A new way to study cow profitability?

[backhoeboogie]

Truth is most bulls will be put on pasture with cows to work. If a seedstock producer cannot offer a bull that can produce in pasture/grazing conditions, I have no use for them.

Me either. That bull is going to have good grass. If he can't cut this climate or can't maintain himself on excellent forage, he is not getting a chance in the first place.

 

[cypressfarms]

The purpose of the bull test is to identify bulls that will sire progeny who will perform well in feedlot conditions where 90%+++ of our marketed calves wind up. The side effect of doing the test is the bull comes off the test looking very much like a grain fattened steer.

This thread is so long I don't know what page I posted the comment (edit - page 4)

"I can, however, think of one group whose main concern is feed efficiency. Stocker growers. If I were a stocker operation I would not care about udders, pendulous sheaths, etc, etc, etc. I would only care about feed conversion since I would be shoveling feed to calves (inputs), and trying to get the most beef (outputs) one a time basis."

If we let one group, such as the stockers, steer our entire thinking/management, then we will eventually be left with a group of cows that would only do good "out of a sack". There are many traits to consider. Do you actually think a stocker is concerned about fertility? That would be my first priority! This thread has posted some good reference articles.

Where are we left? If your a cow/calfer, maybe you are left with a sense that bigger is not always better. That you should examine your herd from the standpoint of inputs vs. outputs. Finding the right size cow, or right metabolic rate cow, will inevitably make your operation more profitable. Although, I was almost run out of town for tagging at birth, maybe more cow calfers will identify the 205 weight of all calves/cows, and use this information to make cull/replacement decisions. My goal isn't necessarily the same as stockers, but that doesn't mean we can't get along

 

[dun]

If your a cow/calfer, maybe you are left with a sense that bigger is not always better. That you should examine your herd from the standpoint of inputs vs. outputs. Finding the right size cow, or right metabolic rate cow, will inevitably make your operation more profitable.

Smaller isn;t always better either.
The bold part is what it all boils down to after all the numbers from someone else, studys, etc. are done

 

[backhoeboogie]

That bull's calves have a 900 lb weaning weight but no ones knows how well they'd grow in a pasture - they've never seen one

 

[TexasBred]

That bull's calves have a 900 lb weaning weight but no ones knows how well they'd grow in a pasture - they've never seen one

True...some are raised to be "bulls"... others are raised to be big fat guinea pigs. Worthless for all practical purposes. But idiots are born everyday that will buy them.

 

[novatech]

Cheap test.
Put your bulls in separate pens. Feed them a specified amount of hay. Weigh every 2 weeks for 90 days.
Do the same with cow calf pairs. Weigh the cows separate from the calves. Wean the calves put them on feed, again specified amount. Weigh every 2 weeks. Obtain carcass data. Calculate the results what ever way you think will work. Don't forget to include frame scores, BCS, and when the cow breeds back.
You could do the same on grass by random measuring of the grass height for evaluation of consumption.
Any other details needed are to be worked out on site. :lol: :lol:
The truth is that most people will find a reason not to do testing. That is the reason why the people that do the testing command high prices for their efforts. The more people that test the less the price will be over time, and the better the bulls will be that are being produced.
As far as the fat bull not working, if the bull came from range stock he should still have the genetics to produce range stock wither he was in a feed test or not. It really just shows one more good or bad quality of the bull. I have used ex show bulls that held up very well after being put out to pasture with the cows and not ever being pampered. A good bull should do well under both conditions, after all that is where most of his progeny will end up.

 

[Brandonm22]

That bull's calves have a 900 lb weaning weight but no ones knows how well they'd grow in a pasture - they've never seen one

Exactly, a 900 lb weaning weight just tells me that he and his momma were fed very very well. That is about ALL that fact by itself tells me. That does not mean that he is a BAD bull; but he is not necessarily a really good bull either. BUT we both know there are people who will buy that calf with the gawdy 900 lb weaning weight over a 700 lb weaning weight bull with the exact same genetics down the road in a more grass based program.

 

[KNERSIE]

The conversation drifted a bit, the question isn't whether a grainfed feedlot tested bull will lose weight when turned out to work on pasture, we can venture a very educated guess on that, but rather if the intensively fed growth test bulls that performed well on a test where feed intake WASN'T measured will sire calves that will be efficient on YOUR grass.

Even the answer isn't too difficult... Not neccesarily!

The fact of the matter is even those who were tested for FCR is still not guaranteed to sire the good doing grass genetics on YOUR farm. The odds may be slightly better, but not much.

Using bulls that has proved to do well on your farm under your management out of cows that do well for you will more likely get you the result you want, but would be harder to sell for more money because they simply won't have the numbers to back up your claims.