• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

Big or small from Beef talk.

Big Muddy rancher

Well-known member
BeefTalk: With Cow Size, One Can't Forget Production Potential



The Dickinson Research Extension Center recently established two sets of cattle based on body weight. Since the year was dry, the cow size question came up quickly.



What size cow is right? How does one measure inputs versus production?



These two herds (groups) of cattle were weighed in the late fall or early winter. The difference in weight was 355 pounds.



The first herd of 52 cows averaged 1,216 pounds (856 to 1,395 pounds). The second herd of 50 cows averaged 1,571 pounds (1,350 to 1,935 pounds).



Earlier discussion detailed the difference in dry-matter intake for these two groups of cows. Projections were shown if the groups were placed in confinement on June 1 when the calves were approximately 3 months old and fed during the summer until the end of September.



The 1,216-pound group of cattle, with milk production estimated at 20 pounds peak, would have an average daily need of just less than 28 pounds of dry matter of a ration that was 60 percent total digestible nutrients and 9.8 percent crude protein. The 1,571- pound group of cattle, with milk production estimated at 20 pounds peak, would have an average daily need of just less than 34.5 pounds of a daily dry matter of the same ration.



By placing the two groups of cows on pasture, with normal forage production in southwestern North Dakota, the land mass required for a group of 50 cows weighing 1,216 pounds would be 529 acres. A group of 50 cows weighing 1,571 pounds would require 642 acres.



The heavier cows would require approximately 23 more tons of feed in a dry lot for 4.5 months. On pasture, the heavier cows would need approximately 113 more acres.



Does the output of the larger cows justify the extra nutrition? That is not an easy question because cow age and other factors need to be considered when calf production is estimated.



However, some idea of potential production from these two groups of cows can be estimated. For instance, since cows tend to reach peak calf production around 5 years of age, the actual previous calf production of the cows in each group could be utilized to estimate this year's production.



Performance records of body weight at weaning of cows aged 5 to 9 years and their respective calf's weaning weight were pulled and evaluated.



The older cows in the first group (current winter weight 1,216 pounds), averaged 1,272 pounds in the fall and weaned 602-pound calves, or 47 percent of their body weight. The heavier group of cows (current winter weight 1,571 pounds), averaged 1,463 pounds in the fall and weaned 603-pound calves, or 42 percent of their body weight.



This data trend was further examined by finding the percentage of cow weight weaned in all mature cows in the center's herd data system. The data evaluated actual weaning weight of calves and mature cows with calves of both genders.



All the cow records were allotted to 100-pound increments and weaning percentages were calculated. The 12-weight or lighter cows weaned 50 percent of their fall weight (1,242 pounds) with 617-pound calves.



Thirteen-weight cows weaned 45 percent of their fall weight (1,357 pounds) with 611- pound calves. Fourteen-weight cows weaned 41 percent of their fall weight (1,456 pounds) with 589-pound calves.



Fifteen-weight cows weaned 39 percent of their fall weight (1,549 pounds) with 598- pound calves. Those sixteen-weight and above cows weaned 34 percent of their fall weight (1,698 pounds) with 572- pound calves.



More food for thought!



May you find all your ear tags.



Your comments are always welcome at http://www.BeefTalk.com



For more information, contact the NDBCIA Office, 1041 State Ave., Dickinson, ND 58601, or go to http://www.CHAPS2000.com on the Internet.





Source: Kris Ringwall, (701) 483-2348, ext. 103, [email protected], NDSU Agriculture Communication
Latest Stories
 

DOC HARRIS

Well-known member
Statistic after statistic in this report verifies the fact that LIGHTER cows make more PROFIT - time after time, and factor after factor.

One fact concerning this discussion has not even been alluded to yet: It is more pragmatic to operate with lighter weight cows (+/- 1250 lbs - open cow - after she has had her third calf is a balanced average) as it will enable the producer to run about 116 small cows instead of 100 big cows (+/- 1500 lbs - all other things being equal) - on the SAME LAND AND FEED! Therein is PROFIT that is often overlooked.

Breeder's can argue and harangue and rant and rave endlessly concerning this subject of cow size, but if the 'talking point' is PROFIT and not just PERSONAL PREFERENCE, the subject is Moot. Done deal. Smaller females create more profit!

DOC HARRIS
 

Big Muddy rancher

Well-known member
Glad to see your response Doc. :D

I shipped a load of drys at 1150 with the heaviest at 1450lbs. probably a dry from last year.It takes commitment to keep that weight down cause those big hfrs sure can look fancy. :)
 

Jake

Well-known member
Now I don't have any data to back this as I can't remember where I read it. But I have always been told that steers finish at 200 pounds heavier than their damns weight (i.e. 1200# cow's steer finished at 1400#)

If you look at the increase in cowsize nation wide it is no wonder we are having problems on the rail as we are not increases the target weight on fat steers. If we are to feed calves out of those 1500# cows we are "supposed" to feed them until they hit 1700# in order for them to me mature enough grade.

Just another thought as to the pros to smaller cows.
 

RobertMac

Well-known member
DOC HARRIS said:
Statistic after statistic in this report verifies the fact that LIGHTER cows make more PROFIT - time after time, and factor after factor.

One fact concerning this discussion has not even been alluded to yet: It is more pragmatic to operate with lighter weight cows (+/- 1250 lbs - open cow - after she has had her third calf is a balanced average) as it will enable the producer to run about 116 small cows instead of 100 big cows (+/- 1500 lbs - all other things being equal) - on the SAME LAND AND FEED! Therein is PROFIT that is often overlooked.

Breeder's can argue and harangue and rant and rave endlessly concerning this subject of cow size, but if the 'talking point' is PROFIT and not just PERSONAL PREFERENCE, the subject is Moot. Done deal. Smaller females create more profit!

DOC HARRIS

Doc, you obviously been reading too many of Kit's newsletters. :wink: Me too!

The key to Kit's math is stocking rate....116 sm cows vs. 100 lg cows with both being near ranch maximum production capabilities. But that opens another can of worms...where do you set maximum stocking rate? Do you set for ideal(or close to ideal) pasture conditions and then supplement under less than ideal conditions? Or...set for drought conditions and use excess forage production to extend grazing season and cut supplement cost?

I've been in drought for the last three years and I'm not supplementing.

Jake, you make an excellent point. Back when beef was king of the meat counter (before the mid seventies), , cows(and therefore calves and carcasses) were smaller and finished sooner. Could it be that consumers had more favorable eating experiences back then? Or maybe more of the beef was grassfed back then???? :???: :roll: 8)
 

cutterone

Well-known member
I think you are all correct. In years past when feed costs were less costly, there was plenty of cheap pasture and hay many bred for larger calves - bigger ment more pounds at weaning and on the scales. The mindset was purely for more numbers and pounds - never mind quality. In order to achive this it took bigger cows because we were using bulls that would give this but they also had much bigger birth weights. That doesn't bode well with small cows. Also many operators did not want to be choosey about the bulls they used and therefore had to have large cows that could accomodate big calves.
Today with decreasing land opertunities, high feed costs, and more consumer emphasis on quality it will become manditory to have more efficent cattle to make a profit.
From my experience it won't just take smaller cows, but smaller cows that can produce enough milk to raise a good calf, and excellent genetics from both bulls and dams to get birth weights and growth.
 

DOC HARRIS

Well-known member
RobertMac-

You are correct regarding my reading Kit's newsletter - as to whether or not it is TOO MUCH is conjecture! However, my own personal thoughts, passions and opinions were established years ago when I was teaching Agriculture (Adult Education), and my Farming and Ranching students did not have the capital, land, or available financing to facilitate the "Ideal Beef Management" protocols that went hand-in-hand with unrestrained beef cattle herd development plans.

I feel, as I think many others do on these Beef Cattle Forums, that Kit's Philosophies are correct in many ways - cow size being one of the most significant - particularly during these days of high land costs and excessively inordinate feed (hay AND grain) feed costs.

I live about 15 miles from the feedlot and sale facility of Leachman Cattle of Colorado, operated and owned by Lee Leachman and Dallas Horton. Their Seminars on Thursday Nights, telecast on www.DVAuction.com or wwwleachman.com have more than justified my original beliefs, convictions and conclusions regarding Brood Cow Size being more PROFITABLE as "smaller rather than LARGER!"

...and RobertMac and cutterone...your combined comments on this post reflect that you are BOTH using a high degree of common sense and innate and acquired intelligence! Would that we ALL possessed those characteristics!

For a more detailed explanation of "What is the right sized cow", Lee Leachman would be a LOT more specific on that subject than I could. Contact him and request specific information! It could really OPEN YOUR EYES!

...AND...make you some PROFIT!

www.leachman.com

DOC HARRIS
 

RobertMac

Well-known member
Doc, I'm sure you are like me...the day we quit learning is the day they put us six-foot under.

We as producers shouldn't get lost in this cow size debate based solely on numbers...frame 3 vs frame 7...1100# cow vs 1500# cow...450# calf vs 600# calf. The proper perspective on cow size is the cow that is adapted to your environment. The quickest way to find "your proper cow size" is to require the cows to produce on the natural resources provided by your pastures(and/or hay from those pastures) and close the herd. This can be financial painful...was for me! I would think less so for most commercial producers than many purebred producers...which should make the commercial producer think about who they are buying their genetics from and why!!!
 

Badlands

Well-known member
Don't forget that smaller cows require a larger capital investment. It looks good after they are paid for, but you have to pay for them first.

Also, they will generally cost you more/lb than larger cows to purchase, so it is a "given" that their calves need to produce more $/lb when sold- ie, you have a larger capital investment in stocking the same acres, so they dang well better be worth more total $ when the calves are sold!

Not being argumentative, but trying to be thorough. By the time we really consider ALL costs, many times the differences for one end of the size specturm or the other are largely exaggerated, with most of the benefit having to do with better pasture utilization/production due to cow numbers, rather than size. But, size makes a good argument, doesn't it?

Badlands
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Badlands said:
Don't forget that smaller cows require a larger capital investment. It looks good after they are paid for, but you have to pay for them first.

Also, they will generally cost you more/lb than larger cows to purchase, so it is a "given" that their calves need to produce more $/lb when sold- ie, you have a larger capital investment in stocking the same acres, so they dang well better be worth more total $ when the calves are sold!

Not being argumentative, but trying to be thorough. By the time we really consider ALL costs, many times the differences for one end of the size specturm or the other are largely exaggerated, with most of the benefit having to do with better pasture utilization/production due to cow numbers, rather than size. But, size makes a good argument, doesn't it?

Badlands

:???: :???: I'm not following you Badlands...Why does/would buying smaller cows cost more :???:

Or are you talking because you can run 100 head on the same amount you run 80 head of big cattle?....
 

BRG

Well-known member
Good point Badlands!

OT
It costs more total investment because their are more of them to buy to fill the same space.

Plus if you buy them as open replacements, typically smaller calves at weaning cost more per lbs than bigger ones and then you would buy more to fill that same space.
 

QUESTION

Well-known member
More arguments that can't be won. the reality is different animals are right for different situations. Why not have the same argument about breeds of cattle. What whould be more productive for OT a bunch of lowlines or mini brahma's after all the whole cattle thing is going to run off in the ditch like it did in the 70's and 80'S where cattle couldn't be too big now the frame size issue is the complete opposite we can't seem to get them small enough . Guys promoting frame 2 and 3. Just wating too see the belt highs and dwarf genes coming out again. :roll: And see the difficulties of sizing up again. I'm going to stay in the middle of the raod with my frame 6 to 7 cattle they work in my situation.
 

QUESTION

Well-known member
More arguments that can't be won. the reality is different animals are right for different situations. Why not have the same argument about breeds of cattle. What whould be more productive for OT a bunch of lowlines or mini brahma's after all the whole cattle thing is going to run off in the ditch like it did in the 70's and 80'S where cattle couldn't be too big now the frame size issue is the complete opposite we can't seem to get them small enough . Guys promoting frame 2 and 3. Just wating too see the belt highs and dwarf genes coming out again. :roll: And see the difficulties of sizing up again. I'm going to stay in the middle of the road with my frame 6 to 7 cattle they work in my situation.
 

DOC HARRIS

Well-known member
:???: :???: As "THEY" say, (Whomever "THEY" are), The "first" Fisherman (!) hasn't got a chance! In any discussion, we have to determine whether the subject matter is, - apples, oranges, peaches, cats, cows, automobiles, or girls!

This thread is beginning to sound like a Political discourse wherein one Liberal comes through the back basement window and up the back stairs with some ding-bat, off the-wall comment which has very little to do with the subject at hand, and one has to scratch their head and say, "What has that got to do with the price of tea in China?" :?

BOTTOM LINE! IF the average weight of a herd of beef cows remains around 1250 lbs, the PROFIT realized will be more appealing than if the average weight of those cows is more than 1500 lbs!

EVERYTHING CONSIDERED!!

WHATEVER!

DOC HARRIS
 

Mike

Well-known member
IF the average weight of a herd of beef cows remains around 1250 lbs, the PROFIT realized will be more appealing than if the average weight of those cows is more than 1500 lbs!

If the 1250 pound herd realizes more profit than the 1500 pound herd by using weight as the initial argument, then a 750 pound herd should be even more profitable. :roll:
 

RobertMac

Well-known member
Badlands said:
Not being argumentative,...
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: If we weren't "being argumentative", we'd be reading instead of posting!!! :wink: :wink: 8)

Badlands said:
...with most of the benefit having to do with better pasture utilization/production due to...
due to adapted cows bringing a higher percentage of weaned calves to the weaning pens.

I'm of the opinion to never buy replacements...every herd has enough good cows to keep replacements from...the invisible cows. They are the ones you never "see" because they do their job year in and year out without any assistance and never get noticed.

When I kicked my cows off welfare, the average weight and frame decreased with the herd becoming more efficiently productive and care free!


DOC HARRIS said:
BOTTOM LINE! IF the average weight of a herd of beef cows remains around 1250 lbs, the PROFIT realized will be more appealing than if the average weight of those cows is more than 1500 lbs!

EVERYTHING CONSIDERED!!
:agree:

But...if we are "trying to be thorough", small in the southeast is going to be different from small in Canada.
 

Badlands

Well-known member
OT, check out the cow prices/cwt if you ever see them reported. The vast majority of times, the smaller cows will cost more/lb than larger cows, plus you need to buy more of them, so it is a double whammy.

However, much of it depends on your accounting strategy, too. They cost more, but are an asset, so it depends on how you view your balance sheets. Sure, that big green tractor might be an asset on the balance sheet and the interest might be deductable, but are you really getting anywhere by trading money, or do end up paying more in the end?



Badlands
 
Top