Irish Charolais Society

Future Farmer

On their Facebook page:

"A heifer of the extremely easy calving sire 'Necessaire' (NZI). Neccessaire has a calving figure of 2.7% at 62% reliability, making him one of the easiest calving Charolais bulls available. His daughters make great milking females also. Semen of him is available through the Charolais Society."


Lies
Damn lies
statistics
And calving difficulty information sent in by pedigree beef breeders.

Now for my stats (icbf)
93% of births on CH - 7% on Hol - 27 births in April proof

Does anyone believe them?

onyerbikepat

Believe who? Irish Charolais Society or ICBF?
All data is entered through ICBF, so irish Charolais Society have no control over data. Not sure what you are trying to say.:o

Future Farmer

I am saying that some members of the society if not most, lie about calving difficulty in order to make bulls and heifers more saleable.

bogman_bass

See the overall score (2.7%) takes into account that the 2 difficult calvings that took place were in heifers so there is a statistical weighting to take that into account.

also the 7% HO doest mean that it was nessiarily 2 100% HO cows that gave birth to him. it may be that there were 4 CHxHO cows or any mixtyre of breeding along the the way that might mean that the "average" cow was 7% HO

onyerbikepat

Ok see what you mean. Can't beat the commercial proofs.

Kovu

Doesn't a lot of those stats in their first year goes on their breeding history? I'd say if you looked up his sire and male line, they would all have lower than average calving difficulty.

Still not proof though, so I get your point! I know a few times that has happened with other societies and heifers had sires put on them that turned out to be quite high for calving difficulty.

Future Farmer

But do you believe the figures Bogman_Bass?

.Kovu. it does seem an easy enough family...

bogman_bass

They are no guarantee. They are a guideline but I would trust them more than looking a bull and judging him by his head.

In saying that I never fully trust figures for a bull that is used exclusivly on pedigree animals

Future Farmer

Would you consider him:

" extremely easy calving" or "one of the easiest calving Charolais bulls available"

ellewood

Future Farmer wrote: »

Would you consider him:

" extremely easy calving" or "one of the easiest calving Charolais bulls available"

Yes, he has been used/recamended for heifers for years and even been used on a large % of heifers he still has a calving figure of 2.7% with a fairly high rel%
With a breed avg for calving of 8% and an all breed avg calving of 5%, youre saying that a bull with a calving figure of 3% is hard calved??

Even pte had a small no of hard calvings that what the %diff is for if he is 3%diff then 3 out of every 100 will be a hard calving ie 3 or 4 on calving report scale.

Do breeders put down a 2 instead of a 3 or even a 4? Im sure they do, but im also sure its not limited to charolais breeders

bogman_bass

Future Farmer wrote: »

Would you consider him:

" extremely easy calving" or "one of the easiest calving Charolais bulls available"

Is he easy calved? Probably at this stage

will his figures remain at 2.7%? I doubt it

Let me put it this way: I cant see him suddenly turning into a hard calved bull overnight.

Also remember that that bull probably has been well tested in France

*edit

just checked French proof - 115 for calving

Charliebull

bogman_bass wrote: »

They are no guarantee. They are a guideline but I would trust them more than looking a bull and judging him by his head.

In saying that I never fully trust figures for a bull that is used exclusivly on pedigree animals

its a hard one to call,
i still think judging a bull by his stature and his head in the flesh is hard bet

my lad breeds outa ADA, look him up on ICBF, he calved his first crop this year, out of 20 cows, 1 dead calf that should have been a C section, 2 jacks and rest unassisted, his ICBF figures would not have suggested that

i always think that when looking at a bulls calving difficulty, look up his mothers side of the breeding also and she what she is bringing to the table

bogman_bass

and I have seen some of the finest bulls you have ever seen breed pure muck and some that you wouldnt let through the gate are the bigest selling bulls in AI

Future Farmer

I was a bit harsh earlier - I probably went a bit overboard.

He is an easy calving bull to a point, it is about balance as CH go he will probably always be the right side of 8%.

But on the hole I don't trust pedigree breeders (not that I blame them either - if the shoe was on the other foot),

It is shocking across the board how many pedigree breeders have dairy cows out behind the back of the shed (but then does it really matter really with terminal sires like Charolais). I know I am contradicting myself - it's just because I do not know the answer....

Farrell

I remember a PB Shorthorn breeder interested in buying a First calving SH heifer we had at the time, found out it was to help feed his PB calves from 6 months of age.:eek:
We'd a PB CH Cow with Farmleigh Back breeding feed the best of calves (not registered) & other calves sucking too (but bad milk stars).:rolleyes:

I do agree that'd the statistics should be as factual as possible

Bellview

The icbf numbers are as inaccurate as any I have seen for all breeds. They base the data on a farmers input which is subjective at best. The other is gestation period. I purchased a heifer from a breeder who sire had a very short gestation period. Over the last 2 years she is the longest in our place using the same bull as most of my herd...ironically there is a half brother of hers in ai preaching the same short gestation.

On breeders with the cow out the back of the shed these folks are mostly the boys that show cattle and see themselves as the standard bearers... Some also appear to struggle with recording the actual date of birth!

Genghis Cant

Future Farmer wrote: »

But on the hole I don't trust pedigree breeders (not that I blame them either - if the shoe was on the other foot),

It is shocking across the board how many pedigree breeders have dairy cows out behind the back of the shed (but then does it really matter really with terminal sires like Charolais). I know I am contradicting myself - it's just because I do not know the answer....

Some of them surely would be a bit rough on the hole:D

Seriously though. I've bred plenty of PB Charolais. 100% AI, Never, not even once would I rate a bull anything other than what I felt at the time to be correct. The average PB breeder has very little vested interest in the majority of bulls standing in AI. It makes no difference to me to tell the truth. In fact it makes life a lot handier to simply stick to the truth.
Furthermore there are other variables at play linking into calving ease/difficulty.

Sheep breeder

The calving difficulty on most farms is down to the farmer himself and the way he farms. Example what age the heifer calves at, condition score of the animal and how they are fed or not fed.
Recently on farm and the guy was complaining the new char bull was hard calved, but the cows were starved and unable to calve and the bull was to blame and not the farmer.

Farrell

That's one side SB, don't forget the guy that over feeds & has a rant about massive calves.
The ideal is somewhere in between ! 2 double handful of rolled oats per day for last 6 weeks

onyerbikepat

Bellview wrote: »

The icbf numbers are as inaccurate as any I have seen for all breeds. They base the data on a farmers input which is subjective at best. The other is gestation period. I purchased a heifer from a breeder who sire had a very short gestation period. Over the last 2 years she is the longest in our place using the same bull as most of my herd...ironically there is a half brother of hers in ai preaching the same short gestation...

No offence but, the whole ICBF project is based on statistics. You need to understand basic statistics first. Holding up one example to show how the data is wrong is madness.
One swallow doesnt make a summer, as they say.

Bellview

onyerbikepat wrote: »

No offence but, the whole ICBF project is based on statistics. You need to understand basic statistics first. Holding up one example to show how the data is wrong is madness.
One swallow doesnt make a summer, as they say.

Trust me I know stats and named one example... I can get more. Fair point but when icbf issue their stats stating ie 17 per cent accuracy do you take this as good enough to make a solid judgement -I don't . Most icbf stats have low accuracy levels so until they can show improvement and move away from subjective metrics I will ignore and stick to bloodlines that I know and trust as this is the most predictable metric for me. Icbf maternal bul program is also weak as focused on uk bulls... Icbf think they have improved the dairy industry on their own but forget that the dairy man has actually done this through milk recording..where in beef icbf are willing to accept a calf reg without the sire details which this limits stats accuracy. Until there is real engagement by icbf and e beef industry my view is icbf are another cost to farmers that add little value but unfortunately drive a herd like mentality among some.. I would love the day that icbf add value and really engage rather than preach on theory rather than practise.. Rant over