Implementation of a performance indicators system in a beef cattle company

Júnior, Adriano Garcia Rosado; Lobato, José Fernando Piva

doi:10.1590/s1516-35982010000600029

Cited by 7 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 3 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Zootec., 46(1):65-71, 2017 (Rosado Jr. and Lobato, 2010). Therefore, creating and evaluating methods that aid farm diagnosis is useful for the development and correct utilization of management tools (Abreu et al, 2006;Mosnier et al, 2009).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A proposal for the evaluation of the bioeconomic efficiency of beef cattle production systems

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

-The objective of this study was to identify types of production system and their main indicators on bioeconomic efficiency, using qualitative and quantitative methods to evaluate beef cattle farms in the western region of the state of Rio Grande do Sul. A survey was carried out with 43 farmers operating in the western region of that state. All farms operated with complete cycle production systems in areas larger or equal to 900 ha. A qualitative questionnaire with binary answers and a quantitative questionnaire with numerical answers were applied. Technology and Management drivers were used for the calculation of the efficiency index of farmers obtained by both questionnaires. Farmers were divided into three clusters: low-efficiency level (LEL), intermediate-efficiency level (IEM), or high-efficiency level (HEL), as a result of the comparison of the scores obtained for the analyzed parameters. Subfactors resulting from each comparison (LEL × IEL; LEL × HEL, and IEL × HEL) were different as a function of the comparison and of the methods applied. Low-efficiency level farmers need to improve essential production processes, such as technology and management, as well as health management practices together with the financial management of the production system. Intermediate-efficiency level farmers need to improve their routine animal management, pasture management, and calculation of financial indicators to become highly efficient. The quantitative method allowed to identify underestimation (39.3%) or overestimation (24.2%) when farmers were are classified in clusters. Different methods may be used, but those based on quantitative information have stronger discrimination power to identify different types of farmers.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A proposal for the evaluation of the bioeconomic efficiency of beef cattle production systems

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Identifying the need to make such decisions during the macro-processes identified in production systems (Rosado Júnior & Lobato, 2009) rather posteriorly is critical for the establishment of high productivity in beef cattle production (Beretta et al, 2002;Rosado Júnior & Lobato, 2010).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Natural and improved pastures on growth and reproductive performance of Hereford heifers

2012

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

-This study evaluated yearling growth and reproductive performance of Hereford heifers at 24-26 months of age grazing on natural pastures at two stocking rates during winter and spring, associated or not to improved natural pastures.Heifers were classified according to three weight groups (Light, Medium and Heavy) and randomly distributed into four feeding management practices: 0.6 AU (1 animal unit = 450-kg body weight) -heifers on natural pastures at a stocking rate of 0.6 AU/ha; 0.8 AU -heifers on natural pastures at a stocking rate of 0.8 AU/ha; 0.6 AUI -heifers on natural pastures at a stocking rate of 0.6 AU/ha and on improved natural pastures between Sept 1 st and Nov 1 st ; 0.8 AUI -heifers on natural pasture at a stocking rate of 0.8 AU/ha and on improved natural pastures between Sept 1 st and Nov 1 st . The stocking rate of 0.8 AU resulted in significant weight loss during winter months (-0.138 and -0.356 kg for 0.6 and 0.8 AU, respectively). Heifers grazing during the spring on improved natural pastures presented higher weight gain before the breeding season and higher body weight and body condition score in the beginning and end of the breeding season in relation to those grazing only on natural pastures. Heifers kept at 0.6 AU/ha obtained 69.7% pregnancy rate, which was significantly higher than the 54.2% of those managed at 0.8 UA/ha.Heifers grazing on improved natural pastures during the spring achieved 83.8% pregnancy rate, whereas those maintained on natural pastures achieved only 40.2%. Light and medium heifers lost less weight during the winter as compared with the heavy ones, but weight differences between groups remained until the end of the breeding season. Heavy heifers have higher pregnancy rates. Heifers submitted to lower stocking rate and those grazing on improved natural pastures conceive earlier.

show abstract

Carcass and meat quality of young Angus steers with different growth potential finished exclusively grass-fed or corn supplemented

Santin

Lima

Mateus

et al. 2021

Trop Anim Health Prod

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Implementation of a performance indicators system in a beef cattle company

Cited by 7 publications

References 3 publications

A proposal for the evaluation of the bioeconomic efficiency of beef cattle production systems

A proposal for the evaluation of the bioeconomic efficiency of beef cattle production systems

Natural and improved pastures on growth and reproductive performance of Hereford heifers

Carcass and meat quality of young Angus steers with different growth potential finished exclusively grass-fed or corn supplemented

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About