Is Change in the genome a zero-sum game?

well, is it ?

MKeeney wrote:

well, is it ?

I have no clue.

link to article?????

PatB wrote:

link to article?????

Pat,
the only link is from the eye to the brain cells
the question is inspired by a book I skimmed titled Genetic Entropy that concludes the human genome/race is doomed; also refuting evolution as a valid concept...but also inspired by Aladar and company at Advantage that are breeding the super breed using the genes available in the Angus Registry...well hell, I guess that does include most all of the bos taurus genes

a morning google gives me this link

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Game_theory#Biology

with a half day of hay feeding to dwell on this; if fitness is the only measure ; would not any breeder selection in any direction result in fitness loss? I sure think so...homozygousity would be particularly devastating to fitness...selection within the zero sum game must have economic values applied to both benefit and costs...nothing new
have there been beneficial mutations in cattle history?

so the game must have economic values added to figure the sum...Marbling @.5 is worth x$...is there a cost to fitness?
hmmm...on second thought, are there positive net sums {both economic $ and fitness improve} selections? what is the cost to fitness of selecting for improved udders?

this game is for TomD...It`s called JUMP CHICKEN JUMP....

http://www.egwald.ca/operationsresearch/chickengame.php

MKeeney wrote:

this game is for TomD...It`s called JUMP CHICKEN JUMP....

http://www.egwald.ca/operationsresearch/chickengame.php

I'd jump first and settle for the second prettiest girl. And I'd avoid the knife fight at the planetarium all together. But I'm a pussy.

I'm beginning to think that success as a cattle breeder, as a parent, or just as a human being, is less about doing anything spectacular; and more about just not screwing things up.

TD

man made mutations to get a cheaper chick?

http://www.countrysidemag.com/issues/97/breeding_meat_chickens.html

After we apply economic values to the genes, Troy Marshall believes the best bulls are under priced...if Troy Marshall is right in his analysis, I could have been rich just by using the best bulls commercially...


When you put economic parameters to EPDs with today’s prices and feed costs, there should be more price spread on bulls than there actually is. ..

I received several emails last week questioning my comments about the increased value of genetics and whether one can justify the record prices we’re seeing for bulls. So, I spent some time looking at the numbers between bulls with very solid EPD profiles and comparing them to breed average bulls.

As much for simplicity as anything else, I assumed that a bull would sire 100 calves over its lifetime.
• From personal experience, bulls with calving ease (CE) numbers in the top 10% of the breed can easily be expected to have three or more live calves out of 100, compared with an average CE bull. At today’s prices, that figure is conservatively $2,100 (using $1.40/lb. for 500-lb. calves).
• It’s harder to put a good number on carcass traits – for instance, how much will an increase in intramuscular fat actually affect percentage of USDA Choice, or upper 2/3 of Choice?
• Carcass weight is easier to value but, looking at the data, a bull in the top 20% vs. an average bull will easily return an additional $30. That equates to an additional $3,000.
• The value of replacement females becomes very significant when you consider longevity, the added growth, added carcass, added fertility, etc. I believe those values will easily double the amount returned on the carcass front.

There are a lot of other traits like feed efficiency that also become significant. But ignoring all of them and assuming nothing more than the easily quantified traits, and assuming that all 100 calves are marketed, the value of the above-average bull compared to the average of a particular breed is over $7,500.

Trying to be even more conservative, let’s assume you only realize half that value. The bottom line is that if someone tried to give you an average bull, you still would be better off paying over $3,500 for that better-than-average bull.

In reality, when you try to put economic parameters to EPDs with today’s prices and feed costs, the better argument is that there should be more price spread on bulls than there actually is. As is the case with the commercial marketplace, it appears the higher-priced bulls are actually under-valued, while the lower-priced animals are overvalued.

so Pat, if I`m reading this correctly, Genestar says Simmy`s have more marbling than Angus?

https://online.zoetis.com/US/EN/Products/PublishingImages/Genetics%20Images/GeneSTAR%20MVPs%20Public%20Results/PercentRankJuly2012.pdf

?
i think i wasn`t reading it correctly...

MKeeney wrote:

so Pat, if I`m reading this correctly, Genestar says Simmy`s have more marbling than Angus?

https://online.zoetis.com/US/EN/Products/PublishingImages/Genetics%20Images/GeneSTAR%20MVPs%20Public%20Results/PercentRankJuly2012.pdf

?
i think i wasn`t reading it correctly...

I think I am missing some of the explanation what those slides mean and what the numbers are based on. I have no idea what it means.

MKeeney wrote:

After we apply economic values to the genes, Troy Marshall believes the best bulls are under priced...if Troy Marshall is right in his analysis, I could have been rich just by using the best bulls commercially...


When you put economic parameters to EPDs with today’s prices and feed costs, there should be more price spread on bulls than there actually is. ..

I received several emails last week questioning my comments about the increased value of genetics and whether one can justify the record prices we’re seeing for bulls. So, I spent some time looking at the numbers between bulls with very solid EPD profiles and comparing them to breed average bulls.

As much for simplicity as anything else, I assumed that a bull would sire 100 calves over its lifetime.
• From personal experience, bulls with calving ease (CE) numbers in the top 10% of the breed can easily be expected to have three or more live calves out of 100, compared with an average CE bull. At today’s prices, that figure is conservatively $2,100 (using $1.40/lb. for 500-lb. calves).
• It’s harder to put a good number on carcass traits – for instance, how much will an increase in intramuscular fat actually affect percentage of USDA Choice, or upper 2/3 of Choice?
• Carcass weight is easier to value but, looking at the data, a bull in the top 20% vs. an average bull will easily return an additional $30. That equates to an additional $3,000.
• The value of replacement females becomes very significant when you consider longevity, the added growth, added carcass, added fertility, etc. I believe those values will easily double the amount returned on the carcass front.

There are a lot of other traits like feed efficiency that also become significant. But ignoring all of them and assuming nothing more than the easily quantified traits, and assuming that all 100 calves are marketed, the value of the above-average bull compared to the average of a particular breed is over $7,500.

Trying to be even more conservative, let’s assume you only realize half that value. The bottom line is that if someone tried to give you an average bull, you still would be better off paying over $3,500 for that better-than-average bull.

In reality, when you try to put economic parameters to EPDs with today’s prices and feed costs, the better argument is that there should be more price spread on bulls than there actually is. As is the case with the commercial marketplace, it appears the higher-priced bulls are actually under-valued, while the lower-priced animals are overvalued.

wow..more from Troy...

One thing we sometimes forget is that the effects of the drought and high input prices have ratcheted up the competition. Poorer cows and poorer producers are being eliminated, which is increasing the average line. Genetic improvement is coming today at a phenomenal rate. What was above average just 3-5 years ago is average today, and that will be below average 3-5 years from now.

I guess I`ve been over-rating myself...I`m not even average anymore...how silly of me to be planning on outlasting Troy in the cattle business

If so, UH OH. This won't be pretty. What is the purpose of breeds again?

MKeeney wrote:

so Pat, if I`m reading this correctly, Genestar says Simmy`s have more marbling than Angus?

https://online.zoetis.com/US/EN/Products/PublishingImages/Genetics%20Images/GeneSTAR%20MVPs%20Public%20Results/PercentRankJuly2012.pdf

?
i think i wasn`t reading it correctly...

The link below has several interesting presentations. I opened two windows and played audio in one and tabbed thru the powerpoint presentation in the other.

http://www.appliedreprostrategies.com/2012/SiouxFalls/newsroom.html


•Using DNA to determine the performance and economics of commercial herd bulls in multi-sire natural-service breeding groups, Dr. Alison Van Eenennaam

Mineral nutrition and its impact on reproduction, Dr. Cody Wright, professor, Department of Animal Science, South Dakota State University–Brookings

As I look through the Academic stuff, I am struck by the certainty in what they are doing now without regard to what they were sure about yesterday. That which is fact does not change. When technology helps make things more simple and more efficient, it has value. When technolgy is expected to replace the proven or disregard it, there is trouble.

Early "performance" people embraced Bonsma because they understood functional performance and fertility were important. When the two no longer meshed, the eyeball was mocked and disregarded- - replaced by technology and "Science". DNA is trying to do the same thing, still disregarding the same problems in the technology it is trying to replace- The basic abiity to pass it on rather than favor the end product and use it as a parent.

How freaking bad would cattle be if Bonsma hadn't been an influence through the latter 60's and early 70's?

http://www.appliedreprostrategies.com/pdfs/ARSBC12_12VanEenennaamSlides2.ppt.pdf

While the best of the bunch, I see nothing worth any amount of grant money. What is groundbreaking?



http://www.appliedreprostrategies.com/pdfs/ARSBC12_01MoesSlides.pptx.pdf

This is titled how I profit from improved reproduction. I see the story of what I am sure is a good family who AI's their cattle. They have nice facilities.

Am I to believe that if I just do what they do, it will be profitable??? I skipped Ag. Econ. Is this why it is a seperate class from regular economics?

What does AI have to do with anything? As I was once told by someone saltier and earthier than I have the ability to be- being in a plastic straw does not change the genetics.

http://www.appliedreprostrategies.com/pdfs/ARSBC12_02SchiefelbeinSlides.pptx.pdf

Isn't this just an ad with pictures? If I walpaper pseudo cows with money does that make the real ones profitable?

I guess I am just lost

Dr. Alison Van Eenennaam presentation of combined audio and powerpoint proves the most valuable bull is the one who gets the most cows bred and in the shortest time. Carcass quality pays the producer very little compared to live calf. Bull 901 was mentioned as being an outlier for the ability to settle cows for scrotal size but was removed from the final analysis. The bulls in the study settled 0 to 54 cows with 7.3 percent of the bulls sireing no calves. Would a commercial producer be able to justify dna parentage testing a multisire calf crop and only keeping heifers out of the most profilic sires? Are the most profilic sires daughters more fertile than a sire that only sires a very small percentage of a calf crop?

I didn't need a study to prove that.

I have found a couple. One was the most inbred bull I have ever had- A-HA! The other wasn't inbred at all. There goes that theory. The good thing is my genepool was not influenced by them. I can guarantee my customers that the bulls who sire no calves in my program will not pass on any of their genes to the next generation.

What were the genetic differences in the bulls used in this study? I want pedigrees!!!!!!!!!

Kent Powell wrote:

I didn't need a study to prove that.

I have found a couple. One was the most inbred bull I have ever had- A-HA! The other wasn't inbred at all. There goes that theory. The good thing is my genepool was not influenced by them. I can guarantee my customers that the bulls who sire no calves in my program will not pass on any of their genes to the next generation.

What were the genetic differences in the bulls used in this study? I want pedigrees!!!!!!!!!

I would like to know how the bulls were raised and managed. When the multiyear study is done maybe more info will be forth coming on pedigrees and breakdowns of which bull sired what each season.

You are right Kent, those that settle no cows don't pass it on. This is the biggest problem I see with the majority of seedstock producers using AI so heavily, particularly with sires that are too "valuable" to risk injury by using natural service. And who buys their sons? Commercial producers. Maybe the reason more research hasn't been done in this area is they are afraid of what they might find?

[quote="Tom D"]

MKeeney wrote:

this game is for TomD...It`s called JUMP CHICKEN JUMP....


I'm beginning to think that success as a cattle breeder, as a parent, or just as a human being, is less about doing anything spectacular; and more about just not screwing things up.

TD

that Mr. D is pure gold!

http://m.beefmagazine.com/blog/drought-causing-new-focus-milk-epds?NL=BEEF-01&Issue=BEEF-01_20130322_BEEF-01_407&YM_RID=dwight%40steadfastbeef.com&YM_MID=1381199&sfvc4enews=42

Drought Is Causing A New Focus On Milk EPDs

Really?

http://beefmagazine.com/genetics/fire-your-welfare-bulls

Which bulls are democrats and which bulls are republicans and getting the job done?