Reflections from LL ©

Larry Leonhardt wrote:

OF FASHIONS. TYPES, ENVIRONMENTAL FORCES ......and TAILS
Bootheel wrote:



Picture judging is a booger Mike. I am not that picky, but yeah I like the last PICTURE the best. I don't believe either one of them would be too problematic for commercial profit, whether bred to their respective equal, or crossed to FIX. I am still reeling from the udder quality some 3 months later. I thought I had some good uddered cows, but the forudder attachment(yes fore not 4) is unparalleled by any herd or line of Angus cattle I have seen. Is it neccessary to have such udder? Maybe not, but I would like the whole cow to wear out at the same time, rather than cull for feet, or udders, legs, empty bellies, etc.
Bootheel, trying really hard to think about cattle

And In a later post, Bootheel wrote:
......In a whirlwind of tail evaluation this week I have come to the conclusion that I must accept that my cattle, on average, will have shorter tails. I guess I could sell them all and start over with long tails, but I won't. It is still interesting to me though, and I reserve the right to change my mind at any time I see fit.
The hors d'oeuvre on the menu today is ox tail soup and DV's finally brought to our attention the importance of happy tails. Tails have been waggin' the dog in this business ever since I can remember. DV has a special affinity for good feet, that he starts with the feet and works his way up when selecting or judging cattle. I confess that in my own unique situation, I start with a happy tail selection as a first priority and everything, YES ,EVERYTHING else just naturally falls in place.......Twas told long ago to just leave 'em alone and they'll come come waggin' their tails behind them.

Tis time to simplify the complex .... Tis time to explode the myth that single trait selection doesn't work .....Tis time to ignore the 35 EPD measures.....Tis time to abandon the races of multiple trait selection......Tis time to reveal what can happen when we disregard the importance of single trait happy tail selection in favor of multiple trait races by the numbers - i.e.notice the tail on the ANGRY cow below compared to the happy tailed, CONTENTED cow pictured above, its plain to see she's a triple P cow (in pain and a pissed off purebred)




AND THE LONGER WE IGNOR HAPPY TAIL SELECTION, THE WORSE IT CAN GET!!!!




Fortunately, with the assistance from Mother Nature, the outliers DV illustrated above are as rare as the top outliers on the other end. And so when DV illustrated the INTERIOR and happy tail of Shoshone Queen Mother Uno, since he is a feet man and who like all artists tends to dramatize his illustrations, I suspect he used




Mean Spriit's big white cow as a model for the feet and heavy boned legs, which may just be this particular artist's pre-conceived, misguided mis-perception : )




Whereas in reality Uno is much finer boned, however, DV surely must've modeled the EXTERIOR of the rest of Shoshone Queen Mother Uno after her 261,548th descendant's fertility proven extraording, ordinary happy tail, now residing in KY. MS says his cow has a strong tail. For those enquiring minds who want to know the difference between strong tails and happy tails, know that happy tails on cows extend forward along the back connected to pretty, less concerning, humble yet sexy friendly faces, not meant for pulling plows, but bearing a unique finesse quality. I recently asked DV to illustrate an SXC cow (sexy centerpiece) for Tom D, but he's busy drawing pretty fire ants and woody creatures : ))



Or, perhaps DV's EXTERIOR model was Uno's humble 302,230th descendant's happy tail extending forward now residing in Alberta




Or, maybe DV's EXTERIOR model could've even been Uno's 98,260th descendent's extended happy tail, who's immortality resides in Nebraska




Or maybe DV's model was this 190,663rd Uno descendant of happy and humble tails..... or does it even matter which model he used???




Since here is the real image and model of my UNO No. 1 cow




And my continuation of her selected individual immortality portrayed below with happy tails for both your EXTERIOR & INTERIOR view, with the tails of her sire, dam and first born yearling sired by her own sire......the very core of my portion of the universe




Note the sexy beauty of her happy and contented tail....Once upon a time MK had an EXTERIOR & INTERIOR happy tailed duplicate of my very own Uno No. 1 cow, his #902 cow.... but back then, MK was not himself happy. He worried about numbers and IBC's.....and merchandising, completely unaware of the need for continual happy tail selection. So while Bootheel and Mike wile away their time hypothesizing any connection to length of tail and milking ability, obviously, they will conclude happy tail selection will not work any better than numbers derived from averages based on a compositional mix of various types and kinds. And so, I actually don't expect anyone to appreciate my happy tailed cows nearly as much as I do......as a matter of fact, most mainstream registered people would try to improve rather than sustain and maintain these type of cows with their own independent zero EPD standard of excellence via simple selection for happy tails.

For example, this descendant, portrayed when MK took her picture when she was a first calf heifer, now 10 years old is creating her own legacy......her happy tail extends clear up to the tip of her exceptionally contented nose, expressed in her eyes.




And it is my fondest hope that John D. continues to practice happy tail selection with this descendant of Cow #6113




Whilst I, and several others, go on and on and on and on with the current descendants selecting happy tails that extend to the tip of their contented noses

LL reciting a tale of tails from bow to stern, or would that be from stern to bow, let's just hoist the anchor mateys and get underway : )

Mr. Leonhardt`s technical support staff has obviously made errors tonight that have been corrected; I will have a little pep talk with his staff to encourage them to do better

Hey Larry, see what you missed out on when you quit using everyone else's bulls?




TD, lamenting what might have been.

Tom D wrote:

Hey Larry, see what you missed out on when you quit using everyone else's bulls?




TD, lamenting what might have been.

Holy Cow did you find that in IOWA

Tom D wrote:

Hey Larry, see what you missed out on when you quit using everyone else's bulls?




TD, lamenting what might have been.

I always wanted to see a three-in-one deal.

Tom D wrote:

Hey Larry, see what you missed out on when you quit using everyone else's bulls?




TD, lamenting what might have been.

Sorry TD, you are a little misleading in describing your laments, it is not what might have been that didn't happen, it is more like what will be utilizing the new academic predictor when AAA

EPDs are enhanced by genomic results generated by:

Since some of the posters on KC are at the forefront of scientific research, their findings of the intrauterine effects of estrogen, testosterone, chlorians, anenions, amniotic fluids, gonadotropins, anti-mullarian hormones, genus alignments, nuclei fusions, transformative and binary traits, introgressive matings or whatever are extremely valuable things we all need to know....especially useful in order to aid laymen during computerized selection to improve predictability.

With your new computerized hardware Tom, I want to congratulate you on bein' able to predict what the first cross between a Shoshone cow and SAV Handiwork will look like. Obviously your image is the result of intrauterine battles. For those of us in the golden age of computer illiterates, in our limited lifetime we would sure like to see your predictable computerized images of the subsequent crosses with Bootheels improved bull, or King Tutypes, Nippons and other Bostypes.....of course, expecting them all to be scientifically based on genomic profiles and heritability factors, which of course includes vengeful microstatins and energies secreted from fat.

LL in the vicinity of believin' Tom D is in stiff competition with DV to be the Chief Editor of the Advertising Section of the KC Daily Chronical, a licensed subsidiary of the TruLine Journal.

I am thinking about buying this ...er-r-r ...ah-h-h-h ... this er-r-r ah-h-h .......... COW! I want your opinions.

EddieM wrote:

I am thinking about buying this ...er-r-r ...ah-h-h-h ... this er-r-r ah-h-h .......... COW! I want your opinions.

I think you should buy her Eddie, she'll make a wonderful donor. I'd flush her to this great bull I've got.



Hey, that's spooky actually - they are almost the same anyways

Yup they both came from IOWA

Larry Leonhardt wrote:

Tom D wrote:

Hey Larry, see what you missed out on when you quit using everyone else's bulls?




TD, lamenting what might have been.

Sorry TD, you are a little misleading in describing your laments, it is not what might have been that didn't happen, it is more like what will be utilizing the new academic predictor when AAA

EPDs are enhanced by genomic results generated by:

Since some of the posters on KC are at the forefront of scientific research, their findings of the intrauterine effects of estrogen, testosterone, chlorians, anenions, amniotic fluids, gonadotropins, anti-mullarian hormones, genus alignments, nuclei fusions, transformative and binary traits, introgressive matings or whatever are extremely valuable things we all need to know....especially useful in order to aid laymen during computerized selection to improve predictability.
With your new computerized hardware Tom, I want to congratulate you on bein' able to predict what the first cross between a Shoshone cow and SAV Handiwork will look like. Obviously your image is the result of intrauterine battles. For those of us in the golden age of computer illiterates, in our limited lifetime we would sure like to see your predictable computerized images of the subsequent crosses with Bootheels improved bull, or King Tutypes, Nippons and other Bostypes.....of course, expecting them all to be scientifically based on genomic profiles and heritability factors, which of course includes vengeful microstatins and energies secreted from fat.

LL in the vicinity of believin' Tom D is in stiff competition with DV to be the Chief Editor of the Advertising Section of the KC Daily Chronical, a licensed subsidiary of the TruLine Journal.

uh oh Larry; Plato says we got trouble

"...Then anyone who leaves behind him a written manual, and likewise
anyone who receives it, in the belief that such writing will be clear
and certain, must be exceedingly simple-minded..." Plato, _Phaedrus

Tom D wrote:

Greetings Earthling, I will now teach you the art of cattle breeding.

Uh...thanks, here's a bumper sticker for your spaceship.

Tom D

Thats an exceptionally good one Tom....x'?$OB xzmmmph ymnozzf zzosxtv trsssojhs pqqqdsfph mazraazqwst lphuezrta = the natural evolutionary process of what happens when ones head is filled with non sensical bull sh*t and its fertilizing effects even stimulated my ears to grow much larger and more pointed since this photo was taken......its simply the result of mind over matter.

DV forewarned us about living and dying by cheap visual trickery so I have programmewd my spaceship back over 70 years in time to start my life fresh again in the vicinity of Lunarland .....free of sorcerers, witchcraft and distorted visual illusions.....only those people who have evolved to look like me are welcome aboard this do-over again trip, so send your pictures to Tom to publicize the crew of look alike aliens



LL back to the age of pure innocence, pre-school vaccinated for immunity to the seven deadly sins by Dr. Angeleo Eternity

Larry, I'm starting to get my little toe wet here with mother-son matings, half sib matings, etc. As the percentage inbred increased how much of a lessening of fertility, if any did you notice, especially in the females, and what did you do about it as far as keeping/selling opens? I'll welcome anyones 2 cents on this too.

Thanks, Jack

By the way Larry I love the picture of that little boy. Who is that hairy little feller?

Jack, he sure looks familiar.

Jack McNamee wrote:

Larry, I'm starting to get my little toe wet here with mother-son matings, half sib matings, etc. As the percentage inbred increased how much of a lessening of fertility, if any did you notice, especially in the females, and what did you do about it as far as keeping/selling opens? I'll welcome anyones 2 cents on this too.

Thanks, Jack

If the females are not breeding under your management conditions and breeding season timeline why keep them? I cannot but think if you sell the problem breeders every year the ones left will shift your genetic base to more fertile animals. How much of the decrease/increase in fertility or other traits are caused by the genetics of the founding animals of your line breeding project?

I gather he is not talking about production stock but seed stock bred for use in a systematic cross. To me it's different, and the only answer I can offer would be the breeders faith in the odds of the ancestral pen, if you believe you had it in that pen the chances of it evaporating in one generation will be small. If it takes years to breed something of value in as a rule it should take time to lose it as well, I would think.

If you like your odds, test it on the cross it was intended for and evaluate the results, time consuming and costly I realize but so was the cost to get that ancestral pen of concentration.

My two cents.

Thanks Craig. I've read some about decreased fertility in inbred animals and I'm curious if Larry or any of you guys that have inbred cattle seen this decrease and if so what do you do about it. Is it a man caused problem that one can over look in a more inbred animal or do the same breeding priciples apply to the inbred stock and no drop in fertility should be expected nor condoned. I'm talking animals that have IBC's of upwards to 25%. I was looking at a heifer calf the other day here that is a mother-son mating and she is a photo copy of her mother. She has an IBC slightly over 25% and I wondered what I should do if she comes up open as a yearling heifer. I'd guess I'd can her but I wanted to hear other thoughts on the subject.

Jack getting my little toe wet and wondering what to expect now.

Jack,
I have little experience with inbreeding and I hope others will help answer your very relevant question, but I feel we as a group are moving forward from the politically correct way of breeding and selling where the obvious answer in that paradigm would be to can her.

As I see it to move forward we will have to concentrate more on the principals than traditional manmade rules.

If you don’t want the hassle and decide to ship her, let me know...if she is of this type and close bred I like my odds

Isn't the purpose of linebreeding to concentrate the good and eliminate the undesirable? Poor fertility is considered a undesirable trait and selected against under my mamagement scheme.

Jack McNamee wrote:

Larry, I'm starting to get my little toe wet here with mother-son matings, half sib matings, etc. As the percentage inbred increased how much of a lessening of fertility, if any did you notice, especially in the females, and what did you do about it as far as keeping/selling opens? I'll welcome anyones 2 cents on this too.

Thanks, Jack

Jack, compared to what I had on a herdwise basis, as an overall population in my own particular circumstance, the short answer is that I actually noticed a significant improvement in the anatomical fertility of the X-strain females over the rest of the herd which I attributed moreso to the avoidance of "outliers"....and type. In fact the first inbred bull's daughters (Balboa) were exceptionally fertile and if I remember right, their average calving interval during that critical time in their life from 2's to 3's was around 356 days.....and Balboa pasture bred about 45 yrlg heifers as a small yearling bull.

Going beyond my own individuals, to summarize my overall observations, I am very comfortable concluding that most female reproductive problems in the industry likely stem from sire selection of what are often described as "performance outliers"....and I have learned to visibly recognize subfertile types whether they are inbred, outcrossed, crossbred, male or female. After spending over 30 years trying to rationalize the academic belief that an F1 cow was needed to improve fertility, longevity and even profitability......I came to believe that is an over-promoted myth, that it is our common mainstream selection criteria that is detrimental to these characters. The bottom line is that an F1 cow can only offer an irratic, temporary quick fix from many of our misguided, unsustainable mainstream selection directions, consequently I also see too many subfertile crossbred cows who can also be misfits.

I'm trying to make this a $64.00 answer for Hillys fund.....so as a postscript to your questions, an old man once told me that breeding beef cattle is the most difficult job in all of agriculture. I believe it is only difficult when we seek economically unsustainable ambitions. We define progression as moving forward in a direction and inbreeding is often defined as regression moving backwards from where we once thought we were. Not wanting to regress, our dilemma seems to be our inherent nature to keep up with or out-do the Jones, possessed with this insatiable appetite where good isn't good enough, thusly it is that competition creates all these over- zealous, ambitious races to nowhere just for the sake of winning......temporarily. I doubt that will ever change much, so as you dabble in your experiments, the results will need to be proven to your customers of their genuine worthiness without phenotypic trickery.

I recently heard from a long time very close friend and cattle breeder who said to me that "after talking to folks on the phone and hearing all the great things I hear them say about what they are breeding and how much they know about pedigree etc.....When I go to their place, I wonder if the same guy I have been talking to is the same guy that bred what I am looking at!.....I have cattle with problems and so does everyone else."

It is no secret that I see solving problems as the unmentionable mainstay of cattle breeding. Jack, presuming that the animals you have personally selected to inbreed express fewer problems than most of your others as you see them converting converting forage to beef, I cannot possibly anticipate whether or not close breeding will lessen or inprove their particular fertility. I would however expect you to expose more problems than you may be currently aware of. Progress or regression in fertilty is easily measured by the percent of opens in the females, however, by just selling any open ones or misfits out the back door while unknowingly reintroducing the same thing through the front door without identifying the causes seems to me to be a very tiring proposition. : )).

In addition, built in vigor is often lacking in the industry and what the real beef production world needs is stabile herds of work and wear cows with fewer problems.....the last thing the world needs is super cows. To reach that objective, we have got to quit creating more problems than we're solving. Close breeding is certainly not a cure-all but it is a step in identification. If the success rate was very high, everyone would be close breeding rather than avoiding it. And you know how the registered industry is scared to death to close breed for fear of being condemned for exposing problems.

I have also learned that persistant selection will ultimately override any fixation with certain pedigrees or measures. So as you get your little toe wet Jack, you will need to remain somewhat optimistic. May I suggest that you will be better served over the long term by not publicly displaying your private work, with all potential failures......no one can accurately appraise your work but you. Ultimately any proof will be in the pudding. If it was quick and easy, all this we talk about would already have been done

I do wish you the same comfort that I feel when I read a story like that of DV's when he said "....The first calf crop was revolutionary in my thinking for its consistency and evenness. One of the years that I used this set of bulls I sent all the steers to Goggins in Billings and they were the evenest set of steers in size, type, kind and probably flavor to ever hit the ring."

I have heard hundreds of similar stories about that first cross uniformity, a common phenomynon that regretfully is unsustainable unto itself.....so all we have left to do is stabilize the parents.....and if they are not enough, all we have to do is measure their complementarity.

LL in the vicinity of a soap box..

Thank you Larry and Craig. This is very helpful. Once again it seems you were watching me for the last 25 years. Like Pat I thought selling opens would improve fertility but just like you said I never closed the back door. I continue to learn. Optimism and patience are two things I sorely lack and that is what I get the most of from this group. Thanks again,

Jack, I'm going to have to live to be 150 just to get my knees wet.

Jack as of now I am still waiting for conclusive proof as to the fertility of the Son X mother and Brother X sister mating but so far I have seen a increase in fertility. But the results are just a dozen or so samples and i think that is not a large enough cross section to be conclusive. But at this time the positive results are very promising.

Larry Leonhardt wrote:

Jack McNamee wrote:

Larry, I'm starting to get my little toe wet here with mother-son matings, half sib matings, etc. As the percentage inbred increased how much of a lessening of fertility, if any did you notice, especially in the females, and what did you do about it as far as keeping/selling opens? I'll welcome anyones 2 cents on this too.

Thanks, Jack

Jack, compared to what I had on a herdwise basis, as an overall population in my own particular circumstance, the short answer is that I actually noticed a significant improvement in the anatomical fertility of the X-strain females over the rest of the herd which I attributed moreso to the avoidance of "outliers"....and type. In fact the first inbred bull's daughters (Balboa) were exceptionally fertile and if I remember right, their average calving interval during that critical time in their life from 2's to 3's was around 356 days.....and Balboa pasture bred about 45 yrlg heifers as a small yearling bull.

Going beyond my own individuals, to summarize my overall observations, I am very comfortable concluding that most female reproductive problems in the industry likely stem from sire selection of what are often described as "performance outliers"....and I have learned to visibly recognize subfertile types whether they are inbred, outcrossed, crossbred, male or female. After spending over 30 years trying to rationalize the academic belief that an F1 cow was needed to improve fertility, longevity and even profitability......I came to believe that is an over-promoted myth, that it is our common mainstream selection criteria that is detrimental to these characters. The bottom line is that an F1 cow can only offer an irratic, temporary quick fix from many of our misguided, unsustainable mainstream selection directions, consequently I also see too many subfertile crossbred cows who can also be misfits.

I'm trying to make this a $64.00 answer for Hillys fund.....so as a postscript to your questions, an old man once told me that breeding beef cattle is the most difficult job in all of agriculture. I believe it is only difficult when we seek economically unsustainable ambitions. We define progression as moving forward in a direction and inbreeding is often defined as regression moving backwards from where we once thought we were. Not wanting to regress, our dilemma seems to be our inherent nature to keep up with or out-do the Jones, possessed with this insatiable appetite where good isn't good enough, thusly it is that competition creates all these over- zealous, ambitious races to nowhere just for the sake of winning......temporarily. I doubt that will ever change much, so as you dabble in your experiments, the results will need to be proven to your customers of their genuine worthiness without phenotypic trickery.

I recently heard from a long time very close friend and cattle breeder who said to me that "after talking to folks on the phone and hearing all the great things I hear them say about what they are breeding and how much they know about pedigree etc.....When I go to their place, I wonder if the same guy I have been talking to is the same guy that bred what I am looking at!.....I have cattle with problems and so does everyone else."

It is no secret that I see solving problems as the unmentionable mainstay of cattle breeding. Jack, presuming that the animals you have personally selected to inbreed express fewer problems than most of your others as you see them converting converting forage to beef, I cannot possibly anticipate whether or not close breeding will lessen or inprove their particular fertility. I would however expect you to expose more problems than you may be currently aware of. Progress or regression in fertilty is easily measured by the percent of opens in the females, however, by just selling any open ones or misfits out the back door while unknowingly reintroducing the same thing through the front door without identifying the causes seems to me to be a very tiring proposition. : )).

In addition, built in vigor is often lacking in the industry and what the real beef production world needs is stabile herds of work and wear cows with fewer problems.....the last thing the world needs is super cows. To reach that objective, we have got to quit creating more problems than we're solving. Close breeding is certainly not a cure-all but it is a step in identification. If the success rate was very high, everyone would be close breeding rather than avoiding it. And you know how the registered industry is scared to death to close breed for fear of being condemned for exposing problems.

I have also learned that persistant selection will ultimately override any fixation with certain pedigrees or measures. So as you get your little toe wet Jack, you will need to remain somewhat optimistic. May I suggest that you will be better served over the long term by not publicly displaying your private work, with all potential failures......no one can accurately appraise your work but you. Ultimately any proof will be in the pudding. If it was quick and easy, all this we talk about would already have been done

I do wish you the same comfort that I feel when I read a story like that of DV's when he said "....The first calf crop was revolutionary in my thinking for its consistency and evenness. One of the years that I used this set of bulls I sent all the steers to Goggins in Billings and they were the evenest set of steers in size, type, kind and probably flavor to ever hit the ring."

I have heard hundreds of similar stories about that first cross uniformity, a common phenomynon that regretfully is unsustainable unto itself.....so all we have left to do is stabilize the parents.....and if they are not enough, all we have to do is measure their complementarity.

LL in the vicinity of a soap box..

There's not much a person can do but marvel at the reply you've received from LL, Jack. This is one of the strongest pieces I've ever read on the subject. So it's pretty intimidating to even try to add anything to this discussion. As we talked about before on the phone, the concept of the "soul" enters into this discussion. All my life the concept of the soul has been a mysterious but essential part of the balancing act called "what it's like to be a human". A person can do or take certain actions which deplete the soul. Younger, more enthusiastic people tend to think they have such a long life ahead of them that they can be careless with their ideas as well as their actions. It took me a long time to figure this out. Speaking personally, I had to learn how to not spread my ideas everywhere, blab about them endlessly and lose them in the process. To lose them is to lose part of your soul. Leonhardt reminds us of the need for a private laboratory. This parallels what I am talking about. A human being first must have an idea. And then they must execute that idea. And then they must complete the idea and evaluate it as a finished process or product. This alone allows for the development of the next phase and the next idea. In other words, one thing always leads to another thing, whether you're talking about making a piece of art, linebreeding a certain animal, discarding a certain animal or destroying a certain piece of art.

The tru-line concept of Leonhardt's seems to be outlining various components to fulfill the overall concept. I'll put it into my own terms in the way I seem to be absorbing Leonhardt's idea. Flexibility is the beauty built into his tru-line concept. Flexibiltiy is a must. Here I have a nucleus of cows and bulls which have the honor and responsibility of being a genetic source for my commercially developed cows. Within this group is an entire toolbox of genetic wonder. Some are tightly wound and rewound to a point of almost looking like twigs rather than cows. From there they unwind themselves into total outcross. Within this group is an inner laboratory of cows that are very private to me. To bring just anyone into them would be scary for me. Most of my friends think they know which cows these are but they don't. I protect myself from any dialogue because it's just too private. The closer my friends are to me the closer their suspicions are to being accurate. But the purpose of this illustraion is to describe the laboratory and it's fragility. When I was young and we were poor, the floor was made of worn linoleum, my mother kept it spotless and clean even though visually it was rough, rutty and worn. Occasionally somebody who visited would walk right in, sit down with muddy boots and leave a mess. This hurt because they thought the floor didn't matter. Looking back it was a bit of a private laboratory and a person needs to be careful they don't judge a private laboratory wrongly or make assumptions that have no merit or take anything for granted in another human's sanctuary.

It is the same with an idea. We have to be careful who we tell it to or if we tell it. One of the scariest calls I can get is a human being so excited about their idea that they're almost on an adrenaline high. They want my input, they might want my approval, they just want to share. And it's a wonderful honor. Not wanting to say anything to dampen the spirit of the event, I stay mum and celebrate right with them. And when they hang up I have my doubts as to whether it will ever happen, because my fear is they've eroded their soul, lost all their tools from their toolbox in euphoric celebration and in the morning have idea remorse. Not unlike buyer's remorse. I've been on both ends of this. When I was with the mainstream I was on the phone til midnight many nights of the week. The bantering back and forth was all about the same animals, the same bulls, the same cows, the same prices, the same sales, the same managers, the same revolutions, the same inner secrets as the 2 dumbass mainstream guys down the road, who were doing exactly like me and my buddy. And then we would all go to Denver and repeat the whole process in mass, up and down the pens, through the bars and out the strip clubs. And the process would start all over again.

Mike Keeney has a forum of people here now that works in an entirely different manner. This group of people jolt and bolt, cajole, prod, question, antagonize, tease, destroy, create, challenge, and whatever other words you want to throw in. One could not ask for more. I personally will never be party to any criticism that I consider malicious. As a teacher I have lost my finesse and my patience. But rest assured, if I devote any time to any issue that arises, it's for the welfare of the cause, the betterment of Keeney's Corner and ultimately, with compassion, for the good of whoever's getting bombed, pushed, challenged or whatever.

Dennis Voss

Well I've gotten busy and have been away for awhile. Looks like I have really been missing out. This is some great wisdom and certainly gives me something to think on for some time to come. You guys have incredible talent and I'm glad you share.

Ben Loyning, back in the vicinity.

Unlike some others, I would hate to cheapen the corner experience with Facebook mentality like buttons. Seeing as there is no ''it nearly brought me to tears'' button, I won't push it, or punch it. But it did. Such, from the deepest depths of the soul writing, is rare to come by, much less experience it ''live'' and in action.


Thanks,

Joe

Dammitt, DV, first Larry, now you chiding me, to be still til you know I love sharing, fleshing out ideas in discussion; ideas are so easy; they come in a flash, instant genuis, and yes many, are just a flash in the pan...I have to work hard to not tell about my new pedigree ear tags , my line crossing schemes , my son-dam bull calf born today ; my plans for him ...if he has nuts at yearling
Making cattle breeding ideas become reality just ain`t much fun or exciting; no wonder people AI; fresh excitement every calving season...but then it`s nothing more than a drug; a high followed by a low that can only be cured by using a different bull next year; taking another pill...can we get the seedstock industry off drugs? only when we can speak from a cured addict`s perspective; and even then...awww hell, Larry.... give me a cigarette

After reading that piece Dennis I would say you have most definitely not lost your finesse. Just outstanding and thought provoking for me anyway.
Thanks