Angus: $M

[Son of Butch]

A couple weeks back someone on here posted the average IQ for millennial the generation had
actually dropped into the 90s and was lower than generation X's.
I'm just saying perhaps generation X should be reexamined to see if 90 average was an actual drop.
But for all I know perhaps the theorists are baby boomers with alzheimer and have forgotten life
experiences from the 80s and 90s, many sure have forgotten the late 60s just 50 short years ago.

IF someone does not believe genetic progress is possible, then neither is genetic regression.
So why all the fuss in which bulls they use in replacement selection?

 

[Nesikep]

I still haven't seen anyone say "Dang, she's have been able to have that calf it it was .7 lbs lighter".... .7 lbs much is less than the difference between a full belly and an empty one in a calf, and I know I don't get to weigh all my calves before they've nursed.

 

[Ebenezer]

With all this dust up about yet another AAA reshuffling & supposedly new and greater EPDs, out of curiosity I pulled up the AAA pedigree & performance EPD's info on two Angus bulls (respectively born in '92 & '97) that were greatly appreciated for leaving a plethora of remarkable, fault free, long lived females in a challenging evironment. Aside from shinning in the DMI and energy department and being breed average for feet, they ranked in the 5-10% bottom of the breed across the board. I would hasten to add their pedigrees were/are considered mainstream. Which is to say, be wary of paper tigers.

Someone can correct me but if an animal does not have much or any foot data submitted it seems that the animals are started or assumed to be scoring .50 and .50. I looked up some older cattle that were known to have foot issues and they were low accuracy and right at those .50/.50 marks. Have mercy!

EPDs: I think that, for example, Scotch Cap and PDBS could be used today and get big and fast growing cattle to compete. They were growth bulls and changers of yesteryear but once time moves on the EPDs slide.

 

[Ky hills]

With all this dust up about yet another AAA reshuffling & supposedly new and greater EPDs, out of curiosity I pulled up the AAA pedigree & performance EPD's info on two Angus bulls (respectively born in '92 & '97) that were greatly appreciated for leaving a plethora of remarkable, fault free, long lived females in a challenging evironment. Aside from shinning in the DMI and energy department and being breed average for feet, they ranked in the 5-10% bottom of the breed across the board. I would hasten to add their pedigrees were/are considered mainstream. Which is to say, be wary of paper tigers.

Someone can correct me but if an animal does not have much or any foot data submitted it seems that the animals are started or assumed to be scoring .50 and .50. I looked up some older cattle that were known to have foot issues and they were low accuracy and right at those .50/.50 marks. Have mercy!

EPDs: I think that, for example, Scotch Cap and PDBS could be used today and get big and fast growing cattle to compete. They were growth bulls and changers of yesteryear but once time moves on the EPDs slide.

I have often thought the same about bulls like you just mentioned. I would really like to see an experiment of sorts by breeding a group of cows to Scotch Cap and Pine Drive Big Sky, then also breed to some of the "modern performance sires like Harvestor, War Party, Earnan etc. I feel like the performance and weaning weights would be similar. I'm thinking the big difference would be at maturity the older ones may not be as heavy volumed as cattle from the other time period tended to be tall and leggy with not a lot of volume.

 

[Jeanne - Simme Valley]

KyHills - you are exactly correct. Big Sky made "elephants" in height. It was not "stylish" to have gut. They wanted tall gutless wonders. Was the same in Simmental and all breeds.

 

[Ky hills]

KyHills - you are exactly correct. Big Sky made "elephants" in height. It was not "stylish" to have gut. They wanted tall gutless wonders. Was the same in Simmental and all breeds.

Yes I think every breed went that way then. I had Charolais at that time and in my opinion that trend helped them right out of favor. Large birthweights, tall inefficient cows that wouldn't milk enough to raise a calf.

 

[Jake]

With all this dust up about yet another AAA reshuffling & supposedly new and greater EPDs, out of curiosity I pulled up the AAA pedigree & performance EPD's info on two Angus bulls (respectively born in '92 & '97) that were greatly appreciated for leaving a plethora of remarkable, fault free, long lived females in a challenging evironment. Aside from shinning in the DMI and energy department and being breed average for feet, they ranked in the 5-10% bottom of the breed across the board. I would hasten to add their pedigrees were/are considered mainstream. Which is to say, be wary of paper tigers.

Someone can correct me but if an animal does not have much or any foot data submitted it seems that the animals are started or assumed to be scoring .50 and .50. I looked up some older cattle that were known to have foot issues and they were low accuracy and right at those .50/.50 marks. Have mercy!

EPDs: I think that, for example, Scotch Cap and PDBS could be used today and get big and fast growing cattle to compete. They were growth bulls and changers of yesteryear but once time moves on the EPDs slide.

I've got a little Scotch Cap in the tank that I bought on a sale cheap. Not sure what to use him on, but figured no more than it cost it would be a fun experiment on one or two someday.

 

[76 Bar]

WOW... maybe it shows what 25 years of genetic selection can do.

It certainly does and history has proven often as not its fallen far short of the goal of betterment of man & beast alike. Makes me appreciate my defective reds all the more. 8) ;-)

 

[76 Bar]

Yes I think every breed went that way then. I had Charolais at that time and in my opinion that trend helped them right out of favor. Large birthweights, tall inefficient cows that wouldn't milk enough to raise a calf.[/quote
For every horror story there's a rainbow. I had the good fortune to acquire some 20 Charolais when I started my commercial herd some 40 years ago. They were line bred Litton via the Sam bull. Problem free: easy calving, big stout calves, excellent mothers with respectable udders and maintained a 365 CI in a tough environment. Apparently I got lucky. ;-)

 

[76 Bar]

:hide: Apologies for not having the brains to post outside whom I've quoted.

 

[Ky hills]

Yes I think every breed went that way then. I had Charolais at that time and in my opinion that trend helped them right out of favor. Large birthweights, tall inefficient cows that wouldn't milk enough to raise a calf.[/quote
For every horror story there's a rainbow. I had the good fortune to acquire some 20 Charolais when I started my commercial herd some 40 years ago. They were line bred Litton via the Sam bull. Problem free: easy calving, big stout calves, excellent mothers with respectable udders and maintained a 365 CI in a tough environment. Apparently I got lucky. ;-)

Yes absolutely, there are some good productive Charolais out there that will perform as well as anything else. I started with some heifers from a local longtime breeder that had built his herd up. They milked as good or better than any cows I have had since. They didn't the pedigree of the moment that the promoters thought everybody needed so I went a different direction and regretted it within a few years.

 

[76 Bar]

Ah yes. Been there done that. Just goes to prove its prudent to patronize breeders who are savvy cattlemen with a keen eye on what it takes to survive in the commercial world. Precious few embrace that philosophy because they're gobbled up with more is better.