Our 2008 Carcass Data

[chambero]

Just got our carcass data back on our 2006-07 calf crop.

88 Head Killed (61 steers, 27 heifers).  Mostly crossbred black bulls on crossbred black cows.

Combined Data

12.89" REA
2.4 lbs ADG - Got to work on this one - but the way I understand it the feedlot intentionally brings them along a little slowly to improve quality grade while keeping yield grades low (less waste).  I'd love to hear some info from someone that knows about different techniques used to feed cattle in feedlots.

1.1% Prime
76.1% Choice
21.6% Select

21.6% YG1
44.3% YG2
31.8% YG3
2.3% YG4

15.9% Angus Pride
23.9% CAB
55.7% Hotel/Restaurant Index
3.4% Sterling Silver

For the first time, we got data on every single calf tracked back to our original tag numbers.  I wish there was an easy way to get a table from Excel on here.  My biggest observation so far:

We had one bull whose calves (18 hd total in this bunch) just didn't do well in the feedlot.  He was one of those pretty bulls I bought (a Playmate son) but in hindsight wasn't much of a bull.  He was also the one that threw a spastic paresis-affected calf each of the two years we used him.  Luckily, we shipped his hiney off last year and don't have any calves from him this year.  He would throw a couple of good show calves each year, but guess what - they didn't really "get there" at the end either.  In hindsight, the guy we bought him from didn't really try to sell him to us very hard, I was just suckered in by his looks and "reasonable" price.

Our purebred Angus calves (12 head) did very well- around 2.6 lbs/day for steers with 12.33 inch ribeyes and 100% choice.  These were calving ease bulls and these results really surprised me.

Our "best" calves were out of a son of Cunia and Foreplay's dam.  Steer carcasses out of this bull averaged $1438 each (43% choice with 15.5 inch ribeyes).

Our calves out of Meyer sons were up close to the top.

Calves at the bottom were sired by the aforementioned Playmate son.  Three Paleface steers didn't do well at all either.  Kadabra steers landed in the middle.

We have real small purebred Maine bull we use on heifers also.  His calves were too small at weaning.  However, those first-calf heifer calves landed in the middle of the pack much to my surprise for overall value.

Carcasses from our best steers brought between $1350 and nearly $1600.  Worst ones brought between $1225 and $1275.

Heifers ranged from just under $1100 per carcass up to $1450.  We kept the top 75% of our heifers for replacements though, so this is the very bottom end.

Good bulls pay for themselves in a hurry.  We've got to improve our rate of gains, but manage to keep our quality grading.

 

[red]

Yea ForePlay genetics! I'm really glad you post these chambero. It brings the real world of cattle raising back to the for front.

Good job!

Red

 

[knabe]

chambero, any comments on hybrid vigor differences?  that cunia/foreplay bull on your cows seems to maximize it?

 

[showsteerdlux]

Great data and thanks for sharing it. What was the calf that graded prime out of genetics wise? If you dont mind who are your angus calving ease bulls out of?

 

[chambero]

There was one purebred Angus calf that graded prime with Yield Grade 3.  All of our Angus cattle up until a year ago came from RA Brown in Throckmorton, TX - both bulls and females.  Just very good commercial Angus bloodlines.  Bulls are registered, cows aren't.  I couldn't tell you which Angus bloodline they were from other than Traveler something-or-another.  The Angus-sired calves (both purebred and those out of our crossbred cows) all tended to grade choice, but are higher in Yield Grade than Exotic-sired calves.  Ribeyes are a little smaller out of the Angus also.

 

[chambero]

chambero, any comments on hybrid vigor differences?  that cunia/foreplay bull on your cows seems to maximize it?

That gets a little outside my comfort zone of knowledge to discuss - other than we really probably don't do a very good job at maximizing vigor.  Crossbred bulls on crossbred cows probably nixes that, but we still seem to be doing ok.  However, to improve in that area, we are thinking of a couple of changes:

Probably going to buy some more Angus bulls (probably this weekend at Griswolds) to use back on our crossbred cows.  Intent is to take eventually take females back closer to 3/4 or 7/8 Angus.  Those females then set me up to go back with higher percentage exotic bulls.

Also am going to start using some purebred Simmental bulls to see what happens.  The feedlot we sell to has massive commercial bull sales that seem to really push the black Simis.  I think we could help our growth rates there if I can find some that aren't too tall for my taste.

How does all of this relate to raising show calves?  We've "fallen off" a little the last 3-4 years in the competetiveness of our steers.  Mainly the result of a couple of bad bull choices and just now getting serious about AIing.  We'd had too much luck for too long with our own bulls, and then the game changed a little on us and we didn't adjust quickly enough.  To use the bulls that sire the appropriate "look", I think you've got to have cows that are rock solid structurally and growth wise.  That is where I want to improve a little.  Too much of anything is never good and we've probably got a little too much Maine and Chi right and lighter muscled Angus right now.

 

[TJ]

Just got our carcass data back on our 2006-07 calf crop.

88 Head Killed (61 steers, 27 heifers).  Mostly crossbred black bulls on crossbred black cows.

Combined Data

12.89" REA
2.4 lbs ADG - Got to work on this one - but the way I understand it the feedlot intentionally brings them along a little slowly to improve quality grade while keeping yield grades low (less waste).  I'd love to hear some info from someone that knows about different techniques used to feed cattle in feedlots.

1.1% Primet
76.1% Choice
21.6% Select

21.6% YG1
44.3% YG2
31.8% YG3
2.3% YG4

15.9% Angus Pride
23.9% CAB
55.7% Hotel/Restaurant Index
3.4% Sterling Silver

For the first time, we got data on every single calf tracked back to our original tag numbers.  I wish there was an easy way to get a table from Excel on here.  My biggest observation so far:

We had one bull whose calves (18 hd total in this bunch) just didn't do well in the feedlot.  He was one of those pretty bulls I bought (a Playmate son) but in hindsight wasn't much of a bull.  He was also the one that through spastic paresis-affected calves.  Luckily, we shipped his hiney off last year and don't have any calves from him this year.  He would throw a couple of good show calves each year, but guess what - they didn't really "get there" at the end either.  In hindsight, the guy we bought him from didn't really try to sell him to us very hard, I was just suckered in by his looks and "reasonable" price.

Our purebred Angus calves (12 head) did very well- around 2.6 lbs/day for steers with 12.33 inch ribeyes and 100% choice.  These were calving ease bulls and these results really surprised me.

Our "best" calves were out of a son of Cunia and Foreplay's dam.  Steer carcasses out of this bull averaged $1438 each (43% choice with 15.5 inch ribeyes).

Our calves out of Meyer sons were up close to the top.

Calves at the bottom were sired by the aforementioned Playmate son.  Three Paleface steers didn't do well at all either.  Kadabra steers landed in the middle.

We have real small purebred Maine bull we use on heifers also.  His calves were too small at weaning.  However, those first-calf heifer calves landed in the middle of the pack much to my surprise for overall value.

Carcasses from our best steers brought between $1350 and nearly $1600.  Worst ones brought between $1225 and $1275.

Heifers ranged from just under $1100 per carcass up to $1450.  We kept the top 75% of our heifers for replacements though, so this is the very bottom end.

Good bulls pay for themselves in a hurry.  We've got to improve our rate of gains, but manage to keep our quality grading.

That data looks pretty good, except for the offspring by the Playmate son.  ADG is overrated, IMHO.  It could stand to be a bit better, but I wouldn't worry about it too much, especially if the feedlot isn't worried about it.   

Interesting about the feedlot bringing them on slower (2.5 ADG) & hoping that it will result in less waste fat while still allowing them to marble.  Interesting.  That scenario would seem to be geared toward "easy fleshing genetics".  But, it might also mean that they wanted to feed something cheaper than $4, $5 & $6 dollar corn & they mixed in as many by-product feeds as they thoguht they could get by with.  By-products are cheap & they wont put on the weight quite like corn will.  Either way, slow finishing favors "easier fleshing genetics". 

I think that you nailed it... good bulls do pay for themselves in a hurry!!  I've always heard that good bulls don't cost, they pay & that saying is so true!!
   

 

[knabe]

  Either way, slow finishing favors "easier fleshing genetics". 

doens't fast finishing favor easier fleshing genetics, especially at an earlier age?

 

[4Ts4H]

Really, daily gain is not the important number.  More important is the cost of gain.  If the ration is a lower MgCal resulting in less cost, it stands to reason the ADG will also be lower.  But, if a higher MgCal ration nets a proportionally higher gain, the cost of gain would be lower.  The result would be more dollars returned per head.

BTW, when and where were these cattle harvested & what was the carcass yield?

Pete

 

[chambero]

Thanks for the feedback regarding daily gain.  I don't know cost of gain numbers on them. 

I know the cattle are being primarily fed byproducts mixed with silage I guess.  We went and saw our previous years calves about midway through.  It was a very wet feed.

Cattle are fed in southwestern Nebraska (very close to Cowboy) and were harvested at Fort Morgan on March 26.

For carcass yield, are you referring to dressing %?  The average there was 66.10%.

 

[4Ts4H]

WOW!  66.10% sounds really high for crossbred blacks.

Sounds like they were pretty well shrunk out, or they received a pretty solid pencil shrink.

Considering the current market, with the dismal spread from choice to select, I would have to say that those cattle were fed out absolutely perfect!  Were you to send them to market in a time when the spread is over the $12 mark, I would choose to push the grain much harder to ensure the quality grade is maximized.  When the spread gets out there, the y4 deducts are less than the quality premiums.  IMHO, fed hard, those cattle really should be able to make a minimum 25% prime and 85% choice or better!!!  Of course then you would have to sacrifice the probable 30% y4s.

 

[kanshow]

Pretty good numbers!   

 

[chambero]

WOW!   66.10% sounds really high for crossbred blacks.

Sounds like they were pretty well shrunk out, or they received a pretty solid pencil shrink.

Considering the current market, with the dismal spread from choice to select, I would have to say that those cattle were fed out absolutely perfect!  Were you to send them to market in a time when the spread is over the $12 mark, I would choose to push the grain much harder to ensure the quality grade is maximized.  When the spread gets out there, the y4 deducts are less than the quality premiums.  IMHO, fed hard, those cattle really should be able to make a minimum 25% prime and 85% choice or better!!!  Of course then you would have to sacrifice the probable 30% y4s.

Thanks for the info.  Those are the kinds of details I don't know nearly enough about.  I know these guys stated goals are 70% choice and 70% YG1 and 2.  I double-checked and our avg dressing % was 66.1%.  Last year's crop was 61.86% with 71.8% choice and 61.2% YG 1 & 2.

 

[shorthorns r us]

what was the average fat thickness & kph fat?

 

[chambero]

Overall average backfat was 0.39 (0.4 steers, 0.38 heifers) and Avg % EBF was 29.55.  Those were the only "fat" numbers we got.

 

[knabe]

Overall average backfat was 0.39 (0.4 steers, 0.38 heifers) and Avg % EBF was 29.55.  Those were the only "fat" numbers we got.

i mean really, how more perfect can you get (backfat).  even slightly "underfed" to meet the new market.  good job chambero.

 

[chambero]

That credit goes to the feedlot on the feeding.  They are a company called Power Genetics and have been great to deal with as a cow/calf operator.

But this information at least proves to us that we aren't "screwing up our herd" by using cattle associated wth show calf bloodlines.  Maybe we just aren't good enough on the show end of it to see those problems yet, but I doubt it.  I think good cattle are still "good cattle" in whatever scenario.  We don't spend tons of money on bulls or heifers and we stumble into the winners circle at big shows with steers and heifers from time to time.  But we still pay the bills with the commercial side.

 

[aj]

Were the cattle implanted...as calves or in the lot. I'm hearing cost of gains running from 70-85 cents. Sounds like a super bunch of cattle. Great job!

 

[gatorbait]

Were the cattle implanted...as calves or in the lot. I'm hearing cost of gains running from 70-85 cents. Sounds like a super bunch of cattle. Great job!

Thats what I was going to ask. What implant program were they on? Overall sounds like your set up for success when the choice-select spread widens back up
also did ya'll see were the spread actually inverted a few weeks back...  weird.

 

[chambero]

We never implanted them as calves.  In the past, we sold calves into natural programs so we don't use them.  We never know for sure who is going to buy them until we get bids in.

We sold them to the feedlot back in July and they averaged 633 (steers) and (534) right off their mothers.  Never any creep feed.  I don't know if the feedlot uses implants or not, but I don't think so.