Cow Size Question

[Jogeephus]

I looked at this same type thing a few years ago and here is how I addressed it. My first priority was conception after breeding. I wanted the ones that would take within the first 45 days of breeding. This seemed important to me. Secondly, when I last worked my calves I weighed them and entered them in my computer and looked at the % weight of calf to the dam in addition to their ADG. I thought this was useful. I also found it quite interesting that the numbers on the printout differed from what my eye would tell me but I culled based on the printout. On a side note, I sold all my heifers to my cousin who runs stockers. There was one particular calf that really was bad on the numbers. I told him he didn't want this calf but he bought her anyway. Several months later I was picking through several hundred heifers he had looking for replacements and found the one I told him not to buy. She was beautiful! I bought her back along with some others. Once she got back to my place she showed her true colors and she was a dud. I ended up culling her a second time. This was a good lesson for me. I will put actual numbers over anything else now. Its valuable. You are doing right by looking at these closely and basing your decisons on them.

 

[SRBeef]

I looked at this same type thing a few years ago and here is how I addressed it. My first priority was conception after breeding. I wanted the ones that would take within the first 45 days of breeding. This seemed important to me. Secondly, when I last worked my calves I weighed them and entered them in my computer and looked at the % weight of calf to the dam in addition to their ADG. I thought this was useful. I also found it quite interesting that the numbers on the printout differed from what my eye would tell me but I culled based on the printout. On a side note, I sold all my heifers to my cousin who runs stockers. There was one particular calf that really was bad on the numbers. I told him he didn't want this calf but he bought her anyway. Several months later I was picking through several hundred heifers he had looking for replacements and found the one I told him not to buy. She was beautiful! I bought her back along with some others. Once she got back to my place she showed her true colors and she was a dud. I ended up culling her a second time. This was a good lesson for me. I will put actual numbers over anything else now. Its valuable. You are doing right by looking at these closely and basing your decisons on them.

Wow, now I think I am starting to get somewhere on this. I agree with breed back being actually the #1 priority. I have just a small herd but all calves were born this year within a 21 day period from first to last. This tells me they ALL were bred on the first heat after putting the bull in. I don't want to lose that. Since I have no intentions of bringing in any further outside cows or heifers I should be able to keep this. I think I will use this as a strong cow cull criteria - if they don't all calve within 20-30 days or so any stragglers hit the trailer and no straggler heifers are kept.

I am also seeing that the weight numbers often lead to different conclusions than the eye. On your heifer bought back from your cousin, why did she look "beautiful" at his place...his feed program?

A couple of my original cows were purchased from a friend who had them on silage. The only term I can think of to describe their appearance when I bought them was "greasy". Their body type changed completely on my rotational grazing program - and I think for the better. They now tend to look more like tennis players rather than summo wrestlers....or something like that.

When you compared your calf weights to the dam weight how old were the calves? Are you talking about at weaning?

Thanks for your post, J. I don't feel like I am quite so far out in left field. Jim

 

[HerefordSire]

Not to change the subject, but I have always wondered how the early maturing calf, 50 to 60% of moms weight, fits into the picture as to forage consumption. A 1200 lb. cow is more efficient than a 1600 lb.(assumption). But the assumption that a 400lb WW calf eats the same as a 600 lb. calf does not work for me. The 600 lb. calf eats more and wants more milk. If the cow produces more milk she eats more. If she does not produce that quantity then the calf may be eating more forage, depending on the efficiency of the calf and the efficiency of the cow.
So which is the more important NFI or size?
This brings up yet another question. Is the feed lot better off buying the slower maturing calf that possibly goes into it's growth spurt after weaning giving them better feed efficiency in the lot?

Very good questions. The majority follow the light weight cow size school of thinking. The majority are also losing money. Therefore, the majority of light weights lose money. Is this fair logic?

 

[dyates]

Very good questions. The majority follow the light weight cow size school of thinking. The majority are also losing money. Therefore, the majority of light weights lose money. Is this fair logic?

Only if the minority, who follow the heavy weight cow size school of thinking, are making money. Otherwise, your logic simply means that both schools of thought are equal. If A=losing money, and B=losing money, then A=B. Which property was that, reflective?

 

[HerefordSire]

Very good questions. The majority follow the light weight cow size school of thinking. The majority are also losing money. Therefore, the majority of light weights lose money. Is this fair logic?

Only if the minority, who follow the heavy weight cow size school of thinking, are making money. Otherwise, your logic simply means that both schools of thought are equal. If A=losing money, and B=losing money, then A=B. Which property was that, reflective?

Here is what I am getting at....all other inputs being equal......

Most cattle ranchers are losing money mostly because of recent (several years) commodity prices including fuel, and irratic climate patterns many times throwing us into drought situations. We then scramble for feed or begin to cull. So I am wondering if our fundamental concepts of light size high performing cows, as a majority, are accurate. Could we be wrong as a majority? For example, say I have a 1,000 pound cow weaning a 600 pound calf, or 60% wearning weight ratio, but the cow consumes more than 60% of the average cow's alloted resources. The output looks like the cow is superior to all other cows because of the percentage weaning weight ratio relatively speaking. But, where is the measurement of the intake? How can anyone human, say one cow is more efficient than any other cow without measuring intake?

 

[Jogeephus]

I am also seeing that the weight numbers often lead to different conclusions than the eye. On your heifer bought back from your cousin, why did she look "beautiful" at his place...his feed program?

It was definitely the feeding regime they use. Their calves are served their meals twice a day exactly at the same time each day - give or take a few minutes. I should have known better but live an learn.

A couple of my original cows were purchased from a friend who had them on silage. The only term I can think of to describe their appearance when I bought them was "greasy". Their body type changed completely on my rotational grazing program - and I think for the better. They now tend to look more like tennis players rather than summo wrestlers....or something like that.

Bought some of these myself. Mine were extremely high dollar genetics and were slick as a button when I bought them. They did not do well at all. Pampered to the hilt. Don't want to open up a can of worms here but I don't give a rat's arse what the EPD's say on their papers these cattle did not fit my program at all. Now, what few are remaining, look no different than my rag tag bunch of misfits that I bought for a song.

When you compared your calf weights to the dam weight how old were the calves? Are you talking about at weaning?

I based it on my final weight of the calves before selling them. At this time I also work my cows and I think I have good numbers to compare them all too. It will really make you scratch your head at times. Even had a guy ask me once, "why are you selling her?" It was puzzling to me too but the numbers don't lie.

As for what Nova and Herfordshire are discussing, I wonder this myself. Probably could start three more threads on this and it would be interesting. Probably would get heated but interesting none the less. But I don't have any way of judging the intake so I just assume that since they graze together and lay down together at the same time they they are each grazing roughly the same amount of forage. This is the best I can do on this. As for which type calf is best or which type cow is best, I think it really depends on your operation. This seems to be something some people can't seem to grasp. There is no right way or a wrong way to do this stuff. There are so many variables and ways to raise cattle. So many different marketing strategies. For the most part, I am a cow/calf person who sells calves between 6-8 cwt. My main concern is 100% live calves on the ground. I really don't care how fast they grow cause its not like my cow is going to be dropping another calf two months after weaning. Don't get me wrong, I do want them to grow but I want them to grow without supplementation. As for how well they do in the feed yard, this doesn't concern me in the least. My job, as I see it, is to provide someone with a healthy calf that will not die on them two weeks after they receive them. I will stand behind them and will caution against any that I think do not cut the mustard cause I want the person who buys my calves to make money - just not all of it off me. :lol2:

 

[J+ Cattle]

Another thing for you to consider is the time it take for the yearling to reach finished weight and ready for slaughter. Remember the old saying, "Time is money". If a yearling from one of your cows consistently takes an extra 45 days on feed to be ready for slaughter then it cost you money. Money for feed, money for your time and labor caring for it and there is always the chance that it can get sick, die from bloat or even get struck by lightning. My point is that it is also an important consideration to get your return on investment sooner rather than later.

J+

 

[Jogeephus]

Another thing for you to consider is the time it take for the yearling to reach finished weight and ready for slaughter. Remember the old saying, "Time is money". If a yearling from one of your cows consistently takes an extra 45 days on feed to be ready for slaughter then it cost you money. Money for feed, money for your time and labor caring for it and there is always the chance that it can get sick, die from bloat or even get struck by lightning. My point is that it is also an important consideration to get your return on investment sooner rather than later.

J+

I agree but the point I'm trying to make is that if you cull on growth numbers the resulting herd will be a herd that produces acceptable gains on your local forages without supplementation. Supplementation is a cost pure and simple. Feeding a supplement ration to decrease the time it takes you to get them out the gate is going to cost you. If it takes them an extra 45 days to get them to size and they are only eating forages that is on site then it is not costing me anything extra since I already have the investment in the forage.

This brings up another question that interests me. Does an easy fleshing calf on grass exhibit the same trait on feed? I'm not sure but I think, if they are anything like people, it does. Based on a little experiment I did this fall I ended up nearly doubling my ADG when I put some in the lot. I don't know how my numbers would compare to a feedlot but I thought 5-6 lbs a day was pretty decent.

But again, it all goes back to what you are doing and how your operation is set up cause everyones operation is different as are their objectives.

 

[dyates]

Very good questions. The majority follow the light weight cow size school of thinking. The majority are also losing money. Therefore, the majority of light weights lose money. Is this fair logic?

Only if the minority, who follow the heavy weight cow size school of thinking, are making money. Otherwise, your logic simply means that both schools of thought are equal. If A=losing money, and B=losing money, then A=B. Which property was that, reflective?

Here is what I am getting at....all other inputs being equal......

Most cattle ranchers are losing money mostly because of recent (several years) commodity prices including fuel, and irratic climate patterns many times throwing us into drought situations. We then scramble for feed or begin to cull. So I am wondering if our fundamental concepts of light size high performing cows, as a majority, are accurate. Could we be wrong as a majority? For example, say I have a 1,000 pound cow weaning a 600 pound calf, or 60% wearning weight ratio, but the cow consumes more than 60% of the average cow's alloted resources. The output looks like the cow is superior to all other cows because of the percentage weaning weight ratio relatively speaking. But, where is the measurement of the intake? How can anyone human, say one cow is more efficient than any other cow without measuring intake?

I tend to agree with you except for I think high percentage weaning weights are the culprit rather than the size of the cow. I don't care if a cow weighs 900 pounds or 1500 pounds as long as she weans off somewhere between 47% and 50%. As Jo says, she also has to do it with out any supplements other than mineral. As I said on another topic once before, I haven't been able to figure out how folks are successfully selling 700+ pound calves out of 1200 pound cows. I would love to do it if I could figure out how to do so without going broke at the feed mill. I also believe, on average, that high weaning weights equal high milk production equals a shorter productive cow life.

 

[backhoeboogie]

There don't appear to be any absolutes (in this climate anyway) based on size, as far as I am concerned. Some cows are just more efficient than others.

Calf mortality is where I draw the line. If the cow consistently weans a good calf on my pasture, she's a money maker no matter the size.

 

[HerefordSire]

There don't appear to be any absolutes (in this climate anyway) based on size, as far as I am concerned. Some cows are just more efficient than others.

Calf mortality is where I draw the line. If the cow consistently weans a good calf on my pasture, she's a money maker no matter the size.

Your cow above may consistently wean a good calf on your pasture, but you could still lose money because of the total grass and hay consumed in currency value for the cow may be more than the price of the calf when you unload the calf. If you don't know how much grass and hay the cow and calf ate, how do you know if the above cow is more efficient than the sorry cow not raising a good calf? You may find out the sorry cow and the sorry calf are making the money and the good cow and the good calf are losing you money. So your idea of good and bad could be backwards.

Let me put this another way....the dealer is showing a face card and throws you a face card and a six both up.....do you want a hit or do you want to stay?

 

[dun]

There don't appear to be any absolutes (in this climate anyway) based on size, as far as I am concerned. Some cows are just more efficient than others.

Calf mortality is where I draw the line. If the cow consistently weans a good calf on my pasture, she's a money maker no matter the size.

Your cow above may consistently wean a good calf on your pasture, but you could still lose money because of the total grass and hay consumed in currency value for the cow may be more than the price of the calf when you unload the calf. If you don't know how much grass and hay the cow and calf ate, how do you know if the above cow is more efficient than the sorry cow not raising a good calf? You may find out the sorry cow and the sorry calf are making the money and the good cow and the good calf are losing you money. So your idea of good and bad could be backwards.

Let me put this another way....the dealer is showing a face card and throws you a face card and a six both up.....do you want a hit or do you want to stay?

Unless the feed intake is monitored, how do you know which cow is eating more? Is the cow a genetic 5 BCS that is a 7 or a genetic 7 that is a 5?
I'm more concerend with cow fertility then cow size.

 

[HerefordSire]

Unless the feed intake is monitored, how do you know which cow is eating more?

That is my simple but important point. There is no way anyone can tell. Any healthy animal culled can be the wrong animal to cull. This means most other associated calcuating techniques, such as cow size, cow weight, calf weaning weight, weaning weight percentage, cow frame size, etc. are all useless and a waste of time. I agree with your other statement about fertility because you can measure it precisely and can compare and can make major decisions beyond a shadow of a doubt.

 

[Busterz]

Not to change the subject, but I have always wondered how the early maturing calf, 50 to 60% of moms weight, fits into the picture as to forage consumption. A 1200 lb. cow is more efficient than a 1600 lb.(assumption). But the assumption that a 400lb WW calf eats the same as a 600 lb. calf does not work for me. The 600 lb. calf eats more and wants more milk. If the cow produces more milk she eats more. If she does not produce that quantity then the calf may be eating more forage, depending on the efficiency of the calf and the efficiency of the cow.
So which is the more important NFI or size?
This brings up yet another question. Is the feed lot better off buying the slower maturing calf that possibly goes into it's growth spurt after weaning giving them better feed efficiency in the lot?

Very good questions. The majority follow the light weight cow size school of thinking. The majority are also losing money. Therefore, the majority of light weights lose money. Is this fair logic?

I'd say you are wrong about the majority following the lower weight cow school of thinking ( Unless you think 1350lbs is a lower weight cow I guess).

http://beefmagazine.com/genetics/0201-i ... beef-cows/

 

[HerefordSire]

Good Find Busterz! Based upon the boards here, I was thinking 1,200 pounds was average light. If the numbers are correct from your source, then I would say I was a little off. I would be interested to know where the numbers came from because I have never reported my cow weights. Have you?

 

[ArmyDoc]

Good Find Busterz! Based upon the boards here, I was thinking 1,200 pounds was average light. If the numbers are correct from your source, then I would say I was a little off. I would be interested to know where the numbers came from because I have never reported my cow weights. Have you?

His numbers are all generated based off the carcass weights. He takes the average carcass weight, and the average BCS to generate an average live weight for slaughter cows based on dressing percentage for a given BCS. I don't have too much problem following his numbers to this point. But I'm not sure I followed how he generated the average live weights for mature for mature cows.

 

[Jogeephus]

Unless the feed intake is monitored, how do you know which cow is eating more?

That is my simple but important point. There is no way anyone can tell. Any healthy animal culled can be the wrong animal to cull. This means most other associated calcuating techniques, such as cow size, cow weight, calf weaning weight, weaning weight percentage, cow frame size, etc. are all useless and a waste of time. I agree with your other statement about fertility because you can measure it precisely and can compare and can make major decisions beyond a shadow of a doubt.

I disagree with you on this. If you cull for a certain trait the average will be skewed in the direction that you are pushing. Measuring the exact intake of each cow is impractical and unnecessary cause you know your inputs. So in other words, if the culling has resulted in a higher average calf weight and higher live birth rate with the same grass then the culling had a positive effect on my bottom line.

Changing the subject some but I still say you can judge the amount of intake by the size of the cow pies especially the ones that occur after their lounge. Can this be measured to the exact ounce. Probably not. But I think anyone who argues this point has never watched yearlings closely or for that matter never changed a baby's diaper. On the latter, most will agree what goes in is going to come out and its all so cute up until the baby gets a little size on it then its a different story. (do I hear an amen from the ladies) ;-) :lol2:

 

[SRBeef]

In my particular situation I am acreage-limited. I am looking for the most beef I can produce per acre.

There are obviously a lot of factors involved as pointed out in this discussion.

It seems to me that some basic questions in my case are:

1) Does a larger (1500 lb) cow eat more grass than a smaller (1200 lb) cow?

- my gut feeling is YES, a larger cow has more weight to maintain and will eat approximately proportionally more than a smaller cow. We know people who have different metabolisms and I assume cows do also but in general the larger cow and person is going to eat more than a smaller cow and person. I did an informal scientific survey of this standing in line at a truck stop Subway sandwich counter this afternoon - the larger truckers in line tended to order larger sandwiches than the smaller folks in line...!

2) Does the larger cow consistently have a larger calf at birth than the smaller cow?

- No

3) Does the larger cow wean (205 day) a larger calf than the smaller cow?

- from my experience so far, my answer would be "not necessarily". I CAN say fairly certainly, again from my experience so far, that even if there is a slightly higher weaning weight average from the larger cow it is not proportional to the maybe 25%? additional forage required by the 1500 lb cow over the forage consumed by the 1200 lb cow.

So I am back to my preliminary personal conclusion that, in my grass-limited operation, I can wean four calves from four 1200 lb cows on the same grass that I can wean three calves from three 1500 lb cows.

And that the total weight of the four calves from the four 1200 lb cows will be about 1/3 more than the total weight of the three calves from the three 1500 lb cows.

Therefore I am producing more 205 day weaned calf weight on the same grass with 1200 lb cows than with 1500 lb cows.

Logically the difference being in the additional forage required by the larger cows to maintain their own higher weights not being reflected in higher calf output.

A related comment: it looks to me that in some areas, we are going from a wet early spring to a drier than normal late spring and maybe summer where forage may again be limited/below normal in July and August.

FWIW. Jim

 

[Busterz]

I think you could spend a lot of time and money on rfi testing but simple logic will probably get you to the same destination. You may cull the wrong one once in a while and get a smaller sized cow that eats as much as a larger one would have but I think that would be an exception. I think you are right, the increase to the percentage of pounds you are able to produce with an additional calf will be tough for any feed efficiency to overcome.

 

[cross_7]

http://www.thecattleshow.com/index.php? ... tcscontent