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

Which bull would work in your situation?

Help Support Ranchers.net:

Which bull would work in your situation?

  • Number 1

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Number 2

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Number 3

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Number 4

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Total voters
    0
R

Red Robin

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 23, 2005
Messages
4,377
Reaction score
1
Location
8 mi S.E. of Harrison, Ar.
I'm curious which bull would everyone like? If you like you can give reasons which could include visual or numerical appraisals. I am sure some of ya'll don't like any of them but if you like , you can vote for the one closest to your kind of bull.


1 http://www.agonline.com/bullbarn/angredepd.asp?ID=189
2 http://www.agonline.com/bullbarn/angredepd.asp?ID=9
3 http://www.agonline.com/bullbarn/angredepd.asp?ID=99
4 http://www.agonline.com/bullbarn/angredepd.asp?ID=188
 
TSR I would use the 2222 bull I think from the picture. He is bull number 1 . He looks deep chested and full behind the shoulder with enough capacity and muscle . I'd like to make him a rib longer but I think he'd do on my cows.
 
Well I know squat about bulls but I like the numbers on the number 4 bull even though he is "plain" to the eye I think he is pretty user friendly. Visually I like the number one bull but would like to see more length on him, but everything fits. He is pretty. Don't like the photo on the three bull at all but it looks like a crappy photo, he might be great in person. I vote for number 1 (cuz he's pretty) and then 4 but I like both of them. Number 2 has alot of nice qualities, but there is something I just don't like, couldnt tell ya what though.
 
Took a closer look at the number two bull, it's his front assembly that bothers me. Too steep and his legs look to small to carry him around. Who knows with photos though.
 
To tell the truth I'm not super crazy about any of the bulls, but if I had to pick I would probably pick the first bull. If his front end carried through to his rear end he'd be a hell of a bull.
 
Dusting off the old 4H judging cap.... :hat:

Number two has a good long body and nice topline. He could be a bit more masculine though. Maybe he's young in the picture?

Number one is pretty good. Looks like a bull, and has lots of thickness. A little high in the tailhead though.

Number three has a lot going for him, but that topline is horrible, and would cancel it out for us.

Number four looks like a heifer bull to me. Those fine legbones indicate calving ease, but fine bones don't make for really good steer calves.

I guess it would depend on what you're looking for in a bull. If you've got some cows that need some frame, then #2. If you've got a bunch of heifers to breed, then #4. If you need some thickness added, then #1 would do. I can't think of a use for #3, but his performance numbers look OK.
 
well to be honest I would not use any, but if I were to pick one of them, I would go with #1

#2 is too "feminine" lI want a bull to look like a bull. big mean and ready to breed the living daylights out of something! this is why I hate polled Herefords...gonna take of his horns, you may as well take his balls. makes them to girly lookin.


#3 looks like they saddled him for too many years, I am wondering how that backline will affest replacement heifers.

#4 has potential, but look s to "boxy' and no front shoulder.

#1 is the best of the 4, he is solid, big shoulder, has the look of a growthy calf thrower. a mans man kind of bull....
 
I would place this class of red bulls 2-1-4-3. I like the exra length and consistent thickness of the #2 bull. The #1 bull is long and thick, but cuts up high in the flank and looks to be weak in the hind quarters compared to the rest of his body. The #4 bull is thick and meaty, but is lacking in overall length. The #3 bull is too continental and too heavy boned, besides being weak in his topline. Cows bred to this bull could very well experience calving problems.

Free opinions are worth exactly what you pay for them. :wink:
 
I'm thinking the first one, Grand Canyon 2222, just needs a longer (hooks to pin) deeper quarter .... stick him with Cornerstone's (3rd bull) hindquarter (minus the tip). He (2222) might be bordering posty also. The last bull I think is to fleshy (with a 1312 YW) and doesn't show much muscle carrying down out of the quarter or in the forearm. The shape of his head and shorter neck (at least in the pic) aren't complimentary to a heifer bull. Third bull has a weak topline and if that was straightened out I expect he'd be the shallowest of the four.
I'd use the Hi Lo bull (2nd) on some deep broody females as he appears shallower in the pic. I like his hindquarter;long,deep & carries down and his front end is clean thru the brisket, enough neck extension but I'd like to see a little more neck hump ... a bull should look like a bull! His weaning performance EPD might help add a few #'s if a person sold then.
I'm stuck as for a vote ... lesser of two evils; #2 bull, shallow but overall balance or #1 short hip but I like his EPD #'s better. Heck if I know - would be nice to see some daughters of each. (Ooops had to edit my # to match my description)

..... ah heck I'll go with #1, he has our son's name on the bottom side :shock: :wink:
 
None of the above.

2 of them have too much power(and one is very low for CED), one of them has way too much fat(and produces late-maturing offspring), and one of them has too much BW with too little milk.

I've seen the most popular of these bulls produce calves that I absolutely know won't work for me, even though they work (are marketable) for others.




Badlands
 
Red Robin said:
TSR I would use the 2222 bull I think from the picture. He is bull number 1 . He looks deep chested and full behind the shoulder with enough capacity and muscle . I'd like to make him a rib longer but I think he'd do on my cows.
Click to expand...

First off I am not very knowledgeable about Red Angus bloodlines and they and other breeds (not bashing here please don't consider it as such) are playing "catch up" with respect to the data thats available for angus. The bull I would use would depend on the characteristics of the cow-- what I wanted to improve on her side and if I was breeding for feeders or retaining heifers. One significant epd to me is the $EN epd and I know some breeders probably don't pay much attention to this epd but to me it equates into easy fleshing/easy keepers. I like to start there, wanting positive numbers. So far this epd has been reliable--I can see it easily in my own cattle. Having said all that, I too would probably choose bull # 1 (probably a better all around performer)with number 4 a close second because his phenotype would match well to those easy keeping cattle in my opinion.
 
I pretty much have to agree with what Soapweed said.

I like the #2 bull best, but none of them would compliment what we have right now, so I wouldn't go with any of them. Sorry, red just doesn't do as well as black..........around here, anyway.
 
This has turned into an interesting thread. I'm always curious how or why someone would use a certain bull. I might do this again with a set of blacks or herefords just for fun and see what we pick again. Just as a sice note the romeo bull brought over 100,000 dollars but I never did care for him. The other 3 bulls I just picked because they were a little unique in type and different from each other.
 
#1 is by far the best bull, and here's why I think so: Imagine #2 after 3 cycles in range country. He's already shallow in the heart girth, nothing you'd call a 'tank' that's for sure. He's a heifer bull AT BEST. If he ran a few pounds off, he'd look like eyeballs and @$$hole.

#3 is just like someone else said - a saddlehorse. An absolute ill-built, sway-backed, shallow-bodied piece of $h!t.

#4 also looks like he'd fall apart if he ran some weight off. Far too narrow in the pins. You can tell that from the side by the fix of his tailhead - before anyone says anything. I don't like his head one bit either. He's just not what a powerful sire should look like. He may throw SOME desirable traits into his offspring, but any bull may throw SOME of those.

A bull that you can fault as much as you praise, shouldn't be a bull.
 
Gregs the bull buyer in our house..looks like its a good thing we don't go together. I picked two,hands down,he wavered between one and four,finally picked four.
 
Judith said:
Well I know squat about bulls but I like the numbers on the number 4 bull even though he is "plain" to the eye I think he is pretty user friendly. Visually I like the number one bull but would like to see more length on him, but everything fits. He is pretty. Don't like the photo on the three bull at all but it looks like a crappy photo, he might be great in person. I vote for number 1 (cuz he's pretty) and then 4 but I like both of them. Number 2 has alot of nice qualities, but there is something I just don't like, couldnt tell ya what though.
Click to expand...
"Pretty" doesn't hang on a rail! What, specifically,are ". . .nice qualities?" . . . ."everything fits" . .what? ". . ."great in person" means . . .what? and, last but not least, describe ". . .pretty user friendly!?"

This class of four bulls is a "cross section" of Red Angus genetics, and any of them would fit in SOME operations. #4 is line bred, and that is possibly why he brought 100 Grand. In spite of the big bucks he brought, he is TOO short coupled and therefore his daughters would lack capacity. #1 is a classier appearing bull phenotypically, but is too cut up in the flank, and his daughters would appear as Funnel Butts. That leaves him out of the picture. #3 is lean, mean, and musculature machine, but would not fit many of today's operations. He has good bone, but weak pasterns. #2 would work as a heifer bull, but not on a large range operation - he would run out of gas pretty quick. I like his thickness, though, and his overall balance. Good topline.

If I were seeking a Red Angus bull to make a real impact on my herd, I would look elsewhere than ANY of these four bulls.

DOC HARRIS
 
I'm gonna throw a monkey wrench in here, the only bull in this bunch that I would even think about using is #4 for these reasons. 1)I refuse to use an AN or RA that is negative for marbeling, 2) I refuse to use an AN or RA bull that is positive for birth weight. These are the two traits that these breeds are known for and everyone is trying to make these breeds what they are not, Continentals. 3) 4 is in the middle for milk and growth, weren't everyone on another thread complaining about the cows becoming too big and milking so much they don't breed back? I am in the beef business and I care about the end product on the plate, not the show ring. I want cattle that perform on the ranch, breed back, milk enough, calve unassisted and make a steer that will gain in the feedlot and hang a product that pleases the consumer. With now 13 years of carcass testing and feedlot data, I find more and more that phenotype is pretty meaningless. Cattle that are structurally correct that can survive on this ranch also perform in the feedlot and cut above the rest. end of sermon
 
[http//abs-bs.absglobal.com/beef/redangus.asp?CodTouro=29AR0199]

I voted for number one,but this summer I did use 4 on some heifers check out his picture on abs websitel[/url]
 

Latest posts

Top