|
23D ??
Feb 21, 2012 21:46:44 GMT -6
Post by rockmillsfarm on Feb 21, 2012 21:46:44 GMT -6
quite a distance? ?? Bob ran Oxleys forever and was still runinng it when the Monarch thing blew up, he raised him. Ridder used the hell out of him AI in 2003 and was the one who brought the whole thing to light when the first set of Monarchs he sold went into a commercial Angus outfit and that rancher was real pissed when he got gray calves out of them. thats where the whole discovery process on Monarch began even though K&B never said a word. John was the one who informed Bob and then Bob adressed it to everyone who ever used him. I didn't use him but I have a copy of the letter from a buddy of mine who did in my filing cabinet. while I agree with you that the pedigree error didn't occur from John and Bob's records THEY WERE GROUND ZERO ON MONARCH as far as his discovery and how it was handled (and Bob did it right, made everyone connected with his use aware of it as soon as he knew). As far as the Prime Time thing don't see much of it around anymorebut I do see alot that goes back to Nick the Butler and nobody much cares in the polled thing about it being in the pedigree. The cow facing the camera is double bred Nick the B, HYC, and has 23D in her pedigree, don't get much better than that Now I'm paying attention. Attachments:
|
|
|
23D ??
Feb 21, 2012 21:58:11 GMT -6
Post by hrndherf on Feb 21, 2012 21:58:11 GMT -6
Lucky you, couldn't ask much more to be in her pedigree.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
23D ??
Feb 21, 2012 23:40:39 GMT -6
Post by Deleted on Feb 21, 2012 23:40:39 GMT -6
A shot of Master plan would have been a nice touch, too.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
23D ??
Feb 22, 2012 6:01:10 GMT -6
Post by Deleted on Feb 22, 2012 6:01:10 GMT -6
quite a distance? ?? Bob ran Oxleys forever and was still runinng it when the Monarch thing blew up, he raised him. Ridder used the hell out of him AI in 2003 and was the one who brought the whole thing to light when the first set of Monarchs he sold went into a commercial Angus outfit and that rancher was real pissed when he got gray calves out of them. thats where the whole discovery process on Monarch began even though K&B never said a word. John was the one who informed Bob and then Bob adressed it to everyone who ever used him. I didn't use him but I have a copy of the letter from a buddy of mine who did in my filing cabinet. while I agree with you that the pedigree error didn't occur from John and Bob's records THEY WERE GROUND ZERO ON MONARCH as far as his discovery and how it was handled (and Bob did it right, made everyone connected with his use aware of it as soon as he knew). As far as the Prime Time thing don't see much of it around anymorebut I do see alot that goes back to Nick the Butler and nobody much cares in the polled thing about it being in the pedigree. Unless you are suggesting Monarch's sire and dam are listed wrong, then yes, both men would have been quite a distance from any pedigree error. I think it is the most concealed source of the DL in Herefords of any that have occured. Neither parent is listed as DLC or DLF. There is a story out there of where it came from and it would be an as yet publicly unidentified source(by the AHA). Anyone who looked into the pedigree would have heard the likely source. As far as Nick the Butler, he carries hypotrichosis, but you would be the first person I have heard say he carries dilutor. Hypotrichosis has a long history in the Hereford breed. The dilutor gene appears to have been introduced.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
23D ??
Feb 22, 2012 6:34:56 GMT -6
Post by Deleted on Feb 22, 2012 6:34:56 GMT -6
|
|
|
23D ??
Feb 22, 2012 18:26:17 GMT -6
Post by bookcliff on Feb 22, 2012 18:26:17 GMT -6
don't be a putting @#@#*@ words in my mouth-- I never once called Nick the &^&(*&^ Butler a dilutor in my post and I also never said that Bob and John made the error. I don't know how much more simple I can type this but here goes
#1 according to both Bob and John the pedigree error back in Monarch pedigree was an honest mistake. it was not theirs because it happened back in his pedigree but considering that Bob raised him and John brought the issue to light I would think that they would be considered a pretty reliable sourse as to wheither or not somebody made an honest mistake or was playing fast and loose with parentage back in his pedigree.
#2 I never said nick was a dilutor. I was talking about carriers of genetic defects in general. Oh and I some hairless double bred Nicks born back in '90 in a blizzard that spring so I knew he was an HY carrier long before alot of people even knew about much less cared. and for the record I would rather have a dilutor than a hairless wonder or hernia maker. at least a dilutor don't die on you .
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
23D ??
Feb 23, 2012 15:06:19 GMT -6
Post by Deleted on Feb 23, 2012 15:06:19 GMT -6
"As far as the Prime Time thing don't see much of it around anymorebut I do see alot that goes back to Nick the Butler and nobody much cares in the polled thing about it being in the pedigree. "
Those are your words, I never put them in your mouth. You made no differentiation between the two abnormalities.
In the 1990's anyone who cared to know, knew that nick carried hypotrichosis because it was being published openly in the APHA herd book. Shortly after the merger we had been told the AHA would be publishing it the same way, but it hadn't happened. I called up Mr Bishop, the Breed Improvement director, and asked him why it hadn't been published. He told me there were no new additions to the list and he named off Nick and decathelete, etc and I asked him "What about on the horned side" and he said....and I quote him the same as I quoted u..."Oh no, there is nothing on the horned side". That is your open and honest horned association. By that time we had known about Prime time for over 5 years and Exposion for over 10 years.
The DNA testing for abnormalities in the AHA has become no more than a political tool. It is being used as an opportunity to deceive.
|
|
|
23D ??
Feb 23, 2012 20:58:30 GMT -6
Post by S&S Farms on Feb 23, 2012 20:58:30 GMT -6
I guess the one thing we learned is hybrid vigor works just look at 23D.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
23D ??
Feb 24, 2012 17:09:59 GMT -6
Post by Deleted on Feb 24, 2012 17:09:59 GMT -6
don't be a putting @#@#*@ words in my mouth-- I never once called Nick the &^&(*&^ Butler a dilutor in my post and I also never said that Bob and John made the error. I don't know how much more simple I can type this but here goes #1 according to both Bob and John the pedigree error back in Monarch pedigree was an honest mistake. it was not theirs because it happened back in his pedigree but considering that Bob raised him and John brought the issue to light I would think that they would be considered a pretty reliable sourse as to wheither or not somebody made an honest mistake or was playing fast and loose with parentage back in his pedigree. #2 I never said nick was a dilutor. I was talking about carriers of genetic defects in general. Oh and I some hairless double bred Nicks born back in '90 in a blizzard that spring so I knew he was an HY carrier long before alot of people even knew about much less cared. and for the record I would rather have a dilutor than a hairless wonder or hernia maker. at least a dilutor don't die on you . Dilutor, hairless wonder or hernia maker?.......I'll take none of the above, as I am sure you would also. That should be the goal of the AHA also. The DNA results should be available to all of us, so we can all work towards that goal. Frank Felton said it pretty well..."you just have to work with what you have". That is what he did and it worked for him. He told me "you can't afford to start over every time you run into a problem, you have to work with what you have". An earlier post said he was lucky or dodged the bullet. It probably wasn't luck. He stuck with what he had and made it work. The dilutor gene was not hard to test for. It is a dominant trait when bred to a homozygous black cow. He may have thrown away several 774's before he got the one that was dilutor free. It would'nt have been practical to check 774's dam, so he may have done the right thing there too. It is all about beef production, but it doesn't pay to bring outside blood into any purebred operation. The number 1 reason is....The resulting F1 offspring will all be much more heterzygous than either parent and that means genetic abnormalities brought in will all be hidden and you will have to linebreed them along time to get them to surface and cull them. The better genetic improvement is made by linebreeding and continueing to select homozygous positive trait animals and culling the negative homozygotes.
|
|
|
23D ??
Feb 25, 2012 0:55:56 GMT -6
Post by hrndherf on Feb 25, 2012 0:55:56 GMT -6
TK- I followed what you were getting at, guess you need to spell things out even better than you already do, better yet, you could write a book.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
23D ??
Feb 25, 2012 7:24:25 GMT -6
Post by Deleted on Feb 25, 2012 7:24:25 GMT -6
TK- I followed what you were getting at, guess you need to spell things out even better than you already do, better yet, you could write a book. ROFLMAO....I'll believe that when I see it.
|
|