EPDs (again.....) those who follow and those who don't

[angus9259]

I find it interesting that (in angus world anyway), there are ranches that seem to adhere very strictly to EPDs (Gardner?) and yet, some very successful places that seem far less concerned (Ohlde, SAV, Coleman). I wonder what would happen if a bull with Ohlde EPDs ended up in a GAR sale. Would Coleman Charlo (an Ohlde son) ever seen success if not for SAV not seeming to care about EPDs (at least the same way) as others?

Even when I look at my own cattle, the EPDs of my older cattle are quite inferior to my "newer" cattle but all the actual traits of their calves (wean weight, docility, calving ease, etc...) don't seem to track the EPDs of the animals.

I realize EPDs are "just a tool", but what if the tool is rather misleading, should it still be used? I'm even more curious now that I'm being given the opportunity to pay $40 to have them "genomically enhanced". Lastly, it's really rather ironic to me in a world that is so "science doubtful", that we in the ag world are willing to pay $40 per animal for this rather scientific test. Has this genomic enhance value actually ever been scientifically proven (if we actually believe in data or science any more) or is it another example of "big pharma taking our money"?

All very odd to me....

 

[Ebenezer]

There's "motion, emotion, commotion and promotion". Probably ought to add egos and greed to that list. That should be the definition of the modern AAA.

Do you believe all that you read? Can you put up with what they do not tell you about the animal(s) and herds? The "not telling" is worse than the told. And can you clearly look at the animals, more truthfully at their offspring in pictures and catalogs that do not air brush or do the BS thing, and say, "That is a useful looking animal"? Most of the time, the answer is NO. And the bigger questions are: do you own a feedmill and a feed truck? Can you set up the scenarios prior to a sale where the three amigos, Mr. Big, Mr. Bigger and Mr. Biggest, "pay" huge prices for the top lots? I think the IRS could have a field day with a bunch of that stupidity and should.

Are there vast differences in animals of the past with poor EPDs compared to the modern marvels with the highest of EPDs? My experience - not in most. I keep bringing in bulls from the '60s to the '90s and they are quite useful. And I know what they will do. If I want to be successful, I will raise registered Angus like the commercial folks around here raise their cattle. If what I try does not do that, it is culled.

There are a lot of the promoters that I do not trust. That's what scars are good for - reminders not to do that same thing again in the same manner. But if you believe in the tooth fairy, the Easter Bunny and Santa Claus, then drool over the magazines and the semen catalogs.

Unbelievably modern and better herds or individuals - help yourself. But if you like the tooth fairy, the Easter bunny and Santa Claus

 

[simme]

I am not a member of the angus group, but here are my thoughts. The three programs you mentioned have one thing in common. They have reached a level of "success" that most never find. But they all appear to chase different methods. In the end, success is measured in dollars (for most), personal satisfaction, or reputation. I think all three have achieved all those goals with many supporters and some detractors. One would be considered as high performing growth cattle to some and overfed fall apart cattle to others. One would be considered as low input thick meat producers to some and small frame low growth cattle to others. One would be considered as efficient high grading retail cut producers to some and ugly thin no muscle cattle to others. Every producer has to have a market and produce consistent cattle for their market. There are multiple "markets". All three have perhaps excelled in producing for their market, maybe even in making their market.

The end market is meat for consumption. The buyer at the retail level is not aware of these three programs or their methods. The buyer at the retail level just wants good, consistent, low cost meat. If beef production was like the chicken and hog production, I don't think there would be an SAV or Ohlde or GAR. Or multiple breeds, just a few composites. In the meantime, we will have the promotion and commotion because it makes money for those who have mastered it.

EPD's are a good tool since they are calculated from real data from progeny. The issue is accuracy. High accuracy EPD's can be used with some confidence. Low accuracy EPD's are still a hope and a dream to some extent. They are based on data from progeny from prior generations. Different traits have different degrees of heritability. By the time a bull or cow produces enough progeny to have high accuracy, they are old and not in the bull of the month club. You might hit the jackpot on low accuracy bulls, but you might not. But the bull of the month almost always looks better in person and on paper than those old bulls. Some traits are easy to measure and early to measure - like birth weight and growth. Other very important traits for the cow/calf producer are harder and later to measure - like fertility, feet, maternal, longevity, easy keeper, etc. Weaning weights 50 years ago were pretty low. Maybe 200-300 pounds more today. I think the availability and use of EPD's contributed to that.

Based on the advances made in chicken and pig efficiency, I think there is still more to be gained with beef. I also think that the advances in chicken and pigs were primarily not made at the promotion and commotion level.

 

[sim.-ang.king]

A good salesman can sell a bad product in a good package.

 

[Ky hills]

As has been said, EPD's are a tool, and in my opinion a very overrated and misused tool. Birth weight and CED numbers on a fairly proven bull are in my mind about the only credible EPD's. The growth WW and YW maybe somewhat, There are a lot of management factors that affect all those numbers and there can be a wild swing of results from one place to another, even if the recorded information is truly accurate.
Our way of thinking is that animal husbandry is a fine art, and shouldn't be made into rocket science.
People used to somehow select cattle that worked for them just on past knowledge and visual appraisal. Now we are made go believe that a bunch of numbers are where it's at. I can't help but believe thst we have created a lot more problems by trying to make it a numbers game.

 

[angus9259]

There's "motion, emotion, commotion and promotion". Probably ought to add egos and greed to that list. That should be the definition of the modern AAA.

Do you believe all that you read? Can you put up with what they do not tell you about the animal(s) and herds? The "not telling" is worse than the told. And can you clearly look at the animals, more truthfully at their offspring in pictures and catalogs that do not air brush or do the BS thing, and say, "That is a useful looking animal"? Most of the time, the answer is NO. And the bigger questions are: do you own a feedmill and a feed truck? Can you set up the scenarios prior to a sale where the three amigos, Mr. Big, Mr. Bigger and Mr. Biggest, "pay" huge prices for the top lots? I think the IRS could have a field day with a bunch of that stupidity and should.

Are there vast differences in animals of the past with poor EPDs compared to the modern marvels with the highest of EPDs? My experience - not in most. I keep bringing in bulls from the '60s to the '90s and they are quite useful. And I know what they will do. If I want to be successful, I will raise registered Angus like the commercial folks around here raise their cattle. If what I try does not do that, it is culled.

There are a lot of the promoters that I do not trust. That's what scars are good for - reminders not to do that same thing again in the same manner. But if you believe in the tooth fairy, the Easter Bunny and Santa Claus, then drool over the magazines and the semen catalogs.

Unbelievably modern and better herds or individuals - help yourself. But if you like the tooth fairy, the Easter bunny and Santa Claus

In my post below when I brought up Charlo, you grabbed his EPDs as proof and dismissed him without any further consideration so I assume you salute the EPD flag?

Any Update on Charlo

I know this has been discussed in the past - just wonder now that he's been out there a while if there's any new observations on Coleman Charlo. I usually wait 4-5 years after introduction to try a bull so there's plenty of real feel out there for him. His price is coming down and Coleman...

www.cattletoday.com

 

[Ebenezer]

In my post below when I brought up Charlo, you grabbed his EPDs as proof and dismissed him without any further consideration so I assume you salute the EPD flag?

Any Update on Charlo

I know this has been discussed in the past - just wonder now that he's been out there a while if there's any new observations on Coleman Charlo. I usually wait 4-5 years after introduction to try a bull so there's plenty of real feel out there for him. His price is coming down and Coleman...

www.cattletoday.com

I do not ignore EPDs as they show trends within the contemporary group. There is money to be made in cattle with easy keeping traits and with proper frame score. EPDs are bumpers to me or guardrails - however you want to visualize it.
This was my post at that time:

"Current EPDs: YH -0.9, Doc +4, HP +7.4, CEM -4"

Since you brought up the old post here are the current and more accurate #s of today:
"YH -1.0, Doc +4, HP +7.7, CEM -3

Those EPDS, old, new, accurate or not so accurate are the pits. If you do not understand: short, bad attitude, lower heifer breed up or at least slower and hard calving daughters. The trends are there. Many will support the bull, no doubt. I look at the overall trend and see nothing of value. I see harm. With a high level of proof, the bull will never sire FS 5+ cattle that will bring top prices in sale barns in the SE USA. Growers here do not want hot headed cattle. The lack or slowness of heifer breed up is a cullable offence here. A heifer that cannot have her calf is a bad day and a waste of 2 years of an AU.

But where I disagree with Simme in the sentence:

" Weaning weights 50 years ago were pretty low. Maybe 200-300 pounds more today. I think the availability and use of EPD's contributed to that."

This is not totally true. If you only research the mainstream cattle of that era which were chasing the belt buckle and baby beef fads of that time, you are correct. If you research Emulous, Big Elban, some Wye cattle and likely others, such as Canadian lines, you will not have 100% proof. The fad seekers avoided those cattle. Those cattle had their own alliances and were outsiders until the fad faded. And feeding and pasture management today is likely better than in those past times.

Then we circle back to EPDs. EPDs are not correct for those 60's + cattle that weaned over 700 and had yearling weights in the 1200+/- range. I sense a type of planned poor linkage to good cattle of the past to enhance the never ending sequel of the new and unproven better bulls of sales, catalogs and semen sales. Otherwise there is a terrible problem with the program used if it cannot keep all cattle current. If you do not believe try some of the old bulls that were not some cross type made by the promoters to suddenly end the belt buckle era to start the frame race. All of this junk: never the thought of the commercial folks or the production of red meat. Just set new record sale prices on paper to your buddies and blow smoke.

 

[simme]

On the subject of EPD's, management, and visual observation: Visual observation (phenotype), firsthand knowledge of the cow family and discussions with other producers are important information for sure. Look just at one trait - weaning weight. Easily measured in pounds. Say you visit with a producer with a large number of calves sired by 2 different bulls. In that herd, the steer calves sired by bull A have an average 205 day adjusted weaning weight of 660 pounds. The steer calves sired by bull B have an average weaning weight of 700 pounds. Both sets of calves look good and the owner is pleased with both groups. Dams look good as well. What would you decide from the observations? Both bulls are good? Bull B is the bull to use? Bull A calves have good growth or bad growth? Both 660 pounds and 700 pounds seem like good weights.

Then you visit another producer that you trust. He has a large number of calves sired by two different bulls. Average 205 adjusted weaning weight on bull C steer calves is 510 pounds. Average for bull D steer calves is 550 pounds. Dams of the calves look good, but are thinner than the other producer's cows. Owner is pleased with the calves. What observations would you make from this visit? Neither bull C or D is the bull to use since the weaning weights are less than you want? Bull D is the bull to use? The first producer selected better bulls than the second producer? Having thin cows is not good? Bull B must sire more weaning weight potential than Bull A? Bull C and D must not sire much weaning weight potential?

Then you notice that both producers used the same two bulls. Bull A is the same bull as C. Bull B is the same bull as D. Point being is that weaning weight EPD's are not calculated on actual weaning weights reported. They are calculated based on differences in actual adjusted weaning weights of different sire groups within the same herd and same pasture and same conditions. First producer turns in his weaning weights and the EPD machine calculates that bull B sires calves on average 40 pounds heavier at weaning than bull A. 700- 660 = 40.
Second producer turns in his weaning weights and the EPD machine calculates that bull D sires calves on average 40 pounds heavier than bull C. 550 - 510 = 40. My examples are basic and simplistic.

Weaning weight EPD's are just calculated differences in actual weaning weights for many calves measured over many sire groups in many herds. Herd 1 weights are never compared to herd 2 weights for EPD calculations. If that were the case, EPD's would be meaningless. Contributions to EPD updates are only based on different sire groups in the same herd under the same condition. Then those within herd differences are averaged together over all herds in the database to calculate new EPD's. Not a perfect system, but seems to me that there is some good data there. Maybe as good or better than the physical observation example above.

Short comings of weaning weight EPD. Say that producer 1 above owns bull B and sells semen on the bull as well as sons in his production sale. He could put the toe of his boot on the scale when a calf sired by bull B comes over the scale. He could manipulate the weaning weight EPD for bull B if he has a large number of them compared to bull B calves in other herds. Point is that there is a way to cheat if you own most of the calves sired by the bull. If/when the bull is used in more herds, the ability to manipulate is less unless there is a conspiracy with all your buddies. Having incorrect sires listed (on purpose or by accident) will contribute to inaccurate EPD's. I have read that around 10% of registered cattle do not blood type to their listed sire, best I remember that was the number.

Point is that management and feed differences between farms do not affect EPD calculations. I don't think there is a conspiracy at the breed association to manipulate EPD's for the benefit of certain members or directors. I still think that EPD's are a good tool for selection along with all the other tools and information.