Keeney`s Corner

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

Share | 
 

 pinebank newsletter

Go down 
Go to page : Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next
AuthorMessage
MKeeney
Admin


Posts : 3816
Join date : 2010-09-21

PostSubject: Re: pinebank newsletter   Thu Aug 11, 2011 1:02 pm

patb wrote:
MKeeney wrote:
Pat,
reflecting on the fertility statements above which are consistant with statements you have made in the past..., since fertile cattle have more calves than non-fertile cattle, why wouldn`t fertility problems have solved themselves by now?


We can reduce the fertility challenges by management but never eliminate them. The dairy industry has just published research on haplotypes that result in embryonic death if a potential calf gets two copies of specific haplotype. The founder effect is giving the jersey breed a higher precentage of animals carrying this challenge. Breeders have to live with the selection of parent stock by the founders of the breed and every breeder of the animals before them. The best we can do is to minimize the challenges to future breeders who use our genetics by using the tools and breeding methods available to us.

Falloon is talking about improving fertility via genetic selection instead of management
Back to top Go down
http://www.keeneyscorner.com
Grassfarmer



Posts : 660
Join date : 2010-09-27
Location : Belmont, Manitoba, Canada

PostSubject: Re: pinebank newsletter   Thu Aug 11, 2011 2:06 pm

MKeeney wrote:
patb wrote:
MKeeney wrote:
Pat,
reflecting on the fertility statements above which are consistant with statements you have made in the past..., since fertile cattle have more calves than non-fertile cattle, why wouldn`t fertility problems have solved themselves by now?


We can reduce the fertility challenges by management but never eliminate them. The dairy industry has just published research on haplotypes that result in embryonic death if a potential calf gets two copies of specific haplotype. The founder effect is giving the jersey breed a higher precentage of animals carrying this challenge. Breeders have to live with the selection of parent stock by the founders of the breed and every breeder of the animals before them. The best we can do is to minimize the challenges to future breeders who use our genetics by using the tools and breeding methods available to us.

Falloon is talking about improving fertility via genetic selection instead of management


"............the only way to improve fertility was to cull anything that failed to conceive, or who failed to walk in with a live calf. We have been doing this for some years and most certainly our fertility has increased."

At what point does management become genetic selection?? Is Falloons selection criteria above genetic selection or management?
Back to top Go down
http://www.luingcattle.com
PatB



Posts : 335
Join date : 2010-09-25
Age : 53
Location : Turner, Maine

PostSubject: Re: pinebank newsletter   Thu Aug 11, 2011 2:57 pm

Grassfarmer wrote:
MKeeney wrote:
patb wrote:
MKeeney wrote:
Pat,
reflecting on the fertility statements above which are consistant with statements you have made in the past..., since fertile cattle have more calves than non-fertile cattle, why wouldn`t fertility problems have solved themselves by now?


We can reduce the fertility challenges by management but never eliminate them. The dairy industry has just published research on haplotypes that result in embryonic death if a potential calf gets two copies of specific haplotype. The founder effect is giving the jersey breed a higher precentage of animals carrying this challenge. Breeders have to live with the selection of parent stock by the founders of the breed and every breeder of the animals before them. The best we can do is to minimize the challenges to future breeders who use our genetics by using the tools and breeding methods available to us.

Falloon is talking about improving fertility via genetic selection instead of management


"............the only way to improve fertility was to cull anything that failed to conceive, or who failed to walk in with a live calf. We have been doing this for some years and most certainly our fertility has increased."

At what point does management become genetic selection?? Is Falloons selection criteria above genetic selection or management?


Any management decision on what animals to breed or cull will have a genetic effect on your herd. By removing animals that fail to breed in an artificial time limit may reduce a genetic trait for embryonic death such as some of the dairy breeds have identified.
Back to top Go down
MKeeney
Admin


Posts : 3816
Join date : 2010-09-21

PostSubject: catch`em if you can...   Mon Sep 12, 2011 7:00 am

Gavin has kinda outdone himself this month...I guess we in the US will linger far behind since the only semen is several bull years old...
http://pinebank.co.nz/newsletter.php


When breeders use our bulls the same thing applies. You only get 50% of the bull because he only contributes half the genes and he is going to just cows that represent nothing towards the added performance of his calves. If you use his sons the bull contributes only 25%. By this time he will be lifting your herd by a minimum.

If you use a son of a son then the bull has virtually lost all improvement. If you understand how our programme works you can see the logic of how it builds in its progress If you wish to make much use of our work, then you should use our most modern bull over daughters of our original bull and keep doing that each year. We can always keep you away from inbreeding by telling you of the bulls that are from different lines.

By doing this you could keep right up behind us but because of the time that we have been selecting for, it would never be possible to overtake our herd. It is all a time thing. If you were to use the best bull in our herd every year then the closest you could ever get would be one generation behind us. But as no one has access to our herd’s best bull every year it would be impossible.

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



Posts : 335
Join date : 2010-09-25
Age : 53
Location : Turner, Maine

PostSubject: Re: pinebank newsletter   Mon Sep 12, 2011 7:08 am

The youngest bull they offer semen on is a 2004 model. How many gnerations are you behind by his reasoning?
Back to top Go down
MKeeney
Admin


Posts : 3816
Join date : 2010-09-21

PostSubject: Re: pinebank newsletter   Mon Sep 12, 2011 7:20 am

patb wrote:
The youngest bull they offer semen on is a 2004 model. How many gnerations are you behind by his reasoning?

too far to get in the race...I`ll just buy the 2004 progress as I need it...since Gavin won`t inbreed, I might...and see how fast things go downhill in that direction Smile but, as he says, not time to go far in any direction...
Back to top Go down
http://www.keeneyscorner.com
RobertMac



Posts : 254
Join date : 2010-09-28
Location : Mississippi, USA

PostSubject: Re: pinebank newsletter   Mon Sep 12, 2011 9:55 am

Quote :
...then you should use our most modern bull over daughters of our original bull and keep doing that each year.
Shouldn't this be standard practice for "seedstock providers"?????
Back to top Go down
Kent Powell



Posts : 443
Join date : 2010-09-24
Location : SW Kansas

PostSubject: Re: pinebank newsletter   Mon Sep 12, 2011 10:13 am

The ads say that you are losing out on the latest and greatest by taking a 2 year old bull over a yearling.
Back to top Go down
http://powellangus.com
Mean Spirit



Posts : 288
Join date : 2010-09-26

PostSubject: Re: pinebank newsletter   Mon Sep 12, 2011 11:51 am

Little bit too motion-y commotion-y for my taste.

MS, always a little confused by what Gavin says, and sometimes a little concerned that he might be making stuff up.
Back to top Go down
MKeeney
Admin


Posts : 3816
Join date : 2010-09-21

PostSubject: Re: pinebank newsletter   Mon Sep 12, 2011 12:32 pm

Mean Spirit wrote:
Little bit too motion-y commotion-y for my taste.

MS, always a little confused by what Gavin says, and sometimes a little concerned that he might be making stuff up.
Yeah
MK, always a little stunned by how much he and MS think alike...biggest difference seems to be in the meaness of their spirit Smile
Back to top Go down
http://www.keeneyscorner.com
Mean Spirit



Posts : 288
Join date : 2010-09-26

PostSubject: Re: pinebank newsletter   Mon Sep 12, 2011 1:47 pm

I should clarify, by "make up" I don't mean fibbing-- I simply mean saying things that might not be easy to square with the present scientific consensus.

And, yes, I make up stuff.
Back to top Go down
MKeeney
Admin


Posts : 3816
Join date : 2010-09-21

PostSubject: Re: pinebank newsletter   Mon Jan 09, 2012 7:57 am

I just skimmed Gavin`s newsletter for Dec...but I certainly disagree that Angus were started as a dam breed...I believe Wye probably initiated the emphasis on maternal importance, even though the direction there was terminal as well...

Quote :
Initialy all the different breeds were bred for different environments, different objectives, different colours etc, The European breeds began as draft animals which is why they are much bigger.
Both the Angus and Hereford were bred to be dam breeds,

http://pinebank.co.nz/newsletter.php
Back to top Go down
http://www.keeneyscorner.com
MKeeney
Admin


Posts : 3816
Join date : 2010-09-21

PostSubject: Re: pinebank newsletter   Mon Jan 09, 2012 8:34 pm

from Gavin...
Mike

Of course they were bred for beef whereas the European cattle were bred for draft and when finished they were eaten. They must have been tough. I only told it as a point of differentiation...



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



Posts : 335
Join date : 2010-09-25
Age : 53
Location : Turner, Maine

PostSubject: Re: pinebank newsletter   Tue Feb 14, 2012 11:18 am

february installment

2012 has begun very well for us in our district. Every time the grass has begun to dry off, turn to stalk and begin to seed, we have had a very good warm rain. Grass is every where and the stock are doing very well. This is on top of a lift in prices.
The economics of any enterprise is the multitude of products it produces and the number of markets those products go to. In New Zealand we produce on the standard farm about 8 products. Four in cattle and four in sheep. This gives us that flexability to move to the best market in any one year. Our biggest problem is the cost of getting our products to markets, and what is worse, a government that has never discovered agriculture and treats us as its private bank. Just keeps loading us with costs and then complains when the price of food rises.

This Newsletter is an explanation of the meaning of the saying:

There is no end to the improvement in anything biological. It will slow down but it will go on

What happens in a programme like ours is that as the average rises, so does the top by the same amount ,thus keeping the variation the same. This means that if we have variation and the top is + 50 kilos above and the average of the sires that we select is +30 and we are selecting for growth, then we should in that year make a gain of +15.
But because of our multifactor selection we would be lucky to make +2.

The fact that there is no end to the improvement is because with the millions of genes involved there are endless combinations.

There are no two people in the world that are identical just the same as there no two cows or bulls or anything biological for that matter; I do not know about identical twins? I must find out but in those that I know there some minor differences which to me would indicate that their codes have some minor differences.

The big problem is going to be for future generations of my family to keep the programme going in its entirety. Interestingly, it is much easier to run the programme than it is to go out and purchase bulls. William has never been through the hassle that that creates and the number of times that you make a mistake, by buying a completely unsuitable bull. And then you are stuck with it, especially if it cost you a lot which they frequently do!

Just to run through how we select our sires each year. We use four bulls per 100 cows and as we have about 300 cows we require about 12 bulls. We use this number of bulls not because our bulls are of low fertility but because every year we want to make sure that we hit the best bull.
These bulls are then put out with randomised cows but no halfsibs or mothers or close relations. This is to prevent inbreeding as much as possible.

So we select the top 20 bulls on ‘beefplan records’. Then we go through the bulls for physical soundness. Then we go through them for temperment. Then for anything that we do not like we throw them out. We always have room for a bull that attracts our attention for some reason and that we consider to be worth a try.
These bulls are yearlings so they are observed closely when they go out , to see how long it takes for a bull to begin working.

Each bull is carefully progeny tested. Having been doing this since 1965 we have a good idea how a bull is performing as soon as we begin weighing his calves.
If a bull is good, we use a number of his sons. If he is not good we do not want to know about him. Remembering that each son is out of a different cow.


If they are making progress why aren't more current genetics being offered for semen sales?
Back to top Go down
MKeeney
Admin


Posts : 3816
Join date : 2010-09-21

PostSubject: Re: pinebank newsletter   Tue Feb 14, 2012 11:24 am

patb wrote:
february installment

2012 has begun very well for us in our district. Every time the grass has begun to dry off, turn to stalk and begin to seed, we have had a very good warm rain. Grass is every where and the stock are doing very well. This is on top of a lift in prices.
The economics of any enterprise is the multitude of products it produces and the number of markets those products go to. In New Zealand we produce on the standard farm about 8 products. Four in cattle and four in sheep. This gives us that flexability to move to the best market in any one year. Our biggest problem is the cost of getting our products to markets, and what is worse, a government that has never discovered agriculture and treats us as its private bank. Just keeps loading us with costs and then complains when the price of food rises.

This Newsletter is an explanation of the meaning of the saying:

There is no end to the improvement in anything biological. It will slow down but it will go on

What happens in a programme like ours is that as the average rises, so does the top by the same amount ,thus keeping the variation the same. This means that if we have variation and the top is + 50 kilos above and the average of the sires that we select is +30 and we are selecting for growth, then we should in that year make a gain of +15.
But because of our multifactor selection we would be lucky to make +2.

The fact that there is no end to the improvement is because with the millions of genes involved there are endless combinations.

There are no two people in the world that are identical just the same as there no two cows or bulls or anything biological for that matter; I do not know about identical twins? I must find out but in those that I know there some minor differences which to me would indicate that their codes have some minor differences.

The big problem is going to be for future generations of my family to keep the programme going in its entirety. Interestingly, it is much easier to run the programme than it is to go out and purchase bulls. William has never been through the hassle that that creates and the number of times that you make a mistake, by buying a completely unsuitable bull. And then you are stuck with it, especially if it cost you a lot which they frequently do!

Just to run through how we select our sires each year. We use four bulls per 100 cows and as we have about 300 cows we require about 12 bulls. We use this number of bulls not because our bulls are of low fertility but because every year we want to make sure that we hit the best bull.
These bulls are then put out with randomised cows but no halfsibs or mothers or close relations. This is to prevent inbreeding as much as possible.

So we select the top 20 bulls on ‘beefplan records’. Then we go through the bulls for physical soundness. Then we go through them for temperment. Then for anything that we do not like we throw them out. We always have room for a bull that attracts our attention for some reason and that we consider to be worth a try.
These bulls are yearlings so they are observed closely when they go out , to see how long it takes for a bull to begin working.

Each bull is carefully progeny tested. Having been doing this since 1965 we have a good idea how a bull is performing as soon as we begin weighing his calves.
If a bull is good, we use a number of his sons. If he is not good we do not want to know about him. Remembering that each son is out of a different cow.


If they are making progress why aren't more current genetics being offered for semen sales?
because they probably aren`t selling much...because steady and sure ain`t fast enough for the majority of human nature...
Back to top Go down
http://www.keeneyscorner.com
PatB



Posts : 335
Join date : 2010-09-25
Age : 53
Location : Turner, Maine

PostSubject: Re: pinebank newsletter   Mon Mar 19, 2012 11:32 am

march newsletter

Explanation of the Breeding Programme. And How and Why it Works.

In 1962 Dr Ch’ang (TS) and I set up the Angus Breeding programme in the Pinebank herd. In the beginning we kept all our existing sires for the following year and added our best rising 2 year bull to the sires. The exercise was as much a demonstration to me about what would happen, as it was to begin the programme. The herds best bull came out on top thus proving the saying “that any animal is only as good as the average of its progeny so its best progeny is better than its sire”.

I then continued to use our own best 2year old bulls. We were seeking our herd’s pattern of growth, (all bulls grow at different periods) and looking for recessive genes that might residual in the herd.

At this stage we were selecting for growth, the heritability of which is slightly higher for 2year olds than for yearlings. Not because the heritability alters ,but because you have more information to calculate it from. At this stage we had no idea that we would eventually be using yearling bulls.
We had already moved into the Bulmar effect, which was problem No1, with its resulting deteriorating effect on performance.

After two years on my own I was approached individually by three other breeders who wanted access to the programme. It was decided that we should all look over each others cattle and have a meeting with TS at my place. I agreed to involve the other herds for two reasons. Firstly because the bigger the population the faster the programme goes because the variation is higher. Secondly to achieve a political force in the Angus Association. At this stage our programme was being treated as a joke but 800 registered cows would make a real impact in the Association.
During the viewing of each breeder’s sires, we noted there was a bull in the Tupurupuru herd with high performance that look quite different!
The other three members decided they had to have the right not to use such a bull if they wished. After T.S. had addressed the group the three new members voiced their concern. I said, we use the Tupurupuru bull and will use any bull if its performance is high, regardless of its appearance, as long as it is physically sound. Anyone who was not prepared to do so could leave right now. No one left.

In the begining T.S.said he had no idea what was going to appear because what we were doing nobody had ever done before. This was incorrect as we both knew about the No1. Hereford line at Miles City, Montana which had been closed since 1935, I believe.

After the herd had been closed for 10 years we came across problem No2.
All animals have many genes not all of which are exhibited in its phenotype , when you close a herd and concentrate genetic material , then those genes that have not been exhibited begin to show. Angus cattle in N.Z have always had trouble with feet, it is one of the major causes of culling. In our Pinebank herd we never considered we had a foot problem, but in the closed herd, bad feet began to appear.
It got steadily worse until approx 80% of our sale bulls went out with bad feet. I rang T.S. about this problem pointing out that I could not continue at this level. He said “ Hang on in there, you will go over the top”. We did and the next year we had no bad feet and have had very few since. Our bulls feet are guaranteed and we very seldom have to replace any.
After about 10 years we had overcome the Bulmar effect, and the bad feet and we were on our way.

We had been selecting for growth which is a highly heritable trait, and so progress can be quite rapid. At the same time T.S. suggested I should begin mating yearling heifers. It was no use having this mob of females running around being unproductive, when they could rear a calf. Up to this time, it was not normal practise, in fact we were told that it could not be done successfully. But TS pointed out that the industry would eventually demand it, and we should be ahead of demand. I began mating yearling heifers, but I was the only one in the group to do so. I would be surprised if there was anyone else in New Zealand mating them at that time.

Mating yearling heifers and selecting for growth do not go together. Because as your cattle begin to grow faster, birth weights increase. Birth weights and fast growth are highly correlated.
An American Scientist who turned up at this stage told me that doing this would result in dystokia (calving problems). That was when I began weighing at birth to see what was happening to birth weights. He was right.

I was pulling calves all day and losing many heifers and calves. This was obviously not going to work. Research told me the major part of foetal growth was in the last week to calving, so I dropped their feed to maintenance.
This is detrimental to the successful management of calving yearling heifers as body weight must be retained up to calving and then the heifers must be fed to the absolute maximum while they are lactating. This is necessary to get them back in calf and this is important as it is no use getting a calf out of heifers if they are dry the following year.

Selecting for low birth weights resulted in a lessening of 600day weights. Then we discovered there were some bulls who could have low birth weights and still have high 600 day weights, so we began using them. On examining their data later, we found it was due to shortened gestation. This is quite an important economic characteristic. In the beef herds it makes the calving much more successful and brings the cow back in season earlier, and in the dairy industry, it gives them extra milking time.

Back to top Go down
PatB



Posts : 335
Join date : 2010-09-25
Age : 53
Location : Turner, Maine

PostSubject: Re: pinebank newsletter   Sat Apr 14, 2012 4:21 pm

april 2012

We are experiencing a superb Autumn after our non summer and it has been the best grass growing season that I have ever seen. Our country is usually very dry in the heat of summer and the clover disappears around Christmas But this year the clover has been in profusion all year.
Clovers being a legume add nitrogen to the soils, it is also very palatable and stock do very well on it. So there has been grass everywhere with the resulting effect on the stock.
This has not been general however as feed conditions have varied. In the dairy industry and due to summer storms the power has been off for milking and floods and damage have limited production. Nevertheless it has still been a record season for the dairy industry.

Back to the breeding programme
After about 20years, Dr Ch’ang advised us to move into the third stage. Which involved forming an Elite herd.
The most expensive part of beef production is weaning weight. Grass to cow, to milk, to calf. Too many variables! So we were going to set out to improve weaning weight.

It was decided that we should select the very best cows from each herd and combine them into an Elite herd.
This herd was formed to be the stud bull unit for the four base herds. We would select the best 12 bulls produced in the Elite. Each base herds would have three Elite bulls allocated to it each year. These bulls would have the same average performance levels. They would be a representative of the four base herd in each mob . Each base herd in addition would add its own best bull to its sire team.
So it would have its three Elite bulls and its own best bull in its sire team. The bulls used in the base herds were progeny tested. The winning four bulls became the sires in the Elite herd with a change of bulls made every year.
Past records were carried forward and all calves were weighed at birth as were all the Waigroup calves.

We then began to select the Elite cows from the base herds. These cows must have had at least three calves all above average in performance, and have never missed a calving.
We took 10 cows from each base herds giving us 40 cows in the elite herd in the beginning. All cows entering the Elite were in calf.
This herd was moved onto a separate farm so that its environment would be the same, with its own manager.
The Elite herd went under the name of Waigroup and this name was included after the stud name such as Pinebank Waigroup, Glanworth Waigroup etc in the Elite herd identification.

The first calving produced bull Waigroup 1/80. This bull was ahead of any other bull in his year and was the bull, when progeny tested in United States who created such a stir. There is no doubt that he was, and still is, a bull who was well ahead in all the important economic characters.
He was bred out of pure Pinebank stock and was conceived before his mother entered the Elite herd. He was bred as a dam bred sire , but his growth, was such as to put him in the top for growth of the bulls in the progeny test among which were the top bulls for growth in the States at that time. He also came out in the top 2% of bulls for carcase in America at that time.

In the American test a mob of commercial heifers were used which meant that none of the progeny could be used. I am sure that the Americans were quite confident of winning all the tests. Our bull was bred as a dam sire, so his contribution could have been considerable if the resulting heifers could have been used.

He went on to make an impact in Australia and New Zealand. To this day we retain semen from him and put him through our herds occasionally to check on our progress. He was out of the best cow I had bred up to that date.
Although today he is well behind in growth ,his cows still measure up very well. Remembering that the cows are well behind the bulls in generation turnover.

First calving of the Elite herd was in 1978 and it ran until 1986 when there was an economic crash in agriculture in New Zealand. The Elite herd was very expensive to administer. When the crash came it was unsustainable, we abandoned it, and the cows were returned to their owners, and the farm sold.

In hindsight there were some interesting analysis I could have used but at that time it was a case of survival.
It would have been interesting to see what impact the Elite herd had on weaning weight! It would have been interesting to see where the base herd’s top bulls measure up against the Elite sires!
Two questions that still require answers today!

Back to top Go down
PatB



Posts : 335
Join date : 2010-09-25
Age : 53
Location : Turner, Maine

PostSubject: Re: pinebank newsletter   Sat Aug 18, 2012 6:48 am

Winter is in the middle of its coldest and its wettest period, Grey. day after day, but although I have two lambs, both by mistake, lambing or calving has not begun in the sheep and beef herds yet. The dairy herds are in the middle of calving and I do not envy them calving in the mud For a number of years, when I first began with the stud herd, I went to all the dairy conferences. I thought they would know more about cows than I would ever know,as they lived with their cows. I also wished to gain knowledge of management problems like soil pugging of wet soils, and how they dealt with them.

Later I was put on the Livestock Improvement Association. a local collection of the dairy farmers in the local area. At this stage the dairy Industry was well ahead of the beef industry in research and cow identification. They had a very sophisticated progeny test scheme , managed by their own geneticist.

The government thought they could pull them both together , split the costs of running the herds and we could learn from each other and make general use of the geneticist. It was a complete disaster as the beef breeds fought all the time and could not agree and suspected that the dairy scientists would grab the best beef bulls not telling the beef breeder which were their best bulls, and sell semen world wide. An unfortunate figure of their imagination.

During this period I was on a National Beef Committee and was leading the commercial producers and spent all my time dealing with the various breed societies.

As you know I consider that the paper from Trangie Research Centre which I published last month was the most important finding of beef research that has been discovered in the last 20 years. This of course does not include the gene identication of various characteristics on the DNA.

It tells us that there is as much improvement available in the cow as there is in bull selection. It shows that it is possible to breed cows that eat less drymatter per kilo of calf weaned.

Actually it does not tell us that. But does show that there is a difference between cow’s food intake and that the most efficient cows can eat less without affecting their growth, condition, or metabolism.

What it does not show is whether the most efficient cows have the best calves or where the calves lie in the high efficiency, control and low efficiency lines. This is of course of vital importance. It is no use us breeding a very efficient line of cows if their calve’s are rubbish and I wonder whether you lose variation as a cost.

It would be interesting to take out the top calves at weaning and see if they came from the most efficient cows. This unfortunately would require taking out those cows and converting them to a hard ration diet and then shutting them up and measuring their intake. You would have to do the same with the worst readed calves the difference would be most interesting.

It is interesting to note that in our own herd of cows, the continued selection of our own bulls, which must have come out of our best cows, have succeeded in giving us cows that get in calf in lower condition, and weaning weights appear to be slowly rising while the calving percentage remains the same. The last four years of drought have really tested the cows and I have been very impressed with how they have coped.

It is clear that there is still much to learn about practical beef production but as very little of today’s knowledge is used in cattle breeding then I suppose that the finer points hardly warrant looking at them in research.

Last month 500 breeders read my Newsletters. They are prepared after much thought on subjects that I thing will interest you and perhaps even help a little when you are wondering where to go from where you are at. It should be clear that I am not happy about where the stud breeding industry is. Tomorrow brings the ability to select single characteristic with greater accuracy, and I fear that breeders will wildly rush for one character after another with disastrous affect on phenotype.

If these affects could become as bad as I suspect they could then they could be very difficult to correct.

Breed societies were set up in the beginning whose total job to insure the purity of the breed. The president told me when I first joined the Council…… always remember that while you sit on this council you must always do what is best for the breed. You must forget your own cattle.
I can only hope that this remains today ! I must say that I am concerned for the future but then old men always are.

Back to top Go down
MKeeney
Admin


Posts : 3816
Join date : 2010-09-21

PostSubject: Re: pinebank newsletter   Sat Aug 18, 2012 8:02 am

Quote :
It tells us that there is as much improvement available in the cow as there is in bull selection. It shows that it is possible to breed cows that eat less drymatter per kilo of calf weaned.

Actually it does not tell us that. But does show that there is a difference between cow’s food intake and that the most efficient cows can eat less without affecting their growth, condition, or metabolism.

Too much wondering or is it wandering ...in the wilderness...the truline system creates efficiency IMMEDIATELY and CONSISTENTLY
Back to top Go down
http://www.keeneyscorner.com
PatB



Posts : 335
Join date : 2010-09-25
Age : 53
Location : Turner, Maine

PostSubject: Re: pinebank newsletter   Sat Sep 15, 2012 8:09 am

september 2012

Spring is hurrying on apace weather is warming and the grass is beginning to grow. There are lambs everywhere and calves are beginning to appear. Up to now there have been no servere storms and so lamb and calf survival has been very good. Long may it last! It did not last, cold fronts are coming through all the time. Gale force westerly winds and ,which is unusual for us, often with rain. Stock losses appear to be light at this stage

Dairy prices are slowly rising but still have some way to go to reach the heights of two years ago. Wool prices rose slightly last month but still have some way to go to be economic. If wool were to be discovered today it would be the miracle fibre of all time. The oil industry has spent a lot of money trying to duplicate the qualities of wool, you would have thought it would have been better just to use wool, but that just demonstrates again the stupidity of man.

Meat prices for sheep and beef are very unsettled and at this stage it is hard to predict what will happen in the year ahead. Proteins are basically very short in the world so prices should rise but with the financial problem , anything can happen. Our dollar is beginning to climb again from an already high level.

Quote:’ There is enough known about the soils of the world to feed any number of people, The problem iss not the production, it is distribution.

Before we began the present breeding programme I considered the commercial breeding herds of angus cattle to be superior in relation to the so called stud herds. It occurred to me that there was very little difference and in fact the commercial herd could be better. In some cases very large herds often purchased the very best bulls from the stud herds some of them buying 10 or more bulls per year. Those stud herds were contributing the very best bulls from their best cows and they were being used commercially. What would be the result if the very best commercial herd were screened and the resulting bulls used?

It came about that, a local farmer got a group of cattle breeders with large herds together and suggested that he would screen all their cows taking the best 10 cows from each herd based on the observed weaning weight of their calves . The farmer would get them in calf to the best stud bull he could find then each contributing breeder would pick one bull The pickers would rotate who would get first pick. The theory was most interesting and caused some excitement among the scientists at Massey University when it was bought up at a beef conference that year.

The herd was set up the following year and consisted of 300 cows so there were 30 contributing herd owners. I could see some problems as the selected cows would not necessarily have the best calves next year in fact I had shown that weaning weights in cows had a very low repeatability. A cow that weaned a high weight of calf was unlikely to do the same the next year. This was of course caused by the randomised gene selection at conception, but at this time we put it down to the draining of the cows milk in that year. Weaning weight being considered a feture of the cows milk production at that time.

One of the advantages of having a carefully recorded herd over a long period and the mass of data collected was that we could back screen, set up cows as if they had been screened and then project them forward looking at their production to see what happened. In my data I demonstrated that they could have just as well bought a random mob of cows from the sale yards and they would have been in the same position! I took my data to the scientists who examined it with interest and kept it for three weeks while they did some of their sophisticated maths over them but did not change my findings.

The theory of this system was interesting and challenging and in this case it failed, This was due to poor administration and management and ended long before it had the time to make any progress. I think a similar method used in sheep- breeding was very successful. The sheep industry went from under 100% lambing in the 1940’s to getting up too 200% now.
It seems to be true that breeders will move sheep production around persuing economic requirements, but not cattle. Often the same breeder will have sheep and cattle studs and be using one method on sheep successfully and another system on cattle without success. The size of the animal seems to affect them.
Moving animals genetically is not easy and requires concentrated selection over a long period of time and both sire and dam must be pressured.
Back to top Go down
Kent Powell



Posts : 443
Join date : 2010-09-24
Location : SW Kansas

PostSubject: Re: pinebank newsletter   Sat Sep 15, 2012 11:16 am


Best? Screened for what? According to who? What basis? For what purpose? The fad of the day? To produce cows? To CHANGE a population or to make it more the same? Seedless or seedstock? Production or reproduction? Marketability or replication? If a randomization of the best is not superior to a mere random base, what good was the last 200 years of using the best with all the carefully documented records? As a casual, yet I believe at least averagely informed observer of the EPD system as currently used, superiority seems found in the most diverse combinations of the very Best (defined as the highest levels) in multiple traits. This is all good since they avoid that evil single trait selection we have been tought to avoid. (Bipartisan terminality) Am I now being led to believe that this wonder of the scientific breeding world built on painstakingly collected data is not an improvement over random selection without data?

What is the cost of increasing lambing from 100% to 200%? If it is 100%, is that improvement in overall production efficiency or merely improvement in a specific measure? Is more production from an equal increase in inputs an improvement? Only if the value of your inputs + labor is less than the value of your production. I am confident that my cattle possess the genetic ability to wean at 200% of their current weights. We can raise our 400-500 pound weaning calves to 700 pounds pretty easily if we creep feed. It can also pretty easily double our annual feed costs. I have weaned a calf with a 849 pound adjusted weaning weight. 149 pounds above the 700 pound average @ 205 days. He was compensated accordingly in the EPD system, and his calves also had superior growth. This would seem to be improvement. I don't see it as an improvement now because he stood at a creep feeder and his mother would come to the feeder when she wanted him to suck rather than him finding her. I thought I had a world beater at the time. The feeder wasn't a place visited when the herd went to water like the other calves. It became his home. I know, what does a specific example have to do with the Scientific application of population genetics? Well, If this individual is selected as the progenator of a population and the same selection criteria is followed, shouldn't the cattle tend more toward his behavior? Isn't that the point? Is this selection pressure or a relief valve of propping up what could be a tendency against a behavior I prefer in my cattle? There is no EPD for my preferances. If there were, based on past experience, I would likely question my preferance as too simplistic or irrelevant.

There is enough known about the soils of the world to feed any number of people, The problem is not the production, it is the politics and the direction of feeding the plant, not the soil and making the soil's only purpose to anchor the roots until we can get another way funded.

Wanna know how to cause excitement among scientists? Question Evolution!!!! Question public funding!!!! At some point creativity, open mindedness, and excitement over new discoveries have been replaced with an obsession with maintaining the Quo and shaping societal opinions through internalized theory. What is Scientific about theory perpetuated through public funding? Isn't that just subsidized religion? The whole freaking world is about to burn because of a subsidized religion.



Back to top Go down
http://powellangus.com
MKeeney
Admin


Posts : 3816
Join date : 2010-09-21

PostSubject: Re: pinebank newsletter   Sat Sep 15, 2012 9:02 pm

Kent Powell wrote:

Best? Screened for what? According to who? What basis? For what purpose? The fad of the day? To produce cows? To CHANGE a population or to make it more the same? Seedless or seedstock? Production or reproduction? Marketability or replication? If a randomization of the best is not superior to a mere random base, what good was the last 200 years of using the best with all the carefully documented records? As a casual, yet I believe at least averagely informed observer of the EPD system as currently used, superiority seems found in the most diverse combinations of the very Best (defined as the highest levels) in multiple traits. This is all good since they avoid that evil single trait selection we have been tought to avoid. (Bipartisan terminality) Am I now being led to believe that this wonder of the scientific breeding world built on painstakingly collected data is not an improvement over random selection without data?

What is the cost of increasing lambing from 100% to 200%? If it is 100%, is that improvement in overall production efficiency or merely improvement in a specific measure? Is more production from an equal increase in inputs an improvement? Only if the value of your inputs + labor is less than the value of your production. I am confident that my cattle possess the genetic ability to wean at 200% of their current weights. We can raise our 400-500 pound weaning calves to 700 pounds pretty easily if we creep feed. It can also pretty easily double our annual feed costs. I have weaned a calf with a 849 pound adjusted weaning weight. 149 pounds above the 700 pound average @ 205 days. He was compensated accordingly in the EPD system, and his calves also had superior growth. This would seem to be improvement. I don't see it as an improvement now because he stood at a creep feeder and his mother would come to the feeder when she wanted him to suck rather than him finding her. I thought I had a world beater at the time. The feeder wasn't a place visited when the herd went to water like the other calves. It became his home. I know, what does a specific example have to do with the Scientific application of population genetics? Well, If this individual is selected as the progenator of a population and the same selection criteria is followed, shouldn't the cattle tend more toward his behavior? Isn't that the point? Is this selection pressure or a relief valve of propping up what could be a tendency against a behavior I prefer in my cattle? There is no EPD for my preferances. If there were, based on past experience, I would likely question my preferance as too simplistic or irrelevant.

There is enough known about the soils of the world to feed any number of people, The problem is not the production, it is the politics and the direction of feeding the plant, not the soil and making the soil's only purpose to anchor the roots until we can get another way funded.

Wanna know how to cause excitement among scientists? Question Evolution!!!! Question public funding!!!! At some point creativity, open mindedness, and excitement over new discoveries have been replaced with an obsession with maintaining the Quo and shaping societal opinions through internalized theory. What is Scientific about theory perpetuated through public funding? Isn't that just subsidized religion? The whole freaking world is about to burn because of a subsidized religion.



sorry I put up a snipping post on another thread that might hide this from getting read by everyone...I thought I might just be getting old and crouchy, but since a young man wrote the above, I think I have just finally gotten smarter...what a farce the entire "cattle improvement" scenario is...

from an advantage sale manager...
In my travels this summer it would appear there are more people that are using Herdsires in hopes of solidifying consistency with the intent of posturing some uniformity

posturing
Verb:
1.Behave in a way that is intended to impress or mislead others.
2.Adopt (an attitude) to impress or mislead

the registered business in the three words...posture, posture, posture


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



Posts : 660
Join date : 2010-09-27
Location : Belmont, Manitoba, Canada

PostSubject: Re: pinebank newsletter   Sat Sep 15, 2012 10:42 pm

One thing I know from experience - its pretty easy to manipulate sheep performance dramatically through management without any great genetic improvement or selection criteria. Not so easy with cattle.
Back to top Go down
http://www.luingcattle.com
EddieM



Posts : 634
Join date : 2010-09-24
Location : South Carolina

PostSubject: Re: pinebank newsletter   Sun Sep 16, 2012 4:36 pm

PatB wrote:
september 2012

Spring is hurrying on apace weather is warming and the grass is beginning to grow. There are lambs everywhere and calves are beginning to appear. Up to now there have been no servere storms and so lamb and calf survival has been very good. Long may it last! It did not last, cold fronts are coming through all the time. Gale force westerly winds and ,which is unusual for us, often with rain. Stock losses appear to be light at this stage

Dairy prices are slowly rising but still have some way to go to reach the heights of two years ago. Wool prices rose slightly last month but still have some way to go to be economic. If wool were to be discovered today it would be the miracle fibre of all time. The oil industry has spent a lot of money trying to duplicate the qualities of wool, you would have thought it would have been better just to use wool, but that just demonstrates again the stupidity of man.

Meat prices for sheep and beef are very unsettled and at this stage it is hard to predict what will happen in the year ahead. Proteins are basically very short in the world so prices should rise but with the financial problem , anything can happen. Our dollar is beginning to climb again from an already high level.

Quote:’ There is enough known about the soils of the world to feed any number of people, The problem iss not the production, it is distribution.

Before we began the present breeding programme I considered the commercial breeding herds of angus cattle to be superior in relation to the so called stud herds. It occurred to me that there was very little difference and in fact the commercial herd could be better. In some cases very large herds often purchased the very best bulls from the stud herds some of them buying 10 or more bulls per year. Those stud herds were contributing the very best bulls from their best cows and they were being used commercially. What would be the result if the very best commercial herd were screened and the resulting bulls used?

Results = terminal type cattle based on the constant use of top end growth bulls for weaning weights without a study.

It came about that, a local farmer got a group of cattle breeders with large herds together and suggested that he would screen all their cows taking the best 10 cows from each herd based on the observed weaning weight of their calves . The farmer would get them in calf to the best stud bull he could find then each contributing breeder would pick one bull The pickers would rotate who would get first pick. The theory was most interesting and caused some excitement among the scientists at Massey University when it was bought up at a beef conference that year.

The herd was set up the following year and consisted of 300 cows so there were 30 contributing herd owners. I could see some problems as the selected cows would not necessarily have the best calves next year in fact I had shown that weaning weights in cows had a very low repeatability. A cow that weaned a high weight of calf was unlikely to do the same the next year. This was of course caused by the randomised gene selection at conception, but at this time we put it down to the draining of the cows milk in that year. Weaning weight being considered a feture of the cows milk production at that time.

So if the cows were already inconsistant in production, then if they were breeding back, they were already over milking due to too large of WW in their calves. Why push them more?

One of the advantages of having a carefully recorded herd over a long period and the mass of data collected was that we could back screen, set up cows as if they had been screened and then project them forward looking at their production to see what happened. In my data I demonstrated that they could have just as well bought a random mob of cows from the sale yards and they would have been in the same position! I took my data to the scientists who examined it with interest and kept it for three weeks while they did some of their sophisticated maths over them but did not change my findings.

They were a random mob.

The theory of this system was interesting and challenging and in this case it failed, This was due to poor administration and management and ended long before it had the time to make any progress. I think a similar method used in sheep- breeding was very successful. The sheep industry went from under 100% lambing in the 1940’s to getting up too 200% now.

This is only lamb numbers and not 200% increase in combined weight of lambs at weaning. So it is not 200% more profit. The only comparative is if you want a lot of twin calves.

It seems to be true that breeders will move sheep production around persuing economic requirements, but not cattle. Often the same breeder will have sheep and cattle studs and be using one method on sheep successfully and another system on cattle without success. The size of the animal seems to affect them.

Different species. Should we compare cattle to race horses, too?

Moving animals genetically is not easy and requires concentrated selection over a long period of time and both sire and dam must be pressured.

Pat, how many Pinebank influenced cattle do you own? How are they doing for you?
Back to top Go down
PatB



Posts : 335
Join date : 2010-09-25
Age : 53
Location : Turner, Maine

PostSubject: Re: pinebank newsletter   Sun Sep 16, 2012 6:36 pm

eddiem I own no pinebank cattle and have no plans of acquiring any in the near future. The newsletter can generate some interesting post. Very Happy Very Happy
Back to top Go down
Sponsored content




PostSubject: Re: pinebank newsletter   

Back to top Go down
 
pinebank newsletter
Back to top 
Page 5 of 6Go to page : Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next
 Similar topics
-
» pinebank/waigroup newsletter
» Pinebank North America
» Reflections Condensed

Permissions in this forum:You cannot reply to topics in this forum
Keeney`s Corner :: Breeding Philosophies :: Breeding Philosophies-
Jump to: