Why so popular?

[puzzled in oregon]

Look how deep sided he is. There isn't any weight between the belly and the ground and soup bones have lower value than rib or flank meat. It has been proven that cattle that can eat more grow faster.

Again, I do understand what you are saying and have no problem acknowledging the depth.
What I see, if you focus on the area between the front of the shoulders and the tail, is a steer ready for processing.
Which is the goal

But,, can you picture this guy huffin and puffin as he is trying to travel in rough country, and hollering "wait up girls".

Please bear in mind this is coming from someone that isn't real big on some of the changes that have occured in a lot
of the breeds. When things swing so far in certain lines, that they have to be referred to as "terminal" to justify their use, I
find myself thinking "hmmm". But the name of the game is to market what is in demand.

Of the pictures I have seen on CT, I have yet to to see any Canadian cattle on working ranches that I did not like. And if it takes
an odd shaped bull to make this all work, well

It is perfectly okay to ignore my babbling. After all I still dress the same way I did when I got out of high school, so obviously not big
on change.
And no, I was not a "flower child".

 

[Travlr]

The chicken grower's main concern is the number on the check vs his expense. Certainly not phenotype of the chickens.

Yeah? ...NO.
I worked for the largest meat chicken source for breeding stock In the eighties, and they really looked at their birds. Mostly after the feathers were removed.

And pork is the same, which is why Landrace made such an impact on hog production and why Durocs don't get a lot of attention.

Personally, the only criteria I've found useful in the numbers are weaning and yearling weights. Any of the maternal characteristics I want should be exhibited in the cow I'm breeding and in the dam of the bull I'm choosing... and that same thing can be said of the bull. If my cow has a weakness it will be demonstrated within a limited number of pregnancies with the only exception being longevity, which will be obvious when they are still raising calves in the upper percentiles of the herd at over ten years.

People like numbers, but I'd put my results up against anyone... and I looked at my cattle and made my determinations from that.

 

[simme]

Yeah? ...NO.
I worked for the largest meat chicken source for breeding stock In the eighties, and they really looked at their birds. Mostly after the feathers were removed.

Explanation of my post.

Chicken breeder company - Develops the genetics for the chicken companies. Examples - Ross, Hubbard Cobb, etc. They care about phenotype and meat quality and other characteristics.

Chicken company - the companies that own the chickens, delivers them to the growers, supplies feed, catches chickens, processes them and sells meat to distributers. They run the show. Examples - Tyson and Pilgrams, etc

Chicken grower - the guy that owns the houses, cares for them for 7 weeks, smells bad and is glad to see them go. He is at the bottom level. Sort of like the cow/calf guy, but don't own the chickens and don't have any say in genetics.

My point was - chicken growers don't care about phenotype. His concern is how big his check is for his contribution and how much his expenses are. He has no emotional attachment to the chickens. Different than cattle.

 

[gcreekrch]

Again, I do understand what you are saying and have no problem acknowledging the depth.
What I see, if you focus on the area between the front of the shoulders and the tail, is a steer ready for processing.
Which is the goal

But,, can you picture this guy huffin and puffin as he is trying to travel in rough country, and hollering "wait up girls".

Please bear in mind this is coming from someone that isn't real big on some of the changes that have occured in a lot
of the breeds. When things swing so far in certain lines, that they have to be referred to as "terminal" to justify their use, I
find myself thinking "hmmm". But the name of the game is to market what is in demand.

Of the pictures I have seen on CT, I have yet to to see any Canadian cattle on working ranches that I did not like. And if it takes
an odd shaped bull to make this all work, well

It is perfectly okay to ignore my babbling. After all I still dress the same way I did when I got out of high school, so obviously not big
on change.
And no, I was not a "flower child".

Carcass traits are chased far too much it seems in the US. As Jeanne does, we breed for females and the steers look after themselves. Those who buy the steers seem to be happy as our calves sell at the top every year for their weight ranges.

 

[Travlr]

Carcass traits are chased far too much it seems in the US. As Jeanne does, we breed for females and the steers look after themselves. Those who buy the steers seem to be happy as our calves sell at the top every year for their weight ranges.

Good heifers and good steers come out of the same cows... if the cows are good. The extremes in any direction are less capable animals. A lot of people seem fascinated by EPD numbers, by chasing results with feed or minerals, by trying to cheap their way into profits by expecting poor animals to become better than they are, and even by cultivating multiple births instead of culling those cows. There are only so many basic rules to succeed in cattle... and it all begins with capable cows and a bull that will improve them. It seems like a lot of people in the US have become enchanted by snake oil instead of the basics.
It seems like you guys in Canada get this. Europeans seem to as well.