Forage tested bull sale

[TSR]

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.

I also believe that cattle that do well on grass will do well in the feedlot. This is one reason I watch the $EN epd, I believe most of the time it points you toward easy fleshing cattle that will do it on grass. I have to really do some rationalizing to use any bull that is not positive on the $EN epd.

 

[fargus]

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.

Are you kidding me? I'm a Simmental breeder and we're still trying to repair the damage that attitude did in the '80s. Flashy ADGs and weight per day of age guarantees nothing in the feedlot. I would argue that a calf with the best feed conversion is going to put more dollars in your pocket than the fastest gaining steer in the pen. My gut tells me that the easy-doing (read: cows and bulls that produce and maintain their condition on nothing but grass and dry hay) cattle will TEND to produce feedlot calves that put up the best feed conversion. Not to mention, they will also put on fat easier and grade better on the rail. Gain does not equal finish.

I've made my share of mistakes and bought "hot" pedigreed cattle that do well in the show ring. Some are good. There are a lot of useless cattle out there though. Bulls that gain 4 lbs per day but are eating 25 pounds of cracked corn to do it. Those cows don't re-breed here, and in a tougher environment the pricks would die. I believe I can make my neighbour who runs a feedlot more money by getting rid of those hard-doing genetics at my place, and only passing on the ones that will perform in any environment.

Grass fed isn't the only way... but it separates the boys from the men when you're looking at bulls.

 

[novatech]

I cannot see how forage testing can actually work unless all the entries are grazing the same grass for the same length of time. Someone enlighten me on this.
I did not see one bull in the pics that impressed me as excelling on forage. I have seen bulls that impress me on forage, Knersie's and maybe a couple of others on the boards. Oh yes some I have held back for bulls. To impress me I want to see a bull in the pasture look like he has been getting fed. To me this type of bull will produce easy fleshing efficient progeny. They will also go into the winter with a layer of fat that cuts down on the hay bill.
Also I agree that those that do well on forage do well on feed and the opposite is not true.
Someone will have to me show on paper this notion of number of days on feed, no matter how much the animal eats is more efficient. If the feed is very cheap and the cost per day is high then I could see it.

 

[Brandonm22]

I cannot see how forage testing can actually work unless all the entries are grazing the same grass for the same length of time. Someone enlighten me on this.

As I understand it, looking at the pic on page 1, the bulls are out grazing a field together in a legitimate test. I would withhold judgement on phenotype until December 5th when they sell.

 

[Frankie]

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.

Disagree. Keeping their own heifers is not a financially smart move for the commercial cattle guy. The research shows that you're better off, financially, buying replacements rather than growing your own. You'll feed a home raised heifer for two years before she puts any money in your pocket or you can buy a bred heifer who'll produce a marketable calf the same year. We did it for years in the registered business and it worked for us.

 

[dun]

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.

Disagree. Keeping their own heifers is not a financially smart move for the commercial cattle guy. The research shows that you're better off, financially, buying replacements rather than growing your own. You'll feed a home raised heifer for two years before she puts any money in your pocket or you can buy a bred heifer who'll produce a marketable calf the same year. We did it for years in the registered business and it worked for us.

I know that the experts claim it's better to buy in heifers, to me that's just a faster ROI. The cost of a retained heifer is spread over those 2 years until she calves where the bought in heifer will return dollars sooner but the cost is also spread over a shorter timeframe. We retain heifers (and occasioanly buy some in) but the ones that have been raised under our (mis)management generally fit in better and last longer in the herd. That applys to both the registered and the commercial herds.

We also use different bulls for different purposes, terminal bulls for the strictly meat maker cows and more maternal bulls for the heifer makers.

 

[Frankie]

Are you kidding me? I'm a Simmental breeder and we're still trying to repair the damage that attitude did in the '80s. Flashy ADGs and weight per day of age guarantees nothing in the feedlot. I would argue that a calf with the best feed conversion is going to put more dollars in your pocket than the fastest gaining steer in the pen. My gut tells me that the easy-doing (read: cows and bulls that produce and maintain their condition on nothing but grass and dry hay) cattle will TEND to produce feedlot calves that put up the best feed conversion. Not to mention, they will also put on fat easier and grade better on the rail. Gain does not equal finish.

No, I'm not kidding you. You can argue about feed conversion all you want, but I've never seen a feedlot monitoring feed conversion. I have seen them talking about ADG. I don't see what "damage" you're trying to fix. Simmentals were always too big to finish efficiently in the feedlot. Packers didn't care. They liked those big cows. They got more meat from one animal and got the USDA to lower grading standards. They were happy. Some animals never "finish." The genetic ability to marble is the starting point; management takes over after that. There's research available showing that animals start to marble at a young age IF THEY HAVE THE FEED to allow them to express their genetic marbling ability. Grass and dry hay probably isn't going to do it. Maybe some Pepto for that "gut" feeling?

I've made my share of mistakes and bought "hot" pedigreed cattle that do well in the show ring. Some are good. There are a lot of useless cattle out there though. Bulls that gain 4 lbs per day but are eating 25 pounds of cracked corn to do it. Those cows don't re-breed here, and in a tougher environment the pricks would die. I believe I can make my neighbour who runs a feedlot more money by getting rid of those hard-doing genetics at my place, and only passing on the ones that will perform in any environment.

Grass fed isn't the only way... but it separates the boys from the men when you're looking at bulls.

IMO, the show business has little to do with the beef business. As shocking as it may be to you, some of us never went the show route, so we're not busy trying to fix what was never broken.

 

[Frankie]

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.

You're quite simply full of it. We performance test bulls (on test at 8-9 months; off at 12-13 months) and it's a very unusual situation when one of them can't pass a BSE at 13-14 months old. Our usual vet was in the hospital and we had to use another vet a few years ago to check some bulls we had sold. He raised a Continental breed. He started ranting when we unloaded them "they're too young; they'll never pass". He shut up pretty quick when he got the sample under the microscope. I guess he's still running the same breed of cattle, but they're black now.

 

[Frankie]

I cannot see how forage testing can actually work unless all the entries are grazing the same grass for the same length of time. Someone enlighten me on this.
I did not see one bull in the pics that impressed me as excelling on forage. I have seen bulls that impress me on forage, Knersie's and maybe a couple of others on the boards. Oh yes some I have held back for bulls. To impress me I want to see a bull in the pasture look like he has been getting fed. To me this type of bull will produce easy fleshing efficient progeny. They will also go into the winter with a layer of fat that cuts down on the hay bill.
Also I agree that those that do well on forage do well on feed and the opposite is not true.
Someone will have to me show on paper this notion of number of days on feed, no matter how much the animal eats is more efficient. If the feed is very cheap and the cost per day is high then I could see it.

If it's a legitimate test, the bulls should be grazing side by side the same grass for the same length of time. I assume these were. What struck me was that 50% of them were culled for various reasons. I wonder what the reasons were?

 

[Northern Rancher]

Frankie do you have any experience at all in a large ranch enviroment-if you did you'd realize there is more to breeding cows than passing a BSE evaluation that is like a bull getting his learners license-he still has to have the physical soundness to actually travel out and breed cows-the will to compete with other bulls etc. I've been order buying bulls for twenty plus years so don't blow smoke up my ass about how the test station hot house flowers can breed-they will settle some cows but they fall way behind when it comes to settling a large number of cows for several years-it's no use having the best genetics in the wortld if you've compromised them with a corn bucket. Brian Edwards who forgot more about performance testing than most of us will ever know summed it up best in the Nov. Beef Illustrated "It's not just about growth-It's about comparing animals in the same enviroment.The test could be in any enviroment from dry pasture grazing to a feedlot ration. The important thing is that conditions are the same for all animals so we can see the impact of their genetics and spot any flaws that show up." That being said why would a rancher buy bulls that were tested in an enviroment that compromises their future usefullness.

 

[Frankie]

Frankie do you have any experience at all in a large ranch enviroment-if you did you'd realize there is more to breeding cows than passing a BSE evaluation that is like a bull getting his learners license-he still has to have the physical soundness to actually travel out and breed cows-the will to compete with other bulls etc. I've been order buying bulls for twenty plus years so don't blow smoke up my ass about how the test station hot house flowers can breed-they will settle some cows but they fall way behind when it comes to settling a large number of cows for several years-it's no use having the best genetics in the wortld if you've compromised them with a corn bucket. Brian Edwards who forgot more about performance testing than most of us will ever know summed it up best in the Nov. Beef Illustrated "It's not just about growth-It's about comparing animals in the same enviroment.The test could be in any enviroment from dry pasture grazing to a feedlot ration. The important thing is that conditions are the same for all animals so we can see the impact of their genetics and spot any flaws that show up." That being said why would a rancher buy bulls that were tested in an enviroment that compromises their future usefullness.

You are a bit touchy, aren't you? You said

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.

and I say that's a crock of manure. Now you want to bluster and change the subject? Of course there's more to breeding than a BSE. And of course a young, fat bull will be at a disadvantage to older, more fit bulls. That's why we, along with test stations and other producers who test, get our bulls off full feed and into condition before we sell them. And suggest that the young bulls should be used in a restricted breeding season. The general suggestion is one cow for each month of age until they're two years old. If they're trying to breed cows and graze when they shed their baby teeth, they'll certainly lose weight. Unless they get down dangerously thin, so what? If they're a good gaining bull, they'll gain it back when they get some teeth and are pulled off the cows. But their genetic merit will remain the same no matter what they weigh.

Nutritional Management of Beef Bulls:
http://www.thecattlemanmagazine.com/iss ... tbulls.asp

 

[1982vett]

You are a bit touchy, aren't you?

Pot calling the Kettle black. That is what I'd say.

 

[Frankie]

You are a bit touchy, aren't you?

Pot calling the Kettle black. That is what I'd say.

Speaking of yourself, I suppose?

 

[blackcowz]

Well, as far as I am concerned, and I know I'm just a nobody, Frankie has it a little bit skewed. For her, testing bulls in a feedlot works, and guys feel better about writing a check for a pretty fat bull. Anyone likes bulls in good condition with a good profile, both phenotypic and genetic. But for us, both Lim bulls we turned out the last two years lost weight. We expected that. But our Angus PCC influenced bull we raised and the red PCC bull we bought from a sale a few years back both gained weight their first breeding season. In fact, I ought to take a picture of that little black bull. He has all his cows covered and is fat as a tick at 18 months. Big, pretty, Lim bulls (or Angus for that matter, we've had experience with both) will produce heavy steers that bring in money at weaning and produce flashy females to sell as breds. So there's one definition of what "genetic merit" is. But if I'm gonna keep cows for years and years to try and improve my herd, if my bull can't gain weight while out there breeding cows and zero supplementation, he don't cut the mustard. Females out of that red bull are still producing somewhere in MO and this little black bull shows promise of making keeping cows. That's another type of "genetic merit". So to me, I guess it is all case specific, as it always is, but true genetic merit is a bull that will breed cows, come home "fat" (not obese, but in better than average condition), and not look like he had to work all summer. To me, that bull will make great mamas and produce calves that could finish on grass, and sure as heck ought to be able to gain and get fat in a feedyard. On the other hand, our LimFLex steers need to be in a feedyard like their dadddy, and the LimX heifers will most likely be harder keepers than their peers coming out of easy doing bulls that get fat while breeding. My 2 cents.

 

[1982vett]

You are a bit touchy, aren't you?

Speaking of yourself, I suppose?

Round and round we go...

 

[Frankie]

Well, as far as I am concerned, and I know I'm just a nobody, Frankie has it a little bit skewed. For her, testing bulls in a feedlot works, and guys feel better about writing a check for a pretty fat bull. Anyone likes bulls in good condition with a good profile, both phenotypic and genetic. But for us, both Lim bulls we turned out the last two years lost weight. We expected that. But our Angus PCC influenced bull we raised and the red PCC bull we bought from a sale a few years back both gained weight their first breeding season. In fact, I ought to take a picture of that little black bull. He has all his cows covered and is fat as a tick at 18 months. Big, pretty, Lim bulls (or Angus for that matter, we've had experience with both) will produce heavy steers that bring in money at weaning and produce flashy females to sell as breds. So there's one definition of what "genetic merit" is. But if I'm gonna keep cows for years and years to try and improve my herd, if my bull can't gain weight while out there breeding cows and zero supplementation, he don't cut the mustard. Females out of that red bull are still producing somewhere in MO and this little black bull shows promise of making keeping cows. That's another type of "genetic merit". So to me, I guess it is all case specific, as it always is, but true genetic merit is a bull that will breed cows, come home "fat" (not obese, but in better than average condition), and not look like he had to work all summer. To me, that bull will make great mamas and produce calves that could finish on grass, and sure as heck ought to be able to gain and get fat in a feedyard. On the other hand, our LimFLex steers need to be in a feedyard like their dadddy, and the LimX heifers will most likely be harder keepers than their peers coming out of easy doing bulls that get fat while breeding. My 2 cents.

Frankie doesn't have anything skewed. If you or anyone else doesn't want a gain tested bull, don't buy them. But when someone posts a negative opinion, I don't mind posting my opinion in opposition.

I had to chuckle though. You've been registered on the board a bit over a year. And in that time you've gone from a show herd to a Kit Pharo believer. That's quite a leap. I can't help but wonder where you'll be this time next year. :lol:

 

[novatech]

If it's a legitimate test, the bulls should be grazing side by side the same grass for the same length of time. I assume these were. What struck me was that 50% of them were culled for various reasons. I wonder what the reasons were?

I don't know a thing about forage testing, obviously. There are some of the bulls that I thought did fairly well, not judging the bull on any other traits, and others that did not. Is there some sort of grading system or is it up to the individual to make the judgement call at a sale. Any other info. would be appreciated.

 

[Frankie]

If it's a legitimate test, the bulls should be grazing side by side the same grass for the same length of time. I assume these were. What struck me was that 50% of them were culled for various reasons. I wonder what the reasons were?

I don't know a thing about forage testing, obviously. There are some of the bulls that I thought did fairly well, not judging the bull on any other traits, and others that did not. Is there some sort of grading system or is it up to the individual to make the judgement call at a sale. Any other info. would be appreciated.

I won't be of much help because I don't know a lot about forage testing either. We did send some bulls to a forage test before we started using OBI. We had a dry year, the test went on almost a year and they hauled the bulls to several different locations to graze and sell. We just weren't very happy with the situation.

Northern Rancher is right in this quote:

Brian Edwards who forgot more about performance testing than most of us will ever know summed it up best in the Nov. Beef Illustrated "It's not just about growth-It's about comparing animals in the same enviroment.The test could be in any enviroment from dry pasture grazing to a feedlot ration. The important thing is that conditions are the same for all animals so we can see the impact of their genetics and spot any flaws that show up."

Our test station stays pretty close to the BIF guidelines for testing bulls, but that's a grain test. I posted a link on here somewhere to their Guidelines (and got beat up for it, of course). If you can find that post, they may also have guidelines for forage testing.

All the tests I've ever seen had some sort of grading system. At our test station they use the ADG index and the Adj 365 day weight to identify the "top indexing" bull. Some test stations include ultrasound data, frame score, scrotal measurements, etc., into the test index. I'd expect that this forage test used some criteria to identify the "best" bulls, but I didn't see what it was in their catalog. In the end though, it's up to the buyer to pick the bull that works best for him.

 

[blackcowz]

Frankie doesn't have anything skewed. If you or anyone else doesn't want a gain tested bull, don't buy them. But when someone posts a negative opinion, I don't mind posting my opinion in opposition.

I had to chuckle though. You've been registered on the board a bit over a year. And in that time you've gone from a show herd to a Kit Pharo believer. That's quite a leap. I can't help but wonder where you'll be this time next year. :lol:

I wouldn't go there if I was you. You may want to drive out to Peyton, Colorado and see how many show cattle are owned by Cade Christensen. You really want to know? ONE 4-H steer. My cows are bred to OCC Homer, OH PCC Pledge, and our clean up PCC bull. I may not talk the talk, but I walk the walk. You tell me which is more important.

 

[blackcowz]

Furthermore, you do have it skewed, as do I! You sell fat "gain tested" bulls whose breeding lives are shortened from being fed hot rations, and I market mine as completely forage developed and I stand behind my bulls as being ones who will thrive on grass, harsh management, and tough conditions. I had two bull calves that would have done pretty well on a grain test and would have looked good enough when they were fat to fetch a pretty penny. But, they don't fit in here, and they're both going to make nice little feeder steers. Again, I walk the walk.