Lab made polled herefords

[timbernt]

The latest edition of SimTalk has a nice article about the UC-Davis work to remove the horned gene from Holsteins. The FDA called it a GMO because of a piece of DNA (plasmid) from the bacteria used to insert the polled allele remained attached to the DNA from the new calf. Two things have happened since 2013; one is science has found a way to remove the plasmid. The other development is they have found a way to edit out the horned allele without using plasmids. It no doubt is sometime in the future, but may be a way for some of us to develop polled Herefords without the baggage they currently have.

[rosefield]

This has been discussed for 2 or 3 years.  While in some breeds (especially dairy) this would be of great benefit if the horns could be genetically removed.  Many of the animal rights groups have been having hissy fits over the dehorning process that has been done for decades.

If it were an option, how would this play into breeds that are horned and that is part of their look and breed characteristic such as the Horned Hereford.

[timbernt]

Hopefully it would not change the breed character since only one allele is being altered. Becoming polled could mean the difference between staying in herefords at some point in the future.

[lcc]

Jan 18, 2020 23:00:02 GMT -6 timbernt said:

Hopefully it would not change the breed character since only one allele is being altered. Becoming polled could mean the difference between staying in herefords at some point in the future.

I think that is a big if. Did you see this:

newfoodeconomy.org/fda-gene-edited-cattle-antibiotic-resistant-crispr-dna/

Watch the biotech companies push this, make their profit and then we get stuck with the problems.

Why can't we do what we do best and selectively breed cattle ourselves? Do we really need to play God?

[timbernt]

Yes, I read that article some time back. Apparently the plasmid can be eliminated in a generation or two with selection, or use a new technique that does not use a bacteria to gene edit. I have seen a lot of changes in my lifetime and been opposed to every one, but the fact remains that technology advances and some of it is beneficial in our everyday lives. This might be one change I could embrace.

[saltamontes5]

You know not all the shimmers is gold, and not every idea that ever came to human mind is actually a good one.  In cases where something is reversible and you can actually undo what you have done then it might be ok, but when you do something like this and then you put it out there in the Genepool it becomes a permanent part of the genome.  For instance the herd of sheep that have a spider gene in them that allows them to express spider web protein in their milk that currently exists at a research station in Montana or Idaho somewhere.  Do you think people will be conscientious with them when they are done with their mad science experiment and destroy them or will they haplessly end up dispersed into unsuspecting sheep herds in the form of breeding stock and just be out there.  Will this hurt people to be drinking sheep milk or eating sheep cheese that happens to have a little bit of the spider web protein in it?  Probably not (after all parts is parts), but it begins a downward slide that has no end to how bad a genome, species, or the world will be corrupted.  History says if we polluted the world with oil, or destroyed parts of the world with mining, or filled the ocean with plastic, we will likely destroy life as we know it in yet another way if we continue down a path of tampering with genes like this.  


Tampering with genes for our convenience may seem like a good idea, but we don't know for certain what all one gene does.  We don't know for sure that the horned gene in Herefords only puts horns on the head.  Perhaps it has other more subtle effects that are just as important or perhaps it works in concert with other genes to control other things.  We already know how to take horns off of cattle naturally.  Just breed them to an angus bull and be done with it.  This type of tampering is not necessary, just switch to the polled breed and be done with it, or if that does not work just switch to Angus and move on.  When we used to do the time honored thing of producing hybrids at least we obeyed natural laws and did not violate barriers that it exist in nature to keep certain things from happening and allow species and living organisms in general to reproduce themselves not something brand new.  

If we have to engineer cattle or anything else this much just to make them profitable or functional in a modern system then I think human interaction in agriculture truly is done leave it to the academics and the scientist.  Apparently we can get all we need from a bottle of Ensure, so what do I need with ancient and barbaric methods of producing protein anyway.  Why should human need to ever toil again in the hot sun, plant a seed with their own hand or heaven forbid direct the mating of two animal to see what comes of that choice.  We might as well just move on to lab grown beef, and be done with it.  If there is no room for breeder/rancher preference then raising cattle or anything else is merely and act of conformity that is like any other manufacturing job.  You are simply here to get a paycheck.  Once it degrades to that point you might as well breed angus and be done with it.  Cattle in general are most beautiful with their horns on frankly, they at more stately and interesting to look at.  I find polled bulls on the whole typically to be extremely ugly (this does vary but they rarely get better with age).  I have gotten used to cows without horns, but I still like it when one escapes the paste every now and again and to see her in her natural state.  If I can't raise the animals that I like to look at because the industry demands a certain color, size, type, or style then all the personal choice has been taken away.  The fun of breeding is having an ideal in your head you are striving for and working each year to breed to that.  It is the human interest factor in working with domesticated livestock.  You loose the fun of what it is to work with cattle in my opinion when an industry is allowed to coldly dictate what can or will be produced.  Slowly but surely we will all conform I guess or be forced out entirely, but if I can't raise what I like then it might as well be someone else doing it, or maybe a robot would be better suited in being a drone.  I say we should all resist with all of our being genetically altered livestock.  It really is not necessary at all it is a waste of money and ridiculous really.  I can be polled in one weeks time by selling everything and buying Angus to replace them with.  This makes more economical since to me than paying the expense of scientists in the lab for their research or labor in producing engineering embryos or for purchasing patented technology in the form of embryos or animals.   

[timbernt]

Gene editing is a mainstream today. Denying the use and usefulness is playing ostrich. You can pander to the thought that agriculture should remain in an Amish like technology, but it is an illusion. I have many Amish friends and they are more than happy to use my cell phone, skid steer, ride in my pickup, buy bulls from me produced by embryo transfer, etc. My neighbors can pay for $3000/acre row crop ground because it produces 175 bushel corn instead of the 125 bushel corn it produced before GMO seed corn. My interest in gene editing lies in changing a single allele that might allow me or the next generation to produce polled Herefords without introducing the non-traditional genetics I believe has been the basis of the polled Hereford breed from its inception. I have long questioned the ability of breed associations and academics to understand the millions of genetic interactions they claim to with genomics, but have always embraced single gene identification technology. 70 years ago it was fighting dwarfism thru traditional progeny testing (inbreeding) and today it might be gene editing for a single allele that allows me to continue a closed herd and yet address the convenience issue of dehorning as well as an emotional issue consumers force on us.

[saltamontes5]

Jan 21, 2020 3:34:02 GMT -6 timbernt said:

Gene editing is a mainstream today. Denying the use and usefulness is playing ostrich. You can pander to the thought that agriculture should remain in an Amish like technology, but it is an illusion. I have many Amish friends and they are more than happy to use my cell phone, skid steer, ride in my pickup, buy bulls from me produced by embryo transfer, etc. My neighbors can pay for $3000/acre row crop ground because it produces 175 bushel corn instead of the 125 bushel corn it produced before GMO seed corn. My interest in gene editing lies in changing a single allele that might allow me or the next generation to produce polled Herefords without introducing the non-traditional genetics I believe has been the basis of the polled Hereford breed from its inception. I have long questioned the ability of breed associations and academics to understand the millions of genetic interactions they claim to with genomics, but have always embraced single gene identification technology. 70 years ago it was fighting dwarfism thru traditional progeny testing (inbreeding) and today it might be gene editing for a single allele that allows me to continue a closed herd and yet address the convenience issue of dehorning as well as an emotional issue consumers force on us.

Your interest lies in a single allele, but will it stop there?  The next step is find the gene that controls ribeye size or tenderloins size.  Or lets just grow brisket for the brisket people.  This has happened in poultry without the gene editing it is likely to get a whole lot worse.  I am not sticking my head in the sand anymore than a person who would choose to ignore history and deny that much of what human kind meddles with does not turn out the best.  Several years down the road we often regret our choices but we will broadly cover it with "that is progress".  Forward not backward!  Oddly I think the linear does not really apply to arguments like that when what feels like one direction is really going in circles.  This is a natural law that history seems to follow since we keep repeating the same type of mistakes all the time, and more to the point the outcomes are very similar each time.  Do what you think you need to do to stay in business in the short term if you must.  However, somewhere down the line since we did not hold the line here we will regret it.  Whether it be driven by public opinion or the just the desired end use produces and packagers not wanting to deal with you or any other producer, or just coldly driving cost out of their value stream they will need conformity.  If black hide is required then we will go to that.  If genetically altered cattle that produce certain cuts in more abundance than lesser cuts is what is required then we will do that as well just to stay in business.  It won't be as fun for the next generation, even less for the one after that if that matters to you at all.  In the end if I was Tyson, Walmart and even a thinking customer.  I would want the product that cost the least and has the most secure supply chain.  Being able to grow my steak in a vat or in a controlled environment free of contamination and not subject to the elements or whether patterns makes a lot of sense also.  I would never deny the obvious advantage genetic manipulation has.  The possibilities at endless.  By the way you reference the dwarfism issue in the Hereford breed.  That was completely resolved using natural means.  That all came about before gene mapping and sequencing technology was available.  They tested their bulls on known carrier females to verify their status before selling them, they worked to study pedigrees sort out risk by inheritance probability.  None of that required going to the extreme of gene editing.  Clearly gene editing or gene mapping would have sped that process up, but it was not required to resolve the issue.   I don't really expect to sway anyone with my comments here, but I do hope they might take a deep breath and count the long term costs as well as the short or medium term benefits to decisions like this.  

I am trying to think longer term here in what my Children will want to do with the property they may inherit someday or my Grand Children should I ever have any.  I am looking for two things how can they financially afford to keep it, and also but not less important will they have strong enough feelings about it to want to keep it to stay connected.  When you remove the passion and the human interest the financial reasons often times do not matter. They may just fall flat and what has been in the family for 5 generations may end with me.  Is that a big deal perhaps not really.  It is selfish and it is emotional, it is human.  You are very right that genetic manipulation is mainstream.  We don't want to lose out to the Chinese after all.  So resistance may not matter any more, but to my mind resistance still has a chance now, in 10 years it won't have any chance at all.  What was will be entirely erased and what is left will be in an obscure cyro tank and  a few crazy people will be scrambling to resurrect a ghost.  Maybe you are right what we have today is not good what will come will be better I hope so.  

[franklinridgefarms]

This subject to me is a road that I see as a progression of other reproductive technologies and one that should not be gone down. I freely admit that I’m just a simple person. DNA is often referred to as building blocks. In my simple mind altering one gene or one block and the entire structure is altered as far as I’m concerned. I think human nature seeks to “improve” , but if using our modern improved cattle is a barometer of true progress then I believe it is not as successful as some would have us believe. Without wanting to step on toes, and I am guilty of the mindset as well, I look at AI and ET as a forerunner of this technology. I really believe that many of us have been duped into thinking that an animal from AI or ET is likely superior to a natural service sired animal. Sometimes yes but not always. Modern animals maybe superior in certain traits but I feel they have been selectively bred and lack in some very important other areas. If the model is to use a heavily promoted yearling bull of the moment and a prize winning show heifer to get the next generation from then does that guarantee a productive offspring? Case in point some of the cattle pictured in the recent purity thread, and I have several that look about like them in the pasture too, both Hereford and Angus. Cows have bred and had and raised calves, bred back and done it for years for thousands of years. A birth is a miracle, but the more we improve cattle I believe it won’t be long until cows doing what they are supposed to do for more than a couple years truly will be a miracle. I was having cows AI bred and seeking bulls from certain pedigrees, my wife did not share the enthusiasm for AI. She convinced me that nature was more practical and that there were downsides to AI. I came see her point, however I still see AI as a valuable tool on some farms, so I’m certainly not opposed to it if applicable. Short story long I believe that the technologies of AI are beneficial but not the great improver that many think. It’s my belief that it has become another marketing opportunity mainly for large breeders and companies. I personally have never cared much for ET, have had a few bulls that were the result of it and they were nothing special in the long run at all. Again just another avenue for marketing in my mind. The gene editing stuff is taking it to a whole other level and I am not interested in it at all. I know this is a Hereford forum and believe me I want Herefords to be Herefords but if it came to gene editing for polledness I would just opt to breed them to Red Angus and follow the model of the black Simmentals

[timbernt]

This evening Dave and I took mineral to a group of cows we haven't seen in over a month. The middle of December we took about 150 spring calvers to 400 acres of fescue and brush about 7 miles from home. We had some 2 year old heifers in the group, by mistake we sent 4 head that were bred to calve in January. Didn't realize it until tonite when 4 babies came out of the brush with their mothers. The bull that sired those calves is one we raised and is the result of a combination of natural service, AI, and ET. Without all those tools we could not have produced a Hereford bull with his ability. My breeding philosophy is to use all the proven tools modern science gives us combined with a management of benign neglect to allow selection of genetics that work the best in a real world environment. Those that artificially limit the tools available are welcome to do so in their own herds, but should not try to intrude on my use of science as it becomes available.

[larso]

There are 3.1 billion pieces of information in the DNA make up of a beast. Do we have the right to alter or to attempt to change any of that structure? For me the answer is No.

[timbernt]

Larso, the intricacies of DNA is something I marvel at every day. It is why I am skeptical of the current state of genomics. However, I finally have achieved many of my goals with our herd and don't want to dilute it with what is available in the polled Herefords of today. We old horned breeders are faced with the fact that we need to get rid of the horns. If I can do it with a single gene edit, I hope to be able afford it at some time in the future. In my opinion there is nothing more genetically modified than hybrid seed corn, but think how much it has contributed to humanity. As far as altering DNA, everyone on this forum is dedicated to altering genetic material.

[larso]

Jan 23, 2020 18:13:42 GMT -6 timbernt said:

Larso, the intricacies of DNA is something I marvel at every day. It is why I am skeptical of the current state of genomics. However, I finally have achieved many of my goals with our herd and don't want to dilute it with what is available in the polled Herefords of today. We old horned breeders are faced with the fact that we need to get rid of the horns. If I can do it with a single gene edit, I hope to be able afford it at some time in the future. In my opinion there is nothing more genetically modified than hybrid seed corn, but think how much it has contributed to humanity.

I do understand your point Tim, my worry is as greater understanding of the science becomes known and techniques are refined in altering the DNA of a animal in the wrong hands where could it lead to? Then there is the moral side of the argument , as a believer in the Holy Bible and that it’s words are true , you only have to read the last chapters of Job, 38 onwards and you realise who is in charge of Creation and the need to operate within the boundaries God has set in place.

[timbernt]

Are the boundaries Amish, Catholic, Mormon, or Scientology?

[George]

Count me in as one who is in favor of pursuing the science and prudently using it.

If we do or if we don't, there will nations/regimes that will. It will be better to be on the front end of the technology instead of playing catch-up to someone who has figured out how to weaponize it.

[phillse]

I used to think all the gene editing stuff was neat and cool. However, do we really know enough or is the technology good enough to simply take out only the unwanted traits. Will other traits be lost or turned off from being expressed by the removal of this one gene. I know a lot of people on here view the Polled Hereford as contaminated or unpure It would take longer but for the sake of argument single gene selection is obtainable fairly quickly with traditional breeding techniques. Then why not make a cross with a polled bull use traditional back breeding to select for the polled trait. Could be done fairly quickly similarly to how many breeds turned black. Why risk the unknown when in 5-7 generations you could have the same results using traditional breeding to achieve a homozygous polled animals that is 31/32 or more horned blood. Would that one cross of a Polled Hereford be worse than the Potentially uncharted impurity or unintended consequences that could result Lab genetic dehorning.

[timbernt]

I thought the same thing, but there is so much outside blood in todays polls that polled/horned inheritance is no longer simple dominant/recessive gene action. I tried Kairuru Aberdeen, and there were neither horns or scurs but the calves were so bad I had to give up on the idea.

[phillse]

May 24, 2020 11:13:10 GMT -6 timbernt said:

I thought the same thing, but there is so much outside blood in todays polls that polled/horned inheritance is no longer simple dominant/recessive gene action. I tried Kairuru Aberdeen, and there were neither horns or scurs but the calves were so bad I had to give up on the idea.

Does that mean somewhere along the way Herefords acquired the African Horn gene much like the Longhorn breed? The longhorns got the gene chasing bigger nicer trophy horns?

Look at the Simmental or Gelbvieh breeds, I know that the herd book is open but in just the last 30 years you have homozygous polled and homozygous black. Angus was used but I would think that you could substitute Polled Hereford breeding and achieve the same thing in the Herefords.

[phillse]

Hypothetical traditional breeding plan. Take one of Danny’s (JMS Victor Domino) bulls and breed to your oldest most proven females. Keep the polled bull calves for evaluation and select the best one to be a herd sire to be bred over your cattle. Keep all the polled daughters you should now have 3/4 horned genetics that are hetero polled. Then go back to using your horned bulls keeping only the polled females as replacements. You will soon reach 15/16 or 31/32 horned genetics that are still hetero polled. Then evaluate and keep the best polled bull of the most proven hetero polled cows. Now you are breeding two hetero polled animals with 15/16 or 31/32 horned blood. Roughly 1/4 the calves will be homo polled and can be identified by DNA testing. As I said it would take a breeder most of a lifetime to achieve this but in the scheme of things it is a relative short amount of time. Probably in truth this would be quicker than fixing other problems such as a herd with bad teats or feet.

[phillse]

I am not a Hereford breeder but I respect the breed and the history. Ad an outsider looking in, I think the JMS Victor Domino’s combined with Lents or Dewall would be a good path to take for an Ambitious Young breeder wanting to create a unique line of cattle that have the traditional range cattle Hereford strengths in a polled package.

[rockmillsherefords]

May 24, 2020 11:47:57 GMT -6 phillse said:

I am not a Hereford breeder but I respect the breed and the history. Ad an outsider looking in, I think the JMS Victor Domino’s combined with Lents or Dewall would be a good path to take for an Ambitious Young breeder wanting to create a unique line of cattle that have the traditional range cattle Hereford strengths in a polled package.

The Dewall's have already started a breeding program along those lines, not sure how it's progressed, maybe they will chime in.

[allenw]

Taking the horns off has been on my mind for awhile, at one time I said I would never do it but it is one more thing to do when processing calves. If I could find a good headed 3/4 or 7/8 horned blood polled bull I would seriously consider using him. I need to add some females so that would be another way of doing it using a homegrown bull on brought in cows.

[phillse]

May 25, 2020 18:07:54 GMT -6 allenw said:

Taking the horns off has been on my mind for awhile, at one time I said I would never do it but it is one more thing to do when processing calves. If I could find a good headed 3/4 or 7/8 horned blood polled bull I would seriously consider using him. I need to add some females so that would be another way of doing it using a homegrown bull on brought in cows.

I know nostalgia and personal preference for many is horned cattle. However, in today’s increasingly PC world and the world of animal welfare the days of dehorning cattle are numbered. It is probably a smart move to stay economically relevant to commercial production for all horned breeds to go polled.

Just look at Europe and the tail docking ban on dogs including working and herding breeds. So breeders started started selecting more Natural bob tailed dogs in breeds that have some NBT’s. Now animal welfare groups and legislation in some places in Europe has outlawed the mating of two NBT dogs because some die in utero or because there is a small chance of pups being born with spinabifida and having to be put down. That thought process is increasingly become more common even here in the US.

To me an Australian Shepherd just is not quite right if not a bob tail but in Europe they do not have the option of docking. That same idea is coming for cattle and dehorning, that is one reason tech companies are looking into gene editing dehorning of breeds with the economic reasons being just icing on the cake.

[strojanherefords]

I don't have horned cattle because of nostalgia or personal preference. I have horned cattle because I believe that more is lost than horns when the horn gene is eliminated. For me, I run in some brushy country and the horned cows will do a better job clearing the brush and opening up the canopy than polled cows.
I take offense to the idea that we need to kowtow to the animal rights activist. There is nothing we can do to fully satisfy them because their beliefs are incoherent and motivated by a lust for power and money. In California, there isn't a commercial hog industry any more because farmers aren't allowed to prevent sows from crushing their piglets.
I have dehorned, branded, and castrated hundreds of cattle at a variety of age; I have not seen any sign of psychological trauma from those practices.

[Glenn]

May 27, 2020 23:50:54 GMT -6 strojanherefords said:

I don't have horned cattle because of nostalgia or personal preference. I have horned cattle because I believe that more is lost than horns when the horn gene is eliminated. For me, I run in some brushy country and the horned cows will do a better job clearing the brush and opening up the canopy than polled cows.
I take offense to the idea that we need to kowtow to the animal rights activist. There is nothing we can do to fully satisfy them because their beliefs are incoherent and motivated by a lust for power and money. In California, there isn't a commercial hog industry any more because farmers aren't allowed to prevent sows from crushing their piglets.
I have dehorned, branded, and castrated hundreds of cattle at a variety of age; I have not seen any sign of psychological trauma from those practices.

Agree 110%. Some people think that if we just use Polled animals the "BQA Folks" and "Best Practices Folks" and "Animal Rights Folks" will be placated and we will have done our "part" as "team players". So damn NAIVE. Those people will NEVER ever be satisfied. Issues like branding and dehorning, are just incremental steps. They use them first because they can expect so many of "us" to "go along" and be "enlightened". Divide and conquer. Appeasement has NEVER worked and will never work. I have no issues with folks who honestly like and use polled animals. I have nothing but disdain for people with thought processes like Philse's that we should just give in to the PC crowd because it's "inevitable"....