Romney Sheep ~ Llamas ~ Fiber, wool and products ~ About Pitchfork ~ Links ~ Site map

 A Response to an article in the June issue of Banner

First Published in the Banner Magazine, Fall 2005

After several careful readings of “Differences Among Breeds of Sheep in the U.S and their Use in Efficient Sheep Production Systems,” we felt that a response from a breeder representing one of the “minor” breeds of sheep was in order. The title of Mr. Thomas’ article would suggest that all breeds of sheep and most factors that predict efficiency are equally represented in his comparison, and with that assertion we respectfully disagree.

While it is difficult (though not unwarranted) to question the accuracy of author David L. Thomas’s statistics without knowing more about them (when and how they were conducted, how many sheep or flocks were sampled, and the like), we do take issue with the inconsistent manner in which the study results were presented. When considering the tables, one sees that several breeds have been the subject of multiple studies(as many as 13), while many others have been studied only once. Yet the results are presented on the same table, as if they represented the same amount of sampling and study. Furthermore, the breeds cited vary from table to table, often overlooking the strengths of certain breeds. For instance, when comparing prolificacy in Table 1, Romneys come in dead last (on the strength of one study, we might add.) This strong wooled, heavily fleeced breed is then notably absent from the very next table, which compares fleece weight, and also from the table citing average daily gain. These are two areas in which Romneys would likely compare quite favorably with many other breeds, yet they are not included. But they magically reappear near the bottom of the fat thickness table. Now, if this was all the reader had ever read about Romneys, what kind of an impression is he or she likely to come away with? Pretty discouraging and off-putting, in our opinion.

Our point here is that even though the author gives the number of studies, and the critically-thinking, open-minded reader will give these meager stats the weight they deserve, which is next to nothing, most readers are likely to overlook the amount of data and focus on the rankings. In fact, we’re guessing more than half of  the readers just looked at the tables and read little, if any, of the article (‘fess up now – we all do it sometimes). If they have indeed read the article, they realize that Mr. Thomas is explicit in pointing out that all sheep have purposes, strengths and weaknesses, and that the real strength of a commercial operation is crossbreeding to maximize production under varying circumstances such as climate, housing, market demand, etc. In this way, the article is pretty fair. However, the tables are the main focus of the article, and when Suffolks are used as the criteria by which all other cited breeds are measured, as they are the final column of every table, the article’s bias toward this breed shows rather glaringly. The advocates of the “minor” breeds in the U. S. have long accepted that Suffolks, Hamps, Dorsets and other major breeds have and will constitute the main part of the U.S. sheep flock for years to come. We are under no illusions that our phones would be ringing off the hook from people looking for breeding stock if we could just get a few more stats published in a national sheep publication. However, it is important to present the data at hand in a fair and scientific manner. If you do not have the same amount or type of data on all breeds, then the breeds whose data is spotty should be left out. Had the author done this, and titled it “A Comparison of Major Sheep Breeds in the U.S. ” we feel it would be a more accurate and consistent treatment of the subject. We would rather see accuracy in data than scope. Additionally, if comparing efficiency in sheep breeds is the goal, then there are lots of other areas to consider besides those mentioned in the article. Major among these is the genetic resistance to diseases such as foot rot and scrapie (a disease more prevalent among black-faced sheep), mothering ability, disposition, and the like. It does not serve the so-called “minor” breeds like Romneys to be mentioned as occasional also-rans in terms of commercial efficiency on the say-so of one or two studies, let alone the breeds that are not even mentioned. With respect to Romneys in particular, it is also worth pointing out that this breed is the main commercial breed in New Zealand , the country that, along with Australia, is currently outselling the U. S. sheep industry in terms of high-quality lamb carcass exports (many to the U.S. ).

We applaud the author for pointing out that every situation requires a lot of thought as to which breed will work the best, and that not everyone is a commercial breeder. However, it takes a detailed read of the article to get to this information, and the charts, which serve as the article’s main basis of fact, do not present the information promised by the title in a fair or consistent manner.

Sincerely,

Cindy Cieciwa

Margaret VanCamp

Pitchfork Ranch

Back to the top of the page ~ Back to the Main page