Herefords.US":hthlgjm4 said:
Honestly, I still don't like him much, looking at him. I think the stacking of 9126J on the 3008 daughters is pretty well asking for just the result you see. Cattle that don't show an abundance of muscling and have the visual appearance of being a little "hard-doing". But it sure puts together a great set of EPDs! The plus is that they should also have a world of milk and be very easy calving.
I recently traveled through West Texas, across New Mexico, and into the mountains of southwestern Colorado. I saw a lot of cattle that visually looked like this bull, in all three colors, among the herds. Only when I eventually got into the mountains of Colorado did I actually see cattle that looked fat and really beefy. I believe there are two reasons for that. Pursuit of growth EPDs at the cost of everything else and the inability of those kind of cattle to adapt to the environment they are in.
George
George,
This bull pictured above seems to share a lot of pedigree with my bull (9126J + 3008). So I have some familiarity with the real thing which infact does produce some good EPD's as you suggest.
I would really appreciate more specifics on what you and Novatech and Knersie don't like visually about this one pictured above. I do think Dun had a good comment about terminal use but I like what I see of my bulls first daughters so far - especially one heifer out of one of my target 1200 lb cows.
Even a novice like me can see there is a huge difference in appearance between this bull and say some of the Uruguay bulls or a couple of the Australian bulls shown here previously.
However mine is definitely NOT a hard doer nor does he require special attention. He does not have the backfat that many of the other bulls have and seems to have a sleeker coat all year around that many of the shaggier bull photos. That would lead you to think he would not outwinter well in a cold climate but that is also definitely not true. He outwintered fine in -30 F in WI this past winter and has never been under a roof. And gets no supplements other than a mineral (not protein) tub available. Very little grain also.
I seem to recall a number of respected posters here saying how important it was for a cow to slick up in the spring. Why not a bull as long as he is an easy doer?
My bull could have a bit more butt, granted. He lives on grass. If I tried to fatten him on grain he might look a lot different. But then again he might not.
However the rest of the package is not bad. From what I see of my bull's calves so far, breeding him to a couple cows similar to the 1200 lb'er on the right in this photo seems to solve the butt problem - the calves from these matings have very muscular rear quarters even at 14 weeks.
As far as CE, BW, SC, growth they all appear to be there. I think the low backfat gives him a different appearance. And yes the butt could be a bit better but I think that problem appears solveable to some degree...we'll see how the Milk, REA & IMF turn out. It appears so far that they will be there.
I admit it would be nice if he had a bit more butt. That is a visual negative. But many of the non-visual traits are VERY positive. And it seems I can maybe fix the negative one (butt).
Maybe some of the Colorado cattle you saw have the big butt appearance and more backfat and coat.
However I also see folks in the Dakotas in the spring who look like they haven't slept in weeks from "checking on cattle every two hours" 'cause "it's calving time".
There seems to me to be some advantage to having a bull with maybe an acceptable but not the best butt, however with his calves the main thing you have to do is to count them.
I would sincerely appreciate an explanation of what folks do not like about the photo above.
For comparison here is a photo of SHF Ribeye. To my untrained eye though, even Ribeye looks different than the Uruguay and other bull pictures posted here in the recent past. Is Ribeye ALSO a part of this trend you see crossing W TX etc?
Thanks. Jim