CA Future Direction 5321

[Chuckie]

I was discussing this bull, CA Furture Direction 5321 with another cattle man. I had not ever considered using him or purchasing any of his offspring before, but, I really liked his looks. Not that I didn't like him, I guess I just considered him to be hot on the show circuit. But when I read across his numbers, he sounds like he might be a small bull. His BW is good, and his YW is just above average. One thing he did show strong in, are his Carcass and Ultrasound numbers.
Then the down side, I noticed that his Scrotal measurements says that he could easily use a pea shooter to arm himself, and then the heights show shorter and his mature weight lower.
So, for those that have actually seen the bull and his immediate offspring, how close do these EPD's hold true?
Is this mostly a show bull or is he useful in the commercial herd too?

 

[bulldealer]

Future Direction is not considered to be a show bull. Although there are many progeny on the show road. I would say that he breeds true to his numbers. The cattle are low BW and moderate in their growth. He will also breed moderate framed cattle that excel in phenotype. The ultrasound numbers are his strong point. The cattle will more times than not be the high IMF cattle in their cont. group I don't think that he, himself, is priced with the commercial man in mind at $150-$250 a unit. A son would be a great addition to a commercial cowman that had 1200-1500 pound cows and retained ownership through slaughter.

 

[jscunn]

Chuckie,
Haven't seen but "heard" the Future Direction sons tend to have some problems getting infected "penis. I dont remember the scientific term but their "penis would not retract fully and it gets irritated on grass. I guess if they were larger framed it would be higher off the ground.... :lol:

 

[mtnman]

Phenotypically, there are not words to describe him, if you are in it for moderate, dense cattle.

His forearm would fill a five gallon bucket!

mtnman

 

[DTA ranch]

I AI'd two of my heifers to Fut. Direct. and the calves both heifers had low birth weight and stayed small. I was not impressed and wouldn't do that agian. But you live and learn.

 

[Aero]

Chuckie:
why do you say lower mature weight is on the down side? MW is a measurement of size at 5 yrs old. if you are looking at growth through feedlot and slaughter, YW should be what i would look at. i havent heard a convincing arguement yet for higher MW. the bigger they are in your herd, the more they will eat. i prefer to look for higher WW & YW and lower MW. this way i have cattle that grow well for beef and dont get huge if females are retained.

DTA:
small heifers is exactly what i would want if i am retaining them.

BTW- i have a registered Future Direction daughter (AAA #14888588) and true to form, she has very good ultrasound numbers, above average growth and is about a 5 frame 20 mo old.

 

[Chuckie]

Aero,
I guess I just want a bull to have at least average numbers when it comes to weight and height. I am not saying that I am right. I would like for someone to prove to me that actually smaller cattle do make more money in the long run. All I can go by are what some say and then in turn, the others want heavier weights. Even though most of the slaughter animals never make it to mature weight, usually after birth, the weights and heights usually follow in line. Shorter and lighter weights in WW and YW usually finish up with lower MW. There are some bloodlines that kick in at different times more than other bloodlines. I think they call this group, the "Curve benders."
I keep reading the discussions of shorter cattle vs. taller cattle. Lighter weights vs. heavier weights. Since I am poor, I can't afford to run that experiment that I wanted to try, I just thought I would at least hug the average line. So I will come up with this scientific conclusion. If anyone disagrees with me, please straighten me out. :roll: So here goes:
One small cow is cheapest to feed.
Two small cows: cost twice as much.
One large cow almost the size of two, cost more to feed than one, but probably less than two.
Three small cows: cost three times as much
One cow the size of three small cows: run like hell.

 

[Cattle Rack Rancher]

I would say that whether you use him or not has more to do with what your objectives are than anything. If you say that your current cow herd represents where you are, the bull you use should represent where you want to go. If you had large cows and were planning on retaining your heifers this might be the right bull for you. If you have smaller cattle and like them that way and are going to retain your heifers, but are worried about frame creep from using a larger bull, this might be the right bull for you. However, if you are a cow/calf producer and you buy your replacements, as long as you have a bull that produces calves that have a moderate birth weight, you should be focusing on maximizing your weaning weights and if this bull doesn't do that, then he probably isn't the right bull for you.
JMHO.

 

[Brandonm2]

According to a study in the late 80s by Ritchie et al. If you grazed cows on summer pasture then DRYLOTTED them for 215 days (so the professors could actually measure consumption) an 1100 cow consumes 8447 Mcals of metabolizable energy (ME), a 1430 lb cow 9940, and 11361 for a 1700 lb cow during the drylot period. This translated into $202 per cow, $235, and $266 in feed costs for the three different sized cows. NOT that big a deal for cows in a drylot; but if the cows are supposed to make their living on grass and hay you are going to either starve the bigger cows, run fewer cows per acre, or have to throw grain at them you wouldn't have to throw to more moderate framed cows. If two heifers have the same weaning wt and yearling wt EPDs but one has a much bigger mature cow weight EPD that means her and her daughters are going to cost you MORE money in feed, hay, and grass to get the same level of production as the first heifer (IF the numbers are all accurate). This is a very usable number to have and I congratulate Angus for adding these new EPDs and HOPE that Hereford will soon follow the Angus association's lead in this.

 

[mtnman]

I would like for someone to prove to me that actually smaller cattle do make more money in the long run.

And I'd like to have someone prove to me that larger cattle will make more money in the long run.

mtnman

 

[Chuckie]

mtnman, I hereby nominate you to do the experiment to prove to us lukewarm believers.

 

[Arnold Ziffle]

I guess I'm a little surprised that MARC hasn't done a long-term study on the cow size issue --- or maybe they have? Of course, the answer will depend a lot on what part of north America you're raising cattle in and what your forage, terrain & weather conditions are but, all other things being equal, my gut sure tells me that I'd rather have 15 cows that weigh 1,200 versus 10 cows that weigh 1,800.

 

[MrBilly]

I saw and bid on a number of Future Direction sons this past Monday at the Three Trees Bull sale in Woodbury, GA. They were very good looking and very thick. All had the right numbers too. Unfortunately they sold for more than I was willing to pay. The lowest went for 4 thou and the highest almost 8 and that was for a 15 mo old bullyboy. I will keep looking at other FD offspring, and one of them will be on the farm by spring. The hunt continues.

Billy

 

[Chuckie]

Are ya'll finding that Future Direction's sons have a smaller head than other bulls?

 

[MoGal]

I think this sale has a couple with Future Direction as sire... I didn't look through the catalog so you may find more (looked at pics only)

http://www.stevensonbasin.com/catalog.html

 

[dph]

I don't doubt that smaller cows can be more efficient than larger cows, but efficency doesn't just involve costs, it also involves returns. Looking at feed costs is just one side of the equation. I don't see how you can say a small cow is better than a large one, without saying what they each have for calves at their side. I think downsizing the cow is a worthwhile goal, but it shouldn't be done at the expense of downsizing the pounds I sell. If she is a big cow, weaning a small calf, she goes, but if she is a big cow, weaning a big calf, I think I can put it with her till she goes of natural causes.

I agree with mntman, I don't believe anybody can prove that larger cattle will make more money in the long run, but I bet you can prove that going for smaller cattle, just because they are small, can cost you some. By the way, not that mtnman has ever suggested it, but others have, I think anyone promoting the idea of culling the largest 10% of your heifers because they are too large is nuts. First, because I doubt I can predict where their mature weight ends up, and second because I can't for the life of me figure why anyone would select AGAINST gain. Which leaves us a long way from Future Direction, the sire. Sorry.

 

[mtnman]

Funny you brought that up, dph.

I took no offense, but I do actually cull the top heifers every year for too much weaning weight.

I haven't kept a top performing heifer for about 8 years, just kept being disappointed in their maternal performance, or they got too big. I might lose something now and then, but over a 10 year average trying it, they just weren't worth it, never had one that made it past about 5-6 years old. Dad advised against it after his years of experience, but I had to try it, you know.

mtnman

 

[dph]

mtnman, thanks for the response. Now you have got me interested. I think we will have to start keeping track, for curiosity's sake, ourselves, to find if we also can see a link between WW and maternal performance. We will just add their weaning weight and rank right next to their number when we keep calf records. This is what usually happens when I think someone is "nuts," you start to think, "well, hmm..., I wonder."