The cow type debate often arises among suckler farmers, whether it is in the local co-op, around the sales ring or in your beef discussion group. It always comes down to the value of cow traits such as milk, fertility, size and feed efficiency, compared with calf traits such as ease of calving, weight gain and conformation.
In reality, the profitability of your farming system depends on both components. The importance that you place on each should be driven by the final destination of your calf. Are you breeding replacement animals with top maternal traits, such as milk and fertility, or are you focusing on terminally-bred animals with the aim of reaching target slaughter weight as efficiently as possible?
What drives cow type?
You could say that cow type is driven by available land type and the return from the market for the final product the beef produced.
If good quality land is available then larger, later-maturing cows are more predominant. This is traditionally the case in Europe compared with America and Australasia, where beef prices are traditionally lower and the land where suckler cows are based is of poorer quality.
There are a number of reasons why now is a good time to look at your cow type and to assess whether she is doing a good job. The ongoing pressure on beef prices, increased competition for land from the dairy herd, increases in farm input costs and the cost of maintaining a cow are just a few of those reasons. Processor specifications stating that the market requires smaller carcase and younger, smaller bulls shouldn’t be left out of the equation. However, efficiency must play a bigger role than ever before, we must have as many cows as possible producing a calf every 12 months.
Current cow type
In last week’s pages of this suckler series, we learned that there is variation in the genetic makeup of cow type across the counties of Ireland. On average, 65% of the genes in Irish suckler cows are continental genes, 24% are from traditional breeds and almost 12% are dairy genes.
In a paper presented by Dr Andrew Cromie of the Irish Cattle Breeding Federation (ICBF), based on data up to 2012, it was noted that Limousin (LM) and Charolais (CH) were the most popular breed combination in terms of suckler herd replacements at that time. This reflects the dominance of these two breeds within the Irish suckler herd. This cross was then followed by Limousin x Holstein Friesian (HF), Angus (AA) or Hereford (HE) x Holstein Friesian and Limousin x Simmental (SI).
Despite a growing interest at the time in sourcing first cross replacements from the dairy herd (mainly LM x HF and AA or HE x HF), ICBF data at the time showed no real shift towards these breed combinations when compared with other options. Cromie noted that this would suggest that Irish suckler beef farmers are generally happier to breed their own replacements or purchase replacements bred from the suckler herd.
The paper also noted that there had been a shift away from three-quarter-bred cows as potential suckler replacements. According to Cromie, this is despite assertions from some quarters that “pure-breeding” results in greater uniformity, which leads to improvements in management, saleability and, hence, profitability.
Trends from the Irish suckler herd suggest that this isn’t the case, with beef farmers preferring to cross different breed as a means of generating maternal replacements.
This combination of crosses clearly demonstrates why the proportion of continental genes in the Irish suckler herd accounts for the majority. However, Cromie also noted that there was a turnaround in the usage of traditional breed as potential suckler cow replacements.
From 2007 to 2011, usage of these breeds decreased by 4% to 6% per year. This is compared with a 16% to 30% increase between 2011 and 2012. This level of increase is not as high as the main continental breeds (LM, CH and SI) but it was considered to be significant.
An analysis by Cromie looking at performance data to determine the strengths and weaknesses of each breed, including genetic trends for key profit traits of these different breed groups, showed that the traditional breeds (Angus, Hereford and Shorthorn) perform best for the cost of production traits, mainly the cost of calving, daughter calving interval and daughter milk. In contrast to this, the continental terminal breeds perform best for carcase weight and conformation, including feed efficiency. The continental dual-purpose breeds were said to perform well for both sets of traits.
Current situation
We have already highlighted that, on average, 65% of the genes in Irish suckler cows are continental. This influence can be seen when we look at the ICBF data for 2013, which demonstrates that as the percentage of continental genetics increases on a per-county basis, so too does the carcase weight of the suckler cow (Figure 1).
Table 1 displays the influence that a higher and lower percentage of continental genes has on cull cow, as well as calves per cow per year and the calving interval. It is divided into the top and bottom five counties in relation to the proportion of continental genetics in their suckler cows.
Donegal has the highest proportion of continental genes in its suckler cows at 74.4% and it also has the heaviest cull cow carcase weight at 340kg. To carry out a simplistic analysis on the feed intake of these cows compared with a smaller cow, we will take a killout percentage of 50%. This means that Donegal is working with an average cow size of 680kg.
Naturally, a cow of this size will require more feeding than a smaller cow. Table 1 shows that Limerick, for example, has the second lightest cull cow carcase in the country (312kg) and the second lowest level of continental genes at 50.7%. Using the same killout percentage, the Limerick cow would weigh 624kg in comparison with the Donegal cow at 680kg, a difference of 56kg liveweight.
In terms of feed consumed, at 2% of its bodyweight the larger Donegal cow is likely to consume 1.1kg more dry matter per day. In concentrate terms (€260/t), this is an additional cost of 33c/day. Eating silage, it is an additional (€30/t fresh weight) cost of 13c/day, or eating grass (€50/t), it is an additional 5.5c per day.
These might seem like small values, but if you are feeding 100 cows, the additional concentrate comes to €33 per day. Therefore, the larger Donegal cow could be seen as somewhat inefficient compared with the smaller Limerick cow.
The other side of the argument is that the Donegal cow is producing a heavier steer on an annual basis. If we stick with the same two county examples, Donegal’s cows are producing steers with an average carcase weight of 385kg. It should be noted that the steer weight does not take steer age into account.
The Limerick cow, which according to our calculation is cheaper to run, is producing a lighter steer of 347kg. This is a difference of 38kg carcase weight and at the current base price for beef leads to a difference in value of €146.
As a whole, input costs at farm level have increased. This means that efficiency at farm level must be optimised to claw back some of these costs. The cow must be efficient. Over the past nine months, we have seen processors announce that their target carcase specification is one that does not exceed 380kg. Beef should be produced to this specification to receive the optimum price per kilo. You would be forgiven at this point, for thinking that reducing the proportion of continental genes in the national herd would be the right approach to take.
A simple analysis like this is food for thought and that is all it is. We cannot forget that it is possible for the Donegal cow at 680kg to have better feed conversion efficiency than the Limerick cow at 624kg and could potentially require less feed for maintenance. Obviously, the same applies to their offspring.
An analysis like this only looks at the phenotypic data, the definition of which is the set of observable characteristics of an animal resulting from the interaction of its genotype with the environment. This could mask true genetic differences both across breeds and within breeds.
Such an analysis does not take into account the key profit traits, most notably maternal milk, calving difficulty and feed efficiency. Cows with high milk potential wean heavier calves than cows with low milk potential, regardless of the liveweight of the cow.
Farmers must be aware that breed is not the only metric to determine the most suitable cow type for their system. There are good bulls and cows and bad bulls and cows across all breeds, which can increase or decrease efficiency inside your farm gate.
Genetic makeup of the national suckler herd is 65% continental genes, 24% traditional breed genes and almost 12% dairy genes.The higher the proportion of continental genes, the higher the carcase weight of both the cull cows and their offspring.This information should be kept in mind but should not be the sole basis of a decision to adjust cow type on farms.Milk, fertility, feed efficiency and a good calf at foot produced at a minimal cost are requirements for your cows.
The cow type debate often arises among suckler farmers, whether it is in the local co-op, around the sales ring or in your beef discussion group. It always comes down to the value of cow traits such as milk, fertility, size and feed efficiency, compared with calf traits such as ease of calving, weight gain and conformation.
In reality, the profitability of your farming system depends on both components. The importance that you place on each should be driven by the final destination of your calf. Are you breeding replacement animals with top maternal traits, such as milk and fertility, or are you focusing on terminally-bred animals with the aim of reaching target slaughter weight as efficiently as possible?
What drives cow type?
You could say that cow type is driven by available land type and the return from the market for the final product the beef produced.
If good quality land is available then larger, later-maturing cows are more predominant. This is traditionally the case in Europe compared with America and Australasia, where beef prices are traditionally lower and the land where suckler cows are based is of poorer quality.
There are a number of reasons why now is a good time to look at your cow type and to assess whether she is doing a good job. The ongoing pressure on beef prices, increased competition for land from the dairy herd, increases in farm input costs and the cost of maintaining a cow are just a few of those reasons. Processor specifications stating that the market requires smaller carcase and younger, smaller bulls shouldn’t be left out of the equation. However, efficiency must play a bigger role than ever before, we must have as many cows as possible producing a calf every 12 months.
Current cow type
In last week’s pages of this suckler series, we learned that there is variation in the genetic makeup of cow type across the counties of Ireland. On average, 65% of the genes in Irish suckler cows are continental genes, 24% are from traditional breeds and almost 12% are dairy genes.
In a paper presented by Dr Andrew Cromie of the Irish Cattle Breeding Federation (ICBF), based on data up to 2012, it was noted that Limousin (LM) and Charolais (CH) were the most popular breed combination in terms of suckler herd replacements at that time. This reflects the dominance of these two breeds within the Irish suckler herd. This cross was then followed by Limousin x Holstein Friesian (HF), Angus (AA) or Hereford (HE) x Holstein Friesian and Limousin x Simmental (SI).
Despite a growing interest at the time in sourcing first cross replacements from the dairy herd (mainly LM x HF and AA or HE x HF), ICBF data at the time showed no real shift towards these breed combinations when compared with other options. Cromie noted that this would suggest that Irish suckler beef farmers are generally happier to breed their own replacements or purchase replacements bred from the suckler herd.
The paper also noted that there had been a shift away from three-quarter-bred cows as potential suckler replacements. According to Cromie, this is despite assertions from some quarters that “pure-breeding” results in greater uniformity, which leads to improvements in management, saleability and, hence, profitability.
Trends from the Irish suckler herd suggest that this isn’t the case, with beef farmers preferring to cross different breed as a means of generating maternal replacements.
This combination of crosses clearly demonstrates why the proportion of continental genes in the Irish suckler herd accounts for the majority. However, Cromie also noted that there was a turnaround in the usage of traditional breed as potential suckler cow replacements.
From 2007 to 2011, usage of these breeds decreased by 4% to 6% per year. This is compared with a 16% to 30% increase between 2011 and 2012. This level of increase is not as high as the main continental breeds (LM, CH and SI) but it was considered to be significant.
An analysis by Cromie looking at performance data to determine the strengths and weaknesses of each breed, including genetic trends for key profit traits of these different breed groups, showed that the traditional breeds (Angus, Hereford and Shorthorn) perform best for the cost of production traits, mainly the cost of calving, daughter calving interval and daughter milk. In contrast to this, the continental terminal breeds perform best for carcase weight and conformation, including feed efficiency. The continental dual-purpose breeds were said to perform well for both sets of traits.
Current situation
We have already highlighted that, on average, 65% of the genes in Irish suckler cows are continental. This influence can be seen when we look at the ICBF data for 2013, which demonstrates that as the percentage of continental genetics increases on a per-county basis, so too does the carcase weight of the suckler cow (Figure 1).
Table 1 displays the influence that a higher and lower percentage of continental genes has on cull cow, as well as calves per cow per year and the calving interval. It is divided into the top and bottom five counties in relation to the proportion of continental genetics in their suckler cows.
Donegal has the highest proportion of continental genes in its suckler cows at 74.4% and it also has the heaviest cull cow carcase weight at 340kg. To carry out a simplistic analysis on the feed intake of these cows compared with a smaller cow, we will take a killout percentage of 50%. This means that Donegal is working with an average cow size of 680kg.
Naturally, a cow of this size will require more feeding than a smaller cow. Table 1 shows that Limerick, for example, has the second lightest cull cow carcase in the country (312kg) and the second lowest level of continental genes at 50.7%. Using the same killout percentage, the Limerick cow would weigh 624kg in comparison with the Donegal cow at 680kg, a difference of 56kg liveweight.
In terms of feed consumed, at 2% of its bodyweight the larger Donegal cow is likely to consume 1.1kg more dry matter per day. In concentrate terms (€260/t), this is an additional cost of 33c/day. Eating silage, it is an additional (€30/t fresh weight) cost of 13c/day, or eating grass (€50/t), it is an additional 5.5c per day.
These might seem like small values, but if you are feeding 100 cows, the additional concentrate comes to €33 per day. Therefore, the larger Donegal cow could be seen as somewhat inefficient compared with the smaller Limerick cow.
The other side of the argument is that the Donegal cow is producing a heavier steer on an annual basis. If we stick with the same two county examples, Donegal’s cows are producing steers with an average carcase weight of 385kg. It should be noted that the steer weight does not take steer age into account.
The Limerick cow, which according to our calculation is cheaper to run, is producing a lighter steer of 347kg. This is a difference of 38kg carcase weight and at the current base price for beef leads to a difference in value of €146.
As a whole, input costs at farm level have increased. This means that efficiency at farm level must be optimised to claw back some of these costs. The cow must be efficient. Over the past nine months, we have seen processors announce that their target carcase specification is one that does not exceed 380kg. Beef should be produced to this specification to receive the optimum price per kilo. You would be forgiven at this point, for thinking that reducing the proportion of continental genes in the national herd would be the right approach to take.
A simple analysis like this is food for thought and that is all it is. We cannot forget that it is possible for the Donegal cow at 680kg to have better feed conversion efficiency than the Limerick cow at 624kg and could potentially require less feed for maintenance. Obviously, the same applies to their offspring.
An analysis like this only looks at the phenotypic data, the definition of which is the set of observable characteristics of an animal resulting from the interaction of its genotype with the environment. This could mask true genetic differences both across breeds and within breeds.
Such an analysis does not take into account the key profit traits, most notably maternal milk, calving difficulty and feed efficiency. Cows with high milk potential wean heavier calves than cows with low milk potential, regardless of the liveweight of the cow.
Farmers must be aware that breed is not the only metric to determine the most suitable cow type for their system. There are good bulls and cows and bad bulls and cows across all breeds, which can increase or decrease efficiency inside your farm gate.
Genetic makeup of the national suckler herd is 65% continental genes, 24% traditional breed genes and almost 12% dairy genes.The higher the proportion of continental genes, the higher the carcase weight of both the cull cows and their offspring.This information should be kept in mind but should not be the sole basis of a decision to adjust cow type on farms.Milk, fertility, feed efficiency and a good calf at foot produced at a minimal cost are requirements for your cows. 
This is a subscriber-only article
SHARING OPTIONS: