Why is big bad?

[TJ]

When we fed cattle there was a serious price drop on carcasses of 851 and over. It was a big drop, so we tried to make sure we didn't have cattle on feed that would produce these bigger carcasses. 

I just checked the stats on fed cattle slaughtered in June here in Canada. The average carcass weight in Alberta, was 837 lb which means to me that there are lots of carcasses over 851 if the average was 837.The last time I checked the US stats were very similar to this. The discount for big carcasses has moved way up to almost 1000 lbs. I commented on this a few months ago, when I related a conversation I had with one of the biggest livestock buyers in this area. He told me that we, as seedstock producers, were not following market trends. He said that he was able to purchase entire semi load lots of uniform cattle 15 years ago, and do it all day long, and that he is not able to do this any longer. He said if he buys one or two pot loads of uniform cattle a day, he is doing good. He said that the uniformity of the cattle he sees had decreased drastically, and that there are too many smaller framed cattle that will  not stay on feed long enough to get to a desired weight. Of course, this was just one man's opinion, and I have never thought of cattle buyers as being the smartest people on the planet, but this conversation did make me do some thinking.

So, one question that comes to mind is the obvious one.... if the feeders and packers are wanting cattle that will produce carcasses that are a little bigger than a few years ago, why is it that the seed stock industry appears to be heading in the other direction? Are seed stock producers just trying to change the shape of the package rather than the weight of the package?

Last spring, I had a well known cattleman from the US go through the bulls in our bull test. I was totally shocked at the bulls he picked out of the pen. He picked out the smallest framed bulls with the poorest performance. He kept going back to one bull and walked around him several times. Finally he said, "that may be one of the best bulls I have seen this year".  I said to him, that he was made right, however, he did not have enough performance and we were even considering not putting him in the sale. This bull was pretty, but he weighed 900 lbs at 365 days.... which in my world, does not pay many bills. This cattleman then said " you cannot get them too small framed for me". I replied that just because the pendulum started to move, regarding frame size,does not mean that we should run to the far end of it as fast as we can.  I understand that we continually will see changes in type in the industry, but I hope we are smart enough to pay at least a little attention to basic industry demands.

I think it is because seedstock producers are marketing to cow/calf producers & not to feedlots or packers.  I saw us go from smaller cattle to bigger cattle (really big cattle) & back toward smaller cattle.  My observations are that smaller cattle, IMHO, are more profitable in a commercial cow/calf setting.  The cow/calf producer isn't the feedlot nor the packer, as the cow/calf producer makes their living selling lbs. off of grass (lbs. per acre weaned, not lbs. per cow weaned), the feedlot off of converting grain to lbs., and the packer off of processing meat.  With that said, Canada & Kentucky are 2 totally different environments... I'll grant that Canadian cattle do need to be somewhat bigger, due to the winters & the way cattle are raised.  However, I truly believe that Kentucky cattle need to be quite a bit smaller than Canadian cattle, in fact, most Canadian born & bred cattle that I have had experiences with, will not work very well here at all (too much difference in the environments unless you own a feed truck) & even the offspring don't seem to do as well either (I believe they are bred for different purposes).  I spoke to a guy in Charleston, IL, on Thursday, who said that his Angus cows are probably 45-47 inches tall (sounds like frame 3's).  Some of his cows are starting to get bigger than that & that's why he called me.  He wants to maintain that smaller size & not get any bigger.  There is a reason why so many have smaller cows, especially in the grass belt... they are cheaper to run, so they will pay the bills.  IMHO, the only performance #'s that really count for the cow/calf producer are... efficiency, lbs. produced per acre, & how much pampering you can avoid doing.  Just my opinion.       

 

[TJ]

(Sorry all you Lowline breeders).

I really don't know why you would be sorry...

 

[showsteerdlux]

showsteernc:  It isn't LITERALLY a physically touchable box. It is a requirement that packers have for hanging space in coolers, trucks, etc. 

I realize this. My point is, is that most of these slaughter houses today can handle these big cattle, and as a point was made if they run x amount of cattle/pigs through a day, most want the larger animals to an extent because it means more profit.

 

[justintime]

TJ.. I am in no way bashing lowline cattle. I truly believe they have a distinct place in the  beef industry. The breed of cattle I happen to raise is not the best breed for all situations, and may not be the best breed for many situations, but it certainly can have a role in the total industry, just as Lowlines can. I have been very impressed with some of the pictures of your Lowlines you have posted on SP, and if you can make a living, enjoy what you are doing, and provide a healthy food for people, then who am I ( or anyone else) to say you are wrong. I was speaking in very general terms about the beef industry and what I see happening. I have raised several breeds over the years, and have often run two breeds at the same time. This is possible if you have lots of help, but I found that we were not doing as good as we could in either breed, when we were trying to spread our efforts between two breeds. I like good cattle in all breeds, and good cattle happen to come in all shapes and sizes.

 

[oakbar]

Some interesting information on this topic:

We use Ultrasound data for the carcass evaluation at our fair.  This year we scanned 30 animals.  Our Extension Beef Specialist polled all the packers in the area (on the day of our show) to come up with averages that we could use for the carcass evaluation at our fair.    Packers in our area were discounting any carcass over 950 lbs. by $5.00/cwt in late June.  If this discount were not in place, a 1505 lb. steer would have won the carcass contest.  He had a 17.2 REA, .60 inches of backfat, 4.0 IMF and graded Choice Minus(4.0 is the break).  On top of that he won the Rate of Gain contest with 4.04 lbs./day of gain over 187 days on feed.  The calf that did win the contest weighed 1385, had a 18.1 REA, .57 fat cover, 5.9 IMF, and was the only calf in the contest that graded a full Choice(5.5 IMF or greater).  All but two of the top 12 calves in this contest weighed over 1300(Average weight of the top 12 was 1358 and had an average IMF of 4.5).  The bottom twelve had an average weight of 1309 with an IMF 3.27.  The bottom twelve also had a 1515 lb steer included in the totals.  In fact, this steer would have won the show(even over those mentioned above) but he was docked for two things  $5.00 for carcass weight and another $5.00 for grading Select.  In some contests, these animals would not have been docked for either carcass weight or grading select but we went with what the packers in our area were doing on that day as the best way to judge them--just like they were going to market!!  Based on this small sample--in our area,  if I had a feedlot full of cattle, I would be shooting for a choice carcass at about 1350 lbs. if I wanted to maximize the price on the cattle I send to market.  If I could figure out the genetics, rations, etc. to get them to gain 4.04 lbs/day that would be good, too!!

 

[TJ]

TJ.. I am in no way bashing lowline cattle. I truly believe they have a distinct place in the  beef industry. The breed of cattle I happen to raise is not the best breed for all situations, and may not be the best breed for many situations, but it certainly can have a role in the total industry, just as Lowlines can. I have been very impressed with some of the pictures of your Lowlines you have posted on SP, and if you can make a living, enjoy what you are doing, and provide a healthy food for people, then who am I ( or anyone else) to say you are wrong. I was speaking in very general terms about the beef industry and what I see happening. I have raised several breeds over the years, and have often run two breeds at the same time. This is possible if you have lots of help, but I found that we were not doing as good as we could in either breed, when we were trying to spread our efforts between two breeds. I like good cattle in all breeds, and good cattle happen to come in all shapes and sizes.

I didn't think that you were bashing Lowlines.  I see & I saw your point... I was just offering a different perspective.  I wasn't trying to say that you can't make money with bigger cattle under any scenario or anything like that.  I was just explaining why that U.S. producer, that you mentioned, probably liked the smaller framed bull better than the bigger framed bulls.  BTW, even I think that fullblood Lowlines are too small for commercial people (Yes, I do admit that the fullblood Lowlines are too small for commercial production, unless they are used to cross on something bigger, & I have always admitted that.).  However, in some areas of the U.S., frame 3 - 5 cows are pretty common & you can do that easily with 1/2 Lowlines.  You can also do that with 1/2 bloods of a whole lot of breeds, including Shorthorns.  I do think that the northern areas tend to focus their cow/calf production more so based on the feedlot, because the growing season is shorter & colder weather dictates more energy to be fed, where as the southern areas tend to focus more on the ability of a bovine to convert summer grass & winter grazing into beef because the growing season is longer & winter energy requirements are not quite as high.  There is a huge difference in the way that cattle that are raised 200 miles north of me & the way that cattle that are raised 200 miles south of me.  Night & day, actually.  It's often 2 totally different mindsets & smaller cattle do seem to be more profitable in areas that have longer grazing seasons, where as the opposite might be true in Canada.  Same is true in the wild... deer get bigger the farther north you go & smaller the further south you go.  That's all that I was trying to say whether it came out sounding that way or not. 
             
I appreciate your compliments & I would also like to compliment you on raising some extremely nice looking cattle yourself!

 

[GONEWEST]

I live in the "grass belt" as well. In a normal year we can run a cow calf on an acre of fescue and bermuda grass mixed. The most money we ever made was with 1800 pound cows that milked and had calves with 100 pound birth weights and weighed 800-900 pounds at weaning. He looks hilarious now,like a giraffe,  but in May of 1990 this calf in the picture was born to a 1700 pound first calf heifer at our place and had an actual birth weight of 78 pounds, an actual 205 day weight of 1035. At the time there was nothing funny about his performance on his momma on grass. But times change.  Now instead of cows like her, I have the prettiest little 5 frame Angus cow you've ever seen. She's a Pathfinder and she is a ground sow. It's a good thing she has good show calves  because  if I had to sell her calves by the pound, she'd never be able to put as much money in my pocket as those big cows did.

An 1800 pound cow doesn't eat twice as much as a 900 pound cow. But if you have one with big time growth genetics that milks she will raise a calf that is twice as heavy as that 900 pound cows calf at weaning. She only has half the opportunity need a vet as do two 900 pound cows. She only needs half the vaccine that two 900 pound cows need. I'm not saying that's the way things need to be today or that what works here would work in Kansas or in North Dakota, but there is no way that the cows in fashion today could make as many pounds per acre here as those of yesterday did. It's like having a tanker full of jet fuel and a Piper Cub to put it in.

Speaking of growth, any one ever look at the growth EPD's on bulls from the 80's and early 90's? They are REALLY low. Yet we routinely had 850 pound bull calves. Today if you wean one at that weight it's a big deal. Why are growth EPD's for modern bulls so much higher than those of that era on the same EPD model? I know it's not on topic, just hit me while I was typing this.

 

[TJ]

I live in the "grass belt" as well. In a normal year we can run a cow calf on an acre of fescue and bermuda grass mixed. The most money we ever made was with 1800 pound cows that milked and had calves with 100 pound birth weights and weighed 800-900 pounds at weaning. He looks hilarious now,like a giraffe,  but in May of 1990 this calf in the picture was born to a 1700 pound first calf heifer at our place and had an actual birth weight of 78 pounds, an actual 205 day weight of 1035. At the time there was nothing funny about his performance on his momma on grass. But times change.  Now instead of cows like her, I have the prettiest little 5 frame Angus cow you've ever seen. She's a Pathfinder and she is a ground sow. It's a good thing she has good show calves  because  if I had to sell her calves by the pound, she'd never be able to put as much money in my pocket as those big cows did.

An 1800 pound cow doesn't eat twice as much as a 900 pound cow. But if you have one with big time growth genetics that milks she will raise a calf that is twice as heavy as that 900 pound cows calf at weaning. She only has half the opportunity need a vet as do two 900 pound cows. She only needs half the vaccine that two 900 pound cows need. I'm not saying that's the way things need to be today or that what works here would work in Kansas or in North Dakota, but there is no way that the cows in fashion today could make as many pounds per acre here as those of yesterday did. It's like having a tanker full of jet fuel and a Piper Cub to put it in.

Speaking of growth, any one ever look at the growth EPD's on bulls from the 80's and early 90's? They are REALLY low. Yet we routinely had 850 pound bull calves. Today if you wean one at that weight it's a big deal. Why are growth EPD's for modern bulls so much higher than those of that era on the same EPD model? I know it's not on topic, just hit me while I was typing this.

There are exceptions to every rule, but are you sure that an 1,800 lb. cow wont eat twice as much as a 900 lb. cow?   

Why run 1,800 lb. cows that might wean 50%, when you can run smaller cows that wean over 60-65% of their body weight? 

This cow weighed closer to 900 than she does 1,800 & there was no heterosis due to crossbreeding, like you would get in a commercial crossbred situation...  In fairness, this calf was 8 month old, but still...      

 

[GONEWEST]

Yes I am sure that a cows maintenance requirements are not linear as to weight. Look it up. And there aren't many cattle of that breed that will wean calves that big. That is the exception. However the old Simmental cows that weaned big calves were the rule.

 

[ROAD WARRIOR]

I live in the "grass belt" as well. In a normal year we can run a cow calf on an acre of fescue and bermuda grass mixed. The most money we ever made was with 1800 pound cows that milked and had calves with 100 pound birth weights and weighed 800-900 pounds at weaning. He looks hilarious now,like a giraffe,  but in May of 1990 this calf in the picture was born to a 1700 pound first calf heifer at our place and had an actual birth weight of 78 pounds, an actual 205 day weight of 1035. At the time there was nothing funny about his performance on his momma on grass. But times change.  Now instead of cows like her, I have the prettiest little 5 frame Angus cow you've ever seen. She's a Pathfinder and she is a ground sow. It's a good thing she has good show calves  because  if I had to sell her calves by the pound, she'd never be able to put as much money in my pocket as those big cows did.

An 1800 pound cow doesn't eat twice as much as a 900 pound cow. But if you have one with big time growth genetics that milks she will raise a calf that is twice as heavy as that 900 pound cows calf at weaning. She only has half the opportunity need a vet as do two 900 pound cows. She only needs half the vaccine that two 900 pound cows need. I'm not saying that's the way things need to be today or that what works here would work in Kansas or in North Dakota, but there is no way that the cows in fashion today could make as many pounds per acre here as those of yesterday did. It's like having a tanker full of jet fuel and a Piper Cub to put it in.

Speaking of growth, any one ever look at the growth EPD's on bulls from the 80's and early 90's? They are REALLY low. Yet we routinely had 850 pound bull calves. Today if you wean one at that weight it's a big deal. Why are growth EPD's for modern bulls so much higher than those of that era on the same EPD model? I know it's not on topic, just hit me while I was typing this.

The EPD's of the older bulls are lower for two reasons 1 - they are not as heavily used as the current bulls. 2 - It wouldn't look very good for the association/breed if their cattle's EPD's sucked! I don't care how big a cow is if she is able to produce an exceptional, marketable calf! I don't care what percentage of her body weight she weans. What I do care about is the dollars she generates. If my big cow generates 5 times the income as 2 smaller cows do, guess which ones go down the road. Sadly it is getting harder to find "new" genetics that are not "mini me's". I have went acrossed the border to the north to try and maintain "my type of cattle". I'm not saying that all big cattle are good or that they will work for everyone, ever where. I am saying that my big cows work for me in my situation and pay my bills. RW

 

[Show Heifer]

WOW TJ. That red pair is awesome!!! Is she a red angus lowline??  ;D  ;D

 

[TJ]

And there aren't many cattle of that breed that will wean calves that big. That is the exception.

My next door neighbors (Baird's) had about 200 cows of "that breed" & they weaned mostly 700 - 800 lb. calves every fall, they even had one that approached 1,000 that made the one in my pic look puny.  My dad also has "that breed" & while that calf is certainly one of the bigger one's, it wasn't our biggest ever.    Actually, I've still got several pics of multiple cows with calves over 60% of their body weight, they just aren't digital.  Pretty sure that OFS has seen some of them.  The biggest reason why I have that particular pic in a digital format is because it was my own cow that I bought at a sale in Virginia & I used it in advertising back in the day.  BTW, Kit Pharo has lots of pics of smaller cows with calves that weaned 60+% of their body weight.  Weaning 60+% of a cows body weight isn't really all that uncommon.  This fall I'll go shoot you several pics from one of my dad's herds.       

 

[TJ]

WOW TJ. That red pair is awesome!!! Is she a red angus lowline??  ;D  ;D

I wished that I had several Lowline X Red Angus pairs that looked like that.    However, she's a fullblood Tarentaise cow with a 31/32 TA calf & I think that I took it back in 1992 or 1993 or so.  I'm working toward a herd of Lowline X's that will hopefully perform like that.  Here is a fullblood Lowline cow with a 4 something month old heifer calf (early March calf taken in late July with no creep feed).         

 

[simtal]

From Sim-Talk Article
Fall 08
Article was written by Tom Brink, CEO of the largest feedyard in the country, Five Rivers

See Full Article Here: http://simmgene.com/pdf/sim_talk/Late%20Fall%2008%20SimTalk%20Genetic%20Perspective%20from%20a%20Cattle%20Feeder.pdf


Lightest Out Weight—
Profit Rank #5.
If anyone tells you feedlots want smaller-framed cattle that finish at below-average out weights…DO NOT BELIEVE THEM! The lightest 25% of these steers were a financial wreck, ranking 5th for profitability and losing nearly $21 per head more than the overall average. Their P/L was fully $48 per animal below the most profitable sub-group. Genetics are the main problem. These light-finishing steers were sold at lighter than average weights because they grew more like heifers than steers. Their F/G was signifi-cantly worse than average, leading to a higher COG. Steers that feedlike heifers are not what cattle feeders want. If they can be recognized as low-performing cattle before they go on feed, feedlots will discount them severely below the average market price.

 

[HAFarm]

Anybody remember the Angus association add about an elephant?  Very effective (didn't say completely true) maybe made Angus what they are today (most registrations/most popular).  You can't fit an elephant in a box.

 

[GONEWEST]

Anybody remember the Angus association add about an elephant?  Very effective (didn't say completely true) maybe made Angus what they are today (most registrations/most popular).  You can't fit an elephant in a box.

When the those elephant ads came out their were Angus bulls at Louisville that could step over the other breeds "Elephant" bulls.

 

[GONEWEST]

My next door neighbors (Baird's) had about 200 cows of "that breed" & they weaned mostly 700 - 800 lb. calves every fall, they even had one that approached 1,000 that made the one in my pic look puny.  My dad also has "that breed" & while that calf is certainly one of the bigger one's, it wasn't our biggest ever.    Actually, I've still got several pics of multiple cows with calves over 60% of their body weight, they just aren't digital.  Pretty sure that OFS has seen some of them.  The biggest reason why I have that particular pic in a digital format is because it was my own cow that I bought at a sale in Virginia & I used it in advertising back in the day.  BTW, Kit Pharo has lots of pics of smaller cows with calves that weaned 60+% of their body weight.  Weaning 60+% of a cows body weight isn't really all that uncommon.  This fall I'll go shoot you several pics from one of my dad's herds.     

yeah.........ok. So hwy do you think it is that Tarentaise aren't the number one breed on the planet? I remember they were brought in the same time as Simmentals, Blondes, Normandy's, Limousin's, etc. Why haven't they florished if they are so efficient.

Again, to me, % of a cows body weight weaned is a poor measure of efficiency. If a 700 pound cow weans a 450 pound calf, what's the big deal in that?

 

[ROAD WARRIOR]

There should be a percent of income EPD. RW

 

[farwest]

My next door neighbors (Baird's) had about 200 cows of "that breed" & they weaned mostly 700 - 800 lb. calves every fall, they even had one that approached 1,000 that made the one in my pic look puny.  My dad also has "that breed" & while that calf is certainly one of the bigger one's, it wasn't our biggest ever.    Actually, I've still got several pics of multiple cows with calves over 60% of their body weight, they just aren't digital.  Pretty sure that OFS has seen some of them.  The biggest reason why I have that particular pic in a digital format is because it was my own cow that I bought at a sale in Virginia & I used it in advertising back in the day.  BTW, Kit Pharo has lots of pics of smaller cows with calves that weaned 60+% of their body weight.  Weaning 60+% of a cows body weight isn't really all that uncommon.  This fall I'll go shoot you several pics from one of my dad's herds.      

yeah.........ok. So hwy do you think it is that Tarentaise aren't the number one breed on the planet? I remember they were brought in the same time as Simmentals, Blondes, Normandy's, Limousin's, etc. Why haven't they florished if they are so efficient.

Again, to me, % of a cows body weight weaned is a poor measure of efficiency. If a 700 pound cow weans a 450 pound calf, what's the big deal in that?

If you're paying feed bills in the winter and don't have feed and grass to burn all year long it's great measure of efficiency.  I'd take a hundred of those 750 lb cows that would wean a 450 lb. calf.  It wasn't that long ago alot of 900 lb cows trapsed around these sandhills, and came in in the fall with a 600 lb calf.  Those were money makers.  Now we got these 1300 lb hard feeding angus .  Gotta be supplemented extra in the winter, more open cows, crazier than hell.  Now granted those 450 lb calves can't be puds.  Theres gotta be a market.  They have to have a little stretch to them so that they wil finish out some day.  If they are the type of cattle that could go back to grass as yearling the next summer they would be great.

 

[farwest]

Also, an 1800 lb cow isn't gonna last as long as a 900 lb cow.  They'll go bad on their joints and legs quicker.  I don't care how big of trunks they got under em and how small of pencils the 900 lb. got under them.