A new way to study cow profitability?

[HerefordSire]

As a closing argument I'll just say that I've seen many 1000lb cows that weaned 550lb calves, but I am yet to see a 2000lb cow wean a 1100lb calf. Even if you use the biological weight of the 2000lb cow her WW% would still not be comparable to that of the 1000lb cow.

Theoretically again......and as you obviously know.....

..for a registered breeders like us (or shall I say fullblood breeders), it should be a simple process of locating a 2,000 pound cow that weans 55%, or the same amount as a 1,000 pound cow weaning a 55% cow. We need to look for cows which delivered same sexed twins or triplets in the registry with high WW performance ratios. In America, we can look for cows with large frames with more than one calf born in a year and the calf's name not having "ET" in the name.

I figured you would like that one. :mrgreen:

 

[backhoeboogie]

1) Large cows (1500lbs) DO eat more obviously, but do not require much more protein than say an 1100 lb cow. They DO require about 30% more TDN (total daily nutrition) than the smaller cows.

Being the devils advocate, if you have good enough quality forage to satisfy the larger cow the smaller one is just wasting it.

Exactly but then you have to factor things that are beyond your control such as drought.

Caustic and I are both in Texas but his climate is much wetter - not only rain but humidity etc. What works for him will likely work for me too, but not as efficiently as it is for him. My grass is different than his. That makes my hay a bit different.

You learn to pay real close attention to those who make things work for their situation and I have learned a great deal from this forum. This renders me beholding to a whole bunch of you folks.

You have to take this entire discussion, consider it, learn, improve, but apply it to your own personal situation and climate.

Some things are a level playing field for us all such as cattle prices. Other things such as climate distance us.

 

[dun]

Some things are a level playing field for us all such as cattle prices. Other things such as climate distance us.

Not even prices are a level playing field. Eared calves get hammered here but in Joplin they pay better because it's closer to the OK/TX feeders.

 

[novatech]

a DNA marker test for feed efficiency and that in itself could wipe out any profit.[/i]

When one considers the lifespan of a cow and how much forage it will consume and taking in consideration the progeny of the cow as replacement heifers, why wouldn't a $35 test be justified? The price of hay, feed and other consumables is sure to rise in the future so I am sure that one could very easily market the fact that his stock was more feed efficient, aside from the fact that it would cost less to get them to market age.
This brings up another question. What traits are worth you paying an extra $35? How many other traits would you lower your standards on to save $35 on each trait?
You can also buy semen/bulls from those that have done the testing, and selected for the traits that fit what you predict the economics will depict in the future.

 

[cypressfarms]

Feed efficiency is directly correlated to profit. Given this I believe than one should first make sure the genetics were in place within a herd. Not only for feed efficiency but also for early maturing calves. After this it is only common sense that a smaller cow will eat less than a large cow in regard to maintenance. Size is a highly heritable trait and can be accomplished in a short period of time.
The accounting system making comparisons can change dramatically depending on the length of the calving season. One month can make a lot of difference due to the amount of available forage up until weaning.

Nova, not sure what you may be implying about genetics in place???

I'm so tired of hearing "feed efficiency". Realistically how many cattlemen can measure the efficiency of their cows? I had mentioned before that I have no idea how much each cows eats in grass, hay, etc. in comparison to another cow within my own herd. How can you possibly measure feed efficiency without knowing the "inputs". Yes, it's easy to say that a cow is a "easy keeper" and weans heavy calves, but maybe she consumes three times the amount of forage that other cows do to maintain that.

Although efficiency is very important, how can a small time farmer ever measure it?

So from my point of view, the best way to measure a cow's performance is by the calves she weans off. I know the weight of the calves, that is fact. I know their birth weight, that is fact. I can calculate weight gain per day, 205 day weight, etc. But I cannot calculate a cow's efficiency unless she's kept in a sterile environment where I control her intake. How many of us can do that?

 

[TexasBred]

Cypress...right on....and measuring intake of grazing is impossible to calculate on your typical cattle operation. You can't even realistically test the grass. By the time you get the test back the nutrient profile on the grazing area has totally changed unless the lab is next door.

 

[HerefordSire]

a DNA marker test for feed efficiency and that in itself could wipe out any profit.[/i]

When one considers the lifespan of a cow and how much forage it will consume and taking in consideration the progeny of the cow as replacement heifers, why wouldn't a $35 test be justified? The price of hay, feed and other consumables is sure to rise in the future so I am sure that one could very easily market the fact that his stock was more feed efficient, aside from the fact that it would cost less to get them to market age.
This brings up another question. What traits are worth you paying an extra $35? How many other traits would you lower your standards on to save $35 on each trait?
You can also buy semen/bulls from those that have done the testing, and selected for the traits that fit what you predict the economics will depict in the future.

Good post! How about this....

Don't ever buy a cow without paying for the DNA feed efficiency market test. If she tests in the top 90 percentile, then set her aside in the potential stack. If she tests lower, the don't buy her and discard her. You may even want to light a fire cracker near her hoof. With the good cows seperated in the potential stack that all received high genetic probabilites to be feed efficient, tell the owner you want top perform your own feed "controlled" efficiency test, whatever that may be. Then buy the ones that are most efficient, which may be 30% of 'em.

 

[ChrisB]

Something else that I think needs to be considered is cull price. It seems that packers prefer a little bigger cow than light ones. For instance if a 1400 lb. cow brings 50 cents and a 1000 lb cow brings 45 cents, that's a $250 dollar difference. If you keep your cows for an average of 7-8 years the large cow doesn't have to be quite as efficient as the smaller cow to turn the same profit over her lifetime.

 

[HerefordSire]

Feed efficiency is directly correlated to profit. Given this I believe than one should first make sure the genetics were in place within a herd. Not only for feed efficiency but also for early maturing calves. After this it is only common sense that a smaller cow will eat less than a large cow in regard to maintenance. Size is a highly heritable trait and can be accomplished in a short period of time.
The accounting system making comparisons can change dramatically depending on the length of the calving season. One month can make a lot of difference due to the amount of available forage up until weaning.

Nova, not sure what you may be implying about genetics in place???

I'm so tired of hearing "feed efficiency". Realistically how many cattlemen can measure the efficiency of their cows? I had mentioned before that I have no idea how much each cows eats in grass, hay, etc. in comparison to another cow within my own herd. How can you possibly measure feed efficiency without knowing the "inputs". Yes, it's easy to say that a cow is a "easy keeper" and weans heavy calves, but maybe she consumes three times the amount of forage that other cows do to maintain that.

Although efficiency is very important, how can a small time farmer ever measure it?

So from my point of view, the best way to measure a cow's performance is by the calves she weans off. I know the weight of the calves, that is fact. I know their birth weight, that is fact. I can calculate weight gain per day, 205 day weight, etc. But I cannot calculate a cow's efficiency unless she's kept in a sterile environment where I control her intake. How many of us can do that?

I think the solution is this....

All ranchers need to incorporate in herd controlled feed efficiency tests. These results need to be incorporated into a formula whch also measures weaned calving percentage of the cow, and all other important and related variables, including weight of the cow. Then you would have something and this would be realistic and worth allot of money to us.

 

[KNERSIE]

Feed efficiency is directly correlated to profit. Given this I believe than one should first make sure the genetics were in place within a herd. Not only for feed efficiency but also for early maturing calves. After this it is only common sense that a smaller cow will eat less than a large cow in regard to maintenance. Size is a highly heritable trait and can be accomplished in a short period of time.
The accounting system making comparisons can change dramatically depending on the length of the calving season. One month can make a lot of difference due to the amount of available forage up until weaning.

Nova, not sure what you may be implying about genetics in place???

I'm so tired of hearing "feed efficiency". Realistically how many cattlemen can measure the efficiency of their cows? I had mentioned before that I have no idea how much each cows eats in grass, hay, etc. in comparison to another cow within my own herd. How can you possibly measure feed efficiency without knowing the "inputs". Yes, it's easy to say that a cow is a "easy keeper" and weans heavy calves, but maybe she consumes three times the amount of forage that other cows do to maintain that.

Although efficiency is very important, how can a small time farmer ever measure it?

So from my point of view, the best way to measure a cow's performance is by the calves she weans off. I know the weight of the calves, that is fact. I know their birth weight, that is fact. I can calculate weight gain per day, 205 day weight, etc. But I cannot calculate a cow's efficiency unless she's kept in a sterile environment where I control her intake. How many of us can do that?

You can't measure efficiency of feed convertion in the entire cow herd, but by using bulls that was tested for feed convertion rate and by doing your own extensive on farm growth tests where you grow heifers out on your natural grazing plus a little supplement if needed you can identify those who fare best under your conditions. The reason for the supplement isn't to disguise the poorer doers, but rather to make this a growth test and not simply a survival test. Off course this is more applicable if you run your cows on natural rangeland or veld, but the adaptability and ability to thrive under your conditions are also more important if you don't have improved pastures.

Don't you have bull growth tests where the intake is measured in the USA?

 

[forageconverter]

Would a growthier bull increase the 205 weight or the yearling weight or both? These are things that I've contemplated. My guess is that percentage wise, a growthier bull like a simmi may in fact increase the 205 weight by a good percentage. But I would breed the simmi to all of my older cows (under the assumption that an older cow can handle bigger calves). So then, will the 900 pounder wean 60% and the 1300 pounder 50%?

Probably, but there again, all size cows would be bred to the same bull. Assuming all the cows are the same age, and assuming the smaller cow was incapable of having the same size calf as the larger cow; then could the larger cow rival the smaller cow in terms of percentage weight weaned?

In regards to weaning weights and yearling weights, my understanding that weaning weights are a 40% heritable trait while, while yearling weights are a 60% heritable trait. So I would say the growthier bull would affect the yearling weight more so than the weaning weight. But my question is could the larger cow's ability to feed a calf be better realized if her calf had a greater growth potential due to genetics from a growthier bull than the smaller cow could handle?

I have a mostly Angus herd, with some Gelbvieh-angus cows, and a lot of Simm-angus cows,(and even I have some of those red cows with a white face, but don't tell anyone). I use predominately Angus bulls, but have a couple of Simmental bulls. The Simme bulls will typically give me a larger calf. But large calves are like large cows. They eat more and require more to stay in good condition.

So like Nova says, it comes down to feed efficiency; and like Knersie says it still comes down to matching the type of cow to your operation.

Having said that, I think larger cows, as in 1500lbs, could probably be AS feed efficient as smaller cows, if the larger cows were stocked at the proper rate and bred to the right bull. But even though it may be possible to raise the same total pounds of beef for a given amount of input no matter what the size of cow, it also still comes down to the second part of Knersie's statement pertaining to the type and size of calf the market demands.

Although efficiency is very important, how can a small time farmer ever measure it?

I don't know how to measure the efficiency of individual cows, but if the cows were divided into same-size herds, then you could take the total cost of a herd divided by the pounds of beef produced by that herd and compare to your other 'cow-size' herd(s).

Something else that I think needs to be considered is cull price. It seems that packers prefer a little bigger cow than light ones. For instance if a 1400 lb. cow brings 50 cents and a 1000 lb cow brings 45 cents, that's a $250 dollar difference. If you keep your cows for an average of 7-8 years the large cow doesn't have to be quite as efficient as the smaller cow to turn the same profit over her lifetime.

This is also a very good point to consider.

 

[cypressfarms]

When one considers the lifespan of a cow and how much forage it will consume and taking in consideration the progeny of the cow as replacement heifers, why wouldn't a $35 test be justified? The price of hay, feed and other consumables is sure to rise in the future so I am sure that one could very easily market the fact that his stock was more feed efficient, aside from the fact that it would cost less to get them to market age.
This brings up another question. What traits are worth you paying an extra $35? How many other traits would you lower your standards on to save $35 on each trait?

This is getting good! Nova, please don't take me quoting you so much as personal, it's not meant that way.

A $35 test per cow to tell me if she is above some "magic" number with feed efficiency. No thanks, here's why. Feed efficiency is one trait associated with a cow. So is temperment, good udder, conformation, milk production, and the list goes on. So if I test 20 of my cows and find that they don't meet the magic number, I'm then supposed to cull them? So then I need to buy more replacements. How many commercial sellers have efficiency tests to go along with their replacement heifers? None that I can afford. I'm not saying that it isn't important, don't get me wrong. What if the test on my 20 cows reveals that 10 of mine have great feed efficiency (which is heriditary), but they all have poor udders or some other un-desirable trait. Am I to keep their offspring just because they have good feed efficiency? Ofcourse not. I do have cows in my herd that I consider "very good" cows whose offspring I would retain because of the moma's good qualities. I also have some cows that throw good steers, but I would never retain their progeny to breed. I'm sure there are many other cow calfers just like myself. We all don't have "front pasture" cows as our whole herd.

I can, however, think of one group whose main concern is feed efficiency. Stocker growers. If I were a stocker operation I would not care about udders, pendulous sheaths, etc, etc, etc. I would only care about feed conversion since I would be shoveling feed to calves (inputs), and trying to get the most beef (outputs) one a time basis.

 

[backhoeboogie]

Realistically how many cattlemen can measure the efficiency of their cows? I had mentioned before that I have no idea how much each cows eats in grass, hay, etc. in comparison to another cow within my own herd. How can you possibly measure feed efficiency without knowing the "inputs".

Yes and no but there are ways to get a bench mark. You know that from your experiences. I have read it in your words Cypress.

There are things like taking a medium bred cow from the sale barn that doesn't look that great but she's priced right. Once she's wormed and innoculated she takes off. She might be the heaviest in the pasture by the end of the summer.

You can have your fall calvers and spring calvers split up at different times on different forage. And you note differences (other than calves pulling them down).

You know some breeds can't cut the heat very well and it has an effect but they winter really well.

Anyway, you wind up with cows in different scenarios and you note recovery times. Which ones take longer to recover? Which ones calve at 10 to 10 1/2 month intervals and raise some of the best of the bunch while maintaining good condition?

When to rotate pasture often depends on the weakest ones.

etc.

 

[HerefordSire]

Something else that I think needs to be considered is cull price. It seems that packers prefer a little bigger cow than light ones. For instance if a 1400 lb. cow brings 50 cents and a 1000 lb cow brings 45 cents, that's a $250 dollar difference. If you keep your cows for an average of 7-8 years the large cow doesn't have to be quite as efficient as the smaller cow to turn the same profit over her lifetime.

Excellent point! Below, I copied and pasted my other comment....which would need to incorporate current market prices to maximize profit....

I think the solution is this....

All ranchers need to incorporate in herd controlled feed efficiency tests. These results need to be incorporated into a formula whch also measures weaned calving percentage of the cow, and all other important and related variables, including weight of the cow. Then you would have something and this would be realistic and worth allot of money to us.

Added: To maximize profit in an always moving market, inside the above projected efficiency formula, there should be a numerical representation of the current market, so that any one month, or any one year, one specific cow may be more cullible or more valuable than another based upon statistical evidence of her efficiency.

In regards to Knersie's comment about not operating on the entire cow herd in order to determine feed efficiency, and only to select a bull that has been tested for feed efficiency....makes sense...but I need to think about it for awhile to rule out any poossibility of performing in herd cow feed efficiency tests...still thinking....of a practical way to do this...

 

[backhoeboogie]

Cypress,

I am going to have to go back and start from the beginning of this thread and read the whole thing over again. There are simply too many good points being made to not take another look with a global perspective.

Thanks for stirring this one into the pot.

 

[Brandonm22]

Something else that I think needs to be considered is cull price. It seems that packers prefer a little bigger cow than light ones. For instance if a 1400 lb. cow brings 50 cents and a 1000 lb cow brings 45 cents, that's a $250 dollar difference. If you keep your cows for an average of 7-8 years the large cow doesn't have to be quite as efficient as the smaller cow to turn the same profit over her lifetime.

I don't buy that argument at all. I have a December market report in front of me. AL slaughter cows were bringing 44.5 for 1200 - 1700 lb cows. 800 - 1200 lb slaughter cows were bringing 43.5. The difference between a 1000 lb cow and a 1500 lb cow at the time of their deaths is only $232, but for argument's sake we will use your $250 number. Prorated over the life of the cow (12 years) that is a whopping $20.83 a year. IF you spend $350 per 1000 lb cow on feed, hay, lime, and fertilizer and switching to a 1500 lb means increasing that 20% (and that number is arguably low) now you are spending $420 per cow. Even if you add back in that $20.83 (and I hope the cow don't die on the place), the big cow still has to produce $49 a head more calf than the small cow for you to break even on the deal. Using my Alabama market report, a Med and lrg 1 steer weighing 540 lbs paid out ~$82.86 cwt or ~$447. Tack on that $49 and your big cow is going to have to sell a $496 calf in this market. At $78 cwt (the avg price for 6 wt steers) she has to wean off a 636 lb calf for you to not lose money on the deal. With those numbers, the bigger cow has to wean off almost 100 lbs more calf each and every year that she is in service AND bring that extra $250 at salvage for you to make the same amount of money.

 

[whitecow]

This has been a great topic. For my operation, most of the income comes from selling bulls to commercial breeders. Every year the biggest bulls with the biggest EPDs sell first and usually for $500-$1000 more than the smaller ones. More often than not, the bigger bulls come from the bigger cows. So, the bigger cows almost always make up for whatever extra expense they incur.

 

[HerefordSire]

Something else that I think needs to be considered is cull price. It seems that packers prefer a little bigger cow than light ones. For instance if a 1400 lb. cow brings 50 cents and a 1000 lb cow brings 45 cents, that's a $250 dollar difference. If you keep your cows for an average of 7-8 years the large cow doesn't have to be quite as efficient as the smaller cow to turn the same profit over her lifetime.

I don't buy that argument at all. I have a December market report in front of me. AL slaughter cows were bringing 44.5 for 1200 - 1700 lb cows. 800 - 1200 lb slaughter cows were bringing 43.5. The difference between a 1000 lb cow and a 1500 lb cow at the time of their deaths is only $232, but for argument's sake we will use your $250 number. Prorated over the life of the cow (12 years) that is a whopping $20.83 a year. IF you spend $350 per 1000 lb cow on feed, hay, lime, and fertilizer and switching to a 1500 lb means increasing that 20% (and that number is arguably low) now you are spending $420 per cow. Even if you add back in that $20.83 (and I hope the cow don't die on the place), the big cow still has to produce $49 a head more calf than the small cow for you to break even on the deal. Using my Alabama market report, a Med and lrg 1 steer weighing 540 lbs paid out ~$82.86 cwt or ~$447. Tack on that $49 and your big cow is going to have to sell a $496 calf in this market. At $78 cwt (the avg price for 6 wt steers) she has to wean off a 636 lb calf for you to not lose money on the deal. With those numbers, the bigger cow has to wean off almost 100 lbs more calf each and every year that she is in service AND bring that extra $250 at salvage for you to make the same amount of money.

Are you saying one could have made more cash flow on the 1,500 pound cow when she weans less percentage weaning weight than the 1000 pound cow?

 

[ChrisB]

I didn't mean to imply that larger cows were more profitable. But just wanted to point out another number to be thrown into mix when figuring cow efficiency. I think we need to look at all aspects to get accurate numbers.

I don't think it would be a stretch though for a cow weighing 500 lbs more wean off a calf weighing 100 lbs. more though to fit your numbers.

Also, while a productive cow may have a 12 year life span, I would agrue that the average life span is much less, which make the salvage price even more of a factor. What I mean is not every cow breeds back every year and are culled a lot younger especially first calvers, plus add in bad feet, udders, disposition, and improved genetics in younger cows pushing older cows out of the herd.

 

[backhoeboogie]

Are you saying one could have made more cash flow on the 1,500 pound cow when she weans less percentage weaning weight than the 1000 pound cow?

I heard Brandom22 say this is from the report in Alabama He should consider that for his market.

Now think about what dun had said:

Not even prices are a level playing field. Eared calves get hammered here but in Joplin they pay better because it's closer to the OK/TX feeders.

I go back to what I have seen locally at the sale barns. It seems all of us are looking for eared heavy breds at the same time each year. Things can change from week to week too. Just one rain can make a big difference.

Take that heavy cow and sell her when prices are at their optimum. Most of us are still trying to rebuild from the heavy culling during the '05 drought.

There are too many variables to make absolutes for me. It seems Brandom may be in a more stable situation.