Polymelia in Angus cattle

[DL]

Since angus is a large breed with a lot of money I think they are being targeted to get these tests done sooner because of all of the money in the breed.  Being a red angus guy I would jump at the chance to say that we have less defects but the truth is I don't know.  Now becktons and most of the breed are fairly line bred so any defects should have come out already but with the influx of black genes and canadian genes I'm not so sure the entire breed is safe.  But yes the advantage of linebreeding is finding these genes and eliminating them.

Don't know that I entirely agree with you Mill Iron - several of the "new Angus defects" were identified first in Australia (actually so was MA in the Red Angus but that is a different story) DD and CA to be specific and (IMHO) the AAA did very little to encourage the submission of samples or help the researchers until the facts were so over whelming (ie Dr B and BR identified the mutations) that they could not ignore the issue. As a breed that supplies much of the commercial sector with breeding stock I think their approach has been woefully inadequate and that in many cases the commercial guy (gal) is the one who pays the price.

This is their "new" policy for DD below - you might also find the conversation with Mark Gardiner interesting http://www.gardinerangus.com/

"The Board also unanimously adopted a policy relating to the registration status of current and future animals determined to carry this mutation. This newly-adopted policy does not require or mandate the testing of potential carriers as a precondition of continued or prospective registration. Rather, the policy assumes that members will follow sound breeding decisions and make strategic use of DNA testing in dealing with this genetic condition. Because this policy represents an evolution in the Association's approach to genetic conditions generally and, in some respects, a departure from those policies first formulated in the fall of 2008 and the winter of 2009, the Board asked that I share some of its thinking with you on the subject."

As someone who uses Red Angus genetics myself I actually do believe that the reds have fewer genetic defects that the blacks - one of the reasons is required whole herd reporting, another is the line breeding you allude to, a third is focusing on traits that are important to the commercial customer - fertility, soundness, gain, temperament (vs single trait selection) and the forth is awareness and openness when something appears to be genetic - ie when an ABS Buffalo Creek bull was found to be a carrier of OS the Chases delayed their dispersal sale to test breed potential carrier cows to these carrier bulls to obtain sufficient genetic material to identify the mutation. The Red Angus also has a bit of MA (alpha mannosidosis) courtesy of a Canadian bull that was identified as a carrier when the owner was trying to sell semen and embryos to Australia - my understanding is that the Australians require testing prior to import - so the carrier bulls semen was not allowed in Oz but continued to be sold in NA - again my understanding was that the RAAA was concerned with the number of OS bulls breeders my look north so these animals were tested and the MA carrier bull identified -

 

[Mill Iron A]

Oh I'm not defending the Angus association, I'm just saying if I was a genomics company I would target the largest breeds first.  I think red angus is more commercially focused hence why I am a purebred breeder of those cattle.  Integrity is a huge part of it as well just as you had mentioned.  I'm not totally against how they are treating the new defect though because since such a large majority of the breed is affected this well help not lose so many genetics.  However, in the same breath I also have to mention that this should separate breeders on the integrity level.  If you are sketchy you are going to skirt around the subject, not test, take advantage of the naive etc.  But the good honest breeders in the angus breed should now be able to shine would be my hope.  There is only one true theme that seems to be coming out of this....

BETTER BRED RED!!!

 

[DL]

Oh I'm not defending the Angus association, I'm just saying if I was a genomics company I would target the largest breeds first.  I think red angus is more commercially focused hence why I am a purebred breeder of those cattle.  Integrity is a huge part of it as well just as you had mentioned.  I'm not totally against how they are treating the new defect though because since such a large majority of the breed is affected this well help not lose so many genetics.  However, in the same breath I also have to mention that this should separate breeders on the integrity level.  If you are sketchy you are going to skirt around the subject, not test, take advantage of the naive etc.  But the good honest breeders in the angus breed should now be able to shine would be my hope.  There is only one true theme that seems to be coming out of this....

BETTER BRED RED!!!

Yup - I have said all along that how a breeder handles genetic defects says a lot more about them as a person that it does about the defect : )

 

[Cabanha Santa Isabel - BR]

Oh I'm not defending the Angus association, I'm just saying if I was a genomics company I would target the largest breeds first.  I think red angus is more commercially focused hence why I am a purebred breeder of those cattle.  Integrity is a huge part of it as well just as you had mentioned.  I'm not totally against how they are treating the new defect though because since such a large majority of the breed is affected this well help not lose so many genetics.  However, in the same breath I also have to mention that this should separate breeders on the integrity level.  If you are sketchy you are going to skirt around the subject, not test, take advantage of the naive etc.  But the good honest breeders in the angus breed should now be able to shine would be my hope.  There is only one true theme that seems to be coming out of this....

BETTER BRED RED!!!

Yup - I have said all along that how a breeder handles genetic defects says a lot more about them as a person that it does about the defect : )

PERFECT!  (clapping) (clapping)

If a breeder know that your bull/cow is a carrier and keep using it for produce genetics. Well this is a perfect figur about your character. He is saling a problem and helping to put down your breed.

I would like ask if someone buys a car knows that having mechanical problems or potential ones? No! So, why sell troubles with four legs?

 

[knabe]

this rationale reminds me of subsidies, obamacare, progressive taxation, property tax, property tax exemption, market manipulation, corn subsidies, ethanol subsidies, income redistribution, stateism, political correctiness, zero tolerance, giving grain to people in poor countries so they won't grow their own, etc etc.  we all know they will fail, but we do them anyway to perpetuate a personality cult that essentially has replaced a monarchy.  to me, perpetuating these fatally flawed programs say more about us than the programs.

 

[HerefordGuy]

I'm not saying that anyone in the breed wanted any of these defects but I will say that at least this breed is trying to get rid of the problem... not just letting it carry on like th and pha in other breeds. This is done by not allowing any new carrier bulls to be registered.

Personally i would like them to do the same on the females..

I really think this attitude is a mistake. What you are basically doing is single trait selection. We all know single trait selection is not optimal.
If you breed the trait leader for your favorite trait, how would you feel if the AAA said you couldn't register the calf?
I argue to manage the defect with testing and select it out of our breeds over generations, not in one fell swoop.
http://steakgenomics.blogspot.com/2013/08/beef-cow-calf-weekly-truth-every-living.html

 

[aj]

Would this be a policy of necessity. Will so may defects be discovered that it would wipe out half a breeds registrations?

 

[HerefordGuy]

I'm not saying that anyone in the breed wanted any of these defects but I will say that at least this breed is trying to get rid of the problem... not just letting it carry on like th and pha in other breeds. This is done by not allowing any new carrier bulls to be registered.

Personally i would like them to do the same on the females..

I really think this attitude is a mistake. What you are basically doing is single trait selection. We all know single trait selection is not optimal.
If you breed the trait leader for your favorite trait, how would you feel if the AAA said you couldn't register the calf?
I argue to manage the defect with testing and select it out of our breeds over generations, not in one fell swoop.
http://steakgenomics.blogspot.com/2013/08/beef-cow-calf-weekly-truth-every-living.html

If a breed stops registering carriers, pretty soon they won't register a single calf. Every living thing carriers broken genes.
The constant process of mutation and large sire families in cattle do not support this policy.
(I apologize for being blunt, not trying to be rude, just straight forward.)

 

[HerefordGuy]

Would this be a policy of necessity. Will so may defects be discovered that it would wipe out half a breeds registrations?

Exactly aj.
Eventually it would wipe out the entire breed.
And even if it was possible to make a "clean" breed, the next generation you would have a completely new crop of broken genes to deal with due to mutations.
Jerry Taylor's research has already found 175 possible/putative recessive lethals.

 

[Freddy]

I think were missing the main point of this catastrophe,  and congratulating way to many people ....These genetic flaws were self inflicted by some ANGUS breeders
for over 35 years ,the majority of us breeders knew this  but handled it just like we do with our government ,we were not  hurting to bad ,no leadership done anything about it and now things are stacking up we can't deny it  ....When our government start's crashing it will be a lot worst ....People have proven through history we are
our own worst enemy ...

 

[HerefordGuy]

I disagree with using the word catastrophe.
If you have abnormal calves, of any breed, send a sample to the breed association. The breed association will likely also have you send a sample to Dr. Steffen at University of Nebraska.
Report calves. Collect Data. Create a test. Manage the broken gene.

 

[Cabanha Santa Isabel - BR]

Perhaps I not understood some point.... ???
Why take off the carriers woul wipe out entire breed?
Saw on some carriers list ad they are very few. OK...from well known herds...but what is more important...the breed wealth or the some breeders?
I vote for the breed!

Also....
These genetic defects are very new or some old school guys have knowledgment about it on Angus, Hereford and Shorthorn?  Exception for dwarf genes.

I think that we are walking on a critical point. Keep the carriers producing calves will only spread the problem, making it no solution.

 

[HerefordGuy]

All cattle are carriers of something. Some broken genes we know about and are identified. Other brokens genes we know nothing about. If we set a policy of "no carriers allowed" we have excluded every animal from being registered.

I am not advocating for keeping any and all carriers. I am advocating keeping carriers with superior genetic merit for economically important traits. We apply selection pressure to remove the genetic defect over time.

For example. We produce a flush from that carrier animal. We test the embryos for the genetic defect, and only implant embryos that are not carriers. We are still registering progeny out of a carrier animal. But we are using selection pressure (but not single trait selection!!!) to remove the genetic defect.

Selecting against genetic defects does not need to have the same vigor as a witch hunt, bankrupting cattle operations in the process.

 

[vanridge]

Hereford Guy, I see the point you are trying to make, but are you not concerned about the Angus breed getting hurt by this? Look at TH and all that stuff, it hasn't done the shorthorn industry any good. Plus, there is also an article, (I believe my neighbour told me it was in the Hereford magazine) that black hided cattle are much higher carriers of salmonella and e.coli in their carcasses, as well as more prone to disease, lower tolerance to pain etc. I haven't read it myself yet, but with these two things popping up simultaneously, I think the Angus breed needs to be on the ball. If word gets out to Johnny Q. Public, that their trusted Certified Angus Beef was born with too many legs and has much higher risk making you sick if you eat it ....

 

[Cabanha Santa Isabel - BR]

Thank you HerefordGuy, now understood you point.
Basing on a selection of non carriers, I can agree to use very high quality carriers on matings. But it is very hard when mondey is envolved.
Also with appoint to Shorthorn/Club Calves on PH and TH problem. People keep mating without criteria, and as was well pointed by vanridge, it was not good for breed.
Yet looking for an answer regarding genetic defects occurency on old cattle type.

 

[Cabanha Santa Isabel - BR]

Another point....these matter of search and control genetic defects is a well discussed matter in N.America, UK and Australia.
Here in Brazil none semen catalogue show the actual bull status regarding genetic defects. I believe with almost 100% sure that none breeder heard about MA, THA, PH, OS, or another defect.
???

 

[HerefordGuy]

The defects you mentioned are not present in Nelore. Nelore has there own set of broken genes, but we haven't discovered any of them yet. (No one has really looked for them yet.)

 

[Cabanha Santa Isabel - BR]

Brazil is not only Nelore.
I raise Shorthorn, Aberdeen, Hereford and Galloways.
I'm talking about Angus and Hereford from US and Canada bull listed on semen catalogues.
Last year Red Angus sold 541.000 straws; Angus sold 2.338.097; Polled Hereford sold 122.104 straws and Hereford sold 5.963 straws.
Nelore sold 3.320.598 straws. The other indian breeds sold together 287.461 straws....
So genetic defects are also an important matter here in Brazil.

 

[Medium Rare]

I really think this attitude is a mistake. What you are basically doing is single trait selection. We all know single trait selection is not optimal.
If you breed the trait leader for your favorite trait, how would you feel if the AAA said you couldn't register the calf?
I argue to manage the defect with testing and select it out of our breeds over generations, not in one fell swoop.
http://steakgenomics.blogspot.com/2013/08/beef-cow-calf-weekly-truth-every-living.html

I'll toss an example in here.

The greatest competitive Labrador retriever to ever live has been found to be one of the earliest sources for a genetic defect.  A lot of breeders marked him, his sons, & grandsons, who were nearly all carriers due to extensive line breeding, totally off their potential sire lists.  The breeders who had figured the condition out years before the genetic test was developed laughed at the rest of the breed when they tried to "cull" his lines.  Now there are two more genetic defects and the breeders who culled the first defect are trying to figure out how many "clean" sire lines the competitive Labrador world even has because there are rumors of two more tests coming down the pipe.  The breeders who refused to "cull at all costs" are laughing all the way to the bank, producing better dogs than ever, and still winning purple at a high rate while the bunch who went off the deep end are spinning in circles from fear of carriers.

I basically agree with you.  Carriers are physically healthy and have the potential to be very valuable.  Genetic tests make breeding around a defect, or defects, fairly easy for anyone with a basic understanding of genetics.  There is no reason to panic and slit the throat of very valuable bloodlines that can be cleaned up with a simple test when the "clean" bloodlines could very well be the next "dirty" line in a few years.

 

[redsimmsnangus]

Report calves. Collect Data. Create a test. Manage the broken gene.

I have a hard time understanding the fear myself.  Test with full disclosure.  It's not that hard

.

Hereford Guy, I see the point you are trying to make, but are you not concerned about the Angus breed getting hurt by this? Look at TH and all that stuff, it hasn't done the shorthorn industry any good. Plus, there is also an article, (I believe my neighbour told me it was in the Hereford magazine) that black hided cattle are much higher carriers of salmonella and e.coli in their carcasses, as well as more prone to disease, lower tolerance to pain etc. I haven't read it myself yet, but with these two things popping up simultaneously, I think the Angus breed needs to be on the ball. If word gets out to Johnny Q. Public, that their trusted Certified Angus Beef was born with too many legs and has much higher risk making you sick if you eat it ....

All the Angus association has to do is propagate the notion that carrier animals make better show calves/carcasses/fill in the blank, and it will be no problem, worked great in the club calf industry...

I would love to see that article and how the statistics bear that out.  Post it if you find it. Sounds a bit sensational to me, just sayin'.