A Grey Area

some more simpleton breeding...as Bob H suggested, a white cow would be great in the South...but using breeds within breeds you can utilize complimentarity and heterosis to make a grey and get there faster, cheaper, and probably better...
a simpleton cow...



her simpleton 3/4 char calf by the Char bull pictured below...more specific results might be accomplished with a third breed



there`s more



still more



of course, you need purebreds to make crossbreds...and as you climb the mountain peak to purebred, the road gets more narrow...



you use your own bulls, because few registered breeders will make the right kind for you...too busy making miracle, wonder breeds... playing con games, and ignoring commercial needs while following registered trends...



you breed him to his half sisters like above, and you get enough to keep you going...this half sib mating keeps me from knocking on MS`s door...so far, good enough...



just admiring my own calf, needs this color to count flies better...if there were any

It doesn't look like you need to knock on anyones door. Do you deal with anymore birth than in your blacks?

OAK LANE FARM wrote:

It doesn't look like you need to knock on anyones door. Do you deal with anymore birth than in your blacks?

a little Scott...I bred the Char heifers to Unwanted...I`ve never had a 90 lb calf from this lineage, the 3 year old herd sire pictured will never weigh more than 1900 on grass...He`s bred to his dam this year...gotta stay a little crazy after all these years to keep up your excitement level

MK wrote:

......of course, you need purebreds to make crossbreds...and as you climb the mountain peak to purebred, the road gets more narrow.......gotta stay a little crazy after all these years to keep up your excitement level .


And from the broad base when you reach the narrower mountain peak, where else is there to go but back down......the descent is not nearly as exciting

Mating from black to white, looking at your admirable "grey cow" , I smiled thinking a word to the wise should be sufficient.......Reversion.....wondering how many are going to be blacker or whiter.......so are we back to debating the "fire & ice" thing? This industry has been keeping "UP" the excitement level chasing those illusive "misty grey carrots" for about 50 years now. Maybe now would be an opportune time to get into the crux of the real issues extending the discussion in my garage when I asked Sam (the "purity of pedigree breeder") why he reverted to using the "old" bulls. To purify something is to free it from blemishes or undesirable elements, so then my next question was going to be how "purified" were these "old bulls", or, perhaps the better question would be have we progressed or regressed "puriifying" todays cattle over those of yesteryears ? A question I have always had for academia is how in layman terms do we measure the percent of "purity" and by what scientific authority did or do cattle become declared "purebreds" ? And finally, since we cannot purify cattle, we are left with the management of blemishes or undesirable elements and how can we do this better ?

Crazy people doing crazy things for excitement is common, so for discussion, what are the measured genetic differences of the grey areas between black and white on a linear chart between registered purebreds, straightbreds, thoroughbreds, crossbreds or composites, and where is the genetic midpoint between inbreds and outbreds? What are the genetic differences within a species between the whole and an isolated population? Can we change the scientifically established heritabilites of traits? Enquiring minds want to know.

LL in the vicinity of basic fundamental questions.

Would it not matter how alike the first parent mating was and how many generations that they had been bred to be alike. At the same time if they were very different how many generations would it take to stabilyze this process ? It would be like MARC starting with averages and ending up finding out that most average cattle are alike no matter how they crossed them. That they never stopped they hybridazation process to have any more than 25% to big 50% in the middle and 25% to little the same as nature always has thus never improving but always moving. some thoughts and questions to help me learn.Bob H

I also have another question what would the benefit be to do any of this if the end qoal was not to get more from less and end up with a predcatble gene pool of females that would take less management in your enviroment? Bob H

Larry Leonhardt wrote:

MK wrote:

......of course, you need purebreds to make crossbreds...and as you climb the mountain peak to purebred, the road gets more narrow.......gotta stay a little crazy after all these years to keep up your excitement level .


And from the broad base when you reach the narrower mountain peak, where else is there to go but back down......the descent is not nearly as exciting

Mating from black to white, looking at your admirable "grey cow" , I smiled thinking a word to the wise should be sufficient.......Reversion.....wondering how many are going to be blacker or whiter.......so are we back to debating the "fire & ice" thing? This industry has been keeping "UP" the excitement level chasing those illusive "misty grey carrots" for about 50 years now. Maybe now would be an opportune time to get into the crux of the real issues extending the discussion in my garage when I asked Sam (the "purity of pedigree breeder") why he reverted to using the "old" bulls. To purify something is to free it from blemishes or undesirable elements, so then my next question was going to be how "purified" were these "old bulls", or, perhaps the better question would be have we progressed or regressed "puriifying" todays cattle over those of yesteryears ? A question I have always had for academia is how in layman terms do we measure the percent of "purity" and by what scientific authority did or do cattle become declared "purebreds" ? And finally, since we cannot purify cattle, we are left with the management of blemishes or undesirable elements and how can we do this better ?

Crazy people doing crazy things for excitement is common, so for discussion, what are the measured genetic differences of the grey areas between black and white on a linear chart between registered purebreds, straightbreds, thoroughbreds, crossbreds or composites, and where is the genetic midpoint between inbreds and outbreds? What are the genetic differences within a species between the whole and an isolated population? Can we change the scientifically established heritabilites of traits? Enquiring minds want to know.

LL in the vicinity of basic fundamental questions.

purity means separate from all heterogeneous or extraneous matter...so degree of purity becomes rather simple math...how`s this for starters?

degree of homozygousity X number of traits selected for X number of pairs controlling the trait

obviously, what consitutes current day breeds is pedigree, not purity...

How would you go about doing this and how long would it take? Bob H

Bob H wrote:

How would you go about doing this and how long would it take? Bob H

I love opportunities to use Wendell Berry`s question/answer to the teacher at preacher school...the student says he has unanswered questions about life/bible etc..., and wonders how long it will be until he gets the answers...the preacher teacher says "the rest of your life,,,, maybe longer
so that fits here, so the practical question is Larry`s

what are the measured genetic differences of the grey areas between black and white on a linear chart between registered purebreds, straightbreds, thoroughbreds, crossbreds or composites, and where is the genetic midpoint between inbreds and outbreds? mk adding what is the $$$$$ value of the differences to commercial production?

and yes Bob, anything that doesn`t contribute to producing more from less is just peeing in the wind...

MKeeney wrote:

Larry Leonhardt wrote:

MK wrote:

......of course, you need purebreds to make crossbreds...and as you climb the mountain peak to purebred, the road gets more narrow.......gotta stay a little crazy after all these years to keep up your excitement level .


And from the broad base when you reach the narrower mountain peak, where else is there to go but back down......the descent is not nearly as exciting

Mating from black to white, looking at your admirable "grey cow" , I smiled thinking a word to the wise should be sufficient.......Reversion.....wondering how many are going to be blacker or whiter.......so are we back to debating the "fire & ice" thing? This industry has been keeping "UP" the excitement level chasing those illusive "misty grey carrots" for about 50 years now. Maybe now would be an opportune time to get into the crux of the real issues extending the discussion in my garage when I asked Sam (the "purity of pedigree breeder") why he reverted to using the "old" bulls. To purify something is to free it from blemishes or undesirable elements, so then my next question was going to be how "purified" were these "old bulls", or, perhaps the better question would be have we progressed or regressed "puriifying" todays cattle over those of yesteryears ? A question I have always had for academia is how in layman terms do we measure the percent of "purity" and by what scientific authority did or do cattle become declared "purebreds" ? And finally, since we cannot purify cattle, we are left with the management of blemishes or undesirable elements and how can we do this better ?

Crazy people doing crazy things for excitement is common, so for discussion, what are the measured genetic differences of the grey areas between black and white on a linear chart between registered purebreds, straightbreds, thoroughbreds, crossbreds or composites, and where is the genetic midpoint between inbreds and outbreds? What are the genetic differences within a species between the whole and an isolated population? Can we change the scientifically established heritabilites of traits? Enquiring minds want to know.

LL in the vicinity of basic fundamental questions.

purity means separate from all heterogeneous or extraneous matter...so degree of purity becomes rather simple math...how`s this for starters?

degree of homozygousity X number of traits selected for X number of pairs controlling the trait

obviously, what consitutes current day breeds is pedigree, not purity...

whoops ..another variable...

degree of homozygousity X {number of traits selected for X correlation of selected traits} X number of pairs controlling the trait

Obviously I enjoy seeing these white cows. I enjoyed seeing them in the spring when I made my quick visit to Nancy. Have you figured out who are the mommas and daddy's of these cattle yet, or are you gonna go on not caring so much? Frustrating.

As for me and purebred Charolais, you guys wouldn't be proud of what I did this weekend. Well, maybe some of what I did, but part of what I did might disappoint.

For one thing I saw "The Help", mainly on JimL's advice. Copilot/co chick flick watcher sez the book was much better. I fear I'll have to take her word for it. The other possibly disappointing event involved a New York State Fair and a Grand Champion Charolais female. But I swear-- I don't even like the heifer- too much hair, not convinced of her abilities next year in the foothills and fescue and fahrenheit 100. I bred her accidentally. It's not really my fault she came out pretty, is it? If I sell her right away, will that make it better?

Mean Spirit, in the vicinity of crushing guilt that I may never get over, while simultaneously wondering when the entries close for Louisville.

Mean Spirit wrote:

Obviously I enjoy seeing these white cows. I enjoyed seeing them in the spring when I made my quick visit to Nancy. Have you figured out who are the mommas and daddy's of these cattle yet, or are you gonna go on not caring so much? Frustrating.

As for me and purebred Charolais, you guys wouldn't be proud of what I did this weekend. Well, maybe some of what I did, but part of what I did might disappoint.

For one thing I saw "The Help", mainly on JimL's advice. Copilot/co chick flick watcher sez the book was much better. I fear I'll have to take her word for it. The other possibly disappointing event involved a New York State Fair and a Grand Champion Charolais female. But I swear-- I don't even like the heifer- too much hair, not convinced of her abilities next year in the foothills and fescue and fahrenheit 100. I bred her accidentally. It's not really my fault she came out pretty, is it? If I sell her right away, will that make it better?

Mean Spirit, in the vicinity of crushing guilt that I may never get over, while simultaneously wondering when the entries close for Louisville.

any kind of success in any field always bears a price

Mean Spirit wrote:

Obviously I enjoy seeing these white cows. I enjoyed seeing them in the spring when I made my quick visit to Nancy. Have you figured out who are the mommas and daddy's of these cattle yet, or are you gonna go on not caring so much? Frustrating.

As for me and purebred Charolais, you guys wouldn't be proud of what I did this weekend. Well, maybe some of what I did, but part of what I did might disappoint.

For one thing I saw "The Help", mainly on JimL's advice. Copilot/co chick flick watcher sez the book was much better. I fear I'll have to take her word for it. The other possibly disappointing event involved a New York State Fair and a Grand Champion Charolais female. But I swear-- I don't even like the heifer- too much hair, not convinced of her abilities next year in the foothills and fescue and fahrenheit 100. I bred her accidentally. It's not really my fault she came out pretty, is it? If I sell her right away, will that make it better?

Mean Spirit, in the vicinity of crushing guilt that I may never get over, while simultaneously wondering when the entries close for Louisville.

go ahead John; make my day...post your pic of your Champion heifer with you on the halter and let`s see where that gets you here...hell, the Jimmer might even crack out into laughter

and for LL, I see it all so clearly now...took me 33 years; I sure agree that you`re not the teacher that Kendra and Kristina are...or maybe the problem was, I`m every bit as dumb as I feel right now

Can we change the scientifically established heritabilites of traits?

ahhh yeah...isn`t that what purebred breeders are for?

For you, Mike. I know you love the tanbark.

I won't attempt to justify this adventure. I guess she weighs a couple hundred pounds more than her contemporaries that didn't leave the foothills when she did. I'm guessing thats due to environmental differences, plus she is an outcross-- 1/4 Hoodoo on top, dam is full sister to my bull.

But I still think she's pretty.

At least she's bred to her dam's full brother for her first calf.

That must be Nice Spirit holding the banner. Who could ever ban a smile like that?

Tom D wrote:

That must be Nice Spirit holding the banner. Who could ever ban a smile like that?

I bet he was thinking right then...I`ll show them KC guys what I think about nubbins...
Is that ole Cliff on the halter John?

That is Cliff. What I was thinking precisely was something about how they weren't all nubbins, but how some of the non-nubbins cost a lot more to take care of, especially when their care involves the help of others and includes hair fixing and such.

Mean Spirit, ashamed.

Mean Spirit wrote:

That is Cliff. What I was thinking precisely was something about how they weren't all nubbins, but how some of the non-nubbins cost a lot more to take care of, especially when their care involves the help of others and includes hair fixing and such.

Mean Spirit, ashamed.

I was going to ask how winning the show answered the following question...

Can we change the scientifically established heritabilites of traits?

but since you are ashamed, I`m going to let that one slide and instead ask a more typically jealous one from
my old days showing...who the hell was the judge? Robert Groom?

mk, in the vicinity of wondering how his white bull calf would do with a creep feeder, a nurse cow, and some fans...

an edit...do you need registration papers to show? or can you just be a purebred breeder ?

Winning answered few questions. And my guess is your little bull would really thrive in the system this heifer has been in. But he'd have to be registered, I'm pretty sure.

Why did you select the white bull you did Mike? His dam? Im just curious how you came to choose him. I like him. You have lots of bulls with potential born each year Im sure. Im wondering how you pick your bull. Sorry, maybe to much time to think on a mower today but I thought about it enough I had to ask.

trevorgreycattleco wrote:

Why did you select the white bull you did Mike? His dam? Im just curious how you came to choose him. I like him. You have lots of bulls with potential born each year Im sure. Im wondering how you pick your bull. Sorry, maybe to much time to think on a mower today but I thought about it enough I had to ask.

his type, he`s gentle, and his dam has fewer problems...

Quote :

Im wondering how you pick your bull.

that's easy...I just ask my wife





Right or wrong, black or white
Cross the line your gonna pay
In the dawn before the light
Live and die by the shades of gray

Larry Leonhardt wrote:

Crazy people doing crazy things for excitement is common, so for discussion, what are the measured genetic differences of the grey areas between black and white on a linear chart between registered purebreds, straightbreds, thoroughbreds, crossbreds or composites, and where is the genetic midpoint between inbreds and outbreds? What are the genetic differences within a species between the whole and an isolated population? Can we change the scientifically established heritabilites of traits? Enquiring minds want to know.

LL in the vicinity of basic fundamental questions.

I have no idea what the measured genetic differences of the gray area between black and white on a linear chart would be. Since I don't believe there are any "purebreds" I would say there would be millions of genetic differences in any grey area and the genetic midpoint would be a constantly moving point that could only be measured with a bell curve.

The genetic differences within a species between the whole and an isolated population would depend on where the isolated population was. An isolated population of angus cattle in south Florida and an isolated population of angus cattle in North Alberta would vary greatly from each other and the species as a whole.

I don't think we can change the scientifically established heritabilites of traits in one life time. Maybe not in several lifetimes. I think those traits are set too deeply by nature over thousands of years of evolution and they will not be changed by any breeder. Take for instance fertility. Everyone wants to improve fertility but nature never intended for every animal to get bred every year. My guess is that after winters like last year the antelope and deer that were dry last summer had a lot higher survival rate than than ones that raised fawns. Nature can't afford a 100% breed up to survive different extremes.

I'm no geneticist and I'm sure I just proved that but for the sake of discussion here is my shot at an answer.

Jack

Cold hearted all through the night
Remove the colors from our sight
Red is grey and yellow white
But we decide which is right
and which is an illusion

ISSHO {IN SCIENCE ASSUMED HONEST OPINION}

http://www.nature.com/scitable/topicpage/estimating-trait-heritability-46889



Heritability Is Not Necessarily Constant

Interestingly, heritabilities are not constant. For example, estimates of heritability for first lactation milk yield in dairy cattle nearly doubled from approximately 25% in the 1970s to roughly 40% in recent times. Heritability can change over time because the variance in genetic values can change, the variation due to environmental factors can change, or the correlation between genes and environment can change. Genetic variance can change if allele frequencies change (e.g., due to selection or inbreeding), if new variants come into the population (e.g., by migration or mutation), or if existing variants only contribute to genetic variance following a change in genetic background or the environment. The same trait measured over an individual's lifetime may have different genetic and environmental effects influencing it, such that the variances become a function of age. For example, variance in weight at birth is influenced by maternal uterine environment, and variance in weight at weaning depends on maternal milk production, but variance of mature adult weight is unlikely to be influenced by maternal factors, which themselves have both a genetic and environmental component. Heritabilities may be manipulated by changing the variance contributed by the environment. Empirical evidence for morphometric traits suggests lower heritabilities in poorer environments, but not for traits more closely related to fitness (Charmantier & Garant, 2005). Understanding how heritability changes with environmental stressors is important for understanding evolutionary forces in natural populations (Charmantier & Garant, 2005).