Brute 23":3c8q6yht said:
1982vett":3c8q6yht said:
Same criteria goes in a declining market as it does in a rising market. Producing cow gets a job....slackers hit the road.
:nod:
I didn't read past the first few replies but this is the essence of it to my mind. We try our best to not allow the market to make culling decisions. Good cows are good cows and vice versa, whether they are worth $1,000 or $3,000. A cow that doesn't bring a live calf to the weaning pens, every year, good operators send down the road. I have to worry about feed costs, drought, land payments, exports, the futures, workman's comp, ag crime, the high cost of employee insurance, which stud is the right fit for our remuda, if I should forward contract fuel, etc., etc., etc. That old cow just has to worry about one thing, raising a calf. If she can't handle that, why would I want to be in business with her?
However, the one thing that does make me crazy, that is market driven, in terms of culling is this; producers that buy inferior cows in a poor market, and think they are "cheap". Right now, all bred stock feels fairly cheap, this is the time for the underfunded operator ESPECIALLY to bring up the bottom of his herd. I see guys do back flips about the 4 junk bred heifers they got for $650/each and shake my head. This cows will go back to their more than likely junk herd and raise junk calves. When the market improves, the will have slightly more valuable junk. Very similar cash outlay could have bought them 3 good bred heifers and with out question 2 very good bred heifers. Those heifers could have gone back to their junk herd, and weaned good calves, that also went into their herd. Said replacements could have been bred to their junk bull yielding mediocre calves when the market improves. This in it's most rudimentary sense, is herd improvement.