Herf Bull Pic

[redfornow]

Its like everything else? Bad skill set, bad equipment and a bad angle will mean a bad pic everytime you take one.

Structurally sound animals set themselves up.

You and I agree on most things... But you have headed into my world? lol
I know good camera work. lol
And "Structurally sound animals" dont do the job... They are easier to take pics of without a doubt?
But People that dont know what they are doing? just dont know what they are doing?

And thats what I see the most of? Heck if the cows knew how to set up for a good pic and help me take it?
I bet I could train them to go to the barn and get hay in the winter also? :cowboy:

 

[JHH]

While it is possible to take a bad picture of a good bull, it's certainly easier to take a good picture of a good bull. If you find yourself waiting for just the right shot or taking lots of shots to get the right one, you probably don't have a lot to work with.
I hope this helps.

I agree with everything you have said....
But and I bet that JHH fits here also?
The only time I have ever taken photo's of anything in my life has been cattle?

Its like everything else? Bad skill set, bad equipment and a bad angle will mean a bad pic everytime you take one.

Now on the other hand I do ALOT of photoshop or corel apps at my work? I can take just about any photo an give you a good looking animal? I dont mind people using photoshop? Just use it well?
No room for silly touch ups in my world...

I couldnt take a good pic if My life depended on it. Seems the cows always look better than the actual pic. It may just be barn blindness to. I dont have the patience(sp) for it. I am always behind. ( Hey Knernsie if I would go polled I could find more time ;-) )

 

[HerefordSire]

I am still waiting for ANY explanation as to how an 'ALLEGED' 1% taint translates into ANY real world economic effect positively or negatively. There is probably more than a 1% accumulated taint in any pedigree to begin with going back to the original development/multiplication of the breed (or any breed for that matter). Heck if a 2% Simmental taint was REALLY why Feltons Domino 774 is a breed leader for calving ease, weaning weight, milk and growth, maternal calving ease, scrotal circumference, marbling, and is in the top 1% of the breed for all four $$ indexes, the breed should draft that Simmental.

I let HerefordSire handle all the economic inquiries. :tiphat:

George

Brandonm22...I think you have one of the best minds on the board. I am afraid this is one debate you are on the devil's advocate side.

If (774 was unfairly allowed to have an edge)
{
.....we are talking about heterosis of approximately 50% of a pedigree directly from Titan;
.....the approximate maximum advantage of any descendent of 774 could have 50% heterosis advantage
}

Now to the economics....

Since we are strictly estimating, let's say there was a theoretical 50% advantage for 10 generations because of selection. Instead of an average actual WW of 500 pounds for all other Herefords, descendants of 23D was able to generate 550 pounds for a 50 pound advantage, or 10%. If the 10% pound advantage was turned for 40 years with each year representing one calving season, the 50 pound advantage could translate to 50 million pound advantage in today's market because of the magic of compounding of opportunity cost.

Even if there was less than a 1% heretosis advantage in WW for 40 years, the amount of advantage could be eye popping relative to the initial investment and the magic of compounding opportunity cost. In other words, breed purists have a higher probability to go bankrupt than non-purists because the markets automatically compensate for both.

 

[dieselbeef]

after eading 65 posts on the pic of that bull i have relized i have no idea both of what you all are talking about most of the time and that i will probably never know...after sayin that tho that bull would probly be the best bull i would ever have and while i do see alot of what you are talking about i dont see it til afrter it has been pointed out.....ummm...i think...this is a serious discussion i wish i was able to be a part of

 

[SRBeef]

Its like everything else? Bad skill set, bad equipment and a bad angle will mean a bad pic everytime you take one.

Structurally sound animals set themselves up.

Many of the problems in picture taking stem from camera optics which can really distort the picture, compared to what you see in real life, by accentuating or narrowing distances. This can really be a problem if you are trying to take cattle pictures in close proximity with a wide angle lens.

George

This is a good point. I'm not much of a photographer but I do remember that a 50 to 55mm lens has about the same field of view and therefore perspective as the human eye. Taking cattle or any other photos with either a wide angle (less than 50 mm, usually in the 28 mm range) or a telephoto lens (lens with a focal length more than 55 mm, usually 75 to 200 mm) can distort things compared to what you would see with the human eye.

A good photographer will use this to his advantage to create shots but if we are trying to show things as seen by the human eye if we were actually standing there looking at the animal, we should only use something close to a 50 or 55mm focal length lens. fwiw.

Jim

 

[HerefordSire]

Probably a waste of my limited typing skills, but I'll try one more time...

Here is the very much oversimplified version...

Almost all economically important traits like WW, BW, YW, growthability, milking ability, PHENOTYPE, etc, is governed by quantitative inheritance. In simpler terms, many genes all have an additive effect to create what you get in terms of production and WHAT YOU SEE in terms of phenotype. There is no dominant and recessive in its purest form like in the simple Mendellian traits like polled vs horned or red vs black. So what you see in terms of phenotype is what you have and what you don't see in terms of phenotype is what you DON'T have.

Make up your own mind what is more likely to take your program forward. With this I rest my case.

KNERSIE...I have seen your words critique cattle photos for a couple of years now. I think you are relatively fair and take emotions into consideration. If I were to be negative enough to cause an owner to cut an animal from looking at one photo from the side (I hear you Rocket2222...good post), I have to know what the owner has in inventory before I discouraged non-selection for future breeding. While you may have communicated with El_Putzo privately and personally know his inventory first hand, this was not publisized. Therefore, don't you agree that cutting this animal could be the best animal currently in the owner's herd?

Secondly, the WW measurement was over 600 pounds for a purebred. This tells me, a cross onto an Angus cow is likely to produce a WW higher than 600 and possibly 700, which is not too shabby. You yourself mentioned positive words about the testes. Now then, if I were in business of raising cattle and taking them to the sale barn, I would want the WW to be very high, I would want the calf's sire to live a long time, and I would want the calf's sire to be very fertile. These two items alone, the WW and the scrotum size, are enough reasons to give the bull a chance, especially without knowing what the owner has in inventory.

Don't you agree?

 

[Hereford76]

97% pure that's a good one.

I was hoping no one would even notice that "straight hereford" comment I made cause i just hate talking about it.

putzo - i don't know the first thing about your cattle.... but i wouldn't hesitate for a second to take you up on your offer about watching an animal from my place melt away in the july heat on yours. i run herefords for this exact reason as i'm sure its part of yours, and the herd here is a product of 64 years of development in an environment that is punishing and extremely dry. my county is the only in north america to hit D5 drought status in a rain fall 30 year norm of 8 inches to begin with. three years in a row we had under 3.00 inches of measureable precip for the enitre individual year and that was going out of the counties weather station east of us and not mine cause my station recorder less. I guess this pretty much explains why i am so critical of how an animal is developed.... i hear ya on the melt away remark. i've seen my fair share of purchased bulls melt away. its also the reason i am so damn proud of the herd. when the neighbors "straight black" herds have 30% dry cows in the fall or have to liquidate cause the cattle can't cut it is when my decisions start to make sense.

i was kind of feeding off someone else's remarks on the late bloomer - i've always had a hard time looking at polled cattle, but to each his own.

the titan thing - that bull was born about 30 miles from here - how many of you saw titan's mom. i know there's a percentage error in records but i would say 5% is being generous - too many guys out there that don't know for sure what every mating is. i guess i would be called a purist by lots on hear but that don't bother me one bit. most of all that just got swept under the rug and I think it was the best for the breed for it to just disappear, but aha had good reason to get it out of the limelight and when the aha got the dna test for dilutor i was furious to see what they did with it. filtering through dirty pedigrees and passing the non carriers no matter how they were bred. i seen a direct daughter of 34Z mated to the oxhley bull - can't think of his name now, anyhow a titan descendant - that was pure white. but at the same time it was ok to dna test similairly bred cattle and call them a hereford if they didn't carry the gene. i don't agree with it plain and simple. it doesn't really matter to me anyhow cause i'll never use that stuff. it does bother me to see so many cattle out there with those genetics and i don't really know but i wonder how many of them even know what they were or have.

as a seedstock breeder do you creep feed your calves? cause using those genetics is the same thing to me. how can you get an accurate picture

no i remember why i quit typing on this deal.

 

[Brandonm22]

97% pure that's a good one.

If your math shows something else, I will be glad to look at it to see which one of us is in error.

 

[Watertondifter]

Sorry...cut'em!

 

[KNERSIE]

KNERSIE...I have seen your words critique cattle photos for a couple of years now. I think you are relatively fair and take emotions into consideration.

As you probably have gathered, I don't enjoy giving negative critique and seldom do, UNLESS I was asked specifically for my opinion or the poster keep asking for more opinions. You can read between the lines if I don't comment at all on a photo especially if its a hereford.

If I were to be negative enough to cause an owner to cut an animal from looking at one photo from the side (I hear you Rocket2222...good post), I have to know what the owner has in inventory before I discouraged non-selection for future breeding.

I don't agree, every breed has a set standard that has to be met for the animal to qualify as seedstock material. I know this isn't enforced by the AHA in the USA like it is done elsewhere in the world, in SA a breed inspector has to come to the farm or a bulltesting centre to do a liniar classification and to see if the animal meets the requirements for registration. That specific bull wouldn't pass the test here, regardless of whether he is the best animal in El Putzo' herd (which I know he isn't from previous photos posted), and in MY opinion he's not worthy of being called a registered hereford.

While you may have communicated with El_Putzo privately and personally know his inventory first hand, this was not publisized. Therefore, don't you agree that cutting this animal could be the best animal currently in the owner's herd?

I have not communicated with El Putzo in private in this instance, but have done so in the past. If this bull calf is the best in his herd he needs more bullpower than this calf can offer and would still be better off cutting him and and also culling some of the bottom end of his herd.

Secondly, the WW measurement was over 600 pounds for a purebred. This tells me, a cross onto an Angus cow is likely to produce a WW higher than 600 and possibly 700, which is not too shabby.

His WW is good, but I have many cows in my commercial herd that weans heavier calves than some stud cows, still doesn't make their calves potential stud sires.

You yourself mentioned positive words about the testes. Now then, if I were in business of raising cattle and taking them to the sale barn, I would want the WW to be very high, I would want the calf's sire to live a long time, and I would want the calf's sire to be very fertile.

I agree 100%, that is part of the reason I don't see him as a bull prospect, with his structural problems his productive life is likely to be cut short by injury or inflammation caused by the stress and strain that breeding will put on his less than perfect structure.

These two items alone, the WW and the scrotum size, are enough reasons to give the bull a chance, especially without knowing what the owner has in inventory.

Not for me.

Don't you agree?

I agree on some of the points you make, don't agree on the application of allof you logic.

 

[dieselbeef]

ialmost cannot fathom the dpeth of yall sknowledge on cattle and the herefrod history and pedigrees..i am amazed by nearly evry post on here..good and bad

at my age of 44 i can only imagine having half the herd or knowledge some of you have

granted i have a reg job and its not my entire lively hood but i can look back at osme of my decisions and wonder wth i was thinkin when i made them..even on the samll scale that im at...only 20 head of comm mutt cows and a beefmaster x bull.

700lb ww...not even imaginable to me. thats a yrlng for me. i wish i knew how to get to where some of you are at

:clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: .

 

[Hereford76]

I am still waiting for ANY explanation as to how an 'ALLEGED' 1% taint translates into ANY real world economic effect positively or negatively. There is probably more than a 1% accumulated taint in any pedigree to begin with going back to the original development/multiplication of the breed (or any breed for that matter). Heck if a 2% Simmental taint was REALLY why Feltons Domino 774 is a breed leader for calving ease, weaning weight, milk and growth, maternal calving ease, scrotal circumference, marbling, and is in the top 1% of the breed for all four $$ indexes, the breed should draft that Simmental.

you say draft that animal - i say, then why even bother with a hereford to begin with. i'll tell you why, cause the hereford breed has more to offer than carcass. i feel that herefords are adequate in carcass quatlities but have much more value in their maternal, fleshing, do-ability, efficiency... whatever you want to call it. if you want to talk about economics - keep mongrelizing the hereford breed and when it has lost its character and we have bred the traits that come natural to a hereford and the traits that I value them for right out of them, how much with the industry have lost in real world value. and you can say the same for heterosis.

 

[Brandonm22]

I think he means it is an oxymoron.

Like: 97% pregnant.

Either it's pure or it isn't.

Either your wife's pregnant or she isn't.

The Hereford Association says every animal in his pedigree is a "pure" Hereford: that makes him a "pure" Hereford and should have forever ended this line of discussion. This is why I like (at least the theory of) EPDs. All the animals compete head to head and the cream rises to the top while those that are lacking in economically measurable traits are shown to be so lacking, instead of bragging on (or knocking) cattle because we have pleasant (or not so pleasant) memories of distant ancestors in the pedigree. Who cares if bull 809 traces ten ways to Anxiety the Fourth or Bubba the Magnificent if we got ultrasound data showing that bull 809's calves don't marble worth a flip and ratios showing that his calves are 40 lbs lighter than his contemporaries at weaning and 3 lbs heavier at birth??? Chop that sucker's head off and eliminate him from the gene pool even if he makes a pretty picture. Nobody likes phenotypic evaluation more than me; but honestly somebody casting stones because they claim they remember an animal's Great Great Great Great Grandam "37!!?!?!" years ago and didn't like HER is going beyond silliness. THAT kind of selection is both nutty and ignorant of any understanding of the science of genetics.

 

[KNERSIE]

ialmost cannot fathom the dpeth of yall sknowledge on cattle and the herefrod history and pedigrees..i am amazed by nearly evry post on here..good and bad

at my age of 44 i can only imagine having half the herd or knowledge some of you have

granted i have a reg job and its not my entire lively hood but i can look back at osme of my decisions and wonder wth i was thinkin when i made them..even on the samll scale that im at...only 20 head of comm mutt cows and a beefmaster x bull.

700lb ww...not even imaginable to me. thats a yrlng for me. i wish i knew how to get to where some of you are at

:clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: .

Dieselbeef, I can assure you there isn't a single breeder on this board that don't do that from time to time.

 

[dun]

ialmost cannot fathom the dpeth of yall sknowledge on cattle and the herefrod history and pedigrees..i am amazed by nearly evry post on here..good and bad

at my age of 44 i can only imagine having half the herd or knowledge some of you have

granted i have a reg job and its not my entire lively hood but i can look back at osme of my decisions and wonder wth i was thinkin when i made them..even on the samll scale that im at...only 20 head of comm mutt cows and a beefmaster x bull.

700lb ww...not even imaginable to me. thats a yrlng for me. i wish i knew how to get to where some of you are at

:clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: .

Dieselbeef, I can assure you there isn't a single breeder on this board that don't do that from time to time.

Yeah, what KNERSIE said!

 

[DOC HARRIS]

In reading the many comments and posts relating to the "multiple" subjects referred to on this thread, I am struck with a couple or so points to consider in our Beef Cattle Management Protocols.

Education and knowledge of one's business is absolutely imperative if emotional and financial success is to be realized. I trust that no one will deny the veracity of that statement!

That being accepted - may we ALL agree that sometimes the rhetoric surrounding some details in ANY business agenda can be over-done and overewhelming?!! While most of the accompanying recitation may be factual and specifically accurate, in practicality, insofar as the average beef cattle producer is concerned, most of this thread is impracticable and is not feasible for extensive cogitation.

There are more compelling and motivating topics for the Beef breeder of today to concern himself with than whether a specific individual's 14th generation dam was sired by Bull Hoopty-Doo or Fiddle-Dee-Dee - OR - not!

Of course, in the final analysis - I guess it is what 'turns you on!'

DOC HARRIS

 

[El_Putzo]

I would also like everyone to know that I appreciate your comments, good or bad. It helps me see past my barn blindness. However, I think a different pic may have gotten me different comments. Oh well, I never said I was a good photographer either. :lol:

I see folks using this phrase a lot, especially when it's a fairly well known bull, or a bull used by a "top" breeder, somebody takes a picture of a bull that shows his structural faults, but they choose to ignore them because they like the breeder or the bulls breeding, the normal excuse for this is "it's not a good picture of him, did you see the other picture of him", this is normally a picture of when he was younger on full feed, [ hiding the faults ] or a picture taken a different angle, in a different light, also hiding the faults. While I have no doubt that today, tomorrow or next month you will be able to get that one photo that shows this bull calf to be substantially better looking than the picture you posted, it will not change the fact that those faults will still be there, hidden by a "good" picture.

Here's an example, this is a picture I posted earlier of a bull calf born this past fall, it's a fairly "good" picture of him, the fact that he stopped walking going slightly down hill, in poor light with a lot of hair, somewhat hides the fact that he is pinched at the heart girth.

Here he his a couple of months latter, at about 6 months old, in a different light, now a steer, which clearly shows the problem, hidden above by the "good" picture.

Here's a pic of another steer from this past fall, about the same age, who's not really strong in his heart girth, he's not overly pinched either. I could take 100 photo's of this calf, from any direction at any time, in any light and none of them would show him to have a pinched heart girth, because its not a problem or structural fault he has

While it is possible to take a bad picture of a good bull, it's certainly easier to take a good picture of a good bull. If you find yourself waiting for just the right shot or taking lots of shots to get the right one, you probably don't have a lot to work with.
I hope this helps.

I appreciate you taking the time to explain all that, but by the same token, you could take an animal which is nearly 100% structurally sound, put him on uneven terrain and stretch him out a bit, and make him look pretty sorry. You have to remember, it can go either way. I also didn't take many shots of him. It was getting dark and he was feeling pretty frisky that night, so I didn't have much to choose from.

 

[JHH]

Well I guess this is how we welcome you back! While the pic may not be the best and he may not be standing right I would still take the advice of the breeders on here. They are just trying to give you an honest unbiased opinion.

I am afraid I would have steered him also. I liked a little bull that I had last fall and he is now about ready for the freezer

We have talked about everthing from being purebred to management. I think you need to post 2 newer good pics and repost and see what is said then. JHH

P.S. You have posted better looking animals. Dont let us run you off again!

 

[rocket2222]

I appreciate you taking the time to explain all that, but by the same token, you could take an animal which is nearly 100% structurally sound, put him on uneven terrain and stretch him out a bit, and make him look pretty sorry. You have to remember, it can go either way. I also didn't take many shots of him. It was getting dark and he was feeling pretty frisky that night, so I didn't have much to choose from.

I'll never make a teacher. I chose these two animals because I already had some of the pics uploaded. I picked out these pictures because its pretty obvious there was no set up time, it was one shot on each and put the camera away.
My herd bull eating, scrunched up, and stretched out in full sunlight.

One of my cows, she was eating till I jumped over the fence, raised her head up and I took the pic, I took the next pic from my truck from about a hundred feet away with a zoom, she again was eating, I blew the horn, see looked, I took the pic, and here she is scratching.

In all these pictures no one's standing squarely or posing, there was no set up time, one shot for each pic. According to y'all it's the pictures that make them look bad, because you don't have the time to set them, or the lens you're using makes them look swaybacked, cow hocked and light muscled so the 2 animals pictured above should look pretty sorry, I'm thick skinned, so tear them up.

 

[JHH]

Not much to tear up or apart. If you are really that upset with them they are welcome at my place. who do you suggest for shipping? Puting a horned bull on those cows wouldnt upset you much would it? JHH