52 replies to this topic

[Liz P]

I love my lamb burgers spiced well and topped with tzatziki sauce. Grilled is best.

To be honest, I am completely tired of commercially raised chicken. I think it completely lacks any flavor, yet I hear the average American praising it for the very same reason. They like the blank slate taste. I suppose that's why they dislike lamb.

[Pam Wolf]

Probably. I like the Smart Chicken it really tasts like chicken!

Most of the people who have tried lamb around her seem surprised it actually has flavor.

[alligande]

Thanks for the explanation Julie.

[Donald McCaig]

Dear Shepherds,

Julie wrote: "The less time you keep a lamb, the less it eats,"

Also, the less time it has to find its proper place to lie down and die.

Donald McCaig

[Smalahundur]

Free range time doesn´t cost in pasture maintenance.
Afraid they "lie down and die"...? Then I´d say find a more robust breed...

[Sue R]

Free range time doesn´t cost in pasture maintenance.

In much of the US and Canada, at least, being out freely involves being in a fenced pasture of some sort and that involves mainenance - whether it's fencing repairs and maintenance, reseeding at some time, application of lime and/or fertilizer at some time, clipping (a big need in foxtail areas), and other jobs. So, while pasture involves little of the machinery use that haying involves (making it much lower cost), it still does have some cost associated with it. It's simply the cheapest and least demanding (usually) of feeding systems, but it's not "free". Out on real range land, without fencing, the primary costs (involved with the feeding aspect) are labor (sheep tenders and their needs) and dogs (stockworking dogs and LGDs).

Afraid they "lie down and die"...? Then I´d say find a more robust breed...

The longer you have any animal, robust or not, the more likely it is to die. But you are right that people need to choose a breed that is not "delicate" by nature.

[juliepoudrier]

So, while pasture involves little of the machinery use that haying involves (making it much lower cost), it still does have some cost associated with it. It's simply the cheapest and least demanding (usually) of feeding systems, but it's not "free". Out on real range land, without fencing, the primary costs (involved with the feeding aspect) are labor (sheep tenders and their needs) and dogs (stockworking dogs and LGDs).

Exactly Sue. I don't know how pasturing works in Iceland, but here we have pasture losses due to drought, overgrowth by brush, and so on. Keeping a decent pasture requires more than just throwing the livestock out on it. Controlled burns (generally in lieu of adding lime), planting legumes to add nitrogen (or fertilizing), replanting after losses to drought, etc. Maintenance costs money, not to mention time, which is the same as money. Pasture doesn't spring from nothingness. If you have electric fencing, then you have to check it regularly for shorts and to make repairs as needed. Field fence may be less vulerable to plant overgrowth, but, for example, some of my fencing runs through woods. Trees fall. Fencing needs to be repaired. If you're someone who uses a rotational or intensive grazing system, and perhaps uses electronet or other moveable fencing to achieve that, then there's the cost of the time involved to move fencing and move livestock. Maybe it's different elsewhere, but I find it hard to believe that anyone would consider free ranging animals on pasture as an entirely free source of feed. That would apply only if you had free use of, say, government-owned land. And even though most farmers don't really pay themselves for their time, their time *is* worth something and so adds to the cost, because time spent, say moving stock or fence, is time taken away from some other task.

And of course, the fewer animals you range, the less stress on your pasture (a real concern here where my stocking rate is pretty low, but where drought is going to force me to go lower) and the better growth for the remaining animals.

Maybe the differenc is in Smalahundur's definition of free range? Perhaps he means that he ranges his sheep on common lands that don't belong to him and so the care of such land isn't his responsibility? We have free range in the west (though they still can't ignore pasturing conditions), but in the rest of this country, free ranging means free to graze on pasture (vs. confined to dry lots or feed lots). And someone has to take care of that pasture. Forage is a crop like any other, and most folks don't grow crops ad infinitum without ever doing anything to help the land that grows those crops.

J.

[Donald McCaig]

Dear Shepherds,
Forty years ago I offered to catch for a neightbor's shearing. Coyotes hadn't arrived and he ran livestock in the appalachian forest farming tradition - you turned pigs and sheep into the woods in the spring with their new lambs and tolled them in in the fall.

Catching was pretty easy - I could carry a ewe under my arm. They were parasite proof, thrived on acorns and produced as much as one live lamb every year for 8 years.

Suffolk (hamp)xdorset ewes which are commonest in my region, wiegh 130-140 pounds rear pretty close to 2 lambs every year on good pasture, graining and creep feeding. Before they lamb - I read somewhere - 40% of their body weight is lambs and birth fluids.

Like Holsteins, they aren't hardy.

Donald McCaog

[Smalahundur]

I was talking about free range as in free range. Area that is not fenced in, my sheep could walk to Reykjavik, on the other side of the island if they wanted (would be quite a walk though).
Fencing work means fencing to keep our sheep and those of the neighboring farms out of our hey land.
Main cost with this free foraging is the man power for the annual roundup (guess why I got into border collies... )
But having sheep and/or land means that you have to contribute to this anyway (ancient laws...). I wouldn´t miss it for the world, on horseback, with the dogs, it´s great fun.
Predator pressure is thankfully very low; the largest land predator, in my opinion more of an scavenger, is the arctic fox, not much of a threat for a healthy ewe with her lambs.

[TEC]

Range sheep business (aka free range) in the US Northwest often means having grazing leases on State Forest, BLM and US Forest Service land. Maintaining leases is an essential part of sheep ranching economy. In my experience, NW farmers/ranchers are sensitive to the environment, quite apart from gov't regulations and lease obligations. Water/stream quality, wildlife habitat, sustainability and predator-friendly methods are high priority to many ranchers. Some hire conservation biologists, and work in conjunction/harmony with environmental groups to maintain feed for their stock, along with a healthy environment.

I applaud their efforts, and wish the family farm/ranch success and sustainability. -- Kind regards, TEC

[juliepoudrier]

I was talking about free range as in free range. Area that is not fenced in, my sheep could walk to Reykjavik, on the other side of the island if they wanted (would be quite a walk though).

Well and herein lies the issue with making comments about a subject when the discussion centers on one locality and one's experience centers on a different locality. Clearly our raising/management systems are completely different. I was asked why it was desirable not to keep lambs any longer than necessary. The answer was because it saves on the cost of feeding and care. That's true in this part of the United States. In Iceland, apparently you can pasture your sheep with the only cost to you being the time and effort you have to put in for the annual round up. Here in the US on the average family farm, creating and/or maintaining pasture does require more input than just attending the yearly round up. Presumably the price you pay (or sell) would be lower because of your lower input. But the fact remains that here in this part of the world, the less time I spend raising a lamb, then the greater my profit will (hopefully) be.

J.

[mjk05]

The same with us (in Australia), Julie. We sell most of our lambs as soon as possible after weaning, mostly straight to abattoir. Less time here = less input costs like drenching, shearing, and more available pasture for the ewes, and available paddocks for cropping. Possibly if we had year-round pasture available we might keep them longer, but there would still be input for worm control/shearing etc, and really there's not much increase in value keeping them longer- they're pretty well-grown at weaning, definitely not 'baby' lambs. I guess that's about breed/trait selection for your farming system too- over here, if you need to keep lambs for much longer to get decent weights, you probably should be looking for another breed.

[Smalahundur]

Julie, just to be clear, I did not intend to argue some point (and I am sorry if I came across that way).
I just wanted to take part in an exchange of experiences. I realize management systems are quite different, and the icelandic one is hopelessly labor intensive. If one started to really calculate wages for that annual roundup (or generally the one of a sheepfarmer)nobody could eat lamb any more.
So our lambs are slaughtered about five months of age and finished on forage, therefor the meat has a pretty strong (good!) taste. I heard that "the average Joe" in the US likes his meat rather tasteless, can´t imagine why...