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
Real World Data VS EPDS
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="smnherf" data-source="post: 693947" data-attributes="member: 3235"><p>Maybe they did have an advantage, maybe they didn't, I don't know. Being out of first calf heifers may have been a disadvantage too. IMF is determined early on and the fact that they nursed 2 yr old heifers late into the fall on low protein grass shouldn't be to their advantage either versus older cows that can keep lactating longer.</p><p></p><p>I dont see how you can make any assumptions on growth potential or frame though. It is possible that they were fatter becasuce of the difference in ADG too. The 0232's gained 4.04 per day with a carcass wt of 851 vs 3.72 per day and 803 lb CW for the Boulder son. Sure they are smaller framed but are they more efficient, I don't know. Without individual intake data, and I have some idea of which sire group ate more based on past tests, all I can do is guess at that. It is possible that the Boulders with more days on feed would have a higher % grading choice and I suppose that the EPD model would adjust several of the IMF scores up to get to a standard level for bf, but then that final epd number won't take into account a very important component of feedlot profitability would it, and that is days on feed and ADG. The 0232's would have a huge advantage then in profitability and it wouldn't show in any of the EPDs. Is this logical thinking?</p><p></p><p>Brian</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="smnherf, post: 693947, member: 3235"] Maybe they did have an advantage, maybe they didn't, I don't know. Being out of first calf heifers may have been a disadvantage too. IMF is determined early on and the fact that they nursed 2 yr old heifers late into the fall on low protein grass shouldn't be to their advantage either versus older cows that can keep lactating longer. I dont see how you can make any assumptions on growth potential or frame though. It is possible that they were fatter becasuce of the difference in ADG too. The 0232's gained 4.04 per day with a carcass wt of 851 vs 3.72 per day and 803 lb CW for the Boulder son. Sure they are smaller framed but are they more efficient, I don't know. Without individual intake data, and I have some idea of which sire group ate more based on past tests, all I can do is guess at that. It is possible that the Boulders with more days on feed would have a higher % grading choice and I suppose that the EPD model would adjust several of the IMF scores up to get to a standard level for bf, but then that final epd number won't take into account a very important component of feedlot profitability would it, and that is days on feed and ADG. The 0232's would have a huge advantage then in profitability and it wouldn't show in any of the EPDs. Is this logical thinking? Brian [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Cattle Boards
Breeds Board
Real World Data VS EPDS
Top