60% weaning weight

[Txwalt]

I guess if she is breeding back ok then there really is no problem. Its been my experience that it takes longer and longer for cows like that to breed back though. I sent a cow like that to the barn last year and she brought 27 cents and weighed around 750lbs. That is a beating. This year sent a similiar cow with a dink calf that wasn't growing to the sale and they sold as a pair for $600. I know that is bad but it could have been much worse. My point is if she is breeding back and raising big calves, even if she only lasts a few years its probably better than $300 for kill at the barn.

Walt

 

[Brandonm22]

I would let her ride until she came up open (which will probably be before she turns 7) or until she gets so poor that keeping her around is approaching animal cruelty. I wouldn't keep a heifer out of her though no matter what the heifer looked like. I don't know that the heritability of hard doing/easy fleshing is; but in my experience it is pretty high within cow families. I would whole lot rather have a cow that weans off a 550 lb heifer every year and stays in good condition on grass than one that weans a 750 lb heifer but almost dies doing it or has to be heavily supplemented too keep from dying.

 

[bigbull338]

come on guys.ive got a cow that wont weigh 900lbs.she puts everything she has into her calf.an she is thin.an she breeds back within 120 days or less.id like to add that my cow is 10yrs old.so she has had 8 calves.an id bet she is 4 months bred now.

 

[dun]

come on guys.ive got a cow that wont weigh 900lbs.she puts everything she has into her calf.an she is thin.an she breeds back within 120 days or less.id like to add that my cow is 10yrs old.so she has had 8 calves.an id bet she is 4 months bred now.

But that kind of cow is the exception, kind of like our Ol Granny at 21 breeding back first service every year.

 

[bigbull338]

right your cows have tobe fertile.to breed back am calve for years to come.

 

[Frankie]

Do you think she will wean this calf at 60% of her weight. I'm guessing about 70%
Sizmic

Wow. She gave it all to the calf. Is she a registered Angus? If she's a youngster, she may do better next year. It's pretty impressive if she bred back in this condition, especially if she's a young cow. Fertility is probably the most important trait for a cow and shouldn't be discounted. If she raised this kind of calf and bred back, I'd keep her around until she turns up open.

 

[Jovid]

For anyone that might still be curious, I just got all the yearling data back on this calf, a daughter of Grid Topper.

WWR=115
YWR=109
IMF=112
REA=118
Rib fat=80
Rump Fat=100

And, the cow calved again 2 weeks ago, guess what, another heifer! I might have to eat my words about shipping her, for right now anyway.

Sizmic

What is the data? EPDS?

Do you have any real ultrasound numbers?

 

[sizmic]

Yes, I do have the numbers how else could they figure the ratios. I put more emphasis on my in herd ratios than actual measurements. I can't post them yet because I am at work and don't have the papers in front of me.

Sizmic

 

[sizmic]

IMF=6.27
REA=9.8
Rib Fat=.13
Rump Fat=.23

WW=704
YW=915
AAA#16196987
Sizmic

 

[Jovid]

IMF=6.27
REA=9.8
Rib Fat=.13
Rump Fat=.23

WW=704
YW=915
AAA#16196987
Sizmic

The IMF is good but the REA is pretty low but I guess that is probably normal for an Angus.

 

[Aero]

IMF=6.27
REA=9.8
Rib Fat=.13
Rump Fat=.23

WW=704
YW=915
AAA#16196987
Sizmic

The IMF is good but the REA is pretty low but I guess that is probably normal for an Angus.

if the calf was scanned at YW time, it's pretty good (1.07 sq in / cwt) and with so little back fat and choice imf, the calf would yield and grade pretty well.

 

[RD-Sam]

She did a good job with that calf, but that cow looks really rough. The calf has some good scan data, if you could get them all to do that or better you would be doing well.

I just had one with a 1.1 ribeye/cwt ratio, 6.03 IMF. :cowboy:

 

[Jovid]

She did a good job with that calf, but that cow looks really rough. The calf has some good scan data, if you could get them all to do that or better you would be doing well.

I just had one with a 1.1 ribeye/cwt ratio, 6.03 IMF. :cowboy:

It appears a REA of 1.0 / cwt ratio for Angus is good. :?:

 

[sizmic]

Why do you want more REA, on a yearling heifer? Unless you are growing canner grade beef for nothing but shear meat. My clients like a R-eye to fit on a plate with a uniform thickness so cooking is more consistent. I have had quite a few with quite a bit bigger REA's than that, but i'm tickled just fine with what she did.

Sizmic

 

[Jovid]

Why do you want more REA, on a yearling heifer? Unless you are growing canner grade beef for nothing but shear meat. My clients like a R-eye to fit on a plate with a uniform thickness so cooking is more consistent. I have had quite a few with quite a bit bigger REA's than that, but i'm tickled just fine with what she did.

Sizmic

I guess the main reason I want a bigger REA would be when cattle are graded on the rail there are deductions made for a small REA and of course for an overly large REA. The thickness of the rib eye steak has nothing to do with REA. That is determined in how thick the butcher cuts the steaks. I like mine an inch and 1/2 thick.

 

[sizmic]

How many cattle have you had graded on the rail? An inch and a half thick 14sq/in RE would be what most consumers call a roast. The thickness has a lot to do with it when most eateries sell by the oz, i.e. 12 oz, 14oz, 16oz. A 12oz, 15 sq/in would be about as thick as a pancake.

Sizmic

 

[Jovid]

How many cattle have you had graded on the rail? An inch and a half thick 14sq/in RE would be what most consumers call a roast. The thickness has a lot to do with it when most eateries sell by the oz, i.e. 12 oz, 14oz, 16oz. A 12oz, 15 sq/in would be about as thick as a pancake.

Sizmic

Haven't graded any cattle on the rail. Just know that there are adjustments made for smaller and larger REA.

I guess I like to eat Rib Eye roast.

 

[Jeanne - Simme Valley]

We like our steaks 1 to 1.5" thick also.
1" per 100# is the figure "recommended". I prefer my replacements better than the normal, but you are right, that's good enough.

 

[SRBeef]

Before raising our own beef I was a well-done guy for many years. First couple we had processed I had the steaks cut at 1".

Now with our own beef I find I am starting to like them a bit more pink in the middle. Cooking 1" its hard to keep much pink in the center, at least for me.

Changed to getting the steaks cut at 1-1/4" thick and that seems to be better for keeping the center a more uniform pink. I'm getting hungry just thinking about the last ones... 1-1/4" steaks out of a moderate sized (1000-1100 lb finished) animal maybe what the market is looking for? Jim

 

[dun]

Before raising our own beef I was a well-done guy for many years. First couple we had processed I had the steaks cut at 1".

Now with our own beef I find I am starting to like them a bit more pink in the middle. Cooking 1" its hard to keep much pink in the center, at least for me.

Changed to getting the steaks cut at 1-1/4" thick and that seems to be better for keeping the center a more uniform pink. I'm getting hungry just thinking about the last ones... 1-1/4" steaks out of a moderate sized (1000-1100 lb finished) animal maybe what the market is looking for? Jim

Our steaks run about 3/4 inch. 2 minues on one side and a minute and ahalf on the other and they're still rare. I like them so rare that they fall into the category of "wipe his nasty butt, knock of his horns and chase him through the kitchen" pretty well sums it up.