GRASS FED - too BIG or too LITTLE?

[DOC HARRIS]

I have watched the swings of Beef Cattle Production come and go for many years, and it is interesting that RIGHT NOW, for several good reasons, the thoughtful producers are beginning to realize that LARGE framed cattle and BIG cows are causing several problems - some of them seemingly SMALL and incidental - but problems nevertheless: larger and larger frame size, particularly the bulls that Breeders are using today. If your bull(s) were born before 2000 their Yearling EPD was somewhere around +55 or so. Today's average is around +75 or more!!

Using today's bulls, what is that increased Bull size going to do to your cow herd size?? . . in calves that are born in 2008 and producing their own calves in 2011! Are you going to have Giants that will break the bank in paying for grain that is going to be $4.00 a bushel or more for corn? The "RUSH" for Growth and High Milk EPD's and reduced Scrotal Size and loss of Fertility in Cows AND Bulls is a snowball tearing downhill that is scary to me!

Many posts lately have been stressing the need and desire for 'GRASSFED' Beef, and the Genetics which combine to be able to produce the 'type' of beef cattle which we expect to thrive on grass and forage - in other words-do what beef cattle are supposed to do - EAT GRASS and make money in the process.

A few weeks ago, we had a running dialog about different breeds of Beef Cattle - and the appeal that some of those breeds possessed in light of today's FEED PRICES and availability of corn and other grains and feedstuffs because of the increased demand of same for the production of ETHANOL.

At that time, some of us on both CattleToday and Ranchers.net discussed the Aubrac Breed, and the OUTSTANDING appearance of the young calves and bulls the breed produced - and the fact that Aubrac's are so functional pertaining to GRASSFED GENETICS. Eric Grant, who raises Aubracs (and who, by the way, has several articles in current beef magazines - Angus Journal, etc.) raises Aubracs and really can open your eyes to their potential value! I am REALLY impressed by the Aubrac's! . . . .and I have been an "Angus Man" for 65 years!

Check out this web site and give some deep thought to the possibilities of really optimizing your future beef operation - either crossbred or Purebred (Registered). Eric will jump at the chance to discuss the breed with you. I know! I have 'pinned him down' over a good Chicken Parmasen dinner with Alfredo Sauce and Pasta.

I know! You may think that I have a financial interest in this subject! Wrong! I do not. I am interested in Beef Production and what good Management and Cattle can do for everyone's lifestyle and income. Ruthie (the wife!) keeps telling me that is the TEACHER coming through, and I guess she is right!

Anyway - please check this out and get your thought processes working for YOUR benefit, whether it is Aubrac Cattle or a change in your management protocols. I think that you will be glad you did!

http://www.aubracusa.com

I have posted this topic on Ranchers.net and perhaps there can be some interesting discussions on the subject from BOTH Forum's!

DOC HARRIS

 

[dun]

Doc;

Frame creep has always been one of those things that folks don;t seem to notice until it's too late. I've preached moderation and keeping WW and YW close to breed average but it seems to many producers think that bigger is better when it comes to those 2 numbers. Cow weight doesn;t bother me much, as long as she is moderate framed. Just as you can have low BW and decent WW and YW you cna stil have moderate framed cows with a higher then average mature weight.
Seems like periodically the industry has to relearn the old lessons.

dun

 

[Badlands]

dun:

The flaw with keeping them "near average" is that average change as indicated in the genetic trends.

Even by using "near average" EPD results in bigger is better mentality. That is the scary part. Producers have to actively seek out the bottom end for WW and YW to maintain moderate cow size.

Todays Angus with YW EPD of 72 pounds and MW EPD of 32 pounds will produce the same growth, yearling weight and mature weight as Simmentals, as confirmed by MARC.

If Simmentals were too big 20 years ago, todays Angus are the same beast!

It also means that 50% of todays Angus will produce more MW than todays Simmentals.

Badlands

 

[dun]

dun:

The flaw with keeping them "near average" is that average change as indicated in the genetic trends.

Even by using "near average" EPD results in bigger is better mentality. That is the scary part. Producers have to actively seek out the bottom end for WW and YW to maintain moderate cow size.

Todays Angus with YW EPD of 72 pounds and MW EPD of 32 pounds will produce the same growth, yearling weight and mature weight as Simmentals, as confirmed by MARC.

If Simmentals were too big 20 years ago, todays Angus are the same beast!

It also means that 50% of todays Angus will produce more MW than todays Simmentals.

Badlands

Very good point. I haven;t noticed the weight creep in Hereford or Red Angus averages but it could very well be there. That's the reason there are terminal bulls and maternal bulls. I could care less about the high weights in the terminals as long as my forage base can feed the cow adequately and the cow has enough milk for the calf and breed back on time.

dun

 

[cfpinz]

I had never heard of an aubrac until six months ago. Still don't know anything significant about the breed. I'm just curious that even if they get their 15 minutes of fame, will they slip into the cracks like so many other "hot ticket" breeds have done? The next emu?

Wish the breeders the best, not trying to belittle their cattle, just thinking out loud.

cfpinz

 

[novatech]

I have watched the swings of Beef Cattle Production come and go for many years, and it is interesting that RIGHT NOW, for several good reasons, the thoughtful producers are beginning to realize that LARGE framed cattle and BIG cows are causing several problems - some of them seemingly SMALL and incidental - but problems nevertheless: larger and larger frame size, particularly the bulls that Breeders are using today. If your bull(s) were born before 2000 their Yearling EPD was somewhere around +55 or so. Today's average is around +75 or more!!

Using today's bulls, what is that increased Bull size going to do to your cow herd size?? . . in calves that are born in 2008 and producing their own calves in 2011! Are you going to have Giants that will break the bank in paying for grain that is going to be $4.00 a bushel or more for corn? The "RUSH" for Growth and High Milk EPD's and reduced Scrotal Size and loss of Fertility in Cows AND Bulls is a snowball tearing downhill that is scary to me!

Many posts lately have been stressing the need and desire for 'GRASSFED' Beef, and the Genetics which combine to be able to produce the 'type' of beef cattle which we expect to thrive on grass and forage - in other words-do what beef cattle are supposed to do - EAT GRASS and make money in the process.

A few weeks ago, we had a running dialog about different breeds of Beef Cattle - and the appeal that some of those breeds possessed in light of today's FEED PRICES and availability of corn and other grains and feedstuffs because of the increased demand of same for the production of ETHANOL.

At that time, some of us on both CattleToday and Ranchers.net discussed the Aubrac Breed, and the OUTSTANDING appearance of the young calves and bulls the breed produced - and the fact that Aubrac's are so functional pertaining to GRASSFED GENETICS. Eric Grant, who raises Aubracs (and who, by the way, has several articles in current beef magazines - Angus Journal, etc.) raises Aubracs and really can open your eyes to their potential value! I am REALLY impressed by the Aubrac's! . . . .and I have been an "Angus Man" for 65 years!

Check out this web site and give some deep thought to the possibilities of really optimizing your future beef operation - either crossbred or Purebred (Registered). Eric will jump at the chance to discuss the breed with you. I know! I have 'pinned him down' over a good Chicken Parmasen dinner with Alfredo Sauce and Pasta.

I know! You may think that I have a financial interest in this subject! Wrong! I do not. I am interested in Beef Production and what good Management and Cattle can do for everyone's lifestyle and income. Ruthie (the wife!) keeps telling me that is the TEACHER coming through, and I guess she is right!

Anyway - please check this out and get your thought processes working for YOUR benefit, whether it is Aubrac Cattle or a change in your management protocols. I think that you will be glad you did!

http://www.aubracusa.com

I have posted this topic on Ranchers.net and perhaps there can be some interesting discussions on the subject from BOTH Forum's!

DOC HARRIS

[/quote]

Where can I find the info that states that there is a feed efficency defferience between cattle being fed grain or grass? I have been looking and cannot come up with anything other than what individual breeds advertise.

 

[OKJeanne]

Aubrac breed of cattle have not as yet done very well at
all on the DNA testing for the presently known tenderness
genes. There are probably some tender bloodlines in the
breed however, but you may have to look hard for them.

 

[Aubracusa]

Thank you, Doc, for the kind words regarding Aubrac cattle. We've been working many years to develop the breed in North America, and are excited about hosting our first sale in about 30 days.

I met with Dr. Jim Gibb of Merial in Denver earlier this month, and we will be aggressively DNA testing all Aubrac cattle in the United States in the coming months for a wide array of carcass traits.

This will be a unique opportunity for us to gain a greater understanding of what our breed has to offer, and also for Merial to conduct such a comprehensive testing program of a single breed of cattle. Our goal is to identify the genetics that are best suited to produce the most desirable products for consumers, and to perpetuate genetics that are leaders in grass and forage efficiency.

Please be aware that OKJeanne's assertion that "Aubrac breed of cattle have not as yet done very well at all on the DNA testing for the presently known tenderness genes" is only partially true. The test results that she's seen are based on a small group of crossbred Aubrac cattle (about a dozen head) that did not score high for DNA tenderness. At the same time, this same set of cattle had above-average scores on the Warner Bratzler shear test for tenderness.

Go figure.

I shared these results with OKJeanne in late November with the understanding that the results remain confidential (the information was not mine to share publicly), and that we wait until additional testing -- particularly of fullblood Aubracs (which would eliminate the effects of other breeds on our tenderness results) -- becomes available this spring.

Best regards,

Aubracusa
http://www.aubracusa.com

 

[Brandonm2]

Doc, I don't know which way the industry is going to go. IT looks to me like the "future" economics favor the 2-4 frame small cow; but the "current" feedlot buyers still favor the 5-7 frame calf. I would be sitting on a 5 frame cows. That is big enough to consistently send a group of big strapping calves too market and small enough that with the right bull you could drop a frame score or two in a future heifer crop effortlessly and almost painlessly.

 

[OK Jeanne]

I think you might consider testing with GeneStar instead
of Merial - even though I know Jim Gibb and have great
respect for him...he is a classy guy for sure. We have
had previous problems with the lab they use.
When you test with GeneStar you have the advantage
that they will publish your results on their "public"
results website, which I think is a marketing advantage.

I got an email today from their office announcing that
they have verified another "find" on the 'quality'
factors:
----------------------



Harahan, La.; January 31st, 2007 – GeneSTAR® Quality Grade has long been the industry's only independently validated DNA product for Quality Grade or marbling. The Quality Grade test was last expanded in August of 2005. At that time, the test was based on a two marker panel. Bovigen has now received confirmation from the National Beef Cattle Evaluation Consortium, that the new, expanded four marker panel has passed their independent validation process.



In previous studies, GeneSTAR® Quality Grade was estimated to improve Quality Grade by as much as twenty three percent. Updated studies of the new, expanded GeneSTAR® Quality Grade test, shows an improvement in percent choice of nearly thirty five percent. Other analysis have shown that when cattle are separated into low and high GeneSTAR groups, there is more than a one and a half Quality Grade difference in the average grade of the two groups.



"We're very excited about our new, expanded Quality Grade test," said Bovigen CEO Victor Castellon. "The value of increased Quality Grade is well established in the marketplace. The difference between a Zero Star bull and an Eight Star bull for Quality Grade can be several thousand dollars over its useful life when calculating the difference in value of their offspring."



"We are extremely pleased with this latest product addition and will make it available to our customers as quickly as possible," said Castellon. Bovigen will begin releasing the new marker panel as of February 15th. The Quality Grade panel test, despite dramatically increasing in size of effect, will continue to sell for the same price. Upgrades of previously tested animals will be available for $25.



"DNA testing is just beginning to become a mainstream tool," commented Calvin Gunter, Director of Corporate Development. "We feel it is very important to subject our products to some type of independent validation prior to their release. Others may choose a different route, but we think that scientific credibility is one of the things that separates us from our competition." added Gunter.
---------------------

What they are calling "quality" factors is marbling, not
tenderness---however they have gone through the same
scientific process before releasing the tenderness test
for the two calpain gene factors. The original tenderness
factor (calpastatin) was patented and they have the
only license here to test for that particular individual
tenderness gene....Merial says they test for calpastatin
but it is on a different location on the genome, and is
not (so they say) an infringement on the patent.

As far as keeping secrets go; here was my response to your inquiry about whether you had the correct email address:

"yes, correct address. I'd like to see the GeneStar tenderness results on your
breed of cattle.
cjb"

-------------------

And here was my response to you after reading your
test results:

"very disappointing results. I'm surprised that they test out even less tender than
limos. I guess you need to find some somewhere that test out tender and multiply
that bloodline. If you sell beef to the public, tenderness is the #1 factor. We
will not use any bull with less than a perfect tenderness score...and our donor
cows have perfect or near-perfect scores.
cjb

PS. FYI the general manager of Igenity, Jim Gibb, said they had not done any
testing on your breed....the samples must have been sent in as "X-breed".
Likewise, Bovigen has no record of testing your breed.


-----------------------------

Nowhere in my notes to you did I agree to keep secret the
poor tenderness scores on your breed, or crossbreeds.
I recall the flurry of interest last fall about this breed
that so few had heard about....that's why I responded
to your email and inquired about tenderness testing.

Be brave - go for it! Get your best animals tested with
Bovigen and publish the scores. If you can find a
tender bloodline, it will be well worth the cost of the
testing for purposes of selling your seedstock.

Good luck!

P.S. I would really rather not have any more phone
messages from you left on my home phone.

 

[Chuckie]

Reading the history of the Aubrac cattle, I say they are right in line with the Piedmontese. They look identical and then some have muted the color. Piedmontese have a higher milking ability, less feed, and the double muscle gene. I personally like the Piedmontese, but the buyers don't. The meat is delicious and very tender. Low fat at that. The muzzle and eye area of the PM is hard to hide when crossing them. I wish the Angus had their muscling gene. Chuckie

 

[S.R.R.]

I have watched the swings of Beef Cattle Production come and go for many years, and it is interesting that RIGHT NOW, for several good reasons, the thoughtful producers are beginning to realize that LARGE framed cattle and BIG cows are causing several problems - some of them seemingly SMALL and incidental - but problems nevertheless: larger and larger frame size, particularly the bulls that Breeders are using today. If your bull(s) were born before 2000 their Yearling EPD was somewhere around +55 or so. Today's average is around +75 or more!!

Using today's bulls, what is that increased Bull size going to do to your cow herd size?? . . in calves that are born in 2008 and producing their own calves in 2011! Are you going to have Giants that will break the bank in paying for grain that is going to be $4.00 a bushel or more for corn? The "RUSH" for Growth and High Milk EPD's and reduced Scrotal Size and loss of Fertility in Cows AND Bulls is a snowball tearing downhill that is scary to me!

Many posts lately have been stressing the need and desire for 'GRASSFED' Beef, and the Genetics which combine to be able to produce the 'type' of beef cattle which we expect to thrive on grass and forage - in other words-do what beef cattle are supposed to do - EAT GRASS and make money in the process.

A few weeks ago, we had a running dialog about different breeds of Beef Cattle - and the appeal that some of those breeds possessed in light of today's FEED PRICES and availability of corn and other grains and feedstuffs because of the increased demand of same for the production of ETHANOL.

At that time, some of us on both CattleToday and Ranchers.net discussed the Aubrac Breed, and the OUTSTANDING appearance of the young calves and bulls the breed produced - and the fact that Aubrac's are so functional pertaining to GRASSFED GENETICS. Eric Grant, who raises Aubracs (and who, by the way, has several articles in current beef magazines - Angus Journal, etc.) raises Aubracs and really can open your eyes to their potential value! I am REALLY impressed by the Aubrac's! . . . .and I have been an "Angus Man" for 65 years!

Check out this web site and give some deep thought to the possibilities of really optimizing your future beef operation - either crossbred or Purebred (Registered). Eric will jump at the chance to discuss the breed with you. I know! I have 'pinned him down' over a good Chicken Parmasen dinner with Alfredo Sauce and Pasta.

I know! You may think that I have a financial interest in this subject! Wrong! I do not. I am interested in Beef Production and what good Management and Cattle can do for everyone's lifestyle and income. Ruthie (the wife!) keeps telling me that is the TEACHER coming through, and I guess she is right!

Anyway - please check this out and get your thought processes working for YOUR benefit, whether it is Aubrac Cattle or a change in your management protocols. I think that you will be glad you did!

http://www.aubracusa.com

I have posted this topic on Ranchers.net and perhaps there can be some interesting discussions on the subject from BOTH Forum's!

DOC HARRIS

Great post Doc Harris! I do want to point out one thing about the quote

"Using today's bulls, what is that increased Bull size going to do to your cow herd size?? . . in calves that are born in 2008 and producing their own calves in 2011!"

The above type of bull is what I use as a terminal bull.

I breed the cows I want replacements out of with a maternal bull that way I do not run into the problem of an increasing herd size. This also gives me the opportunity to go all out with the traits/EPDs I want from each bull.

I like what the Aubrac Cattle bring to the table. I have been a fan of the Piedmontese which seem to have similar traits. Do you know what kind of calving issues the Aubrac,s have if any?

 

[J+ Cattle]

Now for my two cents worth!

The most desirable quality of cattle is that they can take a low quality feed, forage, grass, etc. and turn it into a higher quality food, beef. In the past I feel that it was easy to throw cheap grain in the feed bunk to increase the quality of the beef being produced. Those days will soon be gone, we are beginning to see the transition with higher grain prices. Beef producer should concentrate on raising cattle that can thrive on forage alone and use genetics to improve the quality of the product, marbling, tenderness, flavor, instead of just feeding more grain to overcome genetic weaknesses. I think the market will favor those producers with cattle, regardless of breed or color, that can finish on grass within a reasonable time and can deliver a high quality eating experience because of their lower cost of production.

J+

 

[Brandonm2]

Now for my two cents worth!

The most desirable quality of cattle is that they can take a low quality feed, forage, grass, etc. and turn it into a higher quality food, beef. In the past I feel that it was easy to throw cheap grain in the feed bunk to increase the quality of the beef being produced. Those days will soon be gone, we are beginning to see the transition with higher grain prices. Beef producer should concentrate on raising cattle that can thrive on forage alone and use genetics to improve the quality of the product, marbling, tenderness, flavor, instead of just feeding more grain to overcome genetic weaknesses. I think the market will favor those producers with cattle, regardless of breed or color, that can finish on grass within a reasonable time and can deliver a high quality eating experience because of their lower cost of production.

J+

The big problem with an industry wide switch too grass is that there is NO infrastructure for such a switch. Right now we have plenty of feedlots and a lot of cow/calf ranches. There are stockers and backgrounders who take lite calves too feedlot weight. We really don't have so much surplus forage at the ranch level that we can EASILY finish THE NATION's calf crop on grass. Plus the public pays for a grain fattened steak. IF we switched too a grass fattened steak quickly we risk losing some of our customers.

 

[novatech]

Now for my two cents worth!

The most desirable quality of cattle is that they can take a low quality feed, forage, grass, etc. and turn it into a higher quality food, beef. In the past I feel that it was easy to throw cheap grain in the feed bunk to increase the quality of the beef being produced. Those days will soon be gone, we are beginning to see the transition with higher grain prices. Beef producer should concentrate on raising cattle that can thrive on forage alone and use genetics to improve the quality of the product, marbling, tenderness, flavor, instead of just feeding more grain to overcome genetic weaknesses. I think the market will favor those producers with cattle, regardless of breed or color, that can finish on grass within a reasonable time and can deliver a high quality eating experience because of their lower cost of production.

J+

The big problem with an industry wide switch too grass is that there is NO infrastructure for such a switch. Right now we have plenty of feedlots and a lot of cow/calf ranches. There are stockers and backgrounders who take lite calves too feedlot weight. We really don't have so much surplus forage at the ranch level that we can EASILY finish THE NATION's calf crop on grass. Plus the public pays for a grain fattened steak. IF we switched too a grass fattened steak quickly we risk losing some of our customers.

I agree with brandonm 2. There is just no way we could produce enough forage to take the place of grain. It is a mater of real estate. They are not makeing any more. Much of the forage produceing land will be growing the more profitable grain.
We had a hay shortage this past year which should give one a glimpse of things to come.
There is a small plus. They plan on recycleing the grain. Check this out.

http://www.ocala.com/apps/pbcs.dll/arti ... /1009/NEWS

 

[Shorthornguy]

Good post DOC. We have spent 40 years tearing down fences to make the corn field bigger. Bigger cows and bigger feedlots.
Are we getting a bigger pay check???????? Is our return on investment any better today than it was 40 years ago???
Time to put the fences back up!!

 

[goddy]

Another really interesting lot of posts going on here. Doc the teacher in you is great and I really enjoy reading posts that get people thinking and not just reacting.

I'm originally from New Zealand where as you all know we feed and finish pretty much all our cattle on grass as all grains are too expensive to be fed to livestock.

Am I right in thinking you are all mainly talking about grass feeding of breeding stock as opposed to grass finishing of slaughter cattle ?

Two very different topics with the first being pretty much a no brainer but the second involves a paradigm shift in how you view your industry and your product.

Goddy

 

[jnowack]

Good post doc. One thing I find a bit puzzling is all the talk about how the cattle need to be smaller framed but yet I have also heard on here that yeild grades are getting much worse in recent years. I know there are a lot of factors but if the all these too fat cattle are too big framed already what will they be like with a drastic reduction in frame? Does the industry need to make a shift toward lighter slaughter weights to compensate?

 

[Brandonm2]

Good post doc. One thing I find a bit puzzling is all the talk about how the cattle need to be smaller framed but yet I have also heard on here that yeild grades are getting much worse in recent years. I know there are a lot of factors but if the all these too fat cattle are too big framed already what will they be like with a drastic reduction in frame? Does the industry need to make a shift toward lighter slaughter weights to compensate?

Actually, I think that would help yield grade. The Yield Grade formula is very demanding on heavy cattle. A 550 lb carcass with an 11.4 inch REA is going too get adjusted down 3 tenths of a whole YG so could come in with a half an inch of fat cover and still make a yield grade 2. A big stout steer that hangs an 800 lb carcass with the same fat cover is going to have too cut an impressive 14.4" eye too get that same 2.95 Yield Grade(assuming I did the math right and ignoring the KPH factor which actually improves the final yield grade MOST carcasses).

http://ars.sdstate.edu/AnimalEval/Beef/beefgrade.htm

Especially amoung British breeds historically, as frame increase ribeye area fails too keep pace. IF the feedlots know what they are doing and feed to the same backfat thickness they do now, smaller framed calves SHOULD lead too a little lowering of average yield grades due to the way the formula is calculated. IF an emphasis was paid on muscling (rather than just growth EPDs) we would see a drop in average yield grade no matter what frame we were striving for.

 

[jnowack]

At 550 carcass weight would only be 916 lbs live weight (60% dress weight). I don't think there are a lot of cattle killed at this weight. And would have 1.25 inches of REA per 100 lbs of live weight which is pretty good. The rule of thumb I always used was that they need 1 inch per 100 lbs.

The 800 lb carcass would be 1333 live weight. For this calf to have a 14.4 eye he would only be at 1.08 per 100 lbs which I think is not really a big stretch. I am sure that ratio of REA to live weight does tend to drop at heavier weights.

My point was that if you make them smaller framed you will need to kill at lighter weights to keep from getting them too fat. If the cattle we have in the feedlots now were slaughtered at lower weights I am sure they would have less backfat and a lower numerical YG but probably also a lower % choice.