IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/agisys/v162y2018icp34-45.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Stakeholder-driven modelling the impact of animal profile and market conditions on optimal delivery weight in growing-finishing pig production

Author

Listed:
  • Leen, Frederik
  • Van den Broeke, Alice
  • Aluwé, Marijke
  • Lauwers, Ludwig
  • Millet, Sam
  • Van Meensel, Jef

Abstract

Pig delivery weight optimisation (PDWO) has been studied extensively and has resulted in several optimisation models. A previous participatory analysis of the problem has revealed that existing models are too complex and might therefore be under-valorised. Farmers desire a simple but reliable model based on available farm data to learn about the problem. A spreadsheet simulation model was therefore developed based on empirical animal performance models. The present study aims at conceptualising a stakeholder-driven model concerning PDWO that should provide insights into four key questions: I) how do the driving forces behind the optimisation determine the optima, II) what is the dependency of the optimal delivery weight on market conditions, III) how do the opportunity costs due to suboptimal delivery evolve, in addition to the mere optimisation results and IV) what is the effect of differences in animal performance profile, in terms of growth, feed intake and average carcass quality on the optimal delivery results? The results generated by the simulation model generally align with those generated using more sophisticated modelling approaches in previous studies. Our results indicate that the animal's growth and feed intake profile can more importantly affect the location of the optima, the stability of the optima and economic importance of delivery weight optimisation compared to market conditions. Moreover, the effect of market conditions on the optimisation was dependent on the animal profile, which determines the flatness of the payoff curve per pig. The possible flat payoff curves imply that the benefits of accurate PDWO can be limited and that some error margin in decisions on PDWO can be exploited. Moreover, this finding illustrates and corroborates the increased benefit of a shift in technology, i.e. an improved animal performance, compared to striving for the optimum on the production function of an inferior technology. Using this simplified model, farmers can investigate the flatness of their farm-specific payoff curve and the stability of their farm-specific optima. That information may help them to determine the appropriateness of a robust decision-supportive rule about optimal delivery weight on their farm.

Suggested Citation

  • Leen, Frederik & Van den Broeke, Alice & Aluwé, Marijke & Lauwers, Ludwig & Millet, Sam & Van Meensel, Jef, 2018. "Stakeholder-driven modelling the impact of animal profile and market conditions on optimal delivery weight in growing-finishing pig production," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 162(C), pages 34-45.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:agisys:v:162:y:2018:i:c:p:34-45
    DOI: 10.1016/j.agsy.2018.01.013
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0308521X17306182
    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. David J. Pannell, 2006. "Flat Earth Economics: The Far-reaching Consequences of Flat Payoff Functions in Economic Decision Making," Review of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 28(4), pages 553-566.
    2. Van Meensel, Jef & Lauwers, Ludwig & Van Huylenbroeck, Guido & Van Passel, Steven, 2010. "Comparing frontier methods for economic-environmental trade-off analysis," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 207(2), pages 1027-1040, December.
    3. Jean-Paul Chavas & James Kliebenstein & Thomas D. Crenshaw, 1985. "Modeling Dynamic Agricultural Production Response: The Case of Swine Production," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 67(3), pages 636-646.
    4. Martin, A. H. & Sather, A. P. & Fredeen, H. T. & Jolly, Robert W., 1980. "Alternative Market Weights for Swine: Carcass Composition and Meat Quality," Staff General Research Papers Archive 11385, Iowa State University, Department of Economics.
    5. Kathryn A. Boys & Ning Li & Paul V. Preckel & Allan P. Schinckel & Kenneth A. Foster, 2007. "Economic Replacement of a Heterogeneous Herd," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 89(1), pages 24-35.
    6. Boland, Michael A. & Preckel, Paul V. & Schinckel, Allan P., 1993. "Optimal Hog Slaughter Weights Under Alternative Pricing Systems," Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Southern Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 25(2), pages 1-16, December.
    7. Sather, A. P. & Jolly, Robert W. & Martin, A. H. & Fredeen, H. T., 1980. "Alternative Market Weights for Swine: Production Economics," Staff General Research Papers Archive 11382, Iowa State University, Department of Economics.
    8. Boland, Michael A. & Foster, Kenneth A. & Preckel, Paul V., 1999. "Nutrition and the Economics of Swine Management," Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 31(1), pages 83-96, April.
    9. Sather, A. P. & Jolly, Robert W. & Martin, A. H. & Fredeen, H. T., 1980. "Alternative Market Weights for Swine: Feedlot Performance," Staff General Research Papers Archive 11386, Iowa State University, Department of Economics.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:162:y:2018:i:c:p:34-45. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

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

    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 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.

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

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.