Herefords. How soon we forget!

[rocket2222]

There seems to be a lot of interest in older Hereford genetics on this board lately, while history and nostalgia are great, seems to me folks are forgetting a few things. 50/60/70 years ago Herefords ruled the range, today they don't, and theres a few good reasons for that, here's a few of the more common one's. Cancer eye, pinkeye, bad udders, prolapse, bad feet. I'm sure y'alls parents and grandparents never had any of these problems in their herds . It's only been in about the last 15 years that breeders finally started to address these problems in a major way, and today we have a better breed for it. The great thing is, we have still been able to keep those great Hereford traits like docility, mothering ability and feed efficiency along the way. In many breeders minds Herefords still have those same problems of yesteryear, and its the main reason they don't use them today. We will not change their minds by going back. Yes, todays Herefords are different than yesterdays, better in just about everyway, If we keep this up we might rule the range again one day.

 

[greenwillowhereford II]

I agree with much of what you are saying-to a point. No, frankly my grandpa's Herefords did not have bad udders and prolapses, or bad feet. There was the occasional pinkeye and cancer eye, far more pinkeye than cancer eye. Pinkeye is actually more of a management problem. Case in point (and knock on wood) a couple of years ago, the neighboring Angus/Angus cross herd had several cases of pinkeye, and my Herefords have never had it-yet.

I believe that most of the problems you mentioned were actually more prevalent among some single trait selection bloodlines AFTER the decline had already started. I don't believe the real range ruling Herefords had bad feet and a bunch of prolapses. What happened IMO, was when we were so dominant, there was such a demand for Hereford genetics that we stopped culling like we should have, and bulls that should have been cut were not, etc. THEN these problems started creeping in, and hurt our reputation. Also, as more and more pastures were fenced, there was less open range, and more controlled management, better facilities and barns, the need for Hereford genetics that were the most rugged range cattle in the world for winter survivability was not as desperate. Old timers tell me that back in the open range days, when cattle had to survive winters in the open and mostly on their own, that a blizzard would leave 20-30% of all other breeds alive, while 80% of Herefords would survive.

Also, the most problem free bloodline and herd of cattle I know of anywhere are the Hazletts of Richard Day. They have 40 or 50 years of careful linebreeding and stern culling behind them. Cows last 16 years regularly, pinkeye and cancer eye is nearly unheard of, feet and udders are ideal, never yet heard of one of his cows prolapsing, and weaning weights up to 700#. Commercial breeders quickly snatch up all his sale bulls every year. There are waiting lists for any heifers he might turn loose of. All the old bloodlines are not bad.

 

[TEhayandcattle]

I believe greenwillows statement sits very well with me, it does not only apply to the herefords either, I have seen outstanding animals in every breed with strong opinions for and against most of them based on individual circumstances, which go back to management practices. Bad news travels alot faster than good and rumors become rules. I'm real tired of getting docked for white around my animals eyes and like greenwillow I had a bunch of brangus next to my whiteface and every dang one got pinkeye while my whitefaces never have had it. It frustrates me when a whole breed suffers allegations based on one or two peoples mismanagement. It is up to each of us representing our breeds to continually upgrade, no breed should be where they were half a century ago in my opinion there is always room for improvement.

 

[Susie David]

Was looking at some old photographs of one of the 4-H groups awhile back...all Herfs all not over 54" and as wide as a locomotive. As long as Susie has her way we will always have a horned Herf or two on the place. DMc

 

[rocket2222]

I agree with much of what you are saying-to a point. No, frankly my grandpa's Herefords did not have bad udders and prolapses, or bad feet. There was the occasional pinkeye and cancer eye, far more pinkeye than cancer eye. Pinkeye is actually more of a management problem. Case in point (and knock on wood) a couple of years ago, the neighboring Angus/Angus cross herd had several cases of pinkeye, and my Herefords have never had it-yet.

I believe that most of the problems you mentioned were actually more prevalent among some single trait selection bloodlines AFTER the decline had already started. I don't believe the real range ruling Herefords had bad feet and a bunch of prolapses. What happened IMO, was when we were so dominant, there was such a demand for Hereford genetics that we stopped culling like we should have, and bulls that should have been cut were not, etc. THEN these problems started creeping in, and hurt our reputation. Also, as more and more pastures were fenced, there was less open range, and more controlled management, better facilities and barns, the need for Hereford genetics that were the most rugged range cattle in the world for winter survivability was not as desperate. Old timers tell me that back in the open range days, when cattle had to survive winters in the open and mostly on their own, that a blizzard would leave 20-30% of all other breeds alive, while 80% of Herefords would survive.

Also, the most problem free bloodline and herd of cattle I know of anywhere are the Hazletts of Richard Day. They have 40 or 50 years of careful linebreeding and stern culling behind them. Cows last 16 years regularly, pinkeye and cancer eye is nearly unheard of, feet and udders are ideal, never yet heard of one of his cows prolapsing, and weaning weights up to 700#. Commercial breeders quickly snatch up all his sale bulls every year. There are waiting lists for any heifers he might turn loose of. All the old bloodlines are not bad.

I think most all the problems could be attributed to bad management, not just pinkeye. Culling out the problems is a management issue. I hope there is more than one long time breeder who did practice good management, other than Mr Day, but there's not many. So we are left with the belief in many commercial breeders minds that Herefords have to many problems to be profitable in todays market. I really do believe that todays Herefords are better, I also think trying to convince commercial breeders that they are better, if we just keep breeding to the same old lines, is going to be a rough road to travel.

 

[novatech]

I am not a herford breeder.
Selection of a sire is no diferent weather selecting from an old line or new. You just have to know what their traits are.
The problem with new lines is that some have not had the time to prove they do, or do not have specific traits.

 

[Elder Statesman]

Yes, todays Herefords are different than yesterdays, better in just about everyway, If we keep this up we might rule the range again one day.

I will agree with you that some breeders have worked hard at improving udders, feet and eyes. But there are a lot of good carcass cattle in those older bloodlines that got shoved to the back in the chase for frame, high performance, and the show ring. That is why you have folks looking back at SOME older genetics. They are looking to improve carcass and feed efficiency. Just like newer genetics, you have to do your homework and know what to look out for and becareful what you breed them to.

And as far as Herefords reputation and today's genetics, it doesn't do our breed a lot of good when some of our "supposedly" progressive producers show crappy uddered cows in their sale catalog and proclaim them as their top donor cow. I have seen this several times the past few years. If I had a cow like that, I'd keep her hid in the back timber until I could get her to the sale barn, not flushing her for eggs.

 

[Herefords.US]

And as far as Herefords reputation and today's genetics, it doesn't do our breed a lot of good when some of our "supposedly" progressive producers show crappy uddered cows in their sale catalog and proclaim them as their top donor cow. I have seen this several times the past few years. If I had a cow like that, I'd keep her hid in the back timber until I could get her to the sale barn, not flushing her for eggs.

Amen! :tiphat:

George

 

[KMacGinley]

In my opinion, Herefords, like angus have tried and largely succeeded in becoming Charolais and Simmentals. Since we already had the continentals why do we need the modern so called hereford? Improving udders and pigment could have been done without losing the feed rustling and quality genes that made the breed the preeminent beef producers of the world.

 

[Avalon]

Yes, todays Herefords are different than yesterdays, better in just about everyway, If we keep this up we might rule the range again one day.

And as far as Herefords reputation and today's genetics, it doesn't do our breed a lot of good when some of our "supposedly" progressive producers show crappy uddered cows in their sale catalog and proclaim them as their top donor cow. I have seen this several times the past few years. If I had a cow like that, I'd keep her hid in the back timber until I could get her to the sale barn, not flushing her for eggs.

Amen to that statement Mr Statesmen. This happens all to often in my breed of choice also......

 

[KNERSIE]

In my opinion, Herefords, like angus have tried and largely succeeded in becoming Charolais and Simmentals. Since we already had the continentals why do we need the modern so called hereford? Improving udders and pigment could have been done without losing the feed rustling and quality genes that made the breed the preeminent beef producers of the world.[/quote]

In order to improve any breed you need to understand the weaknesses of the breed, BUT equally important you also need to understand the traditional strengths of the breed. Unfortunately many so-called improvers misunderstood what made herefords popular in the first place.

Its clear that Mac and I aren't all that chuffed with the "new improved" version.

 

[R.N.Reed]

I think there were a lot of functional cow herds of many breeds that were sacrificed at the alter of fads,fancies and academia.I am thankful that a couple threads remained in my breed to tap into.I have also sampled some 40-50 yr old bulls and will have some calves this spring.A couple were from the herds that provided my herds foundation and the others were from herds that had been in existence for over 50 yrs and raised in a comercial setting.

 

[KNERSIE]

I think there were a lot of functional cow herds of many breeds that were sacrificed at the alter of fads,fancies and academia.I am thankful that a couple threads remained in my breed to tap into.I have also sampled some 40-50 yr old bulls and will have some calves this spring.A couple were from the herds that provided my herds foundation and the others were from herds that had been in existence for over 50 yrs and raised in a comercial setting.

Which breed do you raise?

you make a good point about the academia.

 

[R.N.Reed]

I raise Shorthorns Knersie

 

[KNERSIE]

I raise Shorthorns Knersie

Then you can definately speak from experience! :lol:

 

[R.N.Reed]

Fortunetly not in my herd although I must confess there were times when I was very tempted!

 

[Ziggy Pop]

Great topic. From the outside looking in (Dad sold our herefords when I went to college in 85) to observing the business now some 20+ years later. I wondered what the Angus did to set themselves so far above the herefords. Obviously, there is CAB, which was a real stroke of genius and the hereford folks (especially polled) helped them out with a lot impractical cattle and breed scandals (anybody remember Perfection?) but in my opinion there is more to it than these things. In my opinion, I think the mass use of AI in the Angus breed and the development of accurate EPDs, which has allowed for a more consistent national herd has been a big factor. Whereas there is much less AI emphasis with herefords. In line with this is the fact that Angus semen is much more affordable for the purebred and commercial cattleman than the Herefords (and other breeds such as Simmental and Limousin). A bull like N Bar Emulation EXT's semen was around $20 - $25 a straw up until his death. Another example in Bon View New Design 878. Both of these bulls are/were considered to be amongst the greatest of the genereation were able to sire tens-of-thousands of calves on a purebred and commercial level due to the affordability of their semen. In contrast, most of the really top notch hereford bulls are 2X - 3X as expensive with $100 a straw being the norm. Also, quite a few a syndicated at a young age and are not available to the "public" at all. Obviously, the folks can run their business any way the choose. I just think it hurts the breed as a whole.

 

[rocket2222]

Yes, todays Herefords are different than yesterdays, better in just about everyway, If we keep this up we might rule the range again one day.

I will agree with you that some breeders have worked hard at improving udders, feet and eyes. But there are a lot of good carcass cattle in those older bloodlines that got shoved to the back in the chase for frame, high performance, and the show ring. That is why you have folks looking back at SOME older genetics. They are looking to improve carcass and feed efficiency. Just like newer genetics, you have to do your homework and know what to look out for and becareful what you breed them to.

But there are a lot of good carcass cattle in those older bloodlines that got shoved to the back in the chase for frame, high performance

Here's part of my problem with the use of 40/50 year old bulls, where's the carcass data that shows they do any better than todays top carcass bulls ?. One of the other problems I have with it, you also mentioned, performance, 40/50 year old bulls, don't have any. So you are breeding on a single trait selection, carcass.
Greenwillowhereford II mentioned the herd of Mr. Day who use's the old lines of 40/50 years ago, but with 700lb weaning weights, I doubt he using 40/50 year old bulls, these are todays Hereford, old lines that have been improved over the last 40 years, not 40 year old butter balls used today to improve only one trait.

And as far as Herefords reputation and today's genetics, it doesn't do our breed a lot of good when some of our "supposedly" progressive producers show crappy uddered cows in their sale catalog and proclaim them as their top donor cow. I have seen this several times the past few years. If I had a cow like that, I'd keep her hid in the back timber until I could get her to the sale barn, not flushing her for eggs

I would also do the same as you. I still think a cow needs to prove herself calf wise and maternally before she becomes a donor cow. I liked the old method of at least 3 calves to prove her worth before flushing.

 

[novatech]

I still think a cow needs to prove herself calf wise and maternally before she becomes a donor cow. I liked the old method of at least 3 calves to prove her worth before flushing.rocket2222
Trail Boss

And the three calves need to grow up to see what they become. All the more reason to use older genetics. They are proven.
If you are breeding for heifers you do not need fantastic growth. You can do that with a terminal bull. What you do want is all the other fine qualities that were given up for that fantastic fast growth. That could explain why all the better line breederes mentioned in this thread, are successful and are still using the old lines with the bad genetics taken out.
Culling no matter which way, old or new, is and always will be one of the primary ingredients of herd improvement. The more geneticly deversified the more culling.

 

[rocket2222]

I still think a cow needs to prove herself calf wise and maternally before she becomes a donor cow. I liked the old method of at least 3 calves to prove her worth before flushing.rocket2222
Trail Boss

And the three calves need to grow up to see what they become. All the more reason to use older genetics. They are proven.
What you do want is all the other fine qualities that were given up for that fantastic fast growth.
Culling no matter which way, old or new, is and always will be one of the primary ingredients of herd improvement. The more geneticly deversified the more culling.

That could explain why all the better line breederes mentioned in this thread, are successful and are still using the old lines with the bad genetics taken out.

I should have spent more time in english classes instead of goofing off playing soccer , as I did not convey my feelings properly in the original post. I have no problems at all, with older lines, that have had the benefit of 40 years or so of genetic improvement, my problems with the breeders using 30/40 and sometimes 50 year old genetics [bulls] with single trait selection [only carcass], and some how they think this will improve the breed. They stopped being used long ago, for more reason than I listed in the original post, why would they work today.

If you are breeding for heifers you do not need fantastic growth.You can do that with a terminal bull.

As a purebred breeder I do not use a terminal bull, but I've used plenty of bulls whose calves were terminated .