Shorthorn sire test and progeny test at Univ of Ill.

Help Support Steer Planet:

J

JTM

Guest
Doc said:
I've been submitted lots and lots of data for several years. Much more data than this study will give me. 13 calves in a group for over $2,000 cost? Who can afford that in the real world? I didn't even know anything about it until a few weeks ago and it's already at the deadline. The thought crossed my mind that I should put CF Star Bucks in there just for kicks and giggles. I sent an email to the participants saying that I think we should have had a committee to talk about which bulls would be best to objectively enter this test and have the ASA pay for the expense of the testing or do some fundraising for it. I also copied ASA staff. I have received zero replies...

Josh, I agree about knowing about it. I'm even further behind than you, I didn't find out about it until yesterday when I got my Shorthorn Insider email. It makes you wonder if they already had their bulls in place? Why wasn't it one of the headlines when you go to the ASA website instead of the BIF conference and some Jr stuff?
I'm with Lonnie in that I remember when Shorthorns were always at the top at MARC, but even then it seemed like the ASA preached the data to the choir more than getting out and preaching it to the masses.
The black hide deal is still real in our area. We use a Angus bull as cleanup on our heifers and then we put our black recips with one of our Shorthorn bulls after an egg has been put in and those black calves will always bring more than their contemporaries that are roan or red even if they are not any better.
[/quote]
oakview said:
Unless you've been around a while, you may not know the ASA had a sire test over 30 years ago.  I sent about 50 units of semen on my bull.  I believe the cows were owned by Padlock Ranch, perhaps in Wyoming.  The owners of the bull bought the steer calves at weaning and they were sent to a feedlot near Brule, Nebraska.  We took a trip to the feedlot and were able to view all the calves.  It was quite interesting, the sire groups included straight dual purpose, straight beef, and a mix of the two.  We were provided all performance and carcass data.  I know I've got the information somewhere and there were perhaps 20 or more bulls compared.  I don't know what ever happened to the data from the ASA's standpoint.  Shorthorns were also compared with numerous other breeds, up one side and down the other, at the USDA's meat animal research center about that time, perhaps a little later.  Shorthorns compared very, very favorably with the other breeds in all facets of production, conception to carcass.  My neighbor that had 100+ Hereford cows asked his field man why he shouldn't just turn a Shorthorn bull out with all his cows after seeing the data from MARC.  The field man didn't have an answer.  I don't know if this information was ever utilized to he fullest.  I support the "new" sire test, I may even enter a bull next year. 

On the down side, though, I've been told we're in the "Information Age" for over 40 years.  We've got to have this, we've got to provide that, etc.  We ultrasound our bulls and provide performance data at the beef expo and still the ones that sell highest are the "pretty ones."  I'm not saying it's right, but the largest single source of bulls in our area is still the special cattle sale at the sale barn.  Very little if any information is provided.  Selling prices at the most recent sale were from 1,500 to about 3,000.  The only common thread among the bulls is they're almost 100% black.  As long as the black hided myth is perpetuated, black bulls are what's going to be most in demand.  I don't know how many cattle men I've talked to admit they are missing something, but it's hard to argue when they think their calves are going to bring 15 cents a pound more at weaning, simply because they're black.  We can provide all the proof we want, but until that changes, it's going to be hard to get a significant commercial market share.  I hear things are a little different in Canada.  I hope so.
Endless Meadows said:
This is starting to get a little off the original topic but while we are on it.  I think it is good to have the sire test started and hopefully it will get going within the breed.  Before I get too critical, it is the first year and there is plenty of room to grow and adapt.  Not everything can be perfect from the start.

On the down side it is fairly cost prohibitive, unless I misread something.  $2000 to AI 20 cows.  At 65% conception rate =13 calves.  Even assuming 100% survivability and not putting a value on the semen,  you would have $153.85 into each calf.  You own nothing and get premiums for nothing but you do get data back.  I understand that data is important and can be extremely valuable, but can the cost be justified? 
JTM said:
Duncraggan said:
E3 Durhams said:
No the cost can't be justified. Name one thing the Asa does to help its members? Nothing. I want to register my cattle, but not when it costs me money to do it and I get no benefit. It's time for the Asa to step up. Long past time actually.
This sire test is something that the ASA is doing to help it's members. Unfortunately in this day and age, the 'user pays' principle is the norm and if you want information, you have to cough up for it!
You can spend years doing your own in-herd testing, or, you can pay your $2000 dollars and fast track your data collection and accuracy by joining the ASA sire test.
With beef prices declining, and inputs soaring, I think the days of buying a cheap bull with no data at the sale barn and still making a good profit are few.
I've been submitted lots and lots of data for several years. Much more data than this study will give me. 13 calves in a group for over $2,000 cost? Who can afford that in the real world? I didn't even know anything about it until a few weeks ago and it's already at the deadline. The thought crossed my mind that I should put CF Star Bucks in there just for kicks and giggles. I sent an email to the participants saying that I think we should have had a committee to talk about which bulls would be best to objectively enter this test and have the ASA pay for the expense of the testing or do some fundraising for it. I also copied ASA staff. I have received zero replies...
Just wanted have this conversation in a new thread.
 
J

JTM

Guest
I'm just going to start off slow here and name a couple of bulls that I think should be in this deal. These would be some of my first picks.

Coalpit Creek Leader 6th
Kaper 4508
Saskvalley Task Force 105T
 

DCIL

Active member
Joined
Jan 21, 2009
Messages
32
Location
Prophetstown IL 61277
I for one was interested in enrolling a bull in the program. That was until I found out the cost associated with it. It is not that I don't agree with having to pick up some of the cost, its the overall amount. 
 

Dale

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 13, 2007
Messages
451
See pg. 10 in May/June Shorthorn Country for a full page about the ASA Sire Test Program.  In the previous one we had Weston Surprise 3rd with calves weaned at Burke Johnson's in Wyoming, as I recall.  I went to the harvest of the cattle in OK, as I recall.  Pete Swaffer was breed secretary.

Waukaru has data already on multiple current herd sires as I recall.  Knowing the Jordan family, they will be part of the new ASA test.  They "pay their dues," and are serious about breeding Shorthorns that perform and are functional. 

 

librarian

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 26, 2013
Messages
1,629
Location
Knox County Nebraska
I'd put in a newer Kaper model and a newer YY model along with the old bulls, these guys don't stand still with their breeding.
Maybe members could petition ASA to cover half the cost.
 

huntaway

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 3, 2012
Messages
135
Didn't see you had started a new tread.
Its not just the amount of data its the quality as well. In many herds possibly not yours I see this as a major issue. Small contempory groups with no variation in genetics or data value to make comparisons against. I think that is where the advantage would be.

The cost is in line with progeny tests in Australia. Both the Angus and Shorthorn tests cost $2500. The shorthorn test is limited to 6 sires and the angus 40 a year. If this is the first year they probably did have some sires lined up. Wouldn't be much point doing all the ground work to set up the trial and it fall over because no one nominates their sires.

I think their requirement for bulls that have been used some is good. You want bulls that are going to be used in a number of herds and have a impact in the breed. A problem with the durham project in Australia where they used a dozen or so sires each year is that too many of the nominated bulls never did anything in the breed or their home herd.
 

wiseguy

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 17, 2011
Messages
143
Location
Bethany,Illinois
After some thought I decided to "clear the air" about this sire test. As the person that got the ball rolling so to speak I think it is important to state all the information and facts. Additionally, I will add my opinion in regards to the cost.

In mid May I contacted the U of I after I learned of a similar test that the Simmental and Charolais Associations had done. I have several friends at the University and was at the start just being curious. After some talks with Dr. Dan Shike I realized this was an actual possibility, and called Jake at ASA. Once we determined that the Association would be interested we had a conference call to iron out the details.

The Dixon Springs research facility has 900 non-registered Angus cows. So commercial cows. Our initial thought was to time A.I. between 200-300 cows to a select  group of "High Accuracy" sires. The resulting offspring will be weaned, moved to U of I and fed out until harvest. At this time the carcass data will be recorded along with INDIVIDUAL CONVERSION AND INTAKE DATA! Now to me that is huge. Additionally, these cattle will maintain the same Contemporary group from BIRTH TO HARVEST! Again huge.

At this point I think everyone was excited..... until the dollar figure required for the trial was announced.  I just want to say that I believe the amount is completely fair in terms of what the University needs. However, with what the trial will cost, plus the genotyping cost, plus the cost of semen.... Well, lets just say if the ASA foots the bill they would basically be spending what it costs for an office persons Salary for a year. Think about that!

So at this point I realized the ASA could not pay the bill. Mind you I am simply a breeder. I am not on the board, or am I up to date on the ASA financial status. I just knew the dollar figure was more than the Association could handle. Thus the nomination structure was established of $2000-20 units, $3,000 -30 units, $4,000-40 units.

The end goal of course is to put our best foot forward and ALL the bulls perform well.

Now my 2 cents. I had to sell this idea to the "tightest" guy on the planet. My partner and dad.
WHAT DO YOU SPEND ON ADVERTISING? Last year we spent more than $2,000. ( Shorthorn country Ad, picture and video cost, fitting fee, time) WOULDN'T THIS BE GREAT ADVERTISING? If your bull does well YES! But remember his progeny can do well in two areas 1. Carcass 2. Conversion/intake.........
To me its simply an investment! In my opinion as a purebred breeder if you aren't willing to spend $2,000 to promote a product you believe in...... well then you are in the wrong business. Its not a cost Its an INVESTMENT!

All that being said, these are mostly my opinions and there are some things I think not appropriate to discuss on here. Like the exact cost of the trial. That's not fair to the association, or the University. However, if you would like to call me I will gladly talk it over with you.

Thanks for reading.
Wes Wise
Wise Shorthorns
Vice-Chair Shorthorn/Plus Committee
217-246-1912

 

Endless Meadows

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 27, 2008
Messages
160
Well put Wes.  Thanks for the extra input and information.  I think you made a great point about the costs and who pays.  It would be great to have multiple events occurring with little to no cost to participating breeders.  Unfortunately someone has to pick up the bill.  It would be great if the Association could, and I'm sure they would, but how much is available to do so.   

Dues might be $100 (part goes for a subscription) and WHR fees are $20/cow/year, but how far does that really go when you have to provide, stock and staff an office. 
 

librarian

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 26, 2013
Messages
1,629
Location
Knox County Nebraska
Shorthorn could look ahead. Angus accomplished all this and more with CAB, then created a genomic empire. They fund testing, design sires that fit the test, market the semen and pay premiums for the results.
But the future of beef is in Non GMO pasture beef- Brand That and instead of supporting office expenses at ASA or university projects, invest in Shorthorn Beef, testing the sires as their progeny pass thru the program and paying premiums for the results.
 

bedrock

Active member
Joined
Feb 3, 2015
Messages
37
I believe the simmental association did a fund raising deal by donations to help cover the cost.....
 

Duncraggan

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 2, 2012
Messages
821
huntaway said:
Didn't see you had started a new tread.
Its not just the amount of data its the quality as well. In many herds possibly not yours I see this as a major issue. Small contempory groups with no variation in genetics or data value to make comparisons against. I think that is where the advantage would be.

The cost is in line with progeny tests in Australia. Both the Angus and Shorthorn tests cost $2500. The shorthorn test is limited to 6 sires and the angus 40 a year. If this is the first year they probably did have some sires lined up. Wouldn't be much point doing all the ground work to set up the trial and it fall over because no one nominates their sires.

I think their requirement for bulls that have been used some is good. You want bulls that are going to be used in a number of herds and have a impact in the breed. A problem with the durham project in Australia where they used a dozen or so sires each year is that too many of the nominated bulls never did anything in the breed or their home herd.
Good point here in that having reference sires with high accuracy, that have been used heavily across many herds, will have a massive influence across the data of many herds, thus making the data more meaningful. There is no use in putting a sire that is not freely available to the common market on the test as the results would have limited impact.
I think, initially, that 'bang for your buck' is of paramount importance in the initial stages!
 

Duncraggan

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 2, 2012
Messages
821
wiseguy said:
After some thought I decided to "clear the air" about this sire test. As the person that got the ball rolling so to speak I think it is important to state all the information and facts. Additionally, I will add my opinion in regards to the cost.

In mid May I contacted the U of I after I learned of a similar test that the Simmental and Charolais Associations had done. I have several friends at the University and was at the start just being curious. After some talks with Dr. Dan Shike I realized this was an actual possibility, and called Jake at ASA. Once we determined that the Association would be interested we had a conference call to iron out the details.

The Dixon Springs research facility has 900 non-registered Angus cows. So commercial cows. Our initial thought was to time A.I. between 200-300 cows to a select  group of "High Accuracy" sires. The resulting offspring will be weaned, moved to U of I and fed out until harvest. At this time the carcass data will be recorded along with INDIVIDUAL CONVERSION AND INTAKE DATA! Now to me that is huge. Additionally, these cattle will maintain the same Contemporary group from BIRTH TO HARVEST! Again huge.

At this point I think everyone was excited..... until the dollar figure required for the trial was announced.  I just want to say that I believe the amount is completely fair in terms of what the University needs. However, with what the trial will cost, plus the genotyping cost, plus the cost of semen.... Well, lets just say if the ASA foots the bill they would basically be spending what it costs for an office persons Salary for a year. Think about that!

So at this point I realized the ASA could not pay the bill. Mind you I am simply a breeder. I am not on the board, or am I up to date on the ASA financial status. I just knew the dollar figure was more than the Association could handle. Thus the nomination structure was established of $2000-20 units, $3,000 -30 units, $4,000-40 units.

The end goal of course is to put our best foot forward and ALL the bulls perform well.

Now my 2 cents. I had to sell this idea to the "tightest" guy on the planet. My partner and dad.
WHAT DO YOU SPEND ON ADVERTISING? Last year we spent more than $2,000. ( Shorthorn country Ad, picture and video cost, fitting fee, time) WOULDN'T THIS BE GREAT ADVERTISING? If your bull does well YES! But remember his progeny can do well in two areas 1. Carcass 2. Conversion/intake.........
To me its simply an investment! In my opinion as a purebred breeder if you aren't willing to spend $2,000 to promote a product you believe in...... well then you are in the wrong business. Its not a cost Its an INVESTMENT!

All that being said, these are mostly my opinions and there are some things I think not appropriate to discuss on here. Like the exact cost of the trial. That's not fair to the association, or the University. However, if you would like to call me I will gladly talk it over with you.

Thanks for reading.
Wes Wise
Wise Shorthorns
Vice-Chair Shorthorn/Plus Committee
217-246-1912
I think this post sums up my feelings fairly well!
 

Duncraggan

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 2, 2012
Messages
821
librarian said:
Shorthorn could look ahead. Angus accomplished all this and more with CAB, then created a genomic empire. They fund testing, design sires that fit the test, market the semen and pay premiums for the results.
But the future of beef is in Non GMO pasture beef- Brand That and instead of supporting office expenses at ASA or university projects, invest in Shorthorn Beef, testing the sires as their progeny pass thru the program and paying premiums for the results.
I think you miss the economics here. With all of these types of initiatives, somebody has to have the vision and most importantly, the money, to get the ball rolling!
CAB was definitely not self-funding from the start, I can assure you that a group of forward thinking breeders put money in and the silent/apathetic majority have benefitted. This is usually the case these days.
The old saying, 'you get what you pay for' comes to mind, but it burns me that the apathetic get the benefit for free at a later date!
 

Duncraggan

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 2, 2012
Messages
821
librarian said:
Shorthorn could look ahead. Angus accomplished all this and more with CAB, then created a genomic empire. They fund testing, design sires that fit the test, market the semen and pay premiums for the results.
But the future of beef is in Non GMO pasture beef- Brand That and instead of supporting office expenses at ASA or university projects, invest in Shorthorn Beef, testing the sires as their progeny pass thru the program and paying premiums for the results.
In the information age 'looking ahead' costs money and that is what ASA are billing the test participants for, no less and no more!
 
J

JTM

Guest
Duncraggan said:
huntaway said:
Didn't see you had started a new tread.
Its not just the amount of data its the quality as well. In many herds possibly not yours I see this as a major issue. Small contempory groups with no variation in genetics or data value to make comparisons against. I think that is where the advantage would be.

The cost is in line with progeny tests in Australia. Both the Angus and Shorthorn tests cost $2500. The shorthorn test is limited to 6 sires and the angus 40 a year. If this is the first year they probably did have some sires lined up. Wouldn't be much point doing all the ground work to set up the trial and it fall over because no one nominates their sires.

I think their requirement for bulls that have been used some is good. You want bulls that are going to be used in a number of herds and have a impact in the breed. A problem with the durham project in Australia where they used a dozen or so sires each year is that too many of the nominated bulls never did anything in the breed or their home herd.
Good point here in that having reference sires with high accuracy, that have been used heavily across many herds, will have a massive influence across the data of many herds, thus making the data more meaningful. There is no use in putting a sire that is not freely available to the common market on the test as the results would have limited impact.
I think, initially, that 'bang for your buck' is of paramount importance in the initial stages!
I'm going to further this point! We need bulls that have been successful recently and that we know exactly what they are going to do. They have to be really careful to make sure they have low birthweight bulls in this sire test also because that is the future of our breed. We must continue to bring down our birth weights to the 85 lb. area consistently. That is why I recommended Kaper 4508, Task Force, and Coalpit Creek Leader 6th. I think we need to be looking at our proven accuracy low birth weight and calving ease bulls because we should already know that our low BW/CE bulls should also have the maternal traits, the marbling, and adequate growth potential. My concern is that we may end up with results that show no improvement on ribeye, no improvement on marbling, and actually make birthweights too high to be acceptable. That would be an all out catastrophe...
 

wiseguy

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 17, 2011
Messages
143
Location
Bethany,Illinois
Josh I thought I made this clear when we talked, but one of the requirements is that a bull must be above breed average for BW epd, and at least 50% accuracy. And all participating Bulls need the new 150k genomic test. At least that is what Jake and I discussed. Now that he has moved on I'm not sure. Marbling was our second criteria for selection. All the Bulls you listed the breeders have been contacted.  Once again the U of I asked us to use "high accuracy" sires. Believe me when I say there was a lot of time and discussion put into this. The board, Montie, Jake, and I talked a lot about what Bulls and breeders would make this a valuable experience. No one is just throwing darts at a board and hopeing they stick. But remember even if the trial was free to breeders, the ASA can't make them participate!
 

r.n.reed

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 29, 2008
Messages
611
First of all hats off to Wiseguy for his efforts in establishing a test of this caliber.The positives I see are to provide breeders with a level playing field to see how their genetics compare against other lines and to help validate the 50k test.Besides the cost one of my concerns is that the test is designed for the more terminal type Shorthorn lines to excel and with that comes the risk of the calving issue to arise.I don't think the breed has fixed and reinforced that fix  to the point where the standards set for this test can prevent a train wreck.Case in point I had a visitor here recently who told me about a 138lb dead calf sired by a bull that meets the ASA requirements for this test.This is a great opportunity to make a positive impact for the breed but we must be careful not to do something that could hamper our ability to market this breed as a maternal component.
For the record I bred Kaper 4508 and have never been contacted by anyone from the ASA.
 

librarian

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 26, 2013
Messages
1,629
Location
Knox County Nebraska
Duncraggan said:
librarian said:
Shorthorn could look ahead. Angus accomplished all this and more with CAB, then created a genomic empire. They fund testing, design sires that fit the test, market the semen and pay premiums for the results.
But the future of beef is in Non GMO pasture beef- Brand That and instead of supporting office expenses at ASA or university projects, invest in Shorthorn Beef, testing the sires as their progeny pass thru the program and paying premiums for the results.
In the information age 'looking ahead' costs money and that is what ASA are billing the test participants for, no less and no more!
That's what I'm getting at. The project design really only verifies what is already known- what universities do best. So it is just advertising for marketing certain sires- that work for certain things. Will it really sell beef or create a market?
CAB is a business model that is attached to a branded end product. That requires venture capital far beyond $2000 per participant. I don't think the money is well spent unless whoever owns the cows and raises the calves gets a premium for the best ones.  The producer/stockholders make the investment and the company collects the data. ASA doesn't have much to do with- unless they chose to waive the WHR fees for animals in the program- seeing as the data is useful to the Association.
Is it possible to own stock in CAB? I'm not even sure how AAA is involved.
 

wiseguy

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 17, 2011
Messages
143
Location
Bethany,Illinois
For the record I bred Kaper 4508 and have never been contacted by anyone from the ASA.
[/quote]

I know Lovings have been contacted and Marty is aware of the trial. Doesn't he own 4508?

The other comment I have is that these are being bred to angus cows for fall calves. We all know the calves will be smaller because of this. Additionally, we brought up these concerns to Dr. Shike. His exact words were, "I'm not concerned after breeding this group to Simmental and Charolais Bulls without problem." I agree that still doesn't mean we shouldn't be concerned. If you have a concern please contact a board member of the ASA.

I will say we wanted to keep back the F1 females and place them for future use. This is where I see great value, but that was not feasible or affordable at this point in time.

Once again, we have to start somewhere. People complain that the Association does nothing, then when they do something it's not the right thing.
 
Top