Actual Measurements

Imperative to collect, but Impossible to Use in Selection...

by Livestock Consultant, Brad Wright

Spring is in full swing. Calves are hitting the ground, fall calves are getting big enough to start thinking about weaning dates and many are working to collect yearling and ultrasound data on last Spring’s calves. Collecting measurements at all these points in an animal’s life

with correct contemporary group designations is vital to accurate expected progeny difference (EPD) calculations. However, contrary to popular belief, that is their only valid use.

As Spring sales start and preparations for Spring breeding begin, it is important to understand the value of EPDs as the only selection tool available that compares genetics across the entire breed. As we, as breeders, make selection decisions, we are trying to determine an animal’s future breeding potential. The only piece of information that gives this information is an EPD. Actual measurements alone are a combination of environment and genetics. But think of all the things the word “environment” includes: grass type, rain fall, terrain, feeding program for the dam while in utero, feeding program for the animal, vaccination program, scales used, individual person reading weights, ultrasound technician, computer program or lab processing ultrasound information. Another environmental influence can even be the handling of the data from chute side to the breed association: the person taking notes chute side (and their handwriting skills), the person entering into the computer, the person submitting data to the breed association. Add embryo transfer to the mix and environment can include: breed of recipient, milking ability of the recipient, gestation length of the recipient, feeding program for the recipient while calf is in utero. That is a mess of things to sort through when all we really care about is the genetic composition of that animal and future breeding potential.

Actual measurements cannot be used to compare animals from different herds. They cannot even be used to compare animals from the same herd unless those animals were in the same contemporary group, and that information is not always readily available. EPDs are the only data point available that can be used to compare animals across the entire breed. As has been discussed in great lengths, EPDs work. Look at the trend lines of any breed association since the inception of EPDs and you will notice the dramatic change that can happen with the use of EPDs. EPDs are the only selection tool available with the ability to sort through all the variables and give a glimpse of the true breeding value of an animal. It takes large amounts of data to get the whole picture, and some EPDs are more accurate than others, but even low accuracy EPDs are better than actual measurements to generate an estimate of breeding value.

Environmental factors are a large part of the influence that can increase variability in actual measurements. EPDs are based on averages, but there will always be individual measurements that fall outside of expected ranges. Those are the animals that are either penalized or praised too heavily by producers using actual measurements in selection decisions. There are proven calving ease bulls that weighed 100+ pounds at birth, and there are bulls that weighed 70 pounds at birth that will kill a heifer. These types of examples are true for every breed and for every trait. Those that continue to put more emphasis on these measurements rather than the EPDs will continue to cost their program’s time and money.

Another common error is the use of EPDs with actual measurement minimum and maximum thresholds. For instance a bull buyer that wants a 0.50 REA EPD, but that bull also has to possess at least a 15 inch ultrasound measurement for REA. Not only did that breeder just unintentionally increase his weighted selection for REA, but he also just, in all likelihood, eliminated a better breeding bull for REA that was not put in an environment conducive to producing 15 inch actual rib eyes. This same can apply to all traits. The best selection method is to determine the genetic parameters that work in your herd and set those standards using EPDs only. Once you have identified the animals that fit your genetic parameters, then you can narrow that list with evaluation of traits that do not have an EPD.

Bull producers and sellers continue to do themselves and their customers a disservice with the constant comparison of actual measurements. The typical “keep up with the Joneses” mentality continues to drive some breeders’ production goals. Using yearling weight for example, there was a time when 1000 pound yearling weight was “acceptable” then 1200 lbs, then 1500 lbs. This change happened rather quickly. Was this due to genetic progress or a bigger feed bucket? I would contend some genetic changes have been made, but mostly, bulls were fed harder starting earlier in life. This has negative impact on feet and hocks and also on the longevity of that bull after the feed bucket is gone and he still has cows to breed. Even with the genetic changes that were made, were they positive changes or just bigger weights? Growth traits are correlated which means that bigger yearling weights leads to bigger mature cow size. In a time of increasing input costs, is a bigger cow more profitable? All of this can be avoided with a strategic set of genetic parameters across all traits with EPDs and a breeding program designed to stay within those parameters.

For purebred breeders, collect the data, set contemporary groups correctly, turn in the data and after it is submitted, forget you have the actual data. Commercial producers, quit asking for the actual data; it’s not helping you. There are some progressive operations that have quit publishing actual data in sale catalogs and I applaud their efforts, but until all breeders completely embrace EPDs, breed cattle with sound animal breeding protocols and procedures, and stop chasing their neighbor (or worse, someone half way across the country), the industry will continue to struggle to make major genetic change for the positive influence of beef production. More importantly, those producers that continue to base their selection decisions on actual measurements will continue to fight an uphill battle and leave dollars on the table.