Keeney`s Corner

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

Share | 
 

 pinebank newsletter

View previous topic View next topic Go down 
Go to page : 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next
AuthorMessage
PatB



Posts : 352
Join date : 2010-09-25
Age : 53
Location : Turner, Maine

PostSubject: pinebank newsletter   Thu May 05, 2011 10:10 am


Gavin's april newsletter gives a different perspective on numbers.

pat

pinebank newsletter

Back to top Go down
MKeeney
Admin


Posts : 4007
Join date : 2010-09-21

PostSubject: Re: pinebank newsletter   Sun May 08, 2011 1:43 pm

how could you increase efficiency of a cow without measuring her input?
Back to top Go down
http://www.keeneyscorner.com
MKeeney
Admin


Posts : 4007
Join date : 2010-09-21

PostSubject: from LL   Mon May 09, 2011 1:11 pm

]FROM LL...Excerpts from Pinebank newsletter:

Readers would have noticed that I repeated the piece about cow efficiency twice. This was done deliberately as I consider that this finding by the Trangie Research Station in Australia the most important finding in the last 20 years. It shows that cow efficiency can be raised relatively easily; the effect on the beef industry for those who wish to use it could be monumental

There is a 100% difference between the best and the worst cow in efficiency in a standard population and that efficiency has a heritability of 40%. This is high. and means that selecting for efficiency you can make progress relatively quickly. The definition of this efficiency is the weight of calf; weaned per kilo of dry matter consumed . On checking the variation of cows performance. Cows vary close to the herd average variation. If your herd varies say 100 kilos between the best and the worst calf ,at weaning weight then each cow varied about that 100 kilos. But some vary at the top and the worst vary at the bottom. There were very very few cows that produced a top calf every year. I had one in the 55 years of running the stud. There is a problem in these cows, if you have a closed herd. You must not use her calf every year because you are tying yourself too closely to her gene pool and that is dangerous. You could find in the future that her genes were not as clean as you had thought, Including so many of her genes you are building in inbreeding and trouble.

MikeK asks:

how could you increase efficiency of a cow without measuring her input?

LARRY ASKS

With reliance on research models that developed the dollar energy requirements to produce dollar weaning values, if it is dangerous to include so many of a top cows genes into a gene pool, would it also be dangerous to include so many of a top bulls genes into a gene pool??? If breeds are closed populations, and "variation is the necessity to progress", then is expanding variation better? .......just searching for more definitive answers Smile
Back to top Go down
http://www.keeneyscorner.com
PatB



Posts : 352
Join date : 2010-09-25
Age : 53
Location : Turner, Maine

PostSubject: Re: pinebank newsletter   Mon May 09, 2011 1:28 pm

I would think selecting replacements from cows that raise an average calf or better every year under your management style while maintaining your desire mature size and bw at your predetermine level should increase efficiency. If you breed the desired type to desired type regardless of parentage shouldn't you increase the level of desired type production after several generations. The brave new world of DNA research may help us identify genes(markers) for desired trait(s) and ranges for our desired levels for a certian trait(s).
Back to top Go down
Grassfarmer



Posts : 714
Join date : 2010-09-27
Location : Belmont, Manitoba, Canada

PostSubject: Re: pinebank newsletter   Mon May 09, 2011 2:23 pm

MikeK asks: how could you increase efficiency of a cow without measuring her input?

patb wrote:
I would think selecting replacements from cows that raise an average calf or better every year under your management style while maintaining your desire mature size and bw at your predetermine level should increase efficiency.

But you are still not measuring her input - you may simply be selecting for the cows with biggest appetite and that appetite may be too large to cover the increased weight gain of her offspring.
Back to top Go down
http://www.luingcattle.com
PatB



Posts : 352
Join date : 2010-09-25
Age : 53
Location : Turner, Maine

PostSubject: Re: pinebank newsletter   Mon May 09, 2011 5:19 pm

Grassfarmer wrote:
MikeK asks: how could you increase efficiency of a cow without measuring her input?

patb wrote:
I would think selecting replacements from cows that raise an average calf or better every year under your management style while maintaining your desire mature size and bw at your predetermine level should increase efficiency.

But you are still not measuring her input - you may simply be selecting for the cows with biggest appetite and that appetite may be too large to cover the increased weight gain of her offspring.

I am open to suggestions on how to measure a cows imput in a pasture/range enviroment better yet 50 plus cow calf pairs. Are the concentrated feed trails selecting the animals that work in grain enviroment but may fail in all grass and hay forage operation?
Back to top Go down
MKeeney
Admin


Posts : 4007
Join date : 2010-09-21

PostSubject: Re: pinebank newsletter   Mon May 09, 2011 8:51 pm

I have forwarded Larry`s questions to Mr. Falloon

From LL

PatB wrote:

......The brave new world of DNA research may help us identify genes(markers) for desired trait(s) and ranges for our desired levels for a certian trait(s).

LL response
Presuming the "one cow" is Pinebank 86/96, shown on their Home Page, may I propose a worthwhile and interesting DNA research project for DF. To begin with just the basics, step one, compare the DNA of PB 86/96 with that of the sires of her calves .......Step two, then compare that with her subsequent progeny.like Pinebank 152/04. Realizing this is outside DF's familiarity with the Simmental breed, I will then suggest some other Angus cattle for comparative DNA analysis in order to identify genes (markers) for certain traits. Perhaps DF could be more successful than I in enlisting the help and funding of MARC for such a futuristic research project ......rather than wasting money confirming ordinary things that breeders have already been aware of Smile
Back to top Go down
http://www.keeneyscorner.com
df



Posts : 549
Join date : 2010-09-28

PostSubject: Re: pinebank newsletter   Mon May 09, 2011 9:04 pm

Can I assume you are wanting to know the actual homozygousity of this cow? I understand there will be a chip available soon that covers 1.3 mil base pairs.

I am not sure what good it will do without the phenotypes; would you be selecting the genes for good or .........evil Shocked
Back to top Go down
MKeeney
Admin


Posts : 4007
Join date : 2010-09-21

PostSubject: Re: pinebank newsletter   Mon May 09, 2011 9:05 pm

Back to top Go down
http://www.keeneyscorner.com
Guest
Guest



PostSubject: Re: pinebank newsletter   Mon May 09, 2011 9:39 pm

So very many other things to fret over, I don't think I will add another one at this time.
Back to top Go down
MKeeney
Admin


Posts : 4007
Join date : 2010-09-21

PostSubject: Re: pinebank newsletter   Tue May 10, 2011 4:44 am

From Gavin Falloon...

Larry or Mike

I do not know to whom I am replying. But if larry would you mind asking your friend LeRoy if he would mind sending me some of his best pictures of the cows taken at Joes when he was out here.

To answer your questions. How do you measure the cows efficiency. The cow that weans the top calf in your herd in any one year is the most efficient because to have weaned the top calf she must have picked up the most efficient genes of that year, in order that she defeats all the other cows.

The definition of effiemcy is amount of dry matter consumed by the cow per kilo of calf weaned. This trial at Trangie is the only trial that I have seen where the intake per cow was measured. The trial also demonstrated that not only was she the most efficient but also due to the superiority of her digestive system that she put out less gas. A lesson for us elderly people.

In closed herds in order to minimize inbreeding levels it is necessary to limit the use of any one animal as this concentrats of one set of genes, concentrates that raises inbreeding..

Hope that this covers much of your problems, remembering that “my’ objective is to keep as much of ‘my’ variation as possible

Hope that you are having a great Spring

Regards

Gavin

ps by MK...I don`t always agree with Gavin, but like many do by LL, I respect him to the point I don`t argue with him...too much Smile plus, he never fails to make me laugh...mk

Back to top Go down
http://www.keeneyscorner.com
MKeeney
Admin


Posts : 4007
Join date : 2010-09-21

PostSubject: Re: pinebank newsletter   Tue May 10, 2011 4:47 am

from Larry

DF wrote:

Can I assume you are wanting to know the actual homozygousity of this cow? I understand there will be a chip available soon that covers 1.3 mil base pairs.
I am not sure what good it will do without the phenotypes; would you be selecting the genes for good or ..........evil

Gavin's newsletter stated:

.....On checking the variation of cows performance. Cows vary close to the herd average variation. If your herd varies say 100 kilos between the best and the worst calf ,at weaning weight then each cow varied about that 100 kilos. But some vary at the top and the worst vary at the bottom

Larry asks

For starters, I want to know the difference in the variation between the top and the worst from a herd closed for 55 years of constant selection with available phenotypes of "them" and their progeny.
Back to top Go down
http://www.keeneyscorner.com
MKeeney
Admin


Posts : 4007
Join date : 2010-09-21

PostSubject: Re: pinebank newsletter   Tue May 10, 2011 7:36 am

a little diversion here; putting this picture of the 1/2 Pinebank outcross Angus cow back up here...



I hear all this Pharo inspired gibberish about more efficient cows, I buy none of it...however, some cows are more effective in varying environments than others...I know some of you don`t prefer this kind of cow...but...
I am cutting green hay here with at least 40% chance of rain everyday for the next 8 of 10 days...just a fact of where we live...cows are eating green grass full of water....to be effective, she best have some belly...her frame won`t affect her effectiveness, unless you want to raise her to maturity strictly on grass...if so, she best mature pretty quick...isn`t determining the "best type" a matter of deciding how much we need the cow to put into her calf versus how much she retains for her own health and reproductive function...and her longevity per discussed on the other thread...damn tradeoffs Exclamation Exclamation Exclamation

just something to argue about; since LL wonders why no one ever argues with him? Smile
Back to top Go down
http://www.keeneyscorner.com
df



Posts : 549
Join date : 2010-09-28

PostSubject: Re: pinebank newsletter   Tue May 10, 2011 8:21 am

MKeeney wrote:
no significance in this research...

http://www.asap.asn.au/livestocklibrary/1998/Herd98.PDF

Would you be concern that selecting for residual feed intake would hurt maternal traits?
Back to top Go down
df



Posts : 549
Join date : 2010-09-28

PostSubject: Re: pinebank newsletter   Tue May 10, 2011 8:25 am

MKeeney wrote:
from Larry

DF wrote:

Can I assume you are wanting to know the actual homozygousity of this cow? I understand there will be a chip available soon that covers 1.3 mil base pairs.
I am not sure what good it will do without the phenotypes; would you be selecting the genes for good or ..........evil

Gavin's newsletter stated:

.....On checking the variation of cows performance. Cows vary close to the herd average variation. If your herd varies say 100 kilos between the best and the worst calf ,at weaning weight then each cow varied about that 100 kilos. But some vary at the top and the worst vary at the bottom

Larry asks

For starters, I want to know the difference in the variation between the top and the worst from a herd closed for 55 years of constant selection with available phenotypes of "them" and their progeny.

Larry,

I am not sure of your question; are you wanting to know the variation in weaning weights from a single contemporary group of 30 calves or are you wanting to know if the cow that produced the smaller calves always produce small calves and the cows that produce large calves always produce large calves?
Back to top Go down
larkota



Posts : 310
Join date : 2010-09-23
Age : 57
Location : Kimball South Dakota

PostSubject: Re: pinebank newsletter   Tue May 10, 2011 8:40 am

Larry asks

For starters, I want to know the difference in the variation between the top and the worst from a herd closed for 55 years of constant selection with available phenotypes of "them" and their progeny.


just a shot in the dark. I would guess most of us would not know this because...... tell me how many breeders have tried this?
Back to top Go down
MKeeney
Admin


Posts : 4007
Join date : 2010-09-21

PostSubject: Re: pinebank newsletter   Tue May 10, 2011 9:26 am

df wrote:
MKeeney wrote:
no significance in this research...

http://www.asap.asn.au/livestocklibrary/1998/Herd98.PDF

Would you be concern that selecting for residual feed intake would hurt maternal traits?
without any data Smile , but...I tend to think so...don`t you?
Back to top Go down
http://www.keeneyscorner.com
Mean Spirit



Posts : 303
Join date : 2010-09-26

PostSubject: Re: pinebank newsletter   Tue May 10, 2011 11:44 am

Why? Just because selecting. For anything other than maternal would tend to hurt maternal traits? Or is there something about rfi that makes it worse re: maternal traits?
Back to top Go down
MKeeney
Admin


Posts : 4007
Join date : 2010-09-21

PostSubject: Re: pinebank newsletter   Tue May 10, 2011 12:35 pm

Mean Spirit wrote:
Why? Just because selecting. For anything other than maternal would tend to hurt maternal traits? Or is there something about rfi that makes it worse re: maternal traits?
nothing but a hunch...with time, let`s see if we can ascertain a common type in the bulls, or their daughters, with the best rfi scores
Back to top Go down
http://www.keeneyscorner.com
MKeeney
Admin


Posts : 4007
Join date : 2010-09-21

PostSubject: Re: pinebank newsletter   Tue May 10, 2011 12:45 pm

df, others...
let`s take a little DNA scientific tangent here...with capital letter worth 5 and lower case worth 3 for additive traits for yearling weight...
AaBbCcDdEeFf =48 lbs
AAbbCCddEEff =48 lbs

which bull will have the most actual YEARLING WEIGHT if everything else is the same but the genetic arrangement for yearling wt?
Back to top Go down
http://www.keeneyscorner.com
RobertMac



Posts : 262
Join date : 2010-09-28
Location : Mississippi, USA

PostSubject: Re: pinebank newsletter   Tue May 10, 2011 2:02 pm

My guess would be the homozygous bull because all the progeny would get the same genes and should be more consistent.
Back to top Go down
MKeeney
Admin


Posts : 4007
Join date : 2010-09-21

PostSubject: Re: pinebank newsletter   Tue May 10, 2011 2:08 pm

RobertMac wrote:
My guess would be the homozygous bull because all the progeny would get the same genes and should be more consistent.
as a sire, I see no difference in the AVERAGE...but as an individual, I see the homozygous bull having a lower yearling wt because of inbreeding effect...
Back to top Go down
http://www.keeneyscorner.com
RobertMac



Posts : 262
Join date : 2010-09-28
Location : Mississippi, USA

PostSubject: Re: pinebank newsletter   Tue May 10, 2011 2:17 pm

MKeeney wrote:
RobertMac wrote:
My guess would be the homozygous bull because all the progeny would get the same genes and should be more consistent.
as a sire, I see no difference in the AVERAGE...but as an individual, I see the homozygous bull having a lower yearling wt because of inbreeding effect...
I misunderstood the question...I thought you were talking about the yearling weights of progeny produced from the two bulls.
Back to top Go down
MKeeney
Admin


Posts : 4007
Join date : 2010-09-21

PostSubject: Re: pinebank newsletter   Tue May 10, 2011 2:21 pm

RobertMac wrote:
MKeeney wrote:
RobertMac wrote:
My guess would be the homozygous bull because all the progeny would get the same genes and should be more consistent.
as a sire, I see no difference in the AVERAGE...but as an individual, I see the homozygous bull having a lower yearling wt because of inbreeding effect...
I misunderstood the question...I thought you were talking about the yearling weights of progeny produced from the two bulls.
my bad ...I`m wondering if this is what Larry might be getting at...maybe not, but I sure see why the above scenario could fool those wanting...more...selecting outliers etc...
Back to top Go down
http://www.keeneyscorner.com
MKeeney
Admin


Posts : 4007
Join date : 2010-09-21

PostSubject: Re: pinebank newsletter   Wed May 11, 2011 3:22 am

from LL...

DF wrote:

I am not sure of your question; are you wanting to know the variation in weaning weights from a single contemporary group of 30 calves or are you wanting to know if the cow that produced the smaller calves always produce small calves and the cows that produce large calves always produce large calves?

Larry replies

Not exactly, most of us have observed or measured the visible variance in contemporary groups in the form of ratios adjusted to 205 days, what I actually would like to know is the invisible DNA differences between the phenotypic top and bottom animals, the sire, dam and progeny.....I want this project to provide you with academic proof to confirm my observations and consequential breeding philosophy Smile

Especially when Gavin wrote,

The cow that weans the top calf in your herd in any one year is the most efficient because to have weaned the top calf she must have picked up the most efficient genes of that year, in order that she defeats all the other cows.

The definition of effiemcy is amount of dry matter consumed by the cow per kilo of calf weaned. This trial at Trangie is the only trial that I have seen where the intake per cow was measured. The trial also demonstrated that not only was she the most efficient but also due to the superiority of her digestive system that she put out less gas. A lesson for us elderly people.

In closed herds in order to minimize inbreeding levels it is necessary to limit the use of any one animal as this concentrats of one set of genes, concentrates that raises inbreeding..

Larry replies
There was a Bozeman trial about 30 years ago where intake per cow was measured on pasture (by catching and measuring their excrement) with different production levels of cows to determine which of those different types were the most efficient (profitable) per pound of calf weaned. Of course there are always genetic variables but on average the highest producing cows were less efficient overall.

If I understand your statements correctly, in general if we select the "top calf", we would be selecting the "most efficient genes of that year", so in effect wouldn't we also be trying to concentrate or increase the frequency of "this one set of genes" over time? Per your request, I can scan some of the best pictures Leroy took at Joes of the Waigroup/Glanworth cattle during his recent visit to NZ and email them to you or post them here so anyone can see a representation of the type of cattle evolving from the Waigroup closed herd selection criteria.....I think everyone here on KC would appreciate the opportunity of seeing them.

Larry
Back to top Go down
http://www.keeneyscorner.com
Sponsored content




PostSubject: Re: pinebank newsletter   

Back to top Go down
 
pinebank newsletter
View previous topic View next topic Back to top 
Page 1 of 6Go to page : 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next
 Similar topics
-
» pinebank/waigroup newsletter
» Pinebank North America
» Reflections Condensed

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