Set of Twins with a PHA calf!

[knabe]

i am in the mood to debate anything anytime.

you haven't with your "last word" or else logic (which is BS), eliminated that the person taking the sample might have failed or that the person sending the samples failed and trying to lump that in with test failing is dishonest.

in life, there are no guarantees except death.  50% of the population pay no federal income tax, so franklin's quip might need some modification.

lets see what the facts are and then hang people because we need more penalties that are disproportionate to the crime.

the FACT IS, that the test has been extremely useful and works at a better rate than just about anything, certainly government regulation.

 

[yuppiecowboy]

Knabe, you are better than that. You of all people are capable of reading comprehension enough to see that I acknowledge human error as the primary suspect when false results are yielded. I also did not disparage the test. It is a tremendous breakthrough and has changed our lives as cattle breeders for the better to an infinite degree. That being said, you are a scientist for Pete's sake! You know that a TEST is only as accurate as the environmental factors.

Again, why would anyone be surprised at a PHA calf being born of a tested clean cow, since the TH test has proven to be unreliable?

 

[DL]

let me repeat
there is no evidence that the test is faulty - have no idea where you got your information but it is incorrect - human error can and does occur very rarely but the DNA doesn't lie

the test is not faulty - you may not want to argue wording - but the test itself - the DNA test for the mutation is not faulty - human errors can occur - anywhere from the pedigree - misidentifying the sire or dam, assuming the calf was X when it was Y, to obtaining the sample, to using the same needle, labeling the tube wrong, providing the wrong registration number etc etc and these are all errors before the sample ever gets to the lab - if the Jazzman pedigree had been accurate then the Outcast mutation would have been run - how can you possibly call the TH test faulty when the pedigree was incorrect?? By your definition anything that involves humans is faulty despite the fact that the science is 100% - put the blame where it belongs - on humans - generally before the samples ever get to the lab - not on the test - if we look at all the tests for all the mutations that have been run over the past few years the overwhelming reason the results are not accurate is human error BEFORE the sample ever gets to the lab - so lets put most of the blame where it belongs - on the cowboys not the test

 

[yuppiecowboy]

I do not agree. Semantics, to be sure, and generally not worth debate since fundamentally we are not in disagreement. however...

The science that allows the knowledge of  differentiations in the dna sequence is not in question. The TEST is made up of much more than that, a great deal in the hands of people.

For the TEST to approach flawlessness (unobtainable, only approachable) scientific method would have to be performed in a duplicate manner on every sample and eliminate the inherent errors the human aspect brings to it. That cannot be done. I highly doubt the people I know who received erroneous information take any solace in the fact that the science behind the examination of the dna sequence is sound.

Gathering of the sample, transfer of the sample, handling of the sample, and recording of the results are all parts of the test, and the test is unreliable.

 

[C-CROSS]

We drew the blood and AgriGenomics did the test.  Her full sibs are clean also.  Her pedigre  is Her name and reg number.  High Meadow Simantha N87  # 4083352.  Sire Byland Gold Spear #3963159  -  Dam CFS Simantha Dazzler #3999708. 

 

[Show Heifer]

Thank you C-Cross. It is indeed a perplexing issue.

Hey yuppie, the test itself is not flawed. The fact that HUMANS have something to do with it makes it flawed.  To blame the test for human error is in itself, an error.  Blame the rightful owner of the error, which is the human involved. The actual DNA test is the actual test.  Tthe actual drawing the blood, tranfser of sample, and  handling of sample are part of the pre-test, not the actual DNA test. 
Your theory is the used car salesman theory of "Hey, they ask if it had been wrecked. They never ask if it was burned and then flooded." 

Anyway, DL, since there was no ear sample taken, is it possible to take other "PHA free dead calves" and see if there are common bloodlines that are creating these "free dead calves"?  Isn't this possible, with the way RAAA handled MA?

 

[knabe]

Knabe, you are better than that. You of all people are capable of reading comprehension enough to see that I acknowledge human error as the primary suspect when false results are yielded. I also did not disparage the test. It is a tremendous breakthrough and has changed our lives as cattle breeders for the better to an infinite degree. That being said, you are a scientist for Pete's sake! You know that a TEST is only as accurate as the environmental factors.

Again, why would anyone be surprised at a PHA calf being born of a tested clean cow, since the TH test has proven to be unreliable?

i know.  i just want the semantics to be as accurate as the test.  the test is not proven to be unreliable.  just say human.  semantics cause confusion.

also, people are complaining that people are making too much money off the tests as it is.  if you want to pay for duplication within one test center, then pay for it.  but if you wanted to be scientific about it, what one would really do is take samples on two different days and send it to two different testing sites.  no one is stopping anyone from applying the scientific method at their own cost for a higher reliability to account for human error.  

what this means to me is if i use a bull out of paramount or dalton, which i will do, i will have the sample taken twice and sent to two different labs because the consequences of an error would be too great that could be further reduced with another 35 bucks.


C-CROSS.  were any other samples drawn at the same time?  how do you now know her full sibs are clean?  have they been sent twice?

finally semantics, is the study of what the meaning of is is.   i know what you meant yuppie, i just ask for more clarity for other people as people still can't comprehend what a recessive is and probably never will.

 

[C-CROSS]

They are listed on the web as clean.  In talking with the association they feel they may be another mutation.  As this is not the first one with one of the parents being clean.  On of her full sibs sold fo 22 thousand at the sale in which I bought her.  An with her pedigree she should also be clean.

 

[DL]

I do not agree. Semantics, to be sure, and generally not worth debate since fundamentally we are not in disagreement. however...

The science that allows the knowledge of  differentiations in the dna sequence is not in question. The TEST is made up of much more than that, a great deal in the hands of people.

For the TEST to approach flawlessness (unobtainable, only approachable) scientific method would have to be performed in a duplicate manner on every sample and eliminate the inherent errors the human aspect brings to it. That cannot be done. I highly doubt the people I know who received erroneous information take any solace in the fact that the science behind the examination of the dna sequence is sound.

Gathering of the sample, transfer of the sample, handling of the sample, and recording of the results are all parts of the test, and the test is unreliable.

YC - your logic is flawed - not the test - using your logic if Jazzman's pedigree is incorrect it is the tests fault. Can we blame global warming on the fact that My Turn isn't really who he was suppose to be? So if you collect a sample from the wrong animal and label it incorrectly and use the same needle for all the animals and provide the wrong pedigree - it its the tests fauls?? OMG that is nuts. And using your logic - when you get your PSA test results or cholesterol test results or myocardial enzymes - are they flawed too? There is nothing wrong with the DNA test for lethal recessive defects -

CC we lost power and this lap top is slower than you know what in January - I can't get on the Shorthorn website - pity there are no samples from the calves - did you say the cow was taken to the university for C section?- do they have samples? sometimes they save them. They are listed on the web site as clean - were they tested or just listed by pedigree?? Was the cow parentally verified? Do you know for a fact that PHA tests were run twice or was it hearsay?i There are 2 different known mutations for PHA but I would be interested in more investigation before I ascribed this to yet another mutation 

 

[aj]

It bugs me a little bit when club calf people start questioning the validity of defect tests. People that go through the process of ID'ing defects.are (people who were in animal husbandry in my daddies age) . They are people of integrity. They care about the industry. They have trained their whole lives in this scenario. |I relize that people in the club calf deal is a very viable offshoot of the beef industry. There is money to made. I hate to see the defect id procees demonized. It plays into the hands of the manipulators in the club calf deal.  It is setting up a straw man and knocking him down. When you have someone that raises cattle with 5 different breeds in them. When you have people raising cattle with 3 or more LETHAL defects in the cattles genetics. When you routinely sacrifice receipt cows to mess with something like ph. In a industry that has been accussed of airing cattle and oiling cattle and phalsifying pictures and overlooking cow killing bwt's of these cattle. What about gluing hair and dying hair and changing birth dates on cattle to a less than truthfull date. It just seems a little sacraligous to be involved with bashing the test in general. Bill Clinton called it "muddying the waters". Make it confusing. Create a villian out of a perfectly legitamate genetic testing procedure. Demonize them. Muddy the waters. Take a group a animal husbandry people and make THEM the bad guys. jmo I'm sure I will be set straight. But thats how I see the disscussion.

 

[C-CROSS]

No the C-section was done on the place.  Yes the test was ran twice.  I taked with Agrigenomics.  No samples were taken as the recip cow was in iowa and the other owner was gone also,  his dad called the vet and they had no idea we we needed a sample from the cow.

 

[DL]

No the C-section was done on the place.  Yes the test was ran twice.  I taked with Agrigenomics.  No samples were taken as the recip cow was in iowa and the other owner was gone also,  his dad called the vet and they had no idea we we needed a sample from the cow.

OK so I remain somewhat confused - when I google your cow the ASA list for TH and PHA shows this (listed horizontally) the reg #, tattoo, sex, name, DNA case #, TH results, PHA results, and lab # - for your cow under PHA results they list "H" which I assume is for free by heritage but who the heck knows . She is listed as TH free (F)...so the 2 PHA calves have been embryo calves from your cow - true? and they were put in recips at someone else's place? Were they ever parentally verified??
4083352
x
N87
F
HIGH MEADOW SIMANTHA N87
SH05559
F
H
7-3385
4025488

 

[knabe]

how do you know you got the right embryo in the right recip?

 

[C-CROSS]

I knew I should have never posted.  the cow probably uisnt listed as we just got the set of reults back.  Only 1 pha calf out of recip.  How do I know the work was done on our place.  Took the eggs out and put them in.  As i said you would not believe me however there is a proven case in the Shorthorn.  We had 2 normal calves.  I still have 10 eggs that I am going to  probably implant and ultra sound if abnormal abort and flame away!!!!!

 

[DL]

I knew I should have never posted.  the cow probably uisnt listed as we just got the set of reults back.  Only 1 pha calf out of recip.  How do I know the work was done on our place.  Took the eggs out and put them in.  As i said you would not believe me however there is a proven case in the Shorthorn.  We had 2 normal calves.  I still have 10 eggs that I am going to  probably implant and ultra sound if abnormal abort and flame away!!!!!

I am just trying to figure out the pieces of the puzzle - so the cow had a natural PHA calf (last year??) and a recip had an ET PHA calf out of your cow and some known PHA carrier sire - correct? These PHA calves were not  parentally verified, correct?? and there are no samples available on the 2 PHA calves - correct?  FWIW you can't pick up PHA on ultrasound - do you have any other recips currently carrying this mating?

 

[C-CROSS]

No the only PHA was the embryo.  Her naturals have been normal, however they were clean bulls.  Our vet has ultrasounded some unnatural calves and aborted them.  AS with talking to another person they have had some sucess doing this.

 

[C-CROSS]

Meant to say not normal calves or fetuses.

 

[DL]

tx - so we have one PHA ET calf in theory out of your cow - yes?

but the PHA calf was NOT parentally verified, correct? and how about the recip - what is her PHA status?

If I understand your posts correctly you are assuming that this was a PHA calf out of your supposed PHA free cow but the calf was never necropsied (so we really don't have a diagnosis) and the calf was never parentally verified (so we really don't know the sire or the dam) and it isn't really clear from the ASA web site that the cow was tested for PHA -

did you notify Agrigenomics? Did you notify the ASA? If so why didn't they request that samples be obtained from the calf for testing and parental verification - seems that would be the step they would take before telling you they thought there was another PHA mutation. Who at ASA told you that?

I think I smell a carp

re ultrasound, you can identify some abnormalities with ultrasound - quite early actually - co joined twins, hydrocephalus, schistosomus reflexus etc but neither TH or PHA can be accurately picked up by US

 

[simtal]

It bugs me a little bit when club calf people start questioning the validity of defect tests. People that go through the process of ID'ing defects.are (people who were in animal husbandry in my daddies age) . They are people of integrity. They care about the industry. They have trained their whole lives in this scenario. |I relize that people in the club calf deal is a very viable offshoot of the beef industry. There is money to made. I hate to see the defect id procees demonized. It plays into the hands of the manipulators in the club calf deal.  It is setting up a straw man and knocking him down. When you have someone that raises cattle with 5 different breeds in them. When you have people raising cattle with 3 or more LETHAL defects in the cattles genetics. When you routinely sacrifice receipt cows to mess with something like ph. In a industry that has been accussed of airing cattle and oiling cattle and phalsifying pictures and overlooking cow killing bwt's of these cattle. What about gluing hair and dying hair and changing birth dates on cattle to a less than truthfull date. It just seems a little sacraligous to be involved with bashing the test in general. Bill Clinton called it "muddying the waters". Make it confusing. Create a villian out of a perfectly legitamate genetic testing procedure. Demonize them. Muddy the waters. Take a group a animal husbandry people and make THEM the bad guys. jmo I'm sure I will be set straight. But thats how I see the disscussion.

well said, AJ, well said...

 

[DL]

OMG simtal - we agree on something (clapping)