Home |  About Us |  Officers |  Meetings |  Baaay State Blanket Project  | News |  Resources 

Posted:  4 September, 2005                                                                                                                         

1 September, 2005  

 The summer is about over, at least as my wife measures it, and the Fair season is upon us.  I have had the privilege of working several fairs already this year either as an announcer or a judge and have enjoyed the experience immensely.  Just last week I spent four days announcing at the Dutchess County Fair in Rhinebeck, NY and as part of my preparation for such a gig I took the time to go on the Internet to review and update myself on breeds of sheep.  I try to focus on the derivation of the various breeds as well as the breed standards published by the various breed associations.  Educating the public about the specific breed they are seeing judged in a show ring is very well received by both the fair attendees and the exhibitors as well.  In addition to the web research, I spend some time reviewing the several publications I receive from the industry, primarily the editorials, letters to the editor and focus articles; in an attempt to stay up with what other producers are saying throughout the country about the sheep we raise and the industry in general. 

 In his July/August issue of “The Banner Sheep Magazine”, Greg Deakin’s editorial comments on one of the ethical challenges we have in the sheep industry today.  Specifically he addresses the practice, the deceitful practice, of misrepresenting the age of lambs in sales and shows.  Greg points out that most experienced producers are not fooled by the subterfuge and that it only reflects upon the integrity of the breeder/consigner.  As most of you know, we have had our own complaints about sheep we have bought at sales from producers we believed worthy of our trust.  While Greg pleads for a higher ethical standard, I would add that we buyers need also need to be aware of the unfortunate fact that these things do happen.  So where am I going with this line?  Well, if you put these first two paragraphs together, I come out of my experiences, judging, announcing and research with two observations.

 The first is that if you try to connect what the breed associations set as a standard to the sheep that we seem to want to raise, the quest is largely futile.  To be fair, there are a number of exhibitors out there who are trying to raise the same breed of sheep that they began with.  It would seem, however, that many more are trying to make their breed bigger and “better?” by crossing all sort of other genetics into their sheep. In my judging, I have been appalled by the number of sheep that deviate from the association standard and in some breeds, the sheep look like they belong in another breed altogether.  I will refrain from pointing fingers at any specific breed for two reasons.  I do not want to create hard feelings with any one set of producers and also because the problem seems to span most all of the breeds.  Since the writer is a Merino breeder, I feel safe in telling you that when I am in the larger shows, most of the Merinos in the ring would not meet the fleece micron standard for the breed and most measurably exceed the standards for size.  This brings me to my second observation.

 Over the years, I have debated the issue many times of whether the Judge or the Breed Association is to be held responsible for the problem.  My opinion is that the Breed Association bears the brunt of the responsibility to police its own membership and its breed.  I readily admit that the Judge has to enforce the standard once the Association sets it and lets the Judges know that the producers want their breed evaluated in accordance with the standard.  My contention has always been that judges want to judge and more importantly, they want to be invited back to judge; and, for that reason they are going to judge the sheep that exhibitors bring them to judge.  More succinctly put, if the animals we bring into the show ring are too big, too course, too whatever; judges will eventually assume that this is the way we want our breed to look and will evaluate them accordingly.  In these discussions we have also debated the question of whether the exhibitors really want judges to evaluate the sheep in accordance with the Association standard.  My experience is that most exhibitors want the standard used to sort out the really bad transgressions, but not to stop the “improvement” of the breed.  How far is the Judge to go…….how much beyond the maximum fiber diameter is OK………how much larger is good.  In seeking to better understand one of the newer breeds we are seeing at fairs I discovered that the breed was not yet quite standardized as the Breed Secretary was describing what changes had yet to be added to meet the Breed Goal(?).  I observed that in a traditional sense, she did not have a “breed” as of yet.  A friend of mine, a Columbia breeder, was there and asked why they didn’t add the Columbia genetics now and get it over with, cute but true!

 When I first started showing sheep with my daughter, all I wanted was to have her learn to win and loose.  The loosing came easy to begin with and the lessons focused on how to work harder and eventually win.  She quickly learned that to win she needed two things.  Good sheep and big sheep.  Eventually we had a flock of nice big Merinos and a flock of smaller great Merinos, my evaluation and not hers.  She won blue ribbons and I won fleece awards.  When she left for college, we micron tested everything again and got rid of all the nice big Merinos, established winning “Best Fleeced” awards as our primary goal and “Blue Ribbons” as a nice to have goal.  Before I would recommend this course of action to any of you, Breed Character over Blue Ribbons, consider where you will have to go to buy replacement stock.  From what I have seen this summer, my guess is it won’t be in the show ring.