Worst dairy bull you ever used

bogman_bass

After all the talk on the IHFA thread it got me thinking about some of the bulls we used.
The one that stands out is RAT. Tall leggy girls with lovely udders that gave gallons of milk the first year. I say the first year because you couldn't get them back in calf. Combine that with questionable temperament, crap solids and narrow pins they were a disaster

mahoney_j

bogman_bass wrote: »

After all the talk on the IHFA thread it got me thinking about some of the bulls we used.
The one that stands out is RAT. Tall leggy girls with lovely udders that gave gallons of milk the first year. I say the first year because you couldn't get them back in calf. Combine that with questionable temperament, crap solids and narrow pins they were a disaster

Used some tih straws on ruu and rdu heifers..the ruu and rdu hfrs were nice milky cows doin around 8 k Ltrs but the tih stock off them were pure screws,poor milkers and small fat cows with crap udders.nhs also bought a lot of questionable stock.

mahoney_j

bogman_bass wrote: »

After all the talk on the IHFA thread it got me thinking about some of the bulls we used.
The one that stands out is RAT. Tall leggy girls with lovely udders that gave gallons of milk the first year. I say the first year because you couldn't get them back in calf. Combine that with questionable temperament, crap solids and narrow pins they were a disaster

Not having a pop here but is any of the reason why they didn't go in calf down to diet,management etc.finer cows like that like their grub and have bigger appetites and needs for minerals etc

bogman_bass

mahoney_j wrote: »

Not having a pop here but is any of the reason why they didn't go in calf down to diet,management etc.finer cows like that like their grub and have bigger appetites and needs for minerals etc

They were getting meal horsed into them in the parlour but the couldn't hold any condition.
Now maybe the management wasnt good enough but the fact of the matter is that the rest of the herd were fit to do it

mahoney_j

bogman_bass wrote: »

They were getting meal horsed into them in the parlour but the couldn't hold any condition.
Now maybe the management wasnt good enough but the fact of the matter is that the rest of the herd were fit to do it

Fair point but when u say horsed into them ,what type of meal and how much ??.i feed to yield and no Tmr and no diet feeder.cows in parlour get a ration with between 16 and 18% protein and contains at least 35% maize.my top yielders this year milked over 56 Ltrs and were getting 9 kg of meal daily.the fact that the rest of your herd could go back in calf etc was in all likelyhood down to there genetic make up and milking potential.there is a huge difference between say a 5 k a year cow and a 8 k a year cow.there is a massive difference between a 5 k and 10 k. Year cow.

jomoloney

sok

some of the worst performers in the herd

Going forward...

FLT:pac:

I think the reputation of the bull influences how you look at the daughters, Hyped up bulls bring great expectation. Haven't many but Storm and later Goldwyn were disappointing in how their udders held up. I mentioned Fatal, didn't work at all here but I gather they matured into good cows elsewhere.

mahoney_j wrote: »

Fair point but when u say horsed into them ,what type of meal and how much ??.i feed to yield and no Tmr and no diet feeder.cows in parlour get a ration with between 16 and 18% protein and contains at least 35% maize.my top yielders this year milked over 56 Ltrs and were getting 9 kg of meal daily.the fact that the rest of your herd could go back in calf etc was in all likelyhood down to there genetic make up and milking potential.there is a huge difference between say a 5 k a year cow and a 8 k a year cow.there is a massive difference between a 5 k and 10 k. Year cow.

You have to assume their herd mates are of similar genetics. Could be just a poor cross but his proof today isn't great either. We all know of bulls that work on one farm and are a disaster on others, proofs tell the big picture.

RobertKK

bogman_bass wrote: »

After all the talk on the IHFA thread it got me thinking about some of the bulls we used.
The one that stands out is RAT. Tall leggy girls with lovely udders that gave gallons of milk the first year. I say the first year because you couldn't get them back in calf. Combine that with questionable temperament, crap solids and narrow pins they were a disaster

Looked up RAT, yeah -87 for fertility, they didn't like having babies.
Very good for milk volume as you say.

stanflt

HUM

has a great linear and thats why we dont us linear anymore

whelan1

RobertKK wrote: »

Looked up RAT, yeah -87 for fertility, they didn't like having babies.
Very good for milk volume as you say.

but at the stage he was out most people where probably breeding for milk

loveta

Think it was progressive genetics bull RUU.... Christ he left narrow dogs of stock behind him the nick name he was called about him was "screw"

RobertKK

whelan1 wrote: »

but at the stage he was out most people where probably breeding for milk

Yeah.

On a seperate note, I see TIH mentioned, personally I think that bull left very nice heifers/cows.

Going forward...

stanflt wrote: »

has a great linear and thats why we dont us linear anymore

More luck than judgement then?