So... please tell me....

[aj]

I think one mans junk can be another mans gold. Fat is a source of energy for animals. If you have an environment where spring rains are followed by latter drought...fat stored up can maintain the animal thru tougher times. This same ability is considered a detriment to fat feedlot carcasses when you start talking about cutability and yield grades. I don't think you can have it both ways. Waste is fat and fat is fleshing ability. What are the quality grade price differences in the meat market and how much supplements can the cow calf guy afford to put into herds. Is there a point where the cost of supplements are just to high to work. Then would the lower performance easier doing cattle work? I think we have bred some fleshing ability out of our cattle because we've stacked epds toward the maximum yearling growth traits. This is extreme and not the optimum. I know it is possible to turn cows out on corn stubble after they have weaned a calf and the cow can gain 150 pounds easy. If you can do this cheap that is ok. High milk ,growth and extreme weaning weights may work. But it is getting to be awful expensive to keep cows around with mineral costs and supplement costs.

 

[simtal]

Now the industries average is 50% choice. What amazes me is how good people feel about black cattle and what a great thing the black hided deal was. I think this is a commercial fad that I don't understand.

more like 60% choice

you can thank the cameras for that.

 

[GONEWEST]

Grant,

I really feel like you missed my entire point. I mentioned that the show ring was a beauty contest, but not as a point. My point was that pretty cattle are what my customers want. If they wanted cattle with their heads made into their shoulders, that would be what we would shoot for. I don't care, couldn't care less, don't give a second thought to if it's best for the industry, best for whatever breed, best for anyone except my customers think it's best for them, so in turn it's best for me. You asked who defines what beauty is. My customers define what beauty is for me. What ever their definition of it is, so is mine. The absolute last thought on my mind would be if a long neck is a detriment to the "real world." There is no possible way I could care less. It never crosses my mind when making breeding decisions or buying cattle for others. I breed for what my customer wants, period. The real world is what ever it means to him, not me. My point was not that shows are a beauty contest, but that I breed cattle for what my customer wants.

As far as my personal opinion and experience goes, I agree completely with "Shady Lane."  I believe a feminine appearance in cattle is tied to their productivity. Plus, I like them. I had also mentioned that when we sold commercial bulls, the buyers always picked the prettiest ones first. Always. Your Hereford friend that doesn't like long necks and long spines on his bulls may be raising cattle to fit his customers desires. But I guarantee you if he were to bring them here to sell, he'd just have a big back log of bulls, no matter how "good" he thinks they are. Pretty is important in many "real world" scenarios as well.

Now to the suggestion you made about the breed association getting together with "industry leaders" and making some sort of decision on judges and parameters for the show ring, I can't speak for your breed association, but to do that with our breed would be an atrocity. The last time our association did that was in 2000 and had something called "Focus 2000." Basically what that conference of these so called "industry leaders" did was "dumb down" our cattle to the Angus level.Simmental was the only breed here in the US that both raised the average weaning weight and lowered the average birth weight for year after year after year. But some "industry leaders" decided that wasn't important anymore and thought all cattle should look the same. Remember Leachman? Long hailed as one of the finest cattleman in the world? I still have a catalog from him and the main idea of his sale was that he had all kinds of breeds and composites and they all were exactly the same no matter what their make up or breed. Where is he today? We need differences in cattle breeds and we need differences even with in the breed.

A couple of months ago a ASimmentalA board member wrote a two page article in our breed journal about changes that need to be made in the show ring. It could be the most asinine piece of literature written in the last two centuries. Obviously someone who knows or cares the not first thing about show cattle and runs a commercial cattle herd with registration papers. Ad to that the fact that he espoused less emphasis on winning in the junior project (sounds like lets' give em all A's in school and all trophy's in Little League) and you see why I am so against anyone in our association having the first thing to do with something that effects my lively hood.  Until this Focus 2000 non-sense the association never even sanctioned a show. They stayed out of it completely. It was better.Why would you use EPD's with accuracies in the single digits to pick a winner of a show? How much sense does that make?  It's no different than someone in our government telling me that they know what's best for me better than I do. So I am totally, 1000% against some "industry leader" telling me what to raise. What industry would he be from, anyway? A packer? A feeder? Why not just let kids turn their steers out in a big feed lot for 9 mos and them kill them and see who has the best carcass? Other than structural soundness, I have yet to hear the first logical argument presented as to why show cattle should perform and look like commercial cattle. I see absolutely no value in having a commercial producer look at the winners from a show to decide what he will use in his herd. He should know better.

And as to length of spine. Your short spined animals will never perform like long ones. They may mature earlier, fatten easier, but they will never gain with longer bodied animals, there's no where to put the weight. Is there an optimum amount of gain? Maybe. But all of this crap about carcasses being too big and cuts not "fitting the box" and all that just doesn't  wash. When a cow calf guy sells his calves the more they weigh the more they pay, period. When a feeder sells carcasses he can hit whatever grid he wants to draw up as far as quality grade and carcass size and he will never make up for the loss in pounds in his bank account. Never.

Everyone has a different set of resources to use in their operation. Those resources are almost as varied in number as numbers of producers.  Each needs to match the animals he raises to the resources he has available. That is why there will never be a valid argument that show cattle should be a reflection of the ideal commercial animal. There is no ideal commercial animal for everyone.

 

[simmy86]

First I will try to clearify some of this. When a producer or anyone for that matter uses the term cool fronted that is just a generic way of describing the attractiveness of his or her front end. That can mean that they have a very long thin neck, clean necked, or additionally that they tie their neck very correctly ahead of their shoulders. Now I will correlate this into real world scenerio. Cattle that are long and thin necked usually correlates to females that are refined about their head, neck and most importantly shoulders. We want females to look like ladies not steers. This equates to calving ease, as well as maternal traits. The more muscle we put into females, which is usually associated with extra shoulder and a thick neck results in cattle that milk lower becasue of higher testosterone levels. Additionally cattle that are more refined from a cow base standpoint, usually are cleaner jointed and more appropriate in their muscle type from a females perspective. It is important to remember that in they are refined up front they will be refined everywhere else. Females need to look like females, not short, thick, staggy cattle. Now cattle do not have to be extremely clean fronted, but females with more leather usually have more navel. This is passed on to their bull calves, which results in a higher sheath score and they are more apt to have repro problems. Not saying that this is the case all the time, but is an explination of why that is important in certain cases. Also cattle that tie their neck high and attractively on top of their shoulder is a very important indicator of shoulder angle which is involved with soundness. The more laid back the shoulder the higher they can attach it. The most inportant factor is probably not how clean the neck is but how thin the neck is in females. Cattle with some leather are important in southern climates because it increases the surface are of the body so the animal can stay cooler in hot weather. Cattle that are up north do not need the added surface area of skin becasue it gets too cold and the skin rather needs to be tighter comparitively becasue it holds in more heat and keeps the animal warm. If you look at all the great cows they are not short, wasty fronted, thick necked females. Just my opinion.

 

[justintime]

Great debate... and many great points. Gonewest, I was not attacking your point of view. I guess what I was trying to say, is that we all try to raise cattle that we can sell to pay our bills. I think that most of us on SP don't have the luxury of just raising cattle with no regard to the income they may or may not produce.  I agree with you 100% in that you raise the type of cattle that your customers want to buy. But I am just taking that thought a little further by saying that your customers want to buy that type because the judges in the shows are setting the rules as to what is desirable and what is not.

I would say that I would have to agree with many of the changes that have taken place in the show ring in recent times. I love the depth and capacity of some of today's show animals, and also love the fact that most of these females have been able to be produced looking like this, without becoming coarse , especially through their fronts. I think some of today's show animals are still more refined through their fronts than I think they should be( or need to be), but remember, I live in a rather harsh part of the world, and I may see things a little differently than some others do.

All I was trying to say was that the judges get to set the rules, so to speak, and basically set the rules by which everyone who wants to compete  has to select by. I am just saying that the judges have moved on many of the traits of a good animal, and I think we are probably closer to having more functional cattle in our shows than at any other time in my lifetime. This " cool fronted" issue is one that has not seen much change in what is desired, and I often wonder why especially when a slight movement to the acceptance of a little more depth through the neck, could lead to even more acceptable cattle in a bigger majority of the industry. I do not think this would lead to less attractive females, less length of spine, or less appearance of femininity. My original question was asking whether this cool fronted phenom was something of a fad, and just required for the show ring or if it served any practical purpose in other parts of the industry?

 

[LinZ]

This is my idea of a cool fronted simmy. Of course I am slightly partial since we own her.

 

[aj]

If you breed the leather off of Simmentals....are they really Simentals? They would look like Angus in my opinion. Seems like to me all breeds are trying to look like angus or Maines in the showring. Why spend a lifetime and millions of dollars trying to make Simmental look like Angus? Just buy an Angus...it would be cheaper.jmo

 

[SWMO]

How many breeds in the US have maintained their "breed characteristics" in the past 10 years?

Herefords, Charolais, Brahmas.  Those can be easily spotted in a group of cattle.  Most others breeds have tried their best to look black above all other considerations. JMO

I agree with others that different cattle fit different climates.  What works for us here in Southern Missouri won't work in others parts of the US.  Differences in climate and availability of forages dictate what cattle types work in a specific area.

 

[oakbar]

Great discussion guys.  I think "cool fronted" or at least the ideal neck & shoulder structure still boils down to two things regardless of breed.  Shoulder angle for soundness and to make the neck tie in properly and overall balance of femininity to production characteristics.    The entire argument then becomes shades of grey for these two things depending on the breed and the geographic area. 

The actual amount of loose skin or "neck leather" to me is a separate issue.  Forgive my poor analogy, but its kind of like throwing a blanket over a couch.  If its a good, well built couch it's still a good couch and will hold up to all the structural issues it should and fulfill its function.  If its frail or coarsely made, poorly structured couch it will remain that way whether or not its covered by a blanket.  The unfortunate thing is the more "blanket" you have on the couch the harder it becomes to tell what the structure actually is. 

The bottom line to me is that most of the people buying cattle for shows don't like very much neck leather and people buying animals for meat don't care if it's there or not.  Correspondingly, there is no real strong argument for having more neck leather(heat dissipation in hot weather not withstanding) to create a positive, offsetting position.  Anytime there is a negative and a neutral position on something without a corresponding positive position(in this case, showing how more neck leather will be advantageous)  selection pressure will usually favor the elimination of that characteristic.


I agree that the judges have the ability to change the look of our animals more than any other group of people.  I also agree that the characteristics empahasized in today's showrings are probably getting closer to where they should be(at least in my opinion) than at any time I can remember in the past.  There are still individual arguments about optimum frame size, etc. or if a breed needs to work on birth weights, etc.  but I like the emphasis on depth of body, soundness, and free movement that I have seen in most shows recently.  Of course, judges are subject to their own  biases so there will never be absolute agreement on any individual characteristic.  But then, that's half the fun of showing cattle!!JMHO

 

[r.n.reed]

I have enjoyed following this discussion and might add that in the past if a breed or type was led by the showring in a direction that  took it too far  away from being relevant to what the mainstream industry needed, there was always another breed or type that came along to fill the void.It is usualy a fast and unhappy ending for the guy on the wrong side of the fence.

 

[aj]

Which came first....the bull or the heifer?

 

[oakbar]

I guess, AJ, on SP I'd have to say the bull may not come first but it sure comes more often!!  Ha, Ha!!

 

[sue]

Ok  I am back and in a earlier post I identified one bull... but my point would be made across all breeds and is expressed so clearly in AJ
s  post " what came 1st the bull or the heifer"> The point I think AJ is making is FERTility....does mama calve every 365 days or less??????? Obviously AJ looks at this every fall  when he preg checks and not the front end cause the back end  pays for the deal. 

 

[aj]

I'm assuming salute's dam will not rate high on the stayability index? ;D