Ontario Sheep News - March 2011 by Ontario Sheep Farmers

industry highlights

production innovations

Vol. 30 - Issue 1

march 2011

NEWS

OntarioSheep Moving the Sheep Industry

Ahead with Genetic Improvement

Parasite Control - Now is the Time Fencing and Predators P M 4 0 0 3 3 529

Cochrane, Alberta, Canada

DORPERS

TIRED OF SHEARING? Sheep youâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;ve been dreaming of...

JOIN THE CHANGE TO DORPERS Meat Buyers want Dorper and Dorper X Lambs High Carcass Values Ray & Ann Marie Hauck www.ramhbreeders.com

Page 38

SC_2008_Spring.indd Sec2:38

Tel/Fax: 403-932-3135 am@ramhbreeders.com

SHEEP CANADA

20/03/2008 10:09:03 AM

OSN 4

March 2011

Chair Report OSMA Has a Long History of Dealing with Predation

5 Editorial Change is on the Way - Introducing our New Logo

6 GM Report Meeting Customer Needs

Market Report

SFIP Now to Be Administered by CEPOQ

New Zealand Lamb Crop Smaller in 2010

It’s That Time of Year Again

10 Points of View 12 Upcoming Events 13 Genetic Evaluations Available for New Traits 13 Canadian Sheep Breeders’ Association Update: Moving Forward

Lesley Campbell’s sheep made a New Year’s resolution to take time to enjoy the holidays in 2011. They’re planning to lay low over Easter though. OSMA Board Provincial Directors Telephone

14 Sheep Flock Improvement Program 15 How SFIP can save you $$$$$ 16 Moving the Sheep Industry Ahead with Genetic Improvement 18 Parasite Control in Sheep – Now is the Time! 20 Planning for the 2011 Grazing Season 21 District and Leadership Training Opportunity 22 Fencing and Predators: Coyote Deterrent Fences 26 Johne’s Disease in Sheep and Goats 30 Producer Perceptions of Food-borne and Zoonotic Diseases in Ontario’s Sheep Industries 32 Growing Forward Accepting Applications 33 Trappers Part of Predation Solution 34 Scrapie Update 35 New Support for Producers Enrolled on the Voluntary Scrapie Flock Certification Program 36 2011 Statistics Canada Numbers Show Increase in National Ewe Flock 37 Must a LGD have a Doghouse? 38 Building the Sheep Industry – A New Zealand Perspective 40 Wrap Up 42 Making a Shepherd’s Crook 44 Keeping Lambs Alive 46 District News Cover Photo: Michael Douglas of Brechin Brae Farms in District 6 Deadlines for submissions to the Sheep News: For March Issue - deadline February 1st • For June Issue -deadline May 1st For September Issue - deadline August 1st • For December Issue - deadline November 1st Ontario Sheep News is published by Ontario Sheep Marketing Agency and is distributed quarterly to all registered producers. Non-producers may subscribe in writing to the Ontario Sheep Marketing Agency. Subscription rates: Non-producers $15.00 for one year, $25.00 for two years. Prices include GST. Please make cheques payable to: Ontario Sheep News, 130 Malcolm Road, Guelph, Ontario N1K 1B1. Editorial and advertising inquiries should be made to the OSMA. Ontario Sheep News is the official publication of the Ontario Sheep Marketing Agency. Contents of this publication may be reproduced only by permission of the Editor and with credit acknowledged. Views and opinions expressed in this magazine are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the viewpoint of the publisher or the Ontario Sheep Marketing Agency.

District 1 District 2 District 3 District 4 District 5 District 6 District 7 District 8 District 9 District 10 District 11

Fraser Hodgson Dennis Fischer Neil Mesman Chris Kyle Andrew Gordanier Markus Wand Judy Dening Chris Kennedy Allan Burn Colleen Acres Mark Lenover

(519) 786-4176 (519) 363-3819 (519) 462-2423 (519) 632-7602 (519) 925-6502 (705) 724-2314 (705) 324-3453 (613) 389-0554 (613) 264-0801 (613) 826-2330 (705) 563-2966

OSMA staff Murray Hunt General Manager 519-836-0043 manager@ontariosheep.org Ruth Gilmour (temporary) Liaison Officer Ruth Gilmour Office Manager/Communication Co-ordinator, OSN Editor Jennifer Johanson OSN Assistant OSMA Office: 519-836-0043 Jillian Craig Sheep News Assistant Roselen Marcy Sheep News Assistant OSMA Office: 519-836-0043 Return undeliverable Canadian addresses to: ONTARIO SHEEP MARKETING AGENCY 130 Malcolm Road, Guelph, Ontario N1K 1B1 Phone: (519) 836-0043 Fax: (519) 836-2531 E-mail: general@ontariosheep.org Website: www.ontariosheep.org www.lambrecipes.ca Market Line: (519) 836-0043 Publications Mail Registration Number: 40033529 ISSN 0844-5303 March 2011 Date of Issue: March 2011 Submitting photos to OSMA for use in publications (e.g. magazine, promotional/educational materials). Photos will be accepted with the following information attached separately: your name, full mailing address, phone number, permission to use the photo for print purposes (in addition, if there are any individuals in the picture they should be identified and permission to print their picture must be secured either directly (if adults) or (if children) from a parent or guardian). When emailing photos, pictures must be a minimum of 200 dpi (300 dpi preferred) and each picture should be clearly identified with the required information provided as outlined. Photos will NOT be returned and all entries become the property of OSMA to be used or reproduced at the discretion of OSMA. (Whenever possible, credit will be given to photographer if used.)

chairman’s report

march 2011

OSMA Has a Long History of Dealing with Predation

Chris Kennedy

joined the OSMA Board in 2000 and predation has been one of my main interests. Since my first lamb crop in 1975 we have lost lambs to coyotes in every year but one. That was the first year we had a guard dog, and I foolishly thought that we had the problem licked. We soon learned how resourceful coyotes are. The amount paid out by the province in compensation to producers has more than doubled in the last five years, and the problem only appears to be getting worse. Trying to get the government to move at all on predation, or even to acknowledge the fact that there is an issue, has been very frustrating. OSMA has had a long history of involvement with predation issues. In the late 1990’s there was a pilot project involving snares. Several farms with a history of predation were selected, and local trappers were hired to place snares to see if snaring in early spring could reduce losses in the summer. This project ran for two years, with considerable success, but for a variety of political reasons was not followed up. Then in 2000 the Ontario Soil and Crop Improvement Association (OSCIA) helped put together a pilot project on Amherst Island to test the effectiveness of predator resistant fencing in reducing predation. About 65 acres were fenced with high tensile small mesh page wire four feet high, with a live strand of smooth wire nine inches up, and a ground wire nine inches above that. To date no lambs have been killed inside the fence, though there has been yearly predation outside the fence. Partly as a result of this pilot the Agricultural Policy Framework, which was the Federal/Provincial agricultural assistance agreement launched in 2003 included 30% cost share funding for predator resistant fencing. After considerable lobbying by several groups, including OSMA, the level of assistance was raised to 50% under the new agreement, called Growing Forward, in 2008. The main problem with this is that the funds are very quickly used up, so producers have to

get their applications in quickly. OSMA continues to lobby for more dollars to be put into the program.. At the Ontario Federation of Agriculture Annual General Meeting in 2008 Al Whitlam and I put forward a resolution asking that OFA start a task team to address predation issues. This was started, and came up with a list of recommendations to take to the government. In 2009 OSMA and the Cattlemen put forward another motion on predation, to keep the issue front and centre of lobbying efforts. Increasing conflicts between pet owners in rural and urban areas have also helped raise the problem of coyotes with politicians. In July last year the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Affairs and the Ministry of Natural Resources released a discussion paper on Agriculture/Wildlife conflicts, and held a preliminary meeting in Guelph to obtain feedback. OSMA provided input at the meeting, and submitted written comments later. Part of the discussion paper recommended setting up a working group with OMAFRA, MNR and agricultural groups to work on ways to reduce these conflicts. After some delay this group appears to be going ahead, with the first meeting scheduled for mid March. OSMA intends to be involved throughout. At the last Board meeting OSMA approved a new position paper on predation. This will be available on the OSMA website. The main themes we are pushing are improved compensation for losses, more assistance with predation prevention methods, more tools to deal with problem predators and better education for producers, municipalities and valuers. OMAFRA on February 25th released a further discussion paper on predation. This may be seen at http://www.omafra. gov.on.ca/english/policy/brm_wildlife/wildlife. Comments are invited before April 11th. The challenge now facing OSMA is to work with other agricultural organizations and other groups to actually get some changes from the government to deal with predation. OSN

Editorial policy: Ontario Sheep News represents an important vehicle for two-way communication between the OSMA Board and its member producers. Ontario Sheep News welcomes and encourages letters from producers as a means of enabling producers to communicate both with the Board of Directors and other producers on issues of importance to OSMA and the entire sheep industry. Ontario Sheep News also invites suggestions for articles from producers and other industry participants. Letters to the editor of Ontario Sheep News may be on any sheep industry topic, including OSMA policies, programs or procedure. Letters may address previous Ontario Sheep News Articles or letters to the editor, and the editor may comment briefly on the accuracy of any information contained in letters. Letters should be of general interest to other readers of Ontario Sheep News, should not exceed 300 words, and may be edited for style or grammatical errors. All letters must include the author’s name, postal address and telephone number for author verification. Letters printed will indicate the author’s name, town, and title if applicable. Potentially defamatory or libelous material, or personal attacks on individuals, will not be permitted. Subject to space limitations, Ontario Sheep News will attempt to print all letters which meet the criteria indicated above. Where more than one letter is received on the same topic, Ontario Sheep News may print only a representative sample of letters. If a producer feels that the editor has inappropriately edited or not printed a letter, he or she may submit a written request to the Board of Directors for a review to determine whether there has been any violation of Ontario Sheep News’ editorial policy.

OSN M a r c h 2 0 1 1

from the editor

march 2011

Change is on the Way Introducing our New Logo

Ruth Gilmour, Ontario Sheep News Editor

here is a quote by President Woodrow Wilson that goes, “If you want to make enemies, try to change something”. I laughed when I read that quote, not because I think that people want to make enemies but because it is true that most of us are resistant to change. I know that I am. In fact, I often tell people that the nice thing about being stubborn is that I always know what I will be thinking tomorrow. Of course this is not true of all of us. Some people love and embrace change and hats off to them. It takes courage to change as change is so very necessary and sometimes it takes courage to hold your ground against change. Ultimately, it’s about finding that right balance. OSMA is changing as all businesses and organizations need to in today’s world. Staff and Board are always trying to find that right balance. What programs to move forward with? What should we discard? Will this help our producers? Is the cost going to be worth the benefits? Maybe not now, but what about five years down the road? Often the decisions are not easy and sometimes it is a leap of faith. Bearing all that in mind, I bring to you some changes that have recently happened and some changes that are on the way. I am happy to say that staff and Board feel confident that these changes are all a step in the right direction.

Our New Logo The logo that we presently have has served this organization well for many years and in the fast and always changing world of graphic design it has held its’ own but the time has come to give the organization a new look. This is important because as simple as a logo design is, it tells the world whether we are stuck in the past or moving toward the future. We are definitely moving toward the future. Our new logo (shown on this page) has taken considerable time and thought process. First, the lamb head was redesigned a number of times as we wanted it to be non-breed specific and to depict a young vibrant industry. The colours of red and black combined are considered to be ‘power colours’ and we wanted to stand out and be bold. You can see that the words “Marketing Agency” are quite small. This was done for a number of reasons. First the words “Ontario Sheep Marketing Agency” plus a lamb design is quite a bit to put on a logo and we felt that the words “Ontario Sheep” were the most important. Also, there has been an ongoing discussion as to whether we should continue with “Marketing Agency” so we designed the logo that in the event of producers ever deciding to do

away with the “Marketing Agency”, it could simply drop off the logo. I know this is a lot of information but I think it is important to explain the thought process that was used in the new design. We like the look of the new logo and its simplicity and we hope that you do too.

SFIP Becoming GenOvis In many ways this is NOT a change. Nothing within the program is actually changing. In Ontario we have SFIP, in the rest of the country the exact same program is delivered by the Quebec organization, CEPOQ and the program is called GenOvis. CEPOQ have been receiving SFIP data for years and they are the ones who have been processing it and working with our producers with OMAFRA’s support. More details can be found on page 8.

Farm Management Software for Ontario Sheep Producers (Web Based) I have placed this last on my list of changes but it should have been first. OSMA is in the process of working with BIO (Beef Improvement Opportunities) and Farms.com on developing Management Software for OSMA. Both of these organizations have developed very successful farm management softwares for other commodity groups. BIO has developed bioTrack for beef and Farms.com has developed PigCHAMP. Together they are working with OSMA to develop a web based software package that will work for sheep producers and for producers who also have beef cattle Ultimately, it will be a full package software and will include all the necessary modules to assist you in managing your operation. This would also include On- Farm Food Safety, Biosecurity, Traceability plus more. This project is well underway. Please look to the next issue of the Sheep News for a much more in-depth article. So here are three new advancements for OSMA. There is much more happening and we will keep you up to date. The important thing to understand is that the Ontario Sheep industry is changing. It is growing and it is evolving and that is all good. I started with a quote on change and I will end with one from Winston Churchill, “There is nothing wrong with change, if it is in the right direction”. OSN OSN M a r c h 2 0 1 1

general manager’s report

march 2011

Meeting Customer Needs Murray Hunt

ver the past weeks I have received many calls that relate to how to meet the needs of customers within our industry. I wish to share some of the questions, or comments in order to stimulate you to think about this topic. A large abattoir owner phoned in asking if he might be able to buy enough Easter lambs to fill an order of 4000 lambs for a grocery chain. Last year he was only able to buy 3100 lambs. I was not able to suggest that he would be able to buy 4000. A person leaving another livestock industry wants to buy 200 high quality breeding ewes. However when he went to the auctions, he only found small groups of ewes that had been culled from other flocks, often for feet and udder problems. Then when he phoned producers normally having ewes for sale, he found that they were sold out. I could not recommend a solution for this potential producer. A moderate aged abattoir phoned to ask if I thought prices for live market lambs had gone too high. This abattoir serves an area of high unemployment and the grocery stores in that area were observing that consumers were finding the price of lamb too high. This is an important question but again, I did not have an answer. A large commercial operation called to say he has always used performance tested high genetic merit rams but he

is finding there are no rams available no matter what the price. He has found significant benefit to his bottom line by only using high genetic quality rams. Yet again I could not assist the questioner. The final call was from a producer who sells locally, including some lambs he buys from his neighbors. His reason for the call was to find out how OSMA can assist him in the future when he needs to have on-farm food safety and biosecurity programs for him to be able to show his customers that they can trust the product he is selling. I was able to tell this producer that the web-based flock management software that OSMA is developing with BIO and Farms.com will provide this service for his use. So how do all these questions fit together? Well they all address that the Ontario Sheep Industry needs new ways to meet customer needs. We are all aware of those needs. The needs cover all disciplines – genetics, nutrition, reproduction, marketing, animal health, on farm records, flock management, guaranteeing product, safety and quality. These are all areas that OSMA is working on, generally in cooperation with other stakeholders. Developing the industry for a successful future is important to the OSMA Board and staff. If you have ideas, comments, questions, thoughts or suggestions, please take the time to speak with or email your District Director or the OSMA office. Our focus at OSMA is “Turning Opportunities into Profit” Your input is needed. OSN

Photo: Hal Brown OSN M a r c h 2 0 1 1

market report

march 2011

The Ontario Market Report Full market information can be found every week in the Ontario Farmer and online at www.ontariosheep.org under “Market Information”. The graphs shown here show the trends in pricing and volume of the last 6 months in Ontario. OSN

You can also listen to the weekly information by calling 519-836-0043 and press 6 to go to the market line. Market information for OLEX, the Ontario Stockyards, Brussels and Embrun are recorded every week. You can also find archived weekly summaries on the Market page.

   

  Website www.sheltersolutions.ca

Email info@sheltersolutions.ca

Address 360 King Street Unit #5 Palmerston ON N0G2P0



 



   

 

OSN M a r c h 2 0 1 1

SFIP Now to Be Administered by CEPOQ 3 Important Changes to Sfip • SFIP Now on the Web • SFIP to be now totally administered by CEPOQ • SFIP to be renamed GenOvis There are some changes that are quickly upcoming regarding the SFIP program and they are all very positive and beneficial for Ontario producers. 1st – SFIP is now web based and waiting for you to sign up and participate in. Increasingly more producers are becoming involved. 2nd - SFIP will soon be fully serviced by CEPOQ. This will mean very little change to any producers on the SFIP program. In fact, producers will find the program easier to access and more user friendly. 3rd – SFIP will be renamed GenOvis. This will not be a change that makes a big difference in the overall program but it is important to note that SFIP is only called SFIP in Ontario. Throughout the rest of Canada, this program is called GenOvis. The change of name is necessary just to standardize with the rest of the country.

Important - Nothing Will Change in the Layout of the Program. More Info: Most of you who are already on the program are familiar with the support person from CEPOQ, Amelie St. Pierre. Amelie will be the main support person for producers if they have questions. CEPOQ have full time staff that work on the GenOvis program and this is why it is a better choice for producers to work with CEPOQ directly. The OSMA staff will continue to be available to Ontario producers if have any concerns or comments that you want addressed. Billing Billing will be done by OSMA. Anyone presently on the program should be aware that we will be invoicing on April 1st. At that time forms for re-enrolment will be sent out (as they have always been when the program was run by OMAFRA). The cost of the program continues to be $159.00 plus HST annually. If you have any questions, comments or concerns, please contact Ruth Gilmour at 519-836-0043 Ext. 27 or email general@ontariosheep.org. OSN

New Zealand Lamb Crop Smaller in 2010 Meat and Livestock Australia, November 26, 2010

he number of lambs tailed in NZ for the 2010 lamb crop fell 10%, or 2.8 million head, on the previous year, to 25.1 million head, according to the Beef + Lamb NZ Economic Service’s annual Lamb Crop Survey. Prior to the survey results, the lamb crop was expected to be back by around 2.5%, based on scanning data. However cold, wet conditions, and even snow around peak lambing killed hundreds of thousands of new lambs, along with thousands of ewes. As a result, the lambing percentage for 2010 fell to 109.6%, down from 121.5% in 2009, and the lowest since 1995. In addition to the smaller lamb crop this season, a combination of cool weather and lack of sunshine has slowed pasture growth, causing lamb development to be around two to three weeks behind. This slow start is expected to be negated later in the season, with average carcass weights forecast to increase 1% on last season, to 17.8kg, which if reached, will be a record high for NZ.

OSN M a r c h 2 0 1 1

The fall in lamb numbers is not expected to be passed completely through to export markets, with the number of lambs to be slaughtered for export estimated to be back 1.4 million head, to 19.5 million. This is primarily due to a relatively low lamb retention rate compared with the previous season. The lower number of replacements will result in stronger cash flow for producers, particularly with lamb prices in mid-November around 20% higher than the same time last year. For the original article please refer to: http://www.mla. com.au/Prices-and-markets/Market-news/NZ-lamb-cropsmaller-in-2010 OSN

It’s That Time of Year Again!

pring is just around the corner, and for many Ontario shepherds that means time to shear the flock. Even though it is only March, you should plan on booking a sheep shearer early to ensure that they are available when you want your flock shorn. If you use electric fence in your pasture rotation, you may want to have your sheep shorn since the wool will act as insulation and may not give them an adequate “zap”. Retraining sheep to the fence early in the spring will save on headaches later in the summer! The following list of sheep shearers is from the Canadian Co-operative Wool Growers website and can be found by going to the ‘about wool’ tab at http://www.seregonmap.com/ SCM/index.htm. Special thanks to the Wool Growers.

Ontario Shearers 613-478-5084

Viren D’souza

Keene 705-875-0030 virendsouza@gmail.com 705-295-6902

Gerald Gemmill

Englehart ggemmill@xplornet.com

705-544-2971

Geraldine Heffernan

Indian River

705-295-4238

Peter McIntyre

Lindsay

705-879-6757

Donald Metheral

Glen Huron

705-466-2568

Richard Metheral

Glen Huron

705-466-3295

Michael Oates

Keene

705-295-2638

Jonathan Bauman

Elmira

226-750-3083

Richard Bayly

Wiarton

519-534-4160

Ervin Bowman

Clifford

519-327-4760

Josh Bruton

Wingham

519-357-4266

Pieter DeRijk

Norwich - normount@execulink.com

519-863-5770 Cell 863-3790

Owen Cutfield

Bruce Peninsula ocutfield@hotmail.com

519-793-3274

Paul Cassidy

Thomasburg

Ross Creighton

Almonte

Richard Cullum

Glenburnie

613-542-8584

Owen Cutfield

Ottawa ocutfield@hotmail.com

613-725-9638

Karen Douma

Corunna kdouma@cogeco.ca 519-862-2854

Fearnley Davies

Tweed

613-478-3547

Irwin Jackson

Rockwood

David Jones

Demorestville

613-476-8530

Spencer Meldrum

Alexandria

613-525-1907

Peter Kudelka

Mitchell peter_kudelka@sympatico.ca 519-348-4266

Bruce McEwen

Forrester’s Falls

613-582-3745

Judy Miller

Hanover

519-364-6193

Eric O’Brien

Ottawa obrieneric@gmail.com 613-252-9414

Glenn Paine

Kerwood

519-247-9894

Calvin & Jeff Russell

Blenheim

519-676-2560

Tom Redpath

Lanark shearmaster@hotmail.com 613-253-1606

Garnet Russell

Langton

519-875-4007

Charles Schonauer

Lanark

613-278-2346

Gerald te Velde

Owen Sound

519-538-4704

Terry Spicer

Madoc - Ontario & Quebec lost.horizon@sympatico.ca

Karen Weirmier

Elmwood

519-370-8668

613-473-1278

Jerry Kelleher

York

905-772-3298

Ruco Braat

Bailieboro

705-939-2366

Rob Worden

Courtice

905-432-3628

613-256-4752/3365

519-856-4490

OSN

Call for Participants

all for Participants to be part of a study at the University of Guelph to evaluate the prevalence of anthelmintic resistance on Ontario sheep farms. Seeking flocks that pasture their sheep for at least 3 months with at least 30 animals in their fist grazing season. If you are interested please contact Laura Falzon at lfalzon@uoguelph.ca

or 519-824-4120 ext. 54595. You may also contact Dr. Paula Menzies at pmenzies@uoguelph.ca or 519-824-4120 ext. 54043 or Dr. Andrew Peregrine at aperegri@ovc.uoguelph.ca or 519-824-4120 ext. 54714. For complete details please go to the link on our website at www.ontariosheep.org. OSN

OSN M a r c h 2 0 1 1

CSF - Points of View

A forum for sharing perspectives from across the Canadian Sheep Industry

Myth: The fine for not tagging sheep is $500 per animal.

s of October 2010, the fine for not tagging animals was increased from $500 to $1,300 per infraction, and transporters, producers and auction barns can be fined for violation by the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA). It’s the responsibility of all involved to ensure they are within the Health of Animals Part XV Regulations, which can be found on the Department of Justice’s website at: http://lawslois. justice.gc.ca/en/C.R.C.-c.296. Producers need to ensure they are tagging all animals with a Canadian Sheep Identification Program (CSIP) tag before the animal leaves the farm of origin. If animals leave the farm of origin without tags, producers could be subject to the increased fines, as could transporters, auction marts and slaughter facilities should they accept animals without tags. Because there are currently no approved tagging stations for sheep, there is no allowance in the Regulations for sheep to leave their farm of origin without tags. We have heard from producers who are concerned about the increased fines. The Regulations do currently address tags that are lost in transit and CSF is working in conjunction with auction marts, and in the interest of the industry as a whole (producers, transporters, auction marts and slaughter facilities), to ensure stakeholders are aware of what to do should an animal lose its tag in transit. For more on how to manage lost tags, I would encourage you to read our case study with CFIA’s Ken Sloik who provides some very valuable insights. As we move forward, it’s important to have a credible identification program, particularly as the industry and others proceed with Radio Frequency Identification to meet the demands of legislated mandatory traceability. Identification is one of the three pillars of traceability – without it, we have no traceability. While the cost of the fine is high, having animals in the system that cannot be traced could have a much higher cost for our industry in the event of a foreign animal disease or food safety crisis. For more information on the CSIP, go to the Canadian Sheep Federation’s website: www. cansheep.ca. If you would like to comment on this issue, you can still submit your point of view. Please send your comments to pointsofview@ cansheep.ca, or contact me directly. Barbara Caswell, Acting Executive Director Canadian Sheep Federation (519) 824-6018 • 1 (888) 684-7739 barbara@cansheep.ca

OSN M a r c h 2 0 1 1

Letters to the Editor I’m a large producer in Manitoba – 2,000 ewes shipping 5,000 lambs all to Cookstown, Ontario. Who is the naïve person responsible for deciding a fine of $1,300 for a lost tag is rational? Anyone who has worked with sheep and ear tags realizes a certain percentage of tags will get ripped out. I realize government bureaucrats have usually never had any real working experience, but surely someone in the CSF is in a position to logically demonstrate the irrationality of such an onerous punishment. Perhaps the real objective is to eliminate the sheep industry as a viable farming group so that the government doesn’t have to deal with this miserably small group of hopelessly optimistic individuals. ~ Patrick Smith, MB I think it is a disgrace that the CFIA can fine such amounts of money for loss of a tag. They say that producers and transporters can both be fined if they cannot determine if the producer or transporter is to blame for lost tags. Whatever happened to innocent until proven guilty? Can you imagine the outcry if the RCMP saw two young men running away from a robbery who fled into a bar. When entering the bar, the RCMP find 10 young men so they decide to arrest them all because they can’t determine who the culprits are. “I find it amazing that that if I lose two tags on a trip to the market, I could be fined more than if caught driving under the influence in a busy city.” ~ Stuart Greaves, Vita, MB The new CFIA rule imposing a $1,300 fine for having an animal shipped even if the tag drops out on shipping is outrageous. If I ship a number of lambs that all have tags but one loses its tag, why should I or anyone else be fined? This will put a lot of people out of the business and might stop some from coming into it. ~ Bill Duffield, Wyoming, ON

Increased Fines for Animals Without Tags

Ken Sloik, National Lead for Enforcement on Animal Identification, Canadian Food Inspection Agency In October 2010, amendments were made to the Agriculture and Agri-Food Administrative Monetary Penalties Regulations (AAAMP Regulations) which increased the penalties available for violations under the Health of Animals Act. The changes affected the penalties applicable to persons who are found to contravene Canadian sheep identification requirements. Recently, the Canadian Sheep Federation sat down with Ken Sloik, National Lead for Enforcement on Animal Identification with the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA). Sloik took the time to discuss the regulation changes – why they happened, what the CFIA is trying to achieve and what it all means for producers

and the rest of the industry. Changes to Regulations Part XV of federal Health of Animals Regulations set out the identification requirements applicable to sheep. One important requirement is that every sheep leaving a farm must be identified with an approved tag. Non-compliance of this rule can lead to enforcement action, and may result in a fine being imposed. The AAAMP Regulations have three different classifications of non-compliance – minor, serious and very serious. Prior to October 2010, the penalties for violations committed during the course of business were $500 for minor, $2,000 for serious and $4,000 for very serious. The CFIA has increased these penalties to $1,300 for minor, $6,000 for serious and $10,000 for very serious. An example of a minor infraction would be not tagging an animal, a serious infraction would be not keeping the necessary records, and a very serious infraction would be altering or producing false tags. Why the Change? Sloik says the changes were put into place to achieve better compliance generally under the Health of Animals Act and Plant Protection Act. The result for the animal identification programs is expected to be more effective deterrence of non-compliance throughout all sectors of the industry – primary producers, transporters, auction marts and processors.

If the tag is found on the truck, the evidence shows that the tag fell out in transit between the producer’s farm and the auction mart. In this case, no fine would be imposed. An example of non-compliance would be something like this: a producer arrives at the slaughter house with six untagged lambs. As the CFIA inspector is approaching the producer to investigate the situation, he sees the producer putting the tags into the lambs’ ears. “The producer is non-compliant and he knows it because he brought the tags with him just in case an inspector is present at the slaughter facility,” Sloik says. In this case, a fine would be imposed. Ensuring Compliance According to Sloik, producers can ensure they are compliant with the tagging requirements in the regulations by ensuring that all sheep are tagged prior to leaving the farm.

Comment from OSMA - As of yet, no Ontario producer, transporter or Auction Market has been fined for animals that appeared to have lost their tags. Only animals that obvioulsly have never been tagged have received fines.

Although, the majority of industry stakeholders have fully embraced mandatory traceability, according to Sloik there is still a small group that have not. He says this is the group the CFIA are targeting. “Animal identification is important because if there is a question about disease or food safety, we need exact information on where the animal has been and where it originated,” Sloik says. How Will Tagging Requirements Be Enforced? CFIA inspectors will randomly be present at various locations, including farms, auction marts and processing facilities. This is not new and those in the sheep industry are probably accustomed to interacting with inspectors from time to time. It is important to note that in the case of an untagged animal, all stakeholders in the industry – primary producers, transporters, auction marts and processors – can be fined. Sloik says each potential violation will be investigated on a case-by-case basis. For example, if a transporter arrives at the auction mart and one of the sheep does not have an ear tag, the CFIA inspector will look into the situation further. “We would start by looking on the truck for a missing tag, or checking the animal’s ear to see if it has a tear mark in it,” says Sloik.

Because transporters can also be fined, they need to ensure that any animals they transport are tagged. Sloik says it’s quite uncommon for a transporter to be fined but it has happened in the past. “If the transporter is a repeat offender or has a large number of animals without tags, he will be fined,” he says. On the flip side, if it’s reasonable to believe that the transporter did not notice a tag or two missing, he will not be fined. Once again, all infractions are based upon the evidence gathered at the time of inspection and investigation. One way that auction marts and slaughter plants can ensure their compliance is by refusing to take untagged animals. For animals that loose tags in transit, the transporter or operation must immediately tag animals as soon as a missing tag is identified. Response to a Notice of Violation Those who are issued a notice of violation under the AAAMP Regulations have four options: 1. P ay an amount equal to one half the penalty within 15 days. 2. Wait longer than 15 days and pay the total amount of the penalty before it is due. 3. Within 30 days, seek a review of the facts of the violation by the Minister or the Review Tribunal. 4. Within 30 days and if the amount of the penalty is $2,000 or more, make a request to the Minister to enter into a noncompliance agreement. For more information, copies of the applicable legislation are available on the Department of Justice Canada’s website at http:// laws.justice.gc.ca/en/H-3.3. OSN OSN M a r c h 2 0 1 1

Upcoming Events Sheep Infrastructure Workshop

OnTraceability 2011

1. April 6 & 7, 2011 - Kemptville Area (TBD) Two day Course sponsored by the Large Flock Operators and The Ontario Ministry of Agriculture Food, and Rural Affairs, limited to 20 participants.

April 7th, 2011 8:30 am – 3:30 pm Cambridge Hotel & Conference Centre 700 Hespeler Rd. Cambridge, ON N3H 5L8

The Program is targeted toward people in the planning cycle for building large scale, commercial scale infrastructure as part of an expansion plan in their sheep enterprise. The workshop is intended to give ideas, show latest concepts, test out participants’ ideas and examine relative costs, but not a financial recipe or exact expenses list as that is dependant on their personal situation. The group will look at what regulations need to be addressed, although these should not be big ticket items on any sheep farm. Participants will be sent home with some good ideas and the need to examine more options before committing themselves on any capital project. The Workshop includes stops at several commercial-sized operations that are using some of the concepts covered, and also some that are choosing not to use the featured concepts. This will allow participants to mix and match what portions of the workshop will best suit their needs for their facilities and make informed decisions on expansion. *This training opportunity is eligible for cost-share funding through the Growing Forward Business Development for Farm Businesses program. For more information on program requirements, please visit http://www.omafra.gov.on.ca/english/ about/growingforward/busdev.htm or call 1-877-424-1300. Authored by: Christoph Wand - Beef Cattle and Sheep Nutritionist / OMAFRA Anita O’Brien - Sheep and Goat Specialist/OMAFRA - Robert Chambers - Engineer Sheep Structures and Equipment/OMAFRA Last Updated: January 14, 2011

For more information: Toll Free: 1-877-424-1300 Local: (519) 826-4047 E-mail: ag.info.omafra@ontario.ca

District 10 District 10 Event: Fecal testing as part of effective parasite management. Lecture and Demonstration by Dr. Miltenburg April 20th 7-9 pm Dunvegan Recreation Hall, 19053 County Road 24, Dunvegan, Ontario Contact Laurie Maus at 613-5271897 or info@hawkhillfarm.ca for more information District 10 Production Sale July 30th in Spencerville Ontario. Sale of Production Tested Rams and Ewes. To include animals in this sale contact Gary Lapier at 613-989-2792 (rockyhylandfarm@ripnet.com) or Colleen Acres at 613-8262330 (colleen.acres@sympatico.ca) 12

OSN M a r c h 2 0 1 1

The morning will feature keynote speakers who will discuss traceability in both Canada and the US, from a variety of perspectives, and how it will impact the agri-food industry. The afternoon will feature an expert panel and interactive discussion with the audience that explores the state of agriculture and food traceability in Canada. Register today. Cost: $75 For more information: Toll Free 1-888-38-TRACE (8-7223) or www.ontrace.ca

Livestock Emergency Response Courses The Ontario Farm Animal Council is offering Livestock Emergency Response Courses for Front Line Response and Emergency Personnel. This course will cover decision making for accidents involving livestock, trailer design and extrication, animal behavior, means to calm, rescue, capture and temporarily confine animals, laws, euthanasia protocols and how to develop response teams. There is a course in Kitchener on April 13, 2011 and one in Thunder Bay on April 15, 2011. The cost is $150 per participant (includes training materials and lunch). To register please visit www.ofac.org or call (519) 837-1326, space is limited so sign up today.

Grey Bruce Sheep Management Club at Grey Gables in Markdale Mar 29th – Courtney Denard will bring us up to date on the Scrapie disease –G rant Preston will tell us about his experience with Scrapie April 26th – Bill McCutchen will speak on finishing lambs for the best market price. OSN

Genetic Evaluations Available for New Traits Delma Kennedy—Sheep Specialist, OMAFRA

n 2011, producers enrolled on the Sheep Flock Improvement Program (SFIP) in Ontario and GenOvis in Quebec will have access to improved genetic evaluation numbers to make selection decisions in their flocks. New genetic evaluations have been released for Lamb survival (SURV), Lambing Interval (INTV) and Age at first lambing (AGE). These evaluations are being released as part of a major upgrade to the genetic evaluation program. The genetic evaluation database has been rewritten as an internet web based system. Producers can access their data directly using a login and password. Data can be keyed directly into the database

on the website or loaded into the database using an electronic file. Reports are available for all current and past information that has been submitted to the genetic evaluation program. Producers interested in test driving the new system should contact the Ontario Sheep Marketing Agency (OSMA) for enrolment and access information. OSN

Canadian Sheep Breeders’ Association Update: Moving Forward

he CSBA had a successful 2010 and is anticipating a productive year ahead, beginning with its Annual General Meeting. This year’s meeting will be held from March 3-6, 2011 in Truro, Nova Scotia. The meeting will focus on updating and implementing the current business plan, discussing past and upcoming committee activities and addressing concerns from the provinces and individual producers. The CSBA is also finalizing plans for the All Canada Sheep Classic, which is being held in Drake, Saskatchewan July 22-24, 2011. Contributing to the CSBA’s success in 2010 were significant increases in Ontario: 3% in new members and 8% in registrations. This growth is similar to national increases of 4% in new members and 9% in registrations. The CSBA looks forward to assisting producers as they strive to meet the market demand for excellent breeding stock and fresh, local lamb. During the Ontario purebred association meeting in October 2010, a number of concerns were raised regarding

current scrapie programs, genotyping and border restrictions. The CSBA is aware of these concerns and will be addressing them at its upcoming AGM. The CSBA will continue to work with the Canadian Sheep Federation and Scrapie Canada to support provincial and national purebred sheep producers in the eradication of scrapie. As part of its objective to “provide a high level of communication across the Canadian Sheep Industry”, the CSBA will continue to listen to the provinces and individual producers and act on concerns brought to its attention. The CSBA would like to thank the Ontario Sheep Marketing Agency for making this space available to help meet this objective. Please watch for future CSBA updates in “Ontario Sheep News”. For information or requests, please do not hesitate to contact the CSBA’s Ontario directors: Darryl Hopkins: (519) 369-1903 and Colleen Acres: (613) 826-2330, or CSBA’s General Manager: Stacey White: 1-866-956-1116. OSN

OSN M a r c h 2 0 1 1

Sheep Flock Improvement Program Robert Irvine

A Basic Introduction to SFIP

SFIP is a genetic based management tool that producers should consider if they are interested in knowing how well their flock is performing. The information generated ranges from the basics (for novice producers and those just beginning to consider measures of performance), to the sophisticated expected progeny differences, for those interested in specific genetic trait improvements. The program is administered by OSMA, with data processing being done in Quebec, and the refinement and development of evaluative factors being the domain of OMAFRA and the University of Guelph researchers. The cost of enrolment is $150 per year. This cost is easily recouped, if the producer is diligent about using the results provided in the reports to reduce feed costs and improve productivity. The time commitment doesn’t much exceed the time spent weighing the lambs.

Producer Inputs

1. Numerical identification of dam, sire and lamb, birth date of lamb, type of birth, and how it was raised (single, twin triplet etc.). 2. Weigh lambs at 50 days old (can be from 35-65 days old – a group born within a 30 day period). One might use anything from a bathroom scale, a hog-type scale or a digital electronic reader scale. For a producer wanting keep replacement ewe lambs, it may be advantageous to weigh the lambs at birth as well. There is also a comment column for special problems. 3. Submit weights, entered on the “SFIP form” to OSMA, via snail mail, fax or electronic mail. 4. Weigh the same lambs again at 100 days old (85-115days). Enter weights on same form and submit to OSMA.

SFIP Output Data

a) 50 day actual and adjusted weights. b) 100 day actual and adjusted weights. c) 100 day average daily gain. d) Ewe Index e) Multi Index of lamb (considers lamb, dam and sire data) f) Expected progeny differences for the following traits: (how the animal is expected to perform; derived from dam, sire and ancestors) i) Number born and number weaned ii) Birth weight maternal and direct – (direct meaning how the lamb did on its own) iii) 50 day maternal and direct iv) 100 day direct 14

OSN M a r c h 2 0 1 1

v) Maternal, Terminal and Growth indexes which rate the lamb on combined EPDs. The terminal index is used for producers who have scanned for loin eye and back fat. It is advantageous for purebred producers who sell terminal sires and producers who want to improve on these traits to use this data. Data from each weigh group is summarized to allow the producer to access performance factors such as: • Death loss and prolificacy. • Maternal and growth strengths and weaknesses. • Sire and dam reports for comparisons. The data from (a) to (e) from above is determined from within the flock, allowing the producer to compare the lambs against each other. The EPD data is calculated between flocks, comparing the data to others on SFIP with the same breed over a five year period. If one has a popular breed such as Rideaus, Suffolks, or Dorsets, the comparison will be made, using data from 50,000, 30,000 and 30,000 animals respectively. Decisions respecting market lambs, replacement ewe lambs, keeper or cull ewes and ram selection are more likely to be made based on objective evaluations rather than “eyeballing” alone. SFIP makes the setting of measurable goals EASY. Meeting those goals is the challenge.

Unintended Benefits of Using SFIP

• Better record keeping • Lamb, ewe and ram ID readable ear tags. • Better handling systems • Encourages producer to make management decisions to improve productivity from one weighing to the next. • Identifies management strengths and weaknesses, such as high rates of gain and multiple births, or mortalities, low growth rates, illnesses etc. • Gives producer a chance to use objective measures to improve on or maintain current management practices. • Recognition of the value of electronic advancements, genetic assessments and how easy/difficult it is to change some traits but not others. • Encourages producer to tighten up the lambing/breeding period: eg. Rams in for 30 days to fit weigh groups. If a ewe isn’t bred, she goes into next group or is culled. The value of participating in SFIP is the opportunity to improve the performance of your flock and put MORE DOLLARS IN YOUR POCKET. OSN

How SFIP Can Save You $$$$$

Weaning weight of 44.2 lb. Market Weight 65

110

Days on Feed

Robert Irvine

s a sheep producer as in most areas of life, if you don’t know where you are now, it is difficult to get where you want to go! The Sheep Flock Improvement Program allows the Gail and Bob Irvine producer to know where his/her starting point is and provides a map to let him/her consider various routes to take to get to the goal. The producer can benefit from the genetic evaluations and the performance data generated by the SFIP. Balancing lamb gains or weights against other factors such as # born, # weaned, lambing interval and maternal attributes is possible using SFIP data.

ADG LBS

114

149

.55

118

.66

.77

.88

1.00

Weaning weight of 48.6 lb. Market Weight 65

110

Days on Feed ADG LBS

Growth trait improvements, which are up to 70% heritable, are relatively easy to attain and are measurable at a basic level by average daily gain. Weaning weights, which are only 30% heritable, are more difficult to improve upon as they refer to the maternal traits. There are many other aspects to the program that can also influence the performance of the flock and improve financial returns. Christoph Wand, the sheep nutritionist for OMAFRA, provided the following data: • Increased average daily gains are positively correlated with feed efficiency • Range of performance usually 25-50 lb. or .5- 1 lb./day • Feed consumption – 125-250 lb. of feed • Cost of ration at $360/ tonne, or $ .16 /lb. (in January, 2011) • Feeding rate – 2 lb. /day, averaged over the whole period • Range of costs for 50 days = $20.40 - $40.80 / lamb

.44

105

139

.55

111

.66

.77

.88

1.00

Weaning weight of 53 lb. Market Weight 65

110

Days on Feed ADG LBS

In order to make things simple, the following concentrates on two factors: weaning weights and average daily gains. The classes of lambs referenced are those on feed from 50 to 100 days of age, post weaning.

.44

130

.55

104

.66

.77

.88

1.00

Weaning weight of 57 lb.

The four tables are meant to allow easy estimates of the number of days a lamb would need to be on feed for various weaning weights and rates of gain.

Market Weight 65

110

Days on Feed

Examples of How to Use the Table: I) A lamb with a weaning weight of 44.2 lb. and an ADG of .44 lb. will take 82 days to reach a market weight of 80 lb. II) A lamb with a weaning weight of 48.6 lb. and an ADG of .55 lb. will take 56 days to reach a market weight of 80 lb. III) A lamb with a weaning weight of 53 lb. and an ADG of .66 lb. will take 41 days to reach a market weight of 80 lb. Continued on page 17.

ADG LBS

.44

120

.55

.66

.77

.88

1.00

OSN M a r c h 2 0 1 1

Moving the Sheep Industry Ahead with Genetic Improvement By Dan Morrical, Sheep Extension Specialist Farm Coordinator, IACUC Chair, 313 Kildee, Iowa State University

he Sheep Industry has been chastised for its slow adaption of new technology. Using genetic evaluation programs like Sheep Flock Improvement Program is an example of not using technology. So why do we as sheep producers cling to traditional means of evaluating our animals. My contention is that our ancestors from Europe specifically Scotland and England used the stockman’s eye to identify the best animals. Universities propagated this by hiring Scottish herdsman to manage and show University flocks and herds. Additionally, Universities field livestock judging teams which trained lots of young producers how to evaluate a class of four animals and justify your selections via a set of oral reasons. I happen to be one of those students who benefited from that training and is why I major in Animal Science during my undergraduate days way back when. The real problem with visual evaluation of animals is somewhat accurate for structural correctness and along with composition. However, visual appraisal is extremely inaccurate in terms of determining performance such as gain, prolificacy and milk production. This is mostly due to the fact that things we can evaluate visual are not connected to traits that make us money. Producers who truly want to breed sheep that have improved performance must use a data processing system such as SFIP. Traits that are important to sheep producers are listed in Table 1 along with their heritability. Traits are categorized into four groups which are maternal, growth, carcass and wool. Heritability is the portion of what you see when viewing an animal or record that is due to genetics. For example number born is lowly heritable trait at .1 or 10%. This means that genetics is 10% of lambs born and environment is 90% of lambs born. Not only is lambs born a lowly heritable trait it is also low repeatability. Which means that an individual record such as a ewe having twins in 2011 says very little about what she will do in 2012. Therefore it is critical that for lowly heritable traits multiple years of records and or performance of relatives be used to generate genetic estimates for maternal traits. The opposite extreme is wool traits were one evaluation of animals fleece characteristics provides all the information one needs because wool traits are highly heritable. What sets SFIP apart from other performance data? First off performance records are adjusted for fixed effects. Number born and number reared is an example of fixed effect that impacts a lambs weaning weight. Other fixed effects are age of dam, season of birth, location of rearing. The real advantage of the SFIP is that the computer does all the calculations to make the adjustments. Additional it uses statistical methodology

OSN M a r c h 2 0 1 1

of BLUP (best unbiased predictor) to calculate either an EPD (expected progeny difference) or an EBV (Estimated Breeding Values). EBB’s are twice as large as EPD’s since the animal only transmits half the genetic material to its offspring (progeny difference). So SFIP provides enrollees with the best estimates of their individual animal’s genetic worth for various traits. Sheep have many traits that are important to profitable efficient production. Hand calculating EPD is an impossible task. Trying to hand calculate 50 day adjust weights and ratios for 75 lambs would take most of us more time than we have patience to work at pushing calculator buttons. Making genetic improvement is impacted by heritability, selection differential and generation interval. We have already discussed heritability (h2). Traits with higher heritability increase the rate at which genetic progress can be made. University of Wyoming did a long term selection study to improve lambs born. They increased lambs born by 3 lambs per 100 ewes per year or 6% per generation interval, which is the next factor that impacts how fast we can improve the flock. Generation Interval is calculated as the average age of the dams and average age of sires in the flock. In most cases the ewe flock age is allowed to float but is probably three to five years in most flocks. Turning over the ewe flock every year would maximize generation interval but would be financial suicide since our flock’s actual production level would be low because we are only lambing ewe lambs. This might also be hard on one’s mental health and longevity as ewe lambs can be challenging to manage. However, we can greatly reduce generation interval by only using ram lambs so that the average sire age is one. If one is buying new sires it is also very expensive to cull them after one year of use. Actually it is not the actual age of the rams but the years they have been used in the flock. So if one buys a five year old ram that has great EPD values, he should be considered as a ram lamb when calculating the average age of the sires. Cooperative efforts between several breeders can reduce the initial investment of truly superior rams for performance. The last factor that impacts the rate of genetic improvement is the selection differential (SD). This calculation is how much better the selected replacements are compared to the average animal in the flock. Stated another way is the how superior the selected animals are for a trait compared to the average. Again this is where SFIP gives one a significant chance to improve the flock by identifying the extreme animals for performance. If one just selects within one’s own flock the likelihood of having extreme performing animals are less probable. The aspect of SD is how many traits one selects for. For example if I decided that my flocks use to the industry was to produce terminal

sires, than I would select on 100 day weight. However growth and maternal traits are not positively correlated so one would have a lower lamb crop over time. One can prevent this by use of independent selection criteria such as all replacements would need to be positive for maternal trait and then the most positive for 100 day weight available. The sire side is where we can greatly increase the SD because we need only replace a few sires compared to 20 to 25 percent of the ewe flock. SFIP has many traits on which participants will receive EPD values on their flock. The large number of traits can be overwhelming. Improvements in the program have made it easier for producers to use in making selections. Flocks with producing terminal sires can use the terminal sire index. This single value combines multiple traits that are important for a terminal sire. One aspect that should not be overlooked or terminal sire flocks is average lamb survival of a sire’s offspring. This can help overcome some the negative response to terminal sire by commercial producers. Flocks interested in producing superior maternal genetics can use the maternal index as the value no which to base selection. Another aspect of using SFIP is that because animals have EPD on multiple traits it is possible to better advise potential buyers one which animals can most benefit their flock. For example, if a ram buyer is looking for a sire to increase number born/weaned in his flock, identifying those rams which are the most positive for lambs weaned is his best choice. A high maternal index ram may not be as genetically superior. Another example is a flock with adequate number born but needs more milk. They should select a ram that is very positive for maternal milk or maternal 50 day weight. Commercial producers should purchase breeding stock from Breeders who have EPD’s on their sheep. Additionally commercial producers should be willing to pay more for Continued from page 15 ~How

SFIP Can Save You $$$$$

The financial implications of improving either weaning weights or ADG rates are easily determined using the examples above: W. WT. ADG # DAYS ON FEED COST/DAY COST TO REACH 80 lb. i) 44.2 .44 82 $ .32 $26.24 ii) 48.6 .55 56 $ .32 $17.92 iii) 53 .66 41 $ .32 $13.12

Possible Scenarios A I t is clear that by improving the weaning weight from 44.2 lb. to 53 lb. and improving the ADG from .44 to .66 lb./day, the cost of gain is reduced by half, or a saving of $13.12 per lamb. B I f the desired market wt. were 110 lb., the weaning wt. were improved from 44.2 to 53 lb., and there were an improvement in ADG from .44 to .66 lb/day, then the feed cost savings would be [(149 x $.32 ) – (86 x $.32)] = $20.16 per lamb.

this superior genetics. Participating in SFIP will generate returns from increased production within the flock as we truly are selecting and breeding better more profitable sheep. Additionally, participation improves one’s ability to market seedstock because you have a competitive advantage because you know your sheep are truly superior. Sheep have multiple traits that are important for profitable production and it is to use a genetic evaluation program. The cost of operating a sheep flock will probably not decrease in the next few years and may never decrease with the growing international economy. Therefore it is critical that we improve the output per ewe and output per flock. Breeding or buying superior genetics is the surest way to increase production efficiency. There are several very good articles on SFIP and genetic improvement on the Ontario Agriculture web sites for those who want to read more. OSN Table 1. Heritabilities of various traits in sheep. Traits

Reproduction

.1 - .2

Growth

.25 - .40

Carcass

.3 - .5

Wool

.4 - .6

Using scenario A it would take 11 lambs, or 8 lambs using scenario B to cover the cost of enrolling in SFIP. If there were 25 lambs in a feed group with a market weight of 110 lb., and their performance were improved by increasing weaning wt. from 44 lb. to 53 lb., and their ADG increased from .44 to .77 lb./day, the total feed cost saving would be $584. These savings could cover the cost of SFIP @ $150, allow for the purchase of 1tonne of feed @ $360 and leave you with $74 for a night out! Decisions respecting flock improvement parameters must be made once the data is available. If it is data from the producer’s own flock, then both the dams and sires can be managed to accelerate improvements. If a producer is a buyer of rams that are on SFIP, only half of the genetic potential is available in his lambs, but that would seem to be preferable to having no data upon which to base sire selection. Purchasers and breeders of SFIP stock are not restricted to using only gain or weights for selection purposes. Numbers aren’t everything, but they can do much more than “eyeballing” alone. OSN OSN M a r c h 2 0 1 1

Parasite Control in Sheep – Now is the Time !

Photo: Robin Little

Andrew S. Peregrine and Paula Menzies, Ontario Veterinary College, University of Guelph

hroughout the world, when sheep are kept on pasture they typically become infected with gastrointestinal (GI) parasites. Furthermore, depending on management practices and climate conditions, these parasites can cause significant economic losses in a flock. While at least 10 different GI parasites infect sheep in North America, the three most important are Haemonchus (barber’s pole worm), Teladorsagia (brown stomach worm) and Trichostrongylus (stomach hairworm). All three parasites live as adults in the abomasum of sheep and produce eggs that pass into the environment in feces. Thereafter, over a period that typically lasts 2-3 weeks, the eggs hatch, the parasites mature to the infective stage, then migrate off feces in to pasture to maximize the chance of ingestion by sheep. The life cycles of all three parasites therefore involve stages that occur in sheep and stages that occur in the environment. In fact, it is estimated that 70-80% of all the GI parasites on a sheep farm are typically located in the environment and not in sheep. Since the early 1980s, almost no work has been carried out on the importance of GI parasites in Canadian sheep. As a result, from 2006 to 2009, researchers conducted work on 32 sheep farms in Ontario and Quebec, with minimal use of dewormers, to determine the extent to which parasite egg numbers change throughout the year in the feces of lambs and ewes. They also determined the extent to which parasite numbers fluctuate in pasture. Most farms on the study lambed between February and May. Amongst the farms there was great variation in the parasite burdens in lambs, ewes and on pasture. Thus, despite minimal use of dewormers, parasites were not a problem on all farms. However, there were some

Figure 1: Average fecal egg counts (FEC) in ewes and lambs, and pasture parasite burdens (infectivity), in 32 sheep flocks in Ontario and Quebec (May 2006-April 2007)

epg = parasite eggs per gram of feces; L3/kgDM = number of infective parasites per kilogram of pasture dry matter; M-J = May-June; J-J = June-July; J-A = July-August; A = August; S = September; O = October; J = January; F-M = February-March; A= April 18

OSN M a r c h 2 0 1 1

very important observations of parasite loads on some of those farms. While overall in ewes, parasite egg numbers in feces remained low for most of the year, they were often very high in May-June, usually coinciding with the period that ewes were nursing lambs (see figure 1). Thus, ewes were typically a significant cause of pasture contamination with parasites at the beginning of the grazing season. By contrast, parasite egg numbers in the feces of lambs were typically at their highest in July-August (see figure 1), and disease in that age group is most likely to occur at this time of the year. Finally, parasite burdens on pasture were typically at their highest one month after peak egg output in the feces of ewes and lambs. However, when the climate was hot and dry, pasture burdens declined significantly after only a few weeks (see figure 1). Additional work indicated that Ontario sheep are typically infected simultaneously with Haemonchus, Teladorsagia and Trichostrongylus. In combination with information on sheep parasites from elsewhere in the world, these data have important implications for integrated sustainable approaches for control of GI parasites. Most importantly, parasite numbers should be reduced to levels that have minimal impact on production and which minimize the risk of development of resistance to dewormers. With this in mind, the following are strategies that should be used collectively to minimize parasite burdens on sheep farms: For control of gastrointestinal parasites in the spring: • Ensure that ewe nutrition is optimal throughout the periparturient period, particularly adequate levels of protein (by-pass or rumen undegradable protein). • Do not graze late gestation or early lactation ewes on pasture when egg output tends to be the highest. • Ideally, weaned lambs should be grazed on low-risk pastures, e.g. newly seeded pasture or hay fields or fields that have been previously grazed by cattle or horses (not goats or alpacas). Lambs should not be grazed on pasture on which parasite problems occurred the previous grazing season. • Lambs should be weaned early (i.e. by 60 days of age) and thereafter, if possible, not grazed with ewes so that exposure can be better controlled. • Weaned lambs should be rotated ahead of ewes – after weaning, lambs should have first access to safe pasture. • Targeted treatments should be used – treat only those animals that need it, when they need it. Thus, all sheep should regularly be monitored for evidence of clinical disease. In addition, fecal egg counts should be monitored, and animals treated only if necessary, as follows:

v Ewes in late pregnancy or around lambing – to detect the periparturient egg rise. v Lambs in early July – if treatment is not required, they should be resampled at least every 4 weeks for the rest of the summer. If lambs appear parasitized after treatment, they should be resampled at 14 days following treatment to determine if treatment (drench) failure occurred. v When carrying out fecal monitoring, recognize that when animals have fecal egg counts less than 500 eggs per gram of feces, treatment is not required. v If your farm has had parasite problems in previous years, the frequency of monitoring lambs may need to be shortened – particularly after mid-July. v If the summer is particularly wet and warm, the frequency of monitoring lambs may need to be increased as parasite eggs will develop more quickly to the infective stage under those conditions.

• R otate the effective dewormer drug class slowly, i.e. not more frequently than annually. • After deworming, do not move sheep to clean pasture for at least 3-5 days. • Never graze sheep and goats together. • Do not spread manure directly on to pasture. • If pastures are heavily contaminated with parasites at the end of the previous grazing season they should ideally be selected for ploughing, reseeding, hay production or grazing by cattle. • For purchased animals, treat with an effective dewormer while in quarantine, and after 3-4 days turn out to pasture that is contaminated with parasites. • Do not treat pre-breeding.

For control of gastrointestinal parasites throughout the grazing season: • Recognize that parasites can remain on pasture during the grazing season for up to 3 months and use parasite evasive grazing strategies, e.g. rotate pastures, rotate pastures with cattle or horses. • Only use dewormers that are known to be effective on any given farm. • When deworming, ensure that all animals are dosed correctly – no animal should be under dosed. Make sure you estimate the weight of the sheep correctly. Ensure that the drenching gun is dispensing the stated volume and administer it over the back of the tongue. Do not use an injectable dewormer. Do not use pour-on products either as a pour-on or orally.

While it is unlikely that any farm would be able to incorporate all these recommendations in their parasite control program, the greater the number that can be incorporated the greater the sustainability of the control program. Additional information about each of these parasite control strategies, and others, and their suitability for sheep production in Canada, can be found in the “Handbook for the control of internal parasites of sheep” that can be downloaded from: http://www.uoguelph.ca/~pmenzies/PDF/Handbook_ Control_Internal_Parasites_Sheep_PMenzies.pdf OSN Reference: Mederos, A., Fernández, S., VanLeeuwen, J., Peregrine, A.S., Kelton, D., Menzies, P., LeBoeuf, A. and Martin, R. (2010) Prevalence and distribution of gastrointestinal nematodes on 32 organic and conventional commercial sheep farms in Ontario and Quebec, Canada (2006 – 2008). Veterinary Parasitology 170, 244-252.

Thank You OSMA Thank you for supporting the market lamb class at the Royal Winter Fair. We were fortunate to have Reserve Grand Champion and received the banner you donated. This is a letter of thanks received from the family of Kevin and Jacquie Bishop. OSN

Kevin & Jacquie Bishop and Family. Judge Mark Campbell, Jason Emke (far right) OSN M a r c h 2 0 1 1

Planning for the 2011 Grazing Season Jack Kyle, OMAFRA Grazier Specialist

hat will the 2011 grazing season be like – if past years can provide any guidance, at some point it will be too dry, too wet, too much forage to graze and not enough forage to graze. Based on these observations from past years a little bit of planning and preparation at the beginning of the season will pay big dividends by the end of the year. The first step is to take inventory of what you have and what you need. Estimate the pounds of grazing livestock you will have each month. They will require about 3% of their body weight in dry matter each day. Now estimate how much production you will get from your pastures – an excellent to very good pasture should produce 5000 lbs of dry matter but 60% of this will come in May & June and the remaining 40% over the next 3-4 months. Do you have enough feed to get you through to the end of October – what about November and December? In this table I have used 100 ewes weighing 150 lbs and 150 lambs weighing 30 lbs at the beginning of the grazing season and gaining 1/3 of a lb per day. You can substitute your own situation using this example. I have included the lambs as eating forage, although they maybe getting more of their energy from milk, the ewe will be eating slightly more forage to produce that milk. The important point to remember is that it is the total pounds of animal that are on the pasture and calculate that they need to be offered 3% of their body weight in pasture forage each and every day. I have estimated the pasture production in this table based on a monthly total; this will vary from field to field and to a certain extent on the weather.

As we can see by this example June has a lot of pasture available – which could be made into hay or if well managed, provide carryover for July and August. August we have a major shortage – how can you meet this? Feed hay from June, graze the 2nd growth on hay fields, plant an annual crop to supplement (sorghum-sudan, turnips, cereals, corn). These annuals could also be used for September and October pasture. Moving the lambs to a feedlot in August or September will also have a significant impact on the quantity of pasture required. With a rotational grazing system where you are moving the livestock every 1-2 days and maintaining a good residual amount of forage in the field, you will maintain a strong root system that will help “drought proof” your pasture resulting in improved July and August production. The quality of the pastures will vary and adjustments will be required. By moving quickly in the times of rapid growth (May June) you will leave significant forage behind which will be grazed in July and August thus helping to balance the demand. With a feed budget you have the beginnings of a great pasture season and can be prepared to make adjustments as you go. Note these numbers are estimates, each farm will vary. The factsheet Budgeting and Measuring Pasture Production provides further information, it is available at: http://www. omafra.gov.on.ca/english/crops/field/news/croptalk/2010/ ct-0910a7.htm OSN

May

June

July

August

Sept

Oct

Nov

100 ewes @ 150 lbs

15000

150 lambs 30lbs, .33 lbs/ADG

5250

6750

8250

9750

11250

Total Body weight

20250

21750

23250

24750

26250

15000

3% of Body weight

607

652

697

742

787

450

Production on 1 Acre

1200

1800

1000

500

600

300

Acres Required to Meet Needs

15.7

10.9

21.6

39.4

46.5

Pasture required

OSN M a r c h 2 0 1 1

Stockpile

OSN M a r c h 2 0 1 1

Fencing and Predators: Coyote Deterrent Fences Anita O’Brien, Sheep & Goat Specialist, Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs

he majority of Ontario sheep producers use at least one type of fencing, – in pasture rotations, outdoor confinement areas, outdoor handling facilities. Regardless of the use, these fences have one feature in common, and that is to confine the sheep to the desired area. With the increase in predation pressure in recent years, many producers are re-evaluating aspects of their sheep management in an effort to minimize their flock’s vulnerability to attack. Fence and fence type can play an effective role in predation prevention programs, particularly when combined with a good understanding of the problem predator. This article will highlight aspects of fences, and coyote behaviour that can help minimize entry of coyotes into sheep pastures, and hopefully reduce predation at the same time.

What Motivates Coyotes to Cross Fences?

ONTARIO STOCKYARDS INC. box 1051 cookstown, ontario location: hwy 89 and hwy 400

We will serve all your livestock marketing needs for: • sheep, lambs, goats veal • horses stockers • bred cows kkkk Sheep, Lambs and Goats Ask for Brian Pascoe

cattle

(705) 458-4000 Murray Morrison Wayne Small

Visit our web site at: www. ontariostockyards.on.ca Email: info@ontariostockyards.on.ca 22

OSN M a r c h 2 0 1 1

Coyotes have fairly regular travel routes through their territory. For the coyotes whose territory includes your farm, those travel routes will intersect your fences. How coyotes respond to your fences is aptly described by a quote from a USDA Wildlife Damage Control Agent who stated, “a coyote’s response to a fence is influenced by various factors, including the coyote’s experience, and its motivation for crossing that fence”. As adults, coyotes will kill what they were

taught to kill as pups.1 Looking at it from a different angle, coyotes that are taught to kill livestock as pups will continue to seek out and kill livestock as adult coyotes. Coyotes that have killed livestock on your farm will be much more motivated to find a way through your fences than coyotes that do not associate your farm, or a particular pasture on your farm, with a food source. Adult coyotes will also be more experienced with crossing through fences in their territory compared to the year’s young coyotes.

Identify Entry Points

Coyotes will breach farm fences primarily by going through them, under them, or over them. Learning to identify the spots most likely to offer entry to coyotes encountering your fences should be one goal of your predation prevention program. 1. Entry Points - Gates and Gateways One of the easiest entry points for coyotes is gateways. Coyotes have little problem getting through gateways with the following features: • G ates with greater than 6 inch spacing b e t w e e n horizontal bars. • high clearance between the bottom bar of the gate and the ground • g ateways on raised road beds • ruts in road Figure 1 Bar gate, raised road bed and gate post at bottom of slope provide several entry points for coyotes – through bed (a seasonal and under gate. issue) Existing farm gates can be made “coyote tough” by covering with corn crib wire, or some other close mesh fence wire. When purchasing new farm gates, particularly Figure 2 Chain link gate that prevents coyote entry. those going into Photo credit: C. Allen & M. Ritchie

perimeter fence, consider using ones that are filled with close mesh wire, or chain link gates. 2. Entry Points - Through Fences Some fence types are easier for coyotes to breach than others. Page wire fence with vertical wires greater than six inches apart, high tensile smooth wire fence (whether electric or not), barbed wire fence, and split rail or pole fence, offer little resistance Figure 3 traditional page wire fence poses little challenge for to coyotes coyotes to cross through. encountering them. According to observations made in a number of research studies in the 1970’s and 1980’s, coyotes were readily crossing through fences with openings greater than 15.2 x 10.2 cm (6 x 4 inches)2. Figure 4 spacing between rails in cedar rail fence provide These coyotes easy entry point for coyotes. were smaller (9 to 13.6 kg)4 than those found here in Ontario (11 to 26 kgs)3, and the fence wire was not high tensile, so the coyotes were able to stretch the openings in the fence. 3. Entry Points – Under Fences Where fence posts have jacked out of the ground from frost action, the bottom fence wire will be higher than the original placement, offering coyotes an easy crawl through. The same is true with brace posts that have been dug into the ground. Over time, the Figure 5 Fence over ditch provides large enough gap for back filled earth easy coyote entry. will settle, often leaving enough under the bottom wire for a coyote to crawl through. Where fence goes over uneven ground or over farm ditches are also prime crawl through locations.

These crawlthroughs can be identified and remedied with routine inspection of fence lines, particularly in late spring before grass growth camouflages them. Figure 6 Brace post heaved raising bottom wire high enough for easy coyote entry.

4. Entry Points – Over Fences Coyotes are able to get over considerably tall barriers. Even though most coyotes prefer to crawl through or dig under a fence, they are also good jumpers. And, although not considered common behaviour, some coyotes have been known to learn to climb fences. In one study in Oregon, the methods used by 10 captive wildcapture coyotes were recorded during 916 tests of 34 fence configurations. Although smaller than coyotes found in Ontario, the researchers observed coyotes successfully climbing over fences as high as 183 cm (6 ft. 2 in.) and high as 152.4 cm ( 5ft. 1in.).4

Figure 7 coyotes can easily jump many styles of farm fences. Photo credit: taken from cover of Pacific North West Extension Publication “Building an Electric Antipredator Fence” 2002.

cleanly jumping fences as

Older fences and fences that have not been tensioned correctly will show sagging over time. Even though the top fence wire may be at adequate height on the posts, it is not uncommon to see six inches or more sag midway between posts. It is at these locations that a coyote is most likely to attempt to jump a fence. Coyotes were found to cross fences at corners significantly more often than they crossed elsewhere.2 This was attributed to the extent to which coyotes used the horizontal corner braces as toe-holds to leverage themselves over the fences. Regular inspections in the winter, especially after a fresh fall of snow, will help to identify those locations where coyotes are managing to jump, or climb over your fences. 5. Entry Points – Through Electric Smooth Wire Fences Special note needs to be made regarding high tensile smooth wire fences. While very effective for deterring coyotes when first introduced into this country, few electric fences Continued on page 24. OSN M a r c h 2 0 1 1

Continued from page 23 ~Fencing

and Predators: Coyote Deterrent Fences

stop coyotes from entering livestock pastures today. Some of the primary reasons include: • coyotes encounter electric fences more frequently today, and are therefore more familiar with them compared to 30 years ago. • Voltage on fence drops below critical level due to excessive vegetative growth and high maintenance requirements. Minimum recommended voltage for predation prevention is 4500 volts. Those producers claiming their electric fences are effective at keeping coyotes out, insist that a minimum of 8,000 to 10,000 volts are required as a charge on the fence. • Using fence energizer with too low joules output. Minimum recommended output (not stored joules) for predation prevention is 6 Joules. • Poor grounding of fence, whether due to too few ground rods used or all wires electrified in shallow or excessively dry soils.

acres were enclosed with high tensile, class 3 galvanized, 48 inch high, 12.5 gauge, small mesh high tensile page wire, installed very close to the ground with two additional wires on top, spaced at nine inch intervals, for a total fence height of 5 feet 6 inches. Fence posts were spaced on 16 feet centres. Gateways were secured using chain link, six foot high gates (Figure 2).5

Features of Coyote Deterrent Fence In order for a fence style to be considered effective at stopping predation, it must be very effective at deterring coyotes. Such a fence must have the following features: • Coyotes cannot travel through the fence – ensure that openings no larger than 6 x 6 inches (and smaller if the mesh is not high tensile) • Coyotes cannot crawl under the fence – bottom wire of fence as close to the ground as practical with appropriate tension to prevent “push unders” • Coyotes cannot jump, or climb over the fence – height at least 5 feet 6 inches. Consider brace assembly designs to minimize toe-hold opportunities for coyotes • Coyotes cannot get through at gateways

Is There Such A Thing as Coyote Proof Fence? In the late 1970’s and early 1980’s, researchers in Alberta, and other jurisdictions, evaluated numerous fence configurations in an attempt to develop a coyote proof fence. Although one design was effective at preventing entry of coyotes, the cost was considered prohibitive, and so impractical for most farm situations.

A Number of Observations How In 2001, as part of a larger wildlife damage prevention research project, and on a cost-share basis, Ontario Soil and Crop Improvement Association provided partial funding to construct a “coyote deterring” fence on Mark Ritchie and Cherry Allen’s sheep farm on Amherst Island. Sixty- five

OSN M a r c h 2 0 1 1

Figure 8 Coyote Deterrent Fence installed on Amherst Island as part of OSCIA Wildlife Damage Action Project in the fall of 2001. There have been no kills within this compound. 2010 grazing season marked the ninth year where the fence has proved effective for preventing coyote kills. Photo credit: C. Allen & M. Ritchei

To date, over the span of nine lambing and grazing seasons, no kills have occurred within this “safe zone” although predation has occurred on other locations on the farm, outside this fenced compound.6 Even though the fence is more costly to install, Mark and Cherry have since upgraded the perimeter fences and gates on the land they own to specifications similar to that installed in the 2001 project.

What About Electric Net Fences? A number of portable electric net fence styles have been available in Canada for the past 20 years. Although some producers who have used both styles currently available, comment that those with the heavier vertical struts maintain their height better and last longer, others prefer the double pegged features of the competition. Regardless of personal preferences, these electric net fences can be an effective means of keeping coyotes away from the sheep flock, particularly for smaller flocks. The need for regular picking up and reinstalling them, makes these nets

very labour intensive, and the greatest of their disadvantages. Another is their cost relative to their expected life span, which is generally considered between 5 and 10 years if they are well maintained and not used during the winter months. One of their strengths at deterring coyotes may very well be that coyotes have little time to get comfortable with them. The fact that they are moved on a regular basis means that the coyotes must adjust to not only the sheep being moved to a different area, but that the fences have moved also!

Beefing up Existing Fences Many fences on livestock farms have years of useful life left. The most common method used to make them less coyote friendly, particularly with page wire fences, is the use of electrified offset wires, preferably on the coyote side of the fence. The theory being that the coyote will have contact with the electric wire at the same time as it is crawling through the mesh wire fence. The challenge, of course, is the same as noted above with high tensile smooth wire electric fences, namely, maintaining high enough voltage and a good ground to maximize shocking power on the fence. For fences that are already “coyote tough” from a through and under perspective, but perhaps too short in height, a tapered offset on the top of the fence, similar to that used on security fences may work. Where the fence posts offer enough space height above the existing fence, the addition of two smooth wires at nine inch spacing will add 18 inches to the height of the fence. Livestock guardian animals, with a proven track record, can be used in conjunction with existing fences, to improve the effectiveness of existing fences at keeping coyotes out. Their effectiveness is variable, with some being very effective and other not effective at all. Annual costs, which include feed and health care, are relatively high for livestock guardian dogs. Compared to donkeys and llamas, however, they can be run in pairs or groups without negatively affecting their usefulness. Donkeys and llamas, on the other hand, have been noted to abandon their sheep wards when a second or third donkey or llama is added. As with other preventative measures, producers note that coyotes are adjusting to the presence of livestock guardian animals, with many long-time users of dogs commenting that it now takes two or more dogs to do the same job as one dog could do ten years ago.

Considerations for Future Farm Fences

fencing. For producers with little or no predation, the costbenefit may very well be questionable. For producers with significant predation losses, the cost-benefit of installing coyote deterrent fence with the goal to minimize coyote access onto the farm, or at least into your pastures, should be considered. High tensile woven, 12.5 gauge wire, that has Class 3 galvanizing is approximately 30 percent stronger than standard 9 gauge woven wire fence. The Class 3 galvanizing results in longer life of the wire, as it takes longer to show rust. High tensile woven wire fence, that is tensioned according to manufacturer’s specifications, does not stretch and sag like standard woven wire fence, due to its “elasticity” in responding to changes in environmental temperatures. It therefore, maintains tension year after year. As steel prices have gone up, a number of manufactures have changed the specifications of the woven wire fence they now offer, to keep fence wire costs in check. They are now using 12.5 gauge top and bottom wires instead of 10 gauge, and the filler wires are 14 gauge instead of 12.5 gauge. Even though this wire is high tensile and Class 3 galvanized, it does not have the same strength and expected life span as that previously sold. Although it is assumed that this lighter wire will perform almost as well at keeping coyotes out, precise attention to installation will be necessary, as well as more grazing seasons to determine how effective it really is.

Summary Fencing can be an effective component of a producer’s predation prevention program. Understanding what motivates coyotes to breach fences, recognizing their travel patterns on your farm and routine examination of fences can be used to identify those areas offering entry points to coyotes and reduce their opportunities to attack your sheep flock. OSN 1. PARKER, G. 1995. The Eastern Coyote – the Story of Its Success. ISBN 1551091119 2. THOMPSON, B. 1979. Evaluation of Wire Fences for Coyote Control. J. Range Management 32(6). 3. 1998 Predator Removal Pilot. Personal communications. 4. THOMPSON, B. 1978. Technical Paper 4353, Oregon Agricultural Experimental Station. Fence Crossing Behaviour Exhibited by Coyotes. 5. ONTARIO SOIL & CROP IMPROVEMENT ASSOCIATION. 2003. Probing Problem Wildlife leaflet. 6. RITCHIE, M.& C. ALLEN. 2011. Personal communications.

As farm fences need replacing, in particular your perimeter fences, consider the benefits of installing coyote deterrent

OSN M a r c h 2 0 1 1

Johne’s Disease in Sheep and Goats

Sinclair, J. 1 , Jones, A. 1 , Menzies, P. 1 , Jansen, J. 2 , 1 Department of Population Medicine, Ontario Veterinary College, University of Guelph, 2 Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs

What is Johne’s Disease?

Johne’s Disease (JD) is caused by the bacteria Mycobacterium avium subspecies paratuberculosis (MAP) and can affect all ruminants (e.g. deer, cattle, sheep, goats). The disease can be devastating as it damages the small intestine (see Figure 1) and drastically reduces the animal’s ability to absorb nutrients from their feed. Infected animals typically have severe weight loss – always leading to starvation and death – despite having a good appetite. MAP is a hardy organism that can survive in manure, on pasture, in water and in the barn Figure 1. Gastrointestinal tract of JD infected goat. The small intestine becomes thickened due to the chronic inflammatory for many months at a time (up to a response to MAP (as pointed out by the arrow). Source: Dr. Paula Menzies year).

How Does Johne’s Disease Spread from Animal to Animal?

The main form of transmission is through the fecal-oral route: • Fecal: infected adults shed the bacteria in their feces and contaminate the feed, water, environment, etc. • Oral: young animals eat the bacteria via either: u Direct contact with the feces u Indirect contact through ingestion of fecal-contaminated water or feed, or via fecal-contaminated equipment or udders

Figure 2. The animals that are showing signs of JD are only the ‘tip of the iceberg’. Many other animals in the herd will be infected but not yet showing signs. Source: Dr. Paula Menzies 26

OSN M a r c h 2 0 1 1

When a dam is in advanced stages of JD, she can pass the disease on to her fetus while pregnant (“in utero transmission”) or to her kid/lamb via her colostrum or milk. Lambs/kids that contract JD via the in utero route are more likely to show clinical signs of JD at an earlier age – as young as 18 months. Sheep and goats can become infected with MAP at any age but youngstock, particularly newborn lambs and kids, are the most susceptible. Infected animals will intermittently shed MAP in their feces for a prolonged period of time (months to years, depending on their infection load) before developing the signs of disease. This means they can act as a source of infection to other animals in the herd/flock even while appearing healthy. There is a long incubation period for JD, meaning that there is a long time between an animal becoming infected and the development of clinical signs of the disease. For this reason, infected sheep/goats typically do not show signs of disease until they are 2 years of age or older. Animals that are displaying signs (e.g. weight loss) will continuously shed MAP in their feces thus contaminating the environment with large amounts of bacteria. There are multiple strains of JD depending on the species of animal infected. The most common strains in Canada are the cattle and sheep strains. Sheep and cattle don’t tend to cross-infect each other. Goats are susceptible to both sheep and cattle strains, but are more likely to show clinical signs of disease if infected with the cattle strain.

Diagnosing Johne’s Disease

The most accurate way to diagnose JD is by post-mortem. Typically the lower part of the small intestine (ileum) will be thickened (as seen in Figure 1) with enlarged lymph nodes in that area, but this is not always the case. There can also be no abnormalities seen in the small intestine, or there can be only a mild thickening of only a very small segment of the small intestine. Changes found in sheep and goats are often much less severe than those found in cattle. There are other testing options available that can be performed on the live animal, such as culturing MAP from feces, and detecting MAP antibodies in blood or milk samples. These tests are not yet very accurate at detecting MAP infection in animals that are not showing clinical signs of JD. Currently, out of the fecal, blood and milk tests the most accurate is the fecal culture – but this still has its drawbacks. It takes 6-12 weeks before a result is confirmed as the bacteria are very slow growing, and because MAP is only shed intermittently in the feces, not all samples contain enough MAP to be detected in culture. Detection of antibodies in blood or milk Continued on page 28.

CIDR 330

With season is 15 the n’ewe16 in season.17 12 CIDR 330, 13 out of14 ■

ALSO AVAILABLE FOR YOUR FLOCK:

Excenel‡ Sterile Powder Cal-Nateλ 23% Injection Newcellsλ

Lidocaineλ HCI 2% Lidocaineλ Neat Pen Aqueousλ

Tetanus Antitoxinλ Defensor® 3 UltraChoice® 7 & 8

KopertoxΩ Oxytocin Injectionλ Dystosel* Injection

trademark of Interag; Pfizer Canada Inc. licensee. ® Registered trademark of Pfizer Products Inc; Pfizer Canada Inc. licensee. ‡ Registered trademark of Pharmacia & Upjohn Company LLC. Used under licence by Pfizer Canada Inc. * Registered trademark of Pfizer Canada Inc. λ Trademark of Wyeth; Wyeth Canada Inc. licensee. Ω Registered trademark of Wyeth; Wyeth Canada Inc. licensee. CDR330 JADP02 0311 E ■ Registered

Continued from page 26 ~ Johne’s

Disease in Sheep and Goats

can be misleading as many infected animals don’t produce antibodies early in the disease, or there may be cross-reaction of antibodies with other bacterial infections, particularly with the bacteria which causes caseous lymphadenitis (CLA).

Clinical Signs of JD in Sheep and Goats

• Progressive weight loss is the most important sign, this can occur even when the appetite remains good • Rough coat • Anemia and bottle jaw due to low protein in the terminal stages of disease • Unlike cattle, diarrhea Figure 3. A goat with clinical JD, note the severe is uncommon in JD emaciation. Source: Dr. Paula Menzies of sheep and goats, although it may be seen in the terminal stages of disease • Clinical signs of JD tend to present themselves after a stressful event in the animal’s life (e.g. lambing/kidding) • It is hard to differentiate this disease from other causes of chronic wasting such as parasites, internal abscess due to caseous lymphadenitis, or bad teeth. A veterinary examination and diagnostic work-up will help to determine the cause of the weight loss

reduced production. For cattle herds in Canada, it has been estimated that if one or more JD positive animals are present in a herd, producers will lose approximately 15% of their potential income annually.

How Can You prevent Johne’s Disease?

1. Keep a closed herd/flock: The most likely way JD is introduced into a herd/flock is through purchased replacement animals that are infected (males or females). Keeping a closed herd/flock will prevent the introduction of animals that appear healthy but are infected with JD and do not yet test positive for the disease. If animals are bought in, it is best to keep newly purchased animal(s) in quarantine until it is certain they are disease free. Because of the poor accuracy of diagnostic tests and the long incubation period of the disease it is best to purchase from sources that are known to be low risk for JD. In order to do this, request the breeder’s biosecurity protocol, whether they test for JD, and if they do - what the results were. 2. Help prevent youngstock from becoming infected with MAP: • Quarantine any unthrifty animals in the herd/flock and contact your veterinarian u Test any animals you may suspect be showing signs of JD; severely wasted animals should be sent for a postmortem exam by a veterinary pathologist u Cull any test-positive animals to slaughter

How Common is Johne’s Disease?

The prevalence of JD in small ruminants in Ontario remains unknown, but a University of Guelph study is now underway to help determine this in dairy sheep and dairy goats and to help investigate potential farm-level Figure 4. A sheep with clinical JD, appears and individual-level unthrifty and thin. Source: Dr. Paula Menzies risk factors for JD. The study will also assess the performance and level of agreement between seven different diagnostic tests. The results will allow for informed recommendations to be made to veterinarians, industry groups and small ruminant producers on diagnostic testing, test interpretation and surveillance for JD.

How Costly is Johne’s Disease?

The economic costs due to JD have not been calculated for small ruminant production, but annual losses due to JD in a sheep flock can vary from 1-15%. Losses are mainly due to premature culling because of poor body condition and 28

OSN M a r c h 2 0 1 1

Figure 5 - Kids feeding. http://johnes.org/general/control.html

• Make sure the youngstock are not exposed to manure from potentially infected adults: u Keep feed equipment, feed and water troughs free of manure; routinely dump the sediment that gathers at the bottom of water troughs u Avoid build-up of manure on ewe/doe’s udder as this will help avoid fecal-oral transmission when the lamb/ kid is nursing u For animals with long wool or hair coats, clip the udder and escutcheon area prior to lambing/kidding – this will prevent fecal material from building up in this

area and having the lamb/kid come into contact with it when they nurse u Remove the lambs/kids directly after birth, this will prevent them from ingesting contaminated colostrum or milk and it will reduce their exposure to adult manure u For those left with their dam keep the environment clean and well bedded and have an area that is free of adult manure where the lambs/kids can camp (e.g. creep area)

applying the product. will help to reduce the number of MAP in the environment.

u This

In Conclusion

Overall, Johne’s disease is a welfare and health issue for the animals it affects and an economic concern for those who raise them. If we are able to keep the prevalence of JD at a low level, or eliminate it all together, by improving diagnostic methods and changing management practices this will be of great benefit to both small ruminant producers and their animals. OSN

• Prevent youngstock from ingesting contaminated colostrum or milk: u If possible feed References colostrum from Johne’s Disease in Sheep, OMAFRA. http://www.omafra.gov.on.ca/english/livestock/ test-negative sheep/facts/johnsdis.htm animals. When Johne’s Information Center, University of Wisconsin – School of Veterinary Medicine. collecting http://www.johnes.org colostrum from Mee, J.F., Richardson, E. Epidemiology and economic impact of Johne’s disease in Irish dairy herds, Teagasc, Project Report 5405. http://www.teagasc.ie/research/ these animals reports/dairyproduction/5405/eopr-5405.asp clean their udder Moloney, B., Whittington, R. Cross species transmission of ovine Johne’s disease thoroughly before from sheep to cattle: an estimate of prevalence in exposed susceptible cattle. Figure 6 Assure a clean escutcheon area and collection Australian Veterinary Journal 2008: 86, 4; 117-123. u Heat treat clean udder. Source: Dr. Paula Menzies Stehman, S., Shulaw, W. Paratuberculosis (Johne’s Disease) in Sheep and Goats. colostrum by Goat Connection. http://www.goatconnection.com/articles/publish/article_128.shtml warming to 140°F (60°C) for 60 minutes. Heat evenly Whittington, R., Sergeant, E. Progress towards understanding the spread, detection in small batches, then freeze and label. and control of Mycobacterium avium subspec. paratuberculosis in animal populations. AustralianV eterinary Journal 2001: 79, 4; 267-278. u Avoid pooling of colostrum from several dams u Do not feed unpasteurized milk to lambs/kids, use either pasteurized milk or milk replacer u For batch pasteurization: 145°F (63°C) for 30 minutes Basket Feeders for Sheep - SHB F Hoop spacing 7-1/4” u For flash pasteurization: 162°F (72°C) F 1-1/4” square tube frame for 15 seconds

Mar-Weld Inc.

3. Prevent spread of MAP on your farm: • Sell youngstock of dams diagnosed with JD directly to slaughter, do not keep as replacements or sell as breeding stock u They may have contracted JD in utero, from infected milk/colostrum, or from being exposed to their infected mother’s manure • Provide clean, dry environments for lambing/kidding: u Use deeply bedded, clean pens that are free of manure for birthing u Clean the pen after the group has finished lambing/kidding, or if the pen becomes contaminated with manure. u MAP shows susceptibility to 5 minutes of exposure to a phenolic germicidal detergent (e.g. 1Stroke Environ, Steris). However, all visible manure must be removed from the surface that this product is to be used on before

F 1-1/2” x 1/4” flat hoops F Stackable F For round bales up to 5’ x 5’ F Also available with pan underneath to feed grain and catch leaves

WTF Walk-through Hay & Grain Feeder F Basket rod spacing is 2-3/4” F Feeds hay and grain F 8” alley through centre of the feeder F Remove doors and pin feeders together to create a row F Also available in 1 sided fenceline style

Collapsible Feeder - 3CF

F 3” rod spacing F Completely collapsible F All straight bars F Closer spacing allows hay to come out but keeps chaff out of the wool F Also available with 7” spacing Call for a free brochure and a dealer near you.

2690 Manser Rd. RR#1, Milbank Ontario N0K 1L0•(519) 698-1151•Fax (519) 698-1152 Call for a free brochure of all our feeders and handling equipment including wire mesh gates. OSN M a r c h 2 0 1 1

Producer Perceptions of Food-borne and Zoonotic Diseases in Ontario’s Sheep Industries Laura Falzon1, Andria Jones1, Paula Menzies1, Andrew Peregrine2, Jocelyn Jansen3 Departments of Population Medicine1 and Pathobiology2, Ontario Veterinary College, University of Guelph, and Ontario Ministry of Agriculture Food and Rural Affairs3

ood-borne and zoonotic diseases (i.e. those diseases that can be passed between animals and humans) can jeopardize animal health and productivity, and can pose health risks to the humans that work with the animals or consume their products. Researchers at the University of Guelph recently completed a research project to investigate sheep producers’ perceptions of food-borne and zoonotic diseases. They met individually with dairy sheep and meat sheep producers during focus groups and conducted postal surveys to find out from producers: • Their concern with respect to food-borne and zoonotic diseases in the dairy and meat sheep industries • Whether they had contracted a zoonotic disease from their sheep • Their level of confidence in their physicians’ knowledge of sheep zoonotic diseases • Their desire for more information and further research on food-borne and zoonotic diseases in the sheep industries and • The preferred method for delivery of information on foodborne and zoonotic diseases In total, 32.4% (12/37) of all dairy sheep producers and 29.3% (115/393) of all meat sheep producers contacted participated in the surveys. Below we discuss some of the survey findings.

Producers’ Concern with Respect to Food-Borne and Zoonotic Diseases in the Dairy and Meat Sheep Industries

Producers were provided with a list of diseases and issues that may affect human health and were asked to indicate their level of concern regarding each of them. For dairy sheep producers, the top ranked were abortions due to Chlamydophila, Johne’s disease, listeriosis, orf, and Staphylococcus aureus (“Staph”), as well as elevated standard plate counts in milk and elevated coliform counts in milk. Also of concern were abortions due to Campylobacter, Chlamydophila, Cryptosporidium, Giardia, listeriosis, Salmonella and Toxoplasma. For 30

OSN M a r c h 2 0 1 1

meat sheep producers, the top ranked were: Cryptosporidosis, E. coli 0157:H7, Johne’s disease, listeriosis, orf, and rabies. Also of concern were Campylobacter, Chlamydophila, Giardia, Johne’s disease, and Toxoplasma.

Producers’ Experience with Zoonotic Diseases from Sheep

Dairy sheep producers reported that they (9.1%) or someone else working on their farm (27.3%) had experienced a zoonotic illness that they felt was contracted from working with their sheep. For meat sheep producers, these proportions were 10.6% and 3.7%, respectively. The most commonly reported diseases experienced were orf, ringworm, skin rashes and, to a lesser extent, Campylobacter.

Producers’ Level of Confidence in Physicians’ Knowledge of Sheep Zoonotic Diseases

The majority of both dairy sheep producers (71.4%) and meat sheep producers (68.7%) felt that their family physician was unable to provide advice on diseases that they might contract from working with sheep. Most dairy sheep producers (72.7%) and meat sheep producers (87.3%) thought it would be useful to provide rural physicians with more information on sheep zoonotic diseases.

Photo: Laura Falzon

Producers’ Desire for More Information and Further Research on Food-Borne and Zoonotic Diseases in the Sheep Industries

Approximately 26.1% of dairy sheep producers and 34.7% of meat sheep producers expressed being “not at all confident” in their knowledge of food-borne and zoonotic diseases that may be associated with sheep products. The majority of producers (59.2% of dairy sheep producers and 75.2% of meat sheep producers) thought it was important to receive more information on these diseases. Further, 72.7% of dairy sheep producers and 76.3% of meat sheep producers showed support and desire for further research on this subject matter. Among the various diseases we listed, the “Top 3” most wanted research topics among dairy sheep producers were Johne’s disease (73% of producers), listeriosis (64% of producers) and, tied for the third position, Chlamydophila, Cryptosporidium, orf and Salmonella (55% of producers each). For meat sheep producers, the most wanted research topics were Johne’s disease (64% of producers), Cryptosporidiosis (64% of producers) and listeriosis (63% of producers).

We sincerely thank all of the participating producers for their time and insights. We look forward to using the information gained from this Photo: Laura Falzon study to plan future activities and research projects that are directly in-line with Ontario sheep producers’ wants and needs. OSN

Preferred Method for Delivery of Information on Food-Borne and Zoonotic Diseases

The methods that were highlighted as best for getting information and research results to sheep producers were: summaries sent via regular mail, paper handbooks, industry publications, and face-to-face meetings with researchers (e.g. at the Ontario Sheep Marketing Agency annual general meeting). Based on the findings from this research, researchers at the University of Guelph are now: • Working with industry organizations to publish short articles on small ruminant food-borne and zoonotic diseases that may help to build producers’ confidence in their knowledge in these areas • Investigating the potential for distributing short articles on common sheep/goat zoonoses to physicians practicing in rural areas of Ontario • Working on research projects on Johne’s Disease in dairy goats and dairy sheep, and Q-fever in all of Ontario’s small ruminant industries.

OSN M a r c h 2 0 1 1

First Shipment of Canadian Sheep to Russia From “From the Flock” – Canadian Sheep Federation

n September 13, 2010, 150 head of Canadian sheep touched down in Russia, heralding the next step in a task begun by Brian Atkinson almost 5 years ago. Linking up with the right people in Russia, working with the Governments of both countries on the health certificate and enduring the effects of the global economic crisis are only some of the challenges faced so far but, the first shipment has arrived! The shipment consisted of a total of 150 head of Suffolks and Dorsets that were sourced from 23 producers in BC, Alberta, Saskatchewan and Ontario. The animals were between 8 and 12 months of age with about 10 percent being males and the rest open females. Brian Atkinson is the owner of Atkinson International (a partner in CAN-SEG) and is on the Board of CLGA. Brian worked very closely with Bill Shore of Willjill Farms Inc. and Gary Smith and Kate Kolstad of Alta Exports International Ltd. Alta was shipping 152 head of Aberdeen Angus cattle to Russia and the sheep went on the same plane. This is but one demonstration of the demand

that exists internationally for Canadian sheep genetics. CLGA congratulates its members for this accomplishment and thanks the Government of Canada for working with us to overcome market access barriers. Minister Ritz has just returned from Turkey where he and his Turkish counterpart agreed to expedite the resolution of outstanding market access issues for Canadian small ruminants and cattle. CLGA is cooperating with CFIA on an incoming technical mission from the Gulf Cooperation Council in October that we hope will clear the way for cattle and small ruminant access to Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates. These are just two examples of current activities. The Canadian Livestock Genetics Association is a nationwide, not-for-profit trade association representing the market access and animal health interests of those involved in the sale, service and promotion of livestock genetics both domestically and internationally. For further information contact: Rick McRonald, Executive Director • clga@clivegen.org OSN

Growing Forward Accepting Applications Beginning April 5th

he Food Safety and Traceability Initiative will be accepting applications for 2011, beginning April 5, 2011, at 10:00 a.m. (9:00 a.m. CST).

also request these documents by emailing the Agricultural Information Contact Centre at growingforward@ontario.ca or by calling 1-888-479-3931.

The Food Safety and Traceability Initiative (FSTI) provides cost-share funding to a maximum of $25,000 per operation to assist agri-food producers and processors to:

Applicants are strongly encouraged to submit their complete Application Form version 3.0 on-time, as annual funding is limited and applications will be reviewed on a first come first served basis. Applications may be submitted by email, fax, mail or in-person. In-person applications may be submitted at most OMAFRA offices [see website for locations]. Applicants can only submit one application at a time. Group or batch submission of applications (by email, fax, in-person or mail) will not be accepted nor considered.

• support the implementation of written food safety programs; • support the implementation of a working traceability system; • assist in the purchase and installation of equipment to improve food safety or traceability; or • train staff increasing the adoption of food safety and traceability.

If applicants have any questions when completing their application, they can contact the Growing Forward Contact Line at 1-888-479-3931. OSN

The updated Application Form and Application Guidebook version 3.0 are now available on the Growing Forward website: www.ontario.ca/foodsafety. Applicants can

(Please do not contact the OSMA office, as we are not the facilitators of this program).

OSN M a r c h 2 0 1 1

Trappers Part of Predation Solution From “Points of View” – Canadian Sheep Federation

he issue of predation has been identified as a major limiting factor for the Canadian sheep industry. Developing an on-farm strategy that involves Canada’s trapping community may be a solution. Rob Cahill of the Fur Institute of Canada (FIC) spoke to sheep producers and industry stakeholders at this year’s Value Chain Round Table. He said bringing farmers and trappers together should be a priority for the Canadian sheep industry. Canada’s trapping community is made up of 60,000 trappers. Licensed trappers are trained to follow international humane trapping standards and provincial trapping regulations, which includes using certified trapping equipment. Regulated trapping occurs in Canada for the use of trading fur, food and culture, scientific research, public health and nuisance control. Cahill said regulations around the latter two have seen a major increase in recent years especially at the municipal level. “The level of human-wildlife conflict is on the rise in urban areas so municipalities are playing more of an important role,” said Cahill. When it comes to dealing with predators on the farm, Cahill said the Canadian sheep industry isn’t alone. In Europe, wild boars are a major problem for crop producers, as are muskrats. Over one million muskrats are trapped each year in Western Europe and the Netherlands is spending $30 million annually on the same problem. In Canada, Alberta

submitted $1 million in predator claims in 2007, whereas Saskatchewan submitted almost $700,000 in claims the same year. In 2008, Ontario submitted $1.33 million in claims and estimated $41 million in predator related agricultural damage. OSN

Religious & Ethnic Holidays and Demand for Lamb and Goat Meat 2011 Holidays Passover April 19-26 Easter

Meat Jewish Holiday

• Preferences are for lambs of 30-55 lbs live weight, that are milk fed and fat. • Meat should be prepared by Kosher slaughter

Western Roman April 24

• Traditional market is for lambs 30-45 lbs live weight, milk fed and fat, or for a suckling kid weighing 18-35lbs live weight.

Eastern Orthodox April 24

• Traditional market is for lambs 40-55 lbs which are milk fed and fat, o r suckling kids in the 25-50lbs live weight range.

*For more information and dates on Ethnic Holidays please refer to the December 2010 Issue or go to www.ontariosheep.org OSN M a r c h 2 0 1 1

Scrapie Update

Jocelyn Jansen, Veterinary Science & Policy Unit, OMAFRA and Anco Farenhorst, Animal Health Programs, CFIA

crapie continues to be detected at low levels in Canadian sheep. The level of scrapie in goats is unknown, and determining this level has been hampered by the lack of a national goat identification program. The United States (US) has spent millions of dollars to eradicate scrapie from the national flock and has declared that their country will be scrapie free by 2017. The continued presence of scrapie in Canada is preventing our gaining access to international markets, including the US. Equivalence with US disease control measures, which are taken when a positive case is identified, and national surveillance, will help to re-establish these markets.

prominent sign in European cases.

Non-classical scrapie, also known as atypical scrapie, can also occur in both sheep and goats. It is clinically, pathologically, biochemically and epidemiologically different from classical scrapie. It was first identified in Norway in 1998. Atypical scrapie affects sheep with genotypes different from those that develop classical scrapie. This supports the theory that it is a spontaneous (sporadic, non-contagious) condition of older sheep. The majority of atypical scrapie cases have been detected in apparently normal sheep sampled at slaughter. On traceback, few flocks have had more than one case of atypical scrapie detected in them. Epidemiological data on goat cases is sparse. Atypical scrapie has been found in animals originating from countries which are considered free of classical scrapie, such as Australia and New Zealand. These findings have not affected their status as scrapie-free.

Classical scrapie is seen only in adult animals, generally between two and five years of age. In some animals, the disease may take up to eight years to develop. Once an animal exhibits clinical signs, it will die within one to two months. Signs can vary greatly and may include behavioural changes such as apprehension or aggression, tremors, incoordination or an abnormal gait. However, a mature animal with a poor coat, an animal with unexplained weight loss or one that is simply found dead can also be diagnosed with scrapie. In North America, wasting and weakness are the most common clinical signs, while pruritis is the most

Table 1 lists the number of flocks confirmed with at least 1 case of scrapie (classical and non-classical), by province/ region since 2000. Scrapie was last diagnosed in a goat in 1976.

Table 1. Annual Scrapie Flock Incidence: 2000 – 2010. (Source: CFIA) BC

Atlantic Provinces

Total Canada

2010

2 (1*)

6(2*)

2009

6(4*)

2008

2007

2(1*)

2006

2005

2004

2003

2002

2001

2000

Total

3(1*)

9(3*)

66(7*)

 As of May 2010 * Non-classical (atypical) scrapie 34

OSN M a r c h 2 0 1 1

Photo credit: Camron Murphy

The CFIA and several provincial ministries have initiated a surveillance program to detect scrapie in the national sheep flock and goat herd. The goal is to identify every infected animal so that proper steps can be taken to completely eradicate the disease from Canada. However, surveillance numbers for Ontario are below provincial targets. CFIA reminds veterinarians that scrapie should be included as a differential diagnosis in sheep and goats aged 12 months of age and older that die on farm or exhibit unexplained weight loss, changes in behaviour, and/ or problems standing or walking. Obex samples can be sent to the Animal Health Laboratory in Guelph for testing. Alternatively, your local CFIA office can be contacted and arrangements made to have a sample taken for testing. There is no charge for samples submitted through the CFIA. Continued on page 35.

New Support for Producers Enrolled on the Voluntary Scrapie Flock Certification Program By Courtney Denard, National Scrapie Coordinator From “From the Flock” – Canadian Sheep Federation

s part of the new funding from Agriculture and AgriFood Canada, producers enrolled on the Voluntary Scrapie Flock Certification Program (VSFCP) will once again receive reimbursements for their contributions to the program. From now until December 17, 2012, the following support applies: • $100 per year towards the cost of the annual veterinarian inventory visit. • Brain testing for scrapie at designated laboratories will be paid for by the program (see below for more information). • $110 towards the cost of hiring a veterinarian to come to the farm and remove a brain sample meant for scrapie testing.

Producers must submit copies of all receipts to Scrapie Canada at 130 Malcolm Road, Guelph, ON, N1K 1B1. Producers who completed their annual inventory or shipped brain samples to a laboratory for testing between April 1st and October 31st, 2010 are permitted to send in their receipts for reimbursement. As of November 1st, 2010 receipts must be submitted within 30 days of the billing date on the veterinarian invoice or shipping receipt to be eligible for reimbursement. The Canadian Sheep Federation, who administers the financial aspect of the program, will be responsible for mailing out reimbursement cheques to producers. OSN

• $20 per shipment to send brain samples to designated laboratories.

Continued from page 34 ~Scrapie

Update

Scrapie is a reportable disease under the Health of Animals Act. Animals suspected of having scrapie and ordered destroyed by CFIA are eligible for compensation. In the case of a confirmed positive test result for classical scrapie, the premise of origin is declared to be an infected premises and a quarantine is placed on sheep and goats that have been exposed to scrapie. Depending on the management of the flock/herd, quarantines may affect all sheep and goats on birth farms and farms where infected females have recently lambed or kidded. An epidemiological survey is completed and animals which have entered the flock (trace-ins) or have left the flock (trace-outs) during the previous 5 years are identified. Disease control measures and testing are conducted on each of these premises. All sheep and goats aged 12 months and younger that may have been exposed to an infected birthing environment are ordered destroyed. Meat from these animals may enter the marketplace. According to Health Canada, there is no known risk to public health associated with scrapie. Exposed adult sheep are blood tested and their genotype determined. All high risk animals, ARQ/ARQ (codons 136, 154, 171/136, 154, 171), are ordered destroyed. If there are no additional test positive results from this group, then no other adult animals are ordered destroyed on the farm. In goats, no genetic profiles that consistently predict a high

risk for developing scrapie have been identified. Therefore, all adult goats on farm are ordered destroyed. Actions will be taken on a case-by-case basis when atypical scrapie is diagnosed from a sheep or goat. Usually there is only a single isolated case found on the farm and generally no further disease control measures are deemed to be necessary. In February of this year, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada approved funding for a National TSE Eradication Plan. A total of $4.5 million was allocated for a three year study that will help to determine the prevalence of scrapie in the Canadian sheep flock and goat herd and the continuation of the Voluntary Scrapie Flock Certification Program. Details of the program are still being developed. OSN References Benestad SL, Arsac J-N, Goldmann W, Nöremark MN. 2008. Atypical scrapie: Properties of the agent, genetics, and epidemiology. Veterinary Research 39: 19-33. CFIA Scrapie Factsheet. scrtre/scrtrefse.shtml

http://www.inspection.gc.ca/english/anima/disemala/

CFIA Scrapie Manual of Procedures. http://www.inspection.gc.ca/english/anima/ heasan/man/scrtre/scrtree.shtml

OSN M a r c h 2 0 1 1

2011 Statistics Canada Numbers Show Increase in National Ewe Flock

riday, February 18, 2011 – Guelph, ON – The January 2011 Sheep Statistics were released last month and indicate that, for the first time since 2004, the Canadian ewe flock has increased by 1.1%. Growing from 515,700 ewes in 2010, the Canada flock now has 521,600 ewes. While seven provinces saw their flock increase over the past 12 months, PEI had the largest ewe flock increase at 36%; followed by Newfoundland at 12.5%; New Brunswick at 12%; Ontario at 7%; Alberta at 4%; Saskatchewan at 3.75% and; Nova Scotia at 3%. This is positive news for the industry, which has been focused on increasing their National flock for over a decade. In 2009, production by Canadian producers only met 47% of the domestic demand for sheep and lamb, and included over

30,000 lambs shipped in from the United States for slaughter. Consumption data for 2010 won’t be released until May. Most recently, in an attempt to address the lack of supply, producers from the Canadian Sheep Federation’s Board of Directors represented producers nationally on an Agriculture Canada Sheep Value Chain Round Table held last November in Calgary. The Round Table also saw participation from the processor and retailer sectors of the value chain and the message was consistent – there is a lack of supply to meet the domestic demand. Flock numbers have been shrinking on an international scale due weather fluctuations causing difficult lambing and lack of available feeds, to the changing economic climate, and ever rising production costs and regulatory demands. With Canada importing over half of its demand for lamb, the fear has been if there is no lamb to import to fill the demand, sheep and lamb products may start disappearing off supermarket shelves and industry infrastructure may be lost. Both CSF and many of the provincial sheep associations have been active in addressing the need for increased production, and have been working to provide producers with the necessary resources to either expand their current production or productivity, or to allow for new producers to enter the industry. While there has been concern about flooding the industry with product causing a decrease in price, the road to meeting the current domestic supply is proving to be a slow but measured process. While the latest numbers are optimistic, the current supply is still far off of meeting the demand. CSF will continue to work both in the capacity of the Sheep Value Chain Round Table with other stakeholders along the value chain, as well as in partnership with the provincial sheep associations to encourage growth while monitoring market trends. The Canadian Sheep Federation is a national, non-profit organization that represents all Canadian sheep producers. Its mission is further the viability, expansion and prosperity of the Canadian sheep and wool industry. For more information contact the Canadian Sheep Federation at 1-888-684-7739 or barbara@cansheep.ca. OSN

OSN M a r c h 2 0 1 1

Must a Livestock Guardian Dog Have a Doghouse? Craig Richardson – Animal Care Specialist, OMAFRA

received a call from the Ontario Sheep Marketing Agency (OSMA) in the winter of 2002-2003 asking me this very question. OSMA had received calls from concerned producers whom had had visits from the Ontario Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (OSPCA) regarding the lack of shelter for their Livestock Guardian Dogs (LGDs). The dogs did not have doghouses in each of the pastures they were living in. After receiving complaints from the public, the OSPCA Agents had come to the farms to investigate. Sure enough, no doghouses for the LGDs. The OSPCA policy is all outdoor dogs must have access to adequate shelter defined as a doghouse with four walls, roof and floor. The concern is no dog should be left outside to lay in the cold and wet. The producers knew the dogs probably were not going to use the doghouses but the rules were if a dog spends time outside it must have a doghouse. I tried to find some research on this subject but none had ever been written. I contacted Professor’s Ray and Lorna Coppinger who ran the Livestock Dog Project for over 10 years. They studied LGDs in Europe and brought 1,000 LGDs to the U.S. and studied them on sheep farms for over 10 years. Professor Ray Coppinger answered my question “do these dogs require more shelter in the winter than the sheep they guard?” Professor Coppinger replied, mass is the key to whether a dog can sleep outside. It depends on the weight of the dog. “Large dogs have less of a problem with cold weather than hot weather. Little dogs have the reverse problem. Greenland dogs that are in the 70 lb. range start to take evasive action – meaning physiological action - like shivering or increased metabolic action (burning energy to produce heat) at about minus 25 ° F. Larger dogs, for example 100 lb. dogs, can stand lower temperatures, all other things being equal. Rough coated, undercoated dogs with short ears can stand lower temperatures than smooth coated greyhound shaped dogs. Dogs as a general rule have little ability to radiate heat – meaning they are good at conserving it. Because they lack the ability to radiate heat they tend to be poor survivors in hot weather”. He went on to conclude, “I would want my LGDs to have shade and water in the Ontario summer and wouldn’t worry about them in an Ontario winter”.

In 2003 through the Ontario Large Flock Operators we surveyed producers who owned LGDs asking them questions about what type of shelter they provided their LGDs in winter. Producers who responded to the survey commented that their older dogs would seek shelter from the cold rain. Others stated their dogs would sleep outside the pole barns, while the sheep slept inside. Of the LFOs surveyed, those

Photo credit: Patricia Heseltine

that supplied a doghouse for their LGDs stated that the dogs never used the doghouse, and that they always slept outside. That summer I gathered up all the information I could find on LGDs and decided that I needed to explain the nature of these working dogs in order to convince the OSPCA that they did not require doghouses for the winter. The resultant article for the OSPCA discussed every aspect of these dogs. The dogs’ instinct is to guard and follow the flock. An effective and vigilante dog wants to be outside to see and hear what is going on in the area. The feeding of dogs in the winter and how to body condition score these dogs was included. I gave the information to the Chief Inspector of the OSPCA and we discussed why LGDs did not require doghouses. I was asked why LGDs wouldn’t require a doghouse when sled dogs do? Sled dogs are tethered and can not control their environment like an untethered LGD can do. If a LGD is cold it can go into the fence row, the bush, lie on the hay or push their way into the flock for a break from the wind. If the dog does not stay with the flock and comes home to sleep in the barn then the producer will not be using that dog for guarding the flock. It was agreed that as long as these large dogs are not tethered and guarding livestock they would not be required to have a doghouse in each paddock or pasture they were in during the winter. This spring Barry Potter, Christoph Wand and I took the information on LGDs and turned it into an OMAFRA Factsheet entitled Livestock Guardian Dogs and Their Care in Winter. The order number is 10-033 or it can be found on our website at http://www.omafra.gov.on.ca/english/livestock/ sheep/facts/10-033.pdf. The factsheet covers topics such as characteristics of LGDs, their 24 hour working day, how they handle cold, wind and rain, working lifespan, their shelter and feed requirements. The current Chief Inspector of the OSPCA has accepted the conclusions of this factsheet. Namely, “Livestock guardian dogs are adaptive and can make changes to their routine as conditions change. In Ontario, LGDs are not tethered and can make their own choices and changes to their microclimate as the need arises. Using the same shelter as the sheep it protects, a properly fed, wellconditioned LGD does not require a traditional doghouse.” This factsheet was sent by the OSPCA to every one of their Agents and Inspectors in Ontario. OSN OSN M a r c h 2 0 1 1

Building the Sheep Industry – A New Zealand Perspective From “Points of View” – Canadian Sheep Federation

ew Zealand has been a dominant force on the world sheep market for years. This small country of just over four million people is home to 33 million sheep. Like most sheep producing countries, New Zealand has faced its fair share of challenges -- declining flock numbers, drought, competition from other meat proteins and more. Throughout it all, New Zealand remains the number one exporter of lamb in the world. So how are they doing it? The Canadian Sheep Federation recently spoke with Andrew Burtt, Regional ManagerNorth America for Beef + Lamb New Zealand, a farmerfunded organization representing New Zealand sheep and

peaked at 70.3 million in 1982, but have been declining ever since. The majority of NZ sheep producers also run beef cattle on the same farm so the two industries are closely tied. Today, 13,000 commercial sheep producers run on average 2,850 head of sheep per flock. “Producers became, and remain very focused on productivity, especially in terms of competing for land with other industries to drive profitability,” Burtt says. National flock numbers are now starting to stabilize. Individual operations are increasing in size as New Zealand farmers develop efficiencies and the ability to run more sheep with less labour. New Zealand’s Market New Zealand is heavily export focused. Over 90% of New Zealand lamb and 94% of mutton is exported to nearly 100 countries, so New Zealand producer returns are driven by world prices from this wide range of markets. The main markets are the UK and northern European countries, the US, Canada and China. Burt says the outlook is for demand for lamb to remain generally strong while supplies are constrained. To meet demand, New Zealand focuses on giving their customers what they need.

“Vegetarian, red meat, white meat –consumers face a lot of choices and if you slip off the menu you are not getting back on it. All of the sheepproducing nations need to work together to keep the product on the menu all 12 months of the year. The reality is Australian lamb needs to be in the Canadian marketplace to help you establish a place for sheep meat on the menu. Canada shouldn’t look at Australia as a competitor. Let’s work together to keep lamb on the menu.” Ron Cullen, Executive Director Sheepmeat Council of Australia beef producers. Burtt provided a unique inside look into the strong force that is the New Zealand sheep industry.

New Zealand Industry History From 1856 to 1987, sheep farming was the most important agricultural industry in New Zealand. In fact, wool was the country’s most valuable export until 1967. The combined income from wool and sheep meat dominated New Zealand’s agricultural earnings from the mid1880s until the late 1980s. Since 1992, returns from the dairy cattle industry have surpassed those of sheep production. Sheep numbers 38

OSN M a r c h 2 0 1 1

“New Zealand prides itself on producing safe food that is consistently tender, of consistent size and most importantly meets each specific customer’s specifications in the volumes they require,” says

Burtt.

Keeping Lamb on the Menu According to Burtt, New Zealand producers are very conscious lamb remains the highest priced main meat protein. Beef and Lamb New Zealand’s sheep related work is focused on keeping sheep meat on menus. Everything from promotion to market access work to supporting government officials in trade negotiations to research on improving pasture species and parasite control-- it all goes back to increasing lamb consumption. Keeping lamb on the world menu is important too. To accomplish this,

New Zealand works with competing countries instead of against them. Producer groups from New Zealand, the U.S. and Australia have been collaborating formally in a range of areas in the US since 2003. “The promotional activity of the Tri-Lamb Group has provided an overarching program under which individual country and individual company programs can co exist,” says Burtt. “... leaders of this Tri Lamb Group were, and continue to be, brave enough to acknowledge the big picture -- that lamb is a small segment of the meat market and that competition comes from other proteins.”

Country to Country Collaboration Burtt says there are opportunities for producers in various countries to exchange information and collaborate with one another. What’s important to know is that the growth of a flock depends on profitability and so it is not always a matter of countries working together, but commercial solutions being developed to meet customer needs. For example, some New Zealand private sector companies (including those owned by New Zealand producers) have developed value chain relationships with producers in other countries to address the seasonality challenges they face with if supply were to come solely from New Zealand. Other countries throughout the world could benefit from this type of value chain relationship. It opens up communication, addressees challenges and opportunities between buyers and sellers and strengthens the industry overall. “The implication for any producing nation who fails to make this happen is the same as any business that fails to meets its customers’ needs -- it just won’t be around very long,” Burtt says. For more ‘Points of View’ Articles, go to www.cansheep.ca OSN

CURRENT PRODUCERS ON MAEDI-VISNA PRODUCER NAME Robert & Gail Irvine Joanne T Ted Skinner Robert & Shirley Graves Heather & Robert Kelly John & Eadie Steele Glen & Sharon Duff Neil & Heidi Bouman Axel Meister William MacTaggart Gordon Walker Garry & Beth Collins Tina Harrington Colleen Acres Gerald & Joanne Hunter Bethane Jensen Francis & Elaine Winger Riva Berezowski & Steve Vidacs Ted Brown Gary Lapier Jennifer Woodhouse Karen Hayward William Jeffrey Harry & Eleanor Pietersma Rebecca Parker Emmerson & Lisa Turney Dave Wagler Henry Stam Laura Robson Cory & Jennifer Beitz Kevin McComb

FARM NAME Rocky Lane Farm Cedar Creek Charollais Century Lane Farm Greenwood Farm Duff Farms Wooldrift Farm MacTaggart Suffolk Orchardview Farm Collins Horned Dorsets Stonehill Sheep Maple Meadow Farms Hunterdown Farm Shepherd’s Fold Cedar Ridge Farm Brown Woolies Farm Rocky Hyland Farm Trillium Woods Sheep Elysian Fields Middle Kingdom Farm Wo-Nikk-El Heights Cedar V-Ewe Farms Robson Acres Beitz View Acres

TELEPHONE 705-292-7207 905-263-2102 613-831-2656 519-369-5396 705-696-1491 519-856-9935 519-750-9928 519-538-2844 519-824-3878 519-287-5085 519-934-3239 519-794-3732 613-826-2581 613-283-7565 519-887-9948 519-323-3531 519-371-7314 905-877-2323 613-989-2792 519-599-5379 519-371-8487 519-234-6872 613-652-2044 705-277-1711 519-848-6877 519-275-3187 519-271-4919 705-932-3216 519-367-2589 519-348-8331

CURRENT PRODUCERS ON ONTARIO SHEEP HEALTH PROGRAM PRODUCER NAME Bill & Lyne Duffield Robert & Gail Irvine Francis & Elaine Winger John & Eadie Steele Colleen Acres Darry & Rachel Stoltz Anne Dockendorff Wietza & Leny Raven

FARM NAME Codan Suffolks Rocky Lane Farm Maple Meadow Farms Excel Ewe Genetics Silver Rapids Farm Green Hill Farm

TELEPHONE 519-899-2663 705-292-7207 519-323-3531 705-696-1491 613-826-2581 519-887-8216 705-724-9183 519-928-2705

SHEEP PRODUCERS ON THE SCRAPIE PROGRAM PRODUCER NAME Bill McCutcheon Axel Meister Bill & Lynne Duffield Francis & Elaine Winger Mels & Ruthanne van der Laan Riva Berezowski & Steve Vidacs Peter Carrie & Susan McDonough Glen & Judy Porteous Paul Dick & Tina Harrington Nicole Heath Bryan & Janice Lever Brad & Gerald Miller Roger & Julie Harley Robert & Shirley Graves & Sons Sara & Jamie Scholtes Joshua & Melissa Groves Chris Wiltshire Leigh Nelson & Luc Pouliot Karen & Jim Hayward Robert & Laurie I’Anson Chris Kennedy

FARM NAME Mulmar Vista Farms, Grand Valley, Ontario Wooldrift Farm, Markdale, Ontario Codan Suffolks, Wyoming, Ontario Mount Forest, Ontario Cold Stream Ranch, Denfield, Ontario Cedar Ridge Farm, Owen Sound, Ontario Smokey Creek Farm, Arthur, Ontario Stonehill Sheep, Chatsworth, Ontario Veliraf Farm, Conn, Ontario Windblest Farm, Lanark, Ontario Miller Farms, Kerwood, Ontario Keene, Ontario Century Lane Farms, Stittsville, Ontario Harmony Marsh Farm, Bailieboro, Ontario VanGro Farms, Brantford, Ontario Iternal Impressions, Bath, Ontario Bent Willow, Kapuskasing, Ontario Trillium Woods Sheep, Shallow Lake, Ontario St. Catherines, Ontario Topsy Farms, Stella, Ontario OSN M a r c h 2 0 1 1

Photo: Tim and Luann Erb

Wrap Ups Central Ontario Agricultural Conference

The Central Ontario Agricultural Conference took place on January 5th, 6th and 7th. Many different topics were on the agenda. Thursday, January 6th focused on sheep. There were many good speakers at this event who talked to a full room of long-time sheep producers, new producers and people interested in getting into the sheep industry. The first presenter was Dr. Jocelyn Jansen from OMAFRA. Dr Jansen gave a presentation on keeping the flock healthy and gave tips on how to minimize problems and stress. She touched on a few aspects including biosecurity, animal health and welfare, udder health, reproduction, nutrition and production. Dr Jansen also gave producers posters on treating hypothermia and hypoglycemia in young lambs. The second presentation of the day was given by Bill McCutcheon from Mulmur Vista Farm and Ontario Lamb Marketing Inc. His presentation was on flock management and accelerated lambing. Bill used examples from his farm, with pictures to show the producers what works and what doesn’t work for his farm. Bill uses a Modified Star program (from Cornell University) for his ewes. He skips the August breeding but is still on an accelerated system. Also of interest, was his experience feeding corn silage. Rebecca Parker spoke to the group next; her presentation was geared for people thinking about entering the sheep industry or for new producers. She mentioned that it is very important to do research before getting into the sheep industry in order to be wellinformed. She advised producers to buy sheep with a high health status in order to prevent potential diseases from entering the flock. Rebecca also mentioned that it is important for a new producer to find a ‘mentor’ or someone who has had sheep for an extended period of time. This way the new producer can learn from an experienced shepherd. Helping with lambing or working at a sheep farm for a few days can give the new producer experience and confidence. Axel Meister followed with a presentation on dairy sheep. He is from Wool Drift Farm, a pasture based flock of East Friesian Dairy Sheep. Axel showed pictures from his current farm and from his previous farm and pointed out what worked well and what didn’t work as well. His presentation was very informative for producers interested in learning more about the dairy industry.

OSN M a r c h 2 0 1 1

The last presentation of the day was from Phil Smith from Breezy Ridge Farm. He gave a presentation on grazing sheep on corn. Phil showed some videos of his sheep being pastured on corn. In the one video, Jack Kyle from OMAFRA narrated. Phil uses electric fence to keep the sheep in the corn and only allows them to graze a small section at a time. Phil talked about how expensive it is to raise sheep in confinement and how economical grazing corn can be. This was a very successful conference with a good number of people attending. The trade show had a broad range of industry representatives on hand to talk to producers and answer any questions they may have had. Thank you to district 6 for organizing this event.

45th Annual Grey Bruce Farmers’ Week

The 45th Annual Grey Bruce Farmers’ Week and trade show was another successful event. This conference ran from January 5th to January 10th. The Saturday event focused on sheep and was held at the Elmwood Community Centre. Speakers included Courtney Denard, Canadian Sheep Federation; Andrew S. Peregrine, DVM, Associate Professor, OVC, University of Guelph; Dr. Dan Morrical, Department of Animal Science, Sheep Extension Specialist, Iowa State University and Murray Hunt, General Manager, Ontario Sheep. There was also a panel which spoke about predator control. One of the speakers from this event, Dr. Dan Morrical has written an article on the Sheep Flock Improvement Program in this issue of the Ontario Sheep News. Andrew S. Peregrine, DVM, has also written an article in the magazine about Parasite Control. Be sure to take the time to read both articles. Special thanks to Grey County Agricultural Services for organizing this event, also to the Ontario Suffolk Sheep Association for sponsoring the break and to the Canadian Co-operative Wool Growers for sponsoring lunch.

Using New Technology to Bring Sheep Producers Together Deb Garner District 11 was recently able to use new technology available at Kerns Township Hall. On Saturday January 15, 2011, 30 sheep producers from the Temiskaming and

Verner area met for an information meeting on Ewe Lamb Management facilitated by OMAFRA Beef Cattle and Sheep Nutritionist Christoph Wand, and OSMA 11 provincial director Mark Lenover,. High-speed internet upgrades at the Hall allowed the group to connect via WebEx and present to over 30 more producers in Thunder Bay, Emo, Kapuskasing, Cochrane and Thessalon. Producers from across the large District were able to take part in this session without having to travel hundreds of kilometers. Comments such as “it was awesome and everyone really seemed to enjoy it”-Gary, Kapuskasing, “It has been a long time between events for local sheep producers”- Rudy, Thunder Bay, and “Thank you for putting on such an informative event on Saturday. I learned a lot and could have chatted with Christoph all day about nutrition in sheep. I really appreciated having such a seminar a little closer to home.” – Nancy, Verner. The OSMA 11 board of directors hopes to be able to make use of this technology again in the future to keep our members informed.

District 10, Sheep Day – Spencerville Ontario Laurie Maus, Secretary District 10 On February 19th, 2011 District 10 hosted another successful Sheep Day in Spencerville Ontario with 80 participants in attendance from Districts 7, 8, 9 and 10 as well as shepherds from Quebec. The morning session covered parasites and predators. Laura Falzon gave the presentation on parasite resistance to dewormers that she gave at the 2010 OSMA Annual Meeting. Eugene Fytche, Chris Kennedy and Anita O’Brien talked about predators, the current situation and fencing solutions. Anita tested devices similar to those used in the game show “Who Wants to be a Millionaire” to survey the audience on predation and control methods used on their farms. What was surprising was about 70% of the audience did not have predator problems but those that did had serious problems. While the data could not be considered representative of the situation for all sheep farms it was an interesting snap shot. After lunch Terry Ackerman gave a presentation on a producer-owned Canadian Lamb branding initiative originating in Saskatchewan; Shannon Meadows gave a presentation on Q fever and why shepherds need to be vigilant and Fred Baker stepped in for Barb Caswell (who was storm stayed on the 401) and gave her presentation on the traceability pilot project, CSID and RFID tags. Finally there was a panel discussion from three traceability pilot project participants (Colleen Acres, Jim Bennett and Chris Kennedy) on their experience with the program, tags, software and equipment and their utility to their sheep management system.

North Wellington Co-operative Services Sheep Day 2011

Another impressive Sheep Day took place on Saturday March 5th at the Mount Forest Legion. There was an excellent lineup of speakers including Ken deBoer from Masterfeeds and Kathleen Shore from Grober. Ken deBoer spoke on two topics, “Adjust your Feeding Program to Fit your Ewe’s Changing Needs and later in the day he also spoke on “How to Finish Your Lambs from One Week to Market”. Kathleen Shore from Grober spoke on “Developing a Feeding Program for Young Lambs on Milk Replacer”. OSMA GM spoke to the audience on “Some Key to Profit” highlighting the most recent results of the OSMA Benchmarking project and speaking of the merits of the Economic Workbook , a supplement for producers recently put out by OSMA. Other topics included” Strategic Deworming Strategies” with Greg Stewart and “How to use the Three Star and Five Star Breeding Programs in your Operation” with Delma Kennedy from OMAFRA. There was also a presentation entitled “What does the bank need from a producer” with Vince Stutzki representing the ‘Farmer Side’ and Jason Emke of Farm Credit Canada representing the ‘Bank Side’. The event was full again this year. Congratulations to Sarel Smit and his associates for bringing this resourceful and educations day to producers in the Mount Forest area.

District 2 Pasture Tour On Wednesday October 13th, the Grey Cattlemen’s Association and OSMA District 2 co-sponsored a pasture walk on the farms of Wes Sparling, Frits Schurman and Wayne Foster in the Meaford Area. On the farm of Wes Sparling, the visiting farmers viewed recently seeded hay and pasture fields and pastures which were rotationally grazed by using electronet. On Frits Schurman’s Farm we saw a watering system consisting of a combine tire with cement in the bottom which made a very durable trough. Energy from a solar panel was stored in batteries which powered a pump in an adjacent pond to keep the trough full. Wayne Foster also used solar panels to pump water from a dug well into a steel trough. We also viewed a handling facility including a crowding tub and squeeze and heat gate at Wayne’s. Jack Kyle, OMAFRA Grazing Specialist, commented on the species in the fields that were viewed and answered many interesting questions posed by the farmers. Even though the weather did not cooperate, about twenty farmers enjoyed the tour and enjoyed cookies and coffee and one on one conversation with Jack at the completion of the tour. OSN

As before, the Sheep Day was supported by numerous generous sponsors. OSN M a r c h 2 0 1 1

This article from Joe Musialowski, the founder of Wren Country Sticks was featured in a blog by Gimmer. To read more blogs about Shepherdâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Crooks go to http://hillshepherd.blogspot.com/2008/05/making-shepherds-crook.html.

Making a Shepherdâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Crook Joe Musialowski

he shepherds crook. Cromach, Cruca, or Hyrdestav. Whatever you call it, it has been assisting shepherds and herders for many years. Originally a working tool, indispensable in removing a beast from pen or bog, it has become an icon of the shepherd and the sheepdog trialer. Once a rough shaped bough with either a horn hook fitted or a hook cut direct from a branch with supporting stick or shank. It has become an art form which I am pleased to say I am part of. The shepherds crook and its cousin the country walking stick have long enjoyed a place at most country fairs and shows within the UK, where stick makers would bring their creations and compete in a stick dressing competition placing their sticks in classes reflecting the different styles of crook or walking stick . What was once a past time for the country man, has now become a very popular hobby in the UK and is spreading rapidly around the world. Notably in America. It was at such a country show many years ago that I came across a stick dressers competition. I was struck by the beauty of the crooks before me. Not only were they hand made, of natural materials such as rams horn and hazel, but were functional items which I could use when out walking the fells. My aim was to own one of these fine crooks, but owning was not enough for me, I had to make one. There was my first mistake, believing that such a thing of beauty could be made by me. In my arrogance I could see no reason while I could not fashion a crook. Nature had never raised such a foolish child as me. At the time there were few if any books on shepherds crooks and almost none showing the method of manufacture. Those that were available were sorely lacking in detail. With time I discovered a group of stick makers who organized the very competitions I had been visiting and my education started.

OSN M a r c h 2 0 1 1

It continues to this day. Although I now make shepherds crooks on a professional basis, the horn is my daily teacher and no rams horn is ever the same as the previous horn I have worked. A traditional shepherds crook can take a number of forms. Firstly, the plain crook. With no decoration or carving to distract the eye. This crook has to be perfect to win at Joe Musialowski competition. Secondly the decorated crook. This may take the form of painted scenes on the side of the crook head, or a carving of traditionally a border collie. Any manner of things may be carved on a crook, such as a Thistle for Scotland. Sheep, birds, fish and even people are carved on crook noses (the curve at the front of the crook). The traditional material for the crook head would be a rams horn, never a ewe horn which would be too small and thin. Buffalo horn from Asia is now being used in increasing quantities as rams horn becomes more difficult to find. In the UK, sheep are being taken of the fells and lowland breeds are starting to dominate. Breeds such as the Texel. The wood used for the stick or shank would almost always the hazel. Hazel offers a light and strong stick, and a variety of bark colours which are highly prized by the competing stick maker. Slow growing hazel cut on high rocky ground generally make the best shanks, the slow growth ensures a tight grain and the best colours come from the rocky terrain. The process of making a shepherds crook is a long and lengthy one. The main ingredients are of course the rams horn, plenty of heat and pressure. The whole process starts with the boiling of the selected horn, after a couple of hours of boiling the horn is placed in a

flat steel press and flattened. This is to take out the curl in the horn and to start the process of compression. Most rams horn, especially the larger hill breeds such as the Scottish Blackface have bulky horns, ( the welsh mountain have nice dinky horns which do not need a lot of work, but are not big enough to be carved) Within the horn resides a central white material which is not horn and should it be exposed will not polish. So the horn is compressed together with its core. This will result in some cases of almost translucent horn in parts. After flattening, the horn goes through a further series of compression which results in a more circular cross section across the horn. At this stage the horn resembles a horse shoe more than the original horn. Heat is constantly applied during the compression stages and used throughout the whole of the shaping process. To begin the final shaping, with the aid of heat once more the head end of the horn is now pressed between two steel channels, which straightens part of the horn and forms the neck (the section arising from the hazel shank). Further heating softens the horn so that it may now be forced around a wood former to give the basic crook shape. The horn is left to cool and set and after hour or five hours removed from the former for the nose to worked upon. To achieve the traditional curl at the bottom of a crook, a pair of grips is used and after sufficient heat has been applied to the nose area the grips force the horn over to form the curl. Once more the horn is set aside to cool, before further work can take place. At this stage the horn is ready for a lot of rasping and filing. A hole is drilled in the end of the neck and a peg carved on the end of the hazel shank, both should fit snugly. Glued together, you now have your crook.

The time taken to achieve a finished crook can vary greatly depending on what you are doing to the crook, but at least ten hours is needed to finish a crook and a lot more if you decide to carve the nose with a dog. This is only a very quick resume of making a crook. Every horn is different and requires to be treated as such, so you are constantly learning to accommodate the horn. Welsh Mountain sheep have been mentioned and these sheep produce much smaller horns than the larger hill breeds and take a lot less work, especially in the finishing stages because there is simply not that much horn to file off. So certain publications which show a crook being made and use the Welsh Mountain horn in the process do not mention the fact that you are more likely to be buying a horn from a larger breed and the work involved in working this horn is going to be more demanding. In the end no matter what horn you use it will always have the last say. For more information about Joe Musialowski and Wren Country Sticks please go to http://www.wrencountrysticks. co.uk/ OSN

Association Directory Ontario Dairy Sheep Association Larry Kupecz, President, 312 Wellmans Road, RR#3, Stirling ON K0K 3E0 www.ontariodairysheep.org Phone/Fax: (613) 395-4491 Email: kupecz@xplornet.com Purebred Sheep Breeders of Ontario c/o Irwin Jackson, RR#4 Rockwood, Ontario N0B 2K0 • (519) 856-4490

ontario katahdin sheep Association Barbara Burdzy (519) 236-7368 Email: bbfarm@hay.net Ontario Suffolk Sheep Association Grant Preston, 26 Wilson Crescent, Dundalk, Ontario N0C 1B0 • (519) 923-6341 Rideau Association of canada Neil Post, 34 Wilton Drive, Guelph, Ontario N1E 7L6 (519) 820-2810 • Fax: (519) 846-2225 Email: info@rideausheep.org • www.rideausheep.org

OSN M a r c h 2 0 1 1

“Keeping Lambs Alive” Improving Lamb Survival and Prospects for Profit Christoph Wand – Beef Cattle and Sheep Nutritionist, OMAFRA

he OMAFRA Sheep Team and the Ontario Sheep Marketing Agency were the major sponsors of the annual Sheep Seminars at Atwood and Napanee. The meetings on November 16th and 18th, 2010 respectively focused on improving the survival of young lambs, as lamb survival has a significant impact on the profitability of Ontario sheep operations. Improving lamb survival is also an easy way to address a market that is undersupplied and to help an industry which has difficulty maintaining significant numbers of commercial size operations. The three major strategies discussed specifically used health, nutrition and genetics as the cornerstones for this improved lamb survival, and featured three significant guest speakers in Drs. Richard Ehrhardt, Neil Sargison and David Thomas. The seminars attracted more than 220 Ontario producers; including the trade show, total attendance was about 250 between the two venues; yet another record turn out!

The Nature of the Problem

Delma Kennedy, Sheep Specialist (Genetics, Reproduction and Performance Programs) with OMAFRA presented information about survival rates in Canadian research studies and determining achievable lamb survival rates for Ontario farms and production systems. In her conclusion, Delma stated that “Every farm should have an optimum goal of 10% total lamb mortality and some operations will be able to achieve a lower mortality rate. Every farm operation with a preweaning mortality rate of more than 10% should be looking for opportunities to improve lamb survival”. This thesis was based on numerous findings presented from Wisconsin, Quebec, Ontario and from Canada-wide data in recent years. Table 1 contains data from Ontario’s performance-recorded flocks, presented by Ms. Kennedy, which demonstrates there are opportunities for improvement even among these producers doing their best to track in-flock events. Table 1. Average Mortality from the Ontario Sheep Flock Improvement Program (SFIP) from 2007-2009.

Ewe Health = Lamb Health

Dr. Neil Sargison, a professor of veterinary medicine the University of Edinburgh, spoke about preventing lamb health problems in utero, improving survival, and some of the clinical problems he has witnessed on account of poor 44

OSN M a r c h 2 0 1 1

ewe nutrition. Dr. Sargison was clear in his assertion that sheep producers must have their veterinarians engaged in reducing reproductive (abortion) diseases such as chlamydia, toxoplasmosis and campylobacteriosis, and their production losses. Beyond this, ewe health issues around early lamb starvation such as maedi visna (ovine progressive pneumonia or OPP), which causes milk failure, must also involve dialogue with the veterinarian. However, he cautioned against any one-dimensional approach as he also showed several case studies from his experience where the importance of nutrition and genetics were highly related to both ewe and lamb health. Dr. Sargison also strongly recommended producers (and their veterinarians) use neonatal lamb postmortems to assist them in determining causes of death during the lambing period itself, as demonstrated in Figure 1. Figure 1. Among many others, Dr. Neil Sargison showed this slide detailing the importance of using post-mortems, in this particular case to distinguish between still born (left) and a lamb that has died after birth based on the fact the pads are worn off the hooves. This second lamb may have died from starvation or hypothermia.

Ewe Nutrition = Lamb Nutrition

Dr. Richard Ehrhardt, the Small Ruminant Specialist at Michigan State University, may have spoken about critical control points at lambing, but other than microclimate management in the birth area (in barn or pasture), he largely spoke about the importance of ewe nutrition in setting the stage. He discussed various points including the importance of proper body condition score (BCS) from breeding right to lambing, but also several finer points. These included relationships between protein and energy intake in the pregnant ewe, the importance of setting up good colostrum production and intake, and trace mineral nutrition.

Selenium is critical in the Great Lakes Basin, but Dr. Ehrhardt feels iodine is sometimes overlooked. In his conclusion he stated well that “Maternal nutrition has a major impact on lamb mortality, postnatal performance and overall production efficiency. Establishing a feeding program to efficiently meet the requirements of pregnancy under most circumstances is the most impactful control measure a shepherd can take to improve lamb survival”. He went on to suggest that: “perhaps most critical, [ewes must be] fed sufficient energy during late pregnancy to meet the requirements of fetal growth and mammary development”.

Table 2: “Mating Systems: Crossbreeding – The mating of individuals of different breeds” as presented by Dr. David Thomas, and explained in the accompanying text.

Genetics of Survivability

Drs. Sargison and Ehrhardt each hinted at it, but Dr. David Thomas, a sheep geneticist at the University of Wisconsin, provided the data clearly linking survivability to genetics. There are survivability traits worth using from certain breeds, as Dr. Thomas noted Finn, Romanov and composites containing these breeds, and using gene pools from differing jurisdictions (eg. New Zealand ‘easy care’ counterparts of the same United Kingdom breeds). The data also clearly shows inbreeding is a problem that must continually be addressed through the use of crossbreeding. Keeping in mind that at some level all members of a breed are related (hence their highly similar traits) the only way to avoid this effect in commercial flocks is crossbreeding. As shown in Table 2, Dr. Thomas stated that “Individual and maternal hybrid vigor for lamb survival to weaning averaged from many studies is estimated to be 9.8% and 2.7%, respectively…. This means that a sheep producer can expect about 10 more lambs surviving to weaning from 100 lambs born if the lambs are crossbred compared to being purebred. An additional 3 more lambs survive to weaning per 100 lambs born if the crossbred lambs are produced from crossbred dams compared to producing crossbred lambs from purebred dams.”

Estimates of Hybrid Vigor Trait

Individual %

Maternal %

Conception rate

2.6

8.7

Litter size

2.8

3.2

Lamb survival

9.8

2.7

No. lambs weaned/ewe mated

15.7

14.8

Lamb weaning wt.

5.0

6.3

Lamb wt. weaned/ewe mated

17.8

18.0

Lactation milk yield

6.0

Improving Survivability in Your Flock

The calibre of Dr. Thomas, Dr. Sargison and Dr. Ehrhardt furthered the reputation of these meetings as delivering top-notch information from around the globe to Ontario sheep producers, including this topic of improving lamb survivability. For those who could not attend, Sheep Seminar proceedings are still available on a limited basis by calling the Woodstock OMAFRA office at 519-537-6621. By using the three strategies presented – Genetics, Maternal Nutrition and Health – Ontario producers can quickly begin making improvements over the short and longer term. On behalf of the OMAFRA Sheep Team, I would like to thank all the attendees and trade show for their participation and OSMA for its loyal support in its major sponsorship. Also, mark your calendar! The 2011 Sheep Seminars are scheduled for November 15 in Atwood and November 17 in Napanee, and will focus on reproduction. OSN

Pr o d u c e r R e m i t t ances

Regulations made under the authority of the Ontario Farm Products Marketing Act require that producers pay to the Ontario Sheep Marketing Agency a licence fee per head for all sheep and lambs sold other than to a sales barn or abattoir (includes breeding or farmgate sales). This applies to private livestock auctions as well. Unless such licence fees are paid either to the sales yards, abattoirs, or OSMA, these sales are not legal under the regulations. If such sales apply to you, please fill out the following and forward your payments within one month to:

The Ontario Sheep Marketing Agency 130 Malcolm Road, Guelph, Ontario N1K 1B1 Sheep/Lamb: Fee is $1.80 per head plus 13% HST

Producer #___________________

Name:_____________________________________________________________

Address:__________________________________________________________________________________________ City:______________________________________ Prov.:________________Postal Code:________________________ Date of Sale:________________________________ Date Remitted:______________________________________ # of sheep/lamb sold:________________________ Lic. Fees (x $1.80=) $_________________________________ ___________________________________________ Pay by phone using Visa or MasterCard 519-836-0043

Plus 13% HST

$________________________________

Total Remitted $________________________________ OSN M a r c h 2 0 1 1

district news

District 1

Counties of Essex, Kent, Lambton, Middlesex, and Elgin Meeting Dates: May 5: Paul Luimas speaking on sheep feeding trial at Ridgetown College Meeting at Ridgetown College June: No Meeting August: Farm Tour September: Annual Meeting @ Coldstream Meetings are usually held the first Thursday of every month at Coldstream Community Centre, just north west of London, Ontario at 8:00 PM Website: OSMA_district_1.tripod.com Contact: Marlene Raymond at 519-683-6635 Director Fraser Hodgson 519-786-4176 Chair John Sipkens 519-845-3710 Vice-Chair Bill Duffield 519-899-2663 Secretary/Treasurer Marlene Raymond 519-683-6635

District 2

Counties of Grey and Bruce Meetings usually held the 1st Thursday of the month at 7:30 p.m. For more information contact Glen Porteous at glenporteous@hotmail.com or Keith Grein at mk.grein@bmts.com Director Dennis Fischer 519-363-3819 Chair Vince Stutzki 519-363-6683 Vice-Chair Sarel Smit 519-369-1365 Secretary: Anita DeJong 519-534-1211 Treasurer: Jason Emke 519-364-0044

District 3

Counties of Huron, Perth, Waterloo and Oxford Meeting Dates: April 14: 7 :30 pm – Rostock Hall, Rostock Guest Speaker – Jack Kyle – Extended Grazing For more information contact one of the committee members. Director Neil Mesman 519-462-2423 Chair Bill Jeffrey 519-234-6872 Vice-Chair Luann Erb 519-393-5512 Secretary/Treasurer Mike Beuerman 519-527-2676

District 4

County of Brant, Regional Norfolk and Niagara Director Chair Vice-Chair Secretary: Treasurer:

OSN M a r c h 2 0 1 1

Municipalities of Hamilton-Wentworth, HaldimandChris Kyle Nancy Ireland

519 632-7602 905-701-6026

Sharon Petherma Norman Johnson

519-443-5844 905-562-4905

march 2011

District 5

County of Wellington and Dufferin and the Regional Municipalities of Halton and Peel Director Andrew Gordanier 519-925-6502 Chair Jason Oosterhoff 519-928-5689 Vice Chair Bill McCutcheon 519-928-9626 Secretary Lene Band 905-877-2969 Treasurer Dianne Orr 519-928-5302

District 6

County of Simcoe, District Municipality of Muskoka and the District of Parry Sound Director Markus Wand 705-724-2314 Chair Peter Harvey 905-729-3196 Vice Chair Secretary Grant Cowan 705-436-2236 Treasurer Karen Harvey 905-729-3196

District 7

County of Metropolitan Toronto, Regional Municipalities Counties of Victoria, Peterborough, and Northumberland Director Judy Dening Chair Leslie Dyment Vice-Chair Rebecca Parker Secretary Cynthia Palmer Treasurer Phil Smith

of York and Durham, 705-324-3453 705-359-1376 705-277-1711 705-295-3351 905-478-4280

District 8

Counties of Lennox and Addington, Hastings, Prince Edward, Frontenac and Leeds Director Chris Kennedy 613-389-0554 Chair Linda Huizenga 613-477-1393 Vice-Chair Jim Sabin 613-477-3443 Secretary Kenton Dempsey 613-969-8154 Treasurer Pat Purvis 613-353-5094

District 9

Counties of Renfrew and Lanark, and the Township of West Carleton and the City of Kanata in the Regional Municipality of Ottawa-Carleton Director Allan Burn 613-264-0801 Chair: Ganesh Raj 613-832-1317 Vice Chair: Christopher Moore 613-832-2182 Secretary: Sara Loten 613-264-0539 Treasurer Karen Wright 613-267-7930

District 10

Counties of Russell, Prescott, Glengarry Stormont, Dundas and Grenville, and the Regional Municipality of Ottawa-Carleton, except the Township of West Carleton and the City of Kanata Website: www.osmadistrict10.ca/ Contact: Colleen Acres – 613-826-2330 Director Colleen Acres 613-826-2330 Chair Fred Baker 613-989-5352 Secretary Laurie Maus 613-527-1897 Treasurer Greg Stubbings 613-774-4563

District 11

Counties of Kenora, Rainy River, Thunder Bay, Cochrane, Algoma, Sudbury, Temiskaming, Nippising and Manitoulin Director Mark Lenover 705-563-2966 Chair: Jim Johnston 705-647-7160 Secretary: Debra Garner 705-563-2761 OSN

BRUSSELS LIVESTOCK

Health Status and Funding Key to Genetic Exports From “Points of View” – Canadian Sheep Federation

hen it comes to genetics, the Canadian sheep industry needs to focus on two important tasks: developing a recognizable flock health status and seeking out new funding to support genetic exports.

Division of Gamble & Rogers Ltd.

Upcoming Sales Tuesdays 9:00 a.m.

This was the message Dr. Lynn Tait, a member of the Canadian Livestock Genetics Association (CLGA), delivered at this year’s Value Chain Round Table. Tait explained that most of the world does not see Canada as a leader in sheep genetics, but the CLGA is working on changing that. Tait has spent the past seven years travelling the world promoting Canadian sheep genetics on an international level. She said many lessons have been learned throughout her international exchanges, but most importantly is that the Canadian sheep industry needs to have a better recognizable health standard. “We deal with countries that are completely Maedi Visna free,” said Tait.

Fed Cattle, Bulls & Cows Thursdays 8:00 a.m.

Drop Calves, Veal, Pigs, Lambs, Goats & Sheep Fridays 10:00 a.m.

Stockers

C ONFIDEN C E , T RUST & SE R VI C E

“Canada needs national programs for Maedi Visna, Johnes and Caprine Arthritis- Encephalitis (CAE) if the rest of the world is going to take us seriously.” OSN

519-887-6461 www.brusselslivestock.ca

Classifieds

Want to place an ad? Call Ruth Gilmour at 519-836-0043 for ad rates.

VASECTOMIZED ROMANOV “TEASER” RAMS. Effectively bring more ewes into estrus out of season, seasonal ewes breed earlier, more ewe lambs bred in their first season. Reliable out of season with highest libido. Charlie Renaud, Prolific Acres Sheep Farm, Phelpston, ON. charlierenaud@3web.com. (705) 322-2140. www.prolificacressheepfarm.com. 2 Mature Maremma Guard Dogs – Working Pair., JD 435 baler, hyd tie, kicker, $7,700., Scale $400., 120x40 coverall barn $13,000., water bowls, bulk feeders, creep gates. Janice @ 705-749-2699 OSN M a r c h 2 0 1 1

Classifieds Emke Cheviots Lambs available for sale in late spring from our 2011 lamb crop, sired by our new stud sire. Logan Emke 849 25 S.R. Brant RR #1, Elmwood, ON N0G 1S0 Office Manager: Missy Emke-Wright 519-364-5087 m_wright17@hotmail.com www.emkelivestock.webs.com

Want to place an ad? Call Ruth Gilmour at 519-836-0043 for ad rates.

MAREMMA WHITE PUPS FOR SALE Pure white coats

• Awesome Sheep Guard Dogs • Will alert Sheep and stand their guard while Sheep run for cover • Far better than Donkeys or Llamas • All Pups raised in Barn with Sheep

Chris Buschbeck & Axel Meister R.R. #3, Markdale, Ontario, Canada N0C 1H0 Telephone (519) 538-2844 Fax (519) 538-1478 Email: wooldrift@bmts.com

Emke livestock Quality Suffolk Sheep

Quality stud rams for sale.

Murray Emke & Family

849 25 S.R. Brant RR1 Elmwood, ON, N0G 1S0 Office Manager: Missy Emke-Wright m_wright17@hotmail.com 519-364-5087 • www.emkelivestock.webs.com

“Quality Breeds Quality”

PDK

S HE A RI N G Shearing and Tutoring Available

Phone (519)

348-4266

Cell (519) 274-2050

e-mail: peter_kudelka@sympatico.ca

PETER KUDELKA

Box 39, Mitchell, Ont. N0K 1N0

OSN M a r c h 2 0 1 1

Contact: LOUIS KONTOS 801 DANFORTH AVE., TORONTO, ONTARIO M4J 1L2

TEL: (416) 469-0733 OR (416) 469-1577 FAX: (416) 462-1564

Call Ken Burgess 705-527-9058

CLUN FOREST REGISTERED SHEEP

• Breeding Stock & F1 Crosses • Closed Flock, Maedi/Visna-Negative • Prolific & High Yielding • Extensive Production Records • Semen and Embryos Approved for Export

Wholesale and Retail Meats We buy Lambs & Sheep for Slaughter

PROLIFIC, TRUE TYPE PERFORMANCE RECORDED Closed Flock Don & Wilma Duncan RR1, 807117 Oxford Road 29 Drumbo, ON, N0J 1G0,

This space is available at the reasonable rate of $34 per issue. Call or email us for our price list.

519-463-5511

CEDAR CREEK CHAROLLAIS Lower Your Feed Costs With Exceptional Growth Rates Based on SFIP Data Our 2006 Ram Lambs Averaged 0.45 kg ADG We have a Closed Flock, Maedi Visna Tested with “A” Status Ted Skinner & Joanne Jones 2910 Concession Rd. 7, RR 5, Bowmanville, Ontario, L1C 3K6 Phone: 905-263-2102 Fax: 905-263-4388 E-mail: charollais@live.ca

BRITISH MILKSHEEP are a modern breed established in England in the 1980s. The breed averages 300% lambing and the lambs grow quickly to produce heavy weight, lean carcasses as currently in vogue. While being excellent dairy sheep, they are also effective meat flock improvers. In commercial flocks, half-breds usually produce 0.5 lamb per ewe more. Their milking ability ensures vigorous growth of the extra lambs. British Milk Sheep can increase the profitability of your flock. Available in Ontario from

E&E Bzikot, RR1 Conn Tel./Fax (519) 848-5694 E-mail: ee.bzikot@sympatico.ca

lomanco hampshires Flock on R.O.P. since 1963 St ri vi n g to p r o d u ce b a l a n ced she e p w i th th i ck n es s , m u s cl i n g , le n gt h & co r r ectn es s .

MANASAN FARM

1 5 0 Laber g e, Danville, QC t el ( 8 1 9 ) 839- 3350 F ( 8 1 9 ) 839- 1202

Visitors always welcome f www.manasan.qc.ca

EMKE OXFORDS and

Dorsets and Suffolks Traditional Breeding Stock Well muscled for superior carcass quality. Australian and British Bloodlines Closed Flock ROP Tested

Keith and Mary Lamont

HAMPSHIRES

Breeding stock from both breeds available now with lambs for sale later in season. Craig & Missy Emke

525 8th Concession, RR#1 Elmwood, ON, N0G 1S0

519-364-6840 • m_wright17@hotmail.com www.emkelivestock.webs.com

R.R. 2, Acton, Ontario L7J 2L8 519-853-1975 E-Mail: lamont@sentex.net www.thistlestonefarm.com

CEDAR CREEK SCANNING

Orchardview Farm

Texel Sheep • Top Quality Rams & Ewes • Add Carcass to Any Breed • Maedi Visna Tested

Breeding Stock Available Gordon Walker & Family R.R. #2, Glencoe, Ont. N0L 1M0

Ultrasound Pregnancy Scanning for Sheep, Goats and Alpacas OLIBS Accredited Rebecca Parker, Vet Tech. 858 Hwy 7A East, RR#1, Bethany ON, L0A 1A0

Telephone: (705) 277-1711 Mobile: (905) 259-1102 E-mail: middlekingdom@sympatico.ca

Best time to scan is between 45 and 80 days after introduction of ram.

(519) 287-5085

Premier breeder at the 2008 Royal Texel Show

MAPLE MEADOW FARMS Est. 1923

Hampshires Suffolks Dorsets Rideau Arcotts Rams and Ewes (SFIP tested) Commercial Ewe lambs (Suffolk – Rideau) (Dorset Rideau) Maedi Visna Monitored 6830 Belmeade Road • Osgoode ON K0A 2W0 Phone: 613-826-2330 • Fax: 613-826-1076 www.maplemeadows.ca

Duff Farms Rideau Yearlings & Lambs

Top Genetic Selection • SFIP & EweByte based • Maintaining 3 ram lines High Health Status • Closed Flock since 1995 • Maedi Visna Status “A” • National Scrapie Program • Ontario Sheep Health Program Glen & Sharon Duff R R #2 , Rockw ood, O N , N 0B 2K 0 519-856-9935 Email: rideausheep@sympatico.ca

Predator Solution

We have for sale four-month young dogs that are from the following Portuguese cattle dog mother and Azores Mountain dog or herding dog sire. These two breeds have been bred for generations to be the ideal herd\ flock protector and working dog and in my opinion are. Although they make excellent family dogs as are my dogs, they are absolutely fearless, incredibly intelligent, athletic and live to work. I pity the coyote or other predator that challenges these dogs .

Jim straughan 519-641-4355 Jim@straughan.ca OSN M a r c h 2 0 1 1

BREEDER