lifetimewool national farmer survey ~ summary of results · web viewin the last three years, pain...

Department of Agriculture and Food, Western Australia (DAFWA)

Western Australian (WA) Farmer Survey 2011

Mandy Curnow, Andrew van Burgel, Jackie Bucat, Anne Jones

Published version: May 2013

DAFWA WA Producer Survey 2011

Table of contentsAcknowledgements.........................................................................................................................1

Executive Summary........................................................................................................................1

1 Background to the DAFWA producer survey..................................................................................4

2 Survey responses...........................................................................................................................5

2.1 Geographic spread of respondents.......................................................................................5

3 General Demographics, Enterprise and Production Results...........................................................7

3.1 Production characteristics.....................................................................................................7

3.2 Stocking Rate and Grazing Data...........................................................................................7

3.3 Enterprise Type.....................................................................................................................8

3.4 Dominant Mating Type..........................................................................................................8

4 Matching Genetic Practices to Production Systems.....................................................................11

4.1 Breeding or selling rams......................................................................................................11

4.2 Stud and Ram selection......................................................................................................12

4.3 Prime lamb traits..................................................................................................................16

4.4 Selling Rams and Semen....................................................................................................17

4.5 Breeders use of Australian Sheep Breeding Values...........................................................18

4.6 Labour as a indicator of production efficiency.....................................................................20

5 Animal welfare and reproduction...............................................................................................24

5.1 Reproduction.......................................................................................................................24

5.2 Pregnancy scanning............................................................................................................28

5.3 Condition Scoring................................................................................................................31

5.4 Weaner mortality.................................................................................................................32

5.5 Marking and mulesing practices..........................................................................................33

5.6 National Wool Declaration usage........................................................................................34

5.7 Selling Sheep East..............................................................................................................35

6 Improved parasite control..........................................................................................................36

6.1 Faecal Egg Worm Counts...................................................................................................36

6.2 Lice control..........................................................................................................................38

6.3 Flystrike control....................................................................................................................41

6.4 The “Boss” web sites...........................................................................................................42

7 Awareness of Sheep CRC and attendance at CRC events.......................................................43

Appendix 1 Conduct of the Telephone Survey.............................................................................44

Appendix 2 Accessibility of producers..........................................................................................44

Appendix 3 2011 survey questionnaire........................................................................................45

AcknowledgementsSurvey Design: Anne Jones, Mandy Curnow, Andrew van Burgel, Kimbal Curtis, Rob Woodgate, Andrew Thompson, Mark Ferguson and Geoff Hinch

Statistical analysis: Andrew van Burgel.

Executive summaryDAFWA commissioned this WA sheep producer survey as an additional data set to the Cooperative Research Centre for Sheep Innovation (Sheep CRC) national producer survey. The data was collected by telephone survey in February and March 2011 for the purposes of gathering benchmark information on a range of sheep management practices. The data collected mostly relates to flock management during the 2010 season. The same survey will be run again in 2014 and a comparison of the information collected will be used to measure how producers have changed their practices during that time.

Producers were phoned and invited to contribute to this survey if they had more than 500 sheep and farmed in either the Cereal Sheep Zone (CSZ) or the Medium Rainfall Zone (MRZ). Information collected from 369 WA sheep producers is presented in this report.

Stratified sampling was used to get a good representation of WA sheep production, with 263 responses collected for the cereal sheep zone and 133 from the medium rainfall zone. This relates to 8.4% of producers in the CSZ and 6.3% in the MRZ. These figures have been calculated from figures collected in 2005/06 by the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) and adjusted in 2009.

Enterprise and productionThe three key enterprises – sheep, cattle and winter crops – accounted for more than 95% of respondent’s incomes. The MRZ had the highest average proportion of income from sheep at 63% with the CSZ having 45%.

Twenty eight per cent of the respondents were wool producers and 61% nominated themselves to be a dual purpose enterprise (that is, both wool and prime lamb). Only 11% nominated themselves to be prime lamb producers. The average number of sheep run in wool and dual enterprises is over 4500 per producer while the prime lamb enterprise run an average of under 4000 sheep. The MRZ had the highest sheep numbers and the CSZ had the smallest flocks.

Matching genetics to production systems The majority of producers buy rams to service their flock (76%). In WA, 13% of respondents can be classified as ‘ram sellers’, that is, sell rams or semen to others. Thirty one per cent of respondents breed rams for their own flock, whether it be as a seller of rams or for their own commercial flocks. More prime lamb breeders bred rams for sale than dual enterprises, who were more likely to run a commercial flock and buy rams.

Most respondents selected the stud or source of their replacement rams by using their regular breeder and don’t consider going to any other source (50%). More of those from the MRZ used their agent or classer to help them choose the stud source.

Most ram buyers chose their rams with some combination of how they look, performance data and possibly some genetic information (70%). Nearly half of the wool enterprise buyers (44%) chose on how they look and some performance data whereas only 12% of the prime lamb buyers did this. Surprisingly 36% of prime lamb buyers chose rams on how they looked alone, compared to only 9% of buyers from wool enterprises; however, they were more likely to have chosen the stud source using genetic information. Wool and dual enterprises are more likely to use a combination

1


of visual and performance or genetic data to select rams (with more emphasis on genetic information for dual enterprises), while prime lamb enterprises are divided between using visual selection only (36%) and a combination of visual, performance and genetic data (40%).

‘Growth rate’ and ‘constitution or doing ability’ are the clear favourites among the traits important for meat sires, with ‘weaning weight’ and ‘lean meat yield’ perceived as having lower importance.

Prime lamb breeders are much more likely to use Australian Sheep Breeding Values (ASBVs) than wool or dual purpose breeders. The highest rating reason for not providing ASBVs on all rams sold is that they believe that their customers don’t use them. While less ram sellers used ASBVs (33%), they sold about half of the rams because larger ram sellers were more likely to use ASBVs.

Labour as an indicator of production efficiencyThere was a significant positive trend in the use of contract labour with increasing flock size in shearing, crutching, and marking.

The electronic weigh crate, crutching cradle and lick feeders had the highest ownership. Electronic ear tags and auto drafting equipment had the lowest ownership. Prime lamb respondents were more likely to use auto drafting equipment, electronic weigh crates and electronic ear tags than wool enterprises. Dual enterprises were the highest uses of lick feeders.

Improved animal welfare and reproduction ratesMarking percentages for meat lambs were about 10% higher than Merino lambs, which supports other data collected on the Australian flock. All enterprise types had a higher meat marking percentage than Merino marking percentage. Prime lamb enterprises have a higher marking percentage for their meat lambs than wool or dual enterprises indicating that management of their ewes has an impact as well as the genotype on the marking percentage.

The pattern of time of joining or lambing for each sire type was similar with most flocks being joined between October and February.

Pregnancy scanning is a practice carried out by 52% of respondents, of which 9% scan for litter size. Eleven per cent of respondents indicated that they only scanned in bad years. Fifty seven percent of wool producers don’t scan at all compared to 33% of prime and 46% of dual enterprises. Typically those with the largest flocks were more likely to scan for pregnancy and generally more likely to scan for litter size as well.

The marking rates for meat joinings across all enterprise types are significantly higher for those that scan for pregnancy or litter size (90%) than those that don’t scan at all (86%). Of those respondents who scanned for either pregnancy status or litter size, the overwhelming majority managed those scanned mobs individually – either by separating twinning, single and dry ewes or pregnant and not. Of those who scanned for litter size, 74% managed their mobs individually, whereas only 48% of those who scanned for pregnancy status managed their mobs individually.

The most common method of assessment of ewe nutritional status is by a regular visual assessment in the paddock (69%) followed by visually estimating in the paddock with an occasional assessment on a sample of ewes when they are in the yards. These two methods accounted for over 92% of all groups. A relatively small group assessed using a formal measure, drafted and managed ewes to set targets.

In WA the mortality for 2010 was lower than considered normal.

Eighty eight per cent of Merino lambs and 13% of meat lambs were mulesed. Of these, 55% of the Merino lambs and 38% of meat lambs were mulesed with pain relief. South Australia (SA) and WA had the highest proportion of Merino lambs being mulesed.

The awareness of the National Wool Declaration (NWD) is very high at 91%. The reported usage of the NWD in this survey is higher than was expected by the public auction records. At least 50%


of producers across all zones reported having filled out the mulesing section in the NWD in the last two years.

Improved parasite controlFaecal worm egg count testing is carried out more by producers in the MRZ and those in the CSZ undertook the least worm egg count (WEC) testing.

The majority of producers surveyed treat routinely for lice, whether lice are seen or not (67%). Eight per cent of respondents never treat for lice. Those in the CSZ were also much more likely to treat for lice routinely than other zones. There was an increase in when lice were seen from 2007 to 2010. Backline treatments off-shears were the most popular form of treatment for lice (60%). There has been a move from back-line treatments in the recent years in that most chemicals used in backline treatments show some resistance.

Most respondents nominated that their flystrike treatment was to only treat individual sheep (39%) and the least popular treatment was treating the mob when flystrike was detected (13%). There is no difference in treatment for flystrike whether the flock is mulesed or not, however, it is more likely that the mob will be treated routinely if the producer has an auto jetting race.

The WormBoss website and newsletter service is now hosted by the Sheep CRC. Thirty seven per cent of producers are aware of the site but only 7% of producers said that they had used it in 2010 and only 4% had subscribed to the newsletter service. The LiceBoss website is a new service that was established in 2010. Already awareness levels are 21% with approximately 4% having used the site in 2010. The FlyBoss website is a new service that was established in 2010. Already awareness levels are 13% with approximately 1% having used the site in 2010.


1 Background to the DAFWA producer surveyThis report outlines the information received from the national producer survey conducted on behalf of Program 1 of the Cooperative Research Centre for Sheep Innovation (Sheep CRC). The survey was conducted in February and March of 2011 for the purposes of gathering information on sheep management practices. The same survey will be run again in 2014 and a comparison of the information made to measure change in practices and attitudes during that time. DAFWA commissioned extra respondents data to be collected from WA to provide adequate numbers for an analysis across zones and enterprises with reasonable confidence. 377 WA sheep producers were surveyed.

The criteria for selecting the respondents were that they had more than 500 sheep and they were producers from the Medium Rainfall Zone (MRZ) and Cereal-Sheep Zone (CSZ). In this analysis data from 369 respondents were included. Two respondents had less than 500 sheep, four had unknown numbers of sheep and two respondents appeared from their property size and sheep number to be pastoral enterprises. The MRZ and the CSZ are considered to be of greatest interest because the majority of sheep producers and sheep in WA are in these two zones.

Producers were matched with the production zone using their postcode.

The WA medium rainfall zone has a six month growing season. It includes the whole south west, from the Perth area in the north to Albany in the south.

The WA cereal sheep zone has a five month growing season. It extends from the Geraldton area in the north west to the Esperance region in the south east.

Figure 1 Production zones as defined and used by the Sheep CRC and DAFWA

The survey questions covered general demographics, breeding, reproduction and parasite control. The WA survey included extra questions about selling sheep direct to eastern state buyers in 2010 and what type of sheep were sold.


In many cases, data has been collected about both the Merino and meat and maternal enterprises. South African Meat Merino (SAMMs) and Dohne sheep were included in the Merino grouping.

The responses from the survey are often broken down further within this report (for example to classify producers by zone, enterprise type and various behavioural criteria) for the purposes of comparing groups and exploring a deeper understanding of the factors that influence producers. The symbol ‘n’ appears on tables to show the total number of respondents that have been included within that analysis.

Another statistical term used to show an analysis of data is the letter ‘p’, used throughout this report. For example, p<0.05 means that there is 95% confidence that the difference is ‘real’ and not a factor of inadequate number of responses – which is (statistically) very high. A higher ‘p’ figure (for example <0.10) means there is lower confidence (90%) that the difference is real.

Please refer to Appendix 1 to 3 for a full list of survey questions and for more detail on the sampling and interviewing methodology.

2 Survey responses2.1 Geographic spread of respondentsThe survey results are based on responses from about 8% of sheep producers in the CSZ and 6% of sheep producers in the MRZ (Table 1). At the time of doing the survey it was intended to sample an equal proportion of both regions but subsequent analysis has indicated that there are a higher proportion of producers in the CSZ so that the total results presented have a slight bias towards the CSZ.

Table 1 Survey respondents representing WA sheep producers with more than 500 sheep

Zone Producer numbers

Producer %

Respondent numbers

Respondent %

Respondents % of producers in zone

Medium Rainfall Zone (MRZ) 2 103 43% 133 36% 6.3%

Cereal Sheep Zone (CSZ) 2 807 57% 236 64% 8.4%

Total 4 910 No data 369 No data No data

All respondents were asked:

What was the total number of sheep on the property at 30 June 2010, including lambs?What is the total area of your farmed and grazed land, including all leased land?

The average flock size is 4720 sheep and the median flock size is 3500. The averaged farmed area, including leased land, is 3018 hectares (ha) and the median is 2200ha.

The medium rainfall zone had a higher average number of sheep per farm (5829) than the cereal sheep zone (4095). These 36% of respondents in the MRZ were responsible for 45% of sheep in the survey.

The average cereal sheep zone farm was larger (3586ha) than the average medium rainfall zone farm (2015ha). The 64% of CSZ respondents were responsible for 76% of hectares in the survey.

When sheep flock sizes were looked at by region, more of the flocks in the CSZ were in the lower quartiles for flock size, whereas the MRZ had a greater proportion of flocks that were in the highest


flock size quartile. The smaller flock sizes in the CSZ fits with industry belief that cropping producers will have some sheep but have a greater focus on other enterprises and will also run lower stocking rates.

Table 2 Respondents, sheep and area across production zones (Significant differences are marked with a letter. Groups that do not share any of the same letters are significantly different.) (p<0.05)

Zone Average flock size

% of total sheep in zone

Average farmed area (ha)

% of total area

MRZ 5 829 b 52% 2 015 b 30%

CSZ 4 095 a 48% 3 586 a 70%

Total 4 720 No data 3 018 No data

Q 1 smallest Q 2 Q 3 Q 4 largest0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

MRZCSZ

flock size quartiles

resp

onde

nts

%

Figure 2 Flock size of each respondent across the two key production zones


3 General demographics, enterprise and production results3.1 Production characteristics Respondents were asked about the contribution of a range of enterprises to the overall farm business, including cattle, winter crops, summer crops, other livestock and horticulture. The three key enterprises – sheep, cattle and winter crops – accounted for more than 95% of income.

Table 3 Proportion of income derived from key enterprises per region

Zone Sheep % Cattle % Winter crops %

MRZ 63 6 26

CSZ 45 3 50

As expected, a higher proportion of average income comes from sheep in the MRZ (63%) than the CSZ (45%) and a higher proportion of average income is from winter crops in the CSZ (50%) than the MRZ (26%).

3.2 Stocking rate and grazing dataAll respondents were asked;

What area of your property was grazed as pasture?What area of your property was grazed as dry stubble?What area of your property was grazed as green crop?

The grazing data collected was not always compatible with the reported total farm size or the income split between sheep and cereals. The data for grazing green crops was not useable as some respondents put in the area of their pastures, some put in the area of their crops and, some put in one third of their farm area.

Table 4 Grazing area and stocking rate in dry sheep equivalent per winter grazed hectare (DSE/WGha) across production zones

ZoneAverage pasture

grazed (ha)Average

flock sizeStocking rate

DSE/WGhaMRZ 1149 5829 5.1

CSZ 1395 4095 2.9

Average 1307 4720 3.6

The stocking rate, based on winter grazed hectares, was significantly higher in the MRZ than the CSZ. This reflects the lower pasture production due to rainfall and a lower focus on maintaining permanent pasture paddocks.


3.3 Enterprise typeTo establish potential points of difference based on production intensity and focus, the respondents to the survey were asked these key questions concerning their production:

What was the total number of sheep on the property at 30th June 2010, including lambs?What is the primary purpose of your sheep enterprise (wool production, prime lamb production, or wool and prime lamb production?Do you buy rams in for your own flock, breed rams for your own flock or breed rams for sale?

The primary purpose of the sheep business nominated by the producers reflects the focus of each farmer. It does not necessarily match the on-farm joining to Merino or meat rams. Sixty one per cent of respondents identified their main enterprise as being both wool and lamb production. The wool focused enterprises made up 28% of respondents and lamb enterprises made up 11% of the respondents (Figure 3). This is different from the national data where 23% of producers were prime lamb enterprises.

wool & prime lamb enterprises

61%wool enterprises

28%

prime lamb enterprises11%

Figure 3 Enterprise type across the whole survey population

Table 5 The proportion of sheep per farm business and producers by enterprise and production zone. Zones within enterprises which show the same subscript, are not significantly different.

Zone Wool Prime lamb Dual

MRZ 5734a (29%) 3590a (15%) 6474a (56%)

CSZ 3889b (28%) 3680a (8%) 4243b (43%)

total 4557 (28%) 3635 (11%) 4990 (61%)

n= 105 40 224

The average number of sheep run in wool and dual enterprises is over 4500 per producer while the prime lamb enterprise run an average of 3600 sheep. Wool and dual purpose enterprises had significantly larger flocks in the MRZ. There is nearly (p= 0.052) a significant difference between the proportion of prime lamb producers across the production zones.


3.4 Dominant mating typeRespondents were asked about the number of ewes mated to ram type and the results were used to compare the nominated primary enterprise by the respondent to the actual dominant mating type. This was in order to compare responses of people with different focus and also to see how peoples focus might vary within the dominant mating type of ‘Merino ram’ as Dohnes and SAMM merinos were included but many see these strains as a Dual purpose or meat Merino.

How many ewes were mated to Merino rams, including Dohnes and SAMMs to lamb in 2010?How many ewes were mated to meat and maternal rams to lamb in 2010?

A ‘mating type’ rating was developed with the following parameters;

Merino if > 67% ewes were mated to Merino rams

Mixed if 33-67% ewes were mated to Merino rams

Meat if < 33% of ewes were mated to Merino rams

merino meat mixed0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

Figure 4 Dominant mating types (Merino sires, meat sires or mix of both Merino and meat sires) by respondent

There is quite a close fit between the nominated primary purposes of the sheep enterprise (labelled enterprise) and the actual on-farm joining practice. The number of ewes joined for 2010 lambing provides an accurate picture of on-farm practice, while the nominated enterprise shows the focus of the producer.

Forty four per cent of dual enterprise respondents and 5% of prime lamb enterprises only joined ewes to Merino rams. These rams may include, however, Dohnes and SAMMs and therefore the Merino lambs could be considered prime lambs.

By enterprise and mating type (proportion in brackets):

Wool enterprise with Merino mating (91%) Wool enterprise with a mixed mating (9%)

Prime lamb enterprise with a meat mating (88%) Prime lamb enterprisewith a mixed mating (8%) Prime lamb enterprise with Merino mating (5%)


Dual enterprise with a mixed mating (36%) Dual enterprise with Merino mating (44%) Dual enterprise with a meat mating (20%)

60%

11%

13% 4%4%3% 2%

2%

Run a commercial flock and buy rams (76%)

Breed rams for own use (31%)(31%)

Do not breed

Breed rams for sale (13%)


4 Matching genetic practices to production systems

4.1 Breeding or selling ramsRespondents were asked to identify their breeding practices and whether they purchased and /or sold rams as part of their sheep enterprise. The main reason for the inclusion of this question is to categorise the respondent’s involvement with ram breeding and selling. There are other questions in the questionnaire specifically for commercial producers (those who don’t sell rams) and ram breeders. Respondents to this question were allowed to select more than one response to allow for the identification of producers who sell and buy rams.

Do you run a commercial flock and buy rams? Breed rams for your own commercial flock?Breed rams for sale?Do not breed/purchase rams or semen?

The majority of producers buy some rams to service their flock (76%). Thirteen per cent of respondents can be classified as ‘ram sellers’, that is, sell rams or semen to others. Sixteen per cent ran a commercial flock and bought rams as well as breeding rams for sale or for their own use. 60% of respondents ran a commercial flock and bought all their rams.

Thirty one percent of respondents breed rams for their own flock. Some of these also sell rams. Of those 121 respondents who said they sold rams only 102 sold rams in 2010. They were not asked why they didn’t sell in 2010.

Figure 5 The proportion of producers who are ram breeders, buyers or sellers

There were more prime lamb enterprises that bred rams for sale (25%), compared with dual enterprises (10%) and there were more prime lamb enterprises that bred rams for sale in WA than across Australia (13%). Nearly 80% of dual enterprise respondents had a commercial flock and bought rams and this was significantly higher than prime lamb enterprises.


There were no significant differences between production zones.

Table 6 Breakdown of breeding strategy based on whether producers buy or sell rams to others. (Column totals more than 100% as respondents nominated each response that applied, sometimes more than one. For each category, enterprise types that do not share any of the same letters are significantly different)

Ram decision Total % Wool producers

%

Prime lamb producers

%

Dual enterprise %

Have a commercial flock & buy rams

76 74ab 63b 79a

Breed rams for own use 31 28 40 31

Breed rams for sale 13 15ab 25a 10b

n= 369 105 40 224

4.2 Stud and ram selectionThese questions were only asked of those respondents that bought in rams, which included ram breeders. Only one answer was allowed per respondent. The first question aims to give an indication of the level of thought put in to the selection of ram breeder, whereas the second question is designed to give an indication of the level of thought put in to ram selection.

Selection of stud or ram source:

Which one of the following statements best describes how you usually select your stud or ram source for your primary sheep enterprise?

I have never considered going to anyone other than my regular stud breederI choose a stud breeder based on advice from my classer, agent or consultantI usually go to the ram sales or shows and select a stud that suits my needsI review wether trial data, sire evaluation data, sale reports etc and select a stud

breeder that is performing wellI access genetic information from sources such as Sheep Genetics or Australian

Merino Sire Evaluation Association and select a breeder based on their match to my breeding objective

This question doesn’t discriminate between those who use their regular stud breeder because they have already worked out that their breeding objectives or methods are the best available from those who are using their regular stud breeder because ‘that’s what they’ve always done’. Those choosing options 2-5 are indicating that their decisions are still changeable – whatever the method.


Reg

ular

bre

eder

only

Adv

ice

of c

lass

er o

r age

nt

Use

ram

sales

Per

form

ance

dat

a

Gen

etic in

form

ation

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%re

sp

on

den

ts

Figure 6 The selection of stud or ram source by respondents

50% of respondents don’t actively decide on their ram source each year, as they have never considered going to anyone other than their regular stud breeder. This compares to 35% of producers in the national survey that used their regular breeder. There are a similar number of WA respondents who either select their breeder based on advice (12%) or who select at sales (18%) or access genetic information (13%). A smaller number of respondents actually use a mix of performance information to select a breeder to purchase their rams (7%). Nationally, the impact of an advisor or classer is much higher (21%) than in WA (12%).

Table 7 Selecting a stud source by producers who purchased rams. (Superscript denotes significant differences within each zone)

Selecting a stud or ram source total % MRZ % CSZ %Regular stud breeder only 50 50 50

Advice of my classer or agent to choose 12 16a 6b

Ram sales to get a stud that suits 18 18 19

Use performance data to select stud 7 7 7

Access genetic data such as ASBVs 13 10 19

n= 224 180 101

A higher proportion of producers in the MRZ use an agent or classer. There was no difference between enterprise type and how producers selected the source of rams that they purchased.


Selection of rams:Which one of the following statements best describes how you select rams to buy?

My classer or agent chooses the ramsI choose the rams based on how they look I choose rams mainly on how they look but use some performance data such as

micron, Coefficient of Variation (CV) or body weightI choose rams with a balance of visual appeal, performance data (micron, CV etc) and

some genetic information such as ASBVs or breeding valuesI choose rams based on genetic information such as ASBVs, breeding values or

selection indexes

Most ram buyers chose their rams with some combination of how they look, performance data and possibly some genetic information (70%). Choosing rams based solely on their genetic data was the least popular approach to selecting rams with less than 5% choosing this method. The role of the agent or classer was also small with less than 10% of respondents choosing this method of selecting rams.

class

er o

r age

nt c

hoos

e...

choo

se r

ams

base

d on

...

choo

se ra

ms

on v

isual

and

s...

choo

se ra

ms

on v

isual,

som

e pe

rfor..

.

choo

se ra

ms

on g

enet

ic ...0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

Figure 7 Approach to selection of sires

There was no difference between zones on the method of choosing their sires.

There is a significant difference between the wool and dual enterprises and the prime lamb enterprises in terms of selecting rams based on how they look with more than double the number of prime lamb producers using visual methods only.

Overall, while there are some differences in the proportion within each enterprise type, the general message from these results is that wool and dual (at 72%) enterprises are more likely to use a combination of visual and performance data to select rams, while prime lamb enterprises are divided between using visual selection only (36%) and a combination of visual, performance and genetic data (40%).


Table 8 Approach to selection of ram, of those who buy rams. (Enterprise types sharing the same letter are not significantly different)

Ram selectionTotal

%Wool

%Prime

lamb % Dual %Classer or agent chooses the rams 9 12 4 9

Choose the rams visually 16 9b 36a 17b

Choose rams mainly on visual but some performance data 33 44a 12c 31b

Choose rams with balance of visual, performance, genetic info 37 28b 40ab 41a

Choose rams on genetic info such as ASBVs or selection indexes 4 8a 8ab 2b

No data n=281 No data No data No data

Regula

r bree

der ...

Advice

of cla

sser o

...

Use ra

m sales

Perform

ance

data

Genetic

inform

ation

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%

choose rams on genetic information visual, performance data & some genetic informa-tion

Figure 8 The relationship between how producers choose their ram source and how they choose their individual rams

Figure 8 shows the interaction between the method of choice of ram source and how producers choose the rams once a ram source has been selected.

Respondents using a classer or advisor to choose a stud source were more likely than other respondents to use an agent to choose the rams also. Those producers using ram sales to select the stud source did not use classers or agents to help them select the individual rams or use


genetic information only. Those who chose a ram source based on genetic information were the highest users of genetic information alone and the use of a combination of visual, performance and genetic information to choose their rams for purchase.

4.3 Prime lamb traitsThe survey respondents that had identified themselves as prime lamb enterprise (through either selecting the ‘prime lamb’ or ‘wool and prime lamb’ enterprise options) were asked to answer this question about their opinion of the certain prime lamb traits:

On a scale from 1 to 5, please indicate the importance you place on each of these traits when choosing meat ram replacements with 1 meaning not at all important and 5 meaning very important:

Growth rateMusclingWeaning weightLamb weaning per centLean meat yieldEwe weight/frame sizeConstitution or doing ability

Two hundred and sixty four respondents identified themselves as either dual enterprise producers or prime lamb producers. Those who nominated themselves as a wool producer were not asked the question. The percentage of those respondents who considered each trait as important (that is, scored the trait at 4 or 5 out of 5) is shown in Figure 9.

Growth

rate

Muscli

ng

Wea

ning w

eight

Lamb w

eanin

g per

cent

Lean

mea

t yiel

d

Ewe weig

ht/fra

me size

Consti

tution

or do

ing ab

i...0

1020

30

4050607080

very importantimportant

prime lamb traits

resp

onde

nts

%

Figure 9 The ranking of traits for prime lamb and dual enterprise producers of key prime lamb traits


‘Growth rate’ and ‘constitution or doing ability’ were the clear favourites among this list of traits with both groups of producers, with ‘weaning weight’ and ‘lean meat yield’ perceived as having lower importance.

For all of the traits there is no significant difference in percentage perceiving the trait as very important between the two types of enterprises. Lamb weaning percentage was most important to 26% of respondents which is somewhat lower than the national result of 32%

Table 9 Proportion of producers of prime lamb that consider the listed traits as very important. (Superscript denotes significant differences between zones)

Trait Total % MRZ % CSZ %Growth rate 42 49 38

Muscling 28 33 25

Weaning weight 18 22 15

Lamb weaning per cent 26 31 23

Lean meat yield 15 20 12

Ewe weight/frame size 25 26 24

Constitution or doing ability 38 47 a 33 b

No data n= 95 169

The differences between producers of the two zones in the importance of meat traits weren’t significant except for constitution/doing ability where the MRZ rated it higher than the CSZ.

4.4 Selling rams and semen

Rams and semen sold in 2010Forty six respondents who breed rams to sell (that is, in section 4.1 nominated breed rams to sell) were asked:

How many rams did you sell in 2010?How many doses of semen did you sell in 2010?

Forty six respondents sold rams in 2010, which was 12.5% of all respondents. The average sale size was 123 rams for the year with the median sale size 71 rams.

An estimated 75 400 rams were sold in the two zones in 2010, extrapolated from a total of 5665 rams sold by all the respondents.

Table 10 Respondents selling rams and semen

Ram sales Ram sellers # Semen sales (straws) Semen sellers #6-50 18 25-50 2

51-100 10 51-100 4

101-200 11 101-900 3

201-600 7 901-2000 2

No data n=46 No data n=11


Eleven respondents (3%) sold semen in 2010 and all respondents that sold ram semen in 2010 also sold rams.

The average semen sale was 420 doses, with a median sale of 100. An estimate of semen sales in WA in 2010, is 61 400 doses (CSZ and MRZ).

Table 11 Respondents selling rams and semen, shown by production zone

Zone Respondents selling rams

#

Respondents selling rams

%

Rams sold %

Respondents selling ram semen %

Ram semen doses sold %

MRZ 21 15.8 50 4 87

CSZ 25 10.6 50 2 13

Total # 46 No data 5 665 11 (3%) 4 615

A similar number of rams was sold from the cereal sheep zone and the medium rainfall zone, but although not significant, the data indicates that a greater number of ram sellers are in the MRZ than the CSZ.

There was no significant difference in size of ram sales between enterprises or dominant mating types.

4.5 Breeders use of Australian Sheep Breeding Values There was also a range of questions that were only posed to those respondents who said that they breed rams to sell. This constituted 46 of the survey respondents. The questions asked of all ram sellers are as follows:

What proportion of the rams that you sold (or sold semen from) in 2010 had Australian Sheep Breeding Values (ASBVs)?

The responses were divided according to dominant mating type to determine if there is a difference in approach to Australian Sheep Breeding Values (ASBVs). The results of these questions are shown in table 12 below. Removed from this data set were four sellers who had ASBVs only on a part of the flock sold or who didn’t nominate whether they had ASBVs.

Table 12 Breakdown of ram sellers with and without ASBVs on their rams and the proportion of rams sold

Response Total % Merino Meat MixedASBVs on all - number (#) of ram sellers 14 33 7 7 0

No ASBVs - # of ram sellers 28 67 19 3 6

ASBVs on all - Average # of rams 180 No data 181 179 0

No ASBVs - Average # of rams 97 No data 97 33 128

ASBVs on all - Total rams 2 520 48 1 270 1 250 0

No ASBV s - Total rams 2 710 52 1 840 100 770

No data n=42 No data No data No data No data


Sixty seven per cent of ram sellers didn’t have ASBVs for their rams with 33% having ASBVs on all rams.

The proportion of ram sellers (by enterprise type) using ASBVs for all rams is significantly higher for prime lamb producers (78%) compared to wool (20%) and dual (21%). While less ram sellers used ASBV's (33%), they sold about half of the rams because larger ram sellers were more likely to use ASBVs.

An extra question was asked of those ram breeders who provided ASBVs on less than all of their rams:

What are the reasons for not providing ASBVs for all of your rams?Too time consumingToo costlyToo confusing or complex to get ASBVsThe traits that are important to the sale of my rams are not covered by ASBVsASBVs are not an accurate indication of the quality of my ramsI am not convinced that ASBVs are a useful marketing toolMy customers do not use ASBVs to select their rams anyway

Most respondents reported that they didn’t use ASBVs because their customers didn’t request them or didn’t use them. Less than 10% of respondents indicated that they did not use ASBVs because the traits they see as important weren’t covered by current ASBVs. Respondents also were given an opportunity to give other reasons. Nine percent indicated they had never heard of ASBVs or didn’t know enough about them.

My customers do not use ASBVs

Too costly

not convinced that ASBVs are a useful marketing tool

Too time consuming

ASBVs not an accurate indication of quality

Too confusing or complex to get ASBVs

traits are not covered by ASBVs

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%

Figure 10 Reasons why not all rams are sold with ASBVs


4.6 Labour as an indicator of production efficiencyIn an attempt to quantify the efficient use of time and labour in sheep production, a range of questions were asked of all respondents with regards to the number of people and time put in to managing sheep, and the utilisation of labour-saving sheep handling devices. This section covers those questions about the number of people and the time they put in to working with sheep. The questions asked were as follows:

In addition to yourself, how many of the following people work on your property?Family membersFull time employeesPart time employees

How much of their total time is spent working in the sheep enterprise of the farm business?Yourself (ie respondent/interviewee)Family members (collectively/overall)Full time employees (collectively/overall)Part time employees (collectively/overall)

The data from this question was difficult to analyse as many respondent’s data added up to more than was expected in some respondent’s enterprises when compared to the number of sheep run. Most enterprises had self-employment with support from some family members in running the sheep enterprise. For calculation of the full time equivalent (FTE) for part-time employees it was assumed that they were all employed 50% on farm.

Table 13 Number of full time equivalent (FTE) workers and average time spent working on sheep, by enterprise type (Superscript denotes significant differences within each enterprise)

EnterpriseYourself (ave FTE)

Family (ave FTE)

Full time employees (ave FTE)

Part time employees (ave FTE)

Total average sheep/FTE

Wool 0.51 0.47a 0.16 0.04a 5 304b

Prime lamb 0.44 0.53ab 0.22 0.05ab 4 685ab

Dual production 0.52 0.72b 0.15 0.24b 4 324a

Survey total 0.51 0.63 0.16 0.16 4 640

Respondents were divided into categories of ‘high’ or ‘low’ labour use. The division between the two has been made using the median dry sheep equivalent (DSE)/FTE value of 3679 sheep/full time worker where ‘low’ labour use means more sheep are run per FTE. There was no difference in the proportion of high or low labour use between zones. The wool enterprise had lower labour use than the dual enterprises. Lower labour use producers had larger farms.

Use of contract labour

Do you use a contractor for...Shearing (full contract)CrutchingMarking


Treating sheep for lice

The respondents with meat matings were much less likely to use any contractors than mixed or Merino mating types except in lice treatment where they were similar to Merino mating type.

There was a significant positive trend in the use of contract labour for shearing and crutching and marking with increasing flock size. There was no clear trend with the use of lice treatment. Shearing was the most likely activity that contract labour would be used for. There would likely be many producers that also used some contract labour for shearing but did not use full contract.

Smallest 2 3 Largest0

20

40

60

80

100

120ShearingCrutchingMarking

Flock size quartile

Resp

onde

nts

usin

g co

ntra

ctor

s (%

)

Figure 11 Proportion of respondents that use contractors for the listed activities, by flock size quartile

Labour saving devices as an indicator of efficiencyThe questions asked to determine efficiency based on use of labour-saving devices were:

When working with sheep, do you currently use any of the following devices?Automatic drafting equipmentAutomatic jetting raceSheep handling machineElectronic weigh crateCrutching cradleLick feedersElectronic ear tags(if no to above) Are you considering using any of these devices?

The use of labour saving devices or devices that provide extra information for the producer to better manage their flock was highly variable but reflect a mix of the perceived value of the device, the time for which the device has been in the market pace, the ease of integration of the device into the farming operation and the cost of the device. The electronic weigh crate, crutching cradle and lick feeders had the highest ownership. Lick feeders, electronic ear tags and auto drafting


equipment had the highest rank in terms of being considered, indicating that this would be where growth could occur.

Electronic weigh crate

Crutching cradle

Lick feeders

Automatic jetting race

Sheep handling machine

Automatic drafting

equipment

Electronic ear tags

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

53% 51% 46%

17% 17%6% 4%

14%10% 21%

10% 15%

20% 20%

% considering

% using

Res

po

nd

ents

usi

ng

dev

ice

(%)

Figure 12 The proportion of respondents who use or are considering using one or more sheep handing devices

Table 14 has divided the respondents into categories of ‘high’ and ‘low’ labour use. The division between the two has been made using the median DSE/FTE value of 3679 sheep/full time worker where ‘low’ labour use means more sheep are run per FTE. The use of ‘labour saving devices’ was generally not different between farms that had a high or low labour use ranking. There is an exception with automatic drafting equipment having significantly higher ownership in enterprises with ‘low’ labour use.

Table 14 The proportion of respondents using labour-saving devices (Superscript denotes significant differences between each labour rank)

Labour use ranking

Survey total #

Auto drafting equipment %

Auto jetting race %

Sheep handler %

Elect weigh crate %

Crutching cradle %

Lick feeders %

Elect ear tags %

High 184 3b 16 18 53 52 47 5

Low 185 8a 19 15 54 51 44 2

AveNo

data 6 17 17 53 51 46 4

There is a significant difference between those who are ram sellers and those who run a commercial flock and buy in rams. Ram sellers were significantly more likely to own electronic weigh crates and electronic ear tags.


Table 15 The proportion of respondents by enterprise type and the use of key devices (Superscript denotes significant differences within each device use)

Device Wool % Prime lamb % Dual %Auto drafting equipment 2a 10b 7ab

Auto jetting race 17 15 18

Sheep handler 15 15 18

Electronic weigh crate 32a 75b 59b

Crutching cradle 49b 30a 57b

Lick feeders 38a 38ab 51b

Electronic ear tags 4ab 10b 3a

As expected, wool producers were less likely than prime lamb producers to own auto drafting equipment and electronic weigh crates given that these devices would be seen as an aid in the turn off of prime lambs for market. This may also explain the higher use of crutching crates amongst wool producers compared to prime lamb producers. There were no differences in the use of labour saving devices across zones except electronic weigh crates were used more in the MRZ (61% versus 49%).

Respondents with the biggest flocks (highest quartile) were most likely to use all labour saving devices and had significantly higher use than the smallest flocks (lowest quartile) for automatic drafting equipment, auto jetting race, electronic weigh crates and lick feeders.


5 Animal welfare and reproduction 5.1 ReproductionAll questions for this section were asked regardless of whether they were in relation to a wool (Merino) enterprise, or a meat (meat and maternal) enterprise.

The questions in relation to wool production were:

How many ewes were mated to Merino rams, including Dohnes and SAMMs to lamb in 2010?What was the month joining commenced for Merino rams, including Dohnes and SAMMs?How many Merino lambs were marked in 2010? That is lambs from ewes joined to Merino rams?How many ewes have you joined or intend to join to lamb in 2011 to Merino rams, including Dohnes and SAMMs?

While the questions in relation to meat production were:

How many ewes were mated to meat and maternal rams to lamb in 2010?What was the month joining commenced for meat and maternal rams?How many meat and maternal lambs were marked in 2010? That is lambs from ewes joined to meat or maternal rams?How many ewes have you joined or intend to join to lamb in 2011 to meat and maternal rams?

The marking percentage in the tables below was calculated using individual marking percentages with values outside of the range of 50-150% removed due to some large inconsistencies with some data points and some respondents indicating that they either bought pregnant ewes or sold pregnant ewes or didn’t mate for a particular reason.

merino + meat merino Meat None0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

2010 lambing 2011 lambing

Figure 13 Joining practices for 2010 and 2011 by sire type


More than half the respondents joined a mix of both Merino and meat and maternal sires to their ewe flocks in 2010. Of interest was that 30% of respondents were Merino specialists although this number would include those who have a ‘multipurpose’ Merino genotype or a ‘meat’ Merino genotype. The enterprises which joined ewes exclusively to prime lamb sires would include both ewes of meat breeds as well as Merino ewes joined specifically to produce prime lambs for sale.

The CSZ had a significantly a higher proportion of Merino sheep specialists (33% versus 23%) while the MRZ had more respondents that joined only meat rams (19% versus 13%).

Table 16 Responses for the Merino enterprise (the marking percentage was calculated using individual marking percentages with values outside of the range of 50-150% removed.) (Superscript denotes significant differences within each activity)

ZonePeople with Merino mating

Average Merino lambs

Merino marking %

MRZ 105 2 643a 85

CSZ 204 1 783b 83

Average 309 2 075 84

Table 17 Responses for meat and maternal enterprise (the marking percentage was calculated using individual marking percentages with values outside of the range of 50-150% removed.) (Superscript denotes significant differences within each activity)

Zone People with meat mating Average meat lambs Meat marking %MRZ 99 1 812a 93

CSZ 153 1 087b 91

average 252 1 372 92

Marking percentages for meat lambs were about 10% higher than Merino marking percentages, which support other data collected on the Australian flock.

The average number of ewes joined by respondents was less in 2011. Fewer respondents mated ewes to meat rams in 2011 than in 2010 and those that mated to meat rams mated less ewes in 2011 than in 2010. Fewer respondents mated ewes to Merino rams in 2011 than in 2010 and those that mated to Merino rams mated less ewes in 2011 than in 2010. However the swing from respondents with meat mating (70% to 64%) was larger than the swing from Merino mating (85% to 82%).

Most of these producers changed to joining to Merino rams only. The largest shift was in the MRZ with a -14% change. There was a shift of 7% towards more ewes being joined to meat sires in the CSZ but this was countered with a similar shift away from meat sires in the MRZ. There was no significant difference in the number of ewes joined from 2010 to 2011 by zone.


Table 18 Change in the sum of ewes joined by the respondents, between 2010 and 2011

Year Total ewes joined to Merino rams Total ewes joined to meat rams2010 lambing 642 526 347 343

2011 lambing 604 829 306 356

% change -6% -12%

An estimated 1.1 million less ewes were joined in 2011, compared with 2010, in Western Australia with 430 000 less ewes in the CSZ and 670 000 less ewes in the MRZ.

Month of lambingTime of lambing is an important decision in a sheep enterprise and can vary with the other enterprises carried out on the farm, the mix of genotypes being run and the pasture feed supply.

Respondents that mated ewes to Merino rams (to lamb in 2010) were asked:

What was the month joining commenced for Merino rams, including Dohnes and SAMMs?

Respondents that mated ewes to meat and maternal rams (to lamb in 2010) were asked:

What was the month joining commenced for meat and Maternal rams?

Fifty two per cent of joinings were in November-December for an April-May lambing. Thirty seven per cent of joinings were in January-February for a June-July lambing. Those lambing in the CSZ lambed on average about one month earlier than those in the MRZ. Ewes are joined to meat rams slightly earlier than those joined to Merino rams, in both CSZ and the MRZ.

Mar Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

CSZ meatCSZ merinoMRZ meat

Time of lambing

% R

esp

on

den

ts

Figure 14 Month of lambing for prime lamb and Merino lambing (by producer)

Figure 15 shows that as lambing is later in the year stocking rate is higher in both zones. This result reflects the modelling and previous research where matching lambing time with the most feed and the natural breeding season of Merino ewes.

Feb


Mar Apr May Jun July0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

MRZCSZ

sto

ck

ing

ra

te (

DS

E/W

Gh

a)

Figure 15 Change in stocking rate (DSE/WGHa) with the time of lambing in each zone

Table 19 Marking per cent change with time of lambing by joining type and zone. Data is only shown where there were more than ten responses. (Superscript denotes significant differences within each zone)

Time of lambingMerino rams

CSZMeat rams

CSZMerino rams

MRZMeat rams

MRZMarch No data 92ab No data No data

April 82 95a No data No data

May 84 86b 84ab 90b

June 84 87b 82b 98a

July 83 No data 92a No data

While there were significant differences observed, there was no consistent trend in lambing per cent with the time of lambing across joining type or zone.

48%

11%

32%

9%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

Don't use Bad years Pregnant or not Litter size


5.2 Pregnancy scanningAll respondents were asked:

Regarding pregnancy scanning to manage the nutrition of ewe flocks, do you...Choose not to use ultrasound scanning

Only scan in bad years on some sheep

Scan ewes only for pregnancy status (pregnant or not)

Scan ewes to detect pregnancy and litter size

Pregnancy scanning is a practice carried out by 41% of respondents routinely of which 9% scan for litter size. A further 11 per cent of respondents indicated that they only scanned in bad years.

Figure 16 Regular pregnancy scanning practices carried out by respondents

The MRZ had the highest level of scanning with 59% of producers carrying out at least some scanning compared to CSZ 48%, with the national scanning rate being 53%. The level of scanning for litter size was low compared to the national rate of 18%, with some regions such as the High Rainfall Zone (HRZ) having rates of 24%.

Wool enterprises scanned less than prime lamb enterprises and the proportion of ewes joined to Merinos only that were scanned was also lower than for ewes joined to meat rams only.

Table 20 The pregnancy scanning practices of respondents by enterprise type and mating type with mating type based on joining for 2010 lambing. (Superscript denotes significant differences within each activity)

Usual pregnancy scanning practice

Total%

Wool % Prime

lamb %Dual % Meat &

Merino

Merino rams only

Meat rams only

Do not use 48% 57a 33b 46ab 44 b 58 a 42 b

Some in bad years 11% 10 15 11 13 9 7

Pregnant or not 32% 26 40 33 36 a 23 b 33 ab

Litter size 9% 7 13 10 7 b 9 ab 18 a

No data n = 105 40 224 204 108 55


There is a very strong correlation between flock size and scanning. 67% of respondents in the smallest flock size quartile do not scan, compared with only 22% in the biggest. 45% of producers from the largest quartile of flock size scan regularly down to a low of 22% for the smallest quartile.

There is a similar trend for scanning for twins, 14% of producers from the largest flock size quartile scan for twins down to a low of 5% for the smallest quartile.

Table 21 Usual pregnancy scanning practice according to flock size quartile

Usual pregnancy scanning practice

Total %

Flock size quartile 1 (smallest) %

Flock size quartile

2Flock size

quartile

3Flock size quartile 4 (biggest) %

Do not use 48 67 55 46 22

Some in bad years 11 5 8 13 19

Pregnant or not 32 22 27 33 45

Litter size 9 5 11 8 14

All enterprise types had a higher meat marking percentage than Merino marking percentage. Prime lamb enterprises have a higher marking percentage for their meat lambs than wool or dual enterprises indicating that management of their ewes has an impact as well as the genotype on the marking percentage.

Table 22 Pregnancy scanning practices and the average marking percentages for each enterprise type. (The marking percentage was calculated using individual marking percentages with values outside of the range of 50-150% removed)

Type MarkingGrand total

Don’t scan or scan in bad years%

Scan for pregnancy or scan for litter size %

Wool Av Marking-Merino 83 83 83

Wool Av Marking-meat 86 82 92

Prime Av Marking-meat 97 98 97

Dual Av Marking-Merino 84 81 87

Dual Av Marking-meat 91 90 93

Scanning for pregnancy and in particular, litter size, is a recommendation of the Sheep CRC as a way of improving reproductive performance. The marking rates are significantly higher for those who scan for pregnancy or litter size (90%) than those that don’t scan at all or only scan in bad years (86%). People may scan for different reasons, not just to be able to manage the nutrition of lambing ewes better. They may do it for pedigree purposes or selection of replacements. The next section investigates whether management practices varied with pregnancy scanning practice.

Management of ewe nutrition using pregnancy scanning statusPlease select the response that best describes what you do with the pregnancy scanning information:

I don't change my nutritional management

I manage ewes according to their energy requirements as a single group

I manage dry, single and twin bearing ewes separately and according to their different energy requirements


Management of ewes scanned for pregnancy status or litter size allows producers to remove dry ewes from the mob and either sell or feed lower rates, thereby improving feed conditions for pregnant ewes. Those scanning for litter size have the added option of managing the twinning ewes separately and offering higher nutrition and protection than to those with singletons. The Sheep CRC and DAFWA recognise this as a key management tool in improving lamb survival and asked this question as a series of choices in management. A similar set of questions were asked as part of the Lifetimewool survey in 2008 and will be repeated again in 2013 in order to track behavioural change.

Table 23 Management practices of respondents who scanned for status and or litter size

More of those in the MRZ managed their flocks separately than the CSZ (almost significant, p=0.05). This maybe because they have the infrastructure to manage flocks separately, that is more paddocks or that they had higher lambing rates at a time when feed was emerging but still in short supply. Those who are supplementary feeding at this time would be more aware and paying the price of feeding animals who are not pregnant or who have lower requirements.

Of those respondents who scanned for pregnancy most (54%) nominated that they managed their single, twin and dry ewes separately and according to their different energy requirements and 11% did change their management. This result is expected, however, 48% of respondents that scanned for pregnancy but not litter size, nominated that they managed dry, single and twin bearing ewes differently. Given that the option to choose that they manage dry and pregnant ewes separately was not offered, we assume that they meant this (see Table 24).

Table 24 Management of pregnant ewes, according to pregnancy scanning information

Management of pregnant ewes according to pregnancy scanning information

All respondents %

Respondents scanning pregnant or not %

Respondents scanning for litter size %

I don't change my nutritional management 11 13 6

I manage ewes according to their energy requirements as a single group 35 39 20

I manage dry, single and twin bearing ewes separately and according to their different energy requirements

54 48 74

n= No data 117 35

The 11% of respondents who scanned for pregnancy and didn’t manage their flocks differently may have been scanning for reasons other than nutritional management such as recording reproduction success for breeding and selection purposes. There was no significant difference in the management and scanning practices of respondents of different enterprises.

Zone Survey total # Don't change % Manage as a group % Manage individually %MRZ 65 9 28 63

CSZ 87 13 40 47

average No data 11 35 54

No data n = 152 No data No data No data


There was no significant difference in marking percentage for those who managed the flock as one group or separately. Those who didn’t change their management had lower marking rates, similar to those who didn’t pregnancy scan.

Table 25 Marking percentage changes with ewe management after scanning by sire type

Management of pregnant ewes according to pregnancy scanning information

Merino marking %

Meat marking %

I don't change my nutritional management 83 88

I manage ewes according to their energy requirements as a single group 88 94

I manage dry, single and twin bearing ewes separately and according to their different energy requirements 86 94

5.3 Condition scoringCondition scoring is seen as a useful tool in managing a ewe’s nutritional status throughout the year and many extension programs over the last decade have recommended the practice that producers should do assessments on a regular basis.

Regarding methods of monitoring ewe condition including condition scoring, fat scoring or weighing, do you usually...Make regular visual assessments in the paddock

Visually estimate in the paddock and occasionally fat score, condition score or weigh a sample of the ewes when they are in the yards

Normally condition score, fat score or weigh a sample of each ewe mob and manage to average mob targets for joining/lambing/weaning

Condition score, fat score or weigh and draft all ewes, manage mobs according to condition to meet set targets for joining/lambing/weaning.

This question was first asked in the Lifetimewool survey in 2008 to measure change in practice with responses arranged with an increasing level of decision making. This is in order to track changes in decision over time and the same question will be repeated in the 2013 survey.

Table 26 The usual practice of condition scoring by production zone. (Superscript denotes significant differences within each activity)

Zone% visual in paddock

% visual and occasionally score

% regularly score

% score and manage to targets

MRZ 67 21 5 7a

CSZ 69 25 4 2b

average 69 24 4 4

The most common method of assessment of ewe nutritional status is by a regular visual assessment in the paddock (69%) followed by visually estimating in the paddock with an occasional assessment on a sample of ewes when they are in the yards. These two methods accounted for 92% of all groups. A relatively small group assessed using a formal measure, drafted and managed ewes to set targets.

There was no significant difference between producers based on their enterprise type.


5.4 Weaner mortalityWithin the 2010 lamb drop, what was the mortality rate of your weaners between the age of weaning and 6 months of age? And in general, what would be the average weaner mortality rate between the age of weaning and 6 months of age for your property?

Weaner mortality is a key issue for management of Merino flocks and affects production and profitability of Merino enterprises. Weaner mortality in prime lamb flocks is considered less of an issue in that many lambs are turned off before the important weaner growth period throughout summer.

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 >100%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

2010 weaner mortality

general weaner mortality

Weaner mortality (%)

Res

pond

ents

Figure 17 Weaner mortality as reported by respondents in 2010 and general weaner mortality

Ninety per cent of respondents reported a weaner mortality of five percent or less in 2010. Twelve per cent of respondents reported 100% survival rate, however, it questioned whether this is a valid response.

Wool Prime lamb Dual0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

2010 mortality

general mortality

Rep

ort

ed m

ort

alit

y %

Figure 18 Weaner mortality by enterprise type for 2010 and in general


Wool producers and dual producers reported similar levels of mortality for weaners. Prime lamb producers had a significantly lower reported mortality.

5.5 Marking and mulesing practicesIn the last three years, pain relief application has been available for producers who mules at marking and 2009 saw the introduction of a breech modification called breech clips. These questions were asked in order to determine uptake of those new technologies and also to monitor the transition of producers towards non-mulesing, particularly in Merino flocks.

How many Merino/meat and maternal lambs were marked in 2010? That is lambs from ewes joined to Merino/meat and maternal rams.And of those Merino lambs, what percentage were...

mulesed with pain reliefmulesed without pain reliefbreech clippednot mulesed

Nearly three quarters of all lambs were either not mulesed at all or were mulesed with pain relief. Twelve per cent of Merino lambs were not mulesed which is similar to anecdotal information received by growers and the amount of wool offered as ‘ceased mulesing’ on national wool declarations. Forty eight per cent of all Merino lambs reported in this survey were mulesed with pain relief and of those mulesed 55% had pain relief.

Table 27 The proportion of mulesed lambs and the proportion of those mulesed with pain relief by sire type

Response Merino lambs #

Merino lambs %

Meat lambs #

Meat lambs %

Mulesed with pain relief 244 334 48 16 292 5

Mulesed without pain relief 200 484 40 26 714 8

Breech clipped 29 0 2 800 1

Not mulesed 60 614 12 279 836 86

Total = 831,103 505 461 No data 325 642 No data

Eighty six per cent of meat lambs weren’t mulesed at all and of those mulesed, only 38% were mulesed with pain relief. There were more meat lambs not mulesed in the MRZ than the CSZ (91% versus 80%).

91%

66%

56%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Heard of NWD

Filled in declaration in last 2 years

Filled in mulesing status

Respondents (%)


% mulesed of total lambs % mulesed with pain relief (of those mulesed)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Merino lambs

Meat lambs

Figure 19 Mulesing practices in 2010 by lamb number

5.6 National Wool Declaration usageThe National Wool Declaration is a document that accompanies wool to be sold with the wool specification documents and informs the buyers of dark and medullated fibres, chemical usage, mulesing status and pain relief at marking.

Have you heard of the National Wool Declaration?Have you filled in a declaration in the last two years?Have you filled in the mulesing status on the document?

There was no difference in awareness of the National Wool Declaration (NWD) form across zones. Awareness was significantly lower for prime lamb producers (75%) compared to wool and dual enterprises (93%).

Figure 20 The reported use of the National Wool Declaration including the completion of the mulesing status section

There was a significant difference between zones in the use of the NWD with the CSZ having about 10% higher completion rates than the MRZ. As expected the use by prime lamb producers was the lowest, given their lack of focus or production of wool.

Table 28 Producers that have filled in a NWD in the last 2 years. (Superscript denotes significant differences within each activity)

Response Total % CSZ MRZ Wool Prime lamb DualFilled in NWD 66 70 59 70a 38b 70a


Filled in mulesing section 56 60 50 66a 35b 56a

No data n=369 No data No data No data No data No data


5.7 Selling sheep eastAll respondents were asked:

Did you sell any sheep direct to eastern state buyers in 2010?And how many of these sheep were: Merino ewe lambs, 2010 born

Merino ewes, born 2009 or earlier

Meat and maternal ewe lambs, 2010 born

Meat and maternal ewes, born 2009 or earlier

Wether lambs, 2010 born

Older wethers, born 2009 or earlier

In 2010 there were large numbers of sheep being sold to the eastern states partly due to a very poor season in WA and very high prices in the eastern states as producers there re-built their flocks after a decade of drought. One million and three hundred thousand sheep were recorded to have crossed the Eucla checkpoint in the 2010-11 year.

33% of producers sold sheep to eastern states buyers in 2010. There was no difference between the zones, in the proportion of sellers. Meat lambs and Merino wether lambs were reported to have been processed whereas the Merino ewes were kept as replacement breeding stock. The sheep sold east in 2010 were 40% Merino females, 39% meat and maternal females and, 21% wethers.

Older wethers, born 2009 or earlier

Wether lambs, 2010 born

Meat ewes, born 2009 or earlier

Meat ewe lambs, 2010 born

Merino ewes, born 2009 or earlier

Merino ewe lambs, 2010 born

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40%

5%

16%

9%

30%

33%

7%

Proportion of all sheep sold east in 2010

Figure 21 The proportion of sheep by class exported to the eastern states by respondents in 2010


6 Improved parasite control6.1 Faecal Worm Egg CountsWeaners and hoggets are the two classes of sheep most at risk of worm burdens to a level which affects health and wellbeing. Pregnant ewes are also an important class in that burdens can affect the ewe in late pregnancy when she has a suppressed immune system and also will contribute to the contamination of pastures for their lambs. Faecal Worm Egg Counts, commonly known as FWECs or simply WECs, are a method used to determine overall worm burden in sheep. It is a recommended practice in all states and has greater or lesser importance in weaners, immature sheep and adults in different zones.

Did you do any faecal worm egg counts on any of your sheep in 2010?In what month or months in 2010 did you test weaners (2010-drop sheep)?In what month or months in 2010 did you test hoggets (2009-drop sheep)?If you have wethers, in what month or months in 2010 did you test wethers?In what month or months in 2010 did you test mature ewes?

In WA the drenching recommendations for producers have been streamlined to give key times when drenches should be given, with or without a FWEC and FWECs then being recommended during other times or as a diagnostic tool. It is seen as an indicator of adoption of best practice in the sheep industry; however, indiscriminate testing is not necessarily an indicator of best practice.

Table 29 Respondents WEC testing of sheep in 2010 by production zone

WEC testing Total MRZ CSZYes % 21 28 17

n= 369 133 236

There was no significant difference in the proportion of producers doing FWEC between enterprises. The MRZ did significantly more testing than the CSZ which was expected in that the MRZ would have a higher prevalence of worms and greater impact on productivity than the CSZ.

Table 30 WEC tests per year by class of sheep

WEC per year %Weaner

sHogget

sWether

s EwesNone 82 86 92 87

Once 12 10 5 10

Twice 4 3 2 3

>2 times 2 1 0 1

Table 31 WEC testing of sheep in 2010, according flock size quartile

WECFlock size quartile 1 (smallest)

Flock size quartile

2Flock size quartile

3Flock size quartile 4 (biggest)

Total

% WEC in 2010 11 13 24 36 21


The proportion of respondents who did some WEC testing in 2010 was strongly correlated with the size of their flocks. Thirty six per cent of respondents in the biggest flock size quartile did FEC testing in 2010 in comparison to 11% of the smallest flocks.

Testing of all classes of sheep peaked in October with a second but lower peak in autumn (March-April).

Jan

Feb Mar AprMay Ju

n Jul

Aug Sep OctNov Dec

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%WeanersHoggetsWethers

Figure 22 The number of respondents who conducted a faecal worm egg count (WEC) in 2010 by month

Why not? Is it because...no local service providertoo expensivetakes too long to collect the samplestakes too long to get a result backdon't believe results are usefulworms aren't a problem in our environmentother...

In order to ascertain whether producers aren’t doing worm egg counts because they aren’t familiar with them or some reason, we asked why they didn’t do them. More than half stated that it was due to the fact that “worms aren’t a problem in our environment”. Significantly more of those who answered this were from the CSZ (63%) than the MRZ (42%).


takes too long to get a result back

too expensive

no local service provider

takes too long to collect the samples

don't believe results are useful

worms aren't a problem in our environment

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%

Figure 23 Reasons that producers didn’t undertake a regular FWEC for worms (excluding the option ‘other’)

Respondents were allowed multiple answers and 42% of respondents who didn’t use FWECs choose to give a reason other than what was listed. There were a large number of reasons given. The key reasons given were “drenched anyway” (8%), “sheep visually OK “ (8%) and “2010 was a dry or low worm year (4%)”. Some producers used visual asssessment to decide whwether to drench while others used visual assessments to decide whetehr to do WEC testing.

6.2 Lice controlDo you treat your sheep for lice...

routinely every yearonly when lice are seennot at all?

The majority of producers surveyed treat routinely for lice, whether lice are seen or not (67%). Eight per cent of respondents never treat for lice. This is in comparison to the national survey results where 56% of respondents treated routinely for lice and 13% ‘not at all’.

every year; 67%

when lice seen; 25%

not at all; 8%

Figure 24 The proportion of producers who treated for lice


77% of CSZ respondents treated for lice every year whether lice were seen or not, whereas only 50% of the MRZ respondents treated whether lice were seen or not. The MRZ respondents were more likely than the CSZ respondents to either treat when lice are seen or not at all. Prime lamb producers were most likely of the enterprise types to not treat at all. Both the wool and dual enterprise respondents were similar in their behaviour.

Total MRZ CSZ Wool Prime Dual0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

not at all when lice seen every year

Figure 25 The treatment of sheep for lice by proportion of respondents by zone and enterprise type

In which years of the last five years have you treated your sheep flock for lice?20062007200820092010

Respondents that had treated when lice were seen were asked in which of the last five years they actually treated. There was an increase in when lice were seen and treated from 2007 to 2010.

2006 2007 2008 2009 20100%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

resp

on

den

ts

Figure 26 The proportion of respondents who treated lice in each of the last five years, of those who treat when lice are seen (n=93)


For the latest treatment, did you use...long wool treatmentoff shears backlineoff shears shower dipoff shears plunge dip

What product/s did you use?

Backline treatments off-shears were the most popular form of treatment for lice with 60% using the treatment in respondent’s most recent treatment. There has been a move away from back-line treatments in the recent years in that most chemicals used in backline treatments show some resistance. Shower dips off shears were the next most popular treatment with only 7% using the plunge dip off-shears. Long wool treatment is recommended when lice are seen between shearings and for quarantine treatments.

long wool backline off shears shower dip off shears

plunge dip off shears

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

Figure 27 The latest treatment method producers used to treat lice (n=341)

Eurek

a G

oldIG

R

Temep

hos

Extino

sad

dip

Aveng

e PO

Extino

sad

PO

Iver

mec

tin

Diazino

nSP

IGR d

ipClik

+

Flockm

aste

r0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

Figure 28 The chemical group used at the latest treatment for lice (n=339)


6.3 Flystrike controlWith regards to flystrike, do you...

treat your sheep routinely with preventive chemicals for flystrike every year

treat your sheep with preventive chemicals only when the risk of flystrike is high

treat the whole mob of sheep once flystrike is detected

only treat individually struck sheep

Flystrike control is an important activity for managing sheep enterprises however there are many different approaches taken by producers that reflect their flock’s risk profile, their labour availability and environment.

Most respondents nominated that their flystrike treatment was ‘only treat individuals that are struck’ (39%) and the least popular treatment was treating the mob when flystrike was detected (13%). There were no significant differences between treatments by zone or enterprise, except the CSZ had a lower use of ‘routine treatment’ (p=0.08). It would be expected that the CSZ has a lower risk to flystrike.

treat your sheep routinely with pre-ventive chemicals for flystrike every

year

treat your sheep with preventive chemicals only when the risk of

flystrike is high

treat the whole mob of sheep once flystrike is detected

only treat individually struck sheep

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45%

28%

20%

13%

39%

Figure 29 Flystrike treatment approach (n=369)

There is no significant difference in treatment for flystrike for producers who did not mules or had a lower ranking of labour per dry sheep equivalent (DSE). It is more likely that a mob will be treated routinely if the producer has an auto jetting race (39%) compared to producers who don’t have one (25%).


6.4 The ‘Boss’ web sitesHave you heard of the WormBoss website?Did you use the WormBoss website in 2010?Have you subscribed to the WormBoss monthly email newsletter? Have you heard of the LiceBoss website?Did you use the LiceBoss website in 2010?Have you heard of the FlyBoss website?Did you use the FlyBoss website in 2010?

The WormBoss website and newsletter service was established in 2005 and is regularly used to direct producers to the latest sheep worm control information. It is now hosted by the Sheep CRC. Thirty seven per cent of producers are aware of the site but only 7% of producers said that they had used it in 2010 and only 4% had subscribed to the newsletter service. The LiceBoss website is a new service that was established in 2010. Already awareness levels are 21% with approximately 4% having used the site in 2010. The FlyBoss website is a new service that was established in 2010. Awareness levels are 13% with approximately 1% having used the site in 2010. This is lower than in other states and possibly relates to the small number of workshops held with producers in WA and the drier conditions experienced in 2010.

Used FlyBoss website in 2010

Heard of FlyBoss website

Used LiceBoss website in 2010

Heard of LiceBoss website

Subscribed to WormBoss newsletter

Used wormBoss website in 2010

Heard of the WormBoss webiste

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40%

1%

13%

4%

21%

4%

7%

37%

Respondents (%)

Figure 30 Respondents awareness and usage of Boss websites

The MRZ respondents were significantly more likely to have heard of all of the three Boss websites than the CSZ respondents (p<0.1 for LiceBoss). Dual producers were significantly less likely to have heard of WormBoss than wool producers.

Table 32 Respondents awareness of Boss websites by production zone and enterprise

Boss website Total # CSZ % MRZ % Dual % Wool % Prime lamb %Heard of WormBoss 135 31 47 31 45 45

Heard of LiceBoss 77 18 26 18 23 27

Heard of FlyBoss 48 10 19 11 20 14


Boss website Total # CSZ % MRZ % Dual % Wool % Prime lamb %n= 369 No data No data No data No data No data

7 Awareness of Sheep CRC and attendance at CRC eventsDid you attend any sheep industry event in 2010?Have you attended any of these Sheep CRC events?CRC conference or Regional CRC UpdatesLifetime Ewe Management courseHigh Performance Weaner courseManaging Flystrike workshopPrecision Sheep Management workshop such as Selection Assist, Wether Calculator, Pedigree

Matchmaker and Walk Over WeighingManaging Pregnant Ewes (also called Pregnancy Scanning) workshopBred Well, Fed Well workshop

Thirty one per cent of respondents indicated that they had attended a sheep event in 2010 and 10% indicated that they had attended at least one of the nominated Sheep CRC events in 2010 or 33% of those who attended any event. This indicates that the Sheep CRC are a significant provider of sheep events across Australia, however, the values appear to be much higher than the attendance compared to the known sheep producer population.

Table 33 Number and proportion of respondents that have participated in Sheep CRC events

Question Yes # Yes %

Did you attend any sheep industry event in 2010? 116 31%

1. CRC conference or Regional CRC Updates 12 3%2. Lifetime Ewe Management course 13 4%3. High Performance Weaner course 5 1%4. Managing Flystrike workshop 5 1%5. Precision Sheep Management workshop such as Selection Assist,

Wether Calculator, Pedigree Matchmaker and Walk Over Weighing 12 3%6. Managing Pregnant Ewes (also called Pregnancy Scanning)

workshop 12 3%

7. Bred Well, Fed Well workshop 9 2%


Appendix 1 Conduct of the telephone surveyKaliber Research Group conducted the field work for this survey. The survey was conducted via telephone. Based on the questionnaire provided, the interview took 15 to 20 minutes.

Producers who were surveyed as part of this project will be resurveyed in 2014 to determine what changes in practice they have initiated in the meantime. Participants were selected randomly from the list of (sheep) producers owned by Kaliber.

Sheep producers were classified based on their sheep income as either sheep specialists, beef/ sheep or grain/livestock.

Each number was called up to five times at different times of the day, focusing initially on calling them at lunch time and after 5pm. For telephone surveys, Kaliber staggers the extraction and uploading of database lists and conduct multiple call backs to maximise response rates and minimise non response bias. Where the selected producer does not participate in the survey the reason for non-participation was recorded (for example could not be contacted).

A pilot survey was conducted with 30 participants prior to going out to the full list. The results of this test resulted in modifications to the questionnaire.

Appendix 2 Accessibility of producersThe number of responses for this survey nationally was 1200 producers. Furthermore, 1000 of these respondents were representative of the national population and a further 200 respondents be collected solely from Western Australia (making the total collected from Western Australia higher than if national proportional sampling was used to select all 1200 respondents).

Table 34 below shows how many producers were approached to achieve the 380 WA respondents. The response rate is 14% completed after excluding invalid numbers and less than 500 sheep.

Table 34 Status of contact with producers in WA at the end of data collection

StatusCoun

t %Completed 380 9

Refused 776 19

Less than 500 sheep 647 16

No response after 5 attempts 1539 38

Invalid phone number 715 18

Total Numbers Drawn 4057 100


Appendix 3 2011 survey questionnaireKR049 Sheep CRC National Benchmarking Study

Qincome.

So that we can be sure we are interviewing a cross section of rural producers, in the last financial year, roughly what percentage of your gross property income, that is, only income from your property, came from the following activities? Used to determine Qftype

Activity NumberBeef Cattle 1Sheep including Wool & Prime Lambs 2Dairy 3Winter Cereal Grain crops (eg. Wheat, Barley, Oats, Triticale) 4Winter Legume Crops (eg Lupins, Chickpeas, Lentils, Beans, Peas etc) 5Winter Oilseeds (eg Canola, Mustard etc) 6Summer Cereals (eg Sorghum, Maize and Corn etc) 7Summer Legumes (eg Soybeans, mungbeans) 8Summer Oilseeds (eg Sunflowers) 9Sugar Cane 10Cotton 11Rice 12Horticultural / Vegetable Crops 13Other Crops 14Other Livestock 15

Qstate StateNSW 2VIC 3QLD 4SA 5WA 6TAS 7NT 8

Qftype Farm typeGrains 1Grain/Livestock 2Beef and Sheep 4Beef 5Sheep 6Dairy 7Sugar Cane 8Cotton 50Horticulture 70QNA 99

Qpzone Production zoneMedium Winter Rain 1High Winter Rain 2Cereal-Sheep 3High Summer Rain 4Medium Summer Rain 5


Q1. Do you currently have 500 or more sheep on your property?Yes 1No 2 Q1

Q8a. What was the total number of sheep on the property at 30 June 2010, including lambs?

Qfsize. What is the total area of your farmed and grazed land, including all leased land?Hectares 1Acres 2 Qfsize_1

Q7a. What area, in hectares, of your property was grazed as pasture? Record in hectares where possible.

Hectares 1Acres 2 Q7a_1Don’t know 3

Q7b. What area, in hectares, of your property was grazed as dry stubble?Hectares 1Acres 2 Q7b_1Don’t know 3

Q7c. What area, in hectares, of your property was grazed as green crop?Hectares 1Acres 2 Q7c_1Don’t know 3

Q2. What is the primary purpose of your sheep enterprise?Wool production 1Prime lamb production 2 Q2Wool production & prime lamb production 3

Q3. Do you…Run a commercial flock and buy rams 1 Q3_1Breed rams for your own commercial flock 2 Q3_2Breed rams for sale 3 Q3_3Do not breed/purchase rams or semen (do not read out) 4 Q3_4

Q4a. How many ewes were mated to Merino rams, including Dohnes (pronounced ‘Doe Knees’) and SAMM's (South African Meat Merino) to lamb in 2010?

Q5a. What was the month joining commenced for Merino rams, including Dohnes and SAMM's? Do not show If [Q4a] = 0

January 1February 2March 3April 4May 5June 6July 7 Q5aAugust 8September 9October 10November 11


December 12

Q4b. How many ewes were mated to meat and maternal rams to lamb in 2010?

Q5b. What was the month joining commenced for Meat and Maternal rams? Do not show If [Q4b] = 0

January 1February 2March 3April 4May 5June 6July 7August 8September 9October 10November 11December 12

Q6. How many Merino lambs were marked in 2010? That is lambs from ewes joined to Merino rams?

Q6a. And of those Merino lambs, what percentage were... Do not show If [Q6] = 0mulesed with pain relief 1mulesed without pain relief 2breech clipped 3not mulesed 4

Q6b. How many meat and maternal lambs were marked in 2010? That is lambs from ewes joined to meat or maternal rams.

Let [Answer1] = [Q4a] * 2Let [Answer2] = [Q6] * 2Let [Answer3] = [Q4b] * 2Let [Answer4] = [Q6b] * 2

Q6c. And of those meat and maternal lambs what percentage were... Do not show If [Q6b] = 0mulesed with pain relief 1mulesed without pain relief 2breech clipped 3not mulesed 4

Q6e. How many ewes have you joined or intend to join to lamb in 2011 to... Merino rams, including Dohnes and SAMMs 1meat and maternal rams 2

Q8b. Did you sell any sheep direct to eastern state buyers in 2010? Show If Attribute ‘WA’ from Qstate is selected

Yes 1No 2

Q8c. And how many of these sheep were... Show If Attribute ‘Yes’ from Q8b is selectedMerino ewe lambs, 2010 born 1Merino ewes, born 2009 or earlier 2meat and maternal ewe lambs, 2010 born 3


meat and maternal ewes, born 2009 or earlier 4wether lambs, 2010 born 5older wethers, born 2009 or earlier 6

Q10. Which one of the following statements best describes how you usually select your stud or ram source for your primary sheep enterprise? Show If Attribute ‘Run a commercial flock and buy rams’ from Q3 is selected

I have never considered going to anyone other than my regular stud breeder 1I choose a stud breeder based on advice from my classer, agent or consultant 2I usually go to the ram sales or shows and select a stud that suits my needs 3 I review wether trial data, sire evaluation data, sale reports etc and select a stud breeder that is performing well 4I access genetic information from sources such as Sheep Genetics or Australian Merino Sire Evaluation Association and select a breeder based on their match to my breeding objective 5

Q11. Which one of the following statements best describes how you select rams to buy? Show If Attribute ‘Run a commercial flock and buy rams’ from Q3 is selected

My classer or agent chooses the rams 1I choose the rams based on how they look 2I choose rams mainly on how they look but use some performance data such as micron, CV or body weight 3 I choose rams with a balance of visual appeal, performance data (micron, CV etc) and some genetic information such as ASBVs or breeding values 4I choose rams based on genetic information such as ASBVs, breeding values or selection indexes 5

Q12a. How many rams did you sell in 2010? Show If Attribute ‘Breed rams for sale’ from Q3 is selected

Q12b. How many doses of semen did you sell in 2010? Show If Attribute ‘Breed rams for sale’ from Q3 is selected

Q12c. What proportion of the rams that you sold (or sold semen from) in 2010 had Australian Sheep Breeding Values (ASBVs)? Show If Attribute ‘Breed rams for sale’ from Q3 is selected

Q12d. What are the reasons for not providing ASBVs for all of your rams? Show If Attribute ‘Breed rams for sale’ from Q3 is selected

Reason Yes NoToo time consuming 1 2Too costly 1 2Too confusing or complex to get ASBVs 1 2The traits that are important to the sale of my rams are not covered by ASBVs

1 2

ASBVs are not an accurate indication of the quality of my rams 1 2I am not convinced that ASBVs are a useful marketing tool 1 2My customers do not use ASBVs to select their rams anyway 1 2

*Q12d1. Other reasons (please describe). Show If Attribute ‘Breed rams for sale’ from Q3 is selected


Q13. On a scale from 1 to 5, please indicate the importance you place on each of these traits when choosing MEAT ram replacements with 1 meaning not at all important and 5 meaning very important. Show If Attribute ‘Prime lamb production’ from Q2 is selected OR Show If Attribute ‘Wool production and prime lamb production’ from Q2 is selected

Trait 1. Not at all important

2. Not important

3. Can't say

4. Important

5. Very important

Growth rate 1 2 3 4 5Muscling 1 2 3 4 5Weaning weight 1 2 3 4 5Lamb weaning per cent 1 2 3 4 5Lean meat yield 1 2 3 4 5Ewe weight/frame size 1 2 3 4 5Constitution or doing ability 1 2 3 4 5

Q14a. In addition to yourself, how many of the following people work on your property?Family members 1Full time employees 2Part time employees 3

Q14b. How much of their total time is spent working in the sheep enterprise of the farm business?

Yourself (ie respondent/interviewee) 1Show If [Q14a_1_1] = 1 AND [Q14a_2_1] >= 1Family members (collectively/overall) 2Show If [Q14a_1_2] = 2 AND [Q14a_2_2] >= 1Full time employees (collectively/overall) 3Show If [Q14a_1_3] = 3 AND [Q14a_2_3] >= 1Part time employees (collectively/overall) 4

Q15. Do you use a contractor for…Reason Yes NoShearing (full contract) 1 2Crutching 1 2Marking 1 2Treating sheep for lice 1 2

Q16. When working with sheep, do you currently use any of the following devices?Reason Yes NoAutomatic drafting equipment 1 2Automatic jetting race 1 2Sheep handling machine 1 2Electronic weigh crate 1 2Crutching cradle 1 2Lick feeders 1 2Electronic ear tags 1 2

Q16a. Are you considering using any of these devices…Condition Device Considering Not

consideringShow If Attribute ‘Automatic drafting equipment’ from Q16 is No

Automatic drafting equipment

1 2


Condition Device Considering Not considering

Show If Attribute ‘Automatic jetting race’ from Q16 is No

Automatic jetting race

1 2

Show If Attribute ‘Sheep handling machine’ from Q16 is No

Sheep handling machine

1 2

Show If Attribute ‘Electronic weigh crate’ from Q16 is No

Electronic weigh crate

1 2

Show If Attribute ‘Crutching cradle’ from Q16 is No

Crutching cradle 1 2

Show If Attribute ‘Lick feeders’ from Q16 is No

Lick feeders 1 2

Show If Attribute ‘Electronic ear tags’ from Q16 is No

Electronic ear tags 1 2

Q18. Under each of the following categories, please choose the practice that most closely reflects what you usually do on your property.

Q18a. a) Regarding pregnancy scanning to manage the nutrition of ewe flocks, do you...Choose not to use ultrasound scanning 1Only scan in bad years on some sheep 2Scan ewes only for pregnancy status (pregnant or not) 3Scan ewes to detect pregnancy and litter size 4

Q18a2. Please select the response that best describes what you do with the pregnancy scanning information. Show If Attribute "Scan ewes only for pregnancy status (pregnant or not)" from Q18a is selected or Show If Attribute "Scan ewes to detect pregnancy and litter size" from Q18a is selected

I don't change my nutritional management 1I manage ewes according to their energy requirements as a single group 2 I manage dry, single and twin bearing ewes separately and according to their different energy requirements 3

Q18b. b) Regarding methods of monitoring ewe condition including condition scoring, fat scoring or weighing, do you usually...

Make regular visual assessments in the paddock 1Visually estimate in the paddock and occasionally fat score, condition score or weigh a sample of the ewes when they are in the yards 2Normally condition score, fat score or weigh a sample of each ewe mob and manage to average mob targets for joining/lambing/weaning 3 Condition score, fat score or weigh and draft all ewes, manage mobs according to condition to meet set targets for joining/lambing/weaning 4

Q19a. Did you scan any ewes that lambed in 2010?Yes 1No 2 Go to Q21 Q19a

Q19. Of the ewes that lambed in 2010, what was the percentage of… Show If Attribute ‘Only scan in bad years on some sheep’ from Q18a is selected or Show If Attribute ‘Scan ewes only for pregnancy status (pregnant or not)’ from Q18a is selected or Show If Attribute ‘Scan ewes to detect pregnancy and litter size’ from Q18a is selected

Condition Type NumberShow If [Q6] <> 0 OR [Q6b] >=1 Maiden Merino ewes scanned that were 1


Condition Type Numberdry (not pregnant)

Show If [Q6] <> 0 OR [Q6b] >=1 Adult Merino ewes scanned that were dry (not pregnant)

2

Show If [Q6b] >=1 Maiden meat & maternal ewes scanned that were dry (not pregnant)

3

Show If [Q6b] >=1 Adult meat & maternal ewes scanned that were dry (not pregnant)

4

Q20a. What was the scanning percent (number of lambs scanned per 100 ewes joined) for adult Merino ewes that lambed in 2010? Show If [Q19_1_2] = 2 and [Q19_2_2] >= 1

Q20b. What was the scanning percent (number of lambs scanned per 100 ewes joined) for adult Meat and maternal ewes that lambed in 2010? Show If [Q19_1_4] = 4 and [Q19_2_4] >= 1

Q21. Within the 2010 lamb drop, what was the mortality rate of your weaners between the age of weaning and 6 months of age?

Q22. And in general, what would be the average weaner mortality rate between the age of weaning and 6 months of age for your property?

Q26. Did you do any faecal worm egg counts on any of your sheep in 2010?Yes 1No 2

Q26a1. In what month or months in 2010 did you test weaners (2010-drop sheep)? Show If Attribute "Yes" from Q26 is selected

January 1February 2March 3April 4May 5June 6July 7August 8September 9October 10November 11December 12Didn’t test 13

Q26a2. In what month or months in 2010 did you test hoggets (2009-drop sheep)? Show If Attribute ‘Yes’ from Q26 is selected

January 1February 2March 3April 4May 5June 6July 7August 8September 9October 10


November 11December 12Didn’t test 13

Q26a3. If you have wethers, in what month or months in 2010 did you test wethers? Show If Attribute ‘Yes’ from Q26 is selected

January 1February 2March 3April 4May 5June 6July 7August 8September 9October 10November 11December 12Didn’t test 13Do not have wethers 14

Q26a4. In what month or months in 2010 did you test mature ewes? Show If Attribute ‘Yes’ from Q26 is selected

January 1February 2March 3April 4May 5June 6July 7August 8September 9October 10November 11December 12Didn’t test 13

Q26b. Why not? Is it because… Show If Attribute ‘No’ from Q26 is selected

Reason Yes NoNo local service provider 1 2Too expensive 1 2Takes too long to collect the samples 1 2Takes too long to get a result back 1 2Don't believe results are useful 1 2Worms aren't a problem in our environment 1 2

Q26b1. Other reasons (please describe). Show If Attribute ‘No’ from Q26 is selected

Q27. Do you treat your sheep for lice...Routinely every year? 1Only when lice are seen? 2Not at all 3


Q28. In which years of the last five years have you treated your sheep flock for lice? Show If Attribute ‘only when lice are seen?’ from Q27 is selected

2006 12007 22008 32009 42010 5

Q29a. For the latest treatment, did you use... Show If Attribute ‘routinely every year?’ from Q27 is selected or Show If Attribute ‘only when lice are seen?’ from Q27 is selected

Long wool treatment 1Off shears backline 2Off shears shower dip 3Off shears plunge dip 4

Q29b. What product/s did you use? Show If Attribute ‘routinely every year?’ from Q27 is selected or Show If Attribute ‘only when lice are seen?’ from Q27 is selected

Clout 1Di-Jet 2Clout 'S' 3Topclip Blue 4Topclip Purple 5Cyperderm 6Spurt 7Flockmaster 8Cypercare 9Vanquish 10Jet Dip 4-in-1 11Fleececare 12Zapp 13Eureka Gold 14Diazinon 15Assassin 16Magnum Pour-On 17IGR Pour-On 18Extinosad 19Exit Pour-On 20WSD Command Pour-On 21Triffick 22Exilice 23Coopers Blowfly and Lice 24Cannon Pour-On 25Extinosad Pour-On 26Clik Plus Spray-On Blowfly+Lice 27Avenge Pour-On 28Wham 29Jetamec 30Zinjet 31Strike 32Other (specify)

Q30. With regards to flystrike, do you... Treat your sheep routinely with preventive chemicals for flystrike every year 1


Treat your sheep with preventive chemicals only when the risk of flystrike is high 2Treat the whole mob of sheep once flystrike is detected 3Only treat individually struck sheep 4

Q9a. Did you attend any sheep industry event in 2010?Yes 1No 2 Q9a

Q9b. Have you attended any of these Sheep CRC events? Show If Attribute ‘Yes’ from Q9a is selected

Event Yes NoCRC conference or Regional CRC Updates 1 2Lifetime Ewe Management course 1 2High Performance Weaner course 1 2Managing Flystrike workshop 1 2Precision Sheep Management workshop such as Selection Assist, Wether Calculator, Pedigree Matchmaker and Walk Over Weighing

1 2

Managing Pregnant Ewes (also called Pregnancy Scanning) workshop 1 2Bred Well, Fed Well workshop 1 2

Q17a. The National Wool Declaration is a document that accompanies wool to be sold with the wool specification documents and informs the buyers of dark and medullated fibres, chemical usage, mulesing status and pain relief at marking. Have you heard of the National Wool Declaration?

Yes 1No 2

Q17b. Have you filled in a declaration in the last 2 years? Show If Attribute ‘Yes’ from Q17a is selected

Yes 1No 2

Q17c. Have you filled in the mulesing status on the document? Show If Attribute ‘Yes’ from Q17b is selected

Yes 1No 2

Q23. Have you heard of the WormBoss website?Yes 1No 2

Q23a. Did you use the WormBoss website in 2010? Show If Attribute ‘Yes’ from Q23 is selectedYes 1No 2

Q23b. Have you subscribed to the WormBoss monthly email newsletter? Show If Attribute ‘Yes’ from Q23 is selected

Yes 1No 2

Q24. Have you heard of the LiceBoss website?Yes 1No 2


Q24a. Did you use the LiceBoss website in 2010? Show If Attribute ‘Yes’ from Q24 is selectedYes 1No 2

Q25. Have you heard of the FlyBoss website?Yes 1No 2

Q25a. Did you use the FlyBoss website in 2010? Show If Attribute ‘Yes’ from Q25 is selectedYes 1No 2

Q33. And finally, in regards to your skills and knowledge as a prime lamb producer, which of the following topics would you be interested in attending training for? Show If [Qstate] = 6 and ([Q2] = 2 OR [Q2] = 3)

Topic Yes NoIncreasing marking percentage 1 2Increasing turnoff and meeting market specifications 1 2Increasing integration with cropping systems 1 2Improving parasite control 1 2

Q32a. Thank you for your time in completing this survey. The information you have provided will be very helpful in shaping how the Sheep CRC delivers value to sheep producers in the future. Would you be interested in receiving information about particular work the Sheep CRC is doing?

Yes 1No 2

Q32b. Which of the following topics would you like to receive information about? Show If Attribute ‘Yes’ from Q32a is selected

Topic Yes NoGenetics 1 2Easy care sheep 1 2Reproduction 1 2Weaners 1 2Worms 1 2Flies 1 2Lice 1 2

lifetimewool national farmer survey ~ summary of results · web viewin the last three years, pain...

Documents