MikeC":yzakbpd9 said:
I am sending in to take 3 but I don't expect them to all pass the BSE. They were born the last week of December so they will be 12 1/2 monthes old when I have to get them tested.
Auburn Eating Contest @ 56 Days
- Thread starter MikeC
- Start date
Help Support CattleToday:
- Status
I am sending in to take 3 but I don't expect them to all pass the BSE. They were born the last week of December so they will be 12 1/2 monthes old when I have to get them tested.
MikeC":1a1eot8u said:
Why do I think it was shortened? Because Lisa wanted to shorten it. You sent me a PM with her explanation. I've said before and I'll say it again: If Auburn wants to run an 84 day test, that's fine with me; but you still haen't provided any information showing that a 112 day test is damaging to the bulls' health. If/when the BIF recommends a shorter test, I'm sure my test station will make the recommended changes. If the BIF drops bull testing recommendations, we'll have to look at whether or not to change the rules. So I don't see us making the change without some sort of recommendation from the BIF or other recognized agency.
MikeC
Well-known member
Frankie":2c66fcqp said:
I think it's clear enough that you are in the "hole" here Frankie.
The information Lisa gave me and I sent to you was clearly enough for any sane person to base an opinion on.
I'll get my foot off your neck now.
I still love you though. :heart:
MikeC":ysb3302w said:
No hole for me. Nothing's changed. You claimed the test was being shortened because a 112 day test damaged the bulls' health. There was nothing in the PM or on this board that shows that's true. Does Lisa think so? Yes. Then let her put some research and numbers out to be peer reviewed. Until then it's her educated, experienced opinion over the recommendations of the BIF. Not to discount her knowledge and experience, but I'll take the BIF's recommendations AND the experience of dozens of test stations across the US that use the 112 day test recommendation. You're still hanging in the wind.
It all comes down to "want to".
Sure, Lisa shortened the test because she "wanted to". But, it was based on several points.
In no particular order:
1) Numerous research papers demonstrating that it was OK to shorten test length.
2) Labor cost of the longer trials in terms of feeding the individual feeding boxes.
3) Experiential evidence pointing towards the healthfulness of the bulls coming from the test,-producers opinions.
4) Southern cattle not using as much of their intake for maintenance(not as cold), so even though fed lower energy rations, the cattle were still getting fatter than the producers wanted.
5) She is on the BIF board, I'm sure she took some outside input before making her decision. FWIW, bull testing is so much of an old topic, the central test committee was dis-banded at BIF a number of years ago. The recommendations for length of feeding period are then out-dated, having been made about 15 years or more ago. The thinking at the time was trying to go from 140-150 day tests down to something shorter. At the time, no one was thinking about anything shorter- it seemed too far off, too radical. With the newer evidence accumulating, specifically in regards to intake testing, I think they will be revised soon.
6) You will notice a tight grouping in the birthdate of the bulls in the AU test, compared to most others. This is probably more important than test length. When you get them spread out too much, it sure can screw up test accuracies because of cattle being in differnt stages of growth. Dr Kriese-Anderson did this to make her test better, and specifically as a sort of ratchet to hold up the quality of the test, even though the period was shorter.
I highlighted some points concerning producer input and research input. I would think that producers would appreciate a person in a research/extension that can take points from a research setting, and yet is willing to take points from the producers she serves. Dr. Kriese-Anderson grew up raising purebred cattle, so I'm pretty sure she knows a thing or two about bull development for short and long-term health irrespective of any "published" papers.
So, yes, she "did what she wanted", after reviewing the available literature, consulting with producers, and consulting with other academics.
So, MikeC, apologize to frankie for LKA not having her research published at this point in time for frankie review. And apologize for using wording that was too "pointed" and not general enough. You just painted yourself into a corner with a couple words, which does in effect, make frankie techinically correct. Of course, LKA will never publish that research, because we all already know what it will say, so there is no point in publishing it. The consequence of testing for 84 instead of 112 days is that each year, you will probably have a couple bulls that have a few pounds less YW EPD than they should, and a few bulls with have a couple more pounds of YW EPD. But, they will be healthier than they were coming off of the 112 day test. Considering the YW EPD average of the Angus sires is over 100 lbs, I would hardly think a small decrease in the ability to accurately characterize the bulls for YW is a big deal.
And frankie, when the BIF guidelines change, we will see that you have been right in "the point" for the last 15 years, but wrong in "the spirit" for the last 10, and continuing on into the future of 84 days or less bull tests. You can debate points well enough, but you completely missed the whole "spirit" of MikeC's posts. You will be able to find the few pounds of YW EPD that MikeC lost, but you won't be able to do as much about efficiency, like MikeC can. I doubt if the few pounds of YW EPD is a very big deal, really. And considering your bulls will probably be fine, since they are raised in a colder climate, and divert more energy to maintenance, thus not getting as fat on your 112 day test as MikeC's did on his.
Badlands
Sure, Lisa shortened the test because she "wanted to". But, it was based on several points.
In no particular order:
1) Numerous research papers demonstrating that it was OK to shorten test length.
2) Labor cost of the longer trials in terms of feeding the individual feeding boxes.
3) Experiential evidence pointing towards the healthfulness of the bulls coming from the test,-producers opinions.
4) Southern cattle not using as much of their intake for maintenance(not as cold), so even though fed lower energy rations, the cattle were still getting fatter than the producers wanted.
5) She is on the BIF board, I'm sure she took some outside input before making her decision. FWIW, bull testing is so much of an old topic, the central test committee was dis-banded at BIF a number of years ago. The recommendations for length of feeding period are then out-dated, having been made about 15 years or more ago. The thinking at the time was trying to go from 140-150 day tests down to something shorter. At the time, no one was thinking about anything shorter- it seemed too far off, too radical. With the newer evidence accumulating, specifically in regards to intake testing, I think they will be revised soon.
6) You will notice a tight grouping in the birthdate of the bulls in the AU test, compared to most others. This is probably more important than test length. When you get them spread out too much, it sure can screw up test accuracies because of cattle being in differnt stages of growth. Dr Kriese-Anderson did this to make her test better, and specifically as a sort of ratchet to hold up the quality of the test, even though the period was shorter.
I highlighted some points concerning producer input and research input. I would think that producers would appreciate a person in a research/extension that can take points from a research setting, and yet is willing to take points from the producers she serves. Dr. Kriese-Anderson grew up raising purebred cattle, so I'm pretty sure she knows a thing or two about bull development for short and long-term health irrespective of any "published" papers.
So, yes, she "did what she wanted", after reviewing the available literature, consulting with producers, and consulting with other academics.
So, MikeC, apologize to frankie for LKA not having her research published at this point in time for frankie review. And apologize for using wording that was too "pointed" and not general enough. You just painted yourself into a corner with a couple words, which does in effect, make frankie techinically correct. Of course, LKA will never publish that research, because we all already know what it will say, so there is no point in publishing it. The consequence of testing for 84 instead of 112 days is that each year, you will probably have a couple bulls that have a few pounds less YW EPD than they should, and a few bulls with have a couple more pounds of YW EPD. But, they will be healthier than they were coming off of the 112 day test. Considering the YW EPD average of the Angus sires is over 100 lbs, I would hardly think a small decrease in the ability to accurately characterize the bulls for YW is a big deal.
And frankie, when the BIF guidelines change, we will see that you have been right in "the point" for the last 15 years, but wrong in "the spirit" for the last 10, and continuing on into the future of 84 days or less bull tests. You can debate points well enough, but you completely missed the whole "spirit" of MikeC's posts. You will be able to find the few pounds of YW EPD that MikeC lost, but you won't be able to do as much about efficiency, like MikeC can. I doubt if the few pounds of YW EPD is a very big deal, really. And considering your bulls will probably be fine, since they are raised in a colder climate, and divert more energy to maintenance, thus not getting as fat on your 112 day test as MikeC's did on his.
Badlands
jscunn
Well-known member
Badlands,
You might win the Nobel Peace Prize if this works between Irsael and Hezbollah (Mike and Frankie). I know how accurate you academics like to be so the avg YW EPD for Angus bulls (nonparent) is 74 not 100.
Great points about the climate and environment in the South. I did not think about it that way. I know we have trouble putting fat on feedlot steers in the summer, so we have basically swapped to fall calving. (Easier to get them bred too). I agree with what you said they both made some valid points and if their wasn't any "history" in between the two it would have died 3 pages ago.
One comment though, I have never bought any bulls through a bull test station and I would certainly never consider looking to see if it were BIF certified and neither would 99.99999999999999999% of bull buyers. Auburn's reputation (I cant believe I just said that) doesn't need a BIF rubber stamp. That is one thing I am sure of. Mike I am on your side for a change.
You might win the Nobel Peace Prize if this works between Irsael and Hezbollah (Mike and Frankie). I know how accurate you academics like to be so the avg YW EPD for Angus bulls (nonparent) is 74 not 100.
Great points about the climate and environment in the South. I did not think about it that way. I know we have trouble putting fat on feedlot steers in the summer, so we have basically swapped to fall calving. (Easier to get them bred too). I agree with what you said they both made some valid points and if their wasn't any "history" in between the two it would have died 3 pages ago.
One comment though, I have never bought any bulls through a bull test station and I would certainly never consider looking to see if it were BIF certified and neither would 99.99999999999999999% of bull buyers. Auburn's reputation (I cant believe I just said that) doesn't need a BIF rubber stamp. That is one thing I am sure of. Mike I am on your side for a change.
Glad you caught that one, jscunn, thanks. That's why we have reviewers!
I should have said, "Considering the YW EPD average of the Angus sires from the AU test is over 100 lbs, I would hardly think a small decrease in the ability to accurately characterize the bulls for YW is a big deal."
Three little words made a difference there, didn't it?
Badlands
I should have said, "Considering the YW EPD average of the Angus sires from the AU test is over 100 lbs, I would hardly think a small decrease in the ability to accurately characterize the bulls for YW is a big deal."
Three little words made a difference there, didn't it?
Badlands
The tighter, the better, frankie.
Many bull tests have birth dates spread out for over 90-120 days. Less than 70 day spread is rare.
When they get that wide, there is a lot of maturity issues that can muddy up the water when comparing bulls. They are right at a time in their life when they are maturing rapidly, so a month or two, let alone 3 or 4 can really make a difference.
40 years ago, growth was important, 30 years ago it was, too. 20 years ago, we produced a few popular Angus bulls that ended up making cows of the same mature size as Simmentals and Gelbvieh. We probably don't need to keep selecting for growth. At this point in time, the Angus EPD averages are right where the selected bulls of 20 years ago were that produced the cows of similar size to Simmental and Gelbvieh are.
At this point, the average Angus bull then produces cows of the same mature weight as the Continentals. This means that 1/2 of the Angus bulls now produce daughters that are bigger than Continentals. Do we still need more growth, or do we need to look at something else?
Badlands
Many bull tests have birth dates spread out for over 90-120 days. Less than 70 day spread is rare.
When they get that wide, there is a lot of maturity issues that can muddy up the water when comparing bulls. They are right at a time in their life when they are maturing rapidly, so a month or two, let alone 3 or 4 can really make a difference.
40 years ago, growth was important, 30 years ago it was, too. 20 years ago, we produced a few popular Angus bulls that ended up making cows of the same mature size as Simmentals and Gelbvieh. We probably don't need to keep selecting for growth. At this point in time, the Angus EPD averages are right where the selected bulls of 20 years ago were that produced the cows of similar size to Simmental and Gelbvieh are.
At this point, the average Angus bull then produces cows of the same mature weight as the Continentals. This means that 1/2 of the Angus bulls now produce daughters that are bigger than Continentals. Do we still need more growth, or do we need to look at something else?
Badlands
MikeC
Well-known member
RFI (Feed Efficiency) has been invariably ignored in many cattle study circles. This could do many things for us if more emphasis was on research in this area. Feed, our biggest cost.
If every single cattleman sent calves to a feedlot that used the Cornell Value Discovery System we could be ahead of the game
PDQ:
Predicted daily gain, incremental cost of gain and days to finish to optimize profits and marketing decisions while marketing within the window of acceptable carcass weights and composition,
Predicted carcass composition during growth to avoid discounts for under or over weight carcasses and excess backfat, and
Allocates feed fed to pens to individual animals for the purpose of sorting of individuals into pens by days to reach target body composition and maximum individual profitability. This allows mixed ownership of individuals in pens, determination of individual animal cost of gain for the purposes of billing feed and predicting incremental cost of gain, and providing information that can be used to select for feed efficiency and profitability.
We're like dogs chasing our tails.
Jeanne - Simme Valley
Well-known member
MikeC - I'm delivering 4 steers to the Cornell Disc Program today. Two Machos & two sired by other AI bulls.
Last year, our 4 steers (2 Machos) were the highest profit makers out of 206 feeders. Our steers averaged $84/head - the next high producer's set of steers were PB Angus and they averaged $43/head.
It's a great program. We get sooooo much data - very helpful.
And tomorrow, we're delivering 3 bulls to the NY Bull test. 2 Machos & 1 Dream On. The Dream On is goofy. He may not make the sale due to temperament, but I wanted another sire in my "contemporary" so the Macho's info would be beneficial. The DO is absolutely beautiful. Noone picked him out when they came to pick bulls, because they never saw him. He always has a way of "never being seen" - hides behind the others one way or another. He's fine as long as you don't try to isolate him. I put him in a pen in the barn & hand fed him. Got him so that he would come to his feed & let me touch his shoulder & acted just fine. Had a buyer come 2 days ago to pick up a Macho bull calf, and the DO went balistic - broke a wooden feeder to get further away from other people. :shock:
Last year, our 4 steers (2 Machos) were the highest profit makers out of 206 feeders. Our steers averaged $84/head - the next high producer's set of steers were PB Angus and they averaged $43/head.
It's a great program. We get sooooo much data - very helpful.
And tomorrow, we're delivering 3 bulls to the NY Bull test. 2 Machos & 1 Dream On. The Dream On is goofy. He may not make the sale due to temperament, but I wanted another sire in my "contemporary" so the Macho's info would be beneficial. The DO is absolutely beautiful. Noone picked him out when they came to pick bulls, because they never saw him. He always has a way of "never being seen" - hides behind the others one way or another. He's fine as long as you don't try to isolate him. I put him in a pen in the barn & hand fed him. Got him so that he would come to his feed & let me touch his shoulder & acted just fine. Had a buyer come 2 days ago to pick up a Macho bull calf, and the DO went balistic - broke a wooden feeder to get further away from other people. :shock:
MikeC
Well-known member
Decatur County Feedyards has certainly had good luck with it.
They are one of the few feeders around that can co-mingle a pen of calves and accurately charge each owner for the amount of feed their individual calves eat.
They have without a doubt one of the largest databases of feed efficiency, gain, and carcass data statistics around.
They have a good handle on what makes money in the cattle business. Part of that is due to the CVD.
They are one of the few feeders around that can co-mingle a pen of calves and accurately charge each owner for the amount of feed their individual calves eat.
They have without a doubt one of the largest databases of feed efficiency, gain, and carcass data statistics around.
They have a good handle on what makes money in the cattle business. Part of that is due to the CVD.
MikeC
Well-known member
Where was this 84 day test? What means did you use to determine that the bulls were "less stressed" ? (You used the term "certainly")
Did the ultrasound detect that the bulls were not as fat? Or was that just by "eye-balling"?
MikeC":37hbqil7 said:
North Central at Gainesville, TX.
We tested there before ultrasound was in wide use. Yes, it was eye-balling.
They came off test calmer, easier to handle = less stressed, IMO. Genetics may play a part, too. At least I think the genetics we're using today are better than the ones we used back then.
- Status
