The problem with EPDs...

[ArmyDoc]

...is that they assume you know the baseline. EPDs tell you how much and in what direction a particular bull's offspring are likely to varry from the average bull of that breed, correct?

But where do you find out what the average for that breed is in the first place? So a Weaning weight is +20. 20# higher than what?

I'm trying to learn about various breeds, in order to choose what I want to raise. It is almost impossible to find information even basic facts like the average height / frame size, the average weight for a bull, cow or steer.

I know this data must exist somewhere. To calculate the EPD for yearling weight, you have to know what the average is. But I can't find it anywhere.

Any one know where I can find basic information on cattle size and weight? I've tried the breed description site here and at OKState, but the best they say is Large average or moderate. Anyone know where I might find the size & and weights published in terms of inches and pounds?

I'm interested in learning about Gelbvieh, Red Angus, Red poll, Senepol in particular, but also any other cows that might be a bit smaller than average (say frame 1-3) and do well on grass alone.

Thanks.

 

[dun]

EPDs show the difference between 2 indivdual animals, not the breed average. Each breed associaiotns website will have a table of the breeds average EPDs. Nothing tells you what the actual weights would be, just the variation of the particualr EPD when 2 animals are bred to similar animals. Our Red ANgus avergae around 78 pounds for BW. That includes the 80 plus pound ones and the lighter ones. If Isat down and figured the average this year it would end up lighter because our bull threw calves that averaged around 52 pounds.
What i'm trying to say and doing a lousey job of is that a BW EPD of 0 doesn;t mean a specific weight. If you breed 2 bulls to the same basic cow if a bull has a BW EPD of +2 and another bull with a BW EPD of 0 you don;t know what weight the calf will be just that the one bulls calves will weigh on average 2 pounds more. But the accuracy of the EPD comes into play and the variation of expected BW for a bull with an accuracy of .15 will be greater then a bull with an accuracy of .85. You have to dig around but the Red Angus site has tables that show you based on accuracy what the possible varitation is. One other thing to remember is that even at .99 accuracy the calves would only be expected to fall within that range 66% of the time. That's the old bell curve deal coming into play

 

[6M Ranch]

Dun is right. I believe the AAA set the baseline back in '78. They took the herd average, and set that to zero. A +20 BW EPD would be 20 pounds heavier than the average back then. Now, a +40 bull vs. a +20 bull, the +40 bull would throw 20 pound heavier calves, on average, vs. the +20 bull, from the same cow. On a small grouping, you would never see this played out. The cow is the other 50 - 60% of the factor. The environment and other things also play a roll. The AAA also has a chart that has a correction factor vs. other breeds. EPD's don't tell you that Angus cows throw 80 pound calves. This chart might be what you're looking for, it applies to Angus. These are weight, height, and scrotal numbers for reported animals.
http://www.angussiresearch.com/ahir_ave.html

 

[Jogeephus]

Good post Dun. Now for the dumb question of the day. Can you find out what the coefficient of variation is on any particular set of epd's?

 

[dun]

Can you find out what the coefficient of variation is on any particular set of epd's?

HUH??????????????? The only coefficient I know about is ballistic.

 

[ArmyDoc]

Thanks for the correction on EPDs. I knew you used them to compare one Bull to another. I guess I just assumed that zero would be the average for everyone.

But back to the real question - is there any place that talks about average sizes for a breed in concrete terms? I've been to a few sites talking about their "moderate frame cattle" but on further research the smalles frame bull they have were 4.5, with most 5 and quite a few larger. Seems moderate means different things to different people.

Thanks 6M Ranch for the link on Angus. I found it very interesting that the height for yearling bulls has increased from 44 inches (frame size 2.5) to 50.4 inches (frame size 5.5) since 1972! I knew that it had increased, I didn't know it was that much.

Maybe I need to be asking a different question.

Say I buy into the smaller frame sized efficiency argument for grass fed beef, and I want to raise cattle that are frame size 2-3. What breeds should I be looking at to do that?

Or does it matter - in other words, should I pick the breed I like based on other characteristics, and only sellect frame size 2-3 animals to breed?

Thanks again for all your help. I learn something new everytime I come here.

 

[6M Ranch]

Not sure about the continental breeds, but I think you can pick one of the British breeds, and choose animals within that breed that suit your needs. I've seen frame 9 Angus, on down. I've got a heifer calf, out of a first calf heifer, that is out of a frame 9 bull. So far, she appears to be heading towards 5 - 6 frame size. Frame size 5 - 6 is common with Angus. It shouldn't be too hard to find frame 4 - 5. You could also choose the Lowlines, or the mini Herfs. Point of all this rambling, pick a breed, then look for animals to suit your operation.

 

[Ryder]

pick a breed, then look for animals to suit your operation.

Good point. You can get so deep into trying to figure out everything to the last decimal point that you lose the perspective of commomn sense.

Select a good basic breed for your area you like. Then work from there.

 

[ArmyDoc]

Thanks guys. I think you're right. It's my surgeon's temperment coming through - wanting to have everything figured out before I start. A good thing in surgery, not always practical in real life.

I don't think I want to go all the way down to miniatures, but I probably need to take a look at them too. That I think is my the major source of my frustration. I'm trying to do everything over the internet instead of getting out and seeing the animals in question. Unfortunately I can't actually look at anything until I get back from Iraq. Well, only 4 more months...

Thanks again!

 

[dun]

Thanks for the correction on EPDs. I knew you used them to compare one Bull to another. I guess I just assumed that zero would be the average for everyone.

But back to the real question - is there any place that talks about average sizes for a breed in concrete terms? I've been to a few sites talking about their "moderate frame cattle" but on further research the smalles frame bull they have were 4.5, with most 5 and quite a few larger. Seems moderate means different things to different people.

Thanks 6M Ranch for the link on Angus. I found it very interesting that the height for yearling bulls has increased from 44 inches (frame size 2.5) to 50.4 inches (frame size 5.5) since 1972! I knew that it had increased, I didn't know it was that much.

Maybe I need to be asking a different question.

Say I buy into the smaller frame sized efficiency argument for grass fed beef, and I want to raise cattle that are frame size 2-3. What breeds should I be looking at to do that?

Or does it matter - in other words, should I pick the breed I like based on other characteristics, and only sellect frame size 2-3 animals to breed?

Thanks again for all your help. I learn something new everytime I come here.

I'm trying to comprehend the fixation with from 2-3 cattle. If you are going with a strictly grassfed product you don;t need to go that small to achieve a finished carcass with only forage as feed.
With animals thats small you would be locked into direct sales only. Surplus animals would have nil value to the cattle feeders/slaughter houses.
There are genetics available that can finish on forage at an age of less then 2 yeasr and still have an acceptable carcass.
Just some thoughts from someone that remembers the belt buckle cattle.

 

[ArmyDoc]

I was under the impression that the larger cattle took longer to finish on grass and that the smaller frame cattle are more feed efficient, allowing them to finish in 12-15 months, thus avoiding toughness due to age. Is this not correct?

I thought the change to feedlot finishing was what drove the size increase in the 70s, and that to get back to grassfed finishing, you would have to tap into the genetics from before this, and the sizes that went with it.

It sounds like you're telling me this isn't the case.

 

[dun]

I was under the impression that the larger cattle took longer to finish on grass and that the smaller frame cattle are more feed efficient, allowing them to finish in 12-15 months, thus avoiding toughness due to age. Is this not correct?

I thought the change to feedlot finishing was what drove the size increase in the 70s, and that to get back to grassfed finishing, you would have to tap into the genetics from before this, and the sizes that went with it.

It sounds like you're telling me this isn't the case.

It doesn;t have to be the case.A lot of 4.5-5 frame animals will finish at 18 months to a 2 years of age on forage. Besides genetics the key key is the forage itself. Some will finish on just good quality pasture grass but grazing cereal grains, i.e. winter wheat, rye, etc., during the times when pasture quilaty declines is what is needed. In the south maybe some of the tropical pasture grasses would work the same way. To marble it's (according to studys I've seen) a continual process. Can;t go from good forage that has them really putting on weight to crappy forage and slower growth then accelerate it again.Just with our few piddly cows we see calves that will finish on pasture, even with our poor quality grazing, by 18 months. Some straight bred Red Angus but most have a little Hereford with the Red Angus.
If you get an opportunity you might want to visit with Kit Pharo or some of his co-producers. Persoanlly I think he's seeling snake oil. But our customers/buyers aren;t looking for small framed calves and they aren;t looking for "grass fed" genetics.

 

[Brandonm2]

If small cattle were more feed efficient in the feedlot I think we would ALL have small cattle. They are not. It is actually the reverse. Since they are early maturing, they rapidly max out their bone and muscle growth and begin laying on fat. Often the dinky little frame 1s and 2s would get fat as stockers on good grass and then go to the feedlot and while they would grade Choice and Prime the feedlot didn't make any money on them because the carcass was so fat that it yielded poorly and a pound of fat takes twice as much energy (feed) too lay on than does a pound of muscle. Now the smaller you can get the mama cows back on the farm the greater the efficiency. Good frame 2 cows will wean 50-65% of their body weight all day long and do it on 2/3s of the grass and supplement of a frame 7 cows. Lee Leachman uses the number that you can run 16% more 1100 lb cows than you can 1500 lb cows on any piece of ground. I do think that frame 2-3 cows are preferable to standard 5.5 to 7 frame cows in a grass fattening regime (less days to market); BUT you will get hammered any time those little calves get near a stockyard. For a new operation I would recommend staying in that 4.0 to 5.5 spot (USDA Medium) where most of your calves aren't too big for grass and aren't too small to represent well in the feedlot. You can gain or lose a frame score easily as the market dictates.

 

[OK Jeanne]

Our cows are typically 3.5 to 4 frame and we use
bulls that are about 5 frame or at least close to it.
The steers don't have any problem finishing out on
forage alone unless you are in a severe drought and
don't have irrigation.

If you start small and gradually increase your numbers
you certainly won't have any trouble selling the beef and
will likely develop a waiting list. Even cull cows can b e
sold as hamburger and you won't need to visit any
salebarn.

The time that you should harvest usually is dictated by
your location/weather pattern. We finish on winter
pasture and start them to the butcher in late Jan to Feb.
That is also the time many people are getting income
tax refunds.

 

[ArmyDoc]

If small cattle were more feed efficient in the feedlot I think we would ALL have small cattle. They are not. It is actually the reverse. Since they are early maturing, they rapidly max out their bone and muscle growth and begin laying on fat. Often the dinky little frame 1s and 2s would get fat as stockers on good grass and then go to the feedlot and while they would grade Choice and Prime the feedlot didn't make any money on them because the carcass was so fat that it yielded poorly and a pound of fat takes twice as much energy (feed) too lay on than does a pound of muscle. .

Exactly. The smaller cattle are not good for the feed lot from what I've read - they put on too much fat. That's why the move to larger animals which will put on more meat, thus more efficient for the feed lot producer.

Now the smaller you can get the mama cows back on the farm the greater the efficiency. Good frame 2 cows will wean 50-65% of their body weight all day long and do it on 2/3s of the grass and supplement of a frame 7 cows. Lee Leachman uses the number that you can run 16% more 1100 lb cows than you can 1500 lb cows on any piece of ground. .

This is why I was leaning towards the frame size 2-3 cattle. I don't want to sell to the feed lots. I want to finish them myself on grass and ideally sell directly to my customers. (assuming I can develop a market).

I do think that frame 2-3 cows are preferable to standard 5.5 to 7 frame cows in a grass fattening regime (less days to market); BUT you will get hammered any time those little calves get near a stockyard. For a new operation I would recommend staying in that 4.0 to 5.5 spot (USDA Medium) where most of your calves aren't too big for grass and aren't too small to represent well in the feedlot. You can gain or lose a frame score easily as the market dictates.

I think this is what Dun was getting at. Is it the consensus that while a frame size 2 to 3 may be fine for grass finishing, it will not sell well at all in the open market? Basically, if I go that small I will ONLY be able to do direct sales?

I'd like to be as flexible as possible. While grassfed beef and direct sales is my ultimate goal, we all know draughts happen and sometimes you have to reduce a herd on an the open market.

So, if that were to happen, what is the minimum size that could be sold at an open sale with out getting dinged for size?

Maybe I should post this as a sepparate post, since it kind of gets away fromt he topic of the original question.

 

[Brandonm2]

I'd like to be as flexible as possible. While grassfed beef and direct sales is my ultimate goal, we all know draughts happen and sometimes you have to reduce a herd on an the open market.

So, if that were to happen, what is the minimum size that could be sold at an open sale with out getting dinged for size?

Maybe I should post this as a sepparate post, since it kind of gets away fromt he topic of the original question.

There is no hard and fast answer here. Every cow whether she is a frame 1 or a frame 8 has the capacity to have calves both smaller and bigger than herself. As you get bigger with your cow size the greater the likelihood of getting heifers that are TOO big for your environment and management. The opposite is also true. "In theory" a 4.0 cow bred to a 4.0 bull is not too small to hit the market goal; but in practice they ARE going to periodically throw some small dinky calves that don't 'fit' the mold and which will get docked hard. The smaller you go with cow herd size the more dinks you get

 

[Aero]

Good post Dun. Now for the dumb question of the day. Can you find out what the coefficient of variation is on any particular set of epd's?

i have tried a few times and i never get a response.

i just want to be able to see the variation in ratios based on a sire group.

 

[Conagher]

Good post Dun. Now for the dumb question of the day. Can you find out what the coefficient of variation is on any particular set of epd's?

i have tried a few times and i never get a response.

i just want to be able to see the variation in ratios based on a sire group.

My thinking is this information exists, or at least the raw data does. For example, AHIR information submitted to the AAA should include the actuals for which this information could be calculated. However, when I asked an AAA rep for the standard deviation and sigma data, he stated they do not collect this information.

 

[dun]

However, when I asked an AAA rep for the standard deviation and sigma data, he stated they do not collect this information.

Do you think that might have been a "Huh"?

 

[alabama]

Good post Dun. Now for the dumb question of the day. Can you find out what the coefficient of variation is on any particular set of epd's?

If you are talking about the coefficient of variation on any particular EPD for a particular animal, I think it is expressed as something called accuracy. It is a number between 0 and 1 that as it approaches 1 the EPD can be considered being more accurate. In the Angus EPS’s you can look up the expected variation of an EPD based on the accuracy.
Is that what you were asking?