Potential genetic defect in Shorthorn cattle

[caledon101]

Librarian......I hear your point of view. Where I disagree is that I do not believe that "managing" these defect genes should include retaining them in the gene pool. Not without a thoughtful plan to eventually eradicate them.
One day, some day, years from now, breeders will look back and judge the breed leaders of today on their actions or lack of actions. And, I don't think their assessment will be favourable.
Just the optics alone of a proud international breed like this one being associated with genetic defects is not good. Public opinion and perception matters. Ask the folks at Volkswagen what the deliberate propagation of defects has done for their brand.

 

[RyanChandler]

As it turns out, I have what I think is one of the finest triple clean or otherwise Shorthorn bulls in existence on my farm.     

What bull is this

 

[librarian]

I would predict that any dedicated breeder who has developed or maintained a prepotent regionally fit strain of Shorthorns is going to systematically manage the defects within their gene pool for optimal fitness in the long run
To my mind, managing the defects for optimal fitness is breeding carriers to non carriers,  testing the offspring and culling the carriers. The non carriers take the bloodline forward. The frequency of the defective gene will rapidly drift out of future generations under this type of selective pressure.
I'm not in favor of proliferating carriers for fun or profit. Of course that looks bad...but isn't that a Club Calf thing?
I think that's a different world from Real Shorthorns, but maybe I'm wrong.

 

[caledon101]

Librarian....I think we are basically on the same page here. Perhaps where we actually differ is that I believe there needs to be some central control and governance over this issue; I don't believe individual breeders should be left in control of it. The Association leaders need to implement rules to enforce exactly what you prescribe; breeding carriers to non-carriers until the defect genes become very rare or are eradicated. You are obviously a smart, dedicated and forward thinking breeder with a strong sense of responsibility to the breed. If every breeder had your mindset these genes would be a history lesson by now. The continued registration and association approved usage of carrier sires ensures these defect genes will remain a topic for years to come. JMO!

 

[oakview]

There are very, very few breeders that are actually using carrier sires.  I can only think of a handful of TH bulls being used at all and very few PHA carriers.  I personally won't buy a DS carrier, but I don't find it as a cause of much concern to very many.  The TH and PHA carriers are used in very specific cases for very specific reasons and the cattle are clearly labeled for defect status.  The chance of a carrier slipping into the commercial industry should be non-existent.  Aren't all cattle breeders honest and truthful?

 

[caledon101]

Oakview.....if very few breeders are using defect carrier sires then the final step to eliminate them from eligibility as breeding sires won't be impactful to the industry?? Eliminate all carrier sires and the simple arithmetic tells us that these carrier genes will, over time, become very isolated. A non-topic.

I cannot think of any scenario in which a responsible, knowledgeable breeder would feel the need to use a carrier sire. What am I missing here?? With so many breeding bulls to choose from within such a genetically diverse gene pool surely the choices amongst the clean sires is sufficient?
I don't think it's an issue of how many actual carrier sires are out there. People looking in, investors and potential new breeders, would be more focused and concerned with the absence of any association plan to eradicate these defect genes. It's the optics; not the actual head count or rationale applied for no association plan to lead and eradicate.

We are looking at this issue from different angles. I do understand that many breeders believe that any association imposed restrictions contradicts their personal freedoms and rights. There is a rationale out there that seems to suggest it is wise to "leave this with individual breeders to sort out and it will all work out fine in the end". That's where I disagree. I believe the association(s) have failed on this issue.
Again....JMO!

 

[oakview]

My opinion that breeders should be able to use what they want how they choose is probably the only place where I disagree with those that want the carriers totally eliminated.  I don't want them in my herd, but if somebody else wants to use them, have at it.  They just better be clean if you want to sell them to me.  It is also my opinion that most "big" investors are drawn to Shorthorns because of the show ring.  Right or wrong, I don't see many $100,000 cattle sold to commercial producers.  There is evidently a strong market for show type cattle and if the buyer wants a THC animal to parade around a show ring, I don't care.  I wholeheartedly support any realistic attempt to increase Shorthorn market share in the commercial sector.  However, I don't advocate eliminating one facet at the expense of the other.  I'm old enough to remember many events that were going to ruin the Shorthorn breed.  When we started in the early 60's, the Scotch type were all the rage.  You had to look hard for a Polled Shorthorn.  I saw plenty of propaganda stating the Polleds were no good with their hanging sheaths and bug eyes.  After the Polled cattle became popular and type changed a little, the Duals were introduced.  They were the next group that was going to ruin the breed.  The arguments went on and on, even though the Duals were from exactly the same herd book 25 years before they were "allowed" back in the ASA.  The Irish were next and were eventually accepted into the herd book even though they have an empty pedigree.  Then came the Maines, then some Chis and who knows what.  Each influx of genetics was the end of the breed to somebody.  Others crowned them a saviors.  My feeling is that if it's legal, you like it, and it fits your program, use it.  If you don't, then you are free to stay away.  You may want to point out that the influx of genetics is entirely different than using known genetic defects.  My response is that the defects came directly from the introduction of two of these strains.   

 

[librarian]

The problem I foresee is what happens when another mutation, or defect , shows up?
Not on a $100,000 bull, but on an old line that is seeing new use? Or an old line that is wound thru and thru the cattle of one or another breeder?
Where is the opportunity to breed and select clean, registerable progeny from those bloodlines that have history and value up until the moment they become genetic outcasts? This is just a thought experiment.
Would that slam the door on those old genetics?  Did Angus stop registering every clean son of 036 when he turned up as a DD carrier?
Angus finds new defects all the time and have helped to create a genetic testing industry that is generating fortunes. As long as there is money to be made on testing for defects, there will be incentive to discover new defects to test for.
If you have a policy that slams the door on a bloodline as soon as a defect is discovered, pretty soon there wont be many bloodlines left.
That's fine if you're an investor who will just dump the livestock and write off the loss.
If you're someone who has 50 years into a program, its the end of the line.
I think sloppy breeding caused this mess, not diabolical monster makers. Dumbing things down to make breeding neither an art nor a science won't prevent Frankenstein from creating a monster. But it will enable the inexperienced and all knowing next generation to think a clean pedigree is bulletproof.
No real rancor here, just weary caution.

 

[oakview]

Case in point:  Clipper King of USA through, evidently, his sire, Clipper King of Bapton.  The original Clipper King hadn't been used since the 60's and all of a sudden, one of his "throwback" sons shows up as a TH carrier.  Are we to slaughter all cattle that trace to him?  How about Leader 21?  Surely there's something about him that we might not like someday.  You're absolutely correct in the fact that new defects will show up all the time.  The person who develops the test makes a fortune and we suffer the consequences.  I don't know as if I'd agree that sloppy breeding habits led to the defects.  I don't know of many breeders in North America that don't have Improver somewhere in the ancestry of at least some of their animals.  The slippery slope is when somebody "removes" the TH gene (or some other gene) from the carrier embryo.  I'll bet it could be done at some point, if not already.  What kind of ethical questions does that raise?  All I know is that I get tired of spending $69 a pop for genetic testing.  That's one of the reasons I won't add something to my herd unless I know it's clean.  At least clean of what we know of..... 

 

[aj]

I think the assc. and directors or who ever deserve a pat on the back for the way they set up the pedigrees online orwhatever. They have the color coded deal where an individual that has a carrier within 3 generations or whatever is kind of flagged with a warning. I have done alot of testing for th and pha......and all the bulls are tested. So I've eventually got tested cows on tested clean bulls and I can eliminate testing. But the ds deal wasn't tested for. I think credit needs to be given to the pedigree system they set up. They did do something right.......they catch enough hell for everything else.

 

[caledon101]

What am I missing here? Eliminating carrier sires doesn't eliminate entire bloodlines. These are heterozygous genes. There are lots of clean descendants from improver 57 and other carrier lines to work with. You can have 5 flushmates..... 2 are carriers and 3 are clean. Work with the clean ones to perpetuate the genetics and cull the other two if they are Bulls.

 

[knabe]

I cannot think of any scenario in which a responsible, knowledgeable breeder would feel the need to use a carrier sire. What am I missing here??

others can.


you appear to be of the opinion to deny them that choice. 


will you allow someone else to deny you a choice at their discretion


most people asked this question get mad and can not see the irony and then complain why does everything need to be so political and they stomp off in a huff.


the american mind has been trained in the 20th century to despise choice unless it's to deny others choice.

 

[librarian]

This is the agenda that I disagree with, as put forward by Caledon
" I don't think the right answer is to cull out every carrier from the registry and gene pool. Too aggressive and drastic. The most logical way forward is to disallow the progeny from carrier sires to be registered regardless of their test results. If breeders want to take a chance on knowingly producing carrier bulls then that's the consequence. Your carrier bulls won't have any value to your fellow purebred breeder.
Let breeders register, show and sell carrier bulls to commercial breeders and so on if they wish but these carrier bulls could never sire progeny eligible for registration."

The reason being the genebank of semen and embryos of deceased bulls that retain genetic material that has been largely bred out of the population in the 50, 40, 30, 20 or so years since their death.
Shorthorn genetics that could enable breeders to bypass more recent infusions of non traditional genetics and return to a true Shorthorn base.
We do not know what known or unknown defects that semen or those embryos carry. The defects can be bred out later, but if the genetics are dumped or never utilized due to being unregisterable, the gene pool is diminished.
There is a lot more to this than taking preventive action against the ability of carrier females to breed to carrier males and register the progeny.
The optics of decreasing within breed diversity for economic purposes is what looks bad to me. I am reminded of Nikolai Vavilov and the vast seedbank he collected and what an enduring contribution he made to preserving biodiversity. A diverse, color coded, herdbook  that documents the entire breed genetic past and maps the future, good and bad, seems the greater responsibility.
It's not even about free choice, its about the conservation of variation.

 

[caledon101]

Librarian....I see your point. So the logic is to genetically preserve these defect carrier genes for some future potential benefit to the breed? That should be quite easy, the ASA can preserve them (semen, embryos) in nitrogen indefinitely; create a Shorthorn bank and then sit on it until the day technology can demonstrate a value in re-introducing these genes back into the population. I'm doubtful that day will ever come but who knows what awaits us in the future??
And Knabe....yes, I am totally comfortable with my association taking action to ensure the gradual elimination of these carrier genetics from the population.
I have never suggested that breeders should be prohibited from propagating animals with known fatal genes. I have simply suggested that the association is not obligated to recognize those animals or include them in their registry.

 

[librarian]

No, I mean continue to provide the breeders who own the genetics with the ability register the progeny and provide defect information as it becomes available.
Blindly taking the genetics out of circulation prevents mixing the old stuff back into the living, breathing, constantly evolving Shorthorn breed of today and tomorrow. Those with the knowledge to best blend the old genetics with the new are passing. Once that wisdom is gone, its gone.

 

[caledon101]

Librarian.....I have to conclude that while we both understand and respect each others viewpoints we cannot find much common ground to agree upon.
Perhaps we can agree that all of us will one day, some day, cease to be breeders. The breed will outlive us all; we are simply participants in a very long historical process with a responsibility to leave the breed in better shape than when we joined it.
Only time and the future leaders will determine if the defect gene policy/non-policy of the associations was the right action to take. Again, I believe it will not be viewed favorably.
While a person may be a breeder of shorthorns and own shorthorn cattle there is a bigger overall picture. We might own the cattle but we don't own the breed.
I see the breed as a valued brand that required approximately 150 years to build and, that needs to be not only promoted by the associations but protected also. And I am of the personal viewpoint that the optics produced by not taking action on defect genes are not good. It's not enough to do the right things; you have to be also seen as doing the right things.
But again, this just my personal opinion. Perhaps it's about finding the right balance between personal freedom and rights and duties and responsibilities to the breed? That's why I believe those who wish to propagate known genetic defect carriers should be free to do so. And, the association should be equally free to not recognize those animals or include them in the registry.

 

[oakview]

The "life expectancy" of a purebred herd of any breed is very short, I have read about 3 1/2 years?  About the same as an NFL running back.  So, it's easy to understand why so very few really have any first hand knowledge of cattle from even 10 years ago, let alone 50.  Even less would have the ability or desire to use the old genetics.  Then you have the segment that believes that if we are true breeders with any brain at all each succeeding generation should be an improvement over the last.  Who's to say who's right?  I keep thinking of people like Bert Hanson of Shadybrook Farm, among others.  They raised what they liked and they were correct every time the pendulum swung. 

 

[aj]

Why......would not the Red Angus, Gelvieh,Limousin,Simmental embrace say the thc carrier condition? It would make their club calf junior shows more competitive and interesting. Even the Black Angus.....with some innovative matings they could infuse the thc condition and make their junior shows more competitive with steers and heifers having the th carrier condition. The answer is they don't want to open a can of worms. They don't want to have to try and put tooth paste back in the tube. They don't wanna be kind of pregnant.

 

[Medium Rare]

This thread is painful to read.

I'm surprised no one has mentioned moving carriers to the plus program. The line would only be one breeding and a genetic clear test away from returning to the regular registry. The epds would still stand. They could still be showed. The breed could claim to be defect free as of whatever date the sorting begins and no genetic loss would occur.

I've been surprised at the number of carrier embryos that have been sold in sales this fall.

I'm not surprised the breed is continuing to struggle with commercial acceptance.

 

[librarian]

MR- that's a genius idea.