Captian Morgan Calves

[common sense]

Looks like the right kind. They appear to have some foot. I like!

O.K., I'm in. I agree with Jack. I like to see a big foot on cattle. It's a great indicator or longevity and soundness although it probably isn't always an indicator of bone size. I have seen a lot of cattle with very small feet and yet huge boned. I hate a small foot as it will quite often lead to many soundness issues which in turn will usually mess with their overall structure. Rarely will you find an animal still in production or still breeding cows when they are carrying some age if they are small footed. They will normally develop other issues that shorten their productivity. So, I would have to say, from a breeders standpoint, that having a big foot is a very important part of the entire picture.

 

[kfacres]

interesting approach.. i'm leaning either way.. just playing dumb and curious

 

[thunderdownunder]

well its better than little foot aint it???? it is associated with big bones and structure

Right I'm in too....

When you want your steers/feeders to yield well, big boned cattle aren't at all what you want.
Greater yield = more meat = more profits.

The calving ease on a big footed, big boned animal is also quesitonable.

Yes, you want some bone - you don't want toothpicks - but there is a fine line between good bone and too much.

 

[DakotaCow]

I personally have always wondered where the saying sound as a cat comes from. When you analyze a cats structure you dont often think of a good structured steer or heifer. Just something to think about.

 

[fed_champions]

Truth.... We always talked about bone size in reasons and our coach got on a kick one day, he said dont talk about bone unless its directly correlated to structure... I got to thinking and ive seen crippled animals that were big footed and boned, and ive seen them frail... so i asked my assistant coach, Christian Schroeder, he said "have u ever seen an unsound deer? bone has nothing to do with it" and i agree.

 

[kfacres]

Truth.... We always talked about bone size in reasons and our coach got on a kick one day, he said dont talk about bone unless its directly correlated to structure... I got to thinking and ive seen crippled animals that were big footed and boned, and ive seen them frail... so i asked my assistant coach, Christian Schroeder, he said "have u ever seen an unsound deer? bone has nothing to do with it" and i agree.

exactly my point...  i remember the days of reasons, and those discussions...  but you know what?  We still talked about bone, bone and more bone...  Why? because peole still like looking at it- it looks cool...  Have you EVER seen anything in 'nature', that was XX chromosome that wasn't feminine made, which does not include BIG BONED?

I'd like to see if there are any scientific studies been done on this topic-- doubt there is... 

Another topic that I've questioned over the years is depth of flank...  Sure in females it tends to lead to easier keeping, longivity, etc...  but in fat cattle- those super deep ones are slightly discounted as it tends to negitive YG (KP Fat)...  Why do we select for something that in the livestock market gets looked down at in the commerical world? 

 

[Show Steaks]

Another topic that I've questioned over the years is depth of flank...  Sure in females it tends to lead to easier keeping, longivity, etc...  but in fat cattle- those super deep ones are slightly discounted as it tends to negitive YG (KP Fat)...  Why do we select for something that in the livestock market gets looked down at in the commerical world? 

Lower flank is more appealing to the eye as well as an indicater to a higher capacity for carrying both roughage in the rumen as well as baby calf.
yield grade analysis the amount of red meat, flank should have no effect upon that.

What it will effect on those soggy cattle is "dressing percentage"

 

[justintime]

I like to see big feet that are well formed on an animal, especially on a herd bull. I was always told it has much to do with longevity and being able to cover large areas of pastures. Maybe the size of a foot does not have the significance it once had but I still feel it has some importance. I also like to see an animal with some circumference of it's tail. Maybe this is an old wive's tale, but I think it is a sign of overall do- ability.I can remember my grand father and dad putting their hand around a bulls tail at a bull sale and determining by that whether a bull was worth consideration to buy.

 

[kfacres]

Another topic that I've questioned over the years is depth of flank...  Sure in females it tends to lead to easier keeping, longivity, etc...  but in fat cattle- those super deep ones are slightly discounted as it tends to negitive YG (KP Fat)...  Why do we select for something that in the livestock market gets looked down at in the commerical world? 

Lower flank is more appealing to the eye as well as an indicater to a higher capacity for carrying both roughage in the rumen as well as baby calf.
yield grade analysis the amount of red meat, flank should have no effect upon that.

What it will effect on those soggy cattle is "dressing percentage"

Dressing % yes you are correct..  but KPH Fat is fat, and animals will have fat over the whole body, even in the flank.. so in ratios, the more fat they have in flank, the more fat they have in the rest of the body...  thus effecting YG.  Internal fat is internal fat, no matter  where it is on the carcass, even though only certain parts of it are calculated.  Cattle fatten from front to back, top to down...  so if the rear flank is full, that is the last place they should fatten, thus meaning the rest of the body is fatter. 

 

[kfacres]

I like to see big feet that are well formed on an animal, especially on a herd bull. I was always told it has much to do with longevity and being able to cover large areas of pastures. Maybe the size of a foot does not have the significance it once had but I still feel it has some importance. I also like to see an animal with some circumference of it's tail. Maybe this is an old wive's tale, but I think it is a sign of overall do- ability.I can remember my grand father and dad putting their hand around a bulls tail at a bull sale and determining by that whether a bull was worth consideration to buy.

did they worry about bone back then?  It's interesting at these old wives tales that get passed down through the generations..  are the still relevent or just tales?  Never heard the tail one before... 

I still don't see what a big foot has to do with covering large ammounts of ground..  seems to me correct structure has more to do with it, big foot just usually sets below a big bone, which in turn goes hand in hand with a big head/ neck.. and all of this looks masculine...  which is desireable in bulls..

perhaps, this theory has everything to do with the shorthorn world's problems of calving ease..  big foot= big bone = big head = big calf = hard calving


TO Continue stirring the pot (pop)

 

[chambero]

Our structure problems nowadays really aren't about bone, its about soft tissue (ligaments, tendons, cartilage) that can't handle the heavy weights being put on them by the amount of extra muscle cattle carry nowadays.  The question is, is bigger bone/foot size an indicator of larger/stronger soft tissue in the joints?

 

[thunderdownunder]

big foot= big bone = big head = big calf

This I agree with. Having said that, I believe you need a decent sized foot and bone if you are ever going to get any performance out of an animal.
High birthweight = high performance, low birthweight = low performance, is the general rule, though we are seeing increasingly more 'curvebenders' which break this tradition.

I also like to see an animal with some circumference of it's tail. Maybe this is an old wive's tale, but I think it is a sign of overall do- ability.I can remember my grand father and dad putting their hand around a bulls tail at a bull sale and determining by that whether a bull was worth consideration to buy.

Interesting you should mention this. I remember years ago an old stock agent who much admire and respect, telling me he would never look at a bull with a 'rat's tail' because they were bad doers.
I have to say that since then, I've abided by this too, and I have to say I agree. The thickness of the tail seems to carry through to the rest of their body and I know the rat tailed animals I've seen, have been pretty hard doing and ordinary.

 

[kfacres]

big foot= big bone = big head = big calf

This I agree with. Having said that, I believe you need a decent sized foot and bone if you are ever going to get any performance out of an animal.
High birthweight = high performance, low birthweight = low performance, is the general rule, though we are seeing increasingly more 'curvebenders' which break this tradition.

this i agree with 100%...  look at the problems of the Angus breed shooting for calving ease through birth weight...  those little ones will never catch up!

I always heard the best indicator of animal thickness came on the other side of the body.  the width b/w the eyes.. some old fart from KState could tell if a calf was thick enough by just running them through the chute and looking at their eyes...  Perhaps a thick enough animal is thick enough through the whole body, and not one single indicator is correct, but they all work together for the same goal?

 

[Aussie]

I always heard the best indicator of animal thickness came on the other side of the body.  the width b/w the eyes.. some old fart from KState could tell if a calf was thick enough by just running them through the chute and looking at their eyes...  Perhaps a thick enough animal is thick enough through the whole body, and not one single indicator is correct, but they all work together for the same goal?

Yep an old block told me the the same short in the head short in the paddock. Which is usually true they are quick to finish and moderate framed.