IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/agisys/v184y2020ics0308521x20307770.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Factors influencing the optimum mob size of ewes at lambing and the economic benefit of lambing ewes in smaller mobs to increase lamb survival across southern Australia

Author

Listed:
  • Lockwood, Amy
  • Trompf, Jason
  • Hancock, Serina
  • Kubeil, Lyndon
  • Thompson, Andrew
  • Young, John

Abstract

At least 25% of lambs born in Australia die before marking. Research across southern Australia has demonstrated that reducing mob size at lambing by 100 ewes will, on average, increase the survival of single-born lambs by 0.8% and twin-born lambs by 2.2%. In this paper we assessed the economic value of lambing ewes in smaller mobs to improve lamb survival. The analysis considered scenarios for Merino and non-Merino flocks where producers subdivided lambing paddocks using temporary or permanent fencing, or where ewes were reallocated within existing paddocks based on ewe pregnancy status. Optimum mob sizes were most sensitive to the type of fencing used for subdivision, whether ewes were single- or twin-bearing, whether the effect of paddock size on potential stocking rate was included and the target return on investment. Breed, ewe stocking rate, scanning percentage and lamb price also impacted optimum mob size but had a smaller effect. The optimum mob size for twin-bearing Merino and non-Merino ewes was between 34% and 60% that of single-bearing ewes and this was similar for scenarios where paddocks were subdivided or ewes were reallocated within existing paddocks. Permanent subdivision of paddocks also presents an opportunity to increase stocking rate by capitalising on the benefits of improved pasture utilisation in smaller paddocks. The relationship between paddock size and pasture utilisation is not well quantified but it has an important effect on optimum mob and paddock size. The value of reallocating ewes within existing paddocks was greatest at a scanning percentage of 150% as this presents the greatest opportunity to alter mob sizes for single- and twin-bearing ewes. The economic return from adjusting the relative mob size of twin-bearing ewes from 100% to 50% that of single-bearing ewes was up to $0.27/Merino ewe/yr and $0.44/non-Merino ewe/yr with lamb at $6/kg carcass weight. Overall, these analyses demonstrate that reducing mob size at lambing can be a profitable strategy for improving lamb survival depending on the current size of lambing mobs. However, it is difficult to provide generic recommendations to producers for the optimum mob size of ewes and value of paddock subdivision because these are dependent on enterprise-specific factors.

Suggested Citation

  • Lockwood, Amy & Trompf, Jason & Hancock, Serina & Kubeil, Lyndon & Thompson, Andrew & Young, John, 2020. "Factors influencing the optimum mob size of ewes at lambing and the economic benefit of lambing ewes in smaller mobs to increase lamb survival across southern Australia," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 184(C).
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:agisys:v:184:y:2020:i:c:s0308521x20307770
    DOI: 10.1016/j.agsy.2020.102916
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0308521X20307770
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.agsy.2020.102916?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

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

    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:184:y:2020:i:c:s0308521x20307770. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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.