Is frame getting too moderate?

[Brandonm2]

I linked on to the catalog for the Alabama grassfed bull sale tonight http://www.albcia.org/wiregrassbulltest.html
and was surprised by a few of the bulls in there.

The Charolais bulls avged a frame score of 5.86 and 1179 adjusted yearling wt., the Simmentals avged 5.85 and 1161 adj yearling wt., and the Angus 5.43 and 1123. Now I like 5 and 6 frame score cattle so most of the bulls' sizes were acceptable by my standards; but the bottom frame score Angus was 4.08 with a adj. yearling wt of 1018, the shortest Simmental was a 4.13 with an adj. yearling wt of 1171, and the shortest Charolais was a 4.95 with an adj. yearling wt of 1166. If people are sending low 4 frame score bulls to a bull test what are they selling off the farm? I think a frame score 4 1000 pound cow can be a very efficient and acceptable brood cow and I would much rather have cow size too small than too big; but if we are breeding 4 fs cows to 4.0 fs bulls are we risking getting the carcasses a little too lite???

 

[dun]

I think the key to the size thing is the "grassfed" part.

dun

 

[Brandonm2]

That should certainly effect yearling wt; though I doubt any 1000 pound bulls were stunted a whole frame score and we have had no drought this year in Alabama.

 

[dun]

Typically, grass fed genetics are smaller framed animals, that was what I meant by the "key" to grassfed".
Those smaller framed animals are exactly what Kit Pharo has been pitching for years.

dun

 

[Jeanne - Simme Valley]

I think people would tend to put their smaller frame cattle on a grassfed test, but I agree, they're too small.
The NY Bull test has a minimum frame for British & Continentals of 5. And that's on the small size for Continentals, but there are a lot of them at 5 that have 1200# yw. (but, our test is grain fed).
Yes 4 + 4 can start getting small carcasses unless you have a real meat man. But, when you start stacking that much weight on a small frame, I think you start getting too thick calves for calving ease. Shape means a lot!

 

[BRG]

Yes they are to small. The ideal kill weight is 1399 lbs. This will make a 881 lbs carcass. That is as big as they want them.No for you and I to make them that size is another topic. We need to run cows that fit our enviroment. Whether that be 1100 lbs or 1400lbs. When your enviroment tells you different then things need to change. I want my cows to weigh 1300 to 1350 lbs. A fat animal will ussually kill around the mature weight of his dam. It is next to impossible to have a 4 frame animal kill in the "box" that they want you to be in. And whether we like it or not they are the ones that are buying your cattle.

Another reason that I don't think it is big enough is, the industry is having record amounts of yield grade 4's. I think this is because the average feeder has been feeding exotics now for the last 20 years or so and is geared up for a bigger animal. Now that the Angus plays a huge part, and some are pushing a smaller frame on the already moderate angus. The typical feeder over feeds the smaller type animal and this results in more yield grade 4's.

 

[MikeC]

Funny thing about Frames getting smaller. Every bull buyer that comes to look at bulls here ALWAYS pick the biggest one in the pen. They buy Chars for heterosis, growth, and muscle.

I have a frame score five in our sale on Nov. 4 that I thought might do well for a few people. Well..........turns out that I haven't had a serious buyer interested in him yet! He's packed with muscle too!!!!! Go figure.

BRG is right on. As we get these cows smaller, the fat waste gets higher. The profit is in a 850-900 lb carcass that are Yield grade 1's.
"No Rolls" are profit killers.

I'll lose all my customers if I go to Frames 4 & 5.

 

[ollie']

I linked on to the catalog for the Alabama grassfed bull sale tonight http://www.albcia.org/wiregrassbulltest.html
and was surprised by a few of the bulls in there.

The Charolais bulls avged a frame score of 5.86 and 1179 adjusted yearling wt., the Simmentals avged 5.85 and 1161 adj yearling wt., and the Angus 5.43 and 1123. Now I like 5 and 6 frame score cattle so most of the bulls' sizes were acceptable by my standards; but the bottom frame score Angus was 4.08 with a adj. yearling wt of 1018, the shortest Simmental was a 4.13 with an adj. yearling wt of 1171, and the shortest Charolais was a 4.95 with an adj. yearling wt of 1166. If people are sending low 4 frame score bulls to a bull test what are they selling off the farm? I think a frame score 4 1000 pound cow can be a very efficient and acceptable brood cow and I would much rather have cow size too small than too big; but if we are breeding 4 fs cows to 4.0 fs bulls are we risking getting the carcasses a little too lite???

Pounds pay. Any good bull should weigh a hundred pounds per month if he has been developed on a grain based ration . More if on a bull test or in a show string. Having said that I want a moderate frame bull for my tough environment . 4 is too little but since it is a grassfed sale I suspect that the person running the FS stick might not be that accurate. Those FS are certainly unusual for a group of cattle that size. I have had bulls measured a 4.8 at a show before that were in reality close to a 6. That bull weighed 1400 lbs as a yearling . Weight has more dimensions to it than height.

 

[Brandonm2]

Funny thing about Frames getting smaller. Every bull buyer that comes to look at bulls here ALWAYS pick the biggest one in the pen. They buy Chars for heterosis, growth, and muscle.....I'll lose all my customers if I go to Frames 4 & 5.

I agree when we have used Charolais bulls here it was strictly to add pounds on a ~herf/ang cow herd dittoe with the Simmentals. I am not sure what exactly is the purpose in a 4 frame score Charolais bull unless he was being used as a heifer bull for Reg. Charolais guys. We have not owned a 4 frame score bull of any breed since ~1982 and I like a liter cow than some. I am not criticizing the breeders and I have not seen the bulls in question; but if you turn Charolais into early maturing lite cattle what purpose do they have in a crossbreeding system. A lot of Herfs and Angus's should be able to match or surpass the predicted performance of an early maturing Charolais. I am not even criticizing Simmental. Many in that breed have chosen to simply become Angus, figuring there is more money selling moderate framed females than stoudt bulls.

Ollie "could" be right and somebody messed up with the measuring stick; but most of these small bulls come with the description in the catalog that they are "early maturing bull"s so given Auburn's reputation having attended several of these sales over the years I firmly believe that Diego calculated the frame score correctly. Also the little Angus only weighed 580 when he went on the test and only weighed 1008 when he came off of it, which is close to what I would expect of a typical frame score 4 animal and his steer calves ought to hang a ~700 lb carcass at 12-14 months.

 

[ollie']

I personally think we should through a frame score stick away or better yet ad a width and length stick.

 

[Brandonm2]

If you are also weighing the cattle and are doing ultrasound on the ribeye area and the backfat you are measuring thickness. Granted length measurements might be of some use.

 

[ollie']

Brandon would you use a 1400lb yearling 4 frame bull that was sound and you were satisfied with everything but the FS?

 

[showme]

I would rather a big cow than one to small.

 

[Brandonm2]

I probably would shy away from a big thick bull on a short set of legs yes. There are too many bulls out there to settle for a bull I didn't like (for whatever reason). Of course it is a matter of degrees. I might take a hard look at a 4.9 bull; but when we are talking about 4.0 bulls I would take a pass at this time. On the other end, (8-10) frame score bulls even if they look like bovine Adonis's are nothing I want a part of.

 

[Jake]

there is no such thing as too moderate... moderate means that it is not any extreme... Too big is too big, small is too small. There is nothing wrong with a 5 frame yearling that is going to weigh 1100-1300. Those are the money making cattle. Bulls dont' have to be huge to be growthy, it's all in efficiency and the amount of pounds produced in a set time, if they can stay on track with larger framed catle pounds of meat wise there is no reason to have to feed the 7 frame cows.

 

[Brandonm2]

I would rather a big cow than one to small.

You have not had to pay the feed bill on 50 of them yet. I would rather my cows be neither too small nor too big; but I would much rather have to deal with easy keeping high efficiency frame score 3 momas than have to carry a herd of frame score 8-9s through the winter on any ground I have ever owned. Slap a thick, frame score seven bull of your breed choice on those little cows (cows not heifers) and you will have a load of frame score 5 calves to sell and heifers to retain. Those 8-9 frame cows will cost you a WHOLE lot more money to feed, they will break down sooner, and they will be harder to breed back and in a LOT of markets those bigger calves are going to bring less per pound, sometimes so much less that you are essentially giving away that extra 80 pounds.

 

[Beefy]

Amen.

 

[J&T Farm]

Boys the money is in the feed conversion. If you have a decent frame on a calf that convert feed to meat youve got a money maker. With feed being the single largest expense.

 

[Jake]

Boys the money is in the feed conversion. If you have a decent frame on a calf that convert feed to meat youve got a money maker. With feed being the single largest expense.

but nine times out of ten your gunna run into that larger framed calf eating you out of house and home to achieve the same efficiency as a more moderate model.

 

[MikeC]

Boys the money is in the feed conversion. If you have a decent frame on a calf that convert feed to meat youve got a money maker. With feed being the single largest expense.

but nine times out of ten your gunna run into that larger framed calf eating you out of house and home to achieve the same efficiency as a more moderate model.

Could you explain that Jake, how could he be eating you out of house and home and still be more efficient?

He said "DECENT" frame. Remember, it takes 1.8 times the energy to put on a lb of fat than it does lean muscle. Those "decent" framed cattle won't have as much backfat, thus metabolizing energy better.

On all the bull tests at Auburn I have participated in, I have never seen a Frame 4-5 bull convert feed as well as a 6-7.
When the choice/select spread is down around $5, the money is in a Yield grade 1 and a 850 lb. carcass. Try getting that consistently from a Frame 4-5.

J&T is right, "Cost of Gain" can save your butt or lose it.