2006 ASU Performance Test Results
all 26 of our fullblood and purebred buck offspring to the 2006 Meat Goat Performance Test at the Angelo State University Management, Instruction and Research Center in San Angelo, TX.
The test began
May 27, 2006 and ended August 29, 2006, and accepted bucks born between January 1,
2006 and March 31, 2006.
I was so busy building the house again this summer I had no time to visit the test
sight during the test. Once again several of our bucks that
did poorly on the test were ill during the test, including the buck I
considered our best at weaning. Because of his illness he was our
worst testing buck. Another of our bucks who did poorly came back from
the test sick and eventually died.
We had the top 2 herd sires (sires had to have 4 or more sons on test to
be ranked), and 4 of the top 6 sires. Our herd wound up second overall
in ADG by .001 lb/day (to be ranked herds had to have 8 or more
entries on test).
Click the links below to view the
test results. The abbreviation ADG means average daily gain (reported in lbs/day) and REA means ribeye area (reported in square inches).
Please note that a 135 lb. goat with a ribeye area of 2.4 is not necessarily superior to a 100 lb. goat with a ribeye area of 2.1. The ribeye areas of goats with significantly different weights are difficult to compare, although it would probably be safe to say that a 100 lb. goat with a ribeye area of 2.4 is superior to either a 135 lb. goat with the same size ribeye or another 100 lb. goat with a ribeye area of 2.1.
Click here for a chart showing average
ribeye areas of different size goats.
The sire results only include sires that had 4 or more sons on test, and the
herd results only include herds that tested 8 or more bucks this year.
Prior to 2005 I included all entries in the sire and herd rankings, but it
has become clear that some breeders are picking one or two of their best
animals to send to the test, while the rest of us are testing every buck we
produce. In essence, counting all the entries resulted in the breeders
who are doing it right comparing the performance of their average animal to
the performance of the top animal from the other breeders. Since the
objective of those rankings is to determine the best sires and herds, it
doesn't seem accurate or useful to include results that are not a complete
representation of the production of the sires and herds being
2006 Herd Results, 2006 Breed Results, 2006 Sire Results,
Individual Animal Results