AHDB Non Job's.

[neilo]

quite agree , keep it simple DOB / rough 100 day weights / kill weight divide by age , whoever takes the jobs on offer need to address the administration of all the schemes , perhaps listen to the grass roots and end users more rather than adopt a we know best attitude in press releases that all recorded is great , stay away from all non recorded .(still dont get how high index NZ , french , irish stock dont do well on our scheme maybe its the calculations or the jobs worths ? ) A general education to many commercial farmers would also be good forget the figures , looking at the men waving cheque books at sales like builth . Its a pleasure to deal with on farm buyers that know what they are looking at .

If you are referring to the French bred ram that I used, who had high figures in Ireland then crashed here, he has also bombed in Ireland now that his ebvs are more accurate through more progeny being recorded. It was clear to me when the lambs were very young, that their performance was a long way behind his contemporaries, by 8 weeks it was clearer still and by 21 weeks I was wishing I'd killed the rest of them too! His poor ebvs here accurately reflected his performance. I did keep a handful of his daughters, as they were out of my best female lines. They grew into phenomenally powerful shearlings, whose lambs also didn't perform at all well. If anyone had been selecting them based on what they looked like as shearlings, they would have been mislead.
I also recorded the progeny of a decent index NZ Texel, out of recorded Charollais ewes, through to scanning. It was only a small number so the ebvs would lack some accuracy, but the actual figures compared to his contemporaries (all March born and reared on grass only) tended to show that his relatively low ebvs weren't a million miles out.
The French sires I was referring to yesterday, have a decent number of progeny born into several recorded flocks over here, and their figures have not set the world alight. It is interesting to note that even when you look at actual figures from those lambs and their contemporaries by UK high muscle lines, the muscles by the UK sires are considerably higher.

Maybe those other (foreign) genetics just don't perform as well on the ground as some of the best of UK bloodlines?

 

[andybk]

If you are referring to the French bred ram that I used, who had high figures in Ireland then crashed here, he has also bombed in Ireland now that his ebvs are more accurate through more progeny being recorded. It was clear to me when the lambs were very young, that their performance was a long way behind his contemporaries, by 8 weeks it was clearer still and by 21 weeks I was wishing I'd killed the rest of them too! His poor ebvs here accurately reflected his performance. I did keep a handful of his daughters, as they were out of my best female lines. They grew into phenomenally powerful shearlings, whose lambs also didn't perform at all well. If anyone had been selecting them based on what they looked like as shearlings, they would have been mislead.
I also recorded the progeny of a decent index NZ Texel, out of recorded Charollais ewes, through to scanning. It was only a small number so the ebvs would lack some accuracy, but the actual figures compared to his contemporaries (all March born and reared on grass only) tended to show that his relatively low ebvs weren't a million miles out.
The French sires I was referring to yesterday, have a decent number of progeny born into several recorded flocks over here, and their figures have not set the world alight. It is interesting to note that even when you look at actual figures from those lambs and their contemporaries by UK high muscle lines, the muscles by the UK sires are considerably higher.

Maybe those other (foreign) genetics just don't perform as well on the ground as some of the best of UK bloodlines?

no it wasnt the french irish ram you allude to, didnt refer to any ram was just pointing out all other recording systems dont do well with signet (i had that from a signet meeting ) so either they are out or signet is with its calculation
, to be fair a lot of the french stock bought by the english and irish are not too different from here ie overfed show sheep (not station rams ) they are looking at animal on day rather than background , even from their ai stock list videos and data 80% arnt suitable for one reason or another ,The irish often buy from a small auction that come direct from selected breeders ,(not for me as most overcooked )
I bought a similar type as i would buy here both times ie not over big but long , really good fleeces , scanned just the higher side of fat (slightly below av index) , very high growth rates (but still on the small mature side ) high muscle scan index (and sire and dam) ,high milk index , and in debth research of history and heritability of traits ie how many offspring from last few years in station get within touching distance of sire or grandsire either way ,

 

[gone up the hill]

If youre selling fat lambs then you are getting the benefit at sale of time of the higher genetic merit.

Only if you use the top end EBV rams....

And less than 10% of levy payers use them....

Which shows you the problem!

 

[Gulli]

Only if you use the top end EBV rams....

And less than 10% of levy payers use them....

Which shows you the problem!

Not if you know what you are doing and are selecting on traits instead of overall index.

Got a source for that 10%?

 

[Al R]

I understand there is work being done currently to build some linkage between the UK and the Irish recording schemes, allowing that comparison.

“Ah she’ll be grand” probably doesn’t fit in the UK system then?

 

[M-J-G]

My logic is simple, many EBV rams are poorly bred because the breeders have no eye for stock and are just using figures, this needs to change going forward.

AHDB should not be paying someone £42k for the job advertised unless its self funding by EBV ram breeders of say £25 for every ram sold, the AHDB have a limited budget and the levy money should be used to benefit all levy payers, not just a few ram breeders.

Also quite clear how they have been pushing EBV figures isn't working and thus they need to make massive changes to how they promote them.

How would you have them spend the money if you were in charge?

 

[juke]

Ebvs are only any good if people are honest with what they put down, bull ebvs for a buyer are only really any use if they are looking at a selection of bulls from one herd, doesn't work in my opinion at the bull sales unfortunately.

 

[Henarar]

Ebvs are only any good if people are honest with what they put down, bull ebvs for a buyer are only really any use if they are looking at a selection of bulls from one herd, doesn't work in my opinion at the bull sales unfortunately.

Explain why ?

 

[Sandpit Farm]

Ebvs are only any good if people are honest with what they put down, bull ebvs for a buyer are only really any use if they are looking at a selection of bulls from one herd, doesn't work in my opinion at the bull sales unfortunately.

It is not easy to cheat the system long term. They actually put real weights down in the Lim brochures. Work out the DLWG and see if it looks feasible, then look at the accuracies. Accuracies will only really increase to very high levels >75+ if a well recorded animal has been used in it's ancestry or if it has a lot of relatives. If you wanted to cheat, you'd have to cheat with all of it's relatives too, then all of their progeny etc etc. There is no point. Have a look at 400-day weight EBV, if it is super high, it is likely it will have an impact on calving ease.

 

[juke]

Explain why ?

because the ebvs are correlated from each individual herd, not across a breed , a bull from herd A could have a 400 day weight of 800 kilos n still have an average ebv a bull from herd b could have a 400 day weight of 700 kilos be fed exactly the same and have a massive 400 day ebv. I'm not trying to knock ebvs I just think they have holes in them.

 

[Henarar]

because the ebvs are correlated from each individual herd, not across a breed , a bull from herd A could have a 400 day weight of 800 kilos n still have an average ebv a bull from herd b could have a 400 day weight of 700 kilos be fed exactly the same and have a massive 400 day ebv. I'm not trying to knock ebvs I just think they have holes in them.

if they were only for comparing stock from one farm you wouldn't need them your own eyes would tell you what you wanted to know

 

[juke]

It is not easy to cheat the system long term. They actually put real weights down in the Lim brochures. Work out the DLWG and see if it looks feasible, then look at the accuracies. Accuracies will only really increase to very high levels >75+ if a well recorded animal has been used in it's ancestry or if it has a lot of relatives. If you wanted to cheat, you'd have to cheat with all of it's relatives too, then all of their progeny etc etc. There is no point. Have a look at 400-day weight EBV, if it is super high, it is likely it will have an impact on calving ease.

the real weights are only the weights that a breeder has submitted.... go to the charolais breedplan n look up blelack digger that's a bull that has supposedly has everything, I'm not saying he Is a great bull but he has fantastic ebvs

 

[juke]

if they were only for comparing stock from one farm you wouldn't need them your own eyes would tell you what you wanted to know

there is correlation from historical data too, the thing that we all miss is in the title ESTIMATED ... I still stick to what ive said previously as ive seen it happen

 

[M-J-G]

Right so take a group of lambs and put them in a comparison group on a high input system some would do better for growth than others yes ?

take that same group of lambs from the same starting age [I know this is impossible] and put them on a low input grass system some would do better for growth than others yes ?

would it be the same ones that done best and worst on both systems ?
your saying no it wouldn't ? if this is the case then this is where it all starts to fall apart

It may not be the same lambs that do best in both groups, for example an animal with poorer gut capacity may be capable of being a much better animal on a concentrated diet than it will on high forage system.

Take it to it's extreme for the sake of the debate, take a group of Texel (or whatever) lambs and put them on a hopper in a shed and find the best performing animal, if the same group of animals were on a white grass hill, it is difficult to predict that it will be the same lamb that does best.

EBVs are unlikely to help out much either, as few pedigree Texels are kept in such an environment.
An extreme example I know, but it is a flaw in the system.

 

[Henarar]

It may not be the same lambs that do best in both groups, for example an animal with poorer gut capacity may be capable of being a much better animal on a concentrated diet than it will on high forage system.

Take it to it's extreme for the sake of the debate, take a group of Texel (or whatever) lambs and put them on a hopper in a shed and find the best performing animal, if the same group of animals were on a white grass hill, it is difficult to predict that it will be the same lamb that does best.

EBVs are unlikely to help out much either, as few pedigree Texels are kept in such an environment.
An extreme example I know, but it is a flaw in the system.

and one AHDB will tell us about no doubt

and as a fare % of ped breeders [at least in some breeds] are not exactly known for shying away from visits to the miller

 

[M-J-G]

It is not easy to cheat the system long term. They actually put real weights down in the Lim brochures. Work out the DLWG and see if it looks feasible, then look at the accuracies. Accuracies will only really increase to very high levels >75+ if a well recorded animal has been used in it's ancestry or if it has a lot of relatives. If you wanted to cheat, you'd have to cheat with all of it's relatives too, then all of their progeny etc etc. There is no point. Have a look at 400-day weight EBV, if it is super high, it is likely it will have an impact on calving ease.

I agree that it's difficult to cheat long term, but there are some who distort things by manipulating management groups etc.

If one stands ringside at a Lim sale in Carlisle, it is impossible to know what an actual weight is. It really knows no bounds, and the society seem to be quite happy with it.

 

[neilo]

It may not be the same lambs that do best in both groups, for example an animal with poorer gut capacity may be capable of being a much better animal on a concentrated diet than it will on high forage system.

Take it to it's extreme for the sake of the debate, take a group of Texel (or whatever) lambs and put them on a hopper in a shed and find the best performing animal, if the same group of animals were on a white grass hill, it is difficult to predict that it will be the same lamb that does best.

EBVs are unlikely to help out much either, as few pedigree Texels are kept in such an environment.
An extreme example I know, but it is a flaw in the system.

In general, I’m pretty sure the best growers are the best growers, whatever system they are reared on, within reason. Whether those animals would have enough finish on them at slaughter weights under lower input systems is more questionable IME.

There are however a few that don’t fit that theory at all, that are only shown up by testing them on forage only. My early lambing group are born and reared like most others in the breed, indoors until the grass starts to grow. When they go out, I wean them down to grass only with a 3-in-1 feeder. Every year, despite having culled out those genetics for many years, there are one or two that crash and burn once you remove their concentrates, evenly after such a gradual transition.
If I was to keep feeding those animals, even at a low level (‘just to give them some minerals’, as I’ve heard a few times), they would cope just fine and no doubt make it to sale as good breeding rams. I can guess what would happen to them, and their progeny, without further pampering.

Yes, the systems certainly not infallible, but it’s the best we have available (& being regularly tweaked & improved), and certainly a whole lot better than basing a judgement of genetic merit on how an animal looks on sale day, usually at an age/weight a million miles away from where you would be selling their progeny.

 

[Myfyriwr]

I've read this thread with some interest.

The breeding of dairy cows has been mentioned a few times - this is undoutebdly an extremely successful system. What has driven their system is the availability of commercial information through milk records and their ability to incorporate it into the test day model.

One of the main projects I believe this role will encompass is the carcass traits evaluation project - whereby kill data from huge numbers of offspring of commercial bulls are used for beef evaluations for actual commercial traits. This in my opinion will be an absolute game changer in beef breeding.

 

[M-J-G]

In general, I’m pretty sure the best growers are the best growers, whatever system they are reared on, within reason. Whether those animals would have enough finish on them at slaughter weights under lower input systems is more questionable IME.

There are however a few that don’t fit that theory at all, that are only shown up by testing them on forage only. My early lambing group are born and reared like most others in the breed, indoors until the grass starts to grow. When they go out, I wean them down to grass only with a 3-in-1 feeder. Every year, despite having culled out those genetics for many years, there are one or two that crash and burn once you remove their concentrates, evenly after such a gradual transition.
If I was to keep feeding those animals, even at a low level (‘just to give them some minerals’, as I’ve heard a few times), they would cope just fine and no doubt make it to sale as good breeding rams. I can guess what would happen to them, and their progeny, without further pampering.

Yes, the systems certainly not infallible, but it’s the best we have available (& being regularly tweaked & improved), and certainly a whole lot better than basing a judgement of genetic merit on how an animal looks on sale day, usually at an age/weight a million miles away from where you would be selling their progeny.

Yes I'd say that's about right, the growthy ones will still grow but will be lean and hard in the poorer conditions, as long as they arent so good at growing that it kills or severely stalls them.

Some of the hill breeds have struggled with EBVs because the recorded flocks are on better land and when the "best" sheep are on hard hills they aren't the best, as they cannot fuel their potential in a harsh environment.
Some have been totally disappointed with BLUP as they were told that the figures removes the effect of environment, but some cases it hasn't.
It comes down to a lack of understanding on the farmers part, and a lack of ability to question the system, but sometimes it has to be understood fully in order to spot these flaws and avoid being sent on the wrong path.

 

[Woolless]

Yes I'd say that's about right, the growthy ones will still grow but will be lean and hard in the poorer conditions, as long as they arent so good at growing that it kills or severely stalls them.

Some of the hill breeds have struggled with EBVs because the recorded flocks are on better land and when the "best" sheep are on hard hills they aren't the best, as they cannot fuel their potential in a harsh environment.
Some have been totally disappointed with BLUP as they were told that the figures removes the effect of environment, but some cases it hasn't.
It comes down to a lack of understanding on the farmers part, and a lack of ability to question the system, but sometimes it has to be understood fully in order to spot these flaws and avoid being sent on the wrong path.

I'm surprised that enough hill bred sheep are being recorded to discover the flaws in the system? The ones that I have heard about have made decent gains, though I can see that environmental factors could be even more important with hill sheep.