Calf size verses profit

[grassfarmer]

Farmers_son, Your analysis shows that last year selling 200 400lb calves only brought the same income as selling 158 600lb calves. Fair enough but the theory you then expounded that running larger cows is I think based on dubious math. If the rancher with the 1150 lb cows was only able to wean 400lb calves (35% of dams weight) then using the same weaning % for the 1450lb cows would only result in 500lb calves not 600lb ones. In all likelihood a ranch that got such poor weaning weights with 1150 lb cows would have a lot of lean and open 1450lb cows unless substantial extra resources were used in their upkeep.
What then comes to mind is that the size of the cow is probably much less important than her ability to get in calf year after year, to wean live calves and her longevity. On our operation we place a lot of emphasis on some soft criteria like the cows have to quiet and decent to handle because we view the cost of handling man killer cows as quite high especially because I rely on my wife and children for help throughout the year as well as at calving time. Plus to the extent possible all other things being equal we like cows that are nice to look at.
You also state "A lot of ranchers in Canada are aware that they can increase their profitability by outsourcing part of......." Shouldn't that be "can increase their operation, scale, turnover etc" can they be guaranteed to increase their profitability?
I agree completely with your statement that the cows ability to get in calf year after year, to wean live calves and her longevity are probably more important than any other factor.

[farmers_son]

Grassfarmer….I was using the market price information I had available which was for 400 and 600 pound calves. I have never been a fan of calf weight expressed as a percentage of cow weight mainly because I do not weigh my cows although I weigh my calves and the condition of my cows can vary from season to season and from year to year. For the most part when people talk about cow size in pounds they are really thinking frame size.

However the numbers I put up are subject to correction and the 1150 pound cow may well be expected to wean more than a 400 pound calf although I can picture individual herds I know of where those numbers would be about right. We both agree that cow size is not the end all when it comes profitability.

Can they increase their profitability? I guess I don’t really think so over the long term because that is not what I do. But on a year to year basis, some years it will be better. The point I was working at was there is more than one way to seek a profit in the cow business and not everyone necessarily works on a finite resource basis but outsources either winter feed, pasture, replacement heifers or even custom work.

[nlcc]

farmers-son I checked out this fellows site www.pharocattle.com If nothing else he is a super salesman. I did read as much as I could of his newsletters but have not had the advantage of hearing him speak in person. I am however of the opinion that I would not go too far these days to hear an American cattle producer speak on how to make money raising cattle when I know full well that if those SOBs had not shut out Canadian producers out from the highest cattle prices in history that I could have been making money without his wisdom. No matter what he says in his newsletters, since 2003 he has been making money at our expense and any idiot could be profitable at the prices they have had in the U.S.

Rough day today? Pharo has been profitable for a long-time before 2003

I don,t agree with everything he sayes ,but I think he makes some valid points on cow size.

[farmers_son]

I regret those comments but what is done is done. Whether Pharo was an American, Canadian or Brazillian cattle producer it should not make any difference. His advice either has value for us or it does not. Obviously BSE was not his fault and I have no idea of his views on the border closure. So yes it was a rough day when I put up that post, was doing year end books and figuring up cash flows for the new year. Hopefully my negative comments did not take away from an important discussion on cow size.

[cowman]

If you can make money with 1100 lb cows, that is good. If you can make money with 1600 lb cows that too is good? Everyone sees things differently and hey only you have to live with your choices?
Myself I prefer a bigger cow and if I am losing money by not running a bunch of little cows...well it is my nickel?
Hey if we've all made it down the road this far we just might be doing something right? We don't need to change the world.

[smcgrath76]

I think that most producers cows have gotten bigger over say the last 20 years. I think most producers also run the same or more cows per acre (notice I did not say Animal Units) as they ever did. The cow size argument we have been having revolves around diminishing returns and cash flow based on animal units. I think a lot of producers have the same number of bigger cows, and are trying to sell bigger calves to improve cash flow. I think the unseen but rising cost is on the resource base they are working from.
For our place, smaller cows, calving later makes a lot of sense when we base our decisions on carrying capacity or AUM, rather than on cow numbers. I think a lot depends on when/how you market, and on where beef cattle fit in your enterprise. If we were grain farming and using cows to clean up byproducts, I suspect our cows would be bigger. If we were calving early and selling weaned calves, our cows would probably be bigger as well. If we were feeding cows and/or lived where it rained on a regular basis > bigger. And if we had recently purchased land in our area at the going rates our cows would likely belong to the bank or be drylotted and eating marajuana stems as a byproduct of the only cash crop that could make the payments.

[cowman]

Sean: Land is getting awfully pricey everywhere in Alberta. It used to be a person could go up to Valleyview or something and buy some pretty cheap land but it seems from the ads I see even up there land is getting into that $1,000/acre range? I sincerely doubt a commercial cow could ever pay for $1,000 land, but who knows how some of these guys see it?
We have a fair number of European farmers coming into our area. They seem to think $3,000-$4000/acre land is a steal! My Dutch neighbor tells me land in Holland is pretty standard at $100,000/acre...if you can find it!
Who knows...maybe in a hundred years the whole darned country will be a bunch of rich Dutchmen!

[sagewood]

It always interests me to hear the big vs small on the cow size issue. In our area, a very well-known (and now well-off rancher) refused to go to the 'belt-buckle' size Hereford cattle when that trend was fashionable. He said that if he never showed another animal again, he'd be darned if he would ever stop breeding his 'big' Herefords. To make this long story short, when the Hereford people realized they had made a big boo-boo with their little cattle, he was THE source to go to to upscale their cattle and keep the color and confirmation in their herds. Needless to say, this breeder's livestock were sought after for years and his production and bull sales always demanded top dollar. To this day, he is a well-respected and admired cattleman because he understood that swings in the market would always come back to the middle, and he knew a good product and he stayed with it.

In the '80's the packers told us the cost was in "the killl", and that they needed larger carcasses. You all know what effect that had on the industry. We actually had the 'learned' ones telling us how to use frame score scales, and show cattle and bulls were admired for their height, not their structure, carcass makeup or calving ease. Then the packers found they had lots of #'s and needed to find another route to go, so they started paying for the 'belt-buckle' cattle again and everything now looks like a small square box, no matter the breed or color. Lately, when listening to the learned packers at their speaking venues, they are again talking about the 'cost is in the kill' and that they need larger carcasses---well here we go again.

I believe that each operation is unique to itself, and that if you can make money on the way you manage your herd then you better stick with it. Some days it rains, some days it does not. Pay off your land base, pay off your machinery and keep up your maintenance and your cow herd will carry you--even through BSE times. While you will not make the boom money that we have seen in some years, there will still be cash to pay for feed and straw...I find that my 1,600# cows do just fine even in poor weather as long as they have lots of straw to snuggle into at night and a good wind break to help them maintain their warmth. Personally I find that if my cattle are warm and dry, then the feed is not used up so fast--to me straw is the cheapest thing I can give my cows to maintain their health and strength. I see far too many herds standing with their back to the storm and not a blade of grass to block the wind and cold--no doubt these cattle will eat more--they have to, just to survive.

As far as all of us growing 'boxed' beef, I cannot see it happening to the extent that the hog industry and chicken industry did. After all, these creatures never see the light of day--their environment is entirely an indoor and managed environment. Try doing that with cattle and see how fast you could go broke.

My cow herd needs to have a quiet nature, structural soundness (good feet, udder, legs) and longevity. One of my more famous cows lived and produced 19 calves over 20 years. She was the basis for a number of wonderful cows who were in my herd. Do you think I made some serious money from that old girl? Needless to say, she went to cow-heaven on my place.

As far as the quiet factor goes, my young granddaughter got run down by a cow I had purchased..gave her a concussion and a fractured skull and she spent 5 days in the hospital. When something like that happens to you, you will seriously understand why quiet cows are a must. The cow is no longer here and none of her offspring are either.

As far as taking advice from Americans on anything, I would not walk across the road to read or listen to their pearls of wisdom--it is usually self-serving.

[smcgrath76]

A purebred cattleman I respect a great deal told me when I was very young to stay in the middle of the road. That way the real cattle producers stay with you, and everyone else gets you coming and going, so you have twice the market.
There is something to be said for balance.

[redhen]

I'm wondering if the criteria for profitability should be the number of pounds of feed (grass/hay/grain) required to net one pound of meat/protein on a carcass. Isn't that what it comes down to?

[farmers_son]

Really the title of this thread should be Calf size versus cost. Profit is determined by the market, it is beyond our control.

For many producers, interest costs not to mention debt repayment capacity becomes the prime determinant of whether or not they are in business next year. The low cost producer is not necessarily the one who is business next year as deep pockets are more important in the cattle business than good cows and low production costs. You can have the lowest cost of gain and still go broke.

Other than some obvious poor cows, most have four legs, four teats and all the reproductive organs necessary to bring a new calf to life every year. After nearly 3 years of BSE I think what it comes down to is not cow size it is debt size that will make the difference. That and how much CAIS reference margin you have left.

[PureCountry]

FS - of course 'debt size' is important, but the little things like cow size can make a huge difference in repayment.

I giving a presentation at a seminar in February on Genetic and Trait Selection, and the biggest point I'm going to try and get across, is to focus on the 'economic traits' of an animal. Fertility - #1, longevity, hardiness/efficiency, those things make dollars and/or cut expenses, period. Any animal can be profitable, but some are just definitely easier to do it with, and people need to focus in on those traits.

Far too often producers look at more pounds, more gain, more production, and not enough on less feed, less work, less input. When was the last time a banker was impressed by your production? THEY ARE NOT!! If your production combined with low expenses calculates out to a number on the positive side of zero, GREAT.

[redhen]

Hi Pure Country,

So will your lecture include a look at heritage breeds with a proven genetic history of superior metabolization on marginal land? :-)

[cowman]

sagewood: I think you and I see quite a lot alike when it comes to how to raise cows. I am a firm believer in lots of straw and good windbreaks. It seems the older I get the more "quiet" becomes a dominant trait to select for! When I was young used to curse those quiet old Herford cows that went down the chute so slowly, but am not too keen on those "rockets" anymore!
I have always tried to keep my cows at a decent size...not so easy at times when you pursue a crossbreeding program? However I am a firm believer in crossbreeding. If you are raising commercial cattle and not crossbreeding you are leaving a lot of money on the table...in my opinion? Try to keep my cows in that 1400-1500 range(coming off pasture) but will admit I have some bigger than that, not many smaller.

[PureCountry]

redhen, my presentation is going to stay away from breed vs. breed at all costs. The most important traits a cattleman can select for are ones beyond breed limitations. Fertility and longevity are absolutely the most important. Of course some breeds ON AVERAGE live longer and/or are more fertile, but in every breed, we need to select for those traits.