Hereford question

[Brandonm22]

My initial impression is that this summary added to the bottom of this web-page is simplistic and rather poorly worded for all that was done. I don't think that weaning weight improvement was the primary focus of a lot of this research. Some of the early research work done was to identify dwarf carriers and eliminate the genetic disorder from the lines.

George

I did not mean to imply that improving weaning weight was the only reason to linebreed. I was just responding to that one paragraph which sticks out like a broken thumb. The only thing easier than selecting for weaning weight is selecting for milk production in the dairy cow. Both come with a price if you aren't very careful though.

 

[Idaman]

HerefordUS - If you are interested in the more modern lines descending from the Hesperus lines look at the CSU Rams born around 2000 and study their relationships to the original lines. So far I only see Brae Ardens and Prospectors that CSU retained.

 

[Aaron]

One word WINTER!!!! From your pics I don't think I've seen anything matches up with -50 and a wind. Your droughts are more severe than ours but we still have them. For guys running in tough country your better off running bulls raised in similar country. Cattle raised in kinder gentler conditions can be used in those same ones. Watching genetics melt down isn't my favorite spectator sport.

you know as much about extreme heat as I know about extreme cold.

You might be surprised how much heat a continental climate like the Prairies and Great Plains can get. But, I was waiting for you to ask this very question (i.e. tough country) at some point.

 

[Aaron]

One word WINTER!!!! From your pics I don't think I've seen anything matches up with -50 and a wind. Your droughts are more severe than ours but we still have them. For guys running in tough country your better off running bulls raised in similar country. Cattle raised in kinder gentler conditions can be used in those same ones. Watching genetics melt down isn't my favorite spectator sport.

Cattle are very adaptable. As long as they are getting an adequate diet no one environment is "tougher" than another. What makes cattle "melt down" is a change in environment. Especially when you take a mature animal and remove it from the environment it was raised in and plant it in a different environment it becomes very stressed and needs time to adapt to its new environment. When I lived in northeast Nebraska in a very good productive land area, I purchased cattle from Miles City (where they claim to give pairs 25+ acres each), western Nebraska sandhills and west Texas cactus country and all of them melted down to some extent when I brought them to a "better" land area. Most of them got culled within a couple years and they all would have if I hadn't given them either extra care or an extra chance. I have had better results transplanting young animals from any environment to another.

Cattle that are bred and selected over a few generations in a high-gaining ration environment won't adapt to a tough environment. :cowboy:

 

[alexfarms]

One word WINTER!!!! From your pics I don't think I've seen anything matches up with -50 and a wind. Your droughts are more severe than ours but we still have them. For guys running in tough country your better off running bulls raised in similar country. Cattle raised in kinder gentler conditions can be used in those same ones. Watching genetics melt down isn't my favorite spectator sport.

Cattle are very adaptable. As long as they are getting an adequate diet no one environment is "tougher" than another. What makes cattle "melt down" is a change in environment. Especially when you take a mature animal and remove it from the environment it was raised in and plant it in a different environment it becomes very stressed and needs time to adapt to its new environment. When I lived in northeast Nebraska in a very good productive land area, I purchased cattle from Miles City (where they claim to give pairs 25+ acres each), western Nebraska sandhills and west Texas cactus country and all of them melted down to some extent when I brought them to a "better" land area. Most of them got culled within a couple years and they all would have if I hadn't given them either extra care or an extra chance. I have had better results transplanting young animals from any environment to another.

Cattle that are bred and selected over a few generations in a high-gaining ration environment won't adapt to a tough environment. :cowboy:

You are confusing management and environment. They are two different things.

 

[Brandonm22]

Cattle that are bred and selected over a few generations in a high-gaining ration environment won't adapt to a tough environment. :cowboy:

You don't want to change the lifestyle of adult cattle much; but in this day and age of extensive AI even the most pampered of sires have progeny being tested in the deserts, the plains, the South, Canada, South America, and in all manners of management practices. It generally helps though to let somebody else try a sire in your environment first though.

 

[Aaron]

Cattle are very adaptable. As long as they are getting an adequate diet no one environment is "tougher" than another. What makes cattle "melt down" is a change in environment. Especially when you take a mature animal and remove it from the environment it was raised in and plant it in a different environment it becomes very stressed and needs time to adapt to its new environment. When I lived in northeast Nebraska in a very good productive land area, I purchased cattle from Miles City (where they claim to give pairs 25+ acres each), western Nebraska sandhills and west Texas cactus country and all of them melted down to some extent when I brought them to a "better" land area. Most of them got culled within a couple years and they all would have if I hadn't given them either extra care or an extra chance. I have had better results transplanting young animals from any environment to another.

Cattle that are bred and selected over a few generations in a high-gaining ration environment won't adapt to a tough environment. :cowboy:

You are confusing management and environment. They are two different things.

As long as you have the money and will, management can overcome environment every time.

If your actually making your cattle work for a living, then selection based on environment is pretty critical.

A good example is breeding bull shipments in Canada. Lots of Western Canadian bulls go to Eastern Canada, but not the other way around.

 

[KNERSIE]

A good example is breeding bull shipments in Canada. Lots of Western Canadian bulls go to Eastern Canada, but not the other way around.

That is pretty much the case everywhere in the world, the golden rule is not to move cattle from a sweeter to a more acidic environment, but usually the other way round works fine.

In the end it doesn't matter if you farm on the north pole or in the garden of Eden, the same quality standards should still apply, structurally unsound animals and those lacking beef conformation should still be culled regardless of whether they were born in Western Canada and have horns.

 

[smnherf]

Everybodys environment is challenging in its own way. Otherwise the ground would be growing corn, beans or wheat.

The management level is what makes the difference. Just because you raise corn doens't mean you have to feed it to the cows.

 

[rocket2222]

I do own a suit, but I have never worn it around my cattle. As for the phenotypic diversity in the linebred cattle, if you don't select for uniformity, then you won't get it. It may be that Mr Carpenter valued phenotypic diversity or didn't select for uniformity. I think there is an advantage to lowering inbreeding coefficients or selectingfor the least possible increase in inbreeding coefficients. I think successfull linebreeding programs have practiced keeping inbreeding to a minimum within the line they are working with in order to utilize a greater amount of the genetics within the line. This may account for some phenotypic diversity in less important traits, those traits other than funcional traits.

Now it's calmed down a bit I'll ask a question or two, not being a linebreeding expert, I'll stick my neck out there, and see if my head gets chopped off. This doesn't make a lot of sense to me. It would seem to me that if a trait not being selected for, especially in a herd being linebred, it will gravitate towards the herd average. Even if the lines chosen were extremely diverse at the start of the linebereeding program, with each mating and crossing within the lines, all traits will become more uniform ( average out ) if not selected for. To have diversity within the herd, wouldn't you actually have to select against, what I would have thought the natural tendency would be, to average out. Why would you choose to have diversity in a linebreeding program. Isn't that part of why you would choose to linebreed, to achieve a more consistent product. One more general question, which relates to practice mentioned that I underlined. By choosing to linebreed in the first place, you automatically limit the genetics to choose from. If the genetics are there to achieve what you set out to do within the herd why prolong the agony beating around the bush, why not reach the goals set as soon as possible, then add new lines to make the original lines better. From an outsiders point of view (mine) the act of linebreeding ( staying within the chosen line ) has become more important than the goals for a lot of breeders, or as really just become the goal.

 

[Herefords.US]

I do own a suit, but I have never worn it around my cattle. As for the phenotypic diversity in the linebred cattle, if you don't select for uniformity, then you won't get it. It may be that Mr Carpenter valued phenotypic diversity or didn't select for uniformity. I think there is an advantage to lowering inbreeding coefficients or selectingfor the least possible increase in inbreeding coefficients. I think successfull linebreeding programs have practiced keeping inbreeding to a minimum within the line they are working with in order to utilize a greater amount of the genetics within the line. This may account for some phenotypic diversity in less important traits, those traits other than funcional traits.

Now it's calmed down a bit I'll ask a question or two, not being a linebreeding expert, I'll stick my neck out there, and see if my head gets chopped off. This doesn't make a lot of sense to me. It would seem to me that if a trait not being selected for, especially in a herd being linebred, it will gravitate towards the herd average. Even if the lines chosen were extremely diverse at the start of the linebereeding program, with each mating and crossing within the lines, all traits will become more uniform ( average out ) if not selected for. To have diversity within the herd, wouldn't you actually have to select against, what I would have thought the natural tendency would be, to average out. Why would you choose to have diversity in a linebreeding program. Isn't that part of why you would choose to linebreed, to achieve a more consistent product. One more general question, which relates to practice mentioned that I underlined. By choosing to linebreed in the first place, you automatically limit the genetics to choose from. If the genetics are there to achieve what you set out to do within the herd why prolong the agony beating around the bush, why not reach the goals set as soon as possible, then add new lines to make the original lines better. From an outsiders point of view (mine) the act of linebreeding ( staying within the chosen line ) has become more important than the goals for a lot of breeders, or as really just become the goal.

Rocket, there are certainly others here that are more versed than me in linebreeding, both in theory and practice, but I will give you my opinion. It is true that in some linebreeding programs the primary goal is to stay within the line. A prime example would be the Anxiety 4th cattle my father bred, Jim Lents has, and a very few others are now trying to rescue from total extinction.. To go outside the bloodline would be sacrelege to these people. Some of the Line 1 breeders would feel the same way.

I think linebreeding is a tremendous tool when used correctly, but I personally tend to subscribe to the linebreeding philosophy that Frank Felton and others followed - where you linebreed to set in your desired strong points (goals) but you seek out and use bulls from outside the line to correct the flaws that you also invariably will set in. After a bull like that is used, you then return to the linebreeding format - hopefully with all the goals intact but some of the flaws corrected. Frank Felton did that with S Titan 7777 and OXH Domino 7002.

And I think that's what Franklin Nash also did with The Arrow.

The end result is still always dependent on selection, the astuteness of the selector, and a degree of providence or luck - depending on your point of view.

George

 

[alexfarms]

Now it's calmed down a bit I'll ask a question or two, not being a linebreeding expert, I'll stick my neck out there, and see if my head gets chopped off. This doesn't make a lot of sense to me. It would seem to me that if a trait not being selected for, especially in a herd being linebred, it will gravitate towards the herd average. Even if the lines chosen were extremely diverse at the start of the linebereeding program, with each mating and crossing within the lines, all traits will become more uniform ( average out ) if not selected for. To have diversity within the herd, wouldn't you actually have to select against, what I would have thought the natural tendency would be, to average out. Why would you choose to have diversity in a linebreeding program. Isn't that part of why you would choose to linebreed, to achieve a more consistent product. One more general question, which relates to practice mentioned that I underlined. By choosing to linebreed in the first place, you automatically limit the genetics to choose from. If the genetics are there to achieve what you set out to do within the herd why prolong the agony beating around the bush, why not reach the goals set as soon as possible, then add new lines to make the original lines better. From an outsiders point of view (mine) the act of linebreeding ( staying within the chosen line ) has become more important than the goals for a lot of breeders, or as really just become the goal.

[/quote]

When you bring in outside blood to correct problems you bring in new problems. You work within the line to correct the problems and then you have accomplished something. I concentrate on functional traits first. I have tried to select and cull according to the phrase: Our cattle are linebred for fertility, soundness and the efficient production of high quality beef. There is alot of room for diversity there. I believe my original response was in reference to a comment about the Carpenter cattle being or varying shades of red and a comment by Mr Idaman that they were "diverse in everything but size" (that's a paraphrase from my memory of his comments). I believe that all intensely linebred cattle suffer from inbreeding depression. Inbreeding depression, in general, increases as inbreeding coeficiet increases, therefore i try to minimize inbreeding coefficients within the line. Inbreeding depression creates phenotypic functional problems.

 

[drdosu2002]

And I think that's what Franklin Nash also did with The Arrow.

George you are correct!! 1914hereford (the parents) wanted me to post a picture of The Arrow as he has been discussed in many posts on these boards. I think you will notice that he is sure enough a good Line One bull. You can see why Franklin would want to introduce him into the bloodline as he has tons of good hereford character, natural thickness, doing ability and eye-appeal. He reliably passed these traits on to both his sons and daughters. Franklin did not tie-to a bull until he was sure of what he had!!

Here is an old picture of the cowman himself!

 

[rocket2222]

Thanks George, John, after reading my own questions I probably worded it wrong, and it reads a little aggressive and anti-linebreeding, which were not my intentions. I definitely see the advantages to linebreeding, just trying to understand it a little better, and get answers to questions from people who have actually done it. Interesting to get two totally different perspectives in the two replies, I can see where Alexfarms approach at least limits the number of problems to be fixed to those within the original line, it would seem to limit the amount of progress you ultimately achieve also, by staying within the line. ( that's another question by-the-way, not an observation ) Thank for the replies.

 

[regenwether]

So to the guy who started this thread. Farmguy did you get your question answered or are you more confused??

 

[Brandonm22]

What does in linebreeders and linebreeding programs is when industry accepted cattle type changes around them. A lot of historic Hereford lines of the distant past had a frame 4, 3, or even 2 frame cow as their ideal. When suddenly the industry shifted to feedlots and big rangy steers accomodating the demands of the commercial bull buyers and the show ring meant that a lifetime of breeding for uniformity and consistency had to go out the window for the ranch to remain commercially viable. Most Hereford lines existing at that time did not have the genetics within the line to consistently produce frame six bulls so most wound up outcrossing to Line One Herefords.

 

[DOC HARRIS]

What does in linebreeders and linebreeding programs is when industry accepted cattle type changes around them. A lot of historic Hereford lines of the distant past had a frame 4, 3, or even 2 frame cow as their ideal. When suddenly the industry shifted to feedlots and big rangy steers accomodating the demands of the commercial bull buyers and the show ring meant that a lifetime of breeding for uniformity and consistency had to go out the window for the ranch to remain commercially viable. Most Hereford lines existing at that time did not have the genetics within the line to consistently produce frame six bulls so most wound up outcrossing to Line One Herefords.

Here is another example of the advisability of practicing "Moderation in Everything". The fad of rushing to the "Bull of the Month" Club because of what "Someone" said that "Someone" said will eventually land one in a Genetic trap that will take years to correct. I recommend that a breeder "Study and Learn" the BASICS of Genetics, and then concentrate on what works for them and their operation. Focus on what works for you - and then stick with it. "Plan Your Work, and Work Your Plan!"

DOC HARRIS

 

[jhambley]

It would seem to me that if a trait not being selected for, especially in a herd being linebred, it will gravitate towards the herd average.

I think Jim Lents would argue your assumption. He states:

1. Linebreeding intensifies all traits with equal pressure (both good and bad traits)
2. Linebreeding concentrates everything you "specifically select "for" and anything you "don't specifically select against"

As an example, say you linebreed on a bull with a poor tail set and don't specifically cull against poor tail sets. Eventually you'll end up with a linebred herd with poor tail sets. That's why you need to start with an individual as close to ideal as possible and have a clear "vision" in your mind's eye of the "ideal" animal.

JH

 

[WichitaLineMan]

What does in linebreeders and linebreeding programs is when industry accepted cattle type changes around them. A lot of historic Hereford lines of the distant past had a frame 4, 3, or even 2 frame cow as their ideal. When suddenly the industry shifted to feedlots and big rangy steers accomodating the demands of the commercial bull buyers and the show ring meant that a lifetime of breeding for uniformity and consistency had to go out the window for the ranch to remain commercially viable. Most Hereford lines existing at that time did not have the genetics within the line to consistently produce frame six bulls so most wound up outcrossing to Line One Herefords.

That sure seems like a silly argument to me since Line One is a line bred line. The original herd has an inbreeding coefficient of around 30% and has been managed that way for years.

 

[Brandonm22]

What does in linebreeders and linebreeding programs is when industry accepted cattle type changes around them. A lot of historic Hereford lines of the distant past had a frame 4, 3, or even 2 frame cow as their ideal. When suddenly the industry shifted to feedlots and big rangy steers accomodating the demands of the commercial bull buyers and the show ring meant that a lifetime of breeding for uniformity and consistency had to go out the window for the ranch to remain commercially viable. Most Hereford lines existing at that time did not have the genetics within the line to consistently produce frame six bulls so most wound up outcrossing to Line One Herefords.

That sure seems like a silly argument to me since Line One is a line bred line. The original herd has an inbreeding coefficient of around 30% and has been managed that way for years.

Line Ones were linebred for improving weaning weight. Weaning weight, growth, and frame are all related. Most of the other Hereford lines were bred for either quality eating experience, showring phenotype (pre 1964 generally a small frame size was desirable), or for fertility and easy keeping traits. When the market demanded growth, production, and frame most linebreeders had cattle that were not selected for any of those things. The Line Ones became much more popular. To stay in the bull business a lot of Hereford breeders were forced to outcross to that line (in many cases ending decades of linebreeding experiments). The only thing that is silly is your inability to grasp that decreasing the genetic diversity within a line over time makes rapid change in phenotype problematic. If suddenly the industry switched to a frame 2 grass fattened standard, most line one herds would have a difficult time finding the genetics within their linebred cow herd to produce that new standard.