You Decide...Opinions Please

[East Caney]

These are four cows from four different herds, all registered Beefmasters. Which one has the phenotype most to your liking? What are your overall thoughts of the group? Thanks.

(Pictured @ 8 yrs)

(Pictured @ 8 yrs)

(Pictured @ 10 yrs)

(Pictured @ 5 yrs)

 

[BIZIN]

2nd cow. 1st and 3rd are good thick cows, I like that, 2nd is the best looking.

 

[backhoeboogie]

I agree on second - best hocks too.

 

[angie1]

Second cow ~ easy. Great udder, very feminine, nice 'n long, lotsa butt.

 

[jedstivers]

I like'em all but 2nd is best.

 

[LazyARanch]

I liked the 3rd cow.... deeper through the chest, better angle on her shoulder. JMO

2nd cow has the most feminine appearance tho

 

[farmwriter]

#2 as well. I wonder though if the camera angle is short-changing #4 a little, even if she isn't the girliest of girls.

 

[bigbull338]

i like all of the cows.they are sure nuff calf raisers.

 

[AudieWyoming]

Down south I like the 10 year old cow, deep rib, wide chest floor, best udder of the bunch, good slope from hips to pins.
I like the sharp front feminine look of 2. Love that big hip. :heart: Kind of pinched in the heart.
I think the first cow has the best chance to work out west on the short grass, but I hate that basketball udder.
The last cow just looks too course and big boned. I covered her head but still couldn't get excited about the body.

Ok let me go look at them again.@

 

[bishopcattleco]

there aint a thing wrong with any of those cows i bet they all have 650 700 lb calves on them with no help. there is nothing wrong they r perfect

 

[alisonb]

Its a toss between 2 and 3 for me.

I wonder though if the camera angle is short-changing #4 a little

I think you are right.
Her frame to me indicates too much influence of one X. If you were not breeding Beefmaster my choice may well have been number 4.

 

[Kingfisher]

These are four cows from four different herds, all registered Beefmasters. Which one has the phenotype most to your liking? What are your overall thoughts of the group? Thanks.

(Pictured @ 8 yrs)

(Pictured @ 8 yrs)

(Pictured @ 10 yrs)

(Pictures @ 5 yrs)

Your the reason we are hunting for Beefmaster cows...........thanks for your post. Peace.

 

[wtrapp]

The 2nd cow.

 

[Caustic Burno]

Well I am going with #4 as she appears to be a more moderate frame cow. I don't want those 1500 pound cows I want the 1000 pound cow. She eats less groceries and handles the heat better and will raise me just as good a calf as those big cows . IMO the industry has gotten the cow too big over the last several years .

 

[backhoeboogie]

Dang CB! I have to disagree with you on your pick. Not about the weight issue. The hocks. She's only 5. I am thinking atleast ten years in the pasture when I look at her price. Are those hocks gonna let her do it with my intermittent limestone pieces on the ridges above the flood plain? She gives me cold feet. They all have a lot of weight. That's a lot of pressure on those feet.

 

[KNERSIE]

2, 1, 3, 4

In the showring as long as you have 2 first and 4 last it wouldn't make much difference which between 1 and 3 you have second.

 

[DOC HARRIS]

My first comment - overall: They are ALL too big to be thrifty, PROFITABLE modern-day producers. That said, in a class of Terminal profitable brood cows, I place them - - 1 - 3 - 2 - 4.
They are all strong, large, deep-bodied, roomy beef matrons. They should all produce good calves. All have deep hindquarters. None of them are FUNNEL BUTTS! You all know what I think of FUNNEL BUTT cattle! Judging by these particular pictures ONLY, #2 appears smoother overall, has a fine udder with small teats, but I criticize her for lack of spring of rib and a pinched heart girth, which could restrict her capacity for producing large, vigorous calves. She is a little finer-boned than the other three, which is not necessarily a negative trait in itself. I would say that # 2 is the best looking (phenotype), but probably not the best performing or the most profitable - at year's end.

Number 4 has moderately good qualities overall, except her FUNCTIONAL TRAITS lack quality. Her pasterns are weak, her udder suspensory ligament lacks strength, her hocks are weak, and her teats are a little large for a newborn calf to easily get early nutrition, which is critical for colostrum consumption! #1 could be a little longer overall, but has adequate bone, a well supported udder with small, well-placed teats. She should raise a great calf each year, which puts her in the PROFIT catagory!

By the way, BishopCattleCo - in the business of beef cattle appraisal - there is NO COW - or - BULL that is PERFECT!! Just as in analyzing Human Beings, we ALL have our faults. Some can be overlooked - some can't. (or shouldn't be).

DOC HARRIS

 

[Caustic Burno]

Dang CB! I have to disagree with you on your pick. Not about the weight issue. The hocks. She's only 5. I am thinking atleast ten years in the pasture when I look at her price. Are those hocks gonna let her do it with my intermittent limestone pieces on the ridges above the flood plain? She gives me cold feet. They all have a lot of weight. That's a lot of pressure on those feet.

Boogie they are all to big for my taste, but I want a 1000 pound cow. Now the man has raised some good looking cows they are just not my kind of cow. I don't want that 2000 pound bull either 1600 pounds is plenty big for me.

 

[East Caney]

I'd just like to clarify that I do not own any of these animals. Each of them are currently owned by their breeders who are as follows:

1. Lasater Ranch Beefmasters (founding herd)
2. Buster Beefmasters
3. Frenzel Beefmasters
4. Salt Creek Beefmasters

There have been statements concerning the profitability and size of these animals. I have seen or have knowledge of bulls selling out of three of these cows that have certainly made money...up to $7,000+. I personally don't have cows as big as these. At the same time, I don't consider them too big. In my opinion, their frame size is acceptable. I think they're all heavy-bodied, but that is my preference. I want to really have to search for a bull that can maintain or increase thickness in my cows.

Also, I'm wondering if everyone's preference of the #2 cow has to do with the lack of Brahman influence she exhibits. She is, by far, the cleanest throughout the neck, brisket, and underline. Doc referenced #2 as possibly the best phenotypically then stated that she probably would not produce the best calf. #4 who has as much girth as any, in my opinion, was regarded as lacking functional traits.

I'd like to hear more thoughts. I'm intrigued by the discussion. Thanks to all who have commented thus far.

EC

 

[backhoeboogie]

Also, I'm wondering if everyone's preference of the #2 cow has to do with the lack of Brahman influence she exhibits.

Brahman influence doesn't affend me one iota. I can assure you.

You know how the limestone is in my neck of the woods. You're local. I look hard at the hocks.

You pick up patio and building stone between the lower and upper flood plains and it just seems to keep multiplying. They drilled through 270 feet of limestone with my last water well. The beauty of it is were have plenty of lime in the soil as well as other minerals. But feet are an issue.

Average lifespan of a cow is 22 years if you believe the almanac. The oldest of my current bunch is 7 years post drought. They all should go atleast another ten if I take care to keep the sand out of their teeth. All but one has excellent hocks. All have ear too. Mostly brangus.

#2 has the best hocks for my operation. Considering the weight, the others might present a problem for me. Those are some heavy gals. Mind you I aint saying anything absolute. Maybe is close enough for me to decide knowing the terrain.

#1 aint all that bad on the hocks. Just not as good as #2