Smaller cows are better?

[Frankie]

the data i have shows that with equally efficient cow herds, the same total pounds of calf are the same, but the higher price for smaller calves makes smaller animals (less weight, not just frame) more valuable.

if 100 "regular" cows average 1347 lb, the same forage resources should support 120 cows averaging 1055 lb.

in the end, they both produce 66650 lb of calf, but the 120 smaller calves bring in almost $4000 more with the market price differential.

i can clean it up and post it if anybody wants to see it.

When you get a chance, please post it. Thanks....

 

[Brandonm2]

the data i have shows that with equally efficient cow herds, the same total pounds of calf are the same, but the higher price for smaller calves makes smaller animals (less weight, not just frame) more valuable.

if 100 "regular" cows average 1347 lb, the same forage resources should support 120 cows averaging 1055 lb.

in the end, they both produce 66650 lb of calf, but the 120 smaller calves bring in almost $4000 more with the market price differential.

i can clean it up and post it if anybody wants to see it.

That varies from month to month. Generally you make more money the bigger the calf gets; though usually each 50 lbs has less return the higher you go. Here is last month in Alabama....

Med & Large frame steers (No 1s Thicks)
350-400 LBS avged $469.93
400-450 LBS avged $506.45 (a $36.52 gain)
450-500 LBS avged $532.57 (a $26.12 gain)
500-550 LBS avged $551.28 (a $18.71 gain)
550-600 LBS avged $566.35 (a $15.07 gain)
600-650 LBS avged $601.1 (a $34.75 gain)
650-700 LBS avged $559.49 (a $41.61 LOSS)
*this last number is very unusual and makes me think they just did not have many heavy thick calves at most sales

Med & Large frame steers (No 2s Avg muscle)
350-400 LBS avged $459.74
400-450 LBS avged $486.51 (a $26.77 gain)
450-500 LBS avged $510.04 (a $23.53 gain)
500-550 LBS avged $537.73 (a $27.69 gain)
550-600 LBS avged $556.33 (a $18.6 gain)
600-650 LBS avged $568.96 (a $12.63 gain)
650-700 LBS avged $589.21 (a $20.25 gain)
700-750 LBS avged $619.7 (a $30.49 gain)

I am having a hard time really interpreting this month's data. The thick steers showed a diminishing return the heavier they got. On the other hand if you had held on to the average muscled steers and put some weight on them it paid off well. That extra ~350 lbs of weight paid almost $160 a head. Typically in the spring and fall there are a lot more backgrounders in the market looking for lite calves and compensatory gains and they are all gambling that prices are going to be up when they sell; but gambling that 450 lb calves will bring more $$$ per head than 650 lb calves is often a bad bet.

 

[KMacGinley]

I personally like 5-6 frame cattle, I like them to grow. I am more than a little suspicious of all the 3 or 4 frame cattle coming out of larger framed bloodlines, especially from people that boast about not feeding their cattle.

A lot of the cows that I have seen from these producers, by picture anyway, are pretty big headed for their body size, I sometimes wonder if they were stunted to get in that package.

I also wonder about the air between the belly and the ground idiocy. There are a lot of 6 frame cattle that are a lot thicker than any 3 framers I've seen.

 

[AngusLimoX]

I am having a hard time really interpreting this month's data. The thick steers showed a diminishing return the heavier they got. On the other hand if you had held on to the average muscled steers and put some weight on them it paid off well.

Maybe the price of corn B2?

 

[novatech]

Does this really fall back to the feed efficiency discusions? We are not talking about in a feed lot but rather the ability of a cow to raise a marketable calf to get the greatest gain at the lowest dollar input. Cow mantainance efficency Is measured in the individual animal, not the breed or size of the animal. At the same time the calves must meet the market demand as to the size, weight, color or what ever at the time it is sold

 

[Brandonm2]

I am having a hard time really interpreting this month's data. The thick steers showed a diminishing return the heavier they got. On the other hand if you had held on to the average muscled steers and put some weight on them it paid off well.

Maybe the price of corn B2?

That is possible, but at 650-700 lbs the #2 steers brought $3.17 a hundred weight more than the #1 steers of the same weight. If that anomaly happens regularly I have not noticed it. It could be Angus premiums?? I really don't know. Of course in Alabama, I am in the minority that actually steers calves. I probably would be more accurate quoting bull numbers. Only 21% of the February feed classes stock sold were steers. 44% were heifers and 35% were bulls.

 

[Roadapple]

I'm trying to keep up with this little cow - big cow discussion or argument, and I'm trying to figure out if I need smaller or bigger cows, so how tall is a mature 4 frame cow or bull?

 

[KMacGinley]

You could try googling frame scores, which is what I did for you and at 21 mos. a bull would be 51 inches and a heifer 48 inches.

 

[Aero]

A lot of the cows that I have seen from these producers, by picture anyway, are pretty big headed for their body size, I sometimes wonder if they were stunted to get in that package.

i second your suspicion. talking to Kit, he will tell you that the calves pretty much starve through their first winter. put some creep in the pasture and you would have quite a different animal. when he is using some of the popular gentics (Emblazon, etc) and still having 800 lb yrlg bulls and 1200 lb 2 yr old bulls, you have to wonder.

 

[ga. prime]

I apparently live in a different Universe than Kit Pharo and most of the responders to this thread because in my experience, frame 3 and frame 6 calves of equal weights(weaning age) equates to a $100 dollar advantage per head to the 6 frame. That's all the math I need.

 

[KMacGinley]

That being the case, isn't it a little bit false advertising to bill a bull as a frame 3 when he should be a frame 5 with "proper" management? The calves I get from him could be the same size as what I would normally get.

For this truly genetic efficiency (on grass or forages) to work, the cattle would have to be genetically destined for said efficiency. Not environmentally forced to fit a package that he is trying to market as a genetic wonder of nature.

I guess eventually, survival of the fittest would provide animals that do perform as billed, but with selling several hundred bulls at a time, I doubt that 10% work as advertised.

 

[DOC HARRIS]

CONSIDER THIS:

There are two Basic operational, functional, practicable Beef Cattle Breeding procedures:

1 - Producing "TERMINAL" Cattle for feedlot finishing for the marketplace, and
2 - Engendering Breeding Bulls and Cows for the purpose of generating seedstock for reproductive uses for the "MATERNAL" phase of the business.

Each branch of the beef cattle business is a separate entity unto itself - one requiring protocols designed for developing Feeder Cattle which will produce a profit for the breeder, and provide a nutritious and enjoyable eating experience for the ultimate consumer. The second branch of the business necessitates more sophisticated phenotypic and genotypic selection procedures for the creation of seedstock to propagate those traits and characteristics through their progeny so that the Breeder or Producer may successfully satisfy BOTH procedures - vis-a'-vis - "TERMINAL" AND "MATERNAL".

The successful accomplishment of achieving these two procedures is tantamount to "rubbing your head and patting your stomach" concurrently - and then reverse the actions! The agenda's overlap, of course, because we are dealing here with one "species" of animal and attempting to accomplish two different solutions, or outcomes!

On the one hand - that is "TERMINAL PRODUCTION", we are seeking and selecting traits for Carcass, Muscle, degree of fatness, Marbling, size of Ribeye, and weight of the Finished product maturing as early as possible, and as economically as possible. We utilize EPD's, Ultra Sound data, visually recognizing physical traits, and by making use of DNA technology to verify the accuracy of EPD's

On the OTHER side of the coin, by concentrating our breeding decisions toward MATERNAL PRODUCTION, we must focus our efforts and analyses on somewhat similar traits and characteristics, but for divergent purposes! As Beef Cattle Producers, whether our products will be destined for the Feedlot or the Breeding Pasture, we are constrained to evoke our skills in maintaining a "Balance" in creating cattle which can produce "Multi-tasking" progeny, or able to fulfill multiple deeds and purposes - a sort of a "do-all and be-all" commodity. As desirable as that may seem to be at first blush - it CANNOT be accomplished to the desired degree of accuracy which PROFIT and efficiency demand.

A 'lighter' weight cow (1100# - 1250#) will produce a product year after year which will, in the long run, result in MORE PROFIT than a cow which will weigh 1400# or more. That lighter' weight cow, however, must possess the "Maternal Traits" which will predict the "Profitable" results for a breeding program, such as Calving Ease, Moderate Birth Weight, High Weaning Weight, Moderate Frame score (5 - 6), not excessive Yearling Weight, Moderate Milk Production (NOT HIGH milk production) Positive Cow Energy Value traits ($EN), balanced $Values, and strong Functional traits (Skeletal, sound feet and legs, strong top line, muscle expression, which characteristics again carry over into the Terminal Phase - docility, marbling and rib-eye area ( cross over into Terminal again). The lighter weight cow costs less to maintain overall and yet can produce a profitable calf to be considered as a replacement heifer or placed in the feedlot phase. - -There is that "Cross Over" syndrome coming into play again!

The old saying "The Eye of the Master Fattens His Cattle" was never more true than in BOTH PHASES of the beef Cattle business today - with the exception that the term "FAT" refers to the Terminal Phase, and would be replaced by "BREEDING QUALITY AND MANAGEMENT" in the Maternal Phase.

. . . . . .and where does all of this lead us? Right back to Square One in the decision-making process of producing "TERMINAL" cattle! . . . . .or . . . . .(have you given this any serious thought?) . . . .perhaps BOTH! One type bull and one type cow CANNOT accomplish both goals! An analogy would be like expecting a thin cross-country runner to step in and play as a Defensive Guard on a Professional Football team! It would be a square peg in a round hole!

My suggestion would be to allow the Professionals to make the difficult decisions, and the Producers and Breeders to capitalize on their knowledge and experience.

DOC HARRIS

 

[Wewild]

One type bull and one type cow CANNOT accomplish both goals! An analogy would be like expecting a thin cross-country runner to step in and play as a Defensive Guard on a Professional Football team! It would be a square peg in a round hole!
DOC HARRIS

Good post.

If you have a pasture that requires 2 bulls to service the cows and one bull has paternal and the other maternal traits and the cows have been retained and culled over 30 years, you might be able to do OK today. You may have had to supplement with other techniques back years ago.

 

[Caustic Burno]

I prefer a moderate cow 850 to a 1000 pounds in my climate versus a 12 to 1400 pounder.

 

[Brandonm2]

One type bull and one type cow CANNOT accomplish both goals! An analogy would be like expecting a thin cross-country runner to step in and play as a Defensive Guard on a Professional Football team! It would be a square peg in a round hole!
DOC HARRIS

Good post.

If you have a pasture that requires 2 bulls to service the cows and one bull has paternal and the other maternal traits and the cows have been retained and culled over 30 years, you might be able to do OK today. You may have had to supplement with other techniques back years ago.

Of course today, the cows you really want heifers out of could be AIed to Doc's maternal bulls and the rest of the cows AIed to Doc's paternal bulls to get the biggest splash when those calves go to the sale barn or the feedlot. If the A.I. companies promises about sexed semen holds up

http://www.absglobal.com/news/releases/ ... ation.html

that system could work even better. Of course, I kind of suspect that out in the field that sexed semen success rate (compared to regular semen) may be closer to 75% than 90%.

 

[Wewild]

One type bull and one type cow CANNOT accomplish both goals! An analogy would be like expecting a thin cross-country runner to step in and play as a Defensive Guard on a Professional Football team! It would be a square peg in a round hole!
DOC HARRIS

Good post.

If you have a pasture that requires 2 bulls to service the cows and one bull has paternal and the other maternal traits and the cows have been retained and culled over 30 years, you might be able to do OK today. You may have had to supplement with other techniques back years ago.

Of course today, the cows you really want heifers out of could be AIed to Doc's maternal bulls and the rest of the cows AIed to Doc's paternal bulls to get the biggest splash when those calves go to the sale barn or the feedlot. If the A.I. companies promises about sexed semen holds up

http://www.absglobal.com/news/releases/ ... ation.html

that system could work even better.

No doubt it could work better in some programs and even better "if" sexed semen holds up. We seem to do OK and don't have the labor and expense associated with AI to retain 10% of our herd. The cow has to provide milk either way and we buy good bulls.

 

[Aero]

I'm trying to keep up with this little cow - big cow discussion or argument, and I'm trying to figure out if I need smaller or bigger cows, so how tall is a mature 4 frame cow or bull?

there isnt as much difference as folks think. looking across a pasture, you probably wouldnt be able to tell if a herd was mostly 6 frame or 4 frame as long as they were all about the same.

 

[dun]

the data i have shows that with equally efficient cow herds, the same total pounds of calf are the same, but the higher price for smaller calves makes smaller animals (less weight, not just frame) more valuable.

if 100 "regular" cows average 1347 lb, the same forage resources should support 120 cows averaging 1055 lb.

in the end, they both produce 66650 lb of calf, but the 120 smaller calves bring in almost $4000 more with the market price differential.

i can clean it up and post it if anybody wants to see it.

That varies from month to month. Generally you make more money the bigger the calf gets; though usually each 50 lbs has less return the higher you go. Here is last month in Alabama....

Med & Large frame steers (No 1s Thicks)
350-400 LBS avged $469.93
400-450 LBS avged $506.45 (a $36.52 gain)
450-500 LBS avged $532.57 (a $26.12 gain)
500-550 LBS avged $551.28 (a $18.71 gain)
550-600 LBS avged $566.35 (a $15.07 gain)
600-650 LBS avged $601.1 (a $34.75 gain)
650-700 LBS avged $559.49 (a $41.61 LOSS)
*this last number is very unusual and makes me think they just did not have many heavy thick calves at most sales

Med & Large frame steers (No 2s Avg muscle)
350-400 LBS avged $459.74
400-450 LBS avged $486.51 (a $26.77 gain)
450-500 LBS avged $510.04 (a $23.53 gain)
500-550 LBS avged $537.73 (a $27.69 gain)
550-600 LBS avged $556.33 (a $18.6 gain)
600-650 LBS avged $568.96 (a $12.63 gain)
650-700 LBS avged $589.21 (a $20.25 gain)
700-750 LBS avged $619.7 (a $30.49 gain)

I am having a hard time really interpreting this month's data. The thick steers showed a diminishing return the heavier they got. On the other hand if you had held on to the average muscled steers and put some weight on them it paid off well. That extra ~350 lbs of weight paid almost $160 a head. Typically in the spring and fall there are a lot more backgrounders in the market looking for lite calves and compensatory gains and they are all gambling that prices are going to be up when they sell; but gambling that 450 lb calves will bring more $$$ per head than 650 lb calves is often a bad bet.

Only one real flaw in the numbers. They are based on large and medium framed calves, not small frame. My direct cutomers, the feedlots, want upper medium to lower large frames.

dun

 

[Brandonm2]

We don't have enough USDA small feeders to accurately measure so it is not reported (in my limited experience 1 and 2 frame steer calves get absolutely hammered) and we don't differentiate between medium and large frame calves in the reporting so calf weight, gender, and muscle thickness (between 1 and 2s) is all that we have to go by in our price reports.

 

[SEC]

Maybe you should check out the carcass data produced by people using Pharo's bulls? It would refute the claims that these cattle are too small, too fat, too poor growers to make money. Most of the move to "bigger" cattle with higher frame scores has simply meant a move to longer legs and cattle with more air beneath their bellies. As Pharo says this extra six inches of air is worthless - it doesn't weigh anything, you can't eat it but it does substantially increase your cow maintanence costs and feedlot steers production cost.

Size can't be brought into consideration when you hold back enough feed that the cattle can't express their genetic potential.