’ *

. . ‘.. ,. *.

. . .,

dramatically than any single meas-urable trait , frame size illustrates

change within the Angus breed. Concentra-tion on size over the past several decadesswept the purebred pendulum to the “beltbuckle” extreme, then reversed the swingand now pushes it towards seemingly op-posite limits.

No one will argue that a change in coursewas needed In general, increased frame in-dicates increased growth. And in general, in-creased growth pays in the cattle business.

Breeders will argue, though, about the roleand importance of frame size today. Know-ing this, we asked a crosssection of AngusJournal readers to consider the issues andsparked their comments by posing a fewquestions. The responses, included here inour symposium section, are thought-pro-voking. Opinions and approaches are as di-verse as the cattlemen who speak. Onething is certain, however: There are morequestions than answers.

Shows and sales have labeled big as better.But is biggest best? What are the limits? WillMother Nature let us know when to stop inour quest for added inches? Has frame sizebeen oversold? Overbought? Should in-creased height be a goal in itself-or sim-ply a measured indicator? What is its eco-nomic importance? Functional importance?

These questions only graze the concerns ex-pressed by these men, each deeply involvedwith the cattle industry Many wonder aboutour present course. Are we, they ask, keeping our priorities in line? Are we remember-ing and preserving the basic traits whichhave allowed Angus to make a vital, lastingcontribution to the cattle industry?

No doubt the issues raised are as emotionalas they are economical. The comments pre-sented will stir further questions. We don’tpromise answers, but we welcome your re-sponse.

5tgsdzL . .

June/July 1984 / A N G U S Journal .

Ed OliverCripple Pine FarmWest Point, Ga.

“If our goals are to impress eachother and we choose tools otherthan those related to productionfor measuring goodness, then wecan expect recourse. ”

What’s on my mind concerning framesize in Angus cattle? It is how efficiency fitsinto frame size that I’m concerned about. I hope the industry can get as excited aboutpounds of beef produced per cow exposedas it has about how tall or short a cow orbull should be.

If a heifer can calve unassisted at 24months, mother her calf, milk, breed for thenext year and wean a heavy calf, then I’ll notshow my ignorance by putting a stick on herto decide if she is too tall or short! Peopletell me the industry is placing too much em-phasis on hip height! I don’t know-I havenever felt it necessary to use hip height asa tool for measuring productivity.

If we can maintain extreme frame inSoutheastern Angus cattle, on roughage, ef-ficiently, then fine.

How does extreme frame fit into my pro-gram? We want cows with well attached ud-ders, cows that can stand the stress of adozen years. We want a cow to calve at 24months of age and every year thereafter. Weexpect her to function on roughage andwean a high percentage of her own weight.We like cows with large pelvic areas and theinnate desire to calve or die trying. We ex-pect her production in our environment todetermine if she is tall enough.

It is true that frame sells. The test stationsare publishing hip heights, and show judgesare sizing cattle. Often frame size has beenused as a sales gimmick rather than a selec-tion criteria for practical economic value.

I’m convinced that our goal should be theproduction of Angus seed stock that can im-prove the economic efficiency of commer-cial herds. If our goals are to impress eachother and we choose tools other than thoserelated to production for measuring good-ness, then we can expect recourse. Extremeframe is not a problem; straying away frompractical, economic traits and the selectionpressure for them can create many prob-lems.

The Angus breed is blessed naturally withmany of the qualities most of our competi-tion would love to develop. I would hope thefuture finds us concentrating on our naturalstrengths and efficiency.

Here at home we will continue to make

our selections based on fertility, milk andpounds-believing that frame will find itsproper place in the process, that form fol-lows function and that style without sub-stance is useless.

William R. BackusUniversity ofTennesseeKnoxville

“Many of the new, tall breedshave risen to fame on the back ofan Angus cow.”

We buy and sell purebred cattle by theinch and commercial cattle by the pound.Since the primary purpose of the former isto beget the latter, this seems to be some-what illogical. For those who understand theproduction of beef from the conception ofthe calf to the consumption of the product,this infatuation with frame size seems some-what ill advised.

It is interesting to ponder why we arepresently striving to make Angus cattletaller and taller. Perhaps it is a reaction tothe craze of Angus breeders of some 25 to30 years ago to breed cattle which were ex-tremely early maturing and little more than“belt buckle” tall at maturity. I rememberwell a nationally recognized breeder ofanother breed telling me, as a young 4-Hsteer exhibitor in the late 1940s that theideal steer resembled a bale of hay withshort legs, a head and a tail. Today we havegrabbed hold of the pendulum and areswinging as rapidly in the opposite directionas directed biology will carry us.

The breeders of 25 to 30 years agothought they were right. Breeders of todaythink they are right. Could it be that 25 to30 years from now we will look back andsee that both extremes were equally wrongin opposite directions?

If you ask a purebred breeder why he isstriving so diligently to get his cattle taller,he will quickly tell you that the tall ones arethe ones he can sell most easily. In an “offthe record’ conversation out behind thebarn, most breeders who are astute cat-tlemen will confess to you that the tallestones are not necessarily the ones that dothe best job working in their herds.

A commonly held concept among somepurebred breeders, who are not familiar withfinishing and processing slaughter cattle, isthat the tallest ones are always the fastestgrowing and most efficient and have themost desirable carcasses. Tallness in itselfdoes not indicate any of these factors. Thereis considerable latitude in frame size when

cattle can be found that are fast, efficientgainers and whose carcasses fulfill the ex-acting requirements of the “boxed” beef in-dustry. Height is an illusion of performance.

All breeds of beef cattle do not need tobe alike. The Angus breed is so popularbecause it is probably the most “troublefree” breed roaming America’s pastures to-day. Many of the new, tall breeds have risento fame on the back of an Angus cow. IfAngus are to continue to enjoy suchwidespread acceptance, they must “do best”what Angus cattle “do best.” They must re-main as “trouble free” as possible, continueto be good mothers, be excellent feedlot cat-tle, produce excellent quality beef, etc.

It is sad when sires whose offspring ex-cel in many of these traits are not widelyused in the breed because they did notmeasure 53 inches at the hip at 365 daysof age. The ultimate goal of the industryshould be to produce a carcass in the rightweight range, with the proper amount of fatcover when that weight is attained and withthe quality of lean that will let beef remainthe Cadillac of foods. Maybe we should letthe cattle tell us how tall they should be toget this job done.

Tom FieldQuartz CreekCattle Co.Parlin, Colo.

‘‘The fine art of one-upmanshipleads us away from efficiency,least-cost productivity and the op-portunity for maintaining a prof-itable enterprise over the longhaul. ”

As cattlemen clamor to raise the tallestbull on the block, we are a lot like the whiterabbit of Alice in Wonderland. “I’m late! l’mlate!” is the philosophy by which we makeour genetic selections. We’re unsure ofwhere we’re headed, but we are in one heckof a hurry to get there.

Frame scores were never intended to beutilized as standards of excellence or levelsof quality. The single best use of framescores is to sort feeder cattle into manage-ment groups so they can be fed to theirmost logical endpoint. When combined withobservations of composition, frame providesa relatively accurate method of predictingphysiological maturity.

The fact remains that cattle from a varietyof frame scores can meet industry goalssuch as calving unassisted as 2-year-oldsand every 365 days thereafter, and wean-ing 500 + lb. calves that will gain 3 + lb.

64 ANGUS JOURNAL I June-July 1984

a day in the lot and hang 600- to 800-lb. Choice, yield grade two carcasses.

Therefore, available feed and manage- ment resources, along with reproductive rate, should determine average frame size for each individual cow herd. Let reproduc- tion set the parameters for the size we make our cattle. If the tallest cows in the herd are irregular breeders or tend to have extended calving intervals, then perhaps the environ- ment is making a statement about how much size can be tolerated while trying to maintain a productive herd. Simply put, we need to select cattle for the long term, eco- nomically important traits and let frame size take care of itself.

If we insist on chasing single trait selec- tion, we are likely to learn the same hard economic lessons as Chrysler Corporation and Ford Motor Company. The fine art of one-upmanship leads us away from efficien- cy, least cost productivity and the opportun- ity for maintaining a profitable enterprise over the long haul.

" . . . frame size is important from the standpoint of whether a given set of cattle will reach a desired degree of finish at the current op- timum weight for the target mar- ket. "

There is a gap between cattlemen who produce beef for a living and those who do it for fun and vanity. Unfortunately, the lat-

ter frequently influence the former to their detriment. If current economic trends per- sist, many more cattlemen will be forced out of this business. Those who survive are ap- plying the most sophisticated tools available to produce beef as efficiently a s possible. They are not influenced by fads.

Past shifts in desired frame size have been dictated by some logical changes in by- product use and the kind of beef in great- est demand. I expect changes will continue in the future. Factors that will influence frame size are: The limits of reproductive ef- ficiency; ability to do well on limited feed resources; size of the finished product; feed grain prices and availability; consumer pref- erence for the kind of product we can pro- duce; and new product development.

Therefore, frame size is important from the standpoint of whether a given set of cat- tle will reach a desired degree of finish at the current optimum weight for the target market. If they are too small or too large,

June-July 1984 / ANGUS JOURNAL 65

FRAME SIZE.. .

the producer will need to make some ad-justments to improve his return from themarket. Market requirements along withgiven genetic, environmental and manage-ment constraints will determine frame size.

There are other traits of greater impacton a cattleman’s net return than frame size.Large frame size can have an adverse im-pact on reproductive efficiency, which is themost important economic trait for cow-calfproducers. Frame size does not tell us whatthe rate or efficiency of growth is, nor doesit tell us about quality or quantity of prod-uct per unit of carcass weight.

Pope Ranches’ performance programstarted 15 years ago with principle emphasison post-weaning growth because that wasour most deficient trait. We are now in amore complex, second phase breeding pro-gram. Our objective is to produce bulls bredfor a specific purpose-either growth,calving ease or maternal traits. This givesour customers a better opportunity to selectbulls that meet their particular needs. Framesize is not a major criteria in the selectionof sires, as long as their steers will produceYG 2 Choice carcasses at 1,150 to 1,250 lb.

Mike McDowellLocust Level FarmVernon Hill, Va.

“At one time a cattleman’s thincows were probably the ones giv-ing the most milk. . . thin cowsare now the ones whose toplinesblock the horizons and whose bel-lies never brush the broomsedge. ”

Certainly in the last decade no single traitin beef cattle selection has received as muchuniversal attention as frame size. This wouldnot be true unless selection for increasedframe size held important merits.

Stan FansherBrookover Feed Yards Inc.Garden City, Kan.

As a general rule, one could safely saythe average cow in Virginia historically hasbeen too small for optimum production. Se-lection for frame has helped increase thesize of our cattle. And with an understand-ing of frame size, we can attempt to predictthe proper slaughter weight of our commer-cial cattle. Yet probably the one factor pro-viding incentive for concentrated selectionfor increased frame is that, even as a singletrait, it SELLS.

". . . we need to start with a feed-

er steer weighing 680 lb. with thegenetics to gain at a rate of 3.3lb. per day for 135 days.. .”

To this point I have been positive aboutwhat the industry has done through selec-tion for frame, but I feel we have made mis-

Our beef packing plants consistently liketo buy finished steers weighing an average1,100 to 1,150 lb. A 1.125-lb. steer yielding63 percent will hang up a 709-lb. carcasswhich will fit the packers’ box program.

For economical production to get this

66 ANGUS JOURNAL / June/July 1984

takes and missed real opportunities to im-prove the industry due to a somewhat singletrait selection program.

I am a strong supporter of performanceprograms and it concerns me to note rela-tively few breeders can provide progeny andindividual performance data. Yet mostbreeders can quote cannon length andmonthly, yearling, 2-year-old and evenmature heights. Most central bull test sta-tions have minimum hip height require-ments for entry and sale. Test stations wereformed to measure performance in pounds,yet rate of growth as measured in inchespresently seems more important to mostpeople.

At one time a cattleman’s thin cows wereprobably the ones giving the most milk. Ithink we are reaching the point where thincows are now the ones whose toplines blockthe horizons and whose bellies never brushthe broom sedge. Efficiency as related tosize is a point with which we are yet to deal.

Selection for frame size also has broughtthe industry problems such as carcasses thatwill not grade Choice at acceptable weights.Ultimately, the commercial cattleman willtell registered breeders when we have gonetoo far, just as he told us when his cattlewere too small. This year in Virginia, me-dium-framed feeder cattle consistently out-sold large-framed feeder cattle. With lessemphasis on frame and continued selectionfor growth rate in terms of pounds, I feel wewould be better able to answer the commer-cial man’s needs.

Selection for increased frame has beengood for the industry. However, we as reg-istered breeders have overrated and over-bid the value of frame alone. Selection formore frame does not necessarily meanmore pounds. Selection for maternal traitsand growth in terms of pounds does meanmore pounds. We should be height con-scious, but emphasize pounds in our selec-tion. After all, I feel safe in predicting thatin the next ten years the vast majority of cat-tle will still be sold by the pound, not theinch.

carcass weight, we need to start with a feed-er steer weighing 680 lb. with the geneticsto gain at a rate of 3.3 lb. per day for 135days, grade Choice and have mostly yieldgrades of 1, 2 or 3.

Larry CoonBethel, MO.

“Increasing altitude by straighten-ing the joints of an animal givesus a long, tall appearance, butthis method can lead to disaster. ”

The economic situation in the cattle bus-iness today should tell us that efficiency ismore important to a cattleman than whetheror not he can see over a cow’s back.

After several years of managing the MarkTwain Bull Test Station, we observed thatdisposition and comfort have a great influ-ence on feed efficiency in the feedlot, andthat an animal’s structure affects his com-fort and disposition.

We increase height in cattle one of twoways: (1) by increasing the length of the longbones, or (2) by stacking the leg bonesstraighter in the shoulder and stifle areas.Increasing the long bone length increasesage at maturity. This can be either good orbad. Animals that mature too earIy in thefeedlot lay on excess fat if carried to desir-able market weights; while heifers that ma-ture too late have a hard time calving at 2years of age, milking adequately for a goodweaning weight, and settling back to calveagain-all while still growing. This has ledmost universities to advocate grainingyoung cows to get them settled back. Sucha practice takes time, lot space, and high-priced feed-none of which are abundant incattle country. Still, if that young cow revertsto fall calving in range country, she is a“loss” cause, almost as much as if she hadcalved at 3 years of age.

Increasing altitude by straightening thejoints of an animal gives us a tong, tall ap-pearance, but this method can lead to dis-aster. In our test station, the straight struc-ture had little effect on young calves, butwith increased weight came increased dis-comfort and decreased efficiency. By 84days on feed, we could detect great de-creases in comfort and efficiency associatedwith straight shouldered and straight stifledcattle. One pen of bulls almost quit gain-ing (but not consuming) and walked muchas if foundered.

I guess my point is that if we want ourAngus cattle to look like Chianinas, we mustbe willing to tolerate the lack of reproduc-tive and feedlot efficiency that goes alongwith that type of cattle. Somewhere therehas to be a middle-of-the-road. I personallyprefer the highly maternal, highly efficientAngus cow that has the capacity to turnroughages into a live calf every year. I’ll feed

my corn and bean meal to her slaugh-ter-oriented offspring!

P.S. P/ease refer to Dr. Robert Long’s ex-ceptional article in the November 1983 AngusJournal, page 2 0 .

Gregory MayMaymont AngusTimberville, Va.

“Emotions excited by any crazeinterfer with discussions aboutthe justifications for it. ”

The current discussion about frame sizeraises several issues. The first is a concernabout the structure of the purebred industry.The second is the issue about the optimumsize for Angus cattle. The third is the ques-tion whether we are wasting our time wor-rying about the other two.

The structural problem in the purebredindustry is apparent to ail who have seentremendous effort devoted to the pursuit ofone fancy after another. As long as the in-dustry lives on capital infusions from newbreeders more interested in glamour and taxbenefits than commercial profits, selectionpreferences will continue to swing from oneextreme to another. Each deviation justifiescorrective selection, and cattle that most ex-cel in the corrective characteristic are themost easily promoted. The most easily pro-moted cattle draw the most attention, andthe industry heads off on another craze.Seen in perspective, the current pursuit ofextremely large skeletal size is nothing morethan the peak of the latest cycle.

Emotions excited by any craze interferewith discussions about the justifications forit. We do have, however, a significantamount of information from which to formreasonable conclusions about the optimumsize for animals within our breed. We knowmore about the correlations among framesize, environment and the productive traitsthan we did when some breeders selectedfor small cattle years ago. Having seen thebreed severely tested by selection in onecounterproductive direction, good Angusbreeders will not ignore the important traitsin an equally counterproductive scramble toproduce cattle that excel in one highly her-itable characteristic. Selection for reproduc-tive efficiency, milk production, and rapidgrowth to slaughter naturally tends to pro-duce cattle with the optimum frame size fortheir environment.

If selection for extremely large skeletalsize is just another fancy and good cattle-men can be expected to find optimum

June/July 1984 / ANGUS JOURNAL 6 7

FRAME SIZE.. .

frame sizes by selecting for the productivetraits, we could conclude that worryingabout the structure of the industry and theoptimum frame size is a waste of time. Thatconclusion probably would be wrong. Theproblems with our industry might be solvedif those who take this business seriouslywould add their voices to the political out-cry against abusive tax shelters and lendtheir aid to new breeders seeking a direc-tion. Research and shared experience shouldprovide further useful indications about thevalue of frame size as a selection tool. Final-ly, worrying about frame size should helpto remind us that we cannot achieve effi-cient beef production simply by selecting formeasurably larger skeletons.

500- to 600-lb. calf on her own. The cattle

enough capacity to eat enough grass to

some want today wouldn’t make it if theydid not see a grain bucket or a lush irrigated

maintain her own weight, let alone raise a

pasture every day.

Gary GreenCommercial CattlemanVolborg, Mont.

“Angus cattle have always beennoted for gainability and fast fin-ishing. Let’s not lose it. ”

I speak as a commercial cowman. I back-ground calves, grow yearling cattle, finishcattle to slaughter and raise bulls.

Let’s talk frame size. Everyone thinks thetaller and bigger the better. But we haveoversold it. If we keep going like we are to-day, we will be in trouble. Down the road,the commercial man’s cattle will not be eco-nomical to run on the range. A cow will con-sume too much grass and feed to maintainher frame.

We need a cow in the average framescore of 6. In average condition, she needsto weigh from 1,100 to 1,200 lb., and weana calf weighing 500 to 600 lb. at six monthsof age without creep feed. Bulls need toweigh 2,000 to 2,400 lb. at maturity, withframe score of 7. We need good bone andenough leg under cattle for them to standup well. Long, smooth cattle are best, withuniformity, good long muscle structure,volume and capacity.

Height is our worst enemy today. Thetaller cattle get, the more performance welose. We must have cattle with performanceto stay in business today. We are told wewant cattle trim and showy, but we losevolume and capacity.

We need volume and capacity in our cat-tle. The feeder needs it When he puts asteer in a lot, he wants gainability. If a steerhas no capacity, he has no gainability. Hehas to be able to put the feed away to gain.The sooner a steer is fat and gone, the moremoney a feeder makes.

If we keep going like some are headedtoday, in ten years a cow will not have

68 ANGUS JOURNAL / June-July 1984

The Angus industry has done a wonder-ful job in getting the size and frame cattlewe need today. A warning, though: Slowdown and don’t over do it. Angus cattle havealways been noted for gainability and fastfinishing. Let’s not lose it. It is one of themost valuable tools we have. When it’s allsaid and done, we are all raising cattle formeat.

If more bull producers would sharpentheir knives and feed some cattle for slaugh-ter, they would know more about the kindof cattle they raise today. Today’s show win-ners are not the kind a commercial man canuse. So why does a purebred breeder needthem? After all, somewhere down the road,the commercial man, feeder, packer andconsumer are the ones that keep purebredbreeders alive.

Robert deBacaMid-Iowa Cattle Co.Huxley

“Ultimately, functionality mustprevail. Mother Nature is tough onextremes. ”

I’m for taller cattle-taller than they were.Taller than most cattle are today. Short-bodied and short-statured cattle are wrong.We don’t need them in the feedlot and wedon’t need them as bulls or cows. Has framebeen over sold? No, it’s been over bought.

But height has bothered me-as a goal.Height would have happened but slower,even without it as a goal. Height is a partof fast growth-but not as much so aslength. With the correlation of height andgrowth being as high as it is, you would getheight half as fast by selecting growth rateas by selecting directly for height. Troubleis that in selecting for height, you get growthrate only half as fast as selecting for growthrate directly. And in selecting height as asingle trait, one selects for slower maturity,later puberty and often incorrect structure,lack of volume and lack of ruggedness.

This past winter should have been a les-son that the basic strengths of the Angusbreed must not be sacrificed in favor ofheight. The Angus breed must maintain ,itsruggedness, its maternal strength, its abil-ity to marble and have enough fat coveringto withstand winter stress.

In the ’50s smallness was beauty. Todayheight is the fad. Ultimately, functionalitymust prevail. Mother Nature is tough onextremes.

Jim GreshamCircle G AngusHampton, Cia.

". . . as long as advancement can

be made in frame size withoutgiving up the economic traits, weare performing our function asbreeders. ”

Frame size has been a major topic of con-versation since we started in the cattle bus-iness in 1968. One of the first things welearned was, generally speaking at purebredsales, inches sold for considerably morethan pounds. Since that time, I have askedmany people how tall and how long the per-fect Angus cow or bull should be. Duringthese 16 years, no one has answered thatquestion with actual dimensions. The stan-dard response has been “as long and tall aspossible while still maintaining the econom-ic traits Angus cattle are known for.”

Even though we have seen the height of2-year-old bulls at national shows increaseby approximately six inches during the past16 years, most economic genetic traits haveremained equal or improved. Therefore, Ifeel as long as advancement can be madein frame size without giving up the econom-ic traits, we are performing our function asbreeders.

During the past two decades, the com-mercial industry has strived to add frame tocommercial cows. Commercial men recog-nize that it is impossible to make gains inpounds without the skeleton on which tohang the same. Since the action we take asbreeders is dictated by the commercial mar-ket, I feel the trend towards larger, latematuring cattle will continue. This is espec-ially true in light of the fact that two-thirdsof all purebred and commercial cattle arestill considered to be small framed.

The commercial man can achieve addi-tional frame size quicker than a purebredbreeder due to the tool of crossbreeding.However, he must have a bull that is largeenough to accomplish the same. As demon-strated by measurements taken at test sta-tions across the country, there are still rel-atively few Angus bulls available to the com-mercial cattleman that can satisfy his needs.Therefore, other naturally large-framedbreeds have taken a considerable share ofthe market.

FRAME SIZE.. .

I feel we should continue to breed forframe size until performance data tells uswe have reached a peak with respect to fer-tility, carcass grade, and other factors thatmake for a beef producing animal.

Dr. L.I. “Ike”SmartLouisiana StateUniversityBaton Rouge

to help get her bred back on time, and haveenough capacity for her frame size to do thison forage. After studying over 10,000 headof cattle with records for 15 years or more,I do not think that either the very small orthe extremely tall will be the answer, but avariation in the middle will best cover alldemands.

The calves produced at weaning then canbe managed by the producer and feedlotman in a way to produce the end productdemanded by the consumer.

“If we do not use our heads, wewill wind up with large cows bredto medium-frame bulls which isvery inefficient. ”

I have never believed that one type of cat-tle fits all phases of the beef industry or thatprofit was made from only one trait. Eco-nomically, reproduction is the number onetrait and is certainly not improved by largerframe size. In some cases, it may be the re-verse and people are more likely to cull asmall open female and keep a large openone. Frame size is correlated with growthtraits, but not 100 percent with weight gain.The muscle mass, length of body and totalvolume of the animal all add weight. Weightis what we sell, not height.

If we consider our main demand is forboxed beef, a l,l00- to 1,200-lb. steer fitsbest. This is a frame size 4 or 5 or USDAmedium frame. There is a demand for bullswith frame 6 and larger to move the frame3 cattle into the correct frame size. The de-mand for this frame size should decrease asmore cattle move into the frame 4 to 5range. As this occurs, the demand for frame4 and 5 bulls which are strong in other traits(such as maternal traits, calving ease, repro-duction, etc.), should increase. The smallframe cattle (frame size 1,2 and the low endof 3), may well wind up in crossbreedingprograms. The crossbred cows will probablybe large enough to work best with a medi-um-frame bull.

The cow-calf man will have the greatestinfluence on what size cattle we raise. Hemust have a cow large enough to producethe size calf to top the market, mature ear-ly enough to calve young, calve withouttrouble, give enough milk to wean a heavycalf, put on enough finish between calves

We have had the best condition for effi-ciency which is breeding cows to largerbulls. The calves are growthy and you havea smaller cow to maintain. If we do not useour heads, we will wind up with large cowsbred to medium-frame bulls which is veryinefficient.

78 ANGUS JOURNAL / June-July 1984

Wayne StevensonBasin Angus RanchMoccasin, Mont.

"While frame is important, we’vegot to realize it’s only one part ofa total performance program.am Wecertainly must not forget fertility,calving ease, milking and moth-ering ability . . . ”

Frame size is one of the most talked-about subjects in the Angus industry and Ithink we have reached the point where weneed to stop and reevaluate where we areheaded.

The invasion of “Exotics” did the Angusindustry a great favor by forcing it to realizemuch of the breed needed more size. Andwe have certainly made a fantastic turn-around in a few short years. But let us notblindly follow them down the path to ourdestruction by turning our “maternal” Angusbreed into a “terminal” breed.

While frame is important, we’ve got torealize it’s only one part of a total performance program. We certainly must not forgetfertility, calving ease, milking and mother-ing ability of the Angus cow, disposition,economical gain, and growth to a usefulsize.

In cow country I feel the ideal size for theAngus cow is 1,100 to 1,300 lb. (this de-pending on the type of range and feed con-ditions) and in the 52- to 53-inch heightrange. In a range operation (as most cattleare raised in Montana), cows larger than thishave some definite disadvantages: They areharder to winter, requiring more feed tomaintain; they do not conceive as easilywhen they are heifers; and they are harderto rebreed as mature cows without a lot ofextra supplement. Every commercial ranch-er needs to find what size cow best fits hisoperation; the seed stock producer will al-ways have to have some extremes to be ableto accentuate the size of cattle that are notbig enough.

The AHlR program is really on the righttrack by identifying those lines of cattle thathave excellent maternal traits, and conversely those that do not. We need to do moreto educate cattle raisers so that they can bet-ter understand the vast amount of informa-tion available through the AHIR program.

We must realize the Angus breed can’t beall things to all segments of the cattle in-dustry, and we must concentrate on empha-sizing and perpetuating those things the An-gus breed does best.

Dr. Troy PattersonAuburn UniversityAuburn, Ala.

". . . in the rush to get Angus cat-

tle larger, many breeders began topay less and less attention to thetraits that have made the Angusbreed a vital contributor to thecommercial industry. ”

In the 1940s and early 1950s the beef cat-tle industry started the use of “frame” to de-termine the relative desirability of individualanimals within each breed. Only it wasn’tcalled frame at this time for the term hadnot been coined; it was referred to as “lowset and compact.” However, translated intotoday’s terms they were frame 1’s and 2’s.

Beef breeding researchers in the mean-time were developing the procedure to baseselection on total performance rather thanfads. Fortunately, there were some breedimprovers of Angus cattle that believed thismethod of selection was the only tested andsure way to make simultaneous improve-ment in traits of economic importance.These “master” breeders were ahead of theirtime but had to remain in the backgrounduntil the influx of “exotics,” demanded bythe commercial cattlemen, forced breederswith small cattle to look to these “master”breeders for seed stock.

Yes, Angus cattle needed to be larger! Un-fortunately, in the rush to get them larger,many breeders began to pay less and lessattention to the traits that have made theAngus breed a vital contributor to the com-mercial cattle industry. These traits are re-production (including small birth weights),milk production, marbling, rapid and eco-nomical early growth, and smaller-than-aver-age mature size in the crossbred cow thusproduced.

Recently, after careful comparative con-siderations based on the 1983 AHIR siresummary, a young Angus bull was selectedto be used by A.I. in the Auburn Universityresearch herd. This bull, in my opinion, isone of the top five bulls of the breed andwill contribute positively to all the traitslisted above. Yet the most frequently askedquestion by Angus breeders when discuss-

ing the use of this bull is “how tall is he?”I don’t know how tall he is! He must be tallerthan most Angus bulls, but I would be sur-prised if he is very close to the tallest bullof the breed, He is tall enough to sire thekind of bulls needed by the commercial cat-tle industry.

A breeder should be aware that selectingfor growth will automatically increase heightand mature size because they are geneticallycorrelated traits. Therefore height should notbe the sole trait of importance in a breedingprogram.

In closing, I have read where individuals,perhaps more knowledgeable than me, havesaid “don’t worry about getting cattle toolarge, the brood cow will tell you when thisoccurs by producing comparatively less ata greater cost.” I must remind you that bythen it will be too late, just as it was whenwe got them too small. The breed will onceagain turn around and come back to the“master” breeder for their seed stock.

Dr. H. DeeWoodySouthern IllinoisUniversityCarbondale

“Each breed needs to capitalize ontheir strong points to maintain afoothold in the commercial mar-ket. ”

There has never been more emphasis puton a subject since I had to learn the three‘R’s” in grade school. Extreme emphasiswas placed on frame during the 1950s andearly ‘60s-small frame that is! Then thecomplaining of feeders and packers of “toomany shorts,” the influence from breedersin the western states and the introductionof large frame made exotic breeds, the em-phasis on more height, and frame andgrowth in the Angus breed inevitable.

When so much emphasis is placed on acertain trait, we must periodically do somesoul searching and address certain ques-tions. These include:

1. What are the strong points of the Angus breed for the commercial market?

2. What size cow is most efficient andprofitable to raise in our production system?

3. What kind of carcass or product is themost desirable to the meat packing industryand consumer?

I believe there is no ideal size or type ofbeef animal that fits all segments of the beefcattle industry. We actually are trying tomake all breeds look alike! Each breedneeds to capitalize on their strong points tomaintain a foothold in the commercial mar-ket. Personally, I believe in large-framed,

June/July 1984 / ANGUS JOURNAL 7 1

FRAME SIZE.. .

grow-thy cattle and feel that we need to continue this emphasis in the Angus breed.However, let’s not do it blindly as we didwhen we emphasized small-framed cattle inthe 1950s.

In today’s competitive market, producingsuperior breeding cattle is a difficult task.As the late Byron Good once said “Masterbreeders are the Michelangelos of the live-stock world.”

A. Gray CoynerFleetwood FarmDelaplane, Va.

“We must continue to search andresearch for a formula that usesa combination of all trait mea-surements for selection. ”

Our industry’s continued attempts to es-tablish one trait as the answer to all ourproblems will only create more problems.We must continue to search and researchfor a formula that uses a combination of alltrait measurements for selection.

in our particular herd, frame size has andwill continue to play an important role in

replacement heifer selection. We are ap-proaching the upper limits for frame in ourherd, for our Angus and Angus-crossslaughter steers have reached a carcassweight of almost 800 lb. (yield grade 2 to 3).

I think we need to follow the example ofthe dairy industry and be able to accurate-ly measure all traits, evaluate our cow herds,and choose bulls that will improve specificareas of our herd.

Larry LeonhardtShoshone AngusCowley, Wyo.

"Regardless of any size level pre-ferred, it seems dependabilitywith consistency must be main-tained before any stock can qual-ify for the distinction of beingcalled a purebred. ”

During trends, uniqueness and rarity areinclusive factors which determine the mone-tary value of breeding stock between regis-

tered breeders. The current demand for asignificant increase in the frame size of An-gus cattle is commanding primary attentionfor the financial reward offered for biggerAngus. Regardless of the role frame sizeplays in overall production efficiency, it isnot so important how big we make them,rather the methods we employ while mak-ing them bigger.

When selection pressure mandates thatfunctional purpose follow some idealisticform, much to our chagrin, in reality wemay find that maintaining an intricate bal-ante of preferred traits with that form mayresult in an effort towards futility. Ultimate-ly, form is a consequence of function. Allour breeds of different purpose portray thiswell. It is encouraging to note the compar-isons between sale averages of exotic breedsand British breeds. They reveal that com-mercial cowmen are beginning to recognizethat bigger is not necessarily more efficient.And supply and demand are coming closertogether.

Determining proper frame size seems de-pendent upon the defined objective andwhether the role of the stock will be asparents in systematic commercial crossingprocedures. If the objective is to raise tallercattle, obviously selection and mating of tallto tall will increase the frequency of the trait.Indifference to the latent content of thegenotype may cause considerable assort-ment during succeeding generations-an in-efficient maneuver.

If we try to fill all the differing needs of

72 ANGUS JOURNAL / June/July 1984

the meat consumer with Angus cattle, it ap-pears that we then need different kinds (eachfor an appropriate purpose) to ultimately af-feet production efficiency. In 1950, poultrymeat was 80 percent of the price of beef,while today it is only 30 percent. Efficientgenetic improvement systems must be de-vised to compliment production.

According to published statistics, 16 per-cent of the meat eaters are primarily con-cerned with fast food meals easily prepared;25 percent are price conscious and maysubstitute other products for beet 17 per-cent are the health group; 20 percent arecreative meat cooking specialists; and 22percent are meat lovers because they enjoythe taste . . . which market do each of uswant to breed our Angus for? What inherentqualities are most deserving and readilypreserved?

Once determined, if dependability andpredictability are a definitive part of a breed-ing objective, that goal must be pursuedwith persistent continuity within the realmof possibilities. Then frame size will adjustitself as a consequence of that objective.Otherwise, correlations among traits maycause us to propagate “Heinz 57” genotypesand we then would be in direct competitionwith all the synthetic strains being devei-oped today from breed composites. This re-sults in a lack of genetic order and predict-ability.

Regardless of any size level preferred, itseems dependability with consistency mustbe maintained before any stock can qualify

for the distinction of being called a pure-bred. Whatever function a purebred’s roleis to be, it should be identified and merchandised accordingly to assure proper usage,based on evaluated facts, not anticipation.

Winning contests of any nature with in-dividual stock are temporary, sporadicachievements if that representative symbolcannot be effectively and more assuredlytransferred to the commercial industry.Purebreds transmitting predictability are thestabilizers for the entire industry.

tain it 100 percent from every angle is animpossibility. In the same breath, to be ableto do so would destroy the thrills and chal-lenges that contribute so much to everystockman’s dreams that are so necessary tothe dedication and motivation of this Ciod-given art.

Mile WolrabWayside FarmsMount Vernon, Iowa

Pefectionism is to capture the most of allthings important to the survival and efficien-cy of any breed of livestock. To put breedingpressure on any one phase with little regardto other important factors leads to extrem-ism and the curse of Mother Nature.

The “baby beef’ era was a prime exam-ple of extremism when small, inefficient cat-tle were the name of the game. The shorterthe leg, the better. The terms “blocky andlow down” were just as important in thoseunrealistic years as hip height is today.Needless to say, fertility and conception be-came significant problems. The ever-swinging pendulum swung too far to left field,with all three British breeds “stuck in themud.”

The pressure of the exotic breeds with ex-

“To put breeding pressure on any tra size.was incentive enough to redeem the

one phase with ZittZe regard to things that spelled efficiency and commonsense for the British breeds in their exodus

other important factors leads to from the “pumpkin seed’ era. The Angusextremism and the curse of breed was fortunate to have enough of theMother Nature. ” genetic tools, jealously guarded by a hand-

ful of stubborn die-bards who knew that youwere paid for pounds, and pounds put shoes

The true art of breeding livestock is the on the kids and bread on the table.art of “perfectionism.” To capture and main- As a 4-H lad in the early

June-July 1984 / ANGUS JOURNAL 73

Frame SIZE l . . BuIIs should be masculine with large tes- one extreme to another, more problems willtitles, cut up well in front with good straight be created than solved. Now is the time forbacks and muscling. Their length should bewell some of the great Angus herds in east- registered breeders to listen to the commer-as great as their back will support. Some ofem lowa. I distinctly remember a visit to the cial industry rather than direction being de-the larger, taller bulls produce calves that cided by the show ring.Senator Del Miller herd of Morley. Thosedo not feed out as well or as cheaply. ltwere big, long beefy cows, structurally cor-takes muscling and a reasonable length ofrect with the length of neck and uphead-back to produce a good feeder steer. Weedness to impress the most exacting. They

had depth of muscling with the ease of flesh- have noticed that some really long bullshave a tendency to produce weak-backeding that guaranteed their survival in thecattle and backs that are not straight.worst of lowa winters. These same qualities

I believe the industry should stop and take Robert L. Stewartpreserved their fertility and milking ability.These are the very things that are basic to a good look at what is happening. Maybe Extension Animal

we should be thinking more about livethe survival of any breed. These were the Scientistkind of Angus cattle that started the Angus calves on the ground within a 45-day period, University of Georgia

along with cost of feed for desired cutabil-"steam roller” heading west in the invasion Tiftonity, tenderness and flavor.of strictly Hereford country.

All you have to do is eat a steak in a res-The size revolution in the Angus breedhas been tremendously important. We taurant to know what is happening to the

“What good are higher 205-day.needed it. And certainly the extra length Of cattle industry.leg on these cows nursing calves in the mid- weights or 365-day weights whenwestern “mud holes” has eliminated a host the percent calf crop drops?”of problems. At this time we need moreconcentration and pressure on depth ofmuscling on this larger frame and structural During the past few years there has beensoundness while maintaining fertility. We much discussion over frame score and itsdon't want somebody to ask “Where’s the importance to the beef industry. FrameBeef!” score is definitely important, but there are

Let’s not lose the marbling structure for Harris Penner other factors to consider besides the size ofwhich the Angus breed has long been noted, Mill Creek, Okla. cattle we need to produce.complemented by that long, uninterrupted There is no doubt that frame is positive-list of great International carcass winnings. ly correlated with such economic growthThe old established herds of the early 30s traits as average daily gain, weight per dayhad these qualities and we are getting lose " . . , if we continue to swing from of age and yearling weight. These traits areto redeeming them. We need to fine tune

one extreme to another, more certainly important to cow-calf producers,that evasive pendulum and stop it at 12 stocker operators, and feedlot people. How-o’clock. We have a great breed, great breed- problems will be created than ever, we should not forget that frame scoreers, and a great organization headed by a solved. ” iS also positively correlated with birth weightsuper group of people. If we do these things and, therefore, possible dystocia. When se-I'm sure that future generations will never lecting for frame score, a breeder is usuallyhave to ask “Where’s the Beef!” Frame size of a lot of Angus cattle did selecting against fertility and mothering abil-

need to increase, but there reaches a point ity. What good are higher 205-day weightswhen productivity and profitability will start or 365-day weights when the percent calfto decline. With selection emphasis on crop drops?frame score, mature weights are going to What is the ideal frame score? I’m notincrease and, after a few generation turn- sure, but with the advent of boxed beef theovers one will have late maturing animals packer pays a premium for carcasses weigh-that are heavier than the packer wants and ing 650 to 750 lb. These convert to live

Bob Rice females that will not breed by 15 months weights of 1,050 to 1,200 lb. which meanof age. Angus steers should have the genetic frame scores of 4 to 5. Frame scores above

Rice Ranches ability to grade choice, yield grade 2.5 to this do not fit the trade. Cattle usually failHarrison, Mont. 3.5 at 16 to 18 months of age, and weigh to grade Choice at these weights or may be

1,050 to 1,200 lb. That would be true eco- too heavy when they do get to the Choicenomic progress! grade. Frame scores below this also fail to

There is not one cow size that is best for fit the trade. Small carcasses simply will not"All you have to do is eat a steak all environments; and bigger is not always fill the “box.”in a restaurant to know what is more profitable. The long, tall females may HOW do we achieve the desired framehappening to the cattle industry. ” be topping sales, but they are not the fe- scores with consistency? One way is to put

males that will preserve the strong mater- selection pressure on frame score in everynal traits of the Angus breed. The frame size breed regardless of the consequences. In

Frame size definitely fits into the total of your cows should determine the frame this way, the commercial cattleman can ob-production picture, and the Angus industry size of bulls used-but never sacrifice mus- tain market weights with straightbred cat-has come a long way since the days of the cling for height. The best two female sires tle. An alternate way would be crossbreed-" c u t e " little blocky, short-legged animal of we have used only have mature hip height ing. Hybrid vigor is obviously a quicker40 years ago. measurements of 55 and 56 inches. The means of obtaining desirable growth traits,

I believe we must stay with an Angus cow strong points of Angus cattle must not be including frame score, for the commercialthat is reasonably long and feminine, has a forgotten (carcass and maternal). cattleman.straight back and is not wastey in front. We The registered Angus breeder has in- What about the furture? Everyone is awareseem to have more difficulty breeding big, creased frame scores and growth perform- that the cattle business is cyclical in nature.long-legged cows, so we cull such females ance of Angus cattle, and this was necessary History shows us that cattle numbers andand try to stay away from this tract in our to survive the mistakes of the late ’50s and prices move in cycles of eight to 12 yearsbulls. early ’60s. But if we continue to swing from We should also note that desirable types of

74 Angus JOURNAL / June/July 1984

FRAME SIZE.. .

cattle also move in cycles of somewhatlonger duration. Remember the short,blocky steers which were considered ideal20 years ago? Frame size has continued toincrease since then. We may have peakedin terms of extreme frame size and arebeginning to moderate.

I don’t think the industry will ever cycleback to the 800 lb. Prime steer. However,there is some food for thought about newdirections in the packing industry. Conceiv-ably, there could be a strong market for500-lb. carcasses in the future. The house-wife may prefer smaller portion sizes of redmeat than are currently available fromboxed beef. There is also a need for smallercuts in the restaurant trade. Such a trendwould not necessarily dictate a change inthe packing industry. Boxed beef is here tostay. However, we may see a need for asmaller “box.” A two-tiered system of retail-ing beef based on carcass size could welldevelop.

How do these ideas relate to the breederwho is emphasizing frame score in his selec-tion? First, I think a breeder should objec-tively decide what frame score is bigenough. My suggestion is that a frame scoreof 5+ is big enough for English cattle.Selection pressure for frame beyond thismay succeed in producing bigger cattle, butmay also produce higher birth weights andfess efficient females.

If a particular breed offers strong pointssuch as calving ease, milking ability, repro-ductive efficiency and high-quality carcasses,then what is accomplished by selectionagainst these traits? When selecting forframe score, keep these traits in mind. Ef-ficiency keeps more cattlemen in businessthan size of cattle.

Ed LettunichLettunich & SonsPayette, Idaho

". . . the only reason any regis-

tered breed or breeder really existsis to improve the quality and effi-ciency of meat production. Anybreed or breeder who forgets theirpurpose will be short lived.”

Frame is the magic word in the Angusbusiness, or is it?

In the 1980s frame allows a new breederto determine a “good animal” from a “badanimal” and become an expert immediate-ly. Frame is so important it allows a judge

76 ANGUS JOURNAL / June-July 1984

to place a bull first even if he can’t walk orhas other important defects. Frame deter-mines a donor cow. Frame is the basis ofmore than 20,000 breeding programs in theAngus business. Frame makes sale man-agers rich. Fortunes are made and lost inthe Angus business on frame.

In the 1950s we bred them smaller. In the1970s we bred them bigger. Should we con-tinue to get them bigger in the 1980s?

Now, more than any time in the 30+years we have been in the Angus business,one single trait dominates. The majority ofbreeders emphasize frame. It always hasbeen the major consideration, but open A.I.has helped accentuate selection for a singletrait.

Single trait emphasis is never a good pol-

icy for long. Emphasis on a single trait bythe majority of breeders in a certain breedfor a long period can be disastrous. Espe-cially if this trait is almost counter-produc-tive with traits for which commercial breed-ers use a particular breed.

Angus is a maternal breed. Angus will beused in the commercial cattle industry asa maternal breed. Attempts by breeders tomake the Angus breed something otherthan maternal are disastrous.

Single trait selection for frame within theAngus breed is having an adverse effect onthe demand for Angus cattle in the com-mercial bull trade. The most apparent, easilyrecognized problems include losses ofcalving ease, early puberty and milk.

Space does not allow me to pursue these

points in depth, but remember the onlyreason any registered breed or breeder real-ly exists is to improve the quality and effi-ciency of meat production. Any breed orbreeder who forgets their purpose will beshort lived.

" A breeder can add frame withoutadding problems if he is selec-tive. ”

In my opinion, our top Angus cattle haveenough frame, but far too many Angus cat-tle are not big enough for today’s needs. Thecommercial breeder needs a bull that willadd frame in most instances. The demandfor Angus bulls is up mainly because wehave more frame in our cattle. However, wecannot let our breed change so much thatcalving ease is no longer one of our strongpoints.

We should not get to the point where “wecan’t see the forest for the trees.” I repeatwhat I have said before:II think the big onesare ideal. The first thing we hear now is howtall a calf is. We are becoming too consciousof heights-and not conscious enough ofother factors. At a major Angus event in1983, winners in most classes could be se-lected from height alone. It seems that if wehad the measurement chart, we would notneed a judge.

Each time a new breed appears on themarket, the respective association beginstelling about all the breeds good traits. Thevery breeding traits they brag about best de-scribe Angus cattle. So, why change the bestproduct one could have? We needed to getback to the big cattle the Angus breed oncehad, but we don’t need to go beyond beingpractical or functional. In 1880 Angus bullsweighed as much as a ton as 2-year-olds.And they had plenty of meat along withvolume.

Our breeders today need to fine tune thegreat cattle that we have. Concentrate onmaternal traits, volume, performance and,most of all, fertility. Also, calving ease mustnot be overlooked. A large-framed dead calfis not worth much around our farm. Wehave kept measurements on all our calvesfor nine years and the larger-framed calvesat birth are not always the largest at wean-ing age. Some calves that are moderate insize at birth outgrow the others. Bulls thatsire this type calves are what we should beusing, if their maternal traits are goodenough.

June/July /984 / ANGUS JOURNAL 77

FRAME SIZE.. .

We have all heard the comment that thelarger cow may not be as fertile as thesmaller one. Our larger cows have been themost fertile and the best milkers. A breedercan add frame without adding problems ifhe is selective.

Don’t forget, pounds sell, not frame.

Joe ElliottRobert Elliott & Sons AngusAdams and Cedar Hill,Tenn.

“A vertical yardstick is a poorway to measure function. ”

Today, height in the Angus business is asoversold as Phyllis Diller’s sex appeal.

As seed stock breeders, we must keep inmind the goals of our primary customer, thecommercial cow-calf man. His number onegoal is the same as that of his banker-aprofit.

As a breed and as an industry, we are put-ting too much emphasis on height and notenough on function. A vertical yardstick isa poor way to measure function. Overallfunction of the Angus breed is what has

BRUCEAngus Ranch

herd consists ofdaughters of Ankonion Dynamo

and Premier Stardom andgranddaughters of Pride 70. PowerPlay, Machinist and Hi Guy.

Calves by: Machinist and Hi Guy.

for sale all times.

for our qualityconsignments Arkansas

Futurky Show and Saleand Select Heifer Sale.

Welcome. sign miles north of

on 65.

Box 200Omaha, Ark. 72662

Bill, Shirley, Larryand Dan Bruce

A family-run operation(501) 426-5335

made the breed number one. I am not say- ing that the Angus breed as a whole is tallenough. What I am saying is we need to stepback and take a long look at what puttingso much emphasis on selecting for a singleinherited trait may be doing to the overallfunction of the Angus breed.

For those of you who have forgotten whattrue function is, here is my description offunctional traits and the reasons they are im-portant, in order of importance:

1. Fertility and calving ease-the growthrate on a dead calf or no calf at all is verylow.

2. Mothering ability-a calf needs some-thing besides companionship.

3. Early sexual maturity-a heifer thatcannot calve as a 2-year-old or a bull thatcannot breed as a short yearling cost toomuch.

4. Rapid growth rate to accepted marketweight-growth rate after reaching slaugh-ter weight has no function.

5. Easy keeping-God made cattle to eatforage, and it costs less than grain.

6. Carcass quality at desired marketweight-quality will sell if it is in the rightsize package.

I know of no reason why a frame 7 cowcan out perform a frame 5 cow on the aboveeconomically important traits. The fact ismost frame 7 cows will not perform as wellbecause they have been selected for frameand frame alone.

Selection with too much pressure put onone or two traits is a short-term answer. Inthe long-term, it is like playing RussianRoulette.

In order to make a profitable contributionto all segments of the beef industry, a cowmust be totally functional.

Form follows function, it always has andalways will.

Stephen P.HammackExtension BeefSpecialistStephenville, Texas

“We sometimes use the term‘size’ when we actually meanframe or weight alone but the dis-tinction is an important one. ”

Evaluation of frame is just one of a num-ber of methods of characterizing cattle.Frame and weight are the two most com-mon methods of expressing size. We some-times use the term “size” when we actuallymean frame or weight alone, but the distinc-tion is an important one. Knowledge of bothframe and weight allows us to better char-acterize animals.

lt is perhaps true that frame size has beenoveremphasized, especially in the show ring.However, this is not surprising since anyeasily recognized physical characteristicwhich gains acceptance is usually favoredto an extreme in the show ring.

There is a great deal of misunderstandingabout the relationship of size and growth.It is often stated that bigger cattle are“grow-thier,” “faster gaining,” and “more ef-ficient.” This has been shown to be true, ifwe measure these factors over a time-con-stant or weight-constant period. But, if wecompare cattle at the same physiologicalend-point (such as carcass grade or fat thick-ness) then there is much less variationamong various sizes of cattle, especially inefficiency. Instead, the main differenceamong cattle of different sizes at the samecarcass grade or fatness is their weight, andthe length of time required to reach thatweight.

Certainly, in recent years acceptable car-cass weight has increased while the level ofdesirable fatness has decreased, both favor-ing increased size. So, selection for greaterframe size is probably justified only to theextent necessary for the majority of slaugh-ter cattle to reach acceptable slaughterweight at the desired fatness. Any changesin acceptable weight or desired fatness willguarantee a change in emphasis on framesize.

“Many generations of single traitselection would have to occur be-fore the fate of the Angus breedwould be in jeopardy. ”

Frame size in recent years has becomea standard of measurement that is like othertraits for which selection is practiced-it canbe beneficial or harmful. Frame size is ben-eficial when used as a descriptive tool inidentification of phenotype. It can be harm-ful when used in single trait selection sinceresponse of correlated traits may have neg-ative production and economic effects.

With over 60 breeds in the United States,commercial producers can make giganticchanges through crossbreeding in one gen-eration for frame size. To further complicatethe situation, the total beef industry includesthese major segments: cow-calf (purebredand commercial), stocker, feeder, packer,retailer and consumer. Reams of papercould be used in discussing frame size forsuch a complex industry.

78 ANGUS JOURNAL / June-July 1984

For a single breed, the Angus breed,frame size is a bit easier to analyze and un-derstand. The two variables in determiningframe score are age and actual measure-ment. Without accuracy in these two vari-ables, frame size can be very misleading.

Today approximately 25 percent of theAngus calves registered are sired throughartificial insemination. And about 25 percentof these A.I. calves are sired by less thanseven bulls. These bulls are not necessarilythe extreme frame size bulls within thebreed. In population genetics it becomesnecessary to understand the average bothin the purebred and commercial setting. Theaverage Angus in both these segments isstill too small. There are environments thatwill dictate what frame size is optimum forefficient production.

The understanding of a breeds strongand weak points is crucial for utilizing framesize and in its future development. For An-gus, some of the strong points would be:calving ease, milking ability, fertility, age atpuberty, age at maturity, and carcass qual-ity.

Some show cattle and extreme growthcattle may approach the extreme in framesize before harmful effects on the strongpoints of the breed are seen. The only waythe average of a breed can move is throughthe use of these extremes. Many generationsof single trait selection would have to oc-cur before the fate of the Angus breedwould be in jeopardy.

For extreme cattle, correlated traits willwarn the breeders in how far to go. Extremeextremes in frame size can mean calvingproblems due to prenatal growth, fertility(age of puberty, especially in females, hor-mone production because of age at sexualmaturity), poor maternal ability, less desir-able carcass quality, and growth (extendedgrowth curve).

Wise selection within the Angus breed willinvolve several of the economically impor-tant traits, including frame size. Frame sizefor the breed is unlikely to become a prob-lem since breeders of extreme frame sizecattle will change selection pressures wellbefore harmful effects appear throughoutthe breed.

Final thought: All breeds do not need tobe the same in frame size. AJ

ANGUS JOURNAL Flashbacks

1965-“Elected president of the statewide beef cattle organization (the MissouriAngus Assn.) was Paul Van Meter, an An-gus breeder from near Queen City, MO. Hereplaces retiring president Howard Hacklerof Taylor, MO. Ralph Sydenstricker, Mex-ico, is the new vice president. Reelected foranother term were the secretary FredBlades, Holliday, and the treasurer, W.G.Raymond, Boonville. Directors for the yearare T.R. Cole, Pascola; Bob Perry, Bethel;Dwight Gamer, Rosendale; and Judson

Baugher, Trenton.”

June/July 1984 / ANGUS JOURNAL 79