|
Post by elkwc on Apr 1, 2015 19:21:02 GMT -6
There has been many posts about EPD's and their accuracy and why some use them and others don't. I've recently reviewed the EPD's on several bulls in two different sales. One Angus and one Hereford. Went and viewed the Angus bulls in person Sunday evening and they were mud fat. This after being told they were in work condition. In both cases I was also provided weights taken at 13-14 months of age. In both cases very few of the bulls weighed the EPD predicted weight or more even at the advanced age they were weighed at. In one instance the EPD weight was 1360 and at 13 months 2 wks of age he weight 1240 actual weight. Some of the cases weren't as drastic and a couple were worse. Guess I don't understand how EPD's even though they are predictions can be so far off. The Hereford bulls were very similar. I think only 3-4 out of 79 of the Angus bulls actually weighed more than their YW EPD. I imagine the WW EPD would be the same if it was provided. This is just another example why so many commercial breeders put very little value in EPD's. Until they become more accurate they are basically worthless. Weathermen make predictions and are more accurate than the YW EPD's I've reviewed lately.
|
|
|
Post by oakcreekfarm on Apr 1, 2015 19:57:46 GMT -6
I have little idea how you are using the YW EPD. I have never heard of an EPD weight of "x". The YW epd should be used to only show the expected progeny difference between cattle. I don't know where it would give an estimation of YW. I may be misunderstanding.
|
|
|
Post by elkwc on Apr 1, 2015 20:22:37 GMT -6
In most of the sale catalog's I look at included in the EPD information are adjusted WW's and YW's. They are way off. I know most of the commercial breeders I talk to are like me and consider them part of the EPD's as that is where they are listed. There is also usually a ratio listed also. I'm not sure what enters into the adjusted weight but in most cases they seem to be very inaccurate just like the docility rating and the ratios.
|
|
|
Post by oakcreekfarm on Apr 2, 2015 6:06:24 GMT -6
The adjusted is there for a different reason than what you are trying to use it for. Weights are adjusted for day of age, dams age, and I believe feeding type. It's actually a very important number.
If the calves would have been weighed at 230 days the weights are adjusted backwards, 180 days adjusted forward. In most cases the ratios can't be off. They are a direct product of how the bull actually did within his contemporary group
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 2, 2015 6:33:46 GMT -6
Yeah I don't think you can correlate actual weights with EPD numbers like that. Something else you have to factor in is the environment the cattle is being raised in. Where are they geographically, what kind of nutrition are they getting and where they on creep and for how long, how heavy are they being fed, etc? You could take the same animal and get 2 entirely different results based off how that breeder raises them in their program. Especially if you are looking at sale cattle, it's probably safe to say a lot of people will probably push the feed on sale cattle more than the ones they are retaining for themselves.
Adjusted weights are calculated with a formula based on the actual age of the animal at the date they were weighed along with the age of the female. You aren't going to weigh each calf exactly at 205 days individually and calves from younger females also will get an adjustment so the adjusted 205 number is just a number given that says in an ideal situation this is how each calf projects if they were all the same age and on an equal playing field. A mature cow in her prime is going to have an advantage raising a calf over a 1st calf heifer which is why younger females get an adjustment. Everyone is going to use adjusted and actual weight data differently, its getting the actual weights from some guys that is the hot topic here sometimes because if the adjusted 205 looks better that is what some guys want to give you and not actual weights. Ideally you want to be transparent with everything and provide both actual and adjusted 205 numbers.
|
|
|
Post by guffeygal on Apr 2, 2015 6:58:45 GMT -6
I know of some breeders who swear EPD's were created to enable a herd to have average ratios greater than 100. We and probably a few more of the "older" members of this forum can remember when it was difficult to sell the 95 to 98 ratio bulls that were still good useful bulls. Now these bulls all have positive EPD's.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 2, 2015 7:41:08 GMT -6
I know of some breeders who swear EPD's were created to enable a herd to have average ratios greater than 100. We and probably a few more of the "older" members of this forum can remember when it was difficult to sell the 95 to 98 ratio bulls that were still good useful bulls. Now these bulls all have positive EPD's. EPD's do not factor into the calculations of ratios. WW and YW ratios are based off the raw weights, age of the calf, and age of dam along with which management group you have that calf in because not everyone is able to have all their calves fall under 1 management group so you have to compare apples to apples if 1 group may have had an advantage over another group such as 1 was on strictly pasture the other in a smaller pasture where they got some added nutrition other than pasture grass or maybe you had a group of early calvers and group of late calvers. EPD's themselves can be adjusted based off the data reported back but they are not a part of the ratio calculation as the ratio is strictly off how that calf did in comparison to the other calves in his contemporary group.
|
|
|
Post by Glenn on Apr 2, 2015 8:37:06 GMT -6
No but the ratios factor hugely into the the calculation of the EPDs.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 2, 2015 11:13:41 GMT -6
No but the ratios factor hugely into the the calculation of the EPDs. The definition of "hugely" is debatable but higher ratios will probably increase EPDs and lower ratios will lower EPDs but in theory that is how it should work. Dams and sires that are consistently producing calves that are the top performers in their management group should be reflected with positive EPD adjustments just like those that aren't performing a decrease.
guffeygal: example of how 205 day ratio is calculated: Adj. 205 day WW = (WW-birth weight)/weaning age in days X 205 + birth weight + age of dam adj. factor Note that the EPDs of the dam and sire are not factored into the ratio however as Glenn points out the result will have a trickle down effect on not only that individual's EPD's but animals in that pedigree as well to some extent. The more positive or negative data being turned on those animals also factor into changes in EPD's but unless you have an extreme case it's unlikely an individual's EPD is going to see an extreme increase in EPDs because they ratioed over 100.
Not sure why everyone gets so worked up over EPDs sometimes, they are just another tool to use in the selection of genetics and are just prediction indicators. Just like the weather forecasts nothing is ever going to be a 100% reliable predictor.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 2, 2015 12:08:07 GMT -6
[Not sure why everyone gets so worked up over EPDs sometimes, they are just another tool to use in the selection of genetics and are just prediction indicators. Just like the weather forecasts nothing is ever going to be a 100% reliable predictor. [/p][/quote] I think where people have an issue is that some promote EPDs as the only tool. And when people are promoting unproven bulls and females as the next "great one" and "breed improvers" based strictly on the EPD's, there are going to be skeptics. Especially by those of us who have seen the medicine man hype that has gone on over the years and still does today. Flushing unproven heifers and big semen sales on yearling bulls adds to that skepticism. Too many cases of people putting all kinds of money(big price, flushing and collection costs) into "name" genetics that don't work. But those poor doing cattle keep getting promoted(so the breeders can get some of their money back) to unwary newcomers, because all they know is to look at the EPD's. And they have been told or at least led to believe that EPD's ARE 100% predictable. One reason I prefer to look at ratios and adj. 205 and YW weights is that I know those numbers come from the breeder, not an outside entity. And we only deal with breeders we feel we can trust to be honest, attempt to be accurate, don't hide their development practices, and raise their cattle in a similar manner as us. Anymore, the prefix means as much as the bloodlines, if not more.
|
|
|
Post by larso on Apr 2, 2015 14:43:51 GMT -6
sph, the trouble is it is becoming the only tool of selection especially with the younger generation. I have no issue with performance testing, every good breeder of the past did it but when a lot of the data being used to produce these figures is relying on the accuracy and the honesty of the breeder it becomes questionable. ie. " you put bullshit in you get bullshit out. " that is why so often the EPD's of a bull your looking at doesn't correlate with the actual visual inspection of the animal.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 2, 2015 15:06:15 GMT -6
sph, the trouble is it is becoming the only tool of selection especially with the younger generation. I have no issue with performance testing, every good breeder of the past did it but when a lot of the data being used to produce these figures is relying on the accuracy and the honesty of the breeder it becomes questionable. ie. " you put bullshit in you get bullshit out. " that is why so often the EPD's of a bull your looking at doesn't correlate with the actual visual inspection of the animal. I'm not going to lie, we do put some value into using EPDs with our program but it is not the lone criteria we use for selection. Ideally we want to have cattle that not only have a nice set of EPD's but also look the part as well. Really big into looking at the ratios in performance pedigrees because like you said if you buy from good breeders then those ratios should tell you about the performance on the animals that went into the pedigree of that animal. Ratios are a big part of our evaluation of females when it comes to making cull decisions too, if they aren't consistently weaning good calves or their calves stall out as yearlings they probably are going to find their way to the sale barn soon enough regardless of just how good their EPDs might look.
|
|
|
Post by elkwc on Apr 2, 2015 15:31:30 GMT -6
The adjusted is there for a different reason than what you are trying to use it for. Weights are adjusted for day of age, dams age, and I believe feeding type. It's actually a very important number. If the calves would have been weighed at 230 days the weights are adjusted backwards, 180 days adjusted forward. In most cases the ratios can't be off. They are a direct product of how the bull actually did within his contemporary group This is where myself along with most of the commercial breeders I talk to disagree. I was involved in helping with the first breeders in this area take 205 days weights on their calves. This was brought on by a local bull test as I recall. It was 4-6 years later that the local extension agent got a set of scales and started going around and helping. At that time there was a window like from 190 days to 220 that they had to be weighed in. It was a straight adjusted weight no allowances for age of dam, feeding type or any other pencil whipping magic like is happening today. When they started taking yearling weights it was the same way. The breeders would also always furnish the actual weight and the date taken. Many would list the age of the calf or bull on the date he was weighed. Again myself and the commercial breeders I talk to found it very beneficial information. I never saw a bull that weighed less at 14 months of age than his adjusted weight. You can call the current weight whatever you want. It is nothing more than another prediction. It isn't a true adjusted weight. When they start making allowances for a cows age and the type of feeding it is nothing more than another prediction/estimate and worth very little to the average commercial breeder in bull selection. If ratios can't be off how can every bull calf of a breeders ratio 100% or higher? I've been told by two breeders that is the case in their herd.
|
|
|
Post by elkwc on Apr 2, 2015 15:45:55 GMT -6
Yeah I don't think you can correlate actual weights with EPD numbers like that. Something else you have to factor in is the environment the cattle is being raised in. Where are they geographically, what kind of nutrition are they getting and where they on creep and for how long, how heavy are they being fed, etc? You could take the same animal and get 2 entirely different results based off how that breeder raises them in their program. Especially if you are looking at sale cattle, it's probably safe to say a lot of people will probably push the feed on sale cattle more than the ones they are retaining for themselves. Adjusted weights are calculated with a formula based on the actual age of the animal at the date they were weighed along with the age of the female. You aren't going to weigh each calf exactly at 205 days individually and calves from younger females also will get an adjustment so the adjusted 205 number is just a number given that says in an ideal situation this is how each calf projects if they were all the same age and on an equal playing field. A mature cow in her prime is going to have an advantage raising a calf over a 1st calf heifer which is why younger females get an adjustment. Everyone is going to use adjusted and actual weight data differently, its getting the actual weights from some guys that is the hot topic here sometimes because if the adjusted 205 looks better that is what some guys want to give you and not actual weights. Ideally you want to be transparent with everything and provide both actual and adjusted 205 numbers. I explained some of my thoughts about the current so called adjusted weights so won't rehash that. Any breeder/cowman knows a heifers calf may not be as big and will consider that. He will also consider the condition the cattle are ran and developed under. But as one commercial man said I want to make that judgement and not some pencil pusher behind a computer. If there is no ulterior motive then why won't the majority of the breeders provide actuals weights and dates when the cattle were weighed? Like stated in the earlier post when you start making allowances for age of dam, type of feeding, ect you have changed it from an adjusted weight to a prediction. As a potential bull buyer I don't need a computer or pencil pusher telling me what an animal would do on a level playing field because they don't know. It is nothing more than a prediction. I've seen some heifers calves that weigh in the upper 5% of a herd. And then their later calves out of the same bull never increase. I would say from my search that over 50% refuse to give actual WW and YW weights. Most will give actual BW's although a few have refused to do that. But again when a bull has an adjusted weight of 1360 and at 14 months only weighs 1240 it shows how useless the adjusted weight is. When we take animals to the sale we sell on actual weight not some pencil whipped weight that is far from actual reality.
|
|
|
Post by elkwc on Apr 2, 2015 15:51:41 GMT -6
[Not sure why everyone gets so worked up over EPDs sometimes, they are just another tool to use in the selection of genetics and are just prediction indicators. Just like the weather forecasts nothing is ever going to be a 100% reliable predictor. [/p][/quote] "I think where people have an issue is that some promote EPDs as the only tool." And when people are promoting unproven bulls and females as the next "great one" and "breed improvers" based strictly on the EPD's, there are going to be skeptics. Especially by those of us who have seen the medicine man hype that has gone on over the years and still does today. Flushing unproven heifers and big semen sales on yearling bulls adds to that skepticism. Too many cases of people putting all kinds of money(big price, flushing and collection costs) into "name" genetics that don't work. But those poor doing cattle keep getting promoted(so the breeders can get some of their money back) to unwary newcomers, because all they know is to look at the EPD's. And they have been told or at least led to believe that EPD's ARE 100% predictable. One reason I prefer to look at ratios and adj. 205 and YW weights is that I know those numbers come from the breeder, not an outside entity. And we only deal with breeders we feel we can trust to be honest, attempt to be accurate, don't hide their development practices, and raise their cattle in a similar manner as us. Anymore, the prefix means as much as the bloodlines, if not more. [/quote] And sadly is that from my experience the majority do.
|
|
|
Post by elkwc on Apr 2, 2015 15:56:10 GMT -6
SPH Not sure why everyone gets so worked up over EPDs sometimes, they are just another tool to use in the selection of genetics and are just prediction indicators. Just like the weather forecasts nothing is ever going to be a 100% reliable predictor." I agree with you that are nothing more than a predictor. And why many of us prefer to have the actual data also. It is fact not a prediction or estimate.
|
|
|
Post by mrvictordomino on Apr 2, 2015 18:09:39 GMT -6
The adjusted is there for a different reason than what you are trying to use it for. Weights are adjusted for day of age, dams age, and I believe feeding type. It's actually a very important number. If the calves would have been weighed at 230 days the weights are adjusted backwards, 180 days adjusted forward. In most cases the ratios can't be off. They are a direct product of how the bull actually did within his contemporary group This is where myself along with most of the commercial breeders I talk to disagree. I was involved in helping with the first breeders in this area take 205 days weights on their calves. This was brought on by a local bull test as I recall. It was 4-6 years later that the local extension agent got a set of scales and started going around and helping. At that time there was a window like from 190 days to 220 that they had to be weighed in. It was a straight adjusted weight no allowances for age of dam, feeding type or any other pencil whipping magic like is happening today. When they started taking yearling weights it was the same way. The breeders would also always furnish the actual weight and the date taken. Many would list the age of the calf or bull on the date he was weighed. Again myself and the commercial breeders I talk to found it very beneficial information. I never saw a bull that weighed less at 14 months of age than his adjusted weight. You can call the current weight whatever you want. It is nothing more than another prediction. It isn't a true adjusted weight. When they start making allowances for a cows age and the type of feeding it is nothing more than another prediction/estimate and worth very little to the average commercial breeder in bull selection. If ratios can't be off how can every bull calf of a breeders ratio 100% or higher? I've been told by two breeders that is the case in their herd. All of their bulls or just the one's retained as bulls? I can see if all retained bulls could ratio over a 100 if all below average bulls are culled.
|
|
|
YW EPD's
Apr 2, 2015 18:20:02 GMT -6
via mobile
Post by Carlos (frmaiz) on Apr 2, 2015 18:20:02 GMT -6
I have expressed my opinion in some other post regarding EPD's as a tool for genetic improvement. But there is another fact that regardless their true merit is more important to me: there is lot of money around EPD numbers. And human mature it's unavoidable.
|
|
|
Post by elkwc on Apr 2, 2015 18:31:42 GMT -6
This is where myself along with most of the commercial breeders I talk to disagree. I was involved in helping with the first breeders in this area take 205 days weights on their calves. This was brought on by a local bull test as I recall. It was 4-6 years later that the local extension agent got a set of scales and started going around and helping. At that time there was a window like from 190 days to 220 that they had to be weighed in. It was a straight adjusted weight no allowances for age of dam, feeding type or any other pencil whipping magic like is happening today. When they started taking yearling weights it was the same way. The breeders would also always furnish the actual weight and the date taken. Many would list the age of the calf or bull on the date he was weighed. Again myself and the commercial breeders I talk to found it very beneficial information. I never saw a bull that weighed less at 14 months of age than his adjusted weight. You can call the current weight whatever you want. It is nothing more than another prediction. It isn't a true adjusted weight. When they start making allowances for a cows age and the type of feeding it is nothing more than another prediction/estimate and worth very little to the average commercial breeder in bull selection. If ratios can't be off how can every bull calf of a breeders ratio 100% or higher? I've been told by two breeders that is the case in their herd. All of their bulls or just the one's retained as bulls? I can see if all retained bulls could ratio over a 100 if all below average bulls are culled. Danny I guess I can't say for sure. The impression the one gave is every male(bull) calf ratioed 100% or better. And I'm certain some other breeders have understood it the same way. Because we thought ratios were more herd based and decided it must cover the breed in order for that to be true. When a breeder only cuts two bulls to start with and then for them to all ratio a 100% or above doesn't seem likely if it is within his herd. I know there are breeders in every breed who are honest. The trick is to find them. I know the best Angus herd I've seen the manager said he takes every Angus cow that has a calf that ratios less than 100 and moves her into the commercial herd to raise black baldies and also in an effort to improve his herd. He also takes everything into consideration. Just because one raises a calf that ratios over 100 doesn't guarantee her another year if she has other issues. And a calf could ratio in the 90's and still be ok. What I'm saying is it raises some creditibility questions when they state that every bull calf ratioed 100 or more.
|
|
|
Post by mrvictordomino on Apr 2, 2015 18:49:35 GMT -6
All of their bulls or just the one's retained as bulls? I can see if all retained bulls could ratio over a 100 if all below average bulls are culled. Danny I guess I can't say for sure. The impression the one gave is every male(bull) calf ratioed 100% or better. And I'm certain some other breeders have understood it the same way. Because we thought ratios were more herd based and decided it must cover the breed in order for that to be true. When a breeder only cuts two bulls to start with and then for them to all ratio a 100% or above doesn't seem likely if it is within his herd. I know there are breeders in every breed who are honest. The trick is to find them. I know the best Angus herd I've seen the manager said he takes every Angus cow that has a calf that ratios less than 100 and moves her into the commercial herd to raise black baldies and also in an effort to improve his herd. He also takes everything into consideration. Just because one raises a calf that ratios over 100 doesn't guarantee her another year if she has other issues. And a calf could ratio in the 90's and still be ok. What I'm saying is it raises some creditibility questions when they state that every bull calf ratioed 100 or more. Don't see how it could be possible to have all bulls ratio 100 or better. 100 is the average, all calves would have to weigh exactly the same to have them all ratio 100. Sounds like BS to me. We are all going to have varying weights on our calves.
|
|
|
Post by elkwc on Apr 2, 2015 19:38:27 GMT -6
Danny like I stated previously when I look at ratios I consider the herd. I know a bull that ratioed less than 100 in the Harland herd many times was a very good commercial bull. I've known many other herds very similar. I'm sure that could be said about many of the breeders and their herds on this forum. But when a breeder makes a statement like every bull he raised ratioed 100 or above I immediately have questions about his honesty and what to believe.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 2, 2015 21:24:05 GMT -6
SPH Not sure why everyone gets so worked up over EPDs sometimes, they are just another tool to use in the selection of genetics and are just prediction indicators. Just like the weather forecasts nothing is ever going to be a 100% reliable predictor." I agree with you that are nothing more than a predictor. And why many of us prefer to have the actual data also. It is fact not a prediction or estimate. If a breeder is not willing to give you raw weight scores you have a reason to be concerned. We're a Gold TPR herd so we have all kinds of data if someone where to ask and will provide both actual and adjusted weights. Our yearling sale bulls will get a BSE and yearling measurements along with an ultrasound so before they are delivered the buyer will have all the info he could ask for. Every cow goes across the scale at weaning along with the calves and the calves are usually weighed at least once between weaning and yearling to gauge how they are gaining. We're very open about how we raise our cattle and our weights are not exaggerated by overfeeding as we expect our females to be able to raise a calf without pampering and only creep feed a few weeks prior to weaning.
One of our bull buyers last year who is a commercial breeder contacted us looking for another Hereford bull and we're sold out for the year but he trusted us enough to give us a budget and a list of bulls he was interested on a bull test sale Dad was going to be at and we were able to snag him the 4th bull that went through the ring. Commercial breeders are definitely taking notice of the value of Hereford bulls and being transparent as you can be will only help the cause
|
|
|
Post by elkwc on Apr 3, 2015 5:53:48 GMT -6
SPH Not sure why everyone gets so worked up over EPDs sometimes, they are just another tool to use in the selection of genetics and are just prediction indicators. Just like the weather forecasts nothing is ever going to be a 100% reliable predictor." I agree with you that are nothing more than a predictor. And why many of us prefer to have the actual data also. It is fact not a prediction or estimate. If a breeder is not willing to give you raw weight scores you have a reason to be concerned. We're a Gold TPR herd so we have all kinds of data if someone where to ask and will provide both actual and adjusted weights. Our yearling sale bulls will get a BSE and yearling measurements along with an ultrasound so before they are delivered the buyer will have all the info he could ask for. Every cow goes across the scale at weaning along with the calves and the calves are usually weighed at least once between weaning and yearling to gauge how they are gaining. We're very open about how we raise our cattle and our weights are not exaggerated by overfeeding as we expect our females to be able to raise a calf without pampering and only creep feed a few weeks prior to weaning.
One of our bull buyers last year who is a commercial breeder contacted us looking for another Hereford bull and we're sold out for the year but he trusted us enough to give us a budget and a list of bulls he was interested on a bull test sale Dad was going to be at and we were able to snag him the 4th bull that went through the ring. Commercial breeders are definitely taking notice of the value of Hereford bulls and being transparent as you can be will only help the cause
SPH I agree with what you said. But in my search only a few have been willing to provide any data except EPD's and adjusted predicted weights. I've found it worse with Angus breeders. Have only found one Angus breeders willing to share all of his information. If you were closer I would enjoy looking at your herd. You have some nice cattle and seem willing to provide what the commercial breeder wants not what the association tells you too. There are several other real honest breeders on this forum who I can tell are willing to provide the commercial breeder the information they need to make the best decision they can. And in my opinion that can't be done with estimated predictions and estimated adjusted weights. The Balancer bull I helped select was selected on visual and actual weight only. The breeder said he has found that most commercial breeders aren't even interested in looking at the pencil whipped data.
|
|
|
Post by bookcliff on Apr 20, 2015 18:49:08 GMT -6
The adjusted is there for a different reason than what you are trying to use it for. Weights are adjusted for day of age, dams age, and I believe feeding type. It's actually a very important number. If the calves would have been weighed at 230 days the weights are adjusted backwards, 180 days adjusted forward. In most cases the ratios can't be off. They are a direct product of how the bull actually did within his contemporary group This is where myself along with most of the commercial breeders I talk to disagree. I was involved in helping with the first breeders in this area take 205 days weights on their calves. This was brought on by a local bull test as I recall. It was 4-6 years later that the local extension agent got a set of scales and started going around and helping. At that time there was a window like from 190 days to 220 that they had to be weighed in. It was a straight adjusted weight no allowances for age of dam, feeding type or any other pencil whipping magic like is happening today. When they started taking yearling weights it was the same way. The breeders would also always furnish the actual weight and the date taken. Many would list the age of the calf or bull on the date he was weighed. Again myself and the commercial breeders I talk to found it very beneficial information. I never saw a bull that weighed less at 14 months of age than his adjusted weight. You can call the current weight whatever you want. It is nothing more than another prediction. It isn't a true adjusted weight. When they start making allowances for a cows age and the type of feeding it is nothing more than another prediction/estimate and worth very little to the average commercial breeder in bull selection. If ratios can't be off how can every bull calf of a breeders ratio 100% or higher? I've been told by two breeders that is the case in their herd. a number of years ago my father weighed all the bull calves at160 days, 180 days, 200 days and 220 days (didn't wean em till the last weight) per the average days of age for the bull crop to look at the impact of various ages giong into the compulation of the 205 day weight. We did for three years running. what the data told without fail over the three years were calves weighed over 205 days of age always adjusted lower for 205 the futher they moved away from 205 and and they always adjusted higher for 205 the younger you got away from 205. thus the younger the weights the higher the 205' as opposed to what it would be if more closely weighed to 205 days of age, the older the weights the lower the 205's as opposed to if they were more closely weighed to 205 days of age. I am not alone in this belief, I know several bigger registered operations who have seen the same thing. now as far as every bull that a breeder has in his bull pen for sale ratioing 100 or over, the first question I would ask is if they cut all the bull calves who ratio under 100 for weaning,if this is the case then yes this is possible. however there is no possible way that every bull calf who is intact at weaning weigth time can ratio 100 or above with out some sort of "creative" accounting.
|
|
|
Post by oldduffer on Apr 27, 2015 11:19:29 GMT -6
EPD's and ratios can be a helpful tool in breeding and marketing programs.
Unfortunately that tool often resembles a hammer with a missing head and a broken handle!
|
|