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

The value of bone?

Is bone a priority when selecting breeding stock?

  • Yes

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • No

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    0
  • Poll closed .
Good question. It seems to be more of a subconscious thing but I'll bet we all have a "type" that we prefer for several reasons or factors.
 
Hmm...
We don't pay much attention to bone since you can't eat it. We pay a lot more attention to angles, even toes, direction and linearity of travel, etc. This to me seems to have more to do with longevity in our environment.
 
RSL said:
Hmm...
We don't pay much attention to bone since you can't eat it. We pay a lot more attention to angles, even toes, direction and linearity of travel, etc. This to me seems to have more to do with longevity in our environment.
Do all the other criteria give you a consistent bone type?
 
generally wind up in the middle of the road for bone, not too frail and certainly not with cannon bones the size of a 6" post.
I think flex and travel angles are really important. What lasts longer a rubber tire or a steel wheel of the same diameter? What lasts longer a wheel that is aligned and tracks straight or one on a farm pickup? :D
FWIW.
 
RSL said:
Hmm...
We don't pay much attention to bone since you can't eat it. We pay a lot more attention to angles, even toes, direction and linearity of travel, etc. This to me seems to have more to do with longevity in our environment.

I don't pay a lot of attention to bone in cattle other than watching for bulls being too light of the bone in their hind legs which can lead to breeding troubles. If we select for the things RSL mentions I find the bone is usually pretty correct. I think it's another case of form follows function
 
Dylan Biggs said:
Lonecowboy said:
durability

Are you saying you have seen a correlation between cannon bone circumference and bone density?

your question was related to breeding stock-
total durability of the animal.
those deer legged light boned cows (or bulls I assume, if you would buy one) just don't hold up for me.
I've kept some lighter boned heifers over the years trying to build numbers.
I cull hard on performance, and they always weed themselves out.
usually because of non-breed back issues. They will breed a couple times them come up empty, they just don't hold up.
They never seem to be as thrifty and well doing as the other cattle.
But I make my cattle work for a living.
If a person was to pamper them maybe things would be different.
 
Lonecowboy said:
Dylan Biggs said:
Lonecowboy said:
durability

Are you saying you have seen a correlation between cannon bone circumference and bone density?

your question was related to breeding stock-
total durability of the animal.
those deer legged light boned cows (or bulls I assume, if you would buy one) just don't hold up for me.
I've kept some lighter boned heifers over the years trying to build numbers.
I cull hard on performance, and they always weed themselves out.
usually because of non-breed back issues. They will breed a couple times them come up empty, they just don't hold up.
They never seem to be as thrifty and well doing as the other cattle.
But I make my cattle work for a living.
If a person was to pamper them maybe things would be different.

I was just wondering when you evaluate the bone in an animal what dimension or measure of quality in that bone are you selecting for exactly.

I have always assumed it was size or circumference of cannon bone that people who were actively selecting for bone were focusing on. But I have learned it is never safe to assume.
 
Big bone usually means big feet. Big feet usually corespond to good depth of heel. IMO depth of heal is one of the most overlooked things in selection. Usually it corresponds to correct shoulder slope, usually animals with good depth of heal are not sickle hocked.
 
Years ago I had a rancher tell me that more bone equates to more red meat, I researched this and found the following research paper on the topic:

http://jas.fass.org/cgi/reprint/42/5/1077.pdf

here is an excert from the article:

Cannon bone size has a high heritability
estimate: .83 (Scarth, 1966). When all breed
types are considered, visually appraising cannon
size could be useful since large boned cattle
tend to gain faster and have higher carcass retail
value than do small boned cattle.

http://www.gizmoangus.com
http://www.gizmoangus.blogspot.com
 
We have found cattle that I would call "light boned" are usually hard doing cattle. "heavier boned" cattle usually stay in better condition on less feed (and lower quality feed) than those that look more frail. This is the main reason we cull lighter boned cows.
 
Ever had a bone sandwich

However in English breeds yes I would some bone for the breeding herd.
If I was feeding out cattle no way. To much bone in carcass cattle is just an illisuison. The skeleton is to big not much meat in them.
 
gizmom said:
Years ago I had a rancher tell me that more bone equates to more red meat, I researched this and found the following research paper on the topic:

http://jas.fass.org/cgi/reprint/42/5/1077.pdf

here is an excert from the article:

Cannon bone size has a high heritability
estimate: .83 (Scarth, 1966). When all breed
types are considered, visually appraising cannon
size could be useful since large boned cattle
tend to gain faster and have higher carcass retail
value than do small boned cattle.

http://www.gizmoangus.com
http://www.gizmoangus.blogspot.com

I would agree with this in the sense of traditional breeds. Continental breeds developed as dual purpose generally have/had more bone than British breeds, but also have higher yield.
I think it is a bit odd to use bone to select for carcass merit when you can measure it a lot more directly through ultrasound, or simply take advantage of breed differences. :lol:
 

Latest posts

Back
Top