• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

Carcass ultrasounding heifers?

B

Big Swede

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 21, 2008
Messages
1,179
Location
South Dakota
Are any of you out there using carcass ultrasound to evaluate your replacement heifers as one more tool to make your selections?

I will be ultrasounding next week for pregnancy and the vet doing the work also has the ability to do the carcass evaluations. I am debating whether to do it or not, more than anything probably because he charges $15 for the service, but I am certain it would be a good investment in the long run.

I've never been a real big fan of the "carcass craze" because some have been placing way too much emphasis and in my opinion single trait selecting for those traits and forgetting what the Angus breed is known for: to end up with a good maternal female. Fertility, udders, disposition, structure, capacity, and doability have all taken a back seat the past several years to the craze that has taken over the Angus breed. It seems that the seedstock industry has been pushing the carcass thing and the percentage of Choice carcasses has been dropping steadily ever since. I'm not sure why but the numbers don't lie.

So, with that being said, would it be a good idea to have that information if you had to make a decision between 2 bred heifers that looked to be equals in every visual respect? I feel like a hypocrit by jumping on the carcass bandwagon, but I've fed enough cattle to know that a choice carcass is worth way more than a select carcass.

I know of a ranch in South Dakota that has been very diligent in their carcass selection of replacement heifers for the past 15 or so years and their results are outstanding. I've heard 95-100% Choice and 50-60%CAB. It's hard to argue with results like that but I haven't seen their cow herd to know if you can have it all. Maybe you can.

Any thoughts?
 
Years ago I asked the old cow-boss of the Alkali Lake Ranch how he picked replacements. This man was a very respected cattleman in our country. All their cattle were and still are worked horseback so his reply made sense to me after I thought about it for a while and I still use the philosophy now.

Old Bill said, " Look at her back, if she has a good back the rest of her is usually good too."
 
Sorry Swede, don't have any experience with it on our own place, and I don't really know anyone who has. It would be great to try it and be able to follow it through, getting the data off the carcasses as the folks you mentioned have. If you don't have those numbers to substantiate what you're doing, it's kinda pointless right?
 
If the buyers beat your doors down every fall to get your calves you'll have a pretty good idea that you're on the right track. The good ones sell themselves.
 
I haven't been around in awhile but this topic caught my eye. Personally, I would be more apt to go with DNA testing than ultrasound if you were choosing between two technologies. The ultrasound information can vary just by the position of the animal and the amount of water they have drank. Especially when it comes to REA and Marbling. If the animal is dehydrated they will have a higher marbling score. Additionally, if the animal pulls its feet under itself and is slightly hunched you can get a larger ribeye area, than what is true. :???:

I think they have made some great progress with the DNA testing.

JMHO
 
I think DNA testing will be a great tool for progressive ranchers to try to use in the future. I don't think that it's anywhere near being perfected today and the markers that have been identified for traits such as marbling, tenderness and feed efficiency are only small pieces of the total puzzle for each of those traits. I don't think the whole mess really holds water just yet?

If I had two heifers that I wanted to choose between and everything else was equal, I would certainly choose the one that had better ultrasound results for carcass traits. However, I might have more preference for marbling or for ribeye area depending on what my cow herd was like. If my cows need more muscle then I'd obviously emphasize ribeye area more heavily. Same for marbling. Might even prefer a little more backfat if everything were equal, to improve fleshing ability.

I think ultrasound is probably a very good tool to use in comparing animals within herd. I sometimes question it as a tool across different populations and across different ultrasound technicians. If you're using an experienced technician that has a good reputation for accurate results then I don't see why you would question the results that you get from ultrasounding the same group of cattle on the same day in the same conditions by the same technician. The one thing that I continue to question is that $15 per head fee. Woa, that's pretty steep for a non-registered herd type scenario, isn't it?

I think looking at the entire creature is the best way to evaluate. If everything is fairly positive in a balanced kind of a picture, then there's a good chance for acceptability. Looking at the back of a cow alone is sorta like creating your own special handicap, isn't it?

HP
 
I am awed by your ignorance COIN :shock:

I have been ultrasounding cattle and their carcasses for nearly 5 years now. Your statement is very flawed about water consumption and IMF score. Your statement about hunched backs and different size REA's is also flawed.

If your getting different size REAs when this is happening, I would say that the tech is the problem and that the tech is not getting a correct image. An image with all the correct data points and so forth.

As far as DNA being better, you don't seem to know much about DNA, am I being harsh, yes. :wink: Not at you just your statement. DNA markers are very few. I would agree that they tell part of the story, but a very SMALL part. How many DNA markers are there really that will tell you the make up of how it is tender? how it marbles? how it grades? or how efficient the animal is for feed conversion. You, I, nor the DNA gooroos know this. There could be 10 or there could be hundreds. Even Bovigen will tell you this. Look at the Bull CA Future Direction, he is the carcass king, yet has no DNA markers for those traits, there must be other and better markers that will tell the whole story for expressing this trait.

All technology can be flawed, most likely in ultrasound it is in human error. Even the USDA inspectors all grade a bit different.

They are making great progress with DNA technology and great progress with ultrasound technology. You will definately spend more dollars for DNA than ultrasound, and ultrasound will tell you alot more than DNA.

One thing to really consider when scanning your heifers is what they have been eating. Are they being backgrounded or on pasture. ultrasound will give you a score of what the animal is the day you scan em. DNA will give you there genetic makeup for the known markers that these companies have found. Make sure your tech goes over the results with you so that you understand them. Regardless you will be able to tell the good ones from the not so good ones

I scanned some commercial heifers that are being sold on this site for carcass. There are some exceptional animals in this whole bunch. The average scan was very good, and there were some outliers in both directions. But all these heifers will still make some great mama's still.

I have also been scanning several thousand commercial heifers, it is not used in these places as a single trait selection, but as an additional tool to keep or sale, also as another tool to use when mating to A.I. This is the best benefit. If she has a low carcass and looks to be an exceptional animal every other way, A.I her to a bull that will help her with this trait and compliment every thing else too.

$15 dollars is a cheap investment into the future, especially when the day comes when you see a $8 spread between select and Choice.

Angus has had a bad rap for single trait selection, I think that most breeders that I am aware of are getting away from single trait selection.
 
The "wine and cheese" club of breeders have perpetuated the marbling trait selection to extremes in recent years because it was the latest fad. I don't think that real cattlemen have lost their minds on chasing marbling. Steady positive pressure on marbling should be plenty good enough.

As for the $15 per head fee, I still think it's a bit high. 100 head in a day is a pretty easy task and that's worth $1500 ?? Seems high to me, but more power to ya if you can get it!

As for the Choice / Select spread, a few of the most commonly used grids through JBS Swift and Cargill have a minimum spread of $8.00/cwt. It's a floor that doesn't change unless the spread on the boxes goes higher than $8.00. So, it's always worth from $25 to $32/ head, as a minimum, on an 800 pound carcass to grade Choice instead of Select. CAB carcasses get an extra $24 or so on top of that and Primes, well they're through the roof.

Good chattin'.

HP
 
Fee's are obivously something different to everyone. Fees are high to the customer and average or low to the service provider.

Sometimes I think that producers forget the fact that people need to pay for there investments and maintenance, for their products that get used and used only once, for their time getting to the required destination and let no one forget about FUEL costs, Lab costs, Software costs. And than maybe after all of this the service provider might make some money.

Its like the cattle business, it is the cattle business, we invest alot and make something to live on.

I am not complaining about all my costs, I just want to make sure you know what we have invested into this as professional certified technicians.

Work and income is seasonal. Ultrasound equipment $25K, Upkeep of Equipment $2K/yr, Computer and Carcass Software $3K, Bi Yearly Certification and travel $1K or better. We invest in alot of little things that add up to $2-3K per year to make the job easier and faster.

I travel anywhere from 5 miles to 800+ miles to a job, I am required to have a good working truck to haul me and my equipment around, I am required to feed and clothe that truck, I am required to eat and sleep away from home many nights.

Again $15 is a cheap investment, and yes for 100 head sounds like alot, but is not and I can even do this work in about 3 hours. Less number of head more monies, more travel equals more monies.

More cattle in a day can mean less per head. Several places I can do upwards of 200-300 head / day with a good crew and facility.

I am Jason Andeson of Idaho, I love the work I do b/c I get to work with cattle and ranchers. I am very good at what I do and have been doing this for nearly 5 years, have scanned over 15,000 animals in that time. My business is called RMUG, Rocky Mountain Ultrasound and Genetics. I also provide A.I. services, sell semen and embryo's, sell bulls and females. I even provide DNA kits and pull hair samples for folks. I market cattle for those that want to sell and buy. I have been very blessed and feel very successful to be able to do the things that I do and work with the kind of people I work with. I have a wonderful family, a beautiful wife and 4 kids. I spend my springs away from home alot to do what I love and provide for them, than in the fall I get to be with them and calve my own cattle. For all of those that are readers of this site, I appreciate the work I do for you, and appreciate the work that I will be able to do for many more of you.
 
Good explanation, RMUG, and I guess you've proven to me that your price may well be the right one. I'm glad that you're excited about what you're doing and I hope you have many happy customers with more and more in the future.

Good chattin'.

HP
 
Well I've decided to do the ultrasound on all the heifers that are AI bred. The bull bred heifers will just get the check for pregnancy. Hopefully I will have enough AI bred to cull at least 20% or so for whatever reasons I think are most important. I have a feeling it will be an interesting experience to sort heifers with that extra information. We'll see how it goes.
 
Ultrasounding heifers is just "Another Tool In The Box".

If you use the info it's invaluable........but if you don't use it......it ain't worth diddly.
 
Hey, Big Swede. It would be interesting if you would respond and let us know how the sort comes out. I'd like to know if the ultrasound information causes you to scratch your head a great deal or if it fits right in to your culling decisions. Hopefully your best heifers don't come in with terrible ultrasound results and your worst ones come in with the best ultrasound!

HP
 
I think it's more a tool to identify trends in your herd rather than to pick Miss Marble '08-if you notice a undesireable trend deeveloping over the years you can take steps genetically to correct it. Peformance data becomes more valuable as it accumulates.
 
Northern Rancher said:
I think it's more a tool to identify trends in your herd rather than to pick Miss Marble '08-if you notice a undesireable trend deeveloping over the years you can take steps genetically to correct it. Peformance data becomes more valuable as it accumulates.
Click to expand...

Great point NR. It becomes more valuable because you can start to link the data to breeding groups, siblings, progeny, and so on and so forth.
 
Ultrasound data is just one more tool in the toolbox. To make the most use of it you will need to know the sire or sire groups of the heifers. You also need to make the long term comitment to ultra sounding so you can see the trends. It will also help a great deal to have kill data on the steer mates to these heifers. If the steers grade very well I wouldn't look at trying to keep the higher marbleing heifers as there are other traits that will make you more money, but if the steers dont grade well then i would put more selection on the ultrasound.
 
Well, we ended up with 109 out of 183 of the heifers that were AI bred, right at 60% and 34 opens, right at 18.5%. I was satisfied with those results after a 30 day breeding period. We also carcass ultrasounded the heifers that were AI bred and we recently got the results back. I haven't sorted any yet but there are some definate outliers on both IMF and Ribeye area that will not be retained in the herd. It will be interesting when I compare their phenotype to their carcass information. I'm sure there will be some that look great that will not make the cut with the extra information that I now have. I only need to keep 80 or 90 for myself so there will be plenty to choose from.

I haven't been a big fan of the carcass craze that some Angus seedstock guys are in to lately, mainly because most of those popular bulls don't even look like Angus. I feel some breeders are more interested in breeding numbers than breeding cattle. Yet with that being said it will be interesting to see if some of these heifers with the real good information will be the kind of female that I like. Maybe they will all be tall and slab sided with no capacity with awesome numbers. I would have to send them down the road too.

Anyway, it will be fun to see how it all turns out.
 
I have to agree with Angus going taller with better numbers rather than functional "do it myself" type cattle. By no means should I not take the very best care of my livestock I can, but here where I'm at, we need smallER cattle with LOTS of capacity. But, that's a whole 'nother topic..........
 

Latest posts

Back
Top