Pharo is really pumped about his great bull PCC Colorado Hobo. Based on EPDs about all he has going for him is calving ease and his daughters calving ease. His milk, total maternal and rib eye seriously suck buttermilk.
dun
dun
Smaller cows are better?
- Thread starter KMacGinley
- Start date
Help Support CattleToday:
Susie David
Well-known member
Alot of interesting reading for these old eyes, in my experience the smaller cows produce a smaller off spring regardless of the sire. The little guys just take longer than the calves from the larger framed mamas to finish and some at 24 months will not match the 16 month weights of the real doers. We sell pounds of great tasting lean red meat and that in itself makes us stick with the 4.5-6 cows. There has been no mention of breed and feed efficency...seems that our Lims get fat on tha same ration that maintains the Angus and Baldies....the Herfs just eat everything in sight and are always on the fat side.
And that is my two bits worth...asked for or not, DMc
And that is my two bits worth...asked for or not, DMc
ga. prime
Well-known member
Susie David, I've made the same observation as you - the small frame cows have small frame calves regardless of sire.
from what I've seen is that if you stay to the middle of the road, which is frame 4-5 in my case, you can still select for growth without increasing frame score.
I live in a harsh environment and due to consitions you can say there are similarities to my way of doing things and those of kit Pharo. From my experience as soon as you go smaller than a frame 4 you simply havn't got the selection of bulls to choose from and I find that these really small cows are harder keepers than the frame 4-5 cows. The opposite is equally true about cows taller than frame 6. The taller cows that struggled to maintain themselves on the veld while nursing a calf didn't wean heavier calves than the frame 4-5 cows, but didn't cost any more as they weren't fed.
The smaller than frame 4 cows weaned calves about the same weight as the rest of the herd, but after weaning the growth rate of the calves was greatly reduced compared to the larger framed calves.
My drawn out point being, figure out what works for you and what you can market and breed accordingly, not giving much thought to extremist opinions either way.
I live in a harsh environment and due to consitions you can say there are similarities to my way of doing things and those of kit Pharo. From my experience as soon as you go smaller than a frame 4 you simply havn't got the selection of bulls to choose from and I find that these really small cows are harder keepers than the frame 4-5 cows. The opposite is equally true about cows taller than frame 6. The taller cows that struggled to maintain themselves on the veld while nursing a calf didn't wean heavier calves than the frame 4-5 cows, but didn't cost any more as they weren't fed.
The smaller than frame 4 cows weaned calves about the same weight as the rest of the herd, but after weaning the growth rate of the calves was greatly reduced compared to the larger framed calves.
My drawn out point being, figure out what works for you and what you can market and breed accordingly, not giving much thought to extremist opinions either way.
novatech
Well-known member
ga. prime":2fdlxa5v said:
If this is true, which I think not, and everyone went to frame 3.
The feed lots would not be in business very long.
novatech":2vk01af9 said:
Actually, the feedlots have fed out frame 3 cattle before and to a lesser extent still do. The smaller calves finish at a lower weight and the feedlot has to be careful not to get the little toads too fat. The calves will spend less time on feed, grade Choice more often, often Yield poorly, and feed efficiency will suffer. The feedlots would not like it at all; but they could deal with it. The feedlot sector (as a whole) has to make money over time or it would cease to exist. Since the packers have to have product ultimately they will pay for fat cattle what they have to. The packer is the one who gets hammered in that deal. Those plants are set up to disassemble cattle. It really is not any faster for them to deal with a 600 lb carcass than it is a 800 lb carcass; but at the end of a busy day, one thousand 600 lb carcasses is 200,000 less pounds of product for them to sell than is one thousand 800 lb carcasses. They make a little bit back on a higher percentage of Choice and Prime beef to sell; but that is small consolation. All they can do is pass on their higher costs on to the retailer and the consumer.
If every cow calf guy tomorrow decided to breed their herds to Scotch Highlands or to Roy the Holstein bull, there is nothing the packer or the feedlot could really do to stop them. They would be forced to feed out those cattle and process them. The packer uses the only leverage they have and that is paying more for the cattle they like than the cattle they don't like. It is up to the cow-calf guy to interpret what the market is saying and try to figure out what phenotype cow best fits our environment and level of managment while still getting us the calf that is the most acceptable to the market which we supply. Ultimately, the cow calf producer has the power in this industry to dictate what kind of cattle this industry produces and the rest of the industry is forced to deal with it the best that they can.
ga. prime
Well-known member
novatech, how you conclude from my post that feedlots would go out of business if all feeders were frame 3, I can't imagine. Where I come from, frame 6 calves beat frame 3 calves (of more or less equal weight and age) by $20-$30/cwt. every time all day long. Why this is so has been explained by other posters. That's the market I deal with. I'm not talking about the Friday night El Campo Goat Sale.
*Cowgirl*
Well-known member
:nod:ga. prime":yp1ghmi7 said:
Frankie":1ehoq9pi said:
ok, there is no really simple way to do this, so sit back and stay with me. i will list them individually so they can be absorbed one at a time.
here is the spreadsheet. open it with Excel.
http://5barx.com/downloads/cowWeightImpact.xls
simplified as best i can:
how much a cow eats is based on its metabolic weight (met wt). met wt is calculated by (body weight)^.75.
i created a herd (A) of 100 animals that range in weight from 1222 - 1470 and listed them individually.
assuming you have the same resources to support any herd of animals, the total met wt of the herd will represent how much the resources will support.
[i.e. if you have 100 animals that all have a metabolic weight of 200 lb, your land will support 20,000 lb of met wt. if you have smaller animals whose individual metabolic weights are 100 lb each the same resources should support twice as many animals]
Herd A's total met wt = 22219
the average met wt = 22219 / 100 = 222.19
to support 120 head, the average met wt will have to be 22219 / 120 = 185.16
which means the average cow weight has to be 185.16^(1/.75) = 1055.3 lb
to create Herd B (smaller 120 hd herd) i listed 120 animals individually ranging 937 - 1174 lb. this range is dictated by using relatively the same standard deviation for the herd.
cow efficiency has been siad to be determined by % of cow weight weaned. as some have stated, this ends up giving the small cow an unfair advantage because a 2000 lb cow does not eat twice as much as a 1000 lb cow.
met wt evens the playing field quite a bit. instead of comparing cow weight to calf weight, we compare metabolic weight to calf weight.
to keep the 2 herds even for efficiency, we will assume that the cows in each herd will wean 250% of their metabolic weight.
i.e. a 2000 lb cow (met wt = 299) weans a 747 lb calf (250%)
a 1000 lb cow (met wt = 178) would have to wean a (179 * 2.5) 448 lb calf to be as effiicient. (lb of calf per resources used)
each calf was listed to the right of each cow and they all weaned 250% of their met wt.
the average calf weaned in Herd A was 555 lb
total calf pounds weaned = 555 * 100 = 55500
the average calf weaned in Herd B was 463 lb
total calf pounds weaned = 463 * 120 = 55560 (60 lb difference because of rounding)
using the calf prices stated @ http://www.gonzaleslivestock.com/market%20report.htm for Feb 17 the price difference was spread out over the calf weights where the lighter end of a weight group received a higher price and vice versa.
the average calf price in Herd A was $501
the gross from 100 calves in Herd A was $50,162
the average calf price in Herd B was $444
the gross from 120 calves in Herd b was $53,266
i changed the weaning percentage of the herds from 300% to 250% which changed the outcomes a little.
in summary:
120 lighter cows produced $3104 more than 100 larger cows that used the exact same resources.
this ought to be fun... let the crap fly!
Badlands can have a field day with this...
Aero":2yp34lx2 said:Frankie":2yp34lx2 said:
ok, there is no really simple way to do this, so sit back and stay with me. i will list them individually so they can be absorbed one at a time.
here is the spreadsheet. open it with Excel.
http://5barx.com/downloads/cowWeightImpact.xls
simplified as best i can:
how much a cow eats is based on its metabolic weight (met wt). met wt is calculated by (body weight)^.75.
i created a herd (A) of 100 animals that range in weight from 1222 - 1470 and listed them individually.
assuming you have the same resources to support any herd of animals, the total met wt of the herd will represent how much the resources will support.
[i.e. if you have 100 animals that all have a metabolic weight of 200 lb, your land will support 20,000 lb of met wt. if you have smaller animals whose individual metabolic weights are 100 lb each the same resources should support twice as many animals]
Herd A's total met wt = 22219
the average met wt = 22219 / 100 = 222.19
to support 120 head, the average met wt will have to be 22219 / 120 = 185.16
which means the average cow weight has to be 185.16^(1/.75) = 1055.3 lb
to create Herd B (smaller 120 hd herd) i listed 120 animals individually ranging 937 - 1174 lb. this range is dictated by using relatively the same standard deviation for the herd.
cow efficiency has been siad to be determined by % of cow weight weaned. as some have stated, this ends up giving the small cow an unfair advantage because a 2000 lb cow does not eat twice as much as a 1000 lb cow.
met wt evens the playing field quite a bit. instead of comparing cow weight to calf weight, we compare metabolic weight to calf weight.
to keep the 2 herds even for efficiency, we will assume that the cows in each herd will wean 250% of their metabolic weight.
i.e. a 2000 lb cow (met wt = 299) weans a 747 lb calf (250%)
a 1000 lb cow (met wt = 178) would have to wean a (179 * 2.5) 448 lb calf to be as effiicient. (lb of calf per resources used)
each calf was listed to the right of each cow and they all weaned 250% of their met wt.
the average calf weaned in Herd A was 555 lb
total calf pounds weaned = 555 * 100 = 55500
the average calf weaned in Herd B was 463 lb
total calf pounds weaned = 463 * 120 = 55560 (60 lb difference because of rounding)
using the calf prices stated @ http://www.gonzaleslivestock.com/market%20report.htm for Feb 17 the price difference was spread out over the calf weights where the lighter end of a weight group received a higher price and vice versa.
the average calf price in Herd A was $501
the gross from 100 calves in Herd A was $50,162
the average calf price in Herd B was $444
the gross from 120 calves in Herd b was $53,266
i changed the weaning percentage of the herds from 300% to 250% which changed the outcomes a little.
in summary:
120 lighter cows produced $3104 more than 100 larger cows that used the exact same resources.
this ought to be fun... let the crap fly!
Do not expect to much crap! Because you are right.
rocket2222
Well-known member
I was wondering how many of you actually weight your mature cows, a 5 frame mature cow with some thickness to her and good bone in good condition should easily weight 1200/1300lbs. The guy who likes his mature cows weighing 850, they got to be real light boned, thin things or dinks. I have some calves that wean [205 day weight] close to 800lbs. When you AI do you stand behind them or kneel down.
aplusmnt
Well-known member
Aero":22ppkoi3 said:Frankie":22ppkoi3 said:
ok, there is no really simple way to do this, so sit back and stay with me. i will list them individually so they can be absorbed one at a time.
here is the spreadsheet. open it with Excel.
http://5barx.com/downloads/cowWeightImpact.xls
simplified as best i can:
how much a cow eats is based on its metabolic weight (met wt). met wt is calculated by (body weight)^.75.
i created a herd (A) of 100 animals that range in weight from 1222 - 1470 and listed them individually.
assuming you have the same resources to support any herd of animals, the total met wt of the herd will represent how much the resources will support.
[i.e. if you have 100 animals that all have a metabolic weight of 200 lb, your land will support 20,000 lb of met wt. if you have smaller animals whose individual metabolic weights are 100 lb each the same resources should support twice as many animals]
Herd A's total met wt = 22219
the average met wt = 22219 / 100 = 222.19
to support 120 head, the average met wt will have to be 22219 / 120 = 185.16
which means the average cow weight has to be 185.16^(1/.75) = 1055.3 lb
to create Herd B (smaller 120 hd herd) i listed 120 animals individually ranging 937 - 1174 lb. this range is dictated by using relatively the same standard deviation for the herd.
cow efficiency has been siad to be determined by % of cow weight weaned. as some have stated, this ends up giving the small cow an unfair advantage because a 2000 lb cow does not eat twice as much as a 1000 lb cow.
met wt evens the playing field quite a bit. instead of comparing cow weight to calf weight, we compare metabolic weight to calf weight.
to keep the 2 herds even for efficiency, we will assume that the cows in each herd will wean 250% of their metabolic weight.
i.e. a 2000 lb cow (met wt = 299) weans a 747 lb calf (250%)
a 1000 lb cow (met wt = 178) would have to wean a (179 * 2.5) 448 lb calf to be as effiicient. (lb of calf per resources used)
each calf was listed to the right of each cow and they all weaned 250% of their met wt.
the average calf weaned in Herd A was 555 lb
total calf pounds weaned = 555 * 100 = 55500
the average calf weaned in Herd B was 463 lb
total calf pounds weaned = 463 * 120 = 55560 (60 lb difference because of rounding)
using the calf prices stated @ http://www.gonzaleslivestock.com/market%20report.htm for Feb 17 the price difference was spread out over the calf weights where the lighter end of a weight group received a higher price and vice versa.
the average calf price in Herd A was $501
the gross from 100 calves in Herd A was $50,162
the average calf price in Herd B was $444
the gross from 120 calves in Herd b was $53,266
i changed the weaning percentage of the herds from 300% to 250% which changed the outcomes a little.
in summary:
120 lighter cows produced $3104 more than 100 larger cows that used the exact same resources.
this ought to be fun... let the crap fly!
Badlands can have a field day with this...
would there be some other variables that are not taken into consideration that would make that $3,104 not really that more profit? Say if carrying the extra 20 head cost you an extra Bull, more labor cost or equipment cost?
ga. prime
Well-known member
The only argument I have with Aero's example is that he assumes the calves from both herds will be bought as medium-large frame. I assume elsewise.
novatech
Well-known member
Because I obviously screwed up. I got it backward I agree with you.ga. prime":1igrtz2i said:
Sorry
ga. prime":377seis1 said:
this is about the only thing i can think of (well, that dun thought of). from what i know about graded sales, as long as the calves dont show up as fat, little butterballs they will be graded medium becasue they just look a little younger. we had a group fo 6-6.5 frame 8 month old calves go to a graded sale and they got a grade of Short (S) because he said "they are too fat". i am quoting the grader as they came down the chute.
as for an extra bull, if you AI the difference in price is the same. if you have another bull, you still make more. a bull is hardly ever used for only 1 year so his cost would be spread out over 3 or 4 years at least. so as long as you dont spend $10000 or more for your bull, you should still make more.
ga. prime
Well-known member
Interesting, Aero. I appreciate the thought and effort put into your posts. 8)
TheBullLady
Well-known member
You also have to take into consideration your environment. I've been in the business long enough to remember when Simmentals and Brahmans were frame score 10's. I've always felt "moderation" was the best for our operation. You have to be careful chasing fads, unless you have a market for them of course.
Cowdirt
Well-known member
Aero":2me56dt7 said:Frankie":2me56dt7 said:
ok, there is no really simple way to do this, so sit back and stay with me. i will list them individually so they can be absorbed one at a time.
here is the spreadsheet. open it with Excel.
http://5barx.com/downloads/cowWeightImpact.xls
simplified as best i can:
how much a cow eats is based on its metabolic weight (met wt). met wt is calculated by (body weight)^.75.
i created a herd (A) of 100 animals that range in weight from 1222 - 1470 and listed them individually.
assuming you have the same resources to support any herd of animals, the total met wt of the herd will represent how much the resources will support.
[i.e. if you have 100 animals that all have a metabolic weight of 200 lb, your land will support 20,000 lb of met wt. if you have smaller animals whose individual metabolic weights are 100 lb each the same resources should support twice as many animals]
Herd A's total met wt = 22219
the average met wt = 22219 / 100 = 222.19
to support 120 head, the average met wt will have to be 22219 / 120 = 185.16
which means the average cow weight has to be 185.16^(1/.75) = 1055.3 lb
to create Herd B (smaller 120 hd herd) i listed 120 animals individually ranging 937 - 1174 lb. this range is dictated by using relatively the same standard deviation for the herd.
cow efficiency has been siad to be determined by % of cow weight weaned. as some have stated, this ends up giving the small cow an unfair advantage because a 2000 lb cow does not eat twice as much as a 1000 lb cow.
met wt evens the playing field quite a bit. instead of comparing cow weight to calf weight, we compare metabolic weight to calf weight.
to keep the 2 herds even for efficiency, we will assume that the cows in each herd will wean 250% of their metabolic weight.
i.e. a 2000 lb cow (met wt = 299) weans a 747 lb calf (250%)
a 1000 lb cow (met wt = 178) would have to wean a (179 * 2.5) 448 lb calf to be as effiicient. (lb of calf per resources used)
each calf was listed to the right of each cow and they all weaned 250% of their met wt.
the average calf weaned in Herd A was 555 lb
total calf pounds weaned = 555 * 100 = 55500
the average calf weaned in Herd B was 463 lb
total calf pounds weaned = 463 * 120 = 55560 (60 lb difference because of rounding)
using the calf prices stated @ http://www.gonzaleslivestock.com/market%20report.htm for Feb 17 the price difference was spread out over the calf weights where the lighter end of a weight group received a higher price and vice versa.
the average calf price in Herd A was $501
the gross from 100 calves in Herd A was $50,162
the average calf price in Herd B was $444
the gross from 120 calves in Herd b was $53,266
i changed the weaning percentage of the herds from 300% to 250% which changed the outcomes a little.
in summary:
120 lighter cows produced $3104 more than 100 larger cows that used the exact same resources.
this ought to be fun... let the crap fly!
Badlands can have a field day with this...
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.
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.
