calving ease selection

[ollie]

Here would be an example of a selection process similiar to what has been presented from time to time here on CT. Vote for the bull that you would most trust as a calving ease sire. I know you probably wouldn't pick either but just pick one for the poll.

 

[Angus Guy]

Ollie
Kind of sounds like a no brainer to me. I have a bull whose BW EPD was 4.7 acc .30 and has yet to throw a calf over 80#. That is the only EPD that I don't trust. If the acc is .60 or it is alot more believeable.

 

[ollie]

.90 suits me better then it still leaves some question in my mind about the shape of the calf till I see one. Just because it is light doesn't mean it comes easy. Not many cows could pass a 50lb salt block.

 

[RainMan]

Would I be correct in saying both of your examples are inaccurate, if the epd's are all that they are made out to be? As I read it, a negative bw will result in a calf lighter than the standard for the breed. And just the opposite for a positive bw. Either way, I voted for "B". CW

 

[dun]

My preference is none of thr above

dun

 

[1848]

As I read it, a negative bw will result in a calf lighter than the standard for the breed. And just the opposite for a positive bw.

That's where you get into trouble right there...assumming a neg BW will give a calf lighter than the standard for the breed.

 

[1848]

Ollie,

If you've ever seen the movie "Princess Bride" and watched the Sicilian use his logic when it came to drinking the poison? That's about what you have proposed here! :lol:

Youre right about flipping a coin here. It would take more offspring from each to tell you for sure with EPD's will run more true. Plus you must have a history of the operation, and the parents.

There is a mutlitude of things which could iflunence EPD's. ie: management, feed, calving ease, contemporary groupings etc, etc.

But.........if I had to vote based on the limited information you gave me here, I would vote for the bull who give an actual BW of 73 lbs assuming all other conditions were equal! ;-)

 

[endebt]

If this is all I have to chose from I will just run mine with my bulls. We A I twice a year to angus bull for our hiefers and we chose a bull that has a bw of 2 or less and good ced and milk in that order. Then we look at ww wieghts and yw weights. Then iIlook at the picture of the bull.

 

[ollie]

Not much need to use CED in most breeds where the accuracy is less than .30. Usually that CED is heavily loaded with the actual bw of the bull. You can just use that.

 

[ollie]

I deleted the overly rude comment endebt. I do disagree with you about not looking at them till the epd's suit you but if you're satisfied with the bulls you get then I am satisfied.

 

[Susie David]

I went with the 73# BW...and the higher EPD...I would not hesitate using this bull on our o'l boss cow, she drops big calves anyway but no way on a first or second calf heifer.
I look at the past performance of the bull and the EPD and usually go with the BW of his calves in making a decision.
Dave Mc

 

[Tod Dague]

Are these two bulls in the same contemporary group?

 

[ollie]

Quit over anyalizing Tod. I realize if they were the same contemporary group and the cows had similiar epd's then the sire of the heavy bw epd calf would have to have very serious epd's in the bw dept. I just wanted to figure out if the people here who buy cheap commercial bulls trusted epd's or actual data the most. You're too sharp of a cattleman.

 

[Tod Dague]

Sorry. I was a little to sleepy last night to realize that you are try to prove absurdity by being absurd. Just checked the results and it is surprising.

 

[Texan]

I just wanted to figure out if the people here who buy cheap commercial bulls trusted epd's or actual data the most.

You must have been thinking about me when you typed that about us cheapskates, ollie. As long as I feel like I can trust the breeder (not a given), I'll take the low actual over the low accuracy expected every time.