Bull prospect

Help Support CattleToday:

Genetics Lesson:

I am not intimately familiar with each of the genetic defects above. However, most (and by most I mean like 95-99.99%, but I don't have known percentages) are the result of the the animal (or organism(could be a plant)) ending up with 2 RECESSIVE genes, 1 from each parent. These recessive genes are rare in the general population. However, the recessive genes, when present, are present in half the offspring that originate from the parent. So.......If you have an animal that happens to have a recessive gene for a genetic defect (BTW, when a recessive gene is paired with a DOMINANT gene for the same trait, you only see/experience the effect if the dominant trait) and you breed it with another animal from the general population (where the recessive gene is rare) there is a very low chance of the offspring ending up with 2 recessive genes. When an animal ends up with 2 recessive genes for the genetic defect, there is no dominant gene present to mask or prevent the genetic effect from being expressed, and the animal ends up with the genetic defect or condition. In line breeding or inbreeding, you are mating siblings that each have a 50/50 chance of being a recessive gene carrier which means there is a 12.5% chance the progeny will end up with 2 copies of the recessive gene and will have the genetic defect. If you breed offspring (likely a cow/heifer) to a parent (likely a bull), it is a 'given' that the bull/parent is a carrier of the recessive gene and a 50/50 chance the parent's offspring being bred to the parent also carries the recessive gene. There is a 25% chance that their progeny will have 2 recessive genes for the defect and will therefor suffer from or express the genetic defect. There are tests that can be conducted for the presence of recessive genes for some defects and expression of the defect is simply avoided by not breeding that animal or by breeding it with an animal that tested negative for said genetic defect. I doubt there are tests for every single recessive gene that exists, so complete avoidance of genetic defects manifesting themselves is impossible. Careful review of pedigrees is the best avoidance measure, but it is far from foolproof.
 
Jeanne - Simme Valley said:
Guaranteed that spotted calf is NOT out of a PB Angus bull or PB Angus cow.

I'll defend the "big cow".
My herd average is probably 1550# - 1600#. Little cows are a waste of time up here. Extreme cold in winter and lush pastures in summer. Lots of research has proven cow weight vs feed intake is not linear. I like my 700# - 750# WW, but mainly I'm producing replacement breeding stock. Average probably 5.5 - 6 FS. Not a lot of leg, just big tanks. People used to grab a tape and measure for FS before buying. Not any more. No one is looking for the tall monsters of years ago. I always said, I could make them smaller framed in a heart beat - as soon as breeders were willing to pay for shorter. I LOVE my phenotype now.
Click to expand...

Jeanne I grab my tape now as many have no idea what frame their cattle are. I have measured some that the breeder stated were a 6.25-6.5 frame. Actually he lacked around a 1/4 of an inch being a 5.0 fram
 
Yesterday, while castrating and vaccination this herd, we found a few calves we might want as bulls. This one, not from our bulls but from a neighbors brangus. He's very impressive, this calf. Stands out, very gentle, shows tremendous growth, was small at birth.. He gets a chance. There, new blood. lol1686408295718.png
 
cowgirl8 said:
Yesterday, while castrating and vaccination this herd, we found a few calves we might want as bulls. This one, not from our bulls but from a neighbors brangus. He's very impressive, this calf. Stands out, very gentle, shows tremendous growth, was small at birth.. He gets a chance. There, new blood. lolView attachment 31117
Click to expand...
Just be sure that it's going to work for you, as that is really all that matters.
 
Don't throw away your crayons or walk away..... There are legitimate concerns. Precision 1680 is no longer in
the Angus Data Base.
My first thoughts on this, when I read the info was how quickly in todays world with so many people using AI as tool
to improve their herds the spread of a serious defect could escalate.

Perhaps CAB should use their power to seek out all the carriers of Precision 1680's defect(s) or other serious problems within
the Angus Breed to make sure they find their way to the processors.
 
GAR Precision 1680 is still in the database, but it does show that he is a carrier of AM and NH. Lots of use with BW and WW data submitted on over 8000 progeny.

Correct me if I am wrong, but the use of AI bulls vs walking bulls does not necessarily mean an increased risk of a genetic issue. Genetic defects can naturally originate in an animal or can be inherited from one or both parents. Stands to reason that a bull with heavy use has a higher risk of a defect presenting itself in progeny - not due to the fact that he has AI use, but from the fact that more progeny/use increases the probability of detection (not existence) of the defect. A bull purchased for in herd natural use could have a genetic mutation/defect that is never detected. But he might be spreading that defect in half his calves who also spread the defect for years.

Take two scenarios - an AI bull with heavy use that has a defect which is soon detected, a test developed, and an effort to locate and remove the defective animals is underway. Or a natural service bull that sires 50 calves per year - half carrying the defect. 5 calves kept and sold as breeding stock each year. Which scenario presents the higher risk long term?
 
One web site I opened states he is no longer in the Data Base, another I just opened states he is.
I prefer to take my chances with a live bull.
You may be correct that the defect may surface/be detected sooner with AI.
But by using AI a bull can sire a much larger number of calves over a shorter span of time and impact a
larger number of breeders than pasture mating can.
Either way at some point the problem will surface, and how it is handled will make a difference in how quickly
it is controlled or eliminated.
 
simme said:
GAR Precision 1680 is still in the database, but it does show that he is a carrier of AM and NH. Lots of use with BW and WW data submitted on over 8000 progeny.

Correct me if I am wrong, but the use of AI bulls vs walking bulls does not necessarily mean an increased risk of a genetic issue. Genetic defects can naturally originate in an animal or can be inherited from one or both parents. Stands to reason that a bull with heavy use has a higher risk of a defect presenting itself in progeny - not due to the fact that he has AI use, but from the fact that more progeny/use increases the probability of detection (not existence) of the defect. A bull purchased for in herd natural use could have a genetic mutation/defect that is never detected. But he might be spreading that defect in half his calves who also spread the defect for years.

Take two scenarios - an AI bull with heavy use that has a defect which is soon detected, a test developed, and an effort to locate and remove the defective animals is underway. Or a natural service bull that sires 50 calves per year - half carrying the defect. 5 calves kept and sold as breeding stock each year. Which scenario presents the higher risk long term?
Click to expand...
I wouldn't think that using an AI bull vs a walking bull would not increase the risk of genetic defects in and of itself.
My thoughts on this are that An AI bull that happens to be a carrier of f a genetic defect and is heavily used then that defect is going to be introduced into many more herds depending on his popularity than that walking herd bull would ever have an effect on.
Also a heavy used AI bull generally going to translate to heavily sampled sons via AI and you have within a few years a lot of cattle that are potentially defect carriers. Even with large numbers of cattle it can take several years to identify a problem and by that time it can be widespread as was the situation with 1680.
Another example is BR New Design 036, which I like that line a lot for commercial Angus calves. Developmental Duplication (DD) did not originate in him but he was the popular heavy used bull that happened to be a carrier of that. It was quite a long time before DD was publicly recognized and he himself along with many sons and grandsons were heavily used.
I have been using descendants of 036 and his son Predestined off and on for almost 20 years. Granted most of the calves have been terminal. I used the AI bull Power Tool a Predestined son which is DD free pretty heavy and retained two sons that I've really used heavy, and still have one.
 
simme said:
GAR Precision 1680 is still in the database, but it does show that he is a carrier of AM and NH. Lots of use with BW and WW data submitted on over 8000 progeny.

Correct me if I am wrong, but the use of AI bulls vs walking bulls does not necessarily mean an increased risk of a genetic issue. Genetic defects can naturally originate in an animal or can be inherited from one or both parents. Stands to reason that a bull with heavy use has a higher risk of a defect presenting itself in progeny - not due to the fact that he has AI use, but from the fact that more progeny/use increases the probability of detection (not existence) of the defect. A bull purchased for in herd natural use could have a genetic mutation/defect that is never detected. But he might be spreading that defect in half his calves who also spread the defect for years.

Take two scenarios - an AI bull with heavy use that has a defect which is soon detected, a test developed, and an effort to locate and remove the defective animals is underway. Or a natural service bull that sires 50 calves per year - half carrying the defect. 5 calves kept and sold as breeding stock each year. Which scenario presents the higher risk long term?
Click to expand...
You are correct. AI vs walking bull has no effect on increased risk. Provided that both the bull used for AI and the walking bull have the exact same genetic makeup (pretend they are identical twins :)) the bull that would contribute the most risk as a whole would be determined by the number of progeny he sires that end up in the breeding population.
 
Travlr said:
1. I don't fear inbreeding... I fear the indiscriminate and ignorant use with people that have no understanding of the serious genetic issues involved. And I fear those that would promote it to people as though it has no consequences.
2. Yes, entire herds have been eliminated due to genetic issues... before genetic technologies advanced to the degree they can be used today.

From the following link: Given that Precision 1680 had sired thousands of sons and daughters, that have in turn produced thousands upon thousands more offspring, it is clear that the number of animals carrying the genetic abnormality in this and other countries' beef cattle populations is substantial.


View attachment 31090


3. I can't believe people are having a problem with concerns over something that can be serious, short and long term. Is it irresponsible to warn someone about the reasons for taking a cautious approach?

I'm done here. I've seen a lot of changes in the industry over time and some not good, and one I never thought I'd see is cattle producers defending and even promoting inbreeding. I'm disappointed that this rather innocent warning has been blown up into something it was never intended to be, but I'll stand by the warning given until someone explains how the Precision 1680 effects were desirable.
Click to expand...
I find your comments from a pedestal to be useless. Who is going to qualify folks to be able to issue linebreeding permits? And who has suggested to others to linebreed indiscriminately? Nobody! You fight a paper tiger and run the straw man argument.

Precision and other recent Angus defects, in my opinion, were people problems rather than animal problems. Like Larry Leonhardt used to say, "most animal problems are people problems". I think some of the uppity ups, movers and shakers in the Angus world along with owners of defected bulls swept the problem under the rug to protect sales. When it finally was forced, the problems became public. Those particular defects were not started as inherited or due to linebreeding. They were mutant defects.

If you think that you have seen all of the changes in the livestock industry you are shorting the history. Before the fear of inbreeding and the use of AI, a lot of the foundational herd, flocks and such were linebred. It only helps the promoters and salesmen to promote that no home raised animal can compete with a purchased animal. And there are sorry line crossed cattle in most every sales catalog where freaks and outliers are the special lots.

I really get tired of all of this high and mighty negativity and ill based rhetoric.
 
Ebenezer said:
I find your comments from a pedestal to be useless. Who is going to qualify folks to be able to issue linebreeding permits? And who has suggested to others to linebreed indiscriminately? Nobody! You fight a paper tiger and run the straw man argument.

Precision and other recent Angus defects, in my opinion, were people problems rather than animal problems. Like Larry Leonhardt used to say, "most animal problems are people problems". I think some of the uppity ups, movers and shakers in the Angus world along with owners of defected bulls swept the problem under the rug to protect sales. When it finally was forced, the problems became public. Those particular defects were not started as inherited or due to linebreeding. They were mutant defects.

If you think that you have seen all of the changes in the livestock industry you are shorting the history. Before the fear of inbreeding and the use of AI, a lot of the foundational herd, flocks and such were linebred. It only helps the promoters and salesmen to promote that no home raised animal can compete with a purchased animal. And there are sorry line crossed cattle in most every sales catalog where freaks and outliers are the special lots.

I really get tired of all of this high and mighty negativity and ill based rhetoric.
Click to expand...
Sorry you haven't read and understood what I said... and then contradict yourself using what I did say and then using examples of what I said as though you are the one saying them.

For instance, I said, "I fear the indiscriminate and ignorant use with people that have no understanding..."
And you say, "Angus defects, in my opinion, were people problems rather than animal problems."
I call both statements people problems.

And I have no issues at all with people breeding and using home raised bulls and I never said nor implied that. In fact I've raised some amazing commercial bulls for my own use. I've never used them on related females.

Looking for ways to disagree isn't really addressing the issue of whether inbreeding is a good idea or not.

I really don't get the idea that playing with fire is something people should do. As soon as you guys that think inbreeding is great and everyone should be doing it start advising your daughters to marry their uncles/cousins/brothers I'll start believing you really think it's a good idea. Until then... it's too easy to stay away from breeding close relatives and that's my best advice. If you don't like that advice I'll buy you and your sister a drink next time I see you holding hands in the local bar.
 
Last edited:
Travlr said:
Sorry you haven't read and understood what I said... and then contradict yourself using what I did say and then using examples of what I said as though you are the one saying them.

For instance, I said, "I fear the indiscriminate and ignorant use with people that have no understanding..."
And you say, "Angus defects, in my opinion, were people problems rather than animal problems."
I call both statements people problems.

And I have no issues at all with people breeding and using home raised bulls and I never said nor implied that. In fact I've raised some amazing commercial bulls for my own use. I 've never used them on related females.

Looking for ways to disagree isn't really addressing the issue of whether inbreeding is a good idea or not.

I really don't get the idea that playing with fire is something people should do. As soon as you guys that think inbreeding is great and everyone should be doing it start advising your daughters to marry their uncles/cousins/brothers I'll start believing you really think it's a good idea. Until then... it's too easy to stay away from breeding close relatives and that's my best advice. If you don't like that advice I'll buy you and your sister a drink next time I see you holding hands in the local bar.
Click to expand...
Been done for years, its why we have the things we have, from cattle, chickens, dogs, corn.... Humans have been fiddling with making things the way they want from the beginning of time. So are you saying, it all needs to end? No more fiddling?
 
cowgirl8 said:
Been done for years, its why we have the things we have, from cattle, chickens, dogs, corn.... Humans have been fiddling with making things the way they want from the beginning of time. So are you saying, it all needs to end? No more fiddling?
Click to expand...
I'm advising caution. I'm advising what I suspect is a person with no formal training (you) to be cautious. Nothing more... nothing less.

As far as fiddling? I'd bet there are better results/ratios using unrelated lines to make improvements.

Or don't you see any benefit in hybrid vigor and crossing?
 
Travlr said:
I'm advising caution. I'm advising what I suspect is a person with no formal training (you) to be cautious. Nothing more... nothing less.

As far as fiddling? I'd bet there are better results/ratios using unrelated lines to make improvements.

Or don't you see any benefit in hybrid vigor and crossing?
Click to expand...
45 years of ranching, no formal training? My only job has been cattle for all this time. I am with them every day, they surround my home and i can go miles in each direction and see each herd without hitting a road... I'm there when every new calf hits the ground.. Too bad i dont have formal training.
 
cowgirl8 said:
45 years of ranching, no formal training? My only job has been cattle for all this time. I am with them every day, they surround my home and i can go miles in each direction and see each herd without hitting a road... I'm there when every new calf hits the ground.. Too bad i dont have formal training.
Click to expand...

Facepalm :LOL:
 

Similar threads

Ky hills
New bull
Replies
14
Views
583
Ky hills
Ky hills
Ky hills
Bull selection
Replies
4
Views
269
Ky hills
Ky hills
R
Bull shopping
Replies
12
Views
582
Lazy M
L
tex452
Hereford bull
Replies
6
Views
529
tex452
tex452
Ky hills
Heifer bull prospect?
2
Replies
31
Views
2K
Ky hills
Ky hills

Latest posts

Top