The Accidental Smallholder Forum
Livestock => Sheep => Topic started by: SallyintNorth on October 21, 2015, 10:40:20 am
-
I'm interested to know more about people's views on artificial insemination and other 'interventions' in the natural breeding process in sheep.
I think it can be hard to express our views sometimes, because we know that there are folks on here, who we like, respect and don't want to upset, using techniques that perhaps we have some qualms about.
I thought it might be easier to collect views if it was anonymous, so I was going to do a poll. But it's really not so simple that it can be expressed in yes/no one-liners.
So I wondered about starting a thread, encouraging people to write statements about AI in sheep - one view per post, if you can - and then folks can use the 'Like' button to anonymously agree with statements that chime with them.
And of course, also chip in with their views if they are happy to express them!
-
Statement - please click 'Like' if you agree
I worry about our sheep breeds becoming subfertile
Note, this statement may or may not be the view of the author.
-
Statement - please click 'Like' if you agree
I have no issue with the use of hormones to regulate ovulation
Note, this statement may or may not be the view of the author.
-
Statement - please click 'Like' if you agree
I have reservations about the use of invasive AI
Note, this statement may or may not be the view of the author.
-
Statement - please click 'Like' if you agree
I have no issue with the use of AI, whether invasive or not
Note, this statement may or may not be the view of the author.
-
Statement - please click 'Like' if you agree
I have no issue with the use of non-invasive AI
Note, this statement may or may not be the view of the author.
-
Statement - please click 'Like' if you agree
I have no issue with the use of non-invasive AI provided hormonal ovulation control is not used
Note, this statement may or may not be the view of the author.
-
Statement - please click 'Like' if you agree
I accept that some of our rare breeds are kept going by small sheepkeepers, many of whom work away from the holding, which means I view the use of hormones and non-invasive AI as a necessary evil
Note, this statement may or may not be the view of the author.
-
Statement - please click 'Like' if you agree
Whilst accepting that some of our rare breeds are kept going by small sheepkeepers, many of whom work away from the holding, and therefore viewing the use of hormones and non-invasive AI as a necessary evil, I would prefer to see such methods used only where there is such justification, and not as a routine
Note, this statement may or may not be the view of the author.
-
Statement - please click 'Like' if you agree
I would prefer to see any methods which interfere with the ewe's natural cycle used only where there is substantial justification - for instance, where a breed is close to lost, and/or highly inbred, and there is limited semen available to meet the needs of the breed rescue / improvement programme
Note, this statement may or may not be the view of the author.
-
Statement - please click 'Like' if you agree
I think it's a good thing to spread the use of a good tup as widely as is consistent with the aims of the breed improvement programme and/or good breeding practise
Note, this statement may or may not be the view of the author.
-
Statement - please click 'Like' if you agree
People should keep their noses out of how other people are managing their sheep and their breeding
Note, this statement may or may not be the view of the author.
-
Statement - please click 'Like' if you agree
AI is used in cattle all the time, this is no different
Note, this statement may or may not be the view of the author.
-
Statement - please click 'Like' if you agree
It is counter-productive to make sheepkeepers who need to use these techniques feel uncomfortable about them
Note, this statement may or may not be the view of the author.
-
Sounds like you are trying to cover a lot of topics in one thread!
I don't see any problem with the use of hormones to regulate ovulation (i.e. the sponge) (it's no different to the human Pill really is it?). It's not an invasive procedure (having been for my smear test this morning I think a wee sponge is nothing! :) ), although I'm not so keen on using PMSG to bring ovulation forward when the animal was not already ovulating; I think you are just fighting nature then, which is never a good thing.
Synchronising breeding can improve welfare throughout pregnancy in terms of feeding appropriately, and at lambing, in terms of there being someone there to deal with any problems.
I don't agree with bringing on labour just for our own convenience.
I don't see a problem with AI where enormous genetic progress can be made in a short time in order to improve the health of the species, or to save rare breeds. I don' t know enough about AI to know the difference between invasive and non-invasive; obviously the less invasive the better :) . Certainly we shouldn't be doing AI just for our own convenience, but as it's expensive I think ppl who use AI must have a good reason for it? It's been used for ages in pigs and cattle, although I don't know how the anatomy differs between them and sheep, I assume it's harder to AI sheep?
I'm not sure I see much difference in the motivations between AI and non AI breeding - commercial farmers are always going to try to breed an animal that will make them as much money as possible. The AI process just accelerates that programme. Whether they are breeding for the right traits is another matter, and not one that is restricted to the subject of AI.
-
I'll extract some one-liners from your post, Foobar. Thanks for the thoughts.
I certainly would like more information about exactly what all of the techniques involve, as I have very little firsthand knowledge of any of them in cattle or pigs, and none in sheep.
I didn't realise there were two different hormonal treatments, but from your post it would seem that sponges are akin to the pill, deferring ovulation until removed, whereas PMSG brings ovulation on? or just forward?
A friend worked on a farm that uses invasive AI. He seemed to be of the view that the type of AI I am used to in pigs and cattle doesn't work in sheep, so there is a technique that injects the semen directly into the fallopian tube, through a small incision made in the body wall.
We also know that flushing and embryo transfer / surrogacy is now happening in commercial sheep too, and sheep such as the Valais Blacknose.
-
Statement - please click 'Like' if you agree
Sponging may be akin to the contraceptive pill - but a human female is taking a personal decision to take the risks involved.
Note, this statement may or may not be the view of the author.
-
Statement - please click 'Like' if you agree
Synchronising breeding can improve welfare throughout pregnancy and at lambing
Note, this statement may or may not be the view of the author.
-
Statement - please click 'Like' if you agree
Synchronising pregnancy and lambing fundamentally interfere with sheep's natural biorhythms and behaviours
Note, this statement may or may not be the view of the author.
-
Statement - please click 'Like' if you agree
I don't agree with bringing on labour just for our own convenience.
Note, this statement may or may not be the view of the author.
-
Statement - please click 'Like' if you agree
Sometimes it is better for the flock for a shepherd to lamb a ewe, and get a good night's sleep, than to wait up several hours for her to do it naturally
Note, this statement may or may not be the view of the author.
-
Statement - please click 'Like' if you agree
We shouldn't be doing non-invasive AI just for our own convenience.
Note, this statement may or may not be the view of the author.
-
Statement - please click 'Like' if you agree
I have no issue with using non-invasive AI.
Note, this statement may or may not be the view of the author.
-
It's an interesting survey Sally. I thought hard about it and finally just 'liked' the 'people should keep,their noses out' question. Why? Because for the most part decisions people make has to be made in their own context. I am going essentially natural with the whole cycle because I can, only a small flock, and can be around throughout lambing BUT I am a single pair of hands so I may find in future years some of these interventions may help me reduce risk for my sheep and lambs. And I am not the best late into the night! So what I need is really good advice and war stories from people who have tried different things and it does not help if they feel pre-judged.
-
I have had a long think about this one..... My answer would be I definitely agree with AI'ing sheep. I am hoping to do it in a few years, when my flock is better. Not only is it good for people who would rather not have a ram, but it improves genetics cheaper than the cost of a ram and it is a lot quicker for people to reach their goal in the sheep breeding process. There sadly is one downfall to this, the downfall being that too much AI of top quality genetics thins the bloodlines, meaning that the particular breeds of sheep most AI'd become an endangered species. Its what has happened with the black and whites. Diversity is essential, so AI'ing would be a big yes, but a bit of a no too.
-
I had a very interesting chat with a geneticist I was stewarding for at the Royal Three Counties this year. She pointed out that when you continuously select for one trait, such as fast finishing, double muscling or milk production, you may also select out other traits such as fertility, longevity and robust health. We now have the knowledge and veterinary medicines to overcome, to some degree, the natural selection process that took place in centuries past.
As a breeder of the rarest of rare breeds and bloodlines within those breeds I do not use any AI or similar treatments.
-
Brilliant topic. I am going to be doing a lot of thinking. The only ones I instantly knew how I felt were "I have reservations about invasive AI" - I do, and "AI is used in cattle all the time, this is no different" - I disagree, due to different techniques. Lots of food for thought. We do not use AI, but my dad does. I have assisted on 'AI days' with sheep and cattle, the cattle I feel fine about, the sheep I wouldn't wish to be involved in again, due to the different processes. But then I recognise this is rather hypocritical, as I don't like the use of the electroejaculator on the bulls, but I don't see that if just helping with the cows. Hmm.
-
Statement - please click 'Like' if you agree
Sponging may be akin to the contraceptive pill - but a human female is taking a personal decision to take the risks involved.
Note, this statement may or may not be the view of the author.
And the offspring aren't butchered
-
I have had a long think about this one..... My answer would be I definitely agree with AI'ing sheep. I am hoping to do it in a few years, when my flock is better. Not only is it good for people who would rather not have a ram, but it improves genetics cheaper than the cost of a ram and it is a lot quicker for people to reach their goal in the sheep breeding process. There sadly is one downfall to this, the downfall being that too much AI of top quality genetics thins the bloodlines, meaning that the particular breeds of sheep most AI'd become an endangered species. Its what has happened with the black and whites. Diversity is essential, so AI'ing would be a big yes, but a bit of a no too.
60% conception to frozen semen - you would still need a ram
-
I have assisted on 'AI days' with sheep and cattle, the cattle I feel fine about, the sheep I wouldn't wish to be involved in again, due to the different processes.
As you have actually witnessed sheep AI - would you be able to describe it?
But then I recognise this is rather hypocritical, as I don't like the use of the electroejaculator on the bulls, but I don't see that if just helping with the cows. Hmm.
I bet most of us don't think about that side of it. We had to have our bull fertility tested, and BH wouldn't put him through it twice, preferring to wait and see what happened. (He's fine, he's a grand bull :relief:)
-
Sheep are given a sedative, put on a trolley, the end of the trolley is proped up so the head is lower than the tail end, two holes are made in the abdominal wall approx the size of a nail, air/C02 is pumped in through one, an endoscope/syringe is introduced through the other, semen is injected, the ewe has a shot of penecillin and is tipped off the trolley to run away
-
Thus:
-
Thanks, Me.
-
Sheep are given a sedative, put on a trolley, the end of the trolley is proped up so the head is lower than the tail end, two holes are made in the abdominal wall approx the size of a nail, air/C02 is pumped in through one, an endoscope/syringe is introduced through the other, semen is injected, the ewe has a shot of penecillin and is tipped off the trolley to run away
^^^ laproscopic AI
Cervical AI (which is the mode of choice in Scandinavia) is less invasive and very much along the lines of cattle AI
Scandinavians report 70% conception using frozen semen without the use of hormones/sponges etc
The key here it seems is breed type (some breeds have better results than others), semen concentration (hi-conc needed) and heat detection (teaser use)
I am very interested in using cervical AI so that I can;
1) Import semen of hi-genetic merit
2) Reduce biosecurity measures when sharing rams (link rams in breeding programs)
3) Use genetics that I may not have been able to afford if I had to buy the ram!
Cervical AI is less invasive, cheaper and has incredible potential for the sheep industry
I think that probably the best thing about AI is the ability to store genetics for future use , an excellent way of safeguarding rare/different breeds
-
I can see AI being very beneficial for bringing in new bloodlines with closed flocks. I know of a place that does this with goats, 4000 milkers and each year 30 females are chosen as suitable, they get sponged at the end of December then AI'd. Some of the semen they use is from males they had in the past and were exceptional sires, others are bringing blood from different breeds into the herd.
I would think the proceedure is too expensive to be used across the board in commercial flocks so reduced fertility should not be an issue.
I would use it on my sheep to bring in a desired bloodline where buying a ram would either be prohibitively expensive or a biosecurity risk
-
I would use it on my sheep to bring in a desired bloodline where buying a ram would either be prohibitively expensive or a biosecurity risk
It is very handy for this purpose, we have imported high ebv Charmoise semen from France the last two years (see photo) and if we had imported live (which we were/are considering) we could have run into trouble with Bluetongue and other stowaways
-
We donated semen from one of our finest rams to the RBST semen bank some years ago. The scrapie monitoring programme was running at the time and, again, we thought that eliminating a whole tranche of genetics for the sake of just one trait could have unforeseen consequences in the future.
-
I would think the proceedure is too expensive to be used across the board in commercial flocks so reduced fertility should not be an issue.
Au contraire, as I've said upthread, a friend has worked on a large commercial operation where this is used extensively on Scottish Blackface sheep, amongst others.
It's widely used in Texel breeding.
And if AI and other interventionist practises were not being used in commercial flocks, commercial breed tups would not be fetching £160,000 ;)
ETA I'm sounding disapproving; I'm not. I want to understand more, hence this thread.
-
Statement - please click 'Like' if you agree
I'd much rather see AI used in preference to importing stock from other countries.
Note, this statement may or may not be the view of the author.
-
Statement - please click 'Like' if you agree
I'd much rather see AI and embryo transfer used in preference to importing stock from other countries.
Note, this statement may or may not be the view of the author.
-
We donated semen from one of our finest rams to the RBST semen bank some years ago. The scrapie monitoring programme was running at the time and, again, we thought that eliminating a whole tranche of genetics for the sake of just one trait could have unforeseen consequences in the future.
We too put forward tups for the RBST scheme. As the idea was to preserve diversity, we didn't particularly choose 'the best' (whatever that is), just 4 tups in general use.
The process of semen collection from sheep involves the use of a teaser ewe. With the primitives at least this can be a particular problem it seems. For our lads, this poor long suffering white-wooled lady just didn't appeal :roflanim:. They weren't taken for collection until January, by which time they were going 'off the boil' anyway. Primitive breeds (I don't know about others) are often not happy with performing in public, so in the end only two of our four produced enough of the good stuff to keep.
In addition, collection of sheep semen is an expensive business, with several weeks board and lodging, plus the cost of the manpower required to care for them and do the collection, plus of course storage of the straws.
My feelings about AI? Well, I grew up on a farm where all the hen turkeys were fertilised this way, and there were hundreds of them, so I'm well used to the process. My elder son worked for a while at Roslin, with Dolly and the cloning team. Animals used in that process have legally to be euthanased after 3 invasive procedures - does the same apply to ewes used for invasive AI?
Overall I suppose, I'm sad for the animals used for invasive AI, but I can see the need in breeding programmes, less so in small rare breeds flocks. There are rams for that. I know though that not everyone has space for several rams to ensure the degree of diversity ideal for rare breeds programmes, whereas being able to source semen from several tups can be used to widen the genetic pool, just as using one super-tup on a huge flock will halve the diversity of that flock in one go.
I find it's horses for courses - it's acceptable for one sector of sheep rearing, but for most sheep in Britain I find it unnecessary, expensive and counterproductive.
Do I approve? It's getting quite uncomfortable sitting on this fence ::)
-
My pal said the ewes could only be used twice for what I now know is called laproscopic AI, and could not be used for breeding naturally thereafter, either. He didn't say anything about euthanasia, so I assume they went to a cull market.
-
and could not be used for breeding naturally thereafter, either.
Thankfully your pal didn't tell my sheep, who are quite happy to breed naturally post AI
-
and could not be used for breeding naturally thereafter, either.
Thankfully your pal didn't tell my sheep, who are quite happy to breed naturally post AI
So do my goats! Why should they not breed naturally after lap AI?
-
I would think the proceedure is too expensive to be used across the board in commercial flocks so reduced fertility should not be an issue.
Au contraire, as I've said upthread, a friend has worked on a large commercial operation where this is used extensively on Scottish Blackface sheep, amongst others.
It's widely used in Texel breeding.
And if AI and other interventionist practises were not being used in commercial flocks, commercial breed tups would not be fetching £160,000 ;)
ETA I'm sounding disapproving; I'm not. I want to understand more, hence this thread.
Commercial breed tups are not fetching 160,000. :D
-
Indeed not. We see headline figures from some sales (often a joint purchase) but I saw an acquaintance of mine who was working with an auctioneer at the ram sale at the Royal Welsh showground last month and he said the rams that went through their ring were around £500-£600, which seems a reasonable price.
-
....think Sally's right :innocent: :innocent:
http://www.fwi.co.uk/blogs/livestock-and-sales-blog/2014/08/second-highest-price-paid-sheep-uk-scottish-texel-sale/ (http://www.fwi.co.uk/blogs/livestock-and-sales-blog/2014/08/second-highest-price-paid-sheep-uk-scottish-texel-sale/)
-
I would think the proceedure is too expensive to be used across the board in commercial flocks so reduced fertility should not be an issue.
Au contraire, as I've said upthread, a friend has worked on a large commercial operation where this is used extensively on Scottish Blackface sheep, amongst others.
It's widely used in Texel breeding.
And if AI and other interventionist practises were not being used in commercial flocks, commercial breed tups would not be fetching £160,000 ;)
ETA I'm sounding disapproving; I'm not. I want to understand more, hence this thread.
Commercial breed tups are not fetching 160,000. :D
Here it is. (https://www.facebook.com/ian.latimer.75/videos/524576931035017/)
(I'm really not prone to promulgating unsubstantiated rumours, Porterlauren. ;))
-
Me got there before me re the AI, and explained it better anyway. Bearing in mind that you can potentially use the same tup on many more ewes, not really any more expensive, and if you have spent a lot of money on a tup, which dad had, you want to get your money's worth, I guess. Not for me, though, except perhaps saving a breed/bloodlines.
Re the above link, absolutely true, year on year, it's the Blackie Money-Go-Round. If you offset the tups a small group of farms bought off each other, would be interesting to work out what they ended up having laid out. Works as a very successful marketing strategy though, because there is no doubt that being seen to spend makes your tups just under the best 2 or 3 more sought after.