Shorty hf bulls

[aandtcattle]

Who else thinks suzie is as full of poop as a christmas goose??  Thats funny stuff right there, I dont care who you are! <beer>

 

[Davis Shorthorns]

Shorthorn has no BW or calving ease issues ... really we dont and never did, my gosh we just all need a 2200 lb cows  and the calves would come out just fine...really it's not the breed it's everybody else in the beef business. <rock>

It is the second time on this topic that someone started beating on that poor dead horse.

Since my last update the list was 87 bulls that were either recommended by other users or found on my EPD search of bulls with semen available that had low bw epds with a little bit of growth... When I took the growth criteria out I had well over 150 bulls with semen available! I think that maybe we should turn that stick on ourselves and knock some well needed sense in!!! Every breed has its issues but as breeders we should work on ways to solve them and move forward.  This backwards thinking isn't helping.   Go through the list again and you will see many bulls, of different types, colours and even mature sizes.

It doesn’t take an Einstein to figure out that calf shape has a lot to do with calving ease.  A lighter BW calf could be a harder birth than a heavier BW  long calf just because the long calf was smoother through the shoulder and had a less blocky head.  This is just a simple example. 

To say that BW is everything is pure stupidity 7% of the cow’s weight is what is considered a normal sized calf  in other words a cow of said size should be able to deliver 7% of her body weight... I will drop it 6 for for a example weight! Another trait we really need to watch is maternal calving ease I wouldn't mention this but wait it is a important trait  as an light BW won't necessairly be a easy calf for a small pelvised heifer
1200lbs = 72
1300lbs = 78
1400lbs =84
1500lbs =90
1600lbs =96
1700lbs = 102
1800lbs = 108
1900lbs = 114
2000lbs = 120
2100lbs = 126
2200 lbs = 1

I also doesn't take a Einstein to figure out that BW is DIRECTLY correlated to CE.  THE SHORTHORN BREED NEEDS TO HAVE SMALLER BW'S!!!  End of story.  You can go on and on about calving ease all you want get the average BW down and your calving ease in most cases will go up.  I dont know about you but when I am talking about calving problems with true commercial cattlemen you dont hear them saying that they would buy a bull even though he threw big calves because his cows can have a big un.  Most people I know around here want a small calf at birth that grows like a weed.  That is what we need to be focusing on.  Not that as long as they are shaped right my cow "SHOULD" be able to have a 120 lb calf.  Now as far as show cattle are concerned who really cares about bw right?  I mean really if the show ring cared about BW we wouldn't have half the bulls that are popular right now. 

 

[kfacres]

Shorthorn has no BW or calving ease issues ... really we dont and never did, my gosh we just all need a 2200 lb cows  and the calves would come out just fine...really it's not the breed it's everybody else in the beef business. <rock>

It is the second time on this topic that someone started beating on that poor dead horse.

Since my last update the list was 87 bulls that were either recommended by other users or found on my EPD search of bulls with semen available that had low bw epds with a little bit of growth... When I took the growth criteria out I had well over 150 bulls with semen available! I think that maybe we should turn that stick on ourselves and knock some well needed sense in!!! Every breed has its issues but as breeders we should work on ways to solve them and move forward.  This backwards thinking isn't helping.   Go through the list again and you will see many bulls, of different types, colours and even mature sizes.

It doesn’t take an Einstein to figure out that calf shape has a lot to do with calving ease.  A lighter BW calf could be a harder birth than a heavier BW  long calf just because the long calf was smoother through the shoulder and had a less blocky head.  This is just a simple example. 

To say that BW is everything is pure stupidity 7% of the cow’s weight is what is considered a normal sized calf  in other words a cow of said size should be able to deliver 7% of her body weight... I will drop it 6 for for a example weight! Another trait we really need to watch is maternal calving ease I wouldn't mention this but wait it is a important trait  as an light BW won't necessairly be a easy calf for a small pelvised heifer
1200lbs = 72
1300lbs = 78
1400lbs =84
1500lbs =90
1600lbs =96
1700lbs = 102
1800lbs = 108
1900lbs = 114
2000lbs = 120
2100lbs = 126
2200 lbs = 1

I also doesn't take a Einstein to figure out that BW is DIRECTLY correlated to CE.  THE SHORTHORN BREED NEEDS TO HAVE SMALLER BW'S!!!  End of story.  You can go on and on about calving ease all you want get the average BW down and your calving ease in most cases will go up.  I dont know about you but when I am talking about calving problems with true commercial cattlemen you dont hear them saying that they would buy a bull even though he threw big calves because his cows can have a big un.  Most people I know around here want a small calf at birth that grows like a weed.  That is what we need to be focusing on.  Not that as long as they are shaped right my cow "SHOULD" be able to have a 120 lb calf.  Now as far as show cattle are concerned who really cares about bw right?  I mean really if the show ring cared about BW we wouldn't have half the bulls that are popular right now. 

I don't think I agree with this...  I don't know a single person out there who doesn't want a calf born easy, that grows fast.  It's common knowledge that calves born with higher bw- have more performance.  I've had 1200 lb Shorthorn cows, crank out 120 lb calves with ease...  but the calves had small heads, and bodies that were shaped right. 

Big head plus big bone, plus big shoulders.. equals hard calving.. and it doesn't matter if the calf weighs 60 lb, or 2000

 

[sjcattleco]

WOW I guess there are so many goals and to many different production schemes. I guess if  your goal is to win a ribbon you are willing to sacrifice what ever it takes to do that! if its a high %age of big birth wts  then so be it but don't bother with this thread cause it ain't for you!

If you are like the few of us that hold out hope that someday the Shortys will make a huge commercial comeback then we all need to be on the same page!  For me I NEVER EVER EVER want to see a 100lb calf again! 95 is too big. I hate to say this BUT with the 10 yr projection of corn prices. Cattle that are big BW and need to be fed to 1300# are not going to be that useful.  I have said it before and I will say it again! Cull the frame 7s all of them! No one will ever win an arguement with me on why they are useful. these 1600lb show heifers are a joke to the entire industry!  Cull your under productive cows. decrease your Frame score by 1.5 points and own 20% more cows on the same acreage! using the same resources!

 

[kfacres]

WOW I guess there are so many goals and to many different production schemes. I guess if  your goal is to win a ribbon you are willing to sacrifice what ever it takes to do that! if its a high %age of big birth wts  then so be it but don't bother with this thread cause it ain't for you!

If you are like the few of us that hold out hope that someday the Shortys will make a huge commercial comeback then we all need to be on the same page!  For me I NEVER EVER EVER want to see a 100lb calf again! 95 is too big. I hate to say this BUT with the 10 yr projection of corn prices. Cattle that are big BW and need to be fed to 1300# are not going to be that useful.  I have said it before and I will say it again! Cull the frame 7s all of them! No one will ever win an arguement with me on why they are useful. these 1600lb show heifers are a joke to the entire industry!  Cull your under productive cows. decrease your Frame score by 1.5 points and own 20% more cows on the same acreage! using the same resources!

If you are referring to my post.. notice I said 1200 lb cows.  Last time I checked, a 1200 lb cow was about a frame low5-low6, depending on age, flesh and stage of lactation.  In my case, I'm referring to mature cows (5-6 y.o.) in various stages of lactation and all moderate to fleshy. 

 

[aandtcattle]

I don't think I agree with this...  I don't know a single person out there who doesn't want a calf born easy, that grows fast.  It's common knowledge that calves born with higher bw- have more performance.  I've had 1200 lb Shorthorn cows, crank out 120 lb calves with ease...  but the calves had small heads, and bodies that were shaped right. 

Big head plus big bone, plus big shoulders.. equals hard calving.. and it doesn't matter if the calf weighs 60 lb, or 2000
[/quote]

Judas priest man, this is like an insult to my intelligence!  I have seen a few 120+ pound calves and not one of them had a small head.  I know that might sound strange but, I really havent seen any calves that big that are built to be born easily, I'm sorry.  My guess would be that if calves are this large and born unassisted, it is purely maternal calving ease and pelvic area getting the calf on the ground, not calf shape!!!!!  And just checking here, do you understand what we mean about 100+ pound calves having no place in the bull pen???  Who thinks that joe blow rancher is going to listen thru the whole story about how this bull weighed 118 at birth but by golly he was unassisted and jumped right up to nurse.  None of my customers would give a single solitary terd if he was unassisted if he was over 95 pounds.  END OF STORY.  
And who said you have to have monstrous birthweights to get performance??  I am convinced that the lower performance numbers on low birthweight bulls is because most of his calves are raised by first calf heifers, resulting in lower weaning weights, regardless of the adjustment.  Have you ever used a legit heifer bull on cows? I have numerous times and  the results have been awesome.  Maybe in the cornbelt you need something different but this is from my point of view.

 

[aj]

I don't know where I heard it but someone wrote that it takes the beef industry 20 years to make a swing. It might have been playboy magazine. Anyway smaller cows are coming around. There are alot of people invested in 1800# embryo transplant cows that are scared to death of it. IMO there is an oppurtunity to start aiming toward this goal if you are young. A and t and sj and alot of people see it coming. There is no doubt in my mind that it is coming. I may be dead when it does I don't know. In my opinion( I know i'm insane and everything) but it is insane for a maternal breed to have 1800# cows. It is our job to make smaller more effiecent cows.It is not the Shorthorn breeds job to make cattle that gain 7 # aday in the the feedlot with a 5 to 1 effeciency ratio. A maternal breed is supposed to make cows that calve every year breed back and do it in economically profitably terms. There is no way as Jamie claims that Shorthorns can be all things to all people. In my opinion you have to specialize in your breeding program to fill a niche. I'm sure this post is a hate filled post that can not be tolerated but it is my opinion. In my area people think 90# calves are pushing the limit. They don't put their cows in barns with video camera's and 24 hour watch cause there is a 50% chance that the cow needs help. Please.....don't beat us dumb bastards to death that are concerned about birth weights. We are a legitamate group. We are unpopular but thats okay. Just because your truck can run 100 mph you don't go out and do it. Alot of times the folks driving 55 mph do just fine in the long run.

 

[aj]

And by the way. I heard another Nebraska defensive lineman got a dwi this week. I'm kinda swinging around to be a Cornhusker fan after all. ;D

 

[sue]

Who else thinks suzie is as full of poop as a christmas goose??   Thats funny stuff right there, I dont care who you are! <beer>

That load is coming your way. It was your brother that bought em. 

 

[Okotoks]

I don't think I agree with this...  I don't know a single person out there who doesn't want a calf born easy, that grows fast.  It's common knowledge that calves born with higher bw- have more performance.  I've had 1200 lb Shorthorn cows, crank out 120 lb calves with ease...  but the calves had small heads, and bodies that were shaped right.  

Big head plus big bone, plus big shoulders.. equals hard calving.. and it doesn't matter if the calf weighs 60 lb, or 2000

Judas priest man, this is like an insult to my intelligence!  I have seen a few 120+ pound calves and not one of them had a small head.  I know that might sound strange but, I really havent seen any calves that big that are built to be born easily, I'm sorry.  My guess would be that if calves are this large and born unassisted, it is purely maternal calving ease and pelvic area getting the calf on the ground, not calf shape!!!!!  And just checking here, do you understand what we mean about 100+ pound calves having no place in the bull pen???  Who thinks that joe blow rancher is going to listen thru the whole story about how this bull weighed 118 at birth but by golly he was unassisted and jumped right up to nurse.  None of my customers would give a single solitary terd if he was unassisted if he was over 95 pounds.  END OF STORY.  
And who said you have to have monstrous birthweights to get performance??  I am convinced that the lower performance numbers on low birthweight bulls is because most of his calves are raised by first calf heifers, resulting in lower weaning weights, regardless of the adjustment.  Have you ever used a legit heifer bull on cows? I have numerous times and  the results have been awesome.  Maybe in the cornbelt you need something different but this is from my point of view.
[/quote]

Now that is a fact. If a buyer comes looking for a low birth weight he is never going to be interested in one he considers too big. Only once did I have this happen in reverse. I had a charolais commercial breeder looking for a white bull and when he asked for the birth weight I was sure I had a sale. He told me that his BW was too light, as his cows could have big calves and he wasn't giving up performance. Now this is an exception that proves the rule, happened about 12 years ago and will probably never happen again. It's seems to me to be successfull you need a goal and a long term plan. Incorporating low birth weights and calving ease just makes sense. We won't all want the same things in our breeding programs but you need to keep structural and functional as your base. Another thing that should be mandatory ina succesful program is selecting for good udders. There is enough to worry about in any operation without spending time pulling calves and then getting them to nurse.

 

[Aussie]

I don't know where I heard it but someone wrote that it takes the beef industry 20 years to make a swing. It might have been playboy magazine. Anyway smaller cows are coming around. There are alot of people invested in 1800# embryo transplant cows that are scared to death of it. IMO there is an oppurtunity to start aiming toward this goal if you are young. A and t and sj and alot of people see it coming. There is no doubt in my mind that it is coming. I may be dead when it does I don't know. In my opinion( I know i'm insane and everything) but it is insane for a maternal breed to have 1800# cows. It is our job to make smaller more effiecent cows.It is not the Shorthorn breeds job to make cattle that gain 7 # aday in the the feedlot with a 5 to 1 effeciency ratio. A maternal breed is supposed to make cows that calve every year breed back and do it in economically profitably terms. There is no way as Jamie claims that Shorthorns can be all things to all people. In my opinion you have to specialize in your breeding program to fill a niche. I'm sure this post is a hate filled post that can not be tolerated but it is my opinion. In my area people think 90# calves are pushing the limit. They don't put their cows in barns with video camera's and 24 hour watch cause there is a 50% chance that the cow needs help. Please.....don't beat us dumb bastards to death that are concerned about birth weights. We are a legitamate group. We are unpopular but thats okay. Just because your truck can run 100 mph you don't go out and do it. Alot of times the folks driving 55 mph do just fine in the long run.

I wish all you guys in the States well. I don't have shorthorns I have angus a decision made on a purely commercial bases. We are using less and less bulls from the good old USA because your cattle are getting to small. We can not hit target weights at the packers with these small cattle. The premium for our yearling cattle over the last ten years has lifted from a carcase weight of 500# to 700# with 0teeth. Our cow herd is not full of Euro x cattle (eating quaility)we mostly run straight British herds with calves that have to grow. You shorthorn guys that want small cows stop mucking around trying to change your breed we developed a breed just for you in Australia it is called the Lowline. No one wants 100# plus calves but a mature cow should be able to have a 90# calf and be expected to because if she is not you are losing money. Compare 2 lines of calves on the rail at the packers one line of calves with birth weights 80 to 90 pounds the other 50 to 60 pounds look how much performance (money) you are giving away. Cross two mice you will not get a rat. Running more small cows will not necessarily mean the total pounds of your calf crop for the year will be any heavier it just means you are running more cows. Is that efficient JMO.

 

[aj]

One thing that is a new concern in my enviroment is the cornstalk issue.We have irrigated corn here. 20 years ago you could take big thin cows that just weaned big calves and you could put them on cornstalks and the ole burgers could pack on 100# or more because of dropped ears in the cornstalk resisdue. Now adays it is a different deal. With the new varieties it seems most years there is very little ear drop. You have better machines harvesting it. Ear drop was over 4% consistently. Now I wonder if most years is around 2 %. Of course this can cahange with the year. The big thing now is the bt corn deal. The stalks are less digestible cause the corn is genetically engineered to just be tougher. Do cows eat the stalk. Dothey like it. If they eat it do they get any good out of it? The experiment stations are watching this deal. I think protein tubs or whatever need to go out immediately on cornstalks.The neighbor has a 100 Angus cows and he had 20 head showed up open. Am hearing more 20% figures. I just wonder if the hard pushing plus 100 yearling epd line cattle aren't breeding back? I think its because of the change in the cornstalk situation. Would a 1200 cow have a better chance of breeding back over a 1400# cow. I think we are going to find out. I think we are asking to much out of these bigger cows in this environment. Is more supplements always the answer? jmo

 

[Aussie]

AJ to a certain point I agree.   While I do not consider a 1400 pound cow excessive I think the extreme framed cows do have trouble breeding back. They are to much in survival mode most of the time to worry about getting in calf. A classic example is the dairy herd of very high performance cows that only have one lactation. We don't need to go there. Nor do we need small framed fat pigs that get in calf but put every thing in to themselves and have woody calves. Some people mix up early maturing (ability to fatten/cycle) with efficient to my mind efficient is the amount of beef (pounds) produced per acre by a cow herd while still being productive(breeding back) compared to your area.

 

[RFL]

One thing that is a new concern in my enviroment is the cornstalk issue.We have irrigated corn here. 20 years ago you could take big thin cows that just weaned big calves and you could put them on cornstalks and the ole burgers could pack on 100# or more because of dropped ears in the cornstalk resisdue. Now adays it is a different deal. With the new varieties it seems most years there is very little ear drop. You have better machines harvesting it. Ear drop was over 4% consistently. Now I wonder if most years is around 2 %. Of course this can cahange with the year. The big thing now is the bt corn deal. The stalks are less digestible cause the corn is genetically engineered to just be tougher. Do cows eat the stalk. Dothey like it. If they eat it do they get any good out of it? The experiment stations are watching this deal. I think protein tubs or whatever need to go out immediately on cornstalks.The neighbor has a 100 Angus cows and he had 20 head showed up open. Am hearing more 20% figures. I just wonder if the hard pushing plus 100 yearling epd line cattle aren't breeding back? I think its because of the change in the cornstalk situation. Would a 1200 cow have a better chance of breeding back over a 1400# cow. I think we are going to find out. I think we are asking to much out of these bigger cows in this environment. Is more supplements always the answer? jmo

Good point AJ. I am sure that changes in the corn genetics and harvesting improvements have changed the crop residue so that it is not good as it used to be. To answer your question as to which cow might breed back easier, the 1200# cow or the 1400# cow? I am going to give you an answer you're not expecting and say it could very well be the 1400# cow. What if these cows are the same frame size? That 200# difference is easly made up in fleshing ability of the cow. What if the 1200# cow is the same frame size as the 1400# cow, but she is harder doing,
which is often the case, that 1400# easy keeping cow can maintain her body condition and breed back.  Believe it or not, I have seen many 1600-1700# cows that ARE NOT big framed , they are just super thick, deep and easy keeping.

You bring up some good points, keep it up and eliminate the trash talk and everybody will get along fine with you.

 

[Okotoks]

One thing that is a new concern in my enviroment is the cornstalk issue.We have irrigated corn here. 20 years ago you could take big thin cows that just weaned big calves and you could put them on cornstalks and the ole burgers could pack on 100# or more because of dropped ears in the cornstalk resisdue. Now adays it is a different deal. With the new varieties it seems most years there is very little ear drop. You have better machines harvesting it. Ear drop was over 4% consistently. Now I wonder if most years is around 2 %. Of course this can cahange with the year. The big thing now is the bt corn deal. The stalks are less digestible cause the corn is genetically engineered to just be tougher. Do cows eat the stalk. Dothey like it. If they eat it do they get any good out of it? The experiment stations are watching this deal. I think protein tubs or whatever need to go out immediately on cornstalks.The neighbor has a 100 Angus cows and he had 20 head showed up open. Am hearing more 20% figures. I just wonder if the hard pushing plus 100 yearling epd line cattle aren't breeding back? I think its because of the change in the cornstalk situation. Would a 1200 cow have a better chance of breeding back over a 1400# cow. I think we are going to find out. I think we are asking to much out of these bigger cows in this environment. Is more supplements always the answer? jmo

Good point AJ. I am sure that changes in the corn genetics and harvesting improvements have changed the crop residue so that it is not good as it used to be. To answer your question as to which cow might breed back easier, the 1200# cow or the 1400# cow? I am going to give you an answer you're not expecting and say it could very well be the 1400# cow. What if these cows are the same frame size? That 200# difference is easly made up in fleshing ability of the cow. What if the 1200# cow is the same frame size as the 1400# cow, but she is harder doing,
which is often the case, that 1400# easy keeping cow can maintain her body condition and breed back.  Believe it or not, I have seen many 1600-1700# cows that ARE NOT big framed , they are just super thick, deep and easy keeping.

You bring up some good points, keep it up and eliminate the trash talk and everybody will get along fine with you.

Before the super efficient combines of today you used to see a lot more people feeding chaff piles after combining. When I was at Cecil Staples in the mid seventies we used to feed chaff to the cows most of the winter.It was mostly barley and wheat chaff. There was enough grain left in it that it was a very economical way to feed. If the feed doesn't have the proper nutrition seems cows of any size would suffer, if the protein level and digestable matter isn't there nothing is going to thrive. JMO

 

[aj]

It becomes all about whether its economical to keep creating articficial enviroments or do we change genetics. Unless cattle prices keep going up there will be a point where the increasing protein supplements will price themselves out of the mix.jmo

 

[trevorgreycattleco]

Hell, the protein tubs are already there. For what they want for em, I can't sharpen my pencil enough to use them anymore. Good hay, salt , mineral, water is all mine will get from now on. It seems a better idea to me to just buy or make better hay than supplement all it lacks in the cheap hay. I got a neighbor who refuses to buy good hay but yet he has tubs and grain feeders all over. It takes him twice as long to do all his chores as me. His calves seem pretty good tho and he thinks I am nuts.

I have came to the conclusion my ideal cow is one who is moderate, (not a pud), and can raise a whooper calf on minimum assistance from me. I don't care so much about 1200 lbs vs 1500 lbs as long as they do it effiecently and don't eat twice as much hay or grass as their herd mates. I can see why aj wants smaller cows and aussie wants bigger cows. Two completely different food resources. Still IMO we need to identify and eliminate the high input cattle that dont produce that well. Playin the pedigree game and following the money current are big problems that never get discussed or cussed. Here I go again. My bad.

 

[Okotoks]

Hell, the protein tubs are already there. For what they want for em, I can't sharpen my pencil enough to use them anymore. Good hay, salt , mineral, water is all mine will get from now on. It seems a better idea to me to just buy or make better hay than supplement all it lacks in the cheap hay. I got a neighbor who refuses to buy good hay but yet he has tubs and grain feeders all over. It takes him twice as long to do all his chores as me. His calves seem pretty good tho and he thinks I am nuts.

I have came to the conclusion my ideal cow is one who is moderate, (not a pud), and can raise a whooper calf on minimum assistance from me. I don't care so much about 1200 lbs vs 1500 lbs as long as they do it effiecently and don't eat twice as much hay or grass as their herd mates. I can see why aj wants smaller cows and aussie wants bigger cows. Two completely different food resources. Still IMO we need to identify and eliminate the high input cattle that dont produce that well. Playin the pedigree game and following the money current are big problems that never get discussed or cussed. Here I go again. My bad.

Last year the price of hay was so high in our area that our cows had to eat poor quality wheat greenfeed that was baled because the crop was  hailed out. Not much grain and not very green so we gave them Protein tubs and they are not cheap! I think if you have the hay and then just use mineral and salt your cows will work in most operations if you select for the efficient ones.
Selecting the cows that maintain their condition and raise the biggest calves is where every operation should focus. It seems we are squeezed from several sides. The packers want bigger carcasses , the feedlots want efficiency and the new crops and modern machinery leave less byproducts to feed.

 

[jaimiediamond]

I don't know how I missed the YY earl of Dover bull (pg 32 of this thread) but he honestly is a fantastic calving ease sire and red to boot

 

[sjcattleco]

No I am not... notice I never gave a wt on cows.. a 1200#frame 5 cow is an awesome rip that will probably live productivly for 14 yrs!!!someday people will figure out its not now big they are but how many and how cheaply you can produce calves on the resources available to you!!! and then how well the calves grow on GRASS b/c some day feeding corn will be a luxury!  it is coming!!! 

WOW I guess there are so many goals and to many different production schemes. I guess if  your goal is to win a ribbon you are willing to sacrifice what ever it takes to do that! if its a high %age of big birth wts  then so be it but don't bother with this thread cause it ain't for you!

If you are like the few of us that hold out hope that someday the Shortys will make a huge commercial comeback then we all need to be on the same page!  For me I NEVER EVER EVER want to see a 100lb calf again! 95 is too big. I hate to say this BUT with the 10 yr projection of corn prices. Cattle that are big BW and need to be fed to 1300# are not going to be that useful.  I have said it before and I will say it again! Cull the frame 7s all of them! No one will ever win an arguement with me on why they are useful. these 1600lb show heifers are a joke to the entire industry!  Cull your under productive cows. decrease your Frame score by 1.5 points and own 20% more cows on the same acreage! using the same resources!

If you are referring to my post.. notice I said 1200 lb cows.  Last time I checked, a 1200 lb cow was about a frame low5-low6, depending on age, flesh and stage of lactation.  In my case, I'm referring to mature cows (5-6 y.o.) in various stages of lactation and all moderate to fleshy.