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   Wed May 11, 2011 3:42 am

14 years after the birth of 41/97 who is 65 lb on yearling wt, 17 Pinebank bulls exceed him in yearling wt...an "outlier" at 74 lb, the other 16 at 66 to 71 lb...
I would contend that I could randomly pick any bull from the Pinebank calf crop and have about the same chance of reproducing the net effect of the herd for those traits measured by weight...
Back to top Go down
http://www.keeneyscorner.com
larkota



Posts : 294
Join date : 2010-09-23
Age : 57
Location : Kimball South Dakota

PostSubject: Re: pinebank newsletter   Wed May 11, 2011 8:44 am

MKeeney wrote:
14 years after the birth of 41/97 who is 65 lb on yearling wt, 17 Pinebank bulls exceed him in yearling wt...an "outlier" at 74 lb, the other 16 at 66 to 71 lb...
I would contend that I could randomly pick any bull from the Pinebank calf crop and have about the same chance of reproducing the net effect of the herd for those traits measured by weight...

would this also be true of the Wye program? just wondering here but if about the same chance of reproducing the net effect of the herd why do we spend more on some and less on others? is this because we are always looking for the outlier? and happy when it turns out average?
Back to top Go down
df



Posts : 521
Join date : 2010-09-28

PostSubject: Re: pinebank newsletter   Wed May 11, 2011 12:30 pm

MKeeney wrote:
14 years after the birth of 41/97 who is 65 lb on yearling wt, 17 Pinebank bulls exceed him in yearling wt...an "outlier" at 74 lb, the other 16 at 66 to 71 lb...
I would contend that I could randomly pick any bull from the Pinebank calf crop and have about the same chance of reproducing the net effect of the herd for those traits measured by weight...

Are these proven EPDs?

Do they only have 18 bulls? Are there other bulls produced in their herd that fall significantly below or above the range of the 18 you have mentioned?
Back to top Go down
MKeeney
Admin


Posts : 3816
Join date : 2010-09-21

PostSubject: Re: pinebank newsletter   Wed May 11, 2011 2:44 pm

df wrote:
MKeeney wrote:
14 years after the birth of 41/97 who is 65 lb on yearling wt, 17 Pinebank bulls exceed him in yearling wt...an "outlier" at 74 lb, the other 16 at 66 to 71 lb...
I would contend that I could randomly pick any bull from the Pinebank calf crop and have about the same chance of reproducing the net effect of the herd for those traits measured by weight...

Are these proven EPDs?

Do they only have 18 bulls? Are there other bulls produced in their herd that fall significantly below or above the range of the 18 you have mentioned?

no, no, they have many many cattle; maybe 400 cows at Pinebank alone...my point is the selection direction has produced 17 bulls in 14 years with more yearling weight than 41/97; and even the difference of the 17 is negligible...not many , when variation is the goal to create selection differential...
Back to top Go down
http://www.keeneyscorner.com
EddieM



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

PostSubject: Re: pinebank newsletter   Thu May 12, 2011 9:54 am

Quote :
let`s take a little DNA scientific tangent here...with capital letter worth 5 and lower case worth 3 for additive traits for yearling weight...
AaBbCcDdEeFf =48 lbs
AAbbCCddEEff =48 lbs

which bull will have the most actual YEARLING WEIGHT if everything else is the same but the genetic arrangement for yearling wt?

I'm out of my league, but wouldn't it be important to know if the paired genes are related to YW?
Back to top Go down
EddieM



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

PostSubject: Re: pinebank newsletter   Thu May 12, 2011 9:55 am

Quote :
would this also be true of the Wye program?

Are they really inbred and/or linebred?
Back to top Go down
MKeeney
Admin


Posts : 3816
Join date : 2010-09-21

PostSubject: Re: pinebank newsletter   Thu May 12, 2011 10:51 am

EddieM wrote:
Quote :
let`s take a little DNA scientific tangent here...with capital letter worth 5 and lower case worth 3 for additive traits for yearling weight...
AaBbCcDdEeFf =48 lbs
AAbbCCddEEff =48 lbs

which bull will have the most actual YEARLING WEIGHT if everything else is the same but the genetic arrangement for yearling wt?

I'm out of my league, but wouldn't it be important to know if the paired genes are related to YW?
imperative to know; but since we don`t, I assumed it Smile
Back to top Go down
http://www.keeneyscorner.com
df



Posts : 521
Join date : 2010-09-28

PostSubject: Re: pinebank newsletter   Thu May 12, 2011 8:35 pm

MKeeney wrote:
EddieM wrote:
Quote :
let`s take a little DNA scientific tangent here...with capital letter worth 5 and lower case worth 3 for additive traits for yearling weight...
AaBbCcDdEeFf =48 lbs
AAbbCCddEEff =48 lbs

which bull will have the most actual YEARLING WEIGHT if everything else is the same but the genetic arrangement for yearling wt?

I'm out of my league, but wouldn't it be important to know if the paired genes are related to YW?
imperative to know; but since we don`t, I assumed it Smile

Do the capital letters and small letters have an equal effect? For example is the A = +5 and a = -5?
Back to top Go down
Tom D
Admin


Posts : 443
Join date : 2010-09-25
Age : 39
Location : Michigan

PostSubject: Re: pinebank newsletter   Thu May 12, 2011 8:58 pm

MKeeney wrote:
df, others...
let`s take a little DNA scientific tangent here...with capital letter worth 5 and lower case worth 3 for additive traits for yearling weight...

pay attention teach.
Back to top Go down
Guest
Guest



PostSubject: Re: pinebank newsletter   Thu May 12, 2011 9:27 pm

To the Distinguished Gentleman of UP, Tom, your an inadequate teacher of teachers. You should have explained the difference between capital or Upper Case, and lower case. All of which should not be confused with capitol, such as the capitol is where the governor of the state of confusion, resides. Please make a better effort for higher learning next time. It is our responcibility to be upstanding and forthright in our endeavors here.


Signed,

the teachers aide
Back to top Go down
Tom D
Admin


Posts : 443
Join date : 2010-09-25
Age : 39
Location : Michigan

PostSubject: Re: pinebank newsletter   Thu May 12, 2011 9:44 pm

I don't know what you did with that money my folks sent you for them dogs, but you sure didn't spend it on grammar and vocabulary classes. I may be inadequate, but your irresponcible. You have possessive problems with yourself and the teacher(s). That's why you have to stick around for summer school, while most of the other students have apparently gone on vacation.
Back to top Go down
Guest
Guest



PostSubject: Re: pinebank newsletter   Thu May 12, 2011 9:52 pm

You are right Tom, I always recieved good marks for content, poor grades for for for for grammar. My cop out is, my mind works faster than the fingers do. I can read and interpret though, and recieved upper percentile rankings for for for for Reading Comprehension. Does this make me rare and valuable? I think so. Very Happy
Back to top Go down
Tom D
Admin


Posts : 443
Join date : 2010-09-25
Age : 39
Location : Michigan

PostSubject: Re: pinebank newsletter   Thu May 12, 2011 10:00 pm

i before e, except after c
Back to top Go down
Guest
Guest



PostSubject: Re: pinebank newsletter   Thu May 12, 2011 10:14 pm

It'll never happen Tom.
Back to top Go down
df



Posts : 521
Join date : 2010-09-28

PostSubject: Re: pinebank newsletter   Fri May 13, 2011 7:04 am

Tom D wrote:
MKeeney wrote:
df, others...
let`s take a little DNA scientific tangent here...with capital letter worth 5 and lower case worth 3 for additive traits for yearling weight...

pay attention teach.

I know MKeeney used A=5 and a=3 but is that really the way the biology works? I am not questioning his conclusion of the phenotype of the hetero vs homo.

Back to top Go down
EddieM



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

PostSubject: Re: pinebank newsletter   Fri May 13, 2011 11:18 am

Quote :
Does this make me rare and valuable? I think so

What is your IBC?. Then I can give you an answer, ..., well, maybe!
Back to top Go down
MKeeney
Admin


Posts : 3816
Join date : 2010-09-21

PostSubject: Re: pinebank newsletter   Sat May 14, 2011 2:26 am

df wrote:
Tom D wrote:
MKeeney wrote:
df, others...
let`s take a little DNA scientific tangent here...with capital letter worth 5 and lower case worth 3 for additive traits for yearling weight...

pay attention teach.

I know MKeeney used A=5 and a=3 but is that really the way the biology works? I am not questioning his conclusion of the phenotype of the hetero vs homo.

that`s a simple quantative genetics example...strung across thousands of loci...unless, of course, I`m wrong Smile
Back to top Go down
http://www.keeneyscorner.com
MKeeney
Admin


Posts : 3816
Join date : 2010-09-21

PostSubject: from Gavin Falloon   Sat May 14, 2011 2:58 am

speaking of wrong, I am posting a few answers from Gavin Falloon correspondence...I hope you draw the same conclusions that has lead me to admire his breeding efforts so immensely...like Larry, he keeps searching for truth....

Mike

I am afraid that I do not understand the question. I do not think that DNA identification would tell you anything. I do not think that even molecular gene structure would be any help. Most if not all complex biological structures are control by clusters of many genes. My understanding is that the sire has a big affect on birth weight and gestation length. Certainly we control both from the sire. I have seen no work in an attempt to identify dam affect on either or both of calve size or anything.



Larry that is what I mean but your confusion is justified and I can only believe that the genes in one cow would not be the same in another cow, thus limiting inbreeding levels. You must have understood by now our efforts are mainly used tp limit inbreeding levels. You can get to the level that disguises any progess and maybe overtime would block any progress. Do not forget that we are in this for the long haul and hopefully well after the next generation of breeder..



There were a number of early feed intake experiments done some years back. Apparently they were disregarded because the cows food intake was deemed to be too inaccurate. I shall look up the Trangie experiment but I remember being very impressed about how they measure food intake.

Weaning weight were deemed to be largely a factor of milk production in the dam, now it is known to be 80% of the calves ability to grow during the period and only 20% milk. What is also known is that high milk production in cows is antagonistic to fertility.



Larry If you could just scan the best of those photos from LeRoy that would be great and you can show the rest of the photos to whoever you wish

I know that I have not answered all your questions, so if you reiterate them I shall have another go.

regards

Gavin.


Larry

Certainly if you select your best calve it will be your most efficient converter. Efficiency has a heritability of 40% which is almost as high as growth and we all know what we can do by selecting for growth.. I would imagine that everyone would do heifer selection this way anyway, so your efficiency would be slowly rising anyway.. Best to just scan the photos if you can and that would be great. You can post them or do with them what you wish. I mean to show your forum. It will be interesting for Ranchers overthere to see just how different our environment is and the type of grazing that our cattle do to clean up hill country for sheep. They are very much a working animal.

Regards

Gavin


Mike and Larry

I am wrong wrong wrong they can and do use DNA to identify Quantified genetic characteristics. Which of course raises Larrys point. Why when we are selecting for say efficiency are we not getting into inbreeding problems by bringing in the same set of genes????? And the answer is that I do not know. It would seem logical. Makes me wonder how many other things that I have got wrong and I would be better to keep my mouth shut!!!. The only thing from my point of view is that every scientist that we have had here has told me that “doing what you are doing you will never ever had an inbreeding problem” and now cannot understand why. I have just been back into my research papers and I am getting too old to keep going back into research but thank goodness I found out about that error on my part.

Sooy

Regards

Gavin.


Mike

As per usual I cannot get into your KC. . But shall try and answer some of the questions. The cow that I was referring too was not 86/96 but was 72/74 which among others was the dam of the bull that Henry Gardner tested and whose data that your Angus ass. will not release. This cow in her first 4 calves were all 25% . In other words she had reared an extra calf in four yars. She produced the first calf every year for her 14 years. She had all bulls except for 2 heifer calves. We use every one of her bulls as a sire by someone in the group. The two heifers failed to conceive as yearlings and so were culled. How good was the cow.



We had an outliner bull some years ago who was miles out in front and when I say miles he was just that. NZ had a simple recording system at that time, which refused to adjust the bull saying that there must be an error. When I looked at the figure I agreed he was gaining at something like 3 kilos a day. We observed the bull very closely to see if spent more time grazing then his contemporise but when the other bulls lay under the tree so did he. We bought him back in after a week and he had continue to grow at 3 kilos per day. We used him but he came up with a recessive and so destroyed all his progeny. But the Govt bought him and as soon as I knew about the recessive I rang them and told them and said that I would take the bull back and destroy him. They said that with all their scientists they could handle any recessive and they wished to keep him. Now my point is this that bull spent no more time grazing. He could not munch 3 times faster then any other bull. I have no trouble accepting that some cows are more efficient than others. If Trangie tell me that the top cows in there standed group were eating much less food per day per lb of calf weaned and that its heretabiliy is 40% I am all on for it.

Sorry about rambling on but with the error that I made over the DNA perhaps you had better take it with a grain of salt

Gavin


MK reply to Gavin

Gavin,
this is just excellent , honest information you are sharing and I appreciate it so much when you say you could be wrong, so refreshing to correspond with a breeder who isn`t afraid to say I don`t know why !... fact is, nature shows we all can be wrong most any time...I want to encourage a few young breeders I know to set long term goals, instead of following the mainstream circus that is always the attention getter here in the US...New Zealand too, I`m sure...a facet of human nature; not cattle genetics...
Thanks again for helping us in the search for better understanding of what we do, mk


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



Posts : 71
Join date : 2010-11-17
Age : 65
Location : Goessel, Kansas

PostSubject: Re: pinebank newsletter   Sat May 14, 2011 7:22 am

Excellent.

I believe a major impediment to making improvements in our cattle is that it is simply so enjoyable (the raising part) that we loose all focus and sensibility and stop paying attention to the empirical evidence that is staring us in the face...well, that and the prevailing stupidity and ignorance we naturally wallow in-see the Advantage board for exhibits A through a gazillion. I am concerned (here) with the correlation being made between efficiency and growth performance. In my first reading just now they were implied to be virtually the same thing. However, since we know that simply selecting for growth performance brings on another whole set of problems that runs amuck with optimal, profitability...I must take issue with drawing such a parallel. If it is going to be argued that efficiency and growth are one and the same it seems to me as though such a pursuit would have us, once again, chasing our tails. It has been clearly demonstrated over the past several decades of my lifetime that the continual selection for and use of our top-performing outliers is not the answer to life's most persistent questions. The fact is, even if we are paying close attention, the genome is much more complicated than we are able to handle.

Personally: I have a 40% IBC calf (according to the AAA formula) out there in my pasture who is wonderfully growthy and eye-appealing-to me...from my first-priority female line. I think I should keep "pushing the envelope" with the inbreeding/line-breeding of this female line. But what should I use to inform me in this regard? To my knowledge, the seven generations of females, behind this calf that I have known in my lifetime, have always calved at the beginning of the crop, have always weaned near the top of the crop and have never lost a calf or come up open. Do I keep drawing from this well and only use bulls from this line back onto the herd? What defines "progress" here?
Back to top Go down
MKeeney
Admin


Posts : 3816
Join date : 2010-09-21

PostSubject: Re: pinebank newsletter   Sat May 14, 2011 7:38 am

there was mention on some thread about those who "can`t see"...most don`t want to see; they want to "sell"...in cattle breeding, blindness and ignorance can both be bliss...
Each breeder must define what is " herd progress" dependent upon objectives...
yes, I too , question the correlation between efficiency and growth as defined by Gavin so far...I`m sure it`s not that simple; even more sure that Gavin knows that...the devil is in explaining the details...
would enjoy having you in Red Lodge Warren; you have a cattle breeders instead of a marketers approach, and Red Lodge will be the greatest gathering of such in the history of cattle breeding...we fully expect double digit numbers to show up Smile
Back to top Go down
http://www.keeneyscorner.com
df



Posts : 521
Join date : 2010-09-28

PostSubject: Re: pinebank newsletter   Sat May 14, 2011 9:05 am

Did the bull that had a ADG of 3 kgs, which is 6.6 lbs, have progeny that excelled over the progeny of other sires? How much of this superiority was genetic?
Back to top Go down
Tom D
Admin


Posts : 443
Join date : 2010-09-25
Age : 39
Location : Michigan

PostSubject: Re: pinebank newsletter   Sun May 15, 2011 9:52 am

Very Happy


Last edited by Tom D on Mon May 16, 2011 7:51 am; edited 1 time in total
Back to top Go down
MKeeney
Admin


Posts : 3816
Join date : 2010-09-21

PostSubject: Re: pinebank newsletter   Mon May 16, 2011 7:34 am

I did a split here this morning; I hope it worked; I think the rest of the post are under Crossbreeding 2...my bad for taking this on a different course from Pat`s beginning; now we can get back on track...in the meanwhile, Gavin has posted his May newsletter giving a lot of information on the beginnings of the herd and it`s 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 May 16, 2011 10:47 am

outsidethebox wrote:
To my knowledge, the seven generations of females, behind this calf that I have known in my lifetime, have always calved at the beginning of the crop, have always weaned near the top of the crop and have never lost a calf or come up open. Do I keep drawing from this well and only use bulls from this line back onto the herd? What defines "progress" here?
When is 'good' good enough?
The only way I see to make "progress" on that line of cows, is to make more of them!

Is a bull that gains 6 lbs/day "superior" or a mutation?

Do we need to make 'good' better?
Or do we need to make 'good' repeatable?
Back to top Go down
PatB



Posts : 335
Join date : 2010-09-25
Age : 54
Location : Turner, Maine

PostSubject: Re: pinebank newsletter   Mon May 16, 2011 1:00 pm

Gavin's newsletter is an interesting read.
Back to top Go down
Sponsored content




PostSubject: Re: pinebank newsletter   

Back to top Go down
 
pinebank newsletter
Back to top 
Page 2 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: