Lot 1 GAR Sale

[angus9259]

Quite a difference how the animals look in a GAR sale book vs an SAV or Coleman sale. Of course GAR spanks those programs for EPDs. Based on EPDs, the calves from this bull will destroy most anything coming from those two programs!!! Pictures, of course, can be deceiving....

 

[Son of Butch]

GAR would highlight a picture of the EPDS not the picture of the tail-less bull

 

[Named'em Tamed'em]

Not impressed.

 

[wbvs58]

And what do you think the difference is? Is it the feed or is it the genetics?

Ken

 

[W.B.]

Both, two totally different programs that are marketing their uniqueness. Personally I don't want anything to do with either program. I have lightly sampled both through AI.

 

[Davemk]

Quite a difference how the animals look in a GAR sale book vs an SAV or Coleman sale. Of course GAR spanks those programs for EPDs. Based on EPDs, the calves from this bull will destroy most anything coming from those two programs!!! Pictures, of course, can be deceiving....


View attachment 28751

what the heck is that thing? Is that supposed to be a purebred angus? Somebody turned a Chi bull loose and called it good.

 

[Ebenezer]

Lingle quoted that form follows function. When marbling is the desired function for multiple generations the form will tract towards that to look similar to other high marbling types of cattle, such as Wagyu. Most breeding programs are not that targeted.

 

[angus9259]

Bull looks more wagyu to me - which is fine. But GARs entire program looks like that. Would they look better on feed? Maybe. Maybe they are on feed? I don't know....

In a world where conspiracy theories are the norm - it just strikes me as odd that we will shovel HUGE amounts of money to get EPDs from our association and now pay additional fees to big pharma and our association to get those EPDs "enhanced" and there are programs that make a living seemingly scoffing at them - SAV, Ohlde, Jorgensen, Duff, Coleman - others - that still produce animals that look like it seems they should probably look.

Is it just feed and they would all look like wagyu? I don't know. Yet even those programs still pay big pharma to be able to enhance their EPDs - they enhance EPDs that basically say "below average" - which is equally odd. "Numerically, come here and buy below average animals" that look great!

 

[Ebenezer]

Bull looks more wagyu to me - which is fine. But GARs entire program looks like that. Would they look better on feed? Maybe. Maybe they are on feed? I don't know....

In a world where conspiracy theories are the norm - it just strikes me as odd that we will shovel HUGE amounts of money to get EPDs from our association and now pay additional fees to big pharma and our association to get those EPDs "enhanced" and there are programs that make a living seemingly scoffing at them - SAV, Ohlde, Jorgensen, Duff, Coleman - others - that still produce animals that look like it seems they should probably look.

Is it just feed and they would all look like wagyu? I don't know. Yet even those programs still pay big pharma to be able to enhance their EPDs - they enhance EPDs that basically say "below average" - which is equally odd. "Numerically, come here and buy below average animals" that look great!

The modern beef cow and bull are merely collections of numbers.

 

[simme]

Good topic. I don't find most of the GAR cattle to be "attractive". But what is the end goal for a cattle producer? Cow calf people like to raise and see cattle that "look good" to them. What is the end goal for the consumer? They don't care about color or breed or pedigree or epd (other than influence of marketing programs). The consumer wants a product that makes them feel good - taste, tenderness, size of cut, consistency, appearance of the retail product, even labeling and presentation of packaging.

Producers look for a big butted muscled up bull. Won't find that with GAR. Original continental breeds from the late 60's excelled at the big butt criteria. How did they grade? Mostly select. What did they weigh? Mostly heavy. Calving ease? Not those original ones.

What is more important to a cow calf person - the "desired look" or profit? If calves are sold at the sale barn, price depends on weight and price per pound. Price per pound depends on what the stocker guy is willing to pay based on what he sees. He might not like the GAR look either. But, if the producer retains ownership to slaughter, maybe the criteria is very different than selling at the stockyards. Hard (impossible?) for the guy selling calves at the salebarn to get a premium for carcass quality or feed efficiency. But those qualities affect the profit for the owner of the feedlot cattle. May be that the most profitable cattle overall are not attractive. May be that the most profitable cattle overall will not make the most money for the producer selling calves at the salebarn.

I know I am a broken record on this, but chicken and pork producers focus on profit. Not on looks. They only change owners after processing. Owners are all about the money and the look only at retail.

 

[Hpacres440p]

Good topic. I don't find most of the GAR cattle to be "attractive". But what is the end goal for a cattle producer? Cow calf people like to raise and see cattle that "look good" to them. What is the end goal for the consumer? They don't care about color or breed or pedigree or epd (other than influence of marketing programs). The consumer wants a product that makes them feel good - taste, tenderness, size of cut, consistency, appearance of the retail product, even labeling and presentation of packaging.

Producers look for a big butted muscled up bull. Won't find that with GAR. Original continental breeds from the late 60's excelled at the big butt criteria. How did they grade? Mostly select. What did they weigh? Mostly heavy. Calving ease? Not those original ones.

What is more important to a cow calf person - the "desired look" or profit? If calves are sold at the sale barn, price depends on weight and price per pound. Price per pound depends on what the stocker guy is willing to pay based on what he sees. He might not like the GAR look either. But, if the producer retains ownership to slaughter, maybe the criteria is very different than selling at the stockyards. Hard (impossible?) for the guy selling calves at the salebarn to get a premium for carcass quality or feed efficiency. But those qualities affect the profit for the owner of the feedlot cattle. May be that the most profitable cattle overall are not attractive. May be that the most profitable cattle overall will not make the most money for the producer selling calves at the salebarn.

I know I am a broken record on this, but chicken and pork producers focus on profit. Not on looks. They only change owners after processing. Owners are all about the money and the look only at retail.

I would agree to a point-there's an awful lot of throwaway leg on this bull. Lots of air under the product.

 

[Rmc]

I would agree to a point-there's an awful lot of throwaway leg on this bull. Lots of air under the product.

Yet most on here bash the short legged Stock as well . Had an entire thread of people bashing breeds because they were short legged.

 

[Stickney94]

Simme said it well. GAR breeds for the rail. SAV breeds for the scale. If you know your market there is currently money to be made doing both. Like Simme hints, I do think there will be increasing pressure in the beef industry that moves things towards the uniformity of end product seen in pork/poultry. In my opinion GAR will have big advantage should that come to pass.

 

[Peace]

Bag on them all you want....but $450k for being a 1/2 partner on the lease with no possession says they're doing something right.

Superior Productions

Superior Productions

bid.superiorlivestock.com

https://latv-media.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/uploads/auctions/2616/assets/Gardiner_Angus_Ranch-SB-S23.pdf

@simme touches on something to think about. The lines of producers all seem to have different goals...cow calf operator wants a scale mashing steered calf at birth from a cow that lives on 2 blades of grass and a cup of water a day or a heifer calf that produces the same ...the feedlot would prefer a free calf that eats a cup of corn a week and grows to butcher weight in a month (a week would be better, but I digress) ...the slaughter house would like them all to be the exact same weight and conformation, from a producer that doesn't care if they get paid, with all grading prime and accept the low end to be 2% choice...the seedstock producers want people to close their eyes, or open them, to their bulls and pay at least $10k each for the bottom and $1million for the top... and the consumer wants the best product for $1/lb, but since most are clueless they'll buy what they're offered and believe in the label. Your results may vary

 

[simme]

Notice that Lot 1 was not a traditional sale of a bull. If I understand correctly, the purchaser did not buy possession or use of a bull. Did not buy a semen interest in order to receive semen. The bull is already leased to Select Sires. This lot was selling a partnership in that existing lease. I don't know the terms of the lease but assume that there is opportunity to receive income proportional to the straws of semen sold. What was sold was not a bull, but an investment/business opportunity that may return a profit.

Also note that the lot 1 bull was not bred by GAR. Breeder of the bull is Richardson Cattle in Texas. As I understand, GAR takes the concept of cooperator herds to a higher level. My understanding is that an angus of GAR genetics may be prefixed as GAR and sold in their sale with each side receiving 50% of the sale price. Just what I have been told anyway. Does anyone know if that is correct or incorrect?

 

[StrojanHerefords]

I dug into the sale report and found something interesting. Far more heifers sold for big money than bulls. 17 heifers reportedly sold for over $20,000 but only 4 bulls sold for that much.

 

[wbvs58]

I have had a little experience using bulls from both SAV and GAR. From steers I have sold at weaning and steers that people have bought bought bulls from me sold at weaning, all sold at specialty weaner sales I would say the GAR derived progeny would have sold the best.

Ken

 

[Son of Butch]

Also note that the lot 1 bull was not bred by GAR. Breeder of the bull is Richardson Cattle in Texas. As I understand, GAR takes the concept of cooperator herds to a higher level. My understanding is that an angus of GAR genetics may be prefixed as GAR and sold in their sale with each side receiving 50% of the sale price. Just what I have been told anyway. Does anyone know if that is correct or incorrect?

Interesting information that you found.
Family behind GAR are innovative business owners. After the devastating fire they experienced wouldn't surprise me if they came up
with an innovative solution like what you described. They're both sharp and industrious.

 

[Ky hills]

A lot of people complain about him but I always liked the older bull GAR Predestined. Had a Predestined son and AI bred to Power Tool and like his calves. Never used him but saw a son of GAR Ultimate that thought was a good bull calf at a sale.
A few years back GAR Prophet was pretty popular with folks.
My opinion, the further you go towards carcass traits the more you are going to lose maternal traits as well as some pounds. That particular bull looks to be an example of that just at face value.
I'm not a believer in the accuracy of EPD's or even the DNA testing. My opinion again, EPD's and the DNA testing is a long ways from telling the whole story. If enough progeny have accurate records recorded, then they may skew towards a certain result, but far too many variables to take all those numbers as much more than just a bunch of numbers.

 

[angus9259]

Good topic. I don't find most of the GAR cattle to be "attractive". But what is the end goal for a cattle producer? Cow calf people like to raise and see cattle that "look good" to them. What is the end goal for the consumer? They don't care about color or breed or pedigree or epd (other than influence of marketing programs). The consumer wants a product that makes them feel good - taste, tenderness, size of cut, consistency, appearance of the retail product, even labeling and presentation of packaging.

Producers look for a big butted muscled up bull. Won't find that with GAR. Original continental breeds from the late 60's excelled at the big butt criteria. How did they grade? Mostly select. What did they weigh? Mostly heavy. Calving ease? Not those original ones.

What is more important to a cow calf person - the "desired look" or profit? If calves are sold at the sale barn, price depends on weight and price per pound. Price per pound depends on what the stocker guy is willing to pay based on what he sees. He might not like the GAR look either. But, if the producer retains ownership to slaughter, maybe the criteria is very different than selling at the stockyards. Hard (impossible?) for the guy selling calves at the salebarn to get a premium for carcass quality or feed efficiency. But those qualities affect the profit for the owner of the feedlot cattle. May be that the most profitable cattle overall are not attractive. May be that the most profitable cattle overall will not make the most money for the producer selling calves at the salebarn.

I know I am a broken record on this, but chicken and pork producers focus on profit. Not on looks. They only change owners after processing. Owners are all about the money and the look only at retail.

this is exactly my point. according to the numbers, this bull should be for the rail AND scale compared to almost anything produced at SAV or Coleman. And maybe it is. According to the numbers, there's almost no reason anyone would use SAV or Coleman (or others) except for looks. And maybe that's the case.