Longevity post...rescued from the ruins

Obi wan kenobi or thinking of the little green man you are Yoda

robert wrote:

Obi wan kenobi or thinking of the little green man you are Yoda

obi is the guy I had in mind`s eye...of course, everytime I get to searching for a hero leader for a Tru-linish endeavor, LL reminds me...we don`t have the cattle made... so, back to longevity discussion; some excellent post made better by sincere honesty, instead of the sly salesmanship type that Dennis pointed out so vividly.... I won`t break the thread again looking for a super hero
and no, I did not see the gorilla...did anyone see it?

OAK LANE FARM wrote:

Not only has CAB ruined most of the Angus breed it has taken the Red Angus breed down with it. The traditional purebred seedstock producer has been willing to add layers upon layers of busy work (marketing tools mostly -rarely breeding tools) to differeniate themselves from their competition. What can't be proven is claimed in expensive glossy journal proclamations. For different reasons most of the misfits at Keeney's Corner failed out of the traditional seedstock model. Our failures forced each of us to become focused on practical production and resource management (financial and environmental). Quite frankly it probably is in our best interest if the Mainstream and AAA stay their course-we don't need the competition. Our stories of struggle and failure resonate with commercial producers like Chocolate Cow who realize their seedstock choices were not working. I can't count the number of times a seedstock producer has stated they did not like some of the cattle they were using but the commercial producer expected a certain size or weight, maybe the chance at a popular pedigree or a certain trait focus. If we maintain decent cattle that cover the basics well, take decent care of them and explain our breeding program we all have had plenty of customers. Do we get the kind of respect we deserve? Probably not. We are far better served being able to respect ourselves and learning to respect the works of the other misfits. We do all have plenty of positive to talk about.

Oak Lane, you may be right, we may be failures of convention. But I prefer to live with the dilusion, that we, the misfits, have been annointed with special powers, to actually see the failures of conventional practices. Also, being dillusional, we also state the fact that our cattle are have flaws, cannot do everything best, maybe nothing best even. I love to study the workings of human interaction. Grassfarmer doesn't like the udders on his AARP card carrying cows. Maybe he likes them, I don't know, I think he wants them to be better. Chances are they don't need to be any better. Like so many other traits, wants, needs, whatever.......a wise fellow once said something about having ''enough''. The quest for more is probably the only thing keeping some folks alive, too busy getting more of something, to know when they even had enough.

Mike seems to thing we need a hero, a fearless leader. Never work with this crew, too many tribal leaders, Kings, and rebels.

Thanks for the insight Scott and so many others

Life is Good
Bootheel

Bootheel wrote:

Grassfarmer doesn't like the udders on his AARP card carrying cows. Maybe he likes them, I don't know, I think he wants them to be better. Chances are they don't need to be any better.

I guess to "fit in" with the mainstream critiquers and to find fault with those old cows I had I would identify their udders being not ideal - but deep down they taught me a lesson, you don't need to be fancy to be functional. One of them had a weak pastern as well which looked kinda ugly, the toes grew a little in her 21 years but were never cut and she was never lame the time I had her. I've made the point before that if we insist on visual perfection of feet, udders, leg bone angles in our foundation stock maybe we'll never get far in our projects in a lifetime. Sure it's nice if young cows have these visually perfect attributes but unless that has been bred in them for generations how likely are they to pass it on to their offspring anyway? I know several breeders that spend time and money scouring the country and the globe for these visually perfect cattle to add to their herds but I've yet to see one of them builld a herd that all exhibited the same attributes. If selection is based on visual selection of one generation deep phenotype it's just about as pointless as chasing the ones with the biggest EPD numbers isn't it?

Ian, you said "Get back to what the job used to be about - having herds, strains or breeds selected and purified for the desired traits and attributes.".

Anyone can "have" herds, strains, or breeds, the selected and purified part is a bit tougher.

I am glad to here you acknowledge selection.

Selection with out ideals and goals and the accompanying preferences is an aimless exercise.

Now if you are working with a gene pool so devoid of structural soundness as to deem a preference for improvement towards an ideal a waste of time I suggest you are indeed wasting your time.

Expression of a phonotypic ideal as a preferential selection guide seems like basic a tenant of "selective" breeding.

Ian correct me if I am wrong, but I assume you don't leave your entire male calf crop entact to turn out on mass as breeding bulls.

How do you choose who to castrate (select) and who to leave entact (select) and ultimately to breed (select) to your cows?

If you do it completely blindfolded then I will spare you the embarrasing label of "mainstream critiquer".

Now assuming you have read Reflections from LL please tell me how the following quote is devoid of visual selection and or an ideal visual type assessment, "I am posting this non-Shoshone picture here as a perfect symbolic Bonsma model of what "high profit cattle have in common"."

Since 1985 I have done my best to "see" cattle as described by Bonsma as from what I can comprehend from his lectures visual assessment of type is one of his main proccesses.

Now no doubt there is a difference between looking and seeing, but it seems clear that it is impossible to see if you don't look.

Dylan
____________________________________________________________________________________
"No eternal reward will forgive us now for wasting the dawn."
Jim Morrison

Bootheel wrote:

OAK LANE FARM wrote:

Not only has CAB ruined most of the Angus breed it has taken the Red Angus breed down with it. The traditional purebred seedstock producer has been willing to add layers upon layers of busy work (marketing tools mostly -rarely breeding tools) to differeniate themselves from their competition. What can't be proven is claimed in expensive glossy journal proclamations. For different reasons most of the misfits at Keeney's Corner failed out of the traditional seedstock model. Our failures forced each of us to become focused on practical production and resource management (financial and environmental). Quite frankly it probably is in our best interest if the Mainstream and AAA stay their course-we don't need the competition. Our stories of struggle and failure resonate with commercial producers like Chocolate Cow who realize their seedstock choices were not working. I can't count the number of times a seedstock producer has stated they did not like some of the cattle they were using but the commercial producer expected a certain size or weight, maybe the chance at a popular pedigree or a certain trait focus. If we maintain decent cattle that cover the basics well, take decent care of them and explain our breeding program we all have had plenty of customers. Do we get the kind of respect we deserve? Probably not. We are far better served being able to respect ourselves and learning to respect the works of the other misfits. We do all have plenty of positive to talk about.

Oak Lane, you may be right, we may be failures of convention. But I prefer to live with the dilusion, that we, the misfits, have been annointed with special powers, to actually see the failures of conventional practices. Also, being dillusional, we also state the fact that our cattle are have flaws, cannot do everything best, maybe nothing best even. I love to study the workings of human interaction. Grassfarmer doesn't like the udders on his AARP card carrying cows. Maybe he likes them, I don't know, I think he wants them to be better. Chances are they don't need to be any better. Like so many other traits, wants, needs, whatever.......a wise fellow once said something about having ''enough''. The quest for more is probably the only thing keeping some folks alive, too busy getting more of something, to know when they even had enough.

Mike seems to thing we need a hero, a fearless leader. Never work with this crew, too many tribal leaders, Kings, and rebels.

Thanks for the insight Scott and so many others

Life is Good
Bootheel

gotta agree with you Bootheel; we haven`t failed at the mainstream game; the genetics of the mainstream failed us as cows; of that, we, not CAB, should have known so beforehand...CAB hasn`t ruined anything ; there would appear to be a demand for marbled beef; Angus terminal marbling sires would seem to produce it as economically... as say maybe...a $1500 Angus-Waygu cross bull would...
the 4.9 crowd has argued for a month now between little and big cattle merits...and not a single one has said it takes two to tango; every other specie of meat production recognizes this...why doesn`t the beef industry? We do...but there`s too much money in the registered con game for the winners to admit it...
can truth or consequences change things by cutting off the toes of the giant?

Dylan, I've always selected cattle visually with a preconceived notion of what the ideal type should be although over the years my ideal type has changed a few times with different breeds, different environments and different purposes. To be honest I might as well have picked my herd bulls blindfolded from a cross section of the male calves as I've been wrong more often than right.
My thinking has changed since reading LL and others on here and my take on Larry's statement that "Form follows function it doesn't predetermine it" leads me now to select on function more than form. This means that I am selecting cattle retrospectively after seeing how the ancestors performed. In my case it means I'm selecting on genotype not phenotype, building a herd around those very succesful old cows and being prepared to be happy with what they look like. As far as selecting for perfect visual appearance I don't do it any longer - albeit there is a certain level of visual fault that I would deem unacceptable. I wouldn't retain a bull with feet problems but I've only ever had to cull one potential Luing bull with what I thought was faulty legs - and his two full brothers went on to have perfectly good feet and legs. I've used a bull out of a swing bagged old cow and found he bred perfectly good udders on his daughters - he bred sub-fertile females instead
It's funny looking back over the years to the best (most productive over a lifetime) cows we've had in our herd both purebred and commercial, looking at pictures of them as old cows and to a T they are almost all what I would describe as the Bonsma type. I think that old yellow cow I pictured above fits that description too. The problems I have with selecting Bonsma form is they often don't exhibit the shape as yearling heifers. Everyone quotes the female Bonsma form describing a cow but I never hear anyone quoting the desired form in a growing bull. Am I wrong on this or is it not just easier to pick replacements from succesful old cows that just happen to exhibit the Bonsma type?

Dylan wrote:

Ian correct me if I am wrong, but I assume you don't leave your entire male calf crop entact to turn out on mass as breeding bulls.

I keep most of my bull calves for meat and keep most of my heifer...I've been contemplating putting the two groups back together for breeding. At least I won't have to blame myself for a wrong selection.

Bonsma made a statement that has stuck with me...he said of cattle that are best adapted to their environment, their body temperature varies the least. If body temp is an indicator of bodily function/reactions, then is it an indicator of the stability/superior control system(endocrine and nervous systems)? If endocrine system is shown by masculinity and femininity, would not masculine male beget feminine females and vise versa?

My problem is looking, but not seeing.

If this doesn't work I'll continue my education on picture posting! 16 year old.

Hey, it worked!



Here's a 9YO that is what I wish they all could be! Pretty average but consistant. I have bred her to the wrong bulls in some of the past years and got growth animals but I am trying to do better for my long run.

EddieM wrote:

If this doesn't work I'll continue my education on picture posting! 16 year old.

uncanny how everyone`s oldest cow looks alike in type...

"Form follows function, it does not predetermine it."

Does this mean we should select for growth AFTER we weigh them? What about "maternal"? Do we wait until after we preg check to determine which ones had the appropriate function? I think I am getting a mixed message; what role does visual appraisal have compared to collecting any data? When should we use visual appraisal?

"Form follows function, it does not predetermine it."

It means, most everyone, at least some of us, has selected for a prefered type. Some of which, being an incorrect type for optimal maternal function as a beef cow. As for the rest of the crap, well its crap. Some like to spread it, some like to wallow in it, I generally side step it, but if need be I will wade right thru it.

df wrote:

"Form follows function, it does not predetermine it."

Does this mean we should select for growth AFTER we weigh them? Yes, if we determine that more would be desirable, or even possible, given our system. What about "maternal"? Do we wait until after we preg check to determine which ones had the appropriate function? That's what I'm doing as I slowly learn to recognize type. I think I am getting a mixed message; what role does visual appraisal have compared to collecting any data? Collecting data IMFO is a means to an end. I use it for educational purposes only as I attempt to develop the ability to SEE. When should we use visual appraisal? When we learn to SEE.

df LISTENS to The Doors, dylan HEARS The Doors. (And MK listens to bad 80's chick music)

Tom D wrote:

df wrote:

"Form follows function, it does not predetermine it."

Does this mean we should select for growth AFTER we weigh them? Yes, if we determine that more would be desirable, or even possible, given our system. What about "maternal"? Do we wait until after we preg check to determine which ones had the appropriate function? That's what I'm doing as I slowly learn to recognize type. I think I am getting a mixed message; what role does visual appraisal have compared to collecting any data? Collecting data IMFO is a means to an end. I use it for educational purposes only as I attempt to develop the ability to SEE. When should we use visual appraisal? When we learn to SEE.

df LISTENS to The Doors, dylan HEARS The Doors. (And MK listens to bad 80's chick music)

Good answers there on cattle evaluation Tom ...but you`re sure no Paula Abdul when it comes to evaluating musical talent

Does anybody have pictures of heifers that turned out to be the old productive granny cows?

Grassfarmer wrote:

Dylan, I've always selected cattle visually with a preconceived notion of what the ideal type should be although over the years my ideal type has changed a few times with different breeds, different environments and different purposes. To be honest I might as well have picked my herd bulls blindfolded from a cross section of the male calves as I've been wrong more often than right.

My thinking has changed since reading LL and others on here and my take on Larry's statement that "Form follows function it doesn't predetermine it" leads me now to select on function more than form. This means that I am selecting cattle retrospectively after seeing how the ancestors performed.
In my case it means I'm selecting on genotype not phenotype, building a herd around those very succesful old cows and being prepared to be happy with what they look like. As far as selecting for perfect visual appearance I don't do it any longer - albeit there is a certain level of visual fault that I would deem unacceptable. I wouldn't retain a bull with feet problems but I've only ever had to cull one potential Luing bull with what I thought was faulty legs - and his two full brothers went on to have perfectly good feet and legs. I've used a bull out of a swing bagged old cow and found he bred perfectly good udders on his daughters - he bred sub-fertile females instead So does it logically follow then that you will continue to select bulls out of swing bag old cows, if not, why?
It's funny looking back over the years to the best (most productive over a lifetime) cows we've had in our herd both purebred and commercial, looking at pictures of them as old cows and to a T they are almost all what I would describe as the Bonsma type. I think that old yellow cow I pictured above fits that description too. The problems I have with selecting Bonsma form is they often don't exhibit the shape as yearling heifers. Everyone quotes the female Bonsma form describing a cow but I never hear anyone quoting the desired form in a growing bull. Am I wrong on this or is it not just easier to pick replacements from succesful old cows that just happen to exhibit the Bonsma type?

Ian, I certainly am in no position to question your selection successes and or failures.

Your statement " albeit there is a certain level of visual fault that I would deem unacceptable. I wouldn't retain a bull with feet problems" answered my primary question.

Heifers certainly are more tricky.

One question that arises for me is this. Lets assume a herd is limited to a 48 day breeding season, feeding is limited to match bare requirements, labor is minimal, cows and heifers are range calved with only sporadic supervivision, etc, etc. All opens and all cows that fail to wean a calf are culled. At what point is it legitimate to label a cow a proven functional cow. After weaning 10 live calves? After 12 live calves? After 8?

Re, mainstream critquers, it seems to me after many years of looking at breed publications, sale catalogs, sire directories and looking through my share of live cattle in "reputation" herds, that most mainstream cririquers may not be blind but it certainly is questionable whether or not they can see.

Dylan
________________________________________________
No eternal reward will forgive us now for wasting the dawn.
Jim Morrison

df wrote:

Does anybody have pictures of heifers that turned out to be the old productive granny cows?

I don't have a picture of the cow we are flushing right now when she was a heifer. I wish I did. She was the most eye appealing heifer of that crop. I had the highest hopes for her and she turned out to be what I call for several years a chronic disapointment becaues I was judging her by your standards, the weight of her calves. It wasn't until she was around 10 before I realized that her daughters and granddaughters were some of the best cows I have. I kept her son this year that ratioed an 89 and I have more confidence in him than any bull I kept. He would have been cut by your standards. She has 11 calves @ 95 weaning ratio and she would have been culled by your standards and yet she just keeps on keeping on. Her daughters are just as good and her grand sons top our sale more years than not and no they are not high ratioing bulls. They are just good on every level.

You've asked what role does visual appraisal have. It has a huge role for me, especially when we are talking about longevity. Let me ask you, what role does data collection have when selecting for structural soundness? And yet structural soundness has more to do with longevity IMO than any other thing by far.

Jack, somewhere in the vicinity of 3.5 inches of rain, numerous washed out roads and water gaps and around 400 steers that could show up just about anywhere.

df wrote:

Does anybody have pictures of heifers that turned out to be the old productive granny cows?

Here is a mental picture, they usually are kinda bony and angular looking and grow into a lotta capacity as time goes on. The thick looking kind from day one won't last too long. At least that has been my experience,,, the problem for me is that I like the thick fat look, and while I recognize the difference, I feel myself drawn to high tail sets and easy fleshing...

Kinda like two girls I knew in high school. One was a lotta fun, if you know what I mean, but not the marrying kind. Although, as I have followed her career, she has been married quite often. The other more serious and good for the long haul...

Here are two of my older Salers. The red cow is 12, and the black cow is 14. The black cow should calve any day, the red in a week or two. It was about 85 and really muggy yesterday, which is why they might look a little miserable. Think they'd work good in fescue country? These ugly old girls never miss, and somehow that bad udder keeps raising good calves.

Quote :

Your statement " albeit there is a certain level of visual fault that I would deem unacceptable. I wouldn't retain a bull with feet problems" answered my primary question.

Didn't Lingle keep/sell/recommend a roached back bull to Billy King? Seems like it started with an "F" like Fritch, Finch or something per bad memory.

Jack McNamee wrote:

df wrote:

Does anybody have pictures of heifers that turned out to be the old productive granny cows?

I don't have a picture of the cow we are flushing right now when she was a heifer. I wish I did. She was the most eye appealing heifer of that crop. I had the highest hopes for her and she turned out to be what I call for several years a chronic disapointment becaues I was judging her by your standards, the weight of her calves. It wasn't until she was around 10 before I realized that her daughters and granddaughters were some of the best cows I have. I kept her son this year that ratioed an 89 and I have more confidence in him than any bull I kept. He would have been cut by your standards. She has 11 calves @ 95 weaning ratio and she would have been culled by your standards and yet she just keeps on keeping on. Her daughters are just as good and her grand sons top our sale more years than not and no they are not high ratioing bulls. They are just good on every level.

You've asked what role does visual appraisal have. It has a huge role for me, especially when we are talking about longevity. Let me ask you, what role does data collection have when selecting for structural soundness? And yet structural soundness has more to do with longevity IMO than any other thing by far.

Jack, somewhere in the vicinity of 3.5 inches of rain, numerous washed out roads and water gaps and around 400 steers that could show up just about anywhere.

How do you define "best"?

Tom D wrote:

Here are two of my older Salers. The red cow is 12, and the black cow is 14. The black cow should calve any day, the red in a week or two. It was about 85 and really muggy yesterday, which is why they might look a little miserable. Think they'd work good in fescue country? These ugly old girls never miss, and somehow that bad udder keeps raising good calves.

Tom, the black one looks less draft-oxen-ish, but both have the distinguishing characterisics of a cow that can make it to teenage years. And no, I am not in the market for a team of oxen as of yet, before you ask. Did you raise these, or did they come with the aspens?

Gregory Walker wrote:

df wrote:

Does anybody have pictures of heifers that turned out to be the old productive granny cows?

Here is a mental picture, they usually are kinda bony and angular looking and grow into a lotta capacity as time goes on. The thick looking kind from day one won't last too long. At least that has been my experience,,, the problem for me is that I like the thick fat look, and while I recognize the difference, I feel myself drawn to high tail sets and easy fleshing...

Kinda like two girls I knew in high school. One was a lotta fun, if you know what I mean, but not the marrying kind. Although, as I have followed her career, she has been married quite often. The other more serious and good for the long haul...

I think it can be a little tougher to SEE the mature cow in the weanling. Today, I did see the uncanny resemblence in yearlings to their mothers' type. Not as far a stretch as seeing the COW in the bull though, for me.

I also have trouble seeing excellent or cat like movement, versus average, or just stepping on a rock wrong. Maybe too many years watching fatassed bulls waddle around a showring. Some one would always say, "that one can't walk'', I always wondered how he got into the ring then. Maybe what I am getting at is, properly seeing incorrect movement in the young animal, that will turn into a problem before old age, is what I struggle to distinguish. I find myself paying more attention to these details in my own animals, and I see the effects of incorrect rump slope, and the dimishing effect on longevity there.

Greg you best be careful bring the fairer sex into comparison of cows......heap of trouble headed your way.

Bootheel wrote:

Tom, the black one looks less draft-oxen-ish, but both have the distinguishing characterisics of a cow that can make it to teenage years. And no, I am not in the market for a team of oxen as of yet, before you ask. Did you raise these, or did they come with the aspens?

I got these girls in Montana in '02 at Rick Lacey's dispersal. They got to stay in the UP for awhile, but now they reside in the hobby herd. I have kind of a weird love/hate relationship with these Salers. I can't really decide if they're worth messin' with or not. I'll have to see if I can dig up some pictures of the old girls that came with the aspens. They were mostly Canadian Fleck and Limi built off the original Polled Hereford cows that Hank started with. I bought them bred for $44/cwt and I think they averaged around 1500 lbs. They were 8 - 15 when I bought them and I got quite a few more good years out of most of them.