|
Post by Glenn on Nov 24, 2014 17:07:34 GMT -6
I don't think it's a BASH POLLED thread. It was started by a POLLED breeder.
|
|
|
Post by elkwc on Nov 24, 2014 18:20:15 GMT -6
I'm not out to bash horned or polled cattle. If my opinion seems like I am that is because I tell it like I see it. I've seen some good polled cattle. Although not many considering the amount I've looked at. I've stated before that I feel About Time is one of the top polled sires that I have seen progeny of. But all the progeny i've seen in person have been moderate. Like I stated in another post. I compare his progeny to those of Sensation.The ones I've seen are very comparable. Very functional cattle unless you have small cows you need to add some frame too. The largest one I've seen is a son that Kevin Jensen raised. I have no idea what frame his mother was. He is a 5.5-6 frame and I would say around a ton. Not a large bull by any means but big enough for me and very well balanced and muscled. In my opinion About Time better than Durango. From the progeny I've seen he is fairly consistent. At the very least Durango is a very inconsistent sire from the progeny I've seen. I haven't seen a son yet that wasn't a toad and only one cow that I really liked. And she was good. But as an old horseman told me once. If you breed most studs to enough outstanding mares you will likely get a few good foals. From what I've seen that is my opinion of Durango. He has been bred to a some of the best cows available. So if he is any kind of sire he should sire a few good ones. But the toads have outnumbered the good ones from the ones I've seen. I've seen a very high selling son that was a 4 frame as a 4 y/o, wide at the hooks but narrow at the pins. He would of been a steer before he weighed 200# if I had been the one with the knife making the decision. Again not bashing just what I've seen in person.
|
|
|
Post by circleh on Nov 24, 2014 18:21:59 GMT -6
What about Harland? I have a son that appears a little short, but he is in a field full of large gert cows. I think he will actually be a good match for them bringing them down a hair in size.
|
|
|
Post by Carlos (frmaiz) on Nov 24, 2014 18:32:08 GMT -6
we'd all be breeding national champions and making millions right? Wrong. If we all breed national champions their price will plummet and you will not make millions. Supply will match demand.
|
|
|
Post by elkwc on Nov 24, 2014 19:06:25 GMT -6
What about Harland? I have a son that appears a little short, but he is in a field full of large gert cows. I think he will actually be a good match for them bringing them down a hair in size. I'm assuming you mean 408? I say this because I have lived 40 miles from Texhoma for years and saw the Harland cattle for most of those years. They always raised very good cattle. The 408's I've seen are a little more moderate but overall well balanced and good sound cattle. I haven't seen any I would term a toad. I've seen a few polled lines that I felt consistently sired the kind of cattle demanded by the feeders and packers. Redeem is one sire that all of his progeny I've seen have been functional and no toads in them. I haven't seen a lot but a few. I saw some of his daughters in production and they were good cows. The best producing polled cows I've seen have went back to Moler. The only reason I didn't purchase a bull out of one of those cows was because he had an actual 94# BW. And I was looking for a heifer bull.
|
|
|
Post by George on Nov 24, 2014 19:11:25 GMT -6
What about Harland? I have a son that appears a little short, but he is in a field full of large gert cows. I think he will actually be a good match for them bringing them down a hair in size. I will tell you that when I saw Harland at the Harland dispersion, I was concerned that he might be a little too moderate. But I was still into the bigger framed cattle then and I hadn't yet recognized the value of some moderation. Harland is definitely NOT a toad though. I would not put any of the bulls that have been mentioned here in this thread in the category of being TOO moderate in my book. But I am also sure that I don't want to see much more downward trend in frame size.
|
|
|
Post by timbernt on Nov 24, 2014 19:30:20 GMT -6
SPH, I had a client who used 29F very early. I really liked most of the calves we made. Two things held me back; erratic BW with an occasional great big one and he threw a lot of horns. Since I liked the calves so much I was totally flabbergasted at how greasy he was.
|
|
|
Post by hoekland on Nov 24, 2014 23:51:35 GMT -6
Let's not forget that the ideal animal for the packer, is very far from the ideal animal for the cow/calf farmer.
|
|
|
Post by elkwc on Nov 25, 2014 5:46:36 GMT -6
Let's not forget that the ideal animal for the packer, is very far from the ideal animal for the cow/calf farmer. As a commercial breeder that is where you and I disagree. I have to purchase an animal that will produce what the packer desires if I want top dollar and not be docked. That statement is one reason some Herefords along with others are being docked so heavily. I know of a few purebred breeders who raise the type of cattle that will perform in the lots and on the rail and you can also save replacements from. And as a commercial breeder that is what I desire.It has been done for years and can continue to be done. We saved some real nice heifers this past year and the steer mates sold at the top of the market. But the toads this thread is about don't.
|
|
|
Post by hoekland on Nov 25, 2014 7:09:23 GMT -6
The cost of production will contribute a lot more to profitability or the lack thereof than you might think.
I have fed out many bulls, not just my own, but also of other breeders with very different ideas of what a hereford should be and I came to the conclusion that as long as it's a beef type animal and you avoid the obvious extremes, frame size don't play that big a role in feedlot gain. A shorter (say frame 5) beefy animal that is in proportion and with width from end to end on a a skeleton with decent bone, will outgain most of the typical frame 8's.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 25, 2014 8:34:42 GMT -6
I don't think it's a BASH POLLED thread. It was started by a POLLED breeder. So I may have jumped the gun a bit with that comment and I'm not too proud to admit it. Just get a little defensive when I start reading some of these threads (and it's not necessarily all on this board either) where the polled cattle sometimes gets thrown under the bus. It's one of those things where I get irked that we still have some bias within our own breed when we should be glad to help each other promote the Hereford breed as a whole and not based on horn status as working together and not against each other is in the best interest of moving the breed forward.
timbernt, like I've mentioned we too saw a lot of BW problem with our 29F son which is why we stopped using him after 3 years but I don't recall having issues with throwing horns. He definitely added some nice thickness to our calves though but when you run a cow/calf operation birth weights and calving ease are something we like to keep in an acceptable range, especially when the same bull is being used cleanup on both heifers and mature cows.
|
|
|
Post by btlrupert on Nov 25, 2014 8:58:49 GMT -6
TOTALLY agree with Hoekland. Our "dirty" fescue combined with 90 degrees and high humidity in the summer will not support 6 to 7 frame cattle. Deep bodied 5 to 5.5 frame is where we try to shoot. Also,thanks for the information on 755T, we plan to use him.
|
|
|
Post by tartancowgirl on Nov 25, 2014 12:28:44 GMT -6
Size is an interesting topic to me as our cattle are often criticised for being small (despite the fact that those who say this have never actually seen them - they're just making assumptions). So often we have to make a judgement on an animal from a photograph when there is nothing in the picture eg a person, to compare it with. We don't talk about frame size here but I've looked it up and maybe I'll measure our cows to find out what they are. Certainly I wouldn't be surprised if some of the modern show Herefords from non-traditional lines here were frame size 10 or even bigger. The trouble is although they are tall and rangy they are often not particularly wide or muscular. Of course Herefords here don't very often have to worry about where their next meal is coming from! However the breed has always had a great reputation for surviving in extreme climates and it would be logical to me that a larger animal might need more feed and therefore would be less likely to survive. But perhaps that's too simplistic? Breeders here always seem to think that N. American Herefords are very big but from what you are saying in this thread perhaps they're getting smaller again?
|
|
|
Post by George on Nov 25, 2014 12:37:37 GMT -6
I don't think it's a BASH POLLED thread. It was started by a POLLED breeder. So I may have jumped the gun a bit with that comment and I'm not too proud to admit it. Just get a little defensive when I start reading some of these threads (and it's not necessarily all on this board either) where the polled cattle sometimes gets thrown under the bus. It's one of those things where I get irked that we still have some bias within our own breed when we should be glad to help each other promote the Hereford breed as a whole and not based on horn status as working together and not against each other is in the best interest of moving the breed forward.
timbernt, like I've mentioned we too saw a lot of BW problem with our 29F son which is why we stopped using him after 3 years but I don't recall having issues with throwing horns. He definitely added some nice thickness to our calves though but when you run a cow/calf operation birth weights and calving ease are something we like to keep in an acceptable range, especially when the same bull is being used cleanup on both heifers and mature cows.
To me it's not a polled versus horned discussion...it is a "type" discussion. A horned bull that would fall into the same category as Hometown and Durango would be 88X. And Times A Wasting is also a horned bull. The question is: Are these type of bulls so moderate and different in type that they are too small and/or -too fat, too soon- for them to be acceptable as sires for "the mainstream" commercial industry. SPH, I expect that you and I would have different ideas about what are our "ideals" in Hereford cattle are, based on the cattle that I've seen you post pictures of. To me, most of the bulls mentioned in this thread aren't nearly as much a "threat" to the future of the Hereford breed as a bull like this is: KCF Bennett Revolution X51 And the popularity of bulls, like Revolution, means nothing as far as I am concerned. There have been many bulls that were popular at one time that proved to be disasters. TEX PRIME TIME is but one example.
|
|
|
The toads
Nov 25, 2014 13:07:31 GMT -6
via mobile
Post by btlrupert on Nov 25, 2014 13:07:31 GMT -6
I agree it is a type and kind scenario . Could never use the bull pictured but he is extremely popular for sure ... He must outbreed himself . ( I hope )
|
|
|
Post by whiteface on Nov 25, 2014 13:30:57 GMT -6
George thanks for the pics of 4R. I've never seen pics of him.
Now as far as what type of cattle we should raise for the packers. In a choosing a type or herd of cattle, what would the ideal herd, bulls, etc look like? Is a Sandhills type of herd with good carcass #'s what the packers want? Thats a pretty broad question and answer. I'm just thinking out loud. I know that we do'nt want to focus on one single trait.
Another qeustion while on this subject, X51 who excelled in Olsens is one ugly bull but the data makes you atleast think about it. Does anyone have a copy of that data from Olsen's that was in the HW or another publication?
|
|
|
Post by Glenn on Nov 25, 2014 13:50:02 GMT -6
Both those bulls while having decent REA ratios (X651 not near as impressive) and YW ratios they were the TWO WORST BULLS comparing feed input to gain which would go along with George's though about them not siring "easy doing" females. In fact the "tested" bull was OFF THE CHARTS BAD on RFI.
|
|
|
Post by larso on Nov 25, 2014 15:29:13 GMT -6
I'm probably going to upset a few people here but I'm finding this thread quite amusing. I don't care what frame size my cows are !! as long as they past this test, wean a good calf every year, better than 50% or close to mature cow weight, rebreed in 63 day's and do that year after year. "Form follows Function" If they need a bit more leg under them because they live in a dryer part of the country and need to walk further for water and feed so be it, the environment will to some extent dictate their frame size, as long as I keep to the selection criteria mention above. I also believe that the cow that can do that WILL produce you a steer that is above average for the feedlot, cause the cow that can do that is obviously a good converter. We're had EPD's shoved downed our throat's and every other technical details that butter the bread for someone body else. Start leasing or paying agistment and see what cows pay the bills. You wont care whether she's a toad or and elephant. We have over complicated this cattle business and this is why we chase or the fads.
|
|
|
Post by Glenn on Nov 25, 2014 16:18:57 GMT -6
I agree pretty much Larso. I think balance in all things is certainly warranted but to me, I want cows that wean an acceptable calf in my 75 day breeding season and do it year after year after year.
“Cattle breeding is relatively simple endeavor. The only difficult part is to keep it simple” - Tom Lasater
|
|
hph
Fresh Calf
Posts: 25
|
Post by hph on Nov 25, 2014 18:09:30 GMT -6
George thanks for the pics of 4R. I've never seen pics of him. Now as far as what type of cattle we should raise for the packers. In a choosing a type or herd of cattle, what would the ideal herd, bulls, etc look like? Is a Sandhills type of herd with good carcass #'s what the packers want? Thats a pretty broad question and answer. I'm just thinking out loud. I know that we do'nt want to focus on one single trait. Another qeustion while on this subject, X51 who excelled in Olsens is one ugly bull but the data makes you atleast think about it. Does anyone have a copy of that data from Olsen's that was in the HW or another publication? I tried to paste the spread sheet, but couldn't figure it out. X51 progeny had a 936 hcw(108%),488 imf(104%),14.43rea(112%),.69bf(114%),5.0f/g,.82rfi.
|
|
|
Post by Glenn on Nov 25, 2014 18:22:00 GMT -6
Here is the data Seems like only EPD wonder bulls allowed to participate. I believe Lurker Brian's bull was in this test Attachments:Olsen 2014.pdf (583.71 KB)
|
|
|
Post by Glenn on Nov 25, 2014 18:26:24 GMT -6
PS- HPH you need to send me your full name and location to continue as a member. I sent an email when I approved your membership but got no reply. Thanks.
Not picking on you but this summer I decided before a new member is allowed I want to know who they are. Keeps us more civil.
|
|
|
Post by elkwc on Nov 25, 2014 21:49:08 GMT -6
I've looked at and heard of a few close outs lately where 96% to 100% of a pen have graded choice. So the results look good but without knowing the conditions and how the test is managed I wouldn't say they are exceptional. Interesting reading. The results mean a lot more to me than some EPD's that have likely beem fudged some.
|
|
|
Post by strojanherefords on Nov 28, 2014 21:14:13 GMT -6
I would define a toad as a bull that has got a lot of good things going for it but he does not bring the pounds. For me pounds weaned come first because unfortunately my customers or myself might not be in the business long enough to reap the benefits of the smaller framed female. That being said I do not cull heifers for size as true frame five heifers have a habit of getting bred.
|
|
|
Post by bookcliff on Dec 2, 2014 0:38:33 GMT -6
I've stayed outa this thread since it started but.............
to me a toad really ain't got much to do with anything other than some damn bull or heifer that is all white muscle and with out it wouldn't weigh jack s%$t. \ personally I've seen 6-7 frame cattle that I would call toads in the rig they were in at the time and if you took the fat off of em they'd be slab sided, shallow gutted, narrow based, short hipped pukes and I've seen pile of the 4's that are being shown right now that if you took the fat, the dry beet pulp and the "management" out of em wouldn't be any better than the most of the stockers that get turned out in the Flint Hills each May.
at the same time I've seen 4 frames that were long sided big ribbed, big ribeyed cattle that feed like dreams in the feedyard just like I've seen 6+ frames that did the same.
in general 5 and 6 frame cattle will have more growth in them then 4's however it has substantailly more to do with type than frame.
it all comes down to if they are the type that can push the scale down on thier own or not, not soley on how much air they got between the ground and their belly.
|
|