Pretty interesting stuff. Residual feed intake article

[knabe]

The facts of your data are that the there is a somewhat even distribution within each group and that some groups have insufficient data.

There is nothing conclusive about frame score as surface area to volume and growth curve issues exist and the experiment did not control for that neither was an accurate breakdown of fat percentage provided.

There are a few others but you are too ignorant to see them.

Another one is we don't know how these animals are burning calories.

We don't know the distribution of how offspring perform.

Lee Leachman thinks he does. 

All there are at this point are correlations, not facts.  Nothing causal has been shown.

But let's not let that get in the way.

 

[knabe]

The only FACT regarding diaper boy is her inability to calibrate dishing it out and taking it.

Notice how she gets mad when called on the very thing she does to other people. 

Diarhea girl wouldn't recognize a fact if it made her pass a bolus instead of her constant stream of hate.

 

[kfacres]

If 200 isn't enough- then 2000 will not be either- or 20,000 for that matter.

Find me a listing of data greater and more meaningful that what was provided. 

 

[knabe]

If 200 isn't enough- then 2000 will not be either- or 20,000 for that matter.

Find me a listing of data greater and more meaningful that what was provided. 

Sounds like a colon blow commercial.

 

[kfacres]

If 200 isn't enough- then 2000 will not be either- or 20,000 for that matter.

Find me a listing of data greater and more meaningful that what was provided. 

Sounds like a colon blow commercial.

I tolked the talk with posting of numbers and findings, coupled with my thoughts..

now you do in return- or don't respond.

 

[knabe]

I tolked the talk with posting of numbers and findings, coupled with my thoughts..

now you do in return- or don't respond.

Already did, moderator girl.  Also, like how you admit they are thoughts and not facts.  Probably a first for you to compromise.

Why don't you just not respond, or might you lose your temper.  Poor little girl.  Soiled your undies again.

You still haven't proven anything, you can't and you won't, you are too addicted to negativity.

Why don't you just quit posting.  Save yourself a lot of grief, and also you won't have to conflict with yourself about not posting and then posting.  Every post revolves around that logic. 

 

[kfacres]

I tolked the talk with posting of numbers and findings, coupled with my thoughts..

now you do in return- or don't respond.

Already did, moderator girl.  Also, like how you admit they are thoughts and not facts.  Probably a first for you to compromise.

Why don't you just not respond, or might you lose your temper.  Poor little girl.  Soiled your undies again.

You still haven't proven anything, you can't and you won't, you are too addicted to negativity.

Why don't you just quit posting.  Save yourself a lot of grief, and also you won't have to conflict with yourself about not posting and then posting.  Every post revolves around that logic. 

So did  you post a link to provide a more logistical approach to efficiency, and the other traits that you have deemed mine as unsuccessful?

 

[knabe]

I tolked the talk

unlike clinton.  are you fluent now or just fluid.  i guess i could add effluent.

 

[kfacres]

I tolked the talk

unlike clinton.  are you fluent now or just fluid.

end of conversation:  you obviously can't walk the walk... 

 

[knabe]

I tolked the talk

unlike clinton.  are you fluent now or just fluid.

end of conversation:  you obviously can't walk the walk... 

you obviously didn't listen the first time.  like you've said, why waste the time.  so you can graph and draw some lines. sorry, you are not the moderator.

if you look at your data, it takes a very few number of individuals to skew a result, particularly when you add in fat potential and lack of measurements and lack of growth curve data.  on second thought, don't bother, you are not interested.  for a specific data set, look at the gelbvieh's.  4 animals and you don't know why they are the way they are versus the others in the comparison. care to consider why?  course not.

how do you remove producer bias at certain frame score, time in the breed and a host of other variables.  how do you make a contemporary group?  how do you get a diversity of bulls to sign up to be measured?  4 animals from one breed doesn't seem like a whole lot to walk on.

here's what one could do.

during each weigh point after tune up, measure fat somehow, ie rump, ultrasound whatever and measure at more intervals than one thought necessary to identify cliffs in data since the time point between measurements could be skewed as feed intake is measured daily, you could get some diversity in when an animal started laying down fat.  you also have the differences between how different individuals lay down fat and where.  someone out there probably has a good handle on this.  you would want to sift data so that you had some representation of different adg groups so you didn't end up with one at 5 and the rest between 4.25 and 4.4 and on and on before one got all involved in making extrapolations.  to me, you are missing some interesting points about your data in the "lower" performing groups such as why do some individuals differ by over 33% while the "better" ones differ by less than 20% while the middling ones are much tighter without outliers.  lots of other interesting things to discuss rather than what you are after, namely pursuit of strawman arguments which only serve to discredit you.  your price comparisons are probably worthless as they don't take into account a phenotype comparison, scrotal, bloodlines, any host of other factors.  would also like to see a plot daily feed intake versus daily weight and change in frame and fat.  so many things to do rather than worry about walking.