Fit v. Blow

[knabe]

I can see you've been talking to my mom  Wink

I don't think its a  coincidence that some of the breeds with the highest marbling are dairy breeds

man, word spreads fast, i hope you get to be as smart as she is.  post pics of that steer we talked about when you get them.

this is just my opinion and observations of looking at perhaps 300 beef carcasses per year, in lots of 5 from a variety of breeds for 3 years against dairy, that selection moved the fat in dairy as it was visually removed from the back.  it went both in the muscle and inside the rib cage in spite of selection to remove it to push production to milk instead of fat.  with feed not a limiting factor (compared to beef) the cow's system knew what it needed in fat to maintain production and fertility.

i can't say there is a corrolation to bone plate mass and or shape (flatter as oppossed to round) to marbling based on info so far and my bias of info in slaughterhouse and the supposed high heritability of marbling, roughly .40.  at this point all i can conclude is that it is corrolated, but not yet casual in my mind.  with the amount of dairy slaughtered, someone could do a senior project on that very easily.

 

[garybob]

I'll state my opinion on this topic, by telling you guys a "GaryBob" Story.

During the summer of '88, it was hot and dry. Dang hot. So dry, we had desert-like low humidity, which mitigated the high temperature (somewhat, at least). In order to prepare Us (The 4H Livestock Judging Team) for the State Contest, our County Agent( Hugh Plumlee) coordinated our practices with neighboring Counties' Agents. Kinda sort of like mini-contests.
We usually met at Operations in Boone County, as, the Harrison area always had a RICH history of Purebred Cattle Breeding. Hudson Herefords, Edwards Polled Herefords/Salers, Hudspeth Simmentals,etc. One particular day, we all met up at Ms. Sara-Jo Findley's Simmental farm. Kids from Baxter, Boone, Carroll, Newton, and Searcy County were there. Ms. Findley was a gracious hostess, right out of "Emily Post". She had Pepsi's, hot dogs, and chips for us to snack on during "shade-tree-steno-pad time", while we were writing our reasons. I remember this particular class of bull calves.
There were 3 stout, masculine, Fleckvieh-type,205-day old, Young sire-candidates, and a little,feminine, frail, future cow-freshener-in-the-making, in this class. I made my placings, and, wrote my reasons accordingly. I swept the barn floor, so to speak, with the little, yellow, sissified, diluter-carrier.
In other words, I totally BLASTED the Hostess' Sire candidate. She'd paid a fortune for him and his Holstein Surrogate Mother. To be didplomatic, Mr.Plumlee admonished my criticisms of him, telling me I shoulda Conceded frame score, cleanness, and "growth Potential". Confused by this bit of instruction, I scratched my head, and asked Hugh, "Why? You said, Compare, Grant, Criticize, the top three Pairs in Reasons, BUT never grant anything on the bottom animal."
I was nervous. I felt my internal temperature change six times in 15 seconds. Before I could say anything else, Eric Williams, age 13, came to my rescue. He said, "Hugh, you can't polish a TURD".
We were BOTH in the "Judging-Team Dog-House"!


My point is, Cattle are what they are. To me, it seems dishonest to misrepresent an animal by altering its appearance. This ESPECIALLY goes, in my opinion with breeding stock. I bought a Bull, one time, at The Arkansas Shorthorn State Sale. I thought I'd buy a Roan Bull, instead of my usual solid-red selection choice, thinking, He'd be okay in Fescue-and-Flint Country, because he had dark hooves.
They'd been painted. I doctored that SOB for foot-rot 4 times that year. I fired him in the Fall,, sending Him on a One-way Journey to Bologna-Land.And NEVER bought another beast from that particular Illinois guest-consignor again.

That's my opinion on Fitting.
Kinda like Merle Haggard sings "Neon Lights work well with Make-up and Faded Blue Jeans".

GB

 

[shortyisqueen]

My point is, Cattle are what they are. To me, it seems dishonest to misrepresent an animal by altering its appearance. This ESPECIALLY goes, in my opinion with breeding stock. I bought a Bull, one time, at The Arkansas Shorthorn State Sale. I thought I'd buy a Roan Bull, instead of my usual solid-red selection choice, thinking, He'd be okay in Fescue-and-Flint Country, because he had dark hooves.
They'd been painted. I doctored that SOB for foot-rot 4 times that year. I fired him in the Fall, sending Him on a One-way Journey to Bologna-Land.And NEVER bought another beast from that particular Illinois guest-consignor again.

While I can see where you are coming from here, the practice of altering an animal's appearance is not limited to fitting - and where a any showperson  is concerned - is not limited to hair growth and glue or even  clipping or washing or painting. You could say that there is no such thing as an unaltered animal - as we have been breeding and feeding for years based on the management practice that works best in each herd. My decision to not creep my calves or another cattleperson's decision to feed their cows grain  in the winter alters how they look and how they will breed on. To say that fitting is any more dishonest than any other management practice  seems a little absurd. A person could not fit but have them surgically altered, have a really good hoof-trimmer, feed them a bucket of barley, etc. etc. to alter their appearance, not touch a hair on their body, and still have the cattle be 'dishonest.'  I wouldn't say what the person who sold you the bull did an immoral thing by fitting his cattle.  (We have Herefords as well as Shorthorns and a bit of black maine in the mix as well, resulting in a lot of different colored hoof walls.  I find that those with white hooves have no higher susceptibility to foot rot  than those with red or black hooves. I do however find that susceptibility to disease runs in families and getting rid of those families gets rid of the disease). In your case, garybob,  I think the problem with different management practices that lead to the 'dishonesty.' You would have culled the family that always got foot rot - whereas he probably thought giving them a shot for it every once in a while was acceptable.

I think there is some confusion between misrepresentation and marketing. I'm pretty sure we've all had a fast one pulled on us at one time or another in the purebred business (We once bought a bull that was loaded into the trailer for us - and we thought, oh, what great service - only to find out he had been drugged when we got him home and wasn't normally all that quiet...yeeech!!). However, just because someone gets out a can of glue does not mean they are misrepresenting their animal.  If someone stands behind their cattle 100%, but does a good job presenting them, does that make them dishonest? Or put in a different way, would you buy a car that was covered in mud and had cigarette burns in the seat? Have you  watched a feeder sale and saw the shiny, fat, healthy, clean calves bring more than the dull-haired, snotty-nosed, tag-covered calves? How much easier is it to sell a pen of unclipped, unfitted bulls when they are standing on a bed of clean, yellow straw than when they are up to their hocks in mud? If someone doesn't care enough about their product to present it in the best possible light, how much are they going to care about it after its sold?

And if it really is a turd, no amount of polishing is going to do any good 

 

[shortyisqueen]

man, word spreads fast, i hope you get to be as smart as she is.

Me too! Genetics are  right up her ally, so I think she  really enjoyed the discussion!

this is just my opinion and observations of looking at perhaps 300 beef carcasses per year, in lots of 5 from a variety of breeds for 3 years against dairy, that selection moved the fat in dairy as it was visually removed from the back.  it went both in the muscle and inside the rib cage in spite of selection to remove it to push production to milk instead of fat.  with feed not a limiting factor (compared to beef) the cow's system knew what it needed in fat to maintain production and fertility.

i can't say there is a corrolation to bone plate mass and or shape (flatter as oppossed to round) to marbling based on info so far and my bias of info in slaughterhouse and the supposed high heritability of marbling, roughly .40.  at this point all i can conclude is that it is corrolated, but not yet casual in my mind.  with the amount of dairy slaughtered, someone could do a senior project on that very easily.

This makes me further wonder if there is a relation between milking ability, butterfat content, and marbling...Since a dairy cow is bred for her milk production - if there is indeed a relationship between marbling, bone size, a softer muscle (as opposed to a harder one, although we are still breeding for lots of muscle as beef producers) -  then the higher the milk production, the higher the marbling would be also? Hmmm, interesting. Your above post gave me more food for thought, Knabe!!

 

[knabe]

the most important phrase i ever learned in school was corrolated but not causal.

higher butter fat would allow for a smaller udder that might be less susceptible to breakdown compared to a lower butterfat higher production udder.  what that curve looks like would be interesting.

 

[garybob]

My point is, Cattle are what they are. To me, it seems dishonest to misrepresent an animal by altering its appearance. This ESPECIALLY goes, in my opinion with breeding stock. I bought a Bull, one time, at The Arkansas Shorthorn State Sale. I thought I'd buy a Roan Bull, instead of my usual solid-red selection choice, thinking, He'd be okay in Fescue-and-Flint Country, because he had dark hooves.
They'd been painted. I doctored that SOB for foot-rot 4 times that year. I fired him in the Fall, sending Him on a One-way Journey to Bologna-Land.And NEVER bought another beast from that particular Illinois guest-consignor again.

While I can see where you are coming from here, the practice of altering an animal's appearance is not limited to fitting - and where a any showperson  is concerned - is not limited to hair growth and glue or even  clipping or washing or painting. You could say that there is no such thing as an unaltered animal - as we have been breeding and feeding for years based on the management practice that works best in each herd. My decision to not creep my calves or another cattleperson's decision to feed their cows grain  in the winter alters how they look and how they will breed on. To say that fitting is any more dishonest than any other management practice  seems a little absurd. A person could not fit but have them surgically altered, have a really good hoof-trimmer, feed them a bucket of barley, etc. etc. to alter their appearance, not touch a hair on their body, and still have the cattle be 'dishonest.'  I wouldn't say what the person who sold you the bull did an immoral thing by fitting his cattle.  (We have Herefords as well as Shorthorns and a bit of black maine in the mix as well, resulting in a lot of different colored hoof walls.  I find that those with white hooves have no higher susceptibility to foot rot  than those with red or black hooves. I do however find that susceptibility to disease runs in families and getting rid of those families gets rid of the disease). In your case, garybob,  I think the problem with different management practices that lead to the 'dishonesty.' You would have culled the family that always got foot rot - whereas he probably thought giving them a shot for it every once in a while was acceptable.

I think there is some confusion between misrepresentation and marketing. I'm pretty sure we've all had a fast one pulled on us at one time or another in the purebred business (We once bought a bull that was loaded into the trailer for us - and we thought, oh, what great service - only to find out he had been drugged when we got him home and wasn't normally all that quiet...yeeech!!). However, just because someone gets out a can of glue does not mean they are misrepresenting their animal.  If someone stands behind their cattle 100%, but does a good job presenting them, does that make them dishonest? Or put in a different way, would you buy a car that was covered in mud and had cigarette burns in the seat? Have you  watched a feeder sale and saw the shiny, fat, healthy, clean calves bring more than the dull-haired, snotty-nosed, tag-covered calves? How much easier is it to sell a pen of unclipped, unfitted bulls when they are standing on a bed of clean, yellow straw than when they are up to their hocks in mud? If someone doesn't care enough about their product to present it in the best possible light, how much are they going to care about it after its sold?

And if it really is a turd, no amount of polishing is going to do any good 

The reason I say hoof color IS LINKED to a higher incidence of foot ailments? Experience! In your part of the world, it doesn't rain as much as it does down here. Therefore, you guys don't have cattle walking through belly-deep, wet, (fungus-infected) grass, either. Everyone on this site knows that the Bacterium that causes foot-rot doesn't thrive well in drier weather.
Also, white, or striped hoof lamina is softer than either black, or red-pigmneted hoof covering. When a cow steps on a rock, then, wades into the pond, or, walks across a wet pasture, it opens a window of opportunity for infection.

 

[itk]

just look at it this way, would you watch Miss America if she came out in her flannel pajamas and had her hair pulled back with no make up.
[/quote]


I would imagine that Miss America is still hot in her pj's and in some weird way that might be more exciting then the regular pageant, but that is a different post for a whole different forum . I couldn't agree more I love walking around at shows looking at highly fit animals but I also spend alot of time shaking my head wondering why people tried to fit when the animal would have looked better just left alone. Almost to 100 posts the excitement is almost unbearable.

 

[Jill]

No, your post number says 100 congratulations (clapping)

 

[shortyisqueen]

The reason I say hoof color IS LINKED to a higher incidence of foot ailments? Experience! In your part of the world, it doesn't rain as much as it does down here. Therefore, you guys don't have cattle walking through belly-deep, wet, (fungus-infected) grass, either. Everyone on this site knows that the Bacterium that causes foot-rot doesn't thrive well in drier weather.
Also, white, or striped hoof lamina is softer than either black, or red-pigmneted hoof covering. When a cow steps on a rock, then, wades into the pond, or, walks across a wet pasture, it opens a window of opportunity for infection.

I'm way way off topic again!...Sad to say I don't yet have your experience!  I'm a bit of a young whippersnapper  I've just found in my experience (and judging by the health records on our herd)  that hoof pigment has little effect on the incidence of foot rot.  I've have had red cows with red feet see the truck  for hoof problems probably more than my white-footed cows, but that could have perhaps been the breed. Those red cows didn't have very hard feet - which was a big problem!!! Thus, my  suggestion  that susceptibility to foot rot (or disease in general) has more to do with a weak immune system - The bacteria enters the hoof in the same way in by finding a break in a dark or light colored hoof wall...but if the cow has a strong immune system she will be able to fight off the foot rot and if she has a weak immune system, you'll have to treat her.  If she has daughters and passes on her weak immune system, then they'll get foot rot too. I've read some studies that say cows with foot problems may be the same cows that are treated for other health problems at a later date, and this makes sense - if she has a weak immune system, you're going to have to treat her and all her daughters for every little bug that comes along. Ever notice how some cows never have calves that you have to treat, even in the most dire of weather conditions....?

Sadly, where I'm from is a very wet area - so I'm familar with the conditions you talk about. Our main herdsires, with the exception of one, all have white hooves, but don't have any hoof problems. This year was extremely wet, but no footrot cases.... Now it could be that you are right, generally speaking, but that our herd is not a good one to select as a sample case. Our herd is  faithfully culled on  soft hooves, susceptibility to disease, long hooves, rolled hooves, corns, shallow heels, etc. etc. (and occassionally whether the cow  switched her tail left as opposed to switching it right the day 'the list' was being made).  It may be that we've inadvertantly selected for hooves that are extremely hard yet show no pigment, which is why your theory, although correct, doesn't fit with this case study....And the bull you bought may have had extremely soft hooves, so he fit your theory perfectly...

I've read in vet manuals that state pigmented laminae is either less  susceptible to lameness or that having pigmented laminae makes no difference, so those weren't much help either. But I digress...

IMHO, feet are something that need to be addressed  in the general North American cow herd....Interesting topic...nothing to do with fitting!!!