Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-rkxrd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-16T12:13:12.355Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Live Animal Ultrasound Information as a Decision Tool in Replacement Beef Heifer Programs

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 January 2015

Alecsandro Dos Santos ,
John D. Anderson ,
Rhonda C. Vann  and
Scott T. Willard
Alecsandro Dos Santos
Affiliation:
Mississippi State University
John D. Anderson
Affiliation:
Mississippi State University
Rhonda C. Vann
Affiliation:
Mississippi State University
Scott T. Willard
Affiliation:
Mississippi State University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Real-time ultrasound information taken on beef heifers prior to backgrounding is used to develop a logit model to aid heifer retention decisions. The value of ultrasound data is calculated as the difference in certainty equivalents between a decision rule incorporating ultrasound information and one using only visual cues. The value of ultrasound data is found to be around $10 per head but is influenced by heifer value and backgrounding costs.

Keywords

expected utilityheifer developmentlogitreal-time ultrasoundQ11Q12Q13
Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics , Volume 40 , Issue 1 , April 2007 , pp. 335 - 344
Copyright
Copyright © Southern Agricultural Economics Association 2008

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

Andersen, K.J., LeFever, G., Brinks, J.S., and Odde, K.G. “The Use of Reproductive Tract Scoring in Beef Heifers.” Agri-Practice 12(1991):4.Google Scholar
Anderson, J.D., Ferguson, M.D., and Brethour, J.R. “Value of Fed Cattle Carcass Predictions Based on Live Animal Ultrasound Data.” Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Agricultural Economics Association, Chicago, August 6–8, 2001.Google Scholar
Brethour, J.R. “Using Serial Ultrasound Measures to Generate Models of Marbling and Backfat Thickness Changes in Feedlot Cattle. Journal of Animal Science 78(2000):2055–61.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hardaker, J.B., Huirne, R.B.M., and Anderson, J.R. Coping with Risk in Agriculture. New York: CAB International, 1997.Google Scholar
Ibendahl, G.A., Anderson, J.D., and Anderson, L.H. “Deciding When to Replace an Open Beef Cow.” Agricultural Finance Review 64(2004):61–74.Google Scholar
Koontz, S.R., Hoag, D.L., Walker, J.L., and Brethour, J.R. “Returns to Market Timing and Sorting of Fed Cattle.” Paper presented at the 2000 NCR-134 Conference on Applied Price Analysis, Forecasting, and Market Risk Management, Chicago, April 17–18, 2000.Google Scholar
Lacy, C., and Rossi, J. Beef Enterprise Budget: Selling AI Bred Heifers. Department of Agricultural and Applied Economics, University of Georgia. Internet site: www.ces.uga.edu/Agriculture/agecon.printedbudgets.htm (Accessed March 4, 2007).Google Scholar
Lesmeister, J.L., Burfening, P.J., and Blackwell, R.L. “Date of First Calving in Beef Cows and Subsequent Calf Production.” Journal of Animal Science 36(1973):1–6.Google Scholar
Lusk, J.L., Little, R., Williams, A., Anderson, J.D., and McKinley, B. “Utilizing Ultrasound Technology to Improve Livestock Marketing Decisions.” Review of Agricultural Economics 25(2003):203–17.Google Scholar
Meek, M.S., Whittier, J.C., and Dalsted, N.L. “Estimation of Net Present Value of Beef Females of Various Ages and Economic Sensitivity of Net Present Value to Changes in Production.” Professional Animal Scientist 15(2005):46–52.Google Scholar
Minick, J. A., Wilson, D.E., Rouse, G.H., Hassen, A., Pence, M., Sealock, R., and Hopkins, S. Relationship between Body Composition and Reproduction in Heifers. Ames: Iowa State University, Beef Research Report R1769, 2001.Google Scholar
Missouri Show-Me Select Heifer Sale. Internet site: http://agebb.missouri.edu/select/sum/saleavg.htm (Accessed on July 10, 2006).Google Scholar
Patterson, D.J., Herring, W.O., and Kerley, M.S. Management Considerations in Beef Heifer Development. Columbia: University of Missouri Extension Service, G-2041, 1997.Google Scholar
Patterson, D.J., Perry, R.C., Kiracofe, G.H., Bellows, R.A., Staigmiller, R.B., and Corah, L.R. “Management Considerations in Heifer Development and Puberty.” Journal of Animal Science 70(1992):4018–35.Google Scholar
Skalland, A. “Marketing Strategies Are Made Easier with Ultrasound Technology.” Sioux Falls, SD: Tri-State Neighbor Livestock Guide, 2001.Google Scholar
Steiner, R.A. 1987. “Nutritional and Metabolic Factors in the Regulation of Reproductive Hormone Secretion in the Primate.” Proceedings of the Nutrition Society 46(1987):159.Google Scholar
Tronstad, R., and Gumm, R. “Cow Culling Decisions Adapted for Management with CART.” American Journal of Agricultural Economics 76(1994):237–49.Google Scholar
Van Tassel, L.W., Scott, M.M., Michael, M.D., Roberts, S.E., and Elaine, G.E. “Retained Ownership of Beef Cattle When Considering Production and Price Risk.” Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Western Agricultural Economics Association, Reno/Sparks, NV, July 13–16, 1997.Google Scholar
Walker, J.L. “Economic Returns to Ultrasound Technology in the Timing and Sorting of Feedlot Cattle: A Study in Value-Based Marketing.” M.S. thesis, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, 1999.Google Scholar