Are we too dependent on EPD's?

[Ranchin' Randy]

Show me where on the ASA website (or any other beef registry) where it shows the results of the genetic testing for any other trait then lethals . Also show me what weight these genetic tests have compared to what weight producer provided info. Is given for that same trait in the"enhanced" epds

I never said I could see direct results of genetic testing (outside of the results for Genetic Defects and Genetic Traits which we can see). I simply said I could show you which EPD's were based off genomic testing and which were not.

Listen, I'm not here to argue. I'm here to ask a simple question. Do I (or we as an industry) depend too much on provided EPD's? I believe I know your answer and I appreciate the back and forth. So again, please don't take this as argumentative.

As far as how ASA uses the results of the genomic testing to alter/adjust existing EPD's, I am not sure. I am sure there is a formula to adjust based off the testing results.

Example - How much emphasis is put on the producer provided BW of 85 compared to the handful of genetic SNP regions associated to birthweight that may imply a much smaller birthweight? I am not sure.

 

[Ranchin' Randy]

In the early stages of EPD's they were said to be used as just a tool for comparison. Now it seems like they have taken on a life of their own, as a stand alone marketing angle.

I agree with this wholeheartedly. A common misconception I see is people using EPD's as a singular "ranking" of an individual animal. Forgetting completely that it was meant as a comparison tool to be used (Bull A vs Bull B calving ease on average may result in 4.5% more unassisted births for one over the other if used in same environment).

 

[J+ Cattle]

I wish more objective info like the the Circle A Ranch/ABS angus sire alliance was available:

Livestock Management recent news | Beef Magazine

Explore the latest news and expert commentary on Livestock Management brought to you by the editors of Beef Magazine

www.beefmagazine.com

Current breed associations epd data is reliant on breeders providing accurate data. I'm sure the majority of breeders report accurately, but it only takes a few clowns to ruin the whole system.. and then it gets worse when the clowns start colluding..

How does this compare to the Leachman indexes? Similar concept isn't it.

Leachman's $Profit, $Feeder, and $Ranch Financial Indexes Explained - Leachman Cattle

Leachman financial indexes allow you to HAVE IT ALL! $Ranch: Profit from birth through weaning. Includes: • Fertility, Milk, Growth • Cow feed intake and mature size $Feeder: Profit from weaning to harvest. Includes: • Feed conversion • Carcass value • Carcass weight $Profit: Puts it all...

leachman.com

 

[Rmc]

Example - How much emphasis is put on the producer provided BW of 85 compared to the handful of genetic SNP regions associated to birthweight that may imply a much smaller birthweight? I am not sure.

And that is the problem with epds . No one can give you an exact answer on how they are figured how different inputs are weighted .all they can tell you is it a number based on something
And two animals of different years or different regions with the same epd # for a particular trait may have totally different offspring outcomes for that trait.
So if the 205 day adjusted weaning weight is 10-15percent higher than genotype indicate it should be . Which has more weight in figuring epds? And at what percent ?if genetics are given .1percent of weight and 99.9 percent is given to producer provided info is that really genetic enhanced epds?

 

[simme]

Initial EPD's for CE, BW, WW, YW for a non-parent animal in the ASA will have an accuracy of around 20%. Submitting samples for genomic testing will increase the accuracy to around 40%. Genomic testing increases the accuracy about as much as 25 progeny would. ASA registration certificates for animals having enhanced EPD's from genomic testing have GE on the certificate.

From ASA: "An important fact: while genomic tests add accuracy to low accuracy animals, they can never replace reporting phenotypic data. For genomics to continue to have value, it is vital that breeders continue to submit quality phenotypic data."

Genomics

http://simmental.org/site/images/dna_orbit_animated.gif

www.simmental.org

 

[Lazy M]

How does this compare to the Leachman indexes? Similar concept isn't it.

Leachman's $Profit, $Feeder, and $Ranch Financial Indexes Explained - Leachman Cattle

Leachman financial indexes allow you to HAVE IT ALL! $Ranch: Profit from birth through weaning. Includes: • Fertility, Milk, Growth • Cow feed intake and mature size $Feeder: Profit from weaning to harvest. Includes: • Feed conversion • Carcass value • Carcass weight $Profit: Puts it all...

leachman.com

Yes very similar. The Circle A test compares multiple Angus sired offspring thru their partnership with ABS. I think Leachman only compares Leachman sired calves(?).

 

[simme]

And that is the problem with epds . No one can give you an exact answer on how they are figured how different inputs are weighted .all they can tell you is it a number based on something

I suspect that the answer to that is very complicated and requires more than a simple answer. I know that I can think of questions that are beyond my training and ability to understand the answer and would probably just make my head hurt if someone tried to explain it to me in great detail. But for me, I can still make a somewhat informed decision that the science is good and can be accepted.
EPD updates are made from differences in measured traits (like weight) of several animals in the same pasture, not different pastures. So, animals following the feed truck are compared to other animals following that same feed truck in that same pasture. Those animals are not compared to other animals in a low input environment for EPD calculations. One set will weigh a lot more than the other due to environment. EPD's are not updated based on the weight, but differences in weights between animals in the same environment/pasture.

 

[Rmc]

Initial EPD's for CE, BW, WW, YW for a non-parent animal in the ASA will have an accuracy of around 20%. Submitting samples for genomic testing will increase the accuracy to around 40%. Genomic testing increases the accuracy about as much as 25 progeny would. ASA registration certificates for animals having enhanced EPD's from genomic testing have GE on the certificate.

From ASA: "An important fact: while genomic tests add accuracy to low accuracy animals, they can never replace reporting phenotypic data. For genomics to continue to have value, it is vital that breeders continue to submit quality phenotypic data."

Genomics

http://simmental.org/site/images/dna_orbit_animated.gif

www.simmental.org

And the percentage of weight of genetic data to producer data is what ?
"It is vital that breeders continue to submit QUALITY phenotype data.
So they are only as accurate as the data provided,
For epd to be used as a tool it must be understood what kind of tool it is and what it's weakness is . Yet very few if anyone can tell you what the number is based on and what bias is in the equation that is used to produce the number. I have never said it shouldn't be used as a tool . I have said it is relied on way to much . And with the huge advance in genetics that using available genetic technology would be far more useful and accurate.

 

[wbvs58]

I rely on our EBV's for bull selection when choosing which semen to use. It is my initial screening of the semen catalogues. I then look for photos, peoples opinions of the progeny. I go to the breeders website and look for bull sale results of progeny of the bull. If the bulls progeny are among the top sellers at the sale I feel that is a vote of confidence from the buyers as to the phenotype of his offspring. I do trust the EBV's but all the other stars have to line up as well.
I do get a bit frustrated with the EBV's of some of my cows eg, possibly my best cow has woefull numbers for growth (200, 400, 600 day weight) yet she will always wean either the heaviest or 2nd heaviest calf. I have a fellow come each year to grade all my herd, he scores them 1-7 and her progeny will always grade a 6 or 7 yet it doesn't seem to even move her milk numbers, she has had 6 calves so far. I put it down to me having a small herd (36 cows) so not a lot of cows in contempory groups to compare to. I try to run them all as one management group but once born and they inherit their EBV's from their parents (usually just the average of the two) the only movement I see in their EBV's is when the genomic results come in but usually only minor changes.

Ken

 

[Allenw]

I definitely agree there. Like any industry, name recognition can persuade the public away from what's good to what's "hot" or popular. From an EPD perspective, I've seen plenty of bulls that could more than compete with the popular high selling ones. They were just owned by the wrong ranch.

It's a seller's world. Everyone wants to be ahead of the curve. No one wants to be that operation that has a herd based on "old" genetics. While I agree, to a degree, it has gotten a little ridiculous.

Certain Cattle Co's could sell a pig as a herd sire and still get $25000 for it. Does that point to a problem with the sellers, the buyers, or the industry? I don't know. Just a small guy trying to navigate the waters.

I'll putter along with yesterday's genetics in the middle of the road, the curve is where the wrecks happen.

 

[Hardnosecattleco]

As being in the dairy industry and seeing what and how u can change a herd with epds. I'm a firm believer in them with my decisions on my beef cattle. But I also look at the bull pictures so it is and can be a toss up if the numbers are right and the bull looks terrible I don't use that bull kinda that simple.

 

[Nkline]

I would say not all epds are created equally. You can get somewhere fast using carcass epds, but using growth epds it will feel like not much is happening. I prefer using secondary characteristics for growth improvement. As a bull breeder in the angus breed I keep my herd away from common genetics giving customers bulls they can use across their entire angus herd without fear of inbreeding depression. I think many use epds incorrectly, and some of the epd formulas suck. Let's take CEM for example it partly relies on birth epds, which makes sense.. but people want to use it more as a pelvis size epd. Which is a place that could use improvement. Pictures are another discussion, it is often disappointing to see bulls in stud after seeing there picture, but also I'm not sure most people know how to pick a bull that will make good cows or breed cows easily (there are some appalling videos of expensive bulls out there).

 

[Lee VanRoss]

I used to keep close tabs on EPD's but anymore I watch for a lull in the sale (if I am at a breeder auction).
Most auctions of any type have them and they can be used to an advantage.

 

[Lazy M]

I would say not all epds are created equally. You can get somewhere fast using carcass epds, but using growth epds it will feel like not much is happening. I prefer using secondary characteristics for growth improvement. As a bull breeder in the angus breed I keep my herd away from common genetics giving customers bulls they can use across their entire angus herd without fear of inbreeding depression. I think many use epds incorrectly, and some of the epd formulas suck. Let's take CEM for example it partly relies on birth epds, which makes sense.. but people want to use it more as a pelvis size epd. Which is a place that could use improvement. Pictures are another discussion, it is often disappointing to see bulls in stud after seeing there picture, but also I'm not sure most people know how to pick a bull that will make good cows or breed cows easily (there are some appalling videos of expensive bulls out there).

I agree that many EPDs are blown way out of proportion. Take angus WW EPD: a bull with the breed average EPD WW (50 lbs) compared to a bull with EPD WW in the top 10% (76 lbs).. even if the EPDs are completely accurate and are reflected in the bulls offspring, I doubt that many would see the difference in a 500 lbs weaned steer and one that was 516 lbs..

 

[Ranchin' Randy]

I agree that many EPDs are blown way out of proportion. Take angus WW EPD: a bull with the breed average EPD WW (50 lbs) compared to a bull with EPD WW in the top 10% (76 lbs).. even if the EPDs are completely accurate and are reflected in the bulls offspring, I doubt that many would see the difference in a 500 lbs weaned steer and one that was 516 lbs..

If you take the EPD's at face value, there are definitely some discrepancies. Which why the accuracy and PC (potential change) is also important to take into account.

Take the following two heifers as an example:

Heifer 1

Wean	Year

73.0

111.3

0.44 accuracy %

0.45 accuracy %

±9.13 PC (63.87-82.13)

±14.14 PC (97.16 -125.44)

Hefier 2

Wean	Year

80.0

122.2

0.51 accuracy %

0.51 accuracy %

±7.99 PC (72.01-87.99)

±12.59 PC (109.61-134.79)

Reported Weaning Weights:
Heifer 1 - 463
Heifer 2 - 601
* Even at the most drastic PC, we should see a ~25lb difference on average. Here we see a 138lb difference.

Reported Yearling Weights:
Heifer 1 - 748
Heifer 2 - 842
* Even at the most drastic PC, we should see a ~ 37.63lb difference on average. Here we see a 94lb difference.


Does that mean the EPD's are wrong? Is this an outlier of the expected average? Did the producer do something different to these two heifers (same farm)? I am not sure, but things like this I feel push people away from using EPD's.

 

[simme]

I agree that many EPDs are blown way out of proportion. Take angus WW EPD: a bull with the breed average EPD WW (50 lbs) compared to a bull with EPD WW in the top 10% (76 lbs).. even if the EPDs are completely accurate and are reflected in the bulls offspring, I doubt that many would see the difference in a 500 lbs weaned steer and one that was 516 lbs..

Maybe I am misinterpreting the comment. But, even if people do not see the difference visually, there is a dollar reward for that extra 16 pounds.

 

[Lazy M]

Maybe I am misinterpreting the comment. But, even if people do not see the difference visually, there is a dollar reward for that extra 16 pounds.

That's true, and should be factored in. If the steers bring 1.70/lbs that's potentially an extra $27.20 per head. If you sale 10 steers it would be an extra $272 and for 50 steers it would be $1360.. if you believe the EPDs it's justification for buying a better bull.

 

[simme]

If you take the EPD's at face value, there are definitely some discrepancies. Which why the accuracy and PC (potential change) is also important to take into account.

Take the following two heifers as an example:

Heifer 1

Wean	Year

73.0

111.3

0.44 accuracy %

0.45 accuracy %

±9.13 PC (63.87-82.13)

±14.14 PC (97.16 -125.44)

Hefier 2

Wean	Year

80.0

122.2

0.51 accuracy %

0.51 accuracy %

±7.99 PC (72.01-87.99)

±12.59 PC (109.61-134.79)

Reported Weaning Weights:
Heifer 1 - 463
Heifer 2 - 601
* Even at the most drastic PC, we should see a ~25lb difference on average. Here we see a 138lb difference.

Reported Yearling Weights:
Heifer 1 - 748
Heifer 2 - 842
* Even at the most drastic PC, we should see a ~ 37.63lb difference on average. Here we see a 94lb difference.


Does that mean the EPD's are wrong? Is this an outlier of the expected average? Did the producer do something different to these two heifers (same farm)? I am not sure, but things like this I feel push people away from using EPD's.

I tend to think of EPD's as a prediction of genetic potential for a trait. Obviously not as a number to plug into a spreadsheet to calculate how many pounds will be on the truck. And there have to be outliers based on how the genetics combine. Otherwise every calf from the same mating would be identical. We know that is not the case - can easily see that in people. That bell shaped curve thing, maybe. So, EPD's have to be an averaged prediction based on all the data for all the calves submitted.

Some reasons that ww might not match the EPD prediction - EPD's are not good science, sire of calf is not correct, sickness of calf or dam, did not get enough colostrum, milk quantity and quality from the dam, another calf was stealing milk from the dam, gut development, some calves end up being poor doer's in spite of genetics, outlier genetics.

Phenotype, cow family history, ratios, EPD's, etc are all selection tools. Every one of those can help you. But every one can also fail you.

 

[Ranchin' Randy]

Phenotype, cow family history, ratios, EPD's, etc are all selection tools. Every one of those can help you. But every one can also fail you.

Agreed

 

[wbvs58]

I don't think the usefullness of EPD's should be looked at comparing just 2 animals but more the trend over a line of calves to see if they were a true representation of the numbers.

Ken