Menu
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
New profile posts
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Members
Current visitors
New profile posts
Search profile posts
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles and first posts only
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Forums
Cattle Boards
Breeds Board
Huh? Comments, please
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Help Support CattleToday:
Message
<blockquote data-quote="cattle_gal" data-source="post: 60515" data-attributes="member: 643"><p>Thank God ;-) </p><p></p><p> </p><p></p><p>Much agree. I've seen the worst calves out of the "best" bulls. Someone sure had enough cattle bred to that bull to off set the data from the rest of the other herds who had calves out of him.</p><p></p><p></p><p> </p><p></p><p>the younger they are the higher there numbers will be for the weight and ultrasound. One Angus ranch went up a whole REA inch average in one year on their bulls. Sound fishy, well the AAA allowed a younger age for ultrasound data, so the adjustment went way up to their advantage. I think every Angus catalog I got this year they left out the Rib Fat EPD. They took out an EPD number that made wasn't a asset and made the animal look not as appealing.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>The only way we can compare across breeds is when we start back to the apples and apples. weight versus weight, ultrasound catagories, feedlot performance, ect. Which is where the APD's are taking head. I don't care about just one breed comparisons. Those that are familiar with that breed know what they like and don't like through the numbers. There needs to be a way that we can take an animal for what it is. And that is through actual data, not numbers on what an association makes of it. I love looking through various actual data that has different breeds on feed(like ranch to rail, gelb alliance, ect) where each breed is treated the same in the same conditions. What I don't like is one breed who has enough money they "give " grants to a college or study to show how well their breed feeds out and they are the only breed in the lot with no other breed for comparison. </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>You've got it. I was wondering what the instances of an offspring being 1/2 and 1/2 of each parent. How big of a gamble is it to rely on the EPD of a calf when purchasing or buying a bred cow. Other than cross fingers that the calf turns out more like the trait you want from dam or sire.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>I'm a heat the sheet of iron to make a horseshoe type person so I try to get to the start of how they get to all their equations. I tried with the AAA they didn't want to disclose anything. That was after reading all their blah blah on EPD's, which didn't tell me anything I wanted to get to the heart of. I'm going to try harder with the ACA to see if they will lay down the math. Thanks for the link I'll look your breeds information up.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="cattle_gal, post: 60515, member: 643"] Thank God ;-) Much agree. I've seen the worst calves out of the "best" bulls. Someone sure had enough cattle bred to that bull to off set the data from the rest of the other herds who had calves out of him. the younger they are the higher there numbers will be for the weight and ultrasound. One Angus ranch went up a whole REA inch average in one year on their bulls. Sound fishy, well the AAA allowed a younger age for ultrasound data, so the adjustment went way up to their advantage. I think every Angus catalog I got this year they left out the Rib Fat EPD. They took out an EPD number that made wasn't a asset and made the animal look not as appealing. The only way we can compare across breeds is when we start back to the apples and apples. weight versus weight, ultrasound catagories, feedlot performance, ect. Which is where the APD's are taking head. I don't care about just one breed comparisons. Those that are familiar with that breed know what they like and don't like through the numbers. There needs to be a way that we can take an animal for what it is. And that is through actual data, not numbers on what an association makes of it. I love looking through various actual data that has different breeds on feed(like ranch to rail, gelb alliance, ect) where each breed is treated the same in the same conditions. What I don't like is one breed who has enough money they "give " grants to a college or study to show how well their breed feeds out and they are the only breed in the lot with no other breed for comparison. You've got it. I was wondering what the instances of an offspring being 1/2 and 1/2 of each parent. How big of a gamble is it to rely on the EPD of a calf when purchasing or buying a bred cow. Other than cross fingers that the calf turns out more like the trait you want from dam or sire. I'm a heat the sheet of iron to make a horseshoe type person so I try to get to the start of how they get to all their equations. I tried with the AAA they didn't want to disclose anything. That was after reading all their blah blah on EPD's, which didn't tell me anything I wanted to get to the heart of. I'm going to try harder with the ACA to see if they will lay down the math. Thanks for the link I'll look your breeds information up. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Cattle Boards
Breeds Board
Huh? Comments, please
Top