Euro-star Proofs for August 2015

TPF2012

Beef Euro-star proofs just released. A lot of replacement bulls took a hit, ADX is now down to 2 stars from i think from 5; APZ who was used a lot is now at 1 star with a whopping 15.7% maternal calving difficulty; FTY down to 3 from 4.

tanko

It's very hard to have much faith in Eurostar figures when they keep changing so much over short periods of time.
The phrase "Lies, damn lies and statistics" comes to mind when reading some of them.
I notice that on the Active bull lists they only say whether a bull qualified for the BTAP 2014 and not whether it qualifies for the new Genomics scheme. This is a bit sneaky imo. The maternal figures for many Bulls have gone through the floor.

tomieen jones

TPF2012 wrote: »

Beef Euro-star proofs just released. A lot of replacement bulls took a hit, ADX is now down to 2 stars from i think from 5; APZ who was used a lot is now at 1 star with a whopping 15.7% maternal calving difficulty; FTY down to 3 from 4.

hard to forecast the right bull for the genomics scheme with these changes! Cattle breeding is going like equine breeding

patsy_mccabe

And what heifers do I have coming through as replacements, ADX and APZ. NCBC really need to get their act together. Shur looking at the bulls' mother would give you some idea about milk in the breeding. Why are they getting it so wrong so many times. It's either very hard calving bulls or bulls with no milk. Maybe they need to go back to basics.:mad:

mikeoh

tomieen jones wrote:

hard to forecast the right bull for the genomics scheme with these changes! Cattle breeding is going like equine breeding

All the angus bull I use took a big hit maternally ZLL 100 ...mlj down 80 .....I bought straws off an old bull that were surplus in ai station as bull dead 20+ years and no one wanted them and he has dropped 100 since last evaluation....I give up ....its like shooting the dark

LivInt20

See Irish Beef Industry meeting presentation.

New Replacement Index being used to provide more accurate Replacement Index.

http://www.icbf.com/?page_id=22

Don't worry about overall values, look at the stars.

patsy_mccabe

I don't see the values changing that much either. Carcass weights will always be carcass weights, milk will always be milk. It's how their are weighted individually when they add them all together that might change the Replacement Indexes.

How come the figures are up so early? They weren't due till the 31 August. First time to see them up early. Usually a few days late.

wiggy123

Figures have been hit big time---any reasoning behind it? see most of the recent bulls--entries are still ok... odd?
also anyone get their report yet--re star ratings of their suckler herd???

Limestone Cowboy

Well f*ck that anyways. Cheers icbf.

patsy_mccabe

Limestone Cowboy wrote: »

Well f*ck that anyways. Cheers icbf.

How can the replacement value drop in half and the Reliability figure go down 1%. Explain that one.

kollegeknight

Limestone Cowboy wrote: »

Well f*ck that anyways. Cheers icbf.

How do I get to that page on herdplus?

Bellview

patsy_mccabe wrote: »

How can the replacement value drop in half and the Reliability figure go down 1%. Explain that one.

If ICBF struggle with a logical answer, they can blame the computer... I need to study further as these moves make me more worried that I could be ok 4 or 5 years into suckler scheme and in year 6 get a right kick in the a*se if the stars go against me because I have not focused on their hard calvers in Angus....

on angus interesting that 3 of the top 4 hard calvers are Bosullow elmark himself and his sons Dunbar & Goulding Eamon... all over 7.0% calving diff
Bolsullow elmark 12.5%
Nightinggale Dunbar 9.6%
Goulding Eamon 7.2%.... Gene Ireland is marked as owner

these three bulls are all 4 or 5 star Replacement - so I should consider using... could you imagine trying to sell their sons to the dairyman & the damage they would cause

tanko

kollegeknight wrote: »

How do I get to that page on herdplus?

Put the Bulls AI code or tag number into the bull search on the home page, then click on "more" on the top right hand corner.
Then click on "prev eval (btap)".

Parishlad

wiggy123 wrote: »

Figures have been hit big time---any reasoning behind it? see most of the recent bulls--entries are still ok... odd?
also anyone get their report yet--re star ratings of their suckler herd???[/QUOTE]

Nope, haven't seen a thing yet...keen to get hold of it....although I'm sure it will just confirm what I already believe....:(

tanko

LivInt20 wrote: »

See Irish Beef Industry meeting presentation.

New Replacement Index being used to provide more accurate Replacement Index.

http://www.icbf.com/?page_id=22

Don't worry about overall values, look at the stars.

So the Replacement index hasn't been accurate up to now, it's nice to know that. And the overall eurostar values don't mean anything now either, that's not what we've been told by icbf for the last few years.

Ardlea Dan (ADX) is one of NCBC's best selling Bulls, let's look at his stars.
He was a 4 star replacement bull in April at 85%, now he's a 2 star replacement bull at 79%, after being a 5 star bull for all of last year.
He was a 4 star Terminal bull in April at 95%, now he's a 3 star at 96%.
Carcase Weight gone from 4* to 3*
Carcase conformation gone from 5* to 4*
Daughters milk, now 1*, it was 3* in April and 5* in 2014.
Daughters calving interval now 1* after being 5*.

It's highly unlikely that heifers off ADX will qualify as 4 or 5 star heifers for the Genomics scheme.

All this is bad enough but today NCBC have the nerve to put an ad for ADX in the journal saying that his "daughters are making great cows" and that he is a
"4 star replacement sire".

Limestone Cowboy

tanko wrote: »

So the Replacement index hasn't been accurate up to now, it's nice to know that. And the overall eurostar values don't mean anything now either, that's not what we've been told by icbf for the last few years.

Ardlea Dan (ADX) is one of NCBC's best selling Bulls, let's look at his stars.
He was a 4 star replacement bull in April at 85%, now he's a 2 star replacement bull at 79%, after being a 5 star bull for all of last year.
He was a 4 star Terminal bull in April at 95%, now he's a 3 star at 96%.
Carcase Weight gone from 4* to 3*
Carcase conformation gone from 5* to 4*
Daughters milk, now 1*, it was 3* in April and 5* in 2014.
Daughters calving interval now 1* after being 5*.

It's highly unlikely that heifers off ADX will qualify as 4 or 5 star heifers for the Genomics scheme.

All this is bad enough but today NCBC have the nerve to put an ad for ADX in the journal saying that his "daughters are making great cows" and that he is a
"4 star replacement sire".

I signed up to the scheme thinking that heifers from my bull out of the 4 or 5 star cows in the herd would qualify. How in the name of jaysus is anyone meant to comply with this when the goalposts are in a different place every time you look.

tanko

Limestone Cowboy wrote: »

I signed up to the scheme thinking that heifers from my bull out of the 4 or 5 star cows in the herd would qualify. How in the name of jaysus is anyone meant to comply with this when the goalposts are in a different place every time you look.

It must be a nightmare trying to buy a young bull which would breed 4 or 5 star heifers. ICBF figures are changing even at 99% reliability.

Bellview

tanko wrote: »

So the Replacement index hasn't been accurate up to now, it's nice to know that. And the overall eurostar values don't mean anything now either, that's not what we've been told by icbf for the last few years.

Ardlea Dan (ADX) is one of NCBC's best selling Bulls, let's look at his stars.
He was a 4 star replacement bull in April at 85%, now he's a 2 star replacement bull at 79%, after being a 5 star bull for all of last year.
He was a 4 star Terminal bull in April at 95%, now he's a 3 star at 96%.
Carcase Weight gone from 4* to 3*
Carcase conformation gone from 5* to 4*
Daughters milk, now 1*, it was 3* in April and 5* in 2014.
Daughters calving interval now 1* after being 5*.

It's highly unlikely that heifers off ADX will qualify as 4 or 5 star heifers for the Genomics scheme.

All this is bad enough but today NCBC have the nerve to put an ad for ADX in the journal saying that his "daughters are making great cows" and that he is a
"4 star replacement sire".

NCBC and advertising is always quiet selected. they have Nighingale El Paso in Angus whose calving stats are over 7% difficulty... in 2014/15 catalogue NCBC use the UK breedplan stats for him while in 2013/14 catclogue they used the Jan 13 ICBF numbers... interesting that they changed their stats when they stared to read ugly or else NCBC must rate ICBF stars incorrect

Rossiter who is also a UK bull, and NCBC used ICBF data for him

patsy_mccabe

Bellview wrote: »

NCBC and advertising is always quiet selected. ...

They did that with the Limousin bull HCA also. In their catalogue, he is the only bull that doesn't have BLUP figures shown.
He's in the bottom 1% for both muscle and skeletal.

Farrell

Looked up my own herd, some 3&4 star cows are 2 star, some of the 5star Bulls are now 2&3 star, milk ... Don't get me started.
Lads mention buying 4-5 Star Bulls, I think anyone who uses AI is to have 80% to 4-5 Star Bulls, is there any of them left?

Kovu

Farrell wrote: »

Looked up my own herd, some 3&4 star cows are 2 star, some of the 5star Bulls are now 2&3 star, milk ... Don't get me started.
Lads mention buying 4-5 Star Bulls, I think anyone who uses AI is to have 80% to 4-5 Star Bulls, is there any of them left?

Ah jesus, just looked up ours. The worst cow in the place with no end of foot problems and no recorded sire is now top of the herd. Five star cow is gone down to a three star, leading to her calf dropping as well, despite us holding her for the main reason of being a five star.

Lot of two star heifers now risen to three star though. I think I'll just put a blindfold on and choose bulls next year. Seems to make as much bleeding sense.

Farrell

Kovu wrote: »

Ah jesus, just looked up ours. The worst cow in the place with no end of foot problems and no recorded sire is now top of the herd. Five star cow is gone down to a three star, leading to her calf dropping as well, despite us holding her for the main reason of being a five star.

Lot of two star heifers now risen to three star though. I think I'll just put a blindfold on and choose bulls next year. Seems to make as much bleeding sense.

Also see 5 star €203 has gone to 5 star €140.
Put Curaheen Vio on a few for potential breeding, he's dropped in value & now negative milk. As you say blind guessing

Kovu

Farrell wrote: »

Also see 5 star €203 has gone to 5 star €140.
Put Curaheen Vio on a few for potential breeding, he's dropped in value & now negative milk. As you say blind guessing

Both Kilmoney Bruce and Virginia Andy jumped from two stars to four, Navarin and Paco (old bulls, surely they shouldn't be changing!) gone up to two for replacement. Probably a lot more changing like that too.

wiggy123

is it more there used--effect these jumps in star ratings or decline.. am confused.. Can see a lot exiting this scheme

dohc turbo2

At the end of the day is buying 5 star a.i when one needs it the way to go , or take. Gamble on a 5 star bull. ?

Farrell

dohc turbo2 wrote: »

At the end of the day is buying 5 star a.i when one needs it the way to go , or take. Gamble on a 5 star bull. ?

If the bull is 5 star the day you buy him, that's good enough, even if he falls to 2 star, only issue is what's the progeny like.

Kovu

dohc turbo2 wrote: »

At the end of the day is buying 5 star a.i when one needs it the way to go , or take. Gamble on a 5 star bull. ?

I believe it's the stars at AI time which are taken into account, so even if it drops to a two/three star bull you're covered for the 80% rule. For a bull, I think it's time of purchase, not 100% sure on that though.

However you're still screwed as your hopeful high starred replacement heifers won't meet the grade as they'll born/change to low starred if the bull stars drop.

mikeoh

I have been genotyping my pbaa bulls for the last 2 years as per the society policy........so are the figures up on icbf accurate as per the dna samples or still predicted and if so where can I get the results .....or was that just an exercise to rid me of some money.......I also remember putting button tags in some suckler cows for whatever beef scheme was out 2 years ago.....where are the results of that.........& dont tell me pay €60 to herd plus to get them

blue5000

I've a 10 yr old Angus bull here that is being fattened because almost all the cows I have left are descended from him.
Now he is 5***** maternal €116, 74%rel.
In april he was 4**** maternal and €175, 79%rel
In april 2014 he was 2** maternal, €134 and 71% rel
I wonder should I sell him to NCBC, sure he can't be any worse than the bullsh1t semen they've been flogging the last few years
The bull I bought to replace him was 3 star last april and has now gone up to yesssssssssssssssssssssssssss 5***** maternal. I wonder WTF his daughters will be like in 2018????

High bike

In the same boat here 4 star heifers which are now in calf dropped to 2and 3 star,and the opposite with this years calves 3star heifers have miraculously become 4 star.What the fcuk is going on,all this just proves what I was thinking all along this suckler scheme is a complete waste of time and money and I for one will definitely be pulling the plug on it before it's too late.

LivInt20

Farrell wrote: »

Also see 5 star €203 has gone to 5 star €140.
Put Curaheen Vio on a few for potential breeding, he's dropped in value & now negative milk. As you say blind guessing

There is a change in the composition of the index.

http://www.icbf.com/?p=3811

"The new replacement index is based on the performance of a cow per calving (which includes the performance of any progeny born from that calving). It is expressed on a per calving basis. Thus a cow with a replacement index of €100 is expected to leave €100 more profit/calving (including her progeny performance from that calving), compared to a cow with a value of zero"

"This is in contrast to the previous index, which was based on the performance of a breeding bull, including male calves (destined for slaughter), female calves (retained for breeding) and all of her subsequent progeny (both male and female)"

tomieen jones

LivInt20 wrote: »

There is a change in the composition of the index.

http://www.icbf.com/?p=3811

"The new replacement index is based on the performance of a cow per calving (which includes the performance of any progeny born from that calving). It is expressed on a per calving basis. Thus a cow with a replacement index of €100 is expected to leave €100 more profit/calving (including her progeny performance from that calving), compared to a cow with a value of zero"

"This is in contrast to the previous index, which was based on the performance of a breeding bull, including male calves (destined for slaughter), female calves (retained for breeding) and all of her subsequent progeny (both male and female)"

Understanding how it works and understanding how it fails

Bellview

tomieen jones wrote: »

Understanding how it works and understanding how it fails

Completely agree. The icbf computer will surely come up with more mad cap calculations by 2018... Staying in is a risky gamble now as icbf proofs cannot be trusted

mikeoh

But why in hell are they making changes now......surely this should have been done before the introduction of a new scheme to give a concrete foundation for farmers to see what there stock were like....now farmers have signed up and they discover instead of playing GAA they are in a game of compromised rules!!!

patsy_mccabe

I've always been a fan of ICBF, but how can you make a breeding decision at farm level when the reliability figures are so low for all commercial breeding cows.
Would you make a decision if you were only 30% sure about it?
The other big gripe I have is the way they measure Milk figures (Suckers). They don't measure it directly, but look at weanling weights v's slaughter weights and attribute the higher weanling weights to milk. A 'round about' way, if you like.

Bullocks

mikeoh wrote: »

But why in hell are they making changes now......surely this should have been done before the introduction of a new scheme to give a concrete foundation for farmers to see what there stock were like....now farmers have signed up and they discover instead of playing GAA they are in a game of compromised rules!!!

That's what I'm thinking from the start , they don't have enough solid info to try and predict what we should be breeding and us having to use their info to qualify for a scheme that wont pay very well for stock that might not be what's selling well when it comes down to it .

tomieen jones

patsy_mccabe wrote: »

I've always been a fan of ICBF, but how can you make a breeding decision at farm level when the reliability figures are so low for all commercial breeding cows.
Would you make a decision if you were only 30% sure about it?
The other big gripe I have is the way they measure Milk figures (Suckers). They don't measure it directly, but look at weanling weights v's slaughter weights and attribute the higher weanling weights to milk. A 'round about' way, if you like.

If they bring in milk recording on suckler cows I'm out

Bullocks

tomieen jones wrote: »

If they bring in milk recording on suckler cows I'm out

That would be fun ! In fairness it's not an easy one to measure in a suckler cow . Would the size of her bag be much indication, similar to a bulls sack ?

Limestone Cowboy

Bullocks wrote: »

That would be fun ! In fairness it's not an easy one to measure in a suckler cow . Would the size of her bag be much indication, similar to a bulls sack ?

Not one bit of an indication in my experience.

tomieen jones

I think they need to change the rule to replacements hitting 4/5 stars at a stage in their life to make the cut ! Or the sire used to have been 4/5 star at one stage !this at least would recognise the breeders good intentions and not leaving the destiny of payments in the hands of the icbf

blue5000

Lads calm down a bit. We need to put our thinking hats on and see how we can fix this for ourselves. The goalposts are always being moved, we know that.

There's a couple of things we can do so that our cows look brilliant(on paper)
1 make sure they have a calf registered to them every year
2 scan to make sure they are all in calf
3 leave the stock bull in for longer, feck the back page of the comic telling ya to pull the bull out now, they're not going to be losing money in 2018. You can always sell them with a calf at foot to someone who calves later than you next year.

We had a bit of a 'joke' discussion on another thread about creep feeding, really what it boils down to is weight for age and a live calf every year.

I'm using all maternal bulls this year, but that's because of tb and it suits me. I can afford to slip a bit on bull carcase weights/grades if I get the correct heifer for breeding. I'm not saying it's for everyone, especially for weanling producers. I think to survive in this we need to be producing our own replacements, not relying on dairymen to produce them for us. Irish dairy cows are getting more extreme, if you don't believe me go into any mart and look at the 'friesian' bullocks.

Kovu

blue5000 wrote: »

I think to survive in this we need to be producing our own replacements, not relying on dairymen to produce them for us. Irish dairy cows are getting more extreme, if you don't believe me go into any mart and look at the 'friesian' bullocks.

I would have thought this to be the norm for a suckler practice? Put heavy weanling breeding bulls on the year after year and regardless of bull or heifer, sell them. If you need a replacement or want one for her- put on a maternal/bull advertised for replacements and hope for a heifer. That's what we have always done anyway, hence why we never have any blue cows.

rangler1

Bullocks wrote: »

That would be fun ! In fairness it's not an easy one to measure in a suckler cow . Would the size of her bag be much indication, similar to a bulls sack ?

Weighing the calf at 120 days would be a fair indication of cows yield, ie before the calfgets to eat much meal

Bellview

where ICBF state that a bull should be 4 or 5 star the day you buy him... what happens if you buy a bull that is 3 star, then over the space of a year he goes to 4 star... if you were to sell him to a neighbour, move him into the neighbours field and buy him back a week later... is the bull now within the scheme guidelines

Bellview

rangler1 wrote: »

Weighing the calf at 120 days would be a fair indication of cows yield, ie before the calfgets to eat much meal

a lot of calves in Tullamore yesterday would have seen the creep feed & double suckling well before 120 days... and some of these folks will be the AI sires of 2016/ 2017 /2018

rangler1

Bellview wrote: »

a lot of calves in Tullamore yesterday would have seen the creep feed & double suckling well before 120 days... and some of these folks will be the AI sires of 2016/ 2017 /2018

All the cows related to the dam would have to be milking well to ensure a good score, it's not just based on the animal himself anymore but also also all the animals that are related to him that they have figures on

patsy_mccabe

The most popular sire of the Limousins on show in Tullamore yesterday was definitely Vantastic (VTI). He took most of the rosettes too. He's in the bottom 1% of they breed for both calving and milk. You'd have to wonder.

rangler1

patsy_mccabe wrote: »

The most popular sire of the Limousins on show in Tullamore yesterday was definitely Vantastic (VTI). He took most of the rosettes too. He's in the bottom 1% of they breed for both calving and milk. You'd have to wonder.

Some very good breeding lines were lost to the vendeen sheep breed when breeders were chasing the type 1 scrapie genotype and not a word about it now.
I fear the same fate will be the result of these stars.....when you see scores with high accuracy being turned on their head you have to wonder about the competency of the geniuses that print them

Kovu

Bellview wrote: »

where ICBF state that a bull should be 4 or 5 star the day you buy him... what happens if you buy a bull that is 3 star, then over the space of a year he goes to 4 star... if you were to sell him to a neighbour, move him into the neighbours field and buy him back a week later... is the bull now within the scheme guidelines

Actually that's just got me thinking, what if you have a lot of heifers/cows off a four star bull and suddenly he drops to two. In turn that would drop your cows and heifers, would you then need to cull and buy in, in order to keep to the numbers of high starred animals needed? :eek:

Farrell

Kovu wrote: »

Actually that's just got me thinking, what if you have a lot of heifers/cows off a four star bull and suddenly he drops to two. In turn that would drop your cows and heifers, would you then need to cull and buy in, in order to keep to the numbers of high starred animals needed? :eek:

Yep, but if you breed 4/5 star Material sure on a 4-5 star material dam for replacement, even if the bull drops a bit, the dam should still keep the heifer high enough.

Farrell

Bellview wrote: »

a lot of calves in Tullamore yesterday would have seen the creep feed & double suckling well before 120 days... and some of these folks will be the AI sires of 2016/ 2017 /2018

These would be Terminal sires with low Maternal values, & should be recorded as such.
We as Farmers will be looking for 1 bull with strong Maternal traits for replacement and another with high Terminal for the sales. Maternal bull progeny generally don't get top prices at weanling sales & High Terminal bull progeny shouldn't be kept as replacements