USA vs Canadian Hereford EPDs

[KNERSIE]

How would these Canadian EPDs compare to USA EPDs?

BW 3.1
WW 43.6
YW 70.0
MM 14.7
TM 36.5

Or is it a direct comparison?

 

[Aaron]

pretty well a direct comparison
:cowboy:

 

[rocket2222]

They may mean the same, but they don't always match, for instance a positive epd calving ease bull in the USA may be a negative numbered bull in Canada, with about the same number of calves on the ground, same goes for growth epd's. You would think they would get together on this and make the epd's more reliable for both of them. Nah, that would be to easy.

 

[Aaron]

I was pretty sure that both associations used the same company and software to figure EPD's and I was right. Did a few tests with bulls in both US and CAN systems and the EPD's are universal. Only difference is that the AHA rounds some of the numbers up in WW and YW EPD's, whereas they keep one decimal place in the CHA system. :cowboy:

 

[KNERSIE]

Are the breed average for Canadian EPDs the same as its with USA EPDs. Specifically the milk and BW EPDs

 

[rocket2222]

Check out GHC Star Moose 59M, last time I looked at his numbers in both US and Canada they were way off for calving ease. Haven't looked at any lately, they could have changed.

 

[Aaron]

Yes. Again AHA rounds its numbers while CHA does not. :cowboy:

 

[Aaron]

Check out GHC Star Moose 59M, last time I looked at his numbers in both US and Canada they were way off for calving ease. Haven't looked at any lately, they could have changed.

I checked it just now and your right. If your concerned, I would phone the associations to get the answers you need regarding the difference. :cowboy:

 

[Aaron]

Check out GHC Star Moose 59M, last time I looked at his numbers in both US and Canada they were way off for calving ease. Haven't looked at any lately, they could have changed.

I checked it just now and your right. If your concerned, I would phone the associations to get the answers you need regarding the difference. :cowboy:

I checked again and realize that the two associations have different number for the number of progeny analyzed and number of daughters in production. I would say that is where your difference lies. 18 daughters in production in AHA, 0 in CHA. Therefore I would use the AHA numbers. :cowboy:

 

[rocket2222]

I checked again and realize that the two associations have different number for the number of progeny analyzed and number of daughters in production. I would say that is where your difference lies. 18 daughters in production in AHA, 0 in CHA. Therefore I would use the AHA numbers. :cowboy:

Daughters in production shouldn't have any effect on CED, only CEM. When I last looked they were about equal for progeny for BW and WW.