cattle_gal":3ef4d63r said:
Why yes, I do look at codes and formulas. In order for me to make a program I have to know how to put formulas and equations together to correlate. And one has to know what is where if things are questionable
OK, here are some codes and formulas for you to look at.
This is the BIF Cattle Evaluation site:
http://beefimprovement.org/guidelines/Chap5.PDF
This explains Contemporary Groupings:
http://www.beefimprovement.org/guidelines/Chap3.PDF
and this is Animal Model for a Maternally Influenced Trait:
http://www.beefimprovement.org/guidelines/App5-1.PDF
And from the Angus Sire Summary:
http://www.angus.org/sireeval/wean_year.html
Weaning/Yearling
Weaning weight/Yearling weight/Maternal Milk. Weaning weight/ postweaning gain were evaluated together in a multi-trait model. As it is recommended by the Beef Improvement Federation (BIF) for the evaluation of maternally influenced traits, a direct genetic effect, a maternal genetic effect and a maternal permanent environmental effect were fitted for weaning weight. Direct and maternal effects were not assumed to be correlated. Postweaning gain was not considered to be maternally influenced and, therefore, the direct genetic effect was the only random effect fitted. Weaning weight direct and postweaning gain were assumed to be correlated. Yearling weight EPDs were calculated from the EPDs for weaning weight direct and postweaning gain.
Yearling height. Yearling height was evaluated in a multi-trait model including 365-day adjusted yearling weight as a genetically correlated trait.
Scrotal circumference. This multi-trait animal model, encompassing yearling weight and scrotal performance data, includes an additional generation of pedigree added to improve pedigree ties and expand the availability of interim EPD values.
This is all available to anyone who truly wants the questions you've asked answered. I'll stand by my belief that you really don't want to know more about EPDs. You don't like them and are perfectly happy complaining about them instead of using them properly.
Simply asking a question on the accuracy weight and EPD's, which you saying can't go by it. Basically - Yeah -80 could be worse than 60 or even 50. I've seen weights and EPD's all over the place, but yet it just proves that don't expect to get a nice weight animals even though they
have a great EPD.
I've posted information explaining that EPDs have nothing to do with what an animal will weigh.
Ever. You continue to ignore that. And again, what is a "great" EPD?
Even though that's what sells an animal, high EPD's - that's what will give you the edge on your cattle -so it is said.. It is all to inconsistent.
Apparently you're doing fine without EPDs. So why are you complaining that high EPDs are "what sells an animal"? If you have consistent cattle, you'll have consistent EPDs. I'd suggest that crossbreeding as you're doing will lead to inconsistent cattle, as well as unreliable EPDs.
Gave up on EPD's after a few years of let down(with lovely EPD's and pedigrees that were the great thing in the Midwest) and went back to the consistent results - lineage actual's(weight, ultrasound, feedlot, carcass).
Again, what are "lovely EPDs?" There are no good ones or bad ones. Everyone needs to collect actual performance data on their cattle; it will make their breed's EPDs more reliable.
Oh sorry to say that I have had no influence in how other producers in the state view EPD's as a let down. They nixed them after EPD's failed them, long before me.
Thank goodness there's no requirement for a person to use EPDs. If a person want's to leave a valuable tool on the shelf, that's his choice.
And yes a couple have become customers and have been tickled on how well they do. Just because I don't rely on EPD's doesn't mean I raise meager cattle.
Then, out of curosity, why are you so PO-ed that the Angus Association is not joining into the BIF program?
I've been hinting(questioning) to you that your average that was 0 in 1977 is now adjusted to about 77. You should have known that being a follower of EPD's.
But you don't say for which trait? And are you talking about actual performance or an EPD? The Angus site,
http://www.angus.org, has average EPDs of the breed on their website. I'm not going to dig it up for you. If you really wanted to know, Angus average EPDs are available several plances.
Minority breed? What a shame that you dis any breed except Angus.
I don't dis every breed except Angus. I have a lot of respect for several breeds whose breeders are working hard to create branded beef programs, reliable EPDs, etc. I don't believe I've ever seen a Chi and only know one person who claims to have owned part of a Chi bull years ago. I do not have much patience with someone who will come on this board and whine and cry about something not working when they have no understanding of how it's supposed to work.
I think it is great that everyone has there own breed(s) they want to raise for what ever reason. Check out how many breeds there are in the US and then check out how many of them have MARC.
Yeah, check out the number 1 complaint of consumers about beef. Surely you know what that is? If not, I'll tell you: it's inconsistency. Chicken and pork are eating our lunch because they are so consistent. You know what a chicken will taste like when you buy it at the supermarket. You may not like it, but you know what to expect. IMO, the wide variety of breeds in the US is a major contributor to that inconsistency.
Yeah pretty obvious you don't want to see an across breed comparison. Every breed has something to share and not be pounded into the ground
My breed can be compared across breeds with many others. You're the one who chose a special breed and now complain because no one is willing to support it. While every breed may have something to share, I don't agree that every breed has something
worthwhile to share.
You and I obviously do not see eye to eye on EPD's and can go on and on, you see them as wonderful devise, I see them as a thick smoke screen, so you are going to us EPD's as you always have and I will use historical and gene actuals,
EPDs take all that actual performance into consideration and more history than you can possibly incorporate.
and when/if EPD's are consistent, reliableand factual perhaps I will look into them again, but as for theories aren't going to work.
EPDs aren't theory. They work. Several universities have proven that. When the Angus Association first came out with the Milk EPD, University professors were knocking themselves out to milk their Angus cows and see if the ones with a high milk EPD actually produced more milk than those with lower milk EPDs. And they did. (BTW, the milk EPD is actually measured in pounds of calf weaned, not pounds of milk, but there is some correlation). OK State did a several year project where they bred similar cows to Angus bulls with high milk EPDs and low milk EPDs. They then kept heifers and measured the difference in their milk production and pounds of calf produced. They found the milk EPDs to be quite accurate. EPDs are not a fad; they're here to stay.
Especially when one can not examine all the breeds/individuals across for what they are. As is my original concern to have across breeds examination.
Oh? I thought you wanted to look at the program that created EPDs in case a dozen universities and breed associations might have made a mistake in their computation?
here, Ollie?
