Your Choice - which one would you pick?

[jscunn]

First of all both pictures were taken at different times, both heifers were ~14 months old..

Born Feb 2009 (Photo was taken last weekend)

Born Sept 2008 (Photo was November 2009)

Which one would you take? Personal opinion the first one is certainly the better show heifer..but the second one is already bred, due in September.

 

[Herefords.US]

First one!

George

 

[Santas and Duhram Reds]

The first one is definitely fatter and appears deeper but is she as feminine? Are they the same money?

 

[CPL]

First one hands down

 

[Frankie]

I woulcn't pick without more information: pedigree, performance, EPDs, etc. But think the second one has a more feminine look to her, so if all else was equal, I'd pick her.

 

[RD-Sam]

Not knowing anything about them, I think I would have to pick the second one, she looks to be a little more correct. I don't like that dip in the topline, but the rest looks pretty good on her.

 

[cowchew]

I agree with Frankie, that we need more information, but as is, I would say #1 for showing but #2 for mothering.

 

[alftn]

From looks, and I hate pictures, I like #2

 

[Australian]

Take both if they aren't too expensive. Two of the best Angus Heifers I've seen posted here. If they both were in the same class at a show bet they would swap and change awards at every darn show you went to. I had 4 South Devon heifers that I had in my team a couple of years ago. They leap frogged in the awards all the time.

 

[pdfangus]

I find it hard to compare frame and relative size in the two photos.

the first heifer is cleaner in her dewlap and has a higher degree of finish and this may or may not contribute to her appearing to have more meat and muscle.

both appear to have adequate structure to make a decent cow.

Number 2 bing already bred and on schedule to calve as a two year old goes a long way in my book.

assuming clean and similar pedigrees and similar weaning performance I think I would go with 2 while acknowledging that 1 is a more eye appealing package.

 

[jscunn]

First of all, I didnt make it clear they already belong to us. I was just wondering which everyone liked better. Sorry poor title choice.

The first heifer was purchased as a calf, weaned pretty heavy (630#) ratioed 97, Sire is Mogck Whispering Wind MGS is Bennett Coalition. EPDs are pretty good except for REA. Reg # 16313146.

The second heifer was born here, good weaning weight (665#) ratioed 104, her BW ratio was 110 but she only weighed 80# at birth,she was in a small contemporary group with a heifer that weighed 54# among a few others. She is safe (according to the vet) to Connealy Forward, due Sept 2010. Sire is Sydgen Corona, MGS is SAF Connection, she has been DNA tested AMF. Reg # 16131781.

IMO, the first heifer is deeper, fatter, cleaner fronted, and correct enough she will show better. The second heifer is wider topped,longer, more feminine headed.

 

[alacattleman]

first

 

[3waycross]

The first one. While she may be just a little less feminine, she has other attributes that can't be ignored. Specifically much more capacity, better topline, more muscle, much cleaner fronted, and is feminine enough. She is also 6 months younger and still shows a lot of maturity. I see her producing deep , soggy, masculine bulls. I just wouldn't breed her to anything short coupled or coarse.

Having said that they are both very nice heifers.

 

[Avalon]

i AGREE WITH 3WAY

 

[pdfangus]

Isn't it nice to know that you have a market for both of em?

 

[Keren]

second heifer without a doubt - so much more balance and broody character

 

[aussie_cowgirl]

It's hard. Heifer 1 has great capacity. I love good depth. And while she looks thick, I don't think she has a good amount of muscling, and looking at her tail head she's laying down a fair amount of fat. Her hind quarter doesn't show the muscling capacity that 2 does. She hasn't got the bone that 2 has (and before someone says anything about eating bone, muscle has to attach somewhere, the more bone surface the more muscle attachment). She doesn't have the femininity that 2 has. So while it kills me to go past the capacity, I'd choose 2.

 

[Australian]

Congratulations on having two good heifers.

 

[1982vett]

I'll take the one that is due to calve in 5 months.

 

[Gelbvieh 5]

second heifer without a doubt - so much more balance and broody character

Could you quantify Balance and "broody". Where is the first heifer out of balance and why is the second "broodier" than the first.

Too bad we can't see a picture of the second heifer at the same age as the number 1. 6 months is a long time at that age, they are definately still laying down bone at a year. My guess is that #2 would look like she needs some capacity and bone at the same age.

Maybe the OP has an older pic of #2 so that we can see a more apples to apples comparison.