Tools or not?

[SEC]

How did breeders years ago actually breed any good cattle when all they had was their eyeball?

Ultrasound has shown us stuff that the eyeball can't pickout. But when it comes to selecting functional cattle mother nature is wrong yet.


Cattle become what the environment allows them to be. Many cows are bigger and heavier than what some would like, feed affects this!

 

[SEC]

C'mon guys, i can't believe there isn't an answer for this.

 

[MikeC]

How did breeders years ago actually breed any good cattle when all they had was their eyeball?

Ultrasound has shown us stuff that the eyeball can't pickout. But when it comes to selecting functional cattle mother nature is wrong yet.


Cattle become what the environment allows them to be. Many cows are bigger and heavier than what some would like, feed affects this!

I'm not exactly sure of what you're saying here.

Just how far would you want to go back? i.e. years ago

 

[Beefy]

4 parts hard work
2 parts trial and error
3 parts time
1 part being good cattlemen.

 

[Hill Creek Farm]

4 parts hard work
2 parts trial and error
3 parts time
1 part being good cattlemen.

Very good theory. I agree with you Beefy. :cboy:

 

[1848]

4 parts hard work
2 parts trial and error
3 parts time
1 part being good cattlemen.

You forgot: "eat'n em too!"

 

[SEC]

What I am referrring to is the era before EPD's helped everyone "breed" better cattle.

 

[Bez?]

Plus a little good luck.

Bez?

 

[Ned Jr.]

I think I'll just use EPD's as tools like I think they where meant to be. Then I may as well put the info ultasound provides to use in my selection as well. Then I will try to follow all of that up with good old fashion eye, but the eye and common sense for what you need for you're area come first.

 

[D.R. Cattle]

How did breeders years ago actually breed any good cattle when all they had was their eyeball?

Ultrasound has shown us stuff that the eyeball can't pickout. But when it comes to selecting functional cattle mother nature is wrong yet.


Cattle become what the environment allows them to be. Many cows are bigger and heavier than what some would like, feed affects this!

Eyeball works pretty good. Beyond that trial and error. Most commercial cow/calfers are still doing it that way.

 

[msscamp]

How did breeders years ago actually breed any good cattle when all they had was their eyeball?

They had to have a very good understanding of what they were doing, and they had to know their cattle - inside out, upside down, and backwards. They also (usually) had to get burned a few times. Just my thoughts.

 

[dun]

That was a totaslly different timeframe when about all that was required of a cow was that she wean a calf fairly regularly. The market has changed so much tha a comparison of then and now is like comparing Wilbur and Orvils plane to the space chuttle.

dun

 

[msscamp]

That was a totaslly different timeframe when about all that was required of a cow was that she wean a calf fairly regularly.
dun

With all due respect Dun, I disagree. I distinctly remember the marbling and tenderness demands made by the consumer - that is one of the reasons we traded in our Angus for Murray Grey's - other reasons were the docility factor, and the small birthweight and rapid growth. We also conducted our own tests of fattening and slaughtering a Murrey Grey and an Angus (both animals were as comparable as possible given the only tool we had was the naked eye) and then comparing various cuts of beef to determine which one marbled better and tasted better - probably not very scientific - but it was the only option available at that time.

 

[Brandonm2]

How did breeders years ago actually breed any good cattle when all they had was their eyeball?

Ultrasound has shown us stuff that the eyeball can't pickout. But when it comes to selecting functional cattle mother nature is wrong yet.

I hate to throw stones at far better men than I will ever hope to be be; but I think in MANY cases the answer is that they didn't. For every great bull that got hyped and promoted there were others who should have been cut that weren't. We are lucky too live in a time where our eyeball and the show ring are aided by actual performance, EPDs, ultrasound, etc. Breeders still make mistakes. There are still bulls that get hyped and promoted that should have been Kansas City T-bones; but there are more tools in the arsenal so those mistakes should be found out a lot quicker AND the good bulls should be found out a lot quicker too.

 

[dun]

That was a totaslly different timeframe when about all that was required of a cow was that she wean a calf fairly regularly.
dun

With all due respect Dun, I disagree. I distinctly remember the marbling and tenderness demands made by the consumer - that is one of the reasons we traded in our Angus for Murray Grey's - other reasons were the docility factor, and the small birthweight and rapid growth. We also conducted our own tests of fattening and slaughtering a Murrey Grey and an Angus (both animals were as comparable as possible given the only tool we had was the naked eye) and then comparing various cuts of beef to determine which one marbled better and tasted better - probably not very scientific - but it was the only option available at that time.

25-30 years ago some breeders may have been talking about tenderness, but the driving force was meat and let the buyer beware. That's part of the reason chicken started making inroads and CAB could get off to such a flying start. I would wager that a lot if not most producers still don;t really give a hoot about carcass qualitys, it's pounds of meat across the scale.

dun

 

[msscamp]

That was a totaslly different timeframe when about all that was required of a cow was that she wean a calf fairly regularly.
dun

With all due respect Dun, I disagree. I distinctly remember the marbling and tenderness demands made by the consumer - that is one of the reasons we traded in our Angus for Murray Grey's - other reasons were the docility factor, and the small birthweight and rapid growth. We also conducted our own tests of fattening and slaughtering a Murrey Grey and an Angus (both animals were as comparable as possible given the only tool we had was the naked eye) and then comparing various cuts of beef to determine which one marbled better and tasted better - probably not very scientific - but it was the only option available at that time.

25-30 years ago some breeders may have been talking about tenderness, but the driving force was meat and let the buyer beware. That's part of the reason chicken started making inroads and CAB could get off to such a flying start. I would wager that a lot if not most producers still don;t really give a hoot about carcass qualitys, it's pounds of meat across the scale.

dun

You're right - my apologies. I assumed that the majority of other breeders would grasp the same concept and work towards satisfying it.

 

[dun]

I assumed that the majority of other breeders would grasp the same concept and work towards satisfying it.

If they had we wouldn;t have lost as much market share to poultry and pigs.

dun

 

[dun]

Back then there weren't the marketing options, or they aweren;t taken advantage of like the are or can be today. Most calves were sold at the salebarn or straight from the farm and the producer didn;t know what kind of carcass he was producing except for the ones he kept for his own table.
EBVs the forerunner of EPDs were only concerned with BW, WW, YW and milk. I'm too lazy to look in my old catalogs but I think the early EPDs were the same way.

dun

 

[msscamp]

I assumed that the majority of other breeders would grasp the same concept and work towards satisfying it.

If they had we wouldn;t have lost as much market share to poultry and pigs.

dun

I cannot grasp the concept of producing anything other than the best possible, so I continually assume others are doing it as well. It is a major flaw in my thinking processes.

 

[dun]

I cannot grasp the concept of producing anything other than the best possible, so I continually assume others are doing it as well. It is a major flaw in my thinking processes.

There will alwasy be a market for alternatives. That's why there are Aston Martins and Yogos.

dun