I sure wish that I had been able to attend the Impact 2015 meeting. From what I read here as well as speaking with attendees, it seems to have left a very positive impression on people. I hope to be able to attend in the future. It sounds like the main “take away” was the need for more participation in the data collection part. It seems like this has been a problem in the breed for a long time. Most, who consider themselves “breeders” know firsthand what our cattle can do. Too few of us do what is necessary to help prove it.
Since purchasing our first registered Shorthorns nearly 20 years ago, I have been a strong proponent of data collection. Without this basic information it’s impossible to obtain hard evidence of what direction our individual herds are going. Every calf born here gets an actual BW recorded. I know a lot of folks favor a measuring tape. After experimenting with both I guess the tape is better than nothing. With a good spring scale, I have no doubt about what a new calf weighs. I built a gambrel from 2 inch square tubing that inserts into a standard hitch receiver on either the truck or 4-wheeler. I also purchased a simple sling with iron “D” rings that are attached to a rubberized canvas type band that supports the calf. This also makes it very handy to restrain the calf during the tagging/tattooing. It all gets done within 12 hours of birth. Calving season is also the time when I most appreciate the inherent docility of this breed as I am no longer inclined to nimbly leap into the back of a pickup to escape a raging cow that’s hell bent on causing me bodily harm.
In my opinion weaning weights are the most economically important data collected as the vast majority of cattle are marketed at weaning. This data often gets neglected due to lack of owning a scale. Prior to being able to buy a scale, I felt that the critical nature of accurate 205 day weights justified the hauling of the calves to a facility that had one I could use.
Few steers stay here until their first birthday, but we do collect YW’s on the bulls and replacement type heifers. Bulls are always scanned for carcass as are the majority of the heifers. This year, due to the uncertainty of the feeder cattle market we are taking a stock trailer load of 16-18 steers to the Tri-State Futurity mentioned in an above post. Weather/roads permitting, we hope to deliver them in early January. Scanning is a good tool. A carcass scored on the rail makes it more definitive.
In another thread, I listed the ultrasound average on the 2014 born bulls that were wintered at the Nancy M. Cummings Research Center near Salmon, ID. This center is owned and managed by the University of Idaho. The bulls there are also tested for feed efficiency with the “Grow Safe” equipment where each bull is given a RFID tag which allows the center to collect individual feed consumption on the cattle. Individual weights of the bulls are taken every two weeks. They weigh each bull on a Monday and then again on the next day and the two weights are averaged for the period to help compensate for difference in water/feed consumption from one day to the next. They are fed a high roughage diet designed to obtain 3 lbs. ADG. The Residual Feed Intake data has very little meaning at this point, as it is only comparing my bulls against each other (one contemporary grouping). Four of the bulls had negative RFI numbers, 2 were very slightly in the positive. They were all ½ siblings. This year we have only two sires represented, but it will at least provide us a little data in comparing the two sires. We do this as an investment in the future.
My point is that until the vast majority of Shorthorn breeders are submitting accurate and complete basic minimum data (BW, WW, and YW) on their cattle, our EPD’s are of very little value to the Industry as a whole.
For too many, EPD’s have become a “breed by the numbers” game. That game is pretty risky when a lot of the EPD’s are generated though previous generations or from cherry picked data. As others have noted: The most economically relevant trait for the commercial cattleman is for a cow to raise a calf every year for several years without excessive inputs. To me, inputs include labor and incidentals such as cows not birthing and caring for their calf unattended, calves that need assistance to grab hold of an oversize teat, hoof trimming, structural incorrectness, temperament, failure to breed back on time, etc. A live 600 lb. calf sure beats a dead one that had the potential to wean at 700 in the fall!
Librarian, I like the bull in the picture that you posted above. If I’m able to gather more information on his dam I will surely consider using him. However, when you factor in the DOB of 2/10/2012 listed on the ad along with the listed weaning date of 11/29/2012, it indicates that he was weaned from the cow at 294 days of age. This puts him slightly over the adjustment age range. The usual 205 day adj. weaning weight would have put him at about 610 lbs. A 205 day weight that’s acceptable in my opinion. In any regard, I think he’s a good one.
Dr. Wade Shafer from the Simmental Association gives a good power point presentation on EPD’s.
http://www.simmental.org/site/index.php/from-phenotypes-to-epds-the-genetic-model-dr-wade-shafer
