Why Herefords are Vanishing

[Herefords.US]

I agree with George, this bull is what we'd call a 'soft' bull here. Or in other words he'd need some TLC to live up to his potential. In my opinion if you need to take that well care of a hereford you might as well farm with simmentals.

I also believe that genetically this bull is as unstable as it comes, using a linebred line at the opposite end of the spectrum on a daughter our of a linebred line at the other end of the spectrum is about the same as crossing a hereford with a red angus.

If I used him it would be strictly as a terminal bull. Excessively high WW, YW and milk scare me off. I would think that those weights would lead to frame jump (not just creep) and the milk pretty well suggests to me that a daughter would need propping up with supplements.

Using this bull as a "terminal sire" on heifers is about the only place I can see him used where there wouldn't be much better alternatives available.

Looking back at some of the posts I've written lately, along with other recent thoughts I've had regarding cattle breeding, I realized I'm actually starting to sound a bit like Kit Pharo! :lol: I never dreamed I'd end up anywhere close to agreeing with him about anything when I first heard of him 5-6 years back.

George

 

[SRBeef]

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

 

[Herefords.US]

Regarding Ultimate Genetics, here is a Hereford bull they have that I like:
http://www.ultimategenetics.com/listing/index.php?animalid=395&breed=Hereford&country=

George

 

[Herefords.US]

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

 

[KNERSIE]

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.

Personally I don't see much problem in either the two bulls you've mentioned, if I had to use one it would be 3008. The problem I see is in how the genetics was combined, you cannot hope to get consistancy out of such a mating.

I would really appreciate more specifics on what you and Novatech and Knersie don't like visually about this one pictured above.

He is just too frail made, he lacks ruggedness and breed character, photoshop him to be all black or all red and you'll have a hard time telling he is a hereford. Compare his frame to the bull I posted in the three halfsibs thread, that is pretty much the opposite ends of the spectrum. My bull isn't small either, I haven't measured him, but he is about a frame 6 or slightly under.

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.

I think dun meant terminal use on HEIFERS, for mature cows you can do alot better in a terminal bull. Typically you need, bone, frame, muscle and growth in a terminal package, the rest isn't important.

However mine is definitely NOT a hard doer nor does he require special attention.

You are also a cut above the rest in terms of grass management and herd management. If he works for your situation where you are often away from home, then great.

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.

With regards to the backfat, whether the bull can get away with very little backfat isn't really the point, it's whether his daughters can do the same is what will untimately decide whether he had enough or not.

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?

Its as important for a bull to slick up if not more.

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.

BTW Rib Eye isn't much better phenotypically than your bull, he might have a touch more do-ability but how would you compare anyway except for using both and see who's daughters hold up better?

 

[novatech]

BTW Rib Eye isn't much better phenotypically than your bull, he might have a touch more do-ability but how would you compare anyway except for using both and see who's daughters hold up better?

What do you see, phenotypically, that tells you about his, or any other bulls do-ability? Again just looking at paper (R294), one would think that with some of the high Genestar efficiency stars they would be good doer's.
What I see in the R294 bull pics is that in the first pic he has been in the pasture and in the second pic he has been well fed. When he goes back to pasture will he revert back to the way he looks in the first pic?

 

[KNERSIE]

BTW Rib Eye isn't much better phenotypically than your bull, he might have a touch more do-ability but how would you compare anyway except for using both and see who's daughters hold up better?

What do you see, phenotypically, that tells you about his, or any other bulls do-ability? Again just looking at paper (R294), one would think that with some of the high Genestar efficiency stars they would be good doer's.
What I see in the R294 bull pics is that in the first pic he has been in the pasture and in the second pic he has been well fed. When he goes back to pasture will he revert back to the way he looks in the first pic?

Haircoat, heartgirth, capacity and depth of chest are all good indicators of doing ability.

R294 probably won't go back to what he looked like in the first pic since he is now a mature bull and his nutritional requirements go down with maturity, but I don't see him as a bull that will fatten easily on grass.

 

[HerefordSire]

The bull prospect in the first post of this thread has the highest $BMI profit index in the entire Hereford breed in Pan America for prospects his own age. The profit indices attempt to combine Hereford market conditions into breeding selection.

Here is what some breeders were saying...

"What we need is less data and more information." Selection indexes provide just that, combining the information from an animal's EPDs into just a few numbers that reflect their overall economic value.

http://www.hereford.org/Acrobat/Perf/ProfitIndexes.pdf

A little background. Further research can be obtained by looking for "Hazel"...

Selection index technology is nothing new. The original scientific paper describing the technique was published in 1943. For decades, swine and dairy breeders have used values such as sow productivity index and type-production index to select animals that excel in several traits. Beef breed associations in Australia have used index selection for several years, and a number of other U.S. beef breed associations publish various index values as part of their genetic evaluation programs. While other breeds have only terminal sire indexes, Hereford has developed three maternal indexes in addition to a terminal index.

http://www.hereford.org/Acrobat/Perf/ProfitIndexes.pdf

The specific profit index I choose to place emphasis on as an example...

Baldy Maternal Index (BMI$)
An index to maximize profit for commercial cow-calf producers who use Hereford bulls in rotational crossbreeding programs on Angus-based cows and heifers. Retained ownership of calves through the feedlot phase of production is assumed, with fed cattle marketed on a Certified Hereford Beef (CHB) LLC pricing grid.

http://www.hereford.org/Acrobat/Perf/ProfitIndexes.pdf

CHB qualifications...

Cattle must have a predominately (51%) white face and exhibit white markings over the jaw, forehead and muzzle. White markings on any part of the hip, shoulder, or side of the body such as spots, stripes, or belts are not acceptable.

Acceptable cattle are offered for qualification expect those other than solid red, solid black or roan with a predominately white face, such as yellow, gray, brown, brindle, or smoke are ineligible.

Only steers and heifers of English beef type breeding under 30 months of age – an animal expressing dairy or Bos indicus type breeding are not acceptable.

To qualify, cattle may be either horned or polled. Bulls, bullocks, or cows are not acceptable.

http://www.herefordbeef.net/cattlemansc ... quirements

 

[Brandonm22]

He is just too frail made, he lacks ruggedness and breed character, photoshop him to be all black or all red and you'll have a hard time telling he is a hereford. Compare his frame to the bull I posted in the three halfsibs thread, that is pretty much the opposite ends of the spectrum. My bull isn't small either, I haven't measured him, but he is about a frame 6 or slightly under.

Knersie, IF we are still talking about the original bull, his progeny are only averaging a frame 5.9 and he is only a 5.9 frame score according to the AHA. http://www.herfnet.com/online/cgi-bin/i ... 2525202F24

 

[KNERSIE]

He is just too frail made, he lacks ruggedness and breed character, photoshop him to be all black or all red and you'll have a hard time telling he is a hereford. Compare his frame to the bull I posted in the three halfsibs thread, that is pretty much the opposite ends of the spectrum. My bull isn't small either, I haven't measured him, but he is about a frame 6 or slightly under.

Knersie, IF we are still talking about the original bull, his progeny are only averaging a frame 5.9 and he is only a 5.9 frame score according to the AHA. http://www.herfnet.com/online/cgi-bin/i ... 2525202F24

I was referring to frame as in the skeletal structure, not a framescore. The reason I mentioned that the bull I posted is about a frame 6 is because i anticipated the next comment would be that mine is alot smaller so its easier to look more stocky.

 

[Brandonm22]

I was referring to frame as in the skeletal structure, not a framescore. The reason I mentioned that the bull I posted is about a frame 6 is because i anticipated the next comment would be that mine is alot smaller so its easier to look more stocky.

I can't get an actual weaning weight on him (I haven't looked too hard on him either) but he weaning ratioed at 108%. Given where he was bred, I am guessing that places him into the six weights very easily. 5.9 frame and 6-- lbs at 205 days is getting pretty darn close to ideal for the American feeder calf market.

 

[KNERSIE]

I was referring to frame as in the skeletal structure, not a framescore. The reason I mentioned that the bull I posted is about a frame 6 is because i anticipated the next comment would be that mine is alot smaller so its easier to look more stocky.

I can't get an actual weaning weight on him (I haven't looked too hard on him either) but he weaning ratioed at 108%. Given where he was bred, I am guessing that places him into the six weights very easily. 5.9 frame and 6-- lbs at 205 days is getting pretty darn close to ideal for the American feeder calf market.

His WW index tells you alot more about his dam's milking ability than his ability to sire easy doing daughters that can produce in a minimum input system.

Are you telling us that as long as the calf weighs 600lbs and is about a frame 6 it is ideal for the feeder market and nothing else counts?

 

[Brandonm22]

His WW index tells you alot more about his dam's milking ability than his ability to sire easy doing daughters that can produce in a minimum input system.

Are you telling us that as long as the calf weighs 600lbs and is about a frame 6 it is ideal for the feeder market and nothing else counts?

I did not say that at all; but if we are talking about "stocky"; frame 5.9 and six something at weaning IS "stocky" and we ARE either directly or indirectly in the business of producing calves for the feeder calf market. I won't talk about his daughters (either positively or negatively) until I have actually seen some; but 9126J did sire a lot of cattle that did work on real ranch conditions and this bull is a little more moderate framed than his illustrious sire. I think the term you are looking for is you would like to see him heavier boned. I agree with that; but if you look at the Angus "curvebenders" and heifer specialists most of them are equally "fineboned". I think that just comes with the territory of chasing the lightest birth weight number possible. All that said, the 32 milk number alone would scare me away from using him at this time, unless you were just using him too fix cows with poor milk EPDs.

 

[KNERSIE]

His WW index tells you alot more about his dam's milking ability than his ability to sire easy doing daughters that can produce in a minimum input system.

Are you telling us that as long as the calf weighs 600lbs and is about a frame 6 it is ideal for the feeder market and nothing else counts?

I did not say that at all; but if we are talking about "stocky"; frame 5.9 and six something at weaning IS "stocky" and we ARE either directly or indirectly in the business of producing calves for the feeder calf market. I won't talk about his daughters (either positively or negatively) until I have actually seen some; but 9126J did sire a lot of cattle that did work on real ranch conditions and this bull is a little more moderate framed than his illustrious sire. I think the term you are looking for is you would like to see him heavier boned. I agree with that; but if you look at the Angus "curvebenders" and heifer specialists most of them are equally "fineboned". I think that just comes with the territory of chasing the lightest birth weight number possible. All that said, the 32 milk number alone would scare me away from using him at this time, unless you were just using him too fix cows with poor milk EPDs.

I believe we are definately not on the same page, I'll leave it at that.

 

[redfornow]

His WW index tells you alot more about his dam's milking ability than his ability to sire easy doing daughters that can produce in a minimum input system.

Are you telling us that as long as the calf weighs 600lbs and is about a frame 6 it is ideal for the feeder market and nothing else counts?

I did not say that at all; but if we are talking about "stocky"; frame 5.9 and six something at weaning IS "stocky" and we ARE either directly or indirectly in the business of producing calves for the feeder calf market. I won't talk about his daughters (either positively or negatively) until I have actually seen some; but 9126J did sire a lot of cattle that did work on real ranch conditions and this bull is a little more moderate framed than his illustrious sire. I think the term you are looking for is you would like to see him heavier boned. I agree with that; but if you look at the Angus "curvebenders" and heifer specialists most of them are equally "fineboned". I think that just comes with the territory of chasing the lightest birth weight number possible. All that said, the 32 milk number alone would scare me away from using him at this time, unless you were just using him too fix cows with poor milk EPDs.

I agree with the statement that chasing BW-WW package curvebenders at fineboned a look at a bull like in focus will tell you that.
Its all there, but VERY fine boned. I am not putting the bull down used him on heifers, does his job but....

You cant fix a cow that will not milk. Thats a losers game. Now you can "fix" the milk epd? But I dont know what that gets us.

I agree the 32 is far to high

 

[HerefordSire]

In Novatech's example....the high milk bull may require too much energy, for any environment, if you want to be efficient with resources. However, to take advantage of additional profit in creating cross-bred cows to breed to a Hereford bull and then create cross-bred calves in the next generation, because of the advantage of the major economic heterosis of the future cross-bred cows, the mature bull may have limited usage and might should only be matched with low milk producing cows.

 

[KNERSIE]

You cant fix a cow that will not milk. Thats a losers game. Now you can "fix" the milk epd? But I dont know what that gets us.

That is experience talking... (I also have that T-shirt )

 

[Brandonm22]

You cant fix a cow that will not milk.

I did not suggest that you even try to fix a cow that won't milk. THAT SAID, a lot of people have legacy cows that do perform well in the pasture; but they are saddled with something like a -5 milk EPD from their pedigree ancestors. No matter how good that cow is, it will be YEARS before her milk EPD ever reflects her reality and who the heck is going to buy a bull with a breed worst milk EPD? Nobody! If you don't want to cull your good cow; but you would like to sell her calves for something other than beef, that gaudy 32 will eliminate THAT problem. In one bold jump you go from -5 to +13.5 and probably improve the birth weight, growth, and carcass numbers all in the process with that bull.

 

[HerefordSire]

You cant fix a cow that will not milk.

I did not suggest that you even try to fix a cow that won't milk. THAT SAID, a lot of people have legacy cows that do perform well in the pasture; but they are saddled with something like a -5 milk EPD from their pedigree ancestors. No matter how good that cow is, it will be YEARS before her milk EPD ever reflects her reality and who the heck is going to buy a bull with a breed worst milk EPD? Nobody! If you don't want to cull your good cow; but you would like to sell her calves for something other than beef, that gaudy 32 will eliminate THAT problem. In one bold jump you go from -5 to +13.5 and probably improve the birth weight, growth, and carcass numbers all in the process with that bull.

I have a question for you. Why did Remitall (in my opinion) have many sires with low milk EPDs and high weaning weights?

 

[redfornow]

You cant fix a cow that will not milk.

I did not suggest that you even try to fix a cow that won't milk. THAT SAID, a lot of people have legacy cows that do perform well in the pasture; but they are saddled with something like a -5 milk EPD from their pedigree ancestors. No matter how good that cow is, it will be YEARS before her milk EPD ever reflects her reality and who the heck is going to buy a bull with a breed worst milk EPD? Nobody! If you don't want to cull your good cow; but you would like to sell her calves for something other than beef, that gaudy 32 will eliminate THAT problem. In one bold jump you go from -5 to +13.5 and probably improve the birth weight, growth, and carcass numbers all in the process with that bull.

I hear you. But I would then be concerned about adding to much milk. We are already expecting a jump in milking because of a cross breeding program. I think at the end of the day you can breed bulls that wind up with alot of open daughters or udders that cant hold up under the added pressure.

But truely I see your point.