someone please explain why the same breeding has wildly different epd's

[hornedfrogbbq]

I'm looking at SAV this morning and i'm trying to figure out how a bull can have the EXACT SAME sire and mother...full siblings, and have WILDLY different epd's. How is that possible? Example: Charlo and 4136 sons...so that is President, Rainfall, Raindance, etc. I'll put CED, BW, WW, YW, HP, CEM, Milk, Marb and RE

President: +3, +3.3, 77, 134, +8, +4, +29, +.08 and +.9
Rainfall: +16, -.8, 61, 115, +10.6, +12, +33, +.73 and +.66
Raindance: +6, +1.5, 71, 132, +7.4, +4, +25, +.03, +.93


Rainfall is this very odd outlier...heifer bull whereas the others are not. It would make sense that his WW and YW are below the other two given the smaller calves he seems to throw. His HP is 25%-ish higher and his CEM is 3x the others. He estimates to marble MUCH much higher and his RE is estimated to be 1/3 lower.

Does anyone have calves from multiple of these? What have you seen in the differences. I understand full siblings can be much different (witness my two daughters) but that much? Is that the "error" and inaccuracy of the genetic analysis? Each of these have tons of observations and high "accuracy."

 

[Ebenezer]

Not tightly bred so no prepotency in the breeding. Always a problem in line crossed animals. And three brothers like these will generally breed back to the middle of the genetic base if mated to similar genes.

 

[Son of Butch]

Gene distribution.
Bootmaker EX-94 was a famous old Holstein bull, about 6% of the time he'd sire a daughter who's
mature height and weight would be well below average. Good phenotype, just smaller than their sisters.

Columbus was a Bootmaker son from a massive Dam and Granddam.
Columbus scored VG-88 but to look at his picture you'd think he should be EX-90 or better.
Then I saw him in person, he was so small that VG-89 would have been his highest possible score.

 

[LJCB]

I'm looking at SAV this morning and i'm trying to figure out how a bull can have the EXACT SAME sire and mother...full siblings, and have WILDLY different epd's. How is that possible? Example: Charlo and 4136 sons...so that is President, Rainfall, Raindance, etc. I'll put CED, BW, WW, YW, HP, CEM, Milk, Marb and RE

President: +3, +3.3, 77, 134, +8, +4, +29, +.08 and +.9
Rainfall: +16, -.8, 61, 115, +10.6, +12, +33, +.73 and +.66
Raindance: +6, +1.5, 71, 132, +7.4, +4, +25, +.03, +.93


Rainfall is this very odd outlier...heifer bull whereas the others are not. It would make sense that his WW and YW are below the other two given the smaller calves he seems to throw. His HP is 25%-ish higher and his CEM is 3x the others. He estimates to marble MUCH much higher and his RE is estimated to be 1/3 lower.

Does anyone have calves from multiple of these? What have you seen in the differences. I understand full siblings can be much different (witness my two daughters) but that much? Is that the "error" and inaccuracy of the genetic analysis? Each of these have tons of observations and high "accuracy."

I've had many discussions with a lot of people and I still don't get it! All I can figure is that like humans full brothers and sisters arnt all the same

 

[Ebenezer]

I'm looking at SAV this morning and i'm trying to figure out how a bull can have the EXACT SAME sire and mother...full siblings, and have WILDLY different epd's. How is that possible? Example: Charlo and 4136 sons...so that is President, Rainfall, Raindance, etc. I'll put CED, BW, WW, YW, HP, CEM, Milk, Marb and RE

President: +3, +3.3, 77, 134, +8, +4, +29, +.08 and +.9
Rainfall: +16, -.8, 61, 115, +10.6, +12, +33, +.73 and +.66
Raindance: +6, +1.5, 71, 132, +7.4, +4, +25, +.03, +.93


Rainfall is this very odd outlier...heifer bull whereas the others are not. It would make sense that his WW and YW are below the other two given the smaller calves he seems to throw. His HP is 25%-ish higher and his CEM is 3x the others. He estimates to marble MUCH much higher and his RE is estimated to be 1/3 lower.

Does anyone have calves from multiple of these? What have you seen in the differences. I understand full siblings can be much different (witness my two daughters) but that much? Is that the "error" and inaccuracy of the genetic analysis? Each of these have tons of observations and high "accuracy."

I've had many discussions with a lot of people and I still don't get it! All I can figure is that like humans full brothers and sisters arnt all the same

If you remember that EPDs are a mean value of a range of values you are better off. That way you'll expect the range.

 

[WinterSpringsFarm]

Gene distribution.
Bootmaker EX-94 was a famous old Holstein bull, about 6% of the time he'd sire a daughter who's
mature height and weight would be well below average. Good phenotype, just smaller than their sisters.

Columbus was a Bootmaker son from a massive Dam and Granddam.
Columbus scored VG-88 but to look at his picture you'd think he should be EX-90 or better.
Then I saw him in person, he was so small that VG-89 would have been his highest possible score.

Been many years, but we had a Bookmaker daughter, nice looking heifer. But she was a bit on the nutty side. She didn't last long. Ultimately she went batty on the wrong day and the trailer was already heading in that direction. LOL

 

[hornedfrogbbq]

I'm looking at SAV this morning and i'm trying to figure out how a bull can have the EXACT SAME sire and mother...full siblings, and have WILDLY different epd's. How is that possible? Example: Charlo and 4136 sons...so that is President, Rainfall, Raindance, etc. I'll put CED, BW, WW, YW, HP, CEM, Milk, Marb and RE

President: +3, +3.3, 77, 134, +8, +4, +29, +.08 and +.9
Rainfall: +16, -.8, 61, 115, +10.6, +12, +33, +.73 and +.66
Raindance: +6, +1.5, 71, 132, +7.4, +4, +25, +.03, +.93


Rainfall is this very odd outlier...heifer bull whereas the others are not. It would make sense that his WW and YW are below the other two given the smaller calves he seems to throw. His HP is 25%-ish higher and his CEM is 3x the others. He estimates to marble MUCH much higher and his RE is estimated to be 1/3 lower.

Does anyone have calves from multiple of these? What have you seen in the differences. I understand full siblings can be much different (witness my two daughters) but that much? Is that the "error" and inaccuracy of the genetic analysis? Each of these have tons of observations and high "accuracy."

I've had many discussions with a lot of people and I still don't get it! All I can figure is that like humans full brothers and sisters arnt all the same

If you remember that EPDs are a mean value of a range of values you are better off. That way you'll expect the range.

I get the range but in birthweight that would be like 2 or 3 standard deviations. It just seems very wide.

Maybe another way to ask it would be do all full siblings from a flush start with the exact same (or very close) epd's and then experience changes that?

 

[Ebenezer]

http://www.angusjournal.com/articlepdf/0998_view.pdf

 

[TennesseeTuxedo]

Good reading, thanks Eb.

 

[hornedfrogbbq]

It just reminds you that the smart commercial cattleman/woman can use 4 or 5 year old genetics that are proven and not risk his 10 year plan as much. It won't work as well on the "bull of the day" race but makes sense from a business standpoint.

When will we as commercial cattlemen require longevity and reject the epd race and buy bulls from longevity mothers? The trend is for most bull sales to have progeny from the last 2 or 3 years, with their most advanced/highest peds. Shouldn't we all want small steps forward in terms of sire progress and demand rock solid dams with a decade of proof?

We retain heifers and try and improve our genetics. We spend a full 3-4 years to recoup our expenses to raise her and sell a couple of calves and turn cashflow positive if she sells 3 (2 if we liquidate her). A killer to us is to buy a bull from a heifer or 2nd calf cow and not be able to keep his daughters in the herd.

Dear bull producers, please consider a group of bulls from proven longevity (consensus, density, hoover dam, CC&7, impression, 5050, etc) that allow us to grow our herd predictably.

Until then, caveat emptor.

 

[Son of Butch]

Gene distribution.
Bootmaker EX-94 was a famous old Holstein bull, about 6% of the time he'd sire a daughter who's
mature height and weight would be well below average. Good phenotype, just smaller than their sisters.

Columbus was a Bootmaker son from a massive Dam and Granddam.
Columbus scored VG-88 but to look at his picture you'd think he should be EX-90 or better.
Then I saw him in person, he was so small that VG-89 would have been his highest possible score.

Been many years, but we had a Bookmaker daughter, nice looking heifer. But she was a bit on
the nutty side. She didn't last long. Ultimately she went batty on the wrong day and the trailer
was already heading in that direction. LOL

Yes, Bootmaker was known to sire his fair share of sour dispositions, but nothing like his son
Boot Nick. They were some of the worst as bat shxt crazy. Columbus and many other Bootmaker
sons sired dispositions that were no problem. Just another example in the luck of the draw with
gene distribution.

 

[W.B.]

I assume that there are some distinct phenotypic differences also.

 

[LCBulls]

It just reminds you that the smart commercial cattleman/woman can use 4 or 5 year old genetics that are proven and not risk his 10 year plan as much. It won't work as well on the "bull of the day" race but makes sense from a business standpoint.

When will we as commercial cattlemen require longevity and reject the epd race and buy bulls from longevity mothers? The trend is for most bull sales to have progeny from the last 2 or 3 years, with their most advanced/highest peds. Shouldn't we all want small steps forward in terms of sire progress and demand rock solid dams with a decade of proof?

We retain heifers and try and improve our genetics. We spend a full 3-4 years to recoup our expenses to raise her and sell a couple of calves and turn cashflow positive if she sells 3 (2 if we liquidate her). A killer to us is to buy a bull from a heifer or 2nd calf cow and not be able to keep his daughters in the herd.

Dear bull producers, please consider a group of bulls from proven longevity (consensus, density, hoover dam, CC&7, impression, 5050, etc) that allow us to grow our herd predictably.

Until then, caveat emptor.

I agree with what your saying, however there's a few sires on that list that throw terrible feet and structure(first and last)

 

[hornedfrogbbq]

It just reminds you that the smart commercial cattleman/woman can use 4 or 5 year old genetics that are proven and not risk his 10 year plan as much. It won't work as well on the "bull of the day" race but makes sense from a business standpoint.
.
When will we as commercial cattlemen require longevity and reject the epd race and buy bulls from longevity mothers? The trend is for most bull sales to have progeny from the last 2 or 3 years, with their most advanced/highest peds. Shouldn't we all want small steps forward in terms of sire progress and demand rock solid dams with a decade of proof?

We retain heifers and try and improve our genetics. We spend a full 3-4 years to recoup our expenses to raise her and sell a couple of calves and turn cashflow positive if she sells 3 (2 if we liquidate her). A killer to us is to buy a bull from a heifer or 2nd calf cow and not be able to keep his daughters in the herd.

Dear bull producers, please consider a group of bulls from proven longevity (consensus, density, hoover dam, CC&7, impression, 5050, etc) that allow us to grow our herd predictably.

Until then, caveat emptor.

I agree with what your saying, however there's a few sires on that list that throw terrible feet and structure(first and last)

I knew folks had issues with some GAR genetics having poor feet (5050) but I have never heard that consensus threw calves with bad feet. That is a new one on me

 

[LCBulls]

It just reminds you that the smart commercial cattleman/woman can use 4 or 5 year old genetics that are proven and not risk his 10 year plan as much. It won't work as well on the "bull of the day" race but makes sense from a business standpoint.
.
When will we as commercial cattlemen require longevity and reject the epd race and buy bulls from longevity mothers? The trend is for most bull sales to have progeny from the last 2 or 3 years, with their most advanced/highest peds. Shouldn't we all want small steps forward in terms of sire progress and demand rock solid dams with a decade of proof?

We retain heifers and try and improve our genetics. We spend a full 3-4 years to recoup our expenses to raise her and sell a couple of calves and turn cashflow positive if she sells 3 (2 if we liquidate her). A killer to us is to buy a bull from a heifer or 2nd calf cow and not be able to keep his daughters in the herd.

Dear bull producers, please consider a group of bulls from proven longevity (consensus, density, hoover dam, CC&7, impression, 5050, etc) that allow us to grow our herd predictably.

Until then, caveat emptor.

I agree with what your saying, however there's a few sires on that list that throw terrible feet and structure(first and last)

I knew folks had issues with some GAR genetics having poor feet (5050) but I have never heard that consensus threw calves with bad feet. That is a new one on me

Yeah, check out most EPDs of his descendants and himself. He did a lot of things well, but feet weren't one of them unfortunately.