|
Post by larso on Apr 28, 2015 5:55:48 GMT -6
What are the traits that the Hereford is seriously lagging behind other breeds? Fertility, I don't think we loose out there. BW needs improving but I think that could be more of an in herd problem. Milk and udder shape, from the pictures I see on here you guys are a long way in front of us and it's something that we need to address. Weight for age, the Hereford will consistency out weigh the angus by 50 to 70 lbs. it is the case here, and we get payed on weight through the sale yards. Carcase and meat yield definitely needs improving but not at the expense of finishing ability and with the demand more and more for grass fed beef I would have thought the Hereford was in a reasonable position to capitalize on that market, so where do we as breeders really need to concentrate our efforts? Personally I don't think it's all doom and gloom for the Hereford breed as some might have us believe.
|
|
|
Post by hoekland on Apr 28, 2015 6:19:03 GMT -6
Marketing!
|
|
|
Post by Carlos (frmaiz) on Apr 28, 2015 6:38:50 GMT -6
Cancer eye. That's my main problem here, having to discard around 2-3 cows/220 per year. If Herefords are less and less here, this is probably the main reason. The collective unconscious associates the breed with it.
|
|
|
Post by jayh on Apr 28, 2015 9:03:10 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by elkwc on Apr 28, 2015 10:01:16 GMT -6
I agree with most of the above comments. I will add in the polled breed that muscling needs to be addressed. Most of the other traits are acceptable.
|
|
|
Post by strojanherefords on Apr 28, 2015 10:35:12 GMT -6
Consistency of purpose. As a breed we are in two distinct camps: the producers of range cattle and the producers of females for the hobbyist market. Both groups are doing well at what they are doing but we are in two different worlds which do not overlap.
|
|
|
Post by fivestarherefords on Apr 28, 2015 12:50:24 GMT -6
I agree with most of the above comments. I will add in the polled breed that muscling needs to be addressed. Most of the other traits are acceptable. Why more people don't ultrasound their yearlings is beyond me. It costs me $14 per head and in my opinion the data is worth every penny of that and then some.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 28, 2015 13:53:26 GMT -6
I agree with most of the above comments. I will add in the polled breed that muscling needs to be addressed. Most of the other traits are acceptable. Why more people don't ultrasound their yearlings is beyond me. It costs me $14 per head and in my opinion the data is worth every penny of that and then some. Our yearling bulls and feeder steers get scanned, don't scan the replacement heifers though as just don't see much value there for that especially since we're retaining them in herd but they we still get yearling weight and hip height measurement.
Strojan, I think you could probably make the case for about any breed that there are 2 types of cattle being raised and unfortunately I don't see that changing much because the show ring cattle are what they are because they are bred, raised and managed entirely different from range and feeder cattle. That's one thing when we were showing cattle we weren't buying or breeding females based solely on being as competitive as possible in the show ring but they needed to be productive females in our herd when their show days were over. Just because a female is winning shows doesn't make her the most ideal female as a productive cow at that show as there are probably several females placing lower that are going to out-perform her in the pasture because they were bred to be a cow and not a puffy pretty show heifer. If we happened to raise a heifer that had the phenotype that did well in the show ring that was just an added bonus because all the breeding decisions that went into that animal was with the intent to bred a female that would be a productive cow first.
Dad was not a fan when we wanted to show a cow/calf pair because his philosophy is that cow should be raising her calf in the pasture and not under a fan in a barn with a feed pan in front of them. Looking back I can now appreciate that line of thinking more. While it was nice to be able to bring back a heifer you showed with a calf at side (a little fun too with working with a calf) to show what kind of cow she turned into it's still a flawed scenario because that cow and calf are being managed different than the rest of your herd in order to be competitive in the show ring. What's even more flawed is how cow/calf pairs are judged because it's practically a crapshoot on what a judge is looking for. Just how much emphasis is he placing on how the cow or calf looks because some would bury a pair if they didn't think the cow fit the show ring even if she had one of the best calves in the ring while others judged how the calf looks and how well the cow is raising it and used the cow as a secondary piece to their evaluation. You could probably put 10 pairs in front of 10 judges and it's doubtful you'd get 2 of them to agree on the same placing.
|
|
|
Post by shumakerherefords on Apr 28, 2015 15:14:30 GMT -6
I agree with most of the above comments. I will add in the polled breed that muscling needs to be addressed. Most of the other traits are acceptable. Why more people don't ultrasound their yearlings is beyond me. It costs me $14 per head and in my opinion the data is worth every penny of that and then some. There are many benefits to scanning the yearling replacement heifers because the REA and IMF are heritable. I would add "Why more people don't take pelvic measurements on their replacement heifers is beyond me". In a few years you can pretty well eliminate calving problems (abnormal presentations excepted).
|
|
|
Post by larso on Apr 28, 2015 16:16:59 GMT -6
I scan all yearling bulls and all my heifers and as my numbers grow will use it more heavily as a selection tool and if there is anything good coming from EBV's it is the need to do this. Marketing is the major issue that I have, how to address it is the $64 question, I'm quiet sure that when Angus got into bed with McDonald's it wasn't because a couple of cowboys walked in and said " how about buying some beef from us" they put together a very good business plan that has payed huge dividends. Hence I can understand the concern that you guys have that the right man gets the job as head of your society, but I don't believe it should be left to one man, it needs a complete change in mind set from top to bottom.
|
|
|
Challenge
Apr 28, 2015 16:49:58 GMT -6
via mobile
Post by Carlos (frmaiz) on Apr 28, 2015 16:49:58 GMT -6
I would add "Why more people don't take pelvic measurements on their replacement heifers is beyond me".
I understand that selecting for bigger pelvic area increases cow size which in turn increases birth weight. And it is not recomended as a tool for calving ease selection.
|
|
|
Post by shumakerherefords on Apr 28, 2015 17:31:27 GMT -6
I would add "Why more people don't take pelvic measurements on their replacement heifers is beyond me". I understand that selecting for bigger pelvic area increases cow size which in turn increases birth weight. And it is not recomended as a tool for calving ease selection. My experience has been that it selects for frame size and as a consequence mature cow weight. However the birth weight can be kept under control by only selecting moderate birth weight heifers for replacements and then very carefully selecting bulls for low actual birth weights (not EPDs). Those 90+ lb. birth weight heifers go to the feedlot and do very well.
|
|
|
Post by Carlos (frmaiz) on Apr 28, 2015 17:47:15 GMT -6
I would add "Why more people don't take pelvic measurements on their replacement heifers is beyond me". I understand that selecting for bigger pelvic area increases cow size which in turn increases birth weight. And it is not recomended as a tool for calving ease selection. My experience has been that it selects for frame size and as a consequence mature cow weight. However the birth weight can be kept under control by only selecting moderate birth weight heifers for replacements and then very carefully selecting bulls for low actual birth weights (not EPDs). Those 90+ lb. birth weight heifers go to the feedlot and do very well. Wouldn't the number of replacement heifers that you select be very low?
|
|
|
Post by tartancowgirl on Apr 28, 2015 18:03:54 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by Glenn on Apr 28, 2015 18:07:02 GMT -6
Just Wow. Is all I can say. And not a 'good' wow!!!
|
|
|
Post by shumakerherefords on Apr 28, 2015 19:40:33 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by shumakerherefords on Apr 28, 2015 20:20:09 GMT -6
My experience has been that it selects for frame size and as a consequence mature cow weight. However the birth weight can be kept under control by only selecting moderate birth weight heifers for replacements and then very carefully selecting bulls for low actual birth weights (not EPDs). Those 90+ lb. birth weight heifers go to the feedlot and do very well. Wouldn't the number of replacement heifers that you select be very low? Well I only run about 70 cows. Basically I keep the top half of the heifer crop, based on WW ratios, as potential replacements (after kicking out all with birth weights much over 90 lbs). Then over winter I feed brome hay and grain starting at about 3 lb/day and working up to 6 lb/day by yearling. After getting yearling weights, ratios, ADG, REA, IMF and pelvic measurements I cull down to about 12 head to breed to calve at 24 months. For that first calf I use a bull with an actual birth weight of about 80 lbs with respectable weaning and yearling ratios. The objective for that first calf is to be unassisted and get that 2 year old heifer to raise a calf and re-breed on schedule.
|
|
|
Post by nicky on Apr 29, 2015 20:55:43 GMT -6
Yikes!!!! And Happy Birthday
|
|
|
Post by tartancowgirl on Apr 30, 2015 11:46:33 GMT -6
Thank you Nicky!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Challenge
Apr 30, 2015 16:38:35 GMT -6
via mobile
mehf likes this
Post by Deleted on Apr 30, 2015 16:38:35 GMT -6
Deleted my prior post from a few hours ago, regretting even stirring the pot on the subject as it led to even more negativity regarding a link I posted with it. I'm sure some here already saw it so I know I can't just act like I didnt say it but for civility sake I chose to remove it because it probably was counter productive. Need a beer now... :-)
|
|
|
Post by mehf on Apr 30, 2015 18:17:46 GMT -6
Doesn't matter what we do in UK - this is what we're up against! Is it my old eyes? But, these two critters seem a bit "leggy" to me.
|
|
|
Post by mehf on Apr 30, 2015 18:18:57 GMT -6
Deleted my prior post from a few hours ago, regretting even stirring the pot on the subject as it led to even more negativity regarding a link I posted with it. I'm sure some here already saw it so I know I can't just act like I didnt say it but for civility sake I chose to remove it because it probably was counter productive. Need a beer now... :-) OK with me before and now. Enjoy your Bud !!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 30, 2015 19:10:21 GMT -6
Deleted my prior post from a few hours ago, regretting even stirring the pot on the subject as it led to even more negativity regarding a link I posted with it. I'm sure some here already saw it so I know I can't just act like I didnt say it but for civility sake I chose to remove it because it probably was counter productive. Need a beer now... :-) OK with me before and now. Enjoy your Bud !! Thanks! I still stand by what I originally posted (guessing you probably saw it before I deleted it) but not worth dragging the backlash/drama I'm catching on the message board I linked for saying what I did over here too. This business is crazy, speak what you are thinking and you piss someone off but say a line of BS you don't believe in just to be politically correct and you can piss someone off that way too. I guess the one thing we can probably all agree on is we like our bulls to actually look like a bull.
This is actually my beer of choice tonight. Become somewhat of a "beer snob" lately where I prefer trying different craft brews instead of your run of the mill domestic beers
|
|
lily
Fresh Calf
Posts: 53
|
Challenge
May 1, 2015 12:14:36 GMT -6
via mobile
Post by lily on May 1, 2015 12:14:36 GMT -6
Our yearling bulls and feeder steers get scanned, don't scan the replacement heifers though as just don't see much value there for that especially since we're retaining them in herd but they we still get yearling weight and hip height measurement. Can't follow your logic on this. We do scan all bulls still intact on ultrasound day and the complete heifercrop. The steers we will see what they look like carcass wise when they are killed and we try hard to get all that info from packer. So does seem to be a waste of money and time to me doing the steers, yet I believe scanning the heifers gives us the most accurate info since they all are there compared to the bulls where somebody influenced the outcome when sorting the steer prospects off. Also after all the heifers will make the backbone of your outfit. Over the years we seen sires that done well on a carcass trait in his bull progeny yet did poor in the same trait in the heifer progeny. Have not decided what the reason for this would be, but do believe different nutrition between the females and bulls has a influence and the culling process on the bulls takes some of the poor doing, narrow tops and light hind quartered animals out, on some sires more then others. If I would get my ultrasound budget cut, I would keep doing the heifers and a few of my herdbull prospects.
|
|
|
Post by tartancowgirl on May 1, 2015 15:59:00 GMT -6
Doesn't matter what we do in UK - this is what we're up against! Is it my old eyes? But, these two critters seem a bit "leggy" to me. The images I chose are just yearlings I think but they are what is called here "commercial show cattle" - people seem to buy them specifically for showing and they are usually Limousin with some percentage of Belgian Blue and heavily "double muscled". They fetch huge amounts of money too. The point I was making is that animals of this shape have become what is considered beautiful or desirable in a beef animal here and as a result even a great Hereford gets condemned as not having good "shape", ie not having a huge back end. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder as they say! The trouble is the obsession with huge back ends extends beyond the show ring to the general market. It seems that not many beef producers care how much money it costs to feed these animals - I would guess much more than it costs to feed a Hereford! As regards scanning, I actually think the Hereford scores well in eg eye muscle area compared with these cattle but beef producers here are simply paid per kg of meat with no regard to quality or marbling. There is talk of this changing and rewarding producers for meat quality but it still seems a long way off.
|
|