Why Angus?

[DOC HARRIS]

As has been reiterated on these pages in the past - absolutely to the point of being repetitious - the CUMULATIVE effect of crossbreeding when SEVERAL traits and characteristics are considered, is more important than the effect of any ONE particular trait. IF REA "was supposed to be a value that represented the total package", that would - AGAIN - be an indication of 'single trait selection' evaluating, which agenda has proven over and over, for many variable reasons, to be an unacceptable method of "Balancing" profitable breeding protocols. IF such were the case, we could toss out all other characteristics and traits which we use for optimal selection methods of beef cattle breeding and managing, and just do our selection of Seedstock and Terminal cattle on the basis of REA EPD's only!

Won't happen!

Just think of how much time, money and trouble could be alleviated and saved by the elimination of Sale Managers, Catalog Sale preparation costs, Record keeping expenses of Pedigree statistics, voluminous EPD records and history, the time taken to analyze Growth factors, Maternal details, Carcass and Ultrasound readings and records, except for the Ribeye statistics, and the $Values records! Why - - each breeder could hire his Sixth Grade daughter to "eyeball" the ribeye EPD's of sale cattle and do all of his selection choices from his Daughter's "BIG CHIEF" writing tablet! ("BIG CHIEF"! Maybe I am dating myself!)

In any case, we are 'nit-picking' this subject to death! Crossbreeding is a proven, profitable livestock breeding protocol, naysayers notwithstanding!

Case closed!

DOC HARRIS

 

[talldog]

MUTTS RULE !!!!!!!! :banana:

 

[novatech]

As has been reiterated on these pages in the past - absolutely to the point of being repetitious - the CUMULATIVE effect of crossbreeding when SEVERAL traits and characteristics are considered, is more important than the effect of any ONE particular trait. IF REA "was supposed to be a value that represented the total package", that would - AGAIN - be an indication of 'single trait selection' evaluating, which agenda has proven over and over, for many variable reasons, to be an unacceptable method of "Balancing" profitable breeding protocols. IF such were the case, we could toss out all other characteristics and traits which we use for optimal selection methods of beef cattle breeding and managing, and just do our selection of Seedstock and Terminal cattle on the basis of REA EPD's only!

Won't happen!

Just think of how much time, money and trouble could be alleviated and saved by the elimination of Sale Managers, Catalog Sale preparation costs, Record keeping expenses of Pedigree statistics, voluminous EPD records and history, the time taken to analyze Growth factors, Maternal details, Carcass and Ultrasound readings and records, except for the Ribeye statistics, and the $Values records! Why - - each breeder could hire his Sixth Grade daughter to "eyeball" the ribeye EPD's of sale cattle and do all of his selection choices from his Daughter's "BIG CHIEF" writing tablet! ("BIG CHIEF"! Maybe I am dating myself!)


In any case, we are 'nit-picking' this subject to death! Crossbreeding is a proven, profitable livestock breeding protocol, naysayers notwithstanding!

Case closed!

DOC HARRIS

Doc, I fully admit that I do not have anywhere close to your writing skill. I cannot mentally organize my thoughts and put them on paper the way you can. Sometimes I leave important words out. This time I left the word meat out. Please forgive me for my lack of skill in that department.

Words are important

Other than that I totally agree with you.
So, if REA does not represent anything but the size of the rib eye what else is it good for?

 

[Frankie]

So those hundreds of references you claimed showed I didn't know what I was talking about were just figments of your imagination? Little hint for you: So is this comment.

Two of the links I posted clearly showed that feedlot gain was NOT improved by crossbreeding.



It takes a lot of money to have all these "independent studies" conducted, probably why the Angus Association had to raise its fees. Hers one done by the AHA, with a little different outcome.

LOL! You Angus bashers crack me up. First, if the Angus Assn reports something, it's all propoganda and lies. But you don't hesitate to put out something from the Hereford Assn as proof....of something. Don't you, even a tiny bit, think that's a double standard?

Second, what's your point here? 15-hundredths more ADG? Feed conversion the same (so much for Hereford efficiency)? 1/4 inch more ribeye? 13 more carcass pounds? This was NOT the report on ALL steers, just handpicked ones. Angus sires used were ONLY in the top 20% or 30% of the breed, not at the top of the breed.

And the kicker? While yields were about the same, they didn't mention quality grade at all. And that can make or break a load of catle. :lol: Heck, I think the Angus Assn could pick this thing up and use it for advertising the benefits of straightbreeding...if they were promoting straightbreeding.

 

[Frankie]

Frankie,

Why dont you prove yourself wrong. Why dont you take 10 head or more and breed them to a bull of your choice but NOT BLACK and then raise them with another group of your straight bred angus. I may be wrong but I think you will have bigger weaning weights on the crossbred calves.

I don't need to prove heterosis works. There's a ton of research out there showing that the crossbred cow is more fertile and productive than a straightbred cow. But most of us could tell you that not ALL crossbred cows are fertile and productive. And in this part of the discussion, there's much research (look at the links I posted) showing that crossbreeding has little or no effect on feedlot gain/carcass quality.

 

[Frankie]

:roll: I never said Angus was the only polled breed. I asked if you wanted to discuss the breeds that had used Angus to become polled. Apparently you don't.
They used Angus to become BLACK polled was just a side effect. You know as well as I do that BLACK hide sells even if it is aBLACK hide full of garbage

Polled Herefords are no longer a BREED. They're a variation of Herefords, which is a horned breed.

They didn't stop being a breed because you say so. So you are saying they are registered in the same breed assn as herefords ; just like those frame 10 Holstein/Angus are all registered as REAL Angus

Tut, tut. When you don't have an answer, you just slam my breed.

You're so dishonest. I've never said there was no such thing as a Red Angus. I said they aren't Angus....they're Red Angus. Though up to a point they have the same history as American Angus, they have a different registry and are certainly a polled breed.

Frankie if a BLACK registered ANGUS cow has a RED calf and it gets registered in the RED Angus ASSN when did it stop being an ANGUS

Yes, it would not be an ANGUS. It might be a RED ANGUS, depending on whether it qualified for registration with that Assn.

Funny how when someone has no other recourse they resort to name calling. Be careful how you throw around words like DISHONEST
You start these threads knowing full well that you will get a certain amount of crap and when all else fails you resort to calling people NAMES.

You are dishonest when you claim that I said Red Angus was not a breed. I have never said that.

Murrey Greys were established using a Shorthorn cow and several Angus bulls. Last I knew, they still allow "breeding up" and Angus has been popular in the breeding up cycle.

But keep on working, you may actually make a point some day. "Even a blind hog finds an acron now and then" they tell me.

What happened Frankie did I get a little close to where you live with that post. Oh the name calling, now you are refering to me as a hog too. I would have expected more from a moderator, than name calling.[/quote]

Hey, I calls them like I sees them. When you claimed I said Red Angus wasn't a breed, you were NOT telling the truth.

NOTE: Sorry Herefordsire for the italics.

 

[Frankie]

There is no doubt that Angus can add quality to meat. I also have no doubt that an Angus can be bred up or down to just about anything one desires. It is just a matter of using the genetics to do so and having enough time in ones life to accomplish it.
Angus, have excelled in feed lot tests for ADG and the quality grade produced. They are awarded top prices for doing so. There is another side of the coin. Even though they bring a higher price per pound of edible on the plate beef it is produced at a higher cost. Angus are lacking in feed efficiency. There are other breeds that excel in feed efficiency but lack the quality grade meat of Angus which also translates into dollars. It is simply a choice as to what direction the producer wants to go or what that individual producer finds more profitable.
You can breed better feed efficiency into Angus, or breed higher quality into more feed efficient cattle through properly selected cross breeding.

:roll: As a breed, Angus is feed efficient. Feedlots know it. When Angus were first brought to the US, they were considered freaks because they had no horns. It was their ability to gain on feed that made their mark in the US beef industry.

But it's true that not all Angus gain well, and we're working on that. Today we performance test more bulls than any other breed. Look at the bull test stations operating around the country and you'll see that Angus are competitive with other breeds, while producing quality carcasses.

I am not going to do your homework but will give you one link that hopefully will educate you a little. http://www.mtbeefnetwork.org/arnr230/qu ... Cattle.pdf
You have not convinced me.
I have even taken the time to research this to see if I was wrong. I did not find that to be the case.[/quote]

No matter the facts, you'll never change your mind, so I'm not surprised. You're raising a breed you like and that's fine. None of us are likely to get rich in the cattle business, so, IMO, we should raise what we enjoy. I do.

Earlier you claimed to have hundreds of references to show I'm wrong. and now that you've "taken time to research", this is all you can come up with? If this paper, without any documentation to back it up or identification as to where it came from, is the best you can do, you've wasted your time. It doesn't reference feedlot gain at all.....if you're still trying to prove heterosis affects feedlot gain.

 

[Frankie]

Read it and weep Frankie. The crosses work. This is where the argument started for me, and this is where it ends. The cross and especially the GV/Angus not only works but works WELL.
BTW is it just me or has anyone else noticed Frankie almost NEVER has anything good to say about anyone else's cattle or breed? Funny thing, HUH

Aw, 3Way, you're too easy. :lol: :lol:

1. I have very little to say about cattle posted on this board....good or bad. I don't think pictures are the way to judge cattle. Sometimes something that I like catches my eye and I'll comment. But mostly I just keep my mouth shut in judging other people's animals on this board.

2. Gelvieh/Angus crosses. I don't need to make any comment. But I will: Apparently a bit of Angus influence can do a lot for lots of breeds, including Gelbvieh.

3. You didn't post a link. Should I ASSUME this came from the Gelbvieh Assn? If so, why is it reliable when stuff from the Angus Assn isn't?

4. BTW, the article calls them "Angus-Gelbvieh", while YOU refer to them as GV/Angus. Perhaps they're easier to sell as Angus/GV rather than the other way around?

 

[Frankie]

Hasn;t everyone shown how far they can pee by now? No one will change their minds so why not let it rest?

But, Dun, we're having such a good time. I think I have one more article to post.

 

[Frankie]

As has been reiterated on these pages in the past - absolutely to the point of being repetitious - the CUMULATIVE effect of crossbreeding when SEVERAL traits and characteristics are considered, is more important than the effect of any ONE particular trait. IF REA "was supposed to be a value that represented the total package", that would - AGAIN - be an indication of 'single trait selection' evaluating, which agenda has proven over and over, for many variable reasons, to be an unacceptable method of "Balancing" profitable breeding protocols. IF such were the case, we could toss out all other characteristics and traits which we use for optimal selection methods of beef cattle breeding and managing, and just do our selection of Seedstock and Terminal cattle on the basis of REA EPD's only!

Won't happen!

Just think of how much time, money and trouble could be alleviated and saved by the elimination of Sale Managers, Catalog Sale preparation costs, Record keeping expenses of Pedigree statistics, voluminous EPD records and history, the time taken to analyze Growth factors, Maternal details, Carcass and Ultrasound readings and records, except for the Ribeye statistics, and the $Values records! Why - - each breeder could hire his Sixth Grade daughter to "eyeball" the ribeye EPD's of sale cattle and do all of his selection choices from his Daughter's "BIG CHIEF" writing tablet! ("BIG CHIEF"! Maybe I am dating myself!)


In any case, we are 'nit-picking' this subject to death! Crossbreeding is a proven, profitable livestock breeding protocol, naysayers notwithstanding!

Case closed!

DOC HARRIS

Doc, I fully admit that I do not have anywhere close to your writing skill. I cannot mentally organize my thoughts and put them on paper the way you can. Sometimes I leave important words out. This time I left the word meat out. Please forgive me for my lack of skill in that department.

Words are important

Other than that I totally agree with you.
So, if REA does not represent anything but the size of the rib eye what else is it good for?

According to Dr. Bob Long, muscles in an animal are proportional to each other. They may not look like it to the naked eye, but they are.

Ribeye is a single trait. In the Angus breed, they've added the $Value Index EPDs that incorporate different traits.

$Value indexes are multi-trait selection indexes, expressed in dollars per head, to assist beef producers by adding simplicity to genetic selection decisions. The $Value is an estimate of how future progeny of each sire are expected to perform, on average, compared to progeny of other sires in the database if the sires were randomly mated to cows and if calves were exposed to the same environment.

Here's the link:

http://www.angus.org/Nce/Definitions.aspx

 

[3waycross]

Read it and weep Frankie. The crosses work. This is where the argument started for me, and this is where it ends. The cross and especially the GV/Angus not only works but works WELL.
BTW is it just me or has anyone else noticed Frankie almost NEVER has anything good to say about anyone else's cattle or breed? Funny thing, HUH

Aw, 3Way, you're too easy. :lol: :lol:

1. I have very little to say about cattle posted on this board....good or bad. I don't think pictures are the way to judge cattle. Sometimes something that I like catches my eye and I'll comment. But mostly I just keep my mouth shut in judging other people's animals on this board.
Not what I meant Frankie. I meant you are mean spirited and you are.
2. Gelvieh/Angus crosses. I don't need to make any comment. But I will: Apparently a bit of Angus influence can do a lot for lots of breeds, including Gelbvieh.
That sure as heck gpoes both ways. Has to be some way to knock the far cap off the little black buggers
3. You didn't post a link. Should I ASSUME this came from the Gelbvieh Assn? If so, why is it reliable when stuff from the Angus Assn isn't?
Wrong again Frankie. I didn't post it since it came off the Cattle Today.Com website. It was quite simply a report about SUPERIOR VIDEO AUCYION. Not propaganda from a breed assn,( which btw is the only crap you know how to post)
4. BTW, the article calls them "Angus-Gelbvieh", while YOU refer to them as GV/Angus. Perhaps they're easier to sell as Angus/GV rather than the other way around?

WOW there's some hair splitting for ya. You aso failed to mention what the fella said about the straight Angus calves(funny how that works eh Frankie)

 

[Mod2]

ENOUGH

Mod1