Between a ROCK and a HARD SPOT!

[DOC HARRIS]

Every year, with the Ides of January upon us, most serious beef breeders are inundated with a myriad of publications, sale brochures, catalogs, Breed magazines and the like, from Purebred Beef Breeders, espousing the 'so-called' virtues of their breeding efforts, and touting the superiority of their seedstock - citing the EPD's relating to Growth and Carcass Values, etc. All of this is as it should be. In what other manner are breeder's, who are seeking information relating to seedstock traits and characteristics, going to discover what is available for their perusal?

However - at this juncture, the subject of "Cow Size" raises it's head from the feed trough, fixes it's gaze on the sack of Supplement and the Mineral tub, and say's "Pour it to me!" There have been discussions on this topic in the past, with seemingly little or no decisive conclusions substantiated or confirmed by the members of this Forum.

I have read some eye-popping statistics recently from several well-known seedstock producers of long standing and high reputation claiming Weaning Weight EPD's in the 60's and higher, Yearling Weight EPD's well over 100 pounds, and Actual 205 day weights crowding 900 lbs. and Yearling Weights over 1500 pounds! (These are Angus, by the way). HELLO! What does this say about our national cow herd getting too big?!

Perhaps we can get some experienced breeder's to voice their opinions regarding how much more it costs to maintain a 1400 lb cow vs. an 1150 lb cow in feed cost per year, hay, labor in forage production, taxes, etc. It strikes me that this continuing increase in the size of our breeding stock, in SPITE of the old argument that ". . .after all, we ARE selling pounds" . . . is a formula for big problems in the future.

I think the PRODUCERS must decide what markets they are pandering to - the Terminal Feedlot Owners, or the local Meat Markets, who continue to complain that the slaughtered meat cuts that they receive are too big for the housewives who are not feeding families with six and seven people around the dinner table any more, but are "going out" to eat! A RIBEYE of 17.+ inches is a pretty big chunk of meat for two or three people to get around after they have paid BIG bucks for it!

I think it is time for us to determine whether we are going to go for the "ROCK" or the "HARD SPOT", and what our Replacement Heifers are beginning to produce in the future! Bigger and Bigger is not necessarily Better and Better!

What say you?

DOC HARRIS

 

[Wild Cattle]

I was thinking about this problem yesterday, thats funny. Bigger is not better IMHO. I want a cow that weighs 1200# or less in this country, I can run more of them and wean more weight per section than I can with those big pretty cows, With less inputs and less cost per pound shiped.

Paul T

 

[hillsdown]

Doc I am not very experienced in beef BUT I do know I shipped two cows last week who "rubbed" me the wrong way.
One was 2200lbs, 6 years old and heavy bred.The other was 1950lbs, and light bred.It is amazing how much those two ate; you wouldn't know it until they were gone.Their calves were huge when born but actual daily rate of gain was par at most.I prefer the 1200-1500lb cows they seem to pay off better especially when you have to feed hay six months a year.
FWIW

 

[R.N.Reed]

Doc,Thanks again for another thought provoking post and bringing up something that has to be on every cattle producers mind in light of the current high feed and fuel costs.There are definitly some leading programs selling breeding stock in many breeds that I consider to be highly inefficient.Rather than big or small however I believe the catch phrases need to be optimum and return on investment.I think we will need some diversity between seedstock producers so that commercial cattlemen can use the different types to fine tune their operations and approach optimum.

 

[DOC HARRIS]

Portion size: It seems to me that the restaurant consumer will dictate "portion size". And if the quality - taste- of that portion is not up to par then the restuarant will make changes in vendors. How can you convince the consumer to purchase a smaller portion at the restaurant is beyond me. As for portion sizes at the grocery store - you can get any size you wish.

Producer and packers follow financial rewards . If the producer of that large Angus cow is receiving a nice reward then why should he/she change their production practice? Who dictates cow size (for the beef market)? The packer maybe?

Maybe I don't understand your point DOC. If the producer of that 1400 lb Angus cow is not getting rewarded for doing so then, why do it? If the packer is not getting rewarded then why? And the butcher can cut that meat any way you want it.

Please explain. :help:

A/B-

I thought that I sort of did attempt to explain the costs of increased Cow size in my post.

"Perhaps we can get some experienced breeder's to voice their opinions regarding how much more it costs to maintain a 1400 lb cow vs. an 1150 lb cow in feed cost per year, hay, labor in forage production, taxes, etc. It strikes me that this continuing increase in the size of our breeding stock, in SPITE of the old argument that ". . .after all, we ARE selling pounds" . . . is a formula for big problems in the future.

I think the PRODUCERS must decide what markets they are pandering to - the Terminal Feedlot Owners, or the local Meat Markets, who continue to complain that the slaughtered meat cuts that they receive are too big for the housewives who are not feeding families with six and seven people around the dinner table any more, but are "going out" to eat! A RIBEYE of 17.+ inches is a pretty big chunk of meat for two or three people to get around after they have paid BIG bucks for it!"

I could go into a lot of statistics regarding the 'inclusive' costs of raising and feeding cows weighing over 1400 lbs, but it would be just repeating the obvious. Suffice it to say that after figuring the comparative costs of 1150 lbs cows vs. 1400 lbs ( and of course 2000 pound cows go through the roof! cost wise), maintenance costs are about $35.00 to $40.00 per cow, and profit per cow per year is about $70.00 to $75.00 - - to say nothing about the fact that you can run about 116 small cows - or 100 big cows on the same land and feed!

I will grant you that the butcher can cut meat in a variety of ways and put exotic names on each fancy cut, but the fact remains that they still are saying that the slaughter house cuts are TOO BIG! Insofar as the producer is concerned, he hopes that each replacement heifer stays in his herd for several years - 6, 7, - 12 or 14. If the Bulls continue to get larger and larger and LARGER - one of these fine days SOMEONE is going to have to call a halt to the FAD and say "Enough is enough! I have hit the ROCK!"

. . . .and of course . . . nothing has been mentioned here about the use of Moderate sized seedstock and crossbreeding!

DOC HARRIS

 

[R.N.Reed]

How about percentage of cow weight weaned per year plus or minus cost difference raised in a similer environment.

 

[goodbeef]

i dont know if i have alot to say on this matter that u havent already said Doc, i definetly am a strong believer in moderate seedstock and crossbreeding is huge. if u want more pounds at the end use a big, robust terminal bull. it is cheaper to feed one of those 2,500lb + bulls than a bunch of heavy weight cows. now, on the REA issue, u can have nice 4.5 to 5 frame cattle with huge REA. and when the packer stops rewarding for larger REA then i will stop paying as much attention to them. Not that it is in the top 5 on my priority list anyway, but i still dont like to see a negative REA epd very bad.

 

[DOC HARRIS]

i dont know if i have alot to say on this matter that u havent already said Doc, i definetly am a strong believer in moderate seedstock and crossbreeding is huge. if u want more pounds at the end use a big, robust terminal bull. it is cheaper to feed one of those 2,500lb + bulls than a bunch of heavy weight cows. now, on the REA issue, u can have nice 4.5 to 5 frame cattle with huge REA. and when the packer stops rewarding for larger REA then i will stop paying as much attention to them. Not that it is in the top 5 on my priority list anyway, but i still dont like to see a negative REA epd very bad.

goodbeef- and A/B -

One can parse numbers and figures and combinations of phrases until you uncross your eyes and say :???: ! But I agree with the majority of breeders who attempt to put a positive balance between REA and IMF. Those two traits are arguably antagonists, and to be able to elevate the EPD's on BOTH of them is an achievement that is worth attempting.

I didn't present this post to start a specious war. Just some thoughts to spark one's thought processes! If someone thinks that they can elicit a profit by maintaining 1600 - 2000 lbs cows and be a happy camper - that is their option! But do the cow-math and don't lie to yourself.

Moderate seedstock and crossbreeding protocols will make you a profit - all other proven practices and technics taken into consideration. There is more than one way to skin a cat, AND make a PROFIT- and THAT is the name of the beef cattle game! All particulars and details must be considered because nothing is a gift just because one has some good cattle.

goodbeef- I don't disagree with you on the subject of using a good, beefy Terminal bull - IF - you keep the cows' calving ease EPD's in line with the bulls'! It is all a matter of BALANCE! Unfortunately, "Functional Traits" seem to take a second chair in the "Beef Production Orchestra", and when that happens, good balance goes out the window!

It is a heck of a BU$INE$$!

DOC HARRIS

 

[3waycross]

i dont know if i have alot to say on this matter that u havent already said Doc, i definetly am a strong believer in moderate seedstock and crossbreeding is huge. if u want more pounds at the end use a big, robust terminal bull. it is cheaper to feed one of those 2,500lb + bulls than a bunch of heavy weight cows. now, on the REA issue, u can have nice 4.5 to 5 frame cattle with huge REA. and when the packer stops rewarding for larger REA then i will stop paying as much attention to them. Not that it is in the top 5 on my priority list anyway, but i still dont like to see a negative REA epd very bad.

What's crazy about the packer rewarding for high REA is that on the wholesale end of the cow business 13lb and down ribeyes always sell for more than 13lb and up. How's that for confusing? The same is true for Striploins. The only two cuts that benefit from above average size are top sirloin and top round. So aparently what we should be breeding for is long thin loins and GREAT BIG BUTTS. The only rational I can find for the demand for large ribeyes is that they bring more per pound than other cuts except for tenders.

 

[dun]

Weight by itself doesn;t meen jack. FS is a more reliable indicator. The concern is frame creep, not weight creep. A 1600 lb cow that is deep, wide , long and is a FS6 may not be more efficient bit it will sure raise a more desirable (by the feeders) calf. Fleshing ability has to also be considered.

 

[novatech]

It has been shown that faster growing cattle are more efficient in the feed lot. More moderate size cattle are more efficient in the pasture. Then you come to the quality. Not only marbling and tenderness but carcass dressing percentage, and backfat.
It is a balancing act as to what you can raise economically combined with what the market is paying most for in your market.
As far as efficiency as to frame size or weight I will only say this; My wife can eat a salad and gain 5 lbs.. I can eat a steak, bake potato, apple pie with ice cream, and top it off with a candy bar and not gain a pound.

 

[dyates]

It sometimes seems as if the trends have nothing to do with economics. Guys treat their cattle like pickup trucks. They keep getting bigger and bigger with a bigger price tag. He who has the biggest brags the loudest. I guess that goes for feed bills too. I'm looking for a big blue bull that weighs about 5 tons. I plan to name him 'Babe'. Does anyone know where I can find him? :frowns:

 

[BRG]

Size does matter. But different than what everyone thinks. The smaller cows do ussually eat less, but they are ussually finer boned, shorter bodied, have less muscle and in the end get discounts on the carcass. I have been in many herds that are going smaller and smaller and they just are not as good as they were a few years ago due to the lack of muscle and bone. You can get the muscle and body style in a smaller pachage, but on average you can't. The question should not be, cow size, but cow quality instead. Just by going smaller, doesn't make them more efficient. Because to be truely efficient, you also need to get a top price for their offspring, and currently a small framed, light muscled calf gets docked harder than anything else. Lighter weight cattle will get a premium at the barn, but they have to be the right kind of lighter weight cattle. Not the kind that will turn into a little butterball turkey after a little feed. These are the kind that then become a yield grade 4 or higher on the grid. Why would you want to create an animal that will get docked and loose your buyer money. Do you think he will ever come back and buy your product again, if he gets beatup in the wallet? Most likely not.

We need to creat cattle that will make everyone money(rancher, feeder, & packer). The cattle need to have length and muscle because we all get paid for it(muscle and length = pounds = dollars) Whatever size you raise, you need to make top quality cattle that will do it both on grass(depth of body, and easy keeping) and on feed as cheap as possible. Feed is extremely expesive right now, but not as expensive as changing your whole plan and chasing one thing, small isn't always better. You need to raise the right kind, not just one kind.

 

[sedrick_hall]

Doc I am not very experienced in beef BUT I do know I shipped two cows last week who "rubbed" me the wrong way.
One was 2200lbs, 6 years old and heavy bred.The other was 1950lbs, and light bred.It is amazing how much those two ate; you wouldn't know it until they were gone.Their calves were huge when born but actual daily rate of gain was par at most.I prefer the 1200-1500lb cows they seem to pay off better especially when you have to feed hay six months a year.
FWIW

I'm definitely for a more moderate sized cow. Anything over 1400 lbs is a little high for me. I'd go broke trying to feed 2000 lb cows.

 

[DOC HARRIS]

BRG- You are right. Goes right back to "Balance" doesn't it? Do the 'cow math' and watch your Genetics - particularly with the bull(s) that you use. Their influence will last a l-o-o-o-ng time in your herd!

DOC HARRIS

 

[Frankie]

How big is too big? IMO, it depends on what you're raising. People should raise what they prefer and what will help them stay in business. But in our area there are a lot of weaned calves bought as stockers to go on winter wheat pasture. The big cattle buyer says the wheat farmers want a calf with frame, enough frame that they can put him on wheat and still allow the feedlot operator to put some growth on him. Years ago that required some Continental influence; today you can do it with lots of breeds or mixture of breeds.

Around here bull buyers like big bulls and, in reading these boards, I think that's true a lot of places. Bring a buyer out to look at five bulls, he'll almost always buy the biggest bull, if EPDs, etc, are similar or equal. We've been selling down cows for several years now and I think what we've got left are too moderate. We're not looking to produce anything smaller than a 6 frame bull. Yes, we can put a big bull on a smaller cow and we might get a satisfactory bull, but I'd rather go for consistency and use bulls and cows with some frame.

 

[ALACOWMAN]

BRG- You are right. Goes right back to "Balance" doesn't it? Do the 'cow math' and watch your Genetics - particularly with the bull(s) that you use.

• >> Their influence will last a l-o-o-o-ng time in your herd!<<

DOC HARRIS

yep.. sometimes too long

 

[MikeC]

Frame creep is a natural phenomenon that happens because of market forces.

Fast growth (adding pounds) is related to size. Fast growth is also correlated to feed efficiency.

As it is now, more money is to be made on a 1000 lb. Choice carcass than a 550 lb. Choice carcass partly because of those efficiences, plus the fact that it takes the same amount of labor to harvest a 550 lb. carcass as it does a 1000 lb. carcass. Usually with less waste fat percentage wise.

When the market stops paying for size, cattle size will be reduced.

 

[ALACOWMAN]

180 pds of hay a small price to pay.. if? she weans a hundred pds + more calf

 

[smuff76]

Speaking of monsterous growth........I hadn't seen him before:

Harb Pendleton

http://genex.crinet.com/beef/index.php? ... 34&lang=EN