big cattle- little cattle

[cowman]

I'm old enough to remember the days when the packers wanted "baby beef" where 1000 lbs. was about as heavey as they wanted them. Today they want cattle that will finish at a heavier weight?
It really only makes sense? It costs just as much to kill that lightweight as the heavier cattle, so the packer has lower costs per pound on a heavy carcass. I believe this is an advantage the continental crossbred steer has over a lot of the lighter British bred beef?...Although if you look at some of the hereford,shorthorn, angus cattle today you would wonder how they got so darned big? I suspect they got a little "help" along the way? Or was it all "selective breeding"? LOL
I think it was about the worst kept secret in the Hereford world, that they got a little "Sim help", and the Shorthorns opened up there books, but I'm not so sure about Angus? Did they get a little added "boost"?

[15444]

http://www.alpacas-4-sale.com/breed_standard.htm


'The Hereford breed of cattle offers an example of how the insistence on a certain breed type changed a breed in a negative way. The original Herefords had red spots on their faces and red rings around their eyes. Many of the Herefords imported to America carried these red markings. At first, they were preferred and breeders called them "brown-eyed." Later, the fashion became pure white faces; today few purebred Herefords have red rings around their eyes.

Why did Hereford breeders select the white-eyed type? The answer seems to be that among the first things to appear in the crosses of Herefords with other cattle were red spots on the face and red rings around the eyes. To many cattlemen this indicated impurity. When this perception became the breeders' customers' opinion, it was almost inevitable that the breeder of purebred Herefords would begin selecting for those animals which had the whitest faces and eyelids.

This would have been a relatively harmless change, except that in the southwestern part of the United States, Herefords with white eyelids are more susceptible to cancer of the eyelid. While it is true that a rancher usually has time to cull those affected and to ship them to market without suffering a complete loss, many ranchers today wish that they had kept to the original breed type of brown-eyed cattle.'


Hmmm...interesting how that worked for the white and red necks too.

Don't know the Shorthorn story. What did the Shorthorn boys do to compete with the big league exotic boys, cowman?

[cowman]

Well I think they opened up the herd books? I believe they threw in some Maines? Not sure how it worked but I think you need five generations before they consider them purebreds again?
Not really anything too radical...afterall the exotics did the same thing when they were getting established here? And I believe even the herefords did this around the turn of the century in North America?

[bward]

The old Durham Shorthorn's were Huge cattle. I have seen pictures of them that weighed 3000 pounds.

Origin

Foundation Stock. North England is said to have been the home of cattle for centuries. Sinclair 1 suggests the small Celtic short-horned ox was found in England at the time of the Roman invasion and that later, cattle were introduced from northern Europe by the English, Danes, and others. By the 17th century well-known types of cattle existed in England, one of which was the "pied" stock of Lincolnshire, which was said to have been more white than colored, and the other the red stock of Somerset and Gloucestershire. There existed in Holderness, a district of Yorkshire, cattle that resembled in size, shape, and color many of the cattle that were found in northern Europe at that time. At what time cattle had been introduced into England or by whom they were brought in is not definitely known. The cattle were said to have taken on flesh readily and would fatten into heavy carcasses although their flesh was coarsely grained and dark in color. Allen 2 states, "The cows were described as large milkers, and the bullocks as attaining a great weight of carcass and extraordinary production of tallow."

The Early Breeders. As early as 1580 there existed a race of superior short-horned cattle on the Yorkshire estates of the earls and dukes of Northumberland. The coat color of these cattle varied, but among the colors found were light dun, yellow, yellowish red, deep red, red and white patched, white, and roans.

It was not until after 1750 that accurate records of consequence were kept of the cattle of the area or of the breeding practices that were followed. Between 1730 and 1780 many eminent breeders had distinguished themselves in their home localities for cattle of improved type and quality. Among those who might be mentioned are Sharter, Pickering, Stephenson, Wetherell, Maynard, Dobinson, Charge, Wright, Hutchinson, Robson, Snowden, Waistell, Richard, Masterman, and Robertson. These men and others recorded pedigrees in the first volume of the English Herd Book, which was not published until 1822, or after most of them were no longer active breeders.

The early breeders of Shorthorn or Teeswater cattle left a heritage with which later breeders could work. The cattle that they developed were usually of considerable size and scale, with wide back and deep, wide forequarters. Their hair and hide were soft and mellow. In addition, they were cattle that had ability at the pail and laid on fat readily under conditions of liberal feeding. It is not to be inferred that these were perfect or ideal cattle as compared to modern standards. They lacked uniformity and symmetry and were often quite prominent at their hooks and shoulder points; other faults, such as narrowness of chest, lack of spring of rib, short rumps, long legs, and unevenness of fleshing, left much to be desired. The ability of these cows to produce a good flow of milk has always been an asset to the breed, and size and scale have never been without merit. Breeders, of course, have striven through the centuries to correct some of the deficiencies that were prevalent in this Tees River stock, and at the same time to retain the most valued characteristics that the breed possessed.

[whiteface]

A gave a Simmental breeder a bad time once with his pure black cattle, saying if he liked the color so much why wouldn't he just raise the cattle that were known for thier color rather than try and re-fashion a breed and pass it off as another breed. He came back with what I thought was a real cleaver answer stating that the difference between his breed and mine (herefords) was that the Simmental registry willingly "opened" their book and the breeders were honest about what they were mixing into their "pure" breed as compared to my breed that didn't allow mixing and had so many members that would just throw a little extra in there and pass it off as pure. It's happened, and on occasion a member has been thrown out for being "caught." Have a good day all!

[rkaiser]

Sorry cowman, can't leave that one alone. May sell your calves by the pound, but I pay for my feed by the pound as well. Gain may have been the main focus of the industry for the past 20 odd years, but no breed has yet to excel in feed conversion, or net feed efficiency. When that day comes, I will eat my words, and switch my breed. But I can't see that happening for a few hundres years or so, so I think I'm safe.

Have to challenge your big carcass thing as well. Did anyone ask the consumer about that, or are we simply bending over so the packer can keep his profits at a maximum? I am not saying go back to 1000 pound carcasses again, but our weights have crept up every year, and this BS about cutting a strip in two to make "medallions" just doesn't cut if for me, or the iron chefs that demand our strips be a certain size.

[grassfarmer]

Another interesting way to look at it Cowman appears in this months Stockman Grassfarmer written by Kit Pharo.
Cow calf people should be in the solar conversion business - turning sunlight, water and soil nutrients into beef. If your ranch can produce 50,000lbs of beef from it's resources every year do you make more money by selling 83 600lb calves or 125 400lb calves? Year in year out the smaller calves bring more.
Why should cow calf guys concentrate so much on raising weaning weights over all other aspects of their business - it is not the key to profit. Even if feedlots want cattle with higher slaughter weights they are not paying for them by buying these small calves. Maybe cow calf producers should look to their own businesses rather than trying to provide what packers claim to want but don't pay for.
Not that I'm arguing that my cattle are small and the best breed. In reality all mainstream breeds today are producing carcases of adequate size and many are producing cattle that are too big.

[cswilson]

All Hail the mighty weaning weight-god of the extension specialists and messiah of the purebred industry-he will lead you through green pastures-furnish you with supplements-allow you to trumpet your achievements from coffee shop to coffeeshop-the path to the creep feeder is often a crooked one and will lead you to ruination on the back production costs.

[smcgrath76]

I always use this example:
Talking about big weaning weights is like a grain farmer telling you he got 120 combine hoppers of barley, without telling you how much land he seeded, how much fertilizer he used or how big his combine is.
Pounds per acre, $ per acre, and return on assets, investment is a lot more useful tool, especially when related back to production levels. Using this approach people can tailor what they do to maximize profit rather than production. (Biggest might not always be best is a pretty nontraditional human approach)
My 2 cents.

[Cattleman]

smcgrath, I would even go further on the production/profit side, I think it would be even better to manage pounds weaned per cow exposed or wintered, and weaning weight as a percentage of cow body weight. Then for profit you can manage your dollars/pound sold minus cost/pound to raise calves. This can then be converted to return on investment. If you winter lots of extra big cows that don't deliver a calf, it sure shoots up your cost per pound weaned.

[PureCountry]

Couldn't have said it better myself "Mr. Wilson". I got into it good with a neighbour the other night. We watched Randys' bull sale video, and right after we watched Kenny Lewis' video. I'd call it a bull sale video if they looked like bulls, but 'stuffed-full-of-malt-video' seems more appropriate. The neighbour thought one of the bulls was really something, 90lb. birthweight and 1600lb. yearling weight. My retort was just don't keep any daughters unless you want 1800lb. cows.

His argument was the old,"As long as they buy calves by the pound...blah,blah,blah." When I asked what it cost to raise those pounds, he didn't have much to say.

[SASH]

I used to look over the fence at my neighbors calves and think how nice it would be to have those high gaining, big calves. Then I watched how much feed he had to put up to feed those cows over the winter and how much land it takes to feed them in the summer. I know for a fact that although he gets more per calf than I do, after expenses I'm making more overall than he is.

[kpb]

all of the comments about the cost to feed big cows with big calves are right, I think. However as someone who feeds calves I can tell you that I need some Char, Simm or Maine in the calf or it will not work. That's just a simple fact--if you want to bring a calf from 500 lbs in the fall to 850 to 900 lbs in the spring you gotta have something that will, first grow and then fatten. There's nothing wrong with those whitefaced calves if you're going to grass them and I do that too. But if you want a calf that's going to grow in the winter you need some bigger cross.
Now I know that it costs bigger money to feed bigger cows and my cows are pretty small in stature because of this. But the guys who are buying your calves in the fall generally want something that will grow the fastest so they can turn their money the fastest. And they will continue to pay the biggest dollars for the tan calves, the black Simmi crosses etc. because of that. It only makes sense and I do the same thing because you can get them big and get them out.

[whiteface]

There are a ton of hereford guys that preach as long as the daylight how efficiency is number one and those tiny 1100-1200 lb cows are by far making them the most money. I tend to agree more with you kbp, the buyers shy away from the whitefaces because an 1100lb cow has a tough time getting her calf to grow much past weaning even if she did get him to 600lbs when he was weaned. Looks good at weaning but then he stops growing while the Char, Simm and Maine calves keep going. I do beleive, and justifiably so, this is exactly where the feedlot guys stop bidding on these squatty pot-bellied calves that won't grow and they know they won't grow. Takes an enormous amount of talent to come up with the right mix in any breed of feed conversion, fertility, weaning weight and performance on feed. Performance on feed is one that I get into a lot with people. Maintaining themselves on grass and seal fat calves off cows milk in the fall are important to cow/calf guys but the feeders want them to get in the lots and eat and put pounds on and while I'm not a feeder, I get paid well for my whiteface calves because they do actually perform in the feedlot unlike most traditional herefords. There's no real point to my post only that I know where you're comeing from kbp and I agree that there is a need for performance on feed in addition to efficiency on grass. Have a good night all!

[cswilson]

That's is a bunch of baloney I've got 1100 pound cows that raise 1300 pound finished steers every crack-I've got years of grid results to prove it and since when is a 1200 cow tiny. That's like Ford bragging to Chevy about making the same size car but having a factory that's 50 percent bigger. There's guys up here running 1700 pound high milking exotic cows and still having to creep feed calves-crazy stuff.