Keeney Angus-Business as Usual Sale

MKeeney wrote:

shilow angus wrote:

Mike looking forward to your sale........Culled a frazier cow monday I bought from you as a heifer in 96 /97 ? she rasied 16 calves here including two sets of twins.....I can only imagine how much better she would have been with reg. papers and epd's

Tom,
Be thinking about an index we can use to breed more cows like that old girl...I was kinda thinking about dividing the years you`ve made a living with cows into your bank balance...kind of a cow business IQ..look forward to seeing you, things at peace in the mountains?

Mike,

Very peaceful here....

df wrote:

EddieM wrote:

Quote :

How much of the numerical score for different traits are heritable? What do you expect for producers who use different management compared to you? Would you expect slick hair if they continuously graze fescue as compared to some level of rotational grazing?

df, if you got answers to all three of these questions how many more bulls would you be willing to buy at the sale?

If the score is only useful as a one-time indicator of some other trait, I would say it is pretty worthless and not worth collecting or publishing. However, if the number is highly heritable, and a good indication of what I can expect, then it might have some value. While it is probably better than a one time count of flies, I don't see much value of talking about hair coat in the winter. I would not expect much variation, unless there was some Brahman influence, and would not be a concern of mine in the winter. Now if it was July and the cow or bull had not shed and had that brown, fuzzy hair, I would be a bit concerned. Of course, it would have to have a high heritability and a high correlation to the real trait of interest, which is fertility. If it does not, then it is a great promotional tool that misleads buyers into thinking there is some value that is not there.

Again, why not collect data on the trait of interest instead of some indicator trait?

If you don't think that haircoat is highly variable, you need to get out more.

And as far as heritability goes, most traits are not highly heritable, especially the economically important ones.

oh gee, kinda startling to have to record some "performance " data to figure a price on these 3/4 Angus heifers sired by a Felix son/427 daughter {aprox 40 lb yw epd} from daughters of a black Gelbvieh bull crossed on KA sired Angus cows...all feb 1 to mar10 heifers, {and all the calf crop, no sort} weighed yesterday...
pen one...1160,1070,1010,970,960,950
pen two...975,950,953,990,910,940,840

this Tru-line thing just couldn`t work for a commercial producer, just not enough data....and it sure couldn`t work for a registered breeder, too much consistency to get enough rarity to sell bulls for $24,000 instead of $2400...

life is pretty simple...have LL gatecut you some bred heifers...pick out a Shoshone bull because the bull follows you around in the pen...mate them, get non-data bulls like this...Leroy, this bull`s for you...

Mike to bad the freight thing is so much from the east we would support you. Lucky for us the bold leader only lives in Wyoming allot less freight.

Bob H wrote:

Mike to bad the freight thing is so much from the east we would support you. Lucky for us the bold leader only lives in Wyoming allot less freight.

I appreciate the thought Bob, but a big spender like you giving $2000-$2200 for 2 year old bulls, would drive the price up too much for the locals, and they would go elsewhere...or I would have to raise more bulls to keep down the cost for the customers, cutting into my leisure time keeping track of all that data it takes to create bulls like the above

got some more representative pics posted of the other pens; ending my picture taking as it`s raining again...clear Saturday though

http://www.keeneyangus.net/2011-Bull-Sale-pictures.html

Quote :

This is real bad; tom knew RCC for a long time and still did not know what the bulls would do.

But Tom did come to realize that it was not an EPD problem, a popularity of bull or line problem, but it boiled down to the fact that the influence of a highly promoted bull with good EPD's did not deliver the most economically useful traits: fertility, feet and legs, etc. I am not sure that the AAA's heifer preg and the pathfinder program combined into an index would fully project the fertility the average guy needs.

MKeeney wrote:

Bob H wrote:

Mike to bad the freight thing is so much from the east we would support you. Lucky for us the bold leader only lives in Wyoming allot less freight.

I appreciate the thought Bob, but a big spender like you giving $2000-$2200 for 2 year old bulls, would drive the price up too much for the locals, and they would go elsewhere...or I would have to raise more bulls to keep down the cost for the customers, cutting into my leisure time keeping track of all that data it takes to create bulls like the above

got some more representative pics posted of the other pens; ending my picture taking as it`s raining again...clear Saturday though

http://www.keeneyangus.net/2011-Bull-Sale-pictures.html

LOL.

EddieM wrote:

Quote :

This is real bad; tom knew RCC for a long time and still did not know what the bulls would do.

But Tom did come to realize that it was not an EPD problem, a popularity of bull or line problem, but it boiled down to the fact that the influence of a highly promoted bull with good EPD's did not deliver the most economically useful traits: fertility, feet and legs, etc. I am not sure that the AAA's heifer preg and the pathfinder program combined into an index would fully project the fertility the average guy needs.

I don't know the details of this story. I do know one criteria employed by RCC in the past has been using high accuracy bulls with commercial cattleman acceptance. Several bulls he used were shuned by seedstock producers but loved as calving ease bulls by the commercial cattleman. The daughters went on to be productive cows. These were the bulls used several years ago.

I know recently he has used some less proven bulls, partially because some of his previous selections had too much milk and I think he was having trouble finding high accuracy/moderate milk EPD bulls.

No, the HP EPD and pathfinder program would not project the fertility. If AAA called for some data that is not currently available, and that is not very difficult nor expensive to collect ($1/cow and about 2 hours of your time), would you be interested in submitting such data?

Gregory Walker wrote:

df wrote:

EddieM wrote:

Quote :

How much of the numerical score for different traits are heritable? What do you expect for producers who use different management compared to you? Would you expect slick hair if they continuously graze fescue as compared to some level of rotational grazing?

df, if you got answers to all three of these questions how many more bulls would you be willing to buy at the sale?

If the score is only useful as a one-time indicator of some other trait, I would say it is pretty worthless and not worth collecting or publishing. However, if the number is highly heritable, and a good indication of what I can expect, then it might have some value. While it is probably better than a one time count of flies, I don't see much value of talking about hair coat in the winter. I would not expect much variation, unless there was some Brahman influence, and would not be a concern of mine in the winter. Now if it was July and the cow or bull had not shed and had that brown, fuzzy hair, I would be a bit concerned. Of course, it would have to have a high heritability and a high correlation to the real trait of interest, which is fertility. If it does not, then it is a great promotional tool that misleads buyers into thinking there is some value that is not there.

Again, why not collect data on the trait of interest instead of some indicator trait?

If you don't think that haircoat is highly variable, you need to get out more.

And as far as heritability goes, most traits are not highly heritable, especially the economically important ones.

So is hair coat highly heritable or low in heritability?

If there is a lot of variation, the beef industry should make substantial progress in 10 years, don't you think? Fescue, and for a longer time, heat and humidity, have been around for 60 years with endophyte fungus known as the culprit for much of that time. I think that is quite a long time to have cows that shed hair. Why are we still taking hair scores if we have had such a long time to improve the trait?

Just because traits are low in heritability, it does not mean we can't make progress in them. Although it does speak to the possibility of seedstock producers selling Grazing Schools instead of genetics. But that means the glory would have to go to forage management and not the "this-bull(s)-is-special" approach.

So how do you select for traits that are low in heritability? Due to the huge environmental influence, any decision that seems positive could just as easily be negative and lead you in the wrong direction. A selection for more growth (a trait higher in heritability) is certainly a more accurate selection than one for fertility.

Quote :

I don't know the details of this story.

I just read the previous post that included Tom's assessment. He gave the detail.

Quote :

If AAA called for some data that is not currently available, and that is not very difficult nor expensive to collect ($1/cow and about 2 hours of your time), would you be interested in submitting such data?

Only if it had commercial value. Something like hair scores or assumed birth weights?

Quote :

So is hair coat highly heritable or low in heritability?

I thought that you were the professor.

Quote :

If there is a lot of variation, the beef industry should make substantial progress in 10 years, don't you think?

Commercial and real world registered breeders have known what to do a long time. The leading associations, AI groups and others have ignored the issue if anyone has.

Quote :

Why are we still taking hair scores if we have had such a long time to improve the trait?

People and groups still are selling those genetics into the fescue belt as cure-alls and do-alls. With registered Angus breeders lasting less than 7 years on the average (for some unknown reason!!!) they buy the cows/bulls/semen, try to make them work and run out of money and vim. There are areas of the country where hair is not an issue. So, are regional cattle not the answer? Why not a AAA fescue resistance EPD? That would separate the slicks from the wooly-buggers.

Quote :

Just because traits are low in heritability, it does not mean we can't make progress in them. Although it does speak to the possibility of seedstock producers selling Grazing Schools instead of genetics. But that means the glory would have to go to forage management and not the "this-bull(s)-is-special" approach.

This does not register for me. We do not sell forage, we still sell some sort of animals, so how do you discountthe animal's ability to perform with the best economic return? Show me how the huge data base of the AAA has made progress on fertility, feet and legs, mothering ability and other most useful traits . How does a grazing school fit into genetic selection? Isn't that more towards tourism to supplement a cattle herd that tends toward terminal?

Quote :

So how do you select for traits that are low in heritability? Due to the huge environmental influence, any decision that seems positive could just as easily be negative and lead you in the wrong direction. A selection for more growth (a trait higher in heritability) is certainly a more accurate selection than one for fertility.

A positive for a negative and a right for a wrong and a low for a high? That does not register, either. What is more economically important: fertility (low) or growth (high). Does this logic mean that the AAA epd data base is skewed due to environmental influences and is thus less useful that proported?

[quote="MKeeney"]oh gee, kinda startling to have to record some "performance " data to figure a price on these 3/4 Angus heifers sired by a Felix son/427 daughter {aprox 40 lb yw epd} from daughters of a black Gelbvieh bull crossed on KA sired Angus cows...all feb 1 to mar10 heifers, {and all the calf crop, no sort} weighed yesterday...
pen one...1160,1070,1010,970,960,950
pen two...975,950,953,990,910,940,840

this Tru-line thing just couldn`t work for a commercial producer, just not enough data....and it sure couldn`t work for a registered breeder, too much consistency to get enough rarity to sell bulls for $24,000 instead of $2400...

life is pretty simple...have LL gatecut you some bred heifers...pick out a Shoshone bull because the bull follows you around in the pen...mate them, get non-data bulls like this...Leroy, this bull`s for you...



Really good weights Mike, they have done Great since I last saw them right after you received them. What are the Augus heifers weighing?

Did tom use the bull on other 6807 females in his herd? If so, he could have avoided the problems by talking to Dennis Voss about his experience. Tom could have also talked to his AAA regional manager and got his opinion, but that is another story. He could have talked to other breeders of these type of cattle and got there opinion, but I am not sure that he did. No, I don't know the details. Maybe he did all of those things but bought a bull that did not exhibit problems in RCC herd but did in his.

I don't know what "assumed" birthweights are but if you are making predictions, they are highly unaccurate if producers are submitting guessed weights. If you don't want to take a birthweight, then don't. But don't waste everybody's time by thinking you are doing any favors by guessing, then reporting them either to commical producers or AAA.

How could AAA give fertility EPDs without the cooperation of the breeders in getting the data? Have commercial value? Well, it would have way more than collecting hair scores. Why not a fescue resistant EPD? Because the trait of interest is fertility or stayability, not hair coat. And a stayability EPD is within reach.

Notice how certain breeders jumped all over $EN when it was published? It basically showed with science what everybody was pretty confident of anyhow. But some breeders asked for it and AAA spent the resources to form the index and published it. The same could be done with other traits of economic importance.

Why collect hair scores, which I assume is what you think is an indicator of adaptability? Why not collect "adaptability" or "fertility" which is probably the real trait of interest? Unless hair scores have a high correlation to adaptability, then collection is a waste of time. How do you know the hair score issue is not a copper deficiency?

The grazing school is huge. Why would I buy my bulls from a cowherd that gives their cows the best forage at all tiimes when mine have to deal with continuously grazed fescue? I would think buying a locally produced bull under similar conditions to mine could be a real benefit. But if I am going to sell my genetics, maybe I should clarify how they are managed so commercial producers could expect similar results. We know there are huge differences from neighbor to neighbor, even with similar genetics. Management is important to which genetics perform the best.

My last point dealt with the accuracy of your selection for fertility. It is low in heritability which means the phenotype (pregnant or open) is greatly influenced by environment. If that is the case, then your ability to select for fertility is greatly reduced. In fact, you tend to cull for fertility but can't really select for it.

df wrote:

Did tom use the bull on other 6807 females in his herd? If so, he could have avoided the problems by talking to Dennis Voss about his experience. Tom could have also talked to his AAA regional manager and got his opinion, but that is another story. He could have talked to other breeders of these type of cattle and got there opinion, but I am not sure that he did. No, I don't know the details. Maybe he did all of those things but bought a bull that did not exhibit problems in RCC herd but did in his.

I don't know what "assumed" birthweights are but if you are making predictions, they are highly unaccurate if producers are submitting guessed weights. If you don't want to take a birthweight, then don't. But don't waste everybody's time by thinking you are doing any favors by guessing, then reporting them either to commical producers or AAA.

How could AAA give fertility EPDs without the cooperation of the breeders in getting the data? Have commercial value? Well, it would have way more than collecting hair scores. Why not a fescue resistant EPD? Because the trait of interest is fertility or stayability, not hair coat. And a stayability EPD is within reach.

Notice how certain breeders jumped all over $EN when it was published? It basically showed with science what everybody was pretty confident of anyhow. But some breeders asked for it and AAA spent the resources to form the index and published it. The same could be done with other traits of economic importance.

Why collect hair scores, which I assume is what you think is an indicator of adaptability? Why not collect "adaptability" or "fertility" which is probably the real trait of interest? Unless hair scores have a high correlation to adaptability, then collection is a waste of time. How do you know the hair score issue is not a copper deficiency?

The grazing school is huge. Why would I buy my bulls from a cowherd that gives their cows the best forage at all tiimes when mine have to deal with continuously grazed fescue? I would think buying a locally produced bull under similar conditions to mine could be a real benefit. But if I am going to sell my genetics, maybe I should clarify how they are managed so commercial producers could expect similar results. We know there are huge differences from neighbor to neighbor, even with similar genetics. Management is important to which genetics perform the best.

My last point dealt with the accuracy of your selection for fertility. It is low in heritability which means the phenotype (pregnant or open) is greatly influenced by environment. If that is the case, then your ability to select for fertility is greatly reduced. In fact, you tend to cull for fertility but can't really select for it.

thank you df for pointing out what should be from the perspective of a tax -supported university; not only could I work to pay your taxes, but I could work to make data to hire more personel, so I could work harder to pay even more taxes...I could, but I`m not going to...... I suggest you implement those recommendations for the producers in the Show Me State Heifer Sales, or how many have been implemented already?...after you have showed how well these indexes work, maybe the program will stop requiring producers to jump through hoops that have nothing to do with making better cows, just make work propositions for university personal, ...until you can "SHOW ME", something concrete, I`m quite tired of your "SUGGESTING" ...

No problem. I will watch the 1930 style breeding program rocket the commercial cattlemen to ever greater profits.

O.K.

Man alive, I thought I could come up nonsensical crap, rather proficiently, but todays ramblings take the cake. I am at a loss for words, desire or effort to even refute or argue or quarrel.


Selection for hair coat, in fescue country? Readily Available? Easily Fixed in 10 years? I have yet to find a pedigree, filled entirely for 3 generations, born raised, proven in fescue country, give me about 30 years, and I may have some here, as the two year generation turnover, easy fix and measure, philosphy, is a poor poor pooor poooooor ppppooor, exuse of being a so called cattle breed-er.

I'll leave this one with you MK, leading horses to water, that only want to drink from the fountain of proof, to troublesome of a task. You know my philosophy on teaching folks that dont want to learn, remember that little quote I gave you? I think it applies pretty well here.


Life is Good

Bootheel

Quote :

Did tom use the bull on other 6807 females in his herd? If so, he could have avoided the problems by talking to Dennis Voss about his experience. Tom could have also talked to his AAA regional manager and got his opinion, but that is another story. He could have talked to other breeders of these type of cattle and got there opinion, but I am not sure that he did. No, I don't know the details. Maybe he did all of those things but bought a bull that did not exhibit problems in RCC herd but did in his.

I don't know what "assumed" birthweights are but if you are making predictions, they are highly unaccurate if producers are submitting guessed weights. If you don't want to take a birthweight, then don't. But don't waste everybody's time by thinking you are doing any favors by guessing, then reporting them either to commical producers or AAA.

How could AAA give fertility EPDs without the cooperation of the breeders in getting the data? Have commercial value? Well, it would have way more than collecting hair scores. Why not a fescue resistant EPD? Because the trait of interest is fertility or stayability, not hair coat. And a stayability EPD is within reach.

Notice how certain breeders jumped all over $EN when it was published? It basically showed with science what everybody was pretty confident of anyhow. But some breeders asked for it and AAA spent the resources to form the index and published it. The same could be done with other traits of economic importance.

Why collect hair scores, which I assume is what you think is an indicator of adaptability? Why not collect "adaptability" or "fertility" which is probably the real trait of interest? Unless hair scores have a high correlation to adaptability, then collection is a waste of time. How do you know the hair score issue is not a copper deficiency?

The grazing school is huge. Why would I buy my bulls from a cowherd that gives their cows the best forage at all tiimes when mine have to deal with continuously grazed fescue? I would think buying a locally produced bull under similar conditions to mine could be a real benefit. But if I am going to sell my genetics, maybe I should clarify how they are managed so commercial producers could expect similar results. We know there are huge differences from neighbor to neighbor, even with similar genetics. Management is important to which genetics perform the best.

My last point dealt with the accuracy of your selection for fertility. It is low in heritability which means the phenotype (pregnant or open) is greatly influenced by environment. If that is the case, then your ability to select for fertility is greatly reduced. In fact, you tend to cull for fertility but can't really select for it.

df, you have all of the wisdom and vision that the AAA needs to improve. Forward your thoughts to them on how to do all things right and who they need to ask (you). How have they overlooked you and your vision for all of these years? My little basic needs are not needs at all, only whims of a guy who has cattle and livestock, sees them year-round, usually daily, knows them from birth to teenage years (hopefully), walks the pastures, plants the seeds and pays the bills. What little do I know and how small of me to question your economic investment and experience in the cattle industry. Now where are your cows, ... somewhere around the Two Dot bridge? You tell me the differences in hair scores and "adaptability" or "fertility" for cattle on fescue pastures in June and July if you are so learned. My small world observations see no difference and the term you choose to use is meaninglessly the same.

Copper deficiency is quickly seen by tint of hair coat, so, no, that is not the issue, especially if you feed a decent mineral. Please continue to respond. It helps me so much.

Bootheel wrote:

Man alive, I thought I could come up nonsensical crap, rather proficiently, but todays ramblings take the cake. I am at a loss for words, desire or effort to even refute or argue or quarrel.


Selection for hair coat, in fescue country? Readily Available? Easily Fixed in 10 years? I have yet to find a pedigree, filled entirely for 3 generations, born raised, proven in fescue country, give me about 30 years, and I may have some here, as the two year generation turnover, easy fix and measure, philosphy, is a poor poor pooor poooooor ppppooor, exuse of being a so called cattle breed-er.

I'll leave this one with you MK, leading horses to water, that only want to drink from the fountain of proof, to troublesome of a task. You know my philosophy on teaching folks that dont want to learn, remember that little quote I gave you? I think it applies pretty well here.


Life is Good

Bootheel

Whatever gave you the idea that I don't think shedding hair is important? You have made an assumption, I believe, that is incorrect.

df wrote:

No problem. I will watch the 1930 style breeding program rocket the commercial cattlemen to ever greater profits.

Now that is funny... The highly successful Modern University sponsored program has led to so much profit over the last decade that we have the lowest cow numbers since 1958, if you guys keep at it, you should get us back to 1930 numbers in less than another decade.

Thanks Eddie... you saved me some valuable time.

df wrote:

http://www.simmental.org/userimages/SM%20Profit.pdf

I`ll try to include this chart in next year`s catalog if you can condense it to 1/4 postcard size and tell what it means in 500 words or less; I`ll blow up a 4x8 ft board of it for the sale; if I don`t, I know my customers will be asking me for it......1930`s program suits me just fine; that was before and better than the 50`s/60`s ...before and better than the 80`s...both era`s university endorsed and followed ...I suspect my way will be the way about 2030...you can tell your grandkids you knew the people responsible for it; more results from my way/weigh

pen 1 {5}Angus heifers ...811lb/ min $900
pen 2 {6}Angus heifers....830/lb min $925
pen 3 [6}Angus heifers....754/lb min $850
pen 4{6}Angus x heifers..1020lb/min$1050
pen 5{7}Angus x heifers..935lb/min $1000

Gregory Walker wrote:

df wrote:

No problem. I will watch the 1930 style breeding program rocket the commercial cattlemen to ever greater profits.

Now that is funny... The highly successful Modern University sponsored program has led to so much profit over the last decade that we have the lowest cow numbers since 1958, if you guys keep at it, you should get us back to 1930 numbers in less than another decade.

Thanks Eddie... you saved me some valuable time.

Wow. You really think that is where you can place blame. I did not know they really had anything to do with droughts, floods, price of land, price of trucks, four-wheelers, etc.

My comment on the 1930 style breeding was about the time linebreeding was all the rage and when cows that did not milk were not a problem because there was always a nurse cow behind the barn. It was buyer beware as there was no reliable information on the cattle. What you see is NOT what you got.

MikeK, if you are interested in taking the best of yesteryear and the best of what is to come, we would have a tremendous amount of common ground. We are actually closer than you might think. I am going to set my stick down now

MKeeney wrote:

df wrote:

http://www.simmental.org/userimages/SM%20Profit.pdf

I`ll try to include this chart in next year`s catalog if you can condense it to 1/4 postcard size and tell what it means in 500 words or less; I`ll blow up a 4x8 ft board of it for the sale; if I don`t, I know my customers will be asking me for it......1930`s program suits me just fine; that was before and better than the 50`s/60`s ...before and better than the 80`s...both era`s university endorsed and followed ...I suspect my way will be the way about 2030...you can tell your grandkids you knew the people responsible for it; more results from my way/weigh

pen 1 {5}Angus heifers ...811lb/ min $900
pen 2 {6}Angus heifers....830/lb min $925
pen 3 [6}Angus heifers....754/lb min $850
pen 4{6}Angus x heifers..1020lb/min$1050
pen 5{7}Angus x heifers..935lb/min $1000

I think I can explain it in under 100 words such that your commercial guys will get it.

df wrote:

MKeeney wrote:

df wrote:

http://www.simmental.org/userimages/SM%20Profit.pdf

I`ll try to include this chart in next year`s catalog if you can condense it to 1/4 postcard size and tell what it means in 500 words or less; I`ll blow up a 4x8 ft board of it for the sale; if I don`t, I know my customers will be asking me for it......1930`s program suits me just fine; that was before and better than the 50`s/60`s ...before and better than the 80`s...both era`s university endorsed and followed ...I suspect my way will be the way about 2030...you can tell your grandkids you knew the people responsible for it; more results from my way/weigh

pen 1 {5}Angus heifers ...811lb/ min $900
pen 2 {6}Angus heifers....830/lb min $925
pen 3 [6}Angus heifers....754/lb min $850
pen 4{6}Angus x heifers..1020lb/min$1050
pen 5{7}Angus x heifers..935lb/min $1000

I think I can explain it in under 100 words such that your commercial guys will get it.

go for it..I bet I can rebute it 15 words or less...if nothing else I can say,
University professors hate Mike Keeney