Long time viewer first time poster.
Nov 17, 2014 15:59:19 GMT -5
kansasdexters and RedRidge like this
Post by J & M Chambers on Nov 17, 2014 15:59:19 GMT -5
Carol, I am sure you are correct. For those reasons I believe on a much larger scale the Plains and the Midwest have for better or worse been the location for "finishing" the nation's beef.
Dexterlady, we just happen to be using a 14% ration now as that is also what we use in our back grounding program for weaned calves. This is another topic but the backgrounding for a period of time after weaning is in my mind one of the most significant periods in not only producing excellent beef steers but also allowing breeding stock to reach their full genetic potential. We have use a 12% in our finishing ration as well and I don't know that in the finishing stages the protein content is AS important the energy % of the finishing feed. Protein is going to help build muscle but in the finishing period most of that should be done and you are just "Finishing" which in our case means putting a little more marbling around and through the muscle. Corn is starch and that translates into energy. Unused energy is going to go into finish, e.g. marbling - fat. I'm not sure how a grain finish model like we use translates to the range as we lot our steers during the finishing period. They are not burning off much if any of the excess energy we are providing so it is going into the final product. Also why we like to finish before the depths of winter here in the upper plains (although this year that has caught us early), so they are not needing a lot of energy just to maintain heat. I hear cubes referenced a lot but I'm not sure everyone, everywhere is using them in the same manner. Our feed is a pelletized all natural product and we have used various kinds and brands but they usually have about 2.5% fat content along with the protein. As the animal finishes our % of 'pellet' to corn inverts. We start with about 72/25% and by the end we are 25/75% protein portion to corn portion. In my way of thinking you do not want to finish her on 18 acres - way to much room to roam and burn off energy but with an aged cow you are just going to burger her correct?
Hollydzie, I am not picking on you at all but just a point of order I've always tried to point out when I can regarding our breed and dual purpose cattle:
A dual purpose breed is not a breed in which some portion of the animals are dairy and another portion are beef. At best that condition describes a breed that is not much of either. A dual purpose breed is one such that an animal can serve as a functional and productive milk cow while also producing calves that maybe finished efficiently and productively to the terminal product beef. Breeding animals that do not produce such should not be retained as breeding stock. Therefore, I do not like Dexters that do not meet this criteria being described as 'traditional'. I think more appropriately the animal you described should be labeled as "not a very good Dexter" rather than a traditional Dexter. It may well be the case it is a traditional Dexter that should also be accompanied by my additional labeling.
I do agree that not all dexters are created equal but the dual purpose dexter is not an either or proposition. The converse proposition must also hold as you mention "known for beefiness". This side is most often ignored as the terminal beef product is the more tangible and perhaps more frequently sought end. But an animal that produces offspring that make an outstanding beef carcass but can not do so while functioning as and producing efficient and economical cattle that fulfill the dairy role are in my mind also not good representatives of our breed.
Animals that produce offspring that are efficiently finished to beef carcass while fulfilling and producing animals that fulfill a dairy production role of at a specified level defines a dual purpose cattle breed. Orders of magnitude more difficult than breeding a dairy breed or a beef breed and if you listen to the experts not worth the effort. On a wide commercial level I suppose I can see the experts point but for smaller farmers, homesteaders, acreage owners a dual purpose cow is perfect.
Ramble (rant?) mode off...
Jeff
Dexterlady, we just happen to be using a 14% ration now as that is also what we use in our back grounding program for weaned calves. This is another topic but the backgrounding for a period of time after weaning is in my mind one of the most significant periods in not only producing excellent beef steers but also allowing breeding stock to reach their full genetic potential. We have use a 12% in our finishing ration as well and I don't know that in the finishing stages the protein content is AS important the energy % of the finishing feed. Protein is going to help build muscle but in the finishing period most of that should be done and you are just "Finishing" which in our case means putting a little more marbling around and through the muscle. Corn is starch and that translates into energy. Unused energy is going to go into finish, e.g. marbling - fat. I'm not sure how a grain finish model like we use translates to the range as we lot our steers during the finishing period. They are not burning off much if any of the excess energy we are providing so it is going into the final product. Also why we like to finish before the depths of winter here in the upper plains (although this year that has caught us early), so they are not needing a lot of energy just to maintain heat. I hear cubes referenced a lot but I'm not sure everyone, everywhere is using them in the same manner. Our feed is a pelletized all natural product and we have used various kinds and brands but they usually have about 2.5% fat content along with the protein. As the animal finishes our % of 'pellet' to corn inverts. We start with about 72/25% and by the end we are 25/75% protein portion to corn portion. In my way of thinking you do not want to finish her on 18 acres - way to much room to roam and burn off energy but with an aged cow you are just going to burger her correct?
Hollydzie, I am not picking on you at all but just a point of order I've always tried to point out when I can regarding our breed and dual purpose cattle:
"One point I would like to make is that Dexters are not all created equal. This steer was out of a "traditional" Dexter she was slight built and very hard to keep weight on, what some would call a more dairy type. She passed this genetic fault on to her calf. We have since gotten rid of this "type" of Dexter and are purchasing animals known for their beefiness. Their is a wide rage of Dexters out there and I think that plays a huge part in how quick and how well your animal will finish... JMO"
A dual purpose breed is not a breed in which some portion of the animals are dairy and another portion are beef. At best that condition describes a breed that is not much of either. A dual purpose breed is one such that an animal can serve as a functional and productive milk cow while also producing calves that maybe finished efficiently and productively to the terminal product beef. Breeding animals that do not produce such should not be retained as breeding stock. Therefore, I do not like Dexters that do not meet this criteria being described as 'traditional'. I think more appropriately the animal you described should be labeled as "not a very good Dexter" rather than a traditional Dexter. It may well be the case it is a traditional Dexter that should also be accompanied by my additional labeling.
I do agree that not all dexters are created equal but the dual purpose dexter is not an either or proposition. The converse proposition must also hold as you mention "known for beefiness". This side is most often ignored as the terminal beef product is the more tangible and perhaps more frequently sought end. But an animal that produces offspring that make an outstanding beef carcass but can not do so while functioning as and producing efficient and economical cattle that fulfill the dairy role are in my mind also not good representatives of our breed.
Animals that produce offspring that are efficiently finished to beef carcass while fulfilling and producing animals that fulfill a dairy production role of at a specified level defines a dual purpose cattle breed. Orders of magnitude more difficult than breeding a dairy breed or a beef breed and if you listen to the experts not worth the effort. On a wide commercial level I suppose I can see the experts point but for smaller farmers, homesteaders, acreage owners a dual purpose cow is perfect.
Ramble (rant?) mode off...
Jeff