331 Economic comparison of march and may calving systems in the nebraska sandhillls

A 3-yr study evaluated the economic differences between a March and May calving production system of crossbred beef cows and their offspring from the Gudmundsen Sandhills Laboratory, Whitman, NE. Both herds were treated as a common when not in treatment period. Adjusted calf weaning BW was higher (P...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Journal of animal science 2019-07, Vol.97 (Supplement_2), p.131-132
Hauptverfasser: Broadhead, Devin L, Stockton, Matt, Erickson, McKay, Musgrave, Jackie A, Funston, Rick N
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 132
container_issue Supplement_2
container_start_page 131
container_title Journal of animal science
container_volume 97
creator Broadhead, Devin L
Stockton, Matt
Erickson, McKay
Musgrave, Jackie A
Funston, Rick N
description A 3-yr study evaluated the economic differences between a March and May calving production system of crossbred beef cows and their offspring from the Gudmundsen Sandhills Laboratory, Whitman, NE. Both herds were treated as a common when not in treatment period. Adjusted calf weaning BW was higher (P) for March Calves (226.4 ± 1.1 kg vs 193.4 ± 2 kg). Pregnancy rates (89% vs 91%) were similar through both systems. The stochastic economic model used for the analysis was based on 9 yr of USDA AMS data. The model accounts for most assumptions within each system, including all labor, cull and replacement cow costs and feed costs. This analysis was on the total calf costs, total pair feed costs and average market net return at weaning. March systems wintered on hay had a positive net return 2 out of the 9 yr (Average of -$88.76/calf) and on cornstalks 8 out of 9 years in Dawson County, NE (Average of $62.75/calf). March systems on winter range feed 0.41 kg DM/(cow • d) of supplement had a positive net return 4 out of the 9 yrs (Average of $25.23/calf). The May system, no matter the treatments of range or meadow and with or without supplement, had a positive net return 2 out of the 9 years (Average of $-65.77 and $-83.90/calf). Within this analysis, even with the input costs being higher for March, the net return was still greater in a March vs May system. Further analysis will be done on different trts within each system.
doi_str_mv 10.1093/jas/skz122.233
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>pubmedcentral_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_6666758</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_6666758</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c1343-1f94d38e5b3e21d53b138dacbb1d8e35e62a59bbd50ff862f087a36a6c556fc3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNpVkMFKAzEQhoMoWKtXz3mBbTOZZpu9CFKqFQoe7D0k2aSbdjcpm1qoT-9KRXAuM_DPfAwfIY_AJsAqnO50nub9F3A-4YhXZASCiwKhxGsyYoxDISXwW3KX844x4KISI_KBCHRpU0xdsNSm7qD7kFOkydNO97ahOtbDdKZWt6cQtzSf89F1mYZIj42j0Zle572meVhsQtu2-Z7ceN1m9_Dbx2TzstwsVsX6_fVt8bwuLOAMC_DVrEbphEHHoRZoAGWtrTFQS4fClVyLyphaMO9lyT2Tc42lLq0Qpbc4Jk8X7OHTdK62Lh573apDH4bHzyrpoP4nMTRqm06qHGou5ACYXAC2Tzn3zv_dAlM_StWgVF2UqkEpfgPCrG2m</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Open Access Repository</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype></control><display><type>article</type><title>331 Economic comparison of march and may calving systems in the nebraska sandhillls</title><source>Oxford University Press Journals All Titles (1996-Current)</source><source>EZB-FREE-00999 freely available EZB journals</source><source>PubMed Central</source><creator>Broadhead, Devin L ; Stockton, Matt ; Erickson, McKay ; Musgrave, Jackie A ; Funston, Rick N</creator><creatorcontrib>Broadhead, Devin L ; Stockton, Matt ; Erickson, McKay ; Musgrave, Jackie A ; Funston, Rick N</creatorcontrib><description>A 3-yr study evaluated the economic differences between a March and May calving production system of crossbred beef cows and their offspring from the Gudmundsen Sandhills Laboratory, Whitman, NE. Both herds were treated as a common when not in treatment period. Adjusted calf weaning BW was higher (P) for March Calves (226.4 ± 1.1 kg vs 193.4 ± 2 kg). Pregnancy rates (89% vs 91%) were similar through both systems. The stochastic economic model used for the analysis was based on 9 yr of USDA AMS data. The model accounts for most assumptions within each system, including all labor, cull and replacement cow costs and feed costs. This analysis was on the total calf costs, total pair feed costs and average market net return at weaning. March systems wintered on hay had a positive net return 2 out of the 9 yr (Average of -$88.76/calf) and on cornstalks 8 out of 9 years in Dawson County, NE (Average of $62.75/calf). March systems on winter range feed 0.41 kg DM/(cow • d) of supplement had a positive net return 4 out of the 9 yrs (Average of $25.23/calf). The May system, no matter the treatments of range or meadow and with or without supplement, had a positive net return 2 out of the 9 years (Average of $-65.77 and $-83.90/calf). Within this analysis, even with the input costs being higher for March, the net return was still greater in a March vs May system. Further analysis will be done on different trts within each system.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0021-8812</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1525-3163</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1093/jas/skz122.233</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>US: Oxford University Press</publisher><subject>Oral Presentations</subject><ispartof>Journal of animal science, 2019-07, Vol.97 (Supplement_2), p.131-132</ispartof><rights>The Author(s) 2019. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the American Society of Animal Science. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com. 2019</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6666758/pdf/$$EPDF$$P50$$Gpubmedcentral$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6666758/$$EHTML$$P50$$Gpubmedcentral$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>230,314,727,780,784,885,27923,27924,53790,53792</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Broadhead, Devin L</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Stockton, Matt</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Erickson, McKay</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Musgrave, Jackie A</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Funston, Rick N</creatorcontrib><title>331 Economic comparison of march and may calving systems in the nebraska sandhillls</title><title>Journal of animal science</title><description>A 3-yr study evaluated the economic differences between a March and May calving production system of crossbred beef cows and their offspring from the Gudmundsen Sandhills Laboratory, Whitman, NE. Both herds were treated as a common when not in treatment period. Adjusted calf weaning BW was higher (P) for March Calves (226.4 ± 1.1 kg vs 193.4 ± 2 kg). Pregnancy rates (89% vs 91%) were similar through both systems. The stochastic economic model used for the analysis was based on 9 yr of USDA AMS data. The model accounts for most assumptions within each system, including all labor, cull and replacement cow costs and feed costs. This analysis was on the total calf costs, total pair feed costs and average market net return at weaning. March systems wintered on hay had a positive net return 2 out of the 9 yr (Average of -$88.76/calf) and on cornstalks 8 out of 9 years in Dawson County, NE (Average of $62.75/calf). March systems on winter range feed 0.41 kg DM/(cow • d) of supplement had a positive net return 4 out of the 9 yrs (Average of $25.23/calf). The May system, no matter the treatments of range or meadow and with or without supplement, had a positive net return 2 out of the 9 years (Average of $-65.77 and $-83.90/calf). Within this analysis, even with the input costs being higher for March, the net return was still greater in a March vs May system. Further analysis will be done on different trts within each system.</description><subject>Oral Presentations</subject><issn>0021-8812</issn><issn>1525-3163</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2019</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNpVkMFKAzEQhoMoWKtXz3mBbTOZZpu9CFKqFQoe7D0k2aSbdjcpm1qoT-9KRXAuM_DPfAwfIY_AJsAqnO50nub9F3A-4YhXZASCiwKhxGsyYoxDISXwW3KX844x4KISI_KBCHRpU0xdsNSm7qD7kFOkydNO97ahOtbDdKZWt6cQtzSf89F1mYZIj42j0Zle572meVhsQtu2-Z7ceN1m9_Dbx2TzstwsVsX6_fVt8bwuLOAMC_DVrEbphEHHoRZoAGWtrTFQS4fClVyLyphaMO9lyT2Tc42lLq0Qpbc4Jk8X7OHTdK62Lh573apDH4bHzyrpoP4nMTRqm06qHGou5ACYXAC2Tzn3zv_dAlM_StWgVF2UqkEpfgPCrG2m</recordid><startdate>20190729</startdate><enddate>20190729</enddate><creator>Broadhead, Devin L</creator><creator>Stockton, Matt</creator><creator>Erickson, McKay</creator><creator>Musgrave, Jackie A</creator><creator>Funston, Rick N</creator><general>Oxford University Press</general><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>5PM</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20190729</creationdate><title>331 Economic comparison of march and may calving systems in the nebraska sandhillls</title><author>Broadhead, Devin L ; Stockton, Matt ; Erickson, McKay ; Musgrave, Jackie A ; Funston, Rick N</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c1343-1f94d38e5b3e21d53b138dacbb1d8e35e62a59bbd50ff862f087a36a6c556fc3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2019</creationdate><topic>Oral Presentations</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Broadhead, Devin L</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Stockton, Matt</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Erickson, McKay</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Musgrave, Jackie A</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Funston, Rick N</creatorcontrib><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>PubMed Central (Full Participant titles)</collection><jtitle>Journal of animal science</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Broadhead, Devin L</au><au>Stockton, Matt</au><au>Erickson, McKay</au><au>Musgrave, Jackie A</au><au>Funston, Rick N</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>331 Economic comparison of march and may calving systems in the nebraska sandhillls</atitle><jtitle>Journal of animal science</jtitle><date>2019-07-29</date><risdate>2019</risdate><volume>97</volume><issue>Supplement_2</issue><spage>131</spage><epage>132</epage><pages>131-132</pages><issn>0021-8812</issn><eissn>1525-3163</eissn><abstract>A 3-yr study evaluated the economic differences between a March and May calving production system of crossbred beef cows and their offspring from the Gudmundsen Sandhills Laboratory, Whitman, NE. Both herds were treated as a common when not in treatment period. Adjusted calf weaning BW was higher (P) for March Calves (226.4 ± 1.1 kg vs 193.4 ± 2 kg). Pregnancy rates (89% vs 91%) were similar through both systems. The stochastic economic model used for the analysis was based on 9 yr of USDA AMS data. The model accounts for most assumptions within each system, including all labor, cull and replacement cow costs and feed costs. This analysis was on the total calf costs, total pair feed costs and average market net return at weaning. March systems wintered on hay had a positive net return 2 out of the 9 yr (Average of -$88.76/calf) and on cornstalks 8 out of 9 years in Dawson County, NE (Average of $62.75/calf). March systems on winter range feed 0.41 kg DM/(cow • d) of supplement had a positive net return 4 out of the 9 yrs (Average of $25.23/calf). The May system, no matter the treatments of range or meadow and with or without supplement, had a positive net return 2 out of the 9 years (Average of $-65.77 and $-83.90/calf). Within this analysis, even with the input costs being higher for March, the net return was still greater in a March vs May system. Further analysis will be done on different trts within each system.</abstract><cop>US</cop><pub>Oxford University Press</pub><doi>10.1093/jas/skz122.233</doi><tpages>2</tpages><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0021-8812
ispartof Journal of animal science, 2019-07, Vol.97 (Supplement_2), p.131-132
issn 0021-8812
1525-3163
language eng
recordid cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_6666758
source Oxford University Press Journals All Titles (1996-Current); EZB-FREE-00999 freely available EZB journals; PubMed Central
subjects Oral Presentations
title 331 Economic comparison of march and may calving systems in the nebraska sandhillls
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-12T09%3A22%3A02IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-pubmedcentral_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=331%20Economic%20comparison%20of%20march%20and%20may%20calving%20systems%20in%20the%20nebraska%20sandhillls&rft.jtitle=Journal%20of%20animal%20science&rft.au=Broadhead,%20Devin%20L&rft.date=2019-07-29&rft.volume=97&rft.issue=Supplement_2&rft.spage=131&rft.epage=132&rft.pages=131-132&rft.issn=0021-8812&rft.eissn=1525-3163&rft_id=info:doi/10.1093/jas/skz122.233&rft_dat=%3Cpubmedcentral_cross%3Epubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_6666758%3C/pubmedcentral_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_id=info:pmid/&rfr_iscdi=true