2009 ASU Performance Test Results
27 of our fullblood and purebred buck offspring to the 2009 Meat Goat Performance Test at the Angelo State University Management, Instruction and Research Center in San Angelo, TX.
The test began
May 28, 2009 and ended September 4, 2009, and accepted bucks born between January 1,
2009 and March 31, 2009.
One of our bucks was injured during the test. The remainder performed
well. We produced 3 of the top 5 bucks at this year's test, and 13 of the
We also had the top herd sires (sires had to have 4 or more sons on test to
be ranked) for the 5th year in a row, and our herd wound up second overall
in ADG (to be ranked herds had to have 4 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.
I have included a REA % Avg column and rankings based on that
statistic. REA % Avg is the REA as a percentage of the
average REA for a buck of the same weight from a table I created using nine
years worth of test data. Click here
to view the table showing average
ribeye areas for 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 6 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
2009 Herd Results, 2009 Breed Results,
2009 Sire Results, 2009
Individual Animal Results