what is your vision of your genetic or production contribution to the improved profitability of the beef industry?

to quote Larry.

development of parent stock the can regularly produce beef animals which at the lowest possible expenditure of labor and cost give the highest possible and longest lasting returns to the commercial industry.

now I just have to figure out how??

larkota wrote:

to quote Larry.

development of parent stock that can regularly produce beef animals which at the lowest possible expenditure of labor and cost give the highest possible and longest lasting returns to the commercial industry.

now I just have to figure out how??

Our life is frittered away by detail... simplify, simplify.
Henry David Thoreau

larkota wrote:

to quote Larry.

development of parent stock the can regularly produce beef animals which at the lowest possible expenditure of labor and cost give the highest possible and longest lasting returns to the commercial industry.

now I just have to figure out how??

Yea I agree with Briann. This should be our mission statement and I just don't know how you would improve upon this quote. I also agree with you Mike and Sewall Wright the principles are exceedingly simple. I don't even think the application is as difficult as it is tedious and I don't mean tedious in a bad way, just is a slow, time consuming way that requires a level of long term commitment that very few, including myself, fully understand. I just hope I stay healthy enough both mentally and physically for the next 20 or 30 years so I can then say, I have somewhat of an understanding.

Mine is "simply" the development of a more consistent line of parent stock, climatically adapted to western Canada and anywhere with similar conditions, that could be used successfully as a component part of a planned crossbreeding program. And I want to gain wider recognition and acceptance of our breed along the way.

Mike i have no fancy word's or quotes. I have been swimming on my own for quite awhile, I have seen the good the bad and the ugly. And i would just like to leave with the feeling that. Some one can still sale a honest product for everyone that buy's it. And there is no fame or glory in that. Now that is a mushy as i am going to get. And I am going to call bull shit as I see fit. because that is just the way it is.

larkota wrote:

to quote Larry.

development of parent stock the can regularly produce beef animals which at the lowest possible expenditure of labor and cost give the highest possible and longest lasting returns to the commercial industry.

now I just have to figure out how??

Above all, don't lie to yourself.

larkota wrote:

larkota wrote:

to quote Larry.

development of parent stock the can regularly produce beef animals which at the lowest possible expenditure of labor and cost give the highest possible and longest lasting returns to the commercial industry.

now I just have to figure out how??

Above all, don't lie to yourself.

Larkota , You just made a big sort from the industry . Thanks , Jon

larkota wrote:

larkota wrote:

to quote Larry.

development of parent stock the can regularly produce beef animals which at the lowest possible expenditure of labor and cost give the highest possible and longest lasting returns to the commercial industry.

now I just have to figure out how??

Above all, don't lie to yourself.

What a quote Briann. It is funny when you catch some one lieing they tell one then they tell another to keep the first one going and on and on, and sometime it takes a while but in the end the house of lies falls apart., every time.

The number one complaint of beef by consumers is toughness. Whether I read the statistics properly or not is yet to be determined. I designed two specific, and somewhat overlapping programs to do my part in a finding a solution. Our motto is: Producer Friendly Cattle for Consumer Friendly Beef.

I recognized that Brahman stock had the greatest conplaints and as I produce in the South, I thought I needed a diffent source of heat tolerance that also possessed dependable tenderness. I imported a South African Bonsmara foundation herd with adequate diversity in matings to functionally close the herd if necessary. The breed has its own branded product abroad. The product was to be signature beef guaranteed tender. I sold that herd several years back and now concentrate on Angus.

I approached tenderness from a genome level, starting with testing when there were two SNP markers for calpain with Genetic Solutions in Colorado. Calpastatin markers were added later, some new calpain markers on the Frontier system. Both companies have undergone changes equaling the speed of our selection here (Now Pfizer and Merial own them). The cattle tested included Angus and Red Angus females and bulls. Some of these were mated to Bonsmara stock. I chose to develop an Angus seed stock herd with GeneSTAR system. It was my breeding strategy to select for these to be homozygous and add other markers as they developed in the industry. The mating program was designed to allow the remainder of the genome to "float", providing some protection from inbreeding depression with loss of future options. Hopefully, this could be accomplished without subsequent cycles of outcrossing. I searched for various lines with the markers and added new ones within my identified parameters when possible. I also line bred whole pedigrees and to known tenderness and marbling favorable individuals. Again, a signature beef product with local marketing was envisioned, not to comepete with CAB, but to vertically integrate around a known genetic base that would allow fewer problem experiences when marketed direct to the consumers.

G nome wrote:

The number one complaint of beef by consumers is toughness. Whether I read the statistics properly or not is yet to be determined. I designed two specific, and somewhat overlapping programs to do my part in a finding a solution. Our motto is: Producer Friendly Cattle for Consumer Friendly Beef.

I recognized that Brahman stock had the greatest conplaints and as I produce in the South, I thought I needed a diffent source of heat tolerance that also possessed dependable tenderness. I imported a South African Bonsmara foundation herd with adequate diversity in matings to functionally close the herd if necessary. The breed has its own branded product abroad. The product was to be signature beef guaranteed tender. I sold that herd several years back and now concentrate on Angus.

I approached tenderness from a genome level, starting with testing when there were two SNP markers for calpain with Genetic Solutions in Colorado. Calpastatin markers were added later, some new calpain markers on the Frontier system. Both companies have undergone changes equaling the speed of our selection here (Now Pfizer and Merial own them). The cattle tested included Angus and Red Angus females and bulls. Some of these were mated to Bonsmara stock. I chose to develop an Angus seed stock herd with GeneSTAR system. It was my breeding strategy to select for these to be homozygous and add other markers as they developed in the industry. The mating program was designed to allow the remainder of the genome to "float", providing some protection from inbreeding depression with loss of future options. Hopefully, this could be accomplished without subsequent cycles of outcrossing. I searched for various lines with the markers and added new ones within my identified parameters when possible. I also line bred whole pedigrees and to known tenderness and marbling favorable individuals. Again, a signature beef product with local marketing was envisioned, not to comepete with CAB, but to vertically integrate around a known genetic base that would allow fewer problem experiences when marketed direct to the consumers.

E G,
Again showing my ignorance, can you expand beyond, let`s call it "the tender ten" , with the current test? did you actually ever test meat from a "tender ten"? would the "tender ten" test have worked on Brahman or Bonsmara? What were the pluses and minus of the Bonsmara you experienced?

The Igenity rating system for all traits is reported on a scale 0-10. Those are relative values based on least to most favorable. If I remember correctly, a tenderness score of 10 on Igenity meaans the most tender possible as indicated by the panel of tenderness markers. GeneSTAR reported 2 calpain and 1 calpastatin locus (times 2) means 6 STAR tender was tops, but this actually was reported as 6 of 6 and furthr as to which genes were unfavorable in values less than 6. I tested a few other than Angus on the Genetic Solutions panels early. It is my understanding that the two major companies were housed in the same building at the time and that Frontier continued to report a calpain SNP that did not hold up when found in populations with Brahman blood mixed within and shifted the present scaled rating while Genetic Solutions developed the GeneSTAR system. I chose to use the latter because I got the information useful in "fixing" the genes in my herd. That is to say I knew which animals were likely to produce 6-STAR animals. I recall Class Reunion (14468651), my first bull known to have all 6 GeneSTAR markers, homozygous for Tenderness is also homozygous for the marker that works in Angus (would be 8STAR within Angus?). It is only fair to report that not all traits measured are as simply traced by markers as tenderness and reporting every SNP would mean little could be held back by the testing company. Many of the SNP tests were developed in the public arena and are, in fact, in panels of multiple companies. We should find ranking of animals for tenderness measured by one company follows quite closely those same animals ranked by another for British and Continental breeds as these were in the populations used to develop and evaluate them. Other traits, such as feed efficiency and temperment were not measured when that population was investigated.
One company, MMI, worked closely with the feedlot industry and used slaughter data coorelated with SNP profiles to establish a panel that did not use parental/offspring comparisons. All Animals were harvested in the process and differences used. These are not promoted as breeding tools, per se.

so with the current test "hd 50" etc, no homozygousity is determined? and we are back to flipping coins "based on averages/percentages"? Jersey has an inbreeding analysis...why not beef?

or we could increase cooler space.

Dairy is coming out with a new improved genomic test that covers more things. I believe they will start including health traits according to the jersey webinair yesterday. It would be interesting to have an update on current beef genomics.

patb wrote:

Dairy is coming out with a new improved genomic test that covers more things. I believe they will start including health traits according to the jersey webinair yesterday. It would be interesting to have an update on current beef genomics.

that`s all ok; kinda like scratching an itch...but quite meaningless when breeders won`t apply basic causes they already know...or at least should know before using the term breeder...

I think the reason was given as low numbers of profiles on record in beef. Yet, we know Holstein are the largest numbers on file. 50K and larger profiles seemingly only add levels of knowledge where cross-over events occur. It is apparent that conserved lengths of unrecombined DNA are protected by survival demands.

I would mention mitochondrial DNA as a factor seldom considered by the genome project. One difference between US Brahman crosses made with Brahman bulls on British cows and Bonsmara, made with British bulls on Africaner cows is retention of the tropical MtDNA in the latter. MtDNA is passed to the next generation by the cow. Differences are conserved as it does not recombine.

G nome wrote:

Differences are conserved as it does not recombine.

G nome , Do you feel this is mother natures way of letting the human race know she has a say no matter how hard we push the environment envelope ? Or does it reaffirm the vital importance of females ? Jon

Jon, I guess it is a little bit of both. The mitochondria is is where things happen, energy transfers being among the most important. Higher animals may not be as sensative to it as plants, but reciprocal crosses in plants can make a huge difference in performance. In animals, separate sexes, makes it impossible to make real reciprocal crosses, but approximate them by using full sibs on both sides of the study. But, I have always considered that the cow does more than her half by far. With new technology of clones etc, we may someday be able to do without bulls, but I have not yet seen a method to do away with cows.

G nome wrote:

I think the reason was given as low numbers of profiles on record in beef. Yet, we know Holstein are the largest numbers on file. 50K and larger profiles seemingly only add levels of knowledge where cross-over events occur. It is apparent that conserved lengths of unrecombined DNA are protected by survival demands.

I would mention mitochondrial DNA as a factor seldom considered by the genome project. One difference between US Brahman crosses made with Brahman bulls on British cows and Bonsmara, made with British bulls on Africaner cows is retention of the tropical MtDNA in the latter. MtDNA is passed to the next generation by the cow. Differences are conserved as it does not recombine.

Is it low numbers or the data is not in the right hands? How many breeders would pay to have their herd bulls sequences at the 777k level if there was a possible positive impact for them? I have not seen a request from Dr. Taylor or other researcher asking breeders to help with building a genomic database.

PatB, As usual, I am not wanting to be a nail while you hold the hammer. Still hitting them on the head. Experiences with former profiles has left many wanting to get returns for money already placed in development of data bases and beef herds. It looks like zero sums for sure. While some gain others pay the tab to offset it.
Developing faith in numbers coming from behind the IP curtain are remindful of facts that might have crossed the Iron curtain in 1979.

G nome wrote:

PatB, As usual, I am not wanting to be a nail while you hold the hammer. Still hitting them on the head. Experiences with former profiles has left many wanting to get returns for money already placed in development of data bases and beef herds. It looks like zero sums for sure. While some gain others pay the tab to offset it.
Developing faith in numbers coming from behind the IP curtain are remindful of facts that might have crossed the Iron curtain in 1979.

I envision a cooperative effort in genomics and reality is the almighty dollar rules the major players in this.

found the following links interesting on RFI

http://www.growsafe.com/rfi.php

http://www.midlandbulltest.com/efficiencytesting.php

midland bull test rfi seminar links to part 1 thru 3

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zMPcMSOrWPk&feature=related

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yYXMb0DQYJk&feature=related

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XsOQK7X4H5s&feature=related

G nome wrote:

The number one complaint of beef by consumers is toughness. Whether I read the statistics properly or not is yet to be determined. I designed two specific, and somewhat overlapping programs to do my part in a finding a solution. Our motto is: Producer Friendly Cattle for Consumer Friendly Beef.

I recognized that Brahman stock had the greatest conplaints and as I produce in the South, I thought I needed a diffent source of heat tolerance that also possessed dependable tenderness. I imported a South African Bonsmara foundation herd with adequate diversity in matings to functionally close the herd if necessary. The breed has its own branded product abroad. The product was to be signature beef guaranteed tender. I sold that herd several years back and now concentrate on Angus.

I approached tenderness from a genome level, starting with testing when there were two SNP markers for calpain with Genetic Solutions in Colorado. Calpastatin markers were added later, some new calpain markers on the Frontier system. Both companies have undergone changes equaling the speed of our selection here (Now Pfizer and Merial own them). The cattle tested included Angus and Red Angus females and bulls. Some of these were mated to Bonsmara stock. I chose to develop an Angus seed stock herd with GeneSTAR system. It was my breeding strategy to select for these to be homozygous and add other markers as they developed in the industry. The mating program was designed to allow the remainder of the genome to "float", providing some protection from inbreeding depression with loss of future options. Hopefully, this could be accomplished without subsequent cycles of outcrossing. I searched for various lines with the markers and added new ones within my identified parameters when possible. I also line bred whole pedigrees and to known tenderness and marbling favorable individuals. Again, a signature beef product with local marketing was envisioned, not to comepete with CAB, but to vertically integrate around a known genetic base that would allow fewer problem experiences when marketed direct to the consumers.

G nome- First off I openly admit to be totally ignorant about all this genetic quality testing...
Is the GeneSTAR system the one that the Bradley bull B3R Tender Ten R065 was touted about...I thought of this as I was looking at old ads where a few years ago ABS advertised the bull as "•One of few 16 STAR Angus bulls available; has 6 stars for Feed Efficiency"--- but now in the last few catalogs don't even mention it...

Is there a newer test thats been developed and acclaimed as better? I'll never understand how ABS operates- but it did make me curious to why they dropped that promotion......

The Bradley website still shows it:
http://bradley3ranch.com/herdsires/B3RTenderTenR065.html