cattletalk
Member
- Joined
- Oct 8, 2022
- Messages
- 23
- Reaction score
- 7
Why so popular?
- Thread starter cattletalk
- Start date
Help Support CattleToday:
SBMF 2015
Well-known member
Who is he? What does he look like on paper?
Jeanne - Simme Valley
Well-known member
Sorry - but who cares what he looks like on paper - IF - he doesn't pass visual inspection?
redcowsrule33
Well-known member
2/22/24 Cattlemen's Cut Bull Sale Video Catalog
Video Catalog for Cattlemen's Cut Bull Sale
SBMF 2015
Well-known member
I've seen better phenotypical bulls and worse.
Some people chase a specific trait like carcass or growth. When their progeny is hanging on the rail it doesn't really matter how pretty they were alive.
Not necessarily my thing but some people get very hung up on the numbers
Little Joe
Well-known member
For lack of better terms, his back end looks like it outgrew his front end. I like a bull, or cow for that matter, that is pretty straight across the topline. But as mentioned, when that carcass is on the rail you will never know.
Ebenezer
Well-known member
Frame, growth, outlier: The winning combination.
puzzled in oregon
Well-known member
- Joined
- May 31, 2020
- Messages
- 829
- Reaction score
- 1,098
The sway backed, beer belly bulls have never impressed me
simme
Old Dumb Guy
Stirring the pot maybe. Some people get hung up on numbers for sure. But do some also put too much emphasis on looks? For sure some phenotype issues will affect longevity and productivity and function. Those are very important. But do "looks" add additional economic value once those basic functional issues are met? Pounds, yield, grade, feed efficiency or "looks". I guess there is certainly a minimum acceptable floor on those things, but is the "picture perfect look" necessary to maximize profit and provide a good consumer experience?
Then could think about the controversial idea of a terminal bull. A bull used to produce feedlot cattle only - no replacements kept, no second generation progeny. Bull needs to last a few years, settle cows and produce high growth, high yield, high grading, efficient calves. Even if he is ugly and does not meet the ideal appearance criteria.
What makes a good bull or cow? I think there is an emotional attachment to cattle that usually does not happen with chicken or pork production. The chicken grower's main concern is the number on the check vs his expense. Certainly not phenotype of the chickens.
Then could think about the controversial idea of a terminal bull. A bull used to produce feedlot cattle only - no replacements kept, no second generation progeny. Bull needs to last a few years, settle cows and produce high growth, high yield, high grading, efficient calves. Even if he is ugly and does not meet the ideal appearance criteria.
What makes a good bull or cow? I think there is an emotional attachment to cattle that usually does not happen with chicken or pork production. The chicken grower's main concern is the number on the check vs his expense. Certainly not phenotype of the chickens.
Need guts to eat and need to eat to grow.
Jeanne - Simme Valley
Well-known member
I agree you don't need phenotype for terminal cross - but, you do need the right SHAPE for calving efficiency. This bull is pinched in the heart girth and "appears" to be big shouldered. I won't touch any bull with big shoulders.
I will stick to my opinion that a bull has to pass phenotype BEFORE you look at numbers. Smooth shoulders, structurally correct, good feet. Maybe you don't care if all his offspring has bad feet, but the bull himself has to hold up to a couple years use.
Too many breeders are looking at numbers FIRST.
If they don't have good feet and legs to travel they get left in the pen. No matter how good the rest of the bull is.
blackladies
Well-known member
I like an animal that looks good as much as the next guy but what if you had animals that outperformed in every way possible they were just ugly.
Jeanne - Simme Valley
Well-known member
If you have ugly cows but they are making you money, that is all that counts. The original post is discussing a "top" bull in a breeding program sale. Not many people in the PB business fare very well with ugly cattle. Exception being - "some" current PB breeders are (IMHO) ruining their herds by breeding by numbers instead of watching/looking at the animals being bred and being bred to.
I "think" the numbers guys are starting to wake up. Hopefully they are.
@cattletalk - what did this pictured bull sell for? I'm "assuming" he has great numbers.
I "think" the numbers guys are starting to wake up. Hopefully they are.
@cattletalk - what did this pictured bull sell for? I'm "assuming" he has great numbers.
puzzled in oregon
Well-known member
- Joined
- May 31, 2020
- Messages
- 829
- Reaction score
- 1,098
I really do understand what you are saying. But what percentage of this bulls weight is not edible
SBMF 2015
Well-known member
You're not wrong. They have to be sound.
This time of year my mailbox is bombarded with angus sale catalogs. I can look at hundreds of bulls on paper before I ever go see one in person.
For our part of the country the place I used to manage had a pretty good size cow herd. We kept between 8-12 bulls on hand depending on the time of year.
For those big Char cross cows if their birth EPD didn't start with a 3 I wouldn't look any further. CED needed to be single digit at best. Those cows could handle 100+ birth weight calves unassisted. And it paid huge dividends on the other end when we sold the calves as fats.
TexasJerseyMilker
Well-known member
I am in the minority here but I keep my cattle (Jerseys) for two reasons.
1. milk. 2. beauty
Turns out I did not know what JX 3 in front to a bulls name stands for when I selected Stoney for AI. It's Jersey Cross three generations ago. A grand parent was a Holstein for greater milk production.
I wondered why the heifer I raised that came from a dairy has a long straight profile and small eyes like a Holstein face instead of the classic broad forehead, large eyes, dished face and small muzzle of a Jersey. That's because that dairy uses JX bulls and now she's bred to a JX bull.
Well, it turns out Select Sires also has six or seven Jersey show bulls so I will use them from now on. I do not need a ton of milk anyway.
1. milk. 2. beauty
Turns out I did not know what JX 3 in front to a bulls name stands for when I selected Stoney for AI. It's Jersey Cross three generations ago. A grand parent was a Holstein for greater milk production.
I wondered why the heifer I raised that came from a dairy has a long straight profile and small eyes like a Holstein face instead of the classic broad forehead, large eyes, dished face and small muzzle of a Jersey. That's because that dairy uses JX bulls and now she's bred to a JX bull.
Well, it turns out Select Sires also has six or seven Jersey show bulls so I will use them from now on. I do not need a ton of milk anyway.
Look how deep sided he is. There isn't any weight between the belly and the ground and soup bones have lower value than rib or flank meat. It has been proven that cattle that can eat more grow faster.
That would be my Woody! He's not a "front pasture" bull at all. But dang, he throws great calves that are surprisingly pretty (a lot of which I've kept) and he's just so easy, super docile. Gotta give mama credit for making up what he lacks in looks.
Ebenezer
Well-known member
"Then could think about the controversial idea of a terminal bull. A bull used to produce feedlot cattle only - no replacements kept, no second generation progeny."
Not controversial but a wise thought process. As a matter of fact, most bulls sold today are leaning towards terminal type: growth and carcass traits are the cat's meow.
"Need guts to eat and need to eat to grow." Only on forage. In a feedlot and on concentrates, the less middle was the most efficient type according to Dr. Bob Long.
Not controversial but a wise thought process. As a matter of fact, most bulls sold today are leaning towards terminal type: growth and carcass traits are the cat's meow.
"Need guts to eat and need to eat to grow." Only on forage. In a feedlot and on concentrates, the less middle was the most efficient type according to Dr. Bob Long.
