The CEPOQ wishes to develop its axis extension in tandem with the axes genetics, health and research. Given the magnitude of the task of CEPOQ in several areas, this axis must be achieved through the creation of a large number of partnerships that CRAAQ. Our world is changing at a breakneck pace and we must ensure that the work be applied before they become obsolete.

Specific mandates

• Facilitate access to scientific knowledge and technology among industry players;
• Coordinate training activities offered in sheep production;
• Harmonizing the information herein.

Intervention Strategies

As part of this axis, the CEPOQ will focus on:

• A technological quality;
• Training high-level (see the list of lectures available here);
• A constant involvement on the ground.

Formerly the exclusive service of the Federation of sheep and lamb producers in Quebec (FPAMQ), the newspaper Sheep Quebec is now the result of the combination of CEPOQ, the SEMRPQ and FPAMQ. With the objective of designing a tool extension of high quality, this review enables CEPOQ joining all sheep producers in Quebec. Each year, the Quebec Sheep is published four times and this, with a circulation of 1,800 copies (January, April, July, and October). The magazine is distributed free to all sheep producers, to all our partners as well as educational institutions.

In this review, the CEPOQ publishes various articles made in partnership with various stakeholders in the sheep sector (AAFC MAPAQ, GRO, Universities, etc.)… Quebec Sheep magazine is an indispensable tool for producers and inform stakeholders of the various research results obtained by the CEPOQ and its partners. The magazine also serves as important leverage for the dissemination of information about the genetic program and it’s advanced GenOvis. Several articles on health are presented sheep and popular articles are very present. Since 2006, the CEPOQ work on some thematic with specific issues in each edition (reproduction, response to lambing,). Bulletin Sheep Quebec is evolving through a partnership between the FPAMQ the SEMRPQ and CEPOQ.

Moreover, the technological involves the continuous monitoring of technological innovations in order to determine the earliest ones are likely to become key technologies of tomorrow.

To play its role in knowledge transfer and production techniques, the account CEPOQ increase training efforts in sheep production. In connection with the increasing number of producers and the advent of new technologies, agricultural training needs in the sheep sector has steadily increased. These courses are available to producers, advisors and stakeholders, and finally some are rather academic and for students of ITA, Universities, FMV. Moreover, the CEPOQ working with the ITA La Pacifier laboratories in achieving the farm for students in business management in agricultural and animal production.

The advent of Agri-Quebec Network has helped to improve the transmission of information leading to the various players in the sheep industry in Quebec. For the past two years, the CEPOQ is directly involved in the operation of Agri-Network. It thus acts as a driver assistant. This status gives him a wide discretion on the content of the sections that concern.

MAPAQ CEPOQ identified as the mastermind behind the revitalization of the sheep genetic blueprint Quebec. To produce an analysis of the current structure and propose new directions, the CEPOQ hired Dr. Jacques Chesnais, specializing in breeding herds. His study portrays the various tools and methods for evaluation and breeding more recommendations tailored to key industry issues. According to estimates by the specialist, the genetic blueprint sheep has the potential to generate economic gains of around 3.5 million per year in Quebec. To maximize this potential, the tools of the scheme should be harmonized, modernized and targeted investments to be made. The CEPOQ wish is to use this report as a guide for development in coming years.

Sector Mandate Genetics and Reproduction

• Coordinate the implementation of the genetic blueprint sheep Quebec;
• Harmonize the use of various tools for genetic improvement by considering the needs of industry;
• Guide the development of tools for genetic improvement for a careful selection of breeding stock.

The genetic program of sheep CEPOQ (GenOvis) was created to take over the programs initiated by MAPAQ in this sector. It aims to coordinate action within the genetic blueprint sheep Quebec to maximize results. This program consists of four components:

1. Genetic evaluation at home (Genova);
2. Station evaluation;
3. Implementation of measures and guidelines on the farm;
4. Dissemination of genetics in livestock.

1) Genetic evaluation at home (Genova)

Transferred to MAPAQ CEPOQ in 2000, the genetic evaluation program at home, Genova, is an indispensable tool for breeders and a guarantee of quality for commercial producers. According to members of the Committee genetics, it is the cornerstone for the revival of the genetic blueprint. The specific objectives of this program are:

• Improve and simplify Genova;
• Continually validate the data for genetic evaluation;
• Integrating genetic evaluation of carcass traits (eye of loin and backfat) and season breeding;
• Improve outreach and dissemination.

2) Evaluation Station

To fully realize its role as coordinator of the genetic blueprint, the CEPOQ must be able to oversee all the structures of genetic improvement. Sharing assessment programs rams and lambs in commercial buildings in La Pocatiere CEPOQ is preferred. It would return the resources in place and thus more financially support other aspects of the scheme which in the long term should receive higher priority. In this sense, a research project on the validation of genetic evidence has been accepted CDAQ. The specific objectives are:

• Achieve planned on animals entering the pre-identified needs;
• Validate the direction and pattern of genetic tools;
• Maintain the genetic evaluation of the eye of loin and backfat during development of the service at home;
• Changing the criteria for testing and strengthening links with GenOvis.

3) Implementation of measures and guidelines on the farm

Efforts to improve the genetic evaluation and home station will be utilized only by achieving an excellent outreach to producers and an increase in the number of data. Thus, the sector aims to:

• Effectively train counselors sheep to ensure proper follow up with producers;
• Maintain a consistent service for measuring the eye of loin and backfat at home which is fused to the supervision of weighing.

4) Dissemination of genetics in breeding

The CEPOQ put in place the necessary structures to ensure optimal transmission of genetic progress achieved in the entire herd. Interventions in this sector must take root in the first year.

• Train and / or support the breed clubs to set targets for selection in the breeds;
• Establish patterns of references rams and elite;
• Support the rams from the genetic blueprint

The mandate of CEPOQ in this area is based around three objectives:

1. Develop and coordinate programs sanitation of herds with partners;
2. Initiate, maintain, and organize training activities and health information among sheep producers and others in the sheep industry;
3. Assisting in the development and implementation of R & D Health sheep.

For more information on the Quebec program Remediation sheep flocks for Maedi visna click on the logo below cons.

The health sector is also training. Training for producers, advisors and stakeholders, students and those of ITA, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine.

In addition, Dr. Corriveau is the CEPOQ and participates in various committees such as:

• Ministerial Committee for a provincial strategy on health and well-being of animals;
• Canadian Committee surveillance of scrapie in sheep: review of regulations;
• CRAAQ: revision of leaflets in the health section of the Guide sheep;
• Canadian Research Committee on internal parasites of sheep.

At the research farm, the health sector can:

• The establishment of monitoring the herd veterinarian CEPOQ;
• organizing and updating medical care and preventive provided the herd;
• Preparation of the subjects offered for sale at auction of selected breeding and genotyping for the flock.

Finally, Dr. Corriveau is involved in most research projects to monitor the health status of study subjects. In addition, for some projects, a visit external herds in order to purchase the subjects for experiments, is performed by the veterinarian CEPOQ.

Axis Research CEPOQ works to advance knowledge and techniques in sheep production in conducting research and development on various fields of activities. Its mandate is also to disseminate the knowledge gained to make quick profit producers and stakeholders.

You want to do R & D?

The Centre d’expertise en production ovine due Québec (CEPOQ) is a leading tool for all professionals and researchers wishing to conduct research projects. Immersing himself in various issues of the sheep industry in Quebec, the CEPOQ is able to assist you in developing the protocol, the data acquisition and analysis of results.

Are you a researcher?

You create and perform many research projects in various sectors related to agriculture (meat quality, breeding, feeding and nutrition, animal welfare, health …): The sheep industry needs your Quebec expertise! Growing for over 10 years, it has identified a significant number of needs. CEPOQ professionals are there to help you develop protocols and to find financing.

In 2010, the Research Committee and Health has prepared a document entitled Needs and opportunities for research in sheep production. This document includes several ideas for research projects that could be achieved in the coming years.

Our sheep are hard workers – given modest care, they can produce better than most other farm livestock. They do not cost a fortune, produce lambs for many years and can utilize readily available feeds/forage.  Our sheep are all breeds of hair sheep and require no shearing or tail docking. 

These animals are hardy, prolific and require minimal maintenance.  If you are considering a small ruminant for your property, we highly recommend them.

Consistent State Classification

APHIS describes interstate movement restrictions for “Consistent States” and “Inconsistent States”. ASI agrees that categorizing States for scrapie regulations accomplishes the general goal and our recommendation of “restricting the interstate movement of sheep and goats from States that do not quarantine scrapie infected and source flocks”. ASI has worked closely with our State affiliates and State animal health authorities over the past several years to help strengthen the States’ legislative authorities and regulatory structure for improved scrapie control programs. We agree with APHIS that nearly all States are now in the position to qualify as “Consistent States” should they choose to become so. We believe that it is appropriate to establish the proposed new sub-part 79.6 which would describe the requirements a State would need to meet in order to be classified as a “Consistent State”. While we have confidence that APHIS will conduct the appropriate studies to confirm whether States qualify as consistent, we believe that it would be in the States’, APHIS’ and producers’ best interests for the regulations to require APHIS-State compliance agreements. It is essential that State and APHIS regulatory personnel know exactly what their on-going roles are in order for a uniform program to be implemented properly. It is likewise important to have defined agreements on what the respective material and financial resource obligations are. We want to be clear however, that we believe it is essential for States to comply with effective national standards that include scrapie as a reportable disease and the quarantine of infected and source flocks. We also believe that it is important for all States to have an adequate opportunity to gain any appropriate additional legislative and regulatory authority to meet the other requirements of “Consistent State” classification. In this regard, we urge APHIS to classify States as consistent if they meet the two basic requirements mentioned above: scrapie as a reportable disease and actively quarantine infected and source flocks upon finalizing this rule. We also urge APHIS to permit adequate time for states to gain their appropriate legislative and regulatory approval in order to meet the other additional requirements listed for “Consistent State” classification. We believe that two years should be adequate in most cases.

The ultimate success of scrapie eradication will depend upon the abilities of the States to use new technologies to conduct creative programs that work best in their unique circumstances. In this regard, we urge APHIS to establish “pilot projects” for the purpose of evaluating creative approaches to scrapie control/eradication such as genetic testing along with third eyelid testing, flock management strategies and surveillance as components of “compliance agreements” with “Consistent States”.

APHIS asks whether the standard for declaring a State to be Consistent should include the requirement of traceability of any animal to its flock or State of origin. As we stated earlier, it is our understanding that the current OIE draft scrapie chapter contains this requirement and, as such, should be followed with certain qualifications. ASI recommends that Consistent State requirements include traceability to the flock of birth on all breeding animals. We believe that identification requirements beyond this would be both unnecessary and onerous for flock owners and regulators for the following reasons:

• Slaughter surveillance efforts would not be effective for animals slaughtered at an age of less than about one year.
• Live-animal diagnostic technology does not allow disease detection in animals less than about one year of age.

However, we acknowledge that the ability to conduct slaughter surveillance programs on all animals will significantly augment scrapie eradication efforts in the future. We therefore urge APHIS to lower the age of ID-exempt animals when/if diagnostic technology is available to detect disease in younger animals.

We disagree with APHIS that certain classes of animals such as “high-risk”, “affected” and “exposed” should be prohibited from moving interstate to slaughter or have individual animal identification required for movement to slaughter. As stated above, scrapie should not be considered a human food safety concern. Also, animal feeding regulations are in place through the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to mitigate the risk of disease transmission to animals. We therefore urge APHIS, in a final rule, to allow scrapie “high-risk”, “exposed”, “affected” and “other” animals that are not infected or suspect to go to slaughter from both “Consistent States” and “Inconsistent States” with the appropriate permits and certificates.

Animal Identification

We recognize that compliance and enforcement must be achievable and that it is important for State and federal officials to be able to verify sheep numbers as permits and certificates are written. However we believe that greater compliance will be achieved if identification requirements are less onerous than those listed in the proposed rule. As we have stated, we urge APHIS to adopt premises identification on all breeding sheep, regardless of age, as a requirement for Consistent State classification. We are aware that sometimes, ewe lambs are moved out of feedlots into breeding flocks. Our review of sheep industry marketing practices indicates that this is not a common practice and that traceability of the relatively few ewe lambs that are sold out of feedlots could be managed in a manner that is less onerous than to require identification on all young animals. We certainly see no need to identify castrated animals until/unless diagnostic tests improve so that slaughter surveillance on them is helpful. We recommend that if sheep move out of slaughter channels they be identified at that point as to their flock of birth if possible using feedlot records, owner identification, etc. If it is not possible to ascertain flock of birth identity on sheep moving out of slaughter channels then the feedlot should be considered the flock of origin and trace-back regulations would apply to the feedlot.

While ASI believes that individual identification of breeding animals simplifies traceability and compliance and has many other potential values for flock owners, it may not be practical for many flock owners at this time. We believe traceability compliance can also be achieved through multiple premises identifications where animals are changing ownership. In terms of meeting permit and certificate requirements when transporting multiple classifications of animals such as “exposed”, “high-risk” and non-affected sheep, we believe that the use of temporary identifications to supplement premise identifications should be sufficient. APHIS lists an “other” animal category in the discussion of interstate movement general restrictions. This category is confusing and we request that APHIS clarify their meaning and intent for this category in a final rule.

Indemnity

The proposed rule describes an indemnity program designed to compensate flock owners at a level equivalent to or less than fair market value. We agree with APHIS that the economic incentive of an indemnity along with advancements in diagnostic techniques should contribute substantially to reducing the incidence and eventually eradicating scrapie in the U.S. We are aware of the limitations of past indemnity programs and the need for adequate funding for the agency to properly conduct this aspect of a scrapie control/eradication program. As stated earlier, we expect the agency and the Department of Agriculture to lead the effort to secure funding through the federal appropriations process. The sheep industry, with ASI as the lead petitioner, won the Section 201 trade case and the President granted trade adjustment assistance funding with some of those funds targeted toward scrapie eradication with APHIS as the recipient of these funds. While we urged and supported this funding for the agency, these kinds of funds should not be relied upon by the Department or the agency for additional or on-going efforts.

With regards to “whether the payment amounts are appropriate”, ASI believes that fair market value is the appropriate remuneration for the destruction of producers’ property. We agree with APHIS that a value should be established rather than using the burdensome process of appraisals. ASI recommends that the values of $150.00 for a registered animal and $50.00 for a commercial animal be established as a floor value for indemnities. As we commented earlier, we believe that all animals except those defined as “infected” or “suspect” should be allowed to go to slaughter. We recognize that even though the products from animals classified as at-risk for scrapie but not clinically diseased are safe from a human and animal food safety perspective, some slaughtering establishments may discount the value of these animals. In such cases, these animals should qualify for an indemnity payment in addition to their slaughter value. We also agree with APHIS that education and live testing along with depopulation and indemnity will be needed to eradicate scrapie. Destruction and disposal of animals is a difficult issue and regulations vary between States and localities. We believe that it is appropriate for APHIS to pay destruction and disposal costs when depopulation is warranted. We also believe it is important for APHIS to fund live animal testing in flocks when it is determined that such testing is epidemiologically prudent.

ASI has urged APHIS to conduct a national scrapie surveillance study to quantify the endemic rate of scrapie in the U.S. Had this program been implemented, APHIS would have data to answer the question posed: “We invite comments on the total amount of indemnity that should be needed…”. We continue to urge APHIS to conduct this study; ASI has gone so far as to purchase diagnostic equipment for use by the agency to begin this effort. It is our opinion that if the study were started, the agency would have quantification of the needs for future indemnity funding in sufficient time to propose adequate appropriations in future years. A national study that quantifies endemic rates by regions and States will also aid States in their budgeting and appropriations processes and their on-going scrapie control/eradication efforts.

BACKGROUND INFORMATION:

Scrapie is a fatal neurologic disease of sheep that is causing significant economic losses to the sheep industry. A live animal diagnostic test using third eyelid biopsy has been developed and tested by the Agricultural Research Service.

RESOLUTION:

USAHA urges USDA-APHIS to approve the third eyelid test for use in sheep as an official diagnostic screening test for scrapie and approve those State or private laboratories to conduct the test that meet appropriate training, performance, reporting, and quality assurance requirements. USDA and State animal health officials are urged to require reporting of test results. The movement of test positive animals should be restricted pending results of a thorough epidemiological investigation and additional testing if warranted.

It is our understanding that the third eyelid test will soon be further validated so that it can be used not only as a screening test to identify “affected animals” but also to identify “infected animals”. When this goal is reached, we urge APHIS to strongly consider a “test and remove” option and affect a more rapid eradication effort. The use of a live-animal test should not only result in faster eradication; its use should also result in the depopulation of fewer animals than would depopulation based upon epidemiology alone. With regards to the test and laboratory approval process, ASI recognizes that there are several steps in this process and that tests may be useful for U.S. regulatory efforts prior to their full acceptance/approvals for international acceptance. However, a major goal in U.S. scrapie eradication is to gain international acceptance of U.S. scrapie-free status when it is attained. Thus it is imperative that the diagnostic tools used to test and monitor to assure the absence of scrapie also be accepted in the international community. For this reason, we urge APHIS to build their scrapie test validation protocols upon OIE standards.

Definitions

We agree with APHIS that the definitions of: “bloodline animal”, “department” and “trace flock” should be deleted and we agree with the new definition of “source flock”. We disagree with some of the reasons used to justify the proposed change in the definition of “destroyed”.

• Movement of animals that are at-risk for scrapie through slaughter channels, if moved in the proper manner, should not represent a potential risk of spreading scrapie.
• We have full confidence that current FDA regulations effectively mitigate the risk of the scrapie agent entering the ruminant food chain.
• We know of no scientifically demonstrated risk to humans from scrapie.

In the interest of sound risk prevention practices however, we believe that animals that are classified as scrapie infected and scrapie suspect should be properly euthanized and their carcasses disposed of.

We agree with APHIS that the definition for “infected flock” should be changed. However, we suggest a different definition from the one proposed as follows: “Any flock in which a scrapie positive animal has lambed”. We are aware of the scientific evidence of placenta shedding by Race, et al; however other studies and extensive flock epidemiology indicate that placenta from infected sheep likely contain infectious agent and thus expose flock mates whenever/wherever an infected ewe lambs. Should additional future research justify limiting lambings, such as is proposed, we urge APHIS to revise this definition. We believe it is also necessary to add an additional definition for a medium-risk or exposed flock status. Such a status would be used to classify a flock that was an infected or source flock but has been subjected to third eyelid testing, positive animals removed and the remaining animals monitored and further tested as prescribed by a scrapie epidemiologist. For example, in the case where an infected animal lambed in a flock where it resided for one lambing, three years prior to being clinically affected, this infected flock by the definition suggested above should be eyelid tested, positives removed, the flock monitored for at least 14 months and retested. If there are no more positives, the flock should no longer be classified as infected. We also believe that such a medium-risk or exposed flock status should prove useful where genetic testing, selection and culling is practiced as is anticipated in one or more pilot projects we urge APHIS to conduct. We are aware that the State of Michigan has proposed a similar approach and we urge APHIS to help evaluate the effectiveness of this approach as a qualification for Consistent State status.

APHIS proposes to change the definition of “scrapie-positive animal” and cites several methods that can be used to define an animal as “scrapie-positive”. In the proposed definition, APHIS provides broad approval authority to the Administrator for test and laboratory approval. We generally agree that in order to take maximum advantage of on-going scientific achievements and laboratory capabilities, it may be useful to grant this broad approval authority to the Administrator. However, as we state elsewhere, tests used to confirm diagnoses of scrapie and to provide information leading to disease-free status should be validated in a manner that makes the tests internationally accepted. We also caution APHIS that the confirmation of a scrapie positive animal will be used to invoke serious State and federal regulatory response, including the potential destruction of private property and the jeopardy of personal and flock reputations. We therefore urge APHIS in the final rule to clarify the process through which laboratories and tests may qualify for approval. We also urge APHIS to establish an administrative process through which these approvals are granted. This process should be open to scientific peer review and scrutiny. Traditionally, APHIS has used United States Animal Health Association (USAHA) committees and subcommittees to provide input and peer-review. The “notice and comment” system might also be useful.

We agree with APHIS’ proposal regarding the establishment and use of designated epidemiologists to assist with the eradication program. An eradication program would be hampered without trained epidemiologists who are provided with the appropriate resources to deal with arising State and flock issues. We urge APHIS to provide the proper initial and on-going training for scrapie epidemiologists so that they will be in a position to assist State and federal efforts toward scrapie eradication. Also we believe it is essential that the designated epidemiologists be given the flexibility to deal with unique flock situations such as will be the case of exposures in large commercial flocks. We urge APHIS to revise Part 54, Subpart B, 54.14 “Requirements for flock plans and post-exposure management and monitoring plans” to reflect this need.

APHIS proposes to change the name of the Voluntary Scrapie Flock Certification Program (VSFCP) to the “Scrapie Flock Certification Program” (SFCP) for international clarity. ASI has encountered similar concerns from trading partners and we see no problem with changing the name of the program. We do affirm however that the program should remain voluntary in nature. From the time the program was conceptualized in the negotiated rule-making process, all parties agreed that the program was to be a voluntary, market-driven program. We believe that by de-coupling the flock certification process from regulatory programs in States, as is implicit with this proposed rule, participation in the program should be more attractive to producers.

International Trade Effects

A discussion of potentially improving the public perception of U.S. sheep meat is in the proposed rule. While we do not disagree that this might occur, the statement is made in the docket “…imported lamb sells at a higher price than domestic lamb and mutton.” This is a false statement. The U.S. International Trade Commission reported that imported lamb undersells domestic lamb nearly 70 percent of the time during their investigation of the Section 201 lamb meat case.

Other Issues and Summary

In being consistent with U.S. trade goals of transparency and equal treatment, we urge APHIS to review Canadian and Mexican scrapie regulations in order to make a determination whether their regulations meet or exceed those that APHIS will publish in a final rule. It is our belief that agreements should be sought with Canada and Mexico in order for them to meet the criteria of “Consistent State”. If such agreements cannot be attained, we believe that the same “Inconsistent State” classification should apply to those countries as it applies to U.S. States. Our comment on this matter is not meant to be a substitute for the permit system now in place but rather supplement that system.

ASI comments on Docket No. 93-097-1 supported APHIS providing information regarding infected and source flock status, etc., in addition to continuing the publication of information regarding participation and flock status in the Flock Certification Program. The development of the Generic DataBase (GDB) provides an improved opportunity to get timely information pertaining to many aspects of scrapie eradication. We urge APHIS to take the necessary steps to ensure that the GDB is used as a vehicle for data management and retrieval as the scrapie eradication process begins.

In summary, we appreciate APHIS’ efforts to propose a rule that, if finalized, should provide an adequate regulatory framework for conducting a national scrapie eradication program. As stated earlier, ASI believes that it is in the best interest for the sheep industry, animal agriculture in general and the public to do so. We urge APHIS to consider all comments carefully and to finalize a rule quickly. If we can assist APHIS in any way, we are happy to do so.

The proposed rule, in our opinion, can be boiled down to three key issues: animal identification, Consistent State requirements and indemnity. To help clarify our comments on the inter-twined nature of the proposed rule, we will comment on these three items first and then proceed to address some of the specific issues raised and answer the questions asked in the proposed rule.

Animal Identification

We recommend that all breeding animals be identified with a premises-of-birth identification that includes a State code and be suitable for use and retention in young animals. We also recommend that identification not be required for lambs moving through slaughter channels, nor should identification be required for sheep moving to be grazed or for other management purposes where no change of ownership occurs.

Consistent State classification

We recommend all States that have and use the basic authorities to control intrastate movement of scrapie infected and source flocks be allowed “Consistent State” classification and that ample time be granted for States to gain the other necessary authorities as discussed in the proposed rule. The basic authorities we refer to are: scrapie being a reportable disease and the quarantine (authority and use) of infected and source flocks.

Indemnity

We recommend that an indemnity amount be established rather than using appraisals, that the proposed $50.00/$150.00 values be established as “floor values” for scrapie depopulation indemnities, that indemnities should compensate at the rate of “fair market value” and that destruction and disposal costs should be borne by the public sector. We also recommend that animal destruction and removal be under the supervision of State/federal animal health authorities.

We begin flushing the ewes for breeding in November, 2 to 3 weeks pre-breeding. We vaccinate against abortion diseases. By the first week of December, breeding decisions have been made. The sheep are sorted accordingly, and the appropriate ram turned in, or preparations for artificial insemination have been made. We use a single sire mating, and typically have 4 or more different breeding groups.

The rams are left with the ewes for 6 weeks. Corn is fed to the breeding groups until the rams are removed. Ewe lambs also receive some supplemental soybean meal. While the ewes go off grain when the rams come out, the ewe lambs continue to be fed, as they are still growing themselves.

Thirty days after the rams come out, the ewes can be ultrasounded. This will tell you if the ewes settled, and sophisticated machines can count fetal numbers. The sheep can be separated into groups bearing triplets or twins, and fed accordingly. Open ewes can be sent to market.

Six weeks pre-lambing, the late gestation ration balanced to our hay test is begun. We feed the sheep their grain twice a day, which has kept ketosis from being a problem. As soon as possible, we send the ewes out on pasture, in a quick rotation. They end up at the hay feeding fence but this activity of being out, rummaging around much of the day gives them a good workout, and helps to keep lambing problems to a minimum.

The ewes are kept in good physical condition year-round, to a score of 3 to 3.5. The demands placed on them throughout the year warrant it, and our lambs and milk production reflect this management practice. Sound, healthy sheep hold this condition score much better, with less supplements. It is important to feed the flock properly, and to be sure that they have adequate mineral and water supply year-round.

We schedule shearing about a month before lambing. We trim any long toenails then so we don’t have to tip the ewes up again pre-lambing. We vaccinate the ewes with Covexin-8 within the month prior to lambing. If one wants to vaccinate to control soremouth, this should be done not less than 8 weeks pre-lambing. OPP blood samples are more easily drawn from slick shorn ewes; about a month pre-lambing is a good time to do this test.

To best utilize our pastures, we lamb in late April and May, as our grasses are beginning to grow well. About 75% of our ewes lamb in the first cycle, and the rest lamb in the second cycle. We use what I call a “Modified pasture lambing system”. Most of the ewes are left on pasture with their lambs, we eartag the lambs and spray paint them with their eartag number for ease of identification. Navels are iodined, and lambs recorded. Some ewes will be brought in and penned with their lambs if we feel the bonding process warrants it. Ewes are wormed as soon after they lamb as possible. The milking flock cannot be wormed again until they come off line; the only exceptions are wormers called Rumatel, and Panacur which are approved for dairy cows. Worming quickly and leaving the lambs on for 30 days gives a withdrawal time for the wormer.

Mixing groups are made of 5 or more ewes, depending on their experience level. After we see that all is going well, these ewes and their lambs can be mixed with another group, and thus into the main flock of ewes and lambs.

Not only do our ewes raise triplets on pasture, they also milk well off pasture. The lambs are left with the ewe for 30 days, and are out learning how to forage from their mothers from the very beginning. The lambs typically weigh 30 plus pounds at weaning. At weaning, we vaccinate with an 8-way clostridial, as they will now begin to eat creep more heavily. Because the lambs are weaned at this early age, we offer an ad lib creep mixture for their first 60 days.

They don’t start eating any significant quantity until their 3rd or 4th week, as they are getting sufficient nutrition from their mothers. The creep recipe, which we mix on farm, changes according to the lambs’ age and NRC requirements. The lambs are provided with a free choice mineral containing a coccidiastat, which is not available to the ewes, as it is not approved for lactating dairy animals.

The lambs continue on pasture after their first 60 days on creep, by which time they have adjusted well. Ewe lambs to be retained for breeding are fed corn, as are lambs we will direct market. In September or October we typically sell the balance of the wethers as feeder lambs.

Proper dairy nutrition will result in good milk production, and lengthened lactations. The ewes being milked receive, in addition to their pasture diet, a whole shelled corn ration fed on the stand, about 1 1/2 pounds per day, or .75 lbs per milking. Barley or oats are other excellent choices if they are more economical than corn. The grain serves as a source of energy.

The pasture, a high quality birdsfoot trefoil, clover, and grass mix, provides protein, and tests about 18%. Additional soybean meal may be added as required. The amount of pasture consumed may need to be regulated. Dairy ewes in a forage based system during the flush of grass growth may not eat enough fiber to make sufficient butterfat. Our holding area is divided by a hay feeder from which the ewes can munch while waiting to be milked.

They can also eat from it after exiting the milking parlor prior to going back out to pasture. Milking at 6 and 6 cuts into the time when ewes would normally be out grazing, so having this fiber source available is working out very well. It also helps to keep the ewes standing after milking, allowing the teat sphincter to close. We utilize probiotics and yeast cultures in the diet at weaning or whenever stress could be a factor in reducing food intake.

A rumen buffer is offered free choice; if that starts disappearing too fast we need to determine what is upsetting their digestion. We monitor the physical condition of our ewes during milking to be sure that they are getting the correct amount of feed. Ewes who are getting fat are putting on weight at the expense of milk production. Water must be provided to the ewes; it must be clean, fresh, and plentiful. A water source is located in each paddock. An additional source is in the barn for ewes who are waiting to be milked.

Our first group of ewes usually goes on the stand on Memorial Day weekend, and we milk for over 100 days post weaning. More ewes are added to the milking string according to their lambing dates. As she comes on line, each ewe is tested for mastitis, using the California Mastitis Test, or CMT. We thus identify problem ewes immediately, and deal with them according to the individual situation. CMT’s are done weekly on all ewes, as well as an as- needed basis. Some ewes are tested more frequently based on their last CMT test.

This process is time consuming, but it is important to udder health, and to the production of a quality product. If the number of ewes being milked becomes quite large, we will CMT a sample of milk from each bucket at each milking, rather than the weekly individual test. One elevated ewe can raise the entire bucket’s test result, and she can usually be found quickly at the next milking. Obviously sick ewes are spotted as we inspect and clean udders prior to milking each morning and evening.

WOOL

Wool is a sheep’s “overcoat”. Different breeds of sheep grow varying types of wool. Some is very long in length (called the “staple” length) and these sheep will have a fleece that is very nice for handspinning. Our East Frieslands have wool like this. Other breeds, such as our Est a Laine Merinos, have wool which is very fine and makes a tight fleece on the animal.

The coarser the wool, the coarser the fabric. For instance, carpets are made of the very coarsest wool, while fine woolen sweaters are made from the very finest fleeces, such as Merino. When people refer to the “grade” of wool, the lower numbers reflect coarser wool and the higher numbers mean the wool is very fine. For example, wool from Frieslands will range in the 54′s, while the Est a Laines will be in the high 70′s to 80′s. A simple way of looking at raw wool is to look at the distance between the crimps in the fiber. If the squiggles are really close together, the wool is “fine”, if they are farther apart, the wool is coarser.

We shear our sheep once a year to remove their wool. It’s a bit like giving them a hair cut. Shearing is a big event here, almost a party. Our sheep shearer comes and we have helpers, lots of food, and it signals the start of Spring. We shear our sheep about a month before they are due to have their lambs. Like the tulips poking their leaves out from the slowly warming soil, this is another ritual of the burgeoning season.

As clothes make the man, so does the fleece make the ram. Once the sheep’s overcoat comes off, they need to re-recognize one another. It’s really interesting to see them re-establish their flock status. It’s important to have the fleece off the ewes as they get closer to lambing, in order to see how close they are to delivering their lambs. Just like a human’s hair, once it’s cut, the sheep immediately begin to regrow their wool, so by the time winter comes again, they are fully clothed and ready to face the elements.

To learn more about wool a good website to visit is Yocom-McColl Wool Testing Labs. We also shear our llamas. Some llamas regrow their fiber faster than others, and can be shorn every year, while others take longer to grow out and might be shorn every 2 years. We were pretty tickled to send a llama fleece from our “Babs” to England with a devoted hand-spinner.

Babs will have another fleece for us in the Spring, she’s quite the girl! We have several different “types” of fiber on our llamas and the colors range from pure white to black. There are many shades of brown and also silver to charcoal greys. With these lovely colors, who needs dyes? Many of my friends and I find spinning a very relaxing activity. All of the tension within me goes into the twist of the yarn.

Spinning is an art that has been part of human-kinds’ existance forever. This is nothing new. Hand spinning is fun!

In our Wool Room we have raw fleeces from our sheep and llamas. We’re particularly fond of the black East Friesland yarn, which my sister has been knitting with for the last couple years. She made my favorite sweater and it’s very light and extremely warm. I’m also quite attached to the Est a Laine Merino fine wool fleeces. One of my friends who has worked with this wool said it’s so soft that you could make a lady’s most intimate undergarment from it. Perhaps we should talk to Playtex?

The most economical way to buy our wool is as a raw fleece… this is nice if you’re a spinner, but not everyone is. So we’re able to provide our wool in commercially spun yarn form as well, ready to knit. We’re dabbling with colors and llama/sheep fiber blends.

In solemn session at the Convention Center, the group’s research center sent a special greeting to the Commander in Chief Fidel Castro on his birthday and 80 being the principal manager and promoter of all these successes.
Ivan Ordaz Curbelo, first secretary of the provincial Communist Party of Cuba, noted that workers of the Institute are faithful exponents of what the role of science in finding solutions and alternatives to problems facing society.