Smaller cows are better?

Help Support CattleToday:

Cowdirt":2cck0u89 said:
aero, in the formula, met wt. = (body weight)^.75, is the ^ a math function, ie, multiplier, divider, or is it a constant value? Trying to understand the calculations. Thanks.

it's the power function

if you have 5 squared it would be shown 5^2 or 5 to the power of 2
 
Sage":37zx1lad said:
Aero, sounds good but also consider the addded cost of labor(mentioned earlier) and what does it take to vaccinate ect. the additional 20hd. What about deaths, more animals means more deaths generally. I like your ideas I believe the cow size is being taken to extreams, extreams never seem to work for me, I like the happy middle place.

i havent thought about the added labor and that might be a considerable cost, but to vaccinate 20 head might take an hour for 2 people. $10/hr * 2hrs * 2ppl would be $40 plus $10/head for vacc = $200 for a total of $240. still $2800 more for small cows.

death loss should be the same percentage of your herd, so i would say that is a nonfactor.

i agree completely about extremes. frame 4-5 cattle arent extreme, they are moderate. frame 8+ and 1- are extreme.
 
Aero":p9seysx6 said:
Cowdirt":p9seysx6 said:
aero, in the formula, met wt. = (body weight)^.75, is the ^ a math function, ie, multiplier, divider, or is it a constant value? Trying to understand the calculations. Thanks.

it's the power function

if you have 5 squared it would be shown 5^2 or 5 to the power of 2


Thanks Matt, that works. Good job.
 
Aero,


You assume that each cow will wean 250% of her MBW.



If all cows don't wean an equal percent of their own BW, why assume they wean an equal percent of their MBW?




This assumption is what is making the numbers work out exactly equal.




It is similar to the question, "Do you want to wean 5% more calves, or have the calves weigh 5% more?" 500 lbs * 105 calves = 52,500 pounds. 525 calves 8 100 calves = 52,500.


The assumed constant will always produce equality.



Badlands
 
i agree, but how can i compare unequal efficiencies?

this is the only way i can work out theoretical, comparable groups.

i understand there would be variation in efficiencies, but ther eis no real way for me to vary the efficiencies equitably.

i am open to suggestion.
 
Aero":3kcejwau said:
i agree, but how can i compare unequal efficiencies?

this is the only way i can work out theoretical, comparable groups.

i understand there would be variation in efficiencies, but ther eis no real way for me to vary the efficiencies equitably.

i am open to suggestion.

It's always much easier and obviously more reliable to work with real data than to create a simulation as you have done. That being said, it seems to me that 250% of metabolic weight for weaned calves is pretty realistic for both group A and B.
 
Aero,

You won't be able to do it until you use some sort of iteration function coupled with multiple trait models that account for variation in those traits. Until you have a program that can calculate the partial derivatives to do this, you will only be able to use the constants, which will only represent one scenario under specific conditions. The other method, which is actually more efficient, using less brute-force would be maximizing the log-likelihood functions, but you have to know how to do that too. ;-)

Gets a little tricky, doesn't it?


Badlands
 
Interesting post. Doc Harris got it right. It all boils down to your goals and what works best for you.

You can do all the math you want to for the banker. In reality
pencil in a seven month winter,a three year drought, a 20%
deah loss, a huricane, tornado or flood.

Kit Pharo makes his money selling bulls. What size would his cows be if he was a cow/calf operator selling to the feedlots????
 
Aero - very impressive - took lots of time, good job.
The only flaw I see - is it must depend on area. In your scenario, the lighter 463# calves brought $.96 and the 555# calves brought $.90 I do not feel that would be the case in my area. Heavier calves are bringing the same or more than lighter weight calves. Of course, the bigger the spread, the more chance we would see this. Real growthy calves (700#) won't get more per #, but not a great discount. The biggest discounts are on the real light weight calves - in the 300# -400# range.
For OUR AREA, extension advisors say medium to low large frame cows are most efficient (4.5-6.5). (lots of grass and little discount on growthy calves).
I'm not good like you & can't spit out exact numbers, just general terms. But I do know that frame 3 cows are NOT money makers for us.
 
Aero,

I should say that the general method that you are using (plugging in constants) is about all that any of us can do. Nothing "wrong" with it. The problem isn't "really" the constants. The problem is just what you pointed out with your example - there is so little profit difference that it is more about matching the genetics to YOUR management than it is about which size is RIGHT for EVERYONE.

When we get down to such a small difference, isn't there something else we could work on that would bring us to a better level of profitability?

I've seen works that said genetics is only about 10-15% of the profit equation. I think that is true for folks that do have their genetics inline with their management and environment. For folks that have their management or genetics out of whack relative to each other, I think the numbers are going to be higher. In other words, genetics are no problem if everything is working. If something is not working, then straightening out genetics can help if your management is "constant".

Badlands
 
Badlands":34ddmh7x said:
Gets a little tricky, doesn't it?

Badlands

i still think it will mostly come down to smaller calves bringing more. :p
 
Jeanne - Simme Valley":z5wnzfti said:
Heavier calves are bringing the same or more than lighter weight calves.

this would be highly irregular. you might see this on certain days, but over the long run your area wont escape the basic rules that every other spot in the country. somehow, i dont think you have order buyers that are playing by a different gameplan than everywhere else.
 
Jeanne - Simme Valley":18visklq said:
Aero - very impressive - took lots of time, good job.
The only flaw I see - is it must depend on area. In your scenario, the lighter 463# calves brought $.96 and the 555# calves brought $.90 I do not feel that would be the case in my area. Heavier calves are bringing the same or more than lighter weight calves. Of course, the bigger the spread, the more chance we would see this. Real growthy calves (700#) won't get more per #, but not a great discount. The biggest discounts are on the real light weight calves - in the 300# -400# range.
For OUR AREA, extension advisors say medium to low large frame cows are most efficient (4.5-6.5). (lots of grass and little discount on growthy calves).
I'm not good like you & can't spit out exact numbers, just general terms. But I do know that frame 3 cows are NOT money makers for us.

Jeanne it is different down south (at least). Lite weight calves typically bring higher per pound because backgrounders buy them and grow them out to heavier weights and sell them at a profit. Particularly down here, IF you have corn, cotton, or peanut land you can harvest your crop and then go and drill in rye, ryegrass, wheat, and/or oats to put a cover crop on there to protect your soil from the often heavy winter and early spring rains we get. You buy 4 wt calves for ~$1.26 /lb and sell them as 8 wt calves to a western feedlot for $.95/lb. Take out $20 a head for trucking, vaccinations, labor, etc and you got ~$240 a head to pay for the cost of the cover crop and a big payday right when they need it the most (planting time). Many pull the calves off in early March and get a wheat or oats crop out of the field as well. 700 lb calves would be a pain in that system. At 2.5 lbs a day they would weigh 1100++ lbs by end of March. The feedlots typically don't want really heavy new placements so the price received wouldn't be much more than they paid for the 700 lb calf initially. What some folks forget here in this discussion is that the buyers want lite weight GROWTHY calves. Often they will confuse a 8 month old weaned frame 2 for a 5 month old frame 5. IF you let that little toad guy get too fat or too mature where it is obvious that he is a toad and not just another summer calf from the tailend of the calving season; then there is USUALLY a significant dock. Since it looks like more land is going into corn than we have seen in our lifetimes, the demand for lite weight calves to go into winter wheat programs is probably going up.
 
The way I see it, the lighter weight calves DO bring more per pound. BUT, if you pencil it out, that does NOT = more dollars.

Just looked at the local market reports, and granted, they ARE yearling sales, but here you go.

4-500 weight steers 1.25-1.30
6-700 weight steers 1.10 - 1.25

So take a 450 weight at 1.27 = $571.50
And a 650 weight at 1.18 = $767.00

120, 450 weight calves would net $68,520
100, 650 weight calves would net $76,700

That is $8180 more $ for the heavier calves.

Even if you used 600 weight calves @ 1.20 = $72,000 you would make $3480 more on the heavier calves.....

And, if you figure on feeding 3% of the cows body weight, you would feed 6# more to a 1200# cow than to a 1000# cow. If feed costs 2.5 cents/lb, it works out to 54.30 more per year per cow = $5430 for 100 cows per 360 days. Costs pretty much the same to feed an extra 20 cows for 360 days. 20 cows x 30 lbs x $.025 x 360 days.= $5400

But then you need to figure in the expenses like vaccination, worming, any treatments, and death loss you would encounter with 20 more cows. So however I figure it, I would be making MORE money with fewer 1200# cows than more 1000# cows.
 
randiliana":13s0c9aq said:
The way I see it, the lighter weight calves DO bring more per pound. BUT, if you pencil it out, that does NOT = more dollars.

Just looked at the local market reports, and granted, they ARE yearling sales, but here you go.

4-500 weight steers 1.25-1.30
6-700 weight steers 1.10 - 1.25

So take a 450 weight at 1.27 = $571.50
And a 650 weight at 1.18 = $767.00

120, 450 weight calves would net $68,520
100, 650 weight calves would net $76,700

That is $8180 more $ for the heavier calves.

Even if you used 600 weight calves @ 1.20 = $72,000 you would make $3480 more on the heavier calves.....

And, if you figure on feeding 3% of the cows body weight, you would feed 6# more to a 1200# cow than to a 1000# cow. If feed costs 2.5 cents/lb, it works out to 54.30 more per year per cow = $5430 for 100 cows per 360 days. Costs pretty much the same to feed an extra 20 cows for 360 days. 20 cows x 30 lbs x $.025 x 360 days.= $5400

But then you need to figure in the expenses like vaccination, worming, any treatments, and death loss you would encounter with 20 more cows. So however I figure it, I would be making MORE money with fewer 1200# cows than more 1000# cows.

These are the prices reported for the Glenwood, AR sale 3/15/07

Feeder Steers: Medium and Large 1 300-350 lbs 131.00-150.00 (142.09); 350-
400 lbs 130.00-145.00 (137.01); 400-450 lbs 125.00-146.00 (137.03); 450-500 lbs
122.00-139.00 (128.20); 500-550 lbs 120.00-133.00 (124.12); 550-600 lbs 115.00-
125.00 (119.18); 600-650 lbs 110.00-115.00 (112.14); 650-700 lbs 104.00-110.00
(107.48); 700-750 lbs 108.00. Medium and Large 2 350-400 lbs 115.00-132.00
(125.04); 400-450 lbs 115.00-129.00 (121.88); 450-500 lbs 115.00-122.00
(118.13).
 
Badlands":2g650n08 said:
When we get down to such a small difference, isn't there something else we could work on that would bring us to a better level of profitability?

This IS the Breeds board. ALL we talk about here is genetics and selection. In the real world, it might be more profitable to keep the bulls you got, hire a Mexican to run the farm, and go get a job in town....but that is another board.
 
We are talking apples to oranges. You are comparing Med/Lg #1 300# to Med/Lg #2 700#
I'm saying SMALL frame calves get docked heavy around here. We were talking small cows vs medium cows. (I thought)
There is a big difference between a 300# small frame calf & a 300# med/lg frame calf if both #1 muscling.
I like randiliana's version :p
 
"BUT a good percentage of the time a small mama is going to produce a small calf and when that 2-3 frame grass fat little toad hits the scale at ~400 lbs, the order buyers who are going to have a career in this business are going to recognize that calf as a little fat, future YG 4 toad, that will only gain about 2.2 lbs a day in the feedlot and a 15-20 $cwt dock is going to be assessed against those USDA small feeder calves."

Which counts more? How many pounds a day the animal gains or how much it gains per hundred of feed. If the bigger cow gains 10-15% more per day but eats 20% more doing it where is the gain.

This is where the beef industry has lagged behind. Poultrymen, hogmen, dairymen have long been far ahead of the beef industry in being able to track actual food conversion ratios instead of average daily gain (at whatever food cost).
 

Latest posts

Top