Murray Grey people...question..

[Wisteria Farms]

OK...I've owned Grey's for 2 years... have learned everything I possibly can about them (realize there's more)...but feeling good. Love my breed.

Now, we keep passing by this farm and he has Angus plus a few head of....???? The feed bunker is right on the road so we stop and are looking at these ????
Husband says, "Do you think they're Murray Grey?"...I say, "I wouldn't think so...they're probably a Charolais/Angus cross" HOWEVER, we look and look and they have the dark pigment. So, my question is....what am I missing? How (as a Murray Grey breeder) can I look at those animals and say they are/are not Greys? I know the Murray Grey will be shorter legged (most of the time) but honestly I was stumped standing there looking at those animals. So we pulled in and asked and yes, they WERE Char/Angus crosses.

Please don't anyone "ATTACK" me with the "Murray Greys are nothing but a Charolais/Angus cross" because they ARE NOT. This is an honest question about the difference between the two....Thanks.

 

[Frankie]

If you're only discussing looks, there probably isn't a great deal of difference. What you can emphasize with your breed is that they have a history and should be more consistent than a crossbred animal.

 

[Wisteria Farms]

If you're only discussing looks, there probably isn't a great deal of difference. What you can emphasize with your breed is that they have a history and should be more consistent than a crossbred animal.

Frankie, yes, going off of looks, the Charolais should impart a larger frame but when you have some larger frame Murray Greys (as I do) it can get confusing.
I know genetically they are very different...but in breeding...Murray Greys will always breed true. What does a Char/Angus x Char/Angus do? My concern...(and now my mind is just wondering here) but, we now have "Grey Angus"...and I'm assuming a "Grey Angus" is a Char/Angus cross. Am I right? Well, due to the power of the Charolais and Angus Associations and their ability to promote these new "Grey Angus", I'm worried that we Murray Grey people are going to get stamped out if we don't kick it in gear and do some serious promoting of what makes a Murray Grey unique/superior. I also think (and I'm going to get in trouble for saying this) but the split in MG organizations is only hurting our breed. There need to be combined efforts with this regard. Thoughts?

 

[mnmtranching]

It's pretty common to use Char bulls on Black Angus cows. At least in the North country. The calves will be white, tan, red and smokie not gray, that's another cross. At the sales I go to the grays are usually a Simmental or Gelbvieh cross.

I will take some photos.

 

[hrbelgians]

I also think (and I'm going to get in trouble for saying this) but the split in MG organizations is only hurting our breed. There need to be combined efforts with this regard. Thoughts?[/quote]

Well Wisteria,
I will get into trouble right along with you because...............
You are dead on, this split looks just plain silly as an outsider. Good cattle but....................
Whats the point????????

 

[Frankie]

If you're only discussing looks, there probably isn't a great deal of difference. What you can emphasize with your breed is that they have a history and should be more consistent than a crossbred animal.

Frankie, yes, going off of looks, the Charolais should impart a larger frame but when you have some larger frame Murray Greys (as I do) it can get confusing.
I know genetically they are very different...but in breeding...Murray Greys will always breed true. What does a Char/Angus x Char/Angus do? My concern...(and now my mind is just wondering here) but, we now have "Grey Angus"...and I'm assuming a "Grey Angus" is a Char/Angus cross. Am I right? Well, due to the power of the Charolais and Angus Associations and their ability to promote these new "Grey Angus", I'm worried that we Murray Grey people are going to get stamped out if we don't kick it in gear and do some serious promoting of what makes a Murray Grey unique/superior. I also think (and I'm going to get in trouble for saying this) but the split in MG organizations is only hurting our breed. There need to be combined efforts with this regard. Thoughts?

I think you can rest assured that the American Angus Assn is not going to be promoting "Grey Angus." I don't know about the Charolais Assn. I raise Angus, so I don't have a dog in this fight, but the strength of any "breed" is the ability to consistently pass on their gentic merit. IMO, crossbreeds can't do that. I remember well when the big split happened in the Murray Grey group. I told people on this board who were involved that they were making a mistake. :???: And now I'm going to leave this thread before I get smacked around. Good luck.

 

[Wisteria Farms]

Frankie...I won't let anyone smack you around needlessly... :lol2: But that's ok....I do thank you for your input.
I realize there's a lot I don't know but people need to understand that there's a lot I DO KNOW (probably because I bought my first cattle from the founders of MGF, then joined MGIA, then joined AMGA) and I'm of the opinion there are wonderful people on both sides of this fence who only want the same things. There are very few people involved in any of these organizations that I would have something negative to say. But, back to the topic...If the Angus Association is not promoting "Grey Angus" then who is?

 

[Frankie]

Frankie...I won't let anyone smack you around needlessly... :lol2: But that's ok....I do thank you for your input.
I realize there's a lot I don't know but people need to understand that there's a lot I DO KNOW (probably because I bought my first cattle from the founders of MGF, then joined MGIA, then joined AMGA) and I'm of the opinion there are wonderful people on both sides of this fence who only want the same things. There are very few people involved in any of these organizations that I would have something negative to say. But, back to the topic...If the Angus Association is not promoting "Grey Angus" then who is?

Thank you. I've been smacked around enough here that it really doesn't bother me too much. :lol:

Where have you seen anyome promoting "Grey Angus?" Probably the most used breed in any crossbreeding program is Angus. Several breeds are promoting their breed crossed with Angus: MainTainer, Balancer, LimFlex. But the American Angus Association is still only promoting registered Angus. "Smokey" calves (generally Angus/Char cross) are now acceptable for the Certified Angus Beef program, but only if they carry the AngusSource tag affirming they were sired by a registered Angus bull.

 

[Wisteria Farms]

Nevermind...I got my answer (regarding Grey Angus).

 

[Keren]

A few years back there was a move here to disband the MG association and have our animals registered through the angus society as 'grey angus'

What a load of absolute bullflop and thank god we managed to stop it

And you are dead right, CharxAngus will look pretty much like a mg. Unless they inherit the ugly old charry head lol

As far as true breeding I have no idea what would happen if you bred a smokie to a smokie

 

[OK Jeanne]

I also think (and I'm going to get in trouble for saying this) but the split in MG organizations is only hurting our breed. There need to be combined efforts with this regard. Thoughts?

I believe it was in late 99 that a small group of people in the American MG assoc re-arranged their registry requirements so that a breeder
would have to pay $20 per year per cow to MAINTAIN registration of that cow. This was in addition to the $50 per
year member dues. That might not make very much difference to a producer that had 5-10 cows---but when you start adding it up
for breeders that have 30 or more cows, it certainly would be a financial whammy. In effect, it would have turned many purebred breeders
into commercial breeders overnight. Membership rebelled, and therefore MGIA was established. The AMGA group changed their
rules after they had lost about half the membership. They now allow regular registrations as in the past, plus a different program for
those that want to pay this "cow tax". However, even with the changes, the AMGA costs of membership and registrations are at
least double, and maybe triple, than the costs associated with Murray Grey International Association. The MGIA does not finance a
national show, and does not have any paid employees. It was designed to be a low-cost registry service for the membership.

 

[Wisteria Farms]

I also think (and I'm going to get in trouble for saying this) but the split in MG organizations is only hurting our breed. There need to be combined efforts with this regard. Thoughts?

I believe it was in late 99 that a small group of people in the American MG assoc re-arranged their registry requirements so that a breeder
would have to pay $20 per year per cow to MAINTAIN registration of that cow. This was in addition to the $50 per
year member dues. That might not make very much difference to a producer that had 5-10 cows---but when you start adding it up
for breeders that have 30 or more cows, it certainly would be a financial whammy. In effect, it would have turned many purebred breeders
into commercial breeders overnight. Membership rebelled, and therefore MGIA was established. The AMGA group changed their
rules after they had lost about half the membership. They now allow regular registrations as in the past, plus a different program for
those that want to pay this "cow tax". However, even with the changes, the AMGA costs of membership and registrations are at
least double, and maybe triple, than the costs associated with Murray Grey International Association. The MGIA does not finance a
national show, and does not have any paid employees. It was designed to be a low-cost registry service for the membership.

OK JEANNE...No one is denying what you have posted on here before...however there are many of us that see "cost of registration" as a minor issue that can/should be negotiated in order to keep everyone within the same association and moving forward on a united front. Also, I have registered my animals one time...and I register my new calves as they are born. I'm not sure where you get per cow per year unless you are talking about being a part of Breedplan. Breedplan is maintaining a database of EPD's for the producer that uses that tool. I AM a member of Breedplan...it is a marketing tool offered by the association and requires substantial data entry..thereby justifying the cost. It is OPTIONAL and NOT REQUIRED. I will say for the 1000th time...I have NOTHING against either association which is why I can't believe that something from back in 1999 (10 years ago) are preventing these two groups from getting together and trying to really move forward.

 

[Wisteria Farms]

Here is the fee schedule from the AMGA...

http://www.murraygreybeefcattle.com/feeschedule.htm
You have the option to pay what you want (if you are a member of Breedplan, you'll pay more). Yes, the cheapest option is to register your animal for $20 and do no more...but lets take a survey..what does Angus, Charolais, Simmental, Hereford etc. etc. charge to register animals? We are NOT out of line.
Yes, we pay for a National show. We can't neglect that there ARE Murray Grey breeders who like to show. Nor can we ignore that shows are extremely helpful in getting the breed out there where high concentrations of people can see them.
As for having a paid employee...anyone is welcome to request a copy of the 2008 Treasurer's report to see just how much this employee is paid...
The truth is, there are a LOT of people (myself included) donating time and money to move this breed forward and it seems like a couple of people with old "grudges" refuse to look at what's best for the BREED.

 

[gberry]

Here is the fee schedule from the AMGA...

http://www.murraygreybeefcattle.com/feeschedule.htm
You have the option to pay what you want (if you are a member of Breedplan, you'll pay more). Yes, the cheapest option is to register your animal for $20 and do no more...but lets take a survey..what does Angus, Charolais, Simmental, Hereford etc. etc. charge to register animals? We are NOT out of line.
Yes, we pay for a National show. We can't neglect that there ARE Murray Grey breeders who like to show. Nor can we ignore that shows are extremely helpful in getting the breed out there where high concentrations of people can see them.
As for having a paid employee...anyone is welcome to request a copy of the 2008 Treasurer's report to see just how much this employee is paid...
The truth is, there are a LOT of people (myself included) donating time and money to move this breed forward and it seems like a couple of people with old "grudges" refuse to look at what's best for the BREED.

Wisteria, you have hit on the biggest problem raising Murray Greys, in my opinion. This split in the registries cripples Murray Grey breeders. It's no problem for folks like OKJeanne who have developed a good market for grassfed beef and can easily market their animals off the farm to a high paying customer. It does become a problem for someone such as me who is trying to grow their herd.

You realize to get any breeding stock registerable with AMGA, you have to travel 500 or so miles. Of course, you could buy some animals from the MGIA breeders who are closer, but have no way of obtaining EPDs on those animals as no records are reported.

It seems to me the common sense thing to do would be to merge the two organizations again and work out a fee and program schedule that would be reasonable for everyone. Unfortunately, it is now much more an issue of pride than practicality and that is hard to deal with. The loudest promoters have chosen a side and are not going to change or give in one inch. I for one would not buy animals who could not at least be enrolled in a program to generate EPDs, but I know that is not the consensus view. It does make it hard to see good bulls such as the ones posted recently by OKJeanne and know they aren't going to be usable in my program.

 

[Wisteria Farms]

Qberry,
I'm sorry I've been outside with this onset of good weather and didn't see your post.. great post. You understand the problem 100%. It is my understanding that we have gained some MGIA members...but I too would like to see a merge. However, again, it boils down to "you get what you pay for"...the recordkeeping for Breedplan does take time and I'm sorry, the fees that AMGA charges ARE NOT exorbitant.

I too have traveled 10 hours to purchase breeding stock (and I would travel 20 if it meant greatly improving my herd)...however, with the new promotion campaign from the AMGA (and with our numbers growing) I hope there's a day that you won't have to travel that far. I'm really sorry.

Please know, we bought our bull last year from the Midland Bull Test...(I have no interest in this so this is just honest, free advice)...at Midland there is going to be a sale on April....(I think 6th or 9th..will have look)...anyway, these are AMGA bulls that have been tested and you can get their EPD's...This is a FANTASTIC way to get a bull and the shipping is very very reasonable. The reason is because after the sale they send out trailer loads of animals across the U.S. and the shipping is shared by all...H Diamond Cattle (Justin and MaryAnn Holloway) are who we bought our bull from last year. They have several nice bulls in that sale as well as Eagle Rock (who are MaryAnn's parents). If you are looking, I suggest you go there.

If you have any other questions, please feel free to ask...we'll try to help you any way we can.
p.s. I just looked in my book...are you Chipley?

 

[MO_cows]

The splintering of the MG associations probably has held back the progress of the breed. Sounds like AMGA has fees based on cow inventory, like Complete Herd Reporting (CHR) in the Tarentaise assn. Red Angus uses this fee structure, and a few others. When ATA adopted it, there was a big uproar and some breeders got their panties in a wad, for lack of a better term, and dropped out of the registry or even started registering their cattle in Canada. They refused to understand that the annual fee on the cow replaced the registration fee on her calf, and with ATA, it even includes the first transfer. There was analysis done on several different size herds using actual data from previous year's activity that proved it was nearly the same annual cost to the breeders, even saving them a little money in most cases. But who needs the facts when you already have a good head of steam built up? lol

The Beef Improvement Federation recommended an inventory-based fee structure back in the 1990's to enhance the accuracy of EPD. When it costs more to report the bottom end of the calf crop, only the most conciensious breeders will do so, and over time this causes the whole breed's performance numbers to become skewed. So they figured out that you even the playing field by assessing the same fee on all the cows in the herd and encouraging all the calves to get reported. Which makes for better EPD's and the better performing cattle really stand out from the crowd because the low end was in the database to compare them to.

Hard to argue with this logic but most of the breed registries didn't adopt this fee structure, most likely due to the political fallout and misunderstandings just like OKJeanne expressed, perceiving it as a "COW TAX".

Sorry to go on so long, wanted to try to explain the CHR fee structure since doesn't seem well known. And, hope the Murray Grey breeders can mend the fences someday for the advancement of their breed. What a mess for the breeders, to want to buy good breeding stock but what if they are in the wrong registry!

 

[Wisteria Farms]

Mo_cows...
Thanks for your input...

 

[gberry]

The splintering of the MG associations probably has held back the progress of the breed. Sounds like AMGA has fees based on cow inventory, like Complete Herd Reporting (CHR) in the Tarentaise assn. Red Angus uses this fee structure, and a few others. When ATA adopted it, there was a big uproar and some breeders got their panties in a wad, for lack of a better term, and dropped out of the registry or even started registering their cattle in Canada. They refused to understand that the annual fee on the cow replaced the registration fee on her calf, and with ATA, it even includes the first transfer. There was analysis done on several different size herds using actual data from previous year's activity that proved it was nearly the same annual cost to the breeders, even saving them a little money in most cases. But who needs the facts when you already have a good head of steam built up? lol

The Beef Improvement Federation recommended an inventory-based fee structure back in the 1990's to enhance the accuracy of EPD. When it costs more to report the bottom end of the calf crop, only the most conciensious breeders will do so, and over time this causes the whole breed's performance numbers to become skewed. So they figured out that you even the playing field by assessing the same fee on all the cows in the herd and encouraging all the calves to get reported. Which makes for better EPD's and the better performing cattle really stand out from the crowd because the low end was in the database to compare them to.

Hard to argue with this logic but most of the breed registries didn't adopt this fee structure, most likely due to the political fallout and misunderstandings just like OKJeanne expressed, perceiving it as a "COW TAX".

Sorry to go on so long, wanted to try to explain the CHR fee structure since doesn't seem well known. And, hope the Murray Grey breeders can mend the fences someday for the advancement of their breed. What a mess for the breeders, to want to buy good breeding stock but what if they are in the wrong registry!

Best I can understand, this is the exact problem. Even though the system has now been modified I don't think there is any resolution in the near future.

Wisteria, I am in Chipley. We have started using AI and hopefully will be able to continue this as we can see some significant improvements in the calves. We may be looking for a cleanup bull as detailed in my thread on the health and nutrition board.

 

[msscamp]

So, my question is....what am I missing? How (as a Murray Grey breeder) can I look at those animals and say they are/are not Greys?

Look at the bone structure/frame. Unless they are crossed with something to make them heavier boned, Murray Greys are much lighter boned than Charlois(sp?). In my experience, leg length has little to nothing to do with the difference, though. We had short-legged MG's, we also had long-legged MG's - most of them were in between.

 

[OK Jeanne]

[/quote]

OK JEANNE...No one is denying what you have posted on here before...however there are many of us that see "cost of registration" as a minor issue that can/should be negotiated in order to keep everyone within the same association and moving forward on a united front. Also, I have registered my animals one time...and I register my new calves as they are born. I'm not sure where you get per cow per year unless you are talking about being a part of Breedplan. Breedplan is maintaining a database of EPD's for the producer that uses that tool. I AM a member of Breedplan...it is a marketing tool offered by the association and requires substantial data entry..thereby justifying the cost. It is OPTIONAL and NOT REQUIRED. I will say for the 1000th time...I have NOTHING against either association which is why I can't believe that something from back in 1999 (10 years ago) are preventing these two groups from getting together and trying to really move forward.[/quote]

------------------------

How many cows do you run at Wisteria Farms?

For the first two years(and maybe more) that the "whole herd reporting" was initiated - it was REQUIRED, not optional. The basic reason was
that the people in charge wanted to use the breedplan system and wanted everyone to help pay for it, whether they wanted to use it or not.
It only became optional after they lost about half their membership(or more).

I'd hazard a safe guess that most, if not all, our membership has off-farm jobs/income. Additionally, it is obvious that most of our membership
are not interested in traveling the show circuit; for lack of time,money or interest. In that case, it is safe to assume that they do not want to
help pay the bill for those that do want to go the show circuit. Many of our members do find 4-H and FFA kids to show MG animals in the
local and regional fairs; but "breed promotion" is an obligation of the breeder, and not the association. Marketing your genetics is not going
to be done by an employee sitting in the association office. Marketing takes some personal initiative, creativity, and perhaps a good website.

MGIA was intended to be a low-cost way to maintain a registered herd. If we had a vote today, I can assure you that the membership
is not interested in doubling or tripling their annual cost of maintaining their registered herds. It is a pocketbook issue, having nothing
to do with pride. As the global economy slides off the cliff into depression, I suspect that more and more producers will be interested in finding ways to reduce their costs without giving up on registered cattle.

On the bright side, MGIA will accept into their registery animals that are previously/currently registered with AMGA, the Canadian, Australian,
and New Zealand associations. You only have to have a copy of those other papers along with the application. Here's a link to the
fee schedule: http://www.clrc.ca/47fees.pdf
and here's a link to the registration application: http://www.clrc.ca/47regapp.pdf

Note the figures are in Canadian dollars. If dues are paid to the usa bank account it is $20. The registration/transfer fee of $10 canadian
dollars was $7.00 us dollars when we first started---but it varies with the exchange rate; basically less than $10 us dollars.

The AMGA office has, in the past, accepted MGIA animals into their registry---but don't like to talk about it gberry. I think you have to
insist and promise not to advertise that fact.