• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

Question for EPD experts

L

leanin' H

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 8, 2007
Messages
7,286
Location
Western Utah Desert
In my never ending quest to learn a little something about cattle, I recently noticed that a lot of bulls have very poor $EN numbers. The Select Catalog has very few bulls that arent really negative in that department. Now understand I am not single trait selecting for just $EN. But if a bovine could utilize feed more efficiently and pass that trait along to progeny, shouldn't that get our attention? My questions for ya'll is how is the $EN EPD defined exactly? (Maybe I am defining it incorrectly) :shock: And how important is it to you? And lastly, why are so many bulls really lacking in that particular EPD? I have found some that really excell by the way, but am still in study mode as to deciding to buy any semen. Thanks! Maybe my post should of been titled......QuestionS from a simple minded, under achieving, screwball. :D
 
From the Angus website:

A Cow Energy Value ($EN) is available to assess differences in cow energy requirements, expressed in dollars per cow per year, as an expected dollar savings difference in future daughters of sires. A larger value is more favorable when comparing two animals (more dollars saved on feed energy expenses). Components for computing the cow $EN savings difference include lactation energy requirements and energy costs associated with differences in mature cow size.


In the above example, the expected difference in cow energy savings per cow per year for future daughters of the two animals is +11.07 (15.75 - 4.68 = +11.07).
 
At a basic level, the extremely high performance sires that have a high milk epd will show - $ for the most part. Bulls with moderate or low performance and moderate to low milk will be better in the $EN department.
 
Range Jerseys will have bad EN numbers but until more seedstock cattle are run under commercial conditions it won't really be relevant to most purebred breeders. There are tradeoffs in everything for sure I know in my case and the guys I buy bulls for and sell heifers too that straying into the lofty heights of milk and growth leaders causes way to much attrition in the cowherd. If you can pencil the groceries high EN probably isn't very relevant if you want cattle will graze into the wind you can ignore it at your own peril. If you slect for moderation in production traits you are inadvertantly selecting for En anyways.
 
I think its a good thing to look at, but I don't think it is very accurate. The best way this epd can get accurate is by these tests that are using the RFI system. Those bulls will becaome the real proof for that number, and they probably need to run thousands of head of heifers through the system also. Until then, I don't get too concerned about.
 
sic 'em reds said:
I think its a good thing to look at, but I don't think it is very accurate. The best way this epd can get accurate is by these tests that are using the RFI system. Those bulls will becaome the real proof for that number, and they probably need to run thousands of head of heifers through the system also. Until then, I don't get too concerned about.
Click to expand...

I don't know if this will answer your question Leanin H, but I have to agree with this post. I have 4 years of RFI data on my bull crops and this year I did the heifers too as I thought it might add some relevance to the numbers with more head into the system and allow me to follow through on some of the cow families.

For instance this year there were 2 heifers in the group that both gained right at 3 lbs per day which is about 13% more than the average. One of the heifers ate 4% less than the average and the other consumed over 4% more than the average. The difference in feed cost amongst the 2 is $13.41 with a ration cost of $95/ Ton and just a 72 day feed period.

I have a hard time beleiveing that these dollar indexes can take into account the differences in metabilism amonst animals like these two, but the difference in feed cost due to metabolism is huge. The index may take into account milk production levels and mature cow weight and that is certainly something to take into consideration, but at this point in time my data says the efficiency of all 1200 lb cows aren't alike and the efficiency of all 1600 lb cows isnt alike. Maybe someone can tell us if they are taking into account the RADG figure they are creating which would add a little credence to it, but most of that is coming from DNA profiling which isn't all that accurate.

Hope this makes sense.

Brian
 
SMN Herf said:
sic 'em reds said:
I think its a good thing to look at, but I don't think it is very accurate. The best way this epd can get accurate is by these tests that are using the RFI system. Those bulls will becaome the real proof for that number, and they probably need to run thousands of head of heifers through the system also. Until then, I don't get too concerned about.
Click to expand...

I don't know if this will answer your question Leanin H, but I have to agree with this post. I have 4 years of RFI data on my bull crops and this year I did the heifers too as I thought it might add some relevance to the numbers with more head into the system and allow me to follow through on some of the cow families.

For instance this year there were 2 heifers in the group that both gained right at 3 lbs per day which is about 13% more than the average. One of the heifers ate 4% less than the average and the other consumed over 4% more than the average. The difference in feed cost amongst the 2 is $13.41 with a ration cost of $95/ Ton and just a 72 day feed period.

I have a hard time beleiveing that these dollar indexes can take into account the differences in metabilism amonst animals like these two, but the difference in feed cost due to metabolism is huge. The index may take into account milk production levels and mature cow weight and that is certainly something to take into consideration, but at this point in time my data says the efficiency of all 1200 lb cows aren't alike and the efficiency of all 1600 lb cows isnt alike. Maybe someone can tell us if they are taking into account the RADG figure they are creating which would add a little credence to it, but most of that is coming from DNA profiling which isn't all that accurate.

Hope this makes sense.

Brian
Click to expand...

I really agree with what you both are saying. While an EPD might give you an indication of what offspring are capable of, each critter and the habitat that critter roams around in will be different. Some cattle just plain perform better than others. Hopefully the accuracy of all these numbers will improve over time. They should if everybody does there job by collecting data for proccessing. I guess what intrigues me is trying to find those cattle that have a higher percentage of doing well on a lower grocery bill. Now if they'd just publish an EPD that rates cattle for high $BRWS, $WLWFW, $TIHHAFC and $WEYL I'd be set. :D BRWS is for Browse utilization skills. WLWFW is for Walking Long Ways For Water ability. TIHHAFC equals Thrives In High Heat And Freezing Cold while WEYL means Won't Eat Your Lunch! :wink: Thanks for everybodies two cents. Now I have somebody else to blame if I screw things up around here.
 
I'm prolly stickin my nose in where it don't belong. But after ten years of AIing angus I can say that we did a major overhaul on our calf rations.. Way less corn was needed for the growth we needed... Now I'll be the first to admit that maybe our hay and silage is better this year than any. But I truely feel that it's the cattle... And I think there is something to the dollar values.. but I won't say there is ONE sire that is better than the rest.......

Okay..... Carry on.....
 
Here's a for instance for you all....... Ohlde Cattle Co. has more than one bull with a great $EN number and the rest of the numbers aren't too shabby either. Here's a link to one of them. I like most of his numbers. What think you all? :D

http://www.ohldecattle.com/sires/emblazon854e.html
 
What came up for me was the old Emblazon bull.
He's tried and true as far as reducing frame size and making
good easy-fleshing females. Emblazon's mother is a daughter of the old
Rito 707. Doesn't get much better than that, IMO.

We used an Emblazon son, Magnitude, and was really
happy with the steer calves and the females. I'm not into
$SEN, etc. I look at bloodlines first, then glance at EPD's to
see if there is anything that sticks out, like too much milk.

The Magnitudes were very gentle as are the Emblazons.
 
SMN Herf said:
sic 'em reds said:
I think its a good thing to look at, but I don't think it is very accurate. The best way this epd can get accurate is by these tests that are using the RFI system. Those bulls will becaome the real proof for that number, and they probably need to run thousands of head of heifers through the system also. Until then, I don't get too concerned about.
Click to expand...

I don't know if this will answer your question Leanin H, but I have to agree with this post. I have 4 years of RFI data on my bull crops and this year I did the heifers too as I thought it might add some relevance to the numbers with more head into the system and allow me to follow through on some of the cow families.

For instance this year there were 2 heifers in the group that both gained right at 3 lbs per day which is about 13% more than the average. One of the heifers ate 4% less than the average and the other consumed over 4% more than the average. The difference in feed cost amongst the 2 is $13.41 with a ration cost of $95/ Ton and just a 72 day feed period.

I have a hard time beleiveing that these dollar indexes can take into account the differences in metabilism amonst animals like these two, but the difference in feed cost due to metabolism is huge. The index may take into account milk production levels and mature cow weight and that is certainly something to take into consideration, but at this point in time my data says the efficiency of all 1200 lb cows aren't alike and the efficiency of all 1600 lb cows isnt alike. Maybe someone can tell us if they are taking into account the RADG figure they are creating which would add a little credence to it, but most of that is coming from DNA profiling which isn't all that accurate.

Hope this makes sense.

Brian
Click to expand...

After doing a Master's degree and now a good portion of a Ph.D. on RFI, I would have to agree, nothing can compete with the accuracy of actual feed efficiency data at a rate of 40% heritability, just about as good as we can hope for in cattle. About 1/3 of the variation in RFI is directly related to maintenance differences, so we oughta be able to make some progress in reducing maintenance requirements while maintaining some desired level of production. In my opinion, $EN is probably a good substitute if you have nothing else to go on, but $EN is an index made up at least in part by other component epd traits like milk, so its accuracy and value can only be as good as its component traits.
 
One can answer the question if they have reg cattle with epds. One can log on and check your own epds of our own cattle. If you have access to that then its pretty easy to see how those numbers work and if they do.

If you are a commerical breeder I would really beware of both en and $B
for the bulls you buy or semen you use.

If ever a feeder pays extra for my bull customers calves just because they have big $B ( that may never happen) then I will worry about that. By that time the AAA will have another wonder epd thats the greatest of em all. Rumors floating in these neck of the woods the DNA coming from different DNA companies is not accurate betweent the companies. We also have a concern about semen quality to have it checked by a independet firm to test quality and tich before its ever used.

However the Angus promoters are riding on a big wave with $B figure.
AS said in this tread they still need to walk, be reporductive sound breed cows or raise calves year after year. AS I type this breeders are having bulls cut from consigment test sales becuase they have low $B. What a way to get a outstanding bull that comes from an old proven cow.
 
Hay Feeder said:
One can answer the question if they have reg cattle with epds. One can log on and check your own epds of our own cattle. If you have access to that then its pretty easy to see how those numbers work and if they do.

If you are a commerical breeder I would really beware of both en and $B
for the bulls you buy or semen you use.

If ever a feeder pays extra for my bull customers calves just because they have big $B ( that may never happen) then I will worry about that. By that time the AAA will have another wonder epd thats the greatest of em all. Rumors floating in these neck of the woods the DNA coming from different DNA companies is not accurate betweent the companies. We also have a concern about semen quality to have it checked by a independet firm to test quality and tich before its ever used.

However the Angus promoters are riding on a big wave with $B figure.
AS said in this tread they still need to walk, be reporductive sound breed cows or raise calves year after year. AS I type this breeders are having bulls cut from consigment test sales becuase they have low $B. What a way to get a outstanding bull that comes from an old proven cow.
Click to expand...

Thats for sure. $B is a terminal sire index! supposedly from a maternal breed!...the DNA tests from different companies are based on different validation populations and different markers so its [retty likely they are different.
 
Interesting article on MARC findings by Dr. Bob Hough

http://www.iqbeef.org/Blog/Hough.pdf
 
Justin said:
alright, here's another EPD for ya'll to toss around..CEM(Calving Ease Maternal)

is that a number you look at when selecting a bull?
Click to expand...

We look at it pretty closely. I always back out the CE component. Most breeds report CETM which is 1/2 CE + MCE. If a bull has really high CE EPD, his CETM automatically goes up a bunch, but not due to the maternal component. Eg: CE = 12 so MCE starts at +6.

MCE is actually negatively related to CE, so that's why we seperate them.
 
To be honest I've never considered it-the outfits I deal with it's really not an issue. The bull I bought is +10 for it but I didn't know that till after the sale lol.
 

Latest posts

Back
Top