Shorthorn Impact 2015 - My thoughts

[r.n.reed]

So what Bulls are available to the common man that excel in the tenderness category ?

If you are referring to the dna tests mentioned in Dr. Hunsley's article here is the story on that deal.Just about everyone had at least their herd sires tested for the 2 star marbling deal.Then if we wanted to stay on the cutting edge of the beef industry we were told we needed the next panel of tests which were for some of the tenderness related genes.About the time any one who was going to spend the money had done so it was publicly announced at a BIF meeting that the tests were breed specific to Angus and had no relevance to any other breeds.You can draw your own conclusions but right now the only test we have for tenderness is the fork test.

 

[beebe]

There is an ultrasound program developed by Dr. Allen Williams, that  I am going to talk to the ASA secretary tomorrow about it.

 

[RyanChandler]

Great addition, GM.  I never met Hunsley personally but based on his ideals, I'd say his insight would be a huge addition to the breed. Erratic birthweights are still by far our biggest breed challenge. The second biggest obstacle is having to go back to the little fat cattle Hunsley warned us about in order to get the reliable 70lb bw's.  I think these two obstacles highlight the challenges of  today:  Is it more feasible for us to lower birthweights in the cattle that have industry acceptable growth rates? or Is it more feasible for us to breed performance into the lines that have industry acceptable birthweights? 

However when I look at your two pictures I don't see a lot of difference in type between the two females

Your assumption is correct.  They're both the same type: bound by the limits of their internal capacity.  When forage quality is high, perhaps she has enough capacity to consume enough to meet her needs.  When forage quality is low, it is doubtful she is capacious enough to physically be able consume enough forage to compensate for the lack of quality.

Thanks for posting that GM.The line that hits you in the gut is where he states that if birth weight is not fixed in 10 years the commercial market will be lost forever. After you factor in that there are a few breeders breeding for lighter birthweights so we have cattle now at the other end of the spectrum pulling the average down,the scale adjustments to get under the magical 90#bw and just not reporting the big ones, I would hardly call it a concerted effort by the breed in general and definitely not a success story.

Most alarming is the number of breeders out there, who claim that their program has commercial relevancy in mind, that have no objection to using 90-100lb bw bulls. I just don't get it. 

 

[librarian]

When I was looking for a photo of Surge (found compliments of XBAR), I revisited this 2014 thread that really covers the subject as far as what needs to happen in terms of establishing baseline data for Shorthorn quality and grade.
http://www.steerplanet.com/bb/the-big-show/for-the-shorthorn-experts/
JTM, aren't you involved in a test in Iowa?  Maybe we should work on getting a critical mass of Shorthorn sired animals in that test and forget about individual sire performance as the goal and just work on collecting data on Shorthorn influence for awhile. Then compare within breed differences.

 

[Lucky_P]

If I've read and interpreted the literature correctly... it seems as though the GeneStar and subsequent genetic tests for Tenderness look to be applicable across breeds... though one report I read suggested that the Quality Grade/Marbling GeneStar markers (initially identified for Angus?)... were less reliable.

E3 Durhams...I did consider GeneStar test results, early on, when incorporating Shorthorns into our crossbreeding system, starting around 2007-08; not many SH breeders were listing those results on sire ads, but some were...
For what it's worth, we've used the following SH sires(among others) - readily available to the common man:
Waukaru Coppertop 464 - had 4 of 6 Tenderness gene markers (2 CAST, 1 each of CALP & T3)
Waukaru Goldmine 2109 and W. Gold Card 5042 each had 3 of the 6 GeneStar Tenderness markers.

 

[JTM]

When I was looking for a photo of Surge (found compliments of XBAR), I revisited this 2014 thread that really covers the subject as far as what needs to happen in terms of establishing baseline data for Shorthorn quality and grade.
http://www.steerplanet.com/bb/the-big-show/for-the-shorthorn-experts/
JTM, aren't you involved in a test in Iowa?  Maybe we should work on getting a critical mass of Shorthorn sired animals in that test and forget about individual sire performance as the goal and just work on collecting data on Shorthorn influence for awhile. Then compare within breed differences.

Yes we sent 19 steers to the Tri County steer futurity last year and sent 26 more this year. I agree with your thought of getting information out there of what the Shorthorn influence cattle can do. This is exactly the approach that we are taking because I am not playing the EPD game. I have not yet even used a "high accuracy" bull with my own bulls. We want to prove that Shorthorn influenced crossbred calves can help with multiple things including quality and yield grade, docility, and feed conversion. We get lot's of data from these tests, the ASA is involved and uses the data to insert into the database. What we really need is for about 30 breeders to be sending a dozen or more calves to this program instead of a half dozen breeders sending 30 calves. The coordination of shipping is the hardest part but the Association should be able to help some on that.

 

[librarian]

Organizing 30 producers to participate and submit data seems like an attainable 5 year goal. Especially if the emphasis is on Shorthorn % commercial steers.
It seems to me we need only demonstrate that 50% Shorthorn performs AS WELL as straight Angus.. ( that's easy). The Shorthorn sell is not enhanced performance, but enhanced profit.

The real 5 year goal would be to develop and commercially distribute a Shorthorn bull named "Replacer". Replacer semen would be marketed to cow/calf producers as a specialist in Convenience traits. They can get growth and carcass from their Angus base.
I am certain we have the genetic resources in the breed to do this. The semen needs to be cheap and easy to get.

If "Replacer" daughters stay in the herd longer, are easy to work with, have great udders, roomy pelvises and high fertility who wouldn't want to use him? Once we get traction, then the 10 year plan kicks in.  What's the 10 year plan?

 

[RyanChandler]

Even if you do convince a commercial cattlemen to use a shorthorn bull, the greater challenge is going to be convincing them to pay the $18/hd to report the data.  It's of zero value to the commercial man to pay the fee--  and until this burden is removed and replaced with the opposite, an INCENTIVE, there's not going to be too many non purebred breeders willing to submit the data just out of the kindness of their hearts.

 

[librarian]

Agreed. As usual, I am naive. I thought ASA subsidizing research would be part of the 5 year plan.
Maybe a non-profit division that sold semen could fund the data collection.

 

[JTM]

I agree it would be nice to have an incentive but the testing more than pays for itself if you have the right genetics. If you have choice or prime and a yield grade 1 or 2 you will get the premiums that far outweigh the fee of collecting the data. In our operation we use our own seedstock and create commercial crossbred cattle from them. So it is easy to see the results of the Shorthorn influenced cattle compared to straight Shorthorn or straight Angus. The crossbred calves the first go around had a much better ratio of choice quality grades while maintaining yield grade 1 and 2's. There are a good number of folks out there that have the ability to put crossbred Shorthorns and purebred Shorthorns in this test that are currently not doing it.
Librarian, as far as bulls that could do what you are saying "Replacer" needs to do. That's already been done and I have 4 bulls that will do that in every sense for sale right now for cheap.  <rock> It's a really slow process convincing people that these are the bulls that they need though, but you give me hope since you described the type that we have. Too many people are looking for eye appeal first, stoutness, and 800 lb. weaning weights out of purebred Shorthorns. It's not the route we are taking and I don't think we need to push the idea that a Shorthorn bull should be able to do it all. Many are and I'm in the minority in saying no, we need convenience traits, high mothering ability, fertility, docility, and carcass traits...

 

[trevorgreycattleco]

So we need to focus on convienience traits but not growth and carcass? We can use angus to attain that?


No no no no. Just no. A cow that's easy keeping with good udder, temperament and all that jazz but has calves with mediocre WW and YW and little ribeyes is useless to me. I think it must all be selected for. The less days on feed the more money I make. Good growing, carcass Bulls on angus cows should improve the resulting animal all around. Not just convienience traits.


If you really want to know how your cattle stack up, you must prove a bull first that is a high ACC bull already. Prove him with other like minded breeders. Once that's done you'll have a much better baseline to truly see where your cattle stand. It's going to be a long process.

 

[librarian]

This is why I think we should focused on convenience ACROSS ENVIRONMENTS. I do not think that The Bull is the answer. The Profitable Cow is the answer.
It's from the same thread I linked to earlier. "Question for the Shorthorn Experts"

« Reply #38 on: March 28, 2014, 04:11:58 PM »

To some degree their weight would depend on how they were fed and managed.  I was part of a USDA project that proved that across type (frame and muscle) feeding and management was responsible for more than 50% of the outcome.  By manipulation of feeding time and energy level we could "burn up" the later maturing larger cattle and get them to an acceptable YG, QG and slaughter weight.  At the same time, by "slow walking" the little early maturing ones, we could stretch them into a similar category.  The biggest variables were time and financial considerations and neither the larger cattle or the earlier maturing cattle excelled in total $ return.

 

[librarian]

Nonetheless, I like this bull. Just got to figure out BW.

 

[RyanChandler]

I agree it would be nice to have an incentive but the testing more than pays for itself if you have the right genetics. If you have choice or prime and a yield grade 1 or 2 you will get the premiums that far outweigh the fee of collecting the data.

I'm not talking about feed lot testing, I'm talking about step #1: Reporting birthweights and weaning weights. This is the initial starting point and until the current process, where commercial cattlemen have to pay a per hd fee to enroll in the whr program, is amended to allow them to submit (at a minimum) bw and WW on SH sired cattle for free, then we will never be able to generate the volume of data that we need.  Even I, in my idealistic youth  ,am unwilling to pay to enroll my commercial cows in whr. I've had over 75 SH sired commercial calves in the last 2 years that I have bw and ww recorded on-- but in order for that data to have been submitted to the association, it would have cost me close to 1500 bucks in whr enrollment fees.

Don't get me wrong- I'm as big of a proponent of the WHR program for purebred cattle as anyone, but I feel like the cost to report SH sired calves out of commercial cows is disproportionate to A) the increase in animal value- because there is none. To me, a SH plus paper isn't worth the cost of the ink used to print it and B) the value of the data itself, if you can quantify that? 

We have to eliminate any and all all barriers the commercial cattlemen might encounter that would prevent him from submitting performance documentation.

So we need to focus on convienience traits but not growth and carcass? We can use angus to attain that?

No no no no. Just no. A cow that's easy keeping with good udder, temperament and all that jazz but has calves with mediocre WW and YW and little ribeyes is useless to me. I think it must all be selected for. 

I agree with you, Brock.  We don't need to be throwing the baby out with the bathwater.  I don't care how great the "Replacer" bull's convienience traits are... if he has a growth RATE that's below what I consider to be 'industry acceptable,' then, to me, he's of no use.  500lb calves are great if they're out of 1000lb cows; not so great if their dams are 1300+.

 

[JTM]

So we need to focus on convienience traits but not growth and carcass? We can use angus to attain that?


No no no no. Just no. A cow that's easy keeping with good udder, temperament and all that jazz but has calves with mediocre WW and YW and little ribeyes is useless to me. I think it must all be selected for. The less days on feed the more money I make. Good growing, carcass Bulls on angus cows should improve the resulting animal all around. Not just convienience traits.


If you really want to know how your cattle stack up, you must prove a bull first that is a high ACC bull already. Prove him with other like minded breeders. Once that's done you'll have a much better baseline to truly see where your cattle stand. It's going to be a long process.

I am perfectly fine with the stance I have taken. I will make sure my Shorthorn cattle excel in convenience traits first. My point in saying this is because if you don't focus on convenience traits first, they won't have them. Growth, stoutness, and eye appeal are antagonistic to convenience traits, good udders, fertility, hoof quality, calf vigor, and every other trait that ranchers want. Commercial cattlemen want live calves that are healthy. They don't want risk and that is what you will give them when you try to breed for high growth. I never mentioned what breeds to cross them with, you assumed Angus and yes that is one option. As we cross breed we should be taking into account ribeye per 100 lb. and IMF. Make sure that the cattle are in the acceptable areas for Ribeye and have good marbling in order to get the balance of carcass traits. Once again I agree with Librarian, we need to create a market for bulls that will create the crossbred cows that Commercial cattlemen want and give them the crossbred calves that will make them the most profit. Profit to a commercial rancher isn't all wrapped up in pounds. The old saying "we sell them by the pound" is a good way to go out of business.

 

[RyanChandler]

They don't want risk and that is what you will give them when you try to breed for high growth.

Acknowledge the difference between growth (mature size) and growth RATE.  They are not the same. 

 

[JTM]

They don't want risk and that is what you will give them when you try to breed for high growth.

Acknowledge the difference between growth (mature size) and growth RATE.  They are not the same.

In most cases frame size and growth rate are positively correlated. There are instances where you can have moderate frame with "high growth rate" but in my opinion those cows are still going to weigh 1600 lbs. even though their frame score is low. This is a discussion I had with Pharo about frame score. It's not the selection tool to use for efficiency but mature cow weight is the proper one in my opinion. After that it doesn't really matter too much what they look like as long as they conceive, have a live calf, and  wean an acceptable weighted calf that is healthy. A purebred that can wean around 550-600 lbs. when crossed should be able to do 600-650 without doing the math. 600 is about where they are worth the most especially if they aren't black because they have already proven themselves and the buyer can see their worth.

 

[librarian]

For the record, I was trying to say I believe Shorthorn already has the genetics to market bulls that will make cross bred replacement cows with improved convenience over straight Angus. Continuing to select for docility, udders, pelvic, longevity and fertility first can move us from better to better yet.
AND the crossbred steers from these same bulls need only perform as well as straight Angus- the growth bump over straight Shorthorn coming from heterosis.  I think the greatest value added we can market to any breed is Convenience. Including the convenience of being able to calve unassisted and produce enough milk for a big fast growing continental cross.
Nobody said anything about 500 lb calves. I was thinking the profitable cow would weigh around 1250 lbs and wean a 750 lb calf. I also think marbling begins in the milk.

 

[trevorgreycattleco]

So we need to focus on convienience traits but not growth and carcass? We can use angus to attain that?


No no no no. Just no. A cow that's easy keeping with good udder, temperament and all that jazz but has calves with mediocre WW and YW and little ribeyes is useless to me. I think it must all be selected for. The less days on feed the more money I make. Good growing, carcass Bulls on angus cows should improve the resulting animal all around. Not just convienience traits.


If you really want to know how your cattle stack up, you must prove a bull first that is a high ACC bull already. Prove him with other like minded breeders. Once that's done you'll have a much better baseline to truly see where your cattle stand. It's going to be a long process.

I am perfectly fine with the stance I have taken. I will make sure my Shorthorn cattle excel in convenience traits first. My point in saying this is because if you don't focus on convenience traits first, they won't have them. Growth, stoutness, and eye appeal are antagonistic to convenience traits, good udders, fertility, hoof quality, calf vigor, and every other trait that ranchers want. Commercial cattlemen want live calves that are healthy. They don't want risk and that is what you will give them when you try to breed for high growth. I never mentioned what breeds to cross them with, you assumed Angus and yes that is one option. As we cross breed we should be taking into account ribeye per 100 lb. and IMF. Make sure that the cattle are in the acceptable areas for Ribeye and have good marbling in order to get the balance of carcass traits. Once again I agree with Librarian, we need to create a market for bulls that will create the crossbred cows that Commercial cattlemen want and give them the crossbred calves that will make them the most profit. Profit to a commercial rancher isn't all wrapped up in pounds. The old saying "we sell them by the pound" is a good way to go out of business.

I was actually referring to librarian when she said to use angus for carcass and growth. I believe I misunderstood her reading her response. Convienience traits to me should be in any breed or successful line of cattle. At this point it shouldn't need to be bred in if you have selected the correct stock to begin with. Kaper cattle are already there. Muridale is there. The list goes on. Shorthorns need to gather attention to me. But for once in a positive way. The Top Hand bull should be used heavily by all. We need good mommas that raise heavy calves with good carcass and do it on minimums. I see plenty of angus that are hitting this target already. If you can't at least breed similarly to the top breed, the commercial guy will see no reason to try an unproven breed basically. We need the shock and awe at this point I think. 550 pound ww east of the Mississippi in the angus breed gets your nuts cut off and a trip to the feedlot.

 

[JTM]

For the record, I was trying to say I believe Shorthorn already has the genetics to market bulls that will make cross bred replacement cows with improved convenience over straight Angus. Continuing to select for docility, udders, pelvic, longevity and fertility first can move us from better to better yet.
AND the crossbred steers from these same bulls need only perform as well as straight Angus- the growth bump over straight Shorthorn coming from heterosis.  I think the greatest value added we can market to any breed is Convenience. Including the convenience of being able to calve unassisted and produce enough milk for a big fast growing continental cross.
Nobody said anything about 500 lb calves. I was thinking the profitable cow would weigh around 1250 lbs and wean a 750 lb calf. I also think marbling begins in the milk.

(thumbsup) That is what we are aiming for. We are creating 3/8 to 5/8 Shorthorn cross replacements to do this with while also keeping a strong number of purebred Shorthorns. We may be set up here soon to sell some quality F1's. We will definitely be able to see the difference in all of the different scenarios here soon. Sure is fun that's for sure. We all just need to agree on the things that we can agree on and make progress. I think we all agree we need accurate data and lot's of it.