So... please tell me....

justintime said:

What concerns me sometimes, is how much importance some judges seem to put on this trait.

Click to expand...

I completely agree with you on this.  I was beat in class this summer at a show that I will leave un-named as well as the judge.  It was a big show and really the only competition that we had was one other heifer.  We were pulled in second and I waited for the reasons.  He talked how the heifer that won easily had the class as she was really clean through her front end.  He then said that our heifer had superior thickness, volume, walked out with a more fluid stride but was just a little plainer throughout her shoulder.  My heifer had just a tick of brisket and had been called nice fronted all summer. 

I started watching more of the show after we were knocked out.  He stuck to his guns.  Consistently found the nicest fronted female in almost every class, sacrificing anything he could to get it.  At the end of the day I wasn't really that upset.  The guy picked the kind of cattle that he liked and if I went by his criteria I would have ended up picking the same calves as well.

I guess the way I look at front ends is that I don't mind a little bit of brisket as long as they don't have a real fat neck.  I will also sacrifice a little front end for some volume and natural thickness.

There are exceptions to this rule, but generally speaking if you have a heifer with a lot of volume and thickness they will have at least some front on them, the 2 go together.

Jill said:

There are exceptions to this rule, but generally speaking if you have a heifer with a lot of volume and thickness they will have at least some front on them, the 2 go together.

Click to expand...

I totally agree.  That's why I don't mind sacrificing a little.

I have also noticed that a lot of the simmi females that go on to develop into big broody deep bodied cows will carry a touch of extra leather up front..    A lot of these females seem to grow into the leather, meaning that they will show more leather at say 6 - 8 months than they do after 12 - 18 months.    Also note, I said a little extra leather not a ton of extra leather.        

heifers need to look like females

bulls need to look like bulls

I have to say, a well prepared Brisket is one of my favorite cutts, and now that's cool! <cowboy>

To me...a shorter neck means fleshing ability.....shorter side means fleshing ability.....a little front means fleshing ability. I think in the Shorthorn deal we have done so much right but in the show ring such goofy stuff like a chase for cool fronts undoes everything  else. In my opinion the horns need to improve fleshing ability, reduce bwt's, and clean up defects. As far as clean fronts are concerned the guy who talked about the feedlot deal makes the most since. A certain amount of waste occurs in the brisket on full feed.  In a sand and sawdust nutritional scenario a brisket could store reserves. Hunsley and other leaders of the industry pushed us away form the wasty fat cattle but now I think we need to go back that way a little bit. Very few showring people listen for what the commercial people want so I think these fads will occur. How much energy has been spent breeding for black hides and clean fronts? Talk about a fad. 20 years ago the the industry averaged 70% choice in the feedlots. We went on a Kamakaze chase of black hided exotic cattle. Now the industries average is 50% choice. What amazes me is how good people feel about black cattle and what a great thing the black hided deal was. I think this is a commercial fad that I don't understand.

I don't think the push for black hides had anything to do with the decline in choice fed cattle. The economics of feedlot operation ie: least cost rations and the better acceptance of select grade cattle created that trend. It cost more to feed corn in the southern plaines so the cattle are not on it as long as in "the old days". The giant "super center" made consumers not care about choice ,only cheap.

Mooch there is alot of merit to what you said. However ...I know that a Texas university did a non-biased test on fat cattle harvest results. In there testing, the black hided cattle graded identically to the "colored cattle". Its not published yet. So what is the virtue of black hides if it doesn't equate to grading choice. And don't get me wrong...I am amazed at what the Angus breeds have done in improving carcass traits.

aj said:

20 years ago the the industry averaged 70% choice in the feedlots.

Click to expand...

as fast food and demand for low quality grades became 50% of the market or more, it was only natural there would be less demand for converting corn into fat.  the market responded to low cost producers.

aj said:

Mooch there is alot of merit to what you said. However ...I know that a Texas university did a non-biased test on fat cattle harvest results. In there testing, the black hided cattle graded identically to the "colored cattle". Its not published yet. So what is the virtue of black hides if it doesn't equate to grading choice. And don't get me wrong...I am amazed at what the Angus breeds have done in improving carcass traits.

Click to expand...

Could you post this once its published.  I would be interested in reading it.  You do have a point about the showring messing up the doability and carcass end of things.  It doesn't take a rocket scientist to look at an operation that has a focus on carcass traits to see that those cattle look real different from the showring cattle.  The carcass cattle can be hard to look at.

aj said:

Mooch there is alot of merit to what you said. However ...I know that a Texas university did a non-biased test on fat cattle harvest results. In there testing, the black hided cattle graded identically to the "colored cattle". Its not published yet. So what is the virtue of black hides if it doesn't equate to grading choice. And don't get me wrong...I am amazed at what the Angus breeds have done in improving carcass traits.

Click to expand...

I do not disagree with that finding at all AJ , just think it is more the change in the feeding industry as a whole , not just Angus genetics vs. non Angus

A couple of points. Front ends are important to me because I raise show cattle. No matter what other comments you have to make about it, the show deal is still a beauty contest. I raise what I can sell, if my customers wanted green ones, that's what I'd try to raise. Even years ago when we were selling bulls, the commercial guys always picked out the prettiest ones first. So for me, "pretty" is important to my customers so that's what I'll raise. In actuality the only performance measure that is relevant is your deposit slip. Just as in any other business you need to sell what your customer wants. Raising "good doing" cattle and "improving the breed" and all that kind of stuff is just hogwash if it doesn't improve your bank account. If it does, then that's what you need to do. But too many cattle people breed to make a product that is what THEY see as best and not what their customers actually want.

As to the Simmental guy telling JIT his cattle had cool front ends, there is certainly a difference between breeds in what is considered to be clean and what is not. Before the time when Dream On came along we stopped breeding Simmental bulls because they were all too ugly and commercial people here wouldn't buy them. Some of them looked like they were 1/2 Brahman. So I think a clean fronted Simmental might not be quite so rocket necked as a clean fronted shorthorn.

And as far as the quality grade is concerned, there had been a gazillion studies done that shows that the number one factor influencing carcass grade is days on corn. Not breed, not color of hide. That is a reason that I get so upset with the Simmental Association for spending a ton of money to come up with carcass EPD's that show me that I can expect to gain 1/4 of a square inch of RE area if I use the number one RE bull in the breed vs the average one. With feed prices going up and the acceptance of Select grades of beef, the days on feed has been reduced and probably will never go back up.  If your not going to feed them until they can express their full genetic potential, why all the fuss about carcass EPD's?

Gonewest... the show ring may be a beauty contest of sorts.... but who defines what beauty is?  The college judges have changed what is " desirable" over the past number of years, and they will continue to do so in the future. They have  made changes in desirable volume, capacity, thickness etc in recent times, and if you don't want to believe that go back and look at show winners from even 5 years ago. Many of these cattle would not stand a chance of winning a show today.

So my point is.... if cool fronts are only required for the beauty contest and nothing more... in fact, it may be a detriment in the real world, why don't the people who develop the beauty rules, grab a hold of this and make the required changes. If the judges started to say that some animals are too refined in their design, and started to preach that we need a little depth through the neck and brisket ( within reason of course), I think the industry would move towards this faster than chain lightning.We all have done this with many other traits. Just go back and look at the pictures of show winners over a number of years.

Maybe it is time, some beef industry leaders held some conferences where they invite as many of the leading judges to sit down and spend a day or two talking about traits and how they affect the industry. This used to happen 40 years ago, and judges were selected by breed associations to judge their major shows based on their discussion at these meetings. By doing this, maybe there would once again be some movement back to where shows were more than just a beauty contest. I do believe that many show ring winners do have many commercially accepted traits now. Why not go all the way and correct as many of the flaws that have widened the gap between the segments of the industry?

Personally I agree that there is a beauty pageant part of the show ring, but if that is all it is then it is totally wrong. I do not believe it is just this. I think some people think it is just a beauty contest, but beauty can be re defined so that it has some use after the show halter comes off.

I think this is simply yet another issue of the show ring chasing extremes.

  Personally I believe that a female with some extension and length through her front end is likely to be more feminine, fertile and higher performing.

As a generalisation I believe that cattle with less waste through their front end generally have less waste through the rest of their body. Likewise, cattle that have more length of spine from their withers forward will likely have more length of spine from their withers rearward. These are important traits in my mind.

However, I would totally agree that many cattle are selected in the show ring that are too "frail" in the structure of the front third of their bodies to a point where they lack true depth and capacity through their chest floor and into their rib cage. This to me is one of the most important areas on a beast that needs capacity and one of the key indicators as to the longevity, thriftiness and usefulness of a bovine.

To me, this is an important trait in both bulls and females, I chuckle to myself when I hear people selecting a particular trait in one sex but not another. If you expect your females to have some extension and length in their front end, some length about their skull etc how do you expect to achieve that by using bulls that are shorter through their front third and shorter from their poll to their muzzle and use the belief that this is somehow more "masculine". I see no difference in this example then using lighter muscled, shallow made bulls and expecting to get good stout calves out of them.

Right away I can hear people about to say, "yes but females need to have different traits then bulls".

Sort of, what is important to me is that both examples show SEX CHARACTER.

Furthermore I also believe that it is possible to breed cattle that do have some extension through their front end, that don't have a great deal of excess waste, "leather" or brisket, that can be cleaner through their throat latch and jaw but still have some fleshing ability and usefulness.

In order to achieve this I think we need to stay away from "single trait selection" and use cattle that have a balance of desirable traits.

When I think back to cattle that were bred 10 - 15 years ago when the push seemed to really come to make cattle and particularly British cattle, heavier muscled and "stouter", everybody cried that by doing so we would breed the fertility out of the cattle, they wouldn't milk and we would "ruin the breed" I don't think that has happened, at least not on the whole. I think we are seeing a movement to cattle that are easier fleshing then what we bred 15 years ago, that have comparable birth weights and calving ease and maintain a great deal of performance and usefulness.

Rather than selecting cattle that are "freaky fronted" which to me implies that they have an unusual absence of flesh in their front third (flesh being a combination of fat and muscle) after all if the beast lacks muscle and mass in it's front third is it not fair to expect that it will lack the same in other areas of it's body? I think we can still select cattle that have some length through their front end, that are free from "excessive" waste, meaning they lack both "excessive" hide and fat and still maintain adequate fleshing ability and performance.

To do this I think it's important to select cattle that have good depth of body, which to me means looking from the point of an animals withers to the point of an animals sternum. The longer that line the more capacity they will have through their heart, lungs and vital organs. Likewise they should have width through their chest floor and into their fore rib. It's also important to me that their should be some angle from the point of their withers to the point of their sternum, this will correlate to the angle of their shoulder and their "balance" and freedom of movement. Most times if their is a desirable angle through this area cattle will maintain that balance and likewise have a desirable angle through their hindquarter and rear leg set as this relationship is an indicator of how their spine hooks into the rest of their body.

Sorry to be long winded, just a few observations made in my short life.

Take it with a grain of salt.

Shady Lane, I couldn't have said it better!  Great post. 

Jamie, I agree with what you have stated here, but I also can see the side of the debate that aj has explained. Some of the guys I sell commercial bulls too, detest length of spine and length of neck, as they say they do not have the ability to roughage and stay in condition in harsh environmental conditions. I guess I can see their point, and I do agree with them to some degree... but I do not agree completely. I had a well known Hereford breeder work for me at a few shows a few years ago, and I consider him to be an excellent cattlemen. He also had strong beliefs in the theory that cattle that were too long bodied, or too long necked lacked consitution  ( ie: the ability to thrive and remain healthy in harsh conditions) His family has had annual bull sales for decades and he said the longer bodied bulls were always their lowest selling bulls. I found this interesting.... and it has also be a factor in my belief that all traits are best in optimum amounts.

There really is no right or wrong here overall, as one animal may be perfect for you conditions and a complete disaster in another. That is why the breeding stock business in the beef  industry is not like the breeding stock industry in any other species. A good pig is usually a good pig no matter what your address is. That is simply not the case in the beef industry. In fact, two farms side by side, may require different types of cattle, based on how much management is supplied on each farm. One of my neighbours runs 450 black cross cows and they graze for 85-90 % of the year with little shelter or extra supplement. Some other people's cattle, including some of mine, would die a slow and terrible death on this place, but I will also say that he is one of the most successful cattlemen in our area. He makes his cows work for him rather than just him work for them. This type of management is not for everyone. What each person needs to be smart enough to figure out is what type of cattle will work for them. Unfortuanetly, the show ring cannot be everything to everyone, but I still maintain that it should be a useful tool for more producers than just a few who want to keep it simply as a beauty contest.

I still think longer bodied cattle are harder keeping. I do think the longer cattle have more growth upside(epds and in a feedlot). Just once I would like to hear a judge say....instead of saying this heifer just lacks the power and lenght of body to compete say granted she looks like a low imput easy keeping female that would fit some enviromentally challenged areas. I believe we are breeding cattle that won't survive well without a feed bucket everyday. I think enviromental pressure should be used in selection to develop the beast beast. I fear this is lacking some now because of et'ing and other things.jmo

I would totally agree with the philosophy that the shorter spined cattle are as a general rule easier doing, as are cattle with more waste in their front third. I would also counter that the cattle with more waste in their front tend to have more waste in the rearward portions of their body. I can name you numerous examples of cattle that I have owned in my family's herd that exhibited traits like this and also had a great deal of waste around their tail head, hooks and pins. Were they survivors? Definitely! But I don't think this is the way we want our cattle to look either. In fact I would counter that these traits led to the near extinction of the shorthorn breed.

I would also counter that purposely selecting cattle to be excisvely short fronted, short spined and short sided (the three go together in my mind) is just as detrimental as selecting cattle that are excessively "frail" in the composition of their front ends and have "broomstick" necks. For one reason or another the showring thing is, and always has been a moving target. I don't think we need to swing the pendulum full stroke either way and start selecting cattle that are super short fronted either.

First off if you were to do so I feel you would breed a great deal of performance out of the cattle, an inch in length represents far more #'s of beast than an inch in any other direction.

I would also argue that this will corelate with calving ease, if you made the cattle shorter spined while attempting to maintain a static level of performance your calving ease will suffer. If the cattle are shorter coupled at maturity, they will also be so at birth. Imagine that a cows birth canal is a static size, take an 85# calf that is "X"# of inches long and compare it to a an 85# calf that is X+5" long, all things being equal, which calf will come out easier? The X+5 calf right? Take a standard tube of toothpaste and imagine that is a cows reproductive tract. Push 1oz of tooth paste out of the tube and measure it.  Now try to push the same amount of toothpaste out of the tube and make the gob of tooth paste less length. Good Luck!

Look at the shorter fronted cattle, they also tend to be shorter in their skull shape, broader between their eyes and straighter in the slope and design of their shoulder. In my mind these are all detrimental to calving ease.

I still maintain that the greatest indicator of longevity, usefulness and fleshing abbility will be the depth of body in relation tfrom the point of their whithers to the point of their sternum. If they maintain that depth in this portion of their body, they likely will rearward as well. The cattle with a good geometry in this portion of their body will have a great deal longer stride and increased mobillity and athletiscm then cattle without because of a longer, flatter scapula and more joint area forward of the point of their shoulder resulting in a greater range of movement.

The showring will NEVER select cattle that will work in every situation, it's impossible for all the reasons mentioned about cattle not being raised in homogenous environments such as a chicken or a hog. However I think it is possible to pick cattle that are structurally sound (and I believe that adequate length of spine is an important factor in this equation) and represent desirbale traits that are useful in every environment.

Just like it was possible to breed cattle with muscle AND milk and maternal function I think it's possible to breed cattle with length of spine, extension through their front end and eye appeal while maintaining fleshing abbility. In order to do this we need to annalise the cattle on their own merits taking into consideration management and environmental factors as well as the input of energy and feedstuffs. This DOES NOT happen in the showring as all the cattle are evaluated on an even playing field without consideration of the inputs required to raise that particular beast.

We can do this at home as breeders though by evaluating individual cattle on their own merits in their own contemporary groups as opposed to selecting cattle, promoting cattle and basing breeding decisions entirely on show ring wins. Which happes A LOT in the purebred world and particularily in the Shorthorn Breed.

is measurement of spine or whatever linear with calving ease.

in other words, what are the measurements, if any, that lead to calving ease.  with between ears? shoulder angle, ie a nice set of pics that describes this leads me to believe these two are important.

JIT, whatever happened to that 2nd conformation article?