'Real' breeders reject EBVs

[SteveHants]

What do you mean?

I was agreeing with you - I can't see the arable boys sacrificing efficiency/yield for 'nice looking ears of corn' can you?

 

[Big Al]

EBV's aside, I doubt that the correct conclusion to draw from this account is that 'farmers need to get more efficient' - what has happened is that the profits have over the intervening years moved upstream into the retailer chain; suggesting farmers become even more efficient is just encouraging the continuation of this trend.

Different conclusions need to be drawn, perhaps?

I can't speak for beef as I know nothing about it. Lamb is a comparative product to chicken and pork. Two sectors that immensely improved their efficiency through breeding and production systems over the past 30 years. Unless the lamb industry keeps up by becoming more efficient, the price difference between lamb and pork/chicken is only going to get wider.

 

[Johnny400]

Good chat about this on twitter last night. Not sure if anyone was involved?

Saw some of it. Find it harder to follow a debate on there than here so didnt chip in. It got some other guys on friday night going too.

Sheep/beef farmers need to get more efficient and if figures help us then lets use them as another tool.

 

[Bill the Bass]

I think Walter makes a really good point - just who are you getting mor efficient for? The genetic improvements in pigs have certainly not benefited pig farmers only processors and supermarkets, allowing them to make greater margins. at the farmers expense.

If cattle and sheep production goes the same way as pigs then there really isn't a future in it in this country

 

[Big Al]

I think Walter makes a really good point - just who are you getting mor efficient for? The genetic improvements in pigs have certainly not benefited pig farmers only processors and supermarkets, allowing them to make greater margins. at the farmers expense.

If cattle and sheep production goes the same way as pigs then there really isn't a future in it in this country

I wouldn't want it to get as overdone as the pig industry though, in my experience standard supermarket pork is barely edible.

 

[Gulli]

Saw some of it. Find it harder to follow a debate on there than here so didnt chip in. It got some other guys on friday night going too.

Sheep/beef farmers need to get more efficient and if figures help us then lets use them as another tool.

Yeh it takes some keeping up with! Raised some interesting points about eating quality though

 

[Bill the Bass]

I wouldn't want it to get as overdone as the pig industry though, in my experience standard supermarket pork is barely edible.

Ah, but look how efficiently they produce the pork, isn't that someting to aspire to?

 

[Big Al]

Ah, but look how efficiently they produce the pork, isn't that someting to aspire to?

That's the beauty of lamb it tastes better when fattened off grazed grass which just happens by coincidence to also be the cheapest way of doing it..

 

[Bill the Bass]

That's the beauty of lamb it tastes better when fattened off grazed grass which just happens by coincidence to also be the cheapest way of doing it..

Quite, and that is Lambs USP isn't it? I would want to distance myself as far away as possible from pork if I were in sheep.

 

[Big Al]

Quite, and that is Lambs USP isn't it? I would want to distance myself as far away as possible from pork if I were in sheep.

That doesn't mean you can't strive to improve your feed conversion rate. I record the weights of my lambs at the moment they are a bit of mixed bunch and the growth rates vary quite widely. By recording over a long period of time I hope to raise the average to closer the best performers.
I wouldn't want the quality to drop by achieving this but under the current grading system you are not penalised for poor quality meat.

 

[Joe]

That doesn't mean you can't strive to improve your feed conversion rate. I record the weights of my lambs at the moment they are a bit of mixed bunch and the growth rates vary quite widely. By recording over a long period of time I hope to raise the average to closer the best performers.
I wouldn't want the quality to drop by achieving this but under the current grading system you are not penalised for poor quality meat.

I agree with this, aim has to be to produce as higher number of the same quality lambs from grass quicker each year (allowing for environmental differences between years). I'm using two of my stock rams on one bunch of commericals ewes this year, both are 5 star for production in the recording scheme here, and both are producing high 5 star production pedigree lambs. I am looking forward to see if this has any noticeable difference against other bunches of ewes out with mainly non recorded rams (due to lack of recording over here for a few years).

A note on the charts rather than numbers, I like the stars here makes more sense to people and they seem more interested than with the previous now defunct number based system. I see commercial farmers looking at the stars and its easy to follow, while breeders look in depth into them. I'm not overly in favour of the overall stars for terminal breeding and was told last week this is going to be adusted to have a terminal & maternal overall instead which is a good move....

 

[Poorbuthappy]

EBV's aside, I doubt that the correct conclusion to draw from this account is that 'farmers need to get more efficient' - what has happened is that the profits have over the intervening years moved upstream into the retailer chain; suggesting farmers become even more efficient is just encouraging the continuation of this trend.

Different conclusions need to be drawn, perhaps?

2 opposing options aren't there?
1 - get efficient and produce lamb and beef cheap enough to keep it affordable for the householder (avoiding the word housewife! )
2 - everybody cut production and make it scarce, so driving the price up, but making red meat a luxury product.

Who votes for option 2? - and is prepared both cut their numbers, and promise not to keep more when the price goes up?

 

[JP1]

2 opposing options aren't there?
1 - get efficient and produce lamb and beef cheap enough to keep it affordable for the householder (avoiding the word housewife! )
2 - everybody cut production and make it scarce, so driving the price up, but making red meat a luxury product.

Who votes for option 2? - and is prepared both cut their numbers, and promise not to keep more when the price goes up?

You're sounding awfully like a pig producer now

 

[DrDunc]

Aye, where on an EBV chart is the value for taste?

Morrisons have the largest share of supermarket beef sales, and have forecast a natural annual growth in sales of over 10%.

They do not sell any bull beef. They offer a large premium for native breeds. This is because it tastes better than continental stock which has been selected for growth rate and fat content based on EBV's.

If EBV's are to be used correctly, the breeder must select what suits their farm environment.

What would be the point of me buying a blackie tup with fantastic figures if it's going to die in its first winter because it was bred too far down the burn from my land?

Why would I choose a bull that produced replacement cows that rear a calf faster/heavier, but that need bought in cereals to winter because she can't survive on grass alone?

There's more profit for me selecting stock that suit my farm.

Figures (provided they are accurate enough) can be used as a tool in the decision making process, but their are many additional factors that a good stocksman ought to take into consideration to maximise their net margin.

 

[Poorbuthappy]

Drdunc, I would look for a breeder producing stock in a manner that fits with my requirements who also has good ebvs, then buy the best figured animals I could afford from him.

 

[SteveHants]

I thought EBVs existed to help you select sheep suitable for your farm?

 

[Dafydd]

They are just not accurate enough to rely on, despite most pedigree beef herds perfromance recording, many for over 20years. A quick flick through the Angus, Charolais and Simm catalogues for Stirling show most have a accuracy% between 30-70%, with some as low as 20%. Those sort of % are jsut not good enough to base your decision on. The only way these accuracy% will improve is by the commercial herds that these bulls end up in also performance record, but can't see that happening.

With regards to sheep, hardly any have figures so I presume these accuracy % are even lower. I did try looking at various breed catalogues for multibreed ram sale at Welshpool on Thursday for figures, but none had them published.

 

[wee man]

Drdunc every one of your points can just as easily be made against what ever system it is you use to evaluate the genetic you are bringing in to your herd/ flock, buy stock that aren't bred for your system and they probably won't do in your system.

I would like to hear about you selection system i assume from one of your previous posts that you can judge most traits in an animal with more than 90% accuracy? If you can how much would you charge to come 15 miles and rank the animals in my flock on maternal ability, lamb survival, number of lambs reared, growth rate, resistance to worms and muscle depth without reducing eating quality? I don't spend £thousands a year on recording for the fun of it i do it for the genetic improvment and if you have a more accurate system and can prove it then i will happily pay you £thousands for the information.

The point about buying a blackie tup is very funny. When you consider the systems that most "real Blackie breeders" (unrecorded) run on their lowland farms or with their feed bill that would make a pig farmer blush.

How are you currently selecting for better tasting beef?
There are EBV's for eating quality available in other countrys and more are being developed all the time.

 

[Walterp]

2 opposing options aren't there?
1 - get efficient and produce lamb and beef cheap enough to keep it affordable for the householder (avoiding the word housewife! )
2 - everybody cut production and make it scarce, so driving the price up, but making red meat a luxury product.

Who votes for option 2? - and is prepared both cut their numbers, and promise not to keep more when the price goes up?

Lamb is already a luxury item, isn't it? Whose appeal is restricted to the middle classes, for whom it is a relatively price-inelastic purchase, and to the export trade which is more price-sensitive. Beef is, perhaps, less so, but it's still a good-value product and has a wider appeal than lamb (how many sheep farmers, for instance, don't even like lamb?).

So I don't buy the 'make it competitive' argument - much of the cost to the housewife is, actually, within the retail trade's markup (as it is with wheat, milk and veg).

Maybe it's time UK farmers stopped beating themselves over the head with the efficiency stick? And looked again at their produce, which is as essential as the petrol that UK consumers put in their cars - when THAT goes up in price, often to very high levels, they just carry on buying it don't they?

Why? Because they have to....

 

[wee man]

Dafydd If the accuracy of the ebv's is to low for you that suggest that you have a system that is more accurate, would you be kind enough to explain how you use it and with what sort of accuracys are you able to predict how a trait will be pased to the next generation?