Big muscular bulls
- Thread starter RAWCJW
- Start date
Help Support CattleToday:
ALACOWMAN
Well-known member
muscles are bred in not fed in. but they can loose a lot of mass without proper nutrition. but a mature bull on good pasture should show good muscling if its bred in him. daps bull is a good example of a well muscled bull on pasture. all the feed in the world won't help a dink if its not there you will just have a tubby turd ;-)
*Cowgirl*
Well-known member
ALACOWMAN":iil7068n said:
Amen.;-)
A good bull is born a good bull not fed 20lbs a day until he looks like a bowling ball with legs.
It's all in the genes..........
DiamondSCattleCo
Well-known member
My bulls are expected to head out on pasture, breed 50 - 60 animals, and come back in looking as good as they did when they left. If a bull's losing too much weight, he's likely a hard keepin' SOB and should be hamburger. Bear in mind, we've got small pastures up here, no more than 50 acres, so our bulls don't have to make alot of miles.
Rod
Rod
RAWCJW":1rt93ahx said:
A bull should have available to him enough nutrients to express his genetic potential, whether it be forage or grain.
Some folks don't have the forage at all times and have to feed them.
People say they don't want a "FAT" bull. :roll:
But they always bring the most money!
Bulls should look "ATHLETIC".
Bulls should be compared to athletes. Yearling bulls are like teenage boys (in more ways than just their nutritional needs.)
An athlete that was overweight would be less effective just as a fat bull is. However, starve the athlete/bull and they are just an ineffective.
The hype behind forage developed bulls is just that.
An athlete that was overweight would be less effective just as a fat bull is. However, starve the athlete/bull and they are just an ineffective.
The hype behind forage developed bulls is just that.
Is their a way to tell when new posts have been added to a forum that you are participating in? I continually seem to post a message and than forget about it, than when people have questions I fail to notice. (sorry about the delay)
First to answer Dun's question. Although I think it was more of a statement. Developing females on forage is a practical and widely accepted method. I see the comparison you are reaching for but the nutritional needs for heifers in considerable lower. Ranchers and collegiate authorities agree that females need only weigh 65% of their mature weight at breeding and 85% by the time they have their first calf.
As for the hype statement. Over the past couple of years several seedstock producers have taken advantage of "grassfed, forage developed bulls" and used it to successfully and widely market their bulls.
The problem with marketing and developing bulls on forage alone is two-fold. First many of these seedstock producers are not "truly" developing their bulls on forage alone. They have a battery of feedtrucks and grain bins on their ranches.
I always use the comparison to teenage athletes because it is something that most most producers are familiar with. If you compare livestock to humans many times you can see why something works or why it doesn't. A high school football player that eats a low protein diet would develop less muscle, have lower stamina and endurance and be ineffective in his athletic field. A bull that is on a low protein forage diet is subject to the same problem as the football player. Semen quality and quantity is one of the very first things affected by improper nutrition.
I understand why producers are intrigued by the idea of forage developed bulls. We've all seen too many fat, lazy, foundered bulls that were overfed. However, imho forage developed bulls is swinging to the other extreme.
Does that clear up my thoughts?
First to answer Dun's question. Although I think it was more of a statement. Developing females on forage is a practical and widely accepted method. I see the comparison you are reaching for but the nutritional needs for heifers in considerable lower. Ranchers and collegiate authorities agree that females need only weigh 65% of their mature weight at breeding and 85% by the time they have their first calf.
As for the hype statement. Over the past couple of years several seedstock producers have taken advantage of "grassfed, forage developed bulls" and used it to successfully and widely market their bulls.
The problem with marketing and developing bulls on forage alone is two-fold. First many of these seedstock producers are not "truly" developing their bulls on forage alone. They have a battery of feedtrucks and grain bins on their ranches.
I always use the comparison to teenage athletes because it is something that most most producers are familiar with. If you compare livestock to humans many times you can see why something works or why it doesn't. A high school football player that eats a low protein diet would develop less muscle, have lower stamina and endurance and be ineffective in his athletic field. A bull that is on a low protein forage diet is subject to the same problem as the football player. Semen quality and quantity is one of the very first things affected by improper nutrition.
I understand why producers are intrigued by the idea of forage developed bulls. We've all seen too many fat, lazy, foundered bulls that were overfed. However, imho forage developed bulls is swinging to the other extreme.
Does that clear up my thoughts?
Not sure how great that analogy is since you are comparing an undernourished human to a bull that is eating what it is designed to eat. It's not that forage is a low-protein diet, it's that it is a normal diet and the other feeds are high-protein.
The analogy is low protein and high protein. That's it.
I don't think it makes since to discount the ability of bovine's to convert corn and other grains into muscle/meat. Seeing as there are hundreds of thousands of cattle doing it everyday.
I don't think it makes since to discount the ability of bovine's to convert corn and other grains into muscle/meat. Seeing as there are hundreds of thousands of cattle doing it everyday.
DiamondSCattleCo
Well-known member
sainty01":1q3lmd2l said:
Your analogy doesn't stick, sainty. As Ratfish said, you're comparing an undernourished human to a high protein fed human. In the case of true forage developed bulls, the forage should provide all they need for good growth and good muscling. Then the buyer has some kind of an idea what he's getting. That buyer knows how the bull is going to perform on grass, and you also have a good idea how that bull's offspring is going to perform on grass. Also animals that perform well on forage will perform very well on feed. The inverse is not necessarily so. Bulls that are stuffed full of high protein feed tend to fall apart when they hit grass in the summer and you have absolutely no idea how their offspring will perform. That line "fed to genetic potential"? I think its just a good way for some bull breeders to hide their poor genetics behind a feed bucket.
Rod
This has been a nice conversation, I appreciate everyone's comments and thoughts.
I concreted my disapproval of forage developed bulls last fall when I attended the sale of one of the largest seedstock producers in the United States that has a strict forage only policy. (Please don't ask whom, I disagree with their program but don't feel comfortable bashing the family, they are probably good people.)
The concern I gained was that people were buying these bulls based on their development not on their quality. In fact good cattlemen and women were selecting bulls that they would never have purchased other than all the hype and marketing. These were two year old bulls, a cross section of breeds and composites and they averaged about 950 pounds. They had been scanned and on average had an 11 inch eye. Hair quality was poor. Hooves looked great. Many with structural problems. Averaged over $4000. Probably less than 5% of the bulls sold within a 60 mile area. No doubt this ranch is good at promotion. This led me to believe that people have became wrapped up in the thought process behind range developed cattle and not the facts behind it.
I have no doubt that if properly managed, there is room in the industry for forage developed bulls. However, I'm afraid that many will simply take away protein and call it a forage program. Developing bulls with forage alone would require constant supervision and knowledge of the nutrients in the grassland and hay being fed. The producers that I see doing forage programs are not doing these things. They have simply found a way to get customers to pay more while feeding lower priced feedstuffs.
Semen quality and quantity is so important.
A good forage program would include: 1) Nutritional analysis of grass and hay. 2) Excellent mineral supplementation. 3)Maintaining protein levels around 11%-12%. In my area to maintain that level of protein your going to have to put out lick tubs or feed grain....<---which means this is no longer a forage development program.
I concreted my disapproval of forage developed bulls last fall when I attended the sale of one of the largest seedstock producers in the United States that has a strict forage only policy. (Please don't ask whom, I disagree with their program but don't feel comfortable bashing the family, they are probably good people.)
The concern I gained was that people were buying these bulls based on their development not on their quality. In fact good cattlemen and women were selecting bulls that they would never have purchased other than all the hype and marketing. These were two year old bulls, a cross section of breeds and composites and they averaged about 950 pounds. They had been scanned and on average had an 11 inch eye. Hair quality was poor. Hooves looked great. Many with structural problems. Averaged over $4000. Probably less than 5% of the bulls sold within a 60 mile area. No doubt this ranch is good at promotion. This led me to believe that people have became wrapped up in the thought process behind range developed cattle and not the facts behind it.
I have no doubt that if properly managed, there is room in the industry for forage developed bulls. However, I'm afraid that many will simply take away protein and call it a forage program. Developing bulls with forage alone would require constant supervision and knowledge of the nutrients in the grassland and hay being fed. The producers that I see doing forage programs are not doing these things. They have simply found a way to get customers to pay more while feeding lower priced feedstuffs.
Semen quality and quantity is so important.
A good forage program would include: 1) Nutritional analysis of grass and hay. 2) Excellent mineral supplementation. 3)Maintaining protein levels around 11%-12%. In my area to maintain that level of protein your going to have to put out lick tubs or feed grain....<---which means this is no longer a forage development program.
I don;t have any experience with "forage developed" bulls onther the Pedro the Red Angus bull we bought earlier this year. He was developed basicly the same way we do our heifers. At weaning they go on a moderate quantity of 13-16% supplement for 45 days then kicked out to rustle their grub like they'll have to do when they're older. Of the 13 bulls in the pasture, 4-5 where pretty good conditioned bulls, the others were not to my liking conditionwsie. Pedro went out and bred the first cow the evening that he got here. We were using him for cleanup so he only had a half dozen to breed. Settled everyone on first service. He's lost some condition, not because of the forage but because he's only semi-retired. He still is continually checking on the girls and hoping. He covers a lot more ground then the cows do, but he's still in good condition. The ond of October he'll be moved out and be pastued with a steer for compaqny for a month, then he goes to the dairy to breed the heifers there for a couple of months then back home to stay with his steer buddy.
I don;t know if it's a good way to manage him, but as long as he stays in good condition, and settles the girls that's the way we're going to do things. Unless we get a really severe winter with deep snow he's seen the last bite of grain he'll see in his lifetime, unless we decide to finish him for the freezer.
Where this ramble was headed and got sidetracked is that although there may be those that are pumping forage grown bulls, if they have the genetics it's entirely possible that it will work. Without the genetics you might as well pick up a bull from the sale barn. But that applys to all genetics, not just those that deal with forage development.
dun
I don;t know if it's a good way to manage him, but as long as he stays in good condition, and settles the girls that's the way we're going to do things. Unless we get a really severe winter with deep snow he's seen the last bite of grain he'll see in his lifetime, unless we decide to finish him for the freezer.
Where this ramble was headed and got sidetracked is that although there may be those that are pumping forage grown bulls, if they have the genetics it's entirely possible that it will work. Without the genetics you might as well pick up a bull from the sale barn. But that applys to all genetics, not just those that deal with forage development.
dun
sainty01":3gr5nsbz said:
Are you trying to tell me that if I bought one of your NON forage raised bulls and let him out with my cows he would stay in good condition and that because he was raised with ++ grain ect. his sperm would be better?
What turnip truck did you fall off of??
I do not know what bull sale you were at but a two year old bull that only weights 950lbs is the result of poor pasture or animals to start with!!!!!!! I am sure a number of us on here could sell you a foraged raised two year old bull that will be well over 1500lb. Were was this so called bull sale and were were your glasses???
Edited for language by Mod. Next time I'll delete it completely.
So much for my nice conversation.
http://www.ranchers.net/forum/about8712-0.html
Interesting link.
Rod, I agree with your comments on ranchers.net rather than the one's here.
Thank you Dun for your comments. I agree with them.
Semen quality I was referring to is called "retained droplet syndrome".
I seem to have hijacked this thread, and I think it's been discussed to death. To answer the original question:
In the winter our herd bulls are ran on native grass, fed alfalfa hay and fed 15 lbs of whole corn.
We market and develop yearling bulls, they are fed hay and a protein pellet for the first 45 days, than are slowly moved up to 12 lbs of whole corn in addition to the pellet and hay. They are ran in a large dry lot.
http://www.ranchers.net/forum/about8712-0.html
Interesting link.
Rod, I agree with your comments on ranchers.net rather than the one's here.
Thank you Dun for your comments. I agree with them.
Semen quality I was referring to is called "retained droplet syndrome".
I seem to have hijacked this thread, and I think it's been discussed to death. To answer the original question:
In the winter our herd bulls are ran on native grass, fed alfalfa hay and fed 15 lbs of whole corn.
We market and develop yearling bulls, they are fed hay and a protein pellet for the first 45 days, than are slowly moved up to 12 lbs of whole corn in addition to the pellet and hay. They are ran in a large dry lot.
sainty01":367opit4 said:
This may verywell get back to the different areas do things differently. I know that in hte Mojave Desert we sure couldn;t devlop anything on just the forage base. Some places have better feed value forage then others. But the genetics still have to be there We've al seen cattle that are fed well and just don;t do the job. We have a heifer we bought that just never has adapted to fescue, she was raised in IA on different grasses then we have here. All of our raised/retained heifers have been raised on this poisonous stuff and are out of cows that were raised on it, etc., etc., etc. Some animals can handle the toxicity, others can;t. It's gotta be in the genes
dun
I shouldn't lump all forage developed bulls into the same category with those that I see in my area. In areas with higher quality forages I can see how the program works. Thanks Dun.
I find it interesting though that several of you who have been adament about the benefits of forage based development don't utilize such programs atleast you don't as I define forage based.
In fact under the definition that seems to be floating around, I develop bulls with forage...
Msscamp: Thanks for the information about the red folders and watch this topic. The feedtrucks at these operations ARE being used to feed cattle a hot ration. Sure feed trucks aren't a dead give a way but in this example they were. As to your feeding program. I wouldn't define it as a forage program if you also let the bulls have some of that beet pulp. Beet pulp as you know is an incredible feedstuff. Most nutritionist define it in it's own category because of it's unique qualities. Most BP has about 10% Crude Protein, and 18% Crude fiber which puts it inbetween a forage and an Energy Feed. Although most coops and feed producers use it at as an energy source. I wish we had access to it. BTW, where in WY are you located I went to Jr. College in Casper.
I totally agree with your comment, "Testing and the proper forage can (and does) provide more than adequate nutrition."
Each seedstock producer's definition of "forage/range raised" seems to be different and that was the reason for my original hype comment.
Does anyone else ever wonder how much easier these conversations would be if they were done in person. Many times it seems people mostly agree but it takes a long time to get everyone seeing the small details that they differ on.
I find it interesting though that several of you who have been adament about the benefits of forage based development don't utilize such programs atleast you don't as I define forage based.
In fact under the definition that seems to be floating around, I develop bulls with forage...
Msscamp: Thanks for the information about the red folders and watch this topic. The feedtrucks at these operations ARE being used to feed cattle a hot ration. Sure feed trucks aren't a dead give a way but in this example they were. As to your feeding program. I wouldn't define it as a forage program if you also let the bulls have some of that beet pulp. Beet pulp as you know is an incredible feedstuff. Most nutritionist define it in it's own category because of it's unique qualities. Most BP has about 10% Crude Protein, and 18% Crude fiber which puts it inbetween a forage and an Energy Feed. Although most coops and feed producers use it at as an energy source. I wish we had access to it. BTW, where in WY are you located I went to Jr. College in Casper.
I totally agree with your comment, "Testing and the proper forage can (and does) provide more than adequate nutrition."
Each seedstock producer's definition of "forage/range raised" seems to be different and that was the reason for my original hype comment.
Does anyone else ever wonder how much easier these conversations would be if they were done in person. Many times it seems people mostly agree but it takes a long time to get everyone seeing the small details that they differ on.
