Cecil Bearden
Mon, 14 Jan 2008 13:56:15 -0800
Barb: after reading your original post, I would like to comment on a more serious note than my original observation that my girls are gluttons. I had a new mother 2 days ago and put some hay from a round bale in with her with a pitchfork. I would estimate that it was bout 50 lbs of hay. It was gone in 2 days when I let her out. So, 25lbs of dry matter is about right. I have also noticed that the ones with the big bellies will raise 2 lambs without any problem. This year with the super wet grass then it turned off dry, and the grass has no real nutrition, then the ones with the big bellies have done well, I have lost 3 lambs from lack of milk though. After robservation, their mothers have small bellies and look very guant after 2 weeks of nursing twins. These wet months we have had really tell what ones to keep and which ones to cull, Blackbellies thrive on dry grass. Wet grass causes a lot of problems. In Eastern OK, the cattle are always thin because of the sappy grass. The western OK cattle are on Buffalo grass and grow fat. Cecil in OK Barb Lee wrote: > I guess my burst of enthusiasm over feeding "trivia" may have looked a > bit obsessive and unnecessary to some, but I got a real dose of > validation last night. > > It's pretty undeniable that we all share a common goal of wanting to add > value to our animals. We know we can't manage them exactly like > wool/meat breeds, yet we don't often define why or how, nor do I see a > lot of discussion about practical solutions to the issue of adding > value. > > My main reason for trying to spark interest in the subject is because > working with NRC nutrition tables and calculating rations has led me to > believe that the main issue with lamb performance/gains, etc. is > probably a natural adaptation of some sort...the sheep seem to be only > capable of ingesting about 75% of the dry matter recommended on the NRC > tables at any stage of life. I don't believe that a blackbelly requires > any LESS nutrition than a wool/meat breed, I believe that the same > nutritional balance needs to be maintained, but in smaller quantities. > I think that frequently the sheep's "easy keeping" qualities are > interpreted as lower levels of nutrition, when in fact, I think it > actually means, same nutrition, lower amounts. In the end though, that > means smaller, slower growing lambs. > > I'm sure the tables are based on observation of sheep that have been > developed over perhaps centuries for wool and meat, then managed in > industrial/university settings. Although a lot of the breeds are going > down the feedlot tubes, there are sheep breeds and crossbreeds that are > still highly adapted to pasture and grazing. This might seem like a > no-brainer, but you have to look deeper than what seems obvious on the > surface. > > Our sheep didn't evolve in temperate pastoral settings. We all know > their feeding habits and requirements are "different" but still we > haven't defined the differences and why our sheep "do things > differently." > > I think that Difference #1 is their capacity for ingesting feed - > notably high moisture grass, as evidenced by my attempts to feed them > (dry feed) in the amount suggested on the NRC tables. Yes, I weigh the > feed. It is high quality, palatable feed. I find on a daily basis that > the animals typically eat far less than the NRC dry matter intake. > (Please note that based on calculations of about 24% dry matter in my > medium quality - no legumes -spring grass, a 100 pound, pregnant > blackbelly would have to ingest close to 29 pounds of fresh grass per > day to meet NRC nutritional recommendations.) > > So, does it make sense that an animal - even one that eventually grows > to the same size as a "developed" breed - would tend to grow out slower, > produce less milk, etc., if it simply does not have the capacity to > ingest substantial quantities of forage? > > This was confirmed for me last night when I was contacted by a reporter > for Farm Show Magazine on an unrelated topic. He looked at the BBSAI > website and my farm website and then he emailed me with an experience > he'd had years ago. His comments suggested that he didn't think the > blackbellies looked like they had much gut capacity. He interviewed a > rancher who moved his cattle from Colorado to Minnesota because of the > grass he observed there. His Colorado herd was not accustomed to the > watery grass, having adapted to higher dry matter forages in CO. They > nearly starved to death for the first two years until they grew big > enough bellies to handle the grass. > > This is probably one of the criteria that is driving cattle graziers to > re-adapt their grazing genetics to grass - away from industrial "type" > and is probably the foundation for the belief that most commercialized > animals would simply die in a grass-based operation, without expensive > concentrates. > > So the concept of "thrifty" is a two-edged sword. > > This is also one of the reasons that I don't really think blackbellies > are ready for large scale success in the grassfed industry - yet. > > In my experience, "average" maintenance is adequate for producing robust > single lambs, but since I am only interested in robust multiples, I am > finding that what little room there is inside a twinning blackbelly had > better be dedicated to high quality, balanced nutrition in order to get > large, robust lambs and plenty of milk. If your sheep are different, > it's because they are "adapted" and you have already done the work and > have acquired the necessary knowledge to obtain your goals. I am > envious! > > In my limited view, one of the things that it's going to take to add > value to blackbellies is to begin really understanding why and how they > are "different" from wool breeds, and if the breeder's interest lies in > developing a flock of good producing, grass-adapted sheep, I think that > the peculiarities of what make a truly successful grass-eating sheep > ought to be considered. Broad muzzle, good teeth that meet the dental > pad properly, strong straight legs for years of walking, and a big > belly, capable of handling enough feed to nourish multiple, good growing > lambs. > > The "big belly" part may go against closely held perceptions of > phenotype for the Barbados. For the American, the possibilities may be > broader, especially taking advantage of the fact that there ARE grazing > genes in there. I guess it's all a matter of priorities. The sheep > don't have to be "changed" in any way, but for folks who are > dissatisfied with their return on investment in the sheep, this may be > an area of "adaptation" that needs to be examined. > > Regards, > Barb Lee > > > _______________________________________________ > This message is from the Blackbelly mailing list > Visit the list's homepage at %http://www.blackbellysheep.info > _______________________________________________ This message is from the Blackbelly mailing list Visit the list's homepage at %http://www.blackbellysheep.info