Something is Brewing

[True Grit Farms]

Normally a higher birthweight equals a larger mature animal, and higher milk. Neither of which I'm interested in for commercial cattle. My focus is a 60 - 80 lb live calf that weighs 500 - 600 lb in 240 days with little to no inputs. I give 2 rounds of shots, worm and feed from a bunk 30 days before selling, money makers with very little inputs or work.

 

[Aaron]

And the longitude.

Arctic babies are monsters. Equator babies are pipsqueaks.

That's latitude Walnut, longitude goes the other way.

Ken

Has anyone noticed this to be true in terms of nutrition or geographic location? I know it wouldn't be common to know with certainty since you'd have to run your own experiment but UT (tn) says birth weight will only be affected by up to roughly 1 lb by nutrition (assuming you aren't completely starving the mama).

Might be the case in TN, but here, I cut back on feed for cows in last trimester and the birth weights drop more like 10 lbs. Not starving them, but not letting them get full as ticks each day. Hard to do if your last trimester is in the winter months, but very easy to do with late-spring/summer calving.

Also in fall calving, if cows have access to lush pasture in the final month and a half of pregnancy, calves can be little monsters in comparison to most fall calves, which are typically small.

 

[Ebenezer]

Well said. Most Angus seedstock suppliers are aware of the problem just not sure how to gather the baby that was thrown out with the bath water back up. I was at a Select Sires beef meeting about a month ago. Their beef specialist admitted after the meeting in a one on one conversation that $B has messed up a lot of good commercial cow herds. The fact that packers are pushing huge carcass weights has contributed also. The want and need for more pounds has a cost if replacements are being kept. Downsizing mature weights much requires two generations if you want to see any real results. Definitely not a quick fix.

W B, not trying to place blame directly, but the change will come from using sources other than the sources that created the problems. Their directions have been demonstrated and it is not in favor of the cow/calf producers.

 

[Ebenezer]

Genomics and particularly gene mapping is capable of doing vastly more. It may be another 10 or 15 years...

EPDs are still in the stone age.

I doubt that 50% of the posters will be dealing with cows in 10 to 15 years. I hope that I am wrong. What to do between now and 9 to 14 years out?

The EPDs are not exactly stone age, but the folks who put all of their faith or consider them to be the first level of evaluation for goodness seem to miss the fact that EPDs are estimates and represent ranges with higher or lower widths of variation depending on accuracy. The maximum range of variations is assumed but truly unknown per individual animal to be born and I still believe that every animal born is not exactly 50% bull influence and 50% cow influence, genetically. Prepotency, gestational programming and environment, to name a few influences, skew results even more.

The "stone age" part is assuming that EPDs that (anyone can chime in with a real #) maybe represent 5% of the entire animal's genetic description are the most important parts of the animal to describe to buyers and users. An example from AAA: if EPDs are the cat's meow, then why do we need Pathfinder status or any other other describing efforts to exemplify the top animals in the breed?

So is it bad to want to look, phenotypically, to see what the other 95% of the cow looks like?

 

[Bright Raven]

Genomics and particularly gene mapping is capable of doing vastly more. It may be another 10 or 15 years...

EPDs are still in the stone age.

I doubt that 50% of the posters will be dealing with cows in 10 to 15 years. I hope that I am wrong. What to do between now and 9 to 14 years out?

The EPDs are not exactly stone age, but the folks who put all of their faith or consider them to be the first level of evaluation for goodness seem to miss the fact that EPDs are estimates and represent ranges with higher or lower widths of variation depending on accuracy. The maximum range of variations is assumed but truly unknown per individual animal to be born and I still believe that every animal born is not exactly 50% bull influence and 50% cow influence, genetically. Prepotency, gestational programming and environment, to name a few influences, skew results even more.

The offspring resulting from any sexual mating whether it be birds, reptiles, insects, or mammals is almost NEVER NEVER NEVER, a 50/50 relationship. There are numerous factors at work doing random sorting of genetic material to make an exact 50/50 split of maternal versus paternal influence almost impossible. It is a random process controlled by numerous reproductive and genetic factors. In cows there are 60 chromosomes- 30 from the bull , 30 from the cow - but the influence they have on traits is not a neat 50/50 split. You don't have to state "I believe that...." It is a fundamentally recognized genetic concept.

 

[Bright Raven]

So is it bad to want to look, phenotypically, to see what the other 95% of the cow looks like?

No. One must look at the bovine phenotypically. Especially, at this stage in EPD and genetic mapping science.

The problem you run into is serving a buyer who is looking for a specific set of EPDs. If one wants to sell bulls and cows, one must be sensitive to what his buyer might be looking for and try to meet that demand.

 

[WalnutCrest]

A lot has to do with the nutrition that the momma receives as well, in my opinion.

And the longitude.

Arctic babies are monsters. Equator babies are pipsqueaks.

That's latitude Walnut, longitude goes the other way.

Ken

HA! I was always a poor geography student ...

:hide:

 

[WalnutCrest]

And the longitude.

Arctic babies are monsters. Equator babies are pipsqueaks.

That's latitude Walnut, longitude goes the other way.

Ken

Has anyone noticed this to be true in terms of nutrition or geographic location? I know it wouldn't be common to know with certainty since you'd have to run your own experiment but UT (tn) says birth weight will only be affected by up to roughly 1 lb by nutrition (assuming you aren't completely starving the mama).

Within the US, moving from the West / North to the South / East can cause problems if the new home is full of endophyte infested fescue. Some animals adapt right away, some take a couple of years (if they make it that long). It's been my experience the best time to bring cattle into toxic fescue country is in the fall / winter after toxicity has subsided. Bringing them in the spring / summer is a near guarantee for a problem.

It's my understanding the reason calves up north are bigger is the blood flow stays more focused on keeping the mama warm, so the nutrition is more in her belly, and therefore more available to the calf in utero ... and ... the reason calves down south are smaller is because the blood flow goes to the extremities more (for heat dissipation) and so less nutrition ends up in the uterus.

 

[CreekAngus]

I personally could care less, but I don't do things like others do, and there is nothing wrong with being concerned about BW, if that makes you feel more comfortable.

I'm more concerned about the opposite direction. Like I said before very low BW, high CED may work for others, but they don't put off the type of animal I'm looking for. I have a high CED bull, so I can compare his calves with some other sires like SAV International which I have calves from as well. It's daylight and dark how those calves from International grow versus those from the high CED bull. The calves from International look far more substantial in structure from day one. Nothing against the calves from the high CED bull, which have turned out quite nicely, but I like the International calves better, which would probably make sense given the sire.

Yes, you lower the worry factor during calving but you give up other traits that will really matter later on. In my opinion.

Someone the other day told me "I use a high CED bull because I work all week in Louisville and can't watch my cattle" I totally understand that.

A big, terminal sire is not for everyone, but if you can keep an eye on things, those calves sure are nice.

I think one of the biggest issues is the fact people do not know how big their calves are. I can't guess a calf's weight to save my life. Guessed a Resource daughter at 55-60lbs one night. Weighed 78lbs the next morning. Below is a link to Square B talking on the subject.

https://www.facebook.com/squarebcattle/videos/342144136374559/

I have a sling, a Moultrie big game scale, and a hook in the barn. If I'm in the field, I become the hook and have help reading the scale.

Looking into a calf catcher for this fall from Safety Zone, in which case I will use my Tru-Test unit with load bars in the catcher.

Lifting 90-100 pounders can take its toll after a while. Maybe that is why people like low BW, LOL!

You never truly know how big a cowboy you are until you attempt to weigh a newborn in the pasture.

 

[CreekAngus]

Branded: I agree with you, the Angus Association is sitting on a huge amount of data. Last summer the AAA asked me to take part in a panel on what EPD's producers found relevant and what EPD's we would like to see. I don't think they listened, because now it appears they are heading in a direction none of us suggested. The biggest discussion was seeing milk EPDs being a multi category score, based on region and feed. They score calves based on "creep" but don't score the dams based on actual feed. Another hot topic was longevity, which the AAA could knock out a score tomorrow, with all the data they have. You have a 16 year old cow that is very productive, I want to know that, I also want to know if "so and so" cant keep progeny in herds. The third hot topic was udder, much like foot scores, develop an udder score. With the current EPD's most of the discussion was based on fixing EPD's to a baseline. For example the current average is 50 for WW, but are we to believe that any sire born before 2010 is below average? Older genetics are taking a beating with EPD scoring, but the weights being submitted aren't any different. Ext is a perfect example of this, he's being breed to more modern genetics to improve his EPD's, some breeders even point this out "Bringing EXT's epds into the modern era". There was sense that the AAA wants to lean more on the DNA than actual data, which is actually quite lazy and costs you and I extra money. DNA gives us a picture, but will never tell us if a cow has longevity, a decent bag under her or how cattle are performing under certain environments. I hope the AAA will forge ahead on DNA along with more relevant data. Oh and one last topic heavily discussed, too many breeders send in CED and BW reports and stop there and as the progeny ages less and less data is given. So the BW will be highly accurate, but YH will have almost no accuracy. There was discussion on rewarding the producers who actually keep contributing real data all through the life cycle. It feels as though the AAA is trying to lean on dna to fill in that gap, but it's no replacement for true data.

 

[JMER1533]

That's latitude Walnut, longitude goes the other way.

Ken

Has anyone noticed this to be true in terms of nutrition or geographic location? I know it wouldn't be common to know with certainty since you'd have to run your own experiment but UT (tn) says birth weight will only be affected by up to roughly 1 lb by nutrition (assuming you aren't completely starving the mama).

Might be the case in TN, but here, I cut back on feed for cows in last trimester and the birth weights drop more like 10 lbs. Not starving them, but not letting them get full as ticks each day. Hard to do if your last trimester is in the winter months, but very easy to do with late-spring/summer calving.

Also in fall calving, if cows have access to lush pasture in the final month and a half of pregnancy, calves can be little monsters in comparison to most fall calves, which are typically small.

Wow 10lbs is quite a difference. You've got to wonder about some of these studies at universities vs real life reports.

 

[Bright Raven]

Has anyone noticed this to be true in terms of nutrition or geographic location? I know it wouldn't be common to know with certainty since you'd have to run your own experiment but UT (tn) says birth weight will only be affected by up to roughly 1 lb by nutrition (assuming you aren't completely starving the mama).

Might be the case in TN, but here, I cut back on feed for cows in last trimester and the birth weights drop more like 10 lbs. Not starving them, but not letting them get full as ticks each day. Hard to do if your last trimester is in the winter months, but very easy to do with late-spring/summer calving.

Also in fall calving, if cows have access to lush pasture in the final month and a half of pregnancy, calves can be little monsters in comparison to most fall calves, which are typically small.

Wow 10lbs is quite a difference. You've got to wonder about some of these studies at universities vs real life reports.

I have read some of those studies. Your wonder is understandable. Recent studies have concluded that nutrition in the last trimester does not have a MAJOR influence on birth weight but it does increase the vigor and health of the calf thereby decreasing newborn mortality.

 

[Aaron]

Might be the case in TN, but here, I cut back on feed for cows in last trimester and the birth weights drop more like 10 lbs. Not starving them, but not letting them get full as ticks each day. Hard to do if your last trimester is in the winter months, but very easy to do with late-spring/summer calving.

Also in fall calving, if cows have access to lush pasture in the final month and a half of pregnancy, calves can be little monsters in comparison to most fall calves, which are typically small.

Wow 10lbs is quite a difference. You've got to wonder about some of these studies at universities vs real life reports.

I have read some of those studies. Your wonder is understandable. Recent studies have concluded that nutrition in the last trimester does not have a MAJOR influence on birth weight but it does increase the vigor and health of the calf thereby decreasing newborn mortality.

But again you have to factor in cold weather climate versus warmer Southern US climate. Having a southern university say that high levels of nutrition in last trimester cows in cold climates has no influence on birth weight is a joke. The 'data' collected in Tennesee cannot be applied universally. Yesterday's temperatures around 45F here ended about 70 days of continual below freezing temperatures.

 

[Bright Raven]

Wow 10lbs is quite a difference. You've got to wonder about some of these studies at universities vs real life reports.

I have read some of those studies. Your wonder is understandable. Recent studies have concluded that nutrition in the last trimester does not have a MAJOR influence on birth weight but it does increase the vigor and health of the calf thereby decreasing newborn mortality.

But again you have to factor in cold weather climate versus warmer Southern US climate. Having a southern university say that high levels of nutrition in last trimester cows in cold climates has no influence on birth weight is a joke. The 'data' collected in Tennesee cannot be applied universally. Yesterday's temperatures around 45F here ended about 70 days of continual below freezing temperatures.

I am aware of the effects of latitude on calf weight and size. What is coming from some of these recent studies is that nutrition does not have a major change on that 70 % growth during its last trimester. The concern is that the cows lacking energy and protein in that last trimester is causing some weak calves and cows that are not in condition to handle motherhood. Plus, breed back.

My cows carry a lot of condition into fall calving but I am not having issues with calving, the calves are healthy and thrifty and they breed back in 60 to 70 days.

 

[Ebenezer]

Genomics and particularly gene mapping is capable of doing vastly more. It may be another 10 or 15 years...

EPDs are still in the stone age.

I doubt that 50% of the posters will be dealing with cows in 10 to 15 years. I hope that I am wrong. What to do between now and 9 to 14 years out?

The EPDs are not exactly stone age, but the folks who put all of their faith or consider them to be the first level of evaluation for goodness seem to miss the fact that EPDs are estimates and represent ranges with higher or lower widths of variation depending on accuracy. The maximum range of variations is assumed but truly unknown per individual animal to be born and I still believe that every animal born is not exactly 50% bull influence and 50% cow influence, genetically. Prepotency, gestational programming and environment, to name a few influences, skew results even more.

The offspring resulting from any sexual mating whether it be birds, reptiles, insects, or mammals is almost NEVER NEVER NEVER, a 50/50 relationship. There are numerous factors at work doing random sorting of genetic material to make an exact 50/50 split of maternal versus paternal influence almost impossible. It is a random process controlled by numerous reproductive and genetic factors. In cows there are 60 chromosomes- 30 from the bull , 30 from the cow - but the influence they have on traits is not a neat 50/50 split. You don't have to state "I believe that...." It is a fundamentally recognized genetic concept.

EPD inheritance or influence is estimated on a calf at 50%/50%. So that is the start of the discrepancy? Maybe AAA missed the recognized concept? So many of the crossbreeding seminars show the 1st generation bull is 50% of the herd, the second generation bull makes the bull influence at 75%, ... Maybe some "do as I say and not as I do" stuff? :roll: At least we know better.

I know that BH has called foul on low BW and high CED for weeks. Fine and dandy. But if so many are using high CED and low BW bulls now without any thought and stacking generations of the wimpy types, why do I not see sale catalogs with actual data showing BWs of sale bulls in the 40's, 50's or low 60 pound range? Could it be that the CED and BW EPDs are as skewed as the MM EPD? The 2019 spring's mailbox full of catalogs show nothing of the sort.

 

[Bright Raven]

I doubt that 50% of the posters will be dealing with cows in 10 to 15 years. I hope that I am wrong. What to do between now and 9 to 14 years out?

The EPDs are not exactly stone age, but the folks who put all of their faith or consider them to be the first level of evaluation for goodness seem to miss the fact that EPDs are estimates and represent ranges with higher or lower widths of variation depending on accuracy. The maximum range of variations is assumed but truly unknown per individual animal to be born and I still believe that every animal born is not exactly 50% bull influence and 50% cow influence, genetically. Prepotency, gestational programming and environment, to name a few influences, skew results even more.

The offspring resulting from any sexual mating whether it be birds, reptiles, insects, or mammals is almost NEVER NEVER NEVER, a 50/50 relationship. There are numerous factors at work doing random sorting of genetic material to make an exact 50/50 split of maternal versus paternal influence almost impossible. It is a random process controlled by numerous reproductive and genetic factors. In cows there are 60 chromosomes- 30 from the bull , 30 from the cow - but the influence they have on traits is not a neat 50/50 split. You don't have to state "I believe that...." It is a fundamentally recognized genetic concept.

EPD inheritance or influence is estimated on a calf at 50%/50%. So that is the start of the discrepancy? Maybe AAA missed the recognized concept? So many of the crossbreeding seminars show the 1st generation bull is 50% of the herd, the second generation bull makes the bull influence at 75%, ... Maybe some "do as I say and not as I do" stuff? :roll: At least we know better.

I know that BH has called foul on low BW and high CED for weeks. Fine and dandy. But if so many are using high CED and low BW bulls now without any thought and stacking generations of the wimpy types, why do I not see sale catalogs with actual data showing BWs of sale bulls in the 40's, 50's or low 60 pound range? Could it be that the CED and BW EPDs are as skewed as the MM EPD? The 2019 spring's mailbox full of catalogs show nothing of the sort.

First, we agree that the spermatozoa of a bull has 30 chromosomes and the egg of the cow has 30 chromosomes. They combine in the zygote to form a 60 chromosome fetus. We also agree that this reality of fertilization does not equate to a perfect 50/50 inheritance of traits. That depends on a bunch of genetic factors. It is almost never going to be an even split of 50 percent of the traits are of paternal influence and 50 percent of the traits are of maternal influence.

Second, the EPDs use statistical methods that incorporate assumptions to arrive at their EXPECTANCY. I have not broken down their model to know what assumptions they use to estimate inherited influences. I could see in the absence of specific data, that they would use a 50/50 assumption.

It goes back to the previous discussions you and I had above. EPDs are, to use a crude analogy, in the Stone age.

 

[True Grit Farms]

I have read some of those studies. Your wonder is understandable. Recent studies have concluded that nutrition in the last trimester does not have a MAJOR influence on birth weight but it does increase the vigor and health of the calf thereby decreasing newborn mortality.

But again you have to factor in cold weather climate versus warmer Southern US climate. Having a southern university say that high levels of nutrition in last trimester cows in cold climates has no influence on birth weight is a joke. The 'data' collected in Tennesee cannot be applied universally. Yesterday's temperatures around 45F here ended about 70 days of continual below freezing temperatures.

I am aware of the effects of latitude on calf weight and size. What is coming from some of these recent studies is that nutrition does not have a major change on that 70 % growth during its last trimester. The concern is that the cows lacking energy and protein in that last trimester is causing some weak calves and cows that are not in condition to handle motherhood. Plus, breed back.

My cows carry a lot of condition into fall calving but I am not having issues with calving, the calves are healthy and thrifty and they breed back in 60 to 70 days.

Your calves are above breed adverage weight, your cows are overweight, and you believe some study saying that feeding in the third trimester doesn't cause larger birthweights? Common sense isn't so common.

 

[Bright Raven]

But again you have to factor in cold weather climate versus warmer Southern US climate. Having a southern university say that high levels of nutrition in last trimester cows in cold climates has no influence on birth weight is a joke. The 'data' collected in Tennesee cannot be applied universally. Yesterday's temperatures around 45F here ended about 70 days of continual below freezing temperatures.

I am aware of the effects of latitude on calf weight and size. What is coming from some of these recent studies is that nutrition does not have a major change on that 70 % growth during its last trimester. The concern is that the cows lacking energy and protein in that last trimester is causing some weak calves and cows that are not in condition to handle motherhood. Plus, breed back.

My cows carry a lot of condition into fall calving but I am not having issues with calving, the calves are healthy and thrifty and they breed back in 60 to 70 days.

Your calves are above breed adverage weight, your cows are overweight, and you believe some study saying that feeding in the third trimester doesn't cause larger birthweights? Common sense isn't so common.

You need to read close. I didn't mention a word of what I believe. I only conveyed what some of the recent research indicates.