The Relationship Between Cow Size & Production

Help Support Steer Planet:

RyanChandler

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 6, 2011
Messages
3,457
Location
Pottsboro, TX
You realize your numbers don't reflect any of the aforementioned variables? You didn't give any consideration to the fact that the 1500lb cow's calf hit 600lbs 60 days sooner than the 1100lb cow's. It's at this point that there's a HUGE difference in daily feed cost. And while the 1500lb cow is now dry and her nutritional requirements have plummeted, the nutritional demand of the 1100lb will be at the highest it's been all year. There's no way a 1500lb dry cow has a higher daily nutritional requirement than an 1100lb cow nursing a 500lb calf. 
 

RyanChandler

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 6, 2011
Messages
3,457
Location
Pottsboro, TX
hamburgman said:
-XBAR- said:
A 1000lb cow that weans a 500lb calf is not more profitable than a 1300lb cow that weans a 650lb calf.

bahahahaha

Feed costs not weaning weight determine profitability.  I know which cow ate more feed.

I know what cow's calf brought more money. Feed cost is an expense; not the profit. Surely, you acknowledge profit as revenue less expenses?
 

Limiman12

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 8, 2012
Messages
469
Location
SW. Iowa
No where does it discuss feed conversion......  Studies show that there is a significant difference incharlois and limi steers in the feedlot using less feed to gain......  I would think their mamas would carry the same trait.    Smaller and more feed efficient is a good combo.
 

hamburgman

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 9, 2010
Messages
569
True coffee shop talk here.

Do you think you 1500lb cow has higher nutritional needs while milking?  Nice study in beef magazine a few months back on how cows that milk more don't necessarily do it more efficiently.  Energy needs skyrocket after a  (x) amount of milk.  I will have to find the number sometime soon.  If you think the person who brought home the most for their cattle made the most money then we can just stop the discussion.
 

Limiman12

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 8, 2012
Messages
469
Location
SW. Iowa
We are small farm.....  we used to feed out our 60-70 calves and sell them a trailer load at a time at Omaha livestock and our trailer load would ALWAYS  top the market......  so.where near ten straight years that if we had an honest group of fats without a heiferette or anything they would top the market......  even on days when " one small group brought......" that group was ours......  things changed a little and dad decided to sell feeders......  the same buyer buys our calves every year.  Always asks me when and where we are selling them.....  to be sure to let him know.    I would say that IF they aren't cutting g well they are making up for it in the buyers eyes  and can't see why they would have topped the fat market for so long if they in fact did t cut  well why did our fats always top the market.........  don't believe everything g the AA tells you
 

RyanChandler

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 6, 2011
Messages
3,457
Location
Pottsboro, TX
By the same logic, suggesting that those whose feed cost were the lowest profited the most should stop the discussion as well.

I'm sure the 1500lb wet cow does have higher nutritional needs, but I doubt it's enough to offset the additional 60 days of lactation the 1100lb cow's calf needs to reach the 600 mark.

It's hard to beat a frame 4.5-5, 1400lb cow in a cow/calf deal. If you go w/ much lighter weight at that height, you're going to start getting into flatter sided type of cattle that don't quite have the capacity I'm looking for.
 

hamburgman

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 9, 2010
Messages
569
I would agree xbar that the lowest feed cost producer pry doesn't have the best profit margins if that producer is extreme with his feed costs.  I don't play the extreme game with cattle.  I like my crossbred cows and bulls.  However to maximize heterosis I would have to have a brahma in there somewhere and that would just be a nail in the coffin.  A 3 way or 4 way cross gives me really high heterosis and any crossing after that gives minimal gain and more headaches about how to split up and breed the herd. 

I fall into the 1200 lb cow group, 1250-1150 range and wean calves early round 450 to 500 lbs.  At those weights I can feed mama and baby cheaper apart than together.  Let the cow get fleshy to fat on grass and cornstalks till winter hits, and decide on when to feed stored forage based on the winter and condition of the cows.  I will try to find the literature on energy needed to produce milk in cows and see if I can figure out what a 1400lb cow needs to milk her calf.

Have a guy who had a pretty good sized cow herd who told me he had to get smaller and lower milking cows or he was going to go broke.  "It isn't the weaning average that counts it is the total pounds that matters," is what he told me.  He brought in smaller cows 1150-1200 from what I see and said he sells more pounds and they have treated him well.

Also know of a few guys whose March calves tipped the sale scales over 900lbs, one group actually had to weigh over 1000 at home given the shrink, and sold in early January.  There is some serious feed involved to get those weights, however in the given situations these guys are able to make it work for what they have, I wouldn't be running 500 cows on their models however.
 

Mill Iron A

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 12, 2011
Messages
516
The one thing I see constantly being left out of this discussion is how people are running their cows. I love the idea of small cows, I want small cows and I have bought small cows, and I have lost lots of money with small cows. We are may/june calvers in Northeast Wyoming. We range out ALL YEAR LONG! no stored feed, only a liquid supplement to help them digest the native range and their grazing ability to make sure they convert. This comes when they are dry when the winter is the coldest. Our cows do lose weight, but they pick it up on green grass for two months before they calve at an average BCS of 5. Cattle were made to lose and gain weight. The cattle that do this most efficiently are wider based, heavier muscled (but not terminal muscled Ahemm clubby). Light weight mother cows 950-1100 do not winter when they have to graze. Perhaps if you were feeding them everything they got, perhaps, but I still doubt it. Cattle in cold climates works like basic thermodynamics. A condensed mass will keep warmer than a flatter mass with more surface area. Larger cattle are more efficient as maintenance is weight to the .75 power. That means maintenace does not go up with a 1 to 1 ratio. Basically the calculations you are all doing goes back to marketing and that is a different subject. The one other thing I would mention is cattle buyers do keep track of calves that don't gain in the feedlot. If you retain yourself or are making locker beef then knock yourself out but if you are selling at the barn you will get less bids if you cattle do not gain.
 

justintime

Well-known member
Joined
May 26, 2007
Messages
4,346
Location
Saskatchewan Canada
This topic has been studied and discussed for many many years. My college thesis was titled " The Economics of Beef Cow Size to their Economic Performance". I did this thesis in 1972 or 42 years ago.  There was volumes of research available back then, to read on this subject. Montana State University, Colorado State and several Southern universities and research facilities, had many studies on this. There was also several studies done in Canada, at Beef Research facilities, and the U of Alberta and Saskatchewan.
Probably the most significant research I got when I was writing this thesis, was directly from a man named Jerry Linton, from Chillicothe, Missouri. His Linton Charolais Ranch was one of the big players in the Charolais business at that time, and he was also a very prominent beef industry lobbyist. I decided to phone him one evening when I was writing this thesis, and he was gracious enough to send me a huge amount of data he had collected on his ranch. I am still a bit in awe, of this man, as after our first phone conversation, this very busy man would phone me on several occasions to see how I was doing on the paper and to discuss the topic. At the time, he had also entered politics and was running for Congress. Then his phone calls stopped, and I will always remember eventually phoning and his wife telling me that Jerry had been killed in a plane crash.
His research, like many others of that day, pretty well showed that the most economical cow size was dependent on a few factors, including the environment the cow was in, the management provided and to some extent the breed of the cow. Almost every study I found back then, came to the conclusion that the most efficient cow was somewhere in what we would call the moderate category. In almost all cases, too small or too big did not produce the best returns. It was the more moderate cow that usually came through. The only case I remember back then was a study in Alabama that used a set of Jersey X Hereford cows against straight Hereford cows and the smaller Jersey cross cows proved to be the most efficient. I could have told them that before they wasted a bunch of money to study this! In Alabama, the Jersey cross cows probably came through much better than they would have if they were studied in NE Wyoming on Mill Iron's place.
In the case of the Linton ranch, Jerry had done his own research for 15 years, and with his set of Charolais cows and his environmental conditions, the most economical cow was a cow that weighed 1425-1475 at weaning. He weighed all his cows the same day as he weaned the calves off of them. I remember him telling me, several times that his research did not mean that these were the cows that made him the most money, as most of his cattle were being sold as purebreds, and that oftentimes, purebred breeders did not pay much attention to economic performance ( ain't that the truth!!). He said that he was doing this research as he wanted to produce bulls that commercial producers could use, knowing that they had come from efficient mothers. I have oftentimes wondered where this herd, and this man would have ended up if he had not been killed. I have been told since then, that he had been noticed by many people much higher up the political ladder, and he was being groomed to eventually run for President. I am not sure if this has any truth in it, but I have been told this more than once.
The only other thing I would add is that many of the research papers I read, also made reference to the fact that it was important for purebred breeds to maintain some genetics both on the bigger and smaller sides of the equation, so that they could make the proper quick adjustments when they were required. 
I fully expect that this topic will still be being discussed 40 years from now, and there will still be a wide array of opinions. I think the key is every person who wants to raise cattle, has to make the following decisions:
1) identify what your environment is like
2) identify how much management you are willing to provide
3) identify your target market( s)

Raising cattle is more than a lifestyle to most. For most of us, it is also a business and in order to maintain your business, you have to make money... at least some of the time. What works for you may be totally different from someone down the road from you... or in another part of the country. If you both manage to survive, then the lines between one being right and the other being wrong .,.... start to get a bit fuzzy.
 

DevonMan

Active member
Joined
Oct 7, 2013
Messages
25
That is very interesting, Justintime.

"Optimum production is always much more profitable than maximum production. Bigger is not always better! Optimum production is the point at which net profits are maximized. Profit is what we really want to maximize" - Kit Pharo, Pharo Cattle Company http://www.pharocattle.com/philosophies.htm

"The type of momma cow that performs best in our program will look something like this:

1. Moderate Size. Frame score of 3 to 5 with a mature weight of 1000 to 1200.
2. Easy-Fleshing. Ability to maintain good body condition, even on limited feed                  resources.
3. Volume & Capacity. Able to efficiently convert low quality forages into milk
    and meat.
4. Structurally Sound. Good feet, legs, teeth, muzzle, eyes, udder, hair coat, etc"
-Kit Pharo
justintime said:
I think the key is every person who wants to raise cattle, has to make the following decisions:
1) identify what your environment is like
2) identify how much management you are willing to provide
3) identify your target market( s)

Raising cattle is more than a lifestyle to most. For most of us, it is also a business and in order to maintain your business, you have to make money... at least some of the time. What works for you may be totally different from someone down the road from you... or in another part of the country. If you both manage to survive, then the lines between one being right and the other being wrong .,.... start to get a bit fuzzy.

So true..
 

caledon101

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 27, 2013
Messages
241
"I fully expect that this topic will still be being discussed 40 years from now, and there will still be a wide array of opinions. I think the key is every person who wants to raise cattle, has to make the following decisions:
1) identify what your environment is like
2) identify how much management you are willing to provide
3) identify your target market( s)"

JIT....couldn't agree more with your comments. As you know, I live in a part of North America surrounded by the Great Lakes and pro-longed drought is very rare; we usually clip our pastures at least once per grazing season. The pheno-type of the cow we can economically sustain is likely quite different compared to producers residing in more extreme parts of the continent?
I have seen many different descriptions of the "ideal cow" over the years. Some of which are very detailed and specific. And, I have also seen the very simple description also...."the ideal cow is the one that makes you the most money".
I agree.....40 years from now the debate and conversation will still be popular.
 

RyanChandler

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 6, 2011
Messages
3,457
Location
Pottsboro, TX
Mill Iron A said:
Larger cattle are more efficient as maintenance is weight to the .75 power. That means maintenance does not go up with a 1 to 1 ratio.

Please elaborate on this.  My initial inclination was that diminishing margins plays a significant role here- such that maintenance does not go up proportionally w/ mature weight.  As w/ any venture, it's identifying those break evens and recognizing not necessarily the point at which diminishing margins occur, but recognizing the point at which the additional incremental weight not longer exceeds the additional feed costs associated w/ sustaining that additional incremental weight.   

Mill Iron A said:
Basically the calculations you are all doing goes back to marketing and that is a different subject.
You've hit the nail on the head here.  It's wild how gullible some are when presented w/ 'numbers.'  "Well the math adds up, they must be right..."  ::) yea, buddy
 

RyanChandler

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 6, 2011
Messages
3,457
Location
Pottsboro, TX
caledon101 said:
The pheno-type of the cow we can economically sustain is likely quite different compared to producers residing in more extreme parts of the continent?
I have seen many different descriptions of the "ideal cow" over the years.

I disagree w/ the assumption that certain phenotypes are better suited for certain environments.  In my opinion, there IS a universal ideal phenotype that excels in all environments.  Type, as in phenotype, needs to be thought of in terms of the animals proportions and not necessarily size.  The ideal phenotype can be either scaled up or down to suit - most imperative is that the relationships are accurately maintained- any adjustment in scale must increase or decrease proportionally.

The sooner we develop terminology that distinguishes one phenotype from another, the more progress we can make in terms of discussion.  If I ask 100 people to "draw me a picture of a 200lb man,"  the drawings would likely represent many, many different phenotypes.  Even If I said, " a 5'10" 200lb man" - you'll still get various phenotypes as that still gives no consideration to body composition- and in terms of cattle, body composition, i.e., "phenotype," is the most relevant. 
 

aj

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 5, 2006
Messages
6,420
Location
western kansas
I think  that Kits approach is based on enviromental pressure. If protein supplement is so high it almost doesn't make sense anymore......one might pull the protein tubs....test the big cows against the little cows....see which cows survive and produce. If a big cow can do it great. I have noticed that it takes less feed to get a little replacement hf to grow and cycle than a bigger replacement hf. This is a big chucnk of cost there. Last year I ran replacement hfs along with cows on corn stalks alot of the winter. No growing program. Some the heifer's just didn't hold up.....and I dumped them before turnout. These smaller females don't wean as large as calf and they are probably in general pelvic measurement. I know some angus commercial cow herds that are big cows....wean big calves.....but are run on corn stover and get alot of grain every winter.....to get them back in good good shape. I'm not sure that the debate should be about cow size. It should be about cattle surviving enviromental pressure....ie very little supplement. My general opinion is that extreme weaning weights are not good. Because it either took milk or a big cow to get them there.jmo
 

RyanChandler

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 6, 2011
Messages
3,457
Location
Pottsboro, TX
I'll put big bold sprung 1400lb cows up against little flat sided 1000lb cows on any environment any day the week. Weight alone is no indicator; conformation is key. 

Nature already played out Pharo's philosophy. They're called the Texas Longhorn.  The fact that the phenotype of the cattle he suggest perform best under environmental pressures don't resemble the phenotype of the Texas Longhorn, that evolved under those conditions, leads me to believe there is more to the story.
 

aj

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 5, 2006
Messages
6,420
Location
western kansas
If the Spainish would have brought over the equivilent of todays Angus.....instead of the longhorn type cattle.......there probably would be a version of that breed that would have survived because of natural selection. Even under a saw dust and sand type diet. They wouldn't of had horns though for self defense.
 

RyanChandler

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 6, 2011
Messages
3,457
Location
Pottsboro, TX
I agree a version of Angus cattle could have survived, but only those that had the adaptability to evolve into the phenotype the environment demanded: and after several hundred years of natural selection, the Texas longhorn shows us what that phenotype was.
 
Top