KTIF Final Report Template
Contents:
1. PROJECT TITLE/APPLICANT
1.1 Title
Live Lambs; improving lamb survival and farm profitability
1.2 Overview of your company
SAC Consulting has been the lead organisation for this project. SAC Consulting is a division
of SRUC.
2. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
2.1 Overview – Maximum 1 page
The aim of our three year project was to identify the main barriers to achieve an increase in
the average number of lambs reared per ewe and identify solutions which improve farm
profitability and viability, enhance animal welfare and reduce the carbon footprint in sheep
enterprises.
To achieve this we monitored seven focus farmers over the three year period (2016-2019),
who were chosen over the main sheep areas of Scotland including lowland, upland and hill
operations, indoor and outdoor lambing and various geographical challenges. In the original
tender, we set out to involve five farms, but added an additional two, one being the SRUC hill
and mountain research centre at Crianlarich, the other being a Northern English farm; these
were funded through Horizon2020 (SheepNet) and AHDB Beef and Lamb respectively.
The project facilitators worked with the focus farmers and collected sheep production figures
to analyse any trends, issues or progress from the project. These were shared with a wider
group of forward thinking sheep farmers (42 members) who offered their expertise to the focus
farmers. As well as farmers this included invited project partners from industry (MSD Animal
Health, East Coast Viners, Rumenco and Norvite). An operational group was set up to
oversee the project including, the two facilitators and programme manager from SAC
Consulting, SRUC researcher Cathy Dwyer, Veterinary Investigation Officer, Marion
MacMillan and a leading sheep farmer, Graham Lofthouse to steer the project management.
The focus farmers, along with the wider group met twice per year, for a total of eight times
over the project lifetime, to discuss the findings from the focus farms and exchange knowledge
in ways to enhance performance, while ensuring the welfare of the animal was paramount in
any decisions made.
Five key areas were highlighted as the basis of our farm management approach:
1. Condition scoring
2. Late pregnancy nutrition for ewes
3. Reducing numbers of lambs lost to abortion
4. Management at lambing
5. Recording and identifying causes of lamb deaths
Innovative techniques used throughout the project included novel Australian sheep condition
scoring pads to ensure farmers are more consistent in the assessment of ewe condition
scoring, use of a colostrometer to understand the effects of ewe condition and nutrition on
colostrum quality and quantity. Videos were produced along with numerous recording
templates for flock managers, which are all available on our knowledge repository at
https://www.sruc.ac.uk/info/120732/live_lambs
.
Information is available to view on the Live Lambs website (above) including all meeting
minutes, details of the farms/farmers, fact sheets, videos, etc. Much information has been
disseminated through articles in the farming press and social media posts. Messages
regarding condition scoring, nutrition, lambing management, abortion control and recording
have been highlighted through the Scottish Farm Advisory Service at many sheep resilience
meetings across the country.
Having a group of focus farmers at the core of the project was highly influential in providing
data, stimulating discussion and influencing others on practical measures to increase lamb
survival. Practical management measures reported have included nutritional management
(Body Condition Score, ultrasound scanning), the right genetics for the system (birth difficulty,
lamb vigour, thermoregulation, maternal care) and a suitable birth environment (shelter,
hygiene, low stress) as well as colostrum awareness, feeding Digestible Undegradable
Protein, recording losses accurately, enhanced lambing hygiene, respecting the lambing site,
and weaning lambs at 90 days.
The large attendance at the closing conference at the Roslin Institute Building, Edinburgh was
an excellent example of what the project had done over its three year run, bringing farmers,
advisers, researchers, vets and the supply trade together to work on practical solutions for
farmers to adopt. Although the project is now finished, the lessons learned and key messages
will live on with the farmers involved and industry influencers, and materials from Live Lambs
will continue to be delivered to sheep farmers in the years to come. Industry networks have
been formed and channels of communication such as the WhatsApp group kept open for
future use.
3. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
4. FINANCE
4.1 Sum awarded
The total sum awarded for the three year project was £81,314
4.2 Detail of spend
We intended to claim the full project budget of £81,314, but note that we ended with an
underspend of £2.26. This has been presented in claim forms submitted to the Scottish
Government.
4.3 Noting any underspend and explain why
We claimed £81,311.74 against a budget of £81,314. This represents an underspend of
£2.26, a small amount, which is perhaps a rounding error on time. We delivered more time
on the project than we were able to claim.
5. PROJECT AIMS/OBJECTIVES
4.1 Linking what was set out in the application
Aim in application
Identify and remove some of the constraints to sheep farmers maximising net margin per
hectare. Success will be measured in terms of the value of extra lambs produced from the
same number of ewes and the impact this has on both farm and supply chain profitability.
The projected average rearing percentage in 2019 was 7% greater than the baseline data
collected for 2015. We calculated this projection by deducting the average losses occurred
after one week post lambing (based on the previous four years) from the number of lambs
reared to one week in 2019. However, this improvement did not occur for each interim year
and did not occur across all focus farms (Fig 1).
Several farms increased numbers of breeding females (Fig 2). Therefore labour per ewe
reduced across the years of the study. In addition, the number of ewe lambs put to the tup
increased on some of the farms (Fig 2), ewe lambs are less prolific than ewes, thereby
resulting in lower scanning and rearing rates.
Figure 1 Rearing percentage trends across five focus farms from 2014-2019
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
200
Donald
Lowland
Donald Hill Mark Aaron Peter Andrew
cross
Andrew
pedigree
Mean
Rearing %
2014-2015 2015-2016 2016-2017 2017-2018 2018-2019 projected*
Figure 2 Ewes and ewe lambs put to the tup over the five years
The winter of 2017, leading in to lambing 2018, saw the beast from the East affect all of our
focus farms at lambing and turnout. This had a big impact on ewe condition and a knock on
effect on lambing and rearing figures for 2018, as well as impacting the 2019 breeding season.
These three factors – inconsistent ewe numbers, ewe lamb inclusion and extreme weather –
meant the rearing rate increase was not actualised for every year in the project.
However, we have streamlined farmers’ production systems and understood and overcome
numerous causes of lamb mortality within the influence of farm management by emphasising
the five key focus areas:
1. Body Condition Scoring: We provided the evidence that Body Condition Scoring, and
associated management to achieve target condition scores, influences ewe rearing
rate (Hanrahan, 1990). This motivated the farmers to focus on this practise. We trained
the farmers to Body Condition Score using the Australian sheep condition scoring pads
and live sheep. Then they collected condition scoring data throughout the project to
check they were on track to achieve targets. As a result, the farmers practised body
condition scoring more regularly and adjusted management to achieve targets at
critical times (mating, mid-pregnancy, lambing, and weaning). Although the data is
unclear, this will have contributed to greater ewe and lamb survival as indicated by
peer-reviewed scientific papers.
2. Late Pregnancy Nutrition: We funded silage analysis and developed rations for the
focus farmers to ensure late pregnancy protein and energy needs were met. In addition
to this, we conducted Trace Element audits for each of the farms which led to
identification of mineral over-supply causing greater lamb mortality. Both late
pregnancy nutrition and trace element supply are influential to lamb survival (C. M.
Dwyer, 2015).
3. Lambing set up: Professor Cathy Dwyer visited the focus farms to discuss ewe
behaviour at lambing and how they might promote natural behaviour for greater
lambing success. This led to farmers changing their management at lambing to avoid
negatively impacting the ewe-lamb bond at this critical time.
4. Abortion control: Farmers with evidence of Toxoplasmosis and Enzootic Abortion were
encouraged to vaccinate for these dominant causes of abortion. Veterinary Clinician,
Kim Hamer, Glasgow University, discussed the other causes of abortion and
prevention with the group too with a recently developed app.
5. Data collection: The following data were collected: scanning percentage, barren
percentage, lambs born alive, lambs lost in the first week, lambs weaned and lambs
sold/retained (see annex 1). With this we were able to identify the main times for
improvements in lamb survival. In addition, some of the focus farmers collected the
causes of lamb loss and this was discussed with veterinary investigation officer Marion
MacMillan, SRUC, for improvements, see here
.
Objectives in application
• Reduce incidence of ewe deaths
o This was focused on at many of the meetings through condition scoring,
nutrition and health. A common problem amongst farms, and in the wider
industry, is Ovine pulmonary adenocarcinoma (OPA) in ewes. Prevention and
management was discussed and implemented. Condition scoring and good
nutrition would contribute to greater ewe survival too.
• Encourage farmers to benchmark ewe and lamb losses
o Focus farms data was collected, analysed and benchmarked as a group
including ewe and lamb losses on an annual basis (fig. 1 and annex 1). Group
discussions were held around these and any trends addressed, with a number
of practical actions put in place
• Increase farmers confidence in condition scoring
o As mentioned, condition scoring training was provided. Condition scoring was
highlighted at every meeting, along with the protocols the host farmer used. A
number of farmers reported that they were condition scoring more regularly as
a result of the project.
• Reduce losses through abortion
o MSD animal health have been a project partner and have nurtured the focus
farmers through abortion control. Where justified, the focus farmers now
vaccinate for the two dominant causes of aborting _ Toxoplasmosis Gondi and
Enzootic abortion. Glasgow University have recently developed an abortion
planning app, which was demonstrated and used by the focus farmers.
• Assess the benefits of Digestible Undegradable Protein (DUP) in pre lambing rations
o Every year, silage on the focus farms has been analysed, and rations have
been tailored to these using sources of DUP e.g. soya. The inclusion of
targeted protein in this way creates a more rumen-friendly ration. The farmers
including soya in the ration report better colostrum supply as a result and less
stress in the lambing shed. This approach has also emphasised the value of
good quality silage and reduced the cost of feeding.
• Increase awareness of improving neonatal survival in small ruminants
o This was the overarching objective of the project and the five point
management plan which was taken on by the focus farmers and promoted
wider through the meetings and media.
o SRUC researcher Cathy Dwyer has been active in the project to increase
awareness to improving survival through welfare and animal behaviour. Cathy
visited all of the Focus Farms and provided them with practical behavioural
advice for each farms unique circumstances.
• Provide farmers with tools to conduct own post mortem diagnosis in lambs
o A post mortem of a ewe was carried out at an on farm meeting, as well as a
video created for a post mortem of a lamb (MacMillan, 2018)showing how to
identify diagnose common causes of death on farm. These would help the
farmer complete the worksheet to track causes of lamb loss (Annex 2). We
also signposted the focus farmers to existing resources (AHDB Beef and Lamb,
2012).
• Improve lamb performance
o Lamb performance has been a real focus point, from weaning earlier, to the
forage they are offered and common loses in weaned lambs. The emphasis
on early life management of lambs will not only have improved their survival
but will have given them the best start for subsequently greater growth rates.
The summer meeting discussed weaning management and forage
management for better lamb finishing.
• Use of operational group as a forum for discussion
o The three groups involved within the Live Lambs project – Operational
(management) Group, Farmer Focus Group and the Wider Group – have
played important roles in this project. The Operational Group reviewed
progress and oversaw project activity. The Focus Farmer Group the source of
many of the best ideas and these farmers were highly influential on how the
project progressed. The 40+ farmers who are members of the SAC sheep
group for forward thinking farmers have been an excellent sounding board for
the focus farmers, sharing experiences and co-operating with each other. In
addition, the Live Lambs focus farmers were connected to international
operational groups through the SheepNet Horizon2020 programme.
• Disseminate benefits to sheep industry
o This project has had a strong Knowledge Exchange profile. Benefits have been
disseminated through press articles, newsletter articles, social media, videos,
website, recording tools and key messages through FAS meetings.
6. PROJECT OUTCOMES
5.1 How aims/objectives were achieved
See above for how the aims / objectives were achieved.
5.2 Milestones
Key milestones:
1. Recruit and train focus farmers: we identified these farmers through our farmer
networks as those which represent different systems in Scotland with opportunity for
improvement
2. Gather farm data to understand opportunity for improvement: see annex 1
3. Group meetings: held twice a year, all reports available here
https://www.sruc.ac.uk/info/120732/live_lambs
4. Publicity: press articles, videos fact sheets and a webpage have been produced to
publicise the project.
7. LESSONS LEARNED
6.1 Issues/Challenges
Geographical differences between the farms have been a challenge for the project. With the
highest being 1,000 metres above sea and the lowest being 20 metres above sea, with some
having extensive hill and rock and others having sandy soils. This has been a challenge when
benchmarking, but has also been a strength of the project – covering all aspects of Scottish
sheep farming.
The weather has been another issue and challenge for the three year project. Where we have
seen the ‘beast from the east’ in 2017/18 to the drought in 2018, which have both affected
productivity of the focus farms flocks.
We had one focus farmer, who requested to stop his involvement in the project. This was due
to personal diversification developments on his farm and a lack of time to engage in the project
fully. This has had an impact on the dataset not being complete for the full seven farms for
the duration of the project.
6.2 Impacts
The project was very successful in bringing the sheep industry together to tackle lamb survival
topics. The audience at the closing conference at the Roslin Institute Building was an excellent
example of what the project had done over its three year run, bringing farmers, advisers,
researchers, vets and the supply trade together to work on practical solutions for farmers to
adopt.
Our selected focus farmers were extremely bought in to the project, one actually reported
that he felt that the focus farmers owned the group, where they felt part of a collective group
of forward thinking farmers who aided in driving their businesses forward. They have been a
real driving force, which has aided in keeping the motivation of the group driving forward and
all tasks being completed in a timely fashion.
This engagement, the meetings and release of extensive Knowledge Exchange materials
available through reports, videos, social media posts and technical publications have greatly
raised awareness and discussion of factors improving lamb rearing percentage within the
sheep industry.
We have strong evidence that the project made a meaningful impact on the Focus Farmer
Group who were most involved in the project, with each farmer making positive changes to
their sheep management and lambing operations, which were influenced by what they
discussed at meetings and on WhatsApp.
Live lambs has provided a framework for other sheep farmers to follow, and enhanced the
knowledge of industry professionals – advisers, vets, researchers and supply chain – who
have significant influence over other farmers and can spread the lessons learned.
Live Lambs has focussed the sheep industries attention on the importance of colostrum and
the 3 Q’s – quality, quantity and quickly.
The project has had an international impact through its association with Horizon 2020
SheepNet.
Although the project is now finished, the lessons learned and key messages will live on with
the farmers involved and industry influencers, and materials from Live Lambs will continue to
be delivered to sheep farmers in the years to come. Industry networks have been formed and
channels of communication such as the WhatsApp group kept open for future use.
8. COMMUNICATION & ENGAGEMENT
7.1 Detail throughout the project’s lifetime
Focus Farms Meetings
Meeting
Date
Target
Focus Farmer Training
11
th
July 2016
Focus Farmers only
Saughland
7
th
November 2016
Open Meeting
Carfraemill
9
th
February 2017
Open Meeting (hotel based)
Glensaugh
14
th
July 2017
Open Meeting
Pre-lambing webinar
7
th
March 2018
Webinar (online, focus
farmers only)
Carstairs
6
th
June 2018
Open Meeting
Bankhouse
12
th
October 2018
Open Meeting
Broomhouse
21
st
February 2019
Open Meeting
Over the three years, we held one introduction meeting, which allowed the focus farmers to
meet the project team, meet each other and introduce their businesses and undertake
condition scoring training. In addition, there were two meetings per year held, with the majority
being interactive meetings on focus farmers or operational group member’s farms. These
were publicised widely and were open to the public. They all had a theme, usually around
specific issues on the host farm and benchmarking figures were highlighted at all meetings.
After each meeting, minutes were created and circulated to the focus farmers, operational
group and are now available on the web (SRUC, 2019).
Focus Farm Visits
The facilitation team (Kirsten and Poppy) had close contact with the focus farms throughout
the project, between farm visits, phone calls and the Live Lambs WhatsApp group. The farms
were visited pre lambing on an annual basis where rations for the ewes were discussed,
unique rations were tailored to their forage analysis. Further visits were carried out if there
were any specific issues.
MSD animal health have been a project partner, where their vet Bridget Girvan was involved
with initial data capturing using their flock indicator tool and offered her specialist advice for
abortion control with the focus farms. In year one she either visited the focus farms or their
vets and had discussions about their abortion control strategies.
Marion McMillan, SAC veterinary investigation officer was in the operational group and visited
any farms who had specific cases e.g. Mark Grey had an issue with calcium in his flock.
Cathy Dwyer, SRUC researcher specialises in animal behaviour, along with the facilitators,
she visited all focus farms pre lambing in year three to discuss management practices and
positive behavioural interactions.
Data Collection
Data collection from the focus farms was ongoing over the three-year project lifetime, this
was collected and analysed by the project team on an ongoing basis. Data was presented
at meetings to stimulate discussion and comment and presented at the final conference. See
website for further information.
Press and Articles
Year
Year 1
• Farm Business article on launch of project
• The Scotsman article on launch of project
• The Courier article on launch of project
• Press and Journal article on launch of project
• SAC sheep & beef news
• EIP-Agri newsletter
• A presentation and poster was also delivered at the EIP-Agri
Year 2
(https://www.ruralnetwork.scot/case-studies/live-lambs)
• The courier (minimising losses during lambing)
• P & J (minimising losses during lambing)
• A feature was printed in the Scottish Farmer of one of the focus
farmers (Donald Barrie)
• Farming today radio interview (https://t.co/9p6ijIuZPR?amp=1)
• Post mortem video posted on YouTube (https://bit.ly/2tjL0Wf)
Year 3
• Scottish Farmer (press release for seminar)
• Press and Journal (press release for seminar)
• Scottish Farmer feature post seminar
Fact Sheets and Website
A website specific to Live Lambs was created, allowing for a main point for people to source
the information from the project (https://www.sruc.ac.uk/info/120732/live_lambs
).
Farmer friendly fact sheets have been created on key aspects of the farm management
approach to increasing live lambs including
• Lambing management
• Abortion
• Body condition scoring
• Nutrition
Final Seminar
A final seminar was organised for the end of the three-year project, to highlight the outcomes
from the project as well as main messages to help improve flock performance (annex 3). This
event was attended by over 100 people; made up of farmers, vets, consultants and
researchers. This was a very well received event, with an extremely positive response and
excellent follow up from the press from the event.
An interactive question and answer session was held at the end of the event, which generated
a lot of discussion from the audience. This used voting buttons to gain instant feedback from
all members of the audience. The final question posed to the audience was “is increasing live
lambs reared achievable in Scottish Farms?”, 35% of the audience responded, absolutely,
62% responded, yes with management changes and 3%, said there are too many impacts
from the weather (Fig. 3.). This gives insight into the perspective of the audience following
the conference regarding opportunity to improve.
Figure 3 The audience response to a question posed at the final seminar
7.2 FAS Engagement (if applicable)
Many of the key farm management approach principles have been used in delivering
messages through FAS. In 2018/19 there were numerous sheep resilience meeting held
across the country through FAS, where either Poppy or Kirsten where asked to speak about
the principles of Live Lambs and the positive effects on the focus farms.
The FAS women in agriculture meetings included condition score training, for this we used the
Australian condition scoring toolkit.
FAS social media was used as a stream for both publicising the industry seminar and then for
pushing out messages after the event in a series of tweets using #LiveLambs
(https://twitter.com/i/events/1212722091738501121?s=13).
7.3 EIP-AGRI Engagement (if applicable)
Live Lambs was one of the first Scottish Operational Groups to be registered on the EIP-Agri
website (
https://ec.europa.eu/eip/agriculture/en/find-connect/projects/live-lambs-ktif-
improving-lamb-survival-and-farm ). We had requests for a Live Lambs feature at EIP-Agri
conferences and Poppy Frater presented a poster at the Innovation conference in Lisbon in
October 2017. A summary version of the final report will be posted on the website.
Live Lambs was linked to the EU funded Horizon 2020 SheepNet project and both Poppy and
Live Lambs farmers have attended a number of these events to report on our project and pick
up useful tips from others in Europe.
9. KEY FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS
• Having a focus farmer group at the centre of this project was highly influential in
shaping the project and getting messages out top other farmers.
• The project was approached from a farm management perspective with practical
recommendations as key outputs, making the research/new thinking easier to
implement on farms.
• It was beneficial to have a broad representation of Scottish sheep systems used in the
project e.g. hill, upland, lowland, indoor lambing, outdoor lambing, making the results
applicable to many sheep production systems and farm types.
• Various methods of knowledge transfer where used including, practical farm based
meetings, industry seminar and materials available through the web to reach as many
sheep farmers and supply chain partners as possible. People absorb information in
different ways and this multimedia approach helped us reach a large audience and get
key messages across.
• There were obvious environmental differences of the various farms, meaning that
increasing scanning percentage, wasn’t always the way to higher rearing %.
• Lamb mortality can be caused by a number of different factors but ensuring that lambs
get adequate colostrum soon after birth if key to survival
• Most important management factors to lamb survival include, nutritional management
(BCS, ultrasound scanning), the right genetics for the system (birth difficulty, lamb
vigour, thermoregulation, maternal care) and a suitable birth environment (shelter,
hygiene, low stress).
• Colostrum is gold; rapid intake of sufficient colostrum will increase lamb survival.
• DUP feeding has reduced concentrate levels and stabilised rumen pH, giving a lamb
with high vigour being born, but ensuring the intake of the good quality silage is being
achieved is paramount.
• Recording losses as they happen, so that themes or patterns can be analysed and
caused of death are identified.
• Weaning lambs at 90 days, to allow the best nutrition to be allocated to highest priority
stock, as well as ewes regaining condition before the next breeding cycle.
• Enhanced hygiene reduces potential for infection in lambing sheds, especially around
site for any wounds e.g. tailing bands, tags
• Respect the lambing site:, minimise movement of ewes once they start to nest. Some
used swing gates to isolate the ewe and lamb for better bonding.
10. CONCLUSION
Increasing the rearing rate of Scottish sheep flocks will improve farm profitability, reduce
greenhouse gas emissions per kilogram of lamb sold and improve animal welfare. A farm
management approach to improving lamb survival was developed and implemented on five
focus farms. This approach, based on peer-reviewed science will have contributed to greater
lamb survival, however, the challenges of extreme weather and flock management changes
make it difficult to identify the impact of these improvements in a three year project. The
average rearing rate across the focus farmers in 2019 was projected to be 7% greater than
the 2015 baseline data, with the focused approach, this improvement should be sustained
and/or increased further in future years.
The following webpage (
https://www.sruc.ac.uk/info/120732/live_lambs) contains a
wealth of information for other farmers to access. The press, factsheets and videos
disseminated this information further. Through the FAS Sheep Resilience events
2018-19, the key messages have been communicated and key areas such as
colostrum management and lamb survival have been forward for videos for the FAS
2020-21 programme.
11. ANNEXES
1. Farm data
Ann McLaren (SRUC Hill and Mountain Research Centre, involvement funded
through SheepNet)
The flock is split between Kirkton and Auchtertyre (hill) Farms. Kirkton stocks 400
Blackface ewes and 200 Lleyn ewes, while Auchtertyre stocks 500 hill
Blackface. Lambing is based on an outdoor system with the exception of twin
bearing ewes, which are housed through the night.
Sheep performance: SRUC Lleyns
Year
Number
tupped
Empty %
Scan %
Mortality
% to end
of
Lambing
% Loss
Scan to
Sale
Rearing
%
2015
Ewes
333
7
141
NA
31
98
2016
Ewes
176
13
130
NA
19
106
2017
Ewes
182
6
144
9
10
129
2018
Ewes
198
18
105
9
30
73
2019
Ewes
202
9
132
Sheep performance: SRUC Kirkton Blackface
Year
Number
tupped
Empty %
Scan %
Mortality
% to end
of
Lambing
% Loss
Scan to
Sale
Rearing
%
2015
Ewes
553
9
133
NA
35
87
2016
Ewes
386
11
126
NA
21
100
2017
Ewes
395
8
137
14%
15
116
2018
Ewes
367
8
132
10%
24
100
2019
Ewes
427
7
132
Sheep performance: SRUC Auchtertyre
Year
Number
tupped
Empty %
Scan %
Mortality
% to end
of
Lambing
% Loss
Scan to
Sale
Rearing
%
2015
Ewes
386
9
104
NA
50
52
2016
Ewes
370
14
103
NA
19
65
2017
Ewes
397
15
108
NA
20
78
2018
Ewes
416
8
90
NA
29
65
2019
Ewes
367
9
111
Aaron Byrnes, (Nether Oldwhat)
Aaron’s flock was made up of 700 Shetland ewes crossed to the Romney tup,
comprising of 550 ewes and 150 hoggs at the start of the project. Due to losing
seasonal grazing, his ewe numbers have decreased. More recently, he has started
out of season lambing with 65 Dorset ewes.
Year
Number
tupped
Empty
%
Scan %
Mortality
% to end
of
Lambing
% Loss
Scan to
Sale
Rearing
%
2015
Ewes
491
7
169
NA
25
117
Hoggs
168
22
120
2016
Ewes
468
5
172
NA
35
104
Hoggs
141
13
112
2017
Ewes
434
4
172
21
19
113
Hoggs
156
16
112
2018
Ewes
403
31
164
9
9
95
Hoggs
284
24
47
2019
Ewes
388
5
154
8
Hoggs
84
9
114
Donald Barrie, Glensaugh, Fettercairn (James Hutton Institute)
There are 900 ewes including 400 Blackfaced on the hill and 500 Texel X lowground
ewes. Annually 80 hill Blackfaced are drafted into the lowland flock. The farm is
building the blackface ewes numbers and reducing the cross ewes. They have also
had significant staffing changes.
Sheep performance: Glensaugh hill
Year
Numbe
r
tupped
Empty
%
Scan %
Mortalit
y % to
end of
Lambin
g
% Loss
Scan to
Sale
Rearing
%
2015
Ewes
383
5
125
NA
11
111
2016
Ewes
372
5
124
NA
13
108
2017
Ewes
340
4
124
9
11
109
2018
Ewes
359
6
115
12
12
101
2019
Ewes
384
10
119
11
15
Sheep performance: Glensaugh lowland
Year
Numbe
r
tupped
Empty
%
Scan %
Mortalit
y % to
end of
Lambin
g
% Loss
Scan to
Sale
Rearing
%
2015
Cross
570
2
195
NA
7
174
Blackfac
e
11
139
2016
Cross
539
3
194
NA
8
172
Blackfac
e
9
148
2017
Cross
483
3
202
9
10
174
Blackfac
e
4
155
2018
Cross
538
11
178
6
10
158
Blackfac
e
18
155
2019
Cross
397
6
188
7
Blackfac
e
Mark Gray (Broom House Farm, involvement funded through AHDB Beef and
Lamb)
Broom House Farm is organic and includes 2,000 Lleyn ewes and 500 ewe hoggs
lambed indoors.
Year
Number
tupped
Empty
%
Scan %
Mortality
% to end
of
Lambing
% Loss
Scan to
Sale
Rearing
%
2015
Ewes
1865
2
182
NA
12
147
Hoggs
515
18
110
2016
Ewes
1994
3
188
8
15
146
Hoggs
553
15
118
2017
Ewes
2058
3
187
9
12
156
Hoggs
524
17
114
2018
Ewes
2022
3
184
13
14
145
Hoggs
522
16
112
2019
Ewes
1837
3
176
Hoggs
550
28
91
Peter Eccles, Saughland Farm, Dalkeith
Peter has built the flock up from 1,000 ewes up to 1,800 ewes. Previously the flock
was predominantly mule ewes lambing indoors, now he lambs Aberfield cross ewes
outdoors in late April.
Year
Number
tupped
Empty
%
Scan %
Mortality
% to end
of
Lambing
% Loss
Scan to
Sale
Rearing
%
2015
Ewes
995
7
183
NA
17
152
Hoggs
191
2016
Ewes
928
2
174
NA
17
145
Hoggs
507
2017
Ewes
1471
3
169
15
17
128
Hoggs
433
25
99
2018
Ewes
1949
9
161
14
17
119
Hoggs
523
34
79
2019
Ewes
1768
5
160
13
Hoggs
348
37
80
Andrew Baillie, Carstairs Mains, Lanark
There are two flocks run at Carstairs Mains including a 300 head of Commercial
ewes and 200 pedigree Beltex and Beltex X ewes, which are signet recorded.
Sheep performance: Carstairs Mains Pedigree Beltex
Year
Numbe
r
tupped
Empty
%
Scan %
Mortalit
y % to
end of
Lambin
g
% Loss
Scan to
Sale
Rearing
%
2015
Ewes
193
5
162
NA
20
133
2016
Ewes
196
4
171
NA
16
144
2017
Ewes
212
5
160
10
20
128
2018
Ewes
313
4
148
15
15
124
2019
Ewes
211
4
165
15
Sheep performance: Carstairs Mains Commercial Aberfield cross cheviots
Year
Number
tupped
Empty
%
Scan %
Mortality
% to end
of
Lambing
% Loss
Scan to
Sale
Rearing
%
2015
Ewes
125
8
195
NA
18
118
Hoggs
80
38
74
2016
Ewes
199
6
192
NA
18
138
Hoggs
100
19
123
2017
Ewes
258
3
186
7
20
130
Hoggs
100
28
101
2018
Ewes
168
21
135
7
7
125
Hoggs
0
0
0
2019
Ewes
430
3
197
7
Hoggs
45
11
104
2. Lamb loss record sheet Live
lambs. Improving lamb survival and farm profitability
Reason for loss
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
1
8
1
9
20
Ewe death
Abortion
Stillborn - fresh
Stillborn – not fresh
Premature/small/weak
lamb
Hunglamb/malpresentati
on
Big lamb, crushed
Not licked/suffocated
Rejected/stolen
Lack of colostrum
Laid on
Watery mouth
Navel ill/joint ill
Hypothermia
Predator
Unknown
3. Final seminar Programme
Maximising Live Lambs
Tuesday 4
th
June 2019
10.30am
Roslin Institute Building, Easter Bush Campus, Midlothian
Increasing live lambs has been the challenge set to seven focus farmers over the last three
years with support from SAC Consulting advisors, vets and SRUC researchers.
Join us to hear how they have got on alongside the research and new methods to improve
flock performance.
10.30
Welcome
10.40
Overview of project & key findings
Kirsten Williams and Poppy Frater, SAC Consulting
11.10
A review of the science on new born lamb losses
Dr Cathy Dwyer, SRUC Research
11.35
Managing 6% lamb loss in 2018
Graham Lofthouse, Bankhouse Farm
12.00
Colostrum Matters
Poppy Frater, SAC Consulting
12.25
Sustainable antibiotic use
Dr Alexander Corbishley, University of Edinburgh
12.50
Lunch
13.50
A focus farmers experience
Donald Barrie, Glensaugh
14.15
Question session with audio response system
14.45
Chair summary and close
Other information
All other project information can be found on the website
https://www.sruc.ac.uk/info/120732/live_lambs
1. References
AHDB Beef and Lamb. (2012). www.beefandlamb.ahdb.org.uk. Retrieved from
http://beefandlamb.ahdb.org.uk/wp/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/Form-Lamb-
post-mortem.pdf
C. M. Dwyer, J. C. (2015). Invited review: Improving neonatal survival in small
ruminants: science into practice. Animal, 449-459.
Hanrahan, J. (1990). The relationship between ewe body weight, condition score and
reproductive performance. Research note number 6/90 for Teagasc advisors.
Carlow: Teagasc.
MacMillan, M. (2018). Live Lambs; Lamb Post-mortem. Retrieved from YouTube:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XkGv7rVSHWU&list=PLVdYIkNPNi-zlJ-
qIM2KLu5nSvkpUzGSo&index=2&t=8s
SRUC. (2019, June). Live Lambs. Retrieved from www.SRUC.ac.uk:
https://www.sruc.ac.uk/info/120732/live_lambs
KTIF Final Report Guidance
Guidance:
• Introductory section explaining the basis for the project utilising rural
development regulation you appropriate EU Grant Measure (ie. 16.1), making
mention of the operational group (if appropriate), the roles and responsibilities
of members and what the group set out to achieve;
• Report back on project aims and objectives and if they’ve been achieved –
much of this can be pulled from the KTIF application;
• Detailed information on actual spend and how much was underspent (if any
and a reason). How much funding was provided, from where (ie. 75% or 100%
co-funded by SG/EU) and details of the project duration and milestones;
• Section on ‘Lessons Learned’. Things which were highlighted as issues,
resolved or to do better if done again. We understand some project won’t work
out as well as hope but be honest about this. By identifying limitations we can
target the problem;
• Pull information in from the other reports your project has produced (ie.
Progress Reports and Evaluation Reports) or as appropriate annex these;
• Remember your audience. Avoid too technical language and don’t assume the
reader has in-depth knowledge.
• A table detailing communications which have gone out (where, when and the
size of the audience) and commentary would be beneficial;
• Detailed information on actual spend and how much was underspent (if any
and a reason). How much funding was provided, from where (ie. 75% or 100%
co-funded by SG/EU).