So I have 3 GAR bulls that I'm wanting to compare. GAR Momentum, Prophet and Sure Fire. I'm hearing that Sure Fire lacks chest and mid-rib depth and that Prophet throws bigger calves than expected...so out of the 3 bulls who is passing on chest depth and mid-rib to their offspring? What have the birthweights been from the bulls you have used? Any other insights and opinions on these bulls are welcomed. Thanks!
GAR Angus - comparisons
- Thread starter lms0229
- Start date
Help Support CattleToday:
frieghttrain
Well-known member
Just that I wouldn't want any Gar bull for keeping replacements. But if I had to out of those three it'd be Prophet.
T & B farms
Well-known member
Are you dead set on ruining your phenotype, foot quality, fertility, and fleshing ability?
wbvs58
Well-known member
I have used Prophet, yes I found his calves a bit bigger than expected but not over the top. I found his calves grew very well, some phenominal weaning weights, they seem to be able to use their mothers milk well but they come back to the pack after weaning and I would rate them as hard doers. I have a few of his daughters and I think they are good cows, a bit hard doing until they get a bit of age on them but still rear a great calf and no problem breeding back.
Ken
Ken
T & B farms said:
I don't remember their feet being rated bad, are they? I know they are not the fleshier of the Angus breed but I thought with proper pairings they could be a good match for some. Can you be more specific with the phenotype flaws? Thank you
T & B farms
Well-known member
Give us some back ground on your operation. Do you have registered stock? If they are commercial, how are you marketing them? Feeding them to slaughter and selling them on the grid? Or just hauling them to the sale barn? Keeping back heifers?
I have a breeder with Gar genetics near me. I drive by them every day. They are just flat ugly to my eye. The performance is great as long as they have their face in a feed bunk.
I have a breeder with Gar genetics near me. I drive by them every day. They are just flat ugly to my eye. The performance is great as long as they have their face in a feed bunk.
T & B farms said:
I don't have registered stock so I'm not worried there. I am feeding them out and selling the meat. I wouldn't mind keeping some of the genetics if they turned out good because of the potential carcass quality. I like short and wide cattle personally so I'm not worried about Momentum's stature being on the shorter side. I like good leg structure though. I like more the petite bone with ample muscling. I will add a picture of one of my 4 1/2 month old heifer calves to give an idea of what I'm talking about if that helps. Wouldn't mind her having a little more flesh though. Haha
wbvs58
Well-known member
Just looking back at the records and the BW were not too bad, ranging from 37kg to 45kg (100lb), I think what put in the back of my mind the BW was I had a couple of heifers with calves over 40kg but I was getting heavy calves from a lot of my heifers in those years, I had some heifers with Black Pearl calves around the 45 kg mark as well.lms0229 said:
Phenotype they have plenty of length and depth, the bulls had a lot of size to them and always sold well getting my best prices and had feedback from buyers that they are very pleased with the progeny. The cows as I mentioned start to look good as they mature when they get to keep a bit more weight on, big strong cows. I have been crossing them back to thicker bulls like SAV Renown, EF Commando and this year SAV Rainmaster and getting some nice calves.
Ken
wbvs58
Well-known member
I had no problem with feet or legs, everyone will tell you he throws a lot of white but I haven't found it to be excessive.
Ken
Ken
Prophet is a proven Bull so I'd actually trust the numbers here & this is what they tell me.
No real foot issues, tons of marbling & a lot of growth. He has good calving ease but shouldn't throw the little dinks some super low birthweight calving ease bulls do. To me, a different phenotype & I wonder if the females tend to be more scopey or tubular. That along with the growth and milk would tend to make them hard doing. Below average heifer pregnancy and scrotal as well so he's primarily a terminal Bull.
If you plan on keeping them I'd go with Sure Fire because he may have less growth but it's still plenty and the fertility indicators are better.
Momentum has basically been used to create more marbling but otherwise the other choices would be better.
No real foot issues, tons of marbling & a lot of growth. He has good calving ease but shouldn't throw the little dinks some super low birthweight calving ease bulls do. To me, a different phenotype & I wonder if the females tend to be more scopey or tubular. That along with the growth and milk would tend to make them hard doing. Below average heifer pregnancy and scrotal as well so he's primarily a terminal Bull.
If you plan on keeping them I'd go with Sure Fire because he may have less growth but it's still plenty and the fertility indicators are better.
Momentum has basically been used to create more marbling but otherwise the other choices would be better.
frieghttrain
Well-known member
For reasons already stated. Good cattle for feeding out. Harder doing animals, if you want muscle they're not gonna add it.lms0229 said:
polledbull
Well-known member
Gardner is in the feedlot business, they breed cattle to excel in the feed yard, they will tend to be a little flat sided and hard doers out in the pasture situation ,
Lucky_P
Well-known member
what polledbull said... GAR has been selecting for, and 'stacking' carcass trait epds since... at least back in the 1980s... I've got articles in my files on their breeding strategies from as far back as 1985 or so.
They may not be 'pretty', and may not be best for grass-based beef production, but that's not particularly what they were bred to be.
They may not be 'pretty', and may not be best for grass-based beef production, but that's not particularly what they were bred to be.
