I would like to address the 1900# - 900# calves vs the 1200# - 850# calves.
First, hats off to you with 1200# cows weaning 850# calves. Now thats performance.
I think the "spread" between herds is a little difficult to swallow. The neighbor must have a herd of poor performing cows compared to your EXTREMELY excellent performing herd. And I'm not being critical of your facts, just pointing out that there must be EXTREMES in
performance also.
Now back to the original question. Each breeder has to make decisions that they are comforable with. But, the idea of running more cows on same land isn't a thought out reason to me. If you are going to be able to run more cows AND produce lots more calf, that's OK. But, you have to put a value on your time & energy. Every animal, whether 1500# or 1200# has to be run thru the chute, vaccinated, bred, calved, etc. I would rather have a GREAT cow than two mediocre ones. Every cow has the chance of getting sick, have calving difficulties, have a calf that needs "help" after birth. It all adds up to my time & labor. As pointed out, a 50% larger cow does not eat 50% more feed, but they equally have to be cared for.
Also, here's an interesting report:
Researchers in Arkansas found that calf survivability is directly related to the aggressiveness of their mothers. In a study of more than 5000 births from 142 sires over 25 years, cows were classified for their aggressiveness. "Very aggressiv" cows had calf survivability at 93%, while "very attentive" cows were at 86%; "indifferent" cows at 77%; and "apathetic" cows at just 60%.
Five breeds were studied, with Angus cows ranked as the most aggressive, followed in order by Charolais, Polled Hereford, Hereford, and Red Poll.
Now this is kind of a good news / bad news sort of thing. Aggressive - meaning they will eat YOU at calving - or just that they are aggressive lickers. :shock:
