Bull prospect

Help Support CattleToday:

Mark Reynolds said:
"How many generations doe it take to eliminate ALL the inbredness within a closed herd or line?..........Answer: ONE! .....If you breed ANY inbred animal with another animal from outside the pedigree, the resulting progeny will not have a single gene pair where both genes come from the same parent somewhere in the lineage history of that animal........which is essentially the definition of inbred.
Click to expand...
Inbreeding is nothing more than increasing homozygous genes . If both parents are homozygous for the same trait at the same gene location you will not change the genetic make up of that gene at that location regardless of how far a outcross it is . Very simple genetics . If both parents are homozygous at the same gene location for the same trait all resulting offspring will also be homozygous for that trait . Zero gene variation at that specific gene.
Mark Reynolds said:
OK. I'm trying to follow your logic here. Are you implying that if you crossed a human with a cow that because 80% of the genotype is shared that the progeny would be inbred?

(I apologize to everyone of Mexican and Chinese decent. I could have very well chosen 2 totally different cultures. I needed 2 different cultures for illustration purposes and no intent was meant by using either. I could have/maybe should have used Irish or English, which is my heritage)
Click to expand...
WOW
You can't and won't produce a completely heterozygous animal in one outcross as you claim.
In your example. If both parents possess the same recessive genotype for blue eyes. The resulting offspring will be 100% homozygous recessive for blue eyes regardless of the ethnicity of either or both parents.
Most species of mammals posses more similarities in genes than not . To imply that you can and will create a 100% heterozygous offspring from the mating of two very similar breeds of already very similar cattle species shows a very clear misunderstanding of very simple genetics.
 
Mark Reynolds said:
Hybrid vigor will not continue to increase after the second cross, but will be maintained at the vigor level gained with the second cross provided the crossing continues according to the pattern illustrated above with the resulting percentage bloodline from the 3 breeds in each resulting progeny being roughly 14%, 28%, and 58% for each breed. Percentage of each breed in the progeny depends on the generation cross.

The resulting hybrid vigor, that you pointed out, is the how.
Click to expand...
Once again not supported by current research or science.
Hybrid vigor is a benefit of having heterozygous genes in the genotype.
But this is a short term gain and there is thousands of studies done over a hundred years that have come to the conclusion that hybrid vigor is maxed out after no more than 3 outcrosses .
An interesting place to look is the research into why the loss of hybrid vigor over time when the Brangus was used as two of the three breeds in a three way cross.
Researchers concluded that over the years . Brangus breeders have been selectively breeding for more and more angus traits within the angus Brangus breed. The end result was that over time the genetics of Brangus became more and more similar to the angus breed. So there was not much difference in hybrids vigor in using Brangus vs using a Angus in mating to a different breed.
 
In the natural world bees swarm and domestic kept bees swarm and outcross thats a fact. Commercial crop pollinators in California with many thousands of hives they haul from place to place do not go through each hive every 3 weeks looking for swarm cells. Not only that, at the end of the year they kill all the bees and start over because of varroa mites.

My husband's family raised pedigreed Charlaise, his dad bought expensive pedigreed bulls and raised geneartions of cattle. Of the calf crops about 20% were really good, 30% were kind of good and the rest were just OK. The family had to sell the Charlaise to pay the death taxes. what I'm saying is that because the're pedigreed doesn't mean they are great.

So my husband bred up a herd of Beefmasters. In 3 or 4 generations they were comesidered purebreds. The pedigee that came with the three and four thousand dollar bulls, if there was one he didn't care about and doesn't even remember. What he cared about when he bought them was their health certificate and, um, the testicular circumference.

When we first met I was a young lady and he took me to a bull sale. We walked around looking at the pens with each bull that was in the sale. The sign on each gate had information about how well they did on forage and on feed, their daily rate of gain, birth weight, EPD, and a number prominently displayed- 38 cm, 40 cm, 41cm. Finally I had to ask what is this 38cm, 40cm?

He said Ma'am, that is the circumference of the bull's testicles. What? I said, Isn't that dangerous? Who's job is this? And for gosh sake why? He explained it indicates the potential fertility of the daughters. Nothing was mentioned about pedigrees on these signs. Nor was it mentioned when they entered the ring. He says you could probably ge papers from the producer but he didn't care about it. What he cared about was the health certificate. He says he got about the same 20% really good and 50% OK calves as the pedigree Charlaise. He says over time the quality of the cattle can improve but you have to produce what the order buyers want.

Now he's retired from raising cattle. I'm the one raising cattle. Heifers from a dairy? I don't care about papers, they all milk like a machine and have good legs and feet.
 
Last edited:
TexasJerseyMilker said:
In the natural world bees swarm and domestic kept bees swarm and outcross thats a fact. Commercial crop pollinators in California with many thousands of hives they haul from place to place do not go through each hive every 3 weeks looking for swarm cells. Not only that, at the end of the year they kill all the bees and start over because of varroa
Click to expand...
Once again not supported by the facts.
Domestic honey bees are not native to the Americas . There is no natural world for honey bees in the Americas because they aren't native.
Good way to put yourself out of bee keeping business is to kill your hives every year. Bee keepers are doing everything they can to prevent loss of hives every year. And still suffer huge losses.
Many researchers suspect part of the problem is exactly what you mentioned.
As much as 90 percent of the entire domestic us honey bee population is shipped to California to pollinate almonds every year.
Disease, mites as well as who knows what else is leading to dramatic declines in domestic honey bee populations .
Let's talk a little about wild ,natural population genetics.
Ever heard of a guy buy the name of Charles Darwin and his theories.
They are all based of the fact that in nature survival of the fittest happens. Those genes who are a benefit are passed on to the local population. Over time those genes become more and more concentrated due to inbreeding. Pretty soon you have this group that looks and acts slightly different from its neighbors and so on.
What is the difference between different subspecies of the same species?
Accumulation of genetic differences between them and a differing subspecies usually separated by distance or environment. Subspecies in the wild are nothing more than linebreed/inbreed groups within the same species.
Why will the Florida Panther go extinct? Because of stupid political choices not to introduce additional genetics into a bottle necked isolated sub species.
Very simple to do .
Introduce 2-3 different mountain lions of different genetic backgrounds. Giving the Florida panthers the genetic vat they need . Over time the genes that where beneficial to the cats to survive in the area would become more accumulated and with each generation they would be less and less like the other mountain lion subspecies.
 
Rmc said:
Inbreeding is nothing more than increasing homozygous genes . If both parents are homozygous for the same trait at the same gene location you will not change the genetic make up of that gene at that location regardless of how far a outcross it is . Very simple genetics . If both parents are homozygous at the same gene location for the same trait all resulting offspring will also be homozygous for that trait . Zero gene variation at that specific gene.

WOW
You can't and won't produce a completely heterozygous animal in one outcross as you claim.
In your example. If both parents possess the same recessive genotype for blue eyes. The resulting offspring will be 100% homozygous recessive for blue eyes regardless of the ethnicity of either or both parents.
Most species of mammals posses more similarities in genes than not . To imply that you can and will create a 100% heterozygous offspring from the mating of two very similar breeds of already very similar cattle species shows a very clear misunderstanding of very simple genetics.
Click to expand...
IF that is how YOU want to define INBREEDING, then some of what you are saying makes sense. The problem here is, your definition of inbreeding being nothing more than increasing homozygous genes is incorrect. Inbreeding involves crossing individuals with overlapping or the same pedigree, being homozygous is not the same as inbreeding:
Ebenezer said:
Inbreeding
noun
  1. The breeding or mating of closely related individuals.
  2. The intentional breeding of closely related individuals so as to preserve desirable traits in a stock.
  3. Breeding between members of a relatively small population, especially one in which most members are related.
So to declare an animal "inbred" you have to set a level of IBC that is your limit. Mating of first cousins, taboo for modern humans, creates an IBC of 6.25%. Is that the upper limit for livestock some are discussing? I find that low for livestock.
Click to expand...
 
Rmc said:
Inbreeding is nothing more than increasing homozygous genes . If both parents are homozygous for the same trait at the same gene location you will not change the genetic make up of that gene at that location regardless of how far a outcross it is . Very simple genetics . If both parents are homozygous at the same gene location for the same trait all resulting offspring will also be homozygous for that trait . Zero gene variation at that specific gene.

WOW
You can't and won't produce a completely heterozygous animal in one outcross as you claim.
In your example. If both parents possess the same recessive genotype for blue eyes. The resulting offspring will be 100% homozygous recessive for blue eyes regardless of the ethnicity of either or both parents.
Most species of mammals posses more similarities in genes than not . To imply that you can and will create a 100% heterozygous offspring from the mating of two very similar breeds of already very similar cattle species shows a very clear misunderstanding of very simple genetics.
Click to expand...
I did not claim that an animal with all heterozygous gene pairs would be produced. I claimed that all inbreeding would be eliminated. I'll point out again, as I did in another post, that homozygous pairs are not the same as inbreeding. However, inbreeding will produce progeny that have an increased number of homozygous pairs.
 
@TexasJerseyMilker - There are purebred breeders that are just multipliers. All cattle have registration papers and are promoted as purebred of XYZ breed.
Then there are purebred breeders that are BREEDERS of XYZ with quality in mind when they make breeding choices. Like structure (feet & legs), easy keepers, good milkers, great temperament, good growth, fertility, etc.
Just because you had relatives that were multipliers, don't lump all PB breeders into the same mold. There are lots of good PB breeders. As well, there are a LOT of commercial breeders that are great BREEDERS. You don't have to be PB to be a great breeder.
If you are interested in staying in the business, you have to pay attention to details - PB or commercial.
 
Mark Reynolds said:
I did not claim that an animal with all heterozygous gene pairs would be produced. I claimed that all inbreeding would be eliminated. I'll point out again, as I did in another post, that homozygous pairs are not the same as inbreeding. However, inbreeding will produce progeny that have an increased number of homozygous pairs.
Click to expand...
In breeding by definition is the accumulation of homozygous genes .
Every single domestic cow alive today is directly related to every other domestic cow. Mainly from two different lines some closer than others . But you can't remove all inbreeding by a simple cross . It is scientifically possible.
scientists very often study the degree of relatedness of all animals of the same species as well as with a subspecies and in between two different subspecies.
You will also find numbers for domestic breeds as well. How closely related is the Hereford breed to the angus breed.
You can't undo all inbreeding with one mating as long as both animals are from the same species.
 
Back to the discussion of blue eyes.
Blue eyed mutation originated in a single person. Only way for that recessive genotype to be expressed is if both parents are directly related to the original person who the mutation originated in .
No way to get blue eyes without line breeding or inbreeding
www.sciencedaily.com

Blue-eyed humans have a single, common ancestor

New research shows that people with blue eyes have a single, common ancestor. Scientists have tracked down a genetic mutation which took place 6,000-10,000 years ago and is the cause of the eye color of all blue-eyed humans alive on the planet today.
www.sciencedaily.com
 
Rmc said:
Back to the discussion of blue eyes.
Blue eyed mutation originated in a single person. Only way for that recessive genotype to be expressed is if both parents are directly related to the original person who the mutation originated in .
No way to get blue eyes without line breeding or inbreeding
www.sciencedaily.com

Blue-eyed humans have a single, common ancestor

New research shows that people with blue eyes have a single, common ancestor. Scientists have tracked down a genetic mutation which took place 6,000-10,000 years ago and is the cause of the eye color of all blue-eyed humans alive on the planet today.
www.sciencedaily.com
Click to expand...
When you have a population that is expanding and a single recessive trait is also expanding whether manifesting or not... it isn't line breeding or inbreeding when the trait gets expressed by individuals that are unrelated for generations.

What you are claiming is that all people are inbred simply because we are homo sapien and we have homo sapien traits. While traits can be forced to evince through close breeding more quickly, it does not follow that anyone with a trait-in-common is closely enough related to be considered inbred.
 
Rmc said:
In breeding by definition is the accumulation of homozygous genes .
Every single domestic cow alive today is directly related to every other domestic cow. Mainly from two different lines some closer than others . But you can't remove all inbreeding by a simple cross . It is scientifically possible.
scientists very often study the degree of relatedness of all animals of the same species as well as with a subspecies and in between two different subspecies.
You will also find numbers for domestic breeds as well. How closely related is the Hereford breed to the angus breed.
You can't undo all inbreeding with one mating as long as both animals are from the same species.
Click to expand...
No, that is not the definition of inbreeding. That is a result of inbreeding:
Ebenezer said:
Inbreeding
noun
  1. The breeding or mating of closely related individuals.
  2. The intentional breeding of closely related individuals so as to preserve desirable traits in a stock.
  3. Breeding between members of a relatively small population, especially one in which most members are related.
So to declare an animal "inbred" you have to set a level of IBC that is your limit. Mating of first cousins, taboo for modern humans, creates an IBC of 6.25%. Is that the upper limit for livestock some are discussing? I find that low for livestock.
Click to expand...
 
Rmc said:
Back to the discussion of blue eyes.
Blue eyed mutation originated in a single person. Only way for that recessive genotype to be expressed is if both parents are directly related to the original person who the mutation originated in .
No way to get blue eyes without line breeding or inbreeding
www.sciencedaily.com

Blue-eyed humans have a single, common ancestor

New research shows that people with blue eyes have a single, common ancestor. Scientists have tracked down a genetic mutation which took place 6,000-10,000 years ago and is the cause of the eye color of all blue-eyed humans alive on the planet today.
www.sciencedaily.com
Click to expand...
I am familiar with the origination of the mutation for blue eyes in a single individual thousands of years ago. I'll share the quote again:
Ebenezer said:
Inbreeding
noun
  1. The breeding or mating of closely related individuals.
  2. The intentional breeding of closely related individuals so as to preserve desirable traits in a stock.
  3. Breeding between members of a relatively small population, especially one in which most members are related.
So to declare an animal "inbred" you have to set a level of IBC that is your limit. Mating of first cousins, taboo for modern humans, creates an IBC of 6.25%. Is that the upper limit for livestock some are discussing? I find that low for livestock.
Click to expand...
Two individuals that have a common ancestor from thousands of years ago do not produce progeny that come close to the accepted definition of inbred. If I were to follow that logic you propose that because the parents both have a common ancestor (that has blue eyes, or at least a single gene for blue eyes and not necessarily blue eyes expressed in that individual), your logic would also have to be applied to the fact that the entire human race is descended from a single individual in Africa a very long time ago. To extend your logic, consider that there are no other individuals within that population. The conclusion, based on your logic and definition of inbred then must be that all human beings are 100% inbred. Your definition of inbred is incorrect. Inbred is between closely related individuals. Unless you also want to 'redefine' related to a definition that you devise, not a commonly accepted definition. I don't think there are very many people who would consider themselves closely related to everyone in the human species, and/or call the entire population of humans "small".
 
If your mating is off two individuals that are closer related to each other then the mean degree of relatedness you are in breeding. If you are mating two individuals who are not related closer then the mean degree of relatedness you are outcrossing.
Blue eyed people are more closer related to each other then the mean population.
They're for you are inbreeding. Doesn't matter if the original mutation occurred yesterday or 100,000 years ago .
If the parents are closer related to each other you are in breeding.

Inbreeding: Its Meaning, Uses and Effects on Farm Animals | MU Extension

Mating schemes of animals are classified as either inbreeding or outbreeding. Mating closely related animals is inbreeding. Outbreeding is mating less closely related animals, but people disagree about where to draw the line. Learn more in this guide. | /**/ Dale Vogt, Helen A. Swartz and John...
extension.missouri.edu extension.missouri.edu
 
Rmc said:
If your mating is off two individuals that are closer related to each other then the mean degree of relatedness you are in breeding. If you are mating two individuals who are not related closer then the mean degree of relatedness you are outcrossing.
Blue eyed people are more closer related to each other then the mean population.
They're for you are inbreeding. Doesn't matter if the original mutation occurred yesterday or 100,000 years ago .
If the parents are closer related to each other you are in breeding.

Inbreeding: Its Meaning, Uses and Effects on Farm Animals | MU Extension

Mating schemes of animals are classified as either inbreeding or outbreeding. Mating closely related animals is inbreeding. Outbreeding is mating less closely related animals, but people disagree about where to draw the line. Learn more in this guide. | /**/ Dale Vogt, Helen A. Swartz and John...
extension.missouri.edu extension.missouri.edu
Click to expand...
Did you miss this in the article?
"if two individuals have no common ancestor within the last five or six generations, they are considered unrelated"
If the parents are unrelated, they (the progeny) can't be inbred.
So, according to the article, the number of generations separating the parents DOES matter.

My interpretation of this is that unrelated means unrelated, and does not mean that there is a low degree of relatedness.
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

T
Bull chase
Replies
8
Views
391
Tomcolvin
T
Ky hills
New bull
Replies
14
Views
684
Ky hills
Ky hills
Ky hills
Bull selection
Replies
4
Views
332
Ky hills
Ky hills
R
Bull shopping
Replies
12
Views
653
Lazy M
L
tex452
Hereford bull
Replies
6
Views
609
tex452
tex452

Latest posts

Top