Inbreeding

[novatech]

This thread is a plethora of uninformed opinion. I suggest you go to the 5 bar X forum and check out the linebreeding thread on the Breeding systems page if you want to learn something.

Why wouldn't you want to bring your knowledge on the subject to this forum? When you see someone is wrong correct them. I for one would appreciate being corrected where I am wrong.
I really don't have time to search through a few thousand posts nor do I want to get on another forum.

 

[3waycross]

We don;t line/inbreed. Have never found an animal close enough to perfection that I would want to. The real problem is not so much (in my mind anyway) the process of doing it. It's not taking the responsibiity to cull mercilessly. It does have a place in determining negative recessive genes, but once again being willing to cull is required. Years ago there was a Holstein bull that was a producer of tremendous milking daughters but none of tehir daughters milked worth spit. It was decided to breed him to his daughters and really fix those milking genes. A lot of the resulting calves were mule footed. In n time at all, the bull was slaughtered and hos semen destroyed. That was exactly the correct response.

Pardon my ignorance but why was it the correct response to kill the bull and toss the semen. If his daughters did EXACTLY what they were supposed to do why not treat him like what he was, a "terminal" sire and breed milkers out of him and get the replacements somewhere else?

In my mind that's like saying I have an Angus bull that throws calves that birth at 65lbs and wean at 650lbs not matter what cow he is bred to. His daughters do not breed worth a darn and they are terrible milkers. I guess I better get rid of him. Quick! Maybe I'm ignorant but in my mind this is the EXACT defination of a terminal sire.

 

[Herefords.US]

This thread is a plethora of uninformed opinion. I suggest you go to the 5 bar X forum and check out the linebreeding thread on the Breeding systems page if you want to learn something.

Why wouldn't you want to bring your knowledge on the subject to this forum? When you see someone is wrong correct them. I for one would appreciate being corrected where I am wrong.
I really don't have time to search through a few thousand posts nor do I want to get on another forum.

novatech, I've read the threads mentioned. If you're truly interested in linebreeding, it's worth your time to read them - as there are posters in that thread that have spent more time studying linebreeding in cattle , and ACTUALLY doing it, than you and I could imagine. There's also some other forums with information worth seeking - when it comes to linebreeding.

I once participated in a Yahoo! group about linebreeding where some of the posters in the threads mentioned used to post before the group owner disbanded the group. The loss of that group and the hundreds of posts archived in it was a tremendous loss, in MNTBHO. I feel fortunate that I was able to read a lot of the posts before it was disbanded. Had I known that was going to happen, I would have archived those posts for my own reference.

Frankly, the "opinion" concerning linebreeding that ranchmanager has put forth in this thread is so farfetched and fundamentally wrong that it's hardly worth addressing. It's like arguing with someone who swears that the sun rises in the west - or with HerefordSire when he takes a theorem and misapplies it to cattle breeding. Caveat Emptor.

George

 

[KNERSIE]

We don;t line/inbreed. Have never found an animal close enough to perfection that I would want to. The real problem is not so much (in my mind anyway) the process of doing it. It's not taking the responsibiity to cull mercilessly. It does have a place in determining negative recessive genes, but once again being willing to cull is required. Years ago there was a Holstein bull that was a producer of tremendous milking daughters but none of tehir daughters milked worth spit. It was decided to breed him to his daughters and really fix those milking genes. A lot of the resulting calves were mule footed. In n time at all, the bull was slaughtered and hos semen destroyed. That was exactly the correct response.

Pardon my ignorance but why was it the correct response to kill the bull and toss the semen. If his daughters did EXACTLY what they were supposed to do why not treat him like what he was, a "terminal" sire and breed milkers out of him and get the replacements somewhere else?

In my mind that's like saying I have an Angus bull that throws calves that birth at 65lbs and wean at 650lbs not matter what cow he is bred to. His daughters do not breed worth a darn and they are terrible milkers. I guess I better get rid of him. Quick! Maybe I'm ignorant but in my mind this is the EXACT defination of a terminal sire.

The closebreeding exposed a genetic defect, by taking him out of the breeding population the closebreeding succeeded in its goal to eliminate genetic defects out of the genepool.

I suppose he could have been used as a terminal sire, but not everyone who would have bought the semen would have known of the genetic defect (through their own ignorance) and the AI company did the responsible thing for the greater good of the genepool by eliminating him.

Another consideration is that breeding replacements is a high priority in a dairy herd and with the short productive life expectancy in a dairy herd very few "terminal" breedings can be afforded.

 

[KNERSIE]

This thread is a plethora of uninformed opinion. I suggest you go to the 5 bar X forum and check out the linebreeding thread on the Breeding systems page if you want to learn something.

Why wouldn't you want to bring your knowledge on the subject to this forum? When you see someone is wrong correct them. I for one would appreciate being corrected where I am wrong.
I really don't have time to search through a few thousand posts nor do I want to get on another forum.

novatech, I've read the threads mentioned. If you're truly interested in linebreeding, it's worth your time to read them - as there are posters in that thread that have spent more time studying linebreeding in cattle , and ACTUALLY doing it, than you and I could imagine. There's also some other forums with information worth seeking - when it comes to linebreeding.

I once participated in a Yahoo! group about linebreeding where some of the posters in the threads mentioned used to post before the group owner disbanded the group. The loss of that group and the hundreds of posts archived in it was a tremendous loss, in MNTBHO. I feel fortunate that I was able to read a lot of the posts before it was disbanded. Had I known that was going to happen, I would have archived those posts for my own reference.

Frankly, the "opinion" concerning linebreeding that ranchmanager has put forth in this thread is so farfetched and fundamentally wrong that it's hardly worth addressing. It's like arguing with someone who swears that the sun rises in the west - or with HerefordSire when he takes a theorem and misapplies it to cattle breeding. Caveat Emptor.

George

I agree.

 

[dun]

Pardon my ignorance but why was it the correct response to kill the bull and toss the semen. If his daughters did EXACTLY what they were supposed to do why not treat him like what he was, a "terminal" sire and breed milkers out of him and get the replacements somewhere else?

In the dairy world the terminal bull isn;t much of a viable option. Most dairys retain their own replacements. The daughters of these cows would have no "honest" value. Selling them would damage the producers reputation. Better to eliminate the source of the problem.

 

[HerefordSire]

I didn't mean to upset anyone. This is a sore subject with me. However, yes linebreeding is inbreeding. If you have line-bred cattle, then you just have to accept the fact that you have in-bred livestock, dogs, whatever (hopefully not kids). You might experience some short-term gains as some of you suggest, however long-term line breeding will ALWAYS result in negative gene concentrations, statistically.

If you are "line breeding" you are "in breeding". If you are going to sell the animals for beef. It does'nt matter if you get a little inbreeding. Most producers who use the battery of bulls method wind up with some inbreeding. The problem with line/in breeding is that while trying to enhance some positive traits you will always, yes always, be advancing some inferior traits that will, yes will, make it to the surface sooner or later.

I'm sure inbred deer die off as one of you suggested when negative gene concentrations occur, but that is not a logical comparison with dometic animals. Do you want your cows to die off? We humans compensate for the deficiencies in our stock when something goes amiss and too often it's too profitable to cull a super producing animal because of one small defect. So we propagate it for it's benefits and down the road the negative aspects bite us in the hiney. Show horses today have feet that are too small for their weight. These show horse genes make it into work horse stock. Many show Arabs have backs that are too long to support riders (they are supposed to have one less vertebrae and short backs), many dog lines have hip dysplasia, hel), bull dogs can't even deliver naturally anymore. All births are cesarian. Domestic turkeys can't breed. Every Butterball is A.I.d because we breed them for breasts that are so big they cannot mount for breeding. Hemophilia used to run rampant in the royalty of Europe. It was a hugh problem for them, because they liked their cousins and were trying to keep pure, royal blood in the family. My examples are of the extreme, but my point is that if you are getting in/line breeding in your stock I would eat them if I was you and if you don't your heifers are going to be purchased by someone who will breed them and eventually or handiwork is going to affect us all. I simply won't accept inbreeding in my livestock if I can help it. My calves performance proves my point.

It happens all the time and most registered producers do line-breed to some degree. They are trying to enhance growth, milk, IMF, Ribeye area, etc. Their goal is not necesarily lbs of calf in the fall. Line breeding IS the reason we have common genetic maladies showing up in dogs, horses, cattle, etc. It IS the reason we experience herterosis today. Heterosis is seen when breeding composites of any species. Composites are statistically healthier and stronger that pure breed stock. Most calf producers, other than purebred producers, choose to cross two or more different lines i.e. Angus and Hereford for this reason. It always benefits the producer to do so becasue he/she statistically produces more lbs of beef with fewer health problems. It happens because the pure breeds are too genetically similar and crossing the breeds brings a positive genetic diversity 99.9% of the time.

If I was wrong, heterosis wouldn't even be a word.

I can see a couple of holes in your words. However, you have put allot of thought in this subject and I admire your courage to post your opinion here. Good job! I also believe your post is one of the better on the board I have read in quite sometime, beyond a shadow of a doubt.

 

[HerefordSire]

I probably used some bad examples trying to make a long story a short story. I see it caused some confusion. Humor me a moment and let me explain because I'm not advocating murder or that the only good breeding is composites, etc.. I simply fast forwarded to the long-term results of consistent in-breeding.

Take Cow A. She has a trait you really like and want to pass on. Call it trait X. The trait is fantastic and the likes have never been seen before. It has a value of 1.00.

You breed her to a bull that has a value of .96 for trait X. For arguments sake, let's say the trait has high heritability and it is a dominant gene.

The resulting calf will not be l.96 (it's not 1 + .96), but rather some weighted average between 1 and .96. We don't ever know exactly so we have to apply statistical probability to the outcome. Possibly, she might not even pass on her own values of trait X and her resulting calves might be duds, but we said trait X is highly inheritable and she has a high propensity to pass that gene onto her offspring (let's say we have high statistical confidence in this because her EPD's are high for trait X and the small standard deviation for trait X among her offspring, offsprings'offspring, and siblings, and siblings offspring gives us a high degree of confidence and accuracy that she will contribute trait X with high probability to her offspring. So, for arguments sake things work out great and her calf has a value of .99 for trait X because she influenced the genetic trait for X a little more than the bull did.

We are delighted and think, hmmm. If I breed her son to her I will increase trait X even more, but the actual result is you will not exceed the least common denominator (1.00), in fact without out-breeding to a bull with a higher value for trait X you will not even obtain a value of 1.00 again. You will only be concentrating other genetic traits. Most likely some you do not want, in a vain attempt to increase trait X.

Why do people line-breed (in-breed) then? For one, they start out-breeding to incorporate other traits and trait X starts to slip so they want to pull trait X back to it's former value or try to. Two, they hope to increase the propensity for that weighted average of trait X to be more influential in hopes of giving themselves a statistical advantage of passing on trait X in the future of future generations.

If you look at EPD's and/or semen catalogs you will often see accuracy values for different traits. These are statistical values based on algorithms used to try and quantify how likely that value is to be passed on. These are derived from looking at most of the animals related to the subject animal. Great EPDs with low accuracy, take with a grain of salt. Great EPDs with high accuracy, the animal is starting to prove itself statistically and your odds are improving.

Too often people think they are doubling up on their positive genetic traits because they think it is an equation of summation. They are mistaken and what they wind up doing is in-breeding unwanted genetic faults. A little inbreeding here, a little there, adds up quickly. In the wild inbreeding does occur. Mutations also occur. About, 1 in 3,000,000 mutations is beneficial. Nature takes care to weed out the poor breeding and unbeneficial mutations via survival of the fittest. We don't adhere to Mother Natures' rules.

This is why I cringe when people take line/inbreeding lightly. Line-breeding is inbreeding. We don't like the negative connotations of "in-breeding" so to be politically correct we call it "line-breeding". It has negative connotations for a reason. Once a dominant, negative trait is established it is with us for a long-long time. We concentrated bovine genes of most breeds when we all wanted polled breeding. We are doing it again to get black coats. Everything is going polled and black these days. We put a real shallow spot in the gene pool of many breed to accomplish this. Don't let your keel get stuck on a sand bar.

Could you please explain in an example how pre-potency works statisticly? Would there be a (law of nature) limit on pre-potency for a specific trait?

 

[KMacGinley]

This thread is a plethora of uninformed opinion. I suggest you go to the 5 bar X forum and check out the linebreeding thread on the Breeding systems page if you want to learn something.

Why wouldn't you want to bring your knowledge on the subject to this forum? When you see someone is wrong correct them. I for one would appreciate being corrected where I am wrong.
I really don't have time to search through a few thousand posts nor do I want to get on another forum.

Ok, here goes. Many people bring their own human sensibilities to this topic, which really do not apply to animals. At least if you are trying to produce uniform or reliable cattle.

If any of you remember when the picture of Cortachy boy was posted as the bull that was going to be bred to that popular genetics cow. You had extreme opposites. I stated then that breeding cattle was not like getting the temperature just right in a bathtub. It doesn't just average out. You could get extremes one way or the other.

If my goal is to produce traits that I admire in an animal, and I am not simply seeking the most terminal outcome I can, which is what most angus breeders today seem to be doing, Then I am going to breed like to like.

Some people think that having the highest weaning wt. calves is the only way to make money or to get bragging rights at the coffee shop or whatever. But there is more than one way to make a profit.

Let's say that we are selling burgers. Hamburgers and buffalo burgers. Hamburger costs $1.80 per lb and buffalo burgers are $4 per lb. Each buffalo burger costs me $1.00 for the patty, .20 for the bun, so I have $1.20 in cost. Hamburgers cost .42 for the patty and .20 for the bun so they cost me .62 cents. Obviously if I am selling them both for $2.00 each, The hamburger is much more profitable, but in a normal year, if the burgers were calves, the "hamburger" calves probably also sell for a higher price as well because they are smaller. And, if you will, I can probably run more cows on the same acres and produce more higher profit calves.

Here of course, I am talking about feed inputs, when you use terminal type genetics, it takes more inputs to support the platform. From what I see of the popular bloodlines of the british breeds they are for the most part trying to out continental the continentals.

I use this admittedly poor example because most people that I know that linebreed, are trying to produce what you might call average cattle. They could care less about any of the one trait selection that is going on so much in today's cattle industry. They are trying to concentrate what some might call convenience traits. Disposition, easy keeping, good udders, Longevity, feet and legs and capacity. Surprisingly when you concentrate on all these traits, you also seem to get attractive cattle as well. You lose the holstein look so prevelant in the angus breed today. You might also get great carcass charactoristics.

The linebreeder may not end up with the highest 205 day weights or yearling weights, but may end up with a balanced trait animal with "good" genes concentrated in it. Let's say it is a bull and I sell it to you because you like the way my cattle function. If your cattle are unrelated, there may be an increase in perfomance because even if they are of the same breed, we will now get some heterosis on the resulting calves.

But we may not if we are talking about pure weaning weight boost, if you have been using terminal type bulls. We will now have the convenience trait genes present, and they may or may not get expressed in this generation, depending on their dominance. We may get some calves that look and perform like their mother, we may get some in the middle or some like their sire.

Now you probably would not do this if your objective was to get the biggest calves with the biggest feed bill to produce them. But if your objective is to be average, you would keep the average heifers and sell the biggest and smallest and go back to the same place and get another bull to breed those heifers to.

You could also linebreed the terminal lines as well, but here we are using heterosis as a tool to seek higher and higher weaning and yearling epds, so it is little done. You saw what happened when it was done with precision.

As long as the cattle that you are linebreeding have no undesirable genes and you are concentrating good genes, no problem. I apologize if this is not helpful.

 

[backhoeboogie]

I apologize if this is not helpful.

No need to apologize. I didn't necessarily agree absolutely all of it, but it was very thoughtful and thought provoking.

I very much agree with your thoughts on basic structure etc. A sound cow that can produce for 18 years in my climate is more valuable than a cow that will only produce 8 or 10 years. Good conformation and the right breed is what I want.

 

[3waycross]

[

Ok, here goes. Many people bring their own human sensibilities to this topic, which really do not apply to animals. At least if you are trying to produce uniform or reliable cattle.

If any of you remember when the picture of Cortachy boy was posted as the bull that was going to be bred to that popular genetics cow. You had extreme opposites. I stated then that breeding cattle was not like getting the temperature just right in a bathtub. It doesn't just average out. You could get extremes one way or the other.

If my goal is to produce traits that I admire in an animal, and I am not simply seeking the most terminal outcome I can, which is what most angus breeders today seem to be doing, Then I am going to breed like to like.

Some people think that having the highest weaning wt. calves is the only way to make money or to get bragging rights at the coffee shop or whatever. But there is more than one way to make a profit.

Let's say that we are selling burgers. Hamburgers and buffalo burgers. Hamburger costs $1.80 per lb and buffalo burgers are $4 per lb. Each buffalo burger costs me $1.00 for the patty, .20 for the bun, so I have $1.20 in cost. Hamburgers cost .42 for the patty and .20 for the bun so they cost me .62 cents. Obviously if I am selling them both for $2.00 each, The hamburger is much more profitable, but in a normal year, if the burgers were calves, the "hamburger" calves probably also sell for a higher price as well because they are smaller. And, if you will, I can probably run more cows on the same acres and produce more higher profit calves.

Here of course, I am talking about feed inputs, when you use terminal type genetics, it takes more inputs to support the platform. From what I see of the popular bloodlines of the british breeds they are for the most part trying to out continental the continentals.

I use this admittedly poor example because most people that I know that linebreed, are trying to produce what you might call average cattle. They could care less about any of the one trait selection that is going on so much in today's cattle industry. They are trying to concentrate what some might call convenience traits. Disposition, easy keeping, good udders, Longevity, feet and legs and capacity. Surprisingly when you concentrate on all these traits, you also seem to get attractive cattle as well. You lose the holstein look so prevelant in the angus breed today. You might also get great carcass charactoristics.

The linebreeder may not end up with the highest 205 day weights or yearling weights, but may end up with a balanced trait animal with "good" genes concentrated in it. Let's say it is a bull and I sell it to you because you like the way my cattle function. If your cattle are unrelated, there may be an increase in perfomance because even if they are of the same breed, we will now get some heterosis on the resulting calves.

But we may not if we are talking about pure weaning weight boost, if you have been using terminal type bulls. We will now have the convenience trait genes present, and they may or may not get expressed in this generation, depending on their dominance. We may get some calves that look and perform like their mother, we may get some in the middle or some like their sire.

Now you probably would not do this if your objective was to get the biggest calves with the biggest feed bill to produce them. But if your objective is to be average, you would keep the average heifers and sell the biggest and smallest and go back to the same place and get another bull to breed those heifers to.

You could also linebreed the terminal lines as well, but here we are using heterosis as a tool to seek higher and higher weaning and yearling epds, so it is little done. You saw what happened when it was done with precision.

As long as the cattle that you are linebreeding have no undesirable genes and you are concentrating good genes, no problem. I apologize if this is not helpful.[/quote]

The one flaw in your example is that the buffalo burger would sell for at least $4.00 and thus make you more profit for the same amount of work. I'm just not smart enuf to correlate that to linebreeding.

 

[KMacGinley]

You are right and when we sold buffalo burgers we charged $4.00 for them, but we sold about 100 buffalo burgers compared to 3000 hamburgers And we ate buffalo burgers at home for awhile after that to use up all we couldn't sell.

In the cattle business, "buffalo burgers and hamburgers" fetch the same price per lb. and hamburgers often sell for more...

Of course good linebred breeding stock can also be pricey!

 

[EAT BEEF]

If your selling seedstock,wouldn't your job be to sell the most consistant product you can? Linebreeding might just be the best way to do that.I would rather let the customer take the cream.

If your selling calves by the pound it wouldn't make any sense to linebreed,but who cares what the factory looks like if the product is good and is produced in a efficient way? Maybe out of two linebeed lines that are an outcross.

We have alot of tools that we can use to produce beef,its up to us to use them in the manner that will make the most profit.

 

[novatech]

I have a question for those a lot more knowledgable than me. As this is one more thing I am still educating myself on.
As there are highly heritable traits and others low in heritability, shouldn't one concentrate more on the less heritable traits? Or is it necessary to start with the perfect cow, which does not exist? Are there traits that one would be more forgiving with such as frame size which can be brought in latter since it is highly heritable?

 

[KNERSIE]

I have a question for those a lot more knowledgable than me. As this is one more thing I am still educating myself on.
As there are highly heritable traits and others low in heritability, shouldn't one concentrate more on the less heritable traits?

You should ALWAYS select for the COMPLETE package, linebreeding doesn't tolerate single trait selection or even selective trait selection.

Or is it necessary to start with the perfect cow, which does not exist?

Here is the probably oversimplified version...... No, you need to identify a sire(s) that approximates your ideal of prefection as closely as possible, then use him on a group of cows that are strong in the areas where he might need some help. Continue with this cross as long as possible giving you as many with similar breeding to work with as possible. Retain only the very best heifers and the very best bull and breed them. Continue to use this bull untill he outbreeds himself or show flaws in his calves, etc. How close you breed depends on your ultimate goal with closebreeding and that is a debate on its own. Culling is the key to any closebreeding operation. If you don't have the discipline to cull even the slightest faults, or the knowledge to identify them, then closebreeding isn't for you, simple as that.

Are there traits that one would be more forgiving with such as frame size which can be brought in latter since it is highly heritable?

Always better to start as close to where you want to be as possible, bearing in mind linebreeding is more likely to make them smaller than to make them taller. Ideally the purists would say not to bring in outside blood, that's why the selection of the original population is so important. Having said that I would rather address an issue early on than be foolhardy and sit with a problem I cannot get out a few years down the line without going outside the line.

As it has been said before cattle breeding doesn't equate to the average of the two parents in real life, that only happens statistically because there isn't a better way to describe the random division of genes in the offspring. In theory 66% of the offspring will fall within one standard deviation of the average of the two parents. "IN THEORY" being the operative words here.