EPD's and Fat

[RD-Sam]

What is the deal with the fat content and the EPD's? If you look at fat content they show the stuff in the minus to be in the top 1% or top 2%, yet when they talk about fat in the CAB guidlines they are saying more fat is better, up to .99 inches, I think in the .6 to .8 inch was ideal?

And on a somewhat related subject, they are saying the Ribeye should be in the 10 sq. in. to 16 sq. in. range, less is undesirable, but also more than that was undesirable too as it posed a problem with how to cut it. If you look at the EPD's they show the higher Ribeye numbers to be in the top percentages, what is up with that?

 

[dun]

The top % doesn;t alwasy mean better, just more (or less if it's BW). The idea is optimum not maximum. Haven;t looked at the CAB guidelines in a while, red herd so not much point. The backfat deal goes to YG, less BF is more likely to have a higher YG. I persoanlly like .25-.5 inch but we usually run closer to .5-.7.
I like a little more fat on my cows and try to use bulls with less to producer feeders. When looking at EPDs you have to remember that each breed is different as to what the actual value is. This is just a frinstance and not actual. A Hereford may have a BF of 0 and a Gelbvieh have a BF of .5, they could mean the same amount. But remember too that EPDs won;t tell you what the actual number to expect is, it's only a method of comparing animals. There is the conversion table deal that has numerical values for correcting EPDs for different breeds.

 

[Frankie]

I think you're confusing marbling (IMF) with backfat. CAB requires high IMF. Fat Thickness (FAT) is excess fat outside the cut that the packer or the butcher have to trim off and dispose of.

REA (Ribeye) is considered an indicator of muscling. Muscling is not a trait that Angus are known for, so people tend to select for more of it. But, you're right, ribeyes can get too big. Like other EPDs, they should be used to help select the animal bes for your operation.


http://www.angus.org/sireeval/howto.html

 

[RD-Sam]

It just seems odd that the fat in a negative value would put you in the top percentile when they are saying up to 1 inch of fat. They say optimal is .4 to .6 inches in the CAB book I just got. What they are telling me is that a leaner meat is better according to the EPD and the way they rank it. :?:

In the same token it seems odd that more Ribeye would put you in the top percentile when they say 16 should be the max, I know of many with 17 inches or so, and the ones in the top percentile have much more than that. :?:

 

[Avalon]

along the same lines as Frankie stated. (IMF) is suppose to be positive. It is the good fat. (FAT) This is the fat on the exterior that gets trimmed and fed to the dogs. Ergo Fat takes away from the amount of salable meat.So the lower amount you have on a claf / the more profit you have. Too much fat - too much in the trash can....
IMF - Good fat FAT - bad Fat

 

[RD-Sam]

along the same lines as Frankie stated. (IMF) is suppose to be positive. It is the good fat. (FAT) This is the fat on the exterior that gets trimmed and fed to the dogs. Ergo Fat takes away from the amount of salable meat.So the lower amount you have on a claf / the more profit you have. Too much fat - too much in the trash can....
IMF - Good fat FAT - bad Fat

Yep, I knew the IMF fat was a good thing, and it says the same thing in the CAB book. Do you have any idea how much the measurement would be in inches for Fat and have a 0 EPD?

 

[Frankie]

along the same lines as Frankie stated. (IMF) is suppose to be positive. It is the good fat. (FAT) This is the fat on the exterior that gets trimmed and fed to the dogs. Ergo Fat takes away from the amount of salable meat.So the lower amount you have on a claf / the more profit you have. Too much fat - too much in the trash can....
IMF - Good fat FAT - bad Fat

Yep, I knew the IMF fat was a good thing, and it says the same thing in the CAB book. Do you have any idea how much the measurement would be in inches for Fat and have a 0 EPD?

No. EPDs aren't ever a specific number. When our bulls come of a feed test, they generally have too much backfat. Those same bulls developed on grass would carry much less backfat.

Backfat is not all bad. Packers want some fat cover to stop the meat from drying out while it's hanging. Back fat on cows helps insulate them in cold weather, plus they can draw on it during times of low forage quality. So you have to figure how backfat fits into your program, just like other EPDs.

 

[DOC HARRIS]

along the same lines as Frankie stated. (IMF) is suppose to be positive. It is the good fat. (FAT) This is the fat on the exterior that gets trimmed and fed to the dogs. Ergo Fat takes away from the amount of salable meat.So the lower amount you have on a claf / the more profit you have. Too much fat - too much in the trash can....
IMF - Good fat FAT - bad Fat

Yep, I knew the IMF fat was a good thing, and it says the same thing in the CAB book. Do you have any idea how much the measurement would be in inches for Fat and have a 0 EPD?

No. EPDs aren't ever a specific number. When our bulls come of a feed test, they generally have too much backfat. Those same bulls developed on grass would carry much less backfat.

Backfat is not all bad. Packers want some fat cover to stop the meat from drying out while it's hanging. Back fat on cows helps insulate them in cold weather, plus they can draw on it during times of low forage quality. So you have to figure how backfat fits into your program, just like other EPDs.

RD-Sam-

In written exchange(s!) that you and I had several months ago, I pointed out that the different EPD's on various traits were not a TEMPLATE to be used for an ABSOLUTE, SET GOAL to be used for every circumstance in order to MOLD your seedstock into, and therefore have a guaranteed "cookie stamp" from which you could pop-out calves - all of which would be just exactly alike!

As Frankie said, the different Positives (+) or Negatives (-) depend entirely on the characteristic(s) about which were are concerned. A negative (-) prediction is desirable when mating two individuals with a disparity of extremes in order to approach a desirable "happy medium" with their progeny's genetics. The same principle applies to the subject of FAT, about which you seem to be confused. ...another feature, or element, which we must be aware of, is that the percentages of Fat which is being appraised and reported in the EPD charts is listed in the thousandth's of the total. THOUSANDTH'S! That is merely an indication of something that is - somewhat - insignificant in the overall analysis of the interpretation, or conception, of an individual. The combining of ALL the information is important, but the application of that knowledge is precarious in the cumulative application of that data!

The critical pertinence in understanding the relevance of importance of EPD's is how to APPLY the knowledge of Expected Progeny DIFFERENCES when planning sensible matings - NOT attempting to refute EVERY question, or expedite EVERY expectation regarding the "Building of the PERFECT BEEF ANIMAL". If that were even slightly possible, some of the best breeders in the business would have found the Formula - -a L - O - O - O NG time ago.

Hasn't happened - YET! There are different reasons for some breeder's seeking one trait percentage over another - or one EPD over another, and one can never know what the ultimate subliminal justifications may be for their reasoning.

Probably never will!

DOC HARRIS

 

[RD-Sam]

Doc, that is all well and good, but I think you got away from the questions I asked, which was #1, why does a negative fat value put the animal in the top percentile? #2, why does a positive REA put an animal in the top percentile when they exceed the 16 inch max rule by a mile? I understand how to do simple math and adjust EPD's, that isn't a problem for me. I'm one of those people that want to know WHY something is the way it is, it helps me understand things better. :dunce:

 

[DOC HARRIS]

sam-

Read it again. Carefully! It does answer your question, in part, specifically. The other part regarding REA size sort of requires common sense interpretation in the overall BU$INE$$ of bottom-line beef production. As my answer inferred, sometimes TOO BIG is TOO BIG! How the 'ratings' apply must be interpreted in their logical connotations.

I was under the impression that we went through this process once before last spring!

Maybe not.

DOC HARRIS

 

[RD-Sam]

I can see your point in regards to the fat. Many breeders use that big REA as advertisement, just like $B and other things. Is that because the general breeding population doesn't realize that too big of a Ribeye is not desirable, or is it a problem to obtain a desirable ribeye?