Stocker Steve":2c06mv88 said:- I always struggled a bit with the calculations on how much more profit early calving cows generate. Based on that we should all sell our late calvers to someone else (who starts calving later) and then we all make more money! 8) What did I miss?
Mid South Guy":3voywvhe said:Stocker Steve":3voywvhe said:- I always struggled a bit with the calculations on how much more profit early calving cows generate. Based on that we should all sell our late calvers to someone else (who starts calving later) and then we all make more money! 8) What did I miss?
I've struggled with that too. That assumes you sell all your calves at one time. If that is the case, all it means is the early calves are older and bigger. Whether it is more profitable to wean calves at 8-9 months old compared to 6-7 months old is debatable.
Brute you bring up some very good points. I don't think there is a right or wrong answer, it depends on the producer. For me it is definitely better business practice to buy replacements. Simply because that is my business plan, and I have struggled with it in the past because of the difficulty in finding a place for quality replacements. However when I weight the cost of going to a maternal vs terminal sire it just doesn't pay. But your last sentence "Their costs must be lower than yours to raise hat animal", combined with the loss of productive ground to have a sellable calf every year, and the loss of pounds from the Maternal sire means that I personally come out ahead to buy replacements. I certainly don't advocate everyone doing this or producers like me would have no place to find those "quality replacements."Brute 23":2567qnlu said:I would like to see an article that shows how many people by junk, what it costs to get rid of them, and how many times they will buy junk before they get some worth keeping around.
When you do all this culling for optimal productivity... it better produce... because it has to produce more that what you culled... plus pick up the loss you took from culling the other animal.
In articles its easy to talk about what produces the most on paper, but they leave out some of the realities of actually operating IMO. I have bought cattle and raised replacement. Each has their purpose. I am leary when some one says its always cheaper to buy. That has more to do with their operation... thats not across the board for every one. After all, if its always cheaper to buy, how do the people who sell replacements make money? Their costs must be lower than yours to raise
that animal.
Brute 23":1rpuy5m0 said:I am leary when some one says its always cheaper to buy. That has more to do with their operation... thats not across the board for every one. After all, if its always cheaper to buy, how do the people who sell replacements make money? Their costs must be lower than yours to raise that animal.
Stocker Steve":2x46lk07 said:The better business question is why aren't we running 6 wt steers rather than cows or replacements???
JSCATTLE":3k63934h said:If you were going to buy replacements it would be better to buy 3 or 4 year old heavy bred cows...
Caustic Burno":3rvpwcgn said:Article has some good point's the thing it doesn't take into account is regional input cost.
If you can maintain a cow on .75 a day retaining may make business sense, where as if your cost run $1.25 a day it most likely doesn't other than genetic's and that comes at a cost. It is about at the end of the year did your employee the cow make money, not your hay or I sold this or that. The cow has to pay her way or she is on welfare.
Again their are many that think a retained heifer is free just like when they get their salebarn check and tell everyone how much the made on their cow's.