485 Turk J Vet Anim Sci ID: 268285
Download Pdf The PPT/PDF document "Research Article" is the property of its rightful owner. Permission is granted to download and print the materials on this web site for personal, non-commercial use only, and to display it on your personal computer provided you do not modify the materials and that you retain all copyright notices contained in the materials. By downloading content from our website, you accept the terms of this agreement.
485 Research Article Turk. J. Vet. Anim. Sci.© TÜBTAKdoi:10.3906/vet-0803-31Fattening costs of beef breeds reared under controlledconditions and the determination of optimum fattening period*, Bülent MRAN, brahim YILDIRIM, Alper ÖNENÇ, Ahmet ALÇÇEKDepartment of Agricultural Economics, Faculty of Agriculture, Kahramanmara Sütcü mam University,46100 Kahramanmara - TURKEY IntroductionThe agricultural sector has been a major fieldinvolving many people throughout history. Thissector includes plant and animal production as wellas agribusiness industry and agricultural marketing.Recently, animal production has tended to have astructure, which represents a more capital-intensiveproduction system than was the case in the last 2-3decades. Cattle fattening has been a specialized sectorin different regions of Turkey, although some farmsare involved in cattle fattening along with dairyactivities. Cattle fattening undertakes a significant functionin terms of alleviating shortage between the demandfor and supply of red meat in Turkey. This function isessential,taking into account the rapid growth rate ofpopulation and high income-demand elasticity of redmeat (1). There is a close relationship betweenbalanced nutrition and safe and good quality red meatproduction, to which cattle fattening farms contributeconsiderably.The determination of the optimal fattening periodis crucial in terms of the profitability andsustainability of cattle fattening farms. The studiesregarding cattle fattening costs under controlledconditions are limited in Turkey (2). Furthermore,studies relating to the comparative costs of differentfattening cattle breeds seem to be absent from theliterature, which increases the significance of thisresearch. While some of the cattle fattening studies involvedwhole economic analysis of farms (1,3,4), othersinvestigated mainly the product prices andproduction costs of cattle fattening activities (5-10).The major subject matter of some studies was theefficiency of cattle fattening farms (11). The primarypurpose of the present research was to determine theproduction costs and optimal fattening period ofdifferent breeds of cattle and thus to compare the costsand profits between the optimal and the actualfattening period. Materials and methodsThe animal material used in the research included21 bullocks consisting of 7 Holstein, 7 Piedmont ×Holstein, and 7 Limousin× Holstein cross-breedsfattened in the closed tie-stall experiment barns of theAegean Agricultural Research Institute, Turkey. Theheat of 16 Holstein cattle from the herd of the Institutewas synchronized and they were fertilized withPiedmont and Limousin sperm and the resultant crossmale and female calves were the experiment materialalong with the pure breed Holstein male calves. Thebirths were completed in August 1998. The first 6months were anticipated as the rearing period of thecalves and during this period the weight at birth andmonthly live weight of all animals were recorded. Theweighing was performed at the same hour of the dayeach month. All experiment animals were cared forand fed under the same conditions until 6months.Calf beginning feed was used as concentrates between0 and 3 months followed by rearing feed after 3months. While the concentrate feed was limited to 3kg per day, dry clover sliced thinly was fed ad libitumafter the calf reached 1month old. As forage feed,straw was mixed with concentrates and this mixturewas fed to the animal in the morning followed byconcentrates given ad libitum. The water was given toanimals ad libitum after 2weeks.Each calf reaching the age of6months in all 3experiment groups was included individually in thefattening process. The fattening period were initiatedafter 15 days of training. All animals were accustomedto fattening feed and the experiment materials weredisinfected (drugged) against internal and externalparasitesin this period. At the end of the trainingperiod the initial live weight of the animals wasregistered after leaving them without food and waterfor 12 h. The fattening period lasted 280 days,consisting of10 periods of4weeks (28 days).The fattening periodstarted after 195 days of rearing (Table 1). The animalsthat completed their fattening periods were weighedwhile they were hungry and waterless for 12 h andsent to be slaughtered. The fattening period wereterminated in December 1999. The year 1999 priceswere updated to 2007prices based on data obtainedfromthe Meat and Fish Association of Turkey. Theprices related to feed and other inputs used in thisstudy were updated taking into consideration thecurrent market prices based on data from feed anddrug store enterprises in zmir province.Fattening costs of beef breeds reared under controlled conditions and the determination of optimum fattening period Monthly data (28 days) relating to animal weightsand feed intake were recorded by the researchers andthese data were used in the economic analysis.Variance analyses were used to compare the meanvalues of some variables of different cattle breeds.Carcass weight was determined by subtracting 2% lossfrom the live weight of the animal at the end of thefattening period. An interest rate of 10.50%, which was applied forlivestock credits extended to farmers by theAgricultural Bank in 2007, was used for half ofoperating capital due to spreading the variable costsover the fattening period as alternative costs (12,13).Cost of 1 kg live weight was calculated by dividing theproduction costs (including rearing costs) by the liveweight at the end of the fattening period (14). Cost of1 kg live weight gain was calculated by dividing theproduction costs (excluding rearing costs) by the liveweight gain at the end of the fattening period (15). ResultsLive weight, carcass weight, yield rate, and liveweight gain Live weight, carcass weight,and yield rate peranimal at the end of the fattening period were 510.86kg, 293.02 kg,and 57.36%, respectively. While thePiedmont breed had the highest live weight, the yieldrate was the lowest for this breed. Despite its low liveweight, Limousin had the highest yield ratio,62.61%(Table 2). The means of carcass weight (P )te(P )he prices of live weight,and carcass weight(P )fered significantly among the cattlebreeds, while the live weight at the end of the fatteningperiod was not significantly different. Feed intake Feed intake per animal during the fattening periodwas 2330.6 kg,ranging from 2293.4 kg for Limousinto 2354.9 for Holstein. Cattle fattening undercontrolled conditions tended to be more characteristicof concentrated feed intensive relative to forage-intensive system of farm-level fattening farms. Production costs Production cost per animal was YTL 1862.22 foroverall cattle breeds, being the lowest for Holstein,with YTL 1867.10,and the highest for Limousin,withA. AHN, B. MRAN, . YILDIRIM, A. ÖNENÇ, A. ALÇÇEKTable 1. Monthly rearing and fattening periods. PeriodsDayMonthOrder of Periods 0 300 1130 601 2260 902 33Rearing Period90 1203 44120 1504 55150 1805 66180 195Preparation7195 2236 7Initial Fattening= 1223 2517 82251 2798 93279 30710 114Fattening Period307 33511 125335 36312 136363 39113 147391 41914 158419 44715 169447 47516 17Last Fattening= 10 YTL 1880.96. The variable costs made up 85.62% oftotal production costs. This percentage was similaramong the cattle breeds, ranging from 85.47% forLimousin to 85.73% for Piedmont. The single mostimportant cost item was feed costs,which consistedof 43.79% of total production costs,followed byrearing costs, with 29.72% (Table 3). Rearing costs, variable costs, fixed costs, andproduction costs per animal (P )eresignificant for the Holstein, Limousin,and Piedmontbreeds. Costs of 1 kg live weight and live weight gain Cost of 1 kg live weight per animal for overallbreedswas YTL 3.64,being the highest for Limousin,Fattening costs of beef breeds reared under controlled conditions and the determination of optimum fattening period Table 2. Live weight, carcass weight, yield rate, prices,and live weight gain per animal. Holstein LimousinPiedmontOverallLive Weight (kg)508.71496.43527.43510.86Carcass Weight (kg)*281.05310.82287.17293.02Yield Rate(%)**55.2562.6154.4557.36Price of Live Weight (YTL/kg)**4.345.014.354.57Live Weight Gain304.43301.14307.14304.24Price of Carcass Weight (YTL/kg)**7.867.987.957.93*P = 1.20 YTL Table 3. Production costs per animal. HolsteinLimousinPiedmontOverallYTL%YTL%YTL%YTL%Rearing Costs **548.9629.40545.2229.65565.9130.09553.3729.72Labor Costs88.204.7288.204.8088.204.6988.204.74Feed Costs824.3844.15801.8443.61820.2243.61815.4843.79Licking Stone Costs8.720.478.720.478.720.468.720.47Drug Costs 4.620.254.620.254.620.254.620.25Electricity and Water Costs27.001.4527.001.4727.001.4427.001.45Marketing Cost17.500.9417.500.9517.500.9317.500.94Interest rate of Operating Capital 79.774.2778.384.2680.434.2879.534.27Total Variable Costs**1599.1385.651571.4685.471612.5885.731594.3985.62Cost of Management (3%)47.972.5747.142.5648.382.5747.832.57Renting Costs220.0011.78220.0011.97220.0011.70220.0011.81Total Fixed Cost**267.9814.35267.1414.53268.3814.27267.8314.38Total Production Costs**1867.10100.001838.60100.001880.96100.001862.22100.00**P = 1.20 YTL with YTL 3.70,and the lowest for Piedmont,with YTL3.57. Cost of 1 kg live weight was 3.6% higher forLimousin compared to Piedmont (Table 4). Cost of 1kg live weight gain per animalwas YTL 4.3 for overallbreeds. This figure was similar among the cattlebreeds, being a little higher for Holstein,with YTL4.33,than the values of YTL 4.29 and YTL 4.28 forLimousin and Piedmont, respectively. Cost of 1 kg liveweight gain of Holstein was only 1.16% higher thanthat of Piedmont (Table 4). The live weight gain andyield rate could be considered 2major reasons for thedifferences in live weight gain costs among the breeds.Cost of 1 kg live weight and live weight gain peranimal didnot differ significantly among the differentcattle breeds. Gross production value, gross profit,and net profitGross production value per animal was YTL2324.55 for overall cattle breeds, ranging from YTL2210.55 for Holstein to YTL 2480.18 for Limousin(Table 4). Gross profit and net profit per animalwereYTL 730.16 and YTL 462.33, respectively. Limousinhad the highest both gross profit and net profit,withYTL 908.72 and YTL 641.58, respectively. The samevalues were the lowest for Holstein,with YTL 611.42and YTL 343.45, respectively. Net profit of Limousinwas 86.80% higher than that of Holstein. Both grossprofit and net profit differed significantly (P )among the fattening cattle breeds.Optimal fattening period To determine the optimal fattening period, whichyields maximum net profit, monthly marginalrevenue and marginal costs per animal during thefattening period (10 months) were calculated (Table5). The optimal fattening period was the fifth month,where marginal revenue equaled marginal costs(Table 5, Figure). The optimal fattening period wasthe fourth month for Holstein, the sixth month forLimousin,and the fifth month for Piedmont. The netprofit of Holstein, Limousin,and Piedmont in theoptimal fattening periods was YTL 467.6, YTL 709.1,and YTL 539.4, respectively (Table 5). In terms of netprofit Limousin ranked first, followed by Piedmontand Holstein. The variance analysis showed that themean differences of cattle breed were significant interms of gross production value, production costs,and net profit per animal except for gross productionvalue of the2nd-4th months, production costs of the6th-10th months,and net profits of the 3rd-4thmonths. Production costs during the optimal fatteningperiodProduction cost per animalduring the optimalfattening period was YTL 1244.83,being the highestfor Piedmont,with YTL 1266.72,and the lowest forLimousin,with YTL 1217.38. The feed costs in totalproduction costs during the optimal fattening period(32.89%) were significantly lower than the same rateof 43.39% calculated for the fattening period,whichlasted 10 months. In contrast, the rate of rearing costsincreased to 44.45% from the level of 29.72% for the10 month fattening period. As it was the case duringthe 10 month fattening period, Piedmont had thehighest production costs during the optimal fatteningperiod (Table 6). Rearing costs, variable costs, fixedA. AHN, B. MRAN, . YILDIRIM, A. ÖNENÇ, A. ALÇÇEKTable 4.Gross production value, gross profit and net profit per animal (YTL), costs of 1 kg liveweight,and live weight gain (YTL).Holstein LimousinPiedmontOverallGross Production Value *2210.552480.182282.912324.55Gross Profit**611.42908.72670.33730.16Net Profit**343.45641.58401.95462.33Costs of 1 kg Live Weight3.673.703.573.65Costs of 1 kg Live Weight Gain4.334.294.284.30*P = 1.20 YTL costs,and production costs per animal (P )differed significantly among the cattle breeds. Costs of 1 kg live weight and live weight gainduring the optimal fattening periodCost of 1 kg live weight was YTL 3.14 during theoptimal fattening period, which was 13.97% lowerthan the corresponding figure for the 10 monthfattening period. This figure was the highest forHolstein,with YTL 3.21,and the lowest forPiedmont,with YTL 3.04. Cost of 1 kg live weightgain was YTL 7.130 in the first month of fattening.This value decreased until the fourth month offattening,where it was the lowest,with YTL 3.620.From this point the cost of 1 kg live weight gainincreased at a decreasing rate until the end of thefattening period. Cost of 1 kg live weight gain wasthe lowest for Holstein at 4months, and forLimousin and Piedmont at 5months with YTL 3.564and YTL 3.570, respectively. Cost of 1 kg live weightgain during the optimal fattening period was YTL3.64, which was 15.35% lower than thecorresponding value forthe fattening period of 10months. Cost of 1 kg live weight gain didnot differsignificantly among the cattle breeds.Gross production value, gross profit,and net profitduring the optimal fattening period During the optimal fattening period (5 months)live weight and gross production values for overallcattle breedswere 396.76 kg and YTL 1807.23,respectively. While Piedmont had the highest liveweight with 416.57 kg, gross production value ofLimousin was the highest,with YTL 1923.38 (Table7). Gross profit and net profit were YTL 705.45 andYTL 562.40 during the optimal fattening period,respectively. Net profit of the optimal fattening periodwas 21.64% higher than the same value for thefattening period that lasted 10 months (Table 7).Fattening costs of beef breeds reared under controlled conditions and the determination of optimum fattening period Table 5. Monthly production value, production costs,and net profit per animal (YTL).HolsteinLimousinPiedmontOverallMonthGPVPCNPGPVPCNPGPVPCNPGPVPCNP1993.9727.3266.61133.6723.5410.01092.8751.3341.5*1073.4**734.0*339.421177.7846.5331.21317.2840.0477.21286.0875.2410.81260.3**853.9*406.431389.7974.2415.41524.6961.4563.21461.01002.8458.21458.4**979.5478.941585.21117.61720.31094.8625.51652.61137.8514.81652.7**1116.7536.051692.21250.4441.81923.41217.4706.01806.11266.7*1807.2**1244.861754.11372.0382.12053.11344.01890.61386.2504.4**1899.31367.4**531.871837.61490.8346.82170.11473.0697.11974.81504.1470.7**1994.21489.3**504.981978.51616.0362.62272.81595.0677.82044.11630.1414.0**2098.51613.7**484.892109.01741.1367.92421.41714.4707.02150.91755.1395.7**2227.11736.9**490.2102210.61867.1343.52480.21838.6641.62282.91881.0402.0*2324.5 1862.2**462.3GPV:Gross Production Value PC:Production Costs NP:Net Profit*P = 1.20 YTL 050100150200250MonthsYTL Marginal Revenue Marginal Costs Figure.Monthly marginal revenue and marginal cost per animal(1 US $= 1.20 YTL). Discussion Determination of the optimal fattening periodthat will maximize the net profit is a critic andstrategic decision for ranch operators. The optimalfattening period was determined through the datarecorded regularly and systematically undercontrolled conditions. The optimal fattening periodwas reached during the 5th month of fattening wheremarginal revenue equaled marginal costs (2,3). Interms of 1 kg live weight and live weight gain costs aswell as gross profit and net profit, great economicadvantages are apparent during the optimal fatteningperiod relative to the fattening period that lasted 10months.Feed intake per animal of the different breeds didnot differ significantly. The concentrate feed consistedof 88.0% of total feed intake. This figure was not inline with the corresponding rate of 36.8% reported forcattle fattening farms of Eastern Anatolia in TurkeyA. AHN, B. MRAN, . YILDIRIM, A. ÖNENÇ, A. ALÇÇEKTable 6. Production costs per animal at the optimal fattening period.HolsteinLimousinPiedmontOverallYTL%YTL%YTL%YTL%Rearing Costs **548.9643.90545.2244.79565.9144.68553.3744.45Labor Costs44.103.5344.103.6244.103.4844.103.54Feed Costs418.9033.50392.1932.22417.0232.92409.3732.89Licking Stone Costs4.360.354.360.364.360.344.360.35Drug Costs 4.620.374.620.384.620.364.620.37Electricity and Water Costs13.501.0813.501.1113.501.0713.501.08Marketing Cost17.501.4017.501.4417.501.3817.501.41Interest rate of Operating Capital 55.234.4253.634.4156.024.4254.964.41Total Variable Costs**1107.1888.551075.1288.311123.0388.661101.7888.51Cost of Management (3%)33.222.6632.252.6533.692.6633.052.66Renting Costs110.008.80110.009.04110.008.68110.008.84Total Fixed Cost**143.2211.45142.2511.69143.6911.34143.0511.49Total Production Costs**1250.39100.001217.38100.001266.72100.001244.83100.00*P = 1.20 YTL Table 7. Gross production value, gross profit and net profit per animal at optimal fattening period.Holstein LimousinPiedmontOverallLive Weight (Kg)389.86383.86416.57396.76Gross Production Value (YTL)1692.231923.381806.081807.23Gross Profit (YTL)**585.05848.26683.05705.45Net Profit (YTL)441.84706.00539.36562.40**P (= 1.20 YTL) The percentage of labor costs in total productioncosts was 4.74%, which is low compared to farm-levelfattening activities (1) because of automation used inthe barn at the research site. The percentage of drugscosts in total production costs remained at 0.25% dueto an efficient care and nutrition program appliedunder controlled conditions (6).In the fattening activity that is performed in thewestern part of Turkey, partly based on pasture, thecost of a 1 kg increase in live weight was calculated as1.5 YTL in 1999 (1). Another study reported that thecost of a 1 kg live weight increase was 4.18 YTL/kg,which is similar to our cost, 4.30 YTL (7). Net profit increased by 21.64% while 1 kg liveweight costs and 1 kg live weight gain costs decreasedby 13.97% and 15.35%, respectively, during the optimalfattening period against the 10 month fattening period.During the optimal fattening period (5 months)Limousin had the highest net profit,followed byPiedmont and Holstein. While the net profits ofHolstein and Piedmont were highest at the fifth month,this figure was highest at the sixth month for Limousin.Yield ratio and 1 kg live weight gain differedsignificantly among the cattle breeds. In terms ofeconomic benefits we recommend strongly that cattlewith high yield rates be preferred and the duration ofthe fattening period should not exceed 5months. Thestudy puts forth that the use of meat cattle in thefattening activity is more advantageous (5,9).Fattening costs of beef breeds reared under controlled conditions and the determination of optimum fattening period 1.Yildirim, I.: A comparison of protability and economice ciencies between native and culture-breed cattle fatteningfarms in eastern part of Turkey. Pak. J. Biol. Sci., 2006; 9: 1061-2.Güne, H., Kaygsz, F., Koçak, Ö., Pekgöz, M., Gör, M.: Studieson the fattening performances of Holstein Friesian male cattleand economic analyses of fattening. stanbul Üniv. Vet. Fak.Derg., 2001; 27: 243-253. (article in Turkish, with an abstract inEnglish)3.Sayl, M.: Economic analysis of cattle fattening farms in Suluovadistrict of Amasya Province. PhD Dissertation. GaziosmanpaaUniversity, Tokat, Turkey. 2001. (PhD thesis in Turkish, with anabstract in English)4.Eren, E.: Structure and problem of stock raising enterprises inKahramanmara province Göksun district. MSc esis. Sütçümam University, Kahramanmara, Turkey. 2006. (MSc thesisin Turkish, with an abstract in English)5.May, G., Edwards, W.M., Lawrence, J.D.: Livestock EnterpriseBudgets for Iowa-2003. Iowa State University Extension, Iowa.6.Gül, A.: Labour costs in meat production companies acomparison of public and private sector. MSc esis. AtatürkUniversity, Erzurum, Turkey. 2003. (MSc thesis in Turkish, withan abstract in English) 7.Topcu, Y.: A study on the meat cost and marketing margins ofcattle fattening farms in Erzurum province. Turk. J. Vet. Anim.Sci., 2004; 28: 1007-1015. (article in Turkish, with an abstractin English) 8.Çiçek, H., Sakarya, E.: e impact of price and weight marginson the income of cattle fattening enterprises in Afyon province.Ankara Üniv. Vet. Fak. Derg., 2006; 53: 53-56. (article inTurkish, with an abstract in English)9.Berthiaume, R., Mandell, I., Faucitano, L., Lafrenière, C.:Comparison of alternative beef production systems based onforage nishing or grain-forage diets with or without growthpromotants: 1. Feedlot performance, carcass quality, andproduction costs. J. Anim. Sci., 2006; 84: 2168-2177. 10.Chidmi, B., Fadiga, M.L.: Dynamics of price-cost margins in theU.S. meat industry. American Agricultural EconomicsAssociation Annual Meeting, Portland, OR. 2007.11.Hazneci, K.: E ciency analysis of cattle fattening farms inSuluova district of Amasya, Turkey. MSc esis. OndokuzMays University, Samsun, Turkey. 2007. (MSc thesis in Turkish,with an abstract in English)12.Kral, T., Kasnako lu, H., Tatldil, F., Fidan, H., Gündo mu, E.:Tarmsal Ürünler çin Maliyet Hesaplama Metodolojisi ve VeriTaban Rehberi. Tarmsal Ekonomi Aratrma Enstitüsü YaynNo.37, Ankara. 1999; 1-143.13.Yldrm, ., ahin, A.: Van li Merkez lçede Süt S rcl Yapanletmelerin Ekonomik Analizi. Van Ticaret Borsas Yaynlar,Van. 2003; 1-50.14.Kral, T.: Akara linde Türkiye eker Fabrikalar A.. Besi Bölgee i i Tarafndan Desteklenen S r Besicili i letmelerininEkonomik Analizi. Ankara Üniversitesi Ziraat FakültesiYaynlar No.1289, Ankara. 1993; 1- 80. 15.Gündo mu, E.: Economic analysis of cattle fattening farms inÇubuk district of Ankara province. MSc esis. AnkaraUniversity, Ankara. 1993. (MSc thesis in Turkish, with anabstract in English)References