Tough skin rip them up! (pics)
- Thread starter Alan
- Start date
IluvABbeef
Well-known member
- Joined
- Mar 29, 2006
- Messages
- 3,630
I dunno about everyone else, but I'm partial to #1.
SEC
Well-known member
Cow #1 looks pretty good, would change her udder, nice cow.
Second cow looks flatter ribbed and common.
Second cow looks flatter ribbed and common.
Alan,
there is no glaring faults in either that would make one a obvious cull, they are just two slightly different types. Not knowing anything about reproductive performance on eiter, I'll say no 2 is more the type I'd like to breed, but I have a few no 1's that is some of my top producers. Milking ability being equal (which don't appear to be the case, no 2 looks the better milker) no 2 looks to be the easier keeper or one that should overcome hard times better.
Its almost a blondes vs brunettes type of question
there is no glaring faults in either that would make one a obvious cull, they are just two slightly different types. Not knowing anything about reproductive performance on eiter, I'll say no 2 is more the type I'd like to breed, but I have a few no 1's that is some of my top producers. Milking ability being equal (which don't appear to be the case, no 2 looks the better milker) no 2 looks to be the easier keeper or one that should overcome hard times better.
Its almost a blondes vs brunettes type of question
Canadian_Cowgirl
Well-known member
KNERSIE":31wq4m25 said:
Well of course brunettes are better! ;-) ;-)
I like both of them but I like #1 better, she looks more balanced than the second one, she looks longer and her top line is strighter, #2's heavier in the front than back, and her back end looks higher then her forn end. But she might not be standing on level ground. But it could just be the picture, I find it hard to judge an animal without beingup close and personal.
Katy
IluvABbeef
Well-known member
- Joined
- Mar 29, 2006
- Messages
- 3,630
Canadian_Cowgirl":1eet9eiw said:
I found it was easier to like #1 because of picture angles. The pic of #2 I think needs to be retaken, IMHO.
Canadian_Cowgirl
Well-known member
Maybe the best thing to do is try to set them up then take there picture, close to the same spot so they are on level a playing field. But i know sometimes its impossible to set up a herd cow, theres only 5 of mine i could do, but they were all show cows.
Katy
Katy
#2 Is standing slighty down hill and I know it's not a great angle compared to #1. I'll say this without giving away too much, #2 is every bit as thick and wide as #1. As many of you know it may take better than an hour to get a good pic.
Thanks for all the responses so far. What are the cow strengths and faults of the cows.... I know some have responded to that area already, and thank you that have given strengths and faults so far.
Alan
Thanks for all the responses so far. What are the cow strengths and faults of the cows.... I know some have responded to that area already, and thank you that have given strengths and faults so far.
Alan
Bez>
Well-known member
Relax - both of these animals are fine for the herd.
Bez>
Bez>
ALACOWMAN
Well-known member
aint it so ;-)Bez>":31bb9h9p said:
Bez>":8tg2wtxm said:
Thanks for the kind words, both throw a very nice calf. I'm hoping to get some criticism on both, or maybe better said, someone to tell me what areas need to improve. Both are thick, good spring of rib and easy keepers. #2 does have a level top line. SEC has mentioned improving #1 udder.
Thanks again,
Alan
novatech
Well-known member
I like #2. Seems to be a little longer through the rump.
#2 also looks to have a longer hair coat which may be of benefit in your area because of the cold. #1 is slicker but may fur up just fine in the winter. Down here in Texas I would like to see a little pigment around the eyes.
#2 also looks to have a longer hair coat which may be of benefit in your area because of the cold. #1 is slicker but may fur up just fine in the winter. Down here in Texas I would like to see a little pigment around the eyes.
I'd have'em both!
However as far as faults go, I'd like to see both of them a little straighter in the spine with #1 being a more level hipped (may be that #2 is standing "bent" in the middle, maybe not). #2 is also a little heavy on the front end for me. However, these are minor issues to me and I'd gladly open my gate when you decide you don't want them anymore.
Just curious...what's their breeding, age, epds ... never mind what's their reg #?
However as far as faults go, I'd like to see both of them a little straighter in the spine with #1 being a more level hipped (may be that #2 is standing "bent" in the middle, maybe not). #2 is also a little heavy on the front end for me. However, these are minor issues to me and I'd gladly open my gate when you decide you don't want them anymore.
Just curious...what's their breeding, age, epds ... never mind what's their reg #?
purecountry
Well-known member
Whole lot of beating around the bush and not much criticism. If that's what you want, I'll say they're OK cows, but not great. They both have a hump-back, and tilted, uneven udders with teats too long for my liking. Can't see their feet, but with most hump-backed animals, you end up with crooked legs, or crooked when they stride at least. I've had a few over the years and it's a hard trait to breed out of a bloodline. If you're keeping them make sure to breed them to a bull with a real powerful topline, and hope for the best. Overall not bad cows, just not great.
Alright I'll oblige and give a more thorough evaluation.
No 1
Very feminine and more angular in the neck and head
Very good neck shoulder attachment
outstanding coat
Sound on her legs
I'd prefer a bigger heartgirth
her front udder attachment could be stronger creating a more level udder floor
could have a longer hip (the area between the hooks and pins, or rump)
overall more depth would be prefered especially depth of the hindquarter to create a slight wedge from back to front
No 2
She also is feminine, but with a heavier neck than no 1
Her neck shoulder attachement isn't as strong as no 1 (creating a slight ewe neck)
she's got a long hip and good muscling on a deep hindquarter
she overall deeper with more capacity
she has a decent coat
her topline has a hump, but I suspect that its just fill or overfill, a swayback would have been a much bigger concern
she maybe is slightly heavy from the shoulders forward with a bit of waste in the brisket for the showring, but for a working cow doing a job on grass alone it doesn't bother me. The ability to store energy in the form of fat is essential for hardiness and rustling ability
she has the same attachment problems as no 1,but seems the heavier milker of the two. As long as the newborn calf can suckle without being helped and as long as all four quarters work to wean a heavy calf I wouldn't worry too much about it in a beef cow.
If you ignore the area from the shoulders forward she has a very classical wedge shape. Both cows could have only very slightly heavier bone, but remember a hereford is only a medium boned animal anyhow.
Its two very functional cows, my choice is still number 2, but wouldn't mind owning both. My criteria for a purebred cow is simple, if I see no reason not to retain a bull out of her for own use, she is good enough to offer something in a breeding program, neither is perfect, but thats your job as a breeder to address the issues in bull selection so the offspring don't lack in the same areas.
No 1
Very feminine and more angular in the neck and head
Very good neck shoulder attachment
outstanding coat
Sound on her legs
I'd prefer a bigger heartgirth
her front udder attachment could be stronger creating a more level udder floor
could have a longer hip (the area between the hooks and pins, or rump)
overall more depth would be prefered especially depth of the hindquarter to create a slight wedge from back to front
No 2
She also is feminine, but with a heavier neck than no 1
Her neck shoulder attachement isn't as strong as no 1 (creating a slight ewe neck)
she's got a long hip and good muscling on a deep hindquarter
she overall deeper with more capacity
she has a decent coat
her topline has a hump, but I suspect that its just fill or overfill, a swayback would have been a much bigger concern
she maybe is slightly heavy from the shoulders forward with a bit of waste in the brisket for the showring, but for a working cow doing a job on grass alone it doesn't bother me. The ability to store energy in the form of fat is essential for hardiness and rustling ability
she has the same attachment problems as no 1,but seems the heavier milker of the two. As long as the newborn calf can suckle without being helped and as long as all four quarters work to wean a heavy calf I wouldn't worry too much about it in a beef cow.
If you ignore the area from the shoulders forward she has a very classical wedge shape. Both cows could have only very slightly heavier bone, but remember a hereford is only a medium boned animal anyhow.
Its two very functional cows, my choice is still number 2, but wouldn't mind owning both. My criteria for a purebred cow is simple, if I see no reason not to retain a bull out of her for own use, she is good enough to offer something in a breeding program, neither is perfect, but thats your job as a breeder to address the issues in bull selection so the offspring don't lack in the same areas.
I think your cows are just fine Alan but since you seem to want to have them picked on here's some things I noticed.
Cow 1, it's hard to tell for sure without watching her walk but she looks a little strait in her front shoulder and I'd like to see more set in her rear legs. I'd like her better if she had more muscle and depth of body also.
With cow 2 the main thing I notice that I don't care for is her large brisket. Both cows could use a little help in the udder department also.
Again I think they are just fine but that's some things I'd like to change about them.
Cow 1, it's hard to tell for sure without watching her walk but she looks a little strait in her front shoulder and I'd like to see more set in her rear legs. I'd like her better if she had more muscle and depth of body also.
With cow 2 the main thing I notice that I don't care for is her large brisket. Both cows could use a little help in the udder department also.
Again I think they are just fine but that's some things I'd like to change about them.
KNERSIE":13r69egt said:
Agree 100%. #2 would mimic a lot of cows in our herd, longer rib and in good flesh. Real easy do'er and just a pleasure to show off to someone passing through. Nice big hip. I don't mind her being a little heavy in the front. I want them built like freight trains, not bicycles. Udders could be better. On #2, use a good Felton's-bred bull on her and I think you would be pretty happy with the results.
cattleluvr18
Well-known member
Canadian_Cowgirl":cqb00xge said:
oakcreekfarms
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jan 18, 2006
- Messages
- 724
Decent cows, If I had to guess how they were bred I would guess feltons or gerber. Maybe I am way off there.
It would be nice to see more foreudder attachment. They look to peak over the top, I would prefer a level one. THey look good, the bottom one looks to be a little deeper, and both have decent rears.
Look like good momma cows.
It would be nice to see more foreudder attachment. They look to peak over the top, I would prefer a level one. THey look good, the bottom one looks to be a little deeper, and both have decent rears.
Look like good momma cows.
