Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 ... 10
1
« Last post by knabe on December 13, 2019, 10:36:55 PM »
that is the system that will be handy mandated to use.
2
You have dropped names....that's good....tactical......But I live west of the Missouri river......out here in fly over country.....so your effort is lost on me. Bahahahah///// YOU TAWKIN BOUT THEM THINGS THAT MAKE NOISE AND FLY? SWAMP GAS/// IF PIGS HAD WINGS THEY COULD FLY TOO Maybe you could bring civilization to the land of outdoor plumbing-In West Va and SouthWest Va BUT IT WOULD BE WISE TO CARRY A GUN FLAT LANDER 
3
Dont hate me cuz Im beautiful LOL The calf is not absolute just like everything else- but he checks quite a few boxes
4
« Last post by oakview on December 13, 2019, 01:05:26 PM »
The original fullblood Maine bulls excel in performance, muscling, and bone compared to the Red Advantage line cattle, in my opinion. I purchased shares in Red Savior, Red Power, and Propel and also have a grandson of Red Reward I've been using. The Red Advantage line calves would be smaller at birth, prettier fronted, and generally more stylish, along with being polled for the most part. Maybe I should try a fullblood Maine on my Red Advantage line females some day.
5
« Last post by aj on December 13, 2019, 01:02:28 PM »
I just wonder......if cattle feeders will eventually buy feeder calves by a blood test and pay accordingly for the results. And if the Angus model is the only system that is viable.....that is the system that will be handy to use. That crowds other breeds out. Why mess with another breed except for the heterosis factor? If say Shorthorn cattle are close enough related to Angus maybe the system would reward some Shorthorn cattle. I would wonder that the "British breeds" would be more related to the "exotic" cattle. But I don't know. They may not have a handle on the Shorthorn markers yet anyway to even know. I would like to be a fly on the wall when some of this data is compared.
6
« Last post by knabe on December 13, 2019, 12:36:00 PM »
with regard to associations adding animals to these tests, i'll use Maine's for an example, the current population has limited milk, more BW, avg or less ww and yw, they don't have the resources or germ plasm access to get a potential cross section that would be representative of reality which would be difficult as well since it's probably not going to include live cover animals in a semi-commercial setting, ie not over fed and given a fair chance to segregate.
really, you need contemporary groups of significant numbers by bull that represent diversity to fully evaluate animals that are truly significant. additionally, one can think of several useful animals that have negative traits. most of the niche breeds haven't had time or resources to impose selection like angus has.
why do maines that used to have milk, growth, etc not have it, but also have a perceived bw issue. there is sufficient diversity within the breed to address this with current germplasm as well as go back to fullbloods and add other sources including carcass traits that are useful that may be other sources/pathways of marbling/tenderness, cuttability etc. on the other hand, they could just be the same.
the technology and resources are simply not available to do this now.
and not that i'm pro or con anything.
7
« Last post by doc-sun on December 13, 2019, 12:18:18 PM »
knabe, it seems that you are against genomic testing, that is fine but to each his own.
Genomics are a tool, but I can say that, yes, they are over used and abused. They are used to market dairy and beef bulls and cows, used in calculating genomic enhanced EPD's and evaluations, etc.
Many breeders and people wonder with the genomics that we have today, how many bulls (and females) that have an impact on breeds would have been overlooked if genomics had been available in their day. How many animals today that could impact a breed are overlooked because of genomics?
At the same time, with genomics being such widely used and touted, if breeds do not utilize them they will be at a disadvantage when it comes to promoting and advancing the general use of the breed.
It seems that today, so many breeders want to breed by numbers. Gone are the days where the older breeders made breeding decisions with out EPD's or genomics. Some feel we had better cattle.
Again, while we may like or dislike EPD's and genomics, they are here and will have a continued use now and in the future.
I thought he was saying it is hard to rely on testing that has not been published with the methods establishing it disclosed and then validated by an independent source not that testing should never be done. If you use a santa claus test that gives you great results then how can you rely on something that doesn't exist except maybe to make the almighty $.
8
« Last post by knabe on December 13, 2019, 12:14:22 PM »
how was the data validated.
was it peer reviewed?
9
« Last post by knabe on December 13, 2019, 12:13:36 PM »
if breeds do not utilize them they will be at a disadvantage when it comes to promoting and advancing the general use of the breed.
It seems that today, so many breeders want to breed by numbers. Gone are the days where the older breeders made breeding decisions with out EPD's or genomics. Some feel we had better cattle.
Again, while we may like or dislike EPD's and genomics, they are here and will have a continued use now and in the future.
producers may be required to use only select genomics similar to hogs. genomics won't even be availabe to indifidual producers, because with current implementation, it isn't helpful. producers have been breeding by numbers for a while without genomics. epd's and genomics simply don't work for niche breeds (not angus or holstein)
10
« Last post by knabe on December 13, 2019, 12:10:27 PM »
knabe, it seems that you are against genomic testing, that is fine but to each his own.
not against it. there is no validation. i'm against stuff that doesn't work and is portrayed as such
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 ... 10
|
Recent Posts