Direct vs maternal calving ease

Jack McNamee wrote:

df wrote:

http://beef.unl.edu/beefreports/symp-1993-22-XIII.shtml

This kind of article makes me mad enough to bite myself. The summary should have read, if you start with your head up your ass and you end with your head in the same place you're going to have problems, but you can still have your job and waste tax payers money and put your name on another article. There is not one thing of value in this article that you could not have gotten from sitting down with a sucsessful long time rancher and listening. What a load of crap.

Small heifers that are not fed enough will have more calving problems. Larger heifers with bigger pelvis's will have bigger calves with more calving problems. In the first study the heifers that were fed the proper amounts still had a 36% dystocia rate? I'd say the problems started long before feed was an issue.

The next study proved that you will have a higher percentage of dystocia and death loss if you use high birth wt epded bulls. WOW

The next group shows the birth wts from 63 to 69 lbs. How on the hell do you have over 30% dystocia rate on a 66 lb calf and a death loss of 8%? The topper though is the 43% scour rate with a 19% death loss in one group. Mind you Ft keogh has enough people hired to baby sit these catlle 24-7.

How can any decent cow man or woman read this and give it any validity?

Jack, in the neighborhood of more rain and Ft. Keogh. RIBBIT, RIBBIT, RIBBIT!

Why can't we just look at the heifers and judge their phenotypes? Really good cowmen intuitively know which are the better heifers, will cause them problems and know how to make more of the good ones in a consistent manner. It's raising cattle for goodness sake. It is not rocket science.

df wrote:

Why can't we just look at the heifers and judge their phenotypes? Really good cowmen intuitively know which are the better heifers, will cause them problems and know how to make more of the good ones in a consistent manner. It's raising cattle for goodness sake. It is not rocket science.

OK What have you done with with DF? This quote cannot be from our own DF! What have you done with him? You better give him back.

Jack, in the neighborhood of looking for the real DF. Has anyone seen him?

Jack McNamee wrote:

df wrote:

Why can't we just look at the heifers and judge their phenotypes? Really good cowmen intuitively know which are the better heifers, will cause them problems and know how to make more of the good ones in a consistent manner. It's raising cattle for goodness sake. It is not rocket science.

OK What have you done with with DF? This quote cannot be from our own DF! What have you done with him? You better give him back.

Jack, in the neighborhood of looking for the real DF. Has anyone seen him?

sadly, I think he is tongue-in-cheeking us; getting it right, and really doesn`t realize it ...

My bad! I thought he was being serious. That makes more sense. Well at least he wasn't abducted by aliens.

IF, as I have heard

cattle breeding = art + science

then physically evaluating cattle without data and making choices (like a judging contest) based on that evaluation would eliminate "science".

Then we could simplify that equation to

cattle breeding = art

So is it possible to evaluate a set of heifers by a picture (or in person) and know which ones will make good cows?

What is science? Is it what and how, or is it who and why that matters?

Why do you need to know the program? Isn't the breeder enough? Can't he say "these heifers will work for you" and that is enough?

I was all ready to go out and do some measuring for CEM and CED, but I cant figure out if I need to weigh them or put a measuring stick or a ruler on them.

What data do I send in?

How do I interpret progress numerically?

What does plus 10 CED mean, how is it better economically than a plus 11 or 0?

What does a plus 14 CEM mean, and what is the return or benefit, specifically over a 0?

I always check the little boxes for pull or no pull, some assistance to make them breed better, and such, but I cannot seem to get an explanation other than 14 is better than 5.....Why?


My head feels better today, though my questions may not show it.

Bootheel....wondering why df is df and not DF. Like CED it says something, I am just not sure what.

What happened to your head? You've got to be careful; Father's Day is coming up!

df wrote:

What happened to your head? You've got to be careful; Father's Day is coming up!

Six foot cheater pipe on a 3/4 drive ratchet.


I answered yours, now you answer mine, pretty please

CEM had a positive correlation to STAY in the Simmental database. Heifers that calve on their own apparently stay in the herd. Not a big revelation but got me to thinking which calving ease measure producers use (if they use epds). I realize many don't use them.

df wrote:

CEM had a positive correlation to STAY in the Simmental database. Heifers that calve on their own apparently stay in the herd. Not a big revelation but got me to thinking which calving ease measure producers use (if they use epds). I realize many don't use them.

LET ME NARROW THE MISSION...to discover why mytty daughters can calve, and solution daughters not nearly as well....calculated guesses are welcome

df wrote:

CEM had a positive correlation to STAY in the Simmental database. Heifers that calve on their own apparently stay in the herd. Not a big revelation but got me to thinking which calving ease measure producers use (if they use epds). I realize many don't use them.

I have not used EPD's on my maternal side for many years but have for my terminal bulls, i hope to advance past them with my own population in the future. 

I just don't see why a person would risk poor odds using an outlier from a mongrelized population because the  right EPD's align  like symbols on a slot machine as they will still breed to the average although the variation to get to the average can literally be the killer. 

I sure appreciated this thought  as put forward by Dennis Voss...

" For a cow, or in this case a heifer, to be in harmony with mother nature she must be bred to something that will allow her to have her first calf fast, get with loving it fast, leave her reproductive organs in perfect condition for breed back and implant all of this process in her mind for future reference the rest of her career. This last point is huge in a cow's world. And I challenge anyone writing out there to explore this particular concept and challenge me, dispute me. If a cow does not have the opportunity for this process to activate her maternal life span she works from a disadvantage the rest of her life. From this point on, the only thing that can screw her up is a monster birthweight bull that should never have been allowed to breed her. As long as reasonable is bred to reasonable, I believe you'll get
reasonable

That quote was from his longhorn thread but certainly not limited to longhorns but more so to a gene pool within the bovine species pool.

So when DF brings up the point that the STAY numbers go up in the Simmentals  when the heifers calve easy, that is the principal behind DV's coupons... So the dilemma remains the same as with any other trait how do we decrease the variance and I my be wrong but it would appear to me that this is a major downfall of the EPD as the range of variance (sort) is not taken into account properly on both the trait and people fronts.
The problem is to decrease the variance in any given trait, requires more time than the average breeder is willing to give and will also require a breeder to become independent the longer selection for a particular trait in an isolated population the narrower the variance will be which to my way of thinking will greatly improve the odds.

ahhh haaaa, as they say on the family feud show, good answer

Hilly wrote:

I just don't see why a person would risk poor odds using an outlier from a mongrelized population because the  right EPD's align  like symbols on a slot machine as they will still breed to the average although the variation to get to the average can literally be the killer. 


So when DF brings up the point that the STAY numbers go up in the Simmentals  when the heifers calve easy, that is the principal behind DV's coupons... So the dilemma remains the same as with any other trait how do we decrease the variance and I my be wrong but it would appear to me that this is a major downfall of the EPD as the range of variance (sort) is not taken into account properly on both the trait and people fronts.

The problem is to decrease the variance in any given trait, requires more time than the average breeder is willing to give and will also require a breeder to become independent the longer selection for a particular trait in an isolated population the narrower the variance will be which to my way of thinking will greatly improve the odds.

What do you mean by "breed to the average"?

Is the statement of "decreasing the variance" in conflict with MK's post on Pinebank, stating that Mother Nature will preserver variation?

df wrote:

Bootheel wrote:

I was all ready to go out and do some measuring for CEM and CED, but I cant figure out if I need to weigh them or put a measuring stick or a ruler on them. Birthweights are a major factor in dystocia; send in birthweights taken within 24 hrs of birth. In all honesty, I suspect their are a fair number of guesses turned in. It is not a big deal on high accuracy sires. What data do I send in?
Calving ease scores when calving the heifers.How do I interpret progress numerically?

What does plus 10 CED mean, how is it better economically than a plus 11 or 0? Depends on the level of dystocia in your herd. If you have none, then selecting for a higher level will not have an economical benefit. It does not mean a low CED bull will cause problems; similar to other EPDs, it is a selection criteria for those who are having problems more so than for producers who experience no problems.

What does a plus 14 CEM mean, and what is the return or benefit, specifically over a 0?

Again depends on the level of dystocia in your herd. If you have none, and the current CEM epd in your herd is 0, you won't see any change by selecting for higher CEM. However, if your CEM is 14 and your heifers are experiencing, then using a bull with 0 CEM epd will produce daughters that have even more problems.

I always check the little boxes for pull or no pull, some assistance to make them breed better, and such, but I cannot seem to get an explanation other than 14 is better than 5.....Why?

If you are like my dad, being 75 yrs old with one prosthetic leg, then CED and CEM seem like a big concern. However, he calves in the fall and has plenty of help if it is needed, so I don't think he worries about it too much. In fact I doubt that he has pulled hardly any calves his whole life. I know I didn't until I work on a dairy with Holstein cross cows.

He is willing to feed the heifers, although I think some of it is unnecessary.
My head feels better today, though my questions may not show it.

Bootheel....wondering why df is df and not DF. Like CED it says something, I am just not sure what.

I do a poor job of asking questions, I guess. I get the point of CED and CEM. I just don't get what they are measuring and how it is expressed.

Birthweight EPD is expressed in lbs.

$beef in, well, dollars

%IMF is a percentage....easy enough

REA...is in inches

What the samhill is a CED expressed and measured in?

Calving ease. Heifer calving ease EPDs were calculated using a multi-trait animal model including birth weight and calving score data. The result is a heifer calving ease direct and heifer calving ease maternal EPD, as defined below.



•Calving Ease Direct (CED): Calving Ease Direct EPD is expressed as percentage of unassisted births, with a higher value indicating greater calving ease in first-calf heifers. It predicts the average difference in ease with which a sire's calves will be born when he is bred to first-calf heifers.

•Calving Ease Maternal (CEM): Calving Ease Maternal EPD is expressed in percentage unassisted births with a higher value indicating greater calving ease in first-calf daughters. It predicts the average ease with which a sire's daughters will calve as first calf heifers when compared to daughters of other sires.


http://www.angus.org/Nce/Documents/CedCemEpd.pdf

df wrote:

Calving ease. Heifer calving ease EPDs were calculated using a multi-trait animal model including birth weight and calving score data. The result is a heifer calving ease direct and heifer calving ease maternal EPD, as defined below.



•Calving Ease Direct (CED): Calving Ease Direct EPD is expressed as percentage of unassisted births, with a higher value indicating greater calving ease in first-calf heifers. It predicts the average difference in ease with which a sire's calves will be born when he is bred to first-calf heifers.

•Calving Ease Maternal (CEM): Calving Ease Maternal EPD is expressed in percentage unassisted births with a higher value indicating greater calving ease in first-calf daughters. It predicts the average ease with which a sire's daughters will calve as first calf heifers when compared to daughters of other sires.


http://www.angus.org/Nce/Documents/CedCemEpd.pdf

Fair enough, but how is a plus 14 better than a 0. Is it 14 percent less calving trouble, or something else?

Bootheel wrote:

df wrote:

Calving ease. Heifer calving ease EPDs were calculated using a multi-trait animal model including birth weight and calving score data. The result is a heifer calving ease direct and heifer calving ease maternal EPD, as defined below.



•Calving Ease Direct (CED): Calving Ease Direct EPD is expressed as percentage of unassisted births, with a higher value indicating greater calving ease in first-calf heifers. It predicts the average difference in ease with which a sire's calves will be born when he is bred to first-calf heifers.

•Calving Ease Maternal (CEM): Calving Ease Maternal EPD is expressed in percentage unassisted births with a higher value indicating greater calving ease in first-calf daughters. It predicts the average ease with which a sire's daughters will calve as first calf heifers when compared to daughters of other sires.


http://www.angus.org/Nce/Documents/CedCemEpd.pdf

Fair enough, but how is a plus 14 better than a 0. Is it 14 percent less calving trouble, or something else?

Yes, on heifers.

df wrote:

What do you mean by "breed to the average"?

Is the statement of "decreasing the variance" in conflict with MK's post on Pinebank, stating that Mother Nature will preserver variation?

What I meant by "breed to the average" is that in any gene pool if you use an outlier that possess favorable number for a unfixed trait odds are that over time they will breed closer to the average of all the cattle in that population, however they most likely will settle on the favorable side of center for that particular trait but of course that comes at a cost to another.

As far as Mike thoughts on variation, I agree... Mother Nature looks after maintaining a level of variation whether we like it or not and I wouldn't consider the reduction in variance of traits if it was not part of a bigger picture to restore her favor on the more systematic way  back to the end product.

df wrote:

Bootheel wrote:

df wrote:

Calving ease. Heifer calving ease EPDs were calculated using a multi-trait animal model including birth weight and calving score data. The result is a heifer calving ease direct and heifer calving ease maternal EPD, as defined below.



•Calving Ease Direct (CED): Calving Ease Direct EPD is expressed as percentage of unassisted births, with a higher value indicating greater calving ease in first-calf heifers. It predicts the average difference in ease with which a sire's calves will be born when he is bred to first-calf heifers.

•Calving Ease Maternal (CEM): Calving Ease Maternal EPD is expressed in percentage unassisted births with a higher value indicating greater calving ease in first-calf daughters. It predicts the average ease with which a sire's daughters will calve as first calf heifers when compared to daughters of other sires.


http://www.angus.org/Nce/Documents/CedCemEpd.pdf

Fair enough, but how is a plus 14 better than a 0. Is it 14 percent less calving trouble, or something else?

Yes, on heifers.

Matter settled, now what to fight about. Finally raining here, first rain since the flood, it is good.

Hilly wrote:

df wrote:

What do you mean by "breed to the average"?

Is the statement of "decreasing the variance" in conflict with MK's post on Pinebank, stating that Mother Nature will preserver variation?

What I meant by "breed to the average" is that in any gene pool if you use an outlier that possess favorable number for a unfixed trait odds are that over time they will breed closer to the average of all the cattle in that population, however they most likely will settle on the favorable side of center for that particular trait but of course that comes at a cost to another.

As far as Mike thoughts on variation, I agree... Mother Nature looks after maintaining a level of variation whether we like it or not and I wouldn't consider the reduction in variance of traits if it was not part of a bigger picture to restore her favor on the more systematic way  back to the end product.

If the bull has a good assortment of genes, and he passes them on at random, we would expect him to sire calves that perform better than a bull that gets a poor assortment of genes.

Let's assume a bull is 20 lbs larger than the average of the group at yearling. Due to the heritability of the trait, he is considered to be superior but less than 20 lbs; probably closer to 8 lbs greater. Once progeny of this bull are evaluated, his EPD has just as much chance of going up as going down. It is called the Best Linear Unbiased Prediction (BLUP). It is called unbiased as the EPD has the same chance of going up as going down.

The reason he appears to be to be breeding closer to the average may be due to heritability of the trait. If the heritability was 1, then his EPD could start a full 20 lbs greater than the average.