Wheel Invented!!! Inbreeding in Terminal Cattle

I got up early today because I needed to work on a patent application. It involves a railroad locomotive, and the work is both difficult and boring. So I stopped. Promise to take it up again tomorrow. Since the time I stopped, I've been working on quantifying the differences in performance between inbred and non-inbred cattle in my herd.

Inbred calves: Average Inbreeding Coefficient (IBC) was 16.75%, ranging from 12.5% to 25%. Average 205 day weight, adjusted for age of dam, was 486 lbs, ranging from 458 to 540. Not too pretty. All calves gone or on there way toward gone.

Outcross calves: Pedigrees sort of look inbred, but calculator says they are all less than 1% Inbred. Average 205 day weight, adjusted for age of dam, was 614 lbs, ranging from 555 to 694. Most of these calves were retained intact.

All calves managed the same, same pastures, no creep, same weaning date. The inbred calves actually were all born in January and February, while all but one of the outcross calves were born in March and April. I had plenty of grass for the later ones, really not much more than pretty bad fescue hay for the early ones. Could probably group the calves better to adjust that out, but I didn't. The inbred calves were all also out of first calf heifers, but that ought to be accounted for with the age of dam adjustment. And because of the age differences, the inbred calves were out of much smaller dams. Havent really weighed them, but I'm guessing that the first calf heifers are 1100 lbs, the older cows are probably all 1400-1500, maybe a little bigger.

So it turns out that calves with an IBC of 16.75% had 20% lower weaning weight as compared to calves with less than 1% IBC. Go figure.

So a question--I like to think that providing inbred parent stock to commercial producers is a useful purpose. I'm convinced of the utility of inbred maternal cattle, and I think the same must be true of inbred terminal cattle. But is it? Since we know that F1s are generally pretty damn consistent already, is there any data supporting the proposition that F1s produced by inbred parents are more useful in some way-- better performance, more consistent, something- as compared to F1s produced by non-inbred cattle?

60% of the now coming calf crop will be inbred (average IBC 9.9%, ranging from 6.25 to 18.75%). I expect the IBC depression to be less pronounced. But if I can get by breeding by type, and not inbreeding, I won't have to deal with depression at all.

Clearly, killing all of the inbred progeny, as I did this year, seems to be problematic. But, assuming I can get the IBC calibrated to the point that I don't feel obliged to kill all the progeny, is there value in inbred terminal cross cattle?

Mean Spirit, as usual, seeking validation.

If the crossbred has a 25% advantage over the average occasionally outcrossed purebred, is 20% less production in the inbred really that bad?

In calf performance, I see more influence based on the Inbreeding of the dam. Little difference between the highly inbred calves from inbred dams and the outcross calves from inbred dams. Both are lower than the average.

I have figures showing pages of AI sires who performed below average in our herd because the May cleanup calves born on green grass had an unfair environmental advantage.

Are you sure you are not penalizing them for an environmental disadvantage?

My eye said the inbred January and February calves, born with no grass, were poor performers by the time the other calves were being born in the grass. So I can easily buy that they were disadvantaged environmentally.

I don't really have but one early non-inbred calf, and I don't have any late inbred calves, so I don't think I can adjust them for that variable. This year, all of the calves are being born in March and April, so maybe I won't see much difference.

So maybe my data is just screwed up.

Kent, are you saying that a crossbred with inbred parents has an advantage over a crossbred with non-inbred parents? Thats what I'm looking for.

Mean Spirit wrote:

I got up early today because I needed to work on a patent application. It involves a railroad locomotive, and the work is both difficult and boring. So I stopped. Promise to take it up again tomorrow. Since the time I stopped, I've been working on quantifying the differences in performance between inbred and non-inbred cattle in my herd.

Inbred calves: Average Inbreeding Coefficient (IBC) was 16.75%, ranging from 12.5% to 25%. Average 205 day weight, adjusted for age of dam, was 486 lbs, ranging from 458 to 540. Not too pretty. All calves gone or on there way toward gone.

Outcross calves: Pedigrees sort of look inbred, but calculator says they are all less than 1% Inbred. Average 205 day weight, adjusted for age of dam, was 614 lbs, ranging from 555 to 694. Most of these calves were retained intact.

All calves managed the same, same pastures, no creep, same weaning date. The inbred calves actually were all born in January and February, while all but one of the outcross calves were born in March and April. I had plenty of grass for the later ones, really not much more than pretty bad fescue hay for the early ones. Could probably group the calves better to adjust that out, but I didn't. The inbred calves were all also out of first calf heifers, but that ought to be accounted for with the age of dam adjustment. And because of the age differences, the inbred calves were out of much smaller dams. Havent really weighed them, but I'm guessing that the first calf heifers are 1100 lbs, the older cows are probably all 1400-1500, maybe a little bigger.

So it turns out that calves with an IBC of 16.75% had 20% lower weaning weight as compared to calves with less than 1% IBC. Go figure.

So a question--I like to think that providing inbred parent stock to commercial producers is a useful purpose. I'm convinced of the utility of inbred maternal cattle, and I think the same must be true of inbred terminal cattle. But is it? Since we know that F1s are generally pretty damn consistent already, is there any data supporting the proposition that F1s produced by inbred parents are more useful in some way-- better performance, more consistent, something- as compared to F1s produced by non-inbred cattle?

60% of the now coming calf crop will be inbred (average IBC 9.9%, ranging from 6.25 to 18.75%). I expect the IBC depression to be less pronounced. But if I can get by breeding by type, and not inbreeding, I won't have to deal with depression at all.

Clearly, killing all of the inbred progeny, as I did this year, seems to be problematic. But, assuming I can get the IBC calibrated to the point that I don't feel obliged to kill all the progeny, is there value in inbred terminal cross cattle?

Mean Spirit, as usual, seeking validation.

ask yourself two questions...what is a breed, and is there any need for breeds?

"Kent, are you saying that a crossbred with inbred parents has an advantage over a crossbred with non-inbred parents? Thats what I'm looking for."

Not necessarily with an inbred cow doing the raising if the advantage is measured as weaning weight.

Some new figures- Inbred dams vs Non-inbred dams, then comparing inbred vs. noninbred calves in each group.

High IBC cows (avg. IBC 8.5%, range 6.25 to 10.15%): Avg 205 wt of 518.
Low IBC cows (0-3% IBC): Avg. 205 wt. 576.

Conclusion: High IBC cows had 10% smaller calves than low IBC cows.

Inbred calves out of high IBC dams: Avg. 205 wt of 461
Non-inbred calves out of high IBC dams: Avg. 205 wt of 576

Conclusion: Inbred calves out of inbred cows were 20% smaller than non-inbred calves out of inbred cows.

Inbred calves out of low IBC dams: Avg 205 wt of 499
Non-inbred calves out of low IBC dams: Avg 205 wt of 627

Conclusion: Inbred calves out of non-inbred cows were 20% smaller than non-inbred calves out of non-inbred cows.

There were early and late high IBC dams, but all of the inbred calves are still early calves. Small numbers in every group, so its all kinda shakey.

Sire Effect:

All of the calves were sired by my herdsire (who is not significantly inbred), or by a son of my herdsire (who is 12.5% inbred- by my bull, out of my bull's paternal sister), with one exception. A single calf (out of my herdsire's full sister) was sired by a largely unrelated outside AI bull).

Outcross bull: Single calf, 205 day wt- 694 lbs. (outcross out of outcross, early)
My bull: Avg 205 day wt- 576 lbs (Mixed early and late, mixed inbred and outcross- Inbred calves avg- 540, Outcross calves avg- 587)
12.5% IBC son of my bull: Avg 205 day wt- 459 lbs (All calves inbred, all early)

So if I were selling pounds of calves, it seems the best program would be fairly constant outcrossing-- outcrossed calves out of outcrossed dams had 627 lb calves, while inbred calves out of inbred dams had 461 lb calves.

But if I'm raising bulls to breed to black cows, I think its different. Right?

"In practice, remember the production traits would be provided by the "complementarity of the cross""
L.L.

I`ll buy those inbred culls at weaning next year for top steer price... I think raising closebred Char bulls to breed to black cows is different.

Meaner then Mean, You have a ready buyer in the vicinity, all I want is a breeder who tells the truth, breeds and describes his "stuff",puts a reasonal price on the "stuff", treats his "stuff" as breeding animals( not fattened beeves) I'm looking for inbred cattle terminal or maternal, it makes me feel like I'm buying value, instead of mainstream outcross same old same as the guy down the road same, numbers to numbers, crap genetics bred by illiterate breeders. DV

Dennis Voss wrote:

Meaner then Mean, You have a ready buyer in the vicinity, all I want is a breeder who tells the truth, breeds and describes his "stuff",puts a reasonal price on the "stuff", treats his "stuff" as breeding animals( not fattened beeves) I'm looking for inbred cattle terminal or maternal, it makes me feel like I'm buying value, instead of mainstream outcross same old same as the guy down the road same, numbers to numbers, crap genetics bred by illiterate breeders. DV

Yes sireee, it`s the Tru-line way...

Yessiree MK

Dennis Voss wrote:

Meaner then Mean, You have a ready buyer in the vicinity, all I want is a breeder who tells the truth, breeds and describes his "stuff",puts a reasonal price on the "stuff", treats his "stuff" as breeding animals( not fattened beeves) I'm looking for inbred cattle terminal or maternal, it makes me feel like I'm buying value, instead of mainstream outcross same old same as the guy down the road same, numbers to numbers, crap genetics bred by illiterate breeders. DV

here`s a Tru-line compromise ; a win-win situation on Meanie`s bulls...
he close breeds them; I buy the ones that look poorer for steer price; I put them through bull college here as yearlings with cows; then send them out as two year olds to DV at a relatively cheap price...

actually, it`s more a lose{meanie}-win{mk}-win{dv} situation...all too common for close breeders; who take the lick for close breeding; while others benefit from it...
and that`s what we are here to change...

MK, I like your idea

I'm not too sure about this lose-win-win thing. I'll have to think about it a little.

Mean Spirit wrote:

I'm not too sure about this lose-win-win thing. I'll have to think about it a little.

seems it never fails; you devise a good plan, and someone will try and milk the system

Ok, but here's some more questions.

1. We think that more inbred parent stock will improve the lot of the commercial cattlemen:

http://farmprogress.com/story-heterosis-needs-a-homozygous-recharge-0-38578

As put in the article above, "it is known that the more genetically pure each parent is within it's breed, The greater s the degree of heterosis."

I'd just like to know how we know that. As I said earlier, the standard white bull on black cows makes a pretty damn uniform group, and they seem to express plenty of heterosis. My story is that the 10% inbred white bull on black cows will add more heterosis, or more uniformity. I think Mr. Lents agrees, but did somebody show this with mice or, better still, with cattle?

2. What is the purpose of breeds, asks Mike. I don't think the purpose is to just be a different source of genetics to breed to to get your heterosis infusion - different for the sake of difference. I think it must be about type, and traits. What traits should the terminal cross bring to the table? Shouldn't the terminal breeder be concentrating on inbreeding in such a way as to increase homozygosity in those specific traits, to the extent he can?

3. Same old question- how inbred must the parent stock be in order to be more valuable to the commercial breeder?

Ok, but here's some more questions.

Mean Spirit wrote:

1. We think that more inbred parent stock will improve the lot of the commercial cattlemen:

http://farmprogress.com/story-heterosis-needs-a-homozygous-recharge-0-38578

As put in the article above, "it is known that the more genetically pure each parent is within it's breed, The greater s the degree of heterosis."

I'd just like to know how we know that. As I said earlier, the standard white bull on black cows makes a pretty damn uniform group, and they seem to express plenty of heterosis. My story is that the 10% inbred white bull on black cows will add more heterosis, or more uniformity. I think Mr. Lents agrees, but did somebody show this with mice or, better still, with cattle?

2. What is the purpose of breeds, asks Mike. I don't think the purpose is to just be a different source of genetics to breed to to get your heterosis infusion - different for the sake of difference. I think it must be about type, and traits. What traits should the terminal cross bring to the table? Shouldn't the terminal breeder be concentrating on inbreeding in such a way as to increase homozygosity in those specific traits, to the extent he can?

3. Same old question- how inbred must the parent stock be in order to be more valuable to the commercial breeder?

My first experience with issues related to your questions was based on using all Shoshone bulls from Larry Leonhardt's on a large herd of black baldy, black, Limousine x Angus & some Gelbvieh x Angus cows. Quite an array of genetics with a common denominator of Angus. The first calf crop was revolutionary in my thinking for its consistency and evenness. One of the years that I used this set of bulls I sent all the steers to Goggins in Billings and they were the evenest set of steers in size, type, kind and probably flavor to ever hit the ring. This is an example of breeding cows that were very up and down in type, both size and you name it. So now switch to my current direction where my cowherd is linebred Shoshone and I'm going to be crossing using Charolais bulls in good time. What I'm pursuing now is a source for Charolais genetics to use on straight Angus cows as well as Longhorn x Angus cows and Angus x Hereford cows. To start this adventure I will be using Charolais first on the Angus x Hereford and Longhorn x Angus cows.

Now I defer to your question #3. How inbred must the parent stock be in order to be more valuable to the commercial breeder? I don't think it is how inbred they need to be, as much as it is how do they fit my seedstock source for balance of traits that keep him in business. Meaning not all of the selection criteria on your part have to do with the commercial mans' needs. Personally what I'm looking for is white color, reasonable to lower birth weight, good feet and leg structure, well developed testicle and reproductive apparatus and an animal that has been grown out without excess fat. I'm attracted to programs such as yours because of the linebreeding and inbreeding efforts. I presume the Charolais bull will bring with it the ability to produce muscle on my calves and I'm certainly not trying to find Charolais that are white Wagyus, no matter how tasty that thought is. Half of your calf crop is going to be female. I presume those are replacements for your direction genetically. So there must be some criteria that you develop that must have to do with maternal. As a genetics producer for commercial production you couldn't afford to just make terminal muscle cattle. You get my drift, MS?

Other things that go into this are abstract but nevertheless important. I like to buy genetic source material from people who are of a certain mindset for describing value based on their goals genetically. This versus the haphazard, lollygagging mainstream which is an entity I've had my fill of - the multipliers, the fashionistas, the rich guys with their now legitimate cowboy hats, the Denver Stockshow boys, the youthful experimenters, and on and on.

Dennis Voss

What makes the most sense to me is- IF composites produce as much uniformity as purebreds, perhaps the purebreds are not pure enough.

I’m not sure as to anymore evidence then what you have stated, but if a white bull on black cows makes a more uniform group I would think that refining the ingredients further would allow a more specific product.

The more complementary the parts the more useful the result, but I still think you have to consider what complementary entails for all members of the chain. Growth traits may complement my maternal cow but too much growth will reduce my calf vigour and at some point may result in complications and stressful calving issues.

I don’t have answers for any of your questions, but at this point on the question of how inbred do we need to go to be more valuable to my operation, my answer would be not very, as type to type outcross matings were an improvement here, over the more common musical chair style breeders and my Shoshone bulls an improvement over the type to type.

If one appreciates the vigorous performance of an average bull on an average cow of a second breeds, I think there is a lot of efficient growth left out of the equation. Inbred lines within these breeds that were proven to have complimentary action would raise the bar on heterosis by a great deal. The animals from each breed may not (in fact would not be expected to) be the largest fastest growing animals from their respective herds. The F1s are uniform because of the elevated number of heterozygous loci, the best performing and also uniform group among these would those from parents maximizing the number of those, giving uniformity from combination. Inbreds obtain uniformity through homozygosity. Selection of parents for linebreeding and outcrossing are of equal importance.

G nome wrote:

If one appreciates the vigorous performance of an average bull on an average cow of a second breeds, I think there is a lot of efficient growth left out of the equation. Inbred lines within these breeds that were proven to have complimentary action would raise the bar on heterosis by a great deal. The animals from each breed may not (in fact would not be expected to) be the largest fastest growing animals from their respective herds. The F1s are uniform because of the elevated number of heterozygous loci, the best performing and also uniform group among these would those from parents maximizing the number of those, giving uniformity from combination. Inbreds obtain uniformity through homozygosity. Selection of parents for linebreeding and outcrossing are of equal importance.

I sure appreciate your posts G nome. I'm not after the most growth or the most muscle or the most of anything. What I'm after is a nice soft complementarity between 2 breeds. Along with my nephew's cattle of similar origin using Eaton Charolais bulls, we want to feed these cattle out and see how they do all the way to the end. Mean Spirit's Charolais appear to me to be the type of Charolais I have been after. No sharp edges, excellent udders and feet, balanced overall phenotype, mellow disposition. I'm convinced that mellow disposition is key to feedlot performance and in the end probably tenderness, as well as all the array of handling practicalities and so forth. Years ago my brother had a big troop of Charolais bulls that I would help gather or whatever and they were big boned, raunchy dispositioned, big bad guys which kind of took it out of me for ever wanting anything to do with Charolais. And then years ago I used to feed a couple hundred bulls with Howard Rambur up in Sidney and I started realizing how much the Charolias breed had changed because they were pretty Angusy in type. Very appealing looking, acting Charolais bulls. So from my completely novice point of view, if you take my linebred Angus cows which are mellow and soft on the corners and mate them to similar types of the Charolais breed, one should get a nice product of basically average mated with average. And I would suppose if somebody wanted my 1/2 Charolais, 1/2 Angus heifers for breeding purposes that would be possibility too. I have no idea. They would have to want them worse then I would want to feed them out. More later.

DV

Also, as an afterthought, I like the idea of "what you see is what you get" ie, char colored with blk noses, the buyer/feeder knows what he is getting, versus the currant trend to blacken everything into "blk cattle" which could all qualify for CAB or other angus labels. in my opinion this is heading for a train wreck. On my longhorn X angus cattle I want the same, no illusion, I want them to look like what they are, in this case blk and white. Any decent cattle buyer knows anyhow so what the hell. W. T. in my cake line, often the longhorn cross heifers are nearest the cake feeder then the straight angus and last, cleaning up the end are the hereford X angus F1's. Three different attitudes of agression to cake. DV

G nome wrote:

If one appreciates the vigorous performance of an average bull on an average cow of a second breeds, I think there is a lot of efficient growth left out of the equation. Inbred lines within these breeds that were proven to have complimentary action would raise the bar on heterosis by a great deal. The animals from each breed may not (in fact would not be expected to) be the largest fastest growing animals from their respective herds. The F1s are uniform because of the elevated number of heterozygous loci, the best performing and also uniform group among these would those from parents maximizing the number of those, giving uniformity from combination. Inbreds obtain uniformity through homozygosity. Selection of parents for linebreeding and outcrossing are of equal importance.

I`m not sure I`m on the same page; or at least not selecting on the same page...if selection for more growth is a criteria in an inbred line/closed herd, why inbreed at all? the only reason I can see for a closed herd/line is the avoidance of unknow and unseen problems, ala Falloon...growth selection is slowed by his refusal to go out into the breed; but his problems are limited to the ones of his herd etc...selecting for more of anything seems to present a problem with equilibrium of traits...can anything be gained without losing something? I don`t think so...a balancing act between gaining the traits of economic worth while losing those of less worth...so it becomes a personal choice...what`s a good udder worth? what`s CAB worth compared to Choice? and on and on...here, growth isn`t viewed as so valuable...but absence of problems, cattle and human ones, makes a day joyful; ...of course I`m already rich; just ask Tom Huls to tell you how I made it to the Fortune .500 list

MKeeney wrote:

G nome wrote:

If one appreciates the vigorous performance of an average bull on an average cow of a second breeds, I think there is a lot of efficient growth left out of the equation. Inbred lines within these breeds that were proven to have complimentary action would raise the bar on heterosis by a great deal. The animals from each breed may not (in fact would not be expected to) be the largest fastest growing animals from their respective herds. The F1s are uniform because of the elevated number of heterozygous loci, the best performing and also uniform group among these would those from parents maximizing the number of those, giving uniformity from combination. Inbreds obtain uniformity through homozygosity. Selection of parents for linebreeding and outcrossing are of equal importance.

I`m not sure I`m on the same page; or at least not selecting on the same page...if selection for more growth is a criteria in an inbred line/closed herd, why inbreed at all? the only reason I can see for a closed herd/line is the avoidance of unknow and unseen problems, ala Falloon...growth selection is slowed by his refusal to go out into the breed; but his problems are limited to the ones of his herd etc...selecting for more of anything seems to present a problem with equilibrium of traits...can anything be gained without losing something? I don`t think so...a balancing act between gaining the traits of economic worth while losing those of less worth...so it becomes a personal choice...what`s a good udder worth? what`s CAB worth compared to Choice? and on and on...here, growth isn`t viewed as so valuable...but absence of problems, cattle and human ones, makes a day joyful; ...of course I`m already rich; just ask Tom Huls to tell you how I made it to the Fortune .500 list

I do not select for high growth; I select against low growth. The absence of problems is my guiding star. I select against low fertility, against bad disposition, against bad feet and so on.
I am not choosing what bulls to use, merely which ones not to use.

Kent Powell wrote:

In calf performance, I see more influence based on the Inbreeding of the dam. Little difference between the highly inbred calves from inbred dams and the outcross calves from inbred dams. Both are lower than the average.

This is a way of saying that it is cheaper to linebreed paternal breeds compared to maternal breeds; because while their female productivity will suffer some from inbreeding, the number of "paternal cows" should be small compared to the great numbers of maternal cows. The more homozygous the paternal sire is, the more consistency. And the more outcrossed the maternal cow is, the more consistency is needed to have a decent calf crop of f1 or f2 calfs for the commercial producer.
Or in other words, the more common the f1 cows for maternal purposes are, the more important to have homozygous paternal sires.