Using EPD's in a show?

[Doc]

I just got home from L'ville. I think we had a real good show. There was a BUNCH of babies & not near as many big hfrs. I can remember when if you brought a May baby , people thought you were crazy for bringing such a young calf. This year there was 3 classes of May babies.
I want to say that I think the Jack Ward did a pretty decent job. My problem is with him having a printout of the classes with the EPD's. Now I didn't see many of the classes , but when I did go up to the ring & listened to his reasons , I was bothered by the use of EPD's. I heard him say in one class that the reason he put a hfr. in 3rd place instead of 2nd was because the hfr had a birth EPD over 6.0 . On another hfr he said he was bothered by a hfr having a milk EPD with a number like that.
I know we have a birth wgt problem & all that. My concern is with the judge using the numbers without anyone ( by that I mean the exhibitors) having prior knowledge. Do we really want to go down that path where the ring is dictated by EPD's? I mean we all know how "ACCURATE" these numbers are. Was this a decision by our new Sec.? Was it a mix - up & he got something , he wasn't supposed to get? I don't know the answer, but maybe someone can enlighten me on this .

 

[ROAD WARRIOR]

This is a very very BIG sore spot with me! My very honest opinion is this - the judge should be there to judge the cattle in the ring, not a computer generated guess of what the calf will produce or be, based on information that has been manipulated to the point of being irrelavant. The fact is that cattle of showable age ( other than mature cows with calves on their side) have no accurracy in their EPD's even if the data reported was factual. A case in point here is a cow that is currently in cowboys yard waiting to be flushed. As a weanling heifer she had a milk EPD of -0, as a mature donor cow she now has a milk EPD of +28. She has produced 2 herd bulls and 6 daughters that are in purebred herds. We have so many people breeding cattle on a computer, stacking the numbers and turning in manipulated data. EPD's are a marketing tool plain and simple. Judge cattle not paper or get out of the ring and let someone that is capable do the job. RW

 

[shortdawg]

This is a very very BIG sore spot with me! My very honest opinion is this - the judge should be there to judge the cattle in the ring, not a computer generated guess of what the calf will produce or be, based on information that has been manipulated to the point of being irrelavant. The fact is that cattle of showable age ( other than mature cows with calves on their side) have no accurracy in their EPD's even if the data reported was factual. A case in point here is a cow that is currently in cowboys yard waiting to be flushed. As a weanling heifer she had a milk EPD of -0, as a mature donor cow she now has a milk EPD of +28. She has produced 2 herd bulls and 6 daughters that are in purebred herds. We have so many people breeding cattle on a computer, stacking the numbers and turning in manipulated data. EPD's are a marketing tool plain and simple. Judge cattle not paper or get out of the ring and let someone that is capable do the job. RW

Well said - we sure don't want to go down that road.

 

[ROAD WARRIOR]

Under our former exec sec I saw the whole EPD fallicy stressed to the point of insanity. Cattle would win shows based soley on their paper work, regardless of how crippled they were. Shows were judged way before the cattle ever came to town or hit the show arena. Judges were almost strongarmed into using the "correct" cattle to win the major shows, I lost a HUGE amount of respect for some judges and also breeders that the powers that be impossed their will on. I will give Chan Phillips credit, when they tried that on him at the national show he told them that he was sorting the cattle that day or they could find someone else. I've had alot of respect for him every since and would show under him any place, any time! RW

 

[JoeBnTN]

Having had the opportunity to judge a major show a few years ago that had data, I guess I look at it a little differently.  Like any thing else we use in evaluating cattle - frame score, weights, ultrasound data, etc. -  EPD's are a tool that has some value.  Is it the final answer, no but it has value.  And this wasn't the first time EPD's have been used- judges have been provided this data in many breeds for the past several years.  The key (in my opinion) is balancing what you can see in the animal with what you might expect from the genetics.

A few years ago I judged a breed show as part of a 3 man system where we were provided data.  Now the three of us were very different in our background and expectations - one was a producer of commercial bulls who sold cattle with great emphasis on performance data and EPD's, another was a major breeder in the breed we were judging and I was the "outsider" to the breed.  As I looked back on that experience I remember thinking that all three of us agreed pretty much on soundness and structure - what it looked like and how important it was.  It seemed to be the single most important thing to all three of us and the placing usually reflected this.  Outside of that our decisions were often based on which animals appeared to be higher performing - with two of us relying more on what we could see and one looking at what the data said.  For the most part visual appraisal won out, but when it was close we all three used the data to determine the difference.  It made for an interesting day with a few interesting placings, but by and large I really felt that the right cattle were near the top  After the show we were talking and all agreed this added something valuable to the experience, but that we should look at this as simply tool, not a means to an end.

To me the difference is that today we want our shows to be more of a “beauty contest” and don’t worry about any efforts at tying the show ring to the pasture.  Nothing wrong with that, it’s just the current fad we’re all involved in.  It wasn’t that long ago that judges would talk about bulls that looked like they could positively impact the commercial cattle industry.  With today’s show cattle being selected so much for maximums, instead of optimums, how often does anyone really feel that’s the case?  We all know that to get the bone, rib shape, muscle mass, and width of frame that wins today, we’ve had to accept 100 pound birth weights (and the resulting EPD’S) that go with it.  I seem to recall a couple of years ago when it was revealed that a top sire of show cattle was siring calves with birth weights  consistently in the 110-120 lb. range, no one on this board cared.  The answer most commonly given was that, as long as you knew it before you bred cows and were willing to take the chance, it was OK.  That’s fine – it’s your choice and your breeding program.  The problem is that for many who don’t stay as informed, the naming of an animal as “champion” at a major show like Louisville is like the “Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval” and these champions are the ideal for the breed as a whole.

Again, I wasn’t there and didn’t watch Jack sort the cattle, but if he was offered the data and chose to use it, I really don’t see it any different than looking at frame score, weight, etc.  in making his decisions.  If Jack uses data everyday in his evaluation of cattle (and those of you who Know Jack can answer that question) then why not let him use it in the ring?

Just my $.02 for the day.

 

[OH Breeder]

Doc,
I am with you. I know folks that weigh calves by eye and do'nt get actual bw. I do'nt think that EPD's belong in the show ring. As discussed in many threads prior there have been many a female that was eye appealing and was thought to be phenotypically appealing but never conceived a calf or produced anything. As RW said, what matters is real world performance.

 

[ROAD WARRIOR]

JoeBnTN - The only issue I have with your post is this - frame scores are actual measurements, weights are actual on a scale at the show. Ultra sound data I have some problems with for the fact I've seen way too much variation between techs (we once had a bull scanned at a sale he was in where he scanned a 17.4 in ribeye, great for the sale of the bull BUT a week later we had him rescanned by another tech along with his contemporary group and he scanned a 15.1) to base an actual oppinion on and of course EPD's are computer generated numbers that are based on the information that is put in whether it is factual or manipulated. Once again the age of animals that are shown is such that most only have interum EPDs which can change rapidly and drastically even from month to month and are based on parental averages. Not something that is physically measured or weighed. How many times have you seen a calf with "curve bending EPDs" fall clear out of bed when he actually sires calves and their data is recorded. Judge what is real and in the ring not speculated. RW

 

[linnettejane]

yeah...he also commented on how he hoped the owners would be cautious about what they bred a heifer too with numbers like that...i think that was the class i was in, or around, i heard it too...interesting i thought...using epd's...but probably dangerous also....just will add more fuel to the number fudging fire!  OOPS!  did i say that out loud? 

 

[Doc]

Again, I wasn’t there and didn’t watch Jack sort the cattle, but if he was offered the data and chose to use it, I really don’t see it any different than looking at frame score, weight, etc.  in making his decisions.  If Jack uses data everyday in his evaluation of cattle (and those of you who Know Jack can answer that question) then why not let him use it in the ring?

Just my $.02 for the day.

Just like RW said frame scores & wts taken that day are real numbers. EPD's (at least in the Shorthorn breed) are figment of someones imagination . Also, with Jack not being a Shorthorn breeder , how did he know what's an acceptable milk or birth EPD? I mean the EPD's in our breed for the most part are a joke . JMO

 

[Davis Shorthorns]

I guess that I might be the only one on here that believes this is a step in the right direction for the breed.  Now I know as well as anyone that the numbers are wrong, but if something is going to change then it is going to have to happen in the show ring.  Putting more of an emphases on real world characteristics even if it is to pick between two animals that are really close otherwise in my opinion is worth it.  Besides who in the shorthorn breed wouldn't like to have a set of numbers that we could actually use and believe??? 

 

[r.n.reed]

One thing to the credit of the heifer with the +6 BW epd, she probably had some honest data behind her.

 

[aj]

I guess I'm with Davis. For weaning weight epds I prefer a plus 20 to a plus 40 cause the plus 40 won't work in my enviroment. But dang...what worldly good is a plus 6 bwt epd? I know that sleividen guy destroyed everybodies confidence in epds with stunt they pulled but if a breed has epds they kinda have to go the results. I think the wda deal has killed the Shorthorn breed cause you have to lie about birth dates to compete. You have to full feed to compete in the wda number. Now we have a breed of cattle that that really perform under under pampered conditions but these cattle go to hell in pastures. In my biased opinion I'd like to see them throw out the wda figures.jmo

 

[frostback]

Bringing numbers into the shorthorn ring will only help the few large herds, who can manipulate the numbers. I dont think it will help the small 20 head herds at all. Getting better judges just might be the answere. The ones that do, and not teach, but then it is only one mans opinion that day. If you feel the breed needs to change it should start at your place. Breed what works for you or you will always be one or two generations behind what is wanted. Frostie

 

[JoeBnTN]

JoeBnTN - The only issue I have with your post is this - frame scores are actual measurements, weights are actual on a scale at the show. Ultra sound data I have some problems with for the fact I've seen way too much variation between techs (we once had a bull scanned at a sale he was in where he scanned a 17.4 in ribeye, great for the sale of the bull BUT a week later we had him rescanned by another tech along with his contemporary group and he scanned a 15.1) to base an actual opinion on and of course EPD's are computer generated numbers that are based on the information that is put in whether it is factual or manipulated. Once again the age of animals that are shown is such that most only have interim EPDs which can change rapidly and drastically even from month to month and are based on parental averages. Not something that is physically measured or weighed. How many times have you seen a calf with "curve bending EPDs" fall clear out of bed when he actually sires calves and their data is recorded. Judge what is real and in the ring not speculated. RW

RW,

I would agree with you if all measurements weren't biased and manipulated.  Back when frame score was a "big" issue, I used to be on the junior board and we were responsible for measuring all the cattle at the major shows.  I can't tell you of the number of breeders who would take forever to get the feet just right to maximize measurements - and it could make as much as an inch difference in height. One breeder even tried to get a heifer to stand on the brace bar in the floor to make her taller. And how many cattle are pumped with water to add weight?   I know of one Shorthorn breeder who brought a bull to Denver, took him to tie outs a little while before the show and filled him with water - well actually he over filled him.  He outweighed every bull in class by over 100 pounds, yet a Louisville in November he was the lightest bull there - I don't think that was real performance, do you?

My point is that if you use any data - it can (and likely will) be manipulated.   Should all shows use data - absolutely not.  But if it is simply one more tool to help with the appraisal process , I see no harm.  In almost every situation where I've seen it used, the data simply helps to separate animals that are very close in placings.  At a show like Louisville there will be 20-30 times during the show where 2-3 animals are very close and as a judge, any additional information I can get to help me make my decision is most welcome.

In the case of the heifer at Louisville, if I read correctly it was the difference between 2nd and 3rd.  Not that he moved one from 2nd to 10th because of the EPD, he simply used that information to help decide up or down one spot.  Sounds to me like he used the information provided wisely and properly.

 

[justintime]

I would hate to judge cattle with the EPDs being generated on our Canadian cattle by the ASA. Prior to our last two bull sales, we have got EPDs on all our bulls. They have been " unexplainable" to say the least. In one case, a breeder had 6 bulls in the test, that were sired by 5 different bulls. Their dams were also sired by 5 different bulls. All the EPDs , for every trait, were exactly the same. How can this be possible?

In my case, I had four ET full brothers in the test. Their BW EPDs were from 2.1 to 6.9. Their WW EPDs were from + 18 to + 41.  Can anyone explain this to me? There were many other cases where we just scratched our heads. The past two Executive Secretary's and the present one, Bert Moore, have not been able to explain this. Uluru ( on SP) did get all his cows registered in the ASA and his EPDs changed signifigantly. I have tried to understand even the numbers on American registered animals and I can always find some issues that seem strange to me. I have some donor cows with very low milk EPDs that I would hate to see them with more milk.

EPDS may have some accuracy in some breeds, but I think it has not been accomplished yet in a smaller breed like Shorthorns.

 

[knabe]

that's why i would like access to raw data rather than just the appearance at the very least that some breeders appear to be more influential with the numbers than others.  perhaps the epds are colinear with sale price than actual performance.

 

[M Bar]

i will chime in and say "thank you" to Mr. Ward for even looking at the information given to him by our ASA staff and furthermore using it to help him formulate an opinion on certain animals.  Since road warrior plays in a different breed that is much more driven by data than the shorthorn breed, I will say that any data that we (shorthorn breeders)  can use to base decisions on is good.  Even if the data is not completely 100% accurate, I will ask, what the heck else  in the show world regarding your animal is accurate?  Hair, glue, corn, air, oil, feet trimming, white touch up, coolers, alterating surgery...the list goes on and on.  Mr Ward didn't have to use the data, but he did.  Good for him.  If ya'll use the Denver champion bull because he wins, and if he has a BW EPD of +10.0 will it matter to you?  To some breeders it will, to some it wont.    I for one won't back down in a show if they bring out the EPD sheet to Denver.  Kinda like the other big breed a few years back when they started ultrasounding show animals.  Amazingly, the first year the yearling heifers had 1 inch of fat, the next year, they didn't.  Still looked the same, just had a little help from some conveniently given injections.  Sorry, I will start getting in trouble if I spout too much.  EPD's at a shorthorn show???  I say let's go for it.

 

[JoeBnTN]

Troy,

I have to agree with you.  If you wonder why some have expressed concern about the direction the breed is going with the use of EPD's, I'd suggest you go to the ASA web site and look at the data from Louisville.  While I didn't take the time to average all the cattle shown - a quick glance tells me that the average BW EPD is likely to in the +4 lb. range with a number of cattle exceeding 6 lbs.  In looking at some of those and having had the benefit of using similar genetics, I'd say the numbers are pretty accurate in predicting potential.   That's a problem brewing not too far down the road.  I agree fully with those who say if you know the facts and chose to use the bull that's your problem.  I'm concerned about the breeder who decides to use a bull because he wins a big show, thinking he's the ideal type only to end up with bunch of dead calves or ruined cows because he wasn't prepared for the train wreck.  The fact that Jack Ward decided to address the issue to a degree is simply his way of finding the animal he considers closest to ideal that day.

And the more I think about it- what's so sacred about visual appraisal - it too is simply a prediction of an animals true potential - based on how they look.  There are numerous national champions in all breeds that looked perfect in the ring and turned out to be duds in the pasture.  Besides visual appraisal is based solely on one person's ability to accurate "see" cattle and then rank them based on his/her own biases and preferences, i.e. when I judge cattle I'm hard on structure - they can't move they can't win; others don't seem to be as concerned.  Two judges, two opinions.  I just find it interesting that many of those who decry the use of data are first to cry foul when a judge (using only his/her eyes) picks one that doesn't match their view of ideal.

This is obviously a topic that we'll never get full agreement on, but it is healthy debate.  The show ring and the type of cattle that have excelled in it have varied in size and type for many years, maybe this is just another evolution in the ever changing environment we all call cattle shows.

 

[Show Heifer]

EPD's are a tool. Use them to the best of your ability and use common sense. I know of a bull that went from a 1.5 BW EPD to a 6, yet his offspring (from owners herd) never seemed to weigh much, nor did their EPD's reflect that.
Weights and frame scores are "actual measurements"??? Are you kidding me? RW, you know as well as I do, people stand on the scale (oops), pull down on the halters (did I do that?), pump with water (but they weren't drinking) and hap-hazardly use the frame stick to get the number they want. So that is more accurate than EPD's? Doubtful.

It is the show people who insist that they are producing the type of cattle that "are useful in the real world" and "can out do any regular feedlot steer in a real feedlot", yet when a "real world" tool is applied to the show ring everyone squawks about how awful it is. Make up your mind people, you can't have it both ways.

To clarify: Way to go Judge!! It is about time someone tried to place the cattle by not only their pumped water weights, popped hair, fake birthdates, and halter holder, but actually  use something more "real world and accepted"!!

Now if I can just get them to laugh at "open, ready to flush" (or the many variations that is so often put in sale catalogs!!!

 

[simtal]

you can't have it both ways.

well said