? For the experts.

[elkwc]

To all interested parties: I don't give a rat's azz if it's fine boned or mammoth boned cattle that make the most money. I just want to know which and why. Even Elkwc says he has fed out some fine boned one and implied that he made money. He cited a friend who did the same and came out ok. So they are not guaranteed money losers. My guess is money can be made with either if one knows what to do. I don't, that's why I asked you all. I guess the answer is a "good ole boy" secret.

There is no secret. The way you make money with any type of cattle that are poor performers is as a feeder you buy them cheaper to offset the increased cost of feeding them. That is the reason you see docks on certain cattle when you attend a sale. You can pay too much for top producing cattle also and not make money or as much. As a buyer you have to consider the type, the cost to feed them and then buy what will make you the most profit. It will vary and why some feeders change what they feed. There were years my BIL would buy all heifers as stockers and feeders because the difference between steers and heifers made it where they would make more money. Then other years as the difference would decrease he would buy steers. Feeding Longhorns and Corrientes is different and many don't allow for the increased cost of gain and only do it one time. I sold what I fed to individuals and did good.

 

[City Guy]

elkwc, Thanks, you have cleared up a lot of confusion. As you can probably tell I love a good argument. I have learned a lot from this one and even more importantly, I now have even more questions. That's progress.

 

[Ebenezer]

"Beef Logic" by Dr. Robert A. Long, 1998, Chapter 6, page 26
"... or "He is more rugged in his bone". Such descriptions of live cattle fail to consider the following facts:

1. Circumference of the leg of live animals ... is not a measure of bone but of hair, hide, connective tissue, tendon and bone.
2. Circumference of bone does not measure either thickness of the wall of the bone or the density.
3. Within a group of cattle ... it is true that as total weight increases the weight of the bone increases. ...Therefore, in this case bone is positively correlated with muscle. However, so is the weight of every other portion of the body. It is a function of size.... The fact that muscular development is not necessarily associated with bone ...the bone may be heavy or light, large or small and dense or porous ... no association with the amount of muscle.
4. The % of bone varies very little ...11% to 16% ... while the variation of fat and muscle is much greater.

In summary, ...cannot be measured without the dissection of the carcass ..."

Please look up Dr. Long's bio before commenting if you think he is not backed up with data. Thanks.

 

[Ky hills]

Actually, I thought CG had a good question... and sparked a good conversation...regardless if he has cattle or not. ELKWC...in todays age I would assume the feeders are constantly going through their data on computers to determine what makes the most profit...they would be stupid not to. Do they share this data with cattle producers or do you have to know someone and ask about it...reason I ask is that there are no feeders in my neck of the woods...also, I am small and would love to get data back on my calves (maybe 15 to 20 a year)...is this possible??? That way, I would then have actual data to show me if what I am producing is good...bad...or otherwise... Thanks all for the insight on this thread!

Tim

I am in the same boat, we have a similar number of steer calves to sell a year too, (our heifers are mostly either retained or sold as bred replacements). I would also like to know how they perform and grade, then I could have a plan or goal to breed towards. I recently had a beef processed, and was really hoping to find out how it yielded, and how it may have graded. I was very disappointed when they didn't even tell me the live weight.

Bill

 

[WalnutCrest]

"Beef Logic" by Dr. Robert A. Long, 1998, Chapter 6, page 26
"... or "He is more rugged in his bone". Such descriptions of live cattle fail to consider the following facts:

1. Circumference of the leg of live animals ... is not a measure of bone but of hair, hide, connective tissue, tendon and bone.
2. Circumference of bone does not measure either thickness of the wall of the bone or the density.
3. Within a group of cattle ... it is true that as total weight increases the weight of the bone increases. ...Therefore, in this case bone is positively correlated with muscle. However, so is the weight of every other portion of the body. It is a function of size.... The fact that muscular development is not necessarily associated with bone ...the bone may be heavy or light, large or small and dense or porous ... no association with the amount of muscle.
4. The % of bone varies very little ...11% to 16% ... while the variation of fat and muscle is much greater.

In summary, ...cannot be measured without the dissection of the carcass ..."

Please look up Dr. Long's bio before commenting if you think he is not backed up with data. Thanks.

Thanks for this.

 

[goddy]

"Beef Logic" by Dr. Robert A. Long, 1998, Chapter 6, page 26
"... or "He is more rugged in his bone". Such descriptions of live cattle fail to consider the following facts:

1. Circumference of the leg of live animals ... is not a measure of bone but of hair, hide, connective tissue, tendon and bone.
2. Circumference of bone does not measure either thickness of the wall of the bone or the density.
3. Within a group of cattle ... it is true that as total weight increases the weight of the bone increases. ...Therefore, in this case bone is positively correlated with muscle. However, so is the weight of every other portion of the body. It is a function of size.... The fact that muscular development is not necessarily associated with bone ...the bone may be heavy or light, large or small and dense or porous ... no association with the amount of muscle.
4. The % of bone varies very little ...11% to 16% ... while the variation of fat and muscle is much greater.

In summary, ...cannot be measured without the dissection of the carcass ..."

Please look up Dr. Long's bio before commenting if you think he is not backed up with data. Thanks.

To me the crucial line is #4 - % varies very little. There are so many traits we can concentrate on that are far more important than bone which is largely subjective. What is medium to light bone for one man could be medium to heavy to another and there is no way to say either are wrong.

 

[City Guy]

Ebenezer, Thanks for finding the Dr. Long study.

Points 1&2 hadn't occurred to me! HEAD SLAP!!

Goddy, #4 is an eye opener, but the most interesting to me was the line in #3 "no association with the amount of muscle"

 

[goddy]

Ebenezer, Thanks for finding the Dr. Long study.

Points 1&2 hadn't occurred to me! HEAD SLAP!!

Goddy, #4 is an eye opener, but the most interesting to me was the line in #3 "no association with the amount of muscle"

It is very interesting and quite eye opening that it is from so far back in time.

Most people . in my experience, actually prefer "matters of opinion" because in them there is no proving you wrong.

 

[angus9259]

"Beef Logic" by Dr. Robert A. Long, 1998, Chapter 6, page 26
"... or "He is more rugged in his bone". Such descriptions of live cattle fail to consider the following facts:

1. Circumference of the leg of live animals ... is not a measure of bone but of hair, hide, connective tissue, tendon and bone.
2. Circumference of bone does not measure either thickness of the wall of the bone or the density.
3. Within a group of cattle ... it is true that as total weight increases the weight of the bone increases. ...Therefore, in this case bone is positively correlated with muscle. However, so is the weight of every other portion of the body. It is a function of size.... The fact that muscular development is not necessarily associated with bone ...the bone may be heavy or light, large or small and dense or porous ... no association with the amount of muscle.
4. The % of bone varies very little ...11% to 16% ... while the variation of fat and muscle is much greater.

In summary, ...cannot be measured without the dissection of the carcass ..."

Please look up Dr. Long's bio before commenting if you think he is not backed up with data. Thanks.

Of course you realize we may have to dismiss this information as it was done by a scientist and not someone in the real world.

 

[Ebenezer]

"Beef Logic" by Dr. Robert A. Long, 1998, Chapter 6, page 26
"... or "He is more rugged in his bone". Such descriptions of live cattle fail to consider the following facts:

1. Circumference of the leg of live animals ... is not a measure of bone but of hair, hide, connective tissue, tendon and bone.
2. Circumference of bone does not measure either thickness of the wall of the bone or the density.
3. Within a group of cattle ... it is true that as total weight increases the weight of the bone increases. ...Therefore, in this case bone is positively correlated with muscle. However, so is the weight of every other portion of the body. It is a function of size.... The fact that muscular development is not necessarily associated with bone ...the bone may be heavy or light, large or small and dense or porous ... no association with the amount of muscle.
4. The % of bone varies very little ...11% to 16% ... while the variation of fat and muscle is much greater.

In summary, ...cannot be measured without the dissection of the carcass ..."

Please look up Dr. Long's bio before commenting if you think he is not backed up with data. Thanks.

Of course you realize we may have to dismiss this information as it was done by a scientist and not someone in the real world.

Take a look at his bio. He did not stay at CSU forever. I honestly think he was a class act. If we have to dismiss a scientist with real data what options are left? Old wives' tales. Snake oil salesmen? He had real data. I have no argument in this but merely have data. I asked the question early on: if bone size is key, why are there no EPDs for bone size? If bone size made cattle great, the Gerts from Clarendon Plantation would rule the cattle world. They are gone and have been gone for years. Biggest bone I ever saw. Huge animals. Just saying.

 

[dun]

If you can find a copy, maybe available on the internet from MARC there is an interesting publication named "Composite Breeds to use for heterosis and breed differences to improve efficiency of beef production" by KE Gregory, LV Cundiff and RM Koch at MARC
It makes for some interesting reading, some of the tables are real eye openers

 

[WalnutCrest]

If you can find a copy, maybe available on the internet from MARC there is an interesting publication named "Composite Breeds to use for heterosis and breed differences to improve efficiency of beef production" by KE Gregory, LV Cundiff and RM Koch at MARC
It makes for some interesting reading, some of the tables are real eye openers

I'm swamped with a project and can't search right now ... but if anyone finds this and posts a link, I'd be grateful. TIA.

 

[dun]

This is it. Don;t know if it the whole thing or not:
https://naldc.nal.usda.gov/download/CAT10879520/PDF