Sires birth EPD vs maternal calving ease of daughters

[CharlesTotton]

I am new to this post but would like to ask a question. Everybody keeps telling me that if you keep daughters out of heifer bulls you will eventually have calving problems. I have even seen it stated on cattle breeders web-sites. We have been doing it for a few years and our experience is just the opposite. My question is,what experience have any of you had? :wave:

 

[dun]

Thats one of the OWT based on only looking at direct calving ease. We've done it for the last 15 years since we started with registered cattle. We place as much emphasis on maternal calving ease as direct calving ease. We have cows that have been sired by their own grandsire that are calving ease bulls. The daughter/grandaughters have never had issues calving, their daughters haven;t either. It's like anything else, proper use of the tools available with at least mitigate if not eliminate those types of problems. There are some bulls that all they have going for them is their calving ease, stay away from those unless you don;t plan on ever keeping any replacement heifers.

 

[Ebenezer]

Thats one of the OWT based on only looking at direct calving ease. We've done it for the last 15 years since we started with registered cattle. We place as much emphasis on maternal calving ease as direct calving ease. We have cows that have been sired by their own grandsire that are calving ease bulls. The daughter/grandaughters have never had issues calving, their daughters haven;t either. It's like anything else, proper use of the tools available with at least mitigate if not eliminate those types of problems. There are some bulls that all they have going for them is their calving ease, stay away from those unless you don;t plan on ever keeping any replacement heifers.

The OWT developed prior to the MCE EPD so the old wives were not just gossips but were basing off of experiences. I totally agree with Dun that stacking CED is fine if the other EPDs do not dwindle. Also prior to CEM EPDs the term "curve bender" was a rage or fad term. Small calves and great growth. One such was an ABS bull called Pfred. He lived up to the deal and had daughters that matured into the 1700s and sons that sold like hotcakes to commercial cattlemen. The sons were great as terminal sires but the daughters were too big. Where the rub comes in on calving ease bulls are the low growth bulls. Nothing wrong with average growth but if you stack low growth bulls long enough just to have calving ease your cattle herd will diminish into something less than you want them to be. It seems to suck the sap out of them. One thing that EPDs and the sire summaries were good to study was the relative number of bulls from given prefixes (herd) and you could see that the XXX bulls were great CED sires and the great majority carried proven negative numbers on CEM. Red flag for me if the majority of the breeding from that source was pretty consistently negative.

From experience, I prefer a proven bull with +CED and +BW. The shape of the calves is superior even if they weigh a little more. And they will grow at a decent rate.

 

[bse]

Nothing wrong with average growth but if you stack low growth bulls long enough just to have calving ease your cattle herd will diminish into something less than you want them to be.
I prefer a proven bull with +CED and +BW. The shape of the calves is superior even if they weigh a little more. And they will grow at a decent rate.
agree with these 100%
i dont want a LBW bull on my mature cows unless im trying to fix something.

 

[james coffelt]

The low birth weight bulls, correlate with high CED, they are "roughly" the same bulls.

The high birth weight bulls, correlate with low CED bulls, they are roughly the same bulls.

Check the AAA search engine. They are roughly the same bulls.

Of our 12 herd bulls, there is one outlier, otherwise, a direct correlation on 11.

The outlier is a -.4 BW, and 14 CED, interesting, and I had not noticed before this conversation.

We want a 100% calving ease herd.

Most important is stocking rate with a calf on the ground, i.e., fertility, which is effected by size, fleshing, milking, efficiency.

Growth, weaning weights, yearling weights, and every other measure, are financial details.

 

[Ebenezer]

The low birth weight bulls, correlate with high CED, they are "roughly" the same bulls.

The high birth weight bulls, correlate with low CED bulls, they are roughly the same bulls.

Check the AAA search engine. They are roughly the same bulls.

Sounds rough. Difference on BW EPD will separate out the ones that will make a herd dwindle down on growth in one or two generations and the ones that will sustain the herd with size and vigor. Genetic correlation: BW to growth. We can try to ignore genetics but they are the real issue rather than opinions.

Nobody said "high BW". Question with a link to CEM on daughters has more width than repeated personal philosophy.

 

[james coffelt]

EB

I am not sure I understood your post, well enough.

Shorter gestation has a role in low birth weights, i.e., they are born a little early.

Growth is 80% genetic, 20% milk.

Pounds per acre/ranch/farm, are increased with higher stocking, and higher fertility in the right type cow.

Pounds per head matters less than pounds per acre, with more 30# smaller calves (1100# vs 1400# cows, as measured here).

A group of more, moderate cows, will outperform a smaller group of performance cows, all day long.

I am not sure I understood, please advise.

 

[Ebenezer]

EB

I am not sure I understood your post, well enough.

Shorter gestation has a role in low birth weights, i.e., they are born a little early.

Growth is 80% genetic, 20% milk.

Pounds per acre/ranch/farm, are increased with higher stocking, and higher fertility in the right type cow.

Pounds per head matters less than pounds per acre, with more 30# smaller calves (1100# vs 1400# cows, as measured here).

A group of more, moderate cows, will outperform a smaller group of performance cows, all day long.

I am not sure I understood, please advise.

JC, just an observation, but every post does not have to evangelize your "ism", superiority and philosophy of finances and cattle promotion as it often strays from the actual discussion. The reason you might not understand; I am talking about cattle genetics and things I have learned about cattle and livestock from personal and practical experiences related to the actual topic of birth EPDs and daughters' calving ease. Your mantra, as always, is drifting into production theories and financial plans.

Actual topic: Any extreme, repeatedly used in a population, will change the population. This would include multi-generational minus BW cattle. The belt buckle cattle of the 50s and 60s were bred to be small and fat. So it is nothing new, just history repeating itself. The opposite extreme is stacking high BW cattle. That one will haunt a breeder 3 generations later or more. I am not sure that I want cattle stacked for short gestations. I'm pretty pleased with average if it fits the environment, is attractive to buyers and is helpful to friends and neighbors.

Just pick an extreme, stack it and learn what happens. Or go back and learn what happened in the past. I'd rather know history and avoid a present repeat.

 

[Son of Butch]

Growth is 80% genetic

Heritability of growth 40% (source New Zealand Journal of Agriculture - research of growth in beef cattle)

Angus Trait Heritabilities - From The American Angus Association
carcass weight .38
Mature weight .37
fat thickness .34
weaning weight .20
post weaning gain .20
Milk .14
marbling .45

 

[james coffelt]

EB

I suspect I had trouble understanding your post, because it was poorly written.

Grass developed cows in the Pharo and Pinebank programs, are very moderate in WW, YW, milk, and BW. Pharo genetics have more calving ease. I have 100 bulls, developing now, with sires from both programs, and they performed similarly. There are no extremes here, and I am not guessing, I am watching it very day, weighing them every month.

You mentioned growth in your post as a most important trait. From a business standpoint, it is not. Stocking rate is most important, I can prove it any time you like. Performance bulls, produce high maintenance females, which reduce stocking. It is simple.

Pinebank, with over 60 years of studying their herd, concluded growth was 80% genetic. That is on a grass developed, low input herd. I was not speaking for the entire Angus breed, which is no model to emulate, in my opinion. The calves maintenance requirements are lower, in this model, as is the dam's and sire.

By the way, below is our lead off sire from last years sale. Do you see any extremes? Not sure what your talking about:

https://www.angus.org/Animal/EpdPedDtl. ... YUdw%3d%3d

With a -2 BW, this bull's calves performed best, and better than other higher birth weight bulls. This bull is 20 generations into a low birth weight program, with maintained performance. I do not agree. Early gestation, is much of low BW.

All of our bulls are calving ease, for generations, we are losing no performance, and have more live calves

 

[dun]

EB

I suspect I had trouble understanding your post, because it was poorly written.

Seems you were the only one that had problems understanding the original question

 

[Ebenezer]

With a -2 BW, this bull's calves performed best,

I'd run like a scalded dog. It is unnecessary unless your cows and heifer are known problems. Reminds me of an old AI bull called "O G". Live and learn.

You mentioned growth in your post as a most important trait. From a business standpoint, it is not.

Been here before. Growth is important, in balance, for normal commodity cattle. It can be moderate in maternal types and high in terminal types. But both are commodity type cattle. Your cattle are specialty cattle with your own market. They would bottom out the commodity market due to small frame. Back to the requote: "Commodity or oddity". If little is better, why not go directly to lowlines or sheep? But enough thread drift:

What about sire's birth EPD vs. maternal calving ease of daughters?
Like it or not, sloping rump structure reflects better pelvic angle" - opinion. I do not want ski jump tail heads as an opposite. What I really like is a calf that I have to go back and weigh the second time because I think I made a mistake the first time, get back to the yard and say to myself, (sign of dementia only if I answer myself!), "That calf could not have weighed that much". Snake vs basketball. Works every time. In demand as commodity or a breeder of commodity cattle.

 

[Son of Butch]

From experience, I prefer a proven bull with +CED and +BW.
The shape of the calves is superior even if they weigh a little more. And they will grow at a decent rate.

Angus breed average is ced +6 bw +1.3 cem +9
So perhaps you prefer breed average bulls to calving ease bulls.
There are only 73 bulls that are truly above breed average for ced, bw and cem
Here are a few of them with higher acc.

Basin Rainmaker - 8 ced 10 cem 1.4 bw .92 acc
Jindra Double Vision - 10 ced 12 cem 1.4 bw .93 acc
Nichols Extra - - - 8 ced 14 cem 1.5 bw .95 acc
S Chism - - - 9 ced 13 cem 1.7 bw .78 acc
SAV BEACON 7 ced 12 cem 1.7 bw .85 http://www.selectsiresbeef.com/index.ph ... ge?bid=210
Tour of Duty - 9 ced 13 cem 2.2 bw .91 acc

 

[Ebenezer]

From experience, I prefer a proven bull with +CED and +BW.
The shape of the calves is superior even if they weigh a little more. And they will grow at a decent rate.

Angus breed average is ced +6 bw +1.3 cem +9
So perhaps you prefer breed average bulls to calving ease bulls.
There are only 73 bulls that are truly above breed average for ced, bw and cem
Here are a few of them with higher acc.

Basin Rainmaker - 8 ced 10 cem 1.4 bw .92 acc
Jindra Double Vision - 10 ced 12 cem 1.4 bw .93 acc
Nichols Extra - - - 8 ced 14 cem 1.5 bw .95 acc
S Chism - - - 9 ced 13 cem 1.7 bw .78 acc
SAV BEACON 7 ced 12 cem 1.7 bw .85 http://www.selectsiresbeef.com/index.ph ... ge?bid=210
Tour of Duty - 9 ced 13 cem 2.2 bw .91 acc

Good info and apparently a lot of folks like the same thing for a reason. No disrespect, I am not so interested in the AAA breed average because I do not have cattle from TX to CA, from OR to FL and from OH to NY. I am interested in functional cattle for our little world and our given environment and for local friends and neighbors. Probably 99% of cattle here go to a livestock auction. Those are the type commodity cattle that I need to grow and they need to grow. Nothing hidden: our cattle are selected heavily for maternal traits of most profit from grass as compared to selection for terminal traits. Never the less, they fit the FS and type that order buyers are looking for.

There is plenty of data out there about genetic correlations and I believe that the practice to prove dependable science wrong will become an unpleasant self-fulfilling prophesy if anyone single trait selects cattle or any species to prove otherwise. Thanks. A list of well respected bulls for many.

 

[james coffelt]

EB, we are going to respectfully disagree. See my comments in your text

With a -2 BW, this bull's calves performed best,

I'd run like a scalded dog. It is unnecessary unless your cows and heifer are known problems. Reminds me of an old AI bull called "O G". Live and learn.

Yes, who would want calving ease females, out of a low birth weight bull, from a large peer group, whose sire group was the best on the ranch, cows reaching maturity at 1150+/-, bulls at 2000#. This is low risk: they work in the commodity market, bulls, grass finished, seed stock, and sale barn. Feedlots and sale barns do not run the business, we do.

The risk, is a business restricted to a commodity outlet only, at the lowest possible price, i.e., the sale barn. I can't take that much pressure.

You mentioned growth in your post as a most important trait. From a business standpoint, it is not.

Been here before. Growth is important, in balance, for normal commodity cattle. It can be moderate in maternal types and high in terminal types. But both are commodity type cattle.

Your cattle are specialty cattle with your own market. They would bottom out the commodity market due to small frame. Back to the requote: "Commodity or oddity". If little is better, why not go directly to lowlines or sheep?

I disagree, they work in every segment. By the way, we have added chickens, they are smaller than sheep :banana:


But enough thread drift:

What about sire's birth EPD vs. maternal calving ease of daughters?
Like it or not, sloping rump structure reflects better pelvic angle" - opinion. I do not want ski jump tail heads as an opposite. What I really like is a calf that I have to go back and weigh the second time because I think I made a mistake the first time, get back to the yard and say to myself, (sign of dementia only if I answer myself!), "That calf could not have weighed that much". Snake vs basketball. Works every time. In demand as commodity or a breeder of commodity cattle.

We have a different philosophy here: We have a large group of cows. Every year, every late, open, problem, hard wintering, etc. leaves. 70% of the problems are taller, larger, poorer fleshing, etc. We avoid bulls which replicate those traits, and buy/raise bulls which replicate what remains in production over generations.

Who is defining the ideal size, type, under this management and environment? The cows remaining in production. Who defines the size/type bull? The cows remaining in production. These are "adapted cattle".

I am not that smart, they are.

 

[Ebenezer]

I am new to this post but would like to ask a question. Everybody keeps telling me that if you keep daughters out of heifer bulls you will eventually have calving problems. I have even seen it stated on cattle breeders web-sites. We have been doing it for a few years and our experience is just the opposite. My question is,what experience have any of you had? :wave:

Statement right out of this week's report from local barn. Take home message, when they get short - you lose. Don't take this wrong: there is good money for light calves with adequate frame. Lose the frame in your herd and lose the money. Around here you will easily drop $200 per head even on a nice short calf.

Compared to last week feeder steers 8.00 higher, feeder heifers 4.00 higher,
feeder bulls 4.00 higher, slaughter cows mostly steady, and slaughter bulls
steady to 5.00 higher. Moderate offering of well conditioned cattle with active
buyer participation. Low demand for early maturing and over conditioned cattle.

Your choice in bulls: your decision. Genetics and correlated traits do not lie. Not everybody who plays with fire gets burned, ... just the majority!

 

[CharlesTotton]

But enough thread drift:

What about sire's birth EPD vs. maternal calving ease of daughters?

I raise heifer bulls and my pet peeve is being told that heifer bulls daughters will have calving trouble. So I went to the AAA web-site and did a sire search. I only put in one # (16) showing me the top 1% for CEM. 90% of the bulls had high CED and low birth weight EPD's. Then I searched again for the bottom 5% for CEM and 90% of these bulls had low CED and high BW EPD's. So it looks to me like the OWT is not only wrong but completely backwards. It looks like high BW daughters have more calving trouble than low BW daughters. If you disagree tell me why and show me the proof. If you agree tell me how I can convince people that the OWT is wrong.

 

[Ebenezer]

I raise heifer bulls and my pet peeve is being told that heifer bulls daughters will have calving trouble. So I went to the AAA web-site and did a sire search. I only put in one # (16) showing me the top 1% for CEM. 90% of the bulls had high CED and low birth weight EPD's. Then I searched again for the bottom 5% for CEM and 90% of these bulls had low CED and high BW EPD's. So it looks to me like the OWT is not only wrong but completely backwards. It looks like high BW daughters have more calving trouble than low BW daughters. If you disagree tell me why and show me the proof. If you agree tell me how I can convince people that the OWT is wrong.

Angus breed average is ced +6 bw +1.3 cem +9
So perhaps you prefer breed average bulls to calving ease bulls.
There are only 73 bulls that are truly above breed average for ced, bw and cem
Here are a few of them with higher acc.

Basin Rainmaker - 8 ced 10 cem 1.4 bw .92 acc
Jindra Double Vision - 10 ced 12 cem 1.4 bw .93 acc
Nichols Extra - - - 8 ced 14 cem 1.5 bw .95 acc
S Chism - - - 9 ced 13 cem 1.7 bw .78 acc
SAV BEACON 7 ced 12 cem 1.7 bw .85 http://www.selectsiresbeef.com/index.ph ... ge?bid=210
Tour of Duty - 9 ced 13 cem 2.2 bw .91 acc

What you have now is both ends (extremes) and the middle and the awareness that all do exist in data. But the big question that is vital: Is there a genetic correlation between sire BW EPD and daughters' MCE. With correlation coefficients you have proof to beat any old wife. Without genetics to back you up, you have one breed's trend only.

...the positive correlation (0.42) between CED and CEM EPD values.

Ref: http://www.angus.org/Nce/Documents/CedCemEpd.pdf

Unless you find differently, this is the known link for only these two traits. But it does not answer your direct question of BW EPD.

http://charolaisusa.com/members/genetic_evaluation.html The download for correlations show:

WW CED CEM
BW 0.47 -0.67 0.16

What I think I see: CED links to CEM. BW links to WW, can have a negative on CED and is not a negative for CEM but is not as strongly linked. So if you select +CED and +BW you can have easy calving cattle that grow better until weaning than low BW cattle. Hope that helps.