Keeney Angus-Business as Usual Sale

Quote :

A beef cow’s job is not an easy one.

This is a deep start to article #2. I'm learning something now ....

Quote :

Because the assessment of a cow’s reproductive
performance is generally determined later in her life,
it seems logical to look for early indicators to hasten
the process. For example, it is a commonly held belief
that females with a propensity toward fatness will
excel reproductively.

Who is the commoner who holds this belief?

Quote :

At the American Simmental Association (ASA), we have found
a correlation of -.19 between an animal’s genetic propensity
for backfat in the feedlot and their inherent stayability.
We (ASA) have also calculated a -.11 genetic correlation
between backfat and heifer pregnancy (the likelihood
of a heifer being pregnant at the end of the breeding
season) using RAAA data.
Admittedly, these unfavorable correlations between
fatness and reproduction may seem illogical. We have all
seen a higher proportion of thin cows open at pregnancy
test time. Keep in mind, however, that the aforementioned
correlations are genetic. The relationships we actually
observe, i.e., phenotypic correlations, are influenced by
a combination of underlying environmental and genetic
relationships. There is little question that females within
a herd lucky enough to experience an environment for
increased body condition (e.g., extra energy intake) are
likely to have better reproductive performance than their
herd mates. Furthermore, this strong and positive environmental
relationship between fat and reproduction
apparently overwhelms what appears to be a slightly
negative genetic relationship — yielding the strong,
favorable phenotypic relationship we typically observe.
Frankly, there is not enough evidence about the
genetic relationship between fatness and reproductive
function to make recommendations based on it at this
time; however, though it may fly in the face of conventional
wisdom, it appears that selecting “easy-fleshing”
genotypes will not gain us ground reproductively.

Look, he's not a fan of the fat cow type: he reads LL's writings on KC, I guess!

Quote :

Their conclusion was that selection on
scrotal circumference would not be effective in improving
female reproduction.

Look, now he's quoting Mike Keeney!

Quote :

Other ASA genetic correlations of note:
-.26, .40, and -.19 between stayability and mature
weight, maternal calving ease and marbling, respectively.
Based on these findings, we would expect
females that are inherently lower milking, smaller
mature sized, easier calving and less marbled to stay in
the herd longer; however, none of these relationships
are strong enough to make a sizable impact on stayability
by selecting for them. Furthermore, other than
mature weight because of its strong relationship to
early growth, determining the genetic level of a young
heifer for these traits by simply observing them (which
is what most commercial producers are limited to) is
not possible. Therefore, a different tack will be required
if we wish to improve reproductive performance via
selection. Namely, select for it directly — which, as I
will point out, is not a trivial task.

Energy needs to go into reproduction, as we know. Sounds a lot like a "maternal type" cow is needed. Hum-m-m-m-, ...
Now where did I hear that???

Quote :

With a low-heritability trait expressed later in life like
reproductive function, the cloud clears slowly — but it
will clear. In fact, if an animal has enough progeny
records, we can see its genetic merit for reproduction as
clear as a bell.

Isn't this an observation of the obvious?

Quote :

Obviously, if you are a commercial producer you
do not have the luxury of using STAY or HP to select
replacement females; however, if you select sires with
superior EPDs in these areas the reproductive function
of your cowherd is likely to improve over time. Given
their relationship to stayability, you may also gain some
reproductive ground by selecting sires with lower milk,
smaller mature size and better maternal calving ease
EPDs.

"likely" "may" Not too sure! Doesn't matter, you don't have no info.

Quote :

Summary
In closing, I must reiterate that crossbreeding needs
to be at the center of any effort to improve the reproductive
function of your cowherd. The dramatic impact
of heterosis on reproductive performance is crystal
clear — no herd should be without it! Though reproductive
improvement through selection is possible, it
is generally limited to utilizing reproductive EPDs when
selecting your herd sires. By combining crossbreeding
with the selection of superior sires you will position
your enterprise to excel in the most vital area of beef
cattle production — cowherd reproduction.

He punts and goes back to crossbreeding as the only cure.

John, thank you for the inspiration to read and learn.

df wrote:

Bob H wrote:

DF What weight are the simmental cows when mature and how do their offspring grade after 100 days on feed.

As you know it would vary across regions and actually from ranch to ranch. What is important, I think, is how they compared to other options. I can't tell you that SM are small, although some of the lower growth bulls would probably give you 1100 lb cows (3C Walley comes to mind). The best data on that topic probably comes from MARC or from the ASA database. The MARC data shows a slight advantage in mature weight compared to Angus, but I am not sure how significant it is.

I don't think there is much data on SM that have only been fed 100 days (probably not many breeds for that matter). The top SM bulls have the same level of marbling as the average Angus but certainly as a breed will not have as high as Angus.

They might weigh 1,100 lbs after milking down, failing to breed back, being loaded on a truck, penned without feed for a day, and then run through the sale ring.

EddieM wrote:

Quote :

A beef cow’s job is not an easy one.

This is a deep start to article #2. I'm learning something now ....

Quote :

Because the assessment of a cow’s reproductive
performance is generally determined later in her life,
it seems logical to look for early indicators to hasten
the process. For example, it is a commonly held belief
that females with a propensity toward fatness will
excel reproductively.

Who is the commoner who holds this belief?

Quote :

At the American Simmental Association (ASA), we have found
a correlation of -.19 between an animal’s genetic propensity
for backfat in the feedlot and their inherent stayability.
We (ASA) have also calculated a -.11 genetic correlation
between backfat and heifer pregnancy (the likelihood
of a heifer being pregnant at the end of the breeding
season) using RAAA data.
Admittedly, these unfavorable correlations between
fatness and reproduction may seem illogical. We have all
seen a higher proportion of thin cows open at pregnancy
test time. Keep in mind, however, that the aforementioned
correlations are genetic. The relationships we actually
observe, i.e., phenotypic correlations, are influenced by
a combination of underlying environmental and genetic
relationships. There is little question that females within
a herd lucky enough to experience an environment for
increased body condition (e.g., extra energy intake) are
likely to have better reproductive performance than their
herd mates. Furthermore, this strong and positive environmental
relationship between fat and reproduction
apparently overwhelms what appears to be a slightly
negative genetic relationship — yielding the strong,
favorable phenotypic relationship we typically observe.
Frankly, there is not enough evidence about the
genetic relationship between fatness and reproductive
function to make recommendations based on it at this
time; however, though it may fly in the face of conventional
wisdom, it appears that selecting “easy-fleshing”
genotypes will not gain us ground reproductively.

Look, he's not a fan of the fat cow type: he reads LL's writings on KC, I guess!

Quote :

Their conclusion was that selection on
scrotal circumference would not be effective in improving
female reproduction.

Look, now he's quoting Mike Keeney!

Quote :

Other ASA genetic correlations of note:
-.26, .40, and -.19 between stayability and mature
weight, maternal calving ease and marbling, respectively.
Based on these findings, we would expect
females that are inherently lower milking, smaller
mature sized, easier calving and less marbled to stay in
the herd longer; however, none of these relationships
are strong enough to make a sizable impact on stayability
by selecting for them. Furthermore, other than
mature weight because of its strong relationship to
early growth, determining the genetic level of a young
heifer for these traits by simply observing them (which
is what most commercial producers are limited to) is
not possible. Therefore, a different tack will be required
if we wish to improve reproductive performance via
selection. Namely, select for it directly — which, as I
will point out, is not a trivial task.

Energy needs to go into reproduction, as we know. Sounds a lot like a "maternal type" cow is needed. Hum-m-m-m-, ...
Now where did I hear that???

Quote :

With a low-heritability trait expressed later in life like
reproductive function, the cloud clears slowly — but it
will clear. In fact, if an animal has enough progeny
records, we can see its genetic merit for reproduction as
clear as a bell.

Isn't this an observation of the obvious?

Quote :

Obviously, if you are a commercial producer you
do not have the luxury of using STAY or HP to select
replacement females; however, if you select sires with
superior EPDs in these areas the reproductive function
of your cowherd is likely to improve over time. Given
their relationship to stayability, you may also gain some
reproductive ground by selecting sires with lower milk,
smaller mature size and better maternal calving ease
EPDs.

"likely" "may" Not too sure! Doesn't matter, you don't have no info.

Quote :

Summary
In closing, I must reiterate that crossbreeding needs
to be at the center of any effort to improve the reproductive
function of your cowherd. The dramatic impact
of heterosis on reproductive performance is crystal
clear — no herd should be without it! Though reproductive
improvement through selection is possible, it
is generally limited to utilizing reproductive EPDs when
selecting your herd sires. By combining crossbreeding
with the selection of superior sires you will position
your enterprise to excel in the most vital area of beef
cattle production — cowherd reproduction.

He punts and goes back to crossbreeding as the only cure.

John, thank you for the inspiration to read and learn.

Eddie,
no advice in there to grease the trailer hubs before heading to town with the cows...?
df, Lee Leachman also has developed a profit index... for the very same reasons I believe...to give an illusion of rarity, to sell a bull for more money
Jim Leachman was the darling of the MARC crowd...were they that desperate for a follower?

How many of these mythical 1,100 lb. Simmy cows would have qualified for the Show-Me-Select heifer program???

Tom D wrote:

How many of these mythical 1,100 lb. Simmy cows would have qualified for the Show-Me-Select heifer program???

3C Wally has less growth than Keeney's cows; how much does his cows weigh?

Tom D wrote:

df wrote:

Bob H wrote:

DF What weight are the simmental cows when mature and how do their offspring grade after 100 days on feed.

As you know it would vary across regions and actually from ranch to ranch. What is important, I think, is how they compared to other options. I can't tell you that SM are small, although some of the lower growth bulls would probably give you 1100 lb cows (3C Walley comes to mind). The best data on that topic probably comes from MARC or from the ASA database. The MARC data shows a slight advantage in mature weight compared to Angus, but I am not sure how significant it is.

I don't think there is much data on SM that have only been fed 100 days (probably not many breeds for that matter). The top SM bulls have the same level of marbling as the average Angus but certainly as a breed will not have as high as Angus.

They might weigh 1,100 lbs after milking down, failing to breed back, being loaded on a truck, penned without feed for a day, and then run through the sale ring.

Your right; most of them are the same size as Keeney's cows

df wrote:

Tom D wrote:

How many of these mythical 1,100 lb. Simmy cows would have qualified for the Show-Me-Select heifer program???

3C Wally has less growth than Keeney's cows; how much does his cows weigh?

I don't know, do his daughters have mothers?

You are spot on, folks come by the bank and talk about how good cattle prices are but I tell them if not we would have to sell out due to inputs, and just about every farmer I know including myself have cut back. I know one thing though, that brood cow population has to be shrinking more than stated-for every cull cow sold someone has to calve a heifer and I know few doing it.no bulls for sale, we only sold four and kept one for backup-more cash flow for me in a steer. Have a good calf crop from a home raised bull- eganxencore,fraserxencore, 6807xhindu combo. tony

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Mike Keeney [mailto:mwkeeney1@windstream.net]
Sent: Monday, April 04, 2011 6:18 PM
To: Wilburn, Tony
Subject: Re: bull sale



tony, as I reflect on things; nothing has changed except the value of money...3 feeder steers used to buy a bull from me, 1650, ...3 feeder steers still buy a bull from me, 2400....but i`m damn glad I stayed even with the inflation...thx for coming out, got any spare bulls for sale?



From: Wilburn, Tony

Sent: Monday, April 04, 2011 2:40 PM

To: mike keeney

Subject: bull sale



Mike, looked to me that demand and prices were very good Saturday. Didn’t have time to stay for heifers. Regards, tony



TONY WILBURN

PRESIDENT

CUMBERLAND SECURITY BANK

Df with less growth and less marbling I think that I will stay with Shoshone. Oh by the way we did make a deal with the Akuashi folks because our cattle grade is so good our hope is that a large percentage will grade choice off of grass. We will know more in 3 years just take a little time.

Bob H wrote:

Df with less growth and less marbling I think that I will stay with Shoshone. Oh by the way we did make a deal with the Akuashi folks because our cattle grade is so good our hope is that a large percentage will grade choice off of grass. We will know more in 3 years just take a little time.

Are you talking about 3C Wally or the Simmental breed in general? Are you talking about Shoshone (not entirely sure what that is yet) or the Angus breed in general?

MKeeney wrote:

You are spot on, folks come by the bank and talk about how good cattle prices are but I tell them if not we would have to sell out due to inputs, and just about every farmer I know including myself have cut back. I know one thing though, that brood cow population has to be shrinking more than stated-for every cull cow sold someone has to calve a heifer and I know few doing it.no bulls for sale, we only sold four and kept one for backup-more cash flow for me in a steer. Have a good calf crop from a home raised bull- eganxencore,fraserxencore, 6807xhindu combo. tony

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Mike Keeney [mailto@windstream.net]
Sent: Monday, April 04, 2011 6:18 PM
To: Wilburn, Tony
Subject: Re: bull sale



tony, as I reflect on things; nothing has changed except the value of money...3 feeder steers used to buy a bull from me, 1650, ...3 feeder steers still buy a bull from me, 2400....but i`m damn glad I stayed even with the inflation...thx for coming out, got any spare bulls for sale?



From: Wilburn, Tony

Sent: Monday, April 04, 2011 2:40 PM

To: mike keeney

Subject: bull sale



Mike, looked to me that demand and prices were very good Saturday. Didn’t have time to stay for heifers. Regards, tony



TONY WILBURN

PRESIDENT

CUMBERLAND SECURITY BANK

Your banker is cutting back? Must have been trained by some university!

Tom D wrote:

df wrote:

Tom D wrote:

How many of these mythical 1,100 lb. Simmy cows would have qualified for the Show-Me-Select heifer program???

3C Wally has less growth than Keeney's cows; how much does his cows weigh?

I don't know, do his daughters have mothers?

My point is the bulls considered to be high profit Simmental bulls are probably breed average or less in the Angus breed for growth. Some of those bulls are actually calving ease bulls that have less mature size than many Angus. I realize it is hard to understand how Simmental could possibly have this type when the typical image of the breed is anything but moderate in frame, muscle and milk.

I would not expect 3C Wally to increase the mature size of Keeney's cows beyond what would be expected from heterosis.


What the high profit bulls have in common is that their daughters apparently stay in the herd. In other words, they must not cause problems. They don't cause calving problems and have calves without assistance. They don't have excessive milk (normally) or mature size. ASA members have simply quantified in SM what I believe LL and others are trying to accomplish without data. ASA members might work with the whole breed where some Angus breeders are working only within their own herd.

It's really not that hard to imagine how today's Simmental could have more traditional angus type. It is, however, hard to imagine why they are stilled called Simmental.

MS, you beat me to the point...

Why would I have a hard time understanding that the more moderate in size and milk would be the high profit bulls??? As long as you are on the move in the Bovine Species sphere you are getting the added benefit of heterosis, the key is to keep moving around but MS makes a good point... to simplify things for the commercial guy breed associations could consider swapping names for a while until the make there way back.

I don’t know what year Larry made up this spherical distribution chart and I post it almost weekly it seems but it would appear that the “Simmental” distribution is on the move as they move left “Angus” is moving right and both are making “Progress”

df wrote:

Tom D wrote:

df wrote:

Tom D wrote:

How many of these mythical 1,100 lb. Simmy cows would have qualified for the Show-Me-Select heifer program???

3C Wally has less growth than Keeney's cows; how much does his cows weigh?

I don't know, do his daughters have mothers?

My point is the bulls considered to be high profit Simmental bulls are probably breed average or less in the Angus breed for growth. Some of those bulls are actually calving ease bulls that have less mature size than many Angus. I realize it is hard to understand how Simmental could possibly have this type when the typical image of the breed is anything but moderate in frame, muscle and milk.

I would not expect 3C Wally to increase the mature size of Keeney's cows beyond what would be expected from heterosis.


What the high profit bulls have in common is that their daughters apparently stay in the herd. In other words, they must not cause problems. They don't cause calving problems and have calves without assistance. They don't have excessive milk (normally) or mature size. ASA members have simply quantified in SM what I believe LL and others are trying to accomplish without data. ASA members might work with the whole breed where some Angus breeders are working only within their own herd.

All that work; all that time...just to get to where I`ve been; and where I`m going to stay...without any need to make the simple complicated for purposes of registered games, or job creation for those who live off the industry...

"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the universe".....Albert Einstein

DF wrote:

.....What the high profit bulls have in common is that their daughters apparently stay in the herd. In other words, they must not cause problems. They don't cause calving problems and have calves without assistance. They don't have excessive milk (normally) or mature size. ASA members have simply quantified in SM what I believe LL and others are trying to accomplish without data. ASA members might work with the whole breed where some Angus breeders are working only within their own herd.......Are you talking about 3C Wally or the Simmental breed in general? Are you talking about Shoshone (not entirely sure what that is yet) or the Angus breed in general?

On behalf of commercial cattlemen everywhere, I want to thank DF and the ASA for helping registered breeders identify "what high profit bulls have in common". And when DF asked, "What do you think is the latest fad?", Mean Spirit answered, "I think I know, and I think it might have something to do with how well the wye sale went last weekend.", I did have to put on my smiley face thinking the latest fad might be the development of an EPD to measure our own human stupidity.....surely the traditional registered beef industry has accumulated enough historic data to establish a base average of the stupidity of our ever changing directions.

From my own ignorance, I must admit I am at a bit of a loss to know what " LL and others are trying to accomplish without data", especially since .I am unaware of any breeders trying to accomplish something without some sort of pertinent data. I am disappointed that the summarization of my 45 years of accumulating roomfuls of comprehensive data are deemed meaningless and considered to have little validity until it is all reaffirmed by the academic researchers over and over again.. And when DF says he is not entirely sure what Shoshone is yet, I do apologize for my ineptness on the many pages of my reflections using real life examples. I don't feel too bad though, since DF does not recognize Bonsma's observations either without academic proof.....incidentally, his book describing his observations is entitled "Man must Measure".

I also need everyone to know that in reality there is nothing unique about a "Shoshone", I have seen these type of cattle in nearly every commercial herd I have ever visited.....there just doesn't seem to be enough of what I call "Bonsma type cattle" that sporadically appear in every breed in different sizes. Now that academic research has enlightened us by what high profit bulls have in common, perhaps the ongoing search for that elusive efficient cow will be resolved along with the ongoing measures of RFI. Surely we all need to know why today's mainstream cow's maintenence requirements have dramatically increased compared to the 1930's when everyone was still ignorant without modern academic sponsored measures.

I am anxious for academia to teach the registered mainstream how to profitably produce and sustain a more efficient cow since the 200 years of research data I have in my cluttered files reveals that crossbreeding is only a sporadic temporary cure for what ails beef cow inefficiencies. I would be very happy to offer my piles of research data and records to academia for conversion into some form of mathematical formulas and equations for verification and clearer understanding, I just don't know whether my customers can afford their services or not. The past 70 year track record of our land grant institutions does speak well for itself.

I do have considerable compassion for DF when he told MikeK "If you had any clue what researchers go through, your attitude would be different. Everybody thinks researchers have it easy, but few want to do their job." From several years of first hand experience trying to combine the art and science of breeding cattle, I did come to learn how difficult it is to teach science the art of simplicity. And.....at the same time I hope science understands how difficult it is to breed more profitable cattle and sustain them beyond just saying we need to "maintain heterosis to avoid regression" while measuring differences based on arbitrary and incomplete economic indexes.

In regards to the statement that "some Angus breeders are working only within their own herd", an old proverb says when a man travels with others, he must wait until they are ready, but he who travels alone can start anytime. I just didn't have the patience 30 years ago to wait until the mainstream was ready. With breeds going in every direction, it didn't seem too difficult for me to understand why "some Angus breeders are working only within their own herd" rather than the whole breed. From the onset I tried to make it clear that I was breeding a" breed within a breed"...... I still don't understand why academic research persists in their primary focus of comparing whole breeds with one another. My ignorance is truly bliss compared to the chaos I've witnessed from those utilizing the progressive academic proof of across breed EPD.

Now I know that my breeding philosophy goes against the grain of tradition and I tried to clarify my reasons by my crude distribution charts that Hilly highlights. The basics to these spherical distributions was provided by valid research data done in England many years ago. About that same time, Chief Two Eyes made a pilgrimage to the white man's American Museum of History in Washington, D.C. It was not the spaceships, rockets or all the other scientific technologies that intrigued ole Chief Two Eyes, what most intrigued the Chief was the perfect symbolic model for modern traditional beef breeding in the "whatchamacallit contraption" section.

These perpetual motion contraptions began with a bicycle, powered by human driven pedals, which turned a continuous series of devices and paraphernalia with pulleys, belts, chains, different sized gears, sprockets, counter weights, balls, bells and whistles which accomplished nothing more than movement of the devices without going anywhere until the strongest human leg power could no longer turn the pedals. Chief Two Eyes thought about white man's stupidity, he wondered why they didn't begin their project with an Indian motorcycle to make progressive movement go longer. Chief noticed one of these contraptions was built by Bootheels grandfather.

I also enjoyed Bootheels pictures of Sniff the Wind and Sam in the land of Fort Revelation. DF said he liked the Sam bull, asked how is he bred. MK said Sniff will be the cowmaker, Sam the beefmaker. DF countered, "Pure opinion but no data. If there was good data, then the debate would be over. Instead around and around we go as the marketers continue to brand their product, never wanting their product to be "taste tested" for fear the truth will come out.......Why would anybody use Sam as a beefmaker....." Chief Two Eyes' spirit works in mysterious ways, it gave LL the power to talk with cows, and now it sent LL a picture of one of Sam's paternal sisters from Sustainable Genetics. For proof, I am posting this non-Shoshone picture here as a perfect symbolic Bonsma model of what "high profit cattle have in common".....it is difficult to teach the academic world the art of simplicity, isn't it Mike..... perhaps DF should pay you for your time and experience.....it would only take him a few minutes of your time once a year to learn how form follows functional selection.

MK said Sniff the Wind would be the dam maker. Why are we looking at a paternal sister to Sam instead of the ancestory of Sniff the Wind?

Is this paternal sister to Sam an ideal cow? Will Sam be able to recreate this cow, his own dam?

I have discovered a product which, when correctly applied, will provide 25% ROI. You have to apply it every year but it is easy to apply. Is anybody interested?

Given the sad state of the economy at the present, I can`t afford to go backwards just for research`s benefit...

df wrote:

MK said Sniff the Wind would be the dam maker. Why are we looking at a paternal sister to Sam instead of the ancestory of Sniff the Wind?

Is this paternal sister to Sam an ideal cow? Will Sam be able to recreate this cow, his own dam?

I would consider her near ideal for some places and purposes...of course he is re-creating the beefmaker direction of this cow, even as we speak...
his own dam??? what`s that about?


df, It is beginning to seriously concern me that you are employed as a public teacher

I surely am glad the Zen Master is still alive, well, and spunky as ever. I do enjoy a good puzzle, riddle, metaphor, flowerdy writing and such. I have some inkclings to interpretation here, but just wonder what exactly Grandpa Bootheel, invented or built in the perpetual motion museum. My interpretation was the merry go round, registered fad, machine, he enjoyed riding.......but I may be way out in left field here.

Thanks

Bootheel

MKeeney wrote:

Given the sad state of the economy at the present, I can`t afford to go backwards just for research`s benefit...

Your kidding, right? I said it works and stated the ROI. You don't trust the product, no data, etc. What's up with that? Suddenly it is proving my research? I already said it works; your breaking my heart!

MKeeney wrote:

df wrote:

MK said Sniff the Wind would be the dam maker. Why are we looking at a paternal sister to Sam instead of the ancestory of Sniff the Wind?

Is this paternal sister to Sam an ideal cow? Will Sam be able to recreate this cow, his own dam?

I would consider her near ideal for some places and purposes...of course he is re-creating the beefmaker direction of this cow, even as we speak...
his own dam??? what`s that about?


df, It is beginning to seriously concern me that you are employed as a public teacher

You have been telling us the bull is just the carrier for the dam. So Sam should be siring daughters like his dam? Or is this getting all mixed up because he is considered a crossbred among linebreeders?

And the role of a teacher is................?

MKeeney wrote:

df wrote:

MK said Sniff the Wind would be the dam maker. Why are we looking at a paternal sister to Sam instead of the ancestory of Sniff the Wind?

Is this paternal sister to Sam an ideal cow? Will Sam be able to recreate this cow, his own dam?

I would consider her near ideal for some places and purposes...of course he is re-creating the beefmaker direction of this cow, even as we speak...
his own dam??? what`s that about?


df, It is beginning to seriously concern me that you are employed as a public teacher

What makes her ideal?

df wrote:

MKeeney wrote:

Given the sad state of the economy at the present, I can`t afford to go backwards just for research`s benefit...

Your kidding, right? I said it works and stated the ROI. You don't trust the product, no data, etc. What's up with that? Suddenly it is proving my research? I already said it works; your breaking my heart!

you quoting a ROI figure to me has about the same impact as a fly lighting on my nose df...