WichitaLineMan
Well-known member
- Joined
- Oct 9, 2009
- Messages
- 707
- Reaction score
- 0
Good, bad, ugly?
Thoughts on this bull
- Thread starter WichitaLineMan
- Start date
Help Support CattleToday:
Santas and Duhram Reds
Well-known member
I'll bite. Not a bad bull but I think he is a bit posty
Not bad and not ugly. I would like more strength in the top and would like to see a rear view and view over the top to see if the perceived thickness from the picture is there.
Lot of capacity and smooth but in very good condition. I agree, maybe a little post legged.
Lot of capacity and smooth but in very good condition. I agree, maybe a little post legged.
fargus
Well-known member
The capacity is there. I too think he is a little posty, and it's adding to his elevated tail-set and pins in relation to his hook bones. You wouldn't know it from our senior herdsire, but I happen to really dislike that look.
Smooth made, pretty well balanced, but I'd also like to see some pictures from other angles.
Smooth made, pretty well balanced, but I'd also like to see some pictures from other angles.
Doug Thorson
Well-known member
I can't say I am or was terribly impressed by the picture and with 637 being +6.1 BW there are some strikes against him.
However I saw some calves(month old) at Jamison's and talked to Gordon about him. He said he was sure the +4.4 BW would come down. He said the calves were fairly small, born easily and lively quick. What I saw was pretty impressive, but one days look at baby calves is a small sample size. I see he had 62 calves registered at 101.0% BW. If he can keep that in that ballpark, his growth numbers should be impressive.
I really like the maternal side of his pedigree.
However I saw some calves(month old) at Jamison's and talked to Gordon about him. He said he was sure the +4.4 BW would come down. He said the calves were fairly small, born easily and lively quick. What I saw was pretty impressive, but one days look at baby calves is a small sample size. I see he had 62 calves registered at 101.0% BW. If he can keep that in that ballpark, his growth numbers should be impressive.
I really like the maternal side of his pedigree.
DOC HARRIS
Well-known member
This is somewhat of a generalization: From the Hooks forward he is, PHENOTYPICALLY, a very acceptable herd sire. From the Hooks rearward, he is NOT a very acceptable herd sire. He is short rumped, sloping rump, shallow rounds, high tail setting, out of 'balance' with the rest of his body, and not the greatest leg set for the transmission of characteristics and traits to his progeny. I think that the term "Posty" is a misnomer, because when Nitrogen influence sets in as a result of Testosterone production, and the "short" leg bones thicken and relatively shorten in percentage of the rest of the bull's body, his overall appearance will 'level' out, his topline will flatten, and he will look more 'bullish' and balanced. As has been mentioned before on this thread, we need more pictorial information - rear, front, and top if possible in order to ascertain potential traits. "PICTURES PRODUCE PUTRID PROGNOSTICATIONS!"
The most negative characteristic expressed here is the BW of 101.0 average for 62 calves! This tells me that his Growth EPD's are too high to produce Profitable progeny, and/or replacement heifers. His daughters will probably weigh around 1500-1600#, or more, after their third calf, and cost the breeder many bucks to sustain them for six years, or longer. 1100# cows make MORE profit for their owners than 1600# cows do! One may argue about that if if you wish - but Facts are Facts! This bull, In My Opinion, will produce good looking, but INefficient mamma cows.
DOC HARRIS
The most negative characteristic expressed here is the BW of 101.0 average for 62 calves! This tells me that his Growth EPD's are too high to produce Profitable progeny, and/or replacement heifers. His daughters will probably weigh around 1500-1600#, or more, after their third calf, and cost the breeder many bucks to sustain them for six years, or longer. 1100# cows make MORE profit for their owners than 1600# cows do! One may argue about that if if you wish - but Facts are Facts! This bull, In My Opinion, will produce good looking, but INefficient mamma cows.
DOC HARRIS
He is straight shouldered, and straight hipped, which makes his pasterns straight. I think this is something that he would pass to his calves. I am not sure of his age, which can make some difference in his development, but there is just not enough of the bull. He should be showing more masculine features. His neck should be thicker with a larger hump, and his shoulders should have muscles that are visable . A deep girth, with a good spring of ribs, and a gut that flows into his flanks, showing no pinch. He is lacking the qualities that I would want to use as a sire for registered Herefords, or to raise commercial stock.
Just looking at him, it does looks like that the front end goes with the back end, and he looks balanced. I don't think a person would have any trouble selling this bull; he is eye appealling.
The more masculine bulls throw more feminine heifers and more masculine bull calves. Also more pounds to sell on the commercial side.
Chuckie
Just looking at him, it does looks like that the front end goes with the back end, and he looks balanced. I don't think a person would have any trouble selling this bull; he is eye appealling.
The more masculine bulls throw more feminine heifers and more masculine bull calves. Also more pounds to sell on the commercial side.
Chuckie
