Economic effects of alternate growth path, time of calving and breed type combinations across southern Australian beef cattle environments: industry-wide effects

G. R. Griffith

doi:10.1071/EA08264

RESEARCH ARTICLE (Open Access)

Previous Contents Vol 49(6)

Economic effects of alternate growth path, time of calving and breed type combinations across southern Australian beef cattle environments: industry-wide effects

G. R. Griffith

+ Author Affiliations

- Author Affiliations

Cooperative Research Centre for Beef Genetic Technologies, University of New England, Armidale, NSW 2351, Australia, and New South Wales Department of Primary Industries, Armidale, NSW 2351, Australia. Email: garry.griffith@dpi.nsw.gov.au

Animal Production Science 49(6) 542-547 https://doi.org/10.1071/EA08264
Submitted: 29 October 2008 Accepted: 20 January 2009 Published: 13 May 2009

Abstract

The ‘Regional Combinations’ project and its biophysical outcomes, and the subsequent identification of the most profitable beef cattle production systems across different environments in southern Australia, have been described in several other papers in this special edition. In this paper, the economic calculations reported for each of the individual beef enterprises representative of the various state sites are aggregated up to the level of the Australian cattle and beef industry and then projected forward over several years into the future. To do this, an existing model of the world beef market is used. The analyses suggest that both the fast-growth-rate technology and the time-of-calving technology have the potential to generate significant economic benefits for the southern Australia cattle and beef industries. The cumulative present values of each technology are around $70 million over a 15-year time horizon at a 7% real discount rate.

Acknowledgements

The financial and in-kind support of the Cooperative Research Centre for Cattle and Beef Quality and its partner agencies 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 economics team pays a special tribute to the overall project management team of Bill McKiernan 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.

References

ABARE (2007) ‘Commodity statistical bulletin.’ (ABARE: Canberra)

Alston JM , Norton GW , Pardey PG (1995) ‘Science under scarcity: principles and practice for agricultural research evaluation and priority setting.’ (Cornell University Press: Ithaca)

Australian Bureau of Statistics (2003) ‘Australia at a glance.’ Cat. No. 1309.9. (AGPS: Canberra)

Davidson BR, Martin BR (1965) The relationship between yields on farms and in experiments. Australian Journal of Agricultural Economics 9(2), 129–140. [Verified 9 March 2009]

Griffith GR , Alford AR (2005) The US cattle cycle and Australian beef prices – June 2005. In ‘Proceedings of Beef School Emerald’. pp. 15–22. (The CRC for Cattle and Beef Quality, Queensland DPIF and Emerald Agricultural College: Emerald)

Griffith GR , Parnell PF , McKiernan W (2006 a) The economic, environmental and social benefits to New South Wales from investment in the CRC for Beef Genetic Technologies. Economic Research Report No. 30, NSW Department of Primary Industries, Armidale.

Griffith GR , Vere DT , Jones RE (2006 b) The Sheep CRC renewal proposal: economic evaluation of the proposed scientific themes. Economic Research Report No. 32, NSW Department of Primary Industries, Armidale.

Jones RE , Griffith GR , Vere DT (2006) An economic evaluation of the research benefits and returns in the Invasive Plants Cooperative Research Centre. Technical Series Number 12, CRC for Australian Weed Management, Adelaide.

Marshall GR, Brennan JP (2001) Issues in benefit-cost analysis of agricultural research projects. The Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics 45(2), 195–213.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |

McKiernan WA, Wilkins JF, Barwick SA, Tudor GD, McIntyre BL, Graham JG, Deland MPD, Davies L (2005) CRC ‘Regional Combinations’ project – effects of genetics and growth paths on beef production and meat quality: experimental design, methods and measurements. Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture 45, 959–969.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |

McKiernan WA , Wilkins JF , Graham JF , Tudor GD , Deland MPB , McIntyre BL , Orchard B , Walkley JRW , Davies BL , Griffith GR , Irwin J (2007) Regional beef systems to meet market specifications. Final Report on Project SBP.006V2, Meat and Livestock Australia Limited, North Sydney.

Meat and Livestock Australia (2002) ‘Statistical Review (July 2001–June 2002).’ (Meat and Livestock Australia: North Sydney)

Vere DT , Griffith GR , Silvester LT (2005) Australian Sheep Industry CRC: economic evaluations of scientific research programs. Economics Research Report No. 27, NSW Department of Primary Industries, Orange.

Wood S , You L , Baitx W (2001) ‘Dynamic Research EvaluAtion for Management – DREAM Version 3. A user-friendly system for estimating the magnitude and distribution of the economic benefits of agricultural research and development.’ (International Food Policy Research Institute: Washington, DC)

Zhao X , Mullen JD , Griffith GR , Griffiths WE , Piggott RR (2000) An equilibrium displacement model of the Australian Beef Industry. Economic Research Report No. 4, NSW Agriculture and the CRC for Cattle and Beef Quality, Orange.

¹ The calculated K-values represent net reductions in variable costs as they are based on differences between steady state gross margins, and so reflect differences in both enterprise costs and returns between alternatives. However, they do not include any additional whole-farm costs, especially investment costs, required to implement the alternative production system (nor, any additional benefits derived from more efficient whole-farm input or output combinations).