WHICH Barn Door?

[novatech]

True. I am pointing towards the fact that four "moderate" bulls grows as much as three "big" bulls;
and that four "moderate" bulls eat as much as three "big" bulls.

A feed lot needs cattle that end up fitting the box when they are finished, unless they are all going for hamburger. So does the moderate bull have to be fed longer to fit the box? Or the other way, does the larger bull stay on feed for less time?
The end result is that we as individuals have to breed for calves that fit the box according to whatever our personal market demands. It really does not have anything to do with what is right or wrong. If my buyer wants a 1600 pound cow that is what I will produce until he is educated enough to want the 11 or 1200 pound cow. I have seen a lot of slow changes in the cattle industry and am I certain I will see more.

[Willow Springs]

I think the majority of breeders and ranchers believe what you believe which could be the reason many are going out of business.

I don't think you have a clue what you're talking about. Almost everything I have read from you doesn't ever give an answer or opinion. You just like to poke people and then watch them chase their tails;

or did you actually have some sort of logic to back your statement up?

[Northern Rancher]

How many of you pontificating on cow size/feedlot performance have actually finished some cattle. Our cows would probably average frame five-I'm just looking at a kill sheet and their steers averaged 1393 at slaughter-these are cattle that buyers tell me are 'too small'. Weight comes from thickness not from how be nice tall their mother was-over the last probably 15 years our cull cows weigh about 1225 at slaughter-fat off the grass. Those finished cattle by the way made a $40 dollar/head premium from a herd of too small cows. As far as feedlots go they could give a rats ass about how big the cow is the calf came from. The first time we fed there they missed the projected harvest date by a month and a 100 pounds-there is more to performance than big frame. When people stop listening to purebred breeders who've never fed anything to finish without a halter on it the world would be a better place. You'd see a big shakeup in the business if every commercial breeder received carcass data back on the calves he sold-I was hoping our national ID program would lead to that. One thing I know-is that if you've retained ownership on a few sets of calves you have some power when the salebarn pimp comes around. Those steers were straight blacks and baldies.

[novatech]

How many of you pontificating on cow size/feedlot performance have actually finished some cattle. Our cows would probably average frame five-I'm just looking at a kill sheet and their steers averaged 1393 at slaughter-these are cattle that buyers tell me are 'too small'. Weight comes from thickness not from how be nice tall their mother was-over the last probably 15 years our cull cows weigh about 1225 at slaughter-fat off the grass. Those finished cattle by the way made a $40 dollar/head premium from a herd of too small cows. As far as feedlots go they could give a rats ass about how big the cow is the calf came from. The first time we fed there they missed the projected harvest date by a month and a 100 pounds-there is more to performance than big frame. When people stop listening to purebred breeders who've never fed anything to finish without a halter on it the world would be a better place. You'd see a big shakeup in the business if every commercial breeder received carcass data back on the calves he sold-I was hoping our national ID program would lead to that. One thing I know-is that if you've retained ownership on a few sets of calves you have some power when the salebarn pimp comes around. Those steers were straight blacks and baldies.

I do not recall anyone talking about frame score, most everything has referd to weight in relation to cow size.
My family raised 4 and 5 frame Angus back in the 60's and other than some calving problem we were very satisfied with the results. This is one of the reasons I asked the questions.
I do appreciate you answering the questions I had as I am a purebred breeder and want to know what is best for my customer.
As far as pontificating goes, to speak in a pompous or dogmatic manner, I think you should reread your post before you point your finger at others..

[stocky]

For our hills, it has always been much more profitable to have cows that weigh from 950-1050, that are good milkers and bred to a charolais bull, we will sell a 650 to 700 lb calf right off the cow. The calves have plenty of frame for the buyers and we dont have to feed a 1500 lb cow and the 1000 lb cows do not have the feet and leg problems on our hills that the 1500 lb cows do. Different areas may be different. This is what works for us

[Jeanne - Simme Valley]

As I keep saying - you have to raise the TYPE of animal that makes you the most PROFIT for your area.
We raise Purebred Simmental cattle. We put 5-6 head on the Cornell feedlot program each year (retained ownership). We have CONSISTANTLY had the highest PROFIT steer or group of steers. This past year the conventional fed steers had an average Profit of $4.13 - with a range of (-$261.98) to a + of $172.59. One of my steers had the $172.59 PROFIT with a total average of $120.90. Avg final weight for the total group was 1233# (range 974 - 1579#), and mine was 1391#. The profit is calculated by Cornell based on a value of the calf at delivery (taking into consideration the actual market for the size/weight of the feeder), & total feedlot costs.
They also calculate a Return to Cow/Calf enterprise. This is calculated by subtracting all expenses (except the feeder clf cost) from the receipts. It is a calculation of the money returned to the c/c enterprise; essentially the amount ofcash returned to pay the annual cost of keeping that calf's dam. The group avg $675 (range $255 - $935) Mine averaged $821.20
So - long story, but my cattle would be considered large cattle (cows average around 1500# - true SCALE weights - not guessing) and are PUREBRED. Amazes Cornell, mainly because ours are up against almost all crossbreds.
Northern Rancher wrote:

When people stop listening to purebred breeders who've never fed anything to finish without a halter on it the world would be a better place.

[novatech]

They also calculate a Return to Cow/Calf enterprise. This is calculated by subtracting all expenses (except the feeder clf cost) from the receipts. It is a calculation of the money returned to the c/c enterprise; essentially the amount ofcash returned to pay the annual cost of keeping that calf's dam. The group avg $675 (range $255 - $935) Mine averaged $821.20

Your dealing with an old brain that is fairly thick.
I don't quite understand this part. It looks a though it costs you $821.20 to feed the cow for a year. I know that is not right.
Congrats. on the feed lot tests. Good job.
I get really tired of people cutting down show cattle, and pure bred breeders. I don't think they realize all the benefits they could attain by the use, with proper selection, of these genetics.

[DOC HARRIS]

To put a Summary note to this line of conversation, I would say that most of the intense fervor, emotions, and sentiments expressed on this thread are heartfelt and sincere. In their own right, MOST (not all!) of the contributors are sincere in their beliefs. What I feel is overlooked, to some degree, is the dedication and devotion that a producer has toward the particular breed, or blend of breeds with which one is accustomed, and is comfortable using at the present time. This is similar to the "same ol' same ol" senseless rhetoric embodied in the "Ford-Chevrolet" on-going disputation (which is specious at best), and, in the final analyous, is predicated upon the past experiences with which one has had.

I feel that when it is ALMOST said and done, the GOALS achieved in the Beef Cattle Business will depend upon 1) personal breed preference, 2) management practices, 3) attention to DETAILS, and 4) COMMON SENSE!.

DOC HARRIS

[RD-Sam]

Here's some common sense for ya Doc. I looked at some cattle last week and the 1500 - 1600 pound cows were in the best condition, there were cows from 1100 pounds and up. Common sense would tell me to select the cows in the best condition, so what should I do? Should I select the 1100 pound ones that were in the worst condition, because you say there is more profit in a smaller cow?

Personally I think I have about heard enough of this smaller is better BS, the best cows are the ones that raise a good calf and stay in condition, no matter what their size.

[novatech]

Here's some common sense for ya Doc. I looked at some cattle last week and the 1500 - 1600 pound cows were in the best condition, there were cows from 1100 pounds and up. Common sense would tell me to select the cows in the best condition, so what should I do? Should I select the 1100 pound ones that were in the worst condition, because you say there is more profit in a smaller cow?

Personally I think I have about heard enough of this smaller is better BS, the best cows are the ones that raise a good calf and stay in condition, no matter what their size.

If you had been reading all the posts about this you may have found that the cattle size is based on a common BCS, which would make common sense. Nobody has ever implied that you should invest in hard keepers.
I can remember when most cattle were what we consider small today. I believe we just became accustomed to cattle being big so we assume it is the norm. Are we just going full circle?
I have learned that you can only learn when you have an open mind.
I believe that If I can raise more cows on a given piece of ground and produce more pounds of beef to sell,with out additional input, while at the same time producing a marketable calf, I would be a fool not to do so. Now does that make common sense? In my book it is definitely worth researching.

[Dap]

I had a little extra help hanging around for preg check day a few weeks ago, so I decided to weigh one group of cows (35 head) on their way through the chute. I had just weaned a week before, and their body condition was good. All the cows (ages 3 and up) averaged 1208 lbs., with the smallest at 1010, and heaviest at 1550. In terms of % body weight weaned, 6 of the top 7 cows were below 1200 lbs., including the 3 smallest. The biggest surprise to me when looking at these numbers was that the cows I have always looked at as being the best (always fleshy, with nice growthy calves) turned out to have some of the lowest % body weight weaned. I went back and looked at calving dates, and they had some of the later calves, which I'm sure contributed to their better body condition. I sold 18 steers from this group and they matched up very well....you couldn't tell which was from the smaller or bigger cows.

I'm not sure what I'm going to do with this info yet, but I'm going to weigh all my cows as time permits. One other thing that stands out when I look at the info is something we already know. Big or small frame, the fertile cows that calve early in the season make the money.

[stocky]

RD-Sam, When I am talking cow size, it has nothing to do with her condition. When I talk about weight in terms of cow size, I am talking about a cow in good condition. But, with respect to your question, price and purpose determine whether you should buy the 1100 lb thin cow or the 1500 lb fat cow. If I can get the 1100 lb cow for 200-300 dollars cheaper and she is bred in the same time and everything else is the same, yes, I buy the 1100 lb cow and turn her into a 1500 lb cow that will bring alot more money. I make a whole lot more money buying thin, suckled down cows than I do buying fat cows. Don't pay someone else to do what you should be doing. But, once again, it depends on your purpose for buying the cow. That way of thinking won't fit into some operations.

[Jeanne - Simme Valley]

They also calculate a Return to Cow/Calf enterprise. This is calculated by subtracting all expenses (except the feeder clf cost) from the receipts. It is a calculation of the money returned to the c/c enterprise; essentially the amount ofcash returned to pay the annual cost of keeping that calf's dam. The group avg $675 (range $255 - $935) Mine averaged $821.20

Your dealing with an old brain that is fairly thick.
I don't quite understand this part. It looks a though it costs you $821.20 to feed the cow for a year. I know that is not right.
Congrats. on the feed lot tests. Good job.
I get really tired of people cutting down show cattle, and pure bred breeders. I don't think they realize all the benefits they could attain by the use, with proper selection, of these genetics.

Nova - when you said "Your dealing with an old brain that is fairly thick" - I thought you were referring to me - well - it does fit!!
Anyway, the "ret to C/c enterprise" is our yearly "profit" from that calf - which is what that cow produced to "pay her keep" for the year. No, my cows don't cost that much to keep for the year - last I calculated, mine was actually $471/yr cow cost.

Doc - people that are "breed" specific (like me!) CAN change with the times WITHIN your own breed.

[RD-Sam]

RD-Sam, When I am talking cow size, it has nothing to do with her condition. When I talk about weight in terms of cow size, I am talking about a cow in good condition. But, with respect to your question, price and purpose determine whether you should buy the 1100 lb thin cow or the 1500 lb fat cow. If I can get the 1100 lb cow for 200-300 dollars cheaper and she is bred in the same time and everything else is the same, yes, I buy the 1100 lb cow and turn her into a 1500 lb cow that will bring alot more money. I make a whole lot more money buying thin, suckled down cows than I do buying fat cows. Don't pay someone else to do what you should be doing. But, once again, it depends on your purpose for buying the cow. That way of thinking won't fit into some operations.

My point was that the big 1500 and 1600 pound cows that are suppose to be so hard doing and hard keeping, were in the best condition, and they were all on grass in the same pasture.

[alacattleman]

RD-Sam, When I am talking cow size, it has nothing to do with her condition. When I talk about weight in terms of cow size, I am talking about a cow in good condition. But, with respect to your question, price and purpose determine whether you should buy the 1100 lb thin cow or the 1500 lb fat cow. If I can get the 1100 lb cow for 200-300 dollars cheaper and she is bred in the same time and everything else is the same, yes, I buy the 1100 lb cow and turn her into a 1500 lb cow that will bring alot more money. I make a whole lot more money buying thin, suckled down cows than I do buying fat cows. Don't pay someone else to do what you should be doing. But, once again, it depends on your purpose for buying the cow. That way of thinking won't fit into some operations.

My point was that the big 1500 and 1600 pound cows that are suppose to be so hard doing and hard keeping, were in the best condition, and they were all on grass in the same pasture.

ive had em that weighed 1800 pounds and easy fleshing,,,, but my god at the groceries they went through