Tools or not?

[msscamp]

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

I know that is true. Thanks, dun.

 

[SEC]

Brandonm2

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.
View user's profile

How is that different now? I think that the common link for eternity will be that cattle are promoted and retained purely on pedigree. Is that wrong, no. Is this right, not always as there are cattle that should be cut that aren't.

I think there are more landmark sires in the past then what we are looking at today amongst the popular genetics. We have had a post a while back about naming a landmark sire over the last 20 years or so. There aren't very many bulls that people would blanket use. Mostly because AI gives a person the option to broaden his calves genetics.

Funny thing though that breeders/ranchers goals haven't changed over the years. But look back at the genetics that have been used over the last 30 years..........many skeletons in that closet.

 

[Hill Creek Farm]

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

You forgot: "eat'n em too!"

That's the best part! :cboy:

 

[Brandonm2]

Brandonm2

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.
View user's profile

How is that different now? I think that the common link for eternity will be that cattle are promoted and retained purely on pedigree. Is that wrong, no. Is this right, not always as there are cattle that should be cut that aren't.

I think there are more landmark sires in the past then what we are looking at today amongst the popular genetics. We have had a post a while back about naming a landmark sire over the last 20 years or so. There aren't very many bulls that people would blanket use. Mostly because AI gives a person the option to broaden his calves genetics.

While I will agree that we have more "landmark" sires back in the classic past (in our memories), bulls like Scotchcap or A A R New Trend, B/R New Design 036, Tehama Bando 155, or Q A S Traveler 23-4, or Pine Drive Big Sky (and these are just names that I, a commercial Hereford guy, can get off the top of my head) had a LOT bigger impact on the industry in sheer numbers than any of those "landmark" sires ever did. Those bulls have 5725, 3394, 5442, 4962, 8934, and 11865 own daughters in the Angus data base respectively and there is no telling how many of their sons and grandsons went into production siring commercial cows. How many Angus cattle today do NOT have ANY of those sires in their pedigrees? Today's "HOT" sires given the increased size of the Angus breed, the fact that half of the Angus registered last year were AI sired, and that AI use is rapidly increasing even in commercial cows, will FAR surpass the impact of those 80s and 90s legends before they are finished. We have more "landmark" sires active now than ever before.

 

[Caustic Burno]

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

A lot of this is true but we lost a lot more cattle too.
One would get down all we had was combotic(sp) or a 30-30.
We didn't manage grass as we do today, penned the cows twice a year to worm and pull the calves off.
Lost lots of cows and calfs to big birth weight bulls, I remember when Chars hit here in the late 60's early 70's wore out a set of chains pulling dead calfs. No one looked at an epd just the bull and the cow better have the calf did't matter she only weighed 900 pounds.
Seen entire herds wiped out by bangs as they had to be sold off for slaughter.

 

[dun]

A lot of this is true but we lost a lot more cattle too.
One would get down all we had was combotic(sp) or a 30-30.

I remeber when Tylan 50 hit the market and we thought it was a miracle. About like Nuflor and Baytril are today.

dun

 

[SEC]

We might just have to agree to disagree on this.

I feel that the genetics available today don't have the potential to be landmark sires as other eras have presented. This is mostly because the pendulum has swung to the extreme in carcass production and forgotten the real world where they really have to make a living. Much like the era of the popular cattle in the late 80's and early part of the 90's. There may be spin offs from these sires that will hopefully be better than the new wave sires. But I myself wouldn't use one for keeps in our herd because of what I think is their genetic imbalance. Their EPD's are great, I just doné believe in the cattle.

That comment might just sum up the other post that has also been an excellent discussion.

One last thought, of the breeders that were producing the landmark sires that were around 20-30 years ago, few have stayed the course. Many have gotten in bed with bigger outfits opening a new marketing venue up.

I would vote for GDAR and Sitz's as 2 ranches that have stayed the course and have sampled the new sires, they haven't flipped out over them. I believe I have seen the reasons why!

 

[Brandonm2]

I guess we will have to agree to disagree then. I don't see how a bull like EXT (actually N Bar Emulation EXT....I HAD to look the full name up) with 15,497 daughters in production in less than twenty years time is not a "landmark sire". Throw stones at him all you want, there are whole breeds in this country that don't have that many registerd animals. For a whole generation of American cattlemen, EXT, Traveler, and the various New Designs' (and I admit that B/R N.D. 036, N.D. 878, Bon View N.D. 1407 and 208 etc, etc are all the same animal in my mind) daughters ARE their image of Angus cows. THAT IS THE BENCHMARK. At the moment that IS the Angus breed for most people. Hopefully the next generation will address any flaws in the current generation of Angus cows; but I just don't understand how HUNDREDS of Angus breeders can all own sons and daughters of a bull and that bull not leave an impression (for good or bad). By sheer force of numbers these bulls are landmarks of where the Angus breed was during their day.

 

[SEC]

Ooops, got our wires crossed there. I do agree bulls like EXT, 6807 are landmark sires. What I am saying and wondering whether or not these current sires today won't equal bulls like LA Magic, Lonestar, Dr Spock and others whose contribution to the Angus breed was brutal. Today's equivalent would be the New Designs and Precisions.

Sorry about that!

 

[Brandonm2]

I am not enough of an Angus afficionado to start throwing stones at specific Angus sires or Angus lines; but yes it is reasonable to think that SOME of the currently popular Angus sires and lines will be seen as "mistakes" when more is known about them. Determining which lines will raise the bar and which will be breeding "dead ends" has always been both a science and an art form.

 

[SEC]

I couldn't agree more! That is why I avoid certain genetics the way I do.

 

[mtnman]

Which genetics do you avoid, SEC?

I avoid most all of the "new" Angus stuff. New Design's.

I avoid most anything with "size" and "frame". I avoid breeders that talk about it. Nothing turns me off faster than breeders talking about that, or the feedlot. But then, nothing turns me off like breeders talking entirely about the cow, and how the YG 4 problem is the feedlot's problem, too.

I avoid some breeders completely. Like anybody that uses New Design's.

mtnman

 

[SEC]

Check you PM, mtnman.

 

[Diehard40]

this question is about like asking how did farmers grow corn before herbicides, or tractors or soil samples.
We did it way back when in the cattle business without the technology we have now, but we had no predictability or accuracy. Plus we weren't as much about the end product. retaining ownership wasn't that much of an option. No one worried about what the consumer wanted. Consumer didn't know what they wanted as much as they do now. The human eye is still an essential tool in picking cattle. I think I could go on and on about how it was done and why things are done differently now and why the current tools are critical.

 

[Hill Creek Farm]

Which genetics do you avoid, SEC?

I avoid most all of the "new" Angus stuff. New Design's.

I avoid most anything with "size" and "frame". I avoid breeders that talk about it. Nothing turns me off faster than breeders talking about that, or the feedlot. But then, nothing turns me off like breeders talking entirely about the cow, and how the YG 4 problem is the feedlot's problem, too.

I avoid some breeders completely. Like anybody that uses New Design's.

mtnman

Whats wrong with talking about the cow? I like to hear how the cow produces and what the cow is like. Also, you say you avoid size and frame, but why do you say you avoid size? Do you mean likethe weight of an animal? Can't follow you on that one. And I can answer this one for myself, you avoid me very much and thats fine. It dosen't matter if you do. I am not going to worry about thinking about you. Why should I, waste of my time. I am not into that New Design line either. :cboy:

 

[SEC]

Diehard 40, my point is there isn't anymore quality herdsires being produced now then there was then and we have all these extra tools.

I don't know the answer to this one but the internet guru's might know where to find this.

I would be interested in seeing carcass grades from the last 20 years?

Have they changed much?
I would be then we are in the same predicament as we are in now, cattle ( ANGUS) don't yield as much as they possibly could.

Isn't that why they dropped the %RP EPD in ultrasound?

 

[SEC]

Not trying to be a smart ass but does anyone know the answer to my last post?

Mtnman where are you?

 

[Engler]

I think that since most breeders had a small gene pool it was a lot easier. You keep back your own heifers and buy a new bull every 2 or 3 years and all the calves are bred a lot alike.

With this you could figure out your herd in a short 20 years and be able to change and improve them. They couldn't chase the flavor of the week with 10 straws of semen, they had to stay the cource. Today I look at my father-in-law's 80 cows and I think that there are at least 12 different AI sires this year(probably more) and 4 different clean up bulls. A whole lot of genetic similarity there. Plus the cows are out of probably 50-60 different bulls so getting any kind of uniformity is challanging to put it mildly.

As far as the original question of how did they do it
-being with the cattle every day on foot or horse
-stubbornness
-luck
-they made the cows work for them, not them working for the
cows
-most importantly, an understanding wife

 

[Brandonm2]

I agree with a lot of that. If you are breeding every cow to a different AI sire I don't think you are really getting enough information on any sire to even have an informed opinion on any of them. If you have 80 cows, to me more than 10 or 12 AI sires in a year would be confusing as heck. I would prefer getting it down too 5 or 6 sires that I know a bunch about; but that might be too much risk for some people.

 

[mtnman]

I think they simply knew their cows.

They had bred the sires, dams, and farther back because they didn't have AI and transportation.

They were just plain ol' better cattlemen in some respects.

Part of it too, is that I don't think the ones that were farther out in the sticks were as affected by popular bloodlines at the time.

They were more able to resist outcrossing, since their neighbors didn't outcross either.

Quite simply, in my mind, there are but about 20 breeders total in all breeds that really remember the lessons their grandpas learned.

Too many of them never were attached to the industry back then anyway.

Some of them just buy into the "story" more than the real deal.

mtnman