[Jacob-list] importations

[Hobsickle at aol.com]

I have long since forgotten what the exact pedigree of that Jacob-like ram  
was.  (It seems like it was a cross between at least two more common,  
modern breeds.)  I do remember that there was no indication of Jacob blood  in 
the ancestry and that neither of the parents bore any resemblance whatsoever  
(I saw them both) to Jacobs.  I expect that when the lamb grew up its  
size/conformation wouldn't have been Jacob, but it's markings sure were!
 
-Dan
 
In a message dated 9/20/2009 3:12:28 PM Eastern Daylight Time,  
nlgrose at yadtel.net writes:

Everything has a starting point. What we call  purebred is a collection of 
animals of similar traits that have been isolated,  inbred, and reselected 
for type. It might have been 50 years ago, or 150  years ago, or 1500 years 
ago. Other than Soay, which is not strictly a  domestic breed, the only thing 
that would fit the later standard would be  Merino and English Longwool. 
(Neither exists in a form that they had 1500  years ago).  
 
You don't say wither the sheep you saw had  mixed Jacob ancestry. I have 
seen plenty of 3/4  Jacob lambs. There is always something askew with these 
sheep: the fleece is  too heavy, early greying, the bone is too round, the 
color pattern is  funky, ...something. There is no Jacob gene. Jacob-ness comes 
from a  combination of many genes and many traits. It is certainly  
possible that Jacob Crossbreds, bred back to each other might produce a lamb  with 
a good degree of Jacob type, but there would be a significant amount of  
off-type character that would show up without careful reselection. That  
doesn't mean that I think that we should allow these animals into a  registry...we 
have already done the hard work of multi-generation  standardization for 
type for an animal that mostly agrees to what we mostly  agree on. With lack 
of a sample of DNA from a representative group of  sheep from 1880, that is 
the best we can do.
 
Neal Grose 
North Carolina
 

----- Original Message ----- 
From:  _Hobsickle at aol.com_ (mailto:Hobsickle at aol.com)  
To: _jacob-list at jacobsheep.com_ (mailto:jacob-list at jacobsheep.com)  
Sent: Sunday, September 20, 2009 8:11  AM
Subject: Re: [Jacob-list]  importations


I had an interesting experience 6 or 8 years ago.  I took a couple  of 
Jacob sheep to a buyer who said they had a few sheep that had come with  the 
farm, but wanted to get into Jacobs.  When I got there, low and  behold they 
already had a Jacob lamb...I thought.  I mentioned it and  they said "on no, 
that's the offspring of one of our non-Jacobs that  had been somewhat 
inbred."  Original mutation?...Recessive brought out  by inbreeding?...I don't 
know, but I do know that under the right  circumstances something that looks 
like a Jacob can be produced by  non-Jacobs.  My point?--references to 
Jacob-like sheep may or may not  refer to actual Jacobs.  I'm NOT saying I think 
someone is making that  mistake, I'm just saying that there are other possible 
answers to some of  the very early "Jacob" reports.  If only there were 
original  documentation...
 
-Dan
 
PS I wish I had documented this incident better, but I the time I was  
early into my Jacob experience and didn't give it that much  thought.




 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.pairlist.net/pipermail/jacob-list/attachments/20090920/45c9200a/attachment.htm>