Positive News

Help Support CattleToday:

A

Anonymous

Summarized below are the tremendous advantages you gain when you utilize crossbreeding rather than straightbred cattle:

Added value per Year = $100 per head

Cow longevity = 38%

Lifetime productivity = 25%

Cow efficiency (calf weaning weight/cow weight) = 8%

It doesn't get much more positive for beef producers than this.
 
OP
A

Anonymous

John what is the source of these figures and statements? I am always looking for new articlaes to read.

Thank you pat

> Summarized below are the
> tremendous advantages you gain
> when you utilize crossbreeding
> rather than straightbred cattle:

> Added value per Year = $100 per
> head

> Cow longevity = 38%

> Lifetime productivity = 25%

> Cow efficiency (calf weaning
> weight/cow weight) = 8%

> It doesn't get much more positive
> for beef producers than this.
 
OP
A

Anonymous

> John what is the source of these
> figures and statements? I am
> always looking for new articlaes
> to read.

> Thank you pat

The exact figures and statements are from an American Gelbvieh Association ad in one of the popular cattle magazines. Although you will have to contact the Gelbvieh association to get exact citations, I have seen very similar numbers from research presented in the American Journal of Animal Science and research from MARC (USDA Meat Animal Research Center).
 
OP
A

Anonymous

John I may not agree with all the numbers but crossbreeding is a valuable tool to the commercial cattle person. I still like my performance oreinted registered angus herd.

pat

> The exact figures and statements
> are from an American Gelbvieh
> Association ad in one of the
> popular cattle magazines. Although
> you will have to contact the
> Gelbvieh association to get exact
> citations, I have seen very
> similar numbers from research
> presented in the American Journal
> of Animal Science and research
> from MARC (USDA Meat Animal
> Research Center).
 
OP
A

Anonymous

I knew you could do it!! And I'd never argue that crossbreeding has been profitable for a lot of producers for many years. But the times and market demands are changing. Below is a link to an article in the Angus Journal that anyone thinking about raising straightbred Angus might be interested in. In fact, John S, you might also look at it and see if you can come up with a positive comment. <A HREF="http://www.angusjournal.com/aj_article1.html?CID=2870" TARGET="_blank">http://www.angusjournal.com/aj_article1.html?CID=2870</A> I read somewhere (no reference at hand) that last year the Gelbvieh Association registered more Balancers (half Angus of either color) than straightbred Gelbvieh. Interesting, huh?
 
OP
A

Anonymous

Read the article but fail to see the point. Of course fatter animals grade a higher percentage choice. If your target is fatter beef then why wouldn't you use Wagyu genetics?

Most commercial producers have an interest in cost of production rather than just meeting choice and prime targets.
 
OP
A

Anonymous

JS said: "Read the article but fail to see the point."

My point in posting the link is to show that a producer can make money raising straightbred Angus cattle. That's a point you like to discourage. The producer's point in this article is that he makes money by using straightbred Angus and reaping the rewards of high quality beef.

JS said: "Of course fatter animals grade a higher percentage choice."

"fatter animals" can mean different things. If you mean "fed" cattle, you can feed some cattle until they die of old age and they'll never grade Choice. The cattle mentioned in this article averaged 95 days on feed and over 51% Prime. If you mean "fat" cattle that carry a lot of backfat, he had no YG discounts on almost 90% of his cattle and received a dressing % premium that was higher than the YG discount.

JS said: "If your target is fatter beef then why wouldn't you use Wagyu genetics?" Most commercial producers have an interest in cost of production rather than just meeting choice and prime targets."

Now you're just being silly. Waguy are not efficient feeders and don't hang 800 lb carcasses after 95 days on feed. In reading this article, there's nothing to suggest this guy has a high cost of production. He claims he's a "low budget" operation.

Laura's Lean Beef has targeted straightbred Limousin cattle for years. They will accept other Continental breeds, but prefer to buy high percentage or straigtbred Limis. Why? Because good straightbred cattle (Limi or Angus) can be counted on to produce a consistent product. I'll take some time later today to find more links to articles on producers successfully using straightbred Angus cattle. I'm sure you'd want to read them.
 
OP
A

Anonymous

I'll
> take some time later today to find
> more links to articles on
> producers successfully using
> straightbred Angus cattle. I'm
> sure you'd want to read them.

Why don't you save yourself all the effort of posting more Angus propaganda? Instead, why don't you find me one objective reference to where straightbred cattle make more money for the commercial producer than crossbred cattle? Just ONE. And I am not talking about more Angus hype. I am talking objective university research or USDA research, anything published in the Journal of Animal Science or other objective scientific publications. Hell, I will make it easy for you, I will accept objective research from other countries, anywhere in the world. I will accept objective research from other straightbred cattle, not just angus. All I am asking for is ONE, not dozens (such as are readily available showing that crossbred cattle make more money than purebred cattle) ONE, just a single, solitary objective reference, that's all I am asking for.
 
OP
A

Anonymous

I think it's unlikely we'll find a publicly funded institution (MARC or University) promoting a specific breed. So it's up to the breed association to fund research. You will likely call any breed financed research propoganda. But I don't need a breed association or MARC to tell me that 40-50% of the cattle sold in the US are sold on some sort of grid. And that percentage is expected to get even larger. Successful grid marketing rewards consistency. Whether it's a quality or yield grid, "out" cattle that don't fit the grid can eat up premiums quickly. Good straightbred cattle will more consistently fit whatever grid you'r aiming for. Crossbreeding has been the basis of a lot of programs for many years. And if people are interested in raising commodity beef, it will still be a valuable tool for them. But the real $$ are in branded beef. An Alta Genetics catalog quoted an Excel manager as saying they made most of their profit in a particular plant from about 10% of the cattle they processed. That 10% was the Prime, CAB, Sterling Silver, etc cattle. Each individual has to come up with a program that works for him. Straightbred Angus cattle work for a lot of people. Here are some snips I took from the ranchers.net site:

"Years ago I was deeply influenced by the MARC studies on heterosis. As a result we put hereford bulls on our angus cows and got some real good cows but also introduced eye problems and utter problems. We then bought some reputation black friesian cows who rapidly washed out of our herd because they demanded too much feed to remain productive. We tried angus-gelvieh and were stung with calving problems. Tried a composite of angus, hereford, and brown swiss. They raised really large calves but weren't much on mothering ability. In recent years we are back to straight angus."

and: "Great point, …. THanks for making it. We tried some crossbreeding, too, and we were not as satisfied as we are with straight Angus."

and another: “We run black angus but keep the middle of the heifers back for replacements. We sell the top and low end, seems to work, no problems calving since we went to low birth weight black bulls on them. We calved 140 this year and never pulled a one, in fact never got up at night with them, checked late and early. Calves weight good in the fall, no eye, udder problems, and very few dry cows to sell out of 700. So think if you find something that works stay with it. We have have no problem selling calves, same buyer for steers every year and another for heifers. We get top price for both in the area.”
 
OP
A

Anonymous

The first "snip" pretty well sums up what happens when you throw a solution at a problem without figuring out how to do it correctly. Too many people think you can cross any two breeds and get something really wonderfull. If you breed quality to crap you'll end up with a lot of crap. Using high quality animals in the crossbreeding program is necessary to maintain the quality.

dun

> I think it's unlikely we'll find a
> publicly funded institution (MARC
> or University) promoting a
> specific breed. So it's up to the
> breed association to fund
> research. You will likely call any
> breed financed research
> propoganda. But I don't need a
> breed association or MARC to tell
> me that 40-50% of the cattle sold
> in the US are sold on some sort of
> grid. And that percentage is
> expected to get even larger.
> Successful grid marketing rewards
> consistency. Whether it's a
> quality or yield grid,
> "out" cattle that don't
> fit the grid can eat up premiums
> quickly. Good straightbred cattle
> will more consistently fit
> whatever grid you'r aiming for.
> Crossbreeding has been the basis
> of a lot of programs for many
> years. And if people are
> interested in raising commodity
> beef, it will still be a valuable
> tool for them. But the real $$ are
> in branded beef. An Alta Genetics
> catalog quoted an Excel manager as
> saying they made most of their
> profit in a particular plant from
> about 10% of the cattle they
> processed. That 10% was the Prime,
> CAB, Sterling Silver, etc cattle.
> Each individual has to come up
> with a program that works for him.
> Straightbred Angus cattle work for
> a lot of people. Here are some
> snips I took from the ranchers.net
> site:

> "Years ago I was deeply
> influenced by the MARC studies on
> heterosis. As a result we put
> hereford bulls on our angus cows
> and got some real good cows but
> also introduced eye problems and
> utter problems. We then bought
> some reputation black friesian
> cows who rapidly washed out of our
> herd because they demanded too
> much feed to remain productive. We
> tried angus-gelvieh and were stung
> with calving problems. Tried a
> composite of angus, hereford, and
> brown swiss. They raised really
> large calves but weren't much on
> mothering ability. In recent years
> we are back to straight
> angus."

> and: "Great point, …. THanks
> for making it. We tried some
> crossbreeding, too, and we were
> not as satisfied as we are with
> straight Angus."

> and another: “We run black angus
> but keep the middle of the heifers
> back for replacements. We sell the
> top and low end, seems to work, no
> problems calving since we went to
> low birth weight black bulls on
> them. We calved 140 this year and
> never pulled a one, in fact never
> got up at night with them, checked
> late and early. Calves weight good
> in the fall, no eye, udder
> problems, and very few dry cows to
> sell out of 700. So think if you
> find something that works stay
> with it. We have have no problem
> selling calves, same buyer for
> steers every year and another for
> heifers. We get top price for both
> in the area.”
 
OP
A

Anonymous

I think you're right. For a lot of years some producers have used heterosis to compensate for poor genetics and management. Many of the cow herds in my area show the influence of every Continental breed that was ever imported into the US over the years, plus throw a little Brahman influence in to help with the heat....

> The first "snip" pretty
> well sums up what happens when you
> throw a solution at a problem
> without figuring out how to do it
> correctly. Too many people think
> you can cross any two breeds and
> get something really wonderfull.
> If you breed quality to crap
> you'll end up with a lot of crap.
> Using high quality animals in the
> crossbreeding program is necessary
> to maintain the quality.

> dun
 
OP
A

Anonymous

Thanks Frankie for more black rhetoric, I didn't expect you could produce any factual research.
 
OP
A

Anonymous

Sorry for not giving you a more complete response, so I will remedy that now.

> I think it's unlikely we'll find a
> publicly funded institution (MARC
> or University) promoting a
> specific breed.

No, most public institutions do comparisons between breeds and also comparisons between breeding systems. Evidently you misunderstood my request. I requested ONE objective study that demonstrated that straightbred cattle made the rancher, farmer, primary producer, cattleman, beef producer, (whatever you choose to call the person that raises the animal), more profit than crossbred cattle. Hope you are clear about that now.

But I don't need a
> breed association or MARC to tell
> me that 40-50% of the cattle sold
> in the US are sold on some sort of
> grid. And that percentage is
> expected to get even larger.
> Successful grid marketing rewards
> consistency. Whether it's a
> quality or yield grid,
> "out" cattle that don't
> fit the grid can eat up premiums
> quickly.

No argument about the above.

Good straightbred cattle
> will more consistently fit
> whatever grid you'r aiming for.

Now this is pure breed association bunk. I guess you don't read anything put out by universities or reputable ag researchers. The consensus is that the most profitable genetics for "fitting most grids" and maximizing premiums from those grids is a combination of continental and british genetics. This means the most profitable animals are crossbreds.

But the real $$ are
> in branded beef. An Alta Genetics
> catalog quoted an Excel manager as
> saying they made most of their
> profit in a particular plant from
> about 10% of the cattle they
> processed. That 10% was the Prime,
> CAB, Sterling Silver, etc cattle.

Not really asking about profit levels you make for the packer. I am more interested in the profit levels of the producer.

Let me remind you about beef production 101.

In order to make a profit your income needs to exceed your expenses. Simply selling for a slightly higher price than the average of any market does not guarantee you a profit. You need to calculate the costs of production. The costs of production are far higher for straightbred cattle when compared to crossbred cattle, than any current premium on any grid market offers (except possibly one and I won't let you in on it yet)

I can read opinions all day long, on any side of an issue I care to, so please save yourself the trouble of posting more opinions. You know the old saying about what opinions are like and everybody has one.

I requested valid research. Look, I will be very generous, if you can find a breed funded study that shows straightbred cattle will make more money than crossbred cattle, for the commercial beef producer, I will accept it if referenced.
 
OP
A

Anonymous

Hasn't his poor dead horse been flogged enough?

dun

Sorry for not giving you a more
> complete response, so I will
> remedy that now.

> No, most public institutions do
> comparisons between breeds and
> also comparisons between breeding
> systems. Evidently you
> misunderstood my request. I
> requested ONE objective study that
> demonstrated that straightbred
> cattle made the rancher, farmer,
> primary producer, cattleman, beef
> producer, (whatever you choose to
> call the person that raises the
> animal), more profit than
> crossbred cattle. Hope you are
> clear about that now.

> But I don't need a

> No argument about the above.

> Good straightbred cattle

> Now this is pure breed association
> bunk. I guess you don't read
> anything put out by universities
> or reputable ag researchers. The
> consensus is that the most
> profitable genetics for
> "fitting most grids" and
> maximizing premiums from those
> grids is a combination of
> continental and british genetics.
> This means the most profitable
> animals are crossbreds.

> But the real $$ are

> Not really asking about profit
> levels you make for the packer. I
> am more interested in the profit
> levels of the producer.

> Let me remind you about beef
> production 101.

> In order to make a profit your
> income needs to exceed your
> expenses. Simply selling for a
> slightly higher price than the
> average of any market does not
> guarantee you a profit. You need
> to calculate the costs of
> production. The costs of
> production are far higher for
> straightbred cattle when compared
> to crossbred cattle, than any
> current premium on any grid market
> offers (except possibly one and I
> won't let you in on it yet)

> I can read opinions all day long,
> on any side of an issue I care to,
> so please save yourself the
> trouble of posting more opinions.
> You know the old saying about what
> opinions are like and everybody
> has one.

> I requested valid research. Look,
> I will be very generous, if you
> can find a breed funded study that
> shows straightbred cattle will
> make more money than crossbred
> cattle, for the commercial beef
> producer, I will accept it if
> referenced.
 
OP
A

Anonymous

> Hasn't his poor dead horse been
> flogged enough?

> dun

Sorry Dun. Pretty much thought you were right before I read more Angus Arrogance (RE: Texas Side of Beef /Jason).

My posts are not aimed toward the obviously experienced cattle raisers such as yourself, they are only to counter the black bs aimed at the inexperienced, do you see that as a real problem?
 
OP
A

Anonymous

"do you see that as a real problem? " The problem would be with anyone that would determine a breed to raise based on only input from a BB. The other problem is the more strident one is the less people listen

dun

> Sorry Dun. Pretty much thought you
> were right before I read more
> Angus Arrogance (RE: Texas Side of
> Beef /Jason).

> My posts are not aimed toward the
> obviously experienced cattle
> raisers such as yourself, they are
> only to counter the black bs aimed
> at the inexperienced, do you see
> that as a real problem?
 
Top