Lowlines

[Badlands]

I would guess that it wasn't until the mid 90's that the pendulum really started to swing towards calf-feds.

We would probably boost % Choice if we quit backgrounding as much.



Badlands

 

[KMacGinley]

I believe that that is the idea behind lowlines, to run more cows per acre and produce calves that can be fattened on grass or very little grain. Up until ww2 this was how all cattle were raised. The small framed cattle were not fed on grain immediately after weaning for the most part, but on grass until the very end. Consumers rightly or wrongly think that this is healthier and will pay a premium for it.

Small framed cattle were "backgrounded" to grow SIZE prior to putting them on grain. The new modern calves are weaned with adequate size (of normal breeds) so they don't need to be "backgrounded" and are put on grain for about the same length of time the backgrounded cattle used to be fed.
Farmers failed to look at TIME as being an expense.
Backgrounding was very normal in the 60's, 70's, & I believe in


the 80's.

Well you just keep on doing that with $5.00 corn and let me know how that works out for you.

 

[BAGTIC]

The small little fryers you used to buy were not small because they were 'small breeds'. They were small because they were killed very young.

When I said large breeds I was refering to Brahmas, Cochins, Jersey Giants, ec. that can reach 12 pounds or more.

 

[alftn]

Lowlines are not dwarf like the mini's... There are or were dwarf angus, real bad ,very bad...in the 50's or 60's but not low lines...

 

[novatech]

"Why would you take a normal size cow, and have her produce LESS POUNDS OF FINAL OFFSPRING than she is capable of??"

It isn't about 'LESS POUNDS OF FINAL OFFSPRING" per cow. It is about 'per acre' or 'per ton of hay/feed'.

If the cows are smaller and more efficient feed converters the lower weight per cow may be offset by the greater number of cows that can be raised on he same resources.

The bottom line is pounds of beef per acre, not pounds of beef per broodcow.

My remark was concerning taking a normal size cow & breeding her to a miniature bull. It had nothing to do with "efficient cow size".
If you take a normal size cow & make her raise a less than normal size calf, you are wasting your resources. The cow is still going to eat "almost" the same whether she raises 600# or 400# of calf.
Now if you look at this project as changing your total herd over to smaller type cows, AND you can get much more money for the offspring - go for it.
There are nitch markets all over. If you want to devote the time & energy to chase a nitch, have at it. There is enough work involved in doing a good job marketing cattle in the main stream of things for me. Remember, you have to compensate your time & energy.

I have seen no research data stateing that any mini or for that matter small or lowlines or belted galloway is any more feed efficient than any other animal. It has not been proven that larger cattle are less feed efficient than smaller cattle. If it were true we would all be raiseing cattle the size of tea cup yourkies. Just because some breeders state these things does not make it true. It is just one more marketing gimick, and people trying to rationalise what they want.
Goat prices are up and that' is why people are raiseing them, has nothing to do with feed efficienty

 

[Brandonm2]

I have seen no research data stateing that any mini or for that matter small or lowlines or belted galloway is any more feed efficient than any other animal. It has not been proven that larger cattle are less feed efficient than smaller cattle. If it were true we would all be raiseing cattle the size of tea cup yourkies. Just because some breeders state these things does not make it true. It is just one more marketing gimick, and people trying to rationalise what they want.
Goat prices are up and that' is why people are raiseing them, has nothing to do with feed efficienty

Jean I think people get confused when they discuss "efficiency". Can you run more cows per acre by decreasing mature size? Absolutely, a smaller cow has less maintenance costs than does a larger cow so is much more likely too wean a calf in ANY environment than will a larger cow. The smaller brood cow IS thus more efficient in that her maintenance costs are less thus she is able to produce at a lower level of nutrition than can a 1500 lb mama.

Now in the feedlot, bigger framed later maturing steers are going to clean the clock of small framed early maturing steers (why we all don't raise dinky little frame 2 cows). The big calf fed ad libitum for 4-6 months is going to be much more efficient than the toad who is going to be converting more of that diet in to fat which takes twice as much feed too lay down as actual protein does.

 

[Jeanne - Simme Valley]

If you want "efficiency", ideally, you want a moderate, big volume, cow bred to a growth bull.

 

[novatech]

If you want "efficiency", ideally, you want a moderate, big volume, cow bred to a growth bull.

I agree.
You cannot get hybred vigor with mini's you can only get lowbred drepression.
I have herd this small cow, mini, eficiency arguemrnt over and over, but I have never seen the facts to back it up. Show me, I can change my opinion if you have the proof.

1 mini eats less but it takes 4 mini's to make a cow, 4 will eat as much or more than 1 cow.

 

[Jeanne - Simme Valley]

Plus - I value my time and energy. It takes just as much time on a mini (breeding, calving, heath management, sickness, etc) as it does for a normal size animal. So you are multiplying your labor with small cattle.
I use the same argument on buying great cows vs. dinks. If you have to take care of cattle, they might as well be the best you can afford, because the poor ones take just as much time & labor as a great one. Usually, end up taking up more, with poorer health.

 

[Schnurrbart]

If you want "efficiency", ideally, you want a moderate, big volume, cow bred to a growth bull.

I agree.
You cannot get hybred vigor with mini's you can only get lowbred drepression.
I have herd this small cow, mini, eficiency arguemrnt over and over, but I have never seen the facts to back it up. Show me, I can change my opinion if you have the proof.

1 mini eats less but it takes 4 mini's to make a cow, 4 will eat as much or more than 1 cow.

I don't believe that "efficiency" is the proper term because that is all about pound of gain versus pound of feed. What they are talking about is that something smaller eats less to do the same thing proportionally than a large something. Although the Lowlines do have some very small animals, a large number of them are not all that small. They are the original Aberdeen Angus and have not been "bred up" like the modern day Angus that abound today. When a 6' man walks up behind an Angus bull and is eyeball to his tail head (for lack of a more vulgar term) then you know that Angus has been modified from their origin. I think there is a market for them as more and more people are looking for smaller cuts of beef. Will they take over? No, but they may very well find a good market. The prices for seedstock right now aren't bad either.

 

[Brandonm2]

Actually Harlon Ritchie has a slide show that show that 1800s and early 1900s Angus and Herefords were not frame score 1 dinks. In the 20s, cattle breeders began chasing dramatically smaller cattle as a way too increase carcass quality, increase tallow (then a very valuable product), and decrease the time it took for grass fed steers too finish. The multiplication of the smallest Prince Domino type Herefords and Sunbeam type Angus were the result of this methodical quest for decreasing frame in the foremost cow families of both breeds. Lowlines are the result of a scientific continuation of that research. They are NOT the original Aberdeen Angus....although they may be more pure than most modern Angus.

These are 1870s Angus replacement heifers in Scotland. Clone those girls and I could probably pass them off as good EXT daughters today. They certainly are not Lowlines

http://www.msu.edu/~ritchieh/historical ... eifers.jpg

This is a 1902 Grand Champion Angus Steer in Chicago
http://www.msu.edu/~ritchieh/historical ... e_jute.jpg

This is a 1901 Angus cow

http://www.msu.edu/~ritchieh/historical ... wbrook.jpg

This is a 1905 Angus bull

http://www.msu.edu/~ritchieh/historical ... erling.jpg

Then type began too change..

This is a 1915 Champion bull

http://www.msu.edu/~ritchieh/historical/nebraska.jpg

A 1919 Champion

http://www.msu.edu/~ritchieh/historical/idolmare.jpg

Some people hung on to larger Angus for a while. This is a 1925 2500 lb Angus bull

http://www.msu.edu/~ritchieh/historical ... rshall.jpg

but the little guys won the day....a 1937 Champion...

http://www.msu.edu/~ritchieh/historical ... _anoka.jpg

1952 Champions (these would be small Lowlines)

http://www.msu.edu/~ritchieh/historical ... r_1952.jpg

1953 Grand Champion Bull (I don't know how he mounts a cow)

http://www.msu.edu/~ritchieh/historical ... enmere.jpg

People were fully aware of what they were doing. Here is a 1953 ad bragging about their "progress"

http://www.msu.edu/~ritchieh/historical ... d_1952.jpg

1955 Champion Bull

http://www.msu.edu/~ritchieh/historical/prince_peer.jpg

Then the pendulum started too change again and go the other way.....

Ankonian President 1965 (big for the day)

http://www.msu.edu/~ritchieh/historical ... sident.jpg

Great Northern Champion 1970

http://www.msu.edu/~ritchieh/historical ... rthern.jpg

Ankonian Dynamo Champion 1972

http://www.msu.edu/~ritchieh/historical ... dynamo.jpg

Then things got a little crazy....

Frame 10 Angus back in 1986

http://www.msu.edu/~ritchieh/historical ... yorker.jpg

Another Frame 10 in 1988

http://www.msu.edu/~ritchieh/historical ... edrive.jpg

Here is the link to all of Dr Ritchie's slides...
http://www.msu.edu/~ritchieh/historical/cattletype.html

 

[DOC HARRIS]

This entire thread makes for half-way interesting reading, but - - -Give Me A Break!

DOC HARRIS

This is in answer to Brandonm2, novatech, and guest 25, plus every reader of CattleToday Posts!

PLEASE accept my apologies for the included post in this post!! I wrote that BEFORE I had read Brandonm2's post with Dr. Ritchie's MAGNIFICANT History of our Beef Cattle. I was referring to the on-going arguments back and forth that several breeder's were engaging in at the time.

I still disdain the senseless wrangling that some of us do on these posts instead of attempting to HELP Beef Cattle breeder's improve their business.

NOW! To the IMPORTANT subject of this thread. I hope that those of you who know me reasize that I CERTAINLY DID NOT intend to demean Dr. Ritchie's SPECTACULAR work! Quite the opposite!

Every single breeder's should copy Brandonm2's post and include it in your "Favorites" or "Bookmark" or whatever your computer has to keep forever! This is worth several million words to show and tell and explain what CAN happen to a breed whose breeder's lose sight of what the heck they are doing, and the problems that ensue when they have to try to correct those mistakes! It is similar to the trouble that I am having right now to attempt to explain MY mistake, and convince you all that I am really not the dam fool that I seem to be!

Again, please forgive me for not reading and thinking before I opened my big mouth and stuck both horns in it!

I still contend that we must put a clamp on acting like children on a playground with each other, and concentrate on helping make better cattle people out of every one of us.

By the way! Insofar as my never owning any cattle - - WRONG! I just don't have cattle at the present time.

May I come out of the corner now?

DOC HARRIS

 

[novatech]

Actually Harlon Ritchie has a slide show that show that 1800s and early 1900s Angus and Herefords were not frame score 1 dinks. In the 20s, cattle breeders began chasing dramatically smaller cattle as a way too increase carcass quality, increase tallow (then a very valuable product), and decrease the time it took for grass fed steers too finish. The multiplication of the smallest Prince Domino type Herefords and Sunbeam type Angus were the result of this methodical quest for decreasing frame in the foremost cow families of both breeds. Lowlines are the result of a scientific continuation of that research. They are NOT the original Aberdeen Angus....although they may be more pure than most modern Angus.

These are 1870s Angus replacement heifers in Scotland. Clone those girls and I could probably pass them off as good EXT daughters today. They certainly are not Lowlines

http://www.msu.edu/~ritchieh/historical ... eifers.jpg

This is a 1902 Grand Champion Angus Steer in Chicago
http://www.msu.edu/~ritchieh/historical ... e_jute.jpg

This is a 1901 Angus cow

http://www.msu.edu/~ritchieh/historical ... wbrook.jpg

This is a 1905 Angus bull

http://www.msu.edu/~ritchieh/historical ... erling.jpg

Then type began too change..

This is a 1915 Champion bull

http://www.msu.edu/~ritchieh/historical/nebraska.jpg

A 1919 Champion

http://www.msu.edu/~ritchieh/historical/idolmare.jpg

Some people hung on to larger Angus for a while. This is a 1925 2500 lb Angus bull

http://www.msu.edu/~ritchieh/historical ... rshall.jpg

but the little guys won the day....a 1937 Champion...

http://www.msu.edu/~ritchieh/historical ... _anoka.jpg

1952 Champions (these would be small Lowlines)

http://www.msu.edu/~ritchieh/historical ... r_1952.jpg

1953 Grand Champion Bull (I don't know how he mounts a cow)

http://www.msu.edu/~ritchieh/historical ... enmere.jpg

People were fully aware of what they were doing. Here is a 1953 ad bragging about their "progress"

http://www.msu.edu/~ritchieh/historical ... d_1952.jpg

1955 Champion Bull

http://www.msu.edu/~ritchieh/historical/prince_peer.jpg

Then the pendulum started too change again and go the other way.....

Ankonian President 1965 (big for the day)

http://www.msu.edu/~ritchieh/historical ... sident.jpg

Great Northern Champion 1970

http://www.msu.edu/~ritchieh/historical ... rthern.jpg

Ankonian Dynamo Champion 1972

http://www.msu.edu/~ritchieh/historical ... dynamo.jpg

Then things got a little crazy....

Frame 10 Angus back in 1986

http://www.msu.edu/~ritchieh/historical ... yorker.jpg

Another Frame 10 in 1988

http://www.msu.edu/~ritchieh/historical ... edrive.jpg

Here is the link to all of Dr Ritchie's slides...
http://www.msu.edu/~ritchieh/historical/cattletype.html

We had some of these little angus in the early 60's. Buy the end of the 60's you could hardly give them away. We also had a lot of dwarf calves being born.
Thanks for the history lesson, brought back a lot of tiny memories.

 

[novatech]

This entire thread makes for half-way interesting reading, but - - -Give Me A Break!

DOC HARRIS

Is this some sort of put down for the people that responded.
You must be the all knowing, so lets hear it.
Come tell us how great you are.
Have you gone back and read some of your threads?

 

[Badlands]

"Original Aberdeen Angus?"

Hmmmmm......

Let's see, they bought them and started building the herd way back in the last century.


Then in 1974 or thereabouts, decided to breed for high growth and low growth.

So, if Lowlines are "original Aberdeen Angus", what are the Highlines?

Are they not the original Aberdeen Angus? Same gene pool, just different selection pressure.

For what it is worth, when the Lowlines were sold in the early '90's, the Highlines were kept. Mostly because they were more indicative of the production environment of the time, but partly because they were more profitable and efficient under that same model.

Badlands

 

[Badlands]

I made no such reference at all.


Don't try to put words in my mouth.


The point was simply that the Australian Highlines are the same genetics as the Lowlines. Size has nothing to do with being "original Aberdeen Angus" in that population.


Badlands

 

[Brandonm2]

"Original Aberdeen Angus?"

Hmmmmm......

Let's see, they bought them and started building the herd way back in the last century.


Then in 1974 or thereabouts, decided to breed for high growth and low growth.

So, if Lowlines are "original Aberdeen Angus", what are the Highlines?

Are they not the original Aberdeen Angus? Same gene pool, just different selection pressure.

For what it is worth, when the Lowlines were sold in the early '90's, the Highlines were kept. Mostly because they were more indicative of the production environment of the time, but partly because they were more profitable and efficient under that same model.

Badlands

Good point. The Highlines should be both pure AND large enough too hang with today's Angus cattle and probably are closer in type too early Angus than are the 500 lb Lowline cows.

 

[Brandonm2]

This entire thread makes for half-way interesting reading, but - - -Give Me A Break!

DOC HARRIS

Actually Dr Ritchie did all the hard work. It didn't take me 20 minutes too grab a dozen or so links of his to the clipboard, add my words, and then paste the whole thing in to a post and if I was not watching Oak Academy play a HS basketball game on ESPN at the time, I could have done it in ten......of course I don't know how long it takes for some of those slides too come up if you don't have broadband either.

 

[Schnurrbart]

"Original Aberdeen Angus?"

Hmmmmm......

Let's see, they bought them and started building the herd way back in the last century.


Then in 1974 or thereabouts, decided to breed for high growth and low growth.

So, if Lowlines are "original Aberdeen Angus", what are the Highlines?

Are they not the original Aberdeen Angus? Same gene pool, just different selection pressure.

For what it is worth, when the Lowlines were sold in the early '90's, the Highlines were kept. Mostly because they were more indicative of the production environment of the time, but partly because they were more profitable and efficient under that same model.

Badlands

I have no idea where the Highlines are. I never said that they weren't also original Aberdeen Angus. However, the discussion was on Lowlines. Maybe you could start a thread on the Highlines. I don't know nor care how efficient or inefficient they are. I just asked if anyone knew much about them as a friend is raising some now. To tell the truth, I am sorry I ever started this thing. Too much arguing and insults going on about it.

 

[Brandonm2]

"Original Aberdeen Angus?"

Hmmmmm......

Let's see, they bought them and started building the herd way back in the last century.


Then in 1974 or thereabouts, decided to breed for high growth and low growth.

So, if Lowlines are "original Aberdeen Angus", what are the Highlines?

Are they not the original Aberdeen Angus? Same gene pool, just different selection pressure.

For what it is worth, when the Lowlines were sold in the early '90's, the Highlines were kept. Mostly because they were more indicative of the production environment of the time, but partly because they were more profitable and efficient under that same model.

Badlands

so you say there was never holstein introduced into the angus breed for milk, and chi for frame.

Next time you lose a tooth put it under your pillow and dont tell anyone. ;-)

You must have missed the history of the Lowlines and the Highlines. They BOTH started out as old Angus genetics at a research station in Australia. When the question of how big is optimum became the research question of the day.....they divided their herd into two groups and linebred one group for small size (the Lowlines) and linebred the other for greater size (the Highlines) and compared the two. They were linebred by a not for profit research station and did not introduce any "new" genetics into the herd during the lengthy research project so yes they should not have any Holstein, Brown Swiss, Chianina, or anything else introduced into their herd. The Lowline research was discontinued and those cattle sold to the four winds where they have developed a following amoung miniature cattle breeders. The Highline was retained by the research station; where I presume they remain.