Trask 4013

[HerefordSire]

I think an important point that may be missed in our discussion on these old linebred bulls and the men who made the matings to produce them is that these men were working to achieve the top product in the industry. The Plato Domino 1 son that was produced from the mating at the Kansas ranch won the national championship. They linebred these cattle, not just to maintain a line, they linebred to produce the best the industry demanded. I think a fair comparison to them today would be the Remitall cattle.

Sometimes the thirst for knowledge overwhelms common curtesy of a thread creator. Once again, I took a one liner and turned it into several pages. I didn't intend to offend anyone. However, since the hijack controller, namely Greenwillow, opened the flood gates, and Knersie... I don't feel as bad now, I shall again ask a question (or 1000) off topic.....

Are you saying a show animal was what the beef industry wanted economically back then (maybe big rumps)? Likewise are you saying the economic beef industry demands Remitall show animals, maybe due to high REA and WW, etc?

 

[Brandonm22]

That's why I don't buy completely into all the linebreeding stuff. Purebred beef cattle herds exist to serve their customers NOT the flights of fancy of the breeder. That a bull is 55% linebred Anxiety the Fourth (and I don't believe anybody's pedigrees are really accurate for 20 generations) is not worth a diddly UNLESS you have people who will pay you for those genetics. Some people do have a customer base that covets that kind of purity and those kinds of cattle. If you do have that sort of loyal following or think you can build it go for it and deliver the cattle that your niche market craves. Other people to sell bulls have to chase EPDs, performance, show ring trophies, frame, the popular bull of the minute, red necks, white necks, polled heads, horned heads, eye pigment or whatever it is that floats the boat of the people who come to their sales and buy cattle off of their farm. Linebreeding is great; but if the ranches you supply are demanding growth, carcass characteristics, EPDs, etc that the linebred cattle can NOT deliver, then it is time to add an outcross line. That is sort of what killed a lot of the Anxiety the 4th, Prospector, and Victor herds in the 80s-90s. The market demanded outcross genetics and a lot of people either went totally to the outcross losing the linebred lines they previously were marketing or they went out of business because they no longer produced cattle which they could market.

 

[Herefords.US]

That's why I don't buy completely into all the linebreeding stuff. Purebred beef cattle herds exist to serve their customers NOT the flights of fancy of the breeder. That a bull is 55% linebred Anxiety the Fourth (and I don't believe anybody's pedigrees are really accurate for 20 generations) is not worth a diddly UNLESS you have people who will pay you for those genetics. Some people do have a customer base that covets that kind of purity and those kinds of cattle. If you do have that sort of loyal following or think you can build it go for it and deliver the cattle that your niche market craves. Other people to sell bulls have to chase EPDs, performance, show ring trophies, frame, the popular bull of the minute, red necks, white necks, polled heads, horned heads, eye pigment or whatever it is that floats the boat of the people who come to their sales and buy cattle off of their farm. Linebreeding is great; but if the ranches you supply are demanding growth, carcass characteristics, EPDs, etc that the linebred cattle can NOT deliver, then it is time to add an outcross line. That is sort of what killed a lot of the Anxiety the 4th, Prospector, and Victor herds in the 80s-90s. The market demanded outcross genetics and a lot of people either went totally to the outcross losing the linebred lines they previously were marketing or they went out of business because they no longer produced cattle which they could market.

I've said it before, but here it is again. When you look at Hereford history, the cattle that have made the greatest and longest lasting influence were linebred.

Was it linebreeding that killed the linebred herds of the 80s and 90s or the quest of their owners to "keep up" with the fads that eventually led to their demise? I freely admit that I was my own victim during this period. Today, I'd love to have the linebred cattle I had in the early 80s to build from. Sadly, there's not a lot of Hereford cattle like that left because they've been outcrossed into oblivion.

George

 

[Brandonm22]

There are certainly cattle and whole cow families whose DNA we have lost forever we would like to have back again. There are certainly lines of cattle (particularly in the 80s) that became popular and widely used that we shake our heads at in disgust at today that WERE what the industry was paying the big bucks for then. Linebreeding can come with a lot of upside, there are also a lot of risks.

 

[jhambley]

With any important business decision, I would think you would hedge your bet against the possibility that your latest and greatest direction could be flawed. Why do people always assume it's all or nothing? Burning every bridge to the past in the process is like throwing the baby out with the bath water.

I spoke to the grandson of a well known Hereford breeder who at one time was the President of the American Hereford Association. His herd had been tightly bred to the Hazlett cattle for many years when he passed away in his nineties. Sometime in the late 80's the farm bank came in and suggested to the family that they cross this one-of-a-kind registered Hereford herd with black angus bulls to improve the bottom line. In a matter of a few years, this unique gene pool was entirely destroyed. Only a few of the cattle (who were sold prior to the old man's death) were saved. By not retaining a small group of these cattle or even holding a dispersal sale, they destroyed several lifetimes of genetic improvement. The saddest part of the story is the resulting crossbred cattle were so inefficient, the same farm is now trying to breed Red Devons.

My point is...Markets are fickle and if you only breed for the current market you could end up like Ford and GM with a product that the consumer no longer desires. Everyone blames GM and Ford for having no ""Vision" or a "Plan B" when the fickle market that demanded SUV and Hummers decided it now wanted hybrids and econo boxes. It seems there may be a lesson to be learned here for the cattle industry as well. When the cost of inputs go up...markets can turn against the very product they so hotly demanded only a few months ago. If you think it takes a long time to change the model line up at GM, just think how long it would take the cattle industry to change the type of cattle we're producing. Not to mention I'm fairly confident the federal government isn't going to "loan" me the money to ease the transition to more efficient, forage type animals when the cost of fertilizer and diesel go through the roof again (and they will).

I wonder how many breeders wish they had retained the best of their line bred cattle that performed efficiently in a low cost range environment. Why didn't they run them side by side with their new and improved outcrosses just in case? Like GM, why didn't they have a "Plan B" just in case?

 

[KNERSIE]

With any important business decision, I would think you would hedge your bet against the possibility that your latest and greatest direction could be flawed. Why do people always assume it's all or nothing? Burning every bridge to the past in the process is like throwing the baby out with the bath water.

I spoke to the grandson of a well known Hereford breeder who at one time was the President of the American Hereford Association. His herd had been tightly bred to the Hazlett cattle for many years when he passed away in his nineties. Sometime in the late 80's the farm bank came in and suggested to the family that they cross this one-of-a-kind registered Hereford herd with black angus bulls to improve the bottom line. In a matter of a few years, this unique gene pool was entirely destroyed. Only a few of the cattle (who were sold prior to the old man's death) were saved. By not retaining a small group of these cattle or even holding a dispersal sale, they destroyed several lifetimes of genetic improvement. The saddest part of the story is the resulting crossbred cattle were so inefficient, the same farm is now trying to breed Red Devons.

My point is...Markets are fickle and if you only breed for the current market you could end up like Ford and GM with a product that the consumer no longer desires. Everyone blames GM and Ford for having no ""Vision" or a "Plan B" when the fickle market that demanded SUV and Hummers decided it now wanted hybrids and econo boxes. It seems there may be a lesson to be learned here for the cattle industry as well. When the cost of inputs go up...markets can turn against the very product they so hotly demanded only a few months ago. If you think it takes a long time to change the model line up at GM, just think how long it would take the cattle industry to change the type of cattle we're producing. Not to mention I'm fairly confident the federal government isn't going to "loan" me the money to ease the transition to more efficient, forage type animals when the cost of fertilizer and diesel go through the roof again (and they will).

I wonder how many breeders wish they had retained the best of their line bred cattle that performed efficiently in a low cost range environment. Why didn't they run them side by side with their new and improved outcrosses just in case? Like GM, why didn't they have a "Plan B" just in case?

Well said!

 

[Brandonm22]

Hey, I absolutely LOVE those folks who spend their time and their money preserving heritage breeds of livestock. I have 6 Cayuga ducks http://www.albc-usa.org/cpl/waterfowl/cayuga.html
instead of regular ducks like the Pekin because I prefer to support the rare breed breeders.....and Cayugas are a completely bomb proof duck. Sometimes though people CHANGE because they are responding to what the market demands. You got over a 100 cows and you can keep 50 legacy cows and 50 Next Great Thing type cows; but if the Next Great Thing cows are the ones selling the bulls, generating the interest, winning the ribbons there is a lot of pressure to turn those legacy cows into recipients and it is real expensive to promote two breeds or even two different type phenotypes within a breed. I am sure there are a lot of people who look back and wish they, their dad, or their Grandad had made some different decisions.

Of course now we can freeze, semen, embryos, and DNA so you CAN relive your livestock breeding past, in case you do make a mistake going forward.

 

[HerefordSire]

I think I am with you Brandon (AI, ET, etc.). Diversifying usually lowers net profit or guarantees poverty. If I am incorrect in a business decision, admit it, and dump as soon as possible. Then I can re-up, or restablish another position. A good example of this are wall street money managers, financial advisors, and the media. They preach diversification to lower risk. But, that is if you are not at the helm and know what you are doing. They are the ones making the money when you diversify, not me. The money is made by riding a winner like Wal-Mart, Microsoft, or Google when the company was young, and not by riding winners and losers at the same time because the inflation and currency debasement will take any cost excess if the Feds don't get a piece. This shows up when we die and the Feds get their half, if you are ever beyond the threshhold. Last I heard it was around $700K net worth for a married couple.

ADMIT IT and DUMP, and then re-up! No diversifying for me.

 

[Brandonm22]

I think I am with you Brandon (AI, ET, etc.). Diversifying usually lowers net profit or guarantees poverty. If I am incorrect in a business decision, admit it, and dump as soon as possible. Then I can re-up, or restablish another position.

I think we are in agreement here. IF this IS a business, it means that we have to (eventually) do what sells. If you can't market Arabian horses in your area, on the internet, thru Stablemates magazine, classified ads, your breed magazine, etc at some point you have to dump the Arabians and do something different. There is nothing wrong per se with linebreeding or outcrossing; but you need to be able to make it pay or your farm won't have a future.

 

[jhambley]

ADMIT IT and DUMP, and then re-up!

That breeding strategy will surely get you elected to The Hereford Hall of Fame...and good luck "Re-Upping" your Anxiety 4th genetics.

 

[HerefordSire]

ADMIT IT and DUMP, and then re-up!

That breeding strategy will surely get you elected to The Hereford Hall of Fame...and good luck "Re-Upping" your Anxiety 4th genetics.

Would it not be feasible for say....someone like Huth, or DeShazer, or Remitall, and many more great contemporary breeders, that could realisticly qualify for the Hereford Hall of Fame to ADMIT IT, DUMP, and re-up, with the affordability of AI, ET, and cloning? All mentioned outfits did dump recently for their own reasons. Heck, I am sure they are about as smart as one could be. Do you think they couldn't establish whatever they wanted whenever they wanted AND still get into the Hall of Fame?

 

[Brandonm22]

ADMIT IT and DUMP, and then re-up!

That breeding strategy will surely get you elected to The Hereford Hall of Fame...and good luck "Re-Upping" your Anxiety 4th genetics.

You could just as easily linebreed Feltons Domino 774 or Remitall Online 122L IF those were the standards you chose to build your herd on. Probably even easier since AI, ET, and cloning allow us to muItiply an animal faster and store that DNA longer than you could in an old fashioned linebreeding scheme. I am not saying that either of those sires IS superior to Anxiety the Fourth, whom nobody on this forum ever saw alive (and Doc Harris is pretty darned old) but all linebreeding requires is a genetic point in time upon which you build upon and improve on. Older does not necessarily mean better (neither does more modern).

 

[jhambley]

Feltons Domino 774 or Remitall Online 122L

Neither of these two bulls has a single common ancestor in the first three generations of their pedigree. That means you're starting totally from scratch. How many years do you think it might take you to "Re-Up" a consist line bred herd?

Maybe you guys are a lot younger and brighter than I am...but I think you under estimate the number of pairings and the amount of selection expertise required to build a top line bred herd from a single genetically diverse individual.

 

[HerefordSire]

A Hall of Famer, or even someone green and dumb like me, knows to store embryos and semen of their best animals right before the dump.

 

[Brandonm22]

Feltons Domino 774 or Remitall Online 122L

Neither of these two bulls has a single common ancestor in the first three generations of their pedigree. That means you're starting totally from scratch. How many years do you think it might take you to "Re-Up" a consist line bred herd?

Maybe you guys are a lot younger and brighter than I am...but I think you under estimate the number of pairings and the amount of selection expertise required to build a top line bred herd from a single genetically diverse individual.

All linebreeding that was ever done began with a single individual upon which the program began and obviously the first few generations are the most difficult but they are also where the biggest gains generally are. After 3 or 4 generations, you generally get into linebreeding depression. I am open to the idea that something great really COULD come out of the ~30 somethingth generation of Anxiety the 4th linebreeding; but I don't necessarily believe that the breed needs to be putting all of it's eggs in THAT basket. I am not saying that the Trask, Prospector, Line 1, Anxiety the 4th, Victor herds should stop doing what they are doing; but I don't necessarily buy the idea that no newer sires (even outcross sires) are not worthy of serious consideration themselves.

 

[greenwillowhereford II]

I don't think anyone is advocating that EVERYBODY has to go to linebreeding, but it is good that there are those who do to give us the tools we need. Brandonm, the answer to your statement about 30something generations is this: When Lents' cattle were DNA tested several years ago, there was very little variation from bull to bull. If I recall correctly, the Line One cattle had something like twice as much variation. That was after about 130 years of linebreeding, so I don't know how many generations that is offhand...65? Whatever you think about his program, cattle size, weaning weights, etc, there are a few things few would argue. The phenotype is very pleasing and consistent, and the quality and yield grade combo is next to impossible to beat.

 

[Brandonm22]

If a bull sires his first calf crop when he is two, the calves are born ~one year later, and his son sires his first calf crop when he is two I get a generation interval of ~5. 5 goes into 130 26 times. That is where I get my ~30 generations from. I did not trash the Lents, Day, Line One, Trask, etc programs and I am not telling anybody to change their program. I honestly don't know enough about anybody's program to make those kind of decisions for them. There is no question thought that there have been times where Hereford breeders have NOT delivered the cattle that the commercial industry was demanding. Now the commercial industry is not always right either; but if we want to drive down the road and see white faced cattle in pastures we have got to produce a product that commercial people will buy. We are in an era where commercial producers are increasingly asking for all the economically important traits to be quantified for them.

 

[jhambley]

I'm not arguing that everyone should use "old style" genetics. I would argue that the Hereford breed is far more genetically diverse today than it was even 60 years ago.

I would also argue that you'll never produce a herd capable of consistently reproducing itself using outcrossed genetics. It's not anymore likely than outcrossing to another breed. After all, inbreeding/linebreeding small populations, while applying consistent selection pressure, is how the breeds were first established.

Progress toward a homozygous state will never be achieved by outcrossing. Even if you purchase a line bred bull, as soon as you breed him to your unrelated cows, you take a drastic step backwards in achieving a homozygous state. You then have to start over again breeding the resulting animals to your linebred population. The whole promise of linebreeding is that it brings recessive traits into a more homozygous condition. If the trait is beneficial you keep it, if the trait is unwanted or lethal, it's culled.

Jim Lents says: "Linebreeding doesn't create new genes. It simply concentrates all genes with equal pressure. When line breeding, the traits you select for, and more importantly, the ones you do not specifically select against, come forward in greater concentration."

You can look to race horsing to see Mr. Lents wisdom in action:

Producing a winning race horse takes a tremendous amount of work. Horse breeding is definitely not an exact science, although many wish it was. Some winners start from the correct pairing of horses that more often than not produce "get" (fillies and colts), which consistently enter the winners' circle. The Jockey Club Thoroughbred registry studbook is strictly controlled and allows no out-crossing to other breeds. This has created a limited gene pool from the start. Add to this linebreeding, which, simply put, is having the same ancestor show up multiple times in a
pedigree in an attempt to pass on a desirable trait. The last 14 winners of the Kentucky Derby have been linebred to Native Dancer. Native Dancer ran second in the Derby in 1953, and has been used as a component in linebreeding due to his impressive speed and prepotency. But Native Dancer also had foot trouble. Along with positive traits,
linebreeding also compounds such undesirable traits in horses. Thus weakness in foot and leg is passed
down and amplified with subsequent generations.

I'm not trying to start a war here but you have to wonder how many generations of linebreeding it would have taken to discover curly calf syndrome? A clean gene pool was the primary reason the Gudgell & Simpson genetics were used to rebuild the Hereford breed after dwarfism was discovered. Through linebreeding, the lethal genetics were most likely identified and discarded.

Franklin Nash, when asked about genetic dependability was quoted as saying:
"Through generations in our herd, we have only tied to a sire after we know what he is (after we have bred him to 20 of his half sisters or 10 of his daughters)." How many producers of AI sires would be willing to do that today?

 

[Brandonm22]

It is hard to believe given the amount of popular pedigrees he appears in as a grandsire; but Precision is only a 1990 model bull so it took only 3 or 4 generations for this to pop up and be identified. The gene is much older than Precision going back to at least Rito 9J9 of B156 7T26; but the way Precision was multiplied made it an economically significant flaw and also led to it being identified so now we have a DNA test for it.

http://www.cattle.com/semen/bulls/G+A+R ... +1680.aspx

"Progress toward a homozygous state will never be achieved by outcrossing. Even if you purchase a line bred bull, as soon as you breed him to your unrelated cows, you take a drastic step backwards in achieving a homozygous state."

I don't necessarily disagree with any of that; but if I am selling commercial market calves I don't want them in a homozygous state. I want all the heterosis I can get in those crossbred calves (within reason). I really have a hard time seeing how "a homozygous state" really does anything really positive for the larger industry. ANY pure Hereford is going to be very unrelated to ANY pure Angus, Charolais, Limousin, or Brahman. Industrywide, we don't have a significant number of commercial straightbred Hereford herds anymore. We are producing bulls now for use either on a crossbred or an Angus commercial herd. The old justification for the extremely linebred lines (IE breeding to Hereford commercial cows and making the calf crop even more uniform is increasingly a rare condition in this industry). I am not throwing stones here, but the industry is increasingly asking for cattle whose performance is backed by numbers and they want to be able to compare those numbers across breeds. I got real doubts about how well that really works; but it makes marketing cattle whose EPDs look subpar for their breed and even more so when put on an Angus standard much more difficult. Linebred cattle who are multiple trait leaders are very marketable. Linebred cattle whose paper performance looks mediocre might benefit from outcrossing.

 

[DOC HARRIS]

jhambley-

Progress toward a homozygous state will never be achieved by outcrossing. Even if you purchase a line bred bull, as soon as you breed him to your unrelated cows, you take a drastic step backwards in achieving a homozygous state. You then have to start over again breeding the resulting animals to your linebred population. The whole promise of linebreeding is that it brings recessive traits into a more homozygous condition. If the trait is beneficial you keep it, if the trait is unwanted or lethal, it's culled.

You are so right with this statement! It has been my experience that in discussing "linebreeding" with people who are uninformed, the mystique of 'incest', relating to human beings, seemed to be the prevailing argument against the procedure. That, of course, is unfortunate. As with any subject, proper information and education is paramount for success to be realized.

But in the 'real world' of cattle breeding, the expenses of linebreeding must include the potential for the 'failures', if you will, due to the negative results of the breedings due to the expression of lethal and/or unrewarding "PROFIT" genetics. Most producers who are in the business with PROFIT as their goal are not willing to sacrifice time and livestock to the ravages of experimentation. And who can blame them? Thank Goodness for those who are willing to bite the bullet and sustain years of losses for the successful improvement of our seedstock!

Genetics being what it is, it takes many individuals (males AND females) to focus traits in establishing Homozygosity of both positive AND negative characteristics. Fortunately, AI, ET, Sexing etc., has reduced the "time" factor in that research effort, but the expenses continue.

I am sure that the debates will continue as to the efficacy and advisability of extensive linebreeding practices, but successful results with ANYTHING have never been achieved without effort and sacrifice from the efforts of many people. "Linebreeding" practices are not voodoo, hoodoo, or incest, regardless of the mistaken connotations attributed to the principles.

DOC HARRIS