Igenity is a Scam!

[PureCountry]

I decided to post this as a new message so that everyone takes notice - hopefully. If you are interested at all in that Igenity test from Merial Canada, I strongly urge you to first call Research Scientist Dr. John Basarb from the Lacombe Research Station here in Alberta, at 403-782-8032. I was wondering about it and when I asked him he explained that they had done the same testing at Lacombe, and found NO correlation between the Leptin Genotype and any of the traits that Merial claims. The only thing they found, was a small relation to backfat thickness. He said from them to advertise that ONE gene would be an accurate marker for numerous traits, is ludicrous. And when you think about it, how could ONE gene do that? He said the only reason they can get away with it, is that there are no laws presiding over such things. So, I would strongly advise anyone looking into it, to do a little background check of their own. Dr. Basarb is a great guy and very easy to talk to.
Another point, the Angus Green Tag program has a huge loophole in it. As much as I've loved seeing Angus genetics skyrocket in popularity in recent years, it will hurt them in the long run, because the program is based on an honor system. As long as you buy a registered bull, you can order tags, and market and sell them as such. It doesn't mean those smooth, black calves with hair like a wolf pup are Angus at all. There is supposed to be random testing, but I have yet to see anyone get caught, and trust me, there are guys abusing the system. Most anyone in the Angus Assoc. will admit to the downfall when questioned about it. Just a heads up, so beware of what you get into.

[nerves]

Igenity could be a scam who knows they make a lot of claims. But no one can explain how that four year old herd bull test AAA on the ultasound. Bulls are not supposed to even grade well period once they get older.The leptin gene is also in us humans and has something to do with being overweight I hear that doctors and scientist are trying to unlock the mistery of how it works. I guess time will tell. As far as test that get done in studies, usally the company doing the sponcering of the progam will make the end result turn out however they think it should be. But usally there is some sort of reality hidden in the question. I think and science may someday have an answer. Meanwhile we will continue till fill our AI tank and if this cow thing ever straightens out we will ultasound his daughters. The problem is that big busines gets involved and they may very well dictate to us what bulls we should use to make them richer.

[amazed]

I wouldn't say that the Igenity test is a scam but I also don't believe it is the silver bullet that some are making it out to be. It is too early to know either way.

I am not questioning the results of "nerves" ultrasound testing but I would be hesitant in putting too much importance on limited numbers.

If the bull is at 2mm, he is just borderline on cover for AAA and as the technician said 12-14 months is optimum for ultrasounding. We all know there is more to cover when trying to attain top grades.

What would make an interesting discussion is the ultrasound AND carcass data at harvest of the offspring of the TT bull. Then we would be able to make some comparisons.

[nerves]

I believe you are right amazed. That leads to the next question is marbling fed in or is it genetic? A little of both I suspect. We are going to ultrasound alot of thease animals in time. We are hopeful in finding more tt genetics in time. May even develope homozygous tt genotype in time who knows, right now its survival time.

[smcgrath76]

Interesting thread. We are currently dealing with all of these inssues in several breeds. Particularly the issue of how to handle gene marker test results.
Igenity L test for the presence of the LEPTIN gene. This gene contols fat metabolism in the body, so it does have some effect on several traits, including backfat, marbling, peritoneal fat, feed conversion, etc. Because of this it likely also accounts for "SOME" but definitely not all of the variation in marbling between animals.
One of the challenges with any gene marker test at the moment is that they are often dealt with as an exclusivity. In other words each test or each test animal is promoted as being "TT" for example, as if this is the be all, end all of information. The value of gene markers is that they accurately identify the presence of a gene. With traditional performance testing we try to identify differences in the suite of genes that animals carry. Gene marker information when combined with traditional performance information will likely help us to improve the accuracy of this process. For example, by combining an ultrasound record on a yearling bull (and his contemporaries) with an Igenity/Gene Star result, we may be able to produce accuracies of prediction that are similar to a proven sire.
Additionally, gene markers may help us to identify hard to measure traits such as tenderness.

Ultrasound: this is a seperate issue. Comparing ultrasound measurements on breeding stock with carcass measurements on fat cattle is like comparing apples and oranges. ultrasound, if done across contemporary groups (calves raised in the same way) can identify seedstock with more marbling, more rib-eye, less backfat, etc. This translates very well into differences between slaughter progeny from these cattle. The reasons for measuring calves around a year of age are that this translates well with the age of slaughter on carcass progeny, contemporary groups will tend to be larger, and calves are at a physiological stage where differences are expressed. In fact, heifers express more differneces in marbling than young bulls (a testosterone thing).
Most breed associations combine ultrasound and carcass data in their evaluations to produce carcass EPDs.
None of my business and it is your money, but I have no idea why anyone would ever scan a herd sire. It is relaitvley useless info, as it is pretty rare that a 4 year old steer would be slaughtered. It will tell you more about a sire to scan his progeny, particularly if the contemporary group contains calves form more than one sire (so we can compare sires).

[nerves]

interesting information smcgrath. Here is how I see it. Is marbling genetic or is it feed in. If it is truly genetic then an animal should grade well all its life in normal feeding conditons, and I want to know the answer to this question. So we did the ultasound next step was to prove to me that the leptin gene was in fact for real. New technolgy always makes me leary. We just got lucky and found this animal. The hair sample was sent away and came back tt. Our next step while be test his offspring then in my mind I think I will know if marbling is indeed gentic or feed in. Is this useless information? time will tell. It was also a charolais bull. Rod Wendorf did the ultasound I am not sure if I spelt his name correct. If you are Interested I can look up the bulls registration number and you can check out the ultasound results for yourself through the charolais association.

[nerves]

one more point I would like to add, my mind forgets the point I was trying to make sometimes. Do you realy think comparing ultrasound to leptin testing is like comparing apples to oranges. like I said I am always skeptical. If we develope these technolgies to prove a point in this case it is marbling. Then at some point these technolgies must work hand in hand to prove to me that thay have any creditability. Is marbling genetic? with an open mind and alot of testing of ultasound and leptin genotyping I believe we can figure this out.

[smcgrath76]

I agree with what you are saying nerves. While a gene marker test is substantially different than an ultrasound measurement or carcass record, they are definitely complementary technologies. In combination they provide even more useful information than each can independently. Marbling is both genetic and environmental. There are cattle that will not marble, regardless of the feed regime, cattle that will marble with minimal backfat, and cattle that will marble with excess backfat. Ultrasound, carcass measurements, and gene tests, can help us to identfy cattle that have genetics to do any of these (although unless you are making candles I doubt you want just marbling and backfat).
Marbling increases with time since it is the last fat deposited in the body. Fat also takes a lot more energy to produce3 than protein, so generally speaking cattle with genetics to marble without putting on excess backfat are more cost effective to get to a AAA type of slaughter stage.
Management has a huge effect on marbling, however a calf can only express the genetics that are present. In the specific case of Charolais, the C to C program shows this over and over again.
I checked the CH website and the heritability estimate for marbling is 0.29. Loosely speaking this means that genetics account for roughly 29% of the differences we see between progeny performance for marbling. The remainder of the difference is due to management. This is a moderate heritability, which means that you can effectively select to change marbling.

[pandiana]

Good post Sean. Unlike Basarab, it would appear you have confidence in this technology?

[nerves]

Ok sean now we are on the same page of understanding theories. Lets carrie this one step further,say we breed bulls of low backfat with the leptin tt gene to cows with the same gene we should also end up with calves that eventualy show the marbling genetic. Now say we creep feed thease calves and the market dictates that it wants animals that marble well and have 1000 pound slaughter weights. Any weight for that matter so long as marbling is in demand. Now how can you be more efficient than that. So long as you manage your feeding not to get them to fat. Next question to you is how extensive is the testing done on the calves and parents of the offspring in the C to C progam.The way I see it that is the only answer you can have because there is such a wide varitey of genetics thrown together. If we can purify this leptin tt gene to both parents and for many generations then we could see differnt results in a program like C to C. I guess what I mean is a homozygous leptin tt gene.

[smcgrath76]

First Pandiana - I do have confidence in gene marker testing. I agree that the ability to identify an actual gene is quite valuable. For example there are currently 2 tenderness gene tests available to industry. In combination the 2 genes seem to account for a large degree of differences in tenderness and they appear to act independently of influencing other traits.
I think the letpin test is useful, I don't however agree with the way it is being marketed as a solution to our marbling challenges. Leptin controls fat deposition, not marbling specifically, although it does provide a useful tool to manage feeding regimes. I am also pretty interested in how it relates to body condition, and fertility in cows because it controls fat, but no one has really gotten to the stage of investigating that yet, that I am aware of.
This leads to nerves question...
I think that homozygous TT cattle will in general put on more marbling with the same management as CC cattle. I also think that they will tend to give up some in the yield category. Depending on your market this may be good, bad or indifferent. I would like to see all breed associations collect as much marker data as possible on all markers and include it in their evaluations combined with field and research data. I know of a couple of breeds that are on the verge of doing this, and some that have used their research data to validate gene markers (basically using there data to prove that the gene actually impacts the trait it is advertised to impact). For example the American Simmental used their extensive shear force database to validate the tenderness genes for calpain and calpastatin.
not sure if this really answers your question. Obviously older cattle (eg: backgrounded then finished) should exhibit higher levels of marbling, however they should also produce larger carcasses. The key is going to be identifying what cattle do what things well, so that producers can mix and match to get the desired results.

[smcgrath76]

Forgot to mention.
It is highly likely that TT bulls with low backfat are also seeing the influence of several other genes. Remember leptin only explains a portion of the variation in fat deposition.
For example the gene star marbling gene, appears to be more specific to marbling than to fat in general, however it only accounts for a portion of the variation.
Clear as Mud...
I'll use an Angus example. The US Angus has a huge carcass data set. Many of the sires represented in this data have been tested for Gene Star marbling (GSM). There are sires at the very height of the breed for marbling that are 0 star for marbling. How can this be? GSM only accounts for a portion of the variation. These elite marbling sires, may have positive combinations of other genes that positively override the lack of GSM to produce positive results.
Does this mean the marker test has no value?
Definitely not. The test explains a large portion of the variation in marbling and is a useful tool, in combination with other tools.
This applies to all gene markers.

[nerves]

Ok Sean I see we are saying the same things but you are better at explaining them than I am. I am wondering how many of thease gene marker sires have had ultasound done them as well as leptin testing, or how do they determine this status (I am not familar with this but have heard about it). I have seen a few bulls in our breed (about 10 charolais) that have tested tt, but have not seen any ultasound results on them. I am more interested in ultasound on them to determine backfat measurements. Like you saying a bull with 2mm and a bull with 7mm may test the same on leptin but I would use the 2mm long before the 7 because management may have had an influence on the marbling. Then learning to read ultasound is another key factor most of us have just got EPDs figured out then throw all this other stuff at them, they leave scrathing their head I have seen this many times at bull sales. So you are sometimes better off to just to keep your mouth shut.In another thread a fellow talked about cow freshners and he is right. It is hard to keep up with technolgy. The Calgary Stampede puts on a Carcass evaluation seminar This is good place to start well worth the money, if you are into cattle. Thank you for your input sean it has helped me clarify some things I was not sure of.