Muddy
Well-known member
Some folks thinks its okay to do a father/daughter mating but not a son/mother mating....why is that?
Son/Mother breeding= bad?
- Thread starter Muddy
- Start date
Help Support CattleToday:
Nesikep
Well-known member
I'd say it's less than ideal... either way, but I don't think it's the inevitable train wreck many people try to make it out to be.. basically, if you have lots of good genes, you're concentrating them, but if you have bad ones, you're concentrating those as well, and it works that way whether it's a father/daughter or mother/son mating.
Depending on how the calves of my home-raised bull look, I may breed his mother to him this coming year as an experiment.. Her daughter was bred to the daughter's father and I have a very pretty long yearling bred heifer from that.. Last year the daughter's full sister was bred to him (her full brother), and I'll see how that turns out as well. (it's the more correct way of linebreeding... full sibs or cousins)
Depending on how the calves of my home-raised bull look, I may breed his mother to him this coming year as an experiment.. Her daughter was bred to the daughter's father and I have a very pretty long yearling bred heifer from that.. Last year the daughter's full sister was bred to him (her full brother), and I'll see how that turns out as well. (it's the more correct way of linebreeding... full sibs or cousins)
Muddy":swc4w4gi said:
Most sons are sold off as steers I suspect whereas a bull sticks around a few years and has the opportunity to mate his offspring once they mature.
My :2cents:
Ebenezer
Well-known member
A great way to breed cattle that will be an environmental fit from a proven cow in your own environment. Only do this on the best of cows and you cannot go wrong. Too many people worry about trash popping up from inbreeding. They ought to worry about the cull rate from importing genetics that don't fit or "great" AI sires that suddenly disappear from use after calves are tried in various locations. Got several cows bred like this now and will keep the calves.
Folks try to put personal (people) thoughts and feelings such as incest into livestock breeding and it does not fit. Breed the best and eat the rest.
Folks try to put personal (people) thoughts and feelings such as incest into livestock breeding and it does not fit. Breed the best and eat the rest.
There is no genetic difference between son/Dam and a daughter/Sire mating.
A thing come to mind; the frequency of this type mating per year. If there is only one bull in the herd, there is only one cow bred to her son that year. So whatever happens it is a tiny fraction of all calves involved. Sire/daughter on the other hand might involve half the herd.
A thing come to mind; the frequency of this type mating per year. If there is only one bull in the herd, there is only one cow bred to her son that year. So whatever happens it is a tiny fraction of all calves involved. Sire/daughter on the other hand might involve half the herd.
wbvs58
Well-known member
I don't think you would be able to taste the difference in the meat.
Ken
Ken
WalnutCrest
Well-known member
wbvs58":3d5ua0hl said:
Palatability, like most other traits, isn't something that's obvious for several years after the breeding decision is made.
If a calf is heterozygous for traits A, B and C and that calf's dam is heterozygous for the same three traits ... and these are the three traits you want to get better in in a hurry ... and you breed son to dam ... you have a 25% chance of getting homo good or homo bad on any of the three traits and a 50% chance of keeping your heterozygous state in any of the three ... so ... statistically, if you did this pairing enough times to get 64 calves on the ground, statistically, you should have one calf who is homozygous for the three traits you want (1/4th x. 1/4th x. 1/4th = 1/64th).
However, if the dam and her son are already homozygous good for one of the three traits and are hetero in the other two, you only need 16 pairings to (statistically) guarantee you'll have one calf who's homozygous good for all three.
And, if son and dam are homozygous good for two of the traits, you just need four calves to get a homozygous good calf.
...good luck to you in your pairings.
PS --- Personally, I have no issues w/ son/dam matings, as long as the dam is in the very very top end of your cow-herd and her son was at the very very top end of his group of contemporaries. Otherwise, why bother...
Oldtimer
Well-known member
dun":v8j2bgj3 said:
Same here... A cow has to be good for us to keep her calf as a bull, which hopefully means concentrating the good genes when he is bred back to his mother... That type breeding gives you around a 25% Inbreeding Coefficient... I currently have one breeding like that - a cow W C R Floret 749T Reg: AAA 15802668 (that has raised 6 calves ratioing 107 in our herd) that is bred to her son Lazy Bar B Trackrunner Reg: AAA 17506127... The IBC on that mating is 28.3% - which is about as high as I want to go....
We will see next spring and summer how good the calf is...
Muddy, line breeding in any form can be good or bad. That is dependent on the gene pool used in the linebreeding. To look at it in a different light, genetic compounding. IF you use a top cow or bull to line breed, the chances are pretty good you will get good or better than good results. The same can be said for bad genes. The thing is , some cows or bulls can look great to the human eye but be different in their genetic make up. That is why a lot of folks say it is bad to line breed animals. They either have tried and gotten bad results, or know of someone who has, or have been taught that it is a bad thing. The deal is this: what ever you line breed you are genetically compounding. You really wont know until you get calves on the ground, and in production if they make it that far. The ones that have obvious bad traits that are compounded should not be used in propagation, but culled. Just remember, if you do line breed, the ones that come out good or better are genetically better than ones that come out bad. If you then compound those traits that you know or have proven to be a superior gene pool you will have a better cow or bull that will have more hybrid vigor when mated to an outcross. IF you use a line bred animal that comes out bad, you will have a larger concentration of those genes in the next generation. Line breeding in my opinion makes herdsmanship pretty hot or cold depending on the gene pool you have selected to concentrate. Lots of people cant handle the results when it is a bad group of genes selected. That doesnt make the practice bad. You just need to know that the results are one way or the other in a line breeding situation, and not so much in the middle. How you get there is not as important. Son/daughter matings are going to have a very high line bred coefficient. Most people use a sister/brother or less, but those have more genes in the pool. The closer the matings are in relation, the more cut and dry the results will be. The folks on here that have said they have done this with no problem , have used genetics that were very good. I have a sire daughter mating due in the spring. I am doing a lot of line breeding a little further out in the pedigree. Son/mother is not bad if you do it with a little understanding. Best to you
Ebenezer
Well-known member
Muddy, line breeding in any form can be good or bad. That is dependent on the gene pool used in the linebreeding. To look at it in a different light, genetic compounding. IF you use a prepotenttop cow or bull to line breed, the chances are pretty good you will get good or better than good results. The same can be said for bad genes. Why would you have bad genes on the farm if you have been using the cattle, livestock or the line for a while?The thing is , some cows or bulls can look great to the human eye but be different in their genetic make up. Amen, brotherThat is why a lot of folks say it is bad to line breed animals. Because they have never been around prepotent animalsThey either have tried and gotten bad results, or know of someone who has, or have been taught that it is a bad thing. The deal is this: what ever you line breed you are genetically compounding. You really wont know until you get calves on the ground, and in production if they make it that far. The ones that have obvious bad traits that are compounded should not be used in propagation, but culled. Just remember, if you do line breed, the ones that come out good or better are genetically better than ones that come out bad. If they are prepotent.If you then compound those traits that you know or have proven to be a superior gene pool you will have a better cow or bull that will have more hybrid vigor when mated to an outcross. The whole purpose. Amen.IF you use a line bred animal that comes out bad, you will have a larger concentration of those genes in the next generation. Not if the truck cranks and the trailer has air in the tiresLine breeding in my opinion makes herdsmanship pretty hot or cold depending on the gene pool you have selected to concentrate. Lots of people cant handle the results when it is a bad group of genes selected. That doesnt make the practice bad. You just need to know that the results are one way or the other in a line breeding situation, and not so much in the middle. Not sure that I agree for the first few generations, at leastHow you get there is not as important. Son/daughter matings are going to have a very high line bred coefficient.50% Most people use a sister/brother 50%or less, but those have more genes in the poolmore dilution if using half sibs for 25%?. The closer the matings are in relation, the more cut and dry the results will be. Not sure about thatThe folks on here that have said they have done this with no problem , have used genetics that were very good. I have a sire daughter mating due in the spring. I am doing a lot of line breeding a little further out in the pedigree. Son/mother is not bad if you do it with a little understanding. Best to youGot to have a purpose rather than a mere desire. Need to know that all variation is never eliminated. Need to know that the benefits to you are in a % of the resultant animals. The greater benefit is a fixed set of genes rather than the mainstream thought of a fixed set of EPDs, FS, carcass traits or whatever. Opinion: you won't be doing much good if you don't get above 25% IBC
Ebenezer
Well-known member
Got to have a purpose rather than a mere desire. Need to know that all variation is never eliminated. Need to know that the benefits to you are in a % of the resultant animals. The greater benefit is a fixed set of genes rather than the mainstream thought of a fixed set of EPDs, FS, carcass traits or whatever. Opinion: you won't be doing much good if you don't get above 25% IBC.cotton1":2olctvox said:
I have linebred chickens, linebred sheep and linebred cattle. No urination in the ocean here - just every day real world.
Nesikep
Well-known member
I"m experimenting a little with linebreeding.. I currently have a linebred (father/daughter) heifer that looks really good.. she is bred to her mother's full brother (who's sire is evidently her sire and grandsire, and who's dam is her grand-dam).. don't know what the IBC works out to on that calf, but I know it's getting up there
WalnutCrest
Well-known member
Nesikep":2hir7moj said:
Oh, you're SCREWED Nesi. Those hermaphroditic calves will probably have three eyes and three legs. You should probably just quit now.
Nesikep
Well-known member
WalnutCrest":bsleixvx said:
Well.. I'm trying to find a way to make them have 4 rear quarters!
For what its worth: Son/mother coefficient=25%
Father/daughter =25%
sister/brother =12.5%
bull bred to his grandaughter = 6.25%
The old standard to prove a bull was to breed him to a number of his own daughters(I think 30?).If the calves had no problems the bull deemed ok to use, and vise versa.Genetically son/mother is the same as father/daughter, but if you did it enough it would prove the mothers genetics(or disprove them). My point, and several others, earlier is you really dont know what you have genetically until you do some linebreeding that is father/daughter type breeding. I cant think of a reason why son/mother would be bad other than the discovery of some bad genetics.So..you could breed bull to his mother like 30 times which probably involves at least a few flushes, or breed the bull to his mother and about 30 of his daughters and find out something that way. One way finds out about the son, one the mother. If you prove the son, then the mother cant be too bad right? :2cents:
Father/daughter =25%
sister/brother =12.5%
bull bred to his grandaughter = 6.25%
The old standard to prove a bull was to breed him to a number of his own daughters(I think 30?).If the calves had no problems the bull deemed ok to use, and vise versa.Genetically son/mother is the same as father/daughter, but if you did it enough it would prove the mothers genetics(or disprove them). My point, and several others, earlier is you really dont know what you have genetically until you do some linebreeding that is father/daughter type breeding. I cant think of a reason why son/mother would be bad other than the discovery of some bad genetics.So..you could breed bull to his mother like 30 times which probably involves at least a few flushes, or breed the bull to his mother and about 30 of his daughters and find out something that way. One way finds out about the son, one the mother. If you prove the son, then the mother cant be too bad right? :2cents:
Ebenezer
Well-known member
Half sibs. Full brother/full sister = 25%
I was looking at a group of calves yesterday sired by a bull that is a full brother/full sister mating and the calves are very uniform. He also has a daughter or two to calve next month and I look forward to seeing them. Purpose is the question. There are cattle that can replicate themselves into very stable populations. These are the ones that we want. They can be a low % of the total population that we will ever see, much less, own. None of us have 100 years to breed cattle and see the here and there of good cattle. So, how am I making the best use of what time I have left? Identifying the ones that do what I need done and concentrating them. If I fail, it is just another market steer. If I succeed and the genes pair up right, I am at least one generation ahead with a chance to make more of them quicker. I have learned this in a bigger way through species that can turn generations quicker, like sheep and chickens. An environmentally fit animal that can do what it needs to do for you to maximize your profits is a rare gem and well worth the effort to replicate in any means. HIs mother got old, his father got old and he was the last calf. Seems OK for now. I'll know more in 10 years!
Nesikep
Well-known member
Here's a wikipedia link about it
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coefficie ... lationship
OK, so in my case with the heifer mentioned above:
for her it's simple, the IBC would be 25% (father/daughter).
But for her calf, it gets a lot more complicated... I will try and do it graphically with names, since describing it is hard...
Each line is a generation, with the resulting offspring on the line below.. sorry about the periods, it's the only way to get it to format right
Numbers in parentheses are the percent blood the final calf will have from each common ancestor
Caddy(12.5) + Arnold(12.5)...............
..........Chroma ......+...... Arnold(25).......... Caddy(25) + Arnold(25)
........................Tifa......................+..............Marko
.................................................Calf
So for Arnold's influence on the calf, it's 12.5 + 25 + 25 = 62.5%
Caddy's influence on the calf is 12.5 + 25 = the remaining 37.5%
Am I right in saying the IBC is the sum of the two divided by 2, thus 50%?
Lets say Caddy didn't show up more than once in the tree.. would it then be Arnold's influence (62.5) divided by 2, for 31.25%?
Here's another calf coming up.. full siblings
..........Caddy(25)......+...... Arnold(25).......... Caddy(25) + Arnold(25)
.........................Prada.....................+..............Marko
...................................................Calf
This time both Caddy's and Arnold's influence is 50% each for an IBC of 50% ((50+50)/2)again...
Did I get it right?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coefficie ... lationship
OK, so in my case with the heifer mentioned above:
for her it's simple, the IBC would be 25% (father/daughter).
But for her calf, it gets a lot more complicated... I will try and do it graphically with names, since describing it is hard...
Each line is a generation, with the resulting offspring on the line below.. sorry about the periods, it's the only way to get it to format right
Numbers in parentheses are the percent blood the final calf will have from each common ancestor
Caddy(12.5) + Arnold(12.5)...............
..........Chroma ......+...... Arnold(25).......... Caddy(25) + Arnold(25)
........................Tifa......................+..............Marko
.................................................Calf
So for Arnold's influence on the calf, it's 12.5 + 25 + 25 = 62.5%
Caddy's influence on the calf is 12.5 + 25 = the remaining 37.5%
Am I right in saying the IBC is the sum of the two divided by 2, thus 50%?
Lets say Caddy didn't show up more than once in the tree.. would it then be Arnold's influence (62.5) divided by 2, for 31.25%?
Here's another calf coming up.. full siblings
..........Caddy(25)......+...... Arnold(25).......... Caddy(25) + Arnold(25)
.........................Prada.....................+..............Marko
...................................................Calf
This time both Caddy's and Arnold's influence is 50% each for an IBC of 50% ((50+50)/2)again...
Did I get it right?
