How about some Lineal Measurements

Help Support CattleToday:

rkaiser

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 31, 2005
Messages
101
Reaction score
0
Location
Ponoka Alberta Canada
57_1029.jpg

Overall score 3.83 with 5 being perfect. Rump height of 54inches Girth 87, and Flank 87.3
83P_0954.jpg

Overall score 4.38 again 5 being perfect Rump height of 51-1/2 inches Girth 88, and Flank 88
133_0955.jpg

Overall score 4.25 Rump height 51 - 1/3 inches
Girth 88.3, and Flank 87

All three bulls are about 22 months of age and about 1700 pounds.[/img]
 
RKiser, is the 5 a arbitrary measurement set up by Bonsma ? Why is it perfect?
 
I guess this just goes back to the talks about breeding for type, not for fads - or breeds for that matter. If you forget that there are breeds of cattle at all, just for arguments sake, and forget the style of the show ring or high-dollar cattle, and just select for cattle that work, you come up with bulls like this.

Extremely deep, easy-fleshing, thick, etc, etc. Whatever breed they are doesn't matter, they are the TYPE that will be efficient, fertile and easier to keep. I simply find it fascinating that the look of an animal in the mainstream cattle industry, has gone so far from function towards fad. The truth of it all is, when you find the most efficient and functional animals, they do in fact look like this. And even more interesting, is that the lineal measurement scoring system identifies them as such.

JMHO, so let the games begin. ;-)
 
purecountry":ms5lruno said:
I guess this just goes back to the talks about breeding for type, not for fads - or breeds for that matter. If you forget that there are breeds of cattle at all, just for arguments sake, and forget the style of the show ring or high-dollar cattle, and just select for cattle that work, you come up with bulls like this.

Extremely deep, easy-fleshing, thick, etc, etc. Whatever breed they are doesn't matter, they are the TYPE that will be efficient, fertile and easier to keep. I simply find it fascinating that the look of an animal in the mainstream cattle industry, has gone so far from function towards fad. The truth of it all is, when you find the most efficient and functional animals, they do in fact look like this. And even more interesting, is that the lineal measurement scoring system identifies them as such.

JMHO, so let the games begin. ;-)
I certainly won't argue with any of the statement. Why do you need the lineal measurement though? You certainly can see his type before you put a tape on him. These bulls would eat up alot of shows btw. You shouldn't have such preconcieved ideas. There alot of good cowboy judges. You also have alot of others that are meat animal scientist that try to use epd's . If epd's are to be used they certainly shouldn't be used in the show ring . The show ring is a phenotypical evaluation.
 
ollie'":3mts59fn said:
If epd's are to be used they certainly shouldn't be used in the show ring . The show ring is a phenotypical evaluation.

And that's the truth.
 
Maybe perfect was a wrong choice of my words ollie. 5 is the top of a scale from 1 to 5.

Why is it perfect, why is it the top score? Because in a lot of Cattlemens mninds including Bonsma's, mesurements of these kinds identify cattle with fertility, vigor, adabtability, feed efficiency, calving ease, low maintenance and especially quality carcass producing characteristics.

Eat up a lot of shows Ollie??? Don't know about that. But I will agree that there are a lot of good cowboy judges and most could pick up on this lineal measurement thing with their eyeball if they remain honest with themselves.

Not bragging here but these three bulls were my picks for our own future herd bulls and the scoring showed where my eyeball was at.

A little surprised with the lower score for the 57P bull, and will have to study the numbers a bit more to see where he was lacking. Any thoughts from the pictures?
 
If that is the top bull, from the pics he looks a little tighter heart girth( I read you measurements and you say he isn't so I guess he isn't) He looks a littler narrower pinned and shorter from hooks to pins. He is just taller I guess which hurts you ratio in the bonsma deal compared to his length and width , right? The red bull eats both black bulls except for his flank. I'l like more gut on him. He is thick though..of course according to mtnman and seth, I can't really see muscle expression, just fat and bone. They are three nice bulls. Lots of cows need them.
 
Frankie":2c2s4jsa said:
ollie'":2c2s4jsa said:
If epd's are to be used they certainly shouldn't be used in the show ring . The show ring is a phenotypical evaluation.

And that's the truth.
Why frankie....... you'll make me blush.... :oops:
 
I like them RKaiser but to suit me better they could be made on the same pattern but bigger. 5.5 to 6.5 or so suits me best. I would rather have these 4 frame bulls made like this than a 6 frame bull made like an 8 frame, narrow and gutless.
 
Right, Dun, but Frye is clueless. Besides, he doesn't do 1-5, so this must be a different system. Just wondering how it all is working, and where it all came from. Are these guys all copying someone else, or what?

mtnman
 
Well mntman, should we just leave this thread end with your opinion of a clueless man or what?

This is the first time I have used this tool, and I need to learn more about it. But it seemed to match my eye and a hell of a lot of other cattlemens eyes who I know better than you.

Show us what you are about mntnman. Post a picture of that hersire of yours, for us to take a look at.
 
I didn't say I didn't like the bulls, they are just about as good as they come.

Really about the best I've seen in a good number of years. They are awesome looking bulls. Better than any I have seen here, too.

I just don't buy into the lies that Frye and Allen Nation spread. I personally know the guys that did the linear measuring with Bonsma, so I know Frye doesn't know **** from shinola about it. He is clueless about what Bonsma was really doing.

Now with that said. I'm curious about how you got to a 1-5 scale for linear measuring, since I am interested in it. I've got some of the original calipers that were built over 30 years ago when Bonsma was doing the measuring.

I bet Frye would like to get his hands on those, as there were only a dozen sets made at that time.

mtnman
 
I've been trying to temper my style on this forum. Keep the **** flinging for ranchers.net. But it's nice to find folks that speak their mind mntman, and you have found one here.

Now back to the nice guy image here on Cattle today. (seems to be more young folks who like to learn here anyway).

Thank you for the compliments. Having a breed with little exposure like Welsh Black leaves my shoulder a little sore from slapping my self on the back.

I have only talked with Gerald a couple of times about 8 or 9 years ago and we mainly discussed some line breeding schemes at that time.

We were prompted to measure the bulls by a client who said he would rather pay for the job than fly out to our sale. I can't let out the Galloway measurements till after the sale as those were the bulls he wants to buy. The Welsh Black measurements were my bill.

I don't know how the scale is derived, other than to say that the fellow that did the job had a software program that he aquired from Gerald along with the calipers.

I will be finding out however, as the task is not rocket science and I plan to do it myself next time around.

Anyone else who knows how these measurements are put into a formula could help both myself and the mountain man out here.
 
I don't like speculation too much, and that is what some of this Frye stuff is. He's big on this muscle distribution, ultrasound tenderness stuff, too, so when I see it the poop hit's the fan. That's why I beat on ollie, I think he's a better cattleman than that.

Those are quality bulls, and don't let anybody tell you different. Even if they have some "poor" performance in some trait, whatever that might be, if you can take calves to the sale barn that look like those bulls, you will top most markets, regardless of what any EPD might say.

mtnman
 
I think the first bull might actually be a bit too short in the neck to fill the ratios out well, he also looks a bit more coarse in the shoulder. More frame, too.

Of the three, I like the middle bull best, then the red, then the top bull.

mtnman
 

Latest posts

Top