nate53
Well-known member
Are you talking about number of individual animal records recorded or data that is available on each animal?Mill Iron A said:
New Angus Ads (no need for crossbreeding)
- Thread starter Tyler
- Start date
Help Support Steer Planet:
The EXT daughters were not mine and I agree they were outstanding mothers. I loved a good EXT cow when I was about 15 years younger! I saw a lot more bigger EXT cows than small but I also remember most of the EXT calves I saw were out of big cows. This place had the big gates because those were some athletic cattle that could jump and climb. The only cows I saw meaner were the Sugar Ray or Covino cows.
Anyone have any pictures of the Angus cows that profiled with that uphill, sharp look?
Anyone have any pictures of the Angus cows that profiled with that uphill, sharp look?
Mill Iron A
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jul 12, 2011
- Messages
- 516
Individual records, data is so widely variant among breeders that is hard to decide. A major difference between the angus and red angus is red angus follows total herd recording which makes the data more valuable
comercialfarmer
Well-known member
- Joined
- Aug 29, 2010
- Messages
- 196
Telos said:
Telos, I thought this was an interesting statement. So I took some time to investigate it. I'm not coming up the same values and thought I would throw this out there for anyone to debunk my math or add to it. What am I missing?
Feed: Corn
Manufacturing 1 ton of anhydrous ammonia fertilizer requires 33,500 cubic feet of natural gas. ~ 16.75 cubic feet of gas per lb of anhydrous ammonia.
Average for years 2000-2006 was 150 bushels per acre of corn with an average N application rate of 148 pounds of N per acre.
So 148 lbs of N = 150 bushels and ~ 171 lbs of anhydrous ammonia or 19 cubic feet of gas per bushel to fertilize 148 lbs of N or 2864 cubic feet per acre. Then to account for DAP. Even doubling this which I would expect to be over kill, you have 38 cubic feet of gas per bushel.
Average 0.3 to 1.5 gallons of diesel per acre per pass for tillage and planting depending on implement. How many passes- 7 for prepping ground, planting, application of fertilizer/weed killer, cutting? Average is probably ~ 1 gal/acre with 7 passes- 7 gallons acre with per 150 bushels or 0.046 gallons per bushel. (http://www.ext.colostate.edu/pubs/farmmgt/05006.html) (http://www3.abe.iastate.edu/livestock/pm587.asp)
Hauling material is fairly limited to elevators and then on to feed yards per bushel due to them being close. Add even another 0.014 for processing hauling local. 0.06 gallons of diesel per bushel of corn for processing and planting.
Drying corn is ~ 1 gallon propane per 6 bushels.
Cattle:
Cow/Calf
Pasture for mama cows- let say average N application for grass is 100 lbs/acre and you run a cow calf pair per 2 acres. 200 lbs of N ~ 244 lbs of anhydrous ammonia = 4,087 cubic feet of natural gas fertilizer for cow calf unit. (so there is some positive left in the cow as well)
Hauling cattle average 8 miles/gallon with even pulling them out of Florida to Oklahoma for stockers- ~1,000 miles or 125 gallons per 100 head of 500 wts = 1.25 gallons shipping per calf
Application of fertilizer ~ 0.5 gallon per acre = 1 per head and general fuel usage ~ 5 gallon per head
Stocker
http://www.noble.org/ag/soils/winterpastures/ something worth noting is that "Research data show that if you do not fertilize winter pastures, you will produce about 2,000 pounds per acre of dry matter forage in a season. With good grazing management, cattle can consume all the forage except about 500 pounds per acre. Simple subtraction shows that the cattle will consume about 1,500 pounds of dry matter forage per acre from unfertilized winter pastures (2,000-500)."
However, using N average 100 lbs of N per acre of wheat again looking at 2044 cubic feet of natural gas per acre for gain of ~ 435 lbs but well just say 400. So 2044 cu ft per calf.
Fuel use is probably 5 passes so 5 gallons per acre or 5 gallons per calf. http://www3.abe.iastate.edu/livestock/pm587.asp
Oklahoma city to Kanasas~250 miles to feed lot at 900 lbs =55 calves per pot load and 31 gallons per potload = 0.56 gallons of diesel per calf
General fuel usage ~ 2.5 gallons per head
Feedlot
Trucking corn to Feedlot, consider even 200 miles at 8 mile/gallon with 50,000 lb payload 25 gallons 893 bushels = 0.03 gallons of diesel per bushel fed for trucking.
Taking an all corn diet just to make it easier to calculate and assuming this would be the worst case scenario of using fossil fuels and resources, average calculation is 6lbs of feed per lb of gain. So for 900 lb calf to 1250 lb calf =350 lbs of weight gain therefor 350 x 6= 2,100 lbs of corn. So 56 lb to the bushel and you have 37.5 bushels per calf = 1425 cubic feet of natural gas and 2.25 gallons of diesel, plus shipping 1.12 gallons = 3.37 gallons of diesel used per calf per volume of corn consumed
Feed truck, loader, etc... ~ 0.75 gal per animal
Spreading manure 0.5 gal per animal
(http://www3.abe.iastate.edu/livestock/pm587.asp)
Propane use is 6.25 gallons per calf
Feed lot to kill plant ~ 60 miles 1250 lb calves 40 head ~ 0.19 gallons per head
So roughly, from mama to packer, each calf uses: 4,087 + 2044 + 1425 = 7,556 cu feet of natural gas (over its life), US produced 82 billion cubic feet per day. So in 1 day, we produce enough gas for 10 million, 852 thousand animals from start to finish.
So roughly, from mama to packer, each calf uses: 1 + 5 + 2.5 + 1.25 + 5 + 0.56 + 3.37 + 0.75 + 0.5 + 0.19 gallons of diesel = 20.12 gallons of diesel per calf
So average to worst case scenerio 7,556 cu feet of natural gas, 20.12 gallons of diesel and 6.25 gallons of propane per calf to the packer.
Now, consider that I have documented estimated figures for usage of fertilizers and fuel use in intensive management. However, using the roughly estimated figures for general fuel use on the farm, the most usage of diesel or gas appears to me to be the day to day care of the animal (traveling to and from the pasture and looking through the spread out herd). If your going to fertilize grass, you are still going to consume fossil fuels and it appears possibly even more than by feeding cattle in an efficient concentrated system. Also, your still going to have some shipping of each animal to the slaughter plant and to the stores. If your running stockers, your going to have to ship them in and then on to kill plants as well.
If I had more time, I would analyze this further into looking at running those same cattle on grass for the amount of time it would take to gain the same wt for slaughter in a lot and see how much of a difference there really is in overall fuel usage. I don't think there is much and possibly even less.
With natural gas being used to produce N fertilizer, it is so cheap right now that many wells are shut in or just blowing it off as it cost's more to store it and ship it than it's worth. I don't see concentrated feeding as a waste but possibly a fuel saver along with making better use of one of the most scarce resources we have, land.
What am I missing?
Commercial farmer,
Off the to of my head two things I would add are:
1, The energy needed to pump and move water (ground water pumping and irrigation water)
Cattle production requires plenty of water to produce feed and for the animals themselves, You need energy to get this water to where you need it.
2. In industrial agriculture you have to have runoff control systems to handle the animal waste so not to contaminant ground and surface water. A feed lot can produce enough waste to rival a medium size city.
Aeration and pumping systems cost energy.
Something else to consider on Angus success: Perhaps if the Hereford breed have a percentage Simmental registry like Simangus they would not have their numbers reduced as they are today. Their was a time when half Simmental half Hereford bulls were very popular and the failure of the Hereford breed to seize on this contributed to their problems.
The Angus breed would rather sell a bull today by providing misinformation on crossbreeding than looking to the long term by being scientifically honest to the customers. An astounding lack of integrity. This will prove costly in the end. Always tell the whole truth to your customers or it will hurt you in the end.
Off the to of my head two things I would add are:
1, The energy needed to pump and move water (ground water pumping and irrigation water)
Cattle production requires plenty of water to produce feed and for the animals themselves, You need energy to get this water to where you need it.
2. In industrial agriculture you have to have runoff control systems to handle the animal waste so not to contaminant ground and surface water. A feed lot can produce enough waste to rival a medium size city.
Aeration and pumping systems cost energy.
Something else to consider on Angus success: Perhaps if the Hereford breed have a percentage Simmental registry like Simangus they would not have their numbers reduced as they are today. Their was a time when half Simmental half Hereford bulls were very popular and the failure of the Hereford breed to seize on this contributed to their problems.
The Angus breed would rather sell a bull today by providing misinformation on crossbreeding than looking to the long term by being scientifically honest to the customers. An astounding lack of integrity. This will prove costly in the end. Always tell the whole truth to your customers or it will hurt you in the end.
comercialfarmer
Well-known member
- Joined
- Aug 29, 2010
- Messages
- 196
Good points Mark, I had intended to add the irrigation use but forgot.
So 1/4 acre of average 150 bushel corn would be an additional 10 gallons per animal for finishing for irrigation and then estimating for close to 4,000 gallons of water consumption over the life of the animal, roughly looking at an additional 0.2 to 0.4 gallons of diesel during it's life to pump at 50 to 150 feet depth well at variable pressures.
Looks like collection of liquid manure, storage and hauling adds ~ another 4 to 7 gallons per animal. However, there should be some benefit applied back toward this particular animals food consumption since this waste will be utilized as fertilizer for feed.
So ~ another 16.5 gallons of diesel usage.
http://www.ksre.ksu.edu/irrigate/OOW/P11/Kranz11a.pdf
So 1/4 acre of average 150 bushel corn would be an additional 10 gallons per animal for finishing for irrigation and then estimating for close to 4,000 gallons of water consumption over the life of the animal, roughly looking at an additional 0.2 to 0.4 gallons of diesel during it's life to pump at 50 to 150 feet depth well at variable pressures.
Looks like collection of liquid manure, storage and hauling adds ~ another 4 to 7 gallons per animal. However, there should be some benefit applied back toward this particular animals food consumption since this waste will be utilized as fertilizer for feed.
So ~ another 16.5 gallons of diesel usage.
CAB
Well-known member
How much further ahead of the pack will the Genmax program take the Angus breed?
Quick fire
Well-known member
I don't see angus as superior, it's all marketing. Certain breeds have plus and minuses sure. I don't see the leaders of angus as "geniuses" as they are made out to be just because they market the snot out of their product and other breeds don't......or DOES that make them genius? I think it just makes them smart.
CAB
Well-known member
I don't know if their "leaders" are genius, but the marketing/advertising groups maybe compared to other breeds.Quick fire said:
ty378 said:
Bet your under 20 years old. Trust me, I have seen angus from when they were the 4 foot dwarfs up to the rage of 20 years ago when they were 7 foot tall and now they are back down to 5 feet tall. I have seen bloodlines that throw white bellies, and horns. I have seen the angus flat butt turn into a square "maine" butt. I have seen the small oblong head turn into a wide forehead with big ears.
To say the angus breed has NO outside blood in it is to admit your very young and ignorant (not dumb, not stupid, but just do not know any better).
Unless it is a FULLBLOOD animal directly imported from a closed herd for 100 years in Europe, than yes, "angus" does in fact, have non-angus blood in them. Sorry.
Telos
Well-known member
commercialfarmer said:
I was off from what I remembered. Exactly 100 gallons (Sorry. My bad.) but anyway here are the results. This comes from the Cornell research study.
"But you can go farther still, and follow the fertilizer needed to grow that corn all the way to the oil fields of the Persian Gulf. No. 534 started life as part of a food chain that derived all its energy from the sun; now that corn constitutes such an important link in his food chain, he is the product of an industrial system powered by fossil fuel. (And in turn, defended by the military -- another uncounted cost of ''cheap'' food.) I asked David Pimentel, a Cornell ecologist who specializes in agriculture and energy, if it might be possible to calculate precisely how much oil it will take to grow my steer to slaughter weight. Assuming No. 534 continues to eat 25 pounds of corn a day and reaches a weight of 1,250 pounds, he will have consumed in his lifetime roughly 284 gallons of oil. We have succeeded in industrializing the beef calf, transforming what was once a solar-powered ruminant into the very last thing we need: another fossil-fuel machine."
This is a calf that starts from conception to the grocery store case ( Vaccinations, total transportation of all materials and product , fertilizers, etc...) A total 284 gallons of fossil fuel according to the Cornell study. Now, this is for feedlot cattle where the target is choice grade.
comercialfarmer
Well-known member
- Joined
- Aug 29, 2010
- Messages
- 196
Telos said:
mmmmm Way closer to the 30's. They are WAY off and you can tell buy the way it is written it is pure propaganda. another fossil-fuel machine ????
There is a big problem with Persian Gulf oil, we have our own. West Texas Intermediate is priced differently than Brent Crude, they aren't interchangeable. The diesel produced in Houston is coming from North America
I'm kinda tired of the sky is falling non-sense. Like I mentioned, land is one of the most limited resources. Making better use of it makes sense. And I bet over 90% of the producers on here use fertilizer on grass.
Telos
Well-known member
This is information that was collected from a Cornell University study (Apprx. 10 years ago). No one mentioned the sky was falling . The study was more about slim profit margins and all the connecting parties that relied on each other in making these profits. One thing for sure, there is a great difference in your calculations and theirs. ??? <cowboy> ???
I'm one of the biggest supporters of beef and I hope your calculations are more accurate.
I'm one of the biggest supporters of beef and I hope your calculations are more accurate.
Tyler
Well-known member
ty378 said:
Blind love for a single breed is a dangerous thing. I raise a few different breeds and some Angus cattle too, I can tell you from experience each breed brings good things to the table and they all have some things to work on too.
comercialfarmer
Well-known member
- Joined
- Aug 29, 2010
- Messages
- 196
Telos said:
Apparently I came off wrong. I understand you were just reporting a study. I'm saying that I believe the study is flawed and flawed on purpose- "we can't sustain ourselves", ie. the sky is falling. Makes me wonder where Cornell pulled theirs from and if it was peer reviewed.
RundelLivestock
Member
This is a damn interesting topic! In my own opinion every breed has good and every breed has bad we've seen this with PHA in Maines, Curly Calf in Angus, Marble Bone in Red Angus. Even though I am strictly a clubbie guy myself I've got a couple of Angus cows. Yes, I breed some of them to those higher powered Angus bulls to make "purebreds" for the showring but the majority of my Angus cows are bred to a 3/4 blood Maine-Anjou bull the calves usually hit the ground running every once in a while a guy will have to pull one but I'm not gonna sit here and jump up and down screaming purebred this purebred that because each guy can do his own damn thing. But, more importantly I agree with a large majority of the people commenting on the post that the Angus breed is damn good at marketing their breed especially in Northwest Kansas it is Angus this Angus that and I can honestly say there is so much variation from Joe Blows herd to Tom, Dick, and Harry's herd just down the road that you would almost be convinced one group is nothing but Corrientes or one group is full of Maines and limmi's consistency has and always will be an issue for any breed out there.
I still contend the favorite sport of human beings is griping. The ony thing more entertaining than listening to proponents of other breeds griping about Angus breeders and Angus marketing is to listen to Angus breeders raising hell with one another about how sorry such and such Angus type is compared to their favorite type of Angus.
Our herd is predominantly Angus female based and right now I'm running mostly Ohlde type Angus bulls on them (bulls from Griswold, Limestone, and some older 6807 related stuff from a good friend and breeder that goes back to Sitz). We sell direct to feedlots and have gotten a lot of pressure over the past several years to move further toward purebred Angus. A lot of our cows have some Simi and/or Maine in them. I have several years of individual carcass data from our calves obtained from the feedlots and environmental factors/feeding strategy on the part of the feedlot is a much bigger variable than whether the calf is a purebred Angus or a Heat Wave x Maine cross calf. I routinely get "advice" from feedlots that tell me I need to start buying such and such kind of black bulls - when none of them have ever taken time to go to the pasture and look at my cows. They are just trying to hock whatever the flavor of the day is for their buddies that sell bulls.
I contend that the vast majority of cattle in this country are actually quite sorry - just go drive through Texas or anywhere in the south and you'll see way more crap in the pastures that look more like crossed up roping steers than you do cattle from any identifiable breed. That's what Angus marketing was trying to differentiate from and get their breeders more money than - not good cattle from other breeds. CAB is the best friend of any breed that was able to go black - the AAA wasn't trying to take advantage of them, but to bring them along for the ride. If you haven't figured it out, you have to keep it real simple for the American public. Saying the word "Angus" is real easy. Making them say "Maine Anjou", "Limousin", etc is just a little too complex for a menu. Honestly, its too complicated for the average old man sitting at the sale barn trying to buy cows.
The studies that have been alluded to in this post are quite interesting. Its probably easier to model climate change than it is to calculate agricultural practice efficiencies at the level some of the studies are trying to do. Good lord, most farmers/ranchers have a hard enough time trying to figure out what their own accurate break even is. It's really too depressing to think on too hard. But at the end of the day, raising beef cattle is not as an efficient way to feed humans as farming is. It just takes more land. That's why corporate agriculture hasn't taken over cattle ranching nearly to the extent that it has farming or other livestock like swine. We grow cattle because beef tastes really good, not because its the cheapest thing to grow. For those of you from Texas or the south, how many of your grandparents actually ate much beef? Mine certainly didn't - they lived off their gardens and pigs and chickens. Beef cost way too much. I'm not sure we haven't made a mistake in trying to make beef cheap enough for everyone to eat every day.
Our herd is predominantly Angus female based and right now I'm running mostly Ohlde type Angus bulls on them (bulls from Griswold, Limestone, and some older 6807 related stuff from a good friend and breeder that goes back to Sitz). We sell direct to feedlots and have gotten a lot of pressure over the past several years to move further toward purebred Angus. A lot of our cows have some Simi and/or Maine in them. I have several years of individual carcass data from our calves obtained from the feedlots and environmental factors/feeding strategy on the part of the feedlot is a much bigger variable than whether the calf is a purebred Angus or a Heat Wave x Maine cross calf. I routinely get "advice" from feedlots that tell me I need to start buying such and such kind of black bulls - when none of them have ever taken time to go to the pasture and look at my cows. They are just trying to hock whatever the flavor of the day is for their buddies that sell bulls.
I contend that the vast majority of cattle in this country are actually quite sorry - just go drive through Texas or anywhere in the south and you'll see way more crap in the pastures that look more like crossed up roping steers than you do cattle from any identifiable breed. That's what Angus marketing was trying to differentiate from and get their breeders more money than - not good cattle from other breeds. CAB is the best friend of any breed that was able to go black - the AAA wasn't trying to take advantage of them, but to bring them along for the ride. If you haven't figured it out, you have to keep it real simple for the American public. Saying the word "Angus" is real easy. Making them say "Maine Anjou", "Limousin", etc is just a little too complex for a menu. Honestly, its too complicated for the average old man sitting at the sale barn trying to buy cows.
The studies that have been alluded to in this post are quite interesting. Its probably easier to model climate change than it is to calculate agricultural practice efficiencies at the level some of the studies are trying to do. Good lord, most farmers/ranchers have a hard enough time trying to figure out what their own accurate break even is. It's really too depressing to think on too hard. But at the end of the day, raising beef cattle is not as an efficient way to feed humans as farming is. It just takes more land. That's why corporate agriculture hasn't taken over cattle ranching nearly to the extent that it has farming or other livestock like swine. We grow cattle because beef tastes really good, not because its the cheapest thing to grow. For those of you from Texas or the south, how many of your grandparents actually ate much beef? Mine certainly didn't - they lived off their gardens and pigs and chickens. Beef cost way too much. I'm not sure we haven't made a mistake in trying to make beef cheap enough for everyone to eat every day.
Cabanha Santa Isabel - BR
Well-known member
Tyler said:
Me too, have a few breeds and keep some fullblood (on paper of course) Aberdeen Angus. Can tell you that, maybe the most enthusiast Angus breeders here are very disappointed with some "modernization" that breed suffer on last decades, bringing horns, marks and lack of Aberdeen Angus pure characteristcs. They keep selling your cattle of course but some people are looking for new options.
All breeds show good and bad points. Keep blind and don't see the errors and mistakes that need to be improved in one breed is a big mistake.
RundelLivestock
Member
Cabanha Santa Isabel you are extremely misinformed. I can tell you I've done my share of torching and clipping Angus bulls along with going to a number bull sales and I have yet to come across in the past couple of years that have had horns or markings. I don't know what's going on where you're from but it isn't certainly not going on in this neck of the woods. The only way I can see what you see happening is if someone isn't being truthfully honest with the buyer so it don't think its the breed its a lack of character for the producer.
