Potential genetic defect in Shorthorn cattle

[aj]

The last two sale catalogs mailed to me had almost no mention of defects........some fine small on the back in the bottom. If you are an insider you will know whether they are carriers or not. If you are new to the breed........yowza.  i WOULD BE SCARED TO DEATH TO BUY A SHORTHORN BECAUSE IT WILL TAKE A FIST FIGHT TO GET THE GENETIC DEFECT INFORMATION.

 

[SJcattle]

Being someone that is new getting into Shorthorns as far as numbers go, I would have to say up in Canada the breeders up here have been absolutely AMAZING at disclosing what animals are carriers of defects and it seems as though everyone is open and up front about it. In the long run I think it is better to disclose that sort of information. Myself, I don't consider carrier animals, however that being said if you are a responsible breeder then you can certainly be pretty safe in the fact of not producing offspring that express those genes from a carrier animal. Do I think it's the end of the world that Shorthorns have these genes? No. I am sure if you dig into any breed they all have a genetic defect of some sort... the Shorthorn defects have just been brought into the spotlight for some odd reason.

 

[RyanChandler]

What is continually failed to realize is that those who breed carriers and the carriers themselves are a negative reflection on the breed as a whole.

 

[aj]

The Shorthorn breed has hit "The Perfect Storm" of genetic defects.

 

[caledon101]

No disrespect to all of the past Executive Secretaries of the ASA however you have a really good one sitting in that chair right now. Someone who is a master breeder and proven at all levels. He's not a college professor but he's been a winner in this industry his entire life.
When he's raising the alarm about genetic defect issues ASA members need to stop and pay attention. He's been down this road before with other breeds.

And yes, I can mate two registered purebred shorthorns and have the resulting calf recorded in the Shorthorn Plus registry as 50%. But why should I have to do that simply because of hair coat or skin colour?
If other breeders can deliberately propagate genetic defect carrier bulls and register them then why doesn't the ASA respect my rights also?? 
I'm speaking hypothetically of course but I do believe someone could legally challenge the ASA on this based on the exception they continue to make for a key group of breeders who feel they would be economically affected if carrier sires were non-registerable. 
There wouldn't be whale left in the ocean if it was left up to whalers to individually manage their industry.

 

[RyanChandler]

But what about the invisible hand???  (lol)

 

[caledon101]

Self-regulation has it's place but not with issues such as known genetic defects.
Leadership can come from many different places; it doesn't always have to come from the top. And, leading from behind as the default position for those in positions of authority is admirable and wise when all is going well. However, there's comes a time when those at the top need to step forward and lead from the front.
I believe the ASA executive would deal with the genetic issue promptly if they felt legally comfortable doing so. Perhaps it's time to take action for the good of the future of the breed and let those who would oppose that position to take whatever legal action they wish. Call their bluff?

New breeders and investors will understand that genetic issues exist. What they won't relate to or understand is the deliberate propagation of carrier animals and the passive stance of the associations to it all.
Someone has to look beyond the end of their own lane way; to look beyond how this issue may affect them and their operation personally.

 

[Doc]

No disrespect to all of the past Executive Secretaries of the ASA however you have a really good one sitting in that chair right now. Someone who is a master breeder and proven at all levels. He's not a college professor but he's been a winner in this industry his entire life.
When he's raising the alarm about genetic defect issues ASA members need to stop and pay attention. He's been down this road before with other breeds.

And yes, I can mate two registered purebred shorthorns and have the resulting calf recorded in the Shorthorn Plus registry as 50%. But why should I have to do that simply because of hair coat or skin colour?
If other breeders can deliberately propagate genetic defect carrier bulls and register them then why doesn't the ASA respect my rights also?? 
I'm speaking hypothetically of course but I do believe someone could legally challenge the ASA on this based on the exception they continue to make for a key group of breeders who feel they would be economically affected if carrier sires were non-registerable. 
There wouldn't be whale left in the ocean if it was left up to whalers to individually manage their industry.

If you mate 2 PUREBRED Shorties to each other , the chances of getting a color that would knock you back to 50% registry would be less than 1% I would think. They would have to breed up from plus status and then jump back 4 generations to have the black show up again. So I don't know that I believe your argument.
As far as affecting some breeders , those breeders sure generate a lot of income for the Association compared to a lot of people.

 

[Doc]

Just curious Caledon, how many Shorthorns do you have?

 

[caledon101]

I have owned and still own non appendix, parentage verified females with black pigmentation.
How many do I own? Why would that matter? Owning more doesn't make your argument more right or, less right.
And no doubt there are producers who contribute more revenue to their association than others. Last time I checked one membership equaled one vote in these national associations.

The deliberate propagation of carrier animals just to win more shows (let's be honest about that) looks bad on the breed. And I suspect it confounds potential new breeders who witness it.
It looks like a short sighted fad. People want to invest in something they believe is well managed with solid long term strategies.
JMO

 

[caledon101]

Just to clarify, I am not suggesting that people shouldn't have the right to propagate known genetic issues. I'm suggesting that the associations should have an equal right to reject the application for registration on carrier sires.
There's only one sensible way out and that's to reject the registration of any carrier sire born on or after January 1st 2016. This would be the least disruptive way forward for all concerned.
The one difficult aspect would be semen and embryos purchased or harvested prior to the identification of these genes. However, we've all known about TH and PHA for many years now.

 

[librarian]

Well, it would be a lot more productive for someone like myself to try to be part of the solution than to abstain. Would the ASA genetic improvement department look into some kind of discount on testing or reduction in registration fees for animals that have been tested? All these fees are discouraging if one is primarily a commercial producer. I want to test and I want to register my good stuff. It's just a lot of money to go the right thing.

 

[RyanChandler]

Call their bluff-- this is a private organization with an elected Board of Directors. The Board of Directors (BOD) has the powers and duties to make, alter, amend, or repeal By-Laws for the management of the affairs of the ASA, to adopt rules and regulations governing the conduct of the members, create and establish programs for the advancement of the Shorthorn breed and appoint and remove all corporate officers, agents, and employees.

As far as affecting some breeders , those breeders sure generate a lot of income for the Association compared to a lot of people.

What an excellent display of principle,,, you should be proud. 

 

[caledon101]

Don't disagree! The ASA and their Board should have the confidence to charge on and create the rules required to protect the future of the breed.
What's happening is unfortunate..... They have been advised by legal counsel that they could face a lawsuit from breeder(s) claiming loss of income.
I don't blame the Board on this..... They can't ignore legal counsel.
In Canada all national breed associations and their officials are protected under the Animal Pedigree Act. Breeders cannot sue their national associations or it's individual officers unless it's a very clear case of negligence or deliberate injury.

 

[aj]

What would one have to do to push........say th carrier acceptance....or nonacceptence into the herd book? Would you have to replace the directors with directors that would eventually have enough votes to kick out say th cattle. Could Shorthorn Nation vote on it......one member....one vote. The precedence is being set now. What this breed of cattle will look like(genetic defect wise) is kinda on this board of directors. I think a member vote would be the way to go. I'm not sure where the by laws are? And there is no doubt in my mind that the members today would vote to allow the th carriers to stay. But at least it would be an up or down deal and over with.

 

[knabe]

Did you see the sale catalog titled

"We hate those carrier breeder idiots" sale catalog?

"Help us save the breed even though we can't raise cattle anyone wants but are motivated to bad mouth those that do"

"We feel absolutism is the wave of the future, join us and bankrupt the breeders of carriers"

 

[RyanChandler]

Just do the right thing and let the cards fall where they may.  If it weren't for the profit motive, no one would even consider propagating carriers.

 

[caledon101]

Agreed

 

[Cabanha Santa Isabel - BR]

When you buy a car, do you buy a car with without motor or wheels?

 

[knabe]

When you buy a car, do you buy a car with without motor or wheels?

The internal combustion engine is defect.