One of our junior herd sires

[aj]

The one post stated that free spirits had a 12 month adjusted rea of 16.1    I was always told that individual scans aren't nessecarily good where as scans in contemporary groups is what should be done in order to get a complete picture.

 

[knabe]

The one post stated that free spirits had a 12 month adjusted rea of 16.1    I was always told that individual scans aren't nessecarily good where as scans in contemporary groups is what should be done in order to get a complete picture.

adding in carcass results and other offspring results would complete the picture.  a contemporary group only helps sort within that group.  since there are many factors we don't understand that contribute to various traits, it is nowhere near a complete picture.  they are mainly guidelines.  adding the sire to other herds would complete the picture even more.  your choice of words needs improvement to improve the accuracy the picture.

 

[aj]

I don't think you can compare scans made by two different scanners on two different dates in two different countries. Can you scan a 3 month old calf and then manipulate a 12 month old adjustment from that?

 

[knabe]

I don't think you can compare scans made by two different scanners on two different dates in two different countries. Can you scan a 3 month old calf and then manipulate a 12 month old adjustment from that?

so why worry about 16.1.  you have just said it's worthless, so why worry about it.  what if his 16.1 was really 14.9.  should we have 3 people do it and take the average or the median?

 

[justintime]

I don't think you can compare scans made by two different scanners on two different dates in two different countries. Can you scan a 3 month old calf and then manipulate a 12 month old adjustment from that?

When we scanned our bulls, we were told that in order to get accurate data, the animals had to fall within a fairly narrow window of age. For example we had a couple bulls just over 15 months of age and we were unable to send the scan data in, to get them adjusted to 12 months of age. I also asked about accuracy of the scanners, and was told that they have high accuracy. The CUP lab in Ames, IA has collected scan data for many years from all parts of North America, and they say the data is very accurate.

I don't want this to become a debate on whether scanning for REA is right or wrong. REA is just another tool and it is of no value if used by itself, or if you don't have some idea of where you are wanting to go with your breeding program. Personally I would never select a herd bull based on his REA alone. I would never select a herd bull using EPDs alone either. I would never select a herd bull based on pedigree alone. A person has to evaluate all the traits using all the data and basic common sense eye appeal knowledge you can get. I know some will tell you that you can select by looking at the data, but I am a firm believer that the data has to help justify what my eyes tell me.  Scan data is extremely important to Aussie breeders, and it is virtually impossible to complete a sale on a bull or sell semen on a sire, if he has not got scan data available. They seem to believe it is accurate no matter where it is done and it is adjusted to a 12 month age.
I believe all traits are best when they are in optimum amounts. For example, I think Free Spirit along with some others sired by Timeline are on the upper edge of where we want to be in regards to REA. That means I probably will be looking for a sire with a bit more softness to his make-up to use on them. Breeding decisions are not easy and I usually spend a bunch of time every spring deciding how I will mate each cow in the herd. It is more than just turning the herd bull out and hoping for the best.

 

[Okotoks]

I don't think you can compare scans made by two different scanners on two different dates in two different countries. Can you scan a 3 month old calf and then manipulate a 12 month old adjustment from that?

When we scanned our bulls, we were told that in order to get accurate data, the animals had to fall within a fairly narrow window of age. For example we had a couple bulls just over 15 months of age and we were unable to send the scan data in, to get them adjusted to 12 months of age. I also asked about accuracy of the scanners, and was told that they have high accuracy. The CUP lab in Ames, IA has collected scan data for many years from all parts of North America, and they say the data is very accurate.

I don't want this to become a debate on whether scanning for REA is right or wrong. REA is just another tool and it is of no value if used by itself, or if you don't have some idea of where you are wanting to go with your breeding program. Personally I would never select a herd bull based on his REA alone. I would never select a herd bull using EPDs alone either. I would never select a herd bull based on pedigree alone. A person has to evaluate all the traits using all the data and basic common sense eye appeal knowledge you can get. I know some will tell you that you can select by looking at the data, but I am a firm believer that the data has to help justify what my eyes tell me.  Scan data is extremely important to Aussie breeders, and it is virtually impossible to complete a sale on a bull or sell semen on a sire, if he has not got scan data available. They seem to believe it is accurate no matter where it is done and it is adjusted to a 12 month age.
I believe all traits are best when they are in optimum amounts. For example, I think Free Spirit along with some others sired by Timeline are on the upper edge of where we want to be in regards to REA. That means I probably will be looking for a sire with a bit more softness to his make-up to use on them. Breeding decisions are not easy and I usually spend a bunch of time every spring deciding how I will mate each cow in the herd. It is more than just turning the herd bull out and hoping for the best.

JIT you obviously didn’t get the memo that single trait selection for low BW will allow the shorthorn breed to take over the commercial bull market! You have mentioned selecting for multiple traits, CE, REA, softness (IMF), scrotal size and shape…..  Call us crazy but we are ignoring the BW memo as well. It’s just one factor in CE. We implanted 7 embryos this year by the multi trait leader in Australia, The Grove Kookaburra W735. He is above breed average in 18 out of 19 traits and within 5% of the breed average on the 19th. He is a trait leader for gestation length, milk, carcass weight, eye muscle area and IMF. I like the fact he is a trait leader for normally antagonistic traits. Some will call us crazy but we also put in embryos out of an American Shorthorn bull that has a birth weight EPD of +6.3. But he also has a milk EPD in the top 1%, REA in the top 1%, marbling  top 3%, carcass weight in top 1%. His MCE is +6.9 in the top 2% of the breed. The dam of the embryos has a BW of -0.6%.  Looking forward to how these calves turn out.
http://abri.une.edu.au/online/cgi-bin/i4.dll?1=313021&2=2420&3=56&5=2B3C2B3C3A&6=5C255B5A2658252F24&9=5C5A5E59

 

[vanridge]

justintime I really like your bull, I think he's improved in looks since Agribition!

We have a angus based commercial herd, with all kinds of stuff mixed in. We used a Black Angus bull and a Shorthorn bull last year and we averaged in the high 90's for birth weights. The calves were born extremely fast and were up in sucking in no time. When my husband and I look for a bull we stay away from the super light birhtweight bulls. We need them to be able to stand February weather in Canada. We prefer somewhere between 80-90 lbs and will go higher depending on the parentage of the bull and his structure. Extreme anything always runs you into to trouble. I do have to agree though that if you are trying to sell bulls to the industry you want cows with the ability to push out a 100+ lb calf but need them to have calves that are 80 lbs. We saw a lot of good black angus bulls get passed by at a sale because their birht weights were higher. Commercial producers are short changing themselves when they look for 60 lb birthweights. An 80 lb calf has a 20 lb head start.
In the end, the difference between an easy calver and a heavy calving bull is 3%. How many bulls have been blamed for being heavy calvers because their calves weighed over 80lbs in a 100 cow herd and they had to pull a few calves, and no other factors were accounted for: quality of feed, temperatures, ration changes during gestation, availability of grass on pasture etc etc? Calving ease is not a hard and proven science...

Justintime you mentioned hip/leg structure in a previous post and I find it an interesting topic. At our local fair the other day, someone commented to me that a bred dairy heifer with what I would have considered an ideal rump (slight slope from hooks to pins) would place lower in class because the new trend now is to have a level rump. When I was a kid I was always told that if the rump is level from hooks to pins as a yearling heifer, by the time she is 5-6 she will have a downward slope (hooks lower than pins) and end up with rear leg problems and trouble with breeding. I have seen a lot of beef judges do the same in heifer classes but I think I will stick with what I've been taught as a kid. We  can't afford added costs like hoof trimming etc.As one beef producer told me "the only place a cow should be hoof trimmed, is right behind the ears"

 

[Dale]

"Calving ease is not a hard and proven science..."

What do you think of CE Dir. and $CEZ?  Do these tools take into account the angles & shapes that are factors in calving ease?  Lately we have paid more attention to CE Dir. & $CEZ--sometimes I've been burned when I chased only BW.  Some moderate to low BW sires can throw #110+ pound calves; however, those bulls are not usually outstanding on CE Dir.

Then there is CEM....

 

[vanridge]

EPD's are an indication of a bull's potential. If they are making EPD #'s based on a small group of progeny, than to me they are not a sound, reliable tool. I feel more comfortable with ones that have been used on large amount of animals. I've seen dairy guys lose enormous amounts of money in embryos because they had flushed their best cows to the highest EPD bull only to have his new crop of daughters come out and the EPD's crash through the floor. I like EPD's, but I do not like to rely only on them for finding a bull. I also find, that we sometimes forget about what the cow adds to the mix. If you have a simm/angus cow and add a moderate to low birthweight bull to the mix and end up with a big calf, is it the bull or is it the simm in the cow that added the size?
Now a days, we are fortunate that we have access to so many resources through internet. There are plenty of sights, (like SP) where a person can ask for opinions on a bull they are thinking of using. Again, it wouldn't be my only source, but it sure helps to hear what other peoples thoughts are. This is just my opinion. We have been fortunate enough to find Angus and Shorthorn breeders who really know their stock and we can trust their opinion on a bull.

 

[Davis Shorthorns]

We as a breed in the US have to be even more watchful of our BW's than the other breeds.  We have to scrape and scratch to get a slight foothold in the commercial beef herd.  We cant be just as good we have to be better.  US breeders do have their heads in the sand when it comes to this.  Grant im sorry but imo in the US Salute is NOT any way shape or form a commercially acceptable bull.  Do they have some attributes that could be used... Yes but that what 7 bw epd will send almost every commercial guy running for the hills.  Also if you started breeding salute to the 12-1400 lb angus cow base that we see around would you still be having the same low dystocia levels as you do now with bulls like that?  I love my cows that can lay down and have a 100 lb calf, but would rather see them lay down and have a 80lb calf.  Also yes breeding generation after generation of extremely low bw cattle can shrink a pelvis.  That is what pelvic measurements are for.  Ask Lovings in they have been line breeding ultra low bw for years and actually have increased pelvic size.  Just have to watch for it.  All that being said to people that dont want to look at actual bw's and would rather look at calving ease HIGH BW'S=HARD CALVING!!!!  Sorry but on average a cow has a harder time calving a big calf than a small one.

High BW's = Hard Calving is true but large pelvis also equals calving ease. Does anyone know what the issue is with the animals with the harder calving? If you assume it's BW and keep using a smaller birth weight bulls on these bloodlines you might downsize the mature size and still have small pelvic size. A lot of the beautiful heifers winning are big girls but if they have small pelvic measurements this could be one of the issues. It almost seems that some are advocating throwing entire bloodlines away but what if some animals like HC Free Spirit have calving ease, then why not select for it across bloodlines. I know of a Salute heifer out of a cow we sold that calved unassisted as a two year old so you can't make a blanket statement it is evrey animal in a bloodline.(I have little experience with the bloodline but in the 3 I know of no issues) I think  if a heifer has serious issues culling is the answer no matter how many ribbons or fancy pedigree she might have.

I am very aware that larger pelvises = easier calving, but for one if you select for larger and larger pelvis size you get larger and larger frame size with it and at least where I am at that isn't what we need.  Also when you are talking to Joe Rancher commercial cattleman do you hear "well the calf crop averaged over 100lbs but most of the cows had them ok, so I think I will continue to use that bull" or is it more like "well that calf crop averaged 100lbs man we got lucky we didn't have more problems."  Its perceived problems with higher bw cattle.  Most of the cattlemen around me want a 77-85 lb calf that comes easy. 

 

[RyanChandler]

I don't buy that larger pelvis equals larger frame.  I do agree with everything else you're saying though.

 

[justintime]

I don't believe there is any correlation between larger pelvic size and larger frame size. A few years ago, I helped do pelvic measurements on a group of yearling heifers. We tried to guess the pelvic area and eventually came to the conclusion that there was no way a person could evaluate pelvic area without doing the actual measurement. In that group of heifers, some of the largest pelvic areas were in some of the smallest framed heifers.

 

[Okotoks]

I agree with JIT, last year when we measured the vet said one of the smaller heifers had a pelvis you could drive a truck through. She had an 88 lb bull calf unassisted this spring. It's not the only selection criteria but I think it is one that is useful.
A commercial breeder in our area sells 300 bred heifers every December. He raises a lot of them but he also puts packages together in the spring and breeds them for this sale. All the heifers are pelvic measured before breeding and anything that doesn’t measure up is put in his feedlot. Last year over 50% of the Red Angus package ended up on feed due to small pelvic measurement.  This year two heifers he sold had C sections, they were Black Angus that had genetic defect calves(drives me mental when purebred breeders think it’s ok to sell carrier bulls commercial, eventually it will bite some unsuspecting commercial buyer)  Needless to say he changed some of his sourcing this year. You can get issues in any breed, there are huge variations across bloodlines.
I don’t think large pelvic measurements have to translate into large framed cows, it just comes down to selection. A lot of commercial producers only weigh the calves that give them issues. That said at the same time most commercial bull buyers do select on birth weight.

 

[Davis Shorthorns]

I don't buy that larger pelvis equals larger frame.  I do agree with everything else you're saying though.

The research I have seen points to if you continue to select for just the largest pelvic areas your frame score will increase.  That's from KSU when I went to school there.  Now there are always outliers as with everything, but they are the exception to the rule. 

 

[Okotoks]

I don't buy that larger pelvis equals larger frame.  I do agree with everything else you're saying though.

The research I have seen points to if you continue to select for just the largest pelvic areas your frame score will increase.  That's from KSU when I went to school there.  Now there are always outliers as with everything, but they are the exception to the rule.

So select for pelvic size as well as the mature size you want. No one said you should single trait select for pelvic size anymore than for birth weight. I have three commercial bull buyers that won't buy small birth weight bulls as they claim they scarifice too much performance. We try to select for low BW and high WW even though they are usually antagonsitic traits. I think single trait selection usually ends in train wrecks.

 

[RyanChandler]

That's how I see it too. Select for cattle that have a larger than average pelvis while maintaining a constant frame score. 

 

[knabe]

The research I have seen points to if you continue to select for just the largest pelvic areas your frame score will increase.

one can easily select for larger pelvic size while retaining frame score.

 

[aj]

Looks like pelvic area of cattle.............it would best to cull the smaller outliers.........why don't they pelvic measure show heifers and show bulls and list the results. I have only measured one bullin life......at 365 days. Why doesn't the industry concentrate on big pelvics more. I will agree that the 100# bwt Shorthorn cattle generally have bigger pelvis's than most breeds. I think there is a "threshold" in commercial herds where there is no problems and bwt's and pelvic area is balanced out. I could see pursuing adequate pelvic area........but I would question chasinging big pelvic area's. jmo Why don't you pelvic measure bulls and list's mearuresments in sales. Not sure I've ever seen it.

 

[Davis Shorthorns]

I understand how to select on basis of pelvic measurements and believe that it is a great tool in selecting for better calving ease, but as breeders we HAVE to bring down bw's.  I just wish we could realize that as a breed.  I understand that things are different up in Canada when it comes to bw, but here in the flint hills of Kansas if you have a bull that has a high bw at the VERY least he is going to be towards the bottom of the sale.  If we keep making excuses as to why we have larger bw's then we will keep making excuses why we are a hobby breed to most of the US beef producers.  BW is the NUMBER 1 thing that I hear from anyone I talk to about why they wont use a Shorthorn bull.  I say buck up and cut the bulls over 90lbs and cull the heifers over 90 as well.  No matter how good they are.  Now that's just my personal opinion from the people I have talked to in my VERY short period of time as a breeder, but I have been laughed at when taking to people about buying a Shorthorn bull and told to raise some "Real" cattle. 

 

[trevorgreycattleco]

Davis is spot on. That's the reality shorthorns face in the states. Every breed has its issues but the stigma on shorthorns here is a 900 lb silverback gorilla sitting in the corner of the room.