Longevity post...rescued from the ruins

Tom D, The second picture of the black cow shows the body type of all the successful old cows I've ever had. That's the kind I can never pick visually out of a replacement pen. I know the thick ones, the fancy ones, the growthy ones don't turn out like that - I've tried them all. She also doesn't look remotely Saler which is a plus for me

Bootheel, I have also wondered about the "cat like movement". We have a house cat that is pretty fatassed and waddling. Then again a cat is supposed to be able to walk on top of a narrow fence by walking with all 4 feet in a row - I wouldn't like a bull to walk like that cat. Then there are Salers, they seem to have the cat like movement of a cougar - first warning you get is when they pounce from behind

df wrote:

How do you define "best"?

Productive, problem free cows. Cows that don't over produce as 2 years olds. Cows that calve in the first cycle almost all the time. Cows that are sound and stay sound with good udders all their lives. Cows that I haven't been able to screw up no matter what I breed them too. Just good solid, never cause a problem cows you don't even know you own until they are about 5 years old.

Now again I ask you what role does data collection have when selecting for structural soundness?

"Greg you best be careful bring the fairer sex into comparison of cows......heap of trouble headed your way."


Joe: The two most important things in life.... women and cows in whatever order you prefer...

df wrote:

Jack McNamee wrote:

df wrote:

Does anybody have pictures of heifers that turned out to be the old productive granny cows?

I don't have a picture of the cow we are flushing right now when she was a heifer. I wish I did. She was the most eye appealing heifer of that crop. I had the highest hopes for her and she turned out to be what I call for several years a chronic disapointment becaues I was judging her by your standards, the weight of her calves. It wasn't until she was around 10 before I realized that her daughters and granddaughters were some of the best cows I have. I kept her son this year that ratioed an 89 and I have more confidence in him than any bull I kept. He would have been cut by your standards. She has 11 calves @ 95 weaning ratio and she would have been culled by your standards and yet she just keeps on keeping on. Her daughters are just as good and her grand sons top our sale more years than not and no they are not high ratioing bulls. They are just good on every level.

You've asked what role does visual appraisal have. It has a huge role for me, especially when we are talking about longevity. Let me ask you, what role does data collection have when selecting for structural soundness? And yet structural soundness has more to do with longevity IMO than any other thing by far.

Jack, somewhere in the vicinity of 3.5 inches of rain, numerous washed out roads and water gaps and around 400 steers that could show up just about anywhere.

How do you define "best"?

I am going to assume the flush cow, as the most eye appealing heifer of her calf crop, was potentially fleshy when she was growing and might have deposited fat in the udder. I don't know this but think it is possible as you state she never really weaned a heavy calf BUT HER DAUGHTERS DID as defined by being the "best" (PRODUCTIVE, problem free cows). I will also have to assume that productive means pounds as is the common definition of productive. If it "productive" defines another trait then you can correct me. In other words, the genetics were there, but the difference in productivity could be a management issue. If this is the case, then this issue has been reported for over 50 years and is not really new.

Why would I use the prehistoric method of using ratios to select replacements? The scientific community has long known that ratios are not as good to use as EPDs and ratios can be a product of mating any combination of good/bad cows to good/bad bulls. Ratios are NOT unbiased and can not account for selective matings. Ratios assume the same number of calves from each sire and the dams are uniform for genetic value.

It has also been known for a long time that the 2-yr-old that puts too much into her calf has a better than average chance of getting too thin and being open. No reason to get excited about high performance females that come up open and are not profitable. So I have no problem with females that don't produce to the average of the herd. I fully expect that to happen. Now if she is not living up to her potential, such that she is a 1300 lb cow weaning a 300 lb calf, then she should be replaced by another female that can do better. That might mean having smaller cows if the environment calls for it or selecting for more milk. All of this is the call of the individual rancher as he should know his cost of business and should be in the best position to make that decision. It means he should have the DATA to make the right decision.

So having a problem-free cow that lasts a long time but is slightly below average for production might actually be pretty ideal. She might be the most profitable cow you have.

If you don't believe in data, then post some pictures and start educating the masses on proper selection for longevity via structure. That would be more productive than asking over and over what good is (objective) data when selecting for the more subjective soundness issues.

Jack McNamee wrote:

df wrote:

How do you define "best"?

Productive, problem free cows. Cows that don't over produce as 2 years olds. Cows that calve in the first cycle almost all the time. Cows that are sound and stay sound with good udders all their lives. Cows that I haven't been able to screw up no matter what I breed them too. Just good solid, never cause a problem cows you don't even know you own until they are about 5 years old.

Now again I ask you what role does data collection have when selecting for structural soundness?

Could you post some pictures of heifers, or a line of females, that accomplish these goals? It would be beneficial to make the selection for productive cows when they are heifers and not have to wait until they are 12 yrs old to determine they are flush cows.

df wrote:

df wrote:

Jack McNamee wrote:

df wrote:

Does anybody have pictures of heifers that turned out to be the old productive granny cows?

I don't have a picture of the cow we are flushing right now when she was a heifer. I wish I did. She was the most eye appealing heifer of that crop. I had the highest hopes for her and she turned out to be what I call for several years a chronic disapointment becaues I was judging her by your standards, the weight of her calves. It wasn't until she was around 10 before I realized that her daughters and granddaughters were some of the best cows I have. I kept her son this year that ratioed an 89 and I have more confidence in him than any bull I kept. He would have been cut by your standards. She has 11 calves @ 95 weaning ratio and she would have been culled by your standards and yet she just keeps on keeping on. Her daughters are just as good and her grand sons top our sale more years than not and no they are not high ratioing bulls. They are just good on every level.

You've asked what role does visual appraisal have. It has a huge role for me, especially when we are talking about longevity. Let me ask you, what role does data collection have when selecting for structural soundness? And yet structural soundness has more to do with longevity IMO than any other thing by far.

Jack, somewhere in the vicinity of 3.5 inches of rain, numerous washed out roads and water gaps and around 400 steers that could show up just about anywhere.

How do you define "best"?

I am going to assume the flush cow, as the most eye appealing heifer of her calf crop, was potentially fleshy when she was growing and might have deposited fat in the udder. I don't know this but think it is possible as you state she never really weaned a heavy calf BUT HER DAUGHTERS DID as defined by being the "best" (PRODUCTIVE, problem free cows). I will also have to assume that productive means pounds as is the common definition of productive. If it "productive" defines another trait then you can correct me. In other words, the genetics were there, but the difference in productivity could be a management issue. If this is the case, then this issue has been reported for over 50 years and is not really new.

Why would I use the prehistoric method of using ratios to select replacements? The scientific community has long known that ratios are not as good to use as EPDs and ratios can be a product of mating any combination of good/bad cows to good/bad bulls. Ratios are NOT unbiased and can not account for selective matings. Ratios assume the same number of calves from each sire and the dams are uniform for genetic value.

It has also been known for a long time that the 2-yr-old that puts too much into her calf has a better than average chance of getting too thin and being open. No reason to get excited about high performance females that come up open and are not profitable. So I have no problem with females that don't produce to the average of the herd. I fully expect that to happen. Now if she is not living up to her potential, such that she is a 1300 lb cow weaning a 300 lb calf, then she should be replaced by another female that can do better. That might mean having smaller cows if the environment calls for it or selecting for more milk. All of this is the call of the individual rancher as he should know his cost of business and should be in the best position to make that decision. It means he should have the DATA to make the right decision.

So having a problem-free cow that lasts a long time but is slightly below average for production might actually be pretty ideal. She might be the most profitable cow you have.

If you don't believe in data, then post some pictures and start educating the masses on proper selection for longevity via structure. That would be more productive than asking over and over what good is (objective) data when selecting for the more subjective soundness issues.

as usual df, everything ass backwards...Jack didn`t select the cow based on her ratios; he merely told you what they were...if EPDS are so accurate, then I must ask what are the epds of a good cow...for the 40th time surely...
What bulls or EPDS does the Mo Show Me Select heifer sale require? Oh, that`s right, they require a medium frame score...yes sir, the scientific community is right on top of things and leading the way of the circus going in it`s normal orbit...

Again you read what you want and ask the same questions over and over. I did not say he selected the cow on ratios. I had to make some assumptions based on what Jack said. It could be right but it may not be. I had to make some assumptions as I don't feel the entire story was told. Jack did not report the flush cow's personal weaning weight ratio and probably would not be overly informative if he did; he reported the average ratio of her 11 calves. If ratios are so powerful, why are they a poor tool for selection?

As always, I agreed with Jack on the use of visual appraisal; as always, you did not want to acknowledge that I agreed!

df wrote:

Again you read what you want and ask the same questions over and over. I did not say he selected the cow on ratios. I had to make some assumptions based on what Jack said. It could be right but it may not be. I had to make some assumptions as I don't feel the entire story was told. Jack did not report the flush cow's personal weaning weight ratio and probably would not be overly informative if he did; he reported the average ratio of her 11 calves. If ratios are so powerful, why are they a poor tool for selection?

As always, I agreed with Jack on the use of visual appraisal; as always, you did not want to acknowledge that I agreed!

if we agree, what could we talk about?
what type of cow do you want to flush to start a maternal herd with? describe her for me in whatever terms you prefer...find and post a picture of one in the Angus or Simmy or Gelbvieh Journals that most suits you and tell me why?

Sniff's dam looks fine to me.

df wrote:

Sniff's dam looks fine to me.

her heifer calf is by her son Sniff...where to next? Sniff again? Sniff son? Get ready to unload that fat pocketbook Bootheel, we have a closebreeding project at hand
just read the Select Sires ad...great cattle come from great data... I guess we`re going to reject that notion to the extreme

MKeeney wrote:

df wrote:

Sniff's dam looks fine to me.

her heifer calf is by her son Sniff...where to next? Sniff again? Sniff son? Get ready to unload that fat pocketbook Bootheel, we have a closebreeding project at hand
just read the Select Sires ad...great cattle come from great data... I guess we`re going to reject that notion to the extreme

Is there a better way too improve longevity, or any other trait for that matter than to select for it? Pretty easy data collection I think, a birth year or brand would be required, assuming you had some minimal standards to stay around for 15 years.

Bootheel wrote:

MKeeney wrote:

df wrote:

Sniff's dam looks fine to me.

her heifer calf is by her son Sniff...where to next? Sniff again? Sniff son? Get ready to unload that fat pocketbook Bootheel, we have a closebreeding project at hand
just read the Select Sires ad...great cattle come from great data... I guess we`re going to reject that notion to the extreme

Is there a better way too improve longevity, or any other trait for that matter than to select for it? Pretty easy data collection I think, a birth year or brand would be required, assuming you had some minimal standards to stay around for 15 years.

Hold the phone! You want to use data? Any radical thoughts of using data will be met with lengthy discussions of the "evil" of data and its inability to describe any maternal cow in any way shape or form. OK MKeeney, I got him slowed down; now you need to show him some pictures of heifers and 15 yr-old cows and discuss the value of livestock judging. Hopefully you can get him on the right track; Lord knows I have had no success with him!

Just messing with you a little Keep thinking the good thoughts.

Glad to see you got a sense of humor DF. Make no mistake, I use data everyday, most of it stored in this mess of whatchagotstew, poured over homemadebread, of a mind I am cursed with. The problem is not data or collection of it, it is the application of it to a usefull end to a means, to satisfy someone that may or may not be able to SEE in fact that the progression of the data, becomes no longer useful.

Have you read "The Formative Years" DF. Loads of data there. Much of the work has been done for us, the foundations laid to build upon. The understanding of cause and effect relationships of selection practices are clearly supported by DATA. I have wasted hours upon hours of my life reporting and recording DATA. Now I waste more here.

But the topic is Longevity, not Data, or the lack of proof for public consumption and manipulation. Manipulation being the culprit behind non-productive data application. The responces of the posters in this topic, express my sentiments fairly well, except DF of course but I think he is coming around, just a little contrary.

Longevity is counter-productive to improvement, too slow, too much time to sell it, measure it, and nullifies the improvement of the other sources of data collection for improvement.

Bootheel.....sitting across the hill from yet another Show Me select heifer, culled for inability to raise a calf past three, and being fattened here for a quick return.

df wrote:

df wrote:

Jack McNamee wrote:

df wrote:

Does anybody have pictures of heifers that turned out to be the old productive granny cows?

I don't have a picture of the cow we are flushing right now when she was a heifer. I wish I did. She was the most eye appealing heifer of that crop. I had the highest hopes for her and she turned out to be what I call for several years a chronic disapointment becaues I was judging her by your standards, the weight of her calves. It wasn't until she was around 10 before I realized that her daughters and granddaughters were some of the best cows I have. I kept her son this year that ratioed an 89 and I have more confidence in him than any bull I kept. He would have been cut by your standards. She has 11 calves @ 95 weaning ratio and she would have been culled by your standards and yet she just keeps on keeping on. Her daughters are just as good and her grand sons top our sale more years than not and no they are not high ratioing bulls. They are just good on every level.

You've asked what role does visual appraisal have. It has a huge role for me, especially when we are talking about longevity. Let me ask you, what role does data collection have when selecting for structural soundness? And yet structural soundness has more to do with longevity IMO than any other thing by far.

Jack, somewhere in the vicinity of 3.5 inches of rain, numerous washed out roads and water gaps and around 400 steers that could show up just about anywhere.

How do you define "best"?

I am going to assume the flush cow, as the most eye appealing heifer of her calf crop, was potentially fleshy when she was growing and might have deposited fat in the udder. I don't know this but think it is possible as you state she never really weaned a heavy calf BUT HER DAUGHTERS DID as defined by being the "best" (PRODUCTIVE, problem free cows). I will also have to assume that productive means pounds as is the common definition of productive. If it "productive" defines another trait then you can correct me. In other words, the genetics were there, but the difference in productivity could be a management issue. If this is the case, then this issue has been reported for over 50 years and is not really new.

Why would I use the prehistoric method of using ratios to select replacements? The scientific community has long known that ratios are not as good to use as EPDs and ratios can be a product of mating any combination of good/bad cows to good/bad bulls. Ratios are NOT unbiased and can not account for selective matings. Ratios assume the same number of calves from each sire and the dams are uniform for genetic value.

It has also been known for a long time that the 2-yr-old that puts too much into her calf has a better than average chance of getting too thin and being open. No reason to get excited about high performance females that come up open and are not profitable. So I have no problem with females that don't produce to the average of the herd. I fully expect that to happen. Now if she is not living up to her potential, such that she is a 1300 lb cow weaning a 300 lb calf, then she should be replaced by another female that can do better. That might mean having smaller cows if the environment calls for it or selecting for more milk. All of this is the call of the individual rancher as he should know his cost of business and should be in the best position to make that decision. It means he should have the DATA to make the right decision.

So having a problem-free cow that lasts a long time but is slightly below average for production might actually be pretty ideal. She might be the most profitable cow you have.

If you don't believe in data, then post some pictures and start educating the masses on proper selection for longevity via structure. That would be more productive than asking over and over what good is (objective) data when selecting for the more subjective soundness issues.

You're killin me DF. How long should I collect this data on a 1300 pd cow raising a 300 pd calf before I have the information to can her? If I'm out looking at my cows instead of in the house entering data I think I'll recgonize this problem long before data will tell me about it.

As far as the ratios Mike is right. I don't care what they were and I only told them to show that the data (ratios) had nothing to do with what I feel makes her a good cow and that in fact under the data collection system this cow would be considered very sub par. I knew you would assume productive meant pounds weaned but it doesn't for me. It means weaning a good calf without problems year after year.

Again I ask you what is good objective data for selecting for soundness and how do I collect it???

We run a food stand at the county fair every year. Years ago we had a chance to serve Buffalo burgers at the stand. I was doing the pricing end of it and my fellow ag teacher there was terribly excited about the "opportunity" to sell these. We were purchasing regular hamburgers for a price that allowed us to sell them for $1.25 everything included. We had 57 cents in them. A Buffalo burger cost us $3.00 just to buy the patty. We would have to charge $6.00 to make almost the same profit margin. He was afraid that people wouldn't pay that much for them, so we charged $3.50 per burger for them. By that point I had thrown up my hands and said whatever... They both took up the same space on the grill. Buffalo burgers typically took longer to cook. Big burly, masculine men liked to order them as it made them feel like cowboys to eat them or maybe just more rugged... Normally they would order a couple of double cheeseburgers, which since there was only 1 bun were even more profitable. Thank Goodness the buffalo business went bust and our supplier went out of business.

The cattle business today reminds me of this somewhat. The only data on the steer end that is particularly meaningful is feed efficiency. I don't believe that there is any realistic way to collect that data that correlates to real life conditions and if people have data for it, I would view it as suspect. Main stream bull test stations, put on eating contests, which tells us exactly nothing about what it cost to get the gain. That data too is essentially meaningless, and actually harmful. Good breeding bulls are going to spend much of their time riding and burning off calories. The ones that don't are probably going to get too fat and not last that long as a breeder, but by golly they can sure put on the lbs. I have a friend that goes to the Indiana test station and buys a bull or two every year. In the past 20 years that I have known him, his weaning weights have gone up by about 50 lbs. His cow mature weights have gone up by about 400 lbs. The bulls he buys seldom last more than two years. In the fall, they look like wrecks.

It is my contention that there is plenty of gain type performance in the angus breed or most other breeds for that matter. If the cattleman provides a good environment and management, there is nothing to stop him from weaning a decently heavy calf crop. Yet, the simpletons at the land grant universities continue to promote onwards and upwards on growth (and carcass) and data, without any view to the consequences to those at step one. Rising feed costs for cow maintenance, rising replacement costs for increased cow burn out and bull burn out. (Here I think that is somewhat deliberate as they are in league with Purebred bull suppliers to create a market for more yearling bulls every year.)

Of course the easy answer is to use a Charolais, or black simmie bull or any other breed that could provide increased performance and run a separate group of favorite cows for replacements with a bull that would give heifers just like dear old Mom. Or buy replacements as bred heifers or young cows from a maternal producer and terminal cross the whole herd.

I guess it reminds me of serving buffalo burgers. The regular old Hamburger is immensely profitable. The exciting buffalo burger allows you to brag, but doesn't make the producer of the product any money. Only the suppliers and promoters. IMHO

How long should you wait? I'll bet you'll get it on the first try so I suspect not very long.

Sorry, the problem-free part of your description indicated that she does not cause you any problems, which I have explained and defined in my previous post. "Productive" could mean a variety of things, so I defined it as pounds for our discussion, as that is more specific. If you intended it to mean a "good calf without problems", that would be good information to know. Now you just need to define a "good" calf, because good just isn't good enough to everybody. Being vague is good for you; you can always come back and point out how different your definition is compared to others. If "good" means conformation or weaned at a high percentage of body weight of the dam, then so be it.

Because we both agree that visual appraisal is important and that structural soundness is important, I am curious as to what your criteria is for selecting herdbulls that will sire daughters that will remain in the herd problem free because I will be your true goal is not structural soundness but a productive, problem-free cow. You get what you select for.

Quote :

her heifer calf is by her son Sniff...where to next? Sniff again? Sniff son?

Don't we have to start the home grown program with home grown animals?

The main thing to start out is to devise a breeding plan for either a high IBC or a "constant IBC, isn't it? And then you go to it, I would assume since quite a lot of talk has already occured? I'm more nuts and bolts so I would have to decide at this point if the line would have a component of Sniffy (constant or slow rise IBC) or if it would be an all out Sniffy-line (high IBC). If it were a Sniffy-line, then there would be other lines as well to linecross later and for insurance in case some of the lines fail. Then after I had thought about this I'd take a headache powder and try to get some sleep!

And for the record of my limited understanding, once you begin an on-farm experiment as such the EPDs, if they were built from any collected data, would be useless as compared to the entire population. But we know this is only a point of discussion and not one of reality! So, df, you'd be off of the hook for the ideal cow's EPDs since they would have no value.

And then you'd have to decide how you were going to support your habit until fame arrives at the door one sunny spring day when the flowers are blooming and the birds are singing.

This cow stayed until she was 14 and her twin sister lasted until she was 17 . This cow weaned 13 calves mostly weaning around 700 lbs which would be at the very high end of my program. The calf pictured is the 13th calf and he was out of the Pinebank bull.

df wrote:

How long should you wait? I'll bet you'll get it on the first try so I suspect not very long.

Sorry, the problem-free part of your description indicated that she does not cause you any problems, which I have explained and defined in my previous post. "Productive" could mean a variety of things, so I defined it as pounds for our discussion, as that is more specific. If you intended it to mean a "good calf without problems", that would be good information to know. Now you just need to define a "good" calf, because good just isn't good enough to everybody. Being vague is good for you; you can always come back and point out how different your definition is compared to others. If "good" means conformation or weaned at a high percentage of body weight of the dam, then so be it.

Because we both agree that visual appraisal is important and that structural soundness is important, I am curious as to what your criteria is for selecting herdbulls that will sire daughters that will remain in the herd problem free because I will be your true goal is not structural soundness but a productive, problem-free cow. You get what you select for.

How can I get a productive problem free cow without structural soundness, my first selection criteria? Productive includes her lasting a long time and if she is not structually sound nothing else will really matter. If you meant say bet instead of "be your true goal", you would lose that bet.

Jack McNamee wrote:

df wrote:

How long should you wait? I'll bet you'll get it on the first try so I suspect not very long.

Sorry, the problem-free part of your description indicated that she does not cause you any problems, which I have explained and defined in my previous post. "Productive" could mean a variety of things, so I defined it as pounds for our discussion, as that is more specific. If you intended it to mean a "good calf without problems", that would be good information to know. Now you just need to define a "good" calf, because good just isn't good enough to everybody. Being vague is good for you; you can always come back and point out how different your definition is compared to others. If "good" means conformation or weaned at a high percentage of body weight of the dam, then so be it.

Because we both agree that visual appraisal is important and that structural soundness is important, I am curious as to what your criteria is for selecting herdbulls that will sire daughters that will remain in the herd problem free because I will be your true goal is not structural soundness but a productive, problem-free cow. You get what you select for.

How can I get a productive problem free cow without structural soundness, my first selection criteria? Productive includes her lasting a long time and if she is not structually sound nothing else will really matter. If you meant say bet instead of "be your true goal", you would lose that bet.

I will bet your true goal is not structural soundness but a productive, problem free cow.

Yes I am ok with that statement only because I believe you are in this business for profit and that a productive, problem free cow is the key for your system. Sure, it is important to be structurally sound but soundness is the characteristic you are selecting for with the ultimate goal of a productive, problem free cow that makes you money. An open structurally sound cow does not make as much money.

So,

What's the deal with Keystone, Willie, Wilt, Lightning and Bold (something)?

Keystone wrote:

So,

What's the deal with Keystone, Willie, Wilt, Lightning and Bold (something)?

Bold Future (I think!).

Just a few bulls from the 80's early 90's period. There could be a discussion on structural correctness in there somewhere.