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

Topp Herefords

Help Support Ranchers.net:

Amo

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 19, 2014
Messages
117
Reaction score
0
Location
Chambers NE
Im looking at buying a Hereford bull. Have had several short visits with Ryan Topp. He called this afternoon, I was snoozing when he called so it took me a while to get the hard drive running. Im pretty sure I have the conversation correct though. Last time we visited we got side tracked on carcass info, IMF, etc.

So today I was going through my usual list of questions I like to ask. I asked him about their cow size. I have a pholisphy about cow size vs. efficiency. He said that they weigh all first calf heifers a month post weaning. They add 100 pounds to that animal and call that their mature weight instead of weighing every cow every year. Said that a bull calf has to wean off 52% & heifer 48%. Said it has effected their frame size. So that naturally led to the next question I asked "so it went down then"? He said no, it has actually went up! Now until about a year ago I really didn't know much about the operation. He stated the "rolling average" was 1300#. He did say that he was a firm believer in creep feed. That the guys who don't creep have to push the holy heck out of their bulls that they are pushed way to hard. Said that a vast majority of his bulls would have less than 2% back fat. Creep does effect the 50% weaning too. We did discuss feedlot stuff. He stated that his main focus was not premiums, but discounts. Feeding to big & getting to heavy of carcass etc. He stated that to get smaller framed cattle to finish, they get too heavy. Which a "mature" cow at 1300 is still a pretty moderate cow, but what impressed me the most was he said they were increasing frame while "obtaining" 50% of the cows weight. Which yes, he said thats the creiteria to make bull sale cut. If thats the cut, then he is accomplishing that while increasing frame. Guess I have always had the pholisphy that science says so, but I think we can find an outlier that is a bigger framed cow, but is efficient. From what I remember of the conversation, which I was pretty awake by then, he is confirming it.

Guess the point of the post beside the previous paragraph....how many of you guys have used their program, mostly the bulls? I aied to 719T. About all I know of the program. I was pretty impressed with the F1 calves. I used him on some Herefords, and was sadly disapointed. Small framed cows (under 1000# & yes they went across a scale) & was somewhat disapointed. Do his bulls hold up, produce like they should, are as efficient as he claims? Or is he more of a good sale pitch person like Kit Pharo? Im afraid his stuff is going to be out of my price range. I realize last year was last year. Upstream sale was a fair bit cheaper this year I think, but last year Topp had a 10K average. Is his quality as consistant from top to bottom or is there a spread? I like the buy back programs. When your running 175 head, its not a game changer for me though.

Just kinda looking for feedback on the program & thoughts in general about the weaning percentage and upping frame size.
 
Here is a link to a thread in a different forum. Its kinda along somewhat the same thought process on higher milk vs bigger frame on cow efficiency.


http://www.cattletoday.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=19&t=101946
 
I bought my first Hereford bulls there last year. I won't have any calves out of them until April, but if the Bulls are as good as his service after the sale I won't be disappointed. He came out and looked at my calves and lined up a buyer for them even though they aren't out of his Bulls. The Bulls did hold up well during breeding season. Pretty sure the weaning weight used is an adjusted 205 day weight
 
Hard to measure what a cow is capable of raising on her own with the creep feeder out there. They run in a good enough area they shouldn't need one.
 
rem_243 said:
I bought my first Hereford bulls there last year. I won't have any calves out of them until April, but if the Bulls are as good as his service after the sale I won't be disappointed. He came out and looked at my calves and lined up a buyer for them even though they aren't out of his Bulls. The Bulls did hold up well during breeding season. Pretty sure the weaning weight used is an adjusted 205 day weight

Ya, he seams to be an interesting guy to visit with. Im just far enough away, that kinda checking things out. Anybody can sound awesome over the phone. Im not crazy about creep feeders. I understand what he is saying. Im sure that being pushed for not so long probably helps their longevity. They are still being pushed, but I do like to see some condition on them. It shows what potential they have. Falling apart kinda sucks if it happens, but its kinda all apart of the deal. You buy a new tractor, you have a break in period before you can really work the heck out of it. Kinda same idea I guess.

Im somewhat more fimiliar with Rausch Herefords. I bought 2 replacement heifers there last year. I guess they held up in my enviroment. Not nursing yet either. Im not real fimiliar with Hereford EPD's. Rausch's epds definatly have more preformance than other places. A person can feed to create numbers. That many dams of destinction, they must be doing something right. Plus I know what epds work here. When I use the MARC across breed epd table, to get my type of "angus numbers" in hereford I about have to have them numbers. I don't want hard keepers, but don't need baby sitters either. I think I can push the preformance side for a while.
 
I didn't mean to sound harsh but I feel it is up to commercial producers to tell seed stock producers what we want. In reality we are all trying to improve our cow herds but it is difficult to do if we use wrong selection pressure or tools. I personally use epds a lot but if the animals don't pass visual inspection I walk on by. When we use a creep feeder in a seed stock setting what we really are doing is identifying the growthiest calves not necessarily the best cows.

On the epd thing I see them overused and oversold more often than not.
 
WB said:
I didn't mean to sound harsh but I feel it is up to commercial producers to tell seed stock producers what we want. In reality we are all trying to improve our cow herds but it is difficult to do if we use wrong selection pressure or tools. I personally use epds a lot but if the animals don't pass visual inspection I walk on by. When we use a creep feeder in a seed stock setting what we really are doing is identifying the growthiest calves not necessarily the best cows.

On the epd thing I see them overused and oversold more often than not.

I agree! I know a real nice guy who sells a few bulls every year. He is an honest guy too. But he is always boasting about weaning weights and how growthy his bulls are. Problem is he calves from late December through February and compares them to guys who calve starting in March and April. It isn't the same thing. And his cattle run under an irrigated pivot so no wonder they gain well and weigh up nicely. I have always wondered how they do out on the mountain where they have to earn a living instead of stand at the buffet?

In my little world, I look for bulls that were raised in a similar environment and without a lot of pampering. Those are the bulls that breed cows and come home in the fall in decent flesh, ready to go again in the spring. While I want a bull fed enough to express his potential, I refuse to buy over-fat, pushed-too-hard bulls that always seem to melt like a popsicle about July 1st. :) I do like to use EPD's as I feel they have useful info. But I want to match the favorable EPD's with a bull that can travel, has good feet and structure and his own birth weight and YW isn't crazy high or low. I really like to have a look at his momma too if I can.
 
There is a lot in that original post that Top said that contradicts my view of reality.

"Not chasing premiums, but avoiding discounts - like too large carcass"
My view is you must do BOTH at the same time & you can do both. And packers stopped discounting >950 carcasses a decade ago. I gotta reality problem.


"To get smaller frame cattle to finish, they get too heavy"

This has to be a translation error. When I was a kid, Saturday was sorting day. Dad fed southern black heifers, and we delivered finished cattle to Winchesters Packing on Monday morning. Dad was sorting pens to get similar feeding cattle grouped together because you deal with a lot of variability in southern cattle. Those little black heifers that finished at 950# in about 90 days on feed made the most bank. If you left a Charolais cross or steiny cross in that pen, you'd sell a standard carcass (there's a discount for you).

I don't mean to be a contrarian $&&(;, I guess it just comes naturally. There is a lot in that post that seems just wrong.
 
I do like the trait hierarchy discussion - I'm prolly over reliant on data like epds especially heritability.

Along time ago when soap weed was running yearling bulls and replacing them every year, it got me to thinking. The cowman doesn't need trait leading bulls and shouldn't pay $$$$for it. The cowman needs consistency within his target, and heifers that upgrade the factory. Let the seed stock man get all pigeon chested about some trait bender.
 
Brad S said:
I do like the trait hierarchy discussion - I'm prolly over reliant on data like epds especially heritability.

Along time ago when soap weed was running yearling bulls and replacing them every year, it got me to thinking. The cowman doesn't need trait leading bulls and shouldn't pay $$$$for it. The cowman needs consistency within his target, and heifers that upgrade the factory. Let the seed stock man get all pigeon chested about some trait bender.

Still kind of doing this. Last fall I bought 20 Angus bull calves to use on cows, from my brother-in-law for $2000 each at weaning time. They are AI sired by Chisum and International. A few days ago, a gentleman called who I bought bulls from about fourteen years ago. I am buying 24 yearling bulls from him for $1900 each (delivered with right of refusal on any I don't like) to put on yearling heifers. They are all grandsons of New Design 878. My main objective is uniformity and moderation.
 
Brad S said:
There is a lot in that original post that Top said that contradicts my view of reality.

"Not chasing premiums, but avoiding discounts - like too large carcass"
My view is you must do BOTH at the same time & you can do both. And packers stopped discounting >950 carcasses a decade ago. I gotta reality problem.


"To get smaller frame cattle to finish, they get too heavy"

This has to be a translation error. When I was a kid, Saturday was sorting day. Dad fed southern black heifers, and we delivered finished cattle to Winchesters Packing on Monday morning. Dad was sorting pens to get similar feeding cattle grouped together because you deal with a lot of variability in southern cattle. Those little black heifers that finished at 950# in about 90 days on feed made the most bank. If you left a Charolais cross or steiny cross in that pen, you'd sell a standard carcass (there's a discount for you).

I don't mean to be a contrarian $&&(;, I guess it just comes naturally. There is a lot in that post that seems just wrong.

In the previous conversation we talked a lot about IMF. Ive put a hand full of calves through a feedlot contest. What data I have gotten back I bounce back and forth on either side of the choice/select line. Plus from what little Ive looked around, Hereford as a breed doesn't have the IMF that Angus does. So Im searching for a Hereford sire/sire group that has high IMF. Without going into great detail, he stated that he would rather have cattle that didn't get discounted vs chasing premiums. He felt Angus does a great job at marketing, which Id presume he is indicating CAB etc. Said that you have to feed really hard for a long time to get cattle to grade prime. Which every critter doesn't need to be prime, but it was the course of the conversation. Im no feedlot man. I don't know how hot a ration you have to feed to get prime. In theaory Id presume, the higher IMF Id think the less you'd need. Thus why Im looking at higher IMF bulls. Plus smaller frame should grade higher. The whole principle of using smaller framed cattle on grass finished operations. Im pretty sure what he said was in order to get a critter to grade prime, you have to feed really really hard for a long time. Thus in the process of chasing the prime premium, you get too big of carcass. Thus chasing premiums, your opening yourself up to discounts. Thats not an exact quote, but the jist of the conversation as I took it.

I think he was trying to spin me away from worrying about carcass data so much. The one sire group I was interested in was awesome on paper on carcass data, as well as growth. Phenotype and preformance wise he was thourghly disapointed with that sire. He was stating that the vast majority of the cattle they kill grade in the choice "ish" range. Paraphrasing here, but what I think he was trying to express that instead of chasing single trait selection, a person needs to look at all traits. Carcass probably isn't as important to him as some of the others. Kinda reading between the lines. Thats where I think the comment about don't worry about premiums, avoid the discounts. Angus marketing about marbling, not using cross breeding, etc are kinda hot button issues with him. Once he understood that I had some carcass information and why I was after higher IMF type of bulls he kinda understood. I do remember he stated that the higher marbling cattle were harder to finish. I think he was talking about grading prime. Weather that was just purely from the extra feed cost, longer feeding period, or both IDK. I don't have enough knowledge about cattle feeding to argue either direction. He definently had a chip on his shoulder towards the Angus marketing pholisphy. He buys cattle and feeds them. I don't so I guess I will yield to him until Im further educated.

On the smaller frame, quicker fininshing thought he said he bought some cattle from a customer. Not sure who's genetics the calf crop had the most of, but it was a mix of his and Kit Pharo. Under the thought process of the previous paragraph, smaller framed should finish quicker, and grade better. Ryan Topp declined to buy this customers cattle. Never stated why, just said that he declined. For what ever reason he called Kit Pharo. He asked Kit since they were both seed stock suppliers if Kit wanted to partner on owning the cattle. Phaor refused. Topp didn't state why he refused, just said that he refused. Ive visited with Kit Pharo & now Ryan Topp. Guessing & Ryan kinda indicated the same, the conversation must of got kinda heated. So for the heck of it Ryan went ahead 2 days latter and purchased this guys calves. Feed them out & set the close outs to Kit. He said he hasn't heard squat out of him. He didn't specifically state that they sucked in the feed lot. He told the story and tried to be polite...if you know what I mean. Just from the jist of the conversation and comments him & I said, I think its safe to say my assumption of his story is that they were to small to be profitable in a grain feedlot. Not trying to bash anyone, but that story also points toward Ryan Topp's thought process about the whole frame/porfitability aspect comment. I know I have read discussion on another forum where Wye cattle were being discussed. A person brought up that he had feed Pharo genetics in a grain/concentrate feeding program. The guy wasn't impressed either. Beats me, just what Ive read.

I agree with you Brad S. I feel I have to try and improve all areas, and its what Im trying to do. Never liked single trait selection. The whole reason I posted this is because his conversation is very contrary to the general beliefs of myself & the industry. Im sure you Brad S. have more first hand knowledge about feeding since your Dad did it. Im just going off what little Ive read around & what he said. He did comment his cows are 1300#. Which for a purebred operation with some of the weaning weights in their catalog I kinda have to question that. Creeping helps. Yet I visited with a member of Rausch Herefords tonight. Without getting to specific, he kinda stated that they are getting fast growing/early maturing cattle. Wean off big, but don't turn into giraffes. Looking at some of their yearling weight EPD's, I find that somewhat hard to believe. Not real fimiliar with Hereford's mature cow EPD. I need to look into that more, but they kinda indicate bigger frame. Its an interesting thought to ponder.
 
Brad S said:
I do like the trait hierarchy discussion - I'm prolly over reliant on data like epds especially heritability.

Along time ago when soap weed was running yearling bulls and replacing them every year, it got me to thinking. The cowman doesn't need trait leading bulls and shouldn't pay $$$$for it. The cowman needs consistency within his target, and heifers that upgrade the factory. Let the seed stock man get all pigeon chested about some trait bender.

This has me puzzled. I agree with consistency. I also agree sometimes people get in a pi$$ing contest over buying the perfect bull. If you don't get trait leading bulls, how do you upgrade the factory?

I also fail to understand why you were replacing bulls every year?
 
That was soapweed replacing Bulls - run them for a season and swap them into the beef stream while they're still pretty valuable.

As for improving the factory without trait leading Bulls: suppose the trait is milk in this consideration. If you go to a trait bending bull (any breed but a zebu) for milk, his heifer progeny likely would milk too much to breed back on grass. So to upgrade the factory, you're really looking at a trait optimizing matrix. And those critters might not even be the high priced Bulls at the bull sale. It took me 5 years to understand what soapweed was onto in bull selection.

If i was riding in a pickup with kit pharo and soapweed, if kit started telling me about ranching, I'd turn the radio up (and I don't disagree with kits over enunciation of the obvious and making it sound like his idea). If soapweed started talking, I'd get a pen and something to write on.
 
I think modern feeding bills put a premium on daily growth. If a feed yard has a higher yardage price and lower feed markup ( pretty common), you better split your yardage up with 4# gain on a big frame critter than 3# gain on a small frame critter. This wasn't a factor with small private yards. Btw, that hyper efficient horseshit about giant yards will ruin your Sunday school shoes.

Herford cattle used to be top grading cattle before simmintal cattle started being hid out behind the barn and white started creeping up the sides of reg herford bulls. Don't let Topp dump on angus, there's sin in every pew.

As for imf - where are you getting a prime spread to justify chasing it? It's a biological fact that it takes less energy to put a pound of muscle on a critter than a pound of fat. I theorize imf deposition isn't as variable among cattle as people think, but a heavy muscled limmy has more muscle to spread the same amount of fat over. Cab has taught us a lot about feeding cattle. It used to be you wanted to buy condition (thin calves), but if you want to hit the cab grid you simply must avoid the high yg #s. We're learning the calf that did well on his momma, optimized growth - not necessarily a creep bomb - but some neck fat, then a good weaning and feeding period will do better on the grid. It's like the calf is depositing imf while on the cow, so you don't have to do it all in the yard (where you'll get to yg3+).

If you want to know about imf deposition, brethours group at ft hays has it figured out. John passed but their ultrasound work is enlightening.
 
Btw, if you want to win that feedlot test, feed twice as many as you need and get a brethour ultrasound at 900#, brethour used to kill them at denver
 
Brad S said:
There is a lot in that original post that Top said that contradicts my view of reality.

"Not chasing premiums, but avoiding discounts - like too large carcass"
My view is you must do BOTH at the same time & you can do both. And packers stopped discounting >950 carcasses a decade ago. I gotta reality problem.


"To get smaller frame cattle to finish, they get too heavy"

This has to be a translation error. When I was a kid, Saturday was sorting day. Dad fed southern black heifers, and we delivered finished cattle to Winchesters Packing on Monday morning. Dad was sorting pens to get similar feeding cattle grouped together because you deal with a lot of variability in southern cattle. Those little black heifers that finished at 950# in about 90 days on feed made the most bank. If you left a Charolais cross or steiny cross in that pen, you'd sell a standard carcass (there's a discount for you).

I don't mean to be a contrarian $&&(;, I guess it just comes naturally. There is a lot in that post that seems just wrong.

Things have changed. With cheap feed, "Weight is the first premium" has never been more true. I held cattle we don't direct market for a few months this winter waiting for the market to come back a bit. It has.

The Grading curve has changed. I hit about 85% choice to prime. I keep a really good caloric level in front of these calves. But not too hot. I feel IM Marbling takes a while. Really hot feed puts a bark of fat on cattle without allowing IM to develop IMO. I have had a lot of 900 plus carcasses grade high choice.
 

Latest posts

Top