Optimal Regional Phenotypes

Since I am so visual, it helps just to see pictures of what is working for other people in other places.  If there is an optimal phenotype, it should recur in peoples posting of what they consider to be their "best" cow.  This would be the one that one hardly ever notices because it is just doing it's job, breeding back on time and raising the best calf almost every year. This cow would not be an outlier, but from the middle of the herd. If management information (plane of nutrition) was included and altitude and approx latitude then we would have a good set of information.  Information like this will be important as environment and economy change over time and we can sort things out from real experience rather than being told what works by "experts" that want to sell us something.  The great thing about this forum is the range of experience reflected by the community.

496 is the cow that works best in my environment, at 1560 ft, latitude approx 43 degrees N. 100% forage fed, extensive grazing, grass hay thru the winter. She is a 1400 lb 10 year old commercial Angus cow. March calving.

Probably most of us don't photograph our "old reliable" cow because, more likely than not, she is not the most beautiful one in the herd, but these functional cow families can tell us more than most Universities.

Id like to make this cow a little longer from hook to pins but overall, this cow is as good as any and I can't imagine an environment- outside of the most extreme of deserts- where this cattle wouldn't excel. 

Really like all of the cows posted, XBAR it says durham red so obviously she is red angus shorthorn cross? The cow I will try to post is one that is best appreciated in person. She is very sound, good footed, and massive. She is only about a 5 frame cow but is made very well. There is always things I would change but I think she is pretty good.

An interesting way to go about the cow size deal.....scientifc like......good idea. Good looking cows.....

Here are a couple of aged cows in my herd that have brought home the bacon every year. I do not have a picture but the first cow that comes to mind in my herd represents the 9th consecutive generation bred here and double bred  to the original foundation cow.Looking back on this cow line each generation has been a sure fire producer every generation.The wrinkle is that there have been a couple major phenotype tangents  that occured but there was no change in productivity.

Well, the sample size is small, but the type seems consistent across different environments.
My uneducated guess is that the 1200 lb size promoted for the optimal cow is the low end of a 1200-1400 range.

librarian said:

Well, the sample size is small, but the type seems consistent across different environments.
My uneducated guess is that the 1200 lb size promoted for the optimal cow is the low end of a 1200-1400 range.

Click to expand...

A 1200lb cow, with what I consider enough rib shape, is going to be about 50" tall max.   

The type is consistent because cattle with 'enough' internal capacity to consume 'enough' low quality forage excel in all environments. Cattle w/ 'enough' internal capacity, can thrive on much lower quality roughage as they have the ability to consume enough quantity to compensate for the lack of quality. 

A flat sided cow, regardless of size, will only excel in an environment where the quality of feedstuff is notably high: in terms of nutrient density / TDN%.  In lower roughage quality environments, she suffers. Her intake ability is restricted by her phenotype. She doesn't have the capacity (rib shape, design) to consume enough low quality forage to meet her daily requirements. When the roughage energy levels decline in summer and fall, these are the cattle whose performance is first affected.  They literally have a physical handicap-- fortunately, this handicap is visually identifiable and can be selected against.

Just to add a differing opinion, I'll chime in.  I live up in Canada and our cattle spend approximately 4-6 months on feed per year during winter.  In my operation, a 1200lb cow cannot consistently raise marketable breeding stock.  Our preferred cow is a long bodied, deep, moderate framed cow (5.5-6.0) weighing 1600-1800lbs.  Our short growing season favors early growth cattle and the real "curve bending" type genetics.  Our market has no desire for 65lb birth weights or 1100lb 365 day weights.  Ideally, I want 80-90lb BW calves, 700-800lb 205 day weights and 365 day weights at 1200-1400lbs.

FYI we feed no creep on pasture and the cows historically have been fed only grass/alfalfa hay during winter.  This year we switched to corn silage.

And now you may proceed to tell me how that's a bad idea!  (lol)

I don't think it's a bad idea.  You're just fulfilling a role within a system.  To you, whether the system is operating most efficiently is irrelative so long as your place is preserved.  You must make your decisions based on what is the 'most marketable.' Unlike your customers, opportunity cost is seldom a concern of yours.  Basing breeding decisions on marketability and capitalizing on perceived value has always been the serpent that tempts; luring breeders away from producing the most functional cattle w/ the greatest amount of intrinsic value Cattle that cannot wean 50% of their body weight are inferior. Period. There are too many cattle out there that accomplish weaning 50% of their mature weight to continue wasting our time breeding those that can't.  If your 1800lb cows can consistently wean 900lb calves, then you have successfully accomplished a feat no other I know of has been able to do.  Then again,  I don't know that I've ever seen a frame 5.5 1800lb cow so I suppose it's possible. 

FYI- The majority of producers in the south could put their calves on free-choice creep feeders and the total energy level of their ration would still likely be less than what yours is on 'only grass/alfalfa.' 

OK I'll bite.

You have a rather specific opinion of what functional cattle look like. I believe the question that was asked was, "what does your optimal cow look like?"  I personally believe under the conditions under which we operate, a larger cow can realize me more profit; therefore she is more optimal for my operation.

I agree that raising 50% of their weight is the goal.  I actually do have a number of 1800lb cows that consistently raise 850-900lb calves.  These calves are F1 crosses of course.  I also have a number of 1700lb purebred angus cows that have no problem raising 800lb calves consistently on grass. So if I am able to achieve the 50% threshold, why is that a problem?

As for the comment about never seeing a 1800lb 5.5 frame cow, I presented a range (5.5-6 frame, 1600-1800lbs).  I have a few 1800lb 6.0 frame cows.  I also have quite a few 1600lb 5.5 frame cows. 

The cow I have pictured is at most a 6.0 frame cow that weighs about 1800lbs in that picture.  Also pictured is a 2yr old and calf.  The two yr old would be 5.5 frame and weighed 1650 in that pic.  Her heifer calf was 900lbs.  But you are right; a 5.5 frame 1800lb cow is rare.  I was merely representing the desirable range for my operation.

 

cowboy_nyk said:

OK I'll bite.

You have a rather specific opinion of what functional cattle look like. I believe the question that was asked was, "what does your optimal cow look like?"  I personally believe under the conditions under which we operate, a larger cow can realize me more profit; therefore she is more optimal for my operation.

I agree that raising 50% of their weight is the goal.  I actually do have a number of 1800lb cows that consistently raise 850-900lb calves.  These calves are F1 crosses of course.  I also have a number of 1700lb purebred angus cows that have no problem raising 800lb calves consistently on grass. So if I am able to achieve the 50% threshold, why is that a problem?

As for the comment about never seeing a 1800lb 5.5 frame cow, I presented a range (5.5-6 frame, 1600-1800lbs).  I have a few 1800lb 6.0 frame cows.  I also have quite a few 1600lb 5.5 frame cows. 

The cow I have pictured is at most a 6.0 frame cow that weighs about 1800lbs in that picture.  Also pictured is a 2yr old and calf.  The two yr old would be 5.5 frame and weighed 1650 in that pic.  Her heifer calf was 900lbs.  But you are right; a 5.5 frame 1800lb cow is rare.  I was merely representing the desirable range for my operation.

Click to expand...

It's not that I have a very specific opinion of what functional cattle look like, it's that functionality has a very specific look; a very specific phenotype.  You responded in terms of general size.  A common error in thought by many.  I can show you a frame 1 1000lb cow or a frame 8 2000lb cow that both have the exact same phenotype.  Phenotype need not be thought of in terms of overall size, but in proportional or percentage terms.  The size of 'this body part relative to that body part.'  The depth of body relative to the length of leg.  Circumference of heart girth relative to the length of spine.  These ratios, not height or weight alone, dictate phenotype.  It's not that 'larger' cattle perform better in your area, it's that 'proportionally larger' cattle perform better in your area.  A frame 4, 1400lb cow may be most optimal for me whereas a frame 6, 1600lb cow may be most optimal for you.  Both these cows could very well be the same phenotypically. 

Mill Iron A said:

Really like all of the cows posted, XBAR it says durham red so obviously she is red angus shorthorn cross? The cow I will try to post is one that is best appreciated in person. She is very sound, good footed, and massive. She is only about a 5 frame cow but is made very well. There is always things I would change but I think she is pretty good.

Click to expand...

This cow is about perfect to me. As well as the one xbar posted. That cow was used on a bunch of promotional stuff. I wonder what she is? Who bred her? How was her calves?

cowboy_nyk said:

The cow I have pictured is at most a 6.0 frame cow that weighs about 1800lbs in that picture.

Click to expand...

Granted we're overlooking the second most important criteria (width) in evaluating cattle here, this cow is as near ideal in type- phenotype- as you could ask for.  Her body represents 2/3rds of her overall height- which I think represents the single most important trait when selecting for functionality.  In order of importance- depth, width, and then length-  if they don't have adequate depth then I look no further. No amount of width or length can compensate for inadequate depth.  I also pointed out what I feel is a very important indicator of fleshing ability- a chest floor w/ adequate depth.  The dewlap gives us a great reference point and this cow's is an excellent representation of the desired relationship between dewlap and depth of chest floor.

[/quote]

It's not that I have a very specific opinion of what functional cattle look like, it's that functionality has a very specific look; a very specific phenotype.  You responded in terms of general size.  A common error in thought by many.  I can show you a frame 1 1000lb cow or a frame 8 2000lb cow that both have the exact same phenotype.  Phenotype need not be thought of in terms of overall size, but in proportional or percentage terms.  The size of 'this body part relative to that body part.'  The depth of body relative to the length of leg.  Circumference of heart girth relative to the length of spine.  These ratios, not height or weight alone, dictate phenotype.  It's not that 'larger' cattle perform better in your area, it's that 'proportionally larger' cattle perform better in your area.  A frame 4, 1400lb cow may be most optimal for me whereas a frame 6, 1600lb cow may be most optimal for you.  Both these cows could very well be the same phenotypically.
[/quote]

Now I believe we are on the same page.  I didn't do a good job of explaining the phenotype with regards to proportion.  Most of us on here have a pretty good feel for what a good cow looks like.  I was merely trying to emphasize the difference in my herd vs the others that were posted.

I'd like to point out that the other cows pictured look awesome and would work in my herd, or anyone's for that matter (except for the red hair!  <cowboy>).  Thank you XBAR for the kind words on my cow.  Blossom is my pride and joy.

This is really very constructive and I appreciate the manner in which the functional phenotypic proportions have been mapped out on Blossom.  So, I get it.  (I think) The functional phenotype will be consistent across environments, but the optimal size will vary with resource availability.
When I put a "low and thick" bull onto my 496 cow and get a shorter wider animal with similar proportions, like the heifer in the picture, I am on the right track for "non-intensive" forage based management. Breed is secondary to type for functionality, but breeding is primary for uniformity.

OK, here's a reply from a commercial producer in Sask, Canada. I personally have no interest in 1600-1800 lb cows, they are simply too big and rarely perform as well as they need to in my area. Granted I am about as far south in Sask as you can get and still be in Canada. I like to see a frame 4-5 cow that weighs in around 12-1400 lbs, in working condition (BCS score around 5) A couple of them are maybe a bit bigger than I would ideally want, but they produce and that is what matters. Here's the 5 top cows in my herd. These are working girls, that can go out, raise a big calf and breed back on time every year, all on grass and hay.

I'm going to call this one my best cow, she doesn't top the list as far as average lbs weaned, but she's in the top 10, and she has raised 11 calves and is bred back again...


Now for the top 4 as far as average Lbs of calf raised...








And a cow that I really love to look at, but maybe isn't such a good producer...

Thanks for all the pictures posted.  These cattle from Saskatchewan are my idea of ideal.  If I should live so long, I would like to see this type in my pasture.  Bill Lamont is my hero for sticking to his vision of optimal cattle.
Photos from http://www.speckleparkoriginal.com/strathdouble.html

In terms of composition, I think his front 2/3rds are adequate but his rear third isn't quite the caliber of the rest. Those pins need to sit up higher and, to balance his front, we need much more length hook to pin.  His middle 1/3 exhibits tremendous capacity and is the most enviable part of his makeup.  The bull needs to be 'beefed up' a bit to support his structure.  Notice his topline.  A bull with that much volume needs more muscle. 

which is best and why?

The second one down would be interesting to see from another angle, good sheath angle, well balanced. From these pictures though third one down is an easy winner, balanced, deep quartered, big ribbed, but more importantly in this group his head is attached higher into his shoulder which directly relates to front end structure which relates to breeding and longevevity