IMF SCORES

[Okotoks]

We got some scan results back on yearling bulls and the average actual IMF score was 4.15. I was trying to find what this meant when I ran across this interesting article. If anyone knows what the ideal IMF is (probably lots of opinions) I would like some comments.(Our low was 2.69, high was 5.74, 9 of the 15 were 4.18 or higher.

http://www.northamericandevon.com/angus.htm

 

[trevorgreycattleco]

I always thought anything over a 3.5 was good. I would say your avg is very acceptable. Good for you guys!

 

[r.n.reed]

IMF numbers are more meaningful to me if I know how the animal was raised and have the BF# as well.

 

[LJC]

You may try this article, it gives a  pretty good explanation of scan data.
http://www.cuplab.com/cms.cfm?fuseaction=dspThisArticle&newsId=38&pageId=16

 

[Okotoks]

You may try this article, it gives a  pretty good explanation of scan data.
http://www.cuplab.com/cms.cfm?fuseaction=dspThisArticle&newsId=38&pageId=16

Thanks , excellent info and there are some other articles at that website to read. (thumbsup)

 

[sue]

IMF numbers are more meaningful to me if I know how the animal was raised and have the BF# as well.

Ditto .

 

[BadgerFan]

IMF numbers are more meaningful to me if I know how the animal was raised and have the BF# as well.

correct, sir.  I concur.  raw IMF numbers are only useful in comparing within the same contemporary group.

 

[jaimiediamond]

Average numbers for the 15 head

Scan weight average 1150
rump fat adjusted 0.24
rib fat adjusted 0.17
REA actual 13.3
REA adjusted 12.5
%IM Actual 4.15
%IM Adjusted 3.82

The bulls were weaned in September and fed on green feed until December.  December-May they were fed on a non finishing silage ration.