Lindley, C. E.

Mott, Donald L.

Thomas, Tramel E.

English

Scholars Junction - Mississippi State University Institutional Repository

Mississippi State University Scholars Junction Bulletins Mississippi Agricultural and Forestry Experiment Station (MAFES) 4-1-1960 An economic evaluation of alternative methods of beef production in the prairie area of Mississippi Tramel E. Thomas Donald L. Mott C. E. Lindley Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarsjunction.msstate.edu/mafes-bulletins Recommended Citation Thomas, Tramel E.; Mott, Donald L.; and Lindley, C. E., "An economic evaluation of alternative methods of beef production in the prairie area of Mississippi" (1960). Bulletins. 213. https://scholarsjunction.msstate.edu/mafes-bulletins/213 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Mississippi Agricultural and Forestry Experiment Station (MAFES) at Scholars Junction. It has been accepted for inclusion in Bulletins by an authorized administrator of Scholars Junction. For more information, please contact scholcomm@msstate.libanswers.com. BULLETIN 591 APRIL 1960An Economic Evaluation ofAlternative MethodsOf Beef ProductionIn The Prairie Area of MississippiInformation on when to sell calves and how to manage them until sale is providedin this Experiment Station study.MISSISSIPPI STATE UNIVERSITYAGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATIONSTATE COLLEGEf^^n^LAY LYLE, Direclpr,^^^Ui 26 1SS0MISSISSIPPIAn Economic Evaluation of Alternative Methods of BeefProduction in the Prairie Area of MississippiBy THOMAS E. TRAMEL, DONALD LEE MOTT,and C. E. LINDLEY*In recent years there has been a de-cided trend in Mississippi toward divert-ing land from cash crops to pasture andfeed crops. This has been brought aboutby governmental restrictions on basiccash crops, improved technology in thelivestock industry, and an increased de-mand for livestock and meat products.It seems quite likely that the trend willcontinue.Cattle numbers in Mississippi have al-most doubled in the last decade, withmost of the increase being in beef cattle.Forage from permanent pasture is aprimary resource for beef cattle in Mis-sissippi. There are several alternativesystems or methods of beef productionby which permanent pasture forage maybe utilized (Appendix Tables 1, 2, and3). Which of these methods is likely toreturn the greatest profits is an importantquestion facing beef producers of thestate. In addition, they face the prob-lem of determining the best level ofpasture improvement.It was the purpose of this study tohelp answer these questions. Specifi-cally, the objective was to determine thenet returns per acre of permanent pasturewhich might be expected from alterna-tive systems of beef production for twolevels of pasture improvement.Fourteen different methods of beef pro-duction were studied for each of twolevels of pasture improvement. Eachmethod was of the cow-calf type, relyingupon a high quality breeding herd toraise all calves and replacement heifers;only bulls were purchased. Methods ofproduction were classified on the follow-ing basis: (1) spring or fall calving, (2)age at which calves were marketed, (3)type of winter ration, and (4) whethercalves received concentrate feeding in ad-dition to permanent pasture prior to mar-keting.An annual budget, including grazingrequirements for the entire herd, costs,and returns, was prepared for each ofthe 14 alternative methods for each ofthe two levels of pasture improvement.The two levels of pasture improvementconsidered were (1) native pastures, and(2) pastures improved to the averagelevel of all improved pastures found ina recent survey.^ Carrying capacities peracre and annual pasture improvementcosts were obtained from the survey justmentioned. To correspond to these pas-ture costs, prices for all other items wereadjusted to the 1951-56 average. Costsincluded were: feed, permanent pasturecosts, temporary winter pasture whenneeded for a particular system, labor,marketing, bull replacement, and miscel-laneous.Grazing available from permanent pas-tures, April to October, after harvestingthe amount of hay needed was consideredas the one factor limiting the size ofthe beef enterprise for each 100 acres.Grazing available from permanent pas-ture in other months was considered assupplementary to the feeding program.*Agricultural Economist, Research Associate,and Head of the Department of Animal Hus-bandry, respectively.This project was financed in part from re-gional funds under S-27.^Thomas E. Tramel, D. W. Parvin, and J, E.Betts, Farm Pastures of the Prairie Area of Mis-sissippi, Mississippi Agricultural Experiment Sta-tion Bulletin 585.4 MISSISSIPPI AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION BULLETIN 591pj.ij [)uc 3jniscd -Lujod pucajnjsBd J3JUIM 'dtuaxajnjsed jajuiM 'diuaxpaaj puB sjnjsBdlujad puB ajnjsBd jsjuim•diuaj ajnjSEd -lujadiaiuiM qSnojip paqSno^SjniSBd J9JUIAVdtus} puB ajnjsEd 'lujadJ3JUIAV i[gnojqj paqSno^p33J puB SJniSEd•uiJ3d puB J31UIM qgnojqipaqSnoj ajnjsEd -oijadJ31UIM qSnojqj paqSno-^ajnisEd •iuj9dpuB J3JUIAV qSnojqjpaqSnoj sjnjSBd -uijadI31UIM qSnojqi paqSno^J3JUIM qSnojqjpaqgnoj puB ajnjsBd 'uijadJ3JUTM qSnojqi paqSno^sjnjsBd 'uijad puBJ31UIM qSnojqj paqSno^pD3j puB ajnjsBd •uij3d puBJ3JUTM qSnojqi paqSno-^3UIUB3M )B p[osp39J pUBajnjsBd "lujad puB sjnjsEdJ3JUTM -duiai ajnjsBd •uijajajnjSBd J3JUIMdiuaj puB ajnjsBd -uijajp33j puB ajnjsBd uuajSUIUB9M JB ppsoo mm—I m oo_: o ^•m o mr-H m o ooro -H r^iCM m m »Ar>: ^ vd<^ O O OO<=i, CO*rg (NifNj ir\ o oom o oor-j m ir\i< orgoo .—1op ^-aO S;^S W),CQ < :o ^u o )^ oo oo* ^ inCNIs"Si"oo ^ ^oc m —cr-i m oo—1 roOn ^VO ON oom inoo ro >—Ivo oovo ooa\ rg ^ON oo ooOn inON oo T-HooO ONro vo •—I?N '-H (Nvo ^O On ogin <Nj (N4-H ON VO oon- <vi o r-^in (N -H -Hr-i rn ^O ON ONo ON rg ON0 00"^-rj T-HO '—c CT)OO ^— rv)Tj- rg vo ^On O —I ONm rg —^O ro voin ON ON ovo — rgO '-^ in r-lt-^ ^—' rgO wS SoO 0->U Cci! H J :s oO ONTf r-HoO "OOOoo oor-i ino ^ON inCOrg voVO NOONNO r^^Ono inrgNO ro—I OOALTERNATIVE METHODS OF BEEF PRODUCTION IN THE PRAIRIE AREA OF MISS. 5«6^o SO bOu CJ3p33j puu ajnjsBd -uijad puEajnjSBd J31UIM 'duiajLjjnjsed J3JUIAV 'duiajLp33j puB ajnjSBd•lujad puE ajnjsEd jajuiM•dui3j ajnjsEd •iuj9dJ3JUIM qSnoaq) paqgno^•duJ3j puB ajnjsBd -lujadJ3JUIM i{gnojqj paqSno^paaj puB ajnjsEd•lujad puB J9JU1M ijSnojqjpaqgnoj ajnjsBd -lujadJ3JUIM qSnojip p3i|Sno-^3jnjsEd -LujadpuB J3JUIM i|SnojippaqSnoj sjmsEd -uijadJ3JUIM qSnojqj paqSnoyJ3JUIM qSnojqjpaqSnoj puB ajnjsBd -amdJ9JUIM qSnojip paqgno^ajnjsBd -lujad puBJ3JUIM qSnojqj paqSno^p33j puB ajnjsBd -uijad puBJ9JUIM qSnojqj paqgnoygUlUESM JB pjogp33J pUBgjnjsBd 'Lujad puB sjnjSBdI3JUIM -diuaj ajnjsBd 'lujajajnjsBd J3JUIM•duiaj puE sjnjsEd •uijajpaaj puB ajnjsBd 'uijajSUIUESM JB pjogC3 o a\ITN O CvJrg o u-N or-J o\ -vlO O "ir\ o ^-H ""l iXON O OOU-\ O fNlro .-H (Nlr\ o u-Nrsi o o ^oo r^;<Ni iTi inro in t-^ u-Noo O fs)o in Tj-in min (N m-JV) O(U «O ^ Ou^ beO tuO(V-) (v^,in c^i mn- ino <^-<Noo o o oo ONo ON OO NOo^ «^ ^•—( CMo_o ON tn ^m oo oo^ ON OON NO ^Cvj •-' r^jNO O oo ooNO moo fNO NO.—1 OON ooooroOPio o t;1 c S-^ SOONO0\OO n-oo NO mro (^1 r^Joo ^oNO (N >—1ITNrgininNO r^i ^NOON roroO rorg <—<rsiOnCN,997ivorginr-^ n-in in ro»—1 ro ooON ONNO ^ CNNOfNinONinO ONO fNOO OO—1(N| Ooo o roro —1ONrr ooin^r^) in ^oo oot-^ inO ON(N r-HONONCOininrr,(N) ONin oON oo roO OO ONin o^OO1oorgNOinON ^ ^ro *0fNj O roO O —'ro —<OOrorsir^T ro —'ooONinONinro oo «rro ^U-N oo roO NO o(^1 —-ONrorgroC3 ONON mro Tj-ro r—'NO rrro^o ^^^NOo —.NOON roNOin o\t-- NOTJ- org OOrrNoro OOn rgNO roin inO Onrg ooy-t ONo o^ oo oG OO3 ^6 MISSISSIPPI AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION BULLETIN 591Temporary winter pasture, when neededfor a particular system of production, wasassumed to be planted in the ratio of twoacres on permanent pasture sod to oneon cropland.Native PasturesFor this level of pasture improvement,selling spring calves at weaning resultsin lower net returns per 100 acres ofpasture than any of the 14 alternativemethods studied (Table 1).The best alternatives appear to be: (1)roughing spring calves through the firstwinter and feeding out on permanentpasture the second summer, (2) rough-ing spring calves through the first win-ter and grazing permanent pasture thesecond summer, (3) grazing spring calveson temporary winter pasture the firstwinter and selling, or (4) grazing springcalves on temporary winter pasture thefirst winter and feeding out on perman-ent pasture prior to sale.Net returns from the 14 alternativemethods of production ranged from $432per 100 acres to $1,166 per 100 acres.Improved PasturesSelling spring calves at weaning ap-pears to be the least profitable of any ofthe 14 alternatives for this level of pas-ture improvement also (Table 2). Like-wise, the same four alternatives as fornative pastures appear to be the best.Net returns per 100 acres ranged from$480 to $1,736.Comparison of Net Returnsfor the Two Levels of ImprovementDifference in net returns per 100 acresdepend upon the manner in which thegrazing is utilized. For each of the 14methods of beef production studied, theadded cost of pasture improvement ($263annually per 100 acres) more than paidfor itself. However, for both springcalves sold at weaning and fall calvessold at weaning, the rate of return wasrather low, $48 and $74 per 100 acres,respectively. Net returns per 100 acresfor the added cost of pasture improve-ment range up to $692 for spring calvesroughed through the first winter andgrazed on permanent pasture the secondsummer.Utilization of GrazingThe proportion of the total grazingused which is required for the broodherd and replacements appears to be oneof the primary factors influencing profitsfrom the beef enterprise. About 90 per-cent of the total grazing is required forthe brood herd and replacements whencalves are sold at weaning. In contrast,for the four most profitable alternativesthe percentage ranged from 66 to 74.ALTERNATIVE METHODS OF BEEF PRODUCTION IN THE PRAIRIE AREA OF MISS. 7Summary and ConclusionsBeef producers are faced with a choiceof many alternative systems or methodsof production, as well as the question ofwhether pasture improvement pays.This study was made for the purposeof determining which of 14 methods ofbeef production of the cow-calf type thatwere considered feasible would likely bemost profitable for two levels of pastureimprovement. The two levels of im-provement considered were (1) nativepastures and (2) pastures improved tothe average level of all pastures whichwere found to be improved in a recentsurvey of the Prairie Area of the state.For both levels of pasture improve-ment, selling spring calves at weaningappeared to be the least profitable ofany of the 14 alternatives considered. Onthe other hand, for both levels of pastureimprovement, the best alternatives ap-peared to be:(1) Roughing spring calves throughthe first winter and feeding out on perm-anent pasture the second summer,(2) Roughing spring calves throughthe first winter and grazing permanentpasture the second summer,(3) Grazing spring calves on tempo-rary winter pastures the first winter,(4) Grazing spring calves on tempo-rary winter pasture the first winter andfeeding out on permanent pasture,Net returns per 100 acres ranged from$432 to $1,166 for the native pasturesand from $480 to $1,736 for the im-proved pastures.Additional labor and additional invest-ment in the beef herd is required forcarrying calves beyond the weaning age.However, the added net returns wouldseem to be ample reward for doing so.Net returns from pasture improvementdepend upon the manner in which theforage is utilized. Net returns from pas-ture improvement would be only about$48 and $74 per 100 acres for springcalves sold at weaning and fall calvescalves sold at weaning, respectively. Onthe other hand, net returns from theadded $263 per 100 acres annual im-provement cost ranged up to $692 forspring calves roughed through the firstwinter and grazed on permanent pasturethe second summer.MISSISSIPPI AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION BULLETIN 591U ^ ^ ^ fil^ o o o oO O O p O-P O LTN CM OJ(L)u >1^o ou u of a<H «H S H ^ SaJ o CO„ t:! W w O OCO 00 CD^ P„ W O OPL,o'CQ H^ gO ChO ir\o voo o^ IdN tSlO COH H ^ ^+3 +J O Lr\O O 0\ H-d Ogd do Ch fi is;t:) O O0) (U-pd0)•Hg.'d0)pr^ALTERNATIVE METHODS OF BEEF PRODUCTION IN THE PRAIRIE AREA OFMISS.gao•H-PIOutH0)<DO H HH H O O.-^ .^"^P SPO pi OO CQo o oo oon o HO d)W CO oH HP POH H ra 03P Po o o oO O O Lf^+3 OJO CfHO COn:^ O OH H p p.P P o oo o oO O O H• 03 03 03^ o o oOJ o o o ^P P O H•Hi-! OO;2H 0)rd OO 0)«d -H COa CO oo ChO COrd o o(U 0)pIS! Hrd nd O O(U <1>]0 Missis;;!p;'i a(;ric:ultural i:xp;;r!Mi:nt rTAT:0N HULLrriN 591o-P o o o,000H m O CM•H >O0) so(V <u•H OJCOOJ -H COW CO oOP o o oo —OJO M^1 ^( 0}<U S H SCd -H COC3 "Tf K CO O•H (U^ rO000000oO JjD —^ 03Ch >5 H S-H CO^ W CO O(U

An economic evaluation of alternative methods of beef production in the prairie area of Mississippi

https://scholarsjunction.msstate.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1212&context=mafes-bulletins

An economic evaluation of alternative methods of beef production in the prairie area of Mississippi

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Scholars Junction - Mississippi State University Institutional Repository