Shorthorn Genetic Problems

No. I was talking about Anst in the Panst.
 

bump

Has the original question from in this discussion posted by Anst been answered yet?
"Are there any experts on this site who can explain what their shorthorn association policy is on managing the growing number of genetic defects within the breed?"
I did have a conversation with the ASA Executive Secretary about a year ago, a man who has accomplished a great deal as both a breeder and cattlemen throughout his lifetime, and he was quite open and candid in sharing his personal thoughts along with how is Board would respond if able.

When people hurl personal insults in these forums it suggests to me that they have lost the argument and have no answers.

If you want the correct answers, I would go to the ASA with your questions.  I'm not sure the "experts on this site" can respond as accurately as ASA reps.  I think the ASA might be able to avoid editorial comments with their replies.  If you talked to the ASA Exec. Sec., perhaps you could enlighten us with the accurate information.

I searched the ASA site and could only locate a regulation clause stating that all donor dams and A.I. sires must be tested for these 3 known defect genes. I suppose that is the policy then? There isn't an official document?
Understandably, I am not a spokesperson for the ASA CEO and my conversation was a year ago; perhaps events, information, viewpoints and positions within the ASA have changed since then?
What I will say is that he was very open with his thoughts and concerns. I sincerely appreciated his honesty.
My main takeaway from the conversation is that the ASA Board has a responsibility to not take any action that has the potential to put the association in a difficult legal position.
From my own personal experience I can say that I have taken questions from new breeders/customers who want to know what all these genetic acronyms mean. They see "PHAC or THF" in sale catalog footnotes and so on.
I do my best to explain that just because an animal is a carrier of these genes doesn't mean they themselves are somehow defective or have no value to the breed.
Regardless, new breeders typically see things from a very practical viewpoint it seems and can't understand why the breed association doesn't have strict policies and rules designed to eliminate these genes. I do my best to explain that some breeders believe these genes will give them a show ring advantage. More hair and the "look" and whatever.
Is there a more effective response I should be offering??
Just my opinion here but, attracting and keeping new breeders and new money matters to every breed. The optics around the gene issue doesn't help. Surely that isn't in dispute?

I assume there could be a "group" lawsuit filed against the American Shorthorn Association on a genetic defect deal thanks to the Trial Lawyer Assn. I do think it would be interesting if any big names have threatened the assc. before hand......I doubt it......but really the big name show outfits don't have alot of thc or phac cattle.......maybe more dsc if anything. The funny thing is ds would never been identified or been a problem without the synergistic effect it has on the pha condition.

AJ....I posted the Galloway breed genetic defect/carrier policies for both Canada and Australia for Oakview on the Frame Score topic.
I was actually surprised at how aggressive the rules are. Known carriers of either sex are eliminated from the registry and, they get tough with their progeny too.
  I'm not sure if the Galloway folks are being fair to their own breeders and, I don't know what the right answer is but it is quite a contrast to some of the much less aggressive potential solutions proposed and posted on this thread for the Shorthorn breed.

Galloway may have eliminated genetic defects by their overly aggressive policy,  but we will never know the magnitude of genetic loss in that breed which was occasioned by throwing out the baby with the bathwater.   

This is an assumption, but I don't believe there is a strong tradition of linebreeding for distinctive strains in Galloway. Perhaps for color, such as red, but that is comparatively recent. The breed is fairly homogeneous in type. It's a very sad story about the drastic measures taken to eliminate Th carriers from the Galloway breed. But I doubt if any lasting alteration im type or elimination of unique genetics resulted. Please correct me if I'm mistaken. At that time there was no way of distinguishing heterozygous carriers from non carriers. Now we have simple tests.
Shorthorns have many line bred strains and a lot variation between strains. Maintaining established strains for crossing within the breed is important for preserving types. How much time do we spend on this forum talking about old strains and lost types?
Denying registration to clean offspring of carrier animals within a strain would effectively render the strain extinct within ASA. This seems equally as drastic as cutting the heads off all animals that are born to carrier parents.
The history of Shorthorn breeding is told in successive development and crossing of strains. In Shorthorns, more than any breed I can think of, we would  "never know the magnitude of genetic loss in that breed which was occasioned by throwing out the baby with the bathwater."

librarian said:

I can't recall anst mentioning what his breeding program is. Anst, please explain your breeding goals.

Click to expand...

Just helping anst find his original post. It's easier (for me, anyway) to follow the primary discussion  sequentially instead of considering an Electronic version of the Galloway Solution grafted onto a previous thread, out of context.

Anst1579 said:

Are there any experts on this site who can explain what their shorthorn association policy is on managing the growing number of genetic defects within the breed? The USA seems to look away and won't meet the challenge head on and Canada follows?? What about Australia and other countries? Buying a shorthorn shouldn't be like a dance through a genetic minefield. And now Johnes seems to be the latest challenge for the breed.
Every breed has these genetic issues. It's how they deal with them that matters I suppose. Who is standing up to protect this excellent breed? And, why are these associations allowing the registration of progeny sired by known, tested and identified genetic defect carriers?

Click to expand...

What growing number of defects?
What Johnes challenge?
What Associations?

I guess I am standing up for the fitness of this excellent breed, based on line breeding traditions, appropriate technology and education instead of mass marketing.

librarian said:

librarian said:

I can't recall anst mentioning what his breeding program is. Anst, please explain your breeding goals.

Click to expand...

Just helping anst find his original post. It's easier (for me, anyway) to follow the primary discussion  sequentially instead of considering an Electronic version of the Galloway Solution grafted onto a previous thread, out of context.

Click to expand...

Bumped from bottom of previous page

Librarian, your aggression, bullying and intimidation doesn't work. This forum isn't some street corner that you can control.
If you have a problem with my postings, questions or comments please contact the people who actually own this site and take it up with them. I am sure they will contact me if there's a problem.

Anst1579 said:

Librarian, your aggression, bullying and intimidation doesn't work. This forum isn't some street corner that you can control.
If you have a problem with my postings, questions or comments please contact the people who actually own this site and take it up with them. I am sure they will contact me if there's a problem.

Click to expand...

You honestly think this is aggression, bullying and intimidation. You come on a forum anonymously attacking a breed from every angle and then think no one should contradict your sage wisdom? I am still at loss as to why you brought the topic up when your proposed solution to the genetic defect problem is to put in rules and regulations that eliminate genetics (both good and bad) from the breed without eliminating the genetic defects. If the rules only apply to bulls look in the barn before you close the door because yes the horse is actually gone!
Just to reconfirm Johnes is a health issue not a genetic issue.
Post as you wish but I for one cannot take your posts seriously. Librarian's and my request for your identity was an attempt to put your philosophy in context with your breeding program. Your choice to remain anonymous is yours but I for one am not really interested in responding or getting into any more discussions with Anst1579 or anyone who wants to tear down the breed I believe in from behind the curtain of OZ!
(argue)
<hero>
<deadhorse>

Oh no, I fully realize you guys are capable of far worse. I've read enough on this forum over the years to be well aware of that. I've seen what happens to people who dare to run the gauntlet.

This is an open forum and people are invited to post topics as they wish.
You may think that your longevity on this site entitles you to demand my resume. No it doesn't. I don't have to be pre-qualified by you.
Don't want to hear about genetic defect issues in shorthorns? The answer is easy, elect a Board that will do something about it.

It's a great breed and it certainly deserves better. Those who control the breed have made a deliberate decision to not take action to eradicate these defect genes. Apparently the show ring is more important. Is that a short sighted decision? I think it is. Is it the responsibility of the Board to make tough decisions that may not be popular with some? I think it is.
If any shorthorn board believes that there should be a policy in place designed to ensure the gradual eradication of defect genes but doesn't have the support of the general membership then that board should resign.

You're not 'running the gauntlet,' though.  You're presenting a solution that is being rebutted as ineffective. 

Not ineffective. Unwanted yes, ineffective no.
It's the least invasive, leads aggressive solution to slowly eliminate the carrier genes from the population.
From all of this the picture is clear. The breed values defect genes. It's here to stay.
Without the show ring industry what would the breed be? Is it is really one dimensional? If so, is this a good position to be in? Perhaps it's better to be really good at one thing than try to be good at all aspects within this industry?
Of course all beef cattle are ultimately deemed to be for human consumption.

Ineffective, thus unwanted.  I'm as big of an advocate for barring registration to carriers as anybody and even I think your proposal is about as backwards as your name suggests .  Plain and simple: it doesn't accomplish the stated goal.  Others on here have proposed much more effective solutions but you're too hung up on 'your idea' to extend any consideration elsewhere.

Okay. Tell you what, then, just pick ANY solution, ANYTHING, and actually implement it. The breed has had many many years to take action and has not.
It's here to stay. And history, not you or I, will judge the breed and its leaders. I've got a pretty good idea what that's going to look like but who knows?

Am I missing something here? why would you bother with allowing registration of carrier bulls but deny registration of their clean offspring? how does registering clean progeny hurt anything? why not just test offspring of carriers and deny registration to those that test pos
maybe there is some limitation here I am unaware of?