$M search

Help Support CattleToday:

H

hornedfrogbbq

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 19, 2018
Messages
349
Reaction score
6
So if I'm doing this correctly (Big IF), it looks like 6 sires have a $M above $100. In this order:

-- Connealy Cool

-- Sitz Logo

-- Sitz JLS Gameday

-- Sitz Tebow

-- Woodhall Granite

-- KCF Bennett Consensus

Sydgen and Sitz have to be pretty ecstatic about this. In fact, Enhance, Cool, Exceed and Fate all have some pretty high combo scores ($M + $B). We have a son out of Cool and have his first calves on the ground now. We'll see how they mature.
 
Look at details to how they got there and in particular:
accuracy of foot scores and sources to allow the scores


-- Connealy Cool feet - one reported but HP is excellent

-- Sitz Logo feet - 0 reported HP excellent

-- Sitz JLS Gameday - feet 70 reported

-- Sitz Tebow - feet 0 reported

-- Woodhall Granite - feet 3 reported HP 50%

-- KCF Bennett Consensus - feet 13 reported and EPDs probably ought to be considered before use.

Apparently all cattle are apparently considered to be 0.5 and 0.5 unless real data tells a different story. Not the clearest way to do it but apparently the way it is done.
 
Did someone post the weightings of each EPD that go into the $M? If not, does anyone know the weightings?
 
I finally decided I would give myself a chuckle and look up where our bull fell in the new and exciting value index called $M that the AAA has graciously given us. Unsurprisingly to me, he is in the bottom 5% of and index that is supposed to "predict profitability differences in progeny due to genetics from conception to weaning . . . built off of a self-replacing herd model where commercial cattlemen replace 25% of their breeding females in the first generation and 20%
in subsequent generations." In other words, this is supposed to show how valuable this individual will be over time in producing females that will have lasting value to the cattlemen both in terms of retained females and sold weaned animals.

Barrage of Wye has the following females within 3 generations of his pedigree on top or bottom. I'm not going to count his dam because she is only 8 but given her prolific start at WYE, I'd bet good money she fits this mold:

Leah of Wye: 15 calves, 341 day avg interval, over 8K lbs. weaned

Luria of Wye: 17 calves, 9800 lbs. weaned

Colleen of Wye (top and bottom): 14 calves, 8K lbs. weaned

On second thought, AAA is right. He obviously wont throw maternal, long-lasting calves. I oughta quit now.
 
Ebenezer said:
Look at details to how they got there and in particular:
accuracy of foot scores and sources to allow the scores


-- Connealy Cool feet - one reported but HP is excellent

-- Sitz Logo feet - 0 reported HP excellent

-- Sitz JLS Gameday - feet 70 reported

-- Sitz Tebow - feet 0 reported

-- Woodhall Granite - feet 3 reported HP 50%

-- KCF Bennett Consensus - feet 13 reported and EPDs probably ought to be considered before use.

Apparently all cattle are apparently considered to be 0.5 and 0.5 unless real data tells a different story. Not the clearest way to do it but apparently the way it is done.
Click to expand...

That's not correct about bulls with no info being set to 0.5 and 0.5
That is what the average of all Sires is set to.

So, if a bull has a claw set or angle below .5 than he is a claw or angle improver. If above those values than they have more chances to throw bad feet.
 
So, if a bull has a claw set or angle below .5 than he is a claw or angle improver. If above those values than they have more chances to throw bad feet.
Click to expand...
If I am reading it correctly, above or below 0.5/0.5 is improper or less desirable. It is not a one sided scale but a targeted score(s).

Not sure on your first comment but we seem to be saying the same thing in different ways. Explain if there there is a difference. Thanks.
 
As I understand the foot EPD. The scale is 1 to 9. Five (5) is desirable. Above or below is a graduated scale. Then the numbers are converted to a linear scale for the EPD. The lower the EPD (below 0.5), the better. In other words, a 0.0 is closer to a claw set of 5, than a bull with an EPD of 0.5.
 
The OP's list of bulls is missing Magnitude at $106. Generally, lower is better for the foot EPDs, given most of the current problems.
 
gpl said:
The OP's list of bulls is missing Magnitude at $106. Lower is better for the foot EPDs.
Click to expand...

Once the observed rating is recorded and it is converted to a linear EPD, the lower EPD (less than the breed average of 0.5) is more desirable. Indeed, lower is better.

Excerpted:
Currently, breed average for both of these traits is 0.5. This means an animal with EPDs less than 0.5 can be considered a "breed improver" for that trait. When using these two new EPDs, these tools should be used to compare bulls to each other. For example, Bull A has a +0.5 claw set EPD and Bull B has a 0.0 claw set EPD. Bull B's progeny, on average, would be predicted to score half a score better on the 5-9 scale for claw set compared to Bull A's progeny.

Bull B has an EPD of 0.0. He is better for improving feet that Bull A who is + 0.5.
 
Yea, I looked it up. Sure seems odd that an animal with weak pasterns and an animal with post legged condition would have the same scores over 0.5. But now that I understand the massaging of the field data: look for low and expect better if this is your cup of tea. I thought the 1-9 was going to help folks select animals for correction. There goes logic.
 
Ebenezer said:
Yea, I looked it up. Sure seems odd that an animal with weak pasterns and an animal with post legged condition would have the same scores over 0.5. But now that I understand the massaging of the field data: look for low and expect better if this is your cup of tea. I thought the 1-9 was going to help folks select animals for correction. There goes logic.
Click to expand...

I wonder about that also. They seem ( might be wrong) to be favoring the below 5 numeric value observation. However, maybe the model is doing something that compensates.
 

Latest posts

Top