Keeney`s Corner

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

Share | 
 

 Black and White

View previous topic View next topic Go down 
Go to page : Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
AuthorMessage
EddieM



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

PostSubject: Re: Black and White    Mon Feb 20, 2017 12:14 pm

Bob H wrote:
It looks fairly simple you put the boys with the girls and get the little ones with out much stress on the owner.  Bob H
That was easy. cheers No wonder there are so many good herds of cattle and livestock. All we need is males and females.
Back to top Go down
Mean Spirit



Posts : 321
Join date : 2010-09-26

PostSubject: Re: Black and White    Tue Feb 21, 2017 1:38 pm

Where are you on those white bulls Craig? They aren't the first generation are they?
Back to top Go down
Hilly



Posts : 406
Join date : 2010-09-24
Location : Sylvan Lake, Alberta

PostSubject: Re: Black and White    Tue Feb 21, 2017 7:31 pm

The bulls in the video are the original first generation flush brothers, I started with five and I'm down to three. Of course my favourite of the five broke his leg in a bull fight in early 2016 and I sold the only horned bull in late 2015 just due to horns and the fact that I had younger generation bulls to replace him.

I have three younger generation bulls from the closed population working.
Back to top Go down
Bob H



Posts : 372
Join date : 2011-02-17
Location : SW Idaho

PostSubject: Re: Black and White    Wed Feb 22, 2017 6:09 am

I should have said put the right line bred inbred parent boys with the right line bred inbred girls and you will get what you want. The reason that there are not enough great cow herds is humans think that they can do what ever they want and have good cows and not do as Mike is describing in his Keeney Sale site. Bob H
Back to top Go down
EddieM



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

PostSubject: Re: Black and White    Wed Feb 22, 2017 9:17 am

Bob H wrote:
I should have said put the right line bred  inbred parent boys with the right line bred inbred girls and you will get what you want. The reason that there are not enough great cow herds is humans think that they can do what ever they want and have good cows and not do as Mike is describing  in his Keeney Sale site. Bob H
Amen, brother, pass the plate.

Not only does finding the inbred line(s) take time (if it /they exist) , it takes experiences with a lot of other trys and trials to personally figure out that the line crosses, the right environmental fits or properly bred animals are of more value than the others that failed. So give 20 or 30 years to the effort if you stick around, try a number of options, maybe the blind hog finally finds an acorn or two and things then seem easier. But I do not think of them as easy, merely reasonable. Because as soon as you are set to go you have to market the product to folks who are 10, 20 or 30 years behind you. They can see but they need to experience. When the marketing is finally working, when the buyers want the product, when the repeat sales work out or the "send me another bull" type sales come along they are the culmination of a lot of non-easy efforts and costs.

The work of others, like Larry, make it easier for us to buy in and go full steam ahead if we have our heads put on straight. But it is not overall, easy. If it was, why, everybody would already be doing it and it would be more readily acceptable.
Back to top Go down
Bob H



Posts : 372
Join date : 2011-02-17
Location : SW Idaho

PostSubject: Re: Black and White    Wed Feb 22, 2017 11:08 am

I am not sure that I agree with what you wrote. The reason that we go to the point that we are at is because of necessity in the Commercial cattle business and have a small supply of bulls that we sell because we have an over supply. Trying to develop a seed stock business from the bull side is not my thing and you only need one bull to 25 cows. So why would you not focus on commercial cattle and sell your surplus into the seed stock business. If they do not work for you they can always be meat as they butcher 110 thousand hd of cattle a day. And I am very thankful that Larry and Mike have done all of that work but the wheel does not need to be reinvented it just needs grease and use.

Bob H
Back to top Go down
EddieM



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

PostSubject: Re: Black and White    Wed Feb 22, 2017 4:56 pm

Bob H wrote:
I am not sure that I agree with what you wrote. The reason that we go to the point that we are at is because of necessity in the Commercial cattle business and have a small supply of bulls that we sell because we have an over supply. Trying to develop a seed stock business  from the bull side is not my thing and you only need one bull to 25 cows. So why would you not focus on commercial cattle and sell your surplus into the seed stock business. If they do not work for you they can always be meat as they butcher 110 thousand hd of cattle a day. And I am very thankful that Larry and Mike have done all of that work but the wheel does not need to be reinvented it just needs grease and use.

Bob H
That would be completely true if all of your cattle came from Larry and Mike. Truline is not about one line, as a concept, but line and breed crosses for maximum commercial profit. Unless it has some recent efforts to redefine it. Across the USA in various environments, lines of cattle are needed of different breeds and types to make truline concept bloom with line crosses to produce profitable commercial cattle. Who do you think is doing such? Few, very few. Why not, if it is easy? Are commercial folks knocking down every reader/practioneer's door from KC and asking for linebred cattle with a focus on the females. Not hardly. If you or anyone can figure out how to sell profit without glamour and free of tradition there would be a surge. People from various places over ask," Where can I get cattle that are fertile females with environmental fit to the X region, state, forage. You do not know and I do not know and that is one reason the blanket statement of "easy" is deceiving.
Back to top Go down
Mean Spirit



Posts : 321
Join date : 2010-09-26

PostSubject: Re: Black and White    Thu Feb 23, 2017 7:45 am

Not sure exactly what we are talking about being "hard" or "easy", but I'm pretty sure it's easy-- cake easy-- to make inbred cattle. I mean, not to disparage Hilly, but he's doing it with the Charolais by just not really doing much. There was a bit of effort and money making the first generation embryos and getting them to Canada and getting them born, and he takes care of the cattle, but the inbreeding thing is pretty much taking care of itself.

And that's how it always is. The only hard part is picking what you want to inbreed. And that's not rocket science. Other than that, though, its just find what you like and breed them to each other. Cull the really bad ones you make, and keep the herd closed, at least mostly. Boom. 10 years later >>> Inbred herd.

Whether any of what you make is useful or not-- that sorts itself out. Presumably, better efforts at the beginning would help this.

Selling is, of course, very hard. But if you make them cheap, and sell them cheap, it might work.

Back to top Go down
EddieM



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

PostSubject: Re: Black and White    Thu Feb 23, 2017 8:50 am

Quote :
10 years later >>> Inbred herd.
IF, IF, IF ... if you stick with it, if you are willing to cull 85% of the starters to get to the ones that do what they are supposed to do and if the residual population can stand the effects of inbreeding, if recessive defects do not haunt you, if you can wait 10 years to sell better cattle at commercial prices, if you have enough to sell in groups as demanded, if, if ... I am not talking about the line crossing but the base line breeding efforts.

The 10 years are largely R&D time. There are R&D costs involved. I know for 10 years you can sell any or all at commercial prices. But after 10 years they are still cattle with commercial prices and the only thing you can add is your words and words are pretty cheap, maybe not worth anything. So why even try if there is no return on time and investment? It might be a great thrill running up your leg to have linebred cattle, it might tie into your philosophy of life, rebellion, individual equalization and anti-group speak, but if it does not return any extra income it is stupid to even talk about it.

No, it is not being done much, the truline type cattle from multiple sources and genetics are not widely available, the development is not "out there", the interest is not "out there" and if they only stay flatline in value then the profit is not "out there". Look around. How many got enthused and dropped out? How many have actually been doing this for 20 or 30 years? Count them on one hand for the long term survivors. Sad but true.

So what am I missing?
Back to top Go down
Mean Spirit



Posts : 321
Join date : 2010-09-26

PostSubject: Re: Black and White    Thu Feb 23, 2017 9:51 am

Here's my take on selling inbred cattle for anything like a "premium"-- I'm not positive, as I haven't sold but a few inbreds this way-- but I think you can take a sound purebred animal of almost any pedigree, get him or her in pretty good condition (ie, fat), get a good haircut, take pictures, and haul her to the South Carolina Angus Association spring sale (assuming there is such a sale, and there is such an association), clean, well tamed, fat-- I bet she brings a price darn near the sale average, maybe better. The few inbreds I have sold in registered sales-- sire daughter matings and half sib matings with nothing mainstream for a few generations- nice cattle in pretty good rig, but definitely my genetics, sold well. Of course, they weren't sold into a "Truline" situation-- but hey.... Now, I didn't get paid for my R&D-- if I bought mainstream cattle there of the same type, I'd have done just as well, maybe better, but hey...

I do this myself-- I want folks to appreciate my cattle and just come get them in their natural condition and pay me something close to what they'd pay for "good" cattle without me making a traditional marketing effort. But I just don't think it works that way.

I don't think the genetics even matter that much in marketing cattle to the public--- assuming the cattle are sound, decently attractive, fat, and docile, they will bring good prices at registered sales. I think if you take a less docile, less attractive, somewhat green daughter of Hot Bull 2016 out of a daughter of Hot Bull 2012 you'd get it handed to you nearly as bad as if you took pasture bred cattle, with the added expense of AI.

I think we (ie, lots of folks in this group) want this market to be a certain way-- we shouldn't have to get heifers dolled up and overweight to get a better price for them. Or maybe we shouldn't have to send the bulls to Ocala or a bull test to get them marketed well. We know they're good, the extra feed and sales commission and advertisement is a waste of everyone's time and money, it's maybe a bit dishonest-- and the smart buyers that we are looking for should just sort of understand that, understand how they are meant to be used-- we should just be able to call them Eb's Best -- and they write the check, and pay okay. But I don't think it works that way. Maybe it just turns out that our customers, in a TruLine market situation, are just not willing to pay excess prices for cattle.

Obviously, anybody can breed whatever kind of cattle they choose to, and can market them ever how they choose, but I don't think we can expect to change how beef cattle breeding stock are bought and sold.
Back to top Go down
RobertMac



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

PostSubject: Re: Black and White    Thu Feb 23, 2017 9:53 am

It's not about easy, it's about education.

The process has been known since the development of the first breed and hasn't changed.

The problem is that almost all cattlemen are educated by people with PhDs after their names in articles in magazines that are dedicated to separating cattlemen from their money.

The unspoken benefit of an environmentally adapted, closed herd of cattle is the reduction of production cost below that of commercial cattlemen.

If you want an example of a profitable breeding/production system, just look at Bob Howard's.
The only way you are going to approach "maximum commercial profit" is to sell beef, not just cattle.
Back to top Go down
MKeeney
Admin


Posts : 4624
Join date : 2010-09-21

PostSubject: Re: Black and White    Thu Feb 23, 2017 9:58 am

EddieM wrote:
Quote :
10 years later >>> Inbred herd.
IF, IF, IF ... if you stick with it, if you are willing to cull 85% of the starters to get to the ones that do what they are supposed to do and if the residual population can stand the effects of inbreeding, if recessive defects do not haunt you, if you can wait 10 years to sell better cattle at commercial prices, if you have enough to sell in groups as demanded, if, if ... I am not talking about the line crossing but the base line breeding efforts.

The 10 years are largely R&D time.  There are R&D costs involved.  I know for 10 years you can sell any or all at commercial prices.  But after 10 years they are still cattle with commercial prices and the only thing you can add is your words and words are pretty cheap, maybe not worth anything.  So why even try if there is no return on time and investment?  It might be a great thrill running up your leg to have linebred cattle, it might tie into your philosophy of life, rebellion, individual equalization and anti-group speak, but if it does not return any extra income it is stupid to even talk about it.

No, it is not being done much, the truline type cattle from multiple sources and genetics are not widely available, the development is not "out there", the interest is not "out there" and if they only stay flatline in value then the profit is not "out there".  Look around.  How many got enthused and dropped out?  How many have actually been doing this for 20 or 30 years?  Count them on one hand for the long term survivors.  Sad but true.

So what am I missing?[/
Quote :


the simplicity of the system and the trivial contribution of genetics to overall profitability in cattle production..

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



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

PostSubject: Re: Black and White    Thu Feb 23, 2017 2:19 pm

MKeeney wrote:
EddieM wrote:
Quote :
10 years later >>> Inbred herd.
IF, IF, IF ... if you stick with it, if you are willing to cull 85% of the starters to get to the ones that do what they are supposed to do and if the residual population can stand the effects of inbreeding, if recessive defects do not haunt you, if you can wait 10 years to sell better cattle at commercial prices, if you have enough to sell in groups as demanded, if, if ... I am not talking about the line crossing but the base line breeding efforts.

The 10 years are largely R&D time.  There are R&D costs involved.  I know for 10 years you can sell any or all at commercial prices.  But after 10 years they are still cattle with commercial prices and the only thing you can add is your words and words are pretty cheap, maybe not worth anything.  So why even try if there is no return on time and investment?  It might be a great thrill running up your leg to have linebred cattle, it might tie into your philosophy of life, rebellion, individual equalization and anti-group speak, but if it does not return any extra income it is stupid to even talk about it.

No, it is not being done much, the truline type cattle from multiple sources and genetics are not widely available, the development is not "out there", the interest is not "out there" and if they only stay flatline in value then the profit is not "out there".  Look around.  How many got enthused and dropped out?  How many have actually been doing this for 20 or 30 years?  Count them on one hand for the long term survivors.  Sad but true.

So what am I missing?[/
Quote :


the simplicity of the system and the trivial contribution of genetics to overall profitability in cattle production..

So are we admitting that this is all a waste of time: trivial contribution of genetics to overall profitability? Why does simple not sell? Is in only simple to the buyers and users but a long and hard road to the line developer?

I am not purist or saint in this deal. I sell function and environmental fit. Linebreeding is used but not totally necessary as years of work have educated me to a limited number of bulls that can help the cause. I also know many that do not work and am trialing others to see if there is a place for them. I am not ashamed to try and have variety because repeat buyers want some differences in genetics and I want to have products that are profitable and useful. Marketing is the end point of breeding. I do not tote linebreeding but function. Things are good. And the best thing I have done in ages is to have met Gene Meitler at Jon and Kendra's and better understand the tools that Larry used in selection rather than just giving Bonsma some trite lip service.
Back to top Go down
Hilly



Posts : 406
Join date : 2010-09-24
Location : Sylvan Lake, Alberta

PostSubject: Re: Black and White    Fri Feb 24, 2017 9:27 pm

Good discussion.

I don't have a ton of experience but I do know from observation here that when talking populations there is safety in numbers. Not to hard to sell the fact that putting the bulls with the cows is an easy step but the profitability of the results has way too many variables to paint with a broad brush.

It is easy to post the good stuff when talking about closed populations but there is no question in my experience the smaller the population your working with the harder to justify the cost to benefit ratio.
Sure you can outcross and recover, but there is a diminishing ROI when you start messing with regression on the far left of the Mating systems chart.

It appears here that when you are talking the numbers that BobH or Larry have in their populations, picking from the average works well at least that is the case here but in my smaller closed populations I need to lean more toward the above average cattle in order for the population to survive extinction if management and environment remain relatively equal.
I don't have the time to change my management to accommodate the more regressed cattle.

There is no question in my mind that Mike is right in that the contribution of genetics to overall profitability is low but you again need to preface that within context... if you buy a bull for $250,000 and can't freeze semen on him all the sudden genetics start to make a difference on profitability ;-)

The reason I think that population genetics and the Tru-Line concept is not a waste of time is the overall efficiency of the system when compared to the mainstream by removing some of the parasitic load.
Back to top Go down
larkota



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

PostSubject: Re: Black and White    Sat Feb 25, 2017 8:37 am

Hilly wrote:
Good discussion.

I don't have a ton of experience but I do know from observation here that when talking populations there is safety in numbers. Not to hard to sell the fact that putting the bulls with the cows is an easy step but the profitability of the results has way too many variables to paint with a broad brush.

It is easy to post the good stuff when talking about closed populations but there is no question in my experience the smaller the population your working with the harder to justify the cost to benefit ratio.
Sure you can outcross and recover, but there is a diminishing ROI when you start messing with regression on the far left of the Mating systems chart.

It appears here that when you are talking the numbers that BobH or Larry have in their populations, picking from the average works well at least that is the case here but in my smaller closed populations  I need to lean more toward the above average cattle in order for the population to survive extinction if management and environment remain relatively equal.
I don't have the time to change my management to accommodate the more regressed cattle.

There is no question in my mind that Mike is right in that the contribution of genetics to overall profitability is low but you again need to preface that within context... if you buy a bull for $250,000 and can't  freeze semen on him all the sudden genetics start to make a difference on profitability ;-)

The reason I think that population genetics and the Tru-Line concept is not a waste of time is the overall efficiency of the system when compared to the mainstream by removing some of the parasitic load.    

nicely said Hilly.  
regressed cattle are a problem that can be managed, they are needed to find where to stop. the steers blend in with the 6 month younger, the heifers when crossed still make useful cows.
now starting on 4th generation of closed population. needs to be said my yellows out number the blues 2 to 1 and the blues are taking a bigger hit. both groups were started with a form of closed population.
when crossed can restore a previous version.
seems the worst is over but still learning.
Back to top Go down
Grassfarmer



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

PostSubject: Re: Black and White    Sat Feb 25, 2017 11:22 pm

As usual I've got more questions than answers. Hard to tell how my breeding project is going, still in the 2nd year after moving and cattle are still adapting to the new environment. Had more opens the last couple of years than I've ever had and the youngstock are smaller now than I've ever had them. The genetics haven't changed that quickly so I assume its mostly environmental effect.
Our 2015 calf crop averaged 20% IBC with the quarter of the herd (originally from grade-up cows) that were under 10%IBC pulling down the average. The core of the herd and increasingly the only ones I'm keeping are in the 20-30%IBC score so I guess plenty chance to see regression? Can't say the tighter breds are worse fertility wise than the less so - this year I had a 30% and a 3% open - one of the highest and the lowest IBCs among the heifers. What are you seeing for regression Hilly and larkota? fertility decline or growth decline?
From what our customers tell me they restore well when out-crossed.  Dylan has his first crop of Luing x calves weaned and is quite happy with the result - the extra growth is noticeable. Many customers comment how our bulls stamp a type on their offspring almost regardless of the dams.
I'm curious larkota at your comment about outcrossing the regressed heifers - surely if it's a matter of growth they'll either be big enough - or they won't - regardless of the bull you run them with? Or do you feel the smaller heifers will just have smaller calves and ever diminishing returns if purebred?

We are moving to a spring and fall calving herd - not because the cattle are getting smaller more as a way to deal with the (relative) heat and humidity breeding mid-summer here.  Spring borns will move into the fall herd and visa versa so will calve down at 2.5 rather than 2.  Bob Church is an advocate of that practice having done it for most of 20 years. The payoff for him was that the heifers and coming 2nd calvers needed no babying - if you gave them this extra 6 months they could run with, and get treated like, mature cows. Not sure if that would work in every environment and on every set of feed resources but economically an extra 6 months as open heifers would be pretty cheap to provide compared to the extra feed/management involved with raising, calving and breeding back 2 year old heifers successfully.
Back to top Go down
http://www.luingcattle.com
Hilly



Posts : 406
Join date : 2010-09-24
Location : Sylvan Lake, Alberta

PostSubject: Re: Black and White    Sun Feb 26, 2017 3:20 am

I purposely stayed away from mentioning IBC in my post as the more I see in my different populations the more I feel that calculated number has a hard time incorporating all the environmental and managerial stresses as well as the range of variation that was in the original population to begin with upon closing of the herd.

The regression if that is the right word, varies from group to group but the most common across the groups would be lack of thrift or immunity then growth and fertility. There are also more group specific phenotypical tendencies.
Back to top Go down
Grassfarmer



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

PostSubject: Re: Black and White    Sun Feb 26, 2017 8:53 am

OK, maybe my IBC numbers are just a distraction. I use them to convey where we are at in our breeding in terms of close breeding but I would agree the numbers don't seem to correlate with what I see physically. Higher is not necessarily worse and lower not necessarily better to look at it by any means. So if lack of thrift/immunity is the first thing that shows up is it manifesting itself through increased levels of illness/more susceptibility to things like pneumonia before it affects growth and fertility?
Back to top Go down
http://www.luingcattle.com
MKeeney
Admin


Posts : 4624
Join date : 2010-09-21

PostSubject: Re: Black and White    Sun Feb 26, 2017 9:37 am

Grassfarmer wrote:
OK, maybe my IBC numbers are just a distraction. I use them to convey where we are at in our breeding in terms of close breeding but I would agree  the numbers don't seem to correlate with what I see physically. Higher is not necessarily worse and lower not necessarily better to look at it by any means. So if lack of thrift/immunity is the first thing that shows up is it manifesting itself through increased levels of illness/more susceptibility to things like pneumonia before it affects growth and fertility?
well, they are bell curve averages of possibilities...so the 25 % could be a 0 or a 50...I know you know that, so reminding any new reader...
Back to top Go down
http://www.keeneyscorner.com
Hilly



Posts : 406
Join date : 2010-09-24
Location : Sylvan Lake, Alberta

PostSubject: Re: Black and White    Sun Feb 26, 2017 9:48 am

Thats the order it seems to run here like I say other markers a present as well... one group it shows up in the set of the eyes another group tends to extreme cow hock and leg set and yet another seems to tighten up the ribs.

On the thrift/immunity it doesn't so much show itself as full blown illness that I would consider treatable and I'd even have a hard time arguing that it makes them more susceptible percentage wise but when they do get a common ailment they take longer to get over it as well.

Its hard to describe, for the most part I guess I'd say they tend to not do normal calve things as much, you won't see them running around playing as much, they tend to be off on their own more and always look a little off.


Back to top Go down
RobertMac



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

PostSubject: Re: Black and White    Sun Feb 26, 2017 11:03 am

GF, sounds like genetics and environmental adaptation are having more than a trivial contribution to your profitability?

I see thrift/immunity as a strength of my program and why I'll never bring in any outside genetics.
Over the last 10 years, I've spent 5X as much on my dogs as I have on Vet & Med for my cattle.

Fertility seems to be unaffected.

Growth is less than that of a crossbred program, but more consistent. Regardless of metric, a population can always be represented as a bell curve and there will always be animals on both ends.
Back to top Go down
Hilly



Posts : 406
Join date : 2010-09-24
Location : Sylvan Lake, Alberta

PostSubject: Re: Black and White    Sun Feb 26, 2017 2:59 pm

Like I mentioned before there is safety in numbers, I only breed 240 for replacements, in that 240 are smaller closed populations two of which are the Black and White groups that are the subject of this thread.
When I talk about perceived regression I'm talking of about 7% of the total but of that more come from the smaller populations proportionally. The larger population does their job better than ever maternally speaking. I just think that if you don't acknowledge if you wined things up real tight that there is a cost associated with that it would be short sighted.

On IBC if I had two populations similar to my black and whites 5 cows in each group one group was Char/Wagyu F1's and the other group was Unregestered Shoshone cows and on paper I bred them for the same high percentage  IBC which group would Mother Nature be concerned with first?
Back to top Go down
Grassfarmer



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

PostSubject: Re: Black and White    Sun Feb 26, 2017 6:43 pm

So Hilly the 7% you consider regressed - is that 7% of the yearly calf crop? or do you consider that % of the adult population to be regressed and breeding regressed offspring consistantly? If it's judged on the calves do the 7% come from different cows within the population each year?
Back to top Go down
http://www.luingcattle.com
Hilly



Posts : 406
Join date : 2010-09-24
Location : Sylvan Lake, Alberta

PostSubject: Re: Black and White    Sun Feb 26, 2017 7:13 pm

Yes, the yearly calf crop for about the last two years.

3 years ago it was a bit higher not sure the exact numbers but it defiantly cured me of getting to excited about really tightening things up, that was the year I bred 70 daughters back to their sire.
I don't keep good enough records in the summer calving herd as I don't tag the calves until after weaning so I can't answer you question as to if it is the same cows.
Back to top Go down
MKeeney
Admin


Posts : 4624
Join date : 2010-09-21

PostSubject: Re: Black and White    Mon Feb 27, 2017 12:35 pm

I believe the most frustrating situation of closer breeding is when we create or expose defects that are not lethal, but can hide away actually in such dominant fashion that outcrossing cannot prevent their sex-related expression...when a defect is lethal; it is exposed and identified, and if simple recessive can be outcrossed away from commercially as dairy does, or eliminated through dna testing...confounding the situation is when the mode of inheritance is not known, leaving little choice but to avoid the lineage entirely, or live with the problem...once again, weighing the cost of the problem versus the benefit of the lineage...
And what should be common cow sense, the closer a lineage is bred within an environment, the less adaptable it becomes to other environments...so long as your commercial customer is outcrossing as he should be, likely not a problem ...but when we try to move a closer bred lineage cross-country via cows or even semen, they are exposed to fresh stress challenges , and have limited capability to respond...
the best maternal breeding is locally created, unless of course, everyone is using terminal bulls...presenting OPPORTUNITY cheers
Back to top Go down
http://www.keeneyscorner.com
Sponsored content




PostSubject: Re: Black and White    

Back to top Go down
 
Black and White
View previous topic View next topic Back to top 
Page 4 of 5Go to page : Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
 Similar topics
-
» Black and White and Shades of Grey Thinking
» Black and White Animals
» Memory lane
» The Moggy Thread 2.5
» Black shoes, white socks

Permissions in this forum:You cannot reply to topics in this forum
Keeney`s Corner :: farm and ranch life-
Jump to: