Shorthorn Discussion

Doc said:

-XBAR- said:

Their impact has been a net negative.

Click to expand...

What you are saying doesn't even make sense. If everyone is saying that the "showring" genetics out number the commercially accepted genetics , then where we be financially if we didn't have those numbers?

Click to expand...

You're only half way there. Income with no regard to cost is an arbitrary number. You have to take into consideration the direct costs associated each segment relative to the income each segment generates. And when you do this, you'll conclude that these 'show ring genetics' disproportionately take more than they contribute...thus, the ASA's current financial situation.

-XBAR- said:

You're only half way there. Income with no regard to cost is an arbitrary number. You have to take into consideration the direct costs associated each segment relative to the income each segment generates. And when you do this, you'll conclude that these 'show ring genetics' disproportionately take more than they contribute...thus, the ASA's current financial situation.

Click to expand...

I'm confused. Does one apply this principle universally?

Who gets to audit?

-XBAR- said:

Doc said:

-XBAR- said:

Their impact has been a net negative.

Click to expand...

What you are saying doesn't even make sense. If everyone is saying that the "showring" genetics out number the commercially accepted genetics , then where we be financially if we didn't have those numbers?

Click to expand...

You're only half way there. Income with no regard to cost is an arbitrary number. You have to take into consideration the direct costs associated each segment relative to the income each segment generates. And when you do this, you'll conclude that these 'show ring genetics' disproportionately take more than they contribute...thus, the ASA's current financial situation.

Click to expand...

How do they "take" more than they generate? Show ring genetics vs commercial genetics do not cost the Assoc. any more money. You weren't talking about what it cost the producer to produce but what income they were providing to the Assoc.

There is a notion that Shorthorns have yellow fat and the carcass will be discounted.  Was that once true? I have heard it more than once, but never seen it in the meat, even in grass fed.

aj said:

Develop a line of cows with really good teeth.......it would improve stayability by three years......you cound have dental epds.

Click to expand...

What about steering th carriers?

Where did I hear that there was like a $26,000 deficit because of ET calves? 

Just have a show cattle shorty herd, and a commercially oriented shorty herd (breed).  And then a herd that thinks they can do both.  That way when? if things go bad we can only blame ourselves.

AJ if you would only brush and floss them every day.  That would add at least a good ten years onnnnnnnn herrr! 

I think if you allowed red angus genetics into the herd book for it would help the breed greatly, don't allow the or ph, no clubby genetics and no more Maine blood.

Been reading this with some interest.  I would expect I am like several others, own a few shorthorns, like the cattle, the breed, would like to see the higher ups get their --- together.

A lot of us came to the breed from a junior program,  trying to let the kids get into the business, maybe get enough to get them  through school,  and maybe keep the cows around.
The th/ph deal started the problems, had to keep that in mind first off.  Second, we tried to breed cattle that could survive in the real world, calve on time, raise a calf, have something you might could market. That got shot to heck when we tried to keep the heifers out of that mating, no milk, heifers that lost their calf to a number of things, and then wouldn't breed back. Threw the semen away and went to the old semen in the bottom of the tank, and came up with functional cows with out the pains.
I remember well when the maine's were brought in, the going comment was " without them the breed will die" now you want to cross in reds, blacks, Greens???
The show ring and the money "breeders" have drove this into the ground and what for, sell a donor, a championp, a cow that only survives in a donor operation, she dang sure can't live anywhere else.
Blow the mess up, get rid of the genetic problems, get back to cattle that great great grandpa trailed out here behind a wagon, she was dang sure tough enough to raise a calf and a couple of kids too. The cattle had some carcass capabilities that didn't scare buyers to the point that they give 10 cents or more less and put them in with a set of angus steers and when they hit the rail, no one has a clue what they are.
But no, you can bet Omaha will make some noise, keep a CEO till retirement, go to their board meeting, have a big time, and gritch that the blacks bring more money.

Admitting the breed is in trouble is the first step to recovery. The problem has nothing to do with black cattle and them pushing the shorthorns out of the commercial market, unlike the angus they do not have the product to offer, and that is due to the show oriented cattle, that have a ant eater head on them and once they are done getting feed a bag of grain a day they have an enormous calf, that dose not have the vigour, only yo realize the co has no milk. I sat I. At a sale once or twice wand watched the THC and PHC females top the sale and for what so the steer jocks can dress them up to the 9's, that is a huge problem guys breed it on top of each other cause if it works you get a big boned hairy show calf. I think this also scares off people from your breed, also I think it would be a bad idea like mentioned on here to open your her book for guys to use red angus genetics to mabey turn the breed around, something has to be done or the breed is going yo be like the dinosaur's which means extinct

librarian said:

There is a notion that Shorthorns have yellow fat and the carcass will be discounted.  Was that once true? I have heard it more than once, but never seen it in the meat, even in grass fed.

Click to expand...

There is no truth to Shorthorns having yellow fat. Fat is fat is fat. There is no different in the type of fat between breeds other than where it is deposited on the carcass if they are fed the same ration. Fat from grass fed cattle is usually a more yellow color, but that is the same regardless of breed.

I was recently talking with a purebred breeder of another breed, who has spent his lifetime in the beef business, and who is considered to be a reputable livestock judge. He said to me, that he has oftentimes thought he would like to have a Shorthorn herd, and that he has never done it because they have that "oily fat". I looked at him and asked if he had ever seen a Shorthorn carcass ,and he said he hadn't. I told him that the next time we had an animal slaughtered, we would look at the carcass together and see if there was any difference in the fat between carcasses in the cooler. He then said that he had heard that fat on Shorthorn carcasses oftentimes was so oily that the fat would drip onto the abbatoir floors and cooler floors and this was the main reason packers discounted them. Talk about pure unadulterated garbage!!!  Trust me, there is no difference between the composition of fat between breeds.

Doc said:

-XBAR- said:

Doc said:

-XBAR- said:

Their impact has been a net negative.

Click to expand...

What you are saying doesn't even make sense. If everyone is saying that the "showring" genetics out number the commercially accepted genetics , then where we be financially if we didn't have those numbers?

Click to expand...

You're only half way there. Income with no regard to cost is an arbitrary number. You have to take into consideration the direct costs associated each segment relative to the income each segment generates. And when you do this, you'll conclude that these 'show ring genetics' disproportionately take more than they contribute...thus, the ASA's current financial situation.

Click to expand...

How do they "take" more than they generate? Show ring genetics vs commercial genetics do not cost the Assoc. any more money. You weren't talking about what it cost the producer to produce but what income they were providing to the Assoc.

Click to expand...

This is the most elementary example.  I don't know how to explain it any more simply this: say a school has two sports- football and basketball.  The school makes $100 off each football game and $50 off each basketball game.  Using your logic, football is the more profitable sport.  With my logic, you would have to first take into consideration the school's cost to put on each of the games.  What your conclusion failed to consider was that it cost the school $105 dollars to facilitate the football game and only $40 to facilitate the basketball game.  Here, we see that while football brings the school more total income, it is not the more profitable sport. It's impact is a net negative on the school as it disproportionally takes more than it contributes.

Hi. New poster - from across the big sea I know this forum isn't really for the Europe based farmers, but I came across steer planet some time ago and dip in to read the posts every no often.

I am a small shorthorn breeder, as many are here, and find threads like this one interesting! Mainly as the cattle scene is so very different. When I first read about black Cattle I could not believe there were black Simmental, Saler, Limousine etc I had to look up pictures to believe it! I actually think they wouldn't be allowed in the pedigree books in Europe.

The cattle at our marts are all colours, with the majority being White Charolais, red limousine, red/white Simmental, Belgian Blues, red/white Hereford, Blonde d'aquitaine (orange) and Angus. We also have obviously Shorthorn, who are, I think, the fastest growing breed in the UK. Blacks at the moment tend to not sell quite as well as some farmers fear a Holstein influence in their background, though good angus bred from limousine and Charolais sell well. Charolais would be best sellers at moment. Although roan cattle sell really well across the breeds, and a roan limousine or Charolais with shorthorn influence highly desired.

A large supermarket here promote shorthorn beef and fund a herd, Rothesay Herd Morrison's Farm, and offer 20p per kg extra for native breeds, and 30p per kilo extra for shorthorn cattle.

We have had our calving problems with shorthorn, but when you compare them to the continental breeds, shorthorn (and angus) have always been the easy calving option. The continental breeds have improved their calving ease in recent years and so shorthorn have followed suit to stay ahead in this aspect, but there has also been efforts to make shorthorn more able to compete in the beef market, while still maintaining their maternal traits and still improving calving ease. The shorthorn generally in the UK would be a little bigger than in North America, but not by much, and of course there has been the Maine Anjou influence as well.

What I would also point out that the pedigree commercial market and pedigree show market here are one in the same. This would be the same for the majority of breeds. The pedigree cattle at shows and sales (one and the same) are breed recorded using breedplan. Which can be found at www.breedplan.une.edu.au/ and is really worth a look.

We've had a large Canadian and Australian influence in our breeding and bulls currently in use would be, in no particular order
Glenisla Drambuie 2nd
Dunsyre North Star
Broughton Park Thunder A053
Sprys Patents Ace G38
Ingleton C111
Fearn Wvyis
Glenisla Barbarian
Alvie Bovill
Chapleton Frontier D059
Glenisla Zetor
Captain Of Upsall
Rothesay Eildon
Meonhill Firefox
Rothesay Friar
Creaga Dice
Chapelton Typhoon
Chapleton Wildfire
Plus the all other Canadian bulls you are familiar with

The cattle in the UK are no better than the cattle I have seen on here and I am very impressed with the management of large herds in winter conditions we rarely have, yet we still house nearly all our cattle in winter.

Long post for my first but didn't know how to leave any of it out

I have been following this thread and there are many good comments, ideas and theories.

The Shorthorn is likely the most famous and influential breed of cattle in the history of agriculture. It was among the first livestock breeds to be improved, during the 1700s, and had one of the first herdbooks established, in 1822. Since the early 1800s and until recently, Shorthorns were the most popular cattle in Britain, and they were exported around the world. The story of the Shorthorn has been recorded in countless publications, and images of red, white, and roan Shorthorns dominate sporting art. Yet the breed is now in decline, and its rise and fall is reflective of great changes in agriculture over the past two centuries.  The Shorthorn was historically called the Durham because it originated in the county of Durham.

Click to expand...

Black color as mentioned is only an excuse.  Most of the other breeds here in the US have lost focus of their breed.  They have allowed the Angus to influence their breed to the point that finding a purebred animal within that breed is getting harder and harder to do.  Look at the Chianina - are there any fullblood Chianina's in the US?  Yet for registry animals only have to have a minimum of 6.25% of Chianina for registration.  Look at Simmental, Maine Anjou, Gelbvieh and Limousin, how strong is the Angus influence in those breeds?

I have spoke to a couple of people that were on the boards when the use of Angus genetics was voted in.  The comment from both of these men was "The only reason that we allowed the Angus influence to come in was greed, it meant more money for the Association.  Bottom Line!"

Angus, Red Angus, Hereford, and a handfull of other breeds have stayed true to the roots of their breed.  The Shorthorn has also but they in order to offer some growth to the breed do offer the ability to grade up.

It really makes no difference what breed you are talking about, and regardless of the leadership, it is up to each and every member to make conscious decicions about the direction of their breed.  Each member has a vote, how many members say that why vote, so-and-so will get in anyway.  Each member does have a say in the course of leadership by voting.  Voice your opinions and concerns.  Just look at this thread, constructive comments and concerns.  (clapping)

I have spoke to Monty Soules, and I think that he will do a very good job for the Shorthorn breed.

To the Shorthorn breeders, solid data and more solid data are needed to show proof that the Shorthorn cattle do and can perform in the real world.  WHR - Whole Herd Reporting is a start.  But I am one that also believes in real world data, data that can come from commercial cattle sired by Shorthorn bulls, birth weights, weaning weights and carcass information should be gathered.  All of this data especially the carcass information shouldn't be all that difficult to get.  That data anymore is all available in a spreadsheet format.  How difficult is it to import data from that spreadsheet to add to the performance proofs of the Sire?

Back in the mid 70's all of the sire directories had bulls of several breeds.  Now most only have Angus, Red Angus, Hereford and Simmental.  If they do have any other breed it is only 1 or 2 bulls.  Commercial producers who AI when looking at these sire directories don't even consider Shorthorn.  Out of sight out of mind.  The Shorthorn Association used to have a sire directory that they had available in print and online.

One comment I see on here is that there isn't enough milk.  Then use a Milking Shorthorn bull.  Both the Beef Shorthorn and the Dairy Shorthorn had a single registry until they split.  It is very costly to register or list a Milking Shorthorn bull with the Beef registry.  An association has to have money to operate, but some of the cost to its members shouldn't be detrimental to a breed either.

If changes aren't made then a breed can become extinct. Here is a link to the Livestock Conservancy which shows breeds that are in trouble.  http://www.livestockconservancy.org/index.php/heritage/internal/conservation-priority-list#Cattle  In that list is the Milking Shorthorn, Ayrshire, Guernsey, Galloway, Red Poll and some others.

Bottom Line:  ONLY YOU CAN MAKE A DIFFERENCE!!!

Maybe cows should be set up for annual teeth treatments. We could have dentists for cows. This would create jobs for Obama. ALSO........the BIG thing. Obama has set up these agencies across the states(there is one set for Colorado)......to study how global warming will effect agriculture and there practices. Maybe the government will collect a tax on all black cattle. Because red reflects heat better. Get the government involved.......red cattle kick arse........deal done.

aj said:

Maybe cows should be set up for annual teeth treatments. We could have dentists for cows. This would create jobs for Obama. ALSO........the BIG thing. Obama has set up these agencies across the states(there is one set for Colorado)......to study how global warming will effect agriculture and there practices. Maybe the government will collect a tax on all black cattle. Because red reflects heat better. Get the government involved.......red cattle kick arse........deal done.

Click to expand...

maybe we could sell th carrier bulls.  that would create more jobs.  seriously, why didn't you cut that bull?

-XBAR- said:

This is the most elementary example.  I don't know how to explain it any more simply this: say a school has two sports- football and basketball.  The school makes $100 off each football game and $50 off each basketball game.  Using your logic, football is the more profitable sport.  With my logic, you would have to first take into consideration the school's cost to put on each of the games.  What your conclusion failed to consider was that it cost the school $105 dollars to facilitate the football game and only $40 to facilitate the basketball game.  Here, we see that while football brings the school more total income, it is not the more profitable sport. It's impact is a net negative on the school as it disproportionally takes more than it contributes.

Click to expand...

without access to the books or how other revenues are brought in, it may not be fair to make a conclusion.  if the commercial ventures had generated net revenue, perhaps success would have propogated. obviously one venture requires scale to succeed and the other doesn't.  not really elementary. also, when does one employ a loss leader and how does one rationalize that when the net benefit to the bottom line is a projection?

Are you preaching to the choir?  I think you have all five members of it's attention......

cowman 52 said:

Been reading this with some interest.  I would expect I am like several others, own a few shorthorns, like the cattle, the breed, would like to see the higher ups get their --- together.

A lot of us came to the breed from a junior program,  trying to let the kids get into the business, maybe get enough to get them  through school,  and maybe keep the cows around.
The th/ph deal started the problems, had to keep that in mind first off.  Second, we tried to breed cattle that could survive in the real world, calve on time, raise a calf, have something you might could market. That got shot to heck when we tried to keep the heifers out of that mating, no milk, heifers that lost their calf to a number of things, and then wouldn't breed back. Threw the semen away and went to the old semen in the bottom of the tank, and came up with functional cows with out the pains.
I remember well when the maine's were brought in, the going comment was " without them the breed will die" now you want to cross in reds, blacks, Greens???
The show ring and the money "breeders" have drove this into the ground and what for, sell a donor, a championp, a cow that only survives in a donor operation, she dang sure can't live anywhere else.
Blow the mess up, get rid of the genetic problems, get back to cattle that great great grandpa trailed out here behind a wagon, she was dang sure tough enough to raise a calf and a couple of kids too. The cattle had some carcass capabilities that didn't scare buyers to the point that they give 10 cents or more less and put them in with a set of angus steers and when they hit the rail, no one has a clue what they are.
But no, you can bet Omaha will make some noise, keep a CEO till retirement, go to their board meeting, have a big time, and gritch that the blacks bring more money.

Click to expand...

Well done.  (clapping)

Judge said:

Admitting the breed is in trouble is the first step to recovery. The problem has nothing to do with black cattle and them pushing the shorthorns out of the commercial market, unlike the angus they do not have the product to offer, and that is due to the show oriented cattle, that have a ant eater head on them and once they are done getting feed a bag of grain a day they have an enormous calf, that dose not have the vigour, only yo realize the co has no milk. I sat I. At a sale once or twice wand watched the THC and PHC females top the sale and for what so the steer jocks can dress them up to the 9's, that is a huge problem guys breed it on top of each other cause if it works you get a big boned hairy show calf. I think this also scares off people from your breed, also I think it would be a bad idea like mentioned on here to open your her book for guys to use red angus genetics to mabey turn the breed around, something has to be done or the breed is going yo be like the dinosaur's which means extinct

Click to expand...

Well done too...agree 100%!
The breeders must open eyes and attack the real problem...no more excuses!
Good words!
(clapping)

The ASA had the MARC data several years ago that should have been all the proof the commercial cattleman needed.  Our neighbor ran about 100 purebred Herefords and 25 purebred Simmentals.  His Hereford fieldman stopped in and my neighbor, after digesting the MARC data, asked the fieldman to give him one good reason why he shouldn't turn a Shorthorn bull in with all his cows.  He really couldn't come up with one.  Public perception due to large advertising budgets goes a long way.  Our local locker owner greatly prefers our Shorthorn beef carcasses to the Angus and Angus cross ones he gets.  Before he moved to town, he took every calf I didn't want to do anything special with and fed them out himself to resell.  This black hide thing has been pounded into people's heads for so long, I think even the Angus people believe it.  I don't think it does any good to run down your fellow Shorthorn producers on this website.  If you don't agree with what they do, fine.  Be thankful you have all the answers.  If you have what the industry needs, then promote it and get it out there.  Somebody thinks they need to be solid red.  Some think they need to weigh 60 pounds at birth.  Someone else thinks they can't look like show cattle.  The list goes on and on.  There is not and cannot be a one size fits all Shorthorn, or any breed for that matter.  There is a Shorthorn bull out there that can add so much to a commercial herd.  The easy way out is to just go buy a black bull.  I talked to a gjy that works at our local farm supply store.  He is getting some calves now, Angus breeding.  He said they have been selecting for calving ease for several generations and their calves average between 55 and 60 pounds.  He says he understands that they're giving up many pounds of performance.  Is that what everybody wants?  I don't want 120 pounds calves, but I sure don't like to sell 400 pound feeder calves or wait until they're a year old to weigh 650.  Somewhere there's a happy medium.  Reasonable birth weights, adequate performance, etc.  There's a Shorthorn bull out there that will work.