KCF BENNETT COALITION??????

[Baylorcattleguy]

I just recently checked his current epds and they have changed quite a bit. His weaning is now down to 42? (I don't have his numbers in front of me. I had thought his accuracies were high enough that there wouldn't have been such a drop. Anybody know the deal on this bull. I want to think his previous numbers were like 61 WW and 116 YW, now ww is 42 and Yw is 92.
I'm thinking that his previous accuracies were in the .60 range?
Anybody have any ideas???

 

[Frankie]

I just recently checked his current epds and they have changed quite a bit. His weaning is now down to 42? (I don't have his numbers in front of me. I had thought his accuracies were high enough that there wouldn't have been such a drop. Anybody know the deal on this bull. I want to think his previous numbers were like 61 WW and 116 YW, now ww is 42 and Yw is 92.
I'm thinking that his previous accuracies were in the .60 range?
Anybody have any ideas???

The Angus Assn holds EPD accuracies at .85 until a bull gets used pretty widely, so until the accruacies get in the .90 range, there can be quite a bit of change. As his accuracies go up, his EPDs may go up, too. Or they may go down. Idon't know anything specifically about that bull, though.

 

[Baylorcattleguy]

Thanks,

I just checked and his ww is now actually 45.

 

[dph]

Baylor: This bull was bought by Summitcrest Angus. They are really liking the calves they got out of him. I believe they had a few on display in Denver.

I believe they are just now getting ready to sell the first calves out of him this spring. Some of the fluctuating in the EPDs could be explained by them switching from a "projected" EPD to now starting to turn in actual numbers on the bull. I suppose if they like what they see, they will breed him to even more cows next year, in conjunction with any other registered breeder using semen out of him.

The one thing about Summitcrest has always been, If you can't trust their numbers, you can't trust anybody's. They run an honest program. I think they gave $65,000 for him, so it will be interesting to see how the calves turn out.

 

[Kent]

Anybody have any ideas???

It may be that he wasn't used in many herds until people started noticing those high growth numbers. Then, when he was used heavily in more herds, his numbers dropped. They could have gone up or stayed the same, mind you, but in this case they didn't. Just a theory.

 

[MikeC]

Frankie wrote:

The Angus Assn holds EPD accuracies at .85 until a bull gets used pretty widely, so until the accruacies get in the .90 range, there can be quite a bit of change. As his accuracies go up, his EPDs may go up, too. Or they may go down. Idon't know anything specifically about that bull, though.

That doesn't make sense. An accuracy value is an accuracy value is an accuracy value.

Environmental factors are "Built in" the model when calculating accuracies. Why "hold back" accuracies?

Who calculates the EPD's for the AAA? Is it the Univ. of Georgia?

 

[Brandonm2]

I don't know the exact number but as I understand it Mike, a bull can't achieve higher than 85% accuracy unless he has X number of calves from X number of herds. A bull can have thousand of calves but if they are only from 3 herds it can NEVER be over 85% accuracy. A bull who is widely used can actually have higher accuracy than a bull who is more heavily used but used by just a few breeders.

 

[MikeC]

I don't know the exact number but as I understand it Mike, a bull can't achieve higher than 85% accuracy unless he has X number of calves from X number of herds. A bull can have thousand of calves but if they are only from 3 herds it can NEVER be over 85% accuracy. A bull who is widely used can actually have higher accuracy than a bull who is more heavily used but used by just a few breeders.

It still makes no sense to me. Since the environmental differences are in the model, the only reason to do this is because you do not trust the raw data from a few breeders.

If you don't trust the data submitted the accuracies are not to be trusted anyway.

Besides, there's not that much diff between an .85 and a .90 in lbs.

 

[Brandonm2]

It still makes no sense to me. Since the environmental differences are in the model, the only reason to do this is because you do not trust the raw data from a few breeders.

If you don't trust the data submitted the accuracies are not to be trusted anyway.

Besides, there's not that much diff between an .85 and a .90 in lbs.

I think they obviously do NOT trust the raw data from a few breeders. Also how can the environmental differences REALLY be in the model if you only have data from 3 big breeders in Montana (just for an example)? I think 85% is just a number they picked at random. The holding point could just as easily be 75% or 65% (though there you REALLY do not trust some people's data). That we can occasionally get a big change in lbs going from 85-90% accuracy is cause for concern; because by 85% you SHOULD have enough calf data that that should not really be happening. I read Doug Hoff rant about trusting in SOME breeder's EPD numbers,

"EPD's continue to perplex us. They should be one of our best tools for herd improvement, but we've been let down so many times by the "curve benders" that we've come to the opinion that an A.I. sire should never be used unless we've actually seen the bull."
http://www.scotchcap.com/hoff_sca_2005_spring_sale.htm

so I am inclined to believe they do have some problems out there in the real world.

 

[Aero]

Who calculates the EPD's for the AAA? Is it the Univ. of Georgia?

i am pretty sure the AAA does all of their own calculations. (in Missouri)

 

[MikeC]

Who calculates the EPD's for the AAA? Is it the Univ. of Georgia?

i am pretty sure the AAA does all of their own calculations. (in Missouri)

Didn't know that. Most breeds send their data to an unbiased third party for accountability and oversight. Interesting.

 

[la4angus]

AAA has everything set up to do EPD calculations in house. They previously had been done by the University of Georgia and then Iowa State, and now are being done at the AAA Headquarters office in St. Joe Missouri.

 

[dph]

Baylor: He was born in 2002, so he wasn't used until 2003, they didn't get calves out of him till 2004, and I don't know how many they would have got. I believe Summitcrest bought him in 04, since they are just now getting calves out of him.

I spoke with Tom Judy, the new general manager, and long time manager here in Iowa, and he was very impressed with how the bulls were still coming along on test. I think he told me there were still 3 of his sons gaining over 5 lbs a day here in Iowa and he was just as strong at the ranch in Nebraska.

I don't know when they turn in figures on last years calf crop...If they turn the ww in at weaning, or if they weight until they have the yw collected as well. Once they turn them in, I am not sure how long it takes for the EPDs to be refigured. I can't tell you if his current EPDs take the ww of these calves into account or not. I bet la4 would know.

If you had any questions about the bull, call Tom Judy. 641-933-4441. As nice and as honest of a guy as there is in the business. You will enjoy talking to him. Good Luck.

 

[Aero]

I don't know when they turn in figures on last years calf crop...If they turn the ww in at weaning, or if they weight until they have the yw collected as well. Once they turn them in, I am not sure how long it takes for the EPDs to be refigured. I can't tell you if his current EPDs take the ww of these calves into account or not.

most people register and turn in birth weights and weaning weights at the same time, then turn in yearling weights and ultrasound data at the same time. since his YW Acc is at .49, i would guess he has had about 15-25 yearling weights turned in on him. with his BW and WW Acc being above .90, he has had a lot (500+) of weaning weights turned in. the EPDs will be updated in late June or early July. (twice a year - Jan & July)

 

[jscunn]

not to sound too much like cliff clavin from the TV show cheers but "actually Norm"
Coalition is owned by the founders of Origen (which includes Summitcrest among others) and ABS. I think that is why his accuracies are so high so fast. A number of large breeders used him quite extensively 2 years ago. There is nothing wrong with a 42 WW.

I have seen about 10 coalition calves at a sale and I think the numbers are right. He does sire some growth but not at the 62 WW that his numbers were at. Some of those calves were really good, some pretty good and some were ok. He is not a world beater but he is still very useful. I was more impressed with his calves than the Midland's and the Garden Expedition calves, although I only saw three or four of those two sire groups. The Coalition's were not my favorite sire group there but one of the best I thought.

 

[Aero]

The Coalition's were not my favorite sire group there but one of the best I thought.

what sire group was your favorite?

 

[jscunn]

Out of the yearling bulls I would have to say a close race between the Gridmaker sons (only 2 of them) and the Ally sons (about 9 of them) Ally is a Stitz Alliance 6595 son. The had some very nice Ally heifers probably my favorite heifer sire group. I liked the few High Prime 's yearling bulls that I saw as well.
On the bull calves the Coalition's were pretty good but the Spur Success calves were a little better IMO.

 

[lakading]

Besides, there's not that much diff between an .85 and a .90 in lbs.

Differences in accuracies have nothing to do with lbs. The accuracy number simply indicates the statistical probability that progeny from that bull will be +X lbs bigger at birth, weaning, yearling, etc. than progeny from a bull with a 0 EPD for those traits.

 

[dph]

jscunn: hate it when I do that. (big Cheers fan though, lol) Thanks for the clarification. I thought Summitcrest's catalog read that they bought them, it clearly states otherwise. Trouble with young guys like me is that we are always learning on the job ;-) .

Tell me about Origen, it was my understanding that Stephenson is also involved, is that correct and who else is part of it? Also, has Origen always been with ABS, or were they bought out or formed a partnership at one time (I see ABS and Origen are both listed as owners of this bull)? I would love to know the story behind all of that.

 

[MikeC]

Besides, there's not that much diff between an .85 and a .90 in lbs.

Differences in accuracies have nothing to do with lbs. The accuracy number simply indicates the statistical probability that progeny from that bull will be +X lbs bigger at birth, weaning, yearling, etc. than progeny from a bull with a 0 EPD for those traits.

The differences in the statistical probabilities are the "Possible Change Values" which are definitely expressed in pounds.