Official Placing: 2, 1, 3, 4
Cuts: 2, 2, 2
Well, due to the photos, we certainly have a little difficulty sorting this class. However, there are some basic factors that can be inferred from either the profile or rear photo of each lamb. With that said, the cuts will reflect the difficulty in seeing some of these lambs. I am going to place them 2, 1, 3, 4, and only cut it 2, 2, 2 as you could justify any single lamb over the other in each of the 3 pairs and a simple bust should not hurt anyone in this class too bad.
|
First Place: 2
Entry number: 686
Exhibitor: cmdown
State: IN
Sheep
name/number: 12
Breed: Crossbred |
|
I opt to start with the most powerfully constructed, heaviest muscled, highest volume ewe in class. Sure 2 appears to have some hide issues in the profile photo and could be more elevated through her chest floor. However, she is without a doubt stouter featured, heavier muscled and is higher volume than 1. More specifically, she is wider, fuller and thicker over her rack and loin, has a much flatter hip and plumper leg, is bigger boned and has more center rib dimension, and is the more combination ewe that better fits all segments of the market lamb industry.
|
Second Place: 1
Entry number: 678
Exhibitor: Sheepherder#007
State: OK
Sheep
name/number: 2294
Breed: Hampshire
Website: www.colewoolies.fatcow.com |
|
I’ll be the first to admit that 1 is better designed through her neck and shoulder and appears to be better hided and harder made. Unfortunately, in the profile photo, she is off in her dock and really splaying out on her front feet.
Still, it is her skeletal design that ranks her over 3 in the middle pair. 2 progressively widens down her top to a wider, flatter loin edge, is bigger hipped, and better maintains this width and thickness to her lower leg. In addition she is deeper ribbed, appears to be easier fleshing, fuller in her flank and a broodier appearing ewe lamb that I would predict to be more reproductively efficient and have a greater longevity within the flock.
|
Third Place: 3
Entry number: 695
|
|
Some may prefer the added length, levelness and clean lines of the 3, yet in reality, she is frailer made than the top two and needs to be more productive in her rib design and bigger legged. However this length and levelness of design allows her to edge over 4 in the concluding pair. 3 is smoother down her topline, set wider in her pins, and much leveler out of her dock. As a bonus she is longer necked, extremely tight hided and is slightly fuller through the lower 1/3 of her leg, leading me to believe she would produce lambs with a more desirable show ring look if comparably mated.
|
Fourth Place: 4
Entry number: 697
|
|
I prefer the turn and curvature to 4’s ribcage, unfortunately she is poorer balanced, tapers in her dock and shows little advantage in any aspect of her muscling, therefore she is last.
2, 1, 3, 4 cuts 2, 2, 2.
|
|