Inbreeding or having to continually replace bulls is just another reason to avoid keeping your own heifers. This is on top of the fact it costs more to keep than buy and limiting yourself genetically.
I've often wondered why people with the same taste in cattle don't swap bulls. Get them tested each year for fertility and disease and introduce them to a different harem every year. I doubt many bulls would object.Inbreeding or having to continually replace bulls is just another reason to avoid keeping your own heifers. This is on top of the fact it costs more to keep than buy and limiting yourself genetically.
... and?"Nothing wrong with going that route. If you are not set up for replacements it can be a real pia."
"I'm as worried about genetic defects as I am the eclipse. "
"You can keyboard this to death trying to impress the ignorant but it isn't going to fly here. The facts are the facts. The rest of the world doesn't care about your made up rules. You are all theory and no application."
That would make far more sense than spending thousands on a bull just to send him down the road in a few yearsI've often wondered why people with the same taste in cattle don't swap bulls. Get them tested each year for fertility and disease and introduce them to a different harem every year. I doubt many bulls would object.
Poor little feller. Looks like he spent all day on Google, trying to find someone, somewhere, to support his statement that "inbreeding could snuff out all genetic defects"!! He missed the fact that this article is talking about seed stock producers using animals with pedigrees, full genetic mapping, and testing for genetic defects. He didn't understand that the line " Livestock producers may use inbreeding...." means: Just because you can, doesn't mean you should !! This article contains the same cautions that we have all used, about the inherent risk of inbreeding.So tell me... exactly how many people, as a percentage of the livestock breeding population, are capable of thoroughly reading, thinking about, and understanding what your cut and paste is saying? How many will read it with a conclusion already in mind and completely miss the cautionary warning that is expressed... and only see that the words express that it can be done... without regard to the dangers that are exampled?
Do you also advise people to only play Russian roulette with two chambers full... as long as the shells are made by the same manufacturer?
I doubt anyone advising against inbreeding fails to recognize that done with stringent oversight and strong procedural adherence close familial convergence can't result in benefits... But those same people that study for years to learn how to do it responsibly will also be the ones to tell you that 99+% of people are ill equipped to practice backyard inbreeding.
I mentioned that two neighbors do just that. If and when they retain heifers, they will borrow each other's bull to breed them. Our resident Noble Prize winner in science, that has solved mankind's problem of genetic defects in human and animals, responded that he was going to put on his waders! LOL So apparently, bull swapping is a far out concept that can never happen.I've often wondered why people with the same taste in cattle don't swap bulls. Get them tested each year for fertility and disease and introduce them to a different harem every year. I doubt many bulls would object.
You are an idiot and the reason why people should have to pass a reading comprehension test to post.Poor little feller. Looks like he spent all day on Google, trying to find someone, somewhere, to support his statement that "inbreeding could snuff out all genetic defects"!! He missed the fact that this article is talking about seed stock producers using animals with pedigrees, full genetic mapping, and testing for genetic defects. He didn't understand that the line " Livestock producers may use inbreeding...." means: Just because you can, doesn't mean you should !! This article contains the same cautions that we have all used, about the inherent risk of inbreeding.
You have admitted on here that you get drunk every night, and the ludicrous things you say make us tend to believe that. After you sober up tomorrow, get someone to read your post #253 to you. It is obvious you can't read and comprehend what you read.You are an idiot and the reason why people should have to pass a reading comprehension test to post.
Once again.... and?You have admitted on here that you get drunk every night, and the ludicrous things you say make us tend to believe that. After you sober up tomorrow, get someone to read your post #253 to you. It is obvious you can't read and comprehend what you read.
You said: " I have zero issue breeding a sire to his daughter. In fact, if more people would do it maybe we would snuff out these genetic defects "
Sorry you don't get it... but I'll post my concerns for those that might.It's a handful of cows. Sire breeds his daughters for a year and they go in the freezer and feed some people. It's not about a species in a desert driven to the brink of extinction extinction with only their relatives to mate with. It's not a loaded gun point at the head of a human and it certainly isn't a "train wreck". It's a handful of cows. Not everything has to be blown into a scientific moral imperative . It's a handful of cows that will end up in a freezer.
Travlr, I think you and Warren are the ones that don't get it, this is about just being practical, it has been done for eternity to get extra years out of a bull and people will be doing long after you have gone. You milk and flog the subject and then turn it over and flog the other side all because of the black Angus premium.Sorry you don't get it... but I'll post my concerns for those that might.
Well Warren and I are on opposite sides of the CAB discount, so not sure how you figure this discussion of inbreeding figures in to that conversation.Travlr, I think you and Warren are the ones that don't get it, this is about just being practical, it has been done for eternity to get extra years out of a bull and people will be doing long after you have gone. You milk and flog the subject and then turn it over and flog the other side all because of the black Angus premium.
Ken
Actually, it appears you are the one that doesn't "get it". The OP"s question was not about "getting extra years out of a bull. ". Nor was it about "a handful of cows that will end up in a freezer.", as @angus9259 ... who also didn't get it"..... said. The OP said he was thinking about keeping 3 heifers he had, but didn't have a way to keep them from his bull, which he didn't want to replace right now., and wondered if it might not be better to sell them and the aged out cows, and just buy some replacement heifers or cows. Some on here, and rightly so, cautioned him about watching out for BVD, Trich, etc, associated with buying cattle of unknown origin. And some others, like myself, told him about the increased risk of birth defects from in-breeding. I followed that up with what I thought was a very simple explanation about dominant and recessive genes, and told him when you breed an animal that carries a recessive defective gene, to another that carries the defective genetic gene, then there is a 50% chance the offspring could be a carrier with one copy, and a 25% chance the offspring would get 2 copies, and be afflicted by it. Nothing controversial about it.,.. it is just facts that I assumed most anyone with even a rudimentary understanding of genetics would understand. The only one I saw that was milking and flogging the subject, was the barbs and insults hurled by one drunken idiot that says inbreeding would rid the world of genetic defects!Travlr, I think you and Warren are the ones that don't get it, this is about just being practical, it has been done for eternity to get extra years out of a bull and people will be doing long after you have gone. You milk and flog the subject and then turn it over and flog the other side all because of the black Angus premium.
Ken
These are your words @Warren Allison . If that doesn't suggest he would like to get another year or two out of his bull then I don't know what.The OP said he was thinking about keeping 3 heifers he had, but didn't have a way to keep them from his bull, which he didn't want to replace right now., and wondered if it might not be
Travir, I assume that you check all of your calves for underbite, by lifting their lips and checking whether the lower incisors contact the dental pad? Underbite is difficult to see without doing that.Well Warren and I are on opposite sides of the CAB discount, so not sure how you figure this discussion of inbreeding figures in to that conversation.
The gene pool is less diverse in cattle now than at any time in recorded history. That's a fact. If you want to believe otherwise it is because you want to believe something else instead of recognizing how and why... and what it means. But you are correct, people have been doing things for years that have led to genetic weaknesses and the majority have gotten away with it as they spread their bad results into the general population. That's a common attitude today, that as long as it doesn't harm me it doesn't matter what it does to others. The ripples spread but we'll all be fine because we believe in wishful thinking. Don't look at the real world examples because that might mean you learn something uncomfortable.
With only the few people we have here on the forum we've seen several anomalies this spring, deformities, dummies, and dead calves. I can't tell you with any authority that any particular dead calf is the result of inbreeding, but I can tell you that in the 56 years I've owned cattle I've never had a deformed calf, dwarf, or dummy calf, and that my education at a good Ag college supports my contentions. What does your Ag school say about inbreeding? Similar to what was posted by Brute, which when read stated that inbreeding is taking chances and even the best programs have failures?