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

In Praise of Classic Llamas

by Margaret Van Camp

First published in Lama Life II, No. 70

With all the current hoo-ha over suri llamas, it may seem rather strange to see an article about the virtues of classics. However, there are a few farms that actually breed these types of llamas. Yes, on purpose. Why on earth would anyone intentionally breed these “old fashioned” types when all the hype, fashion and money seem to be elsewhere? The answer lies in the need for preservation of genetic diversity and the value of the animals themselves.

A good place to start is to enumerate the types of owners (and prospective owners) who should NOT consider adding classics to their herds:

• Those who view llamas as “investments” or a way to make large sums of money
• Those who love to spend long hours grooming their llamas
• Those who carefully examine the ads in the latest llama magazines and auction results in order to decide what their breeding goals should be

If you’re still reading this, you are either truly curious, ticked off or just have nothing else better to do. In any case, we proceed. 

First, a brief definition is in order. There are others that could expound at length on the conformational distinctions of classics, but for this article, the difference in fiber (which is all many people consider, anyway) will suffice. A “true” classic llama carries a double coat on its neck and body, that is, longer, coarse guard hairs protecting a shorter, fine, dense undercoat. The head, ears and legs are smooth, covered with a close-lying coat of short hair. They often exhibit a “mane” of longer guard hair along the back of the neck. In the spring, the dense undercoat sheds and can be brushed out. All classics are light wools, but not all light wools are classics. And I will risk one conformational point: most classic bloodlines tend toward the taller end of the llama continuum.

Secondly, some perspective. On our farm we raise a variety of llamas, including heavy, medium, light wool and even a suri or two. As with most breeding farms, our classics are a minority, comprising only about one fourth of our small herd. Several of these are 8 years of age or older, with the oldest being 21. We appreciate all types of llamas for their intrinsic beauty, usefulness and intelligence. We have no plans to convert entirely to classics, nor am I advocating this. Nor am I going to get on the genetic high-horse about classics being the only “pure” llamas. However, it seems to me that the selective emphasis on fine, single-coated fleeces over the last eight to ten years has lead many breeders to toss aside, or at least de-emphasize, the very bloodlines that make up the genetic bedrock of llamas both in the U.S. and South America . Yes, I’ve heard all the arguments that “all llamas are crossbreds” and “classics just have more guanaco in them,” but there’s little doubt that the U.S. llama populations of 1975 and 2005 will differ in more than just number. It would be a huge loss, in my opinion, if the classic breed (yes, breed, because that’s what they are, just as suris are emerging as a distinct breed) is extinguished in the quest for certain fiber types. Breeders of suris are absolutely going about it the right way by seeking to establish breed type and second registry for their animals. Granted, they have the huge advantage of historic high prices working for them, but that is not a requisite for the establishment of a distinct breed. I see no reason why classics should not become the third recognized breed of llamas, behind the already recognized minis and soon-to-be recognized suris. (Looks like we’ll have to call them classies, to follow this naming trend.)

So, back to the original question. What do classics have going for them?

First, the obvious: that double coat. It’s easy to see why these animals are so well-suited to the climatic extremes of the altiplano. Rain and snow never penetrate to the skin, and heat is either conserved (by kushing) or easily dissipated (by standing or lying on one side) from the ventral and upper-leg areas. Classics can readily handle most weather conditions typical to North America without keeping them locked up in air-conditioned barns in summer, or shut in during the winter. And grooming? A half hour and a pin brush are all one needs in most cases to get a classic from the pasture to the show ring. When contrasted with the multiple hours, expensive grooming paraphernalia and patience required to prepare woollier or more finely-fibered llamas for the ring, classics are a cake-walk. Additionally, the lack of leg wool makes evaluation of conformation much easier. When looking to purchase, any prospective buyer can clearly see leg structure and gait without the often muddling effect of wool. For these reasons, I feel classics are an excellent choice for first-time llama owners.

And although the evidence is strictly anecdotal, it’s difficult to find fault in their reproductive history. Doesn’t it seem that we all have or know of some old “North American” dam that always bred easily, had routinely problem-free births well into her upper teens, and provided plenty of milk to her fast-growing, healthy babies? These are the very females many breeders hoped to “improve” by breeding to heavy wool males. Nowadays, some may wonder who improved whom.

Then there is the whole packing thing. It would be both unwise and untrue to assert that only classics should be used for packing.  Having organized and participated in many pack trials, I can safely say that capable packers come in a variety of wool types, as do incompetent ones.  That being said, I personally would give the advantage in backcounty  packing to classics due primarily to their weather-proof, easy-care fiber, relative lack of leg and neck wool (if you’ve ever removed burrs from llama wool, you’ll agree here), and medium to taller frame (generally 42” and over at the withers). Anyone breeding or purchasing llamas for packing would also be concerned with leg and back structure, balance, gait, disposition and athleticism, but ideal characteristics in these areas are not limited to classics. It should also be pointed out that not all classics make good packers. There’s a lot more than wool type that goes into the best packers, with respect to both nature and nurture.

Of course, one cannot forget price. It is safe to say that no breeder today will get rich selling classic llamas. In these days of six-figure prices reportedly paid for certain animals, even a well-bred, well-trained, conformationally correct, reproductively sound classic would still likely be priced at the more affordable end of the extreme, probably under $2000. In my view, this is both a strength and a shortcoming. Would I like to see their prices somewhat higher? Of course. But I would hate to see them get to the point where first-time buyers are put off, or human greed and its attendant practices come into play, as has been the case in several recent, well-publicized instances in the llama community. At least I know when I sell a classic (which is not very often, I hasten to add) I have most likely found a buyer who values the animal for what it is, and not for what money can be made from it.

Which leads me to the next point. If rare breeds are your thing, you should be looking into classic llamas. Whereas suris and silkies can claim ever-growing numbers jumping onto their bandwagons, breeders of classics are few and far between. This will have the inevitable effect over time of severely limiting the classic phenotype gene pool. At the current rate, suris will be more numerous than classics in the not-too-distant future. Again, this is a double-edged sword. Popularity leads to an excess of supply, which drives down prices as well as quality. If it were up to me, I’d rather have fewer breeders of high-quality animals than many breeders producing animals of varying quality. It’s sometimes fun to dream about being on the cutting edge of the Next Big Thing, the “classic llama trend,” but pretty quickly I get pinched and remember how little this resembles reality.

Help for the classic breed and its aficionados is on the horizon, however. Several months ago, the ILR board decided to form focus groups on seven different phenotypes and/or uses of llamas: showing, packing, fiber, suri, color, miniatures and CLASSICS. Each group was charged with coming up with recommendations to the ILR board on how the ILR could help and encourage llama owners who are interested in these particular aspects of llamas. That help could take on a variety of forms but the two areas that seem to be emerging from the various groups are 1) recording data in the ILR animal database that would help prospective buyers and/or breeders make their breeding and/or buying decisions (i.e. what defines this particular type or use) and/or 2) development of educational information that will be placed on the ILR website providing information, calendars of events, sources of equipment or supplies and possibly contact information for other llama owners interested in a particular aspect of llamas. Each group will report to the ILR annual meeting in Kalispell , MT on June 16, 2004 . Contact the ILR office if you are interested in attending. There will be a fair number of llama owners in attendance in addition to the representatives from each of the focus groups. They hope to have a productive discussion that will give the ILR board some additional insights into the possible future direction of the Registry. I, for one, am heartened by the Registry’s recognition of classics as a distinct and valuable phenotype worthy of such efforts.

So, yes, I’m biased toward classic llamas. I think they are the best choice for first-time buyers. And they are just so darned practical. This doesn’t mean I don’t appreciate the rest of our llamas – we certainly get much higher prices for their fleeces, and they are beautiful to look at. But we’re all entitled to our favorites, and classics are mine.

 

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