To breed on with the next generation a producer needs to be confident in choosing the right sire that will swing their flock or herd towards better commercial success.
These days science tells us that for a breeder to select on phenotype alone will progress the program only so far down the track - and plenty far enough say Merino wool producers, but that's another story.
To get the best bang for buck a buyer should factor in estimated breeding values which offer clues to future growth and can help when making decisions about genetics.
The only way to get good data, and therefore confident outcomes, is to measure, measure and measure again so that the real world can be reduced to a pile of numbers. If an old sage can be compressed into an algorithm, then it requires multiple data points - beginning from day dot.
Recording weight at birth is a key entry point when programmers and code writers seek to determine a starting point of any breed - how else can breeders make predictions about what the future holds?
Ok, so we get it. Modern methodology requires objective parameters that can only be obtained by checking a virtual world against the real one.
Pop's old ways of standing in the yards before a sale and judging on type alone is old fashioned, that's for sure. But what if pop was partly right? Don't physical attributes point to genetic outcomes?
One data point that should perhaps be sacrificed is the first weight on the ground.
Why meddle with measurement when calves and cows, lambs and ewes are best left in peace, especially after something as important as birth, when bonding between mum and bub prefers minimal help or hindrance from strangers.
Should weighing calves and lambs at birth be replaced with a less intrusive method?
What if the extra stress placed on a mother did more harm than good? What if it caused her to abandon her calf? Some might argue convincingly that any female who shows such a trait is no use going forward, so why not weigh at birth and observe what happens?
IN OTHER NEWS: Robotic dogs takes on tough tasks at abattoirs
Perhaps it will make the genetic selection process cleaner. So, then, perhaps the herd or flock will sing away from anxious mothering - but isn't that a good thing when wild dogs are around?
The Brahman cross cow inherits a high likelihood of stress-induced anxiety, but isn't she the best mother? Not too many of her calves are lost during a moment of compliance, or carelessness. Just don't weigh the calf!
In more gentler breeding, what if repeated weighing of progeny at birth triggered a genetic trend towards stress and anxiety, turning a calm animal into one that's flighty? Doesn't Angus already carry a freak-out trait that needs only centre ring attention at Sydney Royal to perform a back flip?
Science has shown that environment triggers genes to wake up and when you trace back through the generations even the quietest of livestock - like people - had ancestors who were not.
For stud breeders the measuring of calf weight is a non-negotiable duty to their clients and to not do so would be regarded as lacking professionalism, although plenty remain nervous about the job.
For commercial breeders filling out blanks in their genetic program is a job required according to best practice, although doubters reckon graziers just make up the numbers and don't actually intervene at birth.
Maybe there is a better way - why not measure on a later date and extrapolate backwards to come up with a do-able number for the computer boffins?
Is there a related trait that can be measured as a guide to birthweight, and is there an option to use that knowledge to fudge an algorithm - rather than force real world issues into a digital blender? Too often, it seems, those in the laboratory creating exacting parameters forget there are animal and human emotions to be considered.
And if scientists can't work with alternatives, then perhaps they should be the ones to weigh a newborn!
ALSO IN NEWS:
