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

Old timer if there is anything you want to know about ABS or AI Just ask the JIMMER and I am sure he can tell you everything you need to know and more

Oldtimer wrote:

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

good question OT...I am waiting for g nome to verify, but I believe the new test have superceded the afore mentioned test either in terms of genetic or promotional value...

OT, B3R Tender Ten was indeed one of the first bulls available with 10 stars (of 10 possible) tenderness and marbling markers when he named by Bradley Ranch. The added 6 for F/E made a total of 16 (of 18) as I remember. He was first leased to Ultimate Genetics and followed a bull I bred EGP N0 Vacancy 3R who was alos named after his DNA profile (10* of 10 favorable markers at the time. A small group of us were competing bidders for Tender Ten but did not take enough cash to the sale. I used the bull AI and had very good results as he nicked well as an outcross bull, yet was carrying many of the same markers as cows in my herd. No Vacancy is out of the same EXT/6807 pathfinder dam as Class Reunion, a bull I mentioned in another KC post as having maxed out on Tenderness markers. I am aware of animals with 18 and 19 available of 22 possible before they closed the reporting system. Some of my No Vacancy and Class Reunion cows are mated to an outcross bull with 21 possible of those 22 original STARS, but he has not been tested because of the change in reporting.

The approach early on in development of the markers used SNP that were tightly linked or better, a portion of the DNA of the gene for Tenderness. Most other traits did not follow this pattern as well as tenderness. Markers for genes with major influence on marbling were found and the 10 stars favorable meant that Tender Ten and No Vacancy got a copy of each 3 tender and 2 marbling markers from each parent (making these bulls homozygous for those 5 markers that had been third party certified by the NBCEC (Nation Beef Cattle Evaluation Consortium, made up of Universities such as Colorado State, Cornell, etc.). The possible F/E markers numbered 8 at the time (4 from each parent), these were verified in Australia. Both Tender Ten and No Vacancy each had only two of these SNP homozygous while the other two were found heterozygous, so they had 6 of 8 FE markers. As it turned out, the two profiles complimented each other and supplied possibility of a perfect profile with 18 of 18 possible if combined. These individual STARS for Feed Eficiency were reported to vary in strength of effect on product tenderness and a value expressed in the pounds of shear force required to cut a steak from the animal tested. The last two F/E SNP were weak compared to the first two SNP. We were selecting for more efficient animals by breeding animals related to my bulls to Tender Ten and I even used a son of Tender Ten (Tender Too) as backup later. That program has basically ended except for the cattle that still have these markers concentrated within the herd.

A while after Pfizer purchased Bovigen, the reporting system called GeneSTAR, where 'STARS" marked favorable genes for a particular trait, was no longer available to breeders, except after the profile and more extensive analysis was completed and the report given as a "number" and "rank" value. When the proflies jumped from 5K, animals in my herd previously well marked seemed to move from better to worse. The F/E genes seemed to have some adverse bias built in. The industry found that genetic background was making a difference. The herds for development of the markers were not marking the same as in other populations. So, the answer seems to be SNP/phenotype association and it is still unclear how the values are placed on the thousands of SNP we now find more or less associated with traits measured in more or less value. A company representative told me all the SNP are used in each and every trait reported. These numbers appear and are also converted to EPD changes, small or large by AAA or other cattle registries as adjustment for DNA patterns as indicated by the values. It must be complicated and certainly, companies are not telling each other how it is done at the testing level. They are not reporting direct to the customer who pays the tab and who own the animal being tested, customers who must rely on the "number" and a whole herd or breed "rank" provided by the company and the adjusted EPD by AAA, and other organizations. It should be reported that no unadjusted EPD are available because if any changes are made within a breed, it changes them all.

I should say that the markers have not changed in Tender Ten or No Vacancy, bulls that are known to pass one copy of those favorable markers to their offspring without fail. Simply put, we just cannot get those reports anymore and offspring are not being tested. We could do another upgrade as I and other breeders each time new markers came out and each time paying additional fees. As you might be able to tell by now, I did one too many upgrades and invested too many dollars to remain happy with the system at this point.

Thanx Gnome for the summary. The question is who holds the validataion database for these markers and how wide spread is the breed represented? The testing companies hold the genotype info and the AAA holds some of the phenotype info but they are not combined to validate and further identify markers. I have to applaud the midland bull test crew for their work on RFI and sharing the data.

patb wrote:

Thanx Gnome for the summary. The question is who holds the validataion database for these markers and how wide spread is the breed represented? The testing companies hold the genotype info and the AAA holds some of the phenotype info but they are not combined to validate and further identify markers. I have to applaud the midland bull test crew for their work on RFI and sharing the data.

What's it worth to have 3rd party validation? It takes lots of money, another set of cattle and time.

patb wrote:

Thanx Gnome for the summary. The question is who holds the validataion database for these markers and how wide spread is the breed represented? The testing companies hold the genotype info and the AAA holds some of the phenotype info but they are not combined to validate and further identify markers. I have to applaud the midland bull test crew for their work on RFI and sharing the data.

Quite frankly Pat, I looked at RFI at Midland as a test/sales inducement rather than adding much genetic merit...

Thanks EG, for that thorough explanation...in terms I`m beginning to understand better

MKeeney wrote:

patb wrote:

Thanx Gnome for the summary. The question is who holds the validataion database for these markers and how wide spread is the breed represented? The testing companies hold the genotype info and the AAA holds some of the phenotype info but they are not combined to validate and further identify markers. I have to applaud the midland bull test crew for their work on RFI and sharing the data.

Quite frankly Pat, I looked at RFI at Midland as a test/sales inducement rather than adding much genetic merit...

Thanks EG, for that thorough explanation...in terms I`m beginning to understand better

Regardless of the motive for doing it they are producing data on RFI on large number of animals on the same feed at the same time. I think it might be more usefull if the RFI testing period ran for almost the whole time at the facility but still they are highlighting the difference in feed utilization. Maybe Jack's light cows are not as efficient at converting forage as his heavier animals.

patb wrote:

MKeeney wrote:

patb wrote:

Thanx Gnome for the summary. The question is who holds the validataion database for these markers and how wide spread is the breed represented? The testing companies hold the genotype info and the AAA holds some of the phenotype info but they are not combined to validate and further identify markers. I have to applaud the midland bull test crew for their work on RFI and sharing the data.

Quite frankly Pat, I looked at RFI at Midland as a test/sales inducement rather than adding much genetic merit...

Thanks EG, for that thorough explanation...in terms I`m beginning to understand better

Regardless of the motive for doing it they are producing data on RFI on large number of animals on the same feed at the same time {but have been removed from their comtempoary group; as all test stations do; rendering them fairly useless in my opinion} I think it might be more usefull if the RFI testing period ran for almost the whole time at the facility but still they are highlighting the difference in feed utilization. Maybe Jack's light cows are not as efficient at converting forage as his heavier animals.

I seriously doubt RFI having meaning at a grazing cow level...and what if it does? what did you give up to get the improvement? the endless circle ...

I think Midland, with a high fiber ration comes as close to estimates of actual conversion of rough products as anybody. Yet, after a recent test of about 600 bulls, I looked at the 100 top bulls as predicted and the 100 worst as predicted by the Pfizer marker system. I am not sure one can obtain that data any more. The top predicted bulls finished from top to bottom, with just over half falling below average. The prediction for the worst animals was a bit better, but one of those was at the absolute top performer for RFI. Buyers at the sale had to resort to other measures to evaluate the bulls.

I am sure the DNA work has had some improvement. I also know that the "non-contemporary" group at Midland might vary performance, but to what end if we cannot use DNA data to compare between herds? What I would like to know is this: Would the simpler GeneSTAR data have been better for predicting RFI? Somebody knows, I am guessing. Place your bets, ladies and gentlemen, cause big Pharma has the dice ready to roll again.

It is my understanding that cooperating herds have provided testing companies within herd data when possible for evaluations. The raw performance data turned in by individuals would be much better for evaluations that EPD which also includes family history and pedigree variations. AAA may be in a position to handle this performance data in a manner similar to how the testing company does with the genotyping in development of the markers. We have a ways to go until practical and potential are in balance.

Part of the price of independence is watching the world roll on by; fueled by dollars ; while I just keep on doing what I do; and betting, just for betting`s sake, that when everything shakes out, I won`t be all that far behind except in promotional value...
Is anyone expecting some antagonistic gene defying methods resulting in a "perfect beef animal" to come from all this DNA testing or just greater predictability for what nature generally allows? gene splicing in the future?

G nome wrote:

OT, B3R Tender Ten was indeed one of the first bulls available with 10 stars (of 10 possible) tenderness and marbling markers when he named by Bradley Ranch. The added 6 for F/E made a total of 16 (of 18) as I remember. He was first leased to Ultimate Genetics and followed a bull I bred EGP N0 Vacancy 3R who was alos named after his DNA profile (10* of 10 favorable markers at the time. A small group of us were competing bidders for Tender Ten but did not take enough cash to the sale. I used the bull AI and had very good results as he nicked well as an outcross bull, yet was carrying many of the same markers as cows in my herd. No Vacancy is out of the same EXT/6807 pathfinder dam as Class Reunion, a bull I mentioned in another KC post as having maxed out on Tenderness markers. I am aware of animals with 18 and 19 available of 22 possible before they closed the reporting system. Some of my No Vacancy and Class Reunion cows are mated to an outcross bull with 21 possible of those 22 original STARS, but he has not been tested because of the change in reporting.

The approach early on in development of the markers used SNP that were tightly linked or better, a portion of the DNA of the gene for Tenderness. Most other traits did not follow this pattern as well as tenderness. Markers for genes with major influence on marbling were found and the 10 stars favorable meant that Tender Ten and No Vacancy got a copy of each 3 tender and 2 marbling markers from each parent (making these bulls homozygous for those 5 markers that had been third party certified by the NBCEC (Nation Beef Cattle Evaluation Consortium, made up of Universities such as Colorado State, Cornell, etc.). The possible F/E markers numbered 8 at the time (4 from each parent), these were verified in Australia. Both Tender Ten and No Vacancy each had only two of these SNP homozygous while the other two were found heterozygous, so they had 6 of 8 FE markers. As it turned out, the two profiles complimented each other and supplied possibility of a perfect profile with 18 of 18 possible if combined. These individual STARS for Feed Eficiency were reported to vary in strength of effect on product tenderness and a value expressed in the pounds of shear force required to cut a steak from the animal tested. The last two F/E SNP were weak compared to the first two SNP. We were selecting for more efficient animals by breeding animals related to my bulls to Tender Ten and I even used a son of Tender Ten (Tender Too) as backup later. That program has basically ended except for the cattle that still have these markers concentrated within the herd.

A while after Pfizer purchased Bovigen, the reporting system called GeneSTAR, where 'STARS" marked favorable genes for a particular trait, was no longer available to breeders, except after the profile and more extensive analysis was completed and the report given as a "number" and "rank" value. When the proflies jumped from 5K, animals in my herd previously well marked seemed to move from better to worse. The F/E genes seemed to have some adverse bias built in. The industry found that genetic background was making a difference. The herds for development of the markers were not marking the same as in other populations. So, the answer seems to be SNP/phenotype association and it is still unclear how the values are placed on the thousands of SNP we now find more or less associated with traits measured in more or less value. A company representative told me all the SNP are used in each and every trait reported. These numbers appear and are also converted to EPD changes, small or large by AAA or other cattle registries as adjustment for DNA patterns as indicated by the values. It must be complicated and certainly, companies are not telling each other how it is done at the testing level. They are not reporting direct to the customer who pays the tab and who own the animal being tested, customers who must rely on the "number" and a whole herd or breed "rank" provided by the company and the adjusted EPD by AAA, and other organizations. It should be reported that no unadjusted EPD are available because if any changes are made within a breed, it changes them all.

I should say that the markers have not changed in Tender Ten or No Vacancy, bulls that are known to pass one copy of those favorable markers to their offspring without fail. Simply put, we just cannot get those reports anymore and offspring are not being tested. We could do another upgrade as I and other breeders each time new markers came out and each time paying additional fees. As you might be able to tell by now, I did one too many upgrades and invested too many dollars to remain happy with the system at this point.

Thank you -- as it is a question that I have had for the last couple of years...

I am in a position where I can get my heifers again synchronized and AIed thru ABS bulls at no cost to us (an agreement my son long ago entered into ) and have looked at the Tender Ten bull as the replacement for the N Bar Prime Time D806 bull I had used in the past as a sleep all night calving ease- momma cow maker...

I'm low/no input (lazy) and don't believe in checking heifers every couple of hours- and have been watching the bulls numbers for several years to see if they proved up--- especially since he was brought to my attention because of his high "Star' rating...

The bull fits the physical type I have bred for- and is a way of not only adding in some more NBar (5522) breeding (from sires/mgs that surprisingly have a high record of docility- with the bull having a +34 docility EPD), but I think may fit right in with the Juanada, CH, Rito, Wye, bloodlines I have been using....... I've watched for a few years to see what his numbers did- and now with a higher %- and the most important ones to me (CE and BW) stayed pretty much the same, like what I see.....

As I said- I've watched the bull for years- and I've talked to the Bradley Ranch on more than one occasion about their program-the bull - his docility- and really like what I've heard...

My beliefs probably will not make the puritans of the industry happy- either the Shoshone or non registered folks or the high dollar ABS/growth followers-- BUT-- I've always been one that kind of followed my own trail--- never was the lead dog-- nor liked to be the follow dog with my nose up the lead dogs rear either....

G nome wrote:

I think Midland, with a high fiber ration comes as close to estimates of actual conversion of rough products as anybody. Yet, after a recent test of about 600 bulls, I looked at the 100 top bulls as predicted and the 100 worst as predicted by the Pfizer marker system. I am not sure one can obtain that data any more. The top predicted bulls finished from top to bottom, with just over half falling below average. The prediction for the worst animals was a bit better, but one of those was at the absolute top performer for RFI. Buyers at the sale had to resort to other measures to evaluate the bulls.

I am sure the DNA work has had some improvement. I also know that the "non-contemporary" group at Midland might vary performance, but to what end if we cannot use DNA data to compare between herds? What I would like to know is this: Would the simpler GeneSTAR data have been better for predicting RFI? Somebody knows, I am guessing. Place your bets, ladies and gentlemen, cause big Pharma has the dice ready to roll again.

Did any sires or families emerge as passing on lower then average RFI score out of last midland RFI data? The midland RFI data is no longer available on the web. I am hoping to see a trend develop that certian family lines have better RFI scores over multiple years of data. It will be another year before there is a chance of RFI scored sires sons having results at midland. The midland youtube videos mention doing RFI testing on females also. Has any of the results of that test been made public?

PatB, I was unable to recognize any differences due to families. The DNA data no longer is available because someone pointed out the inconsistencies, or that the wrinkles were somehow healling themselves? I always felt the original Genetic Solutions / Bovigen method of reporting divulged a bit too much information that allowed breeders to eventually limit the need to test with the companies. No doubt the larger number of SNP observed required a new program of calculation and more extensive software concerns. Some how, the fact that homozygous individuals make things predictable got lost. Matings can be chosen to compliment for the next generation as explained under the 'Writings' heading here on KC, and the advantage of mating animals with like markers is obvious for predictable uniformity in the offspring.

Old Timer, they don't make 'em like they used to....Minnie Lou is special and Mary Lou and James seem to be making their own marks. I, too, think they are great folks.

G nome wrote:

PatB, I was unable to recognize any differences due to families. The DNA data no longer is available because someone pointed out the inconsistencies, or that the wrinkles were somehow healling themselves? I always felt the original Genetic Solutions / Bovigen method of reporting divulged a bit too much information that allowed breeders to eventually limit the need to test with the companies. No doubt the larger number of SNP observed required a new program of calculation and more extensive software concerns. Some how, the fact that homozygous individuals make things predictable got lost. Matings can be chosen to compliment for the next generation as explained under the 'Writings' heading here on KC, and the advantage of mating animals with like markers is obvious for predictable uniformity in the offspring.

Thanx

Between this topic and the one on advantage alot of information has been discussed and shared. I will continue with what I am doing genomic testing the bulls and selecting the best phenotype animals as replacements.

pat

patb wrote:

G nome wrote:

PatB, I was unable to recognize any differences due to families. The DNA data no longer is available because someone pointed out the inconsistencies, or that the wrinkles were somehow healling themselves? I always felt the original Genetic Solutions / Bovigen method of reporting divulged a bit too much information that allowed breeders to eventually limit the need to test with the companies. No doubt the larger number of SNP observed required a new program of calculation and more extensive software concerns. Some how, the fact that homozygous individuals make things predictable got lost. Matings can be chosen to compliment for the next generation as explained under the 'Writings' heading here on KC, and the advantage of mating animals with like markers is obvious for predictable uniformity in the offspring.

Thanx

Between this topic and the one on advantage alot of information has been discussed and shared. I will continue with what I am doing genomic testing the bulls and selecting the best phenotype animals as replacements.

pat

well, in 20 - 30 years, there might be some efficiencies in individuals that would breed true...
there are efficiencies available in a SYSTEM TODAY...

Selection is one tool that rapidly segregates populations into identifiable units, separate from others. If the standards are consistent and strong, only a few generations are required. If, however, ideals change and directions change, little "progress" toward the initial goal will be achieved. I find it enlightening that in tropical environments with predictable weather there are many more species found, but those tend to be endemic, less capable of change. In sub tropical and temperate regions, there are few species of both plants and animals. Those are widespread, found in several different areas wet to dry, hot to cold.

Why should artificial selection be an exception?

The genomic Genie seems a bit elusive. Down the rabbit hole seems like an enticing adventure, and yet in the end tenederness is a function of many variables. Cargill is expressing concern publiclly about one of them, which is indicative of the systemic nature of a segmented industry that has each segment doings its individual best in the margin quest which can end up being at odds with someone else down stream. The consumer is the final dumping ground and slowly they eat less and less. The most tender animal geneticaly speaking once being pounded through the system can easily end up on ones plate as a sit down hungry and get up tired proposition. In general our biggest problem is systemic not genetic.


My breeding program is a selfish proposition. The goal is still the same a moderate sized cow capable of weaning a good calf on schedule every year for 12 to 14 years on grass and whatever nominal feed supplementation the dormant season may require, with out any additional help from me in the process. The thing that has changed for me thanks to Larry and Mike is implementing a more reliable renewal breeding appraoch.


Dennis has made mention of a few characteristics of Shoshone cattle, the overall health of the cattle and the aggresive breeding ability. What I am curious about is whether these attributes are more a reflection of the management and selection process over time or the original genetic base started with? Or to what degree a combination of both?

So even with inbreeding the range expressed still accomadates room for significant selection and change over time? Or what you start with is basically what you get?

DB, so glad to have found KC just over a year ago. What a blast!!!

Dylan Biggs wrote:

Dennis has made mention of a few characteristics of Shoshone cattle, the overall health of the cattle and the aggresive breeding ability. What I am curious about is whether these attributes are more a reflection of the management and selection process over time or the original genetic base started with? Or to what degree a combination of both?

I believe that the attributes of the Shoshone cattle carrry forward and your management changes to nick with those characteristics.