Keeney`s Corner

A current and reflective discussion of cattle breeding from outside the registered mainstream
 
HomeUsergroupsRegisterLog in

Share | 
 

 Fat Boy ????

View previous topic View next topic Go down 
Go to page : Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10  Next
AuthorMessage
RobertMac



Posts : 377
Join date : 2010-09-28
Location : Mississippi, USA

PostSubject: Re: Fat Boy ????   Thu Aug 21, 2014 2:50 pm

MKeeney wrote:
RobertMac wrote:
That's BS, Mike.
Those aren't functional Southern cattle.

I don`t know what they are; or where they might be functional for who knows what purpose; but they had the no-input guru`s "screening committee" blessing...I believe breeding cattle must be fed at a practical nutritional level to differentiate differences... the idea/practice of  depriving breeding stock of a supplement to balance a ration{a grass deficiency; not a cattle genetic deficiency}  creating better fertility and breeding stock for commercial producers in better environments is rather foolish...over time, selection of "superior" animals raised in poor environments would change those genetic types into poorer functioning {a key function being to produce beef} animals in good environments...
I have noticed considerable improvement in the looks of the  farao  bulls over the above since he defined soyhulls as "forage"...

In a herd of cattle that are raised at a practical nutritional level, there are cows that maintain their condition, raise a good calf, and rebreed on the feed they are designed to live on...forage. In the same herd, under the same conditions, there are cows that lose condition, raise a poor calf, and fail to rebreed...that is a cattle genetic deficiency.

Why penalize the cows that are capable of doing their job by supplementing the ones that can't?
Back to top Go down
EddieM



Posts : 895
Join date : 2010-09-24
Location : South Carolina

PostSubject: Re: Fat Boy ????   Thu Aug 21, 2014 5:07 pm

RobertMac wrote:
MKeeney wrote:
RobertMac wrote:
That's BS, Mike.
Those aren't functional Southern cattle.

I don`t know what they are; or where they might be functional for who knows what purpose; but they had the no-input guru`s "screening committee" blessing...I believe breeding cattle must be fed at a practical nutritional level to differentiate differences... the idea/practice of  depriving breeding stock of a supplement to balance a ration{a grass deficiency; not a cattle genetic deficiency}  creating better fertility and breeding stock for commercial producers in better environments is rather foolish...over time, selection of "superior" animals raised in poor environments would change those genetic types into poorer functioning {a key function being to produce beef} animals in good environments...
I have noticed considerable improvement in the looks of the  farao  bulls over the above since he defined soyhulls as "forage"...

In a herd of cattle that are raised at a practical nutritional level, there are cows that maintain their condition, raise a good calf, and rebreed on the feed they are designed to live on...forage. In the same herd, under the same conditions, there are cows that lose condition, raise a poor calf, and fail to rebreed...that is a cattle genetic deficiency.

Why penalize the cows that are capable of doing their job by supplementing the ones that can't?

What if MK is not letting cows graze but buying hay that he knows is not good enough? Is it good to supplement the known need?

Do you see grazing differently than bought hay? During the droughts I have knowingly bought what I term as junk hay to hold to animals that I did not want to sell or to wait on grazing to develop. They could have lost weight eating all of that hay that they wanted without a supplement. Was I be a bad person to know that I could help them hold their weight or actually gain a little?

Would you want to buy heifers with fetal programing from cows that you know did not get a decent ration? I wouldn't.
Back to top Go down
RobertMac



Posts : 377
Join date : 2010-09-28
Location : Mississippi, USA

PostSubject: Re: Fat Boy ????   Thu Aug 21, 2014 5:54 pm

EddieM wrote:
RobertMac wrote:
MKeeney wrote:
RobertMac wrote:
That's BS, Mike.
Those aren't functional Southern cattle.

I don`t know what they are; or where they might be functional for who knows what purpose; but they had the no-input guru`s "screening committee" blessing...I believe breeding cattle must be fed at a practical nutritional level to differentiate differences... the idea/practice of  depriving breeding stock of a supplement to balance a ration{a grass deficiency; not a cattle genetic deficiency}  creating better fertility and breeding stock for commercial producers in better environments is rather foolish...over time, selection of "superior" animals raised in poor environments would change those genetic types into poorer functioning {a key function being to produce beef} animals in good environments...
I have noticed considerable improvement in the looks of the  farao  bulls over the above since he defined soyhulls as "forage"...

In a herd of cattle that are raised at a practical nutritional level, there are cows that maintain their condition, raise a good calf, and rebreed on the feed they are designed to live on...forage. In the same herd, under the same conditions, there are cows that lose condition, raise a poor calf, and fail to rebreed...that is a cattle genetic deficiency.

Why penalize the cows that are capable of doing their job by supplementing the ones that can't?

What if MK is not letting cows graze but buying hay that he knows is not good enough?  Is it good to supplement the known need?  The hay I buy is junk hay(as is most all over-mature C4 perennial summer forage in the deep south). When I can't time-limit graze my cows on rye/ryegrass, I put out lick tubs.

Do you see grazing differently than bought hay? Yes, grazing is green, hay is brown. During the droughts I have knowingly bought what I term as junk hay to hold to animals that I did not want to sell or to wait on grazing to develop.  They could have lost weight eating all of that hay that they wanted without a supplement.  Was I be a bad person to know that I could help them hold their weight or actually gain a little? Most every year, I'm feeding hay in Sept. and Oct. while the cows clean up summer pasture.

Would you want to buy heifers with fetal programing from cows that you know did not get a decent ration? I wouldn't. Would you want to buy heifers with fetal programing from cows that you know were over fed and pampered? That's the kind I have bought before and they didn't work out very well.

The thing that gets me is that you and Mike think I'm starving my cattle. The vast majority of my cattle are in good condition and raising good calves...and believe me, if they weren't, my wife would be all over my ass.
Back to top Go down
MKeeney
Admin


Posts : 4624
Join date : 2010-09-21

PostSubject: Re: Fat Boy ????   Thu Aug 21, 2014 9:08 pm

I don`t protein supplement my sorry hay...but I may start...10 cents spent to make 50 cents commercially across ALL the cows is always enticing...I don`t believe it would complicate selection 1% on fertility ..half the open cows here are the real fat cows already...

Back to top Go down
http://www.keeneyscorner.com
EddieM



Posts : 895
Join date : 2010-09-24
Location : South Carolina

PostSubject: Re: Fat Boy ????   Thu Aug 21, 2014 9:49 pm

RM wrote:
The thing that gets me is that you and Mike think I'm starving my cattle.

I didn't know that. Good thing that we have the thought police among us.

And no, I do not want offspring of pampered cattle or starved cattle. I think the pampered end is an extreme we were not discussing.
Back to top Go down
MKeeney
Admin


Posts : 4624
Join date : 2010-09-21

PostSubject: Re: Fat Boy ????   Fri Aug 22, 2014 9:21 am

robertmac wrote:
there are cows that lose condition, raise a poor calf, and fail to rebreed...that is a cattle genetic deficiency.

any cow going three for three of the above...probably isn`t due to a genetic condition...

Back to top Go down
http://www.keeneyscorner.com
RobertMac



Posts : 377
Join date : 2010-09-28
Location : Mississippi, USA

PostSubject: Re: Fat Boy ????   Fri Aug 22, 2014 2:25 pm

MKeeney wrote:
robertmac wrote:
there are cows that lose condition, raise a poor calf, and fail to rebreed...that is a cattle genetic deficiency.

any cow going three for three of the above...probably isn`t due to a genetic condition...

If 80 to 90 percent of the herd are functioning acceptably, how do you explain the 10 to 20 percent that don't? (all in the exact same environment)
Back to top Go down
larkota



Posts : 371
Join date : 2010-09-23
Age : 57
Location : Kimball South Dakota

PostSubject: Re: Fat Boy ????   Fri Aug 22, 2014 6:31 pm

RobertMac wrote:
Tools, like cost effective supplements and crossbreeding, should be left for the commercial cattleman to get the most benefit for their profitability.

Seedstock providers should be developing the genetics of the 60% fertile cows that are doing their job without the supplements.



did some thinking on this and the only thing constant here is change.  I would like to handle my cattle once a year like whitetail deer or the buffalo roundup, but unlike wild life I need something to pay for my camping fun.  my mobs run on 80's and quarter sections and I sure do not like the thought of moving electric fence every day. a little protein when trying to get a mob to clean up some increaser while pooping rabbit turds is not only smart but it also keeps them off the fence.  the protein is not just for the cattle but to help improve my environment.  next thought was how little should I do.  is any help tolerable?  I find myself at times sounding like a preacher but eating crow for supper.  sure your country is different them mine and mine changes from year to year, month to month, week to week, day to day.  which year, month, week, day should I do the culling?  believe that is why we need variation in the breeders herd and use Tru-Line to make them peas in a pod.  

Larkota thinking I could be wrong, nothing new.
Back to top Go down
RobertMac



Posts : 377
Join date : 2010-09-28
Location : Mississippi, USA

PostSubject: Re: Fat Boy ????   Fri Aug 22, 2014 7:33 pm

Larkota, understand that my thoughts here are for what I think a seed stock provider should be doing, not the commercial cattleman. It's also the Lasater philosophy of raising cattle, nothing I've thought of.
Back to top Go down
MKeeney
Admin


Posts : 4624
Join date : 2010-09-21

PostSubject: Re: Fat Boy ????   Fri Aug 22, 2014 9:11 pm

Quote :
If 80 to 90 percent of the herd are functioning acceptably, how do you explain the 10 to 20 percent that don't? (all in the exact same environment)

10 to 20 % genetic...the 80 to 90% something else...so it`s a no-brainer to cull the 3 for 3 cow; probably everything of the 3 but the cow that loses condition; weans a good calf, and re-breeds...
my "thinking" is that culling all of the above is over-promoted/over-sold as to it`s effect on over-all genetic improvement...you must actually breed your way; not cull your way, to better genetic outcomes...in order to do this, you, since nature doesn`t, , a breeder must know what you want an animal to do and the type that does it...
in regard to Lasater philosophy, I find it very similar to Falloons; and population genetics in general...one kind to do all things best; ever changing; ever culling...stability and predictability is stagnation to them; the outlier bull or cow the king or queen...for a day  Exclamation 
but both accept the culls as a cost of "improvement"; but neither has produced any provable miracles yet that defy nature or the physiology of the cow... but it`s sure a superior methodology compared to the "registered con game" that changes on a whim...
I`m not looking to change the center; just get tighter around it; and cull less and less...and agreed Briann, when the environment changes the feed supply; I will either humanly change the feed supply; or the stocking rate...same effect; both more pragmatic than changing genetics...
Back to top Go down
http://www.keeneyscorner.com
Grassfarmer



Posts : 850
Join date : 2010-09-27
Location : Belmont, Manitoba, Canada

PostSubject: Re: Fat Boy ????   Fri Aug 22, 2014 10:24 pm

RobertMac wrote:

…. there are cows that lose condition, raise a poor calf, and fail to rebreed...that is a cattle genetic deficiency.

Raising a poor calf seems to be the preferred  farao philosophy. The little ones are the only profitable ones after all  Rolling Eyes 
Back to top Go down
http://www.luingcattle.com
Kent Powell



Posts : 606
Join date : 2010-09-24
Location : SW Kansas

PostSubject: Re: Fat Boy ????   Sat Aug 23, 2014 8:53 am

All three can result from higher maintenance requirements than you are willing to feed. The last two resulting from the first. Too Selfless.
Back to top Go down
http://powellangus.com
rross



Posts : 39
Join date : 2010-09-24

PostSubject: Re: Fat Boy ????   Sat Aug 23, 2014 2:37 pm



a little protein when trying to get a mob to clean up some increaser while pooping rabbit turds is not only smart but it also keeps them off the fence.  the protein is not just for the cattle but to help improve my environment.


Is the protein needed and worth the extra expense when the same could be acheived/accomplished with a molasses based mineral tub 
Back to top Go down
Grassfarmer



Posts : 850
Join date : 2010-09-27
Location : Belmont, Manitoba, Canada

PostSubject: Re: Fat Boy ????   Sat Aug 23, 2014 10:02 pm

rross wrote:


a little protein when trying to get a mob to clean up some increaser while pooping rabbit turds is not only smart but it also keeps them off the fence.  the protein is not just for the cattle but to help improve my environment.


Is the protein needed and worth the extra expense when the same could be acheived/accomplished with a molasses based mineral tub 


Don't know what you are feeding down there and the relative costs but here the protein is relatively cheap and economic while the molasses tubs are generally cost prohibitive - it's bovine crack cocaine.
Back to top Go down
http://www.luingcattle.com
MKeeney
Admin


Posts : 4624
Join date : 2010-09-21

PostSubject: Re: Fat Boy ????   Sun Aug 24, 2014 8:06 am

I am finally getting around to posting a couple of pics from Megan...with her email note below...



Hi Mike – this is Mt Mable Goodie 565 (named as a newborn based on her parentage – I was up to G in my own lettering system) – this is her set of identical twin heifers born yesterday – one to be named Goodie Gum Drops and the other Goodie Two Shoes – this is her third calving – we sold her first calf as lot 43 for $4,700 this year. Not sure whether we will retain either of the twins – already get enough to deal with every calving without actually breeding from any. This cow is in better condition that most of those calving which would be described as plain at best – we knew she was going to have twins so she and others like her were kept on the rolling country with the old girls while the rest went up on the hills. Been very busy hence lack of chatter on the Corner – have another 80 or so to calve.

Have a good day – cheers Megan

Megan, please resend the cow "in normal body condition"...can`t find it...sorry, mk
ps...add comment to the above as well...
Back to top Go down
http://www.keeneyscorner.com
MKeeney
Admin


Posts : 4624
Join date : 2010-09-21

PostSubject: Re: Fat Boy ????   Mon Aug 25, 2014 8:48 am



from Megan
Here is Mt Mable Abba 362 – she is the mother of the 2012 born bull which we wanted to keep but who got a broken leg from another bull Sad This is a good indication of what the cows look like at calving – they then go onto saved grass if they are an early calver or have to make do with what is left and we start feeding wrapped baled silage out on the flats until the grass comes away on the hills when they are put back out there. Their selected bull joins them in late October – we are being cunning this year and putting them in their bull mobs as they calve – usually it goes ......... fill up one paddock and then start on the next – this year we will save ourselves a major cow/calf drafting job (usually under pressure – both feed and time) as they will all be exactly where we want them to be – why we did not start doing it years ago is beyond me!

you must calve the equivalent our March...end of winter?
what are the individual mating's based on?
Back to top Go down
http://www.keeneyscorner.com
pukerimu



Posts : 246
Join date : 2012-06-02
Location : Norsewood, New Zealand

PostSubject: Re: Fat Boy ????   Mon Aug 25, 2014 3:42 pm

Most stud breeders in NZ start calving from July onwards which is late winter / early spring. The difference between a July born and September born bull by the June two years later is quite noticeable - we start at the beginning of August and are planning to put the date back a couple more days as our pre-lambing sheep work always collides with first calving - with the expected elevation in stress levels!

Our matings are planned on type, previous experience with the dam, repeat matings if they worked and where the bull is still available to do it - mothers, sisters and daughters all going to the same bull where possible and blood lines. We are using three home bred bulls (Fat Boy, Captain and Big As, who is not particularly big but has a large rump - son of Big Al who was son of Big A (the NZ branded angus beef's symbol is a Capital A) both used as yearlings and sold - one to stud) and three bought in bulls - two are by the same sire and the other is from an old blood line that we have noticed in cattle we have liked previously - we are really happy with all the bulls - all the cow lines of the bought in bulls are similar genealogy to our own with subtle differences which we are confident will produce the type we are looking for. I realise that there will be people who disagree with our philosophy but it works for us and seemingly for our repeat clientele so we are not in any hurry to change anything - happy to enhance and tweak where necessary and we try not to repeat any mistakes made.

Back to top Go down
http://www.mtmableangus.co.nz
MKeeney
Admin


Posts : 4624
Join date : 2010-09-21

PostSubject: Re: Fat Boy ????   Tue Oct 21, 2014 12:45 am

Megan has sent spring ? pics from down under...always a joy...as is the accompanying music Smile Megan, I hope you don`t have the same contempt for Aussie music as you do Breedplan; if so, please just ignore the annoyance...I get a little carried away now and then   Very Happy  Very Happy

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IbsfupH8W1o

forgive the 5 second{as long as I will tolerate them} political ads...

read an interesting quote the other day that applies to many things; including cattle breeding...

the Stone Age didn`t end because we ran out of stone...

I`ll leave it to you to fill in info about the cows etc...darn, the calves seem big!









btw, we have our own Land Down Under here in Kentucky Smile

http://kdu.com/mammoth_onyx_cave.html
Back to top Go down
http://www.keeneyscorner.com
pukerimu



Posts : 246
Join date : 2012-06-02
Location : Norsewood, New Zealand

PostSubject: Re: Fat Boy ????   Tue Oct 21, 2014 3:11 am

Love Men at Work - have yelled that song out more than once  - pretty impressed by your land down under too - worth a trip into the deep to see that!  Will put it on our itinerary when we come over .............. one day ..................... but do you have vegemite sandwiches? Laughing

Thank you for posting the pics - gotta love NZ in the spring time - especially when the forecast says "and rain about the ranges"

Picture one is of Mt Mable Friendly 531 - she is out of a cow who loved people without any special handling - on one memorable occasion the cow allowed me to put her hypothermic and struggling heifer calf onto her udder in the paddock - if I had not done it myself I would not have believed it.  Sadly we lost her to staggers a few years ago.  Friendly has the same lovely nature and is always at the back of the mob and allows us to scratch her if we are walking them anywhere.  Friendly's sire is a bull which was an E/T son of a long deceased iconic NZ bred bull Hingaia 469.

Picture two is of Mt Mable Friendly 790 - 531's daughter by our home bred bull Big Al 580 a grandson of the E/T bull mentioned above.

Picture three is of calves which have dates of birth ranging from Heifer 29 (orange tag) 8th August to Heifer 75 (also orange - bulls are yellow) 29th of August - the numbers run numerically on age as we tag the calves as they are born.  Heifer 75 is by a son of Big Al 580 called Big As 779 who I think is pictured somewhere on the corner too and also goes back to the E/T bull too.  The bull calf 14129 is by the home bred sire Captain out of a herd matriarch Mt Mable 33.  His DOB is 18th August.

Picture four is Mt Mable Interest 784 - she is a daughter of Mt Mable 33 and is very like her mother.

The bull calves have got a 14 on their tag numbers due to our stupid once known as AHB (Animal Health Board) now known as NAIT (National Animal Identification Tag) being annoying about having the same numbers although they are 14 years apart and we have now moved to electronic tags and you would expect that the visual tag number could be anything we liked ..................... argh nope - we will brand them without the 14 ie 14129 is actually Mt Mable 129 - we get away with recycling the heifer numbers as we put an actual registered year code on the tag - pointy heads???  Do I need to say more?
Back to top Go down
http://www.mtmableangus.co.nz
MKeeney
Admin


Posts : 4624
Join date : 2010-09-21

PostSubject: Re: Fat Boy ????   Tue Oct 21, 2014 7:21 am

Megan, lovely pics...

your comments remind me of a Ken Clark quote...no one should have more cows than they can be personally acquainted with...therefore, some should have only a few; seems you could have many cheers ...I no longer practice the Clark concept ; I`m familiar only with the characteristics I cherish consistently year after year; when I see them, I select them; from whence they came is of little concern...an experiment in practical, instead of pedigree , selection...given the history and current results of pedigree selection , I see little chance of falling behind Cool Cool  except in sales, where tradition trumps pragmatism... Rolling Eyes
Please visit the US during one of our Gatherings, so you can meet the corner crowd and be our honored guest cheers
Back to top Go down
http://www.keeneyscorner.com
pukerimu



Posts : 246
Join date : 2012-06-02
Location : Norsewood, New Zealand

PostSubject: Re: Fat Boy ????   Tue Oct 21, 2014 1:36 pm

Thank you for the lovely invite Mike - honoured or not it would be an honour to be a guest however have a couple more years of two at boarding school - I really meant the "one day" as in one day when the chicks have flown the coop (and not at our expense Smile )
Back to top Go down
http://www.mtmableangus.co.nz
EddieM



Posts : 895
Join date : 2010-09-24
Location : South Carolina

PostSubject: Re: Fat Boy ????   Wed Oct 22, 2014 8:58 am

pukerimu wrote:
Thank you for the lovely invite Mike - honoured or not it would be an honour to be a guest however have a couple more years of two at boarding school - I really meant the "one day" as in one day when the chicks have flown the coop (and not at our expense Smile )

Since some in the world of chat sites are trying desperately to define maternal and terminal cattle, in your mind, do the pictured cows fall sharply into either category?
Back to top Go down
pukerimu



Posts : 246
Join date : 2012-06-02
Location : Norsewood, New Zealand

PostSubject: Re: Fat Boy ????   Wed Oct 22, 2014 1:53 pm

We do not sell steers and we do not sell weaners - by definition all our cows have to either replace themselves in the herd or put a bull in the selling ring sometime in their life or else when we come to make our annual culling decisions to allow heifers (from cows who do put bulls in the ring and heifers in the herd) into the herd, and we do not have enough self culling aged, infirm or bad natured, poor mothering, empty cows to get rid of then we start going into the ones that have failed on the "replacement or sale" criteria and then they are gone too. I do not buy into the Maternal vs Terminal argument other than to say that hard keeping, poorly conformed or bad natured and thereby, in our herd anyway, short lived, cows are not our idea of angus cows - apparently there are plenty around in several countries who would disagree with us if their breeding decisions are anything to go by Twisted Evil
Back to top Go down
http://www.mtmableangus.co.nz
EddieM



Posts : 895
Join date : 2010-09-24
Location : South Carolina

PostSubject: Re: Fat Boy ????   Wed Oct 22, 2014 8:17 pm

pukerimu wrote:
We do not sell steers and we do not sell weaners - by definition all our cows have to either replace themselves in the herd or put a bull in the selling ring sometime in their life or else when we come to make our annual culling decisions to allow heifers (from cows who do put bulls in the ring and heifers in the herd) into the herd, and we do not have enough self culling aged, infirm or bad natured, poor mothering, empty cows to get rid of then we start going into the ones that have failed on the "replacement or sale" criteria and then they are gone too.  I do not buy into the Maternal vs Terminal argument other than to say that hard keeping, poorly conformed or bad natured and thereby, in our herd anyway, short lived, cows are not our idea of angus cows - apparently there are plenty around in several countries who would disagree with us if their breeding decisions are anything to go by Twisted Evil

So with a cow that is both a replacement maker and a bull sale bull maker, do you breed a cow to a similar type of bull or a different type of bull to either replace herself or to raise a sale bull? In other words, does too much bull (pick a trait(s) that might be above the cow's by a significant amount) ruin the replacement while enhancing the sale bull?
Back to top Go down
pukerimu



Posts : 246
Join date : 2012-06-02
Location : Norsewood, New Zealand

PostSubject: Re: Fat Boy ????   Wed Oct 22, 2014 9:18 pm

Great questions Eddie - we try and use bulls which are either from our breeding programme or compliment it.

For example - the cows pictured are all in the mob that will be joined to our homebred Captain - he is a very well fleshed individual with plenty of frame (no mean feat to achieve!) - the cows to be joined to him are the fatter, moderate framed cows, and cows (and often their close relatives), which have already bred well to him.  When we assess matings we are mostly thinking about the heifers which are likely to result - we find that a mating which produces the heifer we want will more than likely produce a bull type which we would be very happy to catalogue.

I have seen the "fire and ice" discussions here and elsewhere - we do not consider our mating decisions to be opposites as that in our view is counter productive and more likely to allow extreme traits to evolve.  However, due to Captain's larger frame size we would not join cows which are built just like him as a larger frame is almost guaranteed, but whether the easy fleshing is also, is debatable.

We aspire to have all the heifers available for replacement selection and all the bulls available for sale selection based on our mating decisions - obviously it does not always happen for various reasons but those are our lofty ambitions when we sit down and assign cows to bulls.  The cattle breeders who buy our bulls are looking for bulls that will breed their replacements too - while also leaving easy keeping, fast as possible growth, easy handling steers to fatten.

The cows selected for the other bulls are also all individually assessed and the mating decisions based on type and past calf production.  The bought in bulls were all selected on their pedigrees with decisions based on what the cow and sire lines had appeared to have done in other breeding situations - NZ is small enough that you have a pretty good idea of who is doing what (or not as the case maybe) around the place.  If we get it wrong we man up and admit it to ourselves  Embarassed .  The mating is not repeated.  If there is a common theme amongst the calves of a bull he is never used again and all the calves are closely assessed to decide whether there are any keepers or whether the bulls will be carried through to the sale as 2 year olds.  Fortunately an extreme mess up of that magnitude is very rare.  Hurts the budget like you would not believe Sad

We have parameters for some EBV's (mostly acceptable birth weight and fats) which we adhere to in bull selection (both buying and using) decisions but we do not refer to either animal's EBVs when making mating decisions - it is all on type and past performance (family performance too)
Back to top Go down
http://www.mtmableangus.co.nz
Sponsored content




PostSubject: Re: Fat Boy ????   

Back to top Go down
 
Fat Boy ????
View previous topic View next topic Back to top 
Page 5 of 10Go to page : Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10  Next

Permissions in this forum:You cannot reply to topics in this forum
Keeney`s Corner :: Advertise :: For Sale-
Jump to: