Runboard.com
You're welcome.





runboard.com       Register for a free global account (learn about it) |
Log in: (), globally (lost password?)

Page:  1  2  3  4  5  6  7 

 
dabble1980 Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Ex96

Registered: 12-2012
Posts: 995
Karma: 7 (+7/-0)
Reply | Quote
Re:


don't use American Bison. They are wild animals and their personalities and temperament are such. I have had first hand experience with Bison and they are not the type who like to be worked with/handled regularly.

It would be interesting to see them crossed with other cattle but I sure wouldn't want to milk one!
11/5/2015, 13:50 Link to this post PM via Email   PM via Forum
 
Craigalea Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Administrator

Registered: 12-2004
Posts: 1623
Karma: 30 (+31/-1)
Reply | Quote
Re: Re:


quote:

bazza20 wrote:

Hey craigalea what does the res survival on the new Aussie index mean?

I like the changes to the index formula but it seems as if the Aussie index is starting to look very kiwi with some of the additions.



IMO a lot of people are going to jump on the health index. Plus it cant be too kiwi, we actually have type included!
wait.. did I say that out loud?


Survival: is the actual measurement of the cows lasting in the herd. If there is no survival data (i.e. no milking daughters and no genomics available) this is calculated using Likability, type, udder depth, pin set. As always, if you are selecting for longevity, you are better to use well proven bulls. This goes for any countries proofs for PL/longevity.

Residual survival is for the other traits that effect survival, but are not reliable enough to have a ABV i.e. lameness, MCE, Metabolic and susceptibility to disease.

Residual survival is correlated to survival (of course) by 54% in Holsteins, 57% in Jerseys. The other big ticket items that correlate to the bulk of actual survival are fertility (25%), cell count (7%), production (4%), workabilities (6%), type (4%).

Because of the above correlations it's residual survival, not survival, that is is used in the new indexes. Otherwise you would end up effectively double counting traits in the index. i.e. fertility has a big weighting in the new index, survival ends up basically giving it more weight.

The actual weighting of resid survival in the new indexes is 8 and a bit points per point in resid survival. i.e. residual survival 110 = 80+ points to bpi/hwi/twi. It gives those non publishable, but important traits for longevity a real say in the index.

Side note: There is a problem with the Norwegian Red bulls residual survival in Australia, Norway do not measure longevity at all.
No data to interbull = they get really lame figures on conversion.
It ends up that those bulls get absolutely hammered on the new indexes purely on the residual survival trait. When there is more of a population of Norwegian reds in Aust most of the issues should go away as there will be real data to measure/more pedigree linkage in Australia.

---
Cattle art and bad cow puns: http://sketch-a-bull.tumblr.com/
12/5/2015, 4:07 Link to this post PM via Email   PM via Forum
 
bazza20 Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Ex 97 2E

Registered: 07-2009
Posts: 1983
Karma: 30 (+32/-2)
Reply | Quote
Re:


How are they calculating those things for res survival when they aren't even measured here. Most of the high survival bulls I look up are negative for res survival. And if it's res survival that counts for the index no wonder it doesn't look right.

Seems like it's another thing they try and add to punish overseas bulls.

It's better than before but they just can't get it right here.
12/5/2015, 13:05 Link to this post PM via Email   PM via Forum
 
Craigalea Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Administrator

Registered: 12-2004
Posts: 1623
Karma: 30 (+31/-1)
Reply | Quote
Re:


There are actually a lot of traits being measured/calculated that aren't published as yet. F&L, body condition, all the stuff mention in the resid survival tech note. I'm not sure why things aren't published.

---
Cattle art and bad cow puns: http://sketch-a-bull.tumblr.com/
13/5/2015, 0:02 Link to this post PM via Email   PM via Forum
 
SanHaven Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

EX91

Registered: 10-2008
Posts: 219
Karma: 4 (+4/-0)
Reply | Quote
Re:


Does anyone have daughters milking of GA bulls here in the US now. would like some feed back particularly from grazers if possible. Any updates from anyone anywhere are appreciated though.
4/6/2016, 13:16 Link to this post PM via Email   PM via Forum
 
Redmaw Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

EX90

Registered: 01-2011
Posts: 151
Karma: 4 (+4/-0)
Reply | Quote
Re: Genetics Australia


Which bulls would like to know about ?
Im in Aust.
5/6/2016, 5:57 Link to this post PM via Email   PM via Forum
 
SanHaven Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

EX91

Registered: 10-2008
Posts: 219
Karma: 4 (+4/-0)
Reply | Quote
Re: Genetics Australia


I guess three that I picked out that look best option to me are medallion, delsanto, christmas
6/6/2016, 2:59 Link to this post PM via Email   PM via Forum
 
Redmaw Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

EX90

Registered: 01-2011
Posts: 151
Karma: 4 (+4/-0)
Reply | Quote
Re: Genetics Australia


All 3 are great bulls in my mind. Medallion leaves smaller more robust cows with great udders. The Delsanto's can have slightly deeper udders as 2yrs but geez they pack some milk in and they dont seem to get any worse and as the cows develop out the seem to balance out. I'm not milking any Christmas dgtrs yet, I do have 40 calves by him though and they are just awesome for body depth and front end width ( well all 3 bulls are really ). Id watch the Delsanto on Dtr Fert. The bull I really like at the minute is Buddha will have close to 30 in once they all calved. Can be bit deeper in the udder but geez they know how to work.

Check out Wrangler newly proven bull. YES SHAMELESS PLUG ! bred by my father in law. Have 2 milking both well above herd avg. Check out Redmaw Holsteins & Jerseys on FB, Id have some pictures of most of those bulls daugthers on there somewhere.
9/6/2016, 0:49 Link to this post PM via Email   PM via Forum
 
bazza20 Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Ex 97 2E

Registered: 07-2009
Posts: 1983
Karma: 30 (+32/-2)
Reply | Quote
Re: Genetics Australia


quote:

SanHaven wrote:

I guess three that I picked out that look best option to me are medallion, delsanto, christmas



I wouldn't touch any of those with a 10 foot pole.

Aus is way behind on health traits. 100 being breed average for fertility is actually terrible.

Production will be fine but they will take a lot of effort to keep them around.
9/6/2016, 1:51 Link to this post PM via Email   PM via Forum
 
Craigalea Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Administrator

Registered: 12-2004
Posts: 1623
Karma: 30 (+31/-1)
Reply | Quote
Re: Genetics Australia


quote:

bazza20 wrote:

quote:

SanHaven wrote:

I guess three that I picked out that look best option to me are medallion, delsanto, christmas



I wouldn't touch any of those with a 10 foot pole.

Aus is way behind on health traits. 100 being breed average for fertility is actually terrible.

Production will be fine but they will take a lot of effort to keep them around.



Bullshit.

I know you won't care Baz, but I know others like it when I grab the figures, so here they are.

Bulls > 1000 daughters milking in Australia fertility proof vs their USA DPR proof. Grouped on standard deviations - 2.3 was the figure I found for USA DPR standard dev, CDCB was erroring out for me so if that's out let me know. 5.2 SD for Australia.

It's interesting how the different bulls performed in different environments.

Image

It would be worth adding more bulls with 500+ daughters, but I thought I'd start with higher reliability (and an easier quantity of data to put together).

I can add more bulls given more time to match up even more data. Thanks to Dan @ STgen for the great website where I can easily grab it.

Data is here, if you wish to view/copy it: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1UGP4C1x32WTIjkCEWJnFOBF0qdJjSadrlVoYYfpoB2s/edit?usp=sharing

For the data junkies, this data set y = 0.3446x - 34.313 and R² = 0.5422 so Medallion @ 101 against this data is 0.5 DPR in the US.

Please show me your proof of this "100 being breed average for fertility is actually terrible", that doesn't involve anecdotal evidence.

I can always put more data together.

Edit: Decimal places weren't the same in the image, fixed.

Last edited by Craigalea, 9/6/2016, 9:03


---
Cattle art and bad cow puns: http://sketch-a-bull.tumblr.com/
9/6/2016, 8:58 Link to this post PM via Email   PM via Forum
 


Reply

Page:  1  2  3  4  5  6  7 





You are not logged in (login)
Back To Top

Disclaimer: Any views expressed on this site are not necessarily the views of the owner or any of the sponsors of Cowtalk..

Google
WWW COWTALK