Kit shows the way ahead

[BRG]

I agree with Big Swede! We need to run a simple test on the Black is best attitude that seems to work against red cattle at the sale barn. We need to dye some soggy, pretty red calves with a dye that will last. Then do an undercover camera documentary on how they do in a feedlot all the way to the plate. Color has absolutely nothing to do with good cattle to me! Anyone that has been to BRG's place or veiwed his cattle in a catalog or online knows it is as good as it gets. Don't be getting a big head now! :wink:

Thanks brother!!!

 

[Dylan Biggs]

Again, I feel ya'll need to look for different seed stock producers then! :roll: There are lots of outfits who run commercial cows also and sell dandy bulls. And if the ones doing it "WRONG" didnt have lots of butts sitting in seats raising thier hands during sales, they wouldnt be in buisness! So who's fault is it? The guys selling the bulls or the guys buying them? :???: Buy your bulls the way you like them, talk with your checkbook and it will all sort itself out.

Leanin H, I don't know who the you all is. And I was not saying anyone was doing it wrong per say. I was simply making the observation in response to Larry's comment that successful marketing in any line of business can make "selling" a product very lucrative, which should not be confused with the use of the product. That does not mean or imply the product does not work for the customer. But one should always be careful not to assume that the sellers success will automatically transfer into success with the use of the product at home.

The reality is that in any commercial cattle enterprise genetics are only one small component of a large multi layered multi variable system and management of the system is of substantially greater importance than the genetics one utilizes. If genetics were really as important as seed stock producers like to believe then the vast majority of commercial cattle operations would have been defunct long ago. If a commercial rancher is an excellent manager of their personnel, their finances and their land base the significance of the breed or breeder he chooses will be minor. I guarantee there are livestock operations that are viable using genetics that someone claims are the ruination of the industry. Seed stock producers by virtue of the business exaggerate the evils of breeds other than what they sell, exaggerate and extol the virtues of what they sell, and the same for the management that is behind any herd. Like Grassfarmer said the truth lies somewhere in between. :wink:

 

[Angus 62]

I always enjoy the pictures and stories of Soapweeds bull purchases- especially the part where what he pays for bulls wouldn't touch the average in some sales if he tripled it.

Having spent my life on a ranch that raised seedstock since 1947 I know a few things about the seedstock business and the ''tricks'' of the trade. In theory cattle genetics get better every year. If that is true then why are cow numbers the lowest in fifty years? Could it be that what is advertised as the latest and greatest is actually taking the profits for the cowman backwards?

 

[Dylan Biggs]

I always enjoy the pictures and stories of Soapweeds bull purchases- especially the part where what he pays for bulls wouldn't touch the average in some sales if he tripled it.

Having spent my life on a ranch that raised seedstock since 1947 I know a few things about the seedstock business and the ''tricks'' of the trade. In theory cattle genetics get better every year. If that is true then why are cow numbers the lowest in fifty years? Could it be that what is advertised as the latest and greatest is actually taking the profits for the cowman backwards?

What is taking profits is probably a combination of things from one end of the spectrum to the other. Retailers, processors, feed men, bankers, equipment dealers, fuel man, fertilizer man, tax man, on and on. And to be sure our expectations for our standard of living is also taking profit away. What people were content with in the 50's would not satisfy many today.

 

[Anonymous]

I always enjoy the pictures and stories of Soapweeds bull purchases- especially the part where what he pays for bulls wouldn't touch the average in some sales if he tripled it.

Having spent my life on a ranch that raised seedstock since 1947 I know a few things about the seedstock business and the ''tricks'' of the trade. In theory cattle genetics get better every year. If that is true then why are cow numbers the lowest in fifty years? Could it be that what is advertised as the latest and greatest is actually taking the profits for the cowman backwards?

We've been there both about the same time period Angus 62- except I didn't start doing the travel the country to look at bulls/cows until we started AIing in about 68- in hopes of finding/making the bigger, better, fasters (that we were told by the "experts" you had to have)... And we made some great "bigger, better, fasters" for awhile- but in the chase we lost much of what we had-- and now 40 years later I'm back to using bulls/bloodlines that were born in the 60's and 70's- and buying heifers from producers that didn't buy into that bigger better faster theory to retrieve what was lost....

 

[Big Muddy rancher]

One reason cow numbers are at a low is we produce more beef off each animal now then at anytime in the past. :?

 

[Northern Rancher]

Up in Canada where red isn't considereda genetic defect by black breeders some of thebest catrtle come from crossing the two colours-all you need to do is feed the two together to find out there are good cattl;e in both.

 

[Haytrucker]

I always enjoy the pictures and stories of Soapweeds bull purchases- especially the part where what he pays for bulls wouldn't touch the average in some sales if he tripled it.

Having spent my life on a ranch that raised seedstock since 1947 I know a few things about the seedstock business and the ''tricks'' of the trade. In theory cattle genetics get better every year. If that is true then why are cow numbers the lowest in fifty years? Could it be that what is advertised as the latest and greatest is actually taking the profits for the cowman backwards?

Where Soapweed buy's some, or some years, all of his bulls is as he stated; a commercial operation. Unless someone forgets at branding time, every bull calf from (a large #) of synchronised and AI'd first calvers: and several more than that from mother cows, are intact at weaning, and they sort from there. The bull calves are developed on a cost-effective ration; test weighed; then the bander goes to work. A few hundred bands later, come spring , there are some bulls for sale.

As to the cow numbers topic, in our region, we're 8 or so month's into a wet spell. After 4 record setting dry years, two consecutively, in 8 of the last 11. Refer to some Canadian's post's; I feel their pain, I smell their blowsand. Turnabout might not be fair-play, but I'll post some green pictures this summer, and the next, and the next.... I'm hoping for the third year, we could be drought'ed out again by then

 

[Angus 62]

Drought is as much a part of ranching as extremely tough winters. Which brings up Dylan's original question of the disconnect from many seedstock operations and commercial ones.

When hay hits $150 a ton or more most seedstock operations don't even flinch. Sure it cuts into the margin but there is a heck of a difference between selling $3000 bulls and $550 feeder calves when it comes to margins. We went thru eight years of drought where ranchers had to come up with feed rations that would make a billy goat choke. I saw first hand how the latest bigger faster genetics coped with that. Train wreck best describes the results.

Then there is the issue of of genetic defects- some known and some identified in another country but ignored in the US. The carcass fad pushed by many breeders polluted the Angus gene pool [as well as many composites] with lethal genetic defects. When genetic tests became available breeders spent a lot of money to find potential carriers. But what about the commercial man who is now stuck with those genetics? The latest unannounced defect has the potential to affect thousands of bulls being sold this spring. While not necessarily a lethal defect it can surely cost ranchers money and there are calves with this defect being born this spring. When a test becomes available those cattle in seedstock herds that are carriers will be likely culled but once again the commercial man gets left holding the bag. For those that want to follow how this is all progressing there are several discussions ongoing at the Advantage Cattle Service forum.

 

[Dylan Biggs]

I e-mailed TYROINOZ from Aus who has done a lot of work on this defect issue and I was informed of the pedigrees that are the problem with FCS, it is very interesting, actually very scary. There is a genetic wreck looking for a place to happen. The powers that be for what ever reason aren't taking any action so it is left to breeders to do the best they can to become informed take appropriate action.

What a mess!

 

[RobertMac]

I e-mailed TYROINOZ from Aus who has done a lot of work on this defect issue and I was informed of the pedigrees that are the problem with FCS, it is very interesting, actually very scary. There is a genetic wreck looking for a place to happen. The powers that be for what ever reason aren't taking any action so it is left to breeders to do the best they can to become informed take appropriate action.

What a mess!

I thought it was linebreeding that caused genetic defects!

Angus 62...."motion, commotion, and promotion" :wink:

 

[Angus 62]

Most commercial men have little idea what has happened in the seedstock business over the years. There has been enormous amounts of non ag income spent on purebred cattle. There always have been and always will be some good family owned and operated seedstock producers. As more and more money is funneled into the purebred business many are forced to ''keep up with the Jones'' when it comes to promotion. Not wanting to seem to be left behind they use the same highly promoted sometimes questionable genetics. That is exactly how the genetic problems have been and are being spread.

 

[Angus 62]

It has been said that money is the root of all evil. In the seedstock business it is ''funny money''. When a bull or program gets ''hot'' it can attract huge sums of money- including a lot that has never been or ever will be connected to ag. Once the merry-go-round starts it takes on a life of its own. Five and six figure females become the norm and anything necessary to keep it going is done. How many people want the promotion power of a bull or cow that sold for an enormous price?

What has any of this got to do with the guy who's business it is to turn grass into beef? Very little, although he may get occasional lip service.

 

[andybob]

What is taking profits is probably a combination of things from one end of the spectrum to the other. Retailers, processors, feed men, bankers, equipment dealers, fuel man, fertilizer man, tax man, on and on. And to be sure our expectations for our standard of living is also taking profit away. What people were content with in the 50's would not satisfy many today.

Isn't the concept of using cattle adapted to the local environment, and breeding to a more natural seasonal cycle, to reduce or if possible, eliminate subsidised feeding, and the machinery, fertilizer, I never had to put up winter hay either in Africa or in NC, as the rotational grazing allowed for wintwr forage to be grazed, not cut and baled. In my present position, the heritage Aberdeen Angus and Hereford have outwintered and are still in good condition going into spring.

Angus 62, we have increasing interest in the heritage cattle from producers breeding out the "contaminated" genetics from the modern style cattle, and those looking for good grass based cattle.

 

[Dylan Biggs]

Andybob, adaptation to our local environment will only take you so far, at -35 or -40 with a wind chill that takes temps into -60, -70, the coldest I have seen here is -95 with wind chill for extended periods with out supplementation and no cover from the wind except a 4 wire fence cattle just die. The early cattle pioneers got lulled into complacency by mild winters when they first brought cattle into the western provinces from the south, and when old man winter payed a serious visit 100,s of thousands cattle died. Some outfits lost their entire herds. Since then people have learned to put up hay. You can adapt cattle and you can select cattle but you can't practice evolution and turn a cow into a buffalo. To suggest that the only reason that profits in this business are shrinking is due to lack of forage adapted cattle and can be addressed with such is simply fanciful thinking. Our cattle have endured winters on this ranch sine the mid 50,s and were from local stock that were raised here long before that. If you don't believe me you should come pay us a visit on this bald open prairie and experience for yourself the bone chilling, mind numbing reality of -40 with a 60 or 70 km wind. It would give you a cool outlook on bovine adaptation. :lol: :lol: :lol:

 

[WB]

Back to the original topic: I know Kit ruffles some feathers of his competition with his brazen talk how his bulls are better but if most wasn't true then why has he been so successful? I mean we probably all put down some registered outfit somewhere sometime don't we? I think most of us are trying to breed better cattle we have to decide what our wants and needs are. One thing that raises my hair is his newsletter that states his bulls will breed more cows for more years. While this may be true on the average it can't be an absolute statement because you always will come across a slow lazy breeder occaisonally. And as far as putting up hay well it really depends on were your operation runs. I don't think Kits cows could rustle through 3 ft. snow and live on the low quality forage that is below it in a winter like we just have let alone thrive on it.

 

[Faster horses]

We drove by Kit Pharo's country when we came back from OK thru
Colorado. His country was a lot different than ours at that time.
His cows could graze, the cattle here were belly deep in snow.
There is a difference.

FWIW.

 

[BRG]

Back to the original topic: I know Kit ruffles some feathers of his competition with his brazen talk how his bulls are better but if most wasn't true then why has he been so successful? I mean we probably all put down some registered outfit somewhere sometime don't we? I think most of us are trying to breed better cattle we have to decide what our wants and needs are. One thing that raises my hair is his newsletter that states his bulls will breed more cows for more years. While this may be true on the average it can't be an absolute statement because you always will come across a slow lazy breeder occaisonally. And as far as putting up hay well it really depends on were your operation runs. I don't think Kits cows could rustle through 3 ft. snow and live on the low quality forage that is below it in a winter like we just have let alone thrive on it.

There are alot of breeders that do things a little different than him and are pretty successful as well.

 

[leanin' H]

Back to the original topic: I know Kit ruffles some feathers of his competition with his brazen talk how his bulls are better but if most wasn't true then why has he been so successful? I mean we probably all put down some registered outfit somewhere sometime don't we? I think most of us are trying to breed better cattle we have to decide what our wants and needs are. One thing that raises my hair is his newsletter that states his bulls will breed more cows for more years. While this may be true on the average it can't be an absolute statement because you always will come across a slow lazy breeder occaisonally. And as far as putting up hay well it really depends on were your operation runs. I don't think Kits cows could rustle through 3 ft. snow and live on the low quality forage that is below it in a winter like we just have let alone thrive on it.

There are alot of breeders that do things a little different than him and are pretty successful as well.

I More than agree!!!! Check out BRG's website. Look at the quality of his Red Angus cattle. Look how long he's been in buisness. Look at Lazy Ace's website. Look at how long they've been in Buisness. I could list dozens and dozens more. Not everyone chases extremes in carcass. :wink: Not everyone has Kit's name recognition but lots of outfits do it as well or better and have the longevity and customers to prove it. BRG, just send me the check! :wink:

 

[Anonymous]

Back to the original topic: I know Kit ruffles some feathers of his competition with his brazen talk how his bulls are better but if most wasn't true then why has he been so successful? I mean we probably all put down some registered outfit somewhere sometime don't we? I think most of us are trying to breed better cattle we have to decide what our wants and needs are. One thing that raises my hair is his newsletter that states his bulls will breed more cows for more years. While this may be true on the average it can't be an absolute statement because you always will come across a slow lazy breeder occaisonally. And as far as putting up hay well it really depends on were your operation runs. I don't think Kits cows could rustle through 3 ft. snow and live on the low quality forage that is below it in a winter like we just have let alone thrive on it.

There are alot of breeders that do things a little different than him and are pretty successful as well.

Yep-- and each think they are doing it the best way or the right way- and raising the best cattle for their situation.....

But if you never look at new ideas or different methods- you will never know if there is a better way....The reason I love to hear about all the differing herds/breeds/ideas for running cattle....Many times their experiences can save me/us grief in the long run..

I don't think any of us are smart enough not to learn a little more from those that have been there....