Little Difference Between Breeds in Growth

[KMacGinley]

Anybody know where you can find some Bonsma books. I have read a lot of excerpts and such on the internet, but reading some of his actual books would be nice.

Apparently "Man Must Measure" is scarce as hen's teeth, WLM. I did an exhaustive search and can't find any available. Apparently, Gerald Fry must have had some available at one time on his website and he still has the Bonsma lectures available.

http://www.bovineengineering.com/books.html

In doing the search, it's rather ironic that I also came across this Angus breeder who feels much the same as I do about EPDs! Here is an excerpt:

Initially, the EPD system was intended as an aid to enhance cattle breeder's selections. EPDs which have an accuracy about 90% can be useful, because the data is an accumulation from actual offspring. Many of my suspicions come from interim EPDs as signed to virgin animals. We truly can't say what their offspring will be like until we have a sample calf crop, yet many cattlemen have become addicted to that system, and are disappointed when their new bull doesn't "fit the numbers". (Isn't it supposed to be the other way around - - the numbers fit the bull, after a large sample test is submitted??) Because of the over emphasis placed on extremes in EPDs, it seems that in many programs the EPDs numbers have become the ends and not them means. In my opinion, the EPD system has become a rather ponderous and flawed system with intentions that are no longer for trait selection, but for trait marketing -- that is, no longer intended to be a trait indicator, but a contest to see how extreme the numbers on an animal can be, based on "number breeding".

Did the cattle get that much better, as the EPDs would indicate, or did we change the handling of the numbers to fit some breeder's needs of "more is better"? It is enlightening to look at photos of old bulls used during the early part of the 20th century. I've seen pictures of a few bulls from that era that I would love to try, if only it were possible! I could go into this topic at length, but suffice it to say that as a result of all of this, I have found myself deserting the EPD system in my own method of trait selection. I still will oc­ casionally look at EPDs. I've looked into the old studies of Jon Bonsma, Gerald Fry, and James Drayson, to name a few. I try to listen to breeders who have been doing this for years, David Baird, the Arntzen Family, Jim Wilson, Clarence Van Dyke, Jon Alberda, Tom Walling, etc. just to name a few, because there is a wealth of wisdom there, that has come from hard experience. These are things that I hope our young, future breeders of cattle (all breeds) can cash in on, and will truly give them an edge!

Full text at this URL:
http://godleyangus.com/about.htm

George

This is a good quote George. I see nothing to disagree with.

 

[ALACOWMAN]

DOC, today, when it comes to understanding HEREFORD EPDs, and knowing their usefulness in the practical aspects of raising cattle, I'm your granddaddy!

George[/quote] like i heard someone say lastnight on the tube,,,,,,,,,,,i like a person who isnt hamperd by modesty :lol:

 

[WichitaLineMan]

Like that RVZ avatar.

 

[Wind and Sage]

Interesting discussion. I always appreciate the insight and grassroots type of wisdom that most of us ag people have. Had to jump in for a minute.

There is a quote from John Crouch, who basically began the EPD system for the American Angus, and was a strong proponent for pushing this agenda . I used to keep this on my refrigerator back in the late eighties when I switched to registered Angus. It isn't the exact quote, but the general idea goes something like this.

EPD's are not static. With the highest accuracies in the 90%, the EPDs will still only influence, at best, 30%, with environment, management, etc. dictating the other 70%.

This also means that if the accuracies are below 10%, as with virgin animals, the EPDs would have significantly less impact than the 30% that Mr. Crouch mentioned. I guess there are two ways to look at this. One would be ---gee, if accuracies are low, the small percentage of that 30% really isn't going to make that much difference. The other would be ---gee, at least with a high accuracy bull, the EPDs can give me as much as 30% predicability.

Most of us are not experts in statistics, (including me). That was where the reference to the stock market was applicable to the discussion. Numbers can be handled in many different ways. That can also be applied to EPDs and how they are arrived at. An interesting reference is How To Lie With Statistics, by Darrell Huff. It was written in 1954, so the examples are somewhat dated, but the principals apply.

Also, EPDs work best if used in conjunction with environmental factors. A rancher in Montana has different environmental concerns than a rancher in Arizona, or a rancher in Florida, and this may influence his choice involving EPD traits. Part of the problem, (for example-- what semen companies do) is give the impression that these EPD traits will be the same in any environment, because they are genetic traits. However, they really aren't genetic traits, but rather are a statistical estimation of a genetic tendency in an animal.

Good luck finding the Bonsma book. It's an interesting read !!

 

[ALACOWMAN]

i looked on amazon.. said they don' t know when or if that book will be avalible again..

 

[Herefords.US]

Interesting discussion. I always appreciate the insight and grassroots type of wisdom that most of us ag people have. Had to jump in for a minute.

There is a quote from John Crouch, who basically began the EPD system for the American Angus, and was a strong proponent for pushing this agenda . I used to keep this on my refrigerator back in the late eighties when I switched to registered Angus. It isn't the exact quote, but the general idea goes something like this.

EPD's are not static. With the highest accuracies in the 90%, the EPDs will still only influence, at best, 30%, with environment, management, etc. dictating the other 70%.

This also means that if the accuracies are below 10%, as with virgin animals, the EPDs would have significantly less impact than the 30% that Mr. Crouch mentioned. I guess there are two ways to look at this. One would be ---gee, if accuracies are low, the small percentage of that 30% really isn't going to make that much difference. The other would be ---gee, at least with a high accuracy bull, the EPDs can give me as much as 30% predicability.

Most of us are not experts in statistics, (including me). That was where the reference to the stock market was applicable to the discussion. Numbers can be handled in many different ways. That can also be applied to EPDs and how they are arrived at. An interesting reference is How To Lie With Statistics, by Darrell Huff. It was written in 1954, so the examples are somewhat dated, but the principals apply.

Also, EPDs work best if used in conjunction with environmental factors. A rancher in Montana has different environmental concerns than a rancher in Arizona, or a rancher in Florida, and this may influence his choice involving EPD traits. Part of the problem, (for example-- what semen companies do) is give the impression that these EPD traits will be the same in any environment, because they are genetic traits. However, they really aren't genetic traits, but rather are a statistical estimation of a genetic tendency in an animal.

Good luck finding the Bonsma book. It's an interesting read !!

Welcome to CT! And I think you've got one of the BEST monikers I've ever seen on a discussion board.

Around here, there's always plenty of ....wind ..... AND...sage (advice)!

George

 

[alisonb]

Wind and Sage kind of reminds me of someone that posts here on a regular basis .

 

[Wind and Sage]

Hi, and thanks for the encouraging words. Yes, I am a first time person on the discussion board. I kind of diverted from the original topic of Difference in Breeds. I have been fortunate enough to run many types of cattle. I grew up with Herefords (as did most people) in Colorado as a kid. For several years we had a rainbow herd (not to be confused with rainbow coalition) of all kinds of cows. Through the eighties there you could see Semintal, Baldies, Reds, and red cross cows, a few charlois cross cows, and even some Pinzgaur. This was in combination with commercial Angus cows. My cousin ran limousin cows and I took 85 head of Saler cross cows in on shares once. I wouldn't trade this experience for anything. It gave me exposure to pluses and minuses of most breeds. We had a Semintal bull battery at one time, a charlois battery, always a few angus bulls, and one real good hereford bull. Additionally we would buy about 300 calves and run to yearlings. That was educational in the sense that for yearlings we wanted a bigger boned, higher capacity animal. Looking back, I'm glad I didn't have to calve some of the ones we bought. (Keep the pullers in the back of your pickup.)

Anyway, I have raised registered Angus for almost 20 years. The reason (duck your head) is that I felt they are the best maternal and calving ease of those breeds mentioned. Rarely did I have the problems with the cows that I had with some of the other breeds. However, I always tend to make a few Angus purebred breeders mad. In my estimation, there were certain traits, such as growth or carcass that other breeds did better than Angus. I would tell other Angus breeders to quit trying to turn an Angus cow into something she's not, and let them shine where they shine. The single trait carcass breeding (due to the then, new toy of ultrasound carcass) led to a lot of single trait breeding that affected other aspects (negatively, I feel) of the Angus breed. (For a great little reference, read Temple Grandin's Animal's in Translation, the chapter on Single Trait.)

Anyway,there really is no breed that will do it all, and there is no breed that works in every environment. I think an all breeds EPD would just be confusing, and probably inaccurate.
Thanks...

 

[ollie?]

Can someone please tell me if in 5 pages of epd discussion has anyone mentioned that across breed epd adjustments have nothing to do with actual pounds in difference between the breeds? I can't bear to read it all.

 

[Wind and Sage]

Ollie, I think you're right, and glad that you did mention that. (Sorry it took 5 pages). I agree that across breed epds, whether birth or wean or whatever, aren't really going to be expressed in pounds. I don't believe the epds really express actual pounds even within one breed. Thanks, point is well taken.

 

[dun]

Ollie, I think you're right, and glad that you did mention that. (Sorry it took 5 pages). I agree that across breed epds, whether birth or wean or whatever, aren't really going to be expressed in pounds. I don't believe the epds really express actual pounds even within one breed. Thanks, point is well taken.

No, but if someone actually understands EPDs they already know that there is no correlation between pounds expressed in an EPD and actual animal pounds.

 

[Herefords.US]

Ollie, I think you're right, and glad that you did mention that. (Sorry it took 5 pages). I agree that across breed epds, whether birth or wean or whatever, aren't really going to be expressed in pounds. I don't believe the epds really express actual pounds even within one breed. Thanks, point is well taken.

No, but if someone actually understands EPDs they already know that there is no correlation between pounds expressed in an EPD and actual animal pounds.

If that's true, dun, then it eliminates the originator of this thread as someone who ACTUALLY understands EPDs!

Repeating his statement from earlier in the thread:

The AVERAGE Angus calf registered as recently as 1985 had a weaning weight EPD of only +11 and a yearling EPD of only +18........well into the era of the establishment of the EPD system and in the height of the great frame race. Angus has added 34 lbs of avg weaning weight EPD and 64 lbs of avg yearling weight since then. Since the EPD is half the actual number, real performance has increased by 68 lbs and 128 lbs in the last 25 years.

http://www.angus.org/nce/genetictrends.aspx

And my reply to him:

Once again, the snake oil salesman has come to town attempting to peddle his wares! :frowns:

To put faith in the statistics you've quoted would require that I put a lot of faith in low accuracy EPDs which comprise the cumulative averages of each year's calf crop - and I DON'T!

George

I think it's highly possible that the EPD equation matrix has been set up to where the so-called "PROGRESS" in EPDs over the years has been accentuated beyond what has truly been achieved (or is even genetically possible to achieve in ideal conditions) in actual pounds, which is a large part of the reason that I don't have faith in those statistics Brandonm22 quoted.

Has there been overall growth over 25 years? I don't think anyone can deny that! Have Herefords and Angus REALLY virtually caught up in growth with Charolais, Simmental, and Limousin? I don't know - but if they have - I'd sure like all you breeders of these breeds to tell me what you've been doing for 25 years! Standing pat? Going backward? Turning 'em black? :?:

George

 

[dun]

Ollie, I think you're right, and glad that you did mention that. (Sorry it took 5 pages). I agree that across breed epds, whether birth or wean or whatever, aren't really going to be expressed in pounds. I don't believe the epds really express actual pounds even within one breed. Thanks, point is well taken.

No, but if someone actually understands EPDs they already know that there is no correlation between pounds expressed in an EPD and actual animal pounds.

If that's true, dun, then it eliminates the originator of this thread as someone who ACTUALLY understands EPDs!

Repeating his statement from earlier in the thread:

The AVERAGE Angus calf registered as recently as 1985 had a weaning weight EPD of only +11 and a yearling EPD of only +18........well into the era of the establishment of the EPD system and in the height of the great frame race. Angus has added 34 lbs of avg weaning weight EPD and 64 lbs of avg yearling weight since then. Since the EPD is half the actual number, real performance has increased by 68 lbs and 128 lbs in the last 25 years.

http://www.angus.org/nce/genetictrends.aspx

And my reply to him:

Once again, the snake oil salesman has come to town attempting to peddle his wares! :frowns:

To put faith in the statistics you've quoted would require that I put a lot of faith in low accuracy EPDs which comprise the cumulative averages of each year's calf crop - and I DON'T!

George

I think it's highly possible that the EPD equation matrix has been set up to where the so-called "PROGRESS" in EPDs over the years has been accentuated beyond what has truly been achieved (or is even genetically possible to achieve in ideal conditions) in actual pounds, which is a large part of the reason that I don't have faith in those statistics Brandonm22 quoted.

Has there been overall growth over 25 years? I don't think anyone can deny that! Have Herefords and Angus REALLY virtually caught up in growth with Charolais, Simmental, and Limousin? I don't know - but if they have - I'd sure like all you breeders of these breeds to tell me what you've been doing for 25 years! Standing pat? Going backward? Turning 'em black? :?:

George

You are correct, I hd forgotten his tidbit on EPD calculating

And the other breeds have been rducing weights primarily because of too high BWs

 

[Herefords.US]

And the other breeds have been rducing weights primarily because of too high BWs

Curiosity got the best of me, so I had to look!

Their EPD genetic trends graphs say otherwise, dun, at least when it comes to average yearling weight. They have been increasing too! Granted, at a little slower rate than Angus, especially the Simmental, although I didn't find an AVG YW EPD data point past 2006 on them, so that would also make some difference.

Charolais - 1990 YW (+11.2) 2009 YW (+42.4)
http://www.charolaisusa.com/pdf/2010/aug30/FALL2010GeneticTrend.pdf

Simmental - 1990 YW (~+49) 2006 YW (~+58)
http://www.simmental.org/userimages/SM Growth-Prod.pdf

Limousin - 1990 YW (+48.39) 2010 YW (+82.02)
http://www.nalf.org/programs/siresummary/1009_epd.pdf

Herefords, Angus, and Red Angus:

Hereford - 1990 YW (+39.0) 2009 YW (+71.3)
http://hereford.org/static/files/f10_Trend.pdf

Angus - 1990 YW (+33) 2009 YW (+82)
http://www.angus.org/Nce/GeneticTrends.aspx

Red Angus - 1990 YW (+18) 2009 YW (+60)
http://redangus.org/genetics/epd-trends

George

 

[dun]

And the other breeds have been rducing weights primarily because of too high BWs

Curiosity got the best of me, so I had to look!

Their EPD genetic trends graphs say otherwise, dun, at least when it comes to average yearling weight. They have been increasing too! Granted, at a little slower rate than Angus, especially the Simmental, although I didn't find an AVG YW EPD data point past 2006 on them, so that would also make some difference.

Charolais - 1990 YW (+11.2) 2009 YW (+42.4)
http://www.charolaisusa.com/pdf/2010/aug30/FALL2010GeneticTrend.pdf

Simmental - 1990 YW (~+49) 2006 YW (~+58)
http://www.simmental.org/userimages/SM Growth-Prod.pdf

Limousin - 1990 YW (+48.39) 2010 YW (+82.02)
http://www.nalf.org/programs/siresummary/1009_epd.pdf

Herefords, Angus, and Red Angus:

Hereford - 1990 YW (+39.0) 2009 YW (+71.3)
http://hereford.org/static/files/f10_Trend.pdf

Angus - 1990 YW (+33) 2009 YW (+82)
http://www.angus.org/Nce/GeneticTrends.aspx

Red Angus - 1990 YW (+18) 2009 YW (+60)
http://redangus.org/genetics/epd-trends

George

I'm not talking EPDs, II'm talking actual weights. I don;t know when any of the breeds adjusted their baseline for EPDs can't address that

 

[Herefords.US]

I'm not talking EPDs, II'm talking actual weights. I don;t know when any of the breeds adjusted their baseline for EPDs can't address that

I was looking at the change and rate of change. YW EPD should also be the best indicator of the change in mature size, too. Perhaps another indication that the EPDs don't accurately reflect the reality.

Like I said before, my study has been limited to Hereford EPDs and this is the first look I've taken at some of these other breeds.

In Herefords, I think if a person wants to compare EPDs of two proven contemporary bulls, like Harland and Bright Future, they have some basis for confidence in what they see. But I don't believe you can compare the EPDs of two proven bulls from different eras with a lot of confidence, say Harland with David, or Bright Future with Enforcer, even though all their EPDs are high accuracy. And that would be understandable if the way EPDs are figured each year has accentuated the EPD growth rate beyond what the ACTUAL growth rate is.

I'd love to be able to look at the detailed reports the breed associations probably get with each recalculation. They probably show the individuals that have the widest deviation in EPDs from one report to the next, etc, etc. Of course, I doubt someone like me will ever get access to that information.

I do applaud the Simmental association for making this chart available to their users:
http://www.simmental.org/index.php?option=com_wrapper&Itemid=266

George

 

[Idaman]

Maybe it is me but where is the EPD for the mature size in either the Hereford or Angus Breeds. In the Hereford Performance pedigree there is a listing for mature frame size that is the actual measurement. Is this part of the mature size EPD estimate?

In the Angus the $EN is partly made up of a estimate of mature size but I don't know for sure whether that part is solely an EPD or has a factor of actual frame size measurement.

 

[dun]

Maybe it is me but where is the EPD for the mature size in either the Hereford or Angus Breeds. In the Hereford Performance pedigree there is a listing for mature frame size that is the actual measurement. Is this part of the mature size EPD estimate?

In the Angus the $EN is partly made up of a estimate of mature size but I don't know for sure whether that part is solely an EPD or has a factor of actual frame size measurement.

I think the angus folks call it YH but that isn;t mature size. And we all know that a 5 yealring can turn into a 7 mature and vice versa. Kind of depends on their growth patterns

 

[Brandonm22]

Maybe it is me but where is the EPD for the mature size in either the Hereford or Angus Breeds. In the Hereford Performance pedigree there is a listing for mature frame size that is the actual measurement. Is this part of the mature size EPD estimate?

In the Angus the $EN is partly made up of a estimate of mature size but I don't know for sure whether that part is solely an EPD or has a factor of actual frame size measurement.

I think the angus folks call it YH but that isn;t mature size. And we all know that a 5 yealring can turn into a 7 mature and vice versa. Kind of depends on their growth patterns

Angus has mature weight and mature height EPDs. I got a few doubts about the accuracy of those numbers; but some data is better than no data.

http://www.angus.org/Nce/Definitions.aspx

 

[cow pollinater]

Forgive me if I missed it in five pages of reading but I'd like to point out a few things that pop out at me.
Breed average are just that. It won't define individual breed changers. While an average Charolais bulls calves are only forty something lbs heavier than an average Angus bulls calves, I know that alot of Charolais breeders are trying to moderate their cattle to incorporate calving ease and alot of Angus breeders are trying to incorporate growth. When you average they may look similar but an above average Charolais bull that is not bred to moderate will kick the crap out of an average Angus bull on growth... You have to pick the genetics that do what you want. Breed averages won't cut it.
Sample size: Who did they include in the study? If two large Angus breeders in the study have been agressivly breeding for growth for twenty years while two large Charolais guys in the study have focused on calving ease at the expense of growth for twenty years, we won't get a clear picture of what the breeds are capable of.
The NAAB resets the standards every five years so we should be able to get an accurate picture of how old bulls compare with young bulls. Progress on beef cattle, with somewhat of an exception of the Angus breed, is amazingly slow.
In the dairy world, a bull is considered to be a gamble if his reliability is less than about 60%. LOTS of bulls fail to do what their EPDS say they will do but on the beef side we buy them up and don't look back. Genomic testing is a big help in sorting out the best of the new genetics but nothing beats calves on the ground that we can evaluate.
In short, you have to pick the genetics that do what you want. There are bulls in every breed that perform above and beyond what that breed is known for... use them.