Maternal genetics

[leanin' H]

A question I'd like input about has to do with the corelation between maternal genetics and carcass genetics. Are they absolute opposites or do they fall somewhere in the middle? I have always followed the thinking that it takes great cows to make great calves. And a bull that throws great replacements would be more attractive to me than a carcass bull. And a secondary question is which Angus lines do ya'll like as maternal bases?

My plan for my cattle is based on balance. I won't chase fads or extremes and I want to build my bunch on "perfect" mother cows who calve unassisted, breed back and raise nice calves. I want a balanced set of cattle that are moderate to below average on frame size with good feet being real important too. So knowing what I'm shooting for, advise me what you'd pick as maternal bulls to breed with. Thanks for the input! There are no wrong answers! :wink:

 

[Grassfarmer]

A question I'd like input about has to do with the corelation between maternal genetics and carcass genetics. Are they absolute opposites or do they fall somewhere in the middle? I have always followed the thinking that it takes great cows to make great calves. And a bull that throws great replacements would be more attractive to me than a carcass bull. And a secondary question is which Angus lines do ya'll like as maternal bases?

My plan for my cattle is based on balance. I won't chase fads or extremes and I want to build my bunch on "perfect" mother cows who calve unassisted, breed back and raise nice calves. I want a balanced set of cattle that are moderate to below average on frame size with good feet being real important too. So knowing what I'm shooting for, advise me what you'd pick as maternal bulls to breed with. Thanks for the input! There are no wrong answers! :wink:

Quite broad questions you are asking H and I guess it depends on definitions. Depends what you mean by "maternal genetics" - some equate it to milk production while others claim milk is not a maternal trait at all! I would say selection for "good" carcass genetics will be generally antagonistic to what I would describe as true maternal genetics, more so to milk production.
I'm not quite sure what your "great cows to breed great calves" saying means. I've bred what the feeder calf market considers great calves by mating pretty sorry looking crossbred cows to a Charolais bull.
You're setting your standards pretty low if you only want perfect mother cows :lol: Wanting these moderate to smaller frame cows, fertile, with perfect feet I'm guessing there will be a lot of popular bloodlines to avoid (maybe the majority in most breeds?)
I won't offer advice on Angus bulls but as I believe your herd is predominantly Angus and you aren't pedigree selling seedstock I would cross them with something like a Hereford. No point in straight breeding unless you are selling purebred breeding stock. Take advantage of the heterosis - your banker will approve :wink:

 

[Soapweed]

If you are keeping replacement heifers from your own cows, pick from the best and sell the rest. If you plan on buying some young females, find a herd that someone has that is just what you would like to have on down the road, and then buy young females from that herd. Another option is to buy some older tried and true cows that have stood the test of time for someone else. Take pretty good care of them for a couple more years, and save those good heifer calves that those cows will produce. Work to get your ideal females, and the steer calves will sell themselves. Strive to maintain uniformity in your herd, unless you plan to butcher and sell the meat yourself--then it doesn't matter. Otherwise it does matter, and you will receive a bigger paycheck if you sell uniformity.

Free advice is worth exactly what you pay. :wink:

 

[gcreekrch]

If you are keeping replacement heifers from your own cows, pick from the best and sell the rest. If you plan on buying some young females, find a herd that someone has that is just what you would like to have on down the road, and then buy young females from that herd. Another option is to buy some older tried and true cows that have stood the test of time for someone else. Take pretty good care of them for a couple more years, and save those good heifer calves that those cows will produce. Work to get your ideal females, and the steer calves will sell themselves. Strive to maintain uniformity in your herd, unless you plan to butcher and sell the meat yourself--then it doesn't matter. Otherwise it does matter, and you will receive a bigger paycheck if you sell uniformity.

Free advice is worth exactly what you pay. :wink:

Ditto.

The only point I would like to add is uniformity in colour will get your buyer's attention.
Uniformity in performance will keep them. :wink:

I know Soap, I just like black AND red cattle. As long as they are the right type.

 

[Northern Rancher]

The problem with best is we tend to correelate best with whatever pleases our eye not necessarily what is the most productive or profitable. Probably the best test is expose all your heifers and keedp the ones that breed first cycle-I got alot of ugly monjey making cowss doing that. i've always worked on breeding for mother cows-we ring the bell on the grid with those genetics and our replacements usually bring more than fat steers.

 

[PATB]

The cow better be able to survive in your management scheme and reproduce. I have not seen a study on carcass quality of maternal lines of cattle. I breed for a good funtional cows and not worry to much about carcass. The last time I talk with one of the feeders that buy my animals they were going 95% choice or better. They were averageing 85% choice on all cattle bought in maine and fed at their feedlot with no implants.

 

[Doug Thorson]

I would say they work against each other.

Studies I have seen say any ribeye over 1.1 per hundred pounds of bodyweight leads to cattle that don't convert as well, ie hard doers.
The same with backfat, too little up here in the north, and your cows take a lot more hay to keep warm.
I haven't seen anything that correlates IMF either way.

My opinion is the easiest way to make money is to have better cows than most everyone else.

 

[Soapweed]

I would say they work against each other.

Studies I have seen say any ribeye over 1.1 per hundred pounds of bodyweight leads to cattle that don't convert as well, ie hard doers.
The same with backfat, too little up here in the north, and your cows take a lot more hay to keep warm.
I haven't seen anything that correlates IMF either way.

My opinion is the easiest way to make money is to have better cows than most everyone else.

Please define "better." :wink:

 

[Denny]

I would say they work against each other.

Studies I have seen say any ribeye over 1.1 per hundred pounds of bodyweight leads to cattle that don't convert as well, ie hard doers.
The same with backfat, too little up here in the north, and your cows take a lot more hay to keep warm.
I haven't seen anything that correlates IMF either way.

My opinion is the easiest way to make money is to have better cows than most everyone else.

Please define "better." :wink:

Black Angus I'll bet :wink:

 

[Justin]

I would say they work against each other.

Studies I have seen say any ribeye over 1.1 per hundred pounds of bodyweight leads to cattle that don't convert as well, ie hard doers.
The same with backfat, too little up here in the north, and your cows take a lot more hay to keep warm.
I haven't seen anything that correlates IMF either way.

My opinion is the easiest way to make money is to have better cows than most everyone else.

Please define "better." :wink:

Black Angus I'll bet :wink:

:lol: i'll bet ya Doug was thinking something different :wink:

 

[leanin' H]

I would say they work against each other.

Studies I have seen say any ribeye over 1.1 per hundred pounds of bodyweight leads to cattle that don't convert as well, ie hard doers.
The same with backfat, too little up here in the north, and your cows take a lot more hay to keep warm.
I haven't seen anything that correlates IMF either way.

My opinion is the easiest way to make money is to have better cows than most everyone else.

That's the plan! While my bunch is an Angus base I do like bulls with a smidgen of Maine too. And as soon as I can, I'm putting some straws of Ned Jrs great hereford bull in my tank. I'll stay mostly Angus but some bally faces will fit right in. Thanks for the advice thus far!

 

[Dylan Biggs]

A question I'd like input about has to do with the corelation between maternal genetics and carcass genetics. Are they absolute opposites or do they fall somewhere in the middle? I have always followed the thinking that it takes great cows to make great calves. And a bull that throws great replacements would be more attractive to me than a carcass bull. And a secondary question is which Angus lines do ya'll like as maternal bases?

My plan for my cattle is based on balance. I won't chase fads or extremes and I want to build my bunch on "perfect" mother cows who calve unassisted, breed back and raise nice calves. I want a balanced set of cattle that are moderate to below average on frame size with good feet being real important too. So knowing what I'm shooting for, advise me what you'd pick as maternal bulls to breed with. Thanks for the input! There are no wrong answers! :wink:

There was a time when Angus were considered a maternal breed that also made good eating meat. Carcass cattle are more akin to limos or pieds or chars. Now because market forces have signaled we are trying to make carcass and maternal and growth and calving ease all in one. We want to have our cake and eat it to. It all gets a bit complex. A good old Angus didn't use to have to satisfy everyone. Soaps advise is as sound as any. Find a herd in your region that manages their cattle in the manner that suits you and study the cattle for soundness and go from there.

 

[Grassfarmer]

A question I'd like input about has to do with the corelation between maternal genetics and carcass genetics. Are they absolute opposites or do they fall somewhere in the middle? I have always followed the thinking that it takes great cows to make great calves. And a bull that throws great replacements would be more attractive to me than a carcass bull. And a secondary question is which Angus lines do ya'll like as maternal bases?

My plan for my cattle is based on balance. I won't chase fads or extremes and I want to build my bunch on "perfect" mother cows who calve unassisted, breed back and raise nice calves. I want a balanced set of cattle that are moderate to below average on frame size with good feet being real important too. So knowing what I'm shooting for, advise me what you'd pick as maternal bulls to breed with. Thanks for the input! There are no wrong answers! :wink:

There was a time when Angus were considered a maternal breed that also made good eating meat. Carcass cattle are more akin to limos or pieds or chars. Now because market forces have signaled we are trying to make carcass and maternal and growth and calving ease all in one. We want to have our cake and eat it to. It all gets a bit complex. A good old Angus didn't use to have to satisfy everyone. Soaps advise is as sound as any. Find a herd in your region that manages their cattle in the manner that suits you and study the cattle for soundness and go from there.

I don't think it's so much market forces guiding the move as it is marketers of seed-stock (breeders) backed by greedy breed associations that want their breed to be the one that does it all.

I like this quote from Larry Leonhardt;

"The purpose of a purebred is to offer more predictability or continuity generation after generation. If the objective is to improve product consistency and do it more efficiently without sacrifice to the production end, the industry must look at what the rest of agriculture is doing and forego the persistant habits of the past trying to cram all the beneficial traits into one super parent. The dairy people traded beefiness for milk. The pork people finally accepted the genetic reality that the mother pig could not do her best job and also be the meatiest. I remain more convinced than ever that the industry will ultimately stabilize, not mongrelize, male and female parent lines designed for hybrid production."

 

[Dylan Biggs]

A question I'd like input about has to do with the corelation between maternal genetics and carcass genetics. Are they absolute opposites or do they fall somewhere in the middle? I have always followed the thinking that it takes great cows to make great calves. And a bull that throws great replacements would be more attractive to me than a carcass bull. And a secondary question is which Angus lines do ya'll like as maternal bases?

My plan for my cattle is based on balance. I won't chase fads or extremes and I want to build my bunch on "perfect" mother cows who calve unassisted, breed back and raise nice calves. I want a balanced set of cattle that are moderate to below average on frame size with good feet being real important too. So knowing what I'm shooting for, advise me what you'd pick as maternal bulls to breed with. Thanks for the input! There are no wrong answers! :wink:

There was a time when Angus were considered a maternal breed that also made good eating meat. Carcass cattle are more akin to limos or pieds or chars. Now because market forces have signaled we are trying to make carcass and maternal and growth and calving ease all in one. We want to have our cake and eat it to. It all gets a bit complex. A good old Angus didn't use to have to satisfy everyone. Soaps advise is as sound as any. Find a herd in your region that manages their cattle in the manner that suits you and study the cattle for soundness and go from there.

I don't think it's so much market forces guiding the move as it is marketers of seed-stock (breeders) backed by greedy breed associations that want their breed to be the one that does it all.

I like this quote from Larry Leonhardt;

"The purpose of a purebred is to offer more predictability or continuity generation after generation. If the objective is to improve product consistency and do it more efficiently without sacrifice to the production end, the industry must look at what the rest of agriculture is doing and forego the persistant habits of the past trying to cram all the beneficial traits into one super parent. The dairy people traded beefiness for milk. The pork people finally accepted the genetic reality that the mother pig could not do her best job and also be the meatiest. I remain more convinced than ever that the industry will ultimately stabilize, not mongrelize, male and female parent lines designed for hybrid production."

My comment referring to market forces is an observation of the evolution of carcass trait selection in Angus cattle that coincided with the grid carcass value evaluation system the processors embarked on in Canada about 20 years ago.It was also the same time period when the CAB brand really started to grow. It didn't take any time for purebred Angus breeders to try to capitalize on carcass data as an additional marketing tool or ploy, depending on your point of view.

 

[Grassfarmer]

There was a time when Angus were considered a maternal breed that also made good eating meat. Carcass cattle are more akin to limos or pieds or chars. Now because market forces have signaled we are trying to make carcass and maternal and growth and calving ease all in one. We want to have our cake and eat it to. It all gets a bit complex. A good old Angus didn't use to have to satisfy everyone. Soaps advise is as sound as any. Find a herd in your region that manages their cattle in the manner that suits you and study the cattle for soundness and go from there.

I don't think it's so much market forces guiding the move as it is marketers of seed-stock (breeders) backed by greedy breed associations that want their breed to be the one that does it all.

I like this quote from Larry Leonhardt;

"The purpose of a purebred is to offer more predictability or continuity generation after generation. If the objective is to improve product consistency and do it more efficiently without sacrifice to the production end, the industry must look at what the rest of agriculture is doing and forego the persistant habits of the past trying to cram all the beneficial traits into one super parent. The dairy people traded beefiness for milk. The pork people finally accepted the genetic reality that the mother pig could not do her best job and also be the meatiest. I remain more convinced than ever that the industry will ultimately stabilize, not mongrelize, male and female parent lines designed for hybrid production."

My comment referring to market forces is an observation of the evolution of carcass trait selection in Angus cattle that coincided with the grid carcass value evaluation system the processors embarked on in Canada about 20 years ago.It was also the same time period when the CAB brand really started to grow. It didn't take any time for purebred Angus breeders to try to capitalize on carcass data as an additional marketing tool or ploy, depending on your point of view.

Sorry Dylan, I thought you meant that market forces were forcing people to cram carcass, maternal, growth and calving ease all into one package which is tough to do - hence my remark that this was more seed-stock breeder driven. Market forces acting to drive selection for carcass as you outlined makes sense.

 

[Dylan Biggs]

I don't think it's so much market forces guiding the move as it is marketers of seed-stock (breeders) backed by greedy breed associations that want their breed to be the one that does it all.

I like this quote from Larry Leonhardt;

"The purpose of a purebred is to offer more predictability or continuity generation after generation. If the objective is to improve product consistency and do it more efficiently without sacrifice to the production end, the industry must look at what the rest of agriculture is doing and forego the persistant habits of the past trying to cram all the beneficial traits into one super parent. The dairy people traded beefiness for milk. The pork people finally accepted the genetic reality that the mother pig could not do her best job and also be the meatiest. I remain more convinced than ever that the industry will ultimately stabilize, not mongrelize, male and female parent lines designed for hybrid production."

My comment referring to market forces is an observation of the evolution of carcass trait selection in Angus cattle that coincided with the grid carcass value evaluation system the processors embarked on in Canada about 20 years ago.It was also the same time period when the CAB brand really started to grow. It didn't take any time for purebred Angus breeders to try to capitalize on carcass data as an additional marketing tool or ploy, depending on your point of view.

Sorry Dylan, I thought you meant that market forces were forcing people to cram carcass, maternal, growth and calving ease all into one package which is tough to do - hence my remark that this was more seed-stock breeder driven. Market forces acting to drive selection for carcass as you outlined makes sense.

Grass Farmer no need to say sorry, i didn't explain myself well, I was in a hurry. You are right about breeds trying to be all things to all people. I think part of this is just human nature especially with the amount of data one can use to compare sires now when making breeding decisions. Its just human nature when looking at data and frankly more simple to characterize one bull as better than another because of the higher numbers. I see it all the time. The more is better psychosis is all around us, it saturates our culture and when you combine it with, the grass is greener psychosis it becomes the engine that drives our economy and our notion of progress. The majority of marketing preys on these two elements of the human psyche for a reason, it works. For the most part its no different in the genetic marketing either.

 

[RobertMac]

A question I'd like input about has to do with the corelation between maternal genetics and carcass genetics. Are they absolute opposites or do they fall somewhere in the middle? I have always followed the thinking that it takes great cows to make great calves. And a bull that throws great replacements would be more attractive to me than a carcass bull. And a secondary question is which Angus lines do ya'll like as maternal bases?

My plan for my cattle is based on balance. I won't chase fads or extremes and I want to build my bunch on "perfect" mother cows who calve unassisted, breed back and raise nice calves. I want a balanced set of cattle that are moderate to below average on frame size with good feet being real important too. So knowing what I'm shooting for, advise me what you'd pick as maternal bulls to breed with. Thanks for the input! There are no wrong answers! :wink:

Reproduction and growth are both controlled by the same endocrine system. Depends on your long term goals...are you developing a cow herd or producing feeder calves?

 

[flyingS]

The problem with best is we tend to correelate best with whatever pleases our eye not necessarily what is the most productive or profitable. Probably the best test is expose all your heifers and keedp the ones that breed first cycle-I got alot of ugly monjey making cowss doing that. i've always worked on breeding for mother cows-we ring the bell on the grid with those genetics and our replacements usually bring more than fat steers.

NR has a point. I would ask why do you have to raise your own replacements. Unless you are a seedstock producer or are targeting a replacement female market, I can't see the advantage to raising your own heifer. If you figure her fair market value at weaning then add the expense of running her, breeding her, calving her and lower avg. weaning weight of her calf for 2 yrs, don't forget the cost of fall out, it looks like it would be cheaper to buy cows that fit your system and breed to terminal bulls. I have a friend that keeps replacements just because he likes them, he can't make them pencil. That's OK too.

 

[Silver]

The problem with best is we tend to correelate best with whatever pleases our eye not necessarily what is the most productive or profitable. Probably the best test is expose all your heifers and keedp the ones that breed first cycle-I got alot of ugly monjey making cowss doing that. i've always worked on breeding for mother cows-we ring the bell on the grid with those genetics and our replacements usually bring more than fat steers.

NR has a point. I would ask why do you have to raise your own replacements. Unless you are a seedstock producer or are targeting a replacement female market, I can't see the advantage to raising your own heifer. If you figure her fair market value at weaning then add the expense of running her, breeding her, calving her and lower avg. weaning weight of her calf for 2 yrs, don't forget the cost of fall out, it looks like it would be cheaper to buy cows that fit your system and breed to terminal bulls. I have a friend that keeps replacements just because he likes them, he can't make them pencil. That's OK too.

There are several reasons to keep heifers, and some of them pencil out . I wonder why some folks worry about the chance of smaller weaning weights from heifers but not from 20 year old cows? If you keep the lighter end of your calves over for grass the next year, heifer's calves may be just what you want.
If you keep all your heifer calves, expose them to bulls, keep the breds you like you will also have a fine pen of yrlg. heifers that will do well at market by the pound.
I find most years that there is better money selling yrlg. steers I have raised, so why wouldn't heifers be similar? There are several more good reasons to keep your own heifers, but I'll quit here for now :wink:

 

[RSL]

This is a pretty interesting thread. First, I would say what makes money. Depending on how/when you sell and what you sell the emphasis on carcasses, and what type of carcasses is probably different.
I think GF is on to something...
If you really push lean yield, you will lose some fat which is pretty critical and important to managing cows through inclement range conditions. If you push lean yield you will lose some fertility and marbling.
why not use a maternal line with all the fleshing ability/marbling and cross it with a terminal sire and have the best of both worlds? If you are selling CAB and the premium is larger than the benefits of xbreeding that is one thing.
I think you can find maternal cattle with decent carcasses, I think you can find terminal cattle with decent maternal abilities, but each combination leaves something on the table to a straight maternal or straight terminal line.
FWIW...