Polled Hereford -- Cattle Plan -- Update

[HerefordSire]

I must confess that FAT EPD is probably the number I least look at. This is probably the wrong way too look at it; but if somebody feeds a pen of steers to 1++ inches of BF too me that is more so the fault of the dummy who is feeding the pen rather than the fault of the genetics. When the steers reach the desired fat thickness SELL the pen!! This is a number where I would just avoid either extreme (fattest in the breed OR leanest in the breed) and move on to the marbling and ribeye area numbers. Certainly if a bull has the frame, thickness, depth of rib, muscling, head shape, structure, color, phenotype, actual performance, mother, growth EPDs, birth wt EPD, milk EPD, SC EPD, REA EPD, IMF EPD, etc that I like.....I just about don't really get concerned too much about his Back fat EPD.

I don't like the idea of using a high BF EPD as a predicter of his daughter's easy fleshing capability. While I admit there probably is a relationship there, somebody needs to really document that to my satisfaction before I would put a lot of weight to the 'high Back Fat EPD number means a better fleshing easier keeping daughters' theory. I think I can eyeball a bull, his mama, or better yet his daughters and reach a better conclusion than from that. I wish Hereford would get off their duffs and give us the $EN, height, and mature cow weight EPDs that the Angus people already have.

Thank-you for your input Brandonm2 as it is highly valued.

SHF Marshal M33 and KCF Bennett M326 are both 4 star rated
http://www.sandhillfarms.com/genes.htm

What is you opinion about the ariticle and industry and do you think Governor & 3008 also have the specific genes?

 

[HerefordSire]

Some people don't mind a little extra back fat because it allows for extra hanging time, which equates to more tenderness. Just something that I have heard about.

When a cow has a high positive FAT EPD, doesn't this mean the animal is likely to consume more feed than needed to maintain body condition?

IN THEORY, all the steers in a feedlot are consuming the same amount of feed (all that they can possibly eat). Some of them are turning that feed into more muscle and more rib eye area(the Yield Grade 1 Select calves), some of them are turning that feed into marbling (the Prime calves), and some of them are laying more of that fat under their hide (the Yield Grade 4 calves). Our goal is to routinely produce steers with a Yield Grade 2, a 14" ribeye area, and still grade average Choice or better. IN THEORY, by selecting cattle with a minus fat EPD, a high ribeye area, AND a high IntraMuscular Fat EPD we can more often achieve that lofty goal when the steers are processed. Consistently reaching those goals is still an industry challenge.

IN THEORY, by selecting cattle with a minus fat EPD, a high ribeye area, AND a high IntraMuscular Fat EPD we can more often achieve that lofty goal when the steers are processed.

What would be the minimum criteria for you (personally) to pull a bill out of your wallet?

 

[HerefordSire]

quote]

When a cow has a high positive FAT EPD, doesn't this mean the animal is likely to consume more feed than needed to maintain body condition?

No. It means the cow will consume less feed to maintain idea body weight. Too much or too little causes problems. I will try to list some problems and benefits.

1) too much and it lowers the packers profits due to trimming and waste cost.

2) too little and cows require more inputs cost to keep in condition for breeding.

3) too much and your cattle will become too fat for a individuals enviroment , often indicating need for greater milk production.

Everyone's needs are different for their enviroment and methods of production. It is impossible to produce the perfect cow or bull for everyone. There are many factors to consider , for example , forage type , heat , distances needing to travel , willingness and ability to change management practices to utilize leaner cattle , and if leaner will be more productive for your operation.

Hope this helps.[/quote]



Yes it helps me very much. Thank-you LFF!

Does the concept of "lean beef" have anything to do with FAT EPD?

If I raise seedstock with negative FAT, positive REA, & positive IMF EPDs in a hot southern climate, with sufficient pasture & quality stored homegrown bermuda, corn, & purple hull pea supplements, do you think my input costs would be much greater than a zero FAT EPD or slightly positive? If so, approximately what percentage increase of total input costs do you think I am looking at? Also, what do you think I could receive in additional returns by providing a premium (negative FAT EPD) product with all other things being equal?

 

[HerefordSire]

I'll try to answer your questions individually.

#1) Harder doing applies to any pasture or feed input. It simply means that no matter where you are or what conditions you raise your cattle in , you will have a higher cost of production. Take for instance that you have abundant pasture to feed 100 leaner harder doing cattle sufficently and you have enough left over to feed 10 more. You may be using your pasture wisely , however say the same pasture would support 150 easier doing cows and still have abundance to support 10 more , would you still be doing the most profitable practice? That would depend on how many total pounds of beef you raise to sell every year. There are many studies that confirm a larger number of easy doing cows out preform a less number of harder doing one's even if the harder doers produce heavier calves. The trick is to find what produces the most profit for your operation.

#2) A (-.10 , .50 , and .10) should do fair within the purebred Herefords. Remember this is just my opion. I do not think it would be in the best interest of the present day angus base commercial producer. I believe most commercial angus need a Hereford bull with just a smidge more fat and not give up that much IMF

I got started with cattle from childhood. My family have been in cattle production for 4 generations. I got in registerd Herefords three years ago and plan to stay with them. Herefords rightly earned a bad reputation years ago , however I believe they have corrected many of their problems and can now provide more for the commercial producer than possibly any other breed.

My breeding philiosophy is fairly simple on the surface. It is to produce Herefords that will improve value to commercial angus and angus cross producers. To do that I believe some of the Epd's that you asked about should be in the ballpark of , fat = 0 , REA > .25 , IMF > .30 , all in a frame score below 6. These Epd numbers don't mean much unless you have verifable ultrasound and slaughter measurements to prove them. If you have more questions about my plans feel free to pm me or call me at home. My number is in the Hereford registery.


LFF....

I did some double checking on Frank. 40 BMI! WOW! How are you handling the negative REA of Frank? Why do you think an BWF Angus producer would like to have a little extra Hereford FAT?

 

[LFF]

LFF....

I did some double checking on Frank. 40 BMI! WOW! How are you handling the negative REA of Frank? Why do you think an BWF Angus producer would like to have a little extra Hereford FAT?

Look at my previous post and plug my heifers that I breed to Frank into the Mating Predictor on the Hereford website and It should become clear. Also as to my breeding plan take the predicted epd's and run the numbers against ....say the Bennett M326 bull , my 42688529 bull , or his sire. Course everyone else will be looking at similar breeding.

As for the angus guestion. Here my reasoning ....I own a few registered angus and the fat epd numbers are average for angus. They are much harder to maintain condition for breeding on my pasture with the same dollar value of inputs as my herefords. With the price of harvested grains increasing each day , we as cattle producers need every advantage possible to make profit. At some point hard doing cattle will cost more than they are worth for the cow/calf producer and feed lot.

 

[Brandonm2]

I must confess that FAT EPD is probably the number I least look at. This is probably the wrong way too look at it; but if somebody feeds a pen of steers to 1++ inches of BF too me that is more so the fault of the dummy who is feeding the pen rather than the fault of the genetics. When the steers reach the desired fat thickness SELL the pen!! This is a number where I would just avoid either extreme (fattest in the breed OR leanest in the breed) and move on to the marbling and ribeye area numbers. Certainly if a bull has the frame, thickness, depth of rib, muscling, head shape, structure, color, phenotype, actual performance, mother, growth EPDs, birth wt EPD, milk EPD, SC EPD, REA EPD, IMF EPD, etc that I like.....I just about don't really get concerned too much about his Back fat EPD.

I don't like the idea of using a high BF EPD as a predicter of his daughter's easy fleshing capability. While I admit there probably is a relationship there, somebody needs to really document that to my satisfaction before I would put a lot of weight to the 'high Back Fat EPD number means a better fleshing easier keeping daughters' theory. I think I can eyeball a bull, his mama, or better yet his daughters and reach a better conclusion than from that. I wish Hereford would get off their duffs and give us the $EN, height, and mature cow weight EPDs that the Angus people already have.

Thank-you for your input Brandonm2 as it is highly valued.

SHF Marshal M33 and KCF Bennett M326 are both 4 star rated
http://www.sandhillfarms.com/genes.htm

What is you opinion about the ariticle and industry and do you think Governor & 3008 also have the specific genes?

I honestly was not aware that we even had ANY sires that had tested 4 star tenderness in the Hereford BREED.... until you posted that. It would certainly make me much more inclined too use them. Would I base a whole breeding program around tenderness or the somewhat questionable tenderness gene testing program???? Not likely, especially when we are not getting paid for tenderness....YET. Since for the first time in 36 years I don't own ANY cattle (THAT WILL CHANGE) I have the luxury of waiting for more research too come in, for Hereford too make some policy statements, the market too react, and for more cattle too be tested. It is a little harder for folks who actually have to make breeding decisions too sit on the fence. Since there is a 50:50 shot that any single gene can get passed on or NOT with every mating, I would not even guess about whether a bull had the gene or not based on his pedigree. Test him and find out.

 

[KNERSIE]

There is also something else to consider apart from producing bulls that would produce the perfect steer.

The commercial breeders that buys bulls from you would want to retain heifers and if the heifers out of the perfect carcass bulls you've bred are hard keepers you're not going to sell many bulls once the word goes round.

There may be a market for your carcass bulls... to use on those "easy keeping tending to be fat, but breeding back year after year and raising a heavy calf type of cows", but remember the most commercial breeders want an allrounder type of bull with decent growth, easy calving, adequate milk and acceptable carcass. Not a trait leader in all or for that matter any specific EPD[/quote]

 

[oakcreekfarms]

A lot of breeders who have had a lot of in herd testing done would tell you that tenderness is one of herefords strong points. They just have a bad reputation from previous years.

 

[HerefordSire]

LFF....

I did some double checking on Frank. 40 BMI! WOW! How are you handling the negative REA of Frank? Why do you think an BWF Angus producer would like to have a little extra Hereford FAT?

Look at my previous post and plug my heifers that I breed to Frank into the Mating Predictor on the Hereford website and It should become clear. Also as to my breeding plan take the predicted epd's and run the numbers against ....say the Bennett M326 bull , my 42688529 bull , or his sire. Course everyone else will be looking at similar breeding.

As for the angus guestion. Here my reasoning ....I own a few registered angus and the fat epd numbers are average for angus. They are much harder to maintain condition for breeding on my pasture with the same dollar value of inputs as my herefords. With the price of harvested grains increasing each day , we as cattle producers need every advantage possible to make profit. At some point hard doing cattle will cost more than they are worth for the cow/calf producer and feed lot.

I am with you now. You are planning the third step simultaneously with the first step. In one case, you are projecting a .20 REA to compensate the -.09 REA of Frank to acquire his humongus marbling genes then followup up with a bull with low FAT to compensate for Frank's high FAT genes. Nice plan like a chess player.

 

[HerefordSire]

I honestly was not aware that we even had ANY sires that had tested 4 star tenderness in the Hereford BREED.... until you posted that. It would certainly make me much more inclined too use them. Would I base a whole breeding program around tenderness or the somewhat questionable tenderness gene testing program???? Not likely, especially when we are not getting paid for tenderness....YET. Since for the first time in 36 years I don't own ANY cattle (THAT WILL CHANGE) I have the luxury of waiting for more research too come in, for Hereford too make some policy statements, the market too react, and for more cattle too be tested. It is a little harder for folks who actually have to make breeding decisions too sit on the fence. Since there is a 50:50 shot that any single gene can get passed on or NOT with every mating, I would not even guess about whether a bull had the gene or not based on his pedigree. Test him and find out.


Maybe we can buy 100,000 straws and sit on them for a double when the word gets better dispersed. :D Maybe that is why Moler went up to $500 a whack!

This sounds like a touchy subject for there is allot of money riding on the line for those that don't have the tenderness genes. Based upon the previous four star information, I will have the 3008 donors tested and let you know the results, good or bad.

I would be interested in reading what cattle position you want to take prior to the fact, the find out what you actually did later, etc.

 

[HerefordSire]

There is also something else to consider apart from producing bulls that would produce the perfect steer.

The commercial breeders that buys bulls from you would want to retain heifers and if the heifers out of the perfect carcass bulls you've bred are hard keepers you're not going to sell many bulls once the word goes round.

There may be a market for your carcass bulls... to use on those "easy keeping tending to be fat, but breeding back year after year and raising a heavy calf type of cows", but remember the most commercial breeders want an allrounder type of bull with decent growth, easy calving, adequate milk and acceptable carcass. Not a trait leader in all or for that matter any specific EPD

[/quote]


I believe most local ranchers will give me one shot. During this one shot, they will realize how much cash flow remains relative to their prior year(s). This may be a positive or a negative value and may depend upon other variables such as the price of grain, drought, etc. However, I believe the amount of additional cash generated as a result of taking delivery of one of my potential carcass bulls will initiate numerous additonal bull orders, at least I hope so. If it doesn't, I should make the necessary adjustments to fit my local market demand so my users can maximize their cash flow.

 

[HerefordSire]

A lot of breeders who have had a lot of in herd testing done would tell you that tenderness is one of herefords strong points. They just have a bad reputation from previous years.

If you had an animal with a strength, like a .50 REA, would you attempt to increase it to stay in the forefront or would you focus on strenthening other criteria, such as marbling. Likewise, if Herefords are generally noted for tenderness, shouldn't we keep the pressure on or focus on other aspects of creating good beef?

 

[oakcreekfarms]

I would say that the general public looks at IMF as the only effect on tenderness in beef. From what I have read this isn't true. Since Herefords aren't at the forefront for marbling it is assumed that their meat isn't as tender.

I wouldn't focus on huge REA numbers, or huge IMF numbers. My bull is has an REA of .5 or better and an IMF of .15. THese numbers are what I am looking for, though the IMF could be a little higher. Breeding this bull to anyone of my cows will create positive REA and IMF epds in all of the calves. I however am going to stay focused on actual data collection. Saying this I would have a hard time using bulls such as Kilo, 3008 himself, or any bull with negative REA's or really low IMF epds. I feel that would be taking steps back in a breeding program, unless you had plenty of REA in your herd but lacked IMF or the other way around. We don't have a large cow herd, but 90% of them have positive REA and IMF numbers, our average cow is probably a 3.5BW 35WW 70YW .1 REA .05IMF. We would like to see the WW number go up as well as the YW, the REA should be in the .2 and the IMF should be at least .1. That is how we are choosing our AI sires and our herd bull that we have now. Bad breeding choices now would take us years to correct due to the high number of replacement females that we are keeping. Which is why we are sticking with M326 and marshal for now.

All in all I am saying that you should attempt to put some form of focus on everything while attempting to breed registered stock. Focusing to high on any one thing will lower the quality of your herd.

 

[Brandonm2]

As for the angus guestion. Here my reasoning ....I own a few registered angus and the fat epd numbers are average for angus. They are much harder to maintain condition for breeding on my pasture with the same dollar value of inputs as my herefords. With the price of harvested grains increasing each day , we as cattle producers need every advantage possible to make profit. At some point hard doing cattle will cost more than they are worth for the cow/calf producer and feed lot.

I bought some papered Angus at a dispersal sale ~5.5 years ago and I was shocked at how much harder keeping they were than my reg Herefords, commercial Herefords, my baldies, Herf/Pinz crosses, or my old commercial Angus. Those big framed cows had a LOT of problems. They weaned good calves; but not anywhere near good enough too justify the showing ribs and the feet problems we encountered. I think the MILK EPD is part of the problem. EVERYBODY knew 20 years ago that Angus milked better than Herefords did. Why then did Angus breeders feel the need too get in a competition into who had the highest milk EPD??? The BIG Angus cows I bought were THEN in the top 10% of the Angus breed for milk on their papers and I think it caused a lot more problems than not.

 

[1848]

Thank-you for your brute honesty.
...my breed research began and lasted a year prior taking a position in cattle. Once I landed on Polled Herefords as the breed of choice, .......I figured with a larger investment, I could generate better gene combinations by purchasing cows from the leading multiple trait leading bull and flush these cows into marketable Angus cross two year old second calve heifers so I invested in 60 pairs of Angus cross pairs to be held as recipients. .... I would rather take the risk of flushing unproven females with good numbers and percentages and pair them up with good bulls, than to take a chance with hand selecting animals across the country or from one gene pool like I almost did.

I did not flush the cows right away. I watched them every day for about 7 months or so. They are drought hustlers relative to the Angus crosses. They are gentle and present no problems relative to the Angus crosses. From my view, these cows are jewels based upon their performance in the pasture but don't tell anyone until you can purchase a 3008 position.

The phenotype was not a top priority for me now. I focused on positive carcass projections and growth. If you notice, most of the cows have positive carcass values (if not all) and have decent growth numbers, thank-you 517. I want working man animals first then I want them to look nice not the other way around. If they look nice first, then I got a bonus, and it appears I received many bonuses. In regards to the "hot" breeding animal, hopefully I can anticipate the market demand by providing positive carcass bulls. I hope to build a solid foundation from which to build through line breeding. Since I couldn't afford to purchase numerous bulls, I figured semen was the way to capitalize my 3008 foundation. On the bull side, I was very interested in obtaining Catalina 24H genes.

Yes, my plan is risky. I am a novice cattleman and I am taking a large risk relative to conventional thinking. I guess the worst thing that could happen is to have all the cattle die or maybe have the worst genentics in the country. Maybe the best thing that could happen is to grow several $100K bulls. Hopefully, I am somewhere in the middle.

More Brute Honesty! :)

Sorry, I seem to come off so course sometimes. Would rather cut through all the BS and give it to you straight. It's good you have a plan (we've discussed it before. ;-) ), and it is good you continue to research and adjust your plan. Think Herefords were a decent choice as they give you many options at a cheaper initial investment then some other breeds, plus you can market their FI crosses very effectively if the purebred or registered side goes sour. Your choice of recip was also good for resale purposes....but honestly?

Watching a cow for 7 months isn't really going to tell you much of anything other then their temperament, fleshing ability, and even perhaps a little on how they raise a calf and what kind of udder they will have if they have a calf on their sides (assuming that in the evaluation of these traits the cattle are not coddled). Performance in the pasture is based on years..not months.

Setting a foundation for a potential registered program is important, and using daughters out of a high confidence bull will give you a base and a start, but that doesn’t mean those animals are worthy of flushing. There are high confidence bulls genetics out there for a dime a dozen (including 3008), but it is the “individual specimen’s” performance and traits, (which include the performance of their offspring) which most accurately determines an individuals worth. It is a sounder practice is to collect semen and embryos from those animals based on that performance.

You mentioned you didn’t want to buy all one genetic base, but you are basing 50% of your genetic foundation on a few unproven females. Moreover, you talk about the traits you want to see in the type cattle you intend to raise, but you didn’t select from a pool of proven females (ie embryo flushes) that are already out there…flushed to bulls like/ or to 3008. If you wanted certain traits you should have considered the line bred cattle (or one pool) then you would have been assured the traits you wanted with a higher degree of confidence then just one good sire and starting your own line breeding program (which will take a minimum of 10 years to get going). Are you going to afford 3008 semen or be able to find what is left of 517 semen to line breed with?

Your decision to overlook phenotype is one reason you may have gotten the 3008 daughters you got at a fair price, but is is also the reason the other breeder sold them. It is true you can’t put all the traits we would want in a herd in one basket, but if you are building a foundation, and you don’t get most up front, then you will spend years culling, breeding, backtracking and playing with numbers and phenotypes to make all the adjustments and get back where you want to be. You say you want working man animals, but you don’t even know if the females will hold up for six or seven years without problems. It seems like I remember you stating you were wanting to raise all trait leader bulls, or at least that was one of your goals (think this was you), but trait leader bulls don’t just appear based on current EPD projections. I don’t want a trait leader bull out of an unproven cow unless he has a minimum of 5 years of data and hundreds of calves to back him up.

If your virgin program is one year in the making then I doubt, based on your “now somewhere in the middle” remark, that you will be raising 50,000 bulls in the next two years. Your plan is not risky if the herd is managed right, but your projections of your profits and your marketing may need some tweaking, and it will take you years to obtain your lofty goals. If your Donor cows don’t hold up in the pasture without being coddled, prolapse after 2 calves, have bum udders in 3 years, go bad on their legs, develop cancer eye, are not fertile, can’t keep their shape, or have any other genetic flaw, (Basically end up being non performers or cull animals) then your flushing of these animals genetics will have been for naught and your whole program will be a wash.

Nobody here wants to see you fail, but don’t put all your eggs in a basket that has hasn’t been proven to hold eggs in the first place. Your kinda like the females your flushing…they can talk the talk, but can they walk the walk?

 

[Brandonm2]

think you are being a LITTLE hard on him. He is multiplying EPDs and pedigrees. GRANTED that IS risky; but is he REALLY doing ANYTHING different than MOST mainstream breeders today? I got a catalog from an Angus outfit that maintained NO mature cow herd. They flush a crop of heifers for 1,2, or (at the most) 3 years and then sell the donors at their yearly production sale, while their pedigree is still HOT. They don't know anything about those embryos other than name and EPD. Back in my Grandfather's day they didn't keep a heifer out of anything younger than a a 4 or 5 year old cow. She had too "PROVE" herself before she became a heifer producer. If you did that today your genetics would be considered "stale". We are also talking about donors. IF you flushed 5 cows for 3 years and ended up with 10 ET cows out of each, and you didn't like two of your cow families at the end of the day, it really is not that difficult too turn those 20 reject cows into recips for the 3 that you do like. ET allows for FAST multiplication of genetics so you CAN make BIG mistakes and recover from them just as quickly. Why watch a cow for 6 or 7 years, when you can flush a dozen embryos out of her as a two year old and know more about her when that crop of calves turn two than you would have learned in a lifetime at one calf a year.

 

[Herefords.US]

Why watch a cow for 6 or 7 years, when you can flush a dozen embryos out of her as a two year old and know more about her when that crop of calves turn two than you would have learned in a lifetime at one calf a year.

The flaw in that logic is that you still don't know much about maternal characteristics and fertility - and longevity. Those are traits that are important to me.

George

 

[Frankie]

The flaw in that logic is that you still don't know much about maternal characteristics and fertility - and longevity. Those are traits that are important to me.

George

Those are important traits. BUT fertility is one of the least heritable traits we track. Longevity. It depends. We have some ten year old cows, but our two year olds raised better calves last year. We hope to be improving our genetics every generation.

 

[Herefords.US]

Those are important traits. BUT fertility is one of the least heritable traits we track.

I understand that - BUT flushing heifers as two year olds and continuing that process for generation after generation, I don't see any basis to determine where you are fertility-wise at all.

Or know if udders are going to hold up past 4 or 5 years.

All in all, the maternal traits become "educated guesses" in that scenario.

George

 

[HerefordSire]

More Brute Honesty!

Fire away.

Sorry, I seem to come off so course sometimes. Would rather cut through all the BS and give it to you straight. It's good you have a plan (we've discussed it before. ), and it is good you continue to research and adjust your plan. Think Herefords were a decent choice as they give you many options at a cheaper initial investment then some other breeds, plus you can market their FI crosses very effectively if the purebred or registered side goes sour. Your choice of recip was also good for resale purposes....but honestly?

Always watch for the real truth when someone uses the word "but"....the real truth (what you really believe deep down in your heart) comes after the word "but" and not before.

Watching a cow for 7 months isn't really going to tell you much of anything other then their temperament, fleshing ability, and even perhaps a little on how they raise a calf and what kind of udder they will have if they have a calf on their sides (assuming that in the evaluation of these traits the cattle are not coddled). Performance in the pasture is based on years..not months.

I edited your statement as follows: "Performance in the pasture is based on years" for people that can afford the additional time "...not months".

There is a trade off in everything. I am not out to be the best breeder in the world and do everything correctly and by the book. I just want to be able to make my land payments.

Setting a foundation for a potential registered program is important, and using daughters out of a high confidence bull will give you a base and a start, but that doesn’t mean those animals are worthy of flushing.

I agree. That is why I did additional homework prior to purchase. I calculated the odds of succeeding. I took the chance. I was willing to live with the consequences.

..There are high confidence bulls genetics out there for a dime a dozen (including 3008), but it is the “individual specimen’s” performance and traits, (which include the performance of their offspring) which most accurately determines an individuals worth. It is a sounder practice is to collect semen and embryos from those animals based on that performance.

Again, I don't have time to sit and wait and breed by the book. I chose to take a measured chance.

You mentioned you didn’t want to buy all one genetic base, but you are basing 50% of your genetic foundation on a few unproven females.

True. I guess you could say I meant to portray a little different meaning. By purchasing 50+ females from one herd, I would have established a position of marginal females from mostly the same small group of ancestors. The way I chose is much more diversisifed on the bull side. Additionally, I now consider this step one of four and each step representing one year. Therefore, the position I have now would be 25% diversification of cows families.

Moreover, you talk about the traits you want to see in the type cattle you intend to raise, but you didn’t select from a pool of proven females (ie embryo flushes) that are already out there…flushed to bulls like/ or to 3008.

I didn't want to invest the additional capital for proven donors nor did I want to travel the country. By increasing my risk up front, I was able to lower my initial investment and increase my leverage. Pretty slick if it works.

If you wanted certain traits you should have considered the line bred cattle (or one pool) then you would have been assured the traits you wanted with a higher degree of confidence then just one good sire and starting your own line breeding program (which will take a minimum of 10 years to get going). Are you going to afford 3008 semen or be able to find what is left of 517 semen to line breed with?

My initial thought was to line breed 3008 and 517 through grandchildren of 3008 so the percentage of 3008, for example, would increase or double up, relative to other ancestors. Therefore, the price of breeding would be much lower.

Your decision to overlook phenotype is one reason you may have gotten the 3008 daughters you got at a fair price, but is is also the reason the other breeder sold them.

I did not overlook phenotype. It was not my number one selection criteia. I am not sure why the other breeder sold them. I was presented with many available animals at one time. Are you implying the seller does not have any harvestable product with acceptable phenotype?

It is true you can’t put all the traits we would want in a herd in one basket, but if you are building a foundation, and you don’t get most up front, then you will spend years culling, breeding, backtracking and playing with numbers and phenotypes to make all the adjustments and get back where you want to be.

There you go with your "but" word again....the real truth. I believe if all goes as planned I will have a nice position of cattle sufficient to make my land payments. Would you like to compare my position with yours?

You say you want working man animals, but you don’t even know if the females will hold up for six or seven years without problems.

...but...the real truth...

I don't think anyone knows about the future of their herd. All I can do it measure the risk and make decisions based upon the risk.


It seems like I remember you stating you were wanting to raise all trait leader bulls, or at least that was one of your goals (think this was you), but trait leader bulls don’t just appear based on current EPD projections. I don’t want a trait leader bull out of an unproven cow unless he has a minimum of 5 years of data and hundreds of calves to back him up.

Good memory as I do set lofty goals. I am not esure I am following you on this one.

If your virgin program is one year in the making then I doubt, based on your “now somewhere in the middle” remark, that you will be raising 50,000 bulls in the next two years.

I agree.

Your plan is not risky if the herd is managed right, but your projections of your profits and your marketing may need some tweaking, and it will take you years to obtain your lofty goals.

I agree.

If your Donor cows don’t hold up in the pasture without being coddled, prolapse after 2 calves, have bum udders in 3 years, go bad on their legs, develop cancer eye, are not fertile, can’t keep their shape, or have any other genetic flaw, (Basically end up being non performers or cull animals) then your flushing of these animals genetics will have been for naught and your whole program will be a wash.

This would be the same for all operations, even if I just bought 50+ females or buing one here and there from all over the country...caveat emptor. I choose to think positive.

Nobody here wants to see you fail, but don’t put all your eggs in a basket that has hasn’t been proven to hold eggs in the first place. Your kinda like the females your flushing…they can talk the talk, but can they walk the walk?

I would be interested in hearing how someone conservative or "by the book" would start out in my situation. I am not asking you to disclose anything personal. I would like to know more about your position, how you got started, what you are breeding now, etc.