a Texel, though you'd need to have a very large one to get the growth rate that I would want to see out of the cross. ------------------- Becca, I find it odd that you say your wool is worthless because your sheep are on pasture. That should provide the very cleanest wool clip. The worst cases of VM contamination come from sheep that are bedded on waste hay in a barn. And I don't think it's fair to attribute the costs associated with an unprofessional or disorganized shearer to wool production. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
juliepoudrier Posted February 9, 2008 Report Share Posted February 9, 2008 Becca, I find it odd that you say your wool is worthless because your sheep are on pasture. That should provide the very cleanest wool clip. The worst cases of VM contamination come from sheep that are bedded on waste hay in a barn. And I don't think it's fair to attribute the costs associated with an unprofessional or disorganized shearer to wool production. Well, maybe not the cleanest--if you consider that we're all feeding hay this time of year (including Becca). This is when the round bale feeders kill me because they all end up with a bunch of VM along their topline, especially around the neck, but they waste too much if I feed on the ground or in bunks, so I just skirt really well there. I will say this about my sheep, since I have both wool and hair here: the hair sheep stay fat as pigs essentially on air, even though they are the sheep that get worked the most with dogs. Of course, this is in comparison to my tunis and karakuls (the latter of which have a very different body structure), so the comparison may not be fair. I suspect, though, that I wouldn't have needed to feed the hair sheep grain over the past few months, but they've gotten it because the woolies needed it. Also, the hair sheep stand up to the heat, even being worked in it, way better than the wool sheep do, for obvious reasons. This wouldn't even be a consideration in cooler, less humid climates, and my two wool breeds originally hale from fairly harsh climates (granted, that was some time ago and their genetics have changed a bit since then). That said, I prefer my woolies. But then I'm also in a niche market and I have a reliable shearer (though I pay him a premium to make the 5-hour trip down here), so my sheep don't quite fit into the arguments above. To Darci, My philosophy has always been the same as Cynthia's: get what you like and what will thrive best in your area. You can always change things up later if what you like doesn't work for you anymore. I *really like* Scottish blackface and border cheviots (especially the Scotties) and that's what I started with. I don't have either anymore. What I have now I like better. J. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.