Birth Weight Tape Accuracy

What are your experiences using weigh tapes to measure birth weight on newborns, especially continential cattle who usually are bigger footed and boned? Seems to me like their would be some inaccuracy, but I don't have any experience with them. How do they compare to actually putting them in the sling?

the bigger boned and footed continential cattle-- almost always weigh more here too. 

We use the tapes, and they're usually within a pound or two. 

The directions say they are accurate + - 10/lbs,pretty sure you can look at a calf and guess his weight that accurate.

Tapes are better than nothing, but can't replace a scale. I used one a little but found it was easily 7 or 8 pounds light on bigger long bodied calves, only use it on commercial calves now. Its handy for a big outfit calving on grass, and packing a tape or a scale on a horse.
I know one guy who uses one and if he didnt the calves would get no weight at all, he swears you have to measure both feet and avg them.

It almost seems like in theory......and one was going to tape newborns heads. Some Red Angus herds do it. It doesn't fit epd systems. I weigh probably 70 a year. I always like to guess the weight before I hoist the calf up. Sometimes I'm within 2 pounds and sometimes 15 pounds on the guess. The older you get the tougher it is to weigh calves especially if you are by yourself. Sometimes the best time to get up on a new calf is when the sun comes out in the afternoon and warms up and calf is snoozing.

I was going through an Acclerated Genetics 2012 update deal. The listed and pictured bulls had the following bwts ........70,76,78,72,82,76,65,78,77,66,75,73,68,82,7769,81,65,84,83,84.....etc. I'm not sure the Shorthorn breeders who claim we need to have 100# calves in order to maintain cows pelvic measure. There may a little something to it but I don't think it holds water.

heard some not so good things about them. sometimes off bigtime. 

aj said:

I was going through an Acclerated Genetics 2012 update deal. The listed and pictured bulls had the following bwts ........70,76,78,72,82,76,65,78,77,66,75,73,68,82,7769,81,65,84,83,84.....etc. I'm not sure the Shorthorn breeders who claim we need to have 100# calves in order to maintain cows pelvic measure. There may a little something to it but I don't think it holds water.

Click to expand...

I thought all birth weight numbers were made up and lied about. So how can you trust those? I guess if it supports your theories its correct, but if it dosnt then its lies?

we have used both.  On our Galloway calves, the tape was about 3-5 light compared to the spring scale and sling.

I have a BW tape but seldomly use it. The most descrepancy I hav seen between the tape and a scale is 5 lbs. Usually it is smaller than that though. I prefer to use a scale, but  sometimes wonder about the accuracy of these sprinng scales. I have weighed a salt  blok on occasion to check the scale and have seen as much as 2 lb difference in what it weighs, to what it is supposed to. I suppose either system of getting BWs is still much better than eyeballing a newborn calf and recording a BW.

What I struggle with are these people who induce females who have gone over term and then report a BW on the calf. That makes absolutely no sense to me, when gestation length is highly heritable.

I tried one about 15 yrs ago on about 10 calves before I threw it away.Maybe it was my genetics but 10 lbs was about the closest and many were 15-20 lbs off.I even double checked a couple against a platform scale.I would trust a guestimate of someone who had picked up and weighed a hundred calves in his own herd long before I would put any stock in a tape measurement.

I had a vet tell me that most calves......with one leg back.....are usually big calves. They said it was just harder to get the bigger rounder legs of the calf pushed up into correct position for partuition. To me this is the biggest detriment to the big bonned craze in the club calf deal.