Menu
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
New profile posts
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Members
Current visitors
New profile posts
Search profile posts
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles and first posts only
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Forums
Cattle Boards
Breeds Board
Lowline angus bull in pic - any good?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Help Support CattleToday:
Message
<blockquote data-quote="WAguy" data-source="post: 413905" data-attributes="member: 4335"><p>Actually, when I said I didn’t come up with anything original, I was referring to my “cutsie†remark about lowlines being closer to the ground, etc. I was not referring to discovering a smaller type of cattle. I realize that there have been shorter cattle in the past.</p><p></p><p>However, when I look at some of the cattle in the website provided, I’m not sure if they look like the lowline bull above. Many are much shorter, one has a measuring stick at about 40 inches. And the 1949 photo below gives the height as about the same as the lowline, but a weight of over 1900 pounds (700 more). Maybe he’s just fat, but seems to be a big bull with the legs removed. Whereas the lowline looks more proportionate, just smaller.</p><p></p><p>Regarding the supposed problem with the hind legs on the lowline, can you really judge from one photo? I see a protuberance hanging out of his midsection, and wonder if he wasn’t up to something.</p><p></p><p>I am still curious why Australians don’t read the American journals to learn how a bull should look. Why would they give awards to a bull with so many defects?</p><p></p><p><img src="http://i130.photobucket.com/albums/p242/djinwa/1949Angusbull.jpg" alt="" class="fr-fic fr-dii fr-draggable " style="" /></p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="WAguy, post: 413905, member: 4335"] Actually, when I said I didn’t come up with anything original, I was referring to my “cutsie†remark about lowlines being closer to the ground, etc. I was not referring to discovering a smaller type of cattle. I realize that there have been shorter cattle in the past. However, when I look at some of the cattle in the website provided, I’m not sure if they look like the lowline bull above. Many are much shorter, one has a measuring stick at about 40 inches. And the 1949 photo below gives the height as about the same as the lowline, but a weight of over 1900 pounds (700 more). Maybe he’s just fat, but seems to be a big bull with the legs removed. Whereas the lowline looks more proportionate, just smaller. Regarding the supposed problem with the hind legs on the lowline, can you really judge from one photo? I see a protuberance hanging out of his midsection, and wonder if he wasn’t up to something. I am still curious why Australians don’t read the American journals to learn how a bull should look. Why would they give awards to a bull with so many defects? [img]http://i130.photobucket.com/albums/p242/djinwa/1949Angusbull.jpg[/img] [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Cattle Boards
Breeds Board
Lowline angus bull in pic - any good?
Top