RUMOR - Jakes proud jazz mulefoot carrier??

Help Support Steer Planet:

trevorgreycattleco

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 22, 2010
Messages
2,070
Location
Centerburg, Ohio
Nobody is trying to run JSF down IMO. The rumors have been around a while now from what I have learned.  Remember the click that new about 57th? They just swept it under the rug. Thats worse then discussing a potential problem in the open.
 

justintime

Well-known member
Joined
May 26, 2007
Messages
4,346
Location
Saskatchewan Canada
vcsf said:
Many people on here will not agree with me but I personally would much rather use a bull with a 90 pound birth weight from a herd with average birth weights of 95 pounds than a bull with only a 80 pound birth weight out of a herd where the average is 75 pounds.  What I am saying is that you need to look at where the bull ranks within the herd as management can play as big a role in birth weight as genetics.  We also need to remember that there is a lot more to calving ease than just birth weight.

Something that comes up on here fairly often that bothers me is when people in the southern states start to bash cattle born in the north because of their birthweights.  It is widely accepted and even scientifically backed up that the birth weight will increase the farther north that you go.  This is especially true in the case of spring born calves and the weather over winter can also affect birth weight greatly.  In the case of Jungel's calves born in the spring in North Dakota if you move 1000 miles south to Chandler's in Texas it is quite possible that the same calves would have been born ten pounds lighter.  Now would you consider the same bull genetically with an 80-85 pound birthweight but outright reject it at 90 pounds when all that is changed is where the cow spent the winter and calved.

I live probably another 250 miles further north than Jungels and I personally would have a hard time considering buying a bull with a birthweight much under 80 pounds and I never want to see a calf born less than 70 pounds.  Now when I say that I am referring to calves that are actually placed on a scale and weighed not just eyeballed.  It amuses me when people talk about a calf weighing between 80 and 85 pounds that just tells me they never actually weighed it and it could just as easily be 95 pounds.  The same thing goes for people saying a bulls calves average between this and that an average is a number not a range.  There are too many people that have no idea what their calves actually weigh and would be stunned to find out.


very  well said vcsf. It is about much more than birth weight alone.
 

jaimiediamond

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 23, 2010
Messages
1,019
Location
Okotoks
Syndactyly (Mulefoot) usually is a genetic defect.  With that said research has proven there can be environmental factors that can cause the fusion of the two toes. 

If it is genetic one doesn't know if the affected animals were linebred to a different bloodline as well, where abouts they were raised was there environmental factors? At this point we are all speculating. Is Jake's Proud Jazz a carrier of syndactyly? Hopefully not but I am sure that the results will be out soon and people can act appropriately with that knowledge. 
 

DL

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 29, 2007
Messages
3,622
I do not have a dog or pony in this race but I would suggest the following

1) The statement that someone "never had a defective calf out of X bull" is meaningless
2) You genetic defect history buffs may remember the same thing was said about a any number of bulls that turned out to be carriers of TH, PHA, AM, and NH
3) There was a lag time in those cases between the year the bull was born and when there was a sufficient number of abnormal calves to raise awareness
4) If you are a Shorthorn breeder or have used JPJ or his sons it would be prudent to obtain samples, pedigree etc from any calf that has limb deformities including syndactly
5) You all should know the drill - ear from dead calf, purple top tub from live calf and dam (and sire - or straw of semen), pictures, copy of pedigree - send it off to Dr B and the Barrel Racer - if it is genetic we will figure it out - if it ain't well we will know that too
 

aj

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 5, 2006
Messages
6,422
Location
western kansas
If you accept the vcsf premise though its such an out for Shorthorn breeders. How many of hundreds of people come on here and tell about a calving disaster with shorthorn genetics. Heifers being ruined having their first calves. C-sections. 110 calves being an average. I get tired of hearing about how the enviroment was the problem. Its always the cow ate to much silage or the cow camped out by a protein tub. The cow went over a normal gestation date. BWt's are all about gestation birth dates. Bulls that throw big calves have calves that go long on gestation dates. No one wants to change genetics they blame bwt's on genetics or ignore them. Its always the same ole horsecrap.
 

RyanChandler

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 6, 2011
Messages
3,457
Location
Pottsboro, TX
You're right, AJ-  I've never heard people use the climate excuse more often than when we're dealing with shorthorn bulls.  If anyone still has a copy of Matlocks sale, check out the birthweights on the Speckled Parks compared to the Shorthorns.  Both breeds were raised in identical conditions yet the shorthorns bw avg 20 more lbs.  The speckleds are low 70s (LIKE A HEIFER BULL SHOULD BE) and the 3 bulls they offered are 90+.  Even the Ripper calf, 90+.    I bought 4 bred heifers this summer from south Texas. They were thin all fall and calved with maybe a BCS of 4.  The first two calves were bulls out of  JSF Jazz Star 73U. They came 63 and 70 lbs.  The 3rd calf I had to have the vet out.  An 111 lb bull out of JSF T4 (Real World Son).  The calf didn't make it through the pulling. Vet said afterwards we prolly should have went with the C-section.  The 4th heifer ( a green ridge mary grandaughter) calved last week to 73U, a 80lb heifer.  These heifers were in terrible condition BCS wise when I got them and I didn't try to put much weight on them for fear of pushin bw up too high.  A hundred and eleven pounds.  This is all attributed to genetics! They were on the same pasture/dirt all summer and none fed differently.  It was the biggest calf I've personally ever seen(born) and out of a first calf heifer than had poor nutrition at best.  What kind of Bw would she had thrown had she calved in March after gettin a few lbs of cottonseed cubes/day all winter???  125-130?? who knows. 

Yes shape and other factors do matter, BUT only when your comparing apples to apples.  A slinder smooth shouldered 70lb calf is ofcourse gonna come easier than a blocky 70lb calf, but how is that blockier 70lb calf gonna come in relation to a lanky 110lber?? When theres a 40lb bw margin, shape becomes a bit irrelevant.  How many of you ever ever worked on or around a dairy and Holsteins in particular??  I can tell you right now that a holstein calf is about as ideal lanky, slinky, noodle shape as you could want yet, why do so many have to be pulled??  ITS BECAUSE THEYRE 120lbs AT BIRTH and regardless what shape they are, there's not enough pelvic area for the calf to make the rotation through the canal.

I guess each individual will have to perform their own cost/beneift analysis as to how much bw they will tolerate in hopes of more performance.  For me, Im a  bit risk adverse and would much rather invest in genetics that have lower bws. There are far too many things that go wrong or fluke deaths in your herd to have to add dystocia to the list.

A quick question,  are there people out there that are successful calving heifers on pasture to 90lb bw bulls?  I mean without assistance? 
 

OH Breeder

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 14, 2007
Messages
5,954
Location
Ada, Ohio
knabe said:
there must some reason mother nature doesn't pull calves.


I think all she had was twine strings and a couple of corn cobs. No one got her the dual action calf jack which is a must have in the calving business.  ;)
 

kfacres

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 15, 2008
Messages
3,713
Location
Industry, IL Ph #: 618-322-2582
We had a 102 lb out of a accidental bred 18 month old heifer (at calving) come one year-- he was a tough pull, that didnt' get up for 2 days... but both lived.. cow went on to be our best.. and had calves ranging from 82 to 96 lb from then on out.  one of our very first shorthorn heifers.

How many of you ever ever worked on or around a dairy and Holsteins in particular??  I can tell you right now that a holstein calf is about as ideal lanky, slinky, noodle shape as you could want yet, why do so many have to be pulled??  yes I live on one....  Most Hol calves will fall b/w 120 and 140...  You can fix that BW problem in one generation.. our red angus bull will lower that BW down to into the 70s from a first calf heifer...  Holsteins might be lanky.. but they've got bone...  Ever try dealing with brown swiss.. those bastards are shaped like blocks and weigh 140 lbs... I bet they're a better deal than the shorthorns...  even dumber people... 

A quick question,  are there people out there that are successful calving heifers on pasture to 90lb bw bulls?  I mean without assistance?  We shoot for small BWts, but actually we've calved out quite a few high BW heifers...  with calf pullers of course.. nobody...

catch 22.. people who shoot for small bw.. ever tried calving out jersey heifers in Jan/ Feb/ or march... may as well just shoot them all.. they're too small to live, and don't have enough body fat to keep warm... even in sheds the entire time... and we baby our calves along on the dairy...  To expound... we QUIT trying to calve out heifers during these months...  But when we bought the Red Ang bull.. we decided, hell with it, who cares about the crossbred calves so may as well calve them out and get the milk.. if the calves die-- so what???  and we live in southern IL>>> some of the most mild 'winter's in the US.
 

Doc

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 13, 2007
Messages
3,636
Location
Cottontown, Tennessee
vcsf said:
Many people on here will not agree with me but I personally would much rather use a bull with a 90 pound birth weight from a herd with average birth weights of 95 pounds than a bull with only a 80 pound birth weight out of a herd where the average is 75 pounds.  What I am saying is that you need to look at where the bull ranks within the herd as management can play as big a role in birth weight as genetics.  We also need to remember that there is a lot more to calving ease than just birth weight.

Something that comes up on here fairly often that bothers me is when people in the southern states start to bash cattle born in the north because of their birthweights.  It is widely accepted and even scientifically backed up that the birth weight will increase the farther north that you go.  This is especially true in the case of spring born calves and the weather over winter can also affect birth weight greatly.  In the case of Jungel's calves born in the spring in North Dakota if you move 1000 miles south to Chandler's in Texas it is quite possible that the same calves would have been born ten pounds lighter.  Now would you consider the same bull genetically with an 80-85 pound birthweight but outright reject it at 90 pounds when all that is changed is where the cow spent the winter and calved.

I live probably another 250 miles further north than Jungels and I personally would have a hard time considering buying a bull with a birthweight much under 80 pounds and I never want to see a calf born less than 70 pounds.  Now when I say that I am referring to calves that are actually placed on a scale and weighed not just eyeballed.  It amuses me when people talk about a calf weighing between 80 and 85 pounds that just tells me they never actually weighed it and it could just as easily be 95 pounds.  The same thing goes for people saying a bulls calves average between this and that an average is a number not a range.  There are too many people that have no idea what their calves actually weigh and would be stunned to find out.

I agree with a lot of what you have said here. If you are talking about me on the southern state thing , then you are way wrong . I wasn't bashing at all. I was trying to make a point, that  a lot of people on here condemn someone for using a bull with a 95 lb bwt on mature cows. Yet you have someone selling 90 pluser's as hfr bulls and a lot of people thinks it's ok. As far as the colder climate deal goes I've always believed that. Once again tho, if JIT or someone north of the border was to say that they would get blasted out of the water.
 

kfacres

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 15, 2008
Messages
3,713
Location
Industry, IL Ph #: 618-322-2582
what about those of us in IL IN???  What about the midwest.. hot summer,s milder/ but cold winters.?? 

On a personal note.. I see the difference b/w our fall calving, and spring/ winter calving cows.  They fall calves will be 40-90 lbs...the springs will be 60-110.. without a doubt... 

crazy, same genetics, same bulls siring both groups... 

We've got as big of a spread as anyone, anywhere...  and our animals live in the same pastures..
 

shortdawg

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 30, 2007
Messages
6,520
Location
Georgia
.........back to the topic .........I'm still going to use JPJ.....he's been good to me and if I get a mulefoot calf I'll put him in the freezer.
 

DL

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 29, 2007
Messages
3,622
shortdawg said:
.........back to the topic .........I'm still going to use JPJ.....he's been good to me and if I get a mulefoot calf I'll put him in the freezer.

and if you do remember to send and EAR!

Merry Christmas and Happy New ear  :eek: :eek: :eek:
 

cattlefarmer

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 10, 2010
Messages
63
shortdawg said:
.........back to the topic .........I'm still going to use JPJ.....he's been good to me and if I get a mulefoot calf I'll put him in the freezer.
Thank you!  Once again a shorthorn thread gets way off topic again.  I am with you shortdawg I will keep using my JPJ son and if i should get a mulefoot calf I will too put it in the freezer.
 

sue

Well-known member
Joined
May 1, 2007
Messages
1,906
Who said all of the JPJ influence roamed the  pastures of  North Dakota??
 

DL

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 29, 2007
Messages
3,622
cattlefarmer said:
shortdawg said:
.........back to the topic .........I'm still going to use JPJ.....he's been good to me and if I get a mulefoot calf I'll put him in the freezer.
Thank you!  Once again a shorthorn thread gets way off topic again.  I am with you shortdawg I will keep using my JPJ son and if i should get a mulefoot calf in  I will too pu it in the freezer.

I would hope that if you get a calf with mule foot that you would send in an ear or  a purple top tube to help with the identification of the mutation that may be causing the issue in the Shorthorn breed - foolish me, I thought we had gotten past the time when we didn't consider providing DNA to help in the gene hunt
 

Okotoks

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 17, 2010
Messages
3,085
DL said:
There are multiple mutations involved in mule foot - it is a monogenic recessive with incomplete penetrance from Theriogenology 70 (2008) 535–549

Syndactyly in cattle is also called ‘‘mulefoot’’ and refers to the fusion or non-division of the two functional digits of the bovine foot with synostotic (fusion of normally separate skeletal bones) phalanges. Phalanges are synostotic horizontally and by pairs; the second pair of phalanges is most fully synostotic, followed by the third, and then the first. This abnormality is often subject to a right-left and a front-rear gradient, being most often seen in the front and right feet. Proximal limb structures can also be affected in syndactylous animals, resulting in a reduced number of sesamoid bones. Synostotic phalanges can be detected as early as 37–40 d post-coitum in the bovine embryo.

Bovine syndactyly is an autosomal monogenic recessive trait with incomplete penetrance (79% in Holstein cattle) and variable expression. Crossbreeding experiments between Holstein and Aberdeen-Angus have produced syndactylous progeny, suggesting a common locus responsible for the disorder in both breeds. The bovine syndactyly locus was localized to chromosome 15 in 1996 [59] and is due tomutation in the low-density lipoprotein receptor-related protein 4 gene (LPR4). The occurrence of syndactylous cattle peaked in the 1970s as carrier animals were indirectly selected for superior production of milk and butterfat. The development of test mating and genetic testing greatly reduced the incidence of syndactyly. Unfortunately, syndactylous animals are still occasionally observed in the Holstein population and some carrier animals are still being used for breeding. Eradication of syndactyly will require a precise method to detect the causal genetic mutation. Unfortunately there is extensive allelic heterogeneity in LPR4, with the six independent mutations described still not accounting for all analyzed cases. The two most frequent mutations are the Holstein-specific exon 33 mutation and the Angus-specific exon 37 mutation. Because not all causal mutations have been detected, genetic testing for the carrier status of single individuals remains difficult. Several labs offer testing for the known genetic mutations [Germany (http://www.tieraerztliches-institut.uni-goettingen. de/); Italy (http://www.lgscr.it/eng/index.htm); France (http://www.labogena.fr/); the Netherlands (http://www.vhlgenetics.com/vhl/index.html)]. Unfortunately, each laboratory utilizes different technologies and seldom analyze for the same genetic mutations.

The American Angus Association lists the status of several bulls and cows as carrier or free of the mutations responsible for syndactyly. However, this freedom from carrier status is based solely on progeny test information, and could be questioned in the context of the allelic heterogeneity of syndactyly in Holstein cattle.
So the condition in Angus and Holstein are the result of two seperate mutations? I had assumed the Angus got it from the Holstein agian showing why one shouldn't make assumptions!
 
Top