birth weights (+/- 2.5 lbs per day)

Help Support Steer Planet:

linnettejane

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 6, 2008
Messages
2,233
Location
eastern ky
jit made this comment in another thread that i thought deserved its own (and didnt want to hijack the other)...he brings up an interesting point and got me thinking about a situation i found myself in this year....

jit's comment
"Another question that enters my mind every time I hear of someone inducing birth is what is the actual BW that is reported on the calf? If a female is induced and calves 4 days earlier than she would have naturally, should a 80 lb calf be reported as 80 lbs or should it actually be another 10 or more pounds heavier ( estimating 2.5 lbs/ day growth in the last stages of gestation)."

my question is...i had a heifer go over 3 days, there is no ? about bred date, i witnessed it, so im wondering, if she went over 3 days, based on a 283 day gest. length which i use, and i did not induce her, she just finally had it, and the calf gains approx 2.5 lbs/day in utero, could i subtract 7.5 lbs from the bw and still be considered being "honest"?  do people do that?  is it ethical?  just curious and asking.....

 

DL

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 29, 2007
Messages
3,622
linnettejane said:
jit made this comment in another thread that i thought deserved its own (and didnt want to hijack the other)...he brings up an interesting point and got me thinking about a situation i found myself in this year....

jit's comment
"Another question that enters my mind every time I hear of someone inducing birth is what is the actual BW that is reported on the calf? If a female is induced and calves 4 days earlier than she would have naturally, should a 80 lb calf be reported as 80 lbs or should it actually be another 10 or more pounds heavier ( estimating 2.5 lbs/ day growth in the last stages of gestation)."

my question is...i had a heifer go over 3 days, there is no ? about bred date, i witnessed it, so im wondering, if she went over 3 days, based on a 283 day gest. length which i use, and i did not induce her, she just finally had it, and the calf gains approx 2.5 lbs/day in utero, could i subtract 7.5 lbs from the bw and still be considered being "honest"?   do people do that?  is it ethical?  just curious and asking.....

NO -
not honest; don't know if people do it; N) it is not ethical

a study was done a while ago on a bunch of Angus heifers (several hundred) - all were AI'ed only once to calve on March 1st - they calved anywhere from 2 weeks before to two weeks after with the highest number right around the 1st and it tapered off in both directions like a typical bell shaped curve - so Mother Nature's definition of normal in this case is a month long

In regards to inducing IMHO the number of cows induced compared to the number of cows not induced is very small - statistically esp with a highly used bull the fact that the calf was induced and might weight 4 pounds less will not change the EPD one iota  ;)
 

justintime

Well-known member
Joined
May 26, 2007
Messages
4,346
Location
Saskatchewan Canada
I don't know what other people do, but I report the actual BW no matter when it was born. As I commented on here in the past, I have had two sets of ET calves from the same matings, and implanted on the same day, go 18 days from the first calf born to the last calf born from these embryos from the same flushes. I have always reported the actual BWs. I also know there is a fairly wide variation in gestation lengths within a breed from different blood lines. For that reason, I do not think you can just look at a gestation chart and expect a female to calf on the date the chart shows.

Here is a couple of examples in my own herd: Years ago, when we were running two Irish imported herd sires, Highfield Irish Mist and IDS Duke of Dublin, I kept track of gestation lengths of all my calves from each bull. On average Irish Mist calves arrived 8 days earlier than Duke of Dublin calves.( Mist was a straight Leader bred sire and Duke was from the Improver line, but his dam was leader bred.... I don't know if this is a a factor or not) Once I figured this out, I never hesitated to use Mist on heifers. Even though I never had any calving issues from Duke of Dublin, his calves were heavier at birth and I did not use him on heifers. I know some people did, but I never did... simply because I feel it is very important to have as uneventful as possible birth from a heifer's first calving.  Despite what some people think, I feel there are lots of excellent choices to breed your heifers to, that will provide an uneventful first calving experience. I also realize there are exceptions to every rule, and while I have no firm facts to prove this, I expect there are some bloodlines in the Shorthorn breed that are reducing the ability of true calving ease in the females from these bloodlines. Maybe that is why I do not feel that there is as much a calving issue in the Shorthorn breed as many others do. I have just come in from checking my cows and heifers and my 18th calf is on the ground. So far the hardest thing I have had to do in the first 18 calves was make out the ear tag and put it in the calf's ear.... and weigh it. I'm not suggesting for a second, that I know the answers, but I do think we can all eliminate many calving issues, if we use some common sense along with some research in the bloodines we are going to use.

The easiest calving bull I ever used was a son of Highfield Irish Mist, named HC Mist's Return 13R. He was a full Irish bull that I used on my heifers naturally for 4 years. In that 4 years, I only assisted one calf from a heifer, and that was one that had a foot back. Mist's Return also has the shortest gestation length I have ever seen in my herd, and his calves averaged 274 days gestation. If you were just looking at a Beef gestation table based on 283 day pregnancy, you would probably miss every calf being born from Mist's Return because they would be born, on average, over a week earlier than this. I am finding that his daughters are showing the same traits so I am fairly certain that gestation length is not only determined by the sire, but also by the dam. In the case of ET calves, I am also suspecting that the recip mother can affect this as well. I have one recip cow, who is now carrying her 7th ET calf. In her 6 previous ET calvings, she has been the last recip to calve from embryos implanted on the same day. She is in fact, the cow that had both of the ET calves that were 18 days after the first born. I find this to be interesting stuff, and I wish there was more research done on this. As usual, the sire used gets all the blame for overdue calves, and that may be true in some cases, but I don't think it is the only thing affecting this.

It may be premature, to say that I have another calving ease bull, but the first indications are suggesting that. I bred all my heifers to an ET son of Pheasant Creek Leader 4th last year, and I have only had 3 calves from these heifers so far. I had 5 Leader 4th calves from this flush of B Good Red Sue 1P, and these calves all came early. Red Sue is a Charmer X Trump, which are two bloodlines not necessarily considered to be calving ease lines, but I have never had any problems from my limited use of either of these. I kept HC Bar Code 13X to use in my herd, because he had a 75 lb BW and I loved his smoothness and easy fleshing ability. As I said, 3 heifers have now calved and so far I haven't seen one born, and the 3 calves averaged 78 lbs at birth. The first of these heifers calved on Feb 2nd and she is in heat today, so that is exactly what I like to see from first calf heifers. I will know a lot more about how Bar Code is going to calve in the the next few weeks as there are about 28 more coming.
All 5 of the Leader 4th ET calves came earlier than the due date shown on the 283 day gestation table. So, I record the actual BW regardless of whether they were early or late. IMO, how do we determine the correct BW? If we deduct some pounds from an over due calf, should we also add pounds to the calves that come early?  As far as I am concerned a 283 gestation table is an estimate based on breed averages. It is probably the top of the bell curve so to speak. There are going to be calves born on either side of this, and some of it is related to genetics, and I'm pretty sure there are probably some management and environmental factors that affect this.

I wish we could have actual breeding dates on all our females so that we could also document gestation lengths with our BW information. Maybe if we could even record the gestation lengths from the ones we do have breeding dates on, maybe we could ... in time, start to see some trends.... but then we would also have to rely on breeder's honesty, and that could be a limiting factor in some cases as well.


 
J

JTM

Guest
I see this as one of those slippery slopes. I don't think it's honest to do that. Unfortunately, I think it happens a lot! I do think it is unethical. Here is why: We need to think about it in terms of a herd bull who is out with about 40 cows. Let's say you purchased the bull from someone who represented the bull as 88 lbs at birth. You didn't realize that the bull calf was actually induced into being born at 283 days. Also, that bull's genetics are such that most of the calves born from those genetics go about 295 days and the calves avg. more in the 110 lb range on average. So now you have bought a new herd bull and put him out on 40 head of cows. You are expecting 80lb calves out of your small Angus cows but they end up being 105 and ten of them dead because of it. This is the kind of things that come from inducing cows. Not to mention false epd's and false performance records all the way around.

 

Hilltop

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 22, 2009
Messages
465
Location
Sask, Canada
This is a touch off topic but JTM has mentioned false EPD's. Sometimes you see adjusted BW. Is that anything to do with gestation time?
 
J

JTM

Guest
Hilltop, I think it has something to do with the age of the cow??? I'm not sure. I just know if a heifer has an 80 lb calf it always seems to be adjusted to a higher number.
 

Hilltop

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 22, 2009
Messages
465
Location
Sask, Canada
JTM said:
Hilltop, I think it has something to do with the age of the cow??? I'm not sure. I just know if a heifer has an 80 lb calf it always seems to be adjusted to a higher number.
Oh yes I think I was told that before!
 

sue

Well-known member
Joined
May 1, 2007
Messages
1,906
good one Linnette.

Some points made :

Now we put the "induced baby heifer calf " into production and wonder why her first calf is waaaay overdue?  Long gestation more then likely equal more lbs? So why would you keep the females as replacements or bulls?  Often times I am asked "will your bull give me short gestation"???  My answer often times is... did you keep a high bw, assisted birth or C- Section back as a replacement and breed it to my bull ?

Grant - could not agree more---- whole herd reporting or WHR in some/most breeds means just that. Reporting females on your list every year- when you bred her, when she calved and if you didnt report it then she is eliminated from the breeds records? Pretty simple for any REAL program that wants to sell seedstock . Oh and recording her calf's birthdate, bw, ww, yw  too. 

So simple way to see some of this "not on paper" is to ask questions when you're buying a calf? What age was her dam when she calved?  Is the calf out of this cow a year or less older then the one on the way??? if it's considerably older ... well that throws a flag for me. "calving intervals" are key .  Shorter gestation would also help calving intervals too. 

 

comercialfarmer

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 29, 2010
Messages
196
Listing actual BW should be standard protocol.  If induced, that should be noted.  I know JIT mentioned ET calves, and I agree you have to take that factor in to consideration as well. 

Last time I looked at Aussie info, looked like they keep some values regarding gestation length on bulls.  I have felt that this should be tracked in all breeds in North America. 

Just an impression I had when scanning some numbers, (may be completely off base) but seemed like a lot of bulls that were more "curve benders" had a shorter gestation period.  My take was that the calf hit the ground earlier so was smaller at birth, but still had the genetics to grow.  The bulls I scanned that had longer gestation but also low birth weight, seemed to have lower WW and YW. 

As far as misrepresenting numbers, it would be nice to see people held liable for any loss of revenue that occurs because of knowingly filing false information with a breed association.  Be awful hard to prove, but I imagine that could add up quick and deter some of the practices. 
 

linnettejane

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 6, 2008
Messages
2,233
Location
eastern ky
well, guess ive got a 96lber instead of a 88.5 lber...that 88.5 lbs looks alot better, but honesty is more important to me than looks, lol 

great discussion and great points
 

JSchroeder

Well-known member
Joined
May 17, 2007
Messages
1,099
Location
San Antonio, Tx
You're splitting hairs on something that can be faked a LOT easier if somebody is trying to fake it.

What if a storm comes in and you get a large group that calves a few days early?

What about years where birth weights are down 5-10lbs across the board due to a drought?
 

justintime

Well-known member
Joined
May 26, 2007
Messages
4,346
Location
Saskatchewan Canada
Jeff_Schroeder said:
You're splitting hairs on something that can be faked a LOT easier if somebody is trying to fake it.

What if a storm comes in and you get a large group that calves a few days early?

What about years where birth weights are down 5-10lbs across the board due to a drought?

I do not think anyone should consider a BW as being an absolute fact. Like you say, a 85 lb calf may have been a 92 lb calf if born in another year or calving season. I have always seen a big difference between BWs of spring born and falll born calves. We have all seen a bunch of cows start calving when a storm system moves in. Like I said before, there are several other factors affecting BW other than the genetics.

This is why, I have felt for a long time that we should consider calving ease to be as important or even more important consideration than just BW. BW numbers are a tool but they don't tell the total story. Like I have said on  here before, adding 1 inch to the middle of a calf will add a bunch of BW, but it may be born very easily, and as easy as a much smaller or much lighter BW calf. If you want calves that are thick made and soggy at weaning, they usually are a little thkicker made at birth. So is it bad if these calves have more BW if they are born easily and unassisted. Here in this part of the world, I'm hearing commercial producers talking about matching sires to their cow herds. Shady Lane told me yesterday, that he attended a Charolais bull sale yesterday and was talking with a commercial man who runs over 400 cows. This guy said he will not buy bulls with BWs under 97 lbs. I am hearing this more and more lately. These guys want pounds at weaning, but they also want as many unassisted births as possible so they want calving ease and BW is not a big factor.Many commercial producers will say the biggest calves in the fall had bigger BWs and they actually like these calves providing they have been born easily. I think we need to consider both the BW and the calving ease at the same time when considering a bull for your herd.

We have just completed our final 112 day test weigh in our Sun Country bull sale. This is our 5th bull test and it has been interesting to see the results, We have not had one bull in the bottom 50% of BWs average over 100 for growth during the test. Of the 57 bulls on test, 56 were born unassisted and one was an easy pull from a heifer. The fact remains, that in 5 years we have never had a small BW bull even see average growth with the rest of his pen mates. Is this something we need to consider? Seems to me that we may be seeing a trend here. Maybe small BWs are not the answer. I have said before that optimum BWs is where we need to be looking, and each of us have to figure out what is optimum for yoru herd, your management, and your customers needs as well.

I have been watching some of the bull sales here in Western Canada and I have noticed lots of high selling bulls with BWs over 100 lbs. I have not heard of a Simmental bull sale averaging less that $5200 this spring and there have been some average over $7000 on over 100 bulls. Lots of sale of other breeds averaging between $4000- $5500. I heard of a large one owner Angus sale yesterday with 145 bulls that averaged $4780.In one of these sales a bull with a 117 lb BW sold for $18,500. He was born unassisted though.  
 
J

JTM

Guest
I don't think we can stray from the importance of gestation length here. I know that this topic is a major problem in the Shorthorn breed and I know from experience. I have culled a half dozen show cows in the last couple of years because they are going over due 14 days and having calves that weigh 115 lbs. What happens when your whole herd ends up calving 14 days late every year, has a hard birth because the calf is big? You end up with a bunch of calves being born in June instead of March...
Believe me, it has been tempting because I have had several AI quality bulls born on my farm that were over 100 lbs. Then you have a lot of people tell you that since it was 14 days over due you should just say it was 95lbs because that's what it would have been if it were born on time. That guy got cut and the other got registered at his actual 105 lb birth weight. When the cows started doing this, twice, and even three times in a row, they took a little ride down to the sale barn. That's a lot of invested money down the drain. Also, the AI bulls that sired those calves do not get used on my farm ever again...
 

justintime

Well-known member
Joined
May 26, 2007
Messages
4,346
Location
Saskatchewan Canada
I had a commercial man tell me that he believes that he is not doing himself or his cows any favors if he has a 80 lb calves from cows that are capable of having 110 lb calves unassisted. I know many people  will not agree with this, but in this country I think it is a fairly common feeling. Commercial producers in this country seem to be only looking for the 80 lb BW bulls to use on their heifers. I think they are far more willing here, to use bigger BW bulls but of course, there is an upper limit. 115 or more Lb BWs are a tough sell anywhere. There are lots of bulls selling for $5000 or more to commercial buyers that have 100 - 110 lb BWs.

I agree that gestation length is a key component that we need to be documenting more accurately. But like I said earlier, the sire is a major factor in determining gestation length, but I do not think it is the only factor. The cow's genetics, management and environment can all have a part in determining this.
 

nate53

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 26, 2011
Messages
419
Location
North East, Missouri
Normal calves are never early or late they are always on time (given their genetics and environment-feed)!   So birthweight is weight at birth (period).

JIT - there is as many or more different types of commercial cattle people than seedstock (one size does not fit all as you already said).  I was once told by a commercial guy that with the bigger birthweights you might loose more calves but you would still have more lbs. at weaning (this was his line of thinking), which I understand but I am not willing to risk my best cows or baby sit them.  JMO
 

comercialfarmer

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 29, 2010
Messages
196
I agree with the notion that BW and calving ease are not absolutely correlated.

Someone that considers the loss of the calf vs lbs in figuring costs should also take into account the loss of the heifer.  Losing a calf right now is expensive.  Losing a calf and heifer is very expensive.  It is going to take a lot of extra lbs to make that up.  And yes, it will depend on your set up and monitoring ability.  I'll take a little loss on lbs weaned in the heifers for decreased death loss and medical costs.  When you look at the prices for 600 lb calf vs 650 lb calf, I am not convinced the figures won't justify increased number of calves right now.

That being said, in our mature cows- I believe in pushing the BW values.  I agree that generally, an increased BW will more frequently have higher WW numbers, but this is not absolute.  There are bulls with high BW and limited growth.  

I didn't go off on this tangent earlier, but here seems like a good place as any.  

Sue proposed the other day something along the lines that if Angus could produce lower BW cattle, SH cattle could select for the same.  I would agree with her that you could select for those cattle.  

But lets look at a major difference between the breeds.  You don't hear all the angus guys touting the 100 lb calves their low BW genetic cows can spit out.  SH cattle on avg have a much larger pelvic canal diameter.  I tend to believe that if you select for small BW genetics and decrease the size of the skeletal structures at birth, you may find yourself with smaller pelvic size in mature cattle.  Again, not absolute, but likely a trend when you make BW your primary focus.  

I like Angus cattle, but was interested in SH because they can spit out a larger calf.  Increasing MCE will allow for use of higher BW bulls (continentals) to be used and get increased overall production (within reason and considering optimums) while decreasing the potential for dystocia.  

So in other words, I'm glad the breeds have something different to offer.

 
J

JTM

Guest
nate53 said:
Normal calves are never early or late they are always on time (given their genetics and environment-feed)!   So birthweight is weight at birth (period).

JIT - there is as many or more different types of commercial cattle people than seedstock (one size does not fit all as you already said).  I was once told by a commercial guy that with the bigger birthweights you might loose more calves but you would still have more lbs. at weaning (this was his line of thinking), which I understand but I am not willing to risk my best cows or baby sit them.  JMO
JIT, I get your point with the larger calves and in a lot of cases I'm sure that those calves do end up performing and having more weight on them. Keeping on the gestation length issue, my experience with these larger calves, 100 +, are that they are pretty stupid when they are born and a lot of times require assistance to latch on to a teet before their 12 hour window closes for colostrum. The more difficult births could cause this. It may be that those calves in a commercial setting would be more likely to get sick and require treatment than their 85lb bw counterparts due to this.
I realize we have gone down this road multiple times in other posts but it is always good to discuss and learn from each other. Whether we agree or have different experiences altogether. I would just like to have vigorous, 85-95 lb calves that grow just as good as the bigger ones and are out of cows that could have a 115 lb calf unassisted if they needed. That way nothing would be stressed, the calves would have a healthy, higher weighted start to life. Also, the cows would more than likely cycle on time and breed back easier. This is just my experience and what I would think would be optimal in my operation at this time.
 

justintime

Well-known member
Joined
May 26, 2007
Messages
4,346
Location
Saskatchewan Canada
JTM said:
nate53 said:
Normal calves are never early or late they are always on time (given their genetics and environment-feed)!   So birthweight is weight at birth (period).

JIT - there is as many or more different types of commercial cattle people than seedstock (one size does not fit all as you already said).  I was once told by a commercial guy that with the bigger birthweights you might loose more calves but you would still have more lbs. at weaning (this was his line of thinking), which I understand but I am not willing to risk my best cows or baby sit them.  JMO
JIT, I get your point with the larger calves and in a lot of cases I'm sure that those calves do end up performing and having more weight on them. Keeping on the gestation length issue, my experience with these larger calves, 100 +, are that they are pretty stupid when they are born and a lot of times require assistance to latch on to a teet before their 12 hour window closes for colostrum. The more difficult births could cause this. It may be that those calves in a commercial setting would be more likely to get sick and require treatment than their 85lb bw counterparts due to this.
I realize we have gone down this road multiple times in other posts but it is always good to discuss and learn from each other. Whether we agree or have different experiences altogether. I would just like to have vigorous, 85-95 lb calves that grow just as good as the bigger ones and are out of cows that could have a 115 lb calf unassisted if they needed. That way nothing would be stressed, the calves would have a healthy, higher weighted start to life. Also, the cows would more than likely cycle on time and breed back easier. This is just my experience and what I would think would be optimal in my operation at this time.


JTM... I am not disagreeing with you. I was just mentioning some of the things I hear, and some of them coming from commercial producers who run large herds. If I had to chose a good BW for calves born in my herd, I would chose a calf born at 85 to 95 lbs. So far, out of 18 calves born here, my heaviest calf has been 95 lbs. I may have been lucky so far, but it has been a near perfect calving season here so far. That may change but right now I am a pretty happy camper. I guess I'm just saying that there is a wide variation in opinions on the issue of BW and calving ease, and the market place will determine what is right for each one of us.
 

DL

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 29, 2007
Messages
3,622
IMHO calving ease is much more related to shape of the calf than weight of the calf, if one assumes that the pelvis of the heifer is of adequate size)- slim head, slim shoulders, slim nips slide thru at 85 pounds when a square big boned chunk of 80 lbs may have issues.

Using the birth weight of the bull as a criteria for calving ease is pretty crazy - not only does it totally ignore the contribution of the dam (as well as all the ancestors on both sides)  to the calf's weight and calving  ease it implies that it is a meaningful number

sue I have heard some of the Angus guys talking positively about 100 plus pound calves, while wondering about the effect of stacking low BW

I agree that there must be some relationship btwn gestation length and BW but I don't think itis linear - I would be interested in the relationship btwn gestation length and CE

By way of example that Mother Nature doesn't always read the EPD books - last year an old cow had unassisted  a 145 lb (Shorthorn) bull calf 2 days early - when I found them he was up, dry and nursing - which was good because he he outweighed me, he had bigger hips than mine and there is no way I could have dealt with him had he been a big dumb calf
 

comercialfarmer

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 29, 2010
Messages
196
DL said:
Using the birth weight of the bull as a criteria for calving ease is pretty crazy - not only does it totally ignore the contribution of the dam (as well as all the ancestors on both sides)  to the calf's weight and calving  ease it implies that it is a meaningful number

I understand your points regarding both sides of the linage, but I don't see it being crazy.  What are you going to do to change your cows EPD's?  It is far easier to make adjustments in what bull you use and have a large impact (50% of all genetics tied up in 1 animal) vs having to sell your entire herd and start over.  In two generations you can change 75% of your genetics with 2 animals. 

After considering conformation, size should be considered.  Two long lanky bulls that sire similar calves and all else equal, but 1 avg 115 lbs and the other 85- which is more likely to result in a dystocia? 

DL said:
I agree that there must be some relationship btwn gestation length and BW but I don't think itis linear - I would be interested in the relationship btwn gestation length and CE

If you increase the length of gestation, you will have increased time for growth in the period of exponential growth. You aren't going to see a downtrend. 

Since the birth canal isn't getting any larger with increased gestation, and the calf isn't getting any smaller.  My hypothesis has been made about CE. 
 
Top