|
|
Post by legendrockranch on Jul 9, 2013 10:52:40 GMT -5
I do like the fact that UC Davis notifies you that samples were received, Texas A&M does not. As far as being notified of the results in 3 days from UC Davis, I have never gotten my results that fast.
As I have mentioned before I use both labs, talk with both labs and more than likely will continue to use both labs. If UC Davis wants to drop or lower their transfer fee of $10.00 (Texas A&M was only $5.00), and Texas A&M catches up with their form, I'll take a hard look as to which lab will get my business. At this time spending close to $300.00 to transfer animals genotypes to UC Davis from Texas A&M is out of the question for myself and other large breeders.
Barb
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 9, 2013 16:32:25 GMT -5
I have yet to hear a complaint about them re "wrong" results. Hi Lousie The thing is how can, or would we aussies ever know a result is wrong or as was the case Genebo mentioned, a rounding up or down of numbers of the actuals is occuring? With the little I know about genetics I am slightly taken-back about the possibility of it. And Genebo is correct, one change of number or numbering sequence and when those of us are seeking 'purity' testing or 'Legacy' acceptance using such results..................well we could be _throwing the baby out with the bath water_ (Removing Dexters from participation) because of a technician's belief that a rounding up or down is inconsequential. [Im not saying that it HAS happened either] Australia only uses the one lab. We have asked UCD now to genotype our herd and I am in the process of obtaining the DNA / parent verification results for all our purchased Dexters from the 4 breeders who have made up our foundation herd. We will have a range in the DNA processing timelines with our eldest girl at 9yrs and the youngest (tested at QU) being near 6 mths old, and a wide range inbetween from QU. I will let everyone know the results of the analysis when I have them. My fingers are crossed that we will find nothing - that both 'test results' will match perfectly and all is, and has been OK in the Australian Dexter DNA world over the decades. [Sorry for going off track but I thought if I posted this elsewhere, the context would be lost - regarding labs and testing results] Cheers Donna |
|
|
|
Post by rawlingsdexter on Jul 9, 2013 16:48:08 GMT -5
Hi to my fellow Aussie Breeders
I have hade an incorrect result from UQ, a calf came back as did not qualify as the offspring of the nominated sire and dam. When I queried the result a further panel of tests were run on the markers and all but one matched, so they declared the calf to be the progeny of the nominated sire and dam. It was also checked and her calf from the previous year also produced a discrepancy on the same marker, but was declared the offspring of that mating, with no question. It appears this cow has produced a mutation of one of the alleles.
I am meticulous in recording our matings and so knew that my nominated dam & sire were correct, but if I had not queried the result one of my best breeding females would have been unable to be registered.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 9, 2013 17:10:56 GMT -5
Hi to my fellow Aussie Breeders I am meticulous in recording our matings and so knew that my nominated dam & sire were correct, but if I had not queried the result one of my best breeding females would have been unable to be registered. And theres my reasoning for the double checking and further analysis of what has and is actually being produced as test results in Australia. Dexters are global and we need to ensure the facts presented to us 'are' actual facts. Im so glad Margaret that you had worked out what the problem was and better still, was able to set the record straight in regards to the parent verification of your calf. My opinion is QU should have told you about the mutation when it was first discovered so you were aware of it, you are the owner of the calf, the owner of the test results and it was your money which was paid for the testing to be performed. Imagine the embarrassment, not to mention the reputation of your stud if you had sold said cow in calf and the new owner was presented with this dilemma? Cheers Donna |
|
|
|
Post by rawlingsdexter on Jul 9, 2013 17:27:50 GMT -5
Hi Donna
I did onsell that female that was producing the mutation, but thankfully I was able to give a full disclosure of what had been discovered.
It does raise the point though that if she produced a mutation, polling and PHA are probable to have come from the same source a MUTATION.
The cow in question was one that I thought went back to more pure lines, no grading up that I could see, so you do wonder!!
Marg
|
|
|
|
Post by carragheendexters on Jul 11, 2013 18:24:33 GMT -5
Hi Margaret,
Reading from your post, the actual results from Uni of Qld were correct, it was the PVing that didn't ad up? So if they repeated the testing or it was sent to another lab, am I correct to assume they they would get the same results?
I am not sure how they do the PVing but I am guessing (from my work experience) that they run it through the computer and it would pick up any discrepant results and highlight them. I know that is what happens at work if results don't compare.
My understanding is that they run the regular panel, and if there is a discrepancy and the owner is confident of the breeding then they run the extra panel, as happened in your case. The mutation in your cow caused the discrepancy, not the labs testing and quality of results. They certainly can't be held responsible for that.
Not all breeders are as diligent as yourself, there are many who get their parentage wrong, I can understand how someone can get the bull wrong, but I just can't see how anyone can get their cow wrong? These are picked up regularly enough by the lab, some end up getting sorted, many don't.
I think the mistakes are made more by the breeders who "just have some cattle" than those dedicated passionate Dexter breeders.
Yes, maybe polling, PHA and chondro did all originate from a mutation. It would be wonderful to prove it "yes" or "no", but it's a bit hard after the fact. I think too much time has now past.
regards Louise
|
|
|
|
Post by carragheendexters on Jul 11, 2013 18:32:22 GMT -5
Hi Donna,
One thing to consider if you are going to get your animals DNA'd and PV'd in the US, what if they don't test for the same markers?
They are different laboratories probably licensed to different testing patents, and may give different results which you won't be able to compare. I think Uni of Qld is licensed to Roche, you may need to check with UCD who they are licensed with, and what markers they test.
BTW, check your DNA results, there are both odd and even numbers, in relation to what Genebo wrote.
Why are you doubting the Uni of Qld results of your cattle? Do you think that some of your pedigrees are incorrect?
If you have any concerns regarding the testing ability and quality of results coming out of Uni of Qld, why not talk to them. Ring Sarah Buttsworth, she is the lady to talk to, I am sure she can put your mind at rest.
regards Louise
|
|
|
|
Post by jamboru on Jul 11, 2013 21:56:10 GMT -5
With UniQ, if you get a "does not qualify" for something you are sure of, or even not so sure of, they will check more markers. In one case we checked a cow against one bull, and then against the sire and brother of that bull. On the first round of testing she was one off each of the bulls. On further testing her sire was confirmed to be the bull we offered in the first place, and that the cow had 4 extra alleles. We have learned that this is not an uncommon occurrence in this particular family.
Fran
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 11, 2013 22:16:45 GMT -5
Hi Donna, One thing to consider if you are going to get your animals DNA'd and PV'd in the US, what if they don't test for the same markers? They are different laboratories probably licensed to different testing patents, and may give different results which you won't be able to compare. I think Uni of Qld is licensed to Roche, you may need to check with UCD who they are licensed with, and what markers they test. BTW, check your DNA results, there are both odd and even numbers, in relation to what Genebo wrote. Why are you doubting the Uni of Qld results of your cattle? Do you think that some of your pedigrees are incorrect? If you have any concerns regarding the testing ability and quality of results coming out of Uni of Qld, why not talk to them. Ring Sarah Buttsworth, she is the lady to talk to, I am sure she can put your mind at rest. regards Louise NO I do not think any of our pedigrees are incorrect but doesnt hurt to double check what one is being told either. Just because it has always been, doesnt mean it should always be. Welcome to the freedom to seek a second opinion  And if there are differences, then I will seek the answers as to why. |
|
|
|
Post by carragheendexters on Jul 11, 2013 23:11:04 GMT -5
Hi Genebo,
In Australia the Uni of Qld uses 15 markers for comparison, and it also is by elimination. All Dna parent verifying is like that , even in humans.
Interestingly enough, I looked up UCD website to see if they state what method they use and who they are licensed under, and they state on their website that a computer program compares the offspring DNA profile to the likely parents offspring, the result is checked by a lab person who issues the report. I thought that it would be unlikely that it would be done by human eyes, too much chance for error, even when checked by another person, people regularly make the same mistakes, over and over.
It didn't mention anywhere what method they use, or who they are licensed to, so it certainly could be different to what we use in Australia.
Uni of Qld uses "Illumina Infinium (R) Beadchip Bovine SNP" which is a trademarked registered method. Can you see if UCD uses the same methods?
Yes, Donna, you are entitled to a second opinion.
regards Louise
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 11, 2013 23:16:04 GMT -5
Oh and remember I am not PV I want to know the named markers and compare the two labs report. It will be interesting to see what happens. QU do test against more markets than UCD this I was already aware of. Actually I think QU test against more markers than anywhere else that I have seen Which is great for our pedigrees. There can be little dispute Told ya genetics is fun |
|
|
|
Post by legendrockranch on Jul 12, 2013 8:14:37 GMT -5
Uni of Qld uses "Illumina Infinium (R) Beadchip Bovine SNP" which is a trademarked registered method. Can you see if UCD uses the same methods? At this time UCD is not using SNP's. There was a discussion several months back on this forum about the possibility of switching over. UCD does have the capability to test using SNP's but I believe it was suggested by them not to at this time. I'm sure someone else can clarify this. Barb |
|
|
|
Post by carragheendexters on Jul 12, 2013 18:12:24 GMT -5
Ah, now if UCD isn't using SNP's I see why they can probably do it so much cheaper than here in Aus and more quickly. SNP's take 3 days to process. I'm surprised that if UCD has the capabilities that they haven't changed to that method. I was under the impression that it was the most up to date method and was the gold standard. This would make it difficult to compare results between countries, you have to compare apples with apples.
regards Louise
|
|
|
|
Post by legendrockranch on Jul 12, 2013 18:37:03 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by carragheendexters on Jul 12, 2013 19:05:04 GMT -5
Thanks Barb. Yes, Jamshundred does state that they have the capabilities but are not going that way yet. I looked up UCD's Genome centre, and yes they do have it in use for other diagnostic and research projects, (humans etc) but not bovine. I wonder why, the capabilities of SNP's is endless, it is even possible to identify the breed from SNP's. A research project was done and published (can't remember which country, would have to find that paper again) and it was able to identify a breed, and I think that they only had to use something like 40 markers to do it.
Uni of Qld and Elizabeth Macarthur are the testing labs for all things bovine ovine etc in Australia, and they test for a myriad of genetic conditions and traits, so I suppose that is why they have gone up the SNP path.
regards Louise
|
|
