Genomics

[gizmom]

We are now testing all of our bulls, this year we had 7 flush brothers and it was sure interesting to see the differences in EPD's of these calves based on genomic testing.

They are out of our SAV Blackcap May 0524 x Coleman Charlo 0256

E11 reg# 19145203 bw EPD 0.8
E19 reg# 19145208 bw EPD -0.2
E23 reg# 19145209 bw EPD -0.7
E25 reg# 19145210 bw EPD 1.6
E34 reg# 19145212 bw EPD 0.6
E38 reg# 19145216 bw EPD -0.2
E48 reg# 19145217 bw EPD 3.7

Keep in mind all these calves have been parentage tested. Without the genomic test we would have figured all of these calves to be calving ease. I admit the one 3.7 is kinda blowing my mine, I may call to have them take another look at it just to be sure. Would any of you think you could get that much difference in bw?

Gizmom

 

[Till-Hill]

With that cow family I can see why you are getting the spreads. 2.3 on dam, 4 grand dam, 3.2 great, 3.8 great great.

Used Charlo -.4 bull and about 4 dams back there is like a 4.7 bw. I'm surprised you had that many lower ones with the birth weight averages there lower than breed averages.

The cow family as far back (4 generations) has only 32 calves reported with actual birth weights, with 15 coming from the dam of these calves. Would I assume a bunch are ET calves too?

 

[gizmom]

TH

Yes she has quite a few ET calves. The 0524 cow has some big calves her average birth weight on natural calves is 89 pounds. I am like you surprised more at the low birthweight epd's More than the higher. I would have expected 1.8 to 2.0 as bw EPD with this mating.

Gizmom

 

[wbvs58]

Interesting figures on BW Gizmon, surprising but not surprising when you think about it.

I do genomics on all my heifers to help decide the ones I retain and to improve the accuracy of their EBV's. I only do a couple of my bulls being the ones I might use as cleanup as I have to ID to sire and not much more to do genomics. I look upon my bulls as being terminal as once sold they have no further influence on my herd and I am happy selling them with the numbers they are born with with slight modifications with the data I submit.

Ken

 

[bse]

I went to a meeting and the speaker was talking about this very thing. He said theres more possible DNA markers than numbers in the national debt. so you combine that on 2 sides you can get anything.
Thanks for posting that Gizmon it makes it easier to put eyes on it.
Ive done more testing this year than ever, I think its another tool but not all the story. I almost think they have DOC backwards ive got a few in negative that you can walk up and rub all over, never shown.

 

[Ebenezer]

They have known a long time that "full sibs" sounds good but do not always breed similar. Puts a damper on enthusiasm for picking unproven bulls for a premium price or from expecting quick consistency from outcross genetics.

http://www.angusjournal.com/articlepdf/0998_view.pdf

 

[gizmom]

BSE
I agree like EPD's this is just another tool. I have a cow one I am flushing that has a milk EPD of 5, hard to market with those numbers but she milks, her daughters milk I absolutely don't know where that number is coming from and the accuracy is at 95%. If I bred by the numbers the cow would be culled, she weaned her bull calf at 732# this year. Three daughters in the herd all heavy milking females, a head scratcher for sure. I will test but I want to back up all the genomics and EPD's with actual performance.

Ebenezer

Interesting article especially since it was dated in 98, I think the genomics back up the article.

Gizmom

 

[Ebenezer]

I have a cow one I am flushing that has a milk EPD of 5, hard to market with those numbers but she milks, her daughters milk I absolutely don't know where that number is coming from and the accuracy is at 95%. If I bred by the numbers the cow would be culled, she weaned her bull calf at 732# this year. Three daughters in the herd all heavy milking females, a head scratcher for sure. I will test but I want to back up all the genomics and EPD's with actual performance.

If it is like other problems like that, some Angus producer wanted his bull or a favorite to look better on paper and skewed the numbers on other bulls' offspring to be lower than his favorite son. That happened back in the late 90s or early 2000's on a well known bull and brother of a better known bull to promote another one that turned out to be a flash in the pan. The better used brother recovered but the direct comparative bull never got complete recovery.

 

[Son of Butch]

If it is like other problems like that, some Angus producer wanted his bull or a favorite to look better on paper and skewed the numbers on other bulls' offspring to be lower than his favorite son.

That was such a problem 35+ years ago in the Holstein breed with owner/breeders proving bulls not in a AI stud's
young sire program that they had their own name. They were called "Carpenter Bulls" for a sire proof built by the
owners. Their proofs were infamous for crashing when the 2nd wave of daughters hit their sire summaries.

 

[Ebenezer]

The article was 20 years ago. How much progress has been made? Some I hope. But folks still pay a wad for unproven bulls or semen from unproven bulls so the education process needs to keep going. Twenty years of linebreeding, selection and culling would have done a lot of good if people were willing. But a need to improve keeps the markets hot. It's mostly about marketing and promotion anyhow.

 

[Air gator]

I have a bull calf that prior to Angus GS test his YW epd would be about +70.
His milk epd would be about +21. After his DNA came back his YW epd went to +100 and his milk dropped to +8.
I will say that milk epds have been compressed so that the difference between +24 and +30 is significant.
Ten X has a milk epd of +24 and is at 50% in the breed. Basin Payweight 1682 is +29 and is in the top 20% of the breed.
Gar Prophet is +32 and is in the top 10%. PA Power Tool is +36 and in the top 2%. Basin Advance is +39 and in the top 1%.

 

[SPH]

What were the actual birth weights on those bulls? Not sure how your breed does EPD calculations but with Hereford EPDs the actual BW and how that BW compares to the rest of your calf crop can really change an EPD even before you factor in genomic DNA testing. We have a young cow with 3 calves all sired by our herd bull who has been a consistent calving ease bull for us and her first 2 calves were a 75 lb heifer and 75 lb bull then shocked us with a 104 lb bull calf this year. The crappy part of that is that bull calf will probably be one of the top calves at weaning this fall and be nothing more than a really nice looking steer. We'll never keep a bull with that kind of birth weight intact but it sure would be interesting what a DNA profile on him would do to his genomic EPDs if he was registered since his full brother last year has a CE EPD of 9.2 and BW 0.8 which put him in the top 10% or better for those EPDs. It's one of those things where you trust your knowledge of your cattle over what any EPD or genomics may say along with some common sense that EPDs aren't 100% accurate or a fail proof way of making comparisons either.

One of the best bulls we ever raised and kept semen on was an 89 lb birth weight but even though his sire and the sire of his dam both very proven calving ease bulls his EPD took a hit because he was the 3rd highest BW of that calf crop even though the 2 higher BW calves wound up having a much lower BW EPD. We used him cleanup on some heifers before we sold him to another breeder and between them and us never had a problem with calving ease despite what the EPDs say.