Effect of Concentrate Level on Sustainability of Beef Cattle Production

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to conduct a cultural energy analyses of beef cattle receiving different levels of concentrate. Data were obtained via questionnaire from 100 beef cattle farms selected by a stratified, random sampling method. Beef cattle farms were divided into three groups according to concentrate level and were analyzed. Accordingly concentrate levels were assigned as low (< 55% 35 farms), intermediate (55% to 65%, 34 farms) and high (> 65%, 31 farms). Cultural energy used for feed for treatments was derived from their corresponding lot feed consumption and their corresponding values from the literature. Transportation energy was also included in the analysis. Since the objective of the study was to evaluate cultural energy analysis of the feeding systems, energy that the calves had deposited in their muscle and fat tissue when they were bought was deducted from carcass energy. Total cultural energy expended was highest for cattle receiving a low level of concentrate (p < 0.05). Feed energy constituted more than half of the total cultural energy and was highest for cattle receiving a low level of concentrate (p < 0.05). Energy expended per kg live weight did not differ among groups by concentrate level (p > 0.05). Cultural energy per Mcal protein energy was highest for cattle receiving a low level of concentrate and was lowest for cattle receiving an intermediate level of concentrate (p < 0.05). Cultural energy for cattle receiving a high level of concentrate was intermediate and thus did not differ significantly from the other groups (p > 0.05). Efficiency, defined as Hayati Koknaroglu is affiliated with the Mcal input/Mcal output, was better for cattle receiving an intermediate level of concentrate and was worse for cattle receiving a low level of concentrate (p < 0.05). Efficiency for cattle receiving a high level of concentrate was intermediate and thus did not differ significently from the other groups (p > 0.05). Results showed that efficiency does not linearly increase as concentrate level increases; thus, in order to be more sustainable, a strategy of decreasing concentrate level without interfering with cattle performance should be considered.

Season affects energy input/output ratio in beef cattle production

“…Similar values to these were reported by Koknaroglu et al (2007a) who integrated pasturing systems into finishing programs and analyzed it in terms of CE use. However, these values were higher than those reported by Koknaroglu (2008), Demircan and Koknaroglu (2007). Cultural energy per Mcal protein energy is given in Table 2.…”

“…These values are similar to values reported by Koknaroglu et al (2007a) who found that cattle fed in drylot throughout the feeding period had the highest CE per Mcal of protein energy and cattle grazed on pasture for a longer time and later finished in drylot had the lowest CE per Mcal of protein energy. Lower values for CE per Mcal of protein are reported by Koknaroglu (2008), Demircan and Koknaroglu (2007). The reason for this is that they had lower CE expended on feed thus lower total CE expenditure due to lower levels of concentrate feeding and their comparable carcass weights.…”

“…The reason for the lower DMI in winter might be reduced water consumption and reduced digestibility of feedstuffs (Milligan and Christison 1974). Higher DMI and longer feeding duration affecting CE expended on feed by cattle receiving low levels of concentrate is well documented by Koknaroglu (2008). Cultural energy expended on feed for summer and winter constituted 56.45 and 55.96% of total CE expenditure.…”

“…Cattle fed in summer were heavier than winter fed cattle (P<0.05; Table 3) at the end of the trial and this is reflected in their CE on transportation. Koknaroglu (2008) pointed out that the distance of harvesting plant becomes more important since finished animals are heavier than cattle started on feed. Total CE expended, which is the summation of CE expended on feed, feedlot operations, and transportation is presented in Table 2.…”

Economic Performance of Apple Farms: A Case of Isparta and Karaman Provinces of Turkey

“…The high level of the entrepreneur's knowledge and education level is considered important for its success (Bayramoğlu, 2014). Many studies showed that the education level of the farmers had an impact on issues such as farms performance, profitability, workforce efficiency, and apply pesticide (Hasdemir, 2011;Kalıpcı et al, 2011;Kılıç and Kıymaz, 2014;Köknaroğlu et al,2017).…”