tnwalkingred
Well-known member
Anyone used this bull? His numbers are through the roof and he certainly passes the eye test. His accuracy is low on most however at only 50%. He is a 2011 model.
KW
KW
RB Tour of Duty 177
- Thread starter tnwalkingred
- Start date
Help Support CattleToday:
Black and Good
Well-known member
I like him. Thanks for sharing. I'm like you about the accuracy. But, wow what spread from birth to year. I might want him in my tank. B&G
Cibster
Well-known member
I looked at using him last year, but then researched some of the producers that had been using him and looked through their sale catalogs and didn't find too many bulls out of Tour of Duty that they were very high on so that kind of shyed me away from him along with those numbers maybe being a little too extreme for me. He is a very appealing bull though!
BC
Well-known member
Accuracies improve with the more the bull get used and performance information is turned in to association.
tnwalkingred
Well-known member
I'm putting him in my tank. He will certainly help the calves numbers out of some of my lower end cows that produce well but don't don't look the best on paper. I wonder if him not being owned by a semen company is one reason he is not getting the press that others are. He was also bred by a lesser known breeder and that may play a part as well. I plan to try him so I'll let you know how he does. Hopefully he's a diamond in the rough.
KW
KW
cow pollinater
Well-known member
Actually, he's marketed through origen, which is marketed by ABS so he IS on a major AI stud lineup.tnwalkingred":1kq4h3pc said:
If big time growth is all you care about then use him and don't look back. Even without high reliability his epd's are so far out that even if he's not what he's suposed to be he'll still be in the top ten percent of the breed on growth.
That being said, he's a one hit wonder and I personally wouldn't touch him.
jscunn
Well-known member
nice post CP.. solid advice.
Did you notice his EN number?
Gizmom
Gizmom
From Spring '14 ABS semen catalog EPDs as of probably mid to late winter(early '14)
CED 10 BW -1.0 WW 91 YW 148 RADG .21 YH .7 SC 1.15 DOC 20 HPG 10.4 CEM 10 MILK 36 EN -36.22 W 65.94 B 90.87
Current EPDs from AAA as of 10-31-14
CED 16 BW -2.8 WW 113 YW 169 RADG .22 YH .5 SC .96 DOC 26 HPG 8.6 CEM 15 MILK 36 EN -41.1 W 83.54 B 109.7
Accuracies went up slightly in the time period (+/- .08 give or take)
He's one I am watching to possibly use in the future but their are other, much more proven bulls out their that i will be using in the next 8 months way ahead of Tour of Duty
I'll put money on it now those numbers will not hold down the road :2cents:
CED 10 BW -1.0 WW 91 YW 148 RADG .21 YH .7 SC 1.15 DOC 20 HPG 10.4 CEM 10 MILK 36 EN -36.22 W 65.94 B 90.87
Current EPDs from AAA as of 10-31-14
CED 16 BW -2.8 WW 113 YW 169 RADG .22 YH .5 SC .96 DOC 26 HPG 8.6 CEM 15 MILK 36 EN -41.1 W 83.54 B 109.7
Accuracies went up slightly in the time period (+/- .08 give or take)
He's one I am watching to possibly use in the future but their are other, much more proven bulls out their that i will be using in the next 8 months way ahead of Tour of Duty
I'll put money on it now those numbers will not hold down the road :2cents:
Katpau
Well-known member
For a 2011 bull that is available through AI and that has 3 producers sharing ownership, this bull has surprisingly low accuracies. I had a 2010 bull for three seasons in my herd. He had less than 75 calves born to him, and has an accuracy of .68 for WW (weaning weight), based on the data I have turned in. Both Tour of Duty and my bull had genomic profiles, although his was Igenity and mine was Zoetis PF50. They should be comparable. I would have expected him to have many more calves than my bull who has only been used natural service. When you pay a lot for a bull, you would think you would try to get as many calves as possible out of him. The two new owners and the breeder could have used him on just 25 cows each in the last 2 years to give him 75 calves by now. Since his accuracy at .62 is less than my bulls, he must not have had data turned in on that many yet. His CED (Calving ease direct) accuracy is only at .47. My bull has an accuracy of .44. I AI my heifers to calving ease bulls in an effort to avoid problems, and then turn them in with one of my bulls. That bull only had 4 calves out of heifers. His CED is mostly based on the genetic profile. Since Tour of Duty does not have an accuracy much greater than my bull, it would indicate his CED is mostly based on the genetic profile, and a relatively small amount of data turned in by those who share ownership. I would be shocked if he could maintain this spread when bred to a large number of cows owned by producers that don't have a financial interest in the results. He makes me think of R/M Ironstone 4047, another ABS bull. In 2010 Ironstone was promoted as "The Ultimate balanced trait bull", "a spread bull of the first order". His EPDs showed a BW of .4 and a WW of 81. In Spring of 2011 his CED was 8, his BW rose to 1.9 while his WW dropped to 69. Still, a very impressive spread. He was heavily used. He seemed the ideal bull. Safe enough to use on heifers, and with the ability to pull up those EPD's that some find more important than the animal himself. The problem? It wasn't real. When all of those breeders got done turning in their data, and reporting their calving problems, reality hit. His EPD's as of today are: CED -16, BW +4.8, and WW 62. He still has a decent WW although almost 20 ponds below that first report of 81, but his CED change is truly terrifying. I am not sure what his number was in 2010, although I know it was greater than 8, but from 2011 to 2014 his CED went from +8 to -16. That should not have even been possible with accurate numbers, but it happened.
Maybe Tour of Duty will be the exception, and the first bull ever to keep these unbelievable numbers, but I will have to see a .95 accuracy before I will believe it. There are only 3 bulls in active use with a CED over +12 and a WW over 50, and none of those are over +13 CED, or +61 WW. I just don't think it is possible to get that extreme growth and extreme calving ease in the same animal.
In spite of what I just said, I hope many people will use him, and report their results. It is the only way to get accurate information.
Maybe Tour of Duty will be the exception, and the first bull ever to keep these unbelievable numbers, but I will have to see a .95 accuracy before I will believe it. There are only 3 bulls in active use with a CED over +12 and a WW over 50, and none of those are over +13 CED, or +61 WW. I just don't think it is possible to get that extreme growth and extreme calving ease in the same animal.
In spite of what I just said, I hope many people will use him, and report their results. It is the only way to get accurate information.
tnwalkingred
Well-known member
Gizmom,
Thanks for pointing out the EN value as I had not noticed that yet. I'm not looking to use this bull on heifers so CED and BW are not as important to me as growth. The cows I'm looking to breed him to are smaller frame cows with poor growth numbers. Both of these cows stay fat as mud all winter so maybe the EN score won't hurt too bad.
KW
Thanks for pointing out the EN value as I had not noticed that yet. I'm not looking to use this bull on heifers so CED and BW are not as important to me as growth. The cows I'm looking to breed him to are smaller frame cows with poor growth numbers. Both of these cows stay fat as mud all winter so maybe the EN score won't hurt too bad.
KW
Katapu
I agree with most everything your saying.
You say theres only 3 bulls with ced 12 or above with over 50 WW. Is what your saying your putting a certain percent acc. on them? I can think of 1 right off Really Windy 4097. 16 CED with 61 WW 90%acc. Id be real interested to know the other 2.
I agree with most everything your saying.
You say theres only 3 bulls with ced 12 or above with over 50 WW. Is what your saying your putting a certain percent acc. on them? I can think of 1 right off Really Windy 4097. 16 CED with 61 WW 90%acc. Id be real interested to know the other 2.
Till-Hill
Well-known member
Just opened Genex book. First page Final Answer 13 ced 61 ww, 2nd page long distance 22 ced 52 ww, 3rd page Insight 12 ced 59 ww, 4th page Bismark 13 ced 57 ww, 6th page Irish 15 ced 55 ww and list goes on and on...........Katpau":8arvvkk5 said:
As far as Tour of Duty tho they are just across the river. Have not been there myself but a lot of my buddies have. They say the place is the real deal. Just talked to a guy lives 1/2 mile away and he says the RB prefix has been an awesome herd of cows for a long time.
Good friend bought a Tour of Duty son there last year. Really nice calf. See how they work compared to GAR Prophet calves that the heifers were AI'd to........
Katpau
Well-known member
Yes that is why I put a .95 accuracy on that number. You would be surprised at how many bulls change between a .90 and a .95 accuracy. Even Final Answer has dropped from a +13 CED to a +12 CED since the the Genex book came out. The numbers I got were per a search I did on the AAA website last night.bse":1cq7jvbj said:
Tour of Duty was purchased for $55,000 in the 2012 Minnesota Bull test. The owners have a large investment. An interesting thing about Tour of Duty is his pedigree. His mother was originally shown as a daughter of the well known DHD Traveler 6807. She was supposedly the result of a flush of 6807 to a Hoff Hi Flyer daughter. Bull barn describes her as stemming "from one of the greatest flushes in Wisconsin history". When DNA tests were done in order to use Tour of Duty as an AI sire, it was discovered that his mother was not in fact a daughter of 6807. It was latter determined that she was a daughter of Vermillion Dateline 7078.
Katpau
Well-known member
The three current Angus sires with an CED at .95 of greater than 12 and a WW of greater than 50 are:
CED Acc WW
13 .95 58 SAV Bismarck 5682
12 .97 54 Mytty in Focus
12 .96 61 SAV Final Answer 0035
There are many with an accuracy of .90 or better. It takes a lot of data to get a .95 accuracy, and I don't suppose every breeder observes or reports calving ease on every heifer. It is much more difficult to get highly accurate calving ease numbers, than to get BW or WW numbers, so it would unrealistic to demand that kind of accuracy before using a bull. If we all bred only to bulls with that high of accuracy, no more bulls would ever get that accurate. Often, by the time they reach that accuracy, they are no longer available, very expensive, or no longer popular with the current buyers.
CED Acc WW
13 .95 58 SAV Bismarck 5682
12 .97 54 Mytty in Focus
12 .96 61 SAV Final Answer 0035
There are many with an accuracy of .90 or better. It takes a lot of data to get a .95 accuracy, and I don't suppose every breeder observes or reports calving ease on every heifer. It is much more difficult to get highly accurate calving ease numbers, than to get BW or WW numbers, so it would unrealistic to demand that kind of accuracy before using a bull. If we all bred only to bulls with that high of accuracy, no more bulls would ever get that accurate. Often, by the time they reach that accuracy, they are no longer available, very expensive, or no longer popular with the current buyers.
Till-Hill
Well-known member
That was a bad deal but worked out better for the bull in my opinion.
Problem I have with very high accu. bulls is this and again only from my thoughts.
Bando 9074. Must have used 150 units of him on commercial heifers over the years. According to his epd's he is not a bet the ranch heifer bull and HE IS!!
Same on Simmental side. Used lots of Mo Better, In Dew Time, Grandmaster and anymore people that were not around them would never use them on a heifer based on his #'s.
What happens is once this bulls get proven on CE #'s the registered guys use them to bring down the BW and CE on their cows to make calves more appealing on paper, so then their number creep back up. That's just my thought tho.
Problem I have with very high accu. bulls is this and again only from my thoughts.
Bando 9074. Must have used 150 units of him on commercial heifers over the years. According to his epd's he is not a bet the ranch heifer bull and HE IS!!
Same on Simmental side. Used lots of Mo Better, In Dew Time, Grandmaster and anymore people that were not around them would never use them on a heifer based on his #'s.
What happens is once this bulls get proven on CE #'s the registered guys use them to bring down the BW and CE on their cows to make calves more appealing on paper, so then their number creep back up. That's just my thought tho.
Katpau
Well-known member
I used a CED of +12, just as an example of how difficult it would be for any growth bull to maintain a CED of +16 with heavy use. I didn't mean to imply you need a CED that high in order to breed heifers. It was not very many years ago that a CED of 5 or greater was considered a decent heifer bull. Bando is a 6 and I would hope most heifers would not have a problem. I would still consider that a heifer safe bull. A heifer that needs an extreme calving ease bull, just to get a live calf is not worth much in my opinion.
I agree that the change from 6807 to 7078 as a grandsire was not a bad thing. It does make me question how such a mistake was made, and I can't help but doubt the accuracy of other information. You know that old saying? When something seems to good to be true.....
I agree that the change from 6807 to 7078 as a grandsire was not a bad thing. It does make me question how such a mistake was made, and I can't help but doubt the accuracy of other information. You know that old saying? When something seems to good to be true.....
Till-Hill
Well-known member
I agree with you for most heifers needing extreme bulls. Only extreme bulls I need is for these clubby heifers.........Switched a bunch of custom AI jobs to Simmi bulls just for the extra growth.
