Wondering?

[cowman]

That you know of cowman! Funny you mentioned Gelbvieh; (probably the most practical continental breed)and why not mention Limousin. How many red calves are surely not bred to Red Poll, or South Devon, or Saler. This black market has really exploded in the last few years and the Cetified Angus Beef program has gone with the flow, by only demanding a black hided calf to be in the program. We sell over 20 bulls a year from our little operation alone. If you include even a few of the bulls we have sold that survive past 4 or 5 years of age, that makes potential for a couple thousand black calves out there that have little or no Angus blood in them what so ever. I won't ague with your Average Farmer theory, however, even the Average Joe likes to buck the system from time to time.

[pandiana]

rpkaiser “Can we not admit that there is more variance within breeds than there is between breeds?”

Yes, true. There are the good, bad and ugly in every breed. Maybe this is good in that it does broaden the choices and gene pool. I saw a Limo cow that I would have mortgaged the farm for if I could have used her in my program. And yes, trends can and do change over time. I would contend that we are in a major shift in direction right now. I read somewhere that in the 50’s Hereford cows weaned on average 350-400 lb calves. Look what they will wean today. Whether or not this is progress or not can be debated but these changes have been market driven.

Stock Shows:
If you show seedstock at a show it makes sense that you bring out the animals that you think will win. If you heard that the judges are looking for pink bulls, you would bring pink bulls not blue ones. If you don’t like where this is going you would stay home. The reason you want to win is that you are trying to build credibility for your herd and the seedstock you will be selling. You need the money to survive. You want to be in the group at the top. I agree that everyone tends to see things a little differently but, on the other hand, what those judges want will determine where show cattle tend to go to a significant extent. Again, judges are not working in isolation but have to have an ear tuned to the cattle industry. How much influence this has on the commercial herd is another debate.

Speaking of how different people see things, when I toured the barns at Agribition and Farmfair what struck me was similarity not variability. I saw Simmental cattle that were solid red or black and moderate frame that could easily pass as Gelbvieh. I saw Gelbvieh and Simmental that were looking more and more like Angus. I saw black and red Charolais. Has anyone seen spots on Maines lately? Frame size is also tending to moderate in many breeds although stock shows are still notorious for bringing out extremes. The days of the biggest or fastest growing animals winning it all are gone though I believe.

Market
The market is the great leveler. Feedlot buyers prefer to buy cattle that they think they can make money on. Packers set the standard for the feedlots. The retail market determines what meat they will buy from the packer, i.e. what size their steak will be or whether their eating experience with beef exceeds that of pork or chicken. When you sell your calves on the free market auction system, I would bet that you watch carefully what your neighbors are getting for their calves. If you get the average price, you wonder what you have to do to get a premium. If you get dinged for whatever; color, frame, condition, it sends a strong signal that you need to change. Yes it is money driven. We all need ‘it’ to keep going. Many of us would love to have enough money left over to be altruistic.

Whether or not the market ever settles on four breeds or five or 50 is not determined by somebody telling you that you can’t breed anything you want. If you want to get paid well, or to win, you have to produce a product that is in demand and that you get paid for. Whether that is in the open, free market or niche market is of little consequence, as long as you can make a living. Breeds of cattle that don’t provide a living tend to quietly disappear over time.

[cakadu]

Depends on who is demanding what. Sometimes we think we know what the consumer wants, or that what we want is somehow going to miraculously translate into what the consumer wants. Consumers, whether it be the shopper in the store, the feeder buyer or even food service, can be very fickle and their demands change over time.

The biggest thing about consumers is to give them the straight goods about what you are doing. Consumers may be fickle, but their memories are long, especially when they feel that they haven't been treated properly or kept informed.

The most significant factor about keeping heritage livestock - rare, endangered or on the critical list - is that at some stage, we will likely have to outcross to them to get back some of the more desirable traits we have spent years getting rid of. We seem to have gone the way of what can get the biggest the fastest because margins keep getting tighter and tighter, so in an attempt to curtail costs, we look for what we believe is the quick fix i.e. faster growing etc.

I truly hope their never comes a day when we are reduced to just a few genetic lines. I wonder when the day will come when we realize we have gone too far and there is no turning back.

[PureCountry]

I'm sorry pandiana, but I don't agree with your statement that breeds of cattle that do not make a living disappear over time. Making a living from cattle is far more about managing your land, grass and money, than your cattle. I don't care if you raise Angole-Watusi just to sell the horns and bleached skulls, if you manage your operation and keep it within its means, it can be profitable. You could conversely have a 'picture perfect' herd of Angus show cows, and be winning banner after ribbon after trophy, and still lose your butt if the management isn't there.
I have to agree with rpkaiser on this one. The type of cattle AND breed is of little consequence, as long as the management is top-notch, and as you said pandiana, there is a market for what you're selling.
There are breeds that have dwindled in numbers, and not through any fault of their own. Then there are breeds with large memberships that I think should be extinct, because they are doing are industry harm, despite having some outstanding individual animals within the breed. Neil French from Olds College told me that the research conducted through their Steer-A-Year trials, for Relative Feed Intake and Net Feed Efficiency, is focusing more on variance between sire groups, rather than variance between breeds. However, when I put the question to him, he reluctantly agreed that some breeds just have nothing to offer over and above others.
But as I said before, even the breeds I have no use for at all, someone is making money with somewhere. And again, it all comes down to management.

(Although I dare say that if more commercial operators understood that your cost of production could be as low as $350-400 per cow with the right crossbreeding program, they may rethink the 'BIG FOUR' breeds)

I don't know if I made a point or just walked both sides of the fence, oh well, it'll make for conversation.

[cowman]

purecountry: A whole lot of producers have absolutely no idea what their cost of production is and just don't care. The producer probably with the lowest cost of all is the large grainfarmer who just uses his cattle to clean up the byproducts of his grain operation? You know the 40-50 cow herd that is so often quoted as being inefficient? I mean consider this type of operations costs?
Feed is basically free, or at least a lot of it. Pasture is junk land that can't be farmed and without cattle would just sit. Machinery used to feed is in reality machinery from the grain operation sitting idle during the winter. As long as the cattle don't interfere with seeding/spraying harvesting then the money is practically pure profit. This is your ultimate low cost producer?

[pandiana]

I am not sure what the debate is. I think I said that you could raise anything you want as long as you can make a living. The operative words is make a living. If you are a good promoter, you could make a living selling bleached skulls and horns, or rodeo stock or anything else. Obviously, if you are a good manager, the weather cooperates, you bought in when land was cheap, etc., you would have a competitive edge. I have no argument with this thinking. My point was that whatever you produce or however efficient you are at producing it, the limiting factors is you must have demand for the product. No matter how good you think your product is, your ability to sell it depends on what the market wants. If the market wants a carcass that fits in a box, or has a giant ribeye or extreme marbling, then in order to get the best price, producers will try to fit these specifications. Right now, I believe that the signals we are getting from the big markets, i.e. packers, retailers, consumers, appear to want a predictable, safe and uniform product. On the other hand, our BSE problem has highlighted the 'safe' aspect of our meat market and I agree that this has probably opened up a significant market for more naturally grown livestock.

[pandiana]

The original question from cowman is something about when, or if, the packers will dictate the kind of cattle we raise. I would have to say this is already happening. The only problem is, once we give them that product, they are the ones who reap the profits, and I'm not only talking about government BSE money.This boxed beef scenerio boggles my mind. Tell us to breed cattle a certain size and consistency, feed them right for shelf life, and then eliminate the most important part of the process. We would simply never supply the fine tasting palates of the world if we hung our wonderful product for a few weeks. And what about testin for BSE and eliminating Hormones for Europe.
As far as the breed of cattle they want, I don't believe they give a %$%#@ as long as we get them to them in the size and protocal they want; which we are already doing.

[pandiana]

Almost forgot to mention.
One or two of those Top 4 breeds is being forced into change by the packers with discounts for overweight cattle as well. Kind of cattle, not breed of cattle.

[pandiana]

cakadu, I agree with most of what you say. We can never lose track of what the consumer wants or think they want. The fact that there is no single answer to that question I think leaves the door open for those niche markets. I remember the previous discussion on organic foods. I have talked to many people since who have a heightened awareness of where their food is being produced, mostly attributable to health scares of one kind or another. But even the big corporations are picking up on this. For example, Maple Leaf and their naturally grain fed chicken products that they sell at a higher price than generic type chicken. No market is secure, as the big companies have the clout to give them flexibility and influence.

Although I can't agrue with the logic of keeping a heritage gene pool, my question is still who is going to pay?

[pandiana]

yes, rpkaiser, I would agree that too little of the money for our products comes home to the producer. Many a post has been dedicated to this topic. How do we get leverage enough to demand our fair share? An at whose expense? Everone needs to make money to stay in business.