Why Herefords are Vanishing

[rocket2222]

Herefordsire, you always talk about the rest of us lesser mongrels (that was intentional, BTW) who are not open minded enough to understand your line of thinking or appreciate your vast knowledge of statistics or your idea of greatness, but you are not open minded enough for me to waste my time with my limited typing skills to try and explain why trying to breed fertility into "less than high fertile" cow is a waste of time and money. You simply lack the willingness to see others' point of view or the common sense to work it out for yourself. I am sure in time you will learn through experience that I am right on this, I hope you can stay long enough in the business to apply this aquired wisdom for the best.

In the meantime, please accept that your ability to search a data base and to misinterpret the information and then post your findings and opinions won't impress me (and a few others, I might add).

If you have a sincere question that you want me to answer, feel free to ask and I'll try and help to the best of my ability, for the rest you can ignore my posts and in return I'll do the same for you.

You can misinterpret my heart all you want. Just because you believe something, doesn't make it true. It is what it is.

It reminds me how several here on this board pounded TheHerefordGuy, or one of his many screen names, like he wasn't human. The board was superior than he was. He was the mongrel. Many here made fun of him over and over again. I saw deeper into his heart and mind. I even went as far providing him comfort. He brought alot to the table even though sometimes he got caught in deceptions. I miss the guy and his threads. It is just one of those things about life. There is a different viewpoint about something, maybe even radical, and just because the majority don't agree, it becomes pound time. No one that I know saw value in his words. I can gurantee you, I read every word he posted on here and there is no one else here I have read every word of.

Well I'm so disappointed, I can't believe your not reading all my posts.

 

[HerefordSire]

They are still scared of pulling calves and no milk. That is the reason I get at the coffe shop. I have at least 5 breeders next to me that insist on using all angus in a commercial operation. Ithink they would benifit from a hereford bull but you cant talk them into one EVEN IF IT WERE POLLED.They are leaving money on the table in my opionion.

Hereford breeders shot themselves in the foot with the big birth weights. People chased and multiplied lines of cattle that were waaaayyyy too extreme in that trait. As for milk, if Angus keeps pushing the bar on THAT EPD, they will be shooting themselves in the foot. Those big dairy udders hurt the Simmental breed when they were at their pinnacle and it will do the same thing with Angus if too many folks pile on at the upper extreme of the breed. Milk is not very efficient biologically and it comes at a great cost physically on the cow. Push it too hard and it will hurt cow longevity and fertility......two traits that matter a whole lot more too bottomline profitability than another 10 pounds of gain per calf from milk. If Angus wants to go off that cliff, Hereford doesn't need to chase them.

According to the Pan American data, Herefords peaked in 1994. Does this time frame coincide with your heavy birth weight theory? Secondly, what do you think would be a valid way for Herefords to reverse their course of downward momentum?

 

[HerefordSire]

Yep, they are all chasing milk and growth in the angus breed right now, and headed for a disaster. They think if a little is good, alot must be better. :lol2: Lets not forget all the high priced dues, semen, certificates, ect. that hurt the Hereford breed. Of course the AAA is headed off that cliff now too. :roll:

High priced certificates is what I don't believe in. Pricing semen could be a different story. I would have a better attitude to pay a high price on semen but the certificate at cost. I think it is crushing the Hereford breed. Say you purchase semen one year and the certificates another year. Well, the owner knows how many straws were sold and how many certificates were issued. If the totals are wide, what will prevent the owner from increasing certificate costs? The only thing I can think of when this happens, is never do business when the owner again.

 

[HerefordSire]

Brian...it is refreshing to read your words. I can tell you right off, the questions you are asking are good ones. I wish I had the answers. I could be throwing some things against the wall to see what sticks. By not throwing anything against the wall, many questions go unanswered.

:mrgreen: HerefordSire, you know you wouldn't be throwing out anything to see if it sticks!

Some may not read what you post, some may read parts of it, some may read it all. It's just a matter of how much time you have and how much you want to explore possibilities. A very curious mind indeed...

HAH! :cboy: :cboy: :cboy:

Thanks grannsoo. Curiousity killed the cat. :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen:

You don't happen to have a doctorate in psychology do you? :secret: :secret: :secret:

 

[HerefordSire]

HS,
I'm a pup in this cow calf business and didn't really put that many years into stockers before I decided I wanted to chase the perfect beast.
But what I like about your posts is that you continually throw 2+2 against the wall trying to get 5.
Academia has it's uses, but more often than not, these days they are all about achieving consensus, and grants.
And then looking down their "more knowledgeable than thou through numbers noses" at people who actually apply science and practice to reality.
Paper can no way breed cattle, milk cattle, butcher it, or taste it.
It can support what practice has taught you. It can make you look harder at something you may not have considered.
I would rather have a veteran practicing cattleman help me choose stock than a guy that could recite every bloodline and epd value known to mankind off the top of his head, that didn't actually raise cattle. Scientific knowledge is to be tempered with practical usage or it is useless.
Now if I could bring them both with me to hunt stock, I'd be one lucky dog. :nod: :nod: :nod:

I'm a nonconformist, and an eternal optimist, and I love to consider the possibilities. And I appreciate the way you extrapolate numbers to arrive at conclusions that will be perfect on paper.
But one of the expressions I hear to often with dread is;
"Dang it, It worked on paper".
At the same time, a different perspective is entertaining and sometimes thought provoking.
And I'm guessing you do more thinking than doing, cattlewise, and provoking thought is your main thrust.
No offense whatsoever intended, and I respect your ability to stir a pot. ;-)

Very good post cmf1. You have me thinking deeply now. :idea: :idea: :idea:

I know there are many philosphies of breeding cattle. Which one is the best for a purebred breeder?

I think the most important concept in breeding is genetics, specificly genetic combinations. I get excited to find a gem that back doors through a gene pool that traces to another animal eight times that sold 1M units of semen.

An ordinary breeder is caught up in the visual aspects of an animal but they can't see or understand the value in pedigree patterns. How can you study a pedigree when you are running cattle through the chute?

But my bull had a 80 pound birth weight, 700 pounds weaning weight, 1250 pound yearling weight, performance ratios over 120 except the birth weight ratio which was under 100, all scans were the best on the farm, has eye pigment and a decent eyeset, great structure including legs positioning, feet, and a straight back, but the animal's pedigree ain't worth a hoot and this shows up in his EPD numbers. But, you have clients knocking at your doors begging for your next bull. You don't have enough bulls because every one wants them.

In the mean time, your chosen breed is tanking every year in membership because your bull's EPD numbers are terrible. Why should I change? I am making a good living.

Many want to see performance ratios. Many want to see weaning weights. Many want to see birth weights. Yes, no joke, breeders actually think a sire's calf will perform exactly the same as the sire even though the genetics are only half the sire! What?

Why settle for the same performance as the sire? Each calf should always increase performance relative to the sire, otherwise there is no success unless a more complex strategy is chosen. So what is the secret of combining pedigrees?

So, great breeding begins with a pedigree. There is no need in breeding anything unless the pedigree is valuable.

I am looking forward to your next post.

 

[oakcreekfarms]

looking to hard at papers and EPD spreads will indeed make the hereford breed vanish faster then the ass off of an angus bull. The cattle have to look the part, then the breeding and epd's should be taken into consideration. Hereford breeders should be looking at moderation throughout the animal, and through the EPD spread. Take a look at the semen catalogs out there, 90% of those hereford bulls are taking our great breed in the complete wrong direction. I tried to get one of my bulls into a stud service, they liked everything about the bull, then told me when his BW epd goes from a 3.4 down to something around a 1 to give them a call and they would be interested in working something out. We don't need every hereford bull to be a heifer bull, nor do we need only ones with high IMF, no REA, and lacking structure and muscle to boot.

Moderation is key to a successful cow herd, and breed. At least that is my $.02 worth, take it for what its worth.

 

[rocket2222]

HS,
I'm a pup in this cow calf business and didn't really put that many years into stockers before I decided I wanted to chase the perfect beast.
But what I like about your posts is that you continually throw 2+2 against the wall trying to get 5.
Academia has it's uses, but more often than not, these days they are all about achieving consensus, and grants.
And then looking down their "more knowledgeable than thou through numbers noses" at people who actually apply science and practice to reality.
Paper can no way breed cattle, milk cattle, butcher it, or taste it.
It can support what practice has taught you. It can make you look harder at something you may not have considered.
I would rather have a veteran practicing cattleman help me choose stock than a guy that could recite every bloodline and epd value known to mankind off the top of his head, that didn't actually raise cattle. Scientific knowledge is to be tempered with practical usage or it is useless.
Now if I could bring them both with me to hunt stock, I'd be one lucky dog. :nod: :nod: :nod:

I'm a nonconformist, and an eternal optimist, and I love to consider the possibilities. And I appreciate the way you extrapolate numbers to arrive at conclusions that will be perfect on paper.
But one of the expressions I hear to often with dread is;
"Dang it, It worked on paper".
At the same time, a different perspective is entertaining and sometimes thought provoking.
And I'm guessing you do more thinking than doing, cattlewise, and provoking thought is your main thrust.
No offense whatsoever intended, and I respect your ability to stir a pot. ;-)

Very good post cmf1. You have me thinking deeply now. :idea: :idea: :idea:

I know there are many philosphies of breeding cattle. Which one is the best for a purebred breeder?

I think the most important concept in breeding is genetics, specificly genetic combinations. I get excited to find a gem that back doors through a gene pool that traces to another animal eight times that sold 1M units of semen.

An ordinary breeder is caught up in the visual aspects of an animal but they can't see or understand the value in pedigree patterns. How can you study a pedigree when you are running cattle through the chute?

But my bull had a 80 pound birth weight, 700 pounds weaning weight, 1250 pound yearling weight, performance ratios over 120 except the birth weight ratio which was under 100, all scans were the best on the farm, has eye pigment and a decent eyeset, great structure including legs positioning, feet, and a straight back, but the animal's pedigree ain't worth a hoot and this shows up in his EPD numbers. But, you have clients knocking at your doors begging for your next bull. You don't have enough bulls because every one wants them.

In the mean time, your chosen breed is tanking every year in membership because your bull's EPD numbers are terrible. Why should I change? I am making a good living.

Many want to see performance ratios. Many want to see weaning weights. Many want to see birth weights. Yes, no joke, breeders actually think a sire's calf will perform exactly the same as the sire even though the genetics are only half the sire! What?

Why settle for the same performance as the sire? Each calf should always increase performance relative to the sire, otherwise there is no success unless a more complex strategy is chosen. So what is the secret of combining pedigrees?

So, great breeding begins with a pedigree. There is no need in breeding anything unless the pedigree is valuable.

I am looking forward to your next post.

No, great breeding starts with a structurally sound animal, don't mater what the pedigree is. Were breeding livestock, not pedigree certificates.

 

[HerefordSire]

Well I'm so disappointed, I can't believe your not reading all my posts.

Hi rocket2222! Hope you are doing well. I mostly look at your photos of animals and ignore your words. :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen:

It is striking how breeders select for structure and other important visual traits and produce very nice looking animals of photogenic quality. Then they unload a bull to a client who attempts to reproduce or exceed the performance results of the bull to no avail because the bull was not linebred.

 

[dun]

Why settle for the same performance as the sire? Each calf should always increase performance relative to the sire, otherwise there is no success unless a more complex strategy is chosen.

And that bigger is better concept is what is/has hurt cattle breeds.

 

[smnherf]

Herefordsire, I admire your tenacity and your scientific approach to raising cattle despite being told differently. For a guy who does as much research as you do, I am still curious as to how you arrive at your conclusions.

I don't think there are any set ways to make breeding decisions. Whether they are based off epds, profit indexes, show winners, linebreeding plans, a bull in the pen or just cheap easily accessable semen, we all have our reasons whether they are part of a big plan or not. Neither is right or wrong. In fact it adds to the diversity of the breed. If we all did the same thing and if it happens to end up with problems such as a genetic mutation, the entire breed is toast. Genetic diversity is a good thing for a breed. If all our individual breeding plans don't work out, then we only have our self to blame. Not the AHA or the uneducated people who aren't buying into our program. I truly believe breeding cattle is as much of an art as it is a science. The scientific part is the easy part with all the data that we can collect today. The artistic part takes much more work in research.

On another note about the profit indexes. How many people realize they are chaseing a moving target. From AHA website:

The AHA breed improvement committee will periodically review the economic assumptions used in index development

That means they can change the parameters as the committee sees fit. Even could have political influence.

I dont' have access to the models they are using either. I do know that the models use predictions based off of the epd profile, so these unproven bulls with low accuracy epds are shoved into a model that assumes this data as fact and then calculates the projected profit into an index. To me as a registered breeder, every individual trait is important whereas profit indexes are a collection of traits averaged out over a mathematical model. A lot of usefull information can be hidden within averages. Now once a sire gets to be highly proven, the indexes may be of some use to me.

Brian

 

[HerefordSire]

looking to hard at papers and EPD spreads will indeed make the hereford breed vanish faster then the ass off of an angus bull. The cattle have to look the part, then the breeding and epd's should be taken into consideration. Hereford breeders should be looking at moderation throughout the animal, and through the EPD spread. Take a look at the semen catalogs out there, 90% of those hereford bulls are taking our great breed in the complete wrong direction. I tried to get one of my bulls into a stud service, they liked everything about the bull, then told me when his BW epd goes from a 3.4 down to something around a 1 to give them a call and they would be interested in working something out. We don't need every hereford bull to be a heifer bull, nor do we need only ones with high IMF, no REA, and lacking structure and muscle to boot.

Moderation is key to a successful cow herd, and breed. At least that is my $.02 worth, take it for what its worth.

Long time no see oakcreekfarms! Hope you rising with the tides!

It is amazing to study about all the variances of breeding philosophies. I believe visual cattle are partially to blame for the Hereford downfall. As long as the cattle look good, they are easy to sell. I got my money and I will get your next sale.

But, what kind of Hereford cattle are out there now while the numbers are dwindling? Let's hope they work because next year, instead of 89K registrations, there could be 79K registrations. Let's hope you guys are right.

Seems like breeders want the good looking cattle instead of the type that make money for hard working ranchers. Let's face it. Herefords lost their edge because of our teachers were wrong. It is time for a change. Time to think differently.

 

[HerefordSire]

No, great breeding starts with a structurally sound animal, don't mater what the pedigree is. Were breeding livestock, not pedigree certificates.

Let's hope you are right! Because if you aren't right, your chosen breed is not going to be around much longer in any substantial numbers. And this can't be good for anyone holding Hereford genes.

But, the last remaining Herefords will have good structures right?

 

[HerefordSire]

Why settle for the same performance as the sire? Each calf should always increase performance relative to the sire, otherwise there is no success unless a more complex strategy is chosen.

And that bigger is better concept is what is/has hurt cattle breeds.

Hi dun! Thanks for posting.

I think the keyword is improvement. If bigger is improvement, then bigger is better. If improvement is smaller, then smaller is better. The definition of improvement of the majority of Hereford breeders and our teachers has been dead wrong.

You have been around the business for awhile. What is your opinion of why Hereford numbers are being reduced?

 

[Brandonm22]

But, what kind of Hereford cattle are out there now while the numbers are dwindling? Let's hope they work because next year, instead of 89K registrations, there could be 79K registrations.[/i]

If these breed associations keep raising their fees beef genetics could go the way of swine genetics and the breeders start doing their own thing without paying for the papers or worrying about silly little details like registrations.

 

[HerefordSire]

Herefordsire, I admire your tenacity and your scientific approach to raising cattle despite being told differently. For a guy who does as much research as you do, I am still curious as to how you arrive at your conclusions.

Thanks Brian! I have no idea why I should give a hoot about Herefords. But I do for some strange reason. Maybe I just don't understand the way things really are. For one, I don't understand how Hereford breeders watch these numbers every year move lower and lower. I have been around breeding for a three or four years now. I do understand there are some things in our control and there are some things out of our control. This appears to be something in our control. Why doesn't one BIG person do anything about it?

I don't think there are any set ways to make breeding decisions. Whether they are based off epds, profit indexes, show winners, linebreeding plans, a bull in the pen or just cheap easily accessable semen, we all have our reasons whether they are part of a big plan or not. Neither is right or wrong. In fact it adds to the diversity of the breed. If we all did the same thing and if it happens to end up with problems such as a genetic mutation, the entire breed is toast. Genetic diversity is a good thing for a breed. If all our individual breeding plans don't work out, then we only have our self to blame. Not the AHA or the uneducated people who aren't buying into our program. I truly believe breeding cattle is as much of an art as it is a science. The scientific part is the easy part with all the data that we can collect today. The artistic part takes much more work in research.

Very good points. I would say that was the best paragraph I read yet and is enough to make me shut up...almost! :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen:

So what do you suggest as a solution to turn the momentum of Herefords?

On another note about the profit indexes. How many people realize they are chaseing a moving target. From AHA website:

The AHA breed improvement committee will periodically review the economic assumptions used in index development

That means they can change the parameters as the committee sees fit. Even could have political influence.

That is some good gem you found. Makes me think hard. I think "chasing" is bad term to use though.

I dont' have access to the models they are using either. I do know that the models use predictions based off of the epd profile, so these unproven bulls with low accuracy epds are shoved into a model that assumes this data as fact and then calculates the projected profit into an index. To me as a registered breeder, every individual trait is important whereas profit indexes are a collection of traits averaged out over a mathematical model. A lot of usefull information can be hidden within averages. Now once a sire gets to be highly proven, the indexes may be of some use to me.

Brian

Before Frank was proven, he was #1 on the bull prospect list for $BMI. Now he is in the top five of the mature bulls. Coincidence? Maybe, but not necessarily. There is a distinct pattern of mature high ranking bulls on the $BMI list. Now, if they are truly producing more money for ranchers breeding BWF, then this is significant information.

 

[HerefordSire]

But, what kind of Hereford cattle are out there now while the numbers are dwindling? Let's hope they work because next year, instead of 89K registrations, there could be 79K registrations.[/i]

If these breed associations keep raising their fees beef genetics could go the way of swine genetics and the breeders start doing their own thing without paying for the papers or worrying about silly little details like registrations.

Like me? :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen:

I think I will hop back in when exciting leadership is formed. By my calculations, there should be a major movement in a year or two.

 

[rocket2222]

No, great breeding starts with a structurally sound animal, don't mater what the pedigree is. Were breeding livestock, not pedigree certificates.

Let's hope you are right! Because if you aren't right, your chosen breed is not going to be around much longer in any substantial numbers. And this can't be good for anyone holding Hereford genes.

But, the last remaining Herefords will have good structures right?

Probably not. Seems like every day I see more breeders go the paper route, promoting those big index numbers. Its pretty easy to do, not a whole lot skill involved in it. Certainly don't need any real knowledge about breeding livestock. Heck, even I could do it years ago.

I chose to try and breed some really good sound cattle, its got a little more of a challenge to it. I kinda like the challenge.

 

[goddy]

t is amazing to study about all the variances of breeding philosophies. I believe visual cattle are partially to blame for the Hereford downfall. As long as the cattle look good, they are easy to sell. I got my money and I will get your next sale.

I could well be out of my depth here but feel I need to dabble my toe in the water so to speak. After reading a lot of your posts and, admittedly, scratching my head over some of your reasoning I finally something I had to agree with about the "visual cattle " being partially to blame. It's the old function follows form thing when it should be the other way round.

Instead of identifying the best performing animals we want to identify the best performing ones that conform to a set of criteria often set by the very people in position to benefit most. Taken a step further by the seedstock industry's infatuation with the showring it drags a lot of red herrings across the path of true genetic advancement.

HS , while I don't agree with a lot you write I thoroughly enjoy these threads so thanks for what you bring to the table.

Goddy

 

[buymorebulls]

Here is what I see when I review the reasonably proven sire (P230) of LFF's bull:

He's .53 inches "worse" than the average sire for carcass ribeye area. This will equate to a difference in yield grade of +0.16. Rarely will this affect by much the revenue generated by a group of fat steers.

His fat technically could be of more concern, which is 0.1 "fatter" than the breed average sire. This would equate to +0.25 increase in yield grade. The beauty is that the fat can be managed in the feedlot by killing the cattle when they get to .4 or .5 of back fat, thus controlling yield grade more.

The P230 sire is +0.75 of a quality grade better than the breed average sire (+0.78 MARB EPD - 0.03 MARB EPD).

So, what is more important to ones bottom line, improving YG by 0.16 + 0.25 = 0.41 or improving QG by +0.75???????????????

If you have a load of average steers of the same weight, with 1/2 of them sired by "average Hereford sire" and the other half sired by the P230 bull,

Bull AVGSire P230
HCW 750 750
REA 12.8 12.27
KPH 3% 3%
FAT .40 .50

YG 2.85 3.26 (calculated yield grade)


Last I sold fat cattle, received $27 premium for primes and a $12 discount for selects. I got $6.50 premium for YG1, $2.50 premium for YG2 and a $15 discount for YG4.

We'll assume, we are managing the FAT, and won't have a YG4 animals, that $15 discount will kill ones bottom line.

Total yield grade difference of 0.41 and in our example, the breed average sired steer received a YG2 premium of $0.025 * 750 = $18.75 premium over the P230 sired steer.

Now factor in the quality grade difference . If the breed averaged sired steer is a Select, I just got dinged for a $0.12 * 750 = $90 discount. If on the other hand, the P230 sired calf was a prime versus a choice steer out of the breed average sire, I received a premium of $0.27 * 750 = $202.5

So in our real world scenario above, for a load of fat cattle sired by P230 and "breed average sire", the +0.15 increase in yield grade because the P230 sired steer has such a small REA will "cost you" between $2.81 and $7.31 per head. The FAT difference cost you between $4.88 and $12.88 per head.

The quality grade difference provided by P230 gave you a "premium" of betweeen $61.50 and $151.88 per head over the "breed average sire".


If you've followed this, then you'll plainly see why quality grade drives $CHB (a real world, real dollars, index) much faster than ribeye does.


Dollar indexes remove one's personal prejudice from affecting one's bottom line. Might keep that in mind, WHITEFACESPAY, the next time you try to "single trait select" sires you think should or should not be in the $CHB index.

 

[Herefords.US]

Here is what I see when I review the reasonably proven sire (P230) of LFF's bull:

He's .53 inches "worse" than the average sire for carcass ribeye area. This will equate to a difference in yield grade of +0.16. Rarely will this affect by much the revenue generated by a group of fat steers.

His fat technically could be of more concern, which is 0.1 "fatter" than the breed average sire. This would equate to +0.25 increase in yield grade. The beauty is that the fat can be managed in the feedlot by killing the cattle when they get to .4 or .5 of back fat, thus controlling yield grade more.

The P230 sire is +0.75 of a quality grade better than the breed average sire (+0.78 MARB EPD - 0.03 MARB EPD).

So, what is more important to ones bottom line, improving YG by 0.16 + 0.25 = 0.41 or improving QG by +0.75???????????????

If you have a load of average steers of the same weight, with 1/2 of them sired by "average Hereford sire" and the other half sired by the P230 bull,

Bull AVGSire P230
HCW 750 750
REA 12.8 12.27
KPH 3% 3%
FAT .40 .50

YG 2.85 3.26 (calculated yield grade)


Last I sold fat cattle, received $27 premium for primes and a $12 discount for selects. I got $6.50 premium for YG1, $2.50 premium for YG2 and a $15 discount for YG4.

We'll assume, we are managing the FAT, and won't have a YG4 animals, that $15 discount will kill ones bottom line.

Total yield grade difference of 0.41 and in our example, the breed average sired steer received a YG2 premium of $0.025 * 750 = $18.75 premium over the P230 sired steer.

Now factor in the quality grade difference . If the breed averaged sired steer is a Select, I just got dinged for a $0.12 * 750 = $90 discount. If on the other hand, the P230 sired calf was a prime versus a choice steer out of the breed average sire, I received a premium of $0.27 * 750 = $202.5

So in our real world scenario above, for a load of fat cattle sired by P230 and "breed average sire", the +0.15 increase in yield grade because the P230 sired steer has such a small REA will "cost you" between $2.81 and $7.31 per head. The FAT difference cost you between $4.88 and $12.88 per head.

The quality grade difference provided by P230 gave you a "premium" of betweeen $61.50 and $151.88 per head over the "breed average sire".


If you've followed this, then you'll plainly see why quality grade drives $CHB (a real world, real dollars, index) much faster than ribeye does.


Dollar indexes remove one's personal prejudice from affecting one's bottom line. Might keep that in mind, WHITEFACESPAY, the next time you try to "single trait select" sires you think should or should not be in the $CHB index.

Very impressive presentation, buymorebulls!

Now, THIS is what I see when I review the reasonably proven sire(P230) of LFF's bull:

From his performance pedigree:

Daughters in production: 24
Calves Reported: 17
Avg WW Ratio: 92.8

It's still a little early to be absolutely certain, but it sure doesn't look like he's a bull whose daughters I'd like to have in my herd with that kind of WW ratio - regardless of any carcass traits he might have, positive or negative!

George