Breeding a crossbred bull question?

[ALACOWMAN]

Stay with the angus, and keep replicating calves like him.

 

[WalnutCrest]

7/8, if you look at Charolais Bull registration, is considered full blood <snip>

Really?

If you take 7/8ths bulls and breed them successively to females starting with mutt cows, but count them as fullbloods for the purpose of "breeding up" eventually you end up with a mutt breed that won't breed true and, out of which, quite a bit of potential heterosis had been lost.

7/8ths bulls on a mutt cow gives heifers that are really 7/16ths, but counted as 1/2

Taking those heifers and breeding them to a different 7/8 bull, you get calves that are 65.6% but counted as 3/4.

Then taking these actual 65.6% females (who are counted as being 3/4 but really aren't), and they're bred to another 7/8ths bull, you get calves that are 76.6% but counted as 7/8 fullbloods?!

Now, image the dilution if someone would use a series of 76.6% bulls (that are called a fullbloods but really aren't). After three generations, the resulting 'fullblood' cattle would only be 67.0% of the reference breed. But they'd be called fullblood.

How much heterosis is lost to the commercial bull buyer at this point?

 

[Big Cheese]

I'm just telling you what it says on the Charolais Website. If you register a bull or cow and you can PROVE its 7/8s by it being bred to other register bulls or cows then it can be considered a full blood pretty much. I wouldn't want that because I want my bulls to be for sure full blood but I'm just stating what I understood from what I read.

 

[WalnutCrest]

Not arguing what it says on the website ... I just know this is a common thing in many breeds (Gelb, Lim, etc.).

The analysis I went through above is one reason when I was deciding where to start with cattle, I didn't go with any breeds that have that sort of 'breed up to fullblood' program that equates a 7/8ths animal as being equivalent to a fullblood. I didn't want to be in a position to try to explain to a client why the 67% bull is really a 'fullblood'. I could never wrap my head around honestly selling heterosis if I wasn't breeding fullbloods and (what I call 'honest F1s' --- the offspring of two separate fullblood parents).

This sort of analysis is another reason I pushed the Aubrac association to require a legit 90% Aubrac blood (per the pedigree where the actual Aubrac percentage of every animal preceding the calf is used to determine the Aubrac percentage of the offspring) to get to purebred status ... so, in the case of the 76.6% 'fullblood' bull being used on mutt cows to get to a 67.0% 'fullblood' animal, none of those animals would even make the grade as 'purebred' Aubrac (90-99%), much less 'fullblood' Aubrac (100%).

Anyhow, I'll step off my soap-box now.

 

[cbcr]

7/8, if you look at Charolais Bull registration, is considered full blood <snip>

Really?

If you take 7/8ths bulls and breed them successively to females starting with mutt cows, but count them as fullbloods for the purpose of "breeding up" eventually you end up with a mutt breed that won't breed true and, out of which, quite a bit of potential heterosis had been lost.

7/8ths bulls on a mutt cow gives heifers that are really 7/16ths, but counted as 1/2

Taking those heifers and breeding them to a different 7/8 bull, you get calves that are 65.6% but counted as 3/4.

Then taking these actual 65.6% females (who are counted as being 3/4 but really aren't), and they're bred to another 7/8ths bull, you get calves that are 76.6% but counted as 7/8 fullbloods?!

Now, image the dilution if someone would use a series of 76.6% bulls (that are called a fullbloods but really aren't). After three generations, the resulting 'fullblood' cattle would only be 67.0% of the reference breed. But they'd be called fullblood.

How much heterosis is lost to the commercial bull buyer at this point?

As the Composite Registries both Beef and Dairy, our percentages are based on actuals. If an animal is only 87.5%, then that is what we use for our calculation, we do not consider that or even a 93.75% animal as a 100%.

We have just finished some pedigrees that even though the sire is registered in another registry and considered a full-blood when actuallity he is only 30% of the breed.

It would probably surprise some as to how much dairy blood is in some pedigrees!

 

[WalnutCrest]

7/8, if you look at Charolais Bull registration, is considered full blood <snip>

Really?

If you take 7/8ths bulls and breed them successively to females starting with mutt cows, but count them as fullbloods for the purpose of "breeding up" eventually you end up with a mutt breed that won't breed true and, out of which, quite a bit of potential heterosis had been lost.

7/8ths bulls on a mutt cow gives heifers that are really 7/16ths, but counted as 1/2

Taking those heifers and breeding them to a different 7/8 bull, you get calves that are 65.6% but counted as 3/4.

Then taking these actual 65.6% females (who are counted as being 3/4 but really aren't), and they're bred to another 7/8ths bull, you get calves that are 76.6% but counted as 7/8 fullbloods?!

Now, image the dilution if someone would use a series of 76.6% bulls (that are called a fullbloods but really aren't). After three generations, the resulting 'fullblood' cattle would only be 67.0% of the reference breed. But they'd be called fullblood.

How much heterosis is lost to the commercial bull buyer at this point?

As the Composite Registries both Beef and Dairy, our percentages are based on actuals. If an animal is only 87.5%, then that is what we use for our calculation, we do not consider that or even a 93.75% animal as a 100%.

We have just finished some pedigrees that even though the sire is registered in another registry and considered a full-blood when actuallity he is only 30% of the breed.

It would probably surprise some as to how much dairy blood is in some pedigrees!

It wouldn't surprise me at all! Those Holstein and Jersey registries are huge!!

...but, I'm pretty sure that's not what you're talking about... HA!

 

[True Grit Farms]

7/8, if you look at Charolais Bull registration, is considered full blood <snip>

Really?

If you take 7/8ths bulls and breed them successively to females starting with mutt cows, but count them as fullbloods for the purpose of "breeding up" eventually you end up with a mutt breed that won't breed true and, out of which, quite a bit of potential heterosis had been lost.

7/8ths bulls on a mutt cow gives heifers that are really 7/16ths, but counted as 1/2

Taking those heifers and breeding them to a different 7/8 bull, you get calves that are 65.6% but counted as 3/4.

Then taking these actual 65.6% females (who are counted as being 3/4 but really aren't), and they're bred to another 7/8ths bull, you get calves that are 76.6% but counted as 7/8 fullbloods?!

Now, image the dilution if someone would use a series of 76.6% bulls (that are called a fullbloods but really aren't). After three generations, the resulting 'fullblood' cattle would only be 67.0% of the reference breed. But they'd be called fullblood.

How much heterosis is lost to the commercial bull buyer at this point?

As the Composite Registries both Beef and Dairy, our percentages are based on actuals. If an animal is only 87.5%, then that is what we use for our calculation, we do not consider that or even a 93.75% animal as a 100%.

We have just finished some pedigrees that even though the sire is registered in another registry and considered a full-blood when actuallity he is only 30% of the breed.

It would probably surprise some as to how much dairy blood is in some pedigrees!

Haven't the Angus and Hereford association's have pretty much squashed the BS by using DNA sampling?

 

[Muddy]

Since when did they DNA tested Black Angus and Herefords? I have doubts about their herdbook being closed.

 

[Son of Butch]

He needs to read more IMO

http://news.utexas.edu/2013/03/26/the-t ... me-decoded

Although not directly stated, the article does seem to imply 85% of LH are free of the African Horn gene.

Given that the bull calf is only 1/8 LH the odds seem to be overwhelmingly in his favor that he is clean for A.H. gene.
Long shots do hit on occasion, however the risk at least appears to be low.
But if you want to name call over a 45-1 long shot that's your prerogative.

"Mine That Bird" did win the Kentucky Derby at 90-1 several years ago and even a stopped clock is right twice a day.

 

[AKE]

Here was a picture of him at 165 days old

 

[Caustic Burno]

He needs to read more IMO

http://news.utexas.edu/2013/03/26/the-t ... me-decoded

Although not directly stated, the article does seem to imply 85% of LH are free of the African Horn gene.

Given that the bull calf is only 1/8 LH the odds seem to be overwhelmingly in his favor that he is clean for A.H. gene.
Long shots do hit on occasion, however the risk at least appears to be low.
But if you want to name call over a 45-1 long shot that's your prerogative.

"Mine That Bird" did win the Kentucky Derby at 90-1 several years ago and even a stopped clock is right twice a day.

This from a guy that the only LH he has ever seen or dealt with was in a John Wayne movie

 

[LongLopeSlowHorse]

"Haven't the Angus and Hereford association's have pretty much squashed the BS by using DNA sampling?"

Gollys!! Maybe that'd explain how angus got foot, foot and a half taller---and white on their bellys and bags---in a couple generations.

 

[Son of Butch]

He needs to read more IMO
"Most LH like Brahman have the African horn gene...."
http://news.utexas.edu/2013/03/26/the-t ... me-decoded

Where in the article that you linked does it back up your claim that MOST Longhorns carry the African Horn gene?

True I have absolutely zero direct experience with Longhorns, nor do I want any or Brahmans for that matter.
IMO: They both do best down in your world, the deep south, but not up here in mine, Minnesota... aka God's Country.

 

[Caustic Burno]

For over five centuries the moors imported the African genes

 

[elkwc]

Got a 7/8 Angus and 1/8 longhorn calf thinking about keeping for a bull because he looks really good. The longhorn was a red longhorn which was bred to a registered Angus threw a black hfr with no horns looked Angus. Kept her bred to a different registered Angus she had a black hfr. This bull calf is out of that hfr and a different registered Angus. Curious if a kept him and put him with back with black cows if he would throw black calves? I'm certain he would. Not sure about if I put him with my red cattle though. He has 3 different Angus bulls in his backgroud.

I doubt you will have any trouble using him. We've had some horn issues using registered Angus that have scurs. So there is no guarantee regardless of what you use. It seems the woodpile of many breeds got contaminated a few years ago. If he matures to suit you I would at least try him on a few and see what happens.

 

[ALACOWMAN]

I don't see what's so special about him.....make a good feeder..

 

[elkwc]

I don't see what's so special about him.....make a good feeder..

Isn't that the goal of most commercial breeders to raise one that will make a good feeder. I personally don't want to use a bull that wouldn't make a good feeder. I see too many bulls today by the top sires being sold on looks but they wouldn't make an average feeder. So if he would make a good feeder he has a leg up on many.

 

[ALACOWMAN]

Thought he said he was raising him as a herd bull...you think he can reproduce himself?

 

[Muddy]

Thought he said he was raising him as a herd bull...you think he can reproduce himself?

With the calves being a 1/16th longhorn, they're probably better than him.

 

[ALACOWMAN]

Wouldn't want to bet on it.do you know his cows?...it's breeding backwards. To many good ""proven""" bulls out there to breed to ...