Cow efficiency: modeling the biological and economic output of a Michigan beef herd

Abstract

In recent decades, beef cattle producers have selected cattle for biological traits (ie. improved growth) to maximize revenue, leading to an increase in average cow body size. However, matching cow size to the production environment would allow producers to maximize productivity and economic returns per unit of land. This may help meet the goals of sustainable intensification, but environmental complexity and varying cow-calf production systems dictates a regional approach. The objective of this experiment was to examine the biological efficiency and economic returns of a Northern Michigan cow-calf system. We hypothesized that biological efficiency and economic returns would decrease with increasing cow body size. Data was collected from a Red Angus cow herd located at the Lake City AgBio Research Center in Lake City, MI from 2011 to 2018 on cow age, weight, and body condition score at weaning, and subsequent 205 d adjusted calf weaning weight (WW), sex, and yearling weight. Biological efficiency was defined as WW as a percentage of cow body weight (DBW). Enterprise budgeting techniques were used to calculate expected net returns from 2011 to 2018 after classifying cows into 11 BW tiers at 22.67 kg intervals beginning at 430.83 kg. Forward looking net present value was calculated using the same tier system, for a 10-year production cycle with the baseline being a 200 d grazing season. Weaning weight increased with increasing DBW (P < 0.01), but the percentage of cow body weight weaned was reduced by -38.58 × Ln(DBW) (P < 0.01). This led to cows weaning 26.38 kg/ha more with every 100 kg drop in DBW. Expected net returns from 2011-2018 did not differ by DBW tier on a per cow basis but did on a per ha basis with a decrease in $10.27/ha with each increase in DBW tier (P < 0.01). Net present value was maximized in the baseline scenario at 453.51 kg DBW and decreased in value as DBW increased. These results suggest that for a Northern Midwestern cow-calf herd, comparatively lighter cows provide a higher economic value on a land basis.

Leistungsdaten und Abgangsursachen von Hinterwälder-, Vorderwälder-, Fleckvieh- und Holstein-Kühen in den Jahren 1953 bis 2021

“…Weiterhin wurde in den letzten Jahren mehrfach nachgewiesen, dass größerrahmige Tiere nicht wie vermutet 58 produktiver sind, sondern dass Körpergewicht und Körpergröße negativ mit der Effizienz der Futterausnutzung und Reproduktion korrelieren 59 60 61 . Die Hinterwälder kommen auch aus diesen Gründen dem Ideal der optimalen Produktivität in einer nachhaltigen Rinderhaltung sehr nahe.…”

Rationalising Development of Classification Systems Describing Livestock Production Systems for Disease Burden Analysis within the Global Burden of Animal Diseases Programme

“…Household survey data were predominantly used for classification of livestock production at national and sub-national level. Databases used to establish livestock classification systems include FAOSTAT, the FAO's Gridded Livestock of the World, The Livestock Marketing Information Centre, the Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics and Sciences, the Australian Bureau of Statistics (2020), and the Agriculture and Australian Lot Feeders Association (Vigre et al, 2016;Shapiro et al, 2017; Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, 2018; van Hal et al, 2019;Thompson et al, 2020;Fordyce et al, 2021) (Appendix 1, Table 4).…”

Hybrid de novo and haplotype-resolved genome assembly of Vechur cattle — elucidating genetic variation

“…The biological and economic output efficiency is very important for dairy farmers, and it has been reported that lighter cows provide a comparatively higher economic value based on land ( Thompson et al, 2020 ). It has also been reported that feed efficiency (milk yield per kg feed) was negatively correlated, ranging from −0.18 for wither height to −0.33 for body weight, with body weight and the body measurements ranging from −0.18 for wither height to −0.33 for body weight ( Sieber et al, 1988 ).…”