Northern Rancher
Well-known member
Tiny framed and so short they have bad breath.
What is a "good" cow?
- Thread starter Dylan Biggs
- Start date
PATB
Well-known member
I agree with the aboveexcept for aggressive and flighty animals. I have a 4 year old daughter, 85 year dad, do not need animal on the farm that is likely to harm someone. Cows are plentiful, I ony have one daughter and dad. I have been nock ash over end by several cows in the past and vowed such animals will be sold to beef regardless how good they might be.
PureCountry
Well-known member
Northern Rancher said:
Can't say I ever thought that a cow would have good breath, although thanks to you Northern, now I know better. Thanks for doing the dirty work to keep us all informed. :lol: :lol: :lol:
Northern Rancher
Well-known member
When the ash is to close to the jaw lol.
Dylan Biggs
Well-known member
Grassfarmer said:Dylan Biggs said:
At a certain level there appears to be a negative correlation between ability to maintain BCS and fertility. Bonsma stated something like "obesity reciprocating infertility and vice versa"
We are seeing this as well in our herd - I have one family that are extremely heavily fleshed, thus far at expense of milk production rather than fertility but the oldest cow is only 6 so there is still time. I've also had the wonder cow that milks heavy, goes through life leaner and still lasts to a ripe old age. I think both types are extremes and knowing what I know now I probably wouldn't keep replacements off either in future. As always the difficulty is finding the balance that works under your conditions - I really believe the philosophies of Larry Leonhardt and that we should be selecting our cattle around the average - it seems to go against human nature though to not pick the biggest, longest, heaviest fleshed or whatever. I'm trying to train myself to this new thinking but I'm a slow learner
One thing I have learned is that my eye can't predict the value of a heifer calf or a yearling heifer no matter how much I would like to think I can. That doesn't mean I don't have my preferences or that I won't make choices, I choose replacements every year. Visual appraisal can access feet, legs, frame, skeletal type,depth, muscle,fat,hair, skin type, muzzle development ,wry face and tail, and if you stand on your head number of teats and a good idea of teat size, overall femininity, and disposition. But when it comes down to it the only way to know what kind of replacement she will make is to expose her to a bull and calve her out. If I was forced to choose between a heifer from your fleshy line or your thin fertile line I would go with proven maternal fertility of the mother. Beauty is as beauty does, and if you have a cow that lasts to a ripe old age and you consider her a wonder cow, unless her heifer is total misfit, I can see no reason not to give her a chance to prove her self. After all what is the down side risk? :???:
Grassfarmer
Well-known member
Dylan, I was trying to articulate that I actually wouldn't like to keep replacements off either. I didn't think my leaner fertile cow was really a "wonder cow" - I referred to her as that because she amazed me she kept re-breeding for as long. She surprised me because I have shipped many leaner type, mainly big milkers over the years for being open and I would have expected her to go the same way. Equally we also have shipped a number that had the reduced fertility associated with too heavy fleshing over the years (as well as the poor milkers that often go with this type too) My point was that I would now consider both these types to be extremes, outliers and I would be better off avoiding these types all together. We may not be able to judge these "fat" and "thin" types absolutely accurately as yearling heifers but in an awful lot of cases they are family characteristics. My plan is to cease selecting the outliers as much as I can and linebreed the in betweens as I think they are the ones that have the best chance of being survivors and producers that will do their job without being noticed in the herd.
Dylan Biggs
Well-known member
Grassfarmer said:
Grassfarmer The value to me of this discussion is stimulating the thought process in these regards not any attempt to be argumentative or to engage in a win lose scenario. I am not attempting to be contradictory and I fully understand your point of view. And in fact agree with your approach. Extremes in milk, growth, REA, MB, fat, all come with a cost, I agree. That being said though what in your opinion is anymore important to the cow business than fertility? Is there such a thing as to much fertility? Fertility is the epitome of survival is it not? Possibly the outlier on the positive side of this bell curve is the only outlier of any real value. May be this is more simple than we make, by we I mean seed stock people. Your comment was "I think they are the ones that have the best chance of being survivors" which may be true. My point is that in my opinion the ultimate judge will be the natural selection process, providing the chance is given for that judgment to be made. Let the chips fall where they may. A friend of mine in Australia who runs around 9000 mother cows and sells piles of bulls has advised me for years to be careful how prescriptive I get regarding the best animal or I may end up sounding like a "purebred breeder". It is his firm belief that natural selection will do the best job of that determination. Pretty hard to argue that isn't it? What we need to do is decide how high to crank the pressure. When it comes to fertility, on the female side of the equation, the limits that management sets on the breeding season is the best indicator of it's value to us.
What do you think?
per
Well-known member
Every factor has weight and fertility has to weigh at the top. To me time is also a high weighted factor. As you referred in your last couple of sentences that time can be controlled by us. I use extremely sort breeding to select for fertility, shorten the calving time and to be able to have an even bunch for resale at any stage from weaning to fat. A one cycle breeding period on hfs also compliments our grass fattening freezer business. The last few years the fat off grass open hfs have been worth more than their bred contemporaries. A pregnant cow is important but creating an alternative coupon to clip adds a different dimension. Having said all that maybe a longer breed (60?) on the cows might be beneficial rather than the 45 used now. It still wouldn't amount to many more in calf cows but the few extra ones are sure worth more than culls these days.
Triangle Bar
Well-known member
Dylan Biggs said:
That's for sure true. I saved a heifer that I regretted from almost the instant I made the decision to keep her. I thought for sure I'd be pulling her first calf or doing a vet job. As it turned out she has had six straight calves with no assistance. Like you said, sometimes you just have to go for it.
Thanks for your explanation Dylan, I think I better understand now what your goals and criteria are. It sounds like when you started this process there was a high percentage of cull & opens, but now that your down the road many years, your cull & open percentage is a comparable average to other operations.
I'm sure your management has also led to an even calf crop come fall, which is something I need to work on. I share my summer allotment with another rancher who runs his bulls year around, so even if I take my bulls out at 60 or 75 days I always have a drawn out calving season. I guess I could sell those late bred cows and put those dollars towards saving more heifers or buying something bred up closer.
Good Day
RobertMac
Well-known member
google Chirikof Island cattleNorthern Rancher said:
also http://www.whitepark.org.uk/chillingham.htm
Grassfarmer
Well-known member
Dylan, It must be my accent again :roll: , or my writing style as my intent is not to be argumentative or to prove who is right or wrong. I was just trying to explain my opinion and to learn.
I agree fertility is #1 in the list of things a successful cow needs but you ask is there such a thing as too much fertility? I would say yes, possibly there is. If for example we have a cow that maintains condition very poorly at all times but still somehow manages to breed back year after year she may require addition feeding, at additional cost - this would indirectly be a negative side to fertility wouldn't it? as fertility is the thing keeping her in the herd. Another cost may be adding her daughters to the herd if they had the same characteristics.
Of course this depends how you run your herd - how much "natural selection" we can really make in a country where most people are winter feeding cows around 200 days in my part of the world. If we really go with natural selection #1 is not fertility but survival. When we have bills to pay we need a calf every year - nature doesn't hence a lot of the deer don't rear young every year. But in our domesticated situation if the cows all get equal feed and anything that is lean is allowed to stay lean and come up open versus the herd where the leaner animals get fed a little extra feed because that is cheaper than having extra culls I guess that is natural selection. I'll admit we feed extra to some leaner cows although we have set the rule that any mature cow (over 2nd calver) that requires extra feeding 2 winters running will be eliminated from the purebred herd along with any offspring.
I agree fertility is #1 in the list of things a successful cow needs but you ask is there such a thing as too much fertility? I would say yes, possibly there is. If for example we have a cow that maintains condition very poorly at all times but still somehow manages to breed back year after year she may require addition feeding, at additional cost - this would indirectly be a negative side to fertility wouldn't it? as fertility is the thing keeping her in the herd. Another cost may be adding her daughters to the herd if they had the same characteristics.
Of course this depends how you run your herd - how much "natural selection" we can really make in a country where most people are winter feeding cows around 200 days in my part of the world. If we really go with natural selection #1 is not fertility but survival. When we have bills to pay we need a calf every year - nature doesn't hence a lot of the deer don't rear young every year. But in our domesticated situation if the cows all get equal feed and anything that is lean is allowed to stay lean and come up open versus the herd where the leaner animals get fed a little extra feed because that is cheaper than having extra culls I guess that is natural selection. I'll admit we feed extra to some leaner cows although we have set the rule that any mature cow (over 2nd calver) that requires extra feeding 2 winters running will be eliminated from the purebred herd along with any offspring.
RobertMac
Well-known member
Feed the herd, sell the opens. Extra feeding shouldn't be an option except to get the animal in condition to sell.Grassfarmer said:
Northern Rancher
Well-known member
I try and run mine like the deer but my neighbors don't like cows in their crop lol. The wild game up here actually eat better than most cows-graze the grain fields from spring to fall then cherry pick the stackyard hay.
Grassfarmer
Well-known member
RobertMac said:
I guess there has to be a compromise in there too - we have to balance maximum genetic progress we can make with maximum short term profit we can make. I would really like to maximise my genetic progress and know that eventually that will pay the bills so much better - but meantime we have to cashflow this genetic progress, and the overall business so that we can make ends meet. Sometimes I reckon we can do that better by feeding a little extra to some animals versus culling them prematurely. The price of cull cows and feed are variables in this decision. I think the decision to go with nature and feed little or any mechanical feed would be easier in your part of the world than mine due to the climate.
Dylan Biggs
Well-known member
Grassfarmer said:
I can't detect any accent and your writing is just fine. You used in your example a cow that remains in poor condition but continues to re-breed. First I would not give her any preferential treatment just because she looks tough unless she was 10 years plus. If she continues to rebreed without preferential treatment than I personally wouldn't discriminate against her or her heifers. Don't get me wrong I do value BCS and I don't want a herd of hard doing skinny's. But I definitely don't consider BCS as important as I use to for predicting fertility. Obviously there is a correlation between BCS and %preg's its the strength of that correlation that I am doubtful about. We used a vet for years for our breeding soundness evaluations on our bulls, Dr Jim Scott who gave me a better understanding of the different fat storage mechanisms that exist in different breeds and even in individuals within the same breed. Basically it goes like this. There are 3 different fat storage mechanisms in Bos Taurus cattle subcutaneous(back fat), interstitial (in the muscle or marbling), and internal typicaly around the kidneys and heart and in the pelvis. This explains why you seldom see a fat looking Texas Longhorn because there primary fat storage mechanism is internal. I was never really that convinced until we started killing a lot of our own beef at provincial custom plant and many time other customers will have longhorns there to slaughter and I would be on the kill floor and see the tremendous amounts of KHP fat inside these animals that upon visual live appraisal didn't look anywhere near fat enough to kill. Jersey's are typically thin looking, we have had a number of them as family milk cows but they hide their fat in the muscle. We have kept a number of half jerseys as cows and as thin as they look and the size of their calves there is no way they should breed. We have one cow now that was born in 1993 and she has weaned a calf every year so far. So just because a cow doesnt' store visual fat on the back does not mean they have no fat stores that they can mobilize in times of need. Jim said the most easily and efficient mobilized fat stores are interstitial and the least efficient are back fat deposits. That helps explain why some characteristically thin breeds eg Jerseys, Longhorns, and some thin looking Angus cows consistently rebreed even though their BCS doesn't appear adequate.
Dylan Biggs
Well-known member
the moral of the story, "you can't always judge a cow by her cover". :lol: :lol:
Grassfarmer
Well-known member
Thanks, that was very a interesting post Dylan. My next question is how does this relate to the quality of beef each type can yield? Is it possible to get decent quality carcasses off cattle with the internally stored fat? I'm guessing none of this type will marble and likely will have limited external fat.
andybob
Well-known member
Grassfarmer said:
The Tuli breed stores internal fat, but has a marbeling score similar to Aberdeen Angus beef. One of the factors that attracted the attention of commercial breeders to this breed, which was developed as an easy keeping native breed to improve the quality of native owned cattle, was the fact that the national carcase competiton was won for nine consecutive years by the Tuli breeding station, with fullblood Tuli steers.
The competiton were the well known British, Continental and Bos Indicus breeds form across the country.