2016
DOI: 10.1016/j.agsy.2016.04.003
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Environmental and economic performance of beef farming systems with different feeding strategies in southern Brazil

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

6
14
0
1

Year Published

2018
2018
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
8
1
1

Relationship

0
10

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 38 publications
(21 citation statements)
references
References 44 publications
6
14
0
1
Order By: Relevance
“…Pasture-based grain supplementation (GS) economic analyses have previously been limited to two studies on temperate cattle finished on the productive, diversified temperate pastures in Brazil's southern Pampas biome. Pasturing on soybean residues increased farm profits to US$124/ha compared to US$81/ha for native pasture [51]. For Bos taurus in southern Brazil, profits for GS (US$99/ha) was slightly lower compared to native pasture (US$101/ha) [18].…”
Section: Sustainable Agricultural Intensification's Beef Productivitymentioning
confidence: 94%
“…Pasture-based grain supplementation (GS) economic analyses have previously been limited to two studies on temperate cattle finished on the productive, diversified temperate pastures in Brazil's southern Pampas biome. Pasturing on soybean residues increased farm profits to US$124/ha compared to US$81/ha for native pasture [51]. For Bos taurus in southern Brazil, profits for GS (US$99/ha) was slightly lower compared to native pasture (US$101/ha) [18].…”
Section: Sustainable Agricultural Intensification's Beef Productivitymentioning
confidence: 94%
“…Brazilian beef cattle production has evolved over time and production costs have pushed profit margins of farmers, especially those of feedlot beef cattle farmers (Lobato et al, 2014;Kamali et al, 2016). The changes in the sector have raised a debate over whether there are economic advantages of using feedlots as a productive system strategy.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Dentre as vantagens de se confinar, destaca-se a programação da época de abate, animais abatidos com menor idade, possibilidade de se produzir carne de melhor qualidade, melhor rendimento de carcaça no abate e venda dos animais aos frigoríficos na entressafra, quando o preço da arroba é maior (Peixoto et al, 1989). Embora tenha ocorrido, nos últimos anos, um aumento considerável na produção brasileira de gado de corte, os custos de produção pressionaram as margens de lucro, especialmente em sistemas de confinamento (Lobato et al, 2014;Kamali et al, 2016), de forma que são de fundamental importância o levantamento dos custos e o planejamento financeiro da atividade. A compra de animais para reposição é o item que exerce maior influência sobre os custos do confinamento, seguido pelos demais componentes do custo operacional efetivo: alimentação, despesas diversas, mão-de-obra, sanidade e impostos fixos (Lopes e Magalhães, 2005).…”
unclassified