A Curmudgeonly Look at the Finnsheep Breed Standard

Harold O. Koenig

What follows is a copy of the Breed Standard Recommendations as produce by a committee formed in 1988 -- with my comments in Italics The purpose of this exercise is to provoke thought and discussion. While it may be that the standard is fine as it is, the 1988 committee was charged with subjecting it to "continual review". We don't want to "fix" what "ain't broke", but we do want to continue to improve our breed

I'm not criticizing the pioneering hard workers who gave us the standard. I'm just giving it a hard look and inviting all members to do the same. Few things are so good that they can't stand a little improvement.

I'll probably reveal more about my own ignorance than anything else in my comments, but even ignorance can be helpful if, in addressing it, one refines and sharpens one's thinking.

Breed Standard Recommendations

This standard is designed to preserve and enhance the inherent good qualities of the Finn breed. No restrictions on registrations are involved since we have no mechanism for the inspection of flocks. The standard, however, can help us move in a more uniform direction as the breed develops.

A mechanism to inspect flocks might not be necessary. The possibility that animals could be disqualified at shows and sales or that an unhappy buyer could question a sheep's fitness for registration ought to pack enough of a punch to get compliance with any standard. Besides, if we're serious about continuing to improve Finnsheep, we'll comply with a good standard.

Points have not been assigned to the different sections (as many other breed associations do) primarily because Finnsheep have not and should not be shown or judged solely on their physical characteristics. Probably 60-70 % of the standard's significance is in the section titled Reproductive Characteristics.

This could stand reconsideration. Is it possible that by turning away from shows we have deprived our breed of needed publicity? Sure, we don't want to play the beauty contest game, but we don't want to be invisible either …

Reproductive Characteristics

Rams

… should reach puberty by 4-8 months of age.

… must have two descended, well-developed testicles.

… should be at least a triplet.

… should be aggressive breeders.

"Should be … a triplet"? What about an out-of- season twin or a single born to a ewe on the star program and who lambs at 450% a year? What about the ease with which he was born and whether his Dam had enough milk to raise him? The language here prefers a triplet born to a dry ewe with a lifetime annual lambing percentage in the tank to a single born to a ewe who raised quads 7 months ago.

Ewes

… should lamb by 12 months of age.

… should have had a minimum of 5-6 lambs by two years of age, and 9-10 lambs by 3 Years.

… should be aggressive breeders.

… should have no difficulty in lambing.

… should exhibit outstanding maternal characteristics.

… should produce adequate milk for at least two lambs and possess at least two well-formed functional teats.

Should we maybe have some numbers here? Is a ewe who has quads but rejects one "outstandingly maternal"? Whether justified or not, a consistent criticism of Finns is that they have more lambs than they can raise and that they pass this trait to some of their crossbred offspring. If we mean to aim our genes at commercial breeders, what can we do to reassure them that our Finns don't represent more problems?

In other words, what kind of sense does it make to suggest that ewes lamb 300% annually or more by the time they're three while asking that they have enough milk for only two lambs. Here the breed standard is implicitly working towards bummers and bottle lambs. Is that a good thing?

Size

Mature ewes in average condition will weigh 130-180 pounds.

Mature rams in average condition will weigh 170-240 pounds.

Why are there upper size limits? Do we want to restrict size to below a certain weight? There was a 300+ lb.. ram at Pelso, Finland. Would we urge our members to select away from such a ram?

Fleece

Solid color of medium length. Uniformity and free of coarse britch. White is the most common color, but other solid colored animals are acceptable if noted at the time of registration.

We need numbers here. How long is "medium" ? What difference in microns between britch and shoulder wool should we tolerate? Numbers aren't everything in a fleece, but they're something -- and I've noted that a 28 micron fleece on YOUR ram is coarse and scratchy, while a 28 micron fleece on MY ram is lustrous, smooth, and soft. Some objective numerical wool standard needs to be considered.

Body and Tail

Smooth and well blended of medium length and height. Back straight and strong. The very characteristic Finn tail is undocked, wool-covered with hair at tip, and 4-6 inches long.

Excuse me? They said what? "Back straight and strong"? Do we want this to be an option or a requirement? I vote for requirement. There's no need for swaybacked Finns.

I support a rule that docked Finns cannot be registered. Brian Magee and others have shown a correlation between tail length and purity of Finn blood.

Legs and Feet

Straight and well placed. Fore legs set apart. Wooled to knees and hocks, clean below. Strong pasterns.

"Strong pasterns." Amen! "Fore legs set apart." Alleluia!

When you look at the backs and pasterns and front ends of too many Finns, you see the problem with no mechanism for disqualifying animals. I don't know how it happened, but I suspect too great a focus on the number of live lambs born and/or on the quality of Finn fleeces has lead to way too many swaybacked, down-at-heel, pinch-breasted animals. Some of them have quintuplets but reject two of them or, at best, have milk for only two. Others have wool to die for. But without our sheep having structural balance and strength and correctness, we'll only be able to sell them to each other.

Head

Long and fine with good hair coat, free of wool and horns. Eyes that are clear and alert. Dark pigment around the eyes is desirable. Proper jaw alignment is essential and overshot or undershot is not to be tolerated.

Okay, I'll bite. What do we get for dark pigment around the eyes?

The Registration of Singles

For rams: There are times when a single may be acceptable, but generally it is genetically less risky and looks better on pedigrees if you use a triplet or better. A single ram may look physically superior, but this can be due to the competitive advantage he had as a lamb and not true genetic superiority.

Good point about big singles. But (to repeat) does birth number count as much as the annual lambing per centage of the Dam and the Sire's kin? As to how things "look" on the pedigree, that may help sales a little, but what will help the breed is how they perform in the paddock or barn.

For ewes: There would be too many exceptions to consider -- the ewe's age, her past performance, if she has quads in the spring and a single in the fail, etc. Mature ewes should lamb 300 % or better and it is unrealistic to think that we will maintain or improve on that rate unless we use rams that are equal to or better than that level. The association currently has no method to evaluate the lifetime performance of a ewe. This will have to be the responsibility of each breeder.

Why should there be different birth number suggestions for rams and ewes? And what's so challenging about annual lambing per centage? Divide the number of live lambs born by the number of years the ewe has been alive and multiply by one hundred. As Li'l Abner used to say, "ANY fool knows that! I know that!" We don't need breeders to get their records notarized but they should be able to compute and produce a per centage without bursting a capillary.

And why, tell me why, are we not making recommendations about the number of lambs that a ewe can bring to weaning. Sure, if the neighbor's pit bull pilfers a couple, it messes up your records, but if we're going to sell Finns as producers, seems to me we need to be clear about how much Mummy produces and how much Merricks or Land O' Lakes produces …

The National Sheep Improvement Program (NSIP) established in 1987 through Iowa State University may be helpful in selecting traits.

Amen. If you can afford it.

The Registration of Colored Finns

There seems to be no market prejudice against black wool, in fact there is a strong demand for colored Finn and Finn cross wool for handspinning. It is desirable, however, to note this on registration forms so that the black gene can be monitored. Regarding concern that black fibers would contaminate white wool, the publication, Finnsheep in Finland, states that gray, black, and brown Finns were not discriminated against in Finland and "as far as can be ascertained, there are no pigmented fibers in white wool."

If this becomes an issue, Yocom McColl can help us get some hard numbers.

Horns

True horns exist in relatively low numbers. Many Finn ram lambs have short scurs that are normally permanently knocked off by 4-6 months. Their relationship, if any, to true solid horns is unknown. Full horns appear to be sex linked, seen in rams only. These should be discriminated against. A market for these rams could be established by selling them unregistered to commercial sheepmen where all ram lamb offspring are sent to market.

Some years ago at State College PA, I saw a ram sifted out for short stubby horns. See? We can disqualify if we put our minds to it …

Weak Pasterns and Undershot Jaw

These two traits deserve our attention. Low numbers and the great demand for Finns has encouraged many breeders to register animals that are not conformationally correct. Now as our numbers grow, we must double our efforts to eliminate these two faults. Unfortunately, undershot jaw is not often noticed until an animal is nearing maturity and may have produced one or more lamb crops. Check your sheep periodically. If they are not sound, cull them.

Could we add swayback to this list?

The original breed standard was developed by Jack Bonham and approved by the membership at the annual meeting, July 1982. It was a composite of ideas from members, Finnsheep breeders and known sheep industry leaders. To Jack we are indebted. Since then, some changes have been made by the committee formed in 1988 to update and continually review the Breed Standard Recommendations.

Again, we are all indebted to the people who worked on the Standard Recommendations. I mean absolutely no disrespect at all. I do think that considering per centages of lambs weaned unassisted is more important and desirable than the birth number of a particular lamb.

There's an excellent emphasis on practical and valuable traits in this document. As we consider the future of our breed, I think we need first to decide where we want to go? We can go solely for the handpsinning niche; we can aim ourselves at providing productive genes for the commercial shepherd (and even then we need to consider how much attention we should pay to wool quality), we could focus on providing lots of lean lambs for the ethnic market - or we could aim at a combination of these goals.

Whatever we decide should be reflected in breed standards which we should not be afraid to enforce at official shows and sales.