Replies to your queries

I am happy to present your comments and answer questions on this page. Please remember that comments and advice that are given are done so with the best intentions. I cannot be held responsible for losses which may follow from application of ideas offered here.  Unless requested otherwise, any comments will not be attributed to the author but I require the identity of the sender and anonymous material will not be considered. I reserve the right to edit your comments and to refuse to publish comments which might offend.

Please note that many school teachers have told me I can't spell, as if I didn't know already. My view is that I try but it is the idea that counts, and that is rarely affected by spelling. Yes I can use a spell checker but I often prefer to wing it. (Never learn will I?)

How do I handle a duplicate tattoo on the Mohair Australia Recording System? (22/8/08)

Well, I am not the Mohair Australia Registrar so I can only give my own ideas on this. The system is designed not to allow duplicate names or tattoo numbers. However, when tattooing animals it is possible to make mistakes including using the same number twice. When discovered it is often too late and you may have lost control of the animals involved. I suggest that you add a letter to the end of the tattoo number when entering it on the system. The second animals with the tattoo XXX 123 would become XXX 123A.

Remember that numbers can be listed alphabetically with numbers first. putting a letter at the end of a number will maintain the order - ie. XXX123 will be followed by XXX 123A and then XXX 124. 

Larger breeders can go to 4 digit numbers but these are harder to read and record. A better idea is to use a letter before athree digit number. eg XXX 001 to XXX 999, then XXX A001 to XXX A999, then XXX B001 to XXX B999 etc.

Some breeders use a new letter for each year and repeat the number. XXX A001 in the first year and XXX B001 to start the next year. The problem with this is that the breeder will have many animals with the same number only distinguishable by a letter and maybe, a tag colour. This can be confusing. Even worse, the letter may only appear in the data base record and animals distinguished only by tag colour. I have one expample of this in the Buck Trial where a letter appears in the Animal Record Form tattoo, but not in the actual ear. Dangerous.

It really does help to be consistent and correct when it comes to identification.

What's an ARF? (10/7/08)

I have been having a little tussle with the Mohair Australia Board. One of the issues I have is the lack of routine Mohair Australia information - no President's piece, no editorial, no Board meeting reports, no indication of current plans or direction. Of particular interest to me is the lack of promotion of the Herd Book System. Not only is the Herd Book recording system a revenue raising part of the organisation, but it represents a chance for breeders to participate. It might seem strange but giving members something to do helps build support and growth.

So I guess I should not have been dismayed when asked "What is an ARF?" - twice. I guess this just proves my point.

An ARF is an "Animal Record Form" produced by the Herd Book System and displaying the name, ownership and pedigree of an animal recorded in the data base. It used to be called a "Herd Book Certificate" (HBC) but now these are only issue when an animal is transferred. Thus a HBC is proof of ownership whereas an ARF is a copy of the data on a recorded animal and proof that it is recorded and who owns it now.

In database language it should have been called a Animal Record Report but the plural of the abbreviation is a bit unfortunate. So, ARF's are it. If we develop a Performance Recording module a new sort of ARF will be available (but only to breeder of the animal). This will be a Performance ARF (PARF, if you like), or should that be an Animal Performance Record Form - APRF, which will present performance information as well as the original data.

The Iodine Story (27/6/08)

I received the following question this morning.

"We had trouble last year with goitre in kids, owing to clover feed.  We want to drench the does.  We have Lugol's iodine but do not know the proportions with water to make up the drench.  Do you know?"

My reply.

Yes, goitre is caused by Iodine deficiency and goats seem to have a high requirement. Its not clover as such but green pasture which is low in minerals. Goitre (swelling of the thyroid gland in the neck) is the extreme
symptom of deficiency but, naked kids and weak kids at birth are slightly less obvious symptoms. Thyroxine from the gland is required for energy metabolism and general vigour.

Iodine drenching seems to be of value almost everywhere, and especially in wetter years where there is much short green feed. There are a number of supplements including seaweed meals but you can never be sure if all the does get enough.

As outlined in THE BOOK, I suggest making a solution of Potassium Iodide and drenching twice before and at kidding. One hundred grams (order from Chemist) costs about $30 and makes a solution in 3 litres of water. This makes 300 doses. Drench 10ml per animal 6 weeks before kidding and at kidding. Do late kidders again 6 weeks later.

Potassium Iodide solution stores well and is safe to use however some people become reactive to continued exposure on skin (eg when teat dipping of dairy cows after milking each day). Drenching goats is unlikely to cause exposure reactions.

Iodine salts are easily leached out of blocks so inclusion is not usual. Iodine is taken up very quickly in the thyroid gland and excess is excreted. That is why iodine tablets are used where nuclear fall out is suspected - to prevent absorption of the radioactive isotope of Iodine common is fallout.

Not sure about "Lugol's Iodine" - Is there a label and what is its normal use?. An effective dose is about 30mg.

Doug Stapleton
 

Mohair Australia Herd Book System Issues. (21/6/08)

I have had several queries about the Herd Book System. Now, I was asked not to impinge on the Registrar's work and to refer people to the Registrar which is fine by me. BUT, my high level access was withdrawn without telling me. Grrr!

Anyway the Registrar is only in the office for a short time each week and I am happy, at least to offer advice at other times, though I can't do anything on the site.

First of all, the system is often down - not working. Not sure of the reason but poor power supply to Narrandera main street is one problem (even though we have a battery backup) and lack of high speed data phone lines may also cause problems. Anyway, no doubt the Registrar reboots the system when attending the office so be patient and try on Thursdays and Fridays.

Second. Syndicate ownership. This is covered in the Help file but it seems to create problems. Syndicate owned sires prior to the new system were not handled well. The Registrar needs to transfer such animals to all syndicate members. With the new system the current owner can transfer animals to a group of people (including himself) by doing a transfer and adding owners using the "find and add" loop.

Third. Yes, if you select another single animal by name or tattoo from List Animals it is returned over a yellow background as if it were selected, but the previously selected animal is returned on a ARF. The system hasn't been zeroed. Where possible select an animal from a group. Remember, go from the general to the specific.

Fourth. Searches. SQL searches for requested names or letter sequences anywhere in the field so a search for "PARK" will return "PARKVIEW, CAMDENPARK, PARKABLE and well as just "PARK"

Fifth.  The wild card "%" doesn't help much and doesn't work like the "*" in Microsoft.

Sixth. You can cut (sorry - copy) and paste from tables into Excel.

Seven. Getting more than 200 animals in a list. 200 was used to limit the time taken to produce a list. The best way is to narrow the criteria - by specifying year of the drop, or Sex, or maybe the first letter or number in the tattoo number if you are using a sequential numbering system. Copy and past into Excel for a long list.

Eight. Imported animals can now be recorded under their overseas prefix by the Registrar. At present many appear as being bred by "UNKNOWN" followed by the Prefix and name - an Unknown Known animal. This looks messy on the ARF. It could be fixed but maybe the Board does not want to know.

Nine. For Administrators, I hope you are doing backups. You should be doing monthly transaction lists so you have a running list of the years activities. Maybe you can also get a years activities by setting the invoicing routine dates to cover the whole year. You can extend the period of access of an unfinancial breeder by editing the "Memebership from" date to start the 15 month access period from a later date.

I am still perfectly happy to offer assistance.

DS.

WHY WEREN'T WE TOLD EARLIER (about the buck trial)? (29/4/08)

Isn't it marvellous? I have had several calls from people saying they didn't keep enough bucks so can't go in the trial. And why weren't they told earlier. Well sorry, I didn't think of it earlier and it took the writing of the comments about shows and performance recording to lead me to developing the idea. Certainly the Mohair Australia Board showed no initiative even following the visit of the South Africans. There has been no move on the Performance Recording extension to the Herd Book System, either.

I might say that not keeping bucks says something about the breeder's dedication to both selection and potential sales. Perhaps the trial was never meant for people who did not want to produce bucks in the first place. The trial is not a competition. It's a demonstration of characteristics of animals grown under the same conditions and not subjected to preparation. And its a trial for buck producers, not for competitive fanciers.

Another, more meaningful question raised, was about pre trial treatment and the problem of late dropped kids being disadvantaged in the trial. Well these are issues which need considering. It is likely that larger, earlier dropped kids will have a better start but this will be shown in the body weights at entry. Bigger animals are nearly always stronger but by the end of the trial most animals are likely to be showing their potential. 

Pre trial treatment has always been the criticism of this sort of "test station" comparison. That is why we need a full 6 month growth period. I am not saying there will be no pre-trial treatment effect, but it will be limited. Some suggest that steamed up animals will wilt in the paddock but I wonder just how many buck producers push that many animals that hard. No doubt  these animals will demonstrate such treatment in the body weight, condition and horn growth on entry. Again, the trial is not a competition. It is designed to show if there are differences between animals on uniform conditions, and to offer animals for sale on their performance.

No doubt if there are smaller (younger) animals buyers will take that into account. What we don't want are people to try and sell animals using this method when they have not been serious about selling bucks in the past. I am completely aware that some animals with good performance figures don't suit breeders. That's why I changed the $2000 opening bid offer to be for one of the highest indexed animals. But I believe its better to select sires from among the high performers, rather than animals you like from the poor performers. Of course this second approach was the origin of the "Low Line" cattle "breed" -where animals were selected on the reverse index for growth.

And yes, if the trial is a success, we will do it again next year with a new lot of bucks.

DS

Veldt Trial reactions (17/4/08)

I have had four reactions to the Veldt Trial proposal. Two were from studs who were not on the initial list but wanted to be included. One questioned the name and suggested "Rangeland Angora Buck Trial and Sale" and the inclusion of a wider range of breeders because the South African Veldt Ram Trial has thrown up some new breeders with animals of superior qualities.

Firstly, there has been no commitment to actually run the event: yet!  This will be discussed at the NSW Division meeting on Saturday. Whether it's a NSW MAL Division event or a private event remains to be seen. Just how committed are MAL people to the concept of Performance and Rangeland evaluations? We may see.

Secondly, do we want it called it an Australian Veldt Ram Trial or an Australian Rangeland Angora Buck trial?

Thirdly, how wide is our involvement in the industry? Do we want unrecorded animals from either MAL members or non MAL members to provide bucks? Do we want small fanciers to put their one and only pet in the trial on spec? Do we want to challenge the  "top" breeders in the current preparation driven show circute to expose their animals to unbiased rangeland comparisons, or do we want to offer breeders a chance to see how their bucks do against others produced by breeders more interested in paddock performance than show success?

Fourthly, on a negative note, I believe that breeders supplying animals to the trial which do not sell should take them home or they should be sold for meat at an average price on behalf of the breeders.

And fifthly, I don't think it is a good idea to truck the animals to the NATS for auction in short fleece, even with a display of fleeces and data, because paddock run animals (and their fleeces) can probably never compete against fancy fed and prepared animals in their washed and prepared long fleeces. These are two different ball parks. I might be out-voted on this point but I can't see that any real conflict between a special performance sale and the sale at the NATS (or any other venue).

So many questions!  I urge you to contact me before Saturday.

I note that there has been no response from MAL or its Board members, so far.

This proposal has shown me that there is a need for dialog in our industry. Have a say. Take an interest. Do something to make mohair an exciting and interesting industry. Return a comment from the Contact page.

DS

Wow!

Here is the second reaction I have received from the site

"WOW!! Congratulations on some new & interesting reading on mohair/angoras.
I commenced with angoras some 20 years ago & if i had listened to the many judges & other 'stud' breeders i would not have lasted this long in the industry!I was determed to have purely paddock reared animals only intervening at kidding time & bad weather after shearing. Yes sure i got sucked in and bought many a 'pretty' animal at shows in the beginning only to find out that- no they don't know how to graze in the paddock - so they don't survive in my neighbourhood."
 

Many thanks for your message. I am glad you appreciate the comments. I have to be careful not to endourse the other extreme. I believe in husbandry which means adding inputs when needed to gain financial returns.  However, reality seems to require large scale farming of say 2000 animals  (In WA sheep men handle as many as 8000 sheep per man). I don't think anyone has worked out how to do this with Angoras. Working it out might be a little like evolution - experimenting with many models to achieve a successful result. Big losses from making them do it in the paddock might still work in some situations but it's how long you want to wait for a return and what sort of return you want that has to be considered. It never ceases to amaze me that I can sit on my backside and break even, so why do I keep doing all that work for the same result.

DS

 Fanciers V Farmers

OK I asked for it so here is a reply to a comment regarding my attack on showing, my preference for paddock performance and my use of intensive kidding methods.

I have a message pointing out that I am critical of shows and judging while attending many and even acting as a judge or steward. It was also pointed out that I promote paddock performance but have an intensive kidding system.

Well yes; true. But so what? If shows are the only thing going in our industry then to shows one must go. As to judging; yes I do my bit but I try as much as possible to promote a more farmer friendly breed type. Those who have seen me judge know that I usually make disparaging remarks about overlong fleeces and I do not favour washed animals and am prepared to put a ribbon a “natural” animal if it shows superior characteristics. But I also realise that well prepared animals are marvellous to look at and that I can’t defy reality when it comes to shows. Should I favour the unprepared, visibly ordinary animal against a beautify one. What message would that send? So my approach is to go softly, softly and use my comments to try to bring some reality into the show. I also try to make helpful and educational comments.

My stints on the microphone at the Royal Easter Show over the last 7 years, I believe, are something of a novelty as far as shows go. That is, I try to tell the story and tell the audience what is going on. How do you judge a cabbage, or a camellia, or a beef bull, or a sponge cake? The public never gets to know and neither do would-be exhibitors. No one is going to let on what the secrets are to a potential competitor or the public?

So you are either in the kitchen or you fade away, and that is something I have no intention of doing.

Now as to the issue of intensive kidding and paddock performance. Farming is about results and husbandry is about fixing or treating the weakest link in the production system. It’s about solving problems and getting the most out of the system. A long time ago I realised that you could get high fertility out of Angoras but you had to prevent deaths from exposure and predators. It never ceases to amaze me how some people look with rose coloured glasses at the sheep industry (merinos) and suggest that Angoras should be able to match the sheep for hardiness, especially at kidding (lambing).

What utter rot. Firstly the merino industry takes huge losses of lambs from frost, let alone rain – just ask sheep men on the New England. Unfortunately sheep men often don’t know how many lambs foxes take and just assume that the merino has an innate low fertility. As John Roger once quipped – making them do it tough does not make them tough, it just makes them dead.

So yes, I am in the most fortunate position to have a couple of modified hay sheds to house kidding does in at night as well as a couple of old shearing sheds and poultry sheds to lock up the does and kids at night for 2-3 weeks following kidding. Most of the sheds were courtesy of Mr Fraser (instead of tax) of during the boom times of the late 1970’s but several are made over poultry sheds from a previous poultry enterprise.

I don’t have any poddies to feed because the mothers are bonded well before the formation of crèche groups and any stray kids have been fostered to other does. Is that real farming or smart farming?

So once the critical period is over, it’s out to the paddocks and minimal supplementary feeding. I don’t extract likely show winners and give them special treatment because that would destroy the genetic assessment. My show animals really are out of the paddock, and if I don’t win (but I do win occasionally) at least I have not wasted time and money on a few fancy and very expensive pets.

That way, I can sell stud does for $65-$85 and bucks for $200-$400 and make a profit. I can also be assured that the animals will perform consistently, which is something which cannot be claimed by the fanciers.

So there! Just simple logic applied to farming Angoras.

My apologies to small hobby studs and fanciers. I am not being critical of your personal interest and efforts. It is just that we constantly hear about trying to get farmers to enter the mohair industry. Farmers are, in general, not going to be interested in fancier type activities; they are not going to buy fancy animals and they are not going to buy into a production system dominated by show success.

I guess also that they are not going to buy into an industry which requires a lot of sheds and husbandry work. Just claiming “you” can run them like sheep (but when new people do it’s often a disaster) does not help. If there is to be a wider industry we have to think about our image and our approach. Continuing what we are doing now will only result in a further decline in mohair production and members of the industry.

DS

  A Question on Lustre

I have had a letter about Lustre, asking how to improve lustre in show animals. This was my reply:-

Thank you for your letter, and sorry I have taken so long to reply. It seems there is always far too much to do and I only get round to urgent things now days.

Now, I don’t really approve of shows, much less special preparation. I believe that shows now-days are more a test of preparation rather than genetic quality. A test of hair dressing.

Lustre in an innate quality on mohair. However, lustre in the show ring is a function of washing and application of surface agents to improve light reflection and handle. Yes, you can feed in some lustre which increases the natural yolk. High energy feeds and green feeds appear to increase grease content. BUT high grease levels attract dust and dirt which may cause the effect to be dulled.

Wool grease is a mix of two components. Wax (oil) and swint. Swint is water soluble and is removed by rain and plain water washing. This leaves the oil or wax behind which is dull and harsh to handle.

Conditioners may help replace the swint content and improve apparent lustre and handle. However you should choose one without perfume.

White oil is an emulsion of mineral oils and water used normally for scale insects on plants and has been used in dilute form as a spray to improve handle. However, it only works on clean animals and just before a show because it will also trap dust. You also get a strong smell if used too much.

Serious showers have used diazinon (Nukidol) as a soluble hydrocarbon dip to wash animals. This is a dangerous practice and one prominent breeder is now suffering blindness, probably the result of years of washing angoras in this dip.

That is about as much as I can tell you. I am not a shower and I believe in showing animals in natural – paddock- condition. Most judges however cannot bring themselves to accept the obvious. They have little choice but to give prizes to prepared animals so the whole exercise is rather pointless except to make a show of pretty animals. It might be easier to change the judges rather than go in for high preparation and pen feeding of individual animals.

Regards,
Doug Stapleton