Reflections from LL ©

Quote :

Culling and Selection, to me are interchangable words or meaning, to a degree, depending on the goals of the breeder or the needs of the business.

So then, you both cull and select the same animals if they are intrchangable? I know that the question might be unanswerable but it is the point I need to study and learn from others experiences. No need to reinvent the dink and the mammoth or cull the questionable to find it was the gem. And I fully agree that the effort of a breeder is to trend toward minimizing culling. But from the increasing percerentage of acceptable individuals you need to select the next generation or the replacements and also guide others in thir buying selections.

Mr. Falloon's comment was interesting as he thinks grass cattle tend to type toward thickness in his selection process. I would have thought the "grass type" will be bigger volume with moderate thickness. Shows what I know. But then maybe he doesn't have a 50 year drought to deal with every 10 years or so!

Jack McNamee wrote:

[Mike wrote;
hummmm..isn`t culling the result of poor selection? Can we, or nature for us, cull our way to profit? I don`t think so in commercial production at all; anything is possible in breeding herds dependent upon how high you can sell breeding stock...

I don't believe you can cull your way to profit. I've tried. I think one of the most misguided statements I've heard in this business is "great cow herds are culled, not bred". For years I believed my role as a seed stock producer was to push the envelope for performance, maintain my environment, then cull what couldn't handle that pressure and move forward with the rest. Problem was very few survived to move forward. Of the ones that did survive, every sire group was different. I was culling 25% of my cows every year for all kinds of problems and my replacements were not good enough to maintain enough numbers to keep my ranch stocked. Thats poor selection. The only reason I survived at all was I refused to change my environment. I kept watching the good commercial producers. If they weren't changing their operations to fit their cows, than I refused to change mine. That kept me out of a huge wreck.

I believe all types of cattle whether it be breeds or lines are sustainable if your are willing to manipulate their environment. No matter what the problem, conventional wisdom says it can be cured with either more feed, more mineral, or more vaccine . Thats why most seedstock producers dry cows out weigh most commercial producers cull bulls in the sale reports.

Jack,
Good to have you posting here; I have enjoyed your foreright analysis of your own experiences from the first time we chatted ...how refreshing compared to the usual "ain`t we grand; our way is the only way" registered breeder.
I am posting this picture Jack send me with his notation as to " culling" below the picture...


I'm sure I don't know enough to put this on but I thought it is relevant to the conversation. It seems to me culling is to selection, same as survival is. If the bear catches the Bison it will selected and the Bison will be culled, but if the Bison outruns the Bear and the bear dies of hunger, then the Bison will be selected and the bear will be culled. I'm betting on the bear. Jack

me too

EddieM wrote:

Quote :

Culling and Selection, to me are interchangable words or meaning, to a degree, depending on the goals of the breeder or the needs of the business.

So then, you both cull and select the same animals if they are intrchangable? I know that the question might be unanswerable but it is the point I need to study and learn from others experiences. No need to reinvent the dink and the mammoth or cull the questionable to find it was the gem. And I fully agree that the effort of a breeder is to trend toward minimizing culling. But from the increasing percerentage of acceptable individuals you need to select the next generation or the replacements and also guide others in thir buying selections.

Mr. Falloon's comment was interesting as he thinks grass cattle tend to type toward thickness in his selection process. I would have thought the "grass type" will be bigger volume with moderate thickness. Shows what I know. But then maybe he doesn't have a 50 year drought to deal with every 10 years or so!

Yes Eddie, all of our selections will eventually be culled, by us or by nature......ah, the tangled web, perception and interpretation.......as to the selection of the next generation, if you have met your goals, I think we can always become a little more picky, there is always a reason to cull or keep, or as the Lasater approach has been, make things a little tougher. I still think the need for expansion, makes for a more difficult selection criteria, as the need for more amimals meeting self imposed standards, rises.

I do not know the Falloon program well, nor the man, but from what I have read, breeding females are not a by product of his program, for whatever reason, but the type referenced above, by Mr. Leonhardt, would fit into my scenario of the terminal orienated productions system.

As bear food has recently been entered into this discussion, I was contemplating natures need for "culls", diversity, survival of the fittest, this morning while checking cows. The futility of man's desires to have them all perfect, will never happen, obviously some have the gift to make more of them "better", which is what draws me to the discussion of ideas, experiences, and processes to fight mother natures desire to feed the bears.

In regard to selecting versus culling and fixing a genotype of stability, you will know you`ve arrived at that destination, or if seeking to purchase females, you will know the owner has arrived{in his mind at least}...when the buyer is allowed to pick from the entire herd of females at one price for any and all choices.

from ll; I am posting here and also under "the problem with breeding maternal"..mk

Eddie, the difference I see in "culling" and "selection" when moving a group to a type compared to other directions is that some pre-conceived type has already been"selected" ... so, as we keep those animals most near the preferred type and remove or "cull" those that are not, the mating sequence of selection essentially becomes a type to type process ...we could say the methodology would be similar to the way breeds were formed and isolated in order to increase the frequency of the preferred type. Of course throughout history breeders have crowned their ideal type of the day and by now we know most of the reasons why a single type in beef cattle has never prevailed.

Bootheel, we are all slow learners. I'm half ashamed to admit it took me over 15 years of expensive learning before I evolved, for better or worse, into my current breeding philosophy. I think part of the confusion you expressed by your posts on Keeney's Corner stems from misleading connotations from the words "maternal and terminal " used to describe animals. We need to remind ourselves that beef cattle are bred for one primary purpose...to convert a variety of feedstuffs into beef. Since the British breeds were developed more specifically to improve the end product of beef as compared to dual purpose, draft or dairy animals, I consider Angus to actually be a "terminal" breed. I believe the research data about the F1 cow is valid for the cattle measured.....but the results are derived from what we all have bred, not what we could breed if we rearranged our selection priorities for different types.

Some breeds and types of cattle have more reproductive and longevity problems than others. The economic importance of reproduction and longevity have long been overshadowed by many other production traits that are higher on the industry's list of selection priorities.

We're told hybrid vigor is a non-additive phenomenon and must be maintained to avoid regression. I accept that in general continually crossing different types mongrelizes genotypes...and certainly there are beneficial mongrels, they simply lack the genetic ability to renew themselves with any continuity. So if we want to IMPROVE the utilization of hybrid benefits without the haphazardness of crossing mongrelized types, and if parent lines or strains are presumed to be stabilized, in theory then, properly applied linecrossing would offer more predictable consistency of hybrid production systems .... and of course, these type of production systems must end with the beef product, which is the "terminal" animal.....unlike a cow which is a producing those animals ..... not necessarily IN HER OWN IMAGE. The traditional habit is that the parent stock should look and be like the production stock, so technically no parent stock can be terminal, I would prefer the use of the term "paternal".

Most of us hate regression, so we spend most of our lives chasing what we refer to as progression. I don't know how many sale ads I read where each years sale offerings are proclaimed to be the best they've ever offered. Beauty being in the eyes of the beholder, when breeding cattle most of us have experienced that pretty can produce ugly and aren't accustomed to seeing ugly producing pretty : )

Mike began his topic "The problem with breeding maternal" by posting what many people consider a pretty cow the 24th of Sept and later on page 13 he pictured her somewhat inbred dam who some people might consider to be comparatively "ugly" or "regressed" . Then on his topic "A case for stabilized lines & crossbreeding", he began it with a picture of what I presume to be an Angus cross Charolais cow, not a typical AxC cow, with what many would consider a very "pretty" growthy bull calf nursing her....a type of calf that would satisfy most segments of the industry from "pasture to plate".

That picture is one of the most fundamental "prettiest" functional cows I have ever seen, from her ladylike head to the bottom of her feet, a type that would be as efficient as any in producing "beef" nearly anywhere for anyone. Now, stop and ask yourself how many people in this world have herds and herds of cows like that functional RARE type, so I have concluded they must be considered "ugly" by nearly everyone else.... or is it simply because they are considered to be "inadequate". I have seen that type of cow on rare occasions in purebred herds, straightbred herds and crossbred herds and I have spent many years wondering what her "male equivalent" looked like.

From what I have observed, I will wager anyone that the "outstanding" bull calf, presumably sired by a Charolais bull, will RARELY produce daughters that look like his mother and steers that look like him. And yet, I have seen purebred registered cows of this type produce registered bulls like the calf pictured that may sell for hundreds of thousands of dollars....when fools and their money soon part. And I will almost guarantee that this type of cow will not produce this kind of calf when mated back to her own type.

So, we can endlessly debate over which type of animal we individually might prefer or which type is more profitable for ourselves, but IMHO there is only one way to maximize the efficiency of beef production. Mike even might be willing to tell his story of how he came up with the name for his "Blythemaker Bulls" : )[/color]

Quote :

Eddie, the difference I see in "culling" and "selection" when moving a group to a type compared to other directions is that some pre-conceived type has already been"selected" ... so, as we keep those animals most near the preferred type and remove or "cull" those that are not, the mating sequence of selection essentially becomes a type to type process ...we could say the methodology would be similar to the way breeds were formed and isolated in order to increase the frequency of the preferred type. Of course throughout history breeders have crowned their ideal type of the day and by now we know most of the reasons why a single type in beef cattle has never prevailed.

Quote :

unlike a cow which is a producing those animals ..... not necessarily IN HER OWN IMAGE. The traditional habit is that the parent stock should look and be like the production stock, so technically no parent stock can be terminal, I would prefer the use of the term "paternal".

Quote :

Most of us hate regression, so we spend most of our lives chasing what we refer to as progression.

Quote :

That picture is one of the most fundamental "prettiest" functional cows I have ever seen, from her ladylike head to the bottom of her feet, a type that would be as efficient as any in producing "beef" nearly anywhere for anyone. Now, stop and ask yourself how many people in this world have herds and herds of cows like that functional RARE type, so I have concluded they must be considered "ugly" by nearly everyone else.... or is it simply because they are considered to be "inadequate". I have seen that type of cow on rare occasions in purebred herds, straightbred herds and crossbred herds and I have spent many years wondering what her "male equivalent" looked like.

So, Larry, I guess I was fishing and am still waiting for a bite on the amount of regression we can comfortably retain in breeding animals for the longterm good and goals of the program. I think that the females suffer the most from infertility as regression is exhibited from the little I know. Is there more to be gained to retain regressed males for the test breedings or do we need to select both males and females? There is the mindset for some that the most acceptable animals of a contemporary group, using some breeder opted selection criteria, need to be retained as the next generation of breeders. Is there additional progress to be made to breed desired functional type to type and select a low growth, depressed, "hide him behind the barn" male to produce the line or is that a dead end street? Is it a one time deal based on the quality of the dam or will repeated efforts work or end the breeder up in the bottom of a deep genetic hole?

Thanks for keeping us thinking.

I am still chewing on this a bit, Mr. Leonhardt, but thanks again for the input. I will try to ask the right questions, or address the points in limited comprehension on my part.

Most of the below are meant to be questions, not statements of fact on my part.

If I understand you correctly, we have maternal and paternal, lines, not terminal lines, as the only thing terminal would be the cross of the two, the lines could be other breeds or not, also. But, if Angus are a terminal breed, are we breeding paternal lines? both?

What would be the choice of a maternal breed?, or is there no maternal breed, only maternal and paternal lines?


If there is no such thing as terminal breeding stock, then do the paternal lines actually differ from the maternal? Are they the same type, just unrelated, within breed or differing breed?.......hence the crossing of the two would create the heterozygosity......good for end product merit, bad for repeatability or continuity, in a maternal or paternal line.

What would be the qualifying or discernable characteristics of the paternal lines? Would it qualify as my previous notion of a "terminal" line, male progeny availabe for breeding stock would be in abundance, females would tend to be in shorter supply, for sale, as breeding stock?

I have typed myself into a state of further confusion, answering myself, then to find 3 more questions to nullify my conclusion.

Life is Good

Bootheel

Bootheel wrote:

I am still chewing on this a bit, Mr. Leonhardt, but thanks again for the input. I will try to ask the right questions, or address the points in limited comprehension on my part.

Most of the below are meant to be questions, not statements of fact on my part.

If I understand you correctly, we have maternal and paternal, lines, not terminal lines, as the only thing terminal would be the cross of the two, the lines could be other breeds or not, also. But, if Angus are a terminal breed, are we breeding paternal lines? both?

What would be the choice of a maternal breed?, or is there no maternal breed, only maternal and paternal lines?


If there is no such thing as terminal breeding stock, then do the paternal lines actually differ from the maternal? Are they the same type, just unrelated, within breed or differing breed?.......hence the crossing of the two would create the heterozygosity......good for end product merit, bad for repeatability or continuity, in a maternal or paternal line.

What would be the qualifying or discernable characteristics of the paternal lines? Would it qualify as my previous notion of a "terminal" line, male progeny availabe for breeding stock would be in abundance, females would tend to be in shorter supply, for sale, as breeding stock?

I have typed myself into a state of further confusion, answering myself, then to find 3 more questions to nullify my conclusion.

Life is Good

Bootheel

Joe..in regard to your questions, I told someone I didn`t have many or maybe any answers, but I was asking better questions... thinking is hard, isn`t it? just something we aren`t much familiar with anymore

MKeeney wrote:

Bootheel wrote:

I am still chewing on this a bit, Mr. Leonhardt, but thanks again for the input. I will try to ask the right questions, or address the points in limited comprehension on my part.

Most of the below are meant to be questions, not statements of fact on my part.

If I understand you correctly, we have maternal and paternal, lines, not terminal lines, as the only thing terminal would be the cross of the two, the lines could be other breeds or not, also. But, if Angus are a terminal breed, are we breeding paternal lines? both?

What would be the choice of a maternal breed?, or is there no maternal breed, only maternal and paternal lines?


If there is no such thing as terminal breeding stock, then do the paternal lines actually differ from the maternal? Are they the same type, just unrelated, within breed or differing breed?.......hence the crossing of the two would create the heterozygosity......good for end product merit, bad for repeatability or continuity, in a maternal or paternal line.

What would be the qualifying or discernable characteristics of the paternal lines? Would it qualify as my previous notion of a "terminal" line, male progeny availabe for breeding stock would be in abundance, females would tend to be in shorter supply, for sale, as breeding stock?

I have typed myself into a state of further confusion, answering myself, then to find 3 more questions to nullify my conclusion.

Life is Good

Bootheel

Joe..in regard to your questions, I told someone I didn`t have many or maybe any answers, but I was asking better questions... thinking is hard, isn`t it? just something we aren`t much familiar with anymore

Mike, my daily meetings with working partners, are usually monologue in nature, they are tolerable of my silly questions, wrong commands, and marginal singing, actually they seem to enjoy my musical nature, it is really difficult to tell if they are encouraging me to continue, or distacting me to stop. But yeah, thinking is hard work, pays poorly, and may shorten my life span......it is difficult to get the right answers, when you do not even now the question that SHOULD be asked. Much like pursuits of younger years, most of the fun is in the chase

EddieM wrote:

Quote :

Eddie, the difference I see in "culling" and "selection" when moving a group to a type compared to other directions is that some pre-conceived type has already been"selected" ... so, as we keep those animals most near the preferred type and remove or "cull" those that are not, the mating sequence of selection essentially becomes a type to type process ...we could say the methodology would be similar to the way breeds were formed and isolated in order to increase the frequency of the preferred type. Of course throughout history breeders have crowned their ideal type of the day and by now we know most of the reasons why a single type in beef cattle has never prevailed.

Quote :

unlike a cow which is a producing those animals ..... not necessarily IN HER OWN IMAGE. The traditional habit is that the parent stock should look and be like the production stock, so technically no parent stock can be terminal, I would prefer the use of the term "paternal".

Quote :

Most of us hate regression, so we spend most of our lives chasing what we refer to as progression.

Quote :

That picture is one of the most fundamental "prettiest" functional cows I have ever seen, from her ladylike head to the bottom of her feet, a type that would be as efficient as any in producing "beef" nearly anywhere for anyone. Now, stop and ask yourself how many people in this world have herds and herds of cows like that functional RARE type, so I have concluded they must be considered "ugly" by nearly everyone else.... or is it simply because they are considered to be "inadequate". I have seen that type of cow on rare occasions in purebred herds, straightbred herds and crossbred herds and I have spent many years wondering what her "male equivalent" looked like.

So, Larry, I guess I was fishing and am still waiting for a bite on the amount of regression we can comfortably retain in breeding animals for the longterm good and goals of the program. I think that the females suffer the most from infertility as regression is exhibited from the little I know. Is there more to be gained to retain regressed males for the test breedings or do we need to select both males and females? There is the mindset for some that the most acceptable animals of a contemporary group, using some breeder opted selection criteria, need to be retained as the next generation of breeders. Is there additional progress to be made to breed desired functional type to type and select a low growth, depressed, "hide him behind the barn" male to produce the line or is that a dead end street? Is it a one time deal based on the quality of the dam or will repeated efforts work or end the breeder up in the bottom of a deep genetic hole?

Thanks for keeping us thinking.

Eddie,
I think there are two intertwined limitations to inbreeding level; nature`s limits, and economic limits. While nothing can be carved in stone because IBC is an average expectation, not an exact result; passing 12.5% IBC {half-sibs} begins to bring about noticeable regression in a percentage of animals. How much past that you can go depends on the genetics, and how much you think the costs is commensurate with the gain. There will be natures cost, regression;but there will be the greater economic cost from the traditional breeding stock practice of selling and buying phenotype rather than genotype...even those who tinker with linebreeding will picture the prettiest while noting/promoting the linebreeding level; who would have the nerve to picture the worst and sell genotype? Those who promote they`ve seen no regression as they linebreed as if there is some superority in that; usually haven`t linebred very much.
The university recommendation to avoid inbreeding almost totally is pretty good advice for the majority of breeders...for I have doubts that the benefits are commensurate with the costs...but Larry always says he has always seen enough good things happen to keep him going; here too, but more in a research mode than a selling mode.

Quote :

even those who tinker with linebreeding will picture the prettiest while noting/promoting the linebreeding level; who would have the nerve to picture the worst and sell genotype? Those who promote they`ve seen no regression as they linebreed as if there is some superority in that; usually haven`t linebred very much.
The university recommendation to avoid inbreeding almost totally is pretty good advice for the majority of breeders...for I have doubts that the benefits are commensurate with the costs...but Larry always says he has always seen enough good things happen to keep him going

I guess a base question for me then, Mike, is can we really produce lines of cattle and other species, and really know what they will produce if we do not practice some extreme linebreeding? Economically, not the whole population but the "test group" on the farm.

Functional question: If the latest crop of inbred offspring yields three type of males and females: bottom end duds, an unsure about middle group and top enders then which ones do you select as breeders for the experiment? Cull all defects would be step one, I'm guessing. Mr Falloon picks the outlier of the best, I think, and his cattle change to the thicker degree. Is it a dumb idea to select the best dud male from a great female, a middle male from a great female and a top end male from a great female and try them all or is it a fully unknown answer without trial and error. Try most of the females?

EddieM wrote:

Quote :

even those who tinker with linebreeding will picture the prettiest while noting/promoting the linebreeding level; who would have the nerve to picture the worst and sell genotype? Those who promote they`ve seen no regression as they linebreed as if there is some superority in that; usually haven`t linebred very much.
The university recommendation to avoid inbreeding almost totally is pretty good advice for the majority of breeders...for I have doubts that the benefits are commensurate with the costs...but Larry always says he has always seen enough good things happen to keep him going

I guess a base question for me then, Mike, is can we really produce lines of cattle and other species, and really know what they will produce if we do not practice some extreme linebreeding? Economically, not the whole population but the "test group" on the farm.

Functional question: If the latest crop of inbred offspring yields three type of males and females: bottom end duds, an unsure about middle group and top enders then which ones do you select as breeders for the experiment? Cull all defects would be step one, I'm guessing. Mr Falloon picks the outlier of the best, I think, and his cattle change to the thicker degree. Is it a dumb idea to select the best dud male from a great female, a middle male from a great female and a top end male from a great female and try them all or is it a fully unknown answer without trial and error. Try most of the females?

I would say extreme linebreeding only exposes recessives; and I`m not so quick to cull them all..what if nothing is left? Extreme inbreeding would expose flaws never seen when crossed in commercial production; If it is of no economic consequence commercially, why the need to purge instead of learning to live with it...had the Salem witches cast any spells upon the township causing the non-"witches" harm?
I see no reason to inbreed except to make more uniform and predictable progeny when strains/lines/breeds are CROSSED...so, the only valid test of linebreeding involves progeny testing; not the line, but the cross...the ultimate test of a maternal strain and a paternal strain in a Tru-Line type concept would be the progeny of that cross...

dwight@steadfastbeef.com wrote:

Would there be any benefit of crossing two maternal strains (an F1 created from strains, not breeds) to be used as a commercial female intended then to be mated to a paternal bull?

when all else fails..cross... anything
Dwight,
Larry and I argue a bit about this..and I got him to for once concede a little ground in that the ideal commercial female will not be a linebred, ...and I conceded that she doesn`t have to be a typical crossbreeed f1...so, right on in my opinion.

I have been thinking about the linecrossing concept for a couple of days. I struggled somewhat like Bootheel with the term paternal, I was incorrectly thinking maternal and terminal in a cross. My thoughts now go to the best paternal type and the best maternal type. What qualities should each contain? Maternal cows would be high in functional traits, mothering ability, moderate size. Paternal bulls would be more about growth and size. But then, how much growth and size is really needed in the parent animals? Can heterosis be consistantly depended on to produce the big calf out of a moderate bull and cow, or is bull size and growth highly important in the cross? I think about hybrid corn, the terminal seed we buy vastly outproduces either parent. So is performance really important in either parent? Or is lack of relationship (difference) between the lines what is most important? My next thought is how uniform must the two lines be to produce a consistant cross? If only 50% of the terminal offspring really outperformed the parents due to inconsistancey in the line, there would be little value in the cross. Seems like there would have to be some linebreeding in the parent lines to get a consistant cross. I remember Dwight talking about chopping out the "rogues" in a seed corn field. Would some of the popular AI bulls be a good choice for the paternal side of the cross, or are they too mongerallized to be of much good? Questions, questions.

Thinking, Charles

Charles wrote:

I have been thinking about the linecrossing concept for a couple of days. I struggled somewhat like Bootheel with the term paternal, I was incorrectly thinking maternal and terminal in a cross. My thoughts now go to the best paternal type and the best maternal type. What qualities should each contain? Maternal cows would be high in functional traits, mothering ability, moderate size. Paternal bulls would be more about growth and size. But then, how much growth and size is really needed in the parent animals? Can heterosis be consistantly depended on to produce the big calf out of a moderate bull and cow, or is bull size and growth highly important in the cross? I think about hybrid corn, the terminal seed we buy vastly outproduces either parent. So is performance really important in either parent? Or is lack of relationship (difference) between the lines what is most important? My next thought is how uniform must the two lines be to produce a consistant cross? If only 50% of the terminal offspring really outperformed the parents due to inconsistancey in the line, there would be little value in the cross. Seems like there would have to be some linebreeding in the parent lines to get a consistant cross. I remember Dwight talking about chopping out the "rogues" in a seed corn field. Would some of the popular AI bulls be a good choice for the paternal side of the cross, or are they too mongerallized to be of much good? Questions, questions.

Thinking, Charles

the more different the cattle; the more heterosis in the cross...a reason for different types...and for complimentary terminal matings. I`d go to the sire summary for terminal bulls; don`t make too much the need for inbreeding ...remember a breed is an inbred. The calves by that Felix son from crossbred cows are as uniform in type as one could ever want; even imagine...

Quote :

I see no reason to inbreed except to make more uniform and predictable progeny when strains/lines/breeds are CROSSED

Mike, I fully agree as long as the line has been purged of the things that you do not want to deal with. So, let me become more moderate and ask this for my clarity. At what IBC does a fraction of a "breed", such as an experimental part of a your herd, become a line? In other words what is the minimum IBC I can bring the animals up to and still achieve the best for the outcross in a commercial cross?

And if you keep it within your herd or a breed with several lines, is the same IBC also the lower limit or do we need more or less inbreeding to achieve a goal such as maintaining 2 or more maternal lines of the same breed and benefiting within own herd with line crossed females?

Am I a pain to ask such questions or what?

EddieM wrote:

Quote :

I see no reason to inbreed except to make more uniform and predictable progeny when strains/lines/breeds are CROSSED

Mike, I fully agree as long as the line has been purged of the things that you do not want to deal with. So, let me become more moderate and ask this for my clarity. At what IBC does a fraction of a "breed", such as an experimental part of a your herd, become a line? In other words what is the minimum IBC I can bring the animals up to and still achieve the best for the outcross in a commercial cross?

And if you keep it within your herd or a breed with several lines, is the same IBC also the lower limit or do we need more or less inbreeding to achieve a goal such as maintaining 2 or more maternal lines of the same breed and benefiting within own herd with line crossed females?

Am I a pain to ask such questions or what?

I don`t think we can set arbitrary minimums; since IBC is an average firgure...a 12.5% {where for my thinking constitues meaningful inbreeding} can be from 0 to 25%...so we gotta look at the cattle, or maybe flip a coin?
Noticed this link at Advantage; read/scroll down until the use of genomics to decide between 3 full brothers...will genomics replace any need for inbreeding goals ?
http://www.accelgen.com/Genomics.aspx

Quote :

And producers will be able to make more rapid genetic progress, with bulls that have been pre-selected according to their genomic profile, particularly for low heritability traits like fertility, longevity and health traits.

Don't have time right now to do more than skim but this sounds wonderful from the site. Funny how these gene ID deals set us up for a blindsided punch. Sheep folks have been testing for Scrapie resistance and RR is totally resistant, QR is OK as long as you cross with another QR or RR and QQ is non-resistant. Seems some talk now is that the QQ and QR seem to be better overall sheep and probably so from single trait selectio of the RR group. But the RR sheep have no resistance to the strain of Scrapie found outside of North America. Uh Oh, the unexpected result of selection pressure!

I really do not have a dog in this fight, not much experience with close breeding intentionally, and always tried to avoid the women folk at family reunions, but I have been loosely "linebreeding" for some time.

I have no idea what level most everyone here has been linebreeding, but I will give my two cents worth of logic, to the cause.

The wild animals brought up in the discussion, give a good plan, for those programs or populations that have been closely bred for generations I think, much the same or moreso, in Mike's suggestion for Wye, to use the outlier, or most fit, at least the male side.....In my mind, the females, should be kept, for evaluation, unless glaring defects arrise.

I do not think the general population of the herd should be inbred, only select lines, for improving or stabilizing the remainder of the herd, close bred or similar lines yes, not inbred though, whatever that definition may be.

Thus in the earlier stages of creating the new lines, some lesser fit animals maybe should be used, to stabilize and weed out what may be hidden in the wood pile, well maybe not too early on, the intermediate stage I think, is where lesser fit animals could be utilized.

Someone tell me I am wrong, lost, and a hopeless cause, as this topic is starting to unravel the feebleness of my sanity.

http://www.accelgen.com/Genomics.aspx

Watch the 2 videos part 1 and 2. Part 2 raises questions about how consistent are families for traits.

A little book from LarryL to read and discuss paragraph by paragraph by the fire{computer} this winter; wade in mk

Quote :

Quote from EddieM::

So, Larry, I guess I was fishing and am still waiting for a bite on the amount of regression we can comfortably retain in breeding animals for the longterm good and goals of the program.

Eddie, when we go fishing, I've found that the best lure to use that attracts all kinds of fish is gold or silver : ) I don't know your comfort zone nor the long term goals of the program you might be thinking about. About 25 years ago, CSU published a chart which shows that the mating of cousins would result in approximately a 50/50 percent of hetero/homozygosity. With selection, I did not experience a significant amount of regression in the averages at this intermediate level. Since any animal or population is only as good as the average of their progeny, and presuming any regression would be caused by the reduction in the amount of heterozygosity, only you can determine your comfort level. I don't have a scanner so I can't show you the chart which shows the hetero/homo percentages from different mating systems. If Mike still has one of my 1986 sale catalogs, maybe he could scan it from that and either send it to you or post it here for anyone to view.

Quote :

Then Eddie added ...I think that the females suffer the most from infertility as regression is exhibited from the little I know. Is there more to be gained to retain regressed males for the test breedings or do we need to select both males and females? There is the mindset for some that the most acceptable animals of a contemporary group, using some breeder opted selection criteria, need to be retained as the next generation of breeders. Is there additional progress to be made to breed desired functional type to type and select a low growth, depressed, "hide him behind the barn" male to produce the line or is that a dead end street? Is it a one time deal based on the quality of the dam or will repeated efforts work or end the breeder up in the bottom of a deep genetic hole.

I wish I had some black and white answers for your specific questions but in general I doubt "regression" affects one sex more or less than another. Bootheel, you also offered several opinions/questions which I will try to answer throughout the text of this post. I greatly appreciate all your practical comments and I had a hearty laugh when you concluded a post by saying ".....

Quote :

someone tell me I am wrong, lost, and a hopeless cause, as this topic is starting to unravel the feebleness of my sanity".

The topic is breeding phiIosphy..... my purpose here is not to promote my cattle, nor to ascertain who or which type is right or wrong, nor to confuse anyone. Rather, it is my hope that I can help shed some light on why what is.... is, and what could be. None of us want to end up in the bottom of a deep genetic hole or lose our sanity. I am merely describing my thoughts during my journey through life as it pertains to my own breeding objectives.....which likely differ from many others. I enjoy reading everyones viewpoints on Keeneys Corner, it helps me keep an open mind. Old people like to reminisce so I enjoy sharing my experiences.

I don't know why I have these inner compulsions to do what I do, probably environmentally induced. Mike and I became very close friends a long time ago I suppose because of common interests while we have been searching for answers. Perhaps it is all as simple as when someone once said "we see a wrong and try to right it". That in itself would keep us all busy for a lifetime : ) When sharing our learning processes, needless to say, it takes me several days to gather my thoughts to prepare a post like this so it makes sense to anyone that might take the time to read and hopefully benefit from it. It is my privilege to outline the story of our journey.

Our basic objective here is to present ideas to stimulate the development of parent stock that can REGULARLY produce beef animals which at the lowest possible cost and expenditure of labor give the highest possible and longest lasting net returns. Not just for ourselves, but moreso for the commercial producers. This is a mighty undertaking that requires alot of breeder cooperation, dedication. thought and time.... and yes, one step at a time. There is no greater enjoyment for Mike and I than a satisfied commercial customer and how that makes all our frustrating efforts worthwhile. We laugh about how rare it is that we can satisfy a registered breeder.

The "wrong" we see is that contrary to our objective, the irrefutable reality is that the bulk of the traditional bull business prospers by featuring progeny of rare bulls that so often are produced at the highest possible cost and expenditure of labor that often give the highest possible but shortest lasting net returns to the commercial cow business. I've tried to persuade Mike to be a little more diplomatic in exposing all the BS and crazy monetary values that go on in the registered sector .....but perhaps we need more people like Mike that call a spade a spade. This is a forum which allows us all to do that.

When we enter the no spin zone, the core of the commercial beef cow business begins with the cow, 90-95% of the producing population ,,,, but usually ends with the cow being a sorted by-product of the traditional "bull" business. While the predicated fears of inbreeding are well founded, for better or worse, I do practice what we preach without waiver in this long and tedious direction.

A few years ago Mike sent me this quote by C. Mingus ..... "Making the simple complicated is commonplace, Making the complicated simple, awesomely simple, That's creativity". My oh my, how complicated and confusing breeding cattle has become with genetic chaos or disarray and egos often overriding practical common sense

Basically, most of us want to genuinely improve our cattle in order to improve both our profit and that of our customers. In a feeble attempt to simplify cattle breeding, for many years I have quoted and followed Sewall Wright's summary. I will it repeat here for those who might not be familiar with it.

" A thoroughly self-conscious movement toward improvement of livestock dates back hardly more than a century and a half. Robert Bakewell is credited with being the pioneer in this movement. The breeders of the time of Bakewell suspected him of possessing and concealing special PRINCIPLES of breeding. It is often believed that successful breeders have some mysterious method of which others are ignorant. Instead, the PRINCIPLES of the successful breeder have been EXCEEDINGLY SIMPLE. He ISOLATES and FIXES a GOOD type by careful selection and CLOSE breeding. If ambitious, he takes a greater step in advance, he CROSSES types with the characteristics which SEEM to offer POSSIBILITIES for a DESIREABLE COMBINATION and FIXES the new ideal by continued SELECTION and CLOSE breeding. He brings inferior stock up to a HIGHER LEVEL by THE CONSISTENT use of PREPOTENT sires of the SAME improved type. The DIFFICULTY lies not so much in knowing the principles as in APPLYING them."

I capitalized certain words for emphasis. I also realize a "successful breeder" can be defined in many other ways in many differing directions. For my purpose here, we need to temporarily put breeds and monetary values out of our minds and just consider types. A majority of the posts have been debates over types or individual bulls. I have previously said our high ambitions are centered on "crossing types" in what seems to be a perpetual search for a more "desireable combination".

This brings us to the point of "difficulties". After all these years, I have to laugh when Mike tells me he still can't decide on which types he likes better. I suspect he would like to edit ou this part of my story since I do see how he tends to change with the seasons .... likes light birth weight bulls at calving, heavier WW bulls at weaning, thicker bulls when his cows are thin, heavier muscled bulls when his calves look too rangy, etc., however, after a bad experience he can sure tell you what bulls he don't like .... so, he's really not too much different than the rest of us, is he If there ever was a case for the need of stabilized parts to make the whole, I've just presented it.

When we do get a more "desireable combination", the common difficulty is that we seem to be unable to FIX the combination to our satisfaction. The first major difficulty encountered is that while we can reasonably fix a "good" type in accordance with Wright's simple principles, the basic problem is that good is seldom good enough... isn't that so MIke. We all see and envy more "desirable combinations"..... don't we Mike

The second diffculty then is in the real world we lack the "prepotent sires of the SAME improved type to bring inferior stock up to a higher level". So, during our attempts to breed prepotent sires of the same improved type, handicapped by our habitual mindset, we tend to be disappointed in the natural "regression" of the expressed combination.... the functional phenotype we preferred isn't quite that way anymore...... we've experienced that too, haven't we Mike

At one point in time, I thought I should have started at a "higher level" in order to compensate for the expected phenotypic regression but I finally learned that would be an endless journey to nowhere. It is always difficult to know beforehand where the optimum is and when to stop, which of course is dependent upon ones objective.

The geneticists who developed the models for the EPD system are on the right track when they say an animals expected progeny AVERAGES are 9 times more reliable than their individual performance. Eddie, when I talk about an endless journey, I'm sure no one wants animals that we need to "hide behind the barn"..... but we know the individual phenotypic bottom end of any distribution will tend to revert back up towards the genotype average of his most current ancestry and the top phenotypic end will tend to revert back down. Anyone in the business has observed this over and over again....isn't that so MIke.

Nature does not seem to allow us to inbreed and get "peas in a pod"....,you can personallly attest to that too, isn't that so Mike. IMHO, nature turns some genes off and on at some points in time, a built-in mechanism to control population densities and preserve variation. While her persistant distributions can be frustrating, this process of turning back on some of the homozygous alleles that were always there in the depressed inbred does help explain why the first cross between two different more homozygous or prepotent parents is always the most consistent. However, it is not the only reason. Certainly overall genetic complimentarity is vital. Obviously, the more consistent the random halves of each parent are, the more consistent will be the progeny.....we've seen all this too, haven't we Mike.

I have been told that there is no significant difference in the distributions of bulls listed in the AHIR data bank. It is of little wonder that the range of distributions of them all continues to get wider and wider. In my own herd, the bulls standard range of distribution or deviation is highly correlated with their IBC's. Of course by random chance, we can get prepotent outcross animals who become valuable to fix whatever they are prepotent for in one generation. We know what happens after that, don't we MIke.

In this same vein of thought, I found Table one as described on http://www.accelgen.com/Genomics.aspx to be an interesting example of the 3 full siblings. If Bull B was the most preferred phenotypically, their genome or DNA analysis for net merit dollars (NM$) and productive life (PL) indicate he was nevertheless significantly the worst of the 3 full siblings. That's a tough pill to swallow for eyeballers and promoters of great individual phenotypes, isn't it Mike

Ironically, I found this to often be the case back in the days when I was much smarter than I am now .... when I must have enjoyed wasting thousands of dollars buying or using the "best" bulls out of the "best" cows I could find for the thrill of producing that next rare one. When my bubble burst, I no longer enjoyed wasting money on temporary frivolities. Eddie, on the other hand when I talk about an endless journey, that does not mean you should "select a low growth, depressed male" for that could very easily be a dead end street. If the top has little endurance and the bottom is cuilled, how many years have you been harrassed for thinking "average" Mike?

Now if we move on down to the colored bar 3-generation pedigree of Accelerated Genetics web page, it illustrates the different percentages an individual animal may inherit from his ancestry. Haven't we all seen this in the full sibs of people, how some resemble and take after their mother or grandmother and others more like their father or grandfather..... "the wonders of randomized genetics". I have come to believe ancestry is far more important than individuality.

We have seen how certain cow families carry more of a predominance for expressing their characteristics in their offspring moreso than others - I really don't know why and I suppose I really don't need to know. I have noticed the ones I prefer seldom produce the biggest heaviest calves. And I suppose because I have been mating more or less on a type to type basis for many generations now, for better or worse the difference between cow families has been significantly reduced.

For these many reasons, it is no secret that I have grown weary of the traditional habit of people chasing and crediting certain individual bulls or cows in a pedigree consisting of many mixed types.... which I define as genetic mongrels...... who attribute this or that individual animal for the good or bad of whatever we have today. Incidently, I have a son also named Mike who contends that he inherited ALL of the bad from ALL of his ancestry.... he didn't, maybe just more of it

To dwell on distributions a little further, Mike has told you that he and I have had our debates over the usefulness of mating "fire and ice". A common practice in breeding cattle using fire to melt the ice and then using the water to quench the fire. I don't know what happens after that except I presume we're supposed to live happily ever after just being satisfied with warm water.

Ah, but some like their mixed porridge hot, some like it cold, and some like it in the pot, nine days old. So the creativity required to better satisfy everyone in this multi-faceted beef business certainly cannot be fulfilled with one prepotent kind... can it Mike. It has been my experience that sarcastic criticism of others preferred cattle types has never improved my own cattle....that is strictly a competitive marketing strategy. I believe we are all solely responsible for what we have from our own choices. When things go wrong or right, there is no one else to blame or credit. Who is foolish enough to guarantee flesh and blood....it is "buyer beware", watch your values. There is no perfection in any type yet novices in this business certainly expect they can buy it.

I spent some time on my previous post about the importance of "genetic purity". To produce MORE FROM LESS, we simply need many more prepotent types to HARNESS HYBRID POWER. We need to create better ways to transfer the proper genetics intact directly to the commercial producer in order to provide him with the most benefit of any cross, I will repeat my last post that IMHO this is only one way to MAXIMIZE the efficiency of beef production. And it could be a much more effective way to reduce and control any problems each type may have.

It is easy to understand why the self-interests of the traditional registered sector ignor these breeding objectives. Mike has talked about "breeding the parts" for the commercial industry who is growing tired of quick fixes. Someone once told me if we took the time to fix things right in the first place, we wouldn't have as much to re-fix. So to expound on this some more, I ask that you go back and look at Accelerated Genetics' multi-colored bar 3-generation pedigree, read what they say. Please keep a mental picture of that colored bar pedigree in your mind.

Using myself as an example, during the 70's with Wye genetics, I produced bulls who became trait leaders in maternal, carcass quality and growth, BUT NEVER WITH THE SAME ANIMAL IN ALL 3 CATEGORIES. Monetarily, I was well rewarded for what each animal could do, but extremely disappointed over what they could not also do. Consequently, over 30 years ago these events caused me to spend many years analyzing the parts or combinations that produced these more "desireable ideals" .... from cattle in my herd as well as in several other herds.

Working backwards, I tried to identify their different genetic components each with a different color. Clearly, it became quite evident that if we want to improve the purity or prepotency of characters in an animal or population, rather than have one ideal or outlier appear by chance after hundreds of mixed matings, we would need to create pedigrees dominate in a single color by the absence or isolation from the other colors. Each functional type represented a different color, not much different from the way we identify breeds.

Now I know that is an exact reverse direction to what most of the mainstream is doing today. You might say it was like starting all over again, extracting the parts that produced the more beneficial whole. I became so intrigued with the concept, that everything else seemed meaningless. Little did I realize the difficulty in application, not in applying the simple principles, but in dealing with the self-serving nature of humans.

My thought processes moved to how we take milk FROM a dairy cow, who really cares what the dairy bulls look like....we take the eggs FROM the hen, who really cares what the roosters look like, but like the dairy and beef cow, the most prolific layers are a different type than broilers.....so now we have this beef cow who is expected to be like the product we eat ... for years the show people selected female "broilers", the performance people selected for increased size and everything else....thank God for distributions, in people as well as cattle, we never know when we'll need whatever's there.

I had to laugh when Gavin Falloon made the comment that the cow is nothing more than the incubator, but don't tell that to your wife or daughter. I made my choice, then set out to breed a more prolific type of beef cow, who when crossed with a paternal type, we would take the beef product FROM her, I wouldn't really care what the bulls looked like. I had learned what a prolific cow looked like and I knew what her duties needed to be. I knew how I could get 10-20% more beef out of this kind of cow for nearly an equal reduction in her fixed maintenance costs.

Assuming we have a 50% sex ratio, for every heifer we would have a steer who might be 10-20% less in value. I reasoned who would care for that one time loss if that heifer produced 15 calves at 10-20% more. In 1977 I tried some sexed semen and if that ever worked, we wouldn't even have to worry about the one time loss of her male counterpart. When I discussed this idea with other breeders and the AHIR department in the early 80's, I was always met with the response that the standard way we're doing things is about the best we can do. I absolutely believe we can sure as hell do alot better in the seedstock business than what we're doing.

I wonder if any of you reading this fully realize what a difficult decision this was to give up selling 10 to 50 thousand dollar bulls at the Midland test station or in my sales to change directions to breed smaller prolific cows in an era when frame score 9 and 10 cattle were the most valuable. No one knows more than I that it can be very costly when you see a wrong and try to right it. I told my wife we may never be able to sell any bulls FROM my new venture, and she frowned because selling high priced bulls had enabled us to finally get out of debt and build our own home.

I have read all the comments and concerns posted about the chickens. They are not our competition, beef is its own product and the only competition beef producers have is among themselves. No one needs to worry about the packing congomerates telling you what genetics you will have to use, they have controlled the price of whatever you produce in the marketplace ever since I was old enough to remember. No need to worry either about having controlled environments like the dairy, pig and chicken people do, the nearest thing to that in beef production is the large feedlots.

Whether its chickens, horses, cattle or whatever, while the breeding directions of other species may differ, the basic genetic principles are all the same. I began this post by saying what our basic objective is. The concept I profess offers year by year product flexibility, would benefit all segments, would not disrupt the adaptable cow herds, would reduce problems and all we need is to improve the purity/prepotency of the different functional types needed in unison....Or, we can waste another 200 years singly doing what we're all doing trying to achieve the impossible with continuous change.

Certainly there is nothing wrong with breeding an optimum all purpose type. If an average Angus would be the optimum, an EPD search for an average Angus bull or cow will reveal that none exist in the data bank, nor in the AI studs and seldom will you see in any auction sale offering where the average bull commands the top dollar.... right Mike Subject to his editing again , I noticed Mike posted that he believes we have to select from the top to maintain an average. That may be the case for some traits in a heterozygous population to sustain the level of heterosis lest we revert to the true genetic level of the population .... from what you've seen and done, would you agree with that statement Mike?

I've discussed the genetic aspects long enough, but I want to talk briefly about monetary values which is always the driving force in this business. Everyone seems to be worrying about protecting dollar values and have become slaves to the registered clubs and their artificial monetary values. Some breeders I've talked tell me they respect me for what I'm doing but they say they can't ford to do what I do.....and I say how can we afford not to.

For pete's sake, most of the breeders are multiplying the bull of the month anyway when they could be multiplying something more lasting. And what is so pathetic, is they claim they need registration papers for authenticity in order to sell their stock. Whatever happened to breeder integrity, did it go out the window along with functional purity? If cattle bred like they looked or better, we wouldn't need piles of expensive time consuming complex records.....how have they improved efficiency for you Mike?

I have gotten a lot of flack when I discontinued registering my cattle. I probably have accumulated more MEANINGFUL records and measures on my cattle over the years than 95% of the registered breeders. Just a couple days ago, I was shocked by the content of a letter I received from Tom Burke of the American Angus Hall of Fame. Since the content was known by other parties before I even received the letter, I decided I would use it as a public example to clarify what I'm talking about here.

It is probably not the proper protocol to publicly share the content but there are alot of improper things that go on in this business. Tom is a very intelligent person successful in his field with an exceptional memory like that of the fabled elephant. Tom's statements in part are followed by my thoughts:

Quote :

It's been a long time since I've spoken with you, but want you to know I've carefully followed your Angus breeding program over the years.....
Larry, I realize that over the years you've been very frustrated with the Angus breed and the American Angus Association

..... I sure have been for many reasons but basically, their policy's simply have far. far exceeded their original purpose in order to expand their membership for .......... : )

Quote :

In 2010 the Angus breed is at a crossroads. With the escalating feed costs it's critical that Angus seed stock become more practical from the standpoint of feed and forage intake, and far less costly grain. Shoshone Angus obviously has worked hard to put the word "Aberdeen" back into Angus.

No, no, that was never my purpose.

Quote :

A lot of cattlemen across this country are genuinely interested in the practical approach you've made in the building and breeding of Angus seed stock.

I thought real cattlemen always preferred the more practical approach.

Quote :

I know and realize that you've discontinued registering your Angus cattle. Larry, I sincerely believe you should reconsider and go back to registering your Angus seed stock. Shoshone Angus has a lot to offer the Angus industry.

I have nothing genetically to offer the Angus industry that it does not already have, except more continuity of a type. Why would I want other breeders to mix up what I've spent so much time on trying to restore to some genetic order

Quote :

By not registering them, you're depriving breeders introducing your genetics and hard work into their programs

What a crock, I absolutely am not, my genetics are available to anyone, anywhere, anytime without AAA registration papers....it is their call whether papers are more important to them than the kind of cattle they raise.....just what are their programs? could it be to find a short cut to capitalize on someone else's work at the expense of the commercial producer?

Quote :

Larry, I fully realize it's none of my business whether you do this or not. I do believe by doing this it brings into focus a lot of new and exciting genetics that can further advance the breed, your customers and friends' Angus programs

. I do not have a lot of new and exciting genetics, what I have is the same old genetics that everyone else has access to, the genetics that breeders long before me put together as the breed was formed....they can sort through them and pick the ones they want the same way I do

Quote :

Larry, I know you say you don't need this kind of trouble in your life, but we're in the crossroads in the Angus breed and we need Larry Leonhardt and Shoshone Angus

. The Angus breed has been at the crossroads of changing directions many times just in my lifetime and got along before me and it will get along without me and my cattle when I'm gone. One man or herd did not cause the Angus breed to be at a crossroads nor can he change the course of the next road the community will take

.....

Quote :

I hope that you'll reconsider and bring your Angus genetics back to the Registered Angus Community

. I appreciate all the kind comments. Firstly, I have moved forward in a direction to improve the efficiency of beef production without the need of the Registered Angus Community to verify or give their stamp of approval to everything I do with my own cattle. I really don't believe the Angus breed is at a crossroads, I do believe it is their monetary values that are simply going to be switched again to another chapter of change.

Secondly, I run my cows with my own multiple bulls for many genetic reasons. Because the genotypes are so similar, the DNA samples often cannot distinguish which of the bulls sired who, and therefore are inelgible for registration as set forth by Assn. rules.

Being in the sales management business, I think Tom is seeing the handwriting on the wall when he talks about "the practical approach", and along with DNA technology advancing, the phenotypic illusions of yester years that sell for thousands of dollars will no longer capture the big dollars ..... what do you all think ? : )

Quote :

Eddie, when we go fishing ...

I think I just hooked a trophy. I'll read and think a little, enjoy playing the fish and get back with you for the weigh-in!

Wow, thanks LL - that will take a bit of re-reading and thinking before my feeble mind can absorb it all. Very informative.

We are entering a new era of cattle breeding with genomics, sexed semen and other tools at our disposal that previous generations of breeders did not have. I think I need to reread LL post several more times to digest the content and then ponder on the message.