Saskvalley stampede

[shortybreeder]

In my experience ultrasounds through the cup lab are accurate to the carcasses I get through my custom beef program.  As with any data collection (epds) if one doesn’t do all in the contemporary group it skews the results (thus less accurate numbers).

Well, my main issue is with the SNP 50K we’re all supposed to be shelling out cash for because it’s like having 25 live calves. Ultrasound is ultrasound and is certainly a more realistic representation of actual carcass data under certain management. The claims of the 50K are a load of BS if I’ve ever heard it. The research trial that would need to be done - on Shorthorns - to validate the claims of the 50K has definitely never been done. EPDs are a whole other kettle of fish, although I very much doubt there are more than a handful of sires in the entire Shorthorn breed with the numbers of progeny to accurately support their EPDs. And even then there are relevant questions likely to be unanswered. They may have some use for in herd comparison of sires over a span of decades, but due to the potentially thousands of known and unknown environmental confounders unaccounted for, they should otherwise be relegated to the dustbin where they belong.

I spoke with the EPD developers at IGS a few years ago, and they told me they consider 85-90% accuracy to be "low accuracy", and they wouldn't put much stock in the numbers until it reaches about 90-95%. They don't consider a bull "proven" until it's >95%.
I think we could all agree that Trump and JPJ have the largest gene pool in the shorthorn breed, so I looked at their current EPDs. Both are 90-91% ACC on their birthweight EPD. 80-81% on WW, and Trump is 80% on YW.  ALL of their other EPDs are below 80%.
Kasper 4508, a bull with >100 progeny with scan data from 4 different herds, is only 47-64% accurate in the carcass EPDs.
Within the entire breed, we only have a few individuals with a single EPD (BW) that can be used with reasonable confidence. None of the carcass EPDs mean anything, and the maternal EPDs have a long ways to go before they can be helpful.
Don't get mad at the people breeding for, marketing, and selling genetics based on EPDs--just smile, walk away, and enjoy a laugh when the stories come out that things didn't go as planned.

 

[Boreal]

In my experience ultrasounds through the cup lab are accurate to the carcasses I get through my custom beef program.  As with any data collection (epds) if one doesn’t do all in the contemporary group it skews the results (thus less accurate numbers).

Well, my main issue is with the SNP 50K we’re all supposed to be shelling out cash for because it’s like having 25 live calves. Ultrasound is ultrasound and is certainly a more realistic representation of actual carcass data under certain management. The claims of the 50K are a load of BS if I’ve ever heard it. The research trial that would need to be done - on Shorthorns - to validate the claims of the 50K has definitely never been done. EPDs are a whole other kettle of fish, although I very much doubt there are more than a handful of sires in the entire Shorthorn breed with the numbers of progeny to accurately support their EPDs. And even then there are relevant questions likely to be unanswered. They may have some use for in herd comparison of sires over a span of decades, but due to the potentially thousands of known and unknown environmental confounders unaccounted for, they should otherwise be relegated to the dustbin where they belong.

I spoke with the EPD developers at IGS a few years ago, and they told me they consider 85-90% accuracy to be "low accuracy", and they wouldn't put much stock in the numbers until it reaches about 90-95%. They don't consider a bull "proven" until it's >95%.
I think we could all agree that Trump and JPJ have the largest gene pool in the shorthorn breed, so I looked at their current EPDs. Both are 90-91% ACC on their birthweight EPD. 80-81% on WW, and Trump is 80% on YW.  ALL of their other EPDs are below 80%.
Kasper 4508, a bull with >100 progeny with scan data from 4 different herds, is only 47-64% accurate in the carcass EPDs.
Within the entire breed, we only have a few individuals with a single EPD (BW) that can be used with reasonable confidence. None of the carcass EPDs mean anything, and the maternal EPDs have a long ways to go before they can be helpful.
Don't get mad at the people breeding for, marketing, and selling genetics based on EPDs--just smile, walk away, and enjoy a laugh when the stories come out that things didn't go as planned.

Lol. I’m certainly not mad - although, admittedly, that post was a bit of a rant. However, smiling like an idiot, as you suggest, is not real helpful either. The breed associations are pushing EPDs and genetic testing. As you helpfully pointed out above - it’s a complete waste. Garbage in, garbage out. If registered breeders are being asked to put their faith, and their dollars, into a system, it should deliver something tangible. Unless I’m just a naive purebred freshman, and our collective goal is actually to deceive the commercial cattleman into believing our genetic data is representative? Otherwise, what’s the point?

 

[shortybreeder]

In my experience ultrasounds through the cup lab are accurate to the carcasses I get through my custom beef program.  As with any data collection (epds) if one doesn’t do all in the contemporary group it skews the results (thus less accurate numbers).

Well, my main issue is with the SNP 50K we’re all supposed to be shelling out cash for because it’s like having 25 live calves. Ultrasound is ultrasound and is certainly a more realistic representation of actual carcass data under certain management. The claims of the 50K are a load of BS if I’ve ever heard it. The research trial that would need to be done - on Shorthorns - to validate the claims of the 50K has definitely never been done. EPDs are a whole other kettle of fish, although I very much doubt there are more than a handful of sires in the entire Shorthorn breed with the numbers of progeny to accurately support their EPDs. And even then there are relevant questions likely to be unanswered. They may have some use for in herd comparison of sires over a span of decades, but due to the potentially thousands of known and unknown environmental confounders unaccounted for, they should otherwise be relegated to the dustbin where they belong.

I spoke with the EPD developers at IGS a few years ago, and they told me they consider 85-90% accuracy to be "low accuracy", and they wouldn't put much stock in the numbers until it reaches about 90-95%. They don't consider a bull "proven" until it's >95%.
I think we could all agree that Trump and JPJ have the largest gene pool in the shorthorn breed, so I looked at their current EPDs. Both are 90-91% ACC on their birthweight EPD. 80-81% on WW, and Trump is 80% on YW.  ALL of their other EPDs are below 80%.
Kasper 4508, a bull with >100 progeny with scan data from 4 different herds, is only 47-64% accurate in the carcass EPDs.
Within the entire breed, we only have a few individuals with a single EPD (BW) that can be used with reasonable confidence. None of the carcass EPDs mean anything, and the maternal EPDs have a long ways to go before they can be helpful.
Don't get mad at the people breeding for, marketing, and selling genetics based on EPDs--just smile, walk away, and enjoy a laugh when the stories come out that things didn't go as planned.

Lol. I’m certainly not mad - although, admittedly, that post was a bit of a rant. However, smiling like an idiot, as you suggest, is not real helpful either. The breed associations are pushing EPDs and genetic testing. As you helpfully pointed out above - it’s a complete waste. Garbage in, garbage out. If registered breeders are being asked to put their faith, and their dollars, into a system, it should deliver something tangible. Unless I’m just a naive purebred freshman, and our collective goal is actually to deceive the commercial cattleman into believing our genetic data is representative? Otherwise, what’s the point?

The EPDs have value, but it's going to take time and data to get there. What I was referring to is when people try saying a bull is great solely based off his EPDs.

 

[Boreal]

In my experience ultrasounds through the cup lab are accurate to the carcasses I get through my custom beef program.  As with any data collection (epds) if one doesn’t do all in the contemporary group it skews the results (thus less accurate numbers).

Well, my main issue is with the SNP 50K we’re all supposed to be shelling out cash for because it’s like having 25 live calves. Ultrasound is ultrasound and is certainly a more realistic representation of actual carcass data under certain management. The claims of the 50K are a load of BS if I’ve ever heard it. The research trial that would need to be done - on Shorthorns - to validate the claims of the 50K has definitely never been done. EPDs are a whole other kettle of fish, although I very much doubt there are more than a handful of sires in the entire Shorthorn breed with the numbers of progeny to accurately support their EPDs. And even then there are relevant questions likely to be unanswered. They may have some use for in herd comparison of sires over a span of decades, but due to the potentially thousands of known and unknown environmental confounders unaccounted for, they should otherwise be relegated to the dustbin where they belong.

I spoke with the EPD developers at IGS a few years ago, and they told me they consider 85-90% accuracy to be "low accuracy", and they wouldn't put much stock in the numbers until it reaches about 90-95%. They don't consider a bull "proven" until it's >95%.
I think we could all agree that Trump and JPJ have the largest gene pool in the shorthorn breed, so I looked at their current EPDs. Both are 90-91% ACC on their birthweight EPD. 80-81% on WW, and Trump is 80% on YW.  ALL of their other EPDs are below 80%.
Kasper 4508, a bull with >100 progeny with scan data from 4 different herds, is only 47-64% accurate in the carcass EPDs.
Within the entire breed, we only have a few individuals with a single EPD (BW) that can be used with reasonable confidence. None of the carcass EPDs mean anything, and the maternal EPDs have a long ways to go before they can be helpful.
Don't get mad at the people breeding for, marketing, and selling genetics based on EPDs--just smile, walk away, and enjoy a laugh when the stories come out that things didn't go as planned.

Lol. I’m certainly not mad - although, admittedly, that post was a bit of a rant. However, smiling like an idiot, as you suggest, is not real helpful either. The breed associations are pushing EPDs and genetic testing. As you helpfully pointed out above - it’s a complete waste. Garbage in, garbage out. If registered breeders are being asked to put their faith, and their dollars, into a system, it should deliver something tangible. Unless I’m just a naive purebred freshman, and our collective goal is actually to deceive the commercial cattleman into believing our genetic data is representative? Otherwise, what’s the point?

The EPDs have value, but it's going to take time and data to get there. What I was referring to is when people try saying a bull is great solely based off his EPDs.

Time has nothing to do with it. It’s all numbers. And 99% of the Shorthorn bulls out there aren’t going to get anywhere near the gross numbers, let alone numbers under the same or similar management, to make their EPDs representative. In addition to that, most of the accuracy attributed to EPDs of sires with low progeny numbers is from the 50k - which, again, is complete BS.

This guy has done a ton of research on the merits of genetic testing - in humans albeit. Conclusion: at this point - it’s so innacurate it’s useless. Check him out. It’s well worth it.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=bjzcFRnFY3k

 

[764wdchev]

Genomics work great for single gene diseases. But all the traits in EPDs are not single gene controlled, I assume they are using Genome Wide Associated mapping to create EPDs. The problem, which has been mentioned many times, is that the Shorthorn breed does not have a large enough sample size, and most likely never will. So I assume they are using data from multiple breeds, which I believe is just giving us a bunch of garbage in, garbage out. If you look at the seed corn business, then are running millions of samples per year, and adjusting their GWA yearly. The beef industry will most likely never get to a point that we have good data on millions of samples, let alone per year. Oh and by the way, with King Corn's millions of samples per year, they still don't have good markers to predict yield.

 

[Boreal]

Amen

It must be catching on, though, there’s new snake oil for sale:

https://www.drovers.com/article/neogen-launches-igenityr-feeder-commercial-dna-sorting-tool?fbclid=IwAR2dzCjY-0w30uGeabvJAva24X7trY_63ktkk3QtmcxwlZWkJiggm7LS7fM

 

[JPS]

EPDs are a tool.  If you see EPDs on animals from a breeder that you trust, they are good tools.  From a breeder you don't trust, they are definitely suspect.  But to say all EPDs are worthless is throwing the baby out with the bath water.  Two full sib brothers can sire very different offspring. So EPDs don't remove all of the risk, when buying animals.  But from breeders that I trust, I use the EPDS.  From breeders that I don't trust, I am probably not considering buying from them anyway.

 

[shortybreeder]

EPDs are a tool.  If you see EPDs on animals from a breeder that you trust, they are good tools.  From a breeder you don't trust, they are definitely suspect.  But to say all EPDs are worthless is throwing the baby out with the bath water.  Two full sib brothers can sire very different offspring. So EPDs don't remove all of the risk, when buying animals.  But from breeders that I trust, I use the EPDS.  From breeders that I don't trust, I am probably not considering buying from them anyway.

^^This +100 <rock>

 

[RyanChandler]

Trust what?

Trust them to report accurately?

Trust them to only submit data when contemporary groups are large enough to become statistically relevant?

A previously stated comment and One I very much agree with, “ And 99% of the Shorthorn bulls out there aren’t going to get anywhere near the gross numbers, let alone numbers under the same or similar management, to make their EPDs representative.”

So while the breeder could be as honest as the day is long in terms of submitting raw date accurately, without a reasonably high level of epd accuracy, most of what igs generates for you is still disinformation rather than useful information.

And the water is only going to get muddier as breed associations continue meddling/bribing to have their breeds strengths prioritized and accentuated in the epd values.

 

[mark tenenbaum]

Then it would make sense to me that breeders etc who honestly send in data should only concentrate on a few field verified traits  If you want to make sense of Shorthorns at all Start with BWS and weaning( include or dont include creep)  After that JMO ultra sound and resultant documented real world yield grades would sure be a start  O0

 

[mark tenenbaum]

No creep feeders here. I manage the cattle here and it’s a strictly organic, grass fed operation. I can’t speak to Stampede but I can say for a fact the saskvalley cattle work great in a cross breeding scenario here. On all kinds of crossbred cows. /// They are in good shape it can be embarassing to see some good purebred cattle more or less squandered through mis management -overgrazing etc Why cant people figure out that it takes more input to bring cattle back when they are not in good shape calving or raising a calf then to maintain them in good condition year round including being able to recognize when something is wrong which ads to their losing ground Not every animal on four legs is hardoing etc  O0