Selecting Cattle, Calving Seasons, and Weaning Dates for Efficient Range Beef Production Systems in the Northern Great Plains

Selecting cattle, calving seasons, and weaning dates for efficient range beef production systems in the Northern Great Plains

Wade Anderson
Chadron State College
Chadron, Nebraska

Abstract

The prevalence of late spring/early summer calving (May-June) and the use of early weaning with environmentally adapted cows is not a new concept, however it is not a common occurrence in Northwest Nebraska nor the Northern Great Plains. Over time smaller framed cows with less milk production have been systematically replaced by higher milk producing and larger framed ones. In areas such as Northwest Nebraska (semi-arid) this has led to less efficient use of rangelands mainly due to increased supplemental feeding in order to maintain the larger and more nutritionally demanding animals. With costs of production rising and profit margins shrinking, many producers are re-thinking their production systems. Grain prices and fuel prices currently continue to set record highs. Many ranchers have large framed mother cows weighing well over 1250 lbs, and most also calve in late winter/early spring in cold temperatures with risks of calf mortality and poor forage conditions. This creates a demand on feedstuffs that must be purchased and brought to the ranch or produced on site with more intensive labor and machinery. Studies such as Reisenauer et al., (2007) have been done comparing calving seasons and found that the traditional early spring calving (without added mortality from adverse climate) produced the highest gross margin in the Northern Great Plains. This approach was based on the supplementation of “normal” (large, high producing) cows to maintain them in a good body condition throughout the year. Genetic makeup or individual animal selectivity in the efficiency of the cows was not factored. It has been shown that ranchers can select for (over time) animals in their herd to maximize efficiency with little or no supplementation (Pharo, 2008), such as selecting for smaller framed cow with less milk production that has a calf every year. It should also be noted that in Reisenauer et al., (2007) prices such as for fuel and feedstuffs were calculated at historical levels, not reflecting today’s prices. Other studies such as Younglove (1998) suggest that native shortgrass range appears more suited to later calving (May-June) cow herds and can result in lowering input costs. It has also been proven in studies such as Adams et al., (2001), that changing the calving season from late winter/ early spring to late spring/ early summer and weaning earlier can result in less harvested feed used and lower labor requirements. The higher forage quality during late summer-early fall compared to late fall-winter provides an opportunity to either maintain or increase the body condition score (BCS) of cows by simply weaning the calf (Ciminski, 2002). Thus we can assume a combination of matching calving season and weaning dates to existing forage resources and selecting efficient animals to fit our environment that ranchers can become more efficient and profitable.

Introduction

Concepts of matching the forage quality to the nutritional requirements of the cow are key, however selection of an efficient cow to not only survive but to produce a calf every year is paramount. Many studies have been conducted in strategically feeding cows to maintain body condition at specific times of the year, and at specific stages of gestation, lactation, and growth. However, selection of proper sire genetics and cow selectivity/culling procedures are seldom mentioned. Selection of sires who are proven to be efficient converters of grass to beef and cows that can thrive and reproduce on local ranch forage resources are of equal importance to overall ranch productivity and profitability.

Calving Season

Efficiency of livestock production might improve if nutrient demand associated with animal physiological state was optimally coordinated with seasonal changes in forage quality (Vavra and Raleigh, 1976; Adams et al.,1996). Matching the rangeland forage to the nutritional requirements of the cows make sense, nature shows us that. native herbivores of the region such as bison and elk both calve in late spring and early summer (May -June). Through thousands of years of evolution, the reproduction cycle of these native animals have been tailored to follow the curves of growth and quality of the forage they consume, for self maintenance, offspring survival, and successful breeding. Feed costs represent the most expensive input in most cow-calf production units (Reisenauer et al., 2007), thus by reducing the amount of supplemental feed needed by matching the forage resources to cow demand we can greatly reduce our need to use these expensive inputs. Younglove (1998) also found that a late calving season is more suited to the northern plains shortgrass prairie than an early calving season, and that less supplementation would be required which could ultimately reduce input costs and should help increase ranch income.

Weaning Date

Ciminski (2002) shows the impacts on economic returns of an August vs. November weaning date in combination with protein supplement or no protein supplement during winter grazing in Nebraska. Cow Body Condition Score (BCS) and body weights were lower throughout the year for cows with calves weaned in November compared to cows with calves weaned in August. The greatest net returns at weaning were for cows with calves weaned in August (early) in combination with no supplements.
Cows were able to maintain or gain body condition going into winter and regain condition the following spring for successful rebreeding, as the pregnancy rates were the same for the supplemented cows and non supplemented cows independent of weaning date. This data shows that management of lactation in the cow and her reproductive cycle can be timed to fit the environment and produce suitable economic returns. If cows are thin going into the winter grazing, they are likely to be thin in the spring at calving. Weaning late in the fall (Short et al., 1996; Ciminski, 2002) and/or high milk production (Adams et al., 1993) generally result in low body condition entering winter grazing. This can result in the cow not being ready to rebreed on time or not at all during the next cycle. Without supplemental feed, the manger must reduce the demand on the cow by weaning early enough for that cow to graze suitable forage and gain or at least maintain a good BCS going into the winter. Otherwise, a rancher must supplement the herd with purchased or produced feeds which may lower the overall ranch income. Reisenauer et al., (2007) reported on the economics of different calving seasons in the Northern Great Plains, however, no study had been conducted on changing the individual animals or herd genetics that effect production and thus the economics as a whole. It can be assumed that many ranchers have cows that are too big and inefficient for their environment, and are forced to change their environment by feeding harvested and purchased feed to keep their cows in production. Some ranchers such as Kit Pharo cull all cows that do not produce a calf within their environmental conditions, thus those efficient cows remain in the herd, rather than supplementing with more feed to maintain those who are not efficient (Pharo, 2008). In effect he is selecting animals with the genetics that are able to reproduce and rebreed based on almost solely the native forage available.

Cattle Selection and Genetics

To achieve optimum production ranchers must produce cows that fit their environment, instead of artificially changing the environment to fit their cows (Pharo, 2008). This philosophy and management practice is spreading in the beef industry today. In the past production was promoted without regard to the cost of that production always assuming more is better. Beef production increased but profit margins did not. Some producers such as Kit Pharo believe that the extremes in growth genetics etc. achieved by the seedstock producers have compromised efficiency and effect overall profitability on a ranch scale. Pharo, for example selects cows that run on native shortgrass range with little or no supplements. These cows are selected by limiting feed resources as they apply sufficient pressure on the cowherd to force out the un-adapted and infertile animals. Replacement heifers are developed on a low-cost, forage based diet with minimum supplements. They desire the most efficient and most adapted heifers to make it into the cowherd and let the environment conditions sort out the genetics, thus no heifer that does not perform ever makes it into the breeding herd. This is based on the following premises: Smaller cows are inherently more efficient than larger ones. It is commonly known that smaller animals eat less and need less forage to meet their maintenance requirements. Also, cows with lower or moderate milk production are more likely to maintain BCS and rebreed on limiting forage conditions rather than cows that have high milking ability. As far as carcass traits and feedlot performance, Pharo (2008) states that all of their cattle are of moderate size and able to perform well in the feedlot.
Since nearly all cow-calf producers are in the commodity business, the product they produce must fit within the current parameters of the commodity beef industry. If their product is too big or too small, it will be discounted (Pharo 2008). Therefore, reduction in cow size can only be to the point that calves still fit the parameters of the existing corn-based commodity beef industry. We can assume then that moderately sized cows and the use of moderately sized bulls can create efficient offspring that function in today’s marketing system and maximize profit potential on rangeland conditions.

Conclusion

Increasing costs of production and declining profit margins are driving many range beef producers to rethink their calving and weaning strategies and also their overall herd genetics. All three aspects are integrated and should be considered together. Many studies in the Northern Great Plains have shown that rangeland forage resources can be matched to cattle production systems in order to efficiently utilize them and at the same time reduce input costs. The later timing of calving (May-June) and earlier weaning seem to be the most beneficial in terms of matching forage resources to animal requirements thus resulting in lower input costs (Younglove 1998, Adams et al.,1996). Genetics and herd selection to increase efficiency in relation to the environment are equally important. Individual animals must have the genetic capacity to grow, breed, and rebreed to be efficient and profitable for ranchers (Pharo 2008). A combination of all three aspects can be a viable alternative to most of today’s range beef production systems in the Northern Great Plains.

Literature Cited

Adams, Don C. 2007. Strategically Feeding Protein and Energy During Wintering and Managing Cow Condition. Proceeding of the Range Beef Cow Symposium XVIII. 11 December – 9 December 2007, Mitchell, Nebraska, USA.
Ciminski, L.A. 2002. Fall weaning and winter protein supplementation effects on cow- calf productivity. M.S. Thesis, Univ. Nebraska, Lincoln.
Pharo Cattle Company. 2011. Homepage. Accessed 28, April, 2011.
Reisenauer, Leesburg V.L.,Tess M.W., and D. Griffith. 2007. Evaluation of calving seasons and marketing strategies in Northern Great Plains beef enterprises: I Cow-calf systems. Journal of Animal Science 85:2314-2321
Short, R.E., E.E. Grings, M.D. Macneil, R.K. Heischmidt, M.R. Haferkamp, and D.C. Adams. 1996. Effects of weaning, supplement, and sire breed of calf during the fall grazing period on cow performance. J. Animal Science. 74:1701-1710
Vavra, M., and R.J. Raleigh. 1976. Coordinating beef cattle management with the range forage resource. J. Range Management. 29:449-452.
Younglove, G.A. 1998. Compatability of shortgrass native range to nutrient requirements of early of late calving Hereford Cows. Dissertation, University of Wyoming, Laramie, USA.

Cited: Adams, Don C. 2007. Strategically Feeding Protein and Energy During Wintering and Managing Cow Condition Ciminski, L.A. 2002. Fall weaning and winter protein supplementation effects on cow- calf productivity Pharo Cattle Company. 2011. Homepage. Accessed 28, April, 2011. Reisenauer, Leesburg V.L.,Tess M.W., and D. Griffith. 2007. Evaluation of calving seasons and marketing strategies in Northern Great Plains beef enterprises: I Cow-calf systems Adams. 1996. Effects of weaning, supplement, and sire breed of calf during the fall grazing period on cow performance. J. Animal Science. 74:1701-1710 Vavra, M., and R.J Younglove, G.A. 1998. Compatability of shortgrass native range to nutrient requirements of early of late calving Hereford Cows