Define Productive

[Soapweed]

An old rancher we used to know that tended to keep things simple,
always said, "A cow has to do three things. She has to have a calf,
save it, and breed back. Those that don't, go to town."

That's perhaps too simple for this thread, but what he said has merit.

That old rancher pretty well had it figured out. Ranchers also need to be able to adapt to circumstances at had. If you are putting cattle out by the month, and the going rate is x dollars per head per day, you will get more for your money if you put out bigger cows with bigger calves. If you are running all on your own land, size is not as important as general efficiency on the part of the cow.

In Richard Doolittle's example of three calves weighing 600 pounds and one calf weighing only 400 pounds, there could be lots of reasons why that one calf is so much smaller. Age of calf, age of cow, whether the mother is some old pet you can't bear to get rid of, etc. all plays a part in whether or not you keep the cow in your herd.

On a commercial cow/calf operation, I don't feel that individual records are that important. Any old cowman worth his salt ought to be able to figure out if the cow is holding up her end of the bargain or not. If she isn't, sell her, and if there is a reason she could go downhill fast, the quicker you sell her the better.

Last spring was nasty for calving because of bad weather that lurked around for way too long. We lost some calves out of good young cows and didn't have enough old grannies around to rob from. My mid-May management decision was to sell or not to sell these good young dry cows. By the pound, the most these cows would have brought was $700. I have a 250 acre out-of-the-way pasture leased, so I took 31 of these young opens and one bull to the pasture. As the pasture is leased by the acre and we had plenty of rain, the 32 head were able to stay there for six months. The pasture bill turned out to be less than $80 per head for the six months, or about $13 per head per month. There were two that came up open in the fall, but 29 were bred. Seven or eight of these were displayed in the bunch of 189 where the buyer got to choose the fifty he liked the best to buy for $1200. I told him the circumstances of why they were there. Of course these cows were the fattest and prettiest not having raised a calf last summer, and nearly all of these ended up in the bunch he bought. They will make good cows, because it wasn't their fault that the calf died.

My purely free advice is don't get too bogged down with detail. Roll with the punches and adapt to whatever comes down the pike.

 

[flyingS]

An old rancher we used to know that tended to keep things simple,
always said, "A cow has to do three things. She has to have a calf,
save it, and breed back. Those that don't, go to town."

That's perhaps too simple for this thread, but what he said has merit.

That old rancher pretty well had it figured out. Ranchers also need to be able to adapt to circumstances at had. If you are putting cattle out by the month, and the going rate is x dollars per head per day, you will get more for your money if you put out bigger cows with bigger calves. If you are running all on your own land, size is not as important as general efficiency on the part of the cow.

In Richard Doolittle's example of three calves weighing 600 pounds and one calf weighing only 400 pounds, there could be lots of reasons why that one calf is so much smaller. Age of calf, age of cow, whether the mother is some old pet you can't bear to get rid of, etc. all plays a part in whether or not you keep the cow in your herd.

On a commercial cow/calf operation, I don't feel that individual records are that important. Any old cowman worth his salt ought to be able to figure out if the cow is holding up her end of the bargain or not. If she isn't, sell her, and if there is a reason she could go downhill fast, the quicker you sell her the better.

Last spring was nasty for calving because of bad weather that lurked around for way too long. We lost some calves out of good young cows and didn't have enough old grannies around to rob from. My mid-May management decision was to sell or not to sell these good young dry cows. By the pound, the most these cows would have brought was $700. I have a 250 acre out-of-the-way pasture leased, so I took 31 of these young opens and one bull to the pasture. As the pasture is leased by the acre and we had plenty of rain, the 32 head were able to stay there for six months. The pasture bill turned out to be less than $80 per head for the six months, or about $13 per head per month. There were two that came up open in the fall, but 29 were bred. Seven or eight of these were displayed in the bunch of 189 where the buyer got to choose the fifty he liked the best to buy for $1200. I told him the circumstances of why they were there. Of course these cows were the fattest and prettiest not having raised a calf last summer, and nearly all of these ended up in the bunch he bought. They will make good cows, because it wasn't their fault that the calf died.

My purely free advice is don't get too bogged down with detail. Roll with the punches and adapt to whatever comes down the pike.

Well Said Soap. So to speak you pulled a 400 dollar return on your investment. Much better than anyone did on there calves last fall. That is pretty sound well thought out management. Thanks for the comparison between putting cattle out by the month and running them at home. I had never really thought about it that way before.

 

[flyingS]

An old rancher we used to know that tended to keep things simple,
always said, "A cow has to do three things. She has to have a calf,
save it, and breed back. Those that don't, go to town."

That's perhaps too simple for this thread, but what he said has merit.

That old rancher pretty well had it figured out. Ranchers also need to be able to adapt to circumstances at had. If you are putting cattle out by the month, and the going rate is x dollars per head per day, you will get more for your money if you put out bigger cows with bigger calves. If you are running all on your own land, size is not as important as general efficiency on the part of the cow.

In Richard Doolittle's example of three calves weighing 600 pounds and one calf weighing only 400 pounds, there could be lots of reasons why that one calf is so much smaller. Age of calf, age of cow, whether the mother is some old pet you can't bear to get rid of, etc. all plays a part in whether or not you keep the cow in your herd.

On a commercial cow/calf operation, I don't feel that individual records are that important. Any old cowman worth his salt ought to be able to figure out if the cow is holding up her end of the bargain or not. If she isn't, sell her, and if there is a reason she could go downhill fast, the quicker you sell her the better.

Last spring was nasty for calving because of bad weather that lurked around for way too long. We lost some calves out of good young cows and didn't have enough old grannies around to rob from. My mid-May management decision was to sell or not to sell these good young dry cows. By the pound, the most these cows would have brought was $700. I have a 250 acre out-of-the-way pasture leased, so I took 31 of these young opens and one bull to the pasture. As the pasture is leased by the acre and we had plenty of rain, the 32 head were able to stay there for six months. The pasture bill turned out to be less than $80 per head for the six months, or about $13 per head per month. There were two that came up open in the fall, but 29 were bred. Seven or eight of these were displayed in the bunch of 189 where the buyer got to choose the fifty he liked the best to buy for $1200. I told him the circumstances of why they were there. Of course these cows were the fattest and prettiest not having raised a calf last summer, and nearly all of these ended up in the bunch he bought. They will make good cows, because it wasn't their fault that the calf died.

My purely free advice is don't get too bogged down with detail. Roll with the punches and adapt to whatever comes down the pike.

Well Said Soap. So to speak you pulled a 400 dollar return on your investment. Much better than anyone did on there calves last fall. That is pretty sound well thought out management. Thanks for the comparison between putting cattle out by the month and running them at home. I had never really thought about it that way before.

 

[Justin]

Goodness....anyone who has half their herd, no matter the herd size, BELOW production needs to get out of the business.

That's sounds like a hobby rancher.

Any percentage that is considered "below" standard should be in the single digits, like 3% or the like....but if you have 50% below production you don't know what you're doing or you got plenty of money to blow.

i agree with Soapweed. unless all your cows are exactly the same, half of them will be below the average of that particular herd, won't they? in my mind the ave and the standard are two different things. the bottom half of your cows still need to meet the standard the producer sets, whatever that may be. i also think the same rules need to apply to the bulls aswell.

Not to be argumentative--just to make a correction here.......

If you have 3 calves weighing 600 lbs. and 1 calf weighing 400 lbs. what is the average? How many are above the average?

i see your point. but i was refering more towards the cow, her ability to go out and work, raise a calf that meets the "standard", breed back and so on. no, not all calves are going to weigh the same... but they are not all born on the same day either.

 

[RobertMac]

Not to be argumentative--just to make a correction here.......

If you have 3 calves weighing 600 lbs. and 1 calf weighing 400 lbs. what is the average? How many are above the average?

Answer is easy...if all you got is 4 cows, you're a hobby farmer and it doesn't matter!! :wink: :wink: :lol:
Arguing from the extreme only makes pointless points.

Big Swede and Herford 76 have it right...herd production will always be in a bell curve. Sell the bottom end and replace them with heifers from cows that are consistently SLIGHTLY above herd average and have proven themselves by having at least four good calves in a row starting at two(preferably sired by bulls from the same set of cows).

I would challenge all of you to wonder if there is a dollar or two left in a pasture and how can you harvest it.

Year in and year out, how do you harvest that last dollar?

 

[Soapweed]

Not to be argumentative--just to make a correction here.......

If you have 3 calves weighing 600 lbs. and 1 calf weighing 400 lbs. what is the average? How many are above the average?

Answer is easy...if all you got is 4 cows, you're a hobby farmer and it doesn't matter!! :wink: :wink: :lol:
Arguing from the extreme only makes pointless points.

Big Swede and Herford 76 have it right...herd production will always be in a bell curve. Sell the bottom end and replace them with heifers from cows that are consistently SLIGHTLY above herd average and have proven themselves by having at least four good calves in a row starting at two(preferably sired by bulls from the same set of cows).

I would challenge all of you to wonder if there is a dollar or two left in a pasture and how can you harvest it.

Year in and year out, how do you harvest that last dollar?

There is no advantage to over-grazing. It might work one year, but jeopardizes the situation for the upcoming year. All things in moderation. :wink:

 

[RobertMac]

Much of this thread centers on production...the other half of the equation is inputs. If you want big calves that are 60% of the cows weight, hire a nutritionist and give them your checkbook...you'll get what you want until the money runs out.

A trophy whitetail deer in Canada is close to twice the size of a trophy whitetail deer on the Gulf Coast. That difference is environment and genetics dictated by the environment over many generations. To achieve Canadian cattle standards on the Gulf Coast, it will take Canadian genetics and substantial manipulation of the environment. I think it is always going to be most profitable to match the cow to your environment with the least amount of additional inputs. Matching cows to the environment means selecting for properly functioning endocrine system. Reproduction is the most sensitive indicator of a properly functioning endocrine system...a cow will survive first, then reproduce.

An old rancher we used to know that tended to keep things simple,
always said, "A cow has to do three things. She has to have a calf,
save it, and breed back. Those that don't, go to town."

That's perhaps too simple for this thread, but what he said has merit.

 

[Grassfarmer]

An old rancher we used to know that tended to keep things simple,
always said, "A cow has to do three things. She has to have a calf,
save it, and breed back. Those that don't, go to town."

That's perhaps too simple for this thread, but what he said has merit.

That old rancher pretty well had it figured out. Ranchers also need to be able to adapt to circumstances at had. If you are putting cattle out by the month, and the going rate is x dollars per head per day, you will get more for your money if you put out bigger cows with bigger calves. If you are running all on your own land, size is not as important as general efficiency on the part of the cow.

In Richard Doolittle's example of three calves weighing 600 pounds and one calf weighing only 400 pounds, there could be lots of reasons why that one calf is so much smaller. Age of calf, age of cow, whether the mother is some old pet you can't bear to get rid of, etc. all plays a part in whether or not you keep the cow in your herd.

On a commercial cow/calf operation, I don't feel that individual records are that important. Any old cowman worth his salt ought to be able to figure out if the cow is holding up her end of the bargain or not. If she isn't, sell her, and if there is a reason she could go downhill fast, the quicker you sell her the better.

Last spring was nasty for calving because of bad weather that lurked around for way too long. We lost some calves out of good young cows and didn't have enough old grannies around to rob from. My mid-May management decision was to sell or not to sell these good young dry cows. By the pound, the most these cows would have brought was $700. I have a 250 acre out-of-the-way pasture leased, so I took 31 of these young opens and one bull to the pasture. As the pasture is leased by the acre and we had plenty of rain, the 32 head were able to stay there for six months. The pasture bill turned out to be less than $80 per head for the six months, or about $13 per head per month. There were two that came up open in the fall, but 29 were bred. Seven or eight of these were displayed in the bunch of 189 where the buyer got to choose the fifty he liked the best to buy for $1200. I told him the circumstances of why they were there. Of course these cows were the fattest and prettiest not having raised a calf last summer, and nearly all of these ended up in the bunch he bought. They will make good cows, because it wasn't their fault that the calf died.

My purely free advice is don't get too bogged down with detail. Roll with the punches and adapt to whatever comes down the pike.

So I guess you don't entirely agree with the old ranchers philosophy soapweed - your cows didn't save their calves and they still didn't go to town :wink:
You bring up a good point though about the cows you kept over - I'm sure most of us have been in the same position and made the same decision. I know I have done that in the past and kept the cows over. Make no mistake though the extra cost of keeping a cow over in your herd if she doesn't raise a calf is a whole year's feed not 6 months. It's easy to count the summer on grass as the only extra cost because once you wean she is the same as the rest again but in reality the whole year from weaning her previous year has been wasted - all the maintenance cost with zero income. I think your being able to breed them and sell them in the fall for a good price was an excellent income and in my opinion preferable to keeping them for yourself. Those cows have been selected for their inability to rear a calf through bad spring weather - sure some are unlucky and maybe calved on the worst day but I'm guessing there wasn't a day where you lost every calf born? The cows that calved the same time and brought a calf through are better or more efficient cows in that respect.
As I say I'm not querying your decision - it made good business sense. I wouldn't do it in my purebred herd any longer because I hold them to a higher standard than my commercial cows although I guess most purebred herds do it the other way around (higher value cows, more excuses to keep them.) Depending on the conditions of grass, cull price, my herd #s etc I may do it again in future on commercial cows. One thing I have found though over the years - any time we have retained such an animal she has generally let us down later. Not once can I think of such a cow going on to last to an old age (over 10) without further problems.

 

[RobertMac]

Lose some good ones, but get all the lemons.

 

[Soapweed]

An old rancher we used to know that tended to keep things simple,
always said, "A cow has to do three things. She has to have a calf,
save it, and breed back. Those that don't, go to town."

That's perhaps too simple for this thread, but what he said has merit.

That old rancher pretty well had it figured out. Ranchers also need to be able to adapt to circumstances at had. If you are putting cattle out by the month, and the going rate is x dollars per head per day, you will get more for your money if you put out bigger cows with bigger calves. If you are running all on your own land, size is not as important as general efficiency on the part of the cow.

In Richard Doolittle's example of three calves weighing 600 pounds and one calf weighing only 400 pounds, there could be lots of reasons why that one calf is so much smaller. Age of calf, age of cow, whether the mother is some old pet you can't bear to get rid of, etc. all plays a part in whether or not you keep the cow in your herd.

On a commercial cow/calf operation, I don't feel that individual records are that important. Any old cowman worth his salt ought to be able to figure out if the cow is holding up her end of the bargain or not. If she isn't, sell her, and if there is a reason she could go downhill fast, the quicker you sell her the better.

Last spring was nasty for calving because of bad weather that lurked around for way too long. We lost some calves out of good young cows and didn't have enough old grannies around to rob from. My mid-May management decision was to sell or not to sell these good young dry cows. By the pound, the most these cows would have brought was $700. I have a 250 acre out-of-the-way pasture leased, so I took 31 of these young opens and one bull to the pasture. As the pasture is leased by the acre and we had plenty of rain, the 32 head were able to stay there for six months. The pasture bill turned out to be less than $80 per head for the six months, or about $13 per head per month. There were two that came up open in the fall, but 29 were bred. Seven or eight of these were displayed in the bunch of 189 where the buyer got to choose the fifty he liked the best to buy for $1200. I told him the circumstances of why they were there. Of course these cows were the fattest and prettiest not having raised a calf last summer, and nearly all of these ended up in the bunch he bought. They will make good cows, because it wasn't their fault that the calf died.

My purely free advice is don't get too bogged down with detail. Roll with the punches and adapt to whatever comes down the pike.

So I guess you don't entirely agree with the old ranchers philosophy soapweed - your cows didn't save their calves and they still didn't go to town :wink:
You bring up a good point though about the cows you kept over - I'm sure most of us have been in the same position and made the same decision. I know I have done that in the past and kept the cows over. Make no mistake though the extra cost of keeping a cow over in your herd if she doesn't raise a calf is a whole year's feed not 6 months. It's easy to count the summer on grass as the only extra cost because once you wean she is the same as the rest again but in reality the whole year from weaning her previous year has been wasted - all the maintenance cost with zero income. I think your being able to breed them and sell them in the fall for a good price was an excellent income and in my opinion preferable to keeping them for yourself. Those cows have been selected for their inability to rear a calf through bad spring weather - sure some are unlucky and maybe calved on the worst day but I'm guessing there wasn't a day where you lost every calf born? The cows that calved the same time and brought a calf through are better or more efficient cows in that respect.
As I say I'm not querying your decision - it made good business sense. I wouldn't do it in my purebred herd any longer because I hold them to a higher standard than my commercial cows although I guess most purebred herds do it the other way around (higher value cows, more excuses to keep them.) Depending on the conditions of grass, cull price, my herd #s etc I may do it again in future on commercial cows. One thing I have found though over the years - any time we have retained such an animal she has generally let us down later. Not once can I think of such a cow going on to last to an old age (over 10) without further problems.

The old established Hereford breeders in this area never used to calve a heifer until they were three years old. With this background, I like to think of each calf that a two-year-old has as just an added bonus. :wink:

The young cows that lost calves last spring were worth about $700 per head in May, which was about what a yearling replacement heifer was worth. My thought was that it wouldn't take much more grass to summer the slightly older cow over what the yearling heifer would require. As a bred female in the fall they should be worth at least as much as a bred heifer, whether I sold them or kept them. I have no qualms about keeping these young cows that went open over the summer. From past experience, they go on to be fine mothers if given another chance.

 

[flyingS]

Soapweed wrote: There is no advantage to over-grazing. It might work one year, but jeopardizes the situation for the upcoming year. All things in moderation.

How do you know if you are overgrazing if you don't push the envelope a little. That is the beauty of stalkers you can sell them to relieve pressure anytime. I am an advocate of rotational grazing. I have people tell me all the time that it will come back to haunt you, at one time I was one of them. Now that I have opened my mind and stepped outside of my comfort zone, I have seen a different perspective. I have had sustainable stocking rates in the Sandhills under 14ac/to the hd. I have evidence to back up it's sustainability. Most Sandhiller's won't even entertain the possibility. I would like anyone who wants to take a look to stop in. I don't have any secrets. I say again, everyone has a reason why they can't, what about what if I could.

 

[Soapweed]

Soapweed wrote: There is no advantage to over-grazing. It might work one year, but jeopardizes the situation for the upcoming year. All things in moderation.

How do you know if you are overgrazing if you don't push the envelope a little. That is the beauty of stalkers you can sell them to relieve pressure anytime. I am an advocate of rotational grazing. I have people tell me all the time that it will come back to haunt you, at one time I was one of them. Now that I have opened my mind and stepped outside of my comfort zone, I have seen a different perspective. I have had sustainable stocking rates in the Sandhills under 14ac/to the hd. I have evidence to back up it's sustainability. Most Sandhiller's won't even entertain the possibility. I would like anyone who wants to take a look to stop in. I don't have any secrets. I say again, everyone has a reason why they can't, what about what if I could.

One of my early neighbors who no longer ranches used to grub the living heck out of his place. I always joked that we got all of our snow and all of his, too, because it blew off of his bare flats and settled in our grassy hills. His poor old starved out cows were always reaching through the fence to get a bite to eat from my side, and it became a real problem. I'd rather not make as much "profit" and keep some grass cover, whether it is of the latest management technique or not. My mood gets real sour if the grass is all gone. From my perspective, extra grass is just as good as money in the bank. It also portrays a better impression to outsiders that ranchers are taking care of their resources instead of raping the land.

 

[Liveoak]

How do you know if you are overgrazing if you don't push the envelope a little. That is the beauty of stalkers you can sell them to relieve pressure anytime. I am an advocate of rotational grazing. I have people tell me all the time that it will come back to haunt you, at one time I was one of them. Now that I have opened my mind and stepped outside of my comfort zone, I have seen a different perspective. I have had sustainable stocking rates in the Sandhills under 14ac/to the hd. I have evidence to back up it's sustainability. Most Sandhiller's won't even entertain the possibility. I would like anyone who wants to take a look to stop in. I don't have any secrets. I say again, everyone has a reason why they can't, what about what if I could.

I'm convinced that rotational grazing is the way to go down here but given the vast expanses of land that ya'll have up there, is rotational grazing cost prohibitive due to the additional cross-fencing that would be required?

 

[per]

Looking after your grass/feed resources is the first step in being profitable. Leaving swards behind serve many useful purposes in all climates not the least would be moisture retention in catching snow and shading sun and protecting the soil from wind.

 

[per]

Rotational grazing works everywhere. The timing of the rotation is directly related to the sun and rain. Seldom up here can more that 2 passes be made and there are plenty of dry areas where the rotation is once a year and a few places where it is every other year. I was to a ranch in the Flint hills in Kansas that rotational graze 2300 pair. The paddocks seemed big but the move was every day.

 

[Northern Rancher]

You can be idealistic or you can be realistic-Soapweed made a good business decision-the extension agents who made up the supposed standards of excellence-50% of dam's weaning weight, 42 day calving season's probably haven't calved a cow or paid any land taxes. I'll challenge anybody to come into a pen of our finished cattle and tell me what calf weaned heaviest or was born first. Most good ranchers have pretty even cows performance wise-if you cull for lumps,bumps and opens it all usually sorts out in the end.

 

[RSL]

I don't like the term rotational grazing. I think planned grazing works, with the important thing being to change the plan as weather and range conditions dictate. Stocking density and stocking rate are also two very different arguments in my mind. High stock density doesn't mean you have to graze to the ground, you just have to move the cattle quicker.
Overgrazing is generally bad news no matter where or how its' done. 15 cows on a section of land will overgraze as bad or worse than 1500 on a quarter if the timing is wrong.
As for cow efficiency, a cow owes a product every year, either a market calf, a replacement heifer or herself. The odd time the economics dictate feeding the cow prior to selling, breeding back or the odd time even keeping the cow. It's kind of like grazing, the plan may need to change with the weather (we still sell open cows).

 

[Grassfarmer]

Soapweed wrote: There is no advantage to over-grazing. It might work one year, but jeopardizes the situation for the upcoming year. All things in moderation.

How do you know if you are overgrazing if you don't push the envelope a little. That is the beauty of stalkers you can sell them to relieve pressure anytime. I am an advocate of rotational grazing. I have people tell me all the time that it will come back to haunt you, at one time I was one of them. Now that I have opened my mind and stepped outside of my comfort zone, I have seen a different perspective. I have had sustainable stocking rates in the Sandhills under 14ac/to the hd. I have evidence to back up it's sustainability. Most Sandhiller's won't even entertain the possibility. I would like anyone who wants to take a look to stop in. I don't have any secrets. I say again, everyone has a reason why they can't, what about what if I could.

One of my early neighbors who no longer ranches used to grub the living heck out of his place. I always joked that we got all of our snow and all of his, too, because it blew off of his bare flats and settled in our grassy hills. His poor old starved out cows were always reaching through the fence to get a bite to eat from my side, and it became a real problem. I'd rather not make as much "profit" and keep some grass cover, whether it is of the latest management technique or not. My mood gets real sour if the grass is all gone. From my perspective, extra grass is just as good as money in the bank. It also portrays a better impression to outsiders that ranchers are taking care of their resources instead of raping the land.

I agree with your philosophy of conservation Soapweed - and around here the problems you describe above are commonplace - and usually the product of conventional (or zero) grazing management. On the whole people who practice managed grazing of any kind tend to preserve more grass cover than those who don't. As always there are exceptions to the rule - I visited a place this summer that had been "high density, mob grazed" for a couple of years when there obviously had not been nearly enough grass available which resulted in severe overgrazing. The cows had eaten all the litter not just the grass. :shock: It will take a lot of rest and a lot of moisture to repair that damage.

 

[Faster horses]

And Kit Pharo has this to say in his latest PCC update:

Too Much of Anything –



Too much of anything ain't good. You've heard people talk about "everything in moderation," and that is usually pretty good advice. Just because a little bit of something is good does NOT mean more is better.



You can, and should, apply this line of thinking to your cattle and genetic selection. It has been extremely difficult for most ranchers to stop at the optimum level for any trait. Most shoot past the optimum level without even slowing down. They mistakenly believe they are not improving their cowherd unless they are changing it. I disagree. Within every herd, there is an optimum level for every trait.



There are genetic antagonisms between several of the most important economic traits in beef cattle. For example, extreme growth will negatively affect calving ease, fertility, cow size and maintenance costs. Extreme milk will also negatively affect fertility and maintenance costs. The optimum level for most traits usually lies somewhere in the middle.



Most ranchers in North America have cows that are too big and too milky for their environment. Their input costs are much too high for their output. While they were receiving record high prices for their calves, they were profitable – but that time has come to an end. As calf prices continue to slide downward, input costs continue to increase. It won't be long before most ranchers won't even come close to having enough income to cover their expenses.



Optimum production will always be more profitable than maximum production. Bigger is NOT always better! Optimum production is the point at which net profits are maximized. Profit and enjoyment are the only two things we want to maximize in this business. Is your program geared toward maximum profit and maximum enjoyment? It should be!

 

[RobertMac]

And Kit Pharo has this to say in his latest PCC update:

Too Much of Anything –



Too much of anything ain't good. You've heard people talk about "everything in moderation," and that is usually pretty good advice. Just because a little bit of something is good does NOT mean more is better.



You can, and should, apply this line of thinking to your cattle and genetic selection. It has been extremely difficult for most ranchers to stop at the optimum level for any trait. Most shoot past the optimum level without even slowing down. They mistakenly believe they are not improving their cowherd unless they are changing it. I disagree. Within every herd, there is an optimum level for every trait.



There are genetic antagonisms between several of the most important economic traits in beef cattle. For example, extreme growth will negatively affect calving ease, fertility, cow size and maintenance costs. Extreme milk will also negatively affect fertility and maintenance costs. The optimum level for most traits usually lies somewhere in the middle.



Most ranchers in North America have cows that are too big and too milky for their environment. Their input costs are much too high for their output. While they were receiving record high prices for their calves, they were profitable – but that time has come to an end. As calf prices continue to slide downward, input costs continue to increase. It won't be long before most ranchers won't even come close to having enough income to cover their expenses.



Optimum production will always be more profitable than maximum production. Bigger is NOT always better! Optimum production is the point at which net profits are maximized. Profit and enjoyment are the only two things we want to maximize in this business. Is your program geared toward maximum profit and maximum enjoyment? It should be!

You done gone and done it now...invoking Kit Pharo! :shock: :wink: :wink:
You must be on the super secret PCC update list...I haven't gotten mine yet. :?
I doubt I'm at maximum profit, but I'm working hard on maximum enjoyment.

Soapweed, you move your cattle, so you are practicing a form of rotational grazing. :wink: