Keeney`s Corner

A current and reflective discussion of cattle breeding from outside the registered mainstream
 
HomeUsergroupsRegisterLog in

Share | 
 

 Breeding goals

View previous topic View next topic Go down 
Go to page : 1, 2, 3  Next
AuthorMessage
alexfarms



Posts : 10
Join date : 2013-08-21
Age : 58
Location : Gypsum, KS

PostSubject: Breeding goals   Fri Dec 27, 2013 4:53 pm

I raise linebred King Domino polled Herefords. My stated goal has been to raise breeding stock that is linebred for "fertility, soundness and the efficient production of high quality beef." The line I have was put together at the research station at Havre, MT in 1948 and most of them are in the 40%'s for inbreeding coefficients. I have had the King Dominos for almost 12 years now. I had other lines prior to the KDs and still have some of those cows around also. I have been trying to use as many straight KD bulls as I can to keep my ibc down, so I have used multiple sire breeding pastures, until 2013. Maternal calving ease has been a challenge in 2 year old heifers. I may have made a breakthrough with my 736 bull (sold), whose daughters (5) have all calved unassisted. I used a son of 736 on most of my King Dominos this year. My selection criteria has been heavily based on fertility and soundness to this point because I started with 2 bulls and 6 females from the King Domino line and all were out of 1 cow or her daughter. There are 14 KD cows bred to calve next spring and 3 opens. 2 herd bulls, 4 good quality bull calves and probably 3 replacement quality heifer calves. I have culled rigorously and I think I am at a point where I will need to consider selection criteria beyond just fertility and soundness. I would like to know opinions from any of you on performance meat production selection criteria. So much of our marketing is based on visual appraisal, that I am concerned visual appraisal is over-emphasized to the detriment of beef production. What have you found to be your best meat production selection criteria?
Back to top Go down
MKeeney
Admin


Posts : 4624
Join date : 2010-09-21

PostSubject: Re: Breeding goals   Fri Dec 27, 2013 6:24 pm

Hello John and Welcome...I just posted the below in answer to your "Shoshone question" and posting it again as a further introduction...

Hello John, good seeing your name here...Larry can explain better, but I`m sure the name comes from the Shoshone River...the River name from the Indian Tribe??? I don`t know...and seeing those Herefords you mentioned are from Cody; I`m guess the same thing...bit I`m more interested in this bull below; others, and your linebreeding experiences... please share here, or start your own topic...Welcome  Exclamation

http://www.kansashereford.org/s/MemberPopup.cfm?PID=118-4



that 42% IBC caught my eye immediately; I`ve already had a round with Danny Miller over the Hereford Association having their IBC values calculated way too high...your thoughts?

http://www.kansashereford.org/s/MemberDirectory.cfm?MID=118#
Back to top Go down
http://www.keeneyscorner.com
alexfarms



Posts : 10
Join date : 2013-08-21
Age : 58
Location : Gypsum, KS

PostSubject: Re: Breeding goals   Fri Dec 27, 2013 7:10 pm

The bull pictured is AF HL KING DOMINO 1018: http://www.herfnet.com/online/cgi-bin/i4.dll?1=3E3F292A&2=2434&3=56&5=2B3C2B3C3A&6=5A5D5B5A582124272E&9=515B5050

He's pictured as a 3 year old. I got his first calves in spring 2013. The sons are very masculine and both sons and daughters are deep chested. His dam calved as a two year old and has maintained near 365 day calving interval on 6 calves. She's sound, good uddered and fleshy. Here's a pic of her a few hours before she calved as a 7 year old:

1018 is double bred to the 37G cow, that I purchased with the original group. All of my King dominos have 37G in their pedigrees and all but 1 of them are maternal descendants of 37G.

I believe the IBC's derived from the AHA site are pretty accurate, BUT there are various ways to figure ibc. I have done some out by hand and found them to be similar to the AHA ibc. I think the main difference in the calculations are how many generations you wanna go back. I had thought I could lower the inbreeding coefficients on the KD's by using multi-sire pastures and building numbers, but that hasn't been the case. So, I guess if you can prove to me 42% is too high for that pedigree, you'd be doing me a favor! Its a good question though, does inbreeding coefficient matter?

As for my experiences linebreeding the King Dominos, I think the biggest surprise is the extremes and so many culls. The top performers seem to produce the top performing calves and the poor performers produce poor performers (although I haven't tried outcrossing the poor performers). I do believe higher inbreeding delays growth to maturity and causes greater maternal calving problems in the first calf heifers. Roy Darnell was a Miles City Line 1 breeder and he use to say that the Line 1's increase in frame with age because of a different growth curve due to inbreeding, and I think he had that right.

It does seem like I remember hearing about Shoshone Indians in one of those old westerns, now that you mention it.

John
Back to top Go down
MKeeney
Admin


Posts : 4624
Join date : 2010-09-21

PostSubject: Re: Breeding goals   Sat Dec 28, 2013 4:18 am

So, I guess if you can prove to me 42% is too high for that pedigree, you'd be doing me a favor! Its a good question though, does inbreeding coefficient matter?


John, I believe the cattle matter more than the IBC  Smile 

unfortunately, instead of me having answers to your questions, I have had some  of your experiences, which have given rise to the same questions you have...I think the first question we must answer is why are we close breeding? are we creating parent stock to outcross with in commercial production {my direction" or are we "purifying" a lineage of deleterious genes to become superior production animals of their own accord without crossing; though I suppose such would be superb parent stock as well...or are you close breeding just to see what`s on top of the mountain? { I`m doing some of that  Smile }
do you think your lineage and direction is more maternal trait or terminal trait utility, or kinda in between?
Back to top Go down
http://www.keeneyscorner.com
alexfarms



Posts : 10
Join date : 2013-08-21
Age : 58
Location : Gypsum, KS

PostSubject: Re: Breeding goals   Sat Dec 28, 2013 9:16 am

The only market that matters is the commercial beef production market. I believe, for a linebred line to be viable, it needs to have sound, efficient and productive maternal genetics at its base.

I admit, I have always had an interest in linebreeding, but my entrance into linebreeding has been by necessity. I have tried many different bloodlines over the years and for purity and freedom of genetic and functional faults, the KING DOMINOS have been superior to the others that are still available. My goal is to increase the population of the line and to market the line to commercial producers as an all purpose line, either maternal or terminal.
Back to top Go down
EddieM



Posts : 895
Join date : 2010-09-24
Location : South Carolina

PostSubject: Re: Breeding goals   Sat Dec 28, 2013 11:03 am

John,
I'm guessing out of ignorance that the history of the line based on traditional performance selection. What are your long term goals: more towards maternal or just correcting some past wrongs? How much/many/animals/breeders are left with any of this line?

Eddie, more Angus oriented
Back to top Go down
alexfarms



Posts : 10
Join date : 2013-08-21
Age : 58
Location : Gypsum, KS

PostSubject: Re: Breeding goals   Sat Dec 28, 2013 1:07 pm

EddieM wrote:
John,
I'm guessing out of ignorance that the history of the line based on traditional performance selection.  What are your long term goals: more towards maternal or just correcting some past wrongs?  How much/many/animals/breeders are left with any of this line?

Eddie, more Angus oriented

The Havre King Domino line was put together at the Havre, MT Montana State University research station in 1948 and dispersed in 1972. Havre had several lines of Herefords and the Havre King Dominos were called Line 1 at Havre. The line consisted of 20 females and 2 herd bulls in 1948. All of the original stock were linebred to King Domino and his sire Mossy Plato 26. I don't believe they ever had more than 35 females in the line at Havre. The cattle were performance selected for increased growth. Don Anderson managed the line at Havre and he told me in the carcass testing they did they were their best carcass line at that time. I think they would have been described as more of a terminal growth line at that time. Havre dispersed them in 1972 and used their Line 4 for future research. Havre's Line 4 was linebred Advance Domino breeding, the same as Miles City's Line 1. Havre has, occasionally, borrowed bulls from Miles City to add to their Line 4's, which they now call Montana Dominos. I think Havre also maintains an Angus herd along with their Montana Dominos. In the '70's the Havre King Dominos were popular as growth cattle, until the Canadian cattle started coming into the US and dominating the frame race.

The cattle I bought descend from cattle that had been donated to North Dakota State University by Frank Kubik in 1980. The main cow that was donated was HL 1 LADY K DOM 2: http://www.herfnet.com/online/cgi-bin/i4.dll?1=3E3F292A&2=2434&3=56&5=2B3C2B3C3A&6=5B5B5C24232427202E She was valued at $40,000. in 1980. Frank Kubik also donated his ranch to NDSU. NDSU didn't do much with the King Dominos and dispersed what was left in 1992. The top cow was sold to Riblong Polled Herefords in Alberta: http://abri.une.edu.au/online/cgi-bin/i4.dll?1=2021292A&2=232F5F&3=56&5=2B3C2B3C3A&6=59585B2427232F2425&9=515F5D5B Neil Schaar later bought the top cow to add to a daughter of her he bought at NDSU's dispersal. Neil had sold a half King Domino bull to Alan Siggins at Cody, WY: http://www.herfnet.com/online/cgi-bin/i4.dll?1=3E3F292A&2=2420&3=56&5=2B3C2B3C3A&6=5B595B5A5859272E2E Alan Siggins had also raised some of the KD that I bought with his recipient cows. One of the bulls, 71J, I bought from Schaar's did well for me and I sold semen on him to breeders in several states. Tomlinson's in MT used him pretty heavily and used sons of him. They also bought a KD bull from me in 2009: http://www.herfnet.com/online/cgi-bin/i4.dll?1=3E3F292A&2=2434&3=56&5=2B3C2B3C3A&6=5A5D5C232325202525&9=50515B5D I sold an interest in a grandson(505) of 71J to Mick Kubinec in Alberta in 2007. 505 was a disappointment in some ways, he wasn't a 100% dehorner and he didn't sire enough muscleing. 505's calves grew out well. I believe Mick had a 505 son at Calgary that was over 2200# at less than 24 months. I sold 71J sons to purebred and commercial breeders with mostly good results. Nelson's in Minnesota bought a son and used 71J AI. I backed off promoting 71J, because I really thought I could come up with a better bull. In particular a better testicled bull. 71J's testicles didn't always hang as evenly as they should. I think I have improved that a lot with my current bulls.

I believe most of what needed to be done when I bought the cows was maternal. The cows were, mostly, pretty coarse. Birthweights were too big. Udders were very good. Calving ease has been a challenge and I have made a lot of progress in calving ease, I believe. I need to build more numbers, maintain maternal traits and increase performance. I think linebred cattle will always shine most when they are outcrossed, either between lines within a breed or crossbreeding. I have had mixed reviews from people who have visited and looked at the cattle. People who have been in the business and are familiar with linebred cattle are mostly impressed with the King Dominos. Mostly, I need to increase numbers and that is a slow process.
Back to top Go down
Grassfarmer



Posts : 850
Join date : 2010-09-27
Location : Belmont, Manitoba, Canada

PostSubject: Re: Breeding goals   Sat Dec 28, 2013 3:45 pm

Not that I think having high IBC scores is an end in itself but I don't believe that bull is anything like 42% using commonly accepted calculation methods. In his 4 generation pedigree there is only one shared ancestor (the 37G cow) which appears once in the 3rd and once in the 4th generation. That can't be considered as close breeding in my book.
Below is a link to one of my bulls that is calculated to have a 16.4% IBC. He has four shared ancestors in his 4 generation pedigree, one of which appears twice in the 3rd generation and the other 3 all appear twice in the 4th generation. Surely that would make him 140+% IBC by Hereford standards Smile 

http://www.clrc.ca/cgi-bin/pedigree.cgi?_breedcode=LU&_countrycode=CAN&_association=79&_regnumberprefix=G&_regnumber=916&_regnumbersuffix=
Back to top Go down
http://www.luingcattle.com
alexfarms



Posts : 10
Join date : 2013-08-21
Age : 58
Location : Gypsum, KS

PostSubject: Re: Breeding goals   Sat Dec 28, 2013 6:26 pm

Grassfarmer wrote:
Not that I think having high IBC scores is an end in itself but I don't believe that bull is anything like 42% using commonly accepted calculation methods. In his 4 generation pedigree there is only one shared ancestor (the 37G cow) which appears once in the 3rd and once in the 4th generation. That can't be considered as close breeding in my book.
Below is a link to one of my bulls that is calculated to have a 16.4% IBC. He has four shared ancestors in his 4 generation pedigree, one of which appears twice in the 3rd generation and the other 3 all appear twice in the 4th generation. Surely that would make him 140+% IBC by Hereford standards Smile 

http://www.clrc.ca/cgi-bin/pedigree.cgi?_breedcode=LU&_countrycode=CAN&_association=79&_regnumberprefix=G&_regnumber=916&_regnumbersuffix=

Its very tedious and I hate to start this, but, the way I read your posted pedigree:
(I edited this 2 or 3 times for math errors, its too tedious, let a computer do it!)

I see three common ancestors in the four generation pedigree you posted:  LUING BONUS (12.5%); SNOWLANDER 27J (3.125%); ROTHNEY GIDEON 501G (.78125%)=16.40625%

That would make your bull 16.40625% inbred in 4 generations.  He is a result of a 3/4 sib mating, which makes him 15.625% right off the bat.  A full sib mating would be 25% inbred and is generally considered the most severe inbreeding.  But that is only 4 generations.  The formula I use is 1/2 to the a+1 power for each common ancestor, where a equals the generations removed.  ie:  Sire/daughter mating is 1/2 squared=25%

If you went just one more generation back on the bull I posted, you pick up 2 more common ancestors, 2 times each(B207 and 68734).  Plus the 37G cow is, herself, 32% inbred.  The B207 cow is 31% inbred.  The 68734 bull is 29% inbred.  In the case of the 37G cow, 1018 would be 6.25% inbred to her, but since she is 32% inbred, you take (1+.32)X.625=8.25% would be the inbreeding just for the 37G cow.  2.015625% to 68734 and 4.09375% to the B207 cow, which equals 14.359375% in just 4 generations.  You would have to go back 12 generations and do that for each common ancestor and add them all together.  Many of the ancestors of 1018 would appear many times in his pedigree.  It adds up a great deal and it is very tedious.  You really have to go back and start at the beginning of the linebreeding program.  

If you only go back 4 generations, like on your pedigree, and if those common animals in that 4th generation are closely bred, but you don't account for it, you will greatly underestimate the total inbreeding coefficient of the animal.
Back to top Go down
alexfarms



Posts : 10
Join date : 2013-08-21
Age : 58
Location : Gypsum, KS

PostSubject: Re: Breeding goals   Sat Dec 28, 2013 7:45 pm

Here's the pedigree for HAVRE KING DOMINO 71J.  It shows a little more upfront inbreeding.  71J was a fully pigmented, 100% dehorning bull.
http://www.herfnet.com/online/cgi-bin/i4.dll?1=3E3F292A&2=2434&3=56&5=2B3C2B3C3A&6=5B595B5A5859272E2D

Its interesting to note that, according to the AHA ibc calculator, 71J's ibc is 49%. Not really much higher than 1018 because of the 65 year history of closed linebreeding within the line.
Back to top Go down
Grassfarmer



Posts : 850
Join date : 2010-09-27
Location : Belmont, Manitoba, Canada

PostSubject: Re: Breeding goals   Sat Dec 28, 2013 8:42 pm

What I don't understand with your Hereford way of accounting is how common ancestry further back is given more importance than in more recent generations. When you discount Luing Insurance and Luing Leccamore who both appear twice in the 4th generation of my pedigree (just the same as Snowlander 27J), presumably because they were the parents of Luing Bonus whose influence has already been accounted for how can you then say that cattle 10 generations back in your method of counting can maintain the high level of close breeding they may have had? As far as I'm concerned if you have a cow that has a 25% IBC score when you breed her to an unrelated bull the offspring will have a 12.5 IBC. Similarly the "dilution effect" must apply to your close bred ancestors when they are bred to less closely bred individuals.
When you say "a full sib mating would be 25% inbred and is generally considered the most severe inbreeding" how does that place your 42% IBC bull - is he more inbred but less the product of/suffering from "severe inbreeding" scratch 
I always thought 25% was where inbreeding started and line breeding ended. According to the calculator I use (12 generations) mating my bull to his full sister would give me a 33.023% IBC offspring.
Back to top Go down
http://www.luingcattle.com
MKeeney
Admin


Posts : 4624
Join date : 2010-09-21

PostSubject: Re: Breeding goals   Sat Dec 28, 2013 8:51 pm

John, I agree Grassy`s bull meets 18.5% ibc up front in the pedigree...I had a heifer that AAA calculated in 5 generations to be 46%...Kent then put her in a pedigree analysis program and 15 generations took her to 53%...but I was astounded by Danny`s Hereford numbers; and not a common ancestor in 4 generations...I wonder if the Miles City Line ones are calculated by the station; or by AHA...interesting to me was the fact that genome analysis did not show as high an IBC number as did pedigree...my take on that fact was that selection for top yearling weight was creating selection for less inbreeding level;less regression...I quizzed the animal breeding PHD about the possibility of bulls passed over phenotypically might have genotypes for more, or as much yearling weight, when outcrossed...she thought very possible, and would be a nice project for ME to undertake with a couple of their bulls on my Angus cows  Very Happy 
The one thing that sticks with me was the herdsman saying the herd was headed for extinction under the current selection guidelines; but they were staying the course...which, is what research institutions should do, instead of farting around breeding cattle and playing the same con games as the registered mainstream...
from where and when did the poll gene appear in these Havre cattle?
Back to top Go down
http://www.keeneyscorner.com
alexfarms



Posts : 10
Join date : 2013-08-21
Age : 58
Location : Gypsum, KS

PostSubject: Re: Breeding goals   Sat Dec 28, 2013 9:14 pm

Grassfarmer wrote:
What I don't understand with your Hereford way of accounting is how common ancestry further back is given more importance than in more recent generations. When you discount Luing Insurance and Luing Leccamore who both appear twice in the 4th generation of my pedigree (just the same as Snowlander 27J), presumably because they were the parents of Luing Bonus whose influence has already been accounted for how can you then say that cattle 10 generations back in your method of counting can maintain the high level of close breeding they may have had? As far as I'm concerned if you have a cow that has a 25% IBC score when you breed her to an unrelated bull the offspring will have a 12.5 IBC. Similarly the "dilution effect" must apply to your close bred ancestors when they are bred to less closely bred individuals.
When you say "a full sib mating would be 25% inbred and is generally considered the most severe inbreeding" how does that place your 42% IBC bull - is he more inbred but less the product of/suffering from "severe inbreeding" scratch 
I always thought 25% was where inbreeding started and line breeding ended. According to the calculator I use (12 generations) mating my bull to his full sister would give me a 33.023% IBC offspring.

In a closed population, the ibc will work up over time.  I would think, the more you increase the size of the population, then the more slowly the ibc would increase.  I don't think the AHA calculator is unique.  I think its built around the same formula used to figure a 4 generation ibc, its just set up to go back as far as the records allow.

When you look at a pedigree, you chose the closest common ancestor in each branch.  LUING BONUS is the closest on the paternal side of both the sire and dam, so he is considered in calculating the ibc and his ancestors are not.  If, for example, the animals maternal great-grand-dam had been sired by LUING INSURANCE, then he would have been considered a common ancestor (for ibc calculation).  That is how it can get built up the farther you go back.  Plus if the common ancestors had ibc, they get factored in with each successive incidence of inbreeding.

If you breed a cow with a 25% ibc to an unrelated bull, the offspring will have ibc of 0%.

A full sib mating is 25%, without looking at the rest of the pedigree.  Full sib matings are considered to be the most severe mating since you duplicate both the sire and dam's genetics on both side.

Inbreeding is defined as any mating that is more closely related than the average of the population.  Linebreeding is a type of inbreeding, it is usually considered to be built mostly around mating siblings and not parents to progeny or as Jim Lents phrases it..."incestuous matings".


Last edited by alexfarms on Sat Dec 28, 2013 11:34 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top Go down
alexfarms



Posts : 10
Join date : 2013-08-21
Age : 58
Location : Gypsum, KS

PostSubject: Re: Breeding goals   Sat Dec 28, 2013 9:37 pm

MKeeney wrote:
John, I agree Grassy`s bull meets 18.5% ibc up front in the pedigree...I had a heifer that AAA calculated in 5 generations to be 46%...Kent then put her in a pedigree analysis program and 15 generations took her to 53%...but I was astounded by Danny`s Hereford numbers; and not a common ancestor in 4 generations...I wonder if the Miles City Line ones are calculated by the station; or by AHA...interesting to me was the fact that genome analysis did not show as high an IBC number as did pedigree...my take on that fact was that selection for top yearling weight was creating selection for less inbreeding level;less regression...I quizzed the animal breeding PHD about the possibility of bulls passed over phenotypically might have genotypes for more, or as much yearling weight, when outcrossed...she thought very possible, and would be a nice project for ME to undertake with a couple of their bulls on my Angus cows  Very Happy 
The one thing that sticks with me was the herdsman saying the herd was headed for extinction under the current selection guidelines; but they were staying the course...which, is what research institutions should do, instead of farting around breeding cattle and playing the same con games as the registered mainstream...
from where and when did the poll gene appear in these Havre cattle?

Danny's cattle will be high for similar reasons. They may not be as high because there were a lot of Victor Dominos through the years so the population was larger. Miles City Line 1's will be the same story. Miles City puts effort into keeping ibc low, so you will see many 4 generation pedigrees with no common ancestors. Miles City calculates their own ibc and they are very close to the AHA ibc.

I'm not familiar with the genome analysis you refer to. I sure would like to learn more about it.

Danny had mentioned what the herdsman said. Something like: They are breeding themselves into extinction as things are currently going. Idk. I have the 2013 calving sheets. I will try to get them posted here. It's interesting and its great that they make so much information available to everyone. I fiddled with them for over 10 years before I bought the King Dominos and I am sure I wouldn't have taken them on if I hadn't had the experiences I had with the LIne 1's.

The original havre cattle were linebred to King domino and his sire, Mossy Plato 26. Both were polled and I believe they traced to Giant, one of Gammons original 11 polled Herefords he accumulated to establish the polled gene in the Hereford breed. The Victor Dominos were also linebred to Mossy Plato 26, as were the Trask cattle.
Back to top Go down
alexfarms



Posts : 10
Join date : 2013-08-21
Age : 58
Location : Gypsum, KS

PostSubject: Re: Breeding goals   Sat Dec 28, 2013 11:36 pm

Miles City calving sheets:







Back to top Go down
Grassfarmer



Posts : 850
Join date : 2010-09-27
Location : Belmont, Manitoba, Canada

PostSubject: Re: Breeding goals   Sun Dec 29, 2013 12:35 am

What interests me from these tables is the huge range of variation. BWs from the 60s to over 110lb, ww from 300 to 550.

Do these weaning weights look typical for straight breds that age in that environment?
Back to top Go down
http://www.luingcattle.com
alexfarms



Posts : 10
Join date : 2013-08-21
Age : 58
Location : Gypsum, KS

PostSubject: Re: Breeding goals   Sun Dec 29, 2013 1:11 am

Grassfarmer wrote:
What interests me from these tables is the huge range of variation. BWs from the 60s to over 110lb, ww from 300 to 550.

Do these weaning weights look typical for straight breds that age in that environment?

I don't think they would compare well to other programs in the area that aren't 30% inbred.  Its best just to use the data for comparisons within the Miles City herd.  They did tell me it was one of their best crops in a while.  They had better moisture in 2013.  They used some old bulls, AI.  I asked them why, and the reply I got was to improve the percentage of bred cows and to select for things other than just growth.

The calving ease codes are interesting.

Here's a ww calculator: http://www.cattlecalculator.com/adjusted-weaning-weight-calculator
Back to top Go down
Grassfarmer



Posts : 850
Join date : 2010-09-27
Location : Belmont, Manitoba, Canada

PostSubject: Re: Breeding goals   Sun Dec 29, 2013 10:22 am

So they are using AI, selecting for other than growth and trying to get more cows bred - these all sound like they are trying to prevent them breeding themselves into extinction.

I didn't get your point about the calving ease codes - what was interesting? what do the 35 and 45 mean?

I thought the correlation between birth weights and weaning weights was unusual. The heaviest ww came from a 72lb bw and many of the 100lb bws came where on the ww rankings. Like the range of variation in birth weight and weaning weight there didn't seem to be any pattern despite being a closed herd with single goal selection for so many decades. Why have these cattle not become more consistent?
Back to top Go down
http://www.luingcattle.com
alexfarms



Posts : 10
Join date : 2013-08-21
Age : 58
Location : Gypsum, KS

PostSubject: Re: Breeding goals   Sun Dec 29, 2013 11:33 am

Grassfarmer wrote:
So they are using AI, selecting for other than growth and trying to get more cows bred - these all sound like they are trying to prevent them breeding themselves into extinction.

I didn't get your point about the calving ease codes - what was interesting? what do the 35 and 45 mean?

I thought the correlation between birth weights and weaning weights was unusual. The heaviest ww came from a 72lb bw and many of the 100lb bws came where on the ww rankings. Like the range of variation in birth weight and weaning weight there didn't seem to be any pattern despite being a closed herd with single goal selection for so many decades. Why have these cattle not become more consistent?

The calving ease codes. 1 is unassisted; 2 is slight assistance; 3 is hard pull; 4 C-section; 5 is abnormal presentation. 35 would be hard pull and abnormal presentation. 45 would be C-section and abnormal presentation. I believe I counted like 18 out of 42 2-year-olds required assistance. I didn't know they were assisting that much. That could also lead to a lot of opens. It just re-enforces my belief in the importance of maternal calving ease in a linebreeding program. Its one theory that increased ibc leads to slower growth/less frame at calving time on those first calf heifers and less pelvic area. I think maternal calving ease is extremely important to keep a line viable. Their are two elements, of course, calf size/shape and pelvic area.

Its interesting to study the problems and challenges that the numbers indicate. The Line 1's are very good cattle. There are problems, but they have survived a lot of years of very close breeding. To look at the cattle, they are pretty uniform. Their stated selection criteria has been increased yearling performance, but I think they have also selected and culled for other traits, maybe indirectly.
Back to top Go down
MKeeney
Admin


Posts : 4624
Join date : 2010-09-21

PostSubject: Re: Breeding goals   Sun Dec 29, 2013 1:23 pm

my theory on why and how the pedigree ibc being higher than the dna evidence was a bit of extrapolation on my part...the scientist did not directly disagree...
I think we`re getting somewhere towards diminishing the traditional idea that closer breeding makes everything in a parent stock population all neatly uniform and nice phenotypically...
Back to top Go down
http://www.keeneyscorner.com
EddieM



Posts : 895
Join date : 2010-09-24
Location : South Carolina

PostSubject: Re: Breeding goals   Sun Dec 29, 2013 2:19 pm

Grassfarmer wrote:
So they are using AI, selecting for other than growth and trying to get more cows bred - these all sound like they are trying to prevent them breeding themselves into extinction.

I didn't get your point about the calving ease codes - what was interesting? what do the 35 and 45 mean?

I thought the correlation between birth weights and weaning weights was unusual. The heaviest ww came from a 72lb bw and many of the 100lb bws came where on the ww rankings. Like the range of variation in birth weight and weaning weight there didn't seem to be any pattern despite being a closed herd with single goal selection for so many decades. Why have these cattle not become more consistent?

Maybe their criteria does not select cattle for uniformity. Maybe it is only a selection over many years of the most unstable through outliers. Do they base goodness or selection pressure on males more than females?
Back to top Go down
Grassfarmer



Posts : 850
Join date : 2010-09-27
Location : Belmont, Manitoba, Canada

PostSubject: Re: Breeding goals   Sun Dec 29, 2013 3:24 pm

Selection criteria from the outset was on yearling weight only. Selecting for one trait for that long (any trait) would surely result in more uniformity in the cattle in all traits wouldn't it? scratch 

The birth weight variation staggers me - we had nothing like that spread in our starting population - a cross section of our entire breed. So will our variation increase with line-breeding? - i'd have thought the opposite.
Back to top Go down
http://www.luingcattle.com
EddieM



Posts : 895
Join date : 2010-09-24
Location : South Carolina

PostSubject: Re: Breeding goals   Sun Dec 29, 2013 3:43 pm

Grassfarmer wrote:
Selection criteria from the outset was on yearling weight only. Selecting for one trait for that long (any trait) would surely result in more uniformity in the cattle in all traits wouldn't it? scratch 

The birth weight variation staggers me - we had nothing like that spread in our starting population - a cross section of our entire breed. So will our variation increase with line-breeding? - i'd have thought the opposite.

Is single trait selection useful? Apparently not. And then they could be selecting some of the on/off genes that can jump generations. I sure do not know but would not think that selecting for YW would do anything selective for other traits. That is why I have been so puzzled over the Becton herd with all of their success with both males and females in varying traits by in them by sexual division. But I'm not sure about much anyway.
Back to top Go down
alexfarms



Posts : 10
Join date : 2013-08-21
Age : 58
Location : Gypsum, KS

PostSubject: Re: Breeding goals   Sun Dec 29, 2013 3:52 pm

MKeeney wrote:
my theory on why and how the pedigree ibc being higher than the dna evidence was a bit of extrapolation on my part...the scientist did not directly disagree...
I think we`re getting somewhere towards diminishing the traditional idea that closer breeding makes everything in a parent stock population all neatly uniform and nice phenotypically...

Maybe through "mild" linebreeding or mild outcrossing more uniformity could be  maintained?  Or maybe more strict culling?
Back to top Go down
alexfarms



Posts : 10
Join date : 2013-08-21
Age : 58
Location : Gypsum, KS

PostSubject: Re: Breeding goals   Sun Dec 29, 2013 4:03 pm

EddieM wrote:
Grassfarmer wrote:
Selection criteria from the outset was on yearling weight only. Selecting for one trait for that long (any trait) would surely result in more uniformity in the cattle in all traits wouldn't it? scratch 

The birth weight variation staggers me - we had nothing like that spread in our starting population - a cross section of our entire breed. So will our variation increase with line-breeding? - i'd have thought the opposite.

Is single trait selection useful?  Apparently not.  And then they could be selecting some of the on/off genes that can jump generations.  I sure do not know but would not think that selecting for YW would do anything selective for other traits. That is why I have been so puzzled over the Becton herd with all of their success with both males and females in varying traits by in them by sexual division.  But I'm not sure about much anyway.

Are there some past posts or other info on the "Becton herd"?

Back to top Go down
Sponsored content




PostSubject: Re: Breeding goals   

Back to top Go down
 
Breeding goals
View previous topic View next topic Back to top 
Page 1 of 3Go to page : 1, 2, 3  Next
 Similar topics
-
» Dunlouise Scottish "Pure" Cattle
» The Cowboy NFR
» Wheel Invented!!! Inbreeding in Terminal Cattle
» What are the odds?
» cow family

Permissions in this forum:You cannot reply to topics in this forum
Keeney`s Corner :: Breeding Philosophies :: Breeding Philosophies-
Jump to: