Menu
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
New profile posts
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Members
Current visitors
New profile posts
Search profile posts
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles and first posts only
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Forums
Cattle Boards
Breeds Board
Deer Valley Growth Fund
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Help Support CattleToday:
Message
<blockquote data-quote="simme" data-source="post: 1823629" data-attributes="member: 40418"><p>AAA has more than 30 epd's and index values. Some are pretty straight forward like birth weight, weaning weight, yearling weight - all based on actual weight measurements. If a person uses epd's, it seems reasonable to think that actual measured weights from progeny could be used to predict growth ability. </p><p></p><p>But some are pretty obscure like this one: (From AAA website) <em>"Cow Energy Value ($EN), expressed in dollar savings per cow per year, assesses differences in cow energy requirements as an expected dollar savings difference in daughters of sires. ..... Components for computing the cow $EN savings difference include </em><strong><em>lactation energy requirements and energy costs associated with differences in mature cow size."</em></strong></p><p></p><p>Sounds like the $EN value is maybe calculated from the Mature Weight EPD (MW) and the Mature Height EPD (MH). I assume that the MW and MH epd's are calculated from actual measurements submitted by owners (from those willing to take the time to take and submit the data). But converting those to a dollar value to represent "lactation energy and energy costs" for a cow requires a lot more imagination for me than the relationship between actual weight and growth epds. Lots of variations in what and how a cow is fed and what that feed/forage costs. I think that having so many obscure values and index values tends to overwhelm and confuse. The value is in dollars. Are those values adjusted for inflation over time or relative cost of forage, hay, feedstuffs? I suspect not.</p><p></p><p>As stated, simmental only has 2 index values. API is supposed to represent $ value over many traits for those who retain replacements from their herd. TI is supposed to represent value for those where all calves are fed and enter the food chain. I remember when these two were developed. My sense was that they were developed because AAA had $indexes and simmental did not. So we needed some to not get behind. People look at the API value. Bigger (more dollars) is better, it seems. But 2 different bulls or cows can have the same API value and be very different in terms of individual traits. I will get to my point. I think the $ indexes tend to be marketing gimmicks. The "real" epd's have accuracies associated with them (based on amount of data submitted - number of progeny weighed). The $indexes (simmental or AAA) do not have an accuracy value. Just a number. Wonder why the difference.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="simme, post: 1823629, member: 40418"] AAA has more than 30 epd's and index values. Some are pretty straight forward like birth weight, weaning weight, yearling weight - all based on actual weight measurements. If a person uses epd's, it seems reasonable to think that actual measured weights from progeny could be used to predict growth ability. But some are pretty obscure like this one: (From AAA website) [I]"Cow Energy Value ($EN), expressed in dollar savings per cow per year, assesses differences in cow energy requirements as an expected dollar savings difference in daughters of sires. ..... Components for computing the cow $EN savings difference include [/I][B][I]lactation energy requirements and energy costs associated with differences in mature cow size."[/I][/B] Sounds like the $EN value is maybe calculated from the Mature Weight EPD (MW) and the Mature Height EPD (MH). I assume that the MW and MH epd's are calculated from actual measurements submitted by owners (from those willing to take the time to take and submit the data). But converting those to a dollar value to represent "lactation energy and energy costs" for a cow requires a lot more imagination for me than the relationship between actual weight and growth epds. Lots of variations in what and how a cow is fed and what that feed/forage costs. I think that having so many obscure values and index values tends to overwhelm and confuse. The value is in dollars. Are those values adjusted for inflation over time or relative cost of forage, hay, feedstuffs? I suspect not. As stated, simmental only has 2 index values. API is supposed to represent $ value over many traits for those who retain replacements from their herd. TI is supposed to represent value for those where all calves are fed and enter the food chain. I remember when these two were developed. My sense was that they were developed because AAA had $indexes and simmental did not. So we needed some to not get behind. People look at the API value. Bigger (more dollars) is better, it seems. But 2 different bulls or cows can have the same API value and be very different in terms of individual traits. I will get to my point. I think the $ indexes tend to be marketing gimmicks. The "real" epd's have accuracies associated with them (based on amount of data submitted - number of progeny weighed). The $indexes (simmental or AAA) do not have an accuracy value. Just a number. Wonder why the difference. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Cattle Boards
Breeds Board
Deer Valley Growth Fund
Top