Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-94fs2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-01T02:13:19.319Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Impacts of alternative replacement breeding systems on biological and economic performance in beef suckler production using a herd level bio-economic model

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 August 2016

T. Roughsedge*
Affiliation:
Animal Biology Division, Scottish Agricultural College, West Mains Road, Edinburgh EH9 3JG, UK
B. Lowman
Affiliation:
Farm and Rural Business Division, Scottish Agricultural College, West Mains Road EH9 3JG, UK
P. R. Amer
Affiliation:
Abacus Biotech Limited, PO Box 5585, Dunedin, New Zealand
G. Simm
Affiliation:
Animal Biology Division, Scottish Agricultural College, West Mains Road, Edinburgh EH9 3JG, UK
Get access

Abstract

A deterministic bio-economic model was used to investigate the impact of different heifer replacement breeding systems for beef suckler cow production in different environments. It was shown that measures of cow efficiency were highly correlated with profitability in suckled calf production. However, where significant genotype differences exist in final output value due to issues of carcass quality, then more complete characterization of system profitability is recommended. In systems utilizing a terminal sire mating policy for all matings in excess of replacement heifer requirements the proportion of terminal sire matings made are affected by female fertility. Reduced cow fertility combined with late attainment of puberty in heifers and low heifer fertility has a substantial negative effect on the proportion of terminal sire matings made. This illustrates an aspect of production that can be improved by the use of crossbreeding to exploit heterosis in reproductive traits. The time frame of impacts of the different systems was seen to vary. Grading up to a pure breed allowed exploitation of heterosis in the early years of the transition leading to a boost in profitability but this boost was lost as the herd became purebred. Composite and rotational crossing systems were seen to create a steady rise in financial margin to the point where they became stable in breed proportion and heterosis. The effect of cow size was evaluated in three different environments, representing UK lowland, upland and hill. It was found that small cows became more profitable in relation to large cows as food resources became more limiting. In a non-limiting environment large cows were more profitable than small cows.

Type
Non-ruminant nutrition, behaviour and production
Copyright
Copyright © British Society of Animal Science 2003

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.)

References

Amer, P. R., Roughsedge, T., Lowman, B. and Simm, G. 2003. Deterministic predictions of beef cow herd population dynamics with alternative replacement strategies. Animal Science 77: 395401.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Armstrong, S. L., Wilton, J. W., Pfeiffer, W. C. and Schaeffer, L. R. 1990. Influence of variations in biological and economic parameters on beef production net returns. Journal of Animal Science 68: 18571866.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cundiff, L. V., Szabo, F., Gregory, K. E., Koch, R. M., Dikeman, M. E. and Crouse, J. 1996. Breed comparisons in the Germplasm evaluation program at MARC. Available at: http: //www. ansi. okstate. edu/BREEDS/RESEARCH/ marccomp. htm (accessed 23 July, 2002).Google Scholar
Davis, K. C., Tess, M. W., Kress, D. D., Doornbos, D. E. and Anderson, D. C. 1994. Life cycle evaluation of five biological types of beef cattle in a cow-calf range production system. II. Biological and economic performance. Journal of Animal Science 72: 25912598.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fitzhugh, H. A. 1978. Animal size and efficiency, with special reference to the breeding female. Animal Production 27: 393401.Google Scholar
Gregory, K. E. and Cundiff, L. V. 1980. Crossbreeding in beef cattle: evaluation of systems. Journal of Animal Science 51: 12241242.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gregory, K. E., Cundiff, L. V. and Koch, R. M. 1999. Composite breeds to use heterosis and breed differences to improve efficiency of beef production. Technical bulletin no. 1875. ARS, USDA, Clay Center, NE.Google Scholar
Jenkins, T. G. and Ferrel, C. L. 1994. Productivity through weaning of nine breeds of cattle under varying feed availabilities. I. Initial evaluation. Journal of Animal Science 72: 27872797.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lamb, M. A. and Tess, M. W. 1989. Evaluation of crossbreeding systems for small beef herds. I. Single-sire systems. Journal of Animal Science 67: 2839.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morris, C. A., Baker, R. L., Hickey, S. M., Johnson, D. L., Cullen, N. G. and Wilson, J. A. 1993. Evidence of genotype by environment interaction for reproductive and maternal traits in beef cattle. Animal Science 56: 6983.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rahnefeld, G. W., Weiss, G. M. and Ward, D. 1993. A comparison of methods to evaluate beef cow productivity. Canadian Journal of Animal Science 73: 971975.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roughsedge, T., Amer, P. R. and Simm, G. 2003. A bio-economic model for the evaluation of breeds and mating systems in beef production enterprises. Animal Science 77: 403416.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roughsedge, T., Thompson, R., Villanueva, B. and Simm, G. 2001. Synthesis of direct and maternal genetic components of economically important traits from beef breed-cross evaluations. Journal of Animal Science 79: 23072319.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sinclair, K. D., Yildiz, S., Quintans, G. and Broadbent, P. J. 1998a. Annual energy intake and the performance of beef cows differing in body size and milk potential. Animal Science 66: 643655.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sinclair, K. D., Yildiz, S., Quintans, G., Gebbie, F. E. and Broadbent, P. J. 1998b. Annual energy intake and the metabolic and reproductive performance of beef cows differing in body size and milk potential. Animal Science 66: 657666.CrossRefGoogle Scholar