HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

This Article Full Text (PDF) A correction has been published Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Similar articles in this journal Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Doren, P. E. Articles by Cartwright, T. C. Search for Related Content PubMed Articles by Doren, P. E. Articles by Cartwright, T. C.

An Economic Evaluation of Simulated Biological Production of Beef Cattle

Texas Agricultural Experiment Station, College Station 77843

Abstract

The Texas A&M Beef Cattle Simulation Model was used to simulate the effects of 79 sets of management alternatives on the growth, reproduction and lactation of beef cattle under conditions common to the Coastal Prairie region of Texas. The results of 16 simulations, a base plus 15 with apparent potential for increasing net return, were selected for economic evaluation. Management practices evaluated were calving season (winter, spring, fall or split season), winter supplementation (three levels) and age at first calving (2 or 3 yr of age). The highest levels of production were obtained by calving first at 2 yr of age and by calving during the fall. The larger amounts of supplementation resulted in higher production but did not always produce higher net returns. The three most profitable sets of alternative practices involved spring calving. The two most profitable alternatives employed calving at 2 yr of age. Calving during the winter, with heifers calving at 3 yr of age and supplementing at the lowest levels consistently resulted in the lowest reproduction, smallest amount of herd production and lowest net returns. For the producer with practical alternatives for utilizing resources, local cow-calf production was not a viable, current economic choice; all of the production alternatives examined gave negative net returns over total costs. Several measures of production and economic efficiency were examined. Of those considered, none was found to be a satisfactory indicator for ranking management alternatives by net returns.