|
|
Post by Trailmaster on Jul 22, 2014 19:56:04 GMT -6
The last 3-4 years the main topic at the KC annual meeting has been the development of genetically enhanced EPD's. It's very interesting and scientific stuff. I do believe it's something that needs to be pursued and in time hopefully it will gain more accuracy. Right now I'm extremely unimpressed with their accuracy after what I've seen happen with several bulls that sold with GE EPD's as yearlings. One sold with a GE BW EPD of 1.1. His first calf crop indexed 107.9 on BW and he now has a 6.0 BW EPD. Some people probably used the bull on heifers based on the GE EPD's and had a busy calving season pulling calves.
Like I say I do think the GE deal is worth pursuing but I think they have a ways to go. If or when they ever do get it figured out there's still the fact that "most" does not equal "optimum". And until people start grasping that what good are numbers anyway? IMO.
|
|
|
|
Post by erherf on Jul 23, 2014 7:04:27 GMT -6
I personally do not think EPDs have done the cattle industry any favors. For one they seem to have caused our genetic base to be narrowed at accelerated rate, as everyone starts to chase the next EPD wonder. To many really good cattle have been overlooked in the past 30 years if they didn't fit a specific EPD profile. I have to admit I have tried EPD searches for a specific profile, but could never find a pedigree to my liking. Really is manufacturing a computer generated number any more than a tool to sell cattle to someone who doesn't know much about cattle breeding. It seems a lot of animals EPDs change pretty dramatically after there first progeny are processed and also if they are put in a different herd they change, so how can a person have any confidence in what to expect. In my opinion they are just a way to get more money flowing for the association and those that chose to use them as a marketing tool and have minimal help in actually breeding cattle. I don't think the good Lord reads the EPDs when he makes a calf.
|
|
|
|
Post by Glenn on Jul 23, 2014 7:55:59 GMT -6
Human nature dictated that as soon as EPD's were developed that they would be mostly a MARKETING TOOL.
|
|
|
|
Post by herefordguy on Jul 23, 2014 16:41:11 GMT -6
|
|
|
|
Post by elkwc on Jul 23, 2014 17:36:14 GMT -6
I personally do not think EPDs have done the cattle industry any favors. For one they seem to have caused our genetic base to be narrowed at accelerated rate, as everyone starts to chase the next EPD wonder. To many really good cattle have been overlooked in the past 30 years if they didn't fit a specific EPD profile. I have to admit I have tried EPD searches for a specific profile, but could never find a pedigree to my liking. Really is manufacturing a computer generated number any more than a tool to sell cattle to someone who doesn't know much about cattle breeding. It seems a lot of animals EPDs change pretty dramatically after there first progeny are processed and also if they are put in a different herd they change, so how can a person have any confidence in what to expect. In my opinion they are just a way to get more money flowing for the association and those that chose to use them as a marketing tool and have minimal help in actually breeding cattle. I don't think the good Lord reads the EPDs when he makes a calf. I've posted my thoughts about EPD's on this forum before. I look at them but only use them as one tool in making an evaluation. For EPD's to be beneficial they need to be based on facts and not adjustments. I'm not sure how every breed does theirs. I have mainly looked at Herefords and Angus. I know I was told by one breeder that they make adjustments based on environmental factors. I want to see the actual BW, the actual weaning weight and age, the same with yearling weight. When I see an adjusted yearling weight for a bull and he is 14 months old and still doesn't weight that then I don't trust the EPD's for that animal. Also for EPD's to be beneficial such things as creep feeding need to be noted. When I see a creep feeder I just leave as in our grass and cake operation there is no creep feeding. I agree with this post. Most EPD's are for marketing purposes and not for actual benefit to the buyer in making a wise decision. |
|
|
|
Post by elkwc on Jul 23, 2014 17:41:39 GMT -6
I read both articles and maybe I misread them. But I disagree with the writer if he is saying that fewer EPD's should be offered and some such as BW shouldn't be used. At least that is the way I took it. I feel if EPD's are going to be offered show all of them, give factual info and let the buyer use them as he sees fit in his selection. The few sales I've attended the top "EPD" bulls haven't been the best and the price they brought reflected that. EPD's will never replace good visual evaluation. But limiting the EPD's in my opinion only decreases any benefit they might be. Again someone setting in an office is trying to tell me how I should use EPD's in my evaluation of an animal. |
|
|
|
Post by herefordguy on Jul 24, 2014 11:43:31 GMT -6
I read both articles and maybe I misread them. But I disagree with the writer if he is saying that fewer EPD's should be offered and some such as BW shouldn't be used. At least that is the way I took it. I feel if EPD's are going to be offered show all of them, give factual info and let the buyer use them as he sees fit in his selection. The few sales I've attended the top "EPD" bulls haven't been the best and the price they brought reflected that. EPD's will never replace good visual evaluation. But limiting the EPD's in my opinion only decreases any benefit they might be. Again someone setting in an office is trying to tell me how I should use EPD's in my evaluation of an animal. elkwc- Quiz: Which is more precise and accurate, selecting on birth weight and calving ease or selecting on only calving ease? Which is the economically important trait in a commercial setting, birth weight or calving ease? Which is more accurate, selecting on actual weaning weight or weaning weight EPD? You can use whatever criteria you like for selection, that is the beauty of the American agriculture system. You own the cattle, you make the decisions. (It is not like this in all countries, especially northern European countries.) But, you and other cattle producers need to understand the consequences of those decisions. Thanks, Jared Decker |
|
|
|
Post by Glenn on Jul 24, 2014 12:19:54 GMT -6
We have shades of grey of central control in agriculture here as well. States back east have "gimme money" from the state ag departments or tobacco trust funds to purchase breeding bulls but the catch is there are EPD criteria set by fiat. So a producer can not get the money to buy a good bull without EPDs but can get money to buy a structural wreck with "APPROVED" epds......
BTW, history tells us ignoring professors may be the best thing to do as far as "avoiding consequences"......
|
|
|
|
Post by George on Jul 24, 2014 12:23:33 GMT -6
I read both articles and maybe I misread them. But I disagree with the writer if he is saying that fewer EPD's should be offered and some such as BW shouldn't be used. At least that is the way I took it. I feel if EPD's are going to be offered show all of them, give factual info and let the buyer use them as he sees fit in his selection. The few sales I've attended the top "EPD" bulls haven't been the best and the price they brought reflected that. EPD's will never replace good visual evaluation. But limiting the EPD's in my opinion only decreases any benefit they might be. Again someone setting in an office is trying to tell me how I should use EPD's in my evaluation of an animal. elkwc- Quiz: Which is more precise and accurate, selecting on birth weight and calving ease or selecting on only calving ease? Which is the economically important trait in a commercial setting, birth weight or calving ease? Which is more accurate, selecting on actual weaning weight or weaning weight EPD? You can use whatever criteria you like for selection, that is the beauty of the American agriculture system. You own the cattle, you make the decisions. (It is not like this in all countries, especially northern European countries.) But, you and other cattle producers need to understand the consequences of those decisions. Thanks, Jared Decker My two cents here. I would prefer to select bulls based strictly on calving ease %, but the accuracy level of that EPD always lags so far behind BW that a bull is pretty well a widely used proven sire before the accuracy level of calving ease % reaches a level that I feel comfortable with(.6 or more) being reliable. The accuracy level of the EPDs forces me to look at BW first. One can only hope that the accuracy levels for EPDs will truly be "enhanced" through genetic testing at some point. Right now, I think it is completely suspect, as are EPDs in general - except on the most widely used and proven sires of the Hereford breed. |
|
|
|
Post by elkwc on Jul 24, 2014 21:06:53 GMT -6
I read both articles and maybe I misread them. But I disagree with the writer if he is saying that fewer EPD's should be offered and some such as BW shouldn't be used. At least that is the way I took it. I feel if EPD's are going to be offered show all of them, give factual info and let the buyer use them as he sees fit in his selection. The few sales I've attended the top "EPD" bulls haven't been the best and the price they brought reflected that. EPD's will never replace good visual evaluation. But limiting the EPD's in my opinion only decreases any benefit they might be. Again someone setting in an office is trying to tell me how I should use EPD's in my evaluation of an animal. elkwc- Quiz: Which is more precise and accurate, selecting on birth weight and calving ease or selecting on only calving ease? Which is the economically important trait in a commercial setting, birth weight or calving ease? Which is more accurate, selecting on actual weaning weight or weaning weight EPD? You can use whatever criteria you like for selection, that is the beauty of the American agriculture system. You own the cattle, you make the decisions. (It is not like this in all countries, especially northern European countries.) But, you and other cattle producers need to understand the consequences of those decisions. Thanks, Jared Decker Mr Decker I will reply to your last statement first. You state as cattle producers we need to understand the consequences of our decisions. I feel we do. First I have a question for you. Do you have any skin in the cattle business? I mean do you own a commercial herd or even stockers or feeders? Or is your interest driven by the genomic testing and how that could benefit you? Personally I've been around the industry to some extent from the cow to the carcass on the rail. I've had skin in the game and have made money and lost money. I've learned from my mistakes. There is no classroom that is more real than having money in the game and being involved first hand. Each decision made will influence the end profit or loss. We've also learned that those with no money in the game don't understand the consequences of what they promote like those of us in the business. I just hope you understand the consequences of your statements and actions as well as most commercial breeders do about theirs. Like you said we all have the right to make decisions and statements. I just hope you are ready to accept responsibility for those that you make. If someone uses EPD's the way you say are you willing to take responsibility if the selection fails? I highly doubt it. From my experience and that of others I've talked too including the breeder where I selected a bull this year BW is currently the most accurate tool when compared to CE. I purchased a bull with what I term a borderline high BW and he was labeled as a calving ease bull. There were a few others in the sale the same way. The producer made sure to stress these bulls weren't for heifers and that they needed to be bred to grown cows. And he had a BW ratio that had been adjusted and was a borderline heifer bull by it. Again I won't purchase a bull if the breeder won't produce an actual BW. I just recently saw a nice bull that was purchased a year ago as a calving ease bull. He was supposedly a dead shot CE bull by his EPD and was sold that way. After his first calf crop his numbers have went through the roof. Good calves but many are huge and he needs to be bred to high moderate to large cows. Thanks for your time. JD From my experience I want to see an actual BW and an actual yearling weight. They better represent the real world than the adjusted weights. I've sold cattle at several sales over the years and so far they have always paid me on actual weight not an adjusted weight. They have always failed to adjust the weight for environmental conditions, ect. And until they do I will look for actual weights and if they don't offer them I won't purchase from them. Again from past experience and that of others I've learned to trust the facts and not some adjusted number. |
|
|
|
Post by Glenn on Jul 24, 2014 21:36:00 GMT -6
How does a bull start out with a CE score of 2.8 and a BW EPD of .4 get 80 BW's turned in on him at 111.1% ratio!!!! and have his CE score go UP to +4.4 and his BW only go up to 2.5?  ?? |
|
|
|
Post by elkwc on Jul 25, 2014 6:10:36 GMT -6
Glenn I just recently saw a very similar example. A supposedly "dead shot" CE and BW bull that had his numbers go through the roof after his first calves hit the ground. I've seen several examples in the limited amount of herds I've visited. Like I have said I've seen other numbers that didn't reflect the real facts also. The EPD's and Genomic data are like everything else a tool we can use but not a sole means of making an evaluation. I understand the Angus breeder who I've mentioned who stated he was basing heifer selection strictly on new Angus test and EPD's and not on any visual evaluation is already having some structural issues. Again I'm one who will give any new idea a chance but in time it has to prove itself. And from what I've seen there is still a lot of work to be done of both before a lot of credibility can be given to either. And why I ask for real numbers instead of computer generated percentages and ratios.
|
|
|
|
Post by herefordguy on Jul 25, 2014 10:09:31 GMT -6
Got to love when you are trying to have a factual discussion and someone decides to attack you personally.  [Mr Decker I will reply to your last statement first. You state as cattle producers we need to understand the consequences of our decisions. I feel we do. First I have a question for you. Do you have any skin in the cattle business? I mean do you own a commercial herd or even stockers or feeders? Or is your interest driven by the genomic testing and how that could benefit you? Personally I've been around the industry to some extent from the cow to the carcass on the rail. I've had skin in the game and have made money and lost money. I've learned from my mistakes. There is no classroom that is more real than having money in the game and being involved first hand. Each decision made will influence the end profit or loss. We've also learned that those with no money in the game don't understand the consequences of what they promote like those of us in the business. I just hope you understand the consequences of your statements and actions as well as most commercial breeders do about theirs. Like you said we all have the right to make decisions and statements. I just hope you are ready to accept responsibility for those that you make. If someone uses EPD's the way you say are you willing to take responsibility if the selection fails? I highly doubt it. If you define "skin in the cattle business" as owning commercial cattle, then unless you count the cull cow I am selling later this month, no I don't have any skin in the game. But if you count owning cattle, then yes I have skin in the game. If you count being at least the 4th generation of my family to be in the cattle business (both commercial and seedstock), then yes I have skin in the game. If you count bucking bales by hand because I don't have money for a tractor, then yes I have skin and sweat in the game. If you count a love of beef and the ranching and farming way of life, then yes I have skin in the game. What type of responsibility are you referring too? I stand behind my words because history and other livestock industries have shown us that my argument is factual, not opinion. I've made a $5,000 dollar bet online before and no one took me up on the offer. (Sequence the entire DNA of a bull, if we find no broken genes, i.e. the bull is defect free, then I pay $5,000. If we find a broken gene, the breeder pays the $5,000.) From my experience and that of others I've talked too including the breeder where I selected a bull this year BW is currently the most accurate tool when compared to CE. I purchased a bull with what I term a borderline high BW and he was labeled as a calving ease bull. There were a few others in the sale the same way. The producer made sure to stress these bulls weren't for heifers and that they needed to be bred to grown cows. And he had a BW ratio that had been adjusted and was a borderline heifer bull by it. Again I won't purchase a bull if the breeder won't produce an actual BW. I just recently saw a nice bull that was purchased a year ago as a calving ease bull. He was supposedly a dead shot CE bull by his EPD and was sold that way. After his first calf crop his numbers have went through the roof. Good calves but many are huge and he needs to be bred to high moderate to large cows. Thanks for your time. JD Traditional EPDs for young animals have always had low accuracy. So, I am never surprised to hear stories about young bulls that were marketed as one thing and turned out to be something else. steakgenomics.blogspot.com/2013/05/you-would-be-crazy-not-to-test.html But, a genomic test to produce a GE-EPD adds the same information as 30 progeny for CED, so the test is like having the first calf crop out of a bull. From my experience I want to see an actual BW and an actual yearling weight. They better represent the real world than the adjusted weights. I've sold cattle at several sales over the years and so far they have always paid me on actual weight not an adjusted weight. They have always failed to adjust the weight for environmental conditions, ect. And until they do I will look for actual weights and if they don't offer them I won't purchase from them. Again from past experience and that of others I've learned to trust the facts and not some adjusted number. EPD are a selection tool, not a prediction of actual performance. If you compare the average of 100 calves out of BULL A and the average of 100 calves out of BULL B, that is what the EPD represents. If you are interested in making genetic progress, EPDs and selection indexes are your best tools. If you use actual performance, the best response you can achieve is limited by the amount of variation in the trait influenced by genetics (the heritability). For most traits that is around 30%. But, if you use EPDs, that reliability can get as high as 90% or higher. If you select on actual performance, or CED and BW EPDs at the same time, your decisions are less precise and genetic progress is slower. This is the consequence I was referring to. Of course you get paid on actual performance. EPDs are a tool to make selection decisions. |
|
|
|
Post by herefordguy on Jul 25, 2014 10:13:13 GMT -6
How does a bull start out with a CE score of 2.8 and a BW EPD of .4 get 80 BW's turned in on him at 111.1% ratio!!!! and have his CE score go UP to +4.4 and his BW only go up to 2.5? ?? Were calving ease scores also turned in? A bull can be a calving ease bull (i.e. no problems at birth) and have a high birth weight. A jump from 0.4 to 2.5 seems like a pretty big jump to me. That drops him from the top 5% of the breed to the top 30%. |
|
|
|
Post by herefordguy on Jul 25, 2014 10:15:49 GMT -6
Glenn I just recently saw a very similar example. A supposedly "dead shot" CE and BW bull that had his numbers go through the roof after his first calves hit the ground. I've seen several examples in the limited amount of herds I've visited. Like I have said I've seen other numbers that didn't reflect the real facts also. The EPD's and Genomic data are like everything else a tool we can use but not a sole means of making an evaluation. I understand the Angus breeder who I've mentioned who stated he was basing heifer selection strictly on new Angus test and EPD's and not on any visual evaluation is already having some structural issues. Again I'm one who will give any new idea a chance but in time it has to prove itself. And from what I've seen there is still a lot of work to be done of both before a lot of credibility can be given to either. And why I ask for real numbers instead of computer generated percentages and ratios. Until we have EPDs for structure (like the dairy industry) we still have to visually select for structural soundness. steakgenomics.blogspot.com/2014/07/genomics-enhance-beef-cattle-breeding.html |
|
|
|
Post by herefordguy on Jul 25, 2014 10:25:21 GMT -6
Which is more precise and accurate, selecting on birth weight and calving ease or selecting on only calving ease?
When you select for the indicator trait (birth weight) and the economically important trait (calving ease) at the same time it increase the variance around your prediction. Thus your prediction of genetic merit becomes less precise and accurate. Thus, selecting on only calving ease is more precise and accurate.
Which is the economically important trait in a commercial setting, birth weight or calving ease?
Commercial producers' income is affected by calf loss and labor associated with calving problems. Commercial producers are not paid according to birth weight. Birth weight is only an indicator of calving ease. Calving ease is the economically important trait.
Which is more accurate, selecting on actual weaning weight or weaning weight EPD?
When selecting on actual weaning weight, the ceiling for the accuracy of your prediction is the heritability, the amount of variation in the trait influenced by genetics. For weaning weight this is around 30%. For EPD selection the ceiling for accuracy is 100%. (I am taking about selection accuracy, not BIF accuracies reported with EPDs.)
|
|
|
|
Post by elkwc on Jul 25, 2014 10:37:49 GMT -6
Which is more precise and accurate, selecting on birth weight and calving ease or selecting on only calving ease?When you select for the indicator trait (birth weight) and the economically important trait (calving ease) at the same time it increase the variance around your prediction. Thus your prediction of genetic merit becomes less precise and accurate. Thus, selecting on only calving ease is more precise and accurate. Which is the economically important trait in a commercial setting, birth weight or calving ease?Commercial producers' income is affected by calf loss and labor associated with calving problems. Commercial producers are not paid according to birth weight. Birth weight is only an indicator of calving ease. Calving ease is the economically important trait. Which is more accurate, selecting on actual weaning weight or weaning weight EPD? When selecting on actual weaning weight, the ceiling for the accuracy of your prediction is the heritability, the amount of variation in the trait influenced by genetics. For weaning weight this is around 30%. For EPD selection the ceiling for accuracy is 100%. (I am taking about selection accuracy, not BIF accuracies reported with EPDs.) Well I will say your results in the classroom don't reflect the results many of us see in the real world. I helped calve 2-300 heifers a year for several years. I learned fast that BW correlates to calving problems, calf loss and paralyzed or lost heifers. A producer isn't paid for calving ease either. A producer is paid by the pounds of live calf he sells. And BW directly correlates to calf loss especially in heifers. If CE is so accurate why do we see so many of the dead shot CE bulls siring calves with lots of problems. When a breeder purchases a bull on the CE indicator and he pulls every calf but one out of 20 and loses several I wouldn't say that CE used alone is very beneficial. I know several commercial breeders like me who won't purchase a bull anymore with seeing an actual BW. I've seen several herds that have used the EPD alone and their weanig weights have dropped. EPD's are only as accurate as the info put in them. When adjustments are made then the accuracy pertaining to the results I will see in my pasture diminishes. I can tell more by actual weight. That is what I'm paid on again not some predicted weight on a piece of paper that may not prove to be correct. You remind me of the university person who came around pushing the frame race. But when the feedlot managers were struggling with ways to market them and many ended up in this area being shipped to Booker Pack that usually processes bulls and cows he didn't want to discuss it anymore. I would encourage you to visit some of the ranches and commrecial breeders in the real world. JD |
|
|
|
Post by herefordguy on Jul 25, 2014 10:54:16 GMT -6
Which is more precise and accurate, selecting on birth weight and calving ease or selecting on only calving ease?When you select for the indicator trait (birth weight) and the economically important trait (calving ease) at the same time it increase the variance around your prediction. Thus your prediction of genetic merit becomes less precise and accurate. Thus, selecting on only calving ease is more precise and accurate. Which is the economically important trait in a commercial setting, birth weight or calving ease?Commercial producers' income is affected by calf loss and labor associated with calving problems. Commercial producers are not paid according to birth weight. Birth weight is only an indicator of calving ease. Calving ease is the economically important trait. Which is more accurate, selecting on actual weaning weight or weaning weight EPD? When selecting on actual weaning weight, the ceiling for the accuracy of your prediction is the heritability, the amount of variation in the trait influenced by genetics. For weaning weight this is around 30%. For EPD selection the ceiling for accuracy is 100%. (I am taking about selection accuracy, not BIF accuracies reported with EPDs.) Well I will say your results in the classroom don't reflect the results many of us see in the real world. I helped calve 2-300 heifers a year for several years. I learned fast that BW correlates to calving problems, calf loss and paralyzed or lost heifers. A producer isn't paid for calving ease either. A producer is paid by the pounds of live calf he sells. And BW directly correlates to calf loss especially in heifers. If CE is so accurate why do we see so many of the dead shot CE bulls siring calves with lots of problems. When a breeder purchases a bull on the CE indicator and he pulls every calf but one out of 20 and loses several I wouldn't say that CE used alone is very beneficial. I know several commercial breeders like me who won't purchase a bull anymore with seeing an actual BW. I've seen several herds that have used the EPD alone and their weanig weights have dropped. EPD's are only as accurate as the info put in them. When adjustments are made then the accuracy pertaining to the results I will see in my pasture diminishes. I can tell more by actual weight. That is what I'm paid on again not some predicted weight on a piece of paper that may not prove to be correct. You remind me of the university person who came around pushing the frame race. But when the feedlot managers were struggling with ways to market them and many ended up in this area being shipped to Booker Pack that usually processes bulls and cows he didn't want to discuss it anymore. I would encourage you to visit some of the ranches and commrecial breeders in the real world. JD elkwc- Where do you live? When can I come visit? You act like I've never talked to a commercial cattlemen in my life. I don't want to repeat the 50's small frame or the 80's large frame. The selection criteria is up to the producers. I am trying to explain the tools so people can use them properly. Because of those two very striking examples, I strive to be very careful in the information I provide. As you and I both said using different words, birth weight is correlated with and is an indicator of calving problems. But, birth weight does not equal calving problems. Which would you rather have, a set of calves with no calving problems that averaged 50 lbs at birth or a set of calves with no calving problems that averaged 75 lbs at birth? Calving ease is the economically important trait, because it predicts calving problems. Calving problems lead to dead calves and labor. You state, "When a breeder purchases a bull on the CE indicator..." and right there I know the bull is low accuracy because the breeder isn't going to purchase a proven calving ease bull. The accuracies reported along side EPDs mean something. If you are risk adverse, you should use high-accuracy AI sires. |
|
|
|
Post by Glenn on Jul 25, 2014 11:11:48 GMT -6
I always go back to human nature. How accurate are the numbers going in?? Remember GIGO?? Especially something that is subjective like CE. At least BW is a number on a scale. With CE the producer is inclined to always enter a "better" number. Mostly 1's in Hereford's case.
Being a CPA, I hate SUBJECTIVE measures, especially when someone else is the judge. That's also why I have a big issue with the udder scores that will be coming soon....too much subjectivity!!!!!!!!
|
|
|
|
Post by George on Jul 25, 2014 11:15:08 GMT -6
How does a bull start out with a CE score of 2.8 and a BW EPD of .4 get 80 BW's turned in on him at 111.1% ratio!!!! and have his CE score go UP to +4.4 and his BW only go up to 2.5? ?? Were calving ease scores also turned in? A bull can be a calving ease bull (i.e. no problems at birth) and have a high birth weight. A jump from 0.4 to 2.5 seems like a pretty big jump to me. That drops him from the top 5% of the breed to the top 30%. In year's past, before GE EPDs, that BW number would have jumped much higher than that with that progeny report. I can only speculate that the reason it didn't is because of the weighting given the genetic evaluation. Edited to add: Unless this bull's first calves were only in peer groups with negative BW sires, I will bet that this bull is headed to a BW EPD number that is well above the breed average. But, as you have said, that doesn't automatically make him a sire that transmits calving problems that are above breed average. |
|
|
|
Post by herefordguy on Jul 25, 2014 11:38:31 GMT -6
I always go back to human nature. How accurate are the numbers going in?? Remember GIGO?? Especially something that is subjective like CE. At least BW is a number on a scale. With CE the producer is inclined to always enter a "better" number. Mostly 1's in Hereford's case. Being a CPA, I hate SUBJECTIVE measures, especially when someone else is the judge. That's also why I have a big issue with the udder scores that will be coming soon....too much subjectivity!!!!!!!! The birth weight data goes into the CED EPD calculation. |
|
|
|
Post by Glenn on Jul 25, 2014 11:48:10 GMT -6
Yes, but so does the subjective score given by the breeder.
|
|
|
|
Post by elkwc on Jul 25, 2014 13:03:01 GMT -6
I always go back to human nature. How accurate are the numbers going in?? Remember GIGO?? Especially something that is subjective like CE. At least BW is a number on a scale. With CE the producer is inclined to always enter a "better" number. Mostly 1's in Hereford's case. Being a CPA, I hate SUBJECTIVE measures, especially when someone else is the judge. That's also why I have a big issue with the udder scores that will be coming soon....too much subjectivity!!!!!!!! The birth weight data goes into the CED EPD calculation. Glenn I agree with you. Very few breeders is going to be harsh on their cattle when they see the CE numbers of their fellow breeders. Look what subjectivity has resulting in in the show ring. An animal that is far from what the feeder and packer desires. A breeder can list the CE number and I will look at it. Just like the BW ratio. But if he doesn't provide an actual BW I quit looking right there. Without an actual BW I don't feel I can make a wise evaluation of a bull. |
|
|
|
Post by elkwc on Jul 25, 2014 13:16:28 GMT -6
Well I will say your results in the classroom don't reflect the results many of us see in the real world. I helped calve 2-300 heifers a year for several years. I learned fast that BW correlates to calving problems, calf loss and paralyzed or lost heifers. A producer isn't paid for calving ease either. A producer is paid by the pounds of live calf he sells. And BW directly correlates to calf loss especially in heifers. If CE is so accurate why do we see so many of the dead shot CE bulls siring calves with lots of problems. When a breeder purchases a bull on the CE indicator and he pulls every calf but one out of 20 and loses several I wouldn't say that CE used alone is very beneficial. I know several commercial breeders like me who won't purchase a bull anymore with seeing an actual BW. I've seen several herds that have used the EPD alone and their weanig weights have dropped. EPD's are only as accurate as the info put in them. When adjustments are made then the accuracy pertaining to the results I will see in my pasture diminishes. I can tell more by actual weight. That is what I'm paid on again not some predicted weight on a piece of paper that may not prove to be correct. You remind me of the university person who came around pushing the frame race. But when the feedlot managers were struggling with ways to market them and many ended up in this area being shipped to Booker Pack that usually processes bulls and cows he didn't want to discuss it anymore. I would encourage you to visit some of the ranches and commrecial breeders in the real world. JD elkwc- Where do you live? When can I come visit? You act like I've never talked to a commercial cattlemen in my life. I don't want to repeat the 50's small frame or the 80's large frame. The selection criteria is up to the producers. I am trying to explain the tools so people can use them properly. Because of those two very striking examples, I strive to be very careful in the information I provide. As you and I both said using different words, birth weight is correlated with and is an indicator of calving problems. But, birth weight does not equal calving problems. Which would you rather have, a set of calves with no calving problems that averaged 50 lbs at birth or a set of calves with no calving problems that averaged 75 lbs at birth? Calving ease is the economically important trait, because it predicts calving problems. Calving problems lead to dead calves and labor. You state, "When a breeder purchases a bull on the CE indicator..." and right there I know the bull is low accuracy because the breeder isn't going to purchase a proven calving ease bull. The accuracies reported along side EPDs mean something. If you are risk adverse, you should use high-accuracy AI sires. We are going to have to agree to disagree. The main area I'm concerned with CE or BW is on bulls going to be used on heifers. And in my experience yes high BW does lead to calving problems in heifers. This year we saved 25 heifer 10 of them got bred while still on the cows last fall. Every calf under 70 lbs were born unassisted on 17-19 month old heifers. The two that was over 80 both had problems. The 90 lb plus calf was took by C section and lost it. When you ask what size calf I would rather have. I always remember what one of the best cowmen I ever knew told me. I was looking for a heifer bull and it was many years ago before all of todays EPD's, ext. He was trying to encourage me to go one route and I was thinking about a bigger, better quality calf at weaning. He said just remember when selecting a bull to use on heifers, "A dead heifer never produces a calf and a dead calf never gains a pound." AI'ing isn't an option for us. So we have to select a yearling or two year old on what we can learn about him to use as a heifer bull. Actual weaning weights have been by far the most accurate in my experience and that of others. We didn't find what we felt was a suitable heifer bull this year so bred those that weren't bred to Corriente bulls. They are almost always born unassisted and the heifer will be healthy to rebreed. The only time I would get concerned when buying a bull for mature cows would be if the bull had an actual BW some over 90 pounds. Then I might look at CE, ect and also what cows I mated him too. But I mainly use BW when selecting a heifer bull. |
|
|
|
Post by larso on Jul 25, 2014 16:46:12 GMT -6
Very interesting discussion. The crutch of the debate is accuracies, if the figures were, we would embrace them with open arms but there are so many variables we can't. Honesty of the breeder, management of the female in the last trimester before calving and seasonal conditions can all affect BW. If a bulls figures aren't over 70% accurate in my opinion you can't take a lot of notice of them. There is an old breeder out here that works on the principle if they are born alive they are not to big, mind you he has over 500 stud cows so he can probably afford to. Another commercial breeder with 5000 cows I visited a couple years ago when asked did he have any calving problems his reply was, 'no my 22 rifle fixes that issue. The point I am trying to make is if we understood how nature intended our cows to look and perform may be we would never have to worry about BW.
|
|
