Growth, fat and frame

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.

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.

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?

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.

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...

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?

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

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...

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...

Are 5-6 frame fat cattle an improvement over 0-00 frame fat cattle, or is it just a difference in preferances?

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...

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.

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

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?

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.

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.

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
Not breeding - just changing as Mike says, wrapped in BS and marketed as "genetic progress"

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.

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.

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...

Or Keeney's famous: Well.....I guess she just about suits me....

Yes, of course,,, and good enough.

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

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?
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

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.