The End of EPDs?

[kenny thomas]

I dont really understand what goes into it but Simme took blood on my bull last year and the EPD's changed a fair amount. He just sent off the blood for this years bulls and im anxious to see how it changes the EPD'S.

 

[gizmom]

I still look at EPD's they are a useful tool. But they are not the only tool in my toolbox.

 

[gizmom]

I dont really understand what goes into it but Simme took blood on my bull last year and the EPD's changed a fair amount. He just sent off the blood for this years bulls and im anxious to see how it changes the EPD'S.

I am not a fan of the dna test for genomics just way to much variation in the numbers.

 

[angus9259]

ohlde was really almost railing against them in their sale book. Almost felt like an attack on GAR. Look up their sale bull on the Angus website and the data isn't even filled in. Almost buying blind from an EPD standpoint. As much conspiracy theory there is these days I'm really surprised no one sees DNA enhancement as a money grab by pharma companies. But I keep sending them my money

 

[kenny thomas]

I am not a fan of the dna test for genomics just way to much variation in the numbers.

Which do you feel are the true numbers? As stated they have added several variables into the EPD's and im not sure whats really true.

 

[Ebenezer]

From what I have seen of bulls that friends have recently purchased from herds that value enhanced EPDs, the hoof scores are not worth a toot.

 

[simme]

I am not a fan of the dna test for genomics just way to much variation in the numbers.

My thoughts - epd's for a calf are initially calculated based on the epd's of the sire and dam. As additional measured data on the individual is submitted (actual birth weight, weaning weight, yearling weight, marbling, height, etc), that data is used to update the epd's. Then as progeny come along, more measured data is available which can be used to further refine the epd's. Resulting in more accurate numbers. Remember those initial epd's were based on the average of the parent's numbers.

We know that not every mating will produce an animal that is the average of the parents. In fact, we hope that they will occasionally produce progeny that are superior to the average. So, I sometimes hope for some variation in the numbers after the dna is done. Of course, the epd's may get better or may get worse, but the main hope is that they get more accurate.

Most of the time for me, the genomic enhanced epd's are pretty close to the originals, but occasionally there is a more significant change. Lot's of examples of flush mate bulls that start out with the same epd's, but end up with significant differences. In growth, birth weights, calving ease and daughters. Looking at markers in the dna profile and correlating those to physical traits is a head start on getting measured data on progeny. It's another tool. Usually tools get better with time and as people get experience with them.

 

[W.B.]

As a commercial breeder we have learned the hard way to not put any meraccuracy EPD. I start looking if they are 60% or above and put merit in them when they are 80% or above. We ask for actual numbers. We use them, visual appraisal and progeny data from the sire and dam's progeny. We also research the pedigree. We have found that the bulls we retain consistently sire our best sire groups. Most of the PB breeders I talk too and do business with are very similar. One stated they aren't even a reliable source for comparison on calves from different pastures. Then the numbers are adjusted. I was involved in the first weighing of calves in our county in the 60's. The only adjustment was a true adjustment for age to 205 days. Now they substract the BW and adjust for age of dam. This creates a manipulated number that is useless to me. Each breeder has to find out what selection criteria works best for them.
We tried one of the CE unproven sires with good numbers. Lost one calf out of 2. Glad no more settled. The best heifer bull we have doesn't have great numbers. His calves are shaped right. We want a bull that is good in all traits but not extreme in either

From what I have seen of bulls that friends have recently purchased from herds that value enhanced EPDs, the hoof scores are not worth a toot.

I would agree with that. I was disappointed when AAA went with dna test to be included in foot epds as I didn't think they had the data base to have any accuracy. Genomics in general have been weighted too heavy in determining epds but by doing it this way they make sure nearly everyone does the test. Mostly about money like every thing else in our world today.

 

[gizmom]

Which do you feel are the true numbers? As stated they have added several variables into the EPD's and im not sure whats really true.

Keep in mind I'm old school goes back to me trying to select AI sires by taking cows EPD's and Bull's EPD and dividing by 2 to establish expected EPD of calf. Back then we looked at bw ww, yw and milk. Those to me are still the most important numbers. The foot EPD is still a long way from having enough true data entered same with hair and chances are if Marbling is super high I won't be a fan of the phenotype. I guess you just have to figure out which number you can't live without.

 

[wbvs58]

My thoughts - epd's for a calf are initially calculated based on the epd's of the sire and dam. As additional measured data on the individual is submitted (actual birth weight, weaning weight, yearling weight, marbling, height, etc), that data is used to update the epd's. Then as progeny come along, more measured data is available which can be used to further refine the epd's. Resulting in more accurate numbers. Remember those initial epd's were based on the average of the parent's numbers.

We know that not every mating will produce an animal that is the average of the parents. In fact, we hope that they will occasionally produce progeny that are superior to the average. So, I sometimes hope for some variation in the numbers after the dna is done. Of course, the epd's may get better or may get worse, but the main hope is that they get more accurate.

Most of the time for me, the genomic enhanced epd's are pretty close to the originals, but occasionally there is a more significant change. Lot's of examples of flush mate bulls that start out with the same epd's, but end up with significant differences. In growth, birth weights, calving ease and daughters. Looking at markers in the dna profile and correlating those to physical traits is a head start on getting measured data on progeny. It's another tool. Usually tools get better with time and as people get experience with them.

Nicely put Simme.

Ken

 

[kenny thomas]

My thoughts - epd's for a calf are initially calculated based on the epd's of the sire and dam. As additional measured data on the individual is submitted (actual birth weight, weaning weight, yearling weight, marbling, height, etc), that data is used to update the epd's. Then as progeny come along, more measured data is available which can be used to further refine the epd's. Resulting in more accurate numbers. Remember those initial epd's were based on the average of the parent's numbers.

We know that not every mating will produce an animal that is the average of the parents. In fact, we hope that they will occasionally produce progeny that are superior to the average. So, I sometimes hope for some variation in the numbers after the dna is done. Of course, the epd's may get better or may get worse, but the main hope is that they get more accurate.

Most of the time for me, the genomic enhanced epd's are pretty close to the originals, but occasionally there is a more significant change. Lot's of examples of flush mate bulls that start out with the same epd's, but end up with significant differences. In growth, birth weights, calving ease and daughters. Looking at markers in the dna profile and correlating those to physical traits is a head start on getting measured data on progeny. It's another tool. Usually tools get better with time and as people get experience with them.

Simme, could you post the origional EPD's of my bull and then the genomic enhanced EPD's just for discussion.

 

[Travlr]

My thoughts - epd's for a calf are initially calculated based on the epd's of the sire and dam. As additional measured data on the individual is submitted (actual birth weight, weaning weight, yearling weight, marbling, height, etc), that data is used to update the epd's. Then as progeny come along, more measured data is available which can be used to further refine the epd's. Resulting in more accurate numbers. Remember those initial epd's were based on the average of the parent's numbers.

We know that not every mating will produce an animal that is the average of the parents. In fact, we hope that they will occasionally produce progeny that are superior to the average. So, I sometimes hope for some variation in the numbers after the dna is done. Of course, the epd's may get better or may get worse, but the main hope is that they get more accurate.

Most of the time for me, the genomic enhanced epd's are pretty close to the originals, but occasionally there is a more significant change. Lot's of examples of flush mate bulls that start out with the same epd's, but end up with significant differences. In growth, birth weights, calving ease and daughters. Looking at markers in the dna profile and correlating those to physical traits is a head start on getting measured data on progeny. It's another tool. Usually tools get better with time and as people get experience with them.

One of the most useful classes I took in my college years,/Animal Science/Beef production education was a conformation class. With no doubt in my mind, I can say it has panned out as the best value for time and dollars spent than any of my other classes. I can look at bulls, first, and then make selections from EPDs from what I see in the bulls and how I select them... before the EPDs are a factor.

If a bull doesn't make the cut with a visual inspection based in conformation, then it really doesn't matter what his EPDs are.

Personally, I believe the weak animals we see today are the result of too many people depending on EPDs to make their decisions and all those EPDs are concentrated by injudicious of AI.

 

[simme]

Anyone who selects ONLY on epd's is likely to have very poor cattle. Do you guys think that the people who do not use epd's AT ALL are likely to produce better cattle than the people who include all the tools to select their cattle (and hopefully know how to apply all those tools)?

 

[Travlr]

Anyone who selects ONLY on epd's is likely to have very poor cattle. Do you guys think that the people who do not use epd's AT ALL are likely to produce better cattle than the people who include all the tools to select their cattle (and hopefully know how to apply all those tools)?

It would be interesting to compare results after decades of using differing strategies...

 

[chaded]

Is there somewhere that keeps data that these epds go by? If an animal is in the 95th percentile for mature weight, what does that even mean? What does an animal in the 50th percentile weigh? Breed average weight? I would just like a standard to go by with some of this stuff. Maybe there is, I'm pretty ignorant to epds admittedly.

 

[simme]

If an animal is in the 95th percentile for mature weight, what does that even mean? What does an animal in the 50th percentile weigh? .

95 percentile is bottom 5% of the breed. 50 percentile is breed average. 5 percentile is top 5% of the breed.

 

[simme]

Simme, could you post the origional EPD's of my bull and then the genomic enhanced EPD's just for discussion.

EPD's before genomics:

CE

BW

WW

YW

ADG

MCE

MLK

MWW

STAY

DOC

CW

API

TI

EPD

10.6​

2.3​

71.8​

109.6​

0.24​

6.8​

25​

60.8​

17.5​

11.1​

40​

125.5​

71.9​

%

60​

70​

80​

70​

55​

35​

40​

60​

40​

60​

20​

60​

80​

ACC

0.24​

0.24​

0.24​

0.24​

0.24​

0.21​

0.2​

0.21​

0.22​

0.23​

0.23​

EPD's after genomics:

CE

BW

WW

YW

ADG

MCE

MLK

MWW

STAY

DOC

CW

API

TI

EPD

11.3​

3.5​

83.1​

123.7​

0.25​

7​

23.8​

65.3​

19.5​

9.3​

52.1​

129.8​

76.5​

%

55​

90​

30​

35​

50​

35​

45​

35​

10​

80​

3​

55​

65​

ACC

0.48​

0.49​

0.47​

0.47​

0.47​

0.32​

0.26​

0.33​

0.41​

0.46​

0.45​

EPD's, percentile and accuracy listed for before and after. I did not list all the carcass epd's - trying to make the table fit the space. Note that WW went from 80 percentile (lower growth) to top 30 percentile. YW from 70 percentile to 35. STAY (longevity) went from 40% (better than breed average) to top 10% of the breed. CW now top 3% and BF (not listed here) went to top 2%. Marbling (not listed here) went from 70 percentile to 85 percentile (well below current breed average). Notice that the enhanced epd's show added BW and slightly better CE.

 

[chaded]

95 percentile is bottom 5% of the breed. 50 percentile is breed average. 5 percentile is top 5% of the breed.

I know how percentiles work. My question is, what do animals in 50th percentile weigh? Actual hard number. What do calves weigh at birth in the 50th percentile? I know how to use percentiles in relation to each other but where am I starting? Is breed average mature weight 1800 pounds or 1200 pounds? Where is the data that determines this standard? It seems like average mature weight of angus cattle is probably different today than it was 50 years ago?

 

[kenny thomas]

EPD's before genomics:

CE

BW

WW

YW

ADG

MCE

MLK

MWW

STAY

DOC

CW

API

TI

EPD

10.6​

2.3​

71.8​

109.6​

0.24​

6.8​

25​

60.8​

17.5​

11.1​

40​

125.5​

71.9​

%

60​

70​

80​

70​

55​

35​

40​

60​

40​

60​

20​

60​

80​

ACC

0.24​

0.24​

0.24​

0.24​

0.24​

0.21​

0.2​

0.21​

0.22​

0.23​

0.23​

EPD's after genomics:

CE

BW

WW

YW

ADG

MCE

MLK

MWW

STAY

DOC

CW

API

TI

EPD

11.3​

3.5​

83.1​

123.7​

0.25​

7​

23.8​

65.3​

19.5​

9.3​

52.1​

129.8​

76.5​

%

55​

90​

30​

35​

50​

35​

45​

35​

10​

80​

3​

55​

65​

ACC

0.48​

0.49​

0.47​

0.47​

0.47​

0.32​

0.26​

0.33​

0.41​

0.46​

0.45​

EPD's, percentile and accuracy listed for before and after. I did not list all the carcass epd's - trying to make the table fit the space. Note that WW went from 80 percentile (lower growth) to top 30 percentile. YW from 70 percentile to 35. STAY (longevity) went from 40% (better than breed average) to top 10% of the breed. CW now top 3% and BF (not listed here) went to top 2%. Marbling (not listed here) went from 70 percentile to 85 percentile (well below current breed average). Notice that the enhanced epd's show added BW and slightly better CE.

The accuracy improved a lot also

 

[Ky hills]

I see the weaning and yearling weights are in the 30-35% respectively and the ADG is 50%. It looks like those percentages should be closer if the weights are well above average why isn't the ADG above average as well?
With the increased weaning and yearling EPD's the ADG only went up .01 with the DNA.