|
| Author |
Message |
DOC HARRIS
Member
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
Posts: 821
Location: Ft. Collins, CO
|
 Posted: Fri Jan 05, 2007 6:06 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| Quote: |
| Moderation in all things" is a pretty good motto to live by. Even in bull buying, I don't even necessarily want "the best" bulls that a seedstock producer has available. The "best" bulls usually become the biggest. |
Soapweed -
In our (yours and mine) discussions of EPD's in the past, you KNOW how my fingernails 'scratched' the blackboard when I read the above quote of yours!  
I won't engage in a dialogue relating to EPD's, but I would like to ascertain that we are reading from the same blackboard in regard to our moot interpretations of the "best" bulls, and that we have unanimity of thought concerning the "culling" of the bottom half of our cowherd.
Let's address the "culling" issue first, for that can be resolved more quickly than the "best" item on the docket. Figures don't change, so we all know that if we cull 50% of our cow herd one season, 50% of the cow herd remains. Naturally, if we cull 50% of THAT remaining herd only 25% remains. But in the process of culling the original 50%, we are obligated to introduce replacement breeder's (either heifers or producing cows) in order to maintain the numerical size of the original herd. By virtue of improving the Genetic and Phenotypic traits and characteristics of the Replacement females, we incrementally make quality progress exponentially with each culling session. The more frequently we "cull and replace with higher quality females (and, understandably using the "BEST" bulls available) the more quickly we will approach optimal perfection in our breeding programs. Considering a herd of 100 breeding females, after 5 cullings of the bottom half of the herd, only 3.125 females are left remaining of the original herd - assuming the replacements are an improvement over the quality of the foundation herd. Now we are the proud owners of 100 very high quality females - all other variables being equal, and ruthless culling has been employed in the process.
Now, let's flip the blackboard over and concern ourselves with the issue of the ". . .best bulls usually becoming the biggest". I can agree with that premise, - IF - one is selecting the bulls on size only and ignoring other traits and characteristics, such as Functional, Maternal, Carcass Values, and $Values - paying PARTICULARLY CLOSE ATTENTION to the Balancing of Genetics and Phenotype to avoid the inevitable problems resulting from "run-away" size exacerbations.
I embrace the maxim or doctrine of "Moderation In All Things" providing that ALL things are taken into consideration in the determination of selecting "useful, uniform, moderate sized cattle" which will work well for all involved participants.
An in-depth discussion incorporating the CORRECT usages of EPD's and Phenotypical selection would involve reams of paper and many-sided blackboards to even approach unanimity of thought between people of like temperment!   Suffice it to say - I think that we are skirting around the same page on this subject.
DOC HARRIS
|
|
| Back to top |
|
Soapweed
Rancher
Joined: 11 Feb 2005
Posts: 12095
Location: northern Nebraska Sandhills
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 05, 2007 6:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| DOC HARRIS wrote: |
| Quote: |
| Moderation in all things" is a pretty good motto to live by. Even in bull buying, I don't even necessarily want "the best" bulls that a seedstock producer has available. The "best" bulls usually become the biggest. |
Soapweed -
In our (yours and mine) discussions of EPD's in the past, you KNOW how my fingernails 'scratched' the blackboard when I read the above quote of yours!
I won't engage in a dialogue relating to EPD's, but I would like to ascertain that we are reading from the same blackboard in regard to our moot interpretations of the "best" bulls, and that we have unanimity of thought concerning the "culling" of the bottom half of our cowherd.
Let's address the "culling" issue first, for that can be resolved more quickly than the "best" item on the docket. Figures don't change, so we all know that if we cull 50% of our cow herd one season, 50% of the cow herd remains. Naturally, if we cull 50% of THAT remaining herd only 25% remains. But in the process of culling the original 50%, we are obligated to introduce replacement breeder's (either heifers or producing cows) in order to maintain the numerical size of the original herd. By virtue of improving the Genetic and Phenotypic traits and characteristics of the Replacement females, we incrementally make quality progress exponentially with each culling session. The more frequently we "cull and replace with higher quality females (and, understandably using the "BEST" bulls available) the more quickly we will approach optimal perfection in our breeding programs. Considering a herd of 100 breeding females, after 5 cullings of the bottom half of the herd, only 3.125 females are left remaining of the original herd - assuming the replacements are an improvement over the quality of the foundation herd. Now we are the proud owners of 100 very high quality females - all other variables being equal, and ruthless culling has been employed in the process.
Now, let's flip the blackboard over and concern ourselves with the issue of the ". . .best bulls usually becoming the biggest". I can agree with that premise, - IF - one is selecting the bulls on size only and ignoring other traits and characteristics, such as Functional, Maternal, Carcass Values, and $Values - paying PARTICULARLY CLOSE ATTENTION to the Balancing of Genetics and Phenotype to avoid the inevitable problems resulting from "run-away" size exacerbations.
I embrace the maxim or doctrine of "Moderation In All Things" providing that ALL things are taken into consideration in the determination of selecting "useful, uniform, moderate sized cattle" which will work well for all involved participants.
An in-depth discussion incorporating the CORRECT usages of EPD's and Phenotypical selection would involve reams of paper and many-sided blackboards to even approach unanimity of thought between people of like temperment! Suffice it to say - I think that we are skirting around the same page on this subject.
DOC HARRIS |
That's just what I said. 
|
|
| Back to top |
|
Jason
Rancher
Joined: 10 Feb 2005
Posts: 2001
Location: Alberta Canada
|
|
| Back to top |
|
Soapweed
Rancher
Joined: 11 Feb 2005
Posts: 12095
Location: northern Nebraska Sandhills
|
|
| Back to top |
|
cowboyup
Member
Joined: 08 May 2005
Posts: 430
Location: where i am
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 06, 2007 12:50 am Post subject: |
|
|
There is no such thing as a perfect cow. I know a good cow when I see her. I know more about her when I see a calf that she has raised. All the papers in the world will not tell you what kind of a mother she will be. The most important information you can get is birthweight. They will throw calves that are similar. All the rest of the numbers that they are coming up with are just trying to sell you something. Weights after birth all depend on feed and supplements that they are getting plus what the mother is giving them. My brother and I have very similar cattle, we run similar bulls yet are weaning weights are different mostly because of the grass that we run. He runs high mountain grass while I run river bottom, native and tame grass. He will beat me by seventy five to a hundred pounds a year, running basicly the same cows and the same bulls.
So how would the purebred breeders explain that. We calve at the same time. We feed the same feed through the winter. what makes the difference. I Think that you just need to run cows that fit your operation.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
L.E. Stevens
Member
Joined: 22 Feb 2006
Posts: 187
Location: east of the west
|
|
| Back to top |
|
Jason
Rancher
Joined: 10 Feb 2005
Posts: 2001
Location: Alberta Canada
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 06, 2007 9:31 am Post subject: |
|
|
| cowboyup wrote: |
There is no such thing as a perfect cow. I know a good cow when I see her. I know more about her when I see a calf that she has raised. All the papers in the world will not tell you what kind of a mother she will be. The most important information you can get is birthweight. They will throw calves that are similar. All the rest of the numbers that they are coming up with are just trying to sell you something. Weights after birth all depend on feed and supplements that they are getting plus what the mother is giving them. My brother and I have very similar cattle, we run similar bulls yet are weaning weights are different mostly because of the grass that we run. He runs high mountain grass while I run river bottom, native and tame grass. He will beat me by seventy five to a hundred pounds a year, running basicly the same cows and the same bulls.
So how would the purebred breeders explain that. We calve at the same time. We feed the same feed through the winter. what makes the difference. I Think that you just need to run cows that fit your operation. |
I think I can agree with this post 99.9%.
The only minor difference I would say is a good cow is obvious when she is raising her calf. Lots of good looking drys out there, pretty hard to tell what they raise.
The birthweight, I have used lots of 95 pound bulls and never gotten a 95 pound calf. And I have used some 75 pound bulls and gotten over 100 pound calves. Stacked epds for moderate bw are more accurate than the actual number.
Feed resources is a huge deal. I have seen my 2 year old heifers bring in the biggest set of calves for the last couple years because I have really fed them after they calve. If I fed mycows as good all the calves would be bigger, but there is a line of how much you can feed, while you can't starve a profit from them.
Good post cowboyup.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
