Kris Ringwall
Beef Talk
Fifteen years ago, beef cow management focused around production. Has much changed?
At that time and somewhat true today, much of the beef cow management focused around production.
Following recent field days, several thoughts about cow size surfaced, which triggered some discussion. In fact, as attendees and students were reviewing previous discussions on what are the best cow systems, they could not help but notice a change at the Dickinson Research Extension Center (DREC).
The center's March-April calving system to maximize calf growth and minimize calf age at harvest had somehow switched to a May calving system and later calf marketing. Words, such as yearlings and grass finishing, certainly were surfacing, and even questions about the appropriate cow size were being asked.
In essence, a review of what was happening at the center was in order. Change never should be quick or impulsive. Previous generations have spent years trying to understand and develop beef systems appropriate to an individual producer's environment because there isn't a beef system that works for everyone. However, to put a working ranch scenario up to the throw of the dice would be ridiculous.
Most operations will have cows that have lived through more than one cattle cycle and still are producing, so even changes in cattle type will not occur quickly.
Questioning the system
When did the DREC start moving toward change? Truth be told, the seeds were planted in 1995. At that time, a project was proposed but never accomplished. The premise was simple: Cow-calf producers need to be cost-conscious and production-wise.
At that time and somewhat true today, much of the beef cow management focused around production. This is understandable because the total output or the level of beef production is under the total control of the producer. Generally, producers accepted the limitations imposed by the various biological types of cattle and concentrated on improving or maintaining production levels within their herds.
At that time, astute producers reached production goals that once were considered unattainable. The Cow Herd Appraisal of Performance (CHAPS) program records substantiated herd managers who attained 99% pregnancy rates, 96% weaning levels and 678-pound (lb.) weaning weights.
This translated into 623 lb. of marketable product for each cow maintained in the breeding herd. Those producers were and are production-wise and continue those same production levels today. However, cost and labor-conscious producers certainly were expressing some concern.
Then and now, uncontrolled costs cannot be erased or controlled simply by increasing production parameters. The biological limitations of the cattle, as well as the labor limitations of the producer, cannot outpace costs.
Some real questions were being asked that involved controlling costs. Interestingly, back in 1995, feed costs were the major component. For those producers, their total feed costs per cow per year were less than $250. These feed costs accounted for two-thirds of the total production costs. Today, we are looking more at $300 for feed expenses, which accounts for approximately 75% of total direct costs.
Producers cannot feed themselves into profit. That something needs to give was the writing on the wall in 1995 and remains on the wall today. As hypothesized then, most cattle operations have static management calendars due to the difficulty of keeping a cow on a 365-day calving interval and managing the labor demands of calving around other farm enterprises.
However, the quantity and quality of the feed required and total dollars invested in facilities and equipment are influenced a great deal by the selected calving season. Adding in cow type, here we are more than 15 years later asking the same questions. What is the right calving season, and what is the right cow to maintain sanity and profitability?
The center did not jump off a cliff to answer the big questions. Instead, smaller questions were answered gradually. Therefore, the study that would evaluate production costs and herd performance for late-spring (early May) calving in contrast to the traditional spring (late-March, early April) calving in southwestern North Dakota is ongoing.
Decreasing cow size
The first question tackled was decreased cow size. The effort at the center to decrease cow size failed because the decreased size sucked the muscle right out of the cattle. Scratch two years of breeding efforts in 1997 and 1998. The center regrouped and tried again, using smaller cattle that had adequate muscle.
The unwritten guideline was no smaller-framed sires would be purchased without 1.3 square inches of ribeye per 100 pounds of live body weight. Through the years, that guideline still stands, even if the threshold was not reached in all purchased sires.
A common phenomenon is that not enough money to obtain one's desires still drives many outcomes. A gradual approach was used to reduce cow size by breeding the center's heifers to Lowline bulls. For those who are not familiar with Lowline cattle, the cattle were selected from within a population of Australian Angus cattle for quality of beef and smaller size. Selection has been ongoing for several decades, and the cattle have developed into a distinct line or breed of cattle.
Initially, two questions were being answered. First, would the cattle work to decrease calving issues with the heifers? Second, would there be value in the market for cattle produced from the mating? The answer was "yes" to both questions.
The center bred heifers to calve in 2004, 2005, 2006 and 2007 and eliminated calving problems. Birth weights dropped to just less than 70 pounds and dystocia was just more than 2%. The male calves were sent to a custom feedyard as yearlings and finished at just less than 1,250 pounds. They had a frame score of 4.8, an 83% Choice grade or higher, 84% Yield Grade 3 or lower and a feedlot average daily gain of 3.1 lb. per day.
However, even after having established value and purpose, some concerns still existed. One of the concerns was the fact that the heifers were small. As yearlings, the Lowline breed sired heifers with a frame score of 3, while the traditional-breed-type heifers were closer to a frame score of 6.
Time went on and the half-blood Lowline heifers became cows and took their place in the herd. The traditional-breed-type heifers did, as well. Historically, the traditional cattle utilized on the range program have weighed just less than 1,300 lb. at spring turnout, according to Lee Manske, center range scientist. These cows routinely have produced just less than 600 lb. of calf and weaned just more than 46% of their body weight in calf weight.
As the early data came in, these smaller-framed cows weighed in at more than 1,000 lb. at spring turnout and produced almost 550 lb. of calf. In terms of their body weight, they produced just less than 52% of their body weight in calf weight, so these cows produce a very acceptable beef package. Actually, once the stocking rate is adjusted to account for the smaller-sized cow, they outproduce the traditional cattle in terms of gain per acre.
In other words, the center had more cows per acre that produced more beef per pound of grazing cow. These are very positive indications that, after 15 years of transition, there really is something to the concept of lowering cow size.
Interestingly, the same trends were seen with this year's replacement heifers. The heifers were developed on grass- or forage-based diets. As noted in the earlier replacement heifers, the frame score dropped 2 units. The Lowline-sired heifers with a frame score of 3.6, while the traditionally bred heifers at the center had an average frame score of 5.5. However, the ribeye per hundredweight of live weight actually is greater on the smaller-framed heifers.
Again, the data is early and more time is needed to confirm the results. However, grass and cows seem to go together, which seems to be especially true when using appropriately sized cows.
Stay tuned because the grass cattle are just beginning.
May you find all your ear tags.
Your comments are always welcome at http://www.BeefTalk.com. For more information, contact the NDBCIA Office, 1041 State Ave., Dickinson, ND 58601, or go to www.CHAPS2000.com on the Internet.