My bull has extremely low back fat numbers.

[redangus]

When he's in pasture he can be plenty fleshly, but will still have his hips and a few back bones that are visible...although none of his ribs show. His hips showing some makes him not look as good to me.

Are the protruding hips due to the low back fat numbers? He's about a $3000 bull.

 

[txshowmom]

Some bulls are not as easy fleshing as others. When they are out with the cows they work so hard that they loose weight sometimes. If he is throwing good calves I wouldn't worry about it. He just may not be an easy keeper.

 

[Frankie]

When he's in pasture he can be plenty fleshly, but will still have his hips and a few back bones that are visible...although none of his ribs show. His hips showing some makes him not look as good to me.

Are the protruding hips due to the low back fat numbers? He's about a $3000 bull.

I believe animals carrying lower backfat tend to look "bonier" than those carrying more backfat. Our cows that have lower backfat EPDs tend to look worse after nursing a calf all summer than the other cows. It doesn't bother me unless they don't breed back. I think cows need a certain amount of stored fat to get them through hard winters and to get bred back on time.

 

[TheBullLady]

You'll be able to get a little better idea of how much of is because he's working hard and not an easy keeper when you see his calves. I wouldn't worry about it unless he shares that trait with his offspring.

 

[redangus]

You'll be able to get a little better idea of how much of is because he's working hard and not an easy keeper when you see his calves. I wouldn't worry about it unless he shares that trait with his offspring.

His calves are really good.

 

[dun]

It depends on the climate as to the need for the backfat. Bulls in their working clothes should look thinner. If he can put it on for the winter or if your winters are mild it's not a big deal. I go along with Frankies views. Around here we need some backfat, further south I don't know. Every year when we do the fall work up the vet shakes his head and says the same thing. "How poor is too poor?" We have one cow that milks everything off, but she breeds back first service and carries a great calf. Within a month of weaning she'll have put back 150-200 lbs and get to about the condition that the others are in when their calves are weaned.

dun

 

[redangus]

I thought low back fat numbers were a good thing because they would yield more? Is this not true Dun? Also he's not thin anywhere else. Just up top.

 

[dun]

I thought low back fat numbers were a good thing because they would yield more? Is this not true Dun? Also he's not thin anywhere else. Just up top.

Depends on how low. And usually an adult will carry more BF then a feeder/butcher calf. A quarter to a half inch is pretty much acceptable. I think the ideal is something like .3 to .4 inches.
But the feedlot/finisher can screw that up pretty badly. Last year the feedlot that bought or associations calves held them longer for a better market, or that was his excuse. Even the straightbred limo calves had YG 3-4, still graded high select and low choice. In my opinion, what he made on the hugher market he probably lost on feed and docks. But he owned the calves so it was his business. Just screwed up our carcass data.

dun

 

[dun]

What I keep forgetting to address is the "hippy" look you mentioned. Wide hipped animals almost alwasy seem to look kind of bony over the hips. If they have much cover over them they're probably too fat everywhere else. Remember, just my opinion. I'm more interested in flatness across the back from hook to hook and the top of the back.

dun