65% of the Shorthorn breeds current design is based on show heifers.

[knabe]

and thanks for the support knabe.

no problem.  i see you haven't purchased purebreds lately.  plenty out there.  time is a wasting.

 

[knabe]

As to representing aj as the Anti- Trump... That's probably fair in Shorthorn terms.

not really the anti-trump, more like feel the bern.

 

[MDitmars]

AJ I couldn't tell you the exact statistics but i would Imagine they are fairly close to the ratio of show to commercial advertisers in shorthorn country. If some one wants to look through a shorthorn country and make a tally you would have a pretty good answer.

As far as improving the breed. For some reason this keeps coming up in every shorthorn thread. Now I am not as experienced as I wish i was with cattle but my big issue is information. What are we teaching ill informed breeders? To Photoshop pictures and put them in the shorthorn playboy? Go back through the last 10 years of Shorthorn country and I challenge you to find actual articles from producers who are advising of how they are being successful or falling short or is it just pictures?

The point of advertising as I see it is to provide a decent magazine or am I wrong? There are many community based articles but nothing about different options to raise a better herd. What the Smithers' farm that produced 4 prime animals out of 32 head pulled hauled in to market. Now I could be wrong but I sure as hell would have had some one interview him and write an article or have him write an article for the "breed magazine." Instead we claim that is the general performance of all shorthorn breeders and that that guy's lifework of feedlot management and herd management is nothing special.

Don't get me wrong I definitely see the shorthorn breed going in the right direction as of now but that is only as long as individuals are committed to that direction. We need to start talking about what is happening and delve into the controversial issues in a health way. That is the only way to keep the breed moving forward whether in show or commercial.

 

[mark tenenbaum]

I don't think I've ever made better cattle for either the show ring or the commercial cattlemen than I am right now, and we're using Red Reward, Red Demand, Hot Commodity, and Deception almost exclusively.

Best two calves I've ever had born are a fall 2015 Deception and an early 2016 Red Demand. Small at birth, growthy, very easy doing, great feet, and look like a million bucks.

Some of these show cattle are actually pretty good animals if you look around a little.

Can't stress enough that Shorthorn breeders need to use bulls like Deception and Red Demand.//// Thats what I think (and said) So you will be one of the changers because you're cattle are visible to alot of people-I think its the "right Direction"-but certainely not  S%^*()l Right Direction. Those kind of genetics are what helped make alot of the mess. ON a positive note he also started this trend in 2007 along with B Good when they brought out the sire of Red Demand;and it was certainly a calculated move.-There were many more years of the aforementioned genetics and hundreds upon hundreds of thousands of bucks  made:-but he knew the jig would be up sooner or later.Now the more practical cattle need to start standing up at the shows.And I think "Da Man" will produce a high enough volume of good ones that this will occur.So keep us posted-there aint nothing wrong with a good low BW Shorthorn that can win,and produce in normal conditions. O0

 

[cb4]

Quick question, why would bulls like red reward/demand present the best direction for the shorthorn breed? Is it their phenotype, their epds or maybe their pedigree's? I know they both share maine influence, do you think that maybe the breed requires maine influence to appeal to the commercial market?

Also I am curious as to what some of you Canadian breeders think about these bulls or if maybe you would like to see a different type of animal lead the way for this breed.

 

[r.n.reed]

Mark T. hits the nail on the head,Can these show lines produce under normal conditions.We are talking multiple continuous generations of hand fed pampered embryo transfer scenarios.Until someone puts them in a real world environment and proves they can be profitable time after time what commercial operator who is in it to make a living is going to take the chance.I am talking maternal here since that seems to be the consenus on where the breed has the most to offer.The terminal route may be the best option for the show lines.
The  commercial oriented breeders on the average are not helping themselves either.When you look at many of the footnotes in the sale catalogs or advertisements, a lot of type is dedicated to one dimensional claims that in most cases have nothing to do with maternal efficiency or only raise more questions and divisions

 

[librarian]

Perhaps the forest is preventing us from seeing the trees.
I think, or attempt to reason, that dysfunction is rooted in artifice. Artificial resource availability translates to a genetic password for increased growth. We judge cattle with our monkey eyes that fix upon the biggest banana.
So fertilizer is lavished on some cattle for exhibition to demonstrate, in evolutionary terms, superior resources. The end result of that display is human mate choice, but artificial resources translate to $$$$ and another discussion. We are primitive but world has changed in ways that convolute our ape logic. (apes having more guile than monkeys)
The fact remains that few of us are kings or nobles and we are limited in our resources.  Potentially, if we stop fertilizing the cattle, from whatever pedigree, and select for what our land base can support, nature will return the metabolism of the cattle to equilibrium. Then we will have something of lasting value to the soldier and craftsman.

 

[turning grass into beef]

Perhaps the forest is preventing us from seeing the trees.
I think, or attempt to reason, that dysfunction is rooted in artifice. Artificial resource availability translates to a genetic password for increased growth. We judge cattle with our monkey eyes that fix upon the biggest banana.
So fertilizer is lavished on some cattle for exhibition to demonstrate, in evolutionary terms, superior resources. The end result of that display is human mate choice, but artificial resources translate to $$$$ and another discussion. We are primitive but world has changed in ways that convolute our ape logic. (apes having more guile than monkeys)
The fact remains that few of us are kings or nobles and we are limited in our resources.  Potentially, if we stop fertilizing the cattle, from whatever pedigree, and select for what our land base can support, nature will return the metabolism of the cattle to equilibrium. Then we will have something of lasting value to the soldier and craftsman.

excellent point librarian.

the following is a statement from our website

"How big is big enough and when do our cattle get too big?  These are questions that have been debated by a lot of producers in the last few years.
The simple answer is that your cattle should be as big as the FORAGE resource on your ranch can support.  If your cows can maintain body condition, calve and breed back on the grass you can grow then your cows are not too big.  On the other hand if you are supplementing cows with grain or other high-priced supplements to maintain production maybe you need to take a second look at what you are doing"

If you want to sell bulls to commercial cattlemen I believe it is best if you run your purebred herd like the average commercial cattleman runs his herd.

 

[beebe]

Perhaps the forest is preventing us from seeing the trees.
I think, or attempt to reason, that dysfunction is rooted in artifice. Artificial resource availability translates to a genetic password for increased growth. We judge cattle with our monkey eyes that fix upon the biggest banana.
So fertilizer is lavished on some cattle for exhibition to demonstrate, in evolutionary terms, superior resources. The end result of that display is human mate choice, but artificial resources translate to $$$$ and another discussion. We are primitive but world has changed in ways that convolute our ape logic. (apes having more guile than monkeys)
The fact remains that few of us are kings or nobles and we are limited in our resources.  Potentially, if we stop fertilizing the cattle, from whatever pedigree, and select for what our land base can support, nature will return the metabolism of the cattle to equilibrium. Then we will have something of lasting value to the soldier and craftsman.

excellent point librarian.

the following is a statement from our website

"How big is big enough and when do our cattle get too big?  These are questions that have been debated by a lot of producers in the last few years.
The simple answer is that your cattle should be as big as the FORAGE resource on your ranch can support.  If your cows can maintain body condition, calve and breed back on the grass you can grow then your cows are not too big.  On the other hand if you are supplementing cows with grain or other high-priced supplements to maintain production maybe you need to take a second look at what you are doing"

If you want to sell bulls to commercial cattlemen I believe it is best if you run your purebred herd like the average commercial cattleman runs his herd.

That is a valid comment.  However I try to take it a little further and challenge my cattle nutritionally, and fertility wise with a shorter breeding season.  I am forcing the poorer doers to identify themselves.

 

[cbcr]

Our feeling is that ALL of the breeds need to do more to promoting purebreds.  Look at all of the other Continental breeds, what has happened?  They are all black with a tremendous amount of Angus influence.

On the other hand, while the Shorthorn breed does have some outside influence, the purebred animals have stayed true to the heritage.  That needs to be promoted and improved upon and the breed will see more acceptance.

It seems that almost all of the other Continental breeds have gone to so much Angus influence that if it weren't for requiring the 25% minimum would be just another Angus.

The Shorthorn breed seems to have a lot of influence in the the Club Calf industry.  Does this give the Shorthorn a bad rap? Yes and No.  Yes, it shows that the Shorthorn can have quite an influence on a group of cattle.  NO, how many of the resulting animals can really perform in a real world environment producing cattle that can grow efficiently and produce a quality carcass.  We see the show results of the winners, but what about carcass contest?

Not saying that some of the cattle aren't able to, but proof as the say "is in the pudding"!  Performance can be measured, where is the performance measurements of these cattle?

 

[RyanChandler]

Quick question, why would bulls like red reward/demand present the best direction for the shorthorn breed? Is it their phenotype, their epds or maybe their pedigree's? I know they both share maine influence, do you think that maybe the breed requires maine influence to appeal to the commercial market?

I would never consider using either one of those bulls.  Red Reward's pedigree is just horrible: fullblood maine x double bred trump x rodeo drive.  There's nothing there that, IMO, has any commercial appeal whatsoever.  Red Demand, a bit better, but still--  c'mon folks.  There were 10 Saskvalley bulls, in their past sale alone, that would be better suited addressing the needs of the commercial cattlemen.

There are SO many good shorthorn bulls out there that are lacking the due notoriety and exposure they deserve and it's honestly disheartening to hear these red whatever bulls even touted as 'Shorthorns,' much less, 'the best.'

 

[cb4]

Quick question, why would bulls like red reward/demand present the best direction for the shorthorn breed? Is it their phenotype, their epds or maybe their pedigree's? I know they both share maine influence, do you think that maybe the breed requires maine influence to appeal to the commercial market?

I would never consider using either one of those bulls.  Red Reward's pedigree is just horrible: fullblood maine x double bred trump x rodeo drive.  There's nothing there that, IMO, has any commercial appeal whatsoever.  Red Demand, a bit better, but still--  c'mon folks.  There were 10 Saskvalley bulls, in their past sale alone, that would be better suited addressing the needs of the commercial cattlemen.

There are SO many good shorthorn bulls out there that are lacking the due notoriety and exposure they deserve and it's honestly disheartening to hear these red whatever bulls even touted as 'Shorthorns,' much less, 'the best.'

Thanks for replying xbar,
I think you are right in that there are a lot better bulls to choose from which emphasize the positive maternal traits shorthorns are known for. My biggest issue with shorthorns right now is that there seems to be somewhat of an identity crisis among the breed. As breeders I think its important we establish what areas shorthorns excel at and use those strengths as marketing tools to appeal to the commercial cattleman.

 

[knabe]

I would never consider using either one of those bulls.  Red Reward's pedigree is just horrible: fullblood maine x double bred trump x rodeo drive.  There's nothing there that, IMO, has any commercial appeal whatsoever.  Red Demand, a bit better, but still--  c'mon folks.  There were 10 Saskvalley bulls, in their past sale alone, that would be better suited addressing the needs of the commercial cattlemen.

There are SO many good shorthorn bulls out there that are lacking the due notoriety and exposure they deserve and it's honestly disheartening to hear these red whatever bulls even touted as 'Shorthorns,' much less, 'the best.'

yup.  just clone or use cunia.  not much difference than trump.

 

[librarian]

I think commercial buyers avoid Shorthorn bulls because of calving problems. The only Shorthorn genetics that matter for commercial acceptance, at this point, are bulls that fix that.
If we get back to the show heifer question, how many are born unassisted? Just selecting for unassisted calving and fertility seems to be where we are right now. Then worry about rate of gain- which ideally derives from heterosis anyway.
It's sounds so crazy to admit a history of selection against fertility and calving ability.

 

[JTM]

Mark T. hits the nail on the head,Can these show lines produce under normal conditions.We are talking multiple continuous generations of hand fed pampered embryo transfer scenarios.Until someone puts them in a real world environment and proves they can be profitable time after time what commercial operator who is in it to make a living is going to take the chance.I am talking maternal here since that seems to be the consenus on where the breed has the most to offer.The terminal route may be the best option for the show lines.
The  commercial oriented breeders on the average are not helping themselves either.When you look at many of the footnotes in the sale catalogs or advertisements, a lot of type is dedicated to one dimensional claims that in most cases have nothing to do with maternal efficiency or only raise more questions and divisions

These are my thoughts also. I totally get where Justin is because I've been there and still have a few similar animals. When you see some bulls performing better than others and maintaining "the look" it is pretty neat. I had a bull that did that very well, CF Star Bucks. Yeah birthweights weren't low enough but as far as functionality of the calves, the bulls were bulls, the heifers are making good uddered and good footed cows. With that said, I would still get rid of them in a heartbeat for another A&T Renegade daughter... To me the question comes down to how many items on the "commercial checklist" can your Shorthorns check off? Fertility? Low birth weight? Calving ease? Bone size/structure? Superior mothering ability? Moderate mature cow weight (1250 lbs.)? Hoof health? Superior Udder and teet structure? Superior calf vigor at birth? Cow docility? Carcass quality? Carcass yield? Growth performance? Shuck hair in summer? There are a number of other things that make up the awesome traits of really good commercial Shorthorn cattle but these are a good check list to start off with. You should be able to check off each item with confidence and if not then how can you improve that cow? What Bull will do that? This isn't easy....

 

[aj]

The worst thing you can as a breeder is to start a herd with 10,000$ heifer. Because you have paid more for her than what she is worth to the beef industry. No one will cull her offspring for bad disposition, bad udder,hoof health, vigor of calf at birth, carcass quality.......because she and her offspring are high priced cattle. The herd is never culled under strict natural pressure. If she doesn't breed back on time the breeder just pumps her environment full of artificial inputs in order to regain the initial investment. The best herds are built on moderately priced cattle. Cattle that will be culled strictly over say a 15 year program. Cattle first have to survive within certain environmental parameters and then you concentrate on the other stuff. Cattle that are valued artificially through show ring reasons will never be culled like they should be in order to be valuable to the beef industry.

 

[knabe]

The worst thing you can as a breeder is to start a herd with 10,000$ heifer. Because you have paid more for her than what she is worth to the beef industry. No one will cull her offspring for bad disposition, bad udder,hoof health, vigor of calf at birth, carcass quality.......because she and her offspring are high priced cattle. The herd is never culled under strict natural pressure. If she doesn't breed back on time the breeder just pumps her environment full of artificial inputs in order to regain the initial investment. The best herds are built on moderately priced cattle. Cattle that will be culled strictly over say a 15 year program. Cattle first have to survive within certain environmental parameters and then you concentrate on the other stuff. Cattle that are valued artificially through show ring reasons will never be culled like they should be in order to be valuable to the beef industry.

Best aj post ever.


Now just do it. Leave the show people alone. They are irrelevant for what you want to do.


There are the same stupid cattle in the angus breed as well.

 

[sue]

Wait 10 years and post this again. Nothing will change.

 

[knabe]

Wait 10 years and post this again. Nothing will change.

no need to wait.


it's already been 30 or 40 years. 


the show industry and aj have not and will not change.

 

[librarian]

Leave the show people alone. They are irrelevant for what you want to do.
There are the same stupid cattle in the angus breed as well.

Yes. And all breeds. Show cattle are bred to a different purpose and those genetics express fitness for that evolutionary scenario- which has little to do with natural selection or reproduction.
There are far worse forms of irrelevance than buying and selling beautiful heifers that wouldn't last a year in a commercial operation.
I was dismayed to (finally) realize the photographs of Shorthorns from the late 19th century that I loved so well were show cattle that had been tied and fed linseed cake and turnips with straw their whole lives. Nobody bothered to photograph cattle that had to work for a living. Cruickshank's purpose was to breed a variety that would "pay the rent" but he lived in the mildest region of Scotland (north and east of Aberdeen and Angus) with valley soil. We are too quick to credit pedigree for productivity when management history is the driving force.
In the end, he fed out Irish cattle for market, though he couldn't stand to look at them.