kenny thomas
Well-known member
I understand your thoughts here but i would also be concerned about defects in humans.
Breeding bull to daughters
- Thread starter Pineywoods230
- Start date
Help Support CattleToday:
4hfarms
Well-known member
Years ago, I was lucky enough to spend a year on the Korean peninsula. I was told by many local "drinkie girls" that the whole family sleeps in the same room and things happen.....
So yeah, if nothing else they have mental issues.
So yeah, if nothing else they have mental issues.
All the defective traits in his inbred LHs are recessive. They are homozygous for the defects. If bred to a LH that was not a carrier of these defects ( that was homozygous non-defective, not heterazygous), would yield a normal calf. However, THAT calf would be heterazygous for the defects. Breed it to one of those defective mini LHs, and that calf stands a 75% chance of having these defects.
Last edited:
Travlr
Well-known member
Sorry, but that is not how it works. Some of the traits can be dominant and some can influence by degrees. Traits can be expressed from several combinations of factors.
StrojanHerefords
Well-known member
Back in the days before DNA testing, it was standard practices to breed a bull to 30 of his daughters to determine if that bull had a harmful genetic disorder. For me, it is more important to keep using the genetics that work for us than getting the occasional inbred calf. I put a big priority on not using any one bull so much that he could ruin my herd nor will I have so many daughters of that bull that I can't use a son. This year, I plan on using three bulls AI, putting in embryos by and fourth and a couple of cleanup bulls. I still have the dams of the cleanup bulls but I figure that their is only a 25% chance of getting a dam son mating.
wbvs58
Well-known member
That would be DNA tested for known defects Jeanne. I think the biggest fear most people have is for some unknown defects to show up. I use my home bred bulls for clean up, I never stress about them breeding a close relative like sister or mother. I keep an open mind, if I like a heifer from a close mating and it ranks amongst the top of my heifer group then I'll keep it.
Ken
I've held back four daughters (desirable traits) from my bull to breed them with their father. No, I don't like doing that....but like you, the calves produced MUST go to the sale barn. Someday when I replace the bull....I'll have his daughters. In any species you can pretty much get 95 to 99% success beeding fathers-daughters and sons-mothers. There's still enough "differential cell matter" to produce a healthy baby.
When I was growing up, there was a family (sharecropper) in my area that had this happen and he produced multiple offspring. They were all mentally deficient. One of them was in my class at school. Looking back, people knew, but no one did anything because it would have been hard to prove I suppose.
The father would be the MENTALLY deficient one in the line.
No. genetic defects, like the dwarfism , underbite etc in those longhorns are recessive. If they were dominant, then all Longhorns would have it. What happened, most likely, was that a cow or two, or maybe a bull or two, in his original herd, were products of breeding one of the defective minis with a normal LH. The defects being recessive, none of the defects were exhibited in these cattle, bur they were heterazygous...carried one copy of the defective genes. and the way he raises them...all in one big ole pasture with 2 and 3 generations all breeding each other, two of those heterazygous "normal" LHs had a underbite, knock kneed dwarf calf. And when those defective calves grew up and bred with another Heterazygous normal LH, etc, etc . , there was a 75% chance the calf would be defective, and if two of the defective ones breed, there ia 1 199% chancve the reuklting calf wil be defective. Think if the defective genes as the red color gene in cattle, and the normal genes as the black color gene. It works the same way. Another triat that showed up in these defective mini LHs, was a forelock. Not as full as a horses, but it looked like a bad toupe!
He was, as was his wife.
Travlr
Well-known member
Well that's a very simplified and pretty much not correct explanation... but you do you and I'll just keep on thinking it's wrong to intentionally sell Corriente calves because they can be masked as Angus.No. genetic defects, like the dwarfism , underbite etc in those longhorns are recessive. If they were dominant, then all Longhorns would have it. What happened, most likely, was that a cow or two, or maybe a bull or two, in his original herd, were products of breeding one of the defective minis with a normal LH. The defects being recessive, none of the defects were exhibited in these cattle, bur they were heterazygous...carried one copy of the defective genes. and the way he raises them...all in one big ole pasture with 2 and 3 generations all breeding each other, two of those heterazygous "normal" LHs had a underbite, knock kneed dwarf calf. And when those defective calves grew up and bred with another Heterazygous normal LH, etc, etc . , there was a 75% chance the calf would be defective, and if two of the defective ones breed, there ia 1 199% chancve the reuklting calf wil be defective. Think if the defective genes as the red color gene in cattle, and the normal genes as the black color gene. It works the same way. Another triat that showed up in these defective mini LHs, was a forelock. Not as full as a horses, but it looked like a bad toupe!
Trying to inform you is like whipping a dead horse. A dead horse will never think beyond his already established beliefs.
Ebenezer
Well-known member
I'm right there, too. Junk is junk and to trick someone is not helping anybody or the industry.
The issue of inbreeding comes up about 2X a year. Unless someone goes back and studies Emulous, Sinclair, OCC, Wye or some reputable line of cattle to see if there is anything to fear but fear itself then it gets to be a me-you debate. Want to wet your pants over an inbred animal, just look up OCC Linbred 661L. Only one cow 4X back a couple of generations, only one granddam 2X, 6807 3X and the bull does great. But every time the worry is always the winner. do as you want but don't tell that doom and gloom is all to expect. It just isn't true.
Travlr
Well-known member
Yup, and then there are the other examples that don't get talked about once they are identified. Look up Gar Precision 1680 in relation to curly calf syndrome. Bred by experts, probably a top ten bull for semen sales in the industry even now, and everyone had to scramble to limit the effects of the damage that was done.
And a lot of people think they are experts just because they did it and can't see what the DNA is doing inside their nice looking animal, or what will happen four generations down the road.
Breeding back is a good way to test your cattle. If you get defects after one breed back... you have way bigger problems.
ROFLMAO! Well, if you ever imparted any info that was even remotely true or accurate, I might listen to it. I guess everyone of us, from Gregor Mendel on, ,have it wrong. You might ought to study again the effects of dominant genes vs recessive genes. IF the genes that carry these defects on these Long Horns WERE dominant, Hoss, then EVERY LH would be 3 ' tall with an underbite.
Travlr
Well-known member
Just because you can spout ONE true thing doesn't make the rest of your post correct. All genes are not dominant/recessive and all traits are not controlled by a single gene. But I'm not here to educate someone that thinks they are an expert. Have a nice life.
Mark Reynolds
Well-known member
- Joined
- May 30, 2023
- Messages
- 888
- Reaction score
- 1,063
Absolutely correct, and it's only because animals are being given more and more 'human' rights and morals. Eventually, at the rate we are going, we will be dishing out capital punishment for murder of bessie, nominating and allowing fluffy to run for president, and allowing our daughters to marry Mr. Ed. Joking and sarcasm aside, the application of human rights to animals is what is driving this. In my book, there isn't a thing wrong with inbreeding or linebreeding within animals. At some level, it is or has been allowed within 'modern' civilization. I apologize to British citizens and those in British territories in advance, but the British royal family has a history of linebreeding. Check out how colorblindness is high in the royal family.
I'll ask a question. If we didn't keep good records or if we don't have good records, and we end up inbreeding our livestock or even ourselves and we don't see negative consequences, is the inbreeding bad if everyone is happy?
Mark Reynolds
Well-known member
- Joined
- May 30, 2023
- Messages
- 888
- Reaction score
- 1,063
Very true. DNA is science and fact based. Morality is touchy, feely ethics based.
Travlr
Well-known member
I don't see how there is any question of morality involved. They are animals. They don't recognize morality although I have heard that animals do avoid breeding with other animals that have similar pheromones.
But the problem with inbreeding and line breeding is when you get a pyramid of top bulls that breed a really large percentage of the purebred cows in the country, and all those bulls over time and generations become related. And then those bulls, a step down lower on the pyramid are producing almost all of the commercial bulls in the country. We have something like thirty million beef cattle in the United States. At one time a bull bred thirty or forty cows and that was it. We started to save the best bulls from the best bulls, artificially reducing the genetic diversity by selecting for the traits we wanted. But there were still a lot of different bulls with not a lot of genetic similarity. Then we started to use artificial insemination and the top of the pyramid got a lot smaller. And now we are flushing top cows and doing in vitro, getting many more calves from the same genetic pool from the female side.
I would bet that the amount of genetic diversity in cattle today is 20% or less of what it was before A.I. and getting less every year. Fairly recently we've had some widespread genetic issues and had to do a lot of genetic testing to minimize the damage done. But there are still animals out there, a fair number, that never got tested. And some of the issues are not officially recognized because if an animal will breed and the calves make it to slaughter age the issues aren't even noticed.
We think in terms of our own timeline. The slowly creeping differences are often measured in decades, and sometimes in centuries. By the time we notice something we have forgotten what came before... and we are generally reluctant to take responsibility for what happens. Even to the point of changing our own views of what is desirable to accommodate the new form. That goes for a lot more than the changes in cattle.
