New bull???

Help Support CattleToday:

Just a few weeks ago, the message seemed to be that the packers controlled everything and were destroying the beef industry. Seems like now the enemy is the AAA. I don't own any registered angus cattle or have specific knowledge of the AAA. But I am very familiar with the simmental association. Remember that the purpose of a breed association is to support the membership with record keeping of the pedigrees, provide information and data to the membership and to promote the breed. The breed associations do not select bulls that the members should use, do not select matings, do not promote certain genetic lines, do not determine the optimum sizes or characteristics. The members make those decisions. The members determine the direction of the breed by the decisions they make. That's the way I see it in the simmental breed. I am not aware that the AAA does those things or controls the bull selections and matings. If I am wrong, share some specific actions. CAB is a promotional program for angus. Promotional programs build on perceptions and brand identity. Why would the AAA not have programs to generate perceptions and brand identity that benefit their members?

As far as genetic diversity in cattle, there seems to be a lot of diversity based on what I see in the pictures of cattle posted here. How much diversity is needed? Does more diversity improve the quality and efficiency of beef cattle? Pork and poultry don't seem to have much genetic diversity now. But are more consistent and efficient than ever. Is that good or bad?

Difference with beef is the varying environmental issues. But the producer is responsible to make selections and decisions based on his conditions and needs. I don't see the breed associations doing that. Most producers probably don't have any direct contact with a breed association anyway.
 
@simme the breed associations don't necessarily control or dictate matings and pushing of certain cattle from that capacity. It is done by promoters, ie movers and shakers within the breed. Some breeders are very influential, as are sales reps, AI companies etc.
The big packing companies are the ones who control the cattle industry, market and all. The issues that people have with the AAA is on a different level.
 
simme said:
As far as genetic diversity in cattle, there seems to be a lot of diversity based on what I see in the pictures of cattle posted here. How much diversity is needed? Does more diversity improve the quality and efficiency of beef cattle?
Click to expand...
You understand that one of the attractions of crossbred cattle is in them having hybrid vigor, right? Within a breed the more diversity there is, the more vigor and resiliency there is in the breed. And if every animal you own shares ancestors, some close and others remote, but all from a diminishing gene pool, they are going to eventually lack diversity.

simme said:
Pork and poultry don't seem to have much genetic diversity now. But are more consistent and efficient than ever. Is that good or bad?
Click to expand...
We once had over 150 different strains of wheat that were commercially raised in this country. Now there are three we commonly use. A limited genetic inventory selected for superior traits is more efficient... but also more susceptible to catastrophic disease. You've heard about the problems with oranges, haven't you? Growers are scrambling to find older genetic strains so they can cross them with the new strains that are now disease prone and the trees are dying.
simme said:
But the producer is responsible to make selections and decisions based on his conditions and needs. I don't see the breed associations doing that. Most producers probably don't have any direct contact with a breed association anyway.
Click to expand...
We do bear some responsibility for our own selections and most if us don't have any formal training in researching bloodlines. We choose animals many times based on EPDs, visual characteristics, and/or popularity. As far as I have seen all genetic lines are completely mixed so there is only one genetic line overall in every breed. That could be done differently if the breed associations would limit availability of semen from distinct lines in a rotation or some other form of limited use. There are people with enough cattle of only one breed that they could close their herds to establish a distinct line. Of course there would still be people that wanted access regardless of how it affects long term productivity.

It's more complicated than the simple explanations I'm giving here.
 
Travlr said:
LOL... I'll pass on being anything Oscar Meyer unless it's an heir...

As to "how that hurts beef in general", I can tell you how.

Because of us using artificial insemination to improve our cattle (something we chase as the goal posts are moving), we tend to use top bulls to produce the top herds, and then eventually generating our commercial bulls and replacement heifers. So it's like a pyramid. Top .0000000001% of bulls produce the next tier in the pyramid which is the next .000000001% of a breed. They also get used in every tier below that second layer. When you get to commercial cattle most of the cows are related to the bulls even though they are many layers below the top tier animals.

This has led, and is leading, to a lack of genetic diversity, inbreeding, and genetic anomalies. I suspect that Black Angus are more inbred than any other breed, and yet they are being used to both produce the most popular replacement animals (due to only the color of their hide and the prices the color brings) and to produce black hides in other breeds so they can be competitive.

To their credit, the Angus organizations have identified and admitted there is a problem and they are implementing genetic testing on all top bulls and top cows that are used to flush eggs. But this is all a strategy to keep Black Angus the most profitable breed... only by making sure black cattle are the most profitable regardless of any real discernable difference in quality.

And to be fair, other breeds and those that produce them are also following the Angus model of limiting genetic availability by making the top tier of bulls as small as possible.

Aside from the genetic issues, one of the looming problems is that with a virtually identical genetic pool, any kind of lethal pathogen could potentially infect the entire population of animals that are closely related.
Click to expand...
A lot of truth in what you write Travlr, but Inbreeding has nothing to do with genetic anomalies. In fact what inbreeding will do is expose any hidden recessive genes. You seem have a lot more faith in genetic testing than I do, testing can only find known faults.

A number of years ago, and for a number of reasons, I started experimenting with using my own bulls. As a result I missed out on curly calf syndrome all the way to developmental duplication, I believe those are the first and the last genetic flaws announced by the AAA in modern times. Before that, trying to produce better calves for the kids to show, I would breed a few cows to bulls in the tank. Most of the time those AI calves were not keepers, this baffled me for years. For many years I had a $1,500 budget when bull shopping, any bull in the tank should be better than the bull I had in the pasture. But the calves proved different. So I did a lot of studying, and pondering. I am now damaged goods, a lunatic, for inbreeding my herd and may never sell a registered bull again.

However, a couple years ago we bred a few cows AI. Once again I was disappointed with the resulting calves, didn't keep a single one. So it appears, at this point anyway, I haven't repressed my calf crop. We are aware, maybe concerned, about getting too inbred, so last month in a larger experiment bred fifteen cows AI. Time will tell.

You talk about moving goalposts. I've witnessed show champions go from belt high, to taller than me, and other extremes. Forget that. Raise cattle that thrive on your farm or ranch. The goal, whether you're raising CAB eligible cattle or not, is still beef on the table. Healthy, nutritious, great tasting beef. And forget that low fat nonsense pushed by your government.
 
Travlr said:
As far as I have seen all genetic lines are completely mixed so there is only one genetic line overall in every breed. That could be done differently if the breed associations would limit availability of semen from distinct lines in a rotation or some other form of limited use.
Click to expand...
I appreciate the discussion, but I can't agree with any thought of a breed association limiting the availability of semen from a bull in order to control genetic diversity. Other than for incorrect parentage or genetic defects. Even then, only limits on registration of progeny - not selling of semen. Bulls are owned by individuals, partnerships and semen companies. The owners should be able to make decisions about semen availability and use of their bulls, not any breed association, or trade group or government.
In regard to genetic defects, aren't those naturally occurring mistakes in the dna that first occur in a specific animal at conception? Not sure the breed association can be held responsible for those happening. As problems are noticed and reported, the breed associations provide the coordinated effort to identify the problem, develop a test and identify affected animals and develop a program to isolate the problem. I don't think anyone can prevent these defects from first occurring. A big issue is the reluctance of breeders to report problems since there can be an economic impact for them. The defect can be spread quite a bit before the numbers reach the point that the problem can't be swept under the rug.

I believe there is more than one genetic line in each breed. Can the same be applied to people? Would we benefit from some rules and controls there?
 
The problem is that we would be so ill informed as to believe the taste of beef depends on the color of hair on the live animal.
This is a classic case of "I have seen the enemy and he is us!"
As far as quality of beef is concerned, [The black hide makes the meat taste better is the biggest lie since, "Thou shall not surely die."
[Eat beef, It's what's for dinner!"
 
sstterry said:
Interesting fact: All of the low-fat is healthy craze of the 60's - 90's was all based on studies funded and sponsored by the sugar industry.
Click to expand...
Interesting how beef consumption went down as obesity levels went up. And yet nearly fifty years after the food pyramid was introduced, we still are told to eat only three ounces of lean beef.
 
simme said:
I appreciate the discussion, but I can't agree with any thought of a breed association limiting the availability of semen from a bull in order to control genetic diversity. Other than for incorrect parentage or genetic defects. Even then, only limits on registration of progeny - not selling of semen. Bulls are owned by individuals, partnerships and semen companies. The owners should be able to make decisions about semen availability and use of their bulls, not any breed association, or trade group or government.
In regard to genetic defects, aren't those naturally occurring mistakes in the dna that first occur in a specific animal at conception? Not sure the breed association can be held responsible for those happening. As problems are noticed and reported, the breed associations provide the coordinated effort to identify the problem, develop a test and identify affected animals and develop a program to isolate the problem. I don't think anyone can prevent these defects from first occurring. A big issue is the reluctance of breeders to report problems since there can be an economic impact for them. The defect can be spread quite a bit before the numbers reach the point that the problem can't be swept under the rug.

I believe there is more than one genetic line in each breed. Can the same be applied to people? Would we benefit from some rules and controls there?
Click to expand...
There is a control of the association by a few and the people who serve as directors are not the average tom, dick and harry. I have been a member for 50+ years and the thought that the association serves the average member is a noble thought only. I can tell some stories and you will know some of the people. The AAA has not always played fairly. I have heard the stories of some elections with strong arm tactics and such. To the average joe, like me, to go to meeting on a regular basis or to play the politics are not worth it to me. If an average guy got on the board he would be a fish out of water. Associations are like governments: they exist to grow themselves. You do not have to believe me and you will probably do better overall to think the highest of AAA and move on. You mentioned defects: do you honestly think that the 2 or 3 herds that used the problem genetics for likely a decade or more didn't have a lot of defective calves and never disclosed the problem that the buyers of cattle and semen from them ended up reporting and getting exposed? We do not know because the AAA never investigated. Why not if they stand for the good of all members? Just saying.
 
Nick Wagner said:
A lot of truth in what you write Travlr, but Inbreeding has nothing to do with genetic anomalies. In fact what inbreeding will do is expose any hidden recessive genes. You seem have a lot more faith in genetic testing than I do, testing can only find known faults.

A number of years ago, and for a number of reasons, I started experimenting with using my own bulls. As a result I missed out on curly calf syndrome all the way to developmental duplication, I believe those are the first and the last genetic flaws announced by the AAA in modern times. Before that, trying to produce better calves for the kids to show, I would breed a few cows to bulls in the tank. Most of the time those AI calves were not keepers, this baffled me for years. For many years I had a $1,500 budget when bull shopping, any bull in the tank should be better than the bull I had in the pasture. But the calves proved different. So I did a lot of studying, and pondering. I am now damaged goods, a lunatic, for inbreeding my herd and may never sell a registered bull again.

However, a couple years ago we bred a few cows AI. Once again I was disappointed with the resulting calves, didn't keep a single one. So it appears, at this point anyway, I haven't repressed my calf crop. We are aware, maybe concerned, about getting too inbred, so last month in a larger experiment bred fifteen cows AI. Time will tell.

You talk about moving goalposts. I've witnessed show champions go from belt high, to taller than me, and other extremes. Forget that. Raise cattle that thrive on your farm or ranch. The goal, whether you're raising CAB eligible cattle or not, is still beef on the table. Healthy, nutritious, great tasting beef. And forget that low fat nonsense pushed by your government.
Click to expand...

Sorry... but inbreeding does in fact have a lot to do with anomalies. There are all kinds of examples in all kinds of species where inbreeding magnifies potential for problems... including in humans. I'm not saying it can't be done, and done to make improvements... but most people are playing with fire.

And the only faith I have in genetic testing is as opposed to not testing. It's better than nothing. But the real value is in the way it is used by an organization and in that I have little faith.

I've had great results from artificial insemination. Exceptional results... but I also advocate for raising and using home grown bulls. The current fascination for calving ease bulls at the expense of maternal characteristics is very interesting in how cattle have morphed over the years. I see a lot of cows now that throw small calves but they don't have the hips for larger ones. It's my personal opinion that I won't save replacement heifers from calving ease bulls. There are a lot of bad udders compared to former decades too. I suspect the udders are somehow tied to calving ease as well. But I'm just speculating here as I've never done any real study or experimentation relating to these traits. Just personal observation over time. I'm pretty sure that there are more calving problems now than there were in previous decades and it's not from bulls throwing big calves.

In any case I like what you've said. And I also agree about the fat "nonsense"... Why sugar gets a pass whenever talking about healthy food is beyond me.
 
simme said:
I appreciate the discussion, but I can't agree with any thought of a breed association limiting the availability of semen from a bull in order to control genetic diversity. Other than for incorrect parentage or genetic defects. Even then, only limits on registration of progeny - not selling of semen. Bulls are owned by individuals, partnerships and semen companies. The owners should be able to make decisions about semen availability and use of their bulls, not any breed association, or trade group or government.
In regard to genetic defects, aren't those naturally occurring mistakes in the dna that first occur in a specific animal at conception? Not sure the breed association can be held responsible for those happening. As problems are noticed and reported, the breed associations provide the coordinated effort to identify the problem, develop a test and identify affected animals and develop a program to isolate the problem. I don't think anyone can prevent these defects from first occurring. A big issue is the reluctance of breeders to report problems since there can be an economic impact for them. The defect can be spread quite a bit before the numbers reach the point that the problem can't be swept under the rug.

I believe there is more than one genetic line in each breed. Can the same be applied to people? Would we benefit from some rules and controls there?
Click to expand...
The problem is the limited gene pool and how it is becoming even less diverse... and the fact that the average breeder has nothing stopping them from following everyone else down the same path which is why the pool is getting smaller. We either self regulate or we damage the cattle. There is a point where our freedom to make choices might be better served by self-imposed limits and regulation meant to increase the health of our cattle... or we can choose the alternative.

I'm old enough to remember when people advocated for taking personal responsibility for their actions as part of the right to have freedom.
 
Last edited:
If you're looking for a black/red baldie for your cows, why not just buy a commercial bull from a guy you trust? Save you money over buying a registered bull to make commercial cross calves.
 
Ebenezer said:
There is a control of the association by a few and the people who serve as directors are not the average tom, dick and harry. I have been a member for 50+ years and the thought that the association serves the average member is a noble thought only. I can tell some stories and you will know some of the people. The AAA has not always played fairly. I have heard the stories of some elections with strong arm tactics and such. To the average joe, like me, to go to meeting on a regular basis or to play the politics are not worth it to me. If an average guy got on the board he would be a fish out of water. Associations are like governments: they exist to grow themselves. You do not have to believe me and you will probably do better overall to think the highest of AAA and move on. You mentioned defects: do you honestly think that the 2 or 3 herds that used the problem genetics for likely a decade or more didn't have a lot of defective calves and never disclosed the problem that the buyers of cattle and semen from them ended up reporting and getting exposed? We do not know because the AAA never investigated. Why not if they stand for the good of all members? Just saying.
Click to expand...
Agree with that. As I stated "I don't own any registered angus cattle or have specific knowledge of the AAA." I do have the perception that the AAA is an elitist (maybe snobbish is the correct word) organization compared to say the simmental association which I am familiar with. For the most part, the simmental association (board of directors and CEO) are fairly normal people. No mega millionaires in the simmental leadership best I know. Very few simmental breeders in that mega million category. (Rockefeller's HPF operation ended a few years ago. Forrest Lucas of Lucas Oil still has some simmentals). No million dollar simmental bulls sold every year. Not too much arm twisting and shady deals or political brokering at least in the last 25 years, best I know. If the term "drain the swamp" was applied to beef breeds, I suspect that the AAA would be the appropriate target.

Agree on hiding defects. As I stated "A big issue is the reluctance of breeders to report problems since there can be an economic impact for them. The defect can be spread quite a bit before the numbers reach the point that the problem can't be swept under the rug." True on the lethal genes as well as the recessive reds in the breed. But the truth eventually comes out. The bigger the number of cases when it comes out, the harder it is to isolate and overcome the economic impact for the downstream buyers. Better to address as early as possible. A simmental breeder a little east of us purchased a bull many years back for more money than you and I would probably spend at the time. His friend bred the bull back to his dam and produced a club footed calf. Pretty good economic impact right away, but the issue was addressed promptly by all involved, published in the simmental breed publication and no more of those genetics. No sweeping it under the rug. Addressed the way it should be and moved on. But the simmental breed association is certainly different. They encourage cross breeding and breeding up. Angus only behind the curtain maybe.

Interesting that in Canada, there is only one angus association independent of color. The US AAA obviously discriminates on color.

Also interesting - Anyone can search the simmental database for an animal to see the pedigree, current and previous owners and transfer dates, birth weight, weaning weight, list of progeny, genetic defect status, etc. (as long as the data was submitted, anyone can see it). When I look at the AAA database, I can only see current owners, pedigree and epd's. No weaning weights or yearling weights. Not as many secrets in some breeds as in others. Many cattle of other breeds are recorded in the simmental database in order to support that breedup program with more accurate epd's. I think the charge to add a bull or cow of another breed to the database is $5. I think you don't even have to be the owner to get a bull of another breed added to the database.
 
Silver said:
In fact, I believe the US is the only country that has separate breed associations for Angus based on colour.
Click to expand...
The Australians may have a separate registry. Hopefully our members there can tell us if they are color blind or not on the angus topic.

Here is a listing of worldwide angus associations which seems to show a separate society for the reds in Australia.

International Assoc

legacy.angus.org legacy.angus.org

Here is some information from the Red Angus Society of Australia which gives the origins of Red Angus:
The Red Angus breed originated in Europe and was introduced to England and Scotland by the Vikings/Norsemen raiding the coasts of England and Scotland. They brought with them a small, dun-colored hornless cattle which interbred with native black horned Celtic cattle of inland Scotland. A naturally polled black breed was produced, which roughly corresponded to the black Aberdeen Angus of today, although it was a considerably smaller-bodied animal.
Eric L.C. Pentecost, the noted English breeder of Red Angus cattle, offers a specific and logical explanation for the introduction of the red coloration into the Aberdeen Angus breed.

In the eighteenth century, the black Scottish cattle were too light to provide sufficiently large draught oxen, so larger English longhorns, predominantly red in colour, were brought in and crossed with the black native polled breed.
The resultant offspring were all black polled animals, since black is a dominant colour, and red a recessive one. However, all carried the red gene. Subsequent interbreeding produced an average of one red calf in four, in accordance with Mendel's law of heredity.
Early in the development of the Aberdeen Angus, Hugh Watson of Keillor, Scotland arbitrarily decided that black was the proper colour for the breed, and thereby started a fashion. He might well have chosen red instead.
Leon J. Cole and Sara V. H. Jones of the University of Wisconsin Agricultural Experiment Station published a pamphlet in 1920 on "The Occurrence of Red Calves in Black Breeds of Cattle" which contained this pertinent paragraph:
"One more point should be emphasised, namely that the red individuals appearing in such stock (Aberdeen Angus)…are just as truly 'purebred' as their black relatives, and there is no reason why, in all respects save colour, they should not be fully as valuable. The fact that they are discarded while the blacks are retained is simply due to the turn of fortune that black rather than red became established fashion for the Aberdeen Angus breed. Had red been the chosen colour, there would never have been any trouble with the appearance of blacks as off-colour individuals, since red-to-red breeds true."
 
fnfarms1 said:
So I've been using SimAngus bulls for last 5yrs. They are 3/4brothers. Same sire out of full sister cows. I've had no issues out of them. Since I've had them, it's been 70-80% bull calf crop which might be luck but I honestly think it's something with these bulls. Vet tested them this year and suggested trading the older bull(6yr old) due to him testing good but not as good as younger bull(5yr old). Said to use him this year without worry but he thinks with age he's going to be less reliable. So I'm looking for a new one. Like most areas black sells well here. To much ear doesn't help. My dad was a charolois fan and I used charolois for couple years. Have to admit I do like my charolois bulls, just went black for the better $.

Here in NE Oklahoma it's hot right now, next 10days temps are 100-104. With our humidity the index is likely 110-120. These black bulls and cows are having bit of a rough time. Which is making me think of going to a charolois bull. Neighbor and I had discussed going halves on a black Hereford. He calves in fall, me in spring so neither of us need a bull year round.

I know there's going be lots of opinions. I plan to only replace the older SimAngus so it's cheaper, hopefully still get a lot of bull calves, and I feel better with a proven bull. So I'm looking for opinions on the Black Hereford because I have no experience on them. Guy I buy my SimAngus from says the blk Herefords aren't consistent enough, but I figure he's also trying to sell his bulls. Ppl I buy charolois from say the blk Herefords 'have no meat', I'm taking as thickness. Seems odd since generally red Herefords seem real thick. I run 35-40cows,SimAngus and charolois based commercial cows, depending the year
Click to expand...
Unpopular opinion here, I breed the type of cattle I like to look at regardless of hide color.
Not sure what percentage of your herd is black but I would not be afraid of a straight Hereford bull over the "black angus" 9 times out of 10 I would think you would get black calves out of the simangus unless there is a red gene coming from the sim.
Running char bulls may give you a more uniform looking set.
But I guess a lot depends on when you plan on culling and what your going to be replacing them with
 
cmak said:
Unpopular opinion here, I breed the type of cattle I like to look at regardless of hide color.
Not sure what percentage of your herd is black but I would not be afraid of a straight Hereford bull over the "black Hereford " 9 times out of 10 I would think you would get black calves out of the simangus unless there is a red gene coming from the sim.
Running char bulls may give you a more uniform looking set.
But I guess a lot depends on when you plan on culling and what your going to be replacing them with
Click to expand...
 
cmak said:
Unpopular opinion here, I breed the type of cattle I like to look at regardless of hide color.
Not sure what percentage of your herd is black but I would not be afraid of a straight Hereford bull over the "black angus" 9 times out of 10 I would think you would get black calves out of the simangus unless there is a red gene coming from the sim.
Running char bulls may give you a more uniform looking set.
But I guess a lot depends on when you plan on culling and what your going to be replacing them with
Click to expand...
Been tempted toward a Hereford, they seem to be pretty thick. Everyone I know has foot and eye issues from them though. My bald ie cows I figure are going to have most Hereford looking calves and all kinds of variations of colors messing up any uniformity. Granted uniformity is tough when I started with a motley crew
 
fnfarms1 said:
Been tempted toward a Hereford, they seem to be pretty thick. Everyone I know has foot and eye issues from them though. My bald ie cows I figure are going to have most Hereford looking calves and all kinds of variations of colors messing up any uniformity. Granted uniformity is tough when I started with a motley crew
Click to expand...
Solidose pellet in the neck in the spring time should take care of 90% of pinkeye problems.
I have personally not had near the foot problems as I have in angus cattle
 

Similar threads

MurraysMutts
New bull time
8 9 10
Replies
192
Views
9K
gcreekrch
G
T
Time to shop for a new bull
Replies
0
Views
296
Texas G@l
T
tater74
New born
2
Replies
27
Views
1K
tater74
tater74
H
Yearling bull fertility
Replies
18
Views
803
Hpacres440p
H
G
Young bull
Replies
0
Views
259
georgiabob
G

Latest posts

Top