PIC...modern swine breeding {and management, and micro management}

Dennis Voss wrote:

Concepts involving the value of genetic selection based on various forms of survival criteria are extremely valuable to operations such as mine. It manifests itself in animals that are healthier and do not get every single bug that comes down the road. The value to the industry aside from the value at the cow/calf/yearling level is huge. These are cattle that stay healthier in the feedlots and thus produce a better product. Much of their successful performance comes from their built in health. My only point really is this. When you doctor very few animals and certify the remainder as all natural you pass on true value to the next stage in the industry. Contrast this to various herds I know about where the cattle are sick all the time, people are out there doctoring them from birth on. I don't really care how high the marbling/carcass value number a steer might have, if he got doctored 2-3 times for pneumonia in his youth, his lungs got damaged and he'll be lucky to make it to the end of the chain. And then when you start thinking about some of the stuff Bootheel has mentioned, plus the amount of antibiotics being pumped into confinement animals of all types, it gets to be a genuine horror story.

Dennis Voss in the vicinity

Dennis these are the true words of a Stockman. Kinda puts all the Bull s**t aside and get's to the point real quick. Standing on the bridge LMAO at all the dumb asses that cant see the forrest thru the trees.

W.T wrote:

Dennis Voss wrote:

Concepts involving the value of genetic selection based on various forms of survival criteria are extremely valuable to operations such as mine. It manifests itself in animals that are healthier and do not get every single bug that comes down the road. The value to the industry aside from the value at the cow/calf/yearling level is huge. These are cattle that stay healthier in the feedlots and thus produce a better product. Much of their successful performance comes from their built in health. My only point really is this. When you doctor very few animals and certify the remainder as all natural you pass on true value to the next stage in the industry. Contrast this to various herds I know about where the cattle are sick all the time, people are out there doctoring them from birth on. I don't really care how high the marbling/carcass value number a steer might have, if he got doctored 2-3 times for pneumonia in his youth, his lungs got damaged and he'll be lucky to make it to the end of the chain. And then when you start thinking about some of the stuff Bootheel has mentioned, plus the amount of antibiotics being pumped into confinement animals of all types, it gets to be a genuine horror story.

Dennis Voss in the vicinity

Dennis these are the true words of a Stockman. Kinda puts all the Bull s**t aside and get's to the point real quick. Standing on the bridge LMAO at all the dumb asses that cant see the forrest thru the trees.

Thankyou for the heads up, here is a clarification:

When I have referred to weaning weight, I am referring to the calf weight. At weaning, I also weigh the cow, and assign to her a BCS(required by Pharo). I then enter both weights into the AAA including the BCS score. These entries are performed under the heading ,"AHIR - Entry Performance Calving/Weaning Data".

The AAA uses a base BSC of 5, and adjusts the cow weight up or down 80 pounds,i.e, a 1200 pound cow with a BCS of 6 will be reflected in AAA as an 1120 pound cow. The calf weaning weight is then adjusted by AAA for 205 days, and also adjusted for calves out of young cows, at 20 pounds per year, i.e a first calf would have 80 pounds added, a second calf would have 60 added, and so on.

I spent some time on the AAA website to see where I was mistaken. It is not necessary to enter the cow weight at weaning. It is necessary to enter the BSC of the cow "if" you enter a cow weight.

In the past when I have commented on the which half(smallest or largest) of the herd is most productive, relative to pounds of calf produced versus forage consumed, I have not used any of the adjustments above. They were straight "sale barn" numbers

In my opinion, the cow weight is a critical piece of data

data, data, data...sell, sell, sell... bs, bs, bs...the registered business...dazzle them with complexity when you , yourself, can`t even fill out the forms correctly...

Looks to me like a real good program. I think the subject of establishing a brand is something anyone who wants to be successful in sales shoud be interested in as that IMHO is the thing that separates the real top programs from the rest of the pack. In the end it is all about relationships and how you and your product resonate with the potential and the long term customer.

and just how to you establish a brand while using everyone elses bull?

data, data, data...sell, sell, sell... bs, bs, bs...

Dennis, Just out of curiosity I was wondering how much you attribute your herd health to genetics, and how much to management/environment? I know I've read that you have kept extensive health records on your cattle and was curious on how they trend in different genetic lines? I know you run an "outdoor" outfit, what effect does that have on health? Here I think being an "outdoor" outfit is key. I also attribute alot of health sorting to our altitude. I think it pretty well cleans up any animals with respritory or PAP issues. I think we lost 3 calves to "altitude sickness", and doctored maybe 5 or 6 for other things this year. It comes up to a hair more than a percent for health problems. If the calves we've shipped are as healthy as the ones here at home then I would think that would mean a bunch to the buyer. They will perform enough and they shouldn't have to mess with them. Sorry to get off topic fellas.

Ben Loyning, In the vicinity of Bovine health.

Bootheel wrote:

The data collected by the modern mega super tastlesss bland bendoverandtakeitandlikeit, has indeed helped them achieve their goal of a pig or chicken that eats alot and gains alot and poops alot and dies alot.

I see your points on the data df, but I think what most here are concerned with or already have observed, is the unexpected or anticipated changes that occur when one thing is changed in the animal. Crazy stuff happens in the selection process to ''improve'' animals. For instance one line of chickens we had had an unsatiable appettite for the buttholes of other chickens. I doubt the index covered the "the I want to eat your butthole data field''. So then the environment changed, as in feed or light or something to counter affect the butthole eating, of which reduced feed efficiency. I could go on and on about super duper confinement chickens, and all the ills that plague them, but it gives me ulcers. My distaste for ulcers is almost as much as my distaste for watching chickens eat each others buttholes. But, indeed much data has been collected in the process of creating a chicken that won't go to roost.


Bootheel, knowing you cannot change them without changing them



and welcome to hog waller jon

Joe: I greatly enjoyed your above essay on the dangers of chicken breeding, I would like to point out one thing, your use of the word unsatiable, I believe is misused. I believe the correct word is insatiable... as in: she had an insatiable appetite for...

I, and I believe Tom understood your meaning, but in the precise and fussy world of numbers and data and exactitude inhabited by df, your meaning may have been misconstrued.

Hope this helps.

Ben, What do you mean by an "outdoor" outfit?

carhartts

Ben Loyning wrote:

Dennis, Just out of curiosity I was wondering how much you attribute your herd health to genetics, and how much to management/environment? I know I've read that you have kept extensive health records on your cattle and was curious on how they trend in different genetic lines? I know you run an "outdoor" outfit, what effect does that have on health? Here I think being an "outdoor" outfit is key. I also attribute alot of health sorting to our altitude. I think it pretty well cleans up any animals with respritory or PAP issues. I think we lost 3 calves to "altitude sickness", and doctored maybe 5 or 6 for other things this year. It comes up to a hair more than a percent for health problems. If the calves we've shipped are as healthy as the ones here at home then I would think that would mean a bunch to the buyer. They will perform enough and they shouldn't have to mess with them. Sorry to get off topic fellas.

Ben Loyning, In the vicinity of Bovine health.

Ben,
There's no way to put a percent figure to it at this point in time. But a substantial amount of my herd health must be attributed to genetics for the simple reason that I researched an extensive amount of cattle lines before arriving at the conclusion that Shoshone Angus cattle were superior on the issue of staying healthy. If you were to research the history of the Horse Butte cattle herd, you would see that it at one time or another in its early development, utilized every significant genetic line available in the Angus breed. Years & years ago Wayne Stevenson spent the day with me looking at cattle and pedigrees and commented at the end of the day that if you wanted to see an example of every registered Angus breeder in the state of Montana you only needed to go to Horse Butte Ranch because everyone was represented. The first wrenching crank in my neck occurred when I purchased a load of straight Shoshone bulls from Leonhardt to use on our commercial cattle program. The resulting offspring were tough, good doing cattle. In those days we kept track of calves that got sick and who their sires were because we did a lot of AI. The material we assembled was significant and revealing and we've kept it fairly private because it's our own personal data. Over time now the Shoshone cattle and Shoshone genetic influence has become a dominant factor in our genetic base and while the changes in herd health attributed to management changes are significant, they only dovetail with the genetic potency.

20 years ago a well known order buyer told me about 3 prominent commercial herds of cattle that he would not purchase yearling feeder cattle from. For the simple reason that the death loss was so big in the feedlot they couldn't afford to take a chance on the cattle any more. Over the years I have tried to keep my ears to the track on this issue. While there are many factors that have entered in like BVD, mycoplasma and God knows what else, the kind of stuff I'm talking about is mostly pneumonia, footrot, pinkeye, scours. You hear all the time about herds that must be doctored constantly. I know a feedlot guy who won't feed a certain ranches cattle because he's fed up with doctoring them. I notice the Lonhorn cross cattle are tougher than hell when it comes to these issues. Couple that with what I know about Shoshone cattle and I'd say my F1 cows could stand up to anyone's anywhere for toughness, disease resistence, rangeability. In the early days Longhorn cattle were bred for survivability. My question to Leonhardt is "How did you get these cattle to have this superior resistance?" Or I could ask the same of Gavin Falloon. How did you correct Angus feet so well? I don't want an answer to either one of these questions because I believe successful breeding of cattle is an art form and the mysteries need to remain mysteries. Not that these guys have a secret book or anything like that.

We don't have an altitude problem here Ben. I wish Dave Noble would share what he knows about Shoshone cattle and altitude. Hey Dave, get to typing. Quit petting wolves and get to typing.

The most profound thing I can share with anyone interested in breeding cattle is this, as it applies to the subject being disccussed. Please quote me on the following statement because this is my baby.
Registered breeders are failures because they will not let certain cattle lines with high expectations fail. It becomes registered breeder vs mother nature. A mating is conceived by the breeder in the privacy of his warm home complete with coffee and computer. Everything about it fits together like a fine glove. The mating is made. The calf is born. The calf is awesome. He exceeds all expectations. The calf gets sick. The calf gets doctored. The calf gets sick. The calf gets doctored. The calf gets weaned. The calf gets doctored. The calf goes to the feedlot/bull test. The calf gets doctored. The calf manages to win the feed test and goes to the bull stud. The bull gets doctored. The now famous bull gets collected and collected. His calves are everywhere in programs from Australia, New Zealand, Scotland, Canada & America. A great percentage of his calves get doctored. These calves are mated with simliar genetics achieved in a similar manner. Soon we no longer have cattle mated to cattle, but pickles mated to pickles.

Dennis Voss in the vicinity

Gregory, my editor in chief works cheap, and I get what I pay for in that regard. But yes, it should be insatiable, as this stuff falls out of my head, I just roll with it, 1st draft, 1st ipmression, impromptu with little regard to politeness, niceness, or how poorly my inabilities reflect on the masses of masterful minds found at the outcasts of dilusion corner.

Dennis, this is the kind of stuff that trips my trigger. I dig it, because no one else does. It is a fringe thing, outliers, out there's, kind of topic. Observations of the failures of your surrondings, and the where's and why's of the failures. I recall doing a research trial for Purina some ten or 15 years ago. Corn was cheap, really cheap, and they had a new limiter product that required no roughage added, without the problem of acidosis, founder, or bloat. It worked.....the numbers looked marvellous......BUT, much to my dismay, I couldn't keep the cattle from eating my fence posts. For those you that don't realize it, cattle are not natural consumer's of fence posts. The fences, besides being eaten were under constant pressure. I let their trial go on, unabated, but once it ended, I gave them a bale of hay. Lo and behold, they quit eating fence posts.


Something so painfully obvious to me, as a chicken pecking buttholes, or a cow eating fence posts, should put up GREAT BIG caution signs, saying, stop, look, observe, that something is wretchedly screwed up. But business continues as usual for the masses of ostriches.



Bootheel, pulling my head out of the sand and observing

DF,
To save you the agony...
The point of my continuing questions was not to provide fodder for your rural sociology thesis, if that is the case I have plenty to add. My point being that the livestock industry's continual longing for the next new index gets very tiring, and I always question its usefullness. Dennis Voss addressed a very vital factor for every producer's well being regardless of species. So where is the measurement for biological balance? Does it exist? If it does not exist, why do we crucify those who have produced a biological balanced animal because they have no data to verify their ability to procreate for many generations. By balanced, I mean an animal that stays healthy, has a will to live, a skeletal design that environmental changes will not destroy ( Hillys' cow's picture provided so much in regards to shades, shadows, and luster to reveal skeletal function) yet goes unnoticed. You get the just of balanced...for there are many more terms we could add. How are these traits measured? What I'm saying is - they can't be. If all these measurements are needed, then they should be printed in Braille because our eyes sure aren't needed. Thankfully my eyes still see because I wait for the cartoon of me falling off a log - tomorrow.
Now if Mike can make a request for an index, then I'll make my request. I want a measurement for
U T I L I T Y. DF, keep visiting, you are amongst knowledge that I wish I had access to in a younger life.
Jon - near "Piercing Eyes".

Dennis I have to agree with you on some cattle lines stay healthier than others. I have the remains of one line that have a higher tendency for foot rot and pneumonia then most of the herd. My solution is if the cow looses her calf before weaning then she has a higher chance of becoming all natural hamburger.or filling the empty space in my freezer .

Pioneer got in the cattle seed stock business...what happened?
A few years ago a big hog outfit, , I forget their name already, smithfield maybe,lasted about 6months developing a seed stock program....hired a phd that had trouble enough running his own little business...why go to the expense of developing seed stock when you can just sort the product?...money , not indexes, will create choice product if that's the product needed

Gelbvieh a leader???....you gotta be kidding, they producedc crosses because the pures had way too many problems....the MN angus boys buy calves, use the same bulls as everyone else and the same BS to sell them

Simmys are trying to be ANgus...is that what their indexes are telling them? That you better make the breed like ANgus if you want to call them a "breed" of your own....
I haven't read the bull power bs recently; but I'm betting there's nothin new under the sun there either....Bob Howard has demonstrated all one needs to know to increase efficiency and profitability of beef production...we don't need more indexes, we need more Bob Howard's....fat chance of finding many developed at a university; too simple, nothing new and exciting...

I have lots of questions to ask on the subject of overall herd health and a possible genetic component.
DV - what kind of vaccine program do you use or are you au natural?
Any opinions on the vaccines in common use - esp. the modified live variety?
On the intake side what do people think the effects of feeding GMO derived feeds is on the immune system of an animal, same goes for feeding crops that have been treated with a lot of sprays - especially glyphosates. Could these be compromising the immune systems?
What about feeding a natural type hay made from diverse species versus feeding monoculture grain crop silage where the plants themselves are of a less complex (than grass) nature? what about feeding corn silage - made from the simplest plant of all?

Do you think what you are seeing with the Shoshone cattle could be that they are prepotent for the "correctly functioning endocrine system" trait due to selection for type?
I'm not making bold claims for our cows but we certainly see lines where the animals never get sick from anything and that is true of the base family we are line breeding from which is encouraging to me.
I'll quit there before this turns into a novel but I'll post another question specific to a pneumonia problem we have on a new thread if anyone is interested in offering an opinion.

Jon,

There is not much to say that hasn't been said.

Yes, there is a tremendous amount of research on BRD at this time. MARC claims to have found some genetic influence. Enns and Taylor are also working in this area as well.

I think the recommendation to follow Bob Howard's lead is a good one.

Dennis, Great response as usual. I'm with Bootheel on diggin this sort of thing.

Grassfarmer, by an "outdoor" outfit I mean big country, big pastures, lots of room, and less confinement. On the vaccine deal I can't answer for Dennis but this is what we do.
Branding-(1 to 2 months age) 7 way, MLV-IBR PI3 BVD BRSV, and Nasalgen
Preconditioning-(5 to 6 months age) 7 way with sominus, MLV-IBR PI3 BVD BRSV
Post weaning Heifers-Bangs Vaccinate (Brucellosis)
Pre Breeding Heifers-MLV-Preg Guard 10 Gold
Yearling Bulls-Footrot and Warts
Fall Preg Test-Vira Sheild 6 VL5 (Cows)
Pre Calving Bred Females-Guardian (Scours)
It looks like a hell of a bunch when I put it down in writing, but I believe in every one of those shots or would not give them. An old friend of ours tells a story about when he got his first squeeze chute. He got his cows in and was going to work them and at that time had a bunch of big rank brangus cross cows. The first cow hit the chute and rolled it plum over. He was pretty embarassed as his dad an old timer was there and he really wanted to impress him. So he got it all set back up and the next cow through rolled the chute again. Needless to say he didn't get either of the first two vaccinated. He dusted off and set up again this time before they attemted to put another cow in the chute his dad having had enough bullshit said "Leave that head catch open and throw all of that shit down in front of it and let them run it over and it will probably do them as just as much good". He may have been right but I don't think so. Vaccinations work and a good program is essential in my opinion. The genetic component is something I am certainly going to observe more here in the future.

Ben

df, will you agree to the following?

Breeding Paternal (terminal) lines is a matter of matching the product with the marketplace, utilizing quantitative data and breeding SCIENCE.

while

Breeding Maternal lines is a matter of matching the cow to her environment, utilizing qualitative observation and breeding ARTISTRY.

TD, trying to work this out.

Also, df, do you know what the Ph in Ph.D. stands for?

TD, just wondering

Tom D wrote:

df, will you agree to the following?

Breeding Paternal (terminal) lines is a matter of matching the product with the marketplace, utilizing quantitative data and breeding SCIENCE.

while

Breeding Maternal lines is a matter of matching the cow to her environment, utilizing qualitative observation and breeding ARTISTRY.

TD, trying to work this out.

I have always said breeding cattle is an art and a science. I had always hoped the maternal selection would become more accurate.

Dennis Voss wrote:

Ben Loyning wrote:

Dennis, Just out of curiosity I was wondering how much you attribute your herd health to genetics, and how much to management/environment? I know I've read that you have kept extensive health records on your cattle and was curious on how they trend in different genetic lines? I know you run an "outdoor" outfit, what effect does that have on health? Here I think being an "outdoor" outfit is key. I also attribute alot of health sorting to our altitude. I think it pretty well cleans up any animals with respritory or PAP issues. I think we lost 3 calves to "altitude sickness", and doctored maybe 5 or 6 for other things this year. It comes up to a hair more than a percent for health problems. If the calves we've shipped are as healthy as the ones here at home then I would think that would mean a bunch to the buyer. They will perform enough and they shouldn't have to mess with them. Sorry to get off topic fellas.

Ben Loyning, In the vicinity of Bovine health.

Ben,
There's no way to put a percent figure to it at this point in time. But a substantial amount of my herd health must be attributed to genetics for the simple reason that I researched an extensive amount of cattle lines before arriving at the conclusion that Shoshone Angus cattle were superior on the issue of staying healthy. If you were to research the history of the Horse Butte cattle herd, you would see that it at one time or another in its early development, utilized every significant genetic line available in the Angus breed. Years & years ago Wayne Stevenson spent the day with me looking at cattle and pedigrees and commented at the end of the day that if you wanted to see an example of every registered Angus breeder in the state of Montana you only needed to go to Horse Butte Ranch because everyone was represented. The first wrenching crank in my neck occurred when I purchased a load of straight Shoshone bulls from Leonhardt to use on our commercial cattle program. The resulting offspring were tough, good doing cattle. In those days we kept track of calves that got sick and who their sires were because we did a lot of AI. The material we assembled was significant and revealing and we've kept it fairly private because it's our own personal data. Over time now the Shoshone cattle and Shoshone genetic influence has become a dominant factor in our genetic base and while the changes in herd health attributed to management changes are significant, they only dovetail with the genetic potency.

20 years ago a well known order buyer told me about 3 prominent commercial herds of cattle that he would not purchase yearling feeder cattle from. For the simple reason that the death loss was so big in the feedlot they couldn't afford to take a chance on the cattle any more. Over the years I have tried to keep my ears to the track on this issue. While there are many factors that have entered in like BVD, mycoplasma and God knows what else, the kind of stuff I'm talking about is mostly pneumonia, footrot, pinkeye, scours. You hear all the time about herds that must be doctored constantly. I know a feedlot guy who won't feed a certain ranches cattle because he's fed up with doctoring them. I notice the Lonhorn cross cattle are tougher than hell when it comes to these issues. Couple that with what I know about Shoshone cattle and I'd say my F1 cows could stand up to anyone's anywhere for toughness, disease resistence, rangeability. In the early days Longhorn cattle were bred for survivability. My question to Leonhardt is "How did you get these cattle to have this superior resistance?" Or I could ask the same of Gavin Falloon. How did you correct Angus feet so well? I don't want an answer to either one of these questions because I believe successful breeding of cattle is an art form and the mysteries need to remain mysteries. Not that these guys have a secret book or anything like that.

We don't have an altitude problem here Ben. I wish Dave Noble would share what he knows about Shoshone cattle and altitude. Hey Dave, get to typing. Quit petting wolves and get to typing.

The most profound thing I can share with anyone interested in breeding cattle is this, as it applies to the subject being disccussed. Please quote me on the following statement because this is my baby.
Registered breeders are failures because they will not let certain cattle lines with high expectations fail. It becomes registered breeder vs mother nature. A mating is conceived by the breeder in the privacy of his warm home complete with coffee and computer. Everything about it fits together like a fine glove. The mating is made. The calf is born. The calf is awesome. He exceeds all expectations. The calf gets sick. The calf gets doctored. The calf gets sick. The calf gets doctored. The calf gets weaned. The calf gets doctored. The calf goes to the feedlot/bull test. The calf gets doctored. The calf manages to win the feed test and goes to the bull stud. The bull gets doctored. The now famous bull gets collected and collected. His calves are everywhere in programs from Australia, New Zealand, Scotland, Canada & America. A great percentage of his calves get doctored. These calves are mated with simliar genetics achieved in a similar manner. Soon we no longer have cattle mated to cattle, but pickles mated to pickles.

Dennis Voss in the vicinity

I wish i could have read this post 25yrs ago and had the sense to actually understand what Dennis has just put to words. This should be required reading for any cattle person in the world. Without a doubt many unthrifty cattle have been reproduced, do to greed or ignorance. There are many things we do just because that is the way we think we have to do it and we accept that for just the way it is. Foot Rot for example was always a problem for me and after awhile i realized it was passed from mother to daughter, as i started to cull it was apparent that entire bloodlines of cross bred cattle were eliminated from the herd and so was the foot rot. I still have a case from time to time but it is becoming rare. Thanks for putting the cold hard facts out their Dennis. There is way more to what you are saying then most people will ever realize.

df wrote:

Tom D wrote:

df, will you agree to the following?

Breeding Paternal (terminal) lines is a matter of matching the product with the marketplace, utilizing quantitative data and breeding SCIENCE.

while

Breeding Maternal lines is a matter of matching the cow to her environment, utilizing qualitative observation and breeding ARTISTRY.

TD, trying to work this out.

I have always said breeding cattle is an art and a science. I had always hoped the maternal selection would become more accurate.

Df,
I think the beginning of higher accuracy might be for every commercial producer to use their own bulls to create their maternal replacements...that idea probably won't be popular in registered circles...

Thats interesting Ben, I started off with a fairly similar, comprehensive vaccine program when I moved here on the vets advice as I had no clue what vaccinations cattle needed here. I would treat my calves the same as yours but with different product names, we never treated bulls for foot rot or pregnant cows for scours and the brucellosis shot isn't needed here. We use a modified live pre-breeding shot for cows rather than your fall killed vaccine. We gradually cut back on the vaccine to the calves and got away with it pretty well until a couple of weeks ago - we had a real virulent strain of pneumonia come through that visibly affected about 30% of the weaned calves, we lost a couple and treated about 5%. It gets to be expensive real quick and makes the vaccine look cheaper. Don't know where it came from or why it hit so hard because the calves were weaned 5 weeks and were well onto feed out on snow covered pasture. I believed in the vaccinations for the calves when I was using them too so maybe I need to get back to it. One of the reasons I quit apart from cost was because of the talk of "not being able to identify the ones that were genetically superior without all the crutches". What do folks think of that?

Another random thought I have which is maybe crazy - I think calves suffer from SAD (Seasonally Affected Disorder) the same as I do. That Oct - New Year spell is pretty miserable with the shortening days but once you get past New Year the days get longer and spring is in the air. I know if I get a cold in the late fall it lingers and lingers - get one in February and it goes pretty quick. I find October-November weaned calves struggle a bit until the New Year and then really take off - it was the same in Scotland. The vaccines maybe help get over that.

GF - Pondering my SAD craziness.

Grassfarmer wrote:

Thats interesting Ben, I started off with a fairly similar, comprehensive vaccine program when I moved here on the vets advice as I had no clue what vaccinations cattle needed here. I would treat my calves the same as yours but with different product names, we never treated bulls for foot rot or pregnant cows for scours and the brucellosis shot isn't needed here. We use a modified live pre-breeding shot for cows rather than your fall killed vaccine. We gradually cut back on the vaccine to the calves and got away with it pretty well until a couple of weeks ago - we had a real virulent strain of pneumonia come through that visibly affected about 30% of the weaned calves, we lost a couple and treated about 5%. It gets to be expensive real quick and makes the vaccine look cheaper. Don't know where it came from or why it hit so hard because the calves were weaned 5 weeks and were well onto feed out on snow covered pasture. I believed in the vaccinations for the calves when I was using them too so maybe I need to get back to it. One of the reasons I quit apart from cost was because of the talk of "not being able to identify the ones that were genetically superior without all the crutches". What do folks think of that?

Another random thought I have which is maybe crazy - I think calves suffer from SAD (Seasonally Affected Disorder) the same as I do. That Oct - New Year spell is pretty miserable with the shortening days but once you get past New Year the days get longer and spring is in the air. I know if I get a cold in the late fall it lingers and lingers - get one in February and it goes pretty quick. I find October-November weaned calves struggle a bit until the New Year and then really take off - it was the same in Scotland. The vaccines maybe help get over that.

GF - Pondering my SAD craziness.

My market for the calfs/yearlings require they be vaccinated to reduce their chance of death loss. I vaccinate all the calfs at the same time as it seems to be a form of prevention/insurance that I will not have a major health problem. If a calf gets sick and survives it will be sold as freezer beef.

Grassfarmer wrote:

I have lots of questions to ask on the subject of overall herd health and a possible genetic component.
DV - what kind of vaccine program do you use or are you au natural?
Any opinions on the vaccines in common use - esp. the modified live variety?
On the intake side what do people think the effects of feeding GMO derived feeds is on the immune system of an animal, same goes for feeding crops that have been treated with a lot of sprays - especially glyphosates. Could these be compromising the immune systems?
What about feeding a natural type hay made from diverse species versus feeding monoculture grain crop silage where the plants themselves are of a less complex (than grass) nature? what about feeding corn silage - made from the simplest plant of all?

Do you think what you are seeing with the Shoshone cattle could be that they are prepotent for the "correctly functioning endocrine system" trait due to selection for type?
I'm not making bold claims for our cows but we certainly see lines where the animals never get sick from anything and that is true of the base family we are line breeding from which is encouraging to me.
I'll quit there before this turns into a novel but I'll post another question specific to a pneumonia problem we have on a new thread if anyone is interested in offering an opinion.

I have attended several talks about minerals and it has been agreed that highly fertilized crops do not have the mineral content of "natural hay or pasture". Alfalfa and clover are poor sources of selenium and other trace minerals. It has been my experience that the cows eat more mineral when consuming silage of any type and monocrop feed may not have all the minerals animals need. I have no experience feeding GMO derived feed or forage raised with glyphosates and like it that way .

Grassfarmer wrote:

I have lots of questions to ask on the subject of overall herd health and a possible genetic component.
DV - what kind of vaccine program do you use or are you au natural?
Any opinions on the vaccines in common use - esp. the modified live variety?
On the intake side what do people think the effects of feeding GMO derived feeds is on the immune system of an animal, same goes for feeding crops that have been treated with a lot of sprays - especially glyphosates. Could these be compromising the immune systems?
What about feeding a natural type hay made from diverse species versus feeding monoculture grain crop silage where the plants themselves are of a less complex (than grass) nature? what about feeding corn silage - made from the simplest plant of all?

Do you think what you are seeing with the Shoshone cattle could be that they are prepotent for the "correctly functioning endocrine system" trait due to selection for type?
I'm not making bold claims for our cows but we certainly see lines where the animals never get sick from anything and that is true of the base family we are line breeding from which is encouraging to me.
I'll quit there before this turns into a novel but I'll post another question specific to a pneumonia problem we have on a new thread if anyone is interested in offering an opinion.

Grassfarmer,
Sometime before you get too old, don't quit before it turns into a novel. Deal? Our vaccine program is as follows: Virashield 6 (+VL5 for cows & heifers), Respishield, Covexin 8 - all killed vaccines. As far as mineral goes, we used to be very loyal to a structured program. Now as the years go by, we're getting to be just the opposite. We're almost winding into a situation where we feed hardly any mineral at all. Last mineral I put out was for some cows that I showed all you guys on tour. I just wanted to impress you guys, not so much my cows. Larkota noticed and it didn't impress him much because he said, "Why do you think you have to feed mineral"? I said "Hell, I don't know, habit I guess".

I'll let Larry address the Shoshone cattle as it pertains to their correctly functioning endocrine system. I feel like I've gone out on a limb with some of the statements I've made. Who knows, maybe I'm setting myself up for a big wreck. I hope not. If I had a couple of lifetimes behind me I'd feel more confident.

Keep the fire raging Grassfarmer. This is a good subject.

DV still in the vicinity although Keeney's threatening to boot me off (had something to do with a drawing I did of a guy with his head stuck up a bull's ass)

patb wrote:

Grassfarmer wrote:

I have lots of questions to ask on the subject of overall herd health and a possible genetic component.
DV - what kind of vaccine program do you use or are you au natural?
Any opinions on the vaccines in common use - esp. the modified live variety?
On the intake side what do people think the effects of feeding GMO derived feeds is on the immune system of an animal, same goes for feeding crops that have been treated with a lot of sprays - especially glyphosates. Could these be compromising the immune systems?
What about feeding a natural type hay made from diverse species versus feeding monoculture grain crop silage where the plants themselves are of a less complex (than grass) nature? what about feeding corn silage - made from the simplest plant of all?

Do you think what you are seeing with the Shoshone cattle could be that they are prepotent for the "correctly functioning endocrine system" trait due to selection for type?
I'm not making bold claims for our cows but we certainly see lines where the animals never get sick from anything and that is true of the base family we are line breeding from which is encouraging to me.
I'll quit there before this turns into a novel but I'll post another question specific to a pneumonia problem we have on a new thread if anyone is interested in offering an opinion.

I have attended several talks about minerals and it has been agreed that highly fertilized crops do not have the mineral content of "natural hay or pasture". Alfalfa and clover are poor sources of selenium and other trace minerals. It has been my experience that the cows eat more mineral when consuming silage of any type and monocrop feed may not have all the minerals animals need. I have no experience feeding GMO derived feed or forage raised with glyphosates and like it that way .

So who should decide whether the cow needs more mineral supplement - the cow or the owner? The highly fertilized grain silage we have often bought from our Hutterite neighbours tends to be short on minerals but there is enough salt in it due to the high fertilizer regime that the cows will barely touch a mineralised salt block. Cows reckon they have way more need when they are on our tame summer pastures, but not so much on wild/bush/native pastures.
You'd be surprised how much glyphosate treated feed there is out here - get a late cool harvest season and many guys desiccate their barley to speed ripening - then there is the college learning backed "yellow feed" practice which is lazy mans green feed. Spray with Roundup, wait until it's killed then cut and bale. That just makes me shudder when you use a chemical toxic enough to kill plants then feed it to cows. When you read the cumulative effect of glyphosates and how they tie up minerals in the soil making them inaccessible to plants you've got to wonder the effect on cattle eating the crops.