Line 1 Herford type deal

[aj]

I got to thinking it would be so cool if there was a Shorthorn herd of 100 cows in a program that was like the line 1 program at Fort Keogh Livestock and range research deal. 5o years of selection......no show ring stuff....mainly numbers with physical evaluation of udders and some structure issues. They would identify a near perfect cow as far as economical traits are concerned. This cow would be cloned and embryo'ed to heck. Her indexes(not epd's) would be stayability 105    milk 102    rea 100    imf 105    cem 105    ced 103    ww103      yw 101. Who knows what the input genetics would be? Because even an outlier of a show bull may show up. No breeding for show ring stuff in general though. I suspect that a herd like Keith Lauer or Dover or something like that would develop. Cull as hard as you can index wise but still maintain numbers. I think the results would be interesting as heck. Maybe not line breed(at least initially) just cull......apply enviromental pressure and stress stayability. It takes forever to get movement with 3 or 5 or indexes.

 

[aj]

I assumed milk should be moderate cause of tough range conditions and that IMF correllates at least a lttle to fleshing ability.

 

[aj]

I would theorize that a milk index of over 102......might start dragging down your excellent 105 stayability index....in theory only. Who knows unless you tried it. The 101 yearling index would suggest adequate growth yet keep cow size down.

 

[aj]

The 100 rea index would be adequate yet rely on your terminal sire to add top quality carcass traits to raise the perfect feedlot steer.

 

[aj]

And then.........WORLD PEACE.......except on steer planet.

 

[oakview]

If you started your project when you were extra smart, let's say right after graduating from college, you wouldn't live long enough to get paid for your extra effort.  I was not familiar with the Keough Project you referred to, so I got on their website.  As I expected, it is a government operation so I naturally assume money is no object.  I would wager they have an endless supply of labor, quite unlike my herd.  I quickly scanned through their home page and noticed that right after they described the Line 1 group, they mentioned how linebred they were and noted the accompanying loss of performance.  I couldn't help but notice that one of the stated goals was to keep the price of beef low.  Will that help us?  MARC data has usually been favorable to Shorthorns.  In fact, 15 years ago, one of my friends that runs a 100 cow Hereford herd, asked his Association fieldman why he shouldn't turn a Shorthorn bull in with his cows after he read the data.  I participated in a Shorthorn Association sire test 35 years ago.  My bull performed quite well accross the board.  I truthfully couldn't tell you that I, or any other of the participants for that matter, felt any benefit whatsoever.  The information gathered from this type of project is important, interesting, and useful, but if you're expecting a payback, don't hold your breath.

 

[Okotoks]

If you started your project when you were extra smart, let's say right after graduating from college, you wouldn't live long enough to get paid for your extra effort.  I was not familiar with the Keough Project you referred to, so I got on their website.  As I expected, it is a government operation so I naturally assume money is no object.  I would wager they have an endless supply of labor, quite unlike my herd.  I quickly scanned through their home page and noticed that right after they described the Line 1 group, they mentioned how linebred they were and noted the accompanying loss of performance.  I couldn't help but notice that one of the stated goals was to keep the price of beef low.  Will that help us?  MARC data has usually been favorable to Shorthorns.  In fact, 15 years ago, one of my friends that runs a 100 cow Hereford herd, asked his Association fieldman why he shouldn't turn a Shorthorn bull in with his cows after he read the data.  I participated in a Shorthorn Association sire test 35 years ago.  My bull performed quite well accross the board.  I truthfully couldn't tell you that I, or any other of the participants for that matter, felt any benefit whatsoever.  The information gathered from this type of project is important, interesting, and useful, but if you're expecting a payback, don't hold your breath.

We had the same deal in Canada with the government rearch stations using Shorthorn. They closed the herd and had two groups, one where they selected for weaning weight and a control group where they didn't. They shut that down in the 80's but I think at the time there was over 50 lbs. difference in the two groups at weaning. Easy enough to do if the government pays for it!

http://www.ars.usda.gov/is/ar/archive/mar10/hereford0310.htm

 

[aj]

Still kinda interesting stuff though. Started in 1934........crosbreeding was frowned apon at the time. Some data indicated that a added 2 pound bwt would increase weaning weights by 11 pounds......three quarter of Herford pedigrees go back to line 1. The line 1 showed no genetic defects in all their linebreeding so when outcrosses were looked for with the dwarfism and epilepsy genetic defects the y were used.

 

[aj]

I didn't notice the deal about it being a government plot to keep beef cheap.

 

[oakview]

On the page that comes up when I search for Fort Keough livestock and range research, there is a narrative that describes the project.  In other words, a few paragraphs where the grant writer attempts to justify the free money.  The opening paragraph states (I have to paraphrase a little since the grammar and sentence structure is not the best) to improve efficiency and nutritional value of beef.  Research helps keep the price of beef low and helps keep ranching and farming sustainable.  Later, it is stated that Line 1 Herefords are 30% linebred with consquently reduced fitness.  Further on there is a statement that research at the lab is focused on reducing the impact of ranching on the rangeland ecology.  I'm glad this topic was brought up.  I need to examine this project further.  I noticed they are also studying the impact of cattle grazing on forest and range fires.  The Honorable Harry Reid stated yesterday that the western fires are the result of global warming.  The conclusion is obvious.  Cattle pass gas that causes global warming.  Cattle strip all vegetation in the landscape except things that will burn.  Thunderstorms are caused by global warming and lightning is a direct result of a thunderstorm.  That proves cattle cause fires and should be eliminated.  I am nearing 60 and I know we never had range fires, thunderstorms (with lightning), or cattle flatulence when I was young.  Harry better introduce legislation fast.  A 2,500 page document no one reads ought to do the trick.

 

[aj]

On a advanced search I came across a paper by M. D, MacNeil. There was a study of index's over 3 generations of birth weight correlation to yearling weight. If I read the summary right he concluded that you can make progress in selecting for lower bwt and maintaining yearling weights. I spose the curve bender bulls that ABS sells semen on are for real. It sounds like to make a statement that in order to have a big yearling weight you have to use a bull with a 100# birth weight......is riduculous. Seems like using a big birth weight bull to get big yearling weights would be the EASIEST way to get there though.

 

[RyanChandler]

And the CHEAPEST way.

 

[Limiman12]

Bw and weaning weight have to correlate at least somewhat, and I would think the same could be true for yearling, though things like mature frame size and feed efficiency can make up the difference over the course of the year much easier.....  I know my two favorite heifers in our herd right now are out of the same sire, about 35 pou ds difference in BW and I suspect that their will be double that at weaning......  It took that 55 pound heifer a long time to get to ninety, where the first one started.  Both good heifers that have a lot to offer though so it will be interesting to see what they are as yearlings, two year olds and mature weights.......    Btw no such thing as perfect cow, because not everyone is looking for the same thing.    Perfect for the cow calf man, for the feedlot guy, or the guy that takes them from the pelvis to the plate?

 

[trevorgreycattleco]

If a cow is perfect in your own mind, then isn't that all that matters?

 

[aj]

It might not be cheapest for the customer though. You sell a bull with a 100# birth weight to a family. If they lose 2 calves because of dystocia thats a 500 $ cost there. And in the excitement to get the cow to vet........the one night...........the tailgate gets smashed and torn off the pickup....1500$. Then you are stopped by police cause there is a light out on the trailer. With the bad light and the lack of safety chains you are fined 1500$. Then the cop smells your breath..........you get a dwi.......your wife goes alone to the vet. 2,000$ dwi cost        2,000 lawyer fee.....5,000 increase in insurance fees.........divorce..80,000$. Soooo the net cost of the 100 pound birth weight bull....    91,000 dollars. priceless

 

[RyanChandler]

I'm not talking about 100lbers.  Just the advantage of 85-90lbers over 65-70lbers.  There are those 65lbers that will rival their larger bw counterparts for ww but they are gonna co$t ya!

 

[knabe]

the bw epd for shorthorn has all that factored in?

make something aj and save us.

since you don't have any shorthorns and aren't buying any, maybe you are.

 

[Duncraggan]

AJ, charge it all to your Mastercard! <party>

 

[knabe]

i remember when 95lbs was a good bw on a bull.

anything less than 90 was viewed as only for use on heifers as performance suffered too much. yes, cows were bigger then.

things have changed now, but looking for a 65lb bw on too many bulls is probably not a good idea unless the performance can clearly be decoupled and understood what is going on.

 

[aj]

From a historical stand point.......it would be interesting to graph bwts of a breed of say the Herfords. I doubt the data exist's. Would the bwts of a 1920 Herford have been bigger than the baby beef cattle of the 50's and 60''s Herford? Did the belt buckle cattle have 60# bwt's? Also.......when did the practice of using a "heifer" bull begin? I'm guessing it started in the mid 70's but I don't know. Never heard John Wayne mention a "heifer" bull in movies. When the Herford's and Shorthorn's started being used on say longhorn cattle......were there calving issue's? Would the beef industry be better off if we would have raised the calving ability threshold slowly and just evened out a 85# average. What caused the "heifer" bull phenonom? Exotic cattle being used in the 1970's knocking the threshold out of whack? Was it heterosis of cross breeding  that bounced birth weights around? Or did people use heifer bulls in 1920? I assumed they paid attention to first calf heifers.....or did they? Is it going to be an on going breeding practice("heifer" bulls)? Pushing the limit on cows.....especially if its a terminal mating?