Do you check to see if new bull prospects have 50K or Genetice Testing?

[Okotoks]

So I seem to have an attraction for bulls that carry genetic defects. That kind of supports that they have a certain structure or appearance that attracts people and helps to propogate the defect. I have reently clicked on some prety attractive bull videos then gone to check out their info to find a lot have only a birth weigt, some have performane info and great EPD's but no DNA testing has been done. When there is no testing there is no time to find out before the sale takes place so for me they are automatically off the list.
What do the rest of you like to see when you are selecting a future herd sire?
A 50K greatly increases the info on a potential herd sire. I have attached the latest IGS progeny equivalent tables.

 

[Doc]

I check DNA status if needed because of pedigree. Doesn't necessarily mean I wouldn't purchase one that is a carrier, it would just affect the price I would pay.

 

[beebe]

I check DNA status if needed because of pedigree. Doesn't necessarily mean I wouldn't purchase one that is a carrier, it would just affect the price I would pay.

Which of the defects would affect the price and how much?

 

[Doc]

beebe, if he is a PHAC then I'm out. If he is DSC or THC(not both) but good enough with a good enough pedigree for me to want to use him then it would affect the price. I would be more liberal with a DS then a TH. As far as how much it is hard to say until the moment.

 

[knabe]

if i was a club calf maker, i would pre-screen embryos and only implant embryos that are carriers for all the defects and probably retain all semen and cloning rights of every calf.

i would throw away any embryo that is homozygous for any defects.

i think i would just clone the good calves and drive the price down.

since any "good" calf is worth more than the cost of cloning, feeding, marketing etc, and when adding in all the "bad" calves, probably worth it.

then when all the non-clones were eliminated from the market i would find some other similar cost differential to leverage.

 

[knabe]

beebe, if he is a PHAC then I'm out. If he is DSC or THC(not both) but good enough with a good enough pedigree for me to want to use him then it would affect the price. I would be more liberal with a DS then a TH. As far as how much it is hard to say until the moment.

why the distinction in PHA and TH? they are both lethal.

 

[Gargan]

Knabe,  what is the cost of cloning nowadays?

 

[knabe]

$20k. They put in multiples to guarantee “1” so each additional animal is 10k.

So the first 1or2 are 20k not including preserving a line which will generate infinite clones.

 

[mark tenenbaum]

beebe, if he is a PHAC then I'm out. If he is DSC or THC(not both) but good enough with a good enough pedigree for me to want to use him then it would affect the price. I would be more liberal with a DS then a TH. As far as how much it is hard to say until the moment.

why the distinction in PHA and TH? they are both lethal.// only if the other animal is a carrier of the same condition

 

[Doc]

beebe, if he is a PHAC then I'm out. If he is DSC or THC(not both) but good enough with a good enough pedigree for me to want to use him then it would affect the price. I would be more liberal with a DS then a TH. As far as how much it is hard to say until the moment.

why the distinction in PHA and TH? they are both lethal.

Yes, they are both lethal to the calf. PHA is lethal to the cow too, the majority of the time. TH usually isn't.
TH will usually add traits to the calf (more hair, better bone) , I don't know that PHA by itself does.

 

[knabe]

i wonder if you could take an embryo that was homozygous for all desired defects, mature it to some level, harvest the bits, mature them somehow and then collect semen somehow to guarantee all calves would be hetero for each defect.

 

[RyanChandler]

What do the rest of you like to see when you are selecting a future herd sire?

A 50K greatly increases the info on a potential herd sire. I have attached the latest IGS progeny equivalent tables.

TH and PHA carriers I give no consideration to.  If there's carriers of either up close and the prospect hasn't been tested then I'm out too.  DS or myo, all else equal and primarily for marketing purposes, Id prefer they be free but these two definitely aren't deal breakers for me. 

Then assuming they past my eye test-- frame score ie long and low, nicely balanced, with more body than leg-- I'm going on to look at the pedigree.
Rare, but if I'm not familiar with the pedigree, I'm looking to make sure there aren't any monsters lurking.  I don't care how low the prospect's birthweight is,  if there are 100lbers up close then they're immediately off the list.  For me, no amount of goodness can offset the dystocia risk that's inherent with those bws.  So I'm looking not only at the prospects bw, but also the birthweights of those in the pedigree and following all the dam lines to see other progeny bw reportings. 

Any additional performance reporting is a bonus.  With environment having such impact on growth, actual ww and yw aren't really something I'm paying too much mind to.  And with the way so many breeders stage contemporary groups, even analyzing the performance ratios doesn't offer the insight it could. 

Dam weight is also something I like to know.  Nothing worse than getting to this point to then find your prospect's dam is a 2000lb cow.  If they're far bigger than an environment can support, again, no amount of goodness can compensate.


The 50K testing increases the data on the bull.  Now whether that data can be interpreted as useful information if definitely questionable.  I think most anyone who objectively looked at the model would conclude that there wasn't even close to enough phenotypic submissions needed to establish baselines.  Not even close as in tens of thousands short. The fact that they even offer the 150k or the HD150 is just silly.  Not to mention almost all those they did use were only semi-proven or even unproven, as defined by their EPD accuracies.  Looks good in theory but the margin of error associated with those lower accuracies levels voids a lot of the value there would be provided they FIRST WAITED TO OBTAIN ENOUGH PROVEN SAMPLES.  I get it that you have to start somewhere but just like with any model, garbage in ==> garbage out.  And that leads to bad decision making. 

 

[Medium Rare]

I must have the same affliction. A few of the lines I really appreciate are known carriers and I have some plans of continuing their use in the future. I also know I have used carrier bulls in the past and have tanks full of untested semen that I still enjoy dipping into, so I really need the walking bulls to be defect free. I guess I might consider a DS carrier if it's really nice and a bargain, but all TH, PHA, or e226x carriers are marked off the list.

Parentage testing is becoming pretty high on my list as it has caused several wrecks in several breeds lately. Not too long ago I paid a significant figure for a straw of semen and flushed a cow to the bull only to later find out his pedigree wasn't as advertised. One of the big reasons I did it was because the particular bull was the first son of a popular sire to display a different set of traits. Turns out, I was one of several people who did this for the same reasons. Looking back, it should have been obvious and a simple parentage test would have prevented it all. Quick to cash the checks, not so quick to follow the rules.

I just did another quick browse. I have several calves on the ground out of well advertised AI bulls that still do not have the required AI sire testing and parentage ran. I guess I really haven't learned my lesson yet.

I'm on the fence when it comes to 50k. Every college course, beef meeting, and online informational video has us drowning in its importance and effectiveness. I understand how reliant it is upon the data and can see the accuracies that went in to the base. If I'm buying a walking bull and using epds as a deciding factor, I'd like to see it done just so I don't have to a absorb whatever changes will happen in the future. I have however tested several of my own animals with both very expected and very confusing results, so I can see why some breeders/buyers might not fully buy into the system yet. Especially if they're using lines that are not well represented within the population or even believed to be improperly represented.

 

[Doc]

medium rare, I am like you. I don't understand how people continue to sell semen on bulls and not have the testing done, genetic or parentage. Case in point is a very popular bull that this past fall after having sold semen for a year was all of a sudden tested and found out his sire was incorrect.
I guess there isn't any way to police it though other than people checking the Assoc. website first and then refusing to buy if not. But I don't think that is going to happen though.

 

[mark tenenbaum]

Curious what popular shorthorn bull selling semen has not been tested O0

 

[Boreal]

What do the rest of you like to see when you are selecting a future herd sire?

A 50K greatly increases the info on a potential herd sire. I have attached the latest IGS progeny equivalent tables.

TH and PHA carriers I give no consideration to.  If there's carriers of either up close and the prospect hasn't been tested then I'm out too.  DS or myo, all else equal and primarily for marketing purposes, Id prefer they be free but these two definitely aren't deal breakers for me. 

Then assuming they past my eye test-- frame score ie long and low, nicely balanced, with more body than leg-- I'm going on to look at the pedigree.
Rare, but if I'm not familiar with the pedigree, I'm looking to make sure there aren't any monsters lurking.  I don't care how low the prospect's birthweight is,  if there are 100lbers up close then they're immediately off the list.  For me, no amount of goodness can offset the dystocia risk that's inherent with those bws.  So I'm looking not only at the prospects bw, but also the birthweights of those in the pedigree and following all the dam lines to see other progeny bw reportings. 

Any additional performance reporting is a bonus.  With environment having such impact on growth, actual ww and yw aren't really something I'm paying too much mind to.  And with the way so many breeders stage contemporary groups, even analyzing the performance ratios doesn't offer the insight it could. 

Dam weight is also something I like to know.  Nothing worse than getting to this point to then find your prospect's dam is a 2000lb cow.  If they're far bigger than an environment can support, again, no amount of goodness can compensate.


The 50K testing increases the data on the bull.  Now whether that data can be interpreted as useful information if definitely questionable.  I think most anyone who objectively looked at the model would conclude that there wasn't even close to enough phenotypic submissions needed to establish baselines.  Not even close as in tens of thousands short. The fact that they even offer the 150k or the HD150 is just silly.  Not to mention almost all those they did use were only semi-proven or even unproven, as defined by their EPD accuracies.  Looks good in theory but the margin of error associated with those lower accuracies levels voids a lot of the value there would be provided they FIRST WAITED TO OBTAIN ENOUGH PROVEN SAMPLES.  I get it that you have to start somewhere but just like with any model, garbage in ==> garbage out.  And that leads to bad decision making.

I think you hit the nail on the head here, XBAR. There are so many other, more important considerations than 50K that testing for it is likely futile. Environment now tops the list for me.

 

[oakview]

TH, PHA, and DS carriers are out.  Period.  If there's a carrier in the background and the animal in question has not been tested, I stay completely away.  50K is a set of information I don't have a lot of confidence in at this time.  Great to gather the information, though.

 

[aj]

I would be...….and I am scared to death of buying a Shorthorn bull. I did just buy a bull from Loving's though. Genetic defect free as possible. I will test him again just to make sure though.

 

[knabe]

Why does the 50k matter if it hasn’t been validated in shorthorn background cattle.

It’s only twice as dense as the number of genes.

The markers are simply long range linkage trackers.

Sorta pointless.

 

[Okotoks]

Why does the 50k matter if it hasn’t been validated in shorthorn background cattle.

It’s only twice as dense as the number of genes.

The markers are simply long range linkage trackers.

Sorta pointless.

 
When I posted the survey I wasn't asking just Shorthorn breeders but any breed. Shorthorn have the two lethal recessive conditions PHA and TH and the genetic conditions DS and myostatin E226X and nt419 but every breed has some genetic conditions and some breeds over 10 conditions. Purebred breeders wanting to sell bulls to commercial buyers must have a strategy and testing policy/ selection procedure in place and I was wondering what they were. Also bull buyers must have some sort of screening to make sure the investment they are making is a sound one. 
Regarding 50K Knabe I have no real knowledge how it works. As more Shorrhorns get tested with the 50K does it become more accurate? Or does each breed have to do independent testing to find applicable markers?