marbling and tenderness genes

[clem]

Lakadino, I have been culling hard, and I do have animals that do well with little or no feed, I feed once a week to keep them coming to me. It works for me and in my situation feeding more would be pampering them. This could be an expensive
hobby, but I need a return on my money.

 

[KMacGinley]

We have decided not to use any bulls that do not have
a perfect tenderness score---because we sell beef.[/quote]

Do you consider any other traits or do you just go with tenderness?

 

[OK Jeanne]

Well, in addition to tenderness propensity,we insist on fertility, docile nature, big hindquarter, balanced, good feet, low birthweight, and so on. We want steers that will finish at about 1200 lbs on forage, at 22-23 months of age or less(depending on quality/quantity of forage). Those things are really not hard to find.

Re EPDs, we are not so much interested in whether a steer
can gain 2 vs. 2.4 lbs per day...tenderness/flavor is what
brings the customers back w/o any more effort on our
part after that first sale of beef. Rate of gain is very
important to those folks that produce for the feedlots,
but it's not as important to us as the tenderness factor.

 

[KMacGinley]

Are you guys direct marketing your beef to the consumer, I assume? I do that too. Never gave tenderness testing much thought, not had any complaints.

 

[KMacGinley]

Are you guys direct marketing your beef to the consumer, I assume? I do that too. Never gave tenderness testing much thought, not had any complaints.

 

[greenwillowherefords]

Clem, if you contact the American Hereford Association, they can provide you with info on bulls that have tested well for the tenderness gene. I've seen some info on several that looked promising. It's obvious that you like Herefords, and there are plenty of genetics within your chosen breed to get you where you want to be. Colorado State tests years ago proved that Hereford beef even in Select was preferred by taste testers over upper two thirds USDA Choice "Mine run."

 

[SEC]

Kit Pharo gets a lot of press for thoughts that many people in the cattle world have. I would doubt that he is the only cattle breeder in the world who raises his cattle pretty "ranchy". I am not taking anything away from his accomplishments but I know that there are many other good minds making the cattle work for them, they just don't have the time to blab about it.

Secondly, we all know that there is no ideal frame. There are many different scenarios for many people. There is a market for everything some sectors can handle more than others.

Good cattle make good beef, that may sound outdated but I would like to know how many people have killed a very good british cross animal and have had a bad eating experience.

 

[greenwillowherefords]

Kit Pharo gets a lot of press for thoughts that many people in the cattle world have. I would doubt that he is the only cattle breeder in the world who raises his cattle pretty "ranchy". I am not taking anything away from his accomplishments but I know that there are many other good minds making the cattle work for them, they just don't have the time to blab about it.

Secondly, we all know that there is no ideal frame. There are many different scenarios for many people. There is a market for everything some sectors can handle more than others.

Good cattle make good beef, that may sound outdated but I would like to know how many people have killed a very good british cross animal and have had a bad eating experience.

Well stated. I've yet to have a bad one, and I raise a couple a year for beef.

Most of my friends don't feed anything besides range cubes in the winter. I buy twenty dollar hay, so I provide some cubes in the winter to keep protein levels up. Something like $1.75 per head per week's worth. In the spring and summer, just a small treat two or three times a week when I go check on them. I mean just a few mouthfuls and that is it. When I want to work them, they will come right into the corral for a snack. I don't have very good pastures. I'd love to see what mine would do with the kind of grass that would give them their full potential, but I can't complain as it is.

 

[OK Jeanne]

Yes, we do direct-market beef, since 1995.

The point the GeneStar office manager made to me was
that there are tender bloodlines in every breed - even
brahman. It's just that the favorable genes are more
prevalent in some breeds than others. This DNA
testing gave the breeds with a "tough" reputation a
chance to weed out the tough bloodlines and multiply
on the good ones; just as the Santa Gertrudis folks
are doing.

 

[MikeC]

Yes, we do direct-market beef, since 1995.

The point the GeneStar office manager made to me was
that there are tender bloodlines in every breed - even
brahman. It's just that the favorable genes are more
prevalent in some breeds than others. This DNA
testing gave the breeds with a "tough" reputation a
chance to weed out the tough bloodlines and multiply
on the good ones; just as the Santa Gertrudis folks
are doing.

Jeanne, The tenderness gene testing can only be a good thing for beef consumption as a whole, but until there is an incentive for producers to cull and select for tenderness it will get us nowhere very fast.

The USDA grading system allows nothing for tenderness, only yield grades and quality grades are economically important carcass traits for beef producers at this time.

In addition, there are so many variables in the DNA of the animals detected with the tenderness genes, the Genestar tests are only 6% accurate for detecting cattle that actually have tender meat. (According to Lisa Kriese-Andersen, Animal Science Professor at Auburn University, who is very studied in this field)

 

[OK Jeanne]

The method used to validate the tenderness testing was:

test many many animals to see if they had one copy, two
copies, or no copies of the relevant factors

then slaughter those animals

then do a shear force test on the meat

then compare the results for each animal on the shear
force test with their result on the dna test.....


so I can't see how one could argue with the validity of
the tests....this is the way MARC does it.

When there were only two factors being used(i.e. four
dna points examined)(4 "stars"), the difference in
shear force tests showed a 1.5 to 2.5 difference in
the force required when comparing zero "star" animals
to 4 "star" animals. IMO a shear force test is the only
statistical way the dna locations on the genome could
be proven.

Personally, I have noticed that the more people are
emotionally and financially wedded to the EPD system,
the more they ignore any other scientific method
that comes along....YMMV.

When you say that tenderness is not important to beef
producers, I think you mean that it is not important
to those beef producers in the commercial system set
up for feedlot production. Tenderness is the most
important factor for producers that direct-market, IMO.

I would suspect that the expert you are quoting might
be saying that the presently discovered DNA factors
for tenderness likely only represent 6% of the potential
(as yet undiscovered) factors that are present in the
genome. It's hard to see how someone could argue
against MARC's system of shear force testing.

 

[OK Jeanne]

I did not explain the "1.5 to 2.5"sorry) Here's the full
quote:

"Multiple studies have shown a 1.5 to 2.5 pound reduction in shear force when comparing O-Star to 4-Star animals. This includes an independent validation by the National Beef Cattle Evaluation Consortium."

 

[paul swisher]

I am glad this subject came up again. When the chart was posted I didn't agree with it but took some research time for me to get what I was looking for. Bovigen told me that they have stopped making such charts because they give a false picture of any breed. Because all animals are not tested. What the chart shows is more like a herd result rather than a breed. Although Pinzgauers are not on the list, because of limited testing(less than 100), they probably are closer to a real breed result. 4 of the original 5 bulls imported into the US have been tested plus 6 more that were Austrian imports. We have 84.4% 2 star or better. I have all Pinzgauer results not just public published ones. I laugh at Murray Grey combining the two scores to get one percentage. If you combine the two scores you must double the animals tested to get a percentage not just add the two together. As for grass fed Herefords contact Tennessee Music.. Randy has done great work with both his Herefords and Red Pols and is probably the most knowledgable grass fed rancher around. He has a link here at Cattle Today Home page.

 

[OK Jeanne]

There were no more breed comparison charts made after
the Bovigen(angus breeder) folks bought the GeneStar
rights for this continent. The charts were bad for their
business.....I understand why people cannot/will not accept the
figures. But anyway you look at it, the Murray Greys had
a higher percentage of one and two star animals for each
tenderness factor when the factors are viewed together,
as in "a complete tenderness score". But , IMO, there
are tender bloodlines in every breed.

 

[TSR]

:?: I learn so much from this forum, it seems like all I do is post questions, and don't contribute much, but, I don't feel like I'm experienced enough to add anything of value. I was wondering which breeds are more likely to carry the marbling and tenderness genes, and how do you find out if a bull has these genes? Also, the semen sources i've looked at have very good looking bulls, but, I'm lookimg for a source that feeds little or no grain. I like Kit Pharo's philosophies (http://www.pharocattle.com) but this is the only source I can find does anyone know of any other sources of semen where the bulls aren't pampered. I raise herefords. Thanks, Clem :lol:

Clem what part of Mississippi are you from ? I might be able to help you.

 

[clem]

TSR,
I live in Philadelphia, MS, in the east central part of the state. Thanks, Clem

 

[TSR]

TSR,
I live in Philadelphia, MS, in the east central part of the state. Thanks, Clem

Well Clem you are a little farther south in Miss. than I had hoped. I would agree with Mr. Sanson that if you are wanting some easy fleshing Angus bulls look at the $en rating. I have some of the upper and lower ratings in my herd and as a rule the better (higher) the $en rating the easier fleshing they are. I fed my herd cornstalk hay and trace mineral salt from Thanksgiving '05 until about Jan. '06 this year and I was amazed at how those $en figures accuracies were displayed,especially by some bulls I raised and retained. BTW I live in extreme NW Tennessee.

 

[dph]

I too disagree with Mike's assessment that they can't prove the validity of the tenderness genes. All studies I have seen, prove a reduction in shear force with an increasing number of genes. What is interesting to note is that Bovigen also markets a differnet tenderness gene in Austrailia because it only seems to have an impact on grass feed beef. The have also identified a tenderness gene that seems to be absent in exotic breeds and very prevalent in the domestic (?) ones.

The marbling genes also seem to have been proven out the same way. Though I think they have a lot farther to go there.
There are many genes yet to identify. But one could also argue, even with some genes currently being unknown, it's better to have the known ones than not.

Right, it will take awhile to get there. But I think once they get there, they will get there in a hurry. How long will it take a producer to breed these genes in your herd? We simply use them as a selection tool. Phenotype the most important, then taking a look at acceptable EPDs, then taking a look at the gene test. I think the program will follow how the CAB program came about.

 

[Frankie]

If I had the choice in using two bulls, similar quality, I'd use the one with DNA markers for tenderness and marbling. But I think there's a lot of work left to be done in identifying how those genes actually work. For example, in the current Oklahoma Cowman magazine, Dr Glenn Selk, OK State Animal Science Dept, has results of work done at the University of IL and ISU on predicting carcass composition. They studied 1) realtime ultrasound; 2) live evaluation; 3)carcass EPDs and 4) GeneStar marbling. Over a 4-year period 192 Simmental steers were fed. DNA analysis was used to categorize steers as 0, 1 or 2STAR. The primary results showed the GeneSTAR mabling DNA marker was not an accurate indicator of IMF. Marbling EPD was correlated to IMF; live visual evaluation better estimated YG than quality grade; realtime ultrasound most accurately predicted marbling, carcass value and profit.

Source: Rincker and co-workers. 2006. Professional Animal Scientist. Vol. 22:144-152.

 

[mtnman]

Well, by the time we get about 2 or 3 more sets of genes for these traits, most folks will be so confused how to use them that the EPD are easier to use.

I get a kick out of some of it, though. A bunch of these old guys that don't like EPD like these genes. They don't like single trait selection, but love single gene selection.

mtnman