Herefords.US":fnz9peii said:
SRBeef":fnz9peii said:
I know we've talked here about the relative importance of EPD's vs phenotype etc. Most of us agreed that there should be a combination of the two.
As a beginner I hesitate to say much about anyone else's bull.
However, since the EPD link was posted above, I looked at the EPD graph:
http://www.herfnet.com/online/cgi-b...91CE6E43208000E3E18E83B02E914151D1C1F1F111017
A couple things jump out even to me: This bull is in the bottom 10% of the breed in scrotal circumference and very very low in rib eye area, WW, YW, etc. These EPD's maybe be low accuracy but even at low accuracy, bottom 10% in these very measureable traits is one of the things EPD's are supposed to identify....
Maybe my inexperience is showing, but I don't see how he can be considered a keeper as a herd sire with so many numbers that low. jmho.
Jim, you can completely disregard the EPDs on this calf. He's from a line of cattle that has had almost no interaction, performance-wise, with the mainstream contemporary Hereford genepool. His EPDs probably have no relevance, and certainly have no reliability, in what his own performance is and what his progeny would be. Cattle from breeders like Richard Day and Jim Lents would be the same way.
alexfarms":fnz9peii said:
Thanks for the opinions. I have been back and forth on this calf for quite some time. He is far from perfect.
The youngest bull in his pedigree ancestry was born over 32 years ago. The epds don't have much recent data behind them and I am surprised how growthy he appears. He is still on the cow. I think if he was put on a full feed of corn, he probably would perform very well and that is what happens to most feeder cattle in this part of the world. I like his conformation and I have always been impressed by the depth of his hind flank, which may be more noticable when he is moving. His daughters probably would be good cows judging from his maternal ancestry. He needs better color markings, better muscling, better masculinity and yet to see how he does grow out. I have not gotten him to stand reasonably well enough to get any kind of good representation of his appearance from behind, but todays market will probably want him thicker. I hadn't criticized his depth of rib, I will have to watch that.
I am limited in what is available to use and still stay within the line, so he may stay around to see how he turns out. Thanks again for the opinions.
John, I'd say you have a good handle on your evaluation of this calf. Like Knersie and CPL, I see some value and potential there.
And I'm always glad to see someone working to preserve and maintain some of those "old" lines of Hereford cattle.
George
George,
I trust there is some logic to what you are saying, even if I don't understand it.
However Scrotal Circumference is Scrotal Circumference. It doesn't require years of experience, just a tape measure.
And I would think that SC is one thing there might be agreement here on that SC size is important and an indicator of fertility and time to maturity of his offspring....
This bull either has SC or he doesn't. As the EPD shows him in the BOTTOM 10% OF THE BREED I think I'd get out a tape measure and see. Are you telling me that for some reason this bull will have much higher SC than the EPD predicts? If so I would think it would be very useful to get out a tape measure and see.
Jerry Huth and my limited experience has me convinced SC is very important. Rereading above, if the pedigree behind this bull is so old that numbers are meaningless then why have him in the EPD pool affecting the data on others?
Jim