False Test Results

[DL]

I have Mainetainer papers on a heifer stating F/P on both TH and PHA and as far as I know OCC Anchor has not been tested for either.

The original policy on TH and PHA as I remember it was that Angus, Red Angus and Hereford were considered to be free of TH and PHA and therefore testing was not required for TH and PHA. I think the original wording was faulty in that it said something to the effect of Angus, Red Angus and Hereford were considered "defect free"  - there was a thread a while back that covered this - that is why your papers say the heifer is free of both via pedigree - the dam was (I assume) tested and the sire is an Angus

 

[DL]

I wanted everyone to see this and not have it buried in the 602 Cunia thread.

I talked to a breeder today who had a bull tested for TH when the test first came available. Tested clean. It was ,what? 2 years and the PHA demon came about? Bull is dead so they sent in semen to test for PHA. They tested for both. Bull came back POSITIVE for TH and PHA. He has sold a boatload of heifers and represented them as clean by pedigree. Same guy had a PHA calf this year out of clean by pedigree cow and a bull that tested positive after the fact. When he gets sued, who does he sue?

How infallable is this testing?

People have their torches lit and pitchforks sharpened, ready to head to South Dakota, but who regulates the regulator?

Maybe Show Heifer should get on her broom and head to Illinois.

The test is 100% accurate. There is, however, a human involved so there is the possibility of human error. My understanding about the case JIT discussed is that the test was to be re run (because the gel did not look right) but was reported out as free in error (human). My understanding also is that the case JIT discussed is the only case where someone complained formally to Dr B and therefore appears to be the only documented laboratory error. With appropriate quality controls the error rate should be very very low....

They can't follow thru without a formal complaint - so at this point this appears to be he said she said. YC - they need to contact  Dr B??

If they knew the prior sample, they would run a DNA profile to see if in fact it matched the semen.  They would also rerun the TH test on the old sample, of course.

Re the Outcast deletion - it is #1 extremely rare and #2 a more complicated and expensive test to run.  There is no need to run this test when testing for TH unless someone specifically asks

 

[Jill]

Ok, this may be a stupid question, but how can you call an animal th free if you have only tested for 1 of the mutations, I guess I just assumed they check for both?

 

[yuppiecowboy]

I am not questioning the technology. Fact is mistakes happen. People are people and there is no changing that, but even the most mundane detail can have a butterfly effect with substantial result. My questioning the test is questioning the process and dilligence to limit error.

I neve understood this one, if you have an Outkast TH carrier mated to an Improver TH carrier, is it the same Mendel square of probabilities or are they not compatible, or how does that work?

 

[Show Heifer]

First off, I know many farms that send in multiple samples at one time. It cost me $25 to overnight samples, why would I send in just ONE sample?  Smarter to send in all the samples at once, so that is what I do.

The Outcast mutation is ONLY found in cattle with Outcast in their pedigree. So, if a pedigree is made available to Dr.B, then he will test for that mutation, but if the pedigree is not supplied to Dr.B or is "altered", then he will not test for the Outcast TH mutation. Just like he wouldn't run a OS test on a maine, or a PHA test on a red angus. (Not saying he shouldn't sometimes, but that's not the point).

Dr.B can only work with the information he is given. I can remember when he said "ya know, chasing these defects would be much easier if I had honest pedigrees to work with."  Maybe that is where the Cunia thread can be brought back into the conversation? And then again, maybe not.

 

[frostback]

.

Re the Outcast deletion - it is #1 extremely rare and #2 a more complicated and expensive test to run.  There is no need to run this test when testing for TH unless someone specifically asks

[/quote]

How do people know to ask for it if there is no explanation of it on the forms?

 

[DL]

I am not questioning the technology. Fact is mistakes happen. People are people and there is no changing that, but even the most mundane detail can have a butterfly effect with substantial result. My questioning the test is questioning the process and dilligence to limit error.

I neve understood this one, if you have an Outkast TH carrier mated to an Improver TH carrier, is it the same Mendel square of probabilities or are they not compatible, or how does that work?

To your first question  there has been to date one reported and confirmed error in TH and PHA testing results - so I would interpret that as a very low error rate - about as close to zero as one can get. A good laboratory runs normals and affected routinely to eliminate the problem of contamination of samples and reporting results in error.

The Outcast mutation works like this - it involves the same gene and the same region of the gene as the Improver mutation - but it is a much much bigger deletion. Crossing a THC Outcast to a THC Improver results in the same percentages - ie 25% dead with TH, 50% carrier, 25% "normal" genetically.

The Outcast mutation was identified because one parent of a TH dead calf  did not have the Improver deletion (ie did not test as THC). Since the calf was phenotypically a TH calf this suggested that another mutation was present.  It is extremely rare - it would seem logical that if an animal has Outcast in its pedigree that one would request testing for the Outcast mutation

 

[Jill]

To your first question  there has been to date one reported and confirmed error in TH and PHA testing results - so I would interpret that as a very low error rate - about as close to zero as one can get. A good laboratory runs normals and affected routinely to eliminate the problem of contamination of samples and reporting results in error.
I am not questioning the technology. Fact is mistakes happen. People are people and there is no changing that, but even the most mundane detail can have a butterfly effect with substantial result. My questioning the test is questioning the process and dilligence to limit error.

I neve understood this one, if you have an Outkast TH carrier mated to an Improver TH carrier, is it the same Mendel square of probabilities or are they not compatible, or how does that work?

It is extremely rare - it would seem logical that if an animal has Outcast in its pedigree that one would request testing for the Outcast mutation

One that has the knowledge might think that, but out of all the TH threads I have seen, this is the 1st time I have ever heard that you have to ask for that test seperately, maybe that should be added to the test form options so that people know there is more than 1 TH test.

 

[knabe]

this is the 1st time I have ever heard that you have to ask for that test seperately, maybe that should be added to the test form options so that people know there is more than 1 TH test.

i remember hearing about it on this site at least a couple of times.  i agree on the forms, it should be present, but since now they are both done, it shouldn't be necessary, but old tests may need to be done if outcast in there.

 

[linnettejane]

ok, i just got off the phone with amanda, as i had some testing done in march on a calf that was a descendant of outcast and i was worried that maybe they had run the wrong test on when i got his thf result back (his mother was the cow i mentioned above that we had to rerun a few years ago when i mentioned she was out of outcast)...anyway, to make a long story short she told me that there is now only one test...and if it comes back as a carrier then they go back and look to see if it is out of the outcast or improver line....she also mentioned that they have a special way of denoting which line if it is a carrier that it is out of...they use a subscript of "o" to differentiate between the two lines...

sorry if i caused any confusion or worry...like i said, it had been a few years since i had any testing done...

 

[Jill]

Thank you for clearing that up.  I knew there were 2 mutations I just didn't know they didn't automatically test for both.

Knabe, this is the quote that confused me, I assumed by reading it that there were still 2 options-"Re the Outcast deletion - it is #1 extremely rare and #2 a more complicated and expensive test to run.  There is no need to run this test when testing for TH unless someone specifically asks" 

 

[Show Heifer]

So, after all the preaching and all the repetion and all the "we have gone over this too much", and "we have beat this horse to death", maybe, just maybe  MORE education needs to be "preached"??????? 

Heck, I have known about this outcast mutation from the beginning, and I also knew about the two different test, and having to ask for the rare Outcast test (which now seems to be one test). I guess I just assumed EVERYONE knew what I knew.... I guess that is where education and beating that darn horse comes in.

 

[knabe]

global karma for everyone!  awesome thread.

 

[Jill]

So, after all the preaching and all the repetion and all the "we have gone over this too much", and "we have beat this horse to death", maybe, just maybe  MORE education needs to be "preached"???????   

Heck, I have known about this outcast mutation from the beginning, and I also knew about the two different test, and having to ask for the rare Outcast test (which now seems to be one test). I guess I just assumed EVERYONE knew what I knew.... I guess that is where education and beating that darn horse comes in.

Didn't really need to be educated, never have bred to Outcast and don't have anything with Outcast in the pedigree, just curious, I guess I would have also assumed since you are one of the top preachers you would have also already known that the test were now all inclusive.  I don't think anyone has ever had an issue with the message, it is the manner in which the message is presented, your post is a perfect example!

 

[aj]

I think there are people cranky looking for some reason to complain about the tests and the defect problems. I first thought is that when someone "says clean by pedigree" be aware. Club calf people are unethical. I can see not testing something where both parents were tested clean and you trust the seller. I once sent in a bull sample and they showed he was thought to clean. That spring he throwed a th defective calf. The bull I had tested was a twin and I guess this can muddy up readings somehow. If you are trying to sell a 4,000 bull just test the damn calf. I hate hearing oh....he's clean by pedigree. The test's are accurate.Just test the damn cattle and be done with it. There is heatseeker blood going into every breed in the United States so color me worried.Just test the damn cattle. Most people can look at a th calf and tell....its not a secret. Just test the damn cattle.

 

[Jill]

And I guess for that reason alone, I don't understand why they don't require DNA on EVERY calf that is sent in for registration papers, IMO there are enough unethical out there that you could really never trust any of the Maines anyway, don't really deal enough with the other breeds to know.

 

[DL]

To clarify - there are 2 TH mutations and now both mutations are checked for when TH test is requested. Used to be that Outcast TH was extremely hard to do with the Improver test, but improved technology allows for both alleles to be tested at the same time. So now when you request a TH test both alleles are checked for and a THF report means neither the Outcast of Improver mutation was identified.

aj agree 100% 

 

[Show Heifer]

You proved my point jill. IF your new to the maines or shorties or clubbies, then you would have no idea about TH/PHA or monkey mouth or SP. Some think we shouldn't ever bring up these defects when discussing certain bulls, certain bloodlines, but there is ALWAYS someone who honestly DOESN'T know. Education is the key.
Funny how going outside and doing work will take away phone and internet time.... I had heard through the grapevine, but didn't get the single test "rumor" clarified.

And God forbid, jill I actually agree with you on DNA'ing every single calf that is to be registered, but remember the arguement that everyone uses as an excuse.... "its too expensive" whine whine whine.    But I deal with several breeds and can say this isn't a maine issue, it is a show cattle isssue!!!

AJ, I love it. "Just test the damn cattle."  I love it.

 

[aj]

bump

 

[Cabanha Santa Isabel - BR]

clean by pedigree according to the Maine association means that both parents have been tested clean.  from that convergence point in the pedigree, and assuming all converging points are the same, 15 generations later, clean by pedigree would be valid.

if, on the other hand, there is even one exception anywhere in the pedigre that doesn't converge between two tested parents, then it is not clean.

100% Agree....clean pedigree status, I think, could to be used for all tested clean parents and grandarents of both sides.

Assume that a clean pedigree without a test is stupidity as we know and read here many times about fake pedigrees.