Entering performance data

[S&S Farms]

John

Now I have something else to think about while waiting on heifers to calve I have always treated my first calf heifers as a seperate contempary group when turning in data. The master of the contempary group was Frank Felton IMHO. He knew how to put together groups to make the EPD's work for him.


Later


Jeff

 

[rocket2222]

You can do it that way if you like.

I doubt I will have to worry about it, I have a long ways to go before I'd start a true linebred herd.

It is logical to me that putting intensely inbred calves and outcross calves together in one contemporary group will be like comparing apples and oranges and the resulting ratios will not reflect the true genetic potential of the calves. If you want real world epds you need to split them into separate contemporary groups.

Beings you have decided that your linebred cattle deserve their own contemporary group, impart due to their loss of performance at a early age, from being "intensely inbred". I would like to know how much performance you think you actually lost from inbreeding depression, and how much performance was actually lost from choosing traits in your linebreeding program such as calving ease, low birth weights and carcass, traits that typically don't favor early growth. Did you have a tendency to choose higher gaining individuals later in your program knowing you would loose some growth due to inbreeding depression.

 

[rocket2222]

John,

The problem with this discussion is that you are thinking on a higher plane than most of the posters here.
You are using College level calculus while they are using 7th grade algebra. They are failing to grasp that there seems to be no adjustment for inbreeding performance depression (which is real, but eliminated on the outcross) or for "in-breed" outcross vigor (which is real, but actually dissipates rapidly in succeeding generations).

Good Luck.

:lol: I know this was a serious reply, but for some reason it cracked me up.

 

[rocket2222]

John

Now I have something else to think about while waiting on heifers to calve I have always treated my first calf heifers as a seperate contempary group when turning in data. The master of the contempary group was Frank Felton IMHO. He knew how to put together groups to make the EPD's work for him.


Later


Jeff

As widely used as the Feltons herd bulls were, I don't think he had to worry to much about which contemporary group he had them in, to make them work. Being used in that many herds will quickly prove or disprove how reliable the Epd's were.

 

[alexfarms]

You can do it that way if you like.

I doubt I will have to worry about it, I have a long ways to go before I'd start a true linebred herd.

It is logical to me that putting intensely inbred calves and outcross calves together in one contemporary group will be like comparing apples and oranges and the resulting ratios will not reflect the true genetic potential of the calves. If you want real world epds you need to split them into separate contemporary groups.

Beings you have decided that your linebred cattle deserve their own contemporary group, impart due to their loss of performance at a early age, from being "intensely inbred". I would like to know how much performance you think you actually lost from inbreeding depression, and how much performance was actually lost from choosing traits in your linebreeding program such as calving ease, low birth weights and carcass, traits that typically don't favor early growth. Did you have a tendency to choose higher gaining individuals later in your program knowing you would loose some growth due to inbreeding depression.

How much performance did I actually lose from inbreeding depression? That is the questions that I don't think anyone knows the answers to, and that is why inbreeding isn't factored into the genetic analysis for epd calculations. It is obvious that it exits, but tough to put a number on. I try to select for total performance in my inbreds. I have had this line since late 2001 and my results have been pretty humbling compared to the previous owners of the line, it appears to me. They went more for growth and carcass and less for maternal traits than I have. I place fertility first, because I think it is so important for the sustainability of a line and that probably has hurt the growth performance of the cattle I have been producing from the line. There is lots of semen on growth bulls in this line and I will contiune to keep trying to find ways to work them in without getting big increases in birth weights and loss of maternal traits. The line gets compared to outcross cattle through the use of bulls on outcross cows and that helps to develop their accross breed epds.

 

[alexfarms]

John

Now I have something else to think about while waiting on heifers to calve I have always treated my first calf heifers as a seperate contempary group when turning in data. The master of the contempary group was Frank Felton IMHO. He knew how to put together groups to make the EPD's work for him.


Later


Jeff

Yes, Frank Felton was a very successfull purebred producer and he definately knew how to build epds. He also had some good cattle that he had put together. Remeber his old Feltons 324 bull, how he had such a low bw epd, until he got widely used in several herds, then the bw epd shot way up.
By sending in your heifers calves as a separate contemporary, all you are really doing is saying you don't agree with the way the AHA is adjusting the first calf heifers calves weights. I don't see how anyone can say there is anything wrong with that. I have had people tell me both ways, that they think too much weight is added in the adjustment or too little weight is added in the adjustment. Everytime there is an adjustment there is a potential for adding error into the genetic analysis.
john

 

[S&S Farms]

I enter my heifer as a different group because I actually manage them differently. I keep them seperate and probably get a little better hay than the others. That way they dont have to fight with old brood cows for feed.


Jeff

 

[Brandonm22]

Beings you have decided that your linebred cattle deserve their own contemporary group, impart due to their loss of performance at a early age, from being "intensely inbred". I would like to know how much performance you think you actually lost from inbreeding depression, and how much performance was actually lost from choosing traits in your linebreeding program such as calving ease, low birth weights and carcass, traits that typically don't favor early growth. Did you have a tendency to choose higher gaining individuals later in your program knowing you would loose some growth due to inbreeding depression.

How would you know that? All you can really know is the actual performance. Whether that performance is due to selection or to inbreeding depression we have no way of knowing. You could only guess, though undoubtedly both are at play AND there is also the possibility that the line you are inbreeding just lacks the genes for your desired performance in the first place. For an extreme example, you could linebreed Jerseys for a lifetime for growth and performance and NEVER achieve average Charolais production for those traits. Dittoe with linebreeding Chars for Jersey level commercial milk production.

 

[rocket2222]

How would you know that? All you can really know is the actual performance. Whether that performance is due to selection or to inbreeding depression we have no way of knowing. You could only guess, though undoubtedly both are at play AND there is also the possibility that the line you are inbreeding just lacks the genes for your desired performance in the first place. For an extreme example, you could linebreed Jerseys for a lifetime for growth and performance and NEVER achieve average Charolais production for those traits. Dittoe with linebreeding Chars for Jersey level commercial milk production.

Exactly. He knows they are not performing as well as other calves in the herd, but there is no way of knowing why. Could be he's slightly over emphasizing the maternal traits, or birthweights and losing some early growth as a result, it may have little to do with inbreeding depression, it may be a combination of things, either way putting them in own contemporary group gives some of them a advantage that doesn't really exist, when compared to his other calves. I would rather have all the calves ratio together as one group, see that there is [ for what ever reason ] a problem with early growth, and react accordingly by adding more growth in the program. On the other hand, it's not my program, and I'm no expert on linebreeding, so maybe I should keep my hooter out of it. :lol:

 

[Brandonm22]

On the other hand, it's not my program, and I'm no expert on linebreeding, so maybe I should keep my hooter out of it. :lol:

That is sort of my view. Alex knows his cattle. He has seen them on his farm. He has seen their calves out on his customer's farms. I am willing to accept his conclusions as probably the best guess about the situation as he is far far better informed about his circumstances than I ever could be.

 

[Frankie]

When a commercial cattleman looks at EPDs, he assumes that they reflect the breeding value of the animal. It doesn't matter why one animal's growth seems to be supressed, what matters to the guy buying a bull is how that bull's calves will grow compared to another bull. He uses EPDs to make that decision. IMO selecting contemporary groups to improve EPDs is not helpful for that commercial cattleman.

 

[Herefords.US]

When a commercial cattleman looks at EPDs, he assumes that they reflect the breeding value of the animal.

Fallacy #1 - and one that's been perpetuated by many breeders, auctioneers, etc. Everyone seems to forget what that "E" in EPD stands for, particularly in the raw EPDs of unproven virgin bulls - even with the weights and ultrasound data factored into them.

George

 

[Frankie]

When a commercial cattleman looks at EPDs, he assumes that they reflect the breeding value of the animal.

Fallacy #1 - and one that's been perpetuated by many breeders, auctioneers, etc. Everyone seems to forget what that "E" in EPD stands for, particularly in the raw EPDs of unproven virgin bulls - even with the weights and ultrasound data factored into them.

George

No, Fallacy #1 is to think that you know what "everyone" else forgets. Every generation of data put into the EPD data base makes that raw data on young bulls more accurate. Gurus at major universities, breed associations, etc., all tell us that EPDs are the most reliable way to judge an animal's breeding ability compared to another animal of the same breed. Period. Even the breed that used to call them "computerized bologna" now has EPDs. They're not magic or foolproof. Some people may not even know what EPD stands for, but the cattlemen I see buying bulls seem to put a lot of faith in them.

 

[Herefords.US]

They're not magic or foolproof. Some people may not even know what EPD stands for, but the cattlemen I see buying bulls seem to put a lot of faith in them.

Yeah, TOO MUCH faith! As I've said before, after studying this for several years, I've come to the conclusion that your Black Angus cattle are probably ahead of Herefords and any other breeds in this area, Frankie - due to "mass of the breed" and higher use of AI.

But to base selection decisions of unproven bulls solely on EPDs, with little regard to anything else, is foolhardy. And I've seen posts here and overheard some conversations at sales where it seemed people are doing just that.

George

 

[Frankie]

But to base selection decisions of unproven bulls solely on EPDs, with little regard to anything else, is foolhardy. And I've seen posts here and overheard some conversations at sales where it seemed people are doing just that.

George

It's shouldn't be an either/or situation. I know some people buy bulls sight unseen, we've never sold one that way. It's been preached on this board time after time that EPDs are another tool for breeders to use to select a bull for their herd. But people are people and some of them are going to go to extremes one way or another, looking for that "silver bullet".

 

[RD-Sam]

I have to agree with Frankie, seperating cattle into groups to make them look good on their EPD's is not right, it defeats the whole purpose of the EPD. I have learned one thing about EPD's, they don't tell the whole story, you really need to see the actual data on a cow or bull and the ratios.

EPD's are the first thing I look at, if they are not in line, there is no point in looking any further. If the EPD's are in line, and the bull or cow has correct phenotype, it's a good place to start. If you are new at cattle and don't know everything about the lines and who to trust, it's really the only way to buy cattle. :nod:

 

[Herefords.US]

I have to agree with Frankie, seperating cattle into groups to make them look good on their EPD's is not right, it defeats the whole purpose of the EPD.

If you believe that EPDs are that easy to manipulate, how can you put faith in them at all?

I have learned one thing about EPD's, they don't tell the whole story, you really need to see the actual data on a cow or bull and the ratios.

Agree wholeheartedly!

EPD's are the first thing I look at, if they are not in line, there is no point in looking any further.

Why? And what does "in line" mean? Some of the best cows in the Hereford breed have EPDs that are below breed average in several traits.

If the EPD's are in line, and the bull or cow has correct phenotype, it's a good place to start. If you are new at cattle and don't know everything about the lines and who to trust, it's really the only way to buy cattle. :nod:

I totally disagree! If you don't know everything about the lines and who to trust, you really need to find out those things first. You don't yet know whether you can trust the cattle and the people behind the numbers, but you can trust the numbers? That makes no sense to me!

 

[RD-Sam]

You can't know who to trust until you start dealing with them. Like I said, the EPD's are a place to start, but you do need to see the actual numbers on what you are about to buy. In a case like this person creating groups based on how they perform, they could be off 100 or 200 pounds from what you are really looking for, but they may have high ratios because they were put in a group of lousy performers.

In Line, means they should at least be close to average in their worst categories, and better than in several catagories, else why would you want to buy them in the first place?

 

[Frankie]

If you believe that EPDs are that easy to manipulate, how can you put faith in them at all?

Angus EPDs aren't easy to manipulate. I don't know about Herefords. No matter how many calves are reported, the Angus Assn holds accuracy at .85 until an animal has been used widely across the breed. It's easy enough to wait until a bull gets an accuracy above .85 before we use him. If the data is being skewed, it'll be noticable by the time a bull gets to .90 accuracy.


Why? And what does "in line" mean? Some of the best cows in the Hereford breed have EPDs that are below breed average in several traits.

"in line" means different things to different people. We stress weaning weights because most people who buy our bulls sell their calves at the sale barn. Because we run our cattle on native grass, we watch the milk EPD. What makes a Hereford cow "best" if she has below breed average EPDs?

I totally disagree! If you don't know everything about the lines and who to trust, you really need to find out those things first. You don't yet know whether you can trust the cattle and the people behind the numbers, but you can trust the numbers? That makes no sense to me!

Not necessarily. What difference does it make whether a bull is from the New Design line or the EXT line or the 5175 line if he has the performance, numbers and phenotype that you like? Sure, talk to the breeder and decide if you're comfortable with him and his program. I guess you could ask for a DNA test on every bull to be sure he's what the breeder says, but if you're that suspicious you probably should get into another business. :roll:

 

[Brandonm22]

Angus EPDs aren't easy to manipulate. I don't know about Herefords. No matter how many calves are reported, the Angus Assn holds accuracy at .85 until an animal has been used widely across the breed. It's easy enough to wait until a bull gets an accuracy above .85 before we use him. If the data is being skewed, it'll be noticable by the time a bull gets to .90 accuracy.

It is hard to get a lot of accuracy in Hereford EPDs. Not enough people AI. The breed is divided into Horned and Polled breeders plus a lot of people specialize in different lines of Hereford. and there are still a lot of breeders who don't turn in data.

For example, Feltons Legend 242 has been around for 10 years, it seems like he has been in the Genex books for most of that time and he just is getting to 90% accuracy.

http://www.herfnet.com/online/cgi-bin/i ... 620&9=505D

I think some of that is changing though as people take the EPDs a little more seriously.