Little Difference Between Breeds in Growth

Help Support CattleToday:

Well all the myths are false. Simmentals have to be 7/8s to be registered as Purebreds. The rest would be considered SimAngus or whatever else they might be. So the max % in the US is 13% non Simmental Blood and 6% non Simmental in Canada for Bulls. I wouldn't look to other Breeds magazines for facts on a different breed. Not a very reliable source. Now assuming all Simmentals were 7/8's, which isn't true, and assuming they were all crossed with Angus, again not even close to being accurate as there is as much or more Hereford blood if you trace back far enough not to mention all the other breeds you'll see whomever wrote this article made it all up.

And as far as adding other breeds we've all heard rumours over the years about all Breeds at one time or another. With DNA and every bull needing DNA on file to register calves that kind of ends that Myth pretty quickly.

As for the black hide black is the dominant gene. Probably one of the easiest single traits to select for is black hide. Once they are black they are black. Can be done very quickly with very little influence from other breeds long term. As for ABS the bulls are black and red because they are black and red. ABS hasn't marketed a traditional bull in quite a few years.
 
put them in a pooled dna pile and compare against a diverse population
Hmmm... Since we're going to look at dna markers pooled from accross breeds, why can't we just make our current EPD system reflect all breeds together as well? If the entire point of both epds and genomics is to identify outstanding genetics, why don't we just judge all beef cattle breeds on the same scale so that the buyer knows excatly what they're buying...
The point of seedstock production is to produce genetics for the commercial cattleman. How about if we offer numbers that tell the customer how well our genetics perform against all other cattle and not just among cattle of the same breed? That should work really well... unless you have Herefords :lol2:
 
As for ABS the bulls are black and red because they are black and red.
As somewhat of an insider on the A.I. industry, I can tell you that what gets represented in a genetics catalog is not always represetative of trends within breeds or breed standard. While a traditional Flekvieh bull might be the most lucrative thing in the world to some breeders, there is little marketability outside of that breed and we can satisfy demand with an all black/red bull that will also attract customers from outside the breed thereby increasing sales. When any bull stud is reaching capacity on production, you can expect to see genetics offered that will have something to offer LOTS of people and not just a few.
 
Every AI stud markets what they think they can and what they can sell. I wouldn't expect them to do anything different. That's why ABS markets blacks and reds and Simangus genetics. Most of the studs marketing outside of North America concentrate on Traditional or Fleckvieh based genetics as this is what sells to the rest of the world in the Simmental breed. That's simple marketing.
 
cattleman99":3ixg2tun said:
Well all the myths are false. Simmentals have to be 7/8s to be registered as Purebreds. The rest would be considered SimAngus or whatever else they might be. So the max % in the US is 13% non Simmental Blood and 6% non Simmental in Canada for Bulls.

That is only if you believe the pedigrees are accurate to 6-7 generations back. I don't. Clearly there was a point in the not so recent past where a black heifer was more than a more traditionally colored heifer. That is a powerful incentive to do or accept things that are not entirely true. I am not knocking Simmentals. I have similar doubts about Angus and Hereford pedigrees.
 
cow pollinater":1y7y1h59 said:
put them in a pooled dna pile and compare against a diverse population
Hmmm... Since we're going to look at dna markers pooled from accross breeds, why can't we just make our current EPD system reflect all breeds together as well? If the entire point of both epds and genomics is to identify outstanding genetics, why don't we just judge all beef cattle breeds on the same scale so that the buyer knows excatly what they're buying...
The point of seedstock production is to produce genetics for the commercial cattleman. How about if we offer numbers that tell the customer how well our genetics perform against all other cattle and not just among cattle of the same breed? That should work really well... unless you have Herefords :lol2:

cow pollinator-

Your question here - - ["why don't we just judge all beef cattle breeds on the same scale so that the buyer knows excatly what they're buying"] - - has viable merit! My only caveat would be the immediate censure ensuing from breeders of most breeds - by virtue of comparisons between Apples and Oranges - or even Nectarines and Peaches! The imperative need for "individuality in "their" particular breed would set off a 'firestorm' of additional traits and characteristics to be found in their breed ONLY, and we would be "off to the races again" in competition mode! A - "MY-cow-is-better-than-YOUR-cow" chip on the shoulder attitude.

Nevertheless, I am certainly of the opinion that all of the emphasis on the use of EPD's, DNA markers, and Molecular Value Predictions (MVP's) could and should be simplified exponentially to make seedstock selection more easily accomplished, along with with the inclusion of visual evaluation for Phenotype characteristics for the breeder of average-sized cattle herds.

DOC HARRIS
 
cow pollinater":3tymi64r said:
put them in a pooled dna pile and compare against a diverse population
Hmmm... Since we're going to look at dna markers pooled from accross breeds, why can't we just make our current EPD system reflect all breeds together as well? If the entire point of both epds and genomics is to identify outstanding genetics, why don't we just judge all beef cattle breeds on the same scale so that the buyer knows excatly what they're buying...
The point of seedstock production is to produce genetics for the commercial cattleman. How about if we offer numbers that tell the customer how well our genetics perform against all other cattle and not just among cattle of the same breed? That should work really well... unless you have Herefords :lol2:

if there was no such thing as epistatsis and methylation, i would agree.

the point of epd's is not to identify outstanding genetics, but to avoid them as they are simply the opposite of poor genetics or combinations. the problem with making all genetics the same is that the market simply doesn't demand it. 50% of the market requires poor quality cattle.

one of the few guys in my area making money on cattle is a bottom feeder and never buys quality cattle as he seems to be able to buy low and sell medium with more profit from inputs than always buying "good" cattle with less margin for profit to the producer. the market is simply larger for lower quality cattle and there isn't a need for "higher" quality marbling cattle.

more and more is see less and less genetic effect and cost to improve it beyond the lower hanging fruit which doesn't appear to work across breeds at all very well.

by the way, MMI doesn't seem to prove it either as they went out of business.

some cattlemen see value in higher margins in lower quality cattle and see little value in epd's with low margins.
 
knabe":1jyfb7nx said:
cow pollinater":1jyfb7nx said:
put them in a pooled dna pile and compare against a diverse population
quote]

ttle.

one of the few guys in my area making money on cattle is a bottom feeder and never buys quality cattle as he seems to be able to buy low and sell medium with more profit from inputs than always buying "good" cattle with less margin for profit to the producer. the market is simply larger for lower quality cattle and there isn't a need for "higher" quality marbling cattle.

some cattlemen see value in higher margins in lower quality cattle and see little value in epd's with low margins.
Good post. Some people have a very hard time understanding the "low inputs" part of the equation.
 
I guess that it all comes down to the fine line of whatever "turns one on!" Profit comes from more than one source, and that is the primary purpose of doing the "cow" thing.

I have a problem with focusing on "Profit at ANY cost." It just points out the importance of a buyer knowing exactly what he is getting for his purchasing dollars. Ethics enters into the moral standards of honest beef production.

DOC HARRIS
 
There are three parts to my cattle system. Charolais, Registered Angus, and whatever odd-bred pairs I can pick up cheap in the spring when everyone else runs out of grass that I will split in the fall and sell for beef with almost no input... So far I've made as much or more on the junk cows as I have the good ones so I do understand low input economics. I also understand that even in these cattle that I don't put anything into, genetic improvement has been made somewhere in the past wheather it was intended or not. These low input guys buy cull bulls that the seedstock guys don't register for whatever reason and wind up with some pretty good calves or they buy a cull cow that didn't make the grade in a top notch herd but is WAY better than "junk" and keep a daughter out of her. When the genetics get out there, they get into the junk herds eventually.
That being said, why would I quit trying to improve my registerd cattle just because 50% of the market doesn't see the value? That's a glass half empty point of view and I've worked hard to get to where I can see the glass as half full. I'll produce good cattle for the other 50% of the market that sees the value.
 
That bottom half of the market is simply people making money off of other people's mistakes, mismanagement, and bad luck. People make money managing mismanaged cattle; but taking that fact and jumping to the conclusion that we NEED to have mismanaged cattle is a wrong assumption.
 
cow pollinater":2ii95k7u said:
These low input guys buy cull bulls that the seedstock guys don't register for whatever reason and wind up with some pretty good calves or they buy a cull cow that didn't make the grade in a top notch herd but is WAY better than "junk" and keep a daughter out of her. .


Seedstock producers keep shooting themselfs in the foot by selling unregistered bulls and cull bulls. They are hurting their future sales and should realize that every bull calf that is not good enough for them to register and sell should be cut and sold as steers. I made that mistake once and don't intend to do so again.
 
LFF":1pktg8rv said:
cow pollinater":1pktg8rv said:
These low input guys buy cull bulls that the seedstock guys don't register for whatever reason and wind up with some pretty good calves or they buy a cull cow that didn't make the grade in a top notch herd but is WAY better than "junk" and keep a daughter out of her. .


Seedstock producers keep shooting themselfs in the foot by selling unregistered bulls and cull bulls. They are hurting their future sales and should realize that every bull calf that is not good enough for them to register and sell should be cut and sold as steers. I made that mistake once and don't intend to do so again.

Definitely agree, although most of these sub-par bulls get into small herds, it still reflects the quality of the breed no matter which one
we are talking about. It also may influence future decisions by other cattlemen when choosing a breed when they see the sub-par results
by these common bulls.
 
Brandonm22":12awlw30 said:
That bottom half of the market is simply people making money off of other people's mistakes, mismanagement, and bad luck. People make money managing mismanaged cattle; but taking that fact and jumping to the conclusion that we NEED to have mismanaged cattle is a wrong assumption.

correct. but it is also a fact that there will always be mismanaged cattle and there will be plenty to make money on. otherwise there would be no auctions.
 

Latest posts

Top