Ultrasound numbers?

[tom4018]

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]

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]

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]

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.

 

[tom4018]

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]

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]

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]

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]

When we ultrasound heifers at weaning anything under 8 inches goes to the feedlot

 

[Jovid]

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]

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]

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.