Estimation and analysis of beef gain roughage-concentrate production functions

Thumbnail Image
Date
2017-06-26
Authors
Bhide, Shashanka
Epplin, Francis
Heady, Earl
Melton, Bryan
Hoffman, M. Peter
Major Professor
Advisor
Committee Member
Journal Title
Journal ISSN
Volume Title
Publisher
Authors
Research Projects
Organizational Units
Organizational Unit
Extension and Experiment Station Publications
It can be very challenging to locate information about individual ISU Extension publications via the library website. Quick Search will list the name of the series, but it will not list individual publications within each series. The Parks Library Reference Collection has a List of Current Series, Serial Publications (Series Publications of Agricultural Experiment Station and Cooperative Extension Service), published as of March 2004. It lists each publication from 1888-2004 (by title and publication number - and in some cases it will show an author name).
Is Version Of
Versions
Series
Abstract

Through the 1960s and early 1970s, many cattle feeders formulated feedlot rations composed primarily of grains. Rations high in grain were relatively inexpensive and economical. For example, Scott and Broadbent [20] constructed a programming model in 1972 that utilized the California net energy system as developed by Lofgreen and Garett [16] and adopted by the National Research Council (NRC) of the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) to estimate economical rations. They concluded, "In most feedlot operations, it appears that the maximum possible rate of gain w ill be most profitable under usual price relationships” [20, p. 24]. Although maximizing rate of gain is a biological objective, it was congruent with the economic objective of maximizing profits. Therefore, there were several reasons for little interest in investigating the trade-off or substitution rates between roughages and concentrates in the beef feeding ration. First, concentrates were relatively inexpensive. Second, addition of roughages to rations generally reduces rate of gain. A longer time on feed thus increases the nonfeed costs, such as labor, yardage fees, and carrying charges, and reduces the annual volume of a lot. Third, roughages generally are bulkier and more difficult to handle than concentrates. They may require more expensive equipment and large long-term capital investments. Fourth, many feedlots were designed and constructed to provide high-concentrate rations. Hence, little effort was exerted toward investigating the rate of substitution between roughages and concentrates.

Comments
Description
Keywords
Citation
DOI
Source
Copyright
Collections