Menu
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
New profile posts
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Members
Current visitors
New profile posts
Search profile posts
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles and first posts only
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Forums
Cattle Boards
Breeds Board
EPD's and Fat
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Help Support CattleToday:
Message
<blockquote data-quote="RD-Sam" data-source="post: 581751" data-attributes="member: 7927"><p>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. :?: </p><p></p><p>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. :?:</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="RD-Sam, post: 581751, member: 7927"] 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. :?: [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Cattle Boards
Breeds Board
EPD's and Fat
Top