Calving Ease, Birth Weight and EPD's

[simtal]

the answer to the lack of data is having a total herd reporting system.  Sure, most people dont like it, and think its something similar to NAID or healthcare, but its the only way to increase the accuracy of epds.  Or provide some kind of incentive to report data.  The more I think about this issue the more comparisons can be made to the government.

 

[JoeBnTN]

RFL,

You’re asking the right questions and I’m going to try to answer some of these.  The best explanation of calving ease EPD’s and their relationship to birth weight that I’ve read is found at: http://www.angus.org/Nce/Documents/BytheNumbers0107.pdf

Something that I would offer is that while breed associations’ formulas for calculating EPD’s are similar they are not always exactly the same.  As such you need to know what exactly is being measured to get the information.  As an example, some breeds use a 3 point scoring system for calving ease, i.e.  1-no assistance, 2- moderate assistance 3- hard or mechanical assistance; other breed use a 5 point scale.  Also, most of the information is from first calf females, which as noted above creates a bias in the information, as most breeders use lower birth weight bulls in breeding heifers.  The reason you can make a good estimate of calving ease EPD is the high correlation (about 75%) between birth weight and calving ease.

You are correct about the accuracy of the data in the Angus and Red Angus breeds – there is considerably greater data available therefore the accuracies are much higher.  As Sue has noted, for the Shorthorn breed to make progress in developing a reliable data base breeders must become more diligent in reporting the information on all calves in a contemporary group, not just the ones that have acceptable information.  That information should include not only birth weights, but weaning and yearling information and calving ease scores at minimum. 

The proper use of EPD’s should help account for the environmental impacts you describe, provided there is an adequate number of animals for comparison.  While I don’t know the exact difference, in the example you described, if Grant and I both used Leader (+1.2), Timeline (+5.2) and Leroy (+5.2) to breed heifers, we would expect Leader to produce calves on average that were 4 pounds lighter than the other bulls – regardless of the actual weight.  That’s why the EPD information is considered a more reliable predictor than the actual birth weight.  As long the relationships between the bulls remained consistent – the fact that they weights vary would not affect the actual EPD numbers. 

 

[sue]

Let's not confuse calving ease with birth weight> I feel alot of Shorthorn breeders really dont understand the difference between the two:

Hillside Leader is siring calves that come unassisted then his CE will rise to a posititve number provided information is turned in to ASA. In other words selection for just a( -)BEPD  does not always give a breeder enough information THAT'S WHY WE SHOULD PRINT CALVING EASE EPD'S IN SALE CATALOGS.

THE FOLKS IN THE NORTH should be happy to know that even if a sire is consistantly  throwing 100-110 lb birth weight calves and they all come unassisted well then this bull would still have the more desirable CALVING EASE EPD (+).  If you look at a bull like SASKVALLEY BONANZA OR MANY OF THE SASKVALLEY BULLS UP THERE. Thank you Saskvalley for printing CE in the catalog. Suppose I am a breeder in alabama and I am looking at a bull in Canada- epds help sort the differences.

Are you still confused Joe or Grant ?
Let me review again: If you have a +3.0 CE bull and a -11.0 CE  bull the + is better then the - regardless of the weight of the calves - CE is a measure of calving unassisted.  BEPD is a measure of calf weight at birth . It's a tool and since ASA added it alot refuse to print because they just dont get it?  Be sure and record the ww weights of Hillside Leader and Yearling wts too alot of his calves are not recorded.

Sue,

I don’t think I’ve ever been confused on the difference between birth weight and calving ease – in fact I’ve read a fair amount of the research related to the subject – including US, Australian and European research.   All of these conclude much of the same thing (and we all know this) –there is a high negative correlation between birth weight and calving ease, i.e. as birth weights increase, calving ease decreases.  

As work at Iowa State noted however, the problem with the data set is that most of the early work (using the Angus Association’s records) is from information representing predominately first calf females and their calving ease.  Because few people in that breed used anything but low birth weight bulls for heifers – the data has a built in bias toward these same bulls.  Because of this there was very little reliable data on the “calving ease” impact of heavier birth weight bulls.  Also there was very little data on birth weight and calving ease impacts on mature females, so many bulls that were never used on heifers have little to no actual data in their EPD's.   As such the Iowa State research recommended using birth weight EPD’s as the most reliable indicator of calving ease for first calf females.   I don’t know how the Shorthorn data set was developed, so I can’t comment on the exact effect on our breed, but I would assume the trends would be similar.

What has been noted in some more recent work is the cumulative effective of this selection pressure.  We all know that birth weight is highly correlated with weaning and yearling weights, so as selection pressure is placed on lowering birth weight (or increased calving ease) we tend to see a decrease in the size of the next generation.  As these animals enter production it requires an even greater emphasis on selecting for easier calving, since they are generally smaller than the preceding generation.  If this continues the end result is either a significant loss of total performance in the gene pool or selection for phenotypic traits, like smaller bone, less muscle, etc. that could enhance the calving process.

The most obvious answer and the one that much of the research substantiates is that selection pressures should look for optimums among birth weight, growth, mature size, etc. so that succeeding generations of cattle will meet the total needs of the industry.  From a purely economic perspective, this gets to the issue most commercial producers face – how do I optimize the total dollar returned per cow owned.  Using this model, we have to balance the desire for 100% live calf crop with the need for maximum pounds at market/harvest.  As some of our American breeds are finding out – producers are more than willing to risk losing a calf or two a year in order to increase weaning weight 50 pounds.  Why – in a 50 cow herd with $1 per pound 500 lb. weaned calves, that equates to an increase in profit of $1400 (48 calves at an increase value of $50 per head minus the 2 lost @$500 each).

I fully agree with you that, in order to make progress, we need our breeders to submit data on all their calves – otherwise the relevance of our data base is minimized.  One of our biggest problems is that, for many of our cattle, the numbers of observations are so low that it makes it difficult to get a level of accuracy that you can be comfortable with.  And, as I think we found with the Canadian cattle (Grant or Bob correct me if I’m wrong), getting a baseline established for their EPD’s, when there was no previous data, was difficult and may explain the high degree of variability that is being found.

In addition, in looking at the work of Bonsma and others, the observations that Grant made about the role of skeletal design in the female, have great relevance.   As we have redesigned the American bovine to meet the “eye appeal” test we have negatively impacted the natural birth path way.  By elevating the hip bones we have increased the “push” required to get a calf down the birth canal.  That’s why it seems a Bos Taurus bred female seems to be able to give birth to a baby elephant with no trouble – their pelvic and hip area is designed to accommodate the birth of the calf.  

I cannot think of a single outfit in this country that is NOT  loooking at cost/lb of gain Or fewer days on feed?? Or a operation taking a closer look at REDUCing mature cow weight \\. The day of the ton cow  RAISING A DEAD CALF  is over and LONG over
. Call Lee Leachman and ask him how many he wants ? Form does follow function- if you chase BIG WEANING WTS THEN GUESS WHAT YOU GET BIG MATURE SIZE.
Alot of your study was being taught when I was in college in 1989 ? Like in the days of frame = growth=lbs?
British composite never looked better...

 

[justintime]

The effects of environment must be significant as we are having the easiest calving season along with the lowest BWs we have had in probably over a decade. Last winter we had a nasty long cold winter and many of our BWs were higher.... but not all of them. I had two ET heifers born yesterday from Major Leroy and a Sonny donor that weighs over a ton. They were 84 and 88 lbs. I was wondering since I did this flush if I may have stacked some BW up here, but we now have 3 of these ET calves from this flush and haven't had a 90 lb calf yet. Besides having lower BWs, I can never remember more lively calves. One of the ET calves was literally running as hard as it could go a few hours after birth, and the Angus recip mom was having a hard time keeping up with it. It was really funny to watch it.

My question is, seeing my BWs are lower this year, will these weights distort the EPDs potentially more than they should, or does it take many of sets of data to move these numbers significantly?

 

[justintime]

Sue,
I keep hearing that everyone is trying to raise smaller framed cows, yet I have been watching the spring bull sales and I wonder what is happening. The Shaff Angus Valley sale in North Dakota averaged $8800 on 500 bulls. I looked at their sale catalog, and many of these bulls had weaning weights of 1000 lb +. I was amazed how many bulls selling had huge weaning weights and there were several that had 1045-1060 lb weaning weights. I heard that lots of these bulls were weighing 1500 -1600 lbs in February at this sale.

Last week I attended the Sooline Angus sale, which is close to where I live. They also had several bulls weighing 1500- 1600 lbs at 14 months. Again, it was a strong sale with some of the biggest bulls selling for more than $20,000.

I have also attended two industry meetings in the past 6 weeks, and we were told that the feedlots are demanding cattle that will grow to larger carcass sizes than ever before. I remember one industry speaker reporting that the average carcass size has never been larger that it was in 2009. I have also questioned the logic to this, but it seems it is a definite trend. This is not just a Canadian trend, as the feeding industry is basically a North American driven market. It was also reported at both of these conferences, that smaller framed calves, have for the first time in many years, started to be discounted at the auction markets. The discounts for small carcass weights are also the highest in history. One speaker runs one of the largest order buying businesses  in Canada, and he said it is no longer enough for good feeder calves to just have thickness, capacity and hair, but they now had to also had to have enough frame to enable them to be fed to larger finished weights than in the past.

In a Q and A session, one large rancher asked why we have not seen the prices for cattle start to increase, as the North American cow herd was at 1952 levels? We were told that there are several reasons for this, but the main one is that while the number of cattle slaughtered has decreased substantially, the total pounds of beef has not dropped significantly at all.

So I guess I am asking why are there so many mixed messages in the beef industry right now. Here in Canada, the spring bull sales are in full swing. I am simply amazed how some of the larger framed breeds are having run away sales. Lots of Simmental and Charolais sales averaging $5000 or more. There have been a couple Simmental sales with large numbers of bulls average over $7000. Wheatland's Simmi sale averaged $9500, and some of these bulls sold to commercial buyers.

So, if these are what the feedlots, and the industry leaders are demanding, are the cow calf people going to continue to move towards smaller cow size. I have no problem with smaller cow size, providing they can be crossed with terminal sires that will still produce calves that will work for the feed lots.  The main factor that has always influenced cow size more than anything else is still the environment in which they are raised, and the management that is provided. The optimum cow size in a large Wyoming or Colorado ranch could be quite different from the optimum cow size on an lush pasture in the Midwest. This will never change, and that is why we need to be conscious of the fact that we need to produce slightly different breeding stock for different environments.

I would also agree that feed efficiency is going to become more and more of an economical factor, not only in the cow calf herds, but in the feedlots as well. Here in Western Canada, we are seeing a slow but steady movement of cattlemen using Shorthorn bulls, because the Shorthorn and Shorthorn cross calves being finished in the feedlots are proving to be extremely efficient and able to achieve the best grades at younger ages. For the first time in my life, we are actually seeing Shorthorn sired calves topping feeder sales.

I guess what I am saying here, is I hear many people making the same comments that Sue has made, in that everyone is striving for smaller cow size and more efficiencies. Then I hear some industry people saying that they want cattle that will feed to higher finished weights, and also see the big framed breeds have record breaking bull sales. Can both of these be right? I'm all for searching for increased efficiency, but I think we have to be careful that we still produce a product that the industry is wanting and demands.

 

[HCCHSS]

One question...can you cut numbers up and put them on a dinner plate?

I believe that EPD's do have a place but the most important attributes of a beef animal are not represented. Where's the EPD for depth of body, what about structural soundness or thickness. How on earth did people raise good cattle 40 years ago?

I raise purebred cattle in Alberta, Canada and it always makes me chuckle when I have an american see a pic of my animals and be interested, so I show them the pedigree...oooh complete outcross, then I show them the EPD's and I have never see someone change there mind so damn fast( you see since I don't have a huge amount of varience in weights in my herd whether it been birth, weaning or yearling, I don't have emtreme indexes either way and the EPD's change very, very slowly!)!

But you know what my favorite thing in sale catologs is, when the EPD's are the only data they give you, no actual BW or nothing. And sue as for your post in the Sun Country topic about wasting your time looking the numbers up...if I were that serious about buying something I would call that time invested...time invested into making smart breeding decisions to know everything about that animal so you don't need EPD's to tell what those genetics are capable of!

Cuz in the end all EPD's are are a shortcut!  

 

[trevorgreycattleco]

JIT Schaff's has bred for performance since the 40's. Their cows have imppecable udders and are deep barreled awesome cows. With that said, to get those ww they are creep feeding the beezwax out of those calves. It's nice to have a breeder pushing the limiit of what his herd can do. He obviously does something right because of the following he has. His cattle have been PROVEN to work in the real world. Will they give you 1000 pound ww? NO! Will they make great easy keeping females? Yes! If you want to put the resources into your calves over the years you may eventually get there but how many of us even care about pushing cattle that hard? I'm a straight GRASS operation and his cattle still work. And I would like to point out to his bulls are all CURVE BENDERS. Light bw, explosive growth. even his higher bw bulls are still lighter than most shorthorns. That guy has made bulls work when most angus breeders could not i.e. Bando 5175 or GAR Integrity. His sons for the most part mature out at a 6 frame and weigh on average 2200 to 2500 so he has been able to moderate the growth and requirements once they reach adulthood. I wonder how many shorthorn herds out there that can say that? What is Timeline's mature weight and hip height. My trump son weighed 2850 when I shipped him and was over a 7 frame. IMO higher bw usually indicate hard keeping bigger framed adults. Sorry but on grass, those genetics don't work. If shorthorns are ever going to get to play with the big boys we need to be honest with ourselves about the TRUE calving ease bulls. We need to identify the curve benders of our own breed. I called Nick Hammet a few years back and asked him for a list of the shorthorn's curve bender bulls are. He laughed and said well I'm sorry but they DON'T EXSIST. That blew my mind and now IMO there are two that have a chance at being the first. Rob Sneed's 034 and Captain Obvious are right there. I don't care about the politics folks I care about improving this GREAT breed and these bulls bring more to the table then any I have seen yet. Are they perfect? No way but they offer the ability to fix alot of what the main lines lack. They offer calving ease with good growth and good carcass data. Wow sounds like a curve bender. Just Imagine if a Shorthorn bull sold for 210,000 like one did the other day at Conneally's. Until ALL breeders report ALL the data on ALL their calves, the system won't have any merit IMO. Try selling bulls to a commercial guy when you tell him "Well the epd's are all screwed up right now but I promise he is a easy calver!" We should not get a paper on any calf until our whole herd has been reported and recorded. think of the improvement we could make if we just actually let the cattle sort themselves instead of pushing a round peg into a square hole.

 

[JoeBnTN]

I cannot think of a single outfit in this country that is NOT  loooking at cost/lb of gain Or fewer days on feed?? Or a operation taking a closer look at REDUCing mature cow weight \\. The day of the ton cow  RAISING A DEAD CALF  is over and LONG over
. Call Lee Leachman and ask him how many he wants ? Form does follow function- if you chase BIG WEANING WTS THEN GUESS WHAT YOU GET BIG MATURE SIZE.
Alot of your study was being taught when I was in college in 1989 ? Like in the days of frame = growth=lbs?
British composite never looked better...

Sue,

I would never try to suggest what customers in other parts of the country might desire – as environmental and feed resources create different demands for the right type and size of cattle.  What I can tell you from this part of the world is that the premium is being paid for cattle that still have some size and growth.  Over the past 90 days I’ve been through three groups of bulls that sold primarily to commercial breeders.  All had performance test data and EPD’s.  With over 200 bulls selling, with only a very few exceptions, the premium and greatest demand was for bulls that were slightly larger framed, with above average performance – both in actual performance and based on EPD’s.  While I didn’t take time to actually compete the figures, I would estimate that the “ideal” bull for these buyers was one that was a 6-6.5 frame, was at or near breed average for BW and at least 10% higher than breed average for growth traits. 

Perhaps more interesting was the demand for the “calving ease” bulls – and one sale actually identified these specifically.  With this group, the vast majority that fell into this category were smaller framed, lighter muscled and finer boned.  Their growth traits – both actual and projected with EPD’s were typically below the average.  The demand for these bulls was minimal and the prices paid were usually below sale average.  The exception was 2-3 bulls that had very low birth weight numbers, yet above average performance data and EPD’s.  The 2 Angus bulls that fit these criteria were high 5 to low 6 frame bulls and the Charolais bull that fit was a solid 7 frame.  All three bulls were at or near the top of their respective sales.  It would appear to me that, at least in this part of the world, the true premium is being paid for bulls with an optimum blend of economic traits, i.e. moderate birth weights and above average growth.

By your use of caps in your message, when you talk about BIG WEANING WEIGHTS and BIG MATURE SIZE I can only assume you are talking about the outliers –those cattle that fall at the far end of the growth spectrum.  And I would full agree with you – there is little demand anywhere for those kind.  But I don’t think too many cattlemen today are really looking for those – I think most have come back to the middle (or at least trying to).  But just like the frame size reference you made – as an industry we tend to take an issue and go to the extreme before finding the middle ground needed to really be profitable.

As to efficiency – there is always a balance between biological efficiency and economic efficiency.  That balance is impacted by a variety of factors, including feed resources, management constraints and consumer demands – that’s why one size doesn’t fit all.  Pork and poultry have made that work because they can control these factors; it is much more difficult with cattle.

 

[JoeBnTN]

JIT Schaff's has bred for performance since the 40's. Their cows have imppecable udders and are deep barreled awesome cows. With that said, to get those ww they are creep feeding the beezwax out of those calves. It's nice to have a breeder pushing the limiit of what his herd can do. He obviously does something right because of the following he has. His cattle have been PROVEN to work in the real world. Will they give you 1000 pound ww? NO! Will they make great easy keeping females? Yes! If you want to put the resources into your calves over the years you may eventually get there but how many of us even care about pushing cattle that hard? I'm a straight GRASS operation and his cattle still work. And I would like to point out to his bulls are all CURVE BENDERS. Light bw, explosive growth. even his higher bw bulls are still lighter than most shorthorns. That guy has made bulls work when most angus breeders could not i.e. Bando 5175 or GAR Integrity. His sons for the most part mature out at a 6 frame and weigh on average 2200 to 2500 so he has been able to moderate the growth and requirements once they reach adulthood. I wonder how many shorthorn herds out there that can say that? What is Timeline's mature weight and hip height. My trump son weighed 2850 when I shipped him and was over a 7 frame. IMO higher bw usually indicate hard keeping bigger framed adults. Sorry but on grass, those genetics don't work. If shorthorns are ever going to get to play with the big boys we need to be honest with ourselves about the TRUE calving ease bulls. We need to identify the curve benders of our own breed. I called Nick Hammet a few years back and asked him for a list of the shorthorn's curve bender bulls are. He laughed and said well I'm sorry but they DON'T EXSIST. That blew my mind and now IMO there are two that have a chance at being the first. Rob Sneed's 034 and Captain Obvious are right there. I don't care about the politics folks I care about improving this GREAT breed and these bulls bring more to the table then any I have seen yet. Are they perfect? No way but they offer the ability to fix alot of what the main lines lack. They offer calving ease with good growth and good carcass data. Wow sounds like a curve bender. Just Imagine if a Shorthorn bull sold for 210,000 like one did the other day at Conneally's. Until ALL breeders report ALL the data on ALL their calves, the system won't have any merit IMO. Try selling bulls to a commercial guy when you tell him "Well the epd's are all screwed up right now but I promise he is a easy calver!" We should not get a paper on any calf until our whole herd has been reported and recorded. think of the improvement we could make if we just actually let the cattle sort themselves instead of pushing a round peg into a square hole.

Great post – I think you’re right on a great many things. 

It’s funny you mentioned Nick – he and I had some very similar conversations.  The only thing I really disagree with you on is that I think there are quite a number of bulls out there that do exactly what you mentioned.  You’ve hit on two that are very intriguing and I think deserve a close look by Shorthorn breeders but there are a great many more that can perform similarly.  As an example let me suggest that you look at 2 bulls – JR Legacy 23G and his sire Byland Legacy.  Both bulls have high accuracies for calving ease, low birth weights and above average growth.  Yes they are older, but the only way you get to the high accuracies is to have significant numbers of calves to “prove” the sire.  I used both of these bulls and they did just what their numbers said they would – yet the cattle they sired would fail the "frame test" as we never had one less than a 6 frame.  But, as 23G was used not only in Tennessee, but at Rex Tribbett’s in Indiana, Twig Marston, Troy Smith and Marty Loving’s in KS, and Rocker’s in NE, he demonstrated the ability to produce profitable cattle in a variety of environments.  There are many bulls out there that are just like him – they just haven’t been popular or promoted

You are very much on target with your observation about value – our breed's current economic model isn’t built on production traits.  Until the majority of Shorthorn breeders demand and truly value production traits and are willing to pay for them – bulls like those we’ve talked about will be there but will not be easily accessible to the average Shorthorn breeders.  I think it’s great that we have breeders, like Rob, Sue and others, like she mentioned, that are committed to producing that kind of Shorthorn.  I would simply suggest that, if that the direction you choose to go, take the time to look around – there are a lot more cattle like the ones you describe than you probably realize.

 

[justintime]

Trevor,
I am not promoting big framed cattle. I am just stating that I am seeing some bigger framed cattle in recent bull sales selling for very good prices. These Simmental sales in these parts are simply wild. I am just saying that I hear breeders saying we have to downsize the cow size, yet every industry leader I hear speak, says we have to raise cattle capable of having bigger carcasses. They are also saying that smaller framed cattle are going to be discounted. It has already started here. When we were feeding cattle, there were no discounts for small carcass size, but there certainly is now.

That said, I am not going to discard an animal that is bigger framed, if they are good, and offer more improvement. As I have said on here many times, I think the place to be is a place called optimum. I believe everything is best in optimum amounts. That does not mean that an animal that excels in some important traits is of no use. My cows are very moderate in side, on average. I have some donor cows that are big framed. They are also some of the easiest fleshing cows I have ever owned. I think they are still useful tools in the beef industry, and  some others must agree, as I sell out of these cows embryos all the time.

I would agree that the Shorthorn breed has to put more emphasis on generating some calving ease bulls, but I am cautious to say that this will only come by just reducing birth weights. Yes, there are lots of sires with too much BW, but there are several sires in this breed that can be bred to heifers without a pile of problems. I still maintain that part of the problem is too many breeders have distorted the shape of their cattle, to a point where they would have problems calving a Jersey easily.  There are lots of easy calving genetics out there, but too many people won't use them because they want the best of both worlds. They want an easy birth, and they want an animal that could be shown from their heifers.

Since we have started our bull sale, we have been selling some bulls into some herds of 800 cows. These cows  calve on pasture and have to do it by themselves.  One of these cattlemen recently told me, that they haven't seen any difference between their Shorthorn bulls and their Angus bulls in calving ease. He said they also are using some black Simmental bulls, and the calves from them are a little bigger but they haven't had much trouble.

I do not think I am alone when I say that we seldom have serious calving problems. As of this morning, I have calved 68 cows and heifers. I have now assisted two cows.... and no heifers so far. One of the cows had a dead calf, for some reason, and I pulled it. I had another two days ago that I found with one foot and a nose sticking out when I found her. The other foot was there but the calf was being malpresented and once I got it pulled out like the other one, it came out easily. I pulled it out as I was unsure how long she had  been calving. I do not think I am alone in statements like this, as I know of several other purebred breeders who can say the same thing. One of my closest friends runs a large herd of purebred Angus, and I think he would assist more births than I do, and he has lots of 100 lb plus BWs.

Timeline is a bigger framed bull, but I have not measured him lately, but I would expect he would be a 7 framed bull or close to that. His calves so far fit in the middle as far as frame is concerned. At Agribition, Timeline was not even close to being as tall as the biggest Angus bulls shown there. The Angus bull that won the Supreme Championship was taller and out weighed Timeline by 350 lbs. This Angus bull was also in Denver, and he was in the middle of the pack as far as frame size in the Angus show there. If we were hearing horror stories about calving problems with Timeline, I would simply not use him again. So far, we are not seeing that and we have commercial producers asking if we have any more bulls bred like him. I have only heard of 1 assisted birth from a heifer from him, and most of his BWs have been in the 80s and 90s, which I do not think of as being too big for a cow to have. I would never recommend him for heifers, simply because I think there are better choices.

 

[ROAD WARRIOR]

I have been working sales acrossed the country since last fall. Here is my observation in a nut shell - it applies to both bulls and heifers or at least the ones that I have personally seen sell. A frame score 6 animal with a reasonable BW and growth traits will top the the sale, a 4 to 41/2 frame score animal is harder to merchandise than any of the others. A 5 frame animal needs to have the right pieces and right data behind them to make it up to the top. While there is a lot of talk all acrossed the industry about moderation, as a general whole when it comes time to spend money the 6 frame cattle that look the part still rule the sale ring. This is what I have observed working as a ringman in sales all acroossed the midwest, I'm sure there are differences from one region to another. RW

 

[JoeBnTN]

I have been working sales acrossed the country since last fall. Here is my observation in a nut shell - it applies to both bulls and heifers or at least the ones that I have personally seen sell. A frame score 6 animal with a reasonable BW and growth traits will top the the sale, a 4 to 41/2 frame score animal is harder to merchandise than any of the others. A 5 frame animal needs to have the right pieces and right data behind them to make it up to the top. While there is a lot of talk all acrossed the industry about moderation, as a general whole when it comes time to spend money the 6 frame cattle that look the part still rule the sale ring. This is what I have observed working as a ringman in sales all acroossed the midwest, I'm sure there are differences from one region to another. RW

You and i must be going to the same sales!!!  <cowboy>

 

[ROAD WARRIOR]

Joe - I think I have stayed west of you for the most part. Might be that the better cattle just bring more money! RW

 

[simtal]

As to efficiency – there is always a balance between biological efficiency and economic efficiency.  That balance is impacted by a variety of factors, including feed resources, management constraints and consumer demands – that’s why one size doesn’t fit all.  Pork and poultry have made that work because they can control these factors; it is much more difficult with cattle.

What is the measure of cowherd efficiency? 
Is it:
F:G--selection creates bigger cows
RFI--hasnt been determined
Cow weight/pounds weaned

No one has that figured out yet. 

 

[ROAD WARRIOR]

As to efficiency – there is always a balance between biological efficiency and economic efficiency.  That balance is impacted by a variety of factors, including feed resources, management constraints and consumer demands – that’s why one size doesn’t fit all.  Pork and poultry have made that work because they can control these factors; it is much more difficult with cattle.

What is the measure of cowherd efficiency? 
Is it:
F:G--selection creates bigger cows
RFI--hasnt been determined
Cow weight/pounds weaned

No one has that figured out yet. 

For me cow effeciency boils down to her ability to make me money. Example - I consider a cow that averages $2500.00 a year in production a reasonably effecient cow. RW

 

[justintime]

I agree with RW, in his definition to make money. I would also add to that definition " an efficient cow is one that makes money and is trouble free, calves by herself, and is fertile.  Most of us raise cattle because we like them, but we also do it because we want to make a living doing it.