Food for thought... or just one man's opinion.

[justintime]

I delivered a bull to a commercial producer a few days ago. He runs a top notch program here in Canada, and he is considered to be a leading cattleman. While visiting with him that day, he said some things that I have thought about a lot since.
One of the things he said, that in a marketplace like we are seeing now, commercial producers cannot just give the same management to their herds as they have in other years. He said that never before has the producer been paid as much for added pounds, and that a few extra pounds can mean a considerable increase in the total dollars received. He said that he normally pulled the creep feeders into the pastures about 1 month before weaning so that the calves would be used to eating some grain ration when weaning occurred. This year he already had the creep feeders in the pens.

Probably the thing that he said that gave me the most to think about was that he said that cattlemen should be looking at sires with more birth weight in years like this when prices are high. In his opinion, if you were willing to consider a bull with a 100 lb BW in past years, you should take a serious look at some bulls with BWs of 110 lbs now.. providing they were still born unassisted. His point was that performance follows BW to some extent, and if you can get growthier calves right from birth, even if you have to provide a little extra management to get them, that it could be the biggest money making decision made. I had to agree with him, in that since we have been performance testing our bulls, I have never had a bull with a BW in the lowest 50% of the calf crop, ever have performance in the top half of the calf crop after weaning. There has not been one,.... in a few hundred calves over the past 8 years of records. As I said, this guy is a true cattleman and he makes every dollar his family lives on from his cows. So, do you agree with any of this guys thoughts or is this just radical thinking?

 

[huntaway]

Growth is definitely a profit driver but would hope we can do it without lifting bwt. 
Was involved in updating our $indexes a couple of years ago which you model a typical production system for a cow herd estimating costs and income. At that time income was relatively high compared to the costs. In that situation growth was the key factor to profit and was overriding all other EBV's.  A part of that was the salvage value of heavier cows. We adjusted the cost of calving problems to basically, if it was touched the calf and the heifer died  to get a bit more balance.

 

[RyanChandler]

If this were routinely possibly, larger birthweight cattle would have been bred out long ago. 

I think everyone, in general, agrees with the premise that more birth weight = more performance.  The question becomes, "how much more risk can I afford to assume for each additional lb of birth weight?"  And that's where it gets sticky. 

I talked to a guy from Pennsylvania who had was telling me most of his calves were over 130lbs at birth and that he pushed the cows as hard as he can right up until calving to TRY AND GET AS MUCH BW AS POSSIBLE.  I was just in disbelief - but his thought was that he could never recoup those additional lbs once they were born, and if he's there on site anyway, the additional $ received from the heavier calves was worth having to pull every one.  Sounded crazy to me, and it still does, but I guess if he's 'always there' and he doesn't mind the additional labor w/ that approach, then more power to him- I just hope he's not selling bulls to commercial cattlemen who calves out on pasture. 

W/ me, I have to be much more risk averse as I'm not 'always there.'  And most people I know aren't either.  I want to push the threshold as much as anyone, but I know- my cutoff is around 90lbs.  How do I know this?- well, I pull a substantially higher % of calves that are born >90lbs than I do calves <90lbs.  Ask yourself, "how many more lbs at weaning will it take to compensate for losing even 1 cow?" 

Another huge consideration- and likely the most important- is the size of the cows you're breeding.  If you shoot for 110lb calves out of 1200lb cows- you will have problems.  At the same time, 1700lb cows should be able to have these w/ ease.  It's all relative and I think its important we speak of birth weight in terms of cow size rather than with a dogmatic insistence that 'X' lb bw is most profitable. Not that we're evaluating the bw % in terms of efficiency (like w/ % body weight weaned), but that we're evaluating the cow's physical ability to calve unassisted.

Then there's the antagonist- leaving lbs on the table by using a bull with much less birth weight / growth than your cows can handle.  This is one of the biggest inefficiencies in beef cattle production.  That and not maximizing heterosis.  Oddly enough, these two issues compounded is what you'll see most of around country.  Breeding 12-1400lb black cross cows to 70lb bw Angus bulls.  Not only do these people forego the additional lbs associated w/ hybrid vigor, but their bull selection is far too conservative and undoubtedly, by not assuming more risk, they shorted their cow's production, thus, shorting their wallet. 

The key is to keep assuming risk until you exceed your level of risk tolerance: the point where risk begins to outweigh the potential reward: to me, that point is when you have to start pulling calves.  For others who are 'always there,' maybe it makes financial sense to pull a few. 

 

[justintime]

If this were routinely possibly, larger birthweight cattle would have been bred out long ago. 

I think everyone, in general, agrees with the premise that more birth weight = more performance.  The question becomes, "how much more risk can I afford to assume for each additional lb of birth weight?"  And that's where it gets sticky. 

I talked to a guy from Pennsylvania who had was telling me most of his calves were over 130lbs at birth and that he pushed the cows as hard as he can right up until calving to TRY AND GET AS MUCH BW AS POSSIBLE.  I was just in disbelief - but his thought was that he could never recoup those additional lbs once they were born, and if he's there on site anyway, the additional $ received from the heavier calves was worth having to pull every one.  Sounded crazy to me, and it still does, but I guess if he's 'always there' and he doesn't mind the additional labor w/ that approach, then more power to him- I just hope he's not selling bulls to commercial cattlemen who calves out on pasture. 

W/ me, I have to be much more risk averse as I'm not 'always there.'  And most people I know aren't either.  I want to push the threshold as much as anyone, but I know- my cutoff is around 90lbs.  How do I know this?- well, I pull a substantially higher % of calves that are born >90lbs than I do calves <90lbs.  Ask yourself, "how many more lbs at weaning will it take to compensate for losing even 1 cow?" 

Another huge consideration- and likely the most important- is the size of the cows you're breeding.  If you shoot for 110lb calves out of 1200lb cows- you will have problems.  At the same time, 1700lb cows should be able to have these w/ ease.  It's all relative and I think its important we speak of birth weight in terms of cow size rather than with a dogmatic insistence that 'X' lb bw is most profitable. Not that we're evaluating the bw % in terms of efficiency (like w/ % body weight weaned), but that we're evaluating the cow's physical ability to calve unassisted.

Then there's the antagonist- leaving lbs on the table by using a bull with much less birth weight / growth than your cows can handle.  This is one of the biggest inefficiencies in beef cattle production.  That and not maximizing heterosis.  Oddly enough, these two issues compounded is what you'll see most of around country.  Breeding 12-1400lb black cross cows to 70lb bw Angus bulls.  Not only do these people forego the additional lbs associated w/ hybrid vigor, but their bull selection is far too conservative and undoubtedly, by not assuming more risk, they shorted their cow's production, thus, shorting their wallet. 

The key is to keep assuming risk until you exceed your level of risk tolerance: the point where risk begins to outweigh the potential reward: to me, that point is when you have to start pulling calves.  For others who are 'always there,' maybe it makes financial sense to pull a few.

I agree with what you are saying here and I think the bull customer who made these comments. He was not in any way saying that a person should make a major move in the birthweights of the bulls they use. He was saying that if bulls with BWs of 100 lbs have worked in your cow herd, you maybe should look at some bulls with BWs a little higher, for example 110 lbs providing they had uneventful calvings themselves.

In regards to the guy you mentioned that used bulls with BWs of 130 lbs, I had an inquiry last year from a guy who asked if I had any bulls with BWs over 125 lbs. I told him that I did not keep a bull with over a 110 lb BW. He said he calved in January in a heated barn, and he was not afraid to use higher BW bulls in fact he liked them. His cow herd was exotic cross cows that were bigger than many people kept and he felt he was not getting enough production out of his cows if he used bulls with smaller BWs.  I guess everyone sees these issues a little differently. What works for one person, does not mean it will work for another

 

[GM]

Jit, was he looking to use bigger bwt shorthorn bulls as a terminal sire or to add big shorthorn x cows to his herd?  Would you alter your 110bwt cutoff if there was a market for them?

I bet there's tons of cheap, large bwt bull semen from the 80's, 90's and 00's that could be dusted off.  It'd be interesting to hear everyone's take on the best "high bwt" shorthorn lol.  That discussion could get controversial very quickly. 

 

[ROMAX]

Jit, was he looking to use bigger bwt shorthorn bulls as a terminal sire or to add big shorthorn x cows to his herd?  Would you alter your 110bwt cutoff if there was a market for them?

I bet there's tons of cheap, large bwt bull semen from the 80's, 90's and 00's that could be dusted off.  It'd be interesting to hear everyone's take on the best "high bwt" shorthorn lol.  That discussion could get controversial very quickly.

And then you go back to the future with the six ft tall greyhounds that were winning the shows!

 

[RyanChandler]

Jit, was he looking to use bigger bwt shorthorn bulls as a terminal sire or to add big shorthorn x cows to his herd?  Would you alter your 110bwt cutoff if there was a market for them?

I bet there's tons of cheap, large bwt bull semen from the 80's, 90's and 00's that could be dusted off.  It'd be interesting to hear everyone's take on the best "high bwt" shorthorn lol.  That discussion could get controversial very quickly.

I guess a large maternally oriented bull could be effectively used as a terminal sire?

I'd like to just hear the high-growth bulls and see if there are any true outliers.  Is there or has there been a true curve bender? And I'm not talking about 'curve bending epds,'  I'm talking about actual curve bending performance-- you see a lot of bulls post curve bending numbers but with further investigation into their pedigree, you see their weaning weight, for example, is 200 pounds more than anything their sire has ever sired before. That's when you know it's a feed issue and not a genetic propensity for curve-bending growth.

 

[trevorgreycattleco]

I've never heard of a shorthorn bull being a curve bender. It's never been identified. Not to be a ass but many angus bulls in AI books were bottom 50% bw and top 10% yw.

 

[aj]

Ditto to trevor grey. I think its hard to get the curve bender......but if you look at say all the ABS Angus bulls......they are curve benders......I assume they work......but now I think they are looking for out crosses to this successfull line. I think they are getting some awfull big angus cows out of this deal though.

 

[Eggbert]

I am sure that there are a few others, but here is one "curve bender" shorthorn that comes to mind.  We have used him in the past AI...heifers calve unassisted and they truly do have the performance.

Ar Su Lu Osage 502 - *x4103548

BW: 0.1  (Top 15% in the Breed)
YW: 45  (Top 2% in the Breed)

 

[justintime]

I will not be changing my cutoff of 110 lbs for my bulls anytime soon. It seems to me, that this still leaves some of the very growthy bulls in the bull pen, and it does remove a few that may be problem calving sires. I have only lost a couple bulls in the past few years to this cutoff I established for my herd several years ago. I will have another this year that weighed more than 110 lbs.

I did not say that I agreed with everything this man was saying, but he did make some points that gave me lots to think about on the drive home and for a few days afterwards. That magical line where you optimize calving ease and performance will, and always will be, dependent on each individual herd. What works in one operation may be different than what works in another. 

I think the main point this guy was making was, that the marketplace is also a factor that we should be considering when selecting the genetics we use. I don't think he was saying that we need to push the envelope too far in any direction, but that right now the marketplace suggests that maybe commercial producers should reconsider if they can provide a little more management to maximize their pounds and profits. Of course, every herd will be different and some will be able to do this and others will not.

IMO, the job of a seedstock producer is to provide options for his/her customers to select genetics for their herds. Personally, I think no one should move too far in either direction from optimum values for any trait. Like everything else, optimum values are not a static value but have some range. I think this man was thinking that maybe now is the time we should be looking at using bulls that fall in the upper limits for optimum traits.

I was not trying to create controversy in this thread, but more to have some discussion on what each of us is trying to do. In lots of ways, this man made me think about several things and quite frankly, I found it kinda refreshing.

 

[r.n.reed]

Good conversation and ideas.Survivors in this business think like this.Optimum for your operation  needs to be the foundation as stated before.One more angle to bring in is the fact that if you keep replacements in your herd you need to think 10 years or longer down the road.You might make a decision today that allows a short term gain this year and wind up giving it all back for the next 10.

 

[RyanChandler]

Good point, Gary-- That's why I think it is imperative commercial cattlemen use specialized bulls instead of settling for the jack of all trades: bulls that still have adequate growth but do not sacrifice maternal quality in years when retaining females and scale-pounding terminal bulls in years where calves are all feedlot-bound.

 

[huntaway]

I've never heard of a shorthorn bull being a curve bender. It's never been identified. Not to be a ass but many angus bulls in AI books were bottom 50% bw and top 10% yw.

How did the angus breed identify and develop these genetics? It seems to me the easiest way to reduce bwt is to strip the bone out of the calf which is why I'm comfortable being abit heavier than some angus.

If this were routinely possibly, larger birthweight cattle would have been bred out long ago. 

I think everyone, in general, agrees with the premise that more birth weight = more performance.  The question becomes, "how much more risk can I afford to assume for each additional lb of birth weight?"  And that's where it gets sticky. 

I understand the relationship of bwt to growth but it seems accepted some angus genetics can do it why not shorthorn. Is it breeders getting in the way.
There are a number of generalisations that can be made more milk=less fat, more rib eye=less marbling, more bwt= less calving ease, more fat=less retail beef yield, Should we just accept these as breeders or try and find genetics that "bend" them.

 

[hamburgman]

I kinda skimmed the replies to this thread, so forgive me if I am repeating anything.

I am ok with 100lb bw, but if you experience one year of a few dead calves because you were gone for just a two hrs here or there, backwards calves (the bigger they are the harder they pull, and lower survivability), and dummy calves you will vow to pry never use those types of bulls again.  No one wants to wake up to all day work with calving and the rewards being minimal. 

Just my two cents.

 

[Limiman12]

I can certainly see the benefit of higher birthweights, but it goes back to the "ideal cow" discussion.  To handle a 110 birthweight, its gotta be a big cow.    With hay what it was in the winter of 12-13, those extra big cows cost more to feed, so you were having some costs in nov-feb to get the extra pounds on the calf to sell in October.......    You can't just put a big bw bull ona herd of cows that has been managed with 85-90 pound bw as a goal.  Dad and I both have day jobs, I would have to have good reason to buy a bull with over 90 bw.    And then I would be careful what cows he was with, which would defeat one of my goals for our herd.  I would love to some day take our steers to sell and every calf that got off the trailer was identical to the one before it.    Maybe that might cost us a few pounds here, but the calf buyers want uniformity cause the packers want uniformity.  I suppose if I was a seed stock producer I could see having a variety to offer to fulfill different needs, but commercial guys, while they do sell pounds they are selling a set of cattle, not individual calves.  To do that your cows have to stay mainstream and you can't chase fads.....  Big birthweights might be profitable this year, but the the big cows to have it might not be profitable two winters ago, and they probably won't some year  the next time grain is high or hay is higher.......

I will stick with our moderate cows with moderate birthweights.  We haven't had to pull many this year, we haven't lost one and we are 3/4 through.    It would take a lot of pounds to make up for losing a couple. With 450 pounders being worth a grand and dead calves and cows costing more then ever as well......

 

[ZNT]

This is really one of the most interesting posts that I have read in a while on SteerPlanet.  What this commercial cattleman said is off track of the focus of our herd, but it sure makes a person think.  He is right on about the fact that large birthweight calves have a performance advantage over the low birthweight calves.  There is a big difference when a calf starts out 30-40 pounds ahead of the rest at day one.  Everything I know, this cattleman is correct on maximizing profit by increasing birthweight.  That being said, there are added costs involved including vet bills due to dystocia, and the occasional loss of a cow. 

A second point that was made on this post may have been the most brilliant.  Rather than breeders changing their breeding requirements depending on the price of feeders, commercial cattlemen may want to look at A.I.ing their cows to some of these genetics from the 80's, 90's, and maybe even the early 00's.  For the most part, semen from these era of bulls is dirt cheap, but may prove themselves to be the most profitable.  Pounds at weaning is what originally brought these genetics to the U.S., and may be just the ticket to increase the amount of beef produced in a time with the lowest cow numbers in over 60 some years.

GREAT DISCUSSION TOPIC!

 

[RyanChandler]

Id question whether those cattle were really growthier up to weaning or if they just had longer growth curves.

 

[beebe]

I am the new guy here so I hope I don't offend anyone, but I think you pay in feed costs every day with big cows.  My maximum birth weight is is 85 lbs.  I don't intend to pull any calves.  Maybe 1 a year out of a heifer.  I will take a live calf that weighs 50 lbs. less.  Cows will rebreed easier if they calve easy.  Eric Mousell from South Dakota State did some research on cow size as did Alan Williams on pounds of calf weaned per acre.  Small cows win evrytime.  Every one gets to do as they wish but I will never go back to early calving or large birthweight bulls.  I am looking for and using old school Shorthorn bulls to make 1200 cows.  I hope I have not stepped on too many toes.

 

[BTDT]

Great conversation so I will add my two cents worth.

I expect my heifers to have a 90 pound calf. If they can not, I have either done something wrong, or I should not have kept them as a heifer.  I argue that SHAPE of a calf is more important than the weight. 
I have had large cows have small calves, and I have had small cows have large calves (my best is a little 980 pound cow that routinely had 100 pound calves that weaned off near 650). 
As far as the argument of large cows versus small cows, again, I think it makes a difference of bloodlines. I have a cow that tips the scales at 2000. She is a tank and is a 6.4 frame. She is run with my 1400'ers and does not get any additional feed and she is always a 6.5 or higher BCS.  Her calves are moderate tanks and my buyers love them.

Someone has already mentioned this, but larger cattle generally have longer growth curves, unlike the clubbie bloodlines which come out just a frame score smaller than when they are mature ( ;D)  so selection of type of cattle you want to raise depends on your goal, if you want to sell feeder calves or backgrounders, then a slower growth (fattening)  curve might be advantageous. While if you are selling fluffy, show calves, a faster maturing, that fattens more quickly might be your ticket.  Again, not all cattle will fit everyones needs.

beebe - in my area, small cows produce smaller framed feeder type calves, which do not sell well at all.  A larger framed calf will add a minimum of 20-30 cents, which add up in a hurry.    I think it is great you have found cattle that will work in your system. That is the key to success.... matching the cattle to the situation. Many times the cattle get the blame when in fact, it was the management system that let the cattle down.