Discounts vs premiums

Help Support CattleToday:

@greybeard I remember those FFA trips to the KY State Fair and North American International Livestock Expo, etc, good times. I can't remember us ever being board we were just glad to be out of classes for the day. That was late 80's -very early 90's
Yeah, it's sad when a somebody representing a breed can only point to hide color. I think you or me either one could say a few more reasons for Brangus, and I've never had any except maybe a commercial calf or two.
I used to love to talk with folks about Charolais, and cattle raising. I was young and learned a lot from listening to other people.
 
The Simmentals before they all went black or solid red that remember around here when I was a small child in the 70's 80's were mostly yellow and white to light red and white, a lot were spotted, very different than the more solid red bodies with goggle eyes like the full bloods I see advertised today. The commercial calves from mixed herds that used them were all colors and a lot of white. A lot folks referred to those calves as Christmas trees.
 
Last edited:
Quite possibly in today's genetics, but the original Fleckvieh (German and Austrian Simmental) in the 70s were known for their non diluter.
The thing with RED, you cannot tell for sure if they are carrying the diluter gene. It is not dominant like it is with black.
Like you said, now it's a simple test.
Siegfried for the Flecks is basically the equivalent of 600u in the blacks. It's hard to find a pedigree he isn't in today if you trace back far enough Don't know for sure but pretty sure he is a diluter based on the few I've seen sold in the past five years.

The demand for non diluter Flecks is very strong here. Horned or polled. Lots get sold into Angus herds both red and black to keep the solid colour, add the white face and up the replacement female quality.
 
In regard to the thought that the gene pool is very shallow now due to AI, how does that compare to the depth of the gene pool in nature? Like wild herds of bison, horses, mountain lions and such. No AI there and no influence of man in mating choices. Before cattle were domesticated by man, was the gene pool deeper?

Environment, management and marketing should probably play a big role in breed selection. But so many still think they know which breed is best for them - and for everyone else.
 
In regard to the thought that the gene pool is very shallow now due to AI, how does that compare to the depth of the gene pool in nature? Like wild herds of bison, horses, mountain lions and such. No AI there and no influence of man in mating choices. Before cattle were domesticated by man, was the gene pool deeper?

Environment, management and marketing should probably play a big role in breed selection. But so many still think they know which breed is best for them - and for everyone else.
AI on its own merit isn't shrinking the gene pool, however the way that it is being used certainly is playing a role in that.
My reason for using AI years ago was to bring in outside genetics.
At that time AI was not as widespread in the beef industry as it is now.
Now in the Angus breed it's very common for registered breeders to AI their whole herds at least the first round. So much importance is placed on AI sired cattle, that I know some breeders who will use a Hereford bull for example as a clean up on their registered cows as they apparently view a non AI calf as not worthy of being registered, but that's another. conversation in itself.
The way AI is being promoted now even though there are a lot of Angus bulls available, many of the breeders are using predominantly the same sampling of bulls or bulls with similar genetics in their pedigree.
The example of Precision 1680 showcases the far reaching span of a heavily used sire.
Heavily used bulls like New Design, Predestined, In Focus, Final Answer, show up in many pedigrees and then the sons and grandsons of them and others show up in various combinations on down the line. I do believe it is likely getting hard to find somewhat of an outcross within the breed unless you bring in some genetics from a more obscure source. Before the heavy reliance on AI, you would have more easily brought in a bull from a little different program either locally or regionally. or used AI to bring in outcross genetics.
 
In regard to the thought that the gene pool is very shallow now due to AI, how does that compare to the depth of the gene pool in nature? Like wild herds of bison, horses, mountain lions and such. No AI there and no influence of man in mating choices. Before cattle were domesticated by man, was the gene pool deeper?

Environment, management and marketing should probably play a big role in breed selection. But so many still think they know which breed is best for them - and for everyone else.
Before AI every bull used on a ranch only covered 30/40 cows, and a lot of them were farm raised and traded between local livestock owners (more or less) with some infusion as non local animals were transported in. If there were 3 million cows, there were a hundred thousand bulls. A bull couldn't produce a thousand offspring... much less fifty thousand. And then of those fifty thousand, ten produce similar numbers, and so on. So yes, the gene pool was much deeper.

The mountain lions in some places, like Los Angeles and the Everglades, are inbred because their populations are so small that they breed with animals they are related to. There are no other options for breeding opportunities.

Cheetahs are so closely related that they can receive skin grafts from other cheetahs without any fears of rejection, because of a severe bottleneck in their past survival. They survived when most animals with such limited genetic diversity would fail.
 
Last edited:
In regard to the thought that the gene pool is very shallow now due to AI, how does that compare to the depth of the gene pool in nature? Like wild herds of bison, horses, mountain lions and such. No AI there and no influence of man in mating choices. Before cattle were domesticated by man, was the gene pool deeper?

Environment, management and marketing should probably play a big role in breed selection. But so many still think they know which breed is best for them - and for everyone else.
Good question. The isolated genepools in wild populations might have increased inbreeding but little crossover of a few males siring offspring in the whole population. Bottlenecks can occur in breeds or groups via either too few males, too few females or overuse of the same males in the entire population. There is strength in the isolated or separated genepools via mere distance, natural barriers, distances that males are willing to travel. When individuals of the same species or breed from separate isolated genepools mate, the reshuffling of the genes is a refreshing back towards original vigor.

As in Angus, the salivating of a lot of folks to use some of the same "top bulls" each year from the same sources or with some similarity of genetic backgrounds is the point of concern. Not as bad as Holsteins, but headed that way. Funny, EPDs have been used for decades and folks still have to go out and find breeders in other herds to keep up. Makes me wonder about the validity of EPDs to be honest.
 
all these increasing degree of relatedness Among breeds makes one wonder if one couldn't use it to you benefit putting the theory of superhetrozygosity to the test.
Would be interesting to see what would happen if you crossed some of these closed herds to other closed herds of a different breed or even an unrelated breed that has a high degree of relatedness. The line 1 and lents herfords come to mind.
 
Everybody that knows me, knows that I have been involved with and passionate about raising cattle since I was very young. I've always believed that there is good and bad associated with every breed, and that there is some useful traits within each breed. The thing with the black hide change kinda came to our area seemed like over night. I was working with a herd of registered Charolais, mainly comprised of females and herd bulls bought from longtime area breeders, and was utilizing AI, mainly from a nationally known ranch that was the Charolais equivalent to SAV at the time.
We were coming off of the debacle of the frame race, and the buzzword of the day was moderate. We as breeders were diligently trying to correct the problems and move forward. It just happened so fast, i remember talking with a fellow breeder that everything changed, demand dropped over night seemed like.
Pretty disheartening when you have a field of mostly AI sired bulls, arguably the best I had raised and they were worth less than black commercial steers.
Back in the early nineties semen was any where from $35 to $50 a straw and signing fee of $35 on most of them.
No market for them at all, and previously had always sold out of bulls fairly early
It was more than a fad it was industry changing, No financially feasible way for me to stay that course.
Over the next few years, we watched several large local Hereford, Santa Gertrudis, Charolais herds fold up,
Most just went commercial Angus, The Simmental breeders went from having red and white spotted cattle to black.
Limousins and the new comer at the time to our area Gelbvieh went black.
Years worth of breeding and work from many folks down the drain. Only to start over with mostly lesser quality animals that were the desired color.
Those were largely folks who had been making breeding decisions based on visual appraisal and experience compiled over decades. Now we have experts that make breeding decisions based on an ever changing numbers scheme, and yes by using the AI bull with the best numbers from a hand lull of breeders and all we really know about the bull is a couple sentences of how great he is below a possibly photoshopped image. And if that's not enough most of those bulls will be obsolete by the time their calves are on the ground. I think we were headed that direction with AI even without the black cattle stuff, but it kind of intertwined with the growing popularity of Angus.
There have been some inroads back into the bull market by other breeds. Simmentals are hot in this area, some Black Gelbvieh and balancers, and a few black Limousins. Herefords could have been in a good position, but seems like the mainstream movers and shakers are more focused on raising toads for the show ring than they are production animals.
I've always believed that if you pay attention to birthweights and calving ease, there's no better cross for anything than a Charolais. Sadly a lot of these breeds have lost some of the benefits that brought them to the table in the first place too just like Angus. It's across the board issues with all of them some are stronger than others in some areas and I think we tend to forget that there really isn't an actual curve bender do it all individual or breed even though that was a popular word for a long time.
Ky, I thought you might be interested, I was reading a story in one of our rural newspapers, they were interviewing a fellow that has been breeding cattle for 60 years, starting off with registered Herefords then Angus and was saying the impetus for the change to Angus was he and his wife visited the US in 1986 looking at Herefords and then again in 1988, he noticed that in the 2 years a lot of the cattle in the paddocks had turned black and then when he went back in 1991 it was virtually all black. This pretty much is what you were saying.

Ken
 
In regard to the thought that the gene pool is very shallow now due to AI, how does that compare to the depth of the gene pool in nature? Like wild herds of bison, horses, mountain lions and such. No AI there and no influence of man in mating choices. Before cattle were domesticated by man, was the gene pool deeper?

Environment, management and marketing should probably play a big role in breed selection. But so many still think they know which breed is best for them - and for everyone else.
Nature culls a lot harder than breeders. It does make a difference in limiting problems. Seems to be directly comparable, but different management of the genes, really.

If breeders were as selective, in general, as nature, less likely to have real genetic problems in cattle. When marketing and the almighty dollar get involved, things can go south.

Think about all the extra money spent at the vet on some pets, for example…
 
Ky, I thought you might be interested, I was reading a story in one of our rural newspapers, they were interviewing a fellow that has been breeding cattle for 60 years, starting off with registered Herefords then Angus and was saying the impetus for the change to Angus was he and his wife visited the US in 1986 looking at Herefords and then again in 1988, he noticed that in the 2 years a lot of the cattle in the paddocks had turned black and then when he went back in 1991 it was virtually all black. This pretty much is what you were saying.

Ken
Yes, that reminds me of large Horned Hereford outfit just over the county line we used to pass by every once in a while. When they weren't turned out with cows they would keep their breeding bulls in a field by the road. For years growing up I would see those fine looking massive bulls probably 30 or more. Then some point in the early 90's passed by one day and saw mostly Angus bulls there.
Same story with farm up the road from us that ran Santa Gertrudis. It went from 20-30 big Gert bulls, to black bulls.
 
Available choices have increased as more bulls are being milked for semen... but the bulls are more related genetically every year. The top ten bulls sire a significant portion of the registered and commercial herd sires through AI, from cows that are related to them, and of home raised bulls they are mostly descended from AI bulls only one generation removed.

I'd bet that 99% of black angus cattle are related within four generations.

And the same thing is being done with all breeds. All purebred cattle are getting less genetically diverse. The only reason I'm using black angus as an example is because they have the biggest footprint and the greatest influence... even across breeds as people succumb to black hide marketing.
Well I just picked two bulls out that I have used GAR Ashland and SAV RAinmaster and looked them up for 4 generations and not one common ancestor, maybe I just got lucky and got that 1%.

Ken
 
Well I just picked two bulls out that I have used GAR Ashland and SAV RAinmaster and looked them up for 4 generations and not one common ancestor, maybe I just got lucky and got that 1%.

Ken
It's been quite a while since I paid any attention to AI bulls. I looked up those two. Gar Ashland is a bull that I would use if I were going that route. His frame /height are where I like it, and as far as selling commercial calves those GAR type calves do pretty well. The bulls seem to slick off good and are reliable in the breeding pasture. I would be interested to follow along with the progress of your calves by him. The other Rainmaster bull would be a definite no for me, even though he may work ok for some.
His whole pedigree would have me running the other way. Charlo was too short I don't care how thick he was which he definitely was just doesn't have the frame needed for here. With 004 in the pedigree he would never ever be used here just on disposition alone. I've never seen one that didn't hit the sale ring like runaway freight train, and the relatives I've had by his sire 8180 and brother Final Answer were similar. Other reasons too, but there again a lot of folks swear by them and think they are great.
As for those not being related. It's when those calves are sold and go to other herds that are made up of similar genetic combinations. The more widespread that bulls are used the more chance they have of converging back together. Those decedents of 8180, are pretty common around here.
Good luck with your selections, I hope they all work well, it's always exciting to see the fruits of your labor progress along, I miss that part of registered cattle.
 
Last edited:

Latest posts

Top