Multiple C Sections

[GenuineRisk]

@M-J-G one of the big AI companies for the past three years has been conducting a study with some major finishers, DNA testing those with BB on their passport (vast majority not being named, of course). This was based on weights going in to unit and exiting. In all, so far, nearly 5000 animals tested. Basically, a profit study linked to sire. So not only bulls on their Stud but all bulls with a DNA reference. The results were interesting to say the least, apparently as a few of their top bulls were at the bottom end of the graph but also a few were in the top...... This is still an ongoing project but they have enough data now to start making plans for those bulls in the top 20. So I think there will be slight shift in efficiency of Blues with regard to dlwg figures for sure.

Moving back to the sections issue, as @Kiwi Pete says, it’s not practical to compare say, our herd, with a big commercial herd up in Scotland. This is a pure pedigree breedimg stock herd - our prices for bulls and heifers would be more than a commercial xbred store etc. so while we don’t go looking for them, costs for a section here still leave a reasonable profit in the end product. Our all in price for a section is £350. Plus extremely decent coffee or hot chocolate and home made biscuits or cake at the end of each one....Pelvic size, cow management, the cow’s own ability to push a calf out (how many have seen those cows or heifers who just don’t put any effort into the job - especially dairies!), how big a calf is also down to the dam, as well as the sire too - all these are major factors too - not all about any one breed.

 

[CharcoalWally]

Surely 10% assisted calving is acceptable -

I assume you're being ironic ......?

 

[CharcoalWally]

Having cows that just spit out cheap calves is surely "being tight and lazy"??

Why are these calves "cheap?" What is it that makes them "cheap?"

 

[CharcoalWally]

Surely 10% assisted calving is acceptable - farmers will happily plough a tenth of their grass each year in order to put new grass in with no qualms, what is the difference?
Having cows that just spit out cheap calves is surely "being tight and lazy"?? just as having permanent grass can be "improved" with temporary grass - seems a shame not to spend some money whether it be the vet or the seedman?

Plus, while we're at it , where does this "tight and lazy " quote come from? Certainly not from me. I have never called you this, and I'm clarifying that as I do not want those who know me coming on here and thinking they are my words being quoted back at me.

They certainly are not.

 

[farmerclare]

Once again, animals suffer at the hands of human vanity.

Too true unfortunately

 

[Henarar]

Surely 10% assisted calving is acceptable - farmers will happily plough a tenth of their grass each year in order to put new grass in with no qualms, what is the difference?
Having cows that just spit out cheap calves is surely "being tight and lazy"?? just as having permanent grass can be "improved" with temporary grass - seems a shame not to spend some money whether it be the vet or the seedman?

What ? are they your friends or family Pete ?
best not to give either your money if it can be avoided and if you see no extra from it but if profit is what you are spending your money for then go ye ahead

 

[M-J-G]

@M-J-G one of the big AI companies for the past three years has been conducting a study with some major finishers, DNA testing those with BB on their passport (vast majority not being named, of course). This was based on weights going in to unit and exiting. In all, so far, nearly 5000 animals tested. Basically, a profit study linked to sire. So not only bulls on their Stud but all bulls with a DNA reference. The results were interesting to say the least, apparently as a few of their top bulls were at the bottom end of the graph but also a few were in the top...... This is still an ongoing project but they have enough data now to start making plans for those bulls in the top 20. So I think there will be slight shift in efficiency of Blues with regard to dlwg figures for sure.

Moving back to the sections issue, as @Kiwi Pete says, it’s not practical to compare say, our herd, with a big commercial herd up in Scotland. This is a pure pedigree breedimg stock herd - our prices for bulls and heifers would be more than a commercial xbred store etc. so while we don’t go looking for them, costs for a section here still leave a reasonable profit in the end product. Our all in price for a section is £350. Plus extremely decent coffee or hot chocolate and home made biscuits or cake at the end of each one....Pelvic size, cow management, the cow’s own ability to push a calf out (how many have seen those cows or heifers who just don’t put any effort into the job - especially dairies!), how big a calf is also down to the dam, as well as the sire too - all these are major factors too - not all about any one breed.

I can only assume that growth isn't that important to the breed. Given that they are pretty much all used for crossing Holstein cows and that the Holstein certainly brings the growth to the party.

 

[Blaithin]

This is an interesting post @Blaithin . Do farmers all over the world buy on colour?

Is it rooted in some indicator of a commercial working or is it purely some form of a personal preference?

No country would have been more in thrall of a preference for a black hide on a beast than we were here in Scotland in the 50's and 60's . If it was black that was as far as we looked.

Commercial reality and financial starvation of the family farm changed all that in the 70's and suddenly Scots were buying white cattle, red cattle, yellow cattle. Sudden economics mattered rather than the black skin, and it stayed that way until the inception of the Native Breed Premium Schemes in the 90's to prop up the once mighty black cattle and save them from extinction.

Farmers favouring cash over colour? Who'd have thought it ???

For the most part, Farmer's do what makes them money. Some will branch out and try something different, but if they're not particular and just want to run a good commercial herd, why not take the path of least resistance and provide what the market wants.

Most of North America's love of black cattle is traced back and rooted with the Black Angus breed. The organization was so successful at their marketing that even consumers who know nothing about cows know they want AAA steaks from Black Angus. In recent years the black is getting dropped a bit more and the stores just say AAA Angus beef. I was actually going to take a photo at the store the other day and didn't, now I'm kicking myself, because that's exactly what it says on top of the beef section at there. AAA Angus Beef. Not for a minute do I even believe, even if there was enough Angus to supply only Angus sections (Not to mention there's no "Other Breeds" meat section), that the slaughter houses are breed identifying and putting in the work to separate and separately slaughter just the Angus. They all end up hanging together and all end up looking the exact same. It's just a marketing plan that's been exponentially successful. Go to restaurants, they serve Angus beef. Go to McDonald's, it's Canadian Angus. I don't know that many Angus producers..... Angus x yes, full Angus, no. Nor was there that many more Angus in relation to other breeds at the feedlot or go through the auction. It's a mythical fantasy that all beef you eat here is Angus.

But what happened on the heels of this demand for Black Angus? Breeds went black.

Black Limo. Black Gelbvieh. Black Simmental. Black Hereford.

All now come in solid black or bwf as well as their original colours. And it can probably safely be said that all, except maybe Hereford, are more popular as blacks. For sure Simmentals are. Gelbvieh may still be more common as red's because they cross with a lot of the red breeds and Chars.

Almost without a doubt I'd say the most popular commercial cross in this area are SimAngus cattle. Whether the farmers have pure Black Angus cows and are covering with black Simmental bulls or they just have a hodgepodge of commercial mixed black Angus type cattle and are covering with Sim bulls.

Do the blacks perform at the feedlot's better? Who's to say if there's been a study done on that. I know I PM'd black animals. I don't know if the amount I PM'd vs the amount that were there was much less than the numbers of other colours vs the amount of live. Did they all seem to finish faster and be in the first groups out? No, there were black animals in every sorted size group. Did they have better conversion? Maybe.

My theory on why blacks are so popular and tend to bring higher prices at the auction? Uniformity.

In a group of red cattle you can more easily tell individual animals. It's easier to see differences on their faces and shapes. There's different shades of red, etc. In comparison a group of black cattle run through an auction will look very uniform. All black, all hard to distinguish between one another. They blend in together so it's harder to get a gauge on if one's got a funky shape thing going on. A nice, uniform pen of animals will sell better than a pen with an odd animal or two out. Black accomplishes this better than any other colour.

 

[MRT]

Are there any increased risks or difficulties for a cow having multiple c sections?
Yes
C’s really aren’t put up with here but with the numbers I’ve seen from BB calvings Id think someone over there may have experience with cows requiring c sections for more than one birth.
It happens, in practice the third is difficult so why do it, cull after two
My thought was there may be scar tissue in the way.

Yes it makes seeing what you are doing harder, sticks things together that should not be together, makes getting local in harder, stitching up harder, healing slower, general risk increase

 

[Lovegoodstock]

1 or 2 per 100 cows? ???

My friend, you're a lightweight.
I know of several people that are having considerably more than 1 or 2 per their 100 cows in pursuit of these "top end showy types."
Im talking about a friend not me, gone 18 months since last c section, but despite your sarcasm, 1/2 c sections per 100 with a loss rate of 2% with cows all getting in calf bar ones pulled out for culling is more than acceptable surely? Maybe no in your eyes? I think the national average of still born calves is 5% I seem to remember seeing? That in my eyes is disgusting, to achieve 5% there will be an odd still born for whatever reason but I would imagine the large majority of those 5 % will be down to a mispresented calf , a leg back, a breached calf, an odd random bigger than normal calf, well not guaranteed but I would imagine the bulk of these are in herds that are not seen between 10pm and 6 am, where as, again not guaranteed, but the herds that produce the high price calves and generally seen as they will calve, using basic stockmanship skills, getting up on the hour they will calve. As of the last 2 years, in my case 95% ok on their own, but I am there on those odd few that need assistance, I may be wrong but still rather be a cow in this case than a cow where 95% ok so the random 5 % have to take their chances in the night hours as the others ok, and using a easy calving bull in most cases. 2000 plus calves are minority, but an average of over 1150 at 7months last back end makes the job hugely profitable, as it should be, the money is there at the moment, if you are not making good money at the minute you may as well get out

Once again, animals suffer at the hands of human vanity.

And there's not very many that ever make £2000.

 

[M-J-G]

Surely 10% assisted calving is acceptable - farmers will happily plough a tenth of their grass each year in order to put new grass in with no qualms, what is the difference?
Having cows that just spit out cheap calves is surely "being tight and lazy"?? just as having permanent grass can be "improved" with temporary grass - seems a shame not to spend some money whether it be the vet or the seedman?

I struggle to see why so many feel a need to plough grassland in order to introduce seed, I had assumed many had moved on from that these days. But that was covered on another thread.

I'm not certain that rejuvenating 10% of grass swards is comparable to assisting 10% of calving females.

I would have considered introducing new plants to 10% of the farm per annum to be more comparable in practice to the likes of say, replacing 10% of a herd's old less productive genetics with more capable ones.

But everyone has their own idea of what is analogous.

 

[juke]

Is it not time to draw this thread to a close , we all know putting an animal in a position where it can't calve naturally to our best guess is wrong, breeds that choose to have a c section as part of the norm aren't sustainable or humane in my opinion, I won't lie we have had to do a C-section this year calf coming backwards both legs back couldn't get ropes on wasn't down to calf size or anything like that just unfortunate it happens to everyone at some stage, yes that cow will run again with the bull shes had 4 calves previous all come out the way nature intennded .

it's an emergency procedure to commit to a c section n should stay that way.

 

[CharcoalWally]

@Lovegoodstock - sarcastic? Who's being sarcastic?

Do you think there are many herds not seeing calving cows between 10pm and 6am ?

Just as , do you think that only "hobby farmers," whatever they are , use a course of Metacam???

To clarify , since you seem to need to know , I do not find C sections which are brought about by farmer's breeding choices acceptable. If you want to bring into the world an oversized musclebound monster who has to be pulled through a pelvic cavity the size of a tangerine from his musclebound mother which results in a C section , then that is a repellent way to keep cattle to me. Any such sections are a failure to me. However , we all set different parameters.

To further clarify , yes I know you weren't talking about yourself - I wasn't having a go at you personally , I was posting in general terms. As I usually am on this subject. This is a forum for debate , and successful forums rely on posters with strong fixed opinions on certain subjects , which is where we come in.....

 

[Lovegoodstock]

@Lovegoodstock - sarcastic? Who's being sarcastic?

Do you think there are many herds not seeing calving cows between 10pm and 6am ?

Just as , do you think that only "hobby farmers," whatever they are , use a course of Metacam???

To clarify , since you seem to need to know , I do not find C sections which are brought about by farmer's breeding choices acceptable. If you want to bring into the world an oversized musclebound monster who has to be pulled through a pelvic cavity the size of a tangerine from his musclebound mother which results in a C section , then that is a repellent way to keep cattle to me. Any such sections are a failure to me. However , we all set different parameters.

To further clarify , yes I know you weren't talking about yourself - I wasn't having a go at you personally , I was posting in general terms. As I usually am on this subject. This is a forum for debate , and successful forums rely on posters with strong fixed opinions on certain subjects , which is where we come in.....

Again most points I agree with you on, no qualms with use of metacam, when needed it is a drug that should be used regardless of cost, my issue and point was, that I obviously didn't make clear, was its too frequent usage down to stock neglect, then used as a must in aftercare, rather than care and attention of stock initially would have avoided this. Worryingly I do believe and know there is more than an odd herd that are not viewed between the afore mentioned hours, well in fact ignore my local experience, there has been a few posts in last year about calving assistance or bulls calving ease where more than a few members have said they have little problems so look at bedtime and then in morning, that to me is a concern. I don't believe we have all together different parameters, Im fully with you of trying a muscle bound monster of a bull on a like wise dam with a pelvis the size of an orange, yet I have some not overly shapey pure blonde cows, odd one would grade u- as a cull but most r. I could put a walrus or a killer whale and they would calve them, and be up and suckling and cow fine. As posted my worst experience was about 8 years back using a piemontese bull on friesan heifers, where I stumbled across a line of horrific narrow pelvic sized heifers. 30 kilo calves were being cut out as often as they were calved. If I kept them for breeding, and used an extreme bull, that is neglect, morally wrong, and farming has gone too far down the wrong route. Yet as most suckler herds without sub are losing money, most are clearly doing something horribly wrong? Breeding a calf that potentially increases the sale value due to its demand in the store ring, with its dam keeping cost the same as the next dam, not dramatically increasing cull rates or calving index is surely a viable venture. Im passionate about the work into the dam as much, well more than the bull. I have reduced calving hassle from 6 years ago dramatically, will still attend every birth, as always have done, always will as that odd breached one or whatever id hate myself if I was lazily laid in bed when it occurred. But I really have no qualms with a muscled bull, used on a cow with capabilities to spit it out stood up whilst still eating hay from the rack, agree muscled bulls on wrong cows are a recipe for disaster and poor treatment of stock that look after us, but equally so is a bull with a top ebv for calving ease on a load of cows that are mud fat and poorly utilising their calcium levels and soon give up their contactions, and have as you said a pelvis the size of your fist.

 

[M-J-G]

Again most points I agree with you on, no qualms with use of metacam, when needed it is a drug that should be used regardless of cost, my issue and point was, that I obviously didn't make clear, was its too frequent usage down to stock neglect, then used as a must in aftercare, rather than care and attention of stock initially would have avoided this. Worryingly I do believe and know there is more than an odd herd that are not viewed between the afore mentioned hours, well in fact ignore my local experience, there has been a few posts in last year about calving assistance or bulls calving ease where more than a few members have said they have little problems so look at bedtime and then in morning, that to me is a concern. I don't believe we have all together different parameters, Im fully with you of trying a muscle bound monster of a bull on a like wise dam with a pelvis the size of an orange, yet I have some not overly shapey pure blonde cows, odd one would grade u- as a cull but most r. I could put a walrus or a killer whale and they would calve them, and be up and suckling and cow fine. As posted my worst experience was about 8 years back using a piemontese bull on friesan heifers, where I stumbled across a line of horrific narrow pelvic sized heifers. 30 kilo calves were being cut out as often as they were calved. If I kept them for breeding, and used an extreme bull, that is neglect, morally wrong, and farming has gone too far down the wrong route. Yet as most suckler herds without sub are losing money, most are clearly doing something horribly wrong? Breeding a calf that potentially increases the sale value due to its demand in the store ring, with its dam keeping cost the same as the next dam, not dramatically increasing cull rates or calving index is surely a viable venture. Im passionate about the work into the dam as much, well more than the bull. I have reduced calving hassle from 6 years ago dramatically, will still attend every birth, as always have done, always will as that odd breached one or whatever id hate myself if I was lazily laid in bed when it occurred. But I really have no qualms with a muscled bull, used on a cow with capabilities to spit it out stood up whilst still eating hay from the rack, agree muscled bulls on wrong cows are a recipe for disaster and poor treatment of stock that look after us, but equally so is a bull with a top ebv for calving ease on a load of cows that are mud fat and poorly utilising their calcium levels and soon give up their contactions, and have as you said a pelvis the size of your fist.

I get your idea, but I shed that need to sit with cows some time ago, and I have never found it to be detrimental to performance, in fact numbers have stacked up better in more recent years than the did in the past.
In reality if a cow isn't slack by midnight a calf won't be dead by 5, unless it was going to be dead anyway.

Why do you think so many of your cows calve at night?

 

[Lovegoodstock]

I don't think that many calve do calve at night. 20%? I run 250 cows plus heifers so yes a fair few nights but in terms of % I don't think its that high is it? Not entirely sure what you mean by slack by midnight it wont be dead by 5, I just go on the ligaments by tail head where you can pin point when they are ready to calve to within 20/30 minutes. Saves a lot of guess work and sleep, its each to their own, I often get a migraine if I sleep for more than 4/5 hours, so I get up in the night anyway and read, much prefer to go and look at a new calf instead to be honest

 

[GenuineRisk]

I can see both sides of this one! That said, I’m with @Lovegoodstock on this but we’re both clearly OCD

Seriously, the reason I am with him is not just because of section risks but also because one of the most gutting and common causes of calf death at birth is where the sac doesn’t break and the calf suffocates. Happened to a good friend of mine last year - bought in an in calf Devon heifer for his daughter to have some fun with (he is also a Blue breeder), she was in calving pen, started to get on with it, he was busy in the other side of the yard on a building project, came back to check, calf on deck, dead because sac hadn’t broken and heifer wasn’t quick enough up or was too shell shocked to start licking calf directly. He was fuming, so cross with himself, like we all would be. So yep, I make sure all ours come into the calving pens a few days before if they are looking close to calving, ie uddered up, slack behind etc. Dead calves happen in spite of the best of management systems, of course but it’s the preventable ones that get to me. Sort of a ‘not on my watch’ attitude! Comes from foaling mares in my case - you watch because you don’t have time to sort corrections if there is dystochia, unlike cows.

 

[M-J-G]

@Lovegoodstock, 20% is quite a lot, I would find it very rare for a cow to calve between 12 and 5am if they are fed at tea time and left in the dark. Most years sees 2 or 3 out of 120.

I'd give a check on the phone if I expected that rare something to calve. I don't have an issue with leaving a quiet shed at midnight and seeing them again at 5 or half past if I'm not expecting a calf.

@GenuineRisk I have found that working with a fit herd of cows that it's rare for a cow not to be straight to her feet and start licking a calf's head.
Older slower cows with poor locomotion or cows that are tired due to a longer calving tend to be the ones that lay on after calving, or stand up and start licking a calf's arse because it's the first bit they come to.

Fresh active cows giving birth easily to sensible sized calves with plenty of vigour are very unlikely to have bother with a sac staying on a calf until it dies.
Outwintered cows tend to have an advantage there, as they tend to be a lot fitter than those who are not walking around as much due to being in sheds.

Each has their own way or working and I too am a not on my watch type (as anyone who knows me will vouch for) I do however prefer to adapt and craft the system to as close to what suits me and allow me to balance workloads as much as possible.

 

[Henarar]

But I really have no qualms with a muscled bull, used on a cow with capabilities to spit it out stood up whilst still eating hay from the rack, agree muscled bulls on wrong cows are a recipe for disaster and poor treatment of stock that look after us,

I am not so sure that a more muscled bull necessarily increases calving problems at all, it depends on the bull and what you are comparing him to, the wrong bull on the wrong cows may be a recipe for disaster but I don't think that the more muscled bull will always be the wrong choice when it comes to calving

 

[unlacedgecko]

Great discussion.

From the outside looking in, the requirement to tag and register within 7 days seems very onnerous and contributed to the high labour cost of cattle. It also seems to raise the risk to stockmen.

Do the posters feel there is any benefit from this?