So how do you select your calving ease bulls?

[jaimiediamond]

I have been reading some of the calving ease threads recently and I can't help but notice that the sire has a lot of "weight" put on him when really 50% of the genetic make up come from the female.  Some people go as far as to condemn the  bull after one heifer has trouble calving to him.  At no point did these people give a background pedigree on the heifer, or even physical attributes such as her weight or structure which might have explained the genetics clicking as they did; and why said heifer could not have X amount of pounds. At the same time many discount EPD's and their accuracies so how do you use to select your "calving ease bulls"? Especially within breed.

 

[leanbeef]

Yes...Obviously 1/2 the genetic make up comes from the cow's side, but that side is set...you can't change what she is. What we can control is what we use on her...I think that's why so much emphasis is placed on the sire's side when it comes to matings and changing/improving/selecting for any trait.

We try to use proven calving ease/low birth weight bulls. Proven bulls will be more consistent and more uniform, and I don't like surprises as calving time. I have been known to trust bulls that are bred to be calving ease bulls or have the numbers to suggest they SHOULD be...every breeder knows they don't always turn out like their pedigree or their numbers predict they should. As a purebred seed stock producer, I feel we have to sample some unproven bulls, but I try to be smart about the ones we use and where we use them, and we don't concentrate our entire breeding program around trying to find the next great one, especially when we're choosing matings for our heifers. I don't think a lot of people put enough emphasis on MCE, though, and that's one number I think deserves more consideration than it seems to get. I had a clean up bull several years ago that sired super nice looking females, and we were so excited when we started calving out his first daughters...until we had to pull nearly every dang calf out of em. I can't get behind anything that isn't practical and realistic in the real world.

 

[LN]

A proven Calving ease EPD is #1 for me. I put a little emphasis on BW EPD but not near as much as CE. And I completely agree Maternal CE is just as important. I'm not looking for my first calf heifers to have a humdinger in their first calf. I want them to calve early and unassisted. If I can find a bull that combines other desirable traits along with CE then that's a bonus for me.

I do agree that people are too quick to condemn a bull after one bad experience when there are so many other factors at play. If there's one thing that remains constant in raising livestock it's that sh*t happens.

 

[twistedhshowstock]

I realize that 1/2 the genetic material comes from the female...I am not going to condemn a bull that should be calving ease because of a couple hard pulls, there are to many variables to consider.  The trend that baffles me lately is so many people call a bull "calving ease" simply because he had a fairly low birthweight.  In my opinion and the way I was taught, weight of the calf shouldnt be a major issue, I have had several first calf angus heifers have nearly 100# calves with absolutely no assistance because the calf was shaped right.
For my 1st calf heifers I like for a bulls EPD's for BW to be low and for CED to be high, thats why I typically like to use purebreds on my 1st calf heifers.  The exception to the rule is when a bulls EPD's dont match what he has done.  No matter how good the EPDs are if he has thrown a lot of hard pulls I am probably not gonna trust him on my heifers.  At the same time, if there is a cross or a bull that doesnt have the greatest EPDs, yet they have continiously thrown smaller calves that come easy, then I can be convinced to try them on a heifer that has ok EPDs herself.  I wont risk those bulls on heifers that are gonna add to the calving difficulty though.  I feel I can take this risk because I typically always watch my heifers when they are calving so I can be there to help them should they need it.
Beyond that once I put together a list of bulls that I am comfortable with for calving ease, I select just like I would any bull, I find the one that I think offers the most to improve my heifer.  The thing that I think is most difficult to find in a sure fire calving ease bull is one that will add power to a heifer that needs it.  In the situation that I dont find a calving ease bull that I think really compliments my heifer a lot, I typically go for the most maternal calving ease bull I can, because I figure none of them will end up in the showring, the steers will go to sale barn anyway, and maybe she will throw a heifer that can be a replacement.  And occasionally they will throw me a really fancy heifer that can make a good project for somebody.

 

[kfacres]

IMO and experience...  calf shape and environment play bigger parts in calving ease-- than say a bull's birth weight or EpD.

We rarely calve in the winter or spring-- almost always in the fall-- which will lower bw down.  I have bred many a heifer to clubby, shorthorn- or whatever kind of 'non calving ease' bull before-- I think limit the feed intake- make sure your heifers aren't too fat-- and they'll be fine.  

IMO- I try to see as many of the possible bulls I can when making mating decisions== or put my trust in someone who has.  i'm a firm believer that the stout boned, big assed, big shouldered,  big headed bulls-- should not be put in heifers- regardless of other things..  IMO most of these (65) lb "clubby" or "shorthorn" bulls-- were the product of a short gestation-- something maybe 2 weeks short.  it's my thoughts that EPDs and birth weights are easy to manipulate-- yet the actually makeup of that animal- is nearly impossible to change: without photoshop of course.

If it would work-- I'd prefer all of my calves to be born backwards--  much more natural of a triangle shape...  but then again- we don't have much luck in having those deals born- and remain alive...

on the contrary-- in our sheep flock- I select for heavier birth weights- which is almost every case means a bigger, more vigorous lamb to be born-- and then when you look at the vertical size of my ewes- and the height of teat and udder floor-- some of those tiny dinks-- just aren't big enough to suck..

 

[leanbeef]

I realize that 1/2 the genetic material comes from the female...I am not going to condemn a bull that should be calving ease because of a couple hard pulls, there are to many variables to consider.  The trend that baffles me lately is so many people call a bull "calving ease" simply because he had a fairly low birthweight.  In my opinion and the way I was taught, weight of the calf shouldnt be a major issue, I have had several first calf angus heifers have nearly 100# calves with absolutely no assistance because the calf was shaped right.
For my 1st calf heifers I like for a bulls EPD's for BW to be low and for CED to be high, thats why I typically like to use purebreds on my 1st calf heifers.  The exception to the rule is when a bulls EPD's dont match what he has done.  No matter how good the EPDs are if he has thrown a lot of hard pulls I am probably not gonna trust him on my heifers.  At the same time, if there is a cross or a bull that doesnt have the greatest EPDs, yet they have continiously thrown smaller calves that come easy, then I can be convinced to try them on a heifer that has ok EPDs herself.  I wont risk those bulls on heifers that are gonna add to the calving difficulty though.  I feel I can take this risk because I typically always watch my heifers when they are calving so I can be there to help them should they need it.
Beyond that once I put together a list of bulls that I am comfortable with for calving ease, I select just like I would any bull, I find the one that I think offers the most to improve my heifer.  The thing that I think is most difficult to find in a sure fire calving ease bull is one that will add power to a heifer that needs it.  In the situation that I dont find a calving ease bull that I think really compliments my heifer a lot, I typically go for the most maternal calving ease bull I can, because I figure none of them will end up in the showring, the steers will go to sale barn anyway, and maybe she will throw a heifer that can be a replacement.  And occasionally they will throw me a really fancy heifer that can make a good project for somebody.

Here's the thing...a bull that has "thrown a lot of hard pulls" is not a calving ease bull, and his EPDs should reflect that. Accuracies can be just as important as the number itself, and a bull with any proof either way will move his numbers in that direction AND increase the accuracy for that number. Higher accuracy bulls generally have been tested in more herds and have proven to be more predictable, and that's what makes them safer. There will always be flukes, but we can minimize the chances of that using some common sense and making some logical decisions.

While I will agree that calf shape has some merit in terms of calving ease, the argument that shape is MORE important or even AS important as the size of the calf doesn't float. Birth weight is proven to be the Number 1 factor, and people who argue with that are probably trying to promote a bull that throws bigger than average calves. I'm not saying there isn't a place for a bull that throws a little more birth weight...as long as we get paid by the pound and performance matters, birth weight will be a part of that equation. And I believe that no matter how many generations we try to breed for the big spread cattle, the flukes will happen using unproven bulls that are expected to be low BW + high performance on the same kind of females. BW and performance are too correlated, and not all of those young bulls will turn out to be both CE & performance bulls.

 

[Aussie]

IMO and experience...  calf shape and environment play bigger parts in calving ease-- than say a bull's birth weight or EpD.

We rarely calve in the winter or spring-- almost always in the fall-- which will lower bw down.  I have bred many a heifer to clubby, shorthorn- or whatever kind of 'non calving ease' bull before-- I think limit the feed intake- make sure your heifers aren't too fat-- and they'll be fine.  

IMO- I try to see as many of the possible bulls I can when making mating decisions== or put my trust in someone who has.  i'm a firm believer that the stout boned, big assed, big shouldered,  big headed bulls-- should not be put in heifers- regardless of other things..  IMO most of these (65) lb "clubby" or "shorthorn" bulls-- were the product of a short gestation-- something maybe 2 weeks short.  it's my thoughts that EPDs and birth weights are easy to manipulate-- yet the actually makeup of that animal- is nearly impossible to change: without photoshop of course.

))
This is my rant from page 7 in the Shorthon Hfr Thread  <deadhorse>

Firstly I release that I am on the other side of the world and things are different but the basic cattle breeding pratices should be similar. Calving ease is influenced by nutrition, calf shape, bull and cow structure. Bulls need a good laid in set of shoulders. Cows need a good hip to pin. Many breeders are so hooked up on birth weight EPD's they forget to select for actual calving ease. I have used many higher birth wt. bulls (+ breed ave.) over hfrs but they have been set up right for calves the right shape.

Breeding these short heavily muscled big shouldered bulls is heading for problem calving. Sure the calves may be little but with their shoulders will they come out. I don't think the argument for quick finishing stacks up. Here we are paid by weight all cattle are finished on grass. We have been doing it since day dot it is not a new thing and have been able to do it with the high performance high growth cattle from the past twenty years. The trend to low frame early maturity cattle mean yes they will fatten quickly but once fat that's it. The single most important factor influencing profit is weight so growth should be a high priority. To clarify growth I am talking about thickness plus growth/frame. It is easy to make a short animal appear thick but much harder to make a framer animal that is thick. That is what I try to breed and what my clients want.

 

[linnettejane]

i dont pay too much attention to epd's  in the shorthorns, i put more weight on the registered progeny of the bull im going to use, looking up as many as i can, making note of bw's, dams breeding(to see if i have anything similar), and breeder....what?  what does it matter who the breeder is? ?  ? ? ? ?  well here's why it matters to me.........if hes being pushed as calving ease...but only low bw calves are being registered from the owners or their best buddies...and everyone else in the real world is having 100+ lbers...................well.....that means it wont be calving ease for me.......and i pass...

 

[thunderdownunder]

))
This is my rant from page 7 in the Shorthon Hfr Thread  <deadhorse>

Firstly I release that I am on the other side of the world and things are different but the basic cattle breeding pratices should be similar. Calving ease is influenced by nutrition, calf shape, bull and cow structure. Bulls need a good laid in set of shoulders. Cows need a good hip to pin. Many breeders are so hooked up on birth weight EPD's they forget to select for actual calving ease. I have used many higher birth wt. bulls (+ breed ave.) over hfrs but they have been set up right for calves the right shape.

Breeding these short heavily muscled big shouldered bulls is heading for problem calving. Sure the calves may be little but with their shoulders will they come out. I don't think the argument for quick finishing stacks up. Here we are paid by weight all cattle are finished on grass. We have been doing it since day dot it is not a new thing and have been able to do it with the high performance high growth cattle from the past twenty years. The trend to low frame early maturity cattle mean yes they will fatten quickly but once fat that's it. The single most important factor influencing profit is weight so growth should be a high priority. To clarify growth I am talking about thickness plus growth/frame. It is easy to make a short animal appear thick but much harder to make a framer animal that is thick. That is what I try to breed and what my clients want.

I agree.... I don't know how many times I've also said this myself here!!  <deadhorse>

I am a very strong believer in calf shape and cow nutrition during pregnancy... as well as placing just as much emphasis on the mother's stats as on the bull's.  <deadhorse>

 

[justintime]

))
This is my rant from page 7 in the Shorthon Hfr Thread  <deadhorse>

Firstly I release that I am on the other side of the world and things are different but the basic cattle breeding pratices should be similar. Calving ease is influenced by nutrition, calf shape, bull and cow structure. Bulls need a good laid in set of shoulders. Cows need a good hip to pin. Many breeders are so hooked up on birth weight EPD's they forget to select for actual calving ease. I have used many higher birth wt. bulls (+ breed ave.) over hfrs but they have been set up right for calves the right shape.

Breeding these short heavily muscled big shouldered bulls is heading for problem calving. Sure the calves may be little but with their shoulders will they come out. I don't think the argument for quick finishing stacks up. Here we are paid by weight all cattle are finished on grass. We have been doing it since day dot it is not a new thing and have been able to do it with the high performance high growth cattle from the past twenty years. The trend to low frame early maturity cattle mean yes they will fatten quickly but once fat that's it. The single most important factor influencing profit is weight so growth should be a high priority. To clarify growth I am talking about thickness plus growth/frame. It is easy to make a short animal appear thick but much harder to make a framer animal that is thick. That is what I try to breed and what my clients want.

I agree.... I don't know how many times I've also said this myself here!!  <deadhorse>

I am a very strong believer in calf shape and cow nutrition during pregnancy... as well as placing just as much emphasis on the mother's stats as on the bull's.  <deadhorse>

I agee with the Aussie's. We need to talk about calving ease at the same time we talk about birth weights. Unassisted calvings are a combination of several things ... not just BW or a low BW EPD

 

[kfacres]

))
This is my rant from page 7 in the Shorthon Hfr Thread  <deadhorse>

Firstly I release that I am on the other side of the world and things are different but the basic cattle breeding pratices should be similar. Calving ease is influenced by nutrition, calf shape, bull and cow structure. Bulls need a good laid in set of shoulders. Cows need a good hip to pin. Many breeders are so hooked up on birth weight EPD's they forget to select for actual calving ease. I have used many higher birth wt. bulls (+ breed ave.) over hfrs but they have been set up right for calves the right shape.

Breeding these short heavily muscled big shouldered bulls is heading for problem calving. Sure the calves may be little but with their shoulders will they come out. I don't think the argument for quick finishing stacks up. Here we are paid by weight all cattle are finished on grass. We have been doing it since day dot it is not a new thing and have been able to do it with the high performance high growth cattle from the past twenty years. The trend to low frame early maturity cattle mean yes they will fatten quickly but once fat that's it. The single most important factor influencing profit is weight so growth should be a high priority. To clarify growth I am talking about thickness plus growth/frame. It is easy to make a short animal appear thick but much harder to make a framer animal that is thick. That is what I try to breed and what my clients want.

I agree.... I don't know how many times I've also said this myself here!!  <deadhorse>

I am a very strong believer in calf shape and cow nutrition during pregnancy... as well as placing just as much emphasis on the mother's stats as on the bull's.  <deadhorse>

I agee with the Aussie's. We need to talk about calving ease at the same time we talk about birth weights. Unassisted calvings are a combination of several things ... not just BW or a low BW EPD

don't worry JIT-- it's ok to overlook the originator of those thoughts.. <rock>

 

[jaimiediamond]

As I stated in previous posts, I believe that the BW issue in most Shorthorn herds is no worse than in many other breeds. Yes there are many Angus that have smaller BWs, but there are also some Angus BWs that are getting out of control as well. This breed will be dealing with this issue before long as well. There are some bigger BWs in the Shorthorn breed, and we need to address them. We do not have to mess with the entire breed population if this is not a problem.

I have been reading this with great interest and with JIT bringing angus in I feel I will jump in as this is something I feel very strongly about.
Firstly I release that I am on the other side of the world and things are different but the basic cattle breeding pratices should be similar. Calving ease is influenced by nutrition, calf shape, bull and cow structure. Bulls need a good laid in set of shoulders. Cows need a good hip to pin. Many breeders are so hooked up on birth weight EPD's they forget to select for actual calving ease. I have used many higher birth wt. bulls (+ breed ave.) over hfrs but they have been set up right for calves the right shape.
.......Here comes the bit many will not agree with.
I feel the angus in the states has lost its way. Breeding these short heavily muscled big shouldered bulls is heading for problem calving. Sure the calves may be little but with their shoulders will they come out. I don't think the argument for quick finishing stacks up. Here we are paid by weight all cattle are finished on grass. We have been doing it since day dot it is not a new thing and have been able to do it with the high performance high growth cattle from the past twenty years. The trend to low frame early maturity cattle mean yes they will fatten quickly but once fat that's it. The single most important factor influencing profit is weight so growth should be a high priority. To clarify growth I am talking about thickness plus growth/frame. It is easy to make a short animal appear thick but much harder to make a framer animal that is thick. That is what I try to breed and what my clients want.
That is my rant from down under I feel better and if you don't agree that's fine I feel better saying it

I really did enjoy most of the posts on the first few pages of the shorty heifer bulls.  There was a lot of logical views and different opinions that could be used as part of this discussion.  This quote can be clicked to review them if anyone has time.

 

[frostback]

I saw this question earlier and I have been thinking  about how I was going to answere. I guess I am still thinking how I do pick the bulls. A lot of my picks have depended on simple word of mouth. In my area of clubbies most bulls dont have EPDs to help so I talk and talk to people and see what bulls are working on cows bred like mine. Simpling put the proof is in the pudding, what is working for others. That being said I dont use the guy that has had one calf but call the owner and talk to them and then see who he has heard has had calves by the sire in question. I have used clubby, Charolais, Shorthorn, Simmental, and have had good luck. For the most part I dont have a high BW herd. Most of our cows are true F1s so there is still some predictability in them.

 

[ROAD WARRIOR]

When I look for a new "heifer" bull, the first thing I look at is the pedigree. After about 30 years in the RA breed, I am pretty familiar with the R A gene pool. If I am satisfied with the way the pedigree reads, I look at the animal and the way he is put togather. If that suits me I will look at the birth wt ratio of the dam and his actual birth weight (assuming I trust the people that raised him and I won't buy a bull from someone that I do not know - which isn't many in this breed) I also pay attention to where the calf was raised ( a 65# calf in Kentucky will be a 75# calf here - a 85# calf in Canada will be a 75# calf here - estimates only on the weights differences) At that point I make my decision on the bull. I have pulled 1 calf in the last 6 years, it was a backwards calf out of a first calf heifer. I expect my heifers to be able to have a 85+# with out any assistance. I have been known to use a bull with a 3.7 Birth EPD if he is made right. I think it is important to remember that it is hard to get a square peg through a round hole. A classic example of this is when my grandfather became too ill to take care of his commercial herd. At the time he was using an old fashioned, almost 1950 era hereford bull that he bought from another elderly gentleman that maintained a closed herd. The bull was short, thick and wide - almost square in appearance. I would routinely pull almost all of the calves out of his first calf heifers and they were very small as far as BW 60 to 72#s. I was just getting started in the RA business back then and we decided togather to sell the "old bull" and turn out a RA bull. The next spring we never touched a heifers calf at birth and they averaged 77#s. Food for thought. RW

 

[sue]

Yes...Obviously 1/2 the genetic make up comes from the cow's side, but that side is set...you can't change what she is. What we can control is what we use on her...I think that's why so much emphasis is placed on the sire's side when it comes to matings and changing/improving/selecting for any trait.

We try to use proven calving ease/low birth weight bulls. Proven bulls will be more consistent and more uniform, and I don't like surprises as calving time. I have been known to trust bulls that are bred to be calving ease bulls or have the numbers to suggest they SHOULD be...every breeder knows they don't always turn out like their pedigree or their numbers predict they should. As a purebred seed stock producer, I feel we have to sample some unproven bulls, but I try to be smart about the ones we use and where we use them, and we don't concentrate our entire breeding program around trying to find the next great one, especially when we're choosing matings for our heifers. I don't think a lot of people put enough emphasis on MCE, though, and that's one number I think deserves more consideration than it seems to get. I had a clean up bull several years ago that sired super nice looking females, and we were so excited when we started calving out his first daughters...until we had to pull nearly every dang calf out of em. I can't get behind anything that isn't practical and realistic in the real world.

;D

 

[twistedhshowstock]

I realize that 1/2 the genetic material comes from the female...I am not going to condemn a bull that should be calving ease because of a couple hard pulls, there are to many variables to consider.  The trend that baffles me lately is so many people call a bull "calving ease" simply because he had a fairly low birthweight.  In my opinion and the way I was taught, weight of the calf shouldnt be a major issue, I have had several first calf angus heifers have nearly 100# calves with absolutely no assistance because the calf was shaped right.
For my 1st calf heifers I like for a bulls EPD's for BW to be low and for CED to be high, thats why I typically like to use purebreds on my 1st calf heifers.  The exception to the rule is when a bulls EPD's dont match what he has done.  No matter how good the EPDs are if he has thrown a lot of hard pulls I am probably not gonna trust him on my heifers.  At the same time, if there is a cross or a bull that doesnt have the greatest EPDs, yet they have continiously thrown smaller calves that come easy, then I can be convinced to try them on a heifer that has ok EPDs herself.  I wont risk those bulls on heifers that are gonna add to the calving difficulty though.  I feel I can take this risk because I typically always watch my heifers when they are calving so I can be there to help them should they need it.
Beyond that once I put together a list of bulls that I am comfortable with for calving ease, I select just like I would any bull, I find the one that I think offers the most to improve my heifer.  The thing that I think is most difficult to find in a sure fire calving ease bull is one that will add power to a heifer that needs it.  In the situation that I dont find a calving ease bull that I think really compliments my heifer a lot, I typically go for the most maternal calving ease bull I can, because I figure none of them will end up in the showring, the steers will go to sale barn anyway, and maybe she will throw a heifer that can be a replacement.  And occasionally they will throw me a really fancy heifer that can make a good project for somebody.

Here's the thing...a bull that has "thrown a lot of hard pulls" is not a calving ease bull, and his EPDs should reflect that. Accuracies can be just as important as the number itself, and a bull with any proof either way will move his numbers in that direction AND increase the accuracy for that number. Higher accuracy bulls generally have been tested in more herds and have proven to be more predictable, and that's what makes them safer. There will always be flukes, but we can minimize the chances of that using some common sense and making some logical decisions.

While I will agree that calf shape has some merit in terms of calving ease, the argument that shape is MORE important or even AS important as the size of the calf doesn't float. Birth weight is proven to be the Number 1 factor, and people who argue with that are probably trying to promote a bull that throws bigger than average calves. I'm not saying there isn't a place for a bull that throws a little more birth weight...as long as we get paid by the pound and performance matters, birth weight will be a part of that equation. And I believe that no matter how many generations we try to breed for the big spread cattle, the flukes will happen using unproven bulls that are expected to be low BW + high performance on the same kind of females. BW and performance are too correlated, and not all of those young bulls will turn out to be both CE & performance bulls.

While I agree that the bulls #s should change based on his performance...you have to remember that a lot of that stuff doesnt always get reported.  Thats another reason that EPDs cant be totally trusted, because there is no way to guarantee that everything is being reported accruately..I do howver stand behind my opinion that shape is more important than weight.  I have had plenty of heifers have big calves without any help...I havent however had many heifers and cows have huge shouldered calves without any help.  But thats my opinion and how I select and it works for me...You have to find what works for your herd.

 

[Davidsonranch]

Just curious, when it comes to low BW EPD's, what do most consider low??? Do they have to be in the (-)'s?
Give me some examples or ranges people are using for "low" BW EPD's in their operations.  I guess my point is even EPD #'s may differ from one person to another in what they consider "low".
The bull I was looking at using on some heifers this year has a -2.9 BW to me that is pretty low.

 

[thunderdownunder]

Just curious, when it comes to low BW EPD's, what do most consider low??? Do they have to be in the (-)'s?
Give me some examples or ranges people are using for "low" BW EPD's in their operations.  I guess my point is even EPD #'s may differ from one person to another in what they consider "low".
The bull I was looking at using on some heifers this year has a -2.9 BW to me that is pretty low.

That all depends on the breed. Trying to compare, say, Shorthorn EPDs with Angus EPDs is like trying to compare apples with pears.

 

[sue]

Just curious, when it comes to low BW EPD's, what do most consider low??? Do they have to be in the (-)'s?
Give me some examples or ranges people are using for "low" BW EPD's in their operations.  I guess my point is even EPD #'s may differ from one person to another in what they consider "low".
The bull I was looking at using on some heifers this year has a -2.9 BW to me that is pretty low.

In shorthorn -2.9 would fall in the top 1% of the breed . CE should be positive numbers like +5.0 . 
Hopefully this  -2.9 bull  not result of mating a extreme calving ease/low birth weight bull to a exterme high  calving ease/ bw .... this happens often in shorthorn.  I would not use the fire and ice type mating on heifers regardless of numbers.

 

[aj]

I think its not simple. If you have extreme bwt's in the females pedigree you may get a monster from an easy calving bull. If you have the big birth junl floating around in your pedigree you will have a wreck. I think if someone has a common sense herd with alot of 80 pound calves you can introduce a big bwt bull to them you will get by the first cross ok but when you keep daughters of these bulls back you are kinda out of whack again. When I picked my homegrown heifer bull I looked at the bulls bwt....his dams birth weight.....and the bulls sire bwt. To me this is about as good as you can do in the Shorthorn breed cause we don't have the epd's accuracies. I have reading Red Angus epds and it is amazing how much difference there can be in maternal calving ease of ai sires. This really usefull I think. Most club calves have monster bwt's in there cows pedigree's so I would use a longhorn on them. Thats the situation. I can't see that holding your head just right is going to work. When you 120# bwt's bouncing around in the herds pedigrees.