table of contents - university of wisconsinansci.wisc.edu/extension-new...

1

Table of Contents

Acknowledgements 2

Welcome 3Robert E. Rand

Ration Balancing for the Sheep Flock 4Randy Gottfredson

Lamb and Milk Production of East Friesian Crossbred Ewe Lambs 14Yves M. Berger

Early Economic Data for the Milking Sheep Flock at the Spooner 21Agricultural Research Station

Russell Kiecker

Opportunities Raising Feeder Lambs 29Lyle Roe

Strategies for a Profitable and Competitive Sheep Production System 32Thomas K. Cadwallader

Sheep Import Possibillities and Procedures 39David L. Thomas

Electronic Identification of Sheep 44Yves M. Berger

Development of a Dairy Sheep Research Facility 46Yves M. Berger and David L. Thomas

Introgression of the FECB Allele of the Booroola Merino into a 49Rambouillet Flock - 1996 Progress Report

Bruce R. Southey, David L. Thomas, Randy G. Gottfredson,and Rob Zelinsky

1995-96 Lambing Performance of the Spooner Agricultural Research 52Station Flock

Yves. M. Berger and Richard A. Schlapper

Past Recipients 56

Index 57

2

ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF SUPPORT FOR SHEEP RESEARCH AND EXTENSIONPROGRAMS AT THE UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN-MADISON

Each year, a number of people and organizations support the sheep research and Extension programs ofthe Department of Animal Sciences, University of Wisconsin-Madison. Without such support, much ofour sheep work would not be possible. The following organizations and people are thanked for theirgenerosity in 1995-96.

Mike Fowler, Land O’ Lakes, Fort Dodge, Iowa, for financial support of artificial lamb rearing at theSpooner Agricultural Research Station

Dave Thompson, Editor, Sheep! Magazine, for providing morning refreshments at the 1996 SpoonerSheep Day.

Roger Harris, Wooltique Inc., Elm Grove, Wisconsin for sheep supplies.

ABS Global, DeForest, Wisconsin (Marvin Pace) for assistance in ram semen evaluation and advice onram semen collection.

Wisconsin Department of Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection, Agricultural Development andDiversification Program (Erwin A. “Bud” Sholts, Director) for a grant to investigate the potential forimporting foreign dairy sheep breeds.

Binational Agricultural Research and Development (BARD) Program Between Israel and the U.S. for agrant to support the Booroola Merino research.

Babcock Institute for International Dairy Research and Development, University of Wisconsin-Madison(Jane Homan, Director) for support of the 1996 Great Lakes Dairy Sheep Symposium and dairy sheepresearch.

College of Agricultural and Life Sciences, University of Wisconsin-Madison (Roger Wyse, Dean; NealJorgensen, Executive Dean; Bob Steele, Associate Dean of Research; Dale Schlough, Director ofAgricultural Research Stations) for funds to construct a sheep dairy parlor at the Spooner AgriculturalResearch Station.

Wisconsin Sheep Breeders Cooperative (WSBC) for co-sponsoring the 1996 Beginning Sheep ShearingSchool, the 1995-96 ETN Sheep Management Series and the 1996 Spooner Sheep Day (WarrenFinder, President and Dick and Sylvia Roembke, Secretary-Treasurer). The WSBC also serves avaluable educational and service function in their sponsorship of the Wisconsin Sheep IndustryConference (Bob Black, Coordinator) and the Wisconsin Central Ram Test (Nils Nelson, StationManager and Rob Zelinsky, Ram Test Committee Chairman).

Indian Head Sheep Breeders Association for assistance with planning and conducting the 1996 SpoonerSheep Day (Pam Schuebel, President; David Erb and Larry Meisegeier, Spooner Sheep Day PlanningCommittee).

Thank you,

David L. ThomasProfessor, Sheep Genetics and Management

and Extension Sheep Specialist

3

WELCOME

Robert E. Rand, SuperintendentSpooner Agricultural Research Station

University of Wisconsin - Madison

Welcome everyone to the 44th Annual Spooner State Sheep Day. Once again, today’sprogram has some really worthwhile topics.

Recent changes at the Station include completion of the 24-stall milking parlor,construction of the new farm shop, and construction of a 5000 bushel grain storage bin. Theseare all very useful additions to the Station.

Sheep milking was started this last spring and went very well. There were some changesthat had to be made to the station operation that involved more than just the immediate milkingoperation.

Since the ewes had to be milked morning and evening, it was no longer feasible to putthem on pasture. Some pastures had to be hayed, and are going to be converted from grass tolegumes to reflect the increased quality feed needed by the milking ewes. We have been balinghay in big round bales. Since milking ewes are kept in the barn, we have to make more squarebales and a lot less round bales. More straw has to be put up to keep the pens bedded. More timeis needed for manure hauling with increased pen use. We have adequate grain storage, but weneed to devise a better system to transport the grain form the bins to the feeders, especially intothe parlor feeders.

These mentioned changes are inherent in milking sheep systems, and have to beaddressed for a successful operation.

I hope you all enjoy yourselves today and that you benefit from the program. Please feelfree to visit the station at any time.

4

RATION BALANCING FOR THE SHEEP FLOCK

Randy GottfredsonDepartment of Animal Sciences

University of Wisconsin-Madison

GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS:

1. Nutrient requirements of ewe lambs with lambs are 20% greater than older ewes.

2. Requirements of sheep in total confinement are only 75-80% those of pastured sheep.

3. Requirements of grazing ewes may be 10 to 100% greater depending upon terrain.

CONSIDERATIONS FOR LATE PREGNANCY (6 weeks prior to lambing):

Ewe Nutrient Requirements = 2.7 lb. TDN/day

.47 lb. Protein/day

Weight gains = 3.0 lb./week

Important Points:

1. Approximately 70% of fetal growth takes place during this period.

2. Poor nutrition results in small, weak lambs.

3. Too high nutrition results in too large lambs = LAMBING DIFFICULTY

4. Poor nutrition increases chance of pregnancy disease.

5. Increased nutrition needed to develop udder tissue.

6. Feeds need to be concentrated - rumen capacity is reduced. Maximum amount of forage

is about 4.0# dry hay and 9-12# silage or haylage.

Possible Rations for Late Pregnancy & Flushing(lbs./day)

1. Alfalfa hay - 4.0 2. Orchardgrass hay - 4.5Corn - 1.0 Corn - 1.0

3. Alfalfa haylage - 7.0 4. Corn Silage - 7.5Corn - 1.0 Alfalfa hay - 1.0

Soybean meal - .25Corn - .50

5

CONSIDERATIONS FOR LACTATION (60 days, with twins):

Ewe Nutrient Requirements = 4.0 lb. TDN/day

.92 lb. Protein/day

Weight gains = -1 lb./week

1. Lactation has the highest nutrient requirements

- milk is high in fat and protein: 7% fat, 5.5% protein

- ewes nursing twins produce 2 - 4 lbs. of milk per day

Breed 24 hr. milk production (lbs)

Suffolk 4.0+

Dorset 4.0

Columbia 3.5+

Cheviot 3.5+

Finnsheep 3.0

2. In order for ewes to efficiently convert body fat to milk energy, adequate proteinis needed.

3. Ewes should be in good body condition at lambing in order to milk properly.

Ewe Condition Score3.2 2.4

Lamb Gains1-8 weeks 32.0# 29.6#

Possible Rations for Lactating Ewes (lbs./day)

1. Alfalfa hay - 5.0 2. Orchardgrass hay -5.0Corn - 2.25 Soybean meal - .2

Corn - 2.25

3. Alfalfa haylage - 9.0 4. Corn silage - 8.5Corn - 2.25 Alfalfa hay - 1.5

Soybean meal - .75Corn - 1.5

6

EWE FEED COSTS CAN BE REDUCED BY:

1. The legume hay + corn ration would cost approximately $38.40 per ewe, and we’veonly fed her for a little over 1/2 of the year. EXPENSIVE! Reduce expense of winterfeeding - especially during early gestation

A. Alfalfa hay is a “luxury” feed for sheep, especially during the dry and earlypregnancy periods. Alfalfa hay has excessive amounts of protein and no more TDNthan many other hays.

Feed grass hay - If grass hay (45-50% TDN) is available at a cheaper price thanalfalfa hay, it will probably be more economical to feed during early gestation thanalfalfa. When feeding alfalfa hay during early gestation to meet TDN requirements,protein is overfed.

Example:

Dry and early pregnancy periods: TDN $/# Protein $/#

Ewe requirements (lb./day) 1.7 .3

Provided by:3.5# Alfalfa hay 1.75 .6

3.5# Timothy hay 1.75 .3

3.5# Sudangrass hay 1.75 .4

4.0# Orchardgrass hay 1.80 .4

2. Feeding larger amounts of haylage and silages

3. Making use of “productive” pastures.

4. Use well-designed feeders for big round hay bales

a. Prevents crushing of sheep when bales not in feeders tip over after the bottomhalf has been eaten

b. Reduces waste - Research at the University of Illinois has shown that the use ofa well-designed feeder can decrease the number of bales used during the winterfeeding period by ~40% compared to not using a feeder.

5. Graze corn stalks - Has similar TDN as hay and ~5% protein. Available during earlygestation in many sheep systems (Oct., Nov., Dec.). Ewe needs to consume 6 to 7lb./day.

6. Stockpile pasture and hayfields for winter grazing

a. Rest portion of pastures in September and October (stockpile the forage for lateruse)

b. Graze some of the stockpile after a hard frost in late October and November andsave some of the stockpile for grazing during December and January. The sheepwill dig through the snow to get the forage.

7

Cautions:

i. Requires no grazing on a portion of the pastures in the latesummer and early fall when excess pasture may not be available

ii. Time your stockpiling so the forage doesn’t become over-mature before itdies in the fall

iii. Stockpile a forage which maintains its quality when mature (e.g. birdsfoottrefoil)

iv. Stockpiled forage loses its quality relatively fast, so use it for animals withlow requirements (e.g. ewes in early gestation)

CALCULATING COST PER POUND OF NUTRITION:

As feed costs vary constantly, it is helpful to know which source of TDN or protein willcost you the least to use today. Remember, that as feed costs vary, so do the nutritionalneeds of your flock. Balance rations whenever the ewe’s stage of production and the feedprices vary. (See the attached spread sheets on how to determine the most economical feedto use).

8

Step #1 Graphic

9

Step #1 part two?

10

Step #3 Graphic

11

Step #4 Graphic

12

Economics Graphic

13

RATION BALANCING RESOURCES

Additional resources when balancing rations for sheep:

Title: Nutrient Requirements of Sheep, Sixth Revised EditionCost: Approx. $10.95Address: National Academy Press

2101 Constitution Ave, NWWashington, DC 20418

Feed Analysis Labs:

* UW Soil & Forage Analysis Lab8396 Yellowstone DriveMarshfield, WI 54449(715) 387-2523

or

* UW Soil & Plant Analysis Lab5711 Mineral Point RoadMadison, WI 53705-4453(608) 262-4364

* Send or call for a “Feed And Forage Information Sheet” and a “Fee Schedule.”

14

LAMB AND MILK PRODUCTION OF EAST FRIESIANCROSSBRED EWE LAMBS

Yves M. Berger and David L. ThomasSpooner Agricultural Research Station

Department of Animal SciencesUniversity of Wisconsin-Madison

Availability of foreign dairy sheep has been limited due to strict import regulations byUSDA/APHIS. Recently modified import regulations should make it easier to obtain foreigndairy sheep genetics in the future (see article by Dave Thomas). In 1993, the University ofWisconsin-Madison purchased two 1/2 East Friesian rams from a producer in British Columbia,Canada that had imported the semen of a single East Friesian ram. One 3/4 East Friesian ram waspurchased in 1994,and one 7/8 East Friesian ram was purchased in 1995; both from the samebreeder in British Columbia. Remaining breed composition of each ram was Rideau which is acomposite breed estimated to contain approximately 15% East Friesian breeding. The rams wepurchased each year were sired by semen from a different sire. All the semen came fromSwitzerland.

The 1/2 and 3/4 East Friesian rams and two Dorset rams were used in natural mating orartificial insemination on primarily 1/2 Dorset, 1/4 Romanov, 1/4 Targhee (DRT); 1/2 Dorset,1/4 Finnsheep, 1/4 Targhee (DFT); 1/4 East Friesian, 1/4 Rideau, 1/2 (DRT); 1/4 East Friesian,1/4 Rideau, 1/2 (DFT) ewes and a few 1/2 Romanov, 1/2 Targhee (RT); 1/2 Finnsheep, 1/2Targhee (FT); 1/4 East Friesian, 1/4 Rideau, 1/2 (RT) and 1/4 East Friesian, 1/4 Rideau, 1/2 (FT)ewes in the autumn of 1994. The ewe lambs resulting from these matings were born in February-March 1995 and were Dorset-sired from non-East Friesian cross ewes (Dorset-type), 1/4 EastFriesian (1/4 EF), 3/8 East Friesian (3/8 EF) or 1/2 East Friesian (1/2 EF).

The ewe lambs were mated to three Dorset rams in October-November 1995. The firstewes lambed in March 1996. Lambs were left with their dams for the first 30 to 35 days andthen weaned. Ewes started machine milking on the day of weaning. Table 1 presents thereproductive performance of the ewe lambs. The East Friesian-cross sires used in this studyproduced ewe lambs with increased prolificacy and greater body weights compared to ewe lambsproduced by Dorset sires.

Table 2 presents growth traits of the Dorset-sired lambs produced by the various groupsof ewe lambs. Lambs sired by East Friesian-cross sires had greater birth weights and greaterpreweaning growth rates than lambs sired by Dorset sires. In a dairy sheep operation, weights oflambs at 30 days is important since lambs are weaned at this age in order to milk the ewes. Wefound that all lambs, even Dorset-sired, could be weaned with no problem at 30 days as long asthey had access to a creep ration (19-20 % protein) before and after weaning.

The initial evaluation of East Friesian genetics is hampered by the small number of EastFriesian-cross rams used. However, at the time the study was initiated, the East Friesian-cross

15

rams used represented a large percentage of the East Friesian genetics available in NorthAmerica.

Individual milk production of the evening and morning milkings were recorded every 30days. The total milk production was estmated with the the following formula:

16

Estimated milk yield=[production first test day x no. days between start of milking and first test day]+ [(prod. first test day + prod. second test day)/2 x no. days between first and second test day]+[(prod. second test day + prod. third test day)/2 x no. days between second and third day test]+ .....+[(prod. next to last test day + prod. last test day)/2 x no. days between next to last and last testday]+{prod. last test day x no. days between last test day and end of milking).

In this report the last day of milking was arbitrarily set at August 15, although a total of95 ewes were still being milked twice a day on that date. The total milk production correspondsto the milking period only, that is, not taking into consideration the milk produced during thesuckling period (the first 30 to 35 days following lambing).

Milking started on April 2, 1996 with 23 ewes. The number increased rapidly to reach amaximum of 130 ewes and started declining slowly thereafter as shown in graph 1. Twenty sixpercent of Dorset-type ewes dried off before 50 days of lactation whereas only 5% of 1/2 EFcrosses and 7% of 1/4 EF crosses dried off before 50 days of lactation. Only 40% of Dorset-typeewes were still being milked on August 15 compared to 81% of the 1/4 and 1/2 EF-cross ewes.

These results suggest that 1/4 and 1/2 EF breeding may increase milk production byapproximately two times over that from a popular domestic cross for dairy production. Table 3presents the total milk production of each cross up to August 15. Most of the Dorset-type ewesproduce between 50 and 150 lbs of milk while East Friesian crossbred ewes produced between50 and over 300 pounds (graph 2). The best ewe produced 474 lbs of milk in 135 days.

The persistency of lactation for the different types of ewes is presented in graph 3. Thedaily milk production of all ewes declined progressively between the first and the lastcontrol(test day). At the last control, the Dorset-type ewes that were still being milked producedonly 35% of their original production while East Friesian crossbreds were still producing 50% to60% of their original production. Although there is no difference in the daily yield of 1/4 EF and1/2 EF ewes, it seems that 1/2 EF ewes might sustain a longer lactation, thus having a highertotal milk production.

The 1/4 EF ewes were the progenies of two 1/2 EF rams. As shown in Table 4, there is alarge difference in milk production between the daughters of the two rams. Daughters of ram C2produced 79 lbs more milk than daughters of ram C27. This difference clearly illustrates theimportance of the genetics of the sire on the production of their progeny.

17

Table 1. Reproductive Performance of Ewe Lambs

Ewe breeding

Dorset Trait -Type 1/4 EF 3/8 EF 1/2 EF# at Mating 49 58 24 23# at Lambing 49 58 24 23# Lambed 44 56 22 22# Lambs born 71 95 41 39# Lambs weaned 67 91 36 35

Fertility 90% 97% 92% 96%

Prolificacy 1.61 1.70 1.86 1.77

Survival Rate 94% 96% 88% 90%

Wt. of ewes at Breeding 119.0+1.7a 125.0+1.6ab 129.8+2.4b 126.4+2.5ab

Age of ewes at Lambing 372.0+2.0a 374.0+2.0a 369.0+3.0a 367.0+3.0a

Wt. of ewes at Weaning 134.3+2.7a 145.1+2.3b 141.8+3.5ab 132.1+3.5a

Fleece Weight 7.2+.24a 7.6+.22a 8.15+.33a 7.7+.36a

Table 2. Birth Weight and Growth of Lambs

Dam’s breeding

Dorset 1/4 EF 3/8 EF 1/2 EF Trait -Type

n 65 82 31 29

Bwt. 8.61+.37a 9.48+.37ab10.45+.53b 10.39+.40b

W30 26.01+.58a 29.88+.56b30.22+.83b 29.59+1.0b

ADG

Birth-30 days .57+.02a .67+.02b .67+.02b .63+.03ab

19

Table 3. Total Milk Production

Ewe breeding

Dorset 1/4 EF 3/8 EF 1/2 EF Trait -Type

n 42 54 22 20

Lactation Length 78+4a 96+4b 91+6ab 113+6b

Total Milk 113+13a 203+10b 174+17b 227+17b

Table 4. Total Milk Production of 1/4 EF Ewes According to Their Sires

Sire

Trait C2 C27 n 32 22

Lactation Length 104+3 101+3

Milk Production 247+17a 168+15b

20

Graph 1

21

Graph 2

22

Graph 3

23

Early Economic Data for the MilkingSheep Flock at the Spooner Agricultural Research Station

Russell KieckerUniversity of Wisconsin-Extension

Area Agricultural AgentSpooner Agricultural Research Station

Backround

When it became evident that the milking of sheep at the Spooner Agricultural ResearchStation (SARS) was to become a reality in early 1995, Yves Berger, SARS Shepherd, and myselfbegan to plan a research aspect of the project to focus on the collection of financial data thatcould be analyzed and inferences be concluded from that data which would assist in financialdecision making and venture planning.

To insure accuracy, the UW Extension Computer Farm Records Program AAIMS(Agriculture Accounting and Management System) was put into service. This program wasdeveloped by Dr. Gary Frank, UW Extension Ag Economist, and is available to the public. It isonly one of a few software programs that is solely dedicated to the electronic keeping ofagriculture business records.

It is imperative that the reader understands that only the income and expenses of thesheep milking enterprise are being considered. Other income items such as lamb sales, cull salesetc. are not considered. The financial information and analysis presented pertains only to thesheep milking enterprise.

Chart of Accounts

Table I is the chart of accounts that was selected and developed. The nine expense accounts thatare used only pertain to the milking sheep operation. SARS grows and provides all the feed grainand feed hay for the sheep milking operation. A value is assigned to this expense and chargedagainst the enterprise. It should be noted that only feed and grain above that needed to maintainthe flock is considered a sheep milking expense.

Farm Earning Statement

A farm earning statement is a snapshot of the income and expenses for a given period of time. Inthis case, Table 2 is for a period of four months. This is not a long period of time to collect dataand consequently, this earning statement should not be used to predict any trends. More timeneeds to pass and more data needs to be collected and processed by the AAIMS program.Several expense items, (e.g. depreciation, insurance and utilities) did not have data for entry atthis time. It is expected as time progresses, this information will become available and submittedto AAIMS for analysis. It is expected that the addition of these expense items will alter theprofitability of the sheep milking enterprise.

24

Graph Discussion

Graph 1 - Ewes milked per month was calculated for the four months of April, May, June andJuly. This mathematical calculation was arrived at by summing the total number of ewes milkedeach day of the month and dividing this sum by the number of days in the month.

Graph 2 - Sheep milk production for each month was calculated by summing each daysproduction and dividing by the number of days in the month.

Graph 3 - Average milk production in pounds per ewe was calculated by dividing the sum ofmilk produced for each month by the average number of ewes milked for the month.

Graph 4 - Average income per ewe was calculated by summing the milk sales for each monthand dividing the sum by the average number of ewes milked for the month. A note to mention atthis time is that milk sold in April was not recorded until June since it takes a period of time forthe milk check to be processed.

Graph 5- Average expense per ewe was calculated by summing the expenses of each day of themonth and dividing this sum by the average number of ewes for the month.

Graph 6 - Hours of labor per month was calculated by summing the hours of labor for each dayof the month and dividing this sum by the days in the month. This data only includes the hoursworked in the milking operation. Labor needed to feed and care for the sheep is not included.

Graph 7 - Hours of labor per ewe was calculated by taking the hours of labor per month anddividing this figure by the average number of ewes milked for the month.

Implications

As time passes and more data becomes available, the financial analysis of the SARSsheep milking research project will become more complete and accurate. The information gainedfrom this aspect of the research project will be valuable in the construction of sheep milkingbudgets and enterprise analyses. This information will be invaluable to potential sheep milkingventures and ambitions.

25

Table 1. SPOONER AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH STATION

SHEEP MILKING PROJECT

CHART OF ACCOUNTS

Account Account Enterprise Physical TaxName Number Code Units Code

CASH ACCOUNTS

SARS Sheep Milking 001 Sheep -------- --------Checkbook

INCOME ACCOUNTS

Sale of Sheep Milk 6000 Sheep LBS 4

EXPENSE ACCOUNTS

Milk House Supplies 6500 Sheep N/A 30Purchased Feed Grain 6501 Sheep CWT 18Purchased Feed Hay 6502 Sheep CWT 18Hired Labor 6503 Sheep N/A 24Milk Testing Costs 6504 Sheep N/A 34Depreciation 6505 Sheep N/A 16Insurance 6506 Sheep N/A 22Utilities 6507 Sheep KW 32Milk Parlor Maintenance 6508 Sheep DOL 27

26

Table 2. SPOONER AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH STATION

SHEEP MILKING PROJECT

FARM EARNINGS STATEMENT January 1996 Through December 1996

27

Graphs 1 & 2

28

Graphs 3 & 4

29

Graphs 5 & 6

30

Graph 7

31

OPPORTUNITIES RAISING FEEDER LAMBS

Lyle A. RoeSheep and Lamb Marketing Assistant

Equity Cooperative Livestock Sales Association

As with any business, successful sheep operations routinely take time to inventory theirresources and opportunities. This information can then be used to make changes (if warranted) intheir operation to meet market demands. This may be done in a formal process but is more likelyto be a continual process.

The sheep industry is changing. Sheep numbers in most of the United States aredecreasing. Many flocks are being dissolved or decreased in size. This is especially true in thewestern states. One of the resulting effects has been a decrease in the availability of feederlambs, making it harder for lamb feeders to purchase the number of feeder lambs they need.

This opens up the opportunity for sheep producers in Wisconsin to produce feeder lambsfor sale to lamb feeders. Other factors making this possible are:

1. Geographic location:– reasonable distance to feedlots located in midwest states such as Illinois, Iowa, Minnesota, Nebraska, South Dakota and North Dakota.

2. Abundant feed available (especially forage)

3. Strong genetics available

4. A “sheep producing” climate

5. Strong producer base

6. Availability of resource information

Production of feeder lambs is not difficult, but it does require proper planning andmanagement. The planning process needs to start prior to selecting the ram and ewes that will beused to produce the feeder lambs. Other decisions to make include:

1. Is the labor and time available?

2. What knowledge and skill needs to be developed?

3. If pastures will be used, will there be enough quality forage available?Is a grazing management plan designed/used?

4. When do you plan to market your feeders? (varied times may be profitable)

5. What does the buyer (lamb feeder) want?

32

The following are some of the guidelines to follow if you plan to market Choice and Fancyfeeder lambs.

1. Market ewe or castrated ram lambs

2. Dock tails

3. Market lambs ranging from 60 to 85 pounds

4. Have a deworming program

5. Administer overeating shots

6. Keep pelts clean and free of burdocks

7. Produce lambs with “growability”

8. Market at an age that will give time to finish the lambs while they will still grade as lambs rather that lower value yearling mutton

9. Market uniform groups of lambs

10. Wean the lambs and accustom them to grain

11. Avoid non-scourable paints and markers

Producers selling feeder lambs may find they have a surplus of feed on hand that wouldnormally be used to finish lambs to a slaughter weight and condition. This will provide theopportunity to produce more lambs. This can be done by increasing the lambing percent, usingan accelerated lambing program or adding more ewes.

The fastest way would be to add more ewes to the flock. The increased numbers could bekept year around or purchased prior to lambing and sold after the lambs are weaned. Short termwestern ewes may fit the later plan for experienced producers.

Although uniform large groups of ewes are occasionally available in-state, producers maychoose to purchase “western” ewes. These ewes are adaptable to farm flock managementsystems and can be used very successfully, however, they will need to adjust. The producer mayalso need to adapt to these ewes. They may be of a different breed than the existing flock.

These comments are not made to discourage, but rather to allow for planning which willlead to success. Marketing agencies, with their system of contacts, are a source of ewes fromboth in and out of state.

The marketing of feeder lambs needs to be planned. A producer needs to consider whenthe feed lot wishes to purchase lambs and coordinate this with their own resources andmanagement system.

Producer profitability hinges on a marketing method that is efficient, accurate, timely andcompetitive. The method needs to allow for the grouping of similar lambs from two or moreproducers to form a uniform load. Semi-truck load lots of lambs are the most profitable.

The key to successfully marketing the lambs is to offer them competitively to as manyprospective buyers as possible. Computerized Auction Marketing, such as that of Equity

33

Cooperative Livestock Sales Association, will allow everyone with a terminal as well as all otherinterested parties to bid via telephone. Price discovery is determined by “real time” auctionmarketing, allowing honest price discovery. After the auction, Equity then coordinates thedelivery date/times/trucks/facilities to be used and the market evaluation of the lambs from theproducer to the buyer. All payments are made to the producer with a licensed/bonded check.Collections from the buyer become the responsibility of the marketing agency.

Each farm and sheep operation varies. Therefore, it is very important for a producer to“sharpen up their pencil” and budget out the different options for their farm before converting tofeeder lamb production. However, the time is right to give feeder lamb production some thought.

Anyone wanting more information about feeder lamb production and marketing as wellas obtaining consistent groups of ewes (local or out of state) are invited to call EquityCooperative Livestock Sales Association at 800-362-3989.

34

STRATEGIES FOR A PROFITABLE AND COMPETITIVESHEEP PRODUCTION SYSTEM

Thomas K. CadwalladerUWEX–Livestock Agent

Lincoln, Langlade and Marathon CountiesMerrill, Wisconsin

There is no one sheep production system that will be profitable, competitive andsustainable for everyone. I have seen small operations just as profitable as large, andgrain-based just as profitable as forage-based. The difference is that the people that havemade the different production systems profitable have usually been able to clearlyidentify their long term goals, they have fully utilized the resources availableto them, and they were willing to change the system when either their goals orresources changed.

Rather than define a particular system that I think will be the most profitable forthe future of the industry, I think time would be better spent looking at the process thatsomeone should go through in setting up a production system. To do that, I’d like touse some case examples based on questions that I’ve heard over the years from peoplethat have either considered getting into the business or have been looking for some newdirection. The case studies I’ll describe are not actual people, but the situations arevery common.

First I’ll describe each situation as they have usually been described to me whensomeone calls, writes or stops me at a conference. Next I’ll take a look at each case andthen test them against the three factors I have mentioned: 1) Have the fundamentalgoals been clearly identified?; 2) What type of physical and management resources dothey have available?; and 3) Are they willing to modify the system to meet changes intheir goals or resources? The last question to be asked would then be: Is the system goingto be profitable and competitive over the long haul? Or in other words, Is it sustainable?

Case 1 - Irma and Rudy

Sixteen years ago the kids decided they wanted to show an animal at the 4-H fair,and so we went out and got a couple of sheep. We decided on sheep because the kidswere young yet and cattle seemed too big and pigs are so messy. Well, two sheep led tofour, four led to 10 and now we’re up to forty purebred Hampshire ewes. (I’ve seenflocks of 200 or better that started with a couple of fair lambs). This year Jimmy, ouryoungest heads off to college. He has been such a help lambing those Hamps out everyMarch. Rudy and I both work in town and it’s hard for us to be around all of the time totake care of the newborns. Jimmy would like to see us keep the sheep until he gets out ofschool and gets a place of his own. He’s really got great genetics in the flock, but we’reafraid we can’t afford the time. With lamb prices so low, we’re not really sure what to do.

Goal Setting:

Have these folks clearly identified their goal for raising sheep and has that goalchanged? Yes. In the beginning they started into the sheep business purely as a way to getthe kids and family involved in a project together. The problem that Rudy and Irma havefacing them now is that the goal for raising sheep is no longer there, or is greatly

35

diminished. Unless the initial goal can be replaced by an equally important one, it wouldbe tough to keep the sheep around very long

Resources Inventory:

There are several things we know about their resources, but there are severalthings we don’t. Let’s start with what we do know. First of all, they do have experienceraising sheep, and my guess is they have been active in 4-H and have probably got somepretty good sheep skills, at least for raising sheep for fairs. The next thing we know isthat labor will be in short supply. Any kind of production system that is put into placewill have to be labor efficient. One of the problems with March/April small flocklambing systems is they are not very labor efficient. Lots of time is spent moving pens,feed, animals and manure. Although it isn’t mentioned, I am assuming that they havehousing for at least 40 ewes. In Wisconsin that would either be the downstairs of an olddairy barn that used to milk about 36 cows or a machine shed.

There are several things we don’t know. First is feed produced on the farm? Is thisgrain country or hay country? Are there pastures around the house, or are they in themiddle of high-priced corn ground with a 1 acre barnyard?

Ability to change the system:

The ability to change the system and adapt to a new set of variables is extremelyimportant in any farm operation. It is critical to the survival of the sheep industry. A verywise old shepherd once told me “One of the big problems with the sheep industry isn’tthat the sheep aren’t adaptable, it’s the people”. As the years have gone on I have beencontinually amazed at the wonderful adaptability of sheep to many different styles ofhusbandry. I have been equally amazed at the resistance of shepherds to recognizethat fact.

What we know about Rudy and Irma is that their goal for raising sheep has notbeen based purely on profitability. If the sheep have been profitable, it has only been aplus. Their love of the animals and their children far outweighed their desire to make lotsof money. Their goal still remains their children and their love of the animals, however,they are now faced with the reality of reduced labor. What can be changed to keep thisflock of 40 Hamp ewes together, continuing to produce and to be passed on to the nextgeneration? Perhaps shifting lambing to later in the year either in the barn or, if some nicepastures are available, out on pasture. Labor may be more available in the summer eitherfrom Jimmy or some of the neighbor kids. If the limiting factor becomes labor, then shiftto a system that requires less labor.

Is this system profitable and competitive?

I’m not sure, but it may very well be in business 10 years from now as long as itmeets the goals of the operators and utilizes their resources.

36

Case 2 - Fred and Ethyl

We bought an old farm last year, and the weeds were really high so we bought acouple of sheep to clean up around the place. We didn’t realize that we had a ram in withewes, and the next thing we knew, one of them had a baby. All of a sudden we were inthe sheep business.

Goal Setting:

Unfortunately, Fred and Ethyl’s goal for their sheep flock is far too common.They really haven’t the faintest idea what to do with their sheep, because they neverreally expected much out of them.

Resource Inventory:

I’m never quite sure what to do with these kind of calls. I’m not very optimisticabout the survival of the sheep enterprise because the most critical factors are alreadymissing. Fred and Ethyl have no sheep skills, and they have no long-term goals (it’s hardto get anywhere if you haven’t the faintest idea where you are going). I don’t even knowif they could tell the difference between a bale of straw and hay. Before I would spendtoo much time worrying about their physical resources, I would really question whetherFred and Ethyl are developing a respect for the animal they have chosen to have cleaningup weeds around their place. If they really are beginning to understand the value of theanimal then we can look at resources. Finally we can focus on skills needed to matchgoals and resources.


Fred and Ethyl really don’t have any system to change. What is important to notehere is that the sheep are secondary to their initial goal of keeping weeds down. There area lot of things that can get the job done, such as weed whackers and herbicides. If thesheep become a burden, then they won’t be in for a long stay at Fred and Ethyl’s place.

Is this system profitable and competitive?

I don’t think so. I hate to say it, but it may very well be profitable in the short run.If their production costs are low, and they are able to market a few lambs to friends andneighbors, they may actually make a few bucks. I doubt, however, that it will becompetitive and sustainable, especially once the novelty wears off. There is more todeveloping a sustainable system than making input costs disappear.

Case 3 - Bert and Ernie

The cattle market started going in the dumper, and lambs were bringing a prettygood price, so we sold the cows and picked up a hundred ewes at the local sale barn. Westuck them in the cattle lots, and we’ve had nothing but problems ever since. You nameit, we’ve had it; foot rot, abortions, pneumonia, circling disease, everything in the book. Iguess what I’ve heard is true, a sick sheep is a dead sheep. We’ve got all of this cornsilage we make every year because we have all of the equipment to do it with. What canwe do to make some money in this business. We’ve tried just about everything else.

37

Goal Setting:

The first thing we have to sort out here is what is the underlying goal of Bert andErnie. Are they trying to market their corn and they need an animal to add value to it? Orare they trying to market their equipment and they need corn and eventually sheep orcattle to add some kind of value to it? It is obvious that the sheep enterprise isexchangeable with any other enterprise; it’s just not clear what they are trying to do.

Resource Inventory:

It’s obvious that Bert and Ernie have plenty of physical resources. They’veapparently got some kind of a feedlot, and they seem to have the land needed to producethe feed. They don’t appear to have a lot in the way of management skills, especiallywhen it comes to the livestock side of the business. They may very well have the bestlooking corn in the county, but there is a big difference between growing corn andmanaging a corn business.

Ability to Change the System:

It is obvious that Bert and Ernie are willing to change their system. Themarketplace for their original commodity has changed, so they are willing to look intoanother commodity. The problem is the system has to be in line with the goals and thenthe resources of the operator. Bert and Ernie are classic examples of something that I seeall too often in dairy, sheep and many other kinds of livestock enterprises. The livestockenterprise is only there so that the operator can drive tractors around and say they are afarmer. Bert and Ernie should probably set themselves up as custom equipment operatorsand do what they truly love and probably do best, drive and care for tractors. They couldprobably finish out some steers or lambs when it’s profitable to do so and sell them whenit’s not.

Is the system profitable and competitive?

The system that is described here is never going to be profitable and competitivebecause it mismatches goals and resources. A sustainable system has got to feed on itselfand grow.

Case 4 - Ben and Beth

Last year we finally decided to sell the dairy herd. It drove us crazy seeing thebarn sit empty, so we went out this past winter and bought some bred ewes from ourneighbor, Sally. Sally always seemed to do pretty good with her sheep, and she has beena great help in getting us set up. Healthwise things are just fine. We’ve done all theproper vaccinations. We made sure we got good ventilation in the barn so pneumoniaisn’t a big problem. We’ve also got plenty of feed. Our farm is just northwest of Thorp inNorth Central Wisconsin, and we have 100 acres of nice hayground. With all of thosethings going for us, we just can’t seem to make any money. The grain bill and equipmentcosts are killing us. It’s tough to make ends meet even with $80 lambs.

38

Goal Setting:

What is the fundamental goal here? Is it to make money marketing forage throughthe sheep, or is it to keep the barn full of animals? What are Ben and Beth asking thesheep to do for them? Before we can make any kind of recommendation, we have toknow what Ben and Beth are really after. If they want to market forage, then the barn isonly a tool in the process, and it is not absolutely necessary.

Resource Inventory:

Ben and Beth have lots of resources available to them. The barn is an asset, but itisn’t necessarily needed to market forage through their animals. They definitely have aforage resource base. In the part of Wisconsin that they are in, grass and clover will growforever with just the most basic of care. They may or may not have it fenced, but that isan easy one to work with. Ben and Beth seem to have a strong desire to work withanimals, and they appear to be open to suggestions on how to do it. Being that they justgot into the sheep business and they’ve had few animal health problems, even raisingthem in the downstairs of a barn, tells me that they are probably pretty sharp animalmanagers. The one thing we don’t know is what their labor situation is. I’ll guess it’s justthe two of them, and they aren’t as young as they used to be.


If Ben and Beth are going to make sheep a viable tool to market their forage, thereare a few things they will have to be willing to change. The first is the need to keep thebarn full of animals. It is very difficult to make a barn pay for itself if it isn’t producinganything. If their desire is to market forage through sheep and keep the barn full ofanimals, they will probably need to look at producing more lambs out of the facility overa longer period of time. They may want to take a look at an accelerated lambing systemor use sheep that produce lamb crops of 250% or better. I guess the limiting factor in thatsystem is their desire to put in the kind of work that an accelerated system needs.Remember, they just got out of one labor intensive enterprise. Are they ready to get intoanother one?

What about the barn? Do they really need animals in the barn? Maybe theyshould sell the storage space and keep the sheep outside in a pasture-based system.Maybe they should take a look at a pasture-based system that will produce the lambs onhigh quality pastures in the summer, and the extra forage that they can’t keep up withduring the grazing season can be put away for maintaining the ewes for the winter. Thequestion again comes, what assets are Ben and Beth the most attached to, and what aretheir fundamental goals?


The current system as they originally describe it is obviously not profitable orcompetitive, or they wouldn’t be asking questions. All too often I see shepherd burnoutbecause folks get into the business and set up systems that do not match their resourceswith their goals. They are looking for a substitute for a system that served them well in adifferent time with a different set of resources.

39

Case 5 - Bob and Sue

We heard your talk at the Wisconsin Sheep Industry Conference about pasturelambing, and we were so impressed we went out and bought 75 ewes. It’s a goodcommercial flock we bought from an older couple that was retiring and selling their farm.The farm is located just west of Madison in Dane County, and we bought it about 2 yearsago to get out of the city. It was originally part of a 160 acre farm, but we bought thehouse, the buildings and twenty acres. The rest of the land went to a local farmer whoraises grain. We’ve had a lot of problems with ewes, not accepting lambs, triplets thatcan’t keep up, large teats on the ewes, and we keep having to buy forage for both thewinter and in the middle of the summer. And by the way, how do you get control ofthistles?

Goal Setting:

The red flag that goes up for me is whose goals are we talking about here? Arethey my goals for my farm in North Central Wisconsin or are they their goals for theirfarm in southern Wisconsin? Are we talking lifestyle goals or profit goals? Are we tryingto market grain, buildings, forage or what? Are the sheep a means to an end or and endthemselves? Bob and Sue have quite a few things to talk about before they can startdiscussing sustainable options.

Resource Inventory:

From what we know up to this point, it is pretty obvious that Bob and Sue arelong on buildings and short on land. They don’t appear to have much in the way ofmanagement skills, and working off the farm probably means they are also short onmanagement time. If they have good paying jobs in town, they probably have all sorts ofcapital to throw into the project over the next few years. But unless the money is goingtoward a reasonable goal, they will probably learn some very expensive lessons. Land is aproblem. The limited availability of land is going to burden them in not only producingfeed but getting rid of manure. These are not small items. One of their biggest assets istheir proximity to a metropolitan area. This offers all sorts of marketing possibilities.

Ability to Change the System:

Will Bob and Sue be willing and able to change the system. Yeah, I guess so. Thequestion isn’t whether they are able to change the system, it is whether they can sort outwhat they really want the farm to do for them and then design a system that fits theresources.


If Bob and Sue want to make their little heaven on earth remain a heaven and notturn into some kind of purgatory, they better realize that a grass-based system willprobably not work. If they are actually in love with the location and they want to spendtheir time with a sheep enterprise that makes some money and meets their personal goals,then they need to downsize their pasture system considerably and produce more lambsout of their facilities. Since they are in corn country, they will always be able to get ahold of some direct purchased grain. If they invest in a grain bin, they can go a long waytoward cutting down on expenses.

40

I would look real strongly at downsizing the ewe flock a bit, going to anaccelerated lambing system that spreads labor out over the year and gets more lambs outof fewer ewes. They may want to blend in another enterprise, such as poultry, that canutilize what the sheep can’t. And what about sheep dairying? They are close to a metroarea, they’ve got barns and plenty of grain. That may be a very viable option.

Regardless of the species or enterprise they are working with, they have got to tapinto that urban marketplace. That could very well be the difference between profit, loss,and sustainability.

In Closing:

My first advice to anyone looking at their sheep production system is to avoid falling inlove with processes and assets rather than the possibilities. In these five examples, I have tried tocover just a few of the unlimited options that people have available in raising sheep. The key tocreating a profitable and competitive sheep production system is not necessarily producing morelambs per ewe, using management intensive grazing or raising the meatiest sheep in thecountryside. It is honestly defining your goals, capitalizing on your resources and being willingto change when either your goals or resources change. Don’t worry about the sheep, they canadjust. It is the people we have trouble with.

41

SHEEP IMPORT POSSIBILLITIES AND PROCEDURES

David L. ThomasDepartment of Animal Sciences

University of Wisconsin-Madison

Access to foreign sheep genetics could improve the efficiency of production of lamb,wool and sheep’s milk in the U.S. It is desirable to import sheep genetics from breeds bothpresent and not present in the U.S. Of course, ancestors of all domestic sheep were imported atsometime in the past so importation of sheep is nothing new.

Many of our present breeds are found in small numbers in the U.S. These breeds canbenefit from foreign genetic material of the same breed in order to correct weaknesses or tocorrect inbreeding depression. Some breeds which could benefit from some breeding from theirforeign cousins are Blueface Leicester, Border Leicester, Cheviot, Clun Forest, Cotswold,Karakul, Merino, Finnsheep, Lincoln, North Country Cheviot, Oxford, Romanov, Romney,Scottish Blackface, and Shropshire.

Many foreign breeds have been selected for different traits compared to their counterpartsin the U.S. For example, the British Suffolk and Hampshire have been selected for heavier boneand greater muscle expression than have their U.S. counterparts and may be a valuable source ofgenetics for U.S. Suffolk and Hampshire flocks. The Australian Merino is recognized as thepremier fine wool producing sheep of the world and could be used to improve wool productionof U.S. Merino and commercial fine-wool flocks.

Some breeds not present in the U.S. may produce more product or product of higherquality than current domestic breeds. Promising breeds should be imported and evaluated alongside domestic breeds to see if they have anything to offer the U.S. sheep industry. SeveralEuropean meat breeds that fit this category include the Charollais, Meatlinc, Bleu du Maine, Ile-de-France, Rouge de l’Ouest, Berrichon du Cher, Vendeen, and Limousine.

Foreign sheep genetics also can assist in the development of new enterprises for whichthere are no suitable domestic breeds. Such is the dairy sheep industry where European andMiddle Eastern breeds produce several times the amount of milk of domestic breeds. Promisingforeign dairy breeds include the East Friesian, Lacaune, Assaf, Awassi, Sarda, Chios, andManchega.

It has been difficult or impossible to import foreign sheep germplasm (live animals,embryos, or semen) from most countries into the U.S. due to regulations administered by theAnimal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) of the U.S. Department of Agriculture thataim to prevent introduction of foreign animal diseases. The presence of the disease scrapie is oneof the main reasons why many countries have been off-limits to U.S. importers. New Zealandand Australia have been the exceptions due to their excellent animal disease status and freedomfrom scrapie. Live sheep, embryos and semen can be imported from these two countries into anyflocks in the U.S. with an import permit. Imported live sheep must be quarantined in aUSDA/APHIS facility for 30 days before release into a U.S. flock. The absence of importantlivestock diseases in these two countries has resulted, in part, from the fact that there have beenfew sheep imports; therefore, many of the breeds desired by U.S. producers are not found ineither New Zealand or Australia.

Recent changes in the USDA/APHIS import regulations now allow the possibility ofimportation of sheep germplasm into the U.S. from countries in which the only major disease of

42

concern is scrapie if the imported germplasm goes into U.S. flocks enrolled in the VoluntaryScrapie Flock Certification Program (VSFCP) (Federal Register, 1996). APHIS is in the processof developing import protocols under these new regulations for specific countries for which therehave been requests from U.S. producers to import sheep germplasm. An import permit issued byAPHIS is required for each importation. Imported animals or animals resulting from importedembryos or semen have to remain in the original flock until the flock obtains scrapie-freecertification (after a minimum of five years on the program) or they can move to other flocksenrolled in the program. Offspring of imported animals and offspring of animals resulting fromimported semen or embryos can move to any other flock.

An import permit also must be issued for all sheep germplasm imported from Canada(Federal Register, 1996). The Canadian government allows the importation of sheep germplasmfrom many countries of western Europe so there are now sheep breeds in Canada that are not inthe U.S. Live sheep or sheep resulting from embryos or semen imported into Canada fromEurope or live sheep, embryos or semen from Canadian flocks which have imported sheepgermplasm from Europe within the past five years can be issued an import permit to enter theU.S. if the animals go into flocks enrolled in the VSFCP. Live sheep, embryos and semen fromCanadian flocks which have not imported sheep germplasm for the past five years, except fromthe U.S., New Zealand and Australia, can be issued an import permit to move into any flock inthe U.S.

Import regulations on sheep can change daily. The presence of Bovine SpongiformEncephalopathy (BSE) in cattle in Europe, no BSE in the U.S. cattle population, and a suspectedconnection between BSE in cattle and scrapie in sheep has resulted in USDA/APHIS being verycautious about sheep germplasm imports. Current information on sheep import regulations canbe obtained by writing or calling Dr. Roger Perkins, Staff Veterinarian, Animal and Plant HealthInspection Service, Veterinary Services, National Center for Import and Export, 4700 RiverRoad, Unit 38, Riverdale, MD 20737-1228 (Telephone: 301-734-8170). A copy of VS FORM17-129 which is to be used when applying for an import permit and instructions for completionof the form can be found at the end of this article.

Dr. Richard Bertz is the overall veterinary coordinator of the VSFCP in Wisconsin. He andthe following veterinary field staff administer the VSFCP. The USDA’s Wisconsin VeterinaryServices Office, Dr. Bertz or the field veterinarian for your county can be contacted for moreinformation if you would like to enroll in the program in order to import sheep germplasm.

USDAAPHIS/VS6661 Odana Rd.Madison, WI 53719608/264-5208

Sara BalzerRoute 1, Box 68Cashton, WI 54619608/269-0604Counties: Buffalo, Trempealeau, Jackson,Monroe, La Crosse

Richard BertzN7022 Cty. GSt. Cloud, WI 53079-1525414/999-2803Counties: Calumet, Fond Du Lac,Manitowoc, Sheboygan, Ozaukee,Washington, Milwaukee

Timothy DeveauN2490 Champagne Dr.Merrill, WI 54452715/536-4534Counties: Vilas, Price, Oneida, Forest,Florence, Langlade, Lincoln, Taylor, Clark,Marathon, Shawano, Waupaca, Portage,Wood

43

VSFCP Field Staff (continued)

Richard Fish2689 23-1/2 Wt.Rice Lake, WI 54868715/234-7022Counties: Bayfield, Douglas, Ashland, Iron,Sawyer, Washburn, Burnett, Polk, Barron,Rusk

Ellen Hooker2319-1/2 Velp Ave.Green Bay, WI 54303414/434-8002Counties: Marinette, Oconto, Menominee,Outagamie, Brown, Kewaunee, Door

Shelby Molina226 Hazelyn CourtWhitewater, WI 53190414/473-3757Counties: Jefferson, Waukesha, Rock,Walworth, Racine, Kenosha

Jane MusseyRoute 5, Box 710ARichland Center, WI 53581608/538-3192Counties: Vernon, Richland, Crawford

Bill RuffW3995 14th Rd.Montello, WI 53711608/297-2575Counties: Juneau, Adams, Waushara,Winnebago, Fond Du Lac, Green Lake,Marquette, Columbia, Dodge

Jack Shere5610 Barton Rd.Madison, WI 53711608/274-6746Counties: Sauk, Dane

H. Gregg SmithW5107 Cty. WNew Glarus, WI 53574608/527-2843Counties: Grant, Iowa, Lafayette, Green

Tom VartyRR 3, Box 80Bloomer, WI 54724715/568-1572Counties: St. Croix, Dunn, Chippewa,Pierce, Pepin, Eau Claire

Literature Cited

Federal Register. 1996. Importation of sheep and goats and germ plasm from sheep and goats.April 19, 1996. Volume 61(77):17231-17243.

44

Instructions on Completing Veterinary Services (VS) FORM 17-129

1. VS Form 17-129 is an official document, however, copies may be made for future use.2. Please complete the entire application. The application must be legibly written or typed.3. Submit one application for each permit required.4. Boxes 1, 3, 4, and 5 - This information is important and must be completed.5. Box 2 - Name and address of shipper or agent - please include name and telephone number.6. Box 6 -

(A) - Number of animals. If shipment is semen or embryos, indicate the number of doses,ampules, or straws.

(B) - Breed of animal(s) - please be exact - no abbreviations.(C) - Species of animal(s) - please be exact.(D) - Description of animal(s) - list according to species, and use additional sheet of paper

if necessary.(E) - Purpose of importation - please be specific - this indicates if shipment is an

importation or transit permit.

Transit - Importation of animals not intended for stay in the U.S. In most cases, unloading ofanimals is not permitted, transit stop is for crew change and refueling only. Animal(s) are subjectto supervision by VS port personnel. VS port personnel must be notified of exact time and dateof arrival. Animals are to be treated as one load.

Import - Imported animal(s) intended for stay in the U.S. Refer to protocol for length ofquarantine, if quarantine is necessary. Equine being imported for special events should also referto protocol.

7. Box 7 - Be as specific as possible. Do not abbreviate.8. Boxes 8 and 9 - Need exact dates. The permit issued will only be valid for 14 days from the

proposed shipping date.9. Box 10 - The first port of entry in the U.S., in most cases of transit shipments which will

stop at more than one port in the U.S., please list both.10. Boxes 11 and 12 - Be exact - please include the name and number of person which contact

can be made if the need arises.11. Boxes 13-15 - As indicated.

MAILING VS FORM 17-129After completing VS Form 17-129 mail to: USDA/APHIS/VS

Import Animal Staff4700 River RoadUnit 39Riverdale, MD 20737-1231

If using regular mail, please allow 7-14 days for us to receive the application, and 7-14 days foryou to receive your permit. ORIGINAL PERMIT MUST ACCOMPANY THE ANIMALSDURING SHIPMENT.

To expedite this process, you may enclose with your application, a prepaid airway bill, addressedto you from you. USDA CANNOT APPEAR ON THE RETURN AIRWAY BILLANYWHERE. If USDA appears on the return airway bill, we will not use it.

June 1992

45

Application for Import or Transit Permit

(paste here)

46

ELECTRONIC INDENTIFCATION OF SHEEP

Yves M. BergerUniversity of Wisconsin-Madison

Spooner Agricultural Research Station

The permanent identification of domestic animals is necessary and indispensable incertain situations such as pedigree records, production records, and national health programs, butpermanent animal identification has always presented problems. The ear tag is not a permanentform of identification since it can be removed or lost. Up to now, the only recognized form ofpermanent identification was an ink tattoo in either the ear or on the flank of the animal.Tattooing is difficult, time consuming, and in some cases difficult to read, especially when theepidermis of the animal is black or when the tattooing has not been done properly.

With the advance of technology, a new form of identification made itsappearance—electronic identification. A passive radio-frequency device is inserted in the ear ofthe animal. This device consists of an electromagnetic coil, tuning capacitator, and a microchipsealed in a cylindrical glass enclosure. The chip is preprogrammed with a unique ID code thatcannot be altered. When the device is activated by a low-frequency radio signal, it transmits theID code to the reading system. This injectable device, called a transponder, is fairly small (.43" x.08"), and one or two weeks after its implantation close to the head of the animal, it becomesextremely difficult to locate or to remove.

The small amount of time involved in injecting the transponder in the animal and thespeed and accuracy of the reading of the ID chip make electronic identification very appealing.However, the initial cost to identify all animals on a farm and the utilization of the data providedmay be a deterrent for its widespread use.

Material needed and approximate cost.

The cost of items presented below may vary from one manufacturer to the other also willdepend on the sophistication of the reader.

-Transponders--20/cartridge $ 120.00-Reader (with memory) $ 735.00-Injector $ 69.95-Replacement needle $ 8.25

Therefore, the initial cost for the identification of 100 ewes will be $ 1413.12. The cost insubsequent years would be substantially lower since only the transponders and a few needleswould need to be purchased.

Procedures for implantation.

47

Transponders come in cartridges of 20 each which fit into the injector like a bullet clip.The injector is basically a syringe with a needle 3" long and .09" in diameter and a triggermechanism to release the transponder.

The head of the animal is immobilized by an assistant or by a mechanical system. Theneedle is inserted under the skin of the upper side of the ear about two inches from the base ofthe head. The needle is inserted as far as possible and the trigger of the injector is gently pulledin order to place the transponder without breaking the glass capsule. The time required is nomore than a few seconds. The next transponder is semi-automatically loaded in the needle.

Procedure for reading the code.

The reading of the electronic chip is easily done by placing a battery-powered readerabout 5 to 10 inches above the ear of the animal. The reading is instantaneous and accurate.

According to the reader model, the ID read can be stored in memory and downloaded to acomputer or printer via a RS232 port cable.

This is an extremely valuable tool for a large sheep operation entering the VoluntaryScrapie Flock Certification Program. The whole flock inventory can be checked in a few minutesinstead of hours spent trying to read tattoo numbers.

Advantages of EID.

• Quick to insert in the ear.• Easy and accurate to read.• Data can be directly entered into a database.• Many possible applications (weighing, sorting, milk production).

Disadvantages of EID.

• High initial cost.• Still need regular ear tags for everyday use.• Reliability of the system has not been tested yet concerning the deterioration or loss

of implants.• The ID codes are difficult to manage without the help of a computer. The ID code consists

of 10 digits, both letters and numbers. The combination of letters and numbers allows thepossibility of a huge amount of codes without any chance of a duplicate. However, withoutthe help of a computer, their management is difficult.

Names and addresses of EID manufacturers:

Allflex USA Destron Fearing AvidPO Box 612266 490 Villaume Ave. 3179 Hammer Ave.2805 E 12th Street So. St. Paul, MN 55075 Norco, CA 91760Dallas/Ft. Worth, TX 75261 (612) 455-1621 (909) 371-7505

48

(214) 456-3686

49

DEVELOPMENT OF A DAIRY SHEEP RESEARCH FACILITY

Yves M. Berger and David L. ThomasSpooner Agricultural Research Station

Department of Animal SciencesUniversity of Wisconsin-Madison

In April 1995, the College of Agricultural and Life Sciences gave the green light toconduct sheep dairy research at its Spooner Agricultural Research Station. Soon after theauthorization was given, construction of a milking parlor and milk room began. In April 1996,the new facilities were operational, and up to 130 ewes have been milked twice a day.

Milking Parlor

The milking parlor is a double twelve indexing stanchion with high-line pipeline and sixmilking units. The design of this parlor should permit the milking of 150 ewes per hour.

The indexing stanchions are equipped with a feed hopper, lock-in head gate, and a roll-back system. Feed delivery, headgate, and roll-back are controlled by a pneumatic system. Indexstanchions are designed so that there is enough room between the headgate and the edge of thepit for the ewes to choose any stanchion they wish. As soon as the 12 ewes are locked in theheadgate, the system is rolled back so that the rear end of each ewe is just at the edge of the pit.The stanchions were imported from Italy by Alfa-Laval Agri. The shallow pit (no more than 30"deep) is centrally located with a set of stanchions on each side. In order to accommodate suchequipment, the minimum size of the parlor should be no less than 24 feet long and 22 feet wide.The pit is 16 feet long, 4 feet 6 inches wide, and 30 inches deep.

Milking Equipment and Procedures

All milking equipment has been purchased from Alfa-Laval Agri which has muchexperience in sheep dairying in Europe. However, there are several other firms which alsomanufacture quality sheep equipment. Except for the milking units and pulsators, the equipmentis standard to the dairy cow industry including the automatic washing system.

The pulsation rate is set at 120 per minute with a ratio of 1:1 and a vacuum level of 11 in.of Hg or 37 KPA. The electronic pulsator control panel allows for a pulsation rate of 60, 90, 120,or 180 per minute and a ratio of 1:1 or 2:1.

The milking procedure is simple. Upon entrance to the parlor, each ewe takes its placeand the stanchion is rolled back. The six milking units are put on alternate ewes on one side.When the milker puts the sixth miking unit on, she/he comes back to the first ewe, does a rapidmassage of the udder, removes the milking unit, and places it on the ewe to the left. When the 12ewes are milked, the milking units are swung to the other side of the pit and the same procedureis repeated. When the 12 ewes on one side are milked, they are released, and 12 more take theirplace while the 12 on the other side are being milked. Therefore, there is no interruption in the

50

milking procedure. There is no washing of the udder before milking, but a post-dipping aftermilking is recommended.

With two persons, the time required to milk 100 ewes with this system is 1 hour and20 minutes.

51

This time includes:- 20 minutes for getting ready (sanitizing the system) and clean up after milking.- 10 minutes to feed hay to the ewes- 40 minutes of actual milking.

Milk Handling

The milk is received in a bulk tank and immediately cooled down to 40oF. After milking,the milk is poured in five gallon FDA food approved pails and frozen in a chest freezer. Deliveryof the milk is done when the freezing and storage capacity is full. There seems to be little or noeffect of freezing on the quality of cheese, which is a major advantage as long as the milkmarketing system is not better organized.

Individual milk production is recorded monthly using the DHIA Waikato milk meter jar.Regular bulk tank samples are sent to a certified laboratory for checks on bacteria, somatic cellcount, drug residue, and sediment. So far the bacteria count is low (less than 25,000) but thesomatic cell count is high (more than 800,000).

Since all the milk produced is sold to a cheese plant for the manufacture of cheese, theSpooner Agricultural Research Station is licensed as a Grade B dairy farm. Persons interestedentering the sheep dairy business should contact their local dairy inspector before starting anyconstruction to be sure that everything meets the required standard.

Total cost of the milking parlor and milk room

It is important to note that the cost shown below includes the construction of a totallynew building and all new milking equipment. Cost could be drastically reduced by renovating anold building and buying used equipment (pipe line, pump...). Moreover, the Spooner AgriculturalResearch Station received an organizational discount on the purchase of the milking equipmentwhich a producer may not be able to secure.

Construction of parlor and milk room:- Foundation $ 3,827.51- Sewer $ 236.22- Plumbing $ 294.46- Electricity $ 1,770.50- Frame and trusses $ 3,809.41- Doors and windows $ 1,267.24- Roof and siding $ 2,010.60- Inside finishing $ 1,193.11

Subtotal $14,408.54

Milking equipment:- Parlor stanchions $ 4,800.00- Milking equipment $10,200.00- Wiring (labor and parts) $ 450.00

52

- Bulk tank and installation $ 1,000.00Subtotal $16,450.00

53

Other equipment:- Heater $ 165.01- Deep freezers (2) $ 1,040.00- Water heater (80 gallons) $ 481.00- Steps in pit $ 62.88- Guillotine doors $ 27.44- 4 HP air compressor $ 329.00

Subtotal $ 2,105.33

TOTAL $ 32,963.87

Names and addresses of sheep milking equipment manufacturers:

Westfalia Alfa-Laval Agri International ABAttn: Jim Parker Sheep Dairy Equipment Division1862 Bummel Dr. S-147 00 TumbaElk Grove Village, IL 60007 Sweden

J.R. Roberts, Export Representative Randy RheingansFullwood and Bland, Ltd. Alfa-Laval Agri, Inc.Ellesmere, Shropshire 713 Woodhaven Ct., NEUnited Kingdom,SY12 9DF Rochester, MN 55906

Bob Borchert Major FarmsSchlueter Co. RFD #3 Box 2653075 Streb Way Putney, VT 05346Cottage Grove, WI 53527 (802) 387-4473

Gascoigne Milking Equipment, Ltd. Roger SteinkampAttn: Mr. L.J. Harland La Paysanne, Inc.Edson Road Roundmills Gascoigne Equipment DealerBlasingstoke, Hampshire RG21 2YJ Route 3 Box 10England Hinkley, MN 55037

The Coburn Company, Inc.PO Box 147Whitewater, WI 53190

54

INTROGRESSION OF THE FECB ALLELE OF THE BOOROOLAMERINO INTO A RAMBOUILLET FLOCK -

1996 PROGRESS REPORT

Bruce R. Southey, David L. Thomas, Randy G. Gottfredson,and Rob Zelinsky

University of Wisconsin-MadisonDepartment of Animal Sciences

Arlington Agricultural Research Station

The Booroola Merino is a highly prolific strain of medium-wooled non-Peppin AustralianMerino which has been extensively studied and evaluated worldwide. Their exceptionalreproductive performance is due to a single major autosomal allele, presently denoted as FecB.

The study started at the Dixon Springs Agricultural Center of the University of Illinoisin 1985, and the project was moved to the Arlington Agricultural Research Station of theUniversity of Wisconsin-Madison in 1991. This report presents results obtained at the Wisconsinsite from the autumn of 1991 through lambing in the spring of 1996.

Rambouillet and homozygous (FecBB) Booroola Merino rams initially were mated tothe flock of Rambouillet ewes. Booroola Merino-cross female progeny from this mating andsubsequent matings were backcrossed to Rambouillet rams, and only BM-cross ewe lambsfrom dams expected to be heterozygous (FecB+) were retained as replacements. The sameRambouillet rams were mated with the Rambouillet and BM-cross ewes. Lambs were weaned atapproximately 60 days of age. Rambouillet replacement ewes were selected on estimated geneticmerit for litter size. Ewes were mated in order to lamb first at approximately 2 years of age andannually thereafter. Prior to breeding each year, ovulation rate of ewes was determined bycounting number of corpora lutea with a laparoscope. Booroola Merino-cross ewes were classedas carriers (FecB+) if they had 3 or more ovulations at their first examination at approximately19 months of age.

To indicate the size of the experiment, the number of observations for ovulation rate (traitwith the greatest number of observations) and litter size (trait with the fewest number ofobservations) are presented in Table 1.

Table 1. Number of Observations for Ovulation Rate and Litter Size by Proportion ofRambouillet (R) Breeding and Genotype at the Fec Locus.

1/2 R 3/4 R 3/4 R 7/8 R 7/8 R 15/16 R 15/16 R Ramb.Trait FecB+ Fec++ FecB+ Fec++ FecB+ Fec++ FecB+ Fec++

Ovulation rate 53 63 103 21 38 2 2 322Litter size 47 37 92 16 38 2 3 288

55

Carriers of the FecB allele had 1.66 more (P < .01) ovulations than non-carriers, and thisdifference was relatively consistent within the three backcross groups (Table 2). Rambouilletewes weighed 16.3 kg more (P < .01) than F1 Booroola Merino x Rambouillet ewes. As theproportion of Rambouillet breeding increased in the backcrosses, the breeding weights tended toincrease, but at a slower rate than may be expected. Within backcross groups, FecB+ ewes haveslightly lighter breeding weights than Fec++ ewes; probably the result of the negative effects ofincreased number of lambs raised by the FecB+ ewes on their subsequent body weights. Fleeceweights were slightly greater for Fec++ ewes.

Table 2. Prebreeding Traits and Fleece Weight.

Ramb. breeding Ovulation rate, Breeding wt., Condition Fleece wt.,Fec genotype no. kg score kg

1/2 RambouilletFecB+ 3.76±.14 57.0±2.1 3.19±.11 4.78±.19

3/4 RambouilletFec++ 1.91±.11 63.0±1.4 3.17±.08 4.89±.16FecB+ 3.43±.09 59.7±1.2 3.21±.06 4.65±.12



RambouilletFec++ 2.06±.05 73.3±.7 3.48±.04 4.98±.07

ContrastFecB+ - Fec++ 1.66** -6.1** .02 -.32†

**P < .01, †P < .10.

Even with the high ovulation rates of FecB+ ewes presented in Table 2, the lambproduction of these ewes continues to be disappointing (Table 3). Weight of lamb weaned at 60days per ewe exposed (ewe productivity) was not significantly different between FecB+ andFec++ ewes. The FecB+ ewes gave birth to .53 more (P < .01) lambs per ewe than did Fec++

ewes, but the lambs from FecB+ ewes had greater mortality and were lighter at 60 days of agethan lambs from Fec++ ewes. The lamb production advantage of the FecB+ ewes at birth was lostby weaning.

However, FecB+ ewes weaned approximately .34 more lambs per ewe exposed than didFec++ ewes (1.93 vs. 1.59 lambs per ewe exposed, respectively). If lambs are marketed at aconstant live weight of 53 kg and assuming no lamb losses from weaning to marketing, weight of

56

lamb marketed per ewe exposed would be 102.3 kg for FecB+ ewes and 84.3 kg for Fec++ ewes.With lambs valued at $1.85 per kg live weight, gross lamb income per ewe would be $33.30higher for FecB+ ewes compared to Fec++ ewes. An economic analysis needs to be conducted todetermine if this potential increase in gross income from FecB+ ewes will offset their greatercosts of production, e.g. increased ewe feed costs during late pregnancy and lactation, increasedlamb feed costs for more and lighter lambs, increased labor in caring for ewes of higherprolificacy, increased costs from more artificially reared lambs, etc.

Table 3. Lamb Production.

Ramb. breeding Fertility, Prolificacy, Lamb Lamb wean. Ewe produc-Fec genotype % no. survival, % wt., kg tivity, kg

1/2 RambouilletFecB+ 95.4±3.0 2.61±.14 81.0±4.8 16.7±.6 33.0±2.3

3/4 RambouilletFec++ 100±3.6 1.68±.13 95.1±6.1 23.0±.7 36.6±2.9FecB+ 96.7±2.2 2.72±.09 75.2±4.0 17.8±.5 33.9±1.7

7/8 RambouilletFec++ 94.0±5.7 1.83±.17 90.5±9.3 23.0±1.1 38.0±4.5FecB+ 100±4.3 2.12±.14 84.8±6.9 19.5±.8 33.0±3.4

15/16 RambouilletFec++ 2.44±.50FecB+ 2.51±.37

RambouilletFec++ 94.3±1.4 1.84±.05 92.4±3.7 21.7±.4 34.5±1.1

ContrastFecB+ - Fec++ 2.2 .53** -12.3** -4.6** -3.1

**P < .01.

table of contents - university of wisconsinansci.wisc.edu/extension-new...

Documents