Reflections from LL ©

Thank you Larry and Dennis. Words can't describe how humbled I am by these two posts. There are gifts and then there are gifts. I am honored.

Jack McNamee

Between hockey playoffs and calving I seem to be always sucking the hind tit, No excuses though... Priceless to be in the vicinity of such talented veterans (to use a hockey analogy) and although us rookies tend to be over zealous, as DV has brought us to the soul of the matter, we mean no disrespect and only time will afford us the same understanding of the bonds built and the lines drawn through adversity on the journey to find contentment with enough.

The feeling of emptiness when I have over exposed an idea or a dream is very real to me, and I will admit confusion over when to hit the center of the bowl and when to keep my thoughts to myself as I tend to find comfort in being more of a recluse, I have also found that I do more growing outside of my comfort zone, KC being case in point.

Thanks for your patients and time

Hilly

Merton of Forgiving Yourself

It is true that we make many mistakes. But the biggest of them all is to be surprised at them: as if we had any hope of never making any. Mistakes are part of our life, and not the least important part. It is by making mistakes that we gain experience, not only for ourselves but for others.

My successes are not my own. The way to them was prepared by others. The fruits of my labors are not my own: for I am preparing the way for the achievements of another. Nor are my failures my own. They may spring from the failure of another, but they are also compensated for by another’s achievement. Therefore the meaning of my life is…only seen in the complete integration of my achievements and failures with the achievements and failures of my own generation.

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 "performanceoutliers"....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..

This post from Larry is itself worthy of being a sticky for a number of reasons.

The basics for improvement in anatomical/pshysiological fertility and progressing toward the satbilized work and wear herd.

Avoid outliers.

Avoid performnace outlier sires.

Avoid subfertile types.

Learn to visibly recognize subfertile types whether inbred, outcrossed, crossbred, male or female.

Visible recognition of subfertile types will assist in the identification and selection of the fertile.

F1's are no quick fix, if the fertility is not stabilized in the parents it won't be significantly improved in the cross.

Unsustainable mainstream selection direction and criteria gets us what we deserve.

Close breeding is not magic and is no quick fix.

Close breeding will effectively expose and identify problems.

Continual culling is symptomatic of unadressed cause.

Close breeding with selection awareness will reduce culling percentages.

Breeding prepotent, functional, work and wear cattle can be achieved by selective close breeding.

Selection , selection, selection.

Stay the course.

It is a process not a competition.

Don't be tempted, it only looks greener and stains the soul deeper.


DB, thinking of DV's post.

MK quoting Merton: ".....It is by making (sharing) mistakes that we gain experience, not only for ourselves but for others. My (Our) successes are not my (our) own. The way to them was prepared by others. The fruits of my (our) labors are not my (our) own: for I (we) am preparing the way for the achievements of another. Nor are my (our) failures my (our) own. They may spring from the failure of another, but they are also compensated for by another’s achievement. Therefore the meaning of my (our) life is…only seen in the complete integration of my (our) achievements and failures with the achievements and failures of my (our) own generation."

Hmmm, then we ALL should be very thankful for rather than critical of everyone's mistakes.
LL gaining experience from mistakes, the more the merrier for the greater achievement of others
.

Dylan Biggs wrote:

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 "performanceoutliers"....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..

This post from Larry is itself worthy of being a sticky for a number of reasons.

The basics for improvement in anatomical/pshysiological fertility and progressing toward the satbilized work and wear herd.

Avoid outliers.

Avoid performnace outlier sires.

Avoid subfertile types.

Learn to visibly recognize subfertile types whether inbred, outcrossed, crossbred, male or female.

Visible recognition of subfertile types will assist in the identification and selection of the fertile.

F1's are no quick fix, if the fertility is not stabilized in the parents it won't be significantly improved in the cross.

Unsustainable mainstream selection direction and criteria gets us what we deserve.

Close breeding is not magic and is no quick fix.

Close breeding will effectively expose and identify problems.

Continual culling is symptomatic of unadressed cause.

Close breeding with selection awareness will reduce culling percentages.

Breeding prepotent, functional, work and wear cattle can be achieved by selective close breeding.

Selection , selection, selection.

Stay the course.

It is a process not a competition.

Don't be tempted, it only looks greener and stains the soul deeper.


DB, thinking of DV's post.

what a nice series of "one-liners" ripe for stealing...my first theft will be
Continual culling is symptomatic of unadressed cause

I'm taking that one too, Mike.

MS, amazed.

Dennis Voss wrote:

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

I hope I did not cheapen any of what Larry said with my attempt at simplifying what I percieved he was saying. What I love about Larry's responses is the depth of sincerity he puts into them and the degree he fleshes out the entire context of his answer. I am sure after so many years of concentrating on Tru-Line principles that it would be easy at times to get frustrated with questions from beginners such as myself. Not the case though. Very much appreciated.

The challenge with answering what on the surface seems like a direct and simple question is to communicate effectively the entire context from which the answer comes or else it is very easy for the answer to be misinterpreted. I have spent 17 years facilitating livestock handling clinics and I know from experience that without proper context and or background, my answer to many simple questions would be effectively lost on the asker. In terms of effective communication of relatively uncommon ideas, techniques and practices I feel it is worth while to continually attempt to simplify while maintaining the integrity of such. The ideas are typically simple, the context is usually the difficult part, because it requires looking at the question and the answer from an entirely different perspective.

And so it is that the post from DV addresses well the power and unique nature of ideas and the environment in which it is best to share and evolve the idea so that the maturation process is ensured. The sharing of an idea is a social process and as such the dynamics of social processes can quickly deflate the personal energy required for the evolution and fruition of an idea. The commitment required to evolve and mature an idea to fruition and see it expressed in the reality of the everyday, given the social resistance to new ideas is considerable. To Larry, DV and Mike, your persistent committed efforts on behalf of this idea areto be commended. May KC continue to be a place where the idea is brought to life so as to become a more common reality.

DB

A couple of my favorite "one liners" from DB's post were:

Selection , selection, selection.

It is a process not a competition.

To borrow from Bootheel's topic "Postcards of Imperfection" , Joe wrote:

I did not know we got to make our own color wheel. I was just basing my observations off of the color wheel outlined in Mr. Leonhardt's publications. I would just call him Larry, but I'm afraid some of the millions of visitors we get, scouring the internet for nuggetts of wisdom, just wouldn't get who Larry is.

But your theories of observation, on what these animals represent, is exactly what I was after with my incomplete thoughts. I used to complete thoughts quite well, until I got married, as my wife has a bad habit of not completing a thought. It has rubbed off. We tell each other that if it was not for our flaws, we both would have married better. So, it is, what it is. But what are they, I ask? Dennis just says he likes them. Another yes man, I presume, or maybe he just doesn't have the energy to teach.

My wife, and our incomplete thoughts, brought us to the color wheel today, and in turn to the spherical distributions. I came to the conclusion that each, without the other, is an incomplete thought. The two complement one another, in completing a definition of what a line, or individual is. I thought I had it sorted out to an understanable conclusion, after mulling it around in my mind today. It seems as I remember LL saying something on the purple blend of blues and reds one time. Besides just not wanting to be a purple cow, or having not seen one, but telling us anyhow, that he'd rather see, than be one.

I don't think the heifer you mentioned is a true red, but her pictorial pedigree, would be, or at least a large portion. She may be just an orange, or one of those fence riders, that with a little nudge could go either way. It seems as though Viking was one of those ''recessive'' for maternal bulls. But, he was classified as a Green. Yet, Titan was a Red, or at least a founder of the Reds. All my rambling has again led me to ask just what the heck is a Blue again, by the defition of LL.
Bootheel

Joe, in the development of specific functional strains, I used color symbolism to avoid any preconceived breed reputations. When beginning anew, I reckon we can each make our own color wheel just the same way we can make a breed into anything we want. I wouldn't want to be a purple cow because ideally, the production of purple cows would be seedless fruit. After all, we are in the beef business and in my color wheel, the primary color of blue would emphasize BEEF QUALITY over quantity.

Color trivia....when I was in school a teacher asked the class to each pick their favorite color and write a 200 word essay on why it was their favorite color. About 85% of the class picked various shades of blue and I guess that's why the theme song of our prom was "My Blue Heaven". I was the only one who picked green.....John Deere green I never quite figured out why boys are blue and girls pink or why Indians are red and Orientals yellow when to me they all look like different shades of brown. I don't know how a prism refracts light into a rainbow of color and I can only assume Mike symbolized KC with a black background with white print to shed some light out of the darkness.

Yellow wheels propelled my green machines often pulling an IH red plow. IH red and Ford blue always quickly faded and we know we shouldn't wash denim blues and hot reds with light colored clothes. Someone determined red was hot and blue was cold.. I don't know if construction yelllow was associated with durability or for safety nor who determined flashing red lights mean stop and a flashing amber light is only a warning. I don't know why the sun is yellow and chlorphyll is green, and so without the sun would everything be black?

The renewal process of the beef industry begins with the cow herd so whatever type is most economically beneficial for a particular man made environment to transform feedstuffs to beef, so I chose construction yellow to symbolize an efficient maternal herd. Since you are into this "wincing thing" as you look at your cow herd, I suppose you could consider them to be oriental yellow browns, and as Jack noticed, with green haired udders, which comes from mixing red, purple, grey, yellow, orange, green, pink etc which provides you with the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow

LL in the vicinity of rainbows

Larry Leonhardt wrote:

A couple of my favorite "one liners" from DB's post were:

Selection , selection, selection.

It is a process not a competition.

To borrow from Bootheel's topic "Postcards of Imperfection" , Joe wrote:

I did not know we got to make our own color wheel. I was just basing my observations off of the color wheel outlined in Mr. Leonhardt's publications. I would just call him Larry, but I'm afraid some of the millions of visitors we get, scouring the internet for nuggetts of wisdom, just wouldn't get who Larry is.

But your theories of observation, on what these animals represent, is exactly what I was after with my incomplete thoughts. I used to complete thoughts quite well, until I got married, as my wife has a bad habit of not completing a thought. It has rubbed off. We tell each other that if it was not for our flaws, we both would have married better. So, it is, what it is. But what are they, I ask? Dennis just says he likes them. Another yes man, I presume, or maybe he just doesn't have the energy to teach.

My wife, and our incomplete thoughts, brought us to the color wheel today, and in turn to the spherical distributions. I came to the conclusion that each, without the other, is an incomplete thought. The two complement one another, in completing a definition of what a line, or individual is. I thought I had it sorted out to an understanable conclusion, after mulling it around in my mind today. It seems as I remember LL saying something on the purple blend of blues and reds one time. Besides just not wanting to be a purple cow, or having not seen one, but telling us anyhow, that he'd rather see, than be one.

I don't think the heifer you mentioned is a true red, but her pictorial pedigree, would be, or at least a large portion. She may be just an orange, or one of those fence riders, that with a little nudge could go either way. It seems as though Viking was one of those ''recessive'' for maternal bulls. But, he was classified as a Green. Yet, Titan was a Red, or at least a founder of the Reds. All my rambling has again led me to ask just what the heck is a Blue again, by the defition of LL.
Bootheel

Joe, in the development of specific functional strains, I used color symbolism to avoid any preconceived breed reputations. When beginning anew, I reckon we can each make our own color wheel just the same way we can make a breed into anything we want. I wouldn't want to be a purple cow because ideally, the production of purple cows would be seedless fruit. After all, we are in the beef business and in my color wheel, the primary color of blue would emphasize BEEF QUALITY over quantity.

Color trivia....when I was in school a teacher asked the class to each pick their favorite color and write a 200 word essay on why it was their favorite color. About 85% of the class picked various shades of blue and I guess that's why the theme song of our prom was "My Blue Heaven". I was the only one who picked green.....John Deere green I never quite figured out why boys are blue and girls pink or why Indians are red and Orientals yellow when to me they all look like different shades of brown. I don't know how a prism refracts light into a rainbow of color and I can only assume Mike symbolized KC with a black background with white print to shed some light out of the darkness.

Yellow wheels propelled my green machines often pulling an IH red plow. IH red and Ford blue always quickly faded and we know we shouldn't wash denim blues and hot reds with light colored clothes. Someone determined red was hot and blue was cold.. I don't know if construction yelllow was associated with durability or for safety nor who determined flashing red lights mean stop and a flashing amber light is only a warning. I don't know why the sun is yellow and chlorphyll is green, and so without the sun would everything be black?

The renewal process of the beef industry begins with the cow herd so whatever type is most economically beneficial for a particular man made environment to transform feedstuffs to beef, so I chose construction yellow to symbolize an efficient maternal herd. Since you are into this "wincing thing" as you look at your cow herd, I suppose you could consider them to be oriental yellow browns, and as Jack noticed, with green haired udders, which comes from mixing red, purple, grey, yellow, orange, green, pink etc which provides you with the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow

LL in the vicinity of rainbows

LL, nice photo, I think I can see the pot.
The renewal process of the beef industry begins with the cow herd so whatever type is most economically beneficial for a particular man made environment to transform feedstuffs to beef.

You mean there isn't a magic type?

Damn. I was hoping you would simplify this process for me.

Dylan, I`m not this perceptive of symbolism...so I must credit Larry with this major hint...
notice the center color of the rainbow is yellow

Mike you are right, you arn't that perceptive. The center color is where the yellow and blue meet, which is green.

Dylan Biggs wrote:

Mike you are right, you arn't that perceptive. The center color is where the yellow and blue meet, which is green.

maybe I`m color blind??

Dylan,
I`m selling faster than I`m thinking at the moment, and I`m sure LL is planting more than just ideas, so bear with us all

Mike, go for it man!

DB, in no panic.

Dylan Biggs wrote:

Mike, go for it man!

DB, in no panic.

"selling" as in advertising; as in cash, no
life is good

Mike, I am sure it is there, it is green though, so it may just be a matter of perception.

Dylan Biggs wrote:

Fair enough Joe. There is no doubt that accurate selction, as accurate as possible, relative to type/function goals is the crux of the matter. If one can be clear and consistent on type in general and more specificallly consistent selecting the most balanced fertile individuals within that type category then odds over time of successfully fixing a funtional type are much improved. Over the years I have had a real struggle giving preference to a single general type, torn between the massivley rugged sires and yet being drawn to the finer more elegant almost dairy type females and thinking that one would beget the other, slowly I am realizing that the female type I prefer will require me to adjust my selection on the sire side to more cocnsistenly get what I am after. I have not yet seen the color wheel or spheroid distributions so can't be of much help using that symbolism. The other question that I have not yet definitively concluded is if there is any relative overall superiority in functional merit of the say the the beef type over the somewhat more dairy beef type, or if the eye of the selector is sharp enough, assuming the individuals are there to identify in the population to begin with in either type, that one can select for the same level of funtionality regardless. I have made assumptions in the past about types that in the end were more reflective of individual shortcomings than of type shortcomings. The other challenge for me from the standpoint of precise selection relative to type selection goals is being rather fuzzy of the boundaries between type. Where is the boundary between beef and dairy type assuming both individuals are highly functional, how beefy can the dairy type get and still remain in the dairy type category? Or how dairy can the beef type get and still remain in the beef type category and how percise does one need to be on the road to type fixation? If they are equally functional maybe not so precise but if you want cookie cutter consistency/prepotentcy then may be one could never be to precise. So Joe not sure I can be of any help. Maybe the the old functional cows identify themselves as worthy by their record and they should be chosen regardless.

DB, more questions than answers.

Dylan,
I’m not sure I understand what your questions are for sure, but I think I have asked similar questions and I also think in the end form follows function. I have never read Bonsma but from what other have shared when measured against personal experience it rings true. I have also had individuals that function well in many different forms but on the average there is a form that can do the required function more consistently.

Unless an animal functional purpose is to be harvested, reproduction is a plus and in my experience there is a certain type that on the average is more fertile, because seed stock is not seedless this is a common trait selected for a subsequently basic similarities in type will be present. In my mind the further we move away from the basic functional similarities, reproduction, legs, feet, udders ect...We start the selection for more secondary traits and the question of where the boundaries are between these secondary traits, there is no clear line and that is one of the reasons I like the color wheel analogy as it’s just a blending of shades between types no lines drawn.

I understand that is why Larry chose yellow as the Maternal at the bottom of the wheel on the back cover of the original Tru-line book as yellow is a subtractive primary color, Red and Blue being additive. As I mentioned above the basic maternal function will be common among the more secondary traits and colors, so we build up from the yellow, keeping in mind that the color directly across to be most complementary in a cross.




The question about choosing on a cow’s record, I like the idea but not on an individual basis. I have had individuals that have jumps through all my hoops with relative ease that when put in a pen with the rest of the cattle that made it through, would be considered outliers and if I don’t select from the middle of that pen odds are the color will start to change.

On the flip side if after 50 +/- years of selection and closed breeding to create an ancestral pen of functionally similar cattle inside and out I like my odds of selecting on that individuals record, more on a renewable population basis. But keeping in mind that if we continue to concentrate toward more purity, nature will begin to shut us down through different self preservation measures not the least of which would be fertility... Would you throw out 50 years of fertility in both visual type selection and production stacked up in the ancestry knowing full well nature will start to slow your quest for purity down at some point, without testing over a outcross population to be assured what you can’t see is there or not?

This Quote from Larry... I hope is not out of context

“Purity would always have to come in degrees during the extraction process which is what I always meant by saying we should separate the parts in order to get more consistent predictability.... the reverse of what the industry tends to do......we either outbreed or inbreed, can't do both at the same time. If we say closebreed staying at the central point between the two - mating first cousins is 50% hetero/homo or purity, outbreeding to 75% reaches crossbreeding, inbreeding 75% reaches 3/4 brother/sister inbreeding or %purity. Beyond 85% both directions reaches sterility so in animals the central point of the band of primary colors would be 85% "pure", the secondary primary color Y x B = Green might be 42.5% max.”

wow
for me, Dylan`s cow`s were too close in type for me to comment...I need simple and extreme examples ...


form follows function; there is no right or wrong, if you call cows by their correct names; two of those names, maternal and paternal, are pictured above...and you can breed whatever you are willing to support...and whatever we breed does everything to some extent, but never everything best...sorry for such a low brow response after such thoughtful and perceptive writing, but I made this post primarily for OT`s benefit or at least to set the record straight in case someone actually gave his recent "accusations" any merit...

WOW that is extreme differences!!

Could we get some details about the cow on the left?

If my entire herd looked like that cow I would be set....

Farmerkuk,

I don’t disagree on the WOW in the cows, but the brand on the left cow's hip is more impressive and all the detail I need as it signifies to me much better odds of replication

So which cow or cows display the more desired type from a maternal efficiency stand point.
this coming 5 yr old
[img][/img]

or this coming 6 yr old

[img][/img]

or this coming 15 yr old

[img][/img]

or this coming 15 year old
[img][/img]

or this coming 5 year old



or this coming 8 yr old


These cows to me cover a wide range of type yet all of them may in fact attain the longevity of the old cows from a structural stand point. as they all have good feet and legs and good udders and to date have all stayed productive in a max 48 days breeding season.

Then the bulls.

How about this type


or



or



or



or


or


Are any of these bulls different enough to be classified as a different type?

DB, attempting to define for purposes of extraction.

I've come to the conclusion you can't tell much about other peoples cattle from pictures. Without knowing the backgrounds I don't think you can judge based on phenotype, often we are fooled by a pleasing phenotype that is only one generation deep. Way I'm thinking is you have to know your cows better than anyone else so if you keep breeding the ones that you rate as your most "maternally efficient", however you define that, to closely related cattle of the same type you'll hopefully get closer to where you want to be eventually. Simply by reducing the number of less desirable types in the gene pool you'll increase the number of more desirables won't you? Thats my very low brow opinion. I prefer your fourth bull but I have absolutely nothing to base that choice on.

I see Grassy just posted a similar answer…

I would have to defer to the cows behind them top and bottom, put those pens together in your mind and the animal with the most maternally productive cows well into there teens with fewer problems under your unique management and environment would be my choice, then look for similarities in type amongst them.

It is next to imposable to make any real judgment for someone else base on a snapshot in the life of an individual. This is why we will all have different preferred cattle and interpretations; I can tell you which of those cows I would prefer just based on a picture and age if I had to chose for my farm but the useful of that information would be worth what you paid for it.

To me the bulls are a byproduct when it comes to maternal efficiency, once I get to redundancy of individuals in my cows I may start to study them more. But again I have my favorite based on your pictures.