andybob
Well-known member
Tuli have always worked for me finishing on range grazing and browsing, medium framed, and marbled beef they are particularly adapted to hotter,challenging environments.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Size Reduction
- Thread starter Ben H
- Start date
Ben H
Well-known member
Badlands said:Iowa State study.
I wait until more than one to make a decision.
Badlands
So True, that's science. One study makes theory, it takes many more to make "law"
Northern Rancher
Well-known member
I think you better have cattle that you can go either way with-big enough so that you can finish them the traditional way also. Despite what both sides of the grass finishing debate tell you there are cattle that work either way.
Ben H
Well-known member
I'm sure I could finish any cow on grass, it's just a matter of how fast I can do it. 20-24 months is a good goal. To finish a 1200 pound steer at 24 months, with a birth weight of 85 pounds, they would need to gain an average of 1.53 pounds a day, every day. That is certainly achievable.
The advantage of a feedlot is that you can finish all year round with a pretty consistant ADG. For me, I need to plan when I want them to finish based on the ADG for the time of year. For example, one of the worst times to finish is August/Sept/Oct. You want 90 days at a high rate of gain to finish an animal on grass. When the temps get above 87 F then grasses and legumes start to increase the lignin portion of NDF, you can't get adequate ADG at that time due to the plant loosing digestibiliy. One tactic is to plant corn and graze the leaves and upper stalks, followed by a non finishing group. But you have to have things timed right because you can't go from grazed corn back to grass, they need to be finished.
What you can't compete with is that it's cheaper to grow a crop and let the animal harvest it then to harvest it, transport it, mix it, feed it, then dispose of the manure.
There is a reason that Argentina primarily raises animals on a forage chain, it's becaue they're cheap and they have to be. They don't get any subsidies and they're only getting $0.35 per pound.
The advantage of a feedlot is that you can finish all year round with a pretty consistant ADG. For me, I need to plan when I want them to finish based on the ADG for the time of year. For example, one of the worst times to finish is August/Sept/Oct. You want 90 days at a high rate of gain to finish an animal on grass. When the temps get above 87 F then grasses and legumes start to increase the lignin portion of NDF, you can't get adequate ADG at that time due to the plant loosing digestibiliy. One tactic is to plant corn and graze the leaves and upper stalks, followed by a non finishing group. But you have to have things timed right because you can't go from grazed corn back to grass, they need to be finished.
What you can't compete with is that it's cheaper to grow a crop and let the animal harvest it then to harvest it, transport it, mix it, feed it, then dispose of the manure.
There is a reason that Argentina primarily raises animals on a forage chain, it's becaue they're cheap and they have to be. They don't get any subsidies and they're only getting $0.35 per pound.
Ben H
Well-known member
Mike said:I'd like to read that study Ben. From what I have read, "Feed Efficiency" (grass/forage included) has very little to do with frame size.
Body heat and the other metabolic/biological processes that dictate efficiency don't care what size an animal is.
I hope we are calling "Feed Efficiency" the same thing. What I'm calling it is.....an animal that converts less pounds of feed to more pounds of gain.
I was just reading Kit Pharro's news letter and he had a paragraph that says exactly what I'm trying to say. I argue that feed efficiency IS influenced by size, that efficiency is NOT a linear trend. I would like to see the study that says otherwise.
If your ranch can support 100 head of 1400 pound cows, it will support 120 head of 1100 pound cows. That is 20% more cows producing 20% more calves on the the exact SAME INPUTS -- and I will guarantee those 120 smaller cows will ALWAYS produce MORE TOTAL POUNDS OF BEEF that are worth MORE PER POUND! Smaller, more efficient cows create MUCH HIGHER PROFITS -- in good times and in bad.
-Kit Pharro
PCC Update 01/31/07
"It doesn't have to be this way"
Just Pointed Out to Me --
Ironically, the type of genetics that can finish on grass are exactly the type of genetics that will make the most money in a feedlot with higher priced corn. As far as the producer is concerned, they probably always have been.
Custom feedlots, on the other hand, make their money by selling corn and days (yardage). They have always made more money on big-framed, late-maturing cattle with BIG appetites. The longer the cattle are in a pen and the more corn they can eat, the more money the feedlot makes. Once a pen is emptied, the feedlot has to go to work to find more cattle to fill it.
Be very suspicious of a feedlot manager who is telling you what type of cows you should own and what type of calves you should produce. He may not be as concerned about your bottom line as he lets on.
-Kit Pharro
PCC Update 01/31/07
Badlands
Well-known member
Kit is referring to the same study you are.
The SINGLE study.
.
Badlands
The SINGLE study.
.
Badlands
Horseless
Well-known member
Ben
Just using those figures and if those cows can wean a calf at 50% of their own weight. The bigger cows produce more total pounds.
100head x 700lb= 70,000lbs
120head x 550lb= 66,000lbs
Then we are back to the questions:
Are your harvesters easily maintained?
Do you have to trade them in often?
Is it a john deere or a silver seeder? :wink: Probably shouldn't go there :wink:
Just using those figures and if those cows can wean a calf at 50% of their own weight. The bigger cows produce more total pounds.
100head x 700lb= 70,000lbs
120head x 550lb= 66,000lbs
Then we are back to the questions:
Are your harvesters easily maintained?
Do you have to trade them in often?
Is it a john deere or a silver seeder? :wink: Probably shouldn't go there :wink:
Ben H
Well-known member
Is 50% the number you should be looking at? I would think that both calves would have a similar ADG. In theory, the one from the smaller cow would reach its mature weight faster, which is exactly the reason I want the smaller framed cattle for finishing. Your calving weight is not going to be that different, maybe 20 pounds at the most, if that. So given a similar ADG then you are definately making more meat.
Badlands
Well-known member
Maturity is seperate from gain.
Badlands
Badlands
WB
Well-known member
I am by no means an expert on this topic but if I had to take an educated guess I would have to say that ther is an optimum mature cow weight that is the most feed efficient. I know there is always going to be exceptions to the rules. The too small too big arguement will last forever I am sure.
As far as grass finishing goes I know zero but it would seem to me that you would want an earlier maturing animal with low maintenance. Performance would still be important but it has to be the right package. I would think that Hereford and Angus crosses would be hard to beat in your area of the world.
As far as grass finishing goes I know zero but it would seem to me that you would want an earlier maturing animal with low maintenance. Performance would still be important but it has to be the right package. I would think that Hereford and Angus crosses would be hard to beat in your area of the world.
Badlands
Well-known member
www.iowabeefcenter.org/pdfs/gridret.pdf
Be sure you watch for what is statistically significant and what isn't.
Quite frankly, with what they have said was statistically significant and what wasn't, the final implications are overstated.
Badlands
Be sure you watch for what is statistically significant and what isn't.
Quite frankly, with what they have said was statistically significant and what wasn't, the final implications are overstated.
Badlands
Mike
Well-known member
Colorado State University, Fort Collins 80523.
A revised version of the Texas A&M University Beef Cattle Production Model was used to simulate the effects of growth, milk production and management system on biological and economic efficiency of beef production in a northern plains, range environment. Animals varying in genetic potential for birth weight (BWA), yearling weight (YW), mature weight (WMA) and milk production (PMA) were simulated under both a weanling system of management (weaned calves custom-fed in the feedlot) and a yearling system (calves wintered on the ranch, then custom-fed after their second summer). The yearling system of management was biologically less efficient, but economically more efficient than the weanling system due primarily to heavier slaughter weights of fed animals. The advantage of the yearling system was most apparent for smaller genotypes. Herd efficiency improved with decreased BWA and increased YW, but changed little when WMA was varied while other growth traits were held constant. Increased PMA was favored for production of live weight at weaning and for production of slaughter product when feedlot costs were high. Increased PMA was not favored when feed costs for the cow herd were high. Economic weights generated from the simulation indicated the importance of selection for rapid early growth followed by selection for lighter birth weight. While larger genotypes were generally favored in this study, optimal cow size depended on economic conditions. Larger types were more biologically efficient and more economically efficient using standard costs, but medium- and small-size cattle were more efficient when feedlot costs were high. Small cattle were least efficient when feed costs for the cow herd were high.
PMID: 3667467 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
Related LinksSimulated efficiency of range beef production. II. Fertility traits. [J Anim Sci. 1987] PMID: 3667468 Simulated efficiency of range beef production. III. Culling strategies and nontraditional management systems. [J Anim Sci. 1987] PMID: 3667469 Evaluation of intensive vs extensive systems of beef production and the effect of level of beef cow milk production on postweaning performance. [J Anim Sci. 1990] PMID: 2401667 Effects of milk yield on biological efficiency and profit of beef production from birth to slaughter. [J Anim Sci. 1999] PMID: 10100661 Life cycle evaluation of five biological types of beef cattle in a cow-calf range production system: I. Model development. [J Anim Sci. 1994] PMID: 7883615 See all Related Articles...
A revised version of the Texas A&M University Beef Cattle Production Model was used to simulate the effects of growth, milk production and management system on biological and economic efficiency of beef production in a northern plains, range environment. Animals varying in genetic potential for birth weight (BWA), yearling weight (YW), mature weight (WMA) and milk production (PMA) were simulated under both a weanling system of management (weaned calves custom-fed in the feedlot) and a yearling system (calves wintered on the ranch, then custom-fed after their second summer). The yearling system of management was biologically less efficient, but economically more efficient than the weanling system due primarily to heavier slaughter weights of fed animals. The advantage of the yearling system was most apparent for smaller genotypes. Herd efficiency improved with decreased BWA and increased YW, but changed little when WMA was varied while other growth traits were held constant. Increased PMA was favored for production of live weight at weaning and for production of slaughter product when feedlot costs were high. Increased PMA was not favored when feed costs for the cow herd were high. Economic weights generated from the simulation indicated the importance of selection for rapid early growth followed by selection for lighter birth weight. While larger genotypes were generally favored in this study, optimal cow size depended on economic conditions. Larger types were more biologically efficient and more economically efficient using standard costs, but medium- and small-size cattle were more efficient when feedlot costs were high. Small cattle were least efficient when feed costs for the cow herd were high.
PMID: 3667467 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
Related LinksSimulated efficiency of range beef production. II. Fertility traits. [J Anim Sci. 1987] PMID: 3667468 Simulated efficiency of range beef production. III. Culling strategies and nontraditional management systems. [J Anim Sci. 1987] PMID: 3667469 Evaluation of intensive vs extensive systems of beef production and the effect of level of beef cow milk production on postweaning performance. [J Anim Sci. 1990] PMID: 2401667 Effects of milk yield on biological efficiency and profit of beef production from birth to slaughter. [J Anim Sci. 1999] PMID: 10100661 Life cycle evaluation of five biological types of beef cattle in a cow-calf range production system: I. Model development. [J Anim Sci. 1994] PMID: 7883615 See all Related Articles...
BRG
Well-known member
I think their is a happy medium somewhere. I personally like the 1300 to 1400 lbs cow, and my customers do to, otherwise they would not keep coming back year after year. Yes, a lighter calf will ussually bring more $ per lbs at weaning time, BUT, it is not just any kind of lighter weight calf. The buyers want a medium to larger framed animal and they are willing to give a premium to the lighter weight calves that are of the frame they want. But the smaller framed lighter weight calves that are built like a little black bear are not recieving the same premiums. So the 1000 to 1100lbs cow that is real moderate in frame may eat less than the bigger cow, but she will wean off a smaller calf and ussually that type or that build of calf will not reieve a premium either. So as I see it, by having the real small cow you are loosing on some $ few different ways.
1. You will need to have another bull for the extra cows. (This past year that was around $2500 to $3000 in our area)
2. You will have more vet expense on those extra cows.
3. Your calves will ussually not bring as much if they are smaller framed type calves.
Also right now the 8 weight calves are bringing the same per lbs as the 7 weight calves. So their is alot of extra $ to be made on the bigger calves this time of year.
But after I say all that, I believe you need to run what your enviroment and what mother nature lets you run. We will always loose when we go head to head with her.
1. You will need to have another bull for the extra cows. (This past year that was around $2500 to $3000 in our area)
2. You will have more vet expense on those extra cows.
3. Your calves will ussually not bring as much if they are smaller framed type calves.
Also right now the 8 weight calves are bringing the same per lbs as the 7 weight calves. So their is alot of extra $ to be made on the bigger calves this time of year.
But after I say all that, I believe you need to run what your enviroment and what mother nature lets you run. We will always loose when we go head to head with her.
High Plains
Well-known member
Couldn't help but throw in my 2 cents here. BTW, I mostly enjoy lurking here and studying what everyone else has to say. But I'm pretty interested in this discussion.
Ben H has a serious market for grass fed cattle and realizing a profit from it. Good deal and atta boy. Completely appropriate to down-size cattle for a grass-fed situation.
However, BRG makes a great point on the true market demand for smaller calves. The Kit Pharo type of cattle are not in demand by the feeders. Sorry to burst anyone's bubble. Feeders are looking for cattle that will gain and convert feed rapidly with flexibility to go to fairly heavy carcass weights. Those little teddy-bear calves will not do it. There's a level of moderate frame that will work just fine. Moderate frame with some thickness and capacity still equates to some realistic pay-weights. Faster Horses seems to have cattle that fit that billing.
Tom Brink with Five Rivers Cattle Feeding has said that producers with those little dink calves "will be found out, and we will not buy from you again". They may be great grass foragers at the ranch, but let's not get too crazy with the downsizing.
That's a feedlot perspecitve. It's got nothing at all to do with grass-fed finishing.
HP
Ben H has a serious market for grass fed cattle and realizing a profit from it. Good deal and atta boy. Completely appropriate to down-size cattle for a grass-fed situation.
However, BRG makes a great point on the true market demand for smaller calves. The Kit Pharo type of cattle are not in demand by the feeders. Sorry to burst anyone's bubble. Feeders are looking for cattle that will gain and convert feed rapidly with flexibility to go to fairly heavy carcass weights. Those little teddy-bear calves will not do it. There's a level of moderate frame that will work just fine. Moderate frame with some thickness and capacity still equates to some realistic pay-weights. Faster Horses seems to have cattle that fit that billing.
Tom Brink with Five Rivers Cattle Feeding has said that producers with those little dink calves "will be found out, and we will not buy from you again". They may be great grass foragers at the ranch, but let's not get too crazy with the downsizing.
That's a feedlot perspecitve. It's got nothing at all to do with grass-fed finishing.
HP
Faster horses
Well-known member
There is a little fallacy in the "a cow should wean 50% of her body weight"
and one that I find to be often overlooked.
That 50% doesn't mean any calf on any given day. It means the 205-day
weight. You can cover the 50% deal up when your calves are older
when sold, or not meet the 50% if the calves are younger. Our
calves are 185 days old at the oldest when we sell. Because I have
their individual weights that are taken at preconditioning time,
I can figure the 205 day weights on them. It's really interesting.
But if your calves weigh 600 lbs when you sell them, and
your cows average weight is 1300 lbs. saying they failed to wean
50% of their body weight, isn't accurate.
Same thing if the calves weigh 700 lbs the day you sell, only vice-versa.
and one that I find to be often overlooked.
That 50% doesn't mean any calf on any given day. It means the 205-day
weight. You can cover the 50% deal up when your calves are older
when sold, or not meet the 50% if the calves are younger. Our
calves are 185 days old at the oldest when we sell. Because I have
their individual weights that are taken at preconditioning time,
I can figure the 205 day weights on them. It's really interesting.
But if your calves weigh 600 lbs when you sell them, and
your cows average weight is 1300 lbs. saying they failed to wean
50% of their body weight, isn't accurate.
Same thing if the calves weigh 700 lbs the day you sell, only vice-versa.
BRG
Well-known member
Good Point FH!
We wean ours early as well.
Alot of ranches wean at 230 days or older, especially the ones that calve in Jan and Feb. Most will then sell in mid Oct. You should have several calves at or over 50% by then.
We wean ours early as well.
Alot of ranches wean at 230 days or older, especially the ones that calve in Jan and Feb. Most will then sell in mid Oct. You should have several calves at or over 50% by then.
Ben H
Well-known member
Ben H said:Looks like I'll be laid up for a bit, rolled my ankle jumping out of the tractor cab tonight, landing on an old post that sticks up about 1.5" in the middle of the hay barn floor. Of course I was wearing Muck Boots that have absolutely no ankle support. I didn't think an ankle was supposed to bend like that, and pain...I can tell you about pain. My wife brought me back to the house in the bucket of the tractor.
Follow up, just got back from the Dr, not broken but one of if not the worst sprains he's ever seen. I'll be wearing an air cast for 2-3 weeks. Mental note, don't hurry, take your time and don't jump out of the tractor cab.
Faster horses
Well-known member
OUCHHHHHHH!!
Those can be so painful. Sorry for your misfortune.
Mr. FH always says, "Drink a lot of water and walk slow." :wink:
Those can be so painful. Sorry for your misfortune.
Mr. FH always says, "Drink a lot of water and walk slow." :wink:
DOC HARRIS
Well-known member
I have watched the swings of Beef Cattle Production come and go for many years, and it is interesting that RIGHT NOW, for several good reasons, the thoughtful producers are beginning to realize that LARGE framed cattle and BIG cows are causing several problems - some of them seemingly SMALL and incidental - but problems nevertheless: larger and larger frame size, particularly the bulls that Breeders are using today. If your bull(s) were born before 2000 their Yearling EPD was somewhere around +55 or so. Today's average is around +75 or more!!
Using today's bulls, what is that increased Bull size going to do to your cow herd size?? . . in calves that are born in 2008 and producing their own calves in 2011! Are you going to have Giants that will break the bank in paying for grain that is going to be $4.00 a bushel or more for corn? The "RUSH" for Growth and High Milk EPD's and reduced Scrotal Size and loss of Fertility in Cows AND Bulls is a snowball tearing downhill that is scary to me!
Many posts lately have been stressing the need and desire for 'GRASSFED' Beef, and the Genetics which combine to be able to produce the 'type' of beef cattle which we expect to thrive on grass and forage - in other words-do what beef cattle are supposed to do - EAT GRASS and make money in the process.
A few weeks ago, we had a running dialog about different breeds of Beef Cattle - and the appeal that some of those breeds possessed in light of today's FEED PRICES and availability of corn and other grains and feedstuffs because of the increased demand of same for the production of ETHANOL.
At that time, some of us on both CattleToday and Ranchers.net discussed the Aubrac Breed, and the OUTSTANDING appearance of the young calves and bulls the breed produced - and the fact that Aubrac's are so functional pertaining to GRASSFED GENETICS. Eric Grant, who raises Aubracs (and who, by the way, has several articles in current beef magazines - Angus Journal, etc.) raises Aubracs and really can open your eyes to their potential value! I am REALLY impressed by the Aubrac's! . . . .and I have been an "Angus Man" for 65 years!
Check out this web site and give some deep thought to the possibilities of really optimizing your future beef operation - either crossbred or Purebred (Registered). Eric will jump at the chance to discuss the breed with you. I know! I have 'pinned him down' over a good Chicken Parmasen dinner with Alfredo Sauce and Pasta.
I know! You may think that I have a financial interest in this subject! Wrong! I do not. I am interested in Beef Production and what good Management and Cattle can do for everyone's lifestyle and income. Ruthie (the wife!) keeps telling me that is the TEACHER coming through, and I guess she is right!
Anyway - please check this out and get your thought processes working for YOUR benefit, whether it is Aubrac Cattle or a change in your management protocols. I think that you will be glad you did!
www.aubracusa.com
DOC HARRIS
Using today's bulls, what is that increased Bull size going to do to your cow herd size?? . . in calves that are born in 2008 and producing their own calves in 2011! Are you going to have Giants that will break the bank in paying for grain that is going to be $4.00 a bushel or more for corn? The "RUSH" for Growth and High Milk EPD's and reduced Scrotal Size and loss of Fertility in Cows AND Bulls is a snowball tearing downhill that is scary to me!
Many posts lately have been stressing the need and desire for 'GRASSFED' Beef, and the Genetics which combine to be able to produce the 'type' of beef cattle which we expect to thrive on grass and forage - in other words-do what beef cattle are supposed to do - EAT GRASS and make money in the process.
A few weeks ago, we had a running dialog about different breeds of Beef Cattle - and the appeal that some of those breeds possessed in light of today's FEED PRICES and availability of corn and other grains and feedstuffs because of the increased demand of same for the production of ETHANOL.
At that time, some of us on both CattleToday and Ranchers.net discussed the Aubrac Breed, and the OUTSTANDING appearance of the young calves and bulls the breed produced - and the fact that Aubrac's are so functional pertaining to GRASSFED GENETICS. Eric Grant, who raises Aubracs (and who, by the way, has several articles in current beef magazines - Angus Journal, etc.) raises Aubracs and really can open your eyes to their potential value! I am REALLY impressed by the Aubrac's! . . . .and I have been an "Angus Man" for 65 years!
Check out this web site and give some deep thought to the possibilities of really optimizing your future beef operation - either crossbred or Purebred (Registered). Eric will jump at the chance to discuss the breed with you. I know! I have 'pinned him down' over a good Chicken Parmasen dinner with Alfredo Sauce and Pasta.
I know! You may think that I have a financial interest in this subject! Wrong! I do not. I am interested in Beef Production and what good Management and Cattle can do for everyone's lifestyle and income. Ruthie (the wife!) keeps telling me that is the TEACHER coming through, and I guess she is right!
Anyway - please check this out and get your thought processes working for YOUR benefit, whether it is Aubrac Cattle or a change in your management protocols. I think that you will be glad you did!
www.aubracusa.com
DOC HARRIS
Mike
Well-known member
Using today's bulls, what is that increased Bull size going to do to your cow herd size??
Nothing if you use a terminal system. :roll:
