Advertisement

Benchmarking technical and economic performance of beef cow-calf to finishing production systems in Ireland

      ABSTRACT

      The objectives of this study were, for cow-calf to finishing production systems, to benchmark animal and financial performance of Irish “national average” farms (AVE) and farms participating in a farm improvement program (IMP) with experimental research farm systems finishing male progeny as steers (RES-S) or bulls (RES-B), and to identify key technical characteristics and financial drivers within these 3 farm categories. Stocking rate, BW output per livestock unit, and carcass weight per day were less on AVE and IMP compared with RES-S/RES-B. Age at first calving was 31.5, 28.9, and 24.0 mo on AVE, IMP, and RES-S/RES-B, respectively. Calving rate and weaning rate were less on AVE than on IMP, and these rates were less on IMP than on RES-S/RES-B. Gross output value and costs per hectare were least on AVE and greatest on RES-S/RES-B. Feed-related costs accounted for 36, 50, 47, and 58% of total costs per hectare on AVE, IMP, RES-S, and RES-B, respectively. Fixed costs accounted for the largest proportion of AVE total costs. Costs of production per kilogram of beef BW equated to $4.73 (€4.04), $2.26 (€1.93), $1.78 (€1.52), and $2.04 (€1.74) on AVE, IMP, RES-S, and RES-B, respectively. A negative net profit per hectare of −$897 (−€767) was achieved by AVE; IMP, RES-S, and RES-B attained net profits per hectare of $208 (€178), $587 (€502), and $405 (€346), respectively. Key performance indicators underpinning profitable beef cow-calf to finishing systems include high individual animal performance (cow reproduction and progeny growth), optimal stocking rates, and low fixed and purchased feed costs.

      Key words

      To read this article in full you will need to make a payment

      Purchase one-time access:

      Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online access
      One-time access price info
      • For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
      • For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'

      Subscribe:

      Subscribe to
      Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
      Already an online subscriber? Sign in
      Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect

      LITERATURE CITED

        • ABARES
        Farm Survey Data. Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics and Sciences.
        (Accessed Apr. 20, 2018)
        • Ash A.
        • Hunt L.
        • McDonald C.
        • Scanlan J.
        • Bell L.
        • Cowley R.
        • Watson I.
        • McIvor J.
        • MacLeod N.
        Boosting the productivity and profitability of northern Australian beef enterprises: Exploring innovation options using simulation modelling and systems analysis.
        10.1016/j.agsy.2015.06.001
        Agric. Syst. 2015; 139: 50-65
        • Ashfield A.
        • Wallace M.
        • McGee M.
        • Crosson P.
        Bioeconomic modelling of compensatory growth for grass-based dairy calf-to-beef production systems.
        10.1017/S0021859613000531
        J. Agric. Sci. 2014; 152: 805-816
        • Behrendt K.
        • Weeks P.
        How are global and Australian beef producers performing? Global agri benchmark network results 2016. Meat and Livestock Australia.
        2017 (Accessed May 18, 2017)
        • Bord Bia
        Cattle Prices—Price Tracking.
        (Accessed May 10, 2017)
        • Bureš D.
        • Bartoň L.
        Growth performance, carcass traits and meat quality of bulls and heifers slaughtered at different ages.
        Czech J. Anim. Sci. 2012; 57: 34-43
        • Clarke A.M.
        • Crosson P.
        The effect of stocking rate on the economic and technical performance and greenhouse gas emissions profile of beef cow-calf to finishing production systems.
        (Page 13 in) Proc. Agric. Res., Forum, Tullamore, Ireland. Teagasc, Oak Park, Carlow, Ireland2012
        • Conway A.
        Grazing management for beef production.
        10.1111/j.1365-2494.1970.tb00610.x
        Grass Forage Sci. 1970; 25: 85-91
        • Creighton P.
        • Kennedy E.
        • Hennessy D.
        • O’Donovan M.
        Impacts of sward renewal method with perennial ryegrass (Lolium perenne) on dry matter yield, tiller density and nitrate leaching.
        10.4236/ajps.2016.74061
        Am. J. Plant Sci. 2016; 7: 684
        • Crosson P.
        • McGee M.
        Bioeconomic modelling of alternative replacement heifer policies for beef cow-calf to finishing production systems.
        (Page 46 in) Proc. Agric. Res., Forum, Tullamore, Ireland. Teagasc, Oak Park, Carlow, Ireland2012
        • Crosson P.
        • McGee M.
        Economic appraisal of performance traits in Irish beef cow-calf to finishing production systems.
        (Pages 41–52 in)in: Proc. Teagasc Suckler Cow Breeding Conf. Setting a New Direction for Suckler Cow Breeding, Tullamore, Ireland. Teagasc, Oak Park, Carlow, Ireland2012
        • Crosson P.
        • McGee M.
        Bioeconomic modelling of alternative calving dates, production systems and grazing season lengths for Irish suckler farms.
        (Page 101 in) Proc. Agric. Res. Forum, Tullamore, Ireland. Teagasc, Oak Park, Carlow, Ireland2015
        • Crosson P.
        • McGee M.
        • Drennan M.J.
        The economic impact of calving date and turnout date in spring of suckler cows.
        (Page 68 in) Proc. Agric. Res. Forum, Tullamore, Ireland. Teagasc, Oak Park, Carlow, Ireland2009
        • Crosson P.
        • McGee M.
        • Drennan M.J.
        The economic impact of turnout date to pasture in spring of yearling cattle on beef cow-calf to finishing farms.
        (Page 77 in) Proc. Agric. Res. Forum, Tullamore, Ireland. Teagasc, Oak Park, Carlow, Ireland2009
        • Crosson P.
        • Murray A.
        Planning for profit from beef production—Principles and guidelines.
        (Pages 28–39 in)in: Proc. Teagasc National Beef Conf. Applying Technology to Sustain Profitability, Athlone, Ireland2015
        • Crosson P.
        • O’Kiely P.
        • O’Mara F.P.
        • Wallace M.
        The development of a mathematical model to investigate Irish beef production systems.
        10.1016/j.agsy.2005.09.008
        Agric. Syst. 2006; 89: 349-370
        • Crosson P.
        Optimal beef production systems in differing concentrate price and grass utilisation scenarios.
        (Page 51 in) Proc. Agric. Res. Forum, Tullamore, Ireland. Teagasc, Oak Park, Carlow, Ireland2007
        • CSO (Central Statistics Office Ireland)
        Census of Agriculture 2010—Final Results.
        (Accessed Jun. 20, 2017)
        • CSO (Central Statistics Office Ireland)
        Agricultural Input and Output Price Indices (Base 2010=100) by Agricultural Product and Year Published: Dublin, Republic of Ireland: Central Statistics Office.
        (Accessed May 8, 2017)
        • DAFM (Department of Agriculture
        Meat 2025-Background Paper.
        2015 (Accessed Oct 17, 2016)
        • DAFM (Department of Agriculture
        AIM Bovine Statistics Report 2015.
        2016 (Accessed Jul. 18, 2017)
      1. Agri Benchmark: Beef and Sheep Season 2016—A summary of the main findings.
        in: Deblitz C. Fed. Agric. Res. Centre, Inst. Farm Econ., Braunschweig, Germany2016 (Accessed Dec. 16, 2016)
        • Dillon E.
        • Moran B.
        • Donnellan T.
        Teagasc National Farm Survey 2016.
        (Accessed Sep. 10, 2017)
        • Diskin M.G.
        • Kenny D.A.
        Optimising reproductive performance of beef cows and replacement heifers.
        10.1017/S175173111400086X
        24703426
        Animal. 2014; 8: 27-39
        • Drennan M.
        • McGee M.
        Performance of spring-calving beef suckler cows and their progeny to slaughter on intensive and extensive grassland management systems.
        10.1016/j.livsci.2008.04.013
        Livest. Sci. 2009; 120: 1-12
        • Drennan M.J.
        • Berry D.P.
        Factors affecting body condition score, live weight and reproductive performance in spring-calving suckler cows.
        Ir. J. Agric. Food Res. 2006; 45: 25-38
        • Drennan M.J.
        • McGee M.
        Effect of suckler cow genotype and nutrition level during the winter on voluntary intake and performance and on the growth and slaughter characteristics of their progeny.
        Ir. J. Agric. Food Res. 2004; 43: 185-199
        • European Commission
        EU Beef Sector Results based on 2013 FADN Data.
        (Accessed Jan. 10, 2017)
        • Finneran E.
        • Crosson P.
        • O’Kiely P.
        • Shalloo L.
        • Forristal D.
        • Wallace M.
        Simulation modelling of the cost of producing and utilising feeds for ruminants on Irish farms.
        J. Farm Manag. 2010; 14: 95-116
        • Evans R.
        • Cromie A.
        Genetic evaluations and indexes for Irish beef cow-calf to finishing production systems.
        (Pages 53–67 in)in: Proc. Teagasc Suckler Cow Breeding Conf. Setting a New Direction for Suckler Cow Breeding, Tullamore, Ireland. Teagasc, Oak Park, Carlow, Ireland2012
        • Finneran E.
        • Crosson P.
        Effects of scale, intensity and farm structure on the income efficiency of Irish beef farms.
        10.5836/ijam/2013-04-05
        Int. J. Agric. Manage. 2013; 2: 226-237
        • Hennessy T.
        • Moran B.
        Teagasc National Farm Survey 2015, Agricultural Economics and Farm Surveys Department, Teagasc.
        2016 (Accessed Aug. 17, 2017)
        • Heslin J.
        • Kenny D.A.
        • Kelly A.K.
        • McGee M.
        Age at puberty and pregnancy rate in beef heifer genotypes offered contrasting nutrition levels.
        J. Anim. Sci. 2017; 95: 235-236
        • ICBF
        The ICBF Database: Irish Cattle Breeding Federation.
        (Accessed Jul. 17, 2017)
        • Institut de l’Elevage
        Réseaux d’élevage.
        2018 (Accessed Apr. 16, 2018)
        • Khakbazan M.
        • Carew R.
        • Scott S.L.
        • Chiang P.
        • Block H.C.
        • Robins C.
        • Durunna O.N.
        • Huang J.
        Economic analysis and stochastic simulation of alternative beef calving and feeding systems in western Canada.
        10.4141/cjas2013-185
        Can. J. Anim. Sci. 2014; 94: 299-311
        • Leahy H.
        • Ruane D.J.
        An Investigation into the impact of farm labour use on Irish beef cow-calf to finishing farms.
        (Pages 519–530 in Proc. Assoc. Int. Agric. Ext. Educ. Conf. Dublin, Ireland) Assoc. Int. Agric. Ext. Educ, Dublin, Ireland2004
        • Mc Hugh N.
        • Cromie A.
        • Evans R.
        • Berry D.
        Validation of national genetic evaluations for maternal beef cattle traits using Irish field data.
        10.2527/jas.2013-6658
        24663204
        J. Anim. Sci. 2014; 92: 1423-1432
        • Mc Hugh N.
        • Evans R.D.
        • Amer P.R.
        • Fahey A.G.
        • Berry D.P.
        Genetic parameters for cattle price and body weight from routinely collected data at livestock auctions and commercial farms.
        10.2527/jas.2010-3044
        21178178
        J. Anim. Sci. 2011; 89: 29-39
        • Mc Hugh N.
        • Fahey A.
        • Evans R.
        • Berry D.P.
        Factors associated with selling price of cattle at livestock marts.
        10.1017/S1751731110000297
        22444658
        Animal. 2010; 4: 1378-1389
        • McElhinney C.
        • Danaher M.
        • Elliott C.
        • O’Kiely P.
        Mycotoxin occurrence on baled and pit silages collected in Co. Meath.
        Irish J. Agric. Food Res. 2015; 54: 87-97
        • McGee M.
        Recent developments in feeding beef cattle on grass silage-based diets.
        (Pages 51–64 in)in: Park R.S. Stronge M.D. Silage Production and Utilisation, Proc. 14th Int. Silage Conf., A Satellite Workshop, XXth Int. Grassl. Cong., Belfast, Northern Ireland Wageningen Acad. Publ, Wageningen, the Netherlands2005
        • McGee M.
        Feed efficiency in beef finishing systems.
        Irish Grassl. Assoc. J. 2015; 49: 97-105
        • McGee M.
        • Drennan M.J.
        • Caffrey P.J.
        Effect of suckler cow genotype on milk yield and pre-weaning calf performance.
        Ir. J. Agric. Food Res. 2005; 44: 185-194
        • McGee M.
        • Drennan M.J.
        • Crosson P.
        Effect of concentrate feeding level in winter and turnout date to pasture in spring on biological and economical performance of weanling cattle in beef cow-calf to finishing production systems.
        Ir. J. Agric. Food Res. 2014; 53: 1-19
        • More S.J.
        • McKenzie K.
        • O’Flaherty J.
        • Doherty M.L.
        • Cromie A.R.
        • Magan M.J.
        Setting priorities for non-regulatory animal health in Ireland: Results from an expert Policy Delphi study and a farmer priority identification survey.
        10.1016/j.prevetmed.2010.04.011
        20554068
        Prev. Vet. Med. 2010; 95: 198-207
        • Mulliniks J.
        • Rius A.
        • Edwards M.
        • Edwards S.
        • Hobbs J.
        • Nave R.
        Forages and Pastures Symposium: Improving efficiency of production in pasture-and range-based beef and dairy systems.
        26115249
        J. Anim. Sci. 2015; 93: 2609-2615
        • NRC
        Nutrient Requirements of Beef Cattle.
        8th rev. ed. Natl. Acad. Press, Washington, DC2016
        • O’Riordan E.G.
        • Crosson P.
        • McGee M.
        Finishing male cattle from the beef suckler herd.
        Irish Grassl. Assoc. J. 2011; 45: 131-146
        • O’Shaughnessy J.
        • Earley B.
        • Mee J.
        • Doherty M.
        • Crosson P.
        • Barrett D.
        • Macrelli M.
        • de Waal T.
        Nematode control in spring-born suckler beef calves using targeted selective anthelmintic treatments.
        25085771
        Vet. Parasitol. 2014; 205: 150-157
        • Parr M.H.
        • Diskin M.G.
        • Randi F.
        • Lively F.
        • Kenny D.A.
        Optimising the use of AI in the beef suckler herd.
        (Pages 6–15 in) Proc. Teagasc Natl. Beef Conf., Applying Technologies to Sustain Profitability, Athlone, Ireland, Teagasc, Oak Park, Carlow, Ireland2015
        • Pesonen M.
        • Honkavaara M.
        • Huuskonen A.
        Production, carcass and meat quality traits of Hereford, Charolais and Hereford×Charolais bulls offered grass silage-grain-based rations and slaughtered at high carcass weights.
        10.1080/09064702.2013.777091
        J. Anim. Sci. 2013; 63: 28-38
        • Ramsey R.
        • Doye D.
        • Ward C.
        • McGrann J.
        • Falconer L.
        • Bevers S.
        Factors affecting beef cow-herd costs, production, and profits.
        10.1017/s1074070800007124
        J. Agric. Appl. Econ. 2005; 37: 91-99
        • Romera A.J.
        • Burges J.C.
        • Morris S.T.
        • Hodgson J.
        • Woodward S.J.R.
        Modelling spring and autumn calving systems in beef herds of the Salado region of Argentina.
        10.1016/j.livsci.2007.06.013
        Livest. Sci. 2008; 115: 62-72
        • Sapkota D.
        • Crosson P.
        • White R.R.
        • Kelly A.K.
        • McGee M.
        Quantifying pre-weaning calf growth response to cow milk production in pasture-based beef suckler systems: A meta-analysis.
        Adv. Anim. Biosci. 2017; 8: 86
        • Stockton M.
        • Adams D.
        • Wilson R.
        • Klopfenstein T.
        • Clark R.
        • Carriker G.
        Production and economic comparisons of two calving dates for beef cows in the Nebraska Sandhills.
        10.1532/s1080-7446(15)31011-1
        Prof. Anim. Sci. 2007; 23: 500-508
        • Syrucek J.
        • Kvapilik J.
        • Barton L.
        • Vacek M.
        • Stadnik L.
        Economic efficiency of suckler cow herds in the Czech Rep.
        10.17221/263/2015-agricecon
        Agric. Econ. 2017; 63: 34-42
        • Taylor R.F.
        • Crosson P.
        BETTER beef farms: Higher productivity, greater profit.
        Teagasc T-Res. 2016; 11: 14-15
        • Taylor R.F.
        • McGee M.
        • Crosson P.
        • Kelly A.K.
        Analysis of suckler cow reproductive performance and its contribution to financial performance on Irish beef farms.
        Adv. Anim. Biosci. 2017; 8 (a): 64-66
        • Taylor R.F.
        • McGee M.
        • Kelly A.K.
        • Grant J.
        • Crosson P.
        A comparison of production systems and identification of profit drivers for Irish beef cow-calf to finishing farms.
        Int. J. Agric. Manage. 2017; 6 (b): 100-110
        • Teagasc
        Beef Production System Guidelines. Animal and Grassland Research and Innovation Program, Teagasc.
        2015 (Accessed Aug. 20, 2017)
        • Teagasc
        The BETTER farm beef program. Teagasc.
        2015 (Accessed May 6, 2017)
        • Teagasc
        eProfit Monitor Software.
        2016 (Accessed Jun. 10, 2017)
        • Teagasc
        Your road maps to better farming 2025—Sectoral Road Map: Suckler Beef, Teagasc.
        2016 (Accessed Aug. 22, 2017)
        • Teagasc
        National Farm Survey 2016.
        2017 (Accessed Aug. 20, 2017)
        • Teagasc
        Teagasc e-Profit Monitor Analysis Drystock Farms 2016, Teagasc.
        (Accessed Nov. 13, 2017)
        • Veysset P.
        • Lherm M.
        • Roulenc M.
        • Troquier C.
        • Bébin D.
        Productivity and technical efficiency of beef cow-calf to finishing production systems: Trends for the period 1990 to 2012.
        10.1017/S1751731115002013
        26577645
        Animal. 2015; 9: 2050-2059
        • Walmsley B.
        • Lee S.
        • Parnell P.
        • Pitchford W.
        A review of factors influencing key biological components of maternal productivity in temperate beef cattle.
        10.1071/an12428
        Anim. Prod. Sci. 2018; 58: 1-19
        • Wyatt W.E.
        • Gillespie J.M.
        • Blouin D.C.
        • Venuto B.C.
        • Boucher R.W.
        • Qushim B.
        Effects of year-round stocking rate and stocking method systems on cow-calf production in the gulf coast region of the United States: Costs, returns, and labor considerations.
        10.15232/s1080-7446(15)30190-x
        Prof. Anim. Sci. 2013; 29: 16-26