|
Post by tartancowgirl on Feb 11, 2016 18:48:23 GMT -6
I know many of you are more interested in frame size but here most breeders are very concerned with weight. In order to sell at UK Hereford sales, bulls are required by the breed society to reach a minimum weight for age (table on website). On a recent thread on another forum there was a photo of a 10 month Hereford bull calf of 550 kg (1200lb), one of many I'm sure, and by 18 - 20 months 850 - 950 kg (2000 lb) is not exceptional. It seems to be deemed necessary by breeders of all beef breeds wanting to get good prices that they have to feed large amounts of concentrate feed from an early age to achieve these weights but farmers who buy them often complain that these young bulls rapidly become lame and many have to be culled. Yet breeders continue to do this and buyers continue to buy them, often for high prices. This puzzles me, and I can't believe this is good for our breed, especially as Herefords are supposed to be the best grass converters. I feel it is a welfare issue in all breeds but what can be done? Is this the same in other countries?
|
|
|
Post by Carlos (frmaiz) on Feb 11, 2016 19:21:07 GMT -6
It seems to be deemed necessary by breeders of all beef breeds wanting to get good prices that they have to feed large amounts of concentrate feed from an early age to achieve these weights but farmers who buy them often complain that these young bulls rapidly become lame and many have to be culled. Yet breeders continue to do this and buyers continue to buy them, often for high prices. "A FACT OF LIFE"
|
|
|
Post by timbernt on Feb 11, 2016 19:24:58 GMT -6
Fat is pretty on everything but a woman.
|
|
|
Post by elkwc on Feb 11, 2016 20:41:06 GMT -6
Fat is pretty on everything but a woman. An old horseman that my Dad partnered with always said that fat was the prettiest color in the world. It was true then and is still true today. So many can't see through the fat and can't tell a good cow that is in moderate shape.
|
|
|
Post by btlrupert on Feb 11, 2016 23:26:15 GMT -6
Sadly all you need to do is look at a cows performance and beyond the "white meat".not complicated !!! One question solves the problem! Don't understand why people don't do their homework !!
|
|
|
Post by larso on Feb 12, 2016 14:49:25 GMT -6
There is no requirement here in AUS as to WFA of young bulls but it certainty carries a lot of influence with breeders and buyers.
|
|
|
Post by tartancowgirl on Feb 12, 2016 18:18:53 GMT -6
Fat is pretty on everything but a woman. Can't "like" that as I'm not as slim as I'd like to be!
|
|
|
Post by timbernt on Feb 12, 2016 18:40:36 GMT -6
Probably a good thing my wife doesn't read Hereford Talk! She is a school guidance counselor and reminds me continually how politically incorrect I am. She got her masters in psychology about 15 years ago and apparently I was the subject of several classroom discussions. Sorry to offend, but if it is any consolation there are some drawbacks to a man aging as well.
|
|
|
Post by larso on Feb 12, 2016 20:37:33 GMT -6
Holy cow Tim, you could be skating on thin ice mate, when my daughter comes home from uni I'm reminded how politically incorrect I've become. I've always called a spade a blo-dy shovel but apparently you can't do that anymore either!!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 12, 2016 21:53:41 GMT -6
Around here I hate to say it but the saying is "fat sells." It's kind of a fine line to toe because you want your sale cattle to look comparable to nearby breeders that buyers might be looking at while trying to develop them the right way by not putting excess fat on them. We're up front and honest about how we feed our yearlings, we only creep a month prior to weaning and don't push on feed as we aim for around 2% of body weight with our rations.
The winters here can have a big effect on their appetite and the results we get can really vary based on the type of winter we have. For instance this winter early one we had much warmer and unseasonal high temps at times that dipped to some extreme cold temps within a matter of 24 hours and the cattle have to react to it. It's 5 degrees here right now and we have a predicted overnight low of -9 yet the high on Monday is supposed to be 35 and by Friday the predicted high is 51 which is great since we have our first calves due around the 23rd but that high of 51 will surely take another cold dip quickly with the next front that moves in here. The one thing we can say is our yearling bulls definately aren't pampered as the lot they are in doesn't have a shed so their only protection from the elements is the hay ring and a spot in the lot that has a bit of a dip in it that they can lay down and block some of the cold north winds.
|
|
|
Post by avignon on Feb 12, 2016 22:19:47 GMT -6
I agree with the comments but what if you look at it slightly differently. If a calf can get to 550kg by 10-12 months on feed than does that show strong performance relevant to the feedlot sector? By achieving feedlot slaughter weight as early as possible not only are there economic advantages but there are also meat quality advantages, should a calf that's proven this ability by 10-12 months be frowned upon? I believe the right type of cattle can be both showring & commercial cattle. Herefords have always been efficient producers so I am hesitant to take our greatest strength & use it negatively.
|
|
|
Post by jayh on Feb 13, 2016 1:28:20 GMT -6
I think if u keep breeding for your fast gaining cattle u will end up with open cattle.
Why push them. Why can't everyone be happy with average.
Also why are we feeding a high starch diet. They were made to eat grass.
Oh yeah to make them FAT
|
|
|
Post by avignon on Feb 13, 2016 4:15:20 GMT -6
I agree with your comments but I don't necessarily think we can do average anymore, certainly in Australia cost of inputs, land prices & general costs of doing business in general have (& continue to) increased dramatically. At every level of the beef chain we need more kilograms of high grade beef (or $'s) per acre to keep pace with cost inflation. My point is for the large portion of guys in the industry who raise yearlings & sell direct to the feedlot markets I think seeing a heavy, finished yearling bull has appeal. Obviously other selection criteria & assessment is still valid as is potential longevity.
|
|
|
Post by hoekland on Feb 13, 2016 10:25:39 GMT -6
I agree with the comments but what if you look at it slightly differently. If a calf can get to 550kg by 10-12 months on feed than does that show strong performance relevant to the feedlot sector? By achieving feedlot slaughter weight as early as possible not only are there economic advantages but there are also meat quality advantages, should a calf that's proven this ability by 10-12 months be frowned upon? I believe the right type of cattle can be both showring & commercial cattle. Herefords have always been efficient producers so I am hesitant to take our greatest strength & use it negatively. Well said. If we all just use common sense in raising our bulls (and when purchasing bulls) most of the bull disasters can be avoided.
|
|
|
Post by tartancowgirl on Feb 14, 2016 18:31:20 GMT -6
Thanks for all your comments. I do see that bull producers have to compete to sell animals. I also understand the theoretical commercial advantages for some producers who have limited shed space and grazing of getting bulls to slaughter weight at 12 months, although the cost of the feed required may not justify it. I also see that in extreme climatic conditions one may want fatter cattle to withstand cold etc, But my concerns are: 1 the wastage and welfare issue of so many crippled young bulls that have to be culled before they've even sired a calf? It's not only laminitis but also osteochondrosis, which is said to be a common reason for young bull infertility (lameness may not be noticed because they have lesions in multiple joints) 2 since 400 day weights are constantly increasing and highly heritable, are we going to keep increasing size until we have Herefords as large as elephants or will there be a natural limit? (Frame size 15 anyone?) 3 is it good for a breed which is supposed to be an excellent grass converter to reward growth from grain feeding - in other words is it necessarily the case that cattle which do well in the feedlot also do well on grass? I am asking because I genuinely don't know the answer.
|
|
|
Post by strojanherefords on Feb 15, 2016 22:12:25 GMT -6
3 is it good for a breed which is supposed to be an excellent grass converter to reward growth from grain feeding - in other words is it necessarily the case that cattle which do well in the feedlot also do well on grass? I am asking because I genuinely don't know the answer. Correct me, if I am wrong. In the UK and the rest of northern Europe pasture dairies are the dominant form of cattle production. Therefore, a sizable portion of the UK beef production consists of drop calves sired by beef bulls. And for a few reasons, bulls are fed intact. This necessitates a difference in the kind of beef sire used as compared to an American cow-calf operation.
First: Dairy cows are large framed and well attended to, so calves can be bigger at birth. Second: Intact bulls need to be slaughtered before they become rank, so they need to be slaughtered before puberty. Third: Terminal calves do not need to become productive cows, so convenience traits can be ignored.
In short, I believe that pastured cattle will do better on grain than terminal cattle will do on grass.
|
|
|
Post by tartancowgirl on Feb 16, 2016 15:42:47 GMT -6
You are quite correct that this used to be the case in UK, although it depended what part of the country you lived in. ( Although it's a small island there are lots of areas, including most of Scotland, where dairy cows cannot live). I suppose the change from the Friesian / Ayrshire / Dairy Shorthorn to the much taller Holstein was one of the main reasons that Herefords needed to get bigger, although the introduction of the EUROP grid used to pay beef farmers was probably the main driver for increased size. However in recent years we have had a very different situation developing. We used to have many small dairy herds of 100 cows, each of which would have had a beef bull, probably a Hereford. Now we have far fewer dairy herds but those we have are much larger, up to 1000 cows, with rotary parlours and robots. The vast majority of heifers and many dairy cows are AIed and conception rates are good, so very few sweeper bulls are needed. Dairying is going through a very bad patch financially at present because of oversupply of milk. As a result the Hereford's traditional roll as a terminal sire for the dairy herd is not nearly as important as it used to be - its place has been taken by the British (Belgian) Blue, usually by AI. Many farmers who have given up dairying have gone into keeping suckler cows, but the Hereford has a bad reputation for poor milk production. The most popular terminal bulls for suckler herds are Charolais, Simmental and Limousin, especially in Scotland. These herds often have problems with calving but the value of the resulting calves and government support have meant that many farmers are not too concerned about cost of production. Bull beef is popular but the cattle must be killed by 16 months, preferably 14 months. They are usually either Holstein / Friesian or Continentals and bull beef production is quite specialised. The Hereford is not favoured for this system either. So this is why the Hereford has been struggling - people don't know whether it is a terminal breed or whether it should be used as a suckler cow. This is why I can't see the point in increasing size and weights any further. The breed has its enthusiasts (like us) and there are some supermarket premium schemes for Hereford beef, which I think are oversubscribed) but the Hereford is just basically not fashionable any more, despite what the breeders try to do. If it is going to be a success in a suckler environment, in my opinion we need to promote more of the qualities that have made the breed a success in other countries, rather than just seeing how big and fat we can make them. But that's just me!
|
|
|
Post by bookcliff on Feb 16, 2016 17:38:26 GMT -6
yearling weight is a fine line to balance. while I concur that many push bulls as hard as they can chasing 1400 lb yearling weights at the cost of growth plates, feet and semen production/fertility, to totally disregard the merit of true superior growth is just as futile. at the end of the day this business is about pounds whether you like it or not. pounds combined with sustainability of a cowherd while trying to lower feed costs. in otherwords diong more on less. you can't do that when you ignore either part of that equation.
and you damn sure can't do that without evaluating it.
|
|