Genetic Trends - Hereford

Help Support CattleToday:

Thanks for the comments, George. My new bull is a bit different. Finally bit the bullet today and realized it is time to move on in bulls and listed T-21 for sale. It's like selling one of your kids! But I just can't manage two bulls over the winter... He's done his job. Using one of his sons plus the new bull for a couple seasons.

By the way did you misstate that part about being in the "bottom" 10% on IMF?

Jim
 
Herefords.US":1dm1bc33 said:
SRBeef":1dm1bc33 said:
By the way did you misstate that part about being in the "bottom" 10% on IMF?

Jim

Nope! Remember, REA and IMF are antagonistic!

George

Come on George! Don't you know you can "have it all"??? Where ya been buddy?
 
WichitaLineMan":2g6lnpkl said:
Herefords.US":2g6lnpkl said:
SRBeef":2g6lnpkl said:
By the way did you misstate that part about being in the "bottom" 10% on IMF?

Jim

Nope! Remember, REA and IMF are antagonistic!

George

Come on George! Don't you know you can "have it all"??? Where ya been buddy?

You mean I won't have to moderate REA to get the fat higher? :???: :???:

Well, I guess these Achiever daughters I have with their negative REA but high IMF can easily be "corrected" too, then! :lol:

George
 
You just need to let me take those light muscled little dinks off your hands. I can be in Stephenville in 2 hours.
 
WichitaLineMan":uo2c5s7s said:
You just need to let me take those light muscled little dinks off your hands. I can be in Stephenville in 2 hours.

I can't sell them, WLM! They're the only two I can show to anybody in the middle of February! :oops: :oops:
H_Miss_Achiever_1068.jpg



Grace_and_calf.jpg

George
 
I can't sell them, WLM! They're the only two I can show to anybody in the middle of February!

That counts for a lot more in profitability than any yield grade come slaughter time!

It seems that farmers the world over is very output focussed with very little regard to the cost of the inputs required to get the product to the point of converting it to money.
 
KNERSIE":3nv4m0w2 said:
I can't sell them, WLM! They're the only two I can show to anybody in the middle of February!

That counts for a lot more in profitability than any yield grade come slaughter time!

It seems that farmers the world over is very output focussed with very little regard to the cost of the inputs required to get the product to the point of converting it to money.

Thats true, the breed journals are full of output based ads with out mentioning inputs, but in this situation, inputs are hard to measure. For instance the two pictured above we praise for their fleshing ability, which is a good thing, but how do we know if they aren't actually eating 10 to 15% more than the average animal in order to maintain their good fleshy appeareance and in actuallity their profitability may be lower because the not only eat more, but their offspring actually get discounted for their excess fat on the kill floor.

I am by no means promoting breeding based on carcass and yield grade, but fat thickness is just like any other trait, too much isn't good and too little can be even worse. Feed conversion and fertility may be more important from a profitability standpoint for the cowman and the feedlot.
 
Brian do you have any daughters off your bull that did so well. I'd be intertested on how you'd rate them for fleshing ability etc. I guess cattle are like people some eat lots stay thin, some eat lots and get fat and some stay fat on little intake.
 
I'm surprised more research hasn't been done on the bovine thyroid. The thyroxine produced by the thyroid determines metabolism rate. Of course, I assume like in humans you don't won't to go over board either way or you end up hypo or hyper thyroid.

But you could eliminate outliers.
 
Feed conversion and fertility may be more important from a profitability standpoint for the cowman and the feedlot.

I wholeheartedly agree. Fertility and the ability to take care of themselves on minimal imput is the #1 reason to use a hereford. I said at the time and I will say it again, $7.00 corn is good for the Hereford breed.

I am convinced that it is way easier to take $50 off what it takes to run a cow than it is to make your calves worth $50 more than your neighbors.
 
$VALUES ($Weaned Calf and Cow $Energy)
Weaned Calf Value ($W) $Value article $W Questions
Weaned Calf $Value ($W) quantifies four primary economic impact areas:

1.Birth Weight - birth weight influences on calf death losses related to dystocia, weaned calf crop percentage, and resulting revenue per cow.
2.Weaning Weight - direct growth impact on weaning weight revenue (pre-weaning growth and pounds of calf sold) and energy requirements and related costs to necessary to support pre-weaning calf growth.
3.Maternal Milk - revenue from calf pre-weaning growth and pounds of calf sold as influenced by varying cow milk levels, and costs related to lactation energy requirements.
4.Mature Cow Size - expense adjustments are made for maintenance energy as related to differing mature cow size, including mathematical linkages between mature weight and yearling weight.
The impact areas are combined into a bio-economic value expressed in dollars per head assigned to Angus genetics from birth through weaning. Resources used to form the Wean Calf Value ($W) include National Research Council (NRC), US Meat and Animal Research Center (USMARC), Cattle-Fax, SPA and university cow-calf budgets, and the American Angus Association performance database.
$Values only have meaning when used in comparing the relative merit or ranking of two individuals. $W provides the expected dollar-per-head difference in future progeny preweaning performance in a multi-trait fashion, within a typical U.S. beef cowherd. If Bull A has a $W of +25.00 and Bull B has a $W of +15.00, and these sires were randomly mated to a comparable set of females and the calves were exposed to the same environment, and a normal number of replacement females were saved from both sires, on average you could expect Bull A's progeny to have a +10.00 per head advantage in pre-weaning value over Bull B's progeny (25.00 - 15.00 = +10.00 per head). As with any $Value, $W only has meaning when used in comparing the relative merit or ranking of two individuals.

As with other $Values, the Weaned Calf Value includes assumptions, as listed below:

Base Calf Price $115 per cwt
Cow/Heifer Mix 80%/20%
Cow weight 1,300 lb
Feed energy cost $.065 per MCal NEm


Cow Energy Value ($EN)
A Cow Energy Value ($EN) is available to assess differences in cow energy requirements, expressed in dollars per cow per year, as an expected dollar savings difference in future daughters of sires. A larger value is more favorable when comparing two animals (more dollars saved on feed energy expenses). Components for computing the cow $EN savings difference include lactation energy requirements and energy costs associated with differences in mature cow size.


In the above example, the expected difference in cow energy savings per cow per year for future daughters of the two animals is +11.07 (15.75 - 4.68 = +11.07).




The above are the definitions for the two $epd composites from the AAA website. To me these cover the input/ouput issues and should absolutely be available from the AHA also.
 
Doug Thorson":26hpb1dx said:
Feed conversion and fertility may be more important from a profitability standpoint for the cowman and the feedlot.

I wholeheartedly agree. Fertility and the ability to take care of themselves on minimal imput is the #1 reason to use a hereford. I said at the time and I will say it again, $7.00 corn is good for the Hereford breed.

I am convinced that it is way easier to take $50 off what it takes to run a cow than it is to make your calves worth $50 more than your neighbors.

This is typical of many areas of ag production - focus is on the gross (yield/pounds etc) rather than net (profit). Here is an interesting article from Cattle Today along these lines. More hamburger and grass:

http://cattletoday.com/archive/2010/August/CT2292.php
 
It is backfat. We need to get some of the "doing ability" back in a lot of Herefords. If you have too much backfat in your cattle use a terminal Charolais or Limousin that should take care of your backfat "problem". Herefords are a maternal breed and the backfat is a plus for them not a minus.[/quote


Explain why backfat and maternal are in the same sentence? Why would backfat be a plus?
Valerie
 
Idaman":2puiue8f said:
$VALUES ($Weaned Calf and Cow $Energy)
Weaned Calf Value ($W) $Value article $W Questions
Weaned Calf $Value ($W) quantifies four primary economic impact areas:

1.Birth Weight - birth weight influences on calf death losses related to dystocia, weaned calf crop percentage, and resulting revenue per cow.
2.Weaning Weight - direct growth impact on weaning weight revenue (pre-weaning growth and pounds of calf sold) and energy requirements and related costs to necessary to support pre-weaning calf growth.
3.Maternal Milk - revenue from calf pre-weaning growth and pounds of calf sold as influenced by varying cow milk levels, and costs related to lactation energy requirements.
4.Mature Cow Size - expense adjustments are made for maintenance energy as related to differing mature cow size, including mathematical linkages between mature weight and yearling weight.
The impact areas are combined into a bio-economic value expressed in dollars per head assigned to Angus genetics from birth through weaning. Resources used to form the Wean Calf Value ($W) include National Research Council (NRC), US Meat and Animal Research Center (USMARC), Cattle-Fax, SPA and university cow-calf budgets, and the American Angus Association performance database.
$Values only have meaning when used in comparing the relative merit or ranking of two individuals. $W provides the expected dollar-per-head difference in future progeny preweaning performance in a multi-trait fashion, within a typical U.S. beef cowherd. If Bull A has a $W of +25.00 and Bull B has a $W of +15.00, and these sires were randomly mated to a comparable set of females and the calves were exposed to the same environment, and a normal number of replacement females were saved from both sires, on average you could expect Bull A's progeny to have a +10.00 per head advantage in pre-weaning value over Bull B's progeny (25.00 - 15.00 = +10.00 per head). As with any $Value, $W only has meaning when used in comparing the relative merit or ranking of two individuals.

As with other $Values, the Weaned Calf Value includes assumptions, as listed below:

Base Calf Price $115 per cwt
Cow/Heifer Mix 80%/20%
Cow weight 1,300 lb
Feed energy cost $.065 per MCal NEm


Cow Energy Value ($EN)
A Cow Energy Value ($EN) is available to assess differences in cow energy requirements, expressed in dollars per cow per year, as an expected dollar savings difference in future daughters of sires. A larger value is more favorable when comparing two animals (more dollars saved on feed energy expenses). Components for computing the cow $EN savings difference include lactation energy requirements and energy costs associated with differences in mature cow size.


In the above example, the expected difference in cow energy savings per cow per year for future daughters of the two animals is +11.07 (15.75 - 4.68 = +11.07).




The above are the definitions for the two $epd composites from the AAA website. To me these cover the input/ouput issues and should absolutely be available from the AHA also.
Idaman,
you have to be careful of the $E value, as milk epd increases the $E decreases. LIke everything else, select with the other epds and not by itself. I have old cows with $E of +$20 but milk epds of +6.
Valerie
 
vcclavin you just said as mouthfull about your old cows with a +20 EN epd and only being plus 6 for milk. I assume they are still around because they are productive cows-if they can produce and make you money at those epd's why would anybody use the plus 30 milk minus 20 EN cattle. I know which cows I'd buy from you in a heartbeat!!!
 
The discussion about backfat interest me. How little backfat is the ideal epd for your different areas and please give us some ideal of your enviroment and management?


I own this cow EFBEEF K376 VIVIAN R435 (P42635187) , she is one or the lowest backfat epd of the Hereford breed. She also will be a dam of distinction this year when they do the next DOD run. I run my cattle in KY. on fescue with clover, calf in the spring, and no creep feed. R435 calved at two years old and has four calves that have a weaning ratio 107% within a 367 day average interval.

This year is a very dry year for us but she is holding a 5 BCS while nursing her calf. If I don't get rain soon all of my cows condition will drop. I don't know how she would hold up in different enviroments but I think that my conditions would be no better than some of the western states that do not have fescue. She is a frame 6 so she could cover ground to graze. I don't believe she would fair well wintered in Canada's mountains without any hay or feed.

Her fat accuracy is low so it could be wrong and that may account for her productivity. I did not buy her for feed conversion, however it is definitely something that needs to be considered. She was purchased for a planned breeding program and is working out well.

Now to say my opinion on backfat epd. My ideal backfat epd seems to be near breed average to slightly lower. example 0.00 to -0.20.
 
I think if you really want to use the BF EPD as a selection tool for the cowherd it would only make sense if you have RTU scan data of the entire calf crop for a few years running to see how the different amounts of backfat relate to your management style. Without atleast having data on parts of your calf crop the BF EPD is little more than a mathematical theory.
 
vclavin":11z2b3i2 said:
Idaman":11z2b3i2 said:
$VALUES ($Weaned Calf and Cow $Energy)
Weaned Calf Value ($W) $Value article $W Questions
Weaned Calf $Value ($W) quantifies four primary economic impact areas:

1.Birth Weight - birth weight influences on calf death losses related to dystocia, weaned calf crop percentage, and resulting revenue per cow.
2.Weaning Weight - direct growth impact on weaning weight revenue (pre-weaning growth and pounds of calf sold) and energy requirements and related costs to necessary to support pre-weaning calf growth.
3.Maternal Milk - revenue from calf pre-weaning growth and pounds of calf sold as influenced by varying cow milk levels, and costs related to lactation energy requirements.
4.Mature Cow Size - expense adjustments are made for maintenance energy as related to differing mature cow size, including mathematical linkages between mature weight and yearling weight.
The impact areas are combined into a bio-economic value expressed in dollars per head assigned to Angus genetics from birth through weaning. Resources used to form the Wean Calf Value ($W) include National Research Council (NRC), US Meat and Animal Research Center (USMARC), Cattle-Fax, SPA and university cow-calf budgets, and the American Angus Association performance database.
$Values only have meaning when used in comparing the relative merit or ranking of two individuals. $W provides the expected dollar-per-head difference in future progeny preweaning performance in a multi-trait fashion, within a typical U.S. beef cowherd. If Bull A has a $W of +25.00 and Bull B has a $W of +15.00, and these sires were randomly mated to a comparable set of females and the calves were exposed to the same environment, and a normal number of replacement females were saved from both sires, on average you could expect Bull A's progeny to have a +10.00 per head advantage in pre-weaning value over Bull B's progeny (25.00 - 15.00 = +10.00 per head). As with any $Value, $W only has meaning when used in comparing the relative merit or ranking of two individuals.

As with other $Values, the Weaned Calf Value includes assumptions, as listed below:

Base Calf Price $115 per cwt
Cow/Heifer Mix 80%/20%
Cow weight 1,300 lb
Feed energy cost $.065 per MCal NEm


Cow Energy Value ($EN)
A Cow Energy Value ($EN) is available to assess differences in cow energy requirements, expressed in dollars per cow per year, as an expected dollar savings difference in future daughters of sires. A larger value is more favorable when comparing two animals (more dollars saved on feed energy expenses). Components for computing the cow $EN savings difference include lactation energy requirements and energy costs associated with differences in mature cow size.


In the above example, the expected difference in cow energy savings per cow per year for future daughters of the two animals is +11.07 (15.75 - 4.68 = +11.07).




The above are the definitions for the two $epd composites from the AAA website. To me these cover the input/ouput issues and should absolutely be available from the AHA also.



Idaman,you have to be careful of the $E value, as milk epd increases the $E decreases. LIke everything else, select with the other epds and not by itself. I have old cows with $E of +$20 but milk epds of +6.
Valerie


We don't use them seperately we always add the $EN and the $W together to find the animals we will use. If they don't total very close to 70 we pass them by.
 
KNERSIE":2r44icjg said:
I think if you really want to use the BF EPD as a selection tool for the cowherd it would only make sense if you have RTU scan data of the entire calf crop for a few years running to see how the different amounts of backfat relate to your management style. Without atleast having data on parts of your calf crop the BF EPD is little more than a mathematical theory.


I agree, thats why I always scan my calf crop.
 

Latest posts

Top