[TheCaptain]

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!

[Fleecewife]

<<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 

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.

[kanisha]

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.

[VSS]

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

[Fleecewife]

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 ?

[robert waddell]

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 
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

[TheCaptain]

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?

[Fleecewife]

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.

[TheCaptain]

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?

[SallyintNorth]

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.

[kanisha]

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.

[TheCaptain]

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.

[kanisha]

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?

[VSS]

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.

[VSS]

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.