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

Fertility or weight

It used to be in the British breeds any bull you used would give you a cow that was a some what useful cow. Some were sounder than others but were most were of a body type or function that they work in the commercial enviroment. It's not the use of E.P.D's and performance data that has changed this but the misuse of those tools. There are have cattle now with incredible growth and milk potential we haven't figured a way to get mother nature to come onside and provide a consistent supply of fuel for those genetic engines. Cows that can keep going in the tough years will just flesh up more and cut your wintering costs in a better year. Most guys up here who run yearlings up here-us included use them as a grass management tool-in drought or flood years-we can lose pasture to both in the same year-we can cut back on yearlings to keep the cows around. Fertlity and weight are both important but at what cost is the main part of the equation.
 
Good food for thought and discussion but a bit of a loaded question. The question presumes one is of greater importance than the other, this will of course depend on the herd and how much room there is for improvement in either depending on where they are currently at. Room for improvement in either and the economic viability of the improvement strategy chosen will depend on the associated costs. What will be required for any herd to answer this question appropriately IMO is as previously mentioned a sharp pencil and in addition something usually harder to come by, an honest unbiased assessment of the current situation with the herd in question.
 
Soapweed said:
Someone once said that every cow should give a dividend check each year, even if it is from the sale of herself.
Click to expand...

"someone'' was a cattleman, "someone" also said we dont buy feed,we sell cows.
good luck
 
Dylan Biggs said:
Good food for thought and discussion but a bit of a loaded question. The question presumes one is of greater importance than the other, this will of course depend on the herd and how much room there is for improvement in either depending on where they are currently at. Room for improvement in either and the economic viability of the improvement strategy chosen will depend on the associated costs. What will be required for any herd to answer this question appropriately IMO is as previously mentioned a sharp pencil and in addition something usually harder to come by, an honest unbiased assessment of the current situation with the herd in question.
Click to expand...
This is a good point. In our operation we have/are participating in a free AB AG benchmarking service. We are a lot different than most of the operations involved, but it is amazing what an unbiased, mathematical comparison between your own herd and a group of other herds can tell you. We are on year 3 and are really starting to find out what pays, where things fit, what the impact of changes we make really are, etc.
The impartial 3rd party also helps to provide new ways of looking at things that is invaluable.
 
We all can always learn something. In fact, when we stop learning we get stagnant. Now that doesnt mean we abandon the tried and true principles that have got us to where we are. But by thinking in new ways and by being willing to expand our comfort zones, we just might find ourselves enjoying success while others struggle. This industry demands fresh ideas and tradition. Without both, the future will be pretty bleak.
 
RSL said:
Dylan Biggs said:
Good food for thought and discussion but a bit of a loaded question. The question presumes one is of greater importance than the other, this will of course depend on the herd and how much room there is for improvement in either depending on where they are currently at. Room for improvement in either and the economic viability of the improvement strategy chosen will depend on the associated costs. What will be required for any herd to answer this question appropriately IMO is as previously mentioned a sharp pencil and in addition something usually harder to come by, an honest unbiased assessment of the current situation with the herd in question.
Click to expand...
This is a good point. In our operation we have/are participating in a free AB AG benchmarking service. We are a lot different than most of the operations involved, but it is amazing what an unbiased, mathematical comparison between your own herd and a group of other herds can tell you. We are on year 3 and are really starting to find out what pays, where things fit, what the impact of changes we make really are, etc.
The impartial 3rd party also helps to provide new ways of looking at things that is invaluable.
Click to expand...

Sounds like an interesting process, good for you!
 
I think the question is what does it cost? How much would it cost to increase conception rates and what would the return be? Ask the same question on the other side. What would it cost to increase my weaning weight and what is the return on investment? Maybe the real problem is not fertility but calf loss between calving and weaning. I would have to wonder if the way to increase production would not be to increase lbs produced per acre. There are a ton of different things that can affect your bottom line and most of them will eventually be related to one of the other of these things.
 
I've balked at the idea of commercial fertilizers but watching the successful guys here they are all true believers. I fertilized a 110 acres of hay ground this year and the fields all doubled the output. I quit renting a 110 acres that was way over priced $1800 for about 160 bales worth of hay spent $2500 on fertilizer and picked up 250 bales on better ground. I'm planning on fertilizeing another 270 acres of hay ground next year all of it is fenced and can be grazed come fall. The quality of the hay looks alot better than years past.If the over all quality picks up its a bonus and less time spent haying saves on equipment wear and tear. It also gives me more time to do other things. Over all higher quality forage will get bigger calves both in quality of grass and better winter forage which in turn will have more cows calveing 1st cycle.My idea is forage is most important. The genetics in the cattle are'nt that screwed up as many like to believe.To me the genetics are there I just need the forage for them to excel.
 
The per acre return is a good way to think about things. I always figured that talking about weaning weights is kind of like a grain farmer telling you they got 35 hoppers full off a field without knowing what size the combine or the field is. The key is building margins, not building production (although sometimes production improves margins). If you are losing $10 a head, the fewer head you have the better. :lol: :lol:
 
Usually all you need to do to increase fertility is select cattle that are in the middle of the road for growth and milk. A cow can milk herself out of a job. As far as growth goes, you can select for above average but no need for the extreme bulls. By selecting average to a little above average growth, you should have decent weaning weights and then your cows should breed up as well.

Also when selecting replacement heifers, select heifers that are born early, as their dam will usually have pretty good fertility in her. No sense keeping a heifer that was born in the last cycle as their is a reason her dam bred back so late.

Also, know who you are buying your bulls from. A good bull supplier gets rid of his unfertile cows, which will pass down to you.
 
leanin' H said:
500 head of 500 pound calves = 250000 pounds @ 1.10 = $275000

450 head of 600 pound calves = 270000 pounds @ 1.00 = $270000

So for $5000 bucks difference you get to sell 50 head of open/dry cows
Click to expand...
Doesn't a 100 lb increase in calf weight come at an added cost?
 
Northern Rancher said:
It used to be in the British breeds any bull you used would give you a cow that was a some what useful cow. Some were sounder than others but were most were of a body type or function that they work in the commercial enviroment. It's not the use of E.P.D's and performance data that has changed this but the misuse of those tools. There are have cattle now with incredible growth and milk potential we haven't figured a way to get mother nature to come onside and provide a consistent supply of fuel for those genetic engines. Cows that can keep going in the tough years will just flesh up more and cut your wintering costs in a better year. Most guys up here who run yearlings up here-us included use them as a grass management tool-in drought or flood years-we can lose pasture to both in the same year-we can cut back on yearlings to keep the cows around. Fertlity and weight are both important but at what cost is the main part of the equation.
Click to expand...
Excellent management tool to find the maximum of both fertility and weight that your environment will support.
 
There are rumblings of going back to running short twos up here again for the forage finished deal. In our enviroment it's tough to get cattle to put on enough weight and finish on that first summer on grass. A short two turns into a pleasureable eating experience very quickly and will hang a heavy enough carcass to cover the fixed costs of slaughter etc. The trick is marketing the product at enough of a profit to cover the extra winter. It can be done though.
 
Northern Rancher said:
There are rumblings of going back to running short twos up here again for the forage finished deal. In our enviroment it's tough to get cattle to put on enough weight and finish on that first summer on grass. A short two turns into a pleasureable eating experience very quickly and will hang a heavy enough carcass to cover the fixed costs of slaughter etc. The trick is marketing the product at enough of a profit to cover the extra winter. It can be done though.
Click to expand...

Yes, it can. And it is. :wink:
 
For us fertility is a long term goal. We only keep heifers out of older proven cows, preferably 10yrs of age minimum. Then we also only pick heifers from the first cycle as BRG stated. Do those 2 things and it eliminates alot of heifers right off the hop. Once you wittle it down from there based on feet, temperament, health, confirmation etc, you end up with a small group of replacements every year. Thus, it is a long term goal, and I believe there is no quick way to get it, without sacrificing other traits.

As for weight, we could always forget the purebred things and breed our Galloways to Simmental, keep back all the 1/2 blood heifers and really ring the bell for weights. However, if one looks around at Mother Nature's classrooms one will see that the absolute best herbivores in our eco-systems always seem to wean calf crops consistent with that eco-system. THey do not get bigger and bigger year after year. They have stabilized with what is possible, based on what is available. You may see a few dinky bison or elk calves, or deer fawns, but for the most part they are all pretty consistent. If we want to keep pushing the envelope for what our cows can raise, we had better be willing to shrink the envelope for cow longevity, cow efficiency, and cost of production.

Also wanted to say that evaluating things based on pounds of calf weaned per acre, and dollars netted per acre, are the best ways in my opinion.
 
PureCountry said:
For us fertility is a long term goal. We only keep heifers out of older proven cows, preferably 10yrs of age minimum. Then we also only pick heifers from the first cycle as BRG stated. Do those 2 things and it eliminates alot of heifers right off the hop. Once you wittle it down from there based on feet, temperament, health, confirmation etc, you end up with a small group of replacements every year. Thus, it is a long term goal, and I believe there is no quick way to get it, without sacrificing other traits.

As for weight, we could always forget the purebred things and breed our Galloways to Simmental, keep back all the 1/2 blood heifers and really ring the bell for weights. However, if one looks around at Mother Nature's classrooms one will see that the absolute best herbivores in our eco-systems always seem to wean calf crops consistent with that eco-system. THey do not get bigger and bigger year after year. They have stabilized with what is possible, based on what is available. You may see a few dinky bison or elk calves, or deer fawns, but for the most part they are all pretty consistent. If we want to keep pushing the envelope for what our cows can raise, we had better be willing to shrink the envelope for cow longevity, cow efficiency, and cost of production.

Also wanted to say that evaluating things based on pounds of calf weaned per acre, and dollars netted per acre, are the best ways in my opinion.
Click to expand...
We are nearly the exact opposite. We keep replacements off our young cows bred for moderation, and push our older AN cows with SM bulls. We don't keep these heifers. That way we increase the speed of genetic progress and can work on locking down the traits that matter to us and get more saleable product. We work with groups of cattle rather than individuals (although there is still the odd favourite cow). An exceptional older cow may make the young group once in a while.
We are doing some short keep grassed 2's as well, and experimenting with moving into direct sales in a very small way.
The cool thing is that there are so many ways to create NET incomeand yet so many focus on GROSS income...
 
RobertMac said:
What is more important to the commercial cattleman...increased percentage of weaned calves or increased weaning weights?
Click to expand...

Why can't you have both? If the operation is "commercial" does weaning really matter?
 
RSL said:
The per acre return is a good way to think about things. I always figured that talking about weaning weights is kind of like a grain farmer telling you they got 35 hoppers full off a field without knowing what size the combine or the field is. The key is building margins, not building production (although sometimes production improves margins). If you are losing $10 a head, the fewer head you have the better. :lol: :lol:
Click to expand...

That is an excellent analysis. A lot of people like to see things as they relate to grain for them to truly understand. :lol: :wink: :wink:
 
you can and should have both. as soon as you starting putting to much or all of your focus on one or the other, everything else is likely to start heading down hill.
 
Justin said:
you can and should have both. as soon as you starting putting to much or all of your focus on one or the other, everything else is likely to start heading down hill.
Click to expand...

I agree. Go for the averages. Cull the outliers. Rome wasn't built in a day, or by theories alone. :wink:
 

Latest posts

Back
Top