IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/ifma19/345883.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Pr - The Economic Feed Consumption Of Different Cattle Breeds In A Cow-Calf Production System

Author

Listed:
  • Maré, F.A.
  • Jordaan, H.

Abstract

In order to ensure the future existence of an industry or business, it should be sustainable in terms of environmental stewardship (planet) and economic prosperity (profit). The problem with improving more than one sustainability indicator is that these indicators are often negatively correlated. In order to increase economic prosperity in a cow-calf operation, one should thus aim to increase the output produced by using less natural resources per unit of output while taking society at large into account. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the differences in value addition and feed requirements of seven different beef breeds on the same extensive farming conditions for a cow-calf enterprise by calculating the economic feed consumption. The results show that there are prominent differences between the seven breeds in terms of their respective feed requirements, value addition and economic feed consumption. The Bonsmara was the best breed in terms of economic feed consumption and the Simmentaler the worst. However, when one considers the results in conjunction with the data that were used to perform the analyses, it can be seen that there was a high negative correlation between the economic feed consumption and the weaning percentage of the various breeds. In order to improve the economic feed consumption of beef production, it is recommended that primary cow-calf producers evaluate the reproduction performance of the breed that they are farming with.

Suggested Citation

  • Maré, F.A. & Jordaan, H., 2019. "Pr - The Economic Feed Consumption Of Different Cattle Breeds In A Cow-Calf Production System," 22nd Congress, Tasmania, Australia, March 3-8, 2019 345883, International Farm Management Association.
    • Handle: RePEc:ags:ifma19:345883
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.345883
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/345883/files/PR-2019-IFMA_Mare_65.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.345883?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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. P. L. Oosthuizen & F. A. Maré, 2018. "The profit-maximising feeding period for different breeds of beef cattle," Agrekon, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 57(2), pages 108-120, April.
    2. Carter, Craig R. & Kale, Rahul & Grimm, Curtis M., 2000. "Environmental purchasing and firm performance: an empirical investigation," Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, Elsevier, vol. 36(3), pages 219-228, September.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Md. Ahashan Habib & Md. Rezaul Karim & Marzia Dulal & Mohammad Shayekh Munir, 2022. "Impact of Institutional Pressure on Cleaner Production and Sustainable Firm Performance," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(24), pages 1-25, December.
    2. Frikkie Alberts Maré & Henry Jordaan, 2021. "The Water Footprint of Primary and Secondary Processing of Beef from Different Cattle Breeds: A Value Fraction Allocation Model," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(12), pages 1-14, June.
    3. Fu Jia & Yan Jiang, 2018. "Sustainable Global Sourcing: A Systematic Literature Review and Bibliometric Analysis," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(3), pages 1-26, February.
    4. Kumar, Patanjal & Baraiya, Rajendra & Das, Debashree & Jakhar, Suresh Kumar & Xu, Lei & Mangla, Sachin Kumar, 2021. "Social responsibility and cost-learning in dyadic supply chain coordination," Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, Elsevier, vol. 156(C).
    5. Dobos, Imre & Vörösmarty, Gyöngyi, 2014. "Green supplier selection and evaluation using DEA-type composite indicators," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 157(C), pages 273-278.
    6. Abdul Majid & Muhammad Yasir & Muhammad Yasir & Asad Javed, 2020. "Nexus of institutional pressures, environmentally friendly business strategies, and environmental performance," Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 27(2), pages 706-716, March.
    7. Ergün Kara & Melda Akbaba & Emre Yakut & Makbule Hürmet Çetinel & Mehmet Mert Pasli, 2023. "The Mediating Effect of Green Human Resources Management on the Relationship between Organizational Sustainability and Innovative Behavior: An Application in Turkey," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(3), pages 1-16, January.
    8. Lai, Kee-hung & Wong, Christina W.Y., 2012. "Green logistics management and performance: Some empirical evidence from Chinese manufacturing exporters," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 40(3), pages 267-282.
    9. Hyunsoo Kim & Chang Won Lee, 2018. "The Effects of Customer Perception and Participation in Sustainable Supply Chain Management: A Smartphone Industry Study," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(7), pages 1-19, July.
    10. Syed Abdul Rehman Khan & Arsalan Zahid Piprani & Zhang Yu, 2022. "Digital technology and circular economy practices: future of supply chains," Operations Management Research, Springer, vol. 15(3), pages 676-688, December.
    11. Xiaohui Hou & Bo Wang & Yu Gao, 2020. "Stakeholder Protection, Public Trust, and Corporate Social Responsibility: Evidence from Listed SMEs in China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(15), pages 1-25, July.
    12. Dai, Jing & Montabon, Frank L. & Cantor, David E., 2014. "Linking rival and stakeholder pressure to green supply management: Mediating role of top management support," Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, Elsevier, vol. 71(C), pages 173-187.
    13. Sueyoshi, Toshiyuki & Wang, Derek, 2014. "Radial and non-radial approaches for environmental assessment by Data Envelopment Analysis: Corporate sustainability and effective investment for technology innovation," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 45(C), pages 537-551.
    14. Nissinen, A. & Parikka-Alhola, K. & Rita, H., 2009. "Environmental criteria in the public purchases above the EU threshold values by three Nordic countries: 2003 and 2005," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(6), pages 1838-1849, April.
    15. Andrzej Lis & Agata Sudolska & Mateusz Tomanek, 2020. "Mapping Research on Sustainable Supply-Chain Management," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(10), pages 1-26, May.
    16. Yang, Yang & Jiang, Yan, 2023. "Does suppliers’ slack influence the relationship between buyers’ environmental orientation and green innovation?," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 157(C).
    17. Zhu, Qinghua & Sarkis, Joseph & Lai, Kee-hung, 2008. "Confirmation of a measurement model for green supply chain management practices implementation," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 111(2), pages 261-273, February.
    18. Soh Hyun Chu & Hongsuk Yang & Mansokku Lee & Sangwook Park, 2017. "The Impact of Institutional Pressures on Green Supply Chain Management and Firm Performance: Top Management Roles and Social Capital," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(5), pages 1-21, May.
    19. Jajja, Muhammad Shakeel Sadiq & Asif, Muhammad & Montabon, Frank & Chatha, Kamran Ali, 2020. "The indirect effect of social responsibility standards on organizational performance in apparel supply chains: A developing country perspective," Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, Elsevier, vol. 139(C).
    20. Tao, Zhibin & Chao, Jiaxiao, 2024. "Unlocking new opportunities in the industry 4.0 era, exploring the critical impact of digital technology on sustainable performance and the mediating role of GSCM practices," Innovation and Green Development, Elsevier, vol. 3(3).

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Livestock Production/Industries;

    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:ags:ifma19:345883. 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: AgEcon Search (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/ifmaaea.html .

    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.