opinions?

[alexfarms]

AF HL KING DOMINO 901 http://www.herfnet.com/online/cgi-bin/i ... 6&9=5F525A
Taken on 8/08/09

Taken on 9/13/09

 

[DOC HARRIS]

Phenotype is excellent. EPD's are fine for the most part. He should sire top cows if mated with top cows. His heifer calves should make excellent breeders for a Purebred establishment, and if used as a crossbreeding sire the heterosis should produce PROFIT and Foundation Females for a solid Crossbreeding beef cattle operation!

Nothing is perfect, and he isn't either, but he makes a darn good start on approaching perfection!

DOC HARRIS

 

[hillsdown]

Phenotype is excellent.

DOC HARRIS

:?

He has a nice top line ..

 

[CPL]

I think he's pretty good. Do you have a rear shot. Looks like he's a little lighter muscled, lighter boned, and smaller footed than ideal would be. I think he really excels about his rib, and has a real easy keeping, efficient look. Do you have pictures of sire/dam?

 

[bigag03]

Sorry Doc, but I'm going to disagree with you. The bull lacks depth, spring of rib, and muscle. He is also fine boned and cow headed. He does have a nice topline though.

 

[RD-Sam]

Sorry Doc, but I'm going to disagree with you. The bull lacks depth, spring of rib, and muscle. He is also fine boned and cow headed. He does have a nice topline though.

I'm glad you said that, I thought I had lost my eyesight there for a second. :lol2:

 

[DOC HARRIS]

Sorry Doc, but I'm going to disagree with you. The bull lacks depth, spring of rib, and muscle. He is also fine boned and cow headed. He does have a nice topline though.

I won't argue with you too much regarding ideal, but remember - you are not looking at a two year old bull. He is only 8 mos. old He is better than a great majority of Hereford bulls I have seen lately. One has a tendency to go "Barn Blind". I am guilty of that occasionally. But you are correct - you have to judge what you see at the moment. I think that I was watching too much football at the time.

DOC HARRIS

 

[hillsdown]

That's OK doc we all get barn blind once and a while.. The fact that you take time out to read epd's and pedigrees instead of just a pic should be commended..

BUT this is one more animal that needs his nuts cut off and not enter the registered game..


Sorry alexfarms, but he looks like a some what nice terminal "steer". Sorry..

 

[KNERSIE]

I don't think he's that bad, he certainly isn't a great prospect and I probably would have sent him to the feedlot at weaning if he was born here, but he hasn't got glaring faults, he is well proportioned, its obvious that he wasn't on a hot ration.

Typewise, I like to see more bone, guts and muscle and I prefer a longer muscle than this bull has, but there is enough to make him into a bull if you want to. I can easily feed him into quite a good looking bull, but that just isn't my game.

My biggest concern is with his eyes, he has below average eye set, with just average or slightly below lashes and the pink eyelids won't do anything to lay the ghosts of the past to rest.

At 8 months I also want a stronger masculine head for a calf to excite me.

I'd still much rather work with a structurally correct average specimen than an above average specimen with structural flaws.

 

[SRBeef]

I know we've talked here about the relative importance of EPD's vs phenotype etc. Most of us agreed that there should be a combination of the two.

As a beginner I hesitate to say much about anyone else's bull.

However, since the EPD link was posted above, I looked at the EPD graph: http://www.herfnet.com/online/cgi-b...91CE6E43208000E3E18E83B02E914151D1C1F1F111017

A couple things jump out even to me: This bull is in the bottom 10% of the breed in scrotal circumference and very very low in rib eye area, WW, YW, etc. These EPD's maybe be low accuracy but even at low accuracy, bottom 10% in these very measureable traits is one of the things EPD's are supposed to identify....

Maybe my inexperience is showing, but I don't see how he can be considered a keeper as a herd sire with so many numbers that low. jmho.

Jim

 

[dun]

I don't see how he can be considered a keeper as a herd sire with so many numbers that low. jmho.

Jim

I agree whole heartedly

 

[CPL]

I don't see how he can be considered a keeper as a herd sire with so many numbers that low. jmho.

Jim

I agree whole heartedly

I would venture a guess that his EPDs are pretty unreliable. A lot of times that happens with older genetics, etc.

I'm on a wide screen that can really distort depth, length, etc so I decided to print a picture off just to see what he looked like in a normal picture. I still think he looks decent, but the thing I really find as a fault is at his hip. He could defintely be longer/wider from hooks to pins and needs to be a tad more level there as well.

 

[KNERSIE]

I don't see how he can be considered a keeper as a herd sire with so many numbers that low. jmho.

Jim

I agree whole heartedly

To put the EPDs in perspective...

This calf was born in a closed genepool out of genetics that has been linebred for years. The practical implication is that there is very little genetic coupling with proven modern sires and the regression model used to extrapolate back to the past will always affect the EPDs negatively.

 

[dun]

I don't see how he can be considered a keeper as a herd sire with so many numbers that low. jmho.

Jim

I agree whole heartedly

To put the EPDs in perspective...

This calf was born in a closed genepool out of genetics that has been linebred for years. The practical implication is that there is very little genetic coupling with proven modern sires and the regression model used to extrapolate back to the past will always affect the EPDs negatively.

I've seen that affect with Red Angus that have been bred up using older Simmenthal genetics. It's not nearly as pronounced and generally only affects the milk EPD, the others are pretty much within the error expected within the accuracy.

 

[alexfarms]

Thanks for the opinions. I have been back and forth on this calf for quite some time. He is far from perfect.

The youngest bull in his pedigree ancestry was born over 32 years ago. The epds don't have much recent data behind them and I am surprised how growthy he appears. He is still on the cow. I think if he was put on a full feed of corn, he probably would perform very well and that is what happens to most feeder cattle in this part of the world. I like his conformation and I have always been impressed by the depth of his hind flank, which may be more noticable when he is moving. His daughters probably would be good cows judging from his maternal ancestry. He needs better color markings, better muscling, better masculinity and yet to see how he does grow out. I have not gotten him to stand reasonably well enough to get any kind of good representation of his appearance from behind, but todays market will probably want him thicker. I hadn't criticized his depth of rib, I will have to watch that.

I am limited in what is available to use and still stay within the line, so he may stay around to see how he turns out. Thanks again for the opinions.

 

[Herefords.US]

I know we've talked here about the relative importance of EPD's vs phenotype etc. Most of us agreed that there should be a combination of the two.

As a beginner I hesitate to say much about anyone else's bull.

However, since the EPD link was posted above, I looked at the EPD graph: http://www.herfnet.com/online/cgi-b...91CE6E43208000E3E18E83B02E914151D1C1F1F111017

A couple things jump out even to me: This bull is in the bottom 10% of the breed in scrotal circumference and very very low in rib eye area, WW, YW, etc. These EPD's maybe be low accuracy but even at low accuracy, bottom 10% in these very measureable traits is one of the things EPD's are supposed to identify....

Maybe my inexperience is showing, but I don't see how he can be considered a keeper as a herd sire with so many numbers that low. jmho.

Jim, you can completely disregard the EPDs on this calf. He's from a line of cattle that has had almost no interaction, performance-wise, with the mainstream contemporary Hereford genepool. His EPDs probably have no relevance, and certainly have no reliability, in what his own performance is and what his progeny would be. Cattle from breeders like Richard Day and Jim Lents would be the same way.

Thanks for the opinions. I have been back and forth on this calf for quite some time. He is far from perfect.

The youngest bull in his pedigree ancestry was born over 32 years ago. The epds don't have much recent data behind them and I am surprised how growthy he appears. He is still on the cow. I think if he was put on a full feed of corn, he probably would perform very well and that is what happens to most feeder cattle in this part of the world. I like his conformation and I have always been impressed by the depth of his hind flank, which may be more noticable when he is moving. His daughters probably would be good cows judging from his maternal ancestry. He needs better color markings, better muscling, better masculinity and yet to see how he does grow out. I have not gotten him to stand reasonably well enough to get any kind of good representation of his appearance from behind, but todays market will probably want him thicker. I hadn't criticized his depth of rib, I will have to watch that.

I am limited in what is available to use and still stay within the line, so he may stay around to see how he turns out. Thanks again for the opinions.

John, I'd say you have a good handle on your evaluation of this calf. Like Knersie and CPL, I see some value and potential there.

And I'm always glad to see someone working to preserve and maintain some of those "old" lines of Hereford cattle.

George

 

[SRBeef]

I know we've talked here about the relative importance of EPD's vs phenotype etc. Most of us agreed that there should be a combination of the two.

As a beginner I hesitate to say much about anyone else's bull.

However, since the EPD link was posted above, I looked at the EPD graph: http://www.herfnet.com/online/cgi-b...91CE6E43208000E3E18E83B02E914151D1C1F1F111017

A couple things jump out even to me: This bull is in the bottom 10% of the breed in scrotal circumference and very very low in rib eye area, WW, YW, etc. These EPD's maybe be low accuracy but even at low accuracy, bottom 10% in these very measureable traits is one of the things EPD's are supposed to identify....

Maybe my inexperience is showing, but I don't see how he can be considered a keeper as a herd sire with so many numbers that low. jmho.

Jim, you can completely disregard the EPDs on this calf. He's from a line of cattle that has had almost no interaction, performance-wise, with the mainstream contemporary Hereford genepool. His EPDs probably have no relevance, and certainly have no reliability, in what his own performance is and what his progeny would be. Cattle from breeders like Richard Day and Jim Lents would be the same way.

Thanks for the opinions. I have been back and forth on this calf for quite some time. He is far from perfect.

The youngest bull in his pedigree ancestry was born over 32 years ago. The epds don't have much recent data behind them and I am surprised how growthy he appears. He is still on the cow. I think if he was put on a full feed of corn, he probably would perform very well and that is what happens to most feeder cattle in this part of the world. I like his conformation and I have always been impressed by the depth of his hind flank, which may be more noticable when he is moving. His daughters probably would be good cows judging from his maternal ancestry. He needs better color markings, better muscling, better masculinity and yet to see how he does grow out. I have not gotten him to stand reasonably well enough to get any kind of good representation of his appearance from behind, but todays market will probably want him thicker. I hadn't criticized his depth of rib, I will have to watch that.

I am limited in what is available to use and still stay within the line, so he may stay around to see how he turns out. Thanks again for the opinions.

John, I'd say you have a good handle on your evaluation of this calf. Like Knersie and CPL, I see some value and potential there.

And I'm always glad to see someone working to preserve and maintain some of those "old" lines of Hereford cattle.

George

George,

I trust there is some logic to what you are saying, even if I don't understand it.

However Scrotal Circumference is Scrotal Circumference. It doesn't require years of experience, just a tape measure.

And I would think that SC is one thing there might be agreement here on that SC size is important and an indicator of fertility and time to maturity of his offspring....

This bull either has SC or he doesn't. As the EPD shows him in the BOTTOM 10% OF THE BREED I think I'd get out a tape measure and see. Are you telling me that for some reason this bull will have much higher SC than the EPD predicts? If so I would think it would be very useful to get out a tape measure and see.

Jerry Huth and my limited experience has me convinced SC is very important. Rereading above, if the pedigree behind this bull is so old that numbers are meaningless then why have him in the EPD pool affecting the data on others?

Jim

 

[Herefords.US]

I know we've talked here about the relative importance of EPD's vs phenotype etc. Most of us agreed that there should be a combination of the two.

As a beginner I hesitate to say much about anyone else's bull.

However, since the EPD link was posted above, I looked at the EPD graph: http://www.herfnet.com/online/cgi-b...91CE6E43208000E3E18E83B02E914151D1C1F1F111017

A couple things jump out even to me: This bull is in the bottom 10% of the breed in scrotal circumference and very very low in rib eye area, WW, YW, etc. These EPD's maybe be low accuracy but even at low accuracy, bottom 10% in these very measureable traits is one of the things EPD's are supposed to identify....

Maybe my inexperience is showing, but I don't see how he can be considered a keeper as a herd sire with so many numbers that low. jmho.

Jim, you can completely disregard the EPDs on this calf. He's from a line of cattle that has had almost no interaction, performance-wise, with the mainstream contemporary Hereford genepool. His EPDs probably have no relevance, and certainly have no reliability, in what his own performance is and what his progeny would be. Cattle from breeders like Richard Day and Jim Lents would be the same way.

Thanks for the opinions. I have been back and forth on this calf for quite some time. He is far from perfect.

The youngest bull in his pedigree ancestry was born over 32 years ago. The epds don't have much recent data behind them and I am surprised how growthy he appears. He is still on the cow. I think if he was put on a full feed of corn, he probably would perform very well and that is what happens to most feeder cattle in this part of the world. I like his conformation and I have always been impressed by the depth of his hind flank, which may be more noticable when he is moving. His daughters probably would be good cows judging from his maternal ancestry. He needs better color markings, better muscling, better masculinity and yet to see how he does grow out. I have not gotten him to stand reasonably well enough to get any kind of good representation of his appearance from behind, but todays market will probably want him thicker. I hadn't criticized his depth of rib, I will have to watch that.

I am limited in what is available to use and still stay within the line, so he may stay around to see how he turns out. Thanks again for the opinions.

John, I'd say you have a good handle on your evaluation of this calf. Like Knersie and CPL, I see some value and potential there.

And I'm always glad to see someone working to preserve and maintain some of those "old" lines of Hereford cattle.

George

George,

I trust there is some logic to what you are saying, even if I don't understand it.

However Scrotal Circumference is Scrotal Circumference. It doesn't require years of experience, just a tape measure.

And I would think that SC is one thing there might be agreement here on that SC size is important and an indicator of fertility and time to maturity of his offspring....

This bull either has SC or he doesn't. As the EPD shows him in the BOTTOM 10% OF THE BREED I think I'd get out a tape measure and see. Are you telling me that for some reason this bull will have much higher SC than the EPD predicts? If so I would think it would be very useful to get out a tape measure and see.

Jerry Huth and my limited experience has me convinced SC is very important. Rereading above, if the pedigree behind this bull is so old that numbers are meaningless then why have him in the EPD pool affecting the data on others?

Jim

First, I've always said that individual performance, especially in relation to peers, is important. I agree that measuring (or visual appraisal and assessment) SC is important in picking potential bull prospects. Just as I'm sure John has the ability to make that determination even without the use of a tape measure.

Just as this bull's EPDs are totally meaningless to point of insignificance, so is any ability that his data could or would affect the rest of the breed's, either positively or negatively.

George

 

[HerefordSire]

Thanks for the opinions. I have been back and forth on this calf for quite some time. He is far from perfect.

The youngest bull in his pedigree ancestry was born over 32 years ago. The epds don't have much recent data behind them and I am surprised how growthy he appears. He is still on the cow. I think if he was put on a full feed of corn, he probably would perform very well and that is what happens to most feeder cattle in this part of the world. I like his conformation and I have always been impressed by the depth of his hind flank, which may be more noticable when he is moving. His daughters probably would be good cows judging from his maternal ancestry. He needs better color markings, better muscling, better masculinity and yet to see how he does grow out. I have not gotten him to stand reasonably well enough to get any kind of good representation of his appearance from behind, but todays market will probably want him thicker. I hadn't criticized his depth of rib, I will have to watch that.

I am limited in what is available to use and still stay within the line, so he may stay around to see how he turns out. Thanks again for the opinions.

Since you flushed a 2003 cow with a 1977 bull tells me you see much more value than most of us. Tell us the story of the genetics.

 

[alexfarms]

The reason I bred a 2003 cow to a 1977 bull was to get somewhat of an "outcross" within the line. The calf's sire, 3165, and the calf's maternal grandsire, 71224, were bulls that didn't already appear in the pedigrees of the cows I was working with. When I bought the cows in 2001, I talked to as many people as I could about which bulls to pursue semen on. 3165 and 71224 were the bulls I was told to pursue by knowledgeable people on the line. the 901 calf is probably the first time I have been able to mate the straight King Domino cows I have to bulls that did not result in incestuous matings or to bulls that descended from the original KD 23 cow for 3 consecutive generatons. So he is a little different within the line of King Domino females that I own. The King Dominos were a high dollar line back in the 70's and early 80's and they made some major contributions to the cattle of that time. The exotics and Canadian cattle came along and basically blew most of the domestic lines away in the frame race and the King Dominos got pushed aside. The Havre King Dominos were developed at the Havre, MT research station. They were crossed and tested with the Miles City Line 1's at Havre and their history is similar to the Line 1's except the are a polled line that was intensely linebred to King Domino and his sire Mossy Plato 26.