Forums
New posts
Forum list
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New resources
Latest activity
Trending Threads
Resources
Latest reviews
Search resources
FarmTV
Farm Compare
Search
Tokens/Searches
Calendar
Upcoming Events
Members
Registered members
Current visitors
New Resources
New posts
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Forum list
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
Install the app
Install
More options
Contact us
Close Menu
Forums
Livestock
Livestock & Forage
ebv debate
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="neilo" data-source="post: 1801916" data-attributes="member: 348"><p>I have very few customers that don't at least look at the ebvs of my rams these days, and use them as an additional selection tool. If I get anyone that asks me for a 'high index' ram, then they receive a lecture as to why the overall index means diddly squat and explain why the individual ebvs are important. Massive growth figures may seem appealing, but if it means that ram, and his progeny, are late maturing and the lambs don't finish without creep, then they won't suit all systems.</p><p>Where (terminal sire) breeds have been utilising CT scanning, the gigot muscularity ebvs are another useful trait to look at, to tell you about meat in the hindquarter, rather than the impression of meat from short legs, sloping pelvises and skilful trimming. Those types can be high yielding in those cuts, but not necessarily.</p><p></p><p>As a breeder that has been recording with Signet for 23 years, I am absolutely sold on performance recording AS A TOOL, but you also have to use your eyes and your hands IMO. The scheme ahs made massive strides in that time, but is still just another tool. You can have bl**dy awful sheep in both recorded and unrecorded flocks, and it does no good whatsoever for anyone to sell those sheep for breeding just because they have figures. In both cases, they should be culled. Just because someone is recording, it doesn't make them a good breeder, much the same as someone is a skilful feeder and/or trimmer isn't necessarily either. </p><p></p><p>When I am selecting my female replacements for the pedigree flock, I don't even look at the figures. Selection is purely on functional traits, confirmation and pedigree and has been for nearly 20 years. As it happens, I was looking through my Signet report a couple of days ago, checking out the females that I am shortly going to register. Very few of them are outside the top 10% overall, with muscle and muscularity ebvs mostly in the top 5%.</p><p></p><p>When I am selecting potential stock sires, I am much more attentive to the figures. I will be looking for an animal to excel in whatever trait I am looking to improve in a group of sheep, bearing in mind that not all sheep in a flock will want one sire over them. Obviously scale has a bearing here, as small flocks may only be able to access one sire at a time. Unless there is no option (my recent Beltex purchases for example), I won't even look at unrecorded rams, having been stung too many times, unless they are truly exceptional animals. Even then, I will have a lot less confidence in their genetics than I would if the same animal had ebvs. That confidence will certainly be reflected in my appetite for bidding. </p><p></p><p> As far as accuracy is concerned, that will increase as more data is added to the analysis, whether through use in larger flocks/groups or through shared rams. I often hear breeders moaning because their new unrecorded ram purchase has poor figures. Very often it is because he has only had half a dozen progeny recorded, so the lack of accuracy has pulled the figures down (IIRC, it needs 30 or so progeny recorded to start to build an accurate picture). Of course, sometimes they are just crap, but nobody likes to admit they paid a lot of money for some awful specimen that looked great in his finery.<img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite2" alt=";)" title="Wink ;)" loading="lazy" data-shortname=";)" /> To get numbers of progeny, you need flocks with scale, more time (several seasons' use) or shared use between recorded flocks. As someone recently said to me, unfortunately most pedigree sheep in this country are bred by either hobby farmers or farmers with hobbies. He wasn't far wrong.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="neilo, post: 1801916, member: 348"] I have very few customers that don't at least look at the ebvs of my rams these days, and use them as an additional selection tool. If I get anyone that asks me for a 'high index' ram, then they receive a lecture as to why the overall index means diddly squat and explain why the individual ebvs are important. Massive growth figures may seem appealing, but if it means that ram, and his progeny, are late maturing and the lambs don't finish without creep, then they won't suit all systems. Where (terminal sire) breeds have been utilising CT scanning, the gigot muscularity ebvs are another useful trait to look at, to tell you about meat in the hindquarter, rather than the impression of meat from short legs, sloping pelvises and skilful trimming. Those types can be high yielding in those cuts, but not necessarily. As a breeder that has been recording with Signet for 23 years, I am absolutely sold on performance recording AS A TOOL, but you also have to use your eyes and your hands IMO. The scheme ahs made massive strides in that time, but is still just another tool. You can have bl**dy awful sheep in both recorded and unrecorded flocks, and it does no good whatsoever for anyone to sell those sheep for breeding just because they have figures. In both cases, they should be culled. Just because someone is recording, it doesn't make them a good breeder, much the same as someone is a skilful feeder and/or trimmer isn't necessarily either. When I am selecting my female replacements for the pedigree flock, I don't even look at the figures. Selection is purely on functional traits, confirmation and pedigree and has been for nearly 20 years. As it happens, I was looking through my Signet report a couple of days ago, checking out the females that I am shortly going to register. Very few of them are outside the top 10% overall, with muscle and muscularity ebvs mostly in the top 5%. When I am selecting potential stock sires, I am much more attentive to the figures. I will be looking for an animal to excel in whatever trait I am looking to improve in a group of sheep, bearing in mind that not all sheep in a flock will want one sire over them. Obviously scale has a bearing here, as small flocks may only be able to access one sire at a time. Unless there is no option (my recent Beltex purchases for example), I won't even look at unrecorded rams, having been stung too many times, unless they are truly exceptional animals. Even then, I will have a lot less confidence in their genetics than I would if the same animal had ebvs. That confidence will certainly be reflected in my appetite for bidding. As far as accuracy is concerned, that will increase as more data is added to the analysis, whether through use in larger flocks/groups or through shared rams. I often hear breeders moaning because their new unrecorded ram purchase has poor figures. Very often it is because he has only had half a dozen progeny recorded, so the lack of accuracy has pulled the figures down (IIRC, it needs 30 or so progeny recorded to start to build an accurate picture). Of course, sometimes they are just crap, but nobody likes to admit they paid a lot of money for some awful specimen that looked great in his finery.;) To get numbers of progeny, you need flocks with scale, more time (several seasons' use) or shared use between recorded flocks. As someone recently said to me, unfortunately most pedigree sheep in this country are bred by either hobby farmers or farmers with hobbies. He wasn't far wrong. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Livestock
Livestock & Forage
ebv debate
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
Accept
Learn more…
Top