|
Post by elkwc on May 10, 2016 4:48:32 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by elkwc on May 10, 2016 5:06:31 GMT -6
A quote from Dr Beever I think a relevant to this thread and purity. Yes so people say - and yet the deleterious genes, such as hypotrichosis, seem to skip down the generations without any problems! The difficulty that the Food Standard Agency scientists had was that the DNA was SO different, not just a little bit different, so much so that they said it was like a different breed. I wonder if they have tried looking at Native Angus yet - haven't heard about that. I have tried to analyse my feelings about this. On one hand you could argue that a breed ought to be pure otherwise it's just a type or a colour - in our case a beef animal which is red with a white head. On the other hand you can argue that a breed has to make genetic progress for economic reasons if we are talking about a farmer or rancher's livelihood. It's also the case that anyone can make a mistake. However it's the thought that there might be deliberate fraud that worries me. I have no issues with a crossbred animal - it will do its job just as well, if not better sometimes, than a purebred one. It's where large amounts of money change hands, for a "purebred" animal which isn't, that makes me angry. Have been going to respond to this but been away. You make some valid points and I'll share my views. and yet the deleterious genes, such as hypotrichosis, seem to skip down the generations without any problems! - This is one of the main reasons I feel as a commercial breeder I need to know the genetics of the animal I introduce into my herd whether it is crossed or supposedly pure. When I look at an intentional cross over 90% of the time the breeder will know the sire of the animal and usually the sire of the mother and also the maternal bloodlines of the mother. When you get an intentional cross that is not disclosed like in the case of Titan as a commercial breeder I don't know what the genetic make up is until a problem arises. Whether it is off colored calves or some of the more severe problems. In my book it comes down to honesty and integrity. I still admire the breeders who addressed the issues when they became known and regardless of the stature of the breeder I have a hard time even considering an animal from a breeder who knew a bloodline wasn't pure and turned a blind eye for profit sake even. And that is one reason it is hard for me to find a polled animal I would add to my herd. you can argue that a breed has to make genetic progress for economic reasons if we are talking about a farmer or rancher's livelihood. - If a breed or breeder feels the need to add an outside influence/bloodline for genetic progress it should be done in an open manner so the commercial breeder knows what is going on. When it is done behind closed doors the breed and breeder lose their respect and also prove their lack of integrity and honesty. The old saying that we aren't as bad as the other breeds don't cut it with me. It is like telling a judge yes I stole but not as much. You likely will still be punished. You are still a thief.
|
|
|
Post by hoekland on May 10, 2016 7:30:53 GMT -6
You seem to forget we are working with a closed herdbook. Anyone thinking you need to add outside blood for progress would do the breed a favour to rather go and breed something else.
And I am not saying it is right that it had been done in secret in the past either.
|
|
|
Post by lazyycross on May 14, 2016 16:44:22 GMT -6
UK Angus have a similar test. The fatal flaw, although the people who want to use the tests for promotion won't admit it, is that the sample from which the "Original" animals (whatever that means) were drawn is so small as to POSSIBLY (probably) not fully represent ALL of the "Original" genetics.
For instance, it's 1995 and we want to sample ALL of the "Original" Herefords left in the UK. Hell, some of the lines brought here years ago don't even exist in the UK now. They are as pure as anything else, but weren't represented in the sample of "Originals" so can't be pure by this flawed test.
As to telling the breed of every Hereford with abnormal pigment, I have some old Hereford publications around here somewhere with hand-drawn color frames that demonstrated the varying levels of Hereford pigmentation over 100 years ago in Registered Herefords. Black nose, black tails, google-eyes, etc. We've had pigmented Herefords for decades before they became the rage.
Dave
|
|
|
Post by tartancowgirl on May 15, 2016 6:27:26 GMT -6
I am concerned about giving too much away at this stage because the research is still to be published, but actually quite a large number of cattle have been sampled from a good number of different families. There is little difference it seems in the DNA of OP Herefords born in UK, Australia and N America. One would expect a degree of "genetic drift" but in fact it seems this has not happened and there is surprisingly little variation. Of course there are extinct families in UK - this is why we would like to bring them back. The problem is the definition of an OP Hereford is "no imported bloodlines" - that would have to be changed if we were to do this.
|
|