|
Post by erherf on Jul 25, 2014 19:07:32 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. Mother nature is an awesome selection tool and I have found that true cream does rise to the top if I don't interfere to much.
|
|
|
Post by strojanherefords on Jul 25, 2014 19:34:33 GMT -6
First off, Epds are incapable of working as advertised because they do not take into account the cow or the conditions the cattle are on. With the conditions I have, calves run about 10 pounds lighter than they should given their breeding. No matter what bull is used, I still believe that the cow and the her influence on the calf is the primary cause of dystocia. The problem is that it is not convenient to get a cowherd into shape nor can you buy a cow and know her ability to calve.
|
|