Reciprocal crosses

Help Support Steer Planet:

librarian

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 26, 2013
Messages
1,629
Location
Knox County Nebraska
Those of you that are doing Shorthorn X Red Angus, what are the differences you see between using the Shorthorn for the sire on Red Angus cows and using a Red Angus sire on Shorthorn cows?
If you were breeding replacements, would you expect the heifers with the Shorthorn MGS out of Red Angus dams to make you more money as commercial brood cows, or the other way around?
I have guessed that one would want to use the breed with stronger maternal traits for the cow side of the cross, but then I have also heard that, genetically, the MGS is the determining factor in transmitting maternal traits. 
 

RyanChandler

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 6, 2011
Messages
3,457
Location
Pottsboro, TX
Of those two breeds, one is no more maternal than the others.  Now certain individuals within each breed will be more maternal than others.

I see what you are getting at but with the varying quality within each breed it's almost impossible to think in those terms. 
 

librarian

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 26, 2013
Messages
1,629
Location
Knox County Nebraska
It's an awkward question, and I did think about the differences between individuals being more important than the differences between breeds.
What I am really wondering about is whether reciprocal crosses seem to get results with consistent differences. Many times I have read about crosses that work better one way than the other.  But why? We talk about using Shorthorn bulls to make good commercial cross cows, usually out of Angus stock to put Angus bulls back on.  But what about if Shorthorn is the cow base?  Would one expect any different result (in very general terms) by using an Angus bull and then putting Shorthorn bulls back on the cross?
I ask about Red Angus because people seem to be using Red Angus bulls on Shorthorn cows.  Why?  What is the Red Angus adding other than heterosis?  Something is working well there--does it work as well either way?
In the conversation about BW, the limitation is the anatomy of the cow.  Most Shorthorn cows should have the anatomy to handle a pretty big calf because of all the performance breeding.  (Maybe i am way off on that)
Angus (Black, anyway) cows may be losing some of that roominess as a collateral result of calving ease sires.
I see the logic of asking why breed large frame cows and then use calving ease sires.
 

RyanChandler

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 6, 2011
Messages
3,457
Location
Pottsboro, TX
I do not think there is anything but speculation that would substantiate reciprocal crosses being more superior one way or the other.  I believe any difference will be the direct result of the differences between individuals used.

You're an astute cattleman, librarian- take advantage of the phenomenon and breed F1s terminal. There is no substitute for the f1 cow.
 

aj

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 5, 2006
Messages
6,420
Location
western kansas
I have used mainly red Angus bulls on Shorthorn cows. I have used half blood bulls on Shorthorn cows. I have bred half bloods to half bloods. My original Red Angus bull was out of programs breeding strictly by numbers for economical traits.......with strict natural selection. Some things I noticed was the Shorthorn side improves udders on the Red Angus. The cross cleans up the joints on the Red Angus and makes them more athletic if that makes sense. The Red Angus has lowered my bwts.....improved fleshing ability......knocked cow size down. Shorthorns are better dispostion but the Red Angus I have been around haven't been to bad. My experience is that the Shorthorns I have been around are bigger footed boned and way better footed. I have noticed some Red Angus out in the country with tiny hoofs.
 

aj

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 5, 2006
Messages
6,420
Location
western kansas
I forgot. If you put a yearling Shorthorn bull next to a yearling Red Angus.....the Red Angus beat the Shorthorns for masculinity 100% of the time. To me this is what kills some Shorthorn cattle. They are not early maturing. The bulls look like heifers in profile. There grow curves are all screwed up stretched out as people have been maximizing wda and adg......cows that are still growing as 3 and 4 year olds. jmo
 

RyanChandler

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 6, 2011
Messages
3,457
Location
Pottsboro, TX
aj said:
I forgot. If you put a yearling Shorthorn bull next to a yearling Red Angus.....the Red Angus beat the Shorthorns for masculinity 100% of the time. To me this is what kills some Shorthorn cattle. They are not early maturing. The bulls look like heifers in profile. There grow curves are all screwed up stretched out as people have been maximizing wda and adg......cows that are still growing as 3 and 4 year olds. jmo

Compare type to type.  I've got some two month old Shorthorn bull calves that are as masculine as calves of any breed at that age.  I think the problem may be in the type your evaluating.
 

librarian

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 26, 2013
Messages
1,629
Location
Knox County Nebraska
By terminal do you mean that all the F1 males go to beef, but the females (after sort) can be retained as F1 replacements? (I always thought terminal meant no animals would be retained) Then, after another cross, all the F2 animals go to beef?
As an example.  One has a good enough group of Shorthorn cows (not perfect, but to the point where good enough means pretty all around good for the environment).  These cows are half sisters.  They are crossed to another breed (say they are crossed to Red Angus)  The steers are sold and some F1 females are retained or sold as replacements.
Red Angus would be a good choice (?) because both breeds are compatible and considered maternal.  So the F1 females will be a sort of blend instead if a volatile union of opposites.
Now the F1 females are crossed to a third breed (say Charolais) and all the progeny are sold as beef.
But to stay true to the foundation Shorthorn cows for future replacements, seems like the best you can do is to get back to 75% Shorthorn, even if that 75% is line bred.  At what point does the percentage of a line become more important than the percentage of a breed?

I still think there is some folklore out there about which way crosses work better. Although it cannot be proven, and may seem irrational, I think most information handed down by farmers about livestock is rooted in truth.
 

RyanChandler

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 6, 2011
Messages
3,457
Location
Pottsboro, TX
librarian said:
By terminal do you mean that all the F1 males go to beef, but the females (after sort) can be retained as F1 replacements? (I always thought terminal meant no animals would be retained) Then, after another cross, all the F2 animals go to beef?

I mean the most efficient production model is to breed F1 cows (angus/ shorthorn) to a bull of a third breed (charolais, for example)

As an example.  One has a good enough group of Shorthorn cows (not perfect, but to the point where good enough means pretty all around good for the environment).  These cows are half sisters.  They are crossed to another breed (say they are crossed to Red Angus)  The steers are sold and some F1 females are retained or sold as replacements.

Red Angus would be a good choice (?) because both breeds are compatible and considered maternal.  So the F1 females will be a sort of blend instead if a volatile union of opposites.

Yes, though all breeds 'are compatible.'  You would likely experience more variation creating, for example, an F1 Gelbvieh/Shorthorn cow, but with the inputs to this cross being more unrelated, you would experience a greater degree of maternal heterosis than you would by creating the F1 from two more closely related (shorthorn and red angus) british breeds.  This is where/why many choose to forego a little heterosis for the sake of consistency


Now the F1 females are crossed to a third breed (say Charolais) and all the progeny are sold as beef.
But to stay true to the foundation Shorthorn cows for future replacements, seems like the best you can do is to get back to 75% Shorthorn, even if that 75% is line bred.
I'm confused a little here.  The foundation shorthorn cows are 100% shorthorn. I don't follow you w/ the 75%? I would never breed an f1 back to one of her foundation breeds.  This results in what's known as "regression" which is the opposite of heterosis. 

At what point does the percentage of a line become more important than the percentage of a breed?

 

I still think there is some folklore out there about which way crosses work better. Although it cannot be proven, and may seem irrational, I think most information handed down by farmers about livestock is rooted in truth.

 

librarian

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 26, 2013
Messages
1,629
Location
Knox County Nebraska
I meant the cow foundation was a certain Shorthorn family.  The replacements were F1 from that family, so 50% of that genetic Shorthorn base was lost with the first cross.  To continue with that cow family from the F1 replacements, unless one goes back to those same Shorthorn genetics, the 50% Shorthorn genetic legacy from the foundation family will shrink another 50% with every subsequent cross.
It seems like this is how we lose a good thing. 
Regressing to the original gene pool seems like the only way to stabilize the type. 
If we are talking about breeding type to type (beyond breed) for a DIGRESSION (a temporary departure from the main subject) from either gene pool for a temporary (terminal) improvement in performance, then I suppose the story ends. 
But if we are talking about a PROGRESSION (a movement or development toward a destination or a more advanced state, especially gradually or in stages) of both gene pools to a stable type that measurably performs better in a local environment, then, as I grasp at understanding, we must let natural selection operate on the original gene pool.

But all that is pretty rhetorical, and I take your point about heterois.  Thanks for your help, as always.


 

Duncraggan

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 2, 2012
Messages
821
I've always wondered what to do with those 'smoking hot' 'terminal' heifers! :-\
 

Mill Iron A

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 12, 2011
Messages
516
Different breeds have been made simply from crossing a buck from breed a to ewe of breed b equals one breed and then buck b to ewe a for an entirely different breed. I'm not a geneticist but I'm going to go out on a limb and say there must be something to it. In regards to what XBAR is saying about heterosis I agree. The F1 to a terminal sire is tops for heterosis, however how in the world does one manage this? I know there is value in raising your replacements in your management system on your ranch. Not only do they develop and conform but they also develop learned grazing behaviors to make them more efficient which is invaluable. From my perspective I will go with a revolving 3 way cross fully recognizing I am not capturing all heterosis but gaining a signficant adantage to a straight bred operation. Consistency has much more to do with the type you breed. I use a 5.5 to 6 frame sire, consistent phenotype, and planned matings. Through doing this the cattle are consistent in type and size but do to my breed choices not in color. This doesn't bother me as we retain ownership and when we have had to sell it sure hasn't bothered the buyers on the video either.
 

RyanChandler

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 6, 2011
Messages
3,457
Location
Pottsboro, TX
Mill Iron A said:
Different breeds have been made simply from crossing a buck from breed a to ewe of breed b equals one breed and then buck b to ewe a for an entirely different breed. I'm not a geneticist but I'm going to go out on a limb and say there must be something to it.

I've always heard it takes 7 crosses to stabilize a set of genetics as well as 7 crosses to rid a 'stabilized breed' from outside gene expression. 

The resulting genetics from mating an F7 to an F7 should be highly stabilized and at this point, could/should be considered a 'breed.'   

Most imperative is that each resulting cross is bred to a equivalent cross w/ the identical blood %.

For example:
F2 x F2, then F3 X F3, then F4 x F4... Once you reach the progeny of the F7 x F7, you have then stabilized the genetics long enough for this individual to be considered a 'breed.' 

Compare that which we know through science to what many associations allow.  Breeding a 3/4 Simmental to a 5/8 Simmental doesn't give you a stabilized anything yet the association tags them as purebreds.  Breed that 3/4 to a 92% bull for 7 generations and THEN you will have a purebred individual w/ stabilized genetics.  Crossing random % to random % and considering it a purebred is a joke IMO. 

Like SimAngus for example.  I would use a SimAngus bull-- but only one who has 5 or 6 generations of 50/50 SimAngus behind him.  When you see a SimAngus bull who's grandsire or even sire is/was an Angus bull-- there's nothing stabilized about those genetics!!  That's nothing more than a crossbred bull w/ a fancy name. 


 

knabe

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 7, 2007
Messages
13,639
Location
Hollister, CA
-XBAR- said:
I've always heard it takes 7 crosses to stabilize a set of genetics as well as 7 crosses to rid a 'stabilized breed' from outside gene expression. 


so asterisks shouldn't matter.
 

knabe

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 7, 2007
Messages
13,639
Location
Hollister, CA
Duncraggan said:
I've always wondered what to do with those 'smoking hot' 'terminal' heifers! :-\


compare some to your non terminal heifers.  write down the results and act accordingly.


otherwise, you could have a big sale and get people to pay outrageous $ for them so they can learn about terminal heifers.
 
Top