Reflections from LL ©

Life has been coming at me so fast I am barely able to keep up with the reading (here)...not able to ponder enough to participate otherwise. Irregardless, I am participating in a "lurker" mode and enjoying and appreciating the exchanges. Thanks to all here...for the grounded conversation related to real breeding matters....it is most refreshing.

BTW, it is Candy-Making Day!!!! Dwight, and anyone else in the area, come on over. The caramel is setting up, peanut brittle is next then chocolate-covered cherries and turtles.

We had 4 or 5 Frazer daughters mostly typical of the phenotype you describe Mike with the exception of one who was a beautiful little cow. The little one was out of a good bigger cow. The small one was small in production which has been typical with my experiences with most smaller cows. My grandaughters of Frazer (Shoshone Rufus JOD) started out a little smaller but eventually ended up being fairly good sized cows. When you talk about capturing the goodness of Frances 6357 it seems your bull and 130-6357 mostly produced something different (bigger cows). The bull that may have been the one to reproduce her type more often was the Extent/6357 that Larry sold to Gary Funk. I think the typical senario of less growth in a maternal bull caused Gary to move on sooner that he should have. There are still some grandaughters and a few daughters of that bull at Gary's . I think there is a resemblence to Frances 6357 in a sort of the Diamond D 27c females. I am in awe of the passion and drive that it took to do all the genetic work involved in Larry's story. This section of Keeney's Corner was aptly named Breeding Philosophies but it has been so much more- life philosophy and religious philosophy.

A person can miss a hell of a lot when their internet is sort of not working.

My 6357 is looking better all the time.
Powell Eli 6254 KReg: AAA +15505435

He will likely be the dominant bull next year. I like him more and more as he matures.

Keystone wrote:

My 6357 is looking better all the time.
Powell Eli 6254 KReg: AAA +15505435

He will likely be the dominant bull next year. I like him more and more as he matures.

I asked Sam the other day if any of those embryos had ever been fleshed out...good to know there is at least one, and in good hands to boot...

Thank you Mike and Larry,for all of the information and pics. on 6357 and the great cows you talked about. I should have thrown in Ester 3116 on that short list of foundation cows I mentioned in my question. It's nice to see the building blocks that created the genetics we are enjoying today. Merry Christmas. Slim

Mr. Larry,

Is your semen tank as full as your picture drawers? It would be a shame for you to be like that poor Wye guy and dump it rather than maintain it although you have to be certain your animals today will do more the way you want it than the beautiful animals you have been so kind to show pictures of for us to romanticize about.

Out of interest what size was/has the Wye herd been numerically when it produced 17 cows in 40 years that produced over 8000lbs in their lifetimes?
Interested me on the Blyth cows pedigree to see the herd name Derculich - I'm assuming that would be a Scottish import? I know from my breeding record book my Dad was using an Angus bull written as "J. Eric of Derculich" by AI in 1963. I'll have to ask him about it.

I find Keenys Corner addictive....Especially reflections from LL....This last post from LL is great.... Thanks and merry christmas to all.

I found the “The wheels of life post” quite interesting, there is nothing we can do to change the cyclical renewal of nature but together maybe we can affect the direction of the wheel and if we are lucky maybe even cover some ground in a consistent direction for a while.... whether it is forward or backward, will be for future generations to decide.

LL wrote:

“It is often said that the only way to avoid making mistakes is not to do anything. I have learned to view differences of opinions to be very constructive to broaden the mind, the truth cannot be denied. We all may have different objectives and selection directions but we deal with natural law whether we like it or not. I have stated my own personal objectives which may or may not coincide with others.....and my choices may not fit other's circumstances.

With that in mind, the total pounds these 17 Wye cows produced was not nearly as important to me as the trouble free years of production efficiency from their maternal function...what I call ideal work and wear cows for my purposes."

LL wrote:

"When I decided to look beyond what is just visibly standing before me....pedigree became the invisible means to see via visible relatives...pounds of performance became largely dependent on what a cow was mated to....how much cow do we need for efficient functionality... and then the seemingly difficult task of how to create them more often. Selection priorities for me became reproduction, disposition, longevity and their conformational relationships were paramount far overriding production by the numbers."

And then in reference to Loanda of Wye....

LL wrote:

I also tried to bring forth her goodness through her progeny as an owner of Lundell and the use of her other male progeny. Disappointed, it took several years for me to recognize it was not the cow's fault, it was the TYPE OF BULLS 1708 WAS MATED TO that caused her progeny to have the inability to renew her kind......AND to recognize that her individual production records ratioing W 7-109 and Y-108 as of 1981 would not have occurred making her a "super cow" who produced four popular "herd bulls", by our traditional visual definition of a herd bull, IF SHE WOULD'VE BEEN MATED BACK TO HER OWN KIND.”

The above quotes of Larry’s caught my attention as the realization that the production of total pounds was of less importance then their maternal function in his selection helps me understand the need for the separate parts that made those pounds...
To replicate the pounds of production would require the two parts, to provide both parts with consistence would not be free of lifetimes but through cooperation and a timeless vision founded on truths.... who knows what the possibilities are.
But for me I would prefer from my present perception, to move forward from a industry that appears to rely on the failure of others for self justification to a industry that relies on the small successes of individual selves and the subsequent synergistic progress through abundance, as justification.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

LL wrote:

“Whether we close breed or outcross, we get both the best and worst of a gene pool. Unless you understand natural law, we simply cannot get the best without the worst of something else.... and most often the best isn't worth the worst unless you are in the registered business selling illusions.”

This quote for some reason brought to mind my unprofessional welding experiences here on the farm, and the difference that alternating and direct current made in the quality and consistence of the weld. In both cases I could pick what I though was the best rod for the job and through trial and error I could make both welds look visually pleasing, but more often than not the DC weld was consistently stronger due to the invisible strength, this may be a poor example as I realize many here may be pro welders with the AC current but for me the visual sign wave of AC and DC help me with visualizing the distance between the best and worst of a gene pool and their subsequent strength...Tru-Liners simply having less variance from the mean.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

LL wrote:

“The infinity of life in Nature is not concerned with efficiency, but with man's time constraints and cost values, as Gavin says, improving beef production EFFICIENCY is finally the only important measure of progress. Mean Spirit posted a quote which said "purebred breeders (not necessarily registered) needed to decide what kind of cattle were needed (not wanted) to achieve his objective - without this decision a breeder cannot select the best nor discard the worst". The conundrum here is that if we get what we needed, we don't need it any more, we then need something else....good never seems good enough.”

I wonder if the farmer would agree in hind sight that he should have paid more attention to his need of production capability of the goose and less on his want of more production of golden eggs, as they were only the visible illusion of the seedless fruit and hence unsustainable without proper attention to maintaining capability and it’s parts... Unfortunately the goose wouldn’t have the same privilege of 20/20 vision... but like Larry’s talking cow she would have had some valuable insight on the natural laws that allow her to produce

“We often take things in the literal sense instead of the common sense of natural laws.”
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I can’t wait to see the looks on my boys faces when I get my pile if 6357’s and start peppering their snow fort as I taunt them for lobbing Lundell’s

Merry Christmas.... and as Larry’s Oct 24th post put it so well, I wish everyone enough

Hilly wrote:

I found the “The wheels of life post” quite interesting, there is nothing we can do to change the cyclical renewal of nature but together maybe we can affect the direction of the wheel and if we are lucky maybe even cover some ground in a consistent direction for a while.... whether it is forward or backward, will be for future generations to decide.

LL wrote:

“It is often said that the only way to avoid making mistakes is not to do anything. I have learned to view differences of opinions to be very constructive to broaden the mind, the truth cannot be denied. We all may have different objectives and selection directions but we deal with natural law whether we like it or not. I have stated my own personal objectives which may or may not coincide with others.....and my choices may not fit other's circumstances.

With that in mind, the total pounds these 17 Wye cows produced was not nearly as important to me as the trouble free years of production efficiency from their maternal function...what I call ideal work and wear cows for my purposes."

LL wrote:

"When I decided to look beyond what is just visibly standing before me....pedigree became the invisible means to see via visible relatives...pounds of performance became largely dependent on what a cow was mated to....how much cow do we need for efficient functionality... and then the seemingly difficult task of how to create them more often. Selection priorities for me became reproduction, disposition, longevity and their conformational relationships were paramount far overriding production by the numbers."

And then in reference to Loanda of Wye....

LL wrote:

I also tried to bring forth her goodness through her progeny as an owner of Lundell and the use of her other male progeny. Disappointed, it took several years for me to recognize it was not the cow's fault, it was the TYPE OF BULLS 1708 WAS MATED TO that caused her progeny to have the inability to renew her kind......AND to recognize that her individual production records ratioing W 7-109 and Y-108 as of 1981 would not have occurred making her a "super cow" who produced four popular "herd bulls", by our traditional visual definition of a herd bull, IF SHE WOULD'VE BEEN MATED BACK TO HER OWN KIND.”

The above quotes of Larry’s caught my attention as the realization that the production of total pounds was of less importance then their maternal function in his selection helps me understand the need for the separate parts that made those pounds...
To replicate the pounds of production would require the two parts, to provide both parts with consistence would not be free of lifetimes but through cooperation and a timeless vision founded on truths.... who knows what the possibilities are.
But for me I would prefer from my present perception, to move forward from a industry that appears to rely on the failure of others for self justification to a industry that relies on the small successes of individual selves and the subsequent synergistic progress through abundance, as justification.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

LL wrote:

“Whether we close breed or outcross, we get both the best and worst of a gene pool. Unless you understand natural law, we simply cannot get the best without the worst of something else.... and most often the best isn't worth the worst unless you are in the registered business selling illusions.”

This quote for some reason brought to mind my unprofessional welding experiences here on the farm, and the difference that alternating and direct current made in the quality and consistence of the weld. In both cases I could pick what I though was the best rod for the job and through trial and error I could make both welds look visually pleasing, but more often than not the DC weld was consistently stronger due to the invisible strength, this may be a poor example as I realize many here may be pro welders with the AC current but for me the visual sign wave of AC and DC help me with visualizing the distance between the best and worst of a gene pool and their subsequent strength...Tru-Liners simply having less variance from the mean.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

LL wrote:

“The infinity of life in Nature is not concerned with efficiency, but with man's time constraints and cost values, as Gavin says, improving beef production EFFICIENCY is finally the only important measure of progress. Mean Spirit posted a quote which said "purebred breeders (not necessarily registered) needed to decide what kind of cattle were needed (not wanted) to achieve his objective - without this decision a breeder cannot select the best nor discard the worst". The conundrum here is that if we get what we needed, we don't need it any more, we then need something else....good never seems good enough.”

I wonder if the farmer would agree in hind sight that he should have paid more attention to his need of production capability of the goose and less on his want of more production of golden eggs, as they were only the visible illusion of the seedless fruit and hence unsustainable without proper attention to maintaining capability and it’s parts... Unfortunately the goose wouldn’t have the same privilege of 20/20 vision... but like Larry’s talking cow she would have had some valuable insight on the natural laws that allow her to produce

“We often take things in the literal sense instead of the common sense of natural laws.”
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I can’t wait to see the looks on my boys faces when I get my pile if 6357’s and start peppering their snow fort as I taunt them for lobbing Lundell’s

Merry Christmas.... and as Larry’s Oct 24th post put it so well, I wish everyone enough

good thoughts Craig...it looks as though Larry`s next post will be up in a couple of days...titled... Superlatives & Smiley Faces
in the interium, I`ll expose another of my screw-ups later today...
As I keep finding more screw ups than positives to discuss, the bottom line must be that in a screwed up business, screw ups must work ok, or I wouldn`t still be in business...

Welcome to our three guests from China reading Reflections this morning; yes, this is where you learn how to produce more from less

Larry mentioned briefly some time ago the story of me naming a couple of bulls Blythemakers...it was of course to honor the little Wye cow, Blythe, and her kind, that I read about, probably saw, but was too dumb to appreciate her at the time, and heard Larry describe her often...followed by the reasons why there were no more of them...so it was with, and still is, the hope that the bull pictured above could re-create Blythe more often based on the type cows in his ancestry that I named him. Upon sending Larry his pic and weight, he quickly responded "too much bull"...yelp, probably right...in my "greedy breeder" mode of wanting more from an individual, there is a 90 lb yearling weight bull stuck in the top side of the pedigree of the above bull named Blythemaker {the full brother Blythemaker who was bigger is gone...too much bull, and..too much money to ignore. } if there is a fly in the ointment, it is the 90 lb bull...for I see the cows below as characteristically similiar...






Larry writes in his most used 1983 paragraph to date, "Divergent total performance programs have been the initial
sincere courtship between the seedstock supplier and the commercial producer"...
My friends, and even addressing the stinkbugs{another Dennis orginal that sneak in here to nose around }, the courtship is over. Courtships aren`t supposed to last 30 years; you either marry or split, to continue to court is a pretense, with one of the partners likely getting screwed, literally and figuratively speaking.
While performance programs served a worthy transition from the purebred games of the 50`s/60`s, the "performance" movement has now become a game unto itself. There can be no "ultimate marriage between segments" when one segment refuses to be predictable; changing colors and direction at the expense and confusion of the other segment.
Change of direction and wanting more is what make`s me have to wait on the above bull`s daughters before I past judgement on him; kinda like "living together to see how we like it" before we make any committment. Not casting moral judgement; more of a pragmatic approach in my opionion to marriage or bull selection; when "predictability" has been compromised.
We can surely do better; I have "divested myself from flirting with any parasitic elements" and hope to no longer "debase the vital role of the profession"...
and yes, that verse from Luke on Erica 1714`s picture on the ET subject is not much in religious context for me; it is a message to me and some of you breeders that you will be held to a higher standard than others...
To whom much is given, much{or at least more} will be required...

Mike, I am just curious as to which bull was "too much bull".....the one pictured, now at Mark's, or was it a reference to his sire/grandsire?

Oh, and what was the post about China about......visitors in the flesh or merely electronic?.......yeah, a little bored today, too much down time this week.

Bootheel wrote:

Mike, I am just curious as to which bull was "too much bull".....the one pictured, now at Mark's, or was it a reference to his sire/grandsire?

Oh, and what was the post about China about......visitors in the flesh or merely electronic?.......yeah, a little bored today, too much down time this week.

well, I am afraid the pictured bull may be too much; if so, his grandsire was the 90 lb bull that made everything bigger...as to your second question,

我想要学会如何由较少生产更多

yeah, I`ve had a little too much spare time today

我想要学会如何由较少生产更多

yeah, I`ve had a little too much spare time today [/quote]

Confucius, once say, man with too much time, start writing with fishes and houses.

just making sure that everyone has noticed how important epds are to the profitability of a cow...well, a commercial or purebred cow; not a registered cow, where, EPDS are everything...

This pedigree brings up a question I have about the old wye angus cows. I hear so many times that the old wye cattle are much better than the cows at wye in the last 30 years. In these old cows you have bulls like Gaird, Prince of malp , Prince Paul of Barnoldby and then tied them up with wye genetics. I think what they were seeing is hybrid heterosis? Some may so no way!! but if I take an OCC anchor x Pinebank 41/97 x Jipsey Earl I can tell you first hand what you get. I do not think I can choke one more ounce of performance out of this cross. They are very growthy and way more performance than there first x mates. But now what?? I feel I have robbed my customers from any vigor that they may have coming to them. Am I wrong?? I think that this is why the Wye angus had so much back then and now are producing much more cattle that are subpar than 30 years ago. So is this why the Blyth cow was so good?

I am not trying to burst anyones bubble here at all, and if I do I am sorry. I feel that it is a question that has some merit to it.

J.Bob Hould

Those that are more familiar with wye program please correct if I am wrong. Around 15 years ago (?) wye bred a bunch of there cattle to modern non wye animals and saw 75 plus pounds increase in weaning weights plus increase in yearling weights. They work with this breeding for several years but after the initial cross the gain diminished with each generation. They sold off all the animals that were non wye genetics and continue with straight wye genetics.

Fallon's program sounds like they are shifting the base to a higher standard by selection for superior/outlier cattle in there program and using those to produce the next generation. They may be increasing the frequency of desired genes by selecting cattle that express the desired traits they want and removing those that do not.

Jbob that breeding should produce heterosis for most customers because it is outcross to what they are us now. How much linebreeding have you done with OCC anchor.

While the bull at my place is a lot of bull, he is losing some flesh while he is breeding cows, trudging through the most snow this area has had in December for years all the time eating mostly fescue. I have learned he did not mind being touched while by himself and eating do not touch or act like you might touch while with the ladies as his back legs work very well. I should have know that though by seeing how high he can get all 4 feet of the ground. To add to the conversation though, I wonder less about the 90 YW on the top side than I do the too much easy fleshing on a percentage of the daughters from a bull a bit closer on the top side. I hate to ever question a couple of people's thoughts too much though. TIme will tell. In the meantime is this the other bull you spoke of or is my old computer screen hiding some identification markers.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=93Es4bUQ15I

jbob wrote:

This pedigree brings up a question I have about the old wye angus cows. I hear so many times that the old wye cattle are much better than the cows at wye in the last 30 years. In these old cows you have bulls like Gaird, Prince of malp , Prince Paul of Barnoldby and then tied them up with wye genetics. I think what they were seeing is hybrid heterosis? Some may so no way!! but if I take an OCC anchor x Pinebank 41/97 x Jipsey Earl I can tell you first hand what you get. I do not think I can choke one more ounce of performance out of this cross. They are very growthy and way more performance than there first x mates. But now what?? I feel I have robbed my customers from any vigor that they may have coming to them. Am I wrong?? I think that this is why the Wye angus had so much back then and now are producing much more cattle that are subpar than 30 years ago. So is this why the Blyth cow was so good?

I am not trying to burst anyones bubble here at all, and if I do I am sorry. I feel that it is a question that has some merit to it.

J.Bob Hould

I think you may be right. Blythe does not appear to be inbred, so her "goodness" could easily be the result of heterosis.

Patb I am more worried that I might be stealing all the heterosis from my customers that have been with me for years. And I have double bred way to many cows to Anchor. They are super stout and that is all want to say about that!!!!!!

MS. So if this wonderful cow is the target, than how can we duplicate her. With not being linebreed she is like the needle in the haystack, or more or less a moving target. How do you know where the goodness is coming from? The old Wye and all its great cows, might of been no more than many of us are seeing with ie; Anchor x Pinebank x Dunloise. And if that is the case, where do we start on trying to duplicate them. I mean do we go back to Juryman,Geordus, or Mulben to get the Blythe type. It would be much easier to duplicte the product (in theory) if the product we liked were already linebreed. So can she really be duplicted consistently? Truth be told, I have sold every unit of wye semen in my tanks, except Bonanza of Wye. Who is a son of the Blythe cow, but I am very reluctant to use it, because I do not want to waste them on the wrong cows. Is there anymore sons of Blythe out there that were usefull? Maybe Bonanza is not usefull?

J.Bob Hould

Going back and rereading these posts and pondering if I was too intolerant of a bull that did not believe in closed gates keeping him on one side of the fence. I am thinking that if I had seen the past discussions when he was here I would have found a way to keep him in with his pedigree going Fraser/6310/Bob...and to think I bought him sight unseen for $1500. Maybe I can find a picture of him someplace and post.

jbob wrote:

Patb I am more worried that I might be stealing all the heterosis from my customers that have been with me for years. And I have double bred way to many cows to Anchor. They are super stout and that is all want to say about that!!!!!!

MS. So if this wonderful cow is the target, than how can we duplicate her. With not being linebreed she is like the needle in the haystack, or more or less a moving target. How do you know where the goodness is coming from? The old Wye and all its great cows, might of been no more than many of us are seeing with ie; Anchor x Pinebank x Dunloise. And if that is the case, where do we start on trying to duplicate them. I mean do we go back to Juryman,Geordus, or Mulben to get the Blythe type. It would be much easier to duplicte the product (in theory) if the product we liked were already linebreed. So can she really be duplicted consistently? Truth be told, I have sold every unit of wye semen in my tanks, except Bonanza of Wye. Who is a son of the Blythe cow, but I am very reluctant to use it, because I do not want to waste them on the wrong cows. Is there anymore sons of Blythe out there that were usefull? Maybe Bonanza is not usefull?

J.Bob Hould

“He isolates and fixes a good type by careful selection and close breeding”

This is more an example to me of a breeder applying the principals, it is not about Blythe for me and I have nothing against Lundell... I used him in my snowball fight just as a example of what I perceived as breeder applying the simple principals and producing the “Blythe” in a more compact a potent 6357 package.

We all have to start somewhere... Larry started somewhere... I don't think it matters if it was Blythe or MS ULT 2158 ect, ect, that expressed “it” we best get started IMO