new ICBF Proofs

The man in red and black

blue5000 wrote: »

If he's related to APZ anything is possible, I reckon APZ will have wings in the next proof.:rolleyes:

That's insane! APZ already had 10000 offspring. How the hell do they say the last 1000 offspring changed his ratings THAT much?! That's madness!

blue5000

The man in red and black wrote: »

That's insane! APZ already had 10000 offspring. How the hell do they say the last 1000 offspring changed his ratings THAT much?! That's madness!

I rest my case yer honner.

limo_100

The man in red and black wrote: »

That's insane! APZ already had 10000 offspring. How the hell do they say the last 1000 offspring changed his ratings THAT much?! That's madness!

I was told last year that he was going to bounce back pg garenteed it at the ploughing last year, he is a good bull infairness

wiggy123

how come you cannot run a report anymore, via the bdgp scheme?

croot

blue5000 wrote: »

I reckon if the cow calved at 36 months instead of 24 months she'd be worth less. If her dam and grand dam calved at 24 months and she calved at 36 months it might account for the difference.
Milk in the sire seems to be heavily weighted though. Weighing the weanlings helps improve the reliability.

I know that but what I am saying genotyping shouldn't change what are actual figures. Taking a tissue sample cant change what age the heifers calved at.

If all the heifers calved on 1st Feb at 24 months and then you genotype the sire that doesn't make all the heifers calve two weeks later or a week earlier iykwim. That figure shouldn't move from genotyping.

Future Farmer

Be careful what you post in here lads (& lassies) it's a conspiracy the ICBF will take all your stars away.

Indexes can change, use a team of bulls.

Higher reliability bulls generally have lower indexes.

Stock bulls generally have low reliability.

patsy_mccabe

The few pedigrees I have are all 5 stars now for both replacement and terminal. All went up too , I think. Hard to beat having all the old high reliability bulls in the past pedigree.

TITANIUM.

Did anyone see How CJH got on in the last set of proofs? I've got a nice heifer of him and a great breeding blue cow here that I was keeping even tho she only had 2 stars . But low and behold she's after shooting up to 5 stars now.
There's far to much play in these stars if you ask me.

barnaman

he is a 3 star on both. Stars are BS look at how APZ keeps yo yoing up and down. Think the Turkish lads are asking about stars?

blue5000

barnaman wrote: »

he is a 3 star on both. Stars are BS look at how APZ keeps yo yoing up and down. Think the Turkish lads are asking about stars?

I think we need another tribunal to get to the bottom of this. Could we get Mick Wallace to raise it in Dail quesion time......

oneten

Icbf should be changed to Dcbf

D'Unbelievable cattle breeding federation

50HX

wiggy123 wrote: »

how come you cannot run a report anymore, via the bdgp scheme?

it wqas gone all last week - wanted to run the euro star report and no option to do so

i assume it's while it's being update

think they said mid sept

Lady Haywire

The bull I sold in May this year has suddenly jumped up and now qualifies for the scheme on Terminal, despite the fact that hasn't any calves on the ground yet and having gone through 4 previous evaluations with only one star change and his sire having dire star ratings.
His sire is €-26 for replacement, my ex-bull is now €63, now his dam is lovely, but she was only 3 stars at the last evaluation so wtf is going on.

FeelTheBern

I don't have an issue with the principle of the scheme but the problem I do have is that they started us into it before they had even a basic minimum level of statistical reliability in the figures. So driving us all to use 4 and 5 star breeding good idea but when the reliability so low that 5 star today could be 2 star in three months or vice versa just makes joke of whole thing.

Mooooo

How many stars are the bulls with a lot of calves on the ground? Ones with high reliability on calving figures the older bulls so to speak. If they started with those were the info is there and hence figures unlikely to change then there wouldn't be such hullabaloo as the younger bulls will always vary wildly. The info is getting fed from all the animals relatives not just the dam or relatives on your farm so the fact the dam or whoever may be top of the range, or a dud, and the stars of the offspring don't correspond is because the majority of the relatives may be feeding different info.

mikeoh

I taught I was being smart using a Ai AA bull that was dead 20 years on my few PB cows .....he was 5* maternal when I got straws and now only 3*.........reliability is the same >95%........does this mean there calculations have been wrong for the last 20 years........ I don't know what DNA they are testing off him as he hasn't had a calf on the ground in 15 years

whelan2

mikeoh wrote: »

I taught I was being smart using a Ai AA bull that was dead 20 years on my few PB cows .....he was 5* maternal when I got straws and now only 3*.........reliability is the same >95%........does this mean there calculations have been wrong for the last 20 years........ I don't know what DNA they are testing off him as he hasn't had a calf on the ground in 15 years

What bull was that?

wiggy123

where stars are coming from is any man's guess.. lotto could be more predictable

blue5000

I think it's lower milk kgs that has hit angus bulls, I might be wrong, but any that I've looked at it seems to be the biggest change.

wiggy123

milk has slipped re the angus breed..cow!

mikeoh

CYY........we used him a lot back in the day.. . 0.5% for calving

wiggy123

cyy? what angus bull he? u mean cyi---coneyisland legend.. if so! never rated him

mikeoh

CYY . clonbrony terry.... He stood in clarecastle ....like I said he dead along time... Real old type

wiggy123

ah ok..never heard of him.. them older bulls--re straws! realibilty figures is key! also number of offspring be low

Bellview

Bohey Jasper has dropped since last stars update which compared to some of bulls that are rated 150 is a joke.

barnaman

mikeoh wrote: »

I taught I was being smart using a Ai AA bull that was dead 20 years on my few PB cows .....he was 5* maternal when I got straws and now only 3*.........reliability is the same >95%........does this mean there calculations have been wrong for the last 20 years........ I don't know what DNA they are testing off him as he hasn't had a calf on the ground in 15 years

Try ESH old type and good.

barnaman

Pre-Order EARLY SUNSET HIGH TIME 81G ESH €52 93 €163 94 1.4 98; his stats from earlier in year now down to €126 from €163. Again a bull born in the 90s so who knows

wiggy123

ESH never was rated much re the angus breeders... I had a nice bull & hfr few years back of him...
ah figures are a mind field.. know bulls I used this season-have all dropped.. maddness

High bike

wiggy123 wrote: »

where stars are coming from is any man's guess.. lotto could be more predictable

out of someone's hole would be my guess,exactly as I suspected from the start:mad::mad:

TITANIUM.

FeelTheBern wrote: »

I don't have an issue with the principle of the scheme but the problem I do have is that they started us into it before they had even a basic minimum level of statistical reliability in the figures. So driving us all to use 4 and 5 star breeding good idea but when the reliability so low that 5 star today could be 2 star in three months or vice versa just makes joke of whole thing.

Now you've hit the nail on the head.
Should have had a few years gathering info before it kicked off proper.