ADDRESS TO THE BOARD OF ANGUS AUSTRALIA ON 22nd NOVEMBER 2005

 

EBV’s – Are they really breeding better cattle?

 

David G Raff, Angus seedstock producer since 1965, member National Beef Recording Scheme since its inception, President Angus Society 1985/86.

 

Back in the early 1980’s I was on the Council of the Angus Society of Australia when it made a groundbreaking decision to adapt Angus Group Breedplan. This decision had my total support. Its purpose was to help seedstock producers identify the superior and inferior traits of particular animals and in turn provide data to the commercial bull buyers to assist them in selecting bulls superior in traits of economic importance to their breeding program. 

 

Unfortunately, today, Breedplan has been hijacked by many people in the industry, including ambitious seedstock producers, academics and industry consultants who have little knowledge of the basic functions of a beef animal and of the practicalities of animal reproduction.

 

Breedplan is being over sold by Angus Australia, over used by breeders and abused by entrepreneurs.

 

Its accuracies are too high, the genetic gains as indicated by EBVs are exaggerated and the correlation between raw data and EBV’s is conflicting.

 

The basic functions of animal breeding are beginning to be ignored by many seedstock producers in their quest for so called carcase excellence and a good set of figures – EBVs.

 

Those academics and industry consultants who have devised and promote Breedplan continue to show incredible arrogance, an unwillingness to listen to concerned breeders and a refusal to acknowledge that their system might not be perfect. They continue to treat Angus breeders with contempt.

 

I have been contacted by breeders from all over Australia frustrated by the fact that no one will listen to their concerns. They are constantly being told, as I have been, that the system is right and they are wrong with a longwinded technical explanation far beyond their comprehension. If they persist they are virtually ignored. Most have just given up trying – what indignation.

There are another large group of breeders whose breeding programs, genetics and marketing have been focused on Breedplan and EBVs who are now becoming increasingly disillusioned with the system and the type of cattle they are now producing.  Naturally these breeders cannot go public with their concerns.

 

It is not only Angus breeders who have supported me.  A couple of weeks ago I was invited to address a BIA meeting in Rockhampton. A group of fairly substantial and influential seedstock producers who have been long time users of Breedplan, some second generation, unanimous in their dissatisfaction with the system and frustrated at the lack of acknowledgement of their concerns.

 

People I have never met from all breeds of cattle have all expressed similar views and encouraged me to persist.

 

Let me quote from a response I had from the Breed Development Officer in April when I said that I had been blown away by the support I have received.

 

“In many cases it is easy to gain support when you criticise technology. Because

people agree with you does not necessarily mean that the technology is wrong.”

 

This just highlights how out of touch senior management is with its members.

 

I recently asked Dr Ced Wise, our ET vet, “Of all your clients how many are happy with Breedplan?” His reply was that of his 300 clients in eastern Australia and New Zealand only three really believed in the system – just 1%.

 

I am sick and tired of being told to

 

‘Produce evidence in writing and it will be looked at’.

 

Surely the fact that so many people are not happy with the system is enough to

suggest something is wrong. Whether the science or technology is right or wrong is

not really the issue, the issue is that the outcomes are not right as far as the users are

concerned and the cattle are the evidence.

 

The EBVs themselves, if taken out of context, can send the wrong signal to the commercial bull buyer. For example high birth weight cattle are not necessarily hard calving cattle, high mature cow weight cattle are not necessarily inefficient feed converters nor are positive fat cattle always easier doing or more fertile that lean cattle.

 

To set bull selection and breeding parameters based on EBVs, such as $Index Values, is dangerous, inaccurate and misleading. Too much emphasis is based on assumptions not fact and the priority of weightings is questionable.

 

At a recent BIA meeting in Rockhampton a group different breeders all had different weightings for a suggested $Index for the Brahman breed – Who was right and who was wrong? Each was right because every management system, every market every feeding system and every environment will have different priorities. You cannot just set one for all.

 

Why am I so concerned?

 

Because when a performance evaluation system was initiated back in the 1970’s I really believed that it had huge potential to provide a meaningful and accurate way to measure those traits that are measurable. It would provide valuable information to both the breeder and purchaser of bulls – it would take the guesswork out of selection.

 

 

 

            1981 sale catalogue

 

At our first bull sale in 1981 we published weight ratios, scrotal measurement and frame score in the sale catalogue. I think this was a first for any breed in Queensland.

 

In 1987 we published Angus Group Breedplan data, a practice continued till today.

 

Up to two years ago we have been strong advocates of the value of Breedplan for our clients.

 

This year we continued to publish EBVs as well as raw data in our sale catalogue however we made it quite clear that Breedplan, in its current format, no longer has our confidence and strongly advised our clients to be cautious in its use.

 

 I worked hard within the Angus breed to have its breeders adapt performance recording and for the Society to implement Angus Group Breedplan.

 

I feel responsible to those who supported my campaign who, now feel as I do, that the system is failing. I also feel responsible to those who opposed my views as many of their fears have proved to be right.

 

Breeding and selling Angus bulls has been, and still is, my entire livelihood, I started with six Angus cows and a bank loan and this year we joined 400 HBR and APR females and we still have a bank loan!!!

 

Angus cattle have been good to me, that is why I am so passionate about the breed.

 

 

I don’t want Breedplan destroyed but I want it made better.

 

The outcomes are not what breeders want – they should be.

 

I want the breeders and users of Breedplan to be listened to and made feel part of it.

Probably the one issue that breeders have found most frustrating.

             

I want the knowledge and skills of real cattle breeders recognised.

 

On Landline two weeks ago a prominent merino stud manager commented that while science had played a role in breeding better sheep, it would always be the eye and practical skills of the stud master that will make the difference.

 

I want an acknowledgement that Breedplan in its current format is not working.

 

            The ‘WE ARE RIGHT’ – ‘YOU ARE WRONG’ mentality must change.

 

What I am going to say today will no doubt offend some in this room, I make no apology for that.

 

There are some in this room who have known me for a long time – I know they can vouch for my sincerity and my passion for the Angus breed.

 

I don’t pretend to know all the technicalities of Breedplan – my time is not spent sitting at a computer crunching numbers, it is spent out in the paddock or in the yards with our cattle.

All my life has been devoted to breeding Angus bulls. In that time there would not be too many calves that I have not seen the day they were born or weighed at weaning or scanned.

There would not be too many cows that I have not AI’d at least once nor would there be one bull that I have sold without having been personally assessed by me.

I live with our cattle and I think I know them pretty well

 

Seedstock producers have adapted Breedplan for a number of reasons.

 

*As a selection guide and use it as a tool within their program.

            This was always the sole intention of Breedplan but one many ignore.

 

*As a sole selection guideline.

Unfortunately there are many breeding Angus today who have little knowledge of animal breeding and reproduction and see Breedplan as their sole selection criteria.

           

*As a marketing tool.

            Breedplan provides an excellent marketing tool and one we all exploit

and take advantage of.

 

 

A pastoral company was once asked why they only source bulls from performance orientated herds – their reply was that it was their way of justifying the directors spending good money on bulls that would be seen to be making genetic progress.

 

*Because they feel they have to be seen to be users of technology.

So many breeders have contacted me saying that they disagree with the system and the type of cattle it is producing but market pressures have forced them to comply. As a result their herd is full of what they consider undesirable genetics yet they cannot publicly admit it.

 

*A combination of the above.

            Probably best sums up most of the users – including us.

 

Forty-one years of hands on experience breeding, weighing, measuring and scanning Angus cattle and with nearly 3,000 calves recorded with the National Beef Recording Scheme (now Breedplan) since 1976 has given me a valuable insight into the trends evolved with the various selection pressures which include performance data.

 

It is this experience and those observations that have led to my concerns and to the conclusion that Breedplan, in its current format, is failing to provide a performance based selection system that truly reflects the needs of both the bull breeder and bull buyer.

 

Alarm bells began to ring in 1999 when the first sale bulls of our new Red Angus venture were scanned for sale. 

 

                       

No.                  Group                          MBL Av.        EBV Av.

 

21                    Black bulls                    4.10                 +0.4    

 

18                    Red bulls                      4.08                 -0.3     

 

With an equal number of black bulls of our existing genetics and running under identical conditions, the IMF% scan was virtually identical for both the Red group and the Black group.

 

When processed the Black bulls had IMF% EBV’s above breed average while all the Red bulls had IMF% EBV’s below breed average, in fact not one Red bull had a positive IMF% EBV in spite of a Red being the highest scanning bull.

 

At the same time major contradictions were detected in other traits in ET flush brothers and with the correlation between birth weights and EBV’s.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Both ABRI and the Angus Society were contacted seeking an explanation – their response was slow, technical and unsympathetic.

 

Similar contradictions in other traits are common and continue to be of concern to us.

 

Many high $Index Value cows have been used as recipient cows because they are poor doers or of suspect fertility and have less desirable structure.

 

 

 

                  

 

 

 

 

Sires we have purchased have experienced major changes in traits after having progeny analysed.

 

Scrotal Size EBV jumps from the lowest 10% to the top 5%.

 

Camden View Black Douglas V3

 

Purchased in 2002 with a Scrotal Size EBV of +0.3.

 

In 2005 after his first progeny were analysed his Scrotal Size EBV jumped to +2.4

 

 

Eye Muscle Area EBV falls from high 15% to low 10%.

 

Banquet Venzo V84

 

Purchased in 2001 with an EMA EBV of +2.3.

 

In 2005 after having progeny analysed his EMA EBV has plummeted to +0.2.

 

Home bred sires used have had their EBV’s and those of their progeny ‘discounted’ in spite of actual performance data being comparable to high profile high EBV bulls. The EBV’s of high profile AI bulls has not been reflected in their real performance.

 

There are major discrepancies in EBV’s and raw data appearing in large groups of animals (100 plus) run under identical management. The difference in EBV’s and raw data of our 2005 sale bulls sire groups was alarming. The progeny of the highest IMF% EBV sire was below the average of the group for actual IMF% scanned.

 

 

Scanning/EBV for IMF% 2005 Sale Bulls - 120 bulls in group

 

Sire                                                        MBL%  - Scanning                                            IMF% EBV         

                Group     Av           Sire Group No           Sire   Av             Sire Av .EBV      Dam Av EBV        

 

Front Runner        3..5                          8                              4.6                           +0.7                         +0.56      

 

Gold Label             3.5                           6                              4.3                           +0.9                         +0.22      

 

QRF X167              3.5                           16                            3.1                           +2.0                         +0.38      

 

Ultravox                 3.5                           10                            3.1                           +1.8                         +0.28      

 

 

Many traits expressed by EBV’s in our herd, such as mature cow weight, calving ease, fat and others, are not a true reflection of the animal.

 

 

Older animals, both bulls and cows, are disadvantaged with lower numbers. Animals by high profile bulls have exaggerated numbers.

 

This year we have calves on the ground by a bull called Wallah Abaridy. He was born 46 years ago and has what we would consider to be Australia’s worst EBVs – negative for nearly all EBVs and $Index Values. His progeny should be shockers!! We had a 40 kg calf in 1970 and we had a 40kg calf in 2005!

 

 

 

 

             

 

                BIRTH WEIGHT – ACTUAL V EBV

 

‘Are the genetic gains as indicated by Breedplan exaggerated’.

 

Year                Number           Birth weight                EBV

 

1986                85                    35.8 kg                        +2.8

 

2003                231                  38.2 kg                        +5.3

 

Increase                                   7%                               90%

 

Extract from January 2005 Angus Group Breedplan

Report for Herd QRF

RAFF

 

The genetic gains as indicated by Breedplan are exaggerated. Our actual average birth weight has fluctuated between 35.8kg and 38.2kg since 1986 yet our EBV has gone from +2.8 to +5.3, a 90% increase!

                       

Reply from Hans Graser “If this difference doesn’t reflect an increase in the genetic value for birth weight of your group of animals, what have you changed in your management or feeding which would account for this increase. I know you can argue nothing and this is just seasonal.”

 

 

 

 

 

TRAIT BY TRAIT

 

Calving Ease

 

*Gestation Length         Easy to measure with so much AI. An under used trait for calving ease.

 

*DIR                            Absolutely no relevance in our herd. Just an assumption that high growth, high birth weight cattle are hard calving.

 

*DTRS                        Total contradiction in our herd. Daughters of high growth, high birth weight animals are usually easy calving.

 

*Birth Weight               Most over used trait that sends misleading signals to bull buyers. A high birth weight Angus is still low when compared to other breeds.

                                   

                                    Seasonal changes influence birth weight.

 

                                    How many birth weights actually submitted are actual weights?

 

                                    So many other factors influence calving ease. Calf shape, cow confirmation and pelvic area etc.

 

                                    Birth weight is not the most important factor influencing calving ease below an acceptable level.

 

 

 

                                   

Birth weight is one small part of calving ease. Continually using low birth

weight sires has a diminishing effect on each generation. This year it was not

our high birth weight EBV heifers that experienced calving difficulty but the

daughters of low birth weight bulls!

 

 

 

Fertility Traits

 

*Days to Calving          Fine under optimum environment. We know our regular breeders.

 

*Scrotal Size                Easy to measure – actual size means more – no advantage in extremes.

 

                                    40 cm scrotal size is adequate.

 

 

Samson S 29

 

 

CE Dir CE Dts  GL     BWt   200   400   600   MWt   Milk  SS    DC    CWt   EMA   Rib   Rump  RBY%  IMF%

-2.5       -2.2       -0.9    +7.5    +43   +67   +89   +72      +18    -2.1   -2.4   +50     +3.0    -1.1   -1.5      +2.6      -0.1   .  

-10%     -5%                  -5%                                                    -1%                                                                       -15% .

               

 

‘Birth weight EBV’s should not be influenced by growth.’

 

Raff Samson S29 sired 26 calves in 1999 with an average birth weight of 35.3 kg – breed average.

 

Because his growth increased his birth weight EBV increased to +7.5 or the high 1% of the breed.

 

S29 Calving-Ease EBV’s

DIR      -2.3      low 15%

DTRS  -2.1      low 5%

 

His calving ease and that of his daughters has been excellent. 13 sons of S29 daughters were in our 2005 bull sale.

       32 Samson S29 daughters are still in the herd

 

‘Scrotal EBV is only part of the fertility story.’

 

S29 Scrotal Size

            38cm                EBV     -2.1                  very low 1%

 

As a mature bull he sired over 100 calves a year in a commercial herd.

 

                            45CM    SCROTAL            +1.5  SS  EBV

                                32CM    SCROTAL            +1.5  SS  EBV

 

At a bull sale with a QA catalogue I observed that the largest scrotal bull of 45cm had a SS EBV of +1.5, in the top 25% of the breed.

On checking to see what EBV the smallest scrotal bull of 32 cm had I found an identical SS EBV of +1.5, again in the top 25% of the breed.

 

For a two-year old bull 32cm would not have passed a breeding soundness examination, yet the potential bull buyers were told that as EBVs are more reliable than raw data this bull, with a +1.5 SS EBV, was in the top 25% of the breed in spite of failing a breeding soundness examination!

 

Maternal Traits

 

*Milk                           OK within herd but question ability to adjust to seasonal changes.

 

 

 

*Mature Cow Wt         All over the place in our herd. Frame score a far more reliable indicator of maturity pattern.

 

                        New Trend 315 has a MWt EBV of +41, His daughters in our herd have MWt EBV of +54 and are average frame score 7.7 and average weight

 

                        GT Max has a MWt EBV of +142. His daughters in our herd are +99 and are average 7.6 frame score and average weight

           

           

 

Growth Traits

 

*200 Day                     All you need is a set of scales.

 

*400 Day                     Easy to measure and should be accurate.

 

*600 Day                     600 days is very young for final weight as most steers would not be slaughtered before 700 to 800 days of age.

 

                        In 1980 when in the UK I saw the damage of over what emphasis did on a final weight selection at 500 days to British breeds, This was the catalyst that triggered the popularity of the European breeds.

We still find within herd ratios more useful than EBVs.

 

Carcase Traits

           

            *Carcase Weight          Growth traits tell you this.

 

 

 

            *EMA                          Not a true indicator of real muscle mass.

                                               

By adjusting to one age favors a particular maturity pattern.

 

Extreme muscle creates fertility problems.

 

Highlights dangers of single trait, single location & single age selection pressures. Changing animal profile – high flank, shallow hindquarter.

 

Is selecting a single trait at a single location changing the real red meat mass?

 

 

                   

         

Hoff Limited Edition  EMA +1.4                       GAR Precision 1680 EMA +6.2

 

“Ever wonder why your thickest, heaviest muscled bull didn’t scan your largest rib eye?

 

Scanning gives you the surface area (length X width), but not volume (length X width X depth) of the rib eye that it measures. 

 

Imagine a lake.  It is easy to measure the surface area (length X width), but if you want to know how much water is in the lake you also have to measure how deep it is!

 

The moral of the story is that your thickest, heaviest muscled bull may actually have had the biggest rib eye but you didn’t have the tools to measure all of it.” Doug Hoff.

 

Carcase Traits cont.

 

*Fat                             Being used for the wrong reasons. Carcasses do not want excess fat but many breeders think positive fat cattle are easier doing.

 

Rump Fat EBV changes -

In 2001                                   0.0                   highest 35%

In 2003                                   -0.9                  down to the lowest 25%

 In 2004                                  -1.4                  down to the lowest 10%

                           In 2005                                   -0.9                  back up to the lowest 25%

 

Raff Ultimate U27

A participant in Round 1 of the Trangie Progeny Test he was 0.0 for Rump Fat in 2003.

In 2005, after his growth went up, his Rump Fat EBV was up to–1.4. Yet of the steer progeny

of the 13 Trangie Progeny Test bulls slaughtered, those sired by Ultimate had the second

highest actual rump fat measurement. I can only assume that his fat went down on the

assumption that high growth bulls are leaner.

 

Then after pointing out this to the Breed Development Manager his EBV went back up to –0.9.

 

Confused?  We are!!!

 

*RBY%                       This is the most under used and under valued trait.

 

                                    WEIGHT + YIELD = PROFIT

 

*IMF%                        The most over used trait. Its accuracy is difficult to verify in our herd.

 

                                    Nutrition is the key to marbling. Angus cattle traditionally marble. Should we be sacrificing so much for extreme IMF%

 

                                    Isn’t raw data more meaningful in single management groups?

 

                                    Why not breed Wagyu if you want extreme marbling cattle rather than destroy the Angus breed?

                                   

 

                               

 

 

*NFI

 

Based on target carcase weight or desired fat cover (finish)?

=

Two different outcomes favoring different breeds & types?

 

 

Trangie Progeny Test Raff Ultimate U27 – NFI

 

5th/13 at Tullimba   -  10th/13 at Rutherglen

 

Based on target carcase weight on feed from weaning what would the result have

been?

Format used disadvantaged high growth Angus cattle.

 

On feed earlier – reach target weight younger

=

more profitable?

 

                                   

                           Two extremes in maturity pattern of Trangie steers

 

I question the accuracy of weights and measurements being submitted. For example how many birth weights are actual weights and not estimates or guesses?

 

I question the ability of Breedplan to make accurate seasonal and environmental adjustments. Our sale of the Forres herd into a different environment in 1990 and the repurchase of some of those genetics in 2004 support my view.

 

In Rockhampton I heard of a Brahman bull located on a property in central Queensland in good brigalow country and tick free that had a growth EBV of +45 and in the top 1% of the breed after having his progeny analysed. That same bull was sold into a coastal, ticky area where he or his progeny could not handle the environment - his growth EBVs dropped to +5 in that herd. Breedplan then gave him a growth EBV of +20!

 

Really that bull should have three growth EBVs – one for a temperate environment, one for a coastal environment and another to keep the scientists happy that means nothing!

 

When I began breeding Angus, temperament was a big issue in the breed. Breeders acknowledged this and selected to improve this trait and up to ten years ago temperament was no longer an issue in the breed – this bad trait was virtually eliminated by selection and without EBV’s. The same can be said about structure and fertility.

 

Only in this last decade have temperament, structure and fertility re-emerged as an issue in the breed.  Why? Because of the over emphasis of EBV’s and single trait selection. We do not need more EBV’s to rectify these emerging problems – EBV’s created them. We must look at the cause not the problem.

 

A visit to an AI station earlier this year reminded me of my first judging experience as a teenager. Before judging a spoke to a ‘wise old man of the beef industry’ asking how to go about my job? “Simple” he replied, “There are three basic functions of a bull and if he fails any one he should not be a bull – a bull must be able to eat, walk and r…! (serve cows)”

 

At the AI center I saw a very high profile Australian bred Angus bull – he was gone in the stifle and had a back foot as long as a water ski. He could not mount a teaser for collection and could hardly walk so he failed 2/3 of the basics, he could not walk and he could not serve cows. Yet this bull is still being marketed.

 

Checking on the Angus WEB he has over 1000 progeny recorded and rates a near perfect feet and leg structural score!

 

His only attraction are an outstanding set of EBVs and $Index Values.

 

I ask you – is this what EBVs and Breedplan are all about?

 

Some of you would have seen an amateur video of USA AI bulls with footage of one of the most widely used bulls in Australia – his front feet blown out. In the 2004 semen catalogue that same bull rated  8/9 foot score!

 

There are many more stories of bulls with major structural, temperament and other defects being marketed on EBVs.

 

Is it a coincidence that many ‘elite performance sires’ die a mysterious death at a young age?

 

Isn’t it time we started questioning the integrity of some of our Angus breeders and semen marketers?

 

Maybe an EBV for INTEGRITY would be useful, one for bull breeders and one for semen sellers.

 

So many people say what a wonderful job AI has done for the beef industry and the potential it has to multiply the superior genetics of the breed. I would suggest to you that while we have breeders, AI companies and Angus Australia vigorously promoting the importance of the use of EBVs as a selection tool, the serious problems beginning to emerge in our great breed will only get worse.

 

It is the over use and abuse of EBVs that have created these problem

 

The Elite Sire Progeny Test trial at Trangie provided a perfect opportunity to verify the accuracy of EBVs.  To do this it was essential that the trial be open and transparent and that all raw data be released for all to see the correlation between EBVs and raw data. The refusal of the committee to do this is nothing more than a cowardly decision to cover up a system that they know cannot withstand open and transparent scrutiny. Secrecy creates suspicion!

 

 

I, like so many others, was excited about the potential of the Elite Sire Progeny Test

Program when it was launched. However it wasn’t long before this excitement turned

to frustration and disappointment when the final method and reporting were disclosed.

 

“No raw data on the trial results would be released”

 

In a phone conversation with Carel Teseling as to the reason why?

 

 “Because the only people qualified to analyse raw data are scientists and academics”  

 

Bull breeders are apparently not qualified to analyse raw data on their own

bulls – what an insult to the intelligence of all Angus bull breeders

 

Eventually the committee agreed to release the averages for the sires in a configuration of small groups.  Little individual animal data has been released nor has actual calving ease of the sires or their daughters. We are still waiting for structural data.

 

“Individual figures will not be used in isolation for publicity or promotional use.”

 

Who is the committee to say what data from our bulls we can use?

 

“Any reference to raw data on the traits reported by EBVs will not infer that raw data is more important than EBV’s.”

 

Who do they think they are to make judgment as to what form of performance data is more important? I would suggest the bull breeder and owner are quite able of, and entitled to, use whatever information they feel is appropriate.

 

After indicating my interest in participation I made a couple of suggestions to the committee Chairman.

 

(1)   An aged proven sire (such as MO32, 315 or Scotch Cap) should be used as a ‘bench mark’ sire.

 

(2)   Bulls with a diverse range of genetics should be selected for the trial.

 

 

(3)   Less emphasis should be placed on EBVs allowing breeders to nominate bulls of their choice.

 

(4)   In the interests of all concerned all raw data should be released.

 

All my suggestions were ignored.

 

 

 

 

I was reluctant to sign the draft contract, but after speaking with Bob Dent who indicated a degree of urgency to get the project underway, I agreed, on the understanding that further discussion could continue regarding my concerns.

I also hand wrote a note indicating that I did not agree with the clause stating that ‘no raw data would be released’ on the contract.

 

COPY OF CONTRACT PAG

 

This was never acknowledged nor was any further discussions held to resolve my concerns.

 

In April 2003 Andrew and I traveled 800 kilometers to the first Trangie field day to inspect the first round weaners only to find that no birth weights, no calving ease details of sires and no weaning weights of sire groups were disclosed. In fact most of the day was spent on drought feeding and other unrelated issues. We were pretty irate to say the least.

 

We expressed our disappointment to Bob Dent, committee chair, who suggested we send a written submission to the committee. This was the beginning of a long and frustrating campaign that has achieved little.

 

After spending $6,000 in nominating a bull and donating the semen, I can only say it has been a total waste of money for us as well as many others. As a steak holder in the trial we have been denied access to information on our bulls performance.

 

Angus Australia should be ashamed of the failure of this trial to deliver an outcome that ‘kicked goals’. Your Board has squandered a lot of our money on a trial that promised so much yet delivered so little.

 

TRANGIE PROGENY TEST.

 

Ultimate U27

 

CE Dir CE Dts  GL     BWt   200   400   600   MWt   Milk  SS    DC    CWt   EMA   Rib   Rump  RBY%  IMF%

 -5.0       -3.3         -1.3     +7.7     +53    +95    +130  +141     +15     +2.9   -0.1     +71      +2.7     -0.8    -0.9        +1.2       +0.3  .

-5%       -1%                     -5%                                                                                                                     -25%                                         .

 

What we’d still like to know about UltimateU27?

 

Birth Weight   Ultimate had one of the highest birth weigh EBVs of all sires.

How many of his calves were dead at birth or difficult births?

 

Calving Ease DIR Ultimate had one of the worst calving ease direct EBV.

Was this reflected in the birth of his progeny?

 

Calving Ease DTS Ultimate had one of the worst Calving Ease DTS EBV.

What number of his daughters experienced calving difficulty?

 

Fat                   Ultimate had one of the leanest fat EBV.

We now know that his carcasses had the second highest actual fat measurements.

I would suggest that the Young Sire Program is heading the same way.

 

Our experience with this program was the same. We had a number of young bulls short-listed, selected on EBVs of course. Andrew responded by saying he considered only two out of seven were suitable and questioned the selection process and also expressed the hope that those selected would be of a diverse range of genetics.

 

He also advised that due to our bad experience with the Trangie trial we had no interest in being part of this program.

 

The final selection had seven with 036 genetics.  Andrew again expressed concern that the gene pool was too limited. The response was typical – technical and unrelated to the issues raised that included a screed on inbreeding from Bob Guest

 

What they were doing was right and that we did not know what we were talking about.

 

Why have they changed the selection process for the next round?

 

 

MY QUESTIONS ABOUT EBV’s?

 

1.            Are the published accuracies too high?

 

 “You can expect that EBVs for 1/3 of the bulls will in fact be higher than first estimated.  Of the other bulls, EBVs will remain steady for 1/3 and decrease for the other 1/3.” Breed Development Manager.

 

This would indicate to me that a young unproven bull should have accuracy no higher than 33%.

 

2.            Is there too much emphasis on pedigree?

 

3.            Is there too little emphasis on raw data?

 

                Too much contradiction in many traits measured in our herd.

 

               Trangie progeny test code of practice:-

 

“Any reference to raw data on the traits reported by EBVs will not infer that raw data is more important than EBV’s.”

 

What a dangerous and dictatorial statement.

In our opinion and that of the majority of our clients raw data is just as important as EBVs. In fact we find it to be a far more reliable indicator of an animals potential than EBVs.

When purchasing sires we always insist on having access to all raw data. It is disturbing when a breeder is reluctant to provide such data.

 

 

 

4.            Should animals without raw data on a trait have EBV’s for that trait?

 

               The assumption that an animal gets 50% of its genes from its sire and 50% from its dam might be right but which 50%?

Only a 33% chance of being right!

 

5.            How accurate is the raw data submitted?

 

               I know of many breeders who estimate or guess calf birth weights.

 

6.            Why are older animals EBV’s disadvantaged so much?

 

               A common question asked by breeders and one that is evident in our herd.

 

7.            Why are ‘home bred’ animals EBV’s disadvantaged so much?

 

               We have had homebred sires with raw data comparable to those by ‘high accuracy bulls’ yet have lower EBVs.

 

8.            Are the EBV’s for progeny of ‘high accuracy’ sires really that good?

 

               The progeny of BT Ultravox in this years bull sale indicated this to be so.

 

9.            How accurately can seasonal and environmental fluctuations be recognised?

 

               Seasonal change does change the performance of an animal even within strict management groups.

 

A bull that can perform in one environment will not always perform in a different environment.

 

10.          Should growth have any influence on birth weight EBV’s?

 

               The Americans don’t think so!

 

               We have used breed average actual birth weight EBV bulls that have EBVs in the high 1% of the breed. Their progeny have not been extreme and we have not had calving problem

 

11.       Are the genetic gains as indicated by EBV’s that high?

 

Our weaning weights or milk or EMA or birth weight have not increased as much as Breedplan says.

 

12.          What evidence is there that the genetic gains claimed are in fact happening?

 

               The two major feedlots in Queensland have no evidence of any increase in marbling in Angus cattle they have fed and slaughtered.

               I would suggest that nutrition and feeding practices would have had a greater influence on the compliance rate marbling breeds of cattle.

 

13.          What EBV’s really do indicate the genetic potential of a trait?

 

               Only those of animals with large groups of progeny analysed from a range of different environments have any chance.

 

14.          Are too many EBV’s and $Index Values based on ‘assumptions’ rather than ‘fact’?

 

               Assumptions are dangerous as they create too many variables. An assumption for one market or environment or management practice will always not be the same.

 

15.          Are there too many EBV’s?

 

               There should not be an EBV for a trait that cannot guarantee some degree of accuracy and confidence in its user.

 

16.          Why are the formulas used to arrive at EBV’s not available for scrutiny?

 

               Secrecy creates suspicion.

 

17.  Why don’t bull breeders have a greater involvement with the structure of Breedplan?

 

“New  developments and research concerning BLUP methodology is

constantly under review and scrutiny by the international scientific

community.” Breed Development Officer.

 

How often are bull breeders consulted or involved?

Isn’t the user of the information entitled to say what they want?

 

18.          Has Angus Australia ‘over sold’ Breedplan?

 

               9 out of 10 for a marketing exercise.

 

               2 out of 10 for breeding better cattle.

 

19.          Have Angus breeders ‘over used’ Breedplan?

 

               Market pressures have forced many to use a system they do not believe in.

 

20.          Have entrepreneurs ‘abused’ Breedplan?

 

               Breedplan has made breeding and marketing bulls look easy to investor

 

 

WHAT DO WE DO ABOUT IT?

 

1.                  Give Breedplan a good dose of Dectomax or Genises to get rid of all its parasites!!!

 

2.                  Angus Australia to back off promoting EBV’s.

 

3.                  ABRI be advised that Breedplan, in its current format, no longer has the confidence of many Angus breeders.

 

4.                  The Angus Group Breedplan contract to be reviewed.

 

5.                  Angus Australia to initiate an independent review of Breedplan.

 

6.                  The focus of the review to be on the users of Breedplan.

 

7.                  All data collected from the Trangie Progeny Test to be released.

 

8.         All formulas used to arrive at EBV’s to be disclosed.

 

 

 

Angus Australia has an obligation to its members to stand up and take control of its performance recording system. It has an obligation to its members to acknowledge that the current system is flawed and in need of overhaul. It has an obligation to evolve a system that has the users confidence – only the Angus breeders of Australia in consultation with the feeder and processing industry should determine the make up of that performance system.

 

It is Angus breeders that pay for Breedplan.

 

It is Angus breeders that breed the cattle, provide the data and use the information.

 

It is Angus breeders whose livelihood is influenced by the accuracy and relevance of the information provided by EBV’s

 

It is the Angus breeder who has to defend the system and whose credibility is at stake by providing EBV’s to bull buyers.

 

It is time the Angus breeders took control of Breedplan and demand a system that they have confidence in, a system that they can confidently defend as accurate and a system that has the support of the vast majority of Angus breeders.

 

Breedplan must become a system that all breeders want to embrace, not one that they feel obliged to adopt.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

In Queensland we have a health system in crises.

 

It is in crises because it has been run by a bunch of bureaucrats who know nothing about health.

 

It has become endemic because those administrators failed to acknowledge that the system was wrong and they failed to listen to the users of the system, the nurses and patients.

 

 

In the Beef Industry we have a genetic evaluation system in crises.

 

It is in crises because it is being run by a bunch of academics that know nothing about breeding cattle.

 

It is becoming endemic because those administrators are failing to acknowledge that the system is wrong and they are failing to listen to the users of the system, the breeders of cattle.