Irish Whiskey

Help Support Steer Planet:

CAB

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 5, 2007
Messages
5,607
Location
Corning,Iowa
  I would prefer to think that it would be easier to tie the lower fertility to scrotal measurements or lack thereof measurements than to tie it to PHAC without any science involved in those statements.JMO.
 

knabe

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 7, 2007
Messages
13,639
Location
Hollister, CA
there is plenty of diversity in the animal kingdom to allow for selection on fertility independent of scrotal size.  their just hasn't been an economically viable measuring mechanism to allow for this. though it's amazing how little of a negative score for SC can affect herd scrotal size.  have always been interested in what people thought about the -sc for 6807, anchor etc.  we need more science.

http://www.ohldecattle.com/assets/sire/traveler6807.html
http://www.ohldecattle.com/assets/sire/anchor771a.html

smaller bulls will have smaller sc than a larger bull but the ratio to body mass/frame score whatever, is not apparent in sc scores.
 

DL

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 29, 2007
Messages
3,622
knabe - there is a direct relationship between scrotal circumferance and the number of sperm produced - there is also a direct relationship between the number of sperm and fertility - there is research to support this  - from my experience doing BSEs I don't buy your contention that bigger bulls have bigger (remember there are youth here) scrotal circumferance - there are lots of interacting factors including breed and age ---

I also don't buy your free market drop in IW semen price -  people may actually be getting smarter and less likely to fall for all the high price hype.... :eek: :eek: :eek:.
 

CAB

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 5, 2007
Messages
5,607
Location
Corning,Iowa
  Knabe, I do agree that there should be bulls out of IW that should be better than himself, afterall one of the critiria for a great bull is to leave better offspring. Interesting question about correlation of sc size and # of & concentration of normal live sperm ct/jump. Example, you can't tell me that cows/bull in Iowa should be anywhere near the same # as cows/bull in let's say Wy,NM, Az. That to me is so common sense crazy that I don't want to believe anything that the land grant university's say. Knabe, how much research has been done to varify the sc/fertily theory/
 

knabe

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 7, 2007
Messages
13,639
Location
Hollister, CA
CAB, dl addressed the research on SC and fertility, there is lots of it, mostly agreeing with it.  all i am saying, is that in the animal kingdom in general, if there is no selective pressure on smaller sc with higher counts/motility, you won't find it.  across species, there are definately differences, ie the classics taught in animal science, beef, sheep, swine.  surface area of the sperm production area makes sense to produce more sperm, and the easiest way to get more if it is volume, ie circumference.  this has nothing to do with the turnover of sperm produced, which to this point hasn't been selected for as there is no tool to do it.

free market means the price drops because less people are buying it, ie getting smarter.  my bro the accountant has shown me some very interesting regressions on pricing and when to change price based on volume.  he calls it life cycle i think.  i'm sure the life cycle on these bulls is a closely guarded secret.

i would also like to comment on the land grant university "conspiracy".  in science, you can never prove anything, you can only fail to disprove.  so when you set up an experiment, you have a hypothesis and test disprove it.  then you throw more stones at it trying to disprove it with different ways to measure things as well as just repeating the test.  some tests, for my taxpayer dollar have been repeated too many times.

lastly, you are right dl on the age for sc.  i haven't ever seen any data on a regression on sc vs frame score or age measured at say one month intervals along with measurements of sperm count/motility.  could be out there, i just haven't found it.
 

DL

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 29, 2007
Messages
3,622
knabe - a few tidbits for you
Breeding soundness examination of Chianina, Marchigiana, and Romagnola yearling bulls in performance tests over a 10-year period.
Sylla L, Stradaioli G, Borgami S, Monaci M.
Theriogenology. 2007 May;67(8):1351-8. Epub 2007 Mar 21
Department of Pathology, Diagnostic and Veterinary Clinics, University of Perugia, Via San Costanzo 4, 06126 Perugia, Italy.
The objectives of the present study were (i) to establish the mean value of scrotal circumference (SC), sperm motility, concentration and morphology at 13+/-1 months of age for Chianina, Marchigiana, and Romagnola breeds and (ii) to assign Italian beef bulls at the end of a growth performance test to a potential breeder category by applying the guidelines of the Society for Theriogenology in 1993 (SFT93). Of 1,315 bulls, 869 were not given the breeding soundness examination for the following reasons: not passing the growth performance test (n=445), no training for semen collection (n=404), and presence of genital abnormalities (n=20). Testicular length and diameter and SC exhibited a logarithmic trend over time, with an R(2) value of 0.963, 0.979, and 0.978 (P<0.001), respectively. The SC of Romagnola (33.82+/-2.47 cm) was higher than those of Chianina (33.28+/-2.65 cm, P<0.001) and Marchigiana (33.05+/-2.20 cm, P<0.001). Sperm concentration in Romagnola (875.89+/-416.13x10(6)cells/mL) was higher than those in Chianina (751.63+/-444.45 x 10(6)cells/mL, P<0.05) and Marchigiana (862.57+/-421.87 x 10(6) cells/mL). Progressive sperm motility was 61.30+/-11.24%, 62.18+/-11.17%, and 58.48+/-14.40% in Romagnola, Marchigiana, and Chianina, respectively. Total spermatozoal abnormalities were higher in Chianina (23.35+/-15.41%). Sperm concentration was positively related to testicular length (P<0.01), diameter (P<0.001), and SC (P<0.001). Satisfactory breeders presented high sperm motility compared with deferred and unsatisfactory ones, whereas unsatisfactory breeders had a higher number of abnormal spermatozoa. By applying the SFT93 guidelines, we showed that 74.72%, 78.01%, and 80.16% of Chianina, Marchigiana, and Romagnola bulls, respectively, have been classified as satisfactory potential breeders.



Phenotypic relationships of scrotal circumference to frame size and body weight in performance-tested bulls.
Schramm RD, Osborne PI, Thayne WV, Wagner WR, Inskeep EK.
Theriogenology. 1989 Mar;31(3):495-504
Division of Animal and Veterinary Sciences West Virginia University Morgantown, WV 26506-6108 USA.
The objective of this study was to determine if frame size (height) is related to scrotal circumference. A total of 695 bulls (425 Angus, 65 Hereford, 70 Charolais, 135 Simmentals) were tested for postweaning gain in five stations over a period of 1 to 3 years. Variables examined included hip height, weight and scrotal circumference at beginning and completion of a 140-d feeding period. Correlations among these traits, adjusted for age (7 to 10 months at entry), year, station and management were estimated for each breed. Both height and weight were correlated positively with scrotal circumference at the start and the end of the test period in all four breeds. When height and scrotal circumference were adjusted for weight, correlations were negligible, with the exception of end-of-test values for Charolais bulls (-0.26). Negative correlations were obtained between the scrotal circumference at the start of the test and the change in height during the test after adjustment for weight in Angus bulls (-0.18) and in Charolais bulls (-0.15). These small negative phenotypic relationships indicate that a bull's fertility is not seriously reduced by large frame size at the completion of a feedlot performance test. For maximum fertility in bulls, scrotal circumference needs to be evaluated independently of frame size.

 

knabe

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 7, 2007
Messages
13,639
Location
Hollister, CA
dl,  that's awesome, i was missing one or two keywords.  interesting the error on circumference is one order of mag bigger than length.

noticed sperm count in romagnola exceeds the difference in sc difference in them vs chi's.  ie 0.5 diameter gave

romagnola  33.82 +/- 2.47 cm    875.89+/-416.13 x 10(6)cells/mL
chi              33.28 +/- 2.65 cm    751.63+/-444.45 x 10(6)cells/mL
march        33.05 +/- 2.20 cm    862.57+/-421.87 x 10(6) cells/mL

so the march's had the smallest testicles, but almost the same cells as romagnola, with chi's somewhere in between, but definately less count per volume than the march's.  amazing the tightness of fit between different breeds for cell count.  the march's had roughly the same count with and SC of  0.72 cm less than romagnola.  that's amazing there is that much difference.  awesome link.  i wonder if the chi's had more length to make up for the less SC, and if these numbers changed over time through selection, or was just due to random chance.

as for the size and weight and scrotal, it looks like over time, one could drift into trouble, but it would take some time.
 

CAB

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 5, 2007
Messages
5,607
Location
Corning,Iowa
  I wish tht they would have taken these bulls with this info & allowed them to go out with X # of cows & see if any significant differences were noticed in preg rates. Thank you for the research & info DL. Cab
 

OH Breeder

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 14, 2007
Messages
5,954
Location
Ada, Ohio
DLD said:
I'm pretty sure he's still alive, too. It's kind of gotten to be a trend in marketing. The past few Exposure sales have been mostly built around Irish Whiskey (co-starring Meyer 734, I guess). They sell a select set of heifers and a few herd bull prospects out of him, and sell a set of amount of semen at auction as well. Up until now this (and the other owners' sales) have been the only place and time non-owners could purchase semen. It works great if the bull has enough impact to create significant demand, which IW certainly has.

I know this thread is IW, but how many straws of Meyer 734 did they collect? Do you ever think they might have some of these bulls cloned somewhere?
 

CAB

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 5, 2007
Messages
5,607
Location
Corning,Iowa
  I would think that if there was ever a Simmi bull that would be worth cloning, Meyer 734 would be the 1 to start with. I talked to Christensen's last spring & they said that they don't use much themselves because it brings good $. Have there been clones in the works of the great Sonny 8114?
 

DLD

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 15, 2007
Messages
1,539
Location
sw Oklahoma
There's no telling how much semen was collected on 734 - he lived a good part of his life at Great Plains Breeders in Shamrock, TX, though. I would agree that he's as good a candidate for cloning as any, but I haven't heard anything about it happening. It wouldn't surprise me if there are already clones of him, at the very least I'll bet there are cell samples frozen somewhere. I don't know Christensen's, but I do know Kephart, and as long as they have original 734 semen to sell and it's bringing $650 a unit, there won't be 734 clone semen on the market.

 

OH Breeder

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 14, 2007
Messages
5,954
Location
Ada, Ohio
CAB said:
   I would think that if there was ever a Simmi bull that would be worth cloning, Meyer 734 would be the 1 to start with. I talked to Christensen's last spring & they said that they don't use much themselves because it brings good $. Have there been clones in the works of the great Sonny 8114?

I had the great opportunity to see Sonny's full brother Epic. Really nice bull. Sound as a cat. I am planning on buying semen on him for spring.

When did Meyer die? Wasn't he born in 92 or there abouts?
 

shorthorns r us

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 9, 2007
Messages
900
saw on a board, don't remember which, that meyer 734 had been cloned from skin cells found in a straw of semen.  sounds like a possibility exists to clone some of the greats from days past.
 

DLD

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 15, 2007
Messages
1,539
Location
sw Oklahoma
734 was born in 1989. I believe that his semen was first marketed around '93, and the height of his popularity was probably the late '90s into the early '00s.

I remember the conversation about cloning from skin cells found in semen (pretty sure it was on BW) but the bull (or bulls) someone said that had been done with was not 734. Someone suggested that he might be cloned that way. My reply was (and still is) that Kephart's Full Flush was one of the first to be cloned (at least in the show cattle area), so don't believe that they didn't think to at least keep tissue samples suitable for cloning.
 

JbarL

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 21, 2007
Messages
1,677
Location
30deg 17&#039; 11.73 N 81deg 35&#039;59.94&q
DL said:
Interesting, even great hype, great promotion, great pictures, and great campaigns can't sustain a lethal genetic defect that can kill both the calf and the cow -  - there has been a lot of dumping lately - I couldn't run away fast enough (dog) (dog) (dog) and you couldn't pay me to buy IW semen  - not slander, just my opinion. The fastest way to get rid of a lethal genetic defect is to stop using carrier bulls - I think that is a reasonable approach
interesting that i recieved a corrospondence from the amaa about a new "venture" for the "commercial" use of maine genitcs  with sek genitics...upon calling the young lady (sek)she didnt no anything about the carrier status/or info on the maines, but  gladly agreed to send me a cataloge......has anyone recieved it and are they supporting carrier bulls?  jbarl
 

DLD

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 15, 2007
Messages
1,539
Location
sw Oklahoma
JbarL said:
interesting that i recieved a corrospondence from the amaa about a new "venture" for the "commercial" use of maine genitcs  with sek genitics...upon calling the young lady (sek)she didnt no anything about the carrier status/or info on the maines, but  gladly agreed to send me a cataloge......has anyone recieved it and are they supporting carrier bulls?  jbarl

Not sure exactly what you're asking... I believe that all of the bulls featured in the flyer that's been mentioned are tested and clean, and that it says so in the introductory paragraphs. If you're asking if all of the bulls listed in SEK's regular catalog are tested PHA and TH free, no, they are not. Dr. Coover and his staff at SEK have been very instrumental  in helping to develop the test, and have provided semen and paid for testing on the potential carriers among the most popular bulls they carry semen on. They were the first semen distributors to clearly state any known PHA and TH status in their catalogs. I'm not sure who you talked to at SEK, but the staff there is very knowledgeable and always helpful. Maybe if you seemed to just be on a general fishing expedition, whoever you talked to might've felt like a copy of their catalog would best answer your questions.
 
Top