Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-45l2p Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-26T13:27:39.224Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Effects of Forage Quality Restrictions on Optimal Production Systems Determined by Linear Programming*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 April 2015

Robert E. Whitson ,
Don L. Parks  and
Dennis B. Herd
Robert E. Whitson
Affiliation:
Departments of Range Science and Agricultural Economics
Don L. Parks
Affiliation:
Texas Agricultural Extension Service, Texas A & M University
Dennis B. Herd
Affiliation:
Texas Agricultural Extension Service, Texas A & M University
Get access

Extract

Due to changing feed price relationships for beef production, it is anticipated that linear programming (LP) will be used to develop optimal feeding strategies for cow-calf operations in the South. An important relationship between forage quality and forage intake has been ignored in previous LP analyses. Forage quality and cows' intake of it are inversely related; i.e., as forage quality decreases with maturity, a cow's or calf's consumption of a particular forage must increase to continue meeting the animal's nutritional requirements. However, as the quality of forage decreases, digestibility decreases, and the animal's maximum intake capacity of that forage decreases (Figure 1). It is hypothesized that consideration of intake restrictions will change the optimal LP forage production system, livestock grazing system or supplemental feeding strategies when forages are an important nutrient source.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics , Volume 8 , Issue 2 , December 1976 , pp. 1 - 4
Copyright
Copyright © Southern Agricultural Economics Association 1976

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

*

Technical Article No. 12180 of the Texas Agricultural Experiment Station.

References

[1] Bartlett, E.T., Evans, Gary R. and Bement, R.E. “A Serial Optimization Model for Range Management,” Journal of Range Management, Volume 27, No. 3, pp. 233–240, May 1974.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[2] Conrad, H.R., Hibbs, J.W. and Pratt., A.D. “Regulation of Feed Intake in Dairy Cows. II. Association Between Digestible Dry Matter Intake and Cellulose Digestibility in Cows Fed Increasing Levels of Grain Concentrate,” Journal of Dairy Science, Volume 49, No. 9, pp. 1038–1942, September 1966.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[3] D'Aquino, Sandy A. “A Case Study for Optimal Allocation of Range Resources,” Journal of Range Management, Volume 27, No. 3, pp. 228–233, May 1974.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[4] Herd, Dennis B. “Forage and Supplements for Beef Heifers, Cows and Calves,” Texas Agricultural Extension Service, mimeograph, undated.Google Scholar
[5] Perrin, Richard K., Shumway, C. Richard, Harvey, Raymond W. and Burns, Joseph C.. “Economic Analysis of Beef Production and Forage Systems in the North Carolina Mountains,” North Carolina Agricultural Experiment Station Technical Bulletin No. 227, September 1974.Google Scholar
[6] Sharp, Wayne W. and Boykin, Calvin C.. “A Dynamic Programming Model for Evaluating Investments in Mesquite Control and Alternative Beef Cattle Systems,” Texas Agricultural Experiment Station Technical Monograph No. 4, September 1967.Google Scholar
[7] Shumway, C. R. and Bentley, Ernest. “Analysis of Innovations: Dairy and Exotic Crossbreeds for Beef Production,” Southern Journal of Agricultural Economics, Volume 6, No. 1, pp. 235–241, July 1974.Google Scholar
[8] Whitson, Robert E., Lacewell, Ronald D. and Shipley, John. “Economic Analysis of Irrigated Wheat and Stocker Grazing Alternatives in the Northern High Plains of Texas and Oklahoma,” Texas Agricultural Experiment Station, Department of Agricultural Economics Technical Report 73-3, September 1973.Google Scholar
[9] Woodworth, Bruce M. “Optimizing the Calf Mix on Range Lands with Linear Programming,” Journal of Range Management, Volume 26, No. 3, pp. 175–179, May 1973.CrossRefGoogle Scholar