Keeney Angus-Business as Usual Sale

MKeeney wrote:

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...

Well, it would matter to commercial cattlemen.

then it mattrers to me...cause I am a commercial cattleman...here`s the deal...you can post the ROI plan...in return, you require 5 students to summarize Reflections from Larry Leonhardt in 500 words or less...post the all the summaries here...then we`ll vote to pick the winner and the winning prize will be $100 compliments of Keeney Angus...I`m trusting you not to write and pick your own under an alias...

MKeeney wrote:

then it mattrers to me...cause I am a commercial cattleman...here`s the deal...you can post the ROI plan...in return, you require 5 students to summarize Reflections from Larry Leonhardt in 500 words or less...post the all the summaries here...then we`ll vote to pick the winner and the winning prize will be $100 compliments of Keeney Angus...I`m trusting you not to write and pick your own under an alias...

Sorry, I'm confused. As a commercial cattleman, I would think the 25% ROI would be pretty appealing. Does TruLine have a 25% ROI?

Quote :

Sorry, I'm confused. As a commercial cattleman, I would think the 25% ROI would be pretty appealing. Does TruLine have a 25% ROI?

I am baffled by my ignorance: what is ROI? Can I get one at Walmart?

Bootheel wrote:

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.

Chief Two Eyes so happy when he see how renegades not able to penetrate strong Fort Revelation. Chief have no proof with DNA, but he think Spotted Dog inherit more than 25% of happy genes from grandpa, same genes of King of the Heave Ho Haw tribe in the vicinity of Two Dot bridge and Little Sitting Bull of Boone tribe in the vicinity of Cumbersomeland.... know life good, .not waste life chasing wampum. Little Sitting Bull get dizzy playing on merry-go-round, now play on teeter-totter with Daffee of the Showmee Tribe in the vicinity of Spotted Dog..... that why SD need to build strong Fort. Chief like symbolic pictures, take picture of happy life inside Fort where all play together, not so happy out in the vicinity of left field.


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?..... 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?......Sorry, I'm confused. As a commercial cattleman, I would think the 25% ROI would be pretty appealing. Does TruLine have a 25% ROI?

Chief Two Eyes laugh when he see Daffee offering Little Sitting Bull a Trojan Horse. Trojan Horse filled with short sighted warriors, Daffee need LSB's glasses to see paternal not seedless fruit.....LSB discover easy way for 150% ROI with RFI and HHP using white man's NZ GPG.... secret recipes that don't require commercial application every year

Chief take picture of Daffee's student making cake using EPD recipe, King of Heave Ho Haw tribe learn secret ROI recipe, make LL perfect cake. Chief no have picture of Daffee, enjoy mental image better, without proof Daffee only inherit 25% of grandfather Scrooge McDuck's genes, happy his measures of wampum are predominated by his maternal 75% .....none of us are perfect, we happy with just enough Remembering how curiosity killed the cat, TruLines 150% commercial ROI is simple recipe ratio of 90/10, life swell when we well


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

Thanks LL for proving my point. It was reiterated a few nights ago when some old timers were discussing how little they got paid at some of their jobs. The first old timer stated he worked for room and board but the food was fantastic and he gained 5 lbs during the haying season at that ranch. The second started his story with "the first lier never has a chance".

So when the response to my product that gave 25% ROI, it was countered with 150%, I would not be surprised if somebody was probably thinking, "No, it's more like 500%". You see, without any data/proof, the first lier never has a chance. I thought the 25% sounded pretty good for a business that has often had ROI of <5%, but the 150% sounds much better. That is one of the reasons unbiased research and reporting is important.

Not sure why we are discussing a "paternal" Angus. One reason might be the TruLine type and breeding program is not fully defined yet. Should Angus be a strictly maternal breed with no selection towards any growth or carcass value, forcing the terminal breed to compensate for any deficiencies. It might be agrued that the vast majority of Angus are paternal as so few are strictly maternal or strictly paternal.

Is this paternal type to provide some level of hybrid vigor within a breed? If so, aren't you stealing hybrid vigor from the commercial cattleman? Isn't he suppose to benefit from a linebreeding program or is it ok for the seedstock producer to take some before he sells the line to the commercial cattlemen?

I will stand with the Showmee Tribe representative, at least briefly. (I'll move if substantial piling occurs).

Anyway, I'll admit that the exact place of the paternal type of Angus in the TruLine program is somewhat unclear to me--- are they just a bridge or a crutch for those who aren't quite ready to buy in completely? If the point is just to have some more traditionally "beefy" black bulls around for buyers seeking them, well, that makes sense economically. But are they terminals from the TruLine program, as an alternative to the 1/2 continentals, or what are they? Do you make them intentionally, or are they just the same breeding as the others, only they turned out different in type?

To me any cross is just what they are a cross and people will have varying reasons for breeding them, but they will serve a purpose...

What can’t be lost in the discussion is the fact that you need the strains to make the cross as well as the time and discipline to make the foundational strains.

Also,the not so visible gene pool will be increased with the cross and along with that the range of distribution has grown...

The monetary value of such an animal will of course be of question until proven to be profitable in each individual’s situation.

As far as my Tru-Line paradigm it is all based on Independents for admission the longer an individual and strain has been independent the more predictable the people and then the cattle will be.

From the mating systems chart the “type to type” mating would be left of the more “differing types” and right of foundational independent strains.

If I had a foundational strain bred for maternal function in my production paradigm and a commercial producer wanted me to sell him females for replacement in his similar operation, he may chose to use up some heterosis on his cows buy ordering a “type to type” mating from me followed by a terminal seedless fruit mating on his farm to clean up any remaining heterosis benefits. But if he has choices of independent foundational strains there will be more control of his on farm sort of the distributions then the helter-skelter method more common today.

This may not clear up any questions and is not meant to be anyone else but my own interpretation and I am still learning....

I have been busy for a few days and have not read much until today. This is a joke that I realy like, Two polar bears are standing together one has an igloo over his head the other is looking down at a set of human tracks in the snow leaving. The one holding the igloo comments to the other what part of this concept don't you get Carl I lift you grab.
To me truline breeding is real simple start with a line of marternal cattle that a person like LL has developed over 40 years and don't screw them up. If you need more lbs to sell then use any number of terminal cross bulls that you might like. Just remember not to keep those and screw up 40 years of fixing a type.

df wrote:

Thanks LL for proving my point. It was reiterated a few nights ago when some old timers were discussing how little they got paid at some of their jobs. The first old timer stated he worked for room and board but the food was fantastic and he gained 5 lbs during the haying season at that ranch. The second started his story with "the first lier never has a chance".

So when the response to my product that gave 25% ROI, it was countered with 150%, I would not be surprised if somebody was probably thinking, "No, it's more like 500%". You see, without any data/proof, the first lier never has a chance. I thought the 25% sounded pretty good for a business that has often had ROI of <5%, but the 150% sounds much better. That is one of the reasons unbiased research and reporting is important.

Not sure why we are discussing a "paternal" Angus. One reason might be the TruLine type and breeding program is not fully defined yet. Should Angus be a strictly maternal breed with no selection towards any growth or carcass value, forcing the terminal breed to compensate for any deficiencies. It might be agrued that the vast majority of Angus are paternal as so few are strictly maternal or strictly paternal.

Is this paternal type to provide some level of hybrid vigor within a breed? If so, aren't you stealing hybrid vigor from the commercial cattleman? Isn't he suppose to benefit from a linebreeding program or is it ok for the seedstock producer to take some before he sells the line to the commercial cattlemen?

df,

Could you clarify what you are talking about with ROI.... is this 25% return financial?

And if so I would think it strange that you would think that 150% or 500% would be better than 5% to a group that is interested in finding contentment with enough... if all that mattered was more $ I can see your logic as you can punch that into a calculator and measure the results... the higher number wins.

If it is a return is on my time and effort, 500% doesn’t impress me as what matters to me is priceless and no amount of data will help you measure it.

This probably seems more than a little ideological, but it is something I am constantly trying to remind myself in order to keep my priorities straight.

25% ROI is impressive financially, may even be more than enough...

Hilly wrote:

df wrote:

Thanks LL for proving my point. It was reiterated a few nights ago when some old timers were discussing how little they got paid at some of their jobs. The first old timer stated he worked for room and board but the food was fantastic and he gained 5 lbs during the haying season at that ranch. The second started his story with "the first lier never has a chance".

So when the response to my product that gave 25% ROI, it was countered with 150%, I would not be surprised if somebody was probably thinking, "No, it's more like 500%". You see, without any data/proof, the first lier never has a chance. I thought the 25% sounded pretty good for a business that has often had ROI of <5%, but the 150% sounds much better. That is one of the reasons unbiased research and reporting is important.

Not sure why we are discussing a "paternal" Angus. One reason might be the TruLine type and breeding program is not fully defined yet. Should Angus be a strictly maternal breed with no selection towards any growth or carcass value, forcing the terminal breed to compensate for any deficiencies. It might be agrued that the vast majority of Angus are paternal as so few are strictly maternal or strictly paternal.

Is this paternal type to provide some level of hybrid vigor within a breed? If so, aren't you stealing hybrid vigor from the commercial cattleman? Isn't he suppose to benefit from a linebreeding program or is it ok for the seedstock producer to take some before he sells the line to the commercial cattlemen?

df,

Could you clarify what you are talking about with ROI.... is this 25% return financial?

And if so I would think it strange that you would think that 150% or 500% would be better than 5% to a group that is interested in finding contentment with enough... if all that mattered was more $ I can see your logic as you can punch that into a calculator and measure the results... the higher number wins.

If it is a return is on my time and effort, 500% doesn’t impress me as what matters to me is priceless and no amount of data will help you measure it.

This probably seems more than a little ideological, but it is something I am constantly trying to remind myself in order to keep my priorities straight.

25% ROI is impressive financially, may even be more than enough...

ROI is return on investment. My example was that, when accounting for time, labor and the cost of the product, a rancher would receive a 25% ROI for using this product. I think historically the stockmarket has had a 12% return so this should seem like a good investment. The fact that it has to be applied every year is actually irrelavant to my argument. The return accounts for the time and labor involved.

I think this group is content with "enough" from a growth and carcass standpoint but not from a uniformity perspective. That seems to be the drive. In fact, I might argue that selection is against changes in growth and carcass value due to the perceived changes to traits deemed more important.

If you state that your quality of life or free time is priceless, then there is no way to win the argument. However, if I said you don't have to do anything, and several highly trained people will do all the work and at a certain, reasonable price, then I would wonder about the motives of the commercial rancher, At least wonder if money is really a driving factor in his business.

What caught my attention was, when presented with this option, nobody said they wanted to know what the product was, how it worked, is there any data to back up my claims, how soon it would be on the market, does the product work the same in all cattle and sexes, is it peer-reviewed, etc. Instead there was some concern about having "enough" and that the TruLine breeding program would return much more. And of course, MK wanting me to have 5 students summarize the TruLine pages in 500 words or less! The point is not only did I ask you to trust my 25% return statement, but I am refusing to provide the data to support it and refusing to show how it compares to a different product (my competitor) which will return 100%.

While a banker might not be concerned as long as the borrower can repay the loan, he might scratch his head if he knew ranchers could get 25% return, yet refused to take advantage of it. It made me scratch my head a little as well. I guess I would be willing to borrow at 7% and invest it to make 25%.

you must always consider the source when reading these great claims of returns; my email seems full of them everyday...I am more enticed and find greater validity in the ones promising to enhance my penis length by a full three inches than anything I read from the University of MO...

MKeeney wrote:

you must always consider the source when reading these great claims of returns; my email seems full of them everyday...I am more enticed and find greater validity in the ones promising to enhance my penis length by a full three inches than anything I read from the University of MO...

You prefer the fantasy of what can't be done to the possibility of what might be done...........

df wrote:

ROI is return on investment. My example was that, when accounting for time, labor and the cost of the product, a rancher would receive a 25% ROI for using this product. I think historically the stockmarket has had a 12% return so this should seem like a good investment. The fact that it has to be applied every year is actually irrelavant to my argument. The return accounts for the time and labor involved.

I think this group is content with "enough" from a growth and carcass standpoint but not from a uniformity perspective. That seems to be the drive. In fact, I might argue that selection is against changes in growth and carcass value due to the perceived changes to traits deemed more important.

If you state that your quality of life or free time is priceless, then there is no way to win the argument. However, if I said you don't have to do anything, and several highly trained people will do all the work and at a certain, reasonable price, then I would wonder about the motives of the commercial rancher, At least wonder if money is really a driving factor in his business.

What caught my attention was, when presented with this option, nobody said they wanted to know what the product was, how it worked, is there any data to back up my claims, how soon it would be on the market, does the product work the same in all cattle and sexes, is it peer-reviewed, etc. Instead there was some concern about having "enough" and that the TruLine breeding program would return much more. And of course, MK wanting me to have 5 students summarize the TruLine pages in 500 words or less! The point is not only did I ask you to trust my 25% return statement, but I am refusing to provide the data to support it and refusing to show how it compares to a different product (my competitor) which will return 100%.
While a banker might not be concerned as long as the borrower can repay the loan, he might scratch his head if he knew ranchers could get 25% return, yet refused to take advantage of it. It made me scratch my head a little as well. I guess I would be willing to borrow at 7% and invest it to make 25%.

I for one am not shocked at all that you didn’t get much interests at KC for a 25% ROI... even if it would have been passive income.

The point is I didn’t trust your 25% ROI even if you had data to back up your claims, it’s nothing personal and I wouldn’t expect anyone here to buy into the same claim if I had proposed it.

I do however chose to trust independent thinkers who have nothing to sell and experience to share...

As far as Tru- Line returning much more, again for me it is not monetary value and your right you can’t win that argument, as the results are speculative and blue skyish... immeasurable

MKeeney wrote:

you must always consider the source when reading these great claims of returns; my email seems full of them everyday...I am more enticed and find greater validity in the ones promising to enhance my penis length by a full three inches than anything I read from the University of MO...

Just thinking of all the smart ass things I could say about this post.

Double B wrote:

MKeeney wrote:

you must always consider the source when reading these great claims of returns; my email seems full of them everyday...I am more enticed and find greater validity in the ones promising to enhance my penis length by a full three inches than anything I read from the University of MO...

Just thinking of all the smart ass things I could say about this post.

don`t do it DoubleB, I`d hate to delete myself

Hilly wrote:

df wrote:

ROI is return on investment. My example was that, when accounting for time, labor and the cost of the product, a rancher would receive a 25% ROI for using this product. I think historically the stockmarket has had a 12% return so this should seem like a good investment. The fact that it has to be applied every year is actually irrelavant to my argument. The return accounts for the time and labor involved.

I think this group is content with "enough" from a growth and carcass standpoint but not from a uniformity perspective. That seems to be the drive. In fact, I might argue that selection is against changes in growth and carcass value due to the perceived changes to traits deemed more important.

If you state that your quality of life or free time is priceless, then there is no way to win the argument. However, if I said you don't have to do anything, and several highly trained people will do all the work and at a certain, reasonable price, then I would wonder about the motives of the commercial rancher, At least wonder if money is really a driving factor in his business.

What caught my attention was, when presented with this option, nobody said they wanted to know what the product was, how it worked, is there any data to back up my claims, how soon it would be on the market, does the product work the same in all cattle and sexes, is it peer-reviewed, etc. Instead there was some concern about having "enough" and that the TruLine breeding program would return much more. And of course, MK wanting me to have 5 students summarize the TruLine pages in 500 words or less! The point is not only did I ask you to trust my 25% return statement, but I am refusing to provide the data to support it and refusing to show how it compares to a different product (my competitor) which will return 100%.
While a banker might not be concerned as long as the borrower can repay the loan, he might scratch his head if he knew ranchers could get 25% return, yet refused to take advantage of it. It made me scratch my head a little as well. I guess I would be willing to borrow at 7% and invest it to make 25%.

I for one am not shocked at all that you didn’t get much interests at KC for a 25% ROI... even if it would have been passive income.

The point is I didn’t trust your 25% ROI even if you had data to back up your claims, it’s nothing personal and I wouldn’t expect anyone here to buy into the same claim if I had proposed it.

I do however chose to trust independent thinkers who have nothing to sell and experience to share...

As far as Tru- Line returning much more, again for me it is not monetary value and your right you can’t win that argument, as the results are speculative and blue skyish... immeasurable

how would paying $2000 for the same bull that would cost $4000 elsewhere affect ROI percentage? double it I believe?

MKeeney wrote:

Hilly wrote:

df wrote:

ROI is return on investment. My example was that, when accounting for time, labor and the cost of the product, a rancher would receive a 25% ROI for using this product. I think historically the stockmarket has had a 12% return so this should seem like a good investment. The fact that it has to be applied every year is actually irrelavant to my argument. The return accounts for the time and labor involved.

I think this group is content with "enough" from a growth and carcass standpoint but not from a uniformity perspective. That seems to be the drive. In fact, I might argue that selection is against changes in growth and carcass value due to the perceived changes to traits deemed more important.

If you state that your quality of life or free time is priceless, then there is no way to win the argument. However, if I said you don't have to do anything, and several highly trained people will do all the work and at a certain, reasonable price, then I would wonder about the motives of the commercial rancher, At least wonder if money is really a driving factor in his business.

What caught my attention was, when presented with this option, nobody said they wanted to know what the product was, how it worked, is there any data to back up my claims, how soon it would be on the market, does the product work the same in all cattle and sexes, is it peer-reviewed, etc. Instead there was some concern about having "enough" and that the TruLine breeding program would return much more. And of course, MK wanting me to have 5 students summarize the TruLine pages in 500 words or less! The point is not only did I ask you to trust my 25% return statement, but I am refusing to provide the data to support it and refusing to show how it compares to a different product (my competitor) which will return 100%.
While a banker might not be concerned as long as the borrower can repay the loan, he might scratch his head if he knew ranchers could get 25% return, yet refused to take advantage of it. It made me scratch my head a little as well. I guess I would be willing to borrow at 7% and invest it to make 25%.

I for one am not shocked at all that you didn’t get much interests at KC for a 25% ROI... even if it would have been passive income.

The point is I didn’t trust your 25% ROI even if you had data to back up your claims, it’s nothing personal and I wouldn’t expect anyone here to buy into the same claim if I had proposed it.

I do however chose to trust independent thinkers who have nothing to sell and experience to share...

As far as Tru- Line returning much more, again for me it is not monetary value and your right you can’t win that argument, as the results are speculative and blue skyish... immeasurable

how would paying $2000 for the same bull that would cost $4000 elsewhere affect ROI percentage? double it I believe?

But I think you have to measure the output as well; you are only discussing the initial cost. While I am confident you can find good $2000 Angus bulls, it doesn't automatically mean the return is better than the $4000 bull. FYI, I am just clarifying a point; I am NOT advocating buying $4000 bulls when a $2000 would be more profitable.

Quote :

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?

df, I went back to see if the revolutionary product came in a liquid or a paste and found out it is an unnamed riddle. I did figure out that we are talking economics and not a cow ratio, so I'm gaining momentum. The thing that sells new ideas are gomers so tell me some folks who retired from the cow business as millioniares by age 35 from using this product of yours. And the level of cost also affects my profit, not the whole of the business investment. So if I spend a dollar of wormer on a calf and expect a 25% return on investment, I do not think I want to waste my time to earn a quarter per calf. So do I need to set up a money flow to spend $400 per cow to earn another $100 or how does this work? And since this is a cow site, does it improve the cow in the application?

EddieM wrote:

Quote :

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?

df, I went back to see if the revolutionary product came in a liquid or a paste and found out it is an unnamed riddle. I did figure out that we are talking economics and not a cow ratio, so I'm gaining momentum. The thing that sells new ideas are gomers so tell me some folks who retired from the cow business as millioniares by age 35 from using this product of yours. And the level of cost also affects my profit, not the whole of the business investment. So if I spend a dollar of wormer on a calf and expect a 25% return on investment, I do not think I want to waste my time to earn a quarter per calf. So do I need to set up a money flow to spend $400 per cow to earn another $100 or how does this work? And since this is a cow site, does it improve the cow in the application?

The only permanant change is genetic and it takes some time to change, if needed, a cowherd if it is by saving your own replacements. Everything else depends on the application of some level of technology, which may or may not be cost effective.

You have asked excellent questions.

I especially want to thank DF for bringing up the subject of commercial ROI in beef production. When DF said the first liar never has a chance, I laughed reminded of how humans have even developed contests for who can tell the biggest whoppers. Talk is cheap or I wouldn't be a part of this forum, and though we clown around and needle each other playing gotcha games while working on these public forums, this business of supplying seedstock to an entire beef industry is a very serious and responsible competitive business.....but all work and no play makes Jack a dull boy .

Sharing my reflections on an interacting public forum the past several months has been an interesting study of human nature. We all seem to have to experience our own personal successes and disappointments before we can recognize many genetic realities. I have no doubt that experience is the best teacher but it is also the most costly.....too few of us have learned how to properly apply all the research data that is available.

When we talk about commercial ROI, we enter a much different world of monetary values than registered returns on investment. Most of us here are familiar with the traditional registered business so there is no reason to reiterate all the reasons why DF insists on documented proof of all our claims. . I do however, have a major problem with the broad scope of how field data is collected and used in both breeding and marketeting. When the EPD models were initiated, I thought it was finally a great system that could measure parent values rather than an individuals own performance where we've measured heritabilities etc. And we're all familiar with how this system spawned our new usual races for individual supremacy which cause our many cycles of correctional changes and chaos in the breed populations. We also know these events are largely driven by the registered industry's outlandish values for their own ROI's offering quick fixes. Over the long term looking at the big picture, summaries of collective data show the millions of traditional dollars spent trying to improve beef cattle which arguably has had an overall negative impact on improving commercial ROI in several ways. Understandably the debates go on.

Research data usually consists of many pages of details and ends with an overall summary of the projects findings. Since I am inelgible to compete for MK's prize of $100 for the best summary of my reflections under 500 words, I must admit it is hard for me to imagine how many wasted words I've written in vain saying about the same thing over and over again over the years. From my very first post here on KC, my basic objective was never to promote my cattle, but "to stimulate the development of parent stock that can more 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 as it relates to commercial ROI.

Apparently, either my communicative skills are seriously flawed or my breeding objectives are whacky. When I posted the picture of the cow I received from Bill Hodge, the Waigroup rep in GA, a 41/97 dau #63S (from a blending of old line Wye/Graham/Rito), it was in response to DF's post which stated " 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. From an experienced eye, this cow symbolizes those virtues plus exceptional fertility and beefiness in her production, certainly not a longhorn type Yet.DF said - I took this to mean that she is an ideal cow; some of you apparently have concerns????? I didn't say she was my ideal type, I did say she was an ideal Bonsma model for her paternal purpose since paternals are parents of seedless fruit (steers or spayed hfrs). I presume DF's latter statement was in response to Double D's post "When I looked at the cow I thought what a pretty cow, but I also wondered if she put to much on her back and not enough in the calf,, never thought that cow won't be able to keep her calf alive though. So what is the story can she raise a calf or should they cut her head off?
Any experienced eye can see this cow carries a minimal amount of backfat by the absence of fat in the flanks, tailhead and brisket without the need for ultrasound. Her known purebred ancestry is indicative that the fat is intramuscular, expanding the natural muscling and other things that come attached with it. Increasing performance comes with increased capacity which is nothing more than selection for increased appetite with RFI, but has anyone noticed how the latest fad is presented in todays featured bull sale attractions....what they have in common are large middles creating sway backs.....maybe they need to be crossed with roach back cows .

Smaller size is somewhat correlated to shorter gestation so I did enjoy DF's comment when he said "Well, MK, it looks like that type conference might come in handy yet! Will it be free or will you be charging?" It has to be free, otherwise it would reduce any potential ROI I just hope someone brings supportive proof to Bonsma's statement that "obesity reciprocates low fertility, and vice versa"......maybe if someone would bring some of those patchy fat, coarse hairy animals to display, we'll quit wondering why academia has measured fertility from our selection as being very low in heritability.....of course, registered breeders blame it on certain individual bulls like 6807 and others in their quest for fleshing ease.....never on type or nymphomania .

Any "type" conference is going to take an awful lot of preparation, MK & DF will need time to gather up all their data . However, I doubt a type conference with resolve Jack's post when he reported the results of his sale - "...Double High selling sire group was a deal that went like this. I kept the tailend of my heifers a few years ago to use in a ranch rodeo I was putting on. I was going to just run them open but I couldn't keep them home when they would cycle so rather than fight it I just threw out a little left over calving ease bull that was a half bother to most of the heifers. Long story short I let a guy come in and pick off six of the heifers and I kept the rest. The bulls out of these hfrs were the high selling sire group and the contending bidder for the high selling bull was the guy that bought the six hfrs. Hmmmmm, how many times have I observed this "phenomenon", perhaps DF's data will provide a better answer than the ones I have formed

Sounds like the two Jim's at 5bar should've attended your sale Jack, one is beginning to like smaller cows that produce big growthy bulls and the other one said he likes MK's tail end cows but Fay-ro told him to cull all his cows who wean over 600 lbs of calf. As the data accumulates to establish an EPD for human ingenuity, the trait leader last week comes from Texas raising those miniature Longhorns who claims the smaller they are, the more monetary value they bring in the marketplace...with 18# birthweights, they could play a dual role as lawn ornaments during the off breeding season for DV in the vicinity of the two dot bridge and also could be replacements for Bootheel's goats.....data says they'd be smarter, don't die as easy and I know his kids (not the goats) would enjoy riding them playing cowboy and indian defending their fort.

I agree with Jack when he says "I love this business", there is so much potential left for advancing commercial ROI. TruLine is certainly not an original proven concept, the major difference between the Beefboosters, LCC, Nichols, MARC, etc who are developing special purpose strains is that they deliberately avoid close breeding......they must be breedomg "imbalanced" stock Their methodology allows those seedstock breeders more ROI quicker. Right or wrong, I simply believe the long term approach of TruLine harnessing hybrid power will be more enduring and has the greater potential for commercial ROI by offering more consistency via genotypic complementarity rather than reliance on the randomization of heterosis. The reward is in the challenge climbing the mountain, not my own ROI, as DV would say, any monetary bonus beyond that is the frosting made from contented smiley faces.....as Hilly says, priceless.

A priceless ROI is when I discovered at my great grandson's fifth birthday party last week that Max has the same genes as MK. Max has been swingin a golf club since he's been a year old, had spent the afternoon at the golf course. That evening his mother asked him to do something, Max looked up at his mother and said in disgust," You know I've been golfing all day, geez Mom, can't ya see I'm tired." Geez, I too get tired of trying to prove some things that should be so obvious.

DF, with all your knowledge and understanding, why aren't you cashing in on it in the private sector commercial industry?

I know there is something wrong with this idea beings someone as dumb as me thought of it, but...wouldn't the commercial man make a better ROI if they did the jobs that others are doing? Wouldn't fewer people making a profit off the same calf leave more profit for the one person doing most of the jobs? As in...the cow/calf producer forming an alliance with independent, branded beef program to supply finished cattle?

Almost heaven,
KY fescue,
red clay hilltops,
cumberland river...
life is older,
more simple everyday,
younger than the concepts,
blowin in the breeze

Tru-line paths, take me home,
to the place I began,
simple logic, common sense,
take me home, Tru-line paths...



KA No Data 63-31-1 nursing...named in honor of my good friend df

That calf is too big to still be sucking a cow...........Wean him and send him to Choclate Cow's Kansas feedyard. See if he will grow...........

Charles wrote:

That calf is too big to still be sucking a cow...........Wean him and send him to Choclate Cow's Kansas feedyard. See if he will grow...........

I`m waiting for df to tell me if KA No Data 63-31-1 is the result of heterosis or straightbred genetic complimentarity and what his percentage of commercial ROI would be????