Oldtimer said:
I think one of the problems with genomic tests are that they are so new- and not proven that well yet...My understanding is that its going to take time (years ?) to get a data base of archived DNA set up to make them more reliable...
For the persons that shoot for the highest EPD numbers they can get- they may mean more than they do me.... But the big numbers aren't my game as I'm looking more for uniformity and moderation...That said- I have had genomic tests ran on a couple of the herd bulls- mainly because of curiosity-- and to see if the test results (and resulting EPD's) back up what I'm seeing- especially on such traits as BW and CED...
On the one bull- I can say they added evidence to what I was already seeing- raising his CED EPD a couple of points- and lowering his BW EPD a little... On the other- its going to take some more calves/calf crops to see where they set with accuracy...
The technology/strategy is proven. Just ask someone in the dairy industry, especially the AI companies.
In one year the Hereford breed went from about 1,000 DNA samples to about 3,000 DNA samples. With 3,000 samples, the results become quite reliable, but of course not perfect.
If you are trying to achieve an optimum, I would think you would want to minimize possible change and maximize accuracy. What if the bull you tested had decreased in CED and increased in BW? Would you have waited two more years for progeny records to see that his values were even more sub-optimal than you originally expected? Or, would you rather cut your losses sooner than later? Just playing devils advocate and offering a different perspective. Or, what if you could have a more accurate/reliable estimate before you bought him?
As Mike says, it is a tool. I'm simply trying to explain that it is a tool that adds information, especially for young animals.