Does more pounds per acre make up for being docked at the sale barn for small frame size?

Inventry
Gather App
UnlistMe
I don’t like any generalized term like moderate. That means something different to each breeder. I made a post several years ago asking what each breeder considered as a moderate frame size and cow weight. There was a wide range. At that time the middle was around a 5.5-6.0 frame and a 1,400 lb cow. A recent study shows the average Angus cow weighs just over 1,400 lbs. I imagine if I made a similar post now cow size and weight might be lower.
We run the size and type of cow that returns the most profit per acre. For us that is a 1,400-1,500 lb cow around a 6.0 frame. This size of cow will wean a 700 lb or more calf at 7 months with no creep and limited inputs. We desire a little more milk than many. As one old successful cow man said milk is the cheapest source of extra pounds. Environment and forage types will determine how much milk output is optimum for your operation. We want cows with above average milk values that are fertile, maintain weight with limited inputs and breeds back on time. We have consistently weaned above a 85% calf crop. We don’t preg check. type and size that works best in this area won’t work as well in an arid region. Our forage here is low quality so we need a high volume cow that is efficient. So many talk cow size and weight but never mention efficiency. Current testing has shown you can reduce maintenance costs by up to 25% and maintain frame size and weight.
I have seen several breeders go to smaller cows and increase stocking rates. In this area we have found that any attempt to stock anymore than 10% of the stocking rate for the 1,400-1,500 lb cows results in overgrazed pastures. A 5 frame cow that has the volume needed here will weigh over 1,350 lbs. Our buyers desire a calf in the 6 frame area. Anything below a 5.5 frame are docked. Below a 5 is $20.00 a hundred or more.
We sell by actual weights. We don’t get paid for more lbs because of the age of the cow. When I figure RDA of age I do it as I was taught in the 60’s. No adjustments for age and no substraction for BW. When I select a bull I ask for actual numbers and age weaned. I do my own figuring. The adjusted numbers are of no value to me as a commercial breeder and other commercial breeders I know.
No one size or type of cow works best in every pasture. During our recent droughts our low volume 5 frame cows fell out.
 
elkwc said:
I don’t like any generalized term like moderate. That means something different to each breeder. I made a post several years ago asking what each breeder considered as a moderate frame size and cow weight. There was a wide range. At that time the middle was around a 5.5-6.0 frame and a 1,400 lb cow. A recent study shows the average Angus cow weighs just over 1,400 lbs. I imagine if I made a similar post now cow size and weight might be lower.
We run the size and type of cow that returns the most profit per acre. For us that is a 1,400-1,500 lb cow around a 6.0 frame. This size of cow will wean a 700 lb or more calf at 7 months with no creep and limited inputs. We desire a little more milk than many. As one old successful cow man said milk is the cheapest source of extra pounds. Environment and forage types will determine how much milk output is optimum for your operation. We want cows with above average milk values that are fertile, maintain weight with limited inputs and breeds back on time. We have consistently weaned above a 85% calf crop. We don’t preg check. type and size that works best in this area won’t work as well in an arid region. Our forage here is low quality so we need a high volume cow that is efficient. So many talk cow size and weight but never mention efficiency. Current testing has shown you can reduce maintenance costs by up to 25% and maintain frame size and weight.
I have seen several breeders go to smaller cows and increase stocking rates. In this area we have found that any attempt to stock anymore than 10% of the stocking rate for the 1,400-1,500 lb cows results in overgrazed pastures. A 5 frame cow that has the volume needed here will weigh over 1,350 lbs. Our buyers desire a calf in the 6 frame area. Anything below a 5.5 frame are docked. Below a 5 is $20.00 a hundred or more.
We sell by actual weights. We don’t get paid for more lbs because of the age of the cow. When I figure RDA of age I do it as I was taught in the 60’s. No adjustments for age and no substraction for BW. When I select a bull I ask for actual numbers and age weaned. I do my own figuring. The adjusted numbers are of no value to me as a commercial breeder and other commercial breeders I know.
No one size or type of cow works best in every pasture. During our recent droughts our low volume 5 frame cows fell out.
Click to expand...
My fat fingers hit the wrong key and I found no way to correct it. We consistently wean a 95% calf crop or higher.
 
This is one of the cool things about smaller cows-IF they can still raise a good calf. 6 1/2 month old red calf and his dam. Black pair is a standard cow and her calf when he was 7 months old (he’s a nicer calf, but the little cow is going to wean a higher percentage of her own weight.)
 

Attachments

  • F2253E90-33F1-4DF3-BA85-E8FFB2542D39.jpeg
    F2253E90-33F1-4DF3-BA85-E8FFB2542D39.jpeg
    3.1 MB
  • B8C80438-5749-48D5-9BD8-DD1F317AF2C1.jpeg
    B8C80438-5749-48D5-9BD8-DD1F317AF2C1.jpeg
    4.8 MB
Hpacres440p said:
This is one of the cool things about smaller cows-IF they can still raise a good calf. 6 1/2 month old red calf and his dam. Black pair is a standard cow and her calf when he was 7 months old (he’s a nicer calf, but the little cow is going to wean a higher percentage of her own weight.)
Click to expand...
What is the sire of these calves?
 
Hpacres440p said:
The black’s sire is a 63% Aberdeen/37% Angus cross, Red is 50/50 Aberdeen/red angus. Both AI
Click to expand...
This is the black calf today at 9 months old. I know @Jeanne - Simme Valley isn’t a fan of his hind legs in a prior photo, but he’s the best we’ve produced after 6 years of AI to different sires. Good disposition (other than one fence jump), and I need something more reliable than AI to get calves for next year…so he’s going to stay intact for us.
 

Attachments

  • 4E70D4DF-D809-4B51-8A23-DC7978D16B59.jpeg
    4E70D4DF-D809-4B51-8A23-DC7978D16B59.jpeg
    3.1 MB
Weber Hickory Wood Chunks Outdoor Cooking Fuel, 4 lb – Premium BBQ Smoking & Grilling Chips for Rich, Subtly Sweet Flavor – Ideal for Beef, Lamb, Poultry & Pork – Long Lasting
See price on Amazon
Weber Hickory Wood Chunks Outdoor Cooking Fuel, 4 lb – Premium BBQ Smoking & Grilling Chips for Rich, Subtly Sweet Flavor – Ideal for Beef, Lamb, Poultry & Pork – Long Lasting
Old Potters Smoker Wood Chunks 13-16 lbs for Grilling, Smoking, and Wood Fire Cooking ~ 2 x 3 Inches, (Hickory, 790 Cu in.)
See price on Amazon
Old Potters Smoker Wood Chunks 13-16 lbs for Grilling, Smoking, and Wood Fire Cooking ~ 2 x 3 Inches, (Hickory, 790 Cu in.)
Hickory Pizza Oven Wood 6 Inch, 15 lbs Box – Kiln Dried & Bark-Free Firewood for Pizza Ovens, BBQ Smoking & Grilling – Premium Hickory Wood Logs for Ooni, Gozney, Solo Stove, Bertello
See price on Amazon
Hickory Pizza Oven Wood 6 Inch, 15 lbs Box – Kiln Dried & Bark-Free Firewood for Pizza Ovens, BBQ Smoking & Grilling – Premium Hickory Wood Logs for Ooni, Gozney, Solo Stove, Bertello
Firewood Central Kiln-Dried PA Hickory – 8” Splits (Approx 39.5 lb) – Bold Smoking Wood for Pizza Ovens, BBQ & Fire Pits – Easy Light, Low Smoke, USA Sourced
See price on Amazon
Firewood Central Kiln-Dried PA Hickory – 8” Splits (Approx 39.5 lb) – Bold Smoking Wood for Pizza Ovens, BBQ & Fire Pits – Easy Light, Low Smoke, USA Sourced
Firewood Central Kiln-Dried PA Hickory – 6” Splits (Approx. 42 lb) – Bold Smoking Wood for Pizza Ovens, BBQ & Fire Pits – Easy Light, Low Smoke, USA Sourced
See price on Amazon
Firewood Central Kiln-Dried PA Hickory – 6” Splits (Approx. 42 lb) – Bold Smoking Wood for Pizza Ovens, BBQ & Fire Pits – Easy Light, Low Smoke, USA Sourced
Greenworks 24V 6in BL Pruning Saw w/Auto Oiler, Tool Only
See price on Amazon
Greenworks 24V 6in BL Pruning Saw w/Auto Oiler, Tool Only
Old Potters Kiln Dried Firewood - Cherry, 1100 Cu. in, 16-18 Logs ~ 8" x 2.5" Logs. Solo Stove and Cooking Wood for Grilling, Smoking, and Firepits, Cherry.
See price on Amazon
Old Potters Kiln Dried Firewood - Cherry, 1100 Cu. in, 16-18 Logs ~ 8" x 2.5" Logs. Solo Stove and Cooking Wood for Grilling, Smoking, and Firepits, Cherry.
Heritage Smoke Wood Hickory Pizza Oven Wood with Fire Starter - Kiln Dried Firewood 6" Hardwood Logs for Brick Fire Pizza Ovens & Grills, 6 lb, Low Smoke, High Heat, Competition-Grade Clean Burn
See price on Amazon
Heritage Smoke Wood Hickory Pizza Oven Wood with Fire Starter - Kiln Dried Firewood 6" Hardwood Logs for Brick Fire Pizza Ovens & Grills, 6 lb, Low Smoke, High Heat, Competition-Grade Clean Burn
39" Fire Pits with Wood Storage for Outside, Large Wood Burning Outdoor Fireplace with Chimney, Mesh Spark Screen & Fire Poker, Idea for Backyard, Patio, Party, Camping, Picnic
See price on Amazon
39" Fire Pits with Wood Storage for Outside, Large Wood Burning Outdoor Fireplace with Chimney, Mesh Spark Screen & Fire Poker, Idea for Backyard, Patio, Party, Camping, Picnic
Smoak Firewood Cooking Wood Mini Splits - USDA Certified Kiln Dried Pizza Oven Wood, Grilling Wood, Smoking Wood, BBQing Wood (8inch Pieces, 25-30lbs 1728 Cubic in - Hickory)
See price on Amazon
Smoak Firewood Cooking Wood Mini Splits - USDA Certified Kiln Dried Pizza Oven Wood, Grilling Wood, Smoking Wood, BBQing Wood (8inch Pieces, 25-30lbs 1728 Cubic in - Hickory)
As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases. Product prices and availability are accurate as of the date/time indicated and are subject to change.
Hpacres440p said:
This is the black calf today at 9 months old. I know @Jeanne - Simme Valley isn’t a fan of his hind legs in a prior photo, but he’s the best we’ve produced after 6 years of AI to different sires. Good disposition (other than one fence jump), and I need something more reliable than AI to get calves for next year…so he’s going to stay intact for us.
Click to expand...
Well @Jeanne - Simme Valley is right about those back legs. That's a nice, thick animal, but light bone and post legs.

I've seen more post legged bulls in the last ten years than in the prior fifty. What the **ll is going on with that?
 
There have been some very interesting comments here about grazing management and EPDs, but I don’t think we have addressed the OP’s question. I think we all agree that bigger animals eat more pounds of forage than smaller animals. This difference is not based on live weight. For example, a1500 pound cow does not eat 50% more than a 1000 pound cow. The difference is based on metabolic weight ( I don’t know how to calculate this, maybe someone on here can) but it works out to about 66% of that 50%. Yes, there are efficient big cows and inefficient small cows, and vice verse.We call them easy keepers or hard doers. But, I don’t think we can argue that, across the board, the bigger the cow , the more she eats. For any given property, the amount of forage dry matter it can grow is fixed under constant management. More small cows will consume that fixed amount of forage than fewer large cows. All the data I have found ( Kris Ringwald, University of Nebraska and Michelle Elmore, Alabama BCIA) have corroborated that the smaller the cow, the greater percentage of her body weight her calves weigh. In other words, for the amount of forage she removes, based on her body weight, the greater percentage she turns into beef for sale in her weaned calf. In addition, the breed back percentage declined as cow body weight increased. This makes sense as we know that sheep and goats are more better converters of forage to product than cattle. Our business is not about production per animal, it is about production per acre. We cannot avoid that financial reality. Will smaller calves bring less total dollars than bigger calves. Sure, but how many more of those smaller calves might we have on the same forage base as the bigger cows consuming the same amount of forage? There is also no doubt you can get cows and calves too small for the standard marketing system. But how big a dock could you take per pound if you made up for that dock in increased numbers of calves and, therefore, increased total pounds produced on the same forage base? Focusing on pounds per animal produced (weaning weight) instead of pounds produced per acre has led use down a bad road. The best assessment of cattle profitability, the SPA data taken over many years over hundreds of ranches in Texas and other states, concluded that there was 0% correlation between weaning weight and profitability in the ranches they received records on. I welcome your comments.
 
anewcomer said:
There have been some very interesting comments here about grazing management and EPDs, but I don’t think we have addressed the OP’s question. I think we all agree that bigger animals eat more pounds of forage than smaller animals. This difference is not based on live weight. For example, a1500 pound cow does not eat 50% more than a 1000 pound cow. The difference is based on metabolic weight ( I don’t know how to calculate this, maybe someone on here can) but it works out to about 66% of that 50%. Yes, there are efficient big cows and inefficient small cows, and vice verse.We call them easy keepers or hard doers. But, I don’t think we can argue that, across the board, the bigger the cow , the more she eats. For any given property, the amount of forage dry matter it can grow is fixed under constant management. More small cows will consume that fixed amount of forage than fewer large cows. All the data I have found ( Kris Ringwald, University of Nebraska and Michelle Elmore, Alabama BCIA) have corroborated that the smaller the cow, the greater percentage of her body weight her calves weigh. In other words, for the amount of forage she removes, based on her body weight, the greater percentage she turns into beef for sale in her weaned calf. In addition, the breed back percentage declined as cow body weight increased. This makes sense as we know that sheep and goats are more better converters of forage to product than cattle. Our business is not about production per animal, it is about production per acre. We cannot avoid that financial reality. Will smaller calves bring less total dollars than bigger calves. Sure, but how many more of those smaller calves might we have on the same forage base as the bigger cows consuming the same amount of forage? There is also no doubt you can get cows and calves too small for the standard marketing system. But how big a dock could you take per pound if you made up for that dock in increased numbers of calves and, therefore, increased total pounds produced on the same forage base? Focusing on pounds per animal produced (weaning weight) instead of pounds produced per acre has led use down a bad road. The best assessment of cattle profitability, the SPA data taken over many years over hundreds of ranches in Texas and other states, concluded that there was 0% correlation between weaning weight and profitability in the ranches they received records on. I welcome your comments.
Click to expand...
Go to the local barns and see them sell.
We cannot avoid that financial reality.
Click to expand...
"
 
There are many factors that are not measurable. You are correct on the fact that a 1000# cow does not eat 50% less, but you said might be more like 66%. You went the wrong way. 1000# cow will eat more like 34% less.
Location and grass management is a huge factor also.
Time , expenses and labor needs to be considered.
I would much rather work 50 cows than 75 thru the chute and pay the expense of more vaccines. And the added calving.
It's a mute subject for me personally, because my main income comes from the quality of each individual animal....not their weight. And the $2005/head I got for each steer I sold to a feedlot offsets a lot of grass!
 
Travlr said:
Well @Jeanne - Simme Valley is right about those back legs. That's a nice, thick animal, but light bone and post legs.

I've seen more post legged bulls in the last ten years than in the prior fifty. What the **ll is going on with that?
Click to expand...
Maybe people like me, didn’t even know that was a thing to look for. Can now but would like to see examples of both in real life so I really know what I am looking at. Tried looking it up and they have a good description but not very good pictures.

https://www.aces.edu/blog/topics/beef/beef-conformation-hind-legs/
 
anewcomer said:
There have been some very interesting comments here about grazing management and EPDs, but I don’t think we have addressed the OP’s question. I think we all agree that bigger animals eat more pounds of forage than smaller animals. This difference is not based on live weight. For example, a1500 pound cow does not eat 50% more than a 1000 pound cow. The difference is based on metabolic weight ( I don’t know how to calculate this, maybe someone on here can) but it works out to about 66% of that 50%. Yes, there are efficient big cows and inefficient small cows, and vice verse.We call them easy keepers or hard doers. But, I don’t think we can argue that, across the board, the bigger the cow , the more she eats. For any given property, the amount of forage dry matter it can grow is fixed under constant management. More small cows will consume that fixed amount of forage than fewer large cows. All the data I have found ( Kris Ringwald, University of Nebraska and Michelle Elmore, Alabama BCIA) have corroborated that the smaller the cow, the greater percentage of her body weight her calves weigh. In other words, for the amount of forage she removes, based on her body weight, the greater percentage she turns into beef for sale in her weaned calf. In addition, the breed back percentage declined as cow body weight increased. This makes sense as we know that sheep and goats are more better converters of forage to product than cattle. Our business is not about production per animal, it is about production per acre. We cannot avoid that financial reality. Will smaller calves bring less total dollars than bigger calves. Sure, but how many more of those smaller calves might we have on the same forage base as the bigger cows consuming the same amount of forage? There is also no doubt you can get cows and calves too small for the standard marketing system. But how big a dock could you take per pound if you made up for that dock in increased numbers of calves and, therefore, increased total pounds produced on the same forage base? Focusing on pounds per animal produced (weaning weight) instead of pounds produced per acre has led use down a bad road. The best assessment of cattle profitability, the SPA data taken over many years over hundreds of ranches in Texas and other states, concluded that there was 0% correlation between weaning weight and profitability in the ranches they received records on. I welcome your comments.
Click to expand...
The sale barn or feedlot is typically not the end market for the smaller animals and they will not make up for the lower forage needs due to the dock. Beef sales are where their value per acre should be evaluated. That means more time per animal on the acreage available. There really isn’t a good apples to apples comparison, in my opinion.
 
Travlr said:
Well @Jeanne - Simme Valley is right about those back legs. That's a nice, thick animal, but light bone and post legs.

I've seen more post legged bulls in the last ten years than in the prior fifty. What the **ll is going on with that?
Click to expand...
The light bone is a function of the different breed composition. Typically it translates to higher dressout if I get a well muscled animal. He fits our needs for now, so here he’ll stay. I don’t expect him to be an 8 year old before being converted to beef, and will hopefully have better hind leg structure in a sire by then.
Edited to add: every photo of bulls in the AI catalog has the offset leg pose. To me, the majority of the AI sires look post-legged, if what I see in the photos compares to what I see in this calf when he has the offset stance. I’d rather see an animal standing with their legs squared, as in the photo examples posted by @blackladies-a whole lot easier to see the actual leg structure. On the move, this guy is long and has a track-filling stride. Not being defensive, just explaining what I (without 50 years of experience) see and compare to with my own animals.
 
Last edited:
Jeanne - Simme Valley said:
There are many factors that are not measurable. You are correct on the fact that a 1000# cow does not eat 50% less, but you said might be more like 66%. You went the wrong way. 1000# cow will eat more like 34% less.
Location and grass management is a huge factor also.
Time , expenses and labor needs to be considered.
I would much rather work 50 cows than 75 thru the chute and pay the expense of more vaccines. And the added calving.
It's a mute subject for me personally, because my main income comes from the quality of each individual animal....not their weight. And the $2005/head I got for each steer I sold to a feedlot offsets a lot of grass!
Click to expand...
The 50 instead of 75 animals had me was scratching my head at as well. Not only do you have to work more animals but to me that’s another 25 chances something could go wrong. Another 25 chances of having trouble with calving, pink eye, foot rot, etc….. I think there can be an argument made for bigger and smaller animals but since I’m not direct marketing like Pharo or Greg Judy a middle of the road moderate framed animal would be best instead of going to an extreme one way or another. I do like watching Greg Judy’s videos though seeing those fat roly poly cattle hitting the grass.
 
Travlr said:
And let's not forget that rotational grazing can allow for cutting enough hay to winter the livestock.
Click to expand...
Depends, but possible. Personally, I would have a preference to not hay my pastures as haying my pastures would remove more nutrients than I prefer. I myself would rather graze a couple more cows (provided the pasture could handle it) and buy hay for less than the fertilizer value within the hay, which is usually very possible. Have the hay tested before purchase though for nutrient value.
 
We have reduced cow numbers due to "natural attrition"... ie. old cows, opens, not raising a good calf... mostly the aging of many, that also came up open at preg check and subsequently were sold. Prices were decent to good on them. We had more grass this year due to not being stocked to the max... and it was a blessing in hindsight with the drought conditions. The cows are looking better even with the drought affected grass, and they milked good if the calves are any indication. I agree that with fewer cows there are fewer "chances" for pink eye and calving difficulties and other things. Our cows are not big; average cull cow is 1100 lbs... many in the 1000-1100 lb range. Yet they do good on next to no inputs other than grass and minerals/salt. We do not focus on lbs per acre, more on overall production of the cows... are the cows maintaining well, and producing a calf that meets the overall target we have for a uniform group... if they are producing calves that do not fit the group, then they are not doing what we want. The ones that produce a low weaning weight do not stay here anymore.. the ones that do not maintain their body condition while feeding a calf, do not stay, unless they have a % of dairy, and get bred back on time with the group, they will always have that more angular look; the ones that do not breed back within the same time frame as the rest mostly all get sold... we have found that a few less cows are producing the same income because we are not "stocked to the max"... the overall income is the goal... and we have cattle that produce calves that will make a group that the buyers want...
 
Silver said:
The whole problem with the “focus on pounds per acre rather than pounds per cow” philosophy as I see it is it can only work if you are stocked to the maximum. I’ve never seen anything good happen on a place that is always stocked to the max.
Click to expand...
Optimum carrying capacity can be seen two ways, I suppose. The short term would be stocking rates that have animals gain well but have no regard for next year and the health of the grass. Long term would prioritize the health of the soil and grass, and using it as a tool to grow pounds.

I've always stocked to keep the pastures fertile and healthy rather than ruining them for short term gain. But a lot of people here might see it as overstocking because I rotate less often. Just like anything else, there's a balance to be reached and a learning curve.
 
chevytaHOE5674 said:
My thoughts exactly Silver. I focus on maximizing lbs/cow because running at maximum stocking density always leads to trouble from what I've seen.
Click to expand...
And I will change that to profit dollars to cow. We can wean calves 100 lbs heavier if we wanted to calve in February, feed more, hire more help and have larger calving losses. I would prefer the cows work for me a little more than the other way round.
 

Latest posts

Back
Top