TABLE 1
Factors for reporting CG BIRTH |
WEAN |
YEAR |
ULTRASOUND |
90-day window |
Weigh Date |
Weigh Date |
Weigh Date |
Season |
Birth CG |
Wean CG |
Wean CG |
Ranch Group / Premise |
Ranch Group / Premise |
Ranch Group / Premise |
Ranch Group / Premise |
Sex |
Sex |
Sex |
Sex |
Management Code |
Management Code |
Management Code |
Management Code |
Service Type ( AI / NS or ET ) |
Feed Code |
Feed Code |
Feed Code |
|
Birth Type ( Twin or Single )
Method ( Tape vs Scale )
|
|
|
|
TABLE 2 Complete vs Imcomplete Weight reporting .
Full CG Reported |
Only top animals reported |
ID |
Adj WW |
Deviation |
Ratio |
Deviation |
Ratio |
|
|
from Average |
|
from Average |
|
LFF1 |
670 |
-45.8 |
94 |
|
|
LFF2 |
671 |
-44.8 |
94 |
|
|
LFF3 |
679 |
-36.8 |
95 |
|
|
LFF4 |
684 |
-31.8 |
96 |
|
|
LFF5 |
695 |
-20.8 |
97 |
|
|
LFF6 |
708 |
-7.8 |
99 |
-43.8 |
94 |
LFF7 |
734 |
18.2 |
103 |
-17.8 |
98 |
LFF8 |
736 |
20.2 |
103 |
-15.8 |
98 |
LFF9 |
780 |
64.2 |
109 |
28.2 |
104 |
LFF10 |
801 |
85.2 |
112 |
49.2 |
107 |
Cattle That Can Do It All !
Excellent Quality Grade with Superior Yield Grade .
Commercial Cattle Fed in Nebraska
LIM-FLE
Limousin x Angus Hybrid
Steers harvested at Tyson , Lexington , Nebraska – June 17 , 2020 1404 pounds live weight , Dressing % = 65.21 , 100 % Choice & Prime
12 % Prime 44 % CAB ( upper 2 / 3rd Choice ) 44 % Choice 0 % Select
22 % YG 2 ’ s • 59 % YG 3 ’ s • 19 % YG 4 ’ s
Base market Dress Price = $ 167.67 • Actual Price Received = $ 175.60 Premium = $ 7.93 cwt . or $ 72.63 / Hd
Registered HUNT Lim-Flex ® Bulls on Commercial Angus Cows continued from page 30
the supplemental feeding of some animals and not others . Animals from different pastures should be in different groups . Also , if any animal or its dam received supplemental feed or creep feed that was not offered to the whole group , they need to be in a separate CG . Table 1 illustrates some other important factors to keep in mind when reporting CG . Management and feed codes are used to denote those animals who were managed alike ( same pasture ) or different ( creep vs non-creep or treated for illness , etc ).
In addition to grouping the animals correctly , another important factor is complete reporting of the entire group . While there is the temptation to only report “ the best ,” succumbing to this temptation can actually have negative consequences . Let us take a look at an example .
In Table 2 , the adjusted weaning weights of 10 animals are listed in order from lightest to heaviest . The average weaning weight for the entire group is about 716 pounds , while the average of the heaviest five i s a bout 7 52 . I t seems like reporting an average WW of 752 would be better than 716 , right ? No so fast ! Let ’ s dig a little deeper .
The middle columns show the deviation from group average and ratio for each animal if all 10 animals are reported . The last two columns show the deviations from average and ratio if only the “ best ” five are reported . What incomplete reporting has done has negatively impacted the ratio of every single animal in the group , which directly translates to the EPD computation of that animal itself , as well as the sire and dam . So , while a heavier group average might be great for coffee shop bragging , the incomplete reporting has negatively impacted the ultimate genetic prediction results for the entire group , hardly worth bragging about .
While we live in a technology-driven world , it ’ s important to remember the basics matter more now that ever , as it ’ s that basic data that gets used to develop and train the technology ( like genomics ). So , as we move into the season for reporting data and eventually using the EPDs and genomics derived from that data , let ’ s be sure to refresh our energy on reporting correctly collected , correctly grouped and complete data .
Limousin @ NALF . org www . NALF . org
32
• OCTOBER 2020