Proceedings of the 61st Annual

Spooner Sheep Day

Saturday, August 17, 2013

Spooner Agricultural Research Station University of Wisconsin-Madison

Spooner, Wisconsin

i

This is the 61st consecutive, annual sheep field day at the Spooner Agricultural Research Station. Spooner Sheep Day was held annually at the Spooner Agricultural Research Station for 50 years – from 1953 through 2002. After the 2002 Spooner Sheep Day, the decision was made to hold the event every-other year on even-numbered years. This decision was made so that a Spooner Dairy Sheep Day could be held on odd-numbered years with a program that could be better tailored to the focused issues of the dairy sheep industry. This procedure was followed for 10 years from 2003 through 2012. Since dairy sheep production has been mainstreamed into the Wisconsin sheep industry, we are returning to using the title of Spooner Sheep Day for each annual sheep field day at the station. Therefore, the program this year will be the 61st consecutive sheep field day at the Spooner Agricultural Research Station and will carry the title of the 61st Annual Spooner Sheep Day. We believe that it is the longest running agricultural field day of the several organized each year on the various Agricultural Research Stations of the College of Agricultural and Life Sciences, University of Wisconsin-Madison.

David L. Thomas, Editor Department of Animal Sciences University of Wisconsin-Madison 1675 Observatory Drive Madison, WI 53706 dlthomas@wisc.edu 2013

Cover photographs “Some colorful lambs born at the Spooner Station in recent years” by Phil Holman, Superintendent, Spooner Agricultural Research Station.

ii

61st ANNUAL SPOONER SHEEP DAY Spooner Agricultural Research Station of the University of Wisconsin-Madison

Spooner, Wisconsin Saturday, August 17, 2013

9:00 a.m. Registration - Station Headquarters 9:30 Welcome and CALS and Station Updates – Dwight Mueller, Director,

Agricultural Research Stations, College of Agricultural and Life Sciences(CALS), UW-Madison and Philip Holman, Superintendent, Spooner Agricultural Research Station, CALS, UW-Madison

9:45 A New Look at Ovine Progressive Pneumonia – Tom Murphy, Ph.D. Graduate Student, Department of Animal Sciences, UW-Madison, Madison, WI

10:15 Changes in the Spooner Artificial Lamb Rearing System – Yves Berger, Sheep Researcher (retired), Spooner Ag Research Station, UW-Madison, Spooner, WI

10:45 Break 11:05 Awassi – A New Sheep Breed for the U.S. and Wisconsin – Larry Meisegeier,

River Ridge Stock Farm, Bruce, WI and Dave Thomas, Professor of Animal Sciences, UW-Madison, Madison, WI

11:50 Presentation of Sheep Industry Award – Rudy Erickson, Producer, Wilson, Wisconsin

Noon Lamb Barbecue Lunch – $8.00/adult, $5.00/child under 12, Free/child 5 and under

1:15 Quick Sheep Research Updates from the Arlington and Spooner Ag Research Stations -Number of Lambs Gestated and Ewe Milk Production – Emily Olund, UW-

Madison Animal Sciences Undergraduate Student and Spooner Summer Intern, Rice Lake, WI and Tom Murphy

-Longer Milking Intervals in Dairy Ewes – Emily Olund -Fat Levels for Lamb Milk Replacers – Dave Thomas -How Much Water does a Market Lamb’s Fleece Hold? – Dave Thomas

2:30 Program Adjourns – Open House at the Sheep Barn

Spooner Sheep Day is sponsored by the Spooner Agricultural Research Station, Agricultural Research Stations, and Department of Animal Sciences, College of Agricultural and Life

Sciences, University of Wisconsin-Madison and Cooperative Extension, University of Wisconsin-Extension.

iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

PROGRAM ...……………………………………………………………………………………ii SPOONER AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH STATION UPDATE - Phil Holman …………1 A NEW LOOK AT OVINE PROGRESSIVE PNEUMONIA - Thomas W. Murphy, Todd A. Taylor, David. L. Thomas, Michael J. Maroney, and Kathryn M. Nelson ……………………….3 LAMB REARING STRATEGY TO IMPROVE EWE MILK PRODUCTION AND FACILITATE OVERALL MANAGEMENT - Michel Baldin ……………………………….9 BACKGROUND OF THE AWASSI SHEEP BREED - David L. Thomas ………………….21 THE AWASSI SHEEP IN THE USA - Larry Meisegeier …………………………………….26 NUMBER OF LAMBS GESTATED AND EWE MILK PRODUCTION - Emily J. Olund, Thomas W. Murphy, and David L. Thomas …………………………………………………….29 LONGER MILKING INTERVALS IN DAIRY EWES - Emily J. Olund and David L. Thomas …………………………………………………………………………………………..32 EFFECT OF FAT LEVEL OF MILK REPLACER ON THE PERFORMANCE OF ARTIFICIALLY-REARED LAMBS - David L. Thomas, Yves M. Berger, and Scott J. Butterfield ……………………………………………………………………………………….34 HOW MUCH WATER DOES THE FLEECE OF A LIVE MARKET LAMB HOLD? - Kevin Frint, Leah Zehren, David L. Thomas, Todd A. Taylor, and Russell Burgett ………..42 2013 PERFORMANCE OF THE SPOONER AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH STATION FLOCK - Emily J. Olund ……………………………………………………………………….50 PAST RECEIPIENTS OF THE SHEEP INDUSTRY AWARD .............................................53 INDEX OF ARTICLES FROM SPOONER SHEEP DAY AND SPOONER DAIRY SHEEP DAY PROCEEDINGS FROM 2002-2012 ...................................................................54

1

SPOONER AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH STATION UPDATE

Phil Holman Superintendent

Spooner Agricultural Research Station, UW-Madison Spooner, Wisconsin

Many things have happened since 2012 Sheep Day. 2013 Growing Season so far……….

• Only minimal winter kill of alfalfa and some winter rye this spring • 12” of snow on May 2nd • Late planting season but with a sandy soil we fared better than some • 9.45” of rainfall in June but then it quit with less than 2” since July 1 • First crop yields were variable and lower than normal • Good second crop harvest of dry hay • Third crop yields were low • We have a good hay inventory but need a fourth crop to finish filling the silo • Irrigation and cool temperatures have kept pastures still growing • Growing Degree Units are over 200 GDU’s behind average • Corn and soybeans will need more rainfall, heat and a late frost to fully mature

Staff Changes:

• Hiring of Michel Baldin as Sheep Research Program Manager Michel came to us from Brazil and started in October of 2012. He did an excellent job managing the flock during lambing season. He was instrumental in carrying out research projects. *Implementation of newborn lamb removal from ewe rearing system *Blood sampling for Tom Murphy’s genetic evaluation project *Starting to analyze flock history data for trends *Implementing new data collection methods to ease data entry *Changing nutritional levels in lamb milk replacer and feed *Initiation of summer milking trial with student intern

• However, Michel left us in July and is now pursuing his PhD in Ruminant Nutrition at Penn State University. Approval has been granted to advertise for a Sheep Research Program manager and the position is about to be posted.

• Keith Dahlstrom, our Farm Equipment Operator (more importantly the lamb cook for

sheep day), left in December to expand the cash grain farming operation with his father. Forrest Anderson was hired in April as our Farm Equipment Operator

2

Several Facilities Improvements

• Office Building Heating System Project 2012 o Sheep Day 2012 was held in the machine shed as the Office Building heating

system project first turned into an asbestos removal project. At the time of 2012 sheep day, all staff were displaced to the large meeting room

• Office Building Roofing Project 2013 o After storms, there were more shingles on the ground than on the roof

• Interior meeting room and offices were painted and the exterior wood trim and

stairwell fences were painted to give the building a new look

3

A NEW LOOK AT OVINE PROGRESSIVE PNEUMONIA

Thomas W. Murphy1, Todd A. Taylor1, David. L. Thomas1, Michael J. Maroney2, and Kathryn M. Nelson2

1Department of Animal Sciences and 2Research Animal Resources Center University of Wisconsin-Madison

Madison, Wisconsin

Background

Ovine lentiviruses (OLV) are found throughout the majority of sheep producing countries in the world. Ovine progressive pneumonia virus (OPP virus) is a strain of OLV common to North American sheep operations. In a survey conducted by the National Animal Health Monitoring System in 2001, 36% of sampled sheep operations throughout the U.S. had at least one infected animal. Overall, they found 24% of sheep tested for the OPP virus were positive (USDA, 2003). Similar to Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV), the OPP virus is a retro-virus that persists in infected sheep over their lifetime with no existing cure or preventative vaccination.

OPP diagnosis is typically done by submitting a blood sample to a veterinary diagnostic lab

where they will perform an ELISA test. The ELISA test measures the level of antibodies an animal has produced to combat a viral infection. If this level is above a predetermined threshold, the animal is considered to be positive for the disease. The most common signs of OPP virus infection in the ewe are a loss of body condition and hardening of the tissues of the udder (APHIS, 2003). In more severe cases, OPP virus infection affects the respiratory and nervous systems, and animals can have difficulty breathing and a loss of total motility. Since OPP does affect some producers, it was of interest to a group of researchers at the U.S. Meat Animal Research Center (USMARC) in Clay Center, Nebraska to evaluate the degree of genetic susceptibility to OPP virus infection. TMEM-154 Diplotype Test

The researchers at USMARC took advantage of relatively recently developed genetic technology called a Single Nucleotide Polymorphism chip, or a SNP chip, to determine if there are any areas of the sheep genome that explain some susceptibility or resistance to OPP. After sampling many sheep from several breeds that were either positive or negative for OPP, they found one region related to OPP susceptibility in the sheep genome. This region was located near the gene called TMEM-154 (Heaton et al., 2012)

TMEM-154 is a gene that codes for a trans-membrane protein. Trans-membrane proteins

serve a variety of functions such as cell to cell communication, but the role of the specific trans-membrane protein associated with the TMEM-154 gene is believed to act as a “guard tower” to the cell by granting or denying a virus access into the cell’s interior. Variations in the DNA sequence of TMEM-154 are therefore thought to make this trans-membrane protein better or worse at keeping the OPP virus from invading the cell. These DNA differences are arranged in a variety of forms called haplotypes, the most common of which are named haplotypes 1, 2, and 3. An animal inherits one haplotype from its sire and one from its dam and the combination of two

4

haplotypes is called a diplotype. The effect of each haplotype on OPP susceptibility and its overall frequency reported by the USMARC group is presented in Table 1.

Haplotype 1 was reported to be the most prevalent in these sheep populations, and it resulted

in lower susceptibility to OPP virus infection. Haplotypes 2 and 3 were found at lesser frequencies, and they resulted in greater susceptibility to OPP. Although haplotypes 2 and 3 are at lower frequencies, they are dominant to haplotype 1. Therefore, animals with the following diplotypes are all highly susceptible to OPP: 2,2; 3,3; 2,3; 2,1; and 3,1. That is, only animals with the diplotype 1,1 are less susceptible to OPP. Overall, the USMARC group found that animals with one or more copies of haplotypes 2 or 3 were 2.8 times more likely to be infected with the OPP virus compared to diplotype 1,1 animals.

Table 1. The effect on OPP susceptibility and frequency of the three most

prevalent TMEM-154 haplotypes reported by USMARC.

Haplotype

OPP effect

Frequency

1 less susceptible 0.77

2 highly susceptible 0.08

3 highly susceptible 0.12 The Effect of OPP on Performance

We know that over time an OPP positive animal will start to show symptoms that could potentially affect their performance. A hard udder in a ewe will most likely yield less milk and affect her lamb’s weaning weights. Labored breathing and decreased motility could affect ewes and rams during the grazing and breeding seasons. The potential for economic loss from keeping OPP positive animals is easy to imagine, but studies investigating the effect of OPP on performance traits have reported mixed results.

Several studies have reported no difference between OPP positive and negative animals for a

variety of production traits such as birth and weaning weight, growth, and wool traits (Gates et al., 1978; Dohoo et al., 1987; and Snowder et al., 1990a,b). One study actually found OPP positive ewes to have improved reproductive performance compared to negative ewes (Huffman et al., 1981). The most recent OPP work from USMARC found that OPP positive ewes had a decrease in conception rate, number of lambs weaned, and litter weaning weight compared to negative ewes (Keen et al., 1996). Some explanations for these conflicting results could be that the effect of OPP is dependent on production system, breed type, or the test used in the diagnosis. Materials and Methods

One difficulty facing scientists who develop vaccinations and genetic tests for viruses is that viruses can have an incredibly high mutation rate. This poses problems because strains of viruses can develop by geographic region which often makes vaccinations and genetic tests less universal. The first objective of our study was to validate the findings of the USMARC group by

5

classifying animals according to their TMEM-154 diplotype and OPP infection status. Next we wanted to utilize flock production records do determine the effect of OPP infection status of dams on their performance and that of their lambs.

Data were compiled from flock records from the University of Wisconsin-Madison Arlington

Agricultural Research Station from the years 2007 to 2011. In total, 425 and 314 lamb and ewe records were analyzed, respectively. The data set consisted of purebred Hampshire (HAMP; n = 72) and Polypay (POLY; n = 58) ewes, the majority of which lamb in the winter with a few lambing in the fall. The flock is intensively managed throughout the year. Ewes lamb indoors and lambs have access to creep feed at an early age.

Throughout the course of 2012, blood was collected from ewes and tested for OPP via the

Small Ruminant Lentivirus cELISA kit distributed by Veterinary Medical Research & Development (Pullman, WA) at the Wisconsin Veterinary Diagnostic Laboratory (WVDL). The kit’s protocol was followed by WVDL which sets a sample inhibition of 35%; below this value a sample is considered OPP negative (NEG) and above it a sample is considered OPP positive (POS). The result of this test was added to the ewe’s existing flock record for each of her production years. In addition to serologic testing for OPP, blood was also collected for genotyping at TMEM-154, a test made publicly available by GeneSeek (Lincoln, NE). Each ewe’s haplotype at TMEM-154 was added to her existing flock record.

Results

OPP Infection Rates. The results from the cELISA test are presented in Table 2. 58% of the HAMP ewes and 43% of the POLY ewes tested positive for OPP. Overall, the Arlington flock had a 52% infection rate which is considerably higher than the U.S. sample average reported by NAHMS (2003).

Table 2. OPP infection rate of ewes by breed and overall at the Arlington Agricultural Research Station.

Infection staus

Breed Positive, n (%) Negative, n (%) Total

Hampshire 42 (58.3) 30 (41.7) 72

Polypay 25 (43.1) 33 (56.9) 58

Overall 67 (51.5) 63 (48.5) 130

OPP Infection and Genetic Susceptibility. The TMEM-154 genetic test results for the two

breeds combined are presented in Table 3 as diplotype and haplotype frequencies. Approximately 58% of the ewes had the less susceptible diplotype 1,1, and haplotype 1 was at the highest frequency (77%) followed by haplotypes 2 and 3 (13% and 4%, respectively).

6

Table 3. TMEM-154 diplotype and haplotype POLY and HAMP combined frequencies. Diplotype 1,1 1,2 1,3 2,2 Frequency 0.579 0.200 0.084 0.021

Haplotype 1 2 3 Frequency 0.768 0.129 0.042

Note: Diplotype and haplotype frequencies do not add to 1.0. A fourth haplotype (haplotype 4) exists in this population at a frequency of .061, but its relationship with OPP susceptibility is still not well understood.

To determine the effect of TMEM-154 diplotype on OPP status in our flock, the ewes were

arranged in a contingency table where they were classified by their OPP status and if they had the less susceptible diplotype 1,1 or one or more copies of the highly susceptible haplotype 2 or 3. These results are presented in Table 4. A simple Chi-Square test with one degree of freedom found significant (χ2 = 20.86, P < 0.0001) effect of TMEM-154 haplotype and OPP infection. Animals with one or more copies of haplotype 2 or 3 were 2.2 times more likely to test positive for OPP than animals with two copies of haplotype 1. These results are in general agreement with the USMARC study.

Table 4. TMEM-154 classes and OPP status of Polypay and Hampshire ewes combined.

TMEM-154 haplotype

OPP Status Diplotype 1,1, n (%) Haplotype 2 or 3, n (%) Total

Positive 34 (30.9) 41 (67.2) 75 Negative 76 (69.1) 20 (32.8) 96

Total 110 61 171

OPP Infection and Performance. Lamb weaning weights (WW) were adjusted to 70 days of age and then analyzed in a mixed model that included: year, sex of lamb, birth type of lamb, breed of lamb, dam OPP status, age of dam within year, and breed x birth type interaction as fixed effects and sire and dam as random effects. Results are presented in Table 5. Not surprisingly, ram lambs weighed significantly more than ewe lambs at weaning, and single born lambs weighed significantly more than twin or triplet born lambs. There was no statistically significant breed effect, even though Hampshire lambs had mean weaning weights 2.8 lb. greater than Polypay lambs. There was no effect of dam’s OPP status on the70 day weaning weights of her lambs with lambs raised by both positive and negative dams having the same mean weaning weight of 66.7 lb.

7

Table 5. Least square means for 70 day weaning weights of lambs by sex of lamb, birth type of

lamb, breed of lamb, and dam OPP status. Effect Class Weaning wt., lb. Effect Class Weaning wt., lb.

Sex* Ram 69.2 Breed Hampshire 68.1 Ewe 64.2 Polypay 65.3 Birth Type* Single 75.5

Dam OPP status Positive 66.7

Twin 64.4 Negative 66.7 Triplet 60.2 * indicates a significant effect (P < 0.0001).

Individual lamb 70 day weaning weights were adjusted for sex effects and then summed with its siblings’ sex-adjusted weights (if it had any) within a year to create a total litter weaning weight per ewe. Ewes that did not lamb or that lambed but did not wean a lamb were assigned a zero for this trait, so the trait is weight of lamb weaned per ewe exposed to breeding (LWE). Fertility (whether or not a ewe lambed after being exposed to a ram; 1 or 0, respectively) and number of lambs born per ewe lambing (NLB) were also analyzed. The model for the ewe traits included: year, breed of ewe, ewe OPP status, and age of ewe within year as fixed effects and service sire and ewe as random effects. The results from the ewe analysis are presented in Table 6. For fertility, there was no effect of breed or OPP status. There was a breed effect for NLB with Polypay ewes (a maternal breed) giving birth to more lambs than Hampshire ewes (a more terminally focused breed). But again, there was no effect of ewe OPP status on NLB. For LWE there was again a breed effect partly because Polypay ewes gave birth to and reared more lambs than did Hampshire ewes. Ewe OPP status, yet again, did not have a significant effect on LWE.

Table 6. Least square means for fertility, number of lambs born, and litter weight weaned per ewe exposed by breed and ewe OPP status.

Trait Effect Class Estimate Fertility, % Breed Hampshire 93

Polypay 89

Ewe OPP Positive 91 Negative 91

Number of lambs born per ewe lambing

Breed* Hampshire 1.51 Polypay 2.01

Ewe OPP Positive 1.76

Negative 1.75 Litter weight weaned per ewe exposed, lb.

Breed* Hampshire 84.4 Polypay 121.6

Ewe OPP Positive 106.1

Negative 99.9 * Indicates a significant effect (P < 0.0001)

8

Conclusions

A ewe’s OPP status showed no effect on the any of the performance traits studied. To accurately estimate the effect of OPP on production traits the ideal experimental design would have a cohort of ewe lambs that are continually tested for OPP over their productive life and analyzed for performance differences after several years. It is possible that we have unknowingly culled OPP positive ewes from the Arlington flock over the years thereby biasing these results. It is also possible that the effect of OPP is farm/ranch dependent.

The TMEM 154 haplotype test appears to reveal genetic differences among animals for

susceptibility to the OPP virus. This test could prove to be valuable to producers experiencing losses due to OPP. By purchasing diplotype 1,1 rams, a producer can increase the frequency of the favorable haplotype 1, and over time, increase the proportion of his ewe flock that is of the desired 1,1 diplotype with a lower susceptibility to OPP. Literature Cited Ovine Progressive Pneumonia: Awareness, Management, and Seroprevalance. Animal and Plant

Health Inspection Service. USDA (2003) Heaton, M.P. et al., 2012. Reduced Lentivirus Susceptibility in Sheep with TMEM154

Mutations. U.S. Meat Animal Research Center, Clay Center, Nebraska. PLoS Genetics. Gates, N.L. et al., 1978. Serologic survey of prevalence of ovine progressive pneumonia in Idaho

range sheep. J. Am. Vet. Med. Assoc. Dohoo, I.R. et al., 1987. The effects of maedi-visna virus infection on productivity in ewes. Prev.

Vet. Med. Snowder, G.D. et al., 1990a. Prevalence and effect of subclinical ovine progressive pneumonia

virus infection on wool and lamb production. Am. Vet. Med. Assoc. Snowder, G.D. et al., 1990b. Analysis of milk production and composition in ewes seropositive

and seronegative for ovine progressive pneumonia virus. SID Sheep Res. J. Huffman, E.M. et. al., 1981. Serologic prevalence of ovine progressive pneumonia in a western

range flock of sheep. J. Am. Vet. Med. Assoc. Keen, J.E. et al., 1997. Effect of ewe ovine lentivirus infection on ewe and lamb productivity.

Prev. Vet. Med. Resources OPPV Susceptibility Genetic Test. GeneSeek. $12. 4665 Innovation Drive, Suite 120, Lincoln, NE 68521 402-435-0665 OPP Elisa Test. Wisconsin Veterinary Diagnostic Lab. In state- $6.50. Out of state- $9.75. 445 Easterday Lane, Madison, WI 53706 608-262-5432, Toll Free: 800-608-8387

9

LAMB REARING STRATEGY TO IMPROVE EWE MILK PRODUCTION AND FACILITATE OVERALL MANAGEMENT

Michel Baldin

Spooner Agricultural Research Station University of Wisconsin-Madison

Spooner, Wisconsin Introduction

Increasing farm’s profitability is always a great challenge facing dairy sheep producers. It is logical to say that net income rises when gross income is increased and costs of production are reduced. However, it may be challenging to identify which factors and actions actually drive the profit equation. Among all possibilities, increasing milk production, successfully raising lambs and reducing labor costs appear to have a considerable impact on farming profit.

There are a number of methods to increase the quantity of milk produced in a dairy sheep

operation. Improvements in nutrition and genetics generate large and immediate results, for instance. But when the gains expected from feeding and genetics are exhausted, other areas have to be explored in order to keep results at satisfactory levels. In this case, management actions appear to have some interesting possibilities; particularly during lambing and early lactation. More specifically, the lamb rearing system might play an important role in profitability of a dairy sheep operation.

Background

Different lamb rearing methods can be applied. Under extensive or semi-extensive production systems, lambs are reared by nursing until weaning while in intensively managed sheep operations, lambs are removed from the ewe much quicker and then artificially reared.

Even in intensive management systems, a short suckling period still precedes exclusive

milking to ensure adequate colostrum intake. Therefore, most dairy sheep operations usually set up lambing pens (jugs) to accommodate ewes prior to lambing or that have just given birth. Usually fresh ewes remain in these jugs with their lambs from 24 to 72 hours. This is the system that has mostly been used in North America dairy sheep operations, including the sheep program at the Spooner Agricultural Research Station (University of Wisconsin-Madison).

The development of lamb-specific milk replacer has allowed artificial rearing to perform as

satisfactory as ewe’s milk. For example, McKusick et al. (1999) showed that weaning weight (30 days of age) did not differ between lambs raised on milk replacer (separated from ewes between 24 and 36 h postpartum) and raised by nursing. In the very intensive Mediterranean systems, ewes are managed in the same manner as dairy cows and weaning occurs immediately after lambing, followed by exclusive milking to the end of lactation (Marnet, 1997).

10

Changes in the Spooner ARS System

For the 2013 lambing season the Spooner ARS decided to modify the way that the dairy flock is managed. The new method follows a more intensive management system, and basically it consists of:

1 – Lambing: After delivery, a period of approximately 10 minutes is allowed so ewes are

able to lick off the lambs. After that, newborns are moved into a heated area and the navel is clipped and disinfected. The fresh ewe is placed in a holding pen to be milked in the following milking.

2 – Colostrum feeding: Colostrum is fed by the procedure known as Tube Feeding. The first

feeding is done right after navel treatment, and three additional feedings are done at 4-hour intervals. It is recommended that lambs receive 10 percent of their body weight in colostrum. However, there is some indication that increasing the amount of colostrum fed during the first few hours after birth improves passive immunity (antibodies transferred via colostrum). Thus, a 10-12 lb. lamb would receive approximately 200-250 ml (6.5-8.5 oz.) of warmed colostrum (± 102oF) per feeding.

3 – Milking ewes: Fresh ewes are the last group to enter the milking parlor at each milking,

and they are milked into bucket milking units so that colostrum can be saved. First and second milkings of the fresh ewes are saved for colostrum feeding and the third milking can be mixed with marketable milk.

4 – Day 2: On day 2 after birth, lambs receive ear tag identification, body weight is recorded,

and the tail is docked. In addition, a shot of selenium and vitamin E is given for the prevention of white muscle disease. After that, lambs are moved into a “starter pen” where they will be trained to nurse at a nipple connected to the automatic milk replacer feeder.

Improving Ewe’s Milk Production

One of the main objectives of removing the lambs from the ewe and feeding milk replacer is to increase marketable milk. But in addition, there is some indication that this strategy may also improve total lactation milk production. First, it is known that the regular full draw on the ewe maintains a maximal milk synthesis (Martin et al., 1999). This was initially shown in dairy cows. By increasing the milking frequency of cows (3x/day vs. 2x/day), it was possible to increase the total milk production (Person et al., 1979). Much less research has been done with dairy sheep, however, results appear to follow that of dairy cows. In the trial conducted at Spooner by de Bie et al. (2000) for example, ewes milked 3 times a day produced 12.6 liters more milk (+15%) during the first 30 days of lactation than ewes milked twice a day. On the other hand, if very young lambs are left on the ewe and do not take all the milk the ewe has produced, then the milk draw is below the maximal level and future production may be affected.

Secondly, it is established that peak milk production in cows plays an important role in

determining lactation milk production, since there is a high and positive correlation between these two factors (Young, 1998). Pearson et al. (1979) demonstrated that higher starting yield in

11

early lactation in cows led to a prolonged peak yield and a lower subsequent rate of decline, which increased the amount of milk produced during the lactation. In dairy ewes as in cows, milk yield in the first month of lactation, i.e. when the lactation peak is attained, was highly correlated with total milk production per lactation (Rossi, 1976). Thus, it is plausible to suggest that increases in milk production may be achieved if exclusive milking begins immediately after lambing. However, we have not conducted an experiment to show that putting ewes immediately to milking after lambing results in any more lactation milk yield compared to ewes who are first allowed to suckle their lambs for 24 to 72 hours before being put to milking.

Facilitating Overall Management

Lambing season is the critical time when the sheep producer's skill, effort, and concern determine the success of the entire operation. Regardless if the primary labor source is unpaid family labor or farm employees, it is crucial to implement a strategy that facilitates daily routine during the lambing season. This will improve labor efficiency and, therefore, reduce overall labor costs. The artificial rearing of lambs modifies several aspects in the farm routine, and most of the time advantages arise out of that since overall management is generally facilitated. Some of these aspects are listed below.

Room usage: Lambing jugs should be preferably 5 by 5 feet, and the general rule of thumb is

that you should have enough pens to house 10 percent of the flock at a given time. Thus, lambing jugs may take some considerable space in the lambing area. On the other hand, not bringing ewes inside the lambing area will give you room to accommodate more lambs in smaller pens and perhaps keep more lambs in a heated building for a longer period of time.

Checking the ewe: Soon after delivery, the ewe's udder should be checked for milk supply

and potential problems, such as mastitis. Also, each teat should be stripped to remove the wax plug. Undoubtedly this management runs better in the milking parlor and in addition, mastitis cases are identified earlier and treatment may start right away.

Ensuring the nursing: Lambs should be monitored closely to make sure they nurse and take

in a sufficient amount of colostrum. Poor nursing may be caused by factors such as too weak to stand, rejection by dam, mastitis, teats that are too large or close to the ground, and inadequate milk production. In contrast, the procedure of colostrum tube feeding ensures that every lamb will get the right amount of colostrum at the right time.

Uneven suckling: Occasionally lambs may only suck from one gland, leading to considerable

distention of the other gland and teat. It has been speculated that inefficient evacuation of milk from the glands predisposes a ewe to intramammary infection (Menzies, 2000). This problem is eliminated when colostrum tube feeding takes place and exclusive milking follows lambing.

Teat and udder damage: Lambs can be rough on a ewe’s udder when nursing. Frequent and

vigorous suckling of lambs may lead to bruising and eventually invasion of Pasteurella spp organisms, which also predisposes ewes to intramammary infection (Menzies, 2000). This can be avoided by eliminating the suckling period.

12

Environment in the lambing facility: Adult ewes while defecate and urinate in the lambing jugs. In addition, lambing during winter forces most producers to lamb in tightly confined barns and buildings. Infrequent replacement of bedding and improper ventilation can lead to buildup of high levels of ammonia and other noxious gases in the lambing facility, which allows Pasteurella hemolytica to establish itself in the lung tissue and cause pneumonia of nursing lambs (Hartwig, 2000). Thus, only having lambs in the lambing area reduces labor because bedding and cleaning are not needed as often as when adult ewes are present, and the risk of developing pneumonia will be reduced, which may increase considerably the number of lambs weaned.

Implications

There are some adjustments that producers will need to make when implementing the intensive management system on their farms. Because ewes are milked in the first milking after lambing, some ewes may enter the milking parlor still carrying the placenta and the udder might be dirty with blood or fluids that are naturally expelled during lambing. Generally it is not a matter of great concern, and manual intervention to remove the placenta should not occur. If the placenta is not expelled after 24 hours, a veterinarian may need to contacted, but this is no different than in any standard sheep operation. Udders that are dirty with dried blood and birth fluids need to be washed before milking as would be done with any dirty udder in the milking parlor.

Another point is that bucket milking units have to be set up in order to save the colostrum for

tube feeding new lambs and to prevent colostrum from mixing with the marketable milk. Fresh ewes should remain on buckets for at least two milkings.

Proper colostrum feeding and management is another matter requiring close attention.

Recently harvested colostrum can be fed right away or stored in the refrigerator (no longer than 3 to 4 days) for future feedings. It is also recommended to have some frozen colostrum in case no fresh colostrum is on hand for newborn lambs. The first colostrum feeding must be done right after lambing, and at 4-hour intervals until a total of 4 colostrum feedings have been given. Depending on the number of lambs being born per day, it may take a considerable portion of the day of one person just to take care of this single chore.

In addition, the process of thawing and warming colostrum must be done slowly, because

rapid defrosting or heating can destroy the antibodies in the colostrum. Another consideration is to ensure that colostrum tube feeding is done safely and effectively. It may require a brief amount of instruction and a little practice to perform this crucial task, since the challenge is to insert the tube into the esophagus and not the trachea. Furthermore, if a drench gun is being used, excessive force should not be applied, as the pressure could rupture the stomach or cause fluid to enter the lungs.

It becomes very time-consuming to separate harvested colostrum in order to feed each lamb

with its own dam’s colostrum. Thus, in this system, colostrum is usually pooled. In general it is not a matter of concern as long as poorer quality colostrum is not mixed with the better one. The exception is for producers who are attempting to develop an ovine progressive pneumonia (OPP)

13

free flock, since OPP can be transmitted via colostrum. Only colostrum from OPP negative ewes should be used in this system. It should be noted that recent research suggests that the primary route of OPP infection is horizontal, from infected sheep to non-infected sheep via aerosol droplets, primarily when sheep are closely confined. OPP infection through the colostrum of infected ewes to their newborn lambs does occur but may not be the primary route of infection.

Lastly, a few things to consider about lamb milk replacer. Satisfactory milk replacer is

expensive and in some areas, difficult to acquire. Additionally, death losses from abomasal bloat associated with artificial rearing (milk replacer) can occur if mixing and feeding are not done in a proper manner.

Supplies

Dairy sheep producers may need to acquire some additional supplies in order to efficiently raise lambs under the intensive management system. A colostrometer is required to evaluate colostrum quality. A refrigerator is needed for adequate colostrum storage, and a freezer is desirable so that extra colostrum can be frozen and stored for a longer period of time. A water bath is recommended for correct colostrum thawing and warming. Supplies for colostrum tube feeding include a stomach tube and a 60cc syringe or a drench gun of similar or larger size.

As far as milk replacer feeding, the “lamb bar” system is best because it allows lambs to feed

themselves on a free-choice basis minimizing labor and maximizing the amount of milk consumed, which promotes maximum growth. An automatic milk replacer feeder is indicated because it mixes a small quantity of warmed water (feeder has its own water heater) with milk replacer at an adjustable concentration.

Spooner ARS 2013 Lamb Rearing Results

For the 2013 season, the Spooner ARS flock was maintained under the intensive management system. Lamb survival rate is shown in Table 1and growth performance in Table 2.

Table 1. Lamb survival rate.

Variable Lambing dates 1/16/13 to 5/7/13

Lambings 260 Lambs delivered 494 Lambs delivered per lambing 1.9 Lambs born alive 480 Lambs born alive per lambing 1.8 Lambs alive at 60 days 435 Lambs alive at 60 days per lambing 1.7 Death loss to 60 days, % of delivered 11.9 Death loss to 60 days, % of alive at birth 12.3

14

Table 2. Growth traits. Period Age, days Body Weight, kg Birth - 5 Weaning 31 15 1st weight after weaning 69 29 2nd weight after weaning 115 49 Body weight gain kg/day Birth to Weaning 0.30 Weaning to 1st weighing 0.37 1st to 2nd weighing 0.42

Conclusion

Results obtained in the 2013 season demonstrate the applicability of the intensive management system, where ewes are milked from lambing, and lambs are transferred at birth to artificial rearing units. It seems to be clear that this strategy exploits the full biological potential of ewes for milk production. However, research must be done in order to determine its profitability.

References de Bie, Linda, Y. M. Berger, and D. L. Thomas. 2000. The effect of three times a day milking at

the beginning of lactation on the milk production of East Friesian crossbred ewes. Proc. 6th Great lakes Dairy Sheep Symp., Guelph, Ontario, Canada. University of Wisconsin-Madison, Dept. of Anim. Sci. pp. 1-9.

Hartwig, N. 2000. Sheep health: pneumonia. Iowa State University Extension. Fact Sheet No. 5. Electronic version.

McKusick, B. C., Y. M. Berger, and D. L. Thomas. 1999. Effects of three weaning/rearing systems on commercial milk production and lamb growth. Proc. 47th Annual Spooner Sheep Day, Dept. Animal Sci., Univ. of Wisconsin-Madison. 33-48.

Marnet, P. G. 1997. Ewe management for improved milk yield and quality. Proc. Third Great Lakes Dairy Sheep Symposium, April 4, Madison, WI. 5-11.

Martin, J., O’Brien, A., Wand, C., 1999. Artificial Rearing of Lambs, Fact sheet, pp. 431–123. Menzies, P. I. 2000. Mastitis of sheep-overview of recent literature, In Proceedings of the 6th

Great Lakes Dairy Sheep Symposium., Guelph, 68-76. Pearson, R. E., Fulton , L. A., Thompson, P. D. and Smith., J.W. 1979. Three times a day

milking during the first half on lactation. J. Dairy Sci. 62: 1941-1950. Rossi G. 1976. La curva di lattazione di pecore di razza Sarda private dell’agnello a due giorni

dal parto. Proc. 2nd Natl. Congr. A.S.P.A., Bari, Italy: 165-172. Young, A. 1998. Are You Monitoring Your Peak Milk and Days in Milk at Peak? Part A. Peak

Milk. Utah State University Extension. Available at: http://extension.usu.edu/dairy/files/uploads/htms/peaka.htm

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

BACKGROUND OF THE AWASSI SHEEP BREED

David L. Thomas Department of Animal Sciences

University of Wisconsin-Madison Madison, Wisconsin

Much of the following information will come from two papers:

Rummel, T., A.V. Zarate, and E. Gootwine. 2005. The world wide gene flow of the Improved Awassi and Assaf sheep breeds from Israel. In: Gene flow in animal genetic resources. A study on status, impact and trends. Institute of Animal Production in the Tropics and Subtropics of the University of Hohenheim, Germany. Gootwine, E. 2011. Mini review: Breeding Awassi and Assaf sheep for diverse management conditions. Tropical Animal Health and Production 43:1289-1296.

Unimproved Awassi

The local (unimproved) Awassi is the major breed of sheep of the Middle East (SW Asia, Figure 1) in the countries of Turkey and Iran and further south. The Awassi breed has been raised by nomadic shepherds in a relatively hostile environment of limited feed availability and a very hot and dry climate. The local Awassi, due primarily to its environment, has low productivity; averaging 1.1 to 1.2 lambs born per ewe lambing and 70 liters (160 lb.) of milk per lactation. During more than 5,000 years of domestication, the Awassi has developed a large, fat tail (Figure 2); originally as a source of animal fat since the Moslems and Jews of the area could not utilize pig fat for religious reasons.

Figure 1. Countries of the Middle East. Figure 2. Fat tail of an Awassi ram. Improved Awassi of Israel

Jewish people returning to Palestine in the early 1900’s bought local Awassi sheep from the Bedouin shepherds of the area. As early as 1932 the Jewish shepherds agreed to improve the

22

Awassi for milk and mutton production, and in 1937, it was agreed to concentrate on improved milk production. The flock book for the Improved Awassi in Israel was started in 1943 and was followed by intensive selection for milk production through to the present time. While other countries in the area have organized selection programs for the Awassi, the Israeli program has probably been the most successful. Milk recorded Improved Awassi ewes, under intensive management in Israel, average over 500 liters (1,140 lb.) of milk in a 214 day lactation period.

Even with its very high milk production, the Improved Awassi today can be found as a large

flock in only one location in Israel: the Ein Harod flock. Due to the low prolificacy of the Improved Awassi, crossing with the East Friesian dairy breed started in 1955 and led to the development of the Assaf breed, which is now more popular for dairy production than the Improved Awassi in Israel. Even though the Assaf may produce a bit less milk than the Improved Awassi, the Assaf compensates with increased lamb production.

Starting in 1965 and through 2005, the Improved Awassi was exported from Israel to 15

countries in 28 different transactions. A total of 5,433 sheep, 1,100 doses of semen, and 143 embryos were exported. Today, there are large commercial milking flocks of Improved Awassi and Assaf in several countries with Spain and Portugal being two of the most prominent. However, due to current U.S. animal health regulations, it is not possible for the U.S. to import live sheep, semen, or embryos from any of the countries in Europe or the Middle East. However, it is possible to import sheep, semen, and embryos from New Zealand and Australia, and there are Improved Awassi sheep in both countries; with far greater numbers in Australia than in New Zealand. The Awassi-cross sheep of Larry Meisegeier have their origin in Australia. Below is information on the origin of the Improved Awassi in New Zealand and Australia, copied directly from the paper of Rummel et al. (2005):

“There have been two separate transfers of the Improved Awassi sheep to Australia, one started by governmental institutions and another driven by a private company. Sunderman and Johns (1994) gave a brief history about the governmental activities:

In the early 1980s the Department of Agriculture of Western Australia began a

program to import Awassi fat tail sheep in order to diversify agriculture and improve the potential for exports. Dr. John Lightfoot, now Executive Director of Animal Industries, managed this project from its conception and saw mainly three opportunities in importing the Awassi sheep:

1. A new sheep breeding industry to supply Awassi cross ram lambs, young breeding

ewes and chilled carcases to the premium “fat-tail” markets in the Middle East. 2. A specialized sheep dairy industry to meet growing domestic and export demands

for sheep dairy products. 3. An expanded carpet wool industry with the Awassi fleece replacing carpet wool

imports. In 1986 embryos were collected in Cyprus from the Ministry of Agriculture’s Awassi

flock, which had originated from the two best Awassi dairy flocks in Israel, the Ein Harod and Sde Nahum. Washed and frozen embryos were preferred to live animals to prevent introducing exotic diseases to Australia. The flock in Cyprus was chosen as

23

source for the Awassi breeding material because a very high standard of disease surveillance and reporting had been maintained. The frozen embryos were transferred to the Cocos Island Quarantine Station and implanted into Merino ewes. From the 311 embryos collected in Cyprus, only 51 pure Awassi lambs were born in September 1987, of which 41 survived to 100 days. Most losses are thought to have occurred during the embryo washing treatments required to remove any organisms that may have been present in the embryo flushings. The young lambs were then flown to a specially built quarantine facility in Kununurra, West Australia, and kept there until July 1990 when all the animals were transported to a larger quarantine station at Wongan Hills. The relocation was necessary for the Department to check for fibre contamination of Merino clips, which represent a serious threat to Australia’s fine wool sector. Better facilities at Wongan Hills also enabled the multiplication program to proceed. During the seven years of quarantine the sheep and their progeny were subjected to rigorous observation and testing, and prior to the release the original imports were all slaughtered and their organs examined in detail for possible diseases. At the same time, the original donor flock was re-examined to confirm its freedom from disease. Finally, in October 1990, 1640 pure Awassi and crossbred (Awassi x Merino) sheep were released from quarantine. The Awassi flock was ready for commercial development in Australia.

The second transfer of Improved Awassi sheep to Australia is closely linked to the

names of Dr. Jock Allison, New Zealand, and Mr. Tom Grant from Australia. At first, the import was to New Zealand, and from there the Awassi went to Australia, where almost all of their offspring are now established. Only a few Awassi sheep are still producing on farms on the northern Island of New Zealand, and their numbers are decreasing. A brief history of this transfer is given below, sourced from RIRDC (2001), and personal communication with Dr. Jock Allison:

The transfer of Improved Awassi sheep from Israel to New Zealand was the idea of a

scientist and sheep breeder in New Zealand, Dr. Jock Allison. At the end of the nineties he founded the AWASSI NEW ZEALAND LTD, as an instrument for importing sheep. It took him three years to develop an import protocol, and to negotiate conditions of entry of frozen Awassi sheep embryos from Israel to New Zealand. This crucial work as well as all the later effort importing the sheep to New Zealand was conducted by a New Zealand team of scientists under the supervision of Dr. Allison. In 1990, Tom Grant, an Australian farmer and business man, came into contact with Dr. Allison and took a small shareholding in the company. Soon, the Australian investments increased to 90% and the name of the company was changed to AWASSI AUSTRALIA Ltd, with Mr. Grant as chairman.

After negotiations with the Israeli animal health department conducted by Dr. Allison

in 1991, the company bought 65 ewes and 4 rams in Israel from the Kibbutz Ein Harod at a price of $27,800. As a requirement of the import protocol, ewes of at least six years of age were chosen, as older animals have had a longer time to manifest scrapie if it was present. The sheep were shipped to a specially built interim quarantine station (4 shipping containers, which had been modified as accommodation) in a Moshav in the Arava valley, 90 km north of Eylat in southern Israel. After two rounds of breeding

24

conducted by the New Zealand team, 143 frozen embryos were flown to Somes Island, New Zealand, a maximum security quarantine station. There they were implanted into Romney ewes, which had been bought by the New Zealand group and after 60 days of maximum security quarantine (all the health tests passed), the pregnant recipients were transferred to a research station of the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries (MAF) quarantine at Bulls, near Palmerston North, where 43 purebred Improved Awassi lambs were born alive.

But efforts to dramatically increase the numbers of purebred stock failed because

artificial breeding proved difficult with the Awassi breed. After four years of quarantine in New Zealand, for commercial reasons, almost the whole stock, 64 purebred Awassi and 292 crossbreds with Romney sheep (1/2 and 3/4 Awassi), was shipped to Australia in March 1995. They were brought to a farm where they could be observed by the New South Wales (NSW) Department of Agriculture and finally transferred to Mr. Grant’s farm near Cowra were he had set up a modern sheep milking unit.

The results of the first mating were poor because the Awassi crossbred rams had

difficulties mounting the purebred Awassi ewes. So they had to be hand mated, which was labour-intensive. Finally Mr. Grant had over 2,000 ewes, the majority being crossbreds of various degrees. The first milkings [were] in August 1996. By the end of the import process in 1996, 25% of the AWASSI (Aust) Pty Ltd was owned by a Saudi national, 25% by a Kuwaiti and the remaining 50% by a consortium of Australians including the Grant family. It has invested approximately $2.4 million of shareholders’ funds to date in importing the Awassi sheep and establishing facilities for sheep breeding, management and milking at its base near Cowra, in Central NSW. Part of the money came from the Rural Industries Research and Development Cooperation (RIRDC), Australia.

The breeding flock in Western Australia that came from Cyprus was bought by a

company named YYH Holdings, Perth, which has shares held mainly by Kuwaitis. Stock numbers were increased during the last 14 years as fast as possible in order to produce prime fat tail lamb for live export to the growing Middle Eastern market. In 2004 approximately 100,000 Improved Awassi sheep were kept by this company in Western Australia near Perth. Besides establishing the stock imported from Cyprus, YYH Holdings purchased a major share in AWASSI (Austr.) Ltd. Cowra, to access the only source of genetically different Awassi breeding material in Australia to prevent inbreeding in its Improved Awassi stock. From their side there was no interest to support the AWASSI (Austr.) Ltd. to overcome serious financial problems going along with establishing the milking unit in Cowra. As a result of this policy of YYH, difficulties in the dairy process and problems of marketing the sheep milk products forced the AWASSI (Austr.) Ltd. to shut down and to liquidate the company in 2004. In this process, 2,500 Improved Awassi sheep were sold to YYH Holdings, while only 30 remained with the Grant family in Cowra.

Generally, the Improved Awassi has had no difficulties getting established in the

Australian environment. Feet problems (foot rot) are reported occasionally, when the animals are kept in a wet environment.

25

In the very profitable Middle Eastern market of live fat-tailed lambs, YYH Holding

seems to be developing into a major player in the Middle Eastern mutton market, supported by new genetic material obtained to increase its Improved Awassi stock and the solid financial support of its Kuwaiti and Saudi shareholders.”

26

THE AWASSI SHEEP IN THE USA

Larry Meisegeier River Ridge Stock Farm

Bruce, Wisconsin What is an Awassi?

The Awassi is the most numerous and widespread type of sheep in southwest Asia. It is the dominant breed in Iraq, the most important sheep in the Syrian Arab Republic, and the only indigenous breed of sheep in Lebanon, Jordan and Israel. In the north of Saudi Arabia it is bred under desert conditions. The Awassi is used in these countries for meat, milk, wool and hides. In Israel the breed was highly selected for dairy production. The Awassi is a fat tail breed that stores fat over its rump and the tail. Why Awassi?

With the limited and somewhat close-bred dairy sheep in the U.S. and the difficulty acquiring new genetics from Europe, Awassi genetics from Australia were very attractive.

In early 2010 I was contacted by Paolo Losecco who is a business man from the

Chicago area. Paolo grew up in Sicily before moving to the U.S. as a young man. Paolo wanted to raise some of the sheep he remembered as a boy. Friends and relatives back in Sicily told him he needed to get Sicilian Barbary sheep, another fat tail breed used for milk production. Unfortunately there are no Sicilian Barbary sheep in the U.S. and getting them here from Sicily would be difficult if not impossible, so Paolo began a quest to find a comparable breed. The Awassi was the best option, and I knew they could be sourced in Australia. The Source

We began researching Awassi sources in New Zealand and Australia in late 2010. It was difficult determining which sources were fullblood or at least highly purebred. Awassi genetics are highly guarded in Australia by YY&H Holdings, a company supplying live sheep for export to Saudi Arabia. Because of this, Awassi sheep are somewhat rare among the general farming community, however, there are a lot of crossbreds. Dr. Jock Alison, who imported Awassi to New Zealand in 1990, was of some help as he was able to view some of the animals offered and give us his opinion of their purity.

We identified R&O Farming of New South Wales owned by Robbie Elhassen

(http://awassi.com.au/). Robbie’s family was originally from Lebanon, and Robbie has

27

fond memories of Awassi sheep from his family’s visits to Lebanon as a boy. Robbie had been acquiring and breeding Awassi sheep for ten years and understood the importance that we acquire only fullblood stock, so negotiations to obtain some of his genetics began. Acquiring the Genetics

In late 2011 three Awassi ewes and three rams were taken to Allstock Australia, (http://www.allstock.com.au/). The ewes and rams were quarantined for ten weeks before any collection work was performed. One ram did not perform well, and his semen quality was low so he was discarded. Semen was collected and processed from the other two rams. The ewes were super ovulated, inseminated and embryos were flushed and processed. Genetic material arrived in the U.S. in September 2012 and was taken to Dr. Tad Thompson, DMV, Reproduction Specialty Group in Indiana. Producing Awassi in the U.S.

In early October 2012, 14 embryos were implanted into 14 crossbred ewes at the facilities at Reproduction Specialties Group. In late October 2012, 22 dairy ewes were inseminated at River Ridge Stock Farm, Bruce, WI and another 30 ewes were inseminated in mid-November at River Ridge. All ewes were inseminated using semen from one ram #0265.

On March 11, 2013 a fullblood Awassi ram from an embryo was born on Paolo

Losecco’s farm west of Chicago, followed by a ewe lamb on March 14. During a period from March 24 to March 30, 23 F1 Awassi-cross lambs were born at

River Ridge out of 10 ewes in the first AI group; 10 rams and 13 ewes. These lambs were born to dairy ewes and were taken at birth and raised artificially. One ram lamb was found dead on April 4; apparently suffocated by his pen mates. The second AI group lambed from April 24 to May 5 with a total of 16 lambs born out of 10 ewes; 9 rams and 7 ewes. In the second group, 1 ewe was stillborn and another died May 4 apparently from starvation, which was shepherd’s error. Each ewe was left with one lamb to raise with the remainder raised artificially. Two ram lambs from the first group developed respiratory problems and eventually died in mid-June.

Comments

The fullblood ram weighed 110 pounds on July 18 at 129 days old, and F1 rams from the first group averaged 75 pounds at 113 days old. Seven rams from the second group weighed an average of 57 pounds on July 23 at 90 days of age.

28

The hybrid vigor of the lambs was something we have never experienced. The lambs were on their feet and nursing within a few minutes of birth, and once they had a full belly, they began to play like lambs of a week old or more instead of sleeping like most other lambs do. The Awassi are very calm, docile and quiet compared to other breeds we have worked with. The Future

Most of the F1 ewe lambs have been taken to Paolo’s farm where they will be bred to the fullblood ram to produce F2 or 75% lambs next year. We are planning to inseminate more of my ewes again this fall using semen from a different ram. There are also eight more embryos to be implanted again this fall.

The Awassi, like most fat tail breeds, is not known for its prolificacy, usually giving

birth to singles. I have a group of yearling ewes that are heterozygous Booroola gene carriers that will be inseminated to infuse the Booroola gene into our Awassi flock in hopes of increasing lambing percentage.

R&O Farming in Australia is working on acquiring and producing new bloodlines

that we will import sometime in the future. I believe the Awassi breed has potential for economic importance in the U.S. sheep

industry both as an addition to the dairy sheep gene pool and in the development of a fat tail flock for meat production. People of Middle Eastern decent recognize the name Awassi and prefer the meat to any other breed. With the large population of Middle Eastern immigrants, there is potential for a profitable niche market. This is probably the number one reason YY&H Holdings is guarding the Awassi so closely in Australia. In the Australian live lamb export market to the Middle East, Awassi lambs sell for about double what Merino type lambs sell for.

29

NUMBER OF LAMBS GESTATED AND EWE MILK PRODUCTION

Emily J. Olund, Thomas W. Murphy, and David L. Thomas Department of Animal Sciences

University of Wisconsin-Madison Madison, Wisconsin

Introduction

Numerous effects have been shown to influence milk production in dairy ewes. One of these being the effect that litter size has on subsequent milk yields. The majority of sheep studies investigating the effect of litter size on milk production have allowed the ewe to rear her lambs following birth. However, due to the influence that suckling lambs have on milk yields, these studies have been unable to provide an unconfounded estimate of the effect that the number of lambs gestated may have on milk production.

The purpose of this study is to determine if the number of lambs gestated by a dairy ewe has

an effect on subsequent milk yields. The results from this study will be able to provide further insight into the biology of milk production of dairy ewes. With these findings further research can be done in order to determine how and why the fetus may influence milk yield. This knowledge may then be able to be applied in dairy ewe farms to maximize production and profit.

Materials and Methods

This study compiled data from the lambing and lactation records of dairy ewes at the Spooner Agricultural Research Station from 2000 through 2011.

Ewes are milked twice a day following removal of their lambs. Lambs removed more than 28

days following birth are weaned onto dry diets, while those removed at less than 28 days of age are raised artificially on milk replacer. Daily milk yields of the ewes are measured once a month using Waikato Milk Recording Meters by summing the pounds of milk produced at an evening milking and the following morning milking. These measurements are then put into the formula described by Thomas and Berger (2010) to obtain an estimated lactation yield. Samples of milk are collected from each ewe during the monthly milk recordings and sent to AgSource Milk Labs (located in Stratford, Wisconsin) and analyzed for percent fat and percent protein. Daily fat and protein yields are then calculated based on these percentages and the pounds of milk recorded that day. These monthly fat and protein yields are put into the same milk yield formula described by Thomas and Berger (2010) above to calculate the amount of fat and protein produced in the ewe’s lactation.

The initial data set of milking records from the Spooner Agricultural Research Station from

2000 through 2011 contained 3,574 lactations. These records were edited to eliminate ewes that had reared their lambs for 30 to 60 days following birth. From the remaining records, the few ewes that had nursed their lambs for four or more days were also deleted. These records were not used due to studies that previously established that the number of lambs suckling had a significant effect on an ewe’s milk yield (Snowder, 1991; Cardellino, 2002). This study focuses

30

on the effect of the number of lambs gestated by the ewe on her milk production, and the suckling of a lamb for four or more days may result in an undesired alteration of her subsequent milk production. Next, the milking records were edited by the ewe’s genotype. Ewes that were less than 50 percent milking breeds (East Friesian or Lacaune) were eliminated from the data set due to the significant negative effect having less than 50 percent dairy breeding would have on their lactation yield. Those ewes who had less than 100 day lactation lengths and that died during lactation were also deleted from the milking records. The majority of these ewes were unhealthy with high somatic cell counts in their milk from infection and mastitis. Lastly, those ewes that aborted their lambs during pregnancy were taken out of the data set due to their inability to complete their gestation. The data remaining in the milking records was then merged with lambing and pedigree records to coordinate with each ewe. This left combined final data set with 2,561 lactation records from 1,008 different ewes.

The records were analyzed using the MIXED procedure of the Statistical Analysis System

(SAS) for Windows 9.3. The final model included the fixed effects of number of lambs born (1, 2, 3 or more), lactation number (1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th or greater), percent dairy breeding (50%, 51-75%, 76% or greater), year (2000 through 2011) and interaction of lactation number by year and the random effect of ewe.

Results

Analysis of the milking records from the Spooner Agricultural Research Station indicate that there is a positive relationship between the number of lambs born (singles vs. multiples) and subsequent milk production by the ewe. Table 1 shows that there is a significant 6.46% increase in milk yield from ewes birthing multiples compared to ewes birthing singles. Those birthing a single lamb produced 278.5 kg of milk while those birthing multiples produced 296.6 kg of milk on average with a difference of 18.0 kg (Table 1). This pattern is also reflected in daily milk yield with ewes birthing one lamb producing 0.11 kg less (P < 0.05) milk each day than ewes gestating two or more lambs.

The number of lambs born was also shown to have no effect on lactation length (Table 1).

This supports the hypothesis that the number of lambs gestated was the cause of increased milk yield and not that ewes with larger litter sizes had longer lactations to attain higher milk yields. Having more than one lamb also significantly increased the protein yield of the ewe by 0.82 kg, however this was due to the increased milk production of ewes giving birth to multiple lambs because there was no effect on the percent of protein (Table 1). Percent fat of the ewe’s milk decreased (P < 0.05) by 0.26 percentage units as the number of lambs born increased above one, and fat yield was significantly greater for only ewes that birthed twins (Table 1).

Ewes having greater lactation numbers and percent dairy in their breeding were also found to

have significantly greater milk yields and daily milk yields. Along with this trend was an increase (P < 0.05) in fat yield, protein yield, and lactation length with greater parities and percent dairy breeding However, percent fat and protein significantly decreased as percent dairy breeding of the ewe increased (Table 1).

31

The results of this study provide basic information on ewe milk production from which

further research can be conducted in order to determine the biological mechanism behind the effect of number of lambs gestated and lactation traits; primarily milk yield. The results of such future studies may then be used in dairy sheep farms to improve milk production

References

Cardellino, R.A., and Benson, M.E. (2002). Lactation curves of commercial ewes rearing lambs. Journal of Animal Science. 80, 23-27.

Snowder, G.D., and Glimp, H.A. 1991. Influence of breed, number of suckling lambs, and stage of lactation on ewe milk production and lamb growth under range conditions. Journal of Animal Science 69, 923-930.

Thomas, D., and Berger, Y. 2010 Milk Recording and Genetic Improvement. Proceedings of the 16th Annual Great Lakes Dairy Sheep Symposium. 56-66.

Table 1. Least Squares Means for Lactation Traits of Dairy Ewes

Effect Number

of Records

Milk Yield,

kg

Daily Milk

Yield, kg

Lactation Length,

days

Fat Yield, kg

Percent Fat

Protein Yield, kg

Percent Protein

Number of Lambs Born

1 775 278.5b 1.35b 202.6a 17.2b 6.30a 13.95b 5.04a 2 1347 298.5a 1.46a 202.4a 18.0a 6.17b 14.90a 5.03a

≥3 439 294.5a 1.46a 200.3a 17.3b 6.04c 14.63a 5.01a Lactation Number

1 614 193.2d 1.13c 172.8d 11.2d 5.84d 9.22d 4.78c 2 755 291.5c 1.42b 203.7c 17.3c 6.17c 14.47c 5.03b 3 513 329.6b 1.56a 210.8b 20.0b 6.27b 16.62b 5.11a

≥4 679 347.8a 1.58a 219.7a 21.4a 6.45a 17.65a 5.19a Percent Dairy 50% 421 249.6c 1.26c 195.5c 16.0c 6.53a 12.92c 5.19a

51%-75% 498 297.3b 1.46b 202.5b 17.6b 6.08b 14.68b 4.98b ≥76% 1642 324.7a 1.55a 207.3a 18.9a 5.90c 15.87a 4.91c

a,b,c,d Least squares means within an effect and lactation trait without a superscript in common are different (P < 0.05).

32

LONGER MILKING INTERVALS IN DAIRY EWES

Emily J. Olund and David L. Thomas Department of Animal Sciences

University of Wisconsin-Madison Madison, Wisconsin, USA

Introduction

In a typical 12 to 14 hour milking interval up to 75% of the milk produced by a dairy ewe is stored in the cistern of the udder. This is a considerably greater amount than the dairy cow that only gives about 20% cisternal milk. Therefore, dairy ewes have a greater capacity to store milk between milkings than do dairy cows. Ewes also have rapidly decreasing milk yields following peak production at approximately the fourth week of lactation. The combination of this decrease in milk production and the ewe’s ability to store large amounts of milk in the cistern of the udder may allow for longer milking intervals to be sufficient in late lactation.

The objective of this study is to determine if the time between milkings can be increased

during late lactation of a dairy ewe without significantly affecting milk yield. If milking intervals can be increased without decreasing milk production there is potential for farms to reduce labor from fewer milkings.

Materials and Methods

This study observed 72 dairy ewes from the Spooner Agricultural Research Station for ten weeks. Ewes were selected from the station’s flock of 276 East Friesian and Lacaune crossbreeds. Following lambing at the end of January through February ewes were milked twice per day starting 24 to 72 hours after parturition. All ewes remained with the Spooner Agricultural Research Station flock for the duration of the trial where they were kept on pasture for grazing and were fed corn twice per day at milking.

Ewes chosen for the trial were in their second or greater lactation and were in late lactation at

80 to 120 days in milking at the beginning of the trial. These 72 ewes were then randomly divided into three groups of 24 each. One group served as the control and was milked at the normal 12-hour intervals (twice per day). The second group of ewes (7/1) were milked in 24-hour intervals (once per day), while the third group (6/1) was milked in 24-hour intervals from Monday through Saturday and was not milked on Sunday (once per day except no milking on Sunday).

Milk yields were recorded twice a week for the control and 7/1 ewes on Monday and Friday,

while the 6/1 ewes’ milk yields were recorded four times a week on Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, and Friday. Milk yields were measured using Waikato milk recording meters. Milk samples were taken weekly and sent to AgSource Labs in Stratford, Wisconsin for analysis of percent fat, percent protein, lactose, and somatic cell count. Samples were also taken twice a week for analysis of Na and K content, and blood samples were collected twice prior to morning

33

milking for analysis of lactose content. Ewes that fell below a daily milk yield of 0.5 liters on any Friday were eliminated from the trial and dried off using standard station protocol. Results

Table 1. Average Milk Production and Components from June 4 through August 2, 2013

Milk Yield (pounds)

Percent Fat

Percent Protein

Somatic Cell Count

Control 217 5.56 4.96 674

7/1 210 6.30 5.27 713

6/1 172 6.67 5.36 442

0.000.200.400.600.801.001.201.401.601.802.002.202.402.602.803.003.20

1/0/

006/

5/13

6/7/

136/

10/1

36/

12/1

36/

14/1

36/

17/1

36/

19/1

36/

21/1

36/

24/1

36/

26/1

36/

28/1

37/

1/13

7/2/

137/

5/13

7/8/

137/

9/13

7/12

/13

7/15

/13

7/16

/13

7/17

/13

7/19

/13

7/22

/13

7/23

/13

7/24

/13

7/26

/13

7/29

/13

7/30

/13

7/31

/13

8/2/

13

Milk

Yie

ld (L

)

Test Days

Milk Yields

Control

7/1

6/1

Figure 1. Graph of Milk Yields

34

EFFECT OF FAT LEVEL OF MILK REPLACER ON THE PERFORMANCE OF ARTIFICIALLY-REARED LAMBS

David L. Thomas1, Yves M. Berger2, and Scott J. Butterfield2

1Department of Animal Sciences and 2Spooner Agricultural Research Station, University of Wisconsin-Madison

and Carol Kost and David Carlson

Milk Products, LLC., Chilton, WI

Materials and Methods All animal procedures were approved by the institutional animal care and use committee of

the College of Agricultural and life Sciences, University of Wisconsin-Madison. Animals. Lambs (n = 220) used in this trial were produced from the mating of dairy ewes

(predominately of East Friesian and/or Lacaune breeding) to Hampshire, SireMax, Polypay, or dairy (predominately of East Friesian and/or Lacaune breeding) rams. Pregnant ewes were housed indoors in straw-bedded pens in groups of 20 to 25 animals. From a few minutes to a few hours after giving birth, a ewe and her newborn lamb(s) were removed to the nursery and placed in a 4 ft. x 5 ft. jug (mothering pen), and the umbilical cord of each lamb was tied, clipped, and dipped in a 7% iodine solution. The next morning, the lambs were weighed, ear tagged with a sequential unique identification number, injected with 1cc of a selenium-vitamin E mixture (Bo-Se), and docked by placing an elastrator band around the tail at the distal end of the caudal folds. Male lambs were not castrated.

Between18 and 36 hr after birth, lambs were separated from their dam and put in a small

training pen where they had access to a lamb bar filled with a warm mixture of colostrum and milk collected from ewes that had recently been put to milking. Animal caretakers trained lambs to find the rubber nipples of the lamb bar, and lambs were kept in the training pen until they would suckle on the lamb bar nipples without assistance. Trained lambs were removed to a larger pen in the nursery and fed milk replacer from a machine (Lactek ®, www.biotic.com) that automatically mixed the milk replacer powder with water as the lambs consumed the liquid milk replacer. The milk replacer powder in the automatic machine was an equal mixture of the two milk replacers to be evaluated in the trial (30% fat (F30) or 33% fat (F33)).

The milk replacers were commercially prepared by Milk Products of Chilton, WI, and the

nutrient content and the ingredients of the two milk replacers are presented in Tables 1 and 2, respectively. The major differences between the two milk replacers was a greater amount of dried skim milk in F33 compared to F30 and the inclusion of coconut oil, vegetable fat, and corn syrup solids in F33, which were not present in F30 (Table 2). The F30 milk replacer is very similar to Milk Products’ current Sav-A-Lam® commercially available lamb milk replacer (http://www.savacaf.com/assets/products/114/PI/75/pdfFile.pdf).

Just prior to going onto the milk replacer treatments, lambs received a 2 cc injection of Clostridium perfringens type C & D and Tetanus toxoid in the nursery. Lambs were then moved

35

to a 30 ft. x 60 ft. “hoop” barn equipped with a positive pressure tunnel ventilation system and infrared heaters and placed in one of two straw-bedded pens. Lambs were assigned to a pen by their tag number. Even-numbered lambs were assigned to the pen with the F30 milk replacer, and odd-numbered lambs were assigned to the pen with the F33 milk replacer. This method of assigning lambs to a treatment insured that lambs in a litter of two or more would be split across the two treatments. Each pen had access to an automatic milk replacer mixing and feeding machine (Lactek ®, www.biotic.com) with 6 nipples and 8 to10 lambs per nipple.

Table 1. Nutrient content (DM basis) of two commercially prepared lamb milk replacer powders.

Item

Milk replacer powder fat content, % DM

30 33 Nutrient:

Crude fat, min., % 30 33 Crude protein, min., % 23 23 Crude fiber, max., % 0.15 0.15 Lactose, max., % 26 26 Ash, % 8 < 7 Calcium, % 0.60 -1.10 0.60 -1.10 Phosphorus, min., % 0.70 0.70 Sodium, % 0.60 -1.10 0.60 -1.10 Selenium, min., ppm 0.30 0.30 Copper, ppm 8 8 Vitamin A, min., iu/lb. 20,000 20,000 Vitamin D3, min., iu/lb. 5,000 5,000 Vitamin E, min., iu/lb. 200 200

The study was conducted in two replicates. Lambs in the first replicate (n = 120) had an

average birth date of February 1, 2012 (SD = 3.35 d) and were placed on one of the two treatments at an average age of 6.83 d (SD = 1.89 d). Lambs in the second replicate (n = 100) had an average birth date of March 4, 2012 (SD = 3.25 d) and were placed on one of the two treatments at an average age of 6.12 d (SD = 2.23 d).

Each lamb was weighed at the start of the feeding of the experimental milk replacers and

every 7 d thereafter while on the experimental milk replacers on an electronic platform scale. After each weighing, the lambs in one pen were moved to the other pen in order to minimize pen effects. Just prior to lambs switching pens, milk powder remaining in each machine was removed and weighed and replaced with the treatment milk powder for the new group. During the trial, lambs had access to a creep feed containing 20% crude protein and 70 g per ton of decoquinate to control coccidiosis. The amount of milk powder and creep feed consumed by a pen was recorded daily along with the number of lambs in each pen. This allowed for the calculation of average daily consumption of milk replacer and creep feed per lamb. Lambs had access to fresh

36

water at all times. No forage was provided to the lambs other than the daily fresh bedding of straw. The bedding pack was removed between the two replicates.

Each lamb was weighed a minimum of 2 times after the start of the experimental feeding

period, so all lambs that completed the trial were on the trial for at least 2 wk. Lambs were weaned from milk replacer if their weight was 30 pounds or more. If their weight was less than 30 pounds, lambs remained on the trial for an additional week. Mean age at weaning±SD was

Table 2. Ingredients (from highest to lowest amount) of two commercially prepared lamb milk replacer powders.

Milk replacer powder fat content, % DM 30 33

Dried whey protein concentrate Dried whey protein concentrate Lard (preserved with BHA, BHT, citric acid & ethoxyquin) Lard (preserved with BHA, BHT, citric acid & ethoxyquin) Dried whey product Dried skim milk Dried whey Dried whey product Dextrose Dried whey Calcium propionate Dextrose Citric acid (acidifier) Coconut oil* Dicalcium phosphate Vegetable fat (preserved with BHT)* Calcium carbonate Calcium propionate L-lysine Citric acid (acidifier) DL-methionine Dicalcium phosphate Sodium silico aluminate Calcium carbonate Dried skim milk L-lysine Vitamin E supplement Corn syrup solids* Maltodextrin DL-methionine Artificial flavor Sodium silico aluminate Ferrous sulfate Vitamin E supplement Magnesium sulfate Artificial flavor Choline chloride Ferrous sulfate Lecithin Magnesium sulfate Ethoxylated mono-diglycerides Choline chloride Propylene glycol Maltodextrin Zinc sulfate Lecithin Vitamin A supplement Ethoxylated mono-diglycerides Niacin supplement Propylene glycol Sodium selenite Zinc sulfate Manganese sulfate Vitamin A supplement Ascorbic acid Sodium selenite Biotin Manganese sulfate Calcium pantothenate Ascorbic acid Vitamin D3 supplement Niacin supplement Selenium yeast Vitamin D3 supplement Brewer’s dried yeast Biotin Vitamin B12 supplement Calcium pantothenate Menadione sodium bisulfate complex (Vit. K) Mineral oil Riboflavin supplement Menadione sodium bisulfate complex (Vit. K) Mineral oil Selenium yeast Thiamine mononitrate Brewer’s dried yeast Calcium iodate Riboflavin supplement Pyridoxine hydrochloride Calcium iodate Folic acid Vitamin B12 supplement Copper sulfate Thiamine mononitrate Cobalt sulfate Folic acid Silicon dioxide* Pyridoxine hydrochloride Cobalt sulfate Copper sulfate *Ingredients found in only one of the milk replacer powders.

37

28.7±3.6 d and 33.6±3.3 d for lambs in the first and second replicates, respectively. Weaning was abrupt with no transition. Eight lambs were removed from the trial before reaching their weaning weight or age: 3 died from bloat, 1 died from pneumonia, 1 was removed due to a nervous disorder, and 3 were removed for refusing to consume milk replacer or creep feed.

At weaning, lambs received a second 2 cc injection of Clostridium perfringens type C & D

and Tetanus toxoid. Weaned lambs remained in the same building and were provided with the same creep feed with no forage. A postweaning weight was recorded at an average age of 63.0 d (SD = 3.3 d) for lambs in the first replicate and at an average age of 73.4 d (SD = 6.4 d) for lambs in the second replicate.

Statistical Analyses. All data were analyzed with the GLM Procedure of the Statistical

Analysis System (SAS 9.2 for Windows). The initial model for all age, weight, gain, and survival traits presented in Tables 3 and 4

included the main effects of replicate (first, second), lamb sex (female, male), lamb type of birth (single and twin, triplet and quadruplet), sire type (maternal: dairy and Polypay, paternal: SireMax and Hampshire) and milk replacer treatment (F30, F33) and all two-way interactions among main effects. Lamb birth types were collapsed from the four types observed (single (n = 15), twin (n = 125), triplet (n = 76), and quadruplet (n = 4)) into two types (single and twin (n = 140) and triplet and quadruplet (n = 80)) prior to statistical analyses. The number of lambs sired by each of the sire breeds (dairy (n = 105), SireMax (n = 82), Hampshire (n = 24), and Polypay (n = 9)) varied greatly across sire breed, so lambs from the two maternal sire groups with lower growth performance (dairy and Polypay, n = 114) were combined into one group, and lambs from the two paternal sire groups with higher growth performance (SireMax and Hampshire, n = 106) were combined into a second group prior to statistical analyses.

Milk replacer powder and creep feed consumption were recorded for groups of lambs (i.e.,

Replicate 1-F30, Replicate1-F33, Replicate 2-F30, and Replicate 2-F33) so there were only four observations for these consumption traits. The model for consumption traits included the main effects of replicate and milk replacer treatment. The error term in the model was the replicate x milk replacer treatment interaction.

Milk replacer treatment did not have a statistically significant (P ≥ 0.07) interaction with any

of the other main effects for any of the 14 traits in Tables 3 and 4, so these four interactions were eliminated from the final models. The remaining six two-way interactions across the 14 age, weight, gain, and survival traits presented in Tables 3 and 4 were statistically significant (P ≤ 0.05) in only 11 cases out of 84, and there were no statistically significant (P ≥ 0.11) two-way interactions for the most important growth trait in this study, which was lamb average daily gain while being fed the experimental milk replacers. For these reasons, only the main effects are presented in Tables 3 and 4. Results

Preweaning and postweaning growth traits of lambs are presented in Tables 3 and 4, respectively, for the main effects of sex of lamb, birth type of lamb, sire type, and fat percentage

38

of the milk replacer. Lamb survival was very acceptable during both the preweaning and postweaning periods (≥ 91.0%) and did not differ significantly (P ≥ 0.07) between levels of any of the main effects (Tables 3 and 4).

As expected, all weights and gains were greater (P < 0.01) for male lambs compared to

female lambs (Tables 3 and 4). Starting and weaning weights were greater (P < 0.01 and P < 0.10, respectively) for single/twin lambs than for triplet/quadruplet lambs, but preweaning average daily gain (ADG) was only slightly greater for single/twin vs. triplet/quadruplet lambs (0.70 vs. 0.68 lb./d, respectively), and the difference was not statistically different from zero (Table 3). This result indicates that triplet- and quadruplet-born lambs raised on milk replacer where they do not have to compete with litter mates for a set amount of milk, as is the case when they are reared on the ewe, have similar growth rates to twin- and single-born lambs raised on milk replacer. Postweaning weights and gains were not significantly different ((P > 0.10) between lambs of the two birth type groups (Table 4).

Except for birth weights, which were higher (P < 0.05) for lambs sired by paternal than

maternal sires, starting weights, weaning weights, and preweaning ADGs were similar between lambs produced by the two types of sires (Table 3). However, postweaning weights and ADGs were much higher (P < 0.01) for paternal-sired than for maternal-sired lambs (Table 4).

There was good allocation of lambs to the milk replacer treatments because the number of

lambs and their birth weights, starting ages, and starting weights were the same for the F30 and F33 treatments (Table 3). Perhaps unexpectedly, the lambs on the lower fat milk replacer (F30) had a greater (P < 0.05) weaning weight (31.4 vs. 30.2 lb.) and greater (P < 0.01) preweaning ADG (0.71 vs. 0.66 lb./d) compared to lambs on the higher fat milk replacer (F33) (Table 3). While the F30-fed lambs still had numerically heavier weights and gains postweaning than F33-fed lambs, the differences between treatments were no longer statistically significant (Table 4).

Consumption of milk replacer powder and creep feed is presented in Table 5 along with the

average days on trial. Lambs on both treatments were on the trial for an average of approximately 24 days. The number of days on trial in Table 5 is 0.5 – 0.7 days less than the days on trial that would be calculated by subtracting “start age” from “wean age” in Table 3. This discrepancy is because weaning age in Table 3 only includes the 212 lambs that made it to weaning and not all 220 lambs that started the trial, whereas the “days on trial” in Table 5 includes both the 212 lambs that were weaned and the 8 lambs that either died or were removed prior to weaning. All lambs that started the trial were included in the data summarized in Table 5 to account for consumption of milk replacer powder and creep feed of both weaned lambs and lambs that died or were removed prior to weaning.

39

Table 3. Preweaning performance (least squares means±SE) of artificially reared lambs by sex, birth type, breeding of sire, and fat content of the milk

replacer.

Effect No.

started Birth wt., lb. Start age, d Start wt., lb. No. weaned Wean age, d Wean wt., lb. ADG: start -

wean, lb. Survival: start

– wean., % Sex: Female 102 10.8±0.20b 6.6±0.23 13.1±0.27b 99 32.2±0.38a 29.6±0.43b 0.65±0.015b 96.2±2.01 Male 118 12.0±0.17a 6.5±0.19 14.7±0.22a 113 30.8±0.32b 32.0±0.37a 0.72±0.013a 94.8±1.70 Birth type: Single, twin 140 12.2±0.15a 6.0±0.17b 14.6±0.20a 135 30.4±0.29a 31.3±0.33e 0.70±0.012 96.0±1.54 Triplet, quad 80 10.6±0.22b 7.0±0.24a 13.2±0.29b 77 32.5±0.41b 30.3±0.47f 0.68±0.016 94.9±2.16 Sire typeg: Maternal 114 11.1±0.17d 6.8±0.19c 13.8±0.22 110 32.0±0.32c 30.5±0.37 0.68±0.013 95.7±1.69 Paternal 106 11.7±0.20c 6.2±0.23d 14.0±0.27 102 30.9±0.39d 31.1±0.44 0.70±0.015 95.3±2.05 Fat %: 30 110 11.4±0.18 6.5±0.20 13.9±0.23 106 31.4±0.33 31.4±0.38c 0.71±0.013a 95.1±1.76 33 110 11.4±0.18 6.5±0.20 13.9±0.24 106 31.5±0.34 30.2±0.39d 0.66±0.014b 95.9±1.82 a,b Means within a column and effect with a different superscript are different (P < 0.01). c,d Means within a column and effect with a different superscript are different (P < 0.05). e,f Means within a column and effect with a different superscript are different (P < 0.10). g Maternal – Sire was of the Polypay breed or of dairy breeding (predominately East Friesian and/or Lacaune breeding). Paternal – Sire was of the

Hampshire or SireMax breed.

40

Table 4. Postweaning performance (least squares means±SE) of artificially reared lambs by sex, birth type, breeding of sire, and fat content of the milk replacer.

Effect No.

postwean. Postwean.

age, d Postwean.

wt., lb. ADG: wean – postwean., lb.

Survival: wean. – postwean., %

ADG: start - postwean., lb.

Survival: start - postwean., %

Sex: Female 95 68.8±0.49c 53.3±1.03b 0.64±0.020b 96.9±2.51 0.65±0.014b 93.1±3.12 Male 106 67.3±0.42d 59.4±0.88a 0.74±0.017a 95.9±2.15 0.73±0.012a 90.9±2.63 Birth type: Single, twin 127 67.6±0.38 57.0±0.80 0.68±0.015 95.4±1.94 0.69±0.011 91.5±2.38 Triplet, quad 74 68.6±0.53 55.7±1.12 0.70±0.021 97.4±2.73 0.69±0.015 92.5±3.35 Sire typee: Maternal 105 69.6±0.42a 53.8±0.87b 0.61±0.017b 97.1±2.13 0.63±0.012b 92.9±2.62 Paternal 96 66.6±0.50b 59.0±1.04a 0.78±0.020a 95.8±2.57 0.74±0.014a 91.2±3.18 Fat %: 30 102 67.9±0.43 57.0±0.90 0.70±0.017 97.8±2.21 0.70±0.012 93.0±2.72 33 99 68.3±0.45 55.7±0.94 0.69±0.018 95.1±2.29 0.68±0.013 91.0±2.83 a,b Means within a column and effect with a different superscript are different (P < 0.01). c,d Means within a column and effect with a different superscript are different (P < 0.05). e Maternal – Sire was of the Polypay breed or of dairy breeding (predominately East Friesian and/or Lacaune breeding).

Paternal – Sire was of the Hampshire or SireMax breed.

41

Table 5. Total milk replacer powder and creep feed consumption per lamb (least squares means±SE) of artificially reared lambs during the time they were fed the two experimental milk

replacers. Milk replacer fat content, %

No. started on trial

Days on triala

Milk powder / lamb, lb.

Creep feed / lamb, lb.

Milk powder + creep feed / lamb, lb.

30 110 24.4±0.34 17.9±0.20 0.53±0.083 18.5±0.17 33 110 24.3±0.34 16.9±0.20 0.38±0.083 17.3±0.17

Significance level (P =) 0.90 0.17 0.41 0.09

a Includes the number of days on the trial for eight lambs that did not complete the trial.

Lambs fed F30 milk replacer consumed numerically more milk replacer powder and creep

feed than lambs fed F33 milk replacer (17.9 vs. 16.9 lb. and 0.53 vs. 0.38 lb., respectively) during the trial period, but the differences were not statistically significant (Table 5). The inability of the experiment to detect a 6% drop in milk replacer powder consumption and a 28% drop in creep feed consumption with F33 compared to F30 is due to the low power of the statistical test with only two observations per treatment. Total average milk replacer powder plus creep feed consumption during the trial period tend to be greater (P = 0.09) for lambs fed F30 than lambs fed F33 (18.5 vs. 17.3 lb.) (Table 5) and can largely explain the 1.2 lb. lower (P < 0.05) weaning weights of lambs fed F33 compared to lambs fed F30 (Table 3).

We have not experimentally measured lamb creep feed consumption during the milk replacer

feeding period previously at the Spooner Agricultural Research Station, but a half pound or less of total creep feed consumption per lamb over 24 days seems very low. A promising area of future research to improve the performance of artificially reared lambs may be to investigate diets and management systems to increase creep feed consumption.

Conclusions

Lambs artificially reared on milk replacer with 33% fat tended to have decreased milk replacer and creep feed consumption and significantly reduced average daily gains and weaning weights than lambs reared on milk replacer with 30% fat. The higher fat content itself or the coconut oil and/or the vegetable fat, added to the 33% fat milk replacer to increase fat content, may have been responsible for the reduced intake and the subsequent decrease in body weight gains compared to the 30% fat milk replacer.

42

HOW MUCH WATER DOES THE FLEECE OF A LIVE MARKET LAMB HOLD?

Kevin Frint, Leah Zehren, David L. Thomas, Todd A. Taylor, and Russell Burgett Department of Animal Sciences

University of Wisconsin-Madison Madison, WI 53706

Objective

To estimate the effects of fleece type, fleece length, and amount of rainfall on the weight of water held in the fleeces of market weight lambs. Background

The fleeces of live market lambs can hold water. If lambs are marketed immediately after being exposed to rain, there may be a considerable amount of water in the fleece. Markets that purchase lambs on the basis of live weight may deduct some percentage from the live weight to determine a final sale weight to account for the water in the fleeces of “wet” lambs. These wet lamb deductions are very subjective because there are no reports in the scientific literature of the weight of water that the fleece of a market lamb can hold. Procedures

The study was conducted in the Livestock Laboratory on the UW-Madison campus. Thirty-six lambs born between September 5 and October 20, 2012 at the Arlington Agricultural Research Station were brought to campus on March 1, 2012 and started the trial on March 12, 2012 when the lambs were approximately 6 months of age at an average weight of 134 lb. (st. dev. = 20 lb.). Lambs were maintained in one room in two slotted floor pens with 18 lambs in each pen. The temperature was maintained at 65° F, and the hours of light started at 11 hr/d and were increased by 28 minutes each week. Lambs were fed a high concentrate finishing ration ad libitum with a small amount of alfalfa haylage.

A rain simulator was built in an adjacent room in the Livestock Laboratory. Two sprinkler

heads were suspended from the ceiling over a pen (7 ft. x 15 ft.) situated on a slotted floor. The sprinkler heads were connected by a hose to a water tap. The cold and hot water taps were turned on to the extent that exceeded the capacity of the sprinkler heads and in proportion to deliver water of approximately 65° - 68° F temperature. Prior to the start of the study, the rain simulator was calibrated using four common garden rain gauges spaced throughout the floor of the pen. Three calibrations were conducted with a high repeatability. The sprinklers delivered 0.5 in. of water to the floor of the pen in 32 min.

The lambs were of two broad categories of fleece types: fine fleeces (n = 18; 11 Targhee and

7 Rambouillet or Rambooroola) and medium fleeces (n = 18; 8 Polypay, 7 Hampshire, and 3 Hampshire-Polypay cross). Within each fleece type, three fleece lengths were created by not shearing 6 lambs (full fleece), shearing 6 lambs on February 3, 2012 (short fleece, 38 days of regrowth at the start of the trial), and shearing 6 lambs on March 8, 2012 (fresh shorn fleece). As

43

much as possible, breed and body weight were also balanced across fleece lengths. Within each 6 lambs of a common fleece type and fleece length, 3 lambs were assigned to Group 1, and 3 lambs were assigned to Group 2 (18 lambs/group). Each group was penned separately in one of two pens in the room in the Livestock Laboratory where the lambs were housed.

On days when a rain treatment was applied, all feed and water was removed from the lambs

in both groups during the time that lambs were being weighed and the rain treatment applied. Only one group was exposed to a rain treatment on any particular day. Lambs to be exposed to rain were removed from their housing pen, weighed on an electronic scale, placed in the pen under the rain simulator, left for the amount of time required for 0.5, 1.0, or 1.5 in. of water to be emitted from the sprinklers (32, 64, or 96 min., respectively), weighed again immediately after the end of the rain treatment, and returned to their housing pen. On the same day, lambs not exposed to a rain treatment were removed from their housing pen, weighed on an electronic scale, and returned to their housing pen while the lambs in the other group were being exposed to the rain treatment. After the “wet weighing” of the lambs exposed to the rain treatment, lambs not exposed to a rain treatment were again removed from their housing pen, weighed on an electronic scale a second time, and returned to their housing pen. The two weights of the lambs not exposed to the rain treatment were used to estimate the amount of fecal, urine, and tissue lost during the period of time between weighings of the wet lambs. This loss was used to adjust downward the “before rain treatment” weights of the lambs exposed to the rain treatment to more accurately determine the amount of water picked up during the rain treatments. This assumed that the lambs exposed to the rain treatment lost the same amount of weight as the lambs not exposed to the rain treatment due to fecal, urine, and tissue loss.

There were at least three days between rain treatments for a group, and the fleeces were dry

to the touch prior to a rain treatment. On treatment days, rain treatments (0.5, 1.0, or 1.5 in.) were randomly assigned, and each group was exposed to each rain amount once in the first replicate of the experiment (March 12 to 22, 2012). The study was repeated in its entirety for a second replicate from March 26 to April 16, 2012. Two Hampshire lambs (fresh shorn) in the first replicate were replaced prior to the start of the second replicate because of ill health with a Polypay (fresh shorn) and a Hampshire-Polypay cross (fresh shorn). The substitute lambs had been sheared on the same date as the Hampshire lambs in anticipation of some necessary substitutions during the trial. Therefore, data were collected on a total of 38 lambs during the entire course of the experiment.

Lambs not exposed to a water treatment had a weight loss of 0.842% during the time the

other lambs were being exposed to a rain treatment, and this percentage was unaffected by fleece type or fleece length. Therefore, weight of water accumulated on the lamb from a rain treatment (WaWt) was: body weight after water treatment – ((body weight before water treatment – (body weight before water treatment x 0.00842)).

The final statistical model for analysis of WaWt included the fixed effects of fleece type,

fleece length, rain amount, fleece type x fleece length, and fleece length x rain amount and the random effects of individual lamb, group, and replicate. The fleece type x rain amount interaction was not a significant source of variation and was not included in the final model. A

44

second analysis was conducted with the addition of body weight as a covariate to the above model to account for differences in body weight (body size, surface area) between lambs.

Results

Table 1 presents the beginning and ending weights and fleece lengths of the lambs. The

lambs of Polypay and Hampshire breeding in the medium fleece type category were heavier at the start and end of the trial than the lambs of Rambouillet and Targhee breeding in the fine fleece type category, which was expected given the known differences in growth rates between these breeds.

The fleece length treatments were meant to represent market lambs that were unshorn,

freshly shorn (#4 pelt), and shorn in advance with enough regrowth for a #1 pelt (5/8 – 1.0 in.) at the start of the study. These criteria were met for all groups with the exception that the medium fleece type lambs that had been shorn in advance had only 0.51 in. of fleece regrowth, which left them with a #2 pelt at the start of the trial (Table 1).

Table 1. Number of lambs and their average body weights and fleece lengths at the start and end of trial by fleece type and fleece length categories.

Fleece type: Fine Medium Fleece length: Full Short Fresh Full Short Fresh1 Start of trial (March 12):

N 6 6 6 6 6 6 Weight, lb. 128.8 122.8 119.9 150.9 144.2 135.9 Fleece length, in. 1.77 0.67 0.04 1.79 0.51 0.04 Pelt class Unshorn #1 #4 Unshorn #2 #4

End of trial (April 16): N 6 6 6 6 6 6 Weight, lb. 152.8 145.0 148.4 175.6 171.1 148.7 Fleece length, in. 1.82 1.02 0.63 2.13 0.89 0.58 Pelt class Unshorn #1 #1 Unshorn #1 #2

1Two Hampshire lambs from the start of the trial were replaced by a Polypay and a Hampshire-Polypay cross lamb after the first replicate. The two replacement lambs were lighter in weight than the Hampshire lambs so a comparison between start and end weights is not valid for this column.

Body weight (BW) had a significant effect (P = 0.004) on WaWt with each 1.0 lb. increase in BW resulting in a 0.013 lb. increase in WaWt. Fleece type (fine or medium) did not have a significant effect on WaWt (P = .42 in the model without BW as a covariate, P = .75 in the model with BW as a covariate). Fleece length had a significant effect (P < 0.0001) and rain amount tended to have an effect (P = 0.09 and 0.06) for WaWt with both models. However,

45

significant interactions were found between fleece type and fleece length (P < 0.04) and between fleece length and rain amount (P < 0.01) for both models.

Table 2 presents WaWt by fleece type and fleece length combinations for the models without

and with BW as a covariate. With both models, full-fleeced lambs retained more (P < 0.05) water than freshly shorn lambs, and short-fleeced lambs were intermediate within both fleece types. Without BW fitted as a covariate, medium full-fleeced lambs retained more (P < 0.05) water than fine full-fleeced lambs. However, this was partially due to the fact that the fine-fleeced lambs were lighter than the medium-fleeced lambs, and heavier lambs retained more water than lighter lambs. When BW was fitted in the model (adjusting for differences among lambs in body weight), fine- and medium-fleeced lambs did not differ significantly for WaWt within any of the three fleece length categories.

Table 2. Water (lb.) retained in the fleeces of live market lambs by

fleece type and fleece length categories without and with BW fitted as a covariate.

(No BW covariate) (BW covariate) Fleece type Fleece type

Fleece length Fine Medium Fine Medium

Full 3.05b 3.94a 3.11a,b 3.71a Short 2.16c 2.03c 2.31b,c 1.87c,d Fresh 1.56c,d 1.29d 1.71c,d 1.35d

Std errors 0.33 – 0.35 0.26 - 0.28

a,b,c,d Means within a model with no superscript in common are different (P < 0.05).

Table 3 presents WaWt by rain amount and fleece length combinations for the models without and with BW as a covariate. Within each rain amount, full-fleeced lambs retained more (P < 0.05) water than freshly shorn lambs, and short-fleeced lambs were intermediate. This was consistent with both models.

Full-fleeced lambs retained more (P < 0.05) water as the rainfall increased from 0.5 to 1.5 in.

Amount of rainfall had no significant effect on the amount of water retained by freshly-shorn lambs with both models. Short-fleeced lambs retained less water with 0.5 in. of rainfall than with 1.0 or 1.5 in. of rainfall, and the differences were significant (P < 0.05) with the model including BW as a covariate.

46

Table 3. Water (lb.) retained in the fleeces of live market lambs by rain amount and fleece length categories without and with BW fitted as a

covariate. (No BW covariate) (BW covariate) Rain amount, in. Rain amount, in.

Fleece length 0.5 1.0 1.5 0.5 1.0 1.5

Full 3.18b 3.57a,b 3.73a 3.09b 3.49a 3.66a Short 1.82d,e 2.26c 2.20c,d 1.80d 2.27c 2.20c Fresh 1.58e,f 1.47e,f 1.22f 1.68d 1.58d 1.33d

Std errors 0.32 0.25

a,b,c,d Means within a model with no superscript in common are different (P < 0.05). Conclusions and Implications

The average weight of the lambs over the course of this study was 143 lb., which is typical of the market weight of U.S. commercial lambs. The results estimate the weight of water retained by lambs immediately after being subjected to a simulated rain and should not be extrapolated to several hours after being exposed to rainfall.

Fleece type (fine or medium) had no effect on the amount of water retained. Fleece length

had the greatest effect on the amount of water retained: full fleeced lambs (1.75 to 2.25 in. of fleece) retained 3.4 lb. of water (2.4% of BW), short-fleeced lambs (0.50 – 1.00 in. of fleece) retained 2.1 lb. of water (1.5% of BW) and freshly shorn lambs (0 to 0.60 in. of fleece) retained 1.5 lb. of water (1.1% of BW). Full-fleeced lambs retained more water as the rainfall amount increased, increasing from 3.1 to 3.5 to 3.7 lb. of water (2.2, 2.4, and 2.6% of BW, respectively) as rainfall went from 0.5 to 1.0 to 1.5 in., respectively. Water retention of short-fleeced lambs was least at 0.5 in. of rainfall (1.8 lb., 1.3% of BW), greatest at 1.0 and 1.5 in. of rainfall (2.2 lb., 1.6% of BW), but similar between 1.0 and 1.5 in. of rainfall. Rainfall amount had no effect on amount of rain retained by freshly-shorn lambs and averaged 1.5 lb. (1.1% of BW) over the three rainfall amounts.

Based on this study, a reasonable guideline that would be fair to both the producer and the

buyer would be to consider a BW deduction to determine sale weight for lambs that came into the market dripping wet (indicating full saturation of the fleece from rain) of 2.5% of BW for full-fleeced lambs, 1.5% of BW for lambs with #1 pelts, and 1.0% for lambs that were freshly shorn or with very short pelts (less than 5/8 in. fleece).

47

18 lambs in Group 1

18 lambs in Group 2

Examples of starting fleece lengths (L to R: Short, Fresh, and Full)

48

Rain simulator pen (7’ x 15’) being calibrated with rain gauges on the slotted floor. Water being delivered through two overhead sprinkler heads

Sprinkler heads

49

Kevin Frint and Leah Zehren weighing a group of lambs prior to a rainfall treatment.

A group of lambs being exposed to a rainfall treatment.

50

2013 PERFORMANCE OF THE SPOONER AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH STATION

FLOCK

Emily J. Olund Summer Intern

Spooner Agricultural Research Station

Mature Ewes > 2 years old

50EF, 50L

2/3 East Friesian

East Friesian

2/3 Lacaune Lacaune

Part Katahdin Total

No. ewes at breeding 96 47 30 5 2 21 201

No. of ewes at lambing 92 46 30 4 2 20 194

No. of ewes aborted 1 0 0 0 0 0 1

No. of ewes lambed 88 46 29 4 2 20 189

No. of lambs born 174 92 59 6 3 42 376

No. of lambs weaned at 30 days

79 42 25 2 2 22 172

No. of lambs weaned 157 84 50 4 3 39 337

Fertility 96% 98% 100% 80% 100% 95% 95%

Litter Size 1.84 1.96 1.77 1.20 1.50 2.00 1.71

Survival rate to weaning 90% 91% 85% 67% 100% 93% 88%

Weaning age (days) 31 31 31 29 33 31 31

Weaning weight 33.2 32.9 32.7 37.0 31.7 32.7 33.4

Birth weight 11.4 11.2 11.2 13.9 9.9 11.8 11.6

No. of lambs weaned per ewe at breeding

1.64 1.79 1.67 0.80 1.50 1.86 1.54

EF- East Friesian L- Lacaune

51

Ewe Lambs < 1 year old

50EF, 50L 2/3 East Friesian Part Katahdin Total

No. ewes at breeding 48 19 17 84

No. of ewes at lambing 47 17 17 81

No. of ewes aborted 0 0 0 0

No. of ewes lambed 42 17 14 73

No. of lambs born 64 29 24 117

No. of lambs weaned at 30 days 13 14 13 40

No. of lambs weaned 51 24 21 96

Fertility 98% 89% 100% 96%

Litter Size 1.33 1.58 1.41 1.44

Survival rate to weaning 80% 83% 88% 83%

Weaning age (days) 34 32 31 32

Weaning weight 30.1 31.1 32.9 31.4

Birth weight 9.7 10.2 11.7 10.5

No. of lambs weaned per ewe at breeding 1.06 1.26 1.24 1.19

52

2012 Milk Production by Lactation & Genotypes

1 Includes all ewes having been milked at least 20 days. 2 DY1 - Ewes put at milking 24 hours after lambing, DY30 – Ewes put to milking 30 days after lambing. 3 Ewes were milked once per day from May 24 to July 10th, 2012. 4 Katahdin crosses not included in number of ewes and averages.

Total Production (lbs)

# of Ewes

% of Flock

>1000 14 5.9% 900-1000 16 6.7% 800-900 32 13.4% 700-800 45 18.8% 600-700 40 16.7% 500-600 16 6.7% 400-500 17 7.1% 300-400 16 6.7% 200-300 20 8.4% 10-200 22 9.2%

Number of Ewes1

Weaning Systems2

Average Production

(lbs.)3 % BF %

Protein Average days

at milking

1st Lactation 50EF, 50L 27 DY30 633 5.9 4.9 179

2/3 East Fresian 8 DY30 278 5.5 4.7 143 East Freisian 10 DY30 239 5.3 4.8 127 2/3 Lacaune 5 DY30 382 6.1 4.9 136 Lacaune 1 DY1 329 6.0 5.1 168 Part Katahdin 13 DY30 231 6.4 5.1 117

Total Ewe Lambs4 51 DY30 469 5.7 4.9 159

2nd - 7th Lactation 50EF, 50L 107 DY1 705 6.0 5.0 191

2/3 East Fresian 48 DY1 717 5.7 4.8 195 East Freisian 28 DY1 735 5.7 4.8 187 2/3 Lacaune 2 DY1 421 6.1 5.3 154 Lacaune 3 DY1 326 7.0 5.3 140 Part Katahdin 13 DY1 453 6.3 5.1 180

Total Mature Ewes4 188 DY1 703 5.9 4.9 190

All Ewes 239 DY1 653 5.9 4.9 183

53

PAST RECEIPIENTS OF THE SHEEP INDUSTRY AWARD

Presented at the Spooner Sheep Day

Sponsored annually from 1960 through 1992 by the Great Lakes Wool Growers Cooperative and by the Spooner Agricultural Research Station from 1993.

1960 Roy Richards 1961 Ed Warner 1962 Robert Moore 1963 Carl Rydberg 1964 Harlan Seyforth; Hans Horne 1965 Art Strommen 1966 Walter Rowlands 1967 Martin Johnson; Ed Wild 1968 Pat Keleher 1969 Will McKerrow 1970 Art Pope 1971 Fred Langhoff 1972 Melvin Walker 1973 Lyle Baltz 1974 Arno Dittbrenner 1975 Roland Marschall 1976 Rudy Erickson 1977 Vern Felts 1978 Clifford Fellows 1979 Roger Harris 1980 Fred Geisler 1981 Lyle Lamphere 1982 Dick Vatthauer 1983 Tom Larson 1984 Jim Elphick 1985 Dick Vilstrup 1986 Rudy Van Fleet 1987 Elmer Kohlstedt 1988 Dick Boniface 1989 Bob Black 1990 Len Frye 1991 Roger Ekstrand 1992 Vernon & Nellie Stogdill 1993 Dan Brew 1994 Hal Koller 1995 Bob Rand 1996 Lyle Roe 1997 Bill Johnson

1998 Richard & Sylvia Roembke 1999 Dianne Kaufmann 2000 Larry & Emily Meisegeier 2001 Richard Schlapper 2002 David Erb 2004 Jeff Kieffer 2006 Ed & Pam Dittbrenner 2008 Yves Berger 2010 Tom & Laurel Kieffer 2012 Tim Jergenson

54

INDEX OF ARTICLES FROM SPOONER SHEEP DAY PROCEEDINGS AND SPOONER DAIRY SHEEP DAY PROCEEDINGS FROM 2002-2012

Copies of articles can be obtained at the University of Wisconsin-Madison Sheep and Goat Extension Web Site (http://fyi.uwex.edu/wisheepandgoat/spooner-sheep-day/) or

by contacting Dave Thomas

Department of Animal Sciences University of Wisconsin-Madison

1675 Observatory Dr., Madison, WI 53706 dlthomas@wisc.edu

2002 Welcome - Yves M. Berger Early History of the Spooner Station and the Roll of the Station in Introduction of the

Targhee Breed in Wisconsin - Rudy Erickson Reprints from Old Issues of the Wisconsin Cooperative Wool Growers News - Rudy and

Martha Erickson Pre -1980 Sheep Research at the Spooner Station - Art Pope Forty Years of Sheep Research at Wisconsin (Reprinted from 1988 Spooner Sheep Day

Proceedings) - Art Pope Sheep Project 1953 -1954 (Reprinted from a 1954 mimeograph) - Carl Rydberg Reducing Labor in Sheep Production - Thomas K. Cadwallader Use of Super-Prolific Breeds and Artificial Rearing of Lambs - Yves Berger Fertility of Targhee and Finn x Targhee Ewe Lambs Mated in November (Reprinted

from 1976 Spooner Sheep Day Proceedings) - Carl Rydberg Raising a 200% Lamb Crop - How to GET it Started (Reprinted from 1985 Spooner

Sheep day Proceedings) - A. L. Pope Raising a 200% Lamb Crop - Breeding Program Considerations (Reprinted from 1985

Spooner Sheep Day Proceedings) - R.A. Kemp Raising a 200% Lamb Crop - Handling the Flock at Lambing Time (Reprinted from

1985 Spooner Sheep Day Proceedings) - Tom Cadwallader Reproductive Performance of Romanov Crossbred Ewes in Comparison to Finn

Crossbred Ewes (Reprinted from the 1992 Spooner Sheep Day Proceedings) - Yves Berger

Reproductive Performance of Romanov x Targhee and Finn x Targhee Ewes in an Accelerated Lambing System (Reprinted from the 1995 Spooner Sheep Day Proceedings) - Yves Berger and David Thomas

Raising Lambs on Milk Replacer (Reprinted from the 1998 Spooner Sheep Day Proceedings) - Yves Berger and Richard Schlapper

Dairy Sheep - The Research Emphasis Starting in 1993 - David L. Thomas Milk and Lamb Production of East Friesian-Cross Ewes in Northwestern Wisconsin

(Reprinted from the 1998 Spooner Sheep Day Proceedings) - David Thomas, Yves Berger and Brett McKusick

55

Effects of Three Weaning and Rearing Systems on Commercial Milk Production and Lamb Growth (Reprinted from the 1999 Spooner Sheep Day Proceedings) - Brett McKusick, Yves Berger and David Thomas

The Effect of Three Times a Day Milking at the Beginning of Lactation on the Milk Production of East Friesian Crossbred Ewes (Reprinted from the 2001 Spooner Sheep Day Proceedings) - Linda deBie, Yves Berger and David Thomas

Effect of Reducing the Frequency of Milking on Milk Production, Milk composition, and Lactation Length in East Friesian Dairy Ewes (Reprinted from the 2001 Spooner Sheep Day Proceedings) - Brett McKusick, David Thomas and Yves Berger

Is Machine Stripping Necessary for East Friesian Dairy Ewes? (Reprinted from The Proceedings of The 7th Great Lakes Dairy Sheep Symposium, 2001) - Brett McKusick, David Thomas and Yves M. Berger

2001-2002 Performance of the Spooner Agricultural Research Station Flock - Yves Berger

2004 Welcome and Station Update – Yves M. Berger Ultrasound Fat and Muscle Measurements of Live Lambs as a Predictor of Carcass Fat

and Muscle Measurements and Changes in Ultrasound Rib Eye Area and Fat Thickness as Lambs Grow – C.J. Hiemke, Li-yin Lee, D.L. Thomas, T.A. Taylor, R.G. Gottfredson, S. Pinnow

Composting Farm Animal Mortalities - Dan Short Options for Midwest Ewe Flock Expansion – Kelley O’Neill Wisconsin Livestock Identification Consortium – Leanne Ketterhagen Developments with Kura Clover-Orchard Grass Pastures – Phil Holman 2002-2003 Performance of the Spooner Agricultural Research Station Flock – Yves

Berger and Richard Schlapper 2003-2004 Performance of the Spooner Agricultural Research Station Flock – Yves

Berger and Richard Schlapper 2006 Welcome and Station Updates -Yves M. Berger Direct Sale of Lamb to the Ethnic Market and Non-Ethnic Market - Dan Guertin Marketing to Culturally Diverse Families - Judy Moses So You Want to Direct Market Lamb? - Steve and Tammy Schotthofer Family Rules and Regulations Regarding Direct Market Meat Sales - Gary Onan Variable Effectiveness of Radio Frequency Ear Tags and Rumen Boluses for Electronic

Identification of Sheep - D.L. Thomas, M. Hernandez-Jover, M. Rovai, M. Bishop, G. Caja, Y.M. Berger, T.A. Taylor, B. Bishop, L. Taylor, R.G. Gottfredson, M. Frank, R. Schlapper, B. Bolan, and W. Keough

Dealing with Drought in Pasture Systems - Phil Holman Pasture Research and Demonstrations - Phil Holman Estimating Pasture Forage Availability - Claire Mikolayunas and Steve Eckerman Body Condition Scoring of Sheep - James M. Thompson and H. Meyer 2005-2006 Performance of the Spooner Agricultural Research Station flock – Yves

Berger

56

2007 Effect of Supplementation on Milk Production of Dairy Ewes – C. M. Mikolayunas, D. L.

Thomas, Y. M. Berger, K. A. Albrecht, D. K. Combs, and S. R. Eckerman The East Friesian Breed of Sheep in North America – Yves M. Berger Raising Lambs the River Ridge Way - Larry and Emily Meisegeier and Ruth Grinnell 30-Day Weaning System - Kim Cassano and Rich Toebe MIX Weaning at Dream Valley Farm - Tom and Laurel Kieffer Effect of Prepartum Photoperiod on Milk Production of Dairy Ewes - C. M.

Mikolayunas, D. L. Thomas, Y. M. Berger, T. F. Gressley, and G. E. Dahl Progress Report: Effects of Prepubertal Growth Rate of Ewe Lambs on Their

Subsequent Lamb and Milk Production - David L. Thomas and Yves M. Berger Sheep Pasture Management for 2007 - Phil Holman Katahdin Hair Sheep at the Spooner Agricultural Research Station - David L. Thomas

and Yves M. Berger 2006-2007 Performance of the Spooner Agricultural Research Station Flock - Yves M.

Berger 2008 Welcome and Station and CALS Updates – Philip Holman, Superintendent, Spooner

Agricultural Research Station and Dwight Mueller, Executive Director, Agricultural Research Stations, CALS, UW-Madison

Sheep Production Economics in 2008 - Yves M. Berger and David L. Thomas Using Co-Products from the Corn Milling Industry in Sheep Rations - Dan Morrical Can Your Wool Be Worth More? - Paul and Carol Wagner Evaluation of Emergency Forage Crops - Paul Peterson, Dan Undersander, Marcia Endres,

Doug Holen, Kevin Silveira, Mike Bertram, Phil Holman, Doug Swanson, Rich Leep, Vince Crary, and Craig Sheaffer

Is Grazing the Way to Beat High Feed Costs? – Dan Morrical Getting More Out of Your Pastures: Managing ewes and lambs on pasture 2007-2008 Performance of the Spooner Agricultural Research Station Flock - Yves

Berger 2009 UW-Madison Spooner Agricultural Research Station 100th Anniversary – Philip

Holman Economics of Dairy Sheep Operations - Yves M. Berger Protein Utilization in Lacating Dairy Ewes - Claire M. Sandrock, David L. Thomas, and

Yves M. Berger Experiences Feeding Corn Silage to Dairy Ewes– Paul Haskins The Bright Future for Sheep Dairying – Sid Cook Effects of Prepubertal Growth Rate of Ewe Lambs on their Subsequent Lamb and

Wool Production - David L. Thomas and Yves M. Berger Update on the Crossbreeding Trial between the Katahdin and Lacaune Breeds – Yves

M. Berger

57

2009 Lamb Production and 2008 Lactation Performance of the Spooner Agricultural Research Station - Yves M. Berger

2010 Arthur L. “Art” Pope, 1921 - 2010 What’s New at the Spooner Agricultural Research Station - Phil Holman and Yves

Berger Wolves, Bears and Coyotes - Depredation Identification, Prevention, and Current

Management Practices - David Ruid Maintaining Control and Sanity With Eight Livestock Guard Dogs – Janet McNally The Changing Predator Landscape – Janet McNally Managing a Part-Tine 200 Ewe Flock - Greg Brickner Where, When, and at What Weight Should I Sell My Lambs? – David Thomas Establishment, Longevity and Use of Kura Clover-Orchardgrass Pastures - Phil Holman Fencing Options for Pasture Utilization – Randy Cutler 2010 Performance of the Spooner Agricultural Research Station Flock – Yves Berger 2011 Spooner Agricultural Research Station Updates- Phil Holman Profitability of Dairy Sheep Operations – Larry Tranel 2011-2012 Sheep Milk Market Update – Paul Haskins Lamb Mortality at the Spooner Agricultural Research Station (UW-Madison) Between

1989 and 2011 – Yves Berger Genetics of Lamb Survival – David Thomas Raising Lambs From Weaning to Market – Claire Mikolayunas Why are Lamb Prices so High? – Dave Johnson 2011 Performance of the Spooner Agricultural Research Station Flock – Yves Berger 2012 Yves M. Berger Spooner Agricultural Research Station Updates- Phil Holman Keys to a Successful Intensive Grazing System - Richard Otto Wiegand Resources for Successful Grazing - Laura Paine Ewe and Ram Management for a Successful Breeding Season - Justin Luther Highlights from 24 Years of Sheep Research at the Spooner Agricultural Research

Station - Yves Berger Dealing with Drought in Pasture Systems - Phil Holman Establishment, Longevity and Use of Kura Clover-Orchardgrass Pastures - Phil Holman Body Condition Scoring of Sheep – James M. Thompson and H. Meyer