usefull research

[Doug Thorson]

What would you be trying to prove?

It would prove that a guru is someone who couldn't make a living in the real world!!! :lol2: :lol2: :lol2:

 

[VanC]

What would you be trying to prove?

It would prove that a guru is someone who couldn't make a living in the real world!!! :lol2: :lol2: :lol2:

The term "guru" on this forum is an indication of the number of posts a person has made. Nothing more, nothing less. It has nothing to do with the real world, whatever that is.

 

[Doug Thorson]

I wasn't referrring to guru on these boards, I was referring to the guru type that write papers on how to ranch, how to feed, how to put up feed, how to plant, how to breed, how to, how to, how to and all what they say might be true, but they are like an engineer, most of them only have that small window of the picture.

 

[VanC]

I wasn't referrring to guru on these boards, I was referring to the guru type that write papers on how to ranch, how to feed, how to put up feed, how to plant, how to breed, how to, how to, how to and all what they say might be true, but they are like an engineer, most of them only have that small window of the picture.

Don't ya just hate it when you say one thing and people think you said something else? :lol2:

Now I see your point. Specialists in their respective fields do good things, but in order to make it work the farmer needs to take something from every area and put it all together.
Not an easy thing to do.

 

[Idaman]

A man told my dad one time when I was ready for college to never send any of his kids to Ag college to study animal science. The reason given was that every few years the teachings have to change to keep up with the times so in a very few short years what you had learned would be obsolete. His recommendation was a good tough business school because 6% will always be 6% and buy low, sell high isn't likely to change anytime soon. Obviously these recommendations were for ranch/farm/feedlot owners not future professors/government workers etc.

It seems to me that every younger generation of professors and researchers have to prove the preceeding group wrong. Probably to establish their own credentials but they in time are next in line to be proven wrong.

 

[TexasBred]

Science is always changing whether it's animal science, veterinary science, medical science or all the others. New things discovered everyday. Old things no necessarily wrong, just better ways to diagnose and treat. And yes 6% is still 6% but with all the new things now allowed in accounting other than GAAP it too has become CRAP.

 

[3waycross]

It seems like this one would have been done but I can't find it . . .

A direct correlation between cattle size = more required feed intake = harder to maintain in harsh environments to produce a calf that can't offset the greater feed intake and still breed back.

A hunter friend (I don't hunt) says the largest whitetails are found in the harshest environments (the further north you travel - at least in Michigan). It seems, based on livestock frame score arguments, they would be smaller. He says the same is true of bears.

It also seems Africa sure has it's share of harsh environments and, based on this logic, it would have only low frame score herbivores. Yet it has more than it's share of massive herbivores. Certainly they are "adapted to their environment", but why can't some large frame cattle also be more suitable for harsh environments.

:???:

Anyhow, long answer, short question.

Short answer. They need more body mass to survive the harsher winters. The way I have always heard it is; within a given species, the farther north you go the larger the bosy mass. Whitetails are the perfect example of this theory.

 

[fargus]

A man told my dad one time when I was ready for college to never send any of his kids to Ag college to study animal science. The reason given was that every few years the teachings have to change to keep up with the times so in a very few short years what you had learned would be obsolete. His recommendation was a good tough business school because 6% will always be 6% and buy low, sell high isn't likely to change anytime soon. Obviously these recommendations were for ranch/farm/feedlot owners not future professors/government workers etc.

It seems to me that every younger generation of professors and researchers have to prove the preceeding group wrong. Probably to establish their own credentials but they in time are next in line to be proven wrong.

That's a good point. I took a BSc AG.... started in animal science and switched to agronomy. But all of us HAD to take several business courses and I took a couple of extra ones. That basic knowledge has helped me more than I ever thought it would, and I spend a lot of time each winter going to meetings to stay on top of my technical skills because it DOES change so quickly. I'll give our school (U of Guelph) credit for trying to give us a well-rounded degree, but most of the other degree programs (at Guelph) were very specialized and hampered the grads quite a bit if they interviewed for a job outside their field of study.

 

[angus9259]

Short answer. They need more body mass to survive the harsher winters. The way I have always heard it is; within a given species, the farther north you go the larger the bosy mass. Whitetails are the perfect example of this theory.

Fair enough. So I'd like to see the research re: why we don't do the same thing with cattle . . . increase size as we move north.

 

[KNERSIE]

Short answer. They need more body mass to survive the harsher winters. The way I have always heard it is; within a given species, the farther north you go the larger the bosy mass. Whitetails are the perfect example of this theory.

Fair enough. So I'd like to see the research re: why we don't do the same thing with cattle . . . increase size as we move north.

Nothing is stopping you from doing that, you won't be a pioneer in that regard either....

 

[Northern Rancher]

This is one of our best cows on the place as far as holding body condition through all four seasons-she's 13 in this picture and still going strong I saw her breedback 1st week of season. Our only purebred South Devon cow on the place but we have a few percentage ones. South Devon works well for us but were using them more as a terminal cross on any cows that give us grief-I'd use them alot heavier if they consistently produced cows like this. This cow isn't what a person would call really 'great haired' in winter but I remember how dense her haircoat was when we clipped her to brand her.

 

[DOC HARRIS]

A man told my dad one time when I was ready for college to never send any of his kids to Ag college to study animal science. The reason given was that every few years the teachings have to change to keep up with the times so in a very few short years what you had learned would be obsolete. His recommendation was a good tough business school because 6% will always be 6% and buy low, sell high isn't likely to change anytime soon. Obviously these recommendations were for ranch/farm/feedlot owners not future professors/government workers etc.

It seems to me that every younger generation of professors and researchers have to prove the preceeding group wrong. Probably to establish their own credentials but they in time are next in line to be proven wrong.

That's a good point. I took a BSc AG.... started in animal science and switched to agronomy. But all of us HAD to take several business courses and I took a couple of extra ones. That basic knowledge has helped me more than I ever thought it would, and I spend a lot of time each winter going to meetings to stay on top of my technical skills because it DOES change so quickly. I'll give our school (U of Guelph) credit for trying to give us a well-rounded degree, but most of the other degree programs (at Guelph) were very specialized and hampered the grads quite a bit if they interviewed for a job outside their field of study.

These are well-considered rationales. A "BS" degree in ANYTHING is designed to prepare one for future investigation and knowledge-gaining in that chosen field - giving one the basics of how to think along specific protocols. After a few months - or years - increased information in that field makes the BS degree just that - BS!

Whatever line of endeavor one decides to follow, it requires several factors in order to be successful in that occupation or vocation; a consuming interest in the subject, a thorough and continuing knowledge
of the BU$INE$$ elements, and an inner burning drive to succeed! A solid "Business Foundation" is imperative in ANY occupation, and the business of producing Beef for human consumption is certainly one for requiring sagacity and "continuing awareness" of the subject matter.

. . . particularly in this 'Information Age'! With the advent of the Internet and the billions of bits of Knowledge which is available therein, there is NO excuse for anyone "...not knowing" how to help themselves" to become a success in any business in which they may wish to partake! It just takes "Cojones!"

DOC HARRIS

 

[Idaman]

These are well-considered rationales. A "BS" degree in ANYTHING is designed to prepare one for future investigation and knowledge-gaining in that chosen field - giving one the basics of how to think along specific protocols. After a few months - or years - increased information in that field makes the BS degree just that - BS!

Whatever line of endeavor one decides to follow, it requires several factors in order to be successful in that occupation or vocation; a consuming interest in the subject, a thorough and continuing knowledge
of the BU$INE$$ elements, and an inner burning drive to succeed! A solid "Business Foundation" is imperative in ANY occupation, and the business of producing Beef for human consumption is certainly one for requiring sagacity and "continuing awareness" of the subject matter.

. . . particularly in this 'Information Age'! With the advent of the Internet and the billions of bits of Knowledge which is available therein, there is NO excuse for anyone "...not knowing" how to help themselves" to become a success in any business in which they may wish to partake! It just takes "Cojones!"

DOC HARRIS


Well stated DOC. My bottom line in all this discussion is that we absolutely must stay afloat.

 

[Brandonm22]

Short answer. They need more body mass to survive the harsher winters. The way I have always heard it is; within a given species, the farther north you go the larger the bosy mass. Whitetails are the perfect example of this theory.

Fair enough. So I'd like to see the research re: why we don't do the same thing with cattle . . . increase size as we move north.

I thought that herbivores get bigger as a protection against predators. The bigger you are, the fewer things can eat you. The reason Alabama deer aren't as big as Montana or Illinois deer probably has more to do with population density than it does with climate....though worm load undoubtedly has a role.

 

[Northern Rancher]

A single wolf can kill the biggest whitetail buck we have up here so size don't do a deer much good in that reguard.

 

[VanC]

In zoology, Bergmann's rule is an ecogeographic rule that correlates latitude with body mass in animals. Broadly it asserts that within a species the body mass increases with latitude and colder climate, or that within closely related species that differ only in relation to size that one would expect the larger species to be found at the higher latitude. The rule is named after a nineteenth-century German biologist, Christian Bergmann, who first formulated the rule in 1847. The rule is often applied only to mammals and birds (endotherms), but some researchers have also found evidence for the rule in studies of ectothermic species.

The earliest explanation, given by Bergmann when originally formulating the rule, is that larger animals have a lower surface area to volume ratio than smaller animals, so they radiate less body heat per unit of mass, and stay warmer in cold climates. On the other hand, warmer climates impose the opposite problem: body heat generated by metabolism needs to be dissipated quickly rather than stored within. Thus, the higher surface area-to-volume ratio of smaller animals in hot and dry climates facilitates heat loss through the skin and helps cooling of the body.

3waycross touched on this earlier. While there are exceptions to this rule, it seems to pretty much hold true, at least with mammals and birds. Cattle and other domesticated species don't count because their size, through selection, is deterimined by man. If all domesticated mammals and birds were released to the wild, my guess is that in a few hundred years the ones that survived in colder climates would be bigger than those that survived in warmer climates.

 

[Idaman]

In zoology, Bergmann's rule is an ecogeographic rule that correlates latitude with body mass in animals. Broadly it asserts that within a species the body mass increases with latitude and colder climate, or that within closely related species that differ only in relation to size that one would expect the larger species to be found at the higher latitude. The rule is named after a nineteenth-century German biologist, Christian Bergmann, who first formulated the rule in 1847. The rule is often applied only to mammals and birds (endotherms), but some researchers have also found evidence for the rule in studies of ectothermic species.

The earliest explanation, given by Bergmann when originally formulating the rule, is that larger animals have a lower surface area to volume ratio than smaller animals, so they radiate less body heat per unit of mass, and stay warmer in cold climates. On the other hand, warmer climates impose the opposite problem: body heat generated by metabolism needs to be dissipated quickly rather than stored within. Thus, the higher surface area-to-volume ratio of smaller animals in hot and dry climates facilitates heat loss through the skin and helps cooling of the body.

3waycross touched on this earlier. While there are exceptions to this rule, it seems to pretty much hold true, at least with mammals and birds. Cattle and other domesticated species don't count because their size, through selection, is deterimined by man. If all domesticated mammals and birds were released to the wild, my guess is that in a few hundred years the ones that survived in colder climates would be bigger than those that survived in warmer climates.

In a few hundred years they would probably come pretty close in size to the resident wildlife. I have maintained for years that we need to size our cattle for our environment with the resident wildlife size in mind.

 

[Brandonm22]

Wolves are big enough to take deer yes, but down here there are few IF ANY wolves. The primary predator of deer (especially fawns) here is coyotes. Red Foxes WOULD hunt deer if they were big enough to do so. They are too small to make a living hunting white tails. The bigger the deer the smaller the threat from coyotes. Now granted if the urban wolf advocates get their way that could change. Right now a 200 lb buck has very little too fear in an Alabama pasture other than from hunters or traffic as there are NO wolves, no mountain lions, no grizzly bears, and very very few black bears. You also have comparatively FEW deer. We have a herd of 1.8 million. Montana (which is over ten times our size) only has 249,000. I see a deer (or 40) every single day just riding around on business and errands. Even adding in the elk, mule deer, and moose population Alabama has more deer than Montana.

Here is the deer density map.

http://www.deerhunting.ws/densitymap.htm#

IF Montana had our population density of white tail deer (especially given your winter) I maintain that your deer would be as small as our own, if we killed all the big predators.

 

[ga.prime]

Neat map, brandon. I wonder what those little yellow triangles signify.

 

[aussie_cowgirl]

Jeez, larger animals have a smaller surface area compared to their body size than smaller animals. The significance of this is there is less surface area for heat to escape (relative to size) ergo it's easier to maintain body temp in cold climates. Just another heat loss preventative.