humor me challenge!
- Thread starter glfgy74
- Start date
Help Support CattleToday:
I like 7. Looks like several are cow hocked, under themselves, and lacking base width. BUT. There's only so much you can tell from a picture. I just don't understand why people obviously do the work to make a good animal and then take a crappy picture. A few of those would look like completely different animals if they were set up correctly.
Rowdy
Well-known member
gizmom":2t43imbe said:
7 is the best option given the choices. 6 will be a midget. Whether retaining females or sale barn calves, 7 will get you farther.
houstoncutter
Well-known member
Could be the pic , but to me 7 has a pinched heart girth and very little crest. Of course as stated, these pics are of poor quality.
Rowdy
Well-known member
True, but he displays the most rib. And that's why he's my choice. Many other hormones responsible for growth besides testosterone.
ALACOWMAN
Well-known member
DOC HARRIS
Well-known member
The first disclaimer - right out of the starting gate - is: Pictures are NO way to analyze beef cattle! But, having said that, these are the only examples which we have to use for speculation. So here are my opinions:
For "seedstock" breeding, with the goal geared toward retaining replacement heifers - or - herd bulls - NONE OF THESE!
For "Terminal" (feedlot) Sire candidates:
#1- weak top line, lacks breed characteristics and masculinity (cow faced), pinched heart girth (lacks spring of rib), fine boned and weak pasterns ( his calves would have a hard time making a profit in a muddy, wet, winter feedlot, poor hindquarters - lacks depth and thickness, lacks muscle expression. OUT!
#2- Only fair top line, WEAK bone expression, fair heart girth depth, cut up in the rear flank, "Funnel Butt" (lacks hindquarter development), cow-faced (indicates poor 'feed efficiency' traits). OUT!
#3- Should have been castrated as a calf. Level top line, but 'holding up' nothing. OUT!
#4- Here we have a bull with a more fully developed hindquarter than the previous three bulls , but from this picture is cow-hocked and sickle-hocked. His calves would not perform well in a feed lot environment. Pinched heart girth. (lacking capacity and feed efficiency). OUT AS A TERMINALL BULL!
#5- Sickle-hocked, cow-hocked, weak bone, only fair hind-quarter development, pinched heart girth. OUT!
#6- One of the two better bulls in this selection of eight bulls. Fair top line, reasonable beef "type" (which indicates that his calves could present better feed efficiency in the feedlot), his calves could potentially have acceptable hindquarters and loin development. Sickle-hocked and I would like to see smoother muscle transition from his shoulder to his upper and deep ribs. His gaskins should be more fully developed. RELUCTANTLY ACCEPTABLE with the caveat that he be mated only to cows with strong Carcass and Growth genetics!
#7- Probably the best "Terminal" sire represented here in this class. . . .but still not up to par if the breeder wishes to make maxmum profits from his calves in the feedlot. Strong topline, smooth muscled throughout, good length, level rump carrying down well into his lower hind quarters, fine heart girth depth and spring of rib, long loin. I like to see more bone development and a wider, more masculine head. His calves should show acceptable feed efficiency.ACCEPTABLE - but again must be mated to strong Terminal type cows.
#8- Level top line, fair masculinity, acceptable hind quarter development. Pinched heart girth (not good capacity for feed efficiency traits). OUT!
Every bull in this class is cut up in the flank, and lacks vigorous bone development. Of course we don't know exactly their ages, but with the crest development of all of them, they have to be within shouting distance of two years of age. That being said, they should all show more "Terminal type" body development.
Across the board. I would not use any of these bulls in either a "Maternal" or a "Terminal" protocol, when there are so MANY bulls available for both types of programs. A breeder is just treading water for his entire life using mediocre seedstock and just hoping and leaving to chance that something good will happen and he can make some money. Using "funnel-butted", weak spined, shallow-bodied, cut-up flanked, cow faced, cow-hocked, sickle-hocked, inefficient sires with unacceptable genetics is guaranteeing failure in a highly competative BU$INE$$. As in any endeavor, knowledge of what you are doing and with clear goals in mind of what you can expect in your breeding program will pay profitable benetfits.
Study and learn!
DOC HARRIS
For "seedstock" breeding, with the goal geared toward retaining replacement heifers - or - herd bulls - NONE OF THESE!
For "Terminal" (feedlot) Sire candidates:
#1- weak top line, lacks breed characteristics and masculinity (cow faced), pinched heart girth (lacks spring of rib), fine boned and weak pasterns ( his calves would have a hard time making a profit in a muddy, wet, winter feedlot, poor hindquarters - lacks depth and thickness, lacks muscle expression. OUT!
#2- Only fair top line, WEAK bone expression, fair heart girth depth, cut up in the rear flank, "Funnel Butt" (lacks hindquarter development), cow-faced (indicates poor 'feed efficiency' traits). OUT!
#3- Should have been castrated as a calf. Level top line, but 'holding up' nothing. OUT!
#4- Here we have a bull with a more fully developed hindquarter than the previous three bulls , but from this picture is cow-hocked and sickle-hocked. His calves would not perform well in a feed lot environment. Pinched heart girth. (lacking capacity and feed efficiency). OUT AS A TERMINALL BULL!
#5- Sickle-hocked, cow-hocked, weak bone, only fair hind-quarter development, pinched heart girth. OUT!
#6- One of the two better bulls in this selection of eight bulls. Fair top line, reasonable beef "type" (which indicates that his calves could present better feed efficiency in the feedlot), his calves could potentially have acceptable hindquarters and loin development. Sickle-hocked and I would like to see smoother muscle transition from his shoulder to his upper and deep ribs. His gaskins should be more fully developed. RELUCTANTLY ACCEPTABLE with the caveat that he be mated only to cows with strong Carcass and Growth genetics!
#7- Probably the best "Terminal" sire represented here in this class. . . .but still not up to par if the breeder wishes to make maxmum profits from his calves in the feedlot. Strong topline, smooth muscled throughout, good length, level rump carrying down well into his lower hind quarters, fine heart girth depth and spring of rib, long loin. I like to see more bone development and a wider, more masculine head. His calves should show acceptable feed efficiency.ACCEPTABLE - but again must be mated to strong Terminal type cows.
#8- Level top line, fair masculinity, acceptable hind quarter development. Pinched heart girth (not good capacity for feed efficiency traits). OUT!
Every bull in this class is cut up in the flank, and lacks vigorous bone development. Of course we don't know exactly their ages, but with the crest development of all of them, they have to be within shouting distance of two years of age. That being said, they should all show more "Terminal type" body development.
Across the board. I would not use any of these bulls in either a "Maternal" or a "Terminal" protocol, when there are so MANY bulls available for both types of programs. A breeder is just treading water for his entire life using mediocre seedstock and just hoping and leaving to chance that something good will happen and he can make some money. Using "funnel-butted", weak spined, shallow-bodied, cut-up flanked, cow faced, cow-hocked, sickle-hocked, inefficient sires with unacceptable genetics is guaranteeing failure in a highly competative BU$INE$$. As in any endeavor, knowledge of what you are doing and with clear goals in mind of what you can expect in your breeding program will pay profitable benetfits.
Study and learn!
DOC HARRIS
Never thought i'd say this Doc but you are wrong about #2's topline. It is the best one of the bunch. # 8 in fact breaks behind his shoulders #2 does not. the shadow makes his topline look funny. It in fact is not..
houstoncutter
Well-known member
We are now taking up a collection to buy Doc some glasses...All donations are tax deductible...I think,.... according to the fine folks at the IRS.
DOC HARRIS
Well-known member
3way-3waycross":15yqfs2k said:
Perceptions sometimes are deceptive. BUT, for all of the OTHER "Multiple Trait Selection" decisions in my analysis of #2, I still regard this bull to be unacceptable as a profitable sire - level top line notwithstanding. This is another example of why pictures are a lousy method of determining phenotypic excellence.
DOC HARRIS
Backbone Ranch
Well-known member
If I had to pick one it would be #7, but I would check somewhere else first.
ALACOWMAN
Well-known member
he aint buying any of them... he's checking his eyeEllieJ":1b3lnv44 said:
glfgy74
Well-known member
ALAcowman is right, i picked which one i thought was the more attractive Bull from the lot and wanted to check my eye against the "wily old vets".....turned out good!!
i picked #6 also. :clap:
i picked #6 also. :clap:
