You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Which bull would work in your situation?
- Thread starter Red Robin
- Start date
Help Support Ranchers.net:
PureCountry
Well-known member
you need the 'www' in between the // and the 'abs'.
PureCountry
Well-known member
sw said:...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
SW, didn't you just contradict yourself a bit there? You want them structurally correct, but phenotype is meaningless?
I think I know what you meant, though...I think. Cattle need to function for your conditions FIRST, then look good second. However, correct structure is the key to cattle functioning efficiently. When you look at animals that are performing year in/year out to a ripe old age, they are structurally correct, or they wouldn't have lasted that long. What I'm taking too long to say is, cattle have to be structurally correct, in order to be functionally sound.
And by the way DOC, I forgot to add in my earlier 'critique', that I would not use any of the 4 either. Good point.
Pure Country I guess I did not make myself clear enough, when you start splitting eyelashes over "looks" in the show rings of the world it is meaningless, ie, all of the bulls in the final drive for the grand champion at Denver have four legs, two nuts and a head or they would not be there. To say this one is better than that one because "it has more depth, it has more rib, it has a hair out of place" is a Show. What matters is that this one will sire calves that will grow up and make a steak. That is the business that we are in, not a fashion show for bovines, feeding people protein. For what its worth, I wouldn't use any of the four bulls.
PureCountry
Well-known member
I wouldn't either, and I also don't give a darn about show rings. My comments on structure are purely about function. And I agree 100% with you on what our business is about - we are food producers, plain and simple. Now if only we could get an annual raise and dental coverage.... :wink:
I have little knowledge of the red angus, their epd's and their pedigrees so this is a shot in the dark here.
I voted for #4 but as a terminal sire only. However I think he is too shallow in the flank to help my cattle any.
I would not retain any heifers out of any of these bulls. And you might have to really twist my arm to get me to use the semen even if it was given to me.
I like the looks of #1 but that is as far as it goes.
NONE of those bulls have any qualities that would improve my current herd in a crossbreeding environment.
The more i think about it, the more I know I would not waste a calf crop by trying these sires.
I voted for #4 but as a terminal sire only. However I think he is too shallow in the flank to help my cattle any.
I would not retain any heifers out of any of these bulls. And you might have to really twist my arm to get me to use the semen even if it was given to me.
I like the looks of #1 but that is as far as it goes.
NONE of those bulls have any qualities that would improve my current herd in a crossbreeding environment.
The more i think about it, the more I know I would not waste a calf crop by trying these sires.
Northern Rancher
Well-known member
Boy that must be a remarkable set of cows you got there lol. I've got some a three legged billy goat would probably help out lol.
Hey Doc,
Interpertation of the language of Jude:
User Friendly means he is probably going not going to do his first year heifers any harm meaning he won't pull the quality down, good for first year heifers. His numbers are pretty good.
Everything fits is a horse term meaning that there in nothing on him that is anyway extreme. Not horribly out of balance.
With every single animal that you deal with you have to decide which faults you can live with and what you can't. I doubt there are too many bulls that you can't find at least one fault with.
Pretty good in person just means he may look WAY different if you actually saw the animal. Photos can be doctored and cattle can be set up to minimize faults. Looking at photos is not the way to pick you next herd sire. That said sometimes you have to go with a photo. Distance, time etc. Hope that cleared things up for you a bit. Even with my lack of experience, knowledge it appears that my judgement is not too far off, most of the cattlemen on the board had the same opinions as I had.
A pretty bull is a feminine looking bull, he is definately pretty and your right it doesnt do a darn thing for sales.
Interpertation of the language of Jude:
User Friendly means he is probably going not going to do his first year heifers any harm meaning he won't pull the quality down, good for first year heifers. His numbers are pretty good.
Everything fits is a horse term meaning that there in nothing on him that is anyway extreme. Not horribly out of balance.
With every single animal that you deal with you have to decide which faults you can live with and what you can't. I doubt there are too many bulls that you can't find at least one fault with.
Pretty good in person just means he may look WAY different if you actually saw the animal. Photos can be doctored and cattle can be set up to minimize faults. Looking at photos is not the way to pick you next herd sire. That said sometimes you have to go with a photo. Distance, time etc. Hope that cleared things up for you a bit. Even with my lack of experience, knowledge it appears that my judgement is not too far off, most of the cattlemen on the board had the same opinions as I had.
A pretty bull is a feminine looking bull, he is definately pretty and your right it doesnt do a darn thing for sales.
Badlands
Well-known member
TSR,
In RA if the ME is lower, that means they are lower maintenance.
In Angus, higher means they are lower maintenance.
So, you picked the bull whose daughters are most expensive to feed.
Kind of comical, really. In the RA, lower means lower, but in the BA, higher means lower.
All a matter of phraseology.
Badlands
In RA if the ME is lower, that means they are lower maintenance.
In Angus, higher means they are lower maintenance.
So, you picked the bull whose daughters are most expensive to feed.
Kind of comical, really. In the RA, lower means lower, but in the BA, higher means lower.
All a matter of phraseology.
Badlands
lazy ace
Well-known member
Whoa cowboys...everything looks good when you are breeding on paper. There are some bulls in this deal that are taking a bad rap, but actually produce way better than they look. :wink:
have a cold one (cert you take a couple .... just because I haven't gotten to pick on you for awhile :wink: )
lazy ace
have a cold one (cert you take a couple .... just because I haven't gotten to pick on you for awhile :wink: )
lazy ace
lazy ace said:have a cold one (cert you take a couple .... just because I haven't gotten to pick on you for awhile :wink: )
lazy ace
I'll bring ya one later!!
Take care.
Soapweed
Well-known member
Badlands said:TSR,
In RA if the ME is lower, that means they are lower maintenance.
In Angus, higher means they are lower maintenance.
So, you picked the bull whose daughters are most expensive to feed.
Kind of comical, really. In the RA, lower means lower, but in the BA, higher means lower.
All a matter of phraseology.
Badlands
That is precisely why I don't mess with EPD's. :wink: Even after all the educated discussion, I would still go with the number 2 bull if I were to use any of them. Not that that is going to happen. :wink: