Keeney`s Corner

A current and reflective discussion of cattle breeding from outside the registered mainstream
 
HomeUsergroupsRegisterLog in

Share | 
 

 Growth, fat and frame

View previous topic View next topic Go down 
Go to page : 1, 2  Next
AuthorMessage
Guest
Guest



PostSubject: Growth, fat and frame   Thu Oct 06, 2011 10:05 pm

I have had some ponderings, questions, and opinions on growth, as meausured by weight of late. In one of the prominent registered supplier's catalogues some time back, I recall they had selected for increased weight at a year, with a limit on hip height. They had went on to show how they had increased efficiency, ADG, all the while keeping them the same ''size''. It all sounds good until I thought about.

Tom and I discussed this, and believe Greg did so as well, but my point, or thought was, have they done anything other than make them fatter? The ultrasound data would show little to prove more muscle, as would visual appraisal.
Back to top Go down
Kent Powell



Posts : 606
Join date : 2010-09-24
Location : SW Kansas

PostSubject: Re: Growth, fat and frame   Fri Oct 07, 2011 5:23 pm

I think you are right. The trends show increased REA right along with the fat, but that just means the cattle are getting bigger as it is not in size per unit of weight.



More weight on the same frame should do great things to soundness and longevity too.
Back to top Go down
http://powellangus.com
MKeeney
Admin


Posts : 4596
Join date : 2010-09-21

PostSubject: Re: Growth, fat and frame   Fri Oct 07, 2011 8:22 pm

Keystone wrote:
I think you are right. The trends show increased REA right along with the fat, but that just means the cattle are getting bigger as it is not in size per unit of weight.



More weight on the same frame should do great things to soundness and longevity too.
more weight on less frame makes them more unique...unique has no commercial application, but when did that ever matter in the registered business?
Back to top Go down
http://www.keeneyscorner.com
Mean Spirit



Posts : 319
Join date : 2010-09-26

PostSubject: Re: Growth, fat and frame   Fri Oct 07, 2011 9:04 pm

Same weight, shorter frame score-- who should care, from an efficiency perspective? Isn't maintenance energy based on weight?

I always thought that was crap. Until somebody proves to me otherwise, 1400 lb cows of all weights, from ground sow to framy and angular, have the same maintenance requirement, more or less. There might be good reasons for desiring bigger or smaller framed cattle, but I don't think efficiency is one of them.

MS, in the vicinity of a livestock show where there are 1400 lb heifers that haven't even calved yet. But they are frame 6, so they'll be efficient.
Back to top Go down
MKeeney
Admin


Posts : 4596
Join date : 2010-09-21

PostSubject: Re: Growth, fat and frame   Fri Oct 07, 2011 9:17 pm

Mean Spirit wrote:
Same weight, shorter frame score-- who should care, from an efficiency perspective? Isn't maintenance energy based on weight?

I always thought that was crap. Until somebody proves to me otherwise, 1400 lb cows of all weights, from ground sow to framy and angular, have the same maintenance requirement, more or less. There might be good reasons for desiring bigger or smaller framed cattle, but I don't think efficiency is one of them.

MS, in the vicinity of a livestock show where there are 1400 lb heifers that haven't even calved yet. But they are frame 6, so they'll be efficient.
is gerald there with calipers? he may be becoming more relevant... Smile
Back to top Go down
http://www.keeneyscorner.com
Tom D
Admin


Posts : 535
Join date : 2010-09-25
Age : 38
Location : Michigan

PostSubject: Re: Growth, fat and frame   Fri Oct 07, 2011 10:15 pm

Mean Spirit wrote:
Same weight, shorter frame score-- who should care, from an efficiency perspective? Isn't maintenance energy based on weight?

I always thought that was crap. Until somebody proves to me otherwise, 1400 lb cows of all weights, from ground sow to framy and angular, have the same maintenance requirement, more or less. There might be good reasons for desiring bigger or smaller framed cattle, but I don't think efficiency is one of them.

MS, in the vicinity of a livestock show where there are 1400 lb heifers that haven't even calved yet. But they are frame 6, so they'll be efficient.

Couldn't different shaped bodies of the same weight be more or less energy efficient because of the ratio of surface area to mass?
Back to top Go down
Guest
Guest



PostSubject: Re: Growth, fat and frame   Fri Oct 07, 2011 10:24 pm

Tom D wrote:
Mean Spirit wrote:
Same weight, shorter frame score-- who should care, from an efficiency perspective? Isn't maintenance energy based on weight?

I always thought that was crap. Until somebody proves to me otherwise, 1400 lb cows of all weights, from ground sow to framy and angular, have the same maintenance requirement, more or less. There might be good reasons for desiring bigger or smaller framed cattle, but I don't think efficiency is one of them.

MS, in the vicinity of a livestock show where there are 1400 lb heifers that haven't even calved yet. But they are frame 6, so they'll be efficient.

Couldn't different shaped bodies of the same weight be more or less energy efficient because of the ratio of surface area to mass?

Your old book didn't mention such things Tom. But it could be, maybe, at certain times of the year. I could see the smaller, heavier ones staying warmer in the winter, but dang it summers sure would be tougher for them to cool off. So average it is, or medium, as I think we or at least I have decided that medium is better. I always order a medium drink, cook my meat medium rare, run off in the median, am of medium height and intelligence. There you have have it. Medium it is.

Bootheel, just this side of average or uh medium
Back to top Go down
MKeeney
Admin


Posts : 4596
Join date : 2010-09-21

PostSubject: Re: Growth, fat and frame   Sat Oct 08, 2011 7:25 am

Tom D wrote:
Mean Spirit wrote:
Same weight, shorter frame score-- who should care, from an efficiency perspective? Isn't maintenance energy based on weight?

I always thought that was crap. Until somebody proves to me otherwise, 1400 lb cows of all weights, from ground sow to framy and angular, have the same maintenance requirement, more or less. There might be good reasons for desiring bigger or smaller framed cattle, but I don't think efficiency is one of them.

MS, in the vicinity of a livestock show where there are 1400 lb heifers that haven't even calved yet. But they are frame 6, so they'll be efficient.

Couldn't different shaped bodies of the same weight be more or less energy efficient because of the ratio of surface area to mass?
the scientist say there is a difference in maintainence energy because of internal organ size...the more milk {and the type} the more energy required...even when not milking...
but I can attest to "the more excess fat, the more energy required to move it"...so much so, in fact, that instead of moving it, most begin to spend more time sitting on their ass ...people and cows...
Back to top Go down
http://www.keeneyscorner.com
MKeeney
Admin


Posts : 4596
Join date : 2010-09-21

PostSubject: Re: Growth, fat and frame   Sat Oct 08, 2011 7:32 am

Bootheel wrote:
Tom D wrote:
Mean Spirit wrote:
Same weight, shorter frame score-- who should care, from an efficiency perspective? Isn't maintenance energy based on weight?

I always thought that was crap. Until somebody proves to me otherwise, 1400 lb cows of all weights, from ground sow to framy and angular, have the same maintenance requirement, more or less. There might be good reasons for desiring bigger or smaller framed cattle, but I don't think efficiency is one of them.

MS, in the vicinity of a livestock show where there are 1400 lb heifers that haven't even calved yet. But they are frame 6, so they'll be efficient.

Couldn't different shaped bodies of the same weight be more or less energy efficient because of the ratio of surface area to mass?

Your old book didn't mention such things Tom. But it could be, maybe, at certain times of the year. I could see the smaller, heavier ones staying warmer in the winter, but dang it summers sure would be tougher for them to cool off. So average it is, or medium, as I think we or at least I have decided that medium is better. I always order a medium drink, cook my meat medium rare, run off in the median, am of medium height and intelligence. There you have have it. Medium it is.

Bootheel, just this side of average or uh medium
medium...dang it, 3 years just to change to a better word...someone with access, please post at 5bar that Keeney has changed his preferred cattle from average to medium ...poor ole Preston, more confusion coming...
Back to top Go down
http://www.keeneyscorner.com
Kent Powell



Posts : 606
Join date : 2010-09-24
Location : SW Kansas

PostSubject: Re: Growth, fat and frame   Sat Oct 08, 2011 9:44 am

Are 5-6 frame fat cattle an improvement over 0-00 frame fat cattle, or is it just a difference in preferances?
Back to top Go down
http://powellangus.com
MKeeney
Admin


Posts : 4596
Join date : 2010-09-21

PostSubject: Re: Growth, fat and frame   Sat Oct 08, 2011 12:49 pm

Keystone wrote:
Are 5-6 frame fat cattle an improvement over 0-00 frame fat cattle, or is it just a difference in preferances?
1500 lb yearling bulls with 11 inch ribeyes must have a lot of something besides muscle...
Back to top Go down
http://www.keeneyscorner.com
Tom D
Admin


Posts : 535
Join date : 2010-09-25
Age : 38
Location : Michigan

PostSubject: Re: Growth, fat and frame   Sat Oct 08, 2011 5:57 pm

MKeeney wrote:
Bootheel wrote:
Tom D wrote:
Mean Spirit wrote:
Same weight, shorter frame score-- who should care, from an efficiency perspective? Isn't maintenance energy based on weight?

I always thought that was crap. Until somebody proves to me otherwise, 1400 lb cows of all weights, from ground sow to framy and angular, have the same maintenance requirement, more or less. There might be good reasons for desiring bigger or smaller framed cattle, but I don't think efficiency is one of them.

MS, in the vicinity of a livestock show where there are 1400 lb heifers that haven't even calved yet. But they are frame 6, so they'll be efficient.

Couldn't different shaped bodies of the same weight be more or less energy efficient because of the ratio of surface area to mass?

Your old book didn't mention such things Tom. But it could be, maybe, at certain times of the year. I could see the smaller, heavier ones staying warmer in the winter, but dang it summers sure would be tougher for them to cool off. So average it is, or medium, as I think we or at least I have decided that medium is better. I always order a medium drink, cook my meat medium rare, run off in the median, am of medium height and intelligence. There you have have it. Medium it is.

Bootheel, just this side of average or uh medium
medium...dang it, 3 years just to change to a better word...someone with access, please post at 5bar that Keeney has changed his preferred cattle from average to medium ...poor ole Preston, more confusion coming...

Man, you guys are lame.

TD, sitting in my 1-ton diesel crew-cab at the Burger King drive-thru, ordering a super-size Double Whopper value meal with a Diet Coke, then heading to the party store to get a case of ultra-light beer and a carton of ultra-light cigarettes, so that I can spend all day tomorrow sitting on my fat ass, watching 275 lb. linebackers that run 4.5 40's and cheerleaders with triple E boobs, and thinking that medium is just plain Un-American.
Back to top Go down
Tom D
Admin


Posts : 535
Join date : 2010-09-25
Age : 38
Location : Michigan

PostSubject: Re: Growth, fat and frame   Sun Oct 09, 2011 12:06 pm

So what's medium??? In 1983, 0 milk was medium. Seven years later, 5 milk was medium. Then in just five years it was 10. By 2001, 15 milk was medium, and then six years later, 20 milk was medium.



Production
Year CED BW WW YW RADG YH SC Doc
1972 3 -2.1 -8 -14 -0.03 -0.1 0.02 11
1973 3 -2 -7 -12 -0.03 -0.1 0.01 11
1974 2 -1.8 -6 -10 -0.02 -0.1 0.01 11
1975 2 -1.7 -4 -8 -0.02 -0.1 0 11
1976 2 -1.5 -3 -6 -0.02 0 0 11
1977 2 -1.3 -2 -4 -0.01 0 -0.01 11
1978 1 -1.1 -1 -2 -0.01 0 -0.01 11
1979 1 -1 0 0 0 0 0 11
1980 1 -0.7 1 2 0.01 0 0 11
1981 0 -0.4 3 5 0.01 0.1 0 11
1982 0 0 5 8 0.02 0.1 0 11
1983 0 0.4 7 12 0.03 0.2 0 10
1984 0 0.8 9 15 0.04 0.3 0.01 10
1985 -1 1.2 11 18 0.04 0.3 0 10
1986 -1 1.5 13 21 0.05 0.4 0.01 10
1987 -1 1.9 14 24 0.05 0.4 0 10
1988 -1 2.1 16 27 0.06 0.5 0.01 9
1989 -1 2.3 18 30 0.07 0.5 0.02 9
1990 -1 2.5 19 33 0.07 0.5 0.04 9
1991 -1 2.6 21 36 0.08 0.6 0.05 8
1992 0 2.6 22 38 0.09 0.6 0.07 8
1993 0 2.6 23 41 0.09 0.5 0.06 8
1994 0 2.5 24 43 0.09 0.5 0.08 7
1995 0 2.4 25 45 0.09 0.5 0.08 7
1996 0 2.4 27 48 0.1 0.5 0.08 7
1997 1 2.4 28 51 0.1 0.5 0.11 6
1998 1 2.4 29 53 0.1 0.5 0.15 6
1999 2 2.4 31 56 0.1 0.5 0.2 6
2000 2 2.4 32 58 0.11 0.5 0.23 6
2001 2 2.4 34 61 0.11 0.5 0.23 7
2002 3 2.4 35 64 0.11 0.4 0.26 7
2003 3 2.3 36 66 0.11 0.4 0.26 7
2004 3 2.3 38 69 0.12 0.4 0.29 7
2005 4 2.2 39 71 0.12 0.4 0.31 7
2006 4 2.2 40 74 0.11 0.4 0.34 8
2007 4 2.1 42 77 0.11 0.3 0.38 6
2008 4 2 44 80 0.11 0.3 0.39 8
2009 5 1.9 45 82 0.11 0.3 0.4 9
2010 5 1.8 46 84 0.12 0.3 0.47 9

Maternal
HP CEM Milk MW MH
8.1 0 0 -1 0
7.9 0 0 -1 0
7.9 0 0 -1 0
8 0 0 -1 0
7.9 0 0 -1 0
8 0 0 0 0
8 0 0 0 0
7.9 0 0 0 0
8 0 0 1 0
8 0 0 3 0.1
8 0 0 4 0.1
8 0 0 7 0.2
8 0 1 9 0.2
8 0 2 12 0.3
8.1 0 2 14 0.3
8.1 0 3 16 0.4
8.2 1 4 19 0.4
8.2 1 4 21 0.5
8.3 1 5 23 0.5
8.2 2 6 25 0.5
8.2 2 7 25 0.5
8.1 3 8 24 0.5
8.1 3 9 25 0.5
8.2 3 10 25 0.4
8.1 4 11 26 0.4
8.1 4 12 27 0.4
7.9 5 13 28 0.4
7.9 5 14 29 0.5
7.9 5 14 30 0.5
7.7 5 15 30 0.5
8 6 16 31 0.5
7.9 6 17 31 0.5
8 6 18 31 0.5
8 6 18 30 0.4
7.9 7 19 30 0.4
8 7 20 30 0.4
8.1 7 20 30 0.4
7.9 7 21 32 0.5
9.3 7 21

Carcass
CW Marb RE Fat
-1 -0.02 -0.02 0.001
-1 -0.03 -0.02 0
-1 -0.02 -0.02 0
-1 -0.02 -0.02 0
-1 -0.02 -0.02 0
-1 -0.02 -0.02 0
-1 -0.02 -0.02 0
-1 -0.02 -0.03 0
-1 -0.01 -0.03 0.001
0 -0.01 -0.03 0.001
0 0 -0.03 0
0 0.01 -0.03 0
0 0.02 -0.03 -0.002
1 0.02 -0.04 -0.003
1 0.04 -0.03 -0.004
2 0.04 -0.03 -0.005
3 0.05 -0.02 -0.005
4 0.07 -0.02 -0.005
5 0.08 -0.03 -0.004
5 0.1 -0.03 -0.004
5 0.11 -0.03 -0.005
6 0.12 -0.03 -0.003
7 0.13 -0.04 -0.002
7 0.14 -0.03 -0.001
8 0.15 -0.02 -0.001
10 0.16 -0.02 0
10 0.17 -0.02 0.001
11 0.19 -0.01 0.002
12 0.21 0.02 0.001
13 0.24 0.04 0.001
13 0.27 0.07 0.001
14 0.3 0.11 0.002
15 0.32 0.13 0.002
17 0.35 0.17 0.004
18 0.37 0.19 0.006
19 0.39 0.23 0.006
20 0.42 0.26 0.008
20 0.44 0.28 0.009
21 0.4 0.28 0.009
Back to top Go down
Grassfarmer



Posts : 845
Join date : 2010-09-27
Location : Belmont, Manitoba, Canada

PostSubject: Re: Growth, fat and frame   Sun Oct 09, 2011 12:42 pm

Tom D wrote:
So what's medium??? In 1983, 0 milk was medium. Seven years later, 5 milk was medium. Then in just five years it was 10. By 2001, 15 milk was medium, and then six years later, 20 milk was medium.



Production
Year CED BW WW YW RADG YH SC Doc
1972 3 -2.1 -8 -14 -0.03 -0.1 0.02 11
1973 3 -2 -7 -12 -0.03 -0.1 0.01 11
1974 2 -1.8 -6 -10 -0.02 -0.1 0.01 11
1975 2 -1.7 -4 -8 -0.02 -0.1 0 11
1976 2 -1.5 -3 -6 -0.02 0 0 11
1977 2 -1.3 -2 -4 -0.01 0 -0.01 11
1978 1 -1.1 -1 -2 -0.01 0 -0.01 11
1979 1 -1 0 0 0 0 0 11
1980 1 -0.7 1 2 0.01 0 0 11
1981 0 -0.4 3 5 0.01 0.1 0 11
1982 0 0 5 8 0.02 0.1 0 11
1983 0 0.4 7 12 0.03 0.2 0 10
1984 0 0.8 9 15 0.04 0.3 0.01 10
1985 -1 1.2 11 18 0.04 0.3 0 10
1986 -1 1.5 13 21 0.05 0.4 0.01 10
1987 -1 1.9 14 24 0.05 0.4 0 10
1988 -1 2.1 16 27 0.06 0.5 0.01 9
1989 -1 2.3 18 30 0.07 0.5 0.02 9
1990 -1 2.5 19 33 0.07 0.5 0.04 9
1991 -1 2.6 21 36 0.08 0.6 0.05 8
1992 0 2.6 22 38 0.09 0.6 0.07 8
1993 0 2.6 23 41 0.09 0.5 0.06 8
1994 0 2.5 24 43 0.09 0.5 0.08 7
1995 0 2.4 25 45 0.09 0.5 0.08 7
1996 0 2.4 27 48 0.1 0.5 0.08 7
1997 1 2.4 28 51 0.1 0.5 0.11 6
1998 1 2.4 29 53 0.1 0.5 0.15 6
1999 2 2.4 31 56 0.1 0.5 0.2 6
2000 2 2.4 32 58 0.11 0.5 0.23 6
2001 2 2.4 34 61 0.11 0.5 0.23 7
2002 3 2.4 35 64 0.11 0.4 0.26 7
2003 3 2.3 36 66 0.11 0.4 0.26 7
2004 3 2.3 38 69 0.12 0.4 0.29 7
2005 4 2.2 39 71 0.12 0.4 0.31 7
2006 4 2.2 40 74 0.11 0.4 0.34 8
2007 4 2.1 42 77 0.11 0.3 0.38 6
2008 4 2 44 80 0.11 0.3 0.39 8
2009 5 1.9 45 82 0.11 0.3 0.4 9
2010 5 1.8 46 84 0.12 0.3 0.47 9

Maternal
HP CEM Milk MW MH
8.1 0 0 -1 0
7.9 0 0 -1 0
7.9 0 0 -1 0
8 0 0 -1 0
7.9 0 0 -1 0
8 0 0 0 0
8 0 0 0 0
7.9 0 0 0 0
8 0 0 1 0
8 0 0 3 0.1
8 0 0 4 0.1
8 0 0 7 0.2
8 0 1 9 0.2
8 0 2 12 0.3
8.1 0 2 14 0.3
8.1 0 3 16 0.4
8.2 1 4 19 0.4
8.2 1 4 21 0.5
8.3 1 5 23 0.5
8.2 2 6 25 0.5
8.2 2 7 25 0.5
8.1 3 8 24 0.5
8.1 3 9 25 0.5
8.2 3 10 25 0.4
8.1 4 11 26 0.4
8.1 4 12 27 0.4
7.9 5 13 28 0.4
7.9 5 14 29 0.5
7.9 5 14 30 0.5
7.7 5 15 30 0.5
8 6 16 31 0.5
7.9 6 17 31 0.5
8 6 18 31 0.5
8 6 18 30 0.4
7.9 7 19 30 0.4
8 7 20 30 0.4
8.1 7 20 30 0.4
7.9 7 21 32 0.5
9.3 7 21

Carcass
CW Marb RE Fat
-1 -0.02 -0.02 0.001
-1 -0.03 -0.02 0
-1 -0.02 -0.02 0
-1 -0.02 -0.02 0
-1 -0.02 -0.02 0
-1 -0.02 -0.02 0
-1 -0.02 -0.02 0
-1 -0.02 -0.03 0
-1 -0.01 -0.03 0.001
0 -0.01 -0.03 0.001
0 0 -0.03 0
0 0.01 -0.03 0
0 0.02 -0.03 -0.002
1 0.02 -0.04 -0.003
1 0.04 -0.03 -0.004
2 0.04 -0.03 -0.005
3 0.05 -0.02 -0.005
4 0.07 -0.02 -0.005
5 0.08 -0.03 -0.004
5 0.1 -0.03 -0.004
5 0.11 -0.03 -0.005
6 0.12 -0.03 -0.003
7 0.13 -0.04 -0.002
7 0.14 -0.03 -0.001
8 0.15 -0.02 -0.001
10 0.16 -0.02 0
10 0.17 -0.02 0.001
11 0.19 -0.01 0.002
12 0.21 0.02 0.001
13 0.24 0.04 0.001
13 0.27 0.07 0.001
14 0.3 0.11 0.002
15 0.32 0.13 0.002
17 0.35 0.17 0.004
18 0.37 0.19 0.006
19 0.39 0.23 0.006
20 0.42 0.26 0.008
20 0.44 0.28 0.009
21 0.4 0.28 0.009

So if 1990 milk was 5 and 2007 was 20 does that mean cows had 4 times as much milk? Is this a result of Tom studying triple E boobs?
Back to top Go down
http://www.luingcattle.com
Tom D
Admin


Posts : 535
Join date : 2010-09-25
Age : 38
Location : Michigan

PostSubject: Re: Growth, fat and frame   Sun Oct 09, 2011 2:14 pm

I'm pretty sure that most triple E boobs are full of something other than milk. Milk was just an easy example, but you could look at many traits. My point is that medium for 2011 is not really medium at all. The average, or middle, of an extreme population is still extreme. Just like those Perth bull pictures; those blew me away. Pretty much the same exact type, the only difference being color. I can hardly fathom that people would try to turn Luings or Galloways into that type.
Back to top Go down
Kent Powell



Posts : 606
Join date : 2010-09-24
Location : SW Kansas

PostSubject: Re: Growth, fat and frame   Sun Oct 09, 2011 3:17 pm

I don't see medium as a dynamic point based on the rest of the population. I think of it as a more static term based on a range which is hard to classify as extreme regardless of trends. I think it is a vast improvement over the term average. Average being too interchangable with Median, which changes with the population trends.
Back to top Go down
http://powellangus.com
Grassfarmer



Posts : 845
Join date : 2010-09-27
Location : Belmont, Manitoba, Canada

PostSubject: Re: Growth, fat and frame   Sun Oct 09, 2011 3:41 pm

Tom D wrote:
I'm pretty sure that most triple E boobs are full of something other than milk. Milk was just an easy example, but you could look at many traits. My point is that medium for 2011 is not really medium at all. The average, or middle, of an extreme population is still extreme. Just like those Perth bull pictures; those blew me away. Pretty much the same exact type, the only difference being color. I can hardly fathom that people would try to turn Luings or Galloways into that type.

Took them less than 20 years in the Luing breed Tom to change from:



to:



Of course they are still marketed on the maternal reputation and characteristics they had in the old days - only now they come with Limo carcasses and they supposidly gave up nothing in the process Rolling Eyes
Not breeding - just changing as Mike says, wrapped in BS and marketed as "genetic progress"
Back to top Go down
http://www.luingcattle.com
EddieM



Posts : 895
Join date : 2010-09-24
Location : South Carolina

PostSubject: Re: Growth, fat and frame   Sun Oct 09, 2011 8:44 pm

Average, medium, mean, same old thing: The only control any of us have is with our own animals. Figure out your own "average" that works both with the animals and with the economics in your location and your management and breed for it. Other than that, watch out on what you buy and why you buy and how you breed: make sure it fits. Trying to figure out the shifting averages of a matrix from the 4 corners will never provide an answer, just more questions. I doubt that there is a lot of 1:1 comparatives in differences of decades on the increasing values for all of the EPDs.

We do not have the climate, soils, economic imputs or management to impress folks with numbers (have to depend on my good looks and the checks in the mail)! More just enjoying the things that will occur than hoping for something that happens somewhere else in the distance. Pretty dull but lets me sleep well at night knowing that nobody got conned. Just trying to act tough like the dry weather doesn't matter.
Back to top Go down
Guest
Guest



PostSubject: Re: Growth, fat and frame   Sun Oct 09, 2011 9:00 pm

Keystone wrote:
I don't see medium as a dynamic point based on the rest of the population. I think of it as a more static term based on a range which is hard to classify as extreme regardless of trends. I think it is a vast improvement over the term average. Average being too interchangable with Median, which changes with the population trends.



Ding, ding, ding!!! Folks we have a winner, at deciphering median, medium, and average. I believe Kent nailed it with the static basis of medium. It does not change with averages, and why poor Mike has failed with so many to understand. I always just chose to accept his average as a medium in all things, or moderation, but moderation has been bastardized so wholeheartedly, that a new term, catchphrase, definition, must surely be implemented to brainwash the wanting masses.


Bootheel, on a one day sabatical, cooking northern pork over an campfire, to test the goodness.
Back to top Go down
Guest
Guest



PostSubject: Re: Growth, fat and frame   Sun Oct 09, 2011 9:43 pm

Well I submit..... OK. or maybe alright. or will do or fair.

As in: Greg's OK used cattle

Or: These cattle will do.

Or: I guess they are alright.

Or: as Goldilocks said Just right...
Back to top Go down
Tom D
Admin


Posts : 535
Join date : 2010-09-25
Age : 38
Location : Michigan

PostSubject: Re: Growth, fat and frame   Sun Oct 09, 2011 10:47 pm

Or Keeney's famous: Well.....I guess she just about suits me....
Back to top Go down
Guest
Guest



PostSubject: Re: Growth, fat and frame   Mon Oct 10, 2011 7:55 am

Yes, of course,,, and good enough.
Back to top Go down
Guest
Guest



PostSubject: Re: Growth, fat and frame   Mon Oct 10, 2011 9:32 pm

Grassfarmer wrote:
[

So if 1990 milk was 5 and 2007 was 20 does that mean cows had 4 times as much milk? Is this a result of Tom studying triple E boobs? [/quote]


I am sure you know this Grassfarmer, but a plus 5 milk is not 4 times less. It simply means that the 20 will weigh 15 lbs more, due to milk, than the 5 will. But yes the epd is 4 times as much. I don't know how much more milk it takes to 15 lbs more at weaning, maybe a lot. I think many people look at the numbers the way you did, but maybe you were just distracted by the boobs. It seems to be coming up everywhere, Ben, Mark, Tom, all of 'em got them on their mind.


Bootheel
Back to top Go down
Grassfarmer



Posts : 845
Join date : 2010-09-27
Location : Belmont, Manitoba, Canada

PostSubject: Re: Growth, fat and frame   Tue Oct 11, 2011 12:21 am

You are right Bootheel, I know little of EPDs never having worked with them at all. But wouldn't the predicted difference in the progeny between a +20 and a +5 in fact be 7.5 rather than 15lbs? Don't you divide by two to account for the dilution of the bulls EPD by crossing it onto a female of unknown EPD? scratch
Whats the relevence of it all anyway? I can get 7.5lbs extra weaning weight by having a calf born 3 days earlier - fertility and short gestation selection being way more important than growth in my opinion. I don't care much about weaning weight anyway as I don't sell fresh weaned calves. The guys that do wean into the auction around here probably lose 8% more to shrink than I do. A 550lb calf @ 8% more shrink costs them 44lbs which would take a lot of milk or growth EPD to make up. Then again the order buyers are said to be experts at guessing shrink - not in my experience, they seem easily distracted especially around meal times. Maybe its different if you are selling load lots with a pencil shrink but the weight that is lost to shrink in the auctions around here is unreal, the health damage of the weaning into the auction system is horrendous too. I'm getting off topic so I'm calling it quits for the night. Perhaps I'll dream about some triple Es Smile
Back to top Go down
http://www.luingcattle.com
Guest
Guest



PostSubject: Re: Growth, fat and frame   Tue Oct 11, 2011 1:10 pm

Dang it DF, do you see how poorly you have educated the masses on EPDs. Here the smartest Scotsman I have ever met has all kinds of misconceptions. It probably is his own dang fault, for worrying about boobs more than numbers. A 20 is 20 lbs more at weaning due to milk than a 0. It is not diluted in half, until using them as parents, which would be an average of the parents, plus individual performance to increase accuracy, whether milk or yw, or ww, or height.


Bootheel, done discussing epd's with Scotsmen or Scotsman, whichever.
Back to top Go down
Sponsored content




PostSubject: Re: Growth, fat and frame   

Back to top Go down
 
Growth, fat and frame
View previous topic View next topic Back to top 
Page 1 of 2Go to page : 1, 2  Next
 Similar topics
-
» Moody's credit rating: Iraq will achieve economic growth of 8% over 4 years
» Nazi Germany's Night of the Long Knives, time frame of Jade Helm
» How To Make A Scrying Mirror
» Director of the Association of private banks: next year will see significant growth of the Iraqi banks
» FLOUR: U.S. on Iraq investment in electricity and water for growth

Permissions in this forum:You cannot reply to topics in this forum
Keeney`s Corner :: Breeding Philosophies :: Breeding Philosophies-
Jump to: