Ultrasound numbers?

[tom4018]

On a 14 month old bull would these ultrasound numbers be good or bad.

IMF = 3.95

REA = 11.6

The next number is .29 on the chart not sure what it is and after thar is a .33. Maybe somebody can inform me.

 

[ollie']

Probably the last two numbers are Back fat .xx inches and rump fat .xx inches. The marbling is decent to good. The REA is poor. The BF and Rumpfat are ok if the calf has been fed fairly hard.

 

[MikeC]

I concur with ollie on the REA.

11.6 sq. in. sounds like a goat ribeye area.

 

[JHH]

Wouldnt the R.E.A. have something to do with what the bull weighed? For instance if the bull weighed 1000 pounds that would be more than the 1inch per hundred weight. But if the bull weighed what he should (1400) that would be poor. Is that right or have I messed up again? Might need some more info like breed and weight. I dont know that much about it but they were selling reg. angus at a sale last year with 21 inch R.E.A. they were one year old and weighed around 1200 to 1400 lbs. I thought that was an extreme. JHH

 

[Brandonm2]

You are right. If this is a 950 pound steer 11 inches is good, if this is a 1250 pound steer it is pretty mediocre, if this is a 1450++ pound steer (which I doubt since it is too young) it would be pretty bad.

 

[MikeC]

Wouldnt the R.E.A. have something to do with what the bull weighed? For instance if the bull weighed 1000 pounds that would be more than the 1inch per hundred weight. But if the bull weighed what he should (1400) that would be poor. Is that right or have I messed up again? Might need some more info like breed and weight. I dont know that much about it but they were selling reg. angus at a sale last year with 21 inch R.E.A. they were one year old and weighed around 1200 to 1400 lbs. I thought that was an extreme. JHH

They are adjusted for age, not weight. Always use the "Adjusted" numbers to level out the playing field. But they do take into consideration the amount of feed a calf has had and/or the length of time a calf has been on feed.

The ultimate is to take the measurements on a "Contemporary Group" that have been together and calculate indexes for comparison.

And of course some people use Square inches of REA per hundred weight. Weight -divided by 100 -divided by REA. But this can be confusing also............Some people use "Actual" Ribeye Area and some use "Adjusted" Ribeye area.

 

[ollie']

With .3 inches of back fat he has been fed to his potential or he is putting on too much fat in relation to his ribeye. I don't like the data either way. 12 in ribeyes aren't any good on anything but calves. 1sq in per cwt is a cutter .

 

[JHH]

Dont most of us want the 14 to 16 range for bulls? What would happen if you got to extreme like the 21? Those bulls looked short and fat to me, may be what everyone wants I dont know?JHH

 

[ollie']

Dont most of us want the 14 to 16 range for bulls? What would happen if you got to extreme like the 21? Those bulls looked short and fat to me, may be what everyone wants I dont know?JHH

Are you surethat they were a year old, angus, and had a 21sq in rea?

 

[MikeC]

Dont most of us want the 14 to 16 range for bulls? What would happen if you got to extreme like the 21? Those bulls looked short and fat to me, may be what everyone wants I dont know?JHH

A 21 REA would be perfect for people with small REA cows. Which lots of people have.....they just don't know it.

Say breed that 21 REA bull to a 9 REA cow and theoretically get a "15" calf.

Not many people ultrasound heifers. They should.

 

[tom4018]

The ultimate is to take the measurements on a "Contemporary Group" that have been together and calculate indexes for comparison.

His ratio for IMF for his group was 125 and REA 101 and on the next number he was 100.

 

[JHH]

Dont most of us want the 14 to 16 range for bulls? What would happen if you got to extreme like the 21? Those bulls looked short and fat to me, may be what everyone wants I dont know?JHH

Are you surethat they were a year old, angus, and had a 21sq in rea?

Yes I am sure about that they may have been 15 months but not older than that.There were only three that had that big of ribeye but Like mikec said If that is what you needed then they would work. That was Terry Little sale and they were ultrasounded, Most of his were in the 16 to 18 range. High selling bull was 7000.00. I think he uses a bull called papa equator and some new design stuff. Dont know if that is his bull or if they were A-I ed I dont keep up much with the angus stuff. I do think that hereford breeders need to get bigger R.E.A. they seem to be laking in that dept. JHH

 

[MikeC]

The ultimate is to take the measurements on a "Contemporary Group" that have been together and calculate indexes for comparison.

His ratio for IMF for his group was 125 and REA 101 and on the next number he was 100.

So in the IMF he was 25% better than average

REA ...........1% better than average

BF..............average of the group

Depends on what you need! It's your money!

;-)

 

[Beef11]

I have heard that the REA measurement isn't as solid of a number as people like to think. They had a calf Ultrasounded by 3 different guys and 3 different machines, all 3 were different and by more than alittle i think it was 2 inches total. I wasn't there so i don't know but if one guy is consistently higher than another? Then should it just be done for in herd evaluation and comparison. Or is technology getting better to the point to where this wont happen. Any similar stories? opinions?

 

[ollie']

I have heard that the REA measurement isn't as solid of a number as people like to think. They had a calf Ultrasounded by 3 different guys and 3 different machines, all 3 were different and by more than alittle i think it was 2 inches total. I wasn't there so i don't know but if one guy is consistently higher than another? Then should it just be done for in herd evaluation and comparison. Or is technology getting better to the point to where this wont happen. Any similar stories? opinions?

All the experience I have had has been the best. There are programs that are 100% repeatable. There is a difference in techs ability to get an acurate image of the ribeye so you need a reputable tech. The technology however is real stable.

 

[MikeC]

I have heard that the REA measurement isn't as solid of a number as people like to think. They had a calf Ultrasounded by 3 different guys and 3 different machines, all 3 were different and by more than alittle i think it was 2 inches total. I wasn't there so i don't know but if one guy is consistently higher than another? Then should it just be done for in herd evaluation and comparison. Or is technology getting better to the point to where this wont happen. Any similar stories? opinions?

My Ultrasound tech doesn't take the measurements. All he does is take a digital picture, and send it to a lab who is calibrated exactly with his equipment and the software does the measuring. There is little room for error.

The technology is "Right on the money" now but problem is......not all techs have the latest equipment....in the lab, OR in the field.

 

[Beef11]

Your man is on top of it, sounds like. I just don't like the idea of buying a bull with a BIG ribeye that isn't really that big. In a couple more years they will probably have it standardized.

thanks Mike

 

[Aero]

some people really believe different AI techs are better than others.