EPD's

[Brandonm2]

Hey, congratulations , you got it right this time. It doesn't say bull A or bull B will sire calves very heavy or very light does it. You keep studying those epd's brandon and some day you'll have them figured out.

Lets get serious on this topic. Most bulls bred to 1000 different cows around the country have real numbers reported ranging anywhere between 54 pounds and 120 pounds. If bull A is beating Bull B by a full two pounds (on AVERAGE) when bred to the same set of cows in every possible herd, level of mgmt, and environment, why would anyone who cares strongly about birth weight ever choose to use Bull B over Bull A? Bull A has him beat by a country mile. If bull A were a Hereford and he were AT breed average for birth weight (3.8) and bull B's birth weight EPD were 2 pounds heavier than A that would put B in the bottom ~12% of the entire breed with the culls and some of the show ponys. There is only a 6.1 pound swing in birth weight EPD between the top 5% of the Hereford breed and the bottom 5%. 2 pounds better than avg would put you in the top ~14 % of the breed. 2 pounds is a massive difference in the birth weight EPD. I would have to see a MOUNTAIN of actual imperical evidence to ever believe that Bull B sires less "too big" calves than does Bull A. I concede that is is "possible" and there are almost certainly a handful of such examples; but statistically duplicating that very often is enormously improbable and even in the freak example where that were true, bull B's EPD probably still sucks too badly for most people (who look hard at that EPD) to ever actually use HIM. They would just have to find a Bull C.

 

[novatech]

I have learned a lot about birth weigh EPD in this discussion.
I want to thank you all for that.
I do however have a broblem with the accuacy of YW. Maybe it is because I do not understand how it is derived. To me it could be just a feeding contest with ear implants and whatever else one could find to increase gain, with no regaurd to feed efficiency.
Please inform me on this.

 

[Jeanne - Simme Valley]

Feed efficiency is not calculated in the EPD's. As far as the "accuracy number" of the YW EPD, they are usually lower than WW because more people turn in WW than they do YW.
YW figures are turned in on cattle that are fed high grain rations and some that were not.

 

[novatech]

Feed efficiency is not calculated in the EPD's. As far as the "accuracy number" of the YW EPD, they are usually lower than WW because more people turn in WW than they do YW.
YW figures are turned in on cattle that are fed high grain rations and some that were not.

So given that the animals are not all fed the same way there would be no true comparison between animals and would make the score questionable ?

 

[dun]

Feed efficiency is not calculated in the EPD's. As far as the "accuracy number" of the YW EPD, they are usually lower than WW because more people turn in WW than they do YW.
YW figures are turned in on cattle that are fed high grain rations and some that were not.

So given that the animals are not all fed the same way there would be no true comparison between animals and would make the score questionable ?

The yearling weight deal is pretty tricky because not that many people retain ownership of calves through the feedlot to get data at that age. I think the majority of the YW figures come from retained heifers and bulls that will make it into the breeding herd rather then the freezer.

dun

 

[BRG]

Here is a bw EPD Example.

We will be AI'ing to 4 different bulls this year and they are all bulls we own. Their will be no outside genetics brought in. The BW EPD's are as follows 1.7, 3.5, 3.6, & 2.8. Now none of theses are what I consider a calving ease sire, and they are all performance bulls. Now since I am not going to bring any outside bulls in. These will be compared to only each other in the contemporary groups. So since their is only a 1.9 difference between the biggest to the smallest. What will happen to the numbers after the data is turned in on them? If one sires on average 5 to 10 pounds of actual bw less than the others, will he then drop to look as if he is a calving ease sire? In this sinerio he could and probably will, but in reality he will still not be a calving ease or heifer type bull, but his numbers will say he is. What about the other bulls, in the same example, will their bw EPD jump way up and look as if he is a cow killer, but in all actuality they come out nice and easy but weigh a little more than the rest.

 

[MikeC]

I have learned a lot about birth weigh EPD in this discussion.
I want to thank you all for that.
I do however have a broblem with the accuacy of YW. Maybe it is because I do not understand how it is derived. To me it could be just a feeding contest with ear implants and whatever else one could find to increase gain, with no regaurd to feed efficiency.
Please inform me on this.

YW is better described as "Post Weaning Weight". This weight is for analyzing the gain of a contemporary group of calves after they have been removed from the cow, and usually for the 140 subsequent days, no matter the feeding regimen.

Feed efficiency has nothing to do with this "Post Weaning Gain".

How could it, with no efficiency data reported?

A high rate of gain in the overall contemporary group would not cause the entire groups' YW EPD's to be higher because the ratio between the calves is used for calculation.

 

[Frankie]

Feed efficiency is not calculated in the EPD's. As far as the "accuracy number" of the YW EPD, they are usually lower than WW because more people turn in WW than they do YW.
YW figures are turned in on cattle that are fed high grain rations and some that were not.

So given that the animals are not all fed the same way there would be no true comparison between animals and would make the score questionable ?

EPDs are calculated using "contemporary groups." Contemporary groups are cattle born within 90 days of each other and managed the same. So, yes, EPDs are useful in comparing animals whther or not they're fed.

 

[novatech]

I have learned a lot about birth weigh EPD in this discussion.
I want to thank you all for that.
I do however have a broblem with the accuacy of YW. Maybe it is because I do not understand how it is derived. To me it could be just a feeding contest with ear implants and whatever else one could find to increase gain, with no regaurd to feed efficiency.
Please inform me on this.

YW is better described as "Post Weaning Weight". This weight is for analyzing the gain of a contemporary group of calves after they have been removed from the cow, and usually for the 140 subsequent days, no matter the feeding regimen.

Feed efficiency has nothing to do with this "Post Weaning Gain".

How could it, with no efficiency data reported?

A high rate of gain in the overall contemporary group would not cause the entire groups' YW EPD's to be higher because the ratio between the calves is used for calculation.

I guess what I am trying to ask is how important is that number when makeing comaprisons? If the feeding regimen is different between groups of post weaned calves, then the accuracy would be deminished. ( Part of the problem I have is that you have a far greater comand of the english language than me, so please forgive me for that.) Is each group made up of calves with the same sire and compared to a group with a different sire? Is each group made up of calves with different sires and comparisons made between each calf within that group?
I know that feed efficiency tests are not done, just makeing a point that maybe they should be.

 

[BRG]

The contemprary groups are made up of many different sires. The calves are all close to the same age and then fed together, whether it be in a feedlot or out on grass, it doesn't matter since they will be all together. They are then compared by weights and they are then given a ratio. Average is 100 for the ratio, they will either be above 100, below 100 or right at 100. This is what will determine if the YW EPD will go up or down, or stay the same.

 

[novatech]

OK, YW just became an important no. thanks to you guys unscrambling my brain.

Thanks a million.

 

[MikeC]

If the feeding regimen is different between groups of post weaned calves, then the accuracy would be deminished.

No it would not. It would actually enhance the accuracy giving a more overall view of different management practices. The calves are compared against the others in same the contemporary group, which are all treated alike.

This takes the environment (feeding regimen) out of the
equation.

I know that feed efficiency tests are not done, just makeing a point that maybe they should be.

Do you realize the ramifications of collecting data on feed efficiency?

The daily/total feed intake of each calf has to be measured, along with frequent weights of the calf.

It is labor and management intensive. That's why not many facilities can/will do it.

The Auburn Univ bull test is one of the few that calculate FE.

 

[dph]

Lets make a deal here. If you will go out and do the research for us showing us which genetic markers are the genes for the 72 pound birth weight, 640 lb weaning weight, 5.5 pounds a day feedlot performance, 50% of the time Prime, Yield grade 1.5 carcasses, with tenderness, and have sisters who top out on the farm at 1085 and can eat thistle, blackberry bushes, broome straw, sagegrass, tumbleweed, and 3 year old pasture stored hay and still breed back every years we will gladly pay you $5 a head to test for it.

In theory, all the good cows share the same genes for important traits. I don't believe this but it is the theory behind such new fangled ideas like testing for the tenderness genetic markers. Will a bull with none of the so-called tenderness genes sire progeny that will yield incredibly tough carcasses? I seriously doubt it. If a bull has all of their tenderness genetic markers, will his progeny be more likely to hang tender cuts of meat? Based on the science, probably so. I think it is quite possible that there are other genetic markers out there that we can test for for many other traits.

Do I believe that future cattlemen will send in a blood or hair sample on a 2 day old calf and some lab will send them back a report (for a nice fee) that says....
(roughly) 'the sample calf has the genes for a 40% lighter birth weight in his progeny than breed avg. His genes are in the tops 22% for growth. The DNA analysis shows that his daughters will be 25% better than breed avg for milk and his DNA indicates that his progeny will be in top 10% of their breed for muscling, marbling, feed efficiency, ADG, and tenderness', etc? YES, I absolutely do believe that within 25 years such DNA analysis reports will be commercially available. The question of the day then will be: do these reports have any accuracy whatsoever? Somebody has got to do a LOT of research for us to ever get to that point though.

I also believe in the perfect cow. I have seen her before. In every herd that I have ever been associated with there is always THAT cow. You know the one. THE cow that stays in good condition in February when all the good quality hay has run out or in that bad drought in August. The cow that calves each and every year in the first ten days of the calving season unassisted. The cow that's always is in the top 1/3 of herd at weaning and whose calves always have that IT factor (no matter what bull selection errors we may or may not have made). The cow that never gets sick or tears down the fence. She is the ultimate goal of every maternal breeding program in existence (or SHOULD be). I think it is entirely theoretically possible too duplicate and multiply THAT cow. I don't think it is easy and I am not sure that cloning is the best tool for it; but YES I think it CAN be done.

You are missing one thing on tenderness Brandon. It's not about a new fangled test. It's about what we are all about, producing consistent, high quality beef. I am sure there are other genes out there for tenderness. I am under the understanding Bovigen tests for different genes in Austrailia than the do in the US because some genes they have identified don't impact tenderness in a grain-fed environment. What they have shown is cattle that carry the markers are more tender on average than cattle who don't. Its repeatable and proven. But what it is all about is what Mr. Packer decides. If Mr. Packer decides its worth his time to test and sort the meat, we now have a new standard set. And while many believe there is some sort of premium that will be added for hitting this standard and using tenderness is something producers will get paid for, the fact of the matter is it will be the same as it has always been. There won't be a premium, there will be a deduction if you don't have it. And if you are facing the deduction, I am not going to roll the dice that the bull who has no known genetic potential for tenderness is going to produce calves with tender meat.

Carcass quality is the same way. Feed efficieny is a trait that may make a heck of a difference someday on what a Feeder will pay you. And we have been promsied for sometime that feed efficiency markers are on their way.

Other traits will fall on the maternal side. Mr. Producer is the one that will ultimately decide those. Obviously it will never get to the point of being able to predict what you describe in your first post, but as the testing gets better, what are you going to spend on that test, if you are a breeder? Whether packer or producer, it's not about a test as much as it is about the marketplace someone operates in and how they plan to remain competitive in it.

As a commercial cattle guy, I don't know if we are ever going to test our cattle. Maybe at some point way, way in the future. All I would like to do, once things get further along, is use these tests to introduce genetics into my herd that make it more effecient or more profitable. For right now, with the exception of tenderness, I will stick with EPDs, confirmation, and performance.

Maybe the Michigan State student can chime in and tell us where they are at as far as research. I kind of think of it a bit like the equipment manufacturers. What did John Deere have back in the warehouse when they were rolling those 4440s out the front of it? What is it that some of the companies are out there testing to prove? I don't know if it is as far out as we all think. The ones I would most like to see are a pretty short list. Tenderness, Quality, Feed Efficiency, Udder Quality, and Calving Interval (Fertility). That's it. Give me a decent population of those genes (I won't hold out for everyone of them) in the next 5-10 years so I can use it to select bulls in conjunction with what we already use and I will be a very happy producer and I think I will have a very profitable herd.

 

[Brandonm2]

I have nothing against the genetic testing for tenderness other than that is a shortcut method and is highly inaccurate. IF we really want to be accurate and we really wanted to really identify which sires produced tender beef instead of some silly DNA marker test we would actually go out and breed the 200 top bulls to 3000 cows for about 3 years send 8000 calves to the same feedlot and packer and then shear force tested 2 or 3 steaks from every carcass. Crunch the numbers and then assign a shear force score of 1 to 5 to each bull with 5 being the most tender ~20%. IF a packer wants a real premium beef program, he needs to go to a source and genetics verified program that only sells calves sired by a PROVEN tender bull. Producers who want to participate in the program would have to AI to one of the bulls on the packer's approved list (THAT will take a sweet premium). By source and genetics verfication you could also then verify that that product is implant and antibiotic free and you don't have to tie up your entire packing plant by then having to sort the carcasses based on how they scored on some kind of rushed DNA test at slaughter. Of course I am not as smart as some of these dudes who work for the packers or the breed associations so I fail to see why this would not be the easiest, most accurate, and cheapest way to get tender premium product in the marketing pipeline.

 

[novatech]

If the feeding regimen is different between groups of post weaned calves, then the accuracy would be deminished.

No it would not. It would actually enhance the accuracy giving a more overall view of different management practices. The calves are compared against the others in same the contemporary group, which are all treated alike.

This takes the environment (feeding regimen) out of the
equation.

I know that feed efficiency tests are not done, just makeing a point that maybe they should be.

Do you realize the ramifications of collecting data on feed efficiency?

The daily/total feed intake of each calf has to be measured, along with frequent weights of the calf.

It is labor and management intensive. That's why not many facilities can/will do it.

The Auburn Univ bull test is one of the few that calculate FE.

I agree with you about the feed efficience tests being expensive. But a lot of people complained about the cost of Epd,s when it first started, and it took a long time for ot to be accepted. I beleive that as times goes on the price of these tests will come down. The ramifications of collecting data will be a tremendous asset if you look at it from a different prespective. There are also many breeders improveing there stock buy useing these tests now. They are useing it as a marketing tool. When feed prices are low this is not an important issue but if they go up effeciency will become a lot more important. Those breeders with proven feed efficient cattle will reap the benifits.
On another note you state that these tests are labor intensive. Equipment costs are high but I do not see the big cost of labor as the tests are pretty well automated.

 

[novatech]

I have nothing against the genetic testing for tenderness other than that is a shortcut method and is highly inaccurate. IF we really want to be accurate and we really wanted to really identify which sires produced tender beef instead of some silly DNA marker test we would actually go out and breed the 200 top bulls to 3000 cows for about 3 years send 8000 calves to the same feedlot and packer and then shear force tested 2 or 3 steaks from every carcass. Crunch the numbers and then assign a shear force score of 1 to 5 to each bull with 5 being the most tender ~20%. IF a packer wants a real premium beef program, he needs to go to a source and genetics verified program that only sells calves sired by a PROVEN tender bull. Producers who want to participate in the program would have to AI to one of the bulls on the packer's approved list (THAT will take a sweet premium). By source and genetics verfication you could also then verify that that product is implant and antibiotic free and you don't have to tie up your entire packing plant by then having to sort the carcasses based on how they scored on some kind of rushed DNA test at slaughter. Of course I am not as smart as some of these dudes who work for the packers or the breed associations so I fail to see why this would not be the easiest, most accurate, and cheapest way to get tender premium product in the marketing pipeline.

Where do you get highly inaccurate from. None of the reports I have seen agree with this. Genetic testing says the genes are there nothing else. A proven bull says nothing more but the genes are there. There is still nothing that says he will pass those genes along.

 

[dph]

I have nothing against the genetic testing for tenderness other than that is a shortcut method and is highly inaccurate. IF we really want to be accurate and we really wanted to really identify which sires produced tender beef instead of some silly DNA marker test we would actually go out and breed the 200 top bulls to 3000 cows for about 3 years send 8000 calves to the same feedlot and packer and then shear force tested 2 or 3 steaks from every carcass. Crunch the numbers and then assign a shear force score of 1 to 5 to each bull with 5 being the most tender ~20%. IF a packer wants a real premium beef program, he needs to go to a source and genetics verified program that only sells calves sired by a PROVEN tender bull. Producers who want to participate in the program would have to AI to one of the bulls on the packer's approved list (THAT will take a sweet premium). By source and genetics verfication you could also then verify that that product is implant and antibiotic free and you don't have to tie up your entire packing plant by then having to sort the carcasses based on how they scored on some kind of rushed DNA test at slaughter. Of course I am not as smart as some of these dudes who work for the packers or the breed associations so I fail to see why this would not be the easiest, most accurate, and cheapest way to get tender premium product in the marketing pipeline.

Brandon, I don't believe either thing you stated is entirely correct. You are looking at it from top down, and the way it appears they are working it is from bottom up. Once they have isolated a gene they believe to be responsible for tenderness, all the need to do is compare a population of cattle with it to those without it. Which they have done. It doesn't matter what bulls they are out of as long as it impacts tenderness in the general environment that I raise my calves in. Once they prove a number of genes that affect tenderness significantly, it matters whether that bull has it or not.

Second, the packer won't DNA test the calves before slaughter. They are already developing several tests, such as the IR scan discussed in another topic, that will not slow the line up. This eliminates verification needing to be based on DNA or how they were bred and then worrying on whether the genes were passed down or not. All anyone is really concerned with is end result, whether you got their by chance or planning shouldn't be an issue to them as long as its tender. It should be an issue to the producer though. With tenderness, all I want to do as a commerical producer is increase the odds significantly that my calves will qualify for being tender, which I can do by studying the genes that I introduce in my herd through our bulls, without compromising other EPDs or performance or confirmation. Increase the population of the genes in my herd over time and increase the likelihood that my calves will inherit them.

 

[Red007]

Ok I am not an MSU student YET, that will be in the fall. My opinion is that our EPD system is flawed. The breed associations do not have a uniform system, which makes it harder for commercial producers to deside between a simmi bull or a red angus. (although the choice is obvious to me). A second flaw is that EPD's are EXPECTED, not actual. If a genomic project were to happen, or already has I don't know, we could then identify where each trait is located that we wish to screen for. That way we KNOW the actual genetic potenital of a bull to pass on a certian combination to his offspring. I was not trying to say that EPD's are horrible. I just think that they need a little work and accuracy built into them, which can be achieved with genomic screening.

 

[Jeanne - Simme Valley]

I think EPD's are extremely accurate on well proven bulls. You have to look at the accuracy rating of each trait.
And those of you talking about YW - EPD's are not based solely on YOUR HERD! Even if you are talking about a herd bull - his numbers are compared to ALL other cattle, and his sibs/relatives have a lot of influence on his humbers. Environment is taken into consideration.
And a "heifer calving ease" bull, does not mean he can't be a growth bull. That is what everyone calls a "spread" bull, and there are tons of them out there now - because people have been using EPD's to manipulate offspring to FIT certain criteria to be considered a "spread" bull. And by manipulating, I don't mean CHEATING. I mean picking & choosing a bull with EPD's that accentuates the cows EPD's to produce an offspring with the right balance of numbers. Yes, those numbers iwll have low accuracy, but once he/she starts producing offspring, the numbers will get proven - one way or the other.

 

[jnowack]

Here is a bw EPD Example.

We will be AI'ing to 4 different bulls this year and they are all bulls we own. Their will be no outside genetics brought in. The BW EPD's are as follows 1.7, 3.5, 3.6, & 2.8. Now none of theses are what I consider a calving ease sire, and they are all performance bulls. Now since I am not going to bring any outside bulls in. These will be compared to only each other in the contemporary groups. So since their is only a 1.9 difference between the biggest to the smallest. What will happen to the numbers after the data is turned in on them? If one sires on average 5 to 10 pounds of actual bw less than the others, will he then drop to look as if he is a calving ease sire? In this sinerio he could and probably will, but in reality he will still not be a calving ease or heifer type bull, but his numbers will say he is. What about the other bulls, in the same example, will their bw EPD jump way up and look as if he is a cow killer, but in all actuality they come out nice and easy but weigh a little more than the rest.

You do have a point here. To keep the EPD's in your herd from getting out of wack with the rest of the breed you need to have some reference sires in your contemporary groups or be selling enough semen on your own bulls to generate some outside data to get them compared to a larger number of other sires. We had a bull that creeped up to a 4.6 who was a good heifer bull but our other herdbulls always ratioed lower than him on bw. With better use of reference sires I think he would have probably stayed under a 2.