+
MikeC":20vs2l6t said:
I like everything about the bull, only question would be, what is his birth weight.
If he is the bull I think he might be. His BW was 82 lbs. But since this is not an advertisement and only placed on the front cover to promote Chars in aggregate, and provide an eye pleasing experience, I have no way of knowing who he is unless I call Floyd (or the rancher) and ask them.
But since Floyd is less than "Truthful" as defined by some, will I get the truth? :lol: :lol: :lol:
Why don't you ask Doc what his BW is? He seems to know absolutely everything else and he can probably judge BW by the bulls' phenotype in the picture!!!
:lol2: :lol2: :lol2: :lol2: :lol2:
Mike-
Aw-w-w Gee Whiz, Mike. :cry2: ...that sarcasm doesn't wear well on you! . . . . on second thought, though :nod: . Oh, well.
....I would have
estimated his BW somewhere in the range of 78 lbs and 93 lbs - - but that would have been only a guess.
While we are discussing phenotype of this
fine looking bull, let's REALLY analyze him (from this PICTURE only!) a little more closely. He LOOKS like a bull SHOULD look - typical Charolais front end (head and neck and hair), firm brisket, Terminal-type functional traits - (Sound feet and legs-but can't see the feet because of the deep flowers-and only two half-legs, shoulders and spine 'look' okay, tight udders, and small teats - but his scrotum is partly covered by yellow blossoms, - which makes for a pretty picture, but no scrotal EPD's are in evidence. Disposition, femininity, and fleshing ability aren't "showing" in this portrait, but the body capacity is indicated, but only moderately presented - so much so that his lack of spring of rib just behind the shoulder is obvious, but his heart girth is subjective, given that the perspective of the picture partially obliterates the floor of his chest, making it somewhat of a "guessing game' for specificity).
His hindquarter muscle expression is "Terminally" obvious, and typical of a desirable Charolais bull - HOWEVER, while we are on the subject - his rump DOES
SEEM to slope off from his hooks to his pin bones - but the legitimate structural phenotype is obviated and precluded from observance by the obliteration of the hindquarters resulting from the "Professional Photographer's" prerogative of 'subject positioning'! In other words, one may anticipate his Phenotype, but because of the 'foreshortening' effect of the photograph making him appear deeper, thicker, and 'not-as-long' as his skeletal structure really may be, one does not REALLY
KNOW what he actually presents in real life -
FROM THIS PICTURE ONLY!
Mike, if you will read again my original post on this bull - carefully, you will see that I said, "...if they were going to present the bull to his best advantgage, they would have included "squared" side view, front view, and rear view
in the body of the article! That being accomplished, one could get a more accurate impression of what THIS bull really is, and what most Charolais bulls are, and should be.
I don't consider Professional Livestock Photographers are more deceptive than I do "professional" show stock fitters. In My Opinion - they ALL prevaricate, equivocate, waffle, evade, dodge, cover-up, sidestep, and euphemize when relating to their subject matter... and that is fine, so long as the people who are reviewing that subject matter are aware of the presented image, and not necessarily the absolute factual truths.
THAT'S what live observance, pedigree perusal and study, and EPD's are intended to do.
He is a good LOOKIN' Charolais, Mike. I have no problem with him, or the fact that he is a terrific image for the cover of the "CHAROLAIS Journal". :|
DOC HARRIS
