Size as a Component of Beef Production Efficiency: Feedlot Production and Integrated Efficiency

1979 ◽  
Vol 48 (4) ◽  
pp. 966-973 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gerald M. Smith
Keyword(s):  
Production Efficiency ◽  
Beef Production

Beef Cattle Production and Trade

2014 ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Beef Cattle ◽  
Production Efficiency ◽  
Production Systems ◽  
Animal Husbandry ◽  
Beef Production ◽  
Cattle Production ◽  
Beef Industry ◽  
Pasture Management ◽  
Beef Cattle Production ◽  
Australian Experience

Beef Cattle Production and Trade covers all aspects of the beef industry from paddock to plate. It is an international text with an emphasis on Australian beef production, written by experts in the field. The book begins with an overview of the historical evolution of world beef consumption and introductory chapters on carcass and meat quality, market preparation and world beef production. North America, Brazil, China, South-East Asia and Japan are discussed in separate chapters, followed by Australian beef production, including feed lotting and live export. The remaining chapters summarise R&D, emphasising the Australian experience, and look at different production systems and aspects of animal husbandry such as health, reproduction, grazing, feeding and finishing, genetics and breeding, production efficiency, environmental management and business management. The final chapter examines various case studies in northern and southern Australia, covering feed demand and supply, supplements, pasture management, heifer and weaner management, and management of internal and external parasites.

Down scaling to regional assessment of greenhouse gas emissions to enable consistency in accounting for emissions reduction projects and national inventory accounts for northern beef production in Australia

2016 ◽  
Vol 38 (3) ◽  
pp. 219 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sandra J. Eady ◽  
Guillaume Havard ◽  
Steven G. Bray ◽  
William Holmes ◽  
Javi Navarro
Keyword(s):  
Greenhouse Gas ◽  
Production Efficiency ◽  
Ghg Emissions ◽  
Emissions Reduction ◽  
Model Parameters ◽  
Reproduction Rate ◽  
National Accounts ◽  
Beef Production ◽  
National Inventory ◽  
State Territory

This paper explores the effect of using regional data for livestock attributes on estimation of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions for the northern beef industry in Australia, compared with using state/territory-wide values, as currently used in Australia’s national GHG inventory report. Regional GHG emissions associated with beef production are reported for 21 defined agricultural statistical regions within state/territory jurisdictions. A management scenario for reduced emissions that could qualify as an Emissions Reduction Fund (ERF) project was used to illustrate the effect of regional level model parameters on estimated abatement levels. Using regional parameters, instead of state level parameters, for liveweight (LW), LW gain and proportion of cows lactating and an expanded number of livestock classes, gives a 5.2% reduction in estimated emissions (range +12% to –34% across regions). Estimated GHG emissions intensity (emissions per kilogram of LW sold) varied across the regions by up to 2.5-fold, ranging from 10.5 kg CO2-e kg–1 LW sold for Darling Downs, Queensland, through to 25.8 kg CO2-e kg–1 LW sold for the Pindan and North Kimberley, Western Australia. This range was driven by differences in production efficiency, reproduction rate, growth rate and survival. This suggests that some regions in northern Australia are likely to have substantial opportunities for GHG abatement and higher livestock income. However, this must be coupled with the availability of management activities that can be implemented to improve production efficiency; wet season phosphorus (P) supplementation being one such practice. An ERF case study comparison showed that P supplementation of a typical-sized herd produced an estimated reduction of 622 t CO2-e year–1, or 7%, compared with a non-P supplemented herd. However, the different model parameters used by the National Inventory Report and ERF project means that there was an anomaly between the herd emissions for project cattle excised from the national accounts (13 479 t CO2-e year–1) and the baseline herd emissions estimated for the ERF project (8 896 t CO2-e year–1) before P supplementation was implemented. Regionalising livestock model parameters in both ERF projects and the national accounts offers the attraction of being able to more easily and accurately reflect emissions savings from this type of emissions reduction project in Australia’s national GHG accounts.

BEEF PRODUCTION EFFICIENCY USING COMMERCIAL CROSS BREEDING

2020 ◽  
pp. 42-45
Author(s):  
I.P. PROHOROV ◽  
◽  
O.A. KALMYKOVA ◽  
A.N. PIKUL ◽  
A.V. ALEKSANDROV ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Production Efficiency ◽  
Beef Production ◽  
Cross Breeding

A review of factors influencing key biological components of maternal productivity in temperate beef cattle

2018 ◽  
Vol 58 (1) ◽  
pp. 1 ◽  
Author(s):  
B. J. Walmsley ◽  
S. J. Lee ◽  
P. F. Parnell ◽  
W. S. Pitchford
Keyword(s):  
Time Scales ◽  
Feed Intake ◽  
Production Efficiency ◽  
Body Condition Score ◽  
Total System ◽  
Energy Reserves ◽  
Production Traits ◽  
Beef Production ◽  
Heifer Development ◽  
Cow Calf

Cow–calf efficiency or maternal productivity is highly correlated with total system efficiency of beef production. Balancing the needs of the cow herd with other production components is a daily challenge beef producers address to maximise the number of calves born and raised to weaning and, in turn, maximise maternal productivity. Pressure to satisfy modern consumer needs has shifted selection emphasis to production traits at the expense of fitness traits allowing adaptability to decline. Balancing the needs of the cow herd with production objectives presents cow–calf producers with the challenge of genetically tailoring their cattle to modern needs, while sustainably managing these cattle and natural resources. This balancing act is highlighted by the debate surrounding the application of residual feed intake to reduce costs associated with provision of feed for beef production. Some uncertainty surrounds the relationships between efficiency, production and maternal productivity traits. This review examines key components and definitions of maternal productivity. Management decisions as well as cow and calf traits have important interacting impacts on maternal productivity. Achieving a calving interval of 365 days represents the single most important production issue affecting maternal productivity and is dependent on heifer development during early life and energy reserves (i.e. body condition score) in subsequent years. Management issues such as calving date and selection decisions interact with environmental factors such as photoperiod and production traits such as feed intake, and previous production levels, to influence heifer development and cow body energy reserves. Some proposed definitions of maternal productivity simply include weaning weight per cow mated which can be averaged over all progeny weaned during a cow’s lifetime. Ideally, a definition should include the inputs and outputs of maternal productivity. Some definitions express maternal productivity over large time scales, e.g. a cow’s productive lifetime. Most definitions focus on the cow–calf unit, while some include progeny growth and feed intake to slaughter. This review recommends a definition that focuses on the cow–calf unit, as follows: (weight of calf weaned and cow weight change)/(metabolisable energy intake per cow and calf unit). This definition has the capacity to be scaled up, to include progeny postweaning production, as well as being applicable over varying time scales (e.g. 1 year to a cow’s whole productive life). Improvements in all facets of maternal productivity using this definition can be expected to improve beef-production efficiency.

scholarly journals Hungarian dairy and beef production sector technical efficiency comparsion using DEA

2017 ◽  
Vol 11 (3-4) ◽  
pp. 131-138 ◽  
Author(s):  
Krisztián Kovács ◽  
Ratnesh Pandey
Keyword(s):  
Technical Efficiency ◽  
Production Efficiency ◽  
Dairy Farms ◽  
Farm Size ◽  
Medium Size ◽  
Small Farms ◽  
Beef Production ◽  
Dea Model ◽  
The World ◽  
Beef Sector

To examine and compare the technical efficiency of dairy sector and the beef sector, this research introduced the main indicators of milk and beef production in the world, EU and Hungarian aggregates. Based on the data it can be said that the milk and beef production of Hungary does not occupy any significant position in the world as well as in the European Union neither today nor even in the past. If Hungry must compete in the European counties and international market, their dairy sector must focus to increase of their production efficiency as the key breakthrough point. This paper we compared technical efficiency of both dairy and beef sectors in total, for the year 2014 and 2015 separately and based on the farm size. The specific objectives of the research are: comparing dairy and beef farms efficiency in Hungary. Based on the results, we can determine which sector in Hungary is more effective. The second objective is to compare the efficiencies of both the sectors in 2014 and 2015 separately and from the results we can determine which year was more effective in terms of production efficiency and the third objective of the research is technical efficiency comparison of certain economic sizes for both sectors. In the research, we used (KOVACS, 2009) deterministic (DEA) model adapted to the Hungarian dairy farms and beef farms. For the dairy farms milk and dairy products as well as meat (other income). The input factors originated from the domestic AKI - FADN database. Summarizing the results of the research it can be conclude that the dairy sector is more effective than the beef sector in Hungary. In terms of years compared 2014 was more effective for both sector as compared with 2015. In regards to the farm size almost the same result in evaluating the scale of efficiency, which means that large economies can in most cases, manage resources more efficiently than small farms. In the examined years, based on the results of the DEA model, the VRS technical efficiency of the test for these two years was 72.90% for the dairy farms and 63.60% for the beef farms, which means that the dairy sector is more efficient than the beef sector in Hungary. The VRS technical efficiency of the research was 82.10% in 2014 and 75.10% in 2015 for the dairy farms and 77.50% in 2014 and 68.90% in 2015 for the beef farms, which means that both the dairy sector and the beef sectors followed the same trend and were more efficient in 2014 compared to the efficiency in 2015. The large size dairy farms were most effective in Hungary in the examined period (90.90%). VRS technical efficiency for small farms is 88% and the total number of small, the technical efficiency medium farms was 72.80% For the beef sector VRS technical efficiency for small farms is 71.30% and the technical efficiency medium farms was 74.40% and 70% of the beef meat producing farms in Hungary are medium sized. So, the conclusion is the small size dairy farms have a higher VRS efficiency than the small size beef farms whereas medium sized beef farms had higher VRS efficiency than the medium size dairy farms. As a conclusion, both dairy and beef sectors in Hungary have the potential to overcome technology and knowledge constraints and attain the upmost attainable productivity level through improvements in; farmer volume of production i.e. output, beef cattle technologies, and advertising, and the efficiency of the technology transfer process. JEL Code: Q13

scholarly journals Omega-6 Fatty Acids: A Sustainable Alternative to Improve Beef Production Efficiency

Animals ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (6) ◽  
pp. 1764
Author(s):  
Bruno Ieda Cappellozza ◽  
Reinaldo Fernandes Cooke ◽  
Kelsey Margaret Harvey
Keyword(s):  
Fatty Acids ◽  
Soybean Oil ◽  
Production Efficiency ◽  
Bos Taurus ◽  
Sustainable Use ◽  
Late Gestation ◽  
Carcass Quality ◽  
Beef Production ◽  
Omega 6 ◽  
Ruminal Biohydrogenation

Global beef production must increase in the next decades to meet the demands of a growing population, while promoting sustainable use of limited natural resources. Supplementing beef cattle with omega-6 fatty acids (FAs) is a nutritional approach shown to enhance production efficiency, with research conducted across different environments and sectors of the beef industry. Omega-6 FA from natural feed ingredients such as soybean oil are highly susceptible to ruminal biohydrogenation. Hence, our and other research groups have used soybean oil in the form of Ca soaps (CSSO) to lessen ruminal biohydrogenation, and maximize delivery of omega-6 FA to the duodenum for absorption. In cow–calf systems, omega-6 FA supplementation to beef cows improved pregnancy success by promoting the establishment of early pregnancy. Cows receiving omega-6 FA during late gestation gave birth to calves that were healthier and more efficient in the feedlot, suggesting the potential role of omega-6 FA on developmental programming. Supplementing omega-6 FA to young cattle also elicited programming effects toward improved adipogenesis and carcass quality, and improved calf immunocompetence upon a stress stimulus. Cattle supplemented with omega-6 FA during growing or finishing periods also experienced improved performance and carcass quality. All these research results were generated using cattle of different genetic composition (Bos taurus and B. indicus influenced), and in different environments (tropical, subtropical, and temperate region). Hence, supplementing omega-6 FA via CSSO is a sustainable approach to enhance the production efficiency of beef industries across different areas of the world.

Beef Production Efficiency

Science ◽  
1977 ◽  
Vol 198 (4321) ◽  
pp. 1009-1015 ◽  
Author(s):  
A. Trenkle ◽  
R. L. Willham
Keyword(s):  
Production Efficiency ◽  
Beef Production

Beef Production Efficiency Gains through Commercial Herd Crossbreeding

2021 ◽  
Vol 47 (1) ◽  
pp. 63-67
Author(s):  
I. P. Prohorov ◽  
O. A. Kalmykova ◽  
A. N. Pikul ◽  
A. V. Aleksandrov
Keyword(s):  
Production Efficiency ◽  
Beef Production ◽  
Efficiency Gains
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document