Angus Maternal sires

Discuss the advantages and disadvantages of your favorite breed.

User avatar
Larry Sansom
Cowhand
Cowhand
Posts: 160
Joined: Tue Apr 13, 2004 9:27 pm
Location: Hartford KY
Contact:

Postby Larry Sansom » Wed Jun 09, 2004 2:05 pm

dun wrote:Still haven't seen any negative comments on Glacier Nyack!

dun
Went to Angus .org and could not find him - got a Reg number?? or full registered name? data search showed no bulls.
0 x
Forage only Angus Cattle, bred for low input and high health benefits of grassfed beef.

User avatar
la4angus
GURU
GURU
Posts: 5063
Joined: Sat Jan 31, 2004 10:56 pm
Location: South La

Postby la4angus » Wed Jun 09, 2004 2:44 pm

Larry Sansom wrote:
dun wrote:Still haven't seen any negative comments on Glacier Nyack!

dun
Went to Angus .org and could not find him - got a Reg number?? or full registered name? data search showed no bulls.

He would be on the Red Angus site.
0 x
Hoff First Edition 058 242
___________________________

User avatar
Larry Sansom
Cowhand
Cowhand
Posts: 160
Joined: Tue Apr 13, 2004 9:27 pm
Location: Hartford KY
Contact:

Postby Larry Sansom » Wed Jun 09, 2004 6:46 pm

dun wrote:Stockman grassfarmer-

I got one of their free sample copies and found two glaring BS type errors. The one I remember claerly was about a guy that had line bred Herefords. He claimed that his bulls were so prepotent that when he bred them to registered black Angus the calves had horns. I don;t rememeber the the other one but it was just as inaccurate.
When I asked them about it they never responded. Don't believe everything you read in there.

dun
Yes Alan Nation CAN get a little far out sometime, especially when he lets Gerald Frye get off on some genetic area he has no idea about. But generally it is a good magazine, has done more for the profit of it's readers than a combination of all those glossy mags full of Companies selling me "Rot, Rust, and Depreciation.
For sure would not make a decision on the mag from 1 issue - Just think what people would think of THIS site with some of the questions and answers some people give. with just 1 visit.
0 x
Forage only Angus Cattle, bred for low input and high health benefits of grassfed beef.

wayneintexas
Beginner
Beginner
Posts: 7
Joined: Wed Mar 16, 2005 12:57 am
Location: california

Angus heifers

Postby wayneintexas » Mon Mar 21, 2005 2:37 am

I personally wouldn't run a bull on them, it is cheaper to AI, and you will get more genetic improvement using proven AI bulls than you could ever get using a $1000 bull you bought from the guy down the street. If I had straight-bred commercial angus heifers I would AI them to SS Traveler 6807 T510. You would get well bred calves, and with a 50 lb birth wt, you wouldn't have to worry about pulling any of them. In subsequent years, I would breed them to Rito 1I1. Those calves would do well in the feedlot. If you are one of those still stuck in 1950's, and insist on using a bull, the best place to purchase one is at a Bull Test Station. It doesn't matter who the sire of the bull is. What matters is, is his ADG ratio, so the calves will grow fast in the feedlot. You also want him to have a high IMF ratio and a low BF ratio so they will grade at least Choice, so you can get as much premium money as possible. The cow-calf segment of United States cattle industry is a break-even proposition, because of the large number of operators who do it as a hobby. But the feeding segment is controlled by educated people who are motivated to make a profit. The only problem is that the large feeders and packers have got the economy of scale so large that the profit has been driven down to say, $40 per head on fat cattle. So if you can get an extra $25 to $50 per head by meeting a few simple CAB requirements. then you have doubled your profit without having any increased costs. Some folks call that free money. It really isn't free money, it someone else's money. The packer is just giving it to you because you delivered what they asked for, and someone else didn't.
0 x

UG
Trail Boss
Trail Boss
Posts: 472
Joined: Sun Oct 03, 2004 7:17 pm

Random thoughts

Postby UG » Mon Mar 21, 2005 9:44 am

One thing we all need to be reminded of is that what works in one part of the country won't necessarily work in another part. As a matter of fact there is a tremendous amount of variability in grass, topography, weather, etc. even within most states. So, I don't think we can take any one producer's philosophy and necessarily make it work in our operation. For example, I enjoy reading the Pharo Cattle Company newsletter, but I'd go broke if I did everything that Mr. Pharo promotes. However, I have used some of his suggestions and benefited from it.

Larry, you have many good points. I agree that a cow needs to make a living on grass (and hay in the winter time for northern producers). I also agree that most cow/calf operations either make it or break it based on their feed bill.

However, I was alarmed by you comment about only being concerned with the cow/calf producer and not the feedlot. Our industry, like it or not, is becoming much more integrated. Each segment is going to have to work with the other segments (i.e. seedstock, cow/calf, backgrounder, feedlot, packer, retailer, consumer) in order that we all are successful. I know that there are producers out there that could care less whether or not the feedlots and/or the packer make money. Well, we need both of those segments to get our ultimate product (beef) to the consumer. If they aren't making money, either they are going to pay us less for the product or they're going out of business. Either way, the seedstock and cow/calf guys lose.

Larry, since you mentioned K.Pharo, I'll carry this a littel further. He does a great job of promoting his cattle as the ideal seedstock for the commercial cow/calf man (i.e. easy calving bulls and low maintenance females). However, Mr. Pharo rarely talks about how his cattle perform in the feedlot or how they hang on the rail. I have heard from two different sources in CO that there are feedlots and order buyers that will not buy Pharo influenced cattle. Apparently they don't grow well in the feedlot and/or they don't hang a very desirable carcass. So, today his customers may be thrilled with never pulling a calf and having a bunch of 1000 lb females that wean thick little teddy bear calves. But, eventually these Pharo customers may not be as happy with their Pharo cattle when they start getting discounted at the sale barn or when a buyer won't even come look at their cattle.
0 x

User avatar
jdg
Cowhand
Cowhand
Posts: 58
Joined: Wed Sep 30, 2009 3:42 pm
Location: south GA
Contact:

Re: Angus Maternal sires

Postby jdg » Sun Jun 11, 2017 2:31 pm

Boy, we got off and stayed off subject for a while here...albeit covering some good ground. It's easy to follow these rabbits though because they're good gristle to chew on. Yes, the cow-calf sector does need to consider the feedlot, especially if he can recover value from that consideration, through either retained ownership or a price premium. However, producers really need to understand how to use a terminal sire vs. a maternal. Sure, there are bulls out there that will do both, but typically not as good as a true T or M bull. But I believe most producers should have their environment create the right size cow, and then breed using a terminal bull, and sell all the calves. If you're large enough, have a nursery herd from your old proven cows that you either use son's off to breed back to them, or a very good maternal bull. In a perfect world, local replacement heifer programs using good maternal genetics would resupply herds with good cows that fit the environment, for those without the scale to produce their own. We should also be careful not to get hung up on weaning weights. Return on Investment is really what matters. Its easier to figure the former than the latter. But weaning weights don't put our kids through college. Pounds of beef per cow exposed is pretty important, but again, how much was your feed bill? All goes back to fertility, which is why the question was asked in the first place, what are the great maternal sires in the Angus breed? I agree with Dun...i bet quite a few are red. I suspect in the black angus world these programs would've contributed some of the great maternal bulls: Wye Angus, Pinebank Angus, Shoshone (goes back to Wye), Jorgensen, N Bar, Tim Ohlde, and Graham down here in GA. In the Red world, George Chiga, Roy Beeby, and Beckton to name a few. Most of these programs were breeders, concentrating genetics around good selection protocols and creating prepotency. Some of their great creations might have been outcrosses or outliers, but these programs weren't "Mulitpliers." I'm sure you guys could name many other programs as well, many that have worked off the success of these older programs.
I don't know many of these programs well enough to get too deep in the recommendations concerning individual bulls, but i will name a few, in no particular order:

Alap of Wye (stamps udders and slick coat...rarely produces bulls as good as him)
Pinebank 41/97 (new zealand blood, good blend of fertility and efficiency...usually produces VG+ sons and daughters)
OCC Homer (fleshing ease, udders, etc.)
Emulation 31 and/or N Bar Emulation EXT (proven over and again...known that a percentage of EXT progeny crazy)
Basin Rainmaker 654x
Big Elban of Graham (Oak Hollow in KY utilizing some of the better graham blood)
Shoshone Echo 1702 (linebred/inbred work of Larry Leonhardt)
Emulous Bob of K pride (an old bull i love to see scrolling back through a pedigree)

Red Angus (red breeders, please add to the list)

Choctaw Chief 373
Beckton Julian B571
Buffalo Creek T189 Nice and easy
(i have experience with this living bull, and i like him a lot for GA....not sure if he's in the same league as the top two)

So that was a long post, but i'm anxious to hear more responses to the question, because I'm interested in the topic.
0 x

User avatar
Son of Butch
GURU
GURU
Posts: 3911
Joined: Mon Aug 30, 2010 6:44 pm
Location: Frost Bite Falls, Minnesota

Re: Angus Maternal sires

Postby Son of Butch » Sun Jun 11, 2017 7:26 pm

jdg wrote:Boy, we got off and stayed off subject for a while here...
Return on Investment is really what matters....
Pounds of beef per cow exposed is pretty important, but again, how much was your feed bill?

Yes this Thread is 13 years old and few bothered to address the original poster's question on which bull to use
on angus heifers to produce replacements.

Octoraro Fabron 454 was being promoted in 2004 by his owner as the best bull since sliced bread and the 1 to use
current epd
ce 3 (bottom 75%) bw -.6 (top 20%) docility bottom 15%
ww yw scrotal cem $W $F $B all bottom 5%
$EN top 2%
So maybe Fabron was not all he was cracked up to be.

To the original poster IF you are still out there waiting, the correct answer to your question is SAV Final Answer 035
his 2003 calf crop was great and he's still the one to use again in 2004 - 2005 - 2006 ect
2017 current epds ce 12 top 15% bw top 10% sc 20% cem 20% doc 30% $EN 20% $W top 5%
I predict Final Answer will be remembered as a very good maternal sire... :)
You are welcome (13 years late)

p.s.
To all ya boys back in 2004 y'all would be shxttxn bricks if I told you your presidents from 2008-2017... you'd never guess
0 x

User avatar
jdg
Cowhand
Cowhand
Posts: 58
Joined: Wed Sep 30, 2009 3:42 pm
Location: south GA
Contact:

Re: Angus Maternal sires

Postby jdg » Mon Jun 12, 2017 6:23 am

I would offer SAV final Answer 035 would more likely be one of those bulls in the middle, that does both maternal and terminal....and good at it. I know more than one terminal breeder i've asked who is their best maternal bull, and they'd answer a son of Final Answer. I don't know of any breeders of "true" maternal bloodlines who use him. Chime in breeders if you're out there...i'm not the final answer here. ;)
A 6+ frame bull might be ideal for cold, good grass country...but not so good for a maternal program in hot, weak grass country. I don't want to get into a frame war, so i'll step out of that subject quickly. On my farm, ideal cow size is probably between a frame 4 and 5, with most efficient cows, for the most part, being the shorter ones.
I have seen, albeit a very small sample size, of Final Answer sons in both low energy, and high energy forage situations. They looked poor in the former, great in the latter. I believe the bull, like so many with some of his numbers, need a good bit of energy to reach those lofty number potentials. A good maternal bull one does not pick by most of his numbers, but by the great cows in his past and future pedigrees, and by that i mean reproductive longevity. How long did she last, and how many pounds did she wean as a percentage of her bodyweight, out there in the field doing it on her own. That's what pays the tuition.
I brought this whole discussion out of the past because i believe it is important, and also because i forgot to look at the date. Google will do that to you, durn it.
0 x

User avatar
Son of Butch
GURU
GURU
Posts: 3911
Joined: Mon Aug 30, 2010 6:44 pm
Location: Frost Bite Falls, Minnesota

Re: Angus Maternal sires

Postby Son of Butch » Mon Jun 12, 2017 7:02 am

jdg wrote:I would offer SAV final Answer 035 would more likely be one of those bulls in the middle, that does both maternal and terminal....and good at it. I don't know of any breeders of "true" maternal bloodlines who use him.
Chime in breeders if you're out there...i'm not the final answer here. ;)

So you're saying in 2004 Final Answer would have been the wrong answer?
Then which other calving ease 'heifer' bull readily available in 2003 - 2004 would be correct?
Please hurry as those heifers are getting a bit long of tooth.... if they still have any teeth!

Bismarck won't even be born until 2005... so he's out
or
Do you believe a bull to be used for "true" maternal traits has to be below average or bottom 5% terminal
like Fabron?

p.s.
jdg - your pulling up this 13 yr old thread made me realize how close to 2030 we are... it's right around the corner!
2030 had always seemed so unbelievably distant to me and yet 2004 seems like it was just the other day. :)
0 x

User avatar
jdg
Cowhand
Cowhand
Posts: 58
Joined: Wed Sep 30, 2009 3:42 pm
Location: south GA
Contact:

Re: Angus Maternal sires

Postby jdg » Mon Jun 12, 2017 6:57 pm

IMO..Maternal means fertility, longevity (i.e. Convenience), and efficiency (i.e. Forage based Weaning percentage. True maternal has nothing to do with terminal traits. I have no concern about those numbers....I want to know about a bulls mother, grandmothers, sire's daughters, family tree, and his daughters reproductive longevity. Where and under what protocols has the family tree flourished? These answers often require investigation, but are worth the effort. If fertility isn't pressured in a seedstock program, it's harder to find them.
0 x

User avatar
gizmom
GURU
GURU
Posts: 2456
Joined: Mon Oct 12, 2009 2:23 pm
Location: Molino Florida
Contact:

Re: Angus Maternal sires

Postby gizmom » Mon Jun 12, 2017 7:08 pm

We still have two cows working in the herd from 2004 one is a Pathfinder out of Boyd New Day 8005 the other is an EXT daughter. EXT and Boyd New Day were good in 2004 and still good today. We have a few straws of EXT left in the tank that will be used to flush. I am registering two New Day sired ET calves this week.

Gizmom
0 x
Respect give it to get it!

User avatar
jdg
Cowhand
Cowhand
Posts: 58
Joined: Wed Sep 30, 2009 3:42 pm
Location: south GA
Contact:

Re: Angus Maternal sires

Postby jdg » Mon Jun 12, 2017 7:51 pm

Lots of Wye behind that BND pedigree....
0 x

User avatar
gizmom
GURU
GURU
Posts: 2456
Joined: Mon Oct 12, 2009 2:23 pm
Location: Molino Florida
Contact:

Re: Angus Maternal sires

Postby gizmom » Mon Jun 12, 2017 8:02 pm

Jdg

Yes indeed and EXT on the dam side. Longevity makes the farm profitable and EXT, Wye and Graham genetics add that to the mix along with excellent udders and feet.

Gizmom
0 x
Respect give it to get it!

elkwc
Rancher
Rancher
Posts: 658
Joined: Mon Apr 28, 2014 10:21 pm

Re: Angus Maternal sires

Postby elkwc » Mon Jun 12, 2017 11:03 pm

Like I've stated before most of the breeders I talk too and most are considered small breeders want a bull that is good in both maternal and terminal traits. I only know of two breeders in this area who select for and use what is considered a terminal sire. And I know of a few who after the drought broke purchased a few heifers and a few like myself who purchased some to get back in the business. I know of a couple of others who decided rather than retaining heifers and calving them they would buy pairs. All have went back to retaining heifers. If you keep good books and count the culls and the price paid for these "top" either bred heifers or pairs it is cost effective to save your own at least in this area and you don't have near the culls. It might be different in other areas. Most of the heifer developers in this area bring in "Norhtern genetics" and many of them don't perform here. Most of the good local replacement heifers are either retained or sold to local ranchers who keep them. So using a straight terminal sire might work some places but not here.
0 x

Btlrupert
Beginner
Beginner
Posts: 5
Joined: Sun Jul 20, 2014 6:50 pm

Re: Angus Maternal sires

Postby Btlrupert » Fri Jun 16, 2017 9:26 pm

Look at Hoover Dam females. Extremely deep, thick and good udders. Nice disposition as well.
0 x


Return to “Breeds Board”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests