My eyes have been opened!

Took some bulls to Voglers the other day to get collected.

Figured while I was there I would take a look at the new clubby bulls since I've never had the chance of seeing any of them in person.

Now I've read on here about how short they are and I've always known they were short but I didn't realize they were that short. They almost looked like a weaned calf in the fall, just fatter and extremely hairy. It's almost one of those you have to see to believe things to really understand how short they are.

On another note if I had to judge them, I would say my favorites were the MAB clones and Italian Stallion. I didn't really get to see them walk out so couldn't see how sound they were.

Not talking bad about clubbies but it was just an eye opener for me and I wanted to share my experience.

I'm ready to get back to those 7, 7+ frames Clubies  What I call functional cattle.

Where's the BEEF?

AAOK said:

I'm ready to get back to those 7, 7+ frames Clubies  What I call functional cattle.

Where's the BEEF?

Click to expand...

There's none below the hock-

Everything the changes seems to usually come back around.  Won't be long before we are back to showing these tall ones.    (lol)

Probably what you are seeing are the ones that are just over a year old being collected for the first time.  As mature bulls, they aren't that small.  Not that you'd never consider them large framed.  The offspring of these bulls still consistently reach FS 5 or just under.  It takes a 51-52" steer to win at big shows.

The commercial guys don't want frame 7s, at least not anytime in the forseeable future.

Chambro - Commercial guys also do not want a 5 frame that takes 3-4 extra months to go to market! 
Those clubbie bulls MAY (or may not) make it to a frame 5 by 3-4 yrs of age, but doubtful.  I also question their maturing ability. Seems like the show circuit wants a "calf" looking animal for 12-14 mos. and that just is not acceptable when you are raising them to breed or sell as fats.
If the bulls being collects are yearlings, (many of them being Jan-Mar born so they are really 14-mos old) and they are weighing 900 tops, then THAT is the issue. I expect my yearlings to weight much more than that. I had a bull calf that WEANED adj at 1010 (admittedly that was an exception, but still). 

X-Bar - While there may be nothing below the hocks, I have yet to see a 6 frame animal be proportional to a 4.5 frame; meaning the larger framed animal will have a larger rib, larger butt, larger neck, etc, so in fact, the larger framed animal will indeed have more muscle (edible product) than a 4.5.  If that is not true, then a lot of folks have better stop pointing fingers at the mini herfs! 

Maybe to solve the argument someone needs to do research on pounds of meat, pounds of gain, ADG, and feed conversion per inch of height.  I am sure there could be an EPD developed for that!!  ;D

2000lb  FS 5 cow. 

Just for grins and giggles I called our local salebarn.... here was his answer:
For every half of frame score below a 6 on 5-800 weight calves you can easily reduce the price by 10 cents. For every condition score over a 5 you can reduce the price by 20 cents. Those clubbie bloodlines are cute to look at for a long time, but if you want top price you better bring 6 to 6.5 frame calf that is in BCS of 5.
Figuring this was a fluke of an answer, I called another......  his answer:
To get top price feeder calves or calves that have been backgrounded need to be at least a 6 frame.  The calves can not be carrying any condition but should exhibit a slick hair coat.  If they are showing any signs of coloration, meaning roaning or spotting or tiger stripes, the price will be typically reduced by 30-35 cents.  Anything that is too straight is docked about 60 cents. 

If I have time tonight I will download a photo of a calf you might like x-bar.  She is in my pasture!

BTDT said:

Chambro - Commercial guys also do not want a 5 frame that takes 3-4 extra months to go to market! 
Those clubbie bulls MAY (or may not) make it to a frame 5 by 3-4 yrs of age, but doubtful.  I also question their maturing ability. Seems like the show circuit wants a "calf" looking animal for 12-14 mos. and that just is not acceptable when you are raising them to breed or sell as fats.
If the bulls being collects are yearlings, (many of them being Jan-Mar born so they are really 14-mos old) and they are weighing 900 tops, then THAT is the issue. I expect my yearlings to weight much more than that. I had a bull calf that WEANED adj at 1010 (admittedly that was an exception, but still). 

X-Bar - While there may be nothing below the hocks, I have yet to see a 6 frame animal be proportional to a 4.5 frame; meaning the larger framed animal will have a larger rib, larger butt, larger neck, etc, so in fact, the larger framed animal will indeed have more muscle (edible product) than a 4.5.  If that is not true, then a lot of folks have better stop pointing fingers at the mini herfs! 

Maybe to solve the argument someone needs to do research on pounds of meat, pounds of gain, ADG, and feed conversion per inch of height.  I am sure there could be an EPD developed for that!!  ;D

Click to expand...

I understand what you are saying, and from a "logical" perspective it all makes sense.

Where your comments lose traction is in the FACT that these bulls' only purpose is to produce show steers.  As soon as the show ring comes into play, whatever makes sense in the feed lot no longer matters.  The show ring is in no way a reflection of what makes economic sense in the real world.

What makes economic sense in the real world is 1500 pound fat steers.  The biggest expense that a packing house has are people.  People are a semi-fixed expense, and the only variation comes from working more hours (slaughtering more head).  Where the packing house lowers their semi-fixed expense percentage is by slaughtering heavier cattle.  It takes more time to process a 1500 pound steer than it does a 1250 pound steer...but not 20% more.

Your remarks are very well thought out and back by intelligent thinking.  No matter, the show ring is not going to change based upon your facts.

Good post.

BTDT said:

Just for grins and giggles I called our local salebarn.... here was his answer:
For every half of frame score below a 6 on 5-800 weight calves you can easily reduce the price by 10 cents. For every condition score over a 5 you can reduce the price by 20 cents. Those clubbie bloodlines are cute to look at for a long time, but if you want top price you better bring 6 to 6.5 frame calf that is in BCS of 5.
Figuring this was a fluke of an answer, I called another......  his answer:
To get top price feeder calves or calves that have been backgrounded need to be at least a 6 frame.  The calves can not be carrying any condition but should exhibit a slick hair coat.  If they are showing any signs of coloration, meaning roaning or spotting or tiger stripes, the price will be typically reduced by 30-35 cents.  Anything that is too straight is docked about 60 cents. 

If I have time tonight I will download a photo of a calf you might like x-bar.  She is in my pasture!

Click to expand...

Looking forward to the pic!  I'd question the salebarn guy as there are very very  few 5-800lb frame 6-6.5 calves-- even when using the appropriate yearling frame score standards.   

At local barns, There might be a 35 cent discount between the high and low end. The only thing that'll get you docked 35 cents is a longhorn or a dairy calf.  There might be 12-15 cents discount on color and then maybe that much more discount in the event there's lack of quality.

BTDT said:

I also question their maturing ability. Seems like the show circuit wants a "calf" looking animal for 12-14 mos. and that just is not acceptable when you are raising them to breed or sell as fats.
If the bulls being collects are yearlings, (many of them being Jan-Mar born so they are really 14-mos old) and they are weighing 900 tops, then THAT is the issue.

Click to expand...

I guess part of the problem is the animals you look at for show steers must be totally different than the ones down here in Texas.  I totally agree -  a steer that weighs 900 llbs at 12-14 months old is too small.  The show steers we raise/buy are generally weighing between 1100 and 1200 lbs at around 14 months old.  The ones that are on the small side (lightweights in the end) are weighing between 1000-1100 at that age.  18-month old steers out of the accursed Heat Wave bloodlines typically weigh 1300-1450 lbs, and usually you wind up having to hold them to keep them at the upper end of that range.

I've never seen validity in criticism of these bloodlines being late maturing.  In fact, I've always thought the opposite.  If anything they (particularly black calves out of these bloodlines) mature too quickly and get fat and finished too easily.  When discussing feeding show steers in Texas - they either "feed like a black calf" or they "feed like a Charolais".  You have to pour the fat to charolais-x cattle to get them finished.  Calves that "feed like a black calf" can often coast right to the finish line on a grower ration.  The problem with them is usually getting them too fat too quick.

There are a whole heck of a lot of Angus and high % Angus-cross calves in feedlots all over the country that are smaller than a frame 6 that have been selling for a whole lot of money for a long time.  I wonder how many sale barn guys have ever actually measured hip height on an animal and compared to a frame score chart.

I still don't think most feedlots want 1500 lb cattle.  If they do, it's a very recent "fad".

My family sells 10 commercial calves for every one we sell as a show calf.  We're an oddity in that we raise black show steers in Texas, but the ones that aren't good enough go right in with our Angus cattle to feedlot buyers and I can assure you've we've never had to sell them at a discount.  And I've got years of individual carcass data and the Heat Wave descendants do just as good as anything else we send to the feedlot. 

Of course there are some of these bulls that are too small.  But Monopoly, WA, Unstoppable, and some of the other proven ones aren't among them.  I don't know which ones he saw.

This is last years data.

This data supports BTDT's post.  According to what is showing up in the packing houses, the higher the live weight, the higher percentage grading Choice or higher.  If it wasn't efficient to feed these cattle, it wouldn't be happening.

This data also supports chambero's comments regarding the Heatwave steers (which I agreed with having fed at least one HW every year we have been showing).

Keep in mind, these are weights as they unload off the truck.  These weights are AFTER shrink.

My 1500 pound number looks to be high, even after factoring a 5% shrink.

But this is not the show ring, and it never will be. 





St Joseph, MO    Tue Jan 7, 2014    USDA Market News Service

5 AREA YEARLY WEIGHTED AVERAGE DIRECT SLAUGHTER CATTLE - NEGOTIATED
Texas/Oklahoma/New Mexico; Kansas; Nebraska; Colorado; Iowa/Minnesota feedlots
(Includes all transactions regardless of delivery day)
Recap for:  2013

Confirmed: 4,419,382    Year 2012: 5,109,830      Year 2011: 6,688,673

                              LIVE FOB BASIS - Beef Breeds
                                      Head          Weight            Price          Avg      Avg
                                      Count          Range            Range      Weight    Price
STEERS
Over 80% Choice      246,052    1,175-1,650    119.00-136.00  1,437  126.35
65 - 80% Choice      384,642    1,000-1,600    117.00-136.00  1,408  126.27
35 - 65% Choice      517,782    1,075-1,745    118.00-136.00  1,338  126.35
  0 - 35% Choice            8,565    1,085-1,450    118.00-133.00  1,329  127.36
Total all grades      1,157,041    1,000-1,745    117.00-136.00  1,382  126.33

This might be hijacking the thread but I have noticed a few things too.  In Canada we have terrible selection when it comes to American clubby bulls, and this has me quite frustrated to begin with.  Then, I ask what the bull has to offer, and 9 times out of 10 they say "bone, hair, thickness".  Um??  Ok.  Doesnt that sort of apply to the entire clubby industry?!  Nobody suggest anything other than bone/hair, etc.  If you ask what type of cows they work on you MIGHT get more breed specific, but not phenotype specific.  Often you will just get "works well on Heatwave daughters' or something of the sort.
This clubby deal has me wondering how much clubby people actually know about functional cattle?!?! 
Wait...maybe I just asked a silly question!

chambero said:

I wonder how many sale barn guys have ever actually measured hip height on an animal and compared to a frame score chart.

Click to expand...

(thumbsup)

When you go back to pick up your bulls, please do us all a favor and take pictures of the club calf sires and other prominent bulls that are there and post them on here.  That would be a great help to those of us who aren't able to go look in person and don't like trying to figure out the exessive photoshopping.  Also if anyone goes to a stud or sees any of these bulls in person please do the same.  Thank you very much it will be greatly appreciated.

-XBAR- said:

2000lb  FS 5 cow.

Click to expand...

Is she yours?

Longway Ranch - SK said:

This clubby deal has me wondering how much clubby people actually know about functional cattle?!?! 

Click to expand...

Very, very few.  That is what happens when your selection protocol isn't grounded by functional beef cattle characteristics.  If more had the ability to identify functional beef cattle characteristics, I doubt there would be the disparaging difference in the types.  Many of these clubby people will argue till their blue in the face that their cattle are superior specimens, when in terms of functionality, they have some serious shortcomings.  The fact is that they just do not know any better- they are good people,, they just have no frame of reference.

Barry Farms said:

-XBAR- said:

2000lb  FS 5 cow.

Click to expand...

Is she yours?

Click to expand...

She belongs to JIT.  She is the paternal grandam of my Vanguard bull.  Here is another, even more impressive, picture.

Picture of Walks On Water, the cow behind his is on the tall side, she is close to 56 at the hip.
He is not huge but he is not a pud either.

looks like he's built by committee

I saw Walkie Talkie a couple weeks ago and my comment would be the same.  Texas Twister on the other hand is a full frame score taller. Both were long spined and traveled well.

vc said:

Picture of Walks On Water, the cow behind his is on the tall side, she is close to 56 at the hip.
He is not huge but he is not a pud either.

Click to expand...