A Comparison of Beef Cattle Crossbreeding Systems Assuming Value-Based Marketing
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
University of Nebraska - Lincoln DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln Nebraska Beef Cattle Reports Animal Science Department January 2001 A Comparison of Beef Cattle Crossbreeding Systems Assuming Value-Based Marketing U. Jon Tomsen University of Nebraska-Lincoln D. Kirk Darnell University of Nebraska-Lincoln Merlyn K. Nielsen University of Nebraska-Lincoln, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/animalscinbcr Part of the Animal Sciences Commons Tomsen, U. Jon; Darnell, D. Kirk; and Nielsen, Merlyn K., "A Comparison of Beef Cattle Crossbreeding Systems Assuming Value-Based Marketing" (2001). Nebraska Beef Cattle Reports. 322. https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/animalscinbcr/322 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Animal Science Department at DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. It has been accepted for inclusion in Nebraska Beef Cattle Reports by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. A Comparison of Beef Cattle Crossbreeding Systems Assuming Value-Based Marketing U. Jon Tomsen sustainable, crossing system (i.e., one This work simulated purebred, two- D. Kirk Darnell that contains all necessary purebred and breed rotation, three-breed rotation, rota- Merlyn Nielsen1 crossbred groups). The purpose of this terminal, and four-breed composite study was to simulate biological and systems, using the 14 breeds. The rota- then economic outcomes under value- tional and rota-terminal systems were Optimal use of beef breeds and based marketing for several breeding totally contained beef breeding systems. crossing systems depends on systems. All systems were simulated for Separate breeding groups were part of total-industry net returns, not just two marketing scenarios for fed calves: the total rotational systems and were value of carcasses. Level of feed equal age at slaughter and equal backfat assumed to produce purebred breeding requirements, milk production and at slaughter. animals (bulls) needed for the rest of the other performance characteristics system. The rota-terminal system as- are important in determining Procedure sumed a two-breed rotation to generate industry value. replacement females plus terminal cross- Fourteen breeds and their crosses were ing to a third breed of sire to produce Summary simulated using biological performance only slaughter animals. Thus for a rota- derived from several data reports from terminal system, there would be three This study simulated total life-cycle the Germ Plasm Utilization and the Germ purebred groups (two to produce bulls expenses and income under value-based Plasm Evaluation projects, conducted at for the two-breed rotation plus one to marketing to arrive at predicted net the U.S. Meat Animal Research Center produce bulls for the terminal cross) in returns for crossbreeding systems. The near Clay Center, Neb. The 14 breeds addition to the crossbred groups that simulation used a deterministic model were: Hereford, Angus, Simmental, made up the total system. The four-breed of totally contained beef breeding sys- Limousin, Charolais, Brahman, Red Poll, composite was assumed to be already tems and evaluated 14 breeds and their Gelbvieh, Maine Anjou, Braunvieh, created, thus only one breeding group crosses from biological data collected Chianina, Brangus, Pinzgauer and was simulated. at the U.S. Meat Animal Research Cen- Tarentaise. In addition, reports from The system simulated conception ter in Nebraska. Comparing beef cattle other literature also were incorporated through slaughter. Calving was in the crossbreeding systems under value- to set levels of individual and maternal spring, weaning was at 205 days, and based marketing will aid us in under- heterosis for the simulation and to pre- calves immediately entered the feedlot standing the interactions of the total dict heifer performance from steers. for feeding until slaughter. The average system. Besides value of carcasses, feed Simulations were done using a deter- days fed for the biological data from the requirements, level of milk production ministic model (i.e., all performance was U.S. Meat Animal Research Center was and other characteristics are important based on averages within a breed or 235 days with slaughter at 440 days. in determining net returns. cross with no variation between ani- Output was initially generated for an mals) encompassing conception through equal number of days fed (235) and Introduction slaughter. All systems were simulated equal age at slaughter (440 days). These using an equal resource base. The stan- outcomes are called “Equal Age.” Pure- For the evaluation of breeds and dard resource base was an equal use of bred groups varied widely in backfat and crosses, the beef cattle industry should summer pasture. For the 14 pure breeds, yield grade when slaughtered at an equal not simply base decisions on carcass the number of AUM’s per 1,000-cow age. Thus, another management scenario value. Rather, consideration needs to be herd was simulated. The average of these was simulated where genetic groups of given to total life-cycle expenses and 14 purebred systems with 1000 breeding animals were fed different numbers of income. For example, breeds or crosses females became the standard base of days and then slaughtered at the same that have the highest carcass value might AUM usage. After establishing the stan- backfat. Outcomes under this manage- also have the highest production costs dard base, the total number of cows in ment are called “Equal Fat.” Because due to poorer reproduction and/or higher each total system, including all purebred this required further extrapolation from maintenance feed costs. The system also systems, was varied to equalize use of the biological data base and minimizing should evaluate a full, totally contained, the standard pasture resource. (Continued on next page) Page 3 — 2001 Nebraska Beef Report the amount of extrapolation is desired, Table 1. Purebred animal weights (1b), milk production (lb/205 days), reproductive performance the average backfat of purebred groups and calving difficulty used in simulations. in the “Equal Age” scenario was used as Breed Birth weight 200-day Breeding Milk % weaned % calving weight weigiht female production of exposed difficulty the slaughter endpoint in the “Equal Fat” mature mature mature mature mature 2-year-old scenario. For steers, this was .24 in, and dama,b dama,b weighta dama dama damc for heifers, the endpoint was .28 in. Hereford 83 431 1151 2156 83.3 49 Numbers of steers and heifers fed Angus 78 465 1155 2846 84.7 32 directly for slaughter varied for each Simmental 92 540 1332 4105 82.4 45 Limousin 86 474 1273 3258 85.2 34 system and were a function of the total Charolais 95 522 1416 3137 85.2 42 size of the system as determined by the Brahman 75 517 1352 4262 84.0 7 constant pasture resource base, the Red Poll 85 484 1168 3752 84.4 58 Gelbvieh 91 543 1330 4045 85.1 53 reproductive rate and the number of Maine Anjou 92 505 1407 3876 85.4 48 breeding bulls (purebred and composite Braunvieh 94 542 1326 4475 85.2 51 systems and segments of rotational sys- Chianina 92 509 1415 3117 86.4 37 Brangus 84 468 1302 3543 83.3 41 tems) and replacement heifers needed Pinzgauer 96 525 1278 4061 84.2 53 (purebred and composite systems plus Tarentaise 82 506 1279 3783 83.2 36 rotational segments of rotational and rota- aData simulated for 2-year-old, 3-year-old, and mature dams; data from only mature dams shown here. terminal systems). Feedlot income, cow- bAverage for steers and heifers. herd income, feedlot costs and cowherd cData simulated for 2-year-old, 3-year-old, and mature dams; data from only 2-year-old dams shown here. costs were totaled and total income mi- nus total costs yielded predicted net re- Table 2. Purebred energy requirements and milk production used in the simulations. turns of each system. Various input costs Breed Maintenance Preweaning Feedlot Feedlot and output values were derived from 10- energya gain energy gain energyb gain energyc year averages for Nebraska. Kcal/kg.75/day Mcal/lb Mcal/lb Mcal/lb Fifteen traits were used in the simula- Hereford 108 2.27 5.56 5.39 tions. Many of these 15 traits incorpo- Angus 109 2.38 5.59 5.39 rated differences in 2-year-old, Simmental 121 2.55 5.32 5.39 Limousin 118 2.38 5.33 5.39 3-year-old, and mature dams to help Charolais 116 2.50 5.31 5.39 evaluate the cow herd. For the cross- Brahman 109 2.54 5.40 5.39 breeding systems to be evaluated, indi- Red Poll 117 2.41 5.44 5.39 Gelbvieh 116 2.57 5.31 5.39 vidual and maternal heterosis estimates Maine Anjou 110 2.46 5.39 5.39 were determined for each of the 15 traits. Braunvieh 117 2.56 5.34 5.39 An age distribution for the cow herd was Chianina 125 2.47 5.38 5.39 Brangus 109 2.37 5.40 5.39 simulated, based on reproductive rate Pinzgauer 114 2.50 5.33 5.39 and culling of all non-pregnant females Tarentaise 113 2.49 5.40 5.39 at weaning time to produce income. All aNon-lactating, gestating cow; all other cow and calf simulated maintenance costs derived from this cows were assumed culled for salvage at base value. 8.5 years of age. Calf losses were simu- bData simulated for steers and heifers; steer data shown here for “Equal Age” slaughter scenario. c lated at various times of the production Data simulated for steers and heifers; steer data shown here for “Equal Fat” slaughter scenario. year, and cows not nursing a calf were culled to generate income. Traits simulated can be subdivided Table 3.