jakes proud jazz-30,000 pounds

Help Support Steer Planet:

aj

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 5, 2006
Messages
6,420
Location
western kansas
Instead of earth day I declare a "jakes proud jazz" day. I challange shorthorn breeders to use jpj on 3,000 cows. This will result in a total of 30,000 pounds knocked off of birth weights. Now that is a performance figure. If not him we could use Marty's double duty bull. ;D
 

red

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 20, 2007
Messages
7,850
Location
LaRue, Ohio
AJ, what have the BW's been averaging? I thought there some large calves being born?

Red
 

showman ne

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 9, 2008
Messages
259
yeah i thought i'd heard of some larger bw's too...also even if you dropped that 30,000 pounds they're probably never coming back not in weaning weight or yearling weight. not enough grow sometimes. he's not a bad bull by any means but he's certainly not the savior of the breed as some of you would like to believe. Just my opinion
 

justintime

Well-known member
Joined
May 26, 2007
Messages
4,346
Location
Saskatchewan Canada
I really struggle with this birth weight thing. That said, I do believe that we really do need to address it and get them under control somewhat.I agree fully that we need to get the monster birth weights under control.  My issue is that I am not convinced that if we were to get all Shorthorn calves to be born under say, 100 lb,that we would not have a new set of problems develop. I will give you an example of what I mean.

In our recent Sun Country Bull Sale, we had bulls from 5 breeders that were all fed together since last October, and we tested all the bulls for performance as well as did all the ultrasound testing as well for carcass traits. It was an interesting comparison of bulls from several bloodlines. All the bulls had been born unassisted at birth. BWs were from 71 lb to 113 lb. In the performance test, not one bull in the bottom half of the birth weights indexed over 100 for ADG or WPDA. I will say it again.... Not One. I also noticed that the best carcasses were found on the bulls with in the bulls with higher BWs. This one surprised me... and maybe it is coincidence.I will be watching this one in future tests for sure.

All this indicates to me that there is some magical line where we can keep performance and carcass quality along with moderate birth weights and calving ease. I will also say that there is a big difference between BW and calving ease, and oftentimes they really are not closely related.

I personally decided 8 years ago that I would not keep any bull calf that weighed over 110 lb or needed assistance at birth. Most of my bulls sell to commercial producers and I have not had one complaint about calving problems since I did this. I have two commercial producers who have each purchased over 12 bulls from me in the last 8 years. Both purchased more bulls in our recent bull sale. Both told me they have no calving issues with our bulls. Several of the bulls they have purchased have been 100 to 110 lb.

I had a lot of interest in the Salute bull we had in our sale that sold for $20,000. Almost everyone was concerned about his birth weight of 105 lb. I explained to everyone, that his recip mother was a very tiny Angus cow, and she calved him in literally minutes. I was doing chores when she started calving and I walked through the cows to see if any more were calving outside, and when I got back to the barn , this calf was already standing and trying to nurse.This was literally a few minutes later.  They don't get born any easier than this. Another bull buyer, ranches in one of the most rugged areas of N America. He selected my highest BW bull. He said that BWs were not as much an issue with him but he wanted to know if the bull was born unassisted at birth. He said he was more concerned about pounds of calf he sold than birth weights. Almost all his calves are born unseen by anyone.

I recently had a conversation with one of the largest order buyers in this country, and he said that it is much harder today to assemble pot loads of very uniform feeder calves than it was 20 years ago. He said that he thinks that part of the reason for this is the industry's obsession on low birth weights. I was very surprised by this statement. I asked him what he meant, and he said that he thinks we are producing shorter made calves today than we did a few years ago. His thoughts were that too many commercial producers were only selecting bulls based on BW, and some of the lower BW bulls are too short made. I never thought about this, but I do think he has a point. My point is, there are several other factors that affect calving ease other than birth weight. My vets tell me they have done several C- sections this spring on calves that weighed under 90 lbs. My question is why is this happening?  I am convinced that selection on BW alone for too many generations also, is selection for smaller pelvic area.There are some studies that show this as well. So..... I think we all need to be careful what we are wishing for, in regards to birth weights.

I saw this in our own sale. Before our sale started, one of my bull buyers asked me about their bull selections. This couple had a sale catalogue in which they had marked every low BW bull and in my opinion, they ended up buying our poorest quality bulls. I tried to suggest other bulls to them, but they said they were concerned about these bulls BWs, despite the fact that some of the better bulls were less than 10 lb heavier at birth. No selection trait was talked about more than the bulls BW, when I talked to potential bull buyers. I think it came up in every conversation. Some did not come to the sale because they felt our birth weights were too high. That is fine, as I doubt if some of these producers have any idea what a 80 lb calf looks like.

To me, BW is one of the most distorted numbers we use in this industry. I do not believe the BWs reported by some breeders are accurate. I have a good friend who raises Angus cattle, and he is diligent in weighing every calf at birth. He says he cannot get BWs as low as some other breeders despite using the same genetics. He had BWs this year as high as 120 lb from Angus bulls from reputation bloodlines. He had lots of calves over 100 lbs. I don`t think his management is much different than most other breeders. This said, we also need to remember that BW is not just the sires fault, but the bull will get blamed for everything. Feed, enviromental conditions, materanal genetics, exercise, and several other factors can affect the BW of the calf.It is not just the bull who affects the BW.

I guess my point is, that we all need to put a little thought into what we want to accomplish with our breeding selections. I am very concerned that we are heading down a road  where there is too little thought as to where we are going to end up. I try to select for calving ease more than I do for BW. It seems to be working here at least. As of this morning, I have 138 calves on the ground. I have assisted one birth other than 6 malpresentations. ( Two backwards and four legs back... all four of these were on heifers I was keeping for a friend who is battling cancer... not sure why this happened). All our commercial cows and heifers are bred to Shorthorn bulls ( 5 different sires), and every one of them calved unassisted. To me, I am beginning to wonder if this BW issue is as big as it is made out to be... or if it is just a little overblown. We need to be careful that, in the process of trying to moderate BW, that we do not eliminate some other traits this breed excells at. Remember, on average, a Shorthorn has approximately two square inches more pelvic area than other British breeds. Do we want to lose this .


 

kanshow

Well-known member
Joined
May 24, 2007
Messages
2,660
Location
Kansas
Very well said JIT!   

I would also like to add that we shouldn't forget the cows/heifers we are breeding them to.. they are 50% of the genetics and 100% of the environment.   
 

knabe

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 7, 2007
Messages
13,639
Location
Hollister, CA
justintime said:
All this indicates to me that there is some magical line where we can keep performance and carcass quality along with moderate birth weights and calving ease.

this line is a combination of a mean and an average.  it's probably like a balloon, squeeze in one area, and it comes out somewhere else.  nothing works in a vaccuum.  all you hear and feel is a giant sucking sound.

people don't seem to like average.
 

bradycreek

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 25, 2008
Messages
87
Location
Richmond, MO
I agree I just got into shorties but have been around cattle all my life. I've had to pull 85 lb calf (had pull with winch) from one cow a few years ago then the next year she had a whopper (at least for her 98lb calf born unassisted..literally in minutes). Now the difference...the head and shoulders not the BW. The first calves father threw calves a little rough shouldered and big headed. The second bull had some big calves but they were smaller headed and smoother shouldered.  I tend to look at birthweights but am just as interested in unassisted births.
dh
 

Jill

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 20, 2007
Messages
3,551
Location
Gardner, KS
Well said JIT, I can tell you from our experience that breed has very little to do with BW, we run several breeds and our birthweights on our Angus cows run very similar to the Shorthorn and Maines.  The only time we even look at BW here is for a smaller framed 1st calf heifer, for the cows I don't want calves any smaller than 80 pounds and prefer them in the 90-100 pound range, the smaller calves just take too long to catch up.  I have said it before, birthweight has very little to do with calving issues, the structure of the calves is what we really need to be putting a calving ease number on.
 

JoeBnTN

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 10, 2008
Messages
258
Our good friend in Canada is on target with many of his comments on birth weight – like any single trait selection you can easily end up with negative results with other traits.  There are a number of studies that have shown the high correlation that exists between birth weight (BW) and weaning weight (WW), and between weaning weight (WW) and yearling weight (YW).  Also studies have shown that the correlation is significant between BW and ADG, YW and feed efficiency.  So the results he saw with his bulls is understandable and I think his management practices reflects his skill at managing birth weight as part of his program.

What has been interesting in the (inter)national debate on birth weight is the lack of recognition of the negative impact of low BW.  If heavier BW is positively correlated to larger WW and YW (and ultimately mature size) then a lower BE should be associated with lower WW and YW.  By selecting over time for lower birth weights, producers are in fact selecting against performance.  I remember talking to an extension director about this subject several years ago when the Angus breed began its push to reduce BW and promote lower BW bulls.  I asked then, if a breeder put low BW as a primary selection tool, what would that mean to replacement female size and resulting calving ease.  If he stacked 2-3 generations of lower BW bulls what would that female look like?  I truly believe that a lot of the very frail, fine boned Angus we see today are the result of that type of selection management.

This leads to the other issue associated with calving ease – calf shape.  From a scientific standpoint this has been harder to document, as “shape” is harder to put hard measurements on.  Anecdotally however, it seems that there are some clear issues with shape – most notably skeletal width and circumference of bone.  In my mind this is the issue that the Shorthorn breed (and some others) must address. Because of the extreme focus within the breed of developing show cattle, the corresponding selection pressure has been to select cattle that have the attributes associated with show ring success.  As recent show ring selections have focused on cattle with extreme width, depth and bone the subsequent breeding decisions have identified cattle with the ability to produce these traits.  In some ways this is much like the TH “look” discussion – cattle that had the right “look” were favored irregardless of the impact on other economic factors.  As a result many Shorthorns today are bred to have the extra bone and mass to “win” with little regard for their production future.  Don’t believe me – a very well known Shorthorn breeder recently told me that if “we don’t have to pull ‘em, they probably aren’t stout enough to win.”

This is further compounded by the fact that, as many have noted, it does not seem likely that all calves with BW reported are actually weighed.  Some are measured by tape and others merely “eyeballed” out in the field.  Here’s where shape can play a big difference.  We typically use a tape to weigh calves – it’s fast and can be done by one person easily.  However, we from time to time also weight to check accuracy and we’ve found that for the “average” calf the weights match up very well, but when we get a really stout one we find the weights can be off by 7-10 lbs., with the tape being lighter. So if we used the tape we’ve under reported the weight by as much as 10%.

So I guess that gets back to the basic question about how we should use BW and truth be known there’s no easy answer.  But like JiT, I do believe it can be managed IF it’s part of a total selection package and not a singe trait for selection.  My apologies for getting on the podium on this – it’s been an issue for me and one that I used to include in my Beef Production class for students to consider.
 

knabe

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 7, 2007
Messages
13,639
Location
Hollister, CA
here's an interesting link on calving

http://www.cvmbs.colostate.edu/ilm/proinfo/calving/notes/abnormalcalving.htm

the pic labeled wrong way to pull illustrates clearly why this is a problem

i'm thinking that shoulder angle appears to be an important trait for calving ease as it may not allow free forward extension to minimize profile through the canal.

can't wait for JIT's second article.

make sure you look at the links with the dead calf and artifial womb.
 

Attachments

  • elbowlock2.jpg
    elbowlock2.jpg
    57 KB · Views: 932
  • pelvis3w-text.jpg
    pelvis3w-text.jpg
    65 KB · Views: 908
  • normal forward presentation.jpg
    normal forward presentation.jpg
    32.8 KB · Views: 902
  • wrong way to pull2.jpg
    wrong way to pull2.jpg
    30.4 KB · Views: 916

aj

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 5, 2006
Messages
6,420
Location
western kansas
I guess there isn't a problem with bwt's in the shorthorn breed. I stand corrected. I hope to use jpj in my next breeding rotation. I've allready lined my matings up for little man and my Durham Red bull, and red angus bull. It just seems like shorthorn breeders by god don't want to get serious about lowering bwt's. I don't think we can linebreed small birth weights cause there are not enough options out there. It just seems if breeders would just once use a low birth weight bull on those 1600# cows that generally have 110# calves that the breed would be better off. Very few shorthorn breeders retain ownership in cattle in feedlots. Use them as club calves.Who cares what their yearling performance is anyway. Most showring shorthorns can't compete in real world enviroments without supplementation anyway. Heaven forbid if we loose the 1 % of commercial bull market share we as the shorthorn breed now dominate(because of poor performance in yearling weights). You know me......I never want to stir up problems. ;D
 

knabe

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 7, 2007
Messages
13,639
Location
Hollister, CA
aj said:
I don't think we can linebreed small birth weights

this is probably not true.  frame score was easily reduced by daine's in maine's with smithbuilt, as was birth weights by line breeding.  grant said he could get about a single frame score reduction from smithbuilt in the first generation linebreeding him.  animals in the wild are semi line bred as a lot of bachelor males are eliminated from breeding.  if a male had problems with birthweights, he wouldn't have many progeny, females may be reduced, and then when he was defeated, a more subtle outlyer, probably with less of a BW problem would replace him, and if that one had no bw problems, in short order, his influence would be felt rather quickly, perhaps not quickly enough in breeder lifetime years.  perhaps this is why some say the minimum stay for a breeder to make progress is 7 years.
 

aj

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 5, 2006
Messages
6,420
Location
western kansas
I do think that almost al the time(in a situation where a front leg is back at birth) it is because the calf is large and it is harder for the cow to push and line the calf up in proper position. I've had one vet tell me that almost all calves he has pulled with a front leg back are big calves. As far as bwt's correlating with yearling performance look at the abs sires. They have all kinds of curve benders with low bwt's and huge yearling weight epds. The pelvic measurements of the full sibs might not be great but I can't see that cattle can't be decent bwt  and still top the scales at weaning.ABS has proven it.I do think that as knabe said....there are always tradeoffs ind breeding decesions. There is no doubt in my mind that shorthorn breeders aren't worried about poor performance in low bwt cattle....they are worried about not having the look in the showring. You can't compete in the showring without the 110# bwt's "thats what it is". Then we wonder why the commercial cattleman is so stupid in not using shorthorn bulls in their operations. (argue)
 

justintime

Well-known member
Joined
May 26, 2007
Messages
4,346
Location
Saskatchewan Canada
aj... I am not saying there are not some BW and calving ease issues  in the Shorthorn breed. There definitely are some..... but there are also some in most other breeds as well. I also have heard of some monster size calves from JPJ. I heard of one a few days ago at 132 lb. I am not necessarily blaming the bull as I don't know the rest of the story, but I am sure he will get the blame. I have also spoken with a breeder who has used JPJ extensively, and he told me that some of his calves are good, but there are some that have extremely poor performance. He has had yearling bulls by JPJ that weighed 850 at 12 months... and these bulls came from some of his very best donor females.  I am not saying that they are all like this, but obviously some are. Can we accept this as part of our mission of getting birth weights under control? We really need to consider what we have to give up in order to gain in another area. I am not sure about where you live, but 850 lb breeding age bulls will not get a bid in my country. More importantly, what will the sisters to these bulls be like when they enter production? If some of the " boys" are weighing 850 at 12 months, I am sure that some of the " girls" are considerably smaller... and I would be interested to see if there are any pelvic size issues with some of these smaller framed heifers. I do not think there are pelvic area correlations between yearling size and weight but I do think there are negative correlations between lower BW and pelvic size.

I hate to bash any bull in this discussion, as I am sure JPJ has a great place in our industry. It seems to me that many are running to him as if he is the savior of the Birth weight world. I am sure he will continue to sire some great offspring, but how many " throw aways" can any of us afford in the pursuit of some great ones?  

I am only saying we need to use some caution when we select using single trait selection. JoeB ,made some excellent points in his post above. As foryour comments about using low BW bulls on your 1600 lb cows, you may have a good point... but exactly how big a calf should a 1600 lb cow have? I take exception to your comment about losing the 1% of the commercial bull market. True the Shorthorn breed does not have a very big piece of the commercial bull market, and it may only be 1%, I do not know. Selling bulls to commercial producers may not be of any interest to you.... but it certainly is a big part of what I do. Commercial bull sales are becoming a bigger part of my business every year... and if 1% is where we are now, then I hope we can achieve 2 % in the near future. At least I am planning on working on increasing the marketshare this breed has. I find that most breeders who say they cannot sell Shorthorns to commercial producers really have never tried ... or they are producing a product that doesn't interest a commercial man.

Also your comment that few Shorthorn breeders retain ownership in cattle in feedlots, may be true in your area, I do not know. I would guess that there is a higher number of Shorthorn breeders that retain ownership through to slaughter than many other breeds. Our ultrasound data on our bulls was interesting. The ultrasound technician had collected data on a few thousand bulls before she did our Shorthorn bulls. She said she was extremely impressed with the carcass data the Shorthorns provided. Here in Canada, the highest premium ever paid by Cargill, on a set of finished animals was paid to a set of 100 purebred Shorthorn steers. This set of steers all were delivered on the sale day to the feedlot and they were sold in one group to the packer. As well, they were sent to market 12 days earlier than any other set of cattle that were delivered in the same time frame. The feedlot owner said that even without the 12 day benefit, this was a very signifiagnt cost saving.... the premium of almost  $120 per head was an additional bonus.

I would agree that some of the cattle that see a show ring are cattle that do not thrive well after their show career is over. Personally, I think many others can survive and do so very well. There are always exceptions to any rule, but I have seen many breeding cattle of both sexes that have had great show careers as well as great breeding careers after the fluff and puff of the show ring is long gone. I simply do not think we can make any generalizations regarding any bloodline or any individual animals in this regard.

 

justintime

Well-known member
Joined
May 26, 2007
Messages
4,346
Location
Saskatchewan Canada
aj... I for one, would never consider any commercial man stupid.Commercial producers are some of the smartest cattlemen I know. Just because they decide to not use Shorthorn bulls does not make them stupid or smart. Most times they have excellent reasons for what they do. It is my job as a Shorthorn breeder to firstly, raise cattle that will be of interest to them. It is then just as important to provide them with the information that will interest them. Thirdly, it is my job to politely persuade and lobby them to try the Shorthorn product. I find that almost every  commercial man I have got to use a Shorthorn bull for the first time, has been a repeat customer. Many of them become my very best bull buyers.
 

simtal

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 3, 2008
Messages
1,066
Location
Champaign, IL
The term that should be used for BW is moderate.  Just like moderate milk production.  The pig people have already looked at this.  Granted, sows don't have much trouble farrowing but, should there be a minimum birthweight?  IMO Calving ease is better trait to account for dyscotia, as it accounts for differences in calf shape. If you continually select for low birthweight bulls over time, pelvic area will decrease.
 

kanshow

Well-known member
Joined
May 24, 2007
Messages
2,660
Location
Kansas
We've never used Shorthorns in our commercial herd for a few reasons that I can think of...  the biggest being the availability of enough bulls of the right age priced for commercial use and within a reasonable distance from us.    I also don't think with our current marketing program, we can afford to have a bunch of roan calves. 
 

Jill

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 20, 2007
Messages
3,551
Location
Gardner, KS
I think we are all overlooking 1 thing, Jakes Proud Jazz is "calving ease" that is what he is marketed and praised for, with that however, he also downsizes, so if you're breeding for single trait selection you are going to get some poor performers, if you breed him to a 1200 pound cow and he downsizes that calf your going to have a dink, there aren't any other options.  I like JPJ, we have some nice calves out of him, but we flushed him on a 1800 pound cow, big difference.  I think the main thing in breeding is knowing where you're starting with in your cow/heifer and then making the decision that compliments what they need.

I also don't think commercial men are stupid, but I do think most of them are set in their ways and when they have been paid a premium for black hided cattle it's hard to change that line of thinking.
 

JoeBnTN

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 10, 2008
Messages
258
It’s interesting that in all this discussion of heavy, light, and moderate birth weights no one has talked about “optimum” weights.  To me that’s been the problem – like most trends in the cattle business over the past 40-50 years we want everything at the end of the pendulum, not in the middle.  I don’t agree with AJ’s assertion that there’s no BW problem in the Shorthorn breed – there is one.  But I think that there is an equal problem with calf shape and design that contributes to the breed’s lack of commercial success.  You can’t address one without addressing the other. 

Like JiT we value the commercial bull trade – ours is just based on a 30 cow herd, selling 4-5 bulls per year.  But like JiT our buyers come to us because they can find bulls that don’t cause problems and do improve their cow herds – which by the way are mostly black.  Our biggest difference is that our bull buyers won’t buy a bull with a 100# BW, but they do want the biggest, fastest growing “most impressive” bulls.  And like JiT we really don’t hear any complaints about BW problems, but in visiting our customers I would guess most are getting 80-90 lb. calves that come easily.

Again I think it comes down to selecting for optimums – we don’t want the biggest or the smallest, we want cattle that exceed the average for total performance and do it without additional problems.
 

kanshow

Well-known member
Joined
May 24, 2007
Messages
2,660
Location
Kansas
I also don't think commercial men are stupid, but I do think most of them are set in their ways and when they have been paid a premium for black hided cattle it's hard to change that line of thinking
  That is so true... I'm willing to let someone else be the guinea pig because I dont' want to be the one that might take a price hit.
 
Top