aj said:
TJ.......Have there been any studies or thoughts on lowlines birth weights or pelvic measure data or anything? I always thought that pelvic measure and bwt kinda went hand in hand. I know 30 years ago I used to measure pelvics on shorthorns. The big bwt girls always had big pelvic measures, and then when they calved they had bigger calves. so measuring them seemed to be a wash out cause by selecting for huge pelvic measurements you were selecting for big bwt cattle. I assume the lowlines might have smaller measurements but probably have smaller calves also. I used a half angus half lowline bull on heifers one year. He was such an aggressive breeder he was hard to keep in the pasture. I think the lowline deal has a place. If corn stays at4,5,6 bucks a bushel wouldn't they be a way to go!
aj... I'm not aware of any studies RE pelvic measurements taken from Lowlines. That would be an imteresting study.
I do know that Lowline females & calving problems are almost unheard of, though. Yes, they are smaller pelvic sized, because they are smaller in frame size in general. What I don't know is if their pelvic measurement is small, avg. or large based on their frame size. My Vet told me, after palpating a fullblood yearling, that he was suprised at how big she actually was inside, but I he told me that she was a lot wider than taller, although I might have that reversed. Also, yes, the majority of Lowlines are very low birth weight... my heaviest fullblood calf this year weighed 37 lbs. However, I've seen a few fullbloods with birthweights in the 70's. IMHO, it is crazy to raise Lowlines with 70+ lb. birth weights, but obviously some people don't agree, but very few of those larger BW Lowlines exist.
The only Lowline study (other than the one in Australia that produced them) that I am aware of is the NDSU-Dickerson study. They bred Lowline bulls to commerical heifers for 3 years. They measured birth size, calving difficulty & then tested the calves all the way to the rail, where they grossed, on average, in the $1,000 - $1,200 range. Finishing weights 1000 -1200 lbs. & frame scores in the upper 4's. I'm very close on those numbers, but I'll post the exact numbers later on tonight. Overall, the study proved that 1/2 blood, Lowline sired, calves performed favorably in every aspect. Those were sired by fullblood bulls. 1/2 blood bulls producing 1/4 blood calves will give a person even more gain/growth & will still be very easy calving.
FWIW, I've got a 1/2 blood bull (Lowline X Tarentaise - Grand Champ @ American Royal) that I plan to use & several commercial people have been really impressed with him. He had the largest scrotal of all the bulls that my dad or I kept (38 cm @ 11 months). I kept another Lowline X Tarentaise bull from my spring crop... at weaning, he also had the largest scrotal of any bull that we kept. I've also got a pretty nice, fall born Lowline X Red Angus bull calf that looks promising. Dori36, who posts on her sometimes, has an extra nice 1/2 Lowline X 1/2 Angus female. Also, I saw some extra nice 1/2 Lowline X 1/2 Angus females this summer too... one of them actually weighed 1400 lbs.!! I wish I had a field full just like her!!
You are correct, 1/2 bloods will work well in the commercial world & the 1/2 bloods are starting to gain some popularity in the commercial realm. I agree, $4, $5 & $6 dollar corn will only make Lowlines more & more popular. 1/2 or 5/8 blood bulls producing 1/4 or 9/16 blood calves will not only be very heifer friendly, they will also make some $$$ in the feedlot & on the rail, too. They will also make $$$ in an all-natural, grass fed or organic situation.