One of the most intriguing aspects of breeding animals, to me, is breed type. In simple terms, type refers to phenotype, or the outward manifestation of traits which tell your eye, this is a Katahdin Sheep versus this is a Romney. For people who show animals, part of the preoccupation with type is just emphasis on “purebred-ness.” An animal that lacks type is of questionable pedigree, or an indicator of undesirable genetic drift from the norm for that breed.
But if we don’t compete in shows, why would we care about type in working, performance or production animals? Well, for one, we want to stick to the observable physical traits which are the goal of the breed; whether it be fine wool production or deep loin eye. If you look at historical illustrations of meat-type livestock, they often look like the above engraving: corpulent bodies, tiny legs and head. These were exaggerations, intended to emphasize the traits they most wanted in breeding: good muscling, high capacity for forage intake, thriftiness, and high wool production. The facial appearance and leg length were don’t-cares, so they barely illustrated them. Our old #33, now nine years old, would not win a beauty contest, but she often reminds me of these old-fashioned photos: all body, no legs and neck!
Big Barrels of Grass
Practically speaking, for observable traits, a top priority in Katahdin ewes for grass-fed systems is the ability to digest a lot of grass. Though good green grass is high in protein (which equates to growth), it’s also full of water. So we need meat sheep to be able to take in vast quantities of forage. Lactating ewes turn this grass into rich milk, and growing lambs turn this grass into muscling and fat.
What’s interesting about a lot of modern sheep breeds in our country, however, is that they’ve been primarily raised on high quality hay and grain for many generations. Hay is dry, and has give up most of its water content, so it’s more nutrient-dense than fresh grass. Grain is denser still. Sheep fed on these inputs do not need to take in as much volume as pastured sheep. So many sheep breeds have diverged away from the historical corpulent, big-barrel-of-grass appearance to a more streamlined, leggy and slim animal. “Tube shaped” is what many people call them, and the most extreme examples seem to turn up in American show Suffolks. A tour of Google images gives a great summary:
These tube sheep seem optimized for utilization of cheap grain produced in the Midwest; they don’t need a lot of stomach capacity, and they probably have a high tolerance to the acidity in the rumen that comes with a low-roughage feeding schedule. But they often do poorly when put on grass, probably because they can’t take in enough forage to grow well. It’s not to say that these are bad sheep, we just have to keep in mind their purpose; different management systems with different resource availability require very different animals for ideal performance.
Comparing the Suffolk pictures to the Katahdin ewes can make the Katahdins appear fat. But all these ewes are currently at a body score condition of about 3 to 3.5 (as judged by feeling the fat cover near their hip bones); so they are neither over- or underweight. They just have very large abdominal capacities full of low-protein grass hay.
Throwbacks
The Katahdin breed association encourages cross-breeding; they allow us to register crossbreds and “upgrade” them over time back to purebred status. The upside of this is hybrid vigor: we are continually introducing fresh blood into the gene pool. This can also allow us to bring in new genes which advance the breed in the traits we want to improve. The downside is some continual degradation of breed type. We can get “throwbacks” that are pulling undesirable traits from some generations-ago ancestor, creating puzzling outcomes from what seems like a good pairing of two very typical Katahdins.
One interesting dice roll I’ve been getting is from the cross between my Montana ewes and some old-time Washingtonian genetics. They are sometimes (not always) very Suffolk-ey, more tube-shaped animals that look like nothing else in their pedigree. That’s the funny thing about outcrossing, is that you often get something that doesn’t resemble either parent. The girl above is still a good ewe, but you can see that long-leggedness, and just not as much body capacity as the rest of my ewes, even though she is in adequate condition. Even her facial expression and dark-point coloration resembles a Suffolk.
These twin sisters born this year look a little like thoroughbred race horses to me.
See the resemblance? 
The difference between them and more Katahdin-ey ewes in the same age group is subtle, but clear. The one on the left, has a dromedary appearance, less muscling on the rump, and less filling out her stomach. The one on the right is more Hereford cow-like, with a big square butt end, short legs, and a fuller capacity in her rumen. They are opposites: all legs, no body; and all body, no legs!
Another comparison, this one shows how the one on the left has inherited something show people like: heavy bone in the legs, to go with the willowy body. The one on the right has more standard bone density, and a more barrel-ey abdomen.
And here is the other racehorse, walking along with some much fuller-capacity mature ewes; I think the tube-versus-barrel shapes are very evident here:
Bell Curve Boundaries
But notice, these three runway model ladies are still here! Despite my not preferring this aspect of their type, they are still good ewes with solid NSIP metrics as compared to my total spread. They beat out other ewes in getting to stay. And that’s because everything is a bell curve: we want general consistency in our flocks, but we also want to have some tolerance for variation from the mean. Just like in my rams, there is a spread of size and performance; and depending on pairings, they may produce progeny like themselves, or better or worse. We want to try to stay in the middle on many traits, but accept that we’ll have some outliers that fall on both ends of the curve.
On the other end of the spectrum from the two racehorses and the Suffolk-ey ewe is their auntie, above, who carries so much condition, her fat undulates with every stride. This does not thrill me either, as I suspect the cost to maintain her blubber over the winter is greater than the more modestly conditioned ewe behind her. But there again, it’s ok to have some variation, and daughters of all these ewes will vary yet again as different sires are introduced. These traits are just a few of many for which I select, others being mothering ability, milk production, birthing ease, birthweight, temperament, shedding coat and pounds-per-ewe-weaned. I’ll breed the racehorses to something stockier, and make sure that Ms. Blubber is paired with a trim fellow, and hope that subsequent generations continue to converge upon the ideal goals for which we all strive.
January 14, 2012 at 11:21 pm
OH O I have a tube shape. Though I am crossing a Dorset ram with my Suffolks. The bad old mid west with that grain. Mine are grass fed and doing pretty well. The lambs are tasty and that is the objective. I have only started giving the mothers a little grain now that they are in their last month of pregnancy. I had been wondering about the body shapes of your guys and that was a lovely simple explanation.. c
January 15, 2012 at 5:39 am
I wish I had a tube shape! We just got a new Nubian doe, big time barrel!
January 15, 2012 at 9:09 pm
ceciliag, I know I sometimes see people here advertise pastured Suffolks etc; it’s unclear if they are also creep feeding them. So maybe it works for some people if they have really great grass. There is also less load on them if the twinning rate is lower; whereas the Kats often have to raise triplets, so they really need their feed conversion rates to be high. But I’ve also read accounts of people with the “tube” breeds trying to pasture feed alone (since consumer demand is so high there) and finding that it just doesn’t pay, they take forever to grow out.
adalynfarm, indeed, I could benefit from being more of a tube shape myself! ;-[ And unfortunately, for us the cause seems to be reverse- too much grain makes us into barrels!
January 16, 2012 at 4:44 am
I hadn’t really taken the time to ponder this before. I, clearly mistakenly, believed all sheep could do fine on pasture. And the documentaries with pasture raised lamb in Oregon sure didn’t help that image. But, now that you’ve discussed it, it makes sense to me. I will be sure to pay attention and feed any sheep we may purchase accordingly. Thanks!
January 16, 2012 at 5:22 pm
Great entry. Thanks! Is this based on your observations or can you direct me to other sources that discuss this? I’d love to find out more about it. My son shows his Katahdin’s at local and regional sheep shows here in Western MA – an experience based more on public education about hair sheep, than on winning. With their big belly, dip at the shoulders (instead of a flat back) and low maintenance “fitting style”, it’s the rare Katahdin that can compete with the other meat breeds.
January 16, 2012 at 9:10 pm
Kate, I’m not sure if there are “official” sources that discuss this, but it’s definitely talked about on a lot of blogs, and in a lot of circles. I even heard it mentioned in a class I took on slaughter: that meat packers know that pastured animals will lose more weight when butchered, because they are more full of water and roughage, so they try to find out where the animals came from in an auction, and account for that extra percentage loss when figuring purchase price of pastured versus feedlotted-and-trucked livestock.
KHSI seems to try to address it by educating people on why we should focus more on metrics than on visual appraisal, so though they aren’t “anti show” per se, they try to remind us how putting too much emphasis on showing can lead people in a negative direction for the goals of a meat breed. I showed dogs for thirty years, so I’ve seen this same thing there- that the aesthetic appeal of big, lanky animals with huge bone and luxurious, sculpt-able coats tend to be rewarded, so people just keep breeding more and more of that. On the other hand, it could well be that Katahdins aren’t always suited for feedlot operations that need to utilize grain because it’s their best/most available resource. So there is probably a place for every breed, depending on each person’s management system. On the Katahdin NSIP discussion list, there is a lot of conversation around trying to agree what our collective goals should be, and it’s hard to say- everyone has their own opinion based on what system they have. Should we make a perfect pasture animal, a hair version of the tubes that does well on grain, or a jack of all trades, master of none kind of breed that does ok, but not exceptionally well in any given system? Should we focus on triplets and quads, and accept smaller lambs; or insist on twinning and select against litters? There is no single answer.
In our region, Katahdins are starting to gain acceptance in the show scene; I know both adults who show in open show, as well as 4-H/FFA kids who get some wins against all the “other breeds”. I think they aren’t the most extreme waddling swayback Katahdins we may sometimes know (which look so much worse in the late stages of pregnancy!) but neither are they extreme tubes that look like the show breeds in a hair coat. I think in any venue, there are some judges who are able to look past bling and focus on true productivity traits, and they will see hair sheep for their value and reward them.