GONEWEST said:
Who told you that EPD's were a good tool to help you select animals? Or was it just something you came up with on your own? Just wondering why you're the only one who has any confidence in them other than the rocket scientists at the breed associations and the academia.
I had promised myself I was going to stay out of this any more - I'd said enough and am smart enough to know that reasonable people can disagree. But Gonewest I think the last part of your post is a cheap shot at those who don't agree with you.
I can't speak for ShowHeifer but I will speak for me. But first my "credentials" - I'm a 4th generation beef cattle producer and my family has been in the Shorthorn breed (and a few others) for more than 70 years. In college I was one of top individuals in judging at the National Contest and was high individual in cattle evaluation (where you visually estimate the carcass potential of cattle scored against their ACTUAL slaughter data). Later in grad school I worked on the USDA research that helped redesign the feeder calf grading system and coached a winning college judging team. At the University I was part of the group that selected genetics for one of the Southeast’s top performance Angus herds (mostly from “show” bulls). I’ve judged shows across the country, including Louisville, Denver, Houston, state fairs and national/regional shows for more than a dozen breeds. Along the way we’ve had a couple of National Champions, several All-Americans and sale toppers from Tennessee to Denver. One of our All-American show bulls ended up on the Oregon-Washington range where he sired range bull winners for several years. I offer that as means to say that I’m one of those “rocket scientists” from academia that you talk about, but I’m first and foremost a cattleman – and I DO value performance data.
The problem with this discussion is that is always seems to go to the extreme – on both sides. Genetic evaluations are just another tool that can and should help breeders make better decisions. Like visual appraisal, individual performance data, ultrasound, etc. these tools can help you make the most informed decision possible. But just like single trait selection – too much emphasis and you have a train wreck. The basic question at the start of this was should EPD’s be used as PART of the process – not should EPD’s be the sole factor in placing cattle. When I judge a show I try to make the best possible decisions, and if there is data that can help, I want to use it. But as I said before it doesn’t make my decisions, it only helps with close placings.
The other issue that seems to find its way into this thread is the age old “show” cattle are different than “real” cattle. We had a very healthy discussion on this subject a year ago and it pops up from time to time. It seems to me is that far too many don’t appreciate how the show ring has transformed over the years. It wasn’t that long ago that the top show bulls were the top sires for commercial bulls. Bulls like Pine Drive Big Sky, Enforcer 107H, several of the L1 Domino bulls, and Mill Brook Ransom G9 2975 were champions in the ring, produced champions and produced viable commercial bulls in their respective breed. Today show ring bulls usually don’t match that level of success. Why? The traits that have become dominate in the show ring are often in opposition to the practical traits needed in the commercial sector.
Does that mean that this generation of show ring cattle is “right” and past generations were “wrong”? I don’t think so – we’re just at the end of the pendulum swing that has impacted the show ring for more than 50 years. And if history repeats itself again (and I’ll bet it will) the show ring will soon be swing back toward the middle. Part of that “reversion” may be the current desire to add more practicality to the show ring. Again, I’m not suggesting it’s good or bad – it’s just the way the business has worked for more than 50 years.
Where I have the most basic problem with this discussion however is the belief that “real world” factors no longer have a place in the show ring. For most of my life the show ring was the picture window for the beef industry – showcasing our very best products. But as we’ve seen with the steer shows – once we took out the “real world,” i.e. carcass shows and data collection for on foot cattle and the same steer being shown for months as “finished”, it really became more of a fitting and feeding contest. The majority of steers we see in the ring today have little resemblance to their feedlot siblings. Factors like rib eye area, potential yield and quality grade, and gain tests have been replaced by lots of hair, freaky muscle structure and a willingness to accept genetic defects simply to get “the look.”
It now appears that the show ring is on the same path. In many breeds, not just the Shortys, you see the same differences. Is this good for the industry? I can’t help but believe that it’s not. As I mentioned in the posting about show vs. real cattle a year ago, a very well known breeder in a couple of breeds (including the Red Angus – RW) told me that in his family’s near 100 year history, he’d never seen such a gap between the two. Like me, he loves to show cattle and likes selling a good heifer or two once in awhile, but his bread and butter has been commercial bulls and replacement females. As he said, today’s show ring bulls can’t do that, just as the performance bulls can’t sire show winners. If you’re big enough to be able to choose one type or the other, or better yet have both kinds in your herd, that’s great. But for far too many, we don’t have that luxury; our sires have to do both. So if using EPD’s help reinforce the idea that cattle can and should have multiple purposes, I’m all for it.
Now, as I said I fully believe that reasonable people can and should be able to disagree. But when you start calling names and calling those who don’t share your beliefs, well….
