Off the chart!

[Julian]

The sire of Impressive showed tremendous growth when he was developed on grass at Buffalo Creek in Wyoming, which was a contributor to his higher growth EPD's. Also figured into his growth EPD's are the growth records of his progeny. The dam of Impressive is sired by Julian LT142, who has sired wonderful females, yet I haven't seen anyone mention that on this thread. I have the utmost respect for the Mushrush program. They are ambassadors of not only the Red Angus breed association, but also the beef industry as a whole. Good luck trying to find a more honest and genuine cattle breeder than Joe Mushrush.

I also have a lot of respect for the Genex operation. They offer a variety of bulls for a variety of breeding choices. If Genex didn't think that these bulls were good for their business they would not have bid on the Impressive bull like they did.

Impressive was an outlier. His ratios prove it. We will all know more when data of his progeny is turned in. He has already been used via AI in numerous herds so he is going to be compared against numerous sires within the Red Angus database. Ratios alone on an individual are not the complete ingredients in determining EPD's, but I don't know of anyone else I would have any stronger faith in fairly reporting data than the Mushrush program.

Long story short, if you think the bull is too good to be true, then wait until more data has been submitted of his progeny.

 

[KNERSIE]

I don't mean to be critical of this bull. He is obviously a feedlot bull.

If his cows can be raised and his calves weaned on sparse inputs and then explode on a feedlot and if that is what buyers are looking for then here's your bull.

If someone is looking for a grass bull this one is a shot in the dark, at least that's the way I interpret the numbers.

A matter of matching the bull and how and where he has been raised to what the buyers intended use is, or so it seems. I personally see cattle needing to be raised on more grass and less feed in the economic climate of the future. jmho.

Jim

You've obviously made up your mind so there is no use in trying to explain further, other than saying I think you interpret it wrongly.

 

[SRBeef]

My mind is not made up about anything here at all. I am still struggling to understand how a bull goes from bw 56 to ww 486 to yw 1118 and from an adg near 2.0 to an adg near 4.0. This is visually a very impressive bull. He would still be impressive at say 80 - 650 - 1118. 56 lb is a tiny bull calf. 486 even adj is an average bull calf at weaning. How does he get to a spectacular 1118 at 365 days except on some equally spectacular feed program which may not be at all like what most of his calves are likely to see. Knersie are you telling me this metamorphasis at 206 to 365 days is reasonably possible under realistic conditions?

 

[Northern Rancher]

Compensatory gain can be a wonderful thing-I've had sets of grass cattle average just under three pounds a day. If they were thi going in they could quite possibly do 4 lbs a day.

 

[SRBeef]

Compensatory gain can be a wonderful thing-I've had sets of grass cattle average just under three pounds a day. If they were thi going in they could quite possibly do 4 lbs a day.

Thank you. Then I have learned something new.

 

[mrvictordomino]

My mind is not made up about anything here at all. I am still struggling to understand how a bull goes from bw 56 to ww 486 to yw 1118 and from an adg near 2.0 to an adg near 4.0. This is visually a very impressive bull. He would still be impressive at say 80 - 650 - 1118. 56 lb is a tiny bull calf. 486 even adj is an average bull calf at weaning. How does he get to a spectacular 1118 at 365 days except on some equally spectacular feed program which may not be at all like what most of his calves are likely to see. Knersie are you telling me this metamorphasis at 206 to 365 days is reasonably possible under realistic conditions?

I was looking at the Mushrush/Beckton catalog today and I believe I saw the adjusted
yearling weight of the bull in question to be 971 or 991 lbs.

 

[TexasBred]

Compensatory gain can be a wonderful thing-I've had sets of grass cattle average just under three pounds a day. If they were thi going in they could quite possibly do 4 lbs a day.

BUT never count on compensatory gain. Genetics also come into affect here and a calf "stunted" to the point of no return also will not gain as expected. I'd rather have a little better weaning weight and a little lower yearling weight than have to scratch my head over the numbers on this bull.....I'm with SRBeef on this one. NO way in hel this bull grew that much on Kansas grazing thru the late spring and summer months. I'd be more likely to believe he was treated like a show calf. We'll find out in a few years but I wouldn't want to be the guinea pig.

 

[Dylan Biggs]

My mind is not made up about anything here at all. I am still struggling to understand how a bull goes from bw 56 to ww 486 to yw 1118 and from an adg near 2.0 to an adg near 4.0. This is visually a very impressive bull. He would still be impressive at say 80 - 650 - 1118. 56 lb is a tiny bull calf. 486 even adj is an average bull calf at weaning. How does he get to a spectacular 1118 at 365 days except on some equally spectacular feed program which may not be at all like what most of his calves are likely to see. Knersie are you telling me this metamorphasis at 206 to 365 days is reasonably possible under realistic conditions?

I was looking at the Mushrush/Beckton catalog today and I believe I saw the adjusted
yearling weight of the bull in question to be 971 or 991 lbs.

Here is the data from the association.

http://search.redangus.org/animal/id/1295159#/animal/1295159

His data was BW WW YW %IMF REA FAT
58 491 971 2.40 11.57 0.31

Don't actually know his days of age at weaning may have been as little as 160, he was obviously fed well to another unknown age to get his yearling, with out the actual age #'s it is hard to do calculations of actual ADG between WW and YW. This was the dams second calf so their was some additional weight added for the adjustment. So one could surmise an actual WADG of right at 2 lbs/day. If his actual age was only 160 days at weaning and he was weighed for his yearling weight at 365 days he would of had 205 days to gain around 480 lbs, which mean an ADG of 2.34 lbs a day. Not an unrealistic scenario.

 

[SRBeef]

Aren't all published WW's and YW's adjusted to 205 days of age and 365 days of age? If not what use are they? I could wean at 225 days and use 400 day for YW and have some impressive numbers. Why does the Genex list a YW of 1118 and the association 971 lb ?

 

[dun]

To get a better feel for the bull look at his sire and dams progeny data

 

[Julian]

Aren't all published WW's and YW's adjusted to 205 days of age and 365 days of age? If not what use are they? I could wean at 225 days and use 400 day for YW and have some impressive numbers. Why does the Genex list a YW of 1118 and the association 971 lb ?

It seems like you are not looking at the same animal. One is the weight for Impressive and the other weight for Lock & Load.

 

[SRBeef]

I used Dylan's numbers above. I am on my phone and can't check back very easily. Sorry to drag this out. Over and out. Jim

 

[Dylan Biggs]

Aren't all published WW's and YW's adjusted to 205 days of age and 365 days of age? If not what use are they? I could wean at 225 days and use 400 day for YW and have some impressive numbers. Why does the Genex list a YW of 1118 and the association 971 lb ?

The animal in question is the Impressive bull, Genex and the ARAA numbers are the same. The adjusted wieghts reported are to 205 for WW and 365 for yearling yes but, as regards the rules for actual age of calf when recording and for reporting actual WW the ideal stated by the ARAA is between 160 and 250 days of age if the calf has an actual age below that (130 to 159) or above (251 to 281) it must be reported in a sepearte contemporary groups. So the calf would have an adjusted 205 day wieght but calculated using the ADG arrived at by subtracting his BW from his actual WW and didviding by his ACTUAL age which could be as young as 160 days, then that would be multiplied by 205 days and have additional weight added based his dams age being only 3, I think maybe 10%. :cboy:

 

[oakcreekfarms]

Knersie I finally found your post on Index's and ratios

Both bulls are the type of bulls that I would use, the first would be my first choice however. The bulls are the right type, and if ratios are good I would have no problem using the bulls.

 

[WichitaLineMan]

Don't worry Jim. Just trust the EPDS they are are "good as gold".

 

[WichitaLineMan]

Sometimes when I think of EPDs and how the breed associations tout them, I think of this:

[youtube]YWyCCJ6B2WE&feature=related[/youtube]

 

[Brandonm22]

Some of yall just don't trust anybody or anything. WHY would the ratios be fraudulent, if the bull's weaning weight were honest??? WHAT are you accusing the man of? Lowering the weaning weights of the rest of the contemporary group so this calf stands out? It would be easier to add a 100 lbs of weaning weight to the reported number for this bull or just promote the bull who really excelled in the contemporary group! Weaning weight has more to do with available groceries than it does with genetics.

 

[Brandonm22]

I also don't know why we CARE how an AI stud bull was raised??? It matters when you buy a bull and turn him loose on your place. With AI you are buying the genetics not the bull. They could keep him fat as a butterball year round if they want to, that has nothing at all to do with how his progeny perform in the real world. How a bull's progeny perform well on grass is the standard you evaluate him on......not whether or not he lives in an air conditioned stall (and if a bull was making me $50,000 a year in semen sales air conditioning can be discussed.

 

[dun]

Weaning weight has more to do with available groceries than it does with genetics.

Nope. The yhave to have the genetics to beneift from the groceries. You can pound feed to a calf and if it isn;t in it's genetic make up you will still end up with a dink.

 

[ALACOWMAN]

Weaning weight has more to do with available groceries than it does with genetics.

Nope. The yhave to have the genetics to beneift from the groceries. You can pound feed to a calf and if it isn;t in it's genetic make up you will still end up with a dink.

or a fat dink