continued conversation with cbcr

[Commercialfarmer]

http://www.progressivecattle.com/in...ulls&catid=118:breeding-a-genetics&Itemid=157

http://simmgene.com/pdf/sim_talk/Late Fall 2010 SimTalk Paternal Heterosis Jack Whittier, Ph.D..pdf

I don't think this ongoing conversation will be well accepted in the Herford bull thread. I only skimmed the links briefly so I won't comment on them as a whole. But the following quote should suffice from the link you used to make your point.

"Pregnancy rate when mated to cows 0.2% Taurus x 1.4% Taurus x Indicus" This is no where near 30%.

"However, pregnancy
rates produced by crossbred sires were only slightly
improved. This may be due to the fact that according
to most reproductive physiologists, fertilization occurs
upwards of 99% of the time when a viable ovum and
sperm cell meet in the oviduct. There is however a
high loss of fertilized embryos between fertilization
and maternal recognition of pregnancy. This loss
appears to be primarily controlled by maternal
rather than paternal factors."

If I were to look even further, I think I could actually prove the 1% is even smaller. Were the purebred bulls bred back to the same breed or were they crossed? If they were bred back to the original breed, this would allow for an erroneous result to occur and if someone was not paying attention, an inappropriate conclusion could be made. Early fetal death prior to pregnancy recognition can occur from fatal genetic match ups, and has an increased likelyhood from genetically similar animals. When that same purebred bull is used as a cross, the effect would be present at a lesser degree.

You need to read the content of the material and not just search for something to prove composites are the holy grail. Let them be what they are. There is a nich for a lot of different production styles.

 

[cbcr]

Commercialfarmer wrote:A crossbred bull will not increase fertility of the calf crop. However, it is a very well known fact that crossbred cows are more fertile than pure bred cows.

Why, if that is the case would you thing that the same could not be true of the bulls?

There is so much documented facts of using Composite, Hybrid, Crossbred bulls and the advantages to using them. Why do you want to argue against the facts.

 

[cbcr]

In the other post about Crossbred bulls, you said they wern't as fertile. I disagreed and you ask for proof. I posted proof that Composite, Crossbred, Hybrid bulls have shown an increase in preganancy rates over straight single breed bulls.

Where is YOUR proof that says that Crossbred, Composite, Hybrid bulls aren't as fertile?

 

[novatech]

There is an opinion by many that line breeding decreases fertility in bulls. I do not know this to be true. If it is, then it seems as though the opposite would be true for cross breeding. If there is an increase in fertility for cows why would,t the same be true for bulls? I fully admit I know relatively nothing about genetics and heterosis, thus the reason for my question of why. I for one am interested in the subject and I am sure there are others. Many will not post because of there own reasons. I wish they would. It does not have to mean you are taking sides. It is a discussion or debate as long as it does not get personal.
I could answer this questions for myself by googling but as one article stated there has not been enough research done on the subject. But in doing that I also found that there were no statements of crossbred bulls having less fertility. Most highly recomended their use. The major problem was the lack of performance data, not fertility issues.
Someone made a derogatory statement about university studies in another thread. I believe a conservative estimate of the current accepted scientific knowledge we have today would be at least 90% could be credited to university studies.

 

[cbcr]

Very good point novatech.

Open discussion is part of learning. People should not be so close minded and set in their ways with an unwillingness to learn or understand anything new.

Sometimes it seems that even though we all know that 1 + 1 = 2 and 2 + 2 = 4, there is always someone who wants to say these formulas are wrong.

We are working on an article and we will post it here. The title of it, and you can be thinking about it in the mean time.

Are you a beef producer or a beef producer?

 

[Commercialfarmer]

Commercialfarmer wrote:A crossbred bull will not increase fertility of the calf crop. However, it is a very well known fact that crossbred cows are more fertile than pure bred cows.

Why, if that is the case would you thing that the same could not be true of the bulls?

There is so much documented facts of using Composite, Hybrid, Crossbred bulls and the advantages to using them. Why do you want to argue against the facts.

Normaly I would just say bless your heart to myself and go on. But since you feel the need to spread the illigitimate gossiple to further your personal agenda, I feel the need to respond.

I bolded the important part of the sentence below. Maybe this will help. I have a feeling you might have missed the forest for the trees.
"pregnancy
rates produced by crossbred sires were only slightly
improved. This may be due to the fact that according
to most reproductive physiologists, fertilization occurs
upwards of 99% of the time when a viable ovum and
sperm cell meet in the oviduct. There is however a
high loss of fertilized embryos between fertilization
and maternal recognition of pregnancy. This loss
appears to be primarily controlled by maternal rather than paternal factors."

A cow produces 1 egg each cycle. A bull produces millions of sperm at the ready at all times. Which one has a better chance of success? Who is responsible for maintaining that pregnancy? Who is responsible for cycling?

Novatech,

You have a iron in the fire on this deal as well, otherwise you wouldn't be popping up all the time.
You can stop pretending your just in it for the knowledge.

Would one of you yahoos please find and paste the quote where I stated that a crossbred bull was less fertile? I triple dog dare ya.

Someone made a derogatory statement about university studies in another thread. I believe a conservative estimate of the current accepted scientific knowledge we have today would be at least 90% could be credited to university studies.

My wife teaches reading comprehension, maybe she can tutor you guys on her off time. Derogatory would not define the statement, and you know the somebody was me. I stated opinions are different that facts. I know many individuals at the university level, many I call friends and colleages. I can assure you that they have as diverse of opinions as everyone on here. But when there are no facts to back up a hypothesis repeatably, an opinion is all it is.

In the other post about Crossbred bulls, you said they wern't as fertile. I disagreed and you ask for proof. I posted proof that Composite, Crossbred, Hybrid bulls have shown an increase in preganancy rates over straight single breed bulls.

Where is YOUR proof that says that Crossbred, Composite, Hybrid bulls aren't as fertile?

I believe you stated 30% and could not then support your claim. And I replied in the first post. I will grant that it may be a possible 0.2% difference. You might want to quote that instead.

Oh, and Bless your heart.

 

[ollie?]

Someone made a derogatory statement about university studies in another thread. I believe a conservative estimate of the current accepted scientific knowledge we have today would be at least 90% could be credited to university studies.

Ironically almost all the things now proven to be incorrect were at one time accepted by academia.

 

[cbcr]

by Commercialfarmer » Sat Mar 05, 2011 4:54 pm

My statement was regarding the production of calves (the fertility of the bull's semen), not their fertility on the subsequent generation. Could have been worded better. I have not read the rest of ur quote but will shortly.

 

[Commercialfarmer]

I see the words fertility, bull, and semen but I am afraid I don't see where it states that the composite bulls are "less" fertile.

You'll need to find all the words and then make sure they are in the correct order. Keep trying.

 

[cbcr]

Sometime it appears that if no one else was to post anything, you would post something just to argue with yourself.

You keep trying to change the rules, the answer. You were referring to crossbred bulls being less fertile. Not in those exact words but that is definately what you were referring to.

Re: Cross Bred Hereford Bull

Postby Commercialfarmer » Sat Mar 05, 2011 2:06 pm

A crossbred bull will not increase fertility of the calf crop. However, it is a very well known fact that crossbred cows are more fertile than pure bred cows.

by Commercialfarmer » Sat Mar 05, 2011 4:54 pm

My statement was regarding the production of calves (the fertility of the bull's semen), not their fertility on the subsequent generation. Could have been worded better. I have not read the rest of ur quote but will shortly.

These quotes were BOTH from the Crossbred Hereford Bull. You were referring to crossbred bulls.

 

[novatech]

Novatech,

You have a iron in the fire on this deal as well, otherwise you wouldn't be popping up all the time.
You can stop pretending your just in it for the knowledge.
This is what I said.

I could answer this questions for myself by googling but as one article stated there has not been enough research done on the subject. But in doing that I also found that there were no statements of crossbred bulls having less fertility. Most highly recomended their use. The major problem was the lack of performance data, not fertility issues.

quote]
When cbrs first posted about his new venture I disagreed with a lot he was saying. I took the time to do some research. I discovered that I did not know what I thought I new. I always though heterosis was pretty well washed up after about 3 crosses. I learned about retained heterosis. Not from him but accepted facts in the industry. I also learned that there need to be more info recorded on retained crossbred stock.
I remember when EPS's on registered cattle were first implemented. It statements on keeping them on crossbred cattle sound very familiar. I can tell you positively that after having been self employed for 50 plus years that the knowledge of what you had and what you have will help you determine what you can expect to get. From what I have read in my research, since cbrc came on, there is a need for what he is attempting to do. It may not fit your needs or you may just to stubborn to accept it but others in the industry seem to advocate it. I like you, originally thought it was total bs and nothing but a way to scam cattlemen out of money. I was actually out to prove it. Through my research I found I was wrong.
As far as fertility is concerned you never said that there was less with crossbred bulls. IMO you implied it.
For some reason your agenda in this is simply to discredit a man that is trying to start a new business, The great American dream in the free enterprise system we are blessed with.
As far as there being any gain for me, well there is. I get to see one more American being able to stick his neck out on the chopping block risking all in the hope of success. I wish him all the luck in the world.