Inbreeding study

from AJ article

“Collectively, breeders
can sustain a broad
genetic base, which
is important to the
long-term survival
of the breed.”
— David Buchanan

what does "collectively" mean in the context of this statement?

I changed my mind. Words matter. Proper definitions matter. Parasitic Element is what I should have said. I thought we were to free ourselves of them as Purebred breeders. Why do we continue to invite them in?

Yet:

“In any livestock where AI is
widespread, the potential for inbreeding
is there,”

Sounded like someone from the fed was involved. They got funding, we got BS. It is the way it is, but it is the best we can do.

Kent Powell wrote:

Yet:

“In any livestock where AI is
widespread, the potential for inbreeding
is there,”

Sounded like someone from the fed was involved. They got funding, we got BS. It is the way it is, but it is the best we can do.

df could have done better, but won`t; for he must please his co-horts; not me

Look at the extended pedigree of most common AI sires and you will find a number of AI sires that show up in their pedigrees. To name a few ext, band 234 of ideal 3163, new trend 315, wye breeding, schearbrook shoshone, pine drive, GAR breeding, emulation 31 and other early AI sires.

The study was a waste of time and money.

This is the statement that jumped out at me...

"Prior research suggests that the negative effects that result from inbreeding are insignificant when the relationship between parents extends back four or more generations."

any thoughts?...

MVCatt wrote:

This is the statement that jumped out at me...

"Prior research suggests that the negative effects that result from inbreeding are insignificant when the relationship between parents extends back four or more generations."

any thoughts?...

I agree, except, I would not even bother to define that small of a relationship as "inbreeding"...

MKeeney wrote:

from AJ article

“Collectively, breeders
can sustain a broad
genetic base, which
is important to the
long-term survival
of the breed.”
— David Buchanan

what does "collectively" mean in the context of this statement?

Collectively has to to mean .....keep sending currency , in return please wear our ribbion that thanks you for your support .



I am tired of hearing about broad genetic bases . Breeders have damn sure used broadness with genetics quite easy . Many ( genetics and breeders ) have survived and should not exist today . Jon

MKeeney wrote:

MVCatt wrote:

This is the statement that jumped out at me...

"Prior research suggests that the negative effects that result from inbreeding are insignificant when the relationship between parents extends back four or more generations."

any thoughts?...

I agree, except, I would not even bother to define that small of a relationship as "inbreeding"...

Well hell heres a better one ...." In terms of an entire breed , what an individual breeder does may not make much of a difference , " he says. Breeders should be encouraged to focus on lines that are GENETICALLY EXCELLENT and seek out new lines .

Jon .....Searching for genetic excellence and in need of a ribbion

whew...HOW SAD I started to email this link to the author of the research, but he`s already advanced to associate dean of NDSU...how could the comments of a few fellows practicing close breeding ring a bell with a Dean...