Farms
The Harvey's
Tom & Tina
Double
Farms
Double
Farms
Double
Newsletter
Tina and I decided we would do seasonal newsletters from now on.  This seems to work better with all our commitments, and it will provide us with more things to talk about here at Double H Farms.  Not that we don't have plenty of humorous stories to tell..:)  So, we plan on doing this four times year now; Winter Spring Summer and Fall.
 

I.   HUMOR

Running with the pack!  (True story)

After I got out of the service, I landed a job in public safety.  Part of the  four month long recruit school which followed, involved a daily physical fitness regime.  Fortunately, my time in the Corps had more then adequately prepared me for this, but it came with a price!  My running skills along with my cadence calling skills were soon noticed, and it was not long before I was leading the recruit formation in group runs calling out "tunes"...:).  My classmates also thought it would be convenient to vote me in as the class Sergeant of Arms, since I had the fresh military background.  This was a job that earned me several "different"  titles amongst my peers, despite them having selected me!  I did this during my entire recruit class, and I suppose I did such a fine job that it earned me two subsequent tours (one 4 month and one 6 month) at our training center to assist with those recruit classes as an instructor/ liaison.

As I have already indicated, one of my jobs during these recruit classes was to help lead the physical fitness program in the morning.  For the first two weeks of the class everyone ran together in one group for whatever distance we had scheduled to run.  After the initial two weeks, a timed test was given on a predetermined distance and the class was split in two groups for running.  The groups consisted of a fast group and a slow group, and were based on the time it took them to complete the test run.  This was done so as not to push the slower group too fast, thus creating injuries, but also to allow the fast group greater room to improve without holding them back.  From that day on, the class would first, do all the stretching and calisthenics together, then one group would have to run 2 miles plus lift weights, and the other group would just run a straight 4 miles.  This alternated from day to day for the rest of the recruit class. My job was to run with the fast group, but the first mile of every day was always run in a combined group with yours truly singing cadence along the way.  At the end of a mile, one group would turn around and finish a two mile course then proceed to the weight room, while the other group would complete a 4 mile run then take it to the showers. 

During one particular recruit class, a competition between the two groups began to develop.  It wasn't about who was faster, as there was no challenging that, but more a pride issue of who had more "esprit de corps".  Of course the fast group just referred to this show of bravado as a way the slow group, or "slugs" as we called them, could compensate for their short-comings on the physical stamina side...:). So, the slugs decided they would have a guidon which to identify themselves with, and they made one. Now to put this in perspective, the last mile of the run was always across the lake dam and the entire length was in perfect view of the training center.  The slow group knew this, and thought it was a good way to display their esprit de corps as they came across dam.  The problem was that the staff they chose for the guidon was so heavy and large that on their very first 4 mile run, they had to pass it to every member of the formation just get it back!  In fact, I just happen to be watching for the slugs to come in on their last mile that day, because they were long overdue compared to previous runs.  When they did finally come into sight, I was so amused by the bedraggled formation holding the limp guidon that I called the fast group to come and watch.  By the end of the run, the staff was held lazily and at such an angle that it was not even being displayed with any honor!  In fact, the guidon had to be carried by two people like a litter in last 1/2 mile of their run, just to get it home.  Of course the fast group, seeing the slugs plan had backfired, decided to rub it in!          

A plan was made to make small wings for all the fast groups shoes, kinda like the Greek God Mercury. We would wait until after the morning calisthenics, when the slow group had exited the training facility, to form up for the morning run. (which was about an 1/8 mile away)  Then we would all come out with our winged sneakers and create a little intimidation factor....at least that was the plan. So, the big day came, but it took so long for us to fasten the wings to our shoes that by the time the fast group exited the building the slow group, tired of waiting, had taken off under the instruction of my counterpart.  Well, so as not to be made the fools, we ran the 1/8 mile to the dam, quickly formed up and took off at a grilling pace to catch the rest of the formation.  It took almost the entire mile to catch them as they had a huge head start.  As we came up behind them, we began to chant a cadence designed to "in your face" it a little bit.  Then we split on either side of the formation and promptly passed them by at blistering speed.  Once we got about 100 yards in front of them I called the group to a halt and lined them up across the dam road...:).  I told them it was about honor, and on my command we about faced, dropped our drawers, bent over, and let them see our backsides.  That's about the time when we heard the other instructor, who was leading the slugs, yell..."charge"!  Well, to make a long story short, we earned our wings that day and never ran so fast, but then again, the slow group never ran with their guidon again either!

The moral of the story: 

All things being equal to start with, does not not insure everything will be equal in the "end"....:)

From a cattle raisers point of view:

Being the top dog when you're running with the pack doesn't mean that much if the pack is made up of a bunch of genetic misfits, and there are no other packs to compete with!  



II.FARM NEWS:


Congratulations!  Chasity Cox and Laura Haeckel on your recent show efforts!  Chasity took Grand Champion heifer with her Malachi daughter in a recent East Texas Show, and Laura took 6th in her class at Fort Worth in the very first show both her and her calf showed in.  We feel that is excellent considering the level and quality of the competition.
                                 
        Chasity and her heifer    Laura and her heifer
           DBLH Myra R01    DBLH Lady R06

   (Click on photo to enlarge)(Click on photo to enlarge)


Our South Texas Polled Hereford Sale lot:  Gillespie Malachi M201

  This bull will sale Saturday, March 4th at the STPHA Sale in Lockhart Texas.
  Phone bids are welcome through the sale staff, or just come to lockhart and see
                                 him in person!  He is the sire of Myra as seen above.  Double H Farms and
  Willis Polled Herefords will be keeping a semen interest in him, but we are
        selling full possession, and are not retaining any future rights.

Our North East Texas Hereford Sale Lot:  SHF Lady 512 L106
Here is a nice pair!  The cow comes from the Sand Hills
     Farms program in Kansas, and has a calving window
under 365 days on her 4th calf.  The little heifer on her
side is out of our upcoming sire Feltons 621.  She would
make an excellent show prospect, and you can get her
started young.  Come to Mt. Pleasant, Texas to see her!

NOTE:  This pair cannot sell out of State.  She was bought by us with a cow on her side, but we found
out this week she never had the Bangs vac. given as a calf.  She has been blood tested Brucillosis free, TB tested, all shots, wormed and had her feet trimmed.  She sells on the 11th on March.

Richard Burkhart, Santos Estraca, and The Flamik Family are recent buyers of Double H Farms cattle.  Thankyou Richard, Santos, and Randall!

The rain has finally come again....AMEN!



III.  INFORMATIVE

"Contemporary Thinking

(This is a "very long" article, and it may go over someone's head who does not understand performance breeding)

Have you ever studied, or even seen a set of pedigree papers for a registered animal out of a performance based herd?  Well, part of those papers include a group of numbers referred to as: Expected Progeny Differences (EPD's), or EPD Values.  Did you ever wonder what these meant?  Your not alone!  These numbers seem to even confuse and/or elude allot of the buyers and breeders of registered performance cattle.  One reason for this is that math and numbers are just plain boring, and nobody really wants to take the time to understand them fully, much less be able to explain them.  This is especially true when you're talking about the kind of folk who are typically the "country", "outdoorsy" or "hands on" type...you know, the cattle raiser.  Heck, all you should need to know anyway is how that number compares to a breed average number, then you can make your selections based on the better numerical digits...right?  After all, the better the number then the better the animal or the breeding...true?  I wish I could say it was that simple, but it is not.  Things can get down right confusing when you're trying to correlate numbers with performance.

One of the hardest things I have trouble explaining, and sometimes convincing, to the buyers and the breeders that I come in contact with is not how to read the EPD's.  It's how the EPD's reflect, or don't reflect, the actual performance of the animal in question, or the animals in it's background.  It's all about data that has been submitted to the Association for the sake of breed comparisons.  The problem with that data is that it's only as accurate as the information that is reported, and it all depends on how the contemporary groups were managed.  Allow me to elaborate on this a little.  Data can be manipulated.  Data can be reported falsely.  Data can be biased.  Data can be inaccurate.  Data can be obtained with no comparisons and therefore be isolated. Data can be lost.  Data can even be entered incorrectly.  In addition to the data, the contemporary groupings used to collect the data can be biased, mismanaged, or even substandard compared to other herds in the breed.  I would think that most of the data submitted to breed Associations for genetic analysis is accurate and being submitted honestly, but that still does not guarantee that data to reflect "actual performance".  Many factors come into play when data is being collected for genetic analysis.  Allow me to use an example within the Hereford breed.

Example:  PW Victor Boomer P606

In the spring of 2002 I was searching the AHA data base for information on the proven trait leader bull Remitall Boomer 46B.  I was looking at buying a 46B son and I wanted to get as much information on him as I could.  In my research I came up with a son out of 46B that appeared, on paper, to be the epitome of performance. It was PW Victor Boomer P606.  Now I'm not even sure if semen was being offered on him at the time, but I do remember he was limited on the amount of offspring he had sired to date (I think there was around seventy something and he was already 6 years old).  I also noticed that his EPD data was based on offspring which had mainly came out of the 3 herds that owned him.  Of course, much of his expected performance (on paper) came from his sire.  I didn't inquiry about P606 at the time, but I did end up purchasing a 46B son for myself.  It should be noted here that P606 was well below breed average for birth weight (It was in the negative numbers. I think it was around a -2.0 or something), and well above the average for yearling weight (over 100).  Low birth weight and high yearling weight is a good indication of a high growth in calves with the added benefit of small calves at birth.

Well, after a couple of years went by this seemingly unsung hero, P606, started making a name for himself.  It came in the look of his daughters.  A "select" group which had calved, found their way into a few picture perfect catalog shots, and the P606 revolution was on!  So, lets put this in perspective now.  P606 was born in 1996.  By 1999 he had only sired 11 offspring according to AHA records (only 3 for 1999).  By 2000, he had sired 16,  by 2001 44, by 2002 84, and by the end of  2003 he showed a total of 153 at 8 years of age.  At this point, his EPD's were still some of the best in the breed for 2003. Then in 2004 P606 offspring spiked.  He sired just over 600 in 2004, and in 2005 alone he was responsible for over 1,500...yes over 1,500 in one year alone!  That is an average of over 4 calves a day for the whole year. So far this year he is credited with 24, which is less than 1/2 a calf each day...:)  Every body jumped on the wagon (hence the P606 breeders syndicate) when a few select daughters debuted, but the wagon has slowed and people are jumping back off.  Why are they jumping off?  Because his EPD's did not hold true to what was projected. Breeders were not getting what they expected in his calves based on his EPD's, and they were also not getting those "look good on paper" numbers for their offspring's papers.

P606's EPD's had taken a drastic turn!  His birthweight EPD went from a negative number to almost a +6 which was an average of 8 lbs heavier at birth then originally projected, plus his weaning weight and yearling weight went down substantially.  How could this be?  Especially if the AHA data on the P606 bull is compiled over generations of reporting!  Well, allot of it simply has to do with the type of contemporary groupings, or lack of contemporary groupings which were used during the reporting of P606, his parents, and his offspring.  Before I get going here I think it is important to tell you I am using P606 as an example, and it does not necessarily mean everything I say here is so. In fact, some of it is speculative...:)  I also own a P606 son (bought him inside the cow) and flushed his momma back to P606, so my example reflects back on my own herd. (why I used P606 as an example in the first place).   Bear with me on this.  First of all, P606 obviously had merit and was a top indexing calf in the herd he was raised in, otherwise he would have never made it to his status as a herd sire, but his individual performance within a contemporary group was never reported or never happened (meaning he was raised indifferent to other animals in the herd).  The AHA has no individual performance on record for P606, his sire 46B, his Fraternal Grandsire 20X, or his momma!   This means the owners of these animals didn't report it for whatever reason, despite them all being considered "performance breeders", or it means the animals were treated differently (as in the case of some show animals).  So, if they had no contemporary group to reflect against, then the AHA could not include their individual performance in the genetic analysis.  I think it wasn't even reported, and I especially think the BW's were not reported for a reason.

The only animal I found for 2 generations back on P606's line that had individual performance data recorded with the AHA was the Victor 964 bull (his maternal Grand Sire), who despite his BW EPD of 2.4, was a whopping 122% in his own BW contemporary group!  (that means he was a "huge" calf compared to the others in the group he was reported in)  Ad this to 46B's "proven" 6.1 BW, and 20X's "proven" BW of 8.2, and you wonder how the P606 bull could have ever been considered a calving ease sire by EPD's to begin with.  In 3 generations on both sides I only found 4 animals (964 included in that number) out of 14 which even had individual data recorded period, and as a slap in the face "none" of the other 3 had BW percentages recorded, but they had everything else....:)  So out of 14 animals in 3 generations (as far as I went back) only one even had a BW percentage recorded, and it was 122%.  What is even more amazing is that all animals in the three generations that even had data recorded on their offspring, showed that their calves were also above 100% in their contemporary groups for BW.  I think if breeders really did their research using these great tools the AHA gives us to use, then they would have never believed P606 was capable of a below average calf weight to start with.  Most of those "country" folk I referred to, would have taken one look at the Canadian breeding in his line, and even w/o knowing all the other details, would realize the possibility of larger calves existed anyway.  If you look below I show P606's line.  The notes I made by each animal in the line will help bring it in perspective.  I wish the AHA would still put the actual BW's of the animals on their papers like they used to!


  Note:  The information below refers to "individual" BW data only.  As I have mentioned, all these animals save one, which
     even had their offspring recorded by the AHA to begin with, showed their calves were over 100% in their prospective
    contemporary groups for birth weight.  (which means that their own calves were larger than average also)

                                                                                                                                        REMITALL TEAMSTER 9T (P23202972)
                                                                                                     REMITALL KEYNOTE 20X (P23631818)         (None)
                                   (None)         REMITALL PATRICIA 99P (P23631816)
Sire: REMITALL BOOMER 46B (P23649249)                                           (No EPD's)
       (None)               REMITALL TOP HAT 206T (P21836317)
  RMTLL SALLYS LASS 120X (P23649228)       (None)
   (No EPD's)            HB SALLY TANGENT 50S (P23649224)
  PW Victor Bommer P606  (No EPD's)
    (None)          RWJ VICTOR J3 266 (P20692700)
                              RHF VICTOR 266 964 (P21997571)           (Yes -  but no BW % recorded)
   (Yes -  BW 122%)                 RHF VICTRA 424 654 (P21442966)
Dam : PW VICTORIA 964 8114 (P23331665)                 (Yes -  but no BW % recorded)
  (None)            RHF VICTOR 7110 1121 (P20565928)
  HVF VICTORIA 1121 05 (P21042404)       (Yes -  but no BW % recorded)
   (None)                    R VICTORIA 959 80N (P20643944)
(No EPD's)

  Remember:  Calving ease EPD's are relatively new to reportable data being tracked by the AHA, but it is still directly linked                          to actual calf  weights, which have been "required" to be reported in performance herds for decades.  If a calf
                      weight was not known or not reported on, then the calf would be assigned a predetermined bull or heifer weight
by the AHA.  This weight was based on breed average and actually benefited some animals and their EPD's.


How does all this explain P606 have such great calving ease EPD's up front?  Moreover, how does it explain the drastic change in his EPD's, and what does this have to do with contemporary groups?  Maybe the question that really should be asked here is how does a bull with sketchy documentation on individual BW throughout his line turn into the hottest sire for 2004?  Let me start be answering the question about his calving ease.  P606 not having been compared to other animals in a contemporary group for BW, leaves us with only a few logical explanations.  One is that his actual BW would have been reported as very small, thus reflecting a better projection of his "potential" calving ease on his EPD's (or on paper) despite not being compared with other calves.  Another reason is that his dams BW EPD may have been very good, but changed considerably over the years based on her reported offspring.  Of course if you do a search of his dam you will find that she didn't even show a calf born until 1992, when she was over 3 years of age!   Furthermore, P606's momma was 8 years old when she had him, so I would think her BW was pretty reliable at the time she had him. She also had 9 offspring prior to P606.  Some of those calves were embryo transfer, and would not have contributed to the genetic analysis, so her BW EPD would not have changed that much anyway.  I looked at all 39 of her offspring (she is a donor cow) that were listed by the AHA, and they all averaged a BW EPD of +4.0 . Now, P606 gets 50% of his genetic make up from each parent.  His sire who is a calving ease bull despite his BW EPD of +6.1 directly contributed to good portion of calving ease EPD's in P606, but not necessarily BW EPD's.  The problem was that calving ease wasn't proven in P606...well it is now..:).

Even all this still does not explain the reason for the low low BW projections.  This is where reporting of data and contemporary groups comes into play.  Remember when I mentioned isolated data?  Well, if the data on P606's offspring was limited and only being reported by the owners of the bull, then it could not only be biased,  but it was not reflecting a larger cross section of the breed.  That doesn't mean the data was inaccurate, but it can mean that if a breeder's average calf is 95lbs within his herd with other bulls used, and P606's calves came in at 90lbs, then P606 would get credit for having calves under the herd average.  This reflection of his performance would directly affect his BW and his calving ease EPD's, showing them below average, despite the actual BW's being above breed average, and not suited for heifers at all!  In essence, the EPD data is based on information that is without a good cross comparison of different herds.  The data also reflects inaccurately, what in realistic terms would be considered high BW and less calving ease.  Once P606 opened up to the market, and marketing his daughters was the key to his success, his true genetics shined through and his calving ease and birth weight were reflected more accurately.  His calves were being used in contemporary groups across the nation that would show no bias, and the proof came in the pudding!

P606's EPD changes are a good example of why it's important to manage cattle in contemporary groups, so that animals can be compared to one another fairly. It also helps the data to be more accurate in a breed associations genetic analysis.  This is especially true with bulls that you plan on using as herd sires.  Keep these groups as large and as similar as possible.  First by sex, then age, then by management of the group.  If some animals receive better nutrition, then others due to pasture conditions or supplemental feed, then it would not be fair to compare the two when reporting their weaning and yearlings weights. Many breeders will tend to coddle the offspring of their up and coming new sire over others in the same group..:)  This also holds true for a cows condition and age at calving for BW purposes, or animals who have a disadvantage due to illness or injury.  In a small herd (like mine) it can be more difficult to comprise a large contemporary group considering all these factors, but I attempt to do it as much as possible, even if it means only 2 or 3 animals in that group.  Remember, just because a herd animal has outstanding EPD's does not mean that it will actually perform as predicted.  It must be proven first, and you must consider whether or not that great EPD'd animal came from a herd of below average animals.  (including your herd!)  I hope I have made some sense here, because I always write these articles off the cuff, with usually no research. Of course I had no choice but to research real data to make some points in this article..:)  Look at your cattle, look at your management practices then use some "contemporary thinking" to make sure their performance reflects actual performance.    



IV.  CURRENT EVENTS:

 
The STPHA and NETHA sales are gearing up and are just around the corner!

STPHA - March 4th, Lockhart, Texas at 1:00 pm  (We consigned Lot # 2)

NETHA - March 11th, Mt Pleasant Texas at 1:00 pm  (We consigned lot # 11)

Cross Timbers - April 8th, West, Texas  (we have a lot in this sale too)



V.  HEREFORD HIGHLIGHTS:

WPH Ms Braxton 438
01/16/1994
Bred by Willis Polled Herefords

Performance on the Hoof!
Performance on the Hoof!
Performance on the Hoof!
Home     The Farm     The Herd     Sale Barn     Show Time     Links     Gallery                                                       
Winter 2005 /2006
Thanks, and keep coming back!! 
This is another good 'ol cow we bought from Mike Willis in 1998.  She was 4 years old at that time and had a couple of calves under her belt.  One of her first calves had even gone into the "Ranch to Rail" program and did quite well.  Her first calf she gave us was a bull out of BJH 137P Dynamo 80L who we named HH Braxymo 646.  He was one of the first bulls we sold off our operation.  Through the years this old cow has done an outstanding job for us.  Despite her moving from spring to fall one season (we had a drought summer and a lame bull), she has still managed to have 1 calf a year since two years of age.  A bull calf from her and Chunk brought $1,950 dollars for us at the STPHA sale in 2004, and we are keeping her 2005 bull calf out of Feltons 621 as a breed bull.  Ms Braxton is a daughter of Braxton Giant 1 and can be traced back to Vindicator on her maternal side.  Her dam was a Silver Bench Mark Dam. Her calves have almost always come in the bottom end of the herd for birth weight, but in the top end for weaning weight.  On 10 calves she has only been assisted once, due to the calf coming breech, but the assist was very minor, and the resulting bull spent many years as an outstanding sire.  Ms Braxton has a beautiful udder even at the age of 12, and has full pigmentation in both eyes. Her MPPA on 10 calves is 101.7.  I like this cow more every year, and the older she gets.  She is flush potential, but we will settle for a good son.  Below you can see some pictures of her and her offspring over the years.
WPH Ms Braxton 438
063
doubleh@vzinet.com
209 CR 4625
Cooper Texas 75432
903 395-2413