Does more pounds per acre make up for being docked at the sale barn for small frame size?

[Ebenezer]

It maybe a buzzword but there is something to grass based genetics.

Early on I bought a group fancy looking registered black Angus heifers. They came from a farm that had alfalfa pastures, alfalfa hay, corn silage, etc. I brought them here to our native grass pasture and hay. Those girls would eat 24/7 and lose weight doing it. Calved out the first round and never maintained condition and raised dink Calves.

Since then I've bought and bred cows that come from lines of cows raised and thriving on "un-improved" pastures and hay. I ain't no scientist but there is something different about them.

Some of that is the development of the rumen and the flora there. Same thing if you try to transition silage developed cattle to common pastures.

 

[Travlr]

Did I say they needed to be fat?

No...

Didn't think that was said/implied in my reply.

 

[Jeanne - Simme Valley]

RMC said "Size and fertility are linked . The larger the cow the later cycling and reduced fertility occur."
Totally disagree. NUTRITION has more to do with early cycling and fertility than any thing else.

Most people forget profit isn't most dollars earned. It is what is left over after all expenses are paid. Don't matter How much you make if you spend more then you make you will be broke!
A big factor in larger framed cows is the larger the frame the longer it takes for them to develop and start cycling.

You nailed the entire topic of this thread. Is it more profitable to raise smaller framed cows than large framed animals?
Is having larger calves to sell worth the additional expenses ect. That come along with the bigger cows?
In my area and many others it doesn't!

RMC - good point. WHERE IS YOUR AREA????
All this discussion has more to do with LOCATION than anything else. Size of cattle has to FIT THE ENVIRONMENT! My cows are BIG - not tall - just big all over. They do NOT get GRAIN. They get grass and hay. I keep two 60 day breeding seasons. Was 100% AI for 30+ years. Now, for "convenience" (vacation), I AI 38 days and turn bull out for 30 days.
I can't compare profit of my heifers, that wouldn't be fair.
But, my steers (finished on grain or weaned 3 weeks) will make me more profit than 2 (maybe 3) of your little cows. IT IS LOCATION LOCATION LOCATION. As good as my cows are, they would not be as fertile, easy keeping or anything else they perform for me - if they were starved. I utilitize the good growing native grasses I have with rotational grazing.

Your research you keep talking about was strictly for INTER-MOUNTAIN cow/calf operations. Stick to your location and quit trying to tell everyone what is good for THEM in THEIR LOCATION.

Funny thing, my heifer calves are rather big - can you believe they cycle early enough that I have to worry about their male in-tact siblings breeding them??? Will wonders never cease???

Just a little fact check for some of you. Simmental breed is earlier maturing than Herefords. Herefords are one of the oldest to reach sexual maturity. Jersey is youngest! Brahmans are the oldest! This is an old chart from MARC and they are crosses - but you get the point.

 

[Mark Reynolds]

Current challenges of local grass-finished beef production in Hawai'i
• Product is still inconsistent in quality as to marbling and tenderness
• Poor post-weaning growth, and late maturity, as animals are being finished later than at the suggested 25–30 months of age
• Limited supply is available, so more animals are needed to satisfy the growing demand of young cattle for grass-finished beef production.

From the conclusion statements above - it doesn't look like a good reference. The kill data looked like they killed them too soon and had minimal BF and grades were OK. One money loser on grass fed cattle is always going to be a lower % HCW/LW.

I don't see a clear divide in cattle that are "grass finish types" and "other".

I agree it is not a good reference. It does touch on the likelihood of 'grass based genetics' being a problem, but this 'problem' is only a relatively small component of several intertwined factors that are difficult to separate in the target problem of the cattle not being climatically adapted to Hawaii.

 

[Mark Reynolds]

RMC said "Size and fertility are linked . The larger the cow the later cycling and reduced fertility occur."
Totally disagree. NUTRITION has more to do with early cycling and fertility than any thing else.

RMC - good point. WHERE IS YOUR AREA????
All this discussion has more to do with LOCATION than anything else. Size of cattle has to FIT THE ENVIRONMENT! My cows are BIG - not tall - just big all over. They do NOT get GRAIN. They get grass and hay. I keep two 60 day breeding seasons. Was 100% AI for 30+ years. Now, for "convenience" (vacation), I AI 38 days and turn bull out for 30 days.
I can't compare profit of my heifers, that wouldn't be fair.
But, my steers (finished on grain or weaned 3 weeks) will make me more profit than 2 (maybe 3) of your little cows. IT IS LOCATION LOCATION LOCATION. As good as my cows are, they would not be as fertile, easy keeping or anything else they perform for me - if they were starved. I utilitize the good growing native grasses I have with rotational grazing.

Your research you keep talking about was strictly for INTER-MOUNTAIN cow/calf operations. Stick to your location and quit trying to tell everyone what is good for THEM in THEIR LOCATION.

Funny thing, my heifer calves are rather big - can you believe they cycle early enough that I have to worry about their male in-tact siblings breeding them??? Will wonders never cease???

Just a little fact check for some of you. Simmental breed is earlier maturing than Herefords. Herefords are one of the oldest to reach sexual maturity. Jersey is youngest! Brahmans are the oldest! This is an old chart from MARC and they are crosses - but you get the point.

View attachment 37201

I just saw this after posting my response pointing out that climate (location) was the topic of the reference. I like your reply better than mine. You have much more detail.

 

[Lucky]

I haven't kept up with everything said but in our area a cow should weigh 1,150-1,250#, a bull 2,000#, a good framey green yearling should be black or white and weigh 800#, and a bale of hay 1,100#. Unless of course you don't like to make money, then it doesn't matter if bigger or smaller. Running cattle here is pretty simple. You can however make it as difficult as you want. I would guess it's the same across the southern US. I can see needing bigger cows up north though.

 

[Silver]

My neighbour runs enough cows he has to calve on grass. Depending on the year there might be 3000 head to calve out.
He buys in a lot of winter feed (hay and grain), feeds with TMR's, always has a liner or two on the road hauling something somewhere. His cows are small for up here, I would guess if they were in good shape they'd weigh 1200.
Weaned calves are in the 400 lb range when I've been there helping and driving by I'd think that would be as good as it gets. His inputs have got to be far more per cow than mine for my big cows, his profit per cow has to be a lot less. But he's working on economy of scale and it seems to be working for him. Point being there are different business models that work.
I would go broke running the same number of cows I do now and weaning 300 lbs less per cow. I feel I'm running as many cows as I want to, so running 25% more cows isn't going to happen. So this business model calls for less cows with better weaning weights.

 

[Rmc]

Your research you keep talking about was strictly for INTER-MOUNTAIN cow/calf operations. Stick to your location and quit trying to tell everyone what is good for THEM in THEIR LOCATION.

Hmm. Plag1 gene research was done in Australia I believe, another one was done in Nebraska . Are these in the intermountain west?

 

[Rmc]

Might be off for your area but not inter mountain west . Different feed regimes were in the article because depending on local all three are used in various locations throughout the intermountain west due to elevation changes and location. Article is a compilation of several studies all are listed at the end of the article. Don't know where you are getting $1 pound for cattle but even Holstein and jerseys are higher than that.

All this discussion has more to do with LOCATION than anything else. Size of cattle has to FIT THE ENVIRONMENT!

Your research you keep talking about was strictly for INTER-MOUNTAIN cow/calf operations. Stick to your location and quit trying to tell everyone what is good for THEM in THEIR LOCATION.

Can you show me where I have told anyone what to do in their location?
Even mentioned the three different feed regimes and why they were in one article. Because all three are used in this area depending on LOCATION.
Hmm
Asked to post research supporting my claim that frame size and fertility is linked. What does that have to do with location?
It is amazing to me that I am asked to post research backing up my opinions. Then bashed for doing so .
And 99 percent of the time . Those asking for the research don't bother reading it.
Agree with me disagree with me all you want . But I will continue to defend what I do and how I do it . If it doesn't work for you . Great . If you disagree with the research.great. But there are people who actually want a different point of view and to understand how and why those choices were made.
But way to easier to continue to bash those they have a personal issues with them actually discussing and debate different ideas and ways of doing things.

 

[Travlr]

And 99 percent of the time . Those asking for the research don't bother reading it.

I read it... and then you (intentionally?) misunderstood my first comment and when I posted quoted examples of how the study in fact supported the opposite contention you wriggled like a sardine on a hook and insisted the other study was the only one that mattered while ignoring the one that the quotes came from... and then invented things to attribute them to what I said when I never said what you claimed.

But you have a lot of entertainment value.

 

[Mark Reynolds]

Hmm. Plag1 gene research was done in Australia I believe, another one was done in Nebraska . Are these in the intermountain west?

The point @Jeanne - Simme Valley was making, and you proved her point by referencing location, was that the article you referenced had little, if anything, to do with size being related to fertility but was instead focused on aspects of the cattle not being adapted to their location or climate on the ISLAND of Hawaii

 

[Rmc]

The point @Jeanne - Simme Valley was making, and you proved her point by referencing location, was that the article you referenced had little, if anything, to do with size being related to fertility but was instead focused on aspects of the cattle not being adapted to their location or climate on the ISLAND of Hawaii

WOW .
You actually ought to read this thread before replying. Report mentions Hawaii was in response to a question about grass based genetics that came up many pages after the size related to fertility question.
This is from the very first article I posted in response to size being related to fertility. Seems directly related to size vs fertility to me ?

 

[Jeanne - Simme Valley]

Yes. Because they were starved.

 

[Rmc]

A little more that was conveniently not quoted by travlr
View attachment 37052

And some more that was not posted.hmm
View attachment 37054

I read it... and then you (intentionally?) misunderstood my first comment and when I posted quoted examples of how the study in fact supported the opposite contention you wriggled like a sardine on a hook and insisted the other study was the only one that mattered while ignoring the one that the quotes came from...

maybe you better re read it so you understand it a little bit then genius.
Both my above quotes are from the plag1 study the same on you quoted.
So who is mis representing the study ?
I quoted from the exact same study you did . So are you ready to actually debate the study yet or just continue to attack me because you don't have the ability to debate or discuss an issue ?

 

[Travlr]

maybe you better re read it so you understand it a little bit then genius.
Both my above quotes are from the plag1 study the same on you quoted.
So who is mis representing the study ?
I quoted from the exact same study you did . So are you ready to actually debate the study yet or just continue to attack me because you don't have the ability to debate or discuss an issue ?

I think I'll decline such a polite invitation from a guy that invents things never said and who refuses to address the quotes from his own linked articles that refute his own contentions.

It's never worth discussing anything with a person that thinks it should be a debate and then can't focus on reality and is apparently just here for the attention.

 

[Rmc]

Yes. Because they were starved.

So the larger sized cows reached puberty later and were less fertile then the smaller cows because they were starved?
That's a position I haven't heard before

 

[Rmc]

I think I'll decline such a polite invitation from a guy that invents things never said and who refuses to address the quotes from his own linked articles that refute his own contentions.

I didn't think you are man enough to admit your numerous posts are nothing more than personal attacks on me and have nothing to do with the topic of discussion.
Let alone be man enough to admit that the plag 1 study links size and fertility even amount herd mates as well as identify at least one exact gene location responsible for such.

 

[Jeanne - Simme Valley]

You left out that they lost that benefit as they aged.
I should not comment on this Plag thing. Never heard of it before. Not too interested.

So the larger sized cows reached puberty later and were less fertile then the smaller cows because they were starved?
That's a position I haven't heard before

Yes. If you have a growthy heifer and she is deprived of proper nutrition, she will not start cycling and will be hard to get bred. If you don't understand that concept, we are totally wasting our time discussing anything with you.

 

[Travlr]

I finally got around to reading that first study information and it ended with this.

Table 7. Net Returns per Cow When Charged on a per Head Basis
Cow Wt.	1000 lb.​	1200 lb.​	1400 lb.​
Cows Bred	592​	592​	592​
Resource Base 1​
Net Return Per Cow	$134.72	$153.39	$177.11
Resource Base 2​
Net Return Per Cow	$50.46​	$51.28​	$60.75​
Resource Base 3​
Net Return Per Cow	($17.87)​	($29.81)​	($32.35)​

All I can say is...

 

[Silver]

I don't know of any producers ( myself included) with cows of ANY size that don't have their heifers bred to be in time with the cow herd. If they reach puberty in time for that that is all that is required.
Nutrition is the only factor I have seen that influences this significantly, not size.