Philosophies of Breeding

[librarian]

Leonhardt applied what he realized was going on with hybrid seed development to age old  teachings about sorting domestic animals for type, then perpetuating the strongest of that type by isolating them from out crossing. Eventually, he increased environmental pressure and included Darwinian fitness into his criteria for strong or feeble.
I sincerely believe this and do not make the reference in a disrespectful way.

pretty sure Leonhardt didn't like outliers.  i could be wrong though.

the strongest, the biggest, the smallest the …est of whatever is what he avoided. pretty sure he just liked average.  again, could be wrong.

Well gosh,you guys...
Anyway, back to Leonhardt, as he is usually held up as the modern example of linebreeding.
Leonhardt did inbreed his cattle, but he began selecting from a heterogenous gene pool that had been collected from England, Scotland, Ireland and Wales as extreme examples of size and length for their time. Leonhardt consistently crossed two lines, one from Conan of Wye for size and muscle and the other from Fabron of Wye for maternal excellence. He bred a maternal line and a terminal line and an all purpose line from the types he segregated and concentrated from an initial heterogenous gene pool.
So, he began with extreme individuals, then selected for the average of their combined progeny. He didn't try to extend the extreme, he endeavored to build a population of animals that were genetically homogenous (depressed heterosis) in order to replicate the type that worked best in his environment. As was mentioned, after he tightened up his gene pool, he set ego aside and allowed nature to sort fitness in multi sire pastures. However, at that point the competing  sires were so similar to the eye that 'a gate cut could sort them as well as any method' (my paraphrase).
So, the debate is about (I guess) composites being the wrong tool to market as a means of introducing Shorthorn genetics into commercial (Angus-ish) herds. An argument has been made that those prominent in the ASA could better serve the breed ( opposed to the interests of a composite breed) by promoting homogeneous, predictable Shorthorn genetics. It's about getting the most predictable Shorthorn genetics in the forefront of commercial marketing, not the least predictable.
But I am in Shorthorns Anonymous now and, one day at a time,  try to " mind my own business"

 

[librarian]

Conan of Wye, the heaviest and tallest bull ever bred at Wye, played his part in which some very in uential individuals pushing the movement for larger cattle, declared him to be the biggest bull in the Angus breed for the time.
https://agresearch.umd.edu/sites/default/files/_docs/Wye_article_final%5B1%5D.pdf

 

[Dale]

It is worth noting the Shorthorn breeders that use linebreeding or inbreeding--let's not get hung up on the definitions.  A couple of breeders whose cattle consistently have higher percentage COI than most are Saskvalley and KL (Keith Lauer).  Probably Waukaru, Loving, Kaper, and others could be included.  The thing that puzzles me is that some of the great ones (that breed prepotently) are a result of a total outcross mating and sometimes of diverse phenotypes as well.  The more show-oriented breeders have often concentrated the breeding of Trump, and before that, Dividend.  Did/does Dover inbreed?

How do you breed cattle?  We are beginning a program to inbreed more than we have in the past.  I believe the Shorthorn umbrella is big enough to include both those who like inbreeding and those who don't.  Without doing lots of research on this opinion, it appears that major contributions have been made by those in both camps (outcross as well as linebreeding).  We have done composites as commercial in the past (mostly red maternal breeds), and seldom do any of that with our registered herd.       

 

[knabe]

The thing that puzzles me is that some of the great ones (that breed prepotently) are a result of a total outcross mating and sometimes of diverse phenotypes as well. 

who were the great ones.


not sure what you mean by outcross, but typically one tries to concentrate an individual.


one method is to get a bull by putting a daughter in the same position with different bulls, ie mating half sibs.


off the top of my head, i can't remember why people like to do this with the same female in the same position.

 

[librarian]

About prepotency- I have this explanation because I took a screenshot of the information so I wouldn't have to go back and find it someday. The problem with vaporizing stuff is that a lot of collateral learning gets lost. Too bad I didn't cut and paste it into my notes.
I'd rather read around the composite remarks and try to get a better understanding of this weighted heritability concept- within one breed to "keep it simple".

 

[Dale]

Knabe,

Some of the great ones (sired hundreds of calves) might include JSF Gauge and Sull Red Reward.  From the past surely HS Rodeo Drive would be an example.  I'm more of an applied science type and wonder what a low COI would be?  For instance, is Free K-Kim Hot Commodity still low COI at 2.24%?  If so, surely HC breeds very true and is from diverse genetics in his background.  CF Trump (not inbred like Line 1 Herefords) is slightly under 3% and may have sired as many great show females as any bull of any breed?  If you prefer commercial type, Rob Sneed's 034 (RS DV729 01 034 04) sired remarkable uniformity in our herd and he is under 4%. 

 

[librarian]

I read some stuff about testing for Chromosomal Predicted Transmitting Abilities that was way over my head and I couldn't really grasp. But it helped me understand that DNA doesn't follow just one set of rules. If we back up from the experts, the genomic crystal ball, or EPD or whatever technology is supposed to do the work for us, and go back to old fashioned stockmanship, the old timers did pretty well just by observation over time. XBAR calculated a billion plus recombinations, leading me to wonder, does line breeding really cut that number down significantly? Even to half a billion? There's more to it than math.
The point is, if we find an animal that consistently passes on desirable traits, then linebreeding from that animal is useful. But linebreeding from paper instead of pasture can produce animals that are worse than mongrels.
But, I'm trying to focus on a discussion improving the usefulness of full blooded Shorthorn Bulls to commercial ranchers. Step one might be going back to rebuilding the "factory" as described in this article. This is a generic consideration, not related to any particular breeder.
http://onpasture.com/2014/10/13/line-breeding-is-good-for-profit/
This is where line breeding comes in. By using a couple of generations of closely related bulls (or rams/bucks) that carry the highly influential and profit driving characteristics that make for maternal efficiency (fertility first and foremost) and moderate size to retain breeding females from, we can build our “factory”; our ideal cow. Selecting for uniformity of size, calm disposition, and above all, fertility, we get a cow herd that all looks and acts alike. We have predictability and have removed the outliers. In this case, average is good.

But aren’t we giving up that extra “pop” by not hybridizing? Only in the herd building, development phase. Once we have the foundation cow herd we can then move forward with our cross breeding program to capture it’s greatest effect. I will add that selecting a highly line bred and predictable bull with adequate calving ease behind him from that terminal breed to make that Terminal Cross will capture the very best of both worlds. For instance, a line bred Charolais or Simmental bull across moderate framed Angus, Red Angus or Hereford cows makes an awesome cross. We all know what kinds of crosses the right kind of Hereford bull makes on Angus cows. The trick is in finding the “right” kind of line bred bulls to cross on our foundation cows in the commercial sector.

Ideally we start by finding real stock breeders, people who focus on breeding livestock for a particular purpose as opposed to the replicators. A replicator is a person who simply buys the flavor of the month bull through their favorite AI company and uses that bull blindly across whatever cows they have. They breed to a fad as opposed to paying attention to the commercial needs of their own cow herd and the commercial needs of their bull customers. This breeding to a fad can best be exemplified by the belt buckle cattle of the fifties and sixties. You know the ones that a moderately tall guy could pee over and that looked more like hogs or wooly sheep than cattle. Or maybe the “growth” cattle of the eighties, those 7, 8, or 9 Frame cattle that you could drive a Mini Cooper under. What good did those fads do the commercial cattleman? None.

 

[Bradenh]

This is by far the most interesting useful and worth while topic on steerplanet

Thank you guys

 

[beebe]

I think it can start with the right cow.  If you can find the right cow that does most of what you are looking for and if you can breed her right to bring her in the direction that you want, then breed her back to a son, you should have created an animal that would that does a better job of reproducing itself consistently.

 

[knabe]

not sure how to find n = number of segregations (arrows) between the sire and dam in each separate path through the common ancestor in an excel sheet.

if i did, i would have done it a long time ago.

http://pods.dasnr.okstate.edu/docushare/dsweb/Get/Document-1974/ANSI-3165web.pdf

 

[knabe]

I read some stuff about testing for Chromosomal Predicted Transmitting Abilities

the problem with this is that one really needs to know how many crosses are necessary to leverage this.


usually the number is high.  "legendary" breeders sometimes have a serendipitous event.


almost none are willing to commit to actual line breeding, but instead, commit something else.


the other problem, is how does one measure fertility without high numbers with a breed that only has one offspring per year.


the only way to do do that is flush.  i haven't really seen too many people flush, then cross with flushes again if any.

 

[Duncraggan]

Excellent article knabe!

 

[knabe]

here's another article.


putting it here as i don't have time to read it and don't want to lose my search.


http://www.animalsandsociety.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/grasseni.pdf

 

[librarian]

here's another article.


putting it here as i don't have time to read it and don't want to lose my search.


http://www.animalsandsociety.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/grasseni.pdf

Not many surprises via this link, but thru the references cited (Orlando, "Turbo Cow"), I found this book.
Masterminding  Nature: The Breeding of Animals, 1750-2010.
The chapter on 19th Century Poultry Breeding was humbling from my cow-centric point of view. They were where we are now in 1870-1920.
https://books.google.com/books?op=lookup&id=LMBtBwAAQBAJ&continue=https://books.google.com/books%3Fid%3DLMBtBwAAQBAJ%26lpg%3DPA215%26ots%3D_RvmQaOp--%26dq%3Dorland%2Bturbo%2Bcows%26pg%3DPA72%26hl%3Den

 

[RyanChandler]

Knabe,

Some of the great ones (sired hundreds of calves) might include JSF Gauge and Sull Red Reward.  From the past surely HS Rodeo Drive would be an example.  I'm more of an applied science type and wonder what a low COI would be?  For instance, is Free K-Kim Hot Commodity still low COI at 2.24%?  If so, surely HC breeds very true and is from diverse genetics in his background.  CF Trump (not inbred like Line 1 Herefords) is slightly under 3% and may have sired as many great show females as any bull of any breed?  If you prefer commercial type, Rob Sneed's 034 (RS DV729 01 034 04) sired remarkable uniformity in our herd and he is under 4%.

The problem with 'linebreeding on paper' and calculating inbreeding coefficients is that they only lead us to an estimate based on averages.  These averages are, IMO, absolutely worthless as they falsely assume each parent contributed exactly 50% of an individuals genetic makeup, that each grandparent contributing exactly 25% of the genetic makeup, that each great grand parent contributing exactly 12.5%, etc. This is erroneous and not how genetic inheritance works.
The only way to know the true level of homozygosity is with a blood test.  An individual with a calculated COI 2%, for example, could absolutely have more homozygous alleles than an individual with a calculated COI of 20%.  It is my opinion that these prepotent bulls with low calculated COI actually have many more homozygous gene pairs than their COI would suggest.

Just for perspective,, the Line 1 Hereford herd (Advance Domino 13) had some individuals with COI's over 40%! But the herd average was around 10%.  Jim Lents herd (inbred to Anxiety 4th) would have surely had some that even exceeded this as he annually retained his 'best bull calves' and indiscriminately used them back on the herd repeating this process for decades.

 

[knabe]

An individual with a calculated COI 2%, for example, could absolutely have more homozygous alleles than an individual with a calculated COI of 20%.  It is my opinion that these prepotent bulls with low calculated COI actually have many more homozygous gene pairs than their COI would suggest.

others have this theory. to me, it's why people should take different backgrounds that share the same desired traits and cross them. it won't necessarily guarantee more "reinforcement" at more places on the genome, but it's probably worth it to do so in the absence of any worthwhile economically viable dna measurement technique.


most dna companies won't give you this information saying it's too difficult, not necessary, we only need a number anyway etc etc.


who knows.  i don't.

 

[mbigelow]

I like to follow the k.i.s.s ( keep it simple stupid) method of breeding
Breed the good ones to the good ones and make more good ones.  The issue lies in the fact that most don't know what a good one is. It takes years to understand what works in your environment if this information was not handed down from previous generations.  This is why I advocate using your own Bulls back in your herd and out cross when needed.  Again the issue becomes selecting from another population and hoping it does what you want. This is the reason I like the kiss method it implies we are all stupid upfront so any train wrecks can be chalked up to stupidity.  Any advances come from shear dumb luck.  Hope you all got a laugh, have a good day!

 

[Dale]

others have this theory. to me, it's why people should take different backgrounds that share the same desired traits and cross them.  it won't necessarily guarantee more "reinforcement" at more places on the genome, but it's probably worth it to do so in the absence of any worthwhile economically viable dna measurement technique.

The selection method above (sorry I don't know how to change the color for part of the quote above??) has been used successfully for centuries.  There is merit to using EPD's and even more modern tools, but they are not always perfected enough to be used ahead of visual selection and experience.  We need to use the best science available, but sometimes the confidence level is not yet high for some of the latest technologies.  Judging team coaches wisely say to look at the animals first, and then look at the paper.

In our herd we have made hundreds of planned matings since the 70's via AI.  A friend used his knowledge and visual appraisal to match up the weakness of one animal to the strength of another (all eyeball and hardly any attention to EPD's) and certainly hit more home runs than we did.  I still like balanced EPD's and am attempting to breed some of them to bulls with a little more look to get a 4-H calf or two for the family. 

 

[librarian]

I like to follow the k.i.s.s ( keep it simple stupid) method of breeding
Breed the good ones to the good ones and make more good ones.  The issue lies in the fact that most don't know what a good one is. It takes years to understand what works in your environment if this information was not handed down from previous generations.  This is why I advocate using your own Bulls back in your herd and out cross when needed.  Again the issue becomes selecting from another population and hoping it does what you want. This is the reason I like the kiss method it implies we are all stupid upfront so any train wrecks can be chalked up to stupidity.  Any advances come from shear dumb luck.  Hope you all got a laugh, have a good day!

This makes a lot of sense.
The 'outcross when needed' is the gamble. If we weren't gamblers, none of us would work so hard to spin the genetic roulette wheel.
Just as television, and radio before, succumbed to the inane- our communication via Internet seems to devolve into statements of what we believe instead of dialogs about what is believable.
I study a lot, and the more I study the less I know.
But this like to like concept vs same to same is a very interesting question.

 

[SeannyT]

The problem with 'linebreeding on paper' and calculating inbreeding coefficients is that they only lead us to an estimate based on averages.  These averages are, IMO, absolutely worthless as they falsely assume each parent contributed exactly 50% of an individuals genetic makeup, that each grandparent contributing exactly 25% of the genetic makeup, that each great grand parent contributing exactly 12.5%, etc. This is erroneous and not how genetic inheritance works.

It may just be the way you worded it but I'm not sure what you mean by that quote. Each parent does indeed contribute 50% of the genetic material to each offspring. This does not differentiate the dominance of individual alleles transferred, or ultimately the phenotypic performance of offspring for certain traits, if that's what you were referring to.