Polled Hereford Cattle Plan III – Expansion Phase

[Tom Underwood]

I've enjoyed reading the exchanges. I think that Herefordsire has learned quite a bit in the last few months, and his plan continues to improve. I was initially skeptical about his prospects, but I now think that he could be sucked in and become a lifelong breeder that could add value to the breed in many years.

Now that inbreeding and prepotency have been added into the plan, and now that Lents' cattle are being considered, perhaps his original genetic base may even be re-evaluated.

The great thing about cattle breeding is that most breeders want to tell you what they've learned from their years in the business. The more I learn, the more questions I have.

 

[HerefordSire]

Lots of posts and pages by one or two people who's writings are a lot alike in context and spelling.
Lots of postulating, cutting and pasting really makes me wonder how many people are one and the same?
I will admit that some of it makes sense but if it were me i would be on the phone instead of spending all this time typing :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll:

What makes sense and what doesn't make sense?

In my view the telephone is handy if an emergency occurs or to reduce the amount of time or money to accomplish a specific task, like a transaction. However, when creative idea exchanging is involved, and we are trying learn and to help others, the phone is not my preferred method. Just imagine if you had to take a calculus class over the phone. Secondly, this media is saved for the public to view at will which means we are held accountable, at least while we use the same moniker, and we can therefore learn at our own pace. Finally, last but not all, this is a great place to meet intelligent people and or experienced people in which to build a foundation to accomplish whatever our passion is.

 

[HerefordSire]

:stop: :cboy: Apparently Hereford Sire, there is a contingent here who's dander is raised due to our exchange. Invariably in my message board experiences, it seems whenever some few individuals put cohesive thoughts together that continue past a few lines of simpleton drivel, someone is not happy. :roll: Thus my choice to lurk most of the time here rather than post.

Therefore why don't you drop me an e-mail [email protected] and I shall reply to you there. I enjoy sharing ideas, but in regard to a response here, another Biblical verse comes to mind regarding "pearls and swine". ;-)

It was a real pleasure studying your words.

Matthew 7:6

 

[HerefordSire]

There ARE longterm effects to excessive inbreeding in humans.

http://talk.dnadirect.com/category/ashk ... -diseases/

I don't know if they had these problems in Moses's time or NOT.



If I were to guess, I would think inbreeding over relatively long periods of time, like in my example, would push most gene combinations to the surface, good and bad, and the resulting subject's immediate line of heritage would cease to exist if negative maybe due to the "survival of the fittest" theory... which includes intellectual fitness such as having the knowledge of restricting the negatively traited carrier of the gene combination to breed.

In the text in which you provided a link to, the author mentioned a 1 in 80 chance for this specific race to carry the genetic trait forward which may imply a 1 in 160 person inbreeds with a 1 in 160 person and they produced a 1 in 80 person which suffers the trait in question. If the 1 in 80 person were to die, the two 1 in 160 persons may have one less opportunity to pass it along. On the other hand, it could imply a 1 in 80 person produced offspring with a non-carrier which would lower the percentage of carriers if all things were equal.

I believe the number of genes in bovines are much less than homo-sapiens although the time of conception to birth is almost equivalent.

 

[Brandonm2]

If I were to guess, I would think inbreeding over relatively long periods of time, like in my example, would push most gene combinations to the surface, good and bad, and the resulting subject's immediate line of heritage would cease to exist if negative maybe due to the "survival of the fittest" theory... which includes intellectual fitness such as having the knowledge of restricting the negatively traited carrier of the gene combination to breed.

Mendellian Genetics has only been accepted by the scientific community for ~100 years. Terms and concepts like "carriers" "recessives" "heterozygous" "homozygous" etc would be completely unknown to breeders before the 20th century. In fact, Hereford and Angus breeders did not grasp what was happening with the dwarf gene for many many years. IN human genetics, (prior to any understanding of genetics) IF you had a child born with some sort of defect....you just blamed God (or yourself for angering God) and then went back and bred again and hoped for the best. Precontraceptives, most couples had several pregnancies and it was fairly COMMON to lose infants or small children.

 

[HerefordSire]

I've enjoyed reading the exchanges. I think that Herefordsire has learned quite a bit in the last few months, and his plan continues to improve. I was initially skeptical about his prospects, but I now think that he could be sucked in and become a lifelong breeder that could add value to the breed in many years.

I was hoping someone like MY would come along and slap me in the face (politely point me in the right direction) using his or her mind instead of a firm hand. We just saw a glimpse of wisdom few people possess.

Now that inbreeding and prepotency have been added into the plan, and now that Lents' cattle are being considered, perhaps his original genetic base may even be re-evaluated.

It is kind of spooky your words here predicted my actual thoughts.

The great thing about cattle breeding is that most breeders want to tell you what they've learned from their years in the business. The more I learn, the more questions I have.

Reminds me of Einstein not knowing math good enough to establish the Relativity Theory so he found someone that would teach him for a five year period.

I was wondering lately about the length of registered Herefords. To my knowledge this trait is not used by the AHA or recorded by members. Since I prefer long cattle over any other trait, with the possible exception of fertility, I am interested in finding an established pattern in blood lines.

For example, I know Online is a long animal. I also know the 3008 daughters I have are long animals. I can go on and on about long animals.....how do I find this pattern of trait origination? For this question, assume I have access to the AHA database.

 

[HerefordSire]

Mendellian Genetics has only been accepted by the scientific community for ~100 years. Terms and concepts like "carriers" "recessives" "heterozygous" "homozygous" etc would be completely unknown to breeders before the 20th century. In fact, Hereford and Angus breeders did not grasp what was happening with the dwarf gene for many many years. IN human genetics, (prior to any understanding of genetics) IF you had a child born with some sort of defect....you just blamed God (or yourself for angering God) and then went back and bred again and hoped for the best. Precontraceptives, most couples had several pregnancies and it was fairly COMMON to lose infants or small children

It was apparent to ancient humans that offspring resembled their parents. For example, Genesis 30-46 tells how Jacob and Laban split their sheep into white and speckled varieties so they could distinguish the two to ensure none were later stolen. Although it was clear that traits were hereditary, the precise mechanism of heredity was not clear.

http://www.bookrags.com/Heredity

At a very practical level, farmers since Babylonian times, about six thousand years ago, have always understood many issues of animal and plant pedigree, recognizing that the characteristics of the parents in sexual reproduction are something of a guarantee of certain characteristics in the offspring. The Ancient Egyptians practiced cross pollination in order to improve the quality and quantity of a crop.

Pythagoras (c. 550 BC), for example, in a doctrine which lasted at least until the Renaissance, held that the male semen was created from fluid collected from the entire body. The male parent played the dominant role in determining the form of the child. The mother served as the receptacle for the embryo formed entirely from male material. The obvious objection to this theory, that it had no room for the inheritance of the mother's characteristics, led another Greek thinker, Empedocles (c. 453 BC), to propose the notion of blending between the male and female sexual material in the production of the embryo. Thus the embryo was the result of various combinations of male and female genetic material and showed a variety of traits derived from the mother and the father.

http://www.mala.bc.ca/~johnstoi/darwin/sect5.htm

Plato's interest in eugenics is well known, and he praises the Spartan interest in eugenic breeding (Laws, 630). Aristotle is equally impressed by the need to breed good stock. Theognis of Megara constantly praises the importance of heredity, complaining that well-born men and women will sometimes take inferior marriage partners in pursuit of riches, laments that "We seek well-bred rams and sheep and horses and one wishes to breed from these ... [but] men revere money, and the good marry the evil, and the evil the good. Wealth has confounded race." (Theognis, V. 183). Racial purity was linked to physical appearance, with Spartan women being renowned for their beauty; and character was seen as inherited along with personal features: "Thou art pleasing to look upon and thy character is like to thy form" (Stobaeus, lxxxviii, 71). In Greek literature the importance of heredity is repeated again and again: "Noble children are born from noble sires, the base are like in nature their father" (Alcmeaon, Fr. 7); "I bid all mortals beget well-born children from noble sires" (Heraclitus, 7);"If one were to yoke good with bad, no good offspring would be born, but if both parents are good, they will bear noble children" (Meleager, Fr. 9).

The early Romans similarly held lineage in great respect and enforced a system of connubium, whereby freeborn Romans could only marry into certain approved stocks. However, the Romans were relatively few in number and, when their unparalleled military and administrative ability converted the Roman empire into a fully multi- ethnic community of enormous size, the circumstances became ripe for the rise of egalitarian political ideologies. Rome, the "multicultural giant," disappeared before the onslaught of the smaller, more homogeneous, Germanic nations, which still retained a sense of group identity.

The Germanic peoples (the Germans, Dutch, Flemings, Anglo- Saxons, Franks, Lombards, Scandinavians, Goths, Burgundians and Vandals) who founded so many of the modern states of Europe following the demise of the Roman Empire, carried the concept of heredity to its logical conclusion in their virtually unique system of kinship. Unlike their kinsmen, the Greeks, Italics, Celts, Slavs, and East Balts, they did not organize themselves in patrilineal clans and phratries which recognized only their father's kinfolk, but saw kinship in fully genetic terms. The Germanic "kindred" comprised all the individual's relatives on both the paternal and the maternal sides, assessing the degree of closeness according to the closeness of their actual genetic relationship; this was a quite different system from the concept of patrilineal or matrilineal clans so widespread amongst other peoples of the world. This Germanic kindred was the subject of the exhaustive study Kindred and Clan in the Middle Ages and After (Phillpotts, 1917). To this day most North Americans of European descent have come to accept the Germanic tradition, where kinship is determined by the closeness of genetic relationship, whether the relatives be on the maternal or paternal side, as distinct from patrilineal and matrilineal clan systems. In ancient Scandinavia the belief in inherited talents was reflected in the concept of hamingja, an inherited "luck" force. However, it was recognized that siblings inherited qualities in different patterns, and kings who were "unlucky," and under whose leadership things went badly, were readily replaced by more competent individuals from the same royal lineage that had already produced generations of distinguished and successful leaders. The belief in breeding and the intergenerational transmission of genetic qualities was overriding, or as the old Germanic folk dictum expressed it, one could not make a silk purse out of a sow's ear!

http://www.eugenics.net/papers/pson1.html

 

[Brandonm2]

I am not saying that there was NO recognition of "like begets like" BUT NOBODY recognized the concept that there were two genetic factors for every trait (genes) UNTIL the Austrian monk Gregor Mendel

http://www.mnsu.edu/emuseum/information ... regor.html

singlehandedly figured out how inheritance worked. I don't care who you were before the 20th century IF you had 4 sons 2 proud, strong, fit and then 2 crippled, it did not occurr to you that the two strong sons could be carriers for the gene that left your other two sons weak. In fact until the 20th century the two crippled sons were more likely to be due to something like polio than a genetic defect anyway so there was no way to distinguish between a genetic disease and common pathogens. The Ancient Greeks and through them the Catholic Church both recognized inherent problems with incest; but they wrapped up their reasoning so much with divine providence that most people dismissed it as religious superstition. Even the great Royal families of Europe by 1900 were riddled with hemophilia from their own interbreeding. The same fate has happened to great dynastys since the Pharaohs. ALL animal breeders did until the mid 20th century was breed the best to the best and HOPED for the best. They had sense enough to cull something like a dwarf but had no understanding that their inbred Champion was as responsible for the dwarf as he was for it's champion siblings.

 

[Brandonm2]

You do realize that the author of this link:

http://www.eugenics.net/papers/pson1.html

Richard Pearson has (in the past) been linked to some Nazis and Neo-Nazis

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_Pearson

and his work is more accepted amoung white supremicists than by the larger scientific community

http://www.davidduke.com/race-informati ... ee_61.html

While this does not in any way preclude Mr Pearson's work from careful academic consideration, his science and his politics mix to the point that he has to be considered an 'advocate' for certain theorys rather than a neutral reporter of fact.

 

[HerefordSire]

I am not saying that there was NO recognition of "like begets like" BUT NOBODY recognized the concept that there were two genetic factors for every trait (genes) UNTIL the Austrian monk Gregor Mendel

http://www.mnsu.edu/emuseum/information ... regor.html

singlehandedly figured out how inheritance worked. I don't care who you were before the 20th century IF you had 4 sons 2 proud, strong, fit and then 2 crippled, it did not occurr to you that the two strong sons could be carriers for the gene that left your other two sons weak. In fact until the 20th century the two crippled sons were more likely to be due to something like polio than a genetic defect anyway so there was no way to distinguish between a genetic disease and common pathogens. The Ancient Greeks and through them the Catholic Church both recognized inherent problems with incest; but they wrapped up their reasoning so much with divine providence that most people dismissed it as religious superstition. Even the great Royal families of Europe by 1900 were riddled with hemophilia from their own interbreeding. The same fate has happened to great dynastys since the Pharaohs. ALL animal breeders did until the mid 20th century was breed the best to the best and HOPED for the best. They had sense enough to cull something like a dwarf but had no understanding that their inbred Champion was as responsible for the dwarf as he was for it's champion siblings.

My prior published text, as immediately follows, is what triggered further replies in regards to this conversation:

If I were to guess, I would think inbreeding over relatively long periods of time, like in my example, would push most gene combinations to the surface, good and bad, and the resulting subject's immediate line of heritage would cease to exist if negative maybe due to the "survival of the fittest" theory... which includes intellectual fitness such as having the knowledge of restricting the negatively traited carrier of the gene combination to breed.

It appears you focused on the last portion of my thoughts, specificially...

"....which includes intellectual fitness such as having the knowledge of restricting the negatively traited carrier of the gene combination to breed"

If the negative trait was a pair in a full house poker hand, it would have not showed up, at least immediately. However, it probably would have showed up eventually in the context of the Jewish 400+ year seclusion in which I used it. However, if the negative trait were the three of a kind in a full house, this negatively traited individual would more than likely cease to exists due to the complexity of even a healthy person surviving, especially is the older days when the life expectancy was much lower, that is of course unless you had Methusula (spelling?) blood which lived over 900 years according to published text.... but what calendar were they using then?

 

[HerefordSire]

You do realize that the author of this link:

http://www.eugenics.net/papers/pson1.html

Richard Pearson has (in the past) been linked to some Nazis and Neo-Nazis

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_Pearson

and his work is more accepted amoung white supremicists than by the larger scientific community

http://www.davidduke.com/race-informati ... ee_61.html

While this does not in any way preclude Mr Pearson's work from careful academic consideration, his science and his politics mix to the point that he has to be considered an 'advocate' for certain theorys rather than a neutral reporter of fact.

I like using biased text when I am trying to make a point. :cboy:

To answer your question, no, I did not know. Some of the best information one can learn on offsense is to read and study the text of the defense (enemy).

 

[HerefordSire]

Believe it or not, I am trying to invoke responses so we can learn, not to persuade anyone to do or believe anything.




Mr. Lents' book made me aware that the origin of linebreeding is recorded in the Bible. Chapters one and two of Genesis tell of the creation of Adam and Eve and God's command for them to be fruitful and populate the earth. Therefore the sons of Adam and Eve would have taken their sisters, the daughters of Adam and Eve, as wives. The resulting third generation would have been double grandsons and granddaughters of Adam and Eve. Therefore, the third generation of the race would carry the same relationship to Adam and Eve as the second generation as each would carry 50% of the genes of Adam and 50% of the genes of Eve. All succeeding generations would carry the same concentration of the genes of Adam and Eve.

The sixth chapter of Genesis records the flood which came upon the earth and that the only survivors were Noah and his wife, their three sons-Shem, Ham and Japheth-and their three wives. Starting with the twelfth chapter of Genesis the patterns of linebreeding are explained in depth. Abraham was a descendent of Shem. It was through Terah, the father of Abraham, that God concentrated the blood for the Hebrew descendants. Therefore, both Abraham and his wife Sarah were half brother and half sister as they had a common father in Genesis 21:3. Isaac carried fifty percent of the genes of Terah as did his parents. This is a fundamental cross in linebreeding.

Selection is another tool of linebreeding and that Noah and his sons were selected when the genetic base of mankind was narrowed by the flood. God did not choose to use Ishmael, the other son of Abraham, but of a mother named Hagar whose ancestry is not given.

To maintain the purity of the line of Terah and strengthen this line, Genesis 24 shows that Isaac was to be married to a girl of the lineage of Terah. Isaac and Rebakah produced twin sons of which Jacob was chosen to carry on the linebreeding process through Terah.

Jacob carried 34.375% of the genes of Terah of which he inherited-25% from Isaac and 9.379% from Rebekah. Jacob continued the linebreeding process as he married two full sisters, Rachel and Leah, who were the daughters of Laban, the brother of Jacob's mother Rebekah. From the sisters Rachel and Leah came the eight sons and one daughter of Jacob. Jacob also had four sons from the two handmaidens of Rachel and Leah named Zilpah and Bilhah. The two handmaidens were unrelated so their sons carried 17.187% of the genes of Terah. This provided a mild outcross. The eight sons of Rachel and Leah carried 21.875% of the genes of Terah. These twelve sons of Jacob were the patriarchs of the twelve tribes of Israel and the start of the Jewish Race.

Studying the pedigrees of the eight sons of Jacob, one can see that the ancestoral places are filled with common ancestors as the linebreeding program progresses. One can see that each succeeding generation possesses even greater prepotency if the selection process is implemented.

Jacob and his family which consisted of seventy persons were then taken to Egypt where they and their descendents lived for 430 years which is about 16 or 17 generations. They multiplied in the Land of Goshen in nothern Egypt which was bounded by the Mediterranean Sea to the north, the Red Sea and the Sinai Desert to the east and the Sahara Desert on the west. The only contact that they had with other people was the Egyptians to the south. Genesis 46:34 records that the Israelites were an abomination unto the Egyptians as the Israelites were herders of sheep and cattle. If methods and patterns of mating as set by God were followed in the 430 years of isolation which produced an end result of 600,000 people, a pure race would have developed which would have characteristics fixed with the prepotency to consistently pass on those characterisitics.

http://www.dailypost.com/~santee/linebreeding.htm

 

[rockridgecattle]

this reminds me of that increase milking theory thing. It gave me a mind bender...are you the same author?

 

[MY]

Your link had this quote Hereford Sire:

It will be found that after a lifetime of linebreeding only the surface will be "scratched".

This echos a sentiment of Dr. Whitney that a lifetime is not enough to do the work justice. Therefore, it becomes imperative that those who are engaged in this lifelong work prepare successors to the work, lest the whole program be lost. I have seen this time and time again throughout history where pure strains die upon the death or retirement of the breeder. There is usually some small interest by someone who tries to carry on the work with a few animals, but they were not prepared with either a) enough understand of the breeder's goals and selectivity criteria, or b) a wide enough genetic base to perpetuate the strain at its former quality.

In fact Dr. Whitney's White Isle strain of Bloodhounds were watered down to nothing in short order after his retirement and death. An old timer who joined the famed NYSP Troop K (which used the White Isle strain) as a rookie officer in 1952 told me this about the White Isle dogs when I shared my intentions to bring back the Bloodhound to his former glory (which is a new endeavor for me, my other experience of 2 decades is with another breed)
Said he:
"GOD ALMIGHTY thank you bring back that tough hard working line, Few know what a BH should be able to do but I do. My heart breaks when I see them today. I bred and trained (a lifetime) to reproduce that kind of dog-you have
two of them. They will save many lives"

He is 77 years old, and retired. He is delighted that someone will carry this work on.

In the Hereford breed, The Linebred Anxiety 4ths have come down through the hands of 5 different outfits, who were all prepared to recieve the torch.

In summary, the successful breeder must consider, preparing a successor, as that is the biggest mistake of many master breeders in various disciplines. Indeed a lifetime of work is only scratching the surface of the possibilities, and the very few bloodlines in the world of any animals who have been highly linebred in competent hands for more than a lifetime are in most cases heads and shoulders above the rest due to the investment of time.

 

[HerefordSire]

this reminds me of that increase milking theory thing. It gave me a mind bender...are you the same author?

No, I am not the same author and thanks for asking. I would be interested in the milking theory you are referring to if you can find it. What really blows me out of the water is the first paragraph of the text I posted above, specifically, the second and third generations, etc., all have the same percentage of genes of Adam and Eve.

 

[HerefordSire]

It will be found that after a lifetime of linebreeding only the surface will be "scratched".

I am getting tired just thinking about it. Heck, are there any other Hereford cattle greater than 94% inbreeding coefficient. How about genetic engineering… like how the Japanese scientists injected a jelly fish gene into the aquarium fish which glows in the dark and are being sold in the USA? Did you see that on the TV the other night?

This echos a sentiment of Dr. Whitney that a lifetime is not enough to do the work justice. Therefore, it becomes imperative that those who are engaged in this lifelong work prepare successors to the work, lest the whole program be lost. I have seen this time and time again throughout history where pure strains die upon the death or retirement of the breeder. There is usually some small interest by someone who tries to carry on the work with a few animals, but they were not prepared with either a) enough understand of the breeder's goals and selectivity criteria, or b) a wide enough genetic base to perpetuate the strain at its former quality.

At the rate I am going, I may need to find a lady that can breed me some helpers, of course, a business agreement, you know. :cboy:

In fact Dr. Whitney's White Isle strain of Bloodhounds were watered down to nothing in short order after his retirement and death. An old timer who joined the famed NYSP Troop K (which used the White Isle strain) as a rookie officer in 1952 told me this about the White Isle dogs when I shared my intentions to bring back the Bloodhound to his former glory (which is a new endeavor for me, my other experience of 2 decades is with another breed)
Said he:
"GOD ALMIGHTY thank you bring back that tough hard working line, Few know what a BH should be able to do but I do. My heart breaks when I see them today. I bred and trained (a lifetime) to reproduce that kind of dog-you have
two of them. They will save many lives"

Talk about tearful motivation…Eye of the Tiger…the Rocky movie theme song comes to mind.

He is 77 years old, and retired. He is delighted that someone will carry this work on.

In the Hereford breed, The Linebred Anxiety 4ths have come down through the hands of 5 different outfits, who were all prepared to recieve the torch.

In summary, the successful breeder must consider, preparing a successor, as that is the biggest mistake of many master breeders in various disciplines. Indeed a lifetime of work is only scratching the surface of the possibilities, and the very few bloodlines in the world of any animals who have been highly linebred in competent hands for more than a lifetime are in most cases heads and shoulders above the rest due to the investment of time.

How humbling can you get to know one lifetime is not enough.

 

[MY]

How humbling can you get to know one lifetime is not enough.

It could be discouraging, but the successes observed along the way are worth fighting the battle in my estimation. There is nothing like knowing you have a relatively clean and predictable genetic base from which to draw. The kind which prove themselves in open competition or evaluation to be the very elite of their kind. It doesn't mean the work is finished when we have success, but it ensures us that we are on the correct path.

Example, I had 3 of my dogs compete in an international performance competiton over 21 other entries. One took the highly coveted Best In Show, and the other two won their respective events. That kind of absolute dominance is the result of a good linebred program. In the bench show ring it is hard to escape bias and politics, but in a performance trial, truth cannot be denied.

 

[HerefordSire]

Mr. Lents' book made me aware that the origin of linebreeding is recorded in the Bible. Chapters one and two of Genesis tell of the creation of Adam and Eve and God's command for them to be fruitful and populate the earth. Therefore the sons of Adam and Eve would have taken their sisters, the daughters of Adam and Eve, as wives. The resulting third generation would have been double grandsons and granddaughters of Adam and Eve. Therefore, the third generation of the race would carry the same relationship to Adam and Eve as the second generation as each would carry 50% of the genes of Adam and 50% of the genes of Eve. All succeeding generations would carry the same concentration of the genes of Adam and Eve.


In the text above, the author mentions 50% genes of the second and third generations of Adam and Eve and beyond. This may be true, but I would think it would be 100% because the story says Eve was created with Adam's rib which implies having the same gene set which would produce the same results. How could this be?

The name Eve does not appear in Sumerian but there is a most intriguing link---the account of Eve's having been fashioned from Adam's rib in the Garden story. Why a rib? Well, in a famous Sumerian poem translated and analyzed by scholar Samuel Noah Kramer, there is an account of how Enki the water god angered the Mother Goddess Ninhursag by eating eight magical plants that she had created. The Mother Goddess put the curse of death on Enki and disappeared, presumably so she couldn't change her mind and relent. Later, however, when Enki became very ill and eight of his "organs" failed, Ninhursag was enticed back. She summoned eight healing deities, one for each ailing organ. Now the Sumerian word for "rib" is "ti.," but the same word also means "to make live." So the healing deity who worked on Enki's rib was called "Nin-ti" and, in a nice play on words, became both the "lady of the rib" and the "lady who makes live." This Sumerian pun didn't translate into Hebrew, in which the words for "rib" and "to make live" are quite different. But the rib itself went into the Biblical account and as "Eve" came to symbolize the "mother of all living."

http://www.ldolphin.org/eden/

 

[HerefordSire]

It could be discouraging, but the successes observed along the way are worth fighting the battle in my estimation. There is nothing like knowing you have a relatively clean and predictable genetic base from which to draw. The kind which prove themselves in open competition or evaluation to be the very elite of their kind. It doesn't mean the work is finished when we have success, but it ensures us that we are on the correct path.

Example, I had 3 of my dogs compete in an international performance competiton over 21 other entries. One took the highly coveted Best In Show, and the other two won their respective events. That kind of absolute dominance is the result of a good linebred program. In the bench show ring it is hard to escape bias and politics, but in a performance trial, truth cannot be denied.

Congratulations!

What do you think of this Angus pedigree MY?

http://www.angus.org/common/epd_ped_dtl ... 42405C454B

 

[MY]

Pedigree link is not working for me HS.

In the Angus breed though, I like the Wye Angus cattle, they are bred right. I have a good friend with a moderate sized registered Angus program. I was telling her i felt they were the best bred Angus out there. Coincedentally, she perked up and told me she had an old Wye bred cow years back. She said it was the best producing cow she ever had. I'm kind of scratching my head and biting my tounge thinking " uggggh isn't that telling you something. Maybe you should have linebred on her". :roll:

Please shoot back with a working pedigree link.