• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

AI'ing to Magnitude

Badlands said:
A 3,200 pound animal will eat like a 3,200 pound animal of equal composition whether he is FS 5,7 or 9.
Badlands
Boy I just don't agree with that Badlands. Lets adjust the number to a 1200 pound cow. Are you saying that generally all 1200 lb cows have the same energy requirements regardless of frame ?
 
If they are of equal composition, equal milk.


Be sure you get the "equal composition" part of the statement, Red Robin.

I should have added something about his genetic milk level, too.


Badlands
 
Badlands said:
If they are of equal composition, equal milk.


Be sure you get the "equal composition" part of the statement, Red Robin.

I should have added something about his genetic milk level, too.


Badlands

Badlands, please excuse my ignorance, but would you please explain the "equal composition" statement to me???

thanks

TTB :wink:
 
Hmmm....

Muscle:Fat ratio relative to weight? Does that work better?

Sorry to use technical terms.

The RAAA ME EPD uses Mature Weight and Milk EPD (even though they don't publish the MW EPD).
The AAA $EN uses the same information since they just copied RAAA after the methodology was published.
The other breeds that use some sort of mature weight and milk index do the same.

None of the above include composition, but I still make the point as the percent of muscle:fat does affect the energy requirements.


A 2,000 pound Limousin bull with equal genetic milk potential to a 2,000 Red Angus bull will have different energy values since they are both supporting differing amounts of muscle:fat.

A 2,000 Angus bull with equal composition to another 2,000 pound Angus bull but with differing levels of milk potential with have a different maintenance energy requirement.


Badlands
 
Ok , I'm back to disagreeing with you badlands. In drought conditions, energy requirements show up. Some of my easiest keeping cows are also some of my heaviest. They have more guts . BTW initially , gut mass is what the RAAA ME epd was designed to select against. More college people making the rules I say. Any cowboy knows you have to have guts and the harder doing cattle are the more gutless ones.

Anyway a 1200lb 8 frame steer without any guts is not nearly as efficient in the feedlot as a 1200lb 5 frame steer with guts.
 
We might have to agree to disagree, Red Robin. I am aware of what the EPD was for, and selecting against gut mass wasn't it.

You might be talking about Ryan Ruppert's work where he was trying to use ultrasound to measure liver size as in indicator trait for ME requirements driven by milk production, but that was scrapped before the ME EPD came out, and has nothing to do with the current ME EPD, which was John Evan's work.

This "guts" thing has mostly cropped up in the last 15 years or so.

Sure, they need some.

They need "enough".

But, these pus-gutted cattle of today are not at all similar to the old range cattle that most of our grandparents raised.

More purebred marketing hoopla! Extremes, rather than optimums!


Everytime I hear a rancher talk about "some of", it is generally a few of his favorites, rather than a real trend across his herd. When we get down to the "some of", they are generally a certain group that has something in common, other than the particular thing we are talking about at the time. Like maybe they were bought from a different breeder, or in a different year, etc.

EVERYBODY has "this one ol' cow that one time........". She is the exception, rather than the rule. If she was the rule, we wouldn't have the story to tell, ie, if she repeated herself, they would ALL be like her, she wouldn't be unique. She contributes virtually nothing to our understanding of any problem because of her rarity. But, we sure can sell he story!!


Badlands
 
Thanks Badlands....

Any idea when the ME in RA cattle will have a high level of accuracy???

For example, a bull with a greater than 80% accuracy for bw only has a 25% accuracy of ME...and it's just not one bull, Badlands, it's lots and lots of them. That is probably a higher than average example.

Heck Cherokee Canyon only has an accuracy of 60%.

I guess I don't consider that all that accurate. It's a trait I'd like to use, but at this point don't have much confidence in it.

I have another question, when breeders aren't required to report YW or mature weight, how can this EPD be accurately calculated?


Thanks---

TTB :wink:
 
Badlands said:
We might have to agree to disagree, Red Robin. I am aware of what the EPD was for, and selecting against gut mass wasn't it.
What ever "work" I was talking about was printed by the RAA in their mag. and they said that the ME epd was developed to identify cattle with lower energy requirements and that gut mass, including liver, were one of the major energy consumers. I checked the link where RAA had their ME epd explaination and it's no longer good. I'll look at the magazine and get back to you . The copy date is Jan 04 I think if you'd like to see for yourself.

I've fed enough calves by hand , one at a time , to know there is a difference in gain and doability and in every case , in my experience, it's been directly related to frame and volume. I'll stand by my statements.
 
ME EPD will only have higher accuracies after mature weights are turned in from daughters of bulls.

If you never turn in daughter weights, with corresponding BCS, they won't go up. Do you turn in your cow weights every year? :wink:

Red Robin:

I'd be glad to analyze your data, I can add it to the other records I have for feed intake. For the time being, I'll go with the several thousand records I do have. I suspect I have a few more than you. Do yours have registered pedigrees?

Although I can't figure out what you are arguing about. I am saying that bigger cattle eat more, and I suspect you will tell me the same. Or is it your experience that the smaller ones eat more?

As for gut size, I have no strong opinion, other than we probably don't know enough about it to have an opinion, so my opinion is that folks have too many opinions about it with nothing to back it up!! But, that's only mine, yours may be different. What I do know, is that guts are high expense tissues to maintain relative to maintaining muscle and fat, and that excess guts decrease dressing percentage.

Badlands
 
Animals are like people. They have different metabolisms.

Want proof? Look at the results for any individual feed test. The ADG can be equal on some of the cattle in the pen, but their feed intake can be at different ends of the chart.

Lower gaining cattle can actually be more feed efficient than higher gaining cattle in that pen.

Any EPD based on a standard or average assumed metabolism is flawed and will not yield desired results.

Another study was conducted on surface area of cattle and the effect on feed requirements. A heavy cow can have less surface area than a lighter one, so actually need less feed to maintain body condition.

Want more proof? Anyone who has fed exotic cattle against Angus. The exact same frame calf will always be heavier if it is Angus rather than exotic. I weighed a group of the yellow and red cross steers off the trader cows I purchased this spring. I had 2 of my Angus calves that were steers and weaned the same time I was able to slip in because physically they were the exact same frame, except they were 180 pounds heavier.

A frame score 5,6 or 7 will not have the same fat at a young age at the same weight. Frame score was originally intended to estimate the finished weight of fed cattle. The bigger the frame, the bigger the finished weight at a consistant fat content.

Talk to some old timers that have records of Angus cattle from the 20's. There were lots of 3000 lb bulls and ton plus cows walking the pastures.
 
Badlands said:
I'd be glad to analyze your data, I can add it to the other records I have for feed intake. For the time being, I'll go with the several thousand records I do have. I suspect I have a few more than you. Do yours have registered pedigrees?

Badlands
Badlands I over looked your sarcasm and criticism last time but once again you took a shot at me with a superior attitude. I don't give a dime what all your data says, I know what I know. You keep drinking the EPD coolaid and go analyze your thousands of records showing the disconnect between volume and efficiency, I'll do what I know best.
 
Badlands said:
ME EPD will only have higher accuracies after mature weights are turned in from daughters of bulls.

If you never turn in daughter weights, with corresponding BCS, they won't go up.

Red Robin:

I'd be glad to analyze your data, I can add it to the other records I have for feed intake. For the time being, I'll go with the several thousand records I do have. I suspect I have a few more than you. Do yours have registered pedigrees?

Badlands

Thank you, so is it safe to say that until the breed requires BCS and weight on cows, this won't be an accurate tool to use?

Do you have any knowledge of the Grow Safe feeding system? If so, how do it's results match up with ME of a breed, either Angus or Red Angus?

Again, thanks for answering my questions...

TTB :wink:
 
Red Robin:

It's neither sarcasm, nor criticism. I wasn't running you down, I was just stating what happens when I get field data to work with and troubleshoot. I do it with my own cows, too. So, I apologize if I offended your sensibilities.

It is a simple statement of what I have been doing to make a living for the last 9 years.

I've compared different phenotypes of cattle and how those measures relate to lifetime production (ABS-GTS Traits), and for the last 5 1/2 years, I have been working on a study in feed intake in Angus, Simmental and Santa Gertrudis cattle.

Before the RAAA went to press with the ME EPD, we had a nice sit-down with the folks at CSU and talked about the various inputs that are included in their model. It's not perfect, but it is useful.

I don't drink the EPD coolaid, Red Robin, any more than I drink the "phenotype" coolaid. :wink:

Badlands
 
TTB:

They use pedigree info for the Interim EPD, just like any other trait, so they are better than guessing.

Perfect? No. Useful? Yes they are. The tricky animals to watch out for in resource limited systems will be the ones whose ancestors are well quantified in terms of mature weight and milk, but who themselves are greatly different from their parental average. In other words, animals that have a lot more growth than their pedigree suggests. These animals will have low ME EPD, but will have high YW and Milk EPD. But, some folks could get into trouble before their ME EPD is accurate enough to tell us that it should have been a lot higher than it was for the Interim.





What do you want to know about GrowSafe? At this point, it isn't being used to quantify ME differences, as to do that, we need to put them in a chamber. So, what is mostly being done is preliminary work to determine heritabilites and genetic correlations between intake, gain, etc. As well as beginning to look at different measures of FE.

Badlands
 
Badlands said:
I am aware of what the EPD was for, and selecting against gut mass wasn't it.
Badlands

Researchers at Colorado State University and the USDA-ARS Fort Keogh Livestock and Range Research Laboratory in Miles City have proposed that an EPD could be developed for maintenance energy requirements using genetic predictions for mature weight and milk. Drs. Rick Bourdon and Bruce Golden at Colorado State University have also proposed other indicators which could be used in this genetic prediction that would add accuracy to the EPD. Measurements of cow body condition and gut weight would help explain even more of the variation in mature cows energy requirements. Mature weight, milk indicators, and body condition scores are all relatively inexpensive to collect, and breed associations have a great deal of data already collected for these traits. Gut weight, on the other hand, is an expensive and difficult measurement to collect, but offers a great deal of information in explaining the variation in maintenance energy requirements of mature cows of the same mature weight.

Visceral organs (i.e. gut mass) have the largest impact on maintenance energy requirements out of all the tissue in the body. The liver and intestinal tract alone use about 40 to 50 percent of the energy supplied for maintenance. Visceral organs as a whole consume approximately 73 percent of maintenance energy. Using some measure of gut mass would seem to be a very good gauge to getting at the actual trait, instead of using indicators of indicator traits. Currently, milk indicators are responsible for the gut mass component, because there is a relatively strong correlation between milking ability and visceral organ mass. The problem with using just milk indicators is not all cattle with larger gut mass have higher milking potential.

There are several problems with measuring visceral organs. First of all, to weigh the organs of an animal, it has to be slaughtered and all of the fat and connective tissue must be stripped off the organs to acquire this measure. Obviously, no one wants to slaughter their best cow to find out how much her organs weigh. Neither do they want to pay someone to prepare the organs to be weighed. This is a very impractical and costly process to find out which animal is the most efficient.

Instead of slaughtering the animals we want to propagate, we could use ultrasound to acquire a measurement of one of the organs that is a major source of consuming energy for maintenance. The liver seems to be the best candidate for this task. It is one of the most accessible organs for ultrasonic examination, and is the largest user of maintenance energy of all the organs of the body.

Measuring the liver with ultrasound is not quite as simple as measuring rib eye area. The liver is much larger and is deeper in the body cavity of the animal than the rib eye. It is not possible with current technology to get a cross section image of the liver as is done for rib eye area. Research by Braun from the University of Zurich, Switzerland demonstrated a method of using ultrasonic measurements of the veins associated with the liver to estimate the weight of the liver. He found a moderately strong correlation between the depth from the exterior surface of the liver to the caudal vena cava and portal vein to liver weight in mature non-lactating dairy cows.

Researchers from Colorado State University and CSU Veterinary Teaching Hospital investigated the relation of ultrasonic measurements of venous depths in the liver with liver weight of Red Angus slaughter steers and heifers. The findings from this study were that a relationship does not exist between ultrasonic measurements of the liver and liver weight in Red Angus fat cattle. This is likely due to the aggressive feeding of these cattle. Compared to range cattle, the liver of feedlot cattle function at an abnormally accelerated metabolic rate. Although ultrasonic liver measures may not immediately be used to enhance the accuracy of maintenance EPDs, future potential exists.

The development of this new EPD raises questions on how to make this genetic prediction more accurate. As researchers continue to prefect the maintenance energy EPD, more research will go into economically incorporating data describing gut mass. Much of the variation between cow's maintenance energy requirements can be described with the current prediction indicators of mature weight and milk, but gut mass has the potential to add even more reliability to the prediction.

Having an EPD for maintenance energy requirements will give cattle producers a powerful selection tool to produce the type of cattle that best fit their environment and production scheme. The ability to make informed decisions during selection allows producers to optimize their production practices, while hopefully maximizing profit. The development of Economically Relevant Traits (ERTs) such as the maintenance energy requirement EPD is one more step the Red Angus Association has taken to more accurately describe Red Angus cattle to make them the most predictable and profitable cattle available.
http://old.redangus.org/newredsite/themagazine/feb02/magazine.html
 
Red Robin:

The article you site was only preliminary, the research into gut mass was derailed when Ruppert's research couldn't get out of the gate. The ultrasound couldn't penetrate depply enough into the body cavity to get a clear picture of liver size.

So, they use MW and Milk EPD. BCS is used to adjust BW to a common state.

No where in that article does it state "gut mass is what the RAAA ME epd was designed to select against." If we wanted to select against gut mass, we could just look at them and do it.

More guts=more energy for maintenance. Whether or not they are more efficient would have more to do with individual animal variation than any trend across "gut mass sizes". There are efficient big gutted cattle, and efficient tight gutted cattle.

What they do say is this, "Having an EPD for maintenance energy requirements will give cattle producers a powerful selection tool to produce the type of cattle that best fit their environment and production scheme. The ability to make informed decisions during selection allows producers to optimize their production practices, while hopefully maximizing profit."


Big difference.


Badlands
 
Well, anyways, Red Robin, not meaning to pick a fight with you.

I don't trust the opinion of too many people on a lot of things, I'd sooner make up my own mind.

I suspect were are both thinking the same way about the other, just on the opposite side of the argument.

We're probably taking up too much time.

Badlands
 

Latest posts

Back
Top