cutterone
Well-known member
For bull selection criteria or development what would be your targets for...
BW
FS
SC
ADG
REA
IMF
BW
FS
SC
ADG
REA
IMF
Question about bull selection
- Thread starter cutterone
- Start date
Aaron
Well-known member
Actual values?
BW - 80-105 (depending on cow or heifer bull, or both)
FS - 5-6.5
Scrotal - The bigger the better!...nothing less than breed average. Ideally, nothing less than 32 on a yearling and not less than 38 on a two year old. But I have been sold on the idea not to buy yearling bulls anymore...they just can't handle the demands of breeding cows.
ADG - 2.5-3 (not a big deal for us)
REA and IMF - don't even care about it until the packers start sending back carcass data on our animals. As long as they are grading A and up, I don't worry. When we had market steers in 4-H, they all graded A and AA, so I know our genetics are just fine. We did raise a 'friend' of one of the 4-H steers, that we butchered for ourselves and the butcher figured it would grade as a AAA or Prime carcass.
BW - 80-105 (depending on cow or heifer bull, or both)
FS - 5-6.5
Scrotal - The bigger the better!...nothing less than breed average. Ideally, nothing less than 32 on a yearling and not less than 38 on a two year old. But I have been sold on the idea not to buy yearling bulls anymore...they just can't handle the demands of breeding cows.
ADG - 2.5-3 (not a big deal for us)
REA and IMF - don't even care about it until the packers start sending back carcass data on our animals. As long as they are grading A and up, I don't worry. When we had market steers in 4-H, they all graded A and AA, so I know our genetics are just fine. We did raise a 'friend' of one of the 4-H steers, that we butchered for ourselves and the butcher figured it would grade as a AAA or Prime carcass.
cutterone
Well-known member
Yes, actual values. I'm not big on EPDs as I see them somewhat like the statement on the new car tag about gas mileage - "mileage may vary with driving habits, conditions, & maintance." :???: Use it as a predictor but actual results may vary.
I was at a bull test sale and was surprised that the one factor seemingly high for selection was frame score. On another forum there was a lot of discussion about birth weight - the posts were interesting.
From my view I see feed conversion as the most important trait while keeping BWs & growth in line. The days of just putting calves on the ground with no direction and concern for quality are closing fast. Buyers & consumers won't except poor quality, non efficient cattle and the cost to feed them drive us to be more efficient with our management decisions. I should have also asked to rank the targets in importance. With the lack of response to the question I'm wondering if the posters on this forum aren't concerned with targets.
Not that I'm a fan of these bull tests I'm intreaged with the data and there is a lot. It clearly shows that a lot of bulls should have been cut, that there are some real differences in feed efficency between the breeds, and way too much hype about so-called superior sires.
There is a new type of testing being done now called Residual Feed Intake (RFI) to prove which cattle &/or breeds are more efficient but the data suggests to me so far that it's hype. When I compaired the RFI values to actual feed efficiency on animals it proved the RFI values off the mark. Most likely another way for pencil pushin bean counters to have something to play with, another line in the big boys catalogs, and a way to make a buck.
I was at a bull test sale and was surprised that the one factor seemingly high for selection was frame score. On another forum there was a lot of discussion about birth weight - the posts were interesting.
From my view I see feed conversion as the most important trait while keeping BWs & growth in line. The days of just putting calves on the ground with no direction and concern for quality are closing fast. Buyers & consumers won't except poor quality, non efficient cattle and the cost to feed them drive us to be more efficient with our management decisions. I should have also asked to rank the targets in importance. With the lack of response to the question I'm wondering if the posters on this forum aren't concerned with targets.
Not that I'm a fan of these bull tests I'm intreaged with the data and there is a lot. It clearly shows that a lot of bulls should have been cut, that there are some real differences in feed efficency between the breeds, and way too much hype about so-called superior sires.
There is a new type of testing being done now called Residual Feed Intake (RFI) to prove which cattle &/or breeds are more efficient but the data suggests to me so far that it's hype. When I compaired the RFI values to actual feed efficiency on animals it proved the RFI values off the mark. Most likely another way for pencil pushin bean counters to have something to play with, another line in the big boys catalogs, and a way to make a buck.
RobertMac
Well-known member
I would target the seedstock provider that raises superior cattle under commercial conditions(preferably similar to mine)...and having done it for a long time...and preferably linebred(or, at the very least, using his own genetics). The criteria you list, I would use to cull prospects if they are far from breed average.
Aaron, here's something I found interesting on scrotal...
The Lasater Foundation herd range breeds multi-sire(natural selection) and have done so for over 70 years. Until DNA testing, they had no way of determining sires of the progeny. What they found was that the largest scrotal bulls didn't leave the most progeny...usually from a bull with average scrotal. Study Nature!
Aaron, here's something I found interesting on scrotal...
The Lasater Foundation herd range breeds multi-sire(natural selection) and have done so for over 70 years. Until DNA testing, they had no way of determining sires of the progeny. What they found was that the largest scrotal bulls didn't leave the most progeny...usually from a bull with average scrotal. Study Nature!
Soapweed
Well-known member
RobertMac said:
I have mentioned it before, but back in the 1970's, Dad had bought five new Hereford bulls from three different breeders. These bulls had been up close to the buildings for a few weeks, but we needed the space with calving coming right up. Dad drove the bulls down to where the other old bulls were wintering. There was a nice windbreak there. Anyway, an Artic clipper came through during the night and the temperature went from 50 above one day to 50 below chill factor the next. Those new bulls were not allowed by the other bulls to hunker up behind the windbreak. Those five bulls were all down in the unprotected corner of the pasture. The three bulls with small scrotums all survived with their fertility intact. The two bulls with large scrotums were ruined. Since that time I've never worried about scrotal size, almost preferring the smaller size of the spectrum.
On the same subject, I used to buy Charolais bulls to use as terminal sires on black baldy cows. Most of the bulls that I bought had very small scrotums, almost looking like steers. They never failed to deliver a good crop of calves. In my opinion, the scrotum size arguement is mostly hype.
High Plains
Well-known member
While scrotal measurement may not be an indicator of how many calves a bull will sire or how high a bull's libido might be, it is certainly correlated to the age at puburty in his daughters and their subsequent fertility down the road. Like a lot of things, seeking out the biggest-testicled bull will probably not return any further benefit than selecting a bull that is adequate in that area. For what it's worth.
HP
HP
cutterone
Well-known member
There is suggestion that back when lbs = $ that breeders went for higher frames to produce more pounds just to make mor $$ but sacrificed some quaility traits. (ie. introducing Holstien into Angus). It appears that producers are leaning more toward smaller frames to reduce feedout time and recover some quality trying to get premiums for yield/grade.
I would agree with both of you about scrotal traits. Moderation is the word.
Birthweights may depend on heifers vs cows.
I would agree with both of you about scrotal traits. Moderation is the word.
Birthweights may depend on heifers vs cows.
PureCountry
Well-known member
BW - I try and stay under 90lbs. That's my ceiling.
FS - 2-5, 5 being the ceiling.
SC - Agree with the others, average is just fine.
ADG - doesn't matter, except for our bulls that go on test prior to sale, I like to see them gain 3lbs/day on forage test.
REA - should be measured per cwt in my opinion.
IMF - For us it's measured 1-5, not sure about south of the border. Anything over 3 is fine for me.
The main point I want to make, is that all of my specs are on grass, or a forage test. And I agree with Robertmac, that I too will always try and select cattle from other breeders who run their cows as I do. Push them to do all the work, cull them hard, and you'll just advance your genetics that much faster.
FS - 2-5, 5 being the ceiling.
SC - Agree with the others, average is just fine.
ADG - doesn't matter, except for our bulls that go on test prior to sale, I like to see them gain 3lbs/day on forage test.
REA - should be measured per cwt in my opinion.
IMF - For us it's measured 1-5, not sure about south of the border. Anything over 3 is fine for me.
The main point I want to make, is that all of my specs are on grass, or a forage test. And I agree with Robertmac, that I too will always try and select cattle from other breeders who run their cows as I do. Push them to do all the work, cull them hard, and you'll just advance your genetics that much faster.
cutterone
Well-known member
This is some data I retrieved from a bull testing and I realize it is all dependant on what animals were at the test but it should show tendancys. Not trying to bash any breed.
The reason I am looking hard at this is the need for more efficient cattle traits without sacrificing growth & compairing them to the RFI data.
The reason I am looking hard at this is the need for more efficient cattle traits without sacrificing growth & compairing them to the RFI data.
katrina
Well-known member
Aaron said:
:agree:
Except for the birth weight and we don't like much over 90 pounds..
Gotta have balls........ :wink:
Aaron
Well-known member
High Plains said:
This is my argument for scrotal size. I don't believe a big-nutted bull is more fertile or settles more cows, but I do believe it has a big impact on his daughters fertility.
randiliana
Well-known member
BW 75-85 for heifers, 85-100 for cows. May go a bit higher if we really like the bull.
FS 5-6
SC average to above average for the breed
ADG The higher the better, as long as the bull still is built right
REA so far we haven't paid a lot of attention to these
IMF ""
FS 5-6
SC average to above average for the breed
ADG The higher the better, as long as the bull still is built right
REA so far we haven't paid a lot of attention to these
IMF ""