r.n.reed said:
Xbar makes a valid point.If you have cows that big and you are selling feeder calves your only hope for a ROI is to breed them to a high growth bull.You are basically locked in.
Dan,I would call this new line you are developing a terminal line.Performance is too general a term and could mean a lot of things to a lot of different producers.A terminal Short horn bull could potentially offer growth yield and marbling in the same package.A bonus not many terminal breeds can offer.
Single trait selection in this case calving ease is a dead end street.Addressing the breeds #1 roadblock to wider commercial acceptance is a good fad.
Let me ask you Gary, you say if you have "cows that big" your only hope for a return is to breed them to a high growth bull. It would seem to me that
if the growth the sire injects is constant, the smaller your cows are- the larger your margin for profit is. My thinking is that there are two limitations in this specialized scenario- One is BIRTHWEIGHT. Obviously 800lb cows can't handle 120lb calves but the question is:
what bw can they handle? The second being MILK- if the cow can't provide for the calf's growth potential, the potential can' t be expressed and the point becomes mute.
Since outliers don't replicate themselves, and in this online format- we can only speak in generalities- I think its safe to say that BW and Performance (defined in the most common way as growth rate w/ the rate at which they convert taken into equal consideration) are positively correlated. For the commercial cattleman breeding his cows for 60lb calves when they can easily handle 80lbs is leaving POUNDS on the table. This is money he has foregone. Is the producer being adequately compensated for assuming less birthweight risk? Or, by breeding for 60lbers, is he being overly cautious and selling his cows/pocketbook short? This is where its takes the subjective opinion of each producer to evaluate the potential risk/reward for pushing the envelope within his/her herd.
I would also add that our #1 roadblock to wider commercial acceptance is our SHORTHORN name. Its a misnomer for polled cattle, its too similar to Longhorn, and there's not but a handful of commercial cattleman, that aren't affiliated w/ show cattle, that even know there's a distinction between beef and milking shorthorns. Anyone in favor of pushing the Durham name? I'm all for it!
Okotoks said:
r.n.reed said:
Xbar makes a valid point.If you have cows that big and you are selling feeder calves your only hope for a ROI is to breed them to a high growth bull.You are basically locked in.
Dan,I would call this new line you are developing a terminal line.Performance is too general a term and could mean a lot of things to a lot of different producers.A terminal Short horn bull could potentially offer growth yield and marbling in the same package.A bonus not many terminal breeds can offer.
Single trait selection in this case calving ease is a dead end street.Addressing the breeds #1 roadblock to wider commercial acceptance is a good fad.
Gary, Performance might better describes where we are heading with this line. It will take a few years to get there but I would like a group of mature cows of 1350 to 1500lbs weaning off 55% plus of their body weight while maintaining condition. There are a lot of cows in the breed that do can do that and some are actually more in the 1650 to 1800lb. range but they are a little too big for a lot of conditions. The heifer sibs to the steer calves produced should be able to go into the herd as replacements or also be fed out if needed. I guess we are fortunate because the commercial bull market for shorthorns up here is growing.
I am all for bigger cows so long as they can do what you state: wean 50+% of their body weight and maintain condition. I have but one question/concern here. IF your assumption is correct, and If stocking rate is adjusted to a mature lbs/acre ratio, how can a cow be too big for some conditions? The conformation of the ideal cow isn't changed because of an increase or decrease in body weight. Only the scale should change. If all her dimensions either proportionally increase or decrease, what would prevent the larger cow from being sustainable?
My understanding- perhaps wrong- is that this is the reason 12-1300lbs are perceived as the most profitable... because cattle at this weight class can more commonly hit this 50% goal, whereas the percentage of cows that can hit this goal in larger weight classes diminishes.
I will also say that the top end of your statements gets a little carried away. There are not a lot of 1800lb cows that can wean 50% on forage diets. Granted, if you dry lot and bring the food to your cattle a third of the year like many Canadians do, I can see how this number becomes more probable.
In conclusion, I support both types of cattle discussed here. A specialized approach is as practical in the beef business as it is in any business. Barring birth weight is not outrageous- defined as more than the cows can handle-, I would propose using Okotoks bull pictured above over Gary's smaller made cows and capitalizing on the strong suits of both: the rapid growth of the bull's genetics, and the more conservative inputs the smaller made cow could produce on.
