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
Breeding / Calving Issues
Are we too dependent on EPD's?
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="Ranchin&#039; Randy" data-source="post: 1727107" data-attributes="member: 42411"><p>As the industry continues to grow, and as we look for various ways to advance our own causes, EPD's have played a big part of this. The creation of EPD's decades ago now seem to be as prevalent as they've ever been with marketing tools paying homage to certain EPD categories (caving ease bulls as an example) and catalogs being littered with EPD's and projected mating EPD's are pretty standard now. However, am I (or we) too dependent on these numbers?</p><p></p><p>As an example, I will provide two sets of EPD's on two separate heifers (both PB Simmentals). Red = Below breed average (percentile rank)</p><p></p><table style='width: 100%'><tr><th>CE</th><th>Brth</th><th>Wean</th><th>Year</th><th>ADG</th><th>MCE</th><th>Milk</th><th>MWW</th><th>Stay</th><th>Doc</th><th>CW</th><th>YG</th><th>Marb</th><th>BF</th><th>REA</th><th>Shr</th><th>API</th><th>TI</th></tr></table> <table style='width: 100%'><tr><td>13.0</td><td>0.5</td><td>63.5</td><td>83.0</td><td>0.12</td><td>5.4</td><td>21.1</td><td>52.8</td><td>13.3</td><td>10.4</td><td>6.6</td><td>-0.49</td><td>0.16</td><td>-0.091</td><td>0.79</td><td>-0.41</td><td>124.2</td><td>71.5</td></tr></table> <table style='width: 100%'><tr><td>25%</td><td>30%</td><td><span style="color: rgb(226, 80, 65)">95%</span></td><td><span style="color: rgb(226, 80, 65)">99%</span></td><td><span style="color: rgb(226, 80, 65)">99%</span></td><td><span style="color: rgb(226, 80, 65)">60%</span></td><td><span style="color: rgb(226, 80, 65)">70%</span></td><td><span style="color: rgb(226, 80, 65)">95%</span></td><td><span style="color: rgb(226, 80, 65)">85%</span></td><td><span style="color: rgb(226, 80, 65)">65%</span></td><td><span style="color: rgb(226, 80, 65)">99%</span></td><td>20%</td><td>40%</td><td>35%</td><td><span style="color: rgb(226, 80, 65)">75%</span></td><td>15%</td><td><span style="color: rgb(226, 80, 65)">65%</span></td><td><span style="color: rgb(226, 80, 65)">80%</span></td></tr></table><p></p><table style='width: 100%'><tr><th>CE</th><th>Brth</th><th>Wean</th><th>Year</th><th>ADG</th><th>MCE</th><th>Milk</th><th>MWW</th><th>Stay</th><th>Doc</th><th>CW</th><th>YG</th><th>Marb</th><th>BF</th><th>REA</th><th>Shr</th><th>API</th><th>TI</th></tr></table> <table style='width: 100%'><tr><td>15.4</td><td>-2.0</td><td>80.5</td><td>124.2</td><td>0.27</td><td>7.5</td><td>26.6</td><td>66.8</td><td>22.0</td><td>18.4</td><td>39.0</td><td>-0.43</td><td>0.34</td><td>-0.074</td><td>1.15</td><td>-0.33</td><td>168.9</td><td>91.1</td></tr></table> <table style='width: 100%'><tr><td>10%</td><td>4%</td><td>40%</td><td>30%</td><td>30%</td><td>20%</td><td>30%</td><td>30%</td><td>3%</td><td>1%</td><td>20%</td><td>50%</td><td>15%</td><td><span style="color: rgb(226, 80, 65)">75%</span></td><td>10%</td><td><span style="color: rgb(226, 80, 65)">60%</span></td><td>3%</td><td>10%</td></tr></table><p></p><p>Looking at these two animals, what do you feel like you could deduce? For me, it's the difference in carcass traits and maternal traits.</p><p></p><p>I for one, as a purchaser of cattle across the country, rely on any and all data possible to help make decisions when certain animals are bough sight unseen. I am also a bit of a visual learner so have created graphs that pull from a spreadsheet of EPD's I input. One graph is the heifers/cows as standalone animals. The other two graphs are progeny EPD's from certain matings to bulls we have. This is all compared to breed average and used to see, again visually, where animals place compared to each other and to the average.</p><p></p><p>Understanding what EPD's are, how they're used, and that there is a level of change that will certainly happen, I can't help but look at these two sets of EPD's and be swayed toward one over the other. Even though from a visual aspect (in person, pictures, videos, etc..) they both look like sound heifers.</p><p></p><p>I am not one to think that these numbers are arbitrary or not based off science like some. I do believe these came from a place of scientific testing as a foundation and then sprawls out using mathematical equations to provide the best possible insight into these animals as possible (with variation). In short, I feel they should be looked at, but to what degree? Am I (we) too dependent on these numbers as cattle owners/breeders?</p><p></p><p>* I ask because I am looking at some spring heifers and utilize my sheets and charts to help narrow a decision. Also because I was reading last night on here and it appears certain people feel these are taken too serious and some even feel these numbers aren't based off science and are completely arbitrary. So let's start that conversation.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Ranchin' Randy, post: 1727107, member: 42411"] As the industry continues to grow, and as we look for various ways to advance our own causes, EPD's have played a big part of this. The creation of EPD's decades ago now seem to be as prevalent as they've ever been with marketing tools paying homage to certain EPD categories (caving ease bulls as an example) and catalogs being littered with EPD's and projected mating EPD's are pretty standard now. However, am I (or we) too dependent on these numbers? As an example, I will provide two sets of EPD's on two separate heifers (both PB Simmentals). Red = Below breed average (percentile rank) [TABLE] [TR] [TH]CE[/TH] [TH]Brth[/TH] [TH]Wean[/TH] [TH]Year[/TH] [TH]ADG[/TH] [TH]MCE[/TH] [TH]Milk[/TH] [TH]MWW[/TH] [TH]Stay[/TH] [TH]Doc[/TH] [TH]CW[/TH] [TH]YG[/TH] [TH]Marb[/TH] [TH]BF[/TH] [TH]REA[/TH] [TH]Shr[/TH] [TH]API[/TH] [TH]TI[/TH] [/TR] [/TABLE] [TABLE] [TR] [TD]13.0[/TD] [TD]0.5[/TD] [TD]63.5[/TD] [TD]83.0[/TD] [TD]0.12[/TD] [TD]5.4[/TD] [TD]21.1[/TD] [TD]52.8[/TD] [TD]13.3[/TD] [TD]10.4[/TD] [TD]6.6[/TD] [TD]-0.49[/TD] [TD]0.16[/TD] [TD]-0.091[/TD] [TD]0.79[/TD] [TD]-0.41[/TD] [TD]124.2[/TD] [TD]71.5[/TD] [/TR] [/TABLE] [TABLE] [TR] [TD]25%[/TD] [TD]30%[/TD] [TD][COLOR=rgb(226, 80, 65)]95%[/COLOR][/TD] [TD][COLOR=rgb(226, 80, 65)]99%[/COLOR][/TD] [TD][COLOR=rgb(226, 80, 65)]99%[/COLOR][/TD] [TD][COLOR=rgb(226, 80, 65)]60%[/COLOR][/TD] [TD][COLOR=rgb(226, 80, 65)]70%[/COLOR][/TD] [TD][COLOR=rgb(226, 80, 65)]95%[/COLOR][/TD] [TD][COLOR=rgb(226, 80, 65)]85%[/COLOR][/TD] [TD][COLOR=rgb(226, 80, 65)]65%[/COLOR][/TD] [TD][COLOR=rgb(226, 80, 65)]99%[/COLOR][/TD] [TD]20%[/TD] [TD]40%[/TD] [TD]35%[/TD] [TD][COLOR=rgb(226, 80, 65)]75%[/COLOR][/TD] [TD]15%[/TD] [TD][COLOR=rgb(226, 80, 65)]65%[/COLOR][/TD] [TD][COLOR=rgb(226, 80, 65)]80%[/COLOR][/TD] [/TR] [/TABLE] [TABLE] [TR] [TH]CE[/TH] [TH]Brth[/TH] [TH]Wean[/TH] [TH]Year[/TH] [TH]ADG[/TH] [TH]MCE[/TH] [TH]Milk[/TH] [TH]MWW[/TH] [TH]Stay[/TH] [TH]Doc[/TH] [TH]CW[/TH] [TH]YG[/TH] [TH]Marb[/TH] [TH]BF[/TH] [TH]REA[/TH] [TH]Shr[/TH] [TH]API[/TH] [TH]TI[/TH] [/TR] [/TABLE] [TABLE] [TR] [TD]15.4[/TD] [TD]-2.0[/TD] [TD]80.5[/TD] [TD]124.2[/TD] [TD]0.27[/TD] [TD]7.5[/TD] [TD]26.6[/TD] [TD]66.8[/TD] [TD]22.0[/TD] [TD]18.4[/TD] [TD]39.0[/TD] [TD]-0.43[/TD] [TD]0.34[/TD] [TD]-0.074[/TD] [TD]1.15[/TD] [TD]-0.33[/TD] [TD]168.9[/TD] [TD]91.1[/TD] [/TR] [/TABLE] [TABLE] [TR] [TD]10%[/TD] [TD]4%[/TD] [TD]40%[/TD] [TD]30%[/TD] [TD]30%[/TD] [TD]20%[/TD] [TD]30%[/TD] [TD]30%[/TD] [TD]3%[/TD] [TD]1%[/TD] [TD]20%[/TD] [TD]50%[/TD] [TD]15%[/TD] [TD][COLOR=rgb(226, 80, 65)]75%[/COLOR][/TD] [TD]10%[/TD] [TD][COLOR=rgb(226, 80, 65)]60%[/COLOR][/TD] [TD]3%[/TD] [TD]10%[/TD] [/TR] [/TABLE] Looking at these two animals, what do you feel like you could deduce? For me, it's the difference in carcass traits and maternal traits. I for one, as a purchaser of cattle across the country, rely on any and all data possible to help make decisions when certain animals are bough sight unseen. I am also a bit of a visual learner so have created graphs that pull from a spreadsheet of EPD's I input. One graph is the heifers/cows as standalone animals. The other two graphs are progeny EPD's from certain matings to bulls we have. This is all compared to breed average and used to see, again visually, where animals place compared to each other and to the average. Understanding what EPD's are, how they're used, and that there is a level of change that will certainly happen, I can't help but look at these two sets of EPD's and be swayed toward one over the other. Even though from a visual aspect (in person, pictures, videos, etc..) they both look like sound heifers. I am not one to think that these numbers are arbitrary or not based off science like some. I do believe these came from a place of scientific testing as a foundation and then sprawls out using mathematical equations to provide the best possible insight into these animals as possible (with variation). In short, I feel they should be looked at, but to what degree? Am I (we) too dependent on these numbers as cattle owners/breeders? * I ask because I am looking at some spring heifers and utilize my sheets and charts to help narrow a decision. Also because I was reading last night on here and it appears certain people feel these are taken too serious and some even feel these numbers aren't based off science and are completely arbitrary. So let's start that conversation. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Cattle Boards
Breeding / Calving Issues
Are we too dependent on EPD's?
Top