Comments for DNA Tests For Beef Improvement

Comment on Challenges by Graybull

Graybull — Tue, 22 Jul 2008 17:39:40 +0000

Interesting question………risks for the cow-calf producer in regard to the “WISE and PROFITABLE” use of DNA tests/market assisted selection.

No risk……….IF and that is a big IF……tests are used wisely and profitably.

Easiest prediction in the entire realm of DNA testing……..the tests will NOT be wisely and profitably used. Greater chance they will be “profitably” used…….. as in “profitably” used for marketing purposes rather than genetic advancement purposes……..just as is happening today.

If you figure out a way to get the average cowman to use DNA testing wisely……..call me.

Comment on Introduction by bifdna

bifdna — Fri, 27 Jun 2008 17:15:57 +0000

The above two commenters are right — blogging does not seem to be a common way for cattlemen to communicate. Thanks to both of you for helping to break the ice.
Regarding the comment about comparing DNA marker information to actual progeny test information (for tenderness, feed efficiency, etc.), this is what the validation process is designed to do. Validation is best accomplished using a reference population with known family structure (and the corresponding objective trait data to which the DNA test results can be compared). Pragmatic cattle breeders probably will not embrace DNA testing in a major way until they see the side-by-side comparison between progeny test data and DNA marker information — with the comparison done by a financially disinterested third party and, ideally, repeated in several populations and several locations to lend credibility to the results.

Comment on Introduction by Neil

Neil — Fri, 27 Jun 2008 14:47:42 +0000

I think that 99% is probably a number that is decresing and in the future more and more cattleman will tune in to using the web as a for of communication and information but that blogging is not really in their nature.
As a matter of fact this is my first blog that I have written although I have been using the internet for years.
I would like to see some cross comparison to the major DNA tests to actual data. In other words genestar, Igenity and mmi tests on all of the same cattle and print carcass data and WBS shearforce data and also compate the reads on the new infra red inline tenderness test results. And maybe compare the feed efficiecy DNA test results to the GrowSafe feed efficiency data like the Midland bull test used this year. Is any one else thinking about this?

Comment on Introduction by J. Jefferies

J. Jefferies — Tue, 24 Jun 2008 10:53:58 +0000

Interesting Concept…..

My 2 cents – The trouble with this blog as a source for stakeholder comments is that 99.999% of Cowmen don’t blog or make comments to web-based questionnaires. It’s simply outside of the cattleman’s ethos. You will be getting the same people who send in comments that may or may not be actual producers and the silent majority will have no voice. Maybe some day this type of information gathering will work in the beef industry, but probably not in my lifetime. Interesting concept though.

Comment on A Dynamic Future by Carel Teseling

Carel Teseling — Sun, 22 Jun 2008 23:30:30 +0000

I am intrigued by the comment that the monopoly of breed associations are over. How is it that DNA technology will be able to replace the purpose of breed associations? Can DNA technology also help you manage and determine inbreeding? Pedigrees will still need to be kept by someone and who is better positioned than the breed associations?

Comment on Current Perspective by Sam Johnson

Sam Johnson — Wed, 18 Jun 2008 23:24:44 +0000

Value! What is the value of DNA information if the cost can not be recovered via production efficiencies for the producer (Net Feed Intake of RFI) or in added value of the calf or carcass sold (tenderness). Testing for some traits may be recovered if the producer retains the animal thru to the end where the improvement, if any, may be recovered. This is the case for Marbling, Yield, Feed efficiency and so on. Getting back that same value is you sell the calf is more problematic. Here validation is important so that the buyer can be convinced by reliable sources or proof that the value is there and he then has some assurance that the premium paid, if any, can be recovered

Comment on A Dynamic Future by Sam Johnson

Sam Johnson — Wed, 18 Jun 2008 22:40:11 +0000

The Monopoly of the Breed Associations is over! Breed Associations held a virtual monopoly as far as performance information, EPDs, Indexes, parentage make up, and pedigree. With DNA results you can determine and verify some of this information with out the blessings of the associations. You can determine: parentage (pedigree), breed makeup or purity, carcass quality & yield, and certain performance parameters such as RFI and expect markers for many of the other performance traits to come down the line. Breed associations will need to compete with or cooperate with DNA companies in order to stay relevant.

Comment on Challenges by Sam Johnson

Sam Johnson — Wed, 18 Jun 2008 22:19:40 +0000

RE: Sharing of Data. Not all data is shared only that which the producer wants to send in. Just look at all of the catalogs with just interim EPDs listed whenever you see this you know that producer doesn’t share the data and is content to sell projected EPDs calculated from the parentage only. EPDS and or indexes require that you send in the data or you will not get the information (EPDs) not all producers were happy to do this till they could not sell their cattle without them. DNA through private companies is a different issue. You do not need the cooperation of the breed association or its other members to get and use DNA info. Thus this information is just like any other data it is the option of the owner if he wants to make it public just as phenotypic data. Information is power and if I have information which helps or hurts me competitively I am not obligated to share this with anyone. The same is true for any industry! Just try to get the formula for Coke or the 11 herbs & spices from Kentucky Fried Chicken or the source code for any Microsoft computer program.

Comment on Challenges by bifdna

bifdna — Wed, 18 Jun 2008 16:56:35 +0000

Seedstock producers readily share performance data with their breed association(s). If they didn’t, they would not receive the full benefit of their association’s genetic evaluation programs. Producers seem to have no qualms sharing these data. And yet, some of the discussion about DNA marker data relates to “test result confidentiality”. If a producer is willing to share data about the entire genotype of an animal (as estimated through EPDs), why would that same producer be reluctant to share data about the specific genotype at a few loci?

Comment on Challenges by Sam Johnson

Sam Johnson — Fri, 13 Jun 2008 21:11:05 +0000

Technically no. It is not a problem to develop an “open ended” data base where each new or added markers can be accommodated in new tables as they are discovered. Any modern data base building tool based on OBDC (object based data connectivity) can relatively easy accommodate the layering on of additional tables. MS access, sequel, dbase etc all are built on this MS standard. However the more tables the more redundant the data and the more space and computing power that is needed. Also the more potential for error as the linking of tables of data could grow exponentially. But at this point computing power and data storage capacities are growing at a faster rate than known DNA markers. The real question is what do we think we know about the markers and their effects on phenotype, their interactions with each other, and the combined effects, this part of the equation will be the real test. Each new SNP multiplies the potential combinations by a factor of 3 (homozygous positive, homozygous negative, and heterozygous) three markers have 3×3x3 possible combinations or 27 different genotypes. If you add one more you get 81 etc. with 100 markers you get 3e100 or 515,377,520,732,011,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000
potential individual combinations of Genotypes. Thus the storage of the markers is not near as complicated as calculating the potential effects of all the possible combinations, This will take some real programing & logic power.