AAA

Help Support CattleToday:

pdfangus":2i4lnsax said:
bse":2i4lnsax said:
Seems its died down on these boards, the ones with there feelings hurt may be getting over it. I went to a sale yesterday our X RM was there maybe finishing what he started in the sale books not sure, but it sure didnt change him any he still only talked to the high rollers, if it was me i would talk to everyone that walked through the door( i would have before i got fired also)because most everyone that walks through the door has a vote for a delegate, even though thats a good ol boy thing to.
heard a few talking that the AAA was headed down hill Tom Burke will loose half his clients and so on. I have to believe the BOD made the right decision and the AAA will be better off in the long run, without snakes. The truth of the whole thing may never come out to everyone, but i like for someone to tell me if they have a problem with me, not try and blind side me like these folks did, thats how i decided which side of the fence to be on.

Couple of things in this post that don't bother me but I think deserve a response......for one thing it has always been part of the fieldmans jobe to identify and encourage the new investor and breeder....the high rollers are after all the ones with the money....no one cares if I show up at a sale cause they all know I am not buying a thing....I was a breeder not a buyer...didn't play the you buy mine and I'll buy yours game....

The angus breed may be on the slide again but if so it is because of self induced breed genetic problems that will be sorted out and corrected....I see a lot of breeders quietly shifting the directions of their breeding programs....

thirdly I have had the misfortune in my life of working for a snake or two....they are the kind that you can not go to and talk out problems....they will strike every time....that is the nature of a snake...and being familiar with a few of the signatories of the letter I think the wrong group may be characterized with slithering tendencies......conditions would have to be pretty bad to induce folks to sign on to that kind of document....more than mischevious behavior or blind ambition....look at the years of service represented without any previous cries of foul....

I agree with your post. In Feb. I attended the an Angus sale and purchased a bull for the first time in many years. It was in western OK. The field representitive was very friendly. I was impressed with him. It was obvious he was interested in the new people at the sale. He had no way of knowing when he first talked to me if I was just a looker or was a potential buyer. As impressed as I was with him I was just as disappointed with the overall quality of the top AI sired bulls and the direction it seems the breed and the AI stations are going. If the Angus breed doesn't address some issues including the lack of muscling in the hindquarters they are going to lose a bunch of commercial customers. I'm alread looking at using some Hereford genetics and raising black baldies after attending this sale. Back to the field representative. He signed the letter and was one that was let go. From what little I've heard is that the working conditions in the office were bad under the current CEO. That several had tried to offer suggestions and talk to him about it and but it is his way of the highway. I feel for those that have lost their jobs but have heard some have already been offered jobs other places. What happens really doesn't mean alot to me. I hate to see anyone lose a job. For numbers to mean anything they need to be actual weights, ect and not adjusted. I found all of the genomic data provided of very little help. And all of the EPD's were adjusted. I visited another breeder and he listed actual weights along with the adjusted weights and ratios. The Angus breed needs to re evaluate the course they are pursuing. I have found a breeder now who is still raising the kind of bull that will sire calves that will be profitable from the time they hit the ground until they are hung on the rail. I have worked in the corporate world for 39 years. I will say from what I've heard this is a case of a CEO acting like a dictator and a board unwilling to reign him in.
 
elkwc":3rrpl12d said:
pdfangus":3rrpl12d said:
bse":3rrpl12d said:
Seems its died down on these boards, the ones with there feelings hurt may be getting over it. I went to a sale yesterday our X RM was there maybe finishing what he started in the sale books not sure, but it sure didnt change him any he still only talked to the high rollers, if it was me i would talk to everyone that walked through the door( i would have before i got fired also)because most everyone that walks through the door has a vote for a delegate, even though thats a good ol boy thing to.
heard a few talking that the AAA was headed down hill Tom Burke will loose half his clients and so on. I have to believe the BOD made the right decision and the AAA will be better off in the long run, without snakes. The truth of the whole thing may never come out to everyone, but i like for someone to tell me if they have a problem with me, not try and blind side me like these folks did, thats how i decided which side of the fence to be on.

Couple of things in this post that don't bother me but I think deserve a response......for one thing it has always been part of the fieldmans jobe to identify and encourage the new investor and breeder....the high rollers are after all the ones with the money....no one cares if I show up at a sale cause they all know I am not buying a thing....I was a breeder not a buyer...didn't play the you buy mine and I'll buy yours game....

The angus breed may be on the slide again but if so it is because of self induced breed genetic problems that will be sorted out and corrected....I see a lot of breeders quietly shifting the directions of their breeding programs....

thirdly I have had the misfortune in my life of working for a snake or two....they are the kind that you can not go to and talk out problems....they will strike every time....that is the nature of a snake...and being familiar with a few of the signatories of the letter I think the wrong group may be characterized with slithering tendencies......conditions would have to be pretty bad to induce folks to sign on to that kind of document....more than mischevious behavior or blind ambition....look at the years of service represented without any previous cries of foul....

I agree with your post. In Feb. I attended the an Angus sale and purchased a bull for the first time in many years. It was in western OK. The field representitive was very friendly. I was impressed with him. It was obvious he was interested in the new people at the sale. He had no way of knowing when he first talked to me if I was just a looker or was a potential buyer. As impressed as I was with him I was just as disappointed with the overall quality of the top AI sired bulls and the direction it seems the breed and the AI stations are going. If the Angus breed doesn't address some issues including the lack of muscling in the hindquarters they are going to lose a bunch of commercial customers. I'm alread looking at using some Hereford genetics and raising black baldies after attending this sale. Back to the field representative. He signed the letter and was one that was let go. From what little I've heard is that the working conditions in the office were bad under the current CEO. That several had tried to offer suggestions and talk to him about it and but it is his way of the highway. I feel for those that have lost their jobs but have heard some have already been offered jobs other places. What happens really doesn't mean alot to me. I hate to see anyone lose a job. For numbers to mean anything they need to be actual weights, ect and not adjusted. I found all of the genomic data provided of very little help. And all of the EPD's were adjusted. I visited another breeder and he listed actual weights along with the adjusted weights and ratios. The Angus breed needs to re evaluate the course they are pursuing. I have found a breeder now who is still raising the kind of bull that will sire calves that will be profitable from the time they hit the ground until they are hung on the rail. I have worked in the corporate world for 39 years. I will say from what I've heard this is a case of a CEO acting like a dictator and a board unwilling to reign him in.

Not going to knock your opinion, but will say that given the flaws in the breed you listed it appears to me at least they did let at least some of the right people go,
in addition to one of those people being the person in charge of office / people management (not the CEO).
 
elkwc:
So, in your 39 years of corporate life, did the regional managers tell the CEO of the company what to do?
How often did the regional managers send ultimatums to the board DEMANDING they fire the CEO?
 
buymorebulls":2351n5c4 said:
elkwc:
So, in your 39 years of corporate life, did the regional managers tell the CEO of the company what to do?
How often did the regional managers send ultimatums to the board DEMANDING they fire the CEO?

not elkwc......

but the very serious nature of your two questions.....

and the rarity of such actions...

implies to me the level of internal discontent.....

I have not way of knowing what caused the discontent, or who might have been strirring the pot....

in my younger days I would have just moved on....but as an older unit with a lot of time invested the decision is even tougher because finding a decent job we you are older is still tough...so the decision is to take the abuse or take the chance....these folks obviously thought they had a chance....

I put up with a lot of crapola every day....but my producers and clients thank me daily for the things I try to do for them....makes up for a lot of crapola....so I just smile and keep moving when the crapola strikes....

Life is seldom as simple as many folks would like it to be....and things can not always be easily monday morning quarterbacked...

message below is an e-mail that flashed on my screen while I was typing this.....

"That is great news!! Thank you so much Jim. I will give Dana a call today. As always, you are so very helpful! "
 
elkwc":1jtu6k2g said:
I agree with your post. In Feb. I attended the an Angus sale and purchased a bull for the first time in many years. It was in western OK. The field representitive was very friendly. I was impressed with him. It was obvious he was interested in the new people at the sale. He had no way of knowing when he first talked to me if I was just a looker or was a potential buyer. As impressed as I was with him I was just as disappointed with the overall quality of the top AI sired bulls and the direction it seems the breed and the AI stations are going. If the Angus breed doesn't address some issues including the lack of muscling in the hindquarters they are going to lose a bunch of commercial customers. I'm alread looking at using some Hereford genetics and raising black baldies after attending this sale. Back to the field representative. He signed the letter and was one that was let go. From what little I've heard is that the working conditions in the office were bad under the current CEO. That several had tried to offer suggestions and talk to him about it and but it is his way of the highway. I feel for those that have lost their jobs but have heard some have already been offered jobs other places. What happens really doesn't mean alot to me. I hate to see anyone lose a job. For numbers to mean anything they need to be actual weights, ect and not adjusted. I found all of the genomic data provided of very little help. And all of the EPD's were adjusted. I visited another breeder and he listed actual weights along with the adjusted weights and ratios. The Angus breed needs to re evaluate the course they are pursuing. I have found a breeder now who is still raising the kind of bull that will sire calves that will be profitable from the time they hit the ground until they are hung on the rail. I have worked in the corporate world for 39 years. I will say from what I've heard this is a case of a CEO acting like a dictator and a board unwilling to reign him in.


A large part of this comment seems to need a different thread but the entire point behind EPDs and adjusted weights to give you a true comparison by taking age and environment out of the equation. It does no good to use actual weights without adjustments or ratios. Those are just pretty numbers to look at that have no real meaning.
 
Jake I respect your opinion but disagree. Adjusted weights and EPD's doesn't give a true comparison. Sadly when adjusting is started then pencil whipping follows many times. I recently looked a set of bulls at a sale. The adjusted 365 days weights were many times 100-150 lbs heavier than their actual 365 day weight. Their ratios and EPD's looked great. When I sell a commercial calf at the sale barn I sell it by actual weight. I can't sell by adjusted weight. The point behind adjusted weights might be good but sadly they are being abused. Take BW for another example. I have seen several bulls touted at heifer bulls by their BW EPD's. But if you find out their actual BW it may be over 80 lbs. I've seen several of those that were sold as heifer bulls by their BW EPD's that consistently sire calves in the mid 80's. For me if I'm buying a heifer bull I want to know the actual BW. I could care less about an adjusted weight. The same with a YW. Give me the actual weight. I'm good at math and it isn't hard to compare a bull that weighed 1100 to one that weighed 1150 at 365 days. If they want to provide both that is fine. But perosonally I will never purchase another bull where the breeder doesn't provide actual BW's, WW's and YW's. To me the adjusted numbers and ratios are like you said just pretty numbers that it the real world are nothing more than fluff. When I feed a calf in the feedyard I deal with real numbers. Actual gain and actual cost of gain. That determines if I make any money or not.
 
buymorebulls":2iipgnsy said:
elkwc:
So, in your 39 years of corporate life, did the regional managers tell the CEO of the company what to do?
How often did the regional managers send ultimatums to the board DEMANDING they fire the CEO?

I can tell you that one time a major stockholder felt that some in management below the CEO were correct and was successful in forcing action by the board to replace him. I know it doesn't happen often but it can. From what I've heard this CEO is out of touch with those who do the work along with the average breeder. From what I've learned in my opinion he is pushing the agenda of the money folks like the bull stations. That is one reason the Angus breed it taking the direction it is in my opinion. I have never been one who goes for something just because it is the flavor of the month. I want to produce an animal that will be profitable from the time it hits the ground until it is hanging on the rail. And if I decide to keep a heifer will produce a good cow with a good udder. Fortunately there are still some breeders who are ignoring the popular trend and still raising cattle that will survive and perform in a grass and cake operation.
 
elkwc":2plpmpqx said:
Jake I respect your opinion but disagree. Adjusted weights and EPD's doesn't give a true comparison. Sadly when adjusting is started then pencil whipping follows many times. I recently looked a set of bulls at a sale. The adjusted 365 days weights were many times 100-150 lbs heavier than their actual 365 day weight. Their ratios and EPD's looked great. When I sell a commercial calf at the sale barn I sell it by actual weight. I can't sell by adjusted weight. The point behind adjusted weights might be good but sadly they are being abused. Take BW for another example. I have seen several bulls touted at heifer bulls by their BW EPD's. But if you find out their actual BW it may be over 80 lbs. I've seen several of those that were sold as heifer bulls by their BW EPD's that consistently sire calves in the mid 80's. For me if I'm buying a heifer bull I want to know the actual BW. I could care less about an adjusted weight. The same with a YW. Give me the actual weight. I'm good at math and it isn't hard to compare a bull that weighed 1100 to one that weighed 1150 at 365 days. If they want to provide both that is fine. But perosonally I will never purchase another bull where the breeder doesn't provide actual BW's, WW's and YW's. To me the adjusted numbers and ratios are like you said just pretty numbers that it the real world are nothing more than fluff. When I feed a calf in the feedyard I deal with real numbers. Actual gain and actual cost of gain. That determines if I make any money or not.

I don't necessarily disagree with your stance, but there is no accounting for environment in actual weights. A calf raised in different environments will have different weights, but doesn't chang the genetic potential of the animal so you have to account for that somehow across the breed.
 
Jake that is where I make my own judgement after I view a herd and the management policies of the breeder. A calf born and grown in a grass and cake situation during the drought the last few years is likely going to be a little lighter than a similar calf raised during a normal year which we haven't seen in six years. Another factor that isn't noted on any EPD's and few if any information about a calf is if there were creep fed. I thought creep feeders were relics. But to my surprise when I visited a breeder recently who listed high WW's there were calves eating in a creep feeder. I've looked at several EPD's of calves from this breeder and not one mentioned they were creep fed. I know breeders who grow/develop their bulls and try to limit gain to around 2.5 lbs per day. Although the cattle have genetics to gain much more they feel they will be more sound and have more longevity. So when I look at their cattle I take that into consideration. Instead of seeing high WWs and YW ratios they are lower but their calves will gain as well or better than those whose sire was pushed and the bull will likely be more productive for a longer time. None of this is accounted for. I don't feel that you can accurately account for environmental differences between years and geographic locations. Give me the actual weights, tell me how you develop them and I'll make the decision on which animal will be the most productive for me. After I mentioned seeing the creep feeder I was told several breeders still use them. So again numbers are only as good as the information being put in to develop them. We each have a difference in opinions about how much value to give to EPD'S, DNA testing, ect. I know one commercial Angus breeder who is selecting his replacement heifers strictly from the DNA/genomic test. He stated he doesn't look at their structure, conformation, ect. Personally I would never do that. But it is his money and his cattle so he can select them how he desires. Doesn't mean I have to agree with him.
 
I have to agree with elkwc....

and this is a change that I have come to in the last ten years.....

I have been a performance breeder all of my life...in an age of cheap corn it was easy to do....feed them on the feed yard model and measure the growth and look at the phenotype....

I believed in bull tests and was on bull test committees for the state BCIA....

but the econonmy has changed and the market is changing.....

but agricultural producers are very slow to change old habits.....

many new breeders today enjoy the technological challenge and keeping up with the computer generated stuff more than the cattle....

that gives rise to attitudes like at the end of elkwc's paragraph......

then you get cattle who are great on paper that I would not admit to owning when viewed in the flesh....

the computer is a wonderful tool but it cannot replace the eye and the art of the master breeder....
 
The "eye of the master" brought belt buckle cattle in the 50's and selection for phenotypes that let dwarfism propagate itself through the gene pool.

The "eye of the master" brought elephants to our midst during the 80's and selection for phenotypes that couldn't have a calf, couldn't feed it if somehow it managed to survive the birthing process, needed free access to a grain bin to stay in a BCS 3 and in hindsight, needed to be sold "live weight".

The "eye of the master" is bringing us additional bone at ~6 cents/pound and more hair and low performing puss bellied cattle that take more yard time to finish in the 10's.

Yup, I'd say the "eye of the master" has been really good at bringing us a new extreme phenotype about every 3 decades, which is also generally considered one human generation.

I don't need any more subjective "eye of the master" as the end all. I need objective measurements that I can make meaningful decisions with. Whether I need to make genetic change quickly, slowly or keep genetic change to zero, EPD's allow everyone to do that.

What phenotype is the "eye of the master" teaching the next generational "master" to make?
 
buymorebulls":1ggwx82n said:
The "eye of the master" brought belt buckle cattle in the 50's and selection for phenotypes that let dwarfism propagate itself through the gene pool.

The "eye of the master" brought elephants to our midst during the 80's and selection for phenotypes that couldn't have a calf, couldn't feed it if somehow it managed to survive the birthing process, needed free access to a grain bin to stay in a BCS 3 and in hindsight, needed to be sold "live weight".

The "eye of the master" is bringing us additional bone at ~6 cents/pound and more hair and low performing puss bellied cattle that take more yard time to finish in the 10's.

Yup, I'd say the "eye of the master" has been really good at bringing us a new extreme phenotype about every 3 decades, which is also generally considered one human generation.

I don't need any more subjective "eye of the master" as the end all. I need objective measurements that I can make meaningful decisions with. Whether I need to make genetic change quickly, slowly or keep genetic change to zero, EPD's allow everyone to do that.

What phenotype is the "eye of the master" teaching the next generational "master" to make?

Great post.

Pointed selection towards an extreme can happen whether the person is chasing numbers or part of the anti numbers crowd. The "eye of the master" can and will ruin cattle as fast as a computer geek crushing numbers. There has to be a balance in everything for selecting functional cattle and ignoring available tools makes it that much harder to achieve.
 
buymorebulls":3d9m015b said:
Whether I need to make genetic change quickly, slowly or keep genetic change to zero, EPD's allow everyone to do that.

On paper...possibly. In reality, you're just kidding yourself if you believe that statement...and trying to perpetuate the myth of EPDs.

JWBrahman":3d9m015b said:
EPD's are nothing but a marketing tool masquerading as hard science. Greatest line of bull shee yit I have ever heard:

"It is all about the numbers, and if they look good that is a plus."
Mark Gardiner
:bs: :bs: :bs: :roll:

And some folks, like buymorebulls, just want to keep piling that "bull shee yit" higher and higher - an effort to hoodwink bull buyers into thinking it's OK if, borrowing from Schwarzenegger, "Your herd bulls all look like a bunch of "girley men".
 
buymorebulls":2c63o2ks said:
The "eye of the master" brought belt buckle cattle in the 50's and selection for phenotypes that let dwarfism propagate itself through the gene pool.

The "eye of the master" brought elephants to our midst during the 80's and selection for phenotypes that couldn't have a calf, couldn't feed it if somehow it managed to survive the birthing process, needed free access to a grain bin to stay in a BCS 3 and in hindsight, needed to be sold "live weight".

The "eye of the master" is bringing us additional bone at ~6 cents/pound and more hair and low performing puss bellied cattle that take more yard time to finish in the 10's.

Yup, I'd say the "eye of the master" has been really good at bringing us a new extreme phenotype about every 3 decades, which is also generally considered one human generation.

I don't need any more subjective "eye of the master" as the end all. I need objective measurements that I can make meaningful decisions with. Whether I need to make genetic change quickly, slowly or keep genetic change to zero, EPD's allow everyone to do that.

What phenotype is the "eye of the master" teaching the next generational "master" to make?

the only place I would disagree with you is in your assumption that what happens in the show ring has any correlation to breeding great cattle.....using your own evidence I would argue that the reverse is true.........the master breeders are usually unknown to the masses until they are nearing the end of their tenure....master breeders have a goal and an ideal in mind and spend a lifetime trying to achieve it....they are not the ones chasing fads and judges....

also if you read my entire post rather than keying in on one phrase you would see that I stated that I have been a performance breeder all my life.....I have not abandoned the importance of performance.....but this latest trend of having an EPD for everything from the number of teeth to the number of tail hairs is nothing more than the latest fad that the pseudo masters are chasing....EPDs cannot replace in herd performance and where possible across herd performance comparisons....

and taking out the variables of environment is a load of crap....livestock MUST be adapted to the environment they have to live in....

my daddy use to use an old saying......figures don't lie......but liars do figure....not talking about anyone here but the trend of hiding everything behind a myriad of numbers that are based on other made up numbers.......
 
pdfangus":2m0wmnow said:
buymorebulls":2m0wmnow said:
The "eye of the master" brought belt buckle cattle in the 50's and selection for phenotypes that let dwarfism propagate itself through the gene pool.

The "eye of the master" brought elephants to our midst during the 80's and selection for phenotypes that couldn't have a calf, couldn't feed it if somehow it managed to survive the birthing process, needed free access to a grain bin to stay in a BCS 3 and in hindsight, needed to be sold "live weight".

The "eye of the master" is bringing us additional bone at ~6 cents/pound and more hair and low performing puss bellied cattle that take more yard time to finish in the 10's.

Yup, I'd say the "eye of the master" has been really good at bringing us a new extreme phenotype about every 3 decades, which is also generally considered one human generation.

I don't need any more subjective "eye of the master" as the end all. I need objective measurements that I can make meaningful decisions with. Whether I need to make genetic change quickly, slowly or keep genetic change to zero, EPD's allow everyone to do that.

What phenotype is the "eye of the master" teaching the next generational "master" to make?

the only place I would disagree with you is in your assumption that what happens in the show ring has any correlation to breeding great cattle.....using your own evidence I would argue that the reverse is true.........the master breeders are usually unknown to the masses until they are nearing the end of their tenure....master breeders have a goal and an ideal in mind and spend a lifetime trying to achieve it....they are not the ones chasing fads and judges....
...

You beat me to it. Most of those breeders who bred and "showed" the low bellies of the 50's, the 8 and 9 frame freaks of the 80's aren't in business any more, kind of like the emu breeders of the 90's. Nothing but a fad, not the real beef business. And I would bet a steak dinner that a lot of the ones showing the fat little toads of the 2010's won't be around in the next decade either. The "masters" weren't breeding or showing that crap. That's why they lasted for the long haul, not just jump from fad to fad, only to fizzle out in 10 years or less. Some of those guys changed breeds and programs at a pretty fast pace. Fast enough to stay ahead of the bankers and their customers.

Those who want to base breeding decisions strictly by the numbers (EPDs) might want to consider the hog or poultry business, where the climate and environment can be easily controlled.
 
pdfangus":30q29hbw said:
I have to agree with elkwc....

and this is a change that I have come to in the last ten years.....

I have been a performance breeder all of my life...in an age of cheap corn it was easy to do....feed them on the feed yard model and measure the growth and look at the phenotype....

I believed in bull tests and was on bull test committees for the state BCIA....

but the econonmy has changed and the market is changing.....

but agricultural producers are very slow to change old habits.....

many new breeders today enjoy the technological challenge and keeping up with the computer generated stuff more than the cattle....

that gives rise to attitudes like at the end of elkwc's paragraph......

then you get cattle who are great on paper that I would not admit to owning when viewed in the flesh....

the computer is a wonderful tool but it cannot replace the eye and the art of the master breeder....

PDF I agree with your post. BW's are another example. The ratios mean little if anything. I want to see the real BW. When an 80# plus calf is listed as a heifer bull by EPD's I disagree. It was explained to be that the bull's mother was ran on wheat while carrying him so his BW was adj. down. I don't care in my opinion he still isn't a heifer bull. We had some replacement heifers breed on the cows before they got weaned last summer. It was before I became involved in management of the herd. These heifers have been run on wheat since the first of December. So far knock on wood 3 have calved and all have had them on their own and not a calf over low 70's. One low 60's. The point I'm trying to make is you have to use some cow sense. And adjusted BW's supposedly for environmental reasons many times don't represent the real commercial cow world.
 

Latest posts

Top