Simulation of cow-calf production systems in a range environment: II. Model evaluation

Evaluation of Strategies to Improve the Environmental and Economic Sustainability of Cow–Calf Production Systems

Simple Summary

Beef cattle have a significant contribution to greenhouse gas emissions globally, but they have a unique ability to digest plant material that is inedible for humans, thus producing human food from grasslands and rangelands. Additionally, many people around the world depend upon cattle ranching of grasslands and rangelands for their livelihoods. Identifying the strategies likely to have the largest impact on greenhouse gas emissions while improving or maintaining economic returns is necessary to guide future research. The goal of the current study was to evaluate four potential strategies for improving the environmental and economic sustainability of cow–calf production. The four strategies included (1) decreasing the feed required for maintenance, thus increasing the feed available for growth, (2) decreasing the time for cows to rebreed after calving, (3) increasing the digestibility of pasture grass, and (4) increasing the yield of pasture grass. A computer simulation model of a cow herd in Kansas, U.S.A., was modified to create variation in the four strategies. Decreasing the feed required for maintenance improved both environmental and economic sustainability, and increasing the yield of pasture grass improved economic sustainability, implying that these strategies should be primary targets to enhance the sustainability of cow–calf production systems.

Abstract

Grazing cow–calf production systems account for 60 to 70% of the greenhouse gas emissions of U.S. beef production. The objective of this analysis was to evaluate the importance of management strategies (cow maintenance energy requirements, reproductive efficiency, forage nutritive value, and forage yield) on the sustainability of cow–calf production systems using a sensitivity analysis in a production systems model. The Beef Cattle Systems Model was used to simulate a cow–calf production system in the Kansas Flint Hills using Angus genetics over a 24 year time period. The model was modified to create variation among cow herds in the base net energy for the maintenance requirement (NEm_Req), postpartum interval (PPI), grazed forage digestibility (Forage_TDN), and forage yield per hectare (Forage_Yield). The model was run for 1000 iterations/herds of a 100-cow herd. A stepwise regression analysis in conjunction with standardized regression analysis was used to identify important predictors of an indicator of greenhouse gas (GHG) emission intensity, dry matter intake per kilogram weaned, and two indicators of economic sustainability, winter feed use and returns over variable costs, using R statistical software. The most important predictor of DMI per kilogram weaned was calf weaning weight followed by NEm_Req, whereas returns over variable costs were primarily influenced by kilograms weaned per cow exposed and total purchased feed (supplement + winter feed), which were strongly influenced by NEm_Req and Forage_Yield, respectively. In conclusion, decreasing the net energy required for maintenance improved both economic and environmental sustainability, and increasing forage yield and length of the grazing season improved economic sustainability, implying that these strategies should be primary targets to enhance the sustainability of cow–calf production systems.

Production costs, economic viability, and risks associated with compost bedded pack, freestall, and drylot systems in dairy farms

The adoption of intensive production systems, such as compost bedded pack (CB) and freestall (FS), has increased recently in tropical regions, mainly replacing the drylot system (DL). Thus, our objectives were to compare production costs, economic outcomes, and risk of dairy operations in CB, FS, and DL systems. We collected data from 2 181 Brazilian farms over 120 consecutive months; 960 farms (144 CB, 133 FS, and 683 DL) met our selection criteria. All costs were modeled for two animal production categories: milking cows and non-milking animals. We used a regression model that included linear and quadratic parameters, and we added the production system as a fixed variable for all parameters tested with this model. Consultant, year, herd, and herd × system interaction were included in the model as random variables. Further, we simulated annual technical and economic indexes per farm. In addition, we developed a risk analysis to measure the probability of negative profit of the farms based on a 14-year historical series of milk prices. All production costs were affected by the system. Feed, medicine, sundry, and labor costs per farm per year were greater in DL farms when milk yield (MY) was greater than 3 500 L/day. The variables such as milk yield, assets per liter, asset turnover rate, return on assets, operational profit, profit per cow, and per liter of milk variables were greater in CB and FS with high MY (>3 000 L/day). Nonetheless, DL had the greatest economic indexes with a lower MY (<3 000 L/day), lower operating costs, and greater economic outcomes. The risk analysis indicated that the probability of negative profit (risk) was reduced for CB and FS as MY increased, but DL had the lowest risk with low MY levels. In conclusion, we suggest DL as the most attractive system for farms with MY between 150 and 3 000 L of milk/day as the DL had the lowest risk and the greatest profit in this production scale. Despite similar outcomes for CB and FS in most of the farms, the profit per cow ($/year), assets turnover rate (%), risk (%) and expected profit ($/L) analysis indicated that CB could be recommended for farms with MY greater than 3 200 L of milk/day, whereas based on risk (%) and expected profit ($/L), FS would be the most profitable system in dairies producing more than 8 000 L of milk/day per farm.

Evaluation of biological and economic efficiency of the All Heifer, No Cow beef production system using a system dynamics model based on 6 yr of demonstration herd data

Alternative management strategies with no cows and all heifers may improve biological and economic efficiency of beef production. The All Heifer, No Cow (AHNC) beef production system involves insemination of nulliparous heifers with female sex-selected semen (FSS) to produce primarily female calves that are early weaned at 3 mo of age. Dams are finished on a high concentrate diet and harvested before 30 mo of age. The objectives of this research were to: 1) build a dynamic model of an AHNC beef production system to quantify system biological and economic efficiency; 2) compare effects of utilizing FSS vs. conventional semen on biological and economic efficiency; 3) evaluate what-if scenarios to determine the effects on biological and economic efficiency of changing variables ±5%, 10%, 15%, and 20% from initial observed values; and 4) evaluate the effects on biological and economic efficiency of changing variables ±10% from initial observed values. A model was built over a 21-yr horizon using Stella Architect. Biological parameter values in the model were based on the 6 yr of data collected from the management of an AHNC demonstration herd. In the model animal, total digestible nutrients (TDN) intake, hot carcass weight (HCW), and age at harvest were randomized. Feed, animal, and carcass prices included in the model were based on 10 yr of historical U.S. price data. Key response variables were biological and economic efficiency (mean ± SD). Biological efficiency was defined as the ratio of output (kilograms of HCW produced) to input (lifetime kilograms of feed TDN consumed), and economic efficiency was measured using a benefit-cost ratio (BCR) and unit variable cost (UVC). Over 40 simulation runs, the predicted mean biological efficiency was 0.0714 ± 0.0008. Economic efficiency was 0.95 ± 0.02 and US $445.41 ± 0.06 for BCR and UVC, respectively. Biological and economic efficiency was improved in the conventional semen scenario; biological efficiency was 0.0738 ± 0.0008, and BCR and UVC were 0.99 ± 0.04 and US $407.24 ± 0.006, respectively. Under this parameterization and market conditions, the AHNC beef production system failed to achieve profitability under any scenario that was evaluated. However, this review did not account for the potential increased genetic benefit from a decreased generation interval and the reduction in feed energy in comparison to a conventional cow/calf system.

Using ultrasound measurements to predict body composition of yearling bulls

Carcass traits have been successfully used to determine body composition of steers. Body composition, in turn, has been used to predict energy content of ADG to compute feed requirements of individual animals fed in groups. This information is used in the Cornell value discovery system (CVDS) to predict DM required (DMR) for the observed animal performance. In this experiment, the prediction of individual DMR for the observed performance of group-fed yearling bulls was evaluated using energy content of gain, which was based on ultrasound measurements to estimate carcass traits and energy content of ADG. One hundred eighteen spring-born purebred and crossbred bulls (BW = 288 +/- 4.3 kg) were sorted visually into 3 marketing groups based on estimated days to reach USDA low Choice quality grade. The bulls were fed a common high-concentrate diet in 12 slatted-floor pens (9 to 10 head/pen). Ultrasound measurements including back-fat (uBF), rump fat, LM area (uLMA), and intramuscular fat were taken at approximately 1 yr of age. Carcass measurements including HCW, backfat over the 12th to 13th rib (BF), marbling score (MRB), and LM area (LMA) were collected for comparison with ultrasound data for predicting carcass composition. The 9th to 11th-rib section was removed and dissected into soft tissue and bone for determination of chemical composition, which was used to predict carcass fat and empty body fat (EBF). The predicted EBF averaged 23.7 +/- 4.0%. Multiple regression analysis indicated that carcass traits explained 72% of the variation in predicted EBF (EBF = 16.0583 + 5.6352 x BF + 0.01781 x HCW + 1.0486 x MRB - 0.1239 x LMA). Because carcass traits are not available on bulls intended for use as herd sires, another equation using predicted HCW (pHCW) and ultrasound measurements was developed (EBF = 39.9535 x uBF - 0.1384 x uLMA + 0.0867 x pHCW - 0.0897 x uBF x pHCW - 1.3690). This equation accounted for 62% of the variation in EBF. The use of an equation to predict EBF developed with steer composition data overpredicted the EBF predicted in these experiments (28.7 vs. 23.7%, respectively). In a validation study with 37 individually fed bulls, the use of the ultrasound-based equation in the CVDS to predict energy content of gain accounted for 60% of the variation in the observed efficiency of gain, with 1.5% bias, and identified 3 of the 4 most efficient bulls.

Identifying differences in feed efficiency among group-fed cattle

Identification of efficient animals in the postweaning growth phase for use in selection for improved feed efficiency is important to improve the economic and environmental sustainability of the beef cattle industry. Progeny testing using group-fed animals in commercial feedlots is the most common and practical method used to evaluate postweaning growth on large numbers of animals. We developed the Cornell Value Discovery System (CVDS) to dynamically predict growth rate, accumulated weight, days required to reach target body composition, carcass weight, and composition of individual beef cattle fed in group pens. Observed BW, ADG, BW at 28% empty body fat (EBF), breed type, environmental conditions, and dietary ME concentration are used by the CVDS to predict, for each animal in a pen, the feed DM required for maintenance (FFM), the feed DM required for gain, and the total DM required for maintenance and gain (DMR). The CVDS then computes DMR-to-ADG ratio (DMR:ADG), which is a feed conversion measure, and ADG-to-DMR ratio (ADG:DMR), which is a feed efficiency measure, for each animal. This study used the observed F:G ratio of 362 individually fed steers to evaluate CVDS-predicted indicators of feed efficiency and the Kleiber ratio. A subset of 37 data points was used to evaluate residual feed intake (RFI) as an indicator of feed efficiency. The database included 4 published studies, each with detailed individual animal description, environment, diet, and body composition information. The CVDS-predicted DMR:ADG accounted for 84% of the variation in the actual F:G ratio with a mean bias of 1.94% (P = 0.20). The predicted FFM to actual DMI ratio had a high correlation with actual ADG (R2 = 0.76), and indicated a decay-type nonlinear dilution of FFM as ADG increased. The CVDS-predicted ADG:DMR and the Kleiber ratio had a significant (R2 = 0.88) logarithmic relationship. In an analysis of a contemporary group within the database, RFI was highly correlated with the F:G ratio (r = 0.71). There was a positive relationship between RFI and EBF. The RFIM (DMI - DMR) was moderately correlated with DMI and ADG (0.37 and -0.38; respectively), suggesting that selecting for low RFI(M) would decrease DMI and increase ADG in this database. We conclude that the CVDS model can be used to identify differences in the F:G and G:F ratios by predicting DMR for individual growing cattle fed in groups.

Evaluation of calving seasons and marketing strategies in Northern Great Plains beef enterprises: I. Cow-calf systems

A bioeconomic computer model was used to evaluate alternate calving seasons in a cow-calf enterprise under range conditions representative of the Northern Great Plains. The simulated ranch utilized a rotational breeding system based on Hereford and Angus and had a fixed forage base (4,500 animal unit months of native range, 520 t of grass hay, and 183 t of alfalfa hay). Calving seasons studied were spring (SP, beginning March 15), summer (SU, beginning May 15), and fall (FA, beginning August 15). Weaning dates were October 31, December 15, and February 1, for SP, SU, and FA. The SP system was also simulated with a 5% increase in calf mortality (SP-IM), and SU with early weaning on October 31 (SU-EW). Herd size for the fixed resource was 509, 523, 519, 560, and 609 cows exposed per year for SP, SP-IM, SU, SU-EW, and FA, respectively. Corresponding values for weight weaned per cow exposed were 206, 186, 193, 153, and 145 kg. Steer calves, nonreplacement heifer calves, and cull cows were sold at the time of weaning. Quarterly cattle and feed prices used were representative of the peak, descending, valley, and ascending phases of the 1990s cattle cycle adjusted for inflation. Estimates of ranch gross margin (gross returns minus variable costs) were greatest for SP, followed by SP-IM, SU, SU-EW, and FA, and the ranks were consistent across phases of the cattle cycle. Differences between ranch gross margin for SP-IM and SU were small. In beef enterprises representative of the Northern Great Plains, with a restricted grazing season, limited access to low-cost, high-quality grazeable forage, and with calves sold at weaning, switching from early spring to a summer or fall calving date is not expected to improve profitability. If delaying calving improves calf survival, then calving in early summer may be a competitive choice.

Evaluation of calving seasons and marketing strategies in Northern Great Plains beef enterprises. II. Retained ownership systems

Two bioeconomic computer models were used to evaluate calving seasons in combination with calf marketing strategies for a range-based cow-calf enterprise in the Northern Great Plains. Calving seasons studied were spring (SP, calving beginning March 15 and weaning October 31), spring with calf mortality increased by 5% (SP-IM), summer (SU, calving beginning May 15 and weaning December 31), summer with early weaning (SU-EW, calving beginning May 15 and weaning October 31), and fall (FA, calving beginning August 15 and weaning February 1). Marketing scenarios for steer calves and nonreplacement heifer calves were as follows: sold after weaning (WS), backgrounded in Montana and sold as feeder cattle (WBS), backgrounded in Montana and then fed to slaughter BW in Nebraska (WBFS), and shipped to Nebraska at weaning and fed to slaughter BW (WFS). Quarterly inflation-adjusted cattle and feedstuff prices were representative of the 1990s cattle cycle. Cumulative gross margin (CGM), the sum of ranch gross margin and net return from retained ownership was used to compare systems. At the peak of the cattle cycle, all forms of retained ownership (WBS, WBFS, WFS) were profitable for all calving seasons, but during the descending phase, only WBS increased CGM markedly over WS for SU-EW. At the cycle valley, retained ownership was not profitable for SP and SP-IM, whereas WBFS and WFS were profitable for SU and SU-EW, and all forms of retained ownership were profitable for FA. During the ascending phase, retained ownership was profitable for all calving season-marketing combinations. Systems with the greatest CGM at each phase of the cattle cycle were FA-WFS, SP-WBS, FA-WFS, and FA-WFS at the peak, descending, valley, and ascending phases, respectively. In beef enterprises representative of the Northern Great Plains, with a restricted grazing season and limited access to low-cost, good-quality grazeable forage, no single calving season and no single combination of calving season and calf marketing is expected to be superior throughout the cattle cycle. Fall calving systems most often benefit from retained ownership through slaughter.