Between a ROCK and a HARD SPOT!

[dun]

I can't resist Dun,what is a small large framed calf?

Witin frame for feeder cattle there are divisions, of size. large 1, large 2, large 3.A large one is the smallest of the large frame will a medium 3 is the largest of the mediums.

 

[R.N.Reed]

Dun,I kind of thought thats what you meant but I couldnt resist the temptation to have a little fun with the play on words.

 

[dyates]

Hopefully, this isn't a double. I thought I posted it once but it never showed up.

I'm somewhat new at the 'science' of cattle. After doing a little reading, I see that frame score is basically a measurement of hip height. Is hip height really reliable? The reason I ask is this. My little mutt herd probably would average a frame score of 6 based on hip height. However, they probably weigh more like 1400#. I have someone much more experienced than me guessing weights. The cows are by no means fat. They are deep, wide and long. They just don't have 4 feet of daylight under them.

 

[dun]

Hopefully, this isn't a double. I thought I posted it once but it never showed up.

I'm somewhat new at the 'science' of cattle. After doing a little reading, I see that frame score is basically a measurement of hip height. Is hip height really reliable? The reason I ask is this. My little mutt herd probably would average a frame score of 6 based on hip height. However, they probably weigh more like 1400#. I have someone much more experienced than me guessing weights. The cows are by no means fat. They are deep, wide and long. They just don't have 4 feet of daylight under them.

Neither hip height or weight is a reliable quantitive measurement. But hip height has been standardized to X number of inches at X age is a frame score X.
Our cows are the same way as yours. That's why I don;t put a lot of credence in either FS or weight unless they are both given.
But that's my persoanl soap box issue

 

[BRG]

I think their should be a score for depth of rib and length to go along with height. As most cattle today are a lot different than the cattle of the 80's where they were all leg. The 7 frame cattle then were alot more inefficient than the 7 frame cattle today.

 

[DOC HARRIS]

Dusty and BRG-

It is difficult to refute facts and figures, and I won't attempt to argue these results.

Dusty, you have an EXCELLENT argument with your post, and your Charolais is very worthy. I am not proposing small framed cattle. FAR from it. I think that 6.5 - 7+ is getting dangerously close to being TOO big - for portending the FUTURE - a warning of too much of a good thing is asking for trouble. IF a breeder can selelct his Phenotype and EPD's intelligently, (as obviously you have done and are doing) and can keep his growth traits under control, THAT is the mark of a Master breeder!

BRG - Your figures also fly in the face of any disputation in opposition to the totals presented - on ONE given day, at ONE given location. I still feel that over the long haul, generally speaking over the years, MODERATE framed cattle ( 5.5-6.0 +/-) will come out ahead in the PROFIT box, EVERYTHING else considered. The "EVERYTHING ELSE" catagory is where the kicker resides! ALL costs, ALL expenses included - - - but that is just my opinion, and I have no ax to grind with either of you except to say what I have already stated.

DOC HARRIS

 

[BRG]

Doc,

I think you are right on with a 5.5 to a 6 frame as being the right size. We personally try to keep it at a 6, with that being said, we do have bulls at a year of age that are 5 and some that are 7, but we shoot for a 6. It just seems to me that when everyone talks about frame they all think that a 6 frame is way to big, and in reality, it is not for the average cowman as long as they have the capacity to go with it.

Those calves I was talking about is an example of one day at one location, BUT, the same thing is happening all the time up here, so it is really more of an average of the area and time, not just 1 time. On another note about those calves that I spoke of, they were not big frames either. By eyeballing them in the ring, I would guess that they were right around a 6. Now don't get me wrong, I did see some alot bigger than that too, but also some peewee frames as well.

 

[ALACOWMAN]

I think their should be a score for depth of rib and length to go along with height. As most cattle today are a lot different than the cattle of the 80's where they were all leg.

• .>The 7 frame cattle then were alot more inefficient than the 7 frame cattle today.<

and that's the whole ball of wax right there.

 

[DOC HARRIS]

I think their should be a score for depth of rib and length to go along with height. As most cattle today are a lot different than the cattle of the 80's where they were all leg.

• .>The 7 frame cattle then were alot more inefficient than the 7 frame cattle today.<

and that's the whole ball of wax right there.

. . . and the "Operative" word here is EFFICIENCY!. We can quote and cite facts, figures, opinions and examples until we clog up the outhouse, but the proof of the puddin' is in the PROFIT box at the end of the year! Whatever works - WORKS!

DOC HARRIS

 

[JMichal]

I think their should be a score for depth of rib and length to go along with height. As most cattle today are a lot different than the cattle of the 80's where they were all leg.

• .>The 7 frame cattle then were alot more inefficient than the 7 frame cattle today.<

and that's the whole ball of wax right there.

. . . and the "Operative" word here is EFFICIENCY!. We can quote and cite facts, figures, opinions and examples until we clog up the outhouse, but the proof of the puddin' is in the PROFIT box at the end of the year! Whatever works - WORKS!

DOC HARRIS

Talking about Efficiency, I have a herd of Angus in a pasture and a herd of Gelbvieh in the adjacent pasture. Pastures are identical. These are winter pastures. Herd size is the same, give or take a head or two. Last winter my Angus consumed twice as much hay. This winter I have fed the Angus about 15 bales (23 head) and the Gelbveih 2 Bales (25 head). The Gelbvieh are not eating hay and are content with the grass even though it is now dormant. The Angus will get on a Bale and stay on it till it's gone, then eat grass.

 

[KMacGinley]

Angus Brangus: How do you cut down a ribeye?

Well, let's see. There's bone-in and bone-out, there's "into steaks", and there's "in half" and so on.
Does that help?

Ya, it helps to tell me what you know. The bone is not included in Ribeye measurements, or didn't the AAA include that in your last memo, or in the angus journal where I think you get most of your information from. In half??? :lol: That is a real money maker... Housewives don't want large ribeyes.

It is kinda like Europe not wanting implanted cattle, and us trying to force them to take them or else. Instead of providing what the customer wants. :cboy: Take care.

 

[BRG]

The consumer don't want big REA's but if you don't have at least 1 square in of rib eye per hundred pounds of body weight when the cattle are processed, you are most likely going to have alot of yield grade 4s or higher and that is when you get docked. So we better have at least a 13 inch ribeye on you 1250 to 1300 lbs fat cattle.

 

[MikeC]

The consumer don't want big REA's but if you don't have at least 1 square in of rib eye per hundred pounds of body weight when the cattle are processed, you are most likely going to have alot of yield grade 4s or higher and that is when you get docked. So we better have at least a 13 inch ribeye on you 1250 to 1300 lbs fat cattle.

Yes, you are correct, but the USDA recommended portion size is 3-4 ounces, about the size of a deck of cards, which translates to about 8-9 square inches. :shock:

There is no easy fix.................. except to cut it in half or slice it thinner and quicken the cooking time.

 

[greenwillowhereford II]

Is the 1200-1250# finished feeder not still the animal that literally "fits the box" for the packer? If this is still true, then as a producer, not only do I want to provide the packer with decent yield and quality grade genetics, but in the package that fits the box. It seems to me that there is only so much frame score that has any decent thickness and guts and still fits the box. Last time I checked, the 1200# cow and the 2000# bull were about the best combo for accomplishing the 1200# finished steer. Again, with any decent capacity, there is a limit to the frame score at those weights.

I'm not saying that there is no place for any variation. What works for you works for you. But it seems that there would be only so far in either direction that you could vary without missing the target.

Having said all this, my cows probably run 1,300#. I culled one last year because she came up open after 2 and a half or 3 months with the bull the spring/summer before. She was a coming 4 year old, and I fed her moderately for 90 days-not full feed, just enough to give the flavor etc. She weighed over 1400 at the butcher, and has been possibly the best beef I've ever had any time any where. Some day I plan to post a pic of some of the cuts of meat. It is at least deep into Choice territory. Talk about some enormous sirloins and T-bones! But that's great for my family of five. I've got a teen age son now, and between the two of us and a younger son....the ladies have to take what's left! No really, they get first choice...

 

[novatech]

There seems to be a large assumption that the only way to eat tenderloin is in a steak thus reducing the size to portions served as one steak.
I prefer to have mine in the form of a roast, preferably prime rib, with a minimum of 4 ribs.
Here is a site that will show that there are alternatives. http://whatscookingamerica.net/Beef/ClassicPrimeRib.htm
Another thought to this is that if one is talking about high quality tenderloin the larger size is often times better as you must cut out the thick rivers of fat between the meat in order to get a serving size, well marbled, steak.

 

[Arnold Ziffle]

Well, I've never had a tenderloin with a bone in ;-) --- but I sure like big ribeyes, with bone in or out. For this old boy there's no such thing as a ribeye that's too big, as long as it's tender and juicy! And 20 ounce porterhouses are high on my list of favorites as well.

 

[andybob]

Arnold never had a 'T' bone steak? The large top portion is loin or ribeye, the smaller 'bottom' portion is tenderloin or true fillet.

 

[Scotty]

Arnold never had a 'T' bone steak? The large top portion is loin or ribeye, the smaller 'bottom' portion is tenderloin or true fillet.

What about the 20 oz porterhouse he refered to. Isn't a T-bone with a larger fillet portion. Same bone shape.

 

[Arnold Ziffle]

andybob, yes as a matter of fact I eat T-bone at least once a week. Maybe I'm just too provincial, as I've always associated the term "tenderloin" of beef only with filet mignon (when that is the only muscle cut by by itself). At any rate, I like them all. :lol:

 

[greenwillowhereford II]

andybob, yes as a matter of fact I eat T-bone at least once a week. Maybe I'm just too provincial, as I've always associated the term "tenderloin" of beef only with filet mignon (when that is the only muscle cut by by itself). At any rate, I like them all. :lol:

I agree with you whole heartedly regarding liking them all, but T-bone is hard to beat....and I think that here we have really gotten to the heart of the issue. So long as we have an animal efficient enough to make the producer chain money, and the beef quality to make the eater happy, we'll be fine.

For the record, nothing here over frame score 6, and nothing under 5, but I'd be willing to use some 4 to 4.5 with the right look.