Moderate sized cows

Help Support CattleToday:

************* said:
Boot Jack Bulls said:
I'm surprised you have found that set-up preferable BH. We had the same and ended up scrapping the bars after repeated repairs (manufacturer repaired). With bigger cows like you have (not a dig, just a fact), I'm surprised you have not run into issues with them also. After using both the load bars and the trough style (also needed repeated manufacturer repairs), we went to a Rice Lake Weighing Systems platform and read-out. Super heavy to move and not cheap, but it has never missed a beat in 10 years, is dead on accurate (certified every couple of years), and I like the big flat platform. I weigh everything from dogs to horses and feed stuffs on it.

I bought the most heavy duty load bars that Tru Test offered. So far I have not had a single issue with them.

Overall, I'm pretty happy with the Priefert S04 chute and load bars, but....

Moving forward we are going to build an entirely new working facility, and will be going with a Silencer chute and a scale setup like you describe. I've seen the Silencer on a few occasions and I am sold.

I can't justify a Silencer for what I do, but they are awesome indeed. If I ran more than my usual 15 bulls, it may be worth the expense. My current chute has done the job for years, and will likely be all I need in the future. If I could wave a wand, I would make the base width about 4 inches wider. I just don't need the hydraulics a Silencer has.....
 
Boot Jack Bulls said:
************* said:
Boot Jack Bulls said:
I'm surprised you have found that set-up preferable BH. We had the same and ended up scrapping the bars after repeated repairs (manufacturer repaired). With bigger cows like you have (not a dig, just a fact), I'm surprised you have not run into issues with them also. After using both the load bars and the trough style (also needed repeated manufacturer repairs), we went to a Rice Lake Weighing Systems platform and read-out. Super heavy to move and not cheap, but it has never missed a beat in 10 years, is dead on accurate (certified every couple of years), and I like the big flat platform. I weigh everything from dogs to horses and feed stuffs on it.

I bought the most heavy duty load bars that Tru Test offered. So far I have not had a single issue with them.

Overall, I'm pretty happy with the Priefert S04 chute and load bars, but....

Moving forward we are going to build an entirely new working facility, and will be going with a Silencer chute and a scale setup like you describe. I've seen the Silencer on a few occasions and I am sold.

I can't justify a Silencer for what I do, but they are awesome indeed. If I ran more than my usual 15 bulls, it may be worth the expense. My current chute has done the job for years, and will likely be all I need in the future. If I could wave a wand, I would make the base width about 4 inches wider. I just don't need the hydraulics a Silencer has.....

I figure that as often as my cattle are in the chute that the hydraulics would work for me long term.
 
For me, it just the opposite. My bulls are in the chute at least once every two weeks when they are home. The fact that they are in the barn so frequently just being handled makes the hydraulics something I can live without. My Maxum will be 10 in just a couple of months and crossed the scale at 2500 pounds this spring. He only needs the chute for his BSE each year. Otherwise, he is clipped, bathed and vaccinated loose in a small(ish) pen. The vast majority of the time, I am working stock with only my 5 year old daughter at home with me, so if they don't work easy anyway, they grow wheels in a hurry!
But, for a breeder with larger numbers, I can definitely see the appeal of a Silencer.
 
Boot Jack Bulls said:
For me, it just the opposite. My bulls are in the chute at least once every two weeks when they are home. The fact that they are in the barn so frequently just being handled makes the hydraulics something I can live without. My Maxum will be 10 in just a couple of months and crossed the scale at 2500 pounds this spring. He only needs the chute for his BSE each year. Otherwise, he is clipped, bathed and vaccinated loose in a small(ish) pen. The vast majority of the time, I am working stock with only my 5 year old daughter at home with me, so if they don't work easy anyway, they grow wheels in a hurry!
But, for a breeder with larger numbers, I can definitely see the appeal of a Silencer.

Working stock alone with a 5 year old at home. My hats off to you. Impressed! 👏👏👏
 
I wish I could take the credit! I am lucky to have excellent facilities, docile cattle, superb horses and one darn good right hand girl!
 
I have never tried to tell anyone how to do their business or what to buy and won't start now. We still have a few old manual chutes scattered in pastures we use for small jobs. It is usually just me and 76 y/o lady doing much of the work. She bought a Cattlelac hydraulic chute around 4 years ago. Now that we have it would hate to go back to working them with a manual chute. So much easier for us. I worked thousands in a manual chute and they are still good chutes to work in. Again it is a personal decision each breeder has to make. Similar to a Polaris Ranger. She has one and never thought I would use it much. Use it more than anything. Use it to spray rough pastures I can't access amy other way, to build and replace fence along with many other uses. Not an absolute neccessity but sure handy to have.
 
Jeanne - Simme Valley said:
Back to the study. This is a little deceiving. The frame scores were at weaning. Yes, a frame score 4 at weaning "should" be a 4 frame score at maturity. BUT, these weights sound off - not the offspring carcass weights - the weights of the "mature" cows. Cattle that are stunted while nursing, can be a lot smaller frame score at weaning, and then with proper nutrition, can grow into their normal frame score. I sure would have liked to know the mature frame score. That would be a lot of tanks running around with no legs.
We've tracked the opposite. It depends on how they are developed after weaning. FS at weaning is going to be more accurate than mature FS.
 
************* said:
callmefence said:
You'd think they'd be more worried with what grows along the backbone....
In all seriousness. Does anyone see the advantage in trying to turn the Angus breed into these giant and overweight outlier's. That for the most part are going to be of poorer quality than their smaller counterparts.

I mean we already have large framed heavy muscling cattle to fill this niche.
Where the black Angus has long been known as a moderate framed animal that produces a quality and perfect sized steak. The Angus had reined king of that. I would say if you want to improve on the black Angus. Make him smaller.
With the even better marbling waygu

They were small at one point, and people complained, and worked tirelessly to make them big, now that they are big, they want them small, or they cross them with other breeds to put "muscle" on them.

It's ridiculous.

I've yet to talk to anyone in commercial that has ever asked. "Do you have a bull that will assure me of low weaning weights?" Never! In fact it's the first thing they ask about. You guys must be a different group entirely. When someone comes out to look at a bull, they sure don't gravitate towards the smallest bulls of the bunch. In fact the smaller ones are the hardest ones to sell.
They were small at one point,
In the 1960's.
 
There are those who want the smaller more traditional bull for either grass finishing and/or moderating replacement size. This would be about 20% of the cow/calf operations in my area. The issue I have is when you give up some steer weaning weight to get moderate replacements, you have now increased the cost of those replacements due to the lower value of the steers.

Is buying in moderate females, then breeding them terminal after they mature, a practical way for conventional producers to reduce the upfront time and cost of becoming more efficient?
 
Stocker Steve said:
There are those who want the smaller more traditional bull for either grass finishing and/or moderating replacement size. This would be about 20% of the cow/calf operations in my area. The issue I have is when you give up some steer weaning weight to get moderate replacements, you have now increased the cost of those replacements due to the lower value of the steers.

Is buying in moderate females, then breeding them terminal after they mature, a practical way for conventional producers to reduce the upfront time and cost of becoming more efficient?

Good question
 
callmefence said:
elkwc said:
callmefence said:
Gotcha...I wonder who came up with that
Don't even make sense.

Guess you have never used a hatchet

I've actually got one in the truck box. It has no resemblance to a cows azz.

It does to many cattlemen. It is wider and narrows to a point like many Angus and Herefords. Their hind legs will fit in the same post hole.
 
Jeanne - Simme Valley said:
Back to the study. This is a little deceiving. The frame scores were at weaning. Yes, a frame score 4 at weaning "should" be a 4 frame score at maturity. BUT, these weights sound off - not the offspring carcass weights - the weights of the "mature" cows. Cattle that are stunted while nursing, can be a lot smaller frame score at weaning, and then with proper nutrition, can grow into their normal frame score. I sure would have liked to know the mature frame score. That would be a lot of tanks running around with no legs.

Jeanne I agree. I desire mature frame size and feel it is needed in order for this study to be beneficial to me. With all of the current push by breeders for top EPD's many times the yearling frame score isn't close to the mature frame size. I've seen it go both ways based on environment, mothers milk production and extra feed. I have a bull now that was a 7 at a yearling and a 5.5 as a 3 y/o. Have another similar. Then have seen those who had limited feed who matured a lot larger than their yearling score. There are so many influences that can influence a yearling frame score I don't pay much attention to them. I look at the sire and dam and form my own opinion.
 
With this discussion about moderate cows I would like to hear others opinions on what they consider moderate. I have found it varies greatly from breeder to breeder. Some feel it is frame size only, others think both frame size and weight. I've seen 1,400 called moderate and I've seen 1,150 called moderate. I've seen frame size 4.5 called moderate by some and short by others. I've seen frame size 6.0 alled moderate. Would like too see the opinions of those on this board.
 
************* said:
Or a bull like this?

https://youtu.be/3lHv6oy90CQ

Reminds me of some of my old college bar nights....If I drink enough, that thing over there might start looking better. Not the kind of bull my cows will have breakfast with.
 
Hmmm - I posted but it disappeared.
Ebenezer: "We've tracked the opposite. It depends on how they are developed after weaning. FS at weaning is going to be more accurate than mature FS."
I do not understand this statement.
Frame score at a young/younger age is an "indication" of what the animal will be as an adult/mature animal. This is only accurate as a prediction, if the animal is on the same level of nutrition from birth to adult age. The only reason you would get a frame score at a young age is to give you an idea what it SHOULD be as an adult.
TT: I like your descriptions LOL
 
BCompton53,

Maybe you have your beer goggles on right now, because here is a photo of one of his many daughters. Most people in their wildest dreams couldn't produce a dam like this, much less have her in production on their operation.

Net Worth daughters are superb, and if your cows would look the other way, that would make me question their maternal instincts.

[image]346[/image]
 

Latest posts

Top