Talk:Aberdeen Angus

Opening comments

The entries for other breeds such as Holstein include average sizes. That would be useful here too.

Are Red Angus not the product of a recessive gene carried by the Black Angus?

Red Angus cattle are indeed from a recessive gene, however, they remain two completely different breeds of cattle. Have a look on the Red Angus page- i put a section on genetics there a while ago, this pretty much says more about the genetics of the cows. CattleGirl 08:00, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

What are some uses for Black Angus cattle? -- Anonymous

Main use is for meat. Although you can milk them, milk production is okay but isn't exceptional -- Derek Ross | Talk 00:35, 2005 Jan 6 (UTC)

You can milk any cow, it's just that milking breeds such as Holsteins and Jersey are the most common source of milk for human consumption. Dukemeiser 04:26, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Angus do have high milk production compared to other 'beef' cattle. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.68.245.39 (talk • contribs) .

Since you asked... some of the many uses for Black Angus cattle:

• meat
• leather
• pull a plow
• create fertilizer

• fur
• bone buttons
• intestines as thread for sutures, violin strings, and tennis racquet strings
• blood pudding

AlbertCahalan 04:02, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

Is any of this relevant to the article? Dukemeiser 04:26, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Meat

The article states Angus beef is marbled meat, which according to that article is bad and fatty; then towards the end of the Angus article it says the meat is considered lean. Which is it?

eae 02:26, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Excellent question. The marbled meat article is flat-out deficient. Marbling, when it comes to steak, is generally considered to be "a good thing" (especially in the corn-fed US beef system). It is referring to the whitish color mixed in amongst the meat. Wagyu are renowned for their marbling characteristics, and are probably the extreme example with regards to marbling in beef. This site discusses marbling with regards to angus beef specifically. Marbling inside the lean meat can taste good, marbling in the steak cuts is also important, and angus cattle have an excellent lean meat percentage yield (as compared to some other breeds). I'd love to improve that marbling article, but the article I cited for this discussion is obviously more than a little biased on the subject. --Steelviper 17:10, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Are you a beef grower, or a surgeon trying to drum up business? :-) The only thing good about Wagyu is that the fat is a bit less saturated than most. It would be much better if we all ate grass-fed bison or beefalo. AlbertCahalan 05:47, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Lean is relative: it could be worse! Just remember that the USDA beef grading system is backwards. It was designed back when we had little understanding of heart disease. Back then, most people needed the calories too. Probably it was more common to have very bad teeth, so a softer food would be good. AlbertCahalan 05:47, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

The grading system has nothing to do with health, it's about the taste of the meat. However, this article really isn't the place to discuss the health impacts of beef. Jeff Schroeder (talk · contribs)

(Note: sign talk pages with four tilde characters in a row, like this: ~~~~) Well in that case, it is still backwards. Who wants a greasy piece of meat? OK, maybe you do, but that's truly disgusting stuff to eat. I like meat, but I'd rather go vegan than eat some of the meat-flavored fat that passes for "meat". AlbertCahalan 03:55, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Not to sound rude, but what's your experience in beef production? I see you bashing fat in meat because of your personal tastes but industry wide, fat/marbling is a positive, not a negative. It's not a personal preference of mine, it's one of the cornerstones of running a successful feedlot and marketing beef. Packers pay more for beef that is properly finished (the right amount of fat) because that's what consumers demand. However, I'm not sure what this has to do with Angus cattle. Wouldn't it be more appropriate for you to take this to an article on marbling or the USDA grading system? Jeff Schroeder 04:41, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

I can well believe that increased fat is a positive for the industry. It probably requires less animal feed per pound to produce, and it certainly requires less space. Consumers demand what is advertized, no matter if the fat content is high or low. I suspect that a typical shopper buys Angus Certified, not realizing what it means, but chooses the leanest piece available. (as for appropriateness, well, eae raised the issue here) AlbertCahalan 03:34, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Packers spend quite a bit by finishing cattle to the right amount of fat. If it weren't for the fact that consumers demand marbling in their meat, it would make more sense to just leave cattle on grass. The grading system we have was designed to objectively grade beef based on what consumers demand. The grading system was in place a long time before the CAB program existed and Angus were known for providing increased marbling LONG before CAB. In fact, there has actually been an increase in demand for lean beef during the time of the CAB program. May I ask what your experience is in beef production/marketing?Jeff Schroeder 19:54, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Actually, the last few days of finishing cattle are usually a waste because the only weight that is added is back fat, which is the enemy of the industry. Intramuscular fat is made well before the final finish. Back fat is what must be trimmed, and is considered a loss by packers because they paid for the animal by weight, and the more muscle, the more profit they can get from one animal. If finishers would stop a few weeks earlier, they'd save a lot of that back fat. But if you're selling by weight, and not by yield grade, then putting that extra fat on is profitable for the producer, because he'll get more whether the animal is all muscle or all fat. MY experience in beef production comes from working on farm with 500 head of Angus cattle. Dukemeiser 04:35, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Lean vs Fat vs Marbled

The correct term for what Angus beef provides is marbling. Somebody with an axe to grind might call that bad but it's a key factor in the popularity of the Angus breed. Please keep commentary on the health impact of marbling out of this article, it has no place here.

Relative to other breeds, Angus cattle do not produce lean beef. They provide a genetic source of better marbling. Jeff Schroeder (talk · contribs)

"better" is certainly POV. I'd call it "worse". NPOV might be "more" or "greater". AlbertCahalan 03:55, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

No, it's "better marbling", how is that POV? The Angus breed has genes that promote better marbling, period. I'm not saying that marbling is better in terms of your personal taste but Angus do provide better marbling than other breeds. You seem to be on some kind of anti-fat kick. I certainly understand that even if I don't agree with it but why do you insist on bringing it into this article? Shouldn't you target the marbling article instead? Jeff Schroeder (talk · contribs)

It's POV, and kind of confusing, because you assume that "better marbling" and "increased marbling" are the same thing. Compare: Spending more time in the sun will give you a better sunburn? Well, yeah, if a major sunburn is your goal. For the rest of us, spending more time in the sun will give you a worse sunburn. NPOV: Spending more time in the sun will increase your sunburn. AlbertCahalan 03:40, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

First, your straw man argument about sun burns does nothing to help the conversation. Honestly, marbling is not a bad word. Marbling is something that has a definition of what is better/worse. There are standards for marbling that have been established by the USDA. I don't just assume that better marbling and increased marbling are the same thing, it's the standard of how meat is graded. For some reason you seem to have decided to assign a personal bias to the word marbling because you don't like it. Again, if you wish to continue it, it would be much more appropriate to continue it in the article on the USDA grading system, not here. I don't understand why you thought it was appropriate for this article in the first place.Jeff Schroeder 19:45, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Do you know what a "straw man" is? His mention of sun burns wasn't an argument, it was an analogy, and it was a perfect one. "Increased" (or "more" or "greater") is a perfectly clear and NPOV way to describe a more prominent marbling; moreseo than "better" is, so why fight?--128.164.229.179 13:53, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure how many people in the discussion actually raise cattle for a living, but let me give you a first hand account. I work for (and will eventually help manage) a large pure bred Angus herd (over 500 head). Marbling is a VERY good thing to us. In fact, we are doing everything in our power to increase the marbling (also called intramuscular fat) in our heard. Consumers WANT marbling. Marbling provides a more tender, juicy, flavorful cut of meat. If that wasn't what consumers wanted, we sure wouldn't be trying to increase it. Personal preference is different from the vast majority which is why marbling is here to stay.Dukemeiser 04:13, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Merge with Red Angus

It's been suggested that Angus cattle be merged with Red Angus. I created the Red Angus page, and I don't think these two pages should be merged for the following reasons...

• Red Angus are acknowledged as a different breed, and has different breed associations.
• Red Angus also have a different studbook to Black Angus.

Even though the genetics of the two breeds are very similar, the fact remains that the breeds are separate breeds. Angus Australia talks about the 'red angus relatives' here, and Australia, as well as a lot of other countries, has an official website here. This is also being discussed at the Red Angus talk page. I should also mention that although the two breeds are similar, the reason they are classified as different breeds is because of different genetics and coat colour Once more, I would like to stress that these are two different breeds of cattle, and I think that both breeds should merit separate pages on Wikipedia. Please discuss this here. CattleGirl 02:28, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

I completely agree and second your motion! As a Black Angus producer (in the U.S.) I was appalled that the two articles might be merged. The breeds are very distinct now and each deserve their own pages with their own history, which is why I removed the suggested merger. Seeing the disarray this black Angus page is in, I will attempt to clean it up, expand, and generally "wikify" it.Dukemeiser 05:02, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

I believe Red Angus, should be merged with this Black Angus page, and renamed "Aberdeen Angus cattle"

• Worldwide, red and black are considered the same breed.

I grew up on a ranch in Argentina that only bred pedigree red Aberdeen Angus cattle. The name was never shortened to "Angus" alone and the red and black were and still are one breed. I have found out that here in the US most people (even among cattle breeders) don't know about red Aberdeen Angus. It is my understanding that early in the 20th Century, red cows were not preferred and hence the effort was put forward to propagate the black cows rather than red.

• I think the question should be: Is Wikipedia focused on the US, or more worldwide?
• If the answer is US, then the pages should be kept separated as the US has historically disavowed red Aberdeen Angus.
• However if Wikipedia's focus is more global, the 2 should be merged since in Scotland and most of the world (save for US and Australia) they are considered one breed.

Joining the articles (they are not too long) can also help those who don't know about the subject, learn that red Aberdeen Angus are out there too. The recessive red gene exists in this breed as it does in most others. Also from my experience in Argentina, red cattle are more resilient to certain deceases, like foot and mouth decease, than their black counterpart. Galloway cattle are very close to Aberdeen Angus and both the belted and non-belted have red and black variations. Reds are not considered a separate breed. Please merge the two pages. TomasMFC (talk) 22:53, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Requested move

Angus cattle → Black Angus — Black Angus is the actual name of the breed, and this title will also give it more equality to Red Angus. Also see my comment below. CattleGirl ^{talk | e@ | review me!} 06:31, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Survey

Add  * '''Support'''  or  * '''Oppose'''  on a new line followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~~~~.

• Support I think this would be for the best since Angus cattle is too general of a term. I say if nobody else opposes this within a week, the change should be made. Dukemeiser 06:52, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. If the "equality" argument means that much to you, create an article parallel to the Red Angus one in place of the existing redirect. This article includes much of the history of a multicolored breed, and it would be misleading to base it on a sub-breed that results from 20th century registration practices. Gene Nygaard 00:09, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. As per Gene Nygaard, and I would add, US registration practices. Andrewa 02:37, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Discussion

Add any additional comments:

1. Comment As this page is about the breed Black Angus, I think it would be a good idea to move the page to its actual name. This also will give it more equality with Red Angus, and it will have the article make more sense- in the very first sentence (in italics) it says 'this page is about the Black Angus breed of cattle' or equivalent to that. I'd move this page anyway, but as more people than before are visiting it now, I decided to mention it here first. Please say your opinion below so someone can take the right action- CattleGirl ^{talk | e@ | review me!} 06:23, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
2. Comment There is a problem here in that Americans do not refer to red and black animals as being the same breed. So for the Americans that read (and edit) the article, it becomes difficult to write about the black breed while keeping the red in mind for others. I still support the change to Black Angus because thus far nobody has offered a non-American view point for the article. If somebody else wants to write up what it's like in the UK or (I assume) New Zealand, or Canada then that could be posted on the Angus cattle page and have the American version on the Black Angus page. Dukemeiser 11:54, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

No, that is neither a complete nor an accurate picture, not even of American usage.

Americans will use "Angus" to refer to Black Angus; they are less likely to use "Angus" standing alone without an adjective for Red Angus.

That is especially true with crosses. "Angus-Limousin" (or Angus-whatever) is often used for a Black Angus cross, more often than "Black Angus-Limousin" is. It's likely the opposite usage frequency with Red Angus, usually including the adjective.

Americans do sometimes use "Aberdeen Angus" today.

The term "American Angus" is sometimes used to refer to a breed, not just to the organization known as the "American Angus Association".

There are still purebred Black Angus sires and dams with redcolored offspring, who according to this article would not be eligible (since 1917 in the U.S., but it may differ elsewhere) for registration as either a Black Angus or a Red Angus.

Black red-carrier Angus cattle are sometimes treated differently from non-carrier black ones, and differently from red ones as well.

The history of Angus cattle long predates the separation of the two strains. Putting this article at "Black Angus" would be very misleading, a much more serious mistake than the "difficult to write about" complaint in your comment above. Gene Nygaard 18:02, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

I didn't make myself very clear in my previous post but what I already knew and what you clarified was that when I tell people I work for a large Angus ranch, I don't have to tell them it's black Angus; it's implied. When I'm talking to other Americans it is implied. However, if I were talking to someone from the UK, I might need to clarify although they might know enough about the situation that I wouldn't. Angus cattle means different things to different people reading Wikipedia. I've never heard anyone refer to it as Aberdeen Angus. You don't think that Angus cattle has some ambiguity to it? A page entitled Black Angus would most certainly clarify that the article refers to the black strain of the breed and would have an opening something like this: Black Angus, or more commonly referred to simply as Angus is a breed of cattle that originated from Scotland. Originally called Aberdeen-Angus after the areas in Scotland where the breed was founded..." Dukemeiser 19:31, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

I think one of the biggest problems is that the notion of "Black Angus" as a distinct breed, as opposed to "black Angus" with "black" as a descriptive term for the coat color of either an individual or even for most of a herd, is a mid-20th century invention, and Angus are a whole lot older than that. That, however, is a distinction we cannot make in our article names, with initial capitalization turned on. Gene Nygaard 15:00, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Humans (homo sapiens are much older than the Angus breed, and yet we still categorize people by the color of their skin. The notion that Angus are old and therefore the distinct color of their hair is irrelevant is silly. As far as the history books tell us Hugh Watson took polled cattle and started selecting black animals. This practice of promoting a black breed started long before the mid-20th century, the Angus breed was founded on black animals! But this is the 21st century where there are two distinct breeds of black and red animals. Dukemeiser 18:40, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

For some of the more international aspects you were interested in, check out the Angus Society of Australia web pages:

• Angus Cattle in Australia
• Red Angus in Australia

There are probably similar sites for other places such as South Africa, Brazil, Argentina, etc.Gene Nygaard 15:09, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Working on a farm in Australia, I find that we normally specify whether the breed is 'Red Angus or Black Angus. As the breed is called Aberdeen Angus, this would mean that the article would normally be called this, however, as virtually no one uses this term anymore, it should be under the name 'Black Angus'. 'Angus cattle' implies a much more general term, whereas 'Black Angus' implies more equality and eveness with 'Red Angus'. 'Angus cattle' in my opinion, seems to be a more 'superior' term, than 'Black Angus'. Also, at shows, you'll find that the cattle have 'Black Angus judging' and 'Red Angus judging'- not Angus cattle judging and Red Angus judging. CattleGirl ^{talk | e@ | review me!} 23:42, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

It may well be that in Australia, and in North America, "Aberdeen Angus" is less often used than it once was, and may not be immediately recognized by the vast majority of people who have gotten away from agriculture as a way of making a living. But I'd bet that all cattlemen, anywhere with a significant Angus population whether they raise Angus themselves or not, still immediately recognize and understand the "Aberdeen Angus" term. Gene Nygaard 14:22, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

• Some comments from an outsider. Angus cattle to me is a catch all name for several breeds. Black Angus is a common name for a type of angus cattle. From the article Black Angus cattle came from the Aberdeen-Angus breed. So as I see it:
  • Angus cattle should be a dab page or a short overview and maybe history of the Augus cattle breeds/types/names (Aberdeen-Angus, Black Angus, Red Angus and any others).
  • Aberdeen-Angus or Black Angus should be what the current Angus cattle article gets renamed to. The target is the most common name. Not sure which this is from the disucssions, but it could be Black Angus. Both the black and red need a 'see also' for the other.

  Vegaswikian 01:06, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

It is still just a recessive gene. There are still red-carriers among the Black Angus herds. Mating a black cow and a black bull can still result in red offspring 1/4 of the time, black red-carriers 1/2 the time, and black non-carriers 1/4 of the time.

It is still just a recessive gene. If you breed a black, non–red carrier bull with a red cow (or vice versa), what you would expect to get is black red–carrier calves. Those are still purebred Angus, not really crosses, and they aren't Gelbvieh or anything else. They are Angus. In some jurisdictions it appears likely from what the article says that they can be registered as such. In other jurisdictions, they might not be able to be registered as Red Angus or not be able to be registered as Black Angus or both.

This may be the case in rare instances, but black red-carriers are getting rarer all the time. Just like other traits the make them ineligible for registration (such as white above the naval), the selection process is moving away from these traits. Red calves may have been common 30 years ago, but now they would be an embarrassment and a brand of inferiority in an all black herd. Dukemeiser 00:04, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

This article should stay where it is. A separate Black Angus article could be created, dealing with the last 90 years only and a brief summary of the historical background. Gene Nygaard 14:09, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Note also that while the initial selection from the beginning may have been based in part on black coats, this was long before Mendel's laws of inheritance which was only published in the late 1860s, and not paid much attention to until after 1900. Gene Nygaard 14:31, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments. While I understand the problem a little better I'm not able to vote. Looks like this may wind up as no consensus. Vegaswikian 00:58, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I am a lifelong Angus cattle breeder and had some notes to make. Firstly, the article claims that Angus have a high-yielding carcass. In fact, the Angus have the next-to-worst dressing percentage. The only worse yields are from the dairy breeds. Our own herd averages just under 63% dressing. That is right in line with Angus average. The Continentals will beat that by 1 or 2 points. Secondly, the term marbling seems to have generated some controversy. Marbling (IM fat) is entirely different from BF (backfat or external fat). Marbling is known to increase tenderness and flavor. BF is simply wasted and trimmed off at the packing floor. There is a common misconception that ONLY grain feeding will produce marbling and that ONLY high BFs will give good marbling. We have had many, many "fats" that grade choice or prime with less than .2 inches of BF. Explain that! Some cattle can grade choice with no grain whatsoever. Thirdly, regarding the comments about the reds being present in "Black Angus" as a recessive gene. This is patently false. All purebred Angus (black) are homozygous black and will not create "1/4 reds" or "1/4 red carriers" unless there is a red animal back in the pedigree somewhere. This is common in the commercials, but not registered Angus. The comment about Angus being heavier milkers is also not true. They milk at a very OPTIMAL level (sustainably....which is positive), but they will not outmilk the Continentals as a percentage of milk per bodyweight. That is why they do re-breed (fertility!) better than any cattle, bar none. Another thing...Angus are not the champs at marbling either, much as we would like our consumers to think. The Jerseys and the Shorthorns will beat the Angus anyday. In fact, many "disreputable" breeders create higher marbling cattle by injecting an 1/8 or 1/16 of Jersey or Brown Swiss or Wagyu. You must remember how they got the rep for marbling---because the consumer and packer was comparing it to the Continentals and the Bos Indicus, which are inferior marblers. The latter are also known to be tough on the Warner-Bratzler Shear Test.66.82.9.17 01:11, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Are you claiming bulls such as RAB-EGL Blue Moon 4407M are not purebred Angus with your claim about all Angus being homozygous black? R.A. Brown has had 15 Red Angus cattle sired by him in their sale in just the past two years. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.117.71.15 (talk) 03:49, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Conclusion

It was requested that this article be renamed but there was no consensus for it to be moved.

Fred-Chess 09:03, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I cleaned out the Augean Stables

Though it wasn't really a Herculean task — and I have no idea whether the cattle of King Augeas were Aberdeen Angus or not — having seen that all the discussions about moving and merging ended in 2006 but the first part of this article was still a real mess in terms of the Categorical imperative (to decide what each of a set of terms means and then stick to it) it became apparent that the following were the case:

• the article floudered hopelessly between three different perspectives on terminology: the USA cattle breeders, breeders elsewhere in the world, and everybody else, namely the ordinary interested person wondering what an Aberdeen Angus was
• several of the voluble and no doubt knowledgeable contributors to this page were so close to the United States cattle breeding industry, and some of them for such a long time, that they seemed perhaps unable to take a wider view on terminology usage across the world. If someone says, with Dukemeiser, "I've never heard anyone refer to it as Aberdeen Angus." they may just be contributing to the discussion on the extent of use of that name in the USA; however, were this to be taken to be part of an argument against coverage of or emphaisis on the term, it would suggest an attempt to limit applicability of Wikipedia to the USA — which nobody should be seeking.
• the term Aberdeen Angus should not be hyphenated; I have only ever seen that done on this article and this talk page, and it's certainly incorrect. This is a dictionary term, and I have a large collection of the large editions of English dictionaries. Even the Danish association had its link here hyphenated and when I went there ... it wasn't!
• this article itself made clear that the separation of red angus from the rest only happened in the 1950s, was a decision by the American association, and only applies in the USA. The vehemence of the assertions on this talk page that the Red was a separate breed with separate breed association etc. was from USA breeders, and it ignored, in what seemed to me a cavalier way, the different opinion still apparently held by breeders in other countries — most of the rest of the world, in fact — which as the article says "still register both colors in the same herd book". However, what I read here convinced me that we are in an era where the new red breed is gradually becoming established and it may well be that other countries will follow the American Angus Association in the future (maybe in another 50 years), so I would not for the moment suggest revisiting the calls to move to a different title or merge Black with Red.

Therefore I have:

• removed hyphenation of Aberdeen Angus
• rewritten the opening sections of the article to set out the precise position on the various versions of terminology in the USA and elsewhere. That the first words of the article proper, despite the title Angus cattle, were "Aberdeen Angus" was ludicrous; that is not Wiki. Taking NPOV means making simple statements of fact: the term is either a name for black only (USA) or a collective term covering red and black (rest of world).

If the article did not exist at all yet, I think I would argue that it should be called "Aberdeen Angus cattle" because of its historical importance as expressing the origin of the breed, and the continued wide use of that name everywhere in the world except the USA. I would also argue that, whether one breed or two, the place to discuss details of breed characteristics is the websites of those breed associations, not a general encyclopaedia. That the farmers in the USA have two different clubs (really that is what they are) for red and black varieties is a detail of their business/social circles, not necessarily a fact that merits separate articles in general encyclopaedia; however, the fact that Wiki is on the web and thus hypertext, and that it has millions of what are mostly brief articles on specialized points, makes it not worth engineering a merge purely on grounds of page length and the ease of clicking.

So I trust everyone who looks here finds the new text OK. In any case, please do not revert to the shambolic previous version of the text! Why it had sat like that for up to 2 years since the debate about moves and merges beats me. I put it down to everyone being too busy, and none of them being expert writers. Iph (talk) 16:54, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

The article still seems overdominated by an American perspective IMO, so I dread to think what it must have been like before. --Ef80 (talk) 13:52, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Notice of requested move

It has been proposed to move Aberdeen to Aberdeen, Scotland or Aberdeen city, and to move Aberdeen (disambiguation) to Aberdeen. The discussion about this is here. The dab page notes Angus cattle are also known as Aberdeen Angus cattle. --Una Smith (talk) 16:39, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

May 17, 2012? Please confirm the date on the United States section of the article —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vibrantspirit (talk • contribs) 16:00, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

That was vandalism which I have reverted.--Charles (talk) 21:19, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

The pun issue

Shouldn't this article mention the common myth that Angus beef refers to the part of the cattle it comes from, like sirloin? After all, Jack in the Box actually ran television advertisements in 2007 based on that myth and was sued by Burger King as a result. --Coolcaesar (talk) 21:52, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Can these numbers be correct?

It says Black Angus is the most common breed in the USA, with 324,266 animals registered in 2005. But on 1 July 2012, there were 97.8 million cattle in the USA. Seems strange that out of 100 million animals only 325k would belong to the most populous breed. That would mean there are at least 300 breeds also with 300k each. So I'm guessing this '324,266' figure is ambiguous: is that the total number of animals registered, or the total number registered during that year? Also, what percentage of total cattle are 'registered'? Leecharleswalker (talk) 13:40, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

A larger portion of beef cattle in the US are crossbred. This is to take advantage of hybrid vigor and produce beef that gains optimally in a specific climate. For example, the King Ranch in Texas is constantly refining new crossbreds, breeding for things like efficiency of gain in their climate. These crossbreds are what make up the vast majority of the cattle you see. Also, most are unregistered. The Black Angus is the most common purebred in the USA. The most common type in the USA is likely crossbred ("XB" on travel papers)--AslanEntropy (talk) 02:15, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Angus cattle/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:38, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi, I'll take a look at this one and jot down queries below. Cheers, Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:38, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Aberdeen angus cattle have been recorded in Scotland since at least the 16th century in North Eastern Scotland - you wanna try and avoid using "Scotland" twice in the one sentence. Try "Aberdeen angus cattle have been recorded in Scotland since at least the 16th century in the country's North East" (or give the shires/regions)

...''throughout England, Scotland and Ireland -why not "throughout the British Isles"?

However, in the middle of the 20th century a new strain of cattle called the Red Angus emerged - surely we can do better than Britannica as a source. There must be more info on this, were they bred deliberately, was it a chance mutation etc.

Addressed using 2 sources. TheMagikCow (talk) 15:53, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

The United States do not accept Red Angus cattle into herd books, but the UK and Canada do. - needs a cite good, but now the next sentence needs a cite. Why don't the Americans accept them? Just colour?

The first para of Genetic disorders needs expanding. How rare are these conditions, and are they localised or worldwide?

:A "recessive defect" is where both parents carry a recessive gene that will affect the calf. - doesn't need to be in quote marks

The second para of Genetic disorders needs expanding. also,more if these are "the four", how do they relate to the first para? Is the first para recent developments, in which case it is better placed after the second para....

The American Angus Association needs to be a few sentences in the History My mistake, it is already, but a couple of more lines would help give some context and scope.

Similarly, we need more info on the Red Angus. Not needed as see also -

I think that as a separate breed with different association it needs a different article rather than a section in the black angus article.

Okay then, at a minimum you need to explain why some accept it as part of the breed and some don't. Is it just the colour, or something else? Just a sentence or two would help immensely otherwise the reader is left hanging. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:54, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

ditto Red Angus Association of America - could come after the mention of American Angus Association.

Ditto Kobe beef - warrants a line or two rather than seealso.

UNsure why kobe beef was included - from wagyu cattle TheMagikCow (talk) 15:54, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

There might be some material on any controversy associated with CAB worth including,

Okay, plenty of work on this one - fascinating topic and I'll try and help dig up some material. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:04, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for these; back home tomorrow so will address these! TheMagikCow (talk) 11:01, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

I think that the article is ready for a second reading/summary as I have now addressed all concerns raised. Thank you very much for this review! TheMagikCow (talk) 07:49, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Because of their native environment, the cattle are very hardy and can survive the winter. - what winter? This is too vague...

There are four recessive defects can affect calves. - grammar

The four recessive defects in the Black Angus breed that are currently managed with DNA tests are - you need to describe what the 4 defects are.

Okay then! All fixed. Thank you Casliber (talk · contribs)! TheMagikCow (talk) 11:01, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
I am confident that all issues are now fixed. If any our outstanding, could you please highlight them to me below? Thanks! TheMagikCow (talk) 19:26, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

TheMagikCow sorry about delay...got distracted.

this source makes a distinction between native angus and other angus. It also mentions the calves being smaller at birth. These are two points that need to be in the article.

I thonk the (native) part means that they are not red, German or anything else. TheMagikCow (talk) 13:08, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Also still a tag.

references should have authors, publishers, dates whereever possible.

German Angus cattle needs to mentioned - just one or two sentences - and referenced.

Sorry for delay, on hoolday and no wifi! Will address this as soon as I get back (Sunday). TheMagikCow (talk) 11:36, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

ok. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:11, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

reference 8 is a bare url.

I'd used this source (currently an EL), rather than this as I think the first one is more neutral and independent.

Query

Cas Liber, have you done a read-through for prose quality? I'm running across many sentences that I'm having trouble parsing. In some cases, it seems to be misplaced (or missing commas), but some need more work than that. One example is the final United States sentence, It was formed because the breeders had had their cattle struck off the herd book, for not conforming to changed breed standard, of colour. I also believe the Genetic disorders subsection needs revising to reach the "clear and concise" GA benchmark. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:42, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Sigh, i was just trying to get the content to be broader and more comprehensive first, but agree. I think it is time to pull the plug. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:17, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

1. Well written?:

Prose quality: - prose still choppy and needs copyediting still.

Manual of Style compliance:

2. Factually accurate and verifiable?:

References to sources: - Prefer not to use EB and some of the webpages among others. Would benefit from some peer-reviewed sourcing.

Citations to reliable sources, where required: see above

No original research:

3. Broad in coverage?:

Major aspects: reading this, there is little information on why black and red angus are considered separate, on the distinction between native and o/s angus, and any independent appraisal of Certified Angus among other things

Focused:

4. Reflects a neutral point of view?:

Fair representation without bias: - unclear, especially regrding the Certified Angus beef

5. Reasonably stable?

No edit wars, etc. (Vandalism does not count against GA):

6. Illustrated by images, when possible and appropriate?:

Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

Overall:

Pass or Fail: - Sorry, there is just too much to overhaul. GA isn't supposed to be about writing the article from top to bottom. I am a bit busy now but will try and help improve this for another crack at GA down the track. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:17, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Some concerns after completing a copy-edit

In response to a request at WP:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Requests, I just completed a copy-edit of the article. I have several concerns:

1) The article seems to be written in a curious blend of American and British English:

• the dates are written in American English style
• the -our spelling is used for words like "colour"
• the plural verb "are" is used to refer to the United States, which is clearly British English; Americans would say, "the United States is..."

It doesn't matter to me which style is used. Once a style is agreed upon, I'd be glad to make the necessary changes.

2) In the "Scotland" section under Angus cattle#History is the following sentence:

• The first herd book was created in 1862, and the society was formed in 1879.

It's not clear which society is meant by "the society". I think it should be written out here.

3) In the second paragraph of the "United States" section of Angus cattle#History, we read:

• The first herd book was published on March 1885. At this time both red and black animals were registered without distinction.[italics added]

But in the second paragraph of the lead, we read:

• The native colour is black, but more recently red colours have emerged.

and in the middle of the first paragraph in Angus cattle#Characteristics, we read:

• However, in the middle of the 20th century a new strain of cattle called the Red Angus emerged.

If there were "red and black animals" in 1885, how can we say "more recently red colours have emerged" and "in the middle of the 20th century a new strain of cattle called the Red Angus emerged"? If the red Angus cattle in the 20th century are a different type of cattle from the red cattle in 1885, this needs to be explained. Also, what does "more recently" mean?

4) In the first paragraph of Angus cattle#Genetic disorders, do you think "curly calf" and "water head" should be in italics while "Fawn Calf Syndrome" is both capitalized and in quotation marks?

5) In Angus cattle#Uses is the following sentence:

• This has led to many markets, including Australia, Japan and the United Kingdom to adopt it into the mainstream.

I wonder whether "adopt it into the mainstream" ought to be explained or re-worded so that the average reader will readily understand it.

6) In the last paragraph in the section Angus cattle#Commercial, we read:

• However, they must meet all 10 of the following criteria, which were refined in January 2007 to further enhance product consistency, in order to be labeled "Certified Angus Beef" by USDA Graders:

However, there are not ten items in the list; there are eleven. Also, I noticed that some of the items seem to refer to the animal itself and some to the meat. I wonder if the list should be grouped. If not, O.K., but I draw your attention to the last item. It is not clear whether it refers to the animal or the meat.

7) The first two sentences in Angus cattle#Commercial are:

• During the later part of 2003 and the early part of 2004, the American fast food industry ran a public relations campaign to promote the supposedly superior quality of Angus beef. However, the first of these campaigns was run by Back Yard Burger in 2002.

Clearly, these are out of chronological order, and, other than the word "however", it is not clear why they are out of chronological order or even why the need for "however". Corinne (talk) 00:19, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

P.S. I was just looking at my edits in the Revision History, and I see that I somehow messed up an in-text reference. I thought I should change the single curly quotation mark to a regular straight quotation mark. Could someone fix this for me? Thanks. Corinne (talk) 00:29, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

• Just a bit of a drive-by comment from me, Corinne, I'd opt for BrEng as the breed was founded and developed in the UK. I hope I've managed a quick fix to the Denholm ref? Currently ref #2 seems to be used to back up the William McCombie part but I'm not seeing any mention of him on that web page? SagaciousPhil - Chat 07:55, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Naming

I have read through the talk page, article and breed societies, and there seems to be little consistency between the naming of this breed. Many countries refer to them as just "Angus", or "Black/Red Angus", however the UK-based and Irish societies refer to them as "Aberdeen-Angus", hyphenated.

Would it not make sense, given that the breed originated in Scotland, in the UK, that its name be listed as the name that is used by The Aberdeen-Angus Cattle Society? At the very least, the usage of Aberdeen-Angus throughout the article should be hyphenated.

Additionally, the remark that the breed is known by Aberdeen Angus in most parts of the world is not necessarily correct, as it appears that a very large number of breed societies refer to them as Angus, rather than Aberdeen-Angus. Slimestone (talk) 14:07, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

King George III

Could somebody please expand on King George's importation of cattle into America half a century after his death? 36.37.151.185 (talk) 05:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

References

I'm thinking of doing some work on this page, including improving the sourcing. If I were to do so I would change the reference format to the list-defined system – references defined in the reference section, not in the text – and to hand-written refs (without cite templates). I might do that in a day or two if no-one minds, but will of course leave well alone if there's any objection. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 13:36, 28 September 2024 (UTC)