Why Herefords are Vanishing

[SRBeef]

....T21 has taken your herd to the next level, which may not have been too difficult compared to the rent-a-bulls you've used in the past. Get a few more calving seasons behind you and you might not be as high on T21 anymore. The same bulls that excited me 3 years ago's calves look like labrats compared to the bulls I'm using now's calves. Contrary to popular believe you don't need to sacrifice muscle and ruggedness or even milk for calving ease, you just need to identify the right bull for your situation.

Knersie, You really got me chuckling on this one! Thank you (and George) for taking the time to make a detailed reply. I think your statements above are finally getting me to understand and appreciate your view points a bit better.

Since I don't use AI it will longer for me to get there. I may have to do a bit of my own breeding to get to where I want to be. T21 is certainly a good place to start.

One thing that this whole thread ignores which is concerning me is the effect of the COW on the offspring. Didn't Aussie Girl or someone else suggest the cow is maybe even more important than the bull in a mating???

Why can't I use my cows to correct for the deepness or butt that I'd like to improve in T21. For example one of my cows seems to be able to correct for deepness. She also has an excellent udder. Here is a pic of 77:

A couple others (including the 1200 lb above) seem to be able to contribute butt. Isn't it asking a bit too much to have a perfect bull? Can't we use cows to improve the herd in addition to the bull? It may take a bit longer but by breeding T21 to 77 for depth and maybe one of those offspring to 66 for butt or a T21/77 offspring to a T21/66 offspring improve both issues?

A resulting off spring of these two would be 50% T21 (CE, SC, etc EPD's), 25% #77 (depth and udder), and 25% #66 (butt & 1200 lb).

I realize things are not always perfectly passed on but wouldn't this be one way to try over a couple years in a small operation?

Thanks again, Jim

 

[KNERSIE]

Isn't it asking a bit too much to have a perfect bull? Can't we use cows to improve the herd in addition to the bull? It may take a bit longer but by breeding T21 to 77 for depth and maybe one of those offspring to 66 for butt or a T21/77 offspring to a T21/66 offspring improve both issues?

A resulting off spring of these two would be 50% T21 (CE, SC, etc EPD's), 25% #77 (depth and udder), and 25% #66 (butt & 1200 lb).

I realize things are not always perfectly passed on but wouldn't this be one way to try over a couple years in a small operation?

In theory the cow plays an equal part since they both contribute 50% of the genetics, in practice the cow provided a substrate for 9 months and 10 days and then has the sole burden of raising the calf, so the cow definately is a very important part of the equation.

The reason the focus is so much on the bull is because he plays a role in every single calf born on the place and its also alot cheaper to direct a breeding program by buying a certain type bull than it is to make changes to you cowherd.

As much as I like a big butt on a beef animal I believe where you are now you need to focus on the maternal side, and often that will result in compromising the yield grade, or muscle, for a period of time untill you've got the genetic base you want. I am not advising single trait selection, though, but don't worry in the first few years about minimising backfat, for instance. Rather direct your efforts to correcting the type to where you want to be for grass finishing or mostly grass finishing. Just from the photos i've seen of your cows it seems that you have a very good start to build on, you just need to use the right bricks.

 

[Herefords.US]

Jim, I think your cows complement your bull well, and selection will be paramount if you decide to pursue linebreeding his influence.

George

 

[HerefordSire]

Honestly, I still don't like him much, looking at him. I think the stacking of 9126J on the 3008 daughters is pretty well asking for just the result you see. Cattle that don't show an abundance of muscling and have the visual appearance of being a little "hard-doing". But it sure puts together a great set of EPDs! The plus is that they should also have a world of milk and be very easy calving.

I recently traveled through West Texas, across New Mexico, and into the mountains of southwestern Colorado. I saw a lot of cattle that visually looked like this bull, in all three colors, among the herds. Only when I eventually got into the mountains of Colorado did I actually see cattle that looked fat and really beefy. I believe there are two reasons for that. Pursuit of growth EPDs at the cost of everything else and the inability of those kind of cattle to adapt to the environment they are in.

George

George,

This bull pictured above seems to share a lot of pedigree with my bull (9126J + 3008). So I have some familiarity with the real thing which infact does produce some good EPD's as you suggest.

I would really appreciate more specifics on what you and Novatech and Knersie don't like visually about this one pictured above. I do think Dun had a good comment about terminal use but I like what I see of my bulls first daughters so far - especially one heifer out of one of my target 1200 lb cows.

Even a novice like me can see there is a huge difference in appearance between this bull and say some of the Uruguay bulls or a couple of the Australian bulls shown here previously.

However mine is definitely NOT a hard doer nor does he require special attention. He does not have the backfat that many of the other bulls have and seems to have a sleeker coat all year around that many of the shaggier bull photos. That would lead you to think he would not outwinter well in a cold climate but that is also definitely not true. He outwintered fine in -30 F in WI this past winter and has never been under a roof. And gets no supplements other than a mineral (not protein) tub available. Very little grain also.

I seem to recall a number of respected posters here saying how important it was for a cow to slick up in the spring. Why not a bull as long as he is an easy doer?

My bull could have a bit more butt, granted. He lives on grass. If I tried to fatten him on grain he might look a lot different. But then again he might not.

However the rest of the package is not bad. From what I see of my bull's calves so far, breeding him to a couple cows similar to the 1200 lb'er on the right in this photo seems to solve the butt problem - the calves from these matings have very muscular rear quarters even at 14 weeks.

As far as CE, BW, SC, growth they all appear to be there. I think the low backfat gives him a different appearance. And yes the butt could be a bit better but I think that problem appears solveable to some degree...we'll see how the Milk, REA & IMF turn out. It appears so far that they will be there.

I admit it would be nice if he had a bit more butt. That is a visual negative. But many of the non-visual traits are VERY positive. And it seems I can maybe fix the negative one (butt).

Maybe some of the Colorado cattle you saw have the big butt appearance and more backfat and coat.

However I also see folks in the Dakotas in the spring who look like they haven't slept in weeks from "checking on cattle every two hours" 'cause "it's calving time".

There seems to me to be some advantage to having a bull with maybe an acceptable but not the best butt, however with his calves the main thing you have to do is to count them.

I would sincerely appreciate an explanation of what folks do not like about the photo above.

For comparison here is a photo of SHF Ribeye. To my untrained eye though, even Ribeye looks different than the Uruguay and other bull pictures posted here in the recent past. Is Ribeye ALSO a part of this trend you see crossing W TX etc?

Thanks. Jim

Jim...I have tried to steer this thread to focus on profitability for breeders and ranchers using market data, especially profit indices. I think you will have a very key role in helping us understand the value in breeding cattle that are butchered for your clients. You have an operation using a Hereford bull on some fine looking cows and are interested in providing the best tasting meat at your disposal. You should be able to define minor changes in your program that affect profits and customer satisfaction, which is much greater than what most of us provide. Thanks.

 

[buymorebulls]

If you've followed this, then you'll plainly see why quality grade drives $CHB (a real world, real dollars, index) much faster than ribeye does.

IF you had been on the boards ~2 years ago you would remember when MikeC was banging his drum because at THAT MOMENT in time there was little or no Choice Select spread. The only thing differentiating carcasses was Yield grade and gross carcass weight and he was making the argument that growth and muscle were all that mattered.......and if your steers were butchered in THAT month he was absolutely right. You are using a high Choice/Select spread to make your case and AT TIMES and on certain grids you are right. The problem with things like the $CHB index and why they really don't work in the REAL WORLD is that we don't know anything about the herd of cows we are breeding or what grid they will be butchered on. Some folks have cows who's calves are going to GRADE we just need to breed them to a bull that will knock a little backfat off of the calves and put some loin in them so they won't be YG4 toads. Other folks got cows that need the strongest marbling bull on the planet. $CHB is too weighted to one trait for it to really be a realistic measure of anything.

Brandonm22, Most sane folks would agree that it is true the Grids change on a daily basis. It was even big news recently when the Choice-Select spread was inverted for a few days.

The fact of the matter is, the math still works, as I showed previously. And, like I said in my post, those were the last grid values that I personnally sold into, so I used them in my real world example.

For your benefit;

I'm not aware of AHA having published the actual values used in calculating $CHB, so for your sake, we can use the 3-yr rolling average that Angus Association uses in it's indexes. I'm sure these are similar to what the Hereford Association is using.:

Grid assumptions:
Quality components:
Prime premium (above Choice) $8.00
CAB premium (above Choice) $3.50
Choice-Select spread $11.00
Standard discount $-15.00

Yield components:
YG 1 premium $3.00
YG 2 premium $1.50
YG 3 base $0.00
YG 4 & 5 discount $-25.00
Avg. carcass wt., lb. 816
Heavyweight discount $-20.00


Most folks will see that $8 and $11 (quality grade) are more than $3 and $1.50 (yield grade). SO, the QG components add/decrease value quicker than the YG components. (The $25 YG4 & YG5 discount doesn't usually affect folks that get their feeders managed and marketed in a timely manner!)

The comparison of the 2 bulls in my example doesn't require knowledge of the cow side genetics. The bulls $CHB index tells us their contribution to the resulting progeny.

No doubt that the cow side is a little more than 50% of the genetics(including mitochondrial) and important to how the animals kill, but all the progeny will not be 100% Select-Y4's if the cow genetics "stink" or 100% Prime-Y2's if the cows are "great"or even 100% Choice-Y2's. There will be variation in the group. (By the way, "stink" and "great" are very subjective terms and my banker doesn't utilize them in his profit/loss calculations.) For sure herds are different and have different needs. That's how a smart breeder can utilize the EPD's to adjust/improve his herd.

My example was meant to show the real world affects of REA vs. MARB EPD's on the bottom line. It does that.

The problem with "things like $CHB" and EPD's is not that they don't work, they do work. The problem is that breeders and producers first fail to understand them, then fail to utilize them in a prudent manner and eventually say "they don't work" when the results don't meet their emotions. Now that is "REAL WORLD".

 

[rocket2222]

Jim, I think you've got a very good bull for your environment, situation, and goals. You appear to have a world of good pasture and you have a need to have extremely easy calving because you're away a lot and can't babysit your cattle.

But I also think your bull, his relative from Ultimate Genetics, (and probably even Ribeye) would really suffer if they had to work in my environment. And I also think their daughters would likely struggle to stay in shape and in breeding back while raising a calf.

I'm always a little envious when I see cows as fat as yours and rockets because the only way I can get one that fat in my pasture is when one loses or skips a calf.
I'll defer to Knersie on the rest of your questions.

Edited to add: Jim, based on pictures, I would actually prefer your bull to his cousin at Ultimate Genetics.

George

George, I've been culling what I consider hard doers, [ cows that will not hold their weight while raising a calf in my conditions and with my type of management for 15 years ] this year I hauled a two year old and her calf to the sale barn for just that reason. I think I've reached the point now though where the easier doing cows and my management of winter feeding is costing me some milk production, as I've seen some drop in weaning weights in the fall born calves over the last couple of years. It's something I will need to manage a little different in the future, either with cow type or better [ more expensive ] hay.

 

[HerefordSire]

Brandonm22, Most sane folks would agree that it is true the Grids change on a daily basis. It was even big news recently when the Choice-Select spread was inverted for a few days.

The fact of the matter is, the math still works, as I showed previously. And, like I said in my post, those were the last grid values that I personnally sold into, so I used them in my real world example.

For your benefit;

I'm not aware of AHA having published the actual values used in calculating $CHB, so for your sake, we can use the 3-yr rolling average that Angus Association uses in it's indexes. I'm sure these are similar to what the Hereford Association is using.:

Grid assumptions:
Quality components:
Prime premium (above Choice) $8.00
CAB premium (above Choice) $3.50
Choice-Select spread $11.00
Standard discount $-15.00

Yield components:
YG 1 premium $3.00
YG 2 premium $1.50
YG 3 base $0.00
YG 4 & 5 discount $-25.00
Avg. carcass wt., lb. 816
Heavyweight discount $-20.00


Most folks will see that $8 and $11 (quality grade) are more than $3 and $1.50 (yield grade). SO, the QG components add/decrease value quicker than the YG components. (The $25 YG4 & YG5 discount doesn't usually affect folks that get their feeders managed and marketed in a timely manner!)

The comparison of the 2 bulls in my example doesn't require knowledge of the cow side genetics. The bulls $CHB index tells us their contribution to the resulting progeny.

No doubt that the cow side is a little more than 50% of the genetics(including mitochondrial) and important to how the animals kill, but all the progeny will not be 100% Select-Y4's if the cow genetics "stink" or 100% Prime-Y2's if the cows are "great"or even 100% Choice-Y2's. There will be variation in the group. (By the way, "stink" and "great" are very subjective terms and my banker doesn't utilize them in his profit/loss calculations.) For sure herds are different and have different needs. That's how a smart breeder can utilize the EPD's to adjust/improve his herd.

My example was meant to show the real world affects of REA vs. MARB EPD's on the bottom line. It does that.

The problem with "things like $CHB" and EPD's is not that they don't work, they do work. The problem is that breeders and producers first fail to understand them, then fail to utilize them in a prudent manner and eventually say "they don't work" when the results don't meet their emotions. Now that is "REAL WORLD".

I really appreciate your effort in bringing this information to the forefront. Could you please expand your thinking why the majority of breeders and producers are missing the economic target?

 

[HerefordSire]

Bump for WhiteFacesPay. :???: :???: :???:

 

[Cotmore]

It's very simple. The decline of the Herefords started when the North americans allowed the ingression of Simental into the Hereford genetics and the only thing that was achieved was to put more air space under the belly. Frame scores are nonsense. What is needed is a measure of height minus length of leg