We are changing our herd away from Shorthorn

[beebe]

What are you folks doing with the female side of these cattle?  Are they going to harvest or are they going to be cows?

 

[Lucky_P]

Beebe,
We went to SH sires with the intent of making some ANxSH females to be bred to black Simmental sires for 'terminal' calf production.  Performance has been so good with the Shorthorn-sired steers that we're sort of rethinking that deal.  We've kept most of the Shorthorn cross heifers as replacements...but not all have been worth of staying - not all of our cows are exceptional, and at least one SH bull we've used just didn't seem to 'nick' well with our genetics.
 
Any calves sired by either the SimAngus cleanup bulls or the red ShorthornPlus above will be slated for sale as stocker/feeders - but if there are exceptional-looking heifers along the way, I won't have any qualms about keeping them.

 

[Duncraggan]

LOL, duncraggin,
He's just a Shorthorn Plus...he is red, out of a black 86%AN female...don't guess he'd really qualify as a Durham Red.

I've had plenty of experience with crossbred bulls over crossbred cows...uniformity may not be there... but when I'm already using several different Simmental, Shorthorn, and Angus AI sires over these crossbred cows trying to match the bull to the cow's strengths... uniformity is not our strong suit... but I will say that the Shorthorn-sired calves have come closer to 'uniformity' than what we've achieved with other breeds - regardless of whether they've been sired by Waukaru bulls, 034, or Captain Obvious.

Have used, back in the early '80s, a halfblood Simbrah over AngusXHereford cows, and got some of the best calves we'd ever raised - until I got on the Shorthorn train.
Currently have two little SimAngus critters playing backup to the 10y.o. Angus herdsire, who's taking a ride to town in a week or two.  They're just stopgap players, filling a void 'til I can replace them with what I'm breeding toward... same as the red bull calf...though I expect him to sire better offspring than them.  Photo of him at about 3 months, feel free to knock him down...

Only criticism I have is that he could do with more development around the eyes, I find they are more resistant to eye trouble in my environment if they have pronounced eyebrows. Otherwise his body looks good.

 

[JTM]

Did a progeny-test breeding trial on commercial cattle for the Jordans at Waukaru for the Spring 2014 calf crop, comparing W.Orion 2047 to W.Coppertop 464(whom we'd been using for several years); small group of mostly 3/4AN-1/4SM cows... ended up with 4 steers by each sire, which went into a feeding trial.  Just got some preliminary results back from Toby regarding the feed-out, yesterday:

"The Orion 2047 steers had an average ADG ratio of 111, HCW of 857 YG 2 Low Choice.  I think this would be the highest HCW sire average of the 115 head test.  The most profitable and highest ranking steer was one from you, an Orion son tag 15.  The Coppertop 464 steers were very comparable.  ADG ratio of 110, YG 2 Se+. "

Was pleased to see this result...looking forward to getting individual carcass data on these calves.  Dam of the #15 steer has produced the top weaning calf in our herd for the past 3 years...but I've never known how the calves performed after they left here...

Lucky P, I'm thinking your calf was in the same trial as our calves. I have the info if you give me the home tag number or their tag number. I think we are doing very similar things with crossing Shorthorns, Angus, and Simmental. This is also the direction we have been going. So far we are making great crossbred cows and calves that grade on the rail. Our results (19 calves) in the trial were 74% choice and 68% YG 1&2's while the group as a whole was 62% choice and 50% YG 1's and 2's. I also find it very interesting that I have had a lot of calves that look like your bull calf. He is really nice by the way.

 

[RyanChandler]

Our results (19 calves) in the trial were 74% choice and 68% YG 1&2's while the group as a whole was 62% choice and 50% YG 1's and 2's.

average HCW?

 

[JTM]

Our results (19 calves) in the trial were 74% choice and 68% YG 1&2's while the group as a whole was 62% choice and 50% YG 1's and 2's.

average HCW?

Our HCW average was 721 lbs. and our average age at kill was 395 days (13 months).

 

[JTM]

I'm just thinking about long haul scenarios in terms of promoting Shorthorn for grass fed.
One ( of many possible) scenarios is to promote a type of animal that is truly grassy. Usually this type is intermediate between the 950 lb and 1250 lb animals you described,..and if it's a shorthorn with those growth genetics the carcass quality will probably be better than either of the other animals at the same age.

I think Librarian is definitely on track with this thinking. Shorthorn cattle are not meant to be growth cattle. One breed can't do it all. Also, the larger framed growthy type I've ever owned be it Shorthorn of different genetics, Angus, Maine Anjo, or crossbred cows have always had WAY more issues across the board than moderate framed cows. The key in my opinion is not how many pounds you can get but how much profit you can make on your farm.  That's why we cross them with Angus and Simmental of like kind. We are not having much of any uniformity issues when it comes to sire groups. Our sire groups are a bit different from each other but that is expected. I think when you get Shorthorns too growthy you will end up losing your marbling and carcass quality. You can have heavy muscled smaller framed cattle with good ribeye per carcass weight while still holding on to carcass quality. These steer futurities are a great way to see what you've got and make adjustments accordingly to make sure you are balancing ribeye and marbling to promote YG 2's and Choice carcasses. Of course you need to retain ownership and get paid on the rail to receive the full value. After all expenses including trucking, yardage, feed, and veterinary we cleared $1275 per calf. We had very little in these calves and have never, ever, sold 500 lb. red steers for that much money in Ohio...

Attached is a typical 5/8 Shorthorn heifer calf that will make an awesome momma cow for us.

 

[RyanChandler]

I think when you get Shorthorns too growthy you will end up losing your marbling and carcass quality.

Is that consistent with the feed test results?  I haven't seen the results but from Lucky is saying, it sounds like the Orion calves had comparable carcass quality while hanging an additional (857/721) ~20%.

Nice heifer, really attractive head.

 

[librarian]

I agree, that heifer is a sweetheart.

 

[JTM]

I think when you get Shorthorns too growthy you will end up losing your marbling and carcass quality.

Is that consistent with the feed test results?  I haven't seen the results but from Lucky is saying, it sounds like the Orion calves had comparable carcass quality while hanging an additional (857/721) ~20%.

Nice heifer, really attractive head.

The feed test results are pretty much a wash in my opinion. I don't give them much weight at all. Darrell, the manager told me that the feed test is about 65% accurate. Basically, when you throw all the feed to a bunch of steers and then some gain faster than others the test says they converted feed better. Naturally large frame cattle are going to eat more and gain more. It's not a sure way of testing feed intake. Feed intake can only be tested accurately by sorting them out individually at each feeding. I will let Lucky discuss his results but what I can say is that the whole group including ours was 62% choice and 50% YG 2's or better. Comparable would be within 5 percentage points imo.

 

[RyanChandler]

I think when you get Shorthorns too growthy you will end up losing your marbling and carcass quality.

Is that consistent with the feed test results?  I haven't seen the results but from Lucky is saying, it sounds like the Orion calves had comparable carcass quality while hanging an additional (857/721) ~20%.

Nice heifer, really attractive head.

b] Basically, when you throw all the feed to a bunch of steers and then some gain faster than others the test says they converted feed better.[/b] Naturally large frame cattle are going to eat more and gain more.

On full feed, whether grazing forage in a pasture or eating concentrated feedstuff from a bunk, I don't think growth rate is as much of an indicator of conversion efficiency as it is an indicator of their overall physical capacity to consume.  The operative factors responsible for an animal's ability to gain is not height/frame score but rather capacity: a combination of their depth and width. Cattle will continue to eat until they have reached maximum internal capacity, regardless of their height.  The adg limiter for 'most' smaller framed cattle is not that their frame isn't tall enough, it's that they are literally restricted by the limits of their internal capacity.  I think it's important to remember that increasing frame score in order to increase ADG is unnecessary... Not only can we achieve the same results (higher ADG), but we can achieve them more efficiently (conversion rates) by selecting for the traits that DIRECTLY increase internal capacity -depth and width. 

 

[r.n.reed]

I think the main value of this test is to give the individual breeder a snap shot of where they are at in their program.There are way to many variables to try to make an accurate comparison between sire groups.I think the old ASA tests in the 70's and what Nick Hammett was trying to do during the Bolze era were a little more reliable in making an effective comparison.Find a uniform established herd with good data and AI to Shorthorn sires and take the offspring through harvest.To take it up a notch do it regionally and with different management styles and use control groups bred like the cow herd.
I had 5 Frontline steers in this test and my biggest take home was we really need to build up the accuracy of our breeds epd's.These steers were in a dead heat for second highest REA/carcass weight and percent retail product.Frontline is in the bottom 5% of the breed for REA.The sire group that narrowly placed ahead of the Frontline steers and has not been talked about in this topic is rated in the top 15%.Another sire represented in the test also ranks in the top 15% and was way down the line.

 

[JTM]

I think when you get Shorthorns too growthy you will end up losing your marbling and carcass quality.

Is that consistent with the feed test results?  I haven't seen the results but from Lucky is saying, it sounds like the Orion calves had comparable carcass quality while hanging an additional (857/721) ~20%.

Nice heifer, really attractive head.

b] Basically, when you throw all the feed to a bunch of steers and then some gain faster than others the test says they converted feed better.[/b] Naturally large frame cattle are going to eat more and gain more.

On full feed, whether grazing forage in a pasture or eating concentrated feedstuff from a bunk, I don't think growth rate is as much of an indicator of conversion efficiency as it is an indicator of their overall physical capacity to consume.  The operative factors responsible for an animal's ability to gain is not height/frame score but rather capacity: a combination of their depth and width. Cattle will continue to eat until they have reached maximum internal capacity, regardless of their height.  The adg limiter for 'most' smaller framed cattle is not that their frame isn't tall enough, it's that they are literally restricted by the limits of their internal capacity.  I think it's important to remember that increasing frame score in order to increase ADG is unnecessary... Not only can we achieve the same results (higher ADG), but we can achieve them more efficiently (conversion rates) by selecting for the traits that DIRECTLY increase internal capacity -depth and width.

I agree with what you are saying in general here. It sounds like capacity would correlate with intake but I would not say that this is an accurate enough assumption to bet the farm on it. There are tests being done that prove that similar capacity (width, depth) and/or frame size can have entirely different feed intake and feed efficiency numbers. So what I said before about larger framed cattle eating more and gaining more might not have been technically accurate to what I mean't. I really mean't basically what you said but I would also back that up by saying that I think genetics play a big role too.

I think the main value of this test is to give the individual breeder a snap shot of where they are at in their program.There are way to many variables to try to make an accurate comparison between sire groups.I think the old ASA tests in the 70's and what Nick Hammett was trying to do during the Bolze era were a little more reliable in making an effective comparison.Find a uniform established herd with good data and AI to Shorthorn sires and take the offspring through harvest.To take it up a notch do it regionally and with different management styles and use control groups bred like the cow herd.
I had 5 Frontline steers in this test and my biggest take home was we really need to build up the accuracy of our breeds epd's.These steers were in a dead heat for second highest REA/carcass weight and percent retail product.Frontline is in the bottom 5% of the breed for REA.The sire group that narrowly placed ahead of the Frontline steers and has not been talked about in this topic is rated in the top 15%.Another sire represented in the test also ranks in the top 15% and was way down the line.

I agree Gary. It's for the individual breeder to understand where they are at. Looking at Frontline's rib eye epd he is only at 10% accuracy so that to me is almost like not having an epd yet. So after these results get put in and they run the epd's again in the fall you should see a significant jump in REA I would think. Especially if he beat that other bull that is top 15%. Another reason why we need to continue to do these tests together so that these different groups can be compared in contemporary groups and make our epd's more accurate.

 

[librarian]

Re:XBAR examples of bulls that are described as thick, but not moderate.
FROM The Steerplanet Archives
http://www.steerplanet.com/bb/the-big-show/old-shorthorn-semen-t22172/msg274528/#msg274528
Photo is 11Z, Okotoks, how were his calves for growth?

That's interesting JIT but leads me ask about the Thomas herd. Did you or anyone see it? Cecil Staples bought two bulls out of the Thomas Gordon Draper Sales and both were Thomas bulls. The one I believe was the high selling bull one year and Cecil thought the Thomas program was the best. They used TPS Coronet Leader 21st sire Coronet Max Leader. The one bull Thomas Max 11Z was by Thomas Max 31V and 31V was out of a Carona Perfect dam and 11Z's dam was by Coronet Max Leader.  I only have an old black white catalogue photo of 11Z but if I had him today .............
Did the size and thickness come from another of their bloodlines not Coronet Max Leader?

Dan, you have just mentioned another bull that was as unusual in his era as Leader 21 was. Carona Perfect was considered to be the biggest bull ever produced at the famous Carona herd of the 40s and 50s. Carona decided to put him in their annual bull sale because they still had his sire, and several sisters in their herd. Because he was far too big to ever be a show bull in the US, he sold for a very reasonable price in their sale to Dave Ball ( Ball Dee) from Edmonton, AB. After the sale, Carona offered Dave a considerable profit if he would let them buy him back, but he declined their offer. Carona Farms told Dave Ball that they considered Perfect to be the best bull they had ever bred, despite his size. I have been told that Carona Perfect was a 2600 lb bull at maturity. I can believe this to be true when you think of some of his offspring. Ball Dee Perfect Count weighed 2700 lbs and many of the Ball Dee cows that appear today in the background of many of the best cow lines here in Canada, were not small cows.  Carona Perfect was a great breeding sire, and his influence is still seen today.

The Thomas herd was a very good herd. It was run on a very commercial basis and were very practical cattle. Coronet Max Leader was a much smaller bull than his son, Leader 21st. I made many trips to the Thomas herd with my dad. The top end of this herd was very good but there was a bunch of cows that were not real impressive to look at, but looking back, I now suspect that they probably bred much better than they looked.

I was not real old when Cecil Staples purchased Max 11Z, but I remember the bull and remember him selling in that sale. He was very thick, deep and appeared to be easy fleshing. He was by far, the best bull offered for sale that day. If I had to guess where he got his size, I would suspect that some of it came from the Carona Perfect line, but some of it could have come from the Coronet Max Leader lineage as well, as it did in the case of Leader 21.

When I think back to that time, there were some massive bulls that came from Scottish bloodlines as well. There were some Scotsdale bulls that were massive and very good. I remember  a Scotsdale bull used by Osborns at Weyburn, who weighed over 2800 lbs. He was one of the most impressive bulls I remember from that time. He had feet like pie plates, and had never been trimmed, and he had a huge butt and was always in great condition. His calves came easily and while he was huge, his daughters seemed to mature at 1400 - 1500 lbs. We had a bull named Louada Clachan who was sired by Bapton Constructor. His dam was a Scottish import, yet Clachan weighed 2500 lbs in pasture condition. Morris Senkiw in Manitoba used Clachan prior to dad purchasing him, and I remember us having a problem getting him into our old two ton truck, as he was so long bodied. We finally got him in the truck box cornerwise and got the end gates back in, and headed for home. There were quite a few bulls like this back in that era, and many of them ended up in Western Canada as they sold cheaper and farmers could afford them. This is probably the main reason that some of the great herds of the 50s, 60s and 70s could be found in Western Canada, as most breeders did not get caught up with the meadow muffin type of the day, simply because they could not afford the smaller framed bulls. Another bull I remember was Scotsmorr Fascinator, who was another 2700 lb bull that was about as thick and easy fleshing as they come.
CArona Perfect, resulting of sire daughter mating was purchased as a yearling by th C.s.Thomas , in spring 1956, in summer 1961 Dave Ball purchased him,  Dave said he was smooth as an apple and was what the polled cattle needed, he weighed 1800lbs on pasture. He was sold June 1964 to C.J Versluys of Olive Grove. Thomas's lways advertised him as a sire of outstanding milking females.... 

 

[Lucky_P]

r.n. reed nailed it; it's a snapshot in time, and for me - this was a chance for me to see what my calves could do 'at the next level'.  Have been selling weaned calves all my life, with no idea how they performed in the feedlot or on the rail.  Big thanks to Toby and the folks at Waukaru for offering me this opportunity to get that insight.

Now I have some inkling of what my cows, and our breeding decisions, are capable of producing.
It was gratifying to see that my calves performed quite favorably alongside calves coming out of programs that I'm familiar with and have great admiration for...

 

[mark tenenbaum]

If these people are shipping that many calves due to lack of quality-then apparently thier cattle may not be very good to begin with-maybe use some shorthorns for recips and get some good embryos of other breeds O0