Real World Data VS EPDS

[rocket2222]

I'm assuming none of this carcass data being sent to the AHA, which is a shame, comparisons against proven bulls is just the type of data they want, you would hope then that 0232 bull would then have his epd's adjusted accordingly.

 

[smnherf]

I sent all of my steers except for 3 down to a feedyard in KS. I collected data on all the steers both commercial and the ones out of registered cows.

My old Mac 0232 bulls data was very interesting. He had 9 steers in the bunch, mostly out of first calf heifers. He has epds of only 64 on YW and .15 REA and -.13 IMF which would rank him in the bottom 3% for IMF of the breed. But his steers outgained the pen average and 7 of the 9 steers graded choice. The pen was comprised of a Boudler son I own, and AI sires such as M326, 19D, H33, 24F, and Predestined. All of these have much higher epds than 0232.

I have to admit that his epd profile has held me up on how much I have used the bull, but judging from the real world data, its apparent the epds aren't accurate for him. I am curious how often this happens with the epds not matching the ultrasound data. Anybody on this board have any experience with this too?

Brian

Brian...without studying all your data, my first thought is the Mac 0232 bull produced more heterosis (illogical skew) with the steer dams even though 70% of your cows have common genetics to 0232. If you continued over a number of years with a different mix of genes, the higher EPD bulls should prove superior to your 0232 results in the categories you are expecting.

So are you saying that the epds are more accurate than the actual data? How much data would it take to change your mind? Your heterosis theory doesnt make much sense either as Marbling isn't affected much by heterosis and the 0232's where more tightly bred.

 

[HerefordSire]

So are you saying that the epds are more accurate than the actual data?

No.

Your heterosis theory doesnt make much sense either as Marbling isn't affected much by heterosis and the 0232's where more tightly bred.

You are faced with what I call an illogical skew. In other words, the data doesn't make logical sense. 70% of your cows are related to your Mac bull. When mated with the Mac bull, your steer's actual IMF results are better than other matings and are contrary to the EPD marbling projections. Therefore, we look for reasoning.

The Mac bulls IMF EPD numbers should be higher in the short term (this agrees with rocket2222) as the result of unique heterosis in your herd. However, this doesn't mean his EPD numbers should increase over the long term and be superior to your competing bulls. It could just mean, you are hitting on a nice combination of genetics that could be hard to reproduce in anyone elses herd to the same degree because you herd has a contrary high concentration of like genes (the opposite of heterosis, thus illogical skew).

 

[KNERSIE]

The Mac bulls IMF EPD numbers should be higher in the short term (this agrees with rocket2222) as the result of unique heterosis in your herd. It could just mean, you are hitting on a nice combination of genetics that could be hard to reproduce in anyone elses herd to the same degree because you herd has a contrary high concentration of like genes (the opposite of heterosis, thus illogical skew).

Use the word "nick" instead of heterosis and what you say will make more sense.

Because the 0232 progeny competed favourably in contemporary groups with higher EPD proven bulls with a lot of genetic coupling with other herds it means that 0232's EPDs will improve IF the data has been sent to the AHA.

 

[beef]

Are the IMF EPDs of your 2 year old cows similar to those of your mature cows?

 

[smnherf]

Are the IMF EPDs of your 2 year old cows similar to those of your mature cows?

Sorry for the slowness of my response as I have been gone the past few days. We had our State fair over the wekend. Now I am busy trying to get ready to host a stop on the South Dakota Hereford tour in a couple weeks.

The average epds on the 0232's calves mothers would be a little higher for imf, by about .05, but there are only 3 that are on the tpr list whereas the 62R calves have 5 of the 6 on TPR, so going by averages isn't really relative on so few numbers. The rest are out of commercial cows some of which may be out of registerd cows. I handle all my cows as if they were commercial cattle.

Interesting though once you look at individual data. On 62R's calves the cow with the highest imf EPD(.17) had the lowest IMF score steer (SL80) with .38 BF with a 2.95 YG, but the cow with the lowest IMF EPD(-.12) had the 2nd highest imf scored steer (CH, yg 3 with .66 bf). She is a 117D granddaughter. Same goes for 0232'3 progeny. The cow with the highest IMF EPD (.17) had the same imf score on her steer as the lowest imf scored cow(.00)

The 62Rs calves who had the most BF did grade choice whereas the ones that were below .4 graded select. I have to wonder if fleshing ability and gainability didn't have some influence on the final quality grade as the 0232s outgained them and tend to be very easy fleshing.

I am going to do what I can and try to get this data sbumitted to AHA for analysis. I realize this is a small sample, but I will repeat this test again next year on my calf crop. This data does continue the trends that I have noticed in the previous data that I have collected.

Brian

 

[Herefords.US]

Are the IMF EPDs of your 2 year old cows similar to those of your mature cows?

Sorry for the slowness of my response as I have been gone the past few days. We had our State fair over the wekend. Now I am busy trying to get ready to host a stop on the South Dakota Hereford tour in a couple weeks.

The average epds on the 0232's calves mothers would be a little higher for imf, by about .05, but there are only 3 that are on the tpr list whereas the 62R calves have 5 of the 6 on TPR, so going by averages isn't really relative on so few numbers. The rest are out of commercial cows some of which may be out of registerd cows. I handle all my cows as if they were commercial cattle.

Interesting though once you look at individual data. On 62R's calves the cow with the highest imf EPD(.17) had the lowest IMF score steer (SL80) with .38 BF with a 2.95 YG, but the cow with the lowest IMF EPD(-.12) had the 2nd highest imf scored steer (CH, yg 3 with .66 bf). She is a 117D granddaughter. Same goes for 0232'3 progeny. The cow with the highest IMF EPD (.17) had the same imf score on her steer as the lowest imf scored cow(.00)

The 62Rs calves who had the most BF did grade choice whereas the ones that were below .4 graded select. I have to wonder if fleshing ability and gainability didn't have some influence on the final quality grade as the 0232s outgained them and tend to be very easy fleshing.

I am going to do what I can and try to get this data sbumitted to AHA for analysis. I realize this is a small sample, but I will repeat this test again next year on my calf crop. This data does continue the trends that I have noticed in the previous data that I have collected.

Brian

Once again!

EPDs on unproven Hereford bulls and virtually all Hereford cows are unreliable!

George

 

[dun]

EPDs on unproven Hereford bulls and virtually all Hereford cows are unreliable!

George

Might as well throw in all other breeds too. Unless a cow is used for donating embryos I wouldn't think any cow would have enough offspring to really make much difference. As to bulls, at best it's an educated crapshoot

 

[Herefords.US]

EPDs on unproven Hereford bulls and virtually all Hereford cows are unreliable!

George

Might as well throw in all other breeds too. Unless a cow is used for donating embryos I wouldn't think any cow would have enough offspring to really make much difference. As to bulls, at best it's an educated crapshoot

Dun, I can only speak for what I've researched and I've not looked at the EPDs of other breeds, but common sense tells me that you probably could include all other breeds beside Black Angus, based on numbers alone. I think you can simply look at the accuracies of Black Angus EPDs, and if they fall below the level of a .5 or .6, they would tend to be unreliable as well.

George

 

[edrsimms]

your data set is too small to make those assumptions

I sent all of my steers except for 3 down to a feedyard in KS. I collected data on all the steers both commercial and the ones out of registered cows.

My old Mac 0232 bulls data was very interesting. He had 9 steers in the bunch, mostly out of first calf heifers. He has epds of only 64 on YW and .15 REA and -.13 IMF which would rank him in the bottom 3% for IMF of the breed. But his steers outgained the pen average and 7 of the 9 steers graded choice. The pen was comprised of a Boudler son I own, and AI sires such as M326, 19D, H33, 24F, and Predestined. All of these have much higher epds than 0232.

I have to admit that his epd profile has held me up on how much I have used the bull, but judging from the real world data, its apparent the epds aren't accurate for him. I am curious how often this happens with the epds not matching the ultrasound data. Anybody on this board have any experience with this too?

Brian

 

[smnherf]

your data set is too small to make those assumptions

I sent all of my steers except for 3 down to a feedyard in KS. I collected data on all the steers both commercial and the ones out of registered cows.

My old Mac 0232 bulls data was very interesting. He had 9 steers in the bunch, mostly out of first calf heifers. He has epds of only 64 on YW and .15 REA and -.13 IMF which would rank him in the bottom 3% for IMF of the breed. But his steers outgained the pen average and 7 of the 9 steers graded choice. The pen was comprised of a Boudler son I own, and AI sires such as M326, 19D, H33, 24F, and Predestined. All of these have much higher epds than 0232.

I have to admit that his epd profile has held me up on how much I have used the bull, but judging from the real world data, its apparent the epds aren't accurate for him. I am curious how often this happens with the epds not matching the ultrasound data. Anybody on this board have any experience with this too?

Brian

I realize it is a small data set, but the data from his dads progeny is saying the same thing. Good marbling, average REA.

I want to remind you though that our epd system is based upon a lot smaller data sets, (contemporary groups) than this!

Brian