1 Background to the DAFWA producer survey
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 contents
Acknowledgements
Survey 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 summary
DAFWA 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 production
The 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
DAFWA WA Producer Survey 2011 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 efficiency
There 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 rates
Marking 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%
DAFWA WA Producer Survey 2011 of producers across all zones reported having filled out the mulesing section in the NWD in the last two years.
Improved parasite control
Faecal 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.
DAFWA WA Producer Survey 2011
1 Background to the DAFWA producer survey
This 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.
DAFWA WA Producer Survey 2011
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 responses
2.1 Geographic spread of respondents
The 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)
Cereal Sheep
Zone (CSZ)
Total
2 103
2 807
4 910
43%
57%
No data
133
236
369
36%
64%
No data
6.3%
8.4%
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
DAFWA WA Producer Survey 2011 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
MRZ
CSZ
Average flock size
5 829
4 095 b a
% of total sheep in zone
52%
48%
Average farmed area (ha)
2 015 b
3 586 a
% of total area
30%
70%
Total 4 720 No data 3 018 No data
50
40
30
20
10
0
80
70
60
MRZ
CSZ
Q 1 smallest Q 2 Q 3 flock size quartiles
Q 4 largest
Figure 2 Flock size of each respondent across the two key production zones
DAFWA WA Producer Survey 2011
3 General demographics, enterprise and production results
3.1 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
MRZ
CSZ
Sheep %
63
45
Cattle %
6
3
Winter crops %
26
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 data
All 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
Zone
MRZ
CSZ
Average
Average pasture grazed (ha)
1149
1395
1307
Average flock size
5829
4095
4720
Stocking rate
DSE/WGha
5.1
2.9
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.
DAFWA WA Producer Survey 2011
3.3 Enterprise type
To 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. prime lamb enterprises
11% wool enterprises
28% wool & prime lamb enterprises
61%
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
CSZ
5734 a (29%)
3889 b (28%)
3590 a (15%)
3680 a (8%)
6474 a (56%)
4243 b (43%) total n=
4557 (28%)
105
3635 (11%)
40
4990 (61%)
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.
DAFWA WA Producer Survey 2011
3.4 Dominant mating type
Respondents 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
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0% merino meat mixed
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 enterprise with a mixed mating (8%)
Prime lamb enterprise with Merino mating (5%)
DAFWA WA Producer Survey 2011
Dual enterprise with a mixed mating (36%)
Dual enterprise with Merino mating (44%)
Dual enterprise with a meat mating (20%)
DAFWA WA Producer Survey 2011
4 Matching genetic practices to production systems
4.1 Breeding or selling rams
Respondents 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.
Run a commercial flock and buy rams (76%)
60%
11%
13%
3% 2%
4% 4% Breed rams for sale (13%)
Do not breed
2%
Breed rams for own use (31%)
(31%)
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.
DAFWA WA Producer Survey 2011
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
%
74 ab
Prime lamb producers
%
Dual enterprise %
63 b 79 a Have a commercial flock & buy rams
Breed rams for own use
Breed rams for sale n=
76
31
13
369
28
15 ab
105
40
25 a
40
31
10 b
224
4.2 Stud and ram selection
These 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 breeder
I choose a stud breeder based on advice from my classer, agent or consultant
I usually go to the ram sales or shows and select a stud that suits my needs
I review wether trial data, sire evaluation data, sale reports etc and select a stud breeder that is performing well
I 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.
DAFWA WA Producer Survey 2011
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Regular breeder only
Advice of classer or agent
Use ram sales Performance data
Genetic information
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
Regular stud breeder only
Advice of my classer or agent to choose total % MRZ % CSZ %
50
12
50
16 a
50
6 b
Ram sales to get a stud that suits
Use performance data to select stud
Access genetic data such as ASBVs
n=
18
7
13
224
18
7
10
180
19
7
19
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.
DAFWA WA Producer Survey 2011
Selection of rams:
Which one of the following statements best describes how you select rams to buy?
My classer or agent chooses the rams
I 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 weight
I choose rams with a balance of visual appeal, performance data (micron, CV etc) and some genetic information such as ASBVs or breeding values
I 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.
40%
35%
30%
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
0% classer or agent chooses the rams choose rams based on visual choose rams on visual and some performance data choose rams on visual, some performance data & some genetic information choose rams on genetic information
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%).
DAFWA WA Producer Survey 2011
Table 8 Approach to selection of ram, of those who buy rams. (Enterprise types sharing the same letter are not significantly different)
Ram selection
Classer or agent chooses the rams
Choose the rams visually
Choose rams mainly on visual but some performance data
Choose rams with balance of visual, performance, genetic info
Choose rams on genetic info such as ASBVs or selection indexes
No data
Total
%
9
16
33
37
Wool
%
12
9 b
Prime lamb % Dual %
4
36 a
9
17 b
44 a
28 b
12 c
40 ab
31 b
41 a
4 8 a 8 ab 2 b n=281 No data No data No data
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Regular breeder only
Advice of classer or agent
Use ram sales Performance data
choose rams on genetic information visual, performance data & some genetic information visual and some performance data choose rams based on visual classer or agent chooses the rams
Genetic information
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
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
DAFWA WA Producer Survey 2011 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 traits
The 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 rate
Muscling
Weaning weight
Lamb weaning per cent
Lean meat yield
Ewe weight/frame size
Constitution 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. very important important prime lamb traits
Figure 9 The ranking of traits for prime lamb and dual enterprise producers of key prime lamb traits
DAFWA WA Producer Survey 2011
‘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
Growth rate
Muscling
Weaning weight
Lamb weaning per cent
Lean meat yield
Total %
42
28
18
26
15
MRZ %
49
33
22
31
20
CSZ %
38
25
15
23
12
Ewe weight/frame size
Constitution or doing ability
25
38
26
47 a
24
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 2010
Forty 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
6-50
51-100
101-200
201-600
No data
Ram sellers # Semen sales (straws) Semen sellers #
18 25-50 2
10
11
51-100
101-900
4
3
7 n=46
901-2000
No data
2 n=11
DAFWA WA Producer Survey 2011
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
MRZ
CSZ
Total #
Respondents selling rams
#
Respondents selling rams
%
21
25
46
15.8
10.6
No data
Rams sold
%
50
50
5 665
Respondents selling ram semen %
4
2
11 (3%)
Ram semen doses sold %
87
13
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
ASBVs on all - number (#) of ram sellers
No ASBVs - # of ram sellers
ASBVs on all - Average # of rams
No ASBVs - Average # of rams
ASBVs on all - Total rams
No ASBV s - Total rams
No data
Total
14
28
%
33
67
Merino Meat
7
19
7
3
Mixed
0
6
180 No data
97 No data
2 520 48
181
97
1 270
179
33
1 250
0
128
0
2 710 52 1 840 100 770 n=42 No data No data No data No data
DAFWA WA Producer Survey 2011
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 consuming
Too costly
Too confusing or complex to get ASBVs
The traits that are important to the sale of my rams are not covered by ASBVs
ASBVs are not an accurate indication of the quality of my rams
I am not convinced that ASBVs are a useful marketing tool
My 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.
traits are not covered by
ASBVs
Too confusing or complex to get ASBVs
ASBVs not an accurate indication of quality
Too time consuming not convinced that ASBVs are a useful marketing tool
Too costly
My customers do not use
ASBVs
0% 10% 20% 30%
Figure 10 Reasons why not all rams are sold with ASBVs
40% 50% 60%
DAFWA WA Producer Survey 2011
4.6 Labour as an indicator of production efficiency
In 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 members
Full time employees
Part 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)
Enterprise
Wool
Prime lamb
Dual production
Yourself (ave
FTE)
0.51
0.44
0.52
Family (ave
FTE)
0.47
a
0.53
ab
0.72
b
Full time employees
(ave FTE)
0.16
0.22
Part time employees
(ave FTE)
0.04
a
0.05
ab
0.24
b
Total average sheep/FTE
5 304 b
4 685 ab
4 324 a 0.15
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)
Crutching
Marking
DAFWA WA Producer Survey 2011
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.
120
Shearing
Crutching
Marking
Lice treatment
100
80
60
40
20
0
Smallest 2 3
Flock size quartile
Largest
Figure 11 Proportion of respondents that use contractors for the listed activities, by flock size quartile
Labour saving devices as an indicator of efficiency
The 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 equipment
Automatic jetting race
Sheep handling machine
Electronic weigh crate
Crutching cradle
Lick feeders
Electronic 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
DAFWA WA Producer Survey 2011 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.
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
14%
53%
10%
51%
21%
46% 10%
15%
% considering
% using
Electronic weigh crate
Crutching cradle
Lick feeders
17% 17%
Automatic jetting race
Sheep handling machine
20%
20%
6%
Automatic drafting equipment
4%
Electronic ear tags
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
High
Low
Survey total #
184
185
Auto drafting equipment
%
3 b
8 a
Auto jetting race %
16
19
Sheep handler
%
18
15
Elect weigh crate
%
53
54
Crutching cradle %
52
51
Lick feeders
%
47
44
Elect ear tags %
5
2
Ave No data 6 17 17 53 51 46
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.
4
DAFWA WA Producer Survey 2011
Table 15 The proportion of respondents by enterprise type and the use of key devices
(Superscript denotes significant differences within each device use)
Device
Auto drafting equipment
Auto jetting race
Wool %
2 a
17
Prime lamb % Dual %
10 b 7 ab
15 18
Sheep handler
Electronic weigh crate
Crutching cradle
Lick feeders
15
32 a
49 b
38 a
4 ab
15
75 b
30 a
38 ab
10 b
18
59 b
57 b
51 b
3 a Electronic ear tags
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.
50%
40%
30%
20%
DAFWA WA Producer Survey 2011
5 Animal welfare and reproduction
5.1 Reproduction
All 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.
60%
10%
0% merino + meat merino
2010 lambing
Meat
2011 lambing
Figure 13 Joining practices for 2010 and 2011 by sire type
None
DAFWA WA Producer Survey 2011
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)
Zone
MRZ
CSZ
Average
People with
Merino mating
105
204
309
Average
Merino lambs
2 643 a
1 783 b
2 075
Merino marking %
85
83
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
MRZ
CSZ
People with meat mating
99
153
Average meat lambs Meat marking %
1 812 a
1 087 b
93
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.
DAFWA WA Producer Survey 2011
Table 18 Change in the sum of ewes joined by the respondents, between 2010 and 2011
Year
2010 lambing
Total ewes joined to Merino rams
642 526
Total ewes joined to meat rams
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.
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
Month of lambing
Time 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.
CSZ meat
CSZ merino
MRZ meat
MRZ merino
Mar Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Time of lambing
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.
DAFWA WA Producer Survey 2011
4
3
2
1
0
8
7
6
5
MRZ
CSZ
Mar Apr May Jun July
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 lambing
March
April
May
June
Merino rams
CSZ
No data
82
84
84
Meat rams
CSZ
92 ab
95 a
86
87 b b
Merino rams
MRZ
No data
No data
84 ab
82 b
92 a
Meat rams
MRZ
No data
No data
90 b
98 a
July 83 No data 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.
DAFWA WA Producer Survey 2011
5.2 Pregnancy scanning
All 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.
60%
50%
48%
40%
32%
30%
20%
11%
9%
10%
0%
Don't use Bad years Pregnant or not Litter size
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
Do not use
Total
%
48%
Wool
%
57 a
Prime lamb %
33 b
Dual
%
46 ab
Meat &
Merino
44 b
Merino rams only
58 a
Meat rams only
42 b
Some in bad years
Pregnant or not
Litter size
No data
11%
32%
9% n =
10
26
7
105
15
40
13
40
11
33
10
224
13
36 a
7 b
204
9
23 b
9 ab
108
7
33 ab
18
55
a
DAFWA WA Producer Survey 2011
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
Do not use
Some in bad years
Pregnant or not
Total
%
48
11
32
Flock size quartile
1 (smallest) %
67
5
22
Flock size quartile
2
55
8
27
Flock size quartile
3
46
13
33
Flock size quartile
4 (biggest) %
22
19
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 Marking
Wool Av Marking-Merino
Wool Av Marking-meat
Prime Av Marking-meat
Dual Av Marking-Merino
Grand total
83
86
97
84
D on’t scan or scan in bad years%
83
82
98
81
Scan for pregnancy or scan for litter size %
83
92
97
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 status
Please 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
DAFWA WA Producer Survey 2011
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
Zone
MRZ
CSZ
Survey total # Don't change % Manage as a group % Manage individually %
65
87
9
13
28
40
63
47 average No data
No data n = 152
11
No data
35
No data
54
No data
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
I don't change my nutritional management
I manage ewes according to their energy requirements as a single group
All respondents
%
11
35
Respondents scanning pregnant or not %
13
39
Respondents scanning for litter size %
6
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.
DAFWA WA Producer Survey 2011
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
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
Merino marking %
83
Meat marking %
88
88
86
94
94
5.3 Condition scoring
Condition 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
MRZ
CSZ average
% visual in paddock
67
69
% visual and occasionally score
21
25
% regularly score
% score and manage to targets
5
4
7 a
2 b
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.
DAFWA WA Producer Survey 2011
5.4 Weaner mortality
Within 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.
35%
30%
2010 weaner mortality general weaner mortality
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 >10
Weaner mortality (%)
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.
3,5
3
2,5
2
2010 mortality general mortality
1,5
1
0,5
0
Wool Prime lamb Dual
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.
DAFWA WA Producer Survey 2011
5.5 Marking and mulesing practices
In 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 relief mulesed without pain relief breech clipped not 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
Mulesed with pain relief
Mulesed without pain relief
Breech clipped
Merino lambs #
244 334
Merino lambs %
48
Meat lambs #
16 292
Meat lambs %
5
200 484
29
40
0
26 714
2 800
8
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%).
100
80
Merino lambs
Meat lambs
60
40
20
0
% mulesed of total lambs % mulesed with pain relief (of those mulesed)
Figure 19 Mulesing practices in 2010 by lamb number
DAFWA WA Producer Survey 2011
5.6 National Wool Declaration usage
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?
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%).
Filled in mulesing status
Filled in declaration in last 2 years
Heard of NWD
56%
66%
91%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Respondents (%)
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
Filled in NWD
Filled in mulesing section
No data
Total % CSZ MRZ
66
56 n=369
70
60
59
50
No data No data
Wool Prime lamb Dual
70 a
66 a
38
35 b b
70 a
56 a
No data No data No data
DAFWA WA Producer Survey 2011
5.7 Selling sheep east
All 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.
Merino ewe lambs, 2010 born 7%
Merino ewes, born 2009 or earlier
Meat ewe lambs, 2010 born
33%
30%
Meat ewes, born 2009 or earlier
Wether lambs, 2010 born
9%
16%
Older wethers, born 2009 or earlier 5%
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40%
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
DAFWA WA Producer Survey 2011
6 Improved parasite control
6.1 Faecal Worm Egg Counts
Weaners 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
Yes % n=
21
369
28
133
CSZ
17
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 %
None
Once
Twice
>2 times
Weaners Hoggets Wethers Ewes
82 86 92 87
12
4
2
10
3
1
5
2
0
10
3
1
Table 31 WEC testing of sheep in 2010, according flock size quartile
WEC
Flock size quartile
1 (smallest)
Flock siz e qu arti le
2
Flock siz e qu arti le
3
Flock 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.
DAFWA WA Producer Survey 2011
Testing of all classes of sheep peaked in October with a second but lower peak in autumn (March-
April).
Weaners
Hoggets
Wethers
Ewes
15%
10%
5%
0%
35%
30%
25%
20%
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 provider too expensive takes too long to collect the samples takes too long to get a result back don't believe results are useful worms aren't a problem in our environment other...
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%).
DAFWA WA Producer Survey 2011 worms aren't a problem in our environment don't believe results are useful takes too long to collect the samples no local service provider too expensive takes too long to get a result back
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 control
Do you treat your sheep for lice... routinely every year only when lice are seen not 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’. not at all;
8% when lice seen;
25% every year;
67%
Figure 24 The proportion of producers who treated for lice
DAFWA WA Producer Survey 2011
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.
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Total MRZ not at all
CSZ when lice seen
Wool Prime every year
Dual
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?
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
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.
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
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)
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%
DAFWA WA Producer Survey 2011
For the latest treatment, did you use... long wool treatment off shears backline off shears shower dip off 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.
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0% long wool backline off shears shower dip off shears plunge dip off shears
Figure 27 The latest treatment method producers used to treat lice (n=341)
Figure 28 The chemical group used at the latest treatment for lice (n=339)
DAFWA WA Producer Survey 2011
6.3 Flystrike control
With 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. only treat individually struck sheep 39% treat the whole mob of sheep once flystrike is detected
13% treat your sheep with preventive chemicals only when the risk of flystrike is high treat your sheep routinely with preventive chemicals for flystrike every year
20%
28%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%
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%).
DAFWA WA Producer Survey 2011
6.4 The ‘Boss’ web sites
Have 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.
Heard of the WormBoss webiste
Used wormBoss website in 2010
Subscribed to WormBoss newsletter
Heard of LiceBoss website
Used LiceBoss website in 2010
Heard of FlyBoss website
Used FlyBoss website in 2010
4%
4%
7%
13%
21%
37%
1%
0% 10% 20% 30%
Respondents (%)
40%
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
Heard of FlyBoss
77
48 n= 369
18
10
No data
26
19
No data
18
11
No data
23
20
No data
27
14
No data
DAFWA WA Producer Survey 2011
7 Awareness of Sheep CRC and attendance at CRC events
Did you attend any sheep industry event in 2010?
Have you attended any of these Sheep CRC events?
CRC conference or Regional CRC Updates
Lifetime Ewe Management course
High Performance Weaner course
Managing Flystrike workshop
Precision Sheep Management workshop such as Selection Assist, Wether Calculator, Pedigree
Matchmaker and Walk Over Weighing
Managing Pregnant Ewes (also called Pregnancy Scanning) workshop
Bred 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
Did you attend any sheep industry event in 2010?
1. CRC conference or Regional CRC Updates
2. Lifetime Ewe Management course
3. High Performance Weaner course
4. Managing Flystrike workshop
5. Precision Sheep Management workshop such as Selection Assist,
Wether Calculator, Pedigree Matchmaker and Walk Over Weighing
6. Managing Pregnant Ewes (also called Pregnancy Scanning) workshop
7. Bred Well, Fed Well workshop
Yes #
116
12
13
5
5
12
12
9
Yes %
31%
3%
4%
1%
1%
3%
3%
2%
DAFWA WA Producer Survey 2011
Appendix 1 Conduct of the telephone survey
Kaliber 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 producers
The 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
Status
Completed
Refused
Less than 500 sheep
No response after 5 attempts
Invalid phone number
Total Numbers Drawn
Count
380
776
647
1539
715
4057
%
9
19
16
38
18
100
DAFWA WA Producer Survey 2011
Appendix 3 2011 survey questionnaire
KR049 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 Number
Beef Cattle
Sheep including Wool & Prime Lambs
Dairy
Winter Cereal Grain crops (eg. Wheat, Barley, Oats, Triticale)
Winter Legume Crops (eg Lupins, Chickpeas, Lentils, Beans, Peas etc)
Winter Oilseeds (eg Canola, Mustard etc)
Summer Cereals (eg Sorghum, Maize and Corn etc)
Summer Legumes (eg Soybeans, mungbeans)
Summer Oilseeds (eg Sunflowers)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Sugar Cane
Cotton
Rice
Horticultural / Vegetable Crops
Other Crops
Other Livestock
Qstate
NSW
VIC
QLD
SA
State
2
3
4
WA
TAS
NT
5
6
7
8
Qftype
Grains
Grain/Livestock
Beef and Sheep
Beef
Sheep
Dairy
Sugar Cane
Farm type
1
2
4
5
6
7
8
Cotton
Horticulture
QNA
Qpzone
Medium Winter Rain
High Winter Rain
Cereal-Sheep
50
70
99
High Summer Rain 4
Medium Summer Rain 5
Production zone
1
2
3
10
11
12
13
14
15
DAFWA WA Producer Survey 2011
Q1. Do you currently have 500 or more sheep on your property?
Yes
No
1
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
Acres
1
2 Qfsize_1
Q7a. What area, in hectares, of your property was grazed as pasture? Record in hectares where possible.
Hectares 1
Acres 2
Don’t know
3
Q7a_1
Q7b. What area, in hectares, of your property was grazed as dry stubble?
Hectares
Acres
1
2
Don’t know 3
Q7b_1
Q7c. What area, in hectares, of your property was grazed as green crop?
Hectares 1
Acres 2
Don’t know 3
Q7c_1
Q2. What is the primary purpose of your sheep enterprise?
Wool production
Prime lamb production
1
2 Q2
Wool production & prime lamb production 3
Q3. 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 (do not read out)
1 Q3_1
2 Q3_2
3 Q3_3
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 1
February
March
April
May
June
July
August
September
October
November
December
2
3
4
5
6
7 Q5a
8
9
10
11
12
DAFWA WA Producer Survey 2011
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
February
1
2
March
April
May
June
July
August
September
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
October
November
10
11
December 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] = 0 mulesed with pain relief mulesed without pain relief
1
2 breech clipped not mulesed
3
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] * 2
Let [Answer2] = [Q6] * 2
Let [Answer3] = [Q4b] * 2
Let [Answer4] = [Q6b] * 2
Q6c. And of those meat and maternal lambs what percentage were... Do not show If [Q6b] = 0 mulesed with pain relief 1 mulesed without pain relief breech clipped not mulesed
2
3
4
Q6e. How many ewes have you joined or intend to join to lamb in 2011 to...
Merino rams, including Dohnes and SAMMs 1 meat 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
No
1
2
Q8c. And how many of these sheep were... Show If Attribute
‘Yes’ from Q8b is selected
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
1
2
3
4
DAFWA WA Producer Survey 2011 wether lambs, 2010 born older wethers, born 2009 or earlier
5
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
I choose a stud breeder based on advice from my classer, agent or consultant 2
I usually go to the ram sales or shows and select a stud that suits my needs
I review wether trial data, sire evaluation data, sale reports etc and select a
1
3 stud breeder that is performing well
I 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
4
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
I choose the rams based on how they look
1
2
I choose rams mainly on how they look but use some performance data such as micron, CV or body weight
I choose rams with a balance of visual appeal, performance data (micron, CV etc) and some genetic information such as ASBVs or breeding values
3
4
I 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
Too time consuming
Too costly
Too confusing or complex to get ASBVs
Yes No
1 2
1 2
1 2
The traits that are important to the sale of my rams are not covered by
ASBVs
ASBVs are not an accurate indication of the quality of my rams
1 2
I am not convinced that ASBVs are a useful marketing tool
My customers do not use ASBVs to select their rams anyway
1 2
1 2
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
DAFWA WA Producer Survey 2011 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
Growth rate
Muscling
Weaning weight
Lamb weaning per cent
Lean meat yield
Ewe weight/frame size
1. Not at all important
1
1
1
1
1
1
2. Not important
2
2
2
2
2
2
3. Can't say
3
3
3
3
3
3
4.
Important
4
4
4
4
4
4
5. Very important
5
5
5
5
5
5
Constitution 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 1
Full time employees
Part time employees
2
3
Q14b. How much of their total time is spent working in the sheep enterprise of the farm business?
Yourself (ie respondent/interviewee) 1
Show If [Q14a_1_1] = 1 AND [Q14a_2_1] >= 1
Family members (collectively/overall) 2
Show If [Q14a_1_2] = 2 AND [Q14a_2_2] >= 1
Full time employees (collectively/overall) 3
Show If [Q14a_1_3] = 3 AND [Q14a_2_3] >= 1
4 Part time employees (collectively/overall)
Q15. Do you use a contractor for …
Reason Yes No
Shearing (full contract) 1 2
Crutching 1 2
Marking 1 2
Treating sheep for lice 1 2
Q16. When working with sheep, do you currently use any of the following devices?
Reason
Automatic drafting equipment
Automatic jetting race
Sheep handling machine
Electronic weigh crate
Crutching cradle
Lick feeders
Yes No
1 2
1 2
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
Electronic ear tags 1 2
Q16a. Are you considering using any of these devices …
Condition Device Considering Not considering
1 2 Show If Attribute ‘Automatic drafting equipment ’ from Q16 is No
Show If At tribute ‘Automatic jetting race’ from Q16 is No
Automatic drafting equipment
Automatic jetting race
1 2
DAFWA WA Producer Survey 2011
Condition
Show If Attribute ‘Sheep handling machine ’ from Q16 is No
Show If Attribute ‘Electronic weigh crate ’ from Q16 is No
Show If Attribute ‘Crutching cradle’ from Q16 is No
Show If Attribute ‘Lick feeders’ from Q16 is No
Show If Attribute ‘Electronic ear tags ’ from Q16 is No
Device
Sheep handling machine
Electronic weigh crate
Crutching cradle
Lick feeders
Electronic ear tags
Considering Not considering
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
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 1
Only scan in bad years on some sheep
Scan ewes only for pregnancy status (pregnant or not)
2
3
Scan 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
I manage ewes according to their energy requirements as a single group
1
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
Visually estimate in the paddock and occasionally fat score, condition score or weigh a sample of the ewes when they are in the yards
1
2
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
3
4
Q19a. Did you scan any ewes that lambed in 2010?
Yes
No
1
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
Show If [Q6] <> 0 OR [Q6b] >=1 Maiden Merino ewes scanned that were dry (not pregnant)
Number
1
Show If [Q6] <> 0 OR [Q6b] >=1 Adult Merino ewes scanned that were 2
DAFWA WA Producer Survey 2011
Condition Type dry (not pregnant)
Number
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
No
1
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 1
February
March
2
3
April
May
June
July
August
September
October
November
December
Didn’t test
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
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
February
1
2
March
April
May
June
July
August
3
4
5
6
7
8
September
October
November
December
9
10
11
12
DAFWA WA Producer Survey 2011
Didn’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
February
March
April
1
2
3
4
May
June
July
August
September
October
5
6
7
8
9
10
November
December
Didn’t test
11
12
13
Do 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
February
March
1
2
3
4 April
May
June
July
5
6
7
8 August
September
October
November
December
Didn’t test
9
10
11
12
13
Q26b. Why not? Is it because… Show If Attribute ‘No’ from Q26 is selected
Reason
No local service provider
Too expensive
Takes too long to collect the samples
Yes No
1 2
1 2
1 2
Takes too long to get a result back
Don't believe results are useful
Worms aren't a problem in our environment
1
1
1
2
2
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? 1
Only when lice are seen? 2
Not at all 3
DAFWA WA Producer Survey 2011
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
2007
2008
2009
1
2
3
4
2010 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
Off shears backline
1
2
Off shears shower dip
Off shears plunge dip
3
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
Di-Jet
Clout 'S'
Topclip Blue
1
2
3
4
Topclip Purple
Cyperderm
Spurt
Flockmaster
Cypercare
Vanquish
Jet Dip 4-in-1
Fleececare
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
Zapp
Eureka Gold
Diazinon
Assassin
Magnum Pour-On
IGR Pour-On
Extinosad
Exit Pour-On
WSD Command Pour-On
Triffick
Exilice
Coopers Blowfly and Lice
Cannon Pour-On
Extinosad Pour-On
Clik Plus Spray-On Blowfly+Lice
Avenge Pour-On
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Wham
Jetamec
Zinjet
Strike
Other (specify)
29
30
31
32
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 2
DAFWA WA Producer Survey 2011
Treat the whole mob of sheep once flystrike is detected
Only treat individually struck sheep
3
4
Q9a. Did you attend any sheep industry event in 2010?
Yes 1
No 2 Q9a
Q9b. Have you attended any of these Sheep CRC events? Show If Attribute
‘Yes’ from Q9a is selected
Event
CRC conference or Regional CRC Updates
Yes No
1 2
Lifetime Ewe Management course
High Performance Weaner course
Managing Flystrike workshop
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2 Precision Sheep Management workshop such as Selection Assist, Wether
Calculator, Pedigree Matchmaker and Walk Over Weighing
Managing Pregnant Ewes (also called Pregnancy Scanning) workshop
Bred Well, Fed Well workshop
1
1
2
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
No
Q17b. Have you filled in a declaration in the last 2 years? Show If Attribute ‘Yes’ from Q17a is selected
Yes
No
1
2
1
2
Q17c. Have you filled in the mulesing status on the document? Show If Attribute ‘Yes’ from
Q17b is selected
Yes
No
1
2
Q23. Have you heard of the WormBoss website?
Yes 1
No 2
Q23a. Did you use the WormBoss website in 2010? Show If Attribute
‘Yes’ from Q23 is selected
Yes
No
1
2
Q23b. Have you subscribed to the WormBoss monthly email newsletter? Show If Attribute
‘Yes’ from Q23 is selected
Yes 1
No 2
Q24. Have you heard of the LiceBoss website?
Yes 1
No 2
DAFWA WA Producer Survey 2011
Q24a. Did you use the LiceBoss website in 2010? Show If Attribute ‘Yes’ from Q24 is selected
Yes
No
1
2
Q25. Have you heard of the FlyBoss website?
Yes
No
1
2
Q25a. Did you use the FlyBoss website in 2010? Show If Attribute ‘Yes’ from Q25 is selected
Yes
No
1
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
Increasing marking percentage
Increasing turnoff and meeting market specifications
Increasing integration with cropping systems
Improving parasite control
Yes No
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
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 1
No 2
Q32b. Which of the following topics would you like to receive information about? Show If
Attribute ‘Yes’ from Q32a is selected
Topic
Genetics
Easy care sheep
Reproduction
Weaners
Worms
Flies
Lice
Yes No
1 2
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
