Xbar , you say the sim angus deal isnt stabilized? Have you ever opened your mind to Leachmans program? Obviously not let alone breeders like Gateway simmental or Nichols Farms , maybe you should try for yourself some of them genetics and they will prove you wrong
New Breed
- Thread starter aj
- Start date
Help Support Steer Planet:
aj
Well-known member
The Durham Red deal has been confusing. When it first started only 1A Red Angus was allowed in. Then a couple years later.....1b's or 2a's or whatever was allowed. Then it got where people just wanted to produce say an occasional Durham Red in their herd without dedicating their herd to that philosophy......mandatory records and what not. Then there was a problem that the hopefull Durham Red candidates where only given plus papers untill the mandatory untill yearling weights and th test's were turned in. So its kinda hard to have a "Durham Red" show for cattle less than a year and a half of age. Then Pha and DS showed up and there was no effort to tack the requirements onto the testing requirements. Every was tired of testing. But as I understand you can have Durham Reds that are pha and DS carriers now but they can't be th? I think the whole deal was kinda given up on. After the defects......all the testing and other problems. So I guess I see no real reason to raise Durham Reds if pha and ds and marble bone and fawn calf is allowed. Why be associated with with that? To me it almost seems better to start over with a new breed. Test for everything under the sun.etc. make it a tough program so the paper actually does mean a superior product. If the Durham Red deal meant that testing was initially for th and pha and DS and marble bone and other Red Angus genetics the Durham Red program would make more sense.
librarian
Well-known member
Sounds like maybe this is product development, and there is nothing wrong with that. I stock shelves are a grocery store so I see the impact of labeling every day.
So I suggest coopting the name Angus with all its top shelf connotations, only going one better.
Because customers always want the new and improved. If its not actually improved, they usually return to tried and true. So I would call it Durham Angus and not limit yourself to a color identification. It's about the synergy of Durham and Angus, not about red. (or maybe not?) Certified Angus Beef was accepted as improved because only Choice or better earned the name. To go one better, only prime should earn the name Durham Angus and the marketing would have to instill the belief that Durham makes it better. So you have to get a label and work with a packer and sell the product. Then if you have truly stabilized a prime beef line of cattle they will sell themselves. I think the only breed that will ever be defect free is the breed that rigorously culls carriers.
So I suggest coopting the name Angus with all its top shelf connotations, only going one better.
Because customers always want the new and improved. If its not actually improved, they usually return to tried and true. So I would call it Durham Angus and not limit yourself to a color identification. It's about the synergy of Durham and Angus, not about red. (or maybe not?) Certified Angus Beef was accepted as improved because only Choice or better earned the name. To go one better, only prime should earn the name Durham Angus and the marketing would have to instill the belief that Durham makes it better. So you have to get a label and work with a packer and sell the product. Then if you have truly stabilized a prime beef line of cattle they will sell themselves. I think the only breed that will ever be defect free is the breed that rigorously culls carriers.
aj
Well-known member
x-bar has a good point about fixing certain percentages.....I think Brangus is broke down 3-8ths and 5-8ths. Its a fixed %. However initially.....I think you could have a bunch of exact % composite type cattle that won't nessecarily look alike either. I would call it genetic drift but that probably isn't the right word. Selection......culling.....direction of selection......I think will keep you from "running around the tree three times". I have noticed in the Red Angus-Shorthorn hookup......color is a issue. How much white would be allowed. I would shoot for pretty much solid red. Also....you have dark reds vs kinda orangey more Red Angus color. Back on the % deal. Back in the 80's I think....there was actually a Chiangus breed and a Ankina breed......with a difference in set percentages. I personally didn't think the big white Chianina's brought much as far a economically value traits. They did bring frame and growth in a hurry I guess. I guess you could have Durham blacks also. I thought Durham Reds kinda positions you as an outcross to blacks and it differentiates you product.
RyanChandler
Well-known member
bedrock said:
Yes, I'm reasonably familiar with Leachman's 'program.' But more importantly, I'm familiar with the semantics game they use to substantiate the philosophy. The information they promote about stable composites is true and has been validated time and time again. The problem being, what they call 'Stabilizers,' aren't stable nor or they composites. Talk about misnomers!
Looking at their profit strategy pdf: http://www.leachman.com/Philosophies/ProfitStrategies.pdf.
On slide 10, > "Crossbred cows wean 23% more pounds weaned per cow exposed."
While this is a true statement, it's terribly misleading in the context they use it. The 23% increase in performance is the increase noted in a genuine crossbred: "an animal with purebred parents of two different breeds." Unfortunately, you can not create a crossbred cow, nor experience this stated increase in production, using a mongrel 'stabilizer' bull. Why information obtained from the performance of F1 cows is being used to promote the performance of multi-breed mongrels is nothing but a deliberate attempt to deceive. The entire philosophy is dependent on false inferences and the inability of their subscribers to differentiate a crossbred, from a mongrel, from a stable composite.
sue
Well-known member
- Joined
- May 1, 2007
- Messages
- 1,906
(clapping)bedrock said:
Duncraggan
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jun 2, 2012
- Messages
- 821
I like the direction you are going here! Still think aj's 'genetic defect free' line would be a good addition to the 'breed'.librarian said:
Duncraggan
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jun 2, 2012
- Messages
- 821
Straying away from the set breed percentages, being the progeny of a registered Shorthorn or Angus bull would be sufficient, with random parentage verification to keep the playing field level! Colour is a minor consideration in that case, especially if grade is the most important differentiator as librarian suggested.aj said:
Back when the King Ranch developed the Santa Gertrudis, they used Red Shorthorn. The resulting animals had to be inspected and if they passed they were branded with a Lazy "S' on their side, if I remember correctly.
So if you wanted the animals to be "Red" then maybe all the white that would be allowed would either be none or maybe like the Angus only behind the naval. Stabilized them at 5/8 x 3/8 with Shorthorn being the dominant breed. Because many commercial producers have cows that are Angus based this would inject more Shorthorn genetics into their herds.
You could do both a "Red" line and if you chose could do a "Black" line for those that think they have to have black.
librarian
Well-known member
If you're set on red, Lincoln Reds might be a useful component.
And not to interlope, but I have been working on a fixed percentage composite, 5/8 Galloway, 2/8 Shorthorn and 1/8 Angus. Here is my first one, 4 days old. It went Galloway x Shorthorn x Galloway x Angus, the same Galloway bull both times. This was probably a 65 lb calf, thick little guy.
And not to interlope, but I have been working on a fixed percentage composite, 5/8 Galloway, 2/8 Shorthorn and 1/8 Angus. Here is my first one, 4 days old. It went Galloway x Shorthorn x Galloway x Angus, the same Galloway bull both times. This was probably a 65 lb calf, thick little guy.
Attachments
J
JTM
Guest
Hahaha, "terribly misleading" is a pretty big accusation there Xbar. Maybe you should stop by sometime and see the actual calves and a bull from the program. Leachman Testify (used AI) has calved very consistently. All his calves came unassisted out of heifers, very vigorous, a stamped look, and all are taking off after three weeks of age. I'd say that's pretty good for a "mongrel stabilizer" bull. You will never know what you are missing unless you take a risk and believe that something outside of the box is worth trying. That's what Leachman's have been doing and if you brush it off as if it's a hoax then you are simply going to miss the boat. They have the data to back up what they say.-XBAR- said:
RyanChandler
Well-known member
It's not only terribly misleading but it's a blatant lie. Ask yourself, Josh- if it weren't a sham, why would they try to utilize information obtained from the performance of F1s to promote the performance of their multi-breed crosses? This is a clear attempt to deceive. Fortunately for them, there's a sucker born every day.
Medium Rare
Well-known member
JTM said:
The 23% figure doesn't stand out to you?
After browsing the website, I was enjoying the "big cows from chasing numbers" mantra and then the 23% figure popped out attached to a vague "crossbred" term. I didn't see that they mentioned where they've actually derived their 23% figure from and couldn't help but wonder if it was intentional as two slides later a picture captioned with "A Leachman stabilizer cow herd. Every animal pictured contains 4 to 6 different breeds." appears. From there on out if felt like fuzzy math to me.
In the real world I believe the heterosis figure to be a range because you never know how the genetics will blend, but I understand 23% to be a figure many have accepted. It's specifically derived from an F1 cross, and any cross from there forward will result in a figure less than 23%. You simply can't apply it to a multi breed cross beyond the F1, and pushing it off on customers in a long line of busy math made me feel like I was standing on some back lot trying to buy a used car. The "Stabilizer" label is another term where it feels like they're playing off the "7 or 8 generations to stabilize a cross" line without actually doing the work to get there.
For what it's worth, I use a couple "balancer" bulls. Their fuzzy math, marketing ploys, and incorrect assumptions don't impress me either.
knabe
Well-known member
the fuzz is assuming open cows.
looking at the calf to calf comparison, it's a little embarrassing.
i wonder how they selected each set of cows and what the selection pressure was on fertility and for how many years and in what environment.
i guess i just worry about a self-fulfilling prophesy.
for them, i'm more interested in their feed efficiency since they are one of the few operations that do that. independently verifying that is another matter and also verifying that in one's own operation is another except at the feedlot 2-3 years down the road.
looking at the calf to calf comparison, it's a little embarrassing.
i wonder how they selected each set of cows and what the selection pressure was on fertility and for how many years and in what environment.
i guess i just worry about a self-fulfilling prophesy.
for them, i'm more interested in their feed efficiency since they are one of the few operations that do that. independently verifying that is another matter and also verifying that in one's own operation is another except at the feedlot 2-3 years down the road.
RyanChandler
Well-known member
Medium Rare said:
(clapping)
As a registry for Composites - Composite Beef Cattle Registry http://compositebeef.com/index.html and Composite Dairy Cattle Registry http://dairycattleregistry.com/, we feel that we need to clarify a couple of points here.
On our "Hybrid" Advantage page http://compositebeef.com/advantages.html you sill see that crossbred cows have an advantage of Efficiency - 8%, Longevity - 38% and Lifetime Production of 25%.
Now if you look at the chart on our "Why Composites" page http://compositebeef.com/why-composites.html there is a chart that gives an estimated increase in weaning weight of calves for different breeding scenarios, from strait-bred, 2-4 breed rotations to composites of different breed makeups and percentages. It ranges from 8% to 21%.
Composite breeding strategies have been researched and developed at the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) Meat Animal Research Centre (MARC) in Nebraska. MARC research has shown that populations of composite cows provide an efficient alternative to more complex systems of cross breeding while retaining high levels of hybrid-vigor. Their results have shown that composite breeding offers a solution that is more effective than the traditional rotational cross-breeding systems for utilizing genetic differences between breeds to achieve and maintain optimum performance levels for economic traits on a continuing basis.
On our "Hybrid" Advantage page http://compositebeef.com/advantages.html you sill see that crossbred cows have an advantage of Efficiency - 8%, Longevity - 38% and Lifetime Production of 25%.
Now if you look at the chart on our "Why Composites" page http://compositebeef.com/why-composites.html there is a chart that gives an estimated increase in weaning weight of calves for different breeding scenarios, from strait-bred, 2-4 breed rotations to composites of different breed makeups and percentages. It ranges from 8% to 21%.
Composite breeding strategies have been researched and developed at the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) Meat Animal Research Centre (MARC) in Nebraska. MARC research has shown that populations of composite cows provide an efficient alternative to more complex systems of cross breeding while retaining high levels of hybrid-vigor. Their results have shown that composite breeding offers a solution that is more effective than the traditional rotational cross-breeding systems for utilizing genetic differences between breeds to achieve and maintain optimum performance levels for economic traits on a continuing basis.
aj
Well-known member
Could one start a new breed with 4 head of cattle? Two females and two males? Could you ID these cattle as superior......then just mix and match......and Never add outside blood? I'm not talking about breeding an all american to a all american. Superior cattle as far as economic traits are concerned. When would you have to bring in outside blood? The original 4 would have to be kinda outcrosses.
It could be done, here is a link that gives some details A beginners guide to inbreeding and line breeding
What are inbreeding and line breeding, and what effect do they have?
In genetic terminology, inbreeding is the mating of two animals who are related to each other. In its opposite, out crossing, the two parents are totally unrelated. Since all pure breeds of animal (including humans) trace back to a relatively limited number of foundation ancestors, all pure breeding is, by this definition, inbreeding though the term is not generally used to refer to matings where a common ancestor does not occur within a five-generation pedigree.
An inbreeding coefficient of 100% is rare in mammals and would result if the only matings practiced over many generations were between full brother and full sister. A mating between a brother and sister from unrelated parents would result in an inbreeding coefficient of 50%. A mother/son (or vice versa) or father/daughter (or vice versa) mating would result in a breeding coefficient of 25% assuming that there were no other related matings in the preceding generations. A cousin-to-cousin mating actually gives a relatively low percentage (6.25) but other related matings would affect this figure – perhaps substantially. However, Dr Malcolm Willis, one of the most experienced geneticists in the world of dogs, has said that the average inbreeding coefficient in pedigree dogs registered with the Kennel Club is actually only between 4 and 5% but, of course, the long term effect of many generations of a breed on the same register will mean that today’s dogs do have a higher chance of passing on deleterious genes simply because, as explained at the beginning of this article, there were relatively limited number of foundation ancestors.
As a general rule, very close inbreeding in domestic animals cannot be maintained for many generations because it generally results in loss of fertility – apart from any other genetic disease which may become apparent. .
What are inbreeding and line breeding, and what effect do they have?
In genetic terminology, inbreeding is the mating of two animals who are related to each other. In its opposite, out crossing, the two parents are totally unrelated. Since all pure breeds of animal (including humans) trace back to a relatively limited number of foundation ancestors, all pure breeding is, by this definition, inbreeding though the term is not generally used to refer to matings where a common ancestor does not occur within a five-generation pedigree.
An inbreeding coefficient of 100% is rare in mammals and would result if the only matings practiced over many generations were between full brother and full sister. A mating between a brother and sister from unrelated parents would result in an inbreeding coefficient of 50%. A mother/son (or vice versa) or father/daughter (or vice versa) mating would result in a breeding coefficient of 25% assuming that there were no other related matings in the preceding generations. A cousin-to-cousin mating actually gives a relatively low percentage (6.25) but other related matings would affect this figure – perhaps substantially. However, Dr Malcolm Willis, one of the most experienced geneticists in the world of dogs, has said that the average inbreeding coefficient in pedigree dogs registered with the Kennel Club is actually only between 4 and 5% but, of course, the long term effect of many generations of a breed on the same register will mean that today’s dogs do have a higher chance of passing on deleterious genes simply because, as explained at the beginning of this article, there were relatively limited number of foundation ancestors.
As a general rule, very close inbreeding in domestic animals cannot be maintained for many generations because it generally results in loss of fertility – apart from any other genetic disease which may become apparent. .
J
JTM
Guest
They have over 10,000 animals in their own database and have created their own epd system. "PROFIT" is their own epd that they created. They have realized from 20+ years of their own data collection that the stabilizer breed performs similar to an F1 cross. I don't know why this is so hard to believe? When you study year after year feed intake and feed efficiency combined with the growth numbers and you select your top animals to continue the program wouldn't you think this could be possible? It seems to me you guys are jumping to conclusions that this is impossible.-XBAR- said:
Medium rare, even if you are correct which I am not going to say you are 100% wrong, because everything is in context of reality in a particular situation, what about the data that supports their program? They have the data to prove the breeding system is working and that performance is comparable to a typical F1 cross. Add that to all the other profit oriented breeding decisions they believe in and it's a good fit for what I am doing.
(thumbsup)cbcr said:
knabe
Well-known member
aj said:
justin morgan.
start a breed with one individual. you can do whatever you want. just do it. why all the stalling.
just name the breed "house of sod". people could come to your sale and you could call it the hodge, short for hodge podge.
