Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jn8rn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T04:00:41.801Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A Quantitative Approach to the Feedlot Replacement Decision*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 April 2015

Kenneth E. Nelson  and
Wayne D. Purcell
Kenneth E. Nelson
Affiliation:
Marketing Economics Division, Economic Research Service, USDA, Stillwater, Oklahoma
Wayne D. Purcell
Affiliation:
Oklahoma State University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

If all feeder cattle were identical and if all relative prices were constant the feedlot manager would still have an important and difficult decision to make. The decision involves selecting the time at which to replace a pen of cattle on feed with a new pen of feeder cattle such that profit is maximized, over time, to the feeding operation as a whole. Of course, all cattle are far from identical and prices, even relative prices, are never constant. The decision that is not simple with identical cattle and constant prices becomes most difficult with consideration of different types of replacement cattle and varying prices.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics , Volume 4 , Issue 1 , July 1972 , pp. 143 - 149
Copyright
Copyright © Southern Agricultural Economics Association 1972

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.)

Footnotes

*

Oklahoma State Agr. Exp. Sta. Journal Article No. 2374

References

[1]Chisholm, Anthony H., “Criteria for Determining the Optimum Replacement Pattern,” Journal of Farm Economies, 48: 107–112, Feb. 1966.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[2]Cundiff, L. V., et al., “Genetic Relationships Between Growth and Carcass Traits.” Feeding and Breeding Tests with Sheep, Swine and Beef Cattle; Progress Report 1964-651 Okla. Agr. Exp Sta., Stillwater, 1965.Google Scholar
[3]Ensminger, M. E., Beef Cattle Science. Panville, ill.: The Interstate Printers and Publishers, Inc., 1968.Google Scholar
[4]Faris, J. E., “Analytical Techniques Used in Determining the Optimum Replacement Pattern,” Journal of Farm Economics, 42: 755–766, Nov. 1960.Google Scholar
[5]Hedrick, H. B., Bovine Growth and Composition. Missouri Agricultural Experiment Station Bulletin 928, 1968.Google Scholar
[6]Joandet, G. E., Growth Patterns and Efficiency ofTDN Utilization. Unpublished PhD. Thesis, Texas A&M University, 1967.Google Scholar
[7]Laird, Anna Kane, et al., “Dynamics of Normal Growth.” Growth, 29: 233–243, 1965.Google ScholarPubMed
[8]Laird, Anna Kane, “Postnatal Growth of Birds and Mammals.” Growth 30: 349–363, 1966.Google ScholarPubMed
[9]Lofgreen, G. P., and Garrett, W. N., “A System for Expressing Net Energy Requirements and Feed Values for Growing and Finishing Cattle,” Journal of Animal Science, 27: 793–807, 1968.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[10]Perrin, R. K., “Asset Replacement Principles,” American Journal of Agricultural Economics 54: 60–67, Feb. 1972.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[11]Totusek, Robert, “Expected Carcass Weight, Grades, and Cutability Resulting from Growing and Feeding Different Types of Calves,” 7th Annual Cattle Feeders' Seminar, Oklahoma State University, Feb. 4-5, 1971.Google Scholar
[12]Wagner, Donald G., “The Effect of Feedlot In-weight on the Costs and Efficiencies of Gain.” 7th Annual Cattle Feeders'seminar, Oklahoma State University, Feb. 4-5, 1971.Google Scholar
[13]Zinn, D. W., et al., “Feedlot and Carcass Grade Characteristics of Steers and Heifers as Influenced by Days on Feed.” Journal of Animal Science, 31: 302–305, 1970.CrossRefGoogle Scholar