Bellevue Shorthorns 1922

[librarian]

I was looking around in this collection of Breeder's Gazettes and saw this picture of an old Dual Purpose bull, Royal Underley.  Just an interesting picture. And some cool pictures from an Anoka advertisement. There are a lot of great pictures here, but the resolution is disappointing.
http://books.google.com/books?id=G5E5AQAAMAAJ&pg=PP1#v=onepage&q&f=false

 

[RyanChandler]

15lbs/day of whole cotton seed will make any of em look good. I'm convinced the fleshing ease so many go on about is a myth.

 

[knabe]

There is no such thing as fleashing ease.

"Flesh" consists of both meat and fat. I could be wrong, but adding fat cells is different than filling up fat cells, from memory, the number of muscle cells doesnt change either.  Seems to me someone should have done some research on this in bulls.

 

[irishshorthorns]

There is no such thing as fleashing ease.

"Flesh" consists of both meat and fat. I could be wrong, but adding fat cells is different than filling up fat cells, from memory, the number of muscle cells doesnt change either.  Seems to me someone should have done some research on this in bulls.

Well according to Knabe there is no such thing as "fleashing ease" (sic). So if there are ten bulls in one pen by a particular sire and ten in another pen by a different sire all being fed and managed identically and pen one's progeny group have a 10% higher weight gain than the group in pen number two that's not a sign of EASE OF FLESHING characterised by their feed effeciency? Knabe, Knabe, knabe, sometimes, just sometimes I wonder.

 

[knabe]

Easy fleshing is just a general term that is no longer useful. It's not descriptive enough anymore.

Some eat more, some are more efficient, some are less stressed, some are slightly sick, some walk around more, some butt heads, some are bothered more by flies and a whole host of other possibilities. Easy fleshing is an outdated useless term that has no basis in science and is just a deceptive marketing tool that unfortunately still finds utility to mislead ones self and potential customers.

 

[BTDT]

If you have 6 head of Scooby X Moriah calves and 6 head of Puff Diddy X Farah calves in the same pen. You hand feed them exactly the same amount of feed and Scooby calves weigh 75 pounds more than the Diddy calves. What term would you use to describe that ability to gain on the same amount of feed?
If the above scenario is the same, but the calves are fed exactly the same only in a different pen (but the environment is the same in the pen), and the Scooby calves weigh 75 pounds more, what term would that be?
Would that "outdated" term that is "deceptive" be equal to "clean by pedigree" or any other descriptive term based on opinion and not fact? Ex. soft, soggy, correct, good hip structure, extended front, feminine, masculine. 

I do not like "easy fleshing" because as mentioned, some cattle are easy fleshing with 50 pounds of corn, while others only need grass hay.  So to compare different management with the term related to cattle such as "easy fleshing", is indeed misleading.
I also do not like "easy fleshing" because I picture "skin" when I hear "flesh" and that does not change even if fed.  So regardless of the size versus number of fat and muscle cells, maybe a better term would be "gain ability", "low metabolism", or "converts feed to mass".

I have learned over many years, to not compare animals from different management systems to each other. I simply look at each animal and the management system they are being cared for under and see how that animal scores in my mind.  One animal always handles their environment better than others. Maybe that animal is not in their optimum management system and by changing environments that animal will thrive.  (We have probably all seen that "diamond in the rough" that when someone buys them, the animal become a totally different animal. We have also seen the flip side when a diamond is sold to a different environment and the animal does a complete 180 and goes down hill.)

 

[justintime]

I have always heard that it takes 8 times as much feed to put on a pound of fat as it does 1 pound of muscle, on an animal. That is probably a generalization, but I know some livestock books have made similar claims.
I think there are differences between animals on how they stay in good condition. Whether that is what is called easy fleshing or not is probably debatable.
It seems that some animals can do more with the same feed than others can. This was one of the main reasons I purchased Wolf Willow Major Leroy a few years ago. When I was visiting the farm where he was born, his owner said he could not feed him anything but poorer quality hay or he was too fat by breeding season. When I saw him, he was in excellent condition and I thought that if he could produce some daughters that could do the same, he would be a valuable asset to our herd. When I saw his dam, she was also the female with the most body condition in the herd.
I was able to purchase Leroy and his dam ( although it took a few hours of negotiating on his dam) and they have proven to do the same thing in our herd. Leroy never received grain here and was always in excellent rig. His dam is now 14 and she is a tank. You can pick out the Leroy daughters in the herd. They raise excellent calves and come in at weaning in great shape... and stay this way no matter how cold the winter is.
I do believe there are differences in how cattle convert feed and the ones that do it best are what I consider to have better fleshing ability. Most any animal can look pretty good when they have unlimited feed supplies. It is the ones that do this when feed is limited or poorer quality that show the main differences between them.

I agree with BTDT that there are some " man made" terms that are pretty deceptive. I hear some in the show ring that make me cringe as they have really nothing to do with productive traits and sometimes can actually be antagonistic to production. I have ranted on here before about how I feel the show ring is creating some of the calving issues in all breeds, that we hear about. Many of these terms have nothing to do with anything except eye appeal and are not related to any productive trait. I have found most " goose fronted" females to be frailer and usually don't have the longevity of some others. Yes, it is pleasing to your eyes but a 14 year old cow that is still producing excellent calves should also be pleasing to your eyes. Another term that is oftentimes misused is femininity. Some people don't know how femininity is different from fraility. I do think we are seeing some judges figure this out. Masculinity is oftentimes not a consideration in males. I truly believe that the most feminine females are sired by the most masculine bulls. Why then, are bulls with more masculinity oftentimes not considered as good breeding animals?

 

[aj]

I think fleshing ability and marbling ability are probably tied together.....no proof though.

 

[knabe]

I think fleshing ability and marbling ability are probably tied together.....no proof though.

Of course they are.  Flesh is muscle and fat gain.

 

[RyanChandler]

I think fleshing ability and marbling ability are probably tied together.....no proof though.

Holsteins and Jerseys marble as good as any yet are the least efficient in terms of conversion rates. 

 

[knabe]

I think fleshing ability and marbling ability are probably tied together.....no proof though.

Holsteins and Jerseys marble as good as any yet are the least efficient in terms of conversion rates.

if you got rid of their milk, i bet that equation would change.

 

[RyanChandler]

I've fed too many Holstein steers to know otherwise.  They have a much higher 'metabolism' thus their need for higher energy rations to produce comparable gains.  On a true finishing ration, a Holstein will dominate in the daily gain dept. 

 

[knabe]

I've fed too many Holstein steers to know otherwise.  They have a much higher 'metabolism' thus their need for higher energy rations to produce comparable gains.  On a true finishing ration, a Holstein will dominate in the daily gain dept.

that metabolism is "single" trait selected. take it away and it will be otherwise. just like any other trait.

 

[RyanChandler]

What if there's a positive correlation between fast metabolism and ABILITY to gain- which I think there is?

I hear that was the problem with the shorthorns before opening the books- they'd covert at 5:1 but could only gain 3lbs a day.  (Implicit is that they could/would only consume 15lbs feed/day.

 

[knabe]

What if there's a positive correlation between fast metabolism and ABILITY to gain- which I think there is?

I hear that was the problem with the shorthorns before opening the books- they'd covert at 5:1 but could only gain 3lbs a day.  (Implicit is that they could/would only consume 15lbs feed/day.

correlation is not causality

 

[knabe]

What if there's a positive correlation between fast metabolism and ABILITY to gain- which I think there is?

I hear that was the problem with the shorthorns before opening the books- they'd covert at 5:1 but could only gain 3lbs a day.  (Implicit is that they could/would only consume 15lbs feed/day.

back then, they didn't have a rib eye to speak of or a rear end, hence the entry of maine's.

during 3 years of straight bred feeder trials during college, the only ribeye's smaller than shorthorns were dairy and longhorns. they also tended to have heavier flecks of marbling and to me, weren't as pretty a steak as one that had a diversity of marbling fleck size.