Quantcast Commercial Shorthorn Bull

Sponsors



Author Topic: Commercial Shorthorn Bull  (Read 10306 times)

Offline wiseguy

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 143
  • Karma 10
    • View Profile
Commercial Shorthorn Bull
« on: May 13, 2016, 06:48:25 PM »
People often discuss on this board that quality commercial Shorthorn genetics are not available anywhere. This guy is my definition of an ideal Shorthorn bull. Homo polled, backed by performance and carcass data, daughters in production, and above all form that follows function.

Offline Gargan

  • State Champion Poster
  • ******
  • Posts: 3025
  • Karma 38
    • View Profile
Re: Commercial Shorthorn Bull
« Reply #1 on: May 13, 2016, 07:25:02 PM »
Sure is a ton of product in that guy! Really nice looking bull!
Welfare's purpose should be to eliminate, as far as possible, the need for its own existence.  -Ronald reagan

Offline Dbirdsong

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 36
  • Karma 2
    • View Profile
Re: Commercial Shorthorn Bull
« Reply #2 on: May 13, 2016, 07:40:11 PM »
What is his breeding?

Offline wiseguy

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 143
  • Karma 10
    • View Profile
Re: Commercial Shorthorn Bull
« Reply #3 on: May 13, 2016, 07:49:24 PM »
Saskvalley Imperative 33x. He is a Saskvalley Ramrod son.

JTM

  • Guest
Re: Commercial Shorthorn Bull
« Reply #4 on: May 13, 2016, 11:29:04 PM »
We have a couple of different commercial Shorthorn bulls wiseguy. I hope you don't take this the wrong way but to show the difference I will create an illustration of the performance numbers to show the difference between the bulls.
This is in the spirit of educating everyone on the differences within the breed and the performance of these cattle. You are selling what the Shorthorn breed is buying. Again, this post is in the spirit of improving the breed and breeders like wiseguy and me coming together and making our "commercial" bulls more acceptable to the commercial industry.
Pictured is A&T Renegade 124 at 5 years old.
Renegades actual BW: 78
Imperatives actual BW: 106
Renegades progeny WW: 530 lbs.
Imperatives progeny WW: 695 lbs.
Renegades progeny YW: 798 lbs.
Imperatives progeny YW: 1121 lbs.
Renegades ribeye breed %: Top 40%
Imperatives progeny ribeye breed %: Top 65%
Renegades marbling breed %: Top 10%
Imperatives progeny marbling breed %: Top 85%
Also, when you look at marbling scores on progeny of an animal you must look at the FAT scores to see how they were fed and compare that to the IMF. The higher the FAT score at the ultrasound the more they were fed to get the IMF number. I understand the bull was bred in Canada and 106 lbs. is acceptable to them but to the commercial breeders in the U.S. they would never consider using a son of a bull that was 106 lbs. at birth. There needs to be consistency in the birth weights being low for there to be commercial acceptance. That is what we heard in Kansas City and that is also my opinion.

Offline mbigelow

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 189
  • Karma 7
    • View Profile
Re: Commercial Shorthorn Bull
« Reply #5 on: May 14, 2016, 12:13:40 AM »
JTM in all transparency you should include bw epds and disclose the accuracy on the carcass epds.  The rea on renegade is what you would expect from a calving ease heifer bull.  Renegade does not have the necessary growth nor the muscle evidenced by the low actual rea listed.  I do agree that imperative has a large actual bw but his bw epd is below average and he has only sired one calf out of 54 that was above 100 lbs.  In addition his growth and actual scan data indicates that he has more industry acceptable rea.  Both bulls have a place and not all bulls need to have low bw.  Honestly a cross between the two bulls would make great cattle. Both have a place and both are commercial acceptable.

Offline wiseguy

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 143
  • Karma 10
    • View Profile
Re: Commercial Shorthorn Bull
« Reply #6 on: May 14, 2016, 12:33:40 AM »
I think it is important to point out that the carcass info you provided does not include any of the actual data collected this spring. Therefore I have attached that info. Additionally, 106 for a BW is to high, but his progeny have not reflected those BW figures, and he is in fact in the top 30% for BW and top 25% of the breed for CED. When we bought 33x we talked to anyone and everyone that had brought high BW cattle in from Canada, and more importantly to the Lehmans at Saskvalley. What they all said is true.... Calves come like snakes, have great vigor, and will not weigh what they weighed in Canada. I cut the high BW Bulls, but haven't found anyone yet that doesn't find our 85 lb BW average acceptable.

Josh people are buying what I am selling because my cattle meet their demand. I have yet to find a commercial cattleman that will accept your Bulls weaning and yearling performance. Not being mean just honest. Additionally, my cattle are better phenotypically, and that I believe is where Renegade falls short. Again just my honest opinion. You could argue that a combination of our Bulls is what the breed needs, but that bull doesn't exist. I will continue to raise the cattle that I like and can sell, and you do the same. No harm done, just good discussion. That is how me make progress!

I would like to point out the 503 heifer is a Saskvalley yesterday not a 33x.

Offline wiseguy

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 143
  • Karma 10
    • View Profile
Re: Commercial Shorthorn Bull
« Reply #7 on: May 14, 2016, 12:55:54 AM »
Josh I also have a question regarding your Fat and IMF comment. I was on a meat eval team in college and I know that external fat thickness and IMF have absolutely zero correlation.

Genetically, the use of external fat thickness alone explains very little in regard to marbling score, and therefore should not be used alone as a predictor of marbling ability because the phenotypic correlation between these two traits will be close to zero in most groups of cattle. The genetic correlation between external fat and marbling is higher, but still not large. Source Texas A&M

Offline knabe

  • National Champion Poster
  • **********
  • Posts: 13303
  • Karma 3
    • View Profile
Re: Commercial Shorthorn Bull
« Reply #8 on: May 14, 2016, 07:12:15 AM »
external fat thickness and IMF have absolutely zero correlation.


Causation as well, thankfully. Hence the ease for selecting for low back fat higher marbling.
"The generation that told us to question authority, has now become the Authority we cannot question!"

Offline 3 Eagles shorthorns

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 81
  • Karma 2
    • View Profile
Re: Commercial Shorthorn Bull
« Reply #9 on: May 14, 2016, 10:02:53 AM »
Just my thoughts. I am not very impressed with Renegade's weaning weight, but I don't what kind of ground he was weaned off of. Here in Montana I would say renegade is built as most great range covering bulls are, and it has been my experience that you can take them good range bulls put them on irragation ground and they will transform into much different looking bull. As far as the other bull, I could not breed him to my cows and sleep easy at night. I would also say he looks like a irrigated ground (green pastures) and that if you turned him out on big country he would most likely melt. I don't know what your grazing conditions are like, but it seems both bulls would work depending on condition of the ground they are covering.

Offline knabe

  • National Champion Poster
  • **********
  • Posts: 13303
  • Karma 3
    • View Profile
Re: Commercial Shorthorn Bull
« Reply #10 on: May 14, 2016, 10:12:49 AM »
thus illustrating that genetics plays a minor economic role and management and acquisition of resources are far more important.
"The generation that told us to question authority, has now become the Authority we cannot question!"

JTM

  • Guest
Re: Commercial Shorthorn Bull
« Reply #11 on: May 14, 2016, 11:08:51 AM »
JTM in all transparency you should include bw epds and disclose the accuracy on the carcass epds.  The rea on renegade is what you would expect from a calving ease heifer bull.  Renegade does not have the necessary growth nor the muscle evidenced by the low actual rea listed.  I do agree that imperative has a large actual bw but his bw epd is below average and he has only sired one calf out of 54 that was above 100 lbs.  In addition his growth and actual scan data indicates that he has more industry acceptable rea.  Both bulls have a place and not all bulls need to have low bw.  Honestly a cross between the two bulls would make great cattle. Both have a place and both are commercial acceptable.
mbigelow, with all due respect I think you need to look again at Renegade's actual REA. He has a ribeye per 100 ratio of 1.2 on very little feed after weaning. You can't compare an animals actual without looking at the feeding program. That is why we have EPD's. So you can try to discredit Renegade's accuracy numbers on REA but he has been up against another bull in the top 10% in REA in his contemporary groups for several years now.
When you say "not all bulls need to have low bw" I am not sure what you mean by this? Do you mean below 100 lbs. at birth? Below 90 lbs. at birth? In Kansas City it was made clear to us that in order to be consider without risk we must breed animals that are consistently below 90 lbs. at birth. It was also illustrated to us through scientific data the variances of which an animal will breed with consistency. If you have a bull with a 100 lb. BW you can expect bw's in the range of 90-110 lbs. If it was a particularly cold year, they were fed way too much, then maybe you could get 80-100 lb. calves. I agree that these two bulls should be bred together but it isn't being done. The breeders of this breed are breeding the growth type because that is what people in Shorthorn breed want to buy.

JTM

  • Guest
Re: Commercial Shorthorn Bull
« Reply #12 on: May 14, 2016, 11:27:59 AM »
Josh I also have a question regarding your Fat and IMF comment. I was on a meat eval team in college and I know that external fat thickness and IMF have absolutely zero correlation.

Genetically, the use of external fat thickness alone explains very little in regard to marbling score, and therefore should not be used alone as a predictor of marbling ability because the phenotypic correlation between these two traits will be close to zero in most groups of cattle. The genetic correlation between external fat and marbling is higher, but still not large. Source Texas A&M
Yeah I wasn't correlating the two but was correlating feed intake with each. You will get more of each with more feed intake. You can feed on marbling to a certain extent and you can feed on fat to a certain extent.
I think your scores are good and you should see some improvement in marbling if you get some other bulls in there for contemporary groups.
As far as peoples thoughts on weaning weights and yearling weights. I don't know if the progeny of Imperative have been creep fed but the 95% of the Renegades have not been. Also, we raise our heifers and bulls like range cattle. That is also how Renegade was raised and that explains his lower yearling weight. We believe this is a healthier way to raise cattle for longevity although pushing feed to them for eye appeal seems to get them sold easier and we all know that.
As far as birthweights I will state my opinion on the breed again, anything over 90 lbs. we really frown on with a purebred Shorthorn. If we have a Renegade that comes out over 90 lbs. or a Captain Rob over 90 lbs. we wonder what the crap is going on. We want all of our bulls to do that. We are perfectly fine with 550-600 lb. weaning weights off of these cows. Who wouldn't be? These cows are 1100-1300 lbs. at mature weight. If we want more weaning weight or more yearling weight we bring in a Stabilizer bull like Apostle or an Angus or Simmental bull to get some hybrid vigor.
It's also very important on these commercial bulls that we have the amount of calf vigor that these calves are getting up in 10-15 minutes and nursing in 30 minutes consistently with absolutely no assistance. That means the udders on the females must be good enough for the calves to get onto also all the way up to 10 years old. There are so many little details that make up a good commercial bull besides growth, growth is last on my priority list as a cowman and I believe it is last on the priority list of the majority of commercial cowmen in the nation.

JTM

  • Guest
Re: Commercial Shorthorn Bull
« Reply #13 on: May 14, 2016, 11:36:03 AM »
thus illustrating that genetics plays a minor economic role and management and acquisition of resources are far more important.
You are way out in left field on this one knabe. In non profit oriented programs this may be true, but genetics are equally important as management because the genetics have to be able to survive on the low input, low cost management practices it takes to make a profit in this business. High input cattle take a lot of resources and manpower to take care of compared to low input cattle. Also, I can run a lot more cows in a 100 acre pasture with 1200 lb. cows compared to 1600 lb. cows. Allowing me to wean many more pounds of calves from that 100 acres of ground I own...

Offline knabe

  • National Champion Poster
  • **********
  • Posts: 13303
  • Karma 3
    • View Profile
Re: Commercial Shorthorn Bull
« Reply #14 on: May 14, 2016, 12:15:43 PM »
thus illustrating that genetics plays a minor economic role and management and acquisition of resources are far more important.
You are way out in left field on this one knabe. In non profit oriented programs this may be true, but genetics are equally important as management because the genetics have to be able to survive on the low input, low cost management practices it takes to make a profit in this business. High input cattle take a lot of resources and manpower to take care of compared to low input cattle. Also, I can run a lot more cows in a 100 acre pasture with 1200 lb. cows compared to 1600 lb. cows. Allowing me to wean many more pounds of calves from that 100 acres of ground I own...


genetics 1200 - 1600 lb cows.  that's just picking size out of a distribution.  genetics in todays world is paying a premium for a prefix or data.  it's pretty clear one can buy all sorts of cattle that are green and at a discount and make more $ than buying the best genetics, ai'g, buying $10,000 bulls. it's pretty clear to me that just down the road from me, two producers could not be more different. one is the genetic obsessor, the other buys marginal cattle. one clearly outdoes the other one in so many areas. the registered cattle people are way out in left field for the most part.  the registered business is a high input business.  one can easily see this in the clothes people wear, starched monogrammed shirts, pleated wranglers, alligator skin boots versus the obvious other side.


no, i don't think i'm out in left field.  far from it.
"The generation that told us to question authority, has now become the Authority we cannot question!"

 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
15 Replies
9267 Views
Last post March 26, 2010, 10:18:24 PM
by FutureBreeder
1 Replies
3377 Views
Last post February 02, 2010, 01:03:45 PM
by outspoken
12 Replies
4621 Views
Last post March 22, 2012, 03:43:06 AM
by Aussie
26 Replies
11343 Views
Last post March 20, 2014, 08:02:23 PM
by Cabanha Santa Isabel - BR
20 Replies
6880 Views
Last post March 30, 2014, 08:48:29 PM
by Dooder

Powered by EzPortal

SteerPlanet Designed Websites

SteerPlanet Designed Websites

Steer Planet Classifieds & Auctions

Breeder Directory