Economic effects of alternate growth path, time of calving and breed type combinations across southern Australian beef cattle environments: feedlot finishing at the New South Wales experimental site
B. L. Davies A B , A. R. Alford A C and G. R. Griffith A C DA Cooperative Research Centre for Beef Genetic Technologies, University of New England, Armidale, NSW 2351, Australia.
B New South Wales Department of Primary Industries, Paterson, NSW 2421, Australia.
C New South Wales Department of Primary Industries, Armidale, NSW 2351, Australia.
D Corresponding author. Email: garry.griffith@dpi.nsw.gov.au
Animal Production Science 49(6) 535-541 https://doi.org/10.1071/EA08265
Submitted: 29 October 2009 Accepted: 5 February 2009 Published: 13 May 2009
Abstract
The ‘Regional Combinations’ project and its biophysical outcomes have been described in several other papers in this special edition. The information provided in these papers allows an evaluation of the most profitable beef cattle production systems across different environments in southern Australia. In this paper, the focus is on the New South Wales experimental site where the trial animals were finished in a feedlot. The data identified liveweight gain as the biggest driver of profitability of production. Between growth treatments, there was a large difference in the gross margins before feedlot entry between the ‘fast’ and ‘slow’ treatments favouring the fast-grown animals, even after accounting for the higher cost of producing pasture capable of sustaining faster growth. However, the slow growth treatments consistently outperformed the fast growth treatments in the feedlot. In terms of breeds, the European breed types consistently outperformed the Wagyu breeds. There were no time-of-calving experiments in New South Wales.
Acknowledgements
The financial and in-kind support of the Cooperative Research Centre for Cattle and Beef Quality and its partner agencies Meat and Livestock Australia, New South Wales Department of Primary Industries and the University of New England is gratefully acknowledged. Thanks also to the many staff of these agencies that assisted in field operations, data collection and processing, biometrics and administrative support. The generous support in cash and kind of the commercial cooperator, AgReserves Australia is gratefully acknowledged, as is the individual support of all the field staff and management of this organisation. The cooperation and assistance of Cargill Beef Australia at the finishing and processing stages of the experiments is also acknowledged. The economics team pays a special tribute to the NSW overall project management team of Bill McKiernan, John Wilkins and Jim Walkley who provided support, data and other assistance, whenever asked. Stuart Mounter and Kirrily Pollock provided valuable comments on an earlier draft of this paper.
Davidson BR, Martin BR
(1965) The relationship between yields on farms and in experiments. Australian Journal of Agricultural Economics 9(2), 129–140.
[Verified 10 March 2009]
Egan AF,
Ferguson DM, Thompson JM
(2001) Consumer sensory requirements for beef and their implications for the Australian beef industry. Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture 41, 855–859.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
[Verified 10 March 2009]
Polkinghorne R,
Thompson JM,
Watson R,
Gee A, Porter M
(2008a) Evolution of the Meat Standards Australia (MSA) beef grading scheme. Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture 48(11), 1351–1359.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Polkinghorne R,
Philpott J,
Gee A,
Doljanin A, Innes J
(2008b) Development of a commercial system to apply the Meat Standards Australia grading model to optimise the return on eating quality in a beef supply chain. Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture 48(11), 1451–1458.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Polkinghorne R,
Watson R,
Thompson JM, Pethick DW
(2008c) Current usage and future development of the Meat Standards Australia (MSA) grading system. Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture 48(11), 1459–1464.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Thompson JM,
Polkinghorne R,
Hwang IH,
Gee AM,
Cho SH,
Park BY, Lee JM
(2008) Beef quality grades as determined by Korean and Australian consumers. Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture 48(11), 1380–1386.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Verbyla AP,
Cullis BR,
Kenward MG, Welham SJ
(1999) The analysis of designed experiments and longitudinal data by using smoothing splines. Applied Statistics 48, 269–311.
1 The 120 ha included 20 ha of irrigated lucerne and 10 ha of winter fodder crop.
2 At the NSW site the breed types included were Angus selected for high RBY, Angus selected for high IMF, Angus selected for both high RBY and high IMF, Charolais, Limousin, Black Wagyu and Red Wagyu. The growth paths selected were a high growth path to achieve 0.7–1.0 kg per day from weaning to feedlot entry, and a moderate/slow (or conventional) growth path to achieve 0.5–0.6 kg per day from weaning to feedlot entry.
3 The slow growth enterprise allowed for greater deficits because of the lower growth rates required for the steers and the fact that there is no irrigated summer pastures assumed for this enterprise.
4 Feed deficits for fast growth options were calculated as follows: 116 head × 1.3 kg deficit per day × 30.4 days per month = 4584 kg of allowable feed deficit ÷ 120 ha = 38 kg per ha deficit allowed for March. Deficits for slow growth options were 67 head × 1.3 kg deficit per day × 30.4 days per month = 2648 kg ÷ 150 ha = 18 kg/ha allowed for February and March.
5 A mixed model cubic smoothing spline analysis (Verbyla et al. 1999) was used to both describe the growth paths and to predict live and carcass weights where various corrections were required. In particular, a set of data was generated to predict the performance of steers if each growth treatment × sire type group was set to a mean 380 kg feedlot induction weight. The ‘extra days’ taken (compared with the fastest group) for groups of steers to achieve this 380 kg mean was also part of the data generated from this procedure.
6 Although not reported, this advantage also shows in the return per $100 of livestock capital because, with faster growth, there is less money tied up in stock on hand.
