Simmental Sale in Tullamore, Stars over Style?

Canaryblue

Wasn't at the sale but from looking at the report it looks like this sale was all about stars. The top prices were 5200 & 4500, and TBH I'm not too impressed by how either of the bulls looks, however both were 5 star. The champion who was only 2 stars, sold for 2900. While I do think stars should have more of an effect at Premier sales, I think people were a bit blinded by them at this sale.

http://www.irishsimmental.com/site/tullamore-show-sale-results-2/

For instance I just don't see how this 5 star bull deserved to make the money he did.


Anyone here at the sale?

tanko

Did NCBC buy that bull in the picture?
It's not always the best looking cows that are the most profitable ones, Bulls can be the same.

bogman_bass

I'd take substance over style any day

GiantPencil

tanko wrote: »

Did NCBC buy that bull in the picture?
It's not always the best looking cows that are the most profitable ones, Bulls can be the same.

Don't think that's the bull they bought. Bull that was bought by NCBC was purchased in Roscommon for 6300 - clonagh frosty king is the bull

Canaryblue

bogman_bass wrote: »

I'd take substance over style any day

So your saying theres substance in the stars?

I place a lot of emphasis on the stars too but not a chance would I use a bull with such a looped back as the one above.

bogman_bass

Canaryblue wrote: »

So your saying theres substance in the stars?

I place a lot of emphasis on the stars too but not a chance would I use a bull with such a looped back as the one above.

and what difference does that make when he's on the hook?

There is as much substance a=if not more in the stars as there is in the showring

Canaryblue

bogman_bass wrote: »

and what difference does that make when he's on the hook?

There is as much substance a=if not more in the stars as there is in the showring

I was merely jesting with the 'substance in the stars' comment, as I said I place a lot of emphasis on them. However I try to find a balance between stars and aesthetics when selecting a bull. Do you select your bull purely on stars?

bogman_bass

Canaryblue wrote: »

I was merely jesting with the 'substance in the stars' comment, as I said I place a lot of emphasis on them. However I try to find a balance between stars and aesthetics when selecting a bull. Do you select your bull purely on stars?

Sorry if i came across high and mighty. That wasn't my intention.

I don't use a stockbull myself I'm 100% AI but i would never by a straw based on his photo.

I would select on the information contained within the stars firstly.
Secondly on calving ease.
Thirdly (and a distant third) on pedigree

A fine looking bull shows how well he was fed as much as how well he was bred

patsy_mccabe

I was at a limousin bull sale recently and I was really surprised how stars effected price. The best looking bulls, with bad figures didn't sell that well.
It's the reliability of these figures that bugs me. If you were on Who Wants To Be A Millionaire and you phoned a friend for the answer and he said he was only 30% sure. Would you go with it?

Never wrestle with pigs

That bull also has Titan as his grand sire on the dams side. He's in the breeding of allot of very good sim bulls. He's also very long and that's where the money is.

Allot of very good maternal bulls won't look to have as much style as their terminal buddy's as they are geared for milk ect. It's a balenceing act.

croot

bogman_bass wrote: »

and what difference does that make when he's on the hook?

Is in not maternal stars that is in question?

Personally if I had a heifer with a top line like this bull I wouldn't keep her.

patsy_mccabe

Level of the back is a big thing for me too. You'd often see bulls photographed with front legs up on a height.

blue5000

croot wrote: »

Is in not maternal stars that is in question?

Personally if I had a heifer with a top line like this bull I wouldn't keep her.

The bull pictured has 5 stars for both maternal and terminal. But reliability is only around 20% for any young bull.

croot

blue5000 wrote: »

The bull pictured has 5 stars for both maternal and terminal. But reliability is only around 20% for any young bull.

Oh god I know. I was using the best new bull for a few years only to see most of their figures go through the floor.

The point I should have made was terminal is easy to measure when they are hung up but maternal is not. There are so many variables. If you measure the weanling weight the data is dependant on what type of land or grass or do calves get creep but that's not taken into account. And on breeding, is a bull used or AI. If AI how good is the farmer at detecting heats etc. All that isn't recorded so results will take years to get a good level of reliability. If that's the case then no young bull's stars should be trusted for maternal.

I'm not saying the star ratings aren't a good idea but I think there are to many variables in the system to be using it in the way the BGDB scheme does. All my replacement heifers are 4 or 5 star at the moment but who can say that won't change in the next year. I think that if you bull them and they are eligible then a change a year later shouldn't make them ineligible. You were using the best info you had to hand at the time. The current system is almost like a lottery.

tanko

The problem with the maternal index is that by the time a bull is proven as a good maternal bull at high reliability, he's usually dead and straws can't be got off him.
It's all a bit of a guessing game and hope for the best then.

blue5000

I agree, it is a lottery at present. But if this geno-typing works it should bring up the reliability of young bulls from around 20% to 40%. The results are supposed to be out next week. Which makes me wonder why simmenthal soc had their sale before the results came out.......

I think 5 star maternal is the flavour of the month right now, mainly because lads have this 2018 and 2020 targets to meet.

I think people buying a bull need to look at other things beside stars. Legs and feet, pedigree, conformation etc. are all important too. Have a look at that bull's feed conversion figures, I reckon you'd want a 0 grazer going around in front of his progeny to finish them.

Canaryblue

blue5000 wrote: »

I think people buying a bull need to look at other things beside stars. Legs and feet, pedigree, conformation etc. are all important too. Have a look at that bull's feed conversion figures, I reckon you'd want a 0 grazer going around in front of his progeny to finish them.

Other than the Tully performance center how do they record feed intake figures?

blue5000

Canaryblue wrote: »

Other than the Tully performance center how do they record feed intake figures?

Used to be some done in teagasc, Grange, but not sure if they still do it or not. Everything the animal eats has to be weighed, not too simple to do.

Canaryblue

Was just looking at Kilbride Farm Dragoon (The sire of the previously mentioned bull) and Kilbride Farm Delboys ICBF stats. The two bulls have the same sire, maternal sire and maternal grand sire, so you'd imagine there stats should be pretty damn similar but they're not. Dragoon has a milk stat of 17.47 kg, while Delboy is half that at 8.99 kg. Neither bull has any daughters calved. Looking at the British EBV's Dragoon is +9 and Delboy is +8. Considering the Kilbride Herd is in Northern Ireland the EBV's should be the more trusted ones.

When ICBF do things like this they annoy me. Fair enough make Dragoon better but that milk stat is huge and makes his replacement index very impressive.

Who knows they might alter it tomorrow!