Mike, how did it go?
- Thread starter BRG
- Start date
Help Support CattleToday:
BRG":31rzfmnr said:
Dan and I had quite a time the other night. Alabama and another friend came over and we threw the top away on a big bottle of "Knob Creek"!
Your theory of these smaller framed animals going on feed early was right on track.
He also informed me that carcasses won't be discounted at 900 lbs. anymore. It's been moved up to a 1000.
Dan is the type of feeder that wants to make his customers money, period. Since they are mostly custom feeders instead of feeding their own, they usually feed to 1/2" backfat and let them ride.
Your theory of too small of frame scores is right on the money Brian. Dead on.
Put this in your pipe and smoke it. CAB has been having to accept Yield Grade 4's just to get product!
I thought I told you to have something good like Crown Royal!!! :lol:
I knew that they moved up the carcass size. Won't be to may heavies anymore. That may be getting to big, but at least we won't be punished for it.
I get to visit and listen to Dan this next week in TX. I am sure we will hit some good Crown there too!!! :shock:
I agree 100% about Dan, good guy and good lot. They will take care of the cow/calf man.
What do you think the rest of the readers on here will say about my theory? ;-)
Thanks Mike,
BRG
I knew that they moved up the carcass size. Won't be to may heavies anymore. That may be getting to big, but at least we won't be punished for it.
I get to visit and listen to Dan this next week in TX. I am sure we will hit some good Crown there too!!! :shock:
I agree 100% about Dan, good guy and good lot. They will take care of the cow/calf man.
What do you think the rest of the readers on here will say about my theory? ;-)
Thanks Mike,
BRG
lukem86
Well-known member
care to elaborate more or share the link to where the "theory" in question is located? i must have missed it...
DOC HARRIS
Well-known member
BRG- Please expound in detail regarding your "Theory." I have an idea that it will be interesting enough to incite some real discussions!
Bear in mind - the ONLY thing that is constant in this world is - CHANGE!
DOC HARRIS
One of my theories is regarding to why the yield grades are rising:
In the Red Angus breed, don't know about the black angus, but I am sure it is the same. Red Angus has been chasing a few bulls and 1 in particular. This bull is what I consider a small framed animal. I know that when you use small frames you are making weaning and kill weights smaller. Years ago light weights at weaning went into a background lot or onto grass. Now most of these 5 weight calves are going right into a lot and before long they are on a very hot ration. These cattle don't have time to put the frame on before they get fat or pudgy, and so the average feeder feeds them just like they feed eveything else, and in turn the cattle get finished sooner. This can be a good thing, but in most cases these cattle get fed longer than they should be and then the yield grades rise and we now have a higher % or yield grade 4's and 5's.
In the 90's the carcasses seemed to be a little better than today. I feel that was due to using either bigger framed straight Angus (not huge) or when they cross bred cattle They were 1/2 continental and 1/2 english. I have always thought the F1 cross is the best. Now it seems the colleges, magazines, and associations are pushing for smaller frames and 3 or 4 way crosses. While the packers are wanting bigger ones. The feeders know how to feed cattle but when all different shapes and sizes come into their lot and they are feeding 30,000 + head each day, they do not have time or can't afford to re-teach everyone, so most of the cattle are all fed the same and this is where the problems come from.
A typical straight bred steer should kill at or near his dams mature weight if it was never background fed. Lots of cows way 1100 to 1300lbs, but the feeder wants to kill at 1300+ because they sell pounds. We as ranchers and feeders need to meet in the middle somwhere to try to fix the rising yield grades.
In the Red Angus breed, don't know about the black angus, but I am sure it is the same. Red Angus has been chasing a few bulls and 1 in particular. This bull is what I consider a small framed animal. I know that when you use small frames you are making weaning and kill weights smaller. Years ago light weights at weaning went into a background lot or onto grass. Now most of these 5 weight calves are going right into a lot and before long they are on a very hot ration. These cattle don't have time to put the frame on before they get fat or pudgy, and so the average feeder feeds them just like they feed eveything else, and in turn the cattle get finished sooner. This can be a good thing, but in most cases these cattle get fed longer than they should be and then the yield grades rise and we now have a higher % or yield grade 4's and 5's.
In the 90's the carcasses seemed to be a little better than today. I feel that was due to using either bigger framed straight Angus (not huge) or when they cross bred cattle They were 1/2 continental and 1/2 english. I have always thought the F1 cross is the best. Now it seems the colleges, magazines, and associations are pushing for smaller frames and 3 or 4 way crosses. While the packers are wanting bigger ones. The feeders know how to feed cattle but when all different shapes and sizes come into their lot and they are feeding 30,000 + head each day, they do not have time or can't afford to re-teach everyone, so most of the cattle are all fed the same and this is where the problems come from.
A typical straight bred steer should kill at or near his dams mature weight if it was never background fed. Lots of cows way 1100 to 1300lbs, but the feeder wants to kill at 1300+ because they sell pounds. We as ranchers and feeders need to meet in the middle somwhere to try to fix the rising yield grades.
MikeC":1y0tdrut said:
And I was gtting all interested in your post and this thread, OH well
Just out of curiosity, would it kill you to be involved in a thread where you dont say something negative about Angus.
PS: It may be true it may not be, regardless your friend saying it is doesnt make it so. I know he runs a feed lot, so what? :lol:
So let me see if I understand...what we're supposed to be doing is running bigger framed cows (that take more feed to maintain) so we produce bigger framed calves for the feedlots?!?!
That sounds to me like the tail wagging the dog...and is the very reason why I sell all of my calves private treaty to folks who are looking for the product I produce-moderate framed animals that can be finished on grass (if they choose) at 1100-1200 lbs. My cows stay fat on forage alone and I like it that way. Plus I have almost no calving problems-it works for me!
That sounds to me like the tail wagging the dog...and is the very reason why I sell all of my calves private treaty to folks who are looking for the product I produce-moderate framed animals that can be finished on grass (if they choose) at 1100-1200 lbs. My cows stay fat on forage alone and I like it that way. Plus I have almost no calving problems-it works for me!
I didn't say make big cows. I just think they don't have to be small, plus by having an F1 cross, like a Char on some straight Angus cows, this will increase your kill weights. Or these cattle should be background a little more.
CAB accepting YG 4's is not necessarily negative.
It shows that demand for product is at an all time high.
That is a good thing for Angus, isn't it?
How would you know they are being fed right, (or more importantly, "How Long") until after they are harvested unless they employ frame score usage and ultrasound in their program?
There are only a handful of feeders doing this now. These folks have been doing it for years.
Angus bashing? In MY perfect world, a herd of Red Angus cows with a Char bull on them would be heaven. :lol: Seriously!
MikeC":21ndzyfc said:
Sorry, I didnt mean Angus bashing I meant CAB bashing. It wasnt what you said it was the way you said it.
You would know they werent being fed right for your animals after the fist time you used them. I wouldnt go back.
I would also ask them how they divide their pens. If they arent dividing like animals at all, they wouldnt even get the first try. My bottom line is that it is possible to properly feed out a asmaller framed animal. If they cant or wont, then I would go someplace that would if I was retaining ownership.
BRG, boy, you better pull your head out of your A$$ and remember where you live.
You just keep kidding yourself on what the feedlots want and what the rail wants, and your put yourself out of business.
Your kind of cattle will not work under "ranch" conditions.
I've tried some of the bulls that figure heavy in your pedigrees. They utterly fail under anything other than "ideal" circumstances.
Sorry man, I've listened to the whole spiel. Those big ba$tards you run are getting lucky right where you are in an in your area. I can move only 100 miles South of you and watch them fail. What you are doing might work right where you are, but you have to know that your grass is pretty dang thick there. What you are doing isn't going to work for ranchers too far west of you.
Keep serving the gain and carcass weight gods, you'll get bit hard enough.
As too your arguments, they are feedlot and packer mentaility hogwash. In one paragraph, you are saying the smaller ones get fed too hard, and get fat. Then in the next, you say how well the feedlots can handle cattle, and know what they are doing. You contradict yourself.
Then you talk about "meeting in the middle", but you obviously don't have any contention with packers and feeders wanting bigger carcasses, and being OK with NOT fighting the 1000 pound carcass deal. Sorry man, but 1000 pound carcasses, 1650 pound cows to make them, are not the "middle". You are taking their "maximum, ideal" and calling it your "middle, ideal".
You are serving this "Dan" fellow, and you don't know it. Somehow, he has convinced you that "his customer making money, period", is the name of the game for YOU.
I bet he loves to drink your whiskey. He tells you what maximizes his profit, ignores your cow cost, and you serve him.
Any idiot know that bigger ones make more money. Every time they want them bigger, the ranchers costs go up. End of that story. Most ranches are already in the area of increasing marginal cost, so these "new ideals" are even more deadly to profit than the last set of ideals.
Wake up. Or at least admit you want to raise terminal Red Angus and go for it. You are losing productivity anyway, so may as well just go for it.
mtnman
You just keep kidding yourself on what the feedlots want and what the rail wants, and your put yourself out of business.
Your kind of cattle will not work under "ranch" conditions.
I've tried some of the bulls that figure heavy in your pedigrees. They utterly fail under anything other than "ideal" circumstances.
Sorry man, I've listened to the whole spiel. Those big ba$tards you run are getting lucky right where you are in an in your area. I can move only 100 miles South of you and watch them fail. What you are doing might work right where you are, but you have to know that your grass is pretty dang thick there. What you are doing isn't going to work for ranchers too far west of you.
Keep serving the gain and carcass weight gods, you'll get bit hard enough.
As too your arguments, they are feedlot and packer mentaility hogwash. In one paragraph, you are saying the smaller ones get fed too hard, and get fat. Then in the next, you say how well the feedlots can handle cattle, and know what they are doing. You contradict yourself.
Then you talk about "meeting in the middle", but you obviously don't have any contention with packers and feeders wanting bigger carcasses, and being OK with NOT fighting the 1000 pound carcass deal. Sorry man, but 1000 pound carcasses, 1650 pound cows to make them, are not the "middle". You are taking their "maximum, ideal" and calling it your "middle, ideal".
You are serving this "Dan" fellow, and you don't know it. Somehow, he has convinced you that "his customer making money, period", is the name of the game for YOU.
I bet he loves to drink your whiskey. He tells you what maximizes his profit, ignores your cow cost, and you serve him.
Any idiot know that bigger ones make more money. Every time they want them bigger, the ranchers costs go up. End of that story. Most ranches are already in the area of increasing marginal cost, so these "new ideals" are even more deadly to profit than the last set of ideals.
Wake up. Or at least admit you want to raise terminal Red Angus and go for it. You are losing productivity anyway, so may as well just go for it.
mtnman
I understand what you are saying BRG and it makes sense to me but Chris H posted some articles on the (Marbling in Serious Decline) post that contradics you're theory. It said in one article that younger fat cattle have less backfat. It also said younger cattle can have as much marbling. I'm not sure I buy all that but it was based on a scientific study.
I've heard cattle graded alot better years and years ago when more were killed as three year olds.
I've heard cattle graded alot better years and years ago when more were killed as three year olds.
Mike, Im not sure who you are quoting other than me, but I wasnt saying that any particular feeder wasnt dividing them, I was responding to the theory that they dont have the time or money to divide them. If a feeder didnt, I would move on.
Ned Jr.":25lhzsbc said:
But keeping cattle until they are 3 year olds is an expensive endeavor. Plus we don't have the land base we had back then and land wasn't nearly as expensive.
I see what you're saying, but we can get our genetics to make it work now.
mtnman":1mmezxgz said:
Pull my head out of my A$$!!???!!! Listen here bud, you have never seen my cattle and you have never been to my ranch!!! You have no idea what so ever what will or what won't work for me or my customers. We are on the worst drought we have ever seen and our cows are fat. They are not big cows like you say, but medium. But then again how would you know, you only say or think I do these things. You say they won't work in ranch conditions. Our cattle run on the strictest ranch condition their is. Winter graze with a little protein, no feed of any kind in the summer, and when we calve we only check once a day, so don't tell me they don't work under real ranch conditions. They run on 12,000 acres and we only use horses and cowboys. If that isn't a real ranch then I guess you are right.
100 miles south of me and they will melt???? I guess none of my customers know what they are doing then there either. Why is it when we ask you where you are from or where your ranch is you won't tell us, but yet you sure point out that where we live you can't do it that way.
I never once said that we should be raising 1000lbs carcasses. Yes that is what the packers want, but none of us can afford to feed those kind of cattle. I am not the idiot you think I am. But all it would take is cross a 1200lbs cow with a teminal Char and wallaa, 1300lbs carcass. (Just an example for you, pal)
So you say I am raising terminal angus. Again, an assumption since you have never even seen any of my cattle. But I guess you must be right, that is why I have people calling for our commercial and registered females and our customers as well.
Those thoughts of my theory was just that, my thoughts. I am not telling everyone to go out and do it. That would be dumb, but what I am saying is the feedlot is our customer and their customer is the packers while the packers customer is the consumer. If we don't make our customers happy, we won't have these customers anymore.
So from now on I suggest that you know what the he77 you are talking about before you talk about my operation.
SaskHerf
Well-known member
These 1000 lbs carcasses seem awfully big to me, talked with a packer and they said when they get that big the cuts of meat that come out of them are too big(too costly) for the average consumer to buy. Maybe i'm wrong but just telling you what i've been told.
