Bone - "fine" vs. "big"???

[OKJeanne]

I would appreciate hearing from those breeders that have
discussed the concept of "bone" when talking about
cows or bulls. Exactly what do some folks mean by saying
a bull is too "fine-boned"? Or the comment of "plenty of
bone"?

I can understand that the skeleton of the bovine must be
large/strong enough to support the body muscle/organs
etc....but I have seen some bovines that have so much
obvious "bone" that you can tell there would be a huge
amount of waste at slaughter. Also, if you look at very
old photos or fair drawings, you can see that the breeders
in the "olden" days selected for lots of depth, width,
muscle, but comparatively small leg bones. Why would
that be? Why would large heavy bones be any advantage
if larger than necessary? Along the same line of thinking,
why would breeders NOT select for smaller type heads
on their cattle---another source of waste at slaughter
I would think(except for the packer of course; they sell
everything except the "moo")

 

[shutskytj]

Too me a larger boned animal is one that could support alot more weight especially on bulls when they mount and cows to handle the bulls mounting. In the olden days those cows may have been small boned but also very fat which is a lot of waste. Today's animal is muscle for meat which weighs more than fat. So more bone to support more muscle

 

[ebrown512]

I think generally speaking most people just like the way heavier boned cattle look vs. finer boned animals. They just seem to catch your eye more, especially as a calf. However I will say more bone = more birthweight.

 

[Jeanne - Simme Valley]

There is a happy medium between "too fine" & "too heavy". Mostly, though, it's the SHAPE of the bone. A flat wide bone is better than a round bone. Now, let's not get carried away with terms, I don't mean - flat like a pancake. Look at hock joints on cattle. Good boned cattle have nice flat joints when viewed from the rear, and WIDE when viewed from the side - this is sounder structured animal. If they have big round hocks, that's more of a round boned animal & more wastie and tend to "blow out" their hocks more. I don't know WHY - just know what people that are real picky about structure look for.

 

[DOC HARRIS]

Look at hock joints on cattle. Good boned cattle have nice flat joints when viewed from the rear, and WIDE when viewed from the side - this is sounder structured animal. If they have big round hocks, that's more of a round boned animal & more wastie and tend to "blow out" their hocks more. I don't know WHY - just know what people that are real picky about structure look for.

Hi - BOTH Jeanne's - If one will consider the Laws of Physics and Construction Materials in relation to animal or biological structure - the explanation in the quote above by Jeanne - Simme Valley is absolutely RIGHT ON TRACK! A steel "I Beam" is stronger than a round Pipe, and a Pipe is stronger than a solid tube - bone, of course, being porous to allow for blood vessels and irregular formations to accomodate cartilage and ligamentous attachments and articulations, and hollow in the center for the bone marrow which manufactures red blood cells, must withstand tremendous weights and stresses and functions.

Insofar as the 'reasons' for the comparatively small leg bones and heads of the 'olden days' photos or Fair drawings - they were concentrating for advertising purposes on the 'body' structures and NOT on the legs or heads. Later in the evolution of 'live animal photography' the animals were depicted standing in straw or grass up to their bellies for the purpose of exemplifying the body structure and minimizing the leg sizes.

The comments regarding "- - -plenty of bone" - or "- - - fine-boned" relates to an adequate amount of bone (leg) to sustain the weight of the animal (Male or Female) both from a carcass standpoint and as a breeding entity - a cow carrying calves during pregancy or bulls supporting their weight during mating or fighting for herd dominance.

Selecting for 'smaller heads and lighter more refined leg bones and skeletal structure' would be tantamount to opening the "Pandora's Box" of Beef Cattle problems of the 40's and 50's - and God forbid that should EVER happen again!

DON'T GET ME STARTED!

DOC HARRIS

 

[DiamondSCattleCo]

Also, if you look at very
old photos or fair drawings, you can see that the breeders
in the "olden" days selected for lots of depth, width,
muscle, but comparatively small leg bones.

Not necessarily smaller, but definitely shorter. Bear in mind that some of those pictures of those wasty animals cover up just how much leg they truly did have.

I select for older fashioned looking stock. Not the wasty stuff from years gone by, but deeper, high volume animals with shorter legs. You don't get paid for the space under the animals belly, so all you're doing is spending money growing leg bones.

Rod

 

[randiliana]

Another thing I have noticed, is that animals with good bone generally carry more muscle than finer boned animals. For example, the dairy breeds are commonly finer boned, and the also carry less muscle, however, Charolais, Simmental etc... are usually heavier boned animals and they also carry more muscle. The British breeds are usually in between the Dairy and European breeds for both meat and muscle.

Since beef producers are in the buisness of producing MEAT, we select animals that are heavier boned, and therefore heavier muscled (or vice versa).

 

[OK Jeanne]

Hi Doc Harris: I certainly would not like to go back to
the days when people were basically breeding for minature
sized cattle. However, my comment about smaller heads
on cattle was just meant to indicate my preference.
The photo of Rockcliffe Patron below shows(to me) a
nice small head in proportion to his body shape. I really like his looks. I would not want to use a bull with a very long and wide head.

[/img]


Does he look "fine-boned" to anyone?

 

[SPRINGER FARMS MURRAY GRE]

OK Jeanne....you go girl.... ;-) :cboy:

 

[mtnman]

Doc, sometimes you are dead on, and sometimes I wonder.

Bone is BS.

Nothing wrong with smaller, denser, flatter bone. Except perception.

Never had trouble with breaking legs, so bone isn't a big deal. Unless you are into cosmetics.

Nothing wrong with WYE cattle, either. ;-) They've been making money for us since the late 60's.

I'm starting to wonder about you more and more.

mtnman

 

[BRG]

For me good bone is a couple different things. On average, if you have good bone(enough so they aren't standing on toothpicks, and not to much to be hard calving) you will ussually have a little more muscle, and more performance. If you don't have enough bone, you will ussually loose performance but have more calving ease. With calving ease, you almost always have poorer doing (feedlot performance) cattle. I think it is important to have the right amount of bone, especially if you are a seedstock producer in the Angus business like I am. We are competing against the composite cattle more and more every year. If I want my cattle to be competitve, I need to have my cattle better than them.

The other reason I think bone is important is for visual appearance. When you sell your calves at the barn and the buyers see them the 5 minutes they are in the ring, you need to have them big and stout, and it is easier to impress the buyers if they have some bone. They also know that with good bone, the future owner should have a little more performance bred into them.

 

[OKJeanne]

I have noticed that order buyers at auctions will go for the
large boned, slightly thin calves for their stocker customers.

The stocker people make profit by amount of gain, so there
needs to be a big frame to pack on the pounds on the
wheat pasture. Then the feedlot people are selling time
and grain....an early maturing animal doesn't make them
as much profit I suspect....I would guess that they prefer
a steer that will finish out at 1400 to 1500 pounds at least.

Maybe people that retain ownership & get paid by grade
and yield(some call it grade and steal), might fall somewhere
in the middle.

We are nowhere in that scenario because we sell breeding
stock and those that don't quite make that grade are
raised to maturity & sold for beef. I think it is a distinct
advantage to be able to cull & have strict selection for
breeding stock, and still have a profit outlet for the
ones that just are not good enough to be breeders.

So, I'm with you mtman---none of our animals have broken
any bones.

 

[DiamondSCattleCo]

Nothing wrong with smaller, denser, flatter bone. Except perception.

Its much easier to get muscle on a large bone than it is a small bone. Larger boned animals will grow muscle faster.

Those frail boned creatures that misguided individuals were breeding almost ruined the Shorthorn breed

Rod

 

[DOC HARRIS]

The comments regarding "- - -plenty of bone" - or "- - - fine-boned" relates to an adequate amount of bone (leg) to sustain the weight of the animal (Male or Female) both from a carcass standpoint and as a breeding entity - a cow carrying calves during pregancy or bulls supporting their weight during mating or fighting for herd dominance.

mtnman-Peruse the above quote. A breeder shouldn't have to anticipate or wait for "broken bones" to occur to be cognizant of the necessity of possessing "Structural Skeletal Strength" in their breeding herd. I have contended with several bulls in the past which were useless as breeding bulls because of Stifle (knee-joint) problems resulting from inadequate skeletal structure and relative bone size and strength. I choose to NOT go through that situation again! Homeplace Eileenmere 999 35th had that unfortunate problem later in his life. The fallability of this situation is that it is a genetic trait (as is everything) and should be recognized as such.

Bone is NOT BS.

Bone is "Skeletal Structural Foundation".


OKJeanne - Please review my post of May 16. My references to bone size, strength, and structure was not intended to be portentous. Bone, per se is RELATIVE to the individual's function and purpose. The bone and head size of Rockliffe Patron is as close to optimal as anyone could desire! He is an example of a modern day Beef Breeding bull - RELATIVE to his size, purpose, and function!

DOC HARRIS

 

[OKJeanne]

Hi Doc & thanks for your message. We were lucky to find
some semen on Rockliffe Patron. He was born in 1979, in
Tazmania I think. He was a frame score 5 and had a mature
weight of around 2200---just the size we look for. We will
be using this semen for our flush in a couple of weeks.
He has a perfect DNA score for the presently-known
tenderness genes, and also scored one "star" in the
marbling column. We're hoping for some terrific calves
out of him.

 

[DOC HARRIS]

We're hoping for some terrific calves
out of him.

WOW! I would guess YES!

DOC HARRIS

 

[mtnman]

I agree with that Doc, but it has nothing to do with where you took it---to the place of dish faces, and troubles of the 50's.

Those weren't bone problems, no need to run up the red flag if it isn't bone.

mtnman