When I wean, usually 10 calves are more and take them to the scales, it takes me over 2 hours to weigh them at the cotton gin a mile and a quarter away. I do not have a scale. Sometimes I do not make the annual weight due to my being busy and forgetting. It takes a great deal of time to do it right. Guessing does not work. I have 3 heifers about the same size, but one of them is 100 lbs heavier. It takes time to be honest.... it is hard work, but the right thing to do..
In defense of incomplete EPD's.
- Thread starter ELBEE
- Start date
Help Support Steer Planet:
knabe
Well-known member
genes said:
there is a way that genetic markers could lie. if the marker is linked to a gene, and is not the actual base pair or base pairs responsible for the trait, a crossover event could occur between the marker and the region responsible for the phenotype, and the marker would then be useless in that background. happened all the time in the early years of marker assisted breeding in plants which i can attest to personally in lettuce.
and just a gentle reminder about scales, you can get a decent set for about 700 bucks, make your own platform rather quickly to be disassembled.
ELBEE said:
Elbee,
I will agree with you to a certain extent that DNA doesn't (or isn't supposed to) lie. However, after watching a presentation by Lorna Marshall (Bull Buyer for ABS) they did Marker tests on many of their Angus bulls and found that the bull that had the best tenderness score had a 2-1-2 Genotype for Tenderness but also found the bull that had the worst tenderness score also had a 2-1-2 genotype for tenderness. So I really don't think we can place full stock in MAS (Marker Assisted Selection) as of yet. I also have seen that Bovigen came out with a Marker for Feed Efficiency, yet we still have yet to figure out what the most correct way is to measure Feed Efficience. As a graduate student working in Animal Breeding and Genetics who also has an extensive background in Beef Production and livestock judging I understand many of your feelings about EPD's. Way to many put too much stock in EPD's and use them as their only selection measure rather than as the tool they were meant to be used as. Phenotype should be first, then find an animal whose EPD's look to match what your environment dictates not changing your environment to match your genetics as many people seem to do. So I see your plight, I really do, but understand that there is only so much people can do. We can't check every single ranch to make sure people are being honest and reporting things the way they should be. It used to be enough to trust a man's word, unfortunately that is not the case anymore. Sorry for the long winded response, but this is something that can bring out a lot of emotion for me. EPD's are not a cure all and should never be used as so, just to aid a producer in making "better" selection decisions. Thanks.
Jim
DLD
Well-known member
Well said Jim. I couldn't agree more.
knabe
Well-known member
jimmyski said:
i agree we can't put full faith yet in the markers as well. Jimmyski, were all the progeny tenderness tested that were slaughtered and equal star individuals compared on any basis? for instance, you could have one bull by chance passing on more of the T2 marker (the rarest by the way), and depending on the background of each of the two cow herds, you could have some differences there as well. for instance, if the above bulls were crossed on cows that had 0 stars, the offspring could only have a maximum of 2 stars, each one in a different gene. what other bulls were in the test that had less stars, but in the offsrping had both more and less stars and was this inconsistent as well? of course one would like to match equally starred bulls with equally starred females, obtain equally starred offspring and then measure all carcasses. was any of this done? is there a power point link to the presentation? i have a couple of queries to bovigen to address teh marshall/abs study as well as the marker not in common with ingenity.
i agree we can't put full faith yet in the markers as well. Jimmyski, were all the progeny tenderness tested that were slaughtered and equal star individuals compared on any basis? for instance, you could have one bull by chance passing on more of the T2 marker (the rarest by the way), and depending on the background of each of the two cow herds, you could have some differences there as well. for instance, if the above bulls were crossed on cows that had 0 stars, the offspring could only have a maximum of 2 stars, each one in a different gene. what other bulls were in the test that had less stars, but in the offsrping had both more and less stars and was this inconsistent as well? of course one would like to match equally starred bulls with equally starred females, obtain equally starred offspring and then measure all carcasses. was any of this done? is there a power point link to the presentation? i have a couple of queries to bovigen to address teh marshall/abs study as well as the marker not in common with ingenity.
[/quote]
knabe,
You might try and contact Lorna directly as I can not remember the exact accounts of the study that she presented. I know the bulls own personal genotype was 2-1-2, but could not tell you the official results of what the cows and progeny were. I would suspect that she probably has this information available if you were to contact her directly.
[/quote]
knabe,
You might try and contact Lorna directly as I can not remember the exact accounts of the study that she presented. I know the bulls own personal genotype was 2-1-2, but could not tell you the official results of what the cows and progeny were. I would suspect that she probably has this information available if you were to contact her directly.
