Menu
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
New profile posts
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Members
Current visitors
New profile posts
Search profile posts
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles and first posts only
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Forums
Cattle Boards
Breeds Board
Longevity or Lack of It
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Help Support CattleToday:
Message
<blockquote data-quote="1848" data-source="post: 76334" data-attributes="member: 1303"><p>Frankie, (You don't have to yell)</p><p></p><p>Sorry Folks, this is a very long response, but I feel I must defend my honor… <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite7" alt=":p" title="Stick out tongue :p" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":p" /> </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Performance begins at calving. These bulls you refer to I don't know, but I can say that a 65 lb calf will "typically" not out-perform an 85 lb calf given same growing conditions and similar or equivalent milking ability of the mommas. I do know that if you look at a lot of the new Angus sires you will see that their BW's and the BW's of their calves are considerably larger than what used to be typical of "old" Angus, so the newer bulls would have an advantage this way. Whether it is a desirable trait for seed stock breeders depends on the program. I suppose in a terminal cross I would want pounds, and it sounds as though you are more a terminal breeder anyway since your focus is to "make money".</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Not to say we all don't want to make money, but I tend to believe the terminal cross is the most "efficient" way to do this. </p><p></p><p></p><p> </p><p></p><p>Good bulls in their time are "time tested". You indicated you used "proven young bulls", but in order for a bull to prove his offspring will make desirable replacements, and not just a good terminal animal, (which is what a lot of new bulls calves are evaluated as) his daughters and sons must be evaluated with at least 3 to 5 years of "production" (not age) under their belts. This would make the bull "at least" 5 to 6 years old, assuming he was used as an "unproven" yearling. Based on most of these great young bulls not even getting used naturally until they are 3 years old (due to show, and the need to collect heavily) they haven't even proved "their own" longevity traits in the pasture until they are 7 or 8! So, it sounds like you should be grateful to yourself for proving these young sires.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p> </p><p></p><p>This brings me to another question. If ½ the animals in the AAA were AI'd, then which bulls are proving over time that their females will have longevity? Especially considering that these AI bulls are for the most part penned and not used to "chase" cows or forage for food on their own two feet 24 hours a day! Perhaps this is where the Angus breeders are making a mistake. Maybe the "popularity" of the Angus bull is directly related to the fact that they don't "last" in the pasture? Is this a problem, yes! Terminal cross breeders (the biggest users of Angus bulls) may have to buy a lot of Angus bulls out of necessity, not because they are "just good".</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>I am not arguing with you. I indicated I did not understand the mentality of your breeding program. "I am learning too". Does this learning make me "feel good"..Yes! Frankly Frankie, I don't give a "dangus"…about Angus in particular, or have any desire to "argue" your point, although it appears here that I have been placed at bat! I try to look at breeding stock in general and what makes sense for seed stock and commercial breeders without being too biased towards my own breed. Many buyers of my bulls are not breeding the same breed, and it is important that I know what they need so I can focus on my customer.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>As far as line breeding? I thought the whole purpose of line breeding is to set up prepotency, and that this is the quickest and most efficient means of doing this without proven sires!</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>I would hope that if you are a "seed stock" breeder, and you are breeding animals for replacements and pedigrees, (out of proven bulls and daughters of proven bulls) that you "are" hanging onto your stock for the right market, and for the sake of breed improvement. If not, then running your calves through the sale barn tells me that you lean more towards a terminal program and it is understandable why you are not a big proponent of longevity.</p><p></p><p> </p><p></p><p>If you don't know how other breeders are improving themselves then how do you know your breed (or herd) is far superior? You have nothing to compare with! I would think that eating my own cooking all the time would get old and drab. You say some breeds are incorporating Angus, and if you know this then you must admit that other breeds are willing to improve…despite them only humbling themselves to the great Angus.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>I try not to be biased. I believe we can learn from all breeds, breeders, and practices. I was reading the posts from members and guest under the recent Topic called: "MARC is it Bull?" I noticed your comment was biased. It was also very interesting to see everyone else's opinion in regards to MARC, especially the GURU La4angus.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p> </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>One thing stuck out in that document concerning the MARC research. It was this statement at the beginning of the research: <u>Breed differences in performance characteristics are an important genetic resource for improving efficiency of beef production</u> ", and this statement at the end and summarization of the research: "<u>No one breed excels in all traits that are important to beef production. Crossbreeding systems that exploit heterosis and complementarity and match genetic potential with market targets, feed resources and climates provide the most effective means of breeding for production efficiency"</u>.</p><p></p><p>"No one breed excels in all traits that are important to beef production". I think that says it all.</p><p></p><p>I'll let you have the last word in this. I have no desire to argue my point of view……</p><p></p><p>I just have it!</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="1848, post: 76334, member: 1303"] Frankie, (You don’t have to yell) Sorry Folks, this is a very long response, but I feel I must defend my honor… :P Performance begins at calving. These bulls you refer to I don’t know, but I can say that a 65 lb calf will “typically” not out-perform an 85 lb calf given same growing conditions and similar or equivalent milking ability of the mommas. I do know that if you look at a lot of the new Angus sires you will see that their BW’s and the BW’s of their calves are considerably larger than what used to be typical of “old” Angus, so the newer bulls would have an advantage this way. Whether it is a desirable trait for seed stock breeders depends on the program. I suppose in a terminal cross I would want pounds, and it sounds as though you are more a terminal breeder anyway since your focus is to “make money”. Not to say we all don't want to make money, but I tend to believe the terminal cross is the most “efficient” way to do this. Good bulls in their time are “time tested”. You indicated you used “proven young bulls”, but in order for a bull to prove his offspring will make desirable replacements, and not just a good terminal animal, (which is what a lot of new bulls calves are evaluated as) his daughters and sons must be evaluated with at least 3 to 5 years of “production” (not age) under their belts. This would make the bull “at least” 5 to 6 years old, assuming he was used as an “unproven” yearling. Based on most of these great young bulls not even getting used naturally until they are 3 years old (due to show, and the need to collect heavily) they haven’t even proved “their own” longevity traits in the pasture until they are 7 or 8! So, it sounds like you should be grateful to yourself for proving these young sires. This brings me to another question. If ½ the animals in the AAA were AI’d, then which bulls are proving over time that their females will have longevity? Especially considering that these AI bulls are for the most part penned and not used to “chase” cows or forage for food on their own two feet 24 hours a day! Perhaps this is where the Angus breeders are making a mistake. Maybe the “popularity” of the Angus bull is directly related to the fact that they don’t “last” in the pasture? Is this a problem, yes! Terminal cross breeders (the biggest users of Angus bulls) may have to buy a lot of Angus bulls out of necessity, not because they are “just good”. I am not arguing with you. I indicated I did not understand the mentality of your breeding program. “I am learning too”. Does this learning make me “feel good”..Yes! Frankly Frankie, I don’t give a “dangus”…about Angus in particular, or have any desire to “argue” your point, although it appears here that I have been placed at bat! I try to look at breeding stock in general and what makes sense for seed stock and commercial breeders without being too biased towards my own breed. Many buyers of my bulls are not breeding the same breed, and it is important that I know what they need so I can focus on my customer. As far as line breeding? I thought the whole purpose of line breeding is to set up prepotency, and that this is the quickest and most efficient means of doing this without proven sires! I would hope that if you are a “seed stock” breeder, and you are breeding animals for replacements and pedigrees, (out of proven bulls and daughters of proven bulls) that you “are” hanging onto your stock for the right market, and for the sake of breed improvement. If not, then running your calves through the sale barn tells me that you lean more towards a terminal program and it is understandable why you are not a big proponent of longevity. If you don’t know how other breeders are improving themselves then how do you know your breed (or herd) is far superior? You have nothing to compare with! I would think that eating my own cooking all the time would get old and drab. You say some breeds are incorporating Angus, and if you know this then you must admit that other breeds are willing to improve…despite them only humbling themselves to the great Angus. I try not to be biased. I believe we can learn from all breeds, breeders, and practices. I was reading the posts from members and guest under the recent Topic called: “MARC is it Bull?” I noticed your comment was biased. It was also very interesting to see everyone else’s opinion in regards to MARC, especially the GURU La4angus. One thing stuck out in that document concerning the MARC research. It was this statement at the beginning of the research: [u]Breed differences in performance characteristics are an important genetic resource for improving efficiency of beef production[/u] “, and this statement at the end and summarization of the research: “[u]No one breed excels in all traits that are important to beef production. Crossbreeding systems that exploit heterosis and complementarity and match genetic potential with market targets, feed resources and climates provide the most effective means of breeding for production efficiency”[/u]. "No one breed excels in all traits that are important to beef production”. I think that says it all. I’ll let you have the last word in this. I have no desire to argue my point of view…… I just have it! [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Cattle Boards
Breeds Board
Longevity or Lack of It
Top