Angus vs Hereford

[Kent]

Caustic,

Right. That's what I was saying above. We really only saw pinkeye during really dry spells when the dust would get bad. Fly tags kept the flies out of their eyes. Pigmented eyes got it as bad as non-pigmented. Since the pinkeye vaccines came out, no more pinkeye, period.

 

[txag]

i repeat a comment from the geneticist (who has done much research into the hereford genome including work on the dilution gene) I contacted:

"To my knowledge there is absolutely no evidence that there is increased homozygosity within the Hereford breed as compared to any other breed. The only exception is the L1 Hereford that although linebred still appears to have considerable molecular (DNA) variation even though current sires and dams at Miles City are up to 15/16 sibs by pedigree. Also, there is no justification to indicate that selection for the 4 traits you mention would cause genome-wide homozygosity in an effort to generate a true-breeding breed."

but for argument's sake, let's say he's wrong & the previous statements about the greater homozygosity are correct. in that sense, it would seem that herefords would work even better in crossbreeding and have more heterosis. because of their homozygosity (again, just for argument's sake), they would have fewer genes in common with the breeds they were being crossed to & heterosis would be greater.

i'm not refuting the data, but maybe it was due more to the hereford bulls that were used (i'm with Mike on questioning the selection of bulls) than to the herefords' homozygosity.

 

[Kent]

i'm not refuting the data, but maybe it was due more to the hereford bulls that were used (i'm with Mike on questioning the selection of bulls) than to the herefords' homozygosity.

Agree, and not just for the Herefords' sake. I think if any of us begin to accept MARC data as absolute gospel and not as just another experience that we can draw from, it is much like the guy who buys bulls sight unseen based solely on epd's.

 

[la4angus]

Agree, and not just for the Herefords' sake. I think if any of us begin to accept MARC data as absolute gospel and not as just another experience that we can draw from, it is much like the guy who buys bulls sight unseen based solely on epd's.

I have to agree with you Kent. But you must think much more of MARC than I do.

 

[smnherf]

Jeanne, I never thought that you posted that information as just a way to "bash" Herefords. I just fail to understand the concept of homozygous and heterozygous alleles that was put out there specifically with respect towards thier effect on heterosis levels.

TXAG is right about the combination of more unlike alleles leading to a bigger kick in heterosis. A great example is the tiger stripe cow that works so well down in the southern US. Talk about 2 pretty distinctly different breeds. That is the fundamental basis for the whole concept of heterosis. The bigger difference in the two parents genes, the bigger the heterosis kick.

Now if you have a more homozygous animal, no matter what trait you talk about, they would tend to breed more 'true' to themselves than a heterozygous animal would. An example would be the homozygous polled versuse heterozygous polled animal.

With respect to color patterns, the concept of homozygous versus heterozygous comes into play. Since red is a recessive gene, you would have to have a homozygous red animal in order to express that gene, but I do not believe the same holds true when it comes to other economic traits like BW, ADG, WDA, CW, calf survivability, IMF, YG, REA, etc. Either that animal has those particular genes inherited from their parents or they don't and when crossed with other cattle, they will be expressed depending on wich genes get passed on.

Thats why I questioned your assessment of Dr Cundiff's talk. Nothing personal.

I came across some information a while ago that talked about the advantages in Hereford Heterosis and I will track it down and post it. It may take a few days.

Kent and L4ANGUS, I agree with you on your assesment of MARC data. I also know of some cattle comeing out of Miles City research station that certainly didn't do the Hereford breed any favors.

The old saying that there are more differences within the breeds than there are between them would make alot of this data that MARC, or any other researcher, puts out very dependent upon what bulls were used in the research. Same goes for bull tests that only test a few bulls in each breed. I tend to take most of this breed research data very lightly. I much prefer actual close out data on several pens of cattle as a comparison amongst breeds of cattle. Every breed excels at some things and haveing been around a lot of different cattle throughout my lifetime, I know the economic value that Hereford cattle bring to the cattle and beef industry and I know it is significant.


Have a great day everyone.

Brian

 

[Jeanne - Simme Valley]

Now if you have a more homozygous animal, no matter what trait you talk about, they would tend to breed more 'true' to themselves than a heterozygous animal would. An example would be the homozygous polled versuse heterozygous polled animal.

Yes, I totally agree that it seems Homo genes would result in more crossbred kick, but that's not what was reported.
There is lots of info out there in the agri industry. Everyone has the choice of using as much or as little as they want.
Some of it everyone would agree with, and some of it, none of us would agree.
I take a lot of info I read or hear as part of a whole picture. But, I have to say I do have a lot of respect for MARC. This is 30 years research, using thousands of cows.