MATERNAL SUFFOLKS: MAMAS AND MILKERS
CONTINUED FROM PREVIOUS PAGE
These two research articles are useful for our consideration. But the observations and experiences that come from Suffolk breeders across the country are valuable resources for consideration. Big Sky Suffolks in Montana added another factor into the discussion as they shared the following; “Our family has run white face range bands since 1887. When we start lambing or working the Suffolk seedstock flock it is instantly obvious that the Suffolk is much more intelligent than the other breeds. Their ability to better manage multiple births I feel is attributed more to intelligence than to the normal mothering instinct that all animals are born with. A typical white face range ewe can handle twins if things are perfect. If she becomes flustered where her natural instinct becomes challenged, she shuts down and will put all of her attention towards one lamb. An intelligent Suffolk ewe can think her way through the chaos and reestablish her family. This intelligence trait is highly inheritable. Under ideal conditions such as a small flock with good facilities a ewe is never challenged and therefore may never be culled for being “dumb”!!! If we have a Suffolk ewe that cannot keep track of her twins she is culled. I strongly feel that this level of intelligence is completely separate from the basic mothering ability which to me is cleaning her lambs, allowing them to nurse, keeping track of them for the first day. After that first day of instinctive mothering, intelligence becomes the driver for a successful Suffolk ewe. In Montana we deal with a number of challenges that are specific to this region. Our Suffolks do not run in the rugged mountains as a range band. They produce breeding rams so competing under a least cost management scenario does not make sense. However, our Suffolk flock still has a bear, wolf, and coyote threat. These ladies will keep an eye out for danger and actually choose softer paths when their lambs are babies. These actions do not happen with other breeds except the North Country Cheviot which is also highly intelligent. For us, the tighter we cull or select for specific traits, the smaller our gene pool becomes because only certain material family lines make the cut.” We, as Suffolk breeders and enthusiasts, should appreciate the maternal attributes of these mamas and milkers. The quantity and quality of their milk may help explain why Suffolk and Suffolk cross lambs grow at an exceptional rate. And their overall capacity for mothering instinct should be a consideration for producers as they make selection decisions within their flock. Let’s hear it for the girls!
42 milk was 533 ml. Suffolk were superior for MILK (83 liters) and ADY (680 ml), followed by Synthetic II. Lowest MILK and ADY values were recorded for Romanov (35 liters and 299 ml, respectively). Synthetic I ranked second lowest. Overall average fat content of milk was 6.0%, Suffolk produced the highest average (6.6%), followed by Dorset (6.5%). Lowest fat percentage was in Synthetic I (5.6%) milk. Overall average protein content was 5.8%; milk of Dorset, Romanov and Synthetic II was similar (6.1%) and ranked highest. Overall average lactose and total solids contents were 4.8% and 17.4%, respectively. Rambouillet ranked first for lactose (4.9%). Finnsheep had lowest percentages of milk protein and lactose (5.4% and 4.7%, respectively), and ranked second lowest for total solids (16.8%). Dorset excelled for total solids (18.2%). Targhee, Lincoln and Synthetic III were intermediate in all traits. It was concluded that variation exists among and within U.S. sheep breeds for milk pr oduction traits. Overall performance for milk production was lower than “dairy” sheep breeds of Europe and Middle East. Introduction of superior n on-U.S. germ plasm could result in faster genetic improvement than selection within existing U.S. breeds over many generations. In November of 2001, a Dairy Sheep Symposium was held in Eau Claire, Wisconsin. The following excerpt is copied from a presentation by David L. Thomas, Department of Animal Sciences at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. “…Adequate milk production and udder health are important traits so that ewes have enough milk to successfully raise two or three lambs. Indirect selection for increased milk production has been through selection for heavy lamb weaning weights, and ewes are often culled for low milk production estimated from low lamb weaning weights or ewe udder size, or presence of udder disease. … Dr. William Boylan and his students at the University of Minnesota, St. Paul were the first research group in North America to compare several North American breeds of sheep for milk production in a dairy production setting. (Boylan et al., 1991; Sakul and Boylan, 1992a; Sakul and Boylan 1992b; Boylan 1995) Results presented in two of their studies are reproduced in Table 1. Ewes were milked twice per day for approximately 120 days following the weaning of their lambs at approximately 30 days postpartum. Milk yields are for the machine-milking period. Table 1. Lactation performance of several breeds raised for meat and wool in North America Breed Number Milk yield, lb. Fat % Protein % Dorset 28 (14) 153.3 (134.2) 6.3 (6.3) 6.1 (5.7) Finnsheep 31 (23) 138.6 (96.8) 5.6 (6.1) 5.4 (5.5) Lincoln 31 (15) 137.5 (116.6) 6.2 (6.8) 5.7 (5.8) Rambouillet 30 (14) 142.6 (143) 6.2 (6.6) 5.9 (6.1) Romanov 18 (21) 112.2 (96.8) 6.6 (7.1) 6.0 (5.9) Suffolk 32 (17) 178.9 (151.8) 6.4 (6.7) 5.8 (5.9) Targhee 30 (15) 161.3 (136.4) 6.1 (6.9) 5.7 (5.9) Average 146.3 (129.3) 6.2 (6.7) 5.8 (5.9)
*the first number in each pair is from the paper of Sakul and Boylan, 1992a, and the second number of each pair (in parentheses) is from the paper of Boylan, 1995
Powered by FlippingBook