GENETIC REGRESSION OR GENETIC DEPRESSION ?

Which one scares you the most ? Jon

jonken wrote:

Which one scares you the most ? Jon

I know which one scares Pat the most

MKeeney wrote:

jonken wrote:

Which one scares you the most ? Jon

I know which one scares Pat the most

Mike

Neither scares me. Lethal genetic defects that cost a producer a marketable offspring needs to be reduced to the lowest level possible. Isn't regression/depression a concentration of genes the suppress a desired trait/s? If one kept the average or above animals for traits of interest in linebred animals wouldn't that reduce the incidence of undesireable concentration of genes for traits of interest?

PatB wrote:

MKeeney wrote:

jonken wrote:

Which one scares you the most ? Jon

I know which one scares Pat the most

Mike

Neither scares me. Lethal genetic defects that cost a producer a marketable offspring needs to be reduced to the lowest level possible. Isn't regression/depression a concentration of genes the suppress a desired trait/s? If one kept the average or above animals for traits of interest in linebred animals wouldn't that reduce the incidence of undesireable concentration of genes for traits of interest?

On average, I`ve had over 200 calves per year for 35 years {7000 calves} and have had 0% calves dead because of lethal genetic defects...is that percentage low enough?
why not spend more time on real problems in a breed?

MKeeney wrote:

PatB wrote:

MKeeney wrote:

jonken wrote:

Which one scares you the most ? Jon

I know which one scares Pat the most

Mike

Neither scares me. Lethal genetic defects that cost a producer a marketable offspring needs to be reduced to the lowest level possible. Isn't regression/depression a concentration of genes the suppress a desired trait/s? If one kept the average or above animals for traits of interest in linebred animals wouldn't that reduce the incidence of undesireable concentration of genes for traits of interest?

On average, I`ve had over 200 calves per year for 35 years {7000 calves} and have had 0% calves dead because of lethal genetic defects...is that percentage low enough?
why not spend more time on real problems in a breed?

I have lost a lot on money by culling cows with low fertility, and poor feet and legs than i care to discuss. these are the economical defects that are rampant in the Angus breed. Why not crusade these instead of some terminal defect that is self regulating.

W.T wrote:

MKeeney wrote:

PatB wrote:

MKeeney wrote:

jonken wrote:

Which one scares you the most ? Jon

I know which one scares Pat the most

Mike

Neither scares me. Lethal genetic defects that cost a producer a marketable offspring needs to be reduced to the lowest level possible. Isn't regression/depression a concentration of genes the suppress a desired trait/s? If one kept the average or above animals for traits of interest in linebred animals wouldn't that reduce the incidence of undesireable concentration of genes for traits of interest?

On average, I`ve had over 200 calves per year for 35 years {7000 calves} and have had 0% calves dead because of lethal genetic defects...is that percentage low enough?
why not spend more time on real problems in a breed?

I have lost a lot on money by culling cows with low fertility, and poor feet and legs than i care to discuss. these are the economical defects that are rampant in the Angus breed. Why not crusade these instead of some terminal defect that is self regulating.

W.T. how would you go about identifying low fertility animals in the natioanal cattle herd/breed wide? I believe UC Davis is working on this challenge. Is there a way to report animals that develop bad feet or have to be culled for structural soundness? I could not agree more on feet and legs being a high priority. I have suggested this before and will again but no one seems to want to tackle this issue on the bloodline or genomic level. The dairy industry has made progress in identifying bloodlines and genomic markers for different feet and legs issues.

Isn't a preg-check and selling of dry cows the best way to get rid of a genetic defect. If all of the genetics within your herd had this kind of culling for a long period of time would this not clear up. So if your purebred breeder did not invest a lot of money in one animal and become a breeder of his own livetsock would this not also help? Just maybe some good old honesty is another answer. What I have observed is lots of folks are honest until they stand to lose money.

Pat I do not think this can be fixed by the government or a group it has to be an individuals own integrity that moves forward on these kinds of issues. Maybe a small group. The dairy industry has a common denominator most of the feed source is alike and the end product is always the same.
Bob H

PatB wrote:

[

W.T. how would you go about identifying low fertility animals in the natioanal cattle herd/breed wide? I believe UC Davis is working on this challenge. Is there a way to report animals that develop bad feet or have to be culled for structural soundness? I could not agree more on feet and legs being a high priority. I have suggested this before and will again but no one seems to want to tackle this issue on the bloodline or genomic level. The dairy industry has made progress in identifying bloodlines and genomic markers for different feet and legs issues.

My question would be, whose business is it to do anything herd, breed , or industry wide? Markets and necessity will make that happen, that is unless there is an element of control which will dictate production rather than efficiency and profitability based on true merit. Could control of the market be what is behind all these curtains claiming improvement? Is my Copenhagan taxed to subsidize and advise against buying the cattle I produce? It sure as hell is. The research and bad advice continues to be funded without regard to its track record.

http://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/agricultural-research-funding-in-the-public-and-private-sectors.aspx


http://www.ers.usda.gov/topics/animal-products/cattle-beef/statistics-information.aspx

All the help I have had from experts has taken me 20 years to correct. The good news they are still experts and still advising, although their advice has changed with the trends of the day. If cattle were as adaptable as experts, no change would be necessary and they would do all things well regardless of the times.

What bloodlines are available in the dairy industry? Looking in from the outside, I see a very few glorified individuals bred to millions of cows while thousands of disapointing sampled sired disappear under the rug for trending back toward average rather than being more different than expected. I also see the AI stud signs taken down at the local dairies and Jersey bulls running in the pens with the heifers. If improvement is only viewed in the measurements rather than the overall production - inputs and expenses, commercial producers will make their own way.

If you want something tackled, tackle it yourself.

PatB wrote:

W.T wrote:

MKeeney wrote:

PatB wrote:

MKeeney wrote:

jonken wrote:

Which one scares you the most ? Jon

I know which one scares Pat the most

Mike

Neither scares me. Lethal genetic defects that cost a producer a marketable offspring needs to be reduced to the lowest level possible. Isn't regression/depression a concentration of genes the suppress a desired trait/s? If one kept the average or above animals for traits of interest in linebred animals wouldn't that reduce the incidence of undesireable concentration of genes for traits of interest?

On average, I`ve had over 200 calves per year for 35 years {7000 calves} and have had 0% calves dead because of lethal genetic defects...is that percentage low enough?
why not spend more time on real problems in a breed?

I have lost a lot on money by culling cows with low fertility, and poor feet and legs than i care to discuss. these are the economical defects that are rampant in the Angus breed. Why not crusade these instead of some terminal defect that is self regulating.

W.T. how would you go about identifying low fertility animals in the natioanal cattle herd/breed wide? I believe UC Davis is working on this challenge. Is there a way to report animals that develop bad feet or have to be culled for structural soundness? I could not agree more on feet and legs being a high priority. I have suggested this before and will again but no one seems to want to tackle this issue on the bloodline or genomic level. The dairy industry has made progress in identifying bloodlines and genomic markers for different feet and legs issues.

No need for anyone but me to regulate theese things as in my herd they are a terminal defect. They get there heads cut off....... Bob H has it right if people had been culling for theese instead of breeding for the most popular AI sire of the week they would have been gone long ago and the assoc would have nothing to do about it at all as there heads would have been cut off. And there would be no need for DNA testing at all..........That is just another way to get money from the producer to prove WHAT?????????????????/

If you use a bull that has a higher then average fertility failure rate in his daughters do you cull all the animals that descend from him? If you have a cow that raises an acceptable calf every year but her daughters have fertility challenges do you beef the whole line or just sell the animals that are not bred at preq check time? Will future females of this line have higher rate of fertility issues if all open females are beefed and heifers are kept and put back into the herd?

If you had a group of linebred/inbred calves why would you keep the bottom end for traits of interest? The average or above most likely inherited the genetics you wish to concentrate and the bottom end most likely the genetics you should be eliminating to have a more consistant herd. I thought the basis of a good linebreeding program is the removing from the genepool of animals that do not meet the objectives of the breeder.

It depends on the percentage's that you can live with. If the percentage of offspring is very high that does not breed back I would say to not waste your time and find different genetics the problem is it is 10 years of your life to find out. Why not research before putting the bulls in and if you have doubts go some where else. It is all about what you want in your life and the amount of money you are willing to spend when a little true research may be the only cost, the price of a visit and some hard questions with a couplel of days of observation of a population at different times of the year. Not to look for an individul but a population. Bob H

PatB wrote:

If you use a bull that has a higher then average fertility failure rate in his daughters do you cull all the animals that descend from him? If you have a cow that raises an acceptable calf every year but her daughters have fertility challenges do you beef the whole line or just sell the animals that are not bred at preq check time? Will future females of this line have higher rate of fertility issues if all open females are beefed and heifers are kept and put back into the herd?

If you had a group of linebred/inbred calves why would you keep the bottom end for traits of interest? The average or above most likely inherited the genetics you wish to concentrate and the bottom end most likely the genetics you should be eliminating to have a more consistant herd. I thought the basis of a good linebreeding program is the removing from the genepool of animals that do not meet the objectives of the breeder.

why do bulls that exhibit traits we prefer not always breed them?

I guess since it has been a while since I have been a enthusiastic coopertive sire tester for others at my own expense, I don't even understand the concept of dealing with importing problems. Problems leave without regard to pedigree, good ones stay without regard to pedigree. What is here does what I want them to do. Most bulls are gone before I know how good they were. I have never had a home raised bull as bad as several great bulls I brought in to "improve" what I now appreciate. I have every gene necessary to do anything I want to do right here in the current herd.

Bob H wrote:

It depends on the percentage's that you can live with. If the percentage of offspring is very high that does not breed back I would say to not waste your time and find different genetics the problem is it is 10 years of your life to find out. Why not research before putting the bulls in and if you have doubts go some where else. It is all about what you want in your life and the amount of money you are willing to spend when a little true research may be the only cost, the price of a visit and some hard questions with a couplel of days of observation of a population at different times of the year. Not to look for an individul but a population. Bob H

I inherited the problem when I took over the cow herd from dad. PS high pockets a bull dad used in the eighties is still haunting me.

PatB wrote:

Bob H wrote:

It depends on the percentage's that you can live with. If the percentage of offspring is very high that does not breed back I would say to not waste your time and find different genetics the problem is it is 10 years of your life to find out. Why not research before putting the bulls in and if you have doubts go some where else. It is all about what you want in your life and the amount of money you are willing to spend when a little true research may be the only cost, the price of a visit and some hard questions with a couplel of days of observation of a population at different times of the year. Not to look for an individul but a population. Bob H

I inherited the problem when I took over the cow herd from dad. PS high pockets a bull dad used in the eighties is still haunting me.

Pat , Did you ever purge your inherited problem for ghosts ? Jon

One of my lines of work is cattle trading you sell what you don't want and buy what you need. Or start down the road of fixing with line bred predictable genes the only problem is you are quit a few generations away from the problem not showing up but every generation should lesson the percenatage of problems if you use what is real and remember that in a perfect world of genetics 85% is awful high. Bob H

Bob H wrote:

One of my lines of work is cattle trading you sell what you don't want and buy what you need. Or start down the road of fixing with line bred predictable genes the only problem is you are quit a few generations away from the problem not showing up but every generation should lesson the percenatage of problems if you use what is real and remember that in a perfect world of genetics 85% is awful high. Bob H

Bob , What does 85% represent ? Or where did it come from . Jon

Bob H wrote:

One of my lines of work is cattle trading you sell what you don't want and buy what you need. Or start down the road of fixing with line bred predictable genes the only problem is you are quit a few generations away from the problem not showing up but every generation should lesson the percenatage of problems if you use what is real and remember that in a perfect world of genetics 85% is awful high. Bob H

Keep posting bob you are giving a wonderful prospective from a western cattlemen that IMO is overdue.

In nature you have a repersentaion of 25% to small or frail 50% in the middle or what the enviroment will handle at that particlular point in time and 25% to large or outlayer, if the enviroment becomes easier the population will increase in size with the middle moving up slightly, but when the enviroment becomes more harsh the smaller animals are there to bring the middle back down, When you close breed you are trying to open up the window in the middle but nature will not allow you to move any closer than 85% in the middle with 7.5 to small and 7.5% to large which in the cow business is easy you just sell the ends. The good news is that the ones you keep breed like their parents and the world goes on over time your cattle will be more alike. That is why we need caution because in what we introduce we may get just what we thought we wanted. My daughter says it better than any one if you have good genetics in your commercial cattle you put the boys with the girls and get the little ones. If you use multiple sires the odds of making a huge errror is only 12 to 20 heifeers out of a population. If you sell the opens your problem goes away and your good genetics move forward. Thus you are breeding fruit. The next step is just as simple find what your end user wants use a terminal sire and sell all of the seedless fruit and make sure that it is finaniacialy rewarding . enough Bob H

Bob H wrote:

In nature you have a repersentaion of 25% to small or frail 50% in the middle or what the enviroment will handle at that particlular point in time and 25% to large or outlayer, if the enviroment becomes easier the population will increase in size with the middle moving up slightly, but when the enviroment becomes more harsh the smaller animals are there to bring the middle back down, When you close breed you are trying to open up the window in the middle but nature will not allow you to move any closer than 85% in the middle with 7.5 to small and 7.5% to large which in the cow business is easy you just sell the ends. The good news is that the ones you keep breed like their parents and the world goes on over time your cattle will be more alike. That is why we need caution because in what we introduce we may get just what we thought we wanted. My daughter says it better than any one if you have good genetics in your commercial cattle you put the boys with the girls and get the little ones. If you use multiple sires the odds of making a huge errror is only 12 to 20 heifeers out of a population. If you sell the opens your problem goes away and your good genetics move forward. Thus you are breeding fruit. The next step is just as simple find what your end user wants use a terminal sire and sell all of the seedless fruit and make sure that it is finaniacialy rewarding . enough Bob H

Awesomely Simple.

Tom D wrote:

Bob H wrote:

In nature you have a repersentaion of 25% to small or frail 50% in the middle or what the enviroment will handle at that particlular point in time and 25% to large or outlayer, if the enviroment becomes easier the population will increase in size with the middle moving up slightly, but when the enviroment becomes more harsh the smaller animals are there to bring the middle back down, When you close breed you are trying to open up the window in the middle but nature will not allow you to move any closer than 85% in the middle with 7.5 to small and 7.5% to large which in the cow business is easy you just sell the ends. The good news is that the ones you keep breed like their parents and the world goes on over time your cattle will be more alike. That is why we need caution because in what we introduce we may get just what we thought we wanted. My daughter says it better than any one if you have good genetics in your commercial cattle you put the boys with the girls and get the little ones. If you use multiple sires the odds of making a huge errror is only 12 to 20 heifeers out of a population. If you sell the opens your problem goes away and your good genetics move forward. Thus you are breeding fruit. The next step is just as simple find what your end user wants use a terminal sire and sell all of the seedless fruit and make sure that it is finaniacialy rewarding . enough Bob H

Awesomely Simple.

Awesomely simple that took years to figure out Tom. IMO Bob has shared a bunch here but not easy to get to the point he is at. He earned it the hard way.