Aubrac bull photos

Help Support CattleToday:

A

Aubracusa

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 31, 2006
Messages
154
Reaction score
0
Location
Colorado
Hello, everyone --

This is Maximus, a fullblood Aubrac bull. He's a frame 3.7 and weighs right at a ton. He's in Colorado this summer with about 25 cows and yearling heifers.

I don't know if these photos appear on the page (I guess I'm too dumb to figure this out), so if they're not here, would someone who knows how please post them on this page for me?

Thanks for your help,

aubracusa

http://cattletoday.com/photos/showphoto ... mit=recent

http://cattletoday.com/photos/showphoto ... mit=recent

http://cattletoday.com/photos/showphoto ... mit=recent
 
Thanks for the responses.

Aubracs are easy-calving cattle. We've used Maximus for four years, and never had to touch one of his calves at birth. He bred a dozen first-calf heifers the first year we used him, and they calved on the desert west of Delta, Colo., with no assistance at all. They were on their own. This summer, we're running him with 15 yearling heifers and some mature cows.

Best,

Aubracusa
http://www.aubracusa.com
 
That is a really nice bull! How is the comparison of Aubrac framing to Angus?
What breeds and colors are you breeding him to, and what colors is he throwing? I would like to see some of his calves if you happen to have any.
Chuckie
 
I have replied to the three pictures with comments for each picture. I guess you have to access the pictures to read the comments. The mechanics of taking the pictures was extremely well done - as photographically correct as I have seen in a long time!

Maximus is as fine a bull for today's beef cattle needs as one could find! He would be perfect to moderate the cow size of almost every herd in the country. I have commented before, that I think that we are in big trouble now, and four years from now we will be in GREAT big trouble insofar as cow size and expense of feeding the large-cow herd is concerned!

The argument that we are raising "pounds" for the market is valid, however if the costs and expenses of producing those pounds bankrupts our ranchers, we are tilting at windmills and defeating our own purposes! The optimal weight of the producing brood cow should be 1150 - 1350 pounds at 4 years of age in good breeding body score condition. The way most ranchers have gone berserk in attempting to get big, large beefy brood cows so that their calves are large to begin with is, seemingly, logical - - BUT WRONG! What do you think the problems will be three years from NOW, when the BIG calves being dropped this spring have BIGGER calves then? Unless we get this tendency stopped NOW, the entire beef cattle production business is going to be in big DOO-DOO! Can YOU afford for that to happen??

With Corn at $4.50 /bu and other feedstuffs equally expensive, we MUST get our herd (cow) size down to a practical weight. It is a proven fact that a 1100# cow with produce a calf that will make about $100 more profit (about) than a 1400+# cow. The kind of cattle this bull will produce will even out the SIZE - SIZE - SIZE genes that seems to be taking over the thinking of the ranchers the last 20 years!

I would take a feedlot full of steers sired by this guy - any day!

DOC HARRIS
 
Doc, just for the sake of sparring. When you are talking cow weight why does that take precedence over cow size. Smaller framed, tubby cows that are in good rig will weigh up in a heart beat.
 
SEC":2ufwdlxq said:
Doc, just for the sake of sparring. When you are talking cow weight why does that take precedence over cow size. Smaller framed, tubby cows that are in good rig will weigh up in a heart beat.
Click to expand...

SEC,

For my conditions I don't mind if my cows are heavy, as long as they are the right type. Saying that, mine are in the 1150-1350 range that Doc talks about, but I don't want all of them to be 1100lbs. I am more concerned of taller frame sizes as they seem to fare less well when the conditions are tough. I want mine all to be in the frame 4.5-5.5 range weighing no less than 1150 and no more than 1350.

An 1100lb or lighter cow are likely lacking in muscle or don't have enough capacity to be easy doing. Then it will simply be counterproductive to the other extreme.

Its not so much a case of smaller is better, but rather moderate being easier keeping than either extreme.
 
I will say I,m sorry in advance for I am going to disagree with most you very knowledgeable people.(who I do highly respect)
I do not beleive that frame score, weight, or how fast they gain has anything to do with feed efficiency. Net feed efficiency tests are the only way to truely judge the costs of keeping and produceing cattle.
Everyone says that the tests are to expensive. This may be true, but I have never herd anyone quote what these prices are.
It seems that in the overall economics of raiseing beef, although it may seem expensive initially, raiseing cattle that have good NFI is good economics as the cost of the testing would more than justify the expense.
I have come to these conclusions by closely observing my cattle. Being small has its advantages. I do not see Hundreds of cows all at one time but rather the individual animal and how long they graze, eat at the feed bin and the body condition they maintain, etc.
 
Net feed efficiency tests are the only way to truely judge the costs of keeping and produceing cattle.
Click to expand...

In theory it sounds like the solution, but it has been proven time and again that feed efficiency in the feedlot does not neccesarily mean easy keeping on the range.

In SA we have a EBV called Kleiber ratio that is supposed to give you an indication of the animal's ability to grow and perform under veld conditions. This might have some relevance, but is still too new to really be reliable, at best I think it needs a little more research.

At the moment it seems that the best solution is to observe your own cattle with regard to what works the best under your conditions, make mental notes of their outstanding characteristics that differentiates them from the rest and include this high on your list of selection criteria.

Handy as science is, everything simply can't be measured in numbers.
 
KNERSIE":3v4lngah said:
Net feed efficiency tests are the only way to truely judge the costs of keeping and produceing cattle.
Click to expand...

In theory it sounds like the solution, but it has been proven time and again that feed efficiency in the feedlot does not neccesarily mean easy keeping on the range.

In SA we have a EBV called Kleiber ratio that is supposed to give you an indication of the animal's ability to grow and perform under veld conditions. This might have some relevance, but is still too new to really be reliable, at best I think it needs a little more research.

At the moment it seems that the best solution is to observe your own cattle with regard to what works the best under your conditions, make mental notes of their outstanding characteristics that differentiates them from the rest and include this high on your list of selection criteria.

Handy as science is, everything simply can't be measured in numbers.
Click to expand...
I guess my point is that it is an assumption of most people that large frame cattle are less efficient than smaller frame cattle. I have not found this to be true. I have found that is is an individual trait that determines the efficiency of a cow regardless of frame size or weight.
Others have said that it has been proven that good in the feed lot also is good in the field. I tend to agree with you on this, as you cannot compare feedlot production animals with grass fed long term production cows. This brings up another delema, it seems as though we are wanting to produce the best feedlot calf as our ultimate goal for marketability, while at the same time produceing the most economical calf produceing cow.
In the end it is our own judgement as to what is best for us as individuals.
 
Hello, everyone--

Aubracs aren't "small" cattle, in the classic sense (Maximus is a ton-plus bull right now). In my environment, we get about 300-plus inches of snowfall each winter, so we're snowed up from about Thanksgiving to Easter. Temperatures this winter were 10 to 25 below each night on our feedground for about 45 consecutive days. These Aubracs came out of the winter in excellent condition, and ready for breeding. They weren't fed much, and the feed wasn't very high in quality, either.

The breed itself was developed for grass-fed and forage-based beef production in central France. Aubracs seem to prefer grass over grain, and it's harder to get Aubrac calves going on grain. They prefer to stand at the roundbale feeder while US-bred calves stand at the bunk.

Efficiency is hard to define, but I think we often confuse it with appetite.

Below is a link to a photo of a son of Maximus. He sold to Ficke Cattle Company this winter to Ficke Cattle Company. (I still don't know why I'm having trouble getting the photos directly into these posts, so I apologize).

http://cattletoday.com/photos/showphoto ... 57&cat=500

Thanks,

aubracusa
 
NFI and adg especially on bulls is something that I don't think a lot of. Simple fact, we all have the bulls that are the fighters, humpers and leaders of the pack. They eat all that the penmates eat but only gain 1/2 or 1/3 or what the penmates gain because of all their extra curricular activity.

Those bulls NFI is going to look rotten, their conversion will appear very poor. From what my experience is often the higher growth bulls in the pen don't exhibit as much for sexual characteristics as they leaner, bulls that are always stirring the pot as well these bulls are always the ones that are shed off first. If i am a commercial guy picking a bull, you can be sure that those bulls will get the cows bred.
 
SEC":2ff2ingk said:
Doc, just for the sake of sparring. When you are talking cow weight why does that take precedence over cow size. Smaller framed, tubby cows that are in good rig will weigh up in a heart beat.
Click to expand...
SEC-

I was not intending to oppose the vernacular of SIZE vs. WEIGHT (pounds) vs. FRAME SCORE in my comments. I think that it would parallel the analogy of contrasting Oranges and Tangerines grown on the same tree by grafting. I was not intending for cow weight to take precedence over cow size.


There would be a 'most desirable' focal point on a sum of vectors chart (SIZE on one component vector and WEIGHT on the other component vector) - the so-called "Ultimate Point of Perfection" being where the two extensions bisect, balancing weights and frame scores. Somewhere in this formula enters the 'elusive' "Body Conditioning Score" Wizard which introduces yet another aspect of "desirable relativity" in arriving at the PERFECT $PROFIT Brood Cow, at the same time excluding the Indexes which predicts the profitability of a Cow or a Bull - EPD's!

. . .And there is one last 'Swan Song' trait which must be considered: the ability of our "Perfect $Profit" brood Cow to extend her productive years into the future and produce calves year after year for 12 to 15 years or more before being subjected to her FINAL HARVEST - the market. It sounds a little harsh, but the cows and bulls are our manufacturing machinery, and when they are no longer profitable to the operation, they need replacing.

To NOT replace our Maternal cow herd genetics with modest SIZED cows is tantamount to throwing money into a gopher hole - $75 - $100 more profit per year, to be almost exact!

DOC HARRIS
 
Thanks, Doc. Yes. The bull pictured is a frame 3.7. He weighed 1900 pounds in early February, so I'd bet he weighs right at 2,100 this summer.

His six sons at the national Aubrac sale averaged 5.1 for frame score and had an averaged adjusted yearling weight of 1,126. So they combine moderate frame with adequate performance.

What's interesting about this bull is that he's been used constantly during the last 18 months-- and he continues to hold his body condition. He was in the Colorado mountains breeding about 45 cows last summer and fall. We put him on the trailer and hauled him to Minnesota in January, where he bred about 30 cows this winter. We hauled him back about a month ago to Colorado, where he'll stay for a few more months, then he's on his way to South Dakota in August where he'll spend the winter breeding cows there.

Best,

aubracusa
 
DOC HARRIS":1paovvry said:
SEC":1paovvry said:
Doc, just for the sake of sparring. When you are talking cow weight why does that take precedence over cow size. Smaller framed, tubby cows that are in good rig will weigh up in a heart beat.
Click to expand...
SEC-

I was not intending to oppose the vernacular of SIZE vs. WEIGHT (pounds) vs. FRAME SCORE in my comments. I think that it would parallel the analogy of contrasting Oranges and Tangerines grown on the same tree by grafting. I was not intending for cow weight to take precedence over cow size.


There would be a 'most desirable' focal point on a sum of vectors chart (SIZE on one component vector and WEIGHT on the other component vector) - the so-called "Ultimate Point of Perfection" being where the two extensions bisect, balancing weights and frame scores. Somewhere in this formula enters the 'elusive' "Body Conditioning Score" Wizard which introduces yet another aspect of "desirable relativity" in arriving at the PERFECT $PROFIT Brood Cow, at the same time excluding the Indexes which predicts the profitability of a Cow or a Bull - EPD's!

. . .And there is one last 'Swan Song' trait which must be considered: the ability of our "Perfect $Profit" brood Cow to extend her productive years into the future and produce calves year after year for 12 to 15 years or more before being subjected to her FINAL HARVEST - the market. It sounds a little harsh, but the cows and bulls are our manufacturing machinery, and when they are no longer profitable to the operation, they need replacing.

To NOT replace our Maternal cow herd genetics with modest SIZED cows is tantamount to throwing money into a gopher hole - $75 - $100 more profit per year, to be almost exact!

DOC HARRIS
Click to expand...

Doc I see you are still selling snake oil at the "moderate sized cow" carnival. Moderate sized cows have their place but they are NOT the end all be all to every cattleman. The presentation of relative analysis and comparative values are often transposed in an attempt to successfully lobby an arguement. Most of the presentations that support the moderate sized cow either leave out the appropriate counter analysis or their implication is merely academic. Supporting evidence does exist to fuel your continuous agruement, however the final application and management of your analysis are often times unpractical or are not real life depictions of the everyday cattleman.

To apply proper consulting standards you must gather information specific to the situation in order to determine if the moderate sized cow is an appropriate choice. Doc you are globalizing an idea that is at best a regional arguement.

So stop being a hard ass :D
 

Similar threads

Hogfarmer10
Ornery bull
Replies
10
Views
236
Warren Allison
Warren Allison
T
Bull chase
Replies
8
Views
518
Tomcolvin
T
Ky hills
New bull
Replies
14
Views
758
Ky hills
Ky hills
Ky hills
Bull selection
Replies
4
Views
356
Ky hills
Ky hills
R
Bull shopping
Replies
12
Views
711
Lazy M
L

Latest posts

Top