IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/agisys/v184y2020ics0308521x20307496.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Quantifying sheep enterprise profitability with varying flock replacement rates, lambing rates, and breeding strategies in New Zealand

Author

Listed:
  • Farrell, L.J.
  • Kenyon, P.R.
  • Tozer, P.R.
  • Ramilan, T.
  • Cranston, L.M.

Abstract

Sheep sales are the major source of income for most New Zealand sheep enterprises. Terminal (meat breed) sires are used to increase lamb growth rates enabling lambs to be sold earlier at higher prices on a per kg basis. Their use in self-replacing flocks is generally constrained by requirements for purebred ewe lambs from which to choose ewe replacements. This study used a bio-economic system-dynamics model of a sheep enterprise to investigate use of terminal sires for a ewe flock with a range of ewe replacement and lambing rates. Values from New Zealand industry survey data were used to simulate a representative New Zealand North Island East Coast Hill Country sheep enterprise (self-replacing flock of 2182 mature breeding ewes with a stable flock size on 549 ha of pasture where 60.8% of feed was consumed by sheep). Three ewe replacement rates (20%, 25%, and 30% per annum), lambing rates (110, 130, and 150%; lambs weaned per ewe presented for breeding), and breeding strategies (no terminal sires; breeding the maximum possible proportion of mature ewes with terminal sires; and breeding half of the maximum with terminal sires) were modelled. Income from lamb sales increased with use of terminal sires, due to increased production of lamb liveweight for sale and lambs sold earlier for higher prices, resulting in greater sheep enterprise cash operating surplus (COS). Sheep enterprise COS increases, from no terminal sire use compared with maximum use of terminal sires, ranged from $3/ha to $101/ha. Larger increases in COS occurred with a higher flock lambing rate and lower ewe replacement rate, which allowed for terminal sire use over a greater proportion of the flock. Up to 65% of the flock could be bred with terminal sires while producing sufficient numbers of purebred ewe lambs from which to choose replacements. For an average North Island East Coast Hill Country sheep enterprise with a replacement rate of 25% and lambing rate of 130%, sheep enterprise COS increased by $15,021 with maximum use of terminal sires (45% of the mature ewe flock), compared with use of only maternal sires. Use of terminal sires increased annual sheep energy demand by up to 6% and changed the sheep feed demand profile, with increases in energy demand post-weaning in December mostly compensated for by subsequent reductions in demand following crossbred lamb sales in January.

Suggested Citation

  • Farrell, L.J. & Kenyon, P.R. & Tozer, P.R. & Ramilan, T. & Cranston, L.M., 2020. "Quantifying sheep enterprise profitability with varying flock replacement rates, lambing rates, and breeding strategies in New Zealand," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 184(C).
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:agisys:v:184:y:2020:i:c:s0308521x20307496
    DOI: 10.1016/j.agsy.2020.102888
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0308521X20307496
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.agsy.2020.102888?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.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. El-Shishiny, Hisham & Mansour, Hussein & Salah E. Galal, E., 1987. "Modelling the dynamics of sheep flocks in Egypt," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 23(4), pages 301-309.
    2. Lie, Helene & Rich, Karl M. & van der Hoek, Rein & Dizyee, Kanar, 2018. "An empirical evaluation of policy options for inclusive dairy value chain development in Nicaragua: A system dynamics approach," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 164(C), pages 193-222.
    3. Bohan, A. & Shalloo, L. & Malcolm, B. & Ho, C.K.M. & Creighton, P. & Boland, T.M. & McHugh, N., 2016. "Description and validation of the Teagasc Lamb Production Model," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 148(C), pages 124-134.
    4. Walters, Jeffrey P. & Archer, David W. & Sassenrath, Gretchen F. & Hendrickson, John R. & Hanson, Jon D. & Halloran, John M. & Vadas, Peter & Alarcon, Vladimir J., 2016. "Exploring agricultural production systems and their fundamental components with system dynamics modelling," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 333(C), pages 51-65.
    5. Farrell, L.J. & Tozer, P.R. & Kenyon, P.R. & Ramilan, T. & Cranston, L.M., 2019. "The effect of ewe wastage in New Zealand sheep and beef farms on flock productivity and farm profitability," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 174(C), pages 125-132.
    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. Daniele, Bertolozzi-Caredio & Barbara, Soriano & Isabel, Bardají & Alberto, Garrido, 2021. "Economic risk assessment of the quality labels and productive efficiency strategies in Spanish extensive sheep farms," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 191(C).
    2. James Chege Wangui & Paul R. Kenyon & Peter R. Tozer & James P. Millner & Sarah J. Pain, 2021. "Bioeconomic Modelling to Assess the Impacts of Using Native Shrubs on the Marginal Portions of the Sheep and Beef Hill Country Farms in New Zealand," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 11(10), pages 1-21, October.
    3. Addisu H. Addis & Hugh T. Blair & Paul R. Kenyon & Stephen T. Morris & Nicola M. Schreurs, 2021. "Optimization of Profit for Pasture-Based Beef Cattle and Sheep Farming Using Linear Programming: Model Development and Evaluation," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 11(6), pages 1-16, June.
    4. Farrell, L. & Herron, J. & Pabiou, T. & McHugh, N. & McDermott, K. & Shalloo, L. & O'Brien, D. & Bohan, A., 2022. "Modelling the production, profit, and greenhouse gas emissions of Irish sheep flocks divergent in genetic merit," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 201(C).

    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. Cooper, Gregory S. & Rich, Karl M. & Shankar, Bhavani & Rana, Vinay & Ratna, Nazmun N. & Kadiyala, Suneetha & Alam, Mohammad J. & Nadagouda, Sharan B., 2021. "Identifying ‘win-win-win’ futures from inequitable value chain trade-offs: A system dynamics approach," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 190(C).
    2. Ana Paula Coelho Clauberg & Renato de Mello & Flávio José Simioni & Simone Sehnem, 2021. "System for assessing the sustainability conditions of small hydro plants by fuzzy logic," Sustainable Development, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 29(2), pages 300-317, March.
    3. Ali, Muhammad Fadzli & Akber, Md. Ali & Smith, Carl & Aziz, Ammar Abdul, 2021. "The dynamics of rubber production in Malaysia: Potential impacts, challenges and proposed interventions," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 127(C).
    4. Steliana Rodino & Ruxandra Pop & Cristina Sterie & Andreea Giuca & Eduard Dumitru, 2023. "Developing an Evaluation Framework for Circular Agriculture: A Pathway to Sustainable Farming," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 13(11), pages 1-24, October.
    5. Matinzadeh, Mohammad Mehdi & Abedi Koupai, Jahangir & Sadeghi-Lari, Adnan & Nozari, Hamed & Shayannejad, Mohammad, 2017. "Development of an innovative integrated model for the simulation of nitrogen dynamics in farmlands with drainage systems using the system dynamics approach," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 347(C), pages 11-28.
    6. Berends, Jared & Rich, Karl M. & Kaitibie, Simeon & Lyne, Michael C., 2021. "Ex-ante evaluation of interventions to upgrade pork value chains in Southern Myanmar," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 194(C).
    7. Tonnang, Henri E.Z. & Hervé, Bisseleua D.B. & Biber-Freudenberger, Lisa & Salifu, Daisy & Subramanian, Sevgan & Ngowi, Valentine B. & Guimapi, Ritter Y.A. & Anani, Bruce & Kakmeni, Francois M.M. & Aff, 2017. "Advances in crop insect modelling methods—Towards a whole system approach," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 354(C), pages 88-103.
    8. 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.
    9. Igor Krejčí & Pavel Moulis & Jana Pitrová & Ivana Tichá & Ladislav Pilař & Jan Rydval, 2019. "Traps and Opportunities of Czech Small-Scale Beef Cattle Farming," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(15), pages 1-26, August.
    10. Benabderrazik, K. & Kopainsky, B. & Tazi, L. & Joerin, J. & Six, J., 2021. "Agricultural intensification can no longer ignore water conservation – A systemic modelling approach to the case of tomato producers in Morocco," Agricultural Water Management, Elsevier, vol. 256(C).
    11. Addisu H. Addis & Hugh T. Blair & Paul R. Kenyon & Stephen T. Morris & Nicola M. Schreurs, 2021. "Optimization of Profit for Pasture-Based Beef Cattle and Sheep Farming Using Linear Programming: Young Beef Cattle Production in New Zealand," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 11(9), pages 1-14, September.
    12. Levandivskyi Omelian & Shpykuliak Oleksandr & Balaniuk Ivan & Svynous Ivan & Shelenko Diana, 2022. "Modeling of Added Value as a Financial Indicator of Activity of Agricultural Enterprises in the Regions of Ukraine," Management Theory and Studies for Rural Business and Infrastructure Development, Sciendo, vol. 44(3), pages 288-301, September.
    13. Pitrova, Jana & Krejei, Igor & Pilar, Ladislav & Moulish, Pavel & Rydval, Jan & Hlavaty, Robert & Horakova, Tereza & Ticha, Ivana, 2020. "The economic impact of diversification into agritourism," International Food and Agribusiness Management Review, International Food and Agribusiness Management Association, vol. 23(5), August.
    14. Lombardi, G.V. & Parrini, Silvia & Atzori, R. & Stefani, G. & Romano, D. & Gastaldi, M. & Liu, G., 2021. "Sustainable agriculture, food security and diet diversity. The case study of Tuscany, Italy," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 458(C).
    15. James Chege Wangui & Paul R. Kenyon & Peter R. Tozer & James P. Millner & Sarah J. Pain, 2021. "Bioeconomic Modelling to Assess the Impacts of Using Native Shrubs on the Marginal Portions of the Sheep and Beef Hill Country Farms in New Zealand," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 11(10), pages 1-21, October.
    16. Marandure, Tawanda & Dzama, Kennedy & Bennett, James & Makombe, Godswill & Mapiye, Cletos, 2020. "Application of system dynamics modelling in evaluating sustainability of low-input ruminant farming systems in Eastern Cape Province, South Africa," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 438(C).
    17. Dimitrios Iakovidis & Yiorgos Gadanakis & Julian Park, 2023. "Farmer and Adviser Perspectives on Business Planning and Control in Mediterranean Agriculture: Evidence from Argolida, Greece," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 13(2), pages 1-20, February.
    18. Akopov, Andranik S. & Beklaryan, Levon A. & Saghatelyan, Armen K., 2017. "Agent-based modelling for ecological economics: A case study of the Republic of Armenia," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 346(C), pages 99-118.
    19. Fumin Deng & Canmian Liu & Xuedong Liang, 2017. "Measurement of Regional Agricultural Sustainable Development System Based on Dissipative Structure Theory: A Case Study in Sichuan Province, China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(11), pages 1-19, November.
    20. Carlos F. A. Arranz, 2024. "A system dynamics approach to modelling eco‐innovation drivers in companies: Understanding complex interactions using machine learning," Business Strategy and the Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 33(5), pages 4456-4479, July.

    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:s0308521x20307496. 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.