Breeding Program

MKeeney wrote:

df wrote:

http://www.rccgenes.com/

click on Bulls
click on loyal customers

I kinda like these bulls.

first page...bad science...scrotal =dau fertility

What do you think of the red bulls?

df wrote:

MKeeney wrote:

df wrote:

http://www.rccgenes.com/

click on Bulls
click on loyal customers

I kinda like these bulls.

first page...bad science...scrotal =dau fertility

What do you think of the red bulls?

I like the two pictured; but I would need to see them all to decide...then the comment that... "Emblazon is right for today; and tomorrow"...makes me think that RCC is way behind the learning curve...to the extent , in fact, that it causes me concern about every other claim he makes about his cattle...and you could pass that on to SteveR, and invite him to join us

Quote :

...then billions of dollars have been wasted in any effort to improve the lives of people and animals.

One of the greatest of truths presented so far.

MKeeney wrote:

df wrote:

MKeeney wrote:

df wrote:

http://www.rccgenes.com/

click on Bulls
click on loyal customers

I kinda like these bulls.

first page...bad science...scrotal =dau fertility

What do you think of the red bulls?

I like the two pictured; but I would need to see them all to decide...then the comment that... "Emblazon is right for today; and tomorrow"...makes me think that RCC is way behind the learning curve...to the extent , in fact, that it causes me concern about every other claim he makes about his cattle...and you could pass that on to SteveR, and invite him to join us

So good bulls are bulls that work for everybody? Or is it possible that some bulls work well for some, but not others?

Emblazon is a highly evaluated bull...why don`t you use the data and you tell me about how he works ...wait a second; you`re back to supporting what you have been arguing against...just take Steve`s word for it that Emblazon is "so right" for yesterday and tomorrow?

EddieM wrote:

Quote :

...then billions of dollars have been wasted in any effort to improve the lives of people and animals.

One of the greatest of truths presented so far.

After all those billions, one would think academia could teach cattlemen to produce clone-like cattle similar to the pork and poultry industry. But we have that pesky thing known as environment to deal with...at least until academia develops an economical way to house cows in a climate controlled environment. What I understand about Dr. Bonsma's work, it is about the interaction between environment and cattle genetics, endocrine system and nervous system that results in a phenotype.
Which brings me back to Dr. Bonsma and Allan Nation. I assume df and MK believe Bonsma's research to be "wrong" and students would be better served to be exposed to Allan. I have nothing against Allan and I know him. I've sold him meat...that obviously didn't suit him because he hasn't asked for more. I've been to several of his seminars, SGF conferences, read his column every month and have several of his books. His father ran cattle on the Mississippi River levee system about ten miles from where I grew up...so he has some real world cattle experience. But if I'm going to reread one of my books, it's going to be Dr. Bonsma's.

At least now I know why I'm wrong on almost everything.

RobertMac wrote:

EddieM wrote:

Quote :

...then billions of dollars have been wasted in any effort to improve the lives of people and animals.

One of the greatest of truths presented so far.

After all those billions, one would think academia could teach cattlemen to produce clone-like cattle similar to the pork and poultry industry. But we have that pesky thing known as environment to deal with...at least until academia develops an economical way to house cows in a climate controlled environment. What I understand about Dr. Bonsma's work, it is about the interaction between environment and cattle genetics, endocrine system and nervous system that results in a phenotype.
Which brings me back to Dr. Bonsma and Allan Nation. I assume df and MK believe Bonsma's research to be "wrong" and students would be better served to be exposed to Allan. I have nothing against Allan and I know him. I've sold him meat...that obviously didn't suit him because he hasn't asked for more. I've been to several of his seminars, SGF conferences, read his column every month and have several of his books. His father ran cattle on the Mississippi River levee system about ten miles from where I grew up...so he has some real world cattle experience. But if I'm going to reread one of my books, it's going to be Dr. Bonsma's.

At least now I know why I'm wrong on almost everything.

no fan of Nation`s whatsoever; a paper seller...but don`t where you get the idea I don`t endorse Bonsma`s ideas as sound

From your exchange with df...I assumed wrong.

A paper seller...yes, a provider of ideas which I find more interesting that ideas coming from academia...doesn't mean I have to agree with all of them. And it doesn't make him responsible actions other take.

RobertMac wrote:

EddieM wrote:

Quote :

...then billions of dollars have been wasted in any effort to improve the lives of people and animals.

One of the greatest of truths presented so far.

After all those billions, one would think academia could teach cattlemen to produce clone-like cattle similar to the pork and poultry industry. But we have that pesky thing known as environment to deal with...at least until academia develops an economical way to house cows in a climate controlled environment. What I understand about Dr. Bonsma's work, it is about the interaction between environment and cattle genetics, endocrine system and nervous system that results in a phenotype.
Which brings me back to Dr. Bonsma and Allan Nation. I assume df and MK believe Bonsma's research to be "wrong" and students would be better served to be exposed to Allan. I have nothing against Allan and I know him. I've sold him meat...that obviously didn't suit him because he hasn't asked for more. I've been to several of his seminars, SGF conferences, read his column every month and have several of his books. His father ran cattle on the Mississippi River levee system about ten miles from where I grew up...so he has some real world cattle experience. But if I'm going to reread one of my books, it's going to be Dr. Bonsma's.

At least now I know why I'm wrong on almost everything.

I don't believe everything Allan Nation writes. However, the various stories give students a chance to see other "out-of-the-box" ideas other than academia's.

I don't think all of what Dr. Bonsma writes is wrong. However, almost everything I read on the Bonsmara website was covered in my life, partially via 4-H, later in FFA, then again in college. I think those cattle fit their environment, provide protein to the people and probably have some of the same issues we have here in terms of reproduction. I would shocked to find that their ability to identify the best replacements in 100% or that all females get bred, raise a good calf and breed back. I bet they are still "improving" after all the years.

MKeeney wrote:

Emblazon is a highly evaluated bull...why don`t you use the data and you tell me about how he works ...wait a second; you`re back to supporting what you have been arguing against...just take Steve`s word for it that Emblazon is "so right" for yesterday and tomorrow?

For all the data published Steve is probably right. If I recall correctly, there is not much data at AAA considering fertility. As new data is published, breeders might change there mind.

Now I know you don't care about the published data; you are more concerned about what is not published. Perfectly OK, as it is still a free country.

I was about to type some great truth in this space, but it will then be published. Fearing keeney's rejection of my published wisdom, I deleted it. I'll just keep it to myself, I guess.

But trust me.... It's really really wise. And truthy.

Mean Spirit wrote:

I was about to type some great truth in this space, but it will then be published. Fearing keeney's rejection of my published wisdom, I deleted it. I'll just keep it to myself, I guess.

But trust me.... It's really really wise. And truthy.

It's not bad if they would just kick you when your down but then they set you on fire...............LOL

df wrote:

MKeeney wrote:

Emblazon is a highly evaluated bull...why don`t you use the data and you tell me about how he works ...wait a second; you`re back to supporting what you have been arguing against...just take Steve`s word for it that Emblazon is "so right" for yesterday and tomorrow?

For all the data published Steve is probably right. If I recall correctly, there is not much data at AAA considering fertility. As new data is published, breeders might change there mind.

Now I know you don't care about the published data; you are more concerned about what is not published. Perfectly OK, as it is still a free country.

I could publish my experiencesconfirmed by other breeder`s experiences from NM to SD to NE to IA to PA...maybe Steve is just taking data to sell with; rather than analyze as he breeds cattle...maybe he`s not 10 years into the process like the sources I name...no fertility measurement at AAA...??? the academics need to get with the program there; shame, shame...leaving me to my own wits.....

MKeeney wrote:

df wrote:

MKeeney wrote:

Emblazon is a highly evaluated bull...why don`t you use the data and you tell me about how he works ...wait a second; you`re back to supporting what you have been arguing against...just take Steve`s word for it that Emblazon is "so right" for yesterday and tomorrow?

For all the data published Steve is probably right. If I recall correctly, there is not much data at AAA considering fertility. As new data is published, breeders might change there mind.

Now I know you don't care about the published data; you are more concerned about what is not published. Perfectly OK, as it is still a free country.

I could publish my experiencesconfirmed by other breeder`s experiences from NM to SD to NE to IA to PA...maybe Steve is just taking data to sell with; rather than analyze as he breeds cattle...maybe he`s not 10 years into the process like the sources I name...no fertility measurement at AAA...??? the academics need to get with the program there; shame, shame...leaving me to my own wits.....

I think getting breeder participation is harder than getting academic input.

df wrote:

MKeeney wrote:

df wrote:

MKeeney wrote:

Emblazon is a highly evaluated bull...why don`t you use the data and you tell me about how he works ...wait a second; you`re back to supporting what you have been arguing against...just take Steve`s word for it that Emblazon is "so right" for yesterday and tomorrow?

For all the data published Steve is probably right. If I recall correctly, there is not much data at AAA considering fertility. As new data is published, breeders might change there mind.

Now I know you don't care about the published data; you are more concerned about what is not published. Perfectly OK, as it is still a free country.

I could publish my experiencesconfirmed by other breeder`s experiences from NM to SD to NE to IA to PA...maybe Steve is just taking data to sell with; rather than analyze as he breeds cattle...maybe he`s not 10 years into the process like the sources I name...no fertility measurement at AAA...??? the academics need to get with the program there; shame, shame...leaving me to my own wits.....

I think getting breeder participation is harder than getting academic input.

create it...and the marketers will con it...