Why livestock judging

In this type of program, the Duroc boars are bred to Landrace gilts. The female offspring of this mating are bred to Landrace boars, and their progeny are bred back to Duroc boars. The rotation of the two breeds continues. The male offspring and cull gilts of this program are finished and sold, and the higher quality females are kept as replacements.

Durocs are placed in the rotation to increase growth, muscling, and leanness. Landrace are used to improve the maternal traits. The gilts in this class are going to produce the Duroc boars that are put into the rotation. Therefore, they must produce boars that are fast growing, lean, and heavily muscled. Structural soundness is also a priority, as all hogs are raised in confinement. Therefore, the priorities for this class are: growth, muscle, leanness, and soundness.

Even though maternal traits are not a major priority, all gilts still must be acceptable in their day litter weight EPD and number born alive EPD, with no major reduction in any performance categories. All the gilts in the class have day litter weight EPDs that are above breed average zero and acceptable.

Each gilt also has a similar, positive EPD for number born alive. Therefore, you would not experience a setback with any of these gilts. You can now concentrate on the other traits. Coupled with her acceptable maternal traits, she initially starts the class. Gilts 4, 2, and 1 are all acceptable in their maternal data. Note that each of these gilts has a negative growth EPD and, therefore, will decrease the days to pounds. Combining visual appraisal with performance data is very important in this class, since are not easily separated on performance records.

Rank the boars as they should be kept in a herd that profits mainly from the sale of seedstock to owners of rotational crossbreeding programs Yorkshire and Hampshire hogs used in rotations. This is a criss-cross. You also produce your own replacements. You and your customers raise all hogs in total confinement. The Yorkshire boars in this class are going to be used in a rotational breeding program with Hampshires.

Yorkshires are used to improve the maternal and growth traits in the crossbreeding program. Hampshires are used to improve the carcass traits such as leanness and muscling. With this in mind, you should be able to logically place the boars from the performance data. The priorities for this class of Yorkshire boars are: maternal excellence, growth, and soundness. The initial rankings based on the performance data is He also has a favorable negative growth EPD.

You would like to see Boar 4 with a better backfat EPD. However, he initially places first because of his outstanding maternal data. Boars 3 and 1 have similar performance figures and are acceptable in all categories. Boar 3 has a slight advantage in number born alive EPD, so he is initially placed over 1. But visual evaluation may change the final rankings. Boar 2 has very poor EPDs for day litter weight and number born alive. He has the worst growth and backfat EPDs and initially places last.

Remember that along with the maternal performance figures, underline quality it considered a maternal trait and needs to be a priority. Rank the gilts as they should be kept in a seedstock herd that profits mainly from the sale of Chester White x Yorkshire F1 females to owners of terminal crossbreeding programs terminal boars bred to Chester White x Yorkshire gilts.

You and your customers raise all hogs in confinement. Your customers market all progeny on a value based system. The Chester White gilts in this class are going to be bred to Yorkshire boars to produce F1 females that are going to be used in a terminal crossbreeding program. The F1 gilts will be bred to terminal sires. All progeny will be marketed on a value based system.

Therefore, the F1 gilts must excel in maternal traits in order to produce large litters of fast growing market hogs. Since the F1 female offspring will be expected to raise large litters, a high-quality underline should be emphasized along with the maternal figures. With the F1 gilts being placed in confinement, soundness is a priority. Even though the Chester White gilts will be used for maternal traits, they still must not cause a major setback in growth or leanness.

The priorities for this class are: maternal excellence, soundness, and high-quality underlines. They are identical in their data except for the slight advantage Gilt 4 has in days to pounds EPD. Their backfat EPDs are acceptable for this class. They need to be evaluated visually for soundness, muscle, underline, etc. However, she has the poorest days to pounds EPD. She initially places third.

Gilt 1 has the poorest EPD for day litter weight and number born alive. She places initially fourth. Rank the gilts as they should be kept in a herd that profits mainly from the sale of seedstock to owners of terminal crossbreeding programs Spot boars are crossed on Chester White x Yorkshire females.

Your customers raise all hogs in total confinement and operate farrow-to-finish operations. All offspring are marketed on a value based system. The spotted gilts in this class are to produce male offspring that will be used as terminal sires. The offspring of the boars will be sold on a value based system. Leanness and muscle are a priority in order to achieve high market premiums.

Maternal traits are not major selection criteria for the customer who buys the boars. However, there should be no drastic setbacks in maternal traits, since these gilts are replacements within a purebred seedstock herd and they need to be able to produce large, productive litters for the seedstock producer.

The priorities for the class are: leanness, muscle, growth, and soundness. Gilts 2 and 3 are similar in days to pounds and backfat EPD, with negative figures which will improve their progeny. Gilts 2 and 3 need to be evaluated visually.

Differences in muscle, soundness, structure, etc. Gilts 4 and 1 have contrasting performance figures. Therefore, in this pair you must use your skills of logic and compromise in combining the performance data with the phenotype of the gilt to place this pair. Skip to content Contents 1. Use the following five steps to arrive at the best class rankings and justify your decisions. When judging livestock and evaluating performance records, select animals for a particular purpose.

Ideally, a comparison is made between progeny, or offspring, of one animal with progeny of another animal for a certain economically important trait. Producers need to be able to compare animals on the same farm that were raised in different contemporary groups or to compare one animal on a particular farm with another animal on a different farm.

However, neither actual records nor ratios allow producers to compare animals accurately from different contemporary groups or herds. In order to compare animals accurately within a breed and across different herds, an expected progeny difference EPD must be used. EPDs are a reliable tool to predict the true genetic value of an animal because they consider the individual performance of the animals as well as data from parents, full siblings, and other relatives in all herds that report the information.

The biggest advantage is that EPDs allow producers to make comparisons across contemporary groups and herds. The student who wishes to excel in beef cattle judging must fully understand the importance and accuracy of using actual records on an individual, ratios from within a herd, and EPDs for the following beef cattle production traits:. When presenting more than one type of data for a particular trait, such as ratios and EPDs for weaning weight, rank and use the data according to the accuracy with which future performance of offspring can be predicted.

Give emphasis to the data in the following sequence:. The types of beef cattle data and the selection of livestock based solely on visual appraisal have been discussed previously. When practical, use additional information to aid in the selection process.

The availability of actual data, ratios, and EPDs allows judges to compare animals using objective criteria of performance. However, without some guidelines, the justifications for various placings of a class with performance data may be even more numerous than the reasons based on visual appraisal alone.

Understanding the scenario is possibly the most important factor when placing a performance class. A scenario is the assumed situation you are in while ranking the class. In each scenario, address three important factors for a complete description:. These bulls will be used as natural service sires in a two-breed rotational crossbreeding system with Hereford. Cows are medium mature weight and moderate for milk production, and they will be maintained similar to range conditions, with low labor and limited feed availability for larger sizes of cattle.

The top 20 percent of heifer calves will be retained as replacements, and the remaining heifer and steer calves will be sold at weaning to be finished in a feedlot. These heifers will be used in a purebred Simmental herd that produces commercial bulls. The bulls will be used on Angus x Polled Hereford crossbred cows and heifers. Mature cow size in the commercial herd is 1, to 1, pounds. Feed and labor resources in this purebred Simmental herd are adequate to maintain a mature cow size of 1, to 1, pounds.

The primary income is from the sale of commercial bulls, but some income is from the sale of a few purebred bulls and heifers to other purebred Simmental breeders.

Rank these bulls in the order they should be selected as potential herd bulls for a commercial cattle operation. This progressive ranch is looking for a terminal sire to breed to 1,pound Black Baldie cows Angus X Hereford. The progeny from these bulls will be retained by the ranch in the feedlot and sold on a value-based program using a grid that pays premiums for high cutability cattle.

Feed and labor resources are abundant. First, describe the breeding program. Is this a purebred or a commercial operation? If cattle are crossbred in this operation, what other breeds are being used? A class of heifers could be replacement females for a purebred program, or a class of bulls could be intended as natural service sires for a purebred or a commercial program. Regardless of the situation, outline an accurate and complete description of the breeding program. Following are analyses of scenario examples of possible breeding programs:.

Angus Bulls — Use them as natural service sires in a two-breed rotational crossbreeding system with Hereford. Cows are medium for mature weight and moderate for milk production. Simmental Heifers — Assume these heifers will be used in a purebred Simmental herd that produces commercial bulls. Brangus Bulls — Use them as natural terminal service sires in a commercial operation with 1,pound Black Baldie cows Angus X Hereford.

Second, discuss the feed and labor resources. Specifically, describe the quality and quantity of feed. For example, cattle that are managed on low-feed resources or range conditions need ample capacity to efficiently use the limited nutrients and probably should not have excessively high milk production.

Labor resources will impact body type and birth weight performance records of cattle to be selected. Cattle with high birth weight, coarse shoulders, and narrow rump design with narrow pin placement typically require more physical-labor assistance in the calving process than cattle with low birth weight, smooth shoulders, and wide rump design with added width at the pins.

Even with adequate labor available at calving, calves with high birth weights can create unwanted problems and economic hardships for cattle producers. Feed and labor resources are as follows:. Angus Bulls — Cows bred to these bulls will be maintained similar to range conditions, with low labor and limited feed availability for larger sizes of cattle.

Simmental Heifers — Feed and labor resources in this purebred Simmental herd are adequate to maintain a mature cow size of 1, to 1, pounds.

Third, the scenario should discuss the marketing program in enough detail so that performance traits and physical characteristics of the animals can be prioritized. Depending on the marketing program used, place emphasis on traits and characteristics that optimize production of beef cattle for the desired market.

Examples follow of marketing programs from each scenario:. Angus Bulls — Retain the top 20 percent of heifer calves as replacements and sell the remaining heifer and steer calves at weaning to be finished in a feedlot. Simmental Heifers — Sale of commercial bulls is the main benefit, but some income comes from the sale of a few purebred bulls and heifers to other purebred Simmental breeders.

Brangus Bulls — The ranch retains the progeny in the feedlot and sells on a value-based program using a grid that pays premiums for high cutability cattle. Priorities: Select bulls that will maintain mature weight and milk production maternal traits — birth weight EPD and maternal milk EPD. Maternal traits are very important because top heifers are retained. Remaining heifers and steers are sold at weaning; therefore, paternal traits weaning weight EPD are very important.

Priorities: Maintain a balanced program in all areas. Extremes are faulted. Priorities: Select bulls that will produce fast-growing calves; therefore, paternal traits yearling weight EPD are very important. Material traits in this scenario are not really considered because of the abundance of labor and feed; however, extremes are faulted. Junior Yearling Brangus Heifers. I started with the split-eared heifer in the class, as she was the freest-moving and the longest, smoothest muscled, patterned heifer in the class.

I realize 3 could have been heavier muscled throughout; nonetheless, I used 3 over 4 in my top pair, as 3 was a more moderate framed, smoother shouldered heifer that shows more femininity and refinement about her front.

She was especially freer from excess leather in the dewlap and brisket and was cleaner and trimmer in the navel. She stood on more length of cannon and more closely follows that modern Brangus ideal. I must admit that 4 was a deeper ribbed heifer that showed more thickness down her top and through the center and lower portions of her quarter, while standing on more substance and diameter of bone. However, I would like to see 4 flatter and smoother in her muscle structure and more refined about her front end.

In spite of this, I preferred 4 over 2 in my middle pair, as 4 more closely followed my top heifer in terms of skeletal size and scale. Of the pair, 4 was a larger framed, deeper ribbed, wider sprung, higher capacity heifer that exhibited more total volume and capacity from end to end. She was a more ruggedly made heifer that showed more thickness of muscling down her top and through all dimensions of her quarter.

She stood on more substance of bone and more correctly on her feet and legs. I must admit that 2 did more closely follow my top heifer in terms of muscle length and smoothness and was more refined about her front end, but she splayed out up front and was cow hocked. But I did prefer to use 2 over 1 in my bottom pair of smaller framed heifers, as 2 was a growthier heifer that was cleaner about her middle, trimmer about her front, and showed more youthfulness and growth potential about her head and neck.

She was more progressive in her muscle length and smoothness and blended in neater and smoother through her shoulders. She appeared to be a later maturing heifer that should grow into a more progressive and productive herd matron. I must admit that 1 was a straighter, stronger topped, leveler rumped heifer that was more structurally correct, but I faulted 1 and placed her last in this class as she was the smallest framed, lowest set, heaviest fronted heifer that had the most leather in her dewlap, brisket, and navel.

She lacked the overall size, scale, balance, and smoothness of the heifers placed above her in the class today. I realized 2 could be trimmer in her condition and wider tracking, but compared to 1 in my initial pair, she was a broody-appearing, easy-fleshing heifer that carried more length and spring from fore to rear ribs.

Sure, 1 was a stout-made, powerfully constructed heifer, but she was short bodied and restricted in her movement. However, with these faults aside, it was the muscle and volume of 1 over the balance of 4.

Also, 1 was wider chested, being deeper and bolder sprung. Likewise, she carried more width and dimension down her top while maintaining this advantage into a more three-dimensional quarter. Yes, 4 was a more feminine-fronted heifer, but at the same time, she was narrow tracking off both ends and tapered through her lower quarter.

Even so, in my concluding pair, 4 beat 3. She was a more attractive profiling, more eye-appealing heifer that was more angular fronted. In addition, she was straighter, stronger down her top, and longer and leveler out of her hip, allowing her to be longer striding off her rear legs. I realize 3 was a long-bodied, deep-sided heifer.

However, this does not allow for the fact that she was the narrowest made, lightest muscled heifer that was the poorest structured; so she was last. I started the class with 4, the most powerfully muscled, most correctly finished steer in the class.

I realize he was wastier fronted and middled; nonetheless, I used 4 over 2 in my top pair because he was a thicker made, heavier muscled steer throughout. He was a leveler topped steer that was longer in his rump. He had more thickness working down his top and out through a fuller rump.

As viewed from behind, he had more thickness of muscle in the upper and center portions of his quarter and pushed more stifle on the move. He handled with more condition over his loin edge and down over his rib and should be more apt to reach that Choice quality grade. However, I do realize that 2 was a cleaner middled, trimmer fronted steer, but he simply lacked the volume and dimension of muscle of my top steer.

Concerning my middle pair, I placed 2 over 1, as 2 was a longer bodied, more upstanding steer that was trimmer through his front and middle. As viewed from behind, he had more thickness through the center and lower portions of his quarter and should go to the rail and hang a higher cutability carcass.

I will admit that 1 was a deeper ribbed, wider sprung, higher capacity steer that stood down on more substance of bone. Also, he was a squarer rumped steer that was more ideal in the amount and uniformity of his finish. I confidently placed 1 over 3 in my bottom pair, as he was a thicker made, heavier muscled steer that was more nearly ideal in his finish. He had more natural thickness down his top and through his quarter.

He should hang a heavier muscled carcass that should be more likely to grade Choice. I do realize that 3 was a trimmer made steer, having less waste throughout. However, he was the lightest muscled, most underfinished steer of the class. He would hang up the least merchandizable carcass and, therefore, cannot merit a higher placing today.

Performance Limousin Bulls. I realize 1 was not the highest in his growth data. Even so, the dehorned bull easily beats 4 in the top pair as he was the heaviest muscled, nicest balanced, easiest fleshing bull in the class. Still, I opted to use 4 over 2 in the middle pair, as 4 simply dominated in terms of weaning and yearling weight EPDs. He was thicker down his top and through his quarter, leveler hipped, and he tracked wider based behind. I realize 3 was taller fronted, deeper ribbed, and straighter on his hind legs.

But, at 9. Table 5 outlines some of the breeds of sheep that are common in the United States. Each breed has been assigned a breed class ram, ewe, or dual according to whether the dominant characteristics of the breed are associated with growth and carcass traits ram or reproductive characteristics ewe.

The dual breed class indicates that the breed is noted equally for growth, carcass, and reproductive characteristics. Average weights for mature rams and ewes are listed. Again, these are included to allow you to compare one breed with another breed. The weights and other characteristics listed are breed averages; there is as much variation within a breed as there is among breeds for these traits.

Growth rate, hardiness, gregariousness, prolificacy, and milking ability are ranked among breeds, using a 6-point scale, with 1 as the most desirable and 6 as the least desirable. Fleece weight is given in pounds of wool per year from the average animal of that breed. Fleece type is listed as either fine, medium, or long and describes the type of wool fiber characteristic of the breed. Become familiar with the parts and carcass regions of sheep.

In this section, you are provided diagrams of the external parts of sheep Figure 11 , characteristics of an ideal breeding ewe Figure 12 , and characteristics of an ideal market wether Figure After becoming familiar with all the parts, use those terms as part of your reasons. One key to handling market lambs is to develop a system to accurately determine differences in muscle and finish. Handle each lamb in the same manner. If you handle one lamb from rear to front for finish or fleshing on the back, handle all the lambs that way.

Following are the steps for handling market lambs:. Much like performance data for beef cattle, performance data for sheep can be listed in several different ways. Both actual data and ratios are used to select animals that are superior for lamb and wool production. Performance data are important for selecting replacement animals and culling poor-producing animals.

In judging classes, stud rams or ewes in production are typically not evaluated. Therefore, the use of performance data for selecting replacement ewes and potential stud rams is of primary concern. Familiarize yourself with the following sheep production traits and the associated terms in order to understand performance data for sheep:. FEPDs were used for several years because across-flock analyses for sheep were not feasible. There was not enough reliable information on identifiable genetic linkages between flocks.

Today, however, across-flock EPDs provide far more information about genetic value than FEPDs because they are derived from many flocks and over different management systems.

By using EPDs, a breeder can make genetic improvements efficiently and reliably. EPDs allow a breeder to rank all the animals by genetic value, identify high-producing replacements, and cull poor-producing animals. As in the beef cattle section, three classes of sheep with performance data are included as examples of different scenarios and ways of presenting performance data.

Also, the priorities of each are listed. Rank these rams as you would use them for stud rams in a purebred Suffolk flock. Feed and labor resources are more than adequate to maintain the flock of ewes. You profit mainly from selling rams and ewes to other purebred Suffolk breeders, and a few rams to commercial sheep producers. You retain your own replacement ewes. Rank these ewes as you would use them as replacement ewes in a purebred flock of Dorset sheep.

You sell a few rams to other purebred Dorset breeders, but you mainly profit from the sale of rams and ewes to commercial sheep operations. Assume these rams are terminal sires to be used on Rambouillet x Dorset crossbred ewes for production of feeder lambs.

All lambs are finished in a feedlot on the farm. Ewes are maintained on range conditions, typical of sheep production operations in the Rocky Mountain states. Priorities: Balanced program in all areas. Select rams that maintain or slightly increase maternal and growth traits, but extremes ones are to be faulted. Priorities: Again, this is a balanced program; however, more emphasis should be placed on growth traits because rams and ewes are sold to commercial operations.

Priorities: Select rams that will improve the growth traits. Growth is very important because all lambs are finished in a feedlot. I found a top pair of more modern-type ewes and started the class with the combination ewe in 3. Ideally, I would have liked to see 3 with more capacity in the forerib. Even so, I placed 3 over 2 as she was a leveler-topped, leveler-rumped ewe that was more progressive in her type and muscle makeup. She was a stretchier ewe that put a longer, smoother muscle structure onto a longer skeletal framework, and she was taller.

She was a cleaner fronted, more feminine-headed female. However, I concede that 2 had more arch and spring to her forerib. Nevertheless, I placed 2 over 1 in my middle pair, as 2 more closely followed the type and pattern set by my top ewe.

She was a more feminine-fronted ewe that was laid in tighter about her shoulder, was longer and leaner about her neck, and exhibited more femininity about her head. She was a longer bodied ewe that was higher at her dock and had a more desirable set to her hock. I will admit that 1 was a thicker made ewe, although she was weaker on her rear pasterns. With this in mind, it was 1 over 4 in my final comparisons. She was a longer bodied ewe that was trimmer in her breeding condition.

However, I realize that 4 was a smoother shouldered ewe, but she was the smallest framed, shortest bodied ewe that was the most conventional in her type. I started with 1, the growthiest, most correctly finished lamb in the class.

Ideally, I would have liked to see 1 with more muscling throughout. Nonetheless, I placed 1 over 2 as he was a trimmer made lamb that was cleaner and neater about his front end. He handled with less finish over his rib and was a larger framed, longer bodied lamb. He should go to the rail and hang a trimmer, higher cutability carcass. I realized that 2 was a heavier muscled lamb that had more dimension of muscle in his loin, over his rump, and down through his leg, but he was a softer handling, heavier finished lamb.

Nevertheless, I placed 2 over 3 in my middle comparison because 2 was a larger framed, taller fronted lamb that handled with a longer hindsaddle. He was a heavier muscled lamb that was leveler and fuller through his rump. He was a more structurally correct wether that should go to the rail and hang up a heavier muscled carcass. I admit that 3 was the most correctly finished lamb in the class, but he simply lacked the growth, scale, and total muscle volume of the two lambs placed above him.

Still, I opted to use 3 over 4 because 3 was more correctly finished than 4. He was a firmer handling lamb that had more dimension and expression of muscle in his leg. He should rail a trimmer finished carcass with more total pounds of muscle.

Yes, 4 was a larger framed lamb, but he was a wastier, heavier conditioned, and lighter muscled lamb that should hang up the least profitable carcass in the class.

The following table compares characteristics of the breeds of swine that are common in the United States. A 5-point scale is used, with 1 and 2 representing a breed that is above average for a particular trait, 3 is average for the trait, and 4 and 5 are below average for the trait. Litter size and litter weight are characteristics associated with reproductive performance of females in the herd. Backfat thickness and loineye area describe the relative merits of market animals to yield muscular, trim carcasses.

The ear set of swine is either erect or down. That ear characteristic will help you distinguish some breeds from others. Insufficient data for comparsion is indicated by ——. After you have become familiar with the breeds of swine, learn the external parts and carcass regions. This section provides diagrams of the external parts Figure 14 , characteristics of an ideal breeding gilt Figure 15 , and characteristics of an ideal market barrow Figure Characteristics of the ideal breeding gilt and the ideal market barrow are included for reference only.

As with classes of beef cattle and sheep, inclusion of performance data with a class of swine challenges you to make complex decisions while using a variety of information. Not only must the physical characteristics of each animal be evaluated, but the appropriateness of the data for the given production situation must also be considered. A complete understanding of the following swine production terms will enable you to evaluate a class of swine more critically. Much like sheep producers, swine producers have requested more objective selection tools for selecting replacement gilts and boars within and across herds.

Expected progeny differences have been used in the beef cattle industry for some time and are now also being used in swine selection programs. These EPDs are very similar to those used by the beef cattle industry to predict progeny performance of animals. Expected progeny differences for swine have been developed primarily for the economically important traits associated with swine production: an indication of maternal ability and of growth and carcass characteristics.

The EPDs include the following:. Careful interpretation of EPDs for swine is necessary. Most producers want large litters of pigs that wean heavier, reach market weight sooner, and have less backfat.

Selection indexes have been incorporated into the genetic evaluation of swine performance records. These selection indexes provide for consistent and accurate combining of various performance traits.

These selection indexes have been developed based on the economic values associated with costs of production. Therefore, each index is listed in dollar units. Production situations for swine classes with performance data take on slightly different formats than for classes of beef cattle or sheep. In the scenarios for swine, a complete description of the following important factors must be addressed:.

The combination of a situation, performance data, and visual appraisal offers you the opportunity to make real-life animal-selection decisions. Assume these Hampshire boars are to be used as terminal sires on Yorkshire x Landrace sows. You do not retain any gilts as replacements; therefore, all hogs are sold as market hogs.

You generally sell market hogs on a carcass merit buying program, and all of your hogs are raised in confinement. Rank these gilts as you would use them as replacements in a purebred Yorkshire herd. You profit mainly from the sale of performance-tested boars and gilts to commercial swine operations; however, you do sell a few boars as herd sires. Assume these boars are to be used in a three-breed rotational crossbreeding system Duroc x Yorkshire x Hampshire. Before selling feeder pigs, a group of replacement gilts is selected to be retained for breeding purposes.

All hogs are maintained in a partial confinement situation. Priorities: Select boars that will increase performance of growth and carcass traits.

Growth and carcass traits are extremely important because all hogs are sold as market hogs. Soundness is a priority. Select gilts that are strong in maternal, carcass, and growth traits. Backfat EPD is of no concern in this scenario.

I started with 2, as she had the best combination of muscle volume, leanness, and capacity in this class. Ideally, I would have liked to see my class winner more correct structurally and freer moving.

Even so, I used 2 over 4 in my top pair as he was more pulled apart at his blades and carried more width and expression of muscle down his top and into the center and lower portions of his ham. He was also a trimmer made barrow that showed more blade action on the move and pushed less fat into his elbow pocket; he should hang the carcass with the highest percent muscle in the class.

I concede that 4, the blue-butt barrow, was a more structurally correct barrow that was leveler topped and freer moving. In a closer middle pair, I placed 4 over 1, as 4 was a more producer-oriented and practical barrow. He was a bigger volumed barrow that had more width to his chest floor, had more dimension to his rib, and was more expanded through his lower one-third. He was a more structurally correct barrow, with more give and cushion to his knee and hock.

I recognized 1 as being a trimmer made barrow, with less fat out over his loin edge, but he was a narrow-made barrow that was constricted in his chest floor, flatter ribbed, steeper out through his rump, and straighter on his front and rear underpinning. Nevertheless, in my bottom pair, I placed 1 over 3, as 1 was a leaner made, more packer-acceptable barrow.

He was a longer bodied barrow that showed more overall muscle expression and dimension down his top and through the base of his ham. He had less fat over his blades and should hang a carcass with more packer and consumer appeal. I grant that the black barrow was deeper flanked and looser made, but he was a short-bodied barrow whose combination of wide top and narrow base indicated he was the fattest barrow in the class.

I started with 3, as she combined muscling, broodiness, and performance data to the highest degree. Ideally, I would have liked to see my class winner even longer fronted. Realizing this in my initial decision, I still preferred 3 over 4, as 3 was the thickest hipped, heaviest muscled gilt that displayed the most volume of ham and had the most shape and dimension down her top, both visually and by the paper. In my middle comparison, it was 4 over 2, as 4 was a taller fronted, larger scaled gilt that was longer bodied and later maturing.

She too was a nicer designed, more structurally correct female that was leveler topped and had a more correct slope to her shoulder. With this in mind, it was 2 over 1 in my final decision, as 2 was a cleaner bladed gilt that was freer of fat through her lower body. She also had more lean muscle shape down her top both visually and by the scan data.

In addition, she had a more distinct, higher quality underline, with a higher teat count. There was no doubt that 1 was a bolder ribbed, sounder structured female that required fewer days to reach Quite simply, she was the least scenario-suited gilt in this class. Gale Chrestman, Keith A. Bryan, and Lowry Sumrall provided photography for the publication. Donald L. Merkel are acknowledged for giving their permission to use material adapted from Live Animal Carcass Evaluation and Selection Manual, 4th edition, Gary L.

Minish and Danny G. Fox are acknowledged for giving their permission to use material adapted from Beef Production and Management, 2nd edition, Copyright by Mississippi State University. All rights reserved. This publication may be copied and distributed without alteration for nonprofit educational purposes provided that credit is given to the Mississippi State University Extension Service.

Mississippi State University is an equal opportunity institution. Discrimination in university employment, programs, or activities based on race, color, ethnicity, sex, pregnancy, religion, national origin, disability, age, sexual orientation, genetic information, status as a U.

Questions about equal opportunity programs or compliance should be directed to the Office of Compliance and Integrity, 56 Morgan Avenue, P. Department of Agriculture. Published in furtherance of Acts of Congress, May 8 and June 30, GARY B. The Mississippi State University Extension Service is working to ensure all web content is accessible to all users. If you need assistance accessing any of our content, please email the webteam or call View as PDF: P Contents Introduction Why Judge Livestock?

Introduction Livestock judging is a process of evaluating, selecting, placing, and learning the various livestock species—beef cattle, sheep, and swine.

Why Judge Livestock? As a result of reading this manual; listening to your parents, 4-H leaders, and county Extension agents; and practicing on your own, you should be able to do the following: Identify the different breeds of livestock Compare livestock for their merit and value as either breeding or market animals Look at an animal and determine desirable characteristics and faults Improve your livestock project by selecting more desirable animals and gain an appreciation of their value for a particular purpose Make decisions and defend them in a logical, well-organized manner Make complex decisions based on available information Develop confidence Develop oral communication skills Appreciate the opinions of others Breeds of Livestock Before learning to compare animals of the same breed, you need knowledge of the most popular breeds.

Livestock Judging Basics After learning why livestock are judged, you can begin to appreciate why it takes considerable practice to become a good judge of livestock. Placing Card The placing card is the official record of how a person placed a class.

Livestock Judging Contest A livestock judging contest includes classes of beef cattle, sheep, and swine. Figure 1. Placing card. How to Begin Before you start judging livestock, try to make a mental image of the perfect animal. Developing a Judging System Each time you judge a class of livestock or analyze a group of livestock, rely on a system of observing the animals.

Conover : There are very few professional livestock judges, but again, the networking opportunities open up an infinite number of possibilities related to the livestock industry. Sales, such as feed or equipment, or product development are a few careers directly related to livestock.

However, the skills gained can be used in any career. Melissa : What if a 4-H member wants to start judging before attending college, where should they start learning about and practicing judging?

Conover : Start by looking locally — talk with other youth interested in livestock, ask teen and adult club leaders, and work with the county 4-H program coordinator to find other interested youth. Reach out to the resources available, like MSU Extension, or contact me. Conover: Very much so. The longer someone practices judging, the more these skills are used, the more they will learn — those are the things that will take them to the next level in competitive judging and in life.

Working hard for something, practicing it all the time, no matter what it is, will take you far. Melissa: Thank you Mr. Conover for taking the time to share your experiences as the livestock judging coach at MSU. Next in the series will be an interview with Ms. Alexis Siomka, coach of the meats judging team. Other articles in this series include Animal welfare judging and assessment , horse judging and dairy judging. This article was published by Michigan State University Extension. Animal judging — Livestock.

Melissa: Can you briefly describe what livestock judging is? Melissa : As a coach, what are the biggest benefits you see for individuals who judge? Melissa : What has been your favorite part of coaching? Melissa: What have you learned while being the coach of this team? Melissa : Does the team travel?

If so, where?