Ultrasound numbers?

Help Support CattleToday:

tom4018

Dumb Old Farmer
Joined
Jan 2, 2004
Messages
3,980
Reaction score
45
Location
Kentucky
Is there some average numbers for actual scan numbers? I know there are averages for epd's on ultrasound.
Looking at Angus bulls here.
For example a bull @ 342 days, 890# :
IMF 2.63
RE 8.6
Rib fat .09
Rump fat .1
 

Jovid

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 22, 2005
Messages
1,787
Reaction score
0
Location
Oklahoma
tom4018":3avysbcn said:
Is there some average numbers for actual scan numbers? I know there are averages for epd's on ultrasound.
Looking at Angus bulls here.
For example a bull @ 342 days, 890# :
IMF 2.63
RE 8.6
Rib fat .09
Rump fat .1

The only one I have ever heard of is for REA and that is 1 sq inch for every 100 lbs is acceptable. In the your #s the REA would be .97 per sq inches. In other words if he weighed 1,200 lbs he would only have a 11.64 REA which would be on the low end.

Looking forward to what everyone else has to say.
 

dun

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 28, 2003
Messages
47,334
Reaction score
6
Location
MO Ozarks
Jovid":3oh6oebs said:
The only one I have ever heard of is for REA and that is 1 sq inch for every 100 lbs is acceptable. In the your #s the REA would be .97 per sq inches. In other words if he weighed 1,200 lbs he would only have a 11.64 REA which would be on the low end.

Looking forward to what everyone else has to say.

I was told 1.2 per cwt.
 

Frankie

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 24, 2003
Messages
6,915
Reaction score
0
Location
Oklahoma
tom4018":qwmg646k said:
Is there some average numbers for actual scan numbers? I know there are averages for epd's on ultrasound.
Looking at Angus bulls here.
For example a bull @ 342 days, 890# :
IMF 2.63
RE 8.6
Rib fat .09
Rump fat .1

Actual ultrasound numbers are only worthwhile in a contemporary group. This bull might have entirely different numbers if he'd been on a hot feed test. Or he might not. So the only way to say if they're "good" or "bad" numbers is to compare them to bulls raised/treated the same and ultrasounded at the same time.
 
OP
tom4018

tom4018

Dumb Old Farmer
Joined
Jan 2, 2004
Messages
3,980
Reaction score
45
Location
Kentucky
Frankie":bm2rg7vd said:
tom4018":bm2rg7vd said:
Is there some average numbers for actual scan numbers? I know there are averages for epd's on ultrasound.
Looking at Angus bulls here.
For example a bull @ 342 days, 890# :
IMF 2.63
RE 8.6
Rib fat .09
Rump fat .1

Actual ultrasound numbers are only worthwhile in a contemporary group. This bull might have entirely different numbers if he'd been on a hot feed test. Or he might not. So the only way to say if they're "good" or "bad" numbers is to compare them to bulls raised/treated the same and ultrasounded at the same time.

I don't have the numbers in front of me right now but the bull's numbers above was above 100% on IMF and slightly below on RE.
 

Frankie

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 24, 2003
Messages
6,915
Reaction score
0
Location
Oklahoma
tom4018":1xfgn49o said:
Frankie":1xfgn49o said:
tom4018":1xfgn49o said:
Is there some average numbers for actual scan numbers? I know there are averages for epd's on ultrasound.
Looking at Angus bulls here.
For example a bull @ 342 days, 890# :
IMF 2.63
RE 8.6
Rib fat .09
Rump fat .1

Actual ultrasound numbers are only worthwhile in a contemporary group. This bull might have entirely different numbers if he'd been on a hot feed test. Or he might not. So the only way to say if they're "good" or "bad" numbers is to compare them to bulls raised/treated the same and ultrasounded at the same time.

I don't have the numbers in front of me right now but the bull's numbers above was above 100% on IMF and slightly below on RE.

The Angus Assn has breed averages on several traits, but I've never seen averages on ultrasound data. I assume there's too much variation in management for them to be useful.

As you probably know 100% is average in a contemporary grouping. Anything less is below average; above is better than average.
 

Jovid

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 22, 2005
Messages
1,787
Reaction score
0
Location
Oklahoma
Frankie":2xgolute said:
tom4018":2xgolute said:
Is there some average numbers for actual scan numbers? I know there are averages for epd's on ultrasound.
Looking at Angus bulls here.
For example a bull @ 342 days, 890# :
IMF 2.63
RE 8.6
Rib fat .09
Rump fat .1

Actual ultrasound numbers are only worthwhile in a contemporary group. This bull might have entirely different numbers if he'd been on a hot feed test. Or he might not. So the only way to say if they're "good" or "bad" numbers is to compare them to bulls raised/treated the same and ultrasounded at the same time.

Frankie,

You can say that about the fat #s but from what I understand especially from the Angus breeders is that IMF and REA is genetic so it wouldn't matter what they were fed.

If they weren't genetic based then they would be worthless.
 

CSM

Well-known member
Joined
May 21, 2007
Messages
303
Reaction score
9
Location
KY
I have a BWF cow that measured 8.96 for REA at a weight of 875 lbs at 14 months old. This bull sounds very weak in REA.

CSM
 

dun

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 28, 2003
Messages
47,334
Reaction score
6
Location
MO Ozarks
When we ultrasound heifers at weaning anything under 8 inches goes to the feedlot
 

Jovid

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 22, 2005
Messages
1,787
Reaction score
0
Location
Oklahoma
dun":3onat4fv said:
When we ultrasound heifers at weaning anything under 8 inches goes to the feedlot

Assuming they weighed 600lbs that would mean a 1.33 sq in for every 100 lbs and that would be a good rule to follow Dun

The problem I see is there is a whole lot of breeds that you would be culling every calve with those standards. :)

Our bulls have averaged a 1.41 sq in per 100 lbs.
 

Frankie

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 24, 2003
Messages
6,915
Reaction score
0
Location
Oklahoma
Jovid":1piw8s22 said:
Frankie":1piw8s22 said:
tom4018":1piw8s22 said:
Is there some average numbers for actual scan numbers? I know there are averages for epd's on ultrasound.
Looking at Angus bulls here.
For example a bull @ 342 days, 890# :
IMF 2.63
RE 8.6
Rib fat .09
Rump fat .1

Actual ultrasound numbers are only worthwhile in a contemporary group. This bull might have entirely different numbers if he'd been on a hot feed test. Or he might not. So the only way to say if they're "good" or "bad" numbers is to compare them to bulls raised/treated the same and ultrasounded at the same time.

Frankie,

You can say that about the fat #s but from what I understand especially from the Angus breeders is that IMF and REA is genetic so it wouldn't matter what they were fed.

If they weren't genetic based then they would be worthless.

Yes, it's genetics. But an animal can't express their genetic potential without proper nutrtion. Identical bulls may both mature at the same weight and the same ribeye, but one that gets the best nurtition will reach his genetic potential quicker than the other. And marbling starts at an early age. Even if an animal has the genetic potential to be high marbling, if he doesn't have the feed to lay down the fat, he won't marble. That doesn't change his genetics. If he has the genetics to marble but isn't fed to express that potential, he can still produce calves that will marble if they're well managed.
 

dun

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 28, 2003
Messages
47,334
Reaction score
6
Location
MO Ozarks
Jovid":3r126vxy said:
dun":3r126vxy said:
When we ultrasound heifers at weaning anything under 8 inches goes to the feedlot

Assuming they weighed 600lbs that would mean a 1.33 sq in for every 100 lbs and that would be a good rule to follow Dun

The problem I see is there is a whole lot of breeds that you would be culling every calve with those standards. :)

Our bulls have averaged a 1.41 sq in per 100 lbs.

Those are the breeds that you wouldn;t want to try and sell based on grading.
 

Latest posts

Top