I don't know why your wasting your time messing with off brand breeds and trying to lead people down the path of destruction.
http://pubs.ext.vt.edu/news/livestock/2 ... -10-4.html
If you look at the link provided you can see that it not only provides across breed epd's in the top table, but the bottom table then shows you that Angus is superior not only in decreased BW but also the spread to higher YW on a breed basis- only breeds with better YW are Charolais, and Simmental.
Before anyone gets their feathers ruffled, I'm not knocking any bread- the data being thrown around just doesn't seem legit to me.
I understand sample sizes and statistical priciples. But in my small sample population- I have not experienced the across breed epd's being close to accurate when making adjustments. I bred a few shorthorn/angus crosses 2 years ago to experiment with some F1 females. The bull had a BW of 0.9 and breed average for SH in 09 was 2.0 per the sire summary report. So taking into account the across breed epd of SH BW of 6.4- the calves should have been below average for SH but above average still for Angus.
Compared to an angus bull with a 2.2 BW with a breed average of 1.9, the bull would be slightly above average BW for angus.
Using across breed averages for BW Angus 0.0 Shorthorn 6.4
Shorthorn bull would be= 0.9 + 6.4 = 7.3 lbs
Angus bull would be= 2.2 + 0 = 2.2 lbs
So a difference of 7.3-2.2 = 5.1 lbs heavier BW for the shorthorn bull.
My findings were that the calves were considerably smaller than average. They were not average and especially not 5 lbs heavier.
Again, I know I have a small population and therefor will not prove or disprove anything. But it is enough, for me to take notice and question the values being used.