Time for the first post of 2018! (Whew!) Since it's the first, might as well make it a doozy, right?

I appear to be a big fan of controversy when it comes to alpacas. I guess it's because I care so much about them. This post generated an awful lot of controversy, as did this one.

This one is bound to stir up even more.

It started out as a reply to a Facebook post, and then got WAY too freaking long.

The original post (which I can't seem to figure out how to link to) was in response to some comments that were, in turn, in response to an article (confused yet?) which discusses the state of the Australian alpaca industry and how it is maturing. The article also mentions the meat aspect of the industry. As usual, a few voices had to come out in opposition to using alpacas as meat.

On particularly vocal opponent is Starr Cash. Starr certainly has done more than most to promote alpaca as a genuine livestock animal in terms of her extensive work promoting and organizing the fiber side of the industry. For this, I have a great amount of respect for her – alpacas are a fiber animal, first and foremost, and Starr was one of the first in the industry to recognize and vocalize the need to promote and focus on this fact. However, she and I have never quite seen eye-to-eye as far as the trajectory of the industry is concerned. In a nutshell, Starr is one of those breeders who is vehemently opposed to any promotion of the meat side of the species by the industry as a whole.

One point that Starr made is one that I found particularly interesting. She wrote:

“Lastly, we accidentally positioned Alpaca as a "huggable investment". I know, I hear you ALL groaning and gagging out there. But, it is my opinion that this could be looked at as a gift instead of a curse. We already have this established market base - an audience - who thinks we LOVE our alpacas like pets or children. They are vegans with trust funds and millenials with jobs that I never heard of but that they make 6 figures working at. The ones with the disposable income who can indulge their "green" cred with sustainable fashion statements."

I wanted to address this particular point, because I actually can appreciate that argument ... However, as someone who happens to be pretty in touch with the hipster millennial side of things (1985 model, here) … I also think that I am perhaps uniquely qualified to refute it.
Sooo, here's my newbie arrogant millennial perspective.

I bred chinchillas for 10 years. I loved my herd and I was very proud of it. I never did begrudge those who raised them for the original purpose for which they were imported into this country -- that is, fur -- but I could never bring myself to do it, and it never made economic sense to me, and it was just something that I never chose to pursue. What I did pride myself on was raising chinchillas that held up to my own personal standard: pretty to look at, in my eyes (mine may well have been show-quality, based on what I know of the standard, but I never put any before a judge); super healthy and robust; and, above all, calm and friendly. At the end of the day, my primary client base was the pet owner. I was raising them for the pet industry, which is very often demonized by the show people and the fur industry alike, but you know what? ...

I believed in them. I believed in them as pets. Unlike so many small mammals which are really best suited to serious hobbyists, chinchillas make AWESOME pets for a lot of people. They are quiet, and produce very little odor and mess; they will often bond with their humans, and a pair of chinchillas is just endlessly entertaining to watch. I've owned just about every small mammal pet under the sun, and that was the one I chose to raise, because I believed in them.

... Funny enough, it was another South American species that I settled on for my livestock animal of choice: the alpaca. I wouldn't raise alpacas if I didn't believe in them.

It was socks that first sold me. I think that socks have probably sold a lot of people. I mean, seriously. Alpaca socks kick ass. They are extremely warm, durable, and very, very comfortable. I don't think I've met anyone who has tried on alpacas socks and not been totally wowed.

... Then, once I got alpacas (a goal that I never thought I'd achieve, given their prices when I was in school) and I realized how neat they are, how unique and entertaining, and also how easy to care for, and hardy, and easy on the land -- I was sold.

Oh, also ... The person I got my first two pets from also gave us some ground alpaca meat (after first determining, carefully, after numerous conversations, that we weren't the sort of people who would scream and slap her in the face). I'm a picky eater, to put it mildly, so the fact that I liked it (and don't like goat, or mutton, or lamb, or really even beef all that much) – well, THAT was the other thing that sold me.

... Because I came from the "Pet Industry." I'd seen what happens to the Unwanted [fill-in-the-blank animal], and it often isn't pretty. I also had come from a brief stint in the performance horse industry that REALLY drilled that home.

I can kinda maybe sorta see the “huggable luxury,” argument, I think. Maybe. The industry COULD consist of a handful -- a few thousand, maybe -- head of ULTRA high end, beloved animals, all belonging to very small farms, that produce super valued, luxury fiber that would be worth a boatload due to its rarity. The end consumer knows that the animals are loved and pampered, and that enhances their products' value. They'd be the Kobe beef of fiber.

I could see the appeal of that angle, and maybe that was the goal of the industry leaders back in the late '90's and early 2000's … But that wasn't what happened. Instead, the animals got Tulip Bulbed. (Speculative market, and all that.) When a commodity – including a living commodity – fetches a particularly high value, well, it's just plain human nature to want to produce lots of that commodity and cash in on the craze, regardless of the repercussions for a future market. Not every investor did this, of course, but enough did so as to seriously affect the market – and the public's perception of the species – for a long while.

Now, the industry is digging out of that. I've seen some pretty cool articles recently touting the virtues of alpaca fiber that suggest that we're digging out rather nicely. Not only are consumers starting to realize that the fiber itself is pretty great, but all of those benefits that have enhanced alpacas' value as a livestock commodity – easy on the land, high feed efficiency, etc., etc.. – make the fiber an especially appealing option to many consumers, because it is very sustainable.

Yes. Yes, there's that buzzword that so many millennials – and so many others – are so very on about. Sustainable.

The only way that the alpaca industry will be truly sustainable is if it embraces the terminal market option. Period. The end.

An industry in which the livestock animal must be fed, sheltered, and cared for long after its useful productive life has ended – and in which those individuals whose production qualities are not adequate to begin with must, likewise, be fed and accommodated – is not sustainable. Farms will very quickly run out of capacity to house and care for these non-productive animals. Such a model makes a great hobby, sure, but in a practical sense, it is not sustainable. In a practical sense, it could be viewed as downright wasteful.

Now, please don't misunderstand me. I am not for a moment claiming that an individual farm who chooses to house and care for their B-grades and retirees is doing anything wrong. That is each individual farm's choice. That farm may choose to view their alpacas as pets, and that's perfectly acceptable – I love pets. Pets are great!

As an industry, though … As a commercial industry that wishes to present itself as the ecologically-friendly, sustainable alternative to fine wool and cashmere, well – I think that the industry, as a whole, needs to have a better option for what to do with those nonproductive animals that's a bit more sustainable and ecologically friendly than keeping them around and using valuable resources to keep them alive just because we feel bad for them.

That doesn't mean that we have to be brutal about culling. It doesn't mean that we have to put nonproductive alpacas onto barren feedlots. Quite the contrary; the terminal market represents another opportunity to present alpaca as an ecologically friendly, sustainable resource, this one of humanely raised, sustainable meat. In addition, due to the meat's high protein content, excellent flavor, and, yes, its great rarity (nobody in the alpaca industry is suggesting that we focus on making the alpaca a primary meat animal, and least nobody that I'm aware of; that idea is, indeed, kinda silly) – it should, with the proper marketing, be a very high-end by-product indeed.

… Because in my experience, hipster millennials are, on the whole, pretty okay with the idea that livestock animals die to make food for humans. We just aren't a fan of intensive (“factory”) farming, of extreme breeding practices that harm animal welfare, of farming practices that are unsustainable. And the “huggable investment” idea is, well … Kinda unsustainable.

… And vegans? Vegans won't wear alpaca regardless of how it is harvested. Vegans won't use any animal products at all. Period. No need to worry about their opinion because no matter what any livestock farmer does, a vegan will still believe that it is wrong, because vegans believe that using animals to produce anything is wrong.

So, in summary: Yes, I do believe that the alpaca industry can, and should, promote and capitalize on the “green,” sustainable, small agriculture angle. I think that developing and promoting the meat side of things as a healthy, humanely-raised, sustainable by-product is one of the ways we can do it.

My 'blog posts have fallen a bit out of joint with my Facebook posts lately. Our latest fleece shots were posted on Facebook on the same day as the 'blog post about them. Then, someone asked to see the rest of Caine, and a discussion ensued as to whether or not Caine qualifies as a harlequin.
 
A website dedicated to explaining and exploring the harlequin appaloosa gene in alpacas is one of my many back-burner projects, so for now, let's go through a review of what it means to be a harlequin alpaca.
 
First, the pictures of Caine. This is the first picture that I posted, and people were skeptical, understandably. He is not spotted, not even on his face.

Here is his half-brother, Renegade, who is by the same (harlequin) sire. Everyone agreed readily that this one is definitely a harlequin appaloosa.

... Caine, however, is not immediately recognizable as a harlequin, even amongst affectionados of harlequin alpacas. So, I am often asked, "What makes him a harlequin?" To which I invariably respond that I define harlequin as a phenotype (appearance) that derives specifically from the action of a certain gene. Harlequin, to me, is more about genetics than coloring, though the coloring is, obviously, the end-goal.
 
The logical next question, which I have not yet been asked, is: "What makes you so sure?"
 
... In some cases, I'm not. If I'm not, I don't call it a harlequin. In the case of the fawn "possible harlequin" crias we had born this year, neither of them have yet changed color or developed spots, so I have to assume that they are, genetically, just regular old fawns.
 
In a case line Caine's, I'm pretty danged sure. He started life looking like this (photo by Spring Grove Alpaca Ranch):

... And after his first shearing, he looked like this:

... He totally and completely changed color.
 
That sort of dramatic color change is so indicative of the harlequin gene that, even if he didn't have a harlequin sire, I would have to believe that one of his parents was a carrier of that gene somehow. Many alpacas change color after their cria shearing, but a dramatic change from fawn to dark grey pretty much tells you this is a harlequin.
 
As to why he doesn't have those tell-tale spots like his brother does, that I am less certain. One possibility is that Caine is a harlequin appaloosa without the appaloosa. We know that there are harlequin appaloosas without the harlequin -- appaloosa alpacas from known harlequin-producing lines, who are clearly expressing the "harlequin-associated" appaloosa gene, who never change color and become grey. Our boy Kubota is an example of one. His mother is a classic grey harlequin (and grey fleece champion at one of the Southwest USA's largest shows, by the by). Kubota is clearly an appaloosa, but he shows no indication of darkening to grey. Here he is at age two:

Here is another harlequin appaloosa without the harlequin. This one's name is Hali. Her sire is a (very funky) grey and fawn harlequin. She does not show any indication of darkening to grey.

Most harlequin appaloosas start out as fawn, beige, and/or brown appaloosas like Kubota and Hali, but many change and darken to grey. Here is Tia, daughter of our boy Mr. Butterscotch, as a weaning (Tia is not ours - photo by Linda Bat of Delphi Alpacas). She has dark brown spots on a fawn base coat.

After shearing, however, she looked like a totally different animal: a solid grey one. However, you can still see her spots. Tia is what I consider to be a classic harlequin appaloosa -- she has lots of spots, with a base coat that darkens to grey after their first shearing.

So, one option is that Caine is a harlequin appaloosa without the appaloosa.
 
Another option is that Caine is an example of variable expressivity. Most alpaca breeders know about the "white spot" gene, which can result in pinto coloring and which causes the blue-eyed white phenotype when bred with tuxedo grey. Most breeders also know that the white spotting gene can range anywhere from a classic pinto -- cow-spots and all -- all the way to one single tiny spot that is smaller than a dime. This is an example of variable expressivity. The loud pinto and the tiny white spot on a black alpaca both derive from the same gene; it's just that they are expressed differently in different animals. It's possible that Caine represents the harlequin appaloosa equivalent of a "white spot" alpaca with only a teeny, tiny spot. (He does, in fact, have a very small spot on his groin which is actually visible in the shorn photo.)
 
It is clear that the harlequin appaloosa gene can manifest in an extreme variety of ways. We have solid silver harlequins, classic harlequins, classic appaloosas, extreme (leopard) appaloosas, and all sorts in between. In all likelihood, some of these are distinct variants of the gene's expression that are caused by the effects of other color genes. Some are likely due to variable expressivity.
 
So, that is why I am confident that Caine is a harlequin. He also has an absolutely bitchin' fleece, and that is really what the gene is all about.

This is a little bit of a follow-up to a post I wrote (coincidentally, almost exactly a year ago now) on Huacaya alpaca Breed Standards. The original post was posted on a popular Facebook alpaca forum, and it generated quite a bit of controversy (as intended).
 
A bit more recently, I posted this tentative outline of a commercial production-based Huacaya alpaca breed standard on the same forum. It, too, generated quite a bit of interest, though the response was surprisingly positive. Interestingly, the thing that the most people disagreed with was the line, "The only permissible color is white." I stand by that statement. Introducing color only muddies the water when to majority of production-based alpaca breeders wish to focus on white, and it's hard enough to breed for pure white as it is.
 
Recently, I have been thinking about our farm breed standard, and how I keep meaning to write it out to post on this website. I haven't gotten around to it yet, but it reminded me that I never did post that production-based standard on this 'blog.
 
In case the above paragraphs don't already make it obvious, I want to emphasize again that this is not the standard that we breed for at Howling Hill Farm. The production standard posted below is intended to maximize yield of white fleece for commercial purposes, with a minimum of grower input. Period. That's all. No aesthetic considerations are given, either to the animal or the fleece produced.
 
I also wish to note that this standard is incomplete (note the question-marks). It was intended as a thought experiment, originally for myself. I don't normally publish my writing with question-marks intact, but in this case, I felt it was time to pass the thought experiment on to others.
 
So, without further ado: A prototypical commercial production-based Huacaya alpaca standard, for your viewing pleasure..
 
American Production Alpaca

Overall: The American Production Alpaca is a hearty, mid to large framed animal that has been selected for the primary purpose of intensive fiber production, with attention paid to the utility of sunset and cull animals. It is not a dual-purpose animal per se, given that the alpaca species is a poor candidate for a primary meat animal due to its slow growth and long reproductive interval. However, the Production Alpaca does have a relatively fast growth rate, large frame size and good carcass yield for the species. It may or may not be an aesthetically attractive animal, having been developed for production rather than the show ring, but its disposition is quiet and easy to work with.

Disqualifying faults: Aggressive, difficult demeanor; slow growth rate (<80 lb at one year of age); small frame score (<150 lb at maturity).

Head: The head of the Production Alpaca should be balanced and functional. Most critical is that the bite is level and that the angulation of the incisors is such that they wear down readily with no need for human intervention to correct overgrowth.

The Production Alpaca has a clean face, free from wool obstruction of the eyes. The eyes must be large, bright, and clean.

Major faults: Wool blindness, minor overbite, minor underbite, or high-maintenance dental angulation.

Disqualifying faults: Major under or overbite; wryface; entropion; extropion.

Body: The body is balanced, with a level topline. The tailset may be high or low. The animal should have a modest to excellent spring of rib, and the chest should be moderate to substantial in width. The hips should be wide, to facilitate easy, unassisted birthing of cria, and to accommodate ample musculature.

The shoulder, loin, and rear musculature is ample and well-developed.

Minor faults: Narrow chest.

Major faults: Narrow hips; poor muscling; unbalanced proportions; lordosis (swayback); kyphosis (roached back).

Legs: The forelimbs and hindlimbs should be straight when viewed from directly in front of or directly behind the animal. Very slight toe-out is permissible. The substance of bone is modest; the animal must possesses sufficient substance of bone to carry its weight easily and without risk of premature lameness, but need not be greater than is necessary to facilitate soundness.

The legs should be free and clear of wrinkles. Fiber below the knee is neither encouraged nor penalized.

Major faults: Carpus valgus (knock-knees); carpus varus (bowlegs); cowhocks; sickle hocks; post legged rear conformation; dropped pasterns; extremely poor substance of bone (“pencil legs”).

Reproductive: The Production Alpaca must breed, conceive and birth easily, ideally without human intervention. The majority of breeding will likely be herd/pasture breeding. Males should possess two large, (>xxx” diameter and xxx” height), firm testicles of even size and consistency. Females should possess an adequately sized vulva that is not tipped, and should develop a large udder with ample milk once a cria has been delivered.

Because of the intensive production nature of the breed, all reproductive faults are considered disqualifying. Veterinary intervention may be sought to ascertain the cause of reproductive difficulty and whether it is likely to be heritable; however, animals that require any sort of human intervention to achieve reproduction should not be considered for a serious production breeding program. The only exception to this may be non-heritable conditions such as dystocia due to malpresentation.

Because the alpaca has a significantly lower reproductive rate than other livestock species, these traits are of paramount importance.

Disqualifying faults:

Males – Testicles <(xxx), uneven, or cryptorchid; poor libido; inability to sire offspring by 30 months of age.

Females – Small, tipped, or otherwise abnormal vulva; inability to conceive after 60 days' exposure to a proven fertile male at 24 months of age; inadequate milk production to nourish cria; poor mothering skills.

Fiber: All grades of alpaca fiber are useful, and thus, the Production Alpaca is not limited to a set grade or range of grades. However, it is well acknowledged that the more consistent the fiber, the more valuable and easily processed it is, and thus, an animal whose fiber is highly inconsistent in micron, length, or crimp style (?????) should be culled from production. As fiber production is the major purpose of the Production Alpaca, a high degree of fiber density (high number of wool follicles), yielding a larger fiber crop per year, is a critical aspect of selection. So, too, is a long staple length, indicating a fast rate of regrowth; although, until an alpaca is developed which produces adequate fiber to justify twice per year shearing, a maximum staple length of 6” at one year regrowth must be selected for by the average breeder, lest the crop yield be too long to be easily processed.

The crimp structure of the Production Alpaca is relatively unimportant, so long as the fiber does posses some degree of curvature to add memory and bounce to the resultant fabric products. However, all subtypes of crimp, ranging from bold and deep, high-frequency, to disorganized, are permitted.

The only permissible color is white.

Major faults: Standard Deviation of fiber >4 microns; primary fibers that visibly extend beyond the blanket, but are extremely close in micron to the secondary fibers; no defined crimp structure; blanket weight <3 lb at 2nd shearing; staple length <4” at one-year regrowth shearing; two or fewer colored spots that are <2” in diameter.

Disqualifying faults: Standard Deviation of fiber >5 microns; primary fibers that that are straight and /or stronger in micron than the secondary fibers; blanket weight <4 lb; staple length <3” at one-year regrowth shearing; three or more colored spots that are <4” in diameter, or any colored spot that is >4” in diameter; any color other than white.