Posted on February 12, 2009 - by Russell

Letter of Concern

Introduction: When I read this letter, which was written in 2003 by Dr. Joe Knowles, I thought it was worth sharing with our readers. This letter was written with the request that it be read to the 2003 TLBAA Board of Directors. However it was not read to the TLBAA Board, due to past management until the recent 2009 Board Meeting at which time a copy was given to each director and it was order that it be add to the minutes of the meeting as printed. After reading this letter in the TLBAA minutes I feel it may be even more relevant today, six years after it was originally drafted.

Dos Rios Ranch

HCR 60 Box 6, Springer, N.M. 87747

January 31, 2003

     After receiving a request from Doris and Charlie Snyder for input for future direction of the T.L.B.A.A. I have the following comments for your consideration.

     Dr. Stewart Fowler, at the time consultant to the T.L.B.A.A. and 25 years ago, stated that the Texas Longhorn was a “genetic goldmine”. He also stated that for any beef breed of cattle to be successful over an extended period of time it had to possess a unique trait or traits that would enable the commercial cowman to more efficiently produce beef. Dr Bonzma an internationally recognized breed development expert states that single trait selection for a desirable trait also produces an undesirable trait or traits.

     With the above basic breeding principles in mind, I suggest that the powers that be in the T.L.B.A.A. consider the following items in questioning the wisdom of the “tape measure philosophy” that the T.L.B.A.A. leadership and a lot of the membership have promoted for the last 25 years.

     Twenty five years ago, the Texas Longhorn (genetic goldmine) that nature had produced through basic environmental and survival of the fittest selection for 500 years, weighed around 800 to 850 pounds and had a horn of 3 feet plus or minus a few inches. The horn was curved and in a shape to be an effective weapon (a straight flat horn makes more inches on the tape measurement but is not an effective weapon as nature intended). She was fertile, had a calf unassisted probably at or before 24 months, had genetic disease resistance, conceived and did a good job of raising a calf up into the late teens and sometimes older. I have had several cows 23 years old that had just weaned a calf and had the dentition of a 10 year old Angus or Hereford cow. They were hustling well doing cows that could make it in unfavorable environmental conditions.

     Mans attempts at improving the traits of other breeds has been frequented by many a “wreck” and then attempts at correction of the “improvement”. Examples are; bigger is better, faster growth is better, taller is better, shorter is better, blockyer is better, bigger frame score, smaller frame score, back straight as a string ,low tail head ,not cut high in the flank. Selecting for these traits to improve the breed, especially single trait selection (Dr. Bonzma) has resulted in bigger birth weights (growth rate in part is determined by genetic trait at conception not at birth) hence you get dystopia. Selecting for more muscle in a female alters the estrogen -testosterone balance and effects fertility and milk production. About in the 50’s it became popular in the Herford breed to have big muscular cattle. This type won the shows and brought the highest price in the sales. The cows’ were sure big, muscular and pretty, but they would not give enough milk to raise a calf. The seed stock breeders concluded that the answer to this problem was to get nurse cows which a lot of them did. These nurse cow fed calves looked mighty good at weaning and when fed well brought premium prices when sold as bulls. Everything went well until the man who bought the bull saved some heifers out of him that had low fertility and poor milk production. Rapid growth and bigger frame scores and they produced post legged animals that had stifle problems, angkle problems, and poor locomotion. Shorter and blockyer selection resulted in “dwarfing out” both Angus and Herford. Selecting for backs as straight as a string and low tail won lots of shows and brought premium prices but resulted in flattened pelvises with resultant dystopia. Nature’s selection produced quadrupeds with sway backs and higher at the hips than at the withers. Deer, antelope ,elk, cheetah, longhorns are examples of this confirmation and they seem to get around pretty good and the “weak back” as man calls it doesn’t seem to be a problem. I didn’t say it was pretty or pleasing to my eye.

     Man in all his wisdom has “improved” the Texas Longhorn (there are other longhorn breeds) to where the cows have 5 or 6 feet horns (straight and lateral growth to increase tape measurement is better), some weigh 1200 lbs and have a bigger frame score. The bulls weight 2000 lbs or more and have a lot more muscle and frame score. This is man’s idea of the traits of a Texas Longhorn and a far cry from the balanced cow that nature evolved over a 500 year period. What has happened in just 25 years to the “genetic goldmine’ in changing these traits? Has following the “tape measure philosophy” altered the other unique traits of the Texas Longhorn? If you apply natures rules for rate of growth, longevity, fertility (Bonsma says the bigger the bovine the lower the fertility), characteristics of skeleton, muscle development hormone balance, you get a good estimation of what is occurring. A lot of mistakes made by the other breeds has been selecting for the extremes and then “improving “in the other direction. These mistakes by other breeds have been encouraged by the shows, sales and price premiums for the extremes. Fads and novelties don’t last too long. Remember chinchillas, emus, llamas, pot bellied pigs, miniature horses, etc.

     I think some of the questions that the powers that be in the T.L.B.A.A should be asking themselves and membership that are knowledgeable in breed development are; opinions on the above items, how many breeders of 20 year s ago are still breeders and still active in T.L.B.A.A. activities, what % of the breeders are making a profit,how many is it important that they do so, is 99%of promotion directed toward 1% of the cattle, how much of the change in traits was brought about by infusion of genes from other breeds, how much effort has been expended on maintaining purity (in constitution), what happened to the studies done by Texas A and M. on feeding Longhorns and what efforts have been made to use this information in promoting commercial cattlemen into using Longhorn genetics, Texas A and M. “s Ranch to Rail program says that a calf that has had all his immunizations is worth 16 cent more per lb due to his disease resistance, what is the genetic disease resistance in a Longhorn worth and has this information been transmitted to commercial cattleman, would more energy and resources directed toward commercial cattleman in using Longhorn genetics be beneficial to the 99% of the cattle and membership, how much space in the Trails is devoted to the “tape measure mode” and how much is devoted to those without cows with 5 foot horns and other problems in selling the other 99%.I realize that practically all your income comes from advertisers that have the 5 foot horn.

     In my opinion the long term success of the Texas Longhorn breed should be utilization of their unique traits as shaped by 500 years of natures selection and not of fads, extremes, and novelty.

     We almost lost the Texas Longhorn the early part of the last century. My hope is that we don’t lose to men’s folly in this century.

Joe Knowles