Cow Size Question

[SRBeef]

Any updates to this old thread? Which cows / calves ended up being most efficient at the end of the year?

Armydoc, Went through weaning on Nov 14th. Put all the numbers for calf weaning weights and cow weights at weaning into Cattlemax. Almost without exception, the best calf 205 day adjusted weaning weight as a percent of cow weight at weaning was inversely proportional to the weight of the cow.

Here is what most folks would say is my phenotypically (sp?) "best" cow in a picture from 11/24/09, 10 days after weaning:

#77 weighed over 1600 lb at weaning weigh-in 11/14. Her steer calf 205 day adj weaning weight was 613 lb. One of my 1200 lb target cows had a steer calf that had a 205 day adj ww of 685 lb. A 1325 lb cow had a steer calf that had a 205 day ww of 639 lb and a 1400 lb cow had a steer with a 205 ww of 733 lb.

All the same bull, grazing, management, etc identical.

So #77 while phenotypically looks good, she is just not one of my more profitable cows. In fact she is one of my LEAST profitable cows!

It does appear to not be a straight line cow weight related thing but also a genetic thing.

If I had to make a set of conclusions from this years data, for a set of Hereford cows ranging from 1200 to 1650 lb and one registered Hereford bull:

- Calf 205 day weaning weight is not related to cow weight at all (heavier cows do NOT necessarily have significantly heavier calves)

- Calf 205 day weaning weight as a percent of dam weight therefore almost always favors the lighter cows

- A good 1400 lb cow can match the percent of a 1200 lb cow

- Lighter cows probably eat significantly less than heavier cows producing about the same calf

For my own operation based on this I am loosening up a bit from the 1200 lb target to a 1200 to 1400 lb range. I really do not see 1500-1600 lb or larger cows as being profitable for me in my particular operation.

I see the need to look at individual cow performance (up to about 1400 lb) rather than making a blanket statement that lighter is ALWAYS better. I don't want to cull a 1400 lb cow that consistently can produce a 205 day calf over 700 lb.

I can say pretty conclusively that 1500 lb + cows are just not for me.

This is my take on my data from this year as you requested. It may be totally off base for other breeds and types of operations.

Jim

 

[rockridgecattle]

i just read your first post and so i do not know the replies. I am however going to give you some advice our vet gave us last fall when we worked our herd.
The situation was, no hay and poor hay and we had to downsize the herd
three rounds of draft pics to reduce the herd
1. problem cows. Included cows with medical, genetic and disposition problems we shipped both the cow and calf at this time (august)
2. cows on the aged list, the older ones who might not make a it through the rough year, this was done at weaning
3. then the vet came in and preg checked the cows. OUr thought was anything open was going on the truck

As it happened, our best cow was being preg checked. She was heavy, summered well on poor pasture, had a decent bag etc. The vet took one look at her and asked what her calf was like. I said mid range, nothing to stop the presses. Her words were..."SHIP HER" NOW! Now that was a stunner. So me in my stuper asked why. Here was her answer paraphrased:

If she is not bringing in the best calf at her weight and shape, she is not a good converter of food or pounds in relation to her calf. In effect she is putting the weight into herself and not into what she should be doing, pounds in her calf, effectively paying for herself. So you are feeding an unproductive cow getting a mid weight calf, loosing money in the feed she eats.

We shipped her. If one was to look at our herd, they would think our cows are on the small side. They are not these 1500-1800 round bellied cows. However, the herd's average wean weight went up about 150# this summer as compared to past years.
Some of that is yes due to not overstocking, but i think alot has to do with getting rid of the free loaders. When i say free loaders i mean the ones who have a calf but are not putting the energy into the calf but themselves

make sense?

 

[SRBeef]

i just read your first post and so i do not know the replies. I am however going to give you some advice our vet gave us last fall when we worked our herd.
The situation was, no hay and poor hay and we had to downsize the herd
three rounds of draft pics to reduce the herd
1. problem cows. Included cows with medical, genetic and disposition problems we shipped both the cow and calf at this time (august)
2. cows on the aged list, the older ones who might not make a it through the rough year, this was done at weaning
3. then the vet came in and preg checked the cows. OUr thought was anything open was going on the truck

As it happened, our best cow was being preg checked. She was heavy, summered well on poor pasture, had a decent bag etc. The vet took one look at her and asked what her calf was like. I said mid range, nothing to stop the presses. Her words were..."SHIP HER" NOW! Now that was a stunner. So me in my stuper asked why. Here was her answer paraphrased:

If she is not bringing in the best calf at her weight and shape, she is not a good converter of food or pounds in relation to her calf. In effect she is putting the weight into herself and not into what she should be doing, pounds in her calf, effectively paying for herself. So you are feeding an unproductive cow getting a mid weight calf, loosing money in the feed she eats.

We shipped her. If one was to look at our herd, they would think our cows are on the small side. They are not these 1500-1800 round bellied cows. However, the herd's average wean weight went up about 150# this summer as compared to past years.
Some of that is yes due to not overstocking, but i think alot has to do with getting rid of the free loaders. When i say free loaders i mean the ones who have a calf but are not putting the energy into the calf but themselves

make sense?

RR,

Yes, it makes sense and seems like exactly what I am discovering on my own from the scale numbers. Thanks for the confirmation of what I am seeing. But it does mean you end up culling the big cows that everyone else compliments you on! Jim

 

[rockridgecattle]

Thanks for the confirmation of what I am seeing. But it does mean you end up culling the big cows that everyone else compliments you on! Jim

I think it depends on if the cow produces the calf based on how much she eats. Still pounds for dollars. If she is a big cow, and eats alot, she should produce a calf that is close to 50% of her weight. Ever wean a 900 pound calf at 6-7 months of age not creep fed and on grass or hay only depending on the time of calving season from an 1800 pound cow? Not seen it yet here. At most we have seen 600-660 #'s.
I have seen a 1300# cow raise a 600# calf, keep her condition and breed back proper.
Which cow is the most productive? The one who eats to maintain 1800# weight or the one who eats and maintains 1300# weight...both producing a 550-600# calf

 

[SRBeef]

Thanks for the confirmation of what I am seeing. But it does mean you end up culling the big cows that everyone else compliments you on! Jim

I think it depends on if the cow produces the calf based on how much she eats. Still pounds for dollars. If she is a big cow, and eats alot, she should produce a calf that is close to 50% of her weight. Ever wean a 900 pound calf at 6-7 months of age not creep fed and on grass or hay only depending on the time of calving season from an 1800 pound cow? Not seen it yet here. At most we have seen 600-660 #'s.
I have seen a 1300# cow raise a 600# calf, keep her condition and breed back proper.
Which cow is the most productive? The one who eats to maintain 1800# weight or the one who eats and maintains 1300# weight...both producing a 550-600# calf

Very well said and a good example/summary. I do not creep feed either by the way. In a good year it looks like a 730 lb 205 day ww is possible from a 1400 lb cow in my environment/location but that appears to be about the top end of 205 ww with no creep or implants etc. regardless of cow size. Mid 600's may make more sense for most 1200-1300 lb cows and maybe the most profitable range to be in and select for.

Thanks again.

Jim

Edit - I cow condition permits I may get a few more pounds by leaving the calves on the cows past 205 days esp I grazing corn. This may help get the steers closer to finish wt by the time they come off of corn in the spring.

 

[novatech]

If you are comparing the cows weight compared to the calf weight at weaning then the numbers may be a little off. A cow in good condition that weighs 1400 lbs at weaning and produced a calf that weighed 600 lbs is better than a cow in lesser condition at weaning that weaned a 600 pound calf. One must also consider the cost of getting a cow back into condition before she has the next calf. To make a true comparison of cows one would have to place a value on the cow BCS and add or deduct for this.
The cow in better condition at weaning may actually be a better converter of feed, which also produces a calf with good conversion, and putting just as much into the calf but just have the ability to maintain her own BCS, which may give you a better year end cost.
Just food for thought.

 

[Jeanne - Simme Valley]

Jim - Condition on the cow is indicative of several things. Two being - milking ability & easy keepers.
If BCS is equal on all cows, that makes your numbers a little easier to compare. But, MILK is the biggest factor on calf weight. Milk = #'s of calf. A poor milking cow will generally ALWAYS look good (high BCS cows look best). I think you are worrying about cow SIZE more than you should. Cow milking ability, and easy keeping ability are the combination you need to try to figure out. Your good looking BIG cow just might be the worse milking cow in your herd, and your 1400# cow just might be your best milker. That's how I would look at it. And, if your heaviest producing 205 day wt cow is a little thin at weaning, but bred back & bouces back in BCS right away, she's a keeper.

 

[Cowdirt]

If you are comparing the cows weight compared to the calf weight at weaning then the numbers may be a little off. A cow in good condition that weighs 1400 lbs at weaning and produced a calf that weighed 600 lbs is better than a cow in lesser condition at weaning that weaned a 600 pound calf. One must also consider the cost of getting a cow back into condition before she has the next calf. To make a true comparison of cows one would have to place a value on the cow BCS and add or deduct for this.
The cow in better condition at weaning may actually be a better converter of feed, which also produces a calf with good conversion, and putting just as much into the calf but just have the ability to maintain her own BCS, which may give you a better year end cost.
Just food for thought.

Very good points, Nova.-

 

[JRGidaho`]

You can adjust all cows to a uniform BCS when calculating the percent weaning weight relative to the dam's weight. The adjustment factor I have seen used is .0625 of the dam's weight at BCS 5. According to some models, that is the additional weight she will put on for each BCS unit above 5 or the weight loss below BCS 5. I doubt if it is actually that linear.

For example, a cow weighing 1200 lb at BCS 5 would be adjusted 75 lb for each BCS unit change (1200 lb x .0625 = 75) . So, theoretically, she should weigh 1350 lb at BCS 7.

A 1500 lb cow at BCS 5 would have an adjustment factor of 94 lb (1500 lb x .0625 = 93.75lb). So at BCS 7, she would weigh 1688 lb.

The problem I have with this is as she increases in BCS above 5, almost all of the added weight is fat. I'm OK with that. The 1200-lb cow could be carrying around 150 lb of fat. But if she drops to BCS 4, that weight loss was not all fat. So is the weight adjustment correct for going down as well as up? I don't know and I have never found anyone who could explain it satifactorily.

The other thing I have always wondered is how useful is the ratio of an adjusted weaning weight to an adjusted cow weight. I've yet to find a buyer who will pay for adjsuted weights.

 

[SRBeef]

Jim - Condition on the cow is indicative of several things. Two being - milking ability & easy keepers.
If BCS is equal on all cows, that makes your numbers a little easier to compare. But, MILK is the biggest factor on calf weight. Milk = #'s of calf. A poor milking cow will generally ALWAYS look good (high BCS cows look best). I think you are worrying about cow SIZE more than you should. Cow milking ability, and easy keeping ability are the combination you need to try to figure out. Your good looking BIG cow just might be the worse milking cow in your herd, and your 1400# cow just might be your best milker. That's how I would look at it. And, if your heaviest producing 205 day wt cow is a little thin at weaning, but bred back & bouces back in BCS right away, she's a keeper.

Nova and Jeanne - thank you. I think I am starting to get a better picture of what is happening. Cow #77 never really dipped much in condition at all this year. While a couple others were obviously working/milking harder and did dip in BCS a little and had the heavier calves to show for it.

I'm not a real good judge of the difference between BCS 5, 6 and 7 except from the Texas A & M videos the sign of a 6 is no ribs showing. By that measure #77 has never been below a 6. I agree that cow weight should be adjusted for BCS but I see no reason to adjust 77 or any of them down very much. At 1650 lb she is just not "pulling her weight".

She like my others all breed back quickly (45 days max) - or they are gone. However as you point out however she must just not be a good milker. Calories in are going to maintain her weight, not the calf's.

On the other hand I have read a couple articles recently that cows can be "too good" milkers also!

I really like my in between cows 1200-1350 lb that don't seem to go up or down a whole lot but still wean a 50% plus 205 day calf.

Thanks again. Jim

 

[novatech]

Just another thought.
It is an assumption that smaller cows eat less. But isn't it still a matter of efficiency of the individual animal. You can increase efficiency by reduction of size fairly easy as it is a highly heritable trait but it is just a single trait. I believe it is important to breed for efficiency, in all aspects of the word, including reducing size.
Efficiency includes feed conversion, milking ability, health, fertility, longevity, ease of fleshing, calf growth, and the ability of the calf to hustle on its own.
When one starts to play with these traits it is very easy to loose some of the high quality traits bred into the cattle in the first place.
Down sizing can be done but you have to be careful you are not loosing more than you gain.

 

[SRBeef]

Just another thought.
It is an assumption that smaller cows eat less. But isn't it still a matter of efficiency of the individual animal. You can increase efficiency by reduction of size fairly easy as it is a highly heritable trait but it is just a single trait. I believe it is important to breed for efficiency, in all aspects of the word, including reducing size.
Efficiency includes feed conversion, milking ability, health, fertility, longevity, ease of fleshing, calf growth, and the ability of the calf to hustle on its own.
When one starts to play with these traits it is very easy to loss some of the high quality traits bred into the cattle in the first place.
Down sizing can be done but you have to be careful you are not lossing more than you gain.

Good points. I think some breeders are now doing feed efficiency test of bulls also. We are talking cows here but I wonder about the effects of the bull on this. There is a milk and growth EPD... Must be hard to be a breeder these days - sort of like squeezing a balloon - you get it the way you want it in one area and it squirts out somewhere else!

I noticed in his last bull sale catalog, Jerry Huth had dam weight data also. I think I will be paying attention to dam weight on my next bull purchase.

Jim

 

[Jeanne - Simme Valley]

Must be hard to be a breeder these days - sort of like squeezing a balloon - you get it the way you want it in one area and it squirts out somewhere else!

:lol2: :lol2: :clap: :lol2:

 

[SRBeef]

I was working with my cattle to day and snapped a picture of two of my cows in the lane coming back from the corral.

Turns out these are 2 extremes of the cow size question.

Here is a photo of my least profitable cow, long, deep #77 and one of my most profitable cows, scruffy looking #39. She is not one of my target 1200 lb cows but a pleasant surprise as a producer.

Corrected to BCS 5, 77 had a weight at weaning 3 weeks ago of 1650 lb. Her actual weight was 1745 lb! Her very average steer calf had a 205 day ww of only 613 lb.

#39 corrected to BCS 5 weighed 1250, her actual was 1325 lb. Her very nice heifer calf had a 205 day ww of 639 lb.

This points out to me the benefits of data. I get concerned hearing about "phenotype" (looks?) over EPD's (data).

And from working with both of these cows in a rotational system, I don't need any lab RFI tests to tell me that 77 has consumed a WHOLE lot more grass, hay etc producing her calf than 39 has consumed producing hers.

FWIW,

Jim

 

[novatech]

And from working with both of these cows in a rotational system, I don't need any lab RFI tests to tell me that 77 has consumed a WHOLE lot more grass, hay etc producing her calf than 39 has consumed producing hers.

FWIW,

Jim

So lets say in the next few years you changed your total herd to cattle the same size as 39. You did this by using replacement heifers that you raised. You used a smaller framed bull to produce these. Wouldn't there be the possibility of further efficiency gain by also including good RFI in the bull?

 

[SRBeef]

And from working with both of these cows in a rotational system, I don't need any lab RFI tests to tell me that 77 has consumed a WHOLE lot more grass, hay etc producing her calf than 39 has consumed producing hers.

FWIW,

Jim

So lets say in the next few years you changed your total herd to cattle the same size as 39. You did this by using replacement heifers that you raised. You used a smaller framed bull to produce these. Wouldn't there be the possibility of further efficiency gain by also including good RFI in the bull?

Yes, that would be a logical next step. I would like to see RFI data on the next bull I buy. I think RFI is important, above I just meant it was very obvious that 77 while a good-looking cow, is not a very efficient use of my limited resources.

I am also interested in that bull's dam's weight. The more data I can find on a bull the better. As folks on here have said, 1 bad cow gives you 1 bad calf, the bull affects your whole herd.

There is a time for "phenotype" evaluation, but only if the data is right first. I don't want a "funnel-butt" even if he has good numbers. However I pretty much need to rely on the breeder to take care of that. I assume a reputable breeder will only propagate good phenotype bulls and not try to slip me as a beginner his culls.

I am in the process of shifting my herd cow weight down. #77 is definitely on the cull list. However it takes SO long to change a herd doing it in house.

Thanks for the suggestion. Jim

 

[VanC]

However I pretty much need to rely on the breeder to take care of that. I assume a reputable breeder will only propagate good phenotype bulls and not try to slip me as a beginner his culls.

Haven't you bought from Jerry Huth before? Stick with him, or someone he recommends, and I doubt you'll have that problem.

 

[SRBeef]

However I pretty much need to rely on the breeder to take care of that. I assume a reputable breeder will only propagate good phenotype bulls and not try to slip me as a beginner his culls.

Haven't you bought from Jerry Huth before? Stick with him, or someone he recommends, and I doubt you'll have that problem.

As long as Jerry is selling bulls, that is where mine will come from. He is into data + phenotype and I suspect will not sell you a bull he wouldn't use himself.

Jim

 

[Aero]

remember that you are not operating on a year-to-year basis. cows are a 10-20 year transaction and longevity needs to be factored in. getting rid of a cow because she isnt at the top might not make as much sense when you have to invest time and money into her replacement.

 

[SRBeef]

remember that you are not operating on a year-to-year basis. cows are a 10-20 year transaction and longevity needs to be factored in. getting rid of a cow because she isnt at the top might not make as much sense when you have to invest time and money into her replacement.

That's why she's not on the trailer already.

As a beginner I was originally looking to make quick changes. As discussed above though, I am learning nothing in cattle is "quick".

What I do feel is that data like this helps gradually change my herd. I will certainly not keep any heifers out of 77 even though they are photogenic. I WILL (probably) keep any heifers out of 39 even though they are NOT very photogenic. If I get the opportunity I will sell 77, probably as a bred cow, if prices warrant next summer before grazing gets very short. But I do want her T21 calf next year for beef.

Data does help you make informed decisions.

Jim