2 Herf bulls for your inspection

Help Support CattleToday:

El_Putzo

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 22, 2004
Messages
1,103
Reaction score
0
Location
Central MO
Below are a couple of bulls I just got back from test. Both gained about 3.5 lbs a day, had -1 and -1.5 RFI, scanned 12.5 - 13.5 REA, and scanned 3.5 and 4.2 IMF. They are also both out of my cleanup bull who is a flush brother to LLL Affirmative 56N. (Thank You Rich Thompson!!)

I apologize for the photos not being the greatest. I was on a schedule and the 05T bull wouldn't cooperate for a rear shot. They are by no means perfect, but let me know what you think so I can fine tune my eye for looking at cattle.

06T
05T-3.jpg


06T rear
05T-back.jpg


05T
06T-1.jpg
 

DFF

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 26, 2006
Messages
181
Reaction score
0
Location
Pilot Grove MO
I would assume with the #s in sequence they are close in age, The top bull is IMO the better bull by far.
Lot more to him, How are they EPD wise?
DFF
 
OP
El_Putzo

El_Putzo

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 22, 2004
Messages
1,103
Reaction score
0
Location
Central MO
The 06T bull is fleshier and appears to be more meaty in these pictures. I should probably point out though that the 05T bull is a 6.2 frame and the 06T bull is a 5.5 frame. I will try to get a better pic of the 05T bull one of these days as the one I posted doesn't do him justice. The bulls are only 12 days apart in age.

I just realized I labeled the pics wrong. I'll go back and correct them.

Meanwhile, here are links to their pedigrees:

05T:
http://www.herfnet.com/online/cgi-bin/i ... 2&9=53505B

06T
http://www.herfnet.com/online/cgi-bin/i ... 1&9=53505B
 

dun

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 28, 2003
Messages
47,334
Reaction score
2
Location
MO Ozarks
The main difference other then rear muscling that I see is the lack of capacity proportional to the frame.
 

alexfarms

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 28, 2008
Messages
785
Reaction score
0
Location
Gypsum, KS
I agree with the others, based on these pics 06T looks like a pretty easy top. He is deeper in his flank and chest. Looks more muscular. I don't know how they compare in wda, if they are close then that is an even stronger reason to choose 06T over the larger framed 05T. I also don't think there is enough difference in the data you list to make a difference in which one to pick. I sure would want to know more about the production performance of their dams and figure that into your selection. ie: calving records, milk, udder quality. Looks like 06T is more favorable in birth weight epd and they are about the same in growth epds. To me 06T looks like a bull that will mature out into a darn good looking herd bull. He is a masculine bull with solid markings and he just has an appearance of being a better keeping bull than 05T.
 

cfpinz

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 8, 2005
Messages
6,079
Reaction score
135
Location
Virginia
That first bull is snazzy. He looks better than most bulls at big name sales. You should be proud of him.

I know this crotchety old fart near you that could sure use a nice hereford bull like that one, he might trade you a set of pallet forks for him!
 

KNERSIE

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 16, 2006
Messages
7,058
Reaction score
1
Location
3rd World
First bull could have used a little more width and a stronger loin (as his REA indicates), the second bull is very short muscled and the muscle cuts off way too high on the round and could have been deeper with a better tailset.

First bull is a pretty decent bull, don't think much of the second bull, just not the type I feel the breed needs.
 

smnherf

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 24, 2006
Messages
452
Reaction score
0
Location
South Dakota
El_Putzo":21tzf9ta said:
Below are a couple of bulls I just got back from test. Both gained about 3.5 lbs a day, had -1 and -1.5 RFI, scanned 12.5 - 13.5 REA, and scanned 3.5 and 4.2 IMF. They are also both out of my cleanup bull who is a flush brother to LLL Affirmative 56N. (Thank You Rich Thompson!!)

The data on the bulls doesn't really mean that much to me without the scan weight and the bf measurement. I see this happen alot. Breeders advertise the REA but never tell the size the animal was when the scan was taken.

The RFI data is good, but how many bulls were they compared against?
 

Jovid

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 22, 2005
Messages
1,787
Reaction score
0
Location
Oklahoma
smnherf":2398f893 said:
El_Putzo":2398f893 said:
Below are a couple of bulls I just got back from test. Both gained about 3.5 lbs a day, had -1 and -1.5 RFI, scanned 12.5 - 13.5 REA, and scanned 3.5 and 4.2 IMF. They are also both out of my cleanup bull who is a flush brother to LLL Affirmative 56N. (Thank You Rich Thompson!!)

The data on the bulls doesn't really mean that much to me without the scan weight and the bf measurement. I see this happen alot. Breeders advertise the REA but never tell the size the animal was when the scan was taken.The RFI data is good, but how many bulls were they compared against?

smnherf

You bring up the most important factor about ultrasound & REA. Unless you know the weight when scanned it is pretty much worthless.
 
OP
El_Putzo

El_Putzo

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 22, 2004
Messages
1,103
Reaction score
0
Location
Central MO
Here is their complete data:

05T 06T
adj BW 78 68
On test wt 740 690
Off test wt 1110 1085
Off test age 399 387
ADG on Test 3.30 3.53
WDA 2.8 2.8
Adj REA 13.2 12.3
Adj IMF 3.5 4.1
Adj Rib Fat .25 .31
Pelvic 154 157
Scrotal 35 36
Frame 6.0 5.4
RFI -1.08 -1.48

Both bulls scanned on the day they came off test, so use that as the scan weight.

I hope you all can read that since it squishes it all up. I have not gotten ratio's back or specific numbers on contemporary groups yet, but I believe in the past the group size has been about 25 per pen.

As I said, I really need to get a different pic of the 05T bull, but that's hard to do when I leave for work before light and don't get home until after dark.
 

Jovid

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 22, 2005
Messages
1,787
Reaction score
0
Location
Oklahoma
El_Putzo":3p4ksran said:
Here is their complete data:

05T 06T
adj BW 78 68
On test wt 740 690
Off test wt 1110 1085
Off test age 399 387
ADG on Test 3.30 3.53
WDA 2.8 2.8
Adj REA 13.2 12.3
Adj IMF 3.5 4.1
Adj Rib Fat .25 .31
Pelvic 154 157
Scrotal 35 36
Frame 6.0 5.4
RFI -1.08 -1.48

Both bulls scanned on the day they came off test, so use that as the scan weight.

I hope you all can read that since it squishes it all up. I have not gotten ratio's back or specific numbers on contemporary groups yet, but I believe in the past the group size has been about 25 per pen.

As I said, I really need to get a different pic of the 05T bull, but that's hard to do when I leave for work before light and don't get home until after dark.

The REA based on their weight figures out to be 1.14 and 1.24 sq inches per 100 lbs is just OK and probably on the low end. The number that jumps out at me is the WDA only being 2.8 which to me is low.
 
OP
El_Putzo

El_Putzo

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 22, 2004
Messages
1,103
Reaction score
0
Location
Central MO
WDA can be decieving as well. Of course, I didn't expect you to know that these bulls went from the middle of April (weaning) to the middle of July (delivery to bull test) only getting about 6 to 8 lbs a day of grain. They were in with the rest of the commercial calves and got no special treatment for those 3 months. We only feed them to gain about 1.5 lbs per day. I guess if I had pushed them the whole time they would probably have a WDA of 3 or 3.1. Rookie mistake I guess. :oops:

Just curiously asking, Jovid, what is your expected REA in terms of square inches per 100 lbs? I've always thought that 1.00 is probably closer to average than some care to admit.

My cleanup bull was purchased for his maternal traits and bloodlines, not for terminal purposes such as 16 inch ribeyes. They performed about like I figured they would, which is plenty good to clean up lots of herds of black mongrels around here. Now if I can just convince these guys of the value of Heterosis.....
 
Top