The frame/fitted side of the Suffolk breed has continued to introduce more capacity and bone into their genetic mix during the last decade and I applaud that!  Yet frame still dictates many of their breeding decisions since this trait holds the most promise for success in the show ring.  The other extreme of the Suffolk breed is represented by the club lamb industry.  No one can argue that this group has enjoyed tremendous success.  However, it appears that terms like; practical, genetically sound and productive have been dropped from the vocabulary of many in this camp.  Bottom-line is which of these two factions of our breed are right?  The answer is simple, they both are! Each group should be respected for the challenges they have conquered in breeding sheep that find favor under so many different judges’ eyes in the show ring, not to mention the great prices they achieve at the national sales.  They are breeding the livestock they most enjoy and presenting them in a manner by which they can best be merchandised.  But I feel we must be realistic as we evaluate these two segments of the Suffolk breed, for the most part, they are geared to a “RECREATIONAL MISSION”.  I am sure there are those who would take offense to this statement but I feel it is correct.  Families do enjoy the comradery that comes from the preparation and exhibiting of show stock.  There is no disputing this benefit, just look at what 4-H and FFA projects bring to the table.  This is true across all species of the livestock industry. 

There is a “THIRD” segment in the Suffolk breed, those programs who seem to fall somewhere in the middle.  This again holds true for almost all breeds in all species.  These producers enjoy many of the same traits that the frame and club lamb industries seek.  Traits such as structurally sound sheep with size, muscle, breed character and they want it all tied up into a package that is easy on the eyes as well.  However these breeders want much more.  They are looking for maternal traits, excellent growth, genetic consistency and two very important traits that seem to have been lost in the Suffolk breed: LONGEVITY and FLESHING ABILITY!  Many families who enjoy breeding Suffolks in the middle do not find appealing the time and expense associated with the promotion and marketing of show orientated sheep. Success for this middle group is not measured by a judge’s subjective view of their animal in a show ring but rather by the actual measurable performance in their own flocks and most importantly by their customers, whom they strive to serve.  Many of their buyers are associated with the COMMERCIAL sheep industry, be it farm flock or range band.  There is another segment within the world of production style Suffolks; the hand full of flocks enrolled in NSIP.  The concern here would be the low participation in this program.  Since it’s inception in the mid eighties, breeds such as Polypay and Targhee have embraced NSIP.  Most of the other breeds have shown marginal support.  My roots are from the beef industry so I am very familiar with how EPD’s have revolutionized the marketing landscape that buyers expect in selecting breeding stock and information producers rely on when making breeding decisions.  This holds true for the swine and dairy industry as well.  One only needs to look at the world sheep industry to note how Australia, New Zealand, South Africa and the United Kingdom are light years ahead of the US meat breeds in improving the productivity and meat qualities of their entire sheep population.  This is “state of the art” technology which we a failing to capitalize on.  Thus if the Suffolk breed plus other breeds, are not willing to accept this form of tracking performance, then they need to gather as many attributes of productivity as possible, when ever possible!

Now comes the next question, can these different factions of the Suffolk breed learn to support one another.  Presently they seem to be more negative then positive about one another.  No species needs internal support more then the sheep industry, it is minute compared to the other red meat species.  The Suffolk breed should not be immune to an open-minded way of thinking about diversity.  In my judgment, very few organizations in this country can grow stronger by constantly finding fault with those who have varying opinions and goals within.  Would it not be best for the Suffolk breed to try and work together?  Could we not EMBRACE the DIVERSITY this great breed has to offer?

This summer has been somewhat emotional for me with regard to serving on the Suffolk board.  At the USSA board meeting at Sedalia, MO in June, I shared some of my thoughts.  I pointed out that the Suffolk breed’s annual registrations had dropped by over 80,000 head during the past twenty-five years.  I made four points which I felt should be presented to the USSA membership in the form of a questioner sent out with the fall director ballots.  I feel these issues might have a positive affect on reversing the decline in registrations. The items that I presented were; slick shear, yes or no, open the registration books to increase participation, add performance data to the USSA registration papers and assert an effort to develop District Jr. Shows to involve more youth into our breed.  It was and still is my opinion that action on any of those items mentioned should not be made with out first hearing the feelings of the members.  A mandate from the producers in the Suffolk breed is required before changes are made.  Discussion followed and the general consensus was that a questioner would be a waste of time; few would take time to fill it out and return.  Before the meeting was adjourned, however, a motion was made and passed; as a TEST ONLY, the breed would have a slick sheared show at the 2008 NAILE.  I can appreciate why many are opposed.  I have heard their voices, yet on the other side I’ve also heard those who applaud this baby step.  Again, who is right, probably it is impossible to prove at this point and time?  It is a free country; every Suffolk breeder should have the right to breed the style of sheep they prefer.  But if the Suffolk Association continues to focus mainly on the promotion of frame sheep at it’s national shows and sales, is that fair to the breeders who are more functional in their approach to breeding Suffolks?  It is my opinion that the majority of this country’s Suffolk breeders attempt to focus on a larger reservoir of traits, not just winning the purple ribbon.

I feel since there is three completely different agenda’s, maybe more, representing the Suffolk breed, why shouldn’t the association promote and support them all equally?  The club lamb breeders really do not need any help, they are doing fine on their own.  There have been many discussions by members of the USSA board as to what it will require to bring registrations back from this group?  Do not hold your breath, it has been too long since their departure and for the most part the association has exhibited limited support toward these breeders.  I know producers from this segment who would like to see the opportunity to register animals, which carry the Suffolk “look”, but for various reasons these sheep do not have an update registration.  Maybe some of these animals would possibly carry a slice of Hampshire.  Would this be the first time the Suffolk breed has been adulterated by another breed?  Opposition to allowing this to happen say it would bring mongrels into our breed, since they feel the Suffolk breed has a pure history?  Plus there are many other families, not involved with the club lamb industry, who have purchase Suffolks where papers were not furnished and they would like to bring these animals up to date with registration papers without spending a fortune. 

I have sat on the USSA board for two years now and most all the discussion centers around the frame side of the breed with regard to shows, sales, the jr. show and concerns about integrity in the breed.  Yes, there are slick shorn classes at all the national Suffolk events at present.  How many times has there ever been slick shorn entries win the top honors?  Since I do not participate in the national sales, I really can’t pass judgment on this issue but I am under the impression that most breeders fit their best and slick shear those which are smaller framed and stand a poor chance of doing well in the PRESTEGE fitted classes.

What would happen if the USSA supported a “PRODUCTION TYPE SUFFOLK” at the major shows and sales?  The rules would be different; a) all sheep would carry a 30 day fleece, b) every entry would be weighed and a WDA calculated, c) each animal would be scanned by one or more quality technicians for REA and BF which would be adjusted to a constant weight, d) all sheep would have linear measurements taken, similar to what Dr. Leroy Boyd did years back at the NIALE, e) sheep would enter the ring held or at halter allowing the judge(s) to handle, then turned loose allowing them to be evaluated the entries for honest structure and movement.  All information would be summarized and handed to the judge(s) as each class enters the ring.  Within this division known as Production Type Suffolks there could also be classes for Suffolks with NSIP data.  The judge(s) would be asked to consider the information infront of them when making their decisions.  A formula for how much emphasis should be placed on phenotype and how much on data could be developed by a committee of producers involved.  I would assume that breeders of Hampshires, Dorsets, Shropshires and etc. would also be interested in this approach to exhibiting and merchandising their breeds as well.

I am very serious about such an approach to promoting and merchandising Suffolks, those that do not fall under the category of frame or club lamb group but are in the middle.  Would it work?  Maybe not but I am here to tell you it has been very successful for several producers across the county who now have to market their breeding stock completely out of the national spotlight, holding their own production sales or selling private treaty off the farm.  If you have an opinion, weather it be pro or con, I would appreciate hearing from you.  Unless breeders, who fall into this middle ground, are willing to stand up and let their voices be heard then the USSA will just continue to be the voice of the frame/fitted Suffolks.  They will continue to leave the club lamb segment do their own thing and assume those who want to breed a complete, functional Suffolk do not require national exposure and the associations assistance.

I am blessed with some of the best people in this country as my customers!  Other breeders probably feel the same way but year after year I continue to have a loyal buyer base and also enjoy bringing on board many new faces.  You should know my first priority is to have a satisfied customer and to ALWAYS work with any buyer who encounters problems.  Some of my best friends, since I have retired, have evolved from the selling of registered Suffolk sheep.  I realize my philosophy on what constitutes an outstanding animal may be old fashion to some but I still feel the Suffolk breed was closer to getting it right back in the eighties then now.  I am convinced that the path I have chosen has a larger audience base then many would acknowledge.