Growth and Yield

[SEC]

I started this topic a while back and never had time to get into the topic so I will try again.

Why to the very TOP performing bulls not have as much muscle as more moderate growth bulls. Bando 5175, Focus, Alliance are just some of the bulls that prove this theory.

These bulls are all guts, very deep and yet do not generally have much for muscle shape.

I would like to know why growth and muscle seem to be antagonistic.

 

[ENNOT]

The bulls themselves may not show alot of muscle, but their offspring do. I can see where you are coming from though. But you are also mixing differetnt types of bulls.

Alliance 6595 doesn't look like he would put alot of muscle in his calves, but he does, but he is also a maternal type of bull.

5175 is a bull that really works for commercial guys selling calves at weaning. Good growth to weaning and then slows down for easy finishing. But 5175 really does put some good muscle in cattle.

Focus, a bull that I have never cared for, has to be bred correctly to put muscle in the calves. Look at Mytty In Focus. He doesnt show alot of muscle himself, but his calves do.

I probably don't know the exact answer to your question. But wen you try to push for high growth cattle, which the bulls you named fit into the category, you lose muscle mass, I guess you would say. The genetics somehow don't correlate to have high growth(frame) and muscle in most modern Angus. Like you say, moderate growth bulls have more muscle, but not much frame.

This is my best guess, sorry for trying to confuse you.

 

[SEC]

I would disagree with Focus and 5175, they have a hard time siring muscle. Alliance sires average muscle at best, on the average. They sons are good but not really muscular, lots of the lower quarter muscle.... LOL

 

[ollie']

I don't have your answer but I can see some limiting factors in breeding big growthy sires with lots of muscle. The main trouble I see is BW. If you make a calf long and growthy with a big capacity, you are pushing the BW envelope already...add heavy muscling to the equation and the calf gets cut for a steer because of BW. You can take a more moderate sized calf and make him heavy muscled and still come in at a reasonable BW.

 

[Beefy]

Why do my dad and i look alike, yet he is short and muscular while i am tall and lighter muscled (like my grandfather)?

 

[SEC]

I have no idea what the means in regards to this. I am asking why are the high performance bulls usually bulls that don't yield and have the muscle that most would like.

 

[capt]

SEC,

I am wondering if when you say high performance, you are meaning fast gaining cattle or big framed, big yearling weight type cattle? Regarding the latter, I haven't seen many big framed (7.5 plus) cattle that I would call heavy muscled especially in British breeds. However, I am sure that there are some Continental breeds that would fit that criteria. When the big push came in the 70's for bigger frame cattle, the resulting cattle were for the most part single trait selected for frame and only frame. Most big cattle today are still influenced by that type of selection pressure. That being said, my point is that those that have placed selection pressure on growth with muscle can achieve both with a disciplined breeding program.
If you are looking for big framed high performance Angus cattle with muscle, here are a few bulls I have seen that fit the bill, MF Destroyer, G13 Structure, Hoff First Edition. I have also seen some heavy muscled 5175 sons (big REA and a bulging stifle). Have yet to see a Focus son that impresses me and have seen a few well muscled Alliance sons but I wouldn't call any of them heavy muscled. Drive the wheels off a vehicle looking for one and you will eventually find one.

 

[SEC]

There are bulls that certainly do defy the antagonisms but wondering why this barrier can't be broken on a regular basis.

I am not looking for big framed muscle cattle, though cattle you have stated I would agree with you 100%.
I am not up to date with what frame score my cows are, not large just middle of the road. I don't care what frame they are as it's not my point.

I don't understand why people believe the AI companies that say these curvebenders are thick blah blah blah. Focus couldn't sire muscle on a Belgian Blue.

Anyways, just wondering if someone had a reason why these traits run against each other for the most part.
Doc has already given me his answer.

 

[dun]

I would think that it's like all antagonistic traits. In most cases the genes are either dominated by one or the other. Until we know every gene pair and what it does we'll never know for sure. They're finding new genes regualrly that have to do with various traits. Who knows if the ones they've located for tenderness are the only ones that affect tenderness. Only time will tell.

dun

 

[BRG]

Not real sure about Black Angus. But with reds, a lot of the muscle amd good structure left when most everyone got to chasing numbers. They forgot about the animal itself. Now it is happening with carcass. Human nature is to go to extremes and chase the biggest and best. When this happens you will loose it somewhere else. I was just at Hawkeye in Billings and saw some very high $ animals of several breeds, that had excellent EPDs and scanned great. But their was only a couple that I would even think about using. Most were just bulls were excellent data.

 

[SEC]

You are most likely right. Funny how many people will identify with that yet not be willing to make EPD's secondary. Lots of talk but very few to walk the walk.

 

[BRG]

I do just that. I like to have good EPDs, but I learned the hard way. Now I only use a bull if I have seen him. If his EPDs are good, then great. But it won't be the other way around.

 

[Brandonm2]

There are bulls that certainly do defy the antagonisms but wondering why this barrier can't be broken on a regular basis.

I am not looking for big framed muscle cattle, though cattle you have stated I would agree with you 100%.
I am not up to date with what frame score my cows are, not large just middle of the road. I don't care what frame they are as it's not my point.

I don't understand why people believe the AI companies that say these curvebenders are thick blah blah blah. Focus couldn't sire muscle on a Belgian Blue.

Anyways, just wondering if someone had a reason why these traits run against each other for the most part.
Doc has already given me his answer.

BRG is right. IF you chase weight by adding frame you are selecting for bone growth. All cattle of all frames grow bone ahead of muscle. IF you are chasing growth EPDs alone you are NOT going to get the thickest animals imaginable; BUT you could get the tallest and longest and like Ollie said if you add heavy muscle to large frame cattle the birth weights are liable to be nasty. I think it is certainly possible to get really thick, really big cattle; but you are still going to have some difficulty getting that AND the very highest growth EPD numbers in the breed AND if you want moderate birth weights, high milk EPDs, AND marbling AND eye appealing daughters you are really looking for a genetic freak. He may be out there. Certainly there are enough people looking for that bull.

 

[SEC]

We shouldn't forget that the bone to muscle ratio doesn't change in an animal regardless of frame, it is a constant.

There are thick animals around with moderate EPD's and moderate frame as well. Funny why the Studs don't try to source these bulls.

 

[greenwillowherefords]

Ochs Brothers of Gunnison, Colorado were bought out by Harper of Texas. The Ochs Herefords were straight Canadian bloodlines, primarily of Jim Hole breeding. Harper is continuing these bloodlines with Ochs supervision.

For a number of years, I have received their sale catalogs, and seen their full-page ads in HW. There is not a shadow of a doubt in my mind that here are some British cattle with size and muscle, and pretty good growth. It is noteworthy that the Ochs Brothers could frankly care less about EPDs but their sale averaged near the top for a lot of years. They were seldom on the favorite side of the powers that be in the association, but the cattlemen of the country didn't care. I frankly think their cattle were too big, but if that is what you are looking for, many of their bulls were around 63 inches tall, and weighing up to 3245#.

 

[capt]

I couldn't agree more with BRG and Brandonm2. Very well said. Keep in mind that in order to make something different you have to use something different.

A question for greenwillowherefords, Have you ever seen the Ochs cattle in person? I know what the sale bill reads as well as the ads, but I would only agree that they are big framed, big boned cattle. A few herd bulls they used did have real muscle and a lot of it but a large majority of their bulls lacked enough muscle in my opinion. That being said I do understand and can appreciate your statement concerning EPD's.

 

[SEC]

You guys are reading me wrong, I am not looking for big framed cattle. I know exactly what I want. I need middle of the road cattle that have enough muscle (not freaks) and performance in them.

I am just asking for the explanation why muscle and growth seem to be antagonistic. Maybe there is no explanation to be had, that is fine.

But in one stud catalogue I was reading tonight, it stated something about the sires muscle and yet their graph showed that there was no muscle to be had. Why would they say that then?

 

[greenwillowherefords]

I did misunderstand what you were getting at, SEC. Concerning your real train of thought, Jim Lents told me that he could select for heavier weaning weights until he was weaning 800# calves, but it would change the body composition and type of animal he was raising.

Capt, I confess I haven't seen Ochs cattle in person, just talked with the foreman a time or two, and with a cattleman that used their bulls. I base my opinion primarily on the herd bulls they used. That OB Joyful for instance....The old Duracell bull they used sure looked thick and muscular to me.

 

[capt]

greenwillowherefords, I agree with your assessment of OB joyful, but not the duracell bull. I just never saw anything other than bone in his calves. I did like the Stanmore 43K progeny quite well. You said a mouthful when you repeated BODY COMPOSITION!!! That in my opinion is the driving factor behind what should be the beef industry's continued push towards profitability.

SEC, I understand your question more completely now and I must say that I have no definitive answer other than to say what I have already said. A fancy way of saying I don't know the answer.
Thanks for the thought provoking question and I would like to leave this post with this thought/concern/observation. Bull studs are in the business to sell what they have bought/leased/raised. In my travels and humble observations of stud bulls, I can say that I agree with each bull studs description and assessment of their bulls not very often. I am not saying anything other than my opinion differs from theirs and I obviously will rely upon my opinion. I have been displeased too often after having relied upon there opinion.

THANKS

 

[greenwillowherefords]

capt, I feel that the true ideal beef animal from the end consumers' viewpoint will likely never have the heaviest weaning weight within its frame score group. The body composition and type of the Herefords of the period before the short fats was probably about as close to ideal as you can get when it comes to an efficient animal that was range hardy, and put an awesome tasting steak on the plate, IMO.