More on Fawn Calf Syndrome

[Frankie]

I don't have any problem with a messenger of facts and truth. I do have a problem with gossip and rumor. Dr. Steffen is a respected researcher at Nebraska. Do you have a respected researcher ANYWHERE that disagrees with his statement? No. You have rumor and gossip.

OK some truth, but I don't think you can handle it.

2 years ago, a commercial customer of mine had 4 suspected snorter dwarf calves born in his herd sired by a bull we sold him and out of essentially straight black angus cows but from a polled Hereford base. Of these calves one was dead at birth, another euthanized and necropsied, another died and one is still alive at a tad over 2 years old. We reported all of this to the AAA, tissue samples sent to Dr. Steffan, DNA parentage confirmed on sire, dams and progeny and the sire was dna typed to his sire. Essentially we were fobbed off, met with very little in the way of cooperation in resolving this. Since then the admin at AAA has changed and with it a new attitude in dealing with genetic abnormalities and defects. Don and Bryce have a lot on their plate right now with AM, NH and FCS, not to mention the itty bitty calves, but we expect and we will continue to push for a resolution on this case and others. BTW, I happened to be judging a small show in PA last summer and lo and behold in one class there was what appeared to be a 18 month old dwarf, 800lbs, fat and displaying the same phenotype that we observed in my commercial customers herd. We got photos of him and the AAA has information on all of the above.

Secondly, in 2006 we observed what appeared to be a FCS case in another commercial customers herd, the cows were from registered Angus base but papers were not kept, the sire of the calf was a son of Bando 5175. Again, we got photographic evidence and tail hair samples, if you really want to know I can post a link to the photos. Again, AAA has been informed of this case and the reg number of the sire.

You can attempt to dismiss me as a gossip or rumor monger but I will tell you this, I have first hand experience with these genetic defects, and we will continue to aggressively seek the source of the defects. While a great many folks have been affected by AM and NH they were bloodlines we avoided for mainly functional reasons however we considered the information obtained from reliable fellow breeders about potential defects seriously and while several useful bulls appeared we continued to avoid them, luck or judgement, you decide.

As for other defects, the itty bitty deal is intriguing however I suspect that when we're all said and done the itty bitty's, long heads and snorters will have some common and predictable ancestry. But feel free to do your own research, the pedigrees are out there if you choose to actually educate yourself on these issues.

Finally, while you are entitled to think my question about Wehrmanns 'gossip' I have looked into their breeding program closely for many years, initially intrigued by their naming/numbering system that appealed to my nerdy side. From the late '80's until '93 or '94 they were intensely linebreeding 9J9, shortly after that they went to GAR for 2536. Today the only female lines that descend from 5H11 are from 9FB2 and an EXT flushmate to 3X25. They tested their entire herd and had a carrier rate of about 25%, within that they had only 1 out of 27 daughters of 2536 as carriers (3.8%). Draw your own conclusions.

Wehrmann didn't "gossip". It was you who claimed they said something they didn't. Based on that, your comments don't hold water on anything to me. And I'll continue to post that on these boards.

 

[Frankie]

DOC and OT: Consipiracy theories abound. On one hand I get regular emails from Angus producers who say the AAA has gone too far with the new rules for registration of defective animals. On the other hand, we have you two lamblasting them for not doing enough. Does that, indeed, show that they're doing exactly the right thing? :lol:

IMO, they're doing good. They've identified genetic defects and banned registration of new animals carrying the defects. They didn't do it in a timeline you like? You'll just have to live with that....or not. I can.

 

[EAT BEEF]

Yes frankie the AAA is perfect and always makes the right choice. :roll:


Does the AAA pay you or do you pay the AAA.I see alot of the same problems in the AAA as I do in Washington.

 

[Brandonm22]

I think Bryce Schumann is doing an excellent (and gutty) job. Given some of the heavyweight criticism that he has received publicly (he defended himself admirably in the last Angus Journal) I think he will be lucky to hang on for five years. While throwing no stones at anyone else.....it does "LOOK" awfully suspicious that a year ago today (before Bryce took over) we probably would have said with some degree of confidence that: 'There are no serious genetic defects in Angus cattle' and been able to make a plausible case for that position. Now we have identified THREE seperate defects and ~10-25% of the breed appears to be compromised. The rocket pace at which we are 'discovering' these things really does make one wonder who knew what and how long have they known it.

 

[Frankie]

I think Bryce Schumann is doing an excellent (and gutty) job. Given some of the heavyweight criticism that he has received publicly (he defended himself admirably in the last Angus Journal) I think he will be lucky to hang on for five years. While throwing no stones at anyone else.....it does "LOOK" awfully suspicious that a year ago today (before Bryce took over) we probably would have said with some degree of confidence that: 'There are no serious genetic defects in Angus cattle' and been able to make a plausible case for that position. Now we have identified THREE seperate defects and ~10-25% of the breed appears to be compromised. The rocket pace at which we are 'discovering' these things really does make one wonder who knew what and how long have they known it.

We can identify defects much quicker than we could even ten years ago because the bovine DNA has been "mapped." Plus communications are so much quicker; photos sent over the internet instead of through the mail, for example. There may be more defects out there in any breed that won't show up until a linebreeder brings them to the forefront. Most of us have very little chance of having an affected calf. But when linebreeders inbreed enough some of these buried genetic defects will show up.

 

[Frankie]

Yes frankie the AAA is perfect and always makes the right choice. :roll:


Does the AAA pay you or do you pay the AAA.I see alot of the same problems in the AAA as I do in Washington.

The American Angus Assn is run by human beings. They're not perfect. But what I do believe is that they will do what's best for the breed. I can't ask more than that of them.

 

[DOC HARRIS]

DOC and OT: Consipiracy theories abound. On one hand I get regular emails from Angus producers who say the AAA has gone too far with the new rules for registration of defective animals. On the other hand, we have you two lamblasting them for not doing enough. Does that, indeed, show that they're doing exactly the right thing? :lol:

IMO, they're doing good. They've identified genetic defects and banned registration of new animals carrying the defects. They didn't do it in a timeline you like? You'll just have to live with that....or not. I can.

Frankie-

In the four years that I have been contributing to this Forum, I have come to realize that sometimes your concept of what is written on these posts is inaccurate, or perhaps illusory. In regard to THIS particular thread, you are just FLAT wrong!

TO WIT: Nowhere in my post of May 7, 2009 @ 10:32 pm did I mention, refer to, allude to, or insinuate that the AAA (American Angus Association) was not doing enough! My ire was, and still is, directed toward those beef cattle producers who have subverted truth and honesty in their business dealings with their fellow Breeders - seemingly to their own advantages! Anyone, who will desire to read these posts with an open mind, should be able to understand that concept.

I resent your inferences and implications that I am opposed to what the AAA is doing in regard to identifying genetic defects. I agree and concur with their actions up to this point. I have faith that they will continue to pursue these inherent genetic problems with determination and resoluteness, as the current Board of Directors seems to be doing. Notwithstanding, in NO way have I alluded to a "timeline", as you stated.

But, for you to imply and insinuate that I am a part of a 'conspiracy theory' (your spelling of "conspiracy" is incorrect) is absolutely incorrect, is a veiled accusation, and borders on ASSAULT to my integrity - to which I take strong offense! I have realized that you are often acerbic in your written opinions, and that is understood, recognizing your affinity to the Angus Breed, and your veneration of a few of the more 'established' producers within the breed. However, I feel that does not give you license to cast aspersions and inuendoes toward someone with whom you may disagree.

Words mean things, Frankie, and it is important that you understand what your words may lead others to conclude.

DOC HARRIS

 

[Willow Springs]

We can identify defects much quicker than we could even ten years ago because the bovine DNA has been "mapped." Plus communications are so much quicker; photos sent over the internet instead of through the mail, for example. There may be more defects out there in any breed that won't show up until a linebreeder brings them to the forefront. Most of us have very little chance of having an affected calf. But when linebreeders inbreed enough some of these buried genetic defects will show up.

This is true, but it also true that the AAA and CAA have abnormal calf reports. If breeders had filled these out and reported them to the associations as required (with pictures and pedigrees) the link would have been made long ago; some would say that it was made and ignored. From what I understand those that did report abnormal calves hit a brick wall at the AAA.

As others have said; I think it is very important to note that the leadership is very different in the AAA now versus then and very rapid progress is being made on cleaning things up.

At the end of the day we need to worry about our commercial customers in this. It is a very manageble issue. Identify carriers in your herd, talk to buyers of the bulls and make sure they know the issues. Help them through this so that they know what lines not to stack. Nothing wrong with them keeping good commercial carrier cows if they buy from reputable breeders who make sure the bulls they are selling are (known) genetic defect free.

As I wrote another site; at the end of the day these defects are no different than eliminating poor feet, poor udders, hard calving, maneaters and all the other things we cull for. I cull more females becasue of poor feet, udders, fleshing ability, etc than I have or probably ever will becasue of "genetic defects"; many of these are from AI bulls, show bulls, etc. Did someone know what was happening? Did someone know that the bull would sire bad udders? Of course someone knew. Are bad udders a genetic defect? Of course they are; they are controlled (mainly) by DNA the same as these others we are discussing. It's just that these new "genetic defects" have a more immediate down side at birth and a much bigger stigma attached to them because of it.

The sooner the frenzy stops and management of these issues begins the better.

 

[HerefordSire]

Doc...want a Hereford on rye with some pickles and mustard and lettuce and tomatoes?
:shock: :shock: :shock: :shock:

 

[Frankie]

DOC and OT: Consipiracy theories abound. On one hand I get regular emails from Angus producers who say the AAA has gone too far with the new rules for registration of defective animals. On the other hand, we have you two lamblasting them for not doing enough. Does that, indeed, show that they're doing exactly the right thing? :lol:

IMO, they're doing good. They've identified genetic defects and banned registration of new animals carrying the defects. They didn't do it in a timeline you like? You'll just have to live with that....or not. I can.

Frankie-

In the four years that I have been contributing to this Forum, I have come to realize that sometimes your concept of what is written on these posts is inaccurate, or perhaps illusory. In regard to THIS particular thread, you are just FLAT wrong!

TO WIT: Nowhere in my post of May 7, 2009 @ 10:32 pm did I mention, refer to, allude to, or insinuate that the AAA (American Angus Association) was not doing enough! My ire was, and still is, directed toward those beef cattle producers who have subverted truth and honesty in their business dealings with their fellow Breeders - seemingly to their own advantages! Anyone, who will desire to read these posts with an open mind, should be able to understand that concept.

I resent your inferences and implications that I am opposed to what the AAA is doing in regard to identifying genetic defects. I agree and concur with their actions up to this point. I have faith that they will continue to pursue these inherent genetic problems with determination and resoluteness, as the current Board of Directors seems to be doing. Notwithstanding, in NO way have I alluded to a "timeline", as you stated.

But, for you to imply and insinuate that I am a part of a 'conspiracy theory' (your spelling of "conspiracy" is incorrect) is absolutely incorrect, is a veiled accusation, and borders on ASSAULT to my integrity - to which I take strong offense! I have realized that you are often acerbic in your written opinions, and that is understood, recognizing your affinity to the Angus Breed, and your veneration of a few of the more 'established' producers within the breed. However, I feel that does not give you license to cast aspersions and inuendoes toward someone with whom you may disagree.

Words mean things, Frankie, and it is important that you understand what your words may lead others to conclude.

DOC HARRIS

My apologies, DOC. Your rant, following on OT's, simply lead me to believe that you felt the same as he did. Now I see that your conspiracy theory is about BREEDERS, not the Assn. My mistake.

 

[Oldtimer]

I think Bryce Schumann is doing an excellent (and gutty) job. Given some of the heavyweight criticism that he has received publicly (he defended himself admirably in the last Angus Journal) I think he will be lucky to hang on for five years. While throwing no stones at anyone else.....it does "LOOK" awfully suspicious that a year ago today (before Bryce took over) we probably would have said with some degree of confidence that: 'There are no serious genetic defects in Angus cattle' and been able to make a plausible case for that position. Now we have identified THREE seperate defects and ~10-25% of the breed appears to be compromised. The rocket pace at which we are 'discovering' these things really does make one wonder who knew what and how long have they known it.

Brandon-- I could not agree with you more....I have no problems in the current actions and direction of the AAA--but when you look at some of the reports of what was/wasn't occurring over the past 10 years you have to wonder- coverup- incompetency- or just asleep at the wheel..... :???: And if more postitive actions had been taken then- could it have prevented the severity of the wreck today :???:

 

[Brandonm22]

Frankie very could well be right and everybody acted promptly and heroically in all of this and nobody anywhere ever ignored evidence that something was awry. I still look at 5000++ REGISTERED Precision daughters and who knows how many sons and commercial daughters went to work in commercial herds and my mind boggles at the thought of there being NOT one but two lethal recessives there and it took THIS LONG for anybody to pick up on it??? How many commercial guys used Precision sons then 5 or 6 years later bought CA Future Direction sons? Maybe these defects cause increased fetal losses; because the number of known affected calves on the ground never equals the number that SHOULD be lost in a simple recessive scenario.

 

[DOC HARRIS]

DOC and OT: Consipiracy theories abound. On one hand I get regular emails from Angus producers who say the AAA has gone too far with the new rules for registration of defective animals. On the other hand, we have you two lamblasting them for not doing enough. Does that, indeed, show that they're doing exactly the right thing? :lol:

IMO, they're doing good. They've identified genetic defects and banned registration of new animals carrying the defects. They didn't do it in a timeline you like? You'll just have to live with that....or not. I can.

Frankie-

In the four years that I have been contributing to this Forum, I have come to realize that sometimes your concept of what is written on these posts is inaccurate, or perhaps illusory. In regard to THIS particular thread, you are just FLAT wrong!

TO WIT: Nowhere in my post of May 7, 2009 @ 10:32 pm did I mention, refer to, allude to, or insinuate that the AAA (American Angus Association) was not doing enough! My ire was, and still is, directed toward those beef cattle producers who have subverted truth and honesty in their business dealings with their fellow Breeders - seemingly to their own advantages! Anyone, who will desire to read these posts with an open mind, should be able to understand that concept.

I resent your inferences and implications that I am opposed to what the AAA is doing in regard to identifying genetic defects. I agree and concur with their actions up to this point. I have faith that they will continue to pursue these inherent genetic problems with determination and resoluteness, as the current Board of Directors seems to be doing. Notwithstanding, in NO way have I alluded to a "timeline", as you stated.

But, for you to imply and insinuate that I am a part of a 'conspiracy theory' (your spelling of "conspiracy" is incorrect) is absolutely incorrect, is a veiled accusation, and borders on ASSAULT to my integrity - to which I take strong offense! I have realized that you are often acerbic in your written opinions, and that is understood, recognizing your affinity to the Angus Breed, and your veneration of a few of the more 'established' producers within the breed. However, I feel that does not give you license to cast aspersions and inuendoes toward someone with whom you may disagree.

Words mean things, Frankie, and it is important that you understand what your words may lead others to conclude.

DOC HARRIS

My apologies, DOC. Your rant, following on OT's, simply lead me to believe that you felt the same as he did. Now I see that your conspiracy theory is about BREEDERS, not the Assn. My mistake.

Frankie-

A part of your mistake is acknowledged, with the exception that I do NOT have a conspiracy theory in what you refer to as my rant! I accept your apology, with this admonition: understand your facts before you present them as gospel!

DOC HARRIS

 

[Frankie]

No, DOC. Here's the post I responded to:

As the old saying goes - "WHAT GOES AROUND - COMES AROUND!"

It seems that the same old story of Greed, Selfishness, Immorality, Cheating, Lying, and Covetousness shows its ugly head sooner or later! When the Son's of Old Adam attempt to play GOD, the Powers that ultimately establish Truth and Honesty come into play, and misdeeds meet their match!

I have seen this kind of human frailty in other Industries, as well as Livestock, and invariably deceit looses - in one way - or usually - several. Unfortunately, these problems take longer to discern and settle than those on the loosing end would prefer.

BUT - in the long run, the deceivers and perpetrators will come up against a high, hard wall that they cannot climb over, or dig through. It seems, from reading these posts, that time is running out for some, and that it is time for others to turn their attention to IMPROVEMENT by education, understanding FACTS of Genetics, and application of that knowledge toward the regeneration of their affected herds, and look to the future. It may take some time, given the longer gestation periods and growth factors of cattle, but - the sooner you begin, the quicker you will get where you are going!

It is time to read the handwriting on the wall, face the facts, and stop with the accusations, finger-pointing, and cover-ups, and get on with breeding quality beef cattle in as pure a manner as it is possible under the circumstances. Truth is truth, wherever it can be found!

It appears that "rumor and gossip" is, in reality, "Truth and Facts!"

It doesn't name names or agencies, but since it was posted following another one that was taking the AAA to task, I don't think it's unreasonable to think it was aimed at AAA. If you had not been so busy with the CAPS and high talk and make clearer your point in this post....But you weren't and I made a mistake and I'm not too small to apologize. Then you followed up with

My ire was, and still is, directed toward those beef cattle producers who have subverted truth and honesty in their business dealings with their fellow Breeders - seemingly to their own advantages! Anyone, who will desire to read these posts with an open mind, should be able to understand that concept.

You're calling Angus breeders and producers liars and crooks. Without proof, I might add. Conspiracy theory.

 

[RD-Sam]

Maybe they should change the title of this thread to "Let's beat up on Frankie". :lol2:

 

[BARNSCOOP]

Okay you two...(Frankie and Doc) when my children acted like this it was time for a nap or a time out. I appears you guys have the same goals but address each other with asperity. Forgive and forget it, then let it go.

 

[Frankie]

Maybe they should change the title of this thread to "Let's beat up on Frankie". :lol2:

Shhh. :lol: :lol:

 

[RD-Sam]

Maybe they should change the title of this thread to "Let's beat up on Frankie". :lol2:

Shhh. :lol: :lol:

I think they are all getting frustrated, black angus is still #1 even after all the crap they went through lately. :lol2:

 

[BARNSCOOP]

Sam, that's called "stirring the pot".

 

[robert]

Finally, while you are entitled to think my question about Wehrmanns 'gossip' I have looked into their breeding program closely for many years, initially intrigued by their naming/numbering system that appealed to my nerdy side. From the late '80's until '93 or '94 they were intensely linebreeding 9J9, shortly after that they went to GAR for 2536. Today the only female lines that descend from 5H11 are from 9FB2 and an EXT flushmate to 3X25. They tested their entire herd and had a carrier rate of about 25%, within that they had only 1 out of 27 daughters of 2536 as carriers (3.8%). Draw your own conclusions.

Wehrmann didn't "gossip". It was you who claimed they said something they didn't. Based on that, your comments don't hold water on anything to me. And I'll continue to post that on these boards.

I didn't say wehrmanns gossiped I said that you were entitled to think my question about the Wehrmann program was gossip.

But never mind, would you like another pail to carry the water for them?