Market Lambs 100-110 lbs.
Judge: Gail Christian
Judging Contest Winners:
Under 15: CrazySuey, ShelbySue
15-18: annaslambs, jvwv90, kaiti, shae15, whitewether1518
Over 18: californiadreaming, cindyfreed, EmsoffLambs, ewemama1, Hannaram, holliterman36, jkcolorado, mm, PAFFAStarFarmer, TrentVD, TurboDieselGirl, woolpuller
Official Placing: 3, 1, 2, 4
Cuts: 2, 4, 1
This is a difficult class to judge from pictures, however, I believe this class separates into a top pair, 3 and 1 and a bottom pair, 2 and 4. The trick is lining them up into the correct order.
|
First Place: 3
Entry number: 376 Exhibitor: suffolkclover State: MI Sheep name/number: Joker Breed: Suffolk X Website: jsclublambs.bravehost.com |
|
Although no lamb in this class jumped out at me I'm starting the class with 3. I do believe 1 is the thicker more muscular of the two, however, I found less fault with 3.
3 is the most balanced lamb in the top pair. Extremely clean and correct in the front. The angle of the picture makes 3 look average in length, however, when viewed from the rear you can tell this is not the case. Straight in its top and bottom lines, looks to be square and wide over the rack and loin and wide through the pins, moderately deep in the twist and shows muscle expression through the stifle.
|
|
Second Place: 1
Entry number: 345 Exhibitor: Goof State: AR Sheep name/number: 8 Breed: Club lamb |
|
I believe 1 is an easy second in this class. She does appear to be thicker and more muscular than 3. However, I sure give the length of side to 3 as 1 appears short sided. She would place higher if she was more level through the hip with a higher dock set. She does have the depth of twist and muscle through the lower third that I look for in a market lamb.
|
|
Third Place: 2
Entry number: 369 |
|
I thought the hardest placing was between 2 and 4. I found major faults with both lambs, however, I found fewer faults with 2 than 4.
When viewed from the side you can easily see that 2 is deeper and heavier in the front than the rear. This should be reversed. I do criticize 2 for depth of front, rounded shoulder point, low neck set, and no depth of muscle through the stifle and lower third. From the rear I do not see the depth of twist or lower leg muscle I am looking for. I do see more balance and eye appeal in 2 than I see in 4.
|
|
Fourth Place: 4
Entry number: 388 |
|
In placing 4 at the bottom of the class I will grant that 4 appears thicker than 2. I would criticize 4 for being heavy in the front, extended brisket or breast plate, and short, drooping hip. When viewed from the rear 4 does appear thicker over the rack and loin than 2, but gives up a lot of length, balance, and style.
For these reasons I placed the class 3, 1, 2, 4 with cuts of 2, 4, 1.
|
2008 Copyright Dragonfly Webpage Design