[
As far as nobody bragging about the money they save on feed, it's because that's a flawed perception. I proved it mathematically previously, but maybe you missed it. If you have animals that actually perform, you can't feed them too much. To summarize, feed efficiency varies between animals from worst to best by only about 10%. If you have average animals then the best ones on the planet beat yours by only 5% and feed efficiency is only a moderately heritable trait. So there is not much difference between animals or breeds. Using .14 cents a pound feed, MARC data on feed efficiency, 1.98 per pound last week in NE, and a 500 pound steer to eat your feed, every dollar of feed you put into him returns you $3.50. The more he eats the more you make. You don't SAVE money on feed, you leave money on the table by not feeding and not utilizing genetics that gain weight at a high rate. If feeder prices weren't so high, this wouldn't be the case, but they are.
I have zero problem with the type of cattle you raise or Lovings or the Cartwrights or whomever. That environment in KS maybe can't support anything else other than mediocre performance. But there are other places that can. The more they weigh the more they pay and the sooner they weigh it the more they pay. There are few production scenarios where that is not true.
Thank you, thank you, thank you for making these comments. If it was possible to agree more than 100% with these comments I would. This is exactly how it works. I fed cattle for many years, and you make money on cattle that gain! We kept accurate pen records on the pounds of feed into the bunks and the pounds coming out of the pens, and it was always the highest gaining cattle that made you the most money. Every time! We used to compare the feed going into the high gaining pens and the lower gaining pens, and there honestly wasn't that much difference. I do not remember a feedout where a moderate gaining pen made more than a higher gaining pen.
I think most everyone likes cows that can stay in good condition. That has a lot more to do with body shape than it does frame score. of course there are limits to frame or any other trait, but we do not need to downsize to when these cattle are no earthly good for anything. I will never understand that when a trend changes, there are a group of peoople that run as fast as they can in the direction of that change. When the pendulum swings in another direction, they take off in that direction.
) weighed 1365 at yearling and gained 4.375 pounds post weaning. BY FAR the next two highest yearling weights are from the only two 6 frame bulls in the book. FROM WHAT I SEE by looking at this catalog is that frame is directly related to pounds. And FOR ME, they are the only three bulls that come close to having acceptable performance for use as a commercial herd sire. But again, maybe I looked at another the wrong book.
