I've decided to call bullshit on....

Do you suppose that the feminine type or bonsma type will adapt better because their endocrine balance. I think that it is one of the contributing factors. If they look more feminine they have a better chance of being a reproductive female. Bob H

Bob H wrote:

Do you suppose that the feminine type or bonsma type will adapt better because their endocrine balance.

That's what I assume Bob although I can't say I have experience of it.

Bob H wrote:

Do you suppose that the feminine type or bonsma type will adapt better because their endocrine balance. I think that it is one of the contributing factors. If they look more feminine they have a better chance of being a reproductive female. Bob H

I think the endocrine balance has alot to do with it. The bonsma type as well, but some lines Just fail. And some do fine that are not so bonsma. I am searching for answer's here but my observations and findings seem to show lines that can adapt and other lines that are very similar that just fall apart. Once again lots of questions and ideas with few answers.

Quote :

I have had some conversations with Eddie M and Tom D. We all have OCC Homer daughters that have adapted to distinct different environments and have thrived.

I think that the difference is that Larry has generations of cattle that do this and can replicate themselves. Sadly, these are daughters of one bull from a herd known for many, many bulls and this is the only one that folks can hang their hat on the first generation of daughters. Will granddaughters do the same? Can sons, like Linebred, carry on the adaptability? We do not need a "one time" or "one generation" cure but we need lines and herds of cattle that can do this without question.

no matter where or with what you run your heifers, if they gain weight, they`ve had feed...the o2, h2o paradigm only works for the `s

MKeeney wrote:

no matter where or with what you run your heifers, if they gain weight, they`ve had feed...the o2, h2o paradigm only works for the `s

No argument here.

WT What are you calling lines. Are they linebred for 3 or more genrations? Bob H

Bob H wrote:

WT What are you calling lines. Are they linebred for 3 or more genrations? Bob H

Just random Bloodlines Bob definitly not inbred lines as they are not common.

My thought is that you are seeing random crossbreeding with the result of 50% that work 25% that are not enough and 25% that are too much. This is why we search out Larry to begin with. I did not understand the why is was not working I just understood that it was not working in a high enough % of the time. This is right at the core of trueline. When the genes are in the animals you just put the boys with the girls and get the little ones. When you do not have the full package you put the wonder bull with some females and start the sort. If you just use a type without a genotype to back it up you start the sorting processes. The only problem with this is that it cost's more money,time and effort with no improved results unless you stop and linebreed to see where you are. That should only take 10 to 15 years of astut observation. I am 55 and not getting younger I think that I will just move forward at a snails pace. Bob H

Bob H wrote:

My thought is that you are seeing random crossbreeding with the result of 50% that work 25% that are not enough and 25% that are too much. This is why we search out Larry to begin with. I did not understand the why is was not working I just understood that it was not working in a high enough % of the time. This is right at the core of trueline. When the genes are in the animals you just put the boys with the girls and get the little ones. When you do not have the full package you put the wonder bull with some females and start the sort. If you just use a type without a genotype to back it up you start the sorting processes. The only problem with this is that it cost's more money,time and effort with no improved results unless you stop and linebreed to see where you are. That should only take 10 to 15 years of astut observation. I am 55 and not getting younger I think that I will just move forward at a snails pace. Bob H

AND BE EVER MINDFUL OF...

I have no clue what the actual hetero/homo percentage is in any of my cattle nor of those in the above photos, and even if I knew, I am 99.9% certain that it is an impossible figment of our imagination to think that we could replicate or sustain that optimum combination of hetero/homo with selected mating systems which would move the progeny to either the left or right of that percentile chart by either inbreeding or outbreeding. So to all of you cattle breeders out there flushing cows, WHOOOAAAA, STOP AND THINK....why in this world would we EXPECT further INBREEDING an optimum type to reproduce that same optimum type when the progeny average would actually move to the left of the chart. And on the other hand, we need to be reminded that MARC research reaffirms that without selection we must sustain a given percent of heterosis lest we revert to the average of the parents.....whatever that was.
LL

Bob H wrote:

My thought is that you are seeing random crossbreeding with the result of 50% that work 25% that are not enough and 25% that are too much. This is why we search out Larry to begin with. I did not understand the why is was not working I just understood that it was not working in a high enough % of the time. This is right at the core of trueline. When the genes are in the animals you just put the boys with the girls and get the little ones. When you do not have the full package you put the wonder bull with some females and start the sort. If you just use a type without a genotype to back it up you start the sorting processes. The only problem with this is that it cost's more money,time and effort with no improved results unless you stop and linebreed to see where you are. That should only take 10 to 15 years of astut observation. I am 55 and not getting younger I think that I will just move forward at a snails pace. Bob H

Have been linebreeding for about 10 yrs and the snail's pace has sabilized my efforts but, I see so many others still chasing the rainbow with only the need to chase it again..

several interesting research papers here... including one on heifer development...

http://www.ianrpubs.unl.edu/epublic/live/mp95/build/mp95.pdf

My internet has been down for a few weeks so I’m a bit late to the conversation, but a few observations I have had in recent years here on my heifer development, here is an old post of mine giving a little over view of my two heifer development systems...

Of my March calving cows the ones that have heifer calves from my maternal group are wean later than the rest and are put on good banked grass until Dec or the snow gets to deep. They would on average be around 625lbs...


They would then be put on free choice first cut grass hay Dec to May and 2-3lbs of oats when the temp drops below -25C. And then put on banked grass in May at around 800lbs, and the following winter they are on swath with the cows.



My June calving cows, all calves are put through their first winter on the cow and most will be self weaned by April when they are put on banked grass at around 525lbs.





They gain well over summer and are around 875lbs in Sept when the bulls are put out and then put on swath with the cows in Oct



I keep all heifers that are from my maternal group unless they are extreme outliers, every once in a while one will get way to big or a few that get sick at a young age and are stunted. I suppose I could keep them as well but I don’t at this point.

The March replacements had noticeably more frame than their June counterparts at the same age both from similar cows and the same bulls.

I was worried that the June group was too small at calving and may have difficult time with calving, turned out they were fine.

The March group was being move into my summer calving group so they would have around 3 months extra age and more frame at first calf.

The first winter with calves at side, was the June groups third winter on swath, one of which was with their mothers... In contrast to the March group on their second winter with swath. The June group was much more content and held condition better than the older group.

I will have to wait and see but I would imagine that both groups will eventually mature out to the same size.

I think from what I’m seeing here that mental toughness and learned behaviour play a noticeable role in the contentment of the heifers. With that in mind I’m starting to lean toward earlier weaning on the first calve heifers over segregated and supplemental feed management.

For anyone making the trip up here next year you will see these groups side by side and can make you own assessment...

Hilly,

This is a great example. Is there any differance in the amount of cattle from the two systems that fall out, or don't breed back. Basically do they rebreed the same as coming three's?

Mike

Mike,
I wish I had the exact numbers you’re asking for; I have to admit with the expansion of our farm I’m behind on some of the more detailed book work. We’ve done yearend inventory but I have not sat down and tried to figure out the exact individuals that fell out this year. I can give you a general observation along the lines you’re asking and I could possibly confirm numbers later.

As I recall the cull pen had 3 older bigger heifers come up open compared to 1 June heifer, the number that came in dry (lost their calf) was one of each but if I add the 2 that calved in the third cycle they were both from the younger smaller group and would about make everything a wash.

In fact I do believe the last heifer pictured was the one June open

Keep in mind this is only a small group around 70-75 head and I not even sure if the split was even in numbers but it should have been close.

Sorry I don’t have that information for you...

You've done yearend inventory and you think you're behind? I wish I was that far ahead

here you go Mike ...you need to step up your dna program to select the right heifers...

http://beefmagazine.com/seedstock/good-heifer-development-all-or-nothing

All this Hfr talk....

http://heiferpro.wordpress.com/

DNA Testing........Right. Well a closed mind is a terrible thing to waste. I would like to see the DNA test on the heifers then see the DNA test on an open cull pen. I think I learn more about what to look for in replacement heifers by looking through the cull pen.
But alas, Mr. Keeney you foot the bill and I will do as many genetic tests as your heart desires.

mikejd4020 wrote:

DNA Testing........Right. Well a closed mind is a terrible thing to waste. I would like to see the DNA test on the heifers then see the DNA test on an open cull pen. I think I learn more about what to look for in replacement heifers by looking through the cull pen.
But alas, Mr. Keeney you foot the bill and I will do as many genetic tests as your heart desires.

DNA testing as we know it today is nothing more than a slight enhancement to EPD'S. It is kinda like Enzyte if you feel a need for enhancement go for it. Me i am a cheap bastard that has no need for the extra predictability that is miniscule at best and i will keep my money. But if you have a need for offspring ID then great. But i doubt that it will create any less culls in the calving pen at this date.