|
NS Canada | My problem with epd's is 2 fold - they swing quite wildly at times and is all blamed on 'low accuracy', Ok if they are that low why are they even to be believed, or have any merit given to them? And the fact that major producing animals can be ranked so low. You'll have cows knocking it out of the park year after year ranked in the blue across the board, and then these bulls of the week pop up with 'breed leading EPDs!' With actual and adjusted weights that aren't all that impressive and when you tune back in to see where they are in a couple years, they went from full green to completely tanked numbers.
So you can spend all this money one week to buy these breed leading bulls, but they can (and do) drop a bunch by next week, or be completely on the other side of the spectrum for traits by next year. Had that bull have been in the sale with those new EPDs he may have cost 40% of what he initially brought. You often see it in the bulls of yester-year also. Look up their original specs and what they were sold to the industry as, and then their modern numbers. The excuse will be that the breed has advanced that much more, or the data got that much more accurate.. Well why was it sold to us as gospel if it was off by that much?
I noticed this bulls the other day actually: Top 10 and 20% for CE and BW originally, Now in the bottom 95% And I don't know what went on with the weight epds in that time, did the scale change? His actual weaning weight of 735, Adj to 906 Didn't account for much either, where he's now ranked in the middle of the breed. Cause those 900 lb weanlings are just so-so calves.
Edited by Supa Dexta 3/24/2024 02:13
 (Wheatland 680s 2009 (full).png)
 (680s 2024 (full).png)
Attachments
----------------
 Wheatland 680s 2009 (full).png (166KB - 33 downloads)
680s 2024 (full).png (76KB - 37 downloads)
| |
|
Alberta bull
