charolais society challenge icbf

Bellview

Interesting read in the online journal on charolais society challenging the stars and also on composition of the icbf board with effectively 6 ai members. Is it the start of a push against the stars...now that a bunch of farmers will not meet the 25 percent criteria this year..

charolais0153

Bellview wrote: »

Interesting read in the online journal on charolais society challenging the stars and also on composition of the icbf board with effectively 6 ai members. Is it the start of a push against the stars...now that a bunch of farmers will not meet the 25 percent criteria this year..

20 % this year.
Decimates value of a bull when he isnt eligible

Sheep breeder

Might serve the charolais better to get their house in order, like the amount of calves reared on Friesian cows and the dam given a great figure for milk and the calf in the rushes for six weeks and the ET calves reared on cross bred cows.like one chairman at local club meeting telling all present the damage to the breed image of theFriesian cow used to rear the show calf and need to be stamped out but forgot to say he had 4 FR cows at home rearing his show bulls.

Limestone Cowboy

Sheep breeder wrote: »

Might serve the charolais better to get their house in order, like the amount of calves reared on Friesian cows and the dam given a great figure for milk and the calf in the rushes for six weeks and the ET calves reared on cross bred cows.like one chairman at local club meeting telling all present the damage to the breed image of theFriesian cow used to rear the show calf and need to be stamped out but forgot to say he had 4 FR cows at home rearing his show bulls.

That carry on is hardly limited to charolais breeders though. Plenty of the top breeders across all breeds at it.

Hard Knocks

It’s good to see one of the breeds stand up & hopefully the others will follow suit.

I think the beef stars have a long way to go & the bdgs in its current form is bad timing.
I think we need more recording of how things really are

patsy_mccabe

A bull has to be either 4 or 5 stars in either Terminal or Maternal for the BDGP scheme. That means that 60% of bulls don't qualify in either one. That's a lot of unhappy breeders out there.

jfh

i think charolais have been the hardest hit with the star ratings.

tanko

jfh wrote: »

i think charolais have been the hardest hit with the star ratings.

True, harder calving and less milk than other breeds isnt going to result in too many stars.
A Charolais breeder told me that hes getting less money for his bulls since the eurostsr system came in. The society is there to represent its members interests so i suppose it has to do something.

TITANIUM.

jfh wrote: »

i think charolais have been the hardest hit with the star ratings.

Your right for the replacement side of it most of there female offspring won't make the grade. But the ch stock bull himself will more then likely qualify on his terminal stars.

patsy_mccabe

TITANIUM. wrote: »

Your right for the replacement side of it most of there female offspring won't make the grade. But the ch stock bull himself will more then likely qualify on his terminal stars.

Never realised that. I thought a female could qualify on her terminal ratings. I'm used to looking up females on the limousin herdbook, where ratings are given for both terminal and maternal on females.

wiggy123

can see most societies doing this

ganmo

Are the star ratings not all within breed?

Lady Haywire

ganmo wrote: »

Are the star ratings not all within breed?

There's within breed & across breeds for pedigree animals. Either side with 4/5 stars qualify the animal.

GiantPencil

Sheep breeder wrote: »

Might serve the charolais better to get their house in order, like the amount of calves reared on Friesian cows and the dam given a great figure for milk and the calf in the rushes for six weeks and the ET calves reared on cross bred cows.like one chairman at local club meeting telling all present the damage to the breed image of theFriesian cow used to rear the show calf and need to be stamped out but forgot to say he had 4 FR cows at home rearing his show bulls.

I reckon that's one of the biggest hindrance to the star system and what ICBF are trying to do....too many people out there trying to cut corners. Input inaccurate data to a system and it's going to give you incorrect data right back

Bellview

Limestone Cowboy wrote:

That carry on is hardly limited to charolais breeders though. Plenty of the top breeders across all breeds at it.

Generally cattle that are shown are pumped up in every way possible. When picking a stock bull I rarely ever buy one from the show herds as they are a higher risk

A good thing in angus society is the tone exclude animals over the icbf weight gain guidance in Iverk and the all Ireland and over the two years it has been done it has helped stop some of that messing with a few breeders have stopped showing in Irish angus now...

tanko

Lady Haywire wrote: »

There's within breed & across breeds for pedigree animals. Either side with 4/5 stars qualify the animal.

4/5 stars wirhin or across breeds on the Maternal or Terminal index qualifies a bull for the BDGP but a heifer/cow has to be 4/5 star across breeds on the Maternal index only i thought??

Lady Haywire

tanko wrote: »

4/5 stars wirhin or across breeds on the Maternal or Terminal index qualifies a bull for the BDGP but a heifer/cow has to be 4/5 star across breeds on the Maternal index only i thought??

Oh you're picking me up wrong, I mean either the within breeds or across breeds part, not either replacement or terminal.

Donegalforever

Bellview wrote: »

Interesting read in the online journal on charolais society challenging the stars and also on composition of the icbf board with effectively 6 ai members. Is it the start of a push against the stars...now that a bunch of farmers will not meet the 25 percent criteria this year..

Glad to see that some organisation or group finally question ICBF.
ICBF bull figures have jumped up and down like a fiddlers elbow.
It is therefore hard to have absolute faith in the figures that they put out.

Sheep breeder

tanko wrote: »

True, harder calving and less milk than other breeds isnt going to result in too many stars.
A Charolais breeder told me that hes getting less money for his bulls since the eurostsr system came in. The society is there to represent its members interests so i suppose it has to do something.

In France the big thing is the cow rears her own calf and has the milk to do it and calves every 12 months and then she is rated on this and the best Cow is an RR4. Here it has being all about the show ring and roughan from Donegal with the good French is now in demand.

Hard Knocks

Sheep breeder wrote: »

In France the big thing is the cow rears her own calf and has the milk to do it and calves every 12 months and then she is rated on this and the best Cow is an RR4. Here it has being all about the show ring and roughan from Donegal with the good French is now in demand.

Ireland is different to France, we have crossbreds & our beef is supposedly better because for this.
At weanling sales the shippers want a good U+ calf with good weight for age with preference for orange charolais.
We want a Good milky 3/4 bred LM/SI cow & a bull to give the muscle.
We need ICBF to tell us which bulls preform best at weaning for weanling weight & price & what they’re like for calving

charolais0153

Hard Knocks wrote: »

Ireland is different to France, we have crossbreds & our beef is supposedly better because for this.
At weanling sales the shippers want a good U+ calf with good weight for age with preference for orange charolais.
We want a Good milky 3/4 bred LM/SI cow & a bull to give the muscle.
We need ICBF to tell us which bulls preform best at weaning for weanling weight & price & what they’re like for calving

Fraid its not shippers buying yellow charolais

patsy_mccabe

Got this text from Limousin society today;

WHPR suspended as a requirement for Oct Premier sale, the Society still support scoring and will review with ICBF to hopefully introduce for 2019 Premier sales

wiggy123

all societies will be doing same-me thinks, star ratings scheme not helping any of them! so plug could be pull on it.. was a good idea, policed + measured wrongly maybe...

patsy_mccabe

I don't think they are against the star ratings, just not happy with this particular scheme (whpr).

wiggy123

did many join that whpr..

Sheep breeder

Hard Knocks wrote: »

Ireland is different to France, we have crossbreds & our beef is supposedly better because for this.
At weanling sales the shippers want a good U+ calf with good weight for age with preference for orange charolais.
We want a Good milky 3/4 bred LM/SI cow & a bull to give the muscle.
We need ICBF to tell us which bulls preform best at weaning for weanling weight & price & what they’re like for calving

I am stating that pure cows in France rear their own calf and are able to rear and in Ireland a lot are fostered on to a dairy bred cow and this is not reflected in the star ratings.

White Clover

The Icbf should go to France to see how a breeding programme should be run.

squinn2912

How could a programme implement rules preventing dairy fostering?

GiantPencil

squinn2912 wrote: »

How could a programme implement rules preventing dairy fostering?

Greater scrutiny and more farm visits I suppose. If a fella has a suckler herd with a few dairy cows then it should be reason enough for ICBF to ask questions. Could never be achieved though as that kinda micro managing would cause uproar and ICBF would want their workforce tripled or more to achieve it

JustJoe7240

patsy_mccabe wrote: »

A bull has to be either 4 or 5 stars in either Terminal or Maternal for the BDGP scheme. That means that 60% of bulls don't qualify in either one. That's a lot of unhappy breeders out there.

Do you mind sharing the source of that 60% figure? Or are you assuming the stars are evenly distributed? In which case I think that's incorrect.

Fintan Lemon

The Charolais Soc presentation was pretty woeful, claiming for instance that beef calves reared on milk replacer were a human health risk, and that beef from early maturing breeds caused mass coronary failure in the UK population in the 1940s! Cop on lads.
There are genuine issues to be addressed with Star rating fluctuations, but putting that at the feet of another sector in the cattle industry is sour grapes in the extreme.
The BDGP has eroded these lads assumed right to charge extortionate money for pampered cattle. That is the root of their concern. It is very similar to how IHFA greeted the introduction of EBI. Look at how that turned out...

Sheep breeder

squinn2912 wrote: »

How could a programme implement rules preventing dairy fostering?

If breeders declared that they reared such a calf on a dairy cow it would give the person buying a bull a true picture of growth rate and would level the playing pitch with all bulls at the sales. The society should have breeders declare the dairy cows on farm as part of registering of calves as they are the ones making the money and treat all breeders the same.

patsy_mccabe

JustJoe7240 wrote: »

Do you mind sharing the source of that 60% figure? Or are you assuming the stars are evenly distributed? In which case I think that's incorrect.

Well I assumed each star represented 20% of the cow/heifer population. So 40% would be either 4 or 5 star.

yewtree

Fintan Lemon wrote: »

The Charolais Soc presentation was pretty woeful, claiming for instance that beef calves reared on milk replacer were a human health risk, and that beef from early maturing breeds caused mass coronary failure in the UK population in the 1940s! Cop on lads.
There are genuine issues to be addressed with Star rating fluctuations, but putting that at the feet of another sector in the cattle industry is sour grapes in the extreme.
The BDGP has eroded these lads assumed right to charge extortionate money for pampered cattle. That is the root of their concern. It is very similar to how IHFA greeted the introduction of EBI. Look at how that turned out...

I think you have hit the nail on the head, I read the agriland piece before they went to the dail committee and it was embarrassing. you would hope they were told where to go. They are your typical group with a vested interest. Shows how important the icbf are and the importance of following science.

Hard Knocks

Sheep breeder wrote: »

I am stating that pure cows in France rear their own calf and are able to rear and in Ireland a lot are fostered on to a dairy bred cow and this is not reflected in the star ratings.

I agree that all should be recorded, even if a suckler cow loses a calf & we buy a replacement there is nowhere to record this.
We need a system & the current one needs improvement

patsy_mccabe

Here is another example of how crazy the figures are.
Wilodge Cerberus, the limousin bull has gone from 5 Stars Repacement in May 2017 @ 83 % Rel to 1 Star @ 91% Rel in the last proofs (May 2018).:eek:
What the hell is going on?

tanko

patsy_mccabe wrote: »

Here is another example of how crazy the figures are.
Wilodge Cerberus, the limousin bull has gone from 5 Stars Repacement in May 2017 @ 83 % Rel to 1 Star @ 91% Rel in the last proofs (May 2018).:eek:
What the hell is going on?

Much the same happened to the figures for OZS. His daughters have rubbish fertility as ive discovered to my cost here. I see Cerberus is in the bottom 1% for daughters fertility also, thats seems to be why hes one star now.

TPF2012

tanko wrote:

Much the same happened to the figures for OZS. His daughters have rubbish fertility as ive discovered to my cost here. I see Cerberus is in the bottom 1% for daughters fertility also, thats seems to be why hes one star now.

HCA fertility rating also dropped off the chart. 3% Rank across all breeds. Have a HCA heifer here and no sign of any movement yet well past should be. For the road soon.

patsy_mccabe

tanko wrote: »

.... I see Cerberus is in the bottom 1% for daughters fertility also, thats seems to be why hes one star now.

Ya, that seems to be teh reason, but why the sudden fall between 83% and 91% reliability.

oneten

patsy_mccabe wrote: »

Ya, that seems to be teh reason, but why the sudden fall between 83% and 91% reliability.

Reality catching up with guesswork !
They're a bunch of bluffers.

tanko

patsy_mccabe wrote: »

Ya, that seems to be teh reason, but why the sudden fall between 83% and 91% reliability.

I dont know, weren’t we told that genomics was going to be able to predict how a bulls daughters would breed almost as soon as the bull was born.
All genomics seems to do is to confirm the ancestry of an animal.

croot

tanko wrote: »

I dont know, weren’t we told that genomics was going to be able to predict how a bulls daughters would breed almost as soon as the bull was born.
All genomics seems to do is to confirm the ancestry of an animal.

The genomics element is only in its infancy yet and largely guesswork so far until a big enough database is built up. The theory is probably being put into practice a few years to early id say.

Bellview

tanko wrote:

I dont know, weren’t we told that genomics was going to be able to predict how a bulls daughters would breed almost as soon as the bull was born. All genomics seems to do is to confirm the ancestry of an animal.

Agreed i have a cow who was genomic at 97 euro now she is 70 . She calved at 2 years just had her first calf and there is nothing wrong with him...so I really don't understand why an animal has dropped over 25 euro in a year after her genes being tested.

charolais0153

Bellview wrote: »

Agreed i have a cow who was genomic at 97 euro now she is 70 . She calved at 2 years just had her first calf and there is nothing wrong with him...so I really don't understand why an animal has dropped over 25 euro in a year after her genes being tested.

Any cows gone up?

Bellview

charolais0153 wrote:

Any cows gone up?

Cows all moving but my understanding was that once they read the gene then the value should be reasonably accurate...the euro movement on that cow is 30 per cent so in my opinion it's not too accurate...but i agree it proves parentage

croot

Bellview wrote: »

Cows all moving but my understanding was that once they read the gene then the value should be reasonably accurate .........

From questions asked at various ICBF events I’d say all they are doing is creating a database of all genomic tests. Then all the other data like weight gain, docility, milking ability, fertility etc etc is being used to interpret that genome. So for example you have 1000 5* cows that are all docile then you look for the part of the genome they all have in common and then apply that to the database in general. Huge amount of variables so it can’t be that accurate yet so liable to loads of changes.

The dairy side was probably easier because milk recording and fertility are recorded for years.

Bellview

croot wrote:

From questions asked at various ICBF events I’d say all they are doing is creating a database of all genomic tests. Then all the other data like weight gain, docility, milking ability, fertility etc etc is being used to interpret that genome. So for example you have 1000 5* cows that are all docile then you look for the part of the genome they all have in common and then apply that to the database in general. Huge amount of variables so it can’t be that accurate yet so liable to loads of changes.

croot wrote:

The dairy side was probably easier because milk recording and fertility are recorded for years.

That might be case but then why put in 25 per cent and 50 percent criteria in scheme when building a database. They are guys in commercial and pedigree that it's costing them real money on sales and the grant while icbf try to figure out their stuff..
If I take angus kya is one of top rated bulls. I know of 6 pedigree breeders that will never again use him as his cattle are nutters and relatively poor....there are about 10000 to 15000 calves born off him for a number of years and he is still seen as a star ..and they haven't figured this out....ironically ironically kya is now restricted to pedigree only use...but he should be banned from pedigree.
I have always been cynical of icbf but if icbf are making comments like this at meetings then they are treating everyone in scheme like a guinea pig but they have a real financial rod over us while they don't suffer any consequences if they get it wrong

croot

Bellview wrote: »

That might be case but then why put in 25 per cent and 50 percent criteria in scheme when building a database. They are guys in commercial and pedigree that it's costing them real money on sales and the grant while icbf try to figure out their stuff..
If I take angus kya is one of top rated bulls. I know of 6 pedigree breeders that will never again use him as his cattle are nutters and relatively poor....there are about 10000 to 15000 calves born off him for a number of years and he is still seen as a star ..and they haven't figured this out....ironically ironically kya is now restricted to pedigree only use...but he should be banned from pedigree.
I have always been cynical of icbf but if icbf are making comments like this at meetings then they are treating everyone in scheme like a guinea pig but they have a real financial rod over us while they don't suffer any consequences if they get it wrong

I agree. I was always of the opinion that you should just get paid on the 4* and 5* cows on that years index. You don’t meet the criteria that year you don’t get paid. It would have the same affect on breeding as farmers would go for the higher index cows and heifers but there would be none of this crap of possibly being liable to pay back thousands at the end.