Masculine bulls?

I have no doubt that sustained heterosis will result in good calves. In fact, that's kind of the point. And genes are responsible for phenotype, along with environment. My point is just that inbred animals aren't phenotypically outstanding, like non-inbred animals, on average. If they are, they probably aren't inbred, in my opinion. My point about looking at progeny is just that there are probably some phenotypically outstanding animals who are inbred-- you prove that (to me at least) by looking at the phenotype of his progeny-- does he breed true to his phenotype? If he does, and his pedigree says so, then he's probably inbred. If he doesn't breed true, then his pedigree is not a good proxy for the genes he actually got. He simply got a favorable sort of genes. Obviously, a highly homozgygous genotype is not an evolutionarily favorable set of genes.

MKeeney wrote:

Quote :

Is it safe to assume then that in answer to my question, in your opinion at least, that breeding for homozygosity is not mutually exclusive to visually accessed selection standards in a culling, selecting process?

in the parent stock, yes...

Thanks MKeeney.

Mean Spirit wrote:

I have no doubt that sustained heterosis will result in good calves. In fact, that's kind of the point. And genes are responsible for phenotype, along with environment. My point is just that inbred animals aren't phenotypically outstanding, like non-inbred animals, on average. If they are, they probably aren't inbred, in my opinion. My point about looking at progeny is just that there are probably some phenotypically outstanding animals who are inbred-- you prove that (to me at least) by looking at the phenotype of his progeny-- does he breed true to his phenotype? If he does, and his pedigree says so, then he's probably inbred. If he doesn't breed true, then his pedigree is not a good proxy for the genes he actually got. He simply got a favorable sort of genes. Obviously, a highly homozgygous genotype is not an evolutionarily favorable set of genes.

Mean spirit, Thanks for the reply.

I have seen very few inbred animals so I will have to take your word on the "plain" phenotype of inbred individuals. Is plain an appropriate description?

In your experience with inbred animals that express predictably due to there homozygosity, what is it that they predictably express or exhibit that makes them desirable to commercial outfits?

Dylan I would want to be able to breed 85% of the heifer calf crop. In breeding them for 30 days with out any extra input cost have 85% breed and as 3 year olds with out any input cost to breed back in the 95% range I would be satisfied.

Dylan Biggs wrote:

Mean Spirit wrote:

I have no doubt that sustained heterosis will result in good calves. In fact, that's kind of the point. And genes are responsible for phenotype, along with environment. My point is just that inbred animals aren't phenotypically outstanding, like non-inbred animals, on average. If they are, they probably aren't inbred, in my opinion. My point about looking at progeny is just that there are probably some phenotypically outstanding animals who are inbred-- you prove that (to me at least) by looking at the phenotype of his progeny-- does he breed true to his phenotype? If he does, and his pedigree says so, then he's probably inbred. If he doesn't breed true, then his pedigree is not a good proxy for the genes he actually got. He simply got a favorable sort of genes. Obviously, a highly homozgygous genotype is not an evolutionarily favorable set of genes.

Mean spirit, Thanks for the reply.

I have seen very few inbred animals so I will have to take your word on the "plain" phenotype of inbred individuals. Is plain an appropriate description?

In your experience with inbred animals that express predictably due to there homozygosity, what is it that they predictably express or exhibit that makes them desirable to commercial outfits?

I don't think I mean plain. I mean phenotypically depressed. And I wouldn't really say they are desirable because of what they predictably express or exhibit-- what they express or exhibit would be their phenotype. They are valuable because of their genotype, which allows them to predictably produce progeny that express desired traits for which they are homozygous.

Bob H wrote:

Dylan I would want to be able to breed 85% of the heifer calf crop. In breeding them for 30 days with out any extra input cost have 85% breed and as 3 year olds with out any input cost to breed back in the 95% range I would be satisfied.

I like the 30 days on 85% of the hiefer crop. 95% on the threes would be satisfactory.

Please explain "any input costs" to breed back. Short of grass are you refering to salt or mineral or fly tags or supplemental feed, during the breeding season or 60 days preseason?

Thanks

Dylan

Mean Spirit wrote:

Dylan Biggs wrote:

Mean Spirit wrote:

I have no doubt that sustained heterosis will result in good calves. In fact, that's kind of the point. And genes are responsible for phenotype, along with environment. My point is just that inbred animals aren't phenotypically outstanding, like non-inbred animals, on average. If they are, they probably aren't inbred, in my opinion. My point about looking at progeny is just that there are probably some phenotypically outstanding animals who are inbred-- you prove that (to me at least) by looking at the phenotype of his progeny-- does he breed true to his phenotype? If he does, and his pedigree says so, then he's probably inbred. If he doesn't breed true, then his pedigree is not a good proxy for the genes he actually got. He simply got a favorable sort of genes. Obviously, a highly homozgygous genotype is not an evolutionarily favorable set of genes.

Mean spirit, Thanks for the reply.

I have seen very few inbred animals so I will have to take your word on the "plain" phenotype of inbred individuals. Is plain an appropriate description?

In your experience with inbred animals that express predictably due to there homozygosity, what is it that they predictably express or exhibit that makes them desirable to commercial outfits?

I don't think I mean plain. I mean phenotypically depressed. And I wouldn't really say they are desirable because of what they predictably express or exhibit-- what they express or exhibit would be their phenotype. They are valuable because of their genotype, which allows them to predictably produce progeny that express desired traits for which they are homozygous.

Mean Spirit, how specifically is the phenotypic depression expressed?

What desired traits are you referring to?

What is the difference between producing and expressing?

1. It depends on the phenotype you are concerned with. Two examples-- Mature size as a phenotype-- depressed would be smaller size. Phenotypic expression of fitness is expressed as decreased fertility or some other measure of fitness.

2. Any quantitative traits of interest that are measured as phenotypes. Im not referring to anything.

3. Genotypes are expressed as phenotypes. Mommas produce babies.

Dylan Biggs wrote:

MKeeney wrote:

Quote :

Is it safe to assume then that in answer to my question, in your opinion at least, that breeding for homozygosity is not mutually exclusive to visually accessed selection standards in a culling, selecting process?

in the parent stock, yes...

Thanks MKeeney.

maybe I should have said no...not sure I understood, or was understood...we really can`t apply the same selection criteria to tighter inbred stock as we do ordinary production..if we did, we would never retain the inbred nubbin ear of corn...

Grassfarmer wrote:

This cow isn't perfect Dylan, her udder is not ideal and she may have faulty leg angles, I don't know. Point is she reared calves to 23 and was never assisted to calf, suckle, was never lame or had feet trimmed so in my mind that beats a picture perfect second calver every time - because you don't know what she will do over the long haul. "Form Follows Function - it doesn't predetermine it" as LL likes to say.

GF, she looks fine to me and as "beauty is as beauty does", from her record, she is beautiful.

We currently have these numbers using Shoshone trueline cattle. We wean the heifer calve's for 3 days and turn them out with the male calve's mother's, the last 2 winter's have been mild and all we supplement is salt with selinium and copper to achieve these goals . If time's are harder I would expect them to survive on the same as the cowherd. We breed just to fit our enviroment and expect to get 95% in 2 heat cycles we have a effiecent winter country so we do not preg and start calving March 5th because it is spring here. We will adjust the 1st of may on the cow herd. But normaly we sell every cow that doesn't have a calf. We never have a 40 head truck load out of these cattle that are about 700 in number.

Dylan Biggs wrote:

Grassfarmer wrote:

This cow isn't perfect Dylan, her udder is not ideal and she may have faulty leg angles, I don't know. Point is she reared calves to 23 and was never assisted to calf, suckle, was never lame or had feet trimmed so in my mind that beats a picture perfect second calver every time - because you don't know what she will do over the long haul. "Form Follows Function - it doesn't predetermine it" as LL likes to say.

GF, she looks fine to me and as "beauty is as beauty does", from her record, she is beautiful.

Would you have picked her out of the replacement heifer pen 25 years ago though based on phenotype and performance? Like her linebred descendants in my herd today she was likely around the smallest, plainest looking heifer in the pen at that age. I think we generally have been picking the wrong ones by picking for looks, I'll bet 99% of customers would never pick the smallest, plainest heifer. I'm just happy I found this way to hopefully recreate her using line breeding. I'll be mating calves this year that are out of two different daughters that are both similar in type to their mother - the resulting progeny will have the old cow as their grandmother 4 times. This is what Hilly was talking about picturing the ancestral pen behind the calf. It makes perfect sense to me that multiplying up the content of the type you are trying to achieve gives you the best chance of repeating it. I'll try and take some pictures to better demonstrate but will be gone all day tomorrow again so won't get to it right away.

Bob H wrote:

We currently have these numbers using Shoshone trueline cattle. We wean the heifer calve's for 3 days and turn them out with the male calve's mother's, the last 2 winter's have been mild and all we supplement is salt with selinium and copper to achieve these goals . If time's are harder I would expect them to survive on the same as the cowherd. We breed just to fit our enviroment and expect to get 95% in 2 heat cycles we have a effiecent winter country so we do not preg and start calving March 5th because it is spring here. We will adjust the 1st of may on the cow herd. But normaly we sell every cow that doesn't have a calf. We never have a 40 head truck load out of these cattle that are about 700 in number.

BobH, sounds like you are in good cow country. You should be happy with your results, good for you!

We still have 2 feet of snow on the level here and may have it for another month yet. We satart calving mid May and June.

I am envious of operations that can realistically graze year round and feed no hay. Do you ever cake the cows?

Grassfarmer wrote:

Dylan Biggs wrote:

Grassfarmer wrote:

This cow isn't perfect Dylan, her udder is not ideal and she may have faulty leg angles, I don't know. Point is she reared calves to 23 and was never assisted to calf, suckle, was never lame or had feet trimmed so in my mind that beats a picture perfect second calver every time - because you don't know what she will do over the long haul. "Form Follows Function - it doesn't predetermine it" as LL likes to say.

GF, she looks fine to me and as "beauty is as beauty does", from her record, she is beautiful.

Would you have picked her out of the replacement heifer pen 25 years ago though based on phenotype and performance? Like her linebred descendants in my herd today she was likely around the smallest, plainest looking heifer in the pen at that age. I think we generally have been picking the wrong ones by picking for looks, I'll bet 99% of customers would never pick the smallest, plainest heifer. I'm just happy I found this way to hopefully recreate her using line breeding. I'll be mating calves this year that are out of two different daughters that are both similar in type to their mother - the resulting progeny will have the old cow as their grandmother 4 times. This is what Hilly was talking about picturing the ancestral pen behind the calf. It makes perfect sense to me that multiplying up the content of the type you are trying to achieve gives you the best chance of repeating it. I'll try and take some pictures to better demonstrate but will be gone all day tomorrow again so won't get to it right away.

GF, I understand your project and wish you the best. As regards whether I would have picked her 25 years ago, well now we are engaging in pure speculation. Currently in our bred heifer pen I have a 1/2 An,LH heifer that right now is maybe 700lbs, hopefully she turns out to be as productive as your cow.