Angus Terminal/Maternal

[Bright Raven]

Bright Raven: Funny thing you referenced the ASA, because when these shenanigans first came down, the first complaint I heard was that the AAA was heading towards the ASA, especially with the single value valuation ($C). Honestly I don't see the breed going anywhere, folks will continue to breed and raise Angus, no other breed has the marketing power. And I've known this for years, this breed is ran by the Semen Catalogs (the pursuit of selling semen), it's just that simple. I will continue to breed as I planned and end up with bottom 5% $M cattle and wonder why my teenage ladies won't follow the numbers and just break down.

The ASA geneticist said the updated AAA EPD model is the state of the art. Expect the other Associations to follow AAA.

How does the ASA account for the $M having almost no real data for Maternal? All the AAA is doing is regurgitating growth data back into a value. I will say this about the AAA and the data, they nailed $B and I have no understanding as to why they revalued it. $B was truly working for what it meant for, the fact breeders were going to hard in that direction, shouldn't be an issue with the AAA. Those of not wanting terminal, can pivot on our own without the breed trying to manipulate the breeders. My hope is that in the future, we will see the AAA adapt the $M to look more like the STAY in the RAAA. I love this breed and one of the reasons I went with it was because of the data, information and availability.

They don't have a $M EPD.

May I ask how you support your statement, "...they nailed $B."

Also, how do you support your statement, "All the AAA is doing is regurgitating growth data back into a value."

Provide evidence for those statements so they are more than just OPINION.

Look at the OP in the thread that Ken started about complaining. I am not being contrary only for entertainment. Ken and I are making the same observation. Users are making a lot of loose statements without the burden of supporting them.

Let me warn you, you have a difficult task supporting the statement that they nailed $B because the model that runs $B and $M are using the same modeling concepts. So why did one nail it and one did not? Good luck.

 

[Red Bull Breeder]

There was a few smaller breeders here on CT that got wiped out by those defects. Don't recall the names now but remember the thread where they talked about it.

 

[Nesikep]

The ASA geneticist said the updated AAA EPD model is the state of the art. Expect the other Associations to follow AAA.

How does the ASA account for the $M having almost no real data for Maternal? All the AAA is doing is regurgitating growth data back into a value. I will say this about the AAA and the data, they nailed $B and I have no understanding as to why they revalued it. $B was truly working for what it meant for, the fact breeders were going to hard in that direction, shouldn't be an issue with the AAA. Those of not wanting terminal, can pivot on our own without the breed trying to manipulate the breeders. My hope is that in the future, we will see the AAA adapt the $M to look more like the STAY in the RAAA. I love this breed and one of the reasons I went with it was because of the data, information and availability.

They don't have a $M EPD.

May I ask how you support your statement, "...they nailed $B."

Also, how do you support your statement, "All the AAA is doing is regurgitating growth data back into a value."

Provide evidence for those statements so they are more than just OPINION.

Look at the OP in the thread that Ken started about complaining. I am not being contrary only for entertainment. Ken and I are making the same observation. Users are making a lot of loose statements without the burden of supporting them.

Let me warn you, you have a difficult task supporting the statement that they nailed $B because the model that runs $B and $M are using the same modeling concepts. So why did one nail it and one did not? Good luck.

I'd say it's because it's a lot easier to say what's good for the packers (what's good for one packer is good for the other ones too) but that doesn't hold true for cows... what makes a good cow to one producer might be a problem to another.
Terminal traits, REA, Marbling, carcass size, how they finish, etc are quite easily agreed upon.
Frame size, milking ability vs staying in condition in a wide variety of environments, etc are going to be very subjective

 

[CreekAngus]

Ron: They nailed the $B, because the index truly did what it was supposed to do, it is and was a terminal index. It is my opinion they nailed it, because it is a terminal index and the AAA has admitted it was such a good predictor of terminal cattle it's negatively effected the breed. So they "nailed", I don't see a need to change that value.

The $M is calving ease, ww, milk, heifer pregnancy, mature cow weight, docility and feet. With the lack of data (feet, cow weight and docility) we have a value that is geared towards growth and younger cattle. We can go back on decade and see many of those cattle will be discounted because they have no docility reported or foot scores. And the amount of data turned in for feet, docility and especially mature cow weight doesn't bode well for the index. The index at this time is heavily influenced by the growth data. Hopefully as we move forward more data will be recorded (be great if we were required to whole herd report) and $M will mean something. I will agree that the premise is to have an index that actually reflects maternal influences, but that will take some time. My cattle that have older genetics are all suffering in the index, the newer genetics are doing ok.

 

[CreekAngus]

There was a few smaller breeders here on CT that got wiped out by those defects. Don't recall the names now but remember the thread where they talked about it.

I'm one of them, use to post as Highvoltagecattleco. Precision took half my herd, my ex-wife the other half.

 

[Bright Raven]

Ron: They nailed the $B, because the index truly did what it was supposed to do, it is and was a terminal index. It is my opinion they nailed it, because it is a terminal index and the AAA has admitted it was such a good predictor of terminal cattle it's negatively effected the breed. So they "nailed", I don't see a need to change that value.

The $M is calving ease, ww, milk, heifer pregnancy, mature cow weight, docility and feet. With the lack of data (feet, cow weight and docility) we have a value that is geared towards growth and younger cattle. We can go back on decade and see many of those cattle will be discounted because they have no docility reported or foot scores. And the amount of data turned in for feet, docility and especially mature cow weight doesn't bode well for the index. The index at this time is heavily influenced by the growth data. Hopefully as we move forward more data will be recorded (be great if we were required to whole herd report) and $M will mean something. I will agree that the premise is to have an index that actually reflects maternal influences, but that will take some time. My cattle that have older genetics are all suffering in the index, the newer genetics are doing ok.

I acknowledge your opinion of $B. Thanks.

On $M, you raised a concept that is extremely important. IMPORTANT. IMPORTANT. IMPORTANT.

When a new parameter is instituted, it takes some time for the values to "season". Thus, don't shoot down an effort to institute something of value because the numbers have not had time to "season".

 

[Boot Jack Bulls]

There was a few smaller breeders here on CT that got wiped out by those defects. Don't recall the names now but remember the thread where they talked about it.

We were, unfortunately, a victim of that fiasco too. We were moving from a commercial herd to registered. Bought some expensive bred females from an outfit in Montana, that all dropped calves from a horror film. We shipped all the cows that lived, and decided Angus was a game we weren't going to play (aside from the two or three we always seem to have around). We found out shortly thereafter that the breeder knew what was going to come down the pipe, and dumped every cow and bull he had bred into potential disaster in their annual production sale. 3 years later, they had a new herd and started having a sale again. :x

 

[Red Bull Breeder]

There was a few smaller breeders here on CT that got wiped out by those defects. Don't recall the names now but remember the thread where they talked about it.

I'm one of them, use to post as Highvoltagecattleco. Precision took half my herd, my ex-wife the other half.

Ok i remember you now. Seem to me there was a couple of more on here that got hit hard.

 

[Red Bull Breeder]

There was a few smaller breeders here on CT that got wiped out by those defects. Don't recall the names now but remember the thread where they talked about it.

We were, unfortunately, a victim of that fiasco too. We were moving from a commercial herd to registered. Bought some expensive bred females from an outfit in Montana, that all dropped calves from a horror film. We shipped all the cows that lived, and decided Angus was a game we weren't going to play (aside from the two or three we always seem to have around). We found out shortly thereafter that the breeder knew what was going to come down the pipe, and dumped every cow and bull he had bred into potential disaster in their annual production sale. 3 years later, they had a new herd and started having a sale again. :x

Small breeders thought they had been handed a gift when the big breeders went to selling high end cows and bought heavy in to those programs. Only to get hammered by defects and carriers.

 

[Boot Jack Bulls]

There was a few smaller breeders here on CT that got wiped out by those defects. Don't recall the names now but remember the thread where they talked about it.

We were, unfortunately, a victim of that fiasco too. We were moving from a commercial herd to registered. Bought some expensive bred females from an outfit in Montana, that all dropped calves from a horror film. We shipped all the cows that lived, and decided Angus was a game we weren't going to play (aside from the two or three we always seem to have around). We found out shortly thereafter that the breeder knew what was going to come down the pipe, and dumped every cow and bull he had bred into potential disaster in their annual production sale. 3 years later, they had a new herd and started having a sale again. :x

Small breeders thought they had been handed a gift when the big breeders went to selling high end cows and bought heavy in to those programs. Only to get hammered by defects and carriers.

We got lucky that it was only a hand full of cows, but I refuse to be duped in that manner ever again... :dunce:

 

[talltimber]

I was talking to a former AAA guy just yesterday. It seems that his thoughts on raising Angus cattle is it is being made a lot harder than it has to be. He does finish a few of his own and ship, he's not totally a cow/calf operation, so he would have a use for the $B. It would benefit him to be strong in that area, if he could keep cows long enough to make money on them. No, he said he wasnt chasing that. Steers do good, but hfrs are doing better, for longer, not sucking down so hard, breeding back. He's kind of doing his own thing with a few lines of cows that possibly started with his grandpa.

The new M value is another number to chase, and without old cows being brought into the number mix, idk how it is of any value past what we already have. Maybe later on? But who is going to send the numbers on the older cows if there arent any to speak of being used by big breeders? I don't anticipate many small guys doing that? How is it of much value to know a two or three yr old has good feet? How are the breeders that are flushing the guts out of two and three yr olds and selling the shell at five, six, seven yrs old helping with a maternal index?

 

[elkwc]

I think they need a $Blah index that takes good feet, udders, etc and scores that high, and for the rest of it, it scores high if it's average and penalises outliers.... stacked low BW, huge frame scores, etc

Nesi I agree with most of what you said. The issue I see with penalizing a trait is we all have a desired MW, frame size, milk production because of our environment, management and market. IMO a small frame size is just as bad as a huge frame size. I call a 1,350-1,450 lb cow moderate and what I desire. Others call a 1,150-1,250 lb cow moderate. IMO if you are going to penalize large frame size then small frame size should be also.

 

[Nesikep]

I think they need a $Blah index that takes good feet, udders, etc and scores that high, and for the rest of it, it scores high if it's average and penalises outliers.... stacked low BW, huge frame scores, etc

Nesi I agree with most of what you said. The issue I see with penalizing a trait is we all have a desired MW, frame size, milk production because of our environment, management and market. IMO a small frame size is just as bad as a huge frame size. I call a 1,350-1,450 lb cow moderate and what I desire. Others call a 1,150-1,250 lb cow moderate. IMO if you are going to penalize large frame size then small frame size should be also.

Didn't do a good job of writing it down but that's kinda what I meant..

 

[76 Bar]

If the Angus breed has long been touted as maternal, why did the association feel compelled to recently institute a $M EPD?
http://www.angus.org/Nce/Documents/dollar-M-FAQ.pdf
Even more puzzling, the inclusion of traits in $M that are acknowledged as highly subjective while ignoring industry wide parameters that constitute "Stability". Help me understand the logic.

 

[Nesikep]

For me, my biggest dilemma is I don't know how long a cow will live, and that's something I try hard to select for... My old granny was productive for 16 calves, and her calves were slightly above herd average so I did keep a bunch... I don't know how life expectancy figures into $M but that's something that takes a long time to find out.

Then I have a 9 year old cow that's never yet given me a heifer.... GRRRRR

 

[cbcr]

For me, my biggest dilemma is I don't know how long a cow will live, and that's something I try hard to select for... My old granny was productive for 16 calves, and her calves were slightly above herd average so I did keep a bunch... I don't know how life expectancy figures into $M but that's something that takes a long time to find out.

Then I have a 9 year old cow that's never yet given me a heifer.... GRRRRR

The biggest problem for any association in trying to attempt to create a longevity index, is how do you account for herds where cows that when they reach 5yr olds are sold. If these are registered cows, many of them end up in commercial herds. Typically they are sold in groups of 5 cows and after you buy them, if you want the registration papers you have to pay extra.

There is absolutely no way that a longevity index can be created!

 

[Nesikep]

For me, my biggest dilemma is I don't know how long a cow will live, and that's something I try hard to select for... My old granny was productive for 16 calves, and her calves were slightly above herd average so I did keep a bunch... I don't know how life expectancy figures into $M but that's something that takes a long time to find out.

Then I have a 9 year old cow that's never yet given me a heifer.... GRRRRR

The biggest problem for any association in trying to attempt to create a longevity index, is how do you account for herds where cows that when they reach 5yr olds are sold. If these are registered cows, many of them end up in commercial herds. Typically they are sold in groups of 5 cows and after you buy them, if you want the registration papers you have to pay extra.

There is absolutely no way that a longevity index can be created!

Yup, that's definitely a problem... Then I have cows that make beautiful, heavy steers, but never make a heifer that's worth keeping... that doesn't affect longevity, but for my herd it certainly changes how I see that line as "maternal" or not

 

[cbcr]

There was a time when the Hereford breed was King. There were maybe more Hereford than Angus cattle in many areas of the country.

What happened? Hereford even had its own Certified Hereford Beef program "CHB"

We have seen several of the breed associations, in trying to elect people to the boards that they though would be able to help the breeds, all that happened is many of those that were elected took the route and advantage of their position to be a self serving situation.

Programs to process EPD's are not cheap. Anywhere from $20,000 to over $65,000 per year. The only way to have accurate information for EPD's is by having Whole Herd Reporting.

And how many EPD's are needed? We have had conversations with many breeders of different breeds, that many feel that averages for many traits would be of more benefit.

 

[Bright Raven]

There was a time when the Hereford breed was King. There were maybe more Hereford than Angus cattle in many areas of the country.

What happened? Hereford even had its own Certified Hereford Beef program "CHB"

We have seen several of the breed associations, in trying to elect people to the boards that they though would be able to help the breeds, all that happened is many of those that were elected took the route and advantage of their position to be a self serving situation.

Programs to process EPD's are not cheap. Anywhere from $20,000 to over $65,000 per year. The only way to have accurate information for EPD's is by having Whole Herd Reporting.

And how many EPD's are needed? We have had conversations with many breeders of different breeds, that many feel that averages for many traits would be of more benefit.

What are you including in those processing costs? I would expect it to be much higher considering contractor services, data input, staff, etc. Thanks.

 

[Ky hills]

There was a time when the Hereford breed was King. There were maybe more Hereford than Angus cattle in many areas of the country.

What happened? Hereford even had its own Certified Hereford Beef program "CHB"

Still does, we sell most of our Hereford steers in a sale geared for CHB