Mixed Age Versus Cast-for-age Ewes in Fat Lamb Production

New Zealand Journal of Agriculture, Volume 99, Issue 4, 15 October 1959, Page 378

Mixed Age Versus Cast-for-age Ewes in Fat Lamb Production

TN the perplexing question of buying mixed age or * cast-for-age ewes in fat lamb production the decision in favour of young ewe buying could be actuated by reasoning such as the following: The old ewes seem so dear! Why should I buy five-year ewes at 50s. 'to 655. when I can get 2-tooths with all their life in front of them for a matter of 30s. more 3 C. P. Tebb, Field Officer, New Zealand Meat and Wool Boards’ Economic Service, Hamilton, in a paper he gave to this year’s Ruakura Farmers’ Conference Week discussed this question and an adaptation of the paper is given here.

THE best way to attempt to answer the question, and certainly the only logical way, is to take the facts and figures of many farms over a considerable period and average out the results. In this way divergencies of season, of - situation, and of personal

ability in buying and in husbandry are more or less levelled out. A five-year period seemed to be a reasonable minimum and of the seven years’ total of records available to me I have picked 1952-53 to 1956-57 for two very good reasons. Firstly, I have more farm records continuously effective over that five-year term than for a similar term starting one year earlier or one year later, or for the

full seven years; secondly, and more important, the market for stock and wool was steadier over this period than over a five-year period starting a year earlier or later. Out of my panel of some 105 randomly selected sheep farms whose owners are cooperating in the Meat and Wool Boards’ continuous economic survey I have 37 fat lamb farms of the intensive type. Of these: Only six bought consistently and solely 2-tooth ewes over the five years, Only four bought consistently and solely cast-for-age ewes over the five years, which means that only 10 farms (about a quarter) were effective to this discussion. The other 27 had to be rejected from this analysis because: Ten farmers were breeding some of their replacements Nine farmers were buying part 2-tooths and part cast-for-age, with a definite 2-tooth tendency Three farmers were buying ewe lambs Two farmers changed from cast-for-age to 2-tooth buying half way through the period Three farmers came into the survey too recently to meet the requirements of the five-year period (incidentally all these buy young ewes)

Bearing in mind that my total panel of farms is a statistically random selection by counties in relation to sheep population density, and is in no way specially selected, the returns show a preponderance of fat lamb farmers adopting a mixed buying and/or breeding tendency and a quite definite bias toward the young ewe. The reduced size of my effective panel of farms for this study led me to enlist the assistance of my colleague in the southern half of the North Island, T. O. Walshe at Feilding. He took out similar returns for his farms under survey and sent me data from his effective 2-tooth and cast-for-age farms over the same five years. The situation on the fat lamb farms in the south of the North Island was not dissimilar to that in the north. He had 43 intensive fat lamb farms of which: Twelve farmers were consistent 2-tooth buyers Seven farmers were consistent cast-for-age buyers Twenty-four cases had to be rejected for: Nine farms bred some ewes Seven farms bought partly 2-tooth and partly cast-for-age ewes Three farmers changed their buying policy during the period Five farms had incomplete records This showed a very similar trend to mine, a definite tendency toward young ewes bought and/or bred. With the returns to hand from my southern colleague I was ready to lump all 2-tooths and all cast-for-age ewes together to form two composite North Island samples. However, while I was waiting for the southern material, I had worked out major totals and averages of my

own groups purely as a matter of personal interest, and I subsequently worked out the southern figures separately to see how they compared with the northern ones. After seeing the results I decided to leave the two groups, north and south, separate, as this shows up at least one important point which would otherwise be completely lost in the larger composite sample. The sample is not large; certainly not large enough to satisfy a statistician as an irrefutable representation of North Island fat lamb practice and returns. However, it is truly random and is the maximum sample available after making only legitimate rejections for non-compliance with the specifications of this study.

DATA ON GROUPS OF NORTH ISLAND FAT LAMB FARMS AVERAGED FOR FIVE SEASONS 1952-53 TO 1956-57 , North South (Waikato, Bay of Plenty, (Hawke’s Bay, Manawatu, and Franklin) and Rangitlkel) , , , x. • 2-tooths Cast-for-age 2-tooths Cast-for-age 1. Average productive acreage ... .. 338 288 350 289 2. Sheep wintered Total 1,495 ’ 1,328 1,236 1,171 Dry sheep in above 138 102 116 106 Cattle wintered .. .. .. .. 140 87 49 28 3 Ewes to ram •• , 1,357 1,226 1,120 1 065 Lambs docked (number) .. .. 1,266 1,243 1 143 1 169 Percentage 93 101 ’lO2 ’lO9 Own lambs sold fat 1,183 . 1,157 1,061 1 100 Other lamb sales .... .. 13 88 68 48 Lambs lost after docking (per cent) ~ 3 3 2.5 2.6 4. Ewes sold (number) 287 379 181 664 Return per head £1.64 £1.66 £1.96 £176 Proportion of ewe flock (per cent) .. 21 31 16 62 5. Ewes bought (number) ... .. 369 481 266 773 Cost per head£4.32 £2.86 £4.0 £2 64 Proportion of ewe flock (per cent) .. 27 39 24 72 6. Fat lamb meat weight: ■ Per fat lamb sold (lb) .. .. 32.0 30.7 33.8 34 2 Per ewe mated (lb) 28.0 29.0 32.0 35 3 Other meat per ewe mated (lb) .. 16.0 13.0 10.0 4.7 7. Wool clip per grown sheep (lb) .. 9.4 9.2 10.3 10.2 8. Gross profit per ewe mated: From sheep and lamb . . .. .. £2.05 £1.98 £2 48 £2 32 From wool £2.08 £1.77 £2.12 £2’2B From cattle £0.97 £0.74 £0.30 £9 44 Total .. .. ... .. .. £5.10 £4.49 £4.90 £5.04 9. Winter stock rate, sheep .. .. 4.34 E.E. 4.54 E.E. 3.47 E E 40 EE Plus cattle at.. 1 to 10 1 to 14 1 to 23 1 to 38 ’ ' ewes ewes ewes ewes

[The table above presents data discussed in the following text.]

North and South North in the table refers to my group of farms. They lie in Waikato, Bay of Plenty, and Franklin (fat lamb farms which I have in Northland and King Country fall into the rejected category). South refers to Mr Walshe’s group which lie in the recognised fattening districts of Hawke’s Bay, Manawatu, and Rangitikei.

I. Production Acreage Item 1 in the table shows the average productive area of each group of

farms. It would appear that the larger holdings tend to favour the young, ewe in both groups. 2. Sheep Wintered Item 2 in the table gives the average winter stocking; all the figures from now on are the average annual result over five years in each group of farms. Note that again there is a similarity of pattern between 2-tooth and cast-for-age ewes. In both north and south groups the 2-tooth farms carry more dry sheep and nearly double the cattle of the cast-for-age farms. Dry sheep comprise rams, of course, plus as a rule

some late lambs held over, or in a few cases some bought-in hoggets or wethers. Often there is quite a variation from season to season in numbers of dry sheep. To discuss cattle would involve considerable time at the expense of the question at issue, the ewes. Over the various groups they are representative of cattle practices associated with fat lamb farming.

3. Ewe Mating and Lambing

Ewe mating and lambing statistics are given in item 3. The lambing percentages are what I would expect in my experience: A differential of some 7 or 8 per cent in favour of cast-for-age; and southern lambings some 7 or 8 per cent better than northern.

Lambs lost after docking means from docking until the following 30 June. This wastage is seldom less than 2 per cent and it needs only the occasional farm with facial eczema or pulpy kidney to step this percentage up considerably.

Own lambs sold fat needs no elaboration; other lamb sales cover own lambs sold as stores plus boughtin lambs turned over either fat or store. The docking tally cannot be reconciled with the sum of all lambs sold plus percentage loss, because of the intake of bought lambs which I have not tabulated.

4. Ewes Sold

There is virtually no difference in the average per head return of ewes sold in the north groups. In the south groups there is a somewhat better return, particularly from 2-tooths.

5. Ewes Bought

Observe that the north groups pay about 6s. more on average for their 2-tooths and 4s. more for their old ewes than the south groups. But the relative difference between the buying of young and the buying of old ewes is very much the same for north and south, say 30s. and 28s. From left to right the average cost of ewes bought in is 865., 595., 80s., and 535., prices that would be expected over the years considered.

The differences between sales and intake from left to right work out at

6 per cent, 8 per cent, 8 per cent, and 10 per cent. These figures represent the average annual wastage that occurs in these flocks, inclusive of dog tucker and home consumption. A check of the total sheep wintered at the beginning and end of the fiveyear period for each group showed that the north groups remained perfectly steady, but that the south groups increased their winter sheep carried by 6 per cent in 2-tooth and 7 per cent in aged; a per cent a year, say, so that really the group wastages are north 6 and 8 as before, but south 7 and 9. This is about what I would expect.

Of great interest are the differences revealed in replacement rates of the old ewe groups. In the north group the replacement rate is about onethird, while in the south group it is nearly three-quarters. In the south a complete clearance is sometimes made annually and a 50 per cent elear-

ance is common. To put it another way the north tends to make the cast-for-age ewes last for two or three years and south only one or two years. The 2-tooth groups show little difference between north and south and on average a quarter of the ewe flock is replaced each year.. This seems a high replacement rate and shows that the 2-tooth that starts on fattening country generally has a short life, certainly does not go to six or seven years. 6. Meat Weights The weight of meat produced in terms of per ewe and per lamb is shown in item 6. The stocking rates of these farms vary, not unexpectedly, as is shown in item 9, and per acre carrying capacity has not .necessarily anything to do with the fact of buying young ewes or old ewes for intensive country.' Therefore to start talking in terms of production per acre would be quite confusing and indeed erroneous in this case. Hence, production is in terms of per ewe mated, since this is the unit being compared. In item 6 therefore, we find that the average lamb weights are a little better further south per lamb and a good deal better per ewe mated. I associate this with the substantially less cattle activity on those farms coupled with the better lambing results that always seem to be achieved in the south districts. Other meat per ewe mated refers to all other stock sales that are not “own fat lamb”; that is, own store lambs, bought lambs or sheep turned over, the cast-out ewes, and the cattle turnover. This is a net figure derived in our statistical calculations of meat production and takes account not only of the disposals I have just referred to but also the intake stock and stocks on hand at beginning and end of each season. Though lamb meat per ewe is so much better in the south groups, the other meat is very much less. By adding together , the last two items in each column of item 6 the total net meat per ewe mated is found to be 44, 42, 42, and 40 lb. In total meat production the north groups each show 2 lb per ewe more than their south counterparts, which highlights the fact that what the north drops in lamb it more than makes up for by cattle in meat output. In . both north and south the 2-tooth group shows 2 lb more meat in aggregate than the cast-for-age group, such extra being mainly associated with the cattle and not the sheep. 7. Wool Clip In item 7 the wool clip per head discloses nothing significant as between 2-tooth and aged groups. This may raise a storm of protest and doubt, but I can only point out that

later, in the financial section, there is again no consistent evidence that favours the buying of 2-tooth ewes for higher wool revenue in the average of the five-year term. It does so in one place and then the position is reversed in another. I think the answer lies in the rapid deterioration of the young ewe and the fleece weight with it. Note that the per head clips are not per ewe but per grown sheep shorn. Where dry sheep are carried it is virtually impossible for me to get at a strictly per ewe figure. 8. Gross Profit Per Ewe Mated Tire financial gross returns per ewe mated are shown in item 8. The totals in three cases are near enough to £5 per ewe mated. Only in the cast-for-age northern group is there a divergence, 10s. less than the others. The financial result is very much on a par .with what happened in the meat section; what is lost in lower northern sheep and lamb production is picked up on beef. The wool cash return is similar to the return from sheep meats, about fifty-fifty. This is normal for fattening farms over those years on the basis of our Dominion statistics. But why is the north cast-for-age

group 10s. lower than the other three? The answer lies mainly in the tendency of that group to have retained the ewes longer than was desirable for best output. Facial eczema may be in some measure responsible (but certainly not wholly) for the lower gross return of this group, for it did bear somewhat more heavily here than in the other three groups, all groups being affected between 1955 and 1957. Farming Expenditure The table does not include any data on farming expenditure. I regard it as irrelevant except possibly for farm labour costs. Talking in terms of net profitability gets one right away from the point, because one then brings in items that have no bearing on the ewe question. (In terms of gross profit the cost of intake stock and the difference between value of beginning and end stocks on hand have been covered.) As regards wages and contracting work, supposing it is claimed that the young ewe flock requires more shepherding and general farm work, I examined the labour status of all the farms. They are mostly one and a half man propositions, owner and casual. A few are two men, owner and one permanent; a few are owner virtually single handed. The average annual wage bills, reading the groups as usual left to right are £B5O, £544,

£5Ol, and £591. This includes shearing and contractors. I do not therefore consider that the labour cost factor alters the comparative picture shown by my gross returns. Topdressing, incidentally, is normal for all groups. It has averaged the full area for north groups and twothirds of the productive area for the south groups annually. Conclusion In conclusion, if I were to show this study simply as a North Island sample instead of in two groups, north and south, the differences between 2-tooth and cast-for-age production and gross profitability would be even less significant than they are in the table; they are virtually in balance. Before I set to work on this paper I had never formed any definite opinion as to whether 2-tooth or cast-for-age buying was the more economical or profitable. I am now still in the same open frame of mind. I cannot see much in it either way. It seems a matter of choice, subject to husbandry factors and a reasonable level of market differential between young and old ewes. Personally, purely on the basis of farm husbandry I would choose the old ewe, but perhaps I am old fashioned.

Agronomist Helps Japan