Some of Greenwillow's Cattle

[HerefordSire]

Glad you like 'em. I figured that F250 and F350 and F450 etc might come along later....


I didn't know you like large cattle. I am glad I am not the only one.

If the F-150 name is a 1/2 ton or 1,000 pounds, and the F-250 name is a 3/4 ton or 1,500 pounds, and the F-350 name is a 1 ton or 2,000 pounds, then naming your next could be "Super Duty" after a Remitall bull.

2,400# is about the absolute limit that I want a mature bull to weigh, and he needs to be moderate enough frame for the 1,800-2,400# to be packed on right. The F150 and so on would be more relative to how powerful the genetics became as they were stacked.

You really should look into the Harper Cattle Co. of Texas and New Mexico. They purchased the old Ochs Bros herd of Gunnison Colorado. Now there are some massive beef machines. Bulls up to 3,245# and 63" tall. Cows that weigh a ton. At least they did in Colorado. You might suppose that they've moderated to some extent in Texas and New Mexico.

You could call the 2,400 maximum pound bull F-350.4 Now you are talking (Harper cattle). Are they about as big as Keynote 20X or bigger? Oops, I just snaked on one of my monitors .

 

[Herefords.US]

You could call the 2,400 maximum pound bull F-350.4 Now you are talking (Harper cattle). Are they about as big as Keynote 20X or bigger?

I never saw Keynote, but I was told that the Ochs cattle were larger. Comparing the Ochs cattle I saw versus the pictures I've seen of the Remitall cattle, the Remitall females definitely have a more maternal look to them and appear to be better milkers.

George

 

[CPL]

I think we need to be careful. Much as frame was a single trait selection in the past it could come back again just under the term moderation.

I am seeing too many people stop give up good genetics just because they are a little bigger.

Brandon you seem to be missing the point. You say you wouldn't want 50 of 57H's daughters in your pasture. How would you like granddaughters or greatgrandaughters that were around 5-6 frame easy fleshing, hardy and practical? Most people just look at the cross and red flags go up, but I look at the cross and think what I would do with the cross. Yes the cross would be considerably larger than average, but that doesn't mean the length, the depth, the power won't be there. I would love to bred 50 57H daughters to a moderate framed hereford bull that complemented them. I guess I just don't believe that larger frame is enough to cull. Larger Frame cows can be easy keeping. They can be deep ribbed, sound, etc. My cow is about 6.8 frame. Her heifer that I have is about 6.0 frame. If the frame moved 0.8 in one generation, and using the 57H bull I'd want to move atleast 1 frame score maybe two, how long would that take. About 2-3 yrs. if my results are average.

If I had 50 cows and the only thing you said was your with them is their mature weights I would be the happiest man in the world. I look at frame score just like anything else. If you want a cow to be deeper bodied you breed her to a thick bull. If you want a larger frame cow more moderate in her mature size you breed her to a moderate bull. I just don't see how frame is the automatic throw out of good cows. I'll repeat again just because they have a little larger frame doesn't mean they are worthless.

 

[HerefordSire]

I think we need to be careful. Much as frame was a single trait selection in the past it could come back again just under the term moderation.

I am seeing too many people stop give up good genetics just because they are a little bigger.

Brandon you seem to be missing the point. You say you wouldn't want 50 of 57H's daughters in your pasture. How would you like granddaughters or greatgrandaughters that were around 5-6 frame easy fleshing, hardy and practical? Most people just look at the cross and red flags go up, but I look at the cross and think what I would do with the cross. Yes the cross would be considerably larger than average, but that doesn't mean the length, the depth, the power won't be there. I would love to bred 50 57H daughters to a moderate framed hereford bull that complemented them. I guess I just don't believe that larger frame is enough to cull. Larger Frame cows can be easy keeping. They can be deep ribbed, sound, etc. My cow is about 6.8 frame. Her heifer that I have is about 6.0 frame. If the frame moved 0.8 in one generation, and using the 57H bull I'd want to move atleast 1 frame score maybe two, how long would that take. About 2-3 yrs. if my results are average.

If I had 50 cows and the only thing you said was your with them is their mature weights I would be the happiest man in the world. I look at frame score just like anything else. If you want a cow to be deeper bodied you breed her to a thick bull. If you want a larger frame cow more moderate in her mature size you breed her to a moderate bull. I just don't see how frame is the automatic throw out of good cows. I'll repeat again just because they have a little larger frame doesn't mean they are worthless.

I didn't know anyone agreed with me on frame size. You earned allot of respect from me by writing what you just wrote.

 

[Brandonm22]

Maybe it is just me; but I want a purebred cow to be as homozygous as you can get her. I am not saying what the perfect frame score is (entirely different argument) but "in a perfect world" a frame 5 cow(feel free to insert your favorite number), has a frame 5 momma, a frame 5 daddy, 2 frame 5 grandaddys, and 2 frame 5 grandmommas. Same with EPDs. I would rather not see -1 and +8 Birth Weight EPDs in the parents to get a moderate +3.5. That is telling me that we are waaaay heterozygous for those genes. I would rather not buy the offspring of one of Jim Lents' linebred anxiety 4th cows crossed to Key Note or OB Joyful and then hear some sellsman telling me about it being "moderate". What it is is unpredictable and if I cross that too x-bred commercial cows I get unpredictable offspring. I don't think that you are going to consistently get 1200 lb commercial cows by using purebred bulls with 3000 lb bulls closeup in the pedigree.

 

[JHH]

Maybe it is just me; but I want a purebred cow to be as homozygous as you can get her. I am not saying what the perfect frame score is (entirely different argument) but "in a perfect world" a frame 5 cow(feel free to insert your favorite number), has a frame 5 momma, a frame 5 daddy, 2 frame 5 grandaddys, and 2 frame 5 grandmommas. Same with EPDs. I would rather not see -1 and +8 Birth Weight EPDs in the parents to get a moderate +3.5. That is telling me that we are waaaay heterozygous for those genes. I would rather not buy the offspring of one of Jim Lents' linebred anxiety 4th cows crossed to Key Note or OB Joyful and then hear some sellsman telling me about it being "moderate". What it is is unpredictable and if I cross that too x-bred commercial cows I get unpredictable offspring. I don't think that you are going to consistently get 1200 lb commercial cows by using purebred bulls with 3000 lb bulls closeup in the pedigree.

Why dont you think yo can have 1200 lb females with 3000 bulls in pedigree? Wasnt this done in the race for frame size in the eightys but the other way around?

 

[Ned Jr.]

Maybe it is just me; but I want a purebred cow to be as homozygous as you can get her. I am not saying what the perfect frame score is (entirely different argument) but "in a perfect world" a frame 5 cow(feel free to insert your favorite number), has a frame 5 momma, a frame 5 daddy, 2 frame 5 grandaddys, and 2 frame 5 grandmommas. Same with EPDs. I would rather not see -1 and +8 Birth Weight EPDs in the parents to get a moderate +3.5. That is telling me that we are waaaay heterozygous for those genes. I would rather not buy the offspring of one of Jim Lents' linebred anxiety 4th cows crossed to Key Note or OB Joyful and then hear some sellsman telling me about it being "moderate". What it is is unpredictable and if I cross that too x-bred commercial cows I get unpredictable offspring. I don't think that you are going to consistently get 1200 lb commercial cows by using purebred bulls with 3000 lb bulls closeup in the pedigree.

Why dont you think yo can have 1200 lb females with 3000 bulls in pedigree? Wasnt this done in the race for frame size in the eightys but the other way around?

That's not at all what Brandonm22 is saying. Go back and read his post again.

Good post Brandonm22. I get what your saying 100% and agree wholeheartedly.When a breeders goal is to have say frame 5 cattle why do they breed 4 frame to six frame and vise versa? The herd would end up more consistent and the goal would be better reached stacking 5 frame bulls in the pedigree. And as you mentioned about birth weight, I wouldn't feel very comfortable breeding a 2 BW epd bull to my heifers that was from a -2 cow and a +6 bull. I'd definitely feel better buying from a breeder that kept things within my perimeters.

 

[CPL]

Maybe it is just me; but I want a purebred cow to be as homozygous as you can get her. I am not saying what the perfect frame score is (entirely different argument) but "in a perfect world" a frame 5 cow(feel free to insert your favorite number), has a frame 5 momma, a frame 5 daddy, 2 frame 5 grandaddys, and 2 frame 5 grandmommas. Same with EPDs. I would rather not see -1 and +8 Birth Weight EPDs in the parents to get a moderate +3.5. That is telling me that we are waaaay heterozygous for those genes. I would rather not buy the offspring of one of Jim Lents' linebred anxiety 4th cows crossed to Key Note or OB Joyful and then hear some sellsman telling me about it being "moderate". What it is is unpredictable and if I cross that too x-bred commercial cows I get unpredictable offspring. I don't think that you are going to consistently get 1200 lb commercial cows by using purebred bulls with 3000 lb bulls closeup in the pedigree.

I get what you're saying. Kind of like polled breeders get worked up with a bull hetero polled. But, I bolded you last line. You said 3000 lbs bullS. The problem there is it'd be one 3000 lbs pound and he would be in the back of the pedigree, grandsire or great-grandsire. Anyways, this was just kind of a hypothetical, my pockets aren't deep enough for $250 for 2 straws & a cert. However that still doesn't change my mind that just because bulls are bigger they are worthless. I think if someone did a little extra work and tried to moderate these bigger bulls and retain the traits they could be looking at some good calves. Don't get me wrong, I think the industry is headed towards a 1200 lb cow, but they doesn't mean I won't use a little bit bigger animal if I think they'll add some strengths to mine.

 

[Brandonm22]

I never said that big bulls were worthless. They work great as terminal sires. I bet OB joyful used on Angus or Brangus cows too produce market baldies would work great. He would also work well in purebred programs like George's that does not want to be moderate. All I am saying is that IF your goal is too produce that moderate framed 1200 lb cow that all the extension people are talking about now, he has too much frame, length, depth (normally a good thing), volume, thickness, and subtance of bone for you to ever breed his daughters down to a 1200 cow still with some thickness and capacity. We used to have a poster on here that bred and showed some of the finest, nicest, thickest, most eye appealling Herefords you have ever seen anywhere; BUT they were mini-Herefords. He had the reserve champion.....and I thought the judge messed up BIG TIME on that final pair. I think he was frame 00 or something like that. As good as he was, you would mess up the cattle if you tried too breed his progeny up to a 5 (talk to some of the old timers who lived through the era where the industry did just that). Dittoe with Joyful. You would have a hard time breeding his (I am guessing here) typical 1750 lb daughters down to a 1200 lb cow without losing something along the way.

 

[JHH]

I never said that big bulls were worthless. They work great as terminal sires. I bet OB joyful used on Angus or Brangus cows too produce market baldies would work great. He would also work well in purebred programs like George's that does not want to be moderate. All I am saying is that IF your goal is too produce that moderate framed 1200 lb cow that all the extension people are talking about now, he has too much frame, length, depth (normally a good thing), volume, thickness, and subtance of bone for you to ever breed his daughters down to a 1200 cow still with some thickness and capacity. We used to have a poster on here that bred and showed some of the finest, nicest, thickest, most eye appealling Herefords you have ever seen anywhere; BUT they were mini-Herefords. He had the reserve champion.....and I thought the judge messed up BIG TIME on that final pair. I think he was frame 00 or something like that. As good as he was, you would mess up the cattle if you tried too breed his progeny up to a 5 (talk to some of the old timers who lived through the era where the industry did just that). Dittoe with Joyful. You would have a hard time breeding his (I am guessing here) typical 1750 lb daughters down to a 1200 lb cow without losing something along the way.

Ok I reread both posts and I think I see :roll: . I will try to read better next time.

I still like that bull inspite of size and epds.

 

[Herefords.US]

He would also work well in purebred programs like George's that does not want to be moderate.

Where'd you ever get the idea that I don't want to moderate frame/size in my breeding program?

George

 

[Brandonm22]

I apologize, I believe I got the first names confused. I was referring to the man from Arkansas (Herefordsire) who wants to corner the Frame 8 Hereford market.

 

[HerefordSire]

I apologize, I believe I got the first names confused. I was referring to the man from Arkansas (Herefordsire) who wants to corner the Frame 8

Hereford market.

What makes you think I am not trying to corner the frame 9 Hereford market? :mrgreen:

 

[DOC HARRIS]

I apologize, I believe I got the first names confused. I was referring to the man from Arkansas (Herefordsire) who wants to corner the Frame 8

Hereford market.

What makes you think I am not trying to corner the frame 9 Hereford market? :mrgreen:

Having just viewed the Olympic Games, I am wondering if you would consider cornering the "PERFECT 10" Market! That would give you the opportunity to do an exhaustive report on the Profit(?) or LOSS aspects of how many head of those size cattle require the amount of acreage for pasture, the amount of hay to be grown for wintering, the "breed back" percentage - or difficulty thereof, and all sorts of expenses required to carry a herd of cattle which carried Frame Size 10.

I think it would be an interesting report.

DOC HARRIS

 

[HerefordSire]

I apologize, I believe I got the first names confused. I was referring to the man from Arkansas (Herefordsire) who wants to corner the Frame 8

Hereford market.

What makes you think I am not trying to corner the frame 9 Hereford market? :mrgreen:

Having just viewed the Olympic Games, I am wondering if you would consider cornering the "PERFECT 10" Market! That would give you the opportunity to do an exhaustive report on the Profit(?) or LOSS aspects of how many head of those size cattle require the amount of acreage for pasture, the amount of hay to be grown for wintering, the "breed back" percentage - or difficulty thereof, and all sorts of expenses required to carry a herd of cattle which carried Frame Size 10.

I think it would be an interesting report.

DOC HARRIS

As previously stated many times, my target frame size is between 6-8 frame. I am waiting for the judges to score so I can get a medal.

I think Brandonn22 was encouraging me to believe the way he believes, much like you may be, in regards to efficiency. I believe the topic in question, when we discuss frame size, is efficiency, even if the entire ranching public desires frame 11 cattle. I have studied allot about the subject but have very little experience. The most recent article I have read was Kit Pharo in a nice write up in the July Hereford World. He likes frame 2-4. I like frame 6-8. In my interpretation, he writes that more moderate cattle can consume the same amount of grass per acre thereby producing more calves and more pounds of marketable meat per acre even though the calves may be lighter weight and have more skulls and bones.

So back to efficiency and a simple question (LOL): name one cow-calf rancher making a profit raising 2-6 frame size 1,200 pound cattle (or whatever size and weight you recommend) that have an average amount of overhead, and that average overhead should contain entities containing a land payment and those that don't have a land payment. If you located one, how many head do they run? What part of the country are they in? What are the averages of their most recenty soil sample? What is their averasge rainfall in inches for the last year, last 10 years, and then the last 50 years? Do they have an outside job when calculating their income or are they full time ranchers? What pedigree does the average animal have? What breed are the cattle? Do they have other family members help them? How many assets do they have such as barns and silos and fences, etc. I can keep going on, but you get the point.

Even if Mr. Pharo is making a profit with a host of variables that are different from my environment, I believe he can become more efficient and I don't think he has yet to discover the most efficient frame size and or weight. However, at least he is trying, and I admire that in a person.

What we should probably be measuring is the total gross proceeds per acre before any expenses or other costs are deducted and then go from there.

 

[Brandonm22]

What you need to know is where you are at and what kind of cow matches that production environment. In this study of a group of cows on range in South Dakota, the bigger cows could not consume enough high quality forage too milk well enough to produce competitively with the smaller cattle.....

http://herefordworld.org/_HW/Documents/ ... efTalk.pdf

If that were a real world ranch, I bet over 5 years most of those 1600++ lb momma cows would get culled out from failure too breed back or stay sound. Most of Pharo's buyers are "presumably" in country that is as rough or rougher than the station in South Dakota.

 

[HerefordSire]

What you need to know is where you are at and what kind of cow matches that production environment. In this study of a group of cows on range in South Dakota, the bigger cows could not consume enough high quality forage too milk well enough to produce competitively with the smaller cattle.....

http://herefordworld.org/_HW/Documents/ ... efTalk.pdf

If that were a real world ranch, I bet over 5 years most of those 1600++ lb momma cows would get culled out from failure too breed back or stay sound. Most of Pharo's buyers are "presumably" in country that is as rough or rougher than the station in South Dakota.


In regards to the article: immediately after reading it, I questioined whether the genetics were identical, such that all of the two groups of cattle had the same sire and dam. If they did which genetic combinations performed the best, irregardless of weight.

The culling in your real world would depend on the genetic combinations, not the weight.

 

[Brandonm22]

If you are suggesting that there is a genotype out there where the 1600+++ pound cows would perform better than the 1600++ lb cows in the test.....sure probably. But if you were a real world rancher with a set of 1200 lb cows who are weaning 50% of their body weight why not just multiply those genetics that already work??? rather than chasing some dream cows that consistently wean 820++ lb calves on South Dakota rangeland???

 

[HerefordSire]

If you are suggesting that there is a genotype out there where the 1600+++ pound cows would perform better than the 1600++ lb cows in the test.....sure probably. But if you were a real world rancher with a set of 1200 lb cows who are weaning 50% of their body weight why not just multiply those genetics that already work??? rather than chasing some dream cows that consistently wean 820++ lb calves on South Dakota rangeland???

In the real world where we spend real cash, sure, it is certainly very possible and very likely many 1500 pound animals are much more efficient than 1200 pound animals.

My point is this:

If one variable is modified, only then can we deduce anything. If we modify two variables at one time, we don't know which variable is the cause of the diferent results. In order to determine which weight is the most efficient, each of the 50,000+ variables must be tested one at a time and of course we don't have that much time so we guess with real cash. Soon, we can just test the DNA. Therefore, you can thank me now, or thank me later when they complete the DNA test for efficiency for Bos Taurine.

 

[Brandonm22]

I don't see why we are guessing or DNA testing. Buy a scale. At weaning run both the cows and the calves across the scale. Adjust the weaning weights and body condition score the cows. Divide the calves weights by their dams weights to get the efficiency numbers. Cull the least efficient cows, the open cows, and those with poor BCScores. Keep the heifers from the most efficient cows who bred back quick and maintain their condition. Repeat next year, the year after that, the year after that, etc on and on until the end of time....... If you end up with big framy cows....that's ok. If you end up with moderate framed cows......that's good too.