search.noResults

search.searching

dataCollection.invalidEmail
note.createNoteMessage

search.noResults

search.searching

orderForm.title

orderForm.productCode
orderForm.description
orderForm.quantity
orderForm.itemPrice
orderForm.price
orderForm.totalPrice
orderForm.deliveryDetails.billingAddress
orderForm.deliveryDetails.deliveryAddress
orderForm.noItems
used for BCScoring.


Readers should note that BCScores do not (cannot) predict per- formance levels of meat goats, dairy goats or dairy cows. Note also that ADGA and Holstein Association have programs that describe the optimum/desirable physical appearance of individual animals. See Dairy Goat Linear Appraisals and Holstein Association Linear Type Evaluations via Google. Genetic evaluation for linear type traits are reported by Holstein Association USA as Standard Transmitting Abil- ities (as STAs, a measurement of genetic progress). Readers should be aware that such physical descriptions of dairy (and meat) goats and Holsteins do not accurately predict (in- fluence) performance levels of these animals. Put differently, the best looking animals are only rarely the best performing animals and some ugly goats may perform above average. In point of fact, extensive British research comparing physical traits of dairy cattle to lactation yields over many years found that only udder size (capacity) was cor- related to lactation yield; no other trait mattered. The ADGA has years of data but has never assessed the statis- tical relationship between body- ype traits and lactation yields. One surmises that Association members feel that better looking animals probably live longer productive lives, but are not inherently more productive per lactation, thus negating the need to do the math. Texas A&M University-San Angelo researchers evaluated the statistical relationship between physical appearance and performance and carcass traits of Spanish and Boer/Spanish crossbreds in the mid- 1990s. They reported that only width of the front-end and circumfer- ence of the body at the last rib were predictive of carcass yield; no other traits mattered. However, the researchers and experienced goat folks have long noted that the visually-apparent muscularity of a slaughter goat is predictive of its hot carcass yield. Auction buyers for packing plants routinely use this trait to select — and price — such goats. These researchers also note that when range forage was limited in quantity or quality, there were no differences between Spanish and Boer/Spanish crosses in numbers of kids born, survival rates or kid weaning weights. Contrarily, when nutrition was not limited (was adequate), the Boer crossbreds outperformed the Spanish animals, on pasture, in the feedlot and on the rail. (I have sold for 15+ years F-1 Savanna/Spa- nish crosses that out-perform the Spanish base herd at the Elgin Pape ranches).


In a much later, large buck-test featuring animals of various breeds and crossbreds, TAMU personnel selected the top two, the bottom two and the middle two bucks in the test and exposed each of them to similar sets of 24 does at the same location and collected performance data, birth to weaning and post-weaning. They found no statistical differences between buck rankings as measured by progeny performance. Buck tests are useful for doc- umenting specific animal performance and for advertising sale ani- mals. They cannot be used to accurately compare different breeds and crossbreds; don’t go there.


My take-away from all such findings, as well as 30+ years of goat industry observation nationwide, is that eyeballing a set of does (with or without libations) with a view to selecting the superior ones for herd replacements is mostly just a socially satisfying endeavor. The economically important traits needed for profitable goat production are simply not ‘seeable’, i.e., one cannot see fecundity, litter size, survivability, feed conversion efficiency, daily rates of gain or carcass quality/yield.


I can probably beat a gate-cut selection procedure, as can judges Please see PINKERTON, Page 9


February 2021 | Goat Rancher 7


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32