After listening to a Proud to Dairy (BTW if you have not signed up to the “Proud To Dairy” social media website this would be a good time to do so) video with Nate Zwald talking about the accuracy of genomics and skipping generations it made me think about my Chicago Bears for some reason.  Maybe I always think about the Chicago Bears because when I was a kid they were good!  I can’t let go of the past I guess. 😉

Anyways….it made me think about why people always say the newest is always better.  Why does that have to be true?  Why are the newest genetics always considered better?  Just because people want to jump and skip generations to get better genetics doesn’t mean it actually works.  To keep this conversation simple I will bring back my Chicago Bears for a good example.  If newest was better I would put my money on the 2011 Bears team instead of the 1985 team.  Only an insane person would rather have the 2011 team!  You can say that the other teams and players have just gotten better just like with herd mates, but I will still put my money on the ’85 team!

Something else about this video that disturbs me a bit.  Why do they keep saying that the bulls proofs have come out much more on target once they have daughters milking?  Why didn’t they know this before with older tested bulls with daughters milking in 2009?  Could it be that the genomics are keeping the numbers close no matter how off the daughters are?  It comes back to knowing how much influence the genomics have once a bull is proven!

Give me back my 1985 Chicago Bears!

Advertisements