More Research Debunking "Bigger is Better"

Help Support CattleToday:

It's pretty simmilar to the discussion "the best breed". I think what is the right size for one, for another it might be too big or too small. Everybody chooses the best option depending from the breeds they have, feed, climate, their market, how much space they have for cattle, farming system and etc.
Our cows weight range is ~1400-1800lbs. Have one smaller ~1100lbs, but she calved at 15months age and hasn't grown much. She's calving on her own, has plenty of milk and her calves looks really well, but are abit smaller than other calves from bigger cows at the weaning and growing too. Her 1st daughter will calve next year, so will see if she'll be and easy calving one.
We've enought of land and grass for grazing and making feed, use bulls with no info about them (BW, WW, dam's milk or others), have a marker which requires not less than 706lbs dead weight from all cattle you sell (cows, heifers until 36months, bulls until 24months age) if you want to get better price, also needs that they were muscular (so naturaly needs abit more extreme cows and bulls with usually bigger BW), another market, where we sell heifers, needs younger than 25months, deadweight ~600-800lbs, not less not more. From all this we need to have bigger animals for easier calvings (it's easier to pull a big calf from big cow, than from a small; had this spring one cow, ~1800lbs or more, delivered pretty easily an alive 160lbs calf, when another cow, ~1320lbs, had a hard pull for 145,5lbs calf, which died during calving) and bigger weights at younger age, than we could sell bulls and heifers faster. When need to cull a cow also need over 706lbs deadweight and more muscles for better price.
We are going to make our cows abit bigger during time. Would love that all were not smaller than 1500lbs.
Oh, and forgot to mention about outwintering. Our cows spent the whole year out. We can have pretty harsh winters often, temperature is lower -20C, usually every winter have some days with temperature lower than -30C. Sometimes have alot of snow, sometimes winters are pretty wet. Calving starts in December- January, usually then have the coldest weather. However calves with bigger BW are doing better than smaller calves. Cows go out on grass in April-May. They are only hay fed, ~40 cows, one bull and small calves get ~10-12 hay bales (around 550lbs weight) every three days. What wasn't eaten use for bedding, that the small ones would have where to sleep. Use not just that year hay, but usually have the last year's hay. Had no sick calves or cows, all nursing cows keeping pretty good condition until turning them out on grass.
 
3waycross":3n8jmetr said:
Old Timer wrote.....

I still have a few of those 6-7 frame cows that weigh in the 1400+ range- but I have found that there is more profit in this area in the smaller more efficient cattle- so are eliminating them... When you live in an area where often you have to feed hay 5-6 months of the year- and temps are often 20 below with 50 below or more chill factor for weeks-- you don't want to be having to stuff one of those 6-7-8 frame cows full of enough hay to keep warm ..

This flies in the face of conventional wisdom that says that the farther north you travel in the range of a given species the larger the individual representative of that species becomes. I have always taken this to mean that because of the increased need to maintain body temperature in the Northern environs they need more mass. ie. a Texas white tail deer avg's around 125lbs and the same buck in Alberta or Sask would be closer to 300lbs.

But I can show you (and the ND studies show) that if you limit the cattle to a certain amount of feed for efficiency-- most those smaller framed range type cattle come thru the winter in much better shape then the bigger framed ones... I can winter feed a third more smaller framed 1000-1200 lb cows on the same amount of hay I used to have to use on the bigger exotic cross and hayburner 1400-1600 lb cows-- and still bring the cows thru on a BCS of 5 (or above).. (over on Advantage Cattle site- one fellow claims that number is one half)



When I was a kid- some of the big ranch's (1000 head or more) ran cattle on the range year around- with very little feeding... The cows roughed it thru the winter and had to hustle for grass thru the snow or whatever.. Some were lucky if they had a spring that ran all winter- but many just ate snow... They figured the winter death loss was cheaper then the cost of equipment and labor putting up hay.. (And about once every 10 years they would have a killer winter and a heavy death loss- but many were in business (and did quite well) for 40-50 years that way)..
But those cattle they had that had to survive on the range on their own were mostly 3-4 frame that weighed between 900 and 1100 lbs .. Most were herefords or hereford/shorthorn cross's back in those days-- as the angus didn't start making inroads into this country until the 60's (Dad bought our first angus bull in 1958- and was scorned/laughed at by many for doing so)...

But for me- I've found the more moderate cattle work for me- instead of me having to spend all my time working for them..
 
Maybe Old timers had crappy cattle then. Our 1,400lbs cows hold their condition very well in same winters as yours and they didn't even eat that much. Maybe these small framed cows eat too much hay for their size and stays fat.
 
During the winter months, even the bigger cows don't need that much hay.. one reason I calve later in the spring than many people do, I don't need to increase feed for the end stages of gestation just during the most miserable months.. Usually I separate my smaller/younger stock and they get the same amount of hay per head as the big old cows.

Whatever works I guess, I just found that around here cows under a certain size the weaning weights drop off at a greater rate than feed costs.. Once they're around 1300 lbs I find they can make as good a calf as a 1700 lb cow, so that's the basis for my selection
Here.. Mid size cow, big calf (640 lbs @ 180 days)

Big cow, big calf


And this calf has 2 small mommas (shown is the adoptive one).. her real momma isn't much bigger.. Calf is looking good now, but there are many calves bigger than her

Calf now


I'd much rather feed one medium cow with good production that two smaller ones to get the same return.. I do agree that it seems the feed bill goes up quickly with minimal return going above 14-1500 lb mature weight
 
I don't disagree with Old Timers premise I just pointed out the correlation between traditional range and size. I personally have lowered the weight and frame score of my cows a lot over the last 3 years. I especially wanted to remove the outliers. I still have one little FS 3 cow to go and I will be very middle of the road across the board..
 
Too much fixation with weight. That 1300 lb FS 5 cow just doesn;t fit in when you talk weights. I think frame has more to do with it but I also think the individual animal has even more to do with it.
 
one reason I calve later in the spring than many people do
We shifted from start of calving on Jan 1 (recommended by local state extension) to Feb 1 and gained 45+ days of stockpiled grazing from the 30 day delay.

if you limit the cattle to a certain amount of feed for efficiency-- most those smaller framed range type cattle come thru the winter in much better shape then the bigger framed ones...
Makes good sense since a 3500 burns more fuel that a 1500. Unless the big cows are boss cows and keep the small and younger ones away from the limited hay. You will also cull heavier milkers with inadequate feed.
 
3waycross":modwg5cr said:
Old Timer wrote.....

I still have a few of those 6-7 frame cows that weigh in the 1400+ range- but I have found that there is more profit in this area in the smaller more efficient cattle- so are eliminating them... When you live in an area where often you have to feed hay 5-6 months of the year- and temps are often 20 below with 50 below or more chill factor for weeks-- you don't want to be having to stuff one of those 6-7-8 frame cows full of enough hay to keep warm ..

This flies in the face of conventional wisdom that says that the farther north you travel in the range of a given species the larger the individual representative of that species becomes. I have always taken this to mean that because of the increased need to maintain body temperature in the Northern environs they need more mass. ie. a Texas white tail deer avg's around 125lbs and the same buck in Alberta or Sask would be closer to 300lbs.

Yet Brahman cattle make most European and British cattle look puny.
Lol
 
dun":2etmjy1o said:
Too much fixation with weight. That 1300 lb FS 5 cow just doesn;t fit in when you talk weights. I think frame has more to do with it but I also think the individual animal has even more to do with it.

I think that gets neglected too often in these discussions

Ebeneezer, my 3500 dodge with ~500 hp burns less fuel than our 1990 Land cruiser 6 cyl gas job.. Some cows are like that too
 
JWBrahman":3i3bn32u said:
3waycross":3i3bn32u said:
Old Timer wrote.....

I still have a few of those 6-7 frame cows that weigh in the 1400+ range- but I have found that there is more profit in this area in the smaller more efficient cattle- so are eliminating them... When you live in an area where often you have to feed hay 5-6 months of the year- and temps are often 20 below with 50 below or more chill factor for weeks-- you don't want to be having to stuff one of those 6-7-8 frame cows full of enough hay to keep warm ..

This flies in the face of conventional wisdom that says that the farther north you travel in the range of a given species the larger the individual representative of that species becomes. I have always taken this to mean that because of the increased need to maintain body temperature in the Northern environs they need more mass. ie. a Texas white tail deer avg's around 125lbs and the same buck in Alberta or Sask would be closer to 300lbs.

Yet Brahman cattle make most European and British cattle look puny.
Lol
Are you sure about that?
 
Not at all, Muddy. I've only seen a few here and there on the internet. Maybe you have something to add? Always happy to learn.
 
Nesikep":b2ec1ne9 said:
Ebenezer":b2ec1ne9 said:
Ebeneezer, my 3500 dodge with ~500 hp burns less fuel than our 1990 Land cruiser 6 cyl gas job.. Some cows are like that too
Two different species. :tiphat:
nevertheless, the bigger is the more efficient...

My Ram 3500 gets better fuel mileage than a new Toyota Tacoma with a V6. And the Toyota was trying to draft me to no avail.
 
Some are afraid to think outside the box- try something new..Another good article coming from the research done at NDSU on cattle frame size and weights- again proving that what works best for "Iowegia" may not be whats best for the high plains and/or Montana...And again showing you don't need those 6-7-8 frame 1300 to 1800 lb hay-burner type cows to make marketable, profitable calves...

BeefTalk: Frame Score 3 May Calves Put 1,400 pounds of Beef on the Rail
By: Kris Ringwall, Beef Specialist

Size discussions are vital within the beef industry because the challenge of surviving is real.

Often, those discussions would imply that an absolute answer exists and making the wrong choice would be the demise of the producer's cattle operation. Wrong.

Granted, traditional production of middle-of-the-road cattle and associated marketing paths are the comfortable travel routes for producers. This always has been true. However, producers realize very quickly that keeping a moderate-sized cow is not simple, and without appropriate selection, cattle size will stray.

But what happens when the path becomes set? Do you have options to choose a different path? The choice gets very complicated, often wrapped up in considerable rhetoric, making a change of one's path difficult.

Change is something beef producers always need to anticipate. Simply moving forward, regardless of the current excellence of a program, eventually will lead to a dead end.

The prairies are crisscrossed with trails. A few of the trails became roads, and some of those roads became highways and some become interstates. And, finally, an airport arrives, and one simply may fly over the prairies.

Things change. There is no right or wrong in deciding when and how to adjust to change because paths, even old trails, can be filled. Again, one of those trails in the beef industry is how different cow sizes fit in the industry.

Before beginning the discussion, however, let's evaluate the product of small cows, as previously we have discussed the larger-framed cattle. Remember, every path must lead to a marketable product that has demand. Ultimately, producers will, and should, produce what fits their operation and environment, but long-term success will be achieved only if the product is marketable and profitable.

Several years ago, the Dickinson Research Extension Center cow herd was split into the range herd (smaller cows) and the beef herd (larger cows). The two herds differ in size by about 300 pounds in mature weight and two frame scores.

Frame score is defined by the Beef Improvement Federation as follows: "Hip height converted to frame score is a linear measurement that helps cattle producers evaluate lean-to-fat ratio potential of an individual animal in a performance program. No one frame size will be best for all feed resources, breeding systems and markets."

The federation adds: "Large-framed animals tend to be heavier at all weights, leaner and later maturing. Small-framed animals tend to be lighter, fatter and earlier maturing. Frame scores can be monitored to maintain body size, fatness level and maturing rate within the optimum ranges dictated by the resources, breeding system and market specifications of a herd. Frame score is a convenient way of describing the skeletal size of cattle."

In 2011, 2012 and 2013, center-born steer calves from the range herd had an average frame score of 3.8. The beef herd steers had an average frame score of 5.5. So back to the original question. We know how frame score 5 and 6 calves (44.1 to 46.1 inches at the hip at 7 months of age) perform, and they help make our path comfortable.

But what about frame score 3 and 4 calves (40 to 42.1 inches at the hip at 7 months of age)? Are they a product that is marketable? The answer is yes. The center's small-frame steers grew into an average of 1,401 pounds when harvested at around 22 months of age, with a carcass value on the rail of $2,018. That is a lot of calf and certainly excellent value.

The frame score 5 and 6 steers grew into an average of 1,610 pounds when harvested at around 22 months of age, with a carcass value on the rail of $2,243.

Data collected by center scientists Songul Şenturklu and Doug Landblom show the larger-frame-score steer calves' fall weaning weight was 567. The calves had an average daily winter gain of 1.3 pounds and were turned out as yearlings in early May at 780 pounds.

They came off summer grass in mid-August at 1,047 pounds and subsequently grazed a field of pea-barley intercrop followed by unharvested corn. The steers weighed 1,230 pounds by late fall. At that time, they were sent to the feedlot for 82 days.

The frame score 3 and 4 steer calves weaned off at 453 pounds and overwintered with an average daily gain of 1.4 pounds. They turned out to grass in early May as yearlings weighing 674 pounds and came off summer grass in mid-August at 909 pounds.

They subsequently grazed a field of pea-barley intercrop followed by unharvested corn. The steers weighed 1,086 pounds by late fall. At that time, they also were sent to the feedlot for 82 days.

The question is answered! Yes, smaller calves are marketable and acceptable. The real question: Which calf was the most profitable? Stay tuned for the answer. You may be surprised.

May you find all your ear tags.

http://feedlotmagazine.com/ndsu-extension-service/
 

Latest posts

Top