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

You Would be Crazy not to Test!

Oldtimer said:
For the persons that shoot for the highest EPD numbers they can get- they may mean more than they do me.... But the big numbers aren't my game as I'm looking more for uniformity and moderation...That said- I have had genomic tests ran on a couple of the herd bulls- mainly because of curiosity-- and to see if the test results (and resulting EPD's) back up what I'm seeing- especially on such traits as BW and CED...

On the one bull- I can say they added evidence to what I was already seeing- raising his CED EPD a couple of points- and lowering his BW EPD a little... On the other- its going to take some more calves/calf crops to see where they set with accuracy...
Click to expand...

I got the genomic testing back on the younger/2 year old bull- Bannon 2 BY
# 17049646... And it again backed the info I had seen with the calves born from the fellow who leased him last year.... It caused AAA to make a change in EPD's that raised his CED from +6 to +12 and his BW from +.1 to - 1.0... Also bounced CEM from +6 to +9...
This is actually closer to what I thought knowing the history of the cattle- and now will have to see if it holds true thru actual use...
One thing the genomic testing did do is help to make the decision to use him as a cleanup bull on the heifers much easier.......
 
That bull's EPD's are about as dramatically unbalanced and im/unmoderate as I have ever seen. It's been my observation that when you go that far with calving ease characteristics, it's hard to get back to more normal growth genetics without a calving trainwreck. But maybe you're breeding for Lowlines or goats?
 
Big Muddy rancher said:
BRG said:
knabe said:
so why do discussions focus on the least area of improvement?
Click to expand...

Because we can't control mother nature, where we can have input on the genetics.
Click to expand...

But you can control the nutrition :!:

Weren't you telling us you hired a nutritionist?
Click to expand...

You can control nutrition to a point. The nutritionist was hired for mineral and feedlot rations. If their is a complete drought a cows body will want different than when their is a complete wet year. Which both can and has happened in our area. I am not going to be feeding my cows while on grass if things aren't exactly right as it costs to much and feed is the highest expense we can have. But what I can do is make a cow easier keeping and more efficient with genetics so when it is a tougher year they can handle it.

Also, if you have poor genetics, you can feed the heck out of an animal and get no where in the feedlot. The profit margin is so small in the feeding industry that every penny counts. Feeders want the best feeding genetics possible so they can make a profit. Feed can't fix poor genetics even though it can make them look better.
 
Rumors flying that DNA maybe messed up before it gets out of second gear

A couple of breeders are making their own markers for some of the DNA epds by flushing high rated sires to full sister and testing several full brothers and full sister mating s coming up with markers that will never be reached by anyone as well as several generations of 50 k testing
What I saw its also from a herd that has a history of genetic defects could be a real train wreck
 
Hay Feeder said:
Rumors flying that DNA maybe messed up before it gets out of second gear

A couple of breeders are making their own markers for some of the DNA epds by flushing high rated sires to full sister and testing several full brothers and full sister mating s coming up with markers that will never be reached by anyone as well as several generations of 50 k testing
What I saw its also from a herd that has a history of genetic defects could be a real train wreck
Click to expand...

Can you explain this more or provide a source for this info. The scale the AAA provides is 1 to 100 and lower scores are generally thought to be best. One can breed high scoring animals together in hopes of producing more his scoring animals. I am not sure how producers disover their own markers with out investing large amounts of money and time in research.
 
If you are a AAA member you can go through that if you want on their web site a read for yourself and make your own assumptions as I did

These full brothers being flushed to full sisters and markers of second generation full brother sister cattle 50 k I assume plenty of money is there
Usually where the money is at that's where all the cattle promoters (agribusiness) feed off of
Again a couple of us smaller breeders read it and that's what we think naturally its not everyone judgement Remember I am posting in bull session Ranch Talk. Ok
 
Hay Feeder said:
If you are a AAA member you can go through that if you want on their web site a read for yourself and make your own assumptions as I did

These full brothers being flushed to full sisters and markers of second generation full brother sister cattle 50 k I assume plenty of money is there
Usually where the money is at that's where all the cattle promoters (agribusiness) feed off of
Again a couple of us smaller breeders read it and that's what we think naturally its not everyone judgement Remember I am posting in bull session Ranch Talk. Ok
Click to expand...

They are stacking genomic numbers similiar to some producers stacking EPD's. The producers are trying to concentrate the good by linebreeding/inbreeding. One would need to have genomic profiles on all animals involved and test the offspring and only keep the best. I hope they have a sharp knife and willing to remove the other end of the spectrum. Not all flushmates are created equal.

My question is "what is the optimum genomic profile trait range for your cow herd"? I personnally do not want the lightest bw, highest milk or lowest back fat scores to name a few. What is the genomic profile score of the cows that last into the teens raising an acceptable calf every year?
 
Hay Feeder said:
Rumors flying that DNA maybe messed up before it gets out of second gear

A couple of breeders are making their own markers for some of the DNA epds by flushing high rated sires to full sister and testing several full brothers and full sister mating s coming up with markers that will never be reached by anyone as well as several generations of 50 k testing
What I saw its also from a herd that has a history of genetic defects could be a real train wreck
Click to expand...

how do you make your own markers?

why can't anyone else come up with them if they are all in the original set derived from the test in the first place?

most genetic defects have a test now. it's EASY to avoid them even from carriers.

you can even test breed for the ones where one doesn't exist.

i've never heard of your theory before. is there some data?
 
Marker Assisted Selection DNA Testing

In order of Greatest To Least Benefit to breeders:
1) simply inherited genetic defects,
2) carcass quality and palatability attributes,
3) fertility and reproductive efficiency,
4) carcass quantity and yield,
5) milk production and maternal ability,
6) growth traits and birth weight.

It is important to
realize that each marker associated with complex traits like marbling is associated with only one of the
many genes that contribute towards that trait. The presence or absence of the numerous other
"unmarked" genes and the production environment will determine whether an animal actually displays the
desired phenotype. Genetic tests for complex traits are likely to require hundreds or even thousands of
markers to effectively track all of the genes influencing complex traits

I understand this to mean the most measurable traits, i.e. Birthweight, Weaning Weight, etc. will have less influence on the DNA marker tests, or the DNA test will have less influence on the EPDs, simply because they are so easily measured.

If the truth were known, these genetic markers for EPD's is a faster way to weed out the genetic defects plaguing the Angus breed.
 
Mike said:
Genetic tests for complex traits are likely to require hundreds or even thousands of
markers to effectively track all of the genes influencing complex traits
Click to expand...

which says find a different way.

if a marker has 0.1% impact, it's useless and so is the method to track it.
 
knabe said:
Mike said:
Genetic tests for complex traits are likely to require hundreds or even thousands of
markers to effectively track all of the genes influencing complex traits
Click to expand...

which says find a different way.

if a marker has 0.1% impact, it's useless and so is the method to track it.
Click to expand...

Yep. There is probably no way to identify all the genetic markers associated with Birth Weight or Weaning Weight for example. It will take a loooong time for DNA markers to affect EPD's in those traits.

But on the other hand it's fairly simple to tell whether an animal is Homozygous or Heterozygous for horns, coat color, etc. via DNA.

Plus, unless you have a bull whose semen is shipped to most parts of the country and bred to several hundred dams, his EPD accuracy values will never get high enough to be reasonably predictable with measurable data.
 
knabe said:
Mike said:
Genetic tests for complex traits are likely to require hundreds or even thousands of
markers to effectively track all of the genes influencing complex traits
Click to expand...

which says find a different way.

if a marker has 0.1% impact, it's useless and so is the method to track it.
Click to expand...
knabe-
This is not true.
Using single gene marker tests and using genomic selection are completely different paradigms. Gene markers may work well in plant breeding. They do not work well in livestock quantitative traits. Genomic selection works well in livestock, because it takes the region with a 0.1% impact and uses it and the rest of the genome to create predictions.
http://steakgenomics.blogspot.com/2012/08/gene-tests-vs-genomic-selection.html
 
.35 x 0.001 = 0.035% of total variability can not be measured.

If it is, rank 100 bulls on a continuum with 5% difference in marbling in various states of homo/het status, detail the markers, progeny and rank each marker' contribution range with confidence intervals etc, id a bunch of calves, place them all in the same feeder trial and predict marbling on a 1% basis and rank them all with less than 5% out of order.
 
knabe said:
.35 x 0.001 = 0.035% of total variability can not be measured.

If it is, rank 100 bulls on a continuum with 5% difference in marbling in various states of homo/het status, detail the markers, progeny and rank each marker' contribution range with confidence intervals etc, id a bunch of calves, place them all in the same feeder trial and predict marbling on a 1% basis and rank them all with less than 5% out of order.
Click to expand...

because it takes the region with a 0.1% impact and uses it and the rest of the genome to create predictions. Genomic prediction is radically different from previous genetic tests, because it uses markers throughout the entire genome.

Genomic selection (a.k.a. a genomic-enhanced EPD) works. The rate of genetic change increased when the dairy industry implemented genomic selection. See this PDF. http://www.cdn.ca/document.php?id=281
 
HerefordGuy,

You are attacking the genomics side with the same youthful exuberance shown by your predecessors back to the late 70's. A couple of your colleagues at Mizzou are entirely capable of selling snowcones to the Eskimos mentioned earlier in this string.

As stated by one of my professors, "The genomics revolution has been "just a few years around the corner" since I started my career in 1975". He is now Emeritus, LOL.

So, are we now "just a few years around the corner"?

With a PhD, you know as well as I do that the beef industry is a different beast than any of the other animal industries. You also know about the emerging field of epigenetics, and that some things may not be entirely what they appear to be.


Tell me about the possibilities of cattle being discriminated against because of their genomic profile, but having those genes down-regulated because of their fetal environment. Do you think it is a possibility that commercial cattle could be discriminated against because of their profile, but they might actually be good performers because the "bad" genes have been down-regulated?

I am concerned that the "full speed ahead" approach in the application of genomics may be detrimental to a large portion of the western US producers. What if the "range cattle" genes reduce "feedlot" performance? What if we ultimately just end up with "feedlot" genes, that are nothing more than growth genes, and the level of growth genes the buyers want will make cows too big for arid environments? Please address this with any information you have.


You said, "I know most of these bulls are purchased for their appeal in the show ring." Well, right there, they have separated themselves from reality. Same as the other bull you mentioned.

Have you seen the genomic profile of the bull from years ago you mentioned in your blog? It would be interesting to compare his enhanced interim EPD with his original interim EPD. You have to remember, part of the reason he was purchased was because he was "pretty" compared to other bulls from the ranch. You also have to know that despite his purchase price, he was paid for in short order because of high certificate prices. In other words, he made his owners money, regardless of whether he was the "right" bull. Those bulls will continue to be around regardless of their genomic profiles. It is partially where the show ring screws things up in the industry. Same thing happens in the other animal industries. The pretty show animals are often loaded with genomics that affect eating quality and animal welfare.



Badlands
 
Badlands,
You inspired a blog post! http://steakgenomics.blogspot.com/2013/06/scientific-hype-cycle.html
If I have used hyperbole, it has been a) by accident or b) pushing back against the disillusionment. Are genomic technologies the panacea http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/panacea to all the ails the beef industry? No. But, they are a useful tool.

I got my BS degree from NMSU. NMSU managed a herd of Brangus and a herd of Angus in the Chihuahuan Desert. They selected AI bulls that had superior calving ease and that were moderate sized. The tools they used to do this were EPDs! We haven't changed the tool, we are adding additional information and data into the tool of EPDs. This data allows us to gather information on a wider set of animals and produce accurate EPDs earlier in the animals life. Cattlemen are still responsible for making correct breeding decisions for the environment and production system. Genomic-enhanced EPDs allow them to use natural service sires and young AI sires with more confidence.

The bull I mentioned in my blog is almost 10 years old. He was originally marketed as a performance bull with excellent calving ease. Unfortunately, the calving ease didn't pan out. But, if genomic-enhanced EPDs would have been available, it would have been as if the bull had 30 progeny with calving ease records when he was sold as a yearling.

Epigenetics will affect the management of cattle, but I don't think it will affect the selection of cattle. Epigenetics is currently handled in our genetic predictions as a contemporary group effect or as an environmental effect.
 
HerefordGuy what is the difference between zoetis 50k and geneseek ggp-hd test? Is there an accuaracy difference between the 2 test?
 
Me thinks some folks have too much time on their hands.

There never has been a perfect cow herd and there never will be! :wink:


HerefordGuy, do you own cows? Another expert in his own field gave a seminar several years back about developing a perfect herd of cattle that a friend of mine attended.

After listening to the long presentation, my friend asked where the speaker lived.

The speaker asked why he wanted to know.

My friend said he wanted to visit and look at this perfect herd.

The speaker replied, "I don't own any cattle........." :roll:

As most here already know, I'm not the most politically correct member. :D
 

Latest posts

Back
Top