• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

Wehrmann Angus statement

Frankie

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 24, 2003
Messages
6,915
Reaction score
0
Location
Oklahoma
Did you see that in the January Journal? Their entire herd of 1,450 animals (bulls and cows) has been tested for curley calf. They say right up front that they're going to continue to flush two particular cows that are known carriers. Those calves will have to be tested AM free before they can be registered. In the future, they'll only use bulls that have been tested AM free and every animal they sell will be tested AM free. Looks like a good plan to me. This is bound to have cost them some big bucks. But they're moving on and plan to have their next sale as scheduled in March. :D
 

Angus In Texas

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 11, 2007
Messages
2,040
Reaction score
0
Location
Central Texas
If it cost them $25 per head that's about $35,000...... not too bad when one 2536 daughter typically brings $100,000 +.... but I am betting 2536 tested positive. Anybody know for sure?
 

Frankie

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 24, 2003
Messages
6,915
Reaction score
0
Location
Oklahoma
Angus In Texas":s2gffdt2 said:
If it cost them $25 per head that's about $35,000...... not too bad when one 2536 daughter typically brings $100,000 +.... but I am betting 2536 tested positive. Anybody know for sure?

Yes, Wehrmann's statement says she's positive, but they're going to continue to flush her and Rita 7M67, also a carrier. They have 28 direct daughters of 2536 and 178 maternal granddaughters that are tested AMFree. That should give them some genetics to work with. :lol:
 

robert

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 31, 2008
Messages
824
Reaction score
0
Frankie":1d3a66uj said:
Yes, Wehrmann's statement says she's positive, but they're going to continue to flush her and Rita 7M67, also a carrier. They have 28 direct daughters of 2536 and 178 maternal granddaughters that are tested AMFree. That should give them some genetics to work with. :lol:

Doesn't anyone else find it the tiniest bit strange that of all the daughters of 2536 they produced that only 1 out of 28 they retained is positive for AM? Doesn't anyone else have the least concern that the herd that bred and owned 9J9, 5H11, 8E8, 1B2, along with the addition of 2536, 1680 and Future Direction genetics has managed to retain only AM free daughters? They are only going to use AM free bulls now but what about in the past? And what did happen to the daughters of 2536 who they bred and sold?
 

pdfangus

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 4, 2007
Messages
4,802
Reaction score
5
Location
Beaverdam, virginia
robert":2j4uh3xi said:
Frankie":2j4uh3xi said:
Yes, Wehrmann's statement says she's positive, but they're going to continue to flush her and Rita 7M67, also a carrier. They have 28 direct daughters of 2536 and 178 maternal granddaughters that are tested AMFree. That should give them some genetics to work with. :lol:

Doesn't anyone else find it the tiniest bit strange that of all the daughters of 2536 they produced that only 1 out of 28 they retained is positive for AM? Doesn't anyone else have the least concern that the herd that bred and owned 9J9, 5H11, 8E8, 1B2, along with the addition of 2536, 1680 and Future Direction genetics has managed to retain only AM free daughters? They are only going to use AM free bulls now but what about in the past? And what did happen to the daughters of 2536 who they bred and sold?

robert,

The statement above says that they have 28 daughters a 178 maternal granddaughters that tested free.
There was no reference to how many such daughters were tested overall or how many tested positive.

Yes they were the herd of origin of 9J9 and they believe in and use their own cattle. bum luck that it took 25 years for this fault to show up and they had it heavy.

I have shook Richard Mcclungs hand and believe him to be an honorable man.
 

Frankie

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 24, 2003
Messages
6,915
Reaction score
0
Location
Oklahoma
robert":3j5fy7fu said:
Frankie":3j5fy7fu said:
Yes, Wehrmann's statement says she's positive, but they're going to continue to flush her and Rita 7M67, also a carrier. They have 28 direct daughters of 2536 and 178 maternal granddaughters that are tested AMFree. That should give them some genetics to work with. :lol:

Doesn't anyone else find it the tiniest bit strange that of all the daughters of 2536 they produced that only 1 out of 28 they retained is positive for AM? Doesn't anyone else have the least concern that the herd that bred and owned 9J9, 5H11, 8E8, 1B2, along with the addition of 2536, 1680 and Future Direction genetics has managed to retain only AM free daughters? They are only going to use AM free bulls now but what about in the past? And what did happen to the daughters of 2536 who they bred and sold?


Who said only 1 of 28 is positive for AM? Their statement says they have 28 direct daughters that are AMFree. It doesn't say how many daughters were positive or what they did with them. There may have been six positives or 50, but they 28 that are free and apparently they plan to use them in their breeding program. Why are you making things up?

They didn't "manage to retain only AM free daughters". They tested lots of cattle to identify those that are AMFree.

I expect that "in the past" they used the best bulls they could find, just like most Angus breeders. Now that they know about the problem, they'll stop using untested or carrier bulls. I will, too.

I don't see that they have any responsibilty for cattle they sold before the AM problem came to light. We're in the cattle business dealing with living, breathing, changing critters. There aren't a lot of guarantees about anything in the cattle business.
 

HerefordSire

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 2, 2006
Messages
5,212
Reaction score
0
Location
Arkansas
What percentage did they test positive? Also, do they need to test for the other issue I recently read about?
 

Frankie

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 24, 2003
Messages
6,915
Reaction score
0
Location
Oklahoma
HerefordSire":vi238sf0 said:
What percentage did they test positive? Also, do they need to test for the other issue I recently read about?

The statement in the Journal doesn't say how many tested positive. Is there a test for the "other issue" you recently read about?
 

HerefordSire

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 2, 2006
Messages
5,212
Reaction score
0
Location
Arkansas
Frankie":wpguzpjy said:
HerefordSire":wpguzpjy said:
What percentage did they test positive? Also, do they need to test for the other issue I recently read about?

The statement in the Journal doesn't say how many tested positive. Is there a test for the "other issue" you recently read about?


I wonder why the percentages were not disclosed. Have any idea why they wouldn't disclose their exposure? Maybe they are embarassed and not trying to hide something? I do know if there is a test available for the other issue I read about. I was only wondering do they need to test for the other issue I recently read about. Also, I am trying to understand why one would flush a cow knowingly having something genetically negative. I understand the additional risks and fees that would be associated with this...must just be a great cow, is about all I can come up with.
 

pdfangus

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 4, 2007
Messages
4,802
Reaction score
5
Location
Beaverdam, virginia
no test availble commercially yet that I know of for other issue.

also no rumblings have come to my ear that this herd has a special need to test for the other issue.
 

whitecow

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 20, 2008
Messages
209
Reaction score
0
Location
Texas
2536 is considered by many to be the best cow in the Angus breed. She and her progeny have generated millions of dollars in revenue. While many will run away from her genetics now, her future progeny that test free of the defect will still be quite valueable.
 

RD-Sam

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 28, 2008
Messages
1,452
Reaction score
0
As long as there is a test available for a problem, there is no need to shy away from something. It's a simple matter of weeding out the problem in the future generations and retain those good qualities. If there wasn't a test, that would be a whole nother ball game.
 

Frankie

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 24, 2003
Messages
6,915
Reaction score
0
Location
Oklahoma
RD-Sam":12xxcfr8 said:
As long as there is a test available for a problem, there is no need to shy away from something. It's a simple matter of weeding out the problem in the future generations and retain those good qualities. If there wasn't a test, that would be a whole nother ball game.

I agree with you completely. Ignoring AM won't make it go away.
 

RD-Sam

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 28, 2008
Messages
1,452
Reaction score
0
I might add that even with a case like 2536 being a carrier, as long as you are buying a live registered animal out of her, you are not taking the risk of the breeding, the breeder took that risk, because they won't be able to register anything other than AMF.

With FCS, until they come up with a test, you have a couple of options, ignore it, line breed on it to check your stock, or don't use the line. With a test likely being not too far away, it's best to wait it out and do the test.
 

Frankie

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 24, 2003
Messages
6,915
Reaction score
0
Location
Oklahoma
HerefordSire":1vhpwx50 said:
Frankie":1vhpwx50 said:
HerefordSire":1vhpwx50 said:
What percentage did they test positive? Also, do they need to test for the other issue I recently read about?

The statement in the Journal doesn't say how many tested positive. Is there a test for the "other issue" you recently read about?


I wonder why the percentages were not disclosed. Have any idea why they wouldn't disclose their exposure? Maybe they are embarassed and not trying to hide something? I do know if there is a test available for the other issue I read about. I was only wondering do they need to test for the other issue I recently read about. Also, I am trying to understand why one would flush a cow knowingly having something genetically negative. I understand the additional risks and fees that would be associated with this...must just be a great cow, is about all I can come up with.

I'd expect that most Angus breeders know that Wehrmann has great exposture to the problem, since it's been traced back to a bull they owned, Rito 9J9. I don't know if it's been traced back further than that or not. They are a major Angus seedstock producer, using many of their own bulls in their breeding program.

They can only register calves out of the cow if they have been tested AMFree. She's made them a lot of money and a lot of people apparently think she's one of the great cows of the breed.
 

HerefordSire

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 2, 2006
Messages
5,212
Reaction score
0
Location
Arkansas
Frankie":1u5nayeb said:
RD-Sam":1u5nayeb said:
As long as there is a test available for a problem, there is no need to shy away from something. It's a simple matter of weeding out the problem in the future generations and retain those good qualities. If there wasn't a test, that would be a whole nother ball game.

I agree with you completely. Ignoring AM won't make it go away.

"Shy away" means something completely different that "ignoring". No?
 

Latest posts

Top