It’s not unusual for cattle producers to harbor strong opinions. Some cow-calf operators have pretty strong opinions regarding the best ways to improve profitability.

Advocates of low-input production systems claim a narrow focus on increased animal performance contributes to ever-growing production costs that threaten the sustainability of a cow-calf operation.

Opponents claim animal performance is important for generating revenue — too important to give up by trying to manage cows “on the cheap.”

Aren’t both positions correct?

Cattle still sell by the pound, and quality enhances the value of those pounds. Yet, the cost of production must be considered. The key is finding a balance between input and output.

Finding balance

“Both are important,” says David Lalman, Oklahoma State University animal scientist. “We have tools to address both at the same time: achieving relatively high output with low input.”

Lalman cites studies suggesting nearly 62% of the variation in profitability between high- and low-profit cow-calf operations is due to differences in total production cost per cow. The other 38% is the result of differences in gross income per cow based on number of calves sold, calf weights and price received.

“Improving output is part of the picture,” adds Lalman, “but controlling costs almost always trumps an increase in output.”

Be cautious of extremes

Bill Barby is a cost-conscious cattleman who ranches in southwestern Kansas, near the community of Protection. Consisting entirely of native range, the ranch supports a commercial Angus cow herd. Calves are held over and grazed a second summer before going to a custom feedyard. Finished cattle are marketed through an all-natural beef program.

A decade or so ago, Barby was pushing extra hard to limit production costs. Reflecting on that time, he thinks he pushed too hard. There were consequences.

“Back then, we shifted our calving season from February to May so we could cut way back on supplemental feed in winter,” Barby explains. “But that moved the breeding season to August, when the quality of our grass is declining. Our pregnancy rates suffered. We fixed that by backing up a little bit, starting the breeding season in mid-June, when the grass is green and the quality is high.”

Barby sees range management, including planned rotational grazing, as the key to increasing stocking rates. Grazing management has improved both quality and quantity of forage produced on the ranch.

That’s important because cattle — cows, stocker calves and replacement heifer candidates — graze year-round. All utilize stockpiled grass in winter, with purchased supplemental feed provided in the form of alfalfa hay or commercial range cubes. When nutritional value, convenience and price are considered, most years find Barby relying most heavily on cubes.

“I’m still very cost-conscious. You have to be, especially for feed costs. But I’m also very careful about meeting cattle nutrient requirements, according to the time of year and stage of production. I’m focused on profitability, and that means you have to watch input and output,” says Barby.

“Our cows are adapted to this environment. We’ve worked hard at that, and the result is very maternal females that are smaller than average. They require fewer inputs,” he says. “Our steers finish at 1,250 to 1,350 pounds (lb.) with very acceptable carcasses. We’re getting a nice premium through the all-natural program, and it’s profitable.”

Finding the best fit

Optimum output for the least possible input is also the goal for Wayne Nelson, who ranches near Buffalo, Wyo., with daughter and son-in-law Jackie and Tyler Benton. They also strive to control winter feed costs in particular, but there can be especially rough periods during winters at the foot of the Bighorn Mountains. They rely on feeding hay. It doesn’t hurt that the family is also in the hay business, growing and marketing irrigated grass hay.

According to Nelson, two different commercial Angus cow herds graze two different properties. At the main ranch, March-calving cows typically graze from May through the end of December without supplementation. Hay is then fed until spring turnout rolls around again.

On the other place, a group of April-calving cows often graze from April to mid-February, receiving hay for only 45 days or so. Both systems represent less feed expense, less work and less stress than when all cows calved in February.

“We really prefer the April-calving system. If we had more range, we’d run all the cows that way,” says Nelson. “We feed hay — just grass hay — and that’s all they get besides salt and mineral; no protein supplement. It’s the same for replacement heifers. No grain either. They’re grown on winter range and hay. Breed-up is good after a 45-day breeding season for both heifers and cows.”

The operation sells 500- to 550-lb. steer calves in the fall. Heifer calves are kept through the winter, and those not retained for replacements are often sold in the spring. Sometimes, depending on forage availability and market conditions, heifers are spayed and grazed a second summer before they’re sold.

“A longtime buyer from Iowa has fed a lot of our steers and shared performance and carcass information with us. Performance and quality grade are pretty good, and the steers reach 1,500 pounds or so by slaughter,” notes Nelson. “That’s not too bad, considering we try to keep cow size under control. Our cows probably average 1,250 pounds for mature weight.”

Perfection takes time

For both Nelson and Barby, it took years of work to build cow herds so well-adapted to their environments. Both have tried to control mature cow size and fleshing ability, while also selecting for performance and carcass traits. Both say the hard part is finding a balance.

“It’s tough, all right,” says Nelson. “When we look for bulls, we go to a [seedstock] breeder that’s also trying to stay in balance. We want to see how big a breeder’s own cows are, and we look at the EPDs (expected progeny differences), including mature cow weight and milk. We look at the performance numbers, too, but we’re not trying for the most performance.”

Calling optimum preferable to maximum, Barby also seeks breeding bulls from seedstock providers whose herds reflect that approach — herds with truly moderate cow size plus respectable growth and performance.

“I had to learn it the hard way. When I put too much emphasis on lowering costs by reducing cow size, it cost me some performance that I had to regain. You can’t concentrate on one and neglect the other,” he admits. “But I’ve since learned that you can have both.”

Weighing the data

Lalman cites evidence suggesting many producers must deal with the consequences of their emphasis on production. Industry trend lines show how aggressive selection pressure for increased postweaning growth and carcass weight has been accompanied by increased mature cow weight. That has also resulted in concern about the increased feed requirements of bigger cows.

Lalman says producers serious about controlling inputs really do need to consider cow size. Fortunately, several breed associations have produced EPDs for mature cow weight, which producers can use to control cow size.

“That’s useful, but we can do better,” says Lalman, noting that mature cow weight is a proxy for feed intake. It’s not always accurate. Some big cows exhibit lower feed intake than smaller cows, and some small cows consume more feed than bigger cows.

The genetic selection toolbox also includes EPDs for feed intake, but their value has been questioned since these EPDs were developed using growing animals’ fed diets containing concentrates — the kind of diets cows never see. According to Lalman, however, Oklahoma State University Range Cow Research Center studies suggest a moderate, positive correlation between dry-matter intake of a forage diet and intake of a diet with concentrates.

“If you’re using dry-matter feed intake EPDs to change or control feed intake in your cow herd, it’s probably working reasonably well,” says Lalman.

“What most people don’t know yet is the same studies showed that there is no correlation between average daily gain (ADG) on forage diets and average daily gain on concentrate diets,” Lalman adds. “There is zero relationship.”

This means using EPDs for ADG, which relate to growing cattle on concentrate diets, will not help producers select for females that are better at building and maintaining body condition on a forage diet. It also means some cattle do well on forage diets, other cattle do well on concentrate diets and some cattle don’t do well regardless of diet type. However, there are cattle that do very well on either diet. It’s possible to have cows that thrive on forage diets and produce calves that perform well on forage, yet go on to perform well on concentrates.

“That’s what I’m excited about. Those cattle are out there. We just have to find them,” adds Lalman, noting that more data will yield even more accurate prediction tools over time. He hopes more seedstock breeders will collect phenotypes for feed intake and mature cow weights, for submission to breed associations.

Lalman advises producers to use mature cow weight EPDs in conjunction with feed intake EPDs in a thoughtful approach to identifying cows that fit a cost-efficient cow-calf production system. By combining this approach with selection for optimum growth and performance, maybe producers can have both low input and relatively high output.

Editor’s note: Troy Smith is a cattleman and freelance writer from Sargent, Neb.