Judith said:
Well I know squat about bulls but I like the numbers on the number 4 bull even though he is "plain" to the eye I think he is pretty user friendly. Visually I like the number one bull but would like to see more length on him, but everything fits. He is pretty. Don't like the photo on the three bull at all but it looks like a crappy photo, he might be great in person. I vote for number 1 (cuz he's pretty) and then 4 but I like both of them. Number 2 has alot of nice qualities, but there is something I just don't like, couldnt tell ya what though.
"Pretty" doesn't hang on a rail! What, specifically,are ". . .nice qualities?" . . . ."everything fits" . .what? ". . ."great in person" means . . .what? and, last but not least, describe ". . .pretty user friendly!?"
This class of four bulls is a "cross section" of Red Angus genetics, and any of them would fit in SOME operations. #4 is line bred, and that is possibly why he brought 100 Grand. In spite of the big bucks he brought, he is TOO short coupled and therefore his daughters would lack capacity. #1 is a classier appearing bull phenotypically, but is too cut up in the flank, and his daughters would appear as Funnel Butts. That leaves him out of the picture. #3 is lean, mean, and musculature machine, but would not fit many of today's operations. He has good bone, but weak pasterns. #2 would work as a heifer bull, but not on a large range operation - he would run out of gas pretty quick. I like his thickness, though, and his overall balance. Good topline.
If I were seeking a Red Angus bull to make a real impact on my herd, I would look elsewhere than ANY of these four bulls.
DOC HARRIS