Evaluation of Net Returns to Risk and Management in an Intensified Cow-Calf Production System

The increase in population and declining availability of grazing land has created a need for sustainable beef production systems that require less land per unit of production. The study was repeated over 4 years utilizing mature Angus/Hereford cross fall calving cows and 2 management system treatmen...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Journal of animal science 2018-03, Vol.96, p.52-52
Hauptverfasser: McGee, A L, Cole, J R, Bayliff, C L, Redden, M D, Spencer, C M, Wiseman, A R, Warren, J G, Reuter, R, Doye, D, Horn, G W, Lalman, D L
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 52
container_issue
container_start_page 52
container_title Journal of animal science
container_volume 96
creator McGee, A L
Cole, J R
Bayliff, C L
Redden, M D
Spencer, C M
Wiseman, A R
Warren, J G
Reuter, R
Doye, D
Horn, G W
Lalman, D L
description The increase in population and declining availability of grazing land has created a need for sustainable beef production systems that require less land per unit of production. The study was repeated over 4 years utilizing mature Angus/Hereford cross fall calving cows and 2 management system treatments: Extensive (EXT; 551 ± 12.19 kg at study initiation each year, 6.12 ha of native rangeland/cow-calf unit), and intensive (INT; 560 ± 12.19 kg at study initiation each year, 2.90 ha native rangeland and 0.38 ha cropland per cow-calf unit). Each treatment was replicated 3 times each year with 14 and 18 hd/replication in the EXT and INT respectively. Cattle assigned to EXT were provided no additional forage except during winter storm events and 1.13 kg/hd/day of protein supplementation from Oct-Mar. Cattle assigned to INT consumed prairie hay ad libitum and limit-grazed wheat pasture from Dec-Mar, followed by unlimited access to wheat pasture until mid-April. After wheat grazeout, INT cows were transported back to native rangeland where they remained until mid-June when calves were weaned. Following weaning, INT cows grazed summer annuals established on the cropland. In mid-Aug., INT cows were transported back to the native rangeland for calving where they remained until Dec. To ensure proper accounting of all resources, the "system" is defined as activities that occurred on the land base of 6.12 and 3.28 ha for the EXT and INT treatments respectively, and were separated into 3 enterprises based on INT land use: cow-calf, stocker, and hay. Any activities that occurred outside of the system but were needed for comparison, i.e. EXT stocker pasture, were charged to the system at custom rates. Enterprise net returns/ replication were not different between the two treatments for both the cow-calf and stocker enterprises (P < 0.01). Total system net returns/replication were not different (P = 0.65). However, total net returns/hd were greater in the EXT system (P < 0.01) and total net returns/ha were greater in the INT system (P = 0.02). Incorporation of cropland grazing into a native rangeland management system resulted in economical beef production requiring less land area per unit of beef produced. Profitability of one system compared to the other was lower, no different or greater depending on the unit of measure, emphasizing the need to evaluate beef production systems comprehensively.
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_journals_2046697087</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>2046697087</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-proquest_journals_20466970873</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqNjcsKwjAURIMoWB__cMF1IUnta10UXShS3UoJ9lZS20SbRPHvLeIHuBqYM5wZEI-FPPQDFgVD4lHKmZ8kjI_JxJiaUsbDNPTIefUUjRNWagW6gj1ayNG6ThmwGnJpbiBUCTuhxBVbVBak6hvYKovKyEpiCZl--ZloKjh0unSXr-v4NhbbGRlVojE4_-WULNarU7bx751-ODS2qHX_1aOC02UUpTFN4uC_1QewPURd</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2046697087</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Evaluation of Net Returns to Risk and Management in an Intensified Cow-Calf Production System</title><source>Oxford University Press Journals All Titles (1996-Current)</source><source>Elektronische Zeitschriftenbibliothek - Frei zugängliche E-Journals</source><source>PubMed Central</source><creator>McGee, A L ; Cole, J R ; Bayliff, C L ; Redden, M D ; Spencer, C M ; Wiseman, A R ; Warren, J G ; Reuter, R ; Doye, D ; Horn, G W ; Lalman, D L</creator><creatorcontrib>McGee, A L ; Cole, J R ; Bayliff, C L ; Redden, M D ; Spencer, C M ; Wiseman, A R ; Warren, J G ; Reuter, R ; Doye, D ; Horn, G W ; Lalman, D L</creatorcontrib><description>The increase in population and declining availability of grazing land has created a need for sustainable beef production systems that require less land per unit of production. The study was repeated over 4 years utilizing mature Angus/Hereford cross fall calving cows and 2 management system treatments: Extensive (EXT; 551 ± 12.19 kg at study initiation each year, 6.12 ha of native rangeland/cow-calf unit), and intensive (INT; 560 ± 12.19 kg at study initiation each year, 2.90 ha native rangeland and 0.38 ha cropland per cow-calf unit). Each treatment was replicated 3 times each year with 14 and 18 hd/replication in the EXT and INT respectively. Cattle assigned to EXT were provided no additional forage except during winter storm events and 1.13 kg/hd/day of protein supplementation from Oct-Mar. Cattle assigned to INT consumed prairie hay ad libitum and limit-grazed wheat pasture from Dec-Mar, followed by unlimited access to wheat pasture until mid-April. After wheat grazeout, INT cows were transported back to native rangeland where they remained until mid-June when calves were weaned. Following weaning, INT cows grazed summer annuals established on the cropland. In mid-Aug., INT cows were transported back to the native rangeland for calving where they remained until Dec. To ensure proper accounting of all resources, the "system" is defined as activities that occurred on the land base of 6.12 and 3.28 ha for the EXT and INT treatments respectively, and were separated into 3 enterprises based on INT land use: cow-calf, stocker, and hay. Any activities that occurred outside of the system but were needed for comparison, i.e. EXT stocker pasture, were charged to the system at custom rates. Enterprise net returns/ replication were not different between the two treatments for both the cow-calf and stocker enterprises (P &lt; 0.01). Total system net returns/replication were not different (P = 0.65). However, total net returns/hd were greater in the EXT system (P &lt; 0.01) and total net returns/ha were greater in the INT system (P = 0.02). Incorporation of cropland grazing into a native rangeland management system resulted in economical beef production requiring less land area per unit of beef produced. Profitability of one system compared to the other was lower, no different or greater depending on the unit of measure, emphasizing the need to evaluate beef production systems comprehensively.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0021-8812</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1525-3163</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Champaign: Oxford University Press</publisher><subject>Accounting ; Agricultural land ; Beef ; Beef cattle ; Calves ; Cattle ; Cattle production ; Dietary supplements ; Economics ; Grazing ; Hay ; Land use ; Management ; Pasture ; Pastures ; Population decline ; Profitability ; Proteins ; Range management ; Rangelands ; Replication ; Supplements ; Sustainable production ; Systems analysis ; Weaning ; Wheat ; Winter storms</subject><ispartof>Journal of animal science, 2018-03, Vol.96, p.52-52</ispartof><rights>Copyright Oxford University Press, UK Mar 2018</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>314,776,780</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>McGee, A L</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Cole, J R</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bayliff, C L</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Redden, M D</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Spencer, C M</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Wiseman, A R</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Warren, J G</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Reuter, R</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Doye, D</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Horn, G W</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Lalman, D L</creatorcontrib><title>Evaluation of Net Returns to Risk and Management in an Intensified Cow-Calf Production System</title><title>Journal of animal science</title><description>The increase in population and declining availability of grazing land has created a need for sustainable beef production systems that require less land per unit of production. The study was repeated over 4 years utilizing mature Angus/Hereford cross fall calving cows and 2 management system treatments: Extensive (EXT; 551 ± 12.19 kg at study initiation each year, 6.12 ha of native rangeland/cow-calf unit), and intensive (INT; 560 ± 12.19 kg at study initiation each year, 2.90 ha native rangeland and 0.38 ha cropland per cow-calf unit). Each treatment was replicated 3 times each year with 14 and 18 hd/replication in the EXT and INT respectively. Cattle assigned to EXT were provided no additional forage except during winter storm events and 1.13 kg/hd/day of protein supplementation from Oct-Mar. Cattle assigned to INT consumed prairie hay ad libitum and limit-grazed wheat pasture from Dec-Mar, followed by unlimited access to wheat pasture until mid-April. After wheat grazeout, INT cows were transported back to native rangeland where they remained until mid-June when calves were weaned. Following weaning, INT cows grazed summer annuals established on the cropland. In mid-Aug., INT cows were transported back to the native rangeland for calving where they remained until Dec. To ensure proper accounting of all resources, the "system" is defined as activities that occurred on the land base of 6.12 and 3.28 ha for the EXT and INT treatments respectively, and were separated into 3 enterprises based on INT land use: cow-calf, stocker, and hay. Any activities that occurred outside of the system but were needed for comparison, i.e. EXT stocker pasture, were charged to the system at custom rates. Enterprise net returns/ replication were not different between the two treatments for both the cow-calf and stocker enterprises (P &lt; 0.01). Total system net returns/replication were not different (P = 0.65). However, total net returns/hd were greater in the EXT system (P &lt; 0.01) and total net returns/ha were greater in the INT system (P = 0.02). Incorporation of cropland grazing into a native rangeland management system resulted in economical beef production requiring less land area per unit of beef produced. Profitability of one system compared to the other was lower, no different or greater depending on the unit of measure, emphasizing the need to evaluate beef production systems comprehensively.</description><subject>Accounting</subject><subject>Agricultural land</subject><subject>Beef</subject><subject>Beef cattle</subject><subject>Calves</subject><subject>Cattle</subject><subject>Cattle production</subject><subject>Dietary supplements</subject><subject>Economics</subject><subject>Grazing</subject><subject>Hay</subject><subject>Land use</subject><subject>Management</subject><subject>Pasture</subject><subject>Pastures</subject><subject>Population decline</subject><subject>Profitability</subject><subject>Proteins</subject><subject>Range management</subject><subject>Rangelands</subject><subject>Replication</subject><subject>Supplements</subject><subject>Sustainable production</subject><subject>Systems analysis</subject><subject>Weaning</subject><subject>Wheat</subject><subject>Winter storms</subject><issn>0021-8812</issn><issn>1525-3163</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2018</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>8G5</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>GUQSH</sourceid><sourceid>M2O</sourceid><recordid>eNqNjcsKwjAURIMoWB__cMF1IUnta10UXShS3UoJ9lZS20SbRPHvLeIHuBqYM5wZEI-FPPQDFgVD4lHKmZ8kjI_JxJiaUsbDNPTIefUUjRNWagW6gj1ayNG6ThmwGnJpbiBUCTuhxBVbVBak6hvYKovKyEpiCZl--ZloKjh0unSXr-v4NhbbGRlVojE4_-WULNarU7bx751-ODS2qHX_1aOC02UUpTFN4uC_1QewPURd</recordid><startdate>20180301</startdate><enddate>20180301</enddate><creator>McGee, A L</creator><creator>Cole, J R</creator><creator>Bayliff, C L</creator><creator>Redden, M D</creator><creator>Spencer, C M</creator><creator>Wiseman, A R</creator><creator>Warren, J G</creator><creator>Reuter, R</creator><creator>Doye, D</creator><creator>Horn, G W</creator><creator>Lalman, D L</creator><general>Oxford University Press</general><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7RQ</scope><scope>7X2</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88A</scope><scope>88E</scope><scope>88I</scope><scope>8AF</scope><scope>8FE</scope><scope>8FG</scope><scope>8FH</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>8G5</scope><scope>ABJCF</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AEUYN</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>ATCPS</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BBNVY</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BGLVJ</scope><scope>BHPHI</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>GUQSH</scope><scope>HCIFZ</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>L6V</scope><scope>LK8</scope><scope>M0K</scope><scope>M0S</scope><scope>M1P</scope><scope>M2O</scope><scope>M2P</scope><scope>M7P</scope><scope>M7S</scope><scope>MBDVC</scope><scope>PATMY</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PTHSS</scope><scope>PYCSY</scope><scope>Q9U</scope><scope>S0X</scope><scope>U9A</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20180301</creationdate><title>Evaluation of Net Returns to Risk and Management in an Intensified Cow-Calf Production System</title><author>McGee, A L ; Cole, J R ; Bayliff, C L ; Redden, M D ; Spencer, C M ; Wiseman, A R ; Warren, J G ; Reuter, R ; Doye, D ; Horn, G W ; Lalman, D L</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-proquest_journals_20466970873</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2018</creationdate><topic>Accounting</topic><topic>Agricultural land</topic><topic>Beef</topic><topic>Beef cattle</topic><topic>Calves</topic><topic>Cattle</topic><topic>Cattle production</topic><topic>Dietary supplements</topic><topic>Economics</topic><topic>Grazing</topic><topic>Hay</topic><topic>Land use</topic><topic>Management</topic><topic>Pasture</topic><topic>Pastures</topic><topic>Population decline</topic><topic>Profitability</topic><topic>Proteins</topic><topic>Range management</topic><topic>Rangelands</topic><topic>Replication</topic><topic>Supplements</topic><topic>Sustainable production</topic><topic>Systems analysis</topic><topic>Weaning</topic><topic>Wheat</topic><topic>Winter storms</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>McGee, A L</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Cole, J R</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bayliff, C L</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Redden, M D</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Spencer, C M</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Wiseman, A R</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Warren, J G</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Reuter, R</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Doye, D</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Horn, G W</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Lalman, D L</creatorcontrib><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Career &amp; Technical Education Database</collection><collection>Agricultural Science Collection</collection><collection>Health &amp; Medical Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Biology Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Medical Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Science Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>STEM Database</collection><collection>ProQuest SciTech Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Technology Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Research Library (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Materials Science &amp; Engineering Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Sustainability</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>Agricultural &amp; Environmental Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>Biological Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Technology Collection</collection><collection>Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>Research Library Prep</collection><collection>SciTech Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Health &amp; Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Engineering Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Biological Science Collection</collection><collection>Agricultural Science Database</collection><collection>Health &amp; Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Medical Database</collection><collection>Research Library</collection><collection>Science Database</collection><collection>Biological Science Database</collection><collection>Engineering Database</collection><collection>Research Library (Corporate)</collection><collection>Environmental Science Database</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>Engineering Collection</collection><collection>Environmental Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Basic</collection><collection>SIRS Editorial</collection><jtitle>Journal of animal science</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>McGee, A L</au><au>Cole, J R</au><au>Bayliff, C L</au><au>Redden, M D</au><au>Spencer, C M</au><au>Wiseman, A R</au><au>Warren, J G</au><au>Reuter, R</au><au>Doye, D</au><au>Horn, G W</au><au>Lalman, D L</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Evaluation of Net Returns to Risk and Management in an Intensified Cow-Calf Production System</atitle><jtitle>Journal of animal science</jtitle><date>2018-03-01</date><risdate>2018</risdate><volume>96</volume><spage>52</spage><epage>52</epage><pages>52-52</pages><issn>0021-8812</issn><eissn>1525-3163</eissn><abstract>The increase in population and declining availability of grazing land has created a need for sustainable beef production systems that require less land per unit of production. The study was repeated over 4 years utilizing mature Angus/Hereford cross fall calving cows and 2 management system treatments: Extensive (EXT; 551 ± 12.19 kg at study initiation each year, 6.12 ha of native rangeland/cow-calf unit), and intensive (INT; 560 ± 12.19 kg at study initiation each year, 2.90 ha native rangeland and 0.38 ha cropland per cow-calf unit). Each treatment was replicated 3 times each year with 14 and 18 hd/replication in the EXT and INT respectively. Cattle assigned to EXT were provided no additional forage except during winter storm events and 1.13 kg/hd/day of protein supplementation from Oct-Mar. Cattle assigned to INT consumed prairie hay ad libitum and limit-grazed wheat pasture from Dec-Mar, followed by unlimited access to wheat pasture until mid-April. After wheat grazeout, INT cows were transported back to native rangeland where they remained until mid-June when calves were weaned. Following weaning, INT cows grazed summer annuals established on the cropland. In mid-Aug., INT cows were transported back to the native rangeland for calving where they remained until Dec. To ensure proper accounting of all resources, the "system" is defined as activities that occurred on the land base of 6.12 and 3.28 ha for the EXT and INT treatments respectively, and were separated into 3 enterprises based on INT land use: cow-calf, stocker, and hay. Any activities that occurred outside of the system but were needed for comparison, i.e. EXT stocker pasture, were charged to the system at custom rates. Enterprise net returns/ replication were not different between the two treatments for both the cow-calf and stocker enterprises (P &lt; 0.01). Total system net returns/replication were not different (P = 0.65). However, total net returns/hd were greater in the EXT system (P &lt; 0.01) and total net returns/ha were greater in the INT system (P = 0.02). Incorporation of cropland grazing into a native rangeland management system resulted in economical beef production requiring less land area per unit of beef produced. Profitability of one system compared to the other was lower, no different or greater depending on the unit of measure, emphasizing the need to evaluate beef production systems comprehensively.</abstract><cop>Champaign</cop><pub>Oxford University Press</pub></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0021-8812
ispartof Journal of animal science, 2018-03, Vol.96, p.52-52
issn 0021-8812
1525-3163
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_journals_2046697087
source Oxford University Press Journals All Titles (1996-Current); Elektronische Zeitschriftenbibliothek - Frei zugängliche E-Journals; PubMed Central
subjects Accounting
Agricultural land
Beef
Beef cattle
Calves
Cattle
Cattle production
Dietary supplements
Economics
Grazing
Hay
Land use
Management
Pasture
Pastures
Population decline
Profitability
Proteins
Range management
Rangelands
Replication
Supplements
Sustainable production
Systems analysis
Weaning
Wheat
Winter storms
title Evaluation of Net Returns to Risk and Management in an Intensified Cow-Calf Production System
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-02-08T11%3A04%3A43IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Evaluation%20of%20Net%20Returns%20to%20Risk%20and%20Management%20in%20an%20Intensified%20Cow-Calf%20Production%20System&rft.jtitle=Journal%20of%20animal%20science&rft.au=McGee,%20A%20L&rft.date=2018-03-01&rft.volume=96&rft.spage=52&rft.epage=52&rft.pages=52-52&rft.issn=0021-8812&rft.eissn=1525-3163&rft_id=info:doi/&rft_dat=%3Cproquest%3E2046697087%3C/proquest%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2046697087&rft_id=info:pmid/&rfr_iscdi=true