Angus Cattle

[grassfarmer]

Farmers_son, I think what many of us "alternate breeders" are looking for is to create the perfect cow, or more of the perfect cows. I firmly believe there are cows that will do it all and the cow that is low labor, high fertility is usually also the right (ie moderate/smaller) size and more feed efficient. There are strong correlations between these traits and you will only identify the best cows by testing them under the appropriate conditions.

I really hate this acceptance of the working off farm scenario, after 8 generations of being full time in agriculture my family has no intention of going there, ever. This is why I fight to change the status quo of our industry. I do not accept that we must accept a $20 per cow margin, run hundreds of cows per man to deliver the proceeds to some nameless, faceless corporate entity. We must remember that as primary producers involved in the solar conversion business we are responsible for creating the only real wealth to be generated on earth on a sustainable basis. This can not be said of the exploiting industries of oil, gas, gold, diamond etc production. And all the add on retail gluttony that we see around us at this time of year is really frivolous activity of consumers who are very well fed and have no better ideas of what to do with the wealth WE created for them. Without farmers or ranchers around the world there would be no civilisation, no society and no human race.
We need to quit squabbling over which cattle breeds/feeding systems to use and concentrate on making sure we all extract enough reward for the investment, knowledge and work we expend as food producers.

[kato]

I guess one man's perfect cow is another man's cull? LOL. We all have our own criteria that we have developed over the years. It will be different for every operation.

Above all, on our place, it doesn't matter if a cow raises a grand champion calf, or the biggest one here, if she is out to kill us, she's gone. And not to a bred cow sale either!!!

Our perfect cow is one who calves by herself every year without help and rebreeds early. Cows who do this will naturally be the ones who can maintain body condition on whatever feed they get. She must calve early for us because we don't live near all of our pastures. Calving in the pasture is not an option when that pasture is 50 miles away. She must raise a good calf and stay sound on her feet. These are the cows we select heifers from.

The ones who cannot perform like these cows will cull themselves. They will get late, and eventually come home open.

Over time, with selection, a trouble free cow herd naturally develops. It takes a lifetime to accomplish this, so patience is necessary.

I think the best thing we can all do is to keep doing different things. The more diversified the general cattle population is, the better returns we will all get. Spread it out.

I have noticed that now that there are later calving herds around, we've got a much easier time finding lightweight calves to background. It used to be that in the fall, if there was a sale with fifteen hundred head in it, we might find a half a dozen lightweight calves to buy. Now they come rolling in by the trailer load. What used to take us two months to buy can be done in a couple of weeks.

Another bonus with later calving is that my donkey business is booming. I can't keep up with the demand. ;-)

[smcgrath76]

I notice a couple of things in here that strike me. One, there is as much variation within a breed as between breeds. This is true and also not correct. While the variation within a breed may be large, certain breeds excel in different areas of the scale. For example, the variation in marbling may be 7 marbling score units for both Angus and Charolais, but the bell curve for each breed is centred around a very different average. Breeds are becoming more grouped for growth traits.
The other is that in order to be a good farmer, all you are allowed to do is farm. I don;t ranch fulltime, but I am fulltime plus involved in agriculture. nearly every penny I make in a year is dependent in some way upon beef cattle. Basically I do what I want to do, and all of our enterprises are profitable and growing. Do I need to farm fulltime, or do I simply need to be a serious producer?
I know several young people who run a lot of cows that also have additional jobs, shingling, bus driving, hair cutting, book keeping, etc.
The ranching/farming only logic is nice, except that it ignores a lot of the issues with attracting young people into the industry. A combination of ranching and off farm employment is a great way to ease into intergenerational transfer and also develop skills and contacts for the next generation that are going to be even more important in the future.
Okay, the perfect cow...
Is very different depending on where you live and what other enterprises you run. I think that a lot of the smaller or forgotten breeds have a lot to offer, and always have thought that. I think that moving forward these breeds will be under more pressure, not less, as commercial producers demand more information before making purchasing decisions. The challenge for many will be creating a critical mass to offer these services to the industry.
We try to balance our genetic selection to our environment, and we use very different sires to produce replacements than we do to produce feeder calves. Our cows spend roughly 8 hours a year in the corral, between AI and vaccinations it is about 4 trips at roughly 2 hours per trip. Currently our young cows are grazing (grass) and we will be bringing home the older group of cows off grass onto swaths next week some time. On the replacement side we use EPDs to select and moderate what we are doing. We use EPD on the terminal side to stretch growth and yield.
Does it work? Only if you have a goal and keep things in context. We have threshhold EPD that we use, as well as upper limits that we stay below for traits ranging from calving ease, all the way through to growth rate and carcass traits. If I lived in Brandon or calved in February, I would have a very different set of cows and criteria.
I am with Randy that the industry could use a good change, but I don't see it changing unless individual operators want to change. GF you are a good example of someone who has changed, but I am not sure I see that drive amongst most producers. Many just want to good old days back.

[cswilson]

To be honest I thought those cows in the article looked a little dead haired considering how green the grass was they were on. as far as phenotype there are 1,000's of Angus cows that look just like them in western Canada not just Angus cows either.

[gaucho]

Here is the responce from Gavin and Willie

Reply from PINEBANK NEW ZEALAND

Firstly a correction. Unfortunately the original article was not seen by us before publication. There was an error; weaning weight of calves average, was, 260 kilos or 580 lbs at 200 days. This of course varies with the season.

Cows can lose 30% of body weight in a bad season and still conceive after having reared a good calf. This weight. loss is carefully monitored .

We have been sheep and beef farmers all our lives and the welfare of our animals is always our major concern. No animal suffers under our management and body weights are carefully watched. If we become concerned then more hay is fed.

Pinebank is a commercial farm in a deregulated economy . We have no subsidies and no one in our present government knows anything about farming, so we are on our own. Pinebank is one of the highest stocked properties in the district and all stock has to compete for resources. Our climate is summer dry and feed ranges from 7500 kilos of dry matter per year in a good year to 4000 kilos in a bad one...
Stocking rate is 13.5 stock units per hectare or 2.7 cows per hectare ( 1.1cows per acre)
.

The Pinebank Angus stud is the third oldest in the country and will be 100 years old in 2019.
Unlike other studs where grain is fed , Pinebank has been run as a standard commercial herd and has to compete with sheep and pay its way.

In 1965 I closed the herd and began using our own bulls. We are now using 4 bulls per 100 cows. These are the top bulls of their year, and so are out of the top cows
Each year the bulls are replaced and the next years selection of top bulls are used. Each year the bulls are by the top bulls, who were by the top bulls and so on.
Each year the bulls are out of the most efficient cows , who are out of the most efficient cows and so on..
So we are building in the most important economic traits at the same time as the cattle have to cope with the environment

I decided from the beginning that no conformational restriction would be put on the animals and that I would let the environment dictate the size and type of animal that would appear.
Our Geneticist said we were setting out on a path that had never been tried before and that he knew it would work, but that he had no idea what would appear!!.
What we were attempting to do cut right across known breeding methods and the Angus Society voiced its displeasure loud and clear. In fact we were only one vote off being barred from registering our cattle.
As it turned out we were not the first. The Range Research Station in Miles City, Montana, has the No1 Hereford Line of cattle that has been closed since 1936. I must express my appreciation for help given to me by Dr Michael McNeil from Montana.

Let me explain about our cows, which have to me, shown the most remarkable change from the closed herd and the selection pressure that has been placed upon them.

Research at Trangi Research Station in Australia (is the only trial that I know of), in which energy inputs were measured, found that, “In any population of cows there was a 50% difference above average for the best cow, and that this is kilos of calf weaned against dry matter input,” and that this difference was moderately inheritable. This must be a true measure of efficiency after fertility.

An important fact concerning our herd is that every cow must calve annually from 18 months onward.. . If she fails she is culled This selection pressure has already built this remarkable cow. . . Any semen we export is out of a son who has at least 7 generations of this sort of cow behind him.
.
Perhaps now you have some small idea of the respect and performance our programme has built into our cows and how much value we put on them.

Now that you are more fully informed, and have some idea that Pinebank is not just an ordinary Angus Herd, lets begin the discussion. .

I shall be honoured to join in on this. We will certainly photograph cows for viewing, if and when the time is appropriate, taking into consideration, we are in opposite seasons. We would welcome any cattlemen who would like to visit New Zealand, and be delighted to show them the cattle. We have already had a number of Americans but with the exception of Christoph Weder, have had no Canadians.

Gavin and William Falloon

[WSS]

I've read every message on this thread and the one topic missing is Body Condition Score (BCS).
We don't know what the BCS of the cows was prior to the weight loss period. If the cows are managed in such a way that they have BCS of 4 to 4.5 (5 point scale) when entering the weight loss period, they can lose 300-350 lbs and still have a BCS of 2-2.5. That is an acceptable BCS for over wintering, and would assert that a good many commercial cows in our country probably hit this BCS at some point over the winter(especially winter calved cows). Any articles or research studies point out that the key for re-breeding success is to have them gaining weight by the time they start calving and have a BCS around 3. As Mr.Falloon pointed out they do manage the weight loss, and after many decades and generations have probably adapted there grazing system and cattle to allow them to function in this system.
Now if we take our average producer in this country, who calves in February/March and leaves the calves on the cows until November (cows 2.5 to 3.5 BCS or thinner) this weight loss would be disastrous, and would lead to animal deaths and the SPCA. When we were still calving in February we routinely weaned calves in mid to late August, kept them and the cows on grass until November/December. Our cows always gained a lot of weight in this period (many would be in 3.5-4 BCS on poor quality grass)and could be coasted through the winter. The key to any system is the management of it.
Now just a hypothesis on Randys assertion that having cows lose all this weight is BS. Any of the promotion that I have heard lately in regards to Galloway, Welsh Black and Highland (I have nothing against these breeds) has pointed to the fact that they have less backfat because of their excellent hair coats. I have heard it said that these cattle produce excellent marbled carcasses without an excess of backfat. Now if these cattle have genetic propensity to put on less backfat could it be that they have less fat storage within their bodies, and therefore would not be able to handle the same degree of weight loss that some other british breeds would? Not that they are less hardy, but that they can't handle the weight loss, and are better suited to a system that does not have them losing extreme amounts of weight. Also becasue of this trait for less back fat can we even use the BCS systms that we currently have in place? Maybe these cattle have as much fat but more in the muscle and body than under the skin? Anybody know the answer?

[PureCountry]

In my own experience, most Galloways could stand to shed alot of weight over the winter, without any adverse effects to their health or reproductivity. Some on the other hand, are harder-keeping, but it seems to be a smaller minority than I've experienced in other breeds. As for Highlands, you're talking a totally different critter. They simply don't get fat. A friend who owns alot of them told me this some years ago. And now that I have some in my own herd, I can see he's right. The only time you'll see a fat Highland cow is if she went dry/open. They just have a metabolism that seems to maintain a comfortable weight, but never put on that excess over the tailhead and such, like you'd see in an Angus, Galloway, Hereford, or Shorthorn.

So do I think a Highland could shed 300lbs, I don't think I've seen a Highland that could. They only start out at 1000lbs as it is.

Do I want to see any of my cows - commercial or purebred Galloways - shed 300lbs over the winter? Only if they have it on them to lose. And even if my cows went into winter at a 4-4.5 BCS, I believe it would have to be a cold bloody winter with poor feed for them to lose 300lbs.

What I'm saying is, I can see the circumstances where it would be acceptable, but I can't imagine at what point the planets would align perfectly for those circumstances to come about.

[PureCountry]

Forgot to comment that this is my opinion for my ranch. I'm an expert at nothing except this place. What works for Christoph, Randy, Iain, Sean, Gavin and Willie, or that crazy Wilson guy from the wilds of Northern Saskatchewan, may not work for me. But I'll sure enjoy sharing ideas and experiences at the drop of a beer tab.

One day Mr. Falloon and I will share a pint I'm sure. We chatted several times over the e-mail highway in the past, just haven't made the time to slip Down Under with the wife for a vacation.

[rkaiser]

Good comments WSS, and thank you for your input as well Mr. Falloon.

Agriville does not usually attract the kind of attention that this thread has, and I might even have to apologize for my somewhat vulgar reaction, without stopping from challenging the 30% weight loss issue.

Your comments on the Welsh Black Galloway and Highland cattle are taken well WSS, and I would not argue that the cattle (generally) may not be able to handle the kind of weight loss compared to an animal that genetically lays down a thicker bark.

I think that Mr. Falloon adressed my perception of the article in question when he said that the 30% weight loss "could" be handled in "bad" conditions.

Compared to the quote in the article which read - "we tend to rip about 30% of the body weight off a mature cow across the winter, every winter"

Sorry to be picky but I would likely have not challenged the article if not for that one claim.

As for the intramuscular fat in the three mentioned breeds, I would personally predict that the intramuscular fat would be similar but not exceed the amount of intramuscular fat in an breed with more backfat. Our feedlot trials have shown good triple A marbling results, but nothing extreme. I would predict that the kind of weight that we are talking about would be far greater if backfat were cut off and weighed compared to intramuscular fat. In fact, I would suggest that most of the weight loss being discussed would be muscle tissue anyway.

[GrainBeetle]

test

[URL="https://www.agriville.com/cgi-bin/forums/viewThread.cgi?1204210536"]<b>Could of should have syndrome</b>[/URL]

https://www.agriville.com/cgi-bin/forums/viewThread.cgi?1204210536