Keeney`s Corner

A current and reflective discussion of cattle breeding from outside the registered mainstream
 
HomeUsergroupsRegisterLog in

Share | 
 

 Paradigm Shift

View previous topic View next topic Go down 
Go to page : Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next
AuthorMessage
C.S.Cunningham



Posts : 24
Join date : 2016-04-20

PostSubject: Re: Paradigm Shift   Wed Apr 27, 2016 10:33 am

Grassfarmer wrote:
C.S.Cunningham wrote:
So, all things being equal, what do you regard as ideal in terms of conformation? Or do you let the environment dictate the conformation and select based on weaning weights, assuming that, with a closed population a heavier weaning weight is a sign of a superior cow?  study

"FORM FOLLOWS FUNCTION it doesn't pre-determine it"

How important is weaning weight? If you sell weaned calves by the pound maybe, but if you are rearing replacement breeding stock or sell yearling cattle?
I cringe now when I see a particularly heavy weaning weight heifer calf. Had too many of them disappoint - "great" cow turns in a big heavy heifer calf, heifer calf grows on to be a bigger yearling and bigger bred heifer but when she calves she is a poorer milker and raises a much smaller calf. Often have reduced fertility too (more to the terminal side?) The resulting calf brought up tough with barely the milk it needs turns into the grandmothers type and the cycle starts over. That's been my experience anyway. Now I tend to trim off the few biggest and few smallest heifers and breed the rest. The biggest heifers are always in high demand lol.


Grassfarmer, my experiences are largely the same. It is very hard, if not impossible, to maximize weaning weights for market calves while also retaining replacement heifers from the same sire.
Back to top Go down
C.S.Cunningham



Posts : 24
Join date : 2016-04-20

PostSubject: Re: Paradigm Shift   Wed Apr 27, 2016 11:06 am

MKeeney wrote:
the farao weird science is built around weaning wt as the final product...just got through a little tit for tat with Chip Hines relying on
this statement ...
By 2012, he had rounded up data from Montana, Arkansas and Oklahoma showing that 100 pounds of additional weight in each cow adds 6 pounds, at most, in her calf. The variation was from 4 to 6 pounds. Based on that, he worked with OSU economist Damona Doye to show that added calf weight, at the time, was worth $5 to $7. It is worth perhaps a little more now but will not be forever. They calculated the cost for carrying that outsized cow at $42. It was a net loss of about $35 per cow unit.

the above may be what has happened, it isn`t what must happen...most of the added real and commercially expressed lbs of growth have resulted in larger yearling/carcass weights where feed is sufficient...

more Chip math...
Too compare profitability between the 1,000 pound cow and the 1,440 pound cow I pulled up market reports from salebarns (3/10/2016) in Colorado, Kansas and Wyoming. For the 1,000 pound cow and a wean weight of 500 pounds I averaged prices of steer calves from 485 to 515 pound range which averaged 2.07 and X 500 =$1,035 per head.

For the 1,400 pound cow I averaged prices from 575 to 600 pounds and for a 588 pound calf it was 2.00 and X 588 was $1,176. The big calves dollared out at $141 more per head.
Now forage cost per year is added in from post No 3. Beginning with the 1,400 pound cows, their total forage cost, $549.58 for 100 head is $54,900. The 137 head of 1,000 pound cows with a forage cost of $400, is $40,000.

Beginning with the 100 big cows I figured 5 head death loss and 15 head for heifer replacement which at 20% leaves 80 head of calves to sell. 137 small cows at 20% is 109.6 which I will round down to 109 calves to sell.

To keep this simple we will magically make all calves steers. From above, the big cows’ calves were worth $1,176 per head with 80 at $94,080. The smaller calves were $1,035 per head X 109 = $112,815. This calculation shows that $112,815 minus $92,904 = $19,911 more dollars for the small cows. Not looking good for the big cows and it isn’t over. This is the gross. What about forage cost?

Big cows forage was $54,900. Subtracting this from their gross of 94,080 = $39,180. Small cow forage was $40,000. Subtracting this from 1122,815 = $72,815. Now for the grand total, 72,815 – 38,004 = 34,111 additional dollars for the small cows.

Ignoring cull cow sales, and figuring all the calves as the same sex and not including all costs, simplifies the calculating while giving the same basic result which is that smaller, low milk production cows, raising smaller calves, are worth more per pound and more efficient converters of forage to profit.

Chip , in his exuberance, missed by $18,000 dollars; never bothered to change his math...I don`t know where his feed costs come from; but they too are bogus...figures don`t lie, but most books are called fiction for a reason...



I re-ran some of the figures, and there is still a difference of $18,893 by the data sets he provided. Even recalculating to put the two herds at the same number of 100 head, the smaller cattle still come out $3,678 more profitable. Certainly, the data would be most accurate if drawn from one operation with the same land and management available to bother herds.

I agree about the forage figures being inflated, but we know that the larger cattle will eat proportionately more. Daily dry matter intake is about 1-3%. At 3% a 1400 pound cow will consume over 2,900 pounds more dry matter per annum. It obviously will fluctuate throughout the year, but it is fodder for discussion. Smile

Your points on yw and cw are well taken; however, in my area, very few folks keep their calves beyond 500 pounds.

Of course, if one's goal is to maximize yw, cw, or even ww from a herd of closebred, maternal cows you are best served using a terminal, paternal bull. Or, better still, utilizing F1 females under a paternal bull. My questions are more geared towards replacement females and the selection of maternal bulls.
Back to top Go down
MKeeney
Admin


Posts : 4625
Join date : 2010-09-21

PostSubject: Re: Paradigm Shift   Wed Apr 27, 2016 1:15 pm

chips calf weights are assumptions...and if a calf has the same maturity pattern as a fleshed, 1000 cow , he is more likely to be
docked 20 cents/lb instead of a 7 cents premium @500...
Back to top Go down
http://www.keeneyscorner.com
C.S.Cunningham



Posts : 24
Join date : 2016-04-20

PostSubject: Re: Paradigm Shift   Wed Apr 27, 2016 2:35 pm

MKeeney wrote:
chips calf weights are assumptions...and if a calf has the same maturity pattern as a fleshed, 1000 cow , he is more likely to be
docked 20 cents/lb instead of a 7 cents premium @500...

This is assuming the bull is not a terminal outcross. Correct?

I certainly have been docked for maternal line cull calves, but count that as the opportunity cost of having propotant cattle. I have always felt that the premiums gained through marketing maternal line bulls and heifers foils the dock at the sale barn for their lesser siblings, and the market calves sired by paternal bulls are better for having maternal dames that can rear them at a lower cost of forage and supplements. Of course, the dock on small framed market calves is the very reason I breed twice as many terminal calves!
Back to top Go down
MKeeney
Admin


Posts : 4625
Join date : 2010-09-21

PostSubject: Re: Paradigm Shift   Wed Apr 27, 2016 3:40 pm

We accept the reality of what is and can be; the bs marketer promotes nothing but every aspect of his paradigm being best, best being roi...
Back to top Go down
http://www.keeneyscorner.com
pukerimu



Posts : 246
Join date : 2012-06-02
Location : Norsewood, New Zealand

PostSubject: Re: Paradigm Shift   Wed Apr 27, 2016 3:48 pm

https://www.facebook.com/113989622044424/photos/p.871544509622261/871544509622261/?type=3&theater

Here is a picture of a variety of our cows - they have been weaned for between a month and a fortnight (heifer dam vs bull dam). They are a gate cut plus the oldest cows as the rest were walked to the back of the farm. They had been held up on a paddock with little grass to assist them in their drying process and they had just been let through a gate to fresh tucker. You will see that they are all a similar type which is what our breeding is about - type = form and function (measured and checked to see that it does)

Welcome to the board cscunningham - it is always a pleasure to read different (or the same perspectives) and lively discussion is the spice of life
Back to top Go down
http://www.mtmableangus.co.nz
C.S.Cunningham



Posts : 24
Join date : 2016-04-20

PostSubject: Re: Paradigm Shift   Wed Apr 27, 2016 3:50 pm

MKeeney wrote:
We accept the reality of what is and can be; the bs marketer promotes nothing but every aspect of his paradigm being best, best being roi...

I accept the bs marketing, however, I am trying to guage which aspects of the paradigm you deem as bs and why. I understand that many ideals are relative to location, management, and purpose. Further, I know there are no "super cows" that are better than any and all alternatives.

I am just curious to know whether or not it is the prevailing opinion from those here that, all things being equal, a smaller framed, easyfleshing female, when bred to a terminal bull, produces more profit at weaning than her larger framed sister. This has always struck me as the core of Pharo's message.
Back to top Go down
Grassfarmer



Posts : 850
Join date : 2010-09-27
Location : Belmont, Manitoba, Canada

PostSubject: Re: Paradigm Shift   Wed Apr 27, 2016 4:59 pm

MKeeney wrote:
chips calf weights are assumptions...and if a calf has the same maturity pattern as a fleshed, 1000 cow , he is more likely to be
docked 20 cents/lb instead of a 7 cents premium @500...

That's the part that is always conveniently sidestepped by  farao The fact that discounts for frame score exist and that 5 weight calves of a 2 frame cow don't bring what 5 weight calves off a 5 frame cow do at auction. But I guess he isn't really lying as he has this little disclaimer in his quotes:

MKeeney wrote:
.......In a real-world, no-input ranch program, very few....... farao

Anyone care to venture what a no-input ranch is? I'm pretty sure ones that buy farao bulls or buy soy hulls to feed their "forage raised" cattle don't qualify.
Back to top Go down
http://www.luingcattle.com
EddieM



Posts : 895
Join date : 2010-09-24
Location : South Carolina

PostSubject: Re: Paradigm Shift   Wed Apr 27, 2016 9:20 pm

Quote :
Further, I know there are no "super cows" that are better than any and all alternatives.

I sort of gave you a hint a day or two ago to define a sales pyramid cow and tell me if either genetics or type is the most important identifier of that line/group of cattle. That discussion opportunity was lost. You tell me: if a promoter/salesman has cooperator herds in umpteem states and the gene pools are whatever a cooperator uses or likes, and Little Freddy goes and buys either bulls or especially cows because they are linked to the promoter/salesman, what is Little Freddy buying? He is buying whatever from somewhere raised by somebody and sold by another fellow to anybody for too much who has no real knowledge of the cattle other than names, ... All you know is that they counted flies on his back and fed the bulls some forage soyhull pellets.

I think there are super cows and they are super because they are average and much like the other contemporary females. Talk about a paradigm shift: average = super. The way to get them is to raise them and control the genepool. You have to have a purpose for the cows and cows for the purpose.

Eddie, no fan of smaller is better unless we are discussing costs

Back to top Go down
C.S.Cunningham



Posts : 24
Join date : 2016-04-20

PostSubject: Re: Paradigm Shift   Wed Apr 27, 2016 10:58 pm

EddieM wrote:
Quote :
Further, I know there are no "super cows" that are better than any and all alternatives.

I sort of gave you a hint a day or two ago to define a sales pyramid cow and tell me if either genetics or type is the most important identifier of that line/group of cattle.  That discussion opportunity was lost.  You tell me: if a promoter/salesman has cooperator herds in umpteem states and the gene pools are whatever a cooperator uses or likes, and Little Freddy goes and buys either bulls or especially cows because they are linked to the promoter/salesman, what is Little Freddy buying?  He is buying whatever from somewhere raised by somebody and sold by another fellow to anybody for too much who has no real knowledge of the cattle other than names, ...  All you know is that they counted flies on his back and fed the bulls some forage soyhull pellets.

Yes, sir, I agree with you. But that was not the question I intended to raise.

I think there are super cows and they are super because they are average and much like the other contemporary females.  Talk about a paradigm shift: average = super. The way to get them is to raise them and control the genepool.  You have to have a purpose for the cows and cows for the purpose. A profound statement. Smile

Eddie, no fan of smaller is better unless we are discussing costs. But costs are exactly what I am trying to discuss. I understand that straightbred, moderate frame to moderate frame equals a dock on market calves. However, what if one is offering moderate framed (3-4.5), low input cost females to commercial producers in order for the commercial producers to cross them with terminal type bulls? Assuming the cows have the pelvic capacity to deliver the calves in good order, what is the down side? That is the direction in which I would like to head.

Back to top Go down
MKeeney
Admin


Posts : 4625
Join date : 2010-09-21

PostSubject: Re: Paradigm Shift   Wed Apr 27, 2016 11:22 pm

there need not be a dock of price per lb; only less lbs produced a yearling in a right type, 5 frame female...5 frame equates to 1150 lb slaughter weight at .5 inch backfat...there`s no "efficiency" in 3 frame females; only inefficiency from the get go...your having the wrong discussion ; type is far more important than frame...
that we`re even having this conversation again shows the total ineptness of beef breeders to create programs of more profitable production; there is more money in the con game of the next great bull than in an improved approach based on reality...everyone is happy as they stumble along living on their dreams while pigs and chickens eat beef for lunch...we deserve little less; anywhere there is great opportunity for improvement... is a con man`s paradise...the playground is full...
Back to top Go down
http://www.keeneyscorner.com
C.S.Cunningham



Posts : 24
Join date : 2016-04-20

PostSubject: Re: Paradigm Shift   Wed Apr 27, 2016 11:52 pm

I never meant to imply that type was unimportant, though I do consider size to be a part of type. And yearling weights are well and good, but not if you market at weaning. Naturally pork and poultry have better conversions, they are monogastrics! Beef will never be able to compete on a direct feed conversion scale, but the feed stuffs that cattle utilize have the greatest return on investment over the long term. I suppose I am dense, and forgive me for belaboring the point, gentlemen, as I really am not trying to be difficult nor am I trying to defend marketeers. But I still don't quite understand how a 5 frame nets more profit than a 3 or 4 frame cow considering your cost of production is less and you can run more total head.

Certainly the type must be there. I am not saying that frame is the only point of selection. I will take a 5 frame cow of good type over a smaller cow of inferior type. I may breed her to a smaller bull, but I would keep her none the less.
Back to top Go down
EddieM



Posts : 895
Join date : 2010-09-24
Location : South Carolina

PostSubject: Re: Paradigm Shift   Thu Apr 28, 2016 7:55 am

C.S.Cunningham wrote:
I never meant to imply that type was unimportant, though I do consider size to be a part of type. And yearling weights are well and good, but not if you market at weaning. Naturally pork and poultry have better conversions, they are monogastrics! Beef will never be able to compete on a direct feed conversion scale, but the feed stuffs that cattle utilize have the greatest return on investment over the long term. I suppose I am dense, and forgive me for belaboring the point, gentlemen, as I really am not trying to be difficult nor am I trying to defend marketeers.  But I still don't quite understand how a 5 frame nets more profit than a 3 or 4 frame cow considering your cost of production is less and you can run more total head.

Certainly the type must be there. I am not saying that frame is the only point of selection. I will take a 5 frame cow of good type over a smaller cow of inferior type. I may breed her to a smaller bull, but I would keep her none the less.

I found your answer on another site. cheers

cattle authority wrote:
A great breeder and friend of mine says the nice long feminine necks and body lines are very important. He told me a few times that whoever hires those gals on Fox News he would really like that guy to help pick his Angus females. Those are the kind of long angular necks and lines you want on your cows he says. True story and J__ W____, W________ SD is a master breeder, knows Angus cattle and good females.

I don't think I can really help you with your cattle questions for some reason. I am on another sheet of music. I straightbreed, want fertile cows, calves that sell well if I cull them, bred cows that sell well, cull cows that sell well, breeder bulls that sell well and replacement heifers and bulls that I like well. All of the sell well's are based on doing well. These sell well animals have to fit my management and environment the best that they can. What do customers do with the bulls and cows? Enjoy good market advantage and or keep replacements. Why? Because these cattle fit here and are what the market demands. So, what does the herd look like? Everything from 1025 pound cows to 1425 pound cows. They might get more uniform over the years but I really doubt they will moderate a whole lot more. Why do I accept a range? Fertility of females. I can tweak the calves a bit by the choice of bulls but not in a huge way. I am comfortable with the system, it is easier than anything else I have ever done and it cash flows.

So, what cash flows in your area while fitting your environment when you look for fertility and function in females? I cannot tell you.
Back to top Go down
MKeeney
Admin


Posts : 4625
Join date : 2010-09-21

PostSubject: Re: Paradigm Shift   Thu Apr 28, 2016 7:59 am

forget the "I sell at weaning" scenario...the buyer/buyers that finish the calf will pay accordingly for the feeding/slaughter potential left in what they buy... the only laws that apply to cattle production are economic and genetic; apply them as you see fit...


Back to top Go down
http://www.keeneyscorner.com
Mean Spirit



Posts : 321
Join date : 2010-09-26

PostSubject: Re: Paradigm Shift   Thu Apr 28, 2016 8:40 am

C.S.Cunningham wrote:
MKeeney wrote:
We accept the reality of what is and can be; the bs marketer promotes nothing but every aspect of his paradigm being best, best being roi...

I accept the bs marketing, however, I am trying to guage which aspects of the paradigm you deem as bs and why. I understand that many ideals are relative to location, management, and purpose. Further, I know there are no "super cows" that are better than any and all alternatives.

I am just curious to know whether or not it is the prevailing opinion from those here that, all things being equal, a smaller framed, easyfleshing female, when bred to a terminal bull, produces more profit at weaning than her larger framed sister. This has always struck me as the core of Pharo's message.

I guess I'm curious about definitions.  "Smaller framed, easy fleshing" vs. "larger framed"-- are we comparing 3 frame 1000 lb cows to 9 frame 2000 lb cows?  Or what are we comparing?  Is 'smaller framed easy fleshing" a fat bellydragger or is she just a little cow?  And what if the 9 frame cow is "easy fleshing"? And for what it's worth, I once saw a certifiable belly dragger Charolais cow who had to be frame 10- I bet she weighed 2400, maybe more-- but if she did it on forage, is she efficient?

What does all this stuff mean?
Back to top Go down
C.S.Cunningham



Posts : 24
Join date : 2016-04-20

PostSubject: Re: Paradigm Shift   Thu Apr 28, 2016 12:36 pm

Mean Spirit wrote:
C.S.Cunningham wrote:
MKeeney wrote:
We accept the reality of what is and can be; the bs marketer promotes nothing but every aspect of his paradigm being best, best being roi...

I accept the bs marketing, however, I am trying to guage which aspects of the paradigm you deem as bs and why. I understand that many ideals are relative to location, management, and purpose. Further, I know there are no "super cows" that are better than any and all alternatives.

I am just curious to know whether or not it is the prevailing opinion from those here that, all things being equal, a smaller framed, easyfleshing female, when bred to a terminal bull, produces more profit at weaning than her larger framed sister. This has always struck me as the core of Pharo's message.

I guess I'm curious about definitions.  "Smaller framed, easy fleshing" vs. "larger framed"-- are we comparing 3 frame 1000 lb cows to 9 frame 2000 lb cows?  Or what are we comparing?  Is 'smaller framed easy fleshing" a fat bellydragger or is she just a little cow?  And what if the 9 frame cow is "easy fleshing"? And for what it's worth, I once saw a certifiable belly dragger Charolais cow who had to be frame 10- I bet she weighed 2400, maybe more-- but if she did it on forage, is she efficient?

What does all this stuff mean?


A fair point. I would say from 3-5 Frame score weighing between 1,000 and 1,300 pounds.
Back to top Go down
C.S.Cunningham



Posts : 24
Join date : 2016-04-20

PostSubject: Re: Paradigm Shift   Thu Apr 28, 2016 12:56 pm

MKeeney wrote:
forget the "I sell at weaning" scenario...the buyer/buyers that finish the calf will pay accordingly for the feeding/slaughter potential left in what they buy... the only laws that apply to cattle production are economic and genetic; apply them as you see fit...



So you suggest breeding for the feeders but marketing to the commercial cow men? Are the kind of cattle that perform to the feedlot's ideal the same type that maximize profit for the commercial cow men? In my experience, cattlemen have gone broke chasing the type of cattle that the feedlots desire as these cattle are designed to perform on large quantities of grain whereas the commercial stockman has an abundance of forage to market which only opportunity cost providing there is a perennial, multispecies stand. Which brings me to the belly dragging Chorlais, there is certainly the opportunity cost of the extra forage she consumes.

Gentlemen, please understand that I am not trying to combat you. I have talked with Pharo, Fry, Jeremy Engh, Joel Salatin, and Greg Judy. While some of them are on the same page as far as the merits of closebreeding, it would seem they differ in ideals. I am just trying to understand both sides and come to conclusions. I appreciate your replies greatly. Smile
Back to top Go down
RobertMac



Posts : 377
Join date : 2010-09-28
Location : Mississippi, USA

PostSubject: Re: Paradigm Shift   Thu Apr 28, 2016 3:20 pm

Check out the "Update from the Howard Ranch..." below.
Bob has a purpose for his cattle and cattle that fit that purpose.
Back to top Go down
pukerimu



Posts : 246
Join date : 2012-06-02
Location : Norsewood, New Zealand

PostSubject: Re: Paradigm Shift   Thu Apr 28, 2016 4:43 pm

C.S.Cunningham wrote:
MKeeney wrote:
forget the "I sell at weaning" scenario...the buyer/buyers that finish the calf will pay accordingly for the feeding/slaughter potential left in what they buy... the only laws that apply to cattle production are economic and genetic; apply them as you see fit...



So you suggest breeding for the feeders but marketing to the commercial cow men? Are the kind of cattle that perform to the feedlot's ideal the same type that maximize profit for the commercial cow men? In my experience, cattlemen have gone broke chasing the type of cattle that the feedlots desire as these cattle are designed to perform on large quantities of grain whereas the commercial stockman has an abundance of forage to market which only opportunity cost providing there is a perennial, multispecies stand. Which brings me to the belly dragging Chorlais, there is certainly the opportunity cost of the extra forage she consumes.

Gentlemen, please understand that I am not trying to combat you. I have talked with Pharo, Fry, Jeremy Engh,  Joel Salatin, and Greg Judy. While some of them are on the same page as far as the merits of closebreeding, it would seem they differ in ideals. I am just trying to understand both sides and come to conclusions. I appreciate your replies greatly. Smile

This is the debate that rages in NZ as the "perfect" sires of feedlot animals are imported into NZ for their carcase traits and then their daughters are expected to work as well as the cattle that have evolved over 150 years on NZ grass and terrain. People like us who have a cemented type and breeding philosophy, and just cannot bring ourselves to introduce the genetics (despite the allure or amazingly quick gains to our figures) are treated with disdain by the "enlightened stud breeders" but our bull buyers keep coming back and a phone call to all our buyers from last year has resulted in a 100% A++ satisfaction which is actually what is important to us. We breed what they want - if a stud buyer is enlightened enough to realise that the large scale commercial guys may actually know more than them and joins them on our sales bench then we welcome them - otherwise we try to ignore them lol!
Back to top Go down
http://www.mtmableangus.co.nz
MKeeney
Admin


Posts : 4625
Join date : 2010-09-21

PostSubject: Re: Paradigm Shift   Thu Apr 28, 2016 7:05 pm

Few ,if any, cattlemen have ever gone broke as a result of their genetics ...pharo sky is falling bs...
Back to top Go down
http://www.keeneyscorner.com
C.S.Cunningham



Posts : 24
Join date : 2016-04-20

PostSubject: Re: Paradigm Shift   Thu Apr 28, 2016 7:18 pm

Quote :


This is the debate that rages in NZ as the "perfect" sires of feedlot animals are imported into NZ for their carcase traits and then their daughters are expected to work as well as the cattle that have evolved over 150 years on NZ grass and terrain.  People like us who have a cemented type and breeding philosophy, and just cannot bring ourselves to introduce the genetics (despite the allure or amazingly quick gains to our figures) are treated with disdain by the "enlightened stud breeders" but our bull buyers keep coming back and a phone call to all our buyers from last year has resulted in a 100% A++ satisfaction which is actually what is important to us.  We breed what they want - if a stud buyer is enlightened enough to realise that the large scale commercial guys may actually know more than them and joins them on our sales bench then we welcome them - otherwise we try to ignore them lol!

That is exactly what I have endeavored to do, though I am afraid rather than ignore the stud breeders, I have been trying to male my case to them. It is a hopeless battle, but it has allowed me to make some contacts with like minded individuals within my breed association whose philosophies have been ignored by the elites.
Back to top Go down
pukerimu



Posts : 246
Join date : 2012-06-02
Location : Norsewood, New Zealand

PostSubject: Re: Paradigm Shift   Thu Apr 28, 2016 7:26 pm

Maaaate ...................... been there done that - have the t-shirt and the battle scars - we only learnt to ignore them the hard way ... trust me.

The two sides of the breeding coin in NZ are however easily identified and we find the company of like minds priceless. Keep up the good fight but be sure to love what you are doing - heart and sole the cattle breeder maketh ................... in my ever so humble opinion Laughing
Back to top Go down
http://www.mtmableangus.co.nz
C.S.Cunningham



Posts : 24
Join date : 2016-04-20

PostSubject: Re: Paradigm Shift   Thu Apr 28, 2016 7:35 pm

MKeeney wrote:
Few ,if any, cattlemen have ever gone broke as a result of their genetics ...pharo sky is falling bs...

Sir, with respect, I must disagree. In my line of work I have seen numerous cattlemen who, do to the exorbitant costs of their inputs, have been financially forced to find employment off of the farm or face the wrat of their creditors. The economies of scale are simply not in their favor.

Instead of simply calling out the flaws in my admittedly flawed ideology, would you make a more thorough case against it? I am open to change when presented with clear facts! I want what we all want, to provide propotent seedstock that work in my environment for the economic benefit of my friends, neighbors, and felllow cattlemen. If you have clear suggestions as to how I might alter my current paradigm to fulfill those goals I am all ears! Smile

To describe my program more fully that you might have a better understanding of my situation:

My ideal is an angular cow (broader at the rump than the shoulder and deeper at the flank than the heart girth) beong of frame score 3-4.5 and weighing from 1,000 to 1,300 pounds, that is long lived, easy keeping, and able to deliver a good calf at weaning each year by the fat of her back. My only input in feeds being good quality hay in the winter. I have not yet fully eleminated grain supplements, as I am improving the diversity of my pasturage through drilling more cool season mixes. I calve from April to May to better facilitate these goals.

I utilize high density stock grazing focusing on a stocking density of around 100,000 pounds per acre, but I flex the density up and down situationally.
Back to top Go down
pukerimu



Posts : 246
Join date : 2012-06-02
Location : Norsewood, New Zealand

PostSubject: Re: Paradigm Shift   Thu Apr 28, 2016 7:44 pm

[quote="C.S.Cunningham"]
Sir, with respect, I must disagree. In my line of work I have seen numerous cattlemen who, do to the exorbitant costs of their inputs, have been financially forced to find employment off of the farm or face the wrat of their creditors. The economies of scale are simply not in their favor.

............. but do they learn from their mistakes or insist that because the paper work or the sales pitch told them so, these are the "best" cattle, and they persist with them or their ilk ...............

Few NZ farmers have gone broke through their genetic choice but their lack of insight and wit to take aversive action to turn the tide has helped them go there
Back to top Go down
http://www.mtmableangus.co.nz
MKeeney
Admin


Posts : 4625
Join date : 2010-09-21

PostSubject: Re: Paradigm Shift   Thu Apr 28, 2016 8:42 pm

Anyone ignorant enough of cattle production to pay $5000 for this Pharo bull may well go broke;
but it won`t be the bull that breaks him; it will be his ignorance.
Back to top Go down
http://www.keeneyscorner.com
Sponsored content




PostSubject: Re: Paradigm Shift   

Back to top Go down
 
Paradigm Shift
View previous topic View next topic Back to top 
Page 2 of 4Go to page : Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next
 Similar topics
-
» Paradigm Shift
» Banks speed up shift to forex automation
» Deputy for Iraq: the shift to the existing party entity related to passage of the law of parties
» With Summit of Arab Leaders, Iraq Seeks to Shift Image
» "Timeshift"

Permissions in this forum:You cannot reply to topics in this forum
Keeney`s Corner :: Breeding Philosophies :: Breeding Philosophies-
Jump to: