Seems like everyone thinks he is very impressive by his frontal pic in Jim's catalog, but ones that have seen him in person are not as impressed. So I guess a person needs to see him or his progeny.kvcanes":88uww96s said:
Impressive is as Impressive does! Neither Genotype NOR Phenotype can be determined by a picture, or fifty pictures! Pictures can give one a CLUE - only! Granted, a picure is worth more than what Billy Bob down to the store thought he heard somebody tell somebody - but "Seeing is believing" and a mature animal is a heck of a lot more predictive than a 830# calf. Accuracy is determined by the number of progeny and records of ancestors. It is true that EPD's can be jury-rigged, however not EVERY breeder is a liar and a crook, and given a reasonable period of time the accuracys will even out, and a logical and pragmatic result will emerge. Even a good, long drink of water will change the appearance of an animal, therefore it is rather foolish to plan an entire year's breeding plans on a picture of a bull who is full of water! Not to say pictures are not valuable - but they are only a tool, just as is everything else one uses for making decisions. Knowledge and what you do with it is the important factor. What a Bull's Mama has accomplished is more important than a digital camera.la4angus":3eag6frr said:
