Either one of these any good? Comments Welcome

[jscunn]

1090

1036

Both calves born March 2011, pictured at not quite 11 months of age. Anyone have a preference,both calves ratioed in the 90s for BW and over 100 for weaning.

 

[TennesseeTuxedo]

I prefer the first one. What's he standing in? I'd like to see his feet.

They're both pretty darned nice though.

 

[Red Bull Breeder]

The one on the bottom i think would be to one i would pick. Not that i am a gonna pick a black one.

 

[3waycross]

Nice bulls. The first one's powerful and soggy as heck. Second one is nice for his type but they are pretty different bulls. Would like to see the EPD's on them. You buying or selling and are they angus or crosses?
They must be hot stuff some took copyrighted pictures of them :lol2:

 

[robert]

are they Iowa bulls by any chance?

 

[Isomade]

Both are nice, I prefer the first one.

 

[angusdave63]

i like both bulls but i like the first one best, i dont like a bull with a long neck, tell us more about them.

 

[jscunn]

Didnt put them up to try and sell them, a friend and I were having a difference in opinion on which calf is best. The they are standing in corn stalk bedding. Really just looking for opinions, yes they are alittle different in type. BTW I am winning 3 - 1.

I will give you guys alittle more info.
Bulls sired by maternal brothers
Both were low 80s at birth
Both out of first calf heifers
Both are registered Angus bulls
Just looking for ideas/opinions without the flavor of pedigrees to influence peoples opinions.

More information later.

 

[3waycross]

Well I wouldn't pass on either one but it's hard not to pick the first bull. I'd love to breed him to a couple of my GV cows!

 

[slick4591]

First one for me. More power sums him up.

 

[Red Bull Breeder]

The first bull is a bit deeper bodied carrys more fat. Second bull has more red meat muscle and carrys less fat. Second bull will not suffer from the noassatoll in harder times.

 

[3waycross]

How about giving us the $EN numbers on both bulls?

 

[CandyMeadowFarms]

2 darn good rascals right there JSCUNN.. Message me details if you dont care

 

[robert]

I guess I'll post my observations. The 1090 looks altogether deeper, stouter than 1036 but I think a good bit of that is the depth of stalks under him. The lack of stalks under 1036 makes him appear taller and shallower, add to that his more elevated head position and he gives the impression of being a showier, more lightweight bull, the top bull is up to nearly his hocks in stalks, this adds to the impression of depth of body, the lower head position adds a slightly more masculine appearance to the view, less showy more workmanlike. 1036 seems a tad high in the tailhead, both have much to commend them. I'd be willing to bet that side by side in the flesh you'd have a lot tougher time deciding.

 

[KNERSIE]

Both pretty good, I prefer the type of the first bull and the muscle shape of the second.

 

[ALACOWMAN]

both are nice,, like the 1st real well...

 

[pdfangus]

late to the party

Both will do....

the first bull appears to me to be a little more rugged, a little deeper in his heart girth and belly.

while both are straight and strong with good bone,and seem to be correct with some evidence of meat and muscle the first bull just appears to have a little more dimension to him from every angle.

The second bull is cleaner fronted and more trim in his appearance but appears to be about as powerfully driven as the first bull.

just from the photos I would take the first bull.

 

[Chuckie]

#1, then #2. Let me guess the genetics....
Chuckie

 

[jscunn]

Chuckie,
You might be surprised...

 

[gizmom]

Jscunn

I like them both but from the photos would have to go with #1.

Gizmom