Menu
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
New profile posts
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Members
Current visitors
New profile posts
Search profile posts
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles and first posts only
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Forums
Cattle Boards
Breeding / Calving Issues
Cost of Using a Maternal Bull ?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Help Support CattleToday:
Message
<blockquote data-quote="simme" data-source="post: 1646655" data-attributes="member: 40418"><p>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.</p><p>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?</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="simme, post: 1646655, member: 40418"] 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? [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Cattle Boards
Breeding / Calving Issues
Cost of Using a Maternal Bull ?
Top