Steer Planet - Show Steers and Club Calves Forum

Thought we might start a discussion on this since the "Top 5 thickest shorthorn bulls available" thread headed this direction to allow discussion on the Sire Test and allow the other thread to return to the original intent.


https://shorthorn.org/university-of-illinois-sire-test/

https://shorthorn.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/Sire-Test-Update-Matt-April-2018.pdf

I always heard of the Shorthorn as being "The great improver". Is it not possible to mainly aim for the second option, of having cattle with a good maternal base, but have some terminal traits?
A quick epd search of the uk database gave me 3 bulls I have used that I feel fulfill that. I'll attach photos. Also a search of the Irish database shows another example. These 4 bulls have maternal traits of easy calving, good milk etc but also have high growth, good carcass weight and high ribeye area.

If I am reading the information correctly the calves were born in September and weaned at about 150 days with no creep.  I have not done the math but I think the steers should end up with an adjusted 205 day weight of around 600 lbs.  If this is correct, then it is up to everyone to decide for themselves if 600 lb steer calves at 205 days with no creep is good or bad.

By the way Phillse, I think we should focus on option 2 as well.

I always heard of the Shorthorn as being "The great improver". Is it not possible to mainly aim for the second option, of having cattle with a good maternal base, but have some terminal traits?
A quick epd search of the uk database gave me 3 bulls I have used that I feel fulfill that. I'll attach photos. Also a search of the Irish database shows another example. These 4 bulls have maternal traits of easy calving, good milk etc but also have high growth, good carcass weight and high ribeye area.

I don't know how the UK and IGS epds compare, but a negative IMF score is a non starter here. If you're not pushing for a high choice average down the rail you're getting left behind. How far a breeder wants to push IMF is definitely debatable, but it absolutely has to be respectable if you want any piece of the US commercial market.

The question then becomes, just how accurate are 90% of the IMF numbers in the ASA system? Considering how massive a few of the REA and IMF score swings revealed so far are, it's safe to say most of them are probably still a wild ass guess at best. On top of this, for whatever reason, IGS has the shorthorn breed buried in a hole when compared to the other breeds. A suggestion that would address this issue has been brought up to the powers that be, but the potential results are feared. Fear should never restrict progress, especially considering Marc data still shows Shorthorns have nothing to fear.

The first thing Dr. Shike told us when we went into this venture is the WW would be horrible. Calves are calved late September, no creep and raised on fescue hay. They have seen the same results with the Simmental and Charolais progeny.

Knowing the whole story helps explain the weights.  Thanks for the info

Quote from: Hopster1000 on February 05, 2019, 04:43:43 PM

I always heard of the Shorthorn as being "The great improver". Is it not possible to mainly aim for the second option, of having cattle with a good maternal base, but have some terminal traits?
A quick epd search of the uk database gave me 3 bulls I have used that I feel fulfill that. I'll attach photos. Also a search of the Irish database shows another example. These 4 bulls have maternal traits of easy calving, good milk etc but also have high growth, good carcass weight and high ribeye area.

I don't know how the UK and IGS epds compare, but a negative IMF score is a non starter here. If you're not pushing for a high choice average down the rail you're getting left behind. How far a breeder wants to push IMF is definitely debatable, but it absolutely has to be respectable if you want any piece of the US commercial market.

The question then becomes, just how accurate are 90% of the IMF numbers in the ASA system? Considering how massive a few of the REA and IMF score swings revealed so far are, it's safe to say most of them are probably still a wild ass guess at best. On top of this, for whatever reason, IGS has the shorthorn breed buried in a hole when compared to the other breeds. A suggestion that would address this issue has been brought up to the powers that be, but the potential results are feared. Fear should never restrict progress, especially considering Marc data still shows Shorthorns have nothing to fear.

That is the main difference then by far. Your point is excellent. IMF is not considered much at all in the final quality and price of the cattle slaughtered here. It is all about carcass confirmation. That is why so many double muscled breeds are considered better as a beef breed in the UK and Ireland.
However, IMF is now scanned for, but only at the individual breeders decretion, and not always available easily. So comparing the epds of an animals IMF isn't great yet as so few are scanned. One company in Northern Ireland, Hannon Meats, use only shorthorn, and want marbling, which is at least a start.
I would, and probably should, need to start adding IMF to my choice of sires, as it could be what sells in future.

Quote from: knabe on February 05, 2019, 10:32:27 PM

so no other breeds. what do numbers mean with no other breeds.
ww seem low?

Knabe raises a good question on the thickest bulls thread.  It would be real interesting to see the Sire test use say bulls representing the top 10% for the same traits of Shorthorns and Simmentals on this same cow base under the same conditions during the same year.

I realize to do this would add considerable cost, but it would statistically give you apples to apples, removing the variable for management and year to year forage and climate conditions.  It would probably be a good start for shorthorns to prove or disprove the perceptions.

I know year ago when Dr. Lipsey was still with the Simmental association he told me and dad that there was no way that a Shorthorn could grow with a Simmental even though the evidence with the bloodlines being used by us at the time showed the Shorthorns performing with or beter than the Simmentals for Birth Weight and weaning weight. 

Shorthorn Bulls used were Mel-bar Rodeo Drive 347, RB Eagle 148.  Simmental Bulls used  were Nichols Legacy G151, Nichols Destiney D12, and TE McCredie G8

Unfortunately, the idea of comparing breeds to each other on the same cow base is not going to happen. That was the first question that I asked when we began this sire test. I wanted to get other breeds involved, and compare progeny.

Here is the reality. Angus has the market share and has nothing to prove. Hereford know they can't compete on the grid, that's not their game. No continental breed wants to go against the Shorthorns because they are pretty confident they will get negative results especially when it comes to IMF.

So then I said what if we buy the semen off the open market. Immediately the Universities will walk away because they can't afford to make a breed association mad at them.

So what is the answer? Mike Hora in Iowa is doing another test for Shorthorns that I helped set up. Mike sells all his cattle on the Grid and prides himself on Prime carcasses. Mike bred 70-80 cows to JSF Gauge, Waukaru Optimus, and Byland Top Gun in 2017. He has the calves in the feelot and will be harvesting them  late summer and into fall 2019. 

The great thing about this test is that he will compare them to Gardiner Angus sired calves in the same contemporary group. Side by side feeding. Unfortunately, we won't have the conversion data like the U of I. Same cow base, same feedlot, same kill date, etc.

However, my worry is that no one will take this trial seriously because it was not performed by a "University." Unless of course the Shorthorns fall short. Then the other breeds will say "I told you so!"
But going against Gardiner Angus sires is a tall order.

The reality is that things aren't as simple as people think. An enormous amount of work goes into getting these trails set up, and completed. More importantly, Universities aren't willing to follow the breeds guidelines step by step the way we want them. Sure it would be simple to walk away, but then we are back at the beginning with no data and no leg to stand on.

The ASA could do a better job of being transparent. Heck I wouldn't know any of this information if I wasn't a part of both trials. However, they aren't going to tell people why things didn't work out. Their job is to only promote the the good things.