How long?

[Rmc]

The concern wasn't about height or weight, but about miniature genetics polluting the greater gene pool. Sorry you are so invested in misunderstanding.

The term "mini" is entirely defined by height at certain age's genius. So you have to be concerned about height to be concerned about "mini genes " polluting the greater gene pool. When those genes directly relate to height.
Yet height and weight are two totally separate things.
As I pointed out earlier "mini highlands have been documented for thousands of years. So they are already in the gene pool. And have been around far longer then most breeds.and will be around after many of the other breeds loose favor.
The current trend is for smaller framed cattle, that is what current consumers want.
They don't want the big huge steaks of the 1980s .and neither do the packers.
Many breeds are concerned about the outside genes added to the breeds during the big frame rush.
Is that simple enough for you to understand

 

[Travlr]

The term "mini" is entirely defined by height at certain age's genius. So you have to be concerned about height to be concerned about "mini genes " polluting the greater gene pool. When those genes directly relate to height.
Yet height and weight are two totally separate things.
As I pointed out earlier "mini highlands have been documented for thousands of years. So they are already in the gene pool. And have been around far longer then most breeds.and will be around after many of the other breeds loose favor.
The current trend is for smaller framed cattle, that is what current consumers want.
They don't want the big huge steaks of the 1980s .and neither do the packers.
Many breeds are concerned about the outside genes added to the breeds during the big frame rush.
Is that simple enough for you to understand

Dude... it's not my thread and not my original post. I just understand what the OP was concerned about.

You making it into something else and then doubling down as though your misunderstanding matters is embarrassing.

 

[Son of Butch]

The term "mini" is entirely defined by height at certain age's genius.

As is dwarfism.

 

[kenny thomas]

The term "mini" is entirely defined by height at certain age's genius. So you have to be concerned about height to be concerned about "mini genes " polluting the greater gene pool. When those genes directly relate to height.
Yet height and weight are two totally separate things.
As I pointed out earlier "mini highlands have been documented for thousands of years. So they are already in the gene pool. And have been around far longer then most breeds.and will be around after many of the other breeds loose favor.
The current trend is for smaller framed cattle, that is what current consumers want.
They don't want the big huge steaks of the 1980s .and neither do the packers.
Many breeds are concerned about the outside genes added to the breeds during the big frame rush.
Is that simple enough for you to understand

If you have consumers that want a mini of any breed great. I sure cant ship them in a pot load and they take a huge hit on the price through the stockyards.

 

[kenny thomas]

This entire thread was stated to bitch about the length of leg.
Then when op was asked to defend that position he switched to weight,
Length of leg and weight are not the same thing as I have pointed out over and over in this thread

Its both. A 2 frame steer will not possibly weigh what a 6 frame steer will weigh when they are on feed the same days.
I hope you do great with mini's but they are not for me.

 

[Rmc]

The term "mini" is entirely defined by height at certain age's genius.

As is dwarfism.

Wrong once again. Dwarfism is a genetic defect that effects almost all systems of the body.

 

[Rmc]

Dude... it's not my thread and not my original post. I just understand what the OP was concerned about.

You making it into something else and then doubling down as though your misunderstanding matters is embarrassing.

You are right it is embarrassing that you continue to misunderstand what has actually been posted.
The genes for "mini" cattle have been around for thousands of years ,as proven in my documentation . My opinion that I stated is they will be around for hundreds if not thousands more. They aren't going anywhere.
I am not the one getting bent out of shape that the size of many cattle may actually be reverting back to closer to the size that they have been for most of documented history. After the self admitted by most ) mistake of the frame race , larger at any cost craze.
The continued claim that height and weight are the are actually one and the same thing is flat out crazy. I would be embarrassed to try to claim to know what a cow weight is based on nothing but a measurement of height. Just as I would be to expect to know what a person weighs based on nothing other than how tall they are .

 

[50/50Farms]

Just out of curiosity, if the point to be made is that certain breeds have simply regressed to their mean historical size through the mini craze and that some people are finding commercial utilization in the inherent traits of some of these breeds coupled with their size regression, then why is the discussion about minis at all? I don't think there's a shortage of people on here who favor smaller mamas, I myself believe that there's a maximum upper weight range for achieving your best return in many regions, but does that really call for minis? If Scottish highland cattle or "heritage herefords" were historically belt buckle to belly button cattle and people are breeding back down to that then it isn't really a discussion about minis is it? Isn't is more of a discussion on the size you're finding your best utility at while achieving what you want within the market presented to you? And then, therein, if the burden of proof were to lie with the mini side of the discussion, wouldn't it be pertinent to lay out the arguments against the "frame race" within certain breeds? Several dairy breeds have become significantly more useful to society through being sized up, and allowing of course for the outliers that have a refined palate and set plate preferences, wouldn't it also stand to reason that by and large in any given society that has fled the country for the city that beef production would mirror dairy production and focus on animals with an overall higher yield of all things parted from the carcass? Especially in the age of scrubby-faced dude-bros who all fancy themselves beef conniseurs? Don't get me wrong, I can definitely look at the pictures of some of these cattle back in their days of more diminutive posture and see the meat on those critters, but is that really mirrored in most "minis" today? Most of the minis I see have lost a little more than just leg. Were we to go down that little alleyway, wouldn't we need to discuss the feasibility of safely breeding size into the calves on a terminal cross of a "miniature adjacent" cow covered by a more mainstream beef breed bull?

We're a-hackin' and a whackin' and smackin' here but it's mostly just been a few points scattered in the semantics and nobody's really standing much of a chance of coming away with anything to think about if the conversation persists as it is.

 

[Travlr]

Just out of curiosity, if the point to be made is that certain breeds have simply regressed to their mean historical size through the mini craze and that some people are finding commercial utilization in the inherent traits of some of these breeds coupled with their size regression, then why is the discussion about minis at all? I don't think there's a shortage of people on here who favor smaller mamas, I myself believe that there's a maximum upper weight range for achieving your best return in many regions, but does that really call for minis? If Scottish highland cattle or "heritage herefords" were historically belt buckle to belly button cattle and people are breeding back down to that then it isn't really a discussion about minis is it? Isn't is more of a discussion on the size you're finding your best utility at while achieving what you want within the market presented to you? And then, therein, if the burden of proof were to lie with the mini side of the discussion, wouldn't it be pertinent to lay out the arguments against the "frame race" within certain breeds? Several dairy breeds have become significantly more useful to society through being sized up, and allowing of course for the outliers that have a refined palate and set plate preferences, wouldn't it also stand to reason that by and large in any given society that has fled the country for the city that beef production would mirror dairy production and focus on animals with an overall higher yield of all things parted from the carcass? Especially in the age of scrubby-faced dude-bros who all fancy themselves beef conniseurs? Don't get me wrong, I can definitely look at the pictures of some of these cattle back in their days of more diminutive posture and see the meat on those critters, but is that really mirrored in most "minis" today? Most of the minis I see have lost a little more than just leg. Were we to go down that little alleyway, wouldn't we need to discuss the feasibility of safely breeding size into the calves on a terminal cross of a "miniature adjacent" cow covered by a more mainstream beef breed bull?

We're a-hackin' and a whackin' and smackin' here but it's mostly just been a few points scattered in the semantics and nobody's really standing much of a chance of coming away with anything to think about if the conversation persists as it is.

Whew... that's some good stuff you're smokin' there. Let's not Bogart, and pass that puppy over...

 

[50/50Farms]

Whew... that's some good stuff you're smokin' there. Let's not Bogart, and pass that puppy over...

You know, it's really funny, but I've never smoked weed.

Anyway, I'm just trying to inject something into the conversation to see if it can grow past insults and postulations.

 

[Travlr]

You know, it's really funny, but I've never smoked weed.

Anyway, I'm just trying to inject something into the conversation to see if it can grow past insults and postulations.

I just thought it was funny because I generally think I am overly verbose. Nice to know someone else indulges excessively. I mean, I already knew... but that was a hum-dinger.

 

[50/50Farms]

I just thought it was funny because I generally think I am overly verbose. Nice to know someone else indulges excessively. I mean, I already knew... but that was a hum-dinger.

I figured if I made it something to really chew on everybody'd get distracted and quit off the fightin'. Besides, every now and then it's good to see if I got my money's worth on education.

 

[lynnmcmahan]

I got about 3/4 of enough of that sh** hunting and fishing around the bogs, swamps, and marshes in a different chapter of life. Killing damn snakes in November while trying to figure out if there was a way to head off these dogs and the deer they were on without bailing off in the inky black water behind the local boys I was hunting with.

Oh man, what great memories!

 

[elkwc]

I can't comment about the mini's listed. I do have friends who raise mini Herefords. One reason is they are easier too handle on a small acreage. Also more numbers can be run o by the same acreage. They have a waiting list for what butcher. Small Sngus are the same.

 

[sstterry]

I can't comment about the mini's listed. I do have friends who raise mini Herefords. One reason is they are easier too handle on a small acreage. Also more numbers can be run o by the same acreage. They have a waiting list for what butcher. Small Sngus are the same.

What is a Sngus? I assume that is a typo, but if not, I have never heard of them.

 

[50/50Farms]

What is a Sngus? I assume that is a typo, but if not, I have never heard of them.

It's a typo and you know it, don't be a stinky head.

 

[sstterry]

It's a typo and you know it, don't be a stinky head.

I have seen some pretty weird stuff on this Board that I had never heard of before. That Is why I put the typo part in. There are some crosses mentioned here that I had never imagined. I have been called a lot worse than "stinky head" by some Bama folks in the past.

 

[50/50Farms]

I have seen some pretty weird stuff on this Board that I had never heard of before. That Is why I put the typo part in. There are some crosses mentioned here that I had never imagined. I have been called a lot worse than "stinky head" by some Bama folks in the past.

I'm dadding it up with my lil girls today, their mama's in town for a thing for her sister, that's the second harshest language I've used all day. I had to start halfway moderating my language around the kids when they started copying me, though there is something precious about a little girl tripping over a stickhorse and screaming "SH**, DAMN IT"

 

[Stonewall Joe]

Just out of curiosity, if the point to be made is that certain breeds have simply regressed to their mean historical size through the mini craze and that some people are finding commercial utilization in the inherent traits of some of these breeds coupled with their size regression, then why is the discussion about minis at all? I don't think there's a shortage of people on here who favor smaller mamas, I myself believe that there's a maximum upper weight range for achieving your best return in many regions, but does that really call for minis? If Scottish highland cattle or "heritage herefords" were historically belt buckle to belly button cattle and people are breeding back down to that then it isn't really a discussion about minis is it? Isn't is more of a discussion on the size you're finding your best utility at while achieving what you want within the market presented to you? And then, therein, if the burden of proof were to lie with the mini side of the discussion, wouldn't it be pertinent to lay out the arguments against the "frame race" within certain breeds? Several dairy breeds have become significantly more useful to society through being sized up, and allowing of course for the outliers that have a refined palate and set plate preferences, wouldn't it also stand to reason that by and large in any given society that has fled the country for the city that beef production would mirror dairy production and focus on animals with an overall higher yield of all things parted from the carcass? Especially in the age of scrubby-faced dude-bros who all fancy themselves beef conniseurs? Don't get me wrong, I can definitely look at the pictures of some of these cattle back in their days of more diminutive posture and see the meat on those critters, but is that really mirrored in most "minis" today? Most of the minis I see have lost a little more than just leg. Were we to go down that little alleyway, wouldn't we need to discuss the feasibility of safely breeding size into the calves on a terminal cross of a "miniature adjacent" cow covered by a more mainstream beef breed bull?

We're a-hackin' and a whackin' and smackin' here but it's mostly just been a few points scattered in the semantics and nobody's really standing much of a chance of coming away with anything to think about if the conversation persists as it is.

I could be wrong but I think he "mini" market is driven more by people buying a couple of acres and wanting something cute rather than carcass yield or frame size and that the "mini" market is not ever going to be driven by carcass potential and the meat market is never going to be driven by minis

 

[50/50Farms]

I could be wrong but I think he "mini" market is driven more by people buying a couple of acres and wanting something cute rather than carcass yield or frame size and that the "mini" market is not ever going to be driven by carcass potential and the meat market is never going to be driven by minis

Agreed, and I made the same point when the thread started, but the man has been vehement about defending their place in beef production so I'm fishing.