Leader 21 heifer

[justintime]

I do not know exactly how tall Leader 21st was, but he certainly would be considered to be a moderate frame by today's standards. If my memory is correct, he was a taller bull than his grand son, Jakes Proud Jazz.
From the two calves I have here, I think Leader 21st can definitely moderate frame on some of today's  bloodlines. I flushed Presto to him as I wanted to see what he would do on a bigger framed cow... and , to be honest, i was afraid to breed him to a smaller framed cow in case the calves were too small framed. These calves are definitely smaller framed than their dam, and I think they are going to almost where I want to be, in regards to frame size. As I mentioned in a previous post, many of Leader 21's sons, matured into bigger framed bulls than he was himself. Personally, I think this was probably due to the genetics from the dams side of the pedigrees of these bulls.

Both my calves appear to have adequate muscling, but, as I said earlier,  until I get some ultrasound done, I will not know for sure.  Both have good volume and depth of rib, and I think these traits are coming from both sides of the pedigree. As you stated, Presto is a deep sided tank of a cow.  The Leader 21 bull calf has huge testicles and they are well formed and hang properly. I was very glad to see this as many Shorthorns from that era had testicles that were tipped. I think the Leader cattle were pretty good in this regard( I don't recall any issues in them). I am liking these two calves more and more as they get older. These two calves were the lowest BWs we had this year( with the exception of some twins and a premature birth). When they were born, I was actually wondering if they were going to be twins. I have had embryos split and result in twins before. This wasn't the case in either of these.
+

 

[justintime]

oakbar... forgot to mention that I really like the Myrtle Bo cow you have in you avator. She is a very good female. I have some Myrtle Bo cows and they always come through with some of our best calves. I am selling two Major Leroy heifers in " the Fever" sale on Oct 16th that are both Myrtle Bo's, and they are two of our best calves this year as well.

 

[oakbar]

JIT,

Thanks for the positive comment on "Myrtle".  She's done a really good job for us.   

Where can I find a website on the "Fever" sale?  I'd like to take a look at your heifers!!

Oakbar

 

[Doc]

aj, I don't think JIT is full of crap, on the price of commercial bulls. Reread his post for one on the guys who bought the bull, there was one comm. guy. But they sell $10k to $30k commercial Shorthorn bulls all the time in Australia, Scotland & other places all the time.

 

[justintime]

aj... you are right in that most commercial producers do not and will not pay $10,000 or more for a bull.... BUT.... if the genetics are right, and the bulls are right, there are some commercial producers who will pay this and more.

There are lots of well established commercial ranchers who consider their herd bulls to be, in the same category that a grain farmer considers his tractor and/or combine. And you have to consider the fact that there are lots of commercial producers who happen to have lots of money from other sources. Some have received large inheritances. Some are completely debt free and are 3 or 4 generations on the same ranch. Some have sold a piece of land for good dollars... and where I live.. some make hundreds of thousands a year from oil produced on their land. There happens to be commercial producers in many areas of the US and Canada that would rather spend more on a good herd bull than they would a new truck.I know of many commercial producers who can out bid the average purebred breeder on any given day. Of course these guys are few and far between, but they do exist.

Doc is correct in saying that many Australian commercial bulls sell for large dollars. In Scotland, most breeders price their commercial bulls in the yard, starting at 5000 pounds... or $10,000 US. It is a different market place entirely. A cull cow in Britain will fetch close to $2000 as well.... so it is a different world than we know.

 

[justintime]

oakbar.... sorry for the delay in responding. I missed your last post. The Fever sale catalog is on our website www.horseshoecreekfarms.com. The pictures of our cattle were taken in mid July so they have changed a bunch. I am hoping to get some more pics taken in the next couple weeks and will have them on our website as well.

 

[aj]

What old shorthorn bulls have semen available today for sale? Is getting certificates a problem. I wish someone would get all this semen together and make it available. It would be interesting. Maybe we could start a list here.Everyone post the names of old bulls that semen is available.Lets make this internet deal usefull.

 

[garybob]

I maybe should have been clearer in my last comments. Of the 8 owners of the bull, only 1 is entirely a commercial producer. I am not certain why he decided to be a partner, other than he thought it might be an investment opportunity.  The other 7 are purebred producers, and 3 of these have sizable commercial herds along with their purebred herds. I am letting them decide whether they want to sell semen or not. As far as I am concerned, I wanted some semen to use in my own herd and to use in flushing some donors. I flushed one donor to him in May and I think we have 4 calves coming in 09.  

As I said, I do not know if they are going to sell semen from Timeline or not. I suspect that all the owners will meet at a fall show or sale and make some of these decisions.

In regards to scrotal circumference and symmetry, I think the Leader line was good for both these traits.There were some problems with some other lines in this era ( 60s and 70s).  I will add that I also agree with oakview in that if breeders are doing their jobs right, each generation should result in some cattle that are better than the previous one. I have gone back and used some old genetics simply because there seems to be a trend to go back and use some of these genetics again.As they say..... the buyer is always right. I have seen some good results and I have seen some calves from these older sires that do not  set the world on fire. I am not sure why there is such a trend back to using older genetics, especially here in some parts of Canada, other than I think it is more of a fad than anything. Some useful cattle will result for the use of these sires, but some are using sires that were no good back then... and they are just as poor today. I suspect the breeders using some of these will not be happy with the calves from some of these.

Just a 'garybob' question, but, do you think these 2 calves (Leader 21st-sired) have a more "breed character" look to thier head? I always thought some moderne Shorthorns don't even look like Shorthorns used to. Amen to what Coyote and SJCC said. AJ, too.

The Truth was vulgar, but, honest.

GB

 

[justintime]

GaryBob... you are probably right, in that today's cattle do not have the same breed character as Shorthorns from the past.  I am not sure if the breed character from the cattle of the 50s to 70s was the right type of breed character either. When I look at pictures of cattle from that era, I see far too many with extremely short heads, buggy eyes and far too much width between the eyes. Personally, I like cattle to have some width of skull ( between the eyes) but it can become a major calving issue if it is extreme. Around my place, at least, once a heifer or cow has pushed the calf's head out of the birth canal, the calving is more than 50% done. Many times it is only a few more pushes and the calf is born.

I remember reading some of Bonsma's lectures and he maintained that the length of the head is extremely important. I cannot remember it all, and I should go back and re read some of this, as it was really fascinating. He claimed that the length of the animals body should be 7 Xs the length of the head. He had a number of other relationships between the length of the head and the leg of the cannon bone, etc. etc etc, and I do believe there are some relationships and I think Bonsma was right in his analysis.

In regards to my two Leader 21st calves, you can tell that they have slightly different heads than some other of today's genetics. I  was concerned for awhile that they may be a little too short in their head length, but I now think they are fine. The bull calf is showing much more masculinity earlier than some of my other bull calves. Early maturity is a good trait, as long as they don't quit growing too fast.

I think breed character changes with time, just as any other trait does. Polled Herefords of today, do not have the same ' breed character" as Polled Herefords of the past. The same can be said for any other breed. That said, there are definitely cattle today that do not have proper " breed character" and there also was in any era.

 

[OH Breeder]

GaryBob... you are probably right, in that today's cattle do not have the same breed character as Shorthorns from the past.  I am not sure if the breed character from the cattle of the 50s to 70s was the right type of breed character either. When I look at pictures of cattle from that era, I see far too many with extremely short heads, buggy eyes and far too much width between the eyes. Personally, I like cattle to have some width of skull ( between the eyes) but it can become a major calving issue if it is extreme. Around my place, at least, once a heifer or cow has pushed the calf's head out of the birth canal, the calving is more than 50% done. Many times it is only a few more pushes and the calf is born.

I remember reading some of Bonsma's lectures and he maintained that the length of the head is extremely important. I cannot remember it all, and I should go back and re read some of this, as it was really fascinating. He claimed that the length of the animals body should be 7 Xs the length of the head. He had a number of other relationships between the length of the head and the leg of the cannon bone, etc. etc etc, and I do believe there are some relationships and I think Bonsma was right in his analysis.

In regards to my two Leader 21st calves, you can tell that they have slightly different heads than some other of today's genetics. I  was concerned for awhile that they may be a little too short in their head length, but I now think they are fine. The bull calf is showing much more masculinity earlier than some of my other bull calves. Early maturity is a good trait, as long as they don't quit growing too fast.

I think breed character changes with time, just as any other trait does. Polled Herefords of today, do not have the same ' breed character" as Polled Herefords of the past. The same can be said for any other breed. That said, there are definitely cattle today that do not have proper " breed character" and there also was in any era.

I think it is interesting to look at shorthorns and other british breeds from the past. They did have smaller rounder features in the shape and design of the head. From what I was always told is that a long narrow head the calf usually is tall and narrow. it is funny to see how the length of the head equates to the size of the somewhat mature animal.

 

[TJ]

I am old enough to remember the 60s and the 70s... and believe me... I NEVER, EVER  want to go back to those kinds of cattle!  I remember very well, the  cows with huge gobs of fat around their tail heads and the 1200 lb steers with 8 or 9 inch ribeyes, that received huge discounts at  the packer. .. cows with terrible udders. I remember mature bulls that had problems breeding cows because they were too low to the ground and way too fat. 

Yikes!  If you had cattle that were that bad, I don't blame you for not wanting to go back.  I know I wouldn't put up with problems like that for very long.   Still wont.  Cattle either work out or they get shipped... that is my philosophy.  Yeah, it might be OK to put with a minor issue occasionally, but what you described is well beyond minor!  That would've been more than enough to make me want to stop raising your breed, if they all were truly that way.  FYI, even my Lowline bulls can successfully breed full sized Angus & Tarentaise cows, some of the Angus cows are as big as 2,000 lbs.  And Lowlines have well over 1 inch of rib eye per 100 of body weight.  Some are over 1.5 inches per 100 lbs.  But, the most disturbing part of your post is the "cows with terrible udders"... double yikes!!!!!  Your horror story has me seriously 2nd guessing using older Shorthorn genetics.  I really hate to hear stories like that, but glad that I did before I bought some semen & made a mistake.  I see some good potential, but I keep hearing all the negatives too & I just feel like I am on a big roller coaster RE my potential future involvement with Shorthorns.        





     

 

[JoeBnTN]

I think one of the reasons why breeders are using old bulls is because there is too much exotic blood in the Shorthorn breed now, people want to get the Shorthorn back in Shorthorn.
One thing that is hurting the breed right now is the hard doing cattle. Buy using some of these better old bulls it is adding some fleshing ability and guts back into our cattle.

These "better" old bulls were bred and raised by cattleman with talent and a gift for raising cattle..They bred like to like they linebred the best to the best and they did not buy a new bull from half way across the country every 3rd year!  They were also limited by the amount of inputs they had.. There were no yields of 200 bu/ acre CHEAP corn to fix a poor breeding decision! Poor breeding decisions were fixed before the next season began! There were no EPDs to screw everything up. These men knew what a truly profitable animal looked like. Its a real shame that we could not go back in time and slaughter every Exotic bred animal that came into this country in the 70s and 80's  The per capita consumption of beef in North America today would be staggering!!!

I have to agree with JiT on this one.  I've been fortunate that I have been able to see some of the "great" herds in their prime - places like Arcadia, Morlunda, Theiman's (the T in TPS), and Ashborne Farms all come to mind.  The cattle that were "Hot" and seen as the breed's elite were exceptionally fat and small framed.  While carcass testing and carcass standards were really not in vogue, I would doubt that many of them would have had a great carcass - except that a high number of them would have graded Prime.  They really weren’t that easy fleshing –they were just fed to look that way – just like today!

Much of what I learned about feeding and fitting started with two good cattlemen - one had worked for Hot Moore at CMR Polled Herefords in Mississippi and the other worked for Mathers Brothers - the precursor to Leveldale - when they still took show cattle to Chicago via rail.  Both of them told me about the rations that were fed, how they were cooked and what they did to get cattle to eat as much as possible --- just to get them fat and VERY deep.  The feeders and fitters of today don't have anything on the old timers - they could get their cattle to look perfect just as well.  Only the definition of perfect was different!

What I find interesting in the discussion of JiT's heifer (which BTW I like) is that we still tend to think of her in the extreme.  Some don't think she has enough bone or muscle shape, but for what I wonder?  Her bone is more than adequate to be productive and have longevity as a cow so how much more does she need AND why?  Muscle - well what are we producing - cattle that are functional and meet consumer demand or freaks with excessively large ribeye areas.  It never fails to amaze me that most of us don't know what muscle is and how much we need.  

Has anyone ever looked into consumer panels to see what size rib eye the consumer wants in their home or at the restaurant?  According to data from the Beef Industry Council – a “perfect” rib eye is about 12.5 square inches at ½” thickness – why because that’s a portion size for the average consumer.  Get it much bigger and it has to be cut so thin that it doesn’t cook well or it’s too big for a serving.  How many cattle today are bred to meet that standard?

Shorthorns have the potential offer an almost perfect opportunity for the consumer focused producer – the muscle area is adequate and they can still marble with less external and seam fat, although not as well as they used to.  And not to knock JiT’s heifer or her genetics, but you don’t have to go back 4-5 generations to do that – there are cattle today that can meet that standard and make money for their owners.  Don’t believe me, then check out the final data from any steer feedout in the country that includes Shorthorn steers.  The bigger problem is no one pays the premium for those kind of cattle like they do for the “show” cattle.

Anyway sorry to digress – and I hope I didn’t take anything away from the discussion on JiT’s heifer –she’s a keeper in my book.  I just think before we start reminiscing on the “glory years” we take a look around us and see that there are plenty of opportunities right now all around us.

 

[oakview]

Most of the cattle of all breeds produced when I was young would now qualify for the "yikes" category referred to earlier.  Most of the cattle we raise today will probably be referred to as "yikes" cattle 40 years from now.  Somewhere I have the sale catalog for Shadow Isle Angus from the early 1950s.  One of their main herd bulls was Prince Eric of Sunbeam.  He was so short legged that his knee almost touched his hoof.  Maybe a cross of one of his daughters on Ildeno would be interesting!  I'm trying to find a picuture of my Leader 21 heifer that won the junior show at the Iowa State Fair in 1970 to post for your enjoyment.  The judge was in charge of the Pioneer beef herd at Rhodes at the time, sorry I can't remember his name.  He told us after the show if he could find 40 Shorthorn heifers like ours, Pioneer would have a Shorthorn herd.

 

[shortyjock89]

Oakview- I totally agree.  Most cattle were like that back then.  Lowlines are essentially the same thing, only with some improvements in udder and leg issues.  I would love to see that Leader 21 heifer. 



All the breeds are different today than they were in the 50's, 60's, 70's, 80's, and even early 90's.  If they never changed, some people would have nothing to gripe about.

 

[TJ]

Most of the cattle of all breeds produced when I was young would now qualify for the "yikes" category referred to earlier.  Most of the cattle we raise today will probably be referred to as "yikes" cattle 40 years from now.  Somewhere I have the sale catalog for Shadow Isle Angus from the early 1950s.  One of their main herd bulls was Prince Eric of Sunbeam.  He was so short legged that his knee almost touched his hoof.  Maybe a cross of one of his daughters on Ildeno would be interesting!  I'm trying to find a picuture of my Leader 21 heifer that won the junior show at the Iowa State Fair in 1970 to post for your enjoyment.  The judge was in charge of the Pioneer beef herd at Rhodes at the time, sorry I can't remember his name.  He told us after the show if he could find 40 Shorthorn heifers like ours, Pioneer would have a Shorthorn herd.

I'm old enough that I was around before Chi's became popular.  I know what pre-Chi cattle looked like.  With that said, it's one thing to be extremely small framed and it is quite another to not be of any use.  Not being able to breed females, terrible udders & 8-9 inch rib eyes has very little to do with frame size & more to do with the cattle themselves.  I raise a few cattle that are 1920-1940 era, fullblood Angus, but I certainly don't raise what JIT described.  It's not the frame size, it's the cattle & you wont convince me otherwise... I see proof before my own eyes.  I am not a fan of extremely small cattle.  I like frame 4 cattle.  But, I do have some frame 00, frame 0 & frame 1 cattle that have rib eyes larger than 10 inches, no substantial udder problems & they can breed 2,000 lb. Angus cows.         


                                   

 

[aj]

Joe...boy I don't know about the grading choice deal on modern Shorthorns. I had 10 steers in the proof positive shorthorn deal in Montezuma, Ks this last year. The modern Shorthorns are efficient, gain well and are mainly 2's and 3's on yield grades but I think we come up short on the marbling deal. We just can't seem to hit the 70,80, % choice deal anymore. I have not seen final official data on the feedout yet but I think there is work to be done. I think the Angus cattle bang in better marbling results as a breed but they do have more 3's and 4's.Of course there are outliers and variations within a breed and a maternal breed maybe won't win carcass contest's anyway but ...if we are honest as a breed we need to improve marbling I think. Just a observation.If the king has no clothes on we need to call it that way. The Angus breed has alot more data and they are the 800 # gorilla as of this point. I still think we need to find a Shorthorn bull with grading ability in order to play catch up.

 

[TJ]

Much of what I learned about feeding and fitting started with two good cattlemen - one had worked for Hot Moore at CMR Polled Herefords in Mississippi and the other worked for Mathers Brothers - the precursor to Leveldale - when they still took show cattle to Chicago via rail.  Both of them told me about the rations that were fed, how they were cooked and what they did to get cattle to eat as much as possible --- just to get them fat and VERY deep.  The feeders and fitters of today don't have anything on the old timers - they could get their cattle to look perfect just as well.  Only the definition of perfect was different!

What I find interesting in the discussion of JiT's heifer (which BTW I like) is that we still tend to think of her in the extreme.  Some don't think she has enough bone or muscle shape, but for what I wonder?  Her bone is more than adequate to be productive and have longevity as a cow so how much more does she need AND why?  Muscle - well what are we producing - cattle that are functional and meet consumer demand or freaks with excessively large ribeye areas.  It never fails to amaze me that most of us don't know what muscle is and how much we need.  

Has anyone ever looked into consumer panels to see what size rib eye the consumer wants in their home or at the restaurant?  According to data from the Beef Industry Council – a “perfect” rib eye is about 12.5 square inches at ½” thickness – why because that’s a portion size for the average consumer.  Get it much bigger and it has to be cut so thin that it doesn’t cook well or it’s too big for a serving.  How many cattle today are bred to meet that standard?

Shorthorns have the potential offer an almost perfect opportunity for the consumer focused producer – the muscle area is adequate and they can still marble with less external and seam fat, although not as well as they used to.  And not to knock JiT’s heifer or her genetics, but you don’t have to go back 4-5 generations to do that – there are cattle today that can meet that standard and make money for their owners.  Don’t believe me, then check out the final data from any steer feedout in the country that includes Shorthorn steers.  The bigger problem is no one pays the premium for those kind of cattle like they do for the “show” cattle.

Anyway sorry to digress – and I hope I didn’t take anything away from the discussion on JiT’s heifer –she’s a keeper in my book.  I just think before we start reminiscing on the “glory years” we take a look around us and see that there are plenty of opportunities right now all around us.

The Meacham family raised Shorthorns in our area before I was born.  However, Ralph Meacham told me stories about how they used to cook corn, oats & barely and fed it to their Shorthorn show string.  JoeBnTN is right on.  They also used straw to hide the animals lower legs & hooves, to make the legs appear shorter.  All that makes me conclude that some of those older genetics aren't quite as dumpy, especially in pasture condition, as they appear in the pictures.  But, that also leads me to believe that they make work well in an umpampered enviornment.

I also agree that the heifer has adequate bone.  Why would it need to be bigger?  It's a heifer, not a fat steer competing at a major show.  Tarentaise were always critized for being smaller boned, but they did quite well in the Oklahoma Steer Feedout & the Great Western Beef Expo.  Usually having HIGHER dressing percentages than other breeds!  Unless you are talking the showring, bone is overrated, IMHO.    

And I also agree about the 12.5 inch rib eye size.  A 1,000 lb. steer should produce a 12.5 inch rib eye.  That is exactly what the consumers want.  Most don't want a 18 inch rib eye from a 1,500 lb. steer.  Now I will agree that the feedlots & some of the packers want bigger cattle, but if you produce what the consumer wants, you will always be able to move your product.  And if done correctly, you can acheive a premium with finished steers.  I see people doing it all the time.

And I can't argue that the show ring can lead people to chase fads that they would not otherwise chase, because at least right now, show animals command a premium.  With that said... will they always?  Who knows what may happen 5 - 10 years from now.      

I may not necessarily agree 100% with your whole post, but I would rather focus on what I do agree with than what I don't necessarily agree with.

 

[justintime]

By the way, I was not referring to the cattle on our farm in my rant about not wanting to ever go back to the cattle I saw in the early 60s. I was referring to my experience working part time on one of the breed's top herds at that time. Here on our farm, we had cattle that were too small framed but my dad would never tolerate poor udders and gobby fat cows. This meant that many cows went to town in a relatively short period of time. I have toured though at least 20 herds in the last year, all across Canada and the US... and I maintain that today's herds are composed of much better cattle than there ever was back a few decades ago. Yes, some may need to down size slightly to become more efficient, but that can be obtained in one or two generations with the right sires. Many have spent the best parts of their life times trying to get where they are today, from where they were 30 years ago. Quite honestly, I have seen some excellent herds of true brood cows in the past 3 weeks. Let's concentrate on the good ones.

 

[JoeBnTN]

Joe...boy I don't know about the grading choice deal on modern Shorthorns. I had 10 steers in the proof positive shorthorn deal in Montezuma, Ks this last year. The modern Shorthorns are efficient, gain well and are mainly 2's and 3's on yield grades but I think we come up short on the marbling deal. We just can't seem to hit the 70,80, % choice deal anymore. I have not seen final official data on the feedout yet but I think there is work to be done. I think the Angus cattle bang in better marbling results as a breed but they do have more 3's and 4's.Of course there are outliers and variations within a breed and a maternal breed maybe won't win carcass contest's anyway but ...if we are honest as a breed we need to improve marbling I think. Just a observation.If the king has no clothes on we need to call it that way. The Angus breed has a lot more data and they are the 800 # gorilla as of this point. I still think we need to find a Shorthorn bull with grading ability in order to play catch up.

AJ,

Actually I think you are correct - it is harder to get a YG 2 to grade Choice, BUT Shorthorns will do it better than most - at least at common end points.  When I worked on the USDA grade system research we found that REGARDLESS of breed there is a negative coorelation between lower YG and Quality scores.  To get a typical Angus steer to be a YG 2, we typically had to harvest them at lighter weights than the industry desired, if we got them to 1250 and higher we increased the YG but also improved grading score.  Continentals went the other way - at lower weights the Quality score was poor but the YG was better.  This really like three legged stool - with harvest weight, YG and quality score being the legs.  If anyone gets too far out of whack - the end product is affected.  There's a lot of data that indicate the Shorthorn breed has the POTENTIAL to keep the stool in balance by having optimum carcass weights with a balance between YG and Quality score.  But that's also the end result of a change in consumer preference - when I was a kid nobody wanted meat that would grade "select" it was always Choice.  Now, with health conscious dieting there's more pressure to be lean with a little less intramuscular fat. 

Any way don't mean to preach.

 

[JoeBnTN]

AJ,

Go to the link from M-Bar for me sent earlier today.  The bull in Troy's picture is a son of JR Legacy 23G - a bull we found and used heavily - before he went to Indiana and then Kansas.  I would argue that his kind will work anywhere.  While I don't like to put too much stock into small data sets, we did harvest several steers from the 23G bull - including one that went through the Indiana steer test.  Consistently we got steers that harvested at 13-15 months weighing 1150-1300, all YG 2-3's and ALL grading Choice.

The cattle are there - we just need to find folks who will pay a premium for them.