Cost of Using a Maternal Bull ?

[Stocker Steve]

If you are an optimizer, you can not get replacement heifers and terminal feedlot calves out of the same breeding. There are tradeoffs...
Problem with optimizing is you either need to buy replacements or have multiple breed herds. A way to do this is to sort off replacement making cows for AI, and cover the rest with a high growth framey continental bulls.

 

[Brute 23]

I think that's where buying balanced bulls come in.

When I raise a cow I know her genetic performance first hand, in the conditions her offspring will be asked to perform in. With bulls your trusting an epd that can be manipulated or misrepresented or just not the same in your conditions.

Chasing a certain EPD in a bull seems extremely risky.

I look at bulls like a fresh coat paint. It can make all the difference by adding value, freshening the look, preservation, etc.... but if the foundation of what your slapping the paint on is junk you got nothing.

I guess that's why I dont sweat bulls.... I know the cows and what they are going to do.

 

[Nesikep]

Yes, depending on your cost of feed, I think you would make the maternal bull cost back in one to two years. I have learned not to retain beefy terminal heifers.

My beefy heifers have usually turned out to be the best cows

- Continental cross cows usually do not winter well in the Artic Vortex. Not planning to feed silage or baleage to cows.
- Have two breeding herds currently, and doing some fire and ice matings. Results vary.
- There are some obvious cull heifers early on. An issue I have is some just continue growing until they are monsters at about 5 yrs old. How do you avoid that?

This one is a beefy Gelbvieh x Salers.. maintains condition well, grows a good hair coat, and consistently makes the top calf of the year




9 years later


Beefy daughter

 

[Silver]

In my opinion there is no reason a cow can't produce a great feedlot steer or a great replacement heifer. If one needs to buy a "terminal" bull to achieve good weaning weights then I would suggest that one's cows simply aren't good enough. Demand more from them and they will give it to you. If one breeds and culls to make great cows the calves will look after themselves and we can forget about the "maternal" and "terminal" nonsense. Just my 2¢

 

[Nesikep]

In my opinion there is no reason a cow can't produce a great feedlot steer or a great replacement heifer. If one needs to buy a "terminal" bull to achieve good weaning weights then I would suggest that one's cows simply aren't good enough. Demand more from them and they will give it to you. If one breeds and culls to make great cows the calves will look after themselves and we can forget about the "maternal" and "terminal" nonsense. Just my 2¢

I've found that the cows that make good heifers, make good steers and bulls too.. but the reverse isn't always true.. I have an old cow, she's had a half dozen heifer calves, non made me want them as replacements, but she can sure make a nice bull calf (I've steered them all)

 

[MO-Ruminants]

Tom Lasater said steers were a byproduct of his ranch.

 

[ChrisB2]

Although I agree with Silver, I don't think it's a desire to produce "good" weaning weights or "good" cows, but a desire to produce even better weaning weights and better cows. I try and use good all around bulls myself, but if I was set up to run multiple herds I can definitely see why a person would use what may be considered maternal or terminal bulls.

 

[Nesikep]

Although I agree with Silver, I don't think it's a desire to produce "good" weaning weights or "good" cows, but a desire to produce even better weaning weights and better cows. I try and use good all around bulls myself, but if I was set up to run multiple herds I can definitely see why a person would use what may be considered maternal or terminal bulls.

I think it's terminal cows that make terminal calves.. bad hooves, udders, attitudes, etc would be the ones that get thrown into the "terminal" herd, and once they're there, they might as well be bred to a bull that's been selected for peak performance, perhaps with little attention to anything else.. the maternal herd would get the best bulls that have been bred for a good balance between longevity, production, soundness, etc

 

[simme]

Reading these posts, I believe the terms "maternal bull" and "terminal bull" have different meanings to different people. My view of the terms (doesn't mean it is right, just right for me) is that you breed to a "maternal bull" if you plan to keep replacement heifers from the matings. And breed to a "terminal bull" if you will not keep any replacements. The "maternal bull" will hopefully pass on genetics for fertility, moderate milk, maternal calving ease, easy keeping, good udders, good longevity (the desirable traits that you want in your cow herd). Hopefully maintain those good maternal traits in the replacements or at least not mess them up. You would not select replacements from a bull known for hard calving, hard doing, low fertility, poor milking, bad feet, etc. If you are not keeping any replacements, you don't care if the daughters of the bull will be hard to settle, late to puberty, small pelvic measurements, no milk, bad udder, no longevity, poor disposition, etc. How to evaluate? Based on the family history of the dam and granddam of the bull, phenotype of the bull and cow family, evaluation of previous set of calves, and EPD's if you believe in those. Now here is where my thinking might be a little different from some others. I don't think that the terms are always mutually exclusive. A bull can be both a maternal bull and a terminal bull if he passes on the desirable traits for both. If the daughters have good udders, moderate milk, fertility, good feet, longevity, good pelvic scores, mothering ability and the steers and market heifers have good growth and good carcass traits, then the bull is both a "maternal bull" and a "terminal bull". I believe many bulls do an acceptable (even good) job at both. If you will not keep any replacements, then no reason to even think about maternal traits. If you only run one bull and keep replacements, you need a maternal bull whether or not he is also a terminal bull.
Maternal and terminal applied to the cow herd - terminal cow means she is in the cull pen as soon as her calf is weaned waiting for the next trailer to town. A percentage of the replacements will always end up being "terminal". Just not making the grade and not earning the right to stay on the team.
Just my view.

 

[Brute 23]

I guess I'm like silver in that I see this a much more black and white. A bull that can only produce a terminal calf should have had his nuts cut from the get go... and vise versa for one who produces only females. A bull that can only produce one or the other is a half azz bull, IMO. That's why I think it's a marketing gimmick to peddle sub par bulls.

Think of it like this... if you were coming to buy cows from me and I said this is a terminal groups of cows. Dont keep replacement out of them. LoL You would be like.. WTH.. what is wrong with them.

 

[Nesikep]

Think of it like this... if you were coming to buy cows from me and I said this is a terminal groups of cows. Dont keep replacement out of them. LoL You would be like.. WTH.. what is wrong with them.

That's a great way of looking at it
I do have a bunch of terminal cows, they make a decent calf every year, I just don't like them for some reason or another

 

[FungusProudKY31]

If there is no need or logic to terminal and maternal, then why do the broiler and hog industries use a two line model?

 

[simme]

If there is no need or logic to terminal and maternal, then why do the broiler and hog industries use a two line model?

Interesting issue. 40 years ago, many farms raised hogs. There were many breeds - Hampshire, Duroc, Landrace, Yorkshire, Tamworth, Berkshire, Hereford, Chester White, etc. Remember all those breeds? Lots of fat on pork. Then the pork industry saw vertical integration. The breeds pretty much disappeared and a composite white pig began to dominate. Less fat, less feed to make the product, Concentrated ownership of the industry, large farms. Chicken business did this earlier. Whereas it did take 2.2 to 2.4 pounds of feed to make a pound of chicken, now it take 1.6x pounds of feed. No more Rhode Island Reds in big commercial operations. The composite white chicken is king with very few genetic lines used. Lower cost to bring the product to the market, more consistent product. Many of these chickens being produced without antibiotics in the feed. 7 weeks from hatched to harvest. No one would have believed it to be possible 40 years ago.

You know where I am headed. The consumer likes low cost consistent product. Will the beef industry go this way? Chickens and pigs are raised in confinement. Not practical for beef. Cheapest way to raise beef is on grass for a large part of the life cycle. Generally on land not suited for row crops. An advantage of the vertical integration in pork and chicken is the genetic improvement that has come with the concentrated ownership. Resulting in better feed conversion, lower cost of product and more consistent product. But, it has produced a more "sharecropper" situation for the farmer tending the herd. Has the beef industry achieved as much genetic improvement in the last 40 years? Progress has been made with higher weaning weights, better yield, etc. Has improvement in the beef industry been as good as pork and chicken? What could be done to move beef further in terms of consistency and efficiency? And most important to increase returns for the beef farmer?

 

[FungusProudKY31]

"Not practical for beef." Somewhat of missing the point but integration of beef is more probable that you think. The point is that other species use terminal/maternal for economic advantages. The integration of beef is occurring through concentration, buy back programs, alliances, ... Terminal/maternal does not have to be a choice of integrators but can be an individual using a cow line and a terminal sire. It has happened for years. The problem is that folks have kept back daughters of terminal bulls and they are battleships that resemble a feedlot steer in type.

 

[simme]

"Not practical for beef." Somewhat of missing the point but integration of beef is more probable that you think. The point is that other species use terminal/maternal for economic advantages. The integration of beef is occurring through concentration, buy back programs, alliances, ... Terminal/maternal does not have to be a choice of integrators but can be an individual using a cow line and a terminal sire. It has happened for years. The problem is that folks have kept back daughters of terminal bulls and they are battleships that resemble a feedlot steer in type.

When I said "not practical for beef", I was referring to the fact that chickens and pork are raised in high density confinement from birth to harvest. Vertically integrated company (Smithfields or Tyson for example) own the animal from start to finish, own the hatchery, the feed mill, the harvest facilities, the marketing effort, distribution, etc. Not practical to have the beef "hatchery" in a confinement situation. That occurs on many individual farms on many many acres. Mostly the beef cattle brood cows are owned by independent farmers with at least one transfer of ownership of the cattle from birth to retail distribution. So multiple owners and many parties are involved in decision making that drive genetic progress instead of a few companies that have complete decision making control for pork and chicken. Just an explanation of what I meant.

 

[Brute 23]

I changed my stance. It's too expensive to raise your own females. It won't work for you if you arent a purebred operation. Take all those profits from you terminal calves and buy females ready to go. That's the smart move.

... and give me a call for all your replacement female needs.

On a serious note I would question whether chasing these higher ww are the way the market is heading, long term. I'm betting against that being the cattle market of the future. I think we are heading the way of integration with meat quality and being the wave of the future... not just more pounds.

 

[pdfangus]

buying or raising heifers....
depends on your age and goals....
if you are a young person building a future then the first step is define goals and what you want to raise....
being a fad chaser has proven not to be a winning long term strategy....
figure out what you want and what your environment will support and then raise them....
keep daughters from cows who fill the bill......
if you are an older unit like me.....
unless you are working for the next generation then what difference does it make....building a herd is a lifetime goal not a weeks work....

 

[FungusProudKY31]

On a serious note I would question whether chasing these higher ww are the way the market is heading, long term. I'm betting against that being the cattle market of the future. I think we are heading the way of integration with meat quality and being the wave of the future... not just more pound

The industry has been chasing higher WW for about 50 years. The problem is that either the economical environments (mainly forages) set the upper limit or the producers get the big calf and the open cow and quit that foolishness. So the average WW in the USA has not gone up that much. Back to the comparison of the chickens and hogs: when the integrators get folks locked in "you WILL" use their sires and their sires will be carcass producers and growth to the limit that will not hurt the marbling. But I do not think that their sires will all be or remain purebred or registered. The thing that has happened and folks have not said, as far as I know, the kill weights are much bigger and that is tied to decades of seeking the extra growth. They can feed for that and make money after the calves leave the farm or ranch.

 

[simme]

The industry has been chasing higher WW for about 50 years. The problem is that either the economical environments (mainly forages) set the upper limit or the producers get the big calf and the open cow and quit that foolishness. So the average WW in the USA has not gone up that much. Back to the comparison of the chickens and hogs: when the integrators get folks locked in "you WILL" use their sires and their sires will be carcass producers and growth to the limit that will not hurt the marbling. But I do not think that their sires will all be or remain purebred or registered. The thing that has happened and folks have not said, as far as I know, the kill weights are much bigger and that is tied to decades of seeking the extra growth. They can feed for that and make money after the calves leave the farm or ranch.

In my area in the 60's, most beef cattle were Hereford or Angus or Heinz 57 (unknown mixture of beef and dairy breeds). Weaning weights were mostly in the 300's range. Not much frame or growth. Go look at pictures of cattle from the 60's. They were not much more than waist high. I would guess the average ww now is closer to 600. The continental breeds came in the late 60's. Charolais was the first I remember here. Much more growth - who wouldn't want that? Except those little cows could not have the calves and many cows were lost in the process of trying to get them out. (Fire and ice breeding) Then people decided that cattle should be tall. Can't get much weight out of a 3 frame. So, make them 7 or 8 frame. I remember seeing a 2 year old Simbrah heifer that was a 10 frame. Taller than a horse. Biggest bovine I have ever seen. Look at pictures from late 80's of some of the "champion" bulls - all legs with a body that starts 3 feet off the ground. Some of those cattle lost their milking genetics and were raised on nurse cows. In order to make those big changes, some outside blood was sprinkled in to the Angus and Hereford breeds. (A small step toward composite cattle). What is my point? Smaller incremental changes in cattle traits are better. Moderation and balance are important. Never select based on a single trait, but a balance of all traits. Select based on what works for your environment and your market conditions. Another issue concerning the integrated chicken and hog business, those are physically located in clusters based on where the integrators have set up shop - feed mills, hatcheries, processing facilities. You can "go in the cow business" pretty much anywhere. But if you want to grow chicken or pork, you need to be in the area where the integrators have growers. I think the concentrated integrators have followed the slow steady incremental progress plan more than the cattle industry has. With a loss of breed identity/purity and a change in ownership of the animals and the role of the caretakers.
With beef, the big packers already have so much control of the market. We as a country are concerned now about sourcing of medical supplies outside the country. Should we not be concerned that the Brazilians and Chinese own so much of the US meat supply?

 

[Ky hills]

In my area in the 60's, most beef cattle were Hereford or Angus or Heinz 57 (unknown mixture of beef and dairy breeds). Weaning weights were mostly in the 300's range. Not much frame or growth. Go look at pictures of cattle from the 60's. They were not much more than waist high. I would guess the average ww now is closer to 600. The continental breeds came in the late 60's. Charolais was the first I remember here. Much more growth - who wouldn't want that? Except those little cows could not have the calves and many cows were lost in the process of trying to get them out. (Fire and ice breeding) Then people decided that cattle should be tall. Can't get much weight out of a 3 frame. So, make them 7 or 8 frame. I remember seeing a 2 year old Simbrah heifer that was a 10 frame. Taller than a horse. Biggest bovine I have ever seen. Look at pictures from late 80's of some of the "champion" bulls - all legs with a body that starts 3 feet off the ground. Some of those cattle lost their milking genetics and were raised on nurse cows. In order to make those big changes, some outside blood was sprinkled in to the Angus and Hereford breeds. (A small step toward composite cattle). What is my point? Smaller incremental changes in cattle traits are better. Moderation and balance are important. Never select based on a single trait, but a balance of all traits. Select based on what works for your environment and your market conditions. Another issue concerning the integrated chicken and hog business, those are physically located in clusters based on where the integrators have set up shop - feed mills, hatcheries, processing facilities. You can "go in the cow business" pretty much anywhere. But if you want to grow chicken or pork, you need to be in the area where the integrators have growers. I think the concentrated integrators have followed the slow steady incremental progress plan more than the cattle industry has. With a loss of breed identity/purity and a change in ownership of the animals and the role of the caretakers.
With beef, the big packers already have so much control of the market. We as a country are concerned now about sourcing of medical supplies outside the country. Should we not be concerned that the Brazilians and Chinese own so much of the US meat supply?

I agree I have been saying that for a long time. It's insane that we as a country are willingly selling our food supply and supply chain out to foreign entities. Both political parties and our illustrious National cattleman's association are bought off by those companies. In my mind that is the one of the biggest threats to national security there could be.