Class number:
026
Class Date:
10/20/07
Judge:
Gail Christain
Judging Contest Winners:
Under 15: ShelbySue, tamuklew
15-18: 2TLivestock
Over 18: banana, dc05,
mrsbopeep |
Official Placing: 4, 3, 2, 1
Cuts: 3, 2, 5
I
placed this class of market lambs 4, 3, 2, 1. At first glance,
this class has an easy bottom lamb, number 1. Then, you have to analyze
the class because no lamb just jumps out at you and showmanship takes
away from the overall appearance of the remaining three. I thought the
top pair was 4 and 3 and the bottom pair was 2 and 1. |
First Place: 4
Entry number:
149
Exhibitor:
JbarG
State: OH
Sheep
name/number: 7100
Breed:
Suffolk |
|
I placed 4 first in this class because I believe it is the
most complete lamb in the class. I thought this lamb was
medium plus in frame with long, level top and bottom lines.
I also thought the lamb was structurally correct and really
exhibits balance. The lamb appears to be really clean in
the brisket area, wide enough through the chest floor and
brings the width all the way back. It appears to be
wide and level over the rack, long in the hindsaddle, and
has enough depth over the loin edge. The lamb is really
long and level through the hip, square through the dock and
deep and full through the twist and stifle. Although the
lamb has a long neck that comes out on top of the shoulder,
it is pulled too far forward and this takes away from the
appearance of the lamb, especially on the profile.
|
Second Place: 3
Entry number:
148
Exhibitor:
rac
State: TX
Sheep
name/number: Flower |
|
In placing 3 over 2, I thought this was a rather easy
placing. The showman on 2 does have the neck angle more
correct than the showman on lamb number 3, however, upon
close observation I felt that 3 was longer sided, longer
hipped, more square through the dock, and more correct over
the rack and loin than 2. The way lamb 3 is set up with the
neck pulled way too forward takes away from its appearance.
|
Third Place: 2
Entry number:
140
|
|
The third place lamb, 2, appears to be pinched in the pins
and appears to be overly finished as evidence of the fat
cover around the dock. Lamb 2 is weak in its pasterns
and too fine boned, another reason for its over-finish. Lamb
2 also does not have as much lower leg muscle as 3. I did
think 2 is an easy third in this class and places over 1.
|
Fourth Place: 1
Entry number:
137 |
|
Lamb 1 is weak in its structure, un-level in its top and
bottom lines, has a short, sloping hip, shows too much slope
over the rack and loin, is weak in the pasterns, and sickle
hocked.
Again, I placed this class 4, 3, 2, 1 with cuts of 3, 2, 5.
|
|