RyanChandler
Well-known member
Never had much luck keeping an animal in w/ that much length in good condition. Does he have the depth to justify that length?Cabanha Santa Isabel - BR said:
Some pictures of Western Canadian bulls
- Thread starter jaimiediamond
- Start date
Help Support Steer Planet:
justintime
Well-known member
-XBAR- said:
It is sometimes funny ( funny peculiar... not funny haha!) how things work out. Vanguard is the last Leroy son from natural breeding that we had and I think he is definitely the best.I could not believe how thick he was when he was born. His BW was 95 lbs. ( Remember a 95 lb BW in Western Canada would be somewhat smaller if the same calf was born in warmer climes, south of here). He is one of my favorites in this years bull pen.He also has hair like a muskox!
justintime
Well-known member
-XBAR- said:
I am thinking Zanzibar is deep enough. He is one of the most balanced bulls this year. I found last summer that when I was checking pastures and was scanning the herd to see if everything looked healthy. my eyes would stop when I looked at him. He always seemed to be standing exactly right and he has always looked very straight in his lines. His mother is one of the deepest and thickest cows in our herd, and she is very moderate framed. Another thing that always surprises me, is how much Zanzibar weighs. He is not the biggest bull in the pen but he is one of the heaviest. At the rate he is gaining, he could be around 1350 at 12 months. His BW was 92 lbs. What makes me like Zanzibar even more is his full sister ( Dora's natural calf in 2012) is my pick of the heifer calves as well.
justintime
Well-known member
Here is a better picture of Perfecto 33Z and Zodiak 20Z. It was snowing so hard when we took their first pics that we decided to retake these ones again. In the pictures Zodiac appears to be short haired. He actually has absolutely goofy hair, that you can hardly pull a comb through.
Attachments
JoeBnTN
Well-known member
- Joined
- Mar 10, 2008
- Messages
- 258
Really like your Zanzibar and Zodiac bulls- from the photos they seem to be the really complete type, bulls with performance, stoutness and good structure.justintime said:
I guess I look at them differently than some, but having had to take physical measurements on hundreds of cattle for a USDA research project, I'm much more interested in length than depth of body. Today it seems there's almost an obsession with how deep an animal is, but people seem to forget that in the bovine, the sternum or base of the chest floor lies between the front legs and extend back, enclosing and protecting the internal organs. Anything that lies below this line (for reference thing about the elbow pocket) is fat. It's not as many claim the sign of greater rumen capacity -- the rumen is inside the rib cage - so extra "deep" cattle don't have the ability to consume more, they just demonstrate an ability to add flesh. That's not necessarily a bad thing, but it's economic value is limited. A more important evaluation would be the rib cage circumference, as this is a better indicator of true capacity.
Length of body or more accurately, length of spine, is directly coordinated with carcass weight and yield, so it does have the potential to impact profitability for those who feed cattle. I'd have to go back and look, but I don't think there is a lot of correlation between depth and length, if memory serves me the correlation is between rib cage circumference and spine length. So you should not have to choose one in favor of the other.
Regardless, if you want deeper cattle because you need to add fleshing ability, you can still have length of body. As in any trait, excesses are not good, but within normal ranges, cattle that are longer spined will typically have greater performance that those that are shorter spined.
jaimiediamond
Well-known member
knabe
Well-known member
i like the jefferson bull the best.
i would like to see some of you awesome shorthorn breeders test breed some of doc-sun's bulls.
and i'd really like to see them crossed on some buster females.
where's the muridale bulls?
i would like to see some of you awesome shorthorn breeders test breed some of doc-sun's bulls.
and i'd really like to see them crossed on some buster females.
where's the muridale bulls?
RyanChandler
Well-known member
WOW. Rarely do I see something you post that I disagree w/ so adamantly. I evaluate cattle in terms of depth, width, and then length. If they don't have sufficient depth they get crossed off. Regardless of their width or length. Then Width. Again, They can be the longest spined animal walking -without adequate base width, I want no part of them- A huge # of shorthorn cattle w/ show genetics fall in this category; they look excellent from the profile but have no width from behind. And then finally length. If an animal has adequate (proportional) depth and width- then I will consider length. I am the biggest proponent of evaluating cattle's depth by their chest floor! This we agree on. Again this is where so many shorthorn cattle w/ show genetics disappoint me. They'll be tight as hell and pinched in the heart but will have some spring of rib and you'll hear them referred to as "deep bodied." A joke IMO. I use "deep" in not only describing rib cage circumference but in chest floor as well as it is the 'front' of the barrell. I agree that a low flank is no more than fat- though I will say I prefer this 'look' as opposed to a high flank.JoeBnTN said:
Of course there isn't a positive correlation between depth and length. It's a rare animal that exemplifies both characteristics as strong points. I don't think it is any coincidence that the longest spined bull pictured is also one of the shallowest bodied- again IMO. I would agree length of body has the potential to impact profitability for those that FEED cattle, but w/o proportionate depth and width, it negates from profit for those that RAISE cattle.
turning grass into beef
Well-known member
The Muridale bulls will be coming in the next few weeks.knabe said:
wiseguy
Well-known member
The Muridale bulls will be coming in the next few weeks.
[/quote]
What about the Saskvalley Bulls? I was hoping to see them on here soon.
[/quote]
What about the Saskvalley Bulls? I was hoping to see them on here soon.
JoeBnTN
Well-known member
- Joined
- Mar 10, 2008
- Messages
- 258
Ryan, I've got no problem with your priorities, in fact that's what makes the cattle business interesting - we can all have different opinions and appreciate how others look at them. In looking closely at your comments, I really don't think we're really that far apart. Like you, I fully agree that width of frame is important (note I said width of frame, not width of body -- there is a difference), as it's one of the the best visual indicators of true muscling in an animal. And in fact for me in evaluating an animal, after structural soundness - which for me is easily first in traits I look for, I would likely have frame width and the associated muscle structure second.-XBAR- said:
So our only real debate is length vs. depth - where I appreciate your thoughts and wouldn't try to change them. And, as we agree, depth is often poorly defined and evaluated by far too many. If you read my post again, you'll see I never advocated for the tubular, tight ribbed cattle, I simply said people are getting carried away with exceeds depth that is in actuality fat and in fact justifying this obsession with arguments that this excess depth adds value to an animal. I think you'd agree this isn't true. Something I would ask you to consider is the appearance of depth in an animal is impacted by its visual length, i.e. longer sided animals often appear to be shallower bodied than their shorter sided counterparts. Having taken real measurements of hundreds of cattle and then eventuating the results, I can assure you this illusion is real -- in fact it's no different than the puzzles you find that ask you which shape is longer on an axis -- the square or the rectangle - when they are both the same. It would be interesting to have the real measurement of depth on JIT's bulls -- my suspicion would be that the long sided bull that many are calling shallow would have as much real depth as almost every other bull. Being longer sided he simply appears shallower.
Where I do disagree with you is your last line where you agree that length is probably more important for those that feed cattle while its a negative for those that breed cattle. As one who breeds cattle and who has fed hundreds of cattle, this is a real point of contention with me -- the idea that one segment of our industry can/does/should operate independently of the other. That's why beef is under attack from pork and poultry -- both of these have learned to integrate the needs of everyone up and down the supply chain. The independent nature of cattlemen still manifest itself as " this is what's good for me and I don't care how it impacts you". Until we learn to optimization economic traits from the seedstock breeder, though the producer and on to the feeder and packer (even ultimate to the consumer), we will continue to lose share to our competitors.
Let me use the length vs. depth debate as an example. I fully understand the cow-calf producer who wants cattle that are easy fleshing and have adequate (not excessive) depth of body and spring of rib for capacity. Those are valuable traits that bring economic value to the producer and have no negative impact on the feeder or packer. What happens is that too much of a good thing, in this case those super deep, ground sows that many are promoting are in fact fat factories that simply have filled their lower one third with fat. Taking that extreme to the steer in the feedlot and you have an animal that will certainly carry adequate weight, but when taken to the kill floor will leave a larger portion of waste on the ground due to this excess fat. This hurts the packer and the feeder, as they have less product to sell and the animal is worth less. Likewise length can be misused in selection and create its own problems. For the producer, length is often associated with later maturity and increased size, which can have negative effect on their profitability. However, once in the feedlot that length has an advantage as there is generally more retail product per pound in longer-spined cattle. And that extra lean product means more money for the feeder and packer.
No matter how you rank the importance of these traits, the reality is that both traits are important and should be optimized -- thereby benefiting everyone up and down the chain. If depth is more important to you, then you need to keep that as a selection pressure, but it's not necessarily the same for everyone else. More importantly I would simply ask is whether your trait selection is profitable for you AND for everyone else in the supply chain. When we can all do that we'll be much more secure in having beef being a profitable commodity for everyone.
Thanks for your ideas -- I enjoy the discussion.
Joe
Okotoks
Well-known member
- Joined
- Aug 17, 2010
- Messages
- 3,083
[/quote]
Ryan, I've got no problem with your priorities, in fact that's what makes the cattle business interesting - we can all have different opinions and appreciate how others look at them. In looking closely at your comments, I really don't think we're really that far apart. Like you, I fully agree that width of frame is important (note I said width of frame, not width of body -- there is a difference), as it's one of the the best visual indicators of true muscling in an animal. And in fact for me in evaluating an animal, after structural soundness - which for me is easily first in traits I look for, I would likely have frame width and the associated muscle structure second.
So our only real debate is length vs. depth - where I appreciate your thoughts and wouldn't try to change them. And, as we agree, depth is often poorly defined and evaluated by far too many. If you read my post again, you'll see I never advocated for the tubular, tight ribbed cattle, I simply said people are getting carried away with exceeds depth that is in actuality fat and in fact justifying this obsession with arguments that this excess depth adds value to an animal. I think you'd agree this isn't true. Something I would ask you to consider is the appearance of depth in an animal is impacted by its visual length, i.e. longer sided animals often appear to be shallower bodied than their shorter sided counterparts. Having taken real measurements of hundreds of cattle and then eventuating the results, I can assure you this illusion is real -- in fact it's no different than the puzzles you find that ask you which shape is longer on an axis -- the square or the rectangle - when they are both the same. It would be interesting to have the real measurement of depth on JIT's bulls -- my suspicion would be that the long sided bull that many are calling shallow would have as much real depth as almost every other bull. Being longer sided he simply appears shallower.
Where I do disagree with you is your last line where you agree that length is probably more important for those that feed cattle while its a negative for those that breed cattle. As one who breeds cattle and who has fed hundreds of cattle, this is a real point of contention with me -- the idea that one segment of our industry can/does/should operate independently of the other. That's why beef is under attack from pork and poultry -- both of these have learned to integrate the needs of everyone up and down the supply chain. The independent nature of cattlemen still manifest itself as " this is what's good for me and I don't care how it impacts you". Until we learn to optimization economic traits from the seedstock breeder, though the producer and on to the feeder and packer (even ultimate to the consumer), we will continue to lose share to our competitors.
Let me use the length vs. depth debate as an example. I fully understand the cow-calf producer who wants cattle that are easy fleshing and have adequate (not excessive) depth of body and spring of rib for capacity. Those are valuable traits that bring economic value to the producer and have no negative impact on the feeder or packer. What happens is that too much of a good thing, in this case those super deep, ground sows that many are promoting are in fact fat factories that simply have filled their lower one third with fat. Taking that extreme to the steer in the feedlot and you have an animal that will certainly carry adequate weight, but when taken to the kill floor will leave a larger portion of waste on the ground due to this excess fat. This hurts the packer and the feeder, as they have less product to sell and the animal is worth less. Likewise length can be misused in selection and create its own problems. For the producer, length is often associated with later maturity and increased size, which can have negative effect on their profitability. However, once in the feedlot that length has an advantage as there is generally more retail product per pound in longer-spined cattle. And that extra lean product means more money for the feeder and packer.
No matter how you rank the importance of these traits, the reality is that both traits are important and should be optimized -- thereby benefiting everyone up and down the chain. If depth is more important to you, then you need to keep that as a selection pressure, but it's not necessarily the same for everyone else. More importantly I would simply ask is whether your trait selection is profitable for you AND for everyone else in the supply chain. When we can all do that we'll be much more secure in having beef being a profitable commodity for everyone.
Thanks for your ideas -- I enjoy the discussion.
Joe
[/quote]
Some very good points JoeBn TN. Even when you are producing maternal replacements you want their brothers to be able to make some money for the feeders and packers or you probably won't make a whole lot of money on that half of your calf crop.(or yourself if you opt for retained ownership)
I have to agree that you want those mother cows to be efficient and able to utilize whatever feed you have. I have seen some long bodied easy fleshing females but it's true they are rarer.
Ryan, I've got no problem with your priorities, in fact that's what makes the cattle business interesting - we can all have different opinions and appreciate how others look at them. In looking closely at your comments, I really don't think we're really that far apart. Like you, I fully agree that width of frame is important (note I said width of frame, not width of body -- there is a difference), as it's one of the the best visual indicators of true muscling in an animal. And in fact for me in evaluating an animal, after structural soundness - which for me is easily first in traits I look for, I would likely have frame width and the associated muscle structure second.
So our only real debate is length vs. depth - where I appreciate your thoughts and wouldn't try to change them. And, as we agree, depth is often poorly defined and evaluated by far too many. If you read my post again, you'll see I never advocated for the tubular, tight ribbed cattle, I simply said people are getting carried away with exceeds depth that is in actuality fat and in fact justifying this obsession with arguments that this excess depth adds value to an animal. I think you'd agree this isn't true. Something I would ask you to consider is the appearance of depth in an animal is impacted by its visual length, i.e. longer sided animals often appear to be shallower bodied than their shorter sided counterparts. Having taken real measurements of hundreds of cattle and then eventuating the results, I can assure you this illusion is real -- in fact it's no different than the puzzles you find that ask you which shape is longer on an axis -- the square or the rectangle - when they are both the same. It would be interesting to have the real measurement of depth on JIT's bulls -- my suspicion would be that the long sided bull that many are calling shallow would have as much real depth as almost every other bull. Being longer sided he simply appears shallower.
Where I do disagree with you is your last line where you agree that length is probably more important for those that feed cattle while its a negative for those that breed cattle. As one who breeds cattle and who has fed hundreds of cattle, this is a real point of contention with me -- the idea that one segment of our industry can/does/should operate independently of the other. That's why beef is under attack from pork and poultry -- both of these have learned to integrate the needs of everyone up and down the supply chain. The independent nature of cattlemen still manifest itself as " this is what's good for me and I don't care how it impacts you". Until we learn to optimization economic traits from the seedstock breeder, though the producer and on to the feeder and packer (even ultimate to the consumer), we will continue to lose share to our competitors.
Let me use the length vs. depth debate as an example. I fully understand the cow-calf producer who wants cattle that are easy fleshing and have adequate (not excessive) depth of body and spring of rib for capacity. Those are valuable traits that bring economic value to the producer and have no negative impact on the feeder or packer. What happens is that too much of a good thing, in this case those super deep, ground sows that many are promoting are in fact fat factories that simply have filled their lower one third with fat. Taking that extreme to the steer in the feedlot and you have an animal that will certainly carry adequate weight, but when taken to the kill floor will leave a larger portion of waste on the ground due to this excess fat. This hurts the packer and the feeder, as they have less product to sell and the animal is worth less. Likewise length can be misused in selection and create its own problems. For the producer, length is often associated with later maturity and increased size, which can have negative effect on their profitability. However, once in the feedlot that length has an advantage as there is generally more retail product per pound in longer-spined cattle. And that extra lean product means more money for the feeder and packer.
No matter how you rank the importance of these traits, the reality is that both traits are important and should be optimized -- thereby benefiting everyone up and down the chain. If depth is more important to you, then you need to keep that as a selection pressure, but it's not necessarily the same for everyone else. More importantly I would simply ask is whether your trait selection is profitable for you AND for everyone else in the supply chain. When we can all do that we'll be much more secure in having beef being a profitable commodity for everyone.
Thanks for your ideas -- I enjoy the discussion.
Joe
[/quote]
Some very good points JoeBn TN. Even when you are producing maternal replacements you want their brothers to be able to make some money for the feeders and packers or you probably won't make a whole lot of money on that half of your calf crop.(or yourself if you opt for retained ownership)
I have to agree that you want those mother cows to be efficient and able to utilize whatever feed you have. I have seen some long bodied easy fleshing females but it's true they are rarer.
JoeBnTN
Well-known member
- Joined
- Mar 10, 2008
- Messages
- 258
I'm wondering how much of this length vs. depth debate is due to the selection pressures of the recent past for leaner, later maturing cattle. In thinking back 30-40 years, I can recall a number of cattle in the Angus (Emulous, Shoshone, several Ankony bulls) and Shorthorn breeds (G-9, the Haumont cattle) that were very long bodied and easy fleshing. If you ever visited the Sutherland or Ankony herds in the 70's and early 80's, the pastures were full of really long, big ribbed easy keeping cows.
So if that's the case, what are the genetics today that could be used to breed these traits (i.e. longer spinded, easier keeping) back into our cow herds?
So if that's the case, what are the genetics today that could be used to breed these traits (i.e. longer spinded, easier keeping) back into our cow herds?
turning grass into beef
Well-known member
wiseguy said:
What about the Saskvalley Bulls? I was hoping to see them on here soon.
[/quote]
Same thing.
coyote
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jun 15, 2007
- Messages
- 499
jaimiediamond
Well-known member
jaimiediamond
Well-known member
Diamond bulls photographed January 3 2013 at 8 and 9 months
Prophecy 21P sons
Diamond Zipline 17Z, and Diamond Zircon are March 20 2012 calves
Diamond Zodiac 39Z is a April 4 2012
Diamond Zavier 44Z is a April 7 2012
Alta Cedar Timeless 36X
Diamond Time Zone 10Z is a March 11 2012
Prophecy 21P sons
Diamond Zipline 17Z, and Diamond Zircon are March 20 2012 calves
Diamond Zodiac 39Z is a April 4 2012
Diamond Zavier 44Z is a April 7 2012
Alta Cedar Timeless 36X
Diamond Time Zone 10Z is a March 11 2012
Attachments
knabe
Well-known member
Coyote I don't know if u answered this question or not buy why haven't u ever linebred buster?
jaimiediamond
Well-known member
Diamond bulls photographed January 3 2013 at 8 and 9 months
Glenford Captain 39X calves
Diamond Zeus 14Z is born on March 16 2012
Diamond Zimbabwe 18Z is born on March 20 2012
Diamond Zinger 43Z is born on April 7 2012
Diamond Zeke 48Z is born on April 14 2012
Diamond Z Boson 49Z is born on April 14 2012
Glenford Captain 39X calves
Diamond Zeus 14Z is born on March 16 2012
Diamond Zimbabwe 18Z is born on March 20 2012
Diamond Zinger 43Z is born on April 7 2012
Diamond Zeke 48Z is born on April 14 2012
Diamond Z Boson 49Z is born on April 14 2012
Attachments
coyote
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jun 15, 2007
- Messages
- 499
I guess we never tried because the Buster daughters crossed well with Alta Cadar Ultimate 130K and Bonanaza at the time. I will have to give it a try and see what happens.
