[TheCaptain]

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?

[Dan]

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?   

[Fleecewife]

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 

[TheCaptain]

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.

[VSS]

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.

[SallyintNorth]

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.

[Dan]

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?

[TheCaptain]

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.

[Hazelwood Flock]

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!

[kanisha]

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.

[TheCaptain]

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?

[Dan]

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. 

[VSS]

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.

[TheCaptain]

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...

[Fleecewife]

< 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.