Masculine bulls?

Hilly
To what goal are you trying to reach and what is your timeline?

Bob H wrote:

Hilly
To what goal are you trying to reach and what is your timeline?

Bob H

I’ll spare everyone the details, but you’re not so lucky I sent you a PM...

Craig

GF, very interesting to look at your bulls and read about your experience with them. It catches my eye that the last Luing bull imported to Canada appears to me to be nearly identical in phenotype to MikeK's enlarged color picture of Lot 29 in the upcoming Wye sale. Maybe this is the type we need to be looking for in a young bull to be a cowmaker........I would not have picked this type because their heads look too big at this stage, everyone always told me to pick a bull with a small head for caving ease. Seem to lack muscle compared to mainline bulls and especially Dylan Biggs' bulls! Your plain looking bull as you put it looks to be similar in type to these also. Got to get my eyes adjusted.

Charles

Bob H wrote:

One thing that I think is that we as humans need to do is understand that there is no 100% way to predicte what will happen.

So true, and more true then I would like to admit.

Grassfarmer wrote:

I no longer really care what the bulls look like either as long as they serve my purpose of reproducing that old cow's type pictured above. The only reason I'm discussing them is that their progeny results down the line are having an impact on me attaining my goal.

GF, I find it difficult to believe from the dedication you demonstrate in these discussions that you no longer care.
At the very least for exactly the reason you state above, potential "impact", hopefully positive.

One thing I am interested to know GF is what exactly you mean by the different terms you have used, "beefy",
"masculinity".


TomD asked "If we are mistaking muscular for masculine, how is the winner bull visibly more masculine than the other one?"

You may have answered this question specifically but I either missed it or misunderstood it.

Masculinity to me is a term that describes a combination of secondary masculine traits in the hair, hide, muscle, skeleton and fat. As such you could have a Waygu or a Jersey for that matter that exude secondary masculine character and as regards muscle they can have muscle expression and muscle definition, but they certainly would not be described as beefy or massive or heavily muscled.

So from your experience do you want light muscled masculine bulls, or moderately muscled bulls that are less masculine looking by virtue of other secondary masculine traits, eg, less muscle definition, less crest, less color differentiation , more homogenous hair coat texture, or possibly some other combination?



I want masculine bulls that exhibit muscle expression and definition in the hieght of the testosterone flush in the breeding season but that are moderately muscled.

Charles wrote:

GF, very interesting to look at your bulls and read about your experience with them. It catches my eye that the last Luing bull imported to Canada appears to me to be nearly identical in phenotype to MikeK's enlarged color picture of Lot 29 in the upcoming Wye sale. Maybe this is the type we need to be looking for in a young bull to be a cowmaker........I would not have picked this type because their heads look too big at this stage, everyone always told me to pick a bull with a small head for caving ease. Seem to lack muscle compared to mainline bulls and especially Dylan Biggs' bulls! Your plain looking bull as you put it looks to be similar in type to these also. Got to get my eyes adjusted.

Charles

Charles, it is refreshing for me at any rate that my program may be thought of as mainline because for the last 25 years I have felt like an outlier.

Our herd, commercial and registered, has been on a 48 days breeding season sine 1985, all opens culled. We began forage developing our bull and grass gain tesing them in 1990. We have selected for frame 4 plus or minus for that amount of time also. We have essentially ignored the quest for more weaning and yearling growth for the last 15 years. We have raised and marketed retail, Hotel and Restaurant and direct to consumer and continue to today our seasonal grass finished beef since 1995.
We have focused on extending our grazing season, lowering our input costs and managing using Holoistic Management principles since 1985.

Like I say it is nice to know we are thought of as mainstream.

Dylan Biggs wrote:

Grassfarmer wrote:

I no longer really care what the bulls look like either as long as they serve my purpose of reproducing that old cow's type pictured above. The only reason I'm discussing them is that their progeny results down the line are having an impact on me attaining my goal.

GF, I find it difficult to believe from the dedication you demonstrate in these discussions that you no longer care.
At the very least for exactly the reason you state above, potential "impact", hopefully positive.

One thing I am interested to know GF is what exactly you mean by the different terms you have used, "beefy",
"masculinity".


TomD asked "If we are mistaking muscular for masculine, how is the winner bull visibly more masculine than the other one?"

You may have answered this question specifically but I either missed it or misunderstood it.

Masculinity to me is a term that describes a combination of secondary masculine traits in the hair, hide, muscle, skeleton and fat. As such you could have a Waygu or a Jersey for that matter that exude secondary masculine character and as regards muscle they can have muscle expression and muscle definition, but they certainly would not be described as beefy or massive or heavily muscled.

So from your experience do you want light muscled masculine bulls, or moderately muscled bulls that are less masculine looking by virtue of other secondary masculine traits, eg, less muscle definition, less crest, less color differentiation , more homogenous hair coat texture, or possibly some other combination?



I want masculine bulls that exhibit muscle expression and definition in the hieght of the testosterone flush in the breeding season but that are moderately muscled.

I understand your desire to want to build on the old cow in your photo, but it does seem contrary to the idea that the population and not individuals are what counts.
For the record I think focus on both is justified.

GF, you know what I thought about the bull...given his looks and the history of the cow, I wouldn't hesitate to use him...or a new unproven bull with the same facts behind him. Given the results with his progeny, I think the problem is with that particular bull, not your reasoning. Fate would have it that you picked the wrong bull to keep and the wrong one to sell.

I think I agree with Dylan in that secondary masculine traits are an indication of testosterone which reflects the strength of the endocrine system. If I understand Bonsma correctly, a masculine bull should produce fertile, feminine cows. But I don't believe we can achieve predictability until we concentrate genes as LL has shown us...if I understand LL.

Dylan, love the picture of your bull's "important parts"!!

Dylan Biggs wrote:

Dylan Biggs wrote:

Grassfarmer wrote:

I no longer really care what the bulls look like either as long as they serve my purpose of reproducing that old cow's type pictured above. The only reason I'm discussing them is that their progeny results down the line are having an impact on me attaining my goal.

GF, I find it difficult to believe from the dedication you demonstrate in these discussions that you no longer care.
At the very least for exactly the reason you state above, potential "impact", hopefully positive.

One thing I am interested to know GF is what exactly you mean by the different terms you have used, "beefy",
"masculinity".


TomD asked "If we are mistaking muscular for masculine, how is the winner bull visibly more masculine than the other one?"

You may have answered this question specifically but I either missed it or misunderstood it.

Masculinity to me is a term that describes a combination of secondary masculine traits in the hair, hide, muscle, skeleton and fat. As such you could have a Waygu or a Jersey for that matter that exude secondary masculine character and as regards muscle they can have muscle expression and muscle definition, but they certainly would not be described as beefy or massive or heavily muscled.

So from your experience do you want light muscled masculine bulls, or moderately muscled bulls that are less masculine looking by virtue of other secondary masculine traits, eg, less muscle definition, less crest, less color differentiation , more homogenous hair coat texture, or possibly some other combination?



I want masculine bulls that exhibit muscle expression and definition in the hieght of the testosterone flush in the breeding season but that are moderately muscled.

I understand your desire to want to build on the old cow in your photo, but it does seem contrary to the idea that the population and not individuals are what counts.
For the record I think focus on both is justified.

OK Dylan, I'll try to explain my thoughts on masculine vs muscular looks. The masculine I don't think I need is what I was referring to as beefy - ie a particularly well developed hind quarters for one thing. More and more bulls look like that in my opinion - marketed on the belief you can have it all - top feedlot performance and grades as well as the best daughters. The best cow maker bulls we ever owned always gave us a bit of a hit on the steer side.
My selection standards changed after reading up on the Shoshone and Co theories, amply demonstrated by photographs that appear to show the best cow makers have a slower, less muscled development but still look very masculine when mature. I suspect that the rapidly growing "bully from calfhood" types produce daughters like themselves - fast maturing, short duration cows that burn out too quickly.
Now I may be way, way out in the left field on this as I'm not sure how much of this delayed masculinity may in fact be a result of inbred regression through in/close breeding. I'm also absolutely guessing that this type of growth/masculinity/maturity pattern that appears evident in the Shoshone cattle is something that crosses gene pools and may also be true in totally unrelated cattle populations like my own.
I'm clutching at straws at this stage as I've nothing more concrete to go on. Here are some pictures to illustrate what I think I'm seeing.
Growth stages of my current senior herd sire (a son of the dud bull at start of thread out of my foundation yellow cow) at 16 months.



As a 3 year old, looking quite stretchy and framey which he isn't - he's a 4.5 frame 2000lb+ in summer condition.



My preferred type now, again both sons of the same cow this time by breeding her back to her closest relative - a considerably more than 1/2 brother 1/2 sister mating.

At 14 months.



Full brother to the above as a rising 3 year old.



I just think these latter two are more likely to reproduce their mother as they are more closely following the development pattern of the shared Grandfather - who I think was the main source of the foundation cows "goodness"


Emphasising again that this is a matter of development pace rather than picking low masculinity bulls - here is an old picture of the first generation of registered Luing bulls in Scotland - the foundation sires of our breed and I think they look masculine enough. One of these was the grandsire of the bull above.



I'll be honest I'm apprehensive awaiting the outcome of my current senior sire given his sires performance. We will calf a good size bunch of heifers off him this spring and they look good so far. One thing that does encourage me is seeing the progeny resulting from mating my current herd sire and my rising 3 year old onto others daughters in this tight gene pool (all half brother/sister matings through the shared dam) and the resulting calves all look the same despite the bulls differing looks. I'm hoping that this is the start of having a fixed type as these are generally 14-18% IBC score progeny. Now I just need to discover if they are fixed in genotype or only phenotype and how inbred regression factors in.
Basically a long reply telling you I don't know what I'm doing but I'm having fun doing it

Grassfarmer wrote:

Dylan Biggs wrote:

Dylan Biggs wrote:

Grassfarmer wrote:

I no longer really care what the bulls look like either as long as they serve my purpose of reproducing that old cow's type pictured above. The only reason I'm discussing them is that their progeny results down the line are having an impact on me attaining my goal.

GF, I find it difficult to believe from the dedication you demonstrate in these discussions that you no longer care.
At the very least for exactly the reason you state above, potential "impact", hopefully positive.

One thing I am interested to know GF is what exactly you mean by the different terms you have used, "beefy",
"masculinity".


TomD asked "If we are mistaking muscular for masculine, how is the winner bull visibly more masculine than the other one?"

You may have answered this question specifically but I either missed it or misunderstood it.

Masculinity to me is a term that describes a combination of secondary masculine traits in the hair, hide, muscle, skeleton and fat. As such you could have a Waygu or a Jersey for that matter that exude secondary masculine character and as regards muscle they can have muscle expression and muscle definition, but they certainly would not be described as beefy or massive or heavily muscled.

So from your experience do you want light muscled masculine bulls, or moderately muscled bulls that are less masculine looking by virtue of other secondary masculine traits, eg, less muscle definition, less crest, less color differentiation , more homogenous hair coat texture, or possibly some other combination?



I want masculine bulls that exhibit muscle expression and definition in the hieght of the testosterone flush in the breeding season but that are moderately muscled.

I understand your desire to want to build on the old cow in your photo, but it does seem contrary to the idea that the population and not individuals are what counts.
For the record I think focus on both is justified.

OK Dylan, I'll try to explain my thoughts on masculine vs muscular looks. The masculine I don't think I need is what I was referring to as beefy - ie a particularly well developed hind quarters for one thing. More and more bulls look like that in my opinion - marketed on the belief you can have it all - top feedlot performance and grades as well as the best daughters. The best cow maker bulls we ever owned always gave us a bit of a hit on the steer side.
My selection standards changed after reading up on the Shoshone and Co theories, amply demonstrated by photographs that appear to show the best cow makers have a slower, less muscled development but still look very masculine when mature. I suspect that the rapidly growing "bully from calfhood" types produce daughters like themselves - fast maturing, short duration cows that burn out too quickly.
Now I may be way, way out in the left field on this as I'm not sure how much of this delayed masculinity may in fact be a result of inbred regression through in/close breeding. I'm also absolutely guessing that this type of growth/masculinity/maturity pattern that appears evident in the Shoshone cattle is something that crosses gene pools and may also be true in totally unrelated cattle populations like my own.
I'm clutching at straws at this stage as I've nothing more concrete to go on. Here are some pictures to illustrate what I think I'm seeing.
Growth stages of my current senior herd sire (a son of the dud bull at start of thread out of my foundation yellow cow) at 16 months.



As a 3 year old, looking quite stretchy and framey which he isn't - he's a 4.5 frame 2000lb+ in summer condition.



My preferred type now, again both sons of the same cow this time by breeding her back to her closest relative - a considerably more than 1/2 brother 1/2 sister mating.

At 14 months.



Full brother to the above as a rising 3 year old.



I just think these latter two are more likely to reproduce their mother as they are more closely following the development pattern of the shared Grandfather - who I think was the main source of the foundation cows "goodness"


Emphasising again that this is a matter of development pace rather than picking low masculinity bulls - here is an old picture of the first generation of registered Luing bulls in Scotland - the foundation sires of our breed and I think they look masculine enough. One of these was the grandsire of the bull above.



I'll be honest I'm apprehensive awaiting the outcome of my current senior sire given his sires performance. We will calf a good size bunch of heifers off him this spring and they look good so far. One thing that does encourage me is seeing the progeny resulting from mating my current herd sire and my rising 3 year old onto others daughters in this tight gene pool (all half brother/sister matings through the shared dam) and the resulting calves all look the same despite the bulls differing looks. I'm hoping that this is the start of having a fixed type as these are generally 14-18% IBC score progeny. Now I just need to discover if they are fixed in genotype or only phenotype and how inbred regression factors in.
Basically a long reply telling you I don't know what I'm doing but I'm having fun doing it

GF, thank you for your reply. I believe I now undertsand.

I am in total agreement that the "you can have it all goal" is a fanatsy, an appealing and marketable fantasy but a fantasy none the less. There is no doubt IMO that in the quest for all things the traditional Angus maternal strenghts and suitabilities are being compromised.
My partner in crime, NR, had a discussion with a sizeable heifer developement center the other day and their Angus customers are wanting to use a calving ease Hereford bull because the Angus cows are milking them selves out of a job. They are simply getting to hard doing and not breeding back on time. This is a common thread with many commercial Angus herds.

The old photo of the Luing foundation herd bulls, to me shows some very useable bulls.

The linebreeding experiment is an interesting one, the neat thing about it is any and all successes or failures will be ones own. I am doing some line breeding also. All my heifer matings this past summer were 1/2 sib matings. Like you say the process if fun for me also if nothing else. Waiting anxiously for calving to start, and in three or four years will have an idea of the outcome in terms of the heifers. A long row to hoe.


Here is a photo of a 2 yr old daughter from my old sire taken last May.

SOWBOY wrote:

Tom: You are probably right on the Luings. I am wondering what you might suggest as alternative ingredients? Red Angus have been a disappointment in temperment and mammary. Some Horned Herefords have worked, but they are a hard sell with commercial producers due to past problems. Gotta to give the Canadian Luing assoc credit as they list warmer climates not being suitable for the breed. Mike

Here you go Mike, the secret ingredient. I found him way down south a few years ago. I'll give you a hint, he ain't a texas longhorn.

Do you have a side-on shot of your old bull Dylan? I found it hard to tell much from only the front view.
What kind of weight would he be as he looks pretty massive for a frame 4 bull.

Tom D wrote:

SOWBOY wrote:

Tom: You are probably right on the Luings. I am wondering what you might suggest as alternative ingredients? Red Angus have been a disappointment in temperment and mammary. Some Horned Herefords have worked, but they are a hard sell with commercial producers due to past problems. Gotta to give the Canadian Luing assoc credit as they list warmer climates not being suitable for the breed. Mike

Here you go Mike, the secret ingredient. I found him way down south a few years ago. I'll give you a hint, he ain't a texas longhorn.

Looks interesting. British White or White Park?

British White or White Park?

I always thought they were polled or am I wrong?

Double B wrote:

British White or White Park?

I always thought they were polled or am I wrong?

According to the Okla State ansi site the American British Whites are horned.

Grassfarmer wrote:

Do you have a side-on shot of your old bull Dylan? I found it hard to tell much from only the front view.
What kind of weight would he be as he looks pretty massive for a frame 4 bull.

A shot from 2 years ago in the Fall after servicing just shy of a 100 cows between two different herds.

A shot from last Spring right around the time we weighed him and he was 2260 lbs.

A coming 4 yr old daughter Winter grazing in December.

Tuli?

Tom D wrote:

SOWBOY wrote:

Tom: You are probably right on the Luings. I am wondering what you might suggest as alternative ingredients? Red Angus have been a disappointment in temperment and mammary. Some Horned Herefords have worked, but they are a hard sell with commercial producers due to past problems. Gotta to give the Canadian Luing assoc credit as they list warmer climates not being suitable for the breed. Mike

Here you go Mike, the secret ingredient. I found him way down south a few years ago. I'll give you a hint, he ain't a texas longhorn.

Looks like I'm gonna have to offer a prize for this contest. Not a Tuli, and sure not British anything. Keep guessing.

Dylan Biggs wrote:

Charles, it is refreshing for me at any rate that my program may be thought of as mainline because for the last 25 years I have felt like an outlier.

Our herd, commercial and registered, has been on a 48 days breeding season sine 1985, all opens culled. We began forage developing our bull and grass gain tesing them in 1990. We have selected for frame 4 plus or minus for that amount of time also. We have essentially ignored the quest for more weaning and yearling growth for the last 15 years. We have raised and marketed retail, Hotel and Restaurant and direct to consumer and continue to today our seasonal grass finished beef since 1995.
We have focused on extending our grazing season, lowering our input costs and managing using Holoistic Management principles since 1985.

Like I say it is nice to know we are thought of as mainstream.

Dylan,
Thanks for sharing your pictures... I have heard you speak and understand you have experience beyond most when it comes to beef and beef cattle.

On a scale of 1-10 how hard is it to find bulls that, phenotypically express secondary masculine character at an early age in the hair, hide, muscle, skeleton and fat and exhibit muscle expression and definition in the height of the testosterone flush in the breeding season but are moderately muscled?

The above described bulls having high % normal and very good gross motility, increasing your expectation of passing on fertility to their daughters... From your response to Charles it sounds like you have been choosing bulls of this description for at least the last 15-20 years making many of the daughters of these bulls in their late teens... so I also assume that means you are happy with the selection criteria and the ability to pass on fertility. From that experience, % wise how much of an improvement have you made in the on farm sort over the previous years?

You seem handy with a camera any chance you have pictures of this bulls unsortable ancestral pen?

I think it would sure be educational to have picture pedigrees of the close up 7 or more cows of different perspective bulls....

Do the sons of your bull, having the same qualities as their sire, make the old bull redundant?

Sorry, for all the questions ...TIA

Hilly wrote:

Dylan,
Thanks for sharing your pictures... I have heard you speak and understand you have experience beyond most when it comes to beef and beef cattle.

On a scale of 1-10 how hard is it to find bulls that, phenotypically express secondary masculine character at an early age in the hair, hide, muscle, skeleton and fat and exhibit muscle expression and definition in the height of the testosterone flush in the breeding season but are very moderately muscled?

The above described bulls having high % normal and very good gross motility, increasing your expectation of passing on fertility to their daughters... From your response to Charles it sounds like you have been choosing bulls of this description for at least the last 15-20 years making many of the daughters of these bulls in their late teens... so I also assume that means you are happy with the selection criteria and the ability to pass on fertility. From that experience, % wise how much of an improvement have you made in the on farm sort over the previous years?

You seem handy with a camera any chance you have pictures of this bulls unsortable ancestral pen?

I think it would sure be educational to have picture pedigrees of the close up 7 or more cows of different perspective bulls....

Do the sons of your bull, having the same qualities as their sire, make the old bull redundant?

Sorry, for all the questions ...TIA

Hilly, glad you enjoyed seeing the pics. I have lots, got a new digital camera last year and sort of went over board with it. So if you want to see more photos just let me know.

One thing I need to continually remind myself of is the relative importance of genetics with in the overall context of ranch management. People such as myself who are obsessive about cattle, genetics and breeding can easily give the impression that are the top priority for enterprise ranching success. I obsess as if the entire cattle industry is on the verge of some genetic armageddon that will nose dive the entire industry into financial ruin. Of course the reality is that in spite of the incredible variety in breeds in type and in quality the industry as a whole churns along oblivious to my concerns. I just have to take a short drive around our local community and I can find 1800 lb Charolais cowherds, 1600 lb Limo herds, beefbooster composite herds, auction barn trader cow herds, etc, etc, and all these guys run and own anywhere from 250 to 750 cow herds and have been in business all my life and don't seem to be hurting. To me this demonstrates the reality that management will always trump genetics. So it is always important for me to these things in prespective.

Oh, gotta get out the door, got a Semi pulling in, I will finish or continue to attempt to answer your questions later.

would the white bull be egytian? I have read about white horned cattle coming from that region in ancient times... like 360 BC... my best guess.

Hilly wrote:

Dylan,
Thanks for sharing your pictures... I have heard you speak and understand you have experience beyond most when it comes to beef and beef cattle.

On a scale of 1-10 how hard is it to find bulls that, phenotypically express secondary masculine character at an early age in the hair, hide, muscle, skeleton and fat and exhibit muscle expression and definition in the height of the testosterone flush in the breeding season but are moderately muscled?

The above described bulls having high % normal and very good gross motility, increasing your expectation of passing on fertility to their daughters... From your response to Charles it sounds like you have been choosing bulls of this description for at least the last 15-20 years making many of the daughters of these bulls in their late teens... so I also assume that means you are happy with the selection criteria and the ability to pass on fertility. From that experience, % wise how much of an improvement have you made in the on farm sort over the previous years?

You seem handy with a camera any chance you have pictures of this bulls unsortable ancestral pen?

I think it would sure be educational to have picture pedigrees of the close up 7 or more cows of different perspective bulls....

Do the sons of your bull, having the same qualities as their sire, make the old bull redundant?

Sorry, for all the questions ...TIA

Hilly, as regards finding bull, the cahllenge is to find one that expresses secondary masculine character adequately and in addition meets all other additional criteria. To name a few, feet and legs, disposition, my prefered frame, prefered type, from a herd managed in a low input manner, from a cow that is the type, structure and productivity, etc, etc etc.

As regrds the sort I assume you are refering to cull rate. Our commercial herd really started to improve with use of our own commercial bulls and with calving on grass over the last 10 years. Our purebred herd since using our own bulls for about the last 6 years. For years I was under the delusion that I could improve my hers using AI sires from major AI studs. Turns out they are more committed to marketing then they are structural soundness, or breed improvement. So improvement was slow to come from the sire side, especially as regards fetility.
For about the last 10 years on cows and hiefers % preg has been consistently in the mid to high ninties on a 48 day breeding season.

Please define unsotable ancestral pen, if I think I know what it means to be honest I don't think I will ever achieve a 7 generation pedigree which contains animals that I would change nothing about. Not for lack of want or trying but for lack of time and for lack of numbers and lack of control in the genetic lottery.

I could show you many photos of cows and bulls of ours that I like alot, but I garauntee there is always something I would like to change about them.

As regards my old bull becoming redundant, I will have more of an opinion this this fall as I used two of his sons on the purebreds last instead of the old man himself.

Not sure I answered your questions, you should come take a look.

Its a fun game regardless.

I don’t know if we can all agree that a breeder’s preferred type doesn’t matter, as we seem to spend a fair bit of time discussing the advantages of one type over another...

The opinion that I struggle with is when breeding decisions are based on a, or a few individuals whether bulls or cows... We go off in search of individuals that meet our compiled list of selected traits in the hopes that they will be able to reproduce our preferred type more often.

I know I post these illustrations at nauseam but they simplify the concepts in my mind...



Dylan, if you don’t mind, where on the matting chart would your bull fall?
If he is right of center is it reasonable to say he will be phonotypicaly expressing a % heterozygosity and a increases of production and not the more true expression that I consider to be the center point...
In contrast... keeping in mind that the difference in type is not the issue, if we look at GF's 14-18% IBC bulls they would land left of center and phenotypicaly expressing a % homozygosity and a loss of production.

Now I may be off base but I then overlay the next illustration on top of the mating chart as we move right on the chart the bigger the genetic sphere gets and as we move left the smaller it gets...



So with that in my mind when someone post a picture of a preferred individual, the question that comes to my mind is what is special about them,how will they be replaced and where on the previous two charts do they fall... I like to use the gambling or lottery analogies as for me it comes down to the odds and as we move left and decrease the spherical size of the gene pool, in my mind we decreases the distributions from the mean increasing the odds of replications closer to that mean.

So for an example say a breeder found a bull that managed to run the gauntlet of the breeders’ selection pressure but we find the bulls ancestry puts him right of center and although he is an improvement to the industries breed by numbers approach, in order to increases our odds we will have to move his offspring to the left and as we do so, is it fair to expect them to maintain the phenotypic production levels of their ancestors?

I don’t know if i am making any sense, but to my way of thinking, I would prefer to let the independent and isolated population of cows with a purpose, show me what my bulls will look like.


"To pursue a goal towards setting a record or seeking some individual championships, using individual appearance as criteria for parental selection can be a haphazard approach if continuing predictability is desired. Optimistic races toward instant breeding accomplishment may be a reason some breeders place high values on embryos who have not yet been conceived.(born) High monetary reward on idolized super individuality probably causes many detours in direction and may account for the average span of a registered breeder being approximately seven years.

Genetic principle indicates little enduring accomplishment can be made in so short a time. To hasten the establishment of increased genetic order so that one can arrive at a given objective, inbreeding is the tool available to breeders to enable them to establish a specific gene frequency. (characters)

This provides for more purity of purpose because the pool of genes are common by descent. However, before an inbreeding project is considered or undertaken, it seems imperative to know the end product, and the combinations used to get it, before developing a direction to produce it......history shows good intentions may end up to be a short-lived project and accounts for some of the predicated fears of inbreeding among most breeders.(the least of which is the natural loss of production levels, more noticeable when we go beyond the 50% level as shown in the following chart" .....LL

a product revealing the power of hybridization...



reputed to be her grandfather; and bearing a strong resemblence to LL;
but lack of the bottom half of the pic to see if he is wearing irrigation boots
leaves me in doubt



reputed to be her grandmother, the power of genetic longevity despite the environmental influences;
reminding me very much of my mother-in-law; she only made it to 94 though, but included beer in her
daily regiment along with the smokes...

MKeeney wrote:

if you've never seen it 'Waking Ned Devine' is an awesome movie.