Making Lemonade!

[Brandonm22]

The folks that don't "WANT" to grasp the system are the folks who have a lot of money, time, and emotion invested in a cow herd whose EPDs are breed average or worse.

http://sl.farmonline.com.au/news/state/ ... 47914.aspx

This cow comes from a stud with many, many cows whose EBVs are 'breed average or worse'.

Nobody ever suggested for a second that there aren't cattle out there with mediocre EPDs who don't have good phenotype. The genes for improving production (and/or improving phenotype) exist in the genetic diversity of most large populations of cattle whatever their current level of production as a group is. Likewise not every production trait leader is the most pleasing animal too look at. EPDs are not about winning a ribbon they are about a statisticial system to measure production. You can use the numbers to increase the desired production traits. There is no reason (in theory) that your Murray Greys can't average 70 lb birth weights, 650 lb weaning weights, gain 4.2 lbs a day in the feed lot eating 9 lbs a day, and hang a 2 yield grade, high choice quality grade, 14.2" ribeye area carcass that is tender and tasty without losing that eye pleasing phenotype. To get there, you need to have some way to measure data for the traits that matter, and some way to measure the statistical probability that an animal possesses those traits. That is all the EPDs are. They are just a predictor of differences in progeny performance.

 

[rocket2222]

The bull is only 50% of the DNA in any given animal; but the sire and maternal grandsire are 75%. If you take a step back, the sire, the maternal grandsire, and the bottom end maternal great grandsire is 87.5% of the animal. IF I know a lot about all three of those animals, I know an awful lot about the animal even if there is not a lot of data in on that dam. Most of the data is going to be on the male end as they generate a lot more calves. I am not saying not to walk behind the barn to look at the animal's dam and if she has another couple of calves out there you can see great; but if I see no phenotypical problems with her, the animal we are buying, or the sibs, and I have a mountain of data on 87.5% of the pedigree I am not going to get all upset because the dam only has three animals in the database.

Hey, if ya add all them relatives up on the dams side, that's 87.5% of the animal you don't have a clue about. :roll: ;-)

 

[Brandonm22]

Hey, if ya add all them relatives up on the dams side, that's 87.5% of the animal you don't have a clue about. :roll: ;-)

I don't need to know anything about a cow IF her son in the pedigree sired over a thousand progeny we have records on. The 99% accuracy we have on him completely cancels out the 45-55% accuracy we have on her. I am at a loss to figure out why this concept is so hard for you to grasp. Lagrand Reload is by Wideload and a Keynote daughter. I know an awful lot about Reload just from knowing those two sires. EVERY cow in the pedigree has a sire. Do the math. Over ten generations of breeding 99.85% of the genetics in a herd are the last ten sires you selected (why the commerical guys are at the mercy of his seedstock supplier(s)). I am not saying that you can not make progress by selecting on the female end; but in an EPD system the cumulated sire selection is where we build the accuracy into the system and where we can make the most genetic progress.

 

[rocket2222]

I don't need to know anything about a cow IF her son in the pedigree sired over a thousand progeny we have records on. The 99% accuracy we have on him completely cancels out the 45-55% accuracy we have on her. I am at a loss to figure out why this concept is so hard for you to grasp. Lagrand Reload is by Wideload and a Keynote daughter. I know an awful lot about Reload just from knowing those two sires. EVERY cow in the pedigree has a sire. Do the math. Over ten generations of breeding 99.85% of the genetics in a herd are the last ten sires you selected (why the commerical guys are at the mercy of his seedstock supplier(s)). I am not saying that you can not make progress by selecting on the female end; but in an EPD system the cumulated sire selection is where we build the accuracy into the system and where we can make the most genetic progress.

:lol: :lol: I'm not very bright I guess. :lol: :lol: I see now though, when you have that much data collected on a bull, his dam basically becomes irrelevant. I guess the cows that you apparently don't care about, that the bull bred, who contributed 50% of their dna and make up 50% of the data that made the 99% accurate epd on that bull will, in time, become irrelevant too. Oh, that's right, I'll check behind the barn, make sure at least a couple of them have four legs and a tail, hey, there all 2 year olds who have been flushed, no udder problems there then. 8) Well, I gotta go. See ya.

 

[KNERSIE]

gain 4.2 lbs a day in the feed lot eating 9 lbs a day

I can now understand why this argument is going nowhere. :secret:

 

[Keren]

EPDs are not about winning a ribbon they are about a statisticial system to measure production. You can use the numbers to increase the desired production traits. There is no reason (in theory) that your Murray Greys can't average 70 lb birth weights, 650 lb weaning weights, gain 4.2 lbs a day in the feed lot eating 9 lbs a day, and hang a 2 yield grade, high choice quality grade, 14.2" ribeye area carcass that is tender and tasty without losing that eye pleasing phenotype. To get there, you need to have some way to measure data for the traits that matter, and some way to measure the statistical probability that an animal possesses for thos traits. That is all the EPDs are. They are just a predictor of differences in progeny.

This cow is six years old, on her fifth calf. She raises one helluva big thumping calf on native pasture only - at a time when just about everyone in this area is supplementing hay, this cow doesnt get it - grass only. That calf is 6 mths old in that picture - and almost as big as her dam. She is as outstanding, phenotypically, as her dam. The cow breeds back every year. She has produced replacement quality heifers and bulls that went on to be stud sires. So yes, I think I am justified in saying that she has the desired production traits for the herd she belongs to.

you need to have some way to measure data for the traits that matter

You can keep your EBVs. I'll stick to ACTUAL measured data - real measurements of EMA, birth weight, weaning weight, frame score of mature cows, condition scoring, scrotal, etc. And as far as the carcase data goes, I think I prefer assessing our carcasses at slaughter time, and taking real measurements of market specs etc. than relying on predicted data

 

[Herefords.US]

You can keep your EBVs. I'll stick to ACTUAL measured data - real measurements of EMA, birth weight, weaning weight, frame score of mature cows, condition scoring, scrotal, etc. And as far as the carcase data goes, I think I prefer assessing our carcasses at slaughter time, and taking real measurements of market specs etc. than relying on predicted data

It's Sunday morning here. All I can say about this statement is "AMEN!" :clap: :clap: :clap: :nod:

 

[Brandonm22]

gain 4.2 lbs a day in the feed lot eating 9 lbs a day

I can now understand why this argument is going nowhere. :secret:

You have to dare to dream. The best lines of catfish can gain 1 lb of body wt per 1.5 pounds of feed. I don't see why 2.15 pounds of feed to pound of gain would not be achievable if we put the same effort towards it. Individual bulls have been tested at 2.5.

 

[Brandonm22]

I'm not very bright I guess. :lol: :lol: I see now though, when you have that much data collected on a bull, his dam basically becomes irrelevant. I guess the cows that you apparently don't care about, that the bull bred, who contributed 50% of their dna and make up 50% of the data that made the 99% accurate epd on that bull will, in time, become irrelevant too. Oh, that's right, I'll check behind the barn, make sure at least a couple of them have four legs and a tail, hey, there all 2 year olds who have been flushed, no udder problems there then. 8) Well, I gotta go. See ya.

Well think of it this way. Lets say you have a big tall set of Hereford heifers. I live next door and I have Lowline Angus but I can't keep my Lowline Angus bulls up. He breeds all your heifers before you can A.I. For some reason you don't kill me or the bull and neither one of us can afford to build a decent fence. You make the best of the situation and you keep only the 25% of the resulting baldie heifers with the most length, height, and weight. Lowline Angus bull attacks AGAIN. Now you got to select heifers out of 75% A/25% H heifers. You keep back the 25% of the resulting heifers with the most frame and the most white. Lowline Angus bull jumps in there again and does his worst. You get a heifer crop that is 87.5% Lowline Angus. You select the biggest brawniest heifers. Those Lowlines do it again. Now your heifers are 93++ % Lowline Angus. Their calves will be 97% Lowline Angus. You can keep selecting females all you want to; but the sire selection is ultimately deciding what your herd is. I don't need to know anything about your individual cows or your female selection to know that if a frame 0 Lowline Angus appears in the pedigree the last 6 times that you have a herd of frame 0 Lowline Angus cows. Likewise if I stack proven sire on top of proven sire on top of proven sire on top of proven sire it ultimately doesn't matter all that much whether my foundation females were $100,000 donor cows or throw away $400 stockyard heifers; their descendants are going to perform much the same way because of the sires used in that program over time.

 

[Herefords.US]

I'm not very bright I guess. :lol: :lol: I see now though, when you have that much data collected on a bull, his dam basically becomes irrelevant. I guess the cows that you apparently don't care about, that the bull bred, who contributed 50% of their dna and make up 50% of the data that made the 99% accurate epd on that bull will, in time, become irrelevant too. Oh, that's right, I'll check behind the barn, make sure at least a couple of them have four legs and a tail, hey, there all 2 year olds who have been flushed, no udder problems there then. 8) Well, I gotta go. See ya.

Well think of it this way. Lets say you have a big tall set of Hereford heifers. I live next door and I have Lowline Angus but I can't keep my Lowline Angus bulls up. He breeds all your heifers before you can A.I. For some reason you don't kill me or the bull and neither one of us can afford to build a decent fence. You make the best of the situation and you keep only the 25% of the resulting baldie heifers with the most length, height, and weight. Lowline Angus bull attacks AGAIN. Now you got to select heifers out of 75% A/25% H heifers. You keep back the 25% of the resulting heifers with the most frame and the most white. Lowline Angus bull jumps in there again and does his worst. You get a heifer crop that is 87.5% Lowline Angus. You select the biggest brawniest heifers. Those Lowlines do it again. Now your heifers are 93++ % Lowline Angus. Their calves will be 97% Lowline Angus. You can keep selecting females all you want to; but the sire selection is ultimately deciding what your herd is. I don't need to know anything about your individual cows or your female selection to know that if a frame 0 Lowline Angus appears in the pedigree the last 6 times that you have a herd of frame 0 Lowline Angus cows. Likewise if I stack proven sire on top of proven sire on top of proven sire on top of proven sire it ultimately doesn't matter all that much whether my foundation females were $100,000 donor cows or throw away $400 stockyard heifers; their descendants are going to perform much the same way because of the sires used in that program over time.

The problem with your logic in using proven Hereford sires is that, with them, you're thinking that you have a rifle, when you've really got a shotgun. And stacking a "shotgun distribution" on top of another, then atop another STILL nets you a really wide distribution of probability, yet I believe the derived EPDs also assume that you're using a rifle! So, until you have a good bit of progeny data from the actual animal produced, you still have no real idea where you are within that broad shotgun pattern. You may be closer to your target than just shooting in the dark, but you may still be quite a way from where you'd like to be. Eventually, you should be able to hit the bulls eye, but because some traits are antagonistic, you may have to make a number of adjustments to get there - taking a step backward in some traits to improve others.

To me, the obvious way of tightening the "pattern" is using linebreeding, then selection via visual appraisal and analysis of individual data, rather than using the derivatives (EPDs) and THEIR derivatives (the $ indexes).

The bottom line is, in cattle breeding, we're talking about a lifetime of work. Most people just want a bull to breed their cows and they are TOO busy to do all the research (or TOO lazy) and they want a simple set of numbers to tell them which bull to pick. The problem is the set of numbers that they've come up with (EPDs) aren't reliable without significant progeny data input. But if you fool enough people into believing that they are the "gospel", you've got a tremendous promotional tool at your disposal! And that's why we've got a bunch of functionally unsound bulls with GREAT EPDs in the pastures and people looking at their cattle and wishing they had cows more like what grandpa had. Grandpa was probably a cattle breeder, not a numbers cruncher.

George

 

[Northern Rancher]

There's a bit of hockey anology here-I have a prospect come up his parents are athletes-his grandparents were athletic too-his Dad actually played some pro hockey. The kid has scored at will in the league he's called up from. I get him and he can't find the net -won't go in the corners and slumps he can't take the rougher going. he's just like a young unproven bull with great numbers-you put him on your team because of great potential but you have to cut him because he can't play in the conditions that your team (cowherd) works in. As for Dams becoming irrelevant EPD wise I suppose but they are a major deal when it comes to the EPD's of practicality-the ones we cull for soundness, disposition etc.

 

[Brandonm22]

As for Dams becoming irrelevant EPD wise I suppose but they are a major deal when it comes to the EPD's of practicality-the ones we cull for soundness, disposition etc.

Dams are important because we need their data reported in to know ANYTHING about her sires's genetic production levels. Hereford is supposed to come out with a cow longevity EPD that "COULD" help us identify those sires whose daughters hang stay in the herd the longest. The problem with putting a whole lot of emphasis on individual cow EPDs though is that by the time we have any accuracy (10++ calves recorded in the database) she is probably dead or close to it, where a sire can have 100 calves on the ground before he turns two (ditto if you only CARE about ACTUAL numbers) and if he lives 10 years we can collect enough semen to last decades. Maybe when (IF) they get all the kinks out of cloning we can identify that 15 year old cow with the 120 weaning ratio and all the good daughters and then make 100 copies of her. At this time, even IF that is probably technically feasible I doubt that it pays.

 

[SRBeef]

As a newcomer and sort of "neutral observer" to this interesting discussion I have a question and a comment from a newcomers perspective:

Question: As I have a bull with very good (if low accuracy and unproven) EPD's but with a very good pedigree (lots of Advance, Domino, Felton etc in his pedigree) who is in danger of falling into no-man's land because I do not have registered cows nor am I a breeder intending to sell offspring, except frozen and ready to grill, how do I improve the accuracy of his numbers to see if I have a "rifle or a shotgun" (good analogy!)? I take weights regularly from my corral scale. I would like to get them entered into the AHA as well as my records (Cattlemax).

Comment: As a former aircraft pilot, this reminds me of the old dilemma of do you believe your instruments or your seat of the pants intuition? There is nothing quite as humbling as being a flying student "under the hood" with a good instructor pilot! He will have you thinking and swearing you are flying rightside up and level when you are actually upside down and in a dive or stall... The answer is obviously you believe your instruments. Many aircraft accidents have been caused over the years by people who did not trust their instruments.

On the other hand some accidents are caused by pilots who also forgot to "look out the window"!

It seems to me that there is maybe a question about the accuracy of the instruments (EPDs) being used here. I guess my approach would be to buy instruments from someone you trust - but don't forget to look out the window!

I have some very nice cows that I have been watching closely. But even that is starting to raise questions as I find from my data that some of the best VISUAL cows were way down on the weaning weight to cow mature weight which is, after calving ease, a big economic factor for me. My goal in my situation is to raise the most high quality boxed beef per acre of land that I can. I had some very high WW/CowW calves from some less than stellar cows this past year. So I'm not sure I can fly completely by "looking out the window" either!

Looks like my own data will have to be my main guide, but is there some way to report bull data in my situation?

Thanks to all for the interesting (and civil) discussion here.

Jim

 

[Herefords.US]

As a newcomer and sort of "neutral observer" to this interesting discussion I have a question and a comment from a newcomers perspective:

Question: As I have a bull with very good (if low accuracy and unproven) EPD's but with a very good pedigree (lots of Advance, Domino, Felton etc in his pedigree) who is in danger of falling into no-man's land because I do not have registered cows nor am I a breeder intending to sell offspring, except frozen and ready to grill, how do I improve the accuracy of his numbers to see if I have a "rifle or a shotgun" (good analogy!)? I take weights regularly from my corral scale. I would like to get them entered into the AHA as well as my records (Cattlemax).

Comment: As a former aircraft pilot, this reminds me of the old dilemma of do you believe your instruments or your seat of the pants intuition? There is nothing quite as humbling as being a flying student "under the hood" with a good instructor pilot! He will have you thinking and swearing you are flying rightside up and level when you are actually upside down and in a dive or stall... The answer is obviously you believe your instruments. Many aircraft accidents have been caused over the years by people who did not trust their instruments.

On the other hand some accidents are caused by pilots who also forgot to "look out the window"!

It seems to me that there is maybe a question about the accuracy of the instruments (EPDs) being used here. I guess my approach would be to buy instruments from someone you trust - but don't forget to look out the window!

I have some very nice cows that I have been watching closely. But even that is starting to raise questions as I find from my data that some of the best VISUAL cows were way down on the weaning weight to cow mature weight which is, after calving ease, a big economic factor for me. My goal in my situation is to raise the most high quality boxed beef per acre of land that I can. I had some very high WW/CowW calves from some less than stellar cows this past year. So I'm not sure I can fly completely by "looking out the window" either!

Looks like my own data will have to be my main guide, but is there some way to report bull data in my situation?

Thanks to all for the interesting (and civil) discussion here.

Jim

Jim, I think keeping "within" herd records is a great idea and the more measurements you can take and data you can collect the better. Such information is far more valuable than EPDs in my book.

Cow efficiency (cow weight to calf weaning weight) is something without an EPD for it. I know several breeders who have kept such records for years though, and I think it's very useful information to have. Cow efficiency is certainly something I like to consider. In fact one of the many reasons I was drawn to these three flush brothers is because their maternal granddam was Colyer's most "efficient" cow in the years that she was in production. She wasn't the prettiest cow in the pasture either - but I'd love to have a pasture full just like her. Now all the EPD believers can look at her EPDs, and her, and then wonder why!

http://www.herfnet.com/online/cgi-bin/i4.dll?1=232B21&2=2420&3=56&5=2B3C2B3C3A&6=5B5C23262359262720

Hint: Look at the progeny data in her performance pedigree!

I tried to buy a Pure Gold son out of her in Colyer's sale last year, but W4 Ranch had more money than I did and owns him now.

As for your bull's records, unless you are also going to use another Hereford bull, preferably a proven one via AI, your bull's calves will always average 100% on all traits and I don't think reporting it would affect his EPDs at all. If it ups their accuracy levels, I'd consider that to be another flaw in the system. Outside influences from relatives will continue to affect his EPDs (and their accuracy)slightly over time, but he's pretty well stuck where he is....unless he and/or his progeny are in a situation where they are able to be compared with other Herefords within the same contemporary group. I know some changes are in the pipeline that I haven't looked at or heard about, so I could be wrong here. I'm sure someone will correct me if I am!

George

 

[Brandonm22]

If you have commercial cows why would you CARE if your bull has high accuracy or not? He breeds your calves. If you like them, he gets to do it again next year. If you don't like them, he becomes bologna and hot dogs and you buy another bull. We don't yet have commercial EPDs. If you want to report your data to somebody to see how you compare to other cattlemen you might want to look into joining your state's Beef Cattle Improvement Association.
.

 

[SRBeef]

If you have commercial cows why would you CARE if your bull has high accuracy or not? He breeds your calves. If you like them, he gets to do it again next year. If you don't like them, he becomes bologna and hot dogs and you buy another bull. We don't yet have commercial EPDs. If you want to report your data to somebody to see how you compare to other cattlemen you might want to look into joining your state's Beef Cattle Improvement Association.
.

You are right in that I don't really care what his EPD's are if he performs as I hope and need.

However that very comment was made somewhere earlier in this long thread about good EPD bulls more or less disappearing into commercial, non reported herds as being one of the reasons for low accuracy EPD's... I was looking for some way to validate Jerry Huth's data and hopefully add some data to improve the validity, + or -, of EPD's in general.

If EPD's are only generated by the "big guys" in breeding it seems we may be getting a less than full picture of the breed. Data from real-world working herds, even small herds, should be useful I would think.

I'm not going to take my calves to a testing station but it seems like my real-world weight/age data might be useful in increasing the validity of pedigree- or sibling-based data. jmho.

Jim

 

[Keren]

You can keep your EBVs. I'll stick to ACTUAL measured data - real measurements of EMA, birth weight, weaning weight, frame score of mature cows, condition scoring, scrotal, etc. And as far as the carcase data goes, I think I prefer assessing our carcasses at slaughter time, and taking real measurements of market specs etc. than relying on predicted data

It's Sunday morning here. All I can say about this statement is "AMEN!" :clap: :clap: :clap: :nod:

lol thanks George. I'm all stressed out about this big interview this morning for my research project, and I thought I'll just quickly jump on CT before I leave, and you just put a smile on my face. Thanks!

 

[Brandonm22]

Jerry Huth's cattle have become quite popular. ABS carries semen for 4 of his sires: Huth Enhancer 2D (a Sire Of Distinction), Huth Lagrand Class Act S037, Huth 434 Magnum S026, and Huth Progression S019. Accelerated Genetics carries Huth Prospector K085 (a breed trait leader for 8 traits) and Huth Oak P017. (page 46 of the 2009 Hereford AI book). I thought he dispersed several years ago; but I guess I was wrong.

 

[HerefordSire]

I think the masses want to believe in the system more than they do. An excuse I read all the time is accuracy and age of animal or quantities. Any excuse will do though. Same result. Fill in the blank. I believe it is too abstract for the masses to grasp

I think the system is relatively easy for "the masses to grasp" (ie the bull buying public). +50 weaning wt beats a +40 and -.1 birth weight beats a +4. The folks that don't "WANT" to grasp the system are the folks who have a lot of money, time, and emotion invested in a cow herd whose EPDs are breed average or worse.

Brandonm22...I cheated and read ahead at the comments on this thread. You have a excellent insight to the mathematical system as it was designed. Many on here may not understand what probability really is. It is scientically proven. For example, Einstein had to use probabilities to figure problems out that would not normally solve. He could measure some items that were 93,000,000 million miles away from earth. Some may think the probability of having a low BW EPD is not accounted for mathematically. Many do not care. If they want a product to sell to a bull buyer that fits their personal artful criteria, whatever that may be, they do not mind if the EPDs are not balanced or low. It is almost as if they are completely disregarding scientific theory and rely completely on the art. This philiosophy will show up in the numbers sooner or later and there will be bagholders, maybe as you suggested above, ......"emotion invested in a cow herd whose EPDs are breed average or worse".

 

[HerefordSire]

I don't mean to disregard the EPDs of the calves. That is their starting point. I mean that there won't be any ratios given for ET calves. Their actual birth weight and weaning weight will be affected by the unrelated recipient cow. There is no way to account for the recip's influence.

Herein may lay the underlying issue in comparing ET calves in George's example. The surrogate mother's nutrition is not numerically compensated for to my knowledge. Different genetic mothers receive different starting points while ignoring contemporary group ratios. The nutrition level of a young aged ET calf could influence the outcome of future calve's EPD numbers in the same line and much less outside of the line. The genetics don't change, but the initial months under the influence of the surrogate could eventually influence all other data. This could be the weakest point of the system.