The profit-maximising feeding period for different breeds of beef cattle

Oosthuizen, Phillip; Mare, Frikkie

doi:10.1080/03031853.2018.1478315

Cited by 5 publications

(8 citation statements)

References 6 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Before slaughter, the animals were fed until they reached their optimal economic point of growth (Profit Maximizing Feeding Period). Therefore, the variation in carcass weight between the breeds was considerable [23]. The feeding periods, in weeks, of the different breeds were Afrikaner 15, Brahman 16, Angus 22, Bonsmara 16, Simbra 21, Simmentaler 27, and Limousin 26.…”

Section: Slaughter Datamentioning

confidence: 99%

The Water Footprint of Primary and Secondary Processing of Beef from Different Cattle Breeds: A Value Fraction Allocation Model

Mare

Jordaan

2021

Sustainability

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The high water intake and wastewater discharge of slaughterhouses have been a concern for many years. One neglected factor in previous research is allocating the water footprint (WF) to beef production’s different products and by-products. The objective of this article was to estimate the WF of different cattle breeds at a slaughterhouse and cutting plant and allocate it according to the different cuts (products) and by-products of beef based on the value fraction of each. The results indicated a negative relationship between the carcass weight and the processing WF when the different breeds were compared. Regarding a specific cut of beef, a kilogram of rib eye from the heaviest breed had a processing WF of 614.57 L/kg, compared to the 919.91 L/kg for the rib eye of the lightest breed. A comparison of the different cuts indicated that high-value cuts had higher WFs than low-value cuts. The difference between a kilogram of rib eye and flank was 426.26 L/kg for the heaviest breed and 637.86 L/kg for the lightest breed. An option to reduce the processing WF of beef is to lessen the WF by slaughtering heavier animals. This will require no extra investment from the slaughterhouse. At the same time, the returns should increase as the average production inputs per kilogram of output (carcass) should reduce, as the slaughterhouse will process more kilograms.

show abstract

Section: Slaughter Datamentioning

confidence: 99%

The Water Footprint of Primary and Secondary Processing of Beef from Different Cattle Breeds: A Value Fraction Allocation Model

Mare

Jordaan

2021

Sustainability

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Weaned calves thus were fed for 19 weeks before being slaughtered, irrespective of the breed of the animal. In order to determine the feeding period at which each respective breed will maximise economic returns, the profit-maximising feeding period (PMFP) was estimated with production economic principles [17]. According to production economics theory, profit is maximised (loss is minimised) at the stage in production when the value of the marginal product (VMP) is equal to the marginal factor cost (MFC) [19].…”

Section: Feedlot Data For the Different Breedsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The PMFP model estimates the optimal feeding period, in terms of a given price scenario, to maximise the profit or minimise the loss for the different cattle breeds in a feedlot. The results indicated that the PMFP differed between 15 and 27 weeks, depending on the breed, while the normal pre-determined feeding period (NPFP) for all breeds was 19 weeks in the past [17].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 96%

“…The profitability of feedlots, however, is usually unstable due to fluctuations in various factors, such as production costs, product prices and the differences in the growth rates of the animals [17]. As a result, Oosthuizen and Maré [17] developed a model to estimate the profit-maximising feeding period (PMFP) for seven different beef cattle breeds. The PMFP model estimates the optimal feeding period, in terms of a given price scenario, to maximise the profit or minimise the loss for the different cattle breeds in a feedlot.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In terms of the WF, it has been proven that the FCR and thus the WF of breeds differ, which suggests that a breed with a lower FCR and thus WF can be selected. In terms of economic returns, the work by Oosthuizen and Maré [17] suggested that the economic returns could be optimised by the PMFP instead of the NPFP. However, the possible effect that either one of the two mentioned strategies may have on the other is arguable.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Industrially Finished Calves: A Water Footprint-Profitability Paradox

Mare

Jordaan

2019

Water

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The feed conversion rate is one of the most important determinants of the water footprint (WF) of beef and is known to vary between different cattle breeds. The objective of this study was to estimate the WF of industrially finished calves of seven different cattle breeds on two different feeding regimes: normal pre-determined feeding period (NPFP) and profit-maximising feeding period (PMFP). Data were collected by finishing 35 calves of each of the seven breeds in a feedlot. Green, blue and grey WFs were estimated for the different feeding regimes, and a feedlot simulation provided the effect of the different feeding regimes on the water footprint, financial margin and the water footprint per rand of margin. The results indicated that the water footprint differed notably between breeds on the same feeding regime, as well as between the feeding regimes. While the PMFP had a 1% higher water footprint per year in a typical feedlot than the NPFP, the financial margin was 33% more, resulting in a 24% decrease in the water footprint per South African rand of margin. The contributions of green, blue and grey water to the total WF were 91.5%, 2.5% and 6%, respectively, irrespective of breed or feeding regime.

show abstract

A Review of Climate-Smart Agriculture Research and Applications in Africa

Barasa

Botai

et al. 2021

Agronomy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Funders and governments are promoting climate-smart agriculture (CSA) as key to agricultural adaptation under climate change in Africa. However, with its progressions still at the policy level and framework description, there is a need to understand the current developments and activities conducted within the CSA research field. We conducted a scientific mapping and analyses of CSA research studies in Africa to understand the (i) thematic trends, (ii) developments, (iii) nature of collaboration networks, and (iv) general narratives supporting the adoption and application of CSA in Africa. Results show that several African countries had endorsed CSA as an approach to addressing agricultural productivity challenges, supporting adaptation strategies, and building resilience to climate change. However, a majority do not have national Climate-Smart Agriculture Investment Plans (CSAIPs). Additionally, CSA research in Africa is still developing, with only a few countries dominating the research outputs. For a successful implementation of CSA, a framework provided by the CSAIPs must be established to guide the processes. This will provide a framework to guide the integration of government programs, policies, and strategic plans by combining other inputs from stakeholders to support decision making and implementation of CSA.

show abstract

The profit-maximising feeding period for different breeds of beef cattle

Cited by 5 publications

References 6 publications

The Water Footprint of Primary and Secondary Processing of Beef from Different Cattle Breeds: A Value Fraction Allocation Model

The Water Footprint of Primary and Secondary Processing of Beef from Different Cattle Breeds: A Value Fraction Allocation Model

Industrially Finished Calves: A Water Footprint-Profitability Paradox

A Review of Climate-Smart Agriculture Research and Applications in Africa

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About