Unfortunatly I don't, but that doesn't mean that the current systems are the be all and end all as most on here are insisting. With the accuracy's I mentioned earleir you might as well just flick through a catalogue and just land at a random lot, given that what a lot of purchasers do now by just picking the highest figured animal.
-
Welcome to The Farming Forum!
As part of this update, we have made a change to the login and registration process. If you are experiences any problems, please email [email protected] with the details so we can resolve any issues.
'Real' breeders reject EBVs
- Thread starter Crex
- Start date
- Location
- Ledbury, Herefordshire
I don't know about the cattle world - but in sheep, I would suggest not 'bidding on lots' but going to the farm where the tup/ewes you want to buy are run and seeing how it is set up. Then look at the ebv sheet as you now know the system that generated them.
- Location
- Anston Farm, Dunsyre
@wee man you are spending thousands each year recording your flock.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.
How many fat lambs are you producing? Are you increasing the carcass weight sufficiently each year to cover costs?
EBV figures are a tool that can be used in the decision making process of improving a flock, provided the figures are understood, and that they are of sufficient accuracy to make them meaningful.
I don't spend thousands a year recording, but I have increased the carcass weight of fattened blackie lambs from 13 to over 16 kg average, and increased the lambing percentage by about 20% (except last year
)It doesn't make financial sense for me to record sheep. The increased productivity of the flock wouldn't pay for the cost. That and if I go near a new lambed ewe on the heather, she'll run off from her lamb. Leave her be abs she'll rear it / them fine.
The last time I bought a (shorthorn) bull, I used EBV figures in the decision making process. However they did not replace a thorough physical inspection, a look at the way it was reared, and what it's relatives looked like.
It's easy to understand why you wish to vehemently defend the use of recording. It's bloody expensive if it doesn't give you a return on the investment!
Last edited:
- Location
- Montgomeryshire
I'd suggest that most breeders that actually use ebvs as a selection/improvement tool (amongst others, like your eyes & hands), tend to move towards on farm sales and away from the feeding competition that the auction system encourages.
- Location
- Montgomeryshire
As it should be. Ebv's are a useful tool in your selection process, but not the only one.
Chae1
Member
- Location
- Aberdeenshire
One of best places to buy a bull is farm dispersal where you can see all the rest of stock.
Big Al
Member
- Location
- Middlewich
Price inelastic goods have few easily comparable substitutes, where as british lamb has many substitutes in a range of alternative meats, imported lamb and non meat protein substitutes. You also often hear butchers complaining about how hard it is to sell lamb around may when the prices are higher. So I think it is quite price sensitive.
Some of the work eblex are doing is to try and get retailers to start selling and promoting different smaller cuts of lamb to make it more accessible to people who either can't afford to buy a large joint or simply don't know what to do with it. Also Jamie Oliver has featured lamb recipes at least twice in his recent series 'save with Jamie' making explicit points how the his meals have a low cost per portion.
Hopefully the "housewife" is watching and taking note.
- Location
- Devon
My uncle is in the petrol retail trade and he will tell no they don't just carry on buying it. As prices have risen, and the economy has slowed, petrol sales have fallen dramatically. He has seen it on his own forecourt, and says supermarket fuel sales are similar.
Agree with Big Al's comments on pricing and marketing though.
GenuineRisk
Member
- Location
- Somerset
I can definitely see the point of performance recording with regards to sheep, pedigree or commercial - your turnover is far quicker, your numbers are so much higher and the same comments apply to pigs and poultry. Cattle are different because gestation is longer, it's longer from birth to plate and the numbers kept in comparison to sheep are smaller. There are also two different sectors - dairy and sucklers, with vastly different feeding regimes and management. So while they are a useful tool and we certainly performance record our herd because it's slowly becoming a requirement for Society Sales, as a tool it's only ever going to be part of any selection process for us, purely because for cattle especially, breed knowledge, experience and an eye for stock is also invaluable.i also deeply distrust some of the figures provided by some other breeders and, while I know eventually they will be rumbled, on the pedigree side, breeders come and go as fashion and financial returns dictate skewing data as they go.
The idea is a good one, genomic testing probably even better but, as with all such schemes, there's a huge reliance on the honesty of those providing the data........
The idea is a good one, genomic testing probably even better but, as with all such schemes, there's a huge reliance on the honesty of those providing the data........
M-J-G
Member
Valid points GR, one difference between Dairy and beef is that Dairy cattle tend to be performance tested in "working class conditions" where they are doing a job whilst being monitored. There are many large herds of commercially managed pedigree dairy cows, the same can't be said for large commercially managed pedigree beef herds since most in the Ped beef job are pushing for performance and ultimately sales.
Woolless
Member
- Location
- Berwickshire, Scottish Borders
I was shocked that two such blatantly one-sided articles banging the same drum could be found in the same edition, written by the same journalist. Particularly when the subject under discussion is of such potential benefit to the industry. The editor should take a long, hard look at himself.
However, let's hope the counter argument will be given elbow room on the letters page on Friday. Watch this space!
However, let's hope the counter argument will be given elbow room on the letters page on Friday. Watch this space!
wee man
Member
- Location
- scottish borders
@DrDunc
Yes my investment pays off in improved fat lamb production it did take a couple of years to reach break even but has been very worth while since then.
No one has ever said that EBV's replace a full inspection of the animal and the system it is bred in, they are to compliment it. If you only look at the animal you are only seeing half the traits and if you only look at the EBV's you are only seeing half the traits they are just different halves. Why would you only want to look at just half the traits?
It's interesting that i come across as vehemently defending recording when all i have done so far is ask what the alternative is and how accurate it is. The answer to both those questions so far has been a deafening silence or an admission that the alternative is even less accurate. What conclusion should I draw from this?
Yes my investment pays off in improved fat lamb production it did take a couple of years to reach break even but has been very worth while since then.
No one has ever said that EBV's replace a full inspection of the animal and the system it is bred in, they are to compliment it. If you only look at the animal you are only seeing half the traits and if you only look at the EBV's you are only seeing half the traits they are just different halves. Why would you only want to look at just half the traits?
It's interesting that i come across as vehemently defending recording when all i have done so far is ask what the alternative is and how accurate it is. The answer to both those questions so far has been a deafening silence or an admission that the alternative is even less accurate. What conclusion should I draw from this?
- Location
- Mendips Somerset
I think you wiill find the uk signet scheme is based on a NZ model , and maybe they have a different outlook or we have interpreted it differently ?, The french UPRA scheme that has been running at least 20 years longer than our own scheme is in my mind far more sucesful ,run from one testing station , it has vastly improved the sheep and cattle for whole breeds ,look at the amount of french breeds used here in the last 20 years and not just terminal breeds , and sheep that have figures and even look the part , I for one would be happy to use their scheme , and its what most of my arguments are based on , ie all sheep reared and recorded under similar circumstances with a minimal amount of similar feed, All top rams are bought back in for 1000 euro (without argument from breeders)and AI is avalible to all within the breed for greater advancement,all other rams are auctioned on one day with records at the end
It took some time to track info down on the way it works in english and is a little more complex than explained ,but the info on the irish charollais site on page 20 - 22 gives a brief outline . well worth the read (may take a while to load )
http://www.irishcharollaissheep.net/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/icssbooklet2013.pdf
Last edited:
JD-Kid
Member
- Location
- Akaroa.. New Zealand
even before looking at the numbers all cullable rams should be kicked out not alot of point of keeping the highest growth rate with bad feet .. have also heard rams chucked out based on higher footrot scores baby and bath water come to mind .. reson i say looks frist cos sure as the sun rises people will try and defend it by saying how it ranks
I work the other way ----I have about 600 ram lambs to sort through every year ---the best way for me to sort potential breeders is 1st on the spread-sheet ---pick only the top 10% of performers (for whatever trait you want to place emphasis on) then draft these guys off and start throwing out any poor or unsuitable animals
top 10% of 600 is 60 rams, that's happening right now but by the new year there will only be 30/40 and by next spring this will have whittled down to 20
Reason I say numbers first is sure as sun rises people will try and defend it by saying how it looks
Either way you should kill the bottom 95%
NZDan
Member
- Location
- Broomfield, New Zealand
I agree. I cull any with faults and any with low figures. The system i was refering to above is the one I use for final selection of breeding or sale rams.
JD-Kid
Member
- Location
- Akaroa.. New Zealand
still think faults first end of the day if a farmer is picking ewe lambs he dose not have all the records so say poor foot shape he may cull on that or black spots etc poor shape wooly heads inverted eyelids lambing probs so if some one goes it's got great numbers and goes a bit eazer on faults
there have been some huge gains in useing EBV's but also some train wrecks with some studs haveing stud blindness or not culling on basic things
there have been some huge gains in useing EBV's but also some train wrecks with some studs haveing stud blindness or not culling on basic things
Global ovine
Member
- Location
- Central Otago NZ
[quote="andybk, post: 175778, member: 347"]I think you wiill find the uk signet scheme is based on a NZ model , and maybe they have a different outlook or we have interpreted it differently ?, The french UPRA scheme that has been running at least 20 years longer than our own scheme is in my mind far more sucesful ,run from one testing station , it has vastly improved the sheep and cattle for whole breeds ,look at the amount of french breeds used here in the last 20 years and not just terminal breeds , and sheep that have figures and even look the part , I for one would be happy to use their scheme , and its what most of my arguments are based on , ie all sheep reared and recorded under similar circumstances with a minimal amount of similar feed, All top rams are bought back in for 1000 euro (without argument from breeders)and AI is avalible to all within the breed for greater advancement,all other rams are auctioned on one day with records at the end
It took some time to track info down on the way it works in english and is a little more complex than explained ,but the info on the irish charollais site on page 20 - 22 gives a brief outline . well worth the read (may take a while to load )
http://www.irishcharollaissheep.net/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/icssbooklet2013.pdf[/quote]
@andybk.
You are completely wrong here. Both SIL and Signet were designed independently from each other. The way the same traits are calculated are different. The commonality is they both use BLUP but so do all modern performance schemes that include relatives in the algorithms. The UK sheme is largely controlled by breed societies whereas the NZ scheme is owned by B+LNZ (sheep and beef farmer levy payers).
The Irish scheme, Sheep Ireland, can be said to be based on the NZ model adapted to suit the Irish sheep industry structure.
I understand your point about the French system, but this is very costly and involves housing for growth evaluation in most breeds. It does not have across breed evaluation by trait.
The NZ and Irish schemes rely on Central Progeny Test facilities to link flocks and breeds by evaluating traits not breeds. The Irish scheme also has MALP (Maternal Lamb Production) evaluation/demonstration facilities which are essential in an industry in the early stages of adopting wide spread performance recording. Performance recording has been widespread in NZ for decades hence half of the huge improvement in productivity per ewe is genetically based due to the acceptance of these technologies as an important tool in animal breeding.
It took some time to track info down on the way it works in english and is a little more complex than explained ,but the info on the irish charollais site on page 20 - 22 gives a brief outline . well worth the read (may take a while to load )
http://www.irishcharollaissheep.net/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/icssbooklet2013.pdf[/quote]
@andybk.
You are completely wrong here. Both SIL and Signet were designed independently from each other. The way the same traits are calculated are different. The commonality is they both use BLUP but so do all modern performance schemes that include relatives in the algorithms. The UK sheme is largely controlled by breed societies whereas the NZ scheme is owned by B+LNZ (sheep and beef farmer levy payers).
The Irish scheme, Sheep Ireland, can be said to be based on the NZ model adapted to suit the Irish sheep industry structure.
I understand your point about the French system, but this is very costly and involves housing for growth evaluation in most breeds. It does not have across breed evaluation by trait.
The NZ and Irish schemes rely on Central Progeny Test facilities to link flocks and breeds by evaluating traits not breeds. The Irish scheme also has MALP (Maternal Lamb Production) evaluation/demonstration facilities which are essential in an industry in the early stages of adopting wide spread performance recording. Performance recording has been widespread in NZ for decades hence half of the huge improvement in productivity per ewe is genetically based due to the acceptance of these technologies as an important tool in animal breeding.
- Location
- Mendips Somerset
ok fair point , maybe it was irish scheme in my mind is where i was confusing with uk ,i know it was mentioned to me some years ago ,i assumed they were a similar system ,
its a struggle to really understand how all the systems work in the real world .
(mods boards playing up again tonight ,sorry )
Global ovine
Member
- Location
- Central Otago NZ
I fully understand. I'm fortunate in having been involved in the setup of some of these schemes and know many of the main players who work on inside of the schemes regularly upgrading the functions to get greater accuracy. What all schemes now provide is vastly superior to all mark 1 models when instigated. All schemes are audited regularly to validate the predictions made with what the progeny have delivered. Aberrations discovered have historically been poor recording and data inputting, not unproven methodology. I suppose in countries where there is less across flock linkage some breeders have fiddled the raw data. But this only lasts until future generations prove it overestimated.
The important message is that all recording schemes have huge wads of data and expertise available for setting up and servicing bona fide systems, auditing, and refinements. The lag is always in farmer uptake and that seems to me to be proportional to the lack of subsidies.