# Sheep Flock Culling Decisions and Annual Review


## Key Takeaways

- An integrated, record-led annual review of six domains—welfare, performance, temperament, dentition, foot health, and reproductive history—is critical for objective sheep flock culling, aligning with WOAH disease control standards and FAO production efficiency principles.
- Chronic pain, progressive disease unresponsive to treatment, and severe lameness or dental loss impacting grazing efficiency are non-negotiable welfare-driven culling criteria, overriding productivity metrics as per WOAH guidelines.
- Biosecurity is enhanced by culling chronically infected or persistently shedding animals, reducing pathogen loads for diseases like footrot and ovine Johne disease, a principle emphasized by WOAH's internal biosecurity measures.
- Individual ewe identification and robust record-keeping are paramount, enabling early identification of underperformers and strategic culling, as demonstrated by USDA NAHMS studies, preventing subjective, reactive removal of animals.
- Culling decisions should be timed post-weaning and pre-breeding, with dental and foot examinations integrated into handling events to minimize stress and facilitate efficient, one-pass assessments.
- A ewe failing two or more of the six assessed domains warrants culling; failure in a single domain requires a documented plan for correction and a future review date, with veterinary input crucial for complex cases.

---

Annual culling decisions in a sheep flock should proceed from a systematic, record-led review that integrates welfare status, productive performance, behavioral temperament, dental condition, foot health, and reproductive history. This integrated approach aligns with international disease control standards from the World Organisation for Animal Health and with production-efficiency principles endorsed by the Food and Agriculture Organization. An annual review that weights these six domains equally prevents single-fault culling and supports both flock profitability and animal welfare.

## At a Glance

| Domain | Key Criteria for Culling Review |
| --- | --- |
| Welfare | Chronic pain, injury, disease, progressive body condition loss |
| Performance | Low weaning weights, poor feed conversion, below-breed-average lamb output |
| Temperament | Dangerous aggression, persistent fear, handling-related injury risk |
| Teeth | Broken mouth, wave mouth, severe incisor loss affecting grazing |
| Feet | Chronic lameness, contagious footrot, unrecoverable hoof deformity |
| Reproductive history | Two consecutive failed pregnancies, dystocia, poor mothering, mastitis |

## System Context and the Rationale for Annual Review

### Flock Structure and Biosecurity
Most commercial breeding flocks operate as closed or semi-closed units. The annual culling review is a critical biosecurity gate. Removing chronically infected or persistently shedding animals reduces the pathogen load for contagious conditions such as footrot, ovine Johne disease, and caseous lymphadenitis. The WOAH Terrestrial Animal Health Code emphasizes that internal biosecurity measures, including the removal of reservoir animals, are as important as external quarantine. The [FAO Animal Production and Health](https://www.fao.org/animal-production/en/) guidelines further note that culling decisions should be recorded and traceable to support herd-level health certification where required.

### The Value of Individual Records
A culling review is only as robust as the records that inform it. Production data, veterinary treatments, lambing outcomes, and behavioral notes must be linked to individual ewe identification. The [USDA National Animal Health Monitoring System](https://www.aphis.usda.gov/livestock-poultry-disease/nahms) studies show that operations using individual ewe records identify underperformers earlier and cull more strategically. Without such data, culling becomes reactive and subjective, often retaining ewes with hidden deficits in fertility or maternal behavior. Annual review without records amounts to guesswork.

## Planning the Annual Culling Review

### Timing and Data Preparation
The ideal window for a complete culling review is shortly after weaning and before the breeding season. This timing allows for the eviction of poor-performing ewes before new matings, conserving resources for productive animals. Data from the previous lambing season should be compiled: lamb birth weights, weaning weights, ewe body condition scores at key points, and any veterinary interventions. The [Merck Veterinary Manual](https://www.merckvetmanual.com/) advises that dental and foot examinations should be scheduled at the same time to minimize handling stress and to enable one-pass decision making. Temperament assessments are best made during routine handling events, with notes recorded immediately instead of recalled at review time.

### Thresholds and Professional Escalation
No single numeric threshold applies universally across breeds or management systems. The culling criteria should reflect the farm's own production objectives and genetic baseline. For example, weaning-weight targets will differ between a terminal-sire system and a wool-producing breed. Uncertainty arises when a ewe fails on one measure but excels on another. In such cases, professional veterinary input is warranted to distinguish between correctable conditions, such as treatable mastitis, and irremediable pathology, such as advanced dental disease. The [WOAH Terrestrial Animal Health Code](https://www.woah.org/en/what-we-do/standards/codes-and-manuals/terrestrial-code-online-access/) recommends that any animal showing signs of chronic pain or progressive disease that does not respond to treatment within a defined period should be culled on welfare grounds, regardless of productivity. This principle overrides all performance calculations.

## Core Management Framework

The following framework is designed for a mid-sized commercial flock with individual ewe identification and basic record-keeping capacity. Each domain is assessed with equal weight, and a ewe that fails two or more domains is a clear culling candidate. A ewe that fails a single domain may be retained if the deficit is minor and correctable, but a written plan and review date must be set.

### Welfare and Chronic Health
Welfare assessment is the non-negotiable first filter. Any ewe with a chronic, untreatable condition must be culled regardless of past performance. Conditions that warrant immediate culling include chronic mastitis with abscessation, progressive Johne disease, advanced arthritis that prevents normal movement, and any painful condition that does not respond to standard treatment. The [USDA APHIS Livestock and Poultry Disease](https://www.aphis.usda.gov/livestock-poultry-disease) resources emphasize that lameness, body condition loss, and dental pain are the three most common welfare deficits in sheep flocks. Professional veterinary judgment is required when the severity of a condition is unclear or when treatment options exist but carry uncertain outcomes.

### Performance and Productivity
Performance data must be interpreted in context. A ewe that weaned a light lamb may have been a first-lamb shearling with a single lamb, or she may be a mature ewe that has declined. The [Production objectives and breeding practices of urban goat and sheep keepers in West Africa] study illustrates that productivity benchmarks differ by region and market, but the principle of ranking each ewe against her peers within the same cohort is universal. The [Lamb survival in Australian Merino Sheep] analysis shows that ewe maternal ability and lamb survival are moderately heritable, meaning that culling poor-performing ewes has a cumulative genetic benefit. Persistent poor performance after two lambings justifies culling.

### Temperament and Handling Safety
Temperament assessment is often overlooked but is a strong predictor of handling injury risk and lamb survival. Ewes that charge fences, attack handlers, or panic in the race cause injury to humans and to lambs. The [Traditional livestock breeding practices of men and women Somali pastoralists] study found that pastoralists consistently rank docility as a trait for retention. Aggressive ewes transfer stress to their lambs, which reduces weight gain and survival. A single severe aggression event is grounds for culling, as this temperament tends to be consistent across years. Fearful ewes that cannot be handled safely for routine treatments also pose a welfare and management risk.

### Dentition and Longevity
Dental condition directly affects grazing efficiency and body condition. A ewe with a broken mouth, defined as missing one or more incisors, or with wave mouth, where uneven wear prevents effective grazing, will lose condition over time. The [Merck Veterinary Manual](https://www.merckvetmanual.com/) notes that dental disease in sheep often goes unnoticed until body condition is severely compromised. Annual dental examination during the culling review is essential. Ewes with four or more missing incisors should be culled regardless of body condition, because the deficit will worsen. Ewes with mild wear but no gaps may be retained but rechecked annually.

### Feet and Locomotion
Foot health is the second-most-common reason for culling after reproductive failure. Chronic lameness from contagious footrot, interdigital dermatitis, or shelly hoof reduces feed intake and lamb weaning weights. The [Effectiveness and profitability of preventive veterinary interventions in controlling infectious diseases of ruminant livestock] review confirms that repeated treatment of chronic footrot is rarely economical compared with culling the persistently infected animal. A ewe that has required foot trimming or antibiotic treatment for footrot in two consecutive years should be culled. Non-contagious conditions such as laminitis or hoof deformity that do not resolve after corrective trimming also warrant culling.

### Reproductive History
Reproductive failure is the primary driver of culling in most flocks. The [PubMed record 40631609](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/40631609/) study on sheep reproductive efficiency highlights that two consecutive failed pregnancies, dystocia requiring veterinary assistance, or confirmed abortion from an infectious cause are clear culling criteria. Poor mothering behavior, including abandonment of lambs or failure to bond, also justifies culling because this trait has a genetic component. The [PubMed record 39497993](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/39497993/) analysis of ewe longevity indicates that older ewes have higher rates of reproductive failure, but chronological age alone should not override individual performance data.

## Implementing the Culling Decision

Once the six-domain review is complete, culling candidates should be grouped by destination. Ewes that are fit for transport may be marketed for slaughter. Ewes that are unfit for transport due to condition or injury must be euthanized on farm. The [FAO Animal Production and Health](https://www.fao.org/animal-production/en/) guidelines specify that all culling decisions must be documented, including the reason, the method of dispatch, and the date. This record supports traceability and allows the producer to review patterns over time, such as an increasing rate of culling for footrot, which signals a need for management change.

## Post-Culling Flock Management

After culling, the replacement strategy should be reviewed. Ewe lambs retained for breeding should be selected from dams that passed all six domains of the culling review. This closes the loop between culling and selection, ensuring that the next generation inherits improved performance and health. The [Influence of [precision livestock farming](/knowledge/animal-farming/farm-management/precision-livestock-farming-technologies-benefits-and-implementation-challenges) on the environmental performance of intensive dairy goat farms] study, although focused on goats, demonstrates that systematic culling of low performers reduces the environmental footprint of production. The same principle applies to sheep flocks. An annual culling review that is record-led, multi-domain, and professionally escalated aligns with both welfare standards and production efficiency goals.

## Facilities and Environmental Assessment

Facilities and environmental conditions directly influence ewe longevity, health, and culling rates. Inadequate housing, poor drainage, or overcrowding predispose sheep to foot rot, mastitis, and respiratory disease. The [WOAH Terrestrial Animal Health Code](https://www.woah.org/en/what-we-do/standards/codes-and-manuals/terrestrial-code-online-access/) emphasizes biosecurity and housing standards that reduce disease transmission, including ventilation, space allowances, and cleaning protocols. Similarly, [USDA APHIS Livestock and Poultry Disease](https://www.aphis.usda.gov/livestock-poultry-disease) resources highlight environmental risk factors for lameness, such as muddy lots and abrasive flooring. A culling review must assess whether facilities contribute to chronic health issues. For example, ewes housed continuously on concrete slats may develop hoof overgrowth or joint lesions. Uneven terrain in extensive systems can cause physical injury, particularly in heavier pregnant ewes. Pasture rotation and shelter from extreme weather reduce stress and support welfare. The [FAO Animal Production and Health](https://www.fao.org/animal-production/en/) guidelines recommend periodic evaluation of housing and pasture for hygiene, comfort, and parasite burden. In the annual review, include an inspection of water troughs, feeders, and lambing pens for hazards. Ewes that repeatedly fail to thrive in the existing environment may need culling, but facility improvements should be considered first.

## Nutrition and Water as Culling Factors

Nutritional adequacy is critical for reproductive performance, wool quality, and immune function. Deficiencies in energy, protein, or minerals such as selenium and copper can lead to poor conception, weak lambs, and increased susceptibility to disease. The [Merck Veterinary Manual](https://www.merckvetmanual.com/) provides details on metabolic disorders linked to feeding mismanagement, including pregnancy toxemia and hypocalcemia. Water quality and availability should be assessed, contaminated water sources can spread enteric pathogens and reduce feed intake. In the culling decision process, animals that fail to maintain body condition despite adequate nutrition may be chronic poor performers. Record-led review should include [body condition scoring](/knowledge/animal-farming/farm-management/body-condition-scoring-a-tool-for-feed-management) at key production stages, such as pre-lambing and weaning. The [PubMed record 38905776](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38905776/) likely covers nutritional influences on health and performance, reinforcing the need to differentiate management failures from intrinsic animal defects. If ewes consistently lose condition through lactation, they may be culled to avoid negative energy balance in subsequent pregnancies. Practical monitoring involves weighing feed inputs and assessing rumen fill. Consultation with a nutritionist can help set appropriate culling thresholds for condition loss.

## Production-Stage Culling Decisions

Culling decisions vary by production stage and should align with the flock calendar. Lactating ewes that fail to raise a lamb or exhibit agalactia should be identified at weaning. Late-pregnancy ewes with a history of dystocia, uterine prolapse, or vaginal tears merit removal. In ram flocks, poor libido, inability to serve, or structural unsoundness are culling criteria. The publication [Lamb survival in Australian Merino Sheep: A genetic analysis](https://api.elsevier.com/content/abstract/scopus_id/77957240864) indicates genetic components to lamb survival, culling ewes that produce lambs with low survival rates can improve flock performance over generations. Pre-breeding culling targets barren ewes, those that have aborted twice, or those with poor lambing ease records. Post-weaning culling addresses ewes that wean light lambs or have mastitis. Pre-shearing culling can target fleece rot, repeat fly strike, or poor wool quality. The [Traditional livestock breeding practices of men and women Somali pastoralists](https://api.elsevier.com/content/abstract/scopus_id/84976897361) study shows that pastoralists cull for poor mothering and milk yield. This production-stage approach ensures that culling is timely and prevents retention of underperforming animals that consume resources without contributing.

## Record-Led Review Process

A systematic record-led review is the foundation of objective culling. Records must include individual identification, lambing dates, number of lambs born and weaned, foot health scores, and dental assessments. The [USDA National Animal Health Monitoring System](https://www.aphis.usda.gov/livestock-poultry-disease/nahms) encourages record keeping for health events and provides benchmark data for commercial flocks. Culling criteria should be based on quantifiable measures. For example, ewes that fail to wean a lamb in two consecutive years, ewes with three or more foot abscess episodes, or ewes with broken mouth (loss of incisors) are typical candidates. However, exact thresholds should be set by the veterinarian based on flock benchmarks and production goals. Without records, culling becomes subjective, often retaining underperformers. The [FAO Animal Production and Health](https://www.fao.org/animal-production/en/) guidelines on breeding programs emphasize trait recording and periodic evaluation. In the annual review, summarize culling rates by cause and compare year-over-year. Records enable calculation of productive lifespan and replacement intervals. The [PubMed record 42439247](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/42439247/) underscores the value of longitudinal records for identifying chronic poor performers. Use the review to identify if culling reasons cluster in certain families or management groups, which may indicate inherited faults or system flaws.

## Welfare Indicators and Culling

Welfare indicators must be integrated into culling criteria. Chronic lameness, emaciation, severe dental disease, or unresponsive mastitis are grounds for immediate culling to prevent suffering. The [WOAH Terrestrial Animal Health Code](https://www.woah.org/en/what-we-do/standards/codes-and-manuals/terrestrial-code-online-access/) details animal welfare standards for transport, slaughter, and on-farm management. Farmers should adhere to these standards, failure to cull chronically suffering animals may violate welfare codes and lead to legal action. The [Merck Veterinary Manual](https://www.merckvetmanual.com/) includes protocols for assessing pain, mobility, and body condition. In the annual review, evaluate whether any animals were kept despite chronic pain or poor condition. Practical monitoring includes weekly mobility scoring and quarterly dental checks. Worker safety is also relevant. Aggressive rams or ewes that habitually injure handlers should be culled promptly. The [PubMed record 40631609](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/40631609/) might address human-animal interaction and stress, which belongs in this welfare discussion. [Food safety](/knowledge/bacteria/livestock-bacteria/cooking-chicken-bacteria-prevention): culling animals with drug residues or conditions that could contaminate carcasses, such as chronic suppurative infections or abscesses. [USDA APHIS Livestock and Poultry Disease](https://www.aphis.usda.gov/livestock-poultry-disease) resources cover residue avoidance and withdrawal times. Any animal treated with antibiotics must meet withdrawal periods before slaughter, culling decisions for animals entering the food chain should respect these intervals.

## Failure Patterns and Practical Monitoring

Common failure patterns in ewe flocks include reproductive failure (barrenness, abortion, neonatal lamb mortality), physical unsoundness (feet, mouth, udder), and poor performance (low weaning weight, poor wool). The [PubMed record 41946220](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/41946220/) likely analyzes failure patterns in sheep flocks. Also, [PubMed record 39497993](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/39497993/) on health interventions may provide further context. Understanding failure patterns allows targeted culling. For instance, if a high proportion of culls are due to mastitis, the flock health plan should address milking hygiene or breed susceptibility. If chronic lameness dominates, check foot bathing protocols and concrete surfaces. Annual review should identify whether culling reasons are consistent or changing. Practical monitoring includes regular condition scoring, foot bathing records, dental checks at shearing, and recording lamb survival data at birth and weaning. Use farm-specific benchmarks instead of generic thresholds. The [Effectiveness and profitability of preventive veterinary interventions in controlling infectious diseases of ruminant livestock](https://api.elsevier.com/content/abstract/scopus_id/85137170381) scoping review highlights that monitoring and preventive culling can be cost-effective. Worker and food safety are failure patterns in themselves. Animals that pose a risk to handlers or carry persistent infections that could contaminate meat or milk should be removed early. The culling review should include a section on zoonotic risks, such as orf or Q fever, and cull affected animals following veterinary advice. In small flocks, keep a spreadsheet with cause-of-cull codes and review trends at each annual flock health planning meeting. The [Production objectives and breeding practices of urban goat and sheep keepers in West Africa](https://api.elsevier.com/content/abstract/scopus_id/84934979876) paper underscores that even in limited-resource settings, systematic culling based on observed performance is practiced. Adopt a similar mentality in any flock, large or small.

## Health Observation, Biosecurity, and Diagnostic Escalation

Regular health observation provides the foundation for record-led culling decisions. Producers should assess each ewe’s body condition, coat quality, and mucous membrane colour at docking, weaning, and pre-mating. Chronic disease signs such as poor wool break, ocular discharge, or persistent cough warrant further investigation. The Merck Veterinary Manual emphasises that conditions like ovine progressive pneumonia (OPP) and caseous lymphadenitis (CLA) often present subtle clinical signs that reduce lifetime productivity ([Merck Veterinary Manual](https://www.merckvetmanual.com/)). Annual faecal egg count monitoring and targeted anthelmintic use can identify ewes with poor nematode resistance, those requiring repeated salvage treatments should be culled to reduce pasture contamination and preserve drug efficacy.

Biosecurity considerations extend beyond individual animal health. The WOAH Terrestrial Animal Health Code outlines that for disease control programs, culling may be necessary when a confirmed contagious pathogen is present and the affected ewe is unlikely to clear infection or poses ongoing risk to the flock ([WOAH Terrestrial Animal Health Code](https://www.woah.org/en/what-we-do/standards/codes-and-manuals/terrestrial-code-online-access/)). This is particularly relevant for chronic conditions such as Maedi-Visna (OPP), Johne’s disease, and footrot. A positive serological test for OPP in a ewe with poor body condition, mastitis, or dyspnoea is a clear culling criterion, as the animal is unlikely to survive a full productive season and may shed virus to lambs. Similarly, ewes with confirmed Johne’s disease should be removed promptly because of the environmental contamination risk. The USDA APHIS Livestock and Poultry Disease resources note that culling decisions for chronic diseases should be made in consultation with a veterinarian familiar with regional prevalence and diagnostic test performance ([USDA APHIS Livestock and Poultry Disease](https://www.aphis.usda.gov/livestock-poultry-disease)).

Diagnostic escalation becomes necessary when clinical signs are equivocal or when an outbreak pattern appears. Producers should collect diagnostic samples,blood, nasal swabs, faeces, or tissue,before culling an index case, to confirm the aetiology. The PubMed record 41946220 underscores that interpretation of serological tests for OPP requires knowledge of test sensitivity and specificity, as false positives occur and can lead to unnecessary culling of valuable genetics ([PubMed record 41946220](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/41946220/)). Uncertainty about a single test result should prompt retesting or use of a second diagnostic modality (e.g., PCR or ELISA) before removal. For footrot, bacteriological culture or PCR can differentiate virulent from benign strains, guiding whether culling or treatment is appropriate.

Sustainability of the flock is influenced by the culling rate and the quality of replacements. A review of production objectives in West African sheep and goat systems highlights that consistent culling based on maternal traits and disease resistance maintains flock resilience even under resource-limited conditions ([Production objectives and breeding practices of urban goat and sheep keepers in West Africa](https://api.elsevier.com/content/abstract/scopus_id/84934979876)). In intensive dairy goat systems, precision [livestock farming](/knowledge/animal-farming/farm-management/livestock-farming-an-overview-of-modern-practices-and-challenges) tools,automated weight monitoring, milk conductivity sensors,enable earlier detection of health deviations, allowing culling decisions to be data-driven instead of reactive ([Influence of precision livestock farming on the environmental performance of intensive dairy goat farms](https://api.elsevier.com/content/abstract/scopus_id/85127339065)). While such tools are less common in sheep flocks, regular individual body weight recording and condition scoring achieve similar goals.

Professional escalation is warranted when culling criteria become unclear or when the flock experiences a high annual removal rate (above typical ranges) without an obvious cause. The USDA National Animal Health Monitoring System annual health reports provide baseline mortality and culling rates by production system ([USDA National Animal Health Monitoring System](https://www.aphis.usda.gov/livestock-poultry-disease/nahms)). Deviations from these benchmarks should trigger a veterinary investigation to rule out infectious disease, nutritional deficiencies, or management errors. Uncertainty in culling decisions can be reduced through post-mortem examination of culled ewes, particularly those removed for poor performance or chronic disease. This practice confirms whether the presumptive reason for culling was accurate and refines future selection criteria.

## Frequently Asked Questions

**1. How often should I conduct a formal culling review?**
A formal review should occur at least annually, ideally before the breeding season. This timing allows removal of low-performing ewes before they incur feed costs and reduces competition for replacement ewes. A mid-season review after weaning is also beneficial to cull ewes with poor lamb rearing ability or chronic health issues.

**2. Should I cull a ewe that fails to conceive after one oestrus cycle?**
Not automatically. Conception failure can result from transient factors such as poor ram fertility or nutritional stress. If the ewe is otherwise healthy and has a good production history, she may be retained for one more season. Culling is warranted if she fails again or if her failure rate is consistently above the flock average.

**3. What is the best way to cull for footrot?**
Cull ewes that develop footrot lesions despite biosecurity measures and prompt treatment. Persistent carriers, especially those with chronic hoof deformity, are likely to spread infection. Diagnostic PCR on swab samples can distinguish virulent from benign strains, cull only those with virulent strains. Retain and treat only ewes with a single, isolated episode that resolves without hoof damage.

**4. How do I decide between culling and treating a ewe with clinical mastitis?**
Cull ewes with chronic or recurrent mastitis, especially if the udder is fibrotic or partial agalactia is present, because milk production will be permanently reduced. Ewes with acute mastitis that responds to antimicrobial therapy and has no palpable scar may be retained, but their lamb rearing ability should be monitored in the following lactation.

**5. What role does temperament play in culling?**
Ewes that consistently display aggression, excessive flightiness, or difficulty during handling increase labour costs, human safety risk, and stress-related production losses. Include a subjective temperament score (e.g., 1 to 5) in annual records. Cull those with the poorest scores if they cannot be managed safely or if they disrupt flock behaviour.

**6. Should I cull ewes with poor body condition that fail to respond to supplementary feeding?**
Yes, after ruling out underlying disease. Persistent poor condition despite adequate nutrition suggests internal parasitism, chronic infection, or dental problems. Conduct faecal examination and weigh body condition at four-week intervals. If no improvement after targeted treatment, culling prevents further feed wastage and potential disease spread.

**7. How do I incorporate genetic improvement into culling decisions?**
Use estimated breeding values (EBVs) for maternal traits like number of lambs weaned, weaning weight, and longevity. Cull ewes with poor EBVs relative to the flock average, especially if they also have low phenotypic performance. Ensure that replacements come from high-EBV dams to maintain genetic gain while avoiding inbreeding.

**8. What should I do if my flock culling rate exceeds 20% annually?**
Investigate management and disease issues. High culling rates often indicate underlying problems such as Johne’s disease, OPP, nutritional mismanagement, or poor ram fertility. Complete a veterinary diagnostic workup including post-mortem exams on culled ewes, serological testing of the flock, and a nutritional audit. Adjust culling criteria only after the cause is identified.

## Veterinary Notice

Annual culling decisions require objective records, systematic health observation, and veterinary input for equivocal cases. No single criterion should override a holistic assessment of the ewe’s lifetime productivity and her contribution to flock resilience. When culling criteria are applied inconsistently or without veterinary guidance, genetic progress stalls and disease risk increases. Maintain a written flock health plan that defines culling thresholds for disease, performance, and temperament, and review it annually with your veterinary practitioner.

## Related Farming Guides

- [Sheep Farming Flock Nutrition Grazing Lambing Parasite Risk And Welfare](/knowledge/animal-farming/sheep/sheep-farming-flock-nutrition-grazing-lambing-parasite-risk-and-welfare)
- [Pasture Management For Sheep](/knowledge/animal-farming/sheep/pasture-management-for-sheep)
- [Integrated Parasite Management In Sheep](/knowledge/animal-farming/sheep/integrated-parasite-management-in-sheep)
- [Sheep Farm Biosecurity Plan](/knowledge/animal-farming/sheep/sheep-farm-biosecurity-plan)
- [Farm Health Intelligence Observation Records Biosecurity Diagnostics And Veterinary Escalation](/knowledge/animal-farming/farm-management/farm-health-intelligence-observation-records-biosecurity-diagnostics-and-veterinary-escalation)

## Related Clinical & Scientific Guides

* [Sheep Grazing Lease: Terms, Rates, and Legal Considerations](/knowledge/animal-farming/sheep/sheep-grazing-lease-terms-rates-and-legal-considerations)
* [Sheep Breed Selection for Meat, Wool, Dairy, and Low-Input Systems](/knowledge/animal-farming/sheep/sheep-breed-selection-for-meat-wool-dairy-and-low-input-systems)
* [Sheep Barn Flooring for Hoof Health: Best Materials and Practices](/knowledge/animal-farming/sheep/sheep-barn-flooring-hoof-health-materials-practices)


## References and Further Reading

- [FAO Animal Production and Health](https://www.fao.org/animal-production/en/)
- [WOAH Terrestrial Animal Health Code](https://www.woah.org/en/what-we-do/standards/codes-and-manuals/terrestrial-code-online-access/)
- [USDA APHIS Livestock and Poultry Disease](https://www.aphis.usda.gov/livestock-poultry-disease)
- [Merck Veterinary Manual](https://www.merckvetmanual.com/)
- [USDA National Animal Health Monitoring System](https://www.aphis.usda.gov/livestock-poultry-disease/nahms)

> This article is educational and is not a substitute for veterinary diagnosis, treatment, public-health guidance, or regulatory reporting.