Shorthorn $ figures now have % rankings

[Okotoks]

The American Shorthorn Association has just updated their EPD's to include % rankings for the new $ figures as well as the ability to search CE figures.
I was surprised when checking the figures that some calving ease sires didn't look to be if you used these figures and others had very poor $F and $BMI to go with their good calving ease #'s.
Below is a short list of bulls that had at least two good $ values and some of them 3. I included Jake's Proud Jazz 266L as a comparison as he is usually mentioned as the best calving ease sire to use. There are 3 bulls on the list are used by Y Lazy Y Shorthorns in Montana, actually really impressive numbers, (thumbsup)
Coalpitt Creek Leader 6th and Kaper 4508 are both in the top 1% of the breed for $CEZ

A&T CAPTAIN OBVIOUS 606S
$CEZ/% + 35.14/15    $F/%   + 26.00/20       $BMI/%   + 38.98/2

COALPIT CREEK LEADER 6TH ET
$CEZ/% + 52.15/1      $F/%   + 17.21/45       $BMI/%   + 37.59/2

DIAMOND PROPHECY 21P
$CEZ/% +37.60/10       $F/%   +24.59/25           $BMI/% + 27.51/20

DRC 101VM
$CEZ/% +31.83/20       $F/%   +43.03/2              $BMI/% + 48.93/1

JAKE'S PROUD JAZZ 266L
$CEZ/% +23.81/45       $F/%   +16.54/60          $BMI/% + 24.44/70

KAPER 4508
$CEZ/% +52.69/1        $F/%   +13.03/90            $BMI/% + 30.78/10

 RS DV 034 329 08
$CEZ/% +30.65/25         $F/%   +31.16/10         $BMI/%   +31.50/10

SASKVALLEY BONANZA 219M
$CEZ/% +38.01/10        $F/%   +29.10/15           $BMI/%   +37.63/2

WAUKARU GOLD MINE 2109
$CEZ/% +46.42/2        $F/%  +32.09/10            $BMI/%  +28.82/15

YY THE EARL OF DOVER 118U
$CEZ/% +35.03/15       $F/%   +33.74/10            $BMI/%   +43.99/1

 

[JTM]

Can you explain what the figures mean and how we can analyze this? Thanks!

 

[Okotoks]

Can you explain what the figures mean and how we can analyze this? Thanks!

This is the info I got from Luke Bowman when I asked the same question (lol)

      $ CEZ – ($ Calving Ease) This index assumes a bull will only be mated to heifers, not cows. The potential profitability of the sire is measured by the incidence of live calves at birth. Moderate mature size is also emphasized in the index., but performance is not a priority. This index is also a good measure of Shorthorn females’ ability to produce calving ease sires. Overemphasis of $CEZ may cause unwanted depression of weaning and yearling performance.

        $F – ($ Feedlot) Similar to a Terminal Sire scenario used in Simmental, $Feedlot places strong emphasis on growth and carcass traits. This multi-trait index assumes the sire will be mated to a mix of heifers and cows and attempts to measure profitability when progeny are sold on the fed market. On the female side, mature size should be monitored closely when selecting for $F. Over-selection may cause detrimental harm to longevity, reproductive efficiency, and fleshing ability.

        $BMI – ($ British Maternal Index) As the name implies, this multi-trait selection index attempts to measure a bull’s potential profitability when complimenting the British cow base (Angus, Red Angus, Hereford, etc.). Shorthorn females can likewise be gauged at adding value to British or British-composite bulls of other breeds. A balance of growth and carcass traits is desired with a strong maternal component aimed at optimum reproductive efficiency and cow longevity.

 

[maineshorthorn]

.

three columns, first numbers are the EPD, 2nd is the percentile.

 

[trevorgreycattleco]

Very interesting. Thanks for posting sir!

 

[trevorgreycattleco]

I have to say tho. The more I read this the more confused I get. How was this developed? Compared to what? The whole shorthorn epd data base?  I'm happy with my bulls numbers but then I couldn't help but wonder how accurate this is? 4508 lacks in $F if I read this correctly? I find that hard to believe.

 

[Okotoks]

I have to say tho. The more I read this the more confused I get. How was this developed? Compared to what? The whole shorthorn epd data base?  I'm happy with my bulls numbers but then I couldn't help but wonder how accurate this is? 4508 lacks in $F if I read this correctly? I find that hard to believe.

I'm not sure except that $F is more on growth so might be why. It looks like a lot of his calves have better $F figures and still way above average $CEZ and $BMI. His sire was from an age when they were quite a bit smaller.

 

[trevorgreycattleco]

Still it's a good start for the breed. At least it's something to work with. Just need to research this a bit more.

 

[linnettejane]

i still dont get it  ???
so you want higher numbers?  does that represent how much more $ that animal is worth?  $F - do feeder buyers know about this?  is this going to help us compete with the black hides at the yards?
over selection? over emphasis? 

i need the blonde version... :-\

Can you explain what the figures mean and how we can analyze this? Thanks!

This is the info I got from Luke Bowman when I asked the same question (lol)

       $ CEZ – ($ Calving Ease) This index assumes a bull will only be mated to heifers, not cows. The potential profitability of the sire is measured by the incidence of live calves at birth. Moderate mature size is also emphasized in the index., but performance is not a priority. This index is also a good measure of Shorthorn females’ ability to produce calving ease sires. Overemphasis of $CEZ may cause unwanted depression of weaning and yearling performance.

        $F – ($ Feedlot) Similar to a Terminal Sire scenario used in Simmental, $Feedlot places strong emphasis on growth and carcass traits. This multi-trait index assumes the sire will be mated to a mix of heifers and cows and attempts to measure profitability when progeny are sold on the fed market. On the female side, mature size should be monitored closely when selecting for $F. Over-selection may cause detrimental harm to longevity, reproductive efficiency, and fleshing ability.

        $BMI – ($ British Maternal Index) As the name implies, this multi-trait selection index attempts to measure a bull’s potential profitability when complimenting the British cow base (Angus, Red Angus, Hereford, etc.). Shorthorn females can likewise be gauged at adding value to British or British-composite bulls of other breeds. A balance of growth and carcass traits is desired with a strong maternal component aimed at optimum reproductive efficiency and cow longevity.

 

[justintime]

Linnettejane.... you are not alone!  I looked up some different bulls numbers and I just don't get it either. Not only do I not get these new numbers, but I find the original EPD numbers to be questionable at least. What is used as the basis for calculating these new numbers. Every bull I have looked up so far has positive numbers so far. For example, in this list okotoks provided, Waukaru Gold Mine 2109 has a $F estimate of +32.09. Does this mean you can expect +32 more growth and carxass quality if you use this bull? ( I'm just using 2109 as an example) . Does this mean +32.09 more than the average of the breed?  If it does. where are the - ( negative)  numbers? Maybe I just haven't looked long enough but I think these may be just more numbers to confuse a bunch more people.

 

[r.n.reed]

Thanks for posting that Okotoks,and for the explanation as well.As to the Kaper 4508 $f #s a couple things come into play here.First would be the fact that 4508 was bred to be a moderator.He is the result of breeding a 1969 bull to a smaller size cow in my herd that came from  a line that reliably produced that type.This was in response to my thoughts that the nations cow herd was going to have to find a new level of optimum based on the amount and quality of feed available because of the cost.Second would be that the number as Okotoks alluded to,is at this point primarily based on pedigree.With what we are seeing so far and with more calves being born and measured across the U.S. and Canada, I would expect these #s to improve marginally with time.Case in point is Eionmor Port O Call 60h who happens to be in 4508's pedigree.His US carcass  epds are weak at best with just a few animals reported here,but he is off the charts in Australia where he was more widely used and had more data reported.

 

[justintime]

I guess I did not look long enough to find the negative numbers!  I just looked up my own herd bulls and quite frankly, now I am more confused than ever. I really have to question the accuracy of these numbers after looking at them. For example, Saskvalley Pioneer 126P has a $CE of +18.26 while Shadybrook Perfection 35S has a $CE of -16.14. I would certainly breed my heifers to Perfection long before I would breed them to Pioneer. Perfection is extremely easy calving and while Pioneer is a good calving sire, I hesitate to suggest him for heifers.Our Perfection calves out of cows averaged 83.2 lbs. I highly doubt that this is above average BWs for the breed!!!  Our HC Mist's Return 13R bull has a $CE value of +19.11. I have not used all the bulls available in the breed, but this is the easiest calving bull I have ever used. He also has the shortest gestation period of any bull I have used at an average gestation of 272 days. There is absolutely no way that some of the bulls listed could ever be easier calving that this bull..... not even a slightest chance. Some of the bulls listed are +40 above Mists Return and that is simply WRONG!!!!!.  I found several other bulls that I had to scratch my head and wonder if they had pulled the numbers out of a hat!

Another example is HC Timeline 17T who has a $CE of -15.93 and a $F of 29.98. I have not used Timeline on heifers but I am seriously considering using him on some. He has been 100% unassisted births for 4 years now. His offspring have the most explosive growth both pre and post weaning that we have seen. The Timeline sons who have been tested in our bull test have indexed 127 against all other bulls on test for gain. Meanwhile, using the numbers on these new EPDs, it shows Saskvalley Pioneer 126P having a $F of + 42.23. Pioneer calves have excellent growth, but they do not have more growth than the Timeline offspring.... no way!  The Pioneer bulls we have tested in our bull test have averaged 114 for ADG on test against alll bulls. In my world, there is a significant difference between indexes of 127 and 114, and yet the new numbers suggest far more growth from Pioneer than from Timeline.... You can waterboard me for a week.... and I will never agree with this!! 
I agree that these numbers are a starting point and should improve over time, but I do not believe the numbers can change enough to show what I have experienced in  my herd.

I am going to continue to look up some numbers, but I am concerned that people who put their trust in these numbers may be not getting the total picture and IMO, not an accurate picture. But then, I have questioned lots of other EPD numbers for many years. IMO, many of the numbers produced in these new EPDS are no better than a person guessing. Just my opinion!

 

[Okotoks]

I kind of got when it was explained to me but I probably know just enough to be dangerous explaining it to someone else. Here are two more figures of well known bulls. Rodeo Drive is in the top 1% for $F but in the bottom 100% for $CEZ.
JR Conquest 62K is in the top 1% for CE$ and still in the top 25% for $F.
HS RODEO DRIVE 062WR
$CEZ/%  -43.04/100    $F/%   +49.75/1              $BMI/%   +18.73/90
JR CONQUEST 62K
$CEZ/% +71.14/1        $F/%   +23.22/25             $BMI/%   +43.98/1

i still dont get it  ???
so you want higher numbers?  does that represent how much more $ that animal is worth?  $F - do feeder buyers know about this?  is this going to help us compete with the black hides at the yards?
over selection? over emphasis? 

i need the blonde version... :-\

Can you explain what the figures mean and how we can analyze this? Thanks!

This is the info I got from Luke Bowman when I asked the same question (lol)

       $ CEZ – ($ Calving Ease) This index assumes a bull will only be mated to heifers, not cows. The potential profitability of the sire is measured by the incidence of live calves at birth. Moderate mature size is also emphasized in the index., but performance is not a priority. This index is also a good measure of Shorthorn females’ ability to produce calving ease sires. Overemphasis of $CEZ may cause unwanted depression of weaning and yearling performance.

        $F – ($ Feedlot) Similar to a Terminal Sire scenario used in Simmental, $Feedlot places strong emphasis on growth and carcass traits. This multi-trait index assumes the sire will be mated to a mix of heifers and cows and attempts to measure profitability when progeny are sold on the fed market. On the female side, mature size should be monitored closely when selecting for $F. Over-selection may cause detrimental harm to longevity, reproductive efficiency, and fleshing ability.

        $BMI – ($ British Maternal Index) As the name implies, this multi-trait selection index attempts to measure a bull’s potential profitability when complimenting the British cow base (Angus, Red Angus, Hereford, etc.). Shorthorn females can likewise be gauged at adding value to British or British-composite bulls of other breeds. A balance of growth and carcass traits is desired with a strong maternal component aimed at optimum reproductive efficiency and cow longevity.

 

[trevorgreycattleco]

JIT did you report all this data you collected? Contemporary groups? I find it odd there numbers and your are so far off.  329 is about spot on IMO. I think he is a little better in the CEZ deal but I'll let time prove it out.

 

[NHR]

Well since you cannot trust the EPD's to begin with I just don't understand how you could trust the new numbers.

 

[maineshorthorn]

x2

 

[nate53]

I'm a big believer in epd's, but they need to have the actuals to back up the hypothetical #'s (which the shorthorn breed is seriously lacking).  Also you have to trust the program that you are buying from.

 

[JTM]

Thanks for posting the analysis Okotoks, great topic. Not sure what all makes up the numbers but I'm pretty happy with what I found on Renegade. It pretty much says what I think the bull is. Once calves start hitting the ground we will see for sure. 

A&T Renegade 124

$Calving Ease /%                        30.05/ 25th percentile
$Feedlot /%                                26.37/20th percentile
$British Maternal Index/%          35.29/ 3rd percentile

 

[jaimiediamond]

Obviously it's in the early days on these $ EPDs but it is one more tool in the box for those who choose to use them.  I will add them to my Shorty Heifer bull list which I am updating with fall 2012 EPD list.  <beer>

 

[huntaway]

I guess I did not look long enough to find the negative numbers!  I just looked up my own herd bulls and quite frankly, now I am more confused than ever. I really have to question the accuracy of these numbers after looking at them. For example, Saskvalley Pioneer 126P has a $CE of +18.26 while Shadybrook Perfection 35S has a $CE of -16.14. I would certainly breed my heifers to Perfection long before I would breed them to Pioneer. Perfection is extremely easy calving and while Pioneer is a good calving sire, I hesitate to suggest him for heifers.Our Perfection calves out of cows averaged 83.2 lbs. I highly doubt that this is above average BWs for the breed!!!  Our HC Mist's Return 13R bull has a $CE value of +19.11. I have not used all the bulls available in the breed, but this is the easiest calving bull I have ever used. He also has the shortest gestation period of any bull I have used at an average gestation of 272 days. There is absolutely no way that some of the bulls listed could ever be easier calving that this bull..... not even a slightest chance. Some of the bulls listed are +40 above Mists Return and that is simply WRONG!!!!!.  I found several other bulls that I had to scratch my head and wonder if they had pulled the numbers out of a hat!

Another example is HC Timeline 17T who has a $CE of -15.93 and a $F of 29.98. I have not used Timeline on heifers but I am seriously considering using him on some. He has been 100% unassisted births for 4 years now. His offspring have the most explosive growth both pre and post weaning that we have seen. The Timeline sons who have been tested in our bull test have indexed 127 against all other bulls on test for gain. Meanwhile, using the numbers on these new EPDs, it shows Saskvalley Pioneer 126P having a $F of + 42.23. Pioneer calves have excellent growth, but they do not have more growth than the Timeline offspring.... no way!  The Pioneer bulls we have tested in our bull test have averaged 114 for ADG on test against alll bulls. In my world, there is a significant difference between indexes of 127 and 114, and yet the new numbers suggest far more growth from Pioneer than from Timeline.... You can waterboard me for a week.... and I will never agree with this!! 
I agree that these numbers are a starting point and should improve over time, but I do not believe the numbers can change enough to show what I have experienced in  my herd.

I am going to continue to look up some numbers, but I am concerned that people who put their trust in these numbers may be not getting the total picture and IMO, not an accurate picture. But then, I have questioned lots of other EPD numbers for many years. IMO, many of the numbers produced in these new EPDS are no better than a person guessing. Just my opinion!

My understanding of EBV's, that i presume are calculated the same as EPD's, is that they are calculated from the comparison of the variation within a group and between linked groups. So in  a group of 100% unassisted births there is no variation to compare so will not be used in analysis. The only way Timelines calving ease will improve is if he or his sons are used in herds/ groups that do have some difficulties recorded.There is also a carcass componet to the feedlot index and not just growth,  Pioneer may be better in that area.

I do find the explanation of the index's lacking a bit of information. Our index's are based on a specific markets such as a self replacing herd targeting 300kg carcass weight at 18 months of age. Australia has three which are targeting three very different markets. As a self replacing herd i think the BMI index would be the best fit even for heifer bulls i would look at bulls with acceptable BW and CE and high BMI rather than the calving ease index.I do like index's as i think breeders can put to much emphisis on individual EPD's and these are more balanced over multiple traits.