J. Anim Sci.
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     

J. Anim Sci. 2006. 84:3219-3227. doi:10.2527/jas.2006-219
© 2006 American Society of Animal Science
This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Van Groningen, C.
Right arrow Articles by Cranfield, J. A. L.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Van Groningen, C.
Right arrow Articles by Cranfield, J. A. L.

ANIMAL GENETICS

Economic evaluations of beef bulls in an integrated supply chain1

C. Van Groningen{dagger},2, C. J. B. Devitt*,3, J. W. Wilton*,4 and J. A. L. Cranfield{dagger}

* Centre for Genetic Improvement of Livestock Animal and Poultry Science and and {dagger} Agricultural Economics and Business University of Guelph, Guelph, Ontario, Canada N1G 2W1

4 Corresponding author: jwilton{at}uoguelph.ca

Economic benefits from the use of expected progeny of a sample of beef bulls with genetic evaluations were calculated over an integrated supply chain for combinations of price discounts for intramuscular fat and LM area. Fixed backfat finish and marketing at the point of optimized gross margins were considered. An economic model was used to calculate average expected gross margins for a sample of bulls. Across-breed, age-constant genetic evaluations were used to predict carcass characteristics of progeny including weight, retail yield, intramuscular fat, and LM area, as well as input requirements including feed and housing as a function of time on feed. Proportion of retail cuts affected by price discounts was included in the calculations. Optimizing endpoints did not affect rankings to any extent relative to a fixed end point in this sample of bulls, as a result of fixed endpoints being similar to optimized endpoints for the economic situation considered. However, rank correlations were only 0.63 and 0.71 between rankings for no discount being applied and rankings with discounts for intramuscular fat and LM area, for fixed and optimized endpoints, respectively. We conclude that market prices are necessary considerations in choices of bulls to use in commercial beef production.

Key Words: beef production • bioeconomic model • genetic evaluation • sire ranking






HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Copyright © 2006 by the American Society of Animal Science.