Variation - bell shaped curve

MKeeney wrote:

well, at least you caused me to look at heifer preg data...the most popular bull in the breed is among the worst...think anyone really cares?

Looks like a great opportunity to help producers with genetics that last, IMO.

df wrote:

Your reply was better than I expected.

df, your reply is pretty much what I would expect from you.

The fact remains that empirical data, in whatever form, from your herd and your environment is the best source of information to inform you of the most valuable performers in your herd. It is naivety and ignorance to the nth degree to believe in the accuracy of the numbers reported by others. The data reported can be tooooo easily "fudged"-skewing the EPDs and rendering them as useless as they "amazingly" often play themselves out to be across the masses.

outsidethebox wrote:

df wrote:

Your reply was better than I expected.

df, your reply is pretty much what I would expect from you.

The fact remains that empirical data, in whatever form, from your herd and your environment is the best source of information to inform you of the most valuable performers in your herd. It is naivety and ignorance to the nth degree to believe in the accuracy of the numbers reported by others. The data reported can be tooooo easily "fudged"-skewing the EPDs and rendering them as useless as they "amazingly" often play themselves out to be across the masses.

Then it's settled; everybody is a crook and a liar!

df wrote:

outsidethebox wrote:

df wrote:

Your reply was better than I expected.

df, your reply is pretty much what I would expect from you.

The fact remains that empirical data, in whatever form, from your herd and your environment is the best source of information to inform you of the most valuable performers in your herd. It is naivety and ignorance to the nth degree to believe in the accuracy of the numbers reported by others. The data reported can be tooooo easily "fudged"-skewing the EPDs and rendering them as useless as they "amazingly" often play themselves out to be across the masses.

Then it's settled; everybody is a crook and a liar!

Excellent deductive reasoning

df wrote:

MKeeney wrote:

well, at least you caused me to look at heifer preg data...the most popular bull in the breed is among the worst...think anyone really cares?

Looks like a great opportunity to help producers with genetics that last, IMO.

but they don`t want genetics that last; they want genetics that do everything...and data to prove it...
BLACK INK -- BEYOND GOOD LOOKS

by: Steve Suther

Nothing better than looking at really nice cattle. Unless it's looking at them while referencing some really deep individual data.
Every cow is good at something, but in a few cases, the only thing they're good at is looking good. That's why we need records, unless money is of no importance.

Records should confirm those mature-weight guesses and, factoring in average weaning weights, point out the most and least efficient cows. Ear tag numbers should convey age at a glance, and the oldest cows have made us the most money. That's unless, again, we manage as if money is not important and let them stay regardless of whether they wean a calf each year.

Deeper data just goes into more detail on economically relevant traits. It's amazing what lies beneath the appearance and basics of weight and functionality.

Uniformity can make a big difference, often $300 or more between calves at today's prices, and we can learn a lot by comparing weights per day of age. The less uniform a calf crop, the more we give up lot-size premiums at auction. If we sell direct, every buyer knows the value differences only widen after weaning and he must bid conservatively on uneven calves.

That puts a premium on cows with a record of steady to higher adjusted-weaning weight. It incentivizes tight breeding and calving seasons, too.

Maintaining excellent health is mostly management, but genetics may play a role as well. Those with records often debit a cow's total points when her calves repeatedly turn up sick or dead after weaning.

Of course, sire influence is a huge part of herd genetics. Sorting cows by sire and calves by sire group can point out which combinations work best and which pull the average down. Ten years ago, studies showed at least a $1,500 value spread between yearling bulls that looked about the same and weighed the same, just based on progeny differences at weaning.

That could be double today and taken another step, through finishing and into the packinghouse cooler, it could double again. But wait, as they say on infomercials—there's more: if we keep replacement heifers, those differences could double again.

The optimum bull, chosen by his on-target estimated progeny differences (EPDs), registry and appearance, is a foundation decision. The unknown alternative bull can miss most progeny criteria, creating a downtrend in cowherd performance and quality.

Carcass data is a natural component of complete herd records, not just a maybe-someday luxury. Yes, the Choice-Select spread varies, but we have to aim higher than that to the more stable targets of premium Choice and Prime.

The most consistent, high-quality beef cow herds in this country have sorted carcass data by sire group and individual cows. They allow for outside factors of weather and sickness, but do not keep sires or their daughters that produce below-average progeny carcasses. That's why their calves, already off the charts that show averages, just keep getting better. They eagerly raise the bar because numbers show the way to more profit.

Next time in Black Ink ® Miranda Reiman will look at how we adjust when the road is rough. Questions? Call toll-free at 877-241-0717 or e-mail steve@certifiedangusbeef.com.

No need for crossing breeds or different types when you have got Angus with Data? Does anyone believe this guy writing has a clue about cattle breeding principles? But it doesn`t matter, because the new membership each year for the most part doesn`t have a clue either...just read Preston, Foxx, Coffelt etc to get a sample of what your typical customer is when selling registered stock...mk

df wrote:

Your reply was better than I expected.

Thanks df, I won't be here all night, but dang close. So was it really, really good? Or just fair to middlin, and only exceeding your expectations, because you have such lowwwww, expectations of me. Maybe it is just you, after all it is just df. Kinda small I think, and, I think you could be bigger, maybe even a real Stockman if you set your heart to it.


Mike, my eyes blurred over on that Soother deal, I couldn't extrapolate much, maybe you could decipher it for me.


Outsider, be nice to df, he can't help it. If I ever see him, I think I will give him a big hug. Everyone needs a hug from time to time, don't you think. I have never hugged an Academian before. I wonder if it is anything like holding one of 'ems head over a Munsun burner. It could be, and probably smells about the same.

Mike, my eyes blurred over on that Soother deal, I couldn't extrapolate much, maybe you could decipher it for me.


if your cattle are great at everything, they will be greater with data...if they are perfect at everything, they will be more perfect using data...

MKeeney wrote:

Mike, my eyes blurred over on that Soother deal, I couldn't extrapolate much, maybe you could decipher it for me.


if your cattle are great at everything, they will be greater with data...if they are perfect at everything, they will be more perfect using data...

Hmmm, that probably wont' sell many magazines. I see why he added more words now.

the quest that motivates the registered rarity business is the outlier, the perfection cow...I always come back to LL, settle on a GOOD type, and breed it more predictably...there`ll always be a few better cows, who cares? has the average of all the cows gotten better? compared to when? 1985 or 1935?

Bootheel wrote:

df wrote:

Most females fall out after their first or second calf. The sires of those females, nor their relatives, are really all that old.

You probably pick your maternal sires in which you expect their daughters to stay in the herd. Do you only pick old bulls out of old cows or do you realize you will have to draw on other information in that process?

I wanted to make a mean, smart alecy comment, but the angel pushed the devil aside from my conscious, temporily at least.

DF, they either have to old to get Proven, or not. We could stack these up and get some more accuraccy for the sake of EPD's, but why?

The latest greatest get sold at 7 in production sales all across the land, you know, while they still have value, many even at 5 for the sake of generation turnover, to abuse the numbers system, as worthwhile and flawed as it is.

How do you differentiate between sold and culled. Me, give them a 0%, if sold before 3, 25% if sold before 10, regardless of reported reason for sale. So you have a bull that is realistcally 6 before making his way from being a 0, to 12 before being a 25. They get a 100% if making it to 14.

Trailblazer awards will be given to those that make it to 20, the ceremony in which involves burning and humiliating all pathfinders from the party.

The system you have described exists, while selecting for performance, called the starving comedian Pathfinder club. It means piddly squat.


Later


Bootsy the friendly Ghost

Oh no, I did not do a very good job of complimenting. I see now how you could take it the wrong way.

I think you have given this topic some thought and responded in a straightforward manner. And I agree; moving cows from one herd to another seems more like a failure than a success. Certainly moving cattle to southern MO at the wrong time of the year could cause open cows. That is hardly fair to the evaluation of the cow. I don't think the Pathfinder program really fills the dream originally intended.

Thanks for letting me know when I write poorly and am not clear. There is no reason for me to write if I can't get my thoughts out clearly.

No need for the hug; a handshake would be fine.

Dennis, I think you did an ok job with the complimenting. Better than I expected.

Quote :

There is a problem here, I just cannot put my finger on it. Stayability EPD's. It seems rather futile to me. Basically we would have a dead bull before the numbers became relevant, The Sire would long since be dead and gone. The Dams would be really old, or already be Wendy's square hamburgers. I guess it would have some value in making some old dead bull club members less valuable. Other than that I don't get it. It still has us using bulls out of old cows, out of bulls out of old cows, that are old bulls.

Whay if stayability got more heifers to make it to 7 YO or 5 YO?

Quote :

well, at least you caused me to look at heifer preg data...the most popular bull in the breed is among the worst...think anyone really cares?

Over on the Far Side, one of the repeated and unanswered questions to BJ, the T Post cow batter, was why were folks in IA buying out of state heifers. I think that those good, solid, commerical cattlemen, salt of the earth-type Iowans who had to buy the out of state heifers to have enough females would care that the ones they raised from those great local bulls or that they could buy locally were bred so far toward terminal that they had to find hope and change somewhere away from home.

df wrote:

outsidethebox wrote:

df wrote:

Your reply was better than I expected.

df, your reply is pretty much what I would expect from you.

The fact remains that empirical data, in whatever form, from your herd and your environment is the best source of information to inform you of the most valuable performers in your herd. It is naivety and ignorance to the nth degree to believe in the accuracy of the numbers reported by others. The data reported can be tooooo easily "fudged"-skewing the EPDs and rendering them as useless as they "amazingly" often play themselves out to be across the masses.

Then it's settled; everybody is a crook and a liar!

The data is only as good as the numbers entered and obviously not everyone “is a crook and a liar!” I have said before some of the nicest folk I know raise “purebred” cattle, and I cannot hold what they don’t know against their character.

The quest for relevant numbers for the betterment of the breed is daunting to say the least and certainly no fast progress will be made as you are dealing with variance in environment and greater variance in people.

That is why it makes more sense to me that breeder’s breed their own cattle with their own applicable numbers first, absent of inflated monetary values and outside genetics... before selling seed stock to others. Now I realize that would mean one would have to breed cattle many years before selling seed... But in order to have some type of earned credibility in the understanding of the disabilities and abilities of your cattle it is going to take time anyway. But if this was the case I would think the average life expectance of seed stock producers would exceed 7 years as they would need in the vicinity of 30 years just to get to the point of selling seed.

Hilly wrote:

df wrote:

outsidethebox wrote:

df wrote:

Your reply was better than I expected.

df, your reply is pretty much what I would expect from you.

The fact remains that empirical data, in whatever form, from your herd and your environment is the best source of information to inform you of the most valuable performers in your herd. It is naivety and ignorance to the nth degree to believe in the accuracy of the numbers reported by others. The data reported can be tooooo easily "fudged"-skewing the EPDs and rendering them as useless as they "amazingly" often play themselves out to be across the masses.

Then it's settled; everybody is a crook and a liar!

The data is only as good as the numbers entered and obviously not everyone “is a crook and a liar!” I have said before some of the nicest folk I know raise “purebred” cattle, and I cannot hold what they don’t know against their character.

The quest for relevant numbers for the betterment of the breed is daunting to say the least and certainly no fast progress will be made as you are dealing with variance in environment and greater variance in people.

That is why it makes more sense to me that breeder’s breed their own cattle with their own applicable numbers first, absent of inflated monetary values and outside genetics... before selling seed stock to others. Now I realize that would mean one would have to breed cattle many years before selling seed... But in order to have some type of earned credibility in the understanding of the disabilities and abilities of your cattle it is going to take time anyway. But if this was the case I would think the average life expectance of seed stock producers would exceed 7 years as they would need in the vicinity of 30 years just to get to the point of selling seed.

Well said...Time is the first separation of the breeders from the registered game sellers...

MKeeney wrote:

df wrote:

MKeeney wrote:

well, at least you caused me to look at heifer preg data...the most popular bull in the breed is among the worst...think anyone really cares?

Looks like a great opportunity to help producers with genetics that last, IMO.

but they don`t want genetics that last; they want genetics that do everything...and data to prove it...
BLACK INK -- BEYOND GOOD LOOKS

by: Steve Suther

Nothing better than looking at really nice cattle. Unless it's looking at them while referencing some really deep individual data.
Every cow is good at something, but in a few cases, the only thing they're good at is looking good. That's why we need records, unless money is of no importance.

Records should confirm those mature-weight guesses and, factoring in average weaning weights, point out the most and least efficient cows. Ear tag numbers should convey age at a glance, and the oldest cows have made us the most money. That's unless, again, we manage as if money is not important and let them stay regardless of whether they wean a calf each year.

Deeper data just goes into more detail on economically relevant traits. It's amazing what lies beneath the appearance and basics of weight and functionality.

Uniformity can make a big difference, often $300 or more between calves at today's prices, and we can learn a lot by comparing weights per day of age. The less uniform a calf crop, the more we give up lot-size premiums at auction. If we sell direct, every buyer knows the value differences only widen after weaning and he must bid conservatively on uneven calves.

That puts a premium on cows with a record of steady to higher adjusted-weaning weight. It incentivizes tight breeding and calving seasons, too.

Maintaining excellent health is mostly management, but genetics may play a role as well. Those with records often debit a cow's total points when her calves repeatedly turn up sick or dead after weaning.

Of course, sire influence is a huge part of herd genetics. Sorting cows by sire and calves by sire group can point out which combinations work best and which pull the average down. Ten years ago, studies showed at least a $1,500 value spread between yearling bulls that looked about the same and weighed the same, just based on progeny differences at weaning.

That could be double today and taken another step, through finishing and into the packinghouse cooler, it could double again. But wait, as they say on infomercials—there's more: if we keep replacement heifers, those differences could double again.

The optimum bull, chosen by his on-target estimated progeny differences (EPDs), registry and appearance, is a foundation decision. The unknown alternative bull can miss most progeny criteria, creating a downtrend in cowherd performance and quality.

Carcass data is a natural component of complete herd records, not just a maybe-someday luxury. Yes, the Choice-Select spread varies, but we have to aim higher than that to the more stable targets of premium Choice and Prime.

The most consistent, high-quality beef cow herds in this country have sorted carcass data by sire group and individual cows. They allow for outside factors of weather and sickness, but do not keep sires or their daughters that produce below-average progeny carcasses. That's why their calves, already off the charts that show averages, just keep getting better. They eagerly raise the bar because numbers show the way to more profit.

Next time in Black Ink ® Miranda Reiman will look at how we adjust when the road is rough. Questions? Call toll-free at 877-241-0717 or e-mail steve@certifiedangusbeef.com.

No need for crossing breeds or different types when you have got Angus with Data? Does anyone believe this guy writing has a clue about cattle breeding principles? But it doesn`t matter, because the new membership each year for the most part doesn`t have a clue either...just read Preston, Foxx, Coffelt etc to get a sample of what your typical customer is when selling registered stock...mk

Is that all you need to know? WHAT A CROCK.

MKeeney wrote:

Hilly wrote:

df wrote:

outsidethebox wrote:

df wrote:

Your reply was better than I expected.

df, your reply is pretty much what I would expect from you.

The fact remains that empirical data, in whatever form, from your herd and your environment is the best source of information to inform you of the most valuable performers in your herd. It is naivety and ignorance to the nth degree to believe in the accuracy of the numbers reported by others. The data reported can be tooooo easily "fudged"-skewing the EPDs and rendering them as useless as they "amazingly" often play themselves out to be across the masses.

Then it's settled; everybody is a crook and a liar!

The data is only as good as the numbers entered and obviously not everyone “is a crook and a liar!” I have said before some of the nicest folk I know raise “purebred” cattle, and I cannot hold what they don’t know against their character.

The quest for relevant numbers for the betterment of the breed is daunting to say the least and certainly no fast progress will be made as you are dealing with variance in environment and greater variance in people.

That is why it makes more sense to me that breeder’s breed their own cattle with their own applicable numbers first, absent of inflated monetary values and outside genetics... before selling seed stock to others. Now I realize that would mean one would have to breed cattle many years before selling seed... But in order to have some type of earned credibility in the understanding of the disabilities and abilities of your cattle it is going to take time anyway. But if this was the case I would think the average life expectance of seed stock producers would exceed 7 years as they would need in the vicinity of 30 years just to get to the point of selling seed.

Well said...Time is the first separation of the breeders from the registered game sellers...

Thank you for taking the time to visit our website. Several weeks ago my wife and I decided to get out of the cattle business. We've had many people ask us "Why?" At the end of the day the real reason is that we believe that the Lord is leading us to do this and are planning on focusing more intently on a mission project in West Africa that we've begun with an organization called World Mission Centre. We aren't sure if we will be relocating, but do believe that we will be traveling much more extensively than we have in the past. That being said, we have decided to pull all the plugs out and are selling all the land, all the equipment, and all the cattle on Saturday, July 16, 2011. The land auction begins at 10am. It will sell in ten tracts. Immediately following the land sale, we will sell all the equipment. At 1pm we will begin the cattle auction, all the Angus cattle, all the commercial cattle, and all the horses. You will not want to miss this sale! Everything is selling "Absolute." I was praying about whether to keep a portion of the land and if I should put a minimum price on it. In response, when I was reading about a man named William Borden, an heir to inheritance of the Borden family… Borden, Inc., I was struck by two words he'd written in the back of his bible: "No Reserves." If we are going to trust God, then we must trust God. So come and buy what sells, "Absolutely."

View Parcels Selling


Williams & Williams will perform the land and equipment portion of the auction. The ranch land will sell in 10 parcels. Since purchasing the ranch in 2002, we have made significant improvements to the Sonrise. We have built roads, improved drainage, built two extra homes and a sale barn that we built in 2008 that serves as a multi-purpose building. Without advertising we've now held 4 weddings in the barn. We've had dances and dinners, and much more. This facility is designed to be used as a sale barn or an entertainment center, whether as a church, a ministry or some other sort of meeting center. For ministry events we take the ring down, and a platform goes in its place. The barn is equipped with a commercial type kitchen with a serving buffet line that is ideal for entertaining large groups. There are ample restroom stalls for men and women. Finally, the barn has a second floor balcony with three bedrooms/offices and 2 full baths upstairs. In addition to the sale barn, the property also has 3 houses. Two of them are 3 bedroom, 2 bath, and the third is 4 bedroom, 3 ½ bath. Two have been completely remodeled in 2008, and the other was built new in 2008. We have an ET Lab with a covered working area, a shop with drop down electric, concrete floors and a divider wall to separate the storage area from the shop proper. Moving to the ranch land, we have put in a hydraulic pivot irrigation system that makes this ranch drought proof. The fertility of the soils here keeps the fertilizer bill low. In fact out of 250 acres that we were planning on sprigging to Bermuda grass before we decided to sell, only 40 acres of it needed any fertilizer at all for the establishment of sprigs according to the OSU soil test results. The only fertilizer need that 40 acres had was a requirement of 40 units of nitrogen. No Phosphorous or Potassium is needed on any of it. This ranch is FERTILE. Adding to the prosperity of the ranch is an 80 acre pecan grove, about half of which are improved and half native. There are many other pecans also, totaling more than 1,100 pecan trees. If pecan prices stay as they have been, these will make a nice sideline business. Our neighbor uses his pecan profits to pay for his cattle labor needs. There is also oil and gas production on the ranch, and we are transferring our interest in the minerals to whoever purchases the land. So, if you are looking for some productive drought free land with ways to supplement your cattle income through other avenues, I believe Sonrise Ranches is the place you've been looking for. Check out the Williams & Williams site for more detailed information on the land and equipment selling.


Concerning equipment, this sale might rival a Ritchie Bros sale! Seriously, I'm amazed at the amount of equipment we have accumulated and are selling. We have excavators, a bulldozer, a grader, more than 2 full lines of hay equipment, a Peterbuilt semi with a wet kit, end dump, step deck and Barrett Cattle Pot, 2 dump trucks, large tractors, medium tractors and small tractors, sprigger, discs, harrows, rollers, John Deere skid steer with all the attachments and tracks, all kinds of feed trucks with mostly Hydrabed haybeds, hydraulic chutes, manual chutes, tubs, alleys, portable corrals, scales, gates, fence chargers, welders, fence supplies, pipe, guardrail, all kinds of tools, jacks, etc. I haven't even mentioned the African mounts (2 full lion mounts, a mountain goat, water buck, wildebeest, and many more) and the appliances and furniture we're selling. The list goes on and on. Check out the Williams and Williams site for a more complete listing of the equipment selling.

Partial Equipment List


Concerning the cattle, we have only our top cows left to sell. So, you'll be getting the cream of the crop! Please look at the online catalog and view a video of the cattle to be sold. The cattle portion of the auction will be managed by Tom Burke of the Angus Hall of Fame, and we will be broadcasting it through DV Auction.com. I can truly say that we have the best calf crop we've ever had, largely due to breeding grass efficiency genetics into our power cows. This has produced thick, easy fleshing cattle, resulting in greater fertility and overall performance. Jeff, our manager, and the rest of our employees tried to get me to hold onto the bulls for our annual Spring bull sale, because they look so good. But we are selling all. So, come and get the last of the Sonrise's powerful genetic program that is sure to launch your herd into the profit zone. We are selling direct daughters out of Basin Lucy 178E, Ideal 4465, 57D, and Altune. A full sister to EXT, a full sister to Raven, a full sister to Bextor, and a full sister to Hyline Right Time 338 sell! Whoever purchases these animals can't go wrong.

[quote="EddieM"]

Quote :

There is a problem here, I just cannot put my finger on it. Stayability EPD's. It seems rather futile to me. Basically we would have a dead bull before the numbers became relevant, The Sire would long since be dead and gone. The Dams would be really old, or already be Wendy's square hamburgers. I guess it would have some value in making some old dead bull club members less valuable. Other than that I don't get it. It still has us using bulls out of old cows, out of bulls out of old cows, that are old bulls.

Whay if stayability got more heifers to make it to 7 YO or 5 YO?


Eddie, if I read you right, to me, just making it to 5 or 7, is still a failure. Indeed less of a drain than open two's and three's, but I have had plenty, and I mean plenty of high production cows to burn out by seven.

Case in point. My little Everelda Entense lining up project. We used 4 sons or grandsons of the 1905 cow. Oh the wonder and amazement of stacking up 40 plus milk Epds. The cow, or should I say bones, hidden in the picture below, on the left, would be a prime example. Fertility is not a problem. She ratioed 142 on her first calf, weaning nearly 800 pounds, and has looked like hell since the day she was born. Maybe a little inbred depression, but the calculator would say not. I would say more of a milk depression! I fully expect her to just fall over and not get up one day. She has, since the first calf failed to wean anything close to that, more of the average to a little above. She is a 2002 model.



[img][/img]

I don't remember what this topic was even about, but it was on my mind, so here it is.


Bootheel

I am a little like bootheel on this topic but in my opinion stayablity is a `16 year old group of cows that has had 15 calves within a 2 heat cycle breeding season. With the mainstream mongrelazation of gene pools this would come about from luck of the draw. That is one of the reasons that we took a chance 12 years ago to quit the mainstream and use Shoshone Genetics. We have just finished up branding and when that is done we also remove anything that does not have a calf by its side since we do not preg. Out of that set of cows which now number about 500 there are 18 cows that do not have a calf. These cows have not had any thing except two good years of grass, with salt , selenium and copper. D F always wants to have studys and data etc. We just want a set of cows that produce without high inputs. This seems like stayability to us. There are about 350 of these are direct decendants of Shoshone trueline cattle.

Larry Leonhardt has line bred a genepool that will produce cattle in the dry intermountain west that are seed to use for the maternal production of beef.
We also appreciate that the bulls last and are based on the commercial cattle price not BS. (weither that is blue sky or just plain BS)

If in your opinion you need more dollars of beef to sell take these female seed producers and introduce what ever you want into them, just make sure that you can get it out(I recommend that you keep the introduced seed to a 90 lb or less birthweight so you do not ruin the stayablity of the female seed producer). You also need to breed enough Female seed producers to get the number you need maintain what your goals of your operation for females may be.

If your goal is to make this or any other genepool better then I hope that you have age on your side as I beleive that at 54 I am too long in the tooth to reap the benefits of what I may accomplish this with any consistancy it would take 30 years, I would be 84 and true progress could come at 94, I am just going to use these cattle for now and muddle along.

I have noticed that people say where they are from, I am from the vicinty of heaven on earth if you are a desert guy, Bob H

Quote :

they either have to old to get Proven, or not. We could stack these up and get some more accuraccy for the sake of EPD's, but why?

The latest greatest get sold at 7 in production sales all across the land, you know, while they still have value, many even at 5 for the sake of generation turnover, to abuse the numbers system, as worthwhile and flawed as it is.

How do you differentiate between sold and culled. Me, give them a 0%, if sold before 3, 25% if sold before 10, regardless of reported reason for sale. So you have a bull that is realistcally 6 before making his way from being a 0, to 12 before being a 25. They get a 100% if making it to 14.

Trailblazer awards will be given to those that make it to 20, the ceremony in which involves burning and humiliating all pathfinders from the party.

I did not read this section completely and thought from my mis-read that you were advocating the advance of the population to just get more to 5 or 7 YO. Sorry about that.

Quote :

Eddie, if I read you right, to me, just making it to 5 or 7, is still a failure. Indeed less of a drain than open two's and three's, but I have had plenty, and I mean plenty of high production cows to burn out by seven.

So let me try again: What if stayability got more heifers to make it to 16 YO or 20 YO? I know that me and the ghost would be pretty happy. DF, how would you pull that one off with numbers, cow data and an abacus? And it would be much more profitable to the average guy than Pathfinder or fly resistance, I do believe.

Bob H wrote:

I am a little like bootheel on this topic but in my opinion stayablity is a `16 year old group of cows that has had 15 calves within a 2 heat cycle breeding season. With the mainstream mongrelazation of gene pools this would come about from luck of the draw. That is one of the reasons that we took a chance 12 years ago to quit the mainstream and use Shoshone Genetics. We have just finished up branding and when that is done we also remove anything that does not have a calf by its side since we do not preg. Out of that set of cows which now number about 500 there are 18 cows that do not have a calf. These cows have not had any thing except two good years of grass, with salt , selenium and copper. D F always wants to have studys and data etc. We just want a set of cows that produce without high inputs. This seems like stayability to us. There are about 350 of these are direct decendants of Shoshone trueline cattle.

Larry Leonhardt has line bred a genepool that will produce cattle in the dry intermountain west that are seed to use for the maternal production of beef.
We also appreciate that the bulls last and are based on the commercial cattle price not BS. (weither that is blue sky or just plain BS)

If in your opinion you need more dollars of beef to sell take these female seed producers and introduce what ever you want into them, just make sure that you can get it out(I recommend that you keep the introduced seed to a 90 lb or less birthweight so you do not ruin the stayablity of the female seed producer). You also need to breed enough Female seed producers to get the number you need maintain what your goals of your operation for females may be.

If your goal is to make this or any other genepool better then I hope that you have age on your side as I beleive that at 54 I am too long in the tooth to reap the benefits of what I may accomplish this with any consistancy it would take 30 years, I would be 84 and true progress could come at 94, I am just going to use these cattle for now and muddle along.

I have noticed that people say where they are from, I am from the vicinty of heaven on earth if you are a desert guy, Bob H

How or why did/does the Tru-line concept seem so difficult to so many? Now mind you, Larry writes plenty of stuff I struggle with, and love the struggle dearly...but the basic concept is soooo simple...I think most registered breeders don`t embrace or engage in it, because the concept encourages cheaper, not higher, priced breeding stock because the rarity of individuals have no greater value, maybe less....

Bob H wrote:

I am a little like bootheel on this topic but in my opinion stayablity is a `16 year old group of cows that has had 15 calves within a 2 heat cycle breeding season. With the mainstream mongrelazation of gene pools this would come about from luck of the draw. That is one of the reasons that we took a chance 12 years ago to quit the mainstream and use Shoshone Genetics. We have just finished up branding and when that is done we also remove anything that does not have a calf by its side since we do not preg. Out of that set of cows which now number about 500 there are 18 cows that do not have a calf. These cows have not had any thing except two good years of grass, with salt , selenium and copper. D F always wants to have studys and data etc. We just want a set of cows that produce without high inputs. This seems like stayability to us. There are about 350 of these are direct decendants of Shoshone trueline cattle.Larry Leonhardt has line bred a genepool that will produce cattle in the dry intermountain west that are seed to use for the maternal production of beef.
We also appreciate that the bulls last and are based on the commercial cattle price not BS. (weither that is blue sky or just plain BS)

If in your opinion you need more dollars of beef to sell take these female seed producers and introduce what ever you want into them, just make sure that you can get it out(I recommend that you keep the introduced seed to a 90 lb or less birthweight so you do not ruin the stayablity of the female seed producer). You also need to breed enough Female seed producers to get the number you need maintain what your goals of your operation for females may be.

If your goal is to make this or any other genepool better then I hope that you have age on your side as I beleive that at 54 I am too long in the tooth to reap the benefits of what I may accomplish this with any consistancy it would take 30 years, I would be 84 and true progress could come at 94, I am just going to use these cattle for now and muddle along.

I have noticed that people say where they are from, I am from the vicinty of heaven on earth if you are a desert guy, Bob H

18 of 500 without a calf speaks volumes about fertility to me...Since LL reports no data for stayability, nor heifer pregnancy, and df discounts non-measurable concepts like "type", the only thing I can attribute this fertility and calf survivability to is the oft mentioned and promoted here, limited breeding season of 60 days Larry uses....which brings forth another interesting question by me to Bob H; is there any one in particular of the 6, 60 day breeding seasons which LL uses that you select your fertile bulls siring fertile daughters from?

This Stayability Index or Epd idea has really been bothering me. I think it would be WONDERFUL, at first. Then all hell would break loose. Much like the $EN many would not like what they see. The first thing that would happen, rather than look at the other numbers and keep them in line, ie growth and milk, carcass, whatever......the outliers would begin to be utilized. The generation turnover would commence quickly, the growth leaders would still carry the better Stayability figures, because, it would take many more years for those numbers to change.


All of this of course stems from my opinion that more growth, or top end growth will reduce longevity. I would venture that the same thing will occur with milk and other measures. I just see it as another method for games, manipulation, and misreprestation to be justified because it is supposedly proven.

Growth numbers are fairly reliable to me. Milk less so. $en has become a bit of a joke, and I believe the Stayability index would suffer the same fate.

Being a stay at home breeder, as Rev. Voss, so beautifully preached on, or at minimum not utilizing vastly different genetic profiles, year after year, season upon season, would do most of us more good than all the predictions of measures there are, or ever will be.


Bootheel, an Independence Day Advocate

Bootheel wrote:

All of this of course stems from my opinion that more growth, or top end growth will reduce longevity.

“All dog breeds are of the same species, yet they age at apparently very different rates,” says David Waters DVM, PhD, professor and associate director of the Purdue University Center on Aging and the Life Course and director of the Gerald P. Murphy Cancer Foundation. “We still don’t understand why.”

Bruce Fogle, DVM, in his book Caring for Your Dog: The Complete Canine Home Reference, says the median life expectancy of dogs is 12.8 years. But dog life expectancies vary widely by breed, ranging from breeds that can live 16 to 20 years (the rare Mexican breed, the Xoloitzcuintle, has a life span of 15-20 years; the Irish Wolfhound has an estimated 6- to 8-year life expectancy.

But there is one concrete piece of advice experts can give people looking for a dog breed with a long life span -- think small.

Dog Life Span: Big vs. Small
Nearly 40% of small breed dogs live longer than 10 years, but only 13% of giant breed dogs live that long. The average 50-pound dog will live 10-12 years. But giant breeds such as great Danes or deerhounds are elderly at 6-8 years.

Kimberly Greer, PhD, an assistant professor at the School of Natural Sciences and Mathematics at Indiana University East, co-authored a study that showed that dogs weighing less than 30 pounds lived the longest. The study analyzed data from more than 700 dogs in 77 breeds.

“It’s the weight, not the height, that matters,” Greer says. “Some dogs are short, like the English bulldog, but can still weigh 60 or 70 pounds. They wouldn’t be considered small breed dogs.”

Mark Stickney, DVM, director of General Surgery Services at Texas A&M University College of Veterinary Medicine and Biomedical Sciences, says although it’s not unusual to see a 17-year-old miniature poodle, a 12-year-old Labrador retriever is considered old, and any dog in the giant breeds -- dogs weighing more than 100 pounds -- is considered geriatric at 6-7 years.

“Generally speaking, the larger your dog is, the less time it will live,” Stickney says.

Tom D wrote:

Bootheel wrote:

All of this of course stems from my opinion that more growth, or top end growth will reduce longevity.

“All dog breeds are of the same species, yet they age at apparently very different rates,” says David Waters DVM, PhD, professor and associate director of the Purdue University Center on Aging and the Life Course and director of the Gerald P. Murphy Cancer Foundation. “We still don’t understand why.”

Bruce Fogle, DVM, in his book Caring for Your Dog: The Complete Canine Home Reference, says the median life expectancy of dogs is 12.8 years. But dog life expectancies vary widely by breed, ranging from breeds that can live 16 to 20 years (the rare Mexican breed, the Xoloitzcuintle, has a life span of 15-20 years; the Irish Wolfhound has an estimated 6- to 8-year life expectancy.

But there is one concrete piece of advice experts can give people looking for a dog breed with a long life span -- think small.

Dog Life Span: Big vs. Small
Nearly 40% of small breed dogs live longer than 10 years, but only 13% of giant breed dogs live that long. The average 50-pound dog will live 10-12 years. But giant breeds such as great Danes or deerhounds are elderly at 6-8 years.

Kimberly Greer, PhD, an assistant professor at the School of Natural Sciences and Mathematics at Indiana University East, co-authored a study that showed that dogs weighing less than 30 pounds lived the longest. The study analyzed data from more than 700 dogs in 77 breeds.

“It’s the weight, not the height, that matters,” Greer says. “Some dogs are short, like the English bulldog, but can still weigh 60 or 70 pounds. They wouldn’t be considered small breed dogs.”

Mark Stickney, DVM, director of General Surgery Services at Texas A&M University College of Veterinary Medicine and Biomedical Sciences, says although it’s not unusual to see a 17-year-old miniature poodle, a 12-year-old Labrador retriever is considered old, and any dog in the giant breeds -- dogs weighing more than 100 pounds -- is considered geriatric at 6-7 years.

“Generally speaking, the larger your dog is, the less time it will live,” Stickney says.

Mom and Dad's Great Pyrenees male "Magnum" was the first of that breed for our family. He was very large for his breed and in his prime weighed 175 -185 lbs. (I believe the highest weight was measured at the local vet's clinic.) He lived to be 14 years old before passing away a couple of summers ago. They lost his papers and he was never registered. He was a working dog and never sired any intended pups, although there were several Pyrenees cross pups in town before he passed away. I wish they lived a little closer. Anyway, he would be an exception to this rule! Our oldest Pyrenees is "Sampson" and he is 8 years 5 months and is still going strong. Just not as far and fast as he used to and he weighs between 120 - 130 lbs.

The generalizations about size probably have some validity, but how much does environment play into this. Most tiny/small dogs are well protected and pampered. Magnum was large enough that the other male dogs and varmits in the area left him alone. Neither live as long as elephants. Optimal size and weight for environment are important, but I still believe the gene pool is important. My expertise is in people and most of us fall in an average range. The youngest 2 men that I coded after heart attacks were of average height, athletic -appearing and with ideal body weights. (Yes, they did smoke cig's, but neither used illicit substances by history.) One was 23 years old and the other 26 years old. The comment that I remember was that none of the men in that family lived past 35 years old and they all died of heart disease.

Mike I would not know but Larry would the conversation that I have with him is I need bulls that will keep me in bussiness. I suspect that by useing multiple sire's from Shoshone on a volume of cows would be one of the adavantages that we enjoy. Larry should be watching and maybe will comment .