Ultrasound Data

Help Support CattleToday:

ollie

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 10, 2004
Messages
984
Reaction score
0
Does any one know of a bull of that has yearling ultrasound data of:
imf 5% or better
rea 1.3 sq.in. /cwt or bigger
b.f. <.3
yearling weight 1200# or greater
Any breed but must be purebred
 

certherfbeef

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 21, 2004
Messages
3,052
Reaction score
0
Location
OH
ollie,

I enjoy reading your posts and you are a valueable asset to this board. But, i have to say, after the discussion about EPD's. Maybe everyone is a little leary to answer this one! :D :D :D :D :D :D
 
OP
ollie

ollie

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 10, 2004
Messages
984
Reaction score
0
Might I ask why. Just give the bulls name and where semen is sold if your afraid to dialog.
 

certherfbeef

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 21, 2004
Messages
3,052
Reaction score
0
Location
OH
Does any one know of a bull of that has yearling ultrasound data of:
imf 5% or better
rea 1.3 sq.in. /cwt
b.f. <.3
yearling weight 1200# or greater
Any breed but must be purebred


Ollie, the back fat <.3 isn't back fat based on the condition that the animal carries? Then back fat would only be based on management and environment.
And how can it be used to compare animals if it is only a measure of the condition an animal carries? Or is it a mearsure of an animal's fleshing ability?
Please help me understand some of this. ~Missi
 

greatgerts

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 16, 2004
Messages
1,198
Reaction score
0
Location
De Soto MO
I sold a bull to a commercial breeder that was 4.9 IMF, .14 back fat and was 1025 at 12 months. That is the closest I have had. I will look up some bulls for you if you want.
 
OP
ollie

ollie

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 10, 2004
Messages
984
Reaction score
0
greatgerts":3jrev0e2 said:
I sold a bull to a commercial breeder that was 4.9 IMF, .14 back fat and was 1025 at 12 months. That is the closest I have had. I will look up some bulls for you if you want.
What size ribeye per cwt did he have. You have earned some bragging rights with a imf like that and bf less that .2 It usually takes atleast .2 bf for an animal to express his full genetic potential in regards to imf.
 

Frankie

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 24, 2003
Messages
6,915
Reaction score
0
Location
Oklahoma
certherfbeef":pmhqpr6v said:
Does any one know of a bull of that has yearling ultrasound data of:
imf 5% or better
rea 1.3 sq.in. /cwt
b.f. <.3
yearling weight 1200# or greater
Any breed but must be purebred

Ollie, the back fat <.3 isn't back fat based on the condition that the animal carries? Then back fat would only be based on management and environment.
And how can it be used to compare animals if it is only a measure of the condition an animal carries? Or is it a mearsure of an animal's fleshing ability?
Please help me understand some of this. ~Missi

Missi, you're correct that backfat will vary according to the condition of the bull. Ribeye can also be affected by management. In fact, all the things Ollie mentioned are greatly affected by management. Breed associations take that performance info from hundreds of related animals, run the data through a complicated math formula and produce EPDs.
 
OP
ollie

ollie

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 10, 2004
Messages
984
Reaction score
0
Frankie , Your all talk . Back up your claims. I didn't put up the post to discuss epd's . If you have information related to carcas data then post the bulls name . Talk about epd's on a different post. You don't know what your talking about and are missleading people .
 

dun

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 28, 2003
Messages
47,334
Reaction score
1
Location
MO Ozarks
ollie":wxzt0bgf said:
Frankie , Your all talk . Back up your claims. I didn't put up the post to discuss epd's . If you have information related to carcas data then post the bulls name . Talk about epd's on a different post. You don't know what your talking about and are missleading people .


It must be very satisfying to be one of the few people in the world that realize that everyone else is wrong and that EPDs are bogus

dun
 
OP
ollie

ollie

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 10, 2004
Messages
984
Reaction score
0
Hello dun , do you know of a bull that meets the criteria. If not please go to the sniping page.
 
OP
ollie

ollie

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 10, 2004
Messages
984
Reaction score
0
Forget the whole post. You guys can have it . Talk epd's till your heart is content.
 

dun

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 28, 2003
Messages
47,334
Reaction score
1
Location
MO Ozarks
ollie":2v3wy8z5 said:
Hello dun , do you know of a bull that meets the criteria. If not please go to the sniping page.

Gee, you sure can't take a compliment very well

dun
 

Frankie

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 24, 2003
Messages
6,915
Reaction score
0
Location
Oklahoma
ollie":3u9nrriu said:
Frankie , Your all talk . Back up your claims. I didn't put up the post to discuss epd's . If you have information related to carcas data then post the bulls name . Talk about epd's on a different post. You don't know what your talking about and are missleading people .

"...all talk?" What does that mean. Back up what claims? That performance data is used to creat EPDs? You're not making any sense, Ollie.

No, I don't know a specific bull that meets that criteria. Actually, since that criteria is heavily reliant on management, I don't pay much attention. Some, but not much. Are you looking for a bull to buy that has those qualities?

This is an open forum. I can talk about whatever I want to on this thread. You can continue to talk about performance; I don't care. I was merely responding to Missi's post. As for misleading people, if you don't think there will be a great deal of difference in the backfat, ribeye, and IMF of bulls performance tested on hot feed or raised on grass, you need to do some research.

If you really are looking for bulls with that sort of data, I can post links to some bull test stations that also include ultrasound data. You might find one there. If you're merely keeping us in suspense so you can present a specific bull, I'll be glad to see him.
 

hillbilly

Well-known member
Joined
May 4, 2004
Messages
365
Reaction score
0
Location
SW Missouri
ollie":3532x1sf said:
Does any one know of a bull of that has yearling ultrasound data of:
imf 5% or better
rea 1.3 sq.in. /cwt or bigger
b.f. <.3
yearling weight 1200# or greater
Any breed but must be purebred

I don't do home work. Never did. If you've got a point, make it.


Hillbilly
 

Tod Dague

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 4, 2004
Messages
1,517
Reaction score
0
Location
Central Tx
Not exactly what you were looking for but fairly close. Red Angus Reg # 924439 BW 80 WW 710 YW 1382 ADG 4.2 Marb 5.5 REA/ CWT 1.24 FT .25

Tod
 
A

Anonymous

Example of one of the Chiangus's with the scientific criteria. This one is purebred.

REA - 18.6
% IMF - 5.1
BF - .3
REA/CWT - 1.46
Yearling - 1389
Double Star gene marbling
Double Star gene tenderness one
Double Star gene tenderness two
 

greatgerts

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 16, 2004
Messages
1,198
Reaction score
0
Location
De Soto MO
greatgerts wrote:
I sold a bull to a commercial breeder that was 4.9 IMF, .14 back fat and was 1025 at 12 months. That is the closest I have had. I will look up some bulls for you if you want.
What size ribeye per cwt did he have. You have earned some bragging rights with a imf like that and bf less that .2 It usually takes atleast .2 bf for an animal to express his full genetic potential in regards to imf.

I dont have the numbers here with me. (I am down at college right now). The REA/cwt was not as high as I would like it. That was the one thing the sire did not do for us was ribeye numbers. Right now, I am crossing the 1/2 sisters to the above mentioned bull to a bull with a higher REA, and am hoping for some good Gert calves to compete intensively with Angus on the rail.
 

Latest posts

Top