beef-cow-productivity-stagnant

this is a must read; it does what universities usually do; it verifies what the breeders posting here already know; that there are environmental limits of production; and going past those limits cost; not only in reproduction, but actual lbs at weaning...unfortunately, in the same mag is a story quoting df`s cohort Patterson, who is now a verified know a lot about very damn little telling us what we are missing out on by not AI`ing cows...advertisement bought, paid, and delivered by AI companies seeking a unioversity pawn that will deliver the BS to the general populace uunder the disguise of unbiased information...absolutely disgraceful!
all raises for "beef reproduction specialists" should be the same as the increase in % calf crop of the nation cowherd {0% over thirty year span}, and if no improvement within ten years {it`ll take that long to economically get rid of crap cowherds}, 10% of the repro free-loaders should be eliminated every year until the rate improves...

http://beefmagazine.com/genetics/us-beef-cow-productivity-stagnant

MKeeney wrote:

this is a must read; it does what universities usually do; it verifies what the breeders posting here already know; that there are environmental limits of production; and going past those limits cost; not only in reproduction, but actual lbs at weaning...unfortunately, in the same mag is a story quoting df`s cohort Patterson, who is now a verified know a lot about very damn little telling us what we are missing out on by not AI`ing cows...advertisement bought, paid, and delivered by AI companies seeking a unioversity pawn that will deliver the BS to the general populace uunder the disguise of unbiased information...absolutely disgraceful!
all raises for "beef reproduction specialists" should be the same as the increase in % calf crop of the nation cowherd {0% over thirty year span}, and if no improvement within ten years {it`ll take that long to economically get rid of crap cowherds}, 10% of the repro free-loaders should be eliminated every year until the rate improves...

http://beefmagazine.com/genetics/us-beef-cow-productivity-stagnant

I haven't bothered to read the link, as it said beefmagazine; which made me shudder, squirm, and throw up in my mouth a little. All that being said, your little rant at the end was just beautiful. Much like a Mento's, powerful enough to mask the bile residue left by years of the ulcerations caused by the toxic waste generated in BEEF.


Thanks for the minty freshness,

Bootheel, kissable on Valentine's

Sounds familiar...

MKeeney wrote:

this is a must read; it does what universities usually do; it verifies what the breeders posting here already know; that there are environmental limits of production; and going past those limits cost; not only in reproduction, but actual lbs at weaning...unfortunately, in the same mag is a story quoting df`s cohort Patterson, who is now a verified know a lot about very damn little telling us what we are missing out on by not AI`ing cows...advertisement bought, paid, and delivered by AI companies seeking a unioversity pawn that will deliver the BS to the general populace uunder the disguise of unbiased information...absolutely disgraceful!
all raises for "beef reproduction specialists" should be the same as the increase in % calf crop of the nation cowherd {0% over thirty year span}, and if no improvement within ten years {it`ll take that long to economically get rid of crap cowherds}, 10% of the repro free-loaders should be eliminated every year until the rate improves...

http://beefmagazine.com/genetics/us-beef-cow-productivity-stagnant

What did you think of Lalman's comments?

So whats the big one idiot got it right.

Lalman has been conscious of there`s a price to pay for a long time...good guy in my book

Thought about posting a link to the BEEF article under the SAV Sale thread over on ACS. You know, how good commercial men run to SAV to get bent over because it makes them so much money.

“Increasing fertility means challenging the cows in your herd year after year and culling the ones that don’t breed on time without modifying the environment,” Lalman says. “It’s difficult to find seedstock producers willing to challenge their cows in that manner.”

If your goals are the production of a paternal animal for the production of seedless fruit, who cares if they breed back. That is not their purpose. Crap. Did I just stick up for the mainstream?

MKeeney wrote:

Lalman has been conscious of there`s a price to pay for a long time...good guy in my book

Agreed. Just curious as Lalman has been at OSU after doing his graduate work at MU.

Is a University to be judged by its outliers or its average?

Keystone wrote:

Is a University to be judged by its outliers or its average?

Good question. Both are discussed but only the outliers make a real difference.

df wrote:

MKeeney wrote:

Lalman has been conscious of there`s a price to pay for a long time...good guy in my book

Agreed. Just curious as Lalman has been at OSU after doing his graduate work at MU.

the best education usually comes after graduation from the university...some fail; Lalman is an asset ...

Why can`t there be a broad acknowledgement across universities that the cow is the reproducing machine within an environment and is not beef as a primary objective?

MKeeney wrote:

df wrote:

MKeeney wrote:

Lalman has been conscious of there`s a price to pay for a long time...good guy in my book

Agreed. Just curious as Lalman has been at OSU after doing his graduate work at MU.

the best education usually comes after graduation from the university...some fail; Lalman is an asset ...

Why can`t there be a broad acknowledgement across universities that the cow is the reproducing machine within an environment and is not beef as a primary objective?

Almost all of the education comes after graduation, IMO, and certainly the best. Although the exposure to good researchers is maybe easier while in school compared to after.

I don't know the answer to that question but I think there could be several reasons.

I think it is because many don't feel the bull can bring all the growth and carcass merit to the mating to make up for the perceived deficiencies of the cow that is only selected for adaptability within an environment.

Major changes in a herd are due to the sire and not the dam as the sire produces many more calves.

The first EPDs were on growth and milk. Other traits have been ignored by many although there has always been individuals inside and out of universities that have sounded the bell. Some did not sound the bell very loud.

Possibly the other reason is that there has been almost no effort to genetically improve adaptability/reproduction beyond selling the open females, which is actually culling against and not selecting for. Granted, only the females that stay in the herd produce females to carry on the next generation but the bulls do most of the changes.

good points; everyone...I`ll add breed association competition...remember the Advantage furor over the idea of "registering" Angus crossbreds?

One of my greatest talents is killing a thread....will try not to slay this one. I am doing my best to apply some management principles you all have taught me here and at this point in time I will declare that I am one-for-one. This is my sample of one, episode of one success story...for now:

I have never had sheep. Never been around them in my life. Know nothing about them. My FIL has been in sheep at some level for 40+ years. FIL thinks we need to add sheep to what we do. So last fall I start looking around...buy a dozen ewes out of Texas...to check the sheep deal out. They are range ewes...hair sheep...don't want to mess with shearing and wool. They are not particularly pretty but they had made it through the drought and were bred. They are 3-5 years old and clearly have not been pampered. My FIL raises a skeptical eye..."what are you thinking? You should start with young stock from a 'reputable' breeder". (My FIL just retired from 40 years of Family Practice and believes in/follows all the mainstream/university sheep "wisdom".) So I bring the ewes home, stick them in a field of prairie grass, give them a generic sheep mineral block and make sure they have water. A couple weeks after getting them they they start lambing-11 of the 12 lambed. I got 19 lambs from the 11 ewes. 19 for 19 with no assistance of any kind. I (still) have never seen a lamb be birthed. These mommas knew/know how to have and raise a lamb.

My FIL cannot believe my good luck...he really is dumbfounded by this. No assisted births or bottle lambs??? And 19 lambs from 11 ewes in November and December??? Perhaps my sheep experience is simply luck. However, of all the sheep I had the opportunity to buy I assessed these as solid range ewes who had proven themselves to retain the ability to produce under difficult conditions. After hanging out with you guys for a couple years I thought it was a pretty simple, clear-cut decision. These ewes were not bottle lambs that had been saved because their momma was a grand champion at Fort Worth and was "worth" a couple thousand. bucks and daddy was some big shot show ram. We have had some good discussions about the (misguided) principles that drive the mainstream...especially "seed stock" producers. FIL is not so sure about this "alternative" stuff but his interest is piqued. He is going to bring me a couple of his ewes that just lambed-actually, they are not fancy enough for him.

These same principles of selection are being applied to my cows. I will save a calf if I have to-to recover revenue but that calf will not be saved for breeding stock and momma will be judged very harshly from there forward. And I do not believe this concept ever crosses the mind of the big boys who dominate the bull studs-yet alone the peasants who mindlessly chase their tails. I know it did not cross our mind when my dad was spending big bucks on Polled Herefords.

MKeeney wrote:

good points; everyone...I`ll add breed association competition...remember the Advantage furor over the idea of "registering" Angus crossbreds?

Of course; sometimes I only think about the production side and forget some of the marketing.

One good method used by successful sheepherders to maintain or improve herd fertility is simply keep the first ewe lambs born up to the number for replacements. Nature takes care of the rest. Thought that might be appropriate in cattle as well......

G nome wrote:

One good method used by successful sheepherders to maintain or improve herd fertility is simply keep the first ewe lambs born up to the number for replacements. Nature takes care of the rest. Thought that might be appropriate in cattle as well......

G nome,
my seed analogy does not get much traction in fertility discussions...every year I plant wheat seed that is about 90% germ...The only seed that gets harvested, and sown again, is the seed that comes up...over and over that cycle is repeated ...why doesn`t germination {fertility} improve?

MKeeney wrote:

G nome wrote:

One good method used by successful sheepherders to maintain or improve herd fertility is simply keep the first ewe lambs born up to the number for replacements. Nature takes care of the rest. Thought that might be appropriate in cattle as well......

G nome,
my seed analogy does not get much traction in fertility discussions...every year I plant wheat seed that is about 90% germ...The only seed that gets harvested, and sown again, is the seed that comes up...over and over that cycle is repeated ...why doesn`t germination {fertility} improve?

Because environmental affects will always leave about 10% that won't germinate?

Actually G nome I would dispute your method "used by successful sheepherders", sounds more like cattlemen applying cattle thoughts to sheep production. Unlike cattle you don't tend to get very many sheep that have "low fertility" if you define that as you would with cattle as animals that always breed late i.e. second or third cycle. Far more sheep settle on the first cycle and almost all are cycling - of course that has a lot to do with the different gestation lengths of sheep and cattle and the fact sheep are not rearing young at the time they get rebred. You don't tend to get lines or families of sheep prone to being open either - its more a random event. Sheep fertility is so easy to manipulate by flushing the ewes anyway you can overcome most genetic aspects of fertility in them. I would suggest that selecting the first born ewe lambs would not affect sheep flock fertility one iota.

Grassy, I agree that fertility in sheep is diffeent than in cattle. More can be gained from selecting ewes lambs that were not sibs to ram lambs during gestation from some research. Also the same for rams: they do better if they were from a birth group with all ram lambs.

Grassfarmer wrote:

MKeeney wrote:

G nome wrote:

One good method used by successful sheepherders to maintain or improve herd fertility is simply keep the first ewe lambs born up to the number for replacements. Nature takes care of the rest. Thought that might be appropriate in cattle as well......

G nome,
my seed analogy does not get much traction in fertility discussions...every year I plant wheat seed that is about 90% germ...The only seed that gets harvested, and sown again, is the seed that comes up...over and over that cycle is repeated ...why doesn`t germination {fertility} improve?

Because environmental affects will always leave about 10% that won't germinate?

Actually G nome I would dispute your method "used by successful sheepherders", sounds more like cattlemen applying cattle thoughts to sheep production. Unlike cattle you don't tend to get very many sheep that have "low fertility" if you define that as you would with cattle as animals that always breed late i.e. second or third cycle. Far more sheep settle on the first cycle and almost all are cycling - of course that has a lot to do with the different gestation lengths of sheep and cattle and the fact sheep are not rearing young at the time they get rebred. You don't tend to get lines or families of sheep prone to being open either - its more a random event. Sheep fertility is so easy to manipulate by flushing the ewes anyway you can overcome most genetic aspects of fertility in them. I would suggest that selecting the first born ewe lambs would not affect sheep flock fertility one iota.

Also a time of year effect Grassy: My sheep breeding usually occurred from September to January. Much better weather for conception.

EddieM wrote:

Grassy, I agree that fertility in sheep is diffeent than in cattle. More can be gained from selecting ewes lambs that were not sibs to ram lambs during gestation from some research. Also the same for rams: they do better if they were from a birth group with all ram lambs.

Could you point me to that research Eddie? I'd be interested to read it. I've never heard of such a thing and was a sheep producer in a country with a 20 million+ sheep population.

Gregory Walker wrote:

Also a time of year effect Grassy: My sheep breeding usually occurred from September to January. Much better weather for conception.

That was never the case in the climate or conditions we ran sheep in, I'm assuming you are talking about avoiding the heat of summer?