Angus Quality

[LFF]

A lot of breeders willl put in epds and actual growth and scan data, you can take it upon yourself to look up the ratios at the breed of your choices website.

Yes, you are correct. Doing what you describe is better than nothing at all. Ratios can be misleading unless you know what they are being compared against. If the breeder only uses one bull for the entire crop then you can find the best performing ones, however if a breader uses multiple sires it becomes more complicated.

Suppose you have 3 bulls and the following senero:

Bull A , weans 10 calves at 500 pounds
Bull B , weans 10 calves at 550 pounds
Bull C , weans 10 calves at 600 pounds

Bull B's weaning ratio is the average at 100.

Now suppose bulls B and C are AI sires and used in another herd.
Bull A now will be a different animal.

Bull A , weans 10 calves at 625 pounds
Bull B , weans 10 calves at 550 pounds
Bull C , weans 10 calves at 600 pounds

Bull B weaning ratio average deceases to 93.

See what I am getting at. A buyer needs to know a much larger amount of information in order to buy the best bull for weaning preformance. From the above example a person probally would be correct in assuming that the enviroment factors were similar because bull B and C performed the same. However even making that assumption could be incorrect because of differences in the cow herd.

 

[Brandonm2]

Sorry folks. This seems to have turned into a disagreement between Frankie and myself. I believe that the Angus breed has some advantages over many others, however I do not like the way many people have followed the Angus fad. I have some Angus that have not faired well under my production. I also don't like the way some Herefords fair under similar methods. One thing that I have learned is how Registered Seedstock producers can cook their production records to make a bull or cow of their choice seem superior.

I think you expect too much from the data. IF I go to some show oriented breeder's place that creep feeds the whole calf crop and supplements every cow and heifer 8 lbs of mixed ration daily while they are standing in knee high irrigated improved pasture and buy the highest ratioing 2 year old cow he has and then dump her out in 5 inch high unfertilized fescue pastures and hay is the only supplement ever give (and that ONLY when there is snow and ice on the ground) with a bunch of cows who have been on that same ground in those same conditions for 10 generations she is PROBABLY going to be a disappointment. IF you want too duplicate those eye popping actual performance numbers the purebreeders claim; then you need to duplicate the conditions he is raising his in. IF you CAN'T duplicate those conditions, you might want to find a seedstock producers who raises them a little more similarly to what you do. IF you have serious evidence that a seedstock producer is "cooking the books" then buy from somebody else.

 

[Brandonm2]

Suppose you have 3 bulls and the following senero:

Bull A , weans 10 calves at 500 pounds
Bull B , weans 10 calves at 550 pounds
Bull C , weans 10 calves at 600 pounds

Bull B's weaning ratio is the average at 100.

Now suppose bulls B and C are AI sires and used in another herd.
Bull A now will be a different animal.

Bull A , weans 10 calves at 625 pounds
Bull B , weans 10 calves at 550 pounds
Bull C , weans 10 calves at 600 pounds

Bull B weaning ratio average deceases to 93.

See what I am getting at. A buyer needs to know a much larger amount of information in order to buy the best bull for weaning preformance.

IF the sires are AI sires used over dozens or hundreds of herds, who cares which one ratios the best in that one isolated purebreeder's herd??? Pick the AI sire from the EPDs and pick the son you want from the bunch based on the actual performance, the phenotype you want, and from eyeballing the bulls' dams.

 

[Frankie]

You're not bothering me. You don't have a leg to stand on by demanding personal information. You don't post your own and the breeder you held up as someone to emulate doesn't either.

Your right about not having a leg to stand on. If I did I would not have to ask. If you can not understand the value of providing that type of information , then I don't know how to enlighten you. You are also correct that I don't post my own but I will if you ask. Do you want my information? I will be happy to supply it to you or post it on the board if anyone wants it. The breeder that I used as a example does for the Hereford breed. Their Angus herd probally is less that 5 animals. I will ask them for the Angus ratios.

No, I don't want your information. I just think it hypocritical of you to demand it from others, me in particular, when you don't bother to post your own! If you honestly thought everyone should do that, why wouldn't you do it first?

Ratios are available to buyers who come here to buy cattle. But they represent our management program, not the Angus breed. Just as your ratios reflect your management program, not the Hereford breed. As Brandon said, the only way to compare your ratios/performance to another breeders is if you manage your cattle exactly the same. Otherwise it's apples and oranges. Now within your herd, ratios are a different thing. If cow A consistently raises a calf ratioing 110 for WW, she's probably a superior producer over cow B whose calf consistently ratios 95. But that doesn't mean if cow A was moved to another ranch, different management or environment, that she'd still raise a 110 ratio calf every year.

The breeder's website that you posted contains more than just ratios of his Hereford cattle. It includes performance data, too. So why are you only getting ratios for Angus?

 

[LFF]

The breeder's website that you posted contains more than just ratios of his Hereford cattle. It includes performance data, too. So why are you only getting ratios for Angus?

As I said before. I have a fair understanding of Hereford genetics. The reason I would like for someone who raises registered Angus to show us their actual data is to allow us non-Angus producers to have a better understanding of what to expect if they want to produce Angus cattle. Yes enviroment and feed conditions do play a big part in actual weights, so I also asked for the conditions the cattle are raised in be included. The most important piece of information to me is the ultrasound data. I don't care what breed of cattle or how they are raised that much, because if they are finished out properly , then the ultrasound will show a great deal of valuable information about the value of ones breeding stock. Is that really to much to ask? I might be more incline to try some more Angus if the registered breeder were more willing to share their data. It is the same way with Herefords. Leasons learned has taught me that if you truely want the best carcass quality then you must demand open records. If I can't get good data that I can mull over before making a purchase I will not buy from that producer. I don't care who they are or how good their cattle look, I must and everyone should be allowed to compare the data if they are interested in making a knowledgable decision for carcass improvement. Frankie I'm done trying to explain something to you as a registered producer, that you should already know. [/u][/b]

 

[Scotty]

IMO ratios are overated and do not tell all that much anyway. Individual performance is more important to me. If an actual WW for bull A is 1500 pounds and bull B is 1450 is their really that much difference. The ratios to me are more import on helping me select new cows or the ones to keep or cull.

 

[LFF]

IMO ratios are overated and do not tell all that much anyway. Individual performance is more important to me. If an actual WW for bull A is 1500 pounds and bull B is 1450 is their really that much difference. The ratios to me are more import on helping me select new cows or the ones to keep or cull.

Scotty IMF ratios are important to breeds that are inferior to Angus. Ratios are not the total answer with out knowing the actual IMF value. For example I know of a few Herefords that the actual percent of IMF in the ribeye is greater than 6 percent. That is extremely high for the Hereford breed. If a short coming of all the breeds is IMF and registered Angus are sufficient in that area , and they bring more money per pound because of IMF, then I find IMF extremely valuable for the production of meat. That is another reason why I want to see some actual production values of entire herds of registered Angus not just the elite few from a persons herd. I really want to know just how far behind in IMF my Herefords are, and I think most other breed owners would like to know as well. I am tired of hearing someones word that Angus is sooooo much better in marbling and I want to know the truth. If they are I can accept that and know what direction I need to go with my Herefords to market just as good quality calves for marketing on the grid. If Herefords are too far behind I will have to revaluate the direction that I am going.

 

[LFF]

I just think it hypocritical of you to demand it from others, me in particular, when you don't bother to post your own! If you honestly thought everyone should do that, why wouldn't you do it first?

I suppose that I did single you out Frankie. I did so because of your strong support of the Angus Association and your conviction on the quality of your cattle. I thought that you were secure and confident enough to provide what I was asking for. Please don't take this as goading you to do so. You have made it very clear by attempting to discredit everthing that I stated , that you are not confortable posting data. I'm certain that you have your reasons and I will leave it at that.

As for why I have not posted my own. I am a very small producer and plan to purchase a web site for my operation soon. When I do I will post all my performance data for public view. I firmly believe that data along with visual appraisal is the key to profitablity. As previously stated I will post my information on the board if anyone wants to see it. I have not previously posted it here because it could be view as advertising.

 

[Scotty]

IMO ratios are overated and do not tell all that much anyway. Individual performance is more important to me. If an actual WW for bull A is 1500 pounds and bull B is 1450 is their really that much difference. The ratios to me are more import on helping me select new cows or the ones to keep or cull.

Scotty IMF ratios are important to breeds that are inferior to Angus. Ratios are not the total answer with out knowing the actual IMF value. For example I know of a few Herefords that the actual percent of IMF in the ribeye is greater than 6 percent. That is extremely high for the Hereford breed. If a short coming of all the breeds is IMF and registered Angus are sufficient in that area , and they bring more money per pound because of IMF, then I find IMF extremely valuable for the production of meat. That is another reason why I want to see some actual production values of entire herds of registered Angus not just the elite few from a persons herd. I really want to know just how far behind in IMF my Herefords are, and I think most other breed owners would like to know as well. I am tired of hearing someones word that Angus is sooooo much better in marbling and I want to know the truth. If they are I can accept that and know what direction I need to go with my Herefords to market just as good quality calves for marketing on the grid. If Herefords are too far behind I will have to revaluate the direction that I am going.

So if he ratios 150% but actual scan was 2% he is for you. Actual performance is were it is at for individuals befor they have their own offspring.

 

[greenwillowhereford II]

Strange how none of the Line Ones on the graph showing the data from Olsen Ranches even have the carcass data posted.

 

[LFF]

Scotty
So if he ratios 150% but actual scan was 2% he is for you. Actual performance is were it is at for individuals befor they have their own offspring.


No , I would not be interested in him if his actual scan showed 2%. What I would be interested in is what sires preformed so poorly that a calve having a ultrasound of 2% would ratio 150%. I would want to know if there was a feeding problem with the herd and if there was not a problem then I would run from purchasing any stock from that producer. Carcass traits of individuals are highly hereitable, so yes actual data for carcass quality should be factored in on purchases.

 

[LFF]

Strange how none of the Line Ones on the graph showing the data from Olsen Ranches even have the carcass data posted.

Do you think that it is strange or perhaps obvious? It still seems to me that if breed associations were really concerned about promoting the best animals in order to increase the value of the breed, they would provide barn data to the public. I still firmly believe someone with any knowledge of the breed can make extremely value judgement calls from studying a contemptary group of another breeder.

 

[Frankie]

Strange how none of the Line Ones on the graph showing the data from Olsen Ranches even have the carcass data posted.

Do you think that it is strange or perhaps obvious? It still seems to me that if breed associations were really concerned about promoting the best animals in order to increase the value of the breed, they would provide barn data to the public. I still firmly believe someone with any knowledge of the breed can make extremely value judgement calls from studying a contemptary group of another breeder.

The Breed Association is or should be concerned about promoting the BREED. It's not their job to identify, and certainly not to promote, the "best" animals. In fact, it's impossible to identify a single "best" animal for everyone on this board. It's the breed association's job to collect and refine data and produce EPDs so breeders can identify the "best" cattle for their program.

 

[greenwillowhereford II]

If you go to the Elliss Farms website and click on the link that takes you to the graph that shows the data of the progeny of the bulls in the young sire program, it is strange that the Line One bulls at the top of the graph have the birth and weaning weight data but not the carcass data. All the other progeny in the test have the carcass data as well.

 

[KNERSIE]

IMO ratios are overated and do not tell all that much anyway. Individual performance is more important to me. If an actual WW for bull A is 1500 pounds and bull B is 1450 is their really that much difference. The ratios to me are more import on helping me select new cows or the ones to keep or cull.

For the unscrupulous breeder it is exactly that ratios and the manipulation of contemporary groups that can artificially create higher performance EPDs. I agree they don't tell much, but when used "correctly" they can greatly affect animal's performance data even over the broad spectrum if you really understand how EPDs are calculated.

 

[LFF]

IMO ratios are overated and do not tell all that much anyway. Individual performance is more important to me. If an actual WW for bull A is 1500 pounds and bull B is 1450 is their really that much difference. The ratios to me are more import on helping me select new cows or the ones to keep or cull.

For the unscrupulous breeder it is exactly that ratios and the manipulation of contemporary groups that can artificially create higher performance EPDs. I agree they don't tell much, but when used "correctly" they can greatly affect animal's performance data even over the broad spectrum if you really understand how EPDs are calculated.

Knersie, I think that you anwsered correctly. It seems like some people do not understand the ratio concept and how to use it to help develope better cattle. As with actual weights and Epd's, ratios are another tool and can be very valuable if use properly and given enough information to understand the contempary groupings.

 

[LFF]

If you go to the Elliss Farms website and click on the link that takes you to the graph that shows the data of the progeny of the bulls in the young sire program, it is strange that the Line One bulls at the top of the graph have the birth and weaning weight data but not the carcass data. All the other progeny in the test have the carcass data as well.

Do you suppose that we can contact the AHA and recieve the missing data, or find out why it is not posted? If so lets do so. I'll try to do some checking on it when I get the oppertunity.

 

[Frankie]

IMO ratios are overated and do not tell all that much anyway. Individual performance is more important to me. If an actual WW for bull A is 1500 pounds and bull B is 1450 is their really that much difference. The ratios to me are more import on helping me select new cows or the ones to keep or cull.

For the unscrupulous breeder it is exactly that ratios and the manipulation of contemporary groups that can artificially create higher performance EPDs. I agree they don't tell much, but when used "correctly" they can greatly affect animal's performance data even over the broad spectrum if you really understand how EPDs are calculated.

They can only manipulate the data for a while. Once a bull is widly used, the numbers will straighten themselves out. That's why people should look at the accuracy of EPDs on bulls they're considering using in their herds. No matter how much information on how many calves are reported to the AAA, they hold accuracy to .85 on a bull until he's being widely used.

 

[KNERSIE]

IMO ratios are overated and do not tell all that much anyway. Individual performance is more important to me. If an actual WW for bull A is 1500 pounds and bull B is 1450 is their really that much difference. The ratios to me are more import on helping me select new cows or the ones to keep or cull.

For the unscrupulous breeder it is exactly that ratios and the manipulation of contemporary groups that can artificially create higher performance EPDs. I agree they don't tell much, but when used "correctly" they can greatly affect animal's performance data even over the broad spectrum if you really understand how EPDs are calculated.

They can only manipulate the data for a while. Once a bull is widly used, the numbers will straighten themselves out. That's why people should look at the accuracy of EPDs on bulls they're considering using in their herds. No matter how much information on how many calves are reported to the AAA, they hold accuracy to .85 on a bull until he's being widely used.

Yes Frankie,

in theory, but think about it, that is exactly how they do it, they use calves out of a high EPD, high accuracy sire and create a contemporary group using just the growthier calves out if the bull they'd like to push in the same group, so compared to the well proven sire the young sire's calves look great. Because of the well proven sires high accuracy the weights taken carry more weight when they compare favourably to the well known sire's get.

If all the ratios and contemporary groups were shown in theory it would be easier to spot if the groups were manipulated or if weaker calves were added at a later stage to make the good ones look better, etc.

If you're smart and set on cheating enough there are off course still ways around it, but it would atleast involve more movement of calves from one group to another on weighing day. If you move calves around smartly you can make the better ones look great and the not so good ones look much more acceptable especially if there are calves of well proven sires in the group as well. All this is done just before the weights are taken to be sent in for use in calculating performance data. Remember to be considered a contempory group there must be a minimum of 5 calves and a minimum of 2 sires represented, that isn't too much asked for.

Cheating will always be there and it will happen in every breed, not sure making every bit of information available will tell you much except in really small herds when the owner runs all the calves in one group. I don't think angus will be anymore so than any other breed.

 

[Angus In Texas]

Remember to be considered a contempory group there must be a minimum of 5 calves and a minimum of 2 sires represented, that isn't too much asked for.

Angus only requires 2 calves of the same sex and one sire to be considered a contemporary group.