Barring registrations?

[alexfarms]

http://www.angus.org/AMPolicy.pdf

I read this on the AAA site this am. Is this something new? If I am reading thiis right, the AAA will bar registration of calves (that are untested for the genetic abnormality) sired by a proven carrier of a genetic abnormality with a DNA test available born after 12/31/09. This is referring to the AM genetic problem. Is this a new step? I don't know if I have heard of an assn barring registrations before. I have heard of barring AI certificate sales on animals that are proven carrierss. It probably is a good idea, but it seems a bit steep.
john

 

[Frankie]

http://www.angus.org/AMPolicy.pdf

I read this on the AAA site this am. Is this something new? If I am reading thiis right, the AAA will bar registration of calves (that are untested for the genetic abnormality) sired by a proven carrier of a genetic abnormality with a DNA test available born after 12/31/09. This is referring to the AM genetic problem. Is this a new step? I don't know if I have heard of an assn barring registrations before. I have heard of barring AI certificate sales on animals that are proven carrierss. It probably is a good idea, but it seems a bit steep.
john

I don't think barring animals carrying a mortal genetic defect is "a bit steep." It's my understanding that if you own an animal that is a known carrier, you can still register their calves if the calf is tested and shown free of the defect. But calves sired by AI bulls that are carriers will not be registerable. I think that's reasonable because AI bulls produce so many calves. Under these rules, you can still breed those superior cows that you own, but are not adding carriers into the breed. I think the AAA is doing a good job dealing with this situation.

 

[alexfarms]

http://www.angus.org/AMPolicy.pdf

I read this on the AAA site this am. Is this something new? If I am reading thiis right, the AAA will bar registration of calves (that are untested for the genetic abnormality) sired by a proven carrier of a genetic abnormality with a DNA test available born after 12/31/09. This is referring to the AM genetic problem. Is this a new step? I don't know if I have heard of an assn barring registrations before. I have heard of barring AI certificate sales on animals that are proven carrierss. It probably is a good idea, but it seems a bit steep.
john

I don't think barring animals carrying a mortal genetic defect is "a bit steep." It's my understanding that if you own an animal that is a known carrier, you can still register their calves if the calf is tested and shown free of the defect. But calves sired by AI bulls that are carriers will not be registerable. I think that's reasonable because AI bulls produce so many calves. Under these rules, you can still breed those superior cows that you own, but are not adding carriers into the breed. I think the AAA is doing a good job dealing with this situation.

Frankie,
I wouldn't say it is a bad move, because time will tell. I think there could be some negative results from it, but I think there is a clause in there about the board being able to make an exception. My own opinion: if someone thinks a carrier bull is superior and uses him and gets a superior animal that is a carrier and he wants to register that carrier animal and can't, it would be very dissappointing if he couldn't. Whether it would be a loss to the breed one can only speculate. It certainly could be a loss to that individual breeder. Also having a good set of females that have a number of carriers in them and not being able to register their calves without a dna test could prove a hardship financially. I suppose if those females' positive dna result wasn't known to the AAA, then their progeny wouldn't be required to be tested.
I wonder if this is an "unprecendented" move by the AAA. I don't think I have ever heard of it before. As you know breed assn's like to play follow the leader and AAA is definately the leader.
John

 

[donnaIL]

Regarding the notations to be places on petigrees, my question is what is an "intervening AMF Staus that eliminates all genetic ties to a know carrier ancestor"?

Does that mean that each individual animal needs to be tested or what? It sounds as though any animal with the 9J9 bull in the petigree will have the statement put on their registration paper, just from the testing already it seems evident that many animals are AMF even if they have carriers in their petigree. Also after watching Dr. Beavers seminar, he does not think alot of testing needs to be done and that the carriers are going to show up when there is a problem and that is when he would recommend testing/autopsy. I do not know what group of people he was speaking to (I am assuming commerical beef producers?).

 

[Cattleman200]

Im with Frankie on the part of the AAA doing a good job dealing with this problem. This was an "all of a sudden black eye" to the AAA Assn. and they want it cleaned up asap. I plan on testing every Registered Angus influenced animal I have that has a known carrier in its pedigree unless that carrier is behind an AMF tested animal. For example If I have an animal sired by Twin Valley Precision E161(which is sired by 1680) and the other side of the pedigree is clean I will not be testing that animal because E161 tested AMF. I would have to think this would hold true for every animal with a known carrier in their immediate pedigree and they would have to be tested if their status is unknown. With annual registrations running around 300,000 + per year you can bet there will be thousands to test. Think about just the calves born the last few years out of 4L60, 2V1, Riverbend Milehigh and Future Direction just to name a few top AI bulls. Then factor in 1680 and some of the others plus calves out of all of the sons and daughters of these few bulls. Some of the largest Angus herds in the country are packed full of these genetics. I think there will be many animals to test on the registered side of this before it is finished but thats just my opinion.


Circle H Ranch

 

[donnaIL]

For example If I have an animal sired by Twin Valley Precision E161(which is sired by 1680) and the other side of the pedigree is clean I will not be testing that animal because E161 tested AMF.
Circle H Ranch

So that would be "intervening status of AMF that eliminates all gentic ties to a know carrier ancestor" right? And the statement would not be put on the registration papers and you would not have to do any testing of calves because of this, right? Thats what I thought they were saying. My bull is out of Rito 1/2 of 2536 RIto 6I6 & looks like the dams side of the petigree is clean. We do not raise registered cattle, but that could change. Also all of our commercial cows have some (+50% and I suspect some of them alot more) angus in them, and who knows what their petigrees include.

Also how far back do you think they will go into the petigree? I'm curious to see how this will all work out.

 

[Cattleman200]

Im not sure how far back they will go in the pedigree to make you test. I will probably look back to at least see if they could have 1680 or 9J9. I wouldnt think they would make you test back behind an AMF free animal on that side of the pedigree or at least I dont know why they would. I really may have dodged a bullet on one animal. I have an E161 daughter and just before all this came out I bred her to T C Total. When I looked back I saw that the calf would have 1680 on both sides making it a strong candidate to be a carrier. As it turns out both of those bulls came up clean. I may be OK on it after all.

Circle H Ranch

 

[Oldtimer]

Thats how I have been reading this rule too-- if you have calves by progeny of 9J9 or 1680 that have been tested clean- AMF- then they will not require the testing....Anyway I hope I'm reading it right- as if they test every animal with 9J9 or 1680 somewhere in their pedigree- they won't be done for years...

I've went back thru paperwork and can only find one Objective daughter of my sons that has 9J9 in her pedigree several generations back- and since Objective has since tested clean as a carrier- so should she be...So until told otherwise, I'm not going to worry about it....