Interesting reading on Sullivan flyer !!!!!

[kfacres]

not necessarily, in all real comparisions-- you should throw out the extreme outliers.. of which I did not do-- I posted them.

look at the high 5 green -high 6 blueand low 7 orange-- all nearly identical

look at the red and green together and compare it to the purple and blue together.. They make an Obvious "V" pointing to a 6.0 frame.

I will give you that a high 5, and a low 6.. seem to be the most inefficient.

now look at the bottom graph-- same exact thing, but x and y axis are switched.. where are the majority of the dots?  within the circlel... or give or take a 6.0 frame...

I guess anyone can take anything they want from that graph and do with it as the please- most will go in one eye and out the other...  But this is a case, that I'd say can do both support and deny that frame score has anything to do with efficiency of a beef animal. 

But you cannot deny that these are FACTS- which are not normally presented in a day to day SP conversation regarding ideal frame scores.

 

[Shady Lane]

???

According to your results the 7+ frame score bulls had the highest average feed conversion at 5.8 lbs of feed/ lb gain

How does that not make them the most efficient average group?

 

[kfacres]

???

According to your results the 7+ frame score bulls had the highest average feed conversion at 5.8 lbs of feed/ lb gain

How does that not make them the most efficient average group?

that is the most broad category, with by far the fewest bulls....

The number of 7 plus frame bulls numbers less than half of any other sub category.  I'm guessing if all numbers equal the results would vary, which is why I showed all together on one chart dot by dot. 

Like I said, take from what you want... 

 

[knabe]

there's some volume to surface area thing going on.

 

[Limiman12]

(pop) (pop) (pop)

For anyone that says there is no best cow I disagree.  Find me the 900 pound cow with noears cause she was born Ina blizzard.  Calves at 22 mos, weans a 600 pound calf at five months sired by  a bull bought at the sale barn thatisa bigtimeshow prospect, and does It eating nothing but button weeds, cockleburs and thistles.  Not asking much am I? (lol)

 

[knabe]

Tarantaise Hereford red angus for east Oregon?

 

[knabe]

http://oregonstate.edu/terra/2010/02/the-range-keepers/

 

[HAB]

(pop) (pop) (pop)

For anyone that says there is no best cow I disagree.  Find me the 900 pound cow with noears cause she was born Ina blizzard.  Calves at 22 mos, weans a 600 pound calf at five months sired by  a bull bought at the sale barn thatisa bigtimeshow prospect, and does It eating nothing but button weeds, cockleburs and thistles.  Not asking much am I? (lol)

OK, her ears aren't froze, cuase she had hair when she was born, and her mom took care of her, but it was blizzarding.  The bull was home raised, not sale barn.  Not all criteria met, but most.

 

[DRB]

???

According to your results the 7+ frame score bulls had the highest average feed conversion at 5.8 lbs of feed/ lb gain

How does that not make them the most efficient average group?

that is the most broad category, with by far the fewest bulls....

The number of 7 plus frame bulls numbers less than half of any other sub category.  I'm guessing if all numbers equal the results would vary, which is why I showed all together on one chart dot by dot. 

Like I said, take from what you want... 

I'd say that the wide spread on the smaller framed bulls 'may' be because they are putting down some fat which takes more feed (more feed for 1lb fat, vs 1lb muscle).  I'd presume the large framed guys are definitely still in the growing muscle stage.  Just a thought.

Avg performance over groups of frame size is one thing - but I generally only use 1 bull!  Be best to make sure I had one of the good conversion ones!

 

[TJ]

Tarantaise Hereford red angus for east Oregon?

That is the Hatfield's High Desert Ranch Composite developed in the 1970's, maybe even the real late 60's.  Dr. Hatfield later started the Oregon Country Beef, now known as Country Natural Beef.  Also, that is the exact same 3 breed combination that made up as the original Pharo Cattle Company Composite started back in the 80's or early 90's.  So it worked in eastern Colorado too.  Good cattle that have worked in some pretty dry environments, IMHO.  Extremely hard to beat a 50-75% English X 25-50%  Tarentaise momma cow, IMHO  And the Tarentaise steers are proven to excel in the feedlot and on the rail... Great Western Beef Expo, Oklahoma Steer Feedot, etc., etc. 

 

[kfacres]

I just got finished crunching some numbers in ratio of frame score to a couple different measurable traits on (I think) 234 bulls that have been through the Western IL Bull Test during the last couple of years.  Measuring feed efficiency is something that is a highlighted point at WIU.  I'm sure this work has been done before- but I can't recall ever seeing anything like it.

My findings:

Well, I can’t say that a most definite advantage lies to any frame score- or sub frame score on the bulls that have gone through the WIU Bull Test.  It appears as if when comparing cattle on self feeding rations- a 7 frame pretty well excels every time- I wonder how this could be compared to bulls on limited or zero grain and forage based diets. 

I wish I had an adjusted 365 day weight on the bull- and a body condition score.  That would determine if frame score has anything to do with actual weight- or fleshing ease.

Very interesting things I have seen as well…

Hopefully, you might learn something from this- I know I sure did as well.

 

[knabe]

not sure data is useful as it hasn't been normalized for fat.

if pounds is all that matters at lowest feed intake, the distribution is sufficient within whatever frame score anyone wants to choose.

anyone can choose what frame score they want and pick a performance and size calf they want.

need growth curve information as well.

lots of variables to consider depending upon environment.  in nature, animals that eat lower quality feed tend to be larger and have a larger digestive system, ie elephants.  for some reason, there isn't selective pressure on them to be frame 5.  there is pressure on them to be tuskless which is getting higher every year.

 

[kfacres]

need growth curve information as well.

i know.. too bad I'm not in charge.. but a past helper looking in and looking at some data.

 

[RyanChandler]

need growth curve information as well.

i know.. too bad I'm not in charge.. but a past helper looking in and looking at some data.

thats the one thing I noticed knabe mentioned that I'd like to see as well. 

 

[kfacres]

need growth curve information as well.

i know.. too bad I'm not in charge.. but a past helper looking in and looking at some data.

thats the one thing I noticed knabe mentioned that I'd like to see as well. 

*I have all the data, weights taken on arrival- 36 day, 72 day, and 112 day (I think)- I suppose that would be enough of a growth curve for you.  I guess if one wanted to take the 112 day weights- and convert them all to 365- he could as well.  I don't have time to plot them all up= but sure wouldn't mind emailing the data.