Bando 598 Semen

Help Support CattleToday:

Galloways1

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 1, 2009
Messages
544
Reaction score
0
Location
Kindred, ND
A neighbor of mine went out of the cattle business, and had some Bando 598 semen left over. I am storing for him in my tank. I believe he bought them through ABS, they are in green straws. Anybody got an idea on value of them?
 

whitecow

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 20, 2008
Messages
209
Reaction score
0
Location
Texas
Probably not very high. I believe that 598 has been identified by Australian researchers as a likely carrier of Fawn Calf Syndrome (FCS).
 

novaman

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 21, 2005
Messages
1,741
Reaction score
0
Location
North Dakota
I googled bando 598 and at bullbarn.com they have a Bon View Bando 598. Is that the bull you are talking about. His semen is priced at $350 on that site.
 
OP
G

Galloways1

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 1, 2009
Messages
544
Reaction score
0
Location
Kindred, ND
yeah, you are correct it is the Angus bull Bon View Bando 598. I have seen where he has been linked to some of the genetic defects.

Thanks
 

angus9259

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 2, 2007
Messages
2,843
Reaction score
2
Location
Michigan
He was very expensive, but with the fawn calf noise going on they probably won't fetch much at all. Not sure I'd give you $20 a straw for it.
 

Oldtimer

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 19, 2004
Messages
3,908
Reaction score
1
Location
Northeast Montana
angus9259":1zmwwczw said:
He was very expensive, but with the fawn calf noise going on they probably won't fetch much at all. Not sure I'd give you $20 a straw for it.

Yep it wouldn't be worth a plug nickel to me anymore...Just like I won't touch buying or using any cows/bulls with 598 in the pedigree until they get some type of test developed- and each can be tested clean....If I was a gambler- I'd go to Vegas- probably better odds... ;-)
 
OP
G

Galloways1

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 1, 2009
Messages
544
Reaction score
0
Location
Kindred, ND
that is what I was thinking, he should have sold it a few years back, when it was worth more.

Thanks for the input.
 

dcmrhaney

New member
Joined
Jun 12, 2011
Messages
1
Reaction score
0
You can say what you want to about Bonview Bando 598, but as far as I am concerned, he was one of the best Angus Bulls in the industry!!! I used a Bando 598 bull for 3 years and had the best calf crop you could have!! 85 head of brood cows and not one problem with any defects. So if you are going to bad mouth this bull, you are barking up the wrong tree!!!
 

Aero

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 14, 2005
Messages
1,771
Reaction score
0
Location
NC
dcmrhaney":2onknn2r said:
You can say what you want to about Bonview Bando 598, but as far as I am concerned, he was one of the best Angus Bulls in the industry!!! I used a Bando 598 bull for 3 years and had the best calf crop you could have!! 85 head of brood cows and not one problem with any defects. So if you are going to bad mouth this bull, you are barking up the wrong tree!!!
lol

nobody is bad-mouthing him; they are stating that he is a carrier for a lethal genetic defect. there is no opinion here... it is just a straight scientific fact.
 

robert

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 31, 2008
Messages
824
Reaction score
0
angusdave63":209de01q said:
even if he is a fawn calf carrier his name shows up in a lot of AI bull pedigrees

true that but mostly because he was 'hot' from about '95 thru the early 2000's, before anyone was aware that he carried CA (politically correct name for fawn calf), he sure made some good females though, one or two could be a bit hot but decent udders, some stoutness (especially compared to the precision crap) and not a bull I discriminate against in a pedigree providing the descendants are CA free.

he was a Genex bull, the green straws were 'the good stuff' and most valuable as they really worked for flushing. I think as far as AAA rules go his progeny would now be ineligible for registration.
 

DOC HARRIS

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 26, 2005
Messages
3,256
Reaction score
0
Location
Ft. Collins, CO
...and not a bull I discriminate against in a pedigree providing the descendants are CA free.
robert-

Your
herein makes a definitive statement which is THE operative phrase when any discussion relative to CA, Arthrogryposis Multiplex (AM - or "Curly Calf "Syndrome), and any other of the myriad recessive genes rears its ugly head in the beef industry. Every breed, every species, every individual contains recessive genes. Those genes are seldom expressed, and because of this fact are rarely know about, even though they are 'lurking' in the background waiting for a careless genetic mistake made by a breeder who does not understand the intricacies of careful genetic management.

As Wes Ishmael, of Beef Magazine, has stated "With the DNA test for AM, producers can identiffy noncarriers within the affected line of cattle and use them without fear of propagating the recessive gene". With that said, the panic and fear of bringing a recessive gene into one's herd can be minimized expressly by astute attention to the testing and mating of clean individuals, and by NOT mating seedstock with the gene in the genetic background!

The efficient and effective method of preventing making the unforgivable error of breeding two individuals with the recessive gene is KNOWING the status of any recessive gene in each animals background, and NOT mating two carriers together. DNA testing determines this condition. Responsible seedstock producers will indicate the individual animals they are using in their herd, and let the buying public be aware of that condition! In addition to that, any breeder can feel confident that they are not propagating a recessve gene in their herd by avoiding using animals that possess those genes.

On the other hand, in a Commercial herd, mating carrier bulls to cows of another breed, or vice versa, there is no risk - as long as ONE of the parents is NOT a carrier. In that regard, excellent genetics may be utilized by Commercial breeders, and acquire outstanding results by judicious mating protocols in selecting their seedstock carefully, and avoiding "doubling up" the recessive gene problems.

The excellent genetic Multiple Trait Selection factors, which have been developed, enriched, cultivated and reformed over the many years of intense attention to genetic and phenotypic traits and characteristics, have resulted in the highest quality Beef Cattle production in the history of the World! To lose that incredible amount of thought, work, and planning for the improvement of our industry and it's cattle is disgraceful and a rotten shame when the judicious use of common sense and careful mating protocols can result in a financial and Genetic Bonanza for intelligent producers, and all of the last 100 years of focused mating practices can be preserved for the future! My advice is to not panic, use your heads, and benefit from hundreds of thousands of hours and hard work and intelligent planning in advancing your genetic mating programs. All is NOT lost!

DOC HARRIS
 

robert

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 31, 2008
Messages
824
Reaction score
0
DOC HARRIS said:
robert-

Your
herein makes a definitive statement which is THE operative phrase when any discussion relative to CA, Arthrogryposis Multiplex (AM - or "Curly Calf "Syndrome), and any other of the myriad recessive genes rears its ugly head in the beef industry. Every breed, every species, every individual contains recessive genes. Those genes are seldom expressed, and because of this fact are rarely know about, even though they are 'lurking' in the background waiting for a careless genetic mistake made by a breeder who does not understand the intricacies of careful genetic management.

As Wes Ishmael, of Beef Magazine, has stated "With the DNA test for AM, producers can identiffy noncarriers within the affected line of cattle and use them without fear of propagating the recessive gene". With that said, the panic and fear of bringing a recessive gene into one's herd caigree providing the descendants are CA free.
n be minimized expressly by astute attention to the testing and mating of clean individuals, and by NOT mating seedstock with the gene in the genetic background!

The efficient and effective method of preventing making the unforgivable error of breeding two individuals with the recessive gene is KNOWING the status of any recessive gene in each animals background, and NOT mating two carriers together. DNA testing determines this condition. Responsible seedstock producers will indicate the individual animals they are using in their herd, and let the buying public be aware of that condition! In addition to that, any breeder can feel confident that they are not propagating a recessve gene in their herd by avoiding using animals that possess those genes.

going to disagree with you on a couple points here Doc, first the fundamental role of the seedstock producer is to produce parentstock that do not pass on lethal recessive defects or other undesirable functional traits to the commercial cow calf producer, this is best accomplished by linebreeding stock that have been subjected to equally rigorous selection pressure on functional traits (udder/teat quality, conformation, structure, feet and legs etc) with the aim that the linebreeding exposes deleterious genes BEFORE they reach the commercial sector, not years or decades later. The genetic selection tools developed so far (mainly EPDs) reward outcrossing and number stacking programs on paper and the promotion of such by academia ad nauseum has de-emphasized the value of the names on the paper (breeder and animals in that order!) in favor of the all powerful EPD.

Second, the DNA tests for known genetic defects are the literal act of locking the stable door after the horse has long since disappeared over the horizon. Certainly in the Angus breed there are enough commercial daughters available to conduct sire/daughter test matings before the sires of breed wide influence pollute the entire genepool with a defect, but it won't happen because the association has neither the will nor the balls to conduct such an exercise so we continue to play the game of 'Oh crap, here's another one' usually after years of denial and accusations of 'rumor-mongering'. Pitiful....
 

Jeanne - Simme Valley

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 9, 2004
Messages
11,935
Reaction score
560
Location
Central Upstate New York
If you use a known carrier on "clean" cows, yes, you won't have any genetic defective calves. BUT, you are propagating the defect by producing half the calf crop as carriers.
So, yes, if you are the "responsible" breeder, you can use a carrier and all calves (in your mind) are going to be TERMINAL. BUT (another big but) unless you feed out & cut each ones throat, you don't know if some of those heifers sold as feeders ends up in someones breeding herd. Multiplying the defect.
If you have a carrier cow, you can continue to use her if you test each & every calf & make sure her 50% carrier calves are harvested. Still risking getting a carrier out in the industry.
 

DOC HARRIS

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 26, 2005
Messages
3,256
Reaction score
0
Location
Ft. Collins, CO
Jeanne - Simme Valley":2n1z9jyx said:
If you use a known carrier on "clean" cows, yes, you won't have any genetic defective calves. BUT, you are propagating the defect by producing half the calf crop as carriers.
So, yes, if you are the "responsible" breeder, you can use a carrier and all calves (in your mind) are going to be TERMINAL. BUT (another big but) unless you feed out & cut each ones throat, you don't know if some of those heifers sold as feeders ends up in someones breeding herd. Multiplying the defect.
If you have a carrier cow, you can continue to use her if you test each & every calf & make sure her 50% carrier calves are harvested. Still risking getting a carrier out in the industry.

Jeanne - Simme Valley-

I don't disagree with either you or 'robert' on your replies to this thread. I just want to point out to both of you that I did NOT mention "Purebred" OR "Registered" animals anywhere in my post! Responsible thinking on the part of every producer, registered or commercial, should be mandatory for every candid, trustworthy and dependable breeder - whether a purebred breeder or a 'back-forty' cow-freshening outfit! But, we all know how fallacious the human species can be, (is!), and therein total honesty takes a back seat!

I admit that I am an idealist! A lifetime of being 'knocked in the head' because of that philosophy should have taught me something. But I need reminding occasionally to keep my focus current!

DOC HARRIS
 

gizmom

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 12, 2009
Messages
3,374
Reaction score
132
Location
Molino Florida
I had five straws in the tank I was saving for a flush......now it will probably get thrown on the ground next time I inventory the tank. It is a shame because he left some great cows and bulls in the breed that tested clean but my luck if I was to use him everything out of him would test positive. One of the cows that we flushed is a 598 daughter and she was as good a cow as you could ever want, thanks goodness she tested clean because we had kept every heifer we could out of her she was a really nice cow.

Gizmom
http://www.gizmoangus.com
 

RD-Sam

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 28, 2008
Messages
1,452
Reaction score
0
gizmom":x4p5w9yt said:
I had five straws in the tank I was saving for a flush......now it will probably get thrown on the ground next time I inventory the tank. It is a shame because he left some great cows and bulls in the breed that tested clean but my luck if I was to use him everything out of him would test positive. One of the cows that we flushed is a 598 daughter and she was as good a cow as you could ever want, thanks goodness she tested clean because we had kept every heifer we could out of her she was a really nice cow.

Gizmom
http://www.gizmoangus.com

He should make some nice freezer beef if they end up carriers, I sure wouldn't toss it on the ground!
 

Latest posts

Top