EPD's What Do They Mean?

Help Support CattleToday:

Brandon wrote:
I would like to see feed efficiency EPDs; but the problem is collecting the intake data. Not many breeders can assemble a feed pen full of 50 steers out of registered mamas ALL sired by the same bull. Pen data is virtually useless to breeders even if you meticulously weighed the bulls and the feed. Unless you are doing some kind of high tech performance test you can't collect individual feed intakes on anything other than a barned show calf. In a normal feedlot the animals all eat out of the same bunk so who knows how much an individual bull consumed? It would be extremely difficult to collect enough data to get a breed wide EPD for feed efficiency. It is a number we would all love to have; but I don't expect to see it any time soon.

The Auburn Bull Test has enough data to calculate Feed Efficiency EPD's on bulls that have sired calves entered in the test. I have been asking Lisa to do it for a few years.

On another topic; BW EPD's:

I know of two flushmate bulls that have totally varying BW EPD's. One has a 5.6 and one has a 1.2, with a reasonable degree of accuracy. The breed average is 1.3 .

Would this wildly fluctuating phenomenon be known without EPD's?
 
MikeC":mjgg2ejd said:
On another topic; BW EPD's:

I know of two flushmate bulls that have totally varying BW EPD's. One has a 5.6 and one has a 1.2, with a reasonable degree of accuracy. The breed average is 1.3 .

Would this wildly fluctuating phenomenon be known without EPD's?

Even the split embryo clones that ABS has/had were very different in their EPDs. Alwasy makes me wonder just what benefit, other then to the seller, flushing or cloneing is

dun
 
dun":37bxpla9 said:
MikeC":37bxpla9 said:
On another topic; BW EPD's:

I know of two flushmate bulls that have totally varying BW EPD's. One has a 5.6 and one has a 1.2, with a reasonable degree of accuracy. The breed average is 1.3 .

Would this wildly fluctuating phenomenon be known without EPD's?

Even the split embryo clones that ABS has/had were very different in their EPDs. Alwasy makes me wonder just what benefit, other then to the seller, flushing or cloneing is

dun

I totally agree. But it DOES bring to light the necessity of EPD's.
 
MikeC":n5snhdaa said:
dun":n5snhdaa said:
MikeC":n5snhdaa said:
On another topic; BW EPD's:

I know of two flushmate bulls that have totally varying BW EPD's. One has a 5.6 and one has a 1.2, with a reasonable degree of accuracy. The breed average is 1.3 .

Would this wildly fluctuating phenomenon be known without EPD's?

Even the split embryo clones that ABS has/had were very different in their EPDs. Alwasy makes me wonder just what benefit, other then to the seller, flushing or cloneing is

dun

I totally agree. But it DOES bring to light the necessity of EPD's.

I couldn;t agree more. But there are those that still think they're voodoo or humbug and alwasy will.

dun
 
MikeC":1neoi1rt said:
The Auburn Bull Test has enough data to calculate Feed Efficiency EPD's on bulls that have sired calves entered in the test. I have been asking Lisa to do it for a few years."

I do believe that I did mention the exception of certain performance bull tests and I did know that Auburn did it (and has measured individual feed efficiency for a number of years). Those little electronic gate opening balls each bull wears around his neck used to be pretty expensive though. I am not aware of how many bull tests there are with the data. It is POSSIBLE to assemble some data from that; but is that a big enough data set to pull a reasonably accurate set of breed wide EPDs from?? and how accurately does that mimic real feedlot conditions for a set of steers???? are all questions for a statistician. I don't have the necessary knowledge to satisfactorily answer either question.

MikeC":1neoi1rt said:
On another topic; BW EPD's:

I know of two flushmate bulls that have totally varying BW EPD's. One has a 5.6 and one has a 1.2, with a reasonable degree of accuracy. The breed average is 1.3 .

Would this wildly fluctuating phenomenon be known without EPD's?

No, and I am sure there are flushmates with 3:1 feed efficiency and 10:1 feed efficiencys too and we won't ever know that without somebody assembling those EPDs either. I could be wrong but I still think we won't know that with any accuracy from (Official) feed efficiency EPDs for a few years (at least).

Jeane, I thought Simmental had both mature weight and mature height EPDs; but did not want to say without being certain. I am sure there is another breed or two with those numbers as well....though I am still waiting for Hereford to stand up to the plate there.
 
Yes, we would know of possible bwt differences between sires without EPD's. We wouldn't have a way of trying to measure it.

I know of AI sires that flop around with bwt's and yet they are low bwt EPD calving ease bulls. Lots of 90lbs plus calves out of them.

SAF Fame was like that at other places, how did he do at your place Seth?
Reports landed that bull all over the board.

I would still need something to show where we have benefitted from EPD's rather than strayed from the original goal set out for a breeding plan.
 
I think Gardiners measure feed efficiency in their bull test. The producer of the ABS Angus bull 4.8 of Ironwood has been using a program called something like "pinpointer" system in his bull tests for a long time. They were comfortable enough with it's accuracy to change the bull's name to reflect his efficiency. But, you're right, it's not a cheap thing to do. Our bull test station has looked into it and we just can't afford the technology. We're still rating bulls by ADG and YW.
 
Frankie":2ehzuo2y said:
I think Gardiners measure feed efficiency in their bull test. The producer of the ABS Angus bull 4.8 of Ironwood has been using a program called something like "pinpointer" system in his bull tests for a long time. They were comfortable enough with it's accuracy to change the bull's name to reflect his efficiency. But, you're right, it's not a cheap thing to do. Our bull test station has looked into it and we just can't afford the technology. We're still rating bulls by ADG and YW.

Decatur County Feedyard calculates "Feed Efficiency" on every head that go through the feedlot. They have tons and tons of data on all the breeds and crossbreeds. This data reiterates the MARC data that an English X Continental is the way to go.

They use the Cornell Value Discovery System software that is said to be accurate within 3%.

I have participated in bull tests and question their viablility today, except as a marketing tool. I think a better way to test a bulls progeny would be to send a complete set of calves to the feedyard instead of picking the best calves to send off to a test.

Bull tests were originally designed to test progeny for use as replacement herd sires. Besides, like you said, it's too expensive today.
 
We participate in the Value Discovery Program - the past 3 years. I was going to report about the "Cornell Value Discovery System software that is said to be accurate within 3%. " Glad you've heard about it.
 

Latest posts

Top