Forage tested bull sale

[alexfarms]

[/quote]Land cost is the killer. If you can run 'em on cheap land for that extra year the two's can work.[/quote]

I think if you check into it closely, few if any are finishing calves or bulls on cheap land. Most of them are grazing wheat, oats, or improved grasses of some sort. But whatever the land costs, I'd still question if it's profitable instead of adding another cow or two to the herd.[/quote]

It wouldn't pay if you put them on fertilized grasses. The only way it could work is if you just ran them out on cheap grass to let them grow out the extra year. I don't see any reason why anyone would want to finish a breeding bull anyway.

 

[EAT BEEF]

he's out working and improving somebody's cow herd.

Pure opinion

 

[Willow Springs]

I just wonder how they can afford to sell two year old bulls. Wish I could get to the sale and see the prices. Yes, I know they're not being fed for that two years, but there's still a cost for keeping a bull around for that long.

I don't know how they do it, but I'll tell you how we do it. We live in North Central Alberta so it probably quite different in many parts of the US.

It starts by calving in the spring (actual spring ie: May/June). The calves are born on grass in large paddocks. This eliminates the need for barns, sheds, straw for bedding, checking cows (as often) so that calves don't freeze to death, moving cows from barn to pen (and vice versa), having several different pens of cows (further away from calving, about to calve, post calving, post-post calving, etc). Our feed requirements are lower through the winter months because the cows aren't calving and milking at the coldest period of the year. It has also basically eliminated calf illness & calving problems. We have found that our calves are about 5-8 lbs lighter at birth than when we calved in February. All of these things have greatly reduced labour, calf morbidity and costs associated with.

We also sell coming two year old bulls, but here is the point everyone forgets; we don't sell every calf as a two year old bull. Half the calves are heifers, and a breeder probably keeps less than half of his male calves as bulls. I agree that there is more cost in keeping those older bulls for two years, but not anywhere as much as keeping a conventionally fed bull for two years. Also, in our case, we have less invested in every calf produced to weaning than someone calving in February. It's a whole system, not just the bulls sold.

 

[Hereford76]

the beautiful part of systems like this (referring to what willow springs described) is that it not only takes the brunt of the cost out of it, but it takes all the human error out of it.... bad judgement. run your cows like this long enough and you will find out what works and what doesn't. let mother nature do the culling/selecting. there are no hiding spots like there is when they are developed in a feed lot or raised under pivots with the stench of a silage pit somewhere close.

to tell you the truth - when i hear someone say they spent $500 developing a breeding bull to finish @14-16 months of age and that he is out "working/improving" in someone's herd"... i chuckle. Or when someone says that they don't know why in the world someone would develop them that way... you just don't know any different thats all.

we did it like most of the guys are doing it now and when i made the switch i couldn't believe i ran cows like that for all those years. I never used to pay attention to the breeds that are known for their superior forage production ability and now that is predominately what i breed for. i'm not there yet, but develop a cowherd that can wean atleast 50% of her body weight in a system and environment like mine and keep REA/cwt of 1.00 on top of all the basics and you got something.

 

[Frankie]

Yeah, some of us are just not very bright, I guess. Midland has been testing and selling bulls for going on 50 years. OBI going on 40. Auburn maybe for longer than either of them. Probably dozens of other established test stations around the country. Thousands of bulls have sold from test stations to commercial operations. Probably hundreds to AI programs. And just to show how quickly they can gain! What does that matter? The little, tiny fact that the vast majority of calves weaned here in the US will wind up in the feedlot. And the little, tiny fact that the faster they gain and become meat on someone's plate, the more likely the owner is to be able to stay in business. Who cares about stuff like that? Just how stupid can people get? It's so wonderful that we have a few smart people to keep us straight. :roll:

 

[Willow Springs]

Yeah, some of us are just not very bright, I guess. Midland has been testing and selling bulls for going on 50 years. OBI going on 40. Auburn maybe for longer than either of them. Probably dozens of other established test stations around the country. Thousands of bulls have sold from test stations to commercial operations. Probably hundreds to AI programs. And just to show how quickly they can gain! What does that matter? The little, tiny fact that the vast majority of calves weaned here in the US will wind up in the feedlot. And the little, tiny fact that the faster they gain and become meat on someone's plate, the more likely the owner is to be able to stay in business. Who cares about stuff like that? Just how stupid can people get? It's so wonderful that we have a few smart people to keep us straight.

There are many, many examples throughout history where the establishment of the day touted ideas with certainty for more than 40-50 years only to be proven totally wrong. You argue as if everything is right or wrong with no middle ground.

In times of low land, feed and other input costs it was profitable for a cow/calf man to push for more performance. However, you have to remember where a lot of them started from (belt-buckle cattle), and the fact it wasn't stopped at optimum; more was always better. Input costs have continued to rise at a much faster pace than the price we are paid for our calves. I read an article that stated that fertilizer prices have risen 5X faster and oil prices 8X faster than the price of cattle. Whether those numbers are exactly correct isn't really that important because if we think about it we all no it is true. Our cattle, grain and hay prices up here are almost identical to what they were 15 years ago. What have inputs and cost of living done in that time?

In my opinion cattle that do well in a feedlot situation (ie: high growth) are not ideal in a cow herd. The cows will be too big and require too many extra inputs to balance with the tight margins that we have in todays markets. Do I beleive in EPD's and performance testing; of course I do. they are great tools when used properly. Am I going to select the growthiest Angus herdsire I can find; no becasue his daughters will most likely fall apart in my system. I am trying to raise cows that will function with lower quality feed and less management. If I want a bigger calf I can simply crossbreed them with a higher growth sire, and have cattle that will perform well in the feedlot, but not keep the daughters.

 

[Frankie]

I've never said my way is the only way. Hereford 76 seems to be bashing the way we develop our bulls and I responded. I've always said that anything that encourages beef consumption or keeps producers in business is a good thing, be it organic, conventional, grass fed, whatever. I just wish they wouldn't bash MY way of raising cattle.

Yes, there are many examples of conventional wisdom being wrong, but plenty to show it's also right. I just don't see a gigantic shift in how beef is produced in this country. Changes, yes. Lots of them, but the fundamentals of cows on grass, calves to the feedlot, I just don't see changing a lot.

I disagree about cattle and feedlots. Our cows raise bull calves on grass that go on test and gain 4-5-6 lbs a day. Since the cows are sired by bulls shown to be efficient bulls, they'll gain body condition pretty quickly after weaning. While I don't see how one can stay in business selling 2-year old bulls, neither do I see how one can make money feeding their cows year around. In the end it's what works for you. And I'm fine with that.

I'm glad you appreciate EPDs and performance testing. Testing has been a valuable tool in creating/improving EPDs. And they're both important tools for the commercial cattleman.

 

[BRG]

Yeah, some of us are just not very bright, I guess. Midland has been testing and selling bulls for going on 50 years. OBI going on 40. Auburn maybe for longer than either of them. Probably dozens of other established test stations around the country. Thousands of bulls have sold from test stations to commercial operations. Probably hundreds to AI programs. And just to show how quickly they can gain! What does that matter? The little, tiny fact that the vast majority of calves weaned here in the US will wind up in the feedlot. And the little, tiny fact that the faster they gain and become meat on someone's plate, the more likely the owner is to be able to stay in business. Who cares about stuff like that? Just how stupid can people get? It's so wonderful that we have a few smart people to keep us straight. :roll:

I need to disagree or correct part of this statement. It isn't how fast they gain, it is how cheap they put it on. Usually its the faster the better/cheaper, but it isn't the rule.

I agree with what Herford76 says. We run both May/June bulls and March bulls. It is usually a wash between the two, but this year, it is cheaper to run the 2's. With the tough winter/spring all the times we had to doctor a calf and the death loss we recieved, it doesn't compare. The labor is a huge deal that we can't put a $ figure on.

 

[Frankie]

Yeah, some of us are just not very bright, I guess. Midland has been testing and selling bulls for going on 50 years. OBI going on 40. Auburn maybe for longer than either of them. Probably dozens of other established test stations around the country. Thousands of bulls have sold from test stations to commercial operations. Probably hundreds to AI programs. And just to show how quickly they can gain! What does that matter? The little, tiny fact that the vast majority of calves weaned here in the US will wind up in the feedlot. And the little, tiny fact that the faster they gain and become meat on someone's plate, the more likely the owner is to be able to stay in business. Who cares about stuff like that? Just how stupid can people get? It's so wonderful that we have a few smart people to keep us straight. :roll:

I need to disagree or correct part of this statement. It isn't how fast they gain, it is how cheap they put it on. Usually its the faster the better/cheaper, but it isn't the rule.

Oh? Explain to me how faster is not cheaper, as a rule. You're paying fewer days yardage, if nothing else.

I agree with what Herford76 says. We run both May/June bulls and March bulls. It is usually a wash between the two, but this year, it is cheaper to run the 2's. With the tough winter/spring all the times we had to doctor a calf and the death loss we recieved, it doesn't compare. The labor is a huge deal that we can't put a $ figure on.

Everyone should calve at the optimum time for themselves. Jan/Feb works best for us. We have very few animals get sick. In fact, we had more when we calved in March/April. It think it was the sudden change in temperatures (days 85, nights 40) and many years it's very wet those months here.

 

[BRG]

Yeah, some of us are just not very bright, I guess. Midland has been testing and selling bulls for going on 50 years. OBI going on 40. Auburn maybe for longer than either of them. Probably dozens of other established test stations around the country. Thousands of bulls have sold from test stations to commercial operations. Probably hundreds to AI programs. And just to show how quickly they can gain! What does that matter? The little, tiny fact that the vast majority of calves weaned here in the US will wind up in the feedlot. And the little, tiny fact that the faster they gain and become meat on someone's plate, the more likely the owner is to be able to stay in business. Who cares about stuff like that? Just how stupid can people get? It's so wonderful that we have a few smart people to keep us straight. :roll:

I need to disagree or correct part of this statement. It isn't how fast they gain, it is how cheap they put it on. Usually its the faster the better/cheaper, but it isn't the rule.

Oh? Explain to me how faster is not cheaper, as a rule. You're paying fewer days yardage, if nothing else.

What ever your cheaper feed source is, would be cheaper. Sometimes grass is cheaper than high dollar feed. It might be slower and more days until slaughter, but it is still cheaper. Example, down in your country, their are alot of wheat fields that need grazed and it is a heck of a lot cheaper than the high dollar corn we saw last year. Most of the time faster is cheaper, just not always.

 

[Frankie]

Oh? Explain to me how faster is not cheaper, as a rule. You're paying fewer days yardage, if nothing else.

What ever your cheaper feed source is, would be cheaper. Sometimes grass is cheaper than high dollar feed. It might be slower and more days until slaughter, but it is still cheaper. Example, down in your country, their are alot of wheat fields that need grazed and it is a heck of a lot cheaper than the high dollar corn we saw last year. Most of the time faster is cheaper, just not always.

I said

faster they gain and become meat on someone's plate

Yes, when it rains there is a lot of winter wheat to put stocker calves out on in this area. Then they go to the feedlot. But whether the calf is grazing wheat or eating in the feedlot, it still seems to me that a faster gaining calf will finish sooner than a slower gaining calf. And bulls with the ability to gain are more likely to sire calves that gain quickly. As a rule.

I seldom see 2-year old bulls go through local sales. But on the RFD sales I've watched, I don't see much difference in the price buyers are willing to pay for 2-year olds and 15-18 month old bulls. Cheaper feed might make up some difference, but time is money. If you're running seedstock on wheat, you could be running commercial calves and get them sold quicker than the bulls.

If you have a market that's willing to consistently pay more for 2-year old bulls, that's a good thing, I guess. But in my limited little world, I haven't seen it.

 

[Hereford76]

wasn't trying to bash you/your program. my comment about putting on cowboy hat/calving early/etc. is something i say alot about the guys up here in my area. i think there are something like 7000 bulls sold out of our four neighboring/close counties and 95% are black. all of these places have money from somewhere else turning the wheels on their "purebred" operations. they all do it the same and for what i just don't understand - i guess so they can say they sell bulls, but i think it is a waste of natural resources. my whole point is comparing bottom lines between calving in January/selling yearling bulls that have been developed the way you say the majority of them do it for good reason and true spring calving April/May/June and true range developing bulls/females. here is one point to compare. you say getting a bull marketed earlier or freeing up winter wheat pastures for additional calves/saving time,feed,etc... i say calving later and freeing up hay ground. used to feed a lot of hay to a mother cow nursing a calf from Jan 1 to green grass. now i can ruff those mammas out all winter and sell the hay or graze 1/2 the hay ground. time is money and running cows like this has freed up all kinds of time to go out and actually promote my cattle where i could never leave the place before. more and more ranchers are going back to a long yearling fall bull or coming two year old especially the guys that run them like we do. try dumping out a load of 14-16 month old bulls right out of feed lot 55 miles south of malta montana with 2000 cows on 100,000 acres of pure hell and see how many of them are actually "working/improving" that herd and how many of them actually live. but above all of this - the neatest part of the whole deal for me has been the unbiased view of what works and what doesn't. females that thrive in this setting will thrive in any environment. yearling bulls going back out to grass - i think they prove their ability better than in a feedlot or maybe i should say, i personally, would rather use data derived from the real world or marginal environments.

 

[Northern Rancher]

Well I ran my first grain fed bulls for years this year-with us dispersing cows due to the cancer deal I didn't want to buy too many bulls-our old eight year old I bet twice as many cows as the wrecked four or five year olds did. They wren't running in a real tough deal but they look like death warmed over. Corn is for pigs and chickens not for breeding bovines in a ranch situation-if hogfat test station bulls were the be all and end all grass testing would never of taken off. I mean grass testing not parking the self feeder in the pasture. Test stations pretty much died out in our country-most breeders went to I'll stuff them myself production sales-that way they don't have to deal with a neutral culling committee. As much as I dislike the slimeball Leo McDonnell I think Midland feeds a little cooler ration-wee bought a south devon bull there pre R-Cult and he was a breeding machine. If as a breeder you want to impress me with your genetics ability in a feedlot-buy a pen of your customers calves and feed them.

 

[RD-Sam]

Are the results from the feed test stations not an indication of what I sire may produce, with his steers in a feedlot situation? If the sire melts when you take him home, so what, as long as his steers finish like him in the feedlot. :cowboy:

 

[smnherf]

Are the results from the feed test stations not an indication of what I sire may produce, with his steers in a feedlot situation? If the sire melts when you take him home, so what, as long as his steers finish like him in the feedlot. :cowboy:

Because I have to feed the sisters to the bull for the next ten years or so, IF they last that long!!!! There is more than one side to the profit equation.

Brian

 

[1982vett]

I thought the goal was a well marbled piece of meat. Not a carcass with a bunch of tallow and fat to throw in the grindings of an old dried up cow to make hamburger.

 

[RD-Sam]

Are the results from the feed test stations not an indication of what I sire may produce, with his steers in a feedlot situation? If the sire melts when you take him home, so what, as long as his steers finish like him in the feedlot. :cowboy:

Because I have to feed the sisters to the bull for the next ten years or so, IF they last that long!!!! There is more than one side to the profit equation.

Brian

Why can't you have cows that perform and use the high growth bulls from the test stations to produce calves? Who says you have to keep the females? :cowboy:

 

[RD-Sam]

I thought the goal was a well marbled piece of meat. Not a carcass with a bunch of tallow and fat to throw in the grindings of an old dried up cow to make hamburger.

Good point, but they do give you ultrasound data to select for high marbeling. Also, since they mix fat from other animals in ground beef, those pitiful looking boney animals need some fat from somewhere to make ground beef. :help:

 

[smnherf]

Are the results from the feed test stations not an indication of what I sire may produce, with his steers in a feedlot situation? If the sire melts when you take him home, so what, as long as his steers finish like him in the feedlot. :cowboy:

Because I have to feed the sisters to the bull for the next ten years or so, IF they last that long!!!! There is more than one side to the profit equation.

Brian

Why can't you have cows that perform and use the high growth bulls from the test stations to produce calves? Who says you have to keep the females? :cowboy:

If you don't use bulls that produce females that work, then you are out of the cow business pretty fast. I am trying to raise the best females that I can, not in the business of raising terminal bulls. I will let the Charolais, Simmental and Limosuin breeders do that.

 

[Northern Rancher]

If all things are equal that bull that last longest and breeds the most cows will lower your cost of production-If your bulls can bred 40 instead of 25 and most bulls should be able too-unless your in real rough stuff he'll cost you less per pregnancy. Nothing more pathetic than watching a grain wrecked yearling in a field of salad trying to get by. Cattle that do well on gras will do well in the feedlot-the opposite isn't true by any means. There are probably some feedlot gain kings might of been able to do it on forage but never had the opportunity-one things the fatties do is make A'I studs money-they take a long time to produce semen that will pass a quality check.