Shorthorn Genetic Problems

[Doc]

I don't think it's too far of a stretch for the Association to disallow registrations of calves sired by carrier bulls. I thinks it's a responsible direction to take. Should have been done long ago. Name me some TH and PHA carrier Shorthorn bulls that are improving the commercial viability of the breed and longevity of the breed. Do these bulls not have non carrier alternatives?

Correct me if I am wrong, but hasn't Loving and Jungels both used DSC bulls? 2 of the big "commercial breeders" , what would that have done to their program if they couldn't have used those bulls?

 

[phillse]

I was very vocal about carriers and how they should all be culled when TH and PHA came to light.  As I have matured, I have come to not be as harsh in my beliefs.  Will I ever use a TH or PHA carrier?  Probably not, but I just might use a bull from "dirty" pedigree that is clean.  The more we learn about genetics the more defects we will find, and some of the "dirty" genetics may be clean for other defects that we find latter.

 

[caledon101]

Phillse....as long as there are carrier cows in the breed population there will always be clean progeny available from "dirty" pedigrees.
I agree, 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.
It's pretty easy arithmetic. Over time all of the carrier cows in the population would only be bred to clean bulls and the incidence of carrier progeny will become less and less. It might take years but eventually a carrier would become rare.
If you enforce a clean bulls only policy as of a some future date, it would guarantee that the % of carriers in the total population will have reached it's maximum peak and then steadily decline over time.
If there is a legitimate concern that by taking this action it might eliminate some valuable genetics, some unknown value that carriers could contribute, then retain the semen and embryos from various carriers for future usage.
I don't think there is any totally painless way out. Any solution imposed would adversely affect breeders. There are people sitting on old embryos and semen that would be instantly devalued.

 

[librarian]

Angus has more defects discovered than Shorthorn.
They tried to hide it, but eventually had to establish a policy and identify carriers. Carriers cannot be registered other than as steers.
Some of the best Angus bulls available come from dirty pedigrees. Culling carriers involves a lot of testing expense, but it's an easy process.
Isn't this an opportunity for the next generation of breeders? Without the ability to register clean sons of carrier bulls, how do we maintain all the good qualities of the old bulls?
I will use Clipper King as an example. A clean Clipper King son would have useful genetics to take forward. Why take that away from future breeders? We can use the culls to collect carcass data.

 

[caledon101]

I wouldn't go as far as the Angus association did. I wouldn't stop people from registering a carrier bull; I would only stop any and all of his progeny from being registered. Let people produce carrier bulls, show them and sell them. Don't take away all of their options. And, I suppose in the Shorthorn breed where showing is what it's all about there will be breeders who will deliberately create carrier bulls just to win shows despite knowing they won't have any market to sell them to fellow breeders.
These genetic defects all trace back to one or two individuals entering the breed. Improver 57 for TH and a Maine bull or two for PHA??
I don't think the Shorthorn breed and its gene pool will suffer in the end if carrier sires are restricted. In many cases, especially ET, there will be full brothers available that are clean.

 

[oakview]

The Shorthorn TH source, most commonly, is the original Deerpark Improver, not the 57th.  Rumor has it that old Improver is also the source of DS.  I have been told that Paramount is the source of PHA in Maines.  Improver has been used for over 40 years.  40 years from now, there will probably be another defect discovered that traces back to a particular bull whose influence is also widespread throughout any breed. 

 

[RyanChandler]

I don't think it's too far of a stretch for the Association to disallow registrations of calves sired by carrier bulls. I thinks it's a responsible direction to take. Should have been done long ago. Name me some TH and PHA carrier Shorthorn bulls that are improving the commercial viability of the breed and longevity of the breed. Do these bulls not have non carrier alternatives?

Correct me if I am wrong, but hasn't Loving and Jungels both used DSC bulls? 2 of the big "commercial breeders" , what would that have done to their program if they couldn't have used those bulls?

I don't know how long after discovering the DS defect Lovings continued to use 8U but I can't recall JSF ever knowingly using a carrier bull. That being said there is not one logical explanation for denying registration to animals that test clean-- regardless of their sire/dam's defect status.   

 

[librarian]

I guess the logic of not registering clean animals is similar to the logic of naming carrier animals  as breed champions.

Who sets the criteria that judges use to rank animals for a given breed?

I always wondered why being genetically defective didn't disqualify an animal from winning.
Seems like only animals that test clean would be considered the best....? This is a real question, not a smart Alec remark. ( first statement was smart Alec remark)

 

[phillse]

My proposal is very much like others here propose.  Allow calves from existing carriers to be registered, but deny registration of any bull calf moving forward that does not test free  of known genetic defects.

 

[aj]

Doc you are way outa line explaining Marties of Jungles approach to the ds problem. Marty made major adjustments to the dsc deal after all the information is in. Their is a fact......all the delegates to the Shorthorn meetings are showring people.....period. They have the votes. The breed has voted to allow lethal genetic defects in the Shorthorn breed. There is no need for discussion......it is a fact. The Shorthorn breed has made its bed and the breed has positioned itself to be a zoo breed......period. There are exceptions.....but the weekend warriors have won.....period.

 

[Doc]

Doc you are way outa line explaining Marties of Jungles approach to the ds problem. Marty made major adjustments to the dsc deal after all the information is in. Their is a fact......all the delegates to the Shorthorn meetings are showring people.....period. They have the votes. The breed has voted to allow lethal genetic defects in the Shorthorn breed. There is no need for discussion......it is a fact. The Shorthorn breed has made its bed and the breed has positioned itself to be a zoo breed......period. There are exceptions.....but the weekend warriors have won.....period.

But the point I was making , based on some people saying you shouldn't be able to register calves by carrier sires, where would that put them?

 

[oakview]

I have been a delegate to numerous national meetings and enjoy attending.  I can attest that not all of the delegates in attendance are "showring people."  I cannot a recall a vote "to allow genetic defects in the Shorthorn breed."  Relax a little bit.  Some breeders cater to the show side.  Why should that bother you?  You don't have to use them.  Nobody holds a gun to someone's head and makes them buy a carrier bull.  Judging by the results of their sales, maybe they have an audience.  Every animal your "ruling class" sells is clearly identified as to their genetic defect status.  Do you know when the last TH or PHA positive Shorthorn bull won the National Show?  Where would we be if all the offspring of carrier bulls had been denied registration?  We'd have about 50 cattle registered a year.  Improver appears in a lot of pedigrees.   

 

[shortyjock89]

Everyone needs their hands held so they don't screw their own cattle up. If somebody doesn't take the time to research and study the bulls they're buying and using, maybe they deserve to go out of business.

Of course it's the fault of those of us who deign to exhibit cattle at shows, and maybe even make a living at it. There are people in Dunlap, Clarion, Modoc, and many other places that are nearly infinitely better cattlemen than you big bunch of cry babies.

 

[Anst1579]

It appears the choice is clear. Either let the individual breeders manage the genetic defect issues on their own and allow them to sort it all out. Or, the ASA takes control of it and implements a solution designed to protect the integrity of the herd book and the image of the breed. I suppose there are arguments to be made for both sides.
AJ suggests Shorthorns are a "weekend" breed with limited value beyond the show ring. If he's right then perhaps the genetic defect issue is unimportant?

 

[Okotoks]

It appears the choice is clear. Either let the individual breeders manage the genetic defect issues on their own and allow them to sort it all out. Or, the ASA takes control of it and implements a solution designed to protect the integrity of the herd book and the image of the breed. I suppose there are arguments to be made for both sides.
AJ suggests Shorthorns are a "weekend" breed with limited value beyond the show ring. If he's right then perhaps the genetic defect issue is unimportant?

It amazes me how some people that are supposed to be shorthorn breeders or proponents (or in Anst1579 case maybe just someone trying to discredit the breed?) choose to constantly post about Shorthorn genetic defects and ignore anything positive that is developing in the breed. All breeds have genetic defects, many with more than shorthorns. I would think the Association should pick a date a couple of breeding season's away and make it mandatory for offspring of carriers to test free before they are registered. It makes zero sense to disqualify the free offspring.
On a more positive commercially orientated theme have a look at some of the breeding programs in this post and their focus on carcass quality and functional traits. The genetics are there both in Australia and many other countries including the USA and Canada. It really is time breeders stopped whining about the association's role and started focusing on their own contributions

http://www.steerplanet.com/bb/the-big-show/jbs-launches-shorthorn-branded-beef/

 

[librarian]

Who uses language like "protect the integrity of the herd book and the image of the breed"?
Why are we still taking to this person?

 

[oakview]

Was that last question in jest?  I have not personally met that man, but I bought a bull from him for many reasons other than I just liked the bull.  The only problem I've had is that he guaranteed I'd have nothing but roan heifer calves.  I've had one spotted one.  I may have to try to collect on my guarantee.

 

[librarian]

I asked the last question, so maybe oakview is talking to me?
If so, no, I'm not jesting. I am sincerely weary of the manner in which anst is pushing a political agenda, anonymously, thru divisive manipulation. His (I am being a sexist assuming he is male) whole platform is based on the idea that Shorthorns, as a breed, are in a state of decline and disrepute unless ASA steps in and refuses to register all progeny of carrier bulls. Then Shorthorns will have a better image. It's the image part and flag waving about the herd book that annoys me. Has he said one word about actual breed improvement instead of image improvement?

 

[mark tenenbaum]

It appears the choice is clear. Either let the individual breeders manage the genetic defect issues on their own and allow them to sort it all out. Or, the ASA takes control of it and implements a solution designed to protect the integrity of the herd book and the image of the breed. I suppose there are arguments to be made for both sides.
AJ suggests Shorthorns are a "weekend" breed with limited value beyond the show ring. If he's right then perhaps the genetic defect issue is unimportant?

It amazes me how some people that are supposed to be shorthorn breeders or proponents (or in Anst1579 case maybe just someone trying to discredit the breed?) choose to constantly post about Shorthorn genetic defects and ignore anything positive that is developing in the breed. All breeds have genetic defects, many with more than shorthorns. I would think the Association should pick a date a couple of breeding season's away and make it mandatory for offspring of carriers to test free before they are registered. It makes zero sense to disqualify the free offspring.
On a more positive commercially orientated theme have a look at some of the breeding programs in this post and their focus on carcass quality and functional traits. The genetics are there both in Australia and many other countries including the USA and Canada. It really is time breeders stopped whining about the association's role and started focusing on their own contributions

http://www.steerplanet.com/bb/the-big-show/jbs-launches-shorthorn-branded-beef/

/// WELL PUT-BY YOU AND OLSON 1: If a breeder needs his mind made up for him (her) because hes too much of a lemming to make his own decisions, than they probably should raise and show cats, not cattle, 2: I dont think most of the bashers on here seem to have done much to move the breed anywhere-they are just trying to placate thier egos with self-important pablum.

 

[oakview]

Librarian:  I thought you were referring to someone else on this thread.  Sorry.