Commercial Shorthorn Bull

Help Support Steer Planet:

wiseguy

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 17, 2011
Messages
143
Location
Bethany,Illinois
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.
 

Attachments

  • image.jpeg
    image.jpeg
    692.3 KB · Views: 376
J

JTM

Guest
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.
 

Attachments

  • Renegade 124 resized.jpg
    Renegade 124 resized.jpg
    415.9 KB · Views: 144

mbigelow

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 11, 2015
Messages
189
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.
 

wiseguy

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 17, 2011
Messages
143
Location
Bethany,Illinois
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.
 

Attachments

  • image.jpeg
    image.jpeg
    194.8 KB · Views: 194
  • image.jpeg
    image.jpeg
    181 KB · Views: 186
  • image.jpeg
    image.jpeg
    115.8 KB · Views: 174

wiseguy

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 17, 2011
Messages
143
Location
Bethany,Illinois
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
 

knabe

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 7, 2007
Messages
13,639
Location
Hollister, CA
wiseguy said:
external fat thickness and IMF have absolutely zero correlation.


Causation as well, thankfully. Hence the ease for selecting for low back fat higher marbling.
 

3 Eagles shorthorns

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 3, 2015
Messages
81
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.
 

knabe

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 7, 2007
Messages
13,639
Location
Hollister, CA
thus illustrating that genetics plays a minor economic role and management and acquisition of resources are far more important.
 
J

JTM

Guest
mbigelow said:
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.
 
J

JTM

Guest
wiseguy said:
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.
 
J

JTM

Guest
knabe said:
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...
 

knabe

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 7, 2007
Messages
13,639
Location
Hollister, CA
JTM said:
knabe said:
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.
 

carl

Active member
Joined
May 5, 2010
Messages
32
Just wanted to voice my opinion on the birth weight issue. We are the breeders of Wiseguys bull so maybe I am a little biased. I don't think you can compare the birth weights of a bull born in Saskatchewan and one born in Kansas. Everything else being equal the one in Kansas will alway weigh less at birth. I would suggest at least 10 lbs less. Now that may still be too big for some people but we routinely use Shorthorn (and Hereford and Charolais) bulls with birth weights up to 110 lbs on our commercial cows with no trouble at all. I would think our cow herd is run under range conditions. Our cows calve on grass, with little or no supervision, and we sleep very well at night. We don't get the weaning and yearling weights wiseguy is showing but that is probably just a case of different management practises
I am not suggesting everybody should do what we do but I am not willing to settle for a 75 lb calf out of a 1200-1400 lb cow. I like to see my bull calves weighing at least close to 90 lbs at birth or I start to think the cow has taken the year off.
 

wiseguy

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 17, 2011
Messages
143
Location
Bethany,Illinois
3 Eagles shorthorns said:
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.

3 eagles I thought I would fill you in our production environment. We are in central Illinois and it is spring so green grass is pretty common. The bull pictured consumes Fescue grass year around with possibly 3 months of supplement. By supplement I mean he has to eat the fescue as hay instead of grazing. Do a little research on fescue it is a low protein, poor quality forage. My cows are maintained the same way. No corn, no silage, nothing but poor quality fescue grass and hay. We are blessed with adequate rain throughout most of the year so irrigation is unheard of around here. However, the year we brought him down was 2012 and the worst drought in my lifetime. Maybe 2 inches of rain June-Sept. Anyway he looked the same at the end of summer as he does now, only a 2 year old and not as massive of course. Also, I would be surprised to find anyone who makes their cows work as hard as Carl and Saskvalley, I think they would consider Kansas a vacation.

To everyone else on the BW issue. I sleep well at night and have no worries. His data reflects that. The climate does make a difference. My biggest thing is I am scared of chasing extreme low BW genetics for fear of creating small pelvic cows that can't have a calf on my their own. I like optimum.

Lastly we will creep feed from 4th of July to weaning in September. We retain ownership with our steers and have like the added pounds at weaning. Last year and we shipped our steers to JBS in Pennsylvania and had 100% high choice or better and all YG 2-3. There was a snafu with the data and I couldn't submit it to the ASA because they didn't give me Act REA, KPH, etc.

I know this bull isn't for everyone. I just think he is the answer for a lot of people. JTM your bull is the answer for many people also. My point was we need to promote the what we have, collect real data, and above all educate and be HONEST with our customers! I know I'm building a customer base because of those things. God Bless everyone.
 

kiblercattle

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 2, 2011
Messages
380
Not bashing either bull but imperative is definatly my type of bull. I know lots of people who run range bulls that look like him... big bodied and massive in their muscle and they make good range Bulls. rawhide is probably a good bull for what he is a calving ease bull who brings some good carcass traits to the table I believe they both bring some things to commercialy orientated herds.  Comparing the two is like comparing apples to oranges imo.
 
J

JTM

Guest
carl said:
Just wanted to voice my opinion on the birth weight issue. We are the breeders of Wiseguys bull so maybe I am a little biased. I don't think you can compare the birth weights of a bull born in Saskatchewan and one born in Kansas. Everything else being equal the one in Kansas will alway weigh less at birth. I would suggest at least 10 lbs less. Now that may still be too big for some people but we routinely use Shorthorn (and Hereford and Charolais) bulls with birth weights up to 110 lbs on our commercial cows with no trouble at all. I would think our cow herd is run under range conditions. Our cows calve on grass, with little or no supervision, and we sleep very well at night. We don't get the weaning and yearling weights wiseguy is showing but that is probably just a case of different management practises
I am not suggesting everybody should do what we do but I am not willing to settle for a 75 lb calf out of a 1200-1400 lb cow. I like to see my bull calves weighing at least close to 90 lbs at birth or I start to think the cow has taken the year off.
Carl, thanks for posting your thoughts. There is no doubt we are in different parts of the continent and I agree that there is a birth weight difference when cattle are brought down to warmer weather. I also totally agree with you on the 10 lb. estimate so we are on the same page there. I am always watching your program and looking for stuff and I hope you don't take any of my points personally. These are discussion points for learning and attempting to bring our breed forward in commercial acceptance. You guys are breeding great bulls and there have been several I have picked out of your sales in the last three or four years. I will stick to my guns and continue to preach though that we need to moderate birth weights and moderate frame in order to create the product that the vast majority of commercial producers in the western U.S. are needing. I think we can use some of your more moderate framed and lower BW cattle in my program but at the same time we can't justify the risk to commercial breeders to have bulls with 95 lb. plus BW's in their pedigree. These cows are out on 1,000 acre range and they can't be messing with them. I totally understand that in Canada it's a different deal and the larger, courser, bigger BW cattle are what is wanted and potentially what makes better cattle in that environment but what we need in the States to market to the majority of commercial breeders is a more moderate type Shorthorn in my opinion. A moderate, lower bw, calving ease, maternal cow with carcass traits. That's where I'm coming from. Your program and those genetics definitely play a part but as kiblercattle points out so unfortunately, "Comparing the two is like comparing apples to oranges". I wish we could give the commercial industry a more consistent product. Obviously John has been creep feeding and we haven't so we can't really compare weaning weights much unless we trust these weaning weight epd's but that is one epd I will trust lastly in this breed...
John, Thanks for having an awesome attitude about me blowing up this post.  <rock> Shows you are a very good person. In all honesty I am always looking for genetics like your bull to compliment my Shorthorn cattle. Will it be Imperative?Maybe a grandson? You never know.
 

mbigelow

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 11, 2015
Messages
189
JTM thanks for the clarification on the Rea I did not look at the 1.2 per 100 but actual size at yearling wich at first glance is small but when you take into account feed and Rea per 100 he is acceptable.  I think this post is very useful. It shows that different management practices can result in operations willing to assume various levels of risk in order to achieve their goals.
 
Top