When we get where we’re going… will we know why we’re here?

[JoeBnTN]

In a number of posts under a couple of other topics, there is quite a discussion of type and kind – and the difference between show cattle and “real world’ cattle.  Many good ideas and opinions have been posted and I promised I was going to stay out of the fray… but those of you who know me know how hard that is for me.  So here’s my $.02.

A couple of weeks ago I was at our state 4-H and FFA show watching my niece and nephew show.  Waiting on the Shorthorn show I was watching a friend judge another breed when a very well known cattle breeder walked up and started talking to me.  “John” is a third generation beef producer whose family has been active in two breeds over the years, he’s been on the national boards for both breed, has owned two national champions and used to have one of the top production sales in the country – in short he’s a bona fide purebred breeder and I’ve always respected his opinion.  “John” was watching his grandson show a pretty fair heifer when he looked over and said something like, “These damn show cattle are ruining the breed.” 

His next comment really made me stop and think because he said, “Joe, you’ve judged lots of shows and know most of the guys judging today.  When are you all going to figure out that the type of cattle you’re picking have no relationship to the cattle business?”  Needless to say this led us to a long discussion of what he thought was wrong and how it could be fixed.  “John” was the first to admit that “show” cattle and working cattle have always been somewhat different, but he contended that the differences were further apart today than they had been in the more than 60 years he’d been in the cattle business.  We talked about this separation and what was going on in the show ring and it really got me to thinking (which can be a dangerous thing).  How had we reached this point and did we know why we were here?

Since that time I’ve really tried to look into my own expectations and beliefs to see if I agreed fully with “John” or to see if I could find some middle ground.  A few things have run through my mind and I thought I’d throw them out for others to discuss.  First, the steer show has changed dramatically over the past 10 years – probably not for the better.  For many years the top steer shows in the country weren’t complete until the carcass show was done.  If you were a judge you better bring your “A game” to the show and really know what’s under the hide of an animal because in 48-72 hours, your Champion steer’s carcass was going to be hanging for the world to see and to tell everyone whether you knew your stuff.  As a result the steers that generally won were top quality carcass steers that just happened to be attractive enough to work their way to the top.  Judges were skilled in their evaluation of the carcass – even if they couldn’t actually see it on the hoof.  As a result the top show steers were really just the “cream of the crop” of the beef industry, prettier versions of their feedlot bound siblings and the genetics used to create them were relevant across the board.

However a few years ago we got away from carcass shows – too few plants and too much cost made these events prohibitive, if not impossible to conduct.  Instead we started picking the winners based on our own visual appraisal.  Since it was hard to get actual data, fewer judges took the time to learn how to look under the hide and instead sought to identify the top steers based on height, width, depth, etc.. – traits that could be visually estimated, yet not really correlated with the carcass underneath.  Accordingly it became easier to look for the animal that represented the extremes – the thickest, the deepest, the boldest framed – rather than the one that represented the optimums.  As this progressed, fitters got better and so did the breeders at giving the judges what they wanted – selection pressure began to be placed on animals that represented the most extreme traits, with little regard for their relevance to the rest of the industry.

As selection pressures changed in the steer show, so did they in the purebred rings.  Why? Because the same people that were judging steer shows were judging purebred shows and it would be asinine to say that show steers should have one type and everything else another.  So the excesses and extremes of the steer show made their way into the purebred ring.  Breeds began to lose their identities and unique strengths as we homogenized the type we were looking for.  Don’t agree – name a breed show today where the judge isn’t looking for the thickest, deepest, loosest, or softest.  The result is that the Continentals got smaller and the traditional breeds got bigger – Angus and Shorthorns gave up maternal traits, the Simmys and the Charolais gave up some lean growth.  Was some of that good – no doubt, but should all breeds look and act the same?

That leaves us today with far too many purebred cattle that no longer have the unique strengths that made them great contributors to our cattle industry.  Issues like unacceptably high BW in Angus, something unheard of 30 years ago are now common.  Shorthorns (who have always had significantly heavier BW’s than other British cattle) now have calving problems.  I contend this is due less to the weight issue, but rather as JiT noted to the change in shape we’ve asked them to assume.  Far too many European cattle today don’t grow AND they don’t milk, so what are they adding --- raw muscle and excess bone.

Back to “John” for a minute – after our discussion he said, “You know it’s always been this way.  One day the show ring folks will go too far and then we’ll start to turn around and go the other way just as fast as we can.”  In thinking back over the over 40 years I’ve been involved and the changes I’ve seen, he just might be right.  And that’s the damn shame.

Just my rantings on a late afternoon.

 

[inthebarnagain]

AMEN BROTHER!!!!!!!

Which just happens to be the same conversation my husband and I seem to come around to with our neighbors and fellow cattle producers.  In the steer shows (which thankfully our daughter wants no part of), even though they divide them by the breed, the only real difference between the breeds will be between the color of the hide.  The grand and reserve will almost always have the exact same body type and style, regardless of the breed. 

When it comes to judging heifers, unless they are specifically showing in a market heifer class, they should be judged for their abilities to one day be a cow.  I agree that they need to have style, structural correctness and NATURAL thickness, their purpose is to raise babies after all and some of those babies will be steers.  However, I draw the line at a heifer that looks like she would have made a great steer, if she makes it as a cow without a feed bucket tied around her neck, I will be surprised. 

Our daughter had Grand Champion heifer last year at our county fair.  On Friday, when the cattle were released we brought her straight home and turned her out in the field.  The ONLY grain that her fat butt has had since then was when I was trying to get her to come down and get her shots this spring and fly tags, and she looks great as a first calf heifer.  I will try to get some pictures and post them as we are pretty proud of her.  IMO that is the type that should be winning in purebred or even open shows in the heifer classes.

Guess that is why we don't do a lot of open shows and when we do, we stay in the middle of the classes.  But then again our feed bill is limited to our show heifers.  In this day only feeding two animals versus the 40 that we own is a good thing. 

Got the pictures!

 

[Turkey Creek Ranch]

Well, I always look forward to someone bringing this up. There are 2 groups/types of cattle, and producers now-a-days. There are the show cattle producers who raise for mostly eye appeal, and that want to win. Then there are the "Production Oriented" producers who want cattle that will hold together, and produce strong cows, bulls, and cattle that will grow well. As far as in the show ring, yes, you need to have a good looking steer to compete, and that road is just fine. If you are producing cattle for a living, to sell or feed out, you want more of the production type cattle. BUT, there is a place where it works great to cross these 2 roads. A feedlot owner told me that his favorite type of feeding cattle are 1/4 Maine.

So whatever road you choose, is based on what you want. From a judging stand point, you are looking for that look. A judge will almost always choose a well groomed, fancy Maine or Char X steer over a plain jane angus that is meant to be growthy and make you money in the feedlot.

Turk

 

[simtal]

I think one of the biggest fallacies is predicting carcass value on the hoof.  We can visually determine (to some accuracy) fat cover and and yield grade, but as far as marbling goes, it is a complete crap shoot.

 

[justintime]

I agree with your comments Joe. I also think we have too many college and pretend cattlemen judging our shows, that have never had to rely on their cows for a living. Sometimes, it seems that the judges are picked for their ability to speel off the " canned comments" they have learned rather than for their cattle knowledge. I think being a judge is more than having good cow sense. You have to be able to speak before crowds and you have to be convincing in your comments. This is not something that lots of people have.

There has always been so called show cattle and commercial cattle, but think you are right in saying that the distance between them seems to be growing wider. That said, I do think there still are cattle that win in the shows that can have an impact in the commercial ( or real world) setting. There are also lots that won't work in the real world.... but that is nothing new... it has always been this way.

I just wish we could see a little more open mindedness, and a little more tolerance in people's attiutudes on these topics. I sometimes think that simply because someone is successful, they get painted by some as being crooks, mafia, or close to Satan himself. Their cattle are bashed and called no good. I have seen cases of this, where I can see no other reason that this is happening othr than pure unadulterated envoy of the other person's success. That is blunt but I can see no other reason. There are people in every breed who truly believe in what they are doing, and go the extra mile to promote their product. I applaud these people, no matter what type of cattle they raise. Oftentimes, these same people do not raise cattle I can use or cattle I can afford. I still applaud them, as they have committment and they are doing a good job in not only raising their product, but also marketing their product.

I guess I am oftentimes appalled by the intolerance I see in some peoples comments on here. I do not think these people do much to further their cause. As the old saying goes " you catch more flies with sugar than you do with vinegar".

You have brought up some thought provoking comments and I think you are correct in saying that when a trend starts to swing, it oftentimes goes far to far in another direction. If you don't believe this, look back through breed journals over the past 20 -30 years. You will see how far these swings can be... and I doubt if cattle producers are any smarter today.
I remember  my dad and grand father saying that when the small framed cattle of the 50s to 70s were in style, they were highly promoted by ag extension and university people as being " the right kind". They were wrong as the packing industry had no use for this type. I hope we are careful in who we listen to today.

In

 

[JoeBnTN]

I think one of the biggest fallacies is predicting carcass value on the hoof.  We can visually determine (to some accuracy) fat cover and and yield grade, but as far as marbling goes, it is a complete crap shoot.

I would respectfully disagree - but only if the person is well trained.  I will agree it can be a problem with show steers because they are so artificially managed, but for feedlot cattle, a trained evaluator can get a very high percentage of cattle right for both YG and Quality.  But the number of people who can do this is rapidly decreasing and few seem interested in learning how, so you may be right.

 

[aj]

I guess you could drag me yelling and screaming to kinda agree with everybody on "shape of the calf" thought. I still think calving ease is 1.Birthweight and 2. Pelvic area(and even more important is pelvic shape. The shape of the calf to me is a catch phraseor even a (I better shut up). There has to be a happy medium. But on the calves I've had to pull they were big calves and they failed to get one leg started up right and It doubled back. It is because the calf is big. I have never had a small calf with a leg back. There are progressive big ranches that check on calving cows once a week over a 1000 acre pasture in rough tough country. I can't talk to these guys about the shape of calves...or that their cows pelvic regions are to small. They have done things right for a hundred years. Also, alot of ranch cattle didn't follow the overfat small framed fad of the 60's or whenever. They kept more middle of the road. They didn't follow the lead of the brilliant Purebred breeder. It wasn't the fact that the frame was to small it was that they weren't rangy. I think you can have a frame 5 cow that is plenty big enough. You select for stayability. You apply natural selection pressure. You don't even have to select for soundness cause mother nature will do it for you.Extreme epds won't survive mother nature either. Excellent discussion. It all goes back to environment. Like usual we're dry here. Goodland Ks has had around 5 inches of rain for the year.Guess I'm cranky.sorry

 

[JoeBnTN]

I guess you could drag me yelling and screaming to kinda agree with everybody on "shape of the calf" thought. I still think calving ease is 1.Birthweight and 2. Pelvic area(and even more important is pelvic shape. The shape of the calf to me is a catch phraseor even a (I better shut up). There has to be a happy medium. But on the calves I've had to pull they were big calves and they failed to get one leg started up right and It doubled back. It is because the calf is big. I have never had a small calf with a leg back. There are progressive big ranches that check on calving cows once a week over a 1000 acre pasture in rough tough country. I can't talk to these guys about the shape of calves...or that their cows pelvic regions are to small. They have done things right for a hundred years. Also, alot of ranch cattle didn't follow the overfat small framed fad of the 60's or whenever. They kept more middle of the road. They didn't follow the lead of the brilliant Purebred breeder. It wasn't the fact that the frame was to small it was that they weren't rangy. I think you can have a frame 5 cow that is plenty big enough. You select for stayability. You apply natural selection pressure. You don't even have to select for soundness cause mother nature will do it for you.Extreme epds won't survive mother nature either. Excellent discussion. It all goes back to environment. Like usual we're dry here. Goodland Ks has had around 5 inches of rain for the year.Guess I'm cranky.sorry

AJ,

I don't think we're really that far apart - above average birthweight (were not talking about the 125 lbers. here) CAN be an issue, but not always and there is no doubt that pelvic area plays apart.  In fact I think that pelvic area and its interaction with calf shape and size all fit together. One thing I find is that as we've made the skeletons of cattle wider we really haven't significantly changed the total pelvic area.  My concern with shape deals more with the outliers - those cattle that have been selected to maximize a particular trait - in this case width of skeleton.  I've seen far to many 85 lb. ultrawide, ultra thick calves that were hard pulls ... but man were they show ring ready!  But like JiT, we've had some 100 lb calves that came easily and were full of life - they were just 2-3 inches longer and taller than the others, not wider and thicker.  Throw in the selection for bone "like a corner post,"  ah, let's leave that for another day.

I fully agree with your environment statement - form follows function and environment affects function, so its logical that there will be some variation in type and what works based on the environment the cattle live in.  What I find intersting is when you bring cattle in that have been bred to thrive in one environment and see how they adapt in another.  We bought some females from Elbee a few years ago and I'm sure if Lee saw them today he wouldn't recognize them, they went from your "cow country" where they had limited rain and grass to an area that is considered lush grass country.  The same cows that were 1250-1300 lb. cows in Kansas are now 1400-1500 lb cows that stay in great flesh and do their job with minimal input on our part.  Anyway, thanks for adding to the discussion.

 

[Show Heifer]

A few thoughts:

My most productive and money earning cow on the farm is a cow NOT A SINGLE one of you would look twice at and offer me a penny for, yet I wouldn't sell her for 25,000 (MAYBE 50,000  but not a penny less!!).

Dad always said "Play the middle. That way, they catch ya on the up swing, AND the down swing." (I always did think he was a smart man!!)

Haven't seen a feedlot buyer or steer buyer comment yet on "nice hair" or big bone (in fact, wouldn't that hurt the yield grade?)

Calving ease : Just remember - Round hole and square peg does NOT work

Haven't seen (yet anyway) a bull buyer pick out a 5.5 frame bull or shorter. They sell pounds. They want BIG.

What works for ME, may not work for YOU, and that is ok....keeps us from bidding against each other at sales!!


Joe and JIT:  Some of the best comments I have ever read on this board!!!

 

[SWMO]

Great comments. "What works for ME, may not work for YOU, and that is ok....keeps us from bidding against each other at sales!!"


The cows that work in other areas of the country typically have a hard time when brought to SW Missouri.  The heat and the fescue are a tough combination for these cattle to adjust to. It can take them several years to adjust to our environment and some just don't ever adjust.  The conditions are just different.  So consequently the form follows function and environment is a definate player in the cattle industry much more so than in any other area of livestock production.  Hogs and chickens now live in an artifical environment and can be "cookie cutter" regardless of the area of the country.

Pretty is as pretty does.  Just watched a terminal steer show last weekend where the judge placed a >1100 lbs steer in the top ten line up.  The steer came from our county and I know that he wasn't finished.  But he was certainly pretty lots of hair and black.  Was glad for the kid but questioned the judges decision in using such a small steer in a terminal show.  In the lightest weight class at this show the class winner was 940 lbs.
It certainly seems to me that many of the steer shows in our area have turned into a beauty contest rather than a carcass oriented show rewarding the kids that get their animal to optimum market weight. JMO
Since we eat what we show I still want the steer to be finished and grade well.  Don't care for tough steaks.

 

[oakview]

Interesting topic and comments so far.

One of the main complaints in the beef industry has always been the lack of consistency in the end product.  Judging by the comments on this website on a wide variety of subjects, that will not likely change in the near future.  I'm not saying that's all bad.  Every individual has his/her own ideal, every area has certain demands, but there can be huge differences even in close proximity.  I showed my first steer at our county fair in 1965 and he was little, weighed less than 1,000 pounds.  I don't like catttle that small today and I would say the ones I raise today will not finish at 950 and seem to work well in our area.  We have excellent demand for our home raised beef and could sell a lot more if we had them.  However, one of the most successful commercial bull sellers in the state, less than 100 miles away, advocates 5 frame bulls and sells the heck out of them.  One of my neighbors fed out some heifers sired by one of these 5 frame bulls and they quit at 900 pounds.  He finally sold them last week and they pretty much bottomed the market.  They averaged just under 2.0 ADG.  I certainly wouldn't condemn all the 5 frame bulls, though.  They have to work for somebody or they would quit buying them.

I'm not sure I agree that the chasm between showring and commercial is wider today than ever before.  We have shown at our state fair for 42 years and have seen everything from near dwarfs to giraffes and everything in between.  The commercial cattle I see have not varied that much in type and kind.  Sure, they're bigger and more colorful than they used to be, but most of the 'common' cattle I've seen over the past 40+years have been somewhere in the middle.  I would say that the show ring winner has rarely if ever been the 'industry ideal'.  A show is just what the name implies, a show.  But, I love going and hope to exhibit at 42 more state fairs!

   

 

[GONEWEST]

Like JIT, I can't understand why people can't tolerate what works for others. For instance, I don't care that the kind of cattle one person raises to run on regular gas would never perform as high as I need on the relative jet fuel I have here. I think that it's awesome that he has figured out a way to make his land work for him. And I will never be able to understand why show cattle are accused of ruining a breed or why anyone thinks they need to look like feed lot cattle. I agree with whomever mentioned that a steer should exhibit the ideal carcass for a feed lot animal , just look "prettier." In my mind, most breeds need both segments to be healthy. Similarly, why can't that person be glad that I can use another type of animal to make money selling my male calves at 6 mos for $1500 than he uses to sell bulls at two years for $2000? Without so called "show cattle", the Maine and Chi breeds couldn't have an association, there wouldn't be enough revenue. It's tough as it is. The shorthorn association would have been gone a long, long time ago without the influx of Maine genetics and the registrations from those show cattle siring bulls that top their reg numbers. Show cattle bring revenue to the association, give exposure to the breed and in many cases are the high dollar individuals of that breed. I just don't understand why there is so much animosity from those who produce cattle primarily for commercial use toward those who do not.

 

[Davis Shorthorns]

A old roommate of mine and I used to go round and round about this.  He absolutly hated anything envolving showing period end of story.  He hated all of it and said that it was the black eye of the industry.  We just couldn't see eye to eye.  When I bought my place I could only afford 80 acres.  I decided to do what would make me the most money on those 80 acres.  That is raise show type cattle.  If I had 2000 acres I would have a large cow calf heard but I don't, and have to make money some how.  If one person can find a way to make money that isn't immoral or illegal then go for it.  Don't hate that person because they came up with the idea or made it work when you couldn't. 

 

[M Bar]

Howdy Joe B

Couple of questions.

  If your friend "John" has had numerous national champions, big sales with purebred animals, why is he so "anti-show cattle" now?  I would think that someone with that many credentials would understand that most of this showing is just a game.  We all know that it is a means to promote your cattle/ranch program.  No different than breeding by numbers only and crowing to your customers about your animals being in the top 1 percentile for every trait imaginable.  If you have ever watched the movie "stripes" you should remember the scene when the guy named psysho is bashing on everyone in his platoon and that if anyone calls him Francis, (his real name) then he will kill them.  Sargent Hukla looks him strait in the eye and says "lighten up, Francis" .  That's how most folks should view exibiting cattle and life in general in my opinion.  Historically, cattle that have been the most polific, if not then most heavily promoted, are the freaks that change the average bovine.  When you sit on the sidelines and watch, then yes, showing cattle is stooopid, but it does bring change.  We can diss this segment of the beef industry, but it does bring us change.  Was Ayatolla a changer? you bet, did he do everything right?  Nope.  How about the angus bull Sport?  Huge changer, big time award winner, heavily promoted..... bad mule foot.  Rodeo Drive, big changer, made the cattle in the shorthorn breed different.  Even if we are all middle of the road, we still need to look outside the box/pasture for things to make our industry/herd better.  That means at least analyzing other animals to see if they work for you.  I truely think that in regard to judges, I agree 100% with JIT in that we use too many folks to evaluate cattle that haven't raised any for a living.  But on the flip side, if you ever judge a show, do you want your picture taken in front of the backdrop with an ugly, real world kind?  I would use the not so pretty, real world one, and when folks gave me heck about it after the show, their reply from me would be "lighten up Francis".

 

[aj]

My favorite line in that movie was when the recruiter asked the guy if he had ever been convicted of a felony and he replied..."never convicted". m-bar...well put...it is important to keep different types of cattle around. A type not popular today may be needed 50 years down the road. Prices of corn,fuel,etc will always change.

 

[oakbar]

Good discussion everyone!!    I really enjoyed reading your opinions and I agree with many of you who have basically said the underlying strength of the cattle industry is just that---a healthy respectful difference of opinion.  Wouldn't it be boring and, in the long run, bad for the cattle industry if we all raised exactly the same type of cattle for exactly the same reasons??  Lets celebrate the differences and try to learn from one another---its a heck of lot more healthy than arguing!!

 

[BIGTEX]

Joe, as for your friend "John" sounds like he has a little "Good  old day syndrome". I catch myself doing the same thing and I am not as old as "John". As far as show cattle go, 20 years ago steers finished at 1400 lbs and were 56". I saw a steer at my county show this year in the American cross division, great steer, great real world animal but would finish at 1450 lbs. He did not win and should not have. With high feed prices I know that is not the direction we are going. I agree with the high birthweights, TH and PHA among other things are hard to comprehend why people would use these genetics. But, the fact is they are and that is what is winning. Go get real world functional , low BW, high growth numbers, homo. blk, homo. polled genetics and get used to sitting at the back of the class.

 

[knabe]

Hey BIGTEX,

your avatar for a second looks like a finished steer in tall grass having his cover being sampled by the livestock giant judge and what steers could look like if we go to extremes the other way.  i guess if we did that we would essentially have goats, something some in some circles may mandate at some point as a way to be "responsible" custodians of what will be then be government land.

cute pic.

 

[Doc]

  Good one, Knabe!!

 

[BIGTEX]

He's actually a fullblood lowline bull, fully grown and that's my 4 yr. old. Amazing Isn't it!!