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

https://doi.org/10.15232/pas.2017-01709Get rights and content

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.

Section snippets

INTRODUCTION

Although beef prices reached record high levels in the last decade (Behrendt and Weeks, 2017), few countries reported positive levels of profitability on cattle farms without the aid of government support payments (Deblitz et al., 2016). Irish beef cow-calf farms are, on average, loss making without the aid of EU support payments and off-farm income (Hennessy and Moran, 2016); however, there is large variation in profitability. For example, among a sample of farms in Ireland, the top third

Irish Grass-Based Beef Cow-Calf to Finishing Systems

The beef cow herd in Ireland comprises crossbred cows, predominantly (80%) late-maturing breed types bred to mostly (86%) late-maturing breed sires (DAFM, 2016). Cows primarily calve in spring, with 62% of beef calves born in the first 4 mo of the year (DAFM, 2016), to coincide with the onset of seasonal grass growth. Cows rear their own calves until weaning, usually at the end of the first grazing season (Drennan and McGee, 2009). Grass, either grazed or conserved, is the major dietary input

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Globally, the profitability of beef cow-calf to finishing farms is low (Deblitz et al., 2016). This profitability challenge prompted the establishment of the Teagasc–Irish Farmers Journal BETTER farms beef program (Teagasc, 2015b) in Ireland. This program includes a commercially focused group of farms, operating at similar stocking rates aiming to meet research targets, which can be compared with the national-average beef cow-calf to finishing farms. Hence, these data provide a unique

IMPLICATIONS

Key profit drivers identified in this study include BW output per LU, stocking rate, calving rate, calving interval, age at first calving, and costs of production, particularly relating to feedstuffs. Thus, to increase beef cow-calf to finishing profitability on AVE and IMP, improvements are required in animal production efficiency. This necessitates optimizing the number of calves produced in a cow’s lifetime by calving heifers younger and achieving a 365-d calving interval as well as

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The authors would like to thank the management team and participants of the Teagasc/Irish Farmers Journal BETTER farms beef programme, the Teagasc National Farm Survey Department, and the Irish Cattle Breeding Federation. Rachel Taylor received of a Teagasc postgraduate student Walsh Fellowship.

LITERATURE CITED (69)

  • ABARES

    Farm Survey Data. Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics and Sciences

  • A. Ash et al.

    Boosting the productivity and profitability of northern Australian beef enterprises: Exploring innovation options using simulation modelling and systems analysis

    Agric. Syst.

    (2015)
  • A. Ashfield et al.

    Bioeconomic modelling of compensatory growth for grass-based dairy calf-to-beef production systems

    J. Agric. Sci.

    (2014)
  • K. Behrendt et al.

    How are global and Australian beef producers performing? Global agri benchmark network results 2016. Meat and Livestock Australia

    (2017)
  • Bord Bia

    Cattle Prices—Price Tracking

  • D. Bureš et al.

    Growth performance, carcass traits and meat quality of bulls and heifers slaughtered at different ages

    Czech J. Anim. Sci.

    (2012)
  • A.M. Clarke et al.

    The effect of stocking rate on the economic and technical performance and greenhouse gas emissions profile of beef cow-calf to finishing production systems

    (2012)
  • A. Conway

    Grazing management for beef production

    Grass Forage Sci.

    (1970)
  • P. Creighton et al.

    Impacts of sward renewal method with perennial ryegrass (Lolium perenne) on dry matter yield, tiller density and nitrate leaching

    Am. J. Plant Sci.

    (2016)
  • P. Crosson et al.

    Bioeconomic modelling of alternative replacement heifer policies for beef cow-calf to finishing production systems

    (2012)
  • P. Crosson et al.

    Economic appraisal of performance traits in Irish beef cow-calf to finishing production systems

  • P. Crosson et al.

    Bioeconomic modelling of alternative calving dates, production systems and grazing season lengths for Irish suckler farms

    (2015)
  • P. Crosson et al.

    The economic impact of calving date and turnout date in spring of suckler cows

    (2009)
  • P. Crosson et al.

    The economic impact of turnout date to pasture in spring of yearling cattle on beef cow-calf to finishing farms

    (2009)
  • P. Crosson et al.

    Planning for profit from beef production—Principles and guidelines

  • P. Crosson et al.

    The development of a mathematical model to investigate Irish beef production systems

    Agric. Syst.

    (2006)
  • P. Crosson

    Optimal beef production systems in differing concentrate price and grass utilisation scenarios

    (2007)
  • CSO (Central Statistics Office Ireland)

    Census of Agriculture 2010—Final Results

  • 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

  • DAFM (Department of Agriculture

    Meat 2025-Background Paper

    (2015)
  • DAFM (Department of Agriculture

    AIM Bovine Statistics Report 2015

    (2016)
  • Agri Benchmark: Beef and Sheep Season 2016—A summary of the main findings

  • E. Dillon et al.

    Teagasc National Farm Survey 2016

  • M.G. Diskin et al.

    Optimising reproductive performance of beef cows and replacement heifers

    Animal

    (2014)
  • M. Drennan et al.

    Performance of spring-calving beef suckler cows and their progeny to slaughter on intensive and extensive grassland management systems

    Livest. Sci.

    (2009)
  • M.J. Drennan et al.

    Factors affecting body condition score, live weight and reproductive performance in spring-calving suckler cows

    Ir. J. Agric. Food Res.

    (2006)
  • M.J. Drennan et al.

    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)
  • European Commission

    EU Beef Sector Results based on 2013 FADN Data

  • E. Finneran et al.

    Simulation modelling of the cost of producing and utilising feeds for ruminants on Irish farms

    J. Farm Manag.

    (2010)
  • R. Evans et al.

    Genetic evaluations and indexes for Irish beef cow-calf to finishing production systems

  • E. Finneran et al.

    Effects of scale, intensity and farm structure on the income efficiency of Irish beef farms

    Int. J. Agric. Manage.

    (2013)
  • T. Hennessy et al.

    Teagasc National Farm Survey 2015, Agricultural Economics and Farm Surveys Department, Teagasc

    (2016)
  • J. Heslin et al.

    Age at puberty and pregnancy rate in beef heifer genotypes offered contrasting nutrition levels

    J. Anim. Sci.

    (2017)
  • ICBF

    The ICBF Database: Irish Cattle Breeding Federation

  • Cited by (11)

    • Performance, meat quality, profitability, and greenhouse gas emissions of suckler bulls from pasture-based compared to an indoor high-concentrate weanling-to-beef finishing system

      2022, Agricultural Systems
      Citation Excerpt :

      Whole-farm beef systems simulation models are commonly used to facilitate a more holistic evaluation of alternative production systems (Murphy et al., 2017; Taylor et al., 2020; Herron et al., 2021). Key performance indicators underpinning profitable grass-based beef systems include high individual animal performance, optimal stocking rates, and low fixed and purchased feed costs (Taylor et al., 2018). The feed budget composition for the G-0 weanling-to-beef system, comprised of 0.44 grazed grass, 0.43 grass silage and 0.14 concentrate, which contrasts with that of 0.61 grazed grass, 0.31 grass silage and 0.08 concentrates for integrated grass-based suckler calf-to-beef systems (Drennan and McGee, 2009).

    • Bioeconomic and greenhouse gas emissions modelling of the factors influencing technical efficiency of temperate grassland-based suckler calf-to-beef production systems

      2020, Agricultural Systems
      Citation Excerpt :

      Replacement rate (RR) (%): mean number of first calving cows as a percentage of the total number of cows calved in a given year. High (HRR) and low (LRR) replacement rates represent one standard deviation from the mean (Taylor et al., 2018). Progeny average daily live weight gain (ADG) (g): mean ADG of each gender group was calculated based on carcass weight per day of age converted to live weight with an assumed kill-out proportion of 0.57 and 0.56 for steers and heifers, respectively.

    View all citing articles on Scopus

    The authors declare no conflict of interest.

    View full text