The Accidental Smallholder Forum
Livestock => Sheep => Topic started by: TheCaptain on October 27, 2011, 04:39:14 pm
-
Just read with interest about the "concerns raised by experienced Portland Sheep Breeders" that the breed seems to be increasing in size and that the animals should be tested to be 'true to type'. Now, I have to confess to being a Portland owner and am torn on how I feel about this: On one hand the sheep should stay 'true to type', and I agree that the the traits found in some of these sheep (fly away horns, darker colouring and course wool) are not agreeable but on the other hand surely a larger carcass is a good thing, making it more commercially viable (as commercially viable as small flocks of sheep can be) as possible?
There is a reason they are a rare breed - they are slow growing and have a relatively small carcass. I am still to taste Portland meat; I will be sending my boys off when they are 16 months or so old (sooner if they become a pain in the rear), but I would like to see as good a return as possible in meat to keep the future of my breeding stock as viable as possible.
Any thoughts?
-
I'm completely uniformed in this area, and I haven't read the article, so there's a chance this is pure guff, but that's never stopped me before!
I don't know how this could be policed? What do they mean by testing?
If a registered Portland tup covers a registered Portland ewe, isn't the progeny pure Portland, that can be registered? Regardless if through selective breeding a breeder accentuates certain characteristics, or minimises others?
I can appreciate the breed society's desire to see breeders maintaining the traditional breed characteristics, but isn't it true of all breeds that over time large differences will emerge across the national flock, especially as it increases in size?
Surely there's a natural selection that will occur through shows - the winners in the show ring will be those who do demonstrate the traditional breed characteristics. But I suppose the question then is if that's enough of an incentive to maintain those traits, especially with such a slow growing breed.
Or have I missed the point completely? :o
-
This is not just a problem in Portlands. Hebrideans started to get a bit oversized, especially from the showing influence, where 'big is always better'. We and others worked hard to get the problem recognised and now larger Hebs are frowned upon. Ironically, we have some whoppers in our flock ::) as well as many of the correct small size.
I don't agree that the larger the carcase the better. Meat from a slow-grown animal has a different taste, texture, colour and all-over eating experience than meat from quicker growing, larger animals. A 4-5lb gigot of hogget is plenty big enough to feed a family and few people want or can afford a much larger sized joint.
The small size of many of the rare breeds is because they are well adapted to a rougher diet, making better use of pasture which more commercial sheep couldn't survive on. They tend to be very hardy and have developed over time to fit a certain niche. We don't really know what the future will bring for sheep farming, or any livestock farming in fact, but it looks as if the trend will be away from the larger commercial, higher input types of animals, towards smaller breeds which can look after themselves, with a lower input of man-hours and grain. One of the main reasons for keeping these rare breeds true to type is so that they can be used, when the need arises, to cross with other breeds, both 'commercial' (ie big ;)) and other more traditional types, to make new breeds/crosses which will suit the circumstances present at the time. If each breed has failed to keep its trueness to type, then there will be nothing to work with. Each of the rare breeds, as well as each of the modern types, will bring particular characteristics to the mix.
One thing though which the fact that many of these breeds can grow bigger demonstrates, is their great versatility and adaptability :sheep: :sheep: :sheep:
-
Dan, supposedly - a pure registered Tup with a pure registered ewe will produce a pure Portland lamb but there is a breed standard that needs to be adhered to: I had a beautiful, beautiful ram lamb that was disqualified from being registered as he had a black 'teardrop' of fur just below his left eye - any black marks disqualify.
I really am in two minds - I fully get what fleecewife is saying, but in the back of my mind there is a reason why these sheep are rarebreed. I'm not saying that everything should be done to make them grow faster. Surely if there is becoming a trend that the breed is becoming larger then surely that is evolution of the breed and should be embraced?
I just look at the state of the Kennel club and pedigree dogs (a particular interest in German Shepherds - crap kidneys, poor back legs etc etc) and pedigree chickens that are bred for looks, being true to type, rather than what they were actually bred for - laying eggs.
-
Tricky one - I think this is a dilema a lot of native and rare breed sheep keepers face.
Does the breed description specify size?
Are the sheep changing genetically or is the increase in size simply a result of the areas in which sheep are kept and the way they are fed? It stands to reason that a portland living in it's native environment on sparse grazing is going to be smaller than one kept in lush fields with lots of grass and TLC.
Sheep that a big because of the way they are reared will not necessarily throw bigger lambs.
Should breeds be pickled in aspic or should they be allowed to evolve in the way they have done historically? If you look at a lot of breeds 100 years ago and look them again today, they are often quite different.
I guess it comes down to the difference between preservation and conservation.
-
I haven't read the article yet, my Ark is still in its wrapper having arrived today, but I suspect there is another unspoken question here too.
In commercial pedigree sheep, it is well known though rarely admitted, that the occasional injection of non-pure blood happens and is a good thing. True to type and true to pedigree over many many generations results in ever smaller and less healthy - and everyone knows that.
Another factor will be the feeding of some of the flocks. If you take a hill or marsh sheep and put it on downland grazing with cake, it's going to grow bigger than its forebears still out on the hill, moor or marsh. The danger with this is that, if the original populations are not maintained in situ, the genetics for 'doing well' could be lost.
Funnily enough, this latter is much the same argument as David Anthony Murray is putting about the loss of the semi-feral Fell Pony herds.
-
I had a beautiful, beautiful ram lamb that was disqualified from being registered as he had a black 'teardrop' of fur just below his left eye - any black marks disqualify.
How did they police that? Do you have to submit photographs at the point of registration, or was an existing registration withdrawn? I think I get it now though - your ram lamb is (was?) still a Portland, he just couldn't be registered. That makes sense.
I think you're right though, there's a fine balance to be struck between retaining breed characteristics solely because that's how they've "always" been, and allowing natural breed evolution.
Do we know if Portlands today are the same as they were 500 years ago? Ever since sheep became domesticated (~8000 years ago?) there has almost certainly been selective breeding. Is there no scope for 'improvement' within breed standards, or are they effectively set in stone for all time?
-
From the Portland website:
Breed Standard:
The Portland is a small animal (average weight of an adult ewe is 38-40 kg). The body is of a primitive type within the Down group of breeds, with good width between the legs. The tail is long and well set up on the rump
Also:
The official 'Breed Standard' for Portland sheep was drawn up in 1991 based on a survey of known flocks at the time, and was endorsed by the rare Breeds Survival trust in 1993. The Standard is the basis for card grading.
Dan - yes, he was a pure portland just not registered. Unfortunately he had a coming together with one of his brothers on Sunday and was found dead. gutted.
-
My breed, the Greyface Dartmoor, have always inspected males prior to registration and used to inspect females too untill FMD in 2001 put a stop to inspection centre gatherings of breeders from a certain catchment all over the country. Females are currently self registered, and males are inspected by DSBA inspectors who travel to breeders premises. It is a logistical headache, but it does help weed out rams who will never have breeding potential. Registered rams are further checked at the annual show and sale, and market forces dictate the best from the mediocre.
Undesireable traits will always appear, but shouldn't be perpetuated - how each breed tackles it is tailored to how easy it is for breeders to comply......
There is a huge variation in fleece type, body size and markings within the breed, a lot of which is geographical. Greyface Dartmoors of the Chagford and surrounding districts are smaller, stockier, and have harder fleeces than those who have been bred or even moved away from these areas. Soft fleeces, larger and leggier frames are more common. Variety has to be tolerated, but breed faults need to be corrected!
-
If a breed has a standard then registration of all offspring irrespective of them meeting the standard will result in some drift of type.
French dog breeds ( bear with me!) have a very different system to that of blanket registration and it does preserve a better more true type of animal. Firstly the dog is bred and given registration paperwork however this is ONLY a registration of birth and does not give the dog automatic breed registration. This is only given once the dog has reached a certain age and undergone a confirmation exam under a breed judge. the dog is then graded and breed faults which would result in disqualification do so. Those gaining confirmation gain a grade from excellent down so you then have a breed confirmed and graded dog which goes on to compete or not if you prefer not to do the show thing the confirmation classes are often entirely seperate to breed judging classes. There is also an emphasis on fit for purpose ( this was always in place unlike the UK) where working breeds of dog only gain championship status when then qualify both in breed and work.
The point being that having a piece of paper does not mean that all registered portlands are true to type or meet the standard but a confirmation exam will allow those that are breed representative to be recognised even if you can't be bothered with the competative show aspect. as for larger is best I think the breed origins need to be examined certainly with the ouessant it is surprisng how much can be gained from understanding the circumstances that brought about the breed in the first place and why it is the way it is. maintaining rare breeds is not just about mothballing them but bringing them to life. and if you prefer a more commercial breed then look to find a different more commercial breed.
-
I think you're right though, there's a fine balance to be struck between retaining breed characteristics solely because that's how they've "always" been, and allowing natural breed evolution.
Do we know if Portlands today are the same as they were 500 years ago? Ever since sheep became domesticated (~8000 years ago?) there has almost certainly been selective breeding. Is there no scope for 'improvement' within breed standards, or are they effectively set in stone for all time?
Hence my point about the breed standard being a snap shot of the national flock in 1991. I don't know if they are set in stone, but if it is becoming so prevalent that it has become such an issue to the Portland society that the breed is surely evolving, or just doing better on the different types of habitat.
So, does that mean that more Portland owners are keeping their sheep on lusher pasture which in turn is leading to larger sheep which are then too large for the breed standard so can't be registered, therefore decreasing numbers and disillusioning Portland breeders, therefore making the breed rarer?
-
So, does that mean that more Portland owners are keeping their sheep on lusher pasture which in turn is leading to larger sheep which are then too large for the breed standard so can't be registered, therefore decreasing numbers and disillusioning Portland breeders, therefore making the breed rarer?
That's it in a nutshell. It's potentially eternally cyclical - those who keep the breed for meat, and 'improve' their stock through breeding, will eventually not be able to register, thus reducing the registered breeding numbers.
Those who keep the breed to conserve the breed standard will maintain the core of the national flock and ensure the standard is viable, albeit that it continues to be 'rare'.
Factor in trends and fashions for certain breeds and you can understand why breed numbers may wax and wane. It would make a fascinating research project. :)
-
Playing devil's advocate now - there is a certain piece of EU legislation which deals with pedigree breeds and their registration in respective flock books.
In effect it states that if an animal is from registered pedigree parents, has its birth registered according to Flock Book rules (ie withing the required time frame and with the appropriate fee) and has a full pedigree, it can be registered in the flock book.
Only if these three cannot be met should registration be refused.
Breed Societies who inspect before registering males may be in contravention of these rules.
-
Playing devil's advocate now - there is a certain piece of EU legislation which deals with pedigree breeds and their registration in respective flock books.
In effect it states that if an animal is from registered pedigree parents, has its birth registered according to Flock Book rules (ie withing the required time frame and with the appropriate fee) and has a full pedigree, it can be registered in the flock book.
Only if these three cannot be met should registration be refused.
Breed Societies who inspect before registering males may be in contravention of these rules.
Now that is very interesting. Back to the point maintaining certain traits, in particular the thriftiness of a breed, or as put above, 'the genetics for doing well' could be lost if the flocks are not left in situ - if suddenly every Portland breeder began to keep there sheep on lush ground and only bred from small examples of the breed surely that trait would be lost - if the breed is evolving then is it not better to let it evolve? That wasn't put particularly well...
Can I just point out that I don't have a particular axe to grind with the Portland Society - I love my Portland sheep and don't own any large Rams! Although I was rather put off by one of the members ringing up to give me the third degree when I was selling my ewe lambs...
-
< if the breed is evolving then is it not better to let it evolve? >>
Well, there's evolution and evolution :) One of the biggest influences on domestic animals, as I mentioned above, is the effect of human selection, deliberate or unwitting. We all have a tendency to choose the biggest animal, particularly when judging in a show - the biggest will probably be the most impressive. These animals, or their breeders output, will tend to be favoured by other flock owners who will then buy their stock, and this will, and does, lead over the years to a gradual size increase in the flock. Other things can be selected for by the same mechanism - fleece type and colour for example. This may be deliberate, such as in the case of the Manx Loaghtan where fleece suitable for spinning and making hosiery was chosen, or a sort of by-product of showing, as in the case of the Hebridean, whose fleece has become longer and blacker in the years since the HSS took over management. Many breeders are quite happy with this because the really black Hebs are very striking, but others feel that the breed is losing a primitive characteristic which helped the animals to survive in their natural home of the rocky margins of Britain.
Another characteristic which may be unwittingly selected against is ease of lambing, and lambing successfully in challenging conditions. Again with Hebs, they are now mostly bred on mainland Britain, and many breeders lamb them indoors, with full support - which is of course perfectly natural - you want your animals to survive. But this is preventing the other type of evolution - by natural selection - which is governed by survival of the fittest, in this case the fittest according to their original home. So the animals may well now be doing fine in the current environment, but if we want to preserve the original characteristics of an animal totally suited to a particular local environment, then we should be careful to preserve those characteristics, at least in a nucleus of the original type. These animals and their genetic traits will then be available for us to use when needed in the future - and of course the future starts today.
I don't think that a wide variability of characteristics is such a bad thing, as these are all part of the rare breeds, as opposed to more recently created breeds where a strict standard is applied for pedigree stock. For all those who like bigger specimens, there are likely to be an equal number of breeders who keep the opposite type, but it is the breed society's duty to keep an overview of what is happening, to make sure this balance is maintained.
It's not a case of policing, and what you can get away with. If you keep a rare breed then surely you do so because you want to preserve that breed. You are a member of a society set up for the preservation of that breed - it shouldn't be a dictatorship and if you feel strongly about something then you can always get yourself elected to the committee.
The usual way to get a bigger carcase for meat from these smaller breeds is to cross them with a larger breed to give cross-bred lambs.
-
I'll be honest with you - I keep Portlands because they're pretty :)
I think that my thinking(!) is that to secure the future of any breed is to make it more commercially viable, thus making it more popular for breeders to keep it - be it for fleece, horn or meat.
The Portland meat is, allegedly, second-to-none. Therefore, does it not make sense that you would want to breed for the bigger carcass?
I'm only in my second year of keeping them; I think I'll wait a little while until I put myself forward to the committee! Plus, I want to try my hand at showing next year so I've actually got some credibility!
-
<<The Portland meat is, allegedly, second-to-none. Therefore, does it not make sense that you would want to breed for the bigger carcass?>>
Well, we all say that about our chosen breed ;D :sheep:
However, with these small, slow growing breeds, it is their very small size and slow-grown characteristics which make them delicious. It's to do with the fine grain of the muscle which needs a long time to grow - speed up the growth or increase the eventual size (so they have to grow faster to achieve it) and you may well lose the very thing you are trying to keep.
-
I couldn't agree more Fleecewife. The Ouessant is part of a group of sheep kept on salt marshes for their meat ( moutons des grèves) which were traditionally labelled pré salé the livestock holder made a good living and more money than from the larger breeds of sheep due to the good eating of prè salé meat. That the grazing was also poor meant that the size of the sheep was small (very ) but what was lacking in size was made up for in flavour.
-
I think that my thinking(!) is that to secure the future of any breed is to make it more commercially viable, thus making it more popular for breeders to keep it - be it for fleece, horn or meat.
IMO it is because these breeds are not commercially viable (perhaps competitive would be a better word to use) that most of them have become rare - so I guess we agree Captain
-
I think that my thinking(!) is that to secure the future of any breed is to make it more commercially viable, thus making it more popular for breeders to keep it - be it for fleece, horn or meat.
IMO it is because these breeds are not commercially viable (perhaps competitive would be a better word to use) that most of them have become rare - so I guess we agree Captain
If you just want a commercially viable animal then there are dozens and dozens to chose from, all of them wholely appropriate for todays needs. The point of keeping the rare breeds is, as I have tried to say already, to conserve their specific genetic specialities for our future benefit. If you change them all to make them commercially viable today, then there is nothing left in the bank for the future, when our needs will have changed.
Meantime, each of these breeds has a special trait such as fleece, size, taste, hardiness, thriftiness, or even several of these traits together, which makes it desirable to some breeders to keep. This is all we need - small numbers of small flocks which provide a few dedicated breeders with an income, in order to maintain the breed as it is for the future.
Years ago when we kept Jacobs we attended a discussion within the Jacob Sheep Society where a member seriously proposed that, because both spots and horns made our sheep less commercially viable, we should be breeding Jacobs with neither spots nor horns. Doesn't that give you a Texel - or any other of the popular commercial breeds ?
-
to preserve the gene pool any animal has to stay true to form or they are lost forever or at least watered down
all to often these improvements are done with only the breeders knowledge and then passed of as the genuine article only to show up in latter generations when the s**t hits the fan :o
in the world of showing the larger one (if all else is right) is the ultimate winner the original posters have been very skillfull with there wording as to what really goes on in the breeding world after all at conception it is only the male and female and the breeder that know what the true lineage is :farmer:
-
So, are we now saying that the whole point in Rare breed societies is to keep a breed exactly that - rare? Or am I missing the point of the Rare Breed Survival trust? Aren't breed numbers supposed to increase to ensure that they survive no matter what they look like?
As VSS points out, surely a Portland lamb born to Portland parents is a Portland?
-
Certain breeds, such as Jacob, Shetland, Hebridean have indeed become so popular in recent years that they are no longer considered rare by the RBST. They are however traditional breeds with specific genetic traits which it is in our interests to conserve. This is not to say of course that the more 'commercial' breeds do not also have genetic traits that we want to conserve - of course they do, but their survival at the moment seems assured. The wider the genetic diversity of sheep in general the better - the more we will have to play with when we do need to use their genes in a changing world. It may well be that some of today's biggies in a few decades could themselves become the rarities, and then it will be their special characteristics that we need to conserve.
No I am not saying that the RBST is there to make sure that rare breeds remain rare - its track record shows that to be untrue. I am saying that rare breeds do not necessarily have to become popular in order to survive, if that survival requires them to change from their true type.
The answer to the question of surely if a Portland is born to two Portland parents, then it must be a Portland seems self evident - of course it is. I don't know enough about Portlands to know their history, but I believe that with some breeds there is a suggestion that 'foreign blood' has been introduced at some point and that this can be identified by eliminating certain traits. In Hebs it's white spots, wool on the legs, Roman noses, Scrapie resistance type ARR, too much size; in Jacobs it's pink noses, too much black and so on. So if a lamb doesn't quite fit the description/standard (there is a difference) then it is suspected of not being a 'purebred' lamb. Genetically, by culling all pink-nosed Jacobs, you cannot of course eliminate all the 'foreign blood' which has caused them to appear, but it seems to make people feel better. The phenotype ie what the animal looks like, may only loosely reflect the genotype ie it's genetic makeup, as not all genes are expressed. This is also how certain phenotypic expressions may suddenly appear in lambs from 'true to type' parents - also known as throwbacks.
My feeling is that in most breeds the mixing happened so far back that there is not much point in eliminating suspect animals now, but on the other hand the breed societies do have to draw the line somewhere. If it's a case of 'anything goes', then breeders will be adding a little bit of this and a little bit of that and as Robert has pointed out, the true genetic make-up of the breed will quickly become diluted.
-
But in the case of the Portland the true type being a snap shot of what the flock was like in 1991? I'm not saying that about the RBST, I'm saying that about breed societies.
But if Portlands are bred within a closed group, i.e. pedigree parents then that genetic gene pool is maintained. If you are breeding out certain traits then surely that genetic pool is decreased and leads to further mutations through in-breeding?
-
I am loving this debate!
I wholeheartedly agree with Fleecewife's points, but have also been scratching my head recently about how to make the rare breeds sustainable, which means animals that enthusiasts can afford to keep and breed - so I have sympathy with The Captain's point of view, too.
It seems to me that if we all always breed pure then we'll keep the breeding population small, as there are only so many potential flockholders for each breed and therefore all any of them really need to - or can - do is to breed sufficient replacements to maintiain the population. The alternative, if breeding pure, is to 'improve' the breed to reach a wider market - which, as Fleecewife suggests, may mean we gradually evolve every breed to be more and more like a Texel. And then - WHAM - something will change. I don't know, an asteroid will fall and all of us will suddenly be farming copper-rich pasture and every Texel's liver will explode. THEN we'll wish we'd maintained some original populations of breeds, through which we could now trawl for one that has copper-tolerant genes (for instance.)
In the recent Sheep Farmer there is an article on how the Wiltshire Horn is being used to take the fleece off commercial sheep. In my view, absoutely fine and dandy (in fact, a brilliant example of why we should maintain these original breeds, let's shout it from the rooftops!) - fine and dandy to cross WH into commercial flocks to do this - but short-sighted to 'evolve' the WH itself to become a more muscled, faster-growing, polled, fat lamb. That way we could lose all the other WH characteristics that one day we may be looking for. (100 years ago, who would ever have thought we'd be wanting to breed sheep with no wool???)
Maybe it's enough to have a pool of enthusiasts maintaining each of the old breeds in the interests of having interesting sheep and leaving a legacy for future generations. But one can't help thinking it has to be better if each breed can come up with a way of making it viable for more people to be keeping it and breeding it.
Sometimes it may be that the answer lies in crossbreeds.
It has often been said that the Blue-faced Leicester would have died out long ago if it weren't for the characteristics of the Mule ewe. I suspect the same may be true of the Swaledale, too - if it weren't for the excellent market for good Mule ewes, there would be little reason to be keeping this carpet-backed rake of a curmudgeonly bessom. As it is, a good Swale draft ewe would have set you back in excess of £120 this year.
I'm going to post more on the subject of crossbreeding, but I think it may be better on a separate thread.
-
But in the case of the Portland the true type being a snap shot of what the flock was like in 1991? I'm not saying that about the RBST, I'm saying that about breed societies.
But if Portlands are bred within a closed group, i.e. pedigree parents then that genetic gene pool is maintained. If you are breeding out certain traits then surely that genetic pool is decreased and leads to further mutations through in-breeding?
You raise some important points Captain and concerns that I am adressing in my own breed but there are ways of doing things; Firstly take a look at the breed standard and its evolution why are some points considered faults and is the reasoning valid.
I recently did a study on my breed and considered that the breed was rescued from a very small number of individuals the coefficient of inbreeding and the average relatedness is relatively high fortunately we still have a landrace population in evidence to draw fresh blood from ( for the moment) but one way to increase genetic variation is to look at allelic variation ie NOT aim to produce homogenous lookey likey sheep but to tolerate ( within the standard) a degree of variation and examine clsoesly whether rejection on the basis of a black mark in the fleece is really justifiable for the longevity of the breed which I think takes us back to your main point.
I do look at conservation breeding in my flcok to a degree and NOT using one ram to cover all my flock or indeed to promote one ram to such a degree that valuable genetics are excluded in favour of a more predictable lamb. it is possible to maximise diversity and maintain breed identity but it requires a mind shft. In a way (I think it was fleecewife) who said that breeder preference ensures a degree of variabilty as some select for one criteria and other for another but the standard and breed society does have a part to play in this as well.
-
You raise some important points Captain and concerns that I am adressing in my own breed but there are ways of doing things; Firstly take a look at the breed standard and its evolution why are some points considered faults and is the reasoning valid.
So what would be the thinking behind these then?:-
UNDESIRABLE CHARACTERISTICS
1. Narrow, angular conformation
2. Long ears
3. Black horns
4. Dip in the back
5. White marks on the face or legs
6. Black hair on the face or legs
7. Black marks or patches (disqualification in rams)
8. Upright, flyaway, or ingrowing horns
9. Woolly cheeks or legs
10. Coarse wool or open fleece
11. Any significant departure from the standard should disqualify, as should any major functional defect.
-
How many of those criteria are relative ie subject to interpretation?
As I understand it the portland is a white breed and other colours are not recognised?
-
I think that my thinking(!) is that to secure the future of any breed is to make it more commercially viable, thus making it more popular for breeders to keep it - be it for fleece, horn or meat.
IMO it is because these breeds are not commercially viable (perhaps competitive would be a better word to use) that most of them have become rare - so I guess we agree Captain
If you just want a commercially viable animal then there are dozens and dozens to chose from, all of them wholely appropriate for todays needs. The point of keeping the rare breeds is, as I have tried to say already, to conserve their specific genetic specialities for our future benefit.
That isn't what I said - lack of commercial charateristics is why they became rare. That doesn't mean that all breeds should be breed to look like texels - heaven forbid! They are hideous things!
However I do believe that it is possible to selectively breed from within your own breed's genetic pool for good performance traits and ability without losing type and without losing the other good points of rare and traditional breeds.
-
So what would be the thinking behind these then?:-
UNDESIRABLE CHARACTERISTICS
1. Narrow, angular conformation
2. Long ears
3. Black horns
4. Dip in the back
5. White marks on the face or legs
6. Black hair on the face or legs
7. Black marks or patches (disqualification in rams)
8. Upright, flyaway, or ingrowing horns
9. Woolly cheeks or legs
10. Coarse wool or open fleece
11. Any significant departure from the standard should disqualify, as should any major functional defect.
1]this makes for a poor sheep whatever breed and would be a fault in any breed. However the definition of narrow and angular varies depending on the breed we are talking about. For example, a narrow Southdown would still be loads broader and more solid that a narrow Portland
2) Lots of breeds consider large ears to be a fault but to my mind it is a much less serious fault than the above.
3) This one is about maintaining type
4) As with point 1 a dippy back is a fault in any breed, this a conformation issue to do with the way a good sheep is put together.
5) Another type issue
6) And again
7) Type again
8 The first two are type related, but ingrowing horns should be avoided in all breeds as it can have serious welfare implications id not dealt with. However, you don't often see this as losts of breeders (particularly if they have any interest in the show ring) will "turn" any ingrowing horns out.
9) Type again
10) Poor open fleeced animals will be much more susceptible to wet weather, so this is another general good sheep one. The definition of coarse will vary from breed to breed.
11) Well, this is just a cover all in case they have left anything out, and to prevent you registering sheep with wonky legs, bad teeth, or only one testicle etc.
-
Argh! I still don't know how I feel about this!!!
Thank you everyone for your input so far!
-
I have been breeding pedigree and also commercial livestock for 30 odd years.....I have been involved with cattle, pigs, goats and sheep in the way of large livestock.
There are many dilemmas here ......do we want to conserve every member of a rare breed regardless just because they are rare, do we want to ruthlessly cull to accentuate certain points, do we cull or refuse registration for over height, odd spots etc etc?....
Well as far as I am concerned we don't want all breeds to become homogenised into a single 'type' but there are important faults and less important faults and what I personally perceive as daft faults!
For example good breeding animals need 4 good legs and good feet to stand on, a decent coat/fleece/hair etc to keep out the weather, wide pelvis for easy lambing/calving etc, good heart room to be able to breath and eat efficiently, If horned good horns with which to ...if they were wild....fight with.....etc etc
These are basics and in the past would have been sorted by natural selection...ie the lions or wolves would have got it!
After that the different breed charecteristics were fixed by man a lot of the time for specific properties...even the primitives....as they are adapted for the places they came from...for example the North Ronaldsay is a small sheep that can live on next to nothing and even eats seaweed....which a Texel would starve rather than eat ;D
After that it starts getting pernickity.....imho...!
For example 20 years ago i bred a fabulous Greyface dartmoor ram.....really good! I was very pleased with him! However...he had a few black tiny spots on his lower legs so was rejected as a breeding ram......wheras another that was submitted that was not a patch on him....passed!.....needless to say we ate the one that passed and used the other one on our commercials....with a very good if not conventional result!
I bring this up as you can sometimes literally throw the 'baby out with the bathwater' especially with rare breeds and limited genepools.....
I now keep Ouessants....much to the amusement of my farming friends who think I have taken leave of my senses and call them handbag sheep ::) :D We have a limited genepool in Britain and I cannot find a good black ram....I can find lots of black rams...but not a good one (poor horns, legs, feet, narrow body etc)....demonstrating the practice of keeping an animal that should be eaten/castrated...just because its rare/unusual! I however have a few specimens who are a bit overheight....but in every other way are perfect and I know the reason is good nutrition...which as has already been pointed out can cause primitives to grow bigger.....I am not going to cull these I just use a small ram....result is correct height offspring....
Breeds evolve......just like people...who are taller now than they used to be!
-
For example 20 years ago i bred a fabulous Greyface dartmoor ram.....really good! I was very pleased with him! However...he had a few black tiny spots on his lower legs so was rejected as a breeding ram......wheras another that was submitted that was not a patch on him....passed!.....needless to say we ate the one that passed and used the other one on our commercials....with a very good if not conventional result!
I've heard of this black spot witch hunt before, and thankfully those days are now gone! GFDs have to have black excessively to be rejected, or conformation faults as already described. I'm not sure how EU rules affect registration inspections when the reason is to maintain the purity of the breed, and GFDs have been known to have been crossed with Devon & Cornwall Longwoolls and Whiteface Dartmoors - and some throwbacks have been seen.
-
I believe that with some breeds there is a suggestion that 'foreign blood' has been introduced at some point and that this can be identified by eliminating certain traits. In Hebs it's white spots, wool on the legs, Roman noses, Scrapie resistance type ARR, too much size; in Jacobs it's pink noses, too much black and so on. So if a lamb doesn't quite fit the description/standard (there is a difference) then it is suspected of not being a 'purebred' lamb. Genetically, by culling all pink-nosed Jacobs, you cannot of course eliminate all the 'foreign blood' which has caused them to appear, but it seems to make people feel better. The phenotype ie what the animal looks like, may only loosely reflect the genotype ie it's genetic makeup, as not all genes are expressed. This is also how certain phenotypic expressions may suddenly appear in lambs from 'true to type' parents - also known as throwbacks.
My feeling is that in most breeds the mixing happened so far back that there is not much point in eliminating suspect animals now, but on the other hand the breed societies do have to draw the line somewhere. If it's a case of 'anything goes', then breeders will be adding a little bit of this and a little bit of that and as Robert has pointed out, the true genetic make-up of the breed will quickly become diluted.
I think you've answered a longstanding question - and cause of considerable frustration - for me, Fleecewife.
I have, until now, never been able to understand why, for instance, a Swale with good markings would be placed higher than one with less correct markings but a better conformation. In some cases, the markings could be regarded as so unacceptable that the animal would not be 'crowned', ie, registered in the Flock Book. In my view, function and health should always trump cosmetics, but I can see from the above that the cosmetics can be seen as evidence of impure blood and it is that which is being penalised, not the colour variation per se.
Interestingly there are now two strains of Blue-faced Leicester. The original, very pure, very blue-faced, one is shown and bred pure as Blue-faced Leicester. The other, in some regions now openly described as Crossing Blue-Faced Leicesters, is less pure (up here it'll probably have a wee bit of Teeswater in it) - less blue-faced and may have spots on the legs and face. It is the latter type you want to put on your Swale or Blackie to get your Mule ewe, particularly if you want the very striking deep-chocolate-on-white, clearly delineated facial markings - which you certainly will if you show and/or sell your Mule ewes.
You'd buy a specimen of the former type of BFL based on his and his lambs' performance in BFL shows, of the latter based on the performance of his Mule offspring.
These days it is probably the case that neither type could survive without the other, nor without the healthy market for the Mule ewe - and both types are (or can be) registered pedigree animals. Wisely the Society does not reject the crossing type for registration but will penalise it in the show ring, which seems to result in the maintenance of a very pure type as well as allowing the breed to sustain its commercial viability.
-
re phenotype often times this is a complete misunderstanding of the genetics behind so many of the points that VSS labelled type and that Fleecewife points out are considered foreign. for example and there are many raised over this thread. white spots in hebredians.
I will address white spotting on the top of the head, or possibly tail tip as opposed to in the body as each can have different genetics. White spotting ( poll spots ) is a recessive gene and as far as i can determine is present in almost every northern short tail certainly i'm struggling to think of one where it isn't present. Far from being an indication of "foreign blood" its more likely to be indicative of primitive traits, as a recessive it is only expressed in homozygotes and the difficulty with that is that those carriers that don't express this are not penalised those that are are disqualified. ....... losss of original breed genetics on a point of misunderstanding and failure to determine the mechanics of its inheritance oops! the maintenance of poll spots in the ouessants as a relatiively stable trait it is recognised in the breed standard and considered undesireable but not cause for disqualification which allows those of the breed that are good representations of the breed but homozygous for white spotting to move forward in the genepool without penalising the fact that it is IMPOSSIBLE to eliminate recessive carriers of white spotting and that some will always come to the surface. Of the points listed by VSS particularly of type in the portland there are a number where I would take issue if they are judged as a cause for disqualification although the maintenace of breed type ( identity ) is important there are steps to be taken that can allow both recognition of the breed identity and NOT lose valuable diversity because of ignorance..
-
I was using the expression 'foreign blood' tongue in cheek, along the lines of Terry Pratchet's 'For'n Parts'. Yes, the white spot on top of the head is a sign of the primitive origins of a breed and in the Heb world this is acknowledged in that fleeting crowns ie those which disappear before registration at 4 months, are allowed. Great big dollops which stay are not allowed, probably because they interfere with the overall blackness of the Hebridean. Only those who have done what Robert suggests happens ;) will know if these white spots are passed on to the lambs (I don't) .
In Hebrideans, the admixture is thought to be predominantly from Jacobs in a parkland setting - people see that Jacobs are spotted and thus assume that any spots in Hebs are a sign of that admixture. This is of course inaccurate, as Jacobs are in fact a black sheep with white spots, and breed black dominant. About 20% of Hebs have been found to be black dominant, in a breed which in its pure form is black recessive, and this is probably a sign that there has been an admixture of Jacob, or possibly BWM blood somewhere along the line. In the last century a lot of work was done cross-breeding Hebs to determine whether or not they were black dominant and this was thought to be a way of culling out Jacob blood. Of course this is nonsense - the 'foreign blood' ie genetic material, doesn't all stay together in a clump to be passed down through generations of offspring, so by now those genes will be well spread through the breed, and I for one don't think we should waste time pursuing rogue genes - the breed is at it is now and it's too late to change it. The Jacob blood is thought to have come in way back in the 1800s and early 1900s.
So yes, the breed society committee members do need a far better understanding of genetics - but in their defence they are just ordinary bods giving up their time to support their favoured breed and shouldn't as such be demonised. In an ideal world each society would have plenty of money and expertise to carry out research, educate its committee members and so on. This isn't going to happen, at least not with the rarer breeds, whose societies are always strapped for cash
-
demonised may be an over statement but Captains point was the disqualification of a sheep based on a point thats has no real merit in terms of either racial purity or fit for breeding but an minimal expression in coat colour. It is the acceptance of this as a valid reason for disqualification that does need revisiting. the shetland standard also details any deviation from a fluke tail to be an indication of cross breeding.historically crossing out to commercial breeds of sheep would have resulted in longer tails and was presumably a reason for the inclusion of this text in the standard but as tail length is a polygenic trait there is natural variation that is anything but crossing out.
In the hebredian the presence of dominant black could be argued to be of little relevance in an all black breed unless of course you want to add weight to the value of white hebredians and then the mechanisms for the inheritance of black dominant or recessive come into their own as a very valid concern. The fact that phenotypically it isn't possible to determine dominant or recessive black can cause concern in other breeds such as the shetland where the inheritance of colour and pattern has significantly more relevance.
If people wish to be come a custodian of a rare breed then surely maintenance of that includes longevity. the dandie dinmont is now considering crossing out to try to return the very limited genepool to something that is viable and healthy what is hapening in dog breeds is only an acceleration of what will happen in some sheep breeds if steps are n't taken to rexamine breed selection on an unsound basis.
-
Having absolutely no idea about genetics is the thinking about the black fur on a ram that the disposition will be for a ram to pass on that 'trait' to it's offspring?
-
I think that by recognising a breed as you are in the breed standard , you produce a picture ( representation) of what it is that says portland sheep. the point behind this is that selection is designed to eliminate from breeding those sheep that either don't conform to this or are likely to pass on traits that would be considered deviating from this standard.
*Adalsteinsson writes: ‘Sponenberg defines three stages of variation within a breed or population. At the first stage we have a landrace, which shows considerable variation. The second stage of variation arises when the landrace is turned into a standardized breed. Types that do not conform to the standard are excluded from breeding. The third and final stage of unifying the breed still further converts it into industrialized stock. That stock is highly and scientifically selected for narrow environments, specific inputs and carefully defined selection goals.’
His full text is here. http://www.shetland-sheep.org/pdf/The%20Need%20to%20Conserve%20Different%20Types%20of%20Shetland%20Sheep.pdf (http://www.shetland-sheep.org/pdf/The%20Need%20to%20Conserve%20Different%20Types%20of%20Shetland%20Sheep.pdf)
there needs to be an appraisal within each breed of in reality what the selection process is defining and refining and a recognition that aiming to KEEP variability is a requirement within breed currently this aspect is not adequately addressed in many breeds.
-
You make some good points Kanisha.
I only really know about Hebs and Soays, and a bit about Shetlands. The fluke tail was specifically selected for from a population of variable length tails (but within the northern shorttailed group) and quoted in the 1927 standard for that breed. There are still plenty of non-flukey tails, esp amongst the Foula type but these do not do well in the showring - which is the show case for the breed so what the public sees. It's one of the aspects of Shetlands that I can't be bothered with, but if I was breeding to sell breeding stock then I would have to pay attention to it.
With dominant black in Hebs, the significance is when crossing - dominant black will produce 50% black lambs, which sell for less in the mart. Black recessive Hebs when crossed produce 100% white lambs,, which definitely sell for a little bit more, in otherwise identical animals. So there is a financial reason here for those who cross breed. I don't care either way and feel that all that testing for black dominant breeding stock which was done a few decades ago was a waste of energy, and probably led to the culling of some good breeding stock.
I totally agree about the need to preserve longevity in the breeds, and would add ease of lambing, good feet and good teeth ie ones which stay in the mouth for many years. Many breeders follow the lead of more commercial flocks where it is economically necessary to cull older animals, but this is less necessary amongst rare breeds owners, in many cases. Hebs are definitely long-lived and continue to lamb to great ages, such as our 15 yo with twins - and she isn't the only one. We are trying to bring this point to other breeders. We select lines where the ewes keep their teeth, have good feet, don't have lambing problems and continue to lamb to a great age. These are all traits which we think are important, not just in Hebs but in all sheep in a changing agricultural environment, where the emphasis will change from high input livestock to lower input, more independant animals.
I think we should also be using older tups, not just the smart ie young, ones. It is not possible to identify characteristics of longevity, good feet and teeth etc in a younger tup - he needs to reach maturity and beyond to know his genetic contribution to those attributes. To prevent the older tup from running with his daughters, it's necessary to have several tups, and many breeders can't run to that.
Really the only point I was supporting initially is that of maintaining a small size in breeds which are small. I am not a fan of breed standards in rare breeds, and when the RBST casually decided to change from breed descriptions, which are relatively flexible, to breed standards, without consultation, mine was the only objecting voice (you can read what I wrote in a past ARK but I don't know offhand which one). I think only Hebrideans now continue to have a breed description and even Soays have a standard which I find very worrying.
-
I have, until now, never been able to understand why, for instance, a Swale with good markings would be placed higher than one with less correct markings but a better conformation. In some cases, the markings could be regarded as so unacceptable that the animal would not be 'crowned', ie, registered in the Flock Book. In my view, function and health should always trump cosmetics, but I can see from the above that the cosmetics can be seen as evidence of impure blood and it is that which is being penalised, not the colour variation per se.
This is a very difficult one for breeders of sheep where specific markings are laid down in the breed description and I feel it has to be handled very carefully if the breed is to continue to produce "good sheep" and not just well marked ones. If anyone on here has Balwens, then please accept my apologies, but this is a prime example, in my opinion, of a breed that has been ruined by selecting heavily for markings at the expense of conformation. Balwens used to be the same size as other commercial type welsh mountains, but over zealours breeding for markings has removed a lot of the vigour from the sheep and most of the size too.
The Badger Face has also been at risk of this (just my opinion) but last year the Society listened to the concerns of members that over selection for show ring markings was reducing the size and vigour of the breed. Previously rams had all been inspected for correct markings before registration was allowed. The committee took the bull by the horns and decided to suspend inspections for a number of years to try to widen the range of tups being used and to ensure that the breed's thrifiness and hardiness is not compromised and I think they should be commended for this.
Occasionally a judge will be brave enough to put up a really well put together sheep with indifferent markings (this happened to my daughter at the Smallholder Festival a few years ago - her ewe had poor markings but was a cracking sheep. The judge's dilemma was that she either had to placed first or last. Luckily she was placed first), but it happens only rarely. Personally, I feel that they should be good sheep first and well marked second, but on the other hand, the markings are what differentiates them from the normal white fleeced welsh.
A total minefield!
-
are you not missing the poiint here if a breed is rare and endangered anything that is allegedly pure is breed from and registered once they increase in popularity that is when the powers that be step in and move the goalposts in pigs the close breeding is frowned upon yet with Hampshire's it is allowed because there are not enough lines to go further out once more become available that should stop :farmer:
-
are you not missing the poiint here if a breed is rare and endangered anything that is allegedly pure is breed from and registered once they increase in popularity that is when the powers that be step in and move the goalposts in pigs the close breeding is frowned upon yet with Hampshire's it is allowed because there are not enough lines to go further out once more become available that should stop :farmer:
Exactly! Isn't it?
-
For anyone really interested in what happens over a long period (800 years) when a restricted group of animals is allowed to breed indiscrminately (within that group) and importantly WITHOUT any human intervention - have a look at the Chillingham White Cattle. It is in my opinion mingboggling and as a breeder of (rare) Golden Guernseys and (not so rare) white Shetlands gives a lot of food for thought!
Even better if you are planning a holiday in the NorthEast of England, or are just passing through, they have hourly tours in the spring and summer months and the guy taking the visitors is really good (he is not a scientist, nor a farmer/animal breeder - so his take is unique!) Our visit in late October (we were the only people on the tour) was the highlight of a rare two-day get-away from the holding and without the children too!
Btw the black spots issue seems to crop up in a few of the older breeds - white shetlands often have some black spots on their face, but they can still be registered as white, as the fleece counts (no black spots in it allowed). But you would get penalised in the showring (depending on how many other sheep with spots are in the class though and what the judge considers important - fleece or conformation or colour/look)
I think goat breeders have got it right - Herdbook registration for any crossbreed of (any, incl previous HB) registered goats. Even the shows have Any Other Variety (AOV) classes, where milk yield, conformation etc counts (and what the jugde likes...)
-
For anyone really interested in what happens over a long period (800 years) when a restricted group of animals is allowed to breed indiscrminately (within that group) and importantly WITHOUT any human intervention - have a look at the Chillingham White Cattle. It is in my opinion mingboggling and as a breeder of (rare) Golden Guernseys and (not so rare) white Shetlands gives a lot of food for thought!
can you explain your point further? Another analogy would be the soay ......
-
The cattle were enclosed in the early 1300s as means of shooting/hunting/food source, but never tamed or handled by humans. That made them safe from the (Scottish) Border Reivers in what were fairly lawless times - they could not be herded and driven away. They are fenced in by stone walls and the flock has never been added to nor have any animals been taken away for breeding somewhere else. These are wild cattle!
That also means that the genetic base is developed from what it started out before any real improvements in animal breeding were made by man, and the fact that there was (and still is) no selection of breeding stock, the strongest bull is in charge for a period of about 3 years and mates all the females. Female calves do not breed until they are about 3 years of age, so father/daughter matings are very rare. Genetically all animals are identical, and bear no resemblance to any other catte breed in the world. They are not massive, have strong shoulders, smaller rear ends (so they can run fast!), calves are born very small (and no difficulties in calving, which happens all year round) and lead bull decides if the calf is accepted by the herd. If he thinks it's not, it is either abandoned by the mother or killed by the bull - weaklings do not survive.
Have a look at their website!
But with regard to other rare breeds - we often keep all animals that can survive with human help, breed from them etc etc. It is often said that prolonged in-breeding a group of animals wll produce a smaller, weaker animal that needs outside blood to re-invogorate it. However these cattle have never been added to, so what's all that about? Human intervention etc etc.
It is just interesting, but it's an experiment that cannot be carried out by anyone on any other rare breed.... after all who can plan nowadays for 800 years ahead...
-
That also means that the genetic base is developed from what it started out before any real improvements in animal breeding were made by man, and the fact that there was (and still is) no selection of breeding stock, the strongest bull is in charge for a period of about 3 years and mates all the females. Female calves do not breed until they are about 3 years of age, so father/daughter matings are very rare. Genetically all animals are identical, and bear no resemblance to any other catte breed in the world. They are not massive, have strong shoulders, smaller rear ends (so they can run fast!), calves are born very small (and no difficulties in calving, which happens all year round) and lead bull decides if the calf is accepted by the herd. If he thinks it's not, it is either abandoned by the mother or killed by the bull - weaklings do not survive.
But with regard to other rare breeds - we often keep all animals that can survive with human help, breed from them etc etc. It is often said that prolonged in-breeding a group of animals wll produce a smaller, weaker animal that needs outside blood to re-invogorate it. However these cattle have never been added to, so what's all that about? Human intervention etc etc.
[quote/]
Yes I thought that was your point. the point as I understand it is that genetically similar populations are viable if the selection process is designed not for phenotype but survivability. that they have similar phenotype is due to relatedness not selection for phenotype. the danger with these populations as has been found with other genetically inbreed populations is they are at huge risk of disease as there is so little genetic variance to provide some resistance if one gets it they all do. ....................... putting all your eggs into one basket comes to mind.
-
The Portland is a small and thrifty breed, adapted to graze the commons and exposed clifftops of the Isle of Portland, and renowned for the fine texture and flavour of its meat. The fleece is highly regarded by handspinners and is classed as Fine by the Wool Board. Most flock owners cite the small and easy to handle qualities of the Portland as a major factor in their choice of breed. Sheep of large size have often been associated at card-grading with the occurrence of coarse and atypical wool. If slow maturation and thrift are related, then the large size and early finishing times of the large types may indicate a further departure from Portland Breed type. Conservation of Rare Breeds should preserve such individual characteristics for the future, rather than “improve” through introgression, whilst retaining variation in the gene pool.
Evidence of introgression from DNA profiling has been associated with animals of very large size. Since larger size is inevitably rewarded both in the Show ring, and at Sales, this introgression has had and can be expected to have a profound influence on the Breed if allowed to proliferate unchecked. Inexperienced Breeders less familiar with the breed description and subtleties of type could be expected to be most at risk of influencing or founding their flock with atypical animals.
The Portland Sheep Breeders Group (NOT a Society – the RBST’s Combined Flock Book is the registration authority for Portlands) has advised and agreed with RBST an amendment to the Breed Description giving information on size in rams, which will be published in the Combined Flock Book. Judges and card-graders will also be notified.
Further information will be available shortly through the Newsletter and Website of The Portland Sheep Breeders Group
http://www.portlandsheep.org.uk (http://www.portlandsheep.org.uk)
The Group is planning card-grading workshops for its members, why not join? New members are very welcome :)
-
Hi can you explain more about introgression and DNA sampling, has this been done in the Portland? If so I would like to send you a pm for more details. I have looked at the Pedrose et al study . Mitochondrial diversity and the origin of Iberian sheep and alvarez et al - Genetic relationships and admixture among sheep breeds from Northern Spain assessed using microsatellites Do you have a copy of the study for the portland?
many thanks
-
What's your definition of introgression? As far as I can see it is basically the adding of other types of genes to a species; which isn't what we have been talking about.
So what your saying is that those animals that have been of larger size are not pure bred? If that isn't what your saying, and these animals can be proven to be pure, then isn't the breed evolving?
My land is completely different to that found on the exposed clifftops of Portland; far lusher and a far nicer lifestyle. As previously discussed, this may influence the size of lambs that are born and subsequently raised. If you introduce a 'size limit' then I may not be able to continue registering my sheep. If I don't have pedigree Portlands then what's the point? I got Portlands as they are my local rare breed and I believed that I was doing something to make it less rare. Right or wrong, I still think that it is extremely short sighted to introduce such standards before making the breed a bit less rare.
Regarding membership; I was a member in my first year of keeping them and had been meaning to get round to renewing it but I was massively disappointed to see that the group had decided to essentially boycott the Gillingham and Shaftesbury show (due to poor organisation the previous year) - well done on promoting the breed. I also don't like being given the third degree by one of the other members, who rang after seeing an advert in our local mag, over what I'm selling and who I am selling to.
-
Captain, I may be able to help a little here as I have a breed where there is a very specific height requirement we all measure our sheep alot!!
It is acknowledged that height is a polygenic trait so two parents can produce offspring with varying height potential in that sense height is genetic however it is also environmental and with the ouessant that potential for height is reached in optimum conditions ( good grazing) but the height restriction still remains. this means I could breed a lamb that eventually goes over height. I don't know how the system works in portlands but currently I can use that sheep for breeding but it won't get confirmed as of breed but its offspring maybe if they met the height requirement however careful selection for its mating would be needed to get the height down. In my case I try to select small rams to balance out any greater potential for size in my ewes leaving me with roomier ewes for lambing and hopefully nice small lambs. I don't know if that helps a little.
-
Well, kanisha, that's fascinating - thanks for writing it up.
So, it seems to me that, if a lot of rare breed animals get kept on better ground, we could potentially end up with genetically smaller animals! As each breeder selects smaller rams to take the size off their well-grown ewes, the underlying genetics could, if taken back to the harsh native environment, result in even smaller sheep than the original population!
Food for thought indeed! And definitely should make the breed standard authors think long and hard before introducing a height restriction.
I now feel more informed about why over-height Dales ponies can so often be amongst the rosettes, despite it being instant disqualification to be found to be over 14.2hh.
-
Hi Sally there is plenty more to determining height in a ouessant there is a minimum as well as a maximum and also an ideal weight. there is also something known as a forchette which gives a range of heights which would be expected for the yearlings rams and ewes and when adult final height is given in the sheeps second year as long as it isn't borderline in which case it may be withheld for a year to check they don't go over. however no sheep judged over height gets past the pre comeptition exam and is left shamefaced in the pen :-[ :-[ :-[ beware the unsuspecting novice who takes their too tall sheep to the show!
On the other hand when your breed has the title of the worlds smallest breed of sheep ( non miniaturised) you can't afford to let the height drift. even the person accredited with saving the ouessant acknowledged that environment had its part to play and the sheep did best on their native granite rock grazing.
From my own perspective having looked at the history of the breed the grazing conditions on the island were untenable it is recorded the sheep died in their hundreds every winter ( 6000 sheep on a 1500 hectare island where only 20 %max was allocated for grazing and included 2000 cattle and native miniature ponies that the ouessant is small is due to its exceptional historical living conditions which I doubt anyone would repeat today it is a sad fact that any move away from the breeds original place for formulating the breed will change the breed. the standard does seek to preserve that which was and not that which is.
-
it is a sad fact that any move away from the breeds original place for formulating the breed will change the breed. the standard does seek to preserve that which was and not that which is.
I don't see why that is a sad fact?!?!
Essentially, if I keep my sheep for the rest of my life, breeding from the same lines of ewes over generations, that they will lose the very thing that makes them Portlands - the hardiness, thriftiness etc. regardless of size, as my land is a world away from what you find on Portland? They'll still be pedigree Portlands though.
Seems we're swimming against the tide of environmental evolutionism...
-
Not if there is height restriction and you don't select for it ;)
-
It's called selective breeding. Most of the breeds we have in the UK today are (in their current form) not much more that 150 years old (with the obvious exceptions of the primitives and some other older breeds). New breeds were developed to do a particular job often in a particular location by crossing and then selecting offspring for the desired characteristics.
It is only with the development of breed standards that this "evolution" has stopped or slowed. Is it a good thing? Not my place to say, but an interesting thought.
-
Just out of interest, is there any mood to not breed from Portland ewes that give birth to twins as they are the exception rather than the rule?