Understanding Ultrasound data EPD

[thommoos]

This is how this bulls epd reads

actual BW 72 WW 595 yw 878 MA n/a IMF .68 REA 8.5 RbFt .09 RmFt .09
adjusted 74 597 792 .71 7.9 .08 .19
EPDS 1.2 12 20 -.10 .04 -.07 .08

Test Results

Beg wt 782 End wght 1404 Net Gain 622 ADG 4.23 WDA 2.53 Gr Index 106.1 Hip 55 Frame 6.2 Scrt 37 5th overall


Now my big ????

IMF epd on an ultrasound scan what does that mean? How do I understand it.


If I am reading the IMF % chart correctly this bull is below select - all the Angus, Simm ect throughout the etst only rank in the select- class there are nogood IMF bulls period, or am I reading this wrong?

 

[DOC HARRIS]

This is how this bulls epd reads

actual BW 72 WW 595 yw 878 MA n/a IMF .68 REA 8.5 RbFt .09 RmFt .09
adjusted 74 597 792 .71 7.9 .08 .19
EPDS 1.2 12 20 -.10 .04 -.07 .08

Test Results

Beg wt 782 End wght 1404 Net Gain 622 ADG 4.23 WDA 2.53 Gr Index 106.1 Hip 55 Frame 6.2 Scrt 37 5th overall


Now my big ????

IMF epd on an ultrasound scan what does that mean? How do I understand it.


If I am reading the IMF % chart correctly this bull is below select - all the Angus, Simm ect throughout the etst only rank in the select- class there are nogood IMF bulls period, or am I reading this wrong?

thommoos-

In spite of how many informed breeders profess to understand EPD's, how they work, and how specific the readings may be, the fact is - understanding how the prediction of one's future progeny's genetics will perform in a particular herd is extremely difficult - at best!, :bang: so don't feel that you are alone in this very tough determination!

The very definition of "Expected Progeny Differences" explains the difficulty involved in understanding the subject. It is "..the prediction of how future progeny of each animal are expected to perform RELATIVE TO THE PROGENY OF OTHER ANIMALS LISTED IN THE DATA BASE. (special accent my own). The operative phrase here is "relative to OTHER animals" in the data base! This is a sticking point in the minds of most breeders when they are analyzing animals to balance their herd genetics using traits and characteristics of an individual. They have a tendency to overlook the fact that the EPD's are a compilation of data encompassing an entire breed! That fact, if kept in mind, can justify the ultimate acceptance of EPD's as a reliable template by which to compare one's own animals to the data base. Accuracy (ACC) is the reliability that can be placed on the EPD. I feel that in many instances the "Accuracy" factor is ignored by many breeders. Understanding that we are dealing with BILLIONS of sperm with individual dominant and recessive genes, it is a miracle that we can come as close to reliability as we do!

Focusing on your questions here, understanding the "ultrasound scan" of IMF EPD throws another "variable" into the formula mix! The U/S technician is human, and interpretation variances rear their heads in any determining final reading.

I wrote the above to comment on this: "Livestock evaluation and EPD's have finally evolved to include the use of DNA as the most accurate, dependable information to predict the actual merit for quality and production of an individual. Today these are known as genomic-enhanced, or GE-EPDs." (Pfizer Animal Health source).

The study and understanding of DNA Marker Technology will help to solidify in one's mind how to make use of the information that is surrounding us these days. It really places the responsibility of learning on all of us.

thommoos, I wish that I had a more concrete answer and instant reply to your query, but a lot of this stuff is above my conception level, and every day something is added to confuse the brain a little more! Perhaps someone on the Forum can enlighten you more easily than I have been able to do. Hang in there! This is a tough subject to get under control for most people.

DOC HARRIS

 

[RD-Sam]

Is that a .68% scan, or a .68 EPD? Usually bulls scan at least in the 3 to 4 % IMF range, some worse, some better. He shows hardly any rib fat or rump fat either, those are usually in the .2 to .4 range, some better, some worse.

 

[Jovid]

What was his actual ultra sound data not his epds? That would tell you more than anything. I think his WDA is very low which will be reflected in his off spring.

 

[bigag03]

What was his actual ultra sound data not his epds? That would tell you more than anything. I think his WDA is very low which will be reflected in his off spring.

This is a completely incorrect statement. Actual ultrasound means nothing except to compare an animal to his contemporaries on that given day. The EPD compiles pedigree information, sibling data, and the contemporary group ratios in to a comparatively relative number. An EPD will always be the most reliable piece of information available, because it encompasses all available data. IMO, this is especially true for carcass EPDs based on ultrasound. The technician, interpreter, weather, feeding plan and any number of other things can make actual ultrasound data reflect different measurements.

 

[Jovid]

What was his actual ultra sound data not his epds? That would tell you more than anything. I think his WDA is very low which will be reflected in his off spring.

This is a completely incorrect statement. Actual ultrasound means nothing except to compare an animal to his contemporaries on that given day. The EPD compiles pedigree information, sibling data, and the contemporary group ratios in to a comparatively relative number. An EPD will always be the most reliable piece of information available, because it encompasses all available data. IMO, this is especially true for carcass EPDs based on ultrasound. The technician, interpreter, weather, feeding plan and any number of other things can make actual ultrasound data reflect different measurements.

Where do they get the information for the epds? The technician, interpreter, weather, feeding plan and any number of other things can make actual ultrasound data reflect different measurements

 

[thommoos]

The .68 is actual scan,

Please note this was a on forage test, not a feed test.

I know the breeder of these bull and they ARE NOT creeper bulls, grass and momma only, he gives a ration on grain in the winter to amount to about 5 lbs a day.

On forage this bull added 4.23 lbs a day, 5th highest for the test so I do believe the WDA is low idea is wrong. There was not a Angus within 50lbs of wieght gain, One Simm Ang and One CHar gained more than him.

Back to the answer that was acxtual scan not an EPD, Is it the fact that all of these animals Actual scan was in the 2 to 3 area which means all of these animal would be a select +- if slaughtered, because this was a forage test? Now I realize that a Beewfmaster is a leaner cut of beef. But a scan of .68 makes me go leeeaaannn.

 

[WORANCH]

Here is a link that might help


http://www.cuplab.com/cms.cfm?fuseaction=dspThisArticle&newsId=76&pageId=16


If the bull is a Beefmaster and on forage the IMF will be low put him on feed and it might come up .

 

[blacksnake]

I don't understand all of this either. Are you sure there wasn't a mix up? Based on the WDA of 2.53 and 1404 lb final weight, the animal came off of test at about 18.5 months of age. Based on the 4.23 ADG and 622 lb weight gain, he was on test for about 5 months. His starting weight at 13.5 months entering the test was 782 lbs. His ACTUAL YW was listed at 878. So it seems he lost over a hundred lbs in the month and half before the test. I know you can expect some loss due to moving but was there a possibility he may have been sick which may also explain some of the low scan values?

 

[RD-Sam]

I don't understand all of this either. Are you sure there wasn't a mix up? Based on the WDA of 2.53 and 1404 lb final weight, the animal came off of test at about 18.5 months of age. Based on the 4.23 ADG and 622 lb weight gain, he was on test for about 5 months. His starting weight at 13.5 months entering the test was 782 lbs. His ACTUAL YW was listed at 878. So it seems he lost over a hundred lbs in the month and half before the test. I know you can expect some loss due to moving but was there a possibility he may have been sick which may also explain some of the low scan values?

The actual year weight was adjusted down to 782 most likely because his weight was checked many days after the 365 day mark. Other than a high ADG, the bull doesn't have much to offer by his actuals. YW, Ribeye, IMF, and fat are all really low, even for being raised on forage. I've had quite a few heifers with more WW, YW, Ribeye, and especially IMF and fat.

 

[blacksnake]

The 782 weight was listed as the actual beginning test weight at13.5 months, not an adjusted weight.

 

[vclavin]

I admit it is confusing on some of the data. In the beginning when trying to learn all this - still trying too lol - I was told to use bulls that are the following +IMF EPD , +RE EPD, -FAT . Back fat can be manipulated without interferring with the marbling . Try to get the IMF and RE to be as close to eatch other as possible. Why? When you increase one , the other decreases, there selecting for numbers that are closer will make it easier to get them to increase at the same time. Keep in mind also , Vitamin A decreases marbling - grass. You may need to look for genetics that marble better with grass ... see what bulls are being used by others that are grass fed.
One more thing I was told, stress - the first thing to disappear is your marbling and it takes a long time to recoop it.
Valerie