Keeney`s Corner

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

Share | 

 Reflections Condensed

Go down 
Go to page : Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next

Posts : 3816
Join date : 2010-09-21

PostSubject: Re: Reflections Condensed   Tue Aug 04, 2015 11:42 am

LL wrote on 3-20-2012

Jack McNamee wrote:
Larry, I'm starting to get my little toe wet here with mother-son matings, half sib matings, etc. As the percentage inbred increased how much of a lessening of fertility, if any did you notice, especially in the females, and what did you do about it as far as keeping/selling opens? I'll welcome anyones 2 cents on this too.

Thanks, Jack

Jack, compared to what I had on a herd wise basis, as an overall population in my own particular circumstance, the short answer is that I actually noticed a significant improvement in the anatomical fertility of the X-strain females over the rest of the herd which I attributed moreso to the avoidance of "outliers"....and type. In fact the first inbred bull's daughters (Balboa) were exceptionally fertile and if I remember right, their average calving interval during that critical time in their life from 2's to 3's was around 356 days.....and Balboa pasture bred about 45 yrlg heifers as a small yearling bull.

Going beyond my own individuals, to summarize my overall observations, I am very comfortable concluding that most female reproductive problems in the industry likely stem from sire selection of what are often described as "performance outliers"....and I have learned to visibly recognize subfertile types whether they are inbred, outcrossed, crossbred, male or female. After spending over 30 years trying to rationalize the academic belief that an F1 cow was needed to improve fertility, longevity and even profitability......I came to believe that is an over-promoted myth, that it is our common mainstream selection criteria that is detrimental to these characters. The bottom line is that an F1 cow can only offer an irratic, temporary quick fix from many of our misguided, unsustainable mainstream selection directions, consequently I also see too many subfertile crossbred cows who can also be misfits.

I'm trying to make this a $64.00 answer for Hilly`s as a postscript to your questions, an old man once told me that breeding beef cattle is the most difficult job in all of agriculture. I believe it is only difficult when we seek economically unsustainable ambitions. We define progression as moving forward in a direction and inbreeding is often defined as regression moving backwards from where we once thought we were. Not wanting to regress, our dilemma seems to be our inherent nature to keep up with or out-do the Jones, possessed with this insatiable appetite where good isn't good enough, thusly it is that competition creates all these over- zealous, ambitious races to nowhere just for the sake of winning......temporarily. I doubt that will ever change much, so as you dabble in your experiments, the results will need to be proven to your customers of their genuine worthiness without phenotypic trickery.

I recently heard from a long time very close friend and cattle breeder who said to me that "after talking to folks on the phone and hearing all the great things I hear them say about what they are breeding and how much they know about pedigree etc.....When I go to their place, I wonder if the same guy I have been talking to is the same guy that bred what I am looking at!.....I have cattle with problems and so does everyone else."

It is no secret that I see solving problems as the unmentionable mainstay of cattle breeding. Jack, presuming that the animals you have personally selected to inbreed express fewer problems than most of your others as you see them converting converting forage to beef, I cannot possibly anticipate whether or not close breeding will lessen or improve their particular fertility. I would however expect you to expose more problems than you may be currently aware of. Progress or regression in fertility is easily measured by the percent of opens in the females, however, by just selling any open ones or misfits out the back door while unknowingly reintroducing the same thing through the front door without identifying the causes seems to me to be a very tiring proposition. : )).

In addition, built in vigor is often lacking in the industry and what the real beef production world needs is stabile herds of work and wear cows with fewer problems.....the last thing the world needs is super cows. To reach that objective, we have got to quit creating more problems than we're solving. Close breeding is certainly not a cure-all but it is a step in identification. If the success rate was very high, everyone would be close breeding rather than avoiding it. And you know how the registered industry is scared to death to close breed for fear of being condemned for exposing problems.

I have also learned that persistent selection will ultimately override any fixation with certain pedigrees or measures. So as you get your little toe wet Jack, you will need to remain somewhat optimistic. May I suggest that you will be better served over the long term by not publicly displaying your private work, with all potential one can accurately appraise your work but you. Ultimately any proof will be in the pudding. If it was quick and easy, all this we talk about would already have been done

I do wish you the same comfort that I feel when I read a story like that of DV's when he said "....The first calf crop was revolutionary in my thinking for its consistency and evenness. One of the years that I used this set of bulls I sent all the steers to Goggins in Billings and they were the evenest set of steers in size, type, kind and probably flavor to ever hit the ring."

I have heard hundreds of similar stories about that first cross uniformity, a common phenomenon that regretfully is unsustainable unto all we have left to do is stabilize the parents.....and if they are not enough, all we have to do is measure their complementarity. Smile

LL in the vicinity of a soap box..
Back to top Go down

Posts : 3816
Join date : 2010-09-21

PostSubject: Re: Reflections Condensed   Wed Aug 19, 2015 8:35 am

Dennis Voss wrote on 3-20-2012

There's not much a person can do but marvel at the reply you've received from LL, Jack. This is one of the strongest pieces I've ever read on the subject. So it's pretty intimidating to even try to add anything to this discussion. As we talked about before on the phone, the concept of the "soul" enters into this discussion. All my life the concept of the soul has been a mysterious but essential part of the balancing act called "what it's like to be a human". A person can do or take certain actions which deplete the soul. Younger, more enthusiastic people tend to think they have such a long life ahead of them that they can be careless with their ideas as well as their actions. It took me a long time to figure this out. Speaking personally, I had to learn how to not spread my ideas everywhere, blab about them endlessly and lose them in the process. To lose them is to lose part of your soul. Leonhardt reminds us of the need for a private laboratory. This parallels what I am talking about. A human being first must have an idea. And then they must execute that idea. And then they must complete the idea and evaluate it as a finished process or product. This alone allows for the development of the next phase and the next idea. In other words, one thing always leads to another thing, whether you're talking about making a piece of art, linebreeding a certain animal, discarding a certain animal or destroying a certain piece of art.

The tru-line concept of Leonhardt's seems to be outlining various components to fulfill the overall concept. I'll put it into my own terms in the way I seem to be absorbing Leonhardt's idea. Flexibility is the beauty built into his tru-line concept. Flexibiltiy is a must. Here I have a nucleus of cows and bulls which have the honor and responsibility of being a genetic source for my commercially developed cows. Within this group is an entire toolbox of genetic wonder. Some are tightly wound and rewound to a point of almost looking like twigs rather than cows. From there they unwind themselves into total outcross. Within this group is an inner laboratory of cows that are very private to me. To bring just anyone into them would be scary for me. Most of my friends think they know which cows these are but they don't. I protect myself from any dialogue because it's just too private. The closer my friends are to me the closer their suspicions are to being accurate. But the purpose of this illustraion is to describe the laboratory and it's fragility. When I was young and we were poor, the floor was made of worn linoleum, my mother kept it spotless and clean even though visually it was rough, rutty and worn. Occasionally somebody who visited would walk right in, sit down with muddy boots and leave a mess. This hurt because they thought the floor didn't matter. Looking back it was a bit of a private laboratory and a person needs to be careful they don't judge a private laboratory wrongly or make assumptions that have no merit or take anything for granted in another human's sanctuary.

It is the same with an idea. We have to be careful who we tell it to or if we tell it. One of the scariest calls I can get is a human being so excited about their idea that they're almost on an adrenaline high. They want my input, they might want my approval, they just want to share. And it's a wonderful honor. Not wanting to say anything to dampen the spirit of the event, I stay mum and celebrate right with them. And when they hang up I have my doubts as to whether it will ever happen, because my fear is they've eroded their soul, lost all their tools from their toolbox in euphoric celebration and in the morning have idea remorse. Not unlike buyer's remorse. I've been on both ends of this. When I was with the mainstream I was on the phone til midnight many nights of the week. The bantering back and forth was all about the same animals, the same bulls, the same cows, the same prices, the same sales, the same managers, the same revolutions, the same inner secrets as the 2 dumbass mainstream guys down the road, who were doing exactly like me and my buddy. And then we would all go to Denver and repeat the whole process in mass, up and down the pens, through the bars and out the strip clubs. And the process would start all over again.

Mike Keeney has a forum of people here now that works in an entirely different manner. This group of people jolt and bolt, cajole, prod, question, antagonize, tease, destroy, create, challenge, and whatever other words you want to throw in. One could not ask for more. I personally will never be party to any criticism that I consider malicious. As a teacher I have lost my finesse and my patience. But rest assured, if I devote any time to any issue that arises, it's for the welfare of the cause, the betterment of Keeney's Corner and ultimately, with compassion, for the good of whoever's getting bombed, pushed, challenged or whatever.

Dennis Voss
Back to top Go down

Posts : 3816
Join date : 2010-09-21

PostSubject: Re: Reflections Condensed   Mon Oct 19, 2015 7:06 am

Larry wrote on 3-22-2012

MK quoting  Merton:  ".....It is by making (sharing) mistakes that we gain experience, not only for ourselves but for others.   My (Our) successes are not my (our) own. The way to them was prepared by others. The fruits of my (our) labors are not my (our) own: for I (we) am preparing the way for the achievements of another. Nor are my (our) failures my (our) own. They may spring from the failure of another, but they are also compensated for by another’s achievement. Therefore the meaning of my (our) life is…only seen in the complete integration of my (our) achievements and failures with the achievements and failures of my (our) own generation."

Hmmm, then we ALL should  be very thankful for rather than critical of everyone's mistakes.
LL gaining experience from mistakes, the more the merrier for the greater achievement of others
Back to top Go down

Posts : 3816
Join date : 2010-09-21

PostSubject: Re: Reflections Condensed   Sun Oct 25, 2015 9:52 am

Larry wrote on 3-26-2012

A couple of my favorite "one liners" from DB's post were:

Selection , selection, selection.

It is a process not a competition.

To borrow from Bootheel's topic "Postcards of Imperfection" , Joe wrote:

I did not know we got to make our own color wheel. I was just basing my observations off of the color wheel outlined in Mr. Leonhardt's publications. I would just call him Larry, but I'm afraid some of the millions of visitors we get, scouring the internet for nuggetts of wisdom, just wouldn't get who Larry is.

But your theories of observation, on what these animals represent, is exactly what I was after with my incomplete thoughts. I used to complete thoughts quite well, until I got married, as my wife has a bad habit of not completing a thought. It has rubbed off. We tell each other that if it was not for our flaws, we both would have married better. So, it is, what it is. But what are they, I ask? Dennis just says he likes them. Another yes man, I presume, or maybe he just doesn't have the energy to teach.

My wife, and our incomplete thoughts, brought us to the color wheel today, and in turn to the spherical distributions. I came to the conclusion that each, without the other, is an incomplete thought. The two complement one another, in completing a definition of what a line, or individual is. I thought I had it sorted out to an understanable conclusion, after mulling it around in my mind today. It seems as I remember LL saying something on the purple blend of blues and reds one time. Besides just not wanting to be a purple cow, or having not seen one, but telling us anyhow, that he'd rather see, than be one.

I don't think the heifer you mentioned is a true red, but her pictorial pedigree, would be, or at least a large portion. She may be just an orange, or one of those fence riders, that with a little nudge could go either way. It seems as though Viking was one of those ''recessive'' for maternal bulls. But, he was classified as a Green. Yet, Titan was a Red, or at least a founder of the Reds. All my rambling has again led me to ask just what the heck is a Blue again, by the defition of LL.


Joe, in the development of specific functional strains, I used color symbolism to avoid any preconceived breed reputations.    When beginning anew,  I reckon we can each make our own color wheel just the same way we can make a breed into anything we want.  Smile      I wouldn't want to be a purple cow because ideally, the production of purple cows would be seedless fruit.   After all, we are in the beef business and in my color wheel, the primary color of blue would emphasize  BEEF QUALITY over quantity.

Color trivia....when I was in school a teacher asked the class to each pick their favorite color and write a 200 word essay on why it was their favorite color.    About 85% of the class picked various shades of blue and I guess that's why the theme song of our prom was "My Blue Heaven".   I was the only one who picked green.....John Deere green  Smile    I never quite figured out why boys are blue and girls pink or why Indians are red and Orientals yellow when to me they all look like different shades of brown.    I don't know how a prism refracts light into a rainbow of color and I can only assume Mike symbolized KC with a black background with white print to shed some light out of the darkness.

Yellow wheels propelled my green machines often pulling an IH red plow.   IH red and Ford blue always quickly faded and we know we shouldn't wash denim blues and hot reds with light colored clothes.   Someone determined red was hot and blue was cold..   I don't know if construction yelllow was associated with durability or for safety nor who determined flashing red lights mean stop and a flashing amber light is only a warning.    I don't know why the sun is yellow and chlorphyll is green, and so without the sun would everything be black?

The renewal process of the beef industry begins with the cow herd so whatever type is most economically beneficial for a particular man made environment to transform feedstuffs to beef, so I chose construction yellow to symbolize an efficient maternal herd.    Since you are into this "wincing thing" as you look at your cow herd, I suppose you could consider them to be oriental yellow browns, and as Jack noticed, with green haired udders, which comes from mixing red, purple, grey, yellow, orange, green, pink etc which provides you with the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow  Smile

LL in the vicinity of rainbows
Back to top Go down

Posts : 3816
Join date : 2010-09-21

PostSubject: Re: Reflections Condensed   Sat Jan 02, 2016 7:45 am

on 3-31-2012 Hilly wrote...

Dylan Biggs wrote:

Fair enough Joe. There is no doubt that accurate selction, as accurate as possible, relative to type/function goals is the crux of the matter. If one can be clear and consistent on type in general and more specificallly consistent selecting the most balanced fertile individuals within that type category then odds over time of successfully fixing a funtional type are much improved. Over the years I have had a real struggle giving preference to a single general type, torn between the massivley rugged sires and yet being drawn to the finer more elegant almost dairy type females and thinking that one would beget the other, slowly I am realizing that the female type I prefer will require me to adjust my selection on the sire side to more cocnsistenly get what I am after. I have not yet seen the color wheel or spheroid distributions so can't be of much help using that symbolism. The other question that I have not yet definitively concluded is if there is any relative overall superiority in functional merit of the say the the beef type over the somewhat more dairy beef type, or if the eye of the selector is sharp enough, assuming the individuals are there to identify in the population to begin with in either type, that one can select for the same level of funtionality regardless. I have made assumptions in the past about types that in the end were more reflective of individual shortcomings than of type shortcomings. The other challenge for me from the standpoint of precise selection relative to type selection goals is being rather fuzzy of the boundaries between type. Where is the boundary between beef and dairy type assuming both individuals are highly functional, how beefy can the dairy type get and still remain in the dairy type category? Or how dairy can the beef type get and still remain in the beef type category and how percise does one need to be on the road to type fixation? If they are equally functional maybe not so precise but if you want cookie cutter consistency/prepotentcy then may be one could never be to precise. So Joe not sure I can be of any help. Maybe the the old functional cows identify themselves as worthy by their record and they should be chosen regardless.

DB, more questions than answers.

I’m not sure I understand what your questions are for sure, but I think I have asked similar questions and I also think in the end form follows function. I have never read Bonsma but from what other have shared when measured against personal experience it rings true. I have also had individuals that function well in many different forms but on the average there is a form that can do the required function more consistently.

Unless an animal functional purpose is to be harvested, reproduction is a plus and in my experience there is a certain type that on the average is more fertile, because seed stock is not seedless this is a common trait selected for a subsequently basic  similarities in type will be present. In my mind the further we move away from the basic functional similarities, reproduction, legs, feet, udders ect...We start the selection for more secondary traits and the question of where the boundaries are between these secondary traits, there is no clear line and that is one of the reasons I like the color wheel analogy as it’s just a blending of shades between types no lines drawn.

I understand that is why Larry chose yellow as the Maternal at the bottom of the wheel on the back cover of the original Tru-line book as yellow is a subtractive primary color, Red and Blue being additive. As I mentioned above the basic maternal function will be common among the more secondary traits and colors, so we build up from the yellow, keeping in mind that the color directly across to be most complementary in a cross.

The question about choosing on a cow’s record, I like the idea but not on an individual basis. I have had individuals that have jumps through all my hoops with relative ease that when put in a pen with the rest of the cattle that made it through, would be considered outliers and if I don’t select from the middle of that pen odds are the color will start to change.

On the flip side if after 50 +/- years of selection and closed breeding to create an ancestral pen of functionally similar cattle inside and out I like my odds of selecting on that individuals record, more on a renewable population basis. But keeping in mind that if we continue to concentrate toward more purity, nature will begin to shut us down through different self preservation measures not the least of which would be fertility... Would you throw out 50 years of fertility in both visual type selection and production stacked up in the ancestry knowing full well nature will start to slow your quest for purity down at some point, without testing over a outcross population to be assured what you can’t see is there or not?

This Quote from Larry... I hope is not out of context

Purity would always have to come in degrees during the extraction process which is what I always meant by saying we should separate the parts in order to get more consistent predictability.... the reverse of what the industry tends to do......we either outbreed or inbreed, can't do both at the same time. If we say closebreed staying at the central point between the two - mating first cousins is 50% hetero/homo or purity, outbreeding to 75% reaches crossbreeding, inbreeding 75% reaches 3/4 brother/sister inbreeding or %purity. Beyond 85% both directions reaches sterility so in animals the central point of the band of primary colors would be 85% "pure", the secondary primary color Y x B = Green might be 42.5% max.”
Back to top Go down

Posts : 3816
Join date : 2010-09-21

PostSubject: Re: Reflections Condensed   Tue Mar 07, 2017 7:46 pm

4-8-2012 BY LL...

I was very pleased to hear Mikes customers appreciated his new no nonsense sale format where a strong demand for KA maternal genetics exceeded the supply.....where practical buyers report they were provided with more pertinent information to make sound buying decisions without EPD and registration papers than at any sale they had attended before with them.

Meanwhile here in the desert of WY I've finished planting beets ahead of the normal calendar date; always dreading the task of irrigating them for germination, always hoping for a good growing season without late spring freezing temps.  We're getting about 15-20 calves a day now, spring is here despite that it snowed yesterday, our coming two year old bulls have been sold by private treaty, so taking some time this Easter weekend to enjoy resurrecting some interesting  KC posts about pictures.....selecting types........outliers........ developing ancestral pens of look alikes........details.......and patience.  

For instance, when Bootheel wrote:
Never fret the picture game......Simplicity of life, peace, enjoyment of life, serentity of cows being cows while being serviced by bulls being bulls; just simply fits me better. There is enough complication of life without my unneccessary addition to the complication of it.....

I laughed, thinking Joe, you are too young to abandon all the lofty ambitions in the traditional registered cattle business.....and I am too old to care much about all the complexities that the registered societies continue to pursue.    Your post reminded me of Tom Lasater's wise words -"Cattle breeding is a relatively simple endeavor, the only difficult part is to keep it simple".  Tom was a concientious man who developed a practical herd of  Beefmasters during an era when the mainstream about destroyed the reproductive functionality of cattle with their pudgy square cattle.  He professed that the breeder's name was all the pedigree needed......KA has earned that self-responsible right that goes hand in hand with his recent Declaration of Independence.

I do enjoy looking at digital pictures better than looking at numerical digits,  a way of recapturing one precious moment lost in time.    I marvel at the artistry of nature captured and preserved by DB's terrific picture galleries..... especially in awe at the intricate, genetic coloring patterns of those horned owls..... and pigs, and horses, and cattle, and natural scenes, combined with the diversity of extra-ordinary ordinary people....... thinking how Mother Nature must have an enormous sense of pride in all her wondrous works of art , everything designed each for a very special purpose, where absolutely nothing is wasted.......just glad I'm not a dung beetle who thrives on BS.   Very Happy

Taking pride in one's work can be different than self serving egotistical ambitions.   What a boring world this would be without the beauty of color.....and without the colorful band of characters on KC.    I laugh with DV's study of the mating habits of sand cranes, and antelope,  and cattle, and how reproduction is all about sexuality.     I once asked DV to draw me a picture of the sexiest, most maternally functional cow in the world, but he admits to having some difficulty fulfilling that request. .....the same sort of difficulty we seem to be having in deciding which type of cow to favor in our modern, stressful,  competitive, complicated black and white numerical world of records and measures turning everything grey.....all because of man's pursuit of monetary values.    

I've noticed DV is quite adept at drawing ugly weird cows, and cows who can jump thru hoops and over the mooooon, so for now I'll just have to be content re-showing  a real life picture of one of the sexiest,  most profitable and prolific beef cows in the entire world.......hummm, no public registration paper but she is distinctively white with black pigment, the only flaw I see is the calf's crooked tail....but perfectionists are very unhappy people.  Very Happy

DB says he "certainly prefers this type of cow, 90T below, a paternal 1/2 sister. Her ancestral pen has more consistent longevity."    I certainly wouldn't expect 90T to be a top performance outlier, but WITH GREAT PRIDE,  I think we could all simply live happily ever after with entire herds of cows like this??   I am dazzled by the maternal functional beauty of 90T's  extended tail to the tip of her, her flaws haven't been photoshopped away by incidental nit-picking perfectionists, they are in their real working clothes.    

Hilly, who actually is a really very wise old man posing in a young man's body,  in response to DB's series of cow and bull pictures wrote:

"......I can tell you which of those cows I would prefer just based on a picture and age if I had to choose for my farm but the useful of that information would be worth what you paid for it.   To me the bulls are a byproduct when it comes to maternal efficiency, once I get to redundancy of individuals in my cows I may start to study them more. But again I have my favorite based on your pictures."
If we have a sense of pride in our work, and Bootheel never frets the picture games, why in the world did we ever allow ourselves to get so wrapped up in these mindless, competitive number games.....are the number games just another busy road to hell paved with good intentions, unlike Mike's road less traveled.....or are they just another marketing tool to attract the novice ?  .

I enjoyed reading that W.T. had one of the greatest times in his life during his April Fools bull buying journey to IA, but was sorry to hear he wasn't successful in earning a sorting stick.    While he and Eddie M were in the IA vicinity, since this is the peak of the sale season, I wondered if they by chance happened to stop by dependable genetics to look at the short-tailed Lot 1 (pictured below)  in order to learn how to put some much needed bi-sexual Aberdeen back into their Angus.  I suppose if I were a registered nit-picking perfectionist seeking the ultimate in all-purpose perfection, I'd critique her teats as being too close together, but for wider muzzled cattle with greater self-serving appetites, perhaps her calves could suck two teats at once to make the nursing effort worthwhile.    However. I share DB's concerns about sexy reproductivity while trying to discern where to draw the line between dairy and "beefy" cows.......details.....details.....yes Joe, life is sure full of complicated details requiring the need for sorting sticks, T-posts and multiple numercial measures to satisfy the inexperienced "stockmen".

But what the heck does a forelorn farmer in WY  know about gross looking fat IA cows buried in corn stover anyhow.....they must have a reason for being if only to serve as a bad example.   Selecting types...I recently received a personal  email  inviting me to Dr. Pankratz's total dispersal of over 1000 head featuring the top outliers, 9 yearling bull and heifer calves pictured below with measures and sired by the latest and greatest popular high EPD bulls.....I can only imagine what the bottom outliers looked like out of the 1000's previously sold.    To provide a little trivial background behind this complete dispersal, Dr. Pancratz, owner of Grand Lab  (producing livestock vaccines),  stopped by about 10 years ago driving his wife's luxurious Cadillac looking for cattle wanting to get started into the registered Angus business.  I still registered my cattle back then and so after spending the day with him, he offered to buy about 100 cows from me at a very lucrative price.... but being a novice, his expert consultant told him my cattle's EPD were too low.    Following his consultant's advice, thankfully destiny prevailed and I lost that tempting potential sale, my only consolation was that my cows wouldn't have enjoyed their short stressful life in Freeman, SD anyway.    


To build the latest and greatest look alike ancestral pen to move onward, upward and forward,  I'm considering selecting female Lot No. 1011 and the male Lot No. 1149 representing a nucleus of two of the highest high dollar reputation herds in the U.S, the Sitz Upward /Connealy Impression combination would surely put some phzazzy extension back into the IA "Aberdeen" Angus.    Not to be confused with the TruLine concept, some days I wish DV would transform me from a plain black smokin raven who feeds on road kill into a wiser horny owl who preys on live vermin (expert consultants), but in any event,  being a bird does provide me with an immunity from defamation of character lawsuits.  That immunity allows me to say that these longer necks must've been a natural mutative result in order to lick their constantly itchy n' dirty uphill asses, however, I suspect nature will ultimately solve this problem by reducing the frequency of their reproductive capability.  You just can't make stuff like this up.

Should anyone decide to build an ancestral pen of the most elite Angus in the business, the black hills gold of SD would be secondary to the black gold rush in ND.    No, not the booming oil fields where workers are earning a $1000 a day with the prostitutes of Las Vegas converging in ND, I'm talking about the black gold on the pastures at St. Anthony where calves with 205 day weaning weights under 900# are considered runts.   To provide KC readers with some important details to help them make better breeding decisions, they have a golden opportunity to select semen from over 27 trait leading Angus bulls in major studs like ABS, CRI, Select Sires, Accelerated Genetics or many more from SAV or the buyers of other SAV bulls who sold for $156,000, $147,500, $92,500, $67,500, $135,000, $75,000, $117,500, $265,000, $28,000, $80,000, $60,000, $180,000, $35,000, $275,000, $40,000, $95,000, $47,500, a $25,000 bull who sired the $265,000 bull, $30,000, $150,000, $87,500, $80,000 and $65,000 to average a paltry $101,521.80.

Moving on selecting types back in the peon world, MK wrote:

for me, Dylan`s cow`s were too close in type for me to comment...I need simple and extreme examples ...

Farmerkuk wrote:
WOW that is extreme differences!!

Could we get some details about the cow on the left?

If my entire herd looked like that cow I would be set....

mk replied...
that is truly the impossible dream Jeremy; although I only gave up the same dream recently... she`s the cream; when I breed her to a cream bull like her; to make more cream, I get some cream and plenty of milk...I could only have all cream by culling away all the milk, everytime...not worth it; especially considering that milk still has the capability to recombine and make cream again...I`ve learned to like 2% milk ; no one should expect ice cream every meal   Smile

Hilly's post, :
  once I get to redundancy of individuals in my cows I may start to study them more

in reply jonken wrote
                  who the hell has patience ? who the hell has patience ?

mk replied...
and besides Jon, with redundancy, there wouldn`t be any "superior", top selling bulls to brag about...and less need for production sales, to get rid of the cull cows  Smile  

Well Mike, ice cream melts.and from my perspective, the cow on the left is not the cream nor an outlier, she simply represents the centerpiece of Shoshone homogenized rather than heterogenized milk.   Very Happy     And yes, I am scratching my head trying to respond to all the thought provoking, practical comments so generously contributed by Hilly, Grassfarmer and Dylan.....and CC, IMHO Bonsma's observations are invaluable guides to observing what has already happened.   I suppose I am a little more like Bootheel in that I am not a great nit-picker of incidental flaws.....which is what one would expect in the peon world.

It was very difficult for me to determine what type to establish without first hand experience, however, once a preferred type was finally determined, reflecting on the old adage that the apple doesn't fall too far from the (family) tree,  I guess I could begin here with the patience needed to BUILD ANCESTRAL PENS of a preferred type.     With major mainstream emphasis to change cattle from what they were to something better, ancestral pens of similar types are rare and therefore are not easily acquired, they need to be methodically developed in accordance with the principles of natural law.   "WHO THE HELL HAS PATIENCE" and why the hell would anyone be stupid enough to want to depart from the monetary rewards of the traditional system?..... I suppose because most of us choose to eat beef over caviar.   Smile
It seems to be a no brainer to recognize that mixed populations of mixed types will produce mixed types .....and I fully understand not everyone will agree on what functional type to establish.    So to answer Farmerkuk's request for details on the cow on the left above, I can provide them either pertinent simplicity or with in depth complexity.   I sold her to Mike for nearly double the price of a plain ole common bred commercial cow worth about $1250.  Some people might think Shoshone cattle have no family tree without public pedigree, but for whatever homogenized milk is worth to anyone,  listed below is the maternal family tree of the cow on the left.   Residing in KY now, she was one of the very first daughters of her sire (pictured  below taken by MK).....a bull who was NOT selected for being an outlier, but rather for the preferred renewable qualities of  his maternal ancestral pen......a "leftover" bull so to speak, born May 8, 2003, unpicked by bull buyers from among his yearling contemporaries, under circumstances similar to Mike's Unwanted bull...... his natural mature form just happened to be the way it is from maternal selection.....he was a closebred carcass quality cowmaker "boss" bull who could move like a jack rabbit and had the libido to go with it, but got careless one day as a six year old while in action and apparently got way laid by another upcoming bull who broke his right rear stifle*t happens with cattle just being cattle doing their thing, just glad he wasn't a high priced purchased bull from SAV  Smile

(Of 324 Georginas born from 1983 thru 2011 in this herd, 57 are currently active in this herd.  They are not available to registered breeders with papers.   Below is the 25 generation maternal family tree of A426)
A426 born 3/05/2006, paternal grandam 6374 born 3/25/96
A472 born 3/04/2002, paternal grandam A348 born 3/16/94
A421 born 3/24/2000, paternal grandam 6383 born 3/13/91 (dam of 6374)
A448 born 3/11/1998, paternal grandam 2065 born 3/20/88
A461 born 3/20/1993, paternal grandam 6357 born 5/29/88
A406 born 3/07/1991, paternal grandam 1702 born 2/16/80

K.A. CLARK GEORGINA FAMILY TREE  (each named in traditional family fashion)
Gehenna of Craigie, born 8/22/83 - 10373917
Genie of Craigie, born 3/03/74 - 8058137
Genoa of Craigie, born 4/11/68 -  5982966
Georgina of Tetley 15 - born 1/03/64 - 4367582
Georgina of Tetley 3 born 2/6/58 - 2672663
Gladys of Balllylough born 2/2/51 - 1638690

Glory of Tullyraw - AACAS 138540C
Galas of Tullyraw - AACAS 123119C
Gertie of Mullarack - AACAS 107932C
Girlie of Mullarack - AACAS 98961C
Galeen of Mullarack -  83210
Gaelic Girl - 79616
Gems Gaelic - 75000
Gloria B of Ballintomb - 59546
Gabrielle - 31231
Gem of Abergeldie - 27816
Gentian of Ballindalloch - 19258
Genista - 15051
Georgina 2 of Aberlour - 5979

So what does this cow family pedigree tree tell anyone about the ancestral pen without knowing the selection direction of the last dozen generations.   EPD are a poor indicator of describing a functional type.   The only one that can have personal intimate detailed knowledge about the cattle is the owner, anyone else is second guessing.  The primary selection emphasis of this cow family from Gladys to Gehenna was BEEF QUALITY alongside practical maternal function, measured by the skilled eye of a packer order buyer whose life was spent observing cattle with both their hides on and off.    I would be second guessing at whatever other characteristics that ancestry displayed, but what I know for absolute certainty is that not a single ancestor was sterile.

Prior to A406 born in 1991, lacking a skilled eye, I spent 10 years evaluating actual carcass characters of different types of cattle in my herd, both publicly and privately, data which strongly correlated to industry trends during a major change when registered industry fashions were maximizing early rapid growth and increased mature size....mature Angus bulls in the industry at that time ranged from 1300 to 3000 lbs....everyone suddenly began promoting ton plus bulls.    About this same time, a friend and very successful performance breeder from Nebraska was winning the carcass events at the Denver Stock Show with his "cull heifers".  I suppose the insinuation was to just imagine how much better their replacement heifers would be, but that would not be an accurate assumption.    An interesting tidbit I read in one of the first Waigroup promotional ads touted winning the NZ carcass contests with their open "cull heifers".   In all likelihood, the replacement heifers that bred up well would not have fared so well, believe it or not.    The mature weight of my higher carcass quality bulls were around a ton, their sisters mature cow weight was about 1100-1300# depending on the time during the year when weighed.  People in the know tell me dairy cattle have the most consistant predictable carcass, yet the dairy people  select for milking ability.     Hmmmmm.

DF asked:

LL, if you get a chance, can you discuss replacement female selection and bull selection? At what age would you feel is the most accurate to make the selection? Is there still some phenotypic variation in your herd? At what age do you feel you "know" a cow or bull?

I am more than happy to discuss my own replacement selection.... I cannot speak for others.   I thought I had discussed my selection criteria somewhat extensively here on KC before.   For my maternal purposes, the day a calf is born is the most important age to make initial selections which reveals the most important economic maternal traits for a cow/calf  producer.    The bulls are just the males of my preferred cows and beyond balanced functional soundness and their mannerisms, rightly or wrongly, that is about the scope of my bull selection.   That may seem like "blue sky" but the bulls are usually dead or gone before I could ever really "know" any bull's true maternal breeding attributes.   I finally really "know" a cow by the daughters she leaves in the herd at whatever age that would be.  Regardless of what our occupation is, beginning with apprenticeship, the more experience we have, we instinctively get more proficient.   So from my accumulated years of observations, after their day of birth if my yearling heifers were all lined up eating along a feedrack, I probably can do as well selecting my replacements by walking along the feedrack and selecting them by their heads as well as any other method.  

Perhaps I need to reiterate that I am not focused on individual cows or bulls, I've moved to what is referred to as population genetics, a selection direction to stabilize a strain, finally learning to avoid the perceived outliers, preferring the centerpoint of the own personal selection objective is to consider the entire herd a"unit of one kind"  Of course there is "still some phenotypic variation in the herd" due to many natural factors.....and my lifetime in the cattle breeding world is a very short period in time when most of that time was spent floundering.  For example, LIKE NOW I HAVE A DETAIL PROBLEM.  Mike informed me that the cow pictured on the left above was not #A426, that he had it identified as being cow #2979.   Good grief, my cattle are getting to look so damn much alike, even I can't tell the difference anymore, it must be my eyes, it can't possibly be my age.  Smile
For the purpose of this post, it doesn't make much difference to me, but to straighten me out since they are now both Mike's cows, he went to all the trouble to go out and take a current picture of #A426.   I don't know if he has a current picture of #2979  for a better comparison or not.  I readily admit that some days my cows look better or worse to me than they do on other days.

Not being a nit-picking frustrated perfectionist, I still cannot see any SIGNIFICANT OR PERTINENT FUNCTIONAL DIFFERENCE  between cows A426 and picture was taken when the sun was just right and the trees were all leafed out, the picture directly above was taken when the sun wasn't quite right for clarity and the trees don't have their full leaves yet. {mk note..426calf=1 week old}  I don't know if one cow is more "homogenized" than the other or not, I do have about 30 new healthy calves on the ground, born without any trouble sired by A426's yearling bull .   The only major difference I cannot  see between "homogenized' and a "heterogenized" look alike cows is that one would be more renewable than the other, which the industry refers to as prepotency.

I quit DNA testing several years ago since several sires could qualify as the sire of a calf, reasoning that if the DNA was similar, what the hell difference does it make who is who since my selection for a specific functional type remains constant.    I've referred to it as "breeding a breed within a breed", performance breeders might refer to it as being stagnant, others might refer to it as linebreeding but they are misinformed.....I am simply stabilizing a preferred type to reduce rather than increase problems.    Any actual IBC's are likely self-governed by selection and are not worth trying to calculate based on averages.   To demonstrate the purebred pedigree of cow #2979 for DF and Farmekuk, it is as follows:

(Of 346 Lucys born in this herd from the base cow since 1978, there are 64 Lucys currently in the herd)
2979 born 2/20/2007 pat grandam MS (one of several of the same type paternal grandams)
2966 born 5/15/2000 pat grandam 712
2931 born 4/10/1998 pat grandam 6345
2900 born 4/06/1995 pat grandam 1702
2944 born 2/02/1988 pat grandam 1702
2937 born 4/02/1986 pat grandam 2712
2910 born 4/13/1981 pat grandam 2003
2901 born 3/15/1978 pat grandam 6001
GDA29 born 2/8/1976 pat grandam Candida of Wye
DA29 born 3/21/1973 pat grandam Cerelia of Wye
A29 born 4/6/1970 pat grandam Battista of Wye
29 born 5/6/1968 pat grandam Moles Hill Enzora
Haystack Lucy 30 born 9/28/64
Bandolier of Arkdale 5 born 4/9/62
Arkdale Bandolier 30 born 3/5/57
Bandoliers Ella 5 born 2/20/46 (note her dam would've been 16 yrs old, there is more than ample evidence that "sprinters" lack longevity)Ellas Sixth Lassie born 3/25/30
Ella of Ash Roe born 1/5/1922

It would be interesting to me if I could use the TruLine color wheel rather than numbers to describe "functional purity" by visualizing  the gradual shades of color changes over time due to selection of each individual generation..   To fixate certain characters in a population,  in general it is estimated  to require up to 8 generations of close breeding depending on several factors.   Cows 2944 thru 2979 would be a distinctive yellow.  Certainly knowing the qualities of the ancestry is essential to the breeder, but it is a waste of time by going back to 1922 except perhaps for nostalgic reasons or in looking back to discern long term trends....none of which can be changed.    

For further discussion's sake, from 1965 through 1980 there was a significant difference among the Angus cattle in my herd, I could recognize who was who with or without identification tags the same as we can recognize people by their faces.   While the mainstream uses outliers to change cattle selecting for progeny differences, I am trying to make them more alike selecting for progeny similarities.    Today in this herd, there is no significant difference in cow families like there once was.    In my closed population, I maintain their family identification only for my own logistical purposes.    My constant selection becomes the preferred type that ultimately prevails anyway and becomes the only Shoshone pedigree needed for outside usuage.     I simply do not know which cattle's random half of the genotype is superior to others based on phenotype.

And for further discussion about variation, I have often wondered if anyone really cares about doing a thorough psychoanalysis of the ultrasound distributions of a sire, a herd, a breed or composites for prepotency.  I do pay alot of attention to distributions.  I have developed a fat phobia over time observing the side effects.  For example, Mike told me cow #426 got relatively fat before she calved this spring, yet I remembered her more as being what I call a beef jersey type.  And Hilly posted a picture of his Shoshone cow a month or two ago, who didn't work last summer raising a calf and she looked fat to me.   My cows do get fat when they don't work, and I suppose that could be one way DB could define the difference between a dairy cow and a beef cow.  I do believe the $EN numbers offer some reasonable estimated guidelines.  

It would be nice if we could instill appetite governors on our cattle, but it is impractical, all we can do practically is control the amount of feedstuffs they eat.   I have yet to see any cows get fat on poor feed  and water.   We all know fat is accumulated by environmental factors, where that fat is stored in the body is determined by genetics.    I prefer the genetics that store fat intramuscularly and in the milk.   To add another trivial detail for whatever its worth, .a grandaughter of #A29, cow #ECA29 born in 1974 produced a bull born in 1978 that became one of the highest marbling bulls in the breed at that point in time, used successfully to freshen Holstein cows to improve the beef value of the resultant progeny.    I have learned to identify some external phenotypic characteristics as indicators of carcass quality.   I suspect that I have had several bulls who have been superior to that 1978 bull, they just weren't evaluated as individuals..

I dislike cattle with "blue" milk and with patchy fat that was so prevalent in Shorthorns and mellow yellow Herefords at one point in time.....and pudgy Angus.....and bulky exotic oxen.......and cattle with too much milk are inefficient convertors of feedstuffs to beef.    So, we are left  pick our plums or pick stayers or maximize or reduce variation......but whatever we choose, I remain convinced that averages without distribution ranges are a cowman's nightmare and that the registered breed societies as a whole remain in a chaotic state of disarray......and that without a shadow of a doubt they prefer it to remain that way.....and it will as long as they are financially supported by the populace.

I guess I chose to stick with an Angus derivative base since despite man's intent on changing  them for the last 60 years, they have somehow prevailed with their inherent distributions.   I think I've said more than enough to stimulate some discussion on replacement female and bull selection.....whew, trying to simplify the complex gets very complicated, perhaps we should just do what Bootheel and Bob H do,  to enjoy life just put the bulls with the cows and let nature take its course.......but we won't.  

LL in the vicinity of enjoying chocolate Easter bunnies,  Russell Stover marshmallow eggs and yellow, pink and orange sugar coated peeps to help sustain $80.00 per ton sugarbeets    Smile
Back to top Go down

Posts : 3816
Join date : 2010-09-21

PostSubject: Re: Reflections Condensed   Tue Mar 07, 2017 7:50 pm

Hilly wrote...
Shades by quantity of black/white, beef/dairy, employed/unemployed, summer/winter....

This cow with a calf in the summer


Same cow unemployed for a year, in the winter a year and 3 months later

Her brother with cows in the fall of the year at the end breeding two groups of cows that year.

Same bull unemployed for 6 months, surviving winter, in the spring of the next year

Back to top Go down

Posts : 3816
Join date : 2010-09-21

PostSubject: Re: Reflections Condensed   Tue Mar 07, 2017 7:53 pm

4-12-2012 LL wrote

Ben Loyning wrote:
Larry, A selection question for you.  I agree that the best selection for maternal cattle is based on their mother the day they are born.   But what if the day they are born mother nature does not want them?  I had a close bred calf born yesterday that without my help would not have got up and sucked.  This calf's sire and dam are both of the type I want to perpetuate here.   Based on his dam alone he would be a herd bull candidate.  Do we experiment with that which mother nature would not allow?  Or should it automatically go to beef?  It will be interesting evaluating this nubbin on through the year.  On another note I think I probably got more nubbins going from outcross to outcross then I have from closer breeding so far.

Ben Loyning, In the vicinity of being young and dumb, and loving the learning process.

Ben, I have no idea what the heritability of that particular weakness might be.   When man domesticated livestock, he assumed control of their care.   How much care we are willing to provide our livestock is usually driven by some economic incentive.  
Since all life has weaknesses, it becomes an individual decision of which ones we might tolerate.     Over the long term I have paid dearly for propagating known weaknesses for short term gains.   However, I know a man that lives about 30 miles northwest of you that has a herd of primarily Simme cross cows, who willingly and routinely helps most of his calves nurse for up to a week since he likes selling 700 lb. plus commercial calves.   While I've watched the mainstream continually compound problems in their haste to increase economics, remember I have said my objective is to reduce problems.....and ideally,  the TruLine concept could do a much better job of managing commercial problems.... needless to say it is not a quick 'n easy task on the part of the seedstock breeder.

LL in the vicinity of uncomfortable howling winds sweeping the area clean while dumping all the old dried weeds and trash into our irrigation ditches, could've expected it following an unusual  82 degree day yesterday.
Back to top Go down

Posts : 3816
Join date : 2010-09-21

PostSubject: Re: Reflections Condensed   Tue Mar 07, 2017 7:56 pm

4-15-2012 LL wrote

Grassfarmer wrote:
 Yep, you can really tell a lot about birthweight genetics when you weigh ET calves out of recipient dams    ......I don't understand some people's cattle - a bigger than usual heifer calf weighs 65lbs at birth yet by the time they are a 1st calf heifer they look like a 5 year old cow - are they the ultimate curve benders or does it take them that long to mature and have their first calf?

Shades of the past 50's & 60's returning again BACK WHEN commercial "British breed heifers" were 3 yrs old before they had their first calf.     Rolling Eyes  Rolling Eyes

Stolen from JC's  posts on 4.9 -  pictures are surely worth a 1000 words - form following  functional selection scratch  scratch  
"Here is the Pinebank bull I have purchased:"

"Morgan, You are right, I posted the wrong picture. I have purchased the 526 bull on the registration paper. Below is the 526 bull"

Camera angle from a worm's eye view......I see JC mixes up his pictures with the proper ID too, and he's not nearly as old as I am    Smile  Smile

"More pictures of the Pinebank 526 bull's dam:"

Are you mating yearling heifers and either way he will give you trouble free calving. It does not appear to matter what the heifers or cows birth weights are, it looks as though it is the birth weight of the bull that is critical. Birth weight has a heritability of 39% which is high so if you have dystokia, or calving problems, then it is well worth selecting bulls with low birth weights. Do you pull many calves?. I take it that you are purchasing the second  bull (561) for your heifer mating and for that purpose he should be ideal. His calves will not grow on as well as bull No1’s (526) you bought, I would expect his growth patten to be a little better......The best bred bull with the stongest cow family is 526. He is a little bigger then Kit ‘s criteria but the smallness of your cows will bring his size back. It is of course up to you. If you wish to improve the performance of your herd then 526 is the bull that we recommend from here. Are you anticipating that Kit will use the bull as well as yourself? Or is he having no say in what bull you select, I always thought that it was for you.

JC added, "This is a 13 year old straight Shoshone cow, she had twins this year and weaned about 80% of her weight. If she is late calving this year, she will go to Ron Vance

scratch  scratch

"Straight Shoshone" cows don't carry freeze brands - but partial ones still have tails - my goodness that " farao  bunch" are ruthless cullers.....poor Ron Vance, wondered what he does with all the culls     scratch  scratch

POINTS TO PONDER.    Common Angus birthweights in the 50's & 60's were 60 to 65#, shorter gestation (lighter)  birthweights are highly correlated to earlier maturity, yield grades 4 and 5's were also common  scratch  scratch

This is his dam"  (561's , how many of you think her bull calf is her male equivalent  scratch  scratch


Bootheel wrote: .......Pyramid schemes are an accepted portion of reality today, so the ability to prosecute said activeties is voided. My view of the world today is rather negative, and started with a personal discussion of one of the Moneychanger's, with all the best cows, gathered from all over the world..... and my thoughts were ''Why must they still purchase the best cows from everyone else'''. The continual saga of gathering the outliers from all the outlaying lands, seems to never end. Today, I have no use for LIARs or OUTLIARs, whereever they may lay.

Bootheel, just mad  

MK responded:
Dozer been hung up again Joe...or is this totally cattle inspired?   Smile
I`m with you; the games of rarity and chance and following the clamor of the crowd make me mad enough to laugh and make fun of them all   Smile
these pot gutted, sway back back mainstream bulls weighing 1300 at a year with an 11 sq inch loin eye make me think that we materal creators are relying too greatly on the mainstream for terminal genetics to use on our cows...Jeff Mundorf`s Limmy looks more logical all the time; same for the Wagyu or a Wagyu deriviative in the quality grade direction...

Well Mike, don't you remember the data from BB's 2010 all Shoshone sired steers, gained 5.52# a day in the feedlot, killed at 1500+ lbs, graded 95% prime with no yield grade 4's or 5' why would we need Limmy's or Wagyu, inquiring minds would like to know   scratch  scratch

W.T. wrote:Recorded some of the 5L sale at one time they had some nice cattle they have gone mainstream now and there were a lot of sway back sorry mainstream cattle that were no sales. the red's were better topped until everyone started to want everything. They got it just a different shade. Is it red ,yellow, or blue?

By DV........Three white feathers for LL.

MK wrote:

"......a friend and very successful performance breeder from Nebraska was winning the carcass events at the Denver Stock Show with his "cull heifers". I suppose the insinuation was to just imagine how much better their replacement heifers would be, but that would not be an accurate assumption. An interesting tidbit I read in one of the first Waigroup promotional ads touted winning the NZ carcass contests with their open "cull heifers". In all likelihood, the replacement heifers that bred up well would not have fared so well, believe it or not..."
good stuff...further differeniation between meat and maternal function..

OR, could it be SELECTION for APPETITE CAPACITY and BACK FAT rather than meat to uphold individual POUNDS of performance with LOW BIRTHWEIGHTS    scratch  scratch .....just looking at the TRENDS in "fat" and "YG" of the MAINSTREAM curvebenders     Rolling Eyes  Rolling Eyes

LL, tickled pink by DV's feathers while uncorking PINK bubbly champagne enertainin' myself at the "unraveling genetic mysteries" party from the archives of history
Back to top Go down

Posts : 3816
Join date : 2010-09-21

PostSubject: Re: Reflections Condensed   Tue Mar 07, 2017 8:00 pm

R V wrote:
MKeeney wrote:
as they say on Family Feud {does that name apply somewhat here ?  Smile }, good answer  Exclamation

no, there`s no glaring defect with 903, and I guarantee she`s a better cow than most that little jimmer is keeping and`s just the con game marketing mis-nomers that we`re calling attention to; and it`s the great culling principles of the  farao `s that little jimmer is trying to promote as to making their cattle and process so superior...and it`s all a con...
and another thing I`m pointing  out is how buyers will deal with con`s and buy a lessor genetic cow than is readily available other places, just because she has "papers"...until you put genes ahead of papers, your registered response rings of rustling, not of the genes, but the reputation of someone else...not alone, the registered business is built on that exact premise...just read a Tom Burke footnote for further proof...

I know that I am the oddball here because for some reason I still want the option to register my cattle. It doesn't change my focus on improvement and doing the best that I can with what I have available. This is just an analogy, but registration papers and alcohol may be more similar than most think. Both have good and bad qualities and both can do some good, but can be dangerous and individuals have different levels of risk with use.  Twisted Evil We are just teetotalers in different spectrums.  Exclamation

In regards to the arrangement of genes, we are in different stages. As per Dr. Jan Bonsma "The first step in successful livestock production is to get adaptability. That gives you liveability. If you have liveability and adaptability, then can increase your number of livestock and then select for ...." I am still at the stage of selecting for the genes of adaptability and liveability and am still learning what they live and look like. Some breeders are getting enough numbers to increase selection pressure. Larry's selection pressure has "gone over the top" and is now uniform enough that it is a numbers game and a gate cut.  Hopefully, I will eventually make it to that level.

I don't think that I have ever been close to being a genetic rustler, but I don't mind the challenges to make sure that is true. By the way, the Family Feud comparison is great!

 RV ,  reread one of my favorite quotes from a  North American TRU-LINER  and maybe you will realize all your justifications and analogies are meaningless .

"once I get to redundancy of individuals in my cows I may start to study them more "

Thanks again Hilly .     Jon
Back to top Go down

Posts : 3816
Join date : 2010-09-21

PostSubject: Re: Reflections Condensed   Tue Mar 07, 2017 8:02 pm

4-18-2012 LL write
Dennis Voss wrote:

The literal image of the complex abstractions involved in correlating primary colors evolving into secondary colors as it pertains to breeding cattle by utilizing the symbolism of colors, for Bootheel/LL.

DV in the vicinity of giving further guidance as time permits

Thanks Dennis, she may not be the sexiest cow in the entire world, but she is certainly the most colorful.....with the flexiibility to produce any color calf we might prefer.   While registered cattle breeders are extremely RACIST, she "should not be judged by the color of her skin, but for her character" (s).  Smile    

Regardless of race, below is a portrait of the SEXIEST cow in the entire world.....WOW, what gorgeous extended shapely rear legs,  those glamourous eyes, slender shoulders and elegant arms to say nothing about her exquisite volumeous  bosom, and oh my goodness.....whatta BEAUTIFUL tail......all the parts put together JUST RIGHT to make any bull wanna stray from his own pasture.

But we can't just live off  love alone, man's gotta eat and so do cows.    The motivating force behind the TruLine concept was not to achieve great monetary rewards producing a few wondrous cattle, it was my concern that the reactionary registered industries were not producing the right cattle for future needs.   The future is here and the demand for more consistency and more efficient functional cows has never been greater. To devise ways of producing a better more profitable hybrid, "the principles are exceedingly simple, the difficulty is in the application."

With ample justification, registered breeders have become great skeptics, insisting on proof with public pedigree verified by DNA analysis and expensive piles of guesstimated records for legitimacy.   Mark claims this group of unsorted freshly weaned heifers were sired by two or three ordinary KA bulls.    As a skeptic, I would suspect that Mark has access to a hidden lab somewhere and that in fact these are ACTUALLY CLONED HEIFERS ....and that genome testing could not disprove it to be otherwise.  Very Happy  

LL, near the facility of  cloning functional cattle, where this inexpensive innovative system is secured and protected of proprietary confidential information, raised and processed  ONLY for affordable commercial beef production ...BE WARY OF IMITATIONS Very Happy  
Back to top Go down

Posts : 3816
Join date : 2010-09-21

PostSubject: Re: Reflections Condensed   Wed Mar 08, 2017 7:36 pm

Dylan wrote 4-28-2012

Will wrote:
Dylan, mind explainONG what Tru-Line means to you?  Seems to me it is a mindset or peace of mind where the cattle take care of theirselves and you go fishing just as soon as the first calf is born.  What about the cow that has twins all tangled up or the cow with a calf with the foot down or head back?  I have never found that to be genetic.   What am I missing?  Or am I not missing anything?

Willl, open your mind, you need to readjust your sights. I am Willing to try again, seemingly more Willing then you are to attempt to understand anything I or anyone else have said before on this topic. But I feel you are sincere and as long as Willl is Willing to accept that I am not capable of a Vulcan mind meld and at some point, Willl, you Will have to get over your unexplained reluctance to invest some time reading to gain your own understanding of the topic. At any rate this is as much for my own practice in articulating my thoughts as it is an attempt to help you understand because in the end your sights are your sights and no one can give you an answer or draw conclusions for you, you are responsible for aquiring your own understanding.

Top Chefs use top ingredients. They know that individual high quality spices can taste unpleasant on there own at the very least, but in the right amounts with a complimentary combination they meld to  produce an awesome eating experience. Without a consistent grower/supplier of high quality spices the Chef can not renew or replicate high quality dishes on a consistent basis. The job of the Chef is combination. Combination of poor quality ingredients makes the job way harder. Breeders of parent stock are ingredient suppliers for the commercial man (Chef) to produce the end product. Tru-line as far as I understand it, is a label for a conceptual breeding system that is focused on using complimentary lines of parent (ingredient) stock that commercial producers can rely on to yield consistent quality end product. The ingredients on there own can appear rather plain after isolation and concentration which in the end is irrelevant. What is relevant is the result of a complimentary combination. There are blended spices and if the blend is consistent and renewable it can work as an ingredient also but the blender then relies on the producer of the base stock to be of consistent high quality. If the blenders supply is not reliable then the blender may have to take on the task of producing the base ingredients himself, a complication of logistics and processes that may not be worth while. So at some point for the commercial cow calf enterprise to breed a consistent high quality feeder calf he relies on the parent stock breeder to supply consistent high quality seedstock (ingredients) or parent stock.  Continuous renewal or replication of functional maternal stock is facilitated by a closed population to reduce genetic variability or heterozygosity thereby improving the probability of predictable consistent results. It is going to require choosing a functional type one likes and breeding like to like so the likely hood of producing what one likes is more likely. Or in other words the likely hood of consistent regeneration of what one likes is only more likely with reduced genetic variety. Tru-line in my interpretation means breeding a supply of consistent functional parent stock genetics for combination in commercial herds to facilitate the consistent production of high quality end result feeder cattle.

Back to top Go down

Posts : 3816
Join date : 2010-09-21

PostSubject: Re: Reflections Condensed   Wed Mar 08, 2017 7:43 pm

4-29-2012 LL wrote
WOW Dylan, what a great way to seize and preserve one precious moment in time !!!!!!

“If the day and the night are such that you greet them with joy, and life emits a fragrance like flowers and sweet-scented herbs, is more elastic, more starry, more immortal- that is your success. All nature is your congratulation, and you have cause momentarily to bless yourself.

If  things were as easy as they are simple....... the rats nest of the human mind.


Will wrote:
LL, thanks for taking the time to answer my questions. I have heard of your program in the past but I know very little about it. Do you inbreed or linebreed now?

DB responded:

Will, I get your desire for an immediate understanding of Tru Line, I felt the same impatience initially. Though, after reading and thinking and mulling and stewing on just the basic concepts for over a year now, from what I have read on this site, I feel I am starting to get a grasp. Conceptually it is simple, but for me it was not easy. The challenge was that it is a complete 360 in terms of the way I thought about and approached breeding my cattle since the early 80's. It is a different way of thinking. You are obviously a committed cattleman and as such when you take the time to read and think about the True Line principles I expect you will then start to appreciate the differences that don't allow a single sentence, immediate, off the cuff flippant answer. There is a wide range of thinking in cattle breeder circles. Renewable is one good example of a concept I never really gave much consideration to from the stand point of how to, other than just wishing for the right mating. Everyone would like to be able to renew their good results consistently. But few can churn out the same type of functional predictable results on a relatively consistent basis. You may protest and say you do and yet you say "I sure wish we had some semen on some of our past herdbulls now that we are positive that they had more to offer than just carcass and growth". For years I have wanted to replicate my good results also. To be able to renew those results is a part of what True Line addresses. How does one stack the deck in favor of replicating the functional individual or individuals. The recipe. Humans typically get bored of a really good dish and eventually they want some variety, until the day comes they can't have the good lod dish any more, then it is imagined as even better then it actually was. Asssuming your wish was sincere, spending some time reading will likely prove interesting for you.

MK wrote:

“A truly good book teaches me better than to read it. I must soon lay it down, and commence living on its hint. What I began by reading, I must finish by acting.”
― Henry David Thoreau

Following many valid comments and questions from a commercial viewpoint, LCP wrote:

Bob, my goals are to enjoy ranching and make enough at it to raise a family. More specifically, I want to have a cow herd with outstanding maternal qualities and be able to add value to the calves after weaning through retained ownership. The retained ownership isn't quite as important to me as the cow herd. I can't imagine doing anything else besides ranching. I really enjoy working with animals...except cows that are poor mothers. Nothing else shortens my fuse more than a cow that won't claim her calf. I have one in the barn right now that is working on my last nerve.Are those the kind of goals you were asking about? Or are there more specific goals in regards to genetics I need to have? I am not really set in my ways. Change does not bother me, as long as it brings about improvement or progress of some kind. I am pretty willing to try new things as long as they make sense.
Will wrote:

MK, another great post. Got a good laugh out of your last sentence ("Will is an engaging; sometimes, enraging fellow  ").  I think you are a masterbreeder in the purebred world. Got a ways to go yet in the hybrid world but we are makng some pretty good progress. How's the golf game? One of my goals is to play a round of golf with you and pick your brain. You are a thinker and I really enjoy people that think and are able to defend their program. A couple days ago we had 92 degrees, yesterday it started to rain a very cold rain with snowflakes this morning. Inch total and we needed it! Glad I have hybrids they take these weather changes better. Seems I read somewhere linebred inbreed cattle are not as thrifty. Might of been on Advantage.

Hilly wrote:

I always have to remind myself that efficiency of the Tru-Line system will come in degrees, we all have to start somewhere. I made a comfortable living with the cattle before I met Larry and Mike so I'm not arguing that it can only be done the Tru-Line way but I do believe this is a more efficient and grounded way

There have also been many other interesting comments on KC lately.   The rats nest of several human minds churning  together to develop recipes seems to be getting more complicated. as we enter the world of details in regards to the TruLine concept.    For simplification, we are all aware that any successful RECIPE consists of stabile ingredients.   To answer your question Will, I am not necessarily inbreeding or linebreeding now, they are merely tools I use to stabilize and refine the ingredients.    The 360 turnaround DB aludes to is going from an era of marketing haphazardly mixed parent or production stock to one of marketing stabilized  ingredients for more predictable products.  

Not only does DB have a great appreciation for the beauty in all of nature, I now owe him my eternal gratitude for his preceding post which so thoroughly explained the need for "pure" ingredients....and thank you Hilly for your post of greater understanding.....putting the concept in a nutshell, any improvement in the efficiency of beef production does come in degrees starting from somewhere....a time consuming patient process.  Hilly had his production system all figured out long before he ever met LL or MK.   He searched us out in his quest to find more reliable special purpose parent stock.  I am reminded of when he told us his  Canadian neighbors were going broke chasin' higher and higher producing cattle.  That's a  highly contagious disease that spread worldwide, where few have an immunity to it,  especially adapted just across the Canadian border into ND    Smile

It took me far too long before I came to believe that the genuine basic foundational purpose of a "purebred breed" was to stabilize a kind in order to improve the prepotent renewal of that kind.   Over time the industry discovered that crossing kinds temporarily increased production.....we call it the benefits of hybrid vigor or foolishly associate it with an effect of heterosis when in fact it is more likely just the complimentarity or detrimental combination  of two diverse genotypes.   So yes Will, I understand why you are glad to have hybrids "to take these weather changes better" - we have become dependent on hybrid vigor.   However, we all should know by now that it must be sustained with continued variation lest we regress to the true genetic level over time.    "Purebred breeding" requires built-in essential economic cost that Will seems to be unwilling to invest his time and efforts in, nor do very few of the rest of us want to spend the time and perserverance required for long term improvement.  

MK told Bob, "we`re separated by a fine line in this discussion" somewhat in defense of  Will's perspective.    No, no, no, Mike, there is a coarse line that is significantly different between traditional production and more efficient:"TruLine" production systems.    In today's beef world, to my regret I cannot see any significant genetic differences between registered and non-registered cattle whether they are called purebreds or crossedupbred hybrids, composites or mongrels.   To my knowledge, I am not aware of any breed that is trying to stabilize their primary characters....most use the top to bring up the bottom.    So Mike, how do you just add a pinch of Wagyu to get calving ease and marbling without also getting any of their other characters?.  Smile

Perhaps many are at a disadvantage who read the advantage website since they have likely not seen how genuine purebreds can breed up from what they are while they are quite familiar with how crossedupbreds normally breed down from what they are.  I personally don't need any further experiments to see what Fl's, F2's, F'3's or more do as parents and have also seen innumerable examples of the miracles of that F1 consistency subsequently deteriorate.  From all the hocus pocus we read and hear about, DB is right-on when he said "you will then start to appreciate the differences that don't allow a single sentence, immediate, off the cuff flippant answers" to all the questions LCP has set forth in his KC posts.

So when Dylan says "if  things were as easy as they are simple", we can quickly understand why the traditional industry does what it does.    It is not about genetics, but all about our own economics and our lack of time.  From a commercial standpoint, traditional individuals are uniquie unto themselves.    Will chose a couple of Simme bulls from the breed to make his hybrids and so I had a good laugh when he told MK "you really made Sim-Angus bulls without knowing one Simmy from another by name?"   .So Will, will those be the only Simme bulls you'll ever use??    In summary as a breeder of maternal parent stock, I am having a awful hard time understanding how hybrid vigor is considered free.....oh, maybe I forgot we have across breed individual parent EPD's and we no longer care about consistant renewal as we relapse back into the habits of our old "search and destroy" missions.  Smile

Trying to maintain a sense of humor in this very responsible business of breeding parent stock, I became a little distraught when MK said he is "going to make a cut and move on this discussion soon to Another new guy to combine Will`s thoughts, catalogs , responses etc to keep LL`s Reflections thread more condensed"....we're all not skimmers.....and all this while I have been borrowing comments from other topics for subjective material to use on reflections by LL .....geez Mike, don'tcha remember you can't teach an old dog new reflections ARE for "new guys", ole guys are already set in their ways.......just imagine if we could persuade 60 yr. old Hybrid Will to accept the validity of the TruLine concept, we will have moved a mountain.    I think I need to volunteer to be you and Will's golfing caddy.....or maybe Bob H would be a more qualified person for that job.   Smile

LL - jovial while in the vicinity of earthquakes moving mountains if Mike will just push the right buttons rather than succumb to Will's will and marketing skill    Rolling Eyes  Smile  
Back to top Go down

Posts : 3816
Join date : 2010-09-21

PostSubject: Re: Reflections Condensed   Thu Mar 09, 2017 7:32 am

Hilly posted...
Will wrote:
I'm getting it, or should I say I got it a from the beginning of my ranching career.  The only difference between me and Tru-Line is you believe in doing it with one breed and i believe in creating a new breed from two breeds and doing it. I think MK is on the right track using a half blood waygu.  He wants and will get more consistent marbling and get some heterosis thrown in for free.  The cross will beat the Gardiner trash all to hell in one cross.   Might need a purebred Simmy to make three quarter bloods for customers that need a little more Simmy for their enviroment.  LL would more than accept you as the Caddy.  I have a tremendous amount of respect for a person that has a program and sticks to it and you have.  Thanks for your post.

It’s hard in this format of communication to tell if someone, especially a newer member is being sarcastic or not, but Will your last post has left me speechless; fingers still seem to move a little Smile

LL wrote:

 It took me far too long before I came to believe that the genuine basic foundational purpose of a "purebred breed" was to stabilize a kind in order to improve the prepotent renewal of that kind.

Over time the industry discovered that crossing kinds temporarily increased production.....we call it the benefits of hybrid vigor or foolishly associate it with an effect of heterosis when in fact it is more likely just the complimentarity or detrimental combination of two diverse genotypes.

So yes Will, I understand why you are glad to have hybrids "to take these weather changes better" - we have become dependent on hybrid vigor.

However, we all should know by now that it must be sustained with continued variation lest we regress to the true genetic level over time

I’m not sure how we are explaining Tru-Line in a way that makes it sound like one strain can do it all best (super), but it is not the first time this interpretation has been brought up.
Will, if you are starting a new super breed I assume that you have closed your gene pool from outside genetics, are you saying that within this closed pool you have enough variation to maintain three breeds two vital and one only super on the backs of the other two.

LL wrote:

In summary as a breeder of maternal parent stock, I am having a awful hard time understanding how hybrid vigor is considered free..”

This is also not the first time it has been implied that heterosis is free, with this misconception of basic principals the trend to mix things up will continue and only after well shaken and stirred will the true cost of heterosis addiction be realized by the addicts.
Back to top Go down

Posts : 3816
Join date : 2010-09-21

PostSubject: Re: Reflections Condensed   Thu Mar 09, 2017 7:37 am

Larry posted...
Picture taken by my sister-in-law from her home terrace in the Bronx, NYC

Our advances from the Wright Bros to Space Shuttles in my lifetime dictate that sooner or later all our journeys become outdated and are relegated to the museums of history for posterity.   Man envisioned space flight long before it happened.....any progressive advances are envisioned before they happen....always happening by circumstance.    Cars get double the gas mileage of 50 years ago with more horsepower, climate control, sun roofs and directional maps on the dash to take us anywhere we want to go.  Tractors are guided invisibly from the sky and the spectacular universe is plotted by colors for us to visualize on a computer screen - whether it is all worth it or not.   Despite any resistance, circumstances will also relegate today's traditional cattle breeding habits to the museums of history for posterity.

In the interests of advancing the efficiency of beef production, thank you an over-valued million for your post Hilly - first you lost your goldy locks, sacrificed an ear and now with your tongue stuck in your cheek rendering you speechless, I'm glad your fingers are still working.  Smile  Smile     No one is irreplaceable and I thoroughly enjoy participating in these discussions on KC, but then I pay the price for neglecting my day to day duties.   Just what are my duties beyond providing a basic livelihood for my family with more and more insatiable wants ?   I should be out planting corn but its been cold with icy winds changing from highs in the 80's a few days ago to recent high's in the low 30's.   There are some things we just can't change.  

For now, that expensive SUPER HYBRID corn seed is likely better off still in the bag.    Hybridization is commonly used to increase production..... we even have hybrid cars, but they are expensive and their maintenance and durability remains questionable.   There are always debates over ascertaining values, it's worthiness.... $300 seed to produce $6.00 HYBRID corn could equate to an average value of HYBRID bulls and cows being worth the same price per pound as averaged finished hybrid slaughter steers and heifers.....I question why they need to be valued or worth any more.  

The price of progress is never cheap.....producing seed with all the scientific research and development costs built-in to cover all the breeders failures to achieve some success, selling semen out of virtually non-existant genuine purer bulls is about like selling pure corn seed one kernel at a time.   I often question the affordability of our advanced technology.   Economically, I don't know whether I am gaining or losing while increasing production but I do know the pressures and risk have increased dramatically with our demands for higher expectations and standards of living.

I don't like paying $300 dollars a bag for seed, $250 an acre for beet seed & tech fees, $1000 a ton for fertilizer, over $4.00 for diesel, exhorbitant machinery and  maintenance costs, rising property and sales taxes, the vagaries of the weather, the unpredictability of the cattle and cattle markets, slick salesman, getting old ......and most of all the risk of wasting money on speculative, over-valued high-priced hybrid bulls.    I don't mind paying income taxes, at least it's an indicator that I must've made some money from my work.   And some years we lose money so I wonder if it is worth the continueous struggle and why in the sam hell I am a farmer.  

Well, Paul Harvey said on the eighth day, God made farmers to take care of what He created, to have dominion over all creatures.   So,  I must be one of those privileged doomed with an unpreventable inherent affection for that duty.   My neighbor struggling on a poor farm once sincerely told me he believes that if he does a good job with his farm in this godforsaken area, when he goes to Heaven God will give him a very good farm (like in IA or KY)....smiling, I told him if I have to farm in Heaven, I'm seriously considering being a Jihad suicide bomber in order to spend eternity pitting cherries.

But one day walking down my lonely road less traveled, I realized if it is in Heaven as it is on earth, then here we are in heaven still  battling the devil the same as God ... that blowhards and bull shitters were still provided to serve fools while Angels help the needy.  Surely caretakers were gifted with the brains to know the difference between what we can change and what we cannot.   As caretakers then, we're assigned the duty to help those who cannot help themselves.  

I've noticed by nature, most farmers are independent creatures often captivated by a generic marketplace buying retail and selling wholesale.   They will search out ways to free themselves, isn't that right Kent Powell !   Caretakers know that things must get worse before they can get better, that extravagant high prices cure high prices, that feasts are followed by famine, all intermixed  in our lives where heaven and hell are in one dimension.....and so we've  learned that we must make hay while the sun shines for without rain there would be no hay.  

So during the dawn of another new progressive era in beef production among the positives and negatives,  I've learned that inbreeding is not bad, it is the way we abuse and use it.....outbreeding is not bad, it is the way we abuse and use it.....hybridization is not bad, it is the way we abuse and use it......EPD are not bad, they are the only way we can measure a hybrid's performance.....maintaining ancestral records is not bad, it is our mixed up overglorification of them.....contructive criticism is not bad, it is our personal vindictive jealousy.   Variation is not bad, it is a miracle of  joyful  and wonderful assortment available for us to coordinate.    I can become like a kid or an adult overwhelmed in the Red Lodge Candy Store trying to decide among the many barrels of different candy which kind I'd like the most.....ending up filling a bag full up mixed up assortments to taste each with their own unique and distinct flavor.   How can heaven possibly be better than that, ultimately finding those that we prefer over others.....I like black licorice, my wife can't stand it.

Excited with all that I saw right before my eyes,  in 1983 I decided to open up a TruLine Candy Store but no one wanted to make the candy.....not I said the registered people, not I said the composite people to the little man and they laughed and played their games searching for the plastic prizes in their cracker jack boxes.... no factory, no product, the TruLine store remained empty.    Being a caretaker of the needy, like it or not, to fulfill my duty I needed to build a factory.starting somewhere before the sky starts falling.   Since there is no time in eternity,  I don't need to live as long as Methuselah, Noah's ancestor.   The"reigns" since Bakewell have recycled over and over again.for the last 100 years of days and nights.    And lo and behold, the rains have brought forth a renewed freshness for new grass to grow improving the efficiency of beef production one step at a time.

So while old factories who wrap their products in alluring deceptive packages are beginning to shut down, what a grand opportunity to build a new modern one where the candy in the TruLine store will each be wrapped in clear cellophane, affordable in barrel volume for the needy...... it is the destiny of our duty to rid the devils of deception from our heavenly midst.......................

LL - excited to be in the vicinity of caretakers building new candy factories manned by leprechauns busy as beavers to supply the TruLine Store while DV and his band of experienced KC soldiers guard the entrance to keep it free of devil infiltrators while I go back out and plant some H Y B R I D corn for silage...... not for me but for my cattle in order to be a better caretaker   Smile  Smile
Back to top Go down

Posts : 3816
Join date : 2010-09-21

PostSubject: Re: Reflections Condensed   Thu Mar 09, 2017 7:49 am

Hilly replied...

Vintage LL, the type of conversation that happens after hours of working on the rats nest, searching the smoke for fleeting bits of clarity, the ever present good humoured twinkle exposing the acceptance of what is.

If we reap what we sow, you have to consider why we would go to the work of sowing in the first place, Not I said the....

As undervalued and permanent needs give way to overvalued and transitory wants in the wake of abundance and disrespected freedoms, you would think it important to understand the basic folly of claiming knowledge of intended consequences, over and above change.

The expedientially accelerated rate of that change lends itself to high speed distractions and even with the advancement of the GPS and the directional map on the dash, increases the risk of getting lost in the individual search for enough.
Back to top Go down

Posts : 3816
Join date : 2010-09-21

PostSubject: Re: Reflections Condensed   Sun Mar 26, 2017 8:20 pm

Larry wrote...
Will wrote:

When I was a purebed Gelbvieh breeder a loonngg time ago, had bred my commerical herd up to mostly Purebred Gelbvieh. Half bloods were great. Three quarter bloods had throw aways. Purebreds made me puke.  
Mk, never been a Leachman cooperator. I am not much of a marketer but the bulls are always good enough to sell theirselves. Was a student of Jim Leachman though. Never missed his sale. Master breeder and Master marketer. Only person I ever met that knew and I mean KNEW bloodlines and genetics and could market them and I mean really market them. Everyone else I have met in this bull business could do only one or the other. I buy most of my herdbulls from the people that know genetics and fall short on marketing just like me. I really think LL knows genetic big time, but falls short on marketing.

I think there are several issues that need to be quantified. For example, how important is maternal heterosis, how will a commercial producer get replacements, and how easy is the system to manage? In additiion, how does that breeding progam affect marketing? I would think a commercial producer needs to answer these questions, at a minimum, to know what is right for him.

Everything I own I owe to the bull business. It has been great. Use to be a lot of fun but since getting nailed by the genetic defect mess its been more like work. Been really lucky I have always had a job that I enjoyed for the most part. I like doing new things and farming is new. My son also likes new things. Farming is a whole new game. Technology to the max. Auto steer to Ravens to mapping. We really like it. Beats the heck out of argueing if there is such a thing as heterosis. Life is about stages. I am just entering a new stage. Have a great day! I know I will. {end of Will`s quote}

Thanks a million Will for being so successful at stirring the pot, I thoroughly enjoy the many pages of your realistic participation here on Keeney's Corner.   I may be wrong but I think Gelbvieh's originated as a German derivative of Simmentals, a country reknown for its mad scientists who were also going to develop a super race of blond, blue eyed, ideal people who would rule the world - However, natural law demonstrates how radicals tend to do themselves in over time.

Not being a student of Mr. Jim Leachman, I do owe him my undying gratitude for the opportunity to learn from him what not to do the opposite of what he did lest I follow him down that same path to bankruptcy along with his unknowing customers.  Mr. Leachman was also a Master spender, especially good at doing things in a big way with other peoples money.....commonly known as investors.       I do fall short on traditional marketing schemes, never was very good at salesmanship.....and it took me 50 years from being dumber than a mud fence to begin to better understand the simplicity of genetics that we tend to make so complicated.     So rather than offering high expectations with grandiose proclamations of super outliers, I abandoned public advertising nearly 30 years ago from being a somebody to become somewhat of a reclusive hermit living in my cave carving my journey on the walls of time.  

Today I simply market the whole genetic truth, which is actually only a half-truth.   Establishing genetic truths has nothing to do with monetary values -  it has everything to do with the random half of the genotype that is transmitted.    And so I sell my functional purebreds, who incidentally don't make me puke,  at about half the price of traditional mainstream registered prices, prices which incidentally make me wanna puke......and I finally learned not to spend more than I make chasing lofty unachievable more depressing, expensive disappointments for me or my customers.

A few Lingle Wyisms for contemplation:  1) "Crossbreds cannot improve themselves, only by the infusion of homogeneous STRAINS (purebred) can crossbreds be improved".   2)"Proven purebreds provide the only real 'shortcut' to genetic improvement, that path is far more economical than investing a fortune throughout the 96 years required to achieve 98% purity by selecting through 16 generations of crossbreds".   You may get all of the desired traits in one ideal animal, yet that animal may lack the ability to reproduce them.     I see little difference between mating fire and ice whether it is within or across breeds.    Of great interest while at this summer's meeting at the Miles City Research Center, ask why the Line One Hereford people saw a necessity to develop a theoretical 3-breed composite ideal Montana Range Cow......and what is their selection criteria.......and will it take 16 generations of selection to achieve 98% purity.....or ask what percent of purity has been achieved in the Line One's since 1938.....or ask why the Line One's are not anxiously pursued by commercial producers everywhere.    The AAA promotes the great variation within the Angus breed, and rightly so, by offering something for everyone one, at least the breed will not become extinct.

"How important is maternal heterosis" - Brainwashed by circumstantial research data, we have been led to believe that "maternal heterosis" is essential to improve production values.    What has been overlooked along the way is net value and repeatability.   Argueing over if there is such a thing as heterosis, science tells us that heterosis is in reference to your statement that the half bloods were great, I think a better term for heterosis would be "temporary complimentarity".    MARC says we must maintain 75% heterosis to avoid retrogression (so faithfully practiced by Mr. Leachman) and so conversely I surmised I must maintain 75% homozygosity to assure repeatable progression - cattle who have no where to go but up.   Smile  Smile     Bob H has already explained in great detail how easy the TruLine system is to manage and how commercial producers can get replacements.

Will, I also like doing new things - like breeding strains rather than breeds that could make beef production simpler and  better.....out with the old breeds and in with the new purebred strains.    Everything I own I owe to farming enhanced by my intense interest in the PUREBRED cow business.   I have more than enough, especially work, unlike your new stage of life, I just cannot afford technology to the max, I still steer my own tractors and don't need mapping.   So, you be the fire Will and I'll be the ice to produce more MK's . Smile  Smile

LL in the process of installing a new color scanner in order to submit some of my non-academic research learning charts that led to my current breeding philosophies.....MK prefers pictures over words.
Back to top Go down

Posts : 3816
Join date : 2010-09-21

PostSubject: Re: Reflections Condensed   Sun Mar 26, 2017 8:22 pm

Jon wrote...
MKeeney wrote:
This is the only cow that ventured out into the sunlight and short  Smile , yes short, not good, but plentiful,  grass yesterday...Rocketman`s 4 yr old dam...sleek, shining, Bonsma type, not a hint of "fleshing ease/fertility lost" look about her...right down to the switch on her tail...lots of threads she could fit..but here with these quesions asked me personally, that I am putting up for group input...

not her calf; below is best pic I got; two months old and camera shy...pedigree on both? model A


Mike,  have question for you.    I learned to always favor the most masculine yearling bulls when buying. the idea is the more masculine the bull the more feminine the hiefer calves.
 Thus the bull with the higher SC was  more desirable.The heavier,  thicker bulls were considered more masculine.

 LL seems to concentrate on the cow , using the bull simply to hold cow genetics together . I believe you do the same .
I am about to find out how the steer calves turn out from you .  I like the looks of them as of right now.
As I understand it the desert arabs  have the mares on the top side of registry of their horses.
My friend ------- A I s for maternal and doesn't worry about the steer production.  He will pretty much top the Superior sale when he sells.

If I concentrate on making a set of Bonsma style brood cows will the steer tend to be the right kind or style for the market?

Will the most bonsma  approved set of cows tend to make the most masculine bulls , albeit later maturing ?

I am not sure if I am rationilizing my decision to pursue the excellent set of cows.  I know I want a set of Bonsma style cows here and feel the steer will take care of themselves.

 Mike  , Many reponses to your posed questions come to mind , yet my words best be kept in my reclusive state as most humans have little desire and sure as hell cherish  instant gratification much more  .  Everyone wants to ride Hidalgo .  How was Hidalgo created ?   Jon
Back to top Go down

Posts : 3816
Join date : 2010-09-21

PostSubject: Re: Reflections Condensed   Sun Mar 26, 2017 8:24 pm

Larry wrote...
Been lots of good discussion lately on KC..... Kent's archives of history are interesting -  linebreeding - cow families - using old vs. new bulls - values - and moreso in particular I'd like to address "heterosis".   Just sitting here throwing in my two cents worth of repetitive comments during these much needed rainy but much too cool days - worried about a late frost as the sky clears.   I see Tom D. must have plenty of idle time enjoying life in his paradise, or is he just resting after a long day's hard work......if he lived in WY right now, Tom would have his winter clothes on sitting in front of the fireplace with a hot drink .

Will wrote

        LL, like always you leave a lot to think about. Max technology is not a luxury it is a necessity. No overlap with expensive chemicals or seed and fertilizer. Do you cross your strains and if so do you get heterosis? is filling in the holes of one sheet of paper with another heterosis ?    

Of course it is, what else could it be.  The problem is to sustain heterosis, we also keep adding more holes and ultimately chaos prevails ....but Kendra has solved the problem by getting Elly the Elephant an extra large Longaberger Basket - once this solution catches on, I can foresee a flood of people heading to Ohio.   If the truth were known, I'd be willing to bet that Kendra is a major stockholder in the Longaberger Basket Mfg Co.  Smile  Smile

I'm glad to hear you and your son are taking up an affection for farming Will, you're needed to replace those of us who are getting too old, lackadaisical or quitting....we need your ambition especially since
"enough is never enough at your place"  Smile

Even with Max technology, unlike farming,
in cattle breeding it seems to be the nature of the beast that we'll always  get overlaps with expensive chemicals in animal form and feedstuffs to support them.    
I have no clue as to whether or not I get heterosis when I make "crosses" within my isolated population of common lineage...... or whether it will take MORE or LESS than 16 generations over a 96 year period to reach 98% purity if that were my objective.
My interpretation of heterosis (hybrid vigor) is that it is a marked vigor or capacity for growth often shown by crossed animals over their parents ;  something heterogeneous in origin or composition from the different elements of DNA & RNA.

As sellers of seedstock, I've ofter wondered how much of what the mainstream sells is "heterosis", it must be significant.  I found it interesting when Larkota (searching for a reason to maintain registration papers) said if he took the tags out of all his cattle, he couldn't distinguish the difference between his registered and commercial cattle.  And I wondered why DF asked Larkota what he thought of Ankony Dynamo's recent progeny, a Champion bull born in 1970.....and whether or not we get heterosis from going back and using bulls out of history.....aren't today's cattle a legacy of their past and how "pure" were they?   Someday I must ask Jonken if heterosis causes some pigs to have larger litters than others even though we're familiar with how public breast feeding can snarl traffic.

Senator Simpson once described big government as a giant pig with a million teats and the public is fighting over a teat to hang onto.     I think of the registered business as being similar looking for the next great bull or cow to latch onto.    The question that begs an answer then is how pure are the mainstream regiistered directions .....or,  are what we market under the banner of "purebreds" just one giant hoax?  
In either straight or cross breeding we've observed that certain animals "nick" well in a positive way with some animals and also at the same time negatively with others.....repeating what I call temporary complimentarity - sometimes positive for some traits and/or negative for others - fightin' genetic correlations.   We get it and then we lose it, so is filling in the holes of one sheet of paper with another heterosis ?

I've reconciled myself with the fact that nature persists in sustaining variation to preserve adaptability, that deleterious genes are a part of the self-governing population control mechanisms and we remain baffled by the self-regulatory mechanisms within the DNA that turn genes off and on, not really understanding why some genes are dominant over others.    I cannot foresee how Max technology can change any of that..... perhaps it can only confirm what we've observed which will force us to accept what

So I theorized that in cattle breeding we must learn how to be chemists in order to put the right chemistry formulas together to produce the preferred ongoing tedious process of trial and error trading our free advertising caps or cowboy hats and boots in for white lab coats and dark rimmed glasses.   Not being a spendthrift, the beef industry and the average consumer can ill afford to support all those PHD's wearing professional white lab coats and other parasitic elements within the industry doing things for us that we can do better ourselves a whole lot cheaper.  I don't know if that would help or hinder the overall economy.

Dylan says
" the modern pattern is an economy that defines success as perpetual growth and personal achievement expectations that are defined by a perpetually expanding ability to aquire and consume ever better and more of everything, like the well conditioned consumers an ever growing economy requires. The general mindset is one of perpetual deficiency defined in relative context by those who have more. And their is always someone with more. Within our modern consumption ability quality of life defined culture enough is for losers.
Of course over the long term perpetual national economic growth is impossible."

Perpetual growth rates in cattle are also impossible, both economically and by natural limitations....we've already pushed the envelope too far.   We all worry about our own economy first.  In my own circumstance, for my own survival I need to be concerned about my customer's economic well being.   My objective is to help assure their survival from a genetic standpoint with a more reliable product.   In accordance with the hetero/homo chart I've previously submitted here on KC,  nature would never allow "98% purity of the whole animal".... a 50% relationship of the "whole animal" seems to be the divisive centerpoint.    But in a breakdown of the "parts", I see no reason after breeding cattle for a couple hundred years, that we need to tolerate poor udders, bad feet or other structural weaknesses.....Lord knows we all have too many of those problems lurking in our herds.....yet those qualitative parts could be 98% "pure"the same as polled or horned..  

Progress is not about using progeny differences to change cattle, it is about sustaining the good ones absent self-inflicted problems.   By the beginning of the early 80's, I had seen enough to know that the performance era would come to a series of crossroads. What goes up must come back down.   With all the diverse forms of performance, what I didn't realize is that it would last so long through so many different cycles which actually hinders improving efficiencies.    We have an enormous job to do that will keep us busy for the next 75 years after the elite bungled the last 75 chasing rarity values offering quick fixes.

Yet, it has allowed me time to reach towards my sole ambition which remains to improve the prepotency of the preferred characters of a more economical functional type...... by the absence of other variables allowing nature to self-govern the degree of overall purity attainable via constant selection from a common lineage or type.....all for the single purpose to improve the reliability of the cattle for both myself and my customers.....for our joint survival.    For example, it would drive me crazy if I needed Max technology to know what the exact DNA purity of the cow pictured below (#6166) actually is - whatever she is, she symbolizes my preferred balance of symmetrical functional characters (parts) fashioned together over time to create the whole - selecting to increase the frequency for the preferred components by reducing the variables to achieve a much higher percent of the purity of the components...... in fewer generations and years than my heretofore helter skelter lottery selection processes trying to capitalize on variation or "heterosis".  

With pride,  I could stare at the picture of this cow with immeasurable self-satisfaction knowing I had a hand in guiding the formation smiling as I congratulate myself for a job well done.     What could be better than being able to produce tens of thousands of these kind of cows without fanfare at a common commercial price......Larkota wouldn't have to bother taggin' em, no more complex record keeping, all he'd have to do is just sit and watch 'em work.....and instead of huntin' birds, he could enjoy huntin' down rustlers,  robbers and predators..  Smile    After reading MK's sale report on the SAV sale where a cow who produced a half million dollars worth of progeny brought $350,000......that's on another entirely different planet somewhere lost in space.....on the planet I live on, I'd rather produce cows that could SAVE the beef industry millions of dollars.

The only thing super about the cow pictured above (as a twelve year old in 2009) is that she is virtually flawless with nothing left to improve or correct without disrupting something else....she's genetically 100% fertile,  carries built-in high quality carcass values and for whatever its worth, her low maintenance requirements place her in the top 2% of the Angus breed.....which certainly doesn't automatically make them poor producers, it makes them efficient ones.  These types of leisurely cows are for those who want to enjoy a successful life with reduced stresses....certainly not for those ambitious people who believe "enough is never enough"   Smile  

So for whatever it's worth, her specific pedigree is shown below  -  however, no one but the breeder has the wherewithal to know from whence those ancestral components were derived......Will, they certainly weren't derived via heterosis    Smile     I have a thousand common stories, this is one of them.    This particular cow still wears a green tag, not yet a full fledged member of the "X" strain after 4 generations, her ancestry has been in my herd for 7 generations over a time period of 40 years out of forever - she's one of the survivors of this now quite large cow family and her descemdamts are well on their way to earning their "X"traordinary wings.

Shoshone Prudence 6166Reg: AAA 12965984
Birth Date:  03/28/1997  Tattoo:  6166  
Breeder:  512971 -   Shoshone Angus, Cowley WY  

Owner(s):  512971 - Shoshone Angus, Cowley WY


.......................................  Shoshone P P 7105 AAA #10393619  
..................... Shoshone Prince 6135 AAA 11834563  
......................................  Shoshone Prudence 6135 AAA 11154932  
Shoshone Pyus 6157 AAA 12647010    
.....................................  Shoshone 99-2028 AAA 11303764  
.................... Shoshone Prudence 6157 AAA 11637031  
....................................  Shoshone Prudence 6146 AAA 11303849  
....................................  Shoshone Muscle 329 AAA 11303694  
................... Shoshone Eric 1714 AAA 11637143  
................................... Shoshone Erica 1714 AAA 11155041  
Shoshone Prudence 6132 AAA 12964127    
..................................  Shoshone Echo 1702 AAA 10900300  
.................. Shoshone Prudence 6146 AAA 11303849  
.................................  Shoshone Prudence ME61-62 AAA 10017009  

I have not kept my journey down this road less traveled a big secret although on occasion I wish I had.   And I didn't begin this new journey with expensive purchases and great outlays of cash or grant money, but with cattle from within my then current herd. Packing my suitcase only with the essential components needed, ignoring whatever else was in fashion for the day, I just did what anyone could afford to do without expensive "Max technology" trying to keep up with the Jones.  With imagination, some of you know I simply began with the below pedigree of this small nucleus formed over a 10 yr period  from 1978 thru 1987 to reduce variation.    Echo born in 1987 carried an assumed overall average IBC of 39.63%.......I suppose many of Echo's components were much higher than that and others would've been  lower.

................................  Shoshone Beauigan Jgeca 27   AAA 9251108  
................. Shoshone Balboa N1702 AAA 10223395  
...............................  Shoshone Erica LJFC17A            AAAA 9772037  
Shoshone Echo 1702 AAA 10900300    
..............................  Shoshone Beauigan Jgeca 27   AAA 9251108  
................ Shoshone Erica LJFC17A AAA 9772037  
.............................  Shoshone Erica J F C 17 A          AAA 9251049

As a representative of the Prudence cow family, Cow #6166's maternal grandam #6146 -  was one of the first Echo daus born in 1989 (one of my many favorites) and when I mated them back to one of the first Echo sons also born in 1989, cow #6146 produced the paternal grandam of Cow #6166 as her first calf, cow #6157 born in 1991, a cow made infamous by John Dockweiler and Mike Keeney's picture of her, a cow John sold when she was 19.....the dam of Mike's Pete and Repete......certainly these cattle cannot be the products of what is commonly referred to as heterosis......and incidentlly, cow's #6146 and #6157 are placed in the top 1% for low maintenance requirements with superior carcass quality.

However, I must forewarn you Will, these more prepotent cattle will not allow you to maximize heterosis, it'll take more than an F1 to "overpower" their prepotency......ahhhh, it's just as well, they don't need much outside help anyway to disrupt their goodness.  Smile        And Larkota, I'll remind you of another Lingle Wyism as one of the best reasons why I don't offer  public registrations on my cattle..... "Injecting outside blood into a proven, attested, selected genetic pattern is a crime of the same enornmity as a burglar's breaking into one's home and leaving furniture, fixtures and precious keepsakes in a state of utter disarray".     And for those who may not be aware of my accumulation of data, , I did develop prepotency scores on some of my bulls back in the eighties,  both on randomized and specific populations......just as I expected, in the practical world indeed there is a significant difference, generally correlated to the variance in the ancestry.    

There is nothing that can upset me more than when someone in IA calls these "blue sky" cattle..... it is not my fault for the industry's ignorance of what constitutes genuine efficiency in beef production.     With all it's inconsistencies, genuine efficiency is certainly not a bunch of fat pudgy cows running around our pastures nor measuring feed conversion at bull test stations selecting the winners, I guarantee you'll pay the toll at the next crossroad, believe me or not......shall we blame "Mr. Max Technology" or "Mr Human Nature".....or both
Amazed by what our forefathers put together for us to utilize instead of wasting it, someday I'll shorten my posts - in the meantime they'll test your perserverence to determine if you have enough patience to genuinely improve cattle.  It matters not whether you will live long enough to see the results, you will already have seen them with your imagination - I know Hilly has .....which is probably better than reality anyway.     For any of you readers out there that don't know me, please don't misinterpret these extensive posts as promotions for my own cattle, I am promoting a long overdue beef improvement direction via a system of true purebred strains by exposing all the current BS in the industry
LL, dreamin' big anxiously watching Bootheel apply natural law practicing on his less expensive billy goats......sorry MK, too many words, not enough pictures, my word machine is in a state of perpetual motion.
Back to top Go down

Posts : 3816
Join date : 2010-09-21

PostSubject: Re: Reflections Condensed   Sun Mar 26, 2017 8:27 pm

Hilly wrote...
When Larry commented what goes up must come down and questioning what planet we live on, it got me thinking of the brick vs. the feather and the fact that the law of gravity has the same effect on the different mass and the same formulas works in calculating the acceleration of the objects, the only difference between the moon (where they hit the ground at the same time when dropped) and earth is atmosphere/air which tends to be taken for granted although a necessity.

So when calculating how high we can go, how fast we get there, and how big we can get, air tends to be a nuisance and a resistance here on earth but can’t be ignored without consequence.

The reason I enjoy Larry’s approach to cattle breeding and life is his reasoning is based on the simple and basic laws that govern life as we know it.

In order to Max out everything without understanding the basic fundamental concepts that get us there may explain the confused and questioning looks when we come back down asking “what happened?” why can’t we Max out without input?

Like a bank account you can’t make maximum withdrawals without first putting something in the more you put in from your own effort not others, the more available to withdraw and the less likely to spend the max on something as you are well aware of what it took to make the deposits.

I myself would be more of a boomer then a sticker, I like to think I have what it takes to be a sticker but have never been put to the test.

Back to top Go down

Posts : 3816
Join date : 2010-09-21

PostSubject: Re: Reflections Condensed   Sun Mar 26, 2017 8:29 pm

Larry wrote...
How time flies, another summer is about over already.     Betty and I certainly enjoyed seeing old friends and meeting new ones at this years KC gathering.    One of the highlights of our summers for the past many years is looking forward to Mike and Linda's annual visit with us at Red Lodge.   Over the years my close relationship with Mike has helped bring many very special people into our lives.   Thank you everyone from far and wide across the country for traveling down the road less traveled to form a community of friends helping friends with a common cause.    What I always remember most that is so special is all those sincere sparkling eyes on smiling faces among this unique group of great personalities....thank you all for those precious moments that always fill me with joy in remembrance.

Under another KC topic, Will once said in his farming operation that his new GPS helps him avoid expensive overlaps especially with the ever increasing costs of fertilizer, fuel, etc. Adding more expense to reduce expenses is about par with much of what we do in the cattle business.....and government. Very Happy

Since I am a poor manager, I am the least qualified to offer advice on management practices in the cattle business, but I have managed to stay out of debt while making a decent living farming and raising cattle. Like any other business, obviously to survive in agriculture , we can't spend more than we make and remain viable. The major emphasis in the cattle breeding world has been on increasing production. Most of you know that my primary effort here has been to promote ways that genetics can help produce quality beef for the least cost and expenditure of labor.....placing more emphasis on the INPUT side of the ledger.
It has been three months since my last post and after bellowing the same ole stuff for 30 years and repeating it on 100 pages of interchanging dialogue under this topic, there is not much left that hasn't been said. However, events at the last gathering have rekindled an old flame. After taking time to give much thought to all that was discussed during the last "KC gathering", the new separate "Tru-Line" topic Mike created on KC sounds encouraging but I am very concerned about some of the misguided interpretations of just what "Tru-Line" represents.
I would hope that this new topic can be like a free GPS to help guide each of our own directions by sharing experiences to avoid expensive overlaps each doing the same things over and over again often expecting a better result. It is hard to be quarrelsome when we only deal with facts. In this business it often seems the faster we go spinning "bro-dies" the more confused and behind-er we get. Let's take a time out and REVIEW THE RESULTS of what we're doing in the overall beef business.
Firstly, I have decided that this will be my last post under "Reflections by LL". I've enjoyed the interchange of dialogue reflecting on what's been done but all that is now history and it is time to focus more on our selection directions in preparation for the needs of the future BEEF industry. We must overcome our nostalgic emotions tied to the past. So any future posts I make will be under Mike's newly created topic "Tru-Line" - where the mission is to encourage and promote the development of functional strains rather than clinging onto the old habits of the ever changing traditional breeds. "Tru-Line" is nothing more than a concept, an OPTIONAL direction towards harnessing hybrid power - it is NOT an organized association of members who qualify or disqualify anyone or their cattle....... but a common unified directional effort to ORGANIZE genetics. The "Tru-Line" direction is not just my baby, it can be a "GPS" available for anyone, registered or otherwise.
Most of us on KC are aware that this old progressive concept is somewhat of an opposite direction to the current fashion of “helter skelter” breeding by the numbers (using either within or across breed INDIVIDUAL EPD ) to increase individual production.

Like breeds, a strain is defined as a lineage of presumed common ancestry, a GROUP with physiological distinctions..... however, the distinctive difference is that the major emphasis is to increase prepotency by reducing rather than expanding variation, or "differences" STABILIZE the exceptional or unusual ability of the ENTIRE STRAIN to transmit its specific FUNCTIONAL characters to offspring with continuity......where the worship of mortal individuals is superseded by the immortality of "population" genetics......purebred breeding in its very finest form to provide a more consistent renewal process IN BEEF PRODUCTION.

Selecting the characters for a strain is where the water gets muddied, we always want more than that which can be ECONOMICALY sustained. Any value of any strain is ultimately measured by its usefulness in a competitive marketplace. Academia has often told us that progress is made with variation, that reducing variation would be a regressive movement but they don't make their living with cattle.... most commercial cattlemen do. Some of you might think this direction of "organizing" genetics is like starting over. To the contrary, it is a continuation of what began over 200 years ago that often gets side tracked along the way for a host of reasons that we are all too familiar with. Those reasons have been cussed and discussed on these 100 pages as well as on thousands of industry-wide periodicals related to the cattle is from mistakes that we learn so we should be a lot smarter by now.  Smile

Many years ago, we would have committees of bull buyers come, a group of 5 or 6 men who represented their grazing associations who jointly utilized the same public lands. As they went through the bulls, some would pick the shorter thicker ones, some the bigger framed stretchery ones, etc. When I explained to my father what I wanted to do, he told me he was too old to undertake this direction to reduce variation by developing different strains...that we needed to maintain variation to satisfy all the different customers that might happen to turn in our driveway. Within this partnership without any interference from my father, I began my own independent small "experiment". Like what will happen to all of us, eventually my father retired and this small experiment some 30 years later has led to what encompasses nearly the entire Shoshone herd today.....still making a decent living without trying to satisfy every customer that turns into our a real life world without the prevalent over glorified rainbow promotional schemes. I do worry about the "Shoshone" prefix being misrepresented as more or less than it actually is.

Correcting mistakes. Since I was fortunate enough to be in on the ground floor when the creators of the numerical systems implemented their models, I just happened to be in a position to know first hand that the creators were absolutely and completely unaware of where this mechanical robot they created would take us. Restricted in their own scientific world without any real experienced comprehension of the whole, they completely ignored the warnings and failed to program the most vital element into their robot, the human element. They were forewarned that to create a national bank of individual comparisons derived from a multiple of diverse environments and management practices, that it would lead to disastrous consequences. But they marched onward hailing their scientific EXPLORATIONS as progress and anyone not following this modern day computerized robot would be left behind in this competitive world.

Of course their initial motives were to rectify the calamity the registered breeds got themselves into chasing extremes, with renewed emphasis on measuring the so called "traits of economic importance". "They" conveniently overlooked the fact that their peers were the judges at the livestock shows that led to disaster. At one point I suggested that they may as well develop EPD for the show standards too, and of course over time we've seen how every encounter with a problem creates a new EPD. By now I think we are up to about 30 problems to "measure & rectify" as listed in sire summaries and AI catalogs. Little did they know their robot would be starting one bush fire after another....measuring averages without regard to distributions is a shotgun approach where the further we are from a target, the wider the scatter.

These are not my opinions but simple historic facts. So it was back at that point in time when I decided to form the "Tru-Line" concept. Although ignored, I persisted in my own small world since it had become very clear that someday there would be a need to reorganize genetics to restore order to the mongrelization that was surely to follow those well intended "progressive directions" that lead to continual change and uncertain chaos.
With it being customary for most endings to present a brief overall summation of what has been said under "Reflections by LL", I am reminded that at one point in time MK indicated he would like to edit/condense this topic. I realize very few people want to take the time to read 100 long pages of repetitive dialogue, especially if its contrary to what they're doing quarreling about this or that.. While it is difficult to briefly summarize all the detailed examples of the successes, failures and opinions offered by everyone here on KC, this is my attempt to condense those 100 pages down to this one long page.

I am not here for personal gain or glory. My participation is nothing more than the sharing of one man's lifetime of experience in the cattle breeding world.....hopefully, to provide some educational value to help the smallest to the largest commercial producers (who are ALSO breeders) help themselves via greater genetic understanding by working with rather than fighting Nature.....who always has the last word about anything we can do.
Many of my "reflections" were examples provided to encourage other cattle breeders to stop and question where our current selection directions are likely to take us. So to narrow this all down to one primary controversial subject, I chose to dwell on the cliche of mating "fire and ice" - which I interpret as using the "top" of something to bring up the "bottom" of something to reach some kind of preferred average quicker. I've noticed one thing that sparks interest and active participation and that is a controversial subject.
Facts override projected opinions. I once told MK that I was no longer going to debate the pros and cons of mating "fire and ice" , AND THEIR VALUES, but now I am since that methodology seems to be the thrust that has propelled both the mainstream "show" and "performance" breeding directions. For the last 30 years I have been battling that common traditional methodology in the cattle breeding world which tends to ignore the consequential expanding distributions and problems therefrom within any population. The factual HYPOCRACY of the registered societies is well documented. Purebred breeding is a refining process to establish a type, yet the directions to expand and promote variation are opposite of that initial PRIMARY purpose. When does an animal become a "purebred"? What is their purpose? Why do we keep changing breed "types"? Are the registered societies a group of purebred breeders or marketing multipliers of change? What is functional purity? Does functional purity even have a role in beef production? What is the difference between a registered breeder and a commercial breeder?
In an attempt to clarify some of these questions, I've been told that when we are confused, our brains are wired to try to make sense out of whatever we're doing for justification. So I am beginning this not so brief summation of the ongoing confusing state of affairs with Will's response to my last post:
"LL good questions. So do you think all crossbreeding is fire and ice?"

No Will, I don' fact, I see little difference in crossing fire and ice whether it is within or across breeds. From my viewpoint it all just seems to be a matter of degrees. Throughout history the mainstream registered business has awarded the gold medal to whomever or whatever is the "hottest".....the chase for supreme champions or extreme trait leaders as if the BEEF industry was in some kind of olympian contest. Breeding seedstock for the commercial industry is certainly not a game, it is an "extremely" immense responsibility. So if outliers/extremes are considered fire (the top) and ice (the bottom) within any distribution, I finally got tired of getting burnt and watching others suffer from these uncontrollable fires just for the delight of the arsonists/pyromaniacs who started them while basking in their rewards with the victims else being the ultimate "losers". .I am embarrassed to say I once was one of these "pyromaniacs", blaming my ignorance for justification while basking in my own monetary rewards.
For example, if "White Cow's" attempt to stabilize his Char/Wagyu F1's to form a new or better breed or type is considered crossing fire and ice (extreme opposites).....which one is the fire and which one the ice in their own world? And after many years of expensive cloning and ultrasounding his selected individuals to combine the best of two worlds, the"magic" of that first cross will surely be ECONOMICALLY unsustainable battling the subsequent natural reversion processes...... and somewhere among the ashes of all this burned up energy lies an affordable, sustainable, compromised version very similar to an "average Angus" in type.....yet today an "average Angus" is virtually a non-existant mythical creature with very little demand in the traditional registered world....I challenge anyone to find one based on numerical data. The question is why go through many years of hassle seeking some kind of miracle when the F1's can already be more affordably produced as "seedless fruit".
So I had to smile when Will asked MK to explain where optimum is, never quite getting a direct answer. I suppose optimum is in the temperate zones somewhere in between the hot equator and the frigid poles where we migrate back and forth with the changing seasons to stay comfortable never quite finding that illusive "garden of Eden"....optimum being an ideal place where there are no extremes, no droughts nor monsoons, no feast nor famine, no kings nor slaves, no trait leaders nor losers, no fire and ice where cattle do everything jusssst right.   Smile

I connected these thoughts to Grassfarmer's post in which he wrote in part:
"By age 9 I knew I wanted to earn my living with cows. This old pet was already a teenager and looks to be in rough shape as we were in a drought that year. (this was also one of the last time I wore shorts)"

I had to smile, we're always conscious about "looks". There are many ways to earn a living with cows and I don't know if Grassfarmer's "Shorthorn" cow descended from fire and ice or not but she certainly "looks" like a productive cow, a SURVIVOR, and I love that picture. Shorthorns were once one of the most popular beef breeds but lost its popularity due to the selection of extremes, so the breed was split, one a milking shorthorn, the other a beef shorthorn, then to try to "keep up" with the "performance races" in North America, they were put back together again. I haven't seen where that recombination has helped the breed regain popularity. According to Grassfarmer, Shorthorns played a part in the development phases of the Luing breed which was originated out of frustration with the selection "movements" of the traditional beef breeds in the British Isles.
When I was a young lad, commercial Hereford breeders would occasionally introduce a Shorthorn bull to put a little more milk into their cows due to the emphasis on "beefiness" ......but any brocko faced or roan progeny were always discounted by the packer buyers.....which of course backed up into a lesser demand for those "crosses" by feeders. And we've witnessed the once predominant straightbred Herefords regress to being discounted in the marketplace with the black/whiteface being more favorable. The stigma of general breed biased reputations are still with us today whether warranted or not which leads to continual change in order to survive.....which in turn leads to the WITHIN breed crossing of "fire and ice" with exorbitant monetary values placed on those "straight-bred" animals who can produce change the quickest.
Several years ago the Hereford people had a great internal battle accusing others of mixing Simmental into the "breed" to produce "super Herefords". Of course people can be temporarily fooled but not nature, for they also transmitted some of the inherent problems of the Simmental breed.....resulting in more problems to "rectify" via selection by the numbers.
Today in the USA Angus are the predominant breed, being promoted to do everythingi, with their great variation all we have to do is go to the sire summary and help ourselves to the salad bar of numbers. And we have the gall to call them "purebreds".when collectively they are nothing more than registered mongrels whose only commonality is that they are black, red or polled. The hypocrisy is that as a whole breed, genetically they are no different than crossbreds.....just something to think about. In any event, beyond these facts I thoroughly enjoyed what Iain said when asked why he moved from what many of us from desert country thought that Scotland "looked" nearly like a garden of Eden from his pictures - he said:

"As for how could I leave Scotland there are a multitude of reasons - a few for starters: can't live on scenery alone (lack of profitability), lack of opportunity to expand, land prices further removed from productive value than N. America, insanely complicated ag subsidy programs driving everything you do, outrageous levels of Government regulation in agriculture, almost constant wind and rain, too much rain in the non-growing season, too much mud in the non-growing season, aging infrastructure from the 1800s all needing repaired (land all tile drained and stone wall fenced), archaic buildings from the same era that weren't much use but you couldn't adapt/modify/demolish, too much back trouble working with sheep, too much work period.
It wasn't all bad of course but in my opinion the negatives outweighed the positives so I moved. "

I guess that's why someone said "looks can be deceiving", that "you have to live with someone before you can really know 'em". Iain's devoted interest in improving his cattle is more than just earning a living with cattle, it is a worthwhile way of life and only he knows his own cattle best, that no one can accurately appraise them by the way they "look" on any given day. Once you get to know Grassfarmer, he certainly has "things" figured out. The registered world can "look" very good from the outside but it is also full of disappointment on the inside after living within that world awhile......or we wouldn't be paying outrageous sums for outliers trying to attract new members or customers with HIGH EXPECTATIONS.
I couldn't help but correlate how here on KC we have debated at length a multitude of SIMILAR REASONS for either staying within the status quo or moving on beyond the restraints AND underlying problems of the "old" registered world. I suspect most of us chose to move on only when the negatives began outweighing the positives enjoy the independent freedom to make a living with cattle without the restraints created by organizations. When Mike created KC, it became a refuge for renegades outside the mainstream and has been like having access to a free psychiatric clinic open 24/7.

Psychiatrist’s tell us the first step to curing bad habits is by digging into the past to get to the roots of whatever ails us.. We have done this and by now most of us on KC know that the old traditional habits of the registered mainstream persist primarily because of the lucrative monetary rewards for the more rare individual outliers ....the "fire" which also often become the roots of our self-inflicted genetic problems leaving us with too many ashes to clean up in the aftermath. So we have become the embittered, bitching and complaining about things blaming or criticizing others.... which is a favorite human pass time but it has never solved anything. All we need to do is put our own house in order rather than expecting someone else to do it for us.
We do this like firefighter investigators who go through burned buildings to find out what started the fire....we could describe "tru-line" as being a handbook for "fire prevention".  Very Happy

When MK posted an article written by Dr. Wayne Wagner, it became the primary inspiration for this summation. A well educated man, Dr. Wagner's article is typical of what many of us have experienced over time, well worth the time it takes for any inexperienced person to re-read and thoroughly digest the contents - to wit:

"Can You Breed Maternal and Terminal at the Same Time?

By Dr. Wayne Wagner, WVU Extension Livestock Specialist.
Back to top Go down

Posts : 3816
Join date : 2010-09-21

PostSubject: Re: Reflections Condensed   Sun Mar 26, 2017 8:31 pm

Larry continued...
"Can You Breed Maternal and Terminal at the Same Time?
By Dr. Wayne Wagner, WVU Extension Livestock Specialist.

I have been looking at our cow herd inventory and I have discovered that a high percentage of our A.I. sired females are not making cows that will stay in the herd. Why? Because I have bred for the wrong things! I am embarrassed to admit it. Over the past several years, I have concentrated on using A.I. extensively and have tried to keep daughters of these bulls. My problem is that by the time they should be six years old; too many of them are gone.

Sometimes we need a wake-up call and I have had mine. What am I breeding for and what are my objectives? Clearly, I want to produce cattle that work for the commercial cattle industry. I am breeding Angus cattle and they are considered a maternal breed. So what makes cattle maternal or terminal? Obviously, if a high percentage of the females don't last very long, they are terminal and not maternal. So, do we have terminal and maternal Angus? Yes, and the same can be said of Herefords too!

The American Angus Association has a terminal sire index called $B. If you select for $B, you will be selecting against maternal. It has been quite a few years ago that I bought an Angus bull called Stone Gate Potter. He was a maternal bull and probably the best bull I ever owned. Nearly every daughter he produced worked as a cow and a high percentage made it to fifteen years of age. These are my observation of that bull:
1.His daughters were better than his bull calves. The bull caves didn't blow you away but the females look great after they calved.
2.He had decent growth (for 1980), but wasn't extreme.
3.He was complete-without holes (maternal calving ease, structurally correct, fleshing ability, and moderate frame).

I want to build a cow herd and I want females that will last. To do that, I need to quit trying to compete with everyone else and breed cattle to make females. That's the priority! What do I mean by that? If you are a commercial cattleman, you want to sell the most pounds at weaning that you can sell and if you test bulls at a test station, you want the fastest gaining, highest indexing bull to sell. However, if you are a commercial or seedstock producer with these objectives, you are not breeding for females that will both work and last. A student of mine put it this way: if you want steers, use a terminal bull but if you want cows, use a maternal bull. There are limits to how much you can expect and to achieve extreme levels of growth and/or milk production is very stressful and any cow can only handle that much stress for a limited amount of time. If you were to characterize an old cow in a herd, she would be anywhere from slightly below to slightly above average in production at weaning, she is fertile, andshe hasn't had any calving difficulty. Will you get these average cows selecting extreme "spread" bulls? Not likely!

So where do I go from here? First, I am looking for seedstock herds that have some 15-yearold cows as opposed to those that don't have a cow over 10. Secondly, I look for a bull (or sons of a bull) whose daughters do seem to last. I want to see a bull's dam. Third, I am looking for a seedstock breeder whose goal is not to produce the heaviest, fattest calf possible. If someone is breeding to produce the heaviest steer and/or the biggest bulls possible, then they are not breeding maternal cattle. There is a place for those cattle, but not in my herd because the females will not last. I have made more than my share of mistakes of late, but change has to be start sometime. I have used some of the most used bulls in the Angus breed of late, and on average they haven't made good females-that is what my inventory tells me."

Back to top Go down

Posts : 3816
Join date : 2010-09-21

PostSubject: Re: Reflections Condensed   Sun Mar 26, 2017 8:32 pm

Not much can be done if all of our time is spent running around dousing one bush fire after another. We know that during their formative years, Herefords, Angus and Shorthorns were primarily bred for" beef", but cows must've been important or keeping track of cow families would not have been initiated. .For those of you who couldn't attend the last KC gathering at Miles City, please know I was especially intrigued by one of the very first slides presented to us at the Fort Keogh Research Station. It stated that the initial purpose in the 1920's and 30's was to develop lines for crossing in order to produce higher yielding hybrids similar to the successful methodology then being practiced by corn breeders. Whatever their initial selection criteria was in each of the several lines, the only line that survived to date were the Line 1's and 80 or 90 years later, to my knowledge that initial purpose has not been implemented. Could it have been their selection criteria?

However, we were shown maps that illustrated the infusion of the Line 1's is in over 50% of the Hereford breed's ancestry today.....some think the Line 1's were the major contributor to the salvation of the Hereford breed in North America. Without question to that extent, the Line 1's have been very successful in serving a purpose. Are they going "too far"? Today, the research team at Ft. Keough still maintains the first priority of selection which is maximizing yearling weight.....but the current team expressed their concern with the lowering trend of fertility and increase in birthweights.....we were told that less than 80% of the cows are getting rebred. Fearing possible extinction, the current team is trying to ascertain whether the problem is management or genetic. I had to smile when we learned that the "management teams" salary was based on the sales of the cattle, that they wouldn't breed their own cattle "that way".
Based on my observations of many different cattle over the years, I believe the problem is simply the natural consequence of the "Line 1" selection priority. However, while we were told the YW trend is still going up after 80 years. I am convinced that the SURVIVING females tend to slow down the advances in "growth" contributed by the males and that the Line 1's would become extinct before they could ever reach the maximum limits of the Line 1's growth potential. Watching several high performance breeders who's primary selection is for butts and guts also needed to select for nuts.

Losing strong sexual distinction between the sexes, they have had to rely on sustaining variation in this ongoing battle which allows nature to uphold reproduction from the functional females within the variance of the distributions..... these surviving females become fewer and fewer over time, thereby lowering their average conception rates. I've also experienced this natural reaction in my from the 80 years of research results of constant selection criteria, Fort Keogh has at least reaffirmed that much.
My limited observations of the surviving Line 1 cow herd was as expected, that they were quite acceptable functional cows. What would have been much more interesting to see would've been all the non-survivors over the years. We didn't see but a handful of the maternal composite herd that Ft. Keogh began developing about a dozen years ago.....nor did we need to at this early stage in their development. I don't know if this attempt to develop an ideal red Montana range cow is a continuation of their initial goals which began 80 years ago or not. I am NOT familiar with the Ft Keogh selection priorities for their maternal composite or why they decided to develop a maternal line. Perhaps the purpose of the ideal range cow maternal line's design is to compliment the Line 1's and will be implemented after 15 generations or another 80 years to stabilize this maternal composite. Within the current distributions they are still experiencing reversions back to the original breeds and it sounded like the biggest human problem thus far was disposition, a highly heritable trait. Ben told us when he worked there at calving time, about 20% of the cows would try to kill 'ya.....I don't know if that trait would be down to 10% or up to 50% since that time. By the way, has anyone noticed the industry has recently created new EPD for stayability and docility......I wonder why.  Question

Dr. Wagner, the extension specialist, couldn't blame his problems on inbreeding or the loss of variation, or any particular individual bull....his maternal problems originated from HIS selection criteria. So I felt a sense of satisfaction when Dr. Wagner was enlightened saying - "There are limits to how much you can expect and to achieve extreme levels of growth and/or milk production is very stressful and any cow can only handle that much stress for a limited amount of time. If you were to characterize an old cow in a herd, she would be anywhere from slightly below to slightly above average in production at weaning, she is fertile, and she hasn't had any calving difficulty. Will you get these average cows selecting extreme "spread" bulls? Not likely!" Nature's distributions will usually provide a few, and they will pull down the primary "high performance" selection criteria, an expensive culling proposition that naturally occurs. I could provide examples from several "old" herds but there is no need to identify them on this public forum.

As an extension specialist, Dr. Wagner could have learned some of these things from the dairy industry before he had to re-discover the same ole things again. And so I felt contentment when I saw Jack's cows who were neither fat nor exceptionally high milkers since his direction is not trying to wean 900# calves by using SAF bulls in his environment.....which incidentally is similar to the Line 1's although the management is different....Jack has a lot less people managing his outfit...with the least expenditure of labor.  Smile  Like Dr. Wagner, Jack has said he was enlightened several years ago and now earns a more contented living with his structural functional cows who swing their hips when walking a coupla miles to water with healthy calves rather than waddling followed by runty calves....... and I didn't see anyone at the "gathering" searching for that outlier cow (the one with the biggest calf) either at Jack's or the cattle at Fort Keogh. I regret that they didn't cause more than likely they would have seen that they weren't the biggest, thickest cows with the highest RFI scores in the herds.

Always conscious of "looks", what would that mythical "average Angus cow" actually look like in reality, the one that's overlooked by the mainstream registered people? Probably a lot like Jack's work and wear cows. I had thought my cows were also about average Angus cows but without changing them, alas, I've watched the movement of the industry turn them into being well below breed average in most of the numerically measured traits. For those who didn't hear Bootheel Joe's talk at the banquet, what I remember most is when he talked about "truth".

I thoroughly enjoyed seeing cattle in their natural habitat and the complete absence of any overblown glorification or exaggerated promotional claims which are so common in this business. Anyway, for whatever it's worth, the foregoing seven paragraphs are my overall synopsis of the Miles City gathering. As usual, I certainly enjoyed all the pictures Dylan and his lovely wife and daughter took to capture those moments in time....except for the one of me standing beside Dennis.....looks can be deceiving, phenotypically we are certainly fire and ice but genotypically we are identical twins. Very Happy

Some of us on KC know how MK's ability to capture one moment in time on film has brought a few of my below average cows to the forefront. Mike recently posted the below picture of one of them on KC, as a young cow who apparently caught his eye 9 yrs ago. I think Mike has a more recent picture of her in his photo files since she is no longer a "Shoshone" cow, nor EVEN AN ANGUS cow.....she is now a KEENEY cow since it was HIS selection criteria that made her a Keeney Model A cow.....obviously, he and only he is responsible for HIS selection criteria, whether it stems from within or outside his herd.

MKeeney wrote:
",,,,,,, I came upon a picture of 2966 as a three year old; she hasn`t changed much in nine years even after her current stay in ky.."

"I don`t believe she`s maternally efficient though, she looks like she could hold a lot of grass... "
When I saw this picture, I smiled thinking "wow, this is a 'Keeney Portrait of Maternal Structural Perfection' from the tip of her tail to her shiny nose, I wanna entire herd of Model A cows jusssst like her".  Smile  Under another topic Bootheel said: "This is where it gets muddy, and people start getting mad, throwing tantrums and saying ''average, average, we don't need no stinking average cows". I laughed thinking maybe we need more numerical "below average" cows.

This cow pictured in the middle of summer raising her 2nd calf with a body condition that is indicative that we are what we eat.....born in 2000, now a 12 yr. old replication of her grandams who were paternal half sisters born in the late 80's. Her established exceptional fertility and problem free functional maternal values are a direct result of the selection criteria., not an accidental by-product of numerical selection. She has less than breed average EPD except that she is way above average in CEM and $EN (dollars saved on maintenance requirements) she doesn't qualify as an "average Angus model"....... remember they are virtually non-existent.
And being close bred she certainly is a long ways from being an "F1" cross descending from fire and ice. Mike can attest that these "picture perfect" cows produce about "average" progeny so they certainly couldn't be labeled as being fire but since my entire existing herd would all have similar EPD, I suppose the mainstream would consider them to be a herd of ice frozen in time.....I do consider the most problem free ones to be the "icing" on the cake.... but I doubt they are suited best for the northern fringes of Canada or the southern fringes of Argentina.   Smile Nuff said about my "below average" population of cows.....who are neither above or below average when compared to Jack said about his cattle - "I LIKE THEM AND THAT SUITS ME".  Very Happy

Folks, we all had to get our cattle from somewhere. In the registered world, the breed's public pedigrees are provided for some kind of "authenticity" which allows giving credit or damnation to any ancestry. Breeds or pedigrees are often chosen because they either seem to fit our selection criteria or in order to ride on that breed's or individual animal's coattails or simply because of ancestral reputation We're all riding on the coattails of something done before us until we hop off with our knapsack to clear our own path.
Although the Pioneer or DeKalb's breeders know the characters of the parentage in their knapsack, the general public has no need to know. Although K.A. Clark had his own treasure chest full of nostalgic paraphernalia, commercial customers sole interest was in their results. In an ideal Tru-Line world, any references to or comparisons with any breed or breeder's parent stock is avoided, the name of the breeder and the strain's earned reputation are the authenticity and any commercial breeder's sole interest is in the reliability of the results. The registered world has a policy of "trust but verify", a result of those not so few apples spoiling the whole barrel.

It will take quite some time before a mindset can readjust its thinking from what has been engrained for so long. The "Tru-Line" direction is not quarreling over IBC's which is just another numerical measure based on averages. Races to achieve the highest IBC's are likely to result in the same disasters as other numercial races. Without going into any details here, for those who "must measure", it may be more meaningful to measure the prepotency in the range of distributions of the population as a result of any selection.
In the meantime Mike, for those with dimming eyesight like you and I, could you please lighten the shadow of 2966 so us nit-pickers can see her underline better.

at 11

The shadow makes her look deeper than she is long.....and I'm thinking that's why you think she can hold a lot of grass and isn't maternally efficient. How much grass should a maternally efficient cow hold? Most of us wonder what those illusive maternally efficient cows "look" like?
From the Triangle research, in his last newsletter Gavin expressed his concern as to "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." Tom D recently sent me an email to show me what several of the higher producing Pinebank cows "looked" like.....who are about 10 years old listed with pedigrees on the Pinebank NA web page. They can be viewed by clicking on the following address but I must forewarn you Dennis, nearly half of them are missing their long tail hairs  Smile

Maternally efficient cows - Dairy cows do alot more than produce dairy steers and it is well established that dairy steers have low RFI scores. I might also mention that several years ago Dr. Gosey researched several commercial herds in Nebraska and found that those cowherds with "average Hereford or Angus cows" were the most profitable. I wondered where those herds got those "average cows".  
Dr. Gosey's research also coincided with the research results at Bozeman, MT, where that same university tried to develop a "black/baldy" breed and failed as they reverted back to the average of the parents, where in another new research project they measured the cow's excrement from different "types" to determine how much lactating cows ate on pasture compared to how much calf weight they produced. Long story short, the average producing cows were overall the most profitable......the higher producing cows required more maintenance even when not lactating.....yet the "performance mania" persists and high priced super cows are flushed. In light of this research, maybe we oughta be flushing the recipient cows, the ones that can do all the functional work with the fewest problems, the ones salvaged by Nature's survival of the fittest that haven't been screwed up by EPD races......could they be the most efficient cows?

Dr. Wagner said "sometimes we need a wake up call". I had mine about 30 years ago. Filled with bewilderment hiding my disappointments, I finally had enuff 'a this "stacking" maximum performance crap. So I spent several years of intensive study compulsively obsessed to better understand the bovine.... paying close attention to what my cows were telling me to find out what the hell was going on. I finally said to myself " its the endocrine system, stupid" that's causing many of my problems. So in 1984 I analyzed the sire summary along with my assortment of produce of dam summaries to reaffirm that my previous observations were on track.
Back in those days all we measured universally was BW, WW, YW and maternal EBV's which were based on a sire's daughter's progeny ratios....back before creative computer imaging became available.....back before we could simply press a few buttons and the computer will instantly sort our national cattle data bank into groups according to any numerical selection criteria. So I had spent a couple of months of tedious handiwork to publicly display my data analysis by creating a graphic chart using different colors of "pinstripe tape", each color representing one of the four measures.

Enjoying my fascination with colors doing this similarly to the way I prepared the TruLine booklet - while neglecting my other essential duties - it turned out that the sacrificial time I spent in preparing this "chart" was all in vain. It was completely dismissed by everyone I sent it to. Perhaps the intended purpose was not recognized since it is a little confusing. So for this summation, I dug it back out of my dusty pile of "research stuff" to display it publicly for KC readers in order to visually demonstrate the natural trade-offs we were encountering while we were pursuing continual increases in individual growth/performance. Perhaps 28 years later, this time if I can explain it properly, it might help Dylan and Bootheel decide which direction to go from their rendezvous in Albuquerque.
I had sorted the bulls in the sire summary into two groups, one group consisted of all the highest growth bulls listed who had a YW EPD of over 50# with a minimum accuracy of .80 ......which resulted in 63 of the top eligible growth sires at that time. The other tediously sorted group consisted of the highest maternal sires who had a maternal EBV of 105 or over with a minimum accuracy of .90 .....which resulted in 39 of the top maternal sires......altogether a 102 bulls that were the current primary driving forces leading the "performance" movement......the "outliers". Professional academics and researchers get paid to do this stuff...... being a simple laymen, I did it for free at the expense of buying new school clothes for my kids or a dress for my wife.  Smile

In this bar graph, each four-colored vertical bar represents a single sire, each color represented where each sires comparative ranking was on a national scale for the four measured traits. The bulls within each group were then arranged in ascending order based on their YW EPD from left to right ......and then I placed the maternal and growth group side by side. I was surprised by the fact that only FOUR out of 102 bulls qualified to be in both I removed those four sires from their YW order and displayed them in the center of the graph between the maternal and growth groups.

When finally finished, like statisticians normally do, I drew a straight RED line thru the the scatter for growth and a straight GREEN line thru the scatter of the maternal EBV's to show the trends. The "yellow" maternal EBV's were low accuracy and it should be noted that nearly all moved downward when higher accuracies became available. Some high growth bulls who had a non-parent predicted maternal EBV (yellow) as high as 108 ended up with an actual MEBV of 95 as the accuracies increased, so just ignore those yellow bars, if they were green they would be lower. The average of the measures of each group are shown on the chart between each group with the little colored arrows. The widest distance between the colored arrows between the two groups was BW (brown), which of course led to the earlier maturing so called curve bending spread bulls as fat replaced muscle to maintain more weight on a smaller frame and on and on and on the circus of cycles goes as the distributions get wider and wider but those are stories for another day.

As you can plainly see my friends , from this crude chart the trend of the red and green lines formed somewhat of an "X", one line goes up and the other goes down which was the data affirmation of my own observations which also coincides with Dr. Wagner’s own more recent experiences. Natural law has not changed nor have my opinions behind the need for maternal and paternal strains. These incremental trends happen so slowly, we hardly notice them in the entire mixed up population of cattle but they are reflected over time in our culling percentages.....similar to what Dr. Wagner experienced in his "inventory". These are not "blue sky" opinions, but factual data which we can all observe sooner or later out in our own real world..
If anyone has any questions regarding this crude chart, I will try to answer them. When I prepared the outline for this summation, I had intended to prepare a new colorful computer generated modern day chart with the 25-30 newer measures to demonstrate the unintended consequences of "fire and ice" selection but it just got too confusin'..... my new "chart" started to resemble a kaleidoscope trying to measure the trends of continuous changing directions,, so I just stayed with the old one to make a single point.  Smile  
One other point I would like to make and that is those top maternal sires daughters would not have been as productive if they had NOT been mated to the growth sires on the other end of the spectrum. I'm sure all the data overload is as confusin to all you commercial men out there as it is to me and maybe that's the purpose of it......confuse the enemy to keep the status quo flowing..
So now I'm down to touching on the ridiculously high dollar values the pyromaniacs place on outliers, the fuel that feeds the fire that we all pay dearly for. When Will mentioned his neighbor who produced 200 bushel of corn per acre while the others produced about 100 bushel per wasn't genetics that made the difference since they all likely planted a similar type of seed, the big difference was that the 200 bushel producer knew how to nurture nature better. Yet in the cattle breeding world, we often criticize people who creep feed their calves or keep their cattle in good condition in order to "express or maximize" their genetic potential.....and in a production oriented society we're besieged by nutritionists who tell us if we feed this and that, and listen to experts who tell us if we do this and that, how much it will improve our production..... not always necessarily our profit.

Introducing more energy into a commercial production system is not necessarily bad if it improves the profit, however, in the mainstream registered promotion business nearly everything is attributed to genetics.......whatta buncha hogwash, God and the steer jocks know its the nutrition. Many of us are familiar with replicated plant trials under identical environmental conditions wherein on average genetics accounts for about 5% of the difference among the different competitive hybrid varieties. And in cattle breeding, it takes a hell've bull or an unusual effect of heterosis to genetically produce much more than 5% of the differences among the current contemporaries. The exceptional animal's overall progeny might ratio 105 over the average of them all in weight and its not all free, the progeny likely required more energy as well in addition to any other consequential subsequent misgivings.

We readily accept that 200 bu. corn requires more nutrients than 100 bu. yields, but with cattle we want them to be higher producers without additional support. The traditional habit is to flock to registered breeders who promote heavy weaning or yearling weights and then pay dearly for 95% of THEIR environment......whatta buncha economic hogwash. We've witnessed how much bigger cattle got from increasing individual "performance" and how the $EN values have plummeted. There is only one way to describe the status quo of the mainstream registered world - ECONOMIC CRAZINESS. Very Happy

If we're going to select bulls for maternally efficient beef cows as the FIRST PRIORITY, the first bulls we oughta cut the nuts from would be the outliers to save us a lot of aggravation down the road instead of paying a small fortune for that statement oughta stir up some controversy for debates.  Very Happy  But who the hell knows what today's young bulls will actually transmit maternally based on their individual phenotype with all their mixed up ancestry which tends to nullify their non-parent EPD .....which is likely based on a composite of fire and ice averages. So science protects their computerized robot by beginning with very low accuracies, I just wish science, like the government, would quit trying to help us so much  Very Happy

Hilly posted:
One observation I had when first starting with beef cattle coming from the dairy was the amount of time spent looking and talking about bulls, didn’t matter if it was sale day or just a herd visit the bulls were always the focal point, it really took me by surprise... I would go to a bull sale and everyone was in the pens studying bulls and I guess from habit I would be out back walking through the cows, I eventually learned to study bulls with everyone else as it was explained to me that in the beef industry you sell pounds unlike the dairy.

In the dairy I was use to the sorriest looking bulls from a fat or well muscled perspective, but I paid no serious attention to their looks it was all about the cows.
I chose to build on a female base on my maternal side because my cows actually have a legitimate job year round and any faults are magnified, my bulls on the other hand only have 2 months of work and I really question our ability to interpret what a masculine bull looks like if masculine bulls make feminine cows, simply due to the fact that my dairy cows were very feminine in appearance to me and the dairy bulls would be sub masculine for their lack of muscle and fat by the more prevalent and accepted industry standard.
I realize its apples and oranges to some degree but I do have to question what “high testosterone” looks like as this guy didn’t get to two million units of high quality semen on his good looks  

I greatly appreciate your post Craig which is so applicable to this summation. A dairy bull isn't a stud bull until he has daughters in production, whereas commercial maternal beef bulls are long gone before much is known about their daughters. Since the milkiest dairy cows and the beefiest beef cows are the same species representative of "fire and ice" and form follows functional selection, the stinging reality is that optimum must be a degree of balanced compromises somewhere in between, not necessarily the highest producers but the ones that cause us the least problems for longevity.....and of course be able to swing their hips to attract the bulls.   Smile  
Incidently Hilly, I couldn't help but notice Toystory'a uncanny resemblance to Francis of Wye born in 1958, a bull nicknamed Abe Lincoln who "marked the big turning point in the Wye breeding program" (taken from The Breed of Noble Bloods, page 70). I'm thinkin and smilin here how Dennis said all a maternal bull needed was 4 sound feet, a tool and a nose.....but surely he must also be the genetic equivalent of the preferred cows.

Wow, I'm gettin` worn out tryin` to squeeze a hundred pages and 50 years into one page that's gettin longer and longer. So, last but not the least, I want to reiterate what Gavin ended his last newsletter with:
".......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. ........ I must say that I am concerned for the future but then old men always are.

What Gavin may not be aware of is that his fears have already been in place here on this side of the world for the last 30 plus years and they are getting progressively worse with more technology. Pedigreed purity is useless without functional purity. Whether I prefer Gavin's cattle or not, I sure as hell like Gavin and all of you people on KC.....even those above or below average...... eventually we'll all be on the same level..   Smile

Harnessing hybrid power continues to lie in wait, waiting for some understanding husbandrymen to bring order out of the chaos. Opportunity is knocking at the door that opens to a long endless road filled with obstacles but under the guiding light of the Tru-Line topic, Keeneys Corner is a good meeting place to start the journey.

And to MVCatt, I hope this summation will make your tractor seat time more tolerable for the rest of this was nice to meet you at the "gathering". Anyone who has absorbed this summation need not go back and read the first 100 pages, this is the crux of it all, I am finsihed with trying to justify the need for what is known in the professional breeding world as establishing genetic truths - the "fixing of physiological functional characters". It is not recommended as a direction for con artists, marketeers with their overblown promotional rhetoric, or multipliers with high expectations.

If by now anyone is not convinced that the BEEF industry NEEDS more prepotent maternal and paternal strains where the only proof is in the puddin`, may God have mercy upon your soul. Smile  Very Happy  Very Happy  Very Happy
LL in the vicinity of Eden busy fertilizing my garden with all the crap Humpty Dumpty left behind.  
Back to top Go down

Posts : 3816
Join date : 2010-09-21

PostSubject: Re: Reflections Condensed   Sun Mar 26, 2017 8:37 pm

Hilly wrote...
Closer breeding is a basic of the TruLine`s quantify rather than hypothesize what Tru-Line means to you...

1. would closer breeding cause you to buy from a breeder who close breeds versus one who does not?

Now, maybe... but before I understood what was going on, seeing was believing and I looked for consistency in the breeders cow herd under similar management to my own

2. how would you determine who is a line breeder and who is not?

I don’t see it as in or out, for me it comes down to a more graduated standard with mile markers to add perspective, such as... How long has the herd been closed genetically? How many cattle were included in the original population at the time of isolation?  

3. how would you differentiate the level of inbreeding between bulls in a linebreeders herd ?

That to me could only be answered by the breeder as he would have seen his cattle throughout the process and have an understanding of what he is looking at.
But if I had to choose I would look at them in a group and sort off the most different and assume the remaining group representative of the population and gate cut.

4. Once determined, would you pay more for a more highly inbred bull?

Again it would depend on a number of situational factors, but there will always come a point where it makes more "cents" to breed my own.  

5. If closer breeding doesn`t influence your buying decisions, would you pay the same for crossbred bulls as outcrossed bulls within a breed registry? why, or why not?

Papers aside it would depend on the types crossed, similar types for a specific purpose will be better suited for that purpose so I can see their value in dollars and usefulness to me incrementally higher than a crossing of types as once you start crossing types the value to me would be hard pressed to gain elevation over pound price in my current paradigm.

6. If you won`t pay more, why the hell am I doing this?

The only rule we will need here is the Golden Rule.  Wink

7. So we need to promote closer breeding in order to sell it competitively? What is the factual proof you will offer to confirm the benefit?

Like “The Little Red Hen”

As you can see TomD doesn’t want to be disturbed.

Back to top Go down

Posts : 3816
Join date : 2010-09-21

PostSubject: Re: Reflections Condensed   Sun Mar 26, 2017 8:40 pm

Larry wrote...
Imitating Gavin's method of communication with monthly "Pinebank Newsletters", this is my quarterly Sept/Dect 2012 philosophical "TruLine Newsletter".

The weather during this fall harvest has been nearly ideal with a record breaking sugarbeet crop producing 12,247 net pounds of extractable sugar per acre with high purity and low SLM (sugar lost to molasses from impurities)....that 6.12 TPA of pure sugar is attributed to pure reliable seed, free extra sunshine, reliable Shoshone River water, reduction of expensive nitrates and at our least expenditure of labor.     I thought this news would be of extreme interest to the many sugarbeet growers here on KC.....urging them to consider changing the "t" to an "f" and applying these beeT production factors to sweeten their beeF production  Smile    

When Larkota originated this topic asking what TruLine means to each of us, I am very pleased with the responses yet I remain concerned when noticing a few misguided perceptions.....also I am apprehensive about us getting ahead of be cautious and don't forget to buckle your safety belts while going down this road less traveled.    Lest we forget, Brian requoted the basic objective:

True-Line.....Development of parent stock that can REGULARLY produce beef animals which at the lowest possible cost and expenditure of labor give the highest possible and longest lasting net returns. Not just for ourselves, but moreso for the commercial producers.

I had to smile when Larkota wrote that he thinks about this when he goes out in the morning, when stuck in a tractor, looking at his cattle and when he goes to bed at night......I have too for over 30 years but like Kent, it's not my first priority in life, it's only after the other thing  Wink  I think about.   We can create all kinds of crazy artificial monetary values in this business but we can't create cattle, all we can do is change them.

Surely this basic philosophical objective has always been an underlying ambition in beef production, yet the traditional methodology of chasing more from more seems to remain contrary towards that objective.    The only proof needed is to look back at the overall results of that methodology to where we are today.    So what TruLine means to me is that it offers an optional alternative.....envisioning more reliable and efficient idealistic beef production systems based on establishing genetic truths to the best of our step at a time.    Easier said than done.

A "genetic truth" is a term used by professional breeders when a character or trait is "fixed" (homozygous)  and will be transmitted to the next generation with certainty..... whether it remains predominant or not is dependant on the next the first and most difficult step in this tedious time consuming process is to determine what characters you want to establish or stabilize in a functional type.

The problem is natural law does not permit 100% homozygosity for all its' necessary reasons, and nearly all qualitative characters are also quantitative with interacting relationships...... referred to as genetic trade-offs.   So how do we deal with these obstacles, what are our limitations?  I've presumed the genetic constitution must have its own built-in regulators and mutations which increase or decrease the gene frequencies of whatever in its survival of the fittest system.   So, in order to make sense out of what I've observed,  I've made alot of presumptions over many agonizing years based on those observations without any actual has been a game of truth and consequences.   Sorry DF, no scientific proof....the only proof I have from whatever I've done is whatever now stands before my eyes while trying to better understand  natural law and its counteracting limitations.

One of my favorite quotes is...."For those who understand, no explanation is needed, for those who do not understand, no explanation is possible."    It is only after we have a greater understanding of natural law can we ever create truer monetary values to our works.

.I suppose Pat B might not agree with me but over time I came to believe what we may often  label as detrimental genes, that they are as essential in the natural evolutionary process as those we may label as beneficial genes....self-regulated by the dominant and recessive nature of things....either expressed or latent....turning them on and off....and wherein too many beneficial genes can become detrimental for our purpose.   Since we can never rid ourselves of either, we're back to our same ole endpoint learning how to manage them for our economic benefit from an infinite number of possibilities..    For me, utilizing the numerous single trait measures and heritability estimates available have become virtually useless.   I haven't been able to change one part of an animal without affecting something else either positively or negatively.....I haven't seen much neutrality.

So stuck in this seemingly helpless situation, what I finally concluded that is absolutely the most important, is that we bog ourselves down with so many unecessary complicated and costly details in an industry so full of competitive cynicism and egocentrics, it is easy to understand how the industry is what it is....and that rather than moving closer to the objective reiterrated by Brian above, we keep getting further away....and the faster we go the behinder we get.  

For me, it is paramount to simplify and reverse the ever growing complexities being created in beef production, period.   Tom Lasater said breeding cattle is a relatively simple endeavor, the difficulty is in keeping it simple.    I meant every word I said on the inside back cover of my 1983 TruLine booklet and it took me some time, but I finally rid myself of the useless parasitic elements in this business....tuning out all the incessant competitive nit-picking and bickering.    However, my interests are re-ignited when issues arise relating to closer breeding, especially from those who have had so little experience with the subject.   MK recently wrote: is certainly both cheap and rewarding ...close breeding evidently is neither or it would be practiced rather than praised more often....

In our human society it is common to condemn someone focusing more on whatever it is that we don't do well rather than getting praise for whatever it is that we do well ....and so it is with our cattle.  I will not be dragged back down into that snakepit or tangled web of deceit and frivolity trying to compete with traditional methodology and promotion....I am my only competition.   Whatever we do will always be praised by some, criticized by others.  While I enjoy MK's  natural role of being the independent free leader of the fact finding truth squad exposing the fallacies of traditional promotions reveling the bull....or revealing the naked truth of maternal values..... that is not my role.

My role here is more or less educational by sharing my experiences without "STRETCHING THE TRUTH".    Exaggerated claims are common In the traditional competitive marketplace....the AI stud business is often criticized by disappointed users who had high expectations    In a defensive mode, one of their primary leaders once said the AI studs have the right bulls, we just don't use them properly.  Perhaps the AI studs should breed their own bulls to gain a better perspective.   And perhaps we also don't use close breeding properly either.    

It is easy to understand that to prosper in their marketing business, the AI studs must promote and .offer what the marketplace demands and that greater demand is from people wanting more than they have.   To fulfill those wants, the studs simply react by  offering semen from individual bulls that are promoted to do more things "better".    The reality is that there is very little demand for close breeding unless it exhibits traditional superiority....... in fact we know closer breeding is generally and deliberately avoided.

And it's also easy to understand the difficulty in trying to increase the demand for closer breeding after seeing the results of chasing higher and higher IBC's..... wherein those IBC outliers confuse Dylan who is trying to understand how good is bad and bad is good .    I've utilized intensive inbreeding as a tool to save time in the initial identification process of selection....and of course we're all accustomed to selecting  outliers TO SAVE TIME in whatever direction we're it would be our natural habit to also chase the highest IBC's.   I certainly didn't utilize intensive closer breeding to enhance my monetary values in a marketplace that shuns those procedures.  

So when MK posted his seven questions relative to increasing the demand or values for closer breeding, he ended it with  - "Dylan, in the lesson for Jan 22 below, Inbreeding and neutral evolution, , is what I was trying to teach Larry  Wink  in the car this summer on the way to Jack` no avail   Evil or Very Mad ".....   Mike knows I can't get pdf on my computer and we debate so many things, that I can't even remember what he was talking about here.    So I'm only going to respond to his last question:
7. So we need to promote closer breeding in order to sell it competitively? What is the factual proof you will offer to confirm the benefit?

Thanks a million Hilly for helping out with such a perfect response .... "like The Little Red Hen". better explanation is possible.     So Mike,the factual proof of any benefit is in your own herd and what happens there is what will happen in your customers herd.   I appreciate your recent thought provoking post showing us what will happen someday.....also just wondering if someday you will change the name of your operation to Keeney Cattle LLC ?  Wink  

all the Keeney Angus , believed to be "pure" Charolais  bulls will look like this someday...

I also wondered if anyone noticed the absence of the word "angus" from my "Shoshone X Strain", and Mike, this may sound smug but I wouldn't dare predict that "all Keeney Angus" will eventually look like this.    Most commercial producers breed their own cattle and are solely responsible for the product they produce....Eddie M's might even look like Beefalo.   Wink  And like most of us, commercial producers must experience the pitfalls  before they are finally recognized by them from the choices they made.    

With Hilly being a commercial producer, when Mike & I first met him and as he explained his objectives, it quickly became very clear that he recognized the pitfalls of the traditional selection habits much quicker than most of us do.....and wow, what a surprise it was to hear he was looking for "closer bred" cattle to fulfill his objectives.   And believe it or not, there is a growing number of commercial breeders out there that are looking for more reliable consistency in the cattle they buy.

Hilly's story as told to us was that his neighbors were going broke raising bigger and bigger cattle, his difficulty was in trying to replace his aging cow herd with the "traditionally best" Angus bulls available.  His search for his preferred maternal values eventually landed this Canadian on the doorstep at Red Lodge.  I couldn't imagine that there could be such a shortage of "good" maternal bulls, that they would need to be imported.   Part of the advantage Hilly has is that he is only concerned about breeding cattle for himself....without the burden of worrying about how to promote and market seedstock to others.  

It may be a long ways off Mike, but some day the commercial producers will be programmed  to be just like Hilly and your protective services to prevent people from being duped by marketeers will no longer  be needed......the early bird will get the don't worry about the monetary values of  your cattle today Mike, they'll be worth much more after we're long gone......mine already seem to be  worth more money AFTER they leave my place even though I'm still here. cheers     So now all we need to worry about is how to prevent being duped by ourselves, sucked back into those old traditional marketing habits. Wink

MK also posted that research supports the notion that there is little significant difference between today's purebreds and crossbreds.  Why would there be if they're all selecting for all the same things.   While the factual proof of the differenes between close breeding reducing variation vs. expanded variation can be measured in the distributions of the isolated populations, we must acknowledge that beyond a few individuals, there aren't enough "closer bred" populations available to make many valid comparison.    The truth is that today it is a mixed bag of tricks .between registered straightbreds and crossbreds and any benefits between "purebreds" and crossbreds are in how we use them.  

It is a factual reality that by expanding  and promoting  variation from the myriad of possibilities, the benefits from the diversity of the Angus breed has allowed it to become the predominant breed in America.   Is it purebred progress when any Angus bull's shortcomings are discovered, there is another Angus waiting in the wings to fulfill those shortcomings while continually adding other "holes"?   These pursuits have been described here on KC as filling the holes of one sheet of paper with another, a temporary complimentary process often referred to as the benefits of heterosis or hybrid vigor.    We tend to ignor the fact that without stability in the parent population, these short term benefits of heterosis can be an expensive haphazard culling approach.... overwhelmed by the mongrelized "holes" in the distributions over the long term...wherein heterosis must be sustained to avoid regression....all of which has very little to do with improving NET returns.

It is our SELECTION within any population that ultimately determines the amount of variation we get,  not whether they are closebred pedigree wise, straightbred or crossbred.

So, if a functional purebred's role is to provide stabilization in order to enjoy longer lasting net returns whether it be via harnessed hybridization or not, the factual genetic reality is that reliable sustainability requires improved prepotency in the parent stock... like it or not.    Webster defines prepotency as the unusual ability of an individual or strain to transmit its functional characteristics to offspring because of homozygosity for numerous dominant genes.    This predominance surely occurs over time in isolated populations simply from the SELECTION reducing any other disruptive genes.   Common sense knows we can't get milk out of a dry cow.   I know from experience that chasing and combing individual outliers who may be prepotent in many different characters leads to an economic exercise in futility.

What are my motives for reitterating all of the above about things most of us ALREADY KNOW.    We hear and listen but we don't do anything about it.   The single point I am trying to make is that it is absolutely imperative that we SIMPLIFY THIS BEEF BUSINESS, if not for others, at least for ourselves.    It is little wonder that someone reported that the average span of a registered breeder is seven years, just time enough for the con artistry from within to scavenge the ignorant from their wealth and impossible dreams.

For those so dedicated to improve the efficiences of their own cattle,  WE MUST START RIGHT HERE RIGHT NOW!  Terms like linebreeding, outcrossing, crossbreeding, straightbreeding, references to breeds, IBC's, EPD's, pedigrees, etc. all need to be abandoned and replaced with but one word.....PREPOTENCY.    Pedigreed IBC's many be an indicator of prepotency but they are a damn poor indicator of merit.....selection, not perfection determines merit.  When I said I have apprehensions about getting ahead of ourseleves, it's a reminder that we can't expect to start at the top and work down, we must start at the bottom and work up....that bottom is the commercial beef market.

Certainly the costs to improve prepotency cannot exceed the potential benefits and few of us can be expected to sacrifice our own livelihood for the benefit of others.  Mike and I have had long discussions about the costs of reaching differing degrees of prepotency.    How do we improve the prepotency at the lowest possible cost and expenditure of labor?   What are the limiting factors?  How much monetary value do we place on the time required to improve prepotency?   Apparently time is very valuable in the traditional cattle breeding business since the outliers of any preferred selection direction bring the highest dollars in the marketplace....ALL with expectations to get somewhere quicker.   Can we afford it?    The facts are that anyone in the beef business for the long term cannot afford to ignor improving the beneficial prepotency of their cattle.

Those questions and many more are all ONLY resolved when we consider ourselves as commercial beef producers breeding our own cattle.During my lifetime, IMO the leading edges of the Angus breed were likely the most prepotent for their characteristics during the 50's and ending at its peak during the late 60's    The elite breeders of that time were able to perpetuate a common type by crossing the champions from the families of Bardoliers, Bandoliers, Eileenmeres etc.   The reigns of many other subsequent popular types also ended as they became more prepotent.    Even though these "corrective types" had  the ability to transmit their characteristics to offspring more often after 3 or 4 generations....which included ALL their "holes in their sheets of paper", they failed simply because they weren't  developed and utilized PROPERLY.  

When will we ever learn, remembering when Tom Burke called these interruptions in a direction CROSSroads  Wink

I should mention that during my initial stages of the development of a more prepotent FUNCTIONAL strain, at one point in time I had considered pricing my surplus non-parent breeding stock in accordance with their IBC's.    That could have had disastrous consequences since I was not far enough along to know whether that improved prepotency within the population was beneficial or detrimental.    I have learned that as the outliers of any direction become more prepotent, they are the forerunners revealing indications of what will come, both the good and the bad.    The choice then is whether we will utilize prepotency wisely or not..

So here we are back to where we started a couple hundred of years ago.....establishing an ideal.....but we're not starting over since we have those 200 years of experience under our belts.    We know the principles of a successful breeder are exceedingly simple, that the difficulty is in the application..... because of  greed , lack of perserverance,  and the time required in the application

LL in the vicinity of patiently  improving the functional prepotency of my cattle at the lowest cost and expenditure of labor to give me the highest POSSIBLE and LONGEST LASTING genuine net returns.  cheers
Back to top Go down
Sponsored content

PostSubject: Re: Reflections Condensed   

Back to top Go down
Reflections Condensed
Back to top 
Page 5 of 7Go to page : Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next
 Similar topics
» Reflections Condensed
» Reflections from LL---Condensed
» Angelic Reflections
» Food & Compo
» Reflections from LL ©

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