Do you have any documentation that all shorthorns are well above average for marbling and tenderness? I have heard that MARC has some but I have not seen it. I have never felt like I was settling on growth. I agree that weaning percentage is important. Thirty years ago I weighed my cows as well as my calves it was an eye opener and what started me downsizing my cows. When I talk about cost of gain I am considering the cost of keeping the cow. I have no problem with cattle that grow fast as long as I am not adding to the expense side maintaining their mothers.-XBAR- said:
“New” North American Shorthorn Genetic Evaluation
- Thread starter Okotoks
- Start date
Help Support Steer Planet:
If it encourages more people into WHR will be a real benefit. The numbers out can only be as good as the data going in. Maintaining contempory groups with strong linkages for comparison make a big difference. I think a lot of people don't realise they are hurting the epd's of there better bulls by submitting data on only their top bullssue said:
EaglesNest
Well-known member
- Joined
- Dec 31, 2012
- Messages
- 45
Amen! (clapping)huntaway said:
I been down WHR road not doing that again... And these new EPDs certaintly aren't at all enticing to me....it ultimately boils down to the statement in quotes.
J
JTM
Guest
You need a crossbred bull then friend! (lol)-XBAR- said:
RyanChandler
Well-known member
JTM said:
If I had a herd of purebred cows that I wanted to breed terminal then I might consider it---
Davis Shorthorns
Well-known member
-XBAR- said:
So how then did the average bw epd of the breed only move .2 pts? Do the simmi's have some information that we dont have? Where are they getting the data to justify moving a bull that much when others haven't moved at all or dropped? That bull went from the top 20% of the breed in BW to the top 75%. I just dont get the justification on it can someone please tell me? Thanks
Okotoks
Well-known member
- Joined
- Aug 17, 2010
- Messages
- 3,083
The Shorthorn EPD's for growth were very narrow compared to other breeds. We didnt have + 100 lb yearling weights and now we do. If you look at the MARC across breed comparisons that is not surprising as Shorthorns surpass a lot of breeds for growth on the marc data (thumbsup)Davis Shorthorns said:
http://beefmagazine.com/breeding-systems/marc-releases-2013-across-breed-epd-tables
If you are referring to Little Cedar Cabrera's #s I would be really ecstatic if I were you! A show bull with an outcross pedigree that now has EPDs that put him in the top 1% for WW, YW, Milk, MW,Fat, $F,Top 2% CWT, Top 10% MCE, top 30% CE, Top 35% Marbling and his BW is still reasonable. The bull offers a lot and has an outcross pedigree!
It is going to take awhile to get used to what the new averages are because they are so diiferent.
J
JTM
Guest
Good points Okotoks. I think I would be pretty happy with those numbers on that bull for sure! Of course the accuracy is still very low on all of them but it will get better quick. If the BW epd is what you are worried about I wouldn't at all. The calving ease epd is much more important than the birth weight epd.
You could be in my position where I'm working from two different outlier extremes trying to correct birthweight problems. It's killing Renegades WW and YW competing against Star Bucks calves but killing Star Bucks' Birth weight epd competing against Renegade. I have a lot of stabilization to do within my herd but I'm also very fortunate for the lease deal where we will get a number of replacement heifers from A&T Cattle Co. genetics to start a foundation of more stabilized and consistent performance. For now it's fire and ice until I can simmer the fire to a nice cozy comfort level... <band>
You could be in my position where I'm working from two different outlier extremes trying to correct birthweight problems. It's killing Renegades WW and YW competing against Star Bucks calves but killing Star Bucks' Birth weight epd competing against Renegade. I have a lot of stabilization to do within my herd but I'm also very fortunate for the lease deal where we will get a number of replacement heifers from A&T Cattle Co. genetics to start a foundation of more stabilized and consistent performance. For now it's fire and ice until I can simmer the fire to a nice cozy comfort level... <band>
RyanChandler
Well-known member
IMO, it's absolutely worth giving up some consistency in the short term in order to make the broad advancements we need to make. There'll likely be a higher culling percentage in your calf crops along the way but the ones who do make the cut will be that much farther along.
Davis Shorthorns
Well-known member
Okotoks said:
Oh trust me I couldn't be happier with those numbers. My only thing is the fact that I don't understand where his bw number came from. His sire is a 2.7 bw epd and his dam is a .9 I would think that his bw epd should be somewhere in between the two. He has some half sibs with no progeny reported that were by much higher bw bulls and their bw epd's were lower. I just don't get how his bw epd was generated.
RyanChandler
Well-known member
I don't know man. There needs to be an outlet to find the answers though. Someone that can provide a precise explanation as to how the numbers are generated.
Look at my HC Vanguard bull. He has a higher WW and YW epd than either of his parents. Vanguards BW epd is almost the average of his parents but his CE is lower than either? A bull who's calves averaged less than 85 lbs, has a 4.6 BW EPD?
How can a bull have a higher WW and YW EPD than either parent before any data has even been submitted?
Look at my HC Vanguard bull. He has a higher WW and YW epd than either of his parents. Vanguards BW epd is almost the average of his parents but his CE is lower than either? A bull who's calves averaged less than 85 lbs, has a 4.6 BW EPD?
How can a bull have a higher WW and YW EPD than either parent before any data has even been submitted?
Doc
Well-known member
-XBAR- said:
That's my whole problem with this deal. There has not been any explanation of these new numbers that I know of. It's kind of like here they are , figure them out. Before I kind of knew what I would accept as ok in BW, may not be the same for everyone , but was ok for me. Now I have no idea.
J
JTM
Guest
I honestly wouldn't even look at BW epd too much because CE is about 70% birth weight and 30% how they calved. It is a much better way of looking at "birth weight" if you will. Don't believe a 2.5 BW if the CE is -4 for example.Doc said:
RyanChandler
Well-known member
I'd caution you against that approach JTM. Without taking BW EPD or, even better, actual birthweight, into consideration, you have no way of gauging the type of cows the bull was used on to determine the CE EPD.
Perfect example of this is Saskvalley Navajo- +5.6 CE (which puts him in top 30 percentile) and 2.4 BW EPD yet has a 114lb actual birthweight.
Now imagine the type of females a bull w/ a 114 bw has to be bred to to maintain a positive CE EPD.
Perfect example of this is Saskvalley Navajo- +5.6 CE (which puts him in top 30 percentile) and 2.4 BW EPD yet has a 114lb actual birthweight.
Now imagine the type of females a bull w/ a 114 bw has to be bred to to maintain a positive CE EPD.
XBAR
I agree with what you are saying here, but lets face it, there are many breeders that if they have a bull calf born that weighs 114 lbs. they will not report that. Instead, they will give the calf a birth weight of 80 - 85 lbs. Why? If customers look at the birth weight and see 114 lbs. how many would consider buying or using such a bull?
I have been too many places and have been there when calves were born and helped weigh the calves. Then when I later see reports, the real birth weight wasn't reported.
Knowing the real birth weight sure would be nice. Look on this forum at how many questions there are about different bulls, and one of the most ask question is what is the birth weight of his calves.
While we all agree, EPDs are a good tool, BUT their usefulness may be tainted. The results are only as accurate as the numbers going in.
One thing that does help though with the EPDs is the WHR. At least with submitting information on the entire herd, both the good and bad get reported. So even the occasional incorrect information may not have too much of an effect.
While EPDs are a tool, I think that an animals own performance need to be considered as well as other factors when evaluating animals for purchase or for using their genetics in ones herd.
Cabanha Santa Isabel - BR
Well-known member
EPD's...number...number...easy to manage, easy to sell what you want...
Insert at side of açç EPD's - birth, weaning, mature, scrotal.....- the real bull measure.....you will have a most real approache of what you is getting.
A bull with EPD for BW with +3.0 and a real birth weight of 32 kg is better than one with +0.3 and real birth weight of 48 kg.
I have confidence only on marbling, fat cover and eye loin area....as they were measure phisically....the other number are managed by a computer so.....5+5 =10; 1+9=10; 8+2=10...easy to manage......wach one follow what believe.....not am full confidence on EPD's.
Insert at side of açç EPD's - birth, weaning, mature, scrotal.....- the real bull measure.....you will have a most real approache of what you is getting.
A bull with EPD for BW with +3.0 and a real birth weight of 32 kg is better than one with +0.3 and real birth weight of 48 kg.
I have confidence only on marbling, fat cover and eye loin area....as they were measure phisically....the other number are managed by a computer so.....5+5 =10; 1+9=10; 8+2=10...easy to manage......wach one follow what believe.....not am full confidence on EPD's.
J
JTM
Guest
I think your point is just another one to add to the mix when trying to analyze what is best. I mean it's obvious to me that my A&T Renegade calves will weigh about 20-30 lbs. less on average out of the same cows than the CF Flex calves. So when you look at Renegades -4.6 bw and Flex's 7.1 bw epd you don't see anywhere near a 25 lb. difference. Why? Because epd's don't work that way. They work on head to head battles within contemporary groups. I totally agree with you on the type of cattle it takes to have a strong CE with 115 lb. birth weights. I think we can have moderate framed cattle that wean moderate to high numbers but still maintain the convenience traits that make the cow/calf man a profit.-XBAR- said:
My recommendation to anyone when breeding heifers would be to never go off of the numbers at this point but call the breeder of the bull or the owner and ask them how many 2 year olds have calved to the bull and what percentage were unassisted.
-XBAR- said:
Epd's are an attempt to eliminate the effects of environment and type of cows and non genetic factors when evaluating an animals performance and Saskvalley Navaho is a perfect example. He himself had a 114 bw but the genes he is passing on are about breed average with I would think a reasonable number of progeny.
CE is the % difference unassisted births when used over heifers. Not saskvalley heifers but any heifers in the breed. Interesting Taskforce and Yesterday are both been marketed as calving ease and have him quite close in the pedigree
I do think that American Epds are not as reliable as they could be though and are going to struggle to be while there are not a large enough proportion of the breed reporting useful data. Maybe this is why the asa includes the WHR requirement.
If you want meaningful EPDs focus on contemporary groups and build a bank of data in your herd by fully recording all the females particularly if carcass data is important for you. Their data will be floating in your herd for years to come but the handful of bulls you sell to commercial clients will never have any other data from progeny recorded.
I hope someday you will know what you have got!
RyanChandler
Well-known member
"He himself had a 114 bw but the genes he is passing on are about breed average with I would think a reasonable number of progeny."
The monstrous birthweight genes he passed on got his head cut off.
The monstrous birthweight genes he passed on got his head cut off.
