Everyone likes baby pics

[JoeBnTN]

We all like to see the "little ones" so here's one we like - he's a March Salute.  We were going to keep him as a bull prospect, but when Salute went to a +9 on BW we're thinking about steering him. He's probably a little big for a club steer but he has a great hip and top.

 

[red]

very nice Joe! Might be a tad leggy but may grow into them too. Love his markings!

Red

 

[justintime]

I am really having some issues with the "new" Shorthorn  EPDs. Here are the EPDs I just received on 3 ET full brothers sired by Salute:

Tattoo                CE        MCE      BW          WW                  YW[/b]    Milk

  17T                          2.5        0.9      -0.4          4.2                  9.0                1.1

  18T                          0.0      0.0        4.6        15.4                  23.2              1.4

  20T                            4.7      2.8        1.8        23.1                31.1                3.1

Can anyone explain these numbers to me. 17T weighed 105 at birth 18T weighed 102 lb at birth, and 20T weighed 90lb at birth and was born a little premature. 17T and 18T were in our recent bull sale. 17T was one of the top performing bulls in the group and weighed 1380 lb  at sale time. He gained 3.91 lb per day during the test. 18T gained 3.16 lb per day and weighed 1245 at sale time. 20T was not in the bull test but he was the smallest bull of the 3 at all stages of his life.  How do you expain these results from this set of numbers. Could you tell which is the better bull by the numbers.

17T was probably the best bull I have ever raised and he sold for $20,000. 18T was also a very good bull and he sold for $3300. 20T was not in the bull sale.

Our bull test had bulls from 5 herds. When we were putting our sale catalogue together, I requested EPDs on all the bulls from the ASA. One contributor had 6 bulls on test. They were sired by 4 different sires, and their dams were sired by 5 different bulls as well. The EPDs for all 6 bulls... for all traits were exactly the same. That is, these 6 bulls had exactly the same EPDs for CE,  BW, WW, YW and Milk. The sires were completely non related and when I checked out the sire`s EPDs, there was a wide variation.
Another bull contibutor also had 6 bulls in the test. All of his EPDs were also exactly the same, except for one bull which had much better numbers than the rest. He was very closely related to some of his other bulls.
After consulting the ASA office and trying to make any sense of the EPD numbers on ALL the bulls, we decided not to include them in our bull sale catalogue. Our reasoning was that if we did not understand them ourselves, how could we explain them to anyone else. We had lots of people ask about the EPDs of the sale bulls and we had to just say that we had some problems with the data we received, which was most unfortunate.

I just received EPDs on all my calves born in 2007. To be frank, after looking at all the EPD numbers on all the calves, I am more confused than ever. The calves from the best milking females have the lowest Milk EPDs. I could never pick out my best performing calves if I selected them by their growth EPDs. I am very confused, to say the least.

Joe, in regards to your Salute bull who is pictured, he looks very good. He may be too tall for the clubby steer market as you mentioned. I would agree with you that he has a great hip and top. Mine do as well. I guess I am a little surprised at the growth my Salute calves have, Mine are some of my biggest at both weaning and yearling. We have had 10 Salute calves born so far, and all have been unassisted at birth. My BWs have been between 90 lb and 110 lb. They have tremendous carcass traits from the ones we have had the Ultrasound data collected.

 

[JoeBnTN]

I am really having some issues with the "new" Shorthorn  EPDs. Here are the EPDs I just received on 3 ET full brothers sired by Salute:

Tattoo                 CE        MCE       BW          WW                  YW[/b]     Milk

  17T                          2.5        0.9       -0.4          4.2                   9.0                1.1

  18T                          0.0       0.0         4.6         15.4                  23.2               1.4

  20T                            4.7       2.8         1.8        23.1                31.1                3.1

Can anyone explain these numbers to me. 17T weighed 105 at birth 18T weighed 102 lb at birth, and 20T weighed 90lb at birth and was born a little premature. 17T and 18T were in our recent bull sale. 17T was one of the top performing bulls in the group and weighed 1380 lb  at sale time. He gained 3.91 lb per day during the test. 18T gained 3.16 lb per day and weighed 1245 at sale time. 20T was not in the bull test but he was the smallest bull of the 3 at all stages of his life.  How do you expain these results from this set of numbers. Could you tell which is the better bull by the numbers.

17T was probably the best bull I have ever raised and he sold for $20,000. 18T was also a very good bull and he sold for $3300. 20T was not in the bull sale.

Our bull test had bulls from 5 herds. When we were putting our sale catalogue together, I requested EPDs on all the bulls from the ASA. One contributor had 6 bulls on test. They were sired by 4 different sires, and their dams were sired by 5 different bulls as well. The EPDs for all 6 bulls... for all traits were exactly the same. That is, these 6 bulls had exactly the same EPDs for CE,  BW, WW, YW and Milk. The sires were completely non related and when I checked out the sire`s EPDs, there was a wide variation.
Another bull contibutor also had 6 bulls in the test. All of his EPDs were also exactly the same, except for one bull which had much better numbers than the rest. He was very closely related to some of his other bulls.
After consulting the ASA office and trying to make any sense of the EPD numbers on ALL the bulls, we decided not to include them in our bull sale catalogue. Our reasoning was that if we did not understand them ourselves, how could we explain them to anyone else. We had lots of people ask about the EPDs of the sale bulls and we had to just say that we had some problems with the data we received, which was most unfortunate.

I just received EPDs on all my calves born in 2007. To be frank, after looking at all the EPD numbers on all the calves, I am more confused than ever. The calves from the best milking females have the lowest Milk EPDs. I could never pick out my best performing calves if I selected them by their growth EPDs. I am very confused, to say the least.

Joe, in regards to your Salute bull who is pictured, he looks very good. He may be too tall for the clubby steer market as you mentioned. I would agree with you that he has a great hip and top. Mine do as well. I guess I am a little surprised at the growth my Salute calves have, Mine are some of my biggest at both weaning and yearling. We have had 10 Salute calves born so far, and all have been unassisted at birth. My BWs have been between 90 lb and 110 lb. They have tremendous carcass traits from the ones we have had the Ultrasound data collected.

JiT,

You're right these don't make any sense.  Since none of the bulls have any offspring their EPD's would be based heavily on pedigree estimates with a little influence from the animals individual performance.  Since they are 3 full sibs then the numbers should be MUCH closer than they are.  Because they are ET's then their performance would have been affected by their recipient dams and the variation here should NOT be reflected in the individual animals.  With no daughters in production the MILK EPD should have been identical.  It looks to me like there has been a miscalculation somewhere or a missed data entry input.  As it is, I agree that the data you have is pretty useless.  Have you talked to Greg at the ASA about this?

If (and I say IF) these have been actual miscalculations by the system it makes me wonder if we have more problems than we realize.  We've got to address the BW issue in this breed very soon - BUT we have to be sure our data is right before we take this on.  For me, with no data a calf like the one above is an easy sell as a herd bull prospect.  But the minute I put his +6.5 BW EPD in front of a buyer, they turn and walk away, no matter how good they are.  After hearing what happened to you with your 3 ET brothers, now I wonder if we need to question the original recalculation of the breed's data base that moved bulls like Salute into the extreme BW category.

Anyone else had problems with EPD's that looked way out of line?

 

[Jill]

I don't know how Shorthorn's work, but I was just told by the Maine office that the numbers for an embryo calf aren't reflected in the EPD's, therefore if Shorthorn's work the same way your 3 bulls should have identical EPD since they are all on recips and not out of a natural mating.

 

[shortyisqueen]

I, too, think the Shorthorn EPD's have gotten a little strange...and useless.

I know bulls with a 0.6 EPD that others have reported 140 pound calves off of. Shouldn't a bull with a 0.6 EPD NEVER  have an 140 lb. calf?

Our best cows, who normally wean 800 lb plus calves, have dropped to having average milk EPDs. When I first starting using Shorthorn EPDs, if a cow had an average or negative milk EPD, it corresponded quite well to the cow. Now, I can't tell!!!

Although EPDs are meant to be used within breed, I think the best we can do now is attempt to use them within herd. However, it does look particularily pathetic when a commercial breeder picks up an Angus catalogue with a +100 in the WW column and then picks up a Shorthorn catalogue and sees a +13 in the WW column! Just gives us a bad image!!!

 

[justintime]

I understand that ET calves can throw some issues into how EPDs are calculated , but to me, they should be relatively close, at least until calves from each of them enter the system. I did speak with Greg about this, and he did mention that they were having some problems with Canadian born ET calves. I mentioned to him that both the sire and dam of these calves are registered in the ASA herdbook. He said the EPDs should have been calculated the same way they would be if they had been US born then.

I found Greg to be very helpful and he said he was going to take this issue up with Colorado State, who are now doing the ASA EPD calculations. That was over a month ago, and I have not had any more information, until yesterday when I received the EPDs for my entire 2007 calf crop. In looking at the numbers on my calves, I really have to question many of them. That said, how am I supposed to believe any of them are correct, when we have such a spread in the numbers between 3 full sibs.  Here are the EPDs for both sire and dam:
                           CE               BW                              WW                            YW                    Milk

Sire                         -12.1            9.6                             26                               37                      2
Dam                        - 1.8             3.2                             16                               24                      8

The CE EPD for both sire and dam are both negative numbers, yet all three calves are 0 to + 4.7 for this trait. BW EPDs are +9.6 to +3.2 for sire and dam yet these 3 full sibs are between -0.4 to 4.6. All other EPDs for other traits show similar variations.

These EPD numbers are confusing enough, but I am having majpr issues with almost all the EPDs generated on our 2007 calf crop. As I mentioned before, we had many bulls from widely different bloodlines, with identical EPDs for each and every trait. That hardly seems possible to me!

I know of another Canadian breeder who has  been trying to develop a herd with great EPDs. He has been very disappointed with the EPDs his calves have been receiving despite being from some US genetics that have excellent numbers. Many of his sires and dams are American based in their genetic make up. He had never been able to get EPDs anywheres close to what the sire and dam had, on his calves. Last fall after he received his EPDs on his calves, he registered all the dams in the ASA herdbook and re- submitted the same data on his calves for EPD calculations again. When he received his EPDs ( for the second time) his Numbers were signifigantly better. This again suggests to me that something is screwy in the EPD system. To me, an EPD should be the same, no matter where it is born, providing it is the same breed. I can understand some discrepencies if there are no records in the system for some of the parents bloodlines. In the cases I have mentioned here, almost all parents are ASA registered, yet there is major variations in the EPDs generated.

I am concerned about this, as EPDs are an extremely important tool in generating sales especially to other countries. We need to have a EPD system that we can believe in and it should not lead one to question if it is accurate or not. Right now, I question the system when I look at my numbers. Maybe I am the only one who has had these issues, I do not know.

 

[showsteerdlux]

I don't know how Shorthorn's work, but I was just told by the Maine office that the numbers for an embryo calf aren't reflected in the EPD's, therefore if Shorthorn's work the same way your 3 bulls should have identical EPD since they are all on recips and not out of a natural mating.

Angus are the same way on et's as maines if I'm not mistaken.

 

[JoeBnTN]

I, too, think the Shorthorn EPD's have gotten a little strange...and useless.

I know bulls with a 0.6 EPD that others have reported 140 pound calves off of. Shouldn't a bull with a 0.6 EPD NEVER  have an 140 lb. calf?

Our best cows, who normally wean 800 lb plus calves, have dropped to having average milk EPDs. When I first starting using Shorthorn EPDs, if a cow had an average or negative milk EPD, it corresponded quite well to the cow. Now, I can't tell!!!

Although EPDs are meant to be used within breed, I think the best we can do now is attempt to use them within herd. However, it does look particularly pathetic when a commercial breeder picks up an Angus catalogue with a +100 in the WW column and then picks up a Shorthorn catalogue and sees a +13 in the WW column! Just gives us a bad image!!!

I don't know that they are useless, but in the Shorthorn breed they are less reliable than in some other breeds.  However their reliability doesn't have anything to do with the calculations themselves, but rather than with the data (or lack of it provided) by breeders.  The reliability of the data is directly correlated to the number of animals that have accurate data reported. The primary factors that influence the EPD are the animals individual genetics, their own unique performance (both for themselves and their offspring) and the performance of their siblings. 

If you look at the accuracy levels for the majority of cattle in the breed they are very low because the number of observations (animals) reported is very low.  This is compounded by the fact that many breeders don't report all their calves.  This dramatically distorts the data.  Quick example - bull A sires 10 calves in a herd, at weaning 4 are outstanding and average over 600 lbs. , the other 6 are not very good and weigh less than 500 lbs. average.  If he only turns in the 4 good calves - bull A looks good, but if all 10 are turned in... well he doesn't look as good.  This is even more important with a trait like BW.  If producers only turn in those with"good" weights, they mislead everyone about the bulls true potential. Because many of the extreme BW calves don't survive, their information is rarely turned in.  In the example you mentioned, you said there was a reported 140 lb. calf - reported to who - the neighbors or the ASA?  My sense is that most of the really large ones that don't survive don't make it into the data base either.

The milk EPD is even more of a challenge as it's not as literal a number as you might think.  To give you some idea - if one cow gave her calf a gallon a day of milk that had the nutritional value of water and another cow gave her calf a half gallon of milk that was high in protein, fats, etc...which one has the better "milk" EPD?  But that's a long discussion and if you want to know more, just let me know offline.

 

[JoeBnTN]

I understand that ET calves can throw some issues into how EPDs are calculated , but to me, they should be relatively close, at least until calves from each of them enter the system. I did speak with Greg about this, and he did mention that they were having some problems with Canadian born ET calves. I mentioned to him that both the sire and dam of these calves are registered in the ASA herdbook. He said the EPDs should have been calculated the same way they would be if they had been US born then.

I found Greg to be very helpful and he said he was going to take this issue up with Colorado State, who are now doing the ASA EPD calculations. That was over a month ago, and I have not had any more information, until yesterday when I received the EPDs for my entire 2007 calf crop. In looking at the numbers on my calves, I really have to question many of them. That said, how am I supposed to believe any of them are correct, when we have such a spread in the numbers between 3 full sibs.  Here are the EPDs for both sire and dam:
                           CE               BW                              WW                            YW                    Milk

Sire                         -12.1            9.6                             26                               37                      2
Dam                        - 1.8             3.2                             16                               24                      8

The CE EPD for both sire and dam are both negative numbers, yet all three calves are 0 to + 4.7 for this trait. BW EPDs are +9.6 to +3.2 for sire and dam yet these 3 full sibs are between -0.4 to 4.6. All other EPDs for other traits show similar variations.

These EPD numbers are confusing enough, but I am having majpr issues with almost all the EPDs generated on our 2007 calf crop. As I mentioned before, we had many bulls from widely different bloodlines, with identical EPDs for each and every trait. That hardly seems possible to me!

I know of another Canadian breeder who has been trying to develop a herd with great EPDs. He has been very disappointed with the EPDs his calves have been receiving despite being from some US genetics that have excellent numbers. Many of his sires and dams are American based in their genetic make up. He had never been able to get EPDs anywheres close to what the sire and dam had, on his calves. Last fall after he received his EPDs on his calves, he registered all the dams in the ASA herdbook and re- submitted the same data on his calves for EPD calculations again. When he received his EPDs ( for the second time) his Numbers were significantly better. This again suggests to me that something is screwy in the EPD system. To me, an EPD should be the same, no matter where it is born, providing it is the same breed. I can understand some discrepancies if there are no records in the system for some of the parents bloodlines. In the cases I have mentioned here, almost all parents are ASA registered, yet there is major variations in the EPDs generated.

I am concerned about this, as EPDs are an extremely important tool in generating sales especially to other countries. We need to have a EPD system that we can believe in and it should not lead one to question if it is accurate or not. Right now, I question the system when I look at my numbers. Maybe I am the only one who has had these issues, I do not know.

JiT,

After rereading your post I went back to some old notes to see if I could figure out what was going on and I can't.  Basically as we said yesterday, for full sibs that have yet to produce offspring EPD's can vary slightly due to individual performance.  However, for ET"s the recipient dam is considered to be an outside influence on performance so the individual animals performance numbers are NOT considered and the EPD's should be the same.  The only thing that I know that can change that is if you use put an egg back in the donor dam and let her raise her "own" calf.  In that case the calf would be considered a natural calf (even though it was product of a flush) and the in divdual performance would be factored in.  That's all I can figure, unless it's realted to the second part of your question.

Your issue with the differences between ASA and CSA EPD's is one that creates lots of issues.  Logic would lead you to believe that performance evaluations should be the same north and south of the border.  That assumes one thing - that all the cattle are in a "universal" database, which they are not.  For that reason, comparisons across the two data bases is difficult.  If memory serves me correctly the two associations have different baseline years, thus they start out with different figures, then the comparisons are run against two mostly different populations.  The result is two sets of numbers for the same animal.  We saw this a few years ago when we brought in a Paint Earth cow with Canadian papers.  Her EPD's weren't very good (mostly pedigree estimates) but she had raised two great calves.  We entered her in the ASA book and after tow calves for us, her numbers shot way up.  The cow didn't change - just the peer group. 

Hopefully Greg and the ASA staff can figure out what's going on or at least offer an explanation we can understand.

Anyway, this is a great discussion.  Thanks for going down this road! (pop)

JoeB

 

[uluru]

I hope that when Greg speaks at the Annual Meeting of the CSA in June he can explain to us what is happening with the EPD's for Canadian registered shorthorns because I cannot make any sense out of mine either.

JIT as you know EPD's were a major tool for me when I was starting my herd.
I studied them extensively and was probably as well versed on them as most Shorthorn breeders in Canada,  (that is except for you JIT)

It would appear that for us in Canada to get the numbers for the offspring to be properly reflective of the US registered sires and dams that we have used we will have to register our Shorthorns in the US ASA system.

That will be a duplicate expense that no one needs and surely in this day and age of computer skills we should be able to bring the two systems, baseline starting dates and whatever together for Canadian registered offspring of US registered sires and dams.

I am confused and I no longer place much value on the EPD's for recently raised Canadian registered Shorthorns.
We need to get this fixed if we are to sell many Shorthorns to the US marketplace,
even though we did well in that regard at our recent Sun Country Shorthorn Bull Sale.

The ASA and the CSA need to get their act together on this one to help with the credibility of the systems and results.

Hopefully someone is listening.

Unfortunately I am not sure they are.

 

[uluru]

Sorry for high jacking this thread with my concern about our EPD's

 

[GONEWEST]

In our Simmental EPD's, to figure the numbers for a calf that has no performance or progeny history, it'll be really close to averaging the sire and dam EPD's. ALL ET sibs will have the exact same EPD's before any progeny data is collected. That makes absolutely zero sense to me. As does why the Shorthorn Association would use an EPD model from Colorado State when other Universities have been in the EPD calculating business for decades.

 

[simtal]

In order to rectify the epd situation the shorthorn assoc needs breeders to go to a total herd reporting program.  where data on all calves are sent in.  all i can say is good luck with that, cause most shorty breeders could care less about epds.  Some breeders probably don't know they exist (extreme I know, but true).

 

[shortyjock89]

In order to rectify the epd situation the shorthorn assoc needs breeders to go to a total herd reporting program.  where data on all calves are sent in.  all i can say is good luck with that, cause most shorty breeders could care less about epds.  Some breeders probably don't know they exist (extreme I know, but true).

We have Whole Herd Reporting (WHR).  Good luck getting accurate info from most Shorthorn breeders though...

 

[Doc]

I'm not on WHR, I use too many of my reg. cows as recips & so there is no benefit for me . I do report at least every birthweight & half the time it doesn't get on the papers. The thing I never have understood is why you can register a 7/8 calf for $11 , but if I use a 7/8 bull on my purebred cows it costs me $25 to register the calves. Now talk about a real incentive to upgrade your herd & use a 7/8 bull that sure isn't it.

 

[red]

my all time favorite was when I turned in a BW of 150 (yep) & the assoc told me that was too high for the computer program & it would throw off the bull's EPD's. I said that was the weight & I wanted it as that.

Red

sorry we hijacked this so bad!

 

[JoeBnTN]

my all time favorite was when I turned in a BW of 150 (yep) & the assoc told me that was too high for the computer program & it would throw off the bull's EPD's. I said that was the weight & I wanted it as that.

Red

sorry we hijacked this so bad!

No apologies necessary.  From the number of people who've viewed this discussion we obviously hit a nerve.  As you can tell this is a hot button issue with me and it's something that has to be addressed.  This is one subject that can go on and on.

Anyway, I'm just glad it went down a path that some folks could value.  Have a great day!

 

[garybob]

In order to rectify the epd situation the shorthorn assoc needs breeders to go to a total herd reporting program.  where data on all calves are sent in.  all i can say is good luck with that, cause most shorty breeders could care less about epds.  Some breeders probably don't know they exist (extreme I know, but true).

We have Whole Herd Reporting (WHR).  Good luck getting accurate info from most Shorthorn breeders though...

Is that something we should be proud of?

GB

 

[shortyjock89]

In order to rectify the epd situation the shorthorn assoc needs breeders to go to a total herd reporting program.  where data on all calves are sent in.  all i can say is good luck with that, cause most shorty breeders could care less about epds.  Some breeders probably don't know they exist (extreme I know, but true).

We have Whole Herd Reporting (WHR).  Good luck getting accurate info from most Shorthorn breeders though...

Is that something we should be proud of?

GB

Definitely not GB.  I was just saying that we DO have a total herd reporting program....not that it's utilized enough..