• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

A perfect seedstock operation.

Help Support Ranchers.net:

Badlands,

I guess I am not sure by what you mean when you say phony for tough bulls. I agree that when an animal (bull) is to fat or to thin it is hard on the bull and not good for the buyer. I like to think our May/June bulls are considered to be forage raised, but we also give them some attention when it gets close to the sale, it shines them up, kind of like washing the machinery or tuning up the tractor before the farm auction. If they look or sound better they will sell better. But I don't think the bulls need it to do a good job. But, we would never let them be short of feed either. I like my food too. :lol: I have seen some bulls come in way to thin or way to fat at other sales, but I think most cattleman can see through this, or at least I hope they can. But then again as my other post stated Fat
Sells. :wink:

Also, I am glad that commercial customers have faith in their seedstock provider, if they didn't, then nobody would ever have repeat buyers. Granted their are some providers who can't be trusted and don't look out for the commercial man, but at least in our area, and nearly all the breeders that I consult for or sale manage for are looking out for the commercial rancher someway. OUR program is based on the commercial rancher, and we are always trying to increase their profit someway, either by our product or our service we provide. Most providers have some sort of a service, some are just stronger than others. I really hope that every commercial rancher out there can get some help from their provider if needed.
 
Tap, hang in there...you're on the right track.

Badlands, you're trying to flip this on me. :? You're the one that introduced 'stress'. And here you defined it.
Badlands said:
I'm talking about putting more than reasonable pressure on yearling bulls.
Click to expand...
Then...
Badlands said:
I think the "pressure" you are talking about is running cows under "commercial conditions", with culling for disposition, udders, feet, etc. I agree with you on that.
Click to expand...

See...Tap, you and I are in agreement here...no need to get 'stressed'. :wink: :lol:

I haven't missed the boat...in fact, I got on board seven years ago. I found a seedstock cattleman that has raised his purebreds under commercial criteria for over seventy years(closed herd)...starts them calving at two, requires a good calf every year(no exceptions), calves them unassisted on range, raises them on range only(helps them in tough conditions...so they're not stressed :wink: ). He did all the hard work...I got to take advantage of it! :D

Badlands said:
Your phrasing of this sentence, "Just because a seedstocker raises his cattle the same as the commercial producer doesn't mean they are stressed." makes it sound like you want to buy stressed bulls.
Click to expand...

This quote makes it sound like you think commercial cattlemen 'stress' their cattle while trying to make a living off them!?!? :roll: :???: Raising seedstock like commercials is not stressing them, but it sure doesn't hide flaws as pampering and over feeding can. The proof in raising seedstock like commercials is that you end up with care free cattle(or close to it)...and that is what the commercial man needs. But I also understand BRG's points...you got to sell what your customers are willing to buy.

There is a difference between pampered vs. tough, commercially raised bulls...I've seen the difference its made in my herd. Nothing phony about that idea!
 
RobertMac,

The point of yours I took exception to was the one about illustrating with extremes.

I can't see how trimming both ends of the bell curve out of my program is an extreme way of thinking.

I shouldn't have gotten my hackles up on your point, but I guess I am human.


Badlands
 
Badlands,

I don't believe that raising seedstock as close as possible to the way the commercial man raises his cattle is an extreme. And should be more the norm than the exception. I know it makes it easier to sort off the bottom end, but then that means less bulls to sell. But from BRG's points, the commercial buyer is his own worst enemy...he wants to buy big, slick and pretty...what's the seedstock seller to do?

I think we are much closer on our views than our post may indicate...as always, informative and enjoyable.

Take care,
Robert
 
I don't believe that raising seedstock as close as possible to the way the commercial man raises his cattle is an extreme.
Click to expand...

Nor, do I RobertMac, at least on the cow side of things. We got off track here.

On the steer/bull side of things, many would argue that they need to be developed at maximum growth, like their steer progeny would be in the feedlot if fed by the commercial man.

We've known for close to 25 years that if we feed bulls to gain 2.5 pounds/day on the average, we can rank them well enough for growth.


In my opinion, as "close as possible" is the key phrase. That is why I avoid the extremes on both ends.

Some prefer one end or the other. If they do, I like to hear why. I guess I haven't heard a justification that satisfies me, yet. It's more a case of guys talking about avoiding extremes while having extreme cattle of another type.


Nature is extreme, but not every year. And not all the time. I have yet to find any of the folks that "mimic Nature" really do. Their cattle are almost nearly always extreme in one way or another. Lasater and Beebe might be the exceptions, but Beebe's deal is pretty much over, I think. Larry Leonhardt might have the composition and body type that mimics Nature, but not the management, not that it makes the cattle any less. If I'm not mistaken, your's fall under the Lasater category.


Badlands
 
We've known for close to 25 years that if we feed bulls to gain 2.5 pounds/day on the average, we can rank them well enough for growth.

That is what I shoot for on my Hereford bulls. Between that and April calving it takes a mighty fine calf to make a bull. 2.5 pounds per day only leaves 450 pounds for the winter. To get the 1100 pound yearling that is ready to use means thy need to weigh 650 on grass at 200 days. That means I sell more steers than bulls.
70 years ago some people who were ambitious and wanted to sell yearling bulls instead of 2s looked at the numbers and decided to calve in Jan or Feb and others followed and thus Mother Nature was messed with.
 
Couple thoughts. Is a herd of cows that runs out on pasture that wasn't grazed in the summer only getting fed when the weather is bad tougher then a herd that ran more cattle in the summer and doesn't have a stockpile of pasture and therefore is fed some hay in the spring and runs on crop residue. The first herd is calved in May, the second herd is calved in March/April. The second herd is not fed to keep all the cows fat, but rather fed to keep average/below average condition on most cows. The cows that can't take it are gone and opens are sold. Which herd would you buy a bull from. The herd with abundant pasture or the herd with less abundant pasture that feeds hay. Maybe, just maybe the second herd puts at least as much pressure as the first.

Also, if a person was trying to buy a bull that had toughness bred into him, which is better? A bull that was bred out of sync with nature with a mother that continued to show up pregnant without a huge amount of supplements or the bull born in sync with nature with grass only for the mother. If we are talking toughness, the cow that calves in March, may be a tougher cow. Just curious to others thoughts. P.S. - I'm not calling anyone out or trying to start a fight. Just some questions that I've thought about often.
 
AX- said:
Couple thoughts. Is a herd of cows that runs out on pasture that wasn't grazed in the summer only getting fed when the weather is bad tougher then a herd that ran more cattle in the summer and doesn't have a stockpile of pasture and therefore is fed some hay in the spring and runs on crop residue. The first herd is calved in May, the second herd is calved in March/April. The second herd is not fed to keep all the cows fat, but rather fed to keep average/below average condition on most cows. The cows that can't take it are gone and opens are sold. Which herd would you buy a bull from. The herd with abundant pasture or the herd with less abundant pasture that feeds hay. Maybe, just maybe the second herd puts at least as much pressure as the first.

Also, if a person was trying to buy a bull that had toughness bred into him, which is better? A bull that was bred out of sync with nature with a mother that continued to show up pregnant without a huge amount of supplements or the bull born in sync with nature with grass only for the mother. If we are talking toughness, the cow that calves in March, may be a tougher cow. Just curious to others thoughts. P.S. - I'm not calling anyone out or trying to start a fight. Just some questions that I've thought about often.
Click to expand...

Good thoughts AX-,

This might sound flippant and facetious, but my thought is "the only sure bet is that there ain't no sure bets." I just strive for the middle of the road with our cattle. I don't want any long tall horsey cattle, and I don't want any dinks. I like to feed them as I would want to be fed if I was a cow, not in excess but not over abundantly either. If I have to starve my cattle to make a buck, I'd just as soon spend my life doing something else besides ranching. The golden rule kind of applies to livestock, as well as to people.

EPD and carcass numbers don't mean too much to me. Even if a critter turns out super-dooper in these categories, there are no guarantees that a full brother will do nearly as well the next year. By the time numbers have come back with enough consistency to mean anything, those bulls are long gone out of our herd. At the very most I keep a bull for three years, and a lot of the time I only use them for one year.

To each their own, and as long as an outfit stays in business they must be doing something right. :? :wink:
 
AX- said:
Couple thoughts. Is a herd of cows that runs out on pasture that wasn't grazed in the summer only getting fed when the weather is bad tougher then a herd that ran more cattle in the summer and doesn't have a stockpile of pasture and therefore is fed some hay in the spring and runs on crop residue. The first herd is calved in May, the second herd is calved in March/April. The second herd is not fed to keep all the cows fat, but rather fed to keep average/below average condition on most cows. The cows that can't take it are gone and opens are sold. Which herd would you buy a bull from. The herd with abundant pasture or the herd with less abundant pasture that feeds hay. Maybe, just maybe the second herd puts at least as much pressure as the first.

Also, if a person was trying to buy a bull that had toughness bred into him, which is better? A bull that was bred out of sync with nature with a mother that continued to show up pregnant without a huge amount of supplements or the bull born in sync with nature with grass only for the mother. If we are talking toughness, the cow that calves in March, may be a tougher cow. Just curious to others thoughts. P.S. - I'm not calling anyone out or trying to start a fight. Just some questions that I've thought about often.
Click to expand...

Great post/question AX-...ones I've been wanting to ask, but figured I'd "poked the bear" long enough.

Speaking of which, I hope I didn't poke Tap so much that he's decided to leave. That was sure never my intent :cry:

Soapweed said:
To each their own, and as long as an outfit stays in business they must be doing something right.
Click to expand...

:agree:
 
That is the heart of some of my line of reasoning for making the statements I did, AX-.

It highlights the difference between purchasing phenotype vs genetics. In this sense, I don't mean phenotype like we normally think of it, as in looking at them. Phenotype in the sense that they are still mostly like they were before, and the little changes won't be passed on, yet.

If a person is only a generation or 2 or maybe 3 into their own program, are they really GENETICALLY different from their pedigree, yet?

They sure might be, but it is not a guarantee. If some real sort of "pressure" has been put on to make the cattle different than their pedigree, then it is more of a given. Still, I have seen some of these first and 2nd generation cattle breed just like their pedigree suggests they would when used in herds with different management.

By the same token, just a generation or two in a different environment means the cattle are still just about like they were in the original. Some might have been lost due to adaptability issues, but the ones that are left are still genetically very similar to the originals. Look at RobertMac's cattle picture he posted a while back to illustrate.

Badlands
 
Soapweed said:
"the only sure bet is that there ain't no sure bets."
Click to expand...

My rule..."The only hard, steadfast rule in Nature is that there are no hard, steadfast rules in Nature."

TTB, don't bale out on us now! :wink: :)

AX, excellent thoughts!

I have to say that in my experience, moving my calving from Feb/Mar to May/June has made life for my cows much easier. I guess I'm not as "extreme" as I thought. :eek: :wink:

I think about Jim Lents' point in his book about linebreeding...it doesn't work without proper selection/culling. My thinking is that God made the cow to utilize forage as its primary nutrient source and He also charged us, as caretakers of His cattle, to provide adaquate amounts of forage. What's adaquate forage? I believe I'm stocked right for the amount of forage my pastures have if the majority of my cows are in good condition and I have a few showing some rib. But the final judgment comes the next year at calving(or at preg check). Gearld Fry told me that reproduction was the most sensitive indicator of a properly functioning endocrine system. So I think reproduction should be the primary selection criteria for seedstock utilizing adaquate forage supplies. Kit says if he isn't culling 10% of his herd each year, he is being to easy on them.

Bottom line...the seedstock producer should always keep the commercial man in mind when managing his cow herd and making selection/culling decisions.
 
It's funny that what I always say a good cows is (one that raises more than she costs) is basically what everyone is agreeing on here, yet I have been labeled as extreme by a few :roll:

The first sign a cowherd is not getting enough nutrition is fertility, low conception rates etc.

Granted there are situations where cows will not breed with all the feed in the world (cystic cows and disease are 2).

If the costs of providing sufficient feed resources make the herd non profitable, they are not good cows.

Costs include land prices. If you have to have double the land to be able to winter graze, it is a cost, and maybe a higher cost than feeding hay, grain or whatever is available.

I chuckle when I hear someone talk of cows that can't survive without grain. I have never seen a cow like that. (except maybe holstien dairy cows). Maybe the comment is based on feeding them a limited amount of hay not sufficient for the cow in question. I still know some guys think a cow can do well on 20 pounds of hay during the winter. Not many cows will survive on that ration.
 
RobertMac said:
Soapweed said:
"the only sure bet is that there ain't no sure bets."
Click to expand...

My rule..."The only hard, steadfast rule in Nature is that there are no hard, steadfast rules in Nature."

TTB, don't bale out on us now! :wink: :)
Click to expand...

AX, excellent thoughts!

I have to say that in my experience, moving my calving from Feb/Mar to May/June has made life for my cows much easier. I guess I'm not as "extreme" as I thought. :eek: :wink:

I think about Jim Lents' point in his book about linebreeding...it doesn't work without proper selection/culling. My thinking is that God made the cow to utilize forage as its primary nutrient source and He also charged us, as caretakers of His cattle, to provide adaquate amounts of forage. What's adaquate forage? I believe I'm stocked right for the amount of forage my pastures have if the majority of my cows are in good condition and I have a few showing some rib. But the final judgment comes the next year at calving(or at preg check). Gearld Fry told me that reproduction was the most sensitive indicator of a properly functioning endocrine system. So I think reproduction should be the primary selection criteria for seedstock utilizing adaquate forage supplies. Kit says if he isn't culling 10% of his herd each year, he is being to easy on them.

Bottom line...the seedstock producer should always keep the commercial man in mind when managing his cow herd and making selection/culling decisions.
Click to expand...

Good post RM....

No worries about me baling out...I don't quit that easily, just ask lazy ace! :wink:

Now, what about my buddy Tap? Hope he didn't fall into a gully!



Seems to me there is more than one way to skin a cat and to do it profitably!

I do have to question Pharro, though...when is enough, enough? If a cow doesn't do anything wrong, and is making money, why cull her? But then again, I think Kit is well below the national average in term of the percentage of females culled. Today, I think the average culling rate is between 15 and 20 percent (and 15 to 20% of revenues from US cow-calf operations are from the sale of market cows/bulls.)

I've seen it written several times a cow doesn't on average, make money until she's between 5 and 7 years of age (dependent of the cattle cycle.) I guess I'd like to make $$$ from year 5 until 15, if I could.

Cheers---

TTB :wink:
 
I do have to question Pharo, though...when is enough, enough?
Click to expand...


It doesn't matter who it is. Enough is enough when the seedstock guys can't sell anymore bulls, usually. It always "should have" occured sooner than it did, if you ask the folks "outside" the system. LOL.

I know of one currently popular seedstock producer that is raising a very distinct type of cattle. I also know he has many thousands of units of semen in storage of cattle that are distinctly different from his own but from 20-30 years ago. He is waiting for when his customers signal that he has gone too far. He will still have something "rare" to sell.

I think LCoC is about the only one that saw the writing on the wall and changed boats midstream, but that wasn't totally voluntary, was it? One group went the "cowboy way" and the other group went the "total science" way. LOL.

Badlands
 
Jason said:
It's funny that what I always say a good cows is (one that raises more than she costs) is basically what everyone is agreeing on here, yet I have been labeled as extreme by a few :roll:

I still know some guys think a cow can do well on 20 pounds of hay during the winter. Not many cows will survive on that ration.
Click to expand...

My answer to both of these would be, my cows do.

And I'm sure there have been a few chuckles aroundhere when ever I have posted any pictures of my cows. :wink:
 
Jinglebob said:
Jason said:
It's funny that what I always say a good cows is (one that raises more than she costs) is basically what everyone is agreeing on here, yet I have been labeled as extreme by a few :roll:

I still know some guys think a cow can do well on 20 pounds of hay during the winter. Not many cows will survive on that ration.
Click to expand...

My answer to both of these would be, my cows do.

And I'm sure there have been a few chuckles aroundhere when ever I have posted any pictures of my cows. :wink:
Click to expand...

Are your cows in total confinement when they live on 20 pounds?

Not saying your cows can't, just there aren't many cows like that left.
 
Jason, there are plenty of cattle around that do this with some access to rank, low quality pasture.

It is still the "norm" in some places down here.

But, not with seedstock guys as much.

Maybe the guys that do it chuckle at seedstock guys that chuckle at them for not being able to do what they have been doing? :?


Badlands
 
I've seen it written several times a cow doesn't on average, make money until she's between 5 and 7 years of age (dependent of the cattle cycle.) I guess I'd like to make $$$ from year 5 until 15, if I could.

There are a number of breeders around the country that are trying to stack "old grannies" in their pedigrees up close in a way that might help bring some longevity. Of course, these cattle won't be world beaters when it comes to EPD.

Rex Ranch has been wroking on a system in their composite herd that helps them set up a cow for longevity by seriously culling for things that might pull longevity down. Their are a number of guys that do the same thing, but not so well recorded as with the Rex Ranch.

I believe Kit Pharo may be working on some similar approaches to the above examples.

If you want them to last longer, pull a little size, growth and milk out of them.

Badlands
 
Badlands said:
Jason, there are plenty of cattle around that do this with some access to rank, low quality pasture.
It is still the "norm" in some places down here.

But, not with seedstock guys as much.

Maybe the guys that do it chuckle at seedstock guys that chuckle at them for not being able to do what they have been doing? :?


Badlands
Click to expand...

Analyse the bold.

20 pounds of hay and hay alone...

Rank low quality pasture would be similar to straw...rumen scratch and gut filler, both necessary and useful.

Filling the cows on too much crap roughage and not high enough quality feeds leads to the high % opens that are common in some places down there.
 

Latest posts

Top