For the EPD Naysayers
- Thread starter MikeC
- Start date
Help Support CattleToday:
MikeC
Well-known member
dun":2yvtkegq said:
Short, sweet, and to the point Dun. Thta's what I like about you. ;-)
I think I said before, the problem with EPD's is not in the calculations, it's in the mis-use of them.
Ultrasound may go the same way. And I think that DNA markers are already being mis-used to a point. We must use all of these tools in their proper perspective.
I'll bite:
1. epd's are the most misused tool in the box. Maybe. I do agree in a number of ways, but disagree in others. I've seen all the tools misused. Placing too much emphasis on any tool is probably the wrong thing to do. I've seen countless fools buy bulls with epd's of XX thinking they are helping solve their genetic problem. Sure, but that might be the "countless fool" part, more than the EPD part. I'll give an example. A Simmental breeder with 8 frame cows in an operation which has forage with low energy input might wean off a set of calves that he feels are too light when compared to his neighbor who raises Angus. He's heard that Simmental cattle should be heavier than angus and he knows his last Simmental yearling bull he bought had a ww of +40. He then promptly goes to a sale and buys a +50 ww Simmental bull which is a 9 frame and his calves . The very first set of calves off this new bull are lighter than the year before. Sounds pretty "foolish", but I've seen it too. His real trouble was that the cattle he was using didn't match the forage. Here is the key. Part of it is understanding how the EPD might work for him, on his ranch. It doesn't mean the EPD are wrong. It means he doesn't understand how to use them. The supposed genetic improvement was never expressed because it took even more input to grow bone structure on this set of calves than the previous bulls calves and on his rough forage the calves didn't have enough guts to hold enough rough forage. What would have helped would have been buying a bull with more volume.
2. epd's aren't a good genetic predictor of outliers so even though a Charolais bull calf that marbles 9%imf and his contemporaries measured 3% imf he's never discovered because several breeders are now relying on epd's alone instead of trying to use actual data to discover outliers. You are right, kind of. EPD naturally pull the animals back toward the mean in the first evaluation. In a sense, the EPD are more conservative than the ratio. Nearly no breeder relies on EPD alone for the first testing of a bull anyways. Even in the high dollar cattle, when there is a flush made, the animals with the higher ratios bring more money, in general. So, even in this day of EPD techonology, the "first cut" for performance is still the ratio, not the EPD. In many cases, the updated EPD are not available for yearlings until after the sale anyway. The performance drives the EPD, not the other way around.
3. epd's don't answer the question most commonly asked (even though they act like they will), will my calves weigh more than they do now or will the daughters milk more than they do now , etc. Unless you've used a very proven bull with high accuracies and you are buying a bull with high accuracies , you are just really guessing. They do answer the question, assuming you know about what your forage can produce. Again, this isn't an EPD problem, this is a management problem. The high accurcay part is irrelevant in the case of natural sires, which is still how the vast majority of cows get bred. Might be partially true for AI. But, the point comes in that ALL bulls are questionalbe in their transmitting ability until proven, same for EPD or non-EPD cattle.
4. I don't think you should make breeding decisions on anything were the acc. is less than the heritibality I have no clue why this is important to you. If this was the case, you would never buy any animal. The accuracy of the in-herd ratio in selection is lower than the accuracy of the EPD, which is lower than the heritability of any trait, until the bulls are proven.
5. epd's tell you nothing about consistency. If bull A sires 100 calves ranging from 120 down to 80 for BW and bull B sires calves that range from 105 down to 95 obviously they will both have the same average data to report but bull A is much more of a wreck at calving than bull B. Correct, they were never designed to do that. Only people that don't understand EPD would ever make the claim. So, this one isn't the "fault" of EPD. Why should they be expected to deliver something they aren't designed to make?
6. Some epd's actually cause breeders to breed in genetic nightmares. Take the ME epd of the RA breed. Until there is much more data collected on the mature cows weight they are actually sorting against gut mass which in almost any herd is a must . Without capacity cows can't hold enough forage to maintain themselves , breed back, wean a good sized calf, etc. You tell me which is more efficient , cows that have a low ME epd or cows that have longevity. I'd like to see where you are coming from on this one. RAAA was looking at using Ultrasound to measure liver size as an indicator of milk production and maintenance requirements, but they quit doing that. They now use mature weight and milk EPD to make the calculation. Nothing in there about liver size. Except that some lower milking cows will naturally have smaller livers and higher milking cows will have larger sizes. Capacity might be important, but I'm not conviinced that a lot more is any better than a little more, or "enough".
Well, those are my thoughts. If I think of more, I'll add them.
Badlands
1. epd's are the most misused tool in the box. Maybe. I do agree in a number of ways, but disagree in others. I've seen all the tools misused. Placing too much emphasis on any tool is probably the wrong thing to do. I've seen countless fools buy bulls with epd's of XX thinking they are helping solve their genetic problem. Sure, but that might be the "countless fool" part, more than the EPD part. I'll give an example. A Simmental breeder with 8 frame cows in an operation which has forage with low energy input might wean off a set of calves that he feels are too light when compared to his neighbor who raises Angus. He's heard that Simmental cattle should be heavier than angus and he knows his last Simmental yearling bull he bought had a ww of +40. He then promptly goes to a sale and buys a +50 ww Simmental bull which is a 9 frame and his calves . The very first set of calves off this new bull are lighter than the year before. Sounds pretty "foolish", but I've seen it too. His real trouble was that the cattle he was using didn't match the forage. Here is the key. Part of it is understanding how the EPD might work for him, on his ranch. It doesn't mean the EPD are wrong. It means he doesn't understand how to use them. The supposed genetic improvement was never expressed because it took even more input to grow bone structure on this set of calves than the previous bulls calves and on his rough forage the calves didn't have enough guts to hold enough rough forage. What would have helped would have been buying a bull with more volume.
2. epd's aren't a good genetic predictor of outliers so even though a Charolais bull calf that marbles 9%imf and his contemporaries measured 3% imf he's never discovered because several breeders are now relying on epd's alone instead of trying to use actual data to discover outliers. You are right, kind of. EPD naturally pull the animals back toward the mean in the first evaluation. In a sense, the EPD are more conservative than the ratio. Nearly no breeder relies on EPD alone for the first testing of a bull anyways. Even in the high dollar cattle, when there is a flush made, the animals with the higher ratios bring more money, in general. So, even in this day of EPD techonology, the "first cut" for performance is still the ratio, not the EPD. In many cases, the updated EPD are not available for yearlings until after the sale anyway. The performance drives the EPD, not the other way around.
3. epd's don't answer the question most commonly asked (even though they act like they will), will my calves weigh more than they do now or will the daughters milk more than they do now , etc. Unless you've used a very proven bull with high accuracies and you are buying a bull with high accuracies , you are just really guessing. They do answer the question, assuming you know about what your forage can produce. Again, this isn't an EPD problem, this is a management problem. The high accurcay part is irrelevant in the case of natural sires, which is still how the vast majority of cows get bred. Might be partially true for AI. But, the point comes in that ALL bulls are questionalbe in their transmitting ability until proven, same for EPD or non-EPD cattle.
4. I don't think you should make breeding decisions on anything were the acc. is less than the heritibality I have no clue why this is important to you. If this was the case, you would never buy any animal. The accuracy of the in-herd ratio in selection is lower than the accuracy of the EPD, which is lower than the heritability of any trait, until the bulls are proven.
5. epd's tell you nothing about consistency. If bull A sires 100 calves ranging from 120 down to 80 for BW and bull B sires calves that range from 105 down to 95 obviously they will both have the same average data to report but bull A is much more of a wreck at calving than bull B. Correct, they were never designed to do that. Only people that don't understand EPD would ever make the claim. So, this one isn't the "fault" of EPD. Why should they be expected to deliver something they aren't designed to make?
6. Some epd's actually cause breeders to breed in genetic nightmares. Take the ME epd of the RA breed. Until there is much more data collected on the mature cows weight they are actually sorting against gut mass which in almost any herd is a must . Without capacity cows can't hold enough forage to maintain themselves , breed back, wean a good sized calf, etc. You tell me which is more efficient , cows that have a low ME epd or cows that have longevity. I'd like to see where you are coming from on this one. RAAA was looking at using Ultrasound to measure liver size as an indicator of milk production and maintenance requirements, but they quit doing that. They now use mature weight and milk EPD to make the calculation. Nothing in there about liver size. Except that some lower milking cows will naturally have smaller livers and higher milking cows will have larger sizes. Capacity might be important, but I'm not conviinced that a lot more is any better than a little more, or "enough".
Well, those are my thoughts. If I think of more, I'll add them.
Badlands
ollie'
Well-known member
- Joined
- Sep 20, 2005
- Messages
- 979
- Reaction score
- 4
1. epd's are the most misused tool in the box. Maybe. I do agree in a number of ways, but disagree in others. I've seen all the tools misused. Placing too much emphasis on any tool is probably the wrong thing to do. I've seen countless fools buy bulls with epd's of XX thinking they are helping solve their genetic problem. Sure, but that might be the "countless fool" part, more than the EPD part. I'll give an example. A Simmental breeder with 8 frame cows in an operation which has forage with low energy input might wean off a set of calves that he feels are too light when compared to his neighbor who raises Angus. He's heard that Simmental cattle should be heavier than angus and he knows his last Simmental yearling bull he bought had a ww of +40. He then promptly goes to a sale and buys a +50 ww Simmental bull which is a 9 frame and his calves . The very first set of calves off this new bull are lighter than the year before. Sounds pretty "foolish", but I've seen it too. His real trouble was that the cattle he was using didn't match the forage. Here is the key. Part of it is understanding how the EPD might work for him, on his ranch. It doesn't mean the EPD are wrong. It means he doesn't understand how to use them. The supposed genetic improvement was never expressed because it took even more input to grow bone structure on this set of calves than the previous bulls calves and on his rough forage the calves didn't have enough guts to hold enough rough forage. What would have helped would have been buying a bull with more volume.
(you have a good understanding Badlands but surely you don't think that most people who use epd's would expect that heavier WW epd's will deliver heavier WW in every environment?? I hear it on here all the time, especially on Cattle Today.)
2. epd's aren't a good genetic predictor of outliers so even though a Charolais bull calf that marbles 9%imf and his contemporaries measured 3% imf he's never discovered because several breeders are now relying on epd's alone instead of trying to use actual data to discover outliers. You are right, kind of. EPD naturally pull the animals back toward the mean in the first evaluation. In a sense, the EPD are more conservative than the ratio. Nearly no breeder relies on EPD alone for the first testing of a bull anyways. Even in the high dollar cattle, when there is a flush made, the animals with the higher ratios bring more money, in general. So, even in this day of EPD techonology, the "first cut" for performance is still the ratio, not the EPD. In many cases, the updated EPD are not available for yearlings until after the sale anyway. The performance drives the EPD, not the other way around.
3. epd's don't answer the question most commonly asked (even though they act like they will), will my calves weigh more than they do now or will the daughters milk more than they do now , etc. Unless you've used a very proven bull with high accuracies and you are buying a bull with high accuracies , you are just really guessing. They do answer the question, assuming you know about what your forage can produce. Again, this isn't an EPD problem, this is a management problem. The high accurcay part is irrelevant in the case of natural sires, which is still how the vast majority of cows get bred. Might be partially true for AI. But, the point comes in that ALL bulls are questionalbe in their transmitting ability until proven, same for EPD or non-EPD cattle.
(People are using epd's alone in their herd . Why do you think we see flushing so prevailent in the larger ranches? Could it be they don't want those flush brothers to compete against themselves? They want the data labled ET? You can have 10 good bulls to sell from a flush instead of 1great bull and 9lesser bulls.)
4. I don't think you should make breeding decisions on anything were the acc. is less than the heritibality I have no clue why this is important to you. If this was the case, you would never buy any animal. The accuracy of the in-herd ratio in selection is lower than the accuracy of the EPD, which is lower than the heritability of any trait, until the bulls are proven.
(I don't agree with you here. The accuracy of the epd might be greater than the ratio but I guarantee you I can sort cattle using my mind and consider phenotype, ratio, actual weights and data, mating, etc and get alot closer than you can using interim epd's but several people buy bulls from a catalog and pay hard earned money for bulls based on their interim epd's knowing very little else.)
5. epd's tell you nothing about consistency. If bull A sires 100 calves ranging from 120 down to 80 for BW and bull B sires calves that range from 105 down to 95 obviously they will both have the same average data to report but bull A is much more of a wreck at calving than bull B. Correct, they were never designed to do that. Only people that don't understand EPD would ever make the claim. So, this one isn't the "fault" of EPD. Why should they be expected to deliver something they aren't designed to make?
(It is commonly thought that bulls with a lower BW epd will help with a breeders distocia problem.)
6. Some epd's actually cause breeders to breed in genetic nightmares. Take the ME epd of the RA breed. Until there is much more data collected on the mature cows weight they are actually sorting against gut mass which in almost any herd is a must . Without capacity cows can't hold enough forage to maintain themselves , breed back, wean a good sized calf, etc. You tell me which is more efficient , cows that have a low ME epd or cows that have longevity. I'd like to see where you are coming from on this one. RAAA was looking at using Ultrasound to measure liver size as an indicator of milk production and maintenance requirements, but they quit doing that. They now use mature weight and milk EPD to make the calculation. Nothing in there about liver size. Except that some lower milking cows will naturally have smaller livers and higher milking cows will have larger sizes. Capacity might be important, but I'm not conviinced that a lot more is any better than a little more, or "enough".
(Go read the ME explaination on the RA website. They state they are selecting against gut mass which is a large user of energy. I wonder why they don't take a look at the heart size and try to lower that as well. It's just stupid. Cattle need large vital organs to stay in the herd. Agains I ask, which is more important , longevity or a ME epd? For a visual go look at Duns wide , heavy cows. They have a lot of gut mass , are they inefficient?)
Well, those are my thoughts. If I think of more, I'll add them.
(Technically you are correct, as is the argument for epd's but as epd's reach the public they aren't used in the technical sense. I see breed association starting to attach numbers (actual) to epds. You'll see on average that a rea epd of +.50 will increase rea by X inches on the average cow. Epd's won't tell you that! When people come to buy a bull they want to solve problems or increase the quality of their calf crop or cow herd. I think we need to give as good of answers as we can and I think it's pretty common to sell them the psudoanswers of epd's)
Badlands[/quote]
(you have a good understanding Badlands but surely you don't think that most people who use epd's would expect that heavier WW epd's will deliver heavier WW in every environment?? I hear it on here all the time, especially on Cattle Today.)
2. epd's aren't a good genetic predictor of outliers so even though a Charolais bull calf that marbles 9%imf and his contemporaries measured 3% imf he's never discovered because several breeders are now relying on epd's alone instead of trying to use actual data to discover outliers. You are right, kind of. EPD naturally pull the animals back toward the mean in the first evaluation. In a sense, the EPD are more conservative than the ratio. Nearly no breeder relies on EPD alone for the first testing of a bull anyways. Even in the high dollar cattle, when there is a flush made, the animals with the higher ratios bring more money, in general. So, even in this day of EPD techonology, the "first cut" for performance is still the ratio, not the EPD. In many cases, the updated EPD are not available for yearlings until after the sale anyway. The performance drives the EPD, not the other way around.
3. epd's don't answer the question most commonly asked (even though they act like they will), will my calves weigh more than they do now or will the daughters milk more than they do now , etc. Unless you've used a very proven bull with high accuracies and you are buying a bull with high accuracies , you are just really guessing. They do answer the question, assuming you know about what your forage can produce. Again, this isn't an EPD problem, this is a management problem. The high accurcay part is irrelevant in the case of natural sires, which is still how the vast majority of cows get bred. Might be partially true for AI. But, the point comes in that ALL bulls are questionalbe in their transmitting ability until proven, same for EPD or non-EPD cattle.
(People are using epd's alone in their herd . Why do you think we see flushing so prevailent in the larger ranches? Could it be they don't want those flush brothers to compete against themselves? They want the data labled ET? You can have 10 good bulls to sell from a flush instead of 1great bull and 9lesser bulls.)
4. I don't think you should make breeding decisions on anything were the acc. is less than the heritibality I have no clue why this is important to you. If this was the case, you would never buy any animal. The accuracy of the in-herd ratio in selection is lower than the accuracy of the EPD, which is lower than the heritability of any trait, until the bulls are proven.
(I don't agree with you here. The accuracy of the epd might be greater than the ratio but I guarantee you I can sort cattle using my mind and consider phenotype, ratio, actual weights and data, mating, etc and get alot closer than you can using interim epd's but several people buy bulls from a catalog and pay hard earned money for bulls based on their interim epd's knowing very little else.)
5. epd's tell you nothing about consistency. If bull A sires 100 calves ranging from 120 down to 80 for BW and bull B sires calves that range from 105 down to 95 obviously they will both have the same average data to report but bull A is much more of a wreck at calving than bull B. Correct, they were never designed to do that. Only people that don't understand EPD would ever make the claim. So, this one isn't the "fault" of EPD. Why should they be expected to deliver something they aren't designed to make?
(It is commonly thought that bulls with a lower BW epd will help with a breeders distocia problem.)
6. Some epd's actually cause breeders to breed in genetic nightmares. Take the ME epd of the RA breed. Until there is much more data collected on the mature cows weight they are actually sorting against gut mass which in almost any herd is a must . Without capacity cows can't hold enough forage to maintain themselves , breed back, wean a good sized calf, etc. You tell me which is more efficient , cows that have a low ME epd or cows that have longevity. I'd like to see where you are coming from on this one. RAAA was looking at using Ultrasound to measure liver size as an indicator of milk production and maintenance requirements, but they quit doing that. They now use mature weight and milk EPD to make the calculation. Nothing in there about liver size. Except that some lower milking cows will naturally have smaller livers and higher milking cows will have larger sizes. Capacity might be important, but I'm not conviinced that a lot more is any better than a little more, or "enough".
(Go read the ME explaination on the RA website. They state they are selecting against gut mass which is a large user of energy. I wonder why they don't take a look at the heart size and try to lower that as well. It's just stupid. Cattle need large vital organs to stay in the herd. Agains I ask, which is more important , longevity or a ME epd? For a visual go look at Duns wide , heavy cows. They have a lot of gut mass , are they inefficient?)
Well, those are my thoughts. If I think of more, I'll add them.
(Technically you are correct, as is the argument for epd's but as epd's reach the public they aren't used in the technical sense. I see breed association starting to attach numbers (actual) to epds. You'll see on average that a rea epd of +.50 will increase rea by X inches on the average cow. Epd's won't tell you that! When people come to buy a bull they want to solve problems or increase the quality of their calf crop or cow herd. I think we need to give as good of answers as we can and I think it's pretty common to sell them the psudoanswers of epd's)
Badlands[/quote]
Herefords.US
Well-known member
I have enjoyed viewing the debate.
The one generalization about EPDs that I believe is true is the fact that the breeders whose cattle have "good" ones really promote those EPDs and those breeders whose cattle don't have "good" EPDs generally question their reliability and accuracy.
There is no doubt that EPDs can be misused. I was one of those that placed TOO much value on them(EPDs with low accuracy) when I started buying cattle again in 2002. I'm an engineer and, like most, I really LIKE numbers! It took a period of observation and some input from established breeders that I respected to see that I was indeed putting TOO much value on EPDs.
One observation that one breeder shared with me: "Watch out for those animals where parents with EPDs of polar opposite values are mated to produce an animal with a more "balanced" number(i.e. A bull with a very high BW EPD is mated to a cow with a very low EPD) In reality, it is more likely that the animal will actually produce results that are more aligned with one of the parents, rather than fall around the average of them."
Another: "A young bull that has exhibited a high rate of growth from birth to weaning to yearling (much higher than average) will have his BW EPD go up, in MOST cases, once the data of progeny starts coming in."
And: "Don't put a lot of faith in the milk numbers of a bull until a number of his daughters have produced and weaned their second calves."
It took a while for it to sink in, but what these observations all have in common is accuracy. EPDs without accuracy are really just an educated "guess" about how an animal will produce. Sure they're a tool and should be considered along with all the other observations that a breeder can use in making selections-phenotype, actual performance, parents (and other ancestors), the reputation of the breeder and the kind of operation they run, for example.
Now, the statement that might spark controversy:
I do not see how a seedstock producer, especially those who have any size of operation, can afford to NOT consider and use performance data and EPDs in evaluating their breeding program and in their own selection. Breeders that I have talked to say more and more of their customers are asking for this information and, right or wrong, used correctly or misused, good EPD data results in better prices for their bulls and females.
George
The one generalization about EPDs that I believe is true is the fact that the breeders whose cattle have "good" ones really promote those EPDs and those breeders whose cattle don't have "good" EPDs generally question their reliability and accuracy.
There is no doubt that EPDs can be misused. I was one of those that placed TOO much value on them(EPDs with low accuracy) when I started buying cattle again in 2002. I'm an engineer and, like most, I really LIKE numbers! It took a period of observation and some input from established breeders that I respected to see that I was indeed putting TOO much value on EPDs.
One observation that one breeder shared with me: "Watch out for those animals where parents with EPDs of polar opposite values are mated to produce an animal with a more "balanced" number(i.e. A bull with a very high BW EPD is mated to a cow with a very low EPD) In reality, it is more likely that the animal will actually produce results that are more aligned with one of the parents, rather than fall around the average of them."
Another: "A young bull that has exhibited a high rate of growth from birth to weaning to yearling (much higher than average) will have his BW EPD go up, in MOST cases, once the data of progeny starts coming in."
And: "Don't put a lot of faith in the milk numbers of a bull until a number of his daughters have produced and weaned their second calves."
It took a while for it to sink in, but what these observations all have in common is accuracy. EPDs without accuracy are really just an educated "guess" about how an animal will produce. Sure they're a tool and should be considered along with all the other observations that a breeder can use in making selections-phenotype, actual performance, parents (and other ancestors), the reputation of the breeder and the kind of operation they run, for example.
Now, the statement that might spark controversy:
I do not see how a seedstock producer, especially those who have any size of operation, can afford to NOT consider and use performance data and EPDs in evaluating their breeding program and in their own selection. Breeders that I have talked to say more and more of their customers are asking for this information and, right or wrong, used correctly or misused, good EPD data results in better prices for their bulls and females.
George
ollie'
Well-known member
- Joined
- Sep 20, 2005
- Messages
- 979
- Reaction score
- 4
You know George, I guess I'll agree with you but only in part. I have fairly decent epd's I guess but I bid on a very nice set of purebred heifer calves who's epd's are not very good. I know their genetics so I have an idea what their epd's are but to be honest, I never looked at their papers. I'm know the cattle and am biding on them strictly off their phenotype and past preformance... The heifers will work well for me . BTW I could buy alot of heifers with geat epd's for less money than I offered for these calves. I want them for their quality and because they'll work for me.Herefords.US":191xkry7 said:
Badlands":u60inv2c said:
I disagree with this statement. While yes it is ratios NOT EPDs which are used to differentiate between flushmate calves (they do have the same EPD afterall). Most people are calculating the interim EPD before they even make the mating. A true numbers chaser has all the epds calculated on his computer before they purchase the semen or superovulate the donor. IF the numbers don't look good enough (whatever that is) another bull is used on that cow and I haven't been to a sale in a while that did not have interim EPDs for month old calves at their moma's side and even for frozen embryos still in the tank. Ratios still play a role; but EPDs are both the "first cut" for performance and the "final cut" for when the progeny numbers start coming in. Bull A might have ratioed higher than Bull B for every measurable trait AND even been a little more correct phenotypically ; but Bull B will be more popular and be worth more if his calves' perfromance give him the higher EPD.
MikeC":3gb2rrk4 said:
Bingo, we have a winner.
If you need more maternal, and the EPDs suck for that, those are bad EPDs, for that purpose. If you need more growth and you select for high maternal and low WW and YW thoe are bad EPDs.
The key is using the bull or cows for that matter, that are balanced for your managment, forage and requirements, either of those extremes would be good EPDs.
That was the reason on a nother thread I asked what were considred excellent (I thkn it was excellent) EPDs.
dun
Herefords.US
Well-known member
MikeC":37621r0v said:
Mike, I'm not sure what you are getting at here. Say a proven Hereford bull has a negative EPD in milk (like a -4) where the breed average is +15. Would that not be considered a "bad" EPD figure, especially to a breeder who was selecting for maternal traits?
George
Herefords.US
Well-known member
MikeC":29koos71 said:
I agree with that, which is the reason that I used the "quote" marks around "good" when I posted.
Most of the promotions that I see and notes in the sale catalogs say:
Top 1% for this EPD trait, and Top 10% for that EPD trait, etc.
My personal goals for my own herd is to have animals that are above breed average EPDs in WW, YW, Milk, SC, REA, IMF with "reasonable" values in the remaining measured traits.
There again, what is "reasonable" to me might not be to another breeder. For one thing, it means that I'll not likely be promoting many of the bulls that I produce as "heifer bulls".
George
Herefords.US
Well-known member
ollie'":2ldh29lu said:
I believe it is a lot easier for a seedstock producer to buy females with below average EPDs than it is a herd bull. You can always find a proven bull that will work on those cattle and improve their numbers and make their calves even more marketable. But, in today's market environment, it really takes "guts" to buy and use a bull whose EPDs are below average with the faith that those numbers will improve as he becomes "proven", even if a breeder has a great knowledge of the cattle.
George
Good stuff, ollie.
I understand your points.
I appreciate your comments, too. There is certainly a differing level of understanding among producers, also a differing level of the ability "correctly" use the tools. I use EPD, but I also use visual appraisal, pedigree appraisal, "respected breeder" appraisal, my "gut feeling considering all of the above" appraisal
, too. I understand what you mean when you add all this into your "equation" that you use to select animals. That is really what you are doing, making your own "equation".
If I read you correctly, from your comments, I think you understand the limitations of EPD. That ability should make you better able to use them. Maybe that is a "point of view" perception on my part. Because you understand them, it should enable you to make better use of them. But, since you understand their failings, you don't see the usefulness at all.
I don't want to put words in your mouth here, so if I misunderstand your view, please tell me. Your point of view would be, "I see the failings, so I don't use them." My point of view would be, "I understand how the failings can screw things up, so I use them differently than others." I think that there will be differing levels of understanding among producers here. I think you are tending towards the side of "just not worrying about the numbers", where I tend towards the side of "figuring out what the numbers mean to me." I think either side is fine, given a little common sense on the part of who is thinking about it. I suspect that as long as either side is in-tune to what the environment can support, the cows will end up being pretty similar. It is only when the "chase" begins, that things get screwed up.
Some of the "EPD are what's wrong" argument are generally the same ones used in the "let's ban guns" argument. Both points make excuses for human behavior.
I can't control how people mis-use EPD, and they do it a whole lot! But, I don't throw the baby out with the bath water, either.
brandon2, I guess it is in how you define it. They might use EPD to decide which bull to flush to which cow. But, when the calves are on the ground, it is the best looking, best ratioing calf that gets sold into purebred production, and before any EPD "proof" for YW, SC, etc, only on actual performance for CE, BW, WW. I can find dozens of cases of full-sibs to $15,000+ bulls selling for $2,000 into commercial herds. When the bulls sell as yearlings, before the Spring runs of the cattle evaluations, they are nearly all sold with only interim EPD. So for YW and SC, they are still sold on ratio's, and actual measurements. I think I understand your points, and it's probably just little things that don't get communicated through typing very well. They stack the numbers first, then pick the "new" generation (of a few) from the group (of many) based on ratios, actual weights. That would come closer to the gist.
Badlands
I understand your points.
I appreciate your comments, too. There is certainly a differing level of understanding among producers, also a differing level of the ability "correctly" use the tools. I use EPD, but I also use visual appraisal, pedigree appraisal, "respected breeder" appraisal, my "gut feeling considering all of the above" appraisal
, too. I understand what you mean when you add all this into your "equation" that you use to select animals. That is really what you are doing, making your own "equation".If I read you correctly, from your comments, I think you understand the limitations of EPD. That ability should make you better able to use them. Maybe that is a "point of view" perception on my part. Because you understand them, it should enable you to make better use of them. But, since you understand their failings, you don't see the usefulness at all.
I don't want to put words in your mouth here, so if I misunderstand your view, please tell me. Your point of view would be, "I see the failings, so I don't use them." My point of view would be, "I understand how the failings can screw things up, so I use them differently than others." I think that there will be differing levels of understanding among producers here. I think you are tending towards the side of "just not worrying about the numbers", where I tend towards the side of "figuring out what the numbers mean to me." I think either side is fine, given a little common sense on the part of who is thinking about it. I suspect that as long as either side is in-tune to what the environment can support, the cows will end up being pretty similar. It is only when the "chase" begins, that things get screwed up.
Some of the "EPD are what's wrong" argument are generally the same ones used in the "let's ban guns" argument. Both points make excuses for human behavior.
I can't control how people mis-use EPD, and they do it a whole lot! But, I don't throw the baby out with the bath water, either.
brandon2, I guess it is in how you define it. They might use EPD to decide which bull to flush to which cow. But, when the calves are on the ground, it is the best looking, best ratioing calf that gets sold into purebred production, and before any EPD "proof" for YW, SC, etc, only on actual performance for CE, BW, WW. I can find dozens of cases of full-sibs to $15,000+ bulls selling for $2,000 into commercial herds. When the bulls sell as yearlings, before the Spring runs of the cattle evaluations, they are nearly all sold with only interim EPD. So for YW and SC, they are still sold on ratio's, and actual measurements. I think I understand your points, and it's probably just little things that don't get communicated through typing very well. They stack the numbers first, then pick the "new" generation (of a few) from the group (of many) based on ratios, actual weights. That would come closer to the gist.
Badlands
ollie'
Well-known member
- Joined
- Sep 20, 2005
- Messages
- 979
- Reaction score
- 4
George , you misunderstand my stance. I know the heifers will work. I don't really care what the numbers say. I've been familiar with the set of cows for years. I'll put a bull on them that improves them if I can , numbers or no numbers.Herefords.US":1db2el4u said:
I probably won't get them bought because the owner wants them worse than I do but , you never know. My point is I won't sacrafice any quality for merchandisability. If there was another set of heifers identical in quality to these whos numbers were more merchandisable , of course I'd be more interested in them.
ollie'
Well-known member
- Joined
- Sep 20, 2005
- Messages
- 979
- Reaction score
- 4
I guess that's close to what I think. I wouldn't use epd's to pick cows until I found exactly what I was looking for and then I would use them to decide between two that were equal if that situation ever arose. They are at the very best, way down on my list of importance.Badlands":76s5txc1 said:
Badlands":qaxgr4hj said:
What association are you talking about?? I only get Hereford and Angus catalogs here.....so I can't talk about EVERY breed floating around out there; but in the catalogs I get, this year's calves have EPDs (usually without accuracies) for all their traits, a pedigree, name, and registration number. Sometimes I get a picture or some sentence about the strength of the calf; but MOST people are NOT putting actual weights, 205 day wts, birth wts, ratios, hip heights, frame scores, etc in their catalogs any more. I know I can call anybody reputable and they will give me whatever I ask for; but the truth is that breeders are CLEARLY selling EPDs and pedigrees and I assume that that is in direct response to demand. Bull sales are an exception in that many do have some sort of actual performance tabulated; BUT they ALL include EPDs and it is usually in bold at the top of the listing. I certainly know of bull test sales where bulls with VERY mediocre performance; BUT with strong EPDs and a popular pedigree brought much more than the bulls that beat him on test. I agree that EPDs as a sales tool is overused; but too pretend that the EPD is not the most important number tabulated is fantasy.
Brandon2, I don't want to debate such a fine point to death.
You may be right.
Honestly, I only look thouroughly at about 6 catalogs a year anyway. Most of them are firestarters. I know whose catalogs I need to read, and whose are kindling, so most of them don't even get a once-over here, except for the comical comments in the front to describe "progress/improvement" and the purebreeder back-scratching. Most of them sound just like the last one, so why bother? Rare is the catalog that has anything new to think about.
Badlands
You may be right.
Honestly, I only look thouroughly at about 6 catalogs a year anyway. Most of them are firestarters. I know whose catalogs I need to read, and whose are kindling, so most of them don't even get a once-over here, except for the comical comments in the front to describe "progress/improvement" and the purebreeder back-scratching. Most of them sound just like the last one, so why bother? Rare is the catalog that has anything new to think about.
Badlands
