not measuring

"I don't need much proof; if your cattle breeding program results in a higher percent of females that make fertile cows with longevity, then your phenotypic selection must be working.

Then again, if you're convinced the parent stock should not be measured, only the offspring, then there does not seem to be much use to discuss the parents." DF

Dennis, If you I not desire to increase something so I do not measure, what would make it disappear from the population unless it is detrimental to something else I am selecting?

Keystone wrote:

"I don't need much proof; if your cattle breeding program results in a higher percent of females that make fertile cows with longevity, then your phenotypic selection must be working.

Then again, if you're convinced the parent stock should not be measured, only the offspring, then there does not seem to be much use to discuss the parents." DF

Dennis, If you I not desire to increase something so I do not measure, what would make it disappear from the population unless it is detrimental to something else I am selecting?

I have often wondered what the beef industry would look like if the first EPD was Stayability instead of Weaning Weight.

Has measuring and sending in the data helped us know our own cattle better in anything other than the traits measured?

Keystone wrote:

Has measuring and sending in the data helped us know our own cattle better in anything other than the traits measured?

For most people it has helped them know their cattle better, if only because the accuracy of the EPD is actually more accurate than their eye.

Oh it is not. The whole system is flawed and essentially meaningless.

I had a cow that had a +28 weaning weight epd. Her first calf as a two year old came off of her weighing 823 lbs. Every calf after that bull or heifer was consistently 100 lbs heavier than its contemporaries. Her weaning weight epd rose by the end of her life... 12 years to .... wait for it.... wait for it... +36. That proved to me how accurate the system is.

df wrote:

Keystone wrote:

Has measuring and sending in the data helped us know our own cattle better in anything other than the traits measured?

For most people it has helped them know their cattle better, if only because the accuracy of the EPD is actually more accurate than their eye.

more accurate at determining what? a good producing cow? profitability of a cow? a good type? none of the above?

Gregory Walker wrote:

Oh it is not. The whole system is flawed and essentially meaningless.

I had a cow that had a +28 weaning weight epd. Her first calf as a two year old came off of her weighing 823 lbs. Every calf after that bull or heifer was consistently 100 lbs heavier than its contemporaries. Her weaning weight epd rose by the end of her life... 12 years to .... wait for it.... wait for it... +36. That proved to me how accurate the system is.

EPDs don't predict actual wts.

EPDs work on populations well, bulls with lots of progeny fairly well and not real well on dams.

MKeeney wrote:

df wrote:

Keystone wrote:

Has measuring and sending in the data helped us know our own cattle better in anything other than the traits measured?

For most people it has helped them know their cattle better, if only because the accuracy of the EPD is actually more accurate than their eye.

more accurate at determining what? a good producing cow? profitability of a cow? a good type? none of the above?

EPDs are more accurate at predicting differences compared to using the eye only.

df wrote:

MKeeney wrote:

df wrote:

Keystone wrote:

Has measuring and sending in the data helped us know our own cattle better in anything other than the traits measured?

For most people it has helped them know their cattle better, if only because the accuracy of the EPD is actually more accurate than their eye.

more accurate at determining what? a good producing cow? profitability of a cow? a good type? none of the above?

EPDs are more accurate at predicting differences compared to using the eye only.

differences that determine a good producing cow? profitability of a cow? a good type? none of the above?

MKeeney wrote:

df wrote:

MKeeney wrote:

df wrote:

Keystone wrote:

Has measuring and sending in the data helped us know our own cattle better in anything other than the traits measured?

For most people it has helped them know their cattle better, if only because the accuracy of the EPD is actually more accurate than their eye.

more accurate at determining what? a good producing cow? profitability of a cow? a good type? none of the above?

EPDs are more accurate at predicting differences compared to using the eye only.

differences that determine a good producing cow? profitability of a cow? a good type? none of the above?

The difference in the trait that is measured.

df wrote:

MKeeney wrote:

df wrote:

MKeeney wrote:

df wrote:

Keystone wrote:

Has measuring and sending in the data helped us know our own cattle better in anything other than the traits measured?

For most people it has helped them know their cattle better, if only because the accuracy of the EPD is actually more accurate than their eye.

more accurate at determining what? a good producing cow? profitability of a cow? a good type? none of the above?

EPDs are more accurate at predicting differences compared to using the eye only.

differences that determine a good producing cow? profitability of a cow? a good type? none of the above?

The difference in the trait that is measured.

what are the measured traits that determine a good producing cow? profitability of a cow? a good type? none of the above?

df wrote:

Gregory Walker wrote:

Oh it is not. The whole system is flawed and essentially meaningless.

I had a cow that had a +28 weaning weight epd. Her first calf as a two year old came off of her weighing 823 lbs. Every calf after that bull or heifer was consistently 100 lbs heavier than its contemporaries. Her weaning weight epd rose by the end of her life... 12 years to .... wait for it.... wait for it... +36. That proved to me how accurate the system is.

EPDs don't predict actual wts.

EPDs work on populations well, bulls with lots of progeny fairly well and not real well on dams.

So, epds are essentially a gimmick used to sell bulls.

Did the performance level of bulls change so much for the better that a good bull in the late 90s had a +80 yw. and just a few years later it took a +120 to be good?, how did that happen exactly? I haven't noticed a measurable jump in performance among any of the cattle I see.

and while we are on the subject, how do the Keeney cattle with their very unimpressive weaning epds regularly come off the cows weighing 600 + ?

I think that somebody should come up with a system that actually works because the one we have as I stated earlier is meaningless. Until they do, I will rely more on my eye and perceptions, which I have a bunch more faith in.

And to Mike's point, nothing is being measured that points to long term profitability to the cow-calf guy.

Gregory Walker wrote:

df wrote:

Gregory Walker wrote:

Oh it is not. The whole system is flawed and essentially meaningless.

I had a cow that had a +28 weaning weight epd. Her first calf as a two year old came off of her weighing 823 lbs. Every calf after that bull or heifer was consistently 100 lbs heavier than its contemporaries. Her weaning weight epd rose by the end of her life... 12 years to .... wait for it.... wait for it... +36. That proved to me how accurate the system is.

EPDs don't predict actual wts.

EPDs work on populations well, bulls with lots of progeny fairly well and not real well on dams.

So, epds are essentially a gimmick used to sell bulls.

Did the performance level of bulls change so much for the better that a good bull in the late 90s had a +80 yw. and just a few years later it took a +120 to be good?, how did that happen exactly? I haven't noticed a measurable jump in performance among any of the cattle I see.

and while we are on the subject, how do the Keeney cattle with their very unimpressive weaning epds regularly come off the cows weighing 600 + ?

I think that somebody should come up with a system that actually works because the one we have as I stated earlier is meaningless. Until they do, I will rely more on my eye and perceptions, which I have a bunch more faith in.

And to Mike's point, nothing is being measured that points to long term profitability to the cow-calf guy.

In the poultry, swine and dairy businesses, indexes are created that help determine the best animals to use as parents. These indexes rely on collection of data that ranges from reproduction, production, carcass and even health traits. The genetic companies collect lots of information, then use BLUP to sort out the differences. They have geneticists on staff that monitor the progress and do these calculations.

In contrasts is the beef industry.......................

MKeeney wrote:

df wrote:

MKeeney wrote:

df wrote:

MKeeney wrote:

df wrote:

Keystone wrote:

Has measuring and sending in the data helped us know our own cattle better in anything other than the traits measured?

For most people it has helped them know their cattle better, if only because the accuracy of the EPD is actually more accurate than their eye.

more accurate at determining what? a good producing cow? profitability of a cow? a good type? none of the above?

EPDs are more accurate at predicting differences compared to using the eye only.

differences that determine a good producing cow? profitability of a cow? a good type? none of the above?

The difference in the trait that is measured.

what are the measured traits that determine a good producing cow? profitability of a cow? a good type? none of the above?

It doesn't really matter what they are if you are not willing to collect the data.

The dairy may not be a shining example of numerical success to the pocket book either...


“Marketing decisions are important from several different perspectives. Costs for replacement heifers may represent up to 20 percent of the dairy operating budget (Fetrow 1988, AABP). Negative cash flows occur when a cow is sold for beef and a heifer is added to the lactating herd as a replacement. Cows retained in the herd represent capital investments, which are subject to various forms of risk that may alter the earnings from those investments. Cows have different risks of being marketed depending on their age. Although there is a tendency for increased marketing rates with advancing age, management constraints and biases can modify this relationship. The typical cow remains in the milking herd less than 4 years even though peak milk production related to maturity ordinarily does not decline until 8 or 9 years of age. The reluctance of some producers to market first calf heifers and choosing instead to give them a second chance is an example of management bias affecting marketing policy.”
http://www.livestocktrail.uiuc.edu/dairynet/paperdisplay.cfm?contentid=354


Does anyone have up-to-date numbers on the cost of replacements in the dairy industry or the average age of the cattle and how it is affecting the income of the farmer?

When I was in the dairy this was a big problem and growing at that time... I would go out of my way to breed away from the walking udder type as two lactations made breaking even before breaking down near impossible.

Hilly wrote:

The dairy may not be a shining example of numerical success to the pocket book either...


“Marketing decisions are important from several different perspectives. Costs for replacement heifers may represent up to 20 percent of the dairy operating budget (Fetrow 1988, AABP). Negative cash flows occur when a cow is sold for beef and a heifer is added to the lactating herd as a replacement. Cows retained in the herd represent capital investments, which are subject to various forms of risk that may alter the earnings from those investments. Cows have different risks of being marketed depending on their age. Although there is a tendency for increased marketing rates with advancing age, management constraints and biases can modify this relationship. The typical cow remains in the milking herd less than 4 years even though peak milk production related to maturity ordinarily does not decline until 8 or 9 years of age. The reluctance of some producers to market first calf heifers and choosing instead to give them a second chance is an example of management bias affecting marketing policy.”
http://www.livestocktrail.uiuc.edu/dairynet/paperdisplay.cfm?contentid=354


Does anyone have up-to-date numbers on the cost of replacements in the dairy industry or the average age of the cattle and how it is affecting the income of the farmer?

When I was in the dairy this was a big problem and growing at that time... I would go out of my way to breed away from the walking udder type as two lactations made breaking even before breaking down near impossible.

Hoard's Dairyman has reported equal low-cost production from the high performing confinement cows and the grass-based dairy. The current indexes would be for the confinement cows but one could be developed for grass-based dairies (and probably already has in New Zealand).

The point is the dairy industry uses data and does not make breeding decisions solely on the champion at the World Expo. Even the beef industry has gotten away from using the champion at the NWSS to the extent it has in the past.

df wrote:

Gregory Walker wrote:

df wrote:

Gregory Walker wrote:

Oh it is not. The whole system is flawed and essentially meaningless.

I had a cow that had a +28 weaning weight epd. Her first calf as a two year old came off of her weighing 823 lbs. Every calf after that bull or heifer was consistently 100 lbs heavier than its contemporaries. Her weaning weight epd rose by the end of her life... 12 years to .... wait for it.... wait for it... +36. That proved to me how accurate the system is.

EPDs don't predict actual wts.

EPDs work on populations well, bulls with lots of progeny fairly well and not real well on dams.

So, epds are essentially a gimmick used to sell bulls.

Did the performance level of bulls change so much for the better that a good bull in the late 90s had a +80 yw. and just a few years later it took a +120 to be good?, how did that happen exactly? I haven't noticed a measurable jump in performance among any of the cattle I see.

and while we are on the subject, how do the Keeney cattle with their very unimpressive weaning epds regularly come off the cows weighing 600 + ?

I think that somebody should come up with a system that actually works because the one we have as I stated earlier is meaningless. Until they do, I will rely more on my eye and perceptions, which I have a bunch more faith in.

And to Mike's point, nothing is being measured that points to long term profitability to the cow-calf guy.

In the poultry, swine and dairy businesses, indexes are created that help determine the best animals to use as parents. These indexes rely on collection of data that ranges from reproduction, production, carcass and even health traits. The genetic companies collect lots of information, then use BLUP to sort out the differences. They have geneticists on staff that monitor the progress and do these calculations.

In contrasts is the beef industry.......................

with all that data and indexes, are dairy, swine, and poultry producers more profitable than beef producers?

I think if you look at ROI, then yes. And it depends greatly on the value of land which may be seen as a percent of the owned value or the rental value. If the land is essentially free, cattle look great. If the charge per acre per year is $200 and you need 3 acres/cow, then cows look bad.

However, profit and efficiency are different. I believe efficiency has been improved but that does not mean profit has been improved.

Some cattlemen are traders; they buy stockers (or cows) low, then add value to them. These people may be quite profitable but it has nothing to do with genetics.

You may be able to buy Longhorns quite cheap, breed them to Angus bulls and sell the calves and make good money. What made it profitable might be the cost of the foundation stock and have nothing to do with genetics.

df wrote:

I think if you look at ROI, then yes. And it depends greatly on the value of land which may be seen as a percent of the owned value or the rental value. If the land is essentially free, cattle look great. If the charge per acre per year is $200 and you need 3 acres/cow, then cows look bad.

However, profit and efficiency are different. I believe efficiency has been improved but that does not mean profit has been improved.

Some cattlemen are traders; they buy stockers (or cows) low, then add value to them. These people may be quite profitable but it has nothing to do with genetics.

You may be able to buy Longhorns quite cheap, breed them to Angus bulls and sell the calves and make good money. What made it profitable might be the cost of the foundation stock and have nothing to do with genetics.

we`re talking genetic influence; not management...with indexes, how much improvement is there in the eating quality of pork or poultry?

We left the dairy for unfortunate family issues but had I stayed in the business I would have ended up using more of my own bulls although the safety issues with the bulls, I would most likely have still utilized them via A.I.

I don’t recall if it was Holstein International or Hoard’s Dairyman (around 1995??), where I read the article about an American producer that was running two or three separate herds and using his own genetics and systematically crossing between the different herds. It was this model that I was working toward at the time and I didn’t foresee industry data as being utilized in my herds to any great extent. Although success or failure of such an endeavour in my case is now hypothetical, I would like to know how the American made out with his independent program.

MKeeney wrote:

df wrote:

I think if you look at ROI, then yes. And it depends greatly on the value of land which may be seen as a percent of the owned value or the rental value. If the land is essentially free, cattle look great. If the charge per acre per year is $200 and you need 3 acres/cow, then cows look bad.

However, profit and efficiency are different. I believe efficiency has been improved but that does not mean profit has been improved.

Some cattlemen are traders; they buy stockers (or cows) low, then add value to them. These people may be quite profitable but it has nothing to do with genetics.

You may be able to buy Longhorns quite cheap, breed them to Angus bulls and sell the calves and make good money. What made it profitable might be the cost of the foundation stock and have nothing to do with genetics.

we`re talking genetic influence; not management...with indexes, how much improvement is there in the eating quality of pork or poultry?

Probably pretty close to exactly what is predicted by their model.

df wrote:

MKeeney wrote:

df wrote:

I think if you look at ROI, then yes. And it depends greatly on the value of land which may be seen as a percent of the owned value or the rental value. If the land is essentially free, cattle look great. If the charge per acre per year is $200 and you need 3 acres/cow, then cows look bad.

However, profit and efficiency are different. I believe efficiency has been improved but that does not mean profit has been improved.

Some cattlemen are traders; they buy stockers (or cows) low, then add value to them. These people may be quite profitable but it has nothing to do with genetics.

You may be able to buy Longhorns quite cheap, breed them to Angus bulls and sell the calves and make good money. What made it profitable might be the cost of the foundation stock and have nothing to do with genetics.

we`re talking genetic influence; not management...with indexes, how much improvement is there in the eating quality of pork or poultry?

Probably pretty close to exactly what is predicted by their model.

measuring feed inputs of cows is more difficult than in swine or poultry; how does an index account for the feed input of a cow ? why don`t you post what the U of Mo professors say is the epd level of a top show me select heifer?

Tier 2 Classification: Heifers will be eligible to qualify for Tier 2 in the Show-Me-Select Replacement Heifer Program based on the following minimum accuracies of the heifer's sire at the time of sale for the respective traits listed below.

Trait Accuracy
Calving ease (direct) .65
Calving ease (maternal) .30
Weaning weight .75
Carcass weight .20
Marbling .20


Sire requirements:Eligible sires must have known ID, be registered by their respective national breed registry, and have complete EPD information. Sires will be evaluated for qualification in the program based on the EPD provided by their respective breed registry and not on EPD produced by progeny registration in any other breed or hybrid registry. Sires must meet calving ease EPD requirements listed in Table 1 for breeds reporting calving ease EPD. For breeds not reporting calving ease EPD, sires must meet birth weight EPD requirements listed in Table 1. All sires used in conjunction with artificial insemination must have a minimum accuracy value of 0.6 on a scale of zero to one for the respective EPD's.

Active Sire Percentile Rank Requirements
Breed Group Percentile Requirement
Angus Upper 35%
American Upper 20%
British Upper 30%
Continental Upper 15%
Hybrid Upper 20%

so these are the traits and this is an index? mk

Looks like their requirements deal with calving ease (Tier 1) and then with accuracy (Tier 2). Doesn't look like an index to me, probably because there is no index for profit in most breeds.

Hilly: A person involved in management at the mega dairy in our county told me that it is a miracle if a cow lives to be more than 5 at these dairies here.