what true line means to you?

MKeeney wrote:

Tom D wrote:

MKeeney wrote:

MKeeney wrote:

I believe there is something terribly misconstrued in the above picture...???????????

where the hell is the brash and bold WT when ya need him to answer a question?

WTF doesn't understand the question, but I do.  I don't like Larry's cartoon either, Mike.  It's almost as bad as those stupid-ass "Earl" cartoons that show up in all the unsolicited agri-propaganda I receive from Drover's and PCC and Michigan Farm Bureau.  It's DOUBTING Thomas, not careless Thomas, reckless Thomas, or stupid Thomas.  There is a big difference between recklessly failing to heed warnings, and being cautiously skeptical of things that seem too good to be true.  A more appropriate ( and only slightly less funny) cartoon would show an elaborately decorated, yet structurally unsound bridge, with a sign that reads "Just cross this bridge and all your problems will disappear forever!" along with Thomas saying "I doubt it."

wow...not only are we writing at the same time, but thinking the same as well..

just going to put mine under yours...



from experience, e.g.,  my always asking LL for proof, I believe this is obviously a purposeful, agenda driven, misconstrued caricature of a Doubting Thomas...a doubting Thomas would instead see a sign saying "Bridge Safe", read between the lines and question "then why bother with a sign"? No Doubting Thomas goes out on a limb, the guy pictured is one more likely taking a leap of faith, a common occurrence in cattle breeding and human life. Faith ignores both experience and logic, and is a prerequisite to believing in miracles rather than accepting and living based on reality. Faith is mustered directly proportional to the size of the promised reward or miracle; the more illogical and against experience a promise is, the greater the reward must be...you can have it all the common cry...
well , you can`t have it all, but you can have enough, and I`ve seen enough to believe in Tru-Line, so the only proof I need is proof to show others how to believe...
mk, enough about that; ready to move on and defend that GAR bull as a prepotent paternal sob

W.T Thinkin WTF as I leap of the dam bridge. And thinkin its gonna hurt.  

Head Full of Doubt, Road Full of Promise

There’s a darkness upon me that’s flooded in light
In the fine print they tell me what’s wrong and what’s right
And it comes in black and it comes in white
And I’m frightened by those that don’t see it

When nothing is owed or deserved or expected
And your life doesn’t change by the man that’s elected
If you’re loved by someone, you’re never rejected
Decide what to be and go be it

There was a dream and one day I could see it
Like a bird in a cage I broke in and demanded that somebody free it
And there was a kid with a head full of doubt
So I’ll scream til I die and the last of those bad thoughts are finally out

MKeeney wrote:

EddieM wrote:

Is anyone really breeding a paternal tru-line?

for sure...generations of consistent selection... someday I`ll even take the next step and check the crossing compatibility{should have said complementarity} on the model a...

http://www.selectsiresbeef.com/index.php?option=com_php&Itemid=114&id=204

Larry wrote...

My last question in that post to end all our questions was to Mike - please explain to KC why you think it would  be easier and faster breeding a more prepotent C than A?. With "C" being paternal and "A" being maternal,


first, because you are dealing with far fewer traits in a paternal than a maternal; the bull above has been bred for bw/yw spread, more marbling, and more ribeye {linked with more yearling wt} ...progress is slowed by the square root of the number of traits selected for...Falloon

second, extremes in a population are more easily selected for...and breed more true for the selected traits; the more "high performing genes" they acquire, the more prepotent/homozygous they become for the selected traits...now, if you widen a population, e.g. adding chi or Holstein to Angus, this is disruptive to prepotency...but long term effect, may allow eventual higher levels...e.g., why start with a Jersey if yearling weight is the goal?
in fact, breeding a terminal , why limit yourself to a breed...why not use all the cattle?

disclaimer...the above is not a kit   proclamation ...it is for discussion purposes, or at least to try and provoke thought; kept to yourself, shared in private conversation, or preferably, posted here for the world to read...   ...

one caveat; comment and thought are not the same thing...

MKeeney wrote:

EddieM wrote:

Is anyone really breeding a paternal tru-line?

for sure...generations of consistent selection... someday I`ll even take the next step and check the crossing compatibility on the model a...

http://www.selectsiresbeef.com/index.php?option=com_php&Itemid=114&id=204

I haven't seen it in word or in practice. Never saw an ad saying "kill all calves from our bulls to make the most money because the heifers will be too big, too muscular, infertile and poor mothers". And even here folks are talking of keeping half Wagyu heifers. Why are they not seen as terminals?

EddieM wrote:

MKeeney wrote:

EddieM wrote:

Is anyone really breeding a paternal tru-line?

for sure...generations of consistent selection... someday I`ll even take the next step and check the crossing compatibility on the model a...

http://www.selectsiresbeef.com/index.php?option=com_php&Itemid=114&id=204

I haven't seen it in word or in practice.  Never saw an ad saying "kill all calves from our bulls to make the most money because the heifers will be too big, too muscular, infertile and poor mothers".  And even here folks are talking of keeping half Wagyu heifers.  Why are they not seen as terminals?

because the BS breed associations and the BS registered business is the tail that wags the dog...and there`s a slew of ignorance, or should we say, "a lack of understanding   " as a result...

http://www.siremax.com/....sheep site -Siremax

Paternal (Terminal) provider FYI.  LL, I'm jumping from white turkeys and diverse sewer rats back to sheep.

Eddie, species jumping

MK SAID...
I believe there is something terribly misconstrued in the BELOW picture...???????????


Geez MK and TD and WT and ......

Need I  get  ma 'n pa
Ta explain it all for ya
U R too interested in your selfie's
Can'tcha see duh simplicities

DT's head 's screwed on backwards lookin at the foregoin'
Ignorin' the warnin can't see or worry bout where e's a goin
Atop the plateau of green grass
No more places ta go cepta fall on 'is ass

Spinin' down and down
Goin round n' round
Breakin' his crown
On da place deep 'n duh ground

The disciples there by his bed
Fixin the wounds where he bled
Helpin' screw on duh right side'a his head
Ta see the blue described by Mr. Ed



LL in the vicinity of  "Duh Thomas' Clinic"

I've put in so many enigmas and puzzles that it will keep the professors busy for centuries arguing over what I meant, and that's the only way of insuring one's immortality.
James Joyce

http://www.siremax.com/....sheep site -Siremax

Paternal (Terminal) provider FYI.  LL, I'm jumping from white turkeys and diverse sewer rats back to sheep.

Eddie, species jumping

It should be noted that for some traits the breeding objective might be to maintain the current breed average and endeavour to minimise variation (eg birth weight, where moderate birth weights are desirable as opposed to lambs that are small or heavy).

worth a read; "population genetics" , etc

Larry Leonhardt wrote:

MK SAID...
I believe there is something terribly misconstrued in the BELOW picture...???????????


Geez MK and TD and WT and ......

Need I  get  ma 'n pa
Ta explain it all for ya
U R too interested in your selfie's
Can'tcha see duh simplicities

DT's head 's screwed on backwards lookin at the foregoin'
Ignorin' the warnin can't see or worry bout where e's a goin
Atop the plateau of green grass
No more places ta go cepta fall on 'is ass

Spinin' down and down
Goin round n' round
Breakin' his crown
On da place deep 'n duh ground

The disciples there by his bed
Fixin the wounds where he bled
Helpin' screw on duh right side'a his head
Ta see the blue described by Mr. Ed



LL in the vicinity of  "Duh Thomas' Clinic"

Without a doubt Larry that went right over my head.... All I could see was a lost soul about to fall into the abyss, and wondering WTF.. Here in Nevada every Sunday we push the sinners into the fire for what we allowed them to do on Sat night....... Again I shouldn't complain as when the Utahan's Idahoan's and Californians come to visit every weekend they pay My taxes that keep the school's open and keep me exempt from State tax's...... I see the similarity's in the status quo as they mindlessly expect something for nothing and end up paying double for nothing, and go home and Bragg about the bargain they just got!!!!! As has been said we cant see the Forrest for the trees..... Take one look at a casino and all the free willed people just putting money in as fast as they can.... the winners are less than 1% But the thought of pulling that lever to easy street just once keeps the casino's full, even in hard times....... W.T.F now seeing DT for what he is with his head screwed on backwards, and just cannot resist the urge to take the last step.

LL and I have long argued the effects of fire and ice matings on the resulting progeny`s potential as parent stock; why not again this winter   



MK, never without doubt about all things except knowing that doubt and stupid are different characteristics  

MKeeney wrote:

LL and I have long argued the effects of fire and ice matings on the resulting progeny`s potential as parent stock; why not again this winter   



MK, never without doubt about all things except knowing that doubt and stupid are different characteristics  

What makes you disagree? Knowledge or experience? Or is the sifting of results too slow of a process? What are the definers to separate fire, ice and warm water?

EddieM wrote:

MKeeney wrote:

LL and I have long argued the effects of fire and ice matings on the resulting progeny`s potential as parent stock; why not again this winter   



MK, never without doubt about all things except knowing that doubt and stupid are different characteristics  

What makes you disagree?  Knowledge or experience?  Or is the sifting of results too slow of a process?  What are the definers to separate fire, ice and warm water?

What makes you disagree? theory     Knowledge or experience? theory    Or is the sifting of results too slow of a process? yes
What are the definers to separate fire, ice and warm water? obviously, there are overlaps; even when just looking at one trait...

more theoretical ...
Falloon , through selection of "high-performing genes" has moved his closed population center from a/center to b/center...with c/center the potential based on" There is no end to the improvement in anything biological. It will slow down, but it will go on.
when the right side outlier gets to c/center, how far back will the outlier of the left side of the population be?
I say the range of variation will not be greater...{that`s not our specific argument; but who knows, we might argue anyway   }

If, as evidence shows, with higher highs come lower lows, then the shape of the curve needs to change to take into account the higher levels of variation.   When the curve is not spread out to illustrate the differences in the populations, I believe it alters the perception.

If the crossing of these two populations reduces variation in the F1, then that curve would be higher and tighter, but that would only be the phenotypic expression as the genotypic would now span the curve of both parents.   Which is what the movers want.  If you are a mover, why are you stuck in the restrictive pool of a breed?  Spread the curve. Bring in the  Curve straighteners.

For me, the spherical illustration was the most helpful way to describe breeds.

Kent Powell wrote:

If, as evidence shows, with higher highs come lower lows, then the shape of the curve needs to change to take into account the higher levels of variation.   When the curve is not spread out to illustrate the differences in the populations, I believe it alters the perception.

If the crossing of these two populations reduces variation in the F1, then that curve would be higher and tighter, but that would only be the phenotypic expression as the genotypic would now span the curve of both parents.   Which is what the movers want.  If you are a mover, why are you stuck in the restrictive pool of a breed?  Spread the curve. Bring in the  Curve straighteners.

For me, the spherical illustration was the most helpful way to describe breeds.

If, as evidence shows, with higher highs come lower lows,

I don`t think that is true; I find no evidence or experience to refute my hypothesis below...the bell curve within a selection population stays fairly stable in base width as it moves...pretty sure Holsteins don`t get lower milk level individuals now because they have selected for, and get higher milk levels now than say 30 yrs ago...the average has moved, and the bell curve has stayed in tact in the current population...the historical levels of the breed has widened, but not necessarily the current population ...

Holsteins Would be a little different as they didn't try to defy antagonisms numerically. Highest growth with smaller frame and lower BW. High Marbling and High REA. Early maturity and longevity. High milk and high REA. Everything to everyone = a bigger sphere overall, which I believe would be more deviation.

I believe Holsteins are a good example or reliability due to the tunnel vision of selection. You may not like what they do, but it is reliable and repeatable. The feedlot manager down the road loves them because the only differences in the cattle are health related as they come in.

Kent Powell wrote:

Holsteins Would be a little different as they didn't try to defy antagonisms numerically.  Highest growth with smaller frame and lower BW. High Marbling and High REA.  Early maturity and longevity.  High milk and high REA.    Everything to everyone = a bigger sphere overall, which I believe would be more deviation.  

I believe Holsteins are a good example or reliability due to the tunnel vision of selection.  You may not like what they do, but it is reliable and repeatable. The feedlot manager down the road loves them because the only differences in the cattle are health related as they come in.  

I agree...while selecting/moving the population for e.g., growth to the right, an antagonistic trait {let`s suppose milk} moves to the left...perhaps to levels the population has not witnessed before...and thus, the population just got more varied...

If you are a mover, why are you stuck in the restrictive pool of a breed?

or even more so, a closed herd...I think it must be to limit the unknowns/surprises,  and limit to some degree the scenario above of traits going different directions...so Falloon accepts slow movement, for less destruction along the way...theory  

I believe Holsteins are a good example or reliability due to the tunnel vision of selection

just remarkable...more predictable for marbling than Angus...and never selected for it  

KP wrote:

Quote :

....I believe Holsteins are a good example or reliability due to the tunnel vision of selection. You may not like what they do, but it is reliable and repeatable. The feedlot manager down the road loves them because the only differences in the cattle are health related as they come in.

And in order to carry that big udder around, they need to retain a proportionate amount of muscle ( meat).... or else......  

MK wrote:

more theoretical ...
Falloon , through selection of "high-performing genes" has moved his closed population center from a/center to b/center...with c/center the potential based on" There is no end to the improvement in anything biological. It will slow down, but it will go on.
when the right side outlier gets to c/center, how far back will the outlier of the left side of the population be?
I say the range of variation will not be greater

I think that the term "improvement" will turn into "disappointment" by the time Mr. Falloon's sorting truly reaches C. I can only have the opinion that the infertility and masculinity of the "C females" based on constant performance selection in the males will suddenly tell the tale. And how widespread the curve base remains will be based on how severely the bottom sort is removed in each step or generation of improvement.

Isn't that how breeds, such as the British breeds, all developed their traits while I assume they came from common origins? We do not see any Angus slipping back toward Herefords and such now that the Hereford and Angus breeds have reached their B or C location away from the original stock's A location. Maybe Shorthorn and Angus would be better examples for this.

MK wrote:

I believe Holsteins are a good example or reliability due to the tunnel vision of selection

just remarkable...more predictable for marbling than Angus...and never selected for it

Actually, they did select for marbling and pencil butted bulls and anything else that the breed is today by the traits being associated with higher milk production.

I guess I am too practical but I still do not believe the chase for the max has benefited the average dairyman or those who used to be dairymen. Does Mr. Falloon have a hope that the chase for more will benefit the economics of the buyers of his genetics or is it just an ongoing race without a final lap?

What if you did use 6 or 7 breeds to start the movement of A to B? Would you not just be sorting for the genes of the original breeds with greater growth as you push B to C?

Quote :

Actually, they did select for marbling and pencil butted bulls and anything else that the breed is today by the traits being associated with higher milk production.

indirect selection...

Quote :

Does Mr. Falloon have a hope that the chase for more will benefit the economics of the buyers of his genetics or is it just an ongoing race without a final lap?

I think we can say that Gavin is the tortoise in this race...

Quote :

I think that the term "improvement" will turn into "disappointment" by the time Mr. Falloon's sorting truly reaches C

I put up abc...but, there`s probably a d,e,f?

Quote :

Isn't that how breeds, such as the British breeds, all developed their traits while I assume they came from common origins? We do not see any Angus slipping back toward Herefords and such now that the Hereford and Angus breeds have reached their B or C location away from the original stock's A location

hmmm...Angus have already been b, a, b,f now c...oh hell, let`s stop calling them Angus...  is the color the most defining difference between Hereford and Angus? I think not...but the most noticed trait that distinguishes them as different...

Quote :

I guess I am too practical but I still do not believe the chase for the max has benefited the average dairyman or those who used to be dairymen.

maybe not; but that`s an economic issue, not a genetic/breeding issue...

Quote :

I guess I am too practical but I still do not believe the chase for the max has benefited the average dairyman or those who used to be dairymen.

maybe not; but that`s an economic issue, not a genetic/breeding issue...[/quote]


So you're saying genetics /breeding DID NOT play into the constant turnover of females ( chase for max ) in the dairy industry?  Jon

jonken wrote:

Quote :

I guess I am too practical but I still do not believe the chase for the max has benefited the average dairyman or those who used to be dairymen.

maybe not; but that`s an economic issue, not a genetic/breeding issue...

So you're saying genetics /breeding DID NOT play into the constant turnover of females ( chase for max ) in the dairy industry?  Jon[/quote]

not saying that; just saying they wanted more milk per cow, and their breeding methods got them more milk per cow; a higher average with a range of variation {for milk} about the same as before...eg, range of 10,000 to 20,000, average 15,000...next step 15,000 to 25,000, average 20,000

the negative trade-offs of 20,000 versus 15,000 come with the territory, and should have been expected...the decision to raise the milk level must be based on the economic value of more milk outweigh the cost of more milk...I believe a lot beef cattle breeding movement never even weighs the cost against the value of the gain...just a snowball that starts rolling...

MK wrote:

Quote :

Does Mr. Falloon have a hope that the chase for more will benefit the economics of the buyers of his genetics or is it just an ongoing race without a final lap?

I think we can say that Gavin is the tortoise in this race...

It would depend on what his current cull rate is on females and how high in cows and dollars he is willing to take that rate.

MK wrote:

Quote :

I think that the term "improvement" will turn into "disappointment" by the time Mr. Falloon's sorting truly reaches C

I put up abc...but, there`s probably a d,e,f?

This would be a case to hold back semen on bulls of each level or plateau if there was ever an interest to restore the lost functions quicker. That is, if somebody wanted to restore it.

MK wrote:

Angus have already been b, a, b,f now c...

But only in fractions and for short periods. The extreme traits were never fully fixed.

MK wrote:

Quote :

I guess I am too practical but I still do not believe the chase for the max has benefited the average dairyman or those who used to be dairymen.

maybe not; but that`s an economic issue, not a genetic/breeding issue...

[/quote]
They recognized the diminishing function of the cows and the costs associated with non-milk issues as the milk production went up.

The thing I have seen in my short time with a closed herd is lose of both ends of my bell curve.

As for moving the bell curve, I think it is like reaching a goal by going half the distance with each step. Each step becomes less movement and the end goal is never reached.

Doesn't moving the phenotypic bell curve require more genotypic diversity? Then when the "superior type" is found and there is the desire to 'fix' the type, phenotype movement stops and genotype diversity deceases.

My understanding of Mr. Fallon's program is that he is selecting for masculine bulls which is an expression of testosterone..or a strong endocrine system. A bull with a strong endocrine system is going to make females with a strong endocrine system. That means females will be more feminine (more fertile), not more masculine females.

Holsteins are bred to produce milk, not muscle. When Holsteins steers are fed excess energy, it is not going to magically produce muscle, it's going to produce fat...marbling.

RobertMac, trying to learn what my cows are teaching