A Texel breeder of more than 45 years has publicly questioned whether his own breed has lost its commercial purpose, prompting a sustained debate among ram buyers about pedigree selection, embryo transfer and the value of breed recording.
By TFF News | 1 September 2026 | Livestock and forage
The Farming Forum conversation opened when a contributor breeding Texels since 1979 said he was becoming disillusioned with the direction of the breed. He argued that a breed once known for fleshing and gigots had shifted its attention to heads and breed character, and that Beltex genetics had grown enough frame to challenge the Texel on its own ground. He also pointed to a fall in entries at the Scottish National sale, a figure other contributors did not dispute, before asking whether the Texel had lost its crown.
The conversation attracted 119 visible contributions, 4,632 views and 321 reactions between 18 August and 1 September. That equates to an average of 2.7 reactions per contribution. It records the views of ram buyers and breeders taking part in one discussion, and is not a representative survey of Texel breeders or of the wider sheep sector.
Type, not breed, is the argument
Breed direction and type was the most common classified theme, appearing in 40 contributions. What emerged was not a straightforward Texel-versus-Beltex contest. Several contributors argued the two are variations of the same genetics pulled in opposite directions.
One contributor, neilo, set out that case directly, saying both are the same breed and that “one section has chased shape (at the expense of growth) while the other section has chased size and mature weight (at the expense of shape, birth weight and ease of fleshing)”.
That framing shaped much of what followed. Contributors repeatedly described a pattern they said they had already watched play out in the Suffolk and, more recently, the Charollais: a type rewarded at the top of the breed that commercial buyers then decline to use.
Show ring selection draws the sharpest criticism
Sixteen contributions addressed the show ring and what several called the breed’s “magic circle”. These carried some of the strongest wording in the conversation.
The most-reacted contribution of the whole discussion, from neilo, described “A little clique at the top of the breed plays games chasing bigger framed sheep that will stand the ridiculous feeding levels and look great in the show ring”, arguing that those genetics then spread through the breed as others follow the money. Pointing to catalogue figures showing high growth with low or negative muscle depth, the same contributor concluded: “That’s not progress, that’s running backwards at full tilt.”
Another contributor, Welderloon, put it more briefly, saying “The show ring & the various ‘magic circles’ are excellent at ruining even the most functional animal, all it takes is time & money”.
Contributor Pistonbroke described a buyer chasing show success at a working cost, reporting a lambing percentage of about 110 with “knackered udders,prolapses and caesarians everywhere”. That account is one contributor’s description of another business and was not independently verified.
Embryo transfer and donor selection
Embryo transfer appeared in 17 contributions, and the criticism was more precise than a general objection to the technique. Several contributors separated the procedure from the choice of donor ewe.
Contributor liammogs said the volume of embryo transfer work was the breed’s biggest problem, citing “flushing ewes with bad udders, texel throat” and noting those traits then pass into commercial Texel-cross ewes. Contributor neilo took the same line on cause, stating that “There’s nothing wrong with ET as a procedure, just poor choice of donors.”
Several contributors argued for a proven-ewe rule, suggesting donors should have reared at least two crops naturally before being flushed. A ram breeder posting as easyram1 recalled a comparable debate in the Suffolk Society three decades ago, quoting a leading breeder of the day: “The problem is that most flocks do not even have 2 ewes good enough to flush let alone more!” Others countered that flushing decisions are a commercial matter for the flock owner and that wider availability of elite genetics has its own value.
Recording is now part of the dispute
Performance recording and estimated breeding values featured in 27 contributions, making it the joint second most common theme alongside commercial lamb production. The argument centred on whether the Texel index rewards the traits commercial producers actually buy.
Contributor Woolless asked whether “the Texel index is squarely aimed at the big sheep produced by the magic circle rather than being of use to the commercial lamb producer?” Contributor andybk went further, arguing a recording scheme funded by ram producers is structurally unlikely to select against the type those producers sell, and calling for centrally funded recording aimed at commercial parameters.
The British Texel Sheep Society operates its own performance recording service, texelplus, rather than recording through Signet. Contributors noted this divergence and questioned how the Society’s index weightings compare with those used elsewhere. RamCompare, the national progeny test, evaluates rams across commercial flocks using carcase and slaughter data, and several contributors pointed to it as the more commercially relevant measure.
Not everyone sees decline
Structured classification found 63 neutral contributions, representing 52.9% of the total, alongside 46 negative contributions (38.7%) and 10 positive contributions (8.4%). Negative wording attracted 3.35 reactions on average, against 2.8 for positive and 2.21 for neutral contributions, indicating the critical case drew the most visible agreement.
Those measures describe tone within this conversation. They do not measure satisfaction among Texel breeders generally.
A counter-view was present. Contributor Ysgythan, reporting from the Lanark sale, said “Just come back from Lanark and was highly impressed by the fleshing and gigots available”, adding that proportionate heads were selling well and that the trend for extreme skins appeared to be reversing. Others named specific flocks producing terminal sires with repeat commercial customers, arguing the functional type is available to those who look beyond the top of the sale ring.
The question the trade is left with
The practical conclusion drawn by several contributors was that the useful distinction is not between breeds but between producer and breeder selection. The recommendation offered most often was to buy rams from breeders who also run commercial sheep and use their own genetics on them.
For breed societies, ram breeders and recording schemes, the conversation poses a direct commercial question. If the buyers who take the bulk of terminal sires say the index, the sale ring and the donor pen are all selecting for a type they will not use, the gap between pedigree valuation and commercial demand is a marketing problem as much as a breeding one. The autumn ram sales will indicate whether the shift these contributors describe is under way.
Read the source conversation and analysis
Read the full conversation on The Farming Forum here.
Download the conversation analysis:
PDF slide deck
This conversation had been viewed 6,013 times on The Farming Forum when counted on 3 September 2026. Want your brand in the room when farmers talk livestock and forage? Book advertising with Agri Web Media.