Real Breeders

[capt]

A very interesting question and very truly one that has the potential to cause a lot of BS to fly when there is no need. I would suggest, if I may, to change the question to who is a breeder and who is a multiplier. IMHO, most of the angus 'breeders' listed I would not necessarily call breeders but rather multipliers. I am not saying they do not have a program or are very successful in what they offer. I just don't agree with calling all of them a breeder. To make it interesting I will pony up and say two Angus outfits I would call breeders would be Jorgensen and Sinclair(N Bar included). Possibly also Green Garden Angus and Nichols Farms. Hereford side I would suggest Meitler, K&B, Pedretti, Jamison, Jim Lents, Frank Felton. No doubt that all or even anyone would agree with me, but to me there is a significant difference between being a breeder and being a multiplier. The future breeders in my mind are those with a plan in place, an understanding of mathematical statistics, a keen knowledge of animal breeding principles, the ability to evaluate cattle objectively and possess the discipline to keep the good and cull the bad.

[lcc]

When I posted I used the breeders on the list. I can't undersand why anyone would call the breeders i picked to be muitipliers? On the Hereford K&b, pedeetti, and Jamisson are great cattlemen. K & b are some of the best breeders of Hereford cattle and the most honest. The Angus breeders listed latter follow thier predisders.

[capt]

When I made my statement about the angus breeders I did not say all of them listed, I intended to say that not all of those in the original list posted that I would agree with calling them breeders. To me a breeder has to consider the entire animal and how its fits a program defined by that breeder. Since in my mind there is no perfect animal, you assess the positive and negative traits for that animal and mate them to an animal that you feel has the best chance at fixing or complementing those traits. The resulting crop of calves then needs to be sorted and evaluated as to how they meet the program criteria. For example, structurally sound cattle that are profitable in a western range environment with minimal annual precipitation might be the program they need to fit. To me the difference between a breeder and a mulitplier is the breeder raises cattle considering all environment as well as genetic factors to make a complete animal and having the discipline to cull those that do not fit or are not good enough and a multiplier copies what is being done on a large or small scale. Being a muliplier is not to be considered a demeaning term, it just means to me that they are copying what others have done without the discipline of a program or the discipline to cull those animals that do not fit the goal of the program. I am not sure the words I have chosen will convey my meaning, but hopefully so. lcc, I am not sure what your last sentence refers to. what is a predisder?

[Herefords.US]

When I made my statement about the angus breeders I did not say all of them listed, I intended to say that not all of those in the original list posted that I would agree with calling them breeders. To me a breeder has to consider the entire animal and how its fits a program defined by that breeder. Since in my mind there is no perfect animal, you assess the positive and negative traits for that animal and mate them to an animal that you feel has the best chance at fixing or complementing those traits. The resulting crop of calves then needs to be sorted and evaluated as to how they meet the program criteria. For example, structurally sound cattle that are profitable in a western range environment with minimal annual precipitation might be the program they need to fit. To me the difference between a breeder and a mulitplier is the breeder raises cattle considering all environment as well as genetic factors to make a complete animal and having the discipline to cull those that do not fit or are not good enough and a multiplier copies what is being done on a large or small scale. Being a muliplier is not to be considered a demeaning term, it just means to me that they are copying what others have done without the discipline of a program or the discipline to cull those animals that do not fit the goal of the program. I am not sure the words I have chosen will convey my meaning, but hopefully so. lcc, I am not sure what your last sentence refers to. what is a predisder?

capt, I believe the correct spelling of the word lcc used would be "predecessors".

George

[capt]

Thanks, George. I try not to assume a persons intent when choosing their words and I appreciate the help with understanding that sentence. That being said, I guess my next question is what breeders would be following the originals? I can plainly see Sinclair being called N Bar's predecessor. but I would say also that they are continuing the original program and discipline of the N Bar program. I would also suggest that most of the angus breeders out there are following the program put in place at Green Garden Angus. I am willing to say that someone possibly had that in place prior to Green Garden, but to my recollection the first I remember anyone spelling out the program specifically it was Green Garden. There are absolutely breeders in my mind in that first list and there are absolutely multipliers as well. Being big and beautiful and lasting a long time is great, but there is more than that to being a breeder or a multiplier. What constitutes the difference between a breeder and a multiplier in everyone elses mind?

[cowgirl_telly_369]

Raptor Ridge for Pinz.

[Ned Jr.]

What constitutes the difference between a breeder and a multiplier in everyone elses mind?

I pretty much agree with everything you've been saying capt. I think a breeder is one who has a vision of the type of cattle he wants. A breeder stays on the path to get to where he wants to be without veering and takes every trait into consideration. A breeder also breeds for what fits his and his customers environment.

My definition of a multiplier would be one who belongs to the bull of the month club. One who breeds with no real idea of what their breeding for. The breeders that only use the most highly promoted bulls at the time hoping they can reproduce what others did.

I was very glad to see Pedretti's and Jamison's had been put on the real breeders list by others, I agree 100%.

[Herefords.US]

What constitutes the difference between a breeder and a multiplier in everyone elses mind?

I was very glad to see Pedretti's and Jamison's had been put on the real breeders list by others, I agree 100%.

I'm sure everyone has a different level where the distinction between a "breeder" and a "multiplier" is made. My level has very little to do with whether I like their cattle. For instance, I would put Jim Lents and Frank Felton in the "breeders" category, but I have no desire to use their cattle in my program. On the other hand, I have cattle in my herd from Star Lake and DeShazer and I would consider both as "multipliers" at this point.

Regarding Pedretti and Jamison, a question for Ned and any others who have actually seen their herds and are familiar with their breeding philosophies, what makes these people "breeders" rather than "multipliers" who have jumped on the Cooper/Holden Line 1 bandwagon? What differences, if any, do they have in their breeding philosophies than that of Cooper and/or Holden? Does Cooper and Holden have any differences - from each other or from the original Miles City Line 1 philosophy?

George

[mnmtranching]

What about all the small breeders that have been using the same A.I. as the big guys for years. They don't do a lot of advertising or wine and dine the prospective clients like the big guys. Maybe don't put bulls on test like the big guys. They will likely sell their bulls for $1000's less then the famous breeders.

So the little guys aren't REAL breeders.

[smnherf]

Interesting topic and I am sure that everyone has their own philosphy about different breeders over the years and the tendency to put some big breeders up on pedestals, but I want to caution people about that. Name shouln't mean anything when purchasing bulls. Look at the status of the Hereford breed over the past 30 years and the direction it went and the problems the Hereford breed is known for and I would venture to say that some of these 'big name reputation" breeders were some of the biggest offenders of propegating problems. All in the name of money.

Brian

[capt]

George, Brian and mnmtranching have all made very good points and I am going to try and address some of these points.

First of all, mnmtranching, I don't believe for a second that the scope of an operation has anything at all to do with its philosophy and breeding practices. Large or small makes no matter to me, what does matter is the knowledge of the herd and how to take it in the desired direction.

Brian, excellent points, name shouldn't mean a thing when buying bulls, but the fact remains that it does. Not right in my opinion but so far hasn't changed, yet. That goes for other breeds as well as Hereford. And I would also venture to say that the purveyors of problems in the last thirty years are mostly gone from the breed they created the problems in. Most recent current events not included, but I do not consider discovering a genetic defect or owning a bull possessing a defect to be the creator of the problem. The problem in my mind lies in how that defect is handled and reported to customers as well as breed representatives. Money IS the root of all evil and therefore is an empty argument.

George, I will try to answer your question and if Ned wants to add or correct anything I type in here, I would welcome his input. First of all, let me say that I have had the opportunity over the last sixteen years to do quite a bit of traveling viewing Hereford and Angus seedstock operations as well as a few other breeds. Most of the breeders mentioned in this thread are included in that bunch, but not all of them. I will say right now, my only trips to California have been vacation related and not business. I would very much like to make it to Pedretti's someday and see the cowherd. I have had the opportunity to visit with Gino Pedretti and talk about the breed and understand his program and dedication to improvement. As such I am confident in the very least that he fits my definition of a breeder. I have seen cattle of his influence several different places and there is a deifinite type and 'look' to them that convinces me he knows what he is doing as far as fixing traits and a type to his cattle. I will say the exact same thing about Cooper's. Pictures will not do justice to the quality of that cowherd especially when it comes to udders. Jack and Mark Cooper both have done an outstanding job of sticking to their breeding plan and fixing a 'type and look' when it comes to their cows. That comes with persistence and discipline over a long period. Change does not happen fast in the beef cow world. Jamison's have also done an outstanding job of selecting and breeding Line One cattle to function in a very consistent manner. There are few seedstock people I have ever had the opportunity to visit with that can sit down with you and recall complete notes and descriptions of not only bulls but cows that influenced the breed 30 to 40 years ago. That kind of knowledge and recall is very important when mating cattle and pushing for genetic improvement. Jack Holden possesses that same kind of recall in my mind. The thing that really stands out for me with these breeders, and I will call them breeders, is the fact that I can differ on opinion with any of them they have stuck to their plan, kept the good ones, culled the bad ones and will stand behind their product. They have been nothing but honest and forthright with me and my questions, criticisms, and concerns. All of the ones I listed in my 'breeders category would be the same. As far as differentiating whether or not they all 'followed Miles city' or not, I will answer that this way. If I remember correctly the mandate for research at "Miles City" (Fort Keogh Livestock and Range Research Laboratory) was to select for increased growth in Hereford cattle to one year of age. Kind of sounds like single trait selection a little bit, but I will be the first to admit that the environment at Miles City does not allow single trait selection. They would have all died out there long ago if that was true!! Holden, Jamison, Cooper and Pedretti as well as many other breeders, large and small, have SELECTED cattle from the research at Fort Keogh LARRL to influence and contribute to their breeding programs. I emphasize Selection because it is one of foundations on which to improve genetics. Whether you like the Miles City cattle or not, the genes within those cattle have been fixed and are very repeatable which is highly valuable in my mind.

I will say that the difference between a breeder and a multiplier is very distinct and in my mind there is nothing wrong with being a multiplier. There is nothing out there that says those genetics will not breed true. That is what makes genetics so interesting to me. We are only starting to gain more and more knowledge and to me that is the ultimate goal, to gain knowledge and make improvement. As for me, I will choose to go the route that has been the most repeatable and that will include linebreeding, both in Herefords and Angus. Hope I have answered some questions, created something to think about, not stepped on anyones toes and I really look forward to hearing some more from others perspective.

[Ned Jr.]

What constitutes the difference between a breeder and a multiplier in everyone elses mind?

Regarding Pedretti and Jamison, a question for Ned and any others who have actually seen their herds and are familiar with their breeding philosophies, what makes these people "breeders" rather than "multipliers" who have jumped on the Cooper/Holden Line 1 bandwagon? What differences, if any, do they have in their breeding philosophies than that of Cooper and/or Holden? Does Cooper and Holden have any differences - from each other or from the original Miles City Line 1 philosophy?

George

George, To say Pedretti and Jamison are "multipliers" and not breeders just because they all use Line 1 genetics would be like saying George Strait isn't a real country music singer just because he sang a few Hank Williams songs. These great breeders have hits of their own.

While I know they share many of the same breeding phylosophys they still have many differences. I would say Pedretti's herd is full of power cows. Their cattle probably have more bone than any other Line 1 breeder and probably more milk. They've kept records to try and select for cows that come to their milk later on when the calf needs more instead of all at first when the calf can't handle it all. They try to select for cows that raise big calves and have tight little udders high in butter fat. Gino is a perfectionist at everything he does, from his Hereford cattle to his cotton and alfalfa crops, to his dairy, to the love he has for his wife and family. He's a great man that is very approachable and easy to talk to.

Jamison's breed cattle to fit their environment and not just any Line 1 cattle will. Their cattle may be the most sound and structurally correct. And they have to be because they and a lot of their customers run in areas cattle have to travel long distances for food and water. I think Gordon is a genetic genius that was probably born 100 years to late.

These are just a few of the differences I've seen between these two Line 1 breeders and the others. They definitely have their own type of cattle they breed for.

[Herefords.US]

I knew you'd provide a good informative answer to that question, Ned! And thanks to capt for his input as well.

For the record, I asked the question with the goal of stimulating discussion and not because I, personally, don't consider any of those I listed as "real" breeders. Some other Line 1 breeders that I would put in the "real breeder" category would be Debters, Bakers, and Harrells. And I'm sure I've overlooked others in that short list.

Regarding Pedretti, I think Pedretti's 250 bull (GB L1 Domino 250), even though he was born back in 1992, is a bull that could still really improve a LOT of today's Hereford cattle.

I will admit to being disappointed in the most recent Jamison advertisement for their sale - because every reference sire pictured was either a Cooper or Holden bred bull and none were home raised. To me, one important criteria of a "breeder" is someone that's willing to "eat some of their own cooking" and use home raised bulls in their own herd. But I know that Jamison has done so in the past.

http://www.agmailusa.com/jamison0209/sires.htm

Edited to add: By the way, I've got some "crazy" friends down here that think George Strait isn't a "REAL" country music singer! But they are all stuck on that "Texas" music!

George

[Ned Jr.]

I knew you'd provide a good informative answer to that question, Ned! And thanks to capt for his input as well.

For the record, I asked the question with the goal of stimulating discussion and not because I, personally, don't consider any of those I listed as "real" breeders. Some other Line 1 breeders that I would put in the "real breeder" category would be Debters, Bakers, and Harrells. And I'm sure I've overlooked others in that short list.

I've been to the sales and seen the herds of all three above mentioned breeders. They all have their own distinctive type and different things they specialise in. All three are definitely "real breeders" in my eye too.


Regarding Pedretti, I think Pedretti's 250 bull (GB L1 Domino 250), even though he was born back in 1992, is a bull that could still really improve a LOT of today's Hereford cattle.

I agree, I think the 250 bull left some awfully good daughters behind. Pedretti's have a couple bulls they're using now that I sure like. Here's their links.
http://www.herfnet.com/online/cgi-bin/i ... D&9=5C5D5E

http://www.herfnet.com/online/cgi-bin/i ... 0&9=5C5C59


I will admit to being disappointed in the most recent Jamison advertisement for their sale - because every reference sire pictured was either a Cooper or Holden bred bull and none were home raised. To me, one important criteria of a "breeder" is someone that's willing to "eat some of their own cooking" and use home raised bulls in their own herd. But I know that Jamison has done so in the past.

http://www.agmailusa.com/jamison0209/sires.htm

Here's one of the bulls they're using now from their own breeding I really like.

http://www.herfnet.com/online/cgi-bin/i ... F&9=5C5B50


Edited to add: By the way, I've got some "crazy" friends down here that think George Strait isn't a "REAL" country music singer! But they are all stuck on that "Texas" music!

I listen to that Texan music a lot myself. Good stuff. But George Strait is still a great country music singer.

George

[watson brangus]

As far as Brangus go, which is going to become more and more popular due to the fact that we have an association now with a buisness like mind set.
I would say that Cow Creek, now that Camp Cooley is a gone pecan, would be the "real" breeder in our breed, along with Vern Suhn, Salacoa Valley also has a great herd, but has been hurt due to management flip flopping. All are great programs, but many smaller breeders do just as much for the breed than the big guys. At our farm we usually stick to programs like Salacoa and Cooley, that concentrate on cow dominance versus programs like Cow Creek that concentrate on line breeding a select number of bulls. Each breeder big or small in my opinion gives a breed something(for the most part) that possibly someone else can't do in the breed. Big farms can concentrate on international marketing, whereas smaller breeders are usually better at marketing local areas.