IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/agisys/v103y2010i4p210-220.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Long-term stochastic simulation of mountain beef cattle herds under diverse management strategies

Author

Listed:
  • Villalba, D.
  • Ripoll, G.
  • Ruiz, R.
  • Bernués, A.

Abstract

A stochastic simulation model was used to assess the effects of diverse management strategies on beef herds under mountain conditions in the Spanish Pyrenees. Animals grazed on different seasonal resources (valley meadows, forest pastures and mountain pastures) and were fed with forages and concentrates during winter. The simulated management strategies were winter calving (WC, weaning at 180Â days), autumn calving (AC, weaning at 160Â days), 8-month calving (8MC, weaning at 180Â days), and two calvings in 3 years, with weaning taking place at either 170Â days of age (2C3Y) or at 9Â months (2C3Y9Â M). Each strategy was tested for two types of production systems: (i) cow-calf farms that market calves just after weaning; and (ii) cow-calf/finishing farms that fatten the animals by means of an intensive feeding system until achieving a suitable weight for slaughter. A herd of 100 cows was simulated over 15Â years, but only data obtained after reaching the steady state (year 6) was used in the analysis. The strategies were evaluated by considering reproductive, productive and economic performance. The percentages of pregnant cows at the end of the mating season were highest for 8MC, 2C3Y and 2C3Y9M (between 92% and 94%). The percentage was intermediate for AC (88%) and lowest for WC (78%), which also showed greater variability between years. The two strategies that extensified management (2C3Y, 2C3Y9M) produced, as expected, a lower number of calves weaned per year (59 and 60), whereas this figure was the highest for 8MC (90). Although AC and 8MC resulted in higher productive performances, the increased labour requirements and winter feeding costs resulted in low economic margins for these strategies, which also meant poorer utilization of natural resources. In economic terms, WC was the best strategy for cow-calf/finishing farms, whereas 2C3Y was the worst of the two types of production systems, although it resulted in the most intense utilization of grazing resources. The long lactating period of 2C3Y9M did not affect the reproductive performance of cows, so this strategy yielded the highest economic margin at weaning. The extensification strategies (2C3Y and 2C3Y9M) were less sensitive to changes in the price of feedstuffs. The information obtained from the simulation of the different strategies is useful for evaluating the possible trade-offs between production, economics, use of natural resources and labour requirements.

Suggested Citation

  • Villalba, D. & Ripoll, G. & Ruiz, R. & Bernués, A., 2010. "Long-term stochastic simulation of mountain beef cattle herds under diverse management strategies," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 103(4), pages 210-220, May.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:agisys:v:103:y:2010:i:4:p:210-220
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0308-521X(10)00014-4
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Villalba, D. & Casasus, I. & Sanz, A. & Bernues, A. & Estany, J. & Revilla, R., 2006. "Stochastic simulation of mountain beef cattle systems," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 89(2-3), pages 414-434, September.
    2. Stott, Alistair W. & Gunn, George J. & Varo Barbudo, Antonio, 2008. "Management of reproduction in Scottish suckler herds," 82nd Annual Conference, March 31 - April 2, 2008, Royal Agricultural College, Cirencester, UK 36871, Agricultural Economics Society.
    3. Cacho, O. J. & Bywater, A. C. & Dillon, J. L., 1999. "Assessment of production risk in grazing models," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 60(2), pages 87-98, May.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Peng-Sheng YOU & Yi-Chih HSIEH, 2018. "A study of production and harvesting planning for the chicken industry," Agricultural Economics, Czech Academy of Agricultural Sciences, vol. 64(7), pages 316-327.
    2. Lescot, Jean-Marie & Rousset, Sylvain & Souville, Genevieve, 2011. "Assessing Investment in Precision Farming for Reducing Pesticide Use in French Viticulture," 2011 International Congress, August 30-September 2, 2011, Zurich, Switzerland 114387, European Association of Agricultural Economists.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Chapman, D.F. & Kenny, S.N. & Beca, D. & Johnson, I.R., 2008. "Pasture and forage crop systems for non-irrigated dairy farms in southern Australia. 1. Physical production and economic performance," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 97(3), pages 108-125, June.
    2. Nasca, J.A. & Feldkamp, C.R. & Arroquy, J.I. & Colombatto, D., 2015. "Efficiency and stability in subtropical beef cattle grazing systems in the northwest of Argentina," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 133(C), pages 85-96.
    3. Vosough Ahmadi, Bouda & Morgan, Colin A. & Stott, Alistair W., 2009. "Trade-offs between conflicting animal welfare concerns and cow replacement strategy in out-wintering Scottish suckler herds," Working Papers 61122, Scotland's Rural College (formerly Scottish Agricultural College), Land Economy & Environment Research Group.
    4. Villalba, D. & Díez-Unquera, B. & Carrascal, A. & Bernués, A. & Ruiz, R., 2019. "Multi-objective simulation and optimisation of dairy sheep farms: Exploring trade-offs between economic and environmental outcomes," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 173(C), pages 107-118.
    5. Waweru, Caroline Waithira & Nyikal, Rose & Busienei, John R, 2017. "An Analysis Of Risk Attitudes And Risk Management Strategies Among Dairy Farmers In Murang’A County, Kenya," Dissertations and Theses 271063, University of Nairobi, Department of Agricultural Economics.
    6. Purnamasari, Ririn S. & Cacho, Oscar J. & Simmons, Phil, 1999. "Management Strategies For Indonesian Small-Holder Rubber Production In South Sumatra: A Bioeconomic Analysis," Working Papers 12936, University of New England, School of Economics.
    7. Behrendt, Karl & Cacho, Oscar & Scott, James M. & Jones, Randall, 2016. "Using seasonal stochastic dynamic programming to identify optimal management decisions that achieve maximum economic sustainable yields from grasslands under climate risk," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 145(C), pages 13-23.
    8. Tóth, M. & Lančarič, D. & Piterková, A. & Savov, R., 2014. "Systematic Risk in Agriculture: A Case of Slovakia," AGRIS on-line Papers in Economics and Informatics, Czech University of Life Sciences Prague, Faculty of Economics and Management, vol. 6(4), pages 1-9, December.
    9. Waithira, Waweru Caroline, 2017. "An Analysis Of Risk Attitudes And Risk Management Strategies Among Dairy Farmers In Murang’A County, Kenya," Research Theses 276428, Collaborative Masters Program in Agricultural and Applied Economics.
    10. Gicheha, M.G. & Edwards, G.R. & Bell, S.T. & Burtt, E.S. & Bywater, A.C., 2014. "Embedded risk management in dryland sheep systems II. Risk analysis," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 124(C), pages 1-11.
    11. Mosnier, Claire & Agabriel, Jacques & Lherm, Michel & Reynaud, Arnaud, 2008. "Assessing Economic And Technical Impacts Of Non Expected Weather Events On French Suckler Cow Farms Dynamics: A Dynamic Recursive Farm Model," 2008 International Congress, August 26-29, 2008, Ghent, Belgium 44257, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    12. Power, Brendan & Cacho, Oscar J, 2014. "Identifying risk-efficient strategies using stochastic frontier analysis and simulation: An application to irrigated cropping in Australia," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 125(C), pages 23-32.
    13. Fariña, S.R. & Alford, A. & Garcia, S.C. & Fulkerson, W.J., 2013. "An integrated assessment of business risk for pasture-based dairy farm systems intensification," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 115(C), pages 10-20.
    14. Ashfield, A. & Crosson, P. & Wallace, M., 2013. "Simulation modelling of temperate grassland based dairy calf to beef production systems," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 115(C), pages 41-50.
    15. Behrendt, Karl & Cacho, Oscar J. & Scott, James M. & Jones, Randall E., 2009. "Bioeconomic analysis of fertiliser input costs on pasture resource management under climatic uncertainty," 2009 Conference (53rd), February 11-13, 2009, Cairns, Australia 47628, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society.
    16. Kamilaris, C. & Dewhurst, R.J. & Vosough Ahmadi, B. & Crosson, P. & Alexander, P., 2020. "A bio-economic model for cost analysis of alternative management strategies in beef finishing systems," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 180(C).
    17. Ash, Andrew & Hunt, Leigh & McDonald, Cam & Scanlan, Joe & Bell, Lindsay & Cowley, Robyn & Watson, Ian & McIvor, John & MacLeod, Neil, 2015. "Boosting the productivity and profitability of northern Australian beef enterprises: Exploring innovation options using simulation modelling and systems analysis," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 139(C), pages 50-65.
    18. Bilotto, Franco & Recavarren, Paulo & Vibart, Ronaldo & Machado, Claudio F., 2019. "Backgrounding strategy effects on farm productivity, profitability and greenhouse gas emissions of cow-calf systems in the Flooding Pampas of Argentina," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 176(C).
    19. Luo, Qunying & Behrendt, Karl & Bange, Michael, 2017. "Economics and risk of adaptation options in the Australian cotton industry," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 150(C), pages 46-53.
    20. Hutchings, Timothy R. & Nordblom, Thomas L., 2011. "A financial analysis of the effect of the mix of crop and sheep enterprises on the risk profile of dryland farms in south-eastern Australia," AFBM Journal, Australasian Farm Business Management Network, vol. 8(1), pages 1-23, October.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:agisys:v:103:y:2010:i:4:p:210-220. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/agsy .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.