Forage tested bull sale

[Frankie]

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.

You have no idea what I sell....or if I sell anything at all. There's no research showing that gain testing bulls shortens their lives. You need to step back and understand that just because someone you admire tells you something doesn't mean it's true. We stand behind our bulls, too. Shocking, isn't it? You don't have a clue how those calves would have done on a grain test because you didn't send them to one! Get some on a test somewhere....then you can say you walk the walk. Otherwise it's just hot air. :roll:

 

[blackcowz]

For all I know, you're just blowing hot air yourself. I've grain fed cattle for seven years now, and I have a pretty good idea of what some time and fat can do for an animal. It sounds shocking that I know something, but even in my short life, I've learned a little. To reach their potential, both these calves would have needed feed put in front of them in order to grow and perform. They don't have the guts or quality to perform on grass. Additionally, what about all those posts of your pics of bulls on grain that you said were yours? Also, I can make reference to several statements where you explained that you sold bulls through a local test. Don't just go off when you know nothing of my operation either. Now, I didn't say it shortened a bull's "life". Read closely. I said "breeding life". It IS a proven fact that bulls fed a hot ration while being developed do not last as long breeding. If you don't believe that, there is plenty of information on grain fed bulls being less potent, having lower sperm production, etc. Talk about expressing genetic potential. :? Finally, you have no idea how we test bulls. Here's a rundown. The bull calf crop is grouped together and put on stockpiled native grass. They have a trace mineral salt block and periodical alfalfa protein supplement. If they can't express their true genetic merit in that test, they don't need to be here.

 

[Frankie]

For all I know, you're just blowing hot air yourself. I've grain fed cattle for seven years now, and I have a pretty good idea of what some time and fat can do for an animal. It sounds shocking that I know something, but even in my short life, I've learned a little. To reach their potential, both these calves would have needed feed put in front of them in order to grow and perform. They don't have the guts or quality to perform on grass. Additionally, what about all those posts of your pics of bulls on grain that you said were yours? Also, I can make reference to several statements where you explained that you sold bulls through a local test. Don't just go off when you know nothing of my operation either. Now, I didn't say it shortened a bull's "life". Read closely. I said "breeding life". It IS a proven fact that bulls fed a hot ration while being developed do not last as long breeding. If you don't believe that, there is plenty of information on grain fed bulls being less potent, having lower sperm production, etc. Talk about expressing genetic potential. :? Finally, you have no idea how we test bulls. Here's a rundown. The bull calf crop is grouped together and put on stockpiled native grass. They have a trace mineral salt block and periodical alfalfa protein supplement. If they can't express their true genetic merit in that test, they don't need to be here.

Show me research that proves grain fed bulls tested in accordance with BIF guidelines are less potent, having lower sperm production, or have a shorter breeding life. Not something you heard from someone trying to sell you a program, but something from a recognized research center. Midland has been testing bulls for going on 60 years, our test center over 30, Auburn's been at it forever. Do you seriously think people would continue year after year to spend their hard earned money on those bulls if they weren't satisfied?

Heck, 50% of the bulls in the forage test that started this thread were culled! How can you keep a straight face and suggest that developing on forage is any better for the bulls than gain testing on feed?

I don't care how you develop your bulls; but I don't appreciate you misrepresenting the effects of how I develop mine.

 

[blackcowz]

Yipes, you are little touchy. You just made a case for forage development. If 50% of the bulls were culled, you're gonna tell me that's bad? Not every animal with a pair of testicles should go out and produce calves. If 50% got culled, buying a forage tested bull is all the better because you know you've sorted the men from the boys. If anything, culling out all the ones not up to snuff is the best thing that can happen. If a bull can get big weights and gains and look good on grain, big whoop. So can a heck of a lot of average stock. Not everyone can do the same thing on forage.

In a study at the Lethbridge Research Centre by G. H. Coulter, R. B. Cook and J. P. Kastelic, bulls that were grown from weaning to maturity on 100 % forage diets had 13% greater efficiency of sperm production, 19% more daily sperm production and 52% greater sperm reserves.

The Canadian study involved straight bred Angus, and Angus and Hereford crossed with Simmental.

The sperm production of the grain fattened bulls were all extremely marginal in both total sperm production and total motility. The fatter the bulls the less motile the sperm became.

http://www.stockmangrassfarmer.net/cgi- ... cgi?id=423

High levels of energy can increase weight, height, and scrotal circumference without affecting age at puberty or first mating —indicating that nutrition can affect bull development without affecting sexual development. In addition, highly fitted or excessively conditioned bulls may fatigue rapidly, resulting in fewer cows conceiving during the breeding season.

http://www.thebeefsite.com/articles/149 ... herd-bulls

And as NR said, so what if they pass a BSE? If a bull is more fertile, produces more sperm, and is already in good condition on just being on grass, he'll get more cows bred and more bred on the first cycle. That's just plain common sense if you ask me. If I can turn out more cows with less bulls, isn't that more cost effective? In closing, don't try to turn this around on me. You were the one who started this whole deal about forage development. If you didn't want it to turn out this way, common sense ought to have told you that if you came to saying forage development is not the best way to develop bulls, you can bet that someone is going to have a very different opinion. Like me, for instance. So, you feed your bulls grain and make a lot of money, and I'll feed my bulls grass and make a lot of money. To each his own.

 

[KMacGinley]

This has certainly been entertaining. When Frankie posts pictures of her cattle they certainly show high quality for the market that she is aiming for. A large segment of the cattle industry believes in the test station concept and loves those well conditioned bulls that exhibit high growth. There is a certain satisfaction in producing cattle that can gain that 4-6 lbs per day.

Back when corn was $2.00 a bushel, I thought that that was where it was at also. I bred a moderate framed bull that had an actual weaning weight of 750 no creep and an actual yearling weight of 1450 on his first birthday. To get to 1450 he put away 20+ lbs of corn per day and 2 lbs of 34% beef pellets along with free choice hay.

In the past several years, I have changed my thinking diametrically, because I too have come to believe that bulls should be developed slowly. In most cattle there is plenty of growth. The whole bull test station deal was fine for a time, to get away from 400 lb weaning weights and 800 lb yearling weights. We are well beyond that now. So far beyond, that the angus breed and the hereford breed are now trying to out terminal, the terminal breeds.

What I am trying to breed, are moderate cattle that can grow well on feed if that is what you want, but also will fit into your herd as females and cause no problems, good udders, hold their flesh on no grain ever, ease of calving, good dispositions and last and last. I like to think of this as the bullseye or hub of the wheel approach. If you think of an archery target with the extremes around the edge, we are aiming for the center. The high 4 low 5 frame 1300 lb cow that milks enough and breeds back. No calf pulling, no helping calves get on a teat, with little or no flight zone

As a result, our bulls are now developed on our best hay in the winter and our best pasture in the summer. I want them to last for our customers. One herd that we have placed 6 bulls in 6 years still has all 6 out there breeding cows. Which come to think of it, may be a disadvantage to me.

To help, we have also added in Ohlde genetics, as you saw from my bull pictured on the breeds page. Next spring, I am going to throw some Shoshone x strain genetics in as well from Mike Keeney, whose model A type of cattle resonate with me. I think that this is right for me. I think that what ever is right for you is right for you. I have a certain type of cattle in mind and a way to produce those cattle.

 

[blackcowz]

Certainly sounds like you have it figured out K! By the way, that was a very nice bull you posted whom I think will do well for your program. I was not by any measure discounting Frankie's cattle. I stated that they work well for what she is doing. She did not slam my cattle either. We were only discussing the various ways which one might develop a bull. We can't be expected to see eye to eye on this, and neither of us is going to change the other's mind. But it's fun to discuss things.

 

[novatech]

As many on the boards know Frankie and I have had several sparing matches. I have never held any personal feeling of animosity toward him. The sparing matches have caused me to do a tremendous amount of research in order to prove him wrong. I will never admit defeat right or wrong as that would end the fun. The research I have done has caused me to learn many things I would not have learned otherwise.
One very important thing I have become more aware of, because of sparing with Frankie, is that there is a lot more to efficiency than feed efficiency. Total efficiency is much more important.
With a cow calf operation efficiency is defined by fertility, foraging ability, mothering, sustainability, etc. What does it cost to get the cow from being bred to selling the calf to having the next calf.
Secondly what is the total cost from weaning to the packer. Time, feed efficiency,health, etc.
Top it off with how much one can sell the product for.
Anybody that is offended by any of the sparing matches on CT are simply concentrating on the wrong thing. If you cannot take it don't read it.
I would like to see some people on CT be a little more open minded. Who knows you may learn something.

 

[Northern Rancher]

Frankie ask any A'I stud what bull produces the best quality semen-a bull gaining weight or a hogfat showbull or test station stud-I'
ve seen bulls at stud a year while they try and get them to produce freezable semen-they even have a term for it 'test station disease'.I'm a firm believer that you can flush a bull for semen production just like you do a cow for breeding. In fact our head lab lady at Alta Genetics explained it best-they bring them in fat-the semen is no good so the bull becomes more valuable because his genetics are rare. One thing that ultasound has done is you can tell just how fat the bulls are and judge accordingly. I'm about done flogging this horse-I get my satisfaction from a pen of my cattle on feed doing well!!!

 

[Herefords.US]

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:

I had a similar chuckle when blackcowz mentioned Ken Coleman and Jim Lents in the same sentence. There's two breeding programs whose products are quite a way apart as well. About the ONLY thing they have in common is that they are both Hereford breeders with linebred cattle.

George

 

[blackcowz]

Well now, they've both got red and white cattle, and that's all that matters to me. Both cattle work in grass environments, but I realize they're probably worlds apart in breeding programs. Both have been good gentlemen to talk to, and I wouldn't mind using either one's bulls to produce black baldies. Both operations have cattle with guts and muscle. Note my username, and that should explain why I ain't an expert on line bred Herefords. As for where I'll be next year, I'll compile some pictures and let ya know next fall. Good evening folks. :tiphat:

 

[Hereford76]

6 bulls in 6 years still has all 6 out there breeding cows. Which come to think of it, may be a disadvantage to me.

depends on how you look at it. i thought the same thing awhile back - but that stuff gets around more than you know. i always thought the outfits selling feedlot bulls have had a good thing going - the turn over sure is shorter.

 

[Frankie]

Frankie ask any A'I stud what bull produces the best quality semen-a bull gaining weight or a hogfat showbull or test station stud-I'
ve seen bulls at stud a year while they try and get them to produce freezable semen-they even have a term for it 'test station disease'.I'm a firm believer that you can flush a bull for semen production just like you do a cow for breeding. In fact our head lab lady at Alta Genetics explained it best-they bring them in fat-the semen is no good so the bull becomes more valuable because his genetics are rare. One thing that ultasound has done is you can tell just how fat the bulls are and judge accordingly. I'm about done flogging this horse-I get my satisfaction from a pen of my cattle on feed doing well!!!

You do live in a small world, don't you? In the United States, the average herd of cattle is less than 40 head. In my area, it might be fewer head than that. Though we've sold bulls to the largest individual rancher in this area and the largest ranching operation in the state regularly buys bulls at our test station, I'm more concerned with selling to smaller produers. There are more of them, I enjoy visiting with them, and their money spends fine. For the last few years we've sold most of our bulls to neighbors. I'm pretty proud of that.

Lots of bulls won't produce semen that will freeze or meet the standards for AI companies. I'm sure whatever your pet rock, you could find someone from an AI company to agree with you that your particular rock is the problem. Being scarce doesn't make semen valuable; if a bull can't produce, I'm not interested in using him. The old EXT bull produced good, freezable semen until he was over ten years old and produced hundreds of sons that performed well in bull test stations round the country.

Using a performance tested bull will be the best way to improve your cattle on feed's performance.

 

[Frankie]

Certainly sounds like you have it figured out K! By the way, that was a very nice bull you posted whom I think will do well for your program. I was not by any measure discounting Frankie's cattle. I stated that they work well for what she is doing. She did not slam my cattle either. We were only discussing the various ways which one might develop a bull. We can't be expected to see eye to eye on this, and neither of us is going to change the other's mind. But it's fun to discuss things.

I was really going to let this go, but you're simply not telling the truth. Your momma should snatch you up and give you a spanking!

About my cattle, you said: You sell fat "gain tested" bulls whose breeding lives are shortened from being fed hot rations" which is simply not true.

And now you say "I'm not discounting Frankie's cattle". You're a dishonest person and I'm calling you on it.

 

[EAT BEEF]

You fight with a kid then you want then you want his mom to spank him. :lol2: :lol2: :lol: :lol:

 

[Brandonm22]

IF you can make money in this business selling grain fattened bulls, grass raised bulls, feeder calves, fat steers, grass steers, show steers, replacement heifers, show heifers, donors, freezer beef, recipient heifers, rodeo steers, rodeo bulls, pasture art, or pets in this market MORE POWER TOO YOU. You are dong better than many/maybe most. Find a program that works for YOU and work that program.

 

[RD-Sam]

Certainly sounds like you have it figured out K! By the way, that was a very nice bull you posted whom I think will do well for your program. I was not by any measure discounting Frankie's cattle. I stated that they work well for what she is doing. She did not slam my cattle either. We were only discussing the various ways which one might develop a bull. We can't be expected to see eye to eye on this, and neither of us is going to change the other's mind. But it's fun to discuss things.

I was really going to let this go, but you're simply not telling the truth. Your momma should snatch you up and give you a spanking!

About my cattle, you said: You sell fat "gain tested" bulls whose breeding lives are shortened from being fed hot rations" which is simply not true.

And now you say "I'm not discounting Frankie's cattle". You're a dishonest person and I'm calling you on it.

:lol2:

 

[purecountry]

This may be the most senseless thread I've ever read. It reads like my kids sound when they're fighting over toys. If any of you are making money at you're preferred systems, congrats.

As for bulls, my preference is always bulls that are tested on forage coming from a program very similar to my own, which is hard to find. Our home raised Galloway bulls are meeting expectations about as good as anything we've had before. Some that we've bought have been a real flop. Differences within breeds VS between breeds, right?

We don't breed a bull to anything until he's 2, since ours are May/June calves. But at 2, I expect a bull to cover 30-40 cows and maintain his condition. If he doesn't, he gets sold. He's obviously not going to advance us closer to our goals. It's taken a few years, but we now raise bulls that do it, and every time I buy in a bull I seem to be disappointed in the way they lose condition. I bought a bull from a guy last winter who had sold his cows. I own the mother of this bull, and have several paternal sisters to him that are some of my very best. I figured it was a sure thing, until he went out with cows. He went from fat, shiny and sassy to thin, dull and depressing in 60 days. Another one bites the dust. Ya just never know......unless you linebreed 'em. ;-)

 

[Oldtimer]

Frankie ask any A'I stud what bull produces the best quality semen-a bull gaining weight or a hogfat showbull or test station stud-I'
ve seen bulls at stud a year while they try and get them to produce freezable semen-they even have a term for it 'test station disease'.I'm a firm believer that you can flush a bull for semen production just like you do a cow for breeding. In fact our head lab lady at Alta Genetics explained it best-they bring them in fat-the semen is no good so the bull becomes more valuable because his genetics are rare. One thing that ultasound has done is you can tell just how fat the bulls are and judge accordingly. I'm about done flogging this horse-I get my satisfaction from a pen of my cattle on feed doing well!!!

You do live in a small world, don't you? In the United States, the average herd of cattle is less than 40 head. In my area, it might be fewer head than that. Though we've sold bulls to the largest individual rancher in this area and the largest ranching operation in the state regularly buys bulls at our test station, I'm more concerned with selling to smaller produers. There are more of them, I enjoy visiting with them, and their money spends fine. For the last few years we've sold most of our bulls to neighbors. I'm pretty proud of that.

Lots of bulls won't produce semen that will freeze or meet the standards for AI companies. I'm sure whatever your pet rock, you could find someone from an AI company to agree with you that your particular rock is the problem. Being scarce doesn't make semen valuable; if a bull can't produce, I'm not interested in using him. The old EXT bull produced good, freezable semen until he was over ten years old and produced hundreds of sons that performed well in bull test stations round the country.

Using a performance tested bull will be the best way to improve your cattle on feed's performance.

I think what is so interesting- is that so many of these herds now that are raising cattle that can predominate/prevail on both forage or grain-- and raise good mother cows with stayability- have added a touch of EXT....
He and grandsons like N Bar Prime Time almost can't be beat for for making udders/teats and good maternal momma cows....
I've had a few of his calves as cows- had some problems with disposition on some- none on others-- so have tried to keep him two/three times back in all pedigrees...Right now my EXT maternal greatgrandson- out of Rito Legacy 3R9 bull is a top producer of calves that can go any direction....
The cull mid-March/April steer calves- those we didn't register or keep as bulls -sold last week averaging 598- and the heifers we didn't keep weighed 564- all looking like peas in a pod- and going for replacements....
I didn't think it was too bad for what some believe are "pud" angus- in a year we were again in drought- with less than 10.5 inches of rain for the year..

 

[3waycross]

You fight with a kid then you want then you want his mom to spank him. :lol2: :lol2: :lol: :lol:

DITTO :roll: :roll: :roll:

 

[Hereford76]

in a year we were again in drought- with less than 10.5 inches of rain for the year..

try less than 3.5 inches this year. i had really hoped i'd seen the worst of the worst. we went three years in a row of under 4 inches per year from 98-2000 and it didn't break until June 8, 9,10th 2001 and got 8 some inches of rain and then 1.5 foot of snow on top in those three days. Early spring 2001 most people over here that knew said it was drier than the dust bowl days. i'll trade you OT. i've always thought you guys over in eastern montana should be paying us royalties. those thunderstorms break up and roll over the divide and then suck every last drop of moisture from here and then dump in on you guys. this year has been the final blow for a lot of the guys with cows over here - calling it quits for awhile... no grass, no water, no hay, and crumy prices. oh well, next year... right?