Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rdxmf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T23:10:35.391Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Trade-offs between indicators of performance and sustainability in breeding suckler beef herds

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 July 2016

B. VOSOUGH AHMADI ,
M. NATH ,
J. J. HYSLOP ,
C. A. MORGAN  and
A. W. STOTT
B. VOSOUGH AHMADI*
Affiliation:
Land Economy, Environment and Society Research Group, Scotland's Rural College (SRUC), West Mains Road, Edinburgh EH9 3JG, UK European Commission, Joint Research Centre (JRC), Institute for Prospective Technological Studies (IPTS), c/Inca Garcilaso 3, 41092 Seville, Spain
M. NATH
Affiliation:
Biomathematics & Statistics Scotland, James Clerk Maxwell Building, The King's Buildings, Peter Guthrie Tait Road, Edinburgh EH9 3FD, Scotland, UK
J. J. HYSLOP
Affiliation:
Farm & Rural Business Services, Scotland's Rural College (SRUC), West Mains Road, Edinburgh EH9 3JG, UK
C. A. MORGAN
Affiliation:
Farm & Rural Business Services, Scotland's Rural College (SRUC), West Mains Road, Edinburgh EH9 3JG, UK
A. W. STOTT
Affiliation:
Future Farming Systems Research Group, Scotland's Rural College (SRUC), West Mains Road, Edinburgh EH9 3JG, UK
*
*To whom all correspondence should be addressed. Email: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

Management of beef suckler cattle herds requires a difficult but vitally important balance between farm profits, animal health and welfare and sustainable food production. A dynamic programming (DP) model was implemented to investigate the consequences of replacement and management decisions on the interactions and possible trade-offs between animal welfare, fertility and profitability in breeding beef suckler cattle herds. The model maximized profit from the current cow and all successors by identifying the best keep/replace decision. The 150 states incorporated in the DP model were all combinations of: ten cow-parity, five calving periods including one barren state (five in total) as fertility indicators and three body condition scores at weaning as an animal welfare indicator reflecting feeding and nutritional conditions of animals. Statistical models were fitted to data from a breeding suckler cattle herd, consisting of performance records of 200 cattle over 5 years, to parameterize the DP model. Estimated parameters used in the DP model were: (i) probabilities of transitions between states and (ii) probability of involuntary culling. These estimates were used in the form of conditional probabilities of successful or failed (as a result of involuntary culling) transitions to the next state. In addition, statistical models were used to estimate probability of calving difficulty. There was strong evidence (P< 0·001) that parity affected calving difficulty and weak evidence (P = 0·067) that parity affected the incidence of involuntary culling. The DP model outcomes indicated that cows calving very early, i.e. those who conceived in the first 21 days after artificial insemination, showed reduced frequencies of calving difficulty as well as voluntary culling, and so gave better financial returns than late-calving cows and barren cows. As a result, fewer replacements were needed that reduced the frequency of calving difficulty, further implying a win–win scenario for both profit and welfare. In contrast, in late-calving animals, the frequency of calving difficulty increased and they were less profitable and more prone to be culled. Results of sensitivity analysis showed that the optimum voluntary culling rate was sensitive to commodity market prices. These findings suggest well-informed nutrition and reproduction management could deliver a win–win outcome for profit and animal welfare.

Type
Modelling Animal Systems Research Paper
Information
The Journal of Agricultural Science , Volume 155 , Issue 1 , January 2017 , pp. 156 - 170
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2016 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Bar, D., Tauer, L. W., Bennett, G., González, R. N., Hertl, J. A., Schulte, H. F., Schukken, Y. H., Welcome, F. L. & Gröhn, Y. T. (2008). Use of a dynamic programming model to estimate the value of clinical mastitis treatment and prevention options utilized by dairy producers. Agricultural Systems 99, 6–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barbudo, A. V. (2005). An economic evaluation of the main causes of infertility in the Scottish beef suckler herd. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Aberdeen, UK.Google Scholar
Barbudo, A. V., Gunn, G. J. & Stott, A. W. (2008). Combining models to examine the financial impact of infertility caused by bovine viral diarrhoea in Scottish beef suckler herds. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 146, 621–632.Google Scholar
Bellman, R. (1957). Dynamic Programming. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Bennett, R. (2003). The ‘direct costs’ of livestock disease: the development of a system of models for the analysis of 30 endemic livestock diseases in Great Britain. Journal of Agricultural Economics 54, 55–71.Google Scholar
Blokhuis, H. J., Veissier, I., Miele, M. & Jones, B. (2010). The Welfare Quality® project and beyond: safeguarding farm animal well-being. Acta Agriculturae Scandinavica Section A: Animal Science 60, 129–140.Google Scholar
Cha, E., Hertl, J. A., Bar, D. & Gröhn, Y. T. (2010). The cost of different types of lameness in dairy cows calculated by dynamic programming. Preventive Veterinary Medicine 97, 1–8.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cha, E., Bar, D., Hertl, J. A., Tauer, L. W., Bennett, G., González, R. N., Schukken, Y. H., Welcome, F. L. & Gröhn, Y. T. (2011). The cost and management of different types of clinical mastitis in dairy cows estimated by dynamic programming. Journal of Dairy Science 94, 4476–4487.Google Scholar
DEFRA (2000). Condition Scoring of Beef Suckler Cows and Heifers. London: HMSO. Available from: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/69370/pb6491-cattle-scoring-020130.pdf (accessed 11 April 2016).Google Scholar
Drennan, M. J. & Berry, D. P. (2006). Factors affecting body condition score, live weight and reproductive performance in spring-calving suckler cows. Irish Journal of Agricultural and Food Research 45, 25–38.Google Scholar
FAWC (2001). Interim Report on the Animal Welfare Implications of Farm Assurance Schemes. Publication No. 5797. Surbiton, UK: Farm Animal Welfare Council.Google Scholar
Foresight (2011). The Future of Food and Farming. Final Project Report. London, UK: The Government Office for Science.Google Scholar
Frasier, W. M. & Pfeiffer, G. H. (1994). Optimal replacement and management policies for beef cows. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 76, 847–858.Google Scholar
Gill, M., Smith, P. & Wilkinson, J. M. (2010). Mitigating climate change: the role of domestic livestock. Animal 4, 323–333.Google Scholar
Kennedy, J. O. S. (1986). Dynamic Programming: Applications to Agriculture and Natural Resources. London: Elsevier Applied Science.Google Scholar
Kennedy, J. O. S. & Stott, A. W. (1993). An adaptive decision-making aid for dairy cow replacement. Agricultural Systems 42, 25–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lawrence, A. B. & Stott, A. W. (2009). Profiting from animal welfare: an animal-based perspective. Journal of the Royal Agricultural Society of England 170, 40–47.Google Scholar
Lowman, B. (1988). Suckler cow management. In Practice 10, 91–100.Google Scholar
McInerney, J. (2004). Animal Welfare, Economics and Policy. Report on a Study Undertaken for the Farm & Animal Health Economics Division of Defra. London: Defra. Available from: http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20130402151656/http://archive.defra.gov.uk/evidence/economics/foodfarm/reports/documents/animalwelfare.pdf (accessed 11 April 2016).Google Scholar
Nelder, J. A. & Mead, R. (1965). A simplex algorithm for function minimization. Computer Journal 7, 308–313.Google Scholar
R Core Team (2014). R: a Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing.Google Scholar
Riddell, I., Caldow, G., Lowman, B., Pritchard, I. & Morgan, C. (2013). A Guide to Improving Suckler Herd Fertility. Ingliston, Midlothian, UK: Quality Meat Scotland.Google Scholar
SAC (2010). Farm Management Handbook 2010/2011. Edinburgh, UK: SAC Consulting.Google Scholar
SAC (2011). Beef. Agribusiness News August 2011, 4.Google Scholar
Schofield, J. L., Calder, J. M., Fraser, I. R., Lewis, M., Oldham, J. D., Offer, N. W. & Rooke, J. A. (1998). FeedByte – ration formulation and evaluation. In Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Computers in Agriculture, Orlando, Florida, USA, 26–30 October, pp. 903–909. St. Joseph, MI, USA: ASAE.Google Scholar
Sinclair, K. D., Molle, G., Revilla, R., Roche, J. F., Quintans, G., Marongiu, L., Sanz, A., Mackey, D. R. & Diskin, M. G. (2002). Ovulation of the first dominant follicle arising after day 21 post partum in suckling beef cows. Animal Science 75, 115–126.Google Scholar
Stott, A. W. (1994). The economic advantage of longevity in the dairy cow. Journal of Agricultural Economics 45, 113–122.Google Scholar
Stott, A. W., Veerkamp, R. F. & Wassell, T. R. (1999). The economics of fertility in the dairy herd. Animal Science 68, 49–57.Google Scholar
Stott, A. W., Jones, G. M., Gunn, G. J., Chase-Topping, M., Humphry, R. W., Richardson, H. & Logue, D. N. (2002). Optimum replacement policies for the control of subclinical mastitis due to S.aureus in dairy cows. Journal of Agricultural Economics 53, 627–644.Google Scholar
Stott, A. W., Jones, G. M., Humphry, R. W. & Gunn, G. J. (2005). The financial incentive to control paratuberculosis (Johne's disease) on UK dairy farms. Veterinary Record 156, 825–831.Google Scholar
Stott, A. W., Gunn, G. J. & Barbudo, A. V. (2008). Management of Reproduction in Scottish Suckler Herds. Paper presented at the 82nd Annual Conference of the Agricultural Economics Society. Cirencester: Royal Agricultural College, 31 March–2 April. Available from: https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&ved=0ahUKEwiGupD5j_rMAhWJKsAKHVspBG8QFggoMAE&url=http://%3A%2F%2Fageconsearch.umn.edu%2Fbitstream%2F36871%2F2%2Fstott_gunn_barbudo.pdf&usg=AFQjCNFueH36uPCTkoqlZKChyQm153YAsQ&bvm=bv.122676328,d.ZGg&cad=rja (accessed 27 May 2016).Google Scholar
Stott, A. W., Vosough Ahmadi, B., Dwyer, C. M., Kupiec, B., Morgan-Davies, C., Milne, C. E., Ringrose, S., Goddard, P., Phillips, K. & Waterhouse, A. (2012). Interactions between profit and welfare on extensive sheep farms. Animal Welfare 21(Suppl. 1), 57–64.Google Scholar
Van Arendonk, J. A. M. (1988). Optimum replacement policies and their consequences determined by dynamic programming. In Modelling of Livestock Production Systems (Eds Korver, S. & van Arendonk, J. A. M.), pp. 105–111. Series: Current Topics in Veterinary Medicine and Animal Science volume 46. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
Vosough Ahmadi, B., Stott, A. W., Baxter, E. M., Lawrence, A. B. & Edwards, S. A. (2011). Animal welfare and economic optimization of farrowing systems. Animal Welfare 20, 57–67.Google Scholar
Vosough Ahmadi, B., Shrestha, S., Thomson, S. G., Barnes, A. P. & Stott, A. W. (2015 a). Impacts of greening measures and flat rate regional payments of the Common Agricultural Policy on Scottish beef and sheep farms. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 153, 676–688.Google Scholar
Vosough Ahmadi, B., Moran, D., Barnes, A. P. & Baret, P. V. (2015 b). Comparing decision-support systems in adopting sustainable intensification criteria. Frontiers in Genetics 6, 23. doi: 10.3389/fgene.2015.00023.Google Scholar
Zaborski, D., Grzesiak, W., Szatkowska, I., Dybus, A., Muszynska, M. & Jedrzejczak, M. (2009). Factors affecting dystocia in cattle. Reproduction in Domestic Animals 44, 540–551.Google Scholar