New Herdsire

[beebe]

Shorthorn average is more performance than my environment can support.  Exposes the worst part about epds. People see the percentile ranking as “better” or “worse” instead of appropriately using them to identify and match a level of performance within the cattle to their environment.

Very well said.

 

[mark tenenbaum]

LETS ALL TAKE BRITISH BREED MATERNAL CATTLE OUT OF THIER TRUE ENVIRONMENT AND TRY TO COMPARE THIER INDECES TO BOS INDICOS OR WHATEVER IN  SOUTH TEXAS OR SOME MILKING SHOTHORN forgotten prairie FANTASY WORLD- NEED TO HAVE  RANGE CATTLE TO THRIVE IN THAT ENVIRONMENT. AT the very LEAST in some of the SHORTHORN BREEDING I HAVE SEEN.  Even in less hostile environments IVE LOST COUNT OF HOW MANY SMALL HERDS  IVE SEEN THAT ARE RUN BY EARTH SHOE YUPPIES or overgrazing wanna be's  WHO HAVE PITIFUL STARVING ANIMALS Want  good looking shorthorn (appearing) angus ( appearing) or hereford types to survive in a very harsh environment? Breed them to brahmas beefmasters brafords etc THE  CATTLE IVE SEEN  OTHER THAN CROSSING OUT that way  ARE THE CLUBBY CHARx AMERICAN-HEREFORD APPEARING- SHORTHORN WHO KNOWS WHAT THAT ARE ALL OVER THE TEXAS OKLAHOMA SALES THE CALVES LOOK GOOD CONTRARY TO SOME PERCEPTIONS Probably because these cattle come from range cattle not far back in thier lineage O0

 

[RyanChandler]

Where specifically on the map is their ‘true environment?’  I’m in North Texas 40 inches of rain a year where most people running a cow per 4 acres.  Average growth epds is plenty here.  Do you want to see some thin calves use you a trait leader growth bull.  I’ll put the mid 40s WW bulls up against any here. 

 

[oakview]

In my 60 years of cattle experience, the one recurring theme has been performance.  The AI stud books from the late 60's pushed performance, breed associations pushed performance, cattle shows and sales have pushed performance.  The oldest ABS bull catalog I have, over 50 years old, graphically demonstrates how much your calves sired by their bulls will out perform calves out of other bulls.  I have read the "banker and the bull" story so many times I'm sick of it.  The exotic breeds were brought over here under the banner of how much they will improve the performance of your calves.  I have lived through the ASA's SPR and WHR programs.  I personally participated in the old ASA sire test.  Every time I sell bulls at the beef expo they are weighed with WDA supplied to prospective  buyers.  Every time I go to a show, as a participant or an observer, the bulls are weighed with the information supplied to the judge.  I have listened many times to judges as they say, "the second place heifer is as good or better than the first place heifer, there's just not as much of her."  Our county fair was among the first to weigh in calves and provide ADG figures to the judge.  You cannot ignore performance.  As I have stated before, every cattle producer has to determine the proper amount of performance that his or her environment can sustain.  For some it might be total grassfed beef with little or no input, for others it might be trying to obtain those 1,000 pound weaning weights, and every thing in between.  I have recommended for years that genetics should be purchased from someone who produces cattle the way you do.  That increases your odds of getting what you expect.  I have used a few Canadian bulls lately, assuming that since they survived 500 miles north of me, they should survive here.  Since the past few weeks have been among the most brutal we've ever had, it's a good thing they're used to it.   

 

[CAB]

I am 63 years old and have had cows since I was 9. the thing is I haven't figured anything out yet. It seems like to me that the epds are geared mostly for the packers and the feeders. I sell feeder calves. The most important numbers for me are $W and $EN within the Angus sire Summaries.
An interesting question though is Kit Pharo's. If you have 50,000lb pot loads of calves and the one has 600lb calves in it and the other is loaded with 450lb calves, which pot load would you rather receive the money for. Most years the 450lb pot load of calves will bring somewhere in the neighborhood of $15k to $20K more than the 600lb calves. Something to think about. :

 

[GoWyo]

Calf weaning weights have started to plateau due to limitations in their environment despite all the hot rod growth genetics and schemes to make bulls with 1000 adjusted 205-day weights.  Weaning weight is highly important, but so is cost control and feedlot performance and feed efficiency and carcass value.

Summary
Overall, these results indicate
that trends for WW in commercial
cow-calf operations vary substantially
by region of the country. However,
there is considerable evidence that
progress in WW may be limited by
the production environment in
commercial cow-calf operations.
Perhaps one of the most
important takeaways from this
study is that commercial cow-calf
producers need to keep good records
in order to monitor progress in WW
and enterprise cost of production
over time.
Assuming a lack of significant
progress in calf WW, efforts to
enhance profitability should focus
on reducing cost of production
and/or capturing value of genetic
potential for post-weaning
performance and carcass value.

http://www.angusjournal.com/ArticlePDF/0219-weaning-weight.pdf

 

[mark tenenbaum]

Salina KS gets 30.7 inches of rain a year and 1 to 1.5 feet of snow so around 41 inches maybe The buffalo grass is a pretty good nutriant so 3 acres per cow calf seems to be a good ratio although under 2.5 and the cattle start struggling This year they were overgrazed in one pasture and it really showed The heat can be pretty bad but not to the extent of Texas but so can the cold-Below zero temps also take a toll The weather in Iowa has been below zero for weeks with windchills sometimes 49 below-THAT HAS TO ACCOUNT for some pretty extreme weight loss-and also count against the green grass and cornfields A wild guess would be that most cattle (british continental etc) will get along based upon the acerage per and somewhat to thier lineage Evergreen Seville Ayatollah and some of the other milking or rodeo and or show lineage of today will not keep well without extra nutrician-I was around to see that in person Where-people like Ralph Holloway in the 80s had Shorthorn range cattle that had Irish breeding but NEVER any dual-Wish I had a field full today  O0

 

[Medium Rare]

It looks like I'm one of the few with a daughter in the states. While I did not sample him for growth reasons, her performance was definitely not an issue. If she grows up to look like the pictures of his mature daughters while still being in production at that age I'll wish I had 99 straws left instead of just 9.

I recently found this Muridale Robert daughter with a 69lb Hot Commodity heifer calf. After a few days of observing, it's obvious he did not hurt the cow line's mothering instincts.

I sure wouldn't let average growth epds scare me away from trying him.

 

[mark tenenbaum]

I agree and have seen alot of very good bulls that werent from numbers they were just good This is the highest performing bull I have EVER USED Fresh Air His numbers do not show the grow whatso ever but every calf I know about was a stringbean growing like a run away train -then after tons of disappointing changes start to fill out and look real good  This heifer is an example-And she didnt grow up like fuffy the kittycat  Shes also on a high roughage ration and the numbers ARE REAL  O0

 

[turning grass into beef]

  I have recommended for years that genetics should be purchased from someone who produces cattle the way you do.  That increases your odds of getting what you expect.

IMO this is the most intelligent statement I have ever seen posted on this website. (clapping) (clapping) (clapping)

 

[knabe]

I am 63 years old and have had cows since I was 9. the thing is I haven't figured anything out yet. It seems like to me that the epds are geared mostly for the packers and the feeders. I sell feeder calves. The most important numbers for me are $W and $EN within the Angus sire Summaries.
An interesting question though is Kit Pharo's. If you have 50,000lb pot loads of calves and the one has 600lb calves in it and the other is loaded with 450lb calves, which pot load would you rather receive the money for. Most years the 450lb pot load of calves will bring somewhere in the neighborhood of $15k to $20K more than the 600lb calves. Something to think about. :

sell the other calves earlier?

 

[Duncraggan]

Where specifically on the map is their ‘true environment?’  I’m in North Texas 40 inches of rain a year where most people running a cow per 4 acres.  Average growth epds is plenty here.  Do you want to see some thin calves use you a trait leader growth bull.  I’ll put the mid 40s WW bulls up against any here.

This is where I'm headed. Smaller cattle with better fats and higher IMF. Fertility is a big issue with me as I have had a >5yr run of below longterm average rainfall, an I see where the big cows are lacking. They skip!

 

[Duncraggan]

An interesting question though is Kit Pharo's. If you have 50,000lb pot loads of calves and the one has 600lb calves in it and the other is loaded with 450lb calves, which pot load would you rather receive the money for. Most years the 450lb pot load of calves will bring somewhere in the neighborhood of $15k to $20K more than the 600lb calves. Something to think about. :

Low maintenance, fertility and calving ease, with at least average growth is the answer to profitability. You should find that your smaller cows have better wean weight ratios because of their higher efficiency. It's a no-brainer!
Some of you N. American Shorthorn guys need to get Pharo on board. His whole philosophy of profitability, with maximum satisfaction for the producer, through easy keeping, makes a lot of sense in anybody's language.

 

[beebe]

An interesting question though is Kit Pharo's. If you have 50,000lb pot loads of calves and the one has 600lb calves in it and the other is loaded with 450lb calves, which pot load would you rather receive the money for. Most years the 450lb pot load of calves will bring somewhere in the neighborhood of $15k to $20K more than the 600lb calves. Something to think about. :

Low maintenance, fertility and calving ease, with at least average growth is the answer to profitability. You should find that your smaller cows have better wean weight ratios because of their higher efficiency. It's a no-brainer!
Some of you N. American Shorthorn guys need to get Pharo on board. His whole philosophy of profitability, with maximum satisfaction for the producer, through easy keeping, makes a lot of sense in anybody's language.
[/quot
I agree and am right there with you.  The one thing missing is tenderness which in my opinion is the most important aspect of a satisfactory eating experience.

 

[knabe]

I agree and am right there with you.  The one thing missing is tenderness which in my opinion is the most important aspect of a satisfactory eating experience.

and yet no one is able to help. the technology is still in its infancy.  all the $ spent on genomics turned out to be that the purveyors had to teach more because the technology wasn't bringing in $. global warming tie-ins with feed efficiency didn't work.

the technology was not in a format that breeders could use other than to give away profit per head to genomics they couldn't use.

it was and still is a rating system to bottleneck breeds.

supposedly the info is there, but no way in hell will a breeder ever have access to information, different testing methods and links to those who can help them.

the system is simply too closed and the sad part is, it was funded partially by taxpayer dollars.

information is available and downloadable, but there are probably less than 10 organizations that can do anything about it outside of a university.

 

[beebe]

I agree and am right there with you.  The one thing missing is tenderness which in my opinion is the most important aspect of a satisfactory eating experience.

and yet no one is able to help. the technology is still in its infancy.  all the $ spent on genomics turned out to be that the purveyors had to teach more because the technology wasn't bringing in $. global warming tie-ins with feed efficiency didn't work.

the technology was not in a format that breeders could use other than to give away profit per head to genomics they couldn't use.

it was and still is a rating system to bottleneck breeds.

supposedly the info is there, but no way in hell will a breeder ever have access to information, different testing methods and links to those who can help them.

the system is simply too closed and the sad part is, it was funded partially by taxpayer dollars.

information is available and downloadable, but there are probably less than 10 organizations that can do anything about it outside of a university.

There is Dr. Allen Williams ultra sound which I believe I see anecdotal evidence  in animals harvested and the ultra sound readings.  Also Gerald Freye's linear measuring which I believe originated with Bonsma.