Following are short definitions for what each Gelbvieh EPD measures and the unit it is measured in. For updated average EPDs for the Gelbvieh breed, visit www.gelbvieh.org.

Calving Ease Direct (CE): an EPD that is expressed as a ratio, with a higher ratio representing better (easier) calving ease. This value represents the direct influence a sire has on calving ease. Only first-calf heifer data is included.

Birth Weight (BW): predicts the difference, in pounds, for birth weight. Weaning Weight (WW): predicts the difference, in pounds, for weaning weight (adjusted to age of dam and a standard 205 days of age). This is an indicator of growth from birth to weaning.

Yearling Weight (YW): predicts the expected difference, in pounds, for yearling weight (adjusted to standard 365 days of age). This is an indicator of growth from birth to yearling.

Milk (MK): the genetic ability of a sire's daughters to produce milk expressed in pounds of weaning weight.

Total Maternal (TM): a value that combines growth and milk information and a prediction of the weaning weight performance of calves from a sire's daughters. This value does not have an accompanying accuracy value. Gestation Length (GL): this EPD is expressed in days and measures the days under or over normal gestation length a sire's daughters can be expected to calve.

Calving Ease Daughters (CED): an EPD expressed as a ratio for a sire's daughters' calving ease with a higher ratio being a more favorable calving ease. This value represents the calving ease that a sire transmits to his daughters. Only first-calf daughters are considered in calculating the EPDs. Scrotal

Circumference (SC): value is expressed in centimeters of adjusted yearling scrotal circumference.

Stayability (ST): predicts the genetic difference, in terms of percent probability, that a bull's daughters will stay productive within a herd to at least six years of age. Stayability EPD is one of the best measures currently available to compare a bull's ability to produce females with reproductive longevity.

Carcass Weight (CW): expressed in pounds of carcass weight.

Rib Eye Area (RE): expressed in square inches of rib eye muscle area.

Marbling (MB): expressed in degrees of marbling score, a determinant of USDA Quality Grade.

Feedlot Merit (FM): expressed in dollars per head, value passed to progeny. The F eedlot Merit EPD measures the dollar value associated with the expected gain and feedlot efficiency of progeny when fed in a "typical" feedlot arrangement.

Mastering EPD Accuracy

Accuracy (Acc) is an expression of reliability of the EPD. Accuracy may range from 0.0 to 1.0. As accuracy approaches 1.0, the EPD is more reliable and can be expected to change less in the future as more progeny data are accumulated.
Accuracy may be categorized into low, medium and high reliability as follows: Low 0.0 to .59; Medium .60 to. 79; High .80 to 1.0. EPDs should be used to decide which bulls are selected while accuracy values suggest how extensively the bulls should be used. Bulls with favorable EPD values and high accuracy values can be used with confidence that they will contribute favorably to genetic improvement of the herd.
Accuracy is an abbreviated method of expressing the reliability of an EPD. Another more specific indicator is the standard error of prediction (possible change). Changes in EPD can be expected to fall within the possible change range 67 percent of the time.
As accuracy increases, the possible change decreases. For example, if the accuracy of a bull's yearling EPD is .20, the expected possible change in EPD is ±22 lb. (potential range in EPD = +38 to +82 lb. for a bull with a yearling weight EPD of +60 lb.). If the yearling weight EPD accuracy is .80, the possible change in EPD decreases to ±7 Ib. (possible range in EPD = +53 to +67 lb. for a bull with a yearling weight EPD of +60 lb.).

Heritability Estimates and Trait Correlations

Heritability may be defined as the portion of the differences among sire progeny groups that is due to genetic variation. For a trait that is 40 percent heritable, 40 percent of the variation in thecontemporary group is due to genetics and 60 percent is due to environment. The higher the heritability, the easier it is to make a genetic change in one specific trait. Since heritability is already considered in their calculation, EPDs reflect actual genetic differences. The heritability estimates given in Table 1 are those calculated by the University of Georgia for Gelbvieh used in the NCE analysis.

TABLE 1. Heritability Estimates for Gelbvieh

For more information, visit www.gelbvieh.org/pdf/tech/tech_epd_accurac_med[l].pdf.

The collection of progeny carcass records and subsequent development of carcass EPDs is an important part of the genetic documentation of Gelbvieh cattle in the United States. Progeny test schemes like the AGA's Sire Carcass Test Program, are an effective, accurate means for building a data set of carcass records. Clearly, cost is the significant deterrent hindering broader collection of progeny carcass data by Gelbvieh breeders.

During the last several years, the use of ultrasound technology to gather carcass records has advanced considerably. Not only has the software used to analyze ultrasound images improved, but the number and proficiency of technicians has also improved. Properly trained technicians can accurately use ultrasound technology to measure differences in carcass traits in both live feedlot and breeding cattle. Ultrasound scanning is reasonably priced and represents a good opportunity for Gelbvieh breeders to collect information on carcass traits on a large number of breeding animals in a
cost effective manner.

Recent research using ultrasound carcass records collected on Brangus cattle suggests that ultrasound measures collected after 1994 will provide quality information for inclusion in genetic evaluations. There are strong genetic correlations between ultrasound records collected on yearling bulls and heifers and carcass records retrieved on related fed steers and heifers. It is important to document these correlations in Gelbvieh cattle. Should these correlations be satisfactory, ultrasound records from Gelbvieh breeding cattle and feedlot steers, could be used to calculate Carcass EPDs.

At its April 1999 meeting, the AGA board of directors approved a staff proposal for the collection of ultrasound carcass data from Gelbvieh breeders. The data collected will be used to evaluate the utility of ultrasound carcass records in the calculation of carcass EPDs for Gelbvieh cattle. Ultrasound data collected in previous years may be submitted to the AGA for inclusion in the ultrasound database.

In recent years, ultrasound scanning technology has improved dramatically. However, the accuracy of the scan information relies heavily upon the competency of technicians operating the scanning equipment and interpreting the images. For that reason, data submitted to the AGA should be from currently accredited ultrasound technicians. Currently, we use the Iowa State University-Centralized Ultrasound Processing Lab. Technicians must be certified by the Beef Cattle Ultrasound Technician APTC program. Technicians are certified by trait, rib eye area, fat thickness and intramuscular fat. Be sure that the technician you select is certified in each trait for which you plan to submit data, and that the technician uses the equipment to scan your animals on which they are currently certified.

AGA GUIDELINES FOR SUBMITTING ULTRASOUND CARCASS INFORMATION January 2002 -Official Ultrasound Barnsheets must be requested from the AGA.

AGA is currently gathering ultrasound carcass infonnation to assess the possibility of generating EPDs for carcass traits from ultrasound data. Many AGA members are collecting ultrasound infonnation. For your ultrasound data to be included in an AGA ultrasound evaluation, the following guidelines must be met:

• Ultrasound data must be processed through Centralized Ultrasound Processing facility at Iowa State
   University.
• AGA has no official requirements regarding ultrasound equipment provided the technician is APTC-
   certified and can generate the required ultrasound infonnation.
• All animals must be on file (registered or computed) with the AGA prior to submitting ultrasound data
   to the AGA.
• Data must be submitted to the AGA on official CUP Gelbvieh Barn Sheets obtained through the AGA.
   Contact the AGA for more infonnation or to request a barnsheet.

ULTRASOUND DATA REQUIRED:
a. Percent IMF -- intramuscular fat (0.00 %)
b. Rib eye area (00.0 sq. inches)
c. Rib fat thickness (0.00 inches)
d. Rump fat (0.00 inches)

IN ADDITION TO ACTUAL ULTRASOUND DATA, AGA REQUIRES THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION:
a. AGA registration number of each animal
b. Date scanned
c. Actual weight on the date scanned
d. Technician name (must be certified)
e. Ultrasound equipment used

Ultrasound carcass data must be collected between 320 and 410 days of age (same date range as yearling data). For convenience, you may want to schedule ultrasound data collection for the same date when other yearling data is collected.

AGA recommends that ALL animals are weighed and scanned for a given contemporary group.

Animals should be in good flesh at the time of scanning. Bulls should be scanned prior to being taken off of gain test. Heifers should be scanned following a growing or developing program. Scanning at these times allows animals to express maximum genetic differences for marbling and fat thickness.

A Body Condition Score describes the degree of a cow's fatness. A numerical range of 1 to 9 identifies varying fatness degrees, with 1 being very thin and 9 being excessively fat.

To use the BCS system effectively, a producer needs to understand which areas of the cow anatomy deposit fat. When evaluating body condition, look over the back, ribs, hooks, pins and tail head. The brisket is also a good indicator of fat deposition.

When scoring, cows for body condition, producers need to account for pregnancy status, gut fill, hair coat and age. An average body condition is 5, so to begin the scoring process it's important to identify what a BCS 5 looks like and then score the rest of the herd accordingly. Live weight cannot be used to determine body condition. Animals can have different live weights but similar body condition scores. Likewise, animals of similar live weight may differ in body condition.

The numeric system of body condition scoring is an excellent estimator of percentage body fat in beef cows. Body condition score accounted for 85 to 91 percent of the variation in stored body energy in cows.

Seedstock producers can use body condition scoring at any point during the year, but it's best to select the same time each year to evaluate your herd for comparisons. Some breeders note a BCS during A.I. breeding season as the cows come through the chute. Others will make notes at weaning time while gathering mature cow weights. Body Condition Scores can be used to troubleshoot if there is a reproductive problem in the herd or to see which pedigree lines are efficient in keeping body condition.

BCS DESCRIPTIONS
BCS 1: Emaciated with muscle atrophy and no detectable fat. Tail head and ribs project predominately. The animal is physically weak.

BCS 2: Poor condition with muscle atrophy and no detectable fat. Tail head and ribs prominent.

BCS 3: Thin condition with slight muscle atrophy. All ribs are visible. Very little detectable fat.

BCS 4: Borderline condition with the outline of the spine slightly visible. Outline of 3 to 5 ribs visible with some fat over ribs and hips.

BCS 5: Moderate to good overall appearance. Outline of spine is no longer visible. The outline of 1 to 2 ribs is visible. Fat over hips, but hips are still visible.

BCS 6: High moderate condition with no ribs or spine visible. Pressure applied to feel bone structure. There is some fat in brisket and flanks.

BCS 7: Good, fleshy appearance. Hips slightly visible, but ribs and spine are not visible. Fat in brisket and flanks with slight udder and tail head fat.

BCS 8: Fat, fleshy and overconditioned. Bone structure is not visible. Large patchy fat deposits over ribs, around tail head and brisket.

BCS 9: Extremely fat, wasty and patchy. Mobility possibly impaired. Bone structure not visible. Extreme fat deposits over ribs, around tail head and brisket.

EXAMPLE BODY CONDITION SCORES

	Visit http://www.gelbvieh.org/pdf/tech/tech_bdy_condit_med[1].pdf for more information. Photos courtesy of Oklahoma State University and Virginia Tech University