JoeBnTN
Well-known member
- Joined
- Mar 10, 2008
- Messages
- 258
Not sure if I should have posted this in JiT’s bull sale post or in the “Schrag bull” post below, but since the topic of calving ease and birth weight is running through both threads and it’s that time of year for most of us, I’ll thought I’d just start a new one here.
When you bring up the subject of calving ease and birth weight (at least in the Shorthorn breed) you are certain of only one thing – a diversity of opinions! While few would debate that the birth weight of Shorthorns has been going up for the better part of the past two decades, not everyone agrees it’s a problem. For some, especially those who may have a tendency toward the show ring, selection pressures have focused on total growth. Whether that growth was measured in frame size or weight, the demand for an animal to fulfill its maximum potential has led many to accept an increase in birth weight in order to achieve the desired level of performance. The economics of this market segment, where a single animal may determine financial success or failure, provide the incentive for “risk and reward” selection and an acceptable level of loss due to their choice of genetics.
For those breeders who have developed a more commercially oriented marketplace, their customer base demands an animal designed to optimize performance. These cattle are expected to be efficient on forages, low input and problem free. Their profit/loss profile is based on each animal achieving its optimum level of performance and contributing to the total revenue. Their needs are different and accordingly, their genetic and phenotypic selections are different.
When we add the distinct differences and needs of our neighbors to the north, where the environmental and economic selection pressures still favor a larger framed, higher performing animal, we find these cattle to often be bigger outlined, naturally stouter structured with more true volume and capacity. Accordingly their acceptable birth weights may prove to be slightly higher than their American counterparts. Yet, as importantly they want a vigorous, healthy calf that can thrive in harsher conditions, yet this level of vigor is negatively correlated with significantly heavier birth weights, adding another dimension to the calf size debate.
Interestingly the Shorthorn breed has the genetic diversity to satisfy the needs of each unique marketplace, providing breeders with the genetics needed to allow them to produce cattle that satisfy their own interests and allow them to make a profit.
But as JiT has referenced, the issue with the use of EPD’s in selection for the Shorthorn breed is indeed real and the inability for breeders to fully rely on their accuracy restricts their use and limits their value to all producers. There seems to be little doubt that much of the problem stems from the lack of accurate reporting of data, to assure that the calculations are truly reflective of a sire or dam’s production ability. When only those cattle that have acceptable numbers are reported, it severely restricts the validity and use of the information. Whether it’s the owner of a “show ring sire” refusing to turn in birth weights over a 100 pounds or the breeder of a “calving ease” bull omitting those calves that weaned at 400 pounds, the lack of complete and accurate data is hurting the breed.
I’m in agreement with JiT, that EPD’s alone don’t tell the whole story and are simply another important tool to use in selection. For many years I had the opportunity to work with one of the Southeast’s largest performance Angus herds – a herd that had been closed for 20 years. When the decision was made to use outside genetics, we quickly found out that, even in the Angus breed, with tremendous performance records, that the numbers only told part of the story. Using bulls with nearly identical performance profiles, we found great variability in phenotype and performance – including calving ease. Some of the bigger framed, later maturing bulls had the highest birth weights AND the easiest calving. Some of the light birth weight bulls – those that produced the smaller framed, muscle bulls gave us real problems – yet the calves all weighted 75-85 pounds – they were just too wide and too stout. The same holds true in the Shorthorn breed and I think the variability may be widest between American and Canadian cattle. Over the past decade the cattle we’ve brought in from Canada are typically wider made with more rib and bone. At the same time they are probably a little coarse and not as “pretty” as our US bred cattle. Once in production, the Canadian cows seem to handle a larger calf easier and birth weight is less of an issue.
Looking at where we are today, it would appear that for most - the focus should be on developing those cattle that best meet their environment and their production goals. With the diversity inherent in our cattle industry, the genetics exist that should enable any breeder to meet their (and their customers) needs. The old saying that “one size fits all” is certainly not true in the cattle business and any breeder who thinks that they can design one animal that will meet the environmental, production and management needs of everyone in the industry is fooling themselves.
When you bring up the subject of calving ease and birth weight (at least in the Shorthorn breed) you are certain of only one thing – a diversity of opinions! While few would debate that the birth weight of Shorthorns has been going up for the better part of the past two decades, not everyone agrees it’s a problem. For some, especially those who may have a tendency toward the show ring, selection pressures have focused on total growth. Whether that growth was measured in frame size or weight, the demand for an animal to fulfill its maximum potential has led many to accept an increase in birth weight in order to achieve the desired level of performance. The economics of this market segment, where a single animal may determine financial success or failure, provide the incentive for “risk and reward” selection and an acceptable level of loss due to their choice of genetics.
For those breeders who have developed a more commercially oriented marketplace, their customer base demands an animal designed to optimize performance. These cattle are expected to be efficient on forages, low input and problem free. Their profit/loss profile is based on each animal achieving its optimum level of performance and contributing to the total revenue. Their needs are different and accordingly, their genetic and phenotypic selections are different.
When we add the distinct differences and needs of our neighbors to the north, where the environmental and economic selection pressures still favor a larger framed, higher performing animal, we find these cattle to often be bigger outlined, naturally stouter structured with more true volume and capacity. Accordingly their acceptable birth weights may prove to be slightly higher than their American counterparts. Yet, as importantly they want a vigorous, healthy calf that can thrive in harsher conditions, yet this level of vigor is negatively correlated with significantly heavier birth weights, adding another dimension to the calf size debate.
Interestingly the Shorthorn breed has the genetic diversity to satisfy the needs of each unique marketplace, providing breeders with the genetics needed to allow them to produce cattle that satisfy their own interests and allow them to make a profit.
But as JiT has referenced, the issue with the use of EPD’s in selection for the Shorthorn breed is indeed real and the inability for breeders to fully rely on their accuracy restricts their use and limits their value to all producers. There seems to be little doubt that much of the problem stems from the lack of accurate reporting of data, to assure that the calculations are truly reflective of a sire or dam’s production ability. When only those cattle that have acceptable numbers are reported, it severely restricts the validity and use of the information. Whether it’s the owner of a “show ring sire” refusing to turn in birth weights over a 100 pounds or the breeder of a “calving ease” bull omitting those calves that weaned at 400 pounds, the lack of complete and accurate data is hurting the breed.
I’m in agreement with JiT, that EPD’s alone don’t tell the whole story and are simply another important tool to use in selection. For many years I had the opportunity to work with one of the Southeast’s largest performance Angus herds – a herd that had been closed for 20 years. When the decision was made to use outside genetics, we quickly found out that, even in the Angus breed, with tremendous performance records, that the numbers only told part of the story. Using bulls with nearly identical performance profiles, we found great variability in phenotype and performance – including calving ease. Some of the bigger framed, later maturing bulls had the highest birth weights AND the easiest calving. Some of the light birth weight bulls – those that produced the smaller framed, muscle bulls gave us real problems – yet the calves all weighted 75-85 pounds – they were just too wide and too stout. The same holds true in the Shorthorn breed and I think the variability may be widest between American and Canadian cattle. Over the past decade the cattle we’ve brought in from Canada are typically wider made with more rib and bone. At the same time they are probably a little coarse and not as “pretty” as our US bred cattle. Once in production, the Canadian cows seem to handle a larger calf easier and birth weight is less of an issue.
Looking at where we are today, it would appear that for most - the focus should be on developing those cattle that best meet their environment and their production goals. With the diversity inherent in our cattle industry, the genetics exist that should enable any breeder to meet their (and their customers) needs. The old saying that “one size fits all” is certainly not true in the cattle business and any breeder who thinks that they can design one animal that will meet the environmental, production and management needs of everyone in the industry is fooling themselves.
and that is a good thing
