47 research outputs found

    The merit of condition score and fat score as alternatives to liveweight for managing the nutrition of ewes

    No full text
    The liveweight profile of Merino ewes is related to the production and profitability of the sheep enterprise, but few producers measure liveweight to manage the nutrition of Merino ewes. In this paper we examine the relationship between changes in liveweight and condition score using data from the Lifetimewool project and compare condition score and fat score as alternative monitoring tools. Analyses of liveweight and condition score data from 15 flocks of Merino ewes representing a range of different genotypes and environments showed that the relationship between change in liveweight and condition score was on average 9.2 kg per unit change in condition score or 0.19 times the standard reference weight of the flock. In two experiments experienced operators were used to estimate the condition score and fat score in over 200 ewes and accredited ultrasound scanners measured the eye muscle and fat depth at the C site in the same ewes. All assessments were repeated several times in random order. Within 24 h of the assessments the sheep were slaughtered at local abattoirs where the tissue depth at the GR site was measured on the hot carcasses. Both condition score and fat score were highly repeatable though subject to operator bias. They were related to each other and to the objective measures of fat and eye muscle depth at the C site. However, 95% of sheep below condition score 2.5 had a tissue depth (muscle and fat) at the GR site ≤3 mm, by definition equal to fat score 1. As the condition score of ewes on commercial properties often fluctuates between scores 2 and 3, and small changes in condition score within this range can have large effects on welfare and profit, we conclude that condition score is the most appropriate alternative to liveweight for managing the nutritional profile of ewes

    Evaluation of the impact of Lifetimewool on sheep producers

    No full text
    Lifetimewool was a national project that began in 2001 to develop profitable ewe feeding and management guidelines for wool producers across southern Australia. By 2005, the project included communication and adoption activities. Rigorous communication, adoption and evaluation plans were used to maintain focus on its objectives and to measure impacts. Evaluation was an integral part of the project's development and allowed the project to gain a clear idea of its impact. The project aimed to influence at least 3000 producers nationally to change the management of their ewe flock by the adoption (or part thereof) of Lifetimewool messages and guidelines. More specifically, the project aimed to 'cross the chasm' and target producers that were deemed to be in the 'early adopter' and the 'early majority' segments. The project surveyed sheep producers, sheep industry consultants and sheep industry extension practitioners at the beginning and end of the project to gauge the change in knowledge, attitudes, skills and aspirations of wool producers over the life of the project. Results from the survey of sheep producers in 2008 indicate that the project achieved its aim. About 12% (∼3000) of sheep producers nationally have changed practice due to information received from Lifetimewool since 2005. Many other producers have been affected through their increase in knowledge, belief and skills, and market segmentation of the audience shows that the project was successful in 'crossing the chasm'. The strategies employed by the project to initiate change (i.e. using private consultants and extension professionals as a pathway to adoption, and involving producers, consultants and extension professionals in the development of the Lifetimewool key messages and tools) were validated. The survey results and analysis provided baseline data for future livestock management projects to build on producers' progress towards practice change. The present paper looks at how the Lifetimewool's evaluation plan provided a focus for and demonstrated meeting its objectives. In doing so, this paper also seeks to better understand the adoption process
    corecore