SAV Net Worth 4200 (Angus)

Help Support CattleToday:

Northern Rancher

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 22, 2007
Messages
1,177
Reaction score
0
Location
Canada
If I have a fuel efficient truck to drive to work that averages 50 mph but I want my commute to go faster I don't think I'd upgrade to one that averages 80mph, runs on fuel not available in my area and probably has a set of tires that aren't that great-I don't care how glossy the owners brochure is.
 

Jovid

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 22, 2005
Messages
1,787
Reaction score
0
Location
Oklahoma
Northern Rancher":1sk9b2x7 said:
If I have a fuel efficient truck to drive to work that averages 50 mph but I want my commute to go faster I don't think I'd upgrade to one that averages 80mph, runs on fuel not available in my area and probably has a set of tires that aren't that great-I don't care how glossy the owners brochure is.

Very well said :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap:
 

lakading

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 18, 2006
Messages
753
Reaction score
0
Location
Here and There
You can disagree with the management style all you want, but unless you've tried and compared the genetics in your own environment, you have no basis for saying that they won't increase your performance without extra feed, etc.

Now, if you choose not to use the genetics because you disagree with the management style, or for any other reason that's perfectly fine. But to imply that the genetics can't perform without intensive management and/or that they're not sound without ever using the genetics yourself...makes you sound foolish.
 

Oldtimer

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 19, 2004
Messages
3,908
Reaction score
1
Location
Northeast Montana
lakading":3id8xid2 said:
You can disagree with the management style all you want, but unless you've tried and compared the genetics in your own environment, you have no basis for saying that they won't increase your performance without extra feed, etc.

Now, if you choose not to use the genetics because you disagree with the management style, or for any other reason that's perfectly fine. But to imply that the genetics can't perform without intensive management and/or that they're not sound without ever using the genetics yourself...makes you sound foolish.

Yep---But how many folks can afford to/ or should gamble with what could affect their herd for years to see if they will work- or is it wiser to use genetics that have been long proven in a management style/enviroment similar to theirs?

My choice is to go with the genetics already proven to work in my management style/enviroment....
 

lovesranchlife

New member
Joined
Feb 19, 2011
Messages
3
Reaction score
0
I'm going to add my two cents worth to the Net Worth 4200 discussion and the Schaff discussion.
First off, we have had two Net Worth 4200 bulls, one of whom is still with us. The only thing we haven't liked about them is the dispostion. We don't normally keep bulls or cows that are "cranky". The first one died on us and the other has stayed as we were short bulls last year as the season went on. We have a farily large herd and he is the only one who would rather eat you than have you feed him. Not sure he will be here much longer due to that. Net Worth 4200 does bring much to the table but temperment in our experience is not one of the those things!
We attended the Schaff Angus Valley sale last weekend. Schaffs have added some good things to the Angus breed over the years.That can not be denied. It is always interesting to see the condition of bulls from sale to sale, as it varies from place to place. Bottom line, bulls that we see in tmost sales are not in the condition that they would be in range ready mode. We have had probably 10 Schaff bulls in the past and they all were good performers for us. They have to run in some very rough country on our place and they have been up to the task. Their calves have been nothing to complain about when we went to sell them. I guess our biggest concern is buying bulls from any sale that is in such heavy condition is what it has done to their feet.
Keep the discussion going, it has been interesting today!
 

lakading

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 18, 2006
Messages
753
Reaction score
0
Location
Here and There
Oldtimer":opkgz8n5 said:
lakading":opkgz8n5 said:
You can disagree with the management style all you want, but unless you've tried and compared the genetics in your own environment, you have no basis for saying that they won't increase your performance without extra feed, etc.

Now, if you choose not to use the genetics because you disagree with the management style, or for any other reason that's perfectly fine. But to imply that the genetics can't perform without intensive management and/or that they're not sound without ever using the genetics yourself...makes you sound foolish.

Yep---But how many folks can afford to/ or should gamble with what could affect their herd for years to see if they will work- or is it wiser to use genetics that have been long proven in a management style/enviroment similar to theirs?

My choice is to go with the genetics already proven to work in my management style/enviroment....

I tend to agree with you, Oldtimer.

My point was that people who choose to do what you describe should refrain from making assumptions about what those other genetics would do in their environment. Unless they have first hand experience, it just comes off as jealousy/sour grapes. Anyway, if what they're doing works so well for them, there's no need to take the time to run down another operation or line of thinking. Different strokes for different folks.

But again...I agree with you. Sticking to genetics that are proven to work in your environment and under your management style is a wise business decision.
 

Jovid

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 22, 2005
Messages
1,787
Reaction score
0
Location
Oklahoma
lovesranchlife":1bpjt9n5 said:
I'm going to add my two cents worth to the Net Worth 4200 discussion and the Schaff discussion.
First off, we have had two Net Worth 4200 bulls, one of whom is still with us. The only thing we haven't liked about them is the dispostion. We don't normally keep bulls or cows that are "cranky". The first one died on us and the other has stayed as we were short bulls last year as the season went on. We have a farily large herd and he is the only one who would rather eat you than have you feed him. Not sure he will be here much longer due to that. Net Worth 4200 does bring much to the table but temperment in our experience is not one of the those things!
We attended the Schaff Angus Valley sale last weekend. Schaffs have added some good things to the Angus breed over the years.That can not be denied. It is always interesting to see the condition of bulls from sale to sale, as it varies from place to place. Bottom line, bulls that we see in tmost sales are not in the condition that they would be in range ready mode. We have had probably 10 Schaff bulls in the past and they all were good performers for us. They have to run in some very rough country on our place and they have been up to the task. Their calves have been nothing to complain about when we went to sell them. I guess our biggest concern is buying bulls from any sale that is in such heavy condition is what it has done to their feet.
Keep the discussion going, it has been interesting today!

So do all your calves out of that bull have a 900 # WW?
 

jscunn

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 7, 2005
Messages
1,612
Reaction score
33
Location
Northwest Florida
Really?? Why does everyone come back to the 900# WW, of course people dont have 900# WW steers. That is what EPDs and contemporary groups are for. I guarantee you that in our management style a Net Worth would have a heavier WW than a bull out of Pharo bull. Maybe that is what the buyers are looking for is not 900# WW but more WW out of a SAV bull. If you ran your cows the same every year and the SAV bull gave you 20# more WW that is money in the ranchers pocket. That is why the commercial guys are buying bulls there not the 900# WW.

Everything else sounds like jealousy and sour grapes, for the record I never bought so much as a straw of semen from SAV. Congratulations to them for a great sale.
 

lovesranchlife

New member
Joined
Feb 19, 2011
Messages
3
Reaction score
0
Jovid":36k4ugno said:
lovesranchlife":36k4ugno said:
I'm going to add my two cents worth to the Net Worth 4200 discussion and the Schaff discussion.
First off, we have had two Net Worth 4200 bulls, one of whom is still with us. The only thing we haven't liked about them is the dispostion. We don't normally keep bulls or cows that are "cranky". The first one died on us and the other has stayed as we were short bulls last year as the season went on. We have a farily large herd and he is the only one who would rather eat you than have you feed him. Not sure he will be here much longer due to that. Net Worth 4200 does bring much to the table but temperment in our experience is not one of the those things!
We attended the Schaff Angus Valley sale last weekend. Schaffs have added some good things to the Angus breed over the years.That can not be denied. It is always interesting to see the condition of bulls from sale to sale, as it varies from place to place. Bottom line, bulls that we see in tmost sales are not in the condition that they would be in range ready mode. We have had probably 10 Schaff bulls in the past and they all were good performers for us. They have to run in some very rough country on our place and they have been up to the task. Their calves have been nothing to complain about when we went to sell them. I guess our biggest concern is buying bulls from any sale that is in such heavy condition is what it has done to their feet.
Keep the discussion going, it has been interesting today!

So do all your calves out of that bull have a 900 # WW?

No, they definetly do NOT! LOL!
 

lovesranchlife

New member
Joined
Feb 19, 2011
Messages
3
Reaction score
0
Jovid":55h3ahqo said:
lovesranchlife":55h3ahqo said:
I'm going to add my two cents worth to the Net Worth 4200 discussion and the Schaff discussion.
First off, we have had two Net Worth 4200 bulls, one of whom is still with us. The only thing we haven't liked about them is the dispostion. We don't normally keep bulls or cows that are "cranky". The first one died on us and the other has stayed as we were short bulls last year as the season went on. We have a farily large herd and he is the only one who would rather eat you than have you feed him. Not sure he will be here much longer due to that. Net Worth 4200 does bring much to the table but temperment in our experience is not one of the those things!
We attended the Schaff Angus Valley sale last weekend. Schaffs have added some good things to the Angus breed over the years.That can not be denied. It is always interesting to see the condition of bulls from sale to sale, as it varies from place to place. Bottom line, bulls that we see in tmost sales are not in the condition that they would be in range ready mode. We have had probably 10 Schaff bulls in the past and they all were good performers for us. They have to run in some very rough country on our place and they have been up to the task. Their calves have been nothing to complain about when we went to sell them. I guess our biggest concern is buying bulls from any sale that is in such heavy condition is what it has done to their feet.
Keep the discussion going, it has been interesting today!

So do all your calves out of that bull have a 900 # WW?


We couldn't afford to raise calves that had a 900lb WW! They and the cows would eat us out of house and home!!!
 

Aero

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 14, 2005
Messages
1,771
Reaction score
0
Location
NC
Gators Rule":2e9zn22o said:
By the way Aero, bulls are typically used to add a little something to a herd. If the average cow in a herd produces 600 lb WW calves, and a grower wants to increase that, they add a bull that is known to produce weaning weight calves higher than 600 lbs....like 700, 800, or 900 lbs. If a rancher wants to reduce their weaning weight size, simply add a bull with a WW under 600.

that's the whole point of my post. big weaning weights are completely deceptive to the majority of the people who buy bulls thinking they are improving profitability. i guarantee you those 1000 lb WW bulls would never make it to 700lb on my place... and i would bet pretty good money that their mamas wouldnt make it 3 yrs either. buy bulls out of a completely artificial environment and you will have to make your own environment more artificial to support them. what percentage of rich kids work harder than their parents?

i am not putting down the effort of SAV but i am saying that what they call "marketing" is taking advantage of people. heck, part of the people arguing in this thread are prime candidates to perpetuate the blind following of "more pounds makes me more money".

and BTW... I dont want my bulls to add anything. i want them to maintain what i have and get rid of problems. if they bring something new, it's usually accompanied by a new problem.
 

3waycross

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 10, 2007
Messages
14,450
Reaction score
4
Location
Colorado
Aero":1kp5xo1p said:
Gators Rule":1kp5xo1p said:
By the way Aero, bulls are typically used to add a little something to a herd.
and BTW... I dont want my bulls to add anything. i want them to maintain what i have and get rid of problems. if they bring something new, it's usually accompanied by a new problem.

Well I just gotta ask how you accomplish breeding to a given bull and having him not do anything but fix problems for you. Sounds to me kinda like ordering that piece of pie in the restaurant that has all the calories knocked out and just the flavor remains?

Not picking a fight , would just like to hear that explained.
 

jscunn

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 7, 2005
Messages
1,612
Reaction score
33
Location
Northwest Florida
3Way,
Matt(aero) is just sat at the altar of bigger is bad alittle too long. In his opinion anyone that uses SAV bulls or bulls out of any performance program are wrong for doing it. The point is not how much calves out of one of those 900# WW bulls weighs on your place, but how much more they weigh than calves out of the "average" bull or the bull you used last year. I am sure that of the 390 bulls that SAV sold this month some of them went to some pretty good cattleman, guys that have been doing it for years and guys that raise cattle for a living.


Matt more pounds do equal more money, if you keep the management program the same. Now if you keep back daughters that opens up a different can of worms, that part is a different animal, on that Matt and I agree. But I dont think that keeping daughters out of those bulls will be the end of your ranch. I guess I am one of those naive people Matt is talking about thou.. :oops:
 

Dylan Biggs

Well-known member
Joined
May 31, 2010
Messages
704
Reaction score
0
Location
East Central Alberta, Canada
jscunn":1xbu52sc said:
3Way,



Matt more pounds do equal more money, if you keep the management program the same.

More weaning weight while keeping the management program the same more often then not places more demands on the cows which translates into more late breds and more opens over time, which ultimately costs more. So it is quite often the case that more pounds equals more costs over time. There are no free lunches, more WW doesn't come without a cost. It may not come knocking immediately, but in time it will show up. Short term more lbs may equal more income but longterm it may prove less profitable.

There may be producers who need genetic improvement in pre wean growth and whose cows still have room to work harder with out any negative side effects, but those kind of cow herds are few and far between in Western Canada. Most producers as far as WW goes are past the point of diminishing returns years ago. For cow calf enterprises up here the shift to lowering input costs as the main focus of improving economic return happened about 10 years ago. More WW is simply redundant.
Moderating cow size, reducing wintering feed costs, management intensive grazing, reducing rust, rot and depreciation are topics recieving more attention then increased WW.
 

Jovid

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 22, 2005
Messages
1,787
Reaction score
0
Location
Oklahoma
Dylan Biggs":p86xq5v2 said:
jscunn":p86xq5v2 said:
3Way,



Matt more pounds do equal more money, if you keep the management program the same.

More weaning weight while keeping the management program the same more often then not places more demands on the cows which translates into more late breds and more opens over time, which ultimately costs more. So it is quite often the case that more pounds equals more costs over time. There are no free lunches, more WW doesn't come without a cost. It may not come knocking immediately, but in time it will show up. Short term more lbs may equal more income but longterm it may prove less profitable.

There may be producers who need genetic improvement in pre wean growth and whose cows still have room to work harder with out any negative side effects, but those kind of cow herds are few and far between in Western Canada. Most producers as far as WW goes are past the point of diminishing returns years ago. For cow calf enterprises up here the shift to lowering input costs as the main focus of improving economic return happened about 10 years ago. More WW is simply redundant.
Moderating cow size, reducing wintering feed costs, management intensive grazing, reducing rust, rot and depreciation are topics recieving more attention then increased WW.

Well said.....
 

jscunn

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 7, 2005
Messages
1,612
Reaction score
33
Location
Northwest Florida
I am impressed, you guys have optimized your cow herd to where an extra 10 or 20 lbs of WW will tip the balance of your program. I and thousands of other ranchers that purchased performance based genetics arent there yet. Congratulations..
 

Cattleman200

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 3, 2004
Messages
752
Reaction score
0
Location
Vinemont, Ala.
Re: SAV Net Worth 4200 (Angus)
by jscunn » Mon Feb 21, 2011 3:08 pm

I am impressed, you guys have optimized your cow herd to where an extra 10 or 20 lbs of WW will tip the balance of your program. I and thousands of other ranchers that purchased performance based genetics arent there yet. Congratulations..


Now there is a post that was well said !


Circle H Ranch
 

Jovid

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 22, 2005
Messages
1,787
Reaction score
0
Location
Oklahoma
jscunn":2dmi14ec said:
I am impressed, you guys have optimized your cow herd to where an extra 10 or 20 lbs of WW will tip the balance of your program. I and thousands of other ranchers that purchased performance based genetics arent there yet. Congratulations..

So what are you trying to say. The extra 20 lbs of WW that these bulls will produce is not worth the cost?
 

hyup

New member
Joined
Feb 22, 2011
Messages
1
Reaction score
0
Jovid":2lu8ce69 said:
jscunn":2lu8ce69 said:
I am impressed, you guys have optimized your cow herd to where an extra 10 or 20 lbs of WW will tip the balance of your program. I and thousands of other ranchers that purchased performance based genetics arent there yet. Congratulations..

So what are you trying to say. The extra 20 lbs of WW that these bulls will produce is not worth the cost?

Thats why I have started culling any animals that perform above average, I think my savings in feed costs will be great. Just imagine how much I'll save in costs doing this for a few years.
 
Top