Making Lemonade!

[Keren]

Just a side note, I was talking to an angus breeder and he said something that made me laugh.

"My [growth] figures are getting bigger, but my cattle are getting smaller"

:lol2:

 

[KNERSIE]

Just a side note, I was talking to an angus breeder and he said something that made me laugh.

"My [growth] figures are getting bigger, but my cattle are getting smaller"

:lol2:

I wouldn't mind if the ACTUAL growth was getting better without cattle getting bigger when mature.

DOC -

dont assume that those who 'disagree' with Breedplan and EBVs/EPDs do not properly understand the system.

I have a thorough understanding and in depth knowledge of the EBV/EPD system, how the figures are generated, what each figure means and the implications of the data.

It is BECAUSE of my knowledge and understanding that I have decided not to use EPDs/EBVs, not because of a lack of understanding. Our cattle are not in Breedplan, nor do I take much notice of the figures on the (very few) cattle we buy in from outside breeders.

Keren I agree, although I do use EBVs. What most of us are saying about not putting too much faith in unproven EPDs or EBVs isn't because we don't properly understand the system and its implications, its because we actually DO understand the system, have used it, and know how others "use" the system.

We also understand that there is alot more about breeding that can't always be quantified numerically that those without the real world experience of actually DOING rather than teaching and reading about it alone will ever grasp.

Breeding isn't just black and white, there is alot of grey inbetween. Its as much an art as it is a science without a clear distinction when the art and science meets, know both disciplines of breeding and the grey area inbetween, then knowing how and when to use all the tools box logically will become much easier.

 

[Keren]

Good post, Knersie :tiphat:

 

[Brandonm22]

Everybody seems to be putting a lot of pressure on bulls for the lack of accurate epds, when the real problem is the cow herd, you will not trust a bulls epd unless he's got a hundred or so calves on the ground, yet it's a great cow if she had two or three good calves, or one good calf, then shes flushed. No wonder epds aren't accurate, it seems like all the so called top breeders cow herds have a revolving gate. They are "upgraded" on a regular basis simply to improve their epd's on paper, so called "good" heifers are now flushed as 2 year olds, without a clue if they could make it past a 5 year old without a fertility or udder problem. You get a cow who has a couple of calves that get good carcass scans and she a breed leader, a bull gets 40 calves scanned [ on cows who have no true performance data, 2 or 3 calves ] then complain the bulls data as being unreliable. The mature cow herd is now a group of 4 or 5 year olds, the probability that their real performance actually matches their on paper epd's is even less likely than that of their brothers.

IF you have 300++ head of collected data on the sire and 300++ head of collected data on the Maternal Grandsire I would argue that having really really accurate data on the dam herself isn't all that important and certainly is not a flaw in the system. Too much emphasis is put on cows. The males in the pedigree is where you can put the greatest selection pressure and where you can achieve the greatest predictability. IF you use only proven sires (80% accuracy or greater) and do that over and over and over again you are going to build more and more accuracy into the system even if you don't have many cows with 8 or more natural progeny in the herd.

 

[Brandonm22]

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.

 

[KNERSIE]

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.

When the whole usefullness of breeding by unproven numbers shows its real value is when you have a group of substandard calves with a great set of EPDs.

I'd take a great crop of calves with average numbers anyday over a calf crop with great numbers and average quality, but to each his own.

The real world cattlemen that buys our bulls don't complain over low or average EPDs of hereford bulls they bought, they complain about high BW (they also don't try and justify the high BW by saying the growth is great, they just complain about the high BW), they complain about a lack of bone, lack of muscle and poor udders and eyes that causes problems. They constantly complain that the industry don't give them the type of cattle they want and they have to look elsewhere without ever saying "atleast the hereford bulls that they buy nowadays has got much better unproven EPDs today than it had 20 years ago."

We as breeders must wake up and smell the coffee!

 

[Northern Rancher]

Touche knersie!!! Some can't see the forest for the trees.

 

[Brandonm22]

When the whole usefullness of breeding by unproven numbers shows its real value is when you have a group of substandard calves with a great set of EPDs.

I'd take a great crop of calves with average numbers anyday over a calf crop with great numbers and average quality, but to each his own.

The real world cattlemen that buys our bulls don't complain over low or average EPDs of hereford bulls they bought, they complain about high BW (they also don't try and justify the high BW by saying the growth is great, they just complain about the high BW), they complain about a lack of bone, lack of muscle and poor udders and eyes that causes problems. They constantly complain that the industry don't give them the type of cattle they want and they have to look elsewhere without ever saying "atleast the hereford bulls that they buy nowadays has got much better unproven EPDs today than it had 20 years ago."

We as breeders must wake up and smell the coffee!

That simply proves my point. Whether the buyers wants higher weaning weights, lower birth weights, or BOTH, the first thing increasingly more and more buyers are going to look at is the EPD that they are most concerned with. Granted if the actual birth weight is 105 pounds, you probably lost the sale; but you weren't going to sell that bull to the guy (without lying!) anyway. You might be able to sell a bull with a 70 lb actual birth weight and a +4.6 birth wt EPD; but if that bull's calves are closer to the EPD than the actual you probably just lost a customer for life. How does Angus keep lowering their birth weight EPD year after year after year (and I look at an Angus bull with a -2.7 birth wt EPD and wonder if that is really a good thing)? By keeping records and crunching more and more numbers and then actually using the data.

 

[OLF]

So you can disregard the Hoffman calves since they're all ETs and their data doesn't count. Just study the W4 Ranch calves. It's a large herd with many bulls, so the contemporary groups are probably large which adds to the reliability of the data.

As a side note, I will be attending an association meeting at the home of KEB Excalibur E Deal tomorrow. I will let you know how he looks.

OLF...normally, I don't think the current global prediction system, using the formulas, will work as expected if the ET calf initial values are discarded. For example, all three bulls are ET calves. Their initial EPD accuracies are symbolized as "P", and in effect, a neutral numeric magnitude in regards to accuracy. However, the initial EPD magnitude is a simple average of the bull and dam and is not neutral globally. This is an an excellent predictive value and represents the probability that the majority of progeny's performance will fall in this address space. However, locally speaking as in this case, since these are specific flushmates and our context is not global, I think we can cancel out the effect of the initial values in order to understand that the logic is correct and dependable as a valid prediction tool even though accuracy levels may be lower than desired. Therefore, I agree with you.....we can disregard all ET calves data except for the BW ratio if there is any.

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.

 

[Herefords.US]

IF you have 300++ head of collected data on the sire and 300++ head of collected data on the Maternal Grandsire I would argue that having really really accurate data on the dam herself isn't all that important and certainly is not a flaw in the system. Too much emphasis is put on cows. The males in the pedigree is where you can put the greatest selection pressure and where you can achieve the greatest predictability. IF you use only proven sires (80% accuracy or greater) and do that over and over and over again you are going to build more and more accuracy into the system even if you don't have many cows with 8 or more natural progeny in the herd.

Brandon, logic would make me tend to agree with you, but apparently that logic is also flawed, as the case of these three full flush brothers indicate.

Look at the sires in their three generation pedigree and they are all highly proven sires with a lot of progeny. In fact, I think you would be hard pressed to find Hereford bulls with a larger quantity of data backing them - and their EPDs. Yet, look where their EPD "spread" went when the first crop of calves hit the ground.

Here is another post of yours that I generally agree with:

His sire (Channing) is a +5.3 and his dam is a +2.4. He may become a calving ease sire but I would wait for him to put at least 40 calves on the ground (preferably 100) before I put any faith in that +1.0 number.

Adding to the inaccuracy of the initial EPDs of these bulls is the fact that they are a cross of a low BW EPD cow with a high BW EPD bull.

I saw these three bulls together at Fort Worth the year before Easy Deal won the championship the next year. And that year I saw Easy Deal and Top Hat again at Fort Worth. I suspect Banker was in W4's pasture breeding cows. I've actually seen their dam, their sire(multiple times), and both of their grandsires (Pure Gold multiple times) in person as well. I've also followed the EPDs of many of the individuals in the pedigree of these bulls, noticing the fluctuations in them as a new set of EPDs is published. I'm hardly "uninformed" regarding EPDs. And I know these cattle pretty well. I had gleaned and studied the data that OLF and HS has posted here long before I started this thread, looking for answers. to the questions I have regarding EPDs. My journey to the conclusions I have regarding EPDs hasn't been an overnighter - it's been 7 years in the making - and much more time involved than I'd like to admit.

In Fort Worth, as yearlings, these three bulls were almost like "peas in a pod". Visually, there wasn't a whole lot of difference between them - certainly nothing that would indicate there might be a difference in their BW or Growth EPDs. Combined with their flush sisters, this has to be one of the most successful flushes ever done - in terms of getting the desired phenotypic result.

My personal preference of the three was the Top Hat bull. He had a little more thickness. But the one I wanted to eventually use was Easy Deal, because he's the only one of the three that's polled. I believe that Easy Deal's BW EPD will not stay where it currently is. If his EPDs don't move much from this point, I won't use him - because that likely also means that the 93.9% WWI on his calves is accurate and I'm not going to knowingly give up 6% WW on my calves to use any bull. But I got that information from looking at Easy Deal's performance pedigree, not his EPDs. Not suprisingly, that fact wasn't mentioned in the ad promoting him either.

George

 

[Brandonm22]

It is unlikely but it is also quite possible that there IS that much variation between the three flush brothers. There have been examples in the past where highly proven sibs had opposite strengths and weaknesses. We just don't know yet......why a highly accuracy set of EPDs is always a better predicter than a low accuracy set.

 

[KNERSIE]

It is unlikely but it is also quite possible that there IS that much variation between the three flush brothers. There have been examples in the past where highly proven sibs had opposite strengths and weaknesses. We just don't know yet......why a highly accuracy set of EPDs is always a better predicter than a low accuracy set.

That my friend is why us non-graspers are non-believers in unproven EPDs

 

[Brandonm22]

It is unlikely but it is also quite possible that there IS that much variation between the three flush brothers. There have been examples in the past where highly proven sibs had opposite strengths and weaknesses. We just don't know yet......why a highly accuracy set of EPDs is always a better predicter than a low accuracy set.

That my friend is why us non-graspers are non-believers in unproven EPDs

IF you didn't have the EPD to tell you there were POSSIBLY differences between the brothers you would likely make the mistake of believing that a bull WOULD perform like his brother (and I do suspect these three finish closer to each other when we get more accuracy). Before EPDs a lot of linebreeders wasted years of their life messing with a great bull's brother or son that didn't really add much to the breed. The EPDs let us measure if what we THINK is a good calf crop really is or not. We are also finally starting to make a little headway in the accuracy department. I got my 2009 Hereford AI source catalog in the mail today. There were 14 sires with 80% or higher accuracy in birth wt, weaning wt, and yearling wt. selling semen being advertised:

OXH Mark Domino 8020, Feltons Legend 242, HH Advance 767G, CL 1 Domino 5131E, CL 1 Domino 9126J, CMF 103T Victor 262D, DR World Class 517 10H, RF Positive Plus 73C, KCF Bennett 3008 M326, Huth Enhancer 2D, KT Top Secret 1030, K 64H Ribstone Lad 157K, MH Dakota 0230, and CJH Harland 408.

Plus several sires knocking on the door of joining that group. Granted ABS probably has that many accurate Angus sires in their lineup alone; but it is a start.

 

[giftedcowboy]

I have witnessed too many way to manipulate EPD's . If you go back and read through the works of Dr Willham in his development of EPD's you will have a greater understanding. The EPD's are only as good as the data presented and only as good as the accuracy given. There are so many things that can manipulate birth weight that are environmental...too many ways to collect data that are not taken in to account...
I have one thing you all of you to think about...Take the runt out of a flush because he is a smaller frame size....feed him like you are feeding the larger framed bulls in the flush...what do you get? In my opinion from observations over the last 40 years....shorten them up in length, you raise the rea.... pick the runt and you raise the imf sooner..... pick smaller and smaller frames out of a cow family with historically larger frames you decrease the pelvic and increase the calving problems.....picking bull for herdsires with smaller frames then historically normal you are picking from the ones that are from the group that are less then normal...
What if one rancher uses the pencil to collect birth, weaning and yearling weights? Say he is 10# light on actual birth....50# heavy on weaning and #150 heavy on yearling. What does that do to EPD's?

Doug Hoff once made a statement in his sale catalog about EPD's.... I am looking for it so I can post it here.

 

[KNERSIE]

It is unlikely but it is also quite possible that there IS that much variation between the three flush brothers. There have been examples in the past where highly proven sibs had opposite strengths and weaknesses. We just don't know yet......why a highly accuracy set of EPDs is always a better predicter than a low accuracy set.

That my friend is why us non-graspers are non-believers in unproven EPDs

IF you didn't have the EPD to tell you there were POSSIBLY differences between the brothers you would likely make the mistake of believing that a bull WOULD perform like his brother (and I do suspect these three finish closer to each other when we get more accuracy). Before EPDs a lot of linebreeders wasted years of their life messing with a great bull's brother or son that didn't really add much to the breed. The EPDs let us measure if what we THINK is a good calf crop really is or not. We are also finally starting to make a little headway in the accuracy department. I got my 2009 Hereford AI source catalog in the mail today. There were 14 sires with 80% or higher accuracy in birth wt, weaning wt, and yearling wt. selling semen being advertised:

OXH Mark Domino 8020, Feltons Legend 242, HH Advance 767G, CL 1 Domino 5131E, CL 1 Domino 9126J, CMF 103T Victor 262D, DR World Class 517 10H, RF Positive Plus 73C, KCF Bennett 3008 M326, Huth Enhancer 2D, KT Top Secret 1030, K 64H Ribstone Lad 157K, MH Dakota 0230, and CJH Harland 408.

Plus several sires knocking on the door of joining that group. Granted ABS probably has that many accurate Angus sires in their lineup alone; but it is a start.

We're just going in circles here.

But do tell me how the three flush brothers PD estimate EPD told us of the possible differences?

If you have spent even just a few years of breeding cattle you won't need an EPD to tell you there are differences between fullsibs. That is where unproven EPDs fail the industry, the matrix simply don't recognise that fact. If you understand the mathematics behind the calculations and the theory on which it is based you'll understand that the random devision of genes from the parents to the offspring isn't taken into the equation, but the average is used instead, otherwise the three flush brothers wouldn't have started with exactly the same EPDs.

I agree that EPDs can be a handy tool to use and I personally do use EBVs, but I use it as its intended, just one more tool. Before basing your entire selection protocol on EPDs, atleast do your homework and understand exactly how they are derived, understand the theories and ASSUMPTIONS made in the process. This will require going into greater detail than you can read on the back page of an AI catalogue.

 

[rocket2222]

IF you have 300++ head of collected data on the sire and 300++ head of collected data on the Maternal Grandsire I would argue that having really really accurate data on the dam herself isn't all that important and certainly is not a flaw in the system. Too much emphasis is put on cows. The males in the pedigree is where you can put the greatest selection pressure and where you can achieve the greatest predictability. IF you use only proven sires (80% accuracy or greater) and do that over and over and over again you are going to build more and more accuracy into the system even if you don't have many cows with 8 or more natural progeny in the herd.

While on average 50% of calves born are bull calves and the bull is 50% of your herd come breeding time, he is not 50% of the database. Epd's are derived from breeding stock to form a database, the accuracy of that database determines the how accurate the epd's are. Taking in to account small herds of less than 20 head and also taking in to account AI use which actually lessen the number of bulls needed per head of cow, I'm going to guess and pick a number of roughly one bull for every twenty head of cows as the number of actual breeding stock that we can accumulate data from. This means [ roughly speaking ] that the bull accounts for about 5% of the actual breeding stock and only 5% of the database that epd's are based on. Of coarse this also means that the cow herd makes up the other 95% of animals in the database from which all epds are based upon. How you came to the conclusion that "really really accurate data on the dam herself isn't all that important" when she accounts for about 95% of the animals in the database has me stumped.
The AHA finally realized the importance of the cow herd a few years back, this led them to start a program called " whole herd total performance records" "WHTPR" The program is designed to force breeders to turn in data on all their animals within the herd instead of being able to pick and choose which animals they collected data on. I think that its a good program and I've been enrolled in it since it was first introduced. Although I do believe that there are and was some things that could have been done better, the main one was incorporating the old data into the program at the beginning. They knew that this data was terribly floored from years of breeders turning in partial data typically only on their higher performing stock, yet they chose to use it anyway. This means that all present day epd's are derived from a database that was know to be wrong from the get go. You may not have noticed this, but, with the use of AI most all the top rated bulls are available to just about anyone, the main difference between the top breeders who use them and the average breeder who uses them is the cow herd.
Just as a side note, I use epd's as a tool in my selection process, although I don't breed using epds with mindset of simply making them appear better on paper. A good set of epd's doesn't mean it's a good breeding animal.

 

[Brandonm22]

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.

 

[Tod Dague]

http://redangus.org/node/109/Accuracy/U ... racies.pdf

Here is a link showing the possible change for the different acc levels. I'm guessing the acc for the ET bulls were 0 before they had calves. It is still possible to have cattle fall out of the ranges but should be fairly close to the range.
That being said, I'm not quite the believer of EPD's that I used to be as I have noticed some bulls didn't perform as expected within my herd.

 

[Keren]

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'.

 

[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 ever 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 for thos traits. That is all the EPDs are. They are just a predictor of differences in progeny.