Shorthorn bull pictures
- Thread starter turning grass into beef
- Start date
Help Support Steer Planet:
J
JTM
Guest
I have also looked at some research done on birthweights and temperature. I have also seen the numbers shift in my own herd. I once did my own excel spreadsheet with a line graph comparing my yearly birthweight average with the average daily temperature over about three years. There was definitely a correlation with higher birthweights in colder temperatures, even in the same location, Ohio. I have also seen recent research that suggests protein supplementation through mineral tubs can add birthweight. Don't know if these were used or not. With all that said, my opinion is that you could probably say that those bulls that weighed 105 in Canada probably would have been 95-100 in Illinois. JMO...wiseguy said:
wiseguy
Well-known member
The University of Nebraska data showed that the avg. temp of 20 degrees in (92-93) had 11 lbs heavier calves than in (94-95) which was 11 degrees on average warmer. Similar feed rations and genetics, but a different group of cows each year. So basically, it is a gamble that may or may not pay off.
J
JTM
Guest
Yeah, I have to say that 11 degrees difference in avg. temperatures is a lot! I don't think that is normal at all, so it may actually be showing something there... ???wiseguy said:
JoeBnTN
Well-known member
- Joined
- Mar 10, 2008
- Messages
- 258
Bulls look really good -- best of luck with the sale.
kfacres
Well-known member
WB ShowCattle said:
these people live about 45 min from where I grew up--- but for the last 2 years I either haven't had the time to stop when I was in the area- or just plain forgot about contacting them to schedule a stop... but seriously, I'd really love to check him out in person.
RyanChandler
Well-known member
JTM said:
As much as I want to believe this.. and I do.... I get hung up on the question... What kinda bws are the 70lbers up there gonna through here in the south. I mean are the 72lb bulls really gonna throw 55lb calves here in Texas??? I don't think so. I need some clarification.
coyote
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jun 15, 2007
- Messages
- 499
Chandler, some old cowboy from Texas told me that everything was bigger in Texas, so that throws another wrench into the equation.
Maybe we will have to do some kind of study on birth weight. Does Obama have any money for researching this stuff?
Maybe we will have to do some kind of study on birth weight. Does Obama have any money for researching this stuff?
trevorgreycattleco
Well-known member
Take the protein tubs away, stop feeding your cows really good hay before they calve, and no need for grain. I have found its good for the bw of the calf and it never hurts mama to loose a body condition score or two during winter months. If she is worth a damn she will put it all back on when the grass hits. Since I started this 3 winters ago, I havent touched a calf. 82 lbs has been the heaviest. Id say a bull that throws a 70 some lb bw in Canada is a safe bet for any heifer in Texas. If the parents had bw's in the 100's I would say whoa but that info is readily available to a breeder. Anything from Canada under 95 lbs is a good canidate for a moderate calf crop IMO. How are the bw's up north this winter? Hasnt been to bad at all from what I can gather.
Boot Jack Bulls
Well-known member
Honestly, having a bred cow loose a marked amount of condition late in her pregnancy is the last thing I want. We are in northern WI and start calving February 1st! I would rather hold off on breeding a heifer that is too small or be more picky on sires, than have to worry about making the cow more lean during some of the harshest weather,especially when she's lactating. I'm not saying the old girl should be rolling fat either, but who likes to look at a skinny cow?
kfacres
Well-known member
Boot Jack Bulls said:
i do.. that means she's earning her keep. fat cows don't breed. fat cows don't milk... and if you have a shorthorn... she'd better be the gawd ugliest damn, johnes infested, hardware ridden thing you've ever seen.. or she'll never raise a calf...
the poorest cow in our herd- who was foundered, and doesn't have any more udder than a piss ant... would be the number one cow I would pick out to flush and build a herd with. Has produced two heifer calves in her only two calvings-- that I've been offered anywhere from 4-6k for constantly-- but I don't like selling.
To answer wise guy's question, I have heard plenty of stories of birth weights dropping as you move south but I don't know how you prove it. Our bull calves out of cows probably average just under 100 lbs. I don't think there is a cow in our herd that can't easily push out a 110 lb calf and most can handle 120 lbs. We get two or three this size every year but they are usually out of big cows with big genetics. We have never pulled a calf out of Ramrod but we have never bred him to heifers either. I don't think you would have trouble calving cows bred to any of these bulls, in fact, the two bulls we are keeping 1/2 interest in both have birth weights over 100 lbs and we only check our cows twice a day during calving season. When you say train wreck, do cows in the central US have trouble calving with birth weights of 100 lbs? I am curious.
kfacres
Well-known member
carl said:
mine don't.. I've had heifers spit out 100 lb calves- or with just a little assistance...
but my pedigrees aren't stacked with huge BW- I calve rarely outside of Sept, and I don't feed much if any grain...
jaimiediamond
Well-known member
wiseguy
Well-known member
Carl,
The train wreck is that any bull born over 90 lbs in our neck of the woods is unmarketable to anyone as a purebred or commercial herd sire. So that means we simple sell them at market, and that means less profit. If we sell our bulls for an average of $2,000 vs a $800 feeder steer that adds up. That is all I was saying. Also, I don't want my cows to have 100 lb calves even if they can. I would love to use one of these bulls, I think they offer so much to shorthorn industry. I meant nothing disrespectful.
The train wreck is that any bull born over 90 lbs in our neck of the woods is unmarketable to anyone as a purebred or commercial herd sire. So that means we simple sell them at market, and that means less profit. If we sell our bulls for an average of $2,000 vs a $800 feeder steer that adds up. That is all I was saying. Also, I don't want my cows to have 100 lb calves even if they can. I would love to use one of these bulls, I think they offer so much to shorthorn industry. I meant nothing disrespectful.
No harm done. For the record, I have no problem with your comments. You raise some valid points. I think our bull customers will accept 100 lb birth weights. I think you start to see some resistance when you get over 110 and it's almost impossible to sell the ones that weigh 120. I still am wondering, if birth weights really do drop as you move south, does this mean that the size of calf a cow can safely deliver goes down as well?
Cut the BS said:
I beg to differ, I have a 40 cow herd, all of which are in proper shape, some are pushing "fat" yet they all breed, and they all milk, I actually pride myself on the fertility and udder quality/ milking ability of my herd more than I do their conformation. But that just comes with having good cows, judging by your previous post/pics you won't be able to relate to me on that one right "Cut the BS"? Is it not hypocritical of you to rant about how "bad" it is for people to build their herds around the Trump and JPJ lines yet you're willing to build a herd around your bottom end cow? Oh well, I guess haters are gonna hate.
comercialfarmer
Well-known member
- Joined
- Aug 29, 2010
- Messages
- 196
coyote said:
Yes, Obama told me that we could fund the study. He said that if you would send one of those bulls down to Oklahoma, I could pay you the cost of fuell (so you wouldn't be out anything) and he would repay me. I'll send you birth weight totals when the calves hit the ground next year.
comercialfarmer
Well-known member
- Joined
- Aug 29, 2010
- Messages
- 196
Since everyone's environment is different, their way of handling cattle will be different. If your cattle are fat, they may need to lose a little weight. We work to maintain ours- especially this year.
But something that appears to be very consistent is BCS relating to dystocia and reproductive efficiency. Heifers that are overly fat- with increased fat in the pelvic canal can increase their chance of dystocia. Cattle to thin, BCS of 4 or under will not bread back regularly across the board on time. This has been studied extensively. Ideal BCS at the time of CALVING is 5 or 6 out of 9.
Something that may seem a little counter intuitive is that calve size and calving difficulty may not be absolutely correlated. Inadequate energy and protein diets may lead to a smaller calf size, but actually increase the chance of dystocia. Adequate protein and carbohydrate may increase calf size, but decrease the chance of dystocia. Lots of info out there on this. The biggest issue is the cows fat deposit in the birth canal.
Not saying anyone is underfeeding, how the heck would I know? But something to think about. The calf generally starves the cow anyway. Calves are like parasites. They get fed first- its just how it works. Because of this, when you starve a cow, you really only starve the cow. Calf is overall gonna grow. You may end up with a cow that is calving, but does not have adequate energy balance to go through the process of calving. Decreased strength for pushing, decreased uterine contractions, etc...
I can see more than one business plan. A. If you want a low input herd, you can likely select for one. But you will have production loses along the way. B. If you spend a little in maintaining condition, you will a have increased costs, but likely overall increased production as well.
For me, I think there is a balance. You can over feed and not get return for sure or create calving difficulties. I don't want free loaders, but I think a little care and prevention will often pay for itself.
If we consistently had 90 lb births here in our regions angus based heifers, it would expect a wreck (calf loss/cow loss). But I don't think we would see the same weights here that you would in the north, and shorthorns have a larger birth canal adapted for large calves- so I can't comment if the heifers were shorthorn or crosses what would happen. I had my first set of calves this month out of my first crosses and I didn't push the envelope on BW.
I was thinking about the whole progeny birth weight in environments. I image that not only does the environment affect the BW, but I would wonder if it doesn't have an influence on final carcass weight of adult cattle. Maybe it is purely selection, and you select for larger cattle in that environment. Naturally, if you look at deer throughout North America- the tiny ones in south Texas sure don't look like the ones from the North.
But I would bet that the same genetics exposed to the cold in the North pre-birth (Like so many genetic factors, the switches may be turned off or on in the uterus) would end up with a larger frame than the same genetics exposed to the heat down here. And if that was the case, the northern cattle would be better suited at delivering a larger calf. Its my theory made up in my head and I'm sticking to it. ;D
But something that appears to be very consistent is BCS relating to dystocia and reproductive efficiency. Heifers that are overly fat- with increased fat in the pelvic canal can increase their chance of dystocia. Cattle to thin, BCS of 4 or under will not bread back regularly across the board on time. This has been studied extensively. Ideal BCS at the time of CALVING is 5 or 6 out of 9.
Something that may seem a little counter intuitive is that calve size and calving difficulty may not be absolutely correlated. Inadequate energy and protein diets may lead to a smaller calf size, but actually increase the chance of dystocia. Adequate protein and carbohydrate may increase calf size, but decrease the chance of dystocia. Lots of info out there on this. The biggest issue is the cows fat deposit in the birth canal.
Not saying anyone is underfeeding, how the heck would I know? But something to think about. The calf generally starves the cow anyway. Calves are like parasites. They get fed first- its just how it works. Because of this, when you starve a cow, you really only starve the cow. Calf is overall gonna grow. You may end up with a cow that is calving, but does not have adequate energy balance to go through the process of calving. Decreased strength for pushing, decreased uterine contractions, etc...
I can see more than one business plan. A. If you want a low input herd, you can likely select for one. But you will have production loses along the way. B. If you spend a little in maintaining condition, you will a have increased costs, but likely overall increased production as well.
For me, I think there is a balance. You can over feed and not get return for sure or create calving difficulties. I don't want free loaders, but I think a little care and prevention will often pay for itself.
If we consistently had 90 lb births here in our regions angus based heifers, it would expect a wreck (calf loss/cow loss). But I don't think we would see the same weights here that you would in the north, and shorthorns have a larger birth canal adapted for large calves- so I can't comment if the heifers were shorthorn or crosses what would happen. I had my first set of calves this month out of my first crosses and I didn't push the envelope on BW.
I was thinking about the whole progeny birth weight in environments. I image that not only does the environment affect the BW, but I would wonder if it doesn't have an influence on final carcass weight of adult cattle. Maybe it is purely selection, and you select for larger cattle in that environment. Naturally, if you look at deer throughout North America- the tiny ones in south Texas sure don't look like the ones from the North.
But I would bet that the same genetics exposed to the cold in the North pre-birth (Like so many genetic factors, the switches may be turned off or on in the uterus) would end up with a larger frame than the same genetics exposed to the heat down here. And if that was the case, the northern cattle would be better suited at delivering a larger calf. Its my theory made up in my head and I'm sticking to it. ;D
