AHDB Non Job's.

[neilo]

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.

I don't profess to know anything about hill sheep recording, as I am only involved in recording terminals.

That was my point about whether the lambs would necessarily have enough finish at slaughter weights. That has little to do with fat ebvs, as everyone likes to blame, as it can be equally true for fat sheep. The problem is from high mature weights, so lambs are not having any level of maturity at slaughter weights, which is all 'finish' is. Without careful selection by the breeder, it's very easy to breed ever bigger, later maturing sheep, by chasing growth rates alone. I'm not convinced that the mature weight ebv is a particularly useful tool to control that, especially when so few terminals actually have it recorded (my flock included) and if breeders did look at the mature wt ebv, a lot would just use it to breed bigger sheep for the sale/show rings.
When you have shearling Charollais rams winning the big shows at 180-200kg it passes the wrong message down the line. I can't see their lambs being fleshed and finished at 42 kg somehow, without shedloads of feed.

 

[andybk]

I don't profess to know anything about hill sheep recording, as I am only involved in recording terminals.

That was my point about whether the lambs would necessarily have enough finish at slaughter weights. That has little to do with fat ebvs, as everyone likes to blame, as it can be equally true for fat sheep. The problem is from high mature weights, so lambs are not having any level of maturity at slaughter weights, which is all 'finish' is. Without careful selection by the breeder, it's very easy to breed ever bigger, later maturing sheep, by chasing growth rates alone. I'm not convinced that the mature weight ebv is a particularly useful tool to control that, especially when so few terminals actually have it recorded (my flock included) and if breeders did look at the mature wt ebv, a lot would just use it to breed bigger sheep for the sale/show rings.
When you have shearling Charollais rams winning the big shows at 180-200kg it passes the wrong message down the line. I can't see their lambs being fleshed and finished at 42 kg somehow, without shedloads of feed.

good post totally agree , need to get the message down to commercial farmers , (size doesnt always= growth) , they are the ones perpetuating the myth by buying them , encouraging even more (our prem sale is the same ) you can have very high growth rates to 40kg without a huge mature frame .As you said its about maturity , 100 to 120kg is plenty big enough for a ram .

 

[neilo]

good post totally agree , need to get the message down to commercial farmers , (size doesnt always= growth) , they are the ones perpetuating the myth by buying them , encouraging even more (our prem sale is the same ) you can have very high growth rates to 40kg without a huge mature frame .As you said its about maturity , 100 to 120kg is plenty big enough for a ram .

You somehow have to demonstrate that an animal had good growth to 40kg though, and be able to select on that performance, which is where recording plays a part IMO, but only as one part of the breeder's toolbox.

 

[Sid]

Got a source for that 10%?

Of course he hasn't he makes up figures and NEVER backs them up.

Interestingly if you have a flock the only way you can tell which ram sired which lambs is to have seperate bunches for each ram. Ok for 60 ewes but get into the 100's and it becomes a PIA.

EBV mustbe similar to PTAs?

 

[Henarar]

hen you have shearling Charollais rams winning the big shows at 180-200kg it passes the wrong message down the line. I can't see their lambs being fleshed and finished at 42 kg somehow, without shedloads of feed.

shows and showing animals have a lot to do with some of the failure of EBVs

any computer program is only as good as the information provided to it

 

[Gulli]

Of course he hasn't he makes up figures and NEVER backs them up.

Interestingly if you have a flock the only way you can tell which ram sired which lambs is to have seperate bunches for each ram. Ok for 60 ewes but get into the 100's and it becomes a PIA.

EBV mustbe similar to PTAs?

Well aware of that

You can DNA test for parentage but it's not cheap enough yet. Obviously if you run two different breeds it's fairly easy to tell.

Yes pretty much the same thing. Semen companies still aren't putting figures in the brochures for their beef bulls then?

 

[neilo]

Of course he hasn't he makes up figures and NEVER backs them up.

Interestingly if you have a flock the only way you can tell which ram sired which lambs is to have seperate bunches for each ram. Ok for 60 ewes but get into the 100's and it becomes a PIA.

EBV mustbe similar to PTAs?

Different names for the same thing I think.

 

[neilo]

shows and showing animals have a lot to do with some of the failure of EBVs

any computer program is only as good as the information provided to it

I agree with your second point, but not with the first.

Animals on a different plain of nutrition (the show stream) are treated as a different contemporary group, much as single reared lambs would be analysed in a separate group to twin reared, males separate to females, etc. Shows and showring animals have an effect on the whole breed population, whether they are recorded or not. Whether that effect is detrimental depends entirely on which animals the judges put up.

Any records whatsoever are only as good as the information provided. Dates of birth for calf registrations would be one, regardless of whether that data is included in a computer analysis of performance, or whether it was used visually at a sale when someone looks to a big animal in a line up.

At least with BLUP it tends to come out in the wash, and those animals are shown up as a fraud when more data is added from relatives and/or progeny. If you doubted a breeder's integrity, would you do business with them anyway?

 

[Henarar]

Animals on a different plain of nutrition (the show stream) are treated as a different contemporary group

always

 

[andybk]

You somehow have to demonstrate that an animal had good growth to 40kg though, and be able to select on that performance, which is where recording plays a part IMO, but only as one part of the breeder's toolbox.

yes agree , but most dont need signet for that , simple birth date / weight and 100 day weight and date of finish / weight , as i have said before its the adjustment BLUP thats an issue , I try and weigh my lambs as a batch at killing weight no adjustment needed , keeps it simple , relate that back to on farm rams and bobs your auntie .

 

[neilo]

always

That goes back to that integrity thing again.

 

[neilo]

yes agree , but most dont need signet for that , simple birth date / weight and 100 day weight and date of finish / weight , as i have said before its the adjustment BLUP thats an issue , I try and weigh my lambs as a batch at killing weight no adjustment needed , keeps it simple , relate that back to on farm rams and bobs your auntie .

A simple measure, with no allowance for the different feeding regimes between different farms/flocks, and no allowance for differences between singles, twins, cades, hogg's lambs? Those single ET lambs reared on quality Scottish creep will clearly breed the best lambs then.

 

[andybk]

A simple measure, with no allowance for the different feeding regimes between different farms/flocks, and no allowance for differences between singles, twins, cades, hogg's lambs? Those single ET lambs reared on quality Scottish creep will clearly breed the best lambs then.

no forget the across flock , get your own house in order first , thats where signet slips up without central progeny test , computer simply isnt clever enough to allow for the clever monkeys , and ranges of dates , YET,

 

[Henarar]

That goes back to that integrity thing again.

that was wrote with a smile on my face, we don't show but I am sure that everyone that does puts there show animals in a different group so after they have invested so much time and money in them they won't gain any advantage don't you think

 

[neilo]

that was wrote with a smile on my face, we don't show but I am sure that everyone that does puts there show animals in a different group so after they have invested so much time and money in them they won't gain any advantage don't you think

Certainly in our sheep breed (I haven't observed in others) the top show animals rarely have particularly high ebvs. They are usually the high fat ones that are big and flashy, with muscles at scan weights not often that great. Show judges are generally looking for a different thing to what is required for commercial fat lamb production, IMO. It's shocking how many sheep I've handled in show classes that lack loin fleshing, despite being in 'forward' condition, and have sharp, pointed shoulders.

 

[neilo]

no forget the across flock , get your own house in order first , thats where signet slips up without central progeny test , computer simply isnt clever enough to allow for the clever monkeys , and ranges of dates , YET,

I disagree, unsurprisingly. I effectively run two pedigree flocks here, with the same genetics but on vastly different management regimes. Animals move back and forth between the two flocks, depending on what gets in lamb early, etc. The actual data is obviously very different between the 2 flocks, due to the differing management. I think BLUP copes admirably with the differences, and certainly doesn't penalise the slower grown ones, or give false advantage to the early ones because of higher weights & scans.

 

[Henarar]

oh well you carry on with your opinion and I will......

 

[Whitepeak]

EBV mustbe similar to PTAs?

Yes and no. An EBV (estimated breeding value) is an estimation of how well that individual animal performs against the national average. Whereas a PTA (predicted transmitting ability) is an estimation of how their progeny is likely to perform so is therefore approximately half the EBV. Therefore a bull/ram with a growth EBV of +10kg for example is expected to be 10kg heavier than average but his progeny will be expected to be 5kg heavier than average if mated to a female of 0kg growth. I don’t think that AHDB Beef & Lamb make this clear enough.
Also on Signet the breed average (EBV 0) was set when EBVs were first introduced, which is often 20 years ago. And you must refer back to the breed average to see whether a bull/ram is actually better than average, your +10kg animal might be a lot worse than average but because it’s still a plus it looks good. Why they can’t do a base change where the average is reset to 0 every 5yrs like the dairy PTAs I do not know, it would make them so much easier to understand!

 

[Gulli]

Yes and no. An EBV (estimated breeding value) is an estimation of how well that individual animal performs against the national average. Whereas a PTA (predicted transmitting ability) is an estimation of how their progeny is likely to perform so is therefore approximately half the EBV. Therefore a bull/ram with a growth EBV of +10kg for example is expected to be 10kg heavier than average but his progeny will be expected to be 5kg heavier than average if mated to a female of 0kg growth. I don’t think that AHDB Beef & Lamb make this clear enough.
Also on Signet the breed average (EBV 0) was set when EBVs were first introduced, which is often 20 years ago. And you must refer back to the breed average to see whether a bull/ram is actually better than average, your +10kg animal might be a lot worse than average but because it’s still a plus it looks good. Why they can’t do a base change where the average is reset to 0 every 5yrs like the dairy PTAs I do not know, it would make them so much easier to understand!

Breedplan gives all the averages below the animals ebv. At least it does for Hereford.
Having 0 as the average would make comparisons a lot simpler though

 

[neilo]

Yes and no. An EBV (estimated breeding value) is an estimation of how well that individual animal performs against the national average. Whereas a PTA (predicted transmitting ability) is an estimation of how their progeny is likely to perform so is therefore approximately half the EBV. Therefore a bull/ram with a growth EBV of +10kg for example is expected to be 10kg heavier than average but his progeny will be expected to be 5kg heavier than average if mated to a female of 0kg growth. I don’t think that AHDB Beef & Lamb make this clear enough.
Also on Signet the breed average (EBV 0) was set when EBVs were first introduced, which is often 20 years ago. And you must refer back to the breed average to see whether a bull/ram is actually better than average, your +10kg animal might be a lot worse than average but because it’s still a plus it looks good. Why they can’t do a base change where the average is reset to 0 every 5yrs like the dairy PTAs I do not know, it would make them so much easier to understand!

There have been discussions for a while on rebasing sheep ebvs, and very little consensus on when to do it. There are flocks that record, but don't actually use it as a selection tool, who will have an average below breed average. If you rebase to zero, almost all of their sheep will have a negative index, which I can't see going down well.

Last I heard, it was suggested that a sensible time to rebase was at the same time as the across breed analysis gets rolled out, which has been imminent for a couple of years now. Next year now maybe, when RamCompare data gets brought into the same analysis?