Here's a black bull for ya.

[krenwic]

this thread sums up what is wrong with the angus breed today...epds and visual evaluation are not used properly in combinatiotion to make breeding selections. single trait or "multiple similar trait" selection has become to commonplace. there is no one bull that will do everything. the OCC genetics can only do what they are bred to do and the same with GAR, SAV, etc. just use accordingly.

 

[Meadowoaksfarm]

Click his link on this page:

http://www.ohldecattle.com/sired.html

Heard they sold a bull this week in their sale for $250,000 for 1/2 interest.

'Course that's just another number.

This to me is what an Angus bull should look like.

They put an extra zero on it

That is correct it was $25,000

 

[Meadowoaksfarm]

And which part of Anchor's genetics is it that you think these ranches have chosen in hopes to make better their program? And did they use Anchor to your knowledge? And exactly which bull or females have stood out in any of their breeding programs out of his genetics, if any?

RD-Sam: You seem like a nice fellow, but do you understand the difference between a breeder and a multiplier? My impression of you is that you spend hours looking at the ads in the angus journal and think that epds are all that.

Anchor is a breed Giant, due to the fact that he produces bulls with muscle and females that are productive no problem hassle free cows. Those 100+ YW epds that you seem to admire so much come with 1800 lb daughters that cost a fortune to feed. Have a nice day.

 

[Ned Jr.]

I don't think Anchor calves would live long in my environment.

 

[Frankie]

Inasmuch as Anchor has obviously "worked well" with other breeder's, I would have to assume that the Cow side of your "Hodge-Podge" genetics would be suspect in your disappointing results!

DOC HARRIS

I'm not one to try and defend anyone else, but in this case he said other bulls have worked well with their cows, and Anchor didn't.
:!:

I'm still waiting for you to show me where all those ranches you listed used Anchor, and had good results? Where are all these bulls that are selling thousands of straws of semen, and where are all these cows that are being flushed due to their superior traits?

Or is this just another blanket attack from Doc that has no target and no real data to back up the generalized attack? :wave:

RD-Sam-

Sam, as I have told you in the past, you avoid "..reading "the WORDS". Go back and read the post - s-l-o-w-l-y! I did NOT say that the various ranches "used Anchor". I said they ". . .moved to ameliorate their breeding program to . . .include the genetics that incorporate those commensurable with those of OCC Anchor 771A. Is that rhetoric to advanced for you to comprehend?

End of discussion.

DOC HARRIS

"End of discussion." :lol: :lol: Not so fast.

You didn't say they used Anchor? I'd guess 80%+ of Angus breeders have 23-4 or 6807 in their herd somewhere. So, yeah, all those programs used some of the same genetics. But to even put Pharo and Gardiner in the same sentence, is laughable. Though both are very successful, their programs are not similar. I seriously doubt you'd ever find Gardiners or Three Trees using a bull with a below breed average WW EPD.

 

[RD-Sam]

And which part of Anchor's genetics is it that you think these ranches have chosen in hopes to make better their program? And did they use Anchor to your knowledge? And exactly which bull or females have stood out in any of their breeding programs out of his genetics, if any?

RD-Sam: You seem like a nice fellow, but do you understand the difference between a breeder and a multiplier? My impression of you is that you spend hours looking at the ads in the angus journal and think that epds are all that.

Anchor is a breed Giant, due to the fact that he produces bulls with muscle and females that are productive no problem hassle free cows. Those 100+ YW epds that you seem to admire so much come with 1800 lb daughters that cost a fortune to feed. Have a nice day.

You would be wrong, I did look through the first Angus journal I received, and looked at the adds, but since then I have hardly even opened one. I do get emails with adds, and if one looks interesting and I think it's what I am looking for, then I study up on the bull. Anchor peaked my interest by the picture, but his EPD is not in line with what I am looking for, and what I think will work for me. Cow energy is towards the top of the list of my concerns, and I like to keep that at least around breed average if possible. As for the 100+ YW, that is not what I look for. Now is there any other misconceptions you might have of me? :tiphat:

 

[showing71]

RD-Sam: what exactly are you looking for EPDs wise and phenotypically?

 

[RD-Sam]

RD-Sam: what exactly are you looking for EPDs wise and phenotypically?

I look for the calving ease to be reasonable, which means the BW is going to usually be under 4. I like the milk to be around 20, but give or take 5 either way works for me. I prefer to see $EN in the positive range, but I will fudge a little if a bull has alot to offer in other areas. Scrotal needs to be breed average or better, but I might fudge a little if the bull has alot to offer in other areas and I have a cow with a good scotal EPD. Frame score on the cows between 5 and 6, bulls usually 6 to 6.5. The carcass data is what interests me the most, I like to see all of that above average in a bull, that is going to pretty much mean a high $B. Genestar data is important too. Basically if I am going to spend money on semen, the bull better be above average in a half dozen areas and a trait leader in several areas or why bother using him? There are plenty of bulls out there with great phenotype and better than average EPD's, and to me it's about breeding for improvement over breed average.

 

[RD-Sam]

Lets use this bull as an example, he is probably not as well known as some of the high profile bulls. Do you see anything wrong with this bull phenotypically that would exclude him as a candidate for use on your herd?

 

[BRG]

To me he looks like he does not express enough muscle, but I do like his depth of body, heart, and flank. But I would need to see him and his dam in person, and the numbers would be last before I could make a decision. But by the photo, I don't care for him enough to use him.

 

[showing71]

Lets use this bull as an example, he is probably not as well known as some of the high profile bulls. Do you see anything wrong with this bull phenotypically that would exclude him as a candidate for use on your herd?

I like to see a tail head that doesn't round off like that, it's my pet peeve because its so hard to breed out. The other thing is I like to see a little more muscle definition (could be just the pic, and it's hard to tell without a rear shot).

 

[RD-Sam]

Express enough muscle where?

 

[RD-Sam]

Lets use this bull as an example, he is probably not as well known as some of the high profile bulls. Do you see anything wrong with this bull phenotypically that would exclude him as a candidate for use on your herd?

I like to see a tail head that doesn't round off like that, it's my pet peeve because its so hard to breed out. The other thing is I like to see a little more muscle definition (could be just the pic, and it's hard to tell without a rear shot).

The tail head has been a debate many times on this forum, I think the general concensous was that a lower tail head meant easier calving. I am just the opposite of you in that respect, I think a higher tailhead looks incorrect.

 

[BRG]

In his rear quarter. It looks like it is rounded out do to the fact that he is overly fat. It doesn't look like muscle to me. He also looks a bit flat sided.

He may be thick, but by the photo, that is what I see.

 

[showing71]

Lets use this bull as an example, he is probably not as well known as some of the high profile bulls. Do you see anything wrong with this bull phenotypically that would exclude him as a candidate for use on your herd?

I like to see a tail head that doesn't round off like that, it's my pet peeve because its so hard to breed out. The other thing is I like to see a little more muscle definition (could be just the pic, and it's hard to tell without a rear shot).

The tail head has been a debate many times on this forum, I think the general concensous was that a lower tail head meant easier calving. I am just the opposite of you in that respect, I think a higher tailhead looks incorrect.

Probably depends on the area you're from. I'm not talking about those super high ones where the loin then looks pinched. I like ones like this http://www.bullbarn.com/angblkepd.asp?ID=627. (not talking about the bull, just a pic that show's what I look for in a tailhead).

 

[RD-Sam]

In his rear quarter. It looks like it is rounded out do to the fact that he is overly fat. It doesn't look like muscle to me. He also looks a bit flat sided.

He may be thick, but by the photo, that is what I see.

I agree, his rear quarter could be better, and it isn't as good as Anchors. I don't think he is flat though. I've looked at cattle in the field that looked slab sided looking at the profile, then you walk behind then and do a double take. :lol2:

 

[RD-Sam]

Lets use this bull as an example, he is probably not as well known as some of the high profile bulls. Do you see anything wrong with this bull phenotypically that would exclude him as a candidate for use on your herd?

I like to see a tail head that doesn't round off like that, it's my pet peeve because its so hard to breed out. The other thing is I like to see a little more muscle definition (could be just the pic, and it's hard to tell without a rear shot).

Probably depends on the area you're from. I'm not talking about those super high ones where the loin then looks pinched. I like ones like this http://www.bullbarn.com/angblkepd.asp?ID=627. (not talking about the bull, just a pic that show's what I look for in a tailhead).[/quote]

That one isn't bad, but still a tick too high in my opinion. Could be a show thing too, looks like you show cattle?

 

[showing71]

Lets use this bull as an example, he is probably not as well known as some of the high profile bulls. Do you see anything wrong with this bull phenotypically that would exclude him as a candidate for use on your herd?

I like to see a tail head that doesn't round off like that, it's my pet peeve because its so hard to breed out. The other thing is I like to see a little more muscle definition (could be just the pic, and it's hard to tell without a rear shot).

Probably depends on the area you're from. I'm not talking about those super high ones where the loin then looks pinched. I like ones like this http://www.bullbarn.com/angblkepd.asp?ID=627. (not talking about the bull, just a pic that show's what I look for in a tailhead).

That one isn't bad, but still a tick too high in my opinion. Could be a show thing too, looks like you show cattle?[/quote]
Yes, I show purebreds. Mostly reds, but have shown some blacks in the past (I own both). I also sell bulls and replacement heifers. I don't breed my entire herd for show purposes, just a select few. I still tend to lean more to the fancier/showier phenotypes when breeding the rest of the herd (still use epds).

 

[RD-Sam]

Since you use EPD's, what do you think of the EPD compared to the bull in the picture? http://angussemen.com/epd.asp?ID=717

He is top 10% or better in nine catagories of his EPD, he is also a calving ease bull, and has high IMF.

 

[BRG]

Unless I was looking for a heifer bull, I wouldn't use him, with the combination of not caring for him in his photo and now having a birth epd that low, I would bet his is a bit to fine boned for me and doesn't have the performance or mucle that I like. If I was breeding a bunch of heifers, maybe.