Growth in the cross

Interesting statement from jmundorf that I have thought about along the same lines for quite awhile:


"I honestly have not figured out how to select for growth while not selecting against the most genetically homogeneous suffering from inbreeding depression. My theory is( and it could be wrong) that if I select for a consistent type of muscle and frame that the hybrid vigor will take care of the growth in the cross."

My question is, how much growth genetically is necessary when your final product is a hybrid? Not only in the terminal side, but in the female side as well. I had convinced my self that I had selected the level which had prevailed, but I have about decided I selected for the highest level which could still function.

If you go back and look at some of the individual sires and imports, their levels of yearling growth using across breed comparisons, there is a range of +15 to +70 to cover the Yearling growth of the vast majority of import sires. The Limousin Prince Pompador, who sired 60,000 calves, has a yearling EPD of +14.9. Some others for comparison

Chianina:
Friggio + 62.2
Loio + 66.9

Simmental:
Pariesian +56.6
Extra +73.8

Charolais:
Appollon +52.9

It also brings back into perspective, for myself at least, the Angus sires of the same era who gained over 5 pounds per day with around 5 pounds of feed per pound of gain with Yearling weights which are comparable to many mainstream herds today and these bulls are in the single digits to low teens on YW.

"I honestly have not figured out how to select for growth while not selecting against the most genetically homogeneous suffering from inbreeding depression."


I have considered the inevitable question as well, even though it is a ways down the line for me and came to the conclusion that enough growth is good enough for my purposes, in the sense that when I close down the population, the cattle genetically carried enough growth for my purpose so by simple isolation you have set parameters for growth both up and down.

So I am imagining I will be more selecting my bulls by way of convenience of their mothers in both populations and running mobs to increase the odds of being normal.

That being said if we selected for growth in this now isolated population, I think we would still get enough unless we want more

As my hero Forrest Gump said, "I'm not a smart man", so this might not be the place my "how much growth" question belongs, but I think it might be. My cattle are supposed to be the terminal cross. But I'm sitting here trying to select for feet and udders and moderate (for Charolais) mature size, and easy keeping on grass and hay, while at the same time having enough growth and carcass quality and easy enough calving ease to be a good terminal cross. Generally, my cattle end up top 40% or so for growth traits, but I think a smart man might select terminal cattle differently. It is a fact that there are hundreds- thousands?- of Angus bulls that can outgrow my cattle. I could pick the right Charolais and beat their doors off, but I don't happen to care that much for those cattle. Maybe I should. Should I be trying to get the best "curve bender" cattle out there, and he'll with feet, udders, and easy fleshing, as long as they were structurally correct enough to live a couple years? I'd truly hate that, but it sure sounds easy. Should I just be trying to get "enough" growth?

Different note- I think the folks on this board often ask questions that are about what is enough-- enough of a trait in the cattle, enough work, enough money, enough time just hanging with your homies, enough of everything without screwing everything else up. I think it speaks volumes about the character of all you folks. I'm glad y'all let me hang around.

What we try to select for in growth in our Charlios terminal bulls is all that we can with a good carcass and calving ease. A live calf is the most important thing in production. Also if they are a little to big they have a worse chance of illness because they do not get colostrum with in 20 minutes of birth just some thoughts.

Bob H wrote:

What we try to select for in growth in our Charlios terminal bulls is all that we can with a good carcass and calving ease. A live calf is the most important thing in production. Also if they are a little to big they have a worse chance of illness because they do not get colostrum with in 20 minutes of birth just some thoughts.

I agree with Bob H, for me calf vigour is my highest concern as I chose not to help the cows calve and that will limit growth. The thing is this depends to some degree on the cows as well. So I guess you should breed cattle that you enjoy and let their usefulness fall were it may.

My uncle pulls just about every calf born on his place (this is not an exaggeration, they may not need to all be pulled, but he seems to enjoy helping out) he pushes the growth deal to the max and he absolutely enjoys every minute of it, and when his calves go through the ring in the fall, everyone comments in amazement on the size of the cattle. Needless to say he gets his bulls from producers with similar priorities.

I’m not looking for the most growth, and calves like this one look about right to me for my purpose




His attitude and size of bone as well as the straightness of his legs tell me he does not possess the highest growth genes in the bovine species.

.

Keystone wrote:

It also brings back into perspective, for myself at least, the Angus sires of the same era who gained over 5 pounds per day with around 5 pounds of feed per pound of gain with Yearling weights which are comparable to many mainstream herds today and these bulls are in the single digits to low teens on YW.

When reading ''The Formative Years'', I found the actual performance levels achieved by Mr. Leonhardt's cattle phenomenal. Viking, Titan, others.....I don't think much has been accomplished, other than making more of them. The really neat thing to me is, he saw the problem in the 70's or early 80's, and started changing his selection methods then, as a result. When I see the lower growth figures for such bulls, it makes me scratch my head. Maybe it is right, maybe not, puzzling to me none the less.

There really is nothing new under the sun.

Mean Spirit wrote:

As my hero Forrest Gump said, "I'm not a smart man", so this might not be the place my "how much growth" question belongs, but I think it might be. My cattle are supposed to be the terminal cross. But I'm sitting here trying to select for feet and udders and moderate (for Charolais) mature size, and easy keeping on grass and hay, while at the same time having enough growth and carcass quality and easy enough calving ease to be a good terminal cross. Generally, my cattle end up top 40% or so for growth traits, but I think a smart man might select terminal cattle differently. It is a fact that there are hundreds- thousands?- of Angus bulls that can outgrow my cattle. I could pick the right Charolais and beat their doors off, but I don't happen to care that much for those cattle. Maybe I should. Should I be trying to get the best "curve bender" cattle out there, and he'll with feet, udders, and easy fleshing, as long as they were structurally correct enough to live a couple years? I'd truly hate that, but it sure sounds easy. Should I just be trying to get "enough" growth?

Different note- I think the folks on this board often ask questions that are about what is enough-- enough of a trait in the cattle, enough work, enough money, enough time just hanging with your homies, enough of everything without screwing everything else up. I think it speaks volumes about the character of all you folks. I'm glad y'all let me hang around.

This is perplexing. Your questions lead me to a lot more questions, so if you're Forrest then I must be Bubba. I think the fundamental question is: "What is Growth"? If growth is defined as weighing more at a certain age than your contemporaries, then I would think that there would be two ways to accomplish "growth". #1 You are a "curve-bender" that reaches a higher percentage of your peak mature weight at an earlier age - or - #2 You are the result of selection for greater peak mature weight.

I'm beginning to doubt that #1 is a viable option, which is leading me to doubt all things curve-bender, which is leading me to doubt that this concept of "growth" is even real, let alone worth selecting for.

Hopefully you don't leave Red Lodge saying "Man, I had "enough" of that Tom D."