Remitall Herefords

[txag]

My concern is that these cattle already have BW EPDs above breed average. Breeding them back to a bull that has a +7 or +9 BW will increase that. How acceptable would those BW EPDs be to other breeders and commercial cattlemen? Is actual experience or an arbitrary number the most important information?

George

the best answer i can come up with for that question is "it depends". it depends on where you're marketing them & it depends on who's buying them. some commercial buyers have no interest in epd's & only look at actual weights. if they're going in a consignment sale, you'll have folks who look at epd's, folks who look at actual weights & folks who look at both. from my experience, it seems folks will buy a female with a higher bw epd quicker than they will buy a herd bull (for animals going into registered herds). i guess they think they can pull one calf easier than a whole herd of them. :lol:

But I've never heard of Jimmy Farrington. I "googled" the name with zero relevant results. So could you give me some history regarding the Farrington lines?

George

Jimmy & Leatha Farrington were breeders a number of years ago. their prefix was "JLF" so you can search for some of their animals that way.

But I've seen some things that have made me seriously question the real value of EPDs, except where there is considerable data to back it up, as in widely used bulls.

An example is the P606 bull. He was initially being marketed as a low BW, calving ease bull, but as his use has widened, his BW EPD has skyrocketed while his YW EPD has also receded by about 20 lb. No doubt he's still a very good bull, but his EPDs have changed.

one thing to consider on the rapidly changing epd's of popular bulls is that they are often used on cows with epd's almost opposite of their own in certain traits. for example, folks will use a low bw epd bull on cows with high birthweights & will use a high yw epd bull to increase the growth.

 

[1848]

[Hereford 101: So You Think You Know EPDs
The next online Hereford 101 will be Oct. 20 at 7 p.m. CDT. Dan Moser, Kansas State University associate professor, will join Jack Ward, AHA chief operating officer and director of breed improvement, to discuss why EPDs are more important than actual individual performance.

George

Key word is "individual performancel" here. Of course individual performance not being compared to other animals for data collection is useless, even the AHA themselves will not include the singlular reported data in their genetic analysis! This should be interesting considering actual performance is "supposed" to be how EPD's are derived based on contemporary group reporting of that data. I'm sure they will argue that generations of reported data, and comparisons across a diverse section of the breed within different contemporary groups in the US is more of a reason to consider EPD's, and that it indicates how the animal will compare against the breed as a whole. This "does not" however eliminate a genetically inferior speciman! Which can be bred and rebred (based on paper EPD's) for generations over a herd of simularly poor specimans, increasing the accuracies and skewing the EPD's of those genetically inferior cattle.

Basically, I can say my cow raises the best calf every year, but if she is not compared to other like animals under the same management and nutritional conditions then how would I know for sure! My best might be your worst. I say nutritional availability/demands and management play a huge role. If all conditions were equal in all herds accuracies would be incredible, but they are not. There is plenty of biased reporting, Closed herd reporting, supplementation not being reported, environmental/climate advantages, and yes, "estimations of performance" all are figured in to the EPD's. Numbers can be manipulated, and it is proven over and over again.

Only a small percentage of the breedstock (older cows, and proven bulls) hold the percentage of accuracy which makes the AHA's point valid. The majority of registered cattle have EPD's based on carry down from several generations of animals not being reported on with any consistency or accuracy. Year after year, great new bulls and cows come around and look good on paper, only to turn upsidedown within a few years.
If they are going to cover anything about EPD's, they need to cover accuracies!

Take a look at your herds, and see how many generations behind your animals really have a high percentage of meaningful
data. Cows take 7 to 10 years of reporting to give you meaningful data to move your program forward. How many breeders keep bulls and cows for 10 years! Ask yourself why breeders don't! Experience with phenotype, selection, culling, and actual data keep a breeder moving forward, not chasing the bull of the month, or flushing 2 year olds based on their great "un proven" EPD's and lack of actual reportable data.

I use EPD's, but they will never take the place of my own experiences with genetic lines, actual performance, and my eye for what is working, or will not work in my herd.

 

[Brandonm2]

Cows take 7 to 10 years of reporting to give you meaningful data to move your program forward. How many breeders keep bulls and cows for 10 years! Ask yourself why breeders don't! Experience with phenotype, selection, culling, and actual data keep a breeder moving forward, not chasing the bull of the month, or flushing 2 year olds based on their great "un proven" EPD's and lack of actual reportable data.

I like EPDs; but you are increasingly correct. It is becoming ALMOST the norm for a breeder to have a "mature cow dispersal" sell 100 - 200 moma cows and replace the whole herd with ET calves every 3 to 6 years. I have looked at some such catalogs where the oldest cow out there was 7 and the avg was 4. Those cows then go to the four winds. We won't get meaningful data back from half of those cows and we don't know much of anythng about the 2 year olds that replaced them....often the flush of a show winning 3 year old bred to a 3 YO bull who was at the same shows. The EPDs are always better than just guessing; but a lot of people are taking the EPD number at face value without factoring in the accuracies.

 

[Caustic Burno]

The only epd's you can count on is BW (actual) and that's only as honest as the breeder, to many other factors of different operanting enviroments to skew the other numbers.
Thats the reason I never buy a bull from a production sale, I want to see him in the pasture with his work clothes on. I want to see his calfs or his sires calfs on the ground.
I want to see the size and shape of the calfs. You can not sell dead calfs.

 

[Chris H]

The only epd's you can count on is BW (actual) and that's only as honest as the breeder, to many other factors of different operanting enviroments to skew the other numbers.

No, you can't count on that. We have a 3 year old registered Hereford bull that's never thrown a calf over 85 lbs, average mid 70's. His actual birth weight was right at 100, his mother's actual birthweight was close to 100. His sire was in the mid 80's, his mother's sire had a low BW EPD but actually threw heavier calves than this bull.
He's been used on our registered Herefords, and cleanup on two different herds of crossbreds and club calf cows. The club calf cows did produce the heaviest ones.

 

[Herefords.US]

Key word is "individual performancel" here. Of course individual performance not being compared to other animals for data collection is useless, even the AHA themselves will not include the singlular reported data in their genetic analysis!

Thanks for pointing this out. I had read this statement and taken it to mean that EPDs were more important than individual performance - in relation to peers. If that is their stance, I have a real problem with that.

This should be interesting considering actual performance is "supposed" to be how EPD's are derived based on contemporary group reporting of that data. I'm sure they will argue that generations of reported data, and comparisons across a diverse section of the breed within different contemporary groups in the US is more of a reason to consider EPD's, and that it indicates how the animal will compare against the breed as a whole. This "does not" however eliminate a genetically inferior speciman! Which can be bred and rebred (based on paper EPD's) for generations over a herd of simularly poor specimans, increasing the accuracies and skewing the EPD's of those genetically inferior cattle.

Basically, I can say my cow raises the best calf every year, but if she is not compared to other like animals under the same management and nutritional conditions then how would I know for sure! My best might be your worst. I say nutritional availability/demands and management play a huge role. If all conditions were equal in all herds accuracies would be incredible, but they are not. There is plenty of biased reporting, Closed herd reporting, supplementation not being reported, environmental/climate advantages, and yes, "estimations of performance" all are figured in to the EPD's. Numbers can be manipulated, and it is proven over and over again.

Only a small percentage of the breedstock (older cows, and proven bulls) hold the percentage of accuracy which makes the AHA's point valid. The majority of registered cattle have EPD's based on carry down from several generations of animals not being reported on with any consistency or accuracy. Year after year, great new bulls and cows come around and look good on paper, only to turn upsidedown within a few years.
If they are going to cover anything about EPD's, they need to cover accuracies!

I agree completely, with the possible exception that I'm not sure that a cow can have enough calves in a normal lifetime to accurately reflect her true EPDs. Accuracy is the key. I'm an engineer and if I presented statistics in a report with accuracies as low as most EPDs are, they'd laugh me out of the room. Granted, breeding cattle is not AS an exact science as engineering, but EPDs with low accuracies should be put into the proper perspective. The positive thing I DO see is that as more data is recorded and generations are rolled over, the EPDs should become more reliable, as long as the data entered is honest data.

Take a look at your herds, and see how many generations behind your animals really have a high percentage of meaningful
data. Cows take 7 to 10 years of reporting to give you meaningful data to move your program forward. How many breeders keep bulls and cows for 10 years! Ask yourself why breeders don't! Experience with phenotype, selection, culling, and actual data keep a breeder moving forward, not chasing the bull of the month, or flushing 2 year olds based on their great "un proven" EPD's and lack of actual reportable data.

I use EPD's, but they will never take the place of my own experiences with genetic lines, actual performance, and my eye for what is working, or will not work in my herd.

Great post, 1848!

George

 

[redfornow]

The only epd's you can count on is BW (actual) and that's only as honest as the breeder, to many other factors of different operanting enviroments to skew the other numbers.

No, you can't count on that. We have a 3 year old registered Hereford bull that's never thrown a calf over 85 lbs, average mid 70's. His actual birth weight was right at 100, his mother's actual birthweight was close to 100. His sire was in the mid 80's, his mother's sire had a low BW EPD but actually threw heavier calves than this bull.
He's been used on our registered Herefords, and cleanup on two different herds of crossbreds and club calf cows. The club calf cows did produce the heaviest ones.

Chris

Dont disagree with fred, he is right in his own mind all the time.

Did he say the shape of the calf we all know that that doesnt make any difference. Or does it.

Sounds like he is trying to argue both sides. lol


MD

 

[1848]

I agree completely, with the possible exception that I'm not sure that a cow can have enough calves in a normal lifetime to accurately reflect her true EPDs.

George

Statiscally, you are right George. The EPD accuracies you see on paper for cows will never reach the percentage we will see in bulls, (1500 calves reported on bulls vs 8 to 12 on cows and ET calves are not included in the data), but this is where using an animal season after season and comparing that animal's "actual" data and the data of her progeny with the rest of your herd becomes important. You and I know which/ and how females are consistently performing within our herds, (even compared to other seedstock herds) and we can verify it by using these animals with high accuracy bulls. Furthermore we can see the desirable traits being passed into their daughters with a high percentage of accuracy.

For seedstock purposes, and bldg a genetic foundation which is based on accuracy, I think keeping cows (worth keeping) in production for "at least 7 years" gives the breeder time to evaluate their potential, their performance under different environmental and mgmt conditions, and their longevity...that is unless they are kept in a barn being coddled for all seven... ;-)

P.S. Thanks

 

[Brandonm2]

I think keeping cows (worth keeping) in production for "at least 7 years" gives the breeder time to evaluate their potential, their performance under different environmental and mgmt conditions, and their longevity...that is unless they are kept in a barn being coddled for all seven... ;-)

P.S. Thanks

EVEN if they ARE in an air conditioned barn being coddled seven plus years of data makes the EPD a lot more accurate than 2 or 3 years then nothing then a calf shows up reports 2 or 3 years of data then another generation pops up for 2 or 3 years and a generation in between reports nothing. The compute can still crank out A NUMBER but if you really have low accuracy on the parents and the grandparents that low accuracy pedigree EPD becomes almost a meaningless number and we actually have people evaluating sires by those numbers. The more data people will report and the longer you can keep a contemporary group together the better the end result.

 

[Caustic Burno]

The only epd's you can count on is BW (actual) and that's only as honest as the breeder, to many other factors of different operanting enviroments to skew the other numbers.

No, you can't count on that. We have a 3 year old registered Hereford bull that's never thrown a calf over 85 lbs, average mid 70's. His actual birth weight was right at 100, his mother's actual birthweight was close to 100. His sire was in the mid 80's, his mother's sire had a low BW EPD but actually threw heavier calves than this bull.
He's been used on our registered Herefords, and cleanup on two different herds of crossbreds and club calf cows. The club calf cows did produce the heaviest ones.

Chris

Dont disagree with fred, he is right in his own mind all the time.

Did he say the shape of the calf we all know that that doesnt make any difference. Or does it.

Sounds like he is trying to argue both sides. lol


MD

Again a worthless post from Red . Hey send me your address and I will send you some pictures of cows to go with your hay pictures, and you can take them to the feed store and talk like a Rexall Ranger.

 

[redfornow]

Fred

You are a great leader and mentor to us all.
Wonderful discussion.
You can just email me the pictures. They will make a great conversation piece.

MD

 

[Caustic Burno]

Fred

You are a great leader and mentor to us all.
Wonderful discussion.
You can just email me the pictures. They will make a great conversation piece.

MD

Come on Ricky post something on cattle if you know anything other than you have seen one. I can't play with you right now as I have to move hay this morning (thats what cows eat in the winter) Be careful crossing the street look both ways.

 

[Cowboymom]

Very valid points made here. We have been in the horned Hereford business for over 65 years. Besides the original heifers that were purchased to start this herd, we have never added an "outside" female. We do purchase herd bulls. However, we have tried to raise the same kind of cattle for all those years. We didn't go small, we didn't go big. We raise medium framed cattle with good feet and legs, good bone and natural muscling.

We have kept records forever, we joined TPR when it first came out and then our extension agent told us he could do the same thing. When we rejoined TPR in 91, we held our breaths waiting for our cow EPD's to be sent. They were surprising good. However, we had one bull whose family had not been reported at all and their numbers were low, it took a couple of generations to get that taken care of.

I was told a couple of very good words of wisdom a few years ago. One is, raise the cattle that fit your environment. Another is, EPDs won't help you sell a good bull but they will help you not sell one if his numbers aren't good.

We have two different kinds of bulls buyers, ones that look at the EPDs and those that don't. When we look for herd sires, we have had to dismiss some really nice bulls because they didn't have good numbers. We have also seen a lot of junk with great numbers. One thing I learned a long time ago, was to look at the cowherd, that can tell the whole story. If they have a hand full of cows that are kept "special", their calves are going to be the best they will ever be and won't produce anything as good or better than themselves.

It is a fine line we all walk, growing out our cattle to their genetic potential, but not burning them out on too much feed. I know one breeder whose bulls are fatter than gords when she sells them, but they don't hold up breeding cows. I have heard the term "hot house flowers" coined more than once.

It is all what you are in the business for. If you are in it for a hobby or to win Denver, you handle things one way. If you are in it to put food on your table and a roof over your head, that is a different matter.

I don't pretend to completely understand EPDs, one thing I do know is that they change with the wind. When they brought in the Canadians into the Association, they got killed on their BW and milk EPDs. When the poor Polled people came in, they just got killed period. In that period of time, we had a bull go from a 21 on milk, to a 3, back up to a 16. The bull didn't change, the cows didn't change, just the numbers. Kind of like the proverbial "step up to the crap table".

We just keep trying to raise the same type of bulls we always have, just keep trying to make them better and better. Now the show ring wants thick, so fat is in. The pendulum just keeps swining back and forth. A breeder has to decide if they are going to breed for their environment and what they have in their head as ideal, or what is the current fad. It is impossible to do both.

I have no idea what cattle you are talking about, but we have used some part Canadian bulls and the ones we have used have been great. We bought ones with good bone and natural thickness. Just like women or men, if you put 10 different bulls in a pen, 10 different people will each like a different one. Some people are big on clean fronts and shoulders, some are big on good hips, some are legs and feet. That is why there are so many different cattle breeders in the business and that is why there are so many people married!LOL!

 

[Campground Cattle]

Good post the only ones that come close to being accurate are the old lines with ton's of data. I don't really care for TPR .

 

[Alan]

Cowboymom,
I'll second that "good post" sounds like your have a bit of knowledge in Hereford history.

Alan

 

[KNERSIE]

cowboymom,

That was about the best post I've seen on this boards.

In SA here is an old horned hereford herd as well that didn't follow the fashion trends. For years they were in the background, but now that most breeders has come back to their senses they are making a fortune out of traditional thick moderate hereford bulls whose daughter milk well. I don't think they have ever shown a bull in their existence of about 70 years.

 

[Cowboymom]

Thank you all for the kind words. Raising cattle is not rocket science, but it is a whole lot harder than most people think. One day when my son was in fourth grade, his teacher came up to me and told me that he was thinking of buying a few hundred acres and getting into the cattle business. He wanted to ride around with my husband one afternoon so he could learn everything he needed to know. I replied to him that I was thinking of becoming a teacher and could I sit in his class one afternoon so I could teach. He got indignant and told me that it took longer than one afternoon to learn how to teach. I just laughed and told him that was my point, exactly.

We never quit learning how to do things better and more efficient. It really bothers me that our trade magazines are so "dumbed down". No other industry writes their trade magazines so that the general public understands everything. How many articles do we need about vaccinating and worming? Unless it is some new vaccine or wormer to the market that has a completely different assimilation.

 

[Caustic Burno]

Thank you all for the kind words. Raising cattle is not rocket science, but it is a whole lot harder than most people think. One day when my son was in fourth grade, his teacher came up to me and told me that he was thinking of buying a few hundred acres and getting into the cattle business. He wanted to ride around with my husband one afternoon so he could learn everything he needed to know. I replied to him that I was thinking of becoming a teacher and could I sit in his class one afternoon so I could teach. He got indignant and told me that it took longer than one afternoon to learn how to teach. I just laughed and told him that was my point, exactly.

We never quit learning how to do things better and more efficient. It really bothers me that our trade magazines are so "dumbed down". No other industry writes their trade magazines so that the general public understands everything. How many articles do we need about vaccinating and worming? Unless it is some new vaccine or wormer to the market that has a completely different assimilation.

I don't think I have ever heard it put any better, this is another reason city folks run and buy some cattle to get rich. This is easy says so right here. When the trainwrecks start happening they have np idea it was going to be like this.