Quite a difference how the animals look in a GAR sale book vs an SAV or Coleman sale. Of course GAR spanks those programs for EPDs. Based on EPDs, the calves from this bull will destroy most anything coming from those two programs!!! Pictures, of course, can be deceiving....
View attachment 28751
The modern beef cow and bull are merely collections of numbers.Bull looks more wagyu to me - which is fine. But GARs entire program looks like that. Would they look better on feed? Maybe. Maybe they are on feed? I don't know....
In a world where conspiracy theories are the norm - it just strikes me as odd that we will shovel HUGE amounts of money to get EPDs from our association and now pay additional fees to big pharma and our association to get those EPDs "enhanced" and there are programs that make a living seemingly scoffing at them - SAV, Ohlde, Jorgensen, Duff, Coleman - others - that still produce animals that look like it seems they should probably look.
Is it just feed and they would all look like wagyu? I don't know. Yet even those programs still pay big pharma to be able to enhance their EPDs - they enhance EPDs that basically say "below average" - which is equally odd. "Numerically, come here and buy below average animals" that look great!
I would agree to a point-there's an awful lot of throwaway leg on this bull. Lots of air under the product.Good topic. I don't find most of the GAR cattle to be "attractive". But what is the end goal for a cattle producer? Cow calf people like to raise and see cattle that "look good" to them. What is the end goal for the consumer? They don't care about color or breed or pedigree or epd (other than influence of marketing programs). The consumer wants a product that makes them feel good - taste, tenderness, size of cut, consistency, appearance of the retail product, even labeling and presentation of packaging.
Producers look for a big butted muscled up bull. Won't find that with GAR. Original continental breeds from the late 60's excelled at the big butt criteria. How did they grade? Mostly select. What did they weigh? Mostly heavy. Calving ease? Not those original ones.
What is more important to a cow calf person - the "desired look" or profit? If calves are sold at the sale barn, price depends on weight and price per pound. Price per pound depends on what the stocker guy is willing to pay based on what he sees. He might not like the GAR look either. But, if the producer retains ownership to slaughter, maybe the criteria is very different than selling at the stockyards. Hard (impossible?) for the guy selling calves at the salebarn to get a premium for carcass quality or feed efficiency. But those qualities affect the profit for the owner of the feedlot cattle. May be that the most profitable cattle overall are not attractive. May be that the most profitable cattle overall will not make the most money for the producer selling calves at the salebarn.
I know I am a broken record on this, but chicken and pork producers focus on profit. Not on looks. They only change owners after processing. Owners are all about the money and the look only at retail.
Yet most on here bash the short legged Stock as well . Had an entire thread of people bashing breeds because they were short legged.I would agree to a point-there's an awful lot of throwaway leg on this bull. Lots of air under the product.
Interesting information that you found.Also note that the lot 1 bull was not bred by GAR. Breeder of the bull is Richardson Cattle in Texas. As I understand, GAR takes the concept of cooperator herds to a higher level. My understanding is that an angus of GAR genetics may be prefixed as GAR and sold in their sale with each side receiving 50% of the sale price. Just what I have been told anyway. Does anyone know if that is correct or incorrect?
this is exactly my point. according to the numbers, this bull should be for the rail AND scale compared to almost anything produced at SAV or Coleman. And maybe it is. According to the numbers, there's almost no reason anyone would use SAV or Coleman (or others) except for looks. And maybe that's the case.Good topic. I don't find most of the GAR cattle to be "attractive". But what is the end goal for a cattle producer? Cow calf people like to raise and see cattle that "look good" to them. What is the end goal for the consumer? They don't care about color or breed or pedigree or epd (other than influence of marketing programs). The consumer wants a product that makes them feel good - taste, tenderness, size of cut, consistency, appearance of the retail product, even labeling and presentation of packaging.
Producers look for a big butted muscled up bull. Won't find that with GAR. Original continental breeds from the late 60's excelled at the big butt criteria. How did they grade? Mostly select. What did they weigh? Mostly heavy. Calving ease? Not those original ones.
What is more important to a cow calf person - the "desired look" or profit? If calves are sold at the sale barn, price depends on weight and price per pound. Price per pound depends on what the stocker guy is willing to pay based on what he sees. He might not like the GAR look either. But, if the producer retains ownership to slaughter, maybe the criteria is very different than selling at the stockyards. Hard (impossible?) for the guy selling calves at the salebarn to get a premium for carcass quality or feed efficiency. But those qualities affect the profit for the owner of the feedlot cattle. May be that the most profitable cattle overall are not attractive. May be that the most profitable cattle overall will not make the most money for the producer selling calves at the salebarn.
I know I am a broken record on this, but chicken and pork producers focus on profit. Not on looks. They only change owners after processing. Owners are all about the money and the look only at retail.