Cow size, forage efficiency key to profitability in beef operations 

As carcass weights continue to climb across the beef industry, producers are facing increasing pressure to balance growth with efficiency—especially at the cow-calf level. David Lalman, professor and Extension beef cattle specialist at Oklahoma State University, spoke about this topic in a recent OSU Rancher’s Lunchtime webinar.  

He said research from Oklahoma State University shows that while heavier carcasses improve packing plant efficiency, larger cow size can significantly impact forage demand, stocking rates and overall profitability. Industry data indicates carcass weights have steadily increased over time, a trend expected to continue.  

Lalman said larger carcasses allow packing plants to process more pounds of beef at the same speed, improving efficiency on the processing side. However, that shift creates challenges for cow-calf producers who are managing feed resources for optimum financial gain. 

Bigger cows, higher costs 

Lalman said cow weight is strongly correlated with carcass weight, with research showing a genetic correlation between 0.6 and 0.8 heritability. While selecting for growth can increase output, it also raises feed requirements.  

Lalman said OSU graduate student Megan Gross’s research shows forage intake increases by roughly 2 pounds per day for every 100-pound increase in cow weight. That added intake reduces stocking rates on a fixed land base. For example, Lalman said a 10,000-acre operation in central Oklahoma could support about 868 head of 1,000-pound cows, and about 644 head of 1,500-pound cows. 

“Cow weight is often used as a proxy for feed cost and stocking rate,” Lalman noted. “And those costs add up quickly on a per-acre basis.” 

Lalman said profitability is always tied to stocking rate and while heavier cows can produce slightly heavier calves, the economic tradeoff is significant when land resources are limited. He used an example enterprise analysis to compare 1,150-pound cows to 1,350-pound cows on a 10,000-acre operation to determine which was more profitable. 

The analysis showed annual cow costs increased by about $65 per head; stocking rates declined significantly, and net returns dropped by roughly $67,000 with the larger, 1,350-pound cows. To offset those losses, producers would need approximately $180 more per calf in added value—either at weaning or through carcass premiums. 

“If you just look at the difference in cow costs on a per animal basis, it doesn’t look like all that big of an impact,” he said. “But if a producer is going to continue to aggressively select for growth and increase cow size, he really has to make a choice. You’re either going to be overgrazing your place if you don’t make any change or have a really strict breeding plan to control the cow weight and cow costs.”  

Lalman said the alternative is to acquire more land to avoid overgrazing or run fewer cows. 

Growth efficiency and forage 

Despite decades of selection for growth, data suggests weaning weights have plateaued in many regions. Lalman said this indicates environmental limitations—such as forage availability—are often restricting performance rather than genetics. 

“In many cases, it does appear that the ranch environment is restricting weaning weight,” Lalman said. “If cow size increases, but weaning weights don’t, producers are essentially running a more expensive operation without increasing output. If that applies in your case, you should shift your breeding objectives to focus more on controlling cow costs, and perhaps less on continuing to select for more growth.” 

Lalman said research shows no relationship between mature cow size and marbling meaning producers do not need larger cows to achieve carcass quality premiums. Instead, efficiency may lie in better matching cattle to forage systems. He said several studies have compared feed intake and gain, which found that feed intake rankings are moderately consistent across diet types.  

Additionally, weight gain rankings differ significantly between forage and high-energy diets. This suggests cattle that perform well in feedlots are not always the most efficient on forage. However, about 20 to 25% of animals perform well in both environments, presenting an opportunity for targeted selection. 

“I think those are the cattle that we really need to be looking for and trying to identify as we select cattle for improved forage efficiency,” Lalman said. Those cattle also have the genetic capacity to be really efficient and good gainers in the post-weaning phase of the industry.” 

Improving genetics for profitability 

Lalman recommends several practical steps toward selecting animals that fit your environment and produce progeny that excels on the gain. First, he says producers should test their stock by weighing retained females and then turn them out on moderate- to low-quality forage. After 70 to 100 days, weigh them again to determine the average daily gain. 

“If you do that, you’re going to find a widespread average daily gain, and you will be able to rank those heifers for their ability to gain weight as a growing animal,” Lalman said. “The data indicates that the genetic correlation for weight gain in a heifer is a moderate to high genetic correlation to a mature cow. We think this can lead to females that are better able to thrive in a moderate quality forage environment year-round and maintain or even gain body condition without an extreme amount or without a lot of supplementation.” 

Additionally, Lalman recommends using expected progeny differences to select sires with moderate mature cow weight and feed intake; avoid over-selection for growth traits alone; develop heifers under moderate or low-quality forage conditions; and consider retaining only heifers that perform well under forage-based systems. 

Furthermore, he said sourcing bulls from operations that track cow weight and feed intake can improve genetic accuracy and long-term herd performance. While the industry continues pushing for heavier carcasses, the cow-calf sector must remain focused on efficiency. 

“Moderate-sized cows are consistently more profitable when land is limited,” Lalman concluded. “The key is controlling cow costs while capturing value in post-weaning performance.” 

Lacey Vilhauer can be reached at 620-227-1871 or [email protected].