Big Muddy rancher
Well-known member
To Worm or Not to Worm
I was helping my sister worm her sheep last weekend. (More accurately I was keeping her company while she did the work.) I don't remember what she was using. I don't keep track of that sort of thing, but it involved treating them for five consecutive days. She's got a small flock of a little over 40 Jacob ewes with over 80 lambs. Jacobs have 2 or 4 horns and as a former sheep shearer they make me glad I'm a former shearer. Robin was on the second day of treatment and was not thrilled with the prospect of doing this for three more days. I asked Robin why she was worming them. "Because they have worms," she said. Then she added,"This is what the vet recommended."
We started talking about what might happen if the ewes and lambs weren't wormed. I'm sure productivity would drop, especially on some of the ewes, but other ewes would probably be less affected. This raises some interesting questions. Would the benefit of selecting a relatively parasite resistant animal be worth the cost? What would it cost (e.g. lower reproductive rates, lower weaning weights, higher culling rates) to select parasite resistant animals? Would 40 ewes be a big enough population to do this kind of selection? Geneticists tell me that it is pretty hard to have a genetics program with fewer than 400 animals. I don't know what kind of success a producer like my sister would have working on a much smaller scale.
Tom Lasater, founder of the Beef Master breed of cattle once wrote, "More emphasis has been placed on medication than on breeding trouble-free cattle with the result that, to some extent, United States producers have bred the vigor out of their cattle." We protect our animals from cold and heat, drought, too much rain, parasites, rough terrain, predators, poor quality feed and many other problems. The result is that we have created animals that need protection.
Lasater didn't recommend eliminating the vaccination program. He recommended vaccinating only against diseases that must be prevented. He believed that vaccinating for the panoply of diseases in the environment is one of the factors causing our animals to be less resistant to those diseases.
There is a cost to restoring hardiness and vigor. Culling rates will increase for a time, average weaning weights will go down and during the transition period the savings on input costs may not cover the lost revenue resulting from lower performance. Would the advantage of having adapted animals that thrive without inputs be worth it? That's a question only my sister can answer for her operation. It's a question only you can answer for yours. I welcome your thoughts and experiences on this issue.
This came in a E-Mail from Dave Pratt of Ranch Management Consultants.
What do you guys think?
I was helping my sister worm her sheep last weekend. (More accurately I was keeping her company while she did the work.) I don't remember what she was using. I don't keep track of that sort of thing, but it involved treating them for five consecutive days. She's got a small flock of a little over 40 Jacob ewes with over 80 lambs. Jacobs have 2 or 4 horns and as a former sheep shearer they make me glad I'm a former shearer. Robin was on the second day of treatment and was not thrilled with the prospect of doing this for three more days. I asked Robin why she was worming them. "Because they have worms," she said. Then she added,"This is what the vet recommended."
We started talking about what might happen if the ewes and lambs weren't wormed. I'm sure productivity would drop, especially on some of the ewes, but other ewes would probably be less affected. This raises some interesting questions. Would the benefit of selecting a relatively parasite resistant animal be worth the cost? What would it cost (e.g. lower reproductive rates, lower weaning weights, higher culling rates) to select parasite resistant animals? Would 40 ewes be a big enough population to do this kind of selection? Geneticists tell me that it is pretty hard to have a genetics program with fewer than 400 animals. I don't know what kind of success a producer like my sister would have working on a much smaller scale.
Tom Lasater, founder of the Beef Master breed of cattle once wrote, "More emphasis has been placed on medication than on breeding trouble-free cattle with the result that, to some extent, United States producers have bred the vigor out of their cattle." We protect our animals from cold and heat, drought, too much rain, parasites, rough terrain, predators, poor quality feed and many other problems. The result is that we have created animals that need protection.
Lasater didn't recommend eliminating the vaccination program. He recommended vaccinating only against diseases that must be prevented. He believed that vaccinating for the panoply of diseases in the environment is one of the factors causing our animals to be less resistant to those diseases.
There is a cost to restoring hardiness and vigor. Culling rates will increase for a time, average weaning weights will go down and during the transition period the savings on input costs may not cover the lost revenue resulting from lower performance. Would the advantage of having adapted animals that thrive without inputs be worth it? That's a question only my sister can answer for her operation. It's a question only you can answer for yours. I welcome your thoughts and experiences on this issue.
This came in a E-Mail from Dave Pratt of Ranch Management Consultants.
What do you guys think?