PedigreesI wrote a while back that my first set of sheep registrations coming back from the new KHSI registry had quite a few errors. They sent back a batch of corrections, and that also had errors. Some of the old ones were fixed, but new ones were introduced. The oddest thing was that in both rounds, animals would disappear from a pedigree. For instance, two sheep have the same dam. On one pedigree, the dam would be listed right. On the second pedigree, she’d be missing her dam. I find this peculiar, I would have thought they’d be using a database, where once an animal is linked to a bunch of other animals, it would print out consistently on all their forms. Huh.

I had mentioned previously that when I had submitted some ewes’ hair coat inspection paperwork, their pedigrees came back listing them as 100%. I had flagged that as an error, because these ewes weren’t 100%, they were all varying percentages. So when the “corrected” pedigrees came back, they all had the right percentages again, but had lost their upgrade status.

I got in contact again, and now it turns out, I guess both the registrar and I were confused, not understanding the convention KHSI uses. When KHSI upgrades a sheep based on a hair coat inspection, they consider it a 100% purebred at that point, and they change the percentage value on the registration certificate. This surprised me, as where I come from, anything with a percent sign carries with it the implication that somebody did some math to derive it, and it’s not ok to just arbitrarily change that value to mean something else. But, ok, whatever, they had some rationale for why they have chosen this convention, and that’s fine. It’s better for me, really, because it makes my ewes look more valuable on paper than I would have normally considered them to be, since they are still crossbreds in my mind.

So the poor registrar had to re-do these again, because apparently they were right in the first place. I just didn’t know that, and apparently she didn’t know enough yet either to explain it to me or be caused to question what I was asking.

This week I just got round three of the corrections back, and, sigh, still, one more error. But at least we’re converging! This last error is another puzzling one. I have twin-birth ewes who both upgraded this year. So their pedigrees should look identical. But they don’t. One came back completely correct. The other one was on a registration (not recordation) form, saying 100%, but had an “X” next to her registration, which is the indicator of a crossbred. And her mother, who is a crossbred, was missing her “X” in the pedigree. So I have to imagine that maybe these old pedigrees are not databased, but rather they are hand-editing them. That seems the only explanation for how these kinds of error would leak through in one pedigree, but not another.

So, that should get taken care of soon, and I was looking forward to being done scrutinizing pedigrees for a while. Except that now we just received our new NSIP software application install, so I need to start entering lamb data into that. But more on that later!