Commercial Type Cattle Discussion

Bedrock "I/ d like to hear everyone describe "commercial " type cattle."

I am starting this thread after reading some talk on the http://www.steerplanet.com/bb/the-big-show/shorthorn-native-breeding-stock/

Everyone jump in and post their definition for themselves and their environment.

My idea of commercial cattle:
1.  Moderate females (frame 5-6.5)  1100-1400 lbs.
2. Calve unassisted (calf weights 70-85 lbs.)
3. Teats should be sized such that newborn calf can nurse
4. Have 1st calf by 2 yrs and thereafter every 12 months until age 10.
5. Wean a calf that roughly weighs 100 lbs per month of age.
6. Slick hair cows or at least shed quickly in spring.
7. Solid colored to produce solid colored calves to fit the market (smokes, black, red)

This should be done on mineral, bahia, bermuda permanent pasture (bahia, bermuda hay) with cool season annuals and clover, enough treats to aid in handling.

We can get into discussion about muscle, correctness and so on but I think form will be necessitated by function.

I agree on all except I like the figure on weaning to be half the cows body weight by 6 months old.

KAXX said:

I agree on all except I like the figure on weaning to be half the cows body weight by 6 months old.

Click to expand...

I agree we are educated that a cow should wean 50% of her body weight and that sounds good sitting around on a forum or classroom.  In reality,  the commercial guy likes the KISS principle, that is why you have to so many black hided breeds. "Black year in and out does not take a price cut, so they get a black bull of ???? breed to cross over Angus based cows."

So applying  the 100 lb per moth of age rule  a 6 moth old calf weighs 600+. 
Mature cow weight range 1100-1400 yields weaning percentage of 54.5% to 42.8%.


In my area very few commercial calves are sold preconditioned.  They might be vaccinated or not.  Many of them are weaned as they are loaded onto the trailer headed to the sale barn.  So they get the weight of the calf from the sale receipt, so the weaning weights are somewhat lower due to shrinkage. 

So while from a standpoint of measuring data the 100 lb per moth of age rule is not good from a practical standpoint of a guy running commercial cattle it gives him a quick rule of thumb to go by as long as his cows are not larger than 1100-1400 lbs and the cows were on grass and the calves not creep fed.

phillse said:

My idea of commercial cattle:
1.  Moderate females (frame 5-6.5)  1100-1400 lbs.
2. Calve unassisted (calf weights 70-85 lbs.)
3. Teats should be sized such that newborn calf can nurse
4. Have 1st calf by 2 yrs and thereafter every 12 months until age 10.
5. Wean a calf that roughly weighs 100 lbs per month of age.
6. Slick hair cows or at least shed quickly in spring.
7. Solid colored to produce solid colored calves to fit the market (smokes, black, red)

This should be done on mineral, bahia, bermuda permanent pasture (bahia, bermuda hay) with cool season annuals and clover, enough treats to aid in handling.

We can get into discussion about muscle, correctness and so on but I think form will be necessitated by function.

Click to expand...

I like all of this. I will tweak it a little bit and then talk about weaning weights and growth which I think are last on the priority list once everything else is doing great.
1. Moderate females with mature cow weight of 1100-1300 (frame scores around 5.25)
2. Calves must be unassisted at birth, stand in 30 minutes and nurse easily with high vigor.
-Birth weights must be in the 60-85 lb. range. 60-75 on heifers.
3. Udders should be tight and teats pinky size and hold up for over ten years.
4. First calf at 24 months at 900 lbs. and every year after. Last to be 10-12 years.
5. I like the wean 50% of body weight although we should look at weight weaned per acre for our herd. If you go by 100 lbs. per month you may have 1800 lb. cows weaning off 600 lb calves. So two of the large ones would eat the same as three moderate framed cows that wean 500 lb. calves at 6 months. That would be 1500 lbs. of calves compared to 1200 lbs. of calves off the same amount cow weight forage.
6. Yes, cows need to lose their hair. Red cows do better in the heat, Shorthorns are red and also do good in winter.

I want to add to this later. phillse, thanks for starting a separate topic to discuss this.  (clapping)

I agree with most of the thoughts shared in this thread. I don't think a general rule of thumb works well when discussing weaning weights. There are too many factors that affect weaning weights. Parasites, grass quality, calving season, and stocking rate are just a few examples. Most people in this area are happy with weaning weights from 550-650lbs.

I think the most common "commercial type" bull is generally a terminal bull. Commercial, to me, means the product is weaned calves and the object is to maximize average lbs of calf/ cow. (as opposed to the object being to maximize the value of individual animals above and beyond beef price).
I do mean maximize and not optimize-which causes a lot of problems.
When calves are born in mid February, as most mainstream commercial calves are, and weaned in mid October that makes the calf 8 months old at weaning. So a weaning weight of less than 800 lbs falls short of the 100 lb /month goal. Implantation before they go out on pasture usually makes up the difference...then again a couple more times before slaughter.
I'm not sure how often it's done, but I did have friends that implanted before weaning.
Even so,  high weaning weighs have a lot to do with the unsung commercial cow. I've been watching them on pasture and in corn stubble over a lot of Nebraska and South Dakota. These cows are almost all very deep bodied cows of around 1300-1400 lbs. They have blaze faces or bald faces, smoky colored or black and less often red or buckskin. They stand out all winter in corn stubble, unprotected, and maintain their condition. They have nice udders and good hard feet. They are holding the entire beef industry upon their patient backs.
Usually they are running with a large muscular Angus bull or less often with a Charolais.

1. Mature weight between 1100 - 1300 2. Moderate frame  within  5-5.5  3. Calve at 23-24 months with a calving interval of 365 days or less 4. Tight udder small teats 5. Solid hide color ( either black or red , and a blaze faced is exceptable)  6. Deep gutted 7. Able to thrive , and perform  on available forages 8. Calves unassisted with having live calves 85lbs or less as MATURE cows 9. Fine boned 10. Create a consistent calf crop where daughters can be retained as replacements , and/or all calves can grade high on the rail.

The different opinions are very interesting and definitely depends on your environment ...BEDROCK idea's would work best in our area ,also like his idea that you can't raise calves that will command the top feeder or carcass cattle and use the heifers for profitable  females in herd ...With latest research on black color retaining 15 degrees more heat  than any other color , the reds & Herefords at 7 and the smoky ,light cream and white your basis of comparison  ....In our region large groups of black cattle can be lost in the key summer months with heat, high humidity and no air movement for highly finished cattle ....The nations lost dollars from heat loss according to statistics is to me a lot of money ....Also some officials are saying that the right kind of crossbred females are more efficient than most  straight blood ...

I forgot to add number 11. Efficient cattle with low feed intake and high feed to gain ratio

I think you can find plenty of examples where growth was chased too much but to put it on the bottom of priorities is crazy to me. A cow has to fit her farm. Be calm, good momma, produces a good not average calf, and does it for a long time.

More days on feed is less money in my pocket and more labor. If you've got enough pasture in Ohio, a calf that weans at 450 to 550 is below avg and even if you have more 500 pound calves, you're still taking longer to finish them. I think the growth in the easier doing shorthorn cattle could be bred up better.

E3 Durhams said:

I think you can find plenty of examples where growth was chased too much but to put it on the bottom of priorities is crazy to me. A cow has to fit her farm. Be calm, good momma, produces a good not average calf, and does it for a long time.

More days on feed is less money in my pocket and more labor. If you've got enough pasture in Ohio, a calf that weans at 450 to 550 is below avg and even if you have more 500 pound calves, you're still taking longer to finish them. I think the growth in the easier doing shorthorn cattle could be bred up better.

Click to expand...

Yeah I just used the high mature weight cow comparison to the low mature weight cow for an illustration. I wasn't really stating a goal. I do believe it's interesting that you think I'm crazy for putting it at the bottom of priorities for purebred breeding though. It's 2016, what cows and bulls aren't going to produce decent offspring that grow? I guess I'm curious now, what traits would you place growth in front of? Udders? Feet? Cow size? Fertility? Feed intake? Would you sacrifice calf vigor at birth? All of these things you will sacrifice for growth in a lot of circumstances...

This a bit off subject......but I was reading about the Shorthorns breed plan.........cooperating herds where the basis for so much of the plan they were proposing......over two years or whatever. Seems like to me that this will be the sticking point for the plan working. Whats in it for the cooperative herds.......to test say 10 different sires? I don't see it working unless............

JTM said:

E3 Durhams said:

I think you can find plenty of examples where growth was chased too much but to put it on the bottom of priorities is crazy to me. A cow has to fit her farm. Be calm, good momma, produces a good not average calf, and does it for a long time.

More days on feed is less money in my pocket and more labor. If you've got enough pasture in Ohio, a calf that weans at 450 to 550 is below avg and even if you have more 500 pound calves, you're still taking longer to finish them. I think the growth in the easier doing shorthorn cattle could be bred up better.

Click to expand...

Yeah I just used the high mature weight cow comparison to the low mature weight cow for an illustration. I wasn't really stating a goal. I do believe it's interesting that you think I'm crazy for putting it at the bottom of priorities for purebred breeding though. It's 2016, what cows and bulls aren't going to produce decent offspring that grow? I guess I'm curious now, what traits would you place growth in front of? Udders? Feet? Cow size? Fertility? Feed intake? Would you sacrifice calf vigor at birth? All of these things you will sacrifice for growth in a lot of circumstances...

Click to expand...

Plenty of examples of cattle that don't grow well enough in 2016. I'm not going to publicly point them out however. I think you put growth where you did because that's where your bulls fall into. Your choice. I think you pick apart what you want in a cow a little too much. The things you list is common sense to me. People can either breed up good cattle or they buy good cattle to fix their last mistake.


Not just cows but Bulls, here's my priorities...

1. Docile
2. Proven
3. Moderate. Not too big, not too small
4. Enough grow
5. Good carcass


You can fix an udder pretty easy. I'll take an 85 to 95 pound calf out of a mature cow over a 65 pound one. The less days on feed the more money I make and less labor I expend. I haven't had any issues with calf vigor this year. I didn't pull a calf. Feet will cull themselves if it's bad. Or you're not a blind guy.

E3,
My bulls do everything else better than bulls who have been bred with growth as a priority. So would you rather have a bull who is better at 9 out of 10 things and lose at weaning and yearling by 50 lbs. or would you rather end up with a couple extra calves out of 100 when you wean them and 5 extra cows in the pasture because they don't eat as much?

JTM said:

E3,
My bulls do everything else better than bulls who have been bred with growth as a priority. So would you rather have a bull who is better at 9 out of 10 things and lose at weaning and yearling by 50 lbs. or would you rather end up with a couple extra calves out of 100 when you wean them and 5 extra cows in the pasture because they don't eat as much?

Click to expand...

I said there are plenty of examples where selecting for too much growth that leads to problems. So I don't think I said growth is the top priority. But to put it at the bottom is crazy to me. It's gotta be in the top 5 things to me at least. Adequate growth is defined differently by different people. If you're happy then who cares. I just think when you come on here saying my cattle are the best commercial cattle you've found that you're putting down the other folks in a round about way. renegade is a good bull. But there are Bulls you say don't exsist are out there. I know of two that are looking like they will fit the bill. Time will tell.

My last two calves I took to butcher.....

Both born last February. First one finished late March the other early May. The second calf had a ten pound heavier hot carcass. But I fed him another 45 days or so. That is a big difference in a feed bill to me. so I will carefully select for the most growth I can get. BW is a subjective number at best in shorthorns. The bull I kept to breed grew better than either one I butchered. Good feet, calm, good head, good nuts, mom bred back AI last year on first service, has a tight udder, needs more guts and a little less leg but the Kaper side of my bull should cover those issues I have with her. I just can't ignore growth to insure convienance. Gotta find the balance.

JTM said:

E3,
My bulls do everything else better than bulls who have been bred with growth as a priority. So would you rather have a bull who is better at 9 out of 10 things and lose at weaning and yearling by 50 lbs. or would you rather end up with a couple extra calves out of 100 when you wean them and 5 extra cows in the pasture because they don't eat as much?

Click to expand...

JTM, I think this is the next trend, namely, easy fleshing, moderate framed cattle that are easy to keep in any conditions.
I am tending towards lower frame score cattle with easy calving and higher fat and IMF EPD's. It just makes sense!

A breed need not excel at growth, carcass and maternal, but it needs to be "good enough at all these areas but it should excel at one area in particular.

As for as the commercial cattle the area that affects the bottom line the most is maternal, meaning environment adapted, fertile cows with longevity.

I think a lot of people get way way way carried away with the redundancy of their selection protocols.  By placing direct selection/culling pressure on TWO measurable traits, I can indirectly address all others. 

[list type=decimal]
[*]FERTILITY: A commercial female must calve unassisted by their 2nd birthday and breed back annually within 90 days post calving. By holding the herd to this criteria, I indirectly cull the herd of hard doers. Regardless whether the culprit is frame size, mature weight, metabolism/genetics, too much milk, poor feet, what have you-- it doesn't matter--If for any reason body condition compromises fertility to the point they don't breed back within 90 days under the available resources, they are purged from the herd. No need to select for frame, milk, or body type--directly selecting for fertility will address all of that


[*]WEANING WEIGHT %: A commercial female must wean 45-50% of her body weight.  Placing direct selection pressure on weaning weight % indirectly addresses much of the redundancy in the selection protocols shown by others.  A cow that loses a calf because of dystocia will obviously fail to meet the required weaning weight % and thus will be culled.  *A dead calf may be an economic loss but it is never a genetic loss.*  If a cows udder is too poor to be functional or if the cow's milk production is insufficient, the calf will either die soon after birth or it's growth rate will be so low that it's dam won't meet the necessary 45-50% requirement mandated to stay in the herd. The WW% standard will be devastating to cows much over 1400lbs as seldom to never are cows over this threshold able to wean half their weight without supplementation.  The 45-50% should be done on summer pasture without any type of creep feed. I'm looking to see how much weight the cow can wean on her own accord- how much the creep feeder can add is irrelevant.  In order to accurately assess a true weaning weight %, calves should be born after ending any winter supplementation (as green grass emerges) and weaned before any late fall/winter supplementation begins.
[/list]

Once a herd is established where every single female has an unassisted calf every single year-- and every single cow weans a minimum of 45-50% of her body weight, THEN it may be practical to further refine the selection protocol but for most producers, employing the above two criteria alone would have a drastic impact on the profitability/efficiency of their herd. 

E3 Durhams said:

JTM said:

E3,
My bulls do everything else better than bulls who have been bred with growth as a priority. So would you rather have a bull who is better at 9 out of 10 things and lose at weaning and yearling by 50 lbs. or would you rather end up with a couple extra calves out of 100 when you wean them and 5 extra cows in the pasture because they don't eat as much?

Click to expand...

I said there are plenty of examples where selecting for too much growth that leads to problems. So I don't think I said growth is the top priority. But to put it at the bottom is crazy to me. It's gotta be in the top 5 things to me at least. Adequate growth is defined differently by different people. If you're happy then who cares. I just think when you come on here saying my cattle are the best commercial cattle you've found that you're putting down the other folks in a round about way. renegade is a good bull. But there are Bulls you say don't exsist are out there. I know of two that are looking like they will fit the bill. Time will tell.

My last two calves I took to butcher.....

Both born last February. First one finished late March the other early May. The second calf had a ten pound heavier hot carcass. But I fed him another 45 days or so. That is a big difference in a feed bill to me. so I will carefully select for the most growth I can get. BW is a subjective number at best in shorthorns. The bull I kept to breed grew better than either one I butchered. Good feet, calm, good head, good nuts, mom bred back AI last year on first service, has a tight udder, needs more guts and a little less leg but the Kaper side of my bull should cover those issues I have with her. I just can't ignore growth to insure convienance. Gotta find the balance.

Click to expand...

I think we are closer to agreeing than we sound here on the internet. I did say that in my experience the A&T cattle with Dover influence are the best Shorthorn cattle I have used. That is my experience. I don't doubt at all that there are others out there that will work and are just as good and better. Finding them is the challenge... The consistency is the problem in that search... I'm not going to put down any people but we can talk honestly about our concerns about cattle and be respectful towards one another. That's how I always try to be.
I think you are onto something using Kaper genetics. His breeding style is one to watch. He has kept to his guns. Got to meet Gary in K.C. and I like a lot of what he is doing. Very similar culling practices if not identical to ours. Only difference is he likes to line breed a bit more on the Shorthorns than we do. We are doing a little of it but not intensely like he is. I see the value of instituting a bull from his program that would compliment the culling practices, moderate size/weight, and carcass traits of our cattle. A cow maker, not a pound maker. That's what I'm looking for.