Financial performance and opportunistic commercialization of beef production systems in southern Brazil

Autores/as

  • Amir Gil Sessim Federal University of Rio Grande do Sul – UFRGS. Faculty of Agronomy, Department of Animal Science. Porto Alegre, RS, Brazil. https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8728-3661
  • Maria Eugênia Andrighetto Canozzi Instituto Nacional de Investigación Agropecuária (INIA). Estación Experimental INIA. Programa Producción de Carne y Lana. La Estanzuela, Colonia, Uruguay.
  • Gabriel Ribas Pereira Federal University of Rio Grande do Sul – UFRGS. Faculty of Agronomy, Department of Animal Science. Porto Alegre, RS, Brazil.
  • Eduardo Madeira Castilho Federal University of Pelotas – UFPEL. Faculty of Agronomy, Department of Animal Science. Pelotas, RS, Brazil.
  • Júlio Otávio Jardim Barcellos Federal University of Rio Grande do Sul – UFRGS. Faculty of Agronomy, Department of Animal Science. Porto Alegre, RS, Brazil.

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.22319/rmcp.v13i1.5888

Palabras clave:

Animal production, Economy, Gross revenue, Integration, Production cost

Resumen

This study compares the technical and financial performance of different beef cattle production systems and assesses the opportunistic commercialization practiced in these systems. It was evaluated data from four production units located in southern Brazil: cow-calf in native pastures (CCNP; 1,155 ha; 1,529 animals); cow-calf with agriculture (CCA; 1,008 ha; 1,313 animals); rearing-fattening (RFU; 360 ha; 435 animals); and fattening (FU; 205 ha; 168 animals) as well as an integrated system simulating the physical and economic parameters of the four units (IAS; 2,728 ha; 3,445 animals). The four independent units were considered as opportunistic commercialization and IAS as non-opportunistic. The highest yield was obtained for RFU (297 kg/ha), followed by IAS (114 kg/ha), FU (98 kg/ha), CCNP (87 kg/ha), and CCA (83 kg/ha). The CCNP was the most economically efficient, considering the gross margin per kilogram (GM/kg) (US$ 0.93). The GM/kg value of IAS (US$ 0.74) was 37 % higher compared to the sum of the average of the four units (US$ 0.54), and IAS had the lowest total production costs per kg (22.5 %). It was concluded that each independent unit could increase GM/kg (37 %) and GM/ha (3.8 %) and use calves in a rearing-fattening unit for further sale. Hence, the integration of beef production systems increases the gross margin of firms, presenting a profitable business advantage to rural entrepreneurs through non-opportunistic commercialization.

Descargas

Los datos de descargas todavía no están disponibles.

Biografía del autor/a

Amir Gil Sessim, Federal University of Rio Grande do Sul – UFRGS. Faculty of Agronomy, Department of Animal Science. Porto Alegre, RS, Brazil.

Department of Animal Science, Faculty of Agronomy, Federal University of Rio Grande do Sul - UFRGS, Porto Alegre, RS, Brazil

Citas

United States Department of Agriculture – USDA. Livestock and poultry: world markets and trade. 2018 https://downloads.usda.library.cornell.edu/usda-esmis/files/73666448x/mg74qq69r/j6731729p/livestock_poultry.pdf Accessed Jan 17, 2019.

Euclides FK. Supply chain approach to sustainable beef production from a Brazilian perspective. Livest Prod Sci 2004;90:53-61.

Oliveira TE, Gianezini M, Peripoli V, Barcellos JOJ. Marketing alliances and differentiation strategies in the beef supply chain in Brazil. Rev Ibero-Am de Est 2015;14:40-50.

Bravo UBE, Solís D, López VHM, Maripani JF, Thiam A, Rivas T. Technical efficiency in farming: A meta-regression analysis. J Prod Anal 2007;27:57-72.

Ash A, Hunt L, Mc Donald C, Scanlan J, Bell L, Cowley R, et al. Boosting the productivity and profitability of northern Australian beef enterprises: Exploring innovation options using simulation modelling and systems analysis. Agric Syst 2015;139:50-65.

Schroede TC, Kovanda J. Beef alliances: motivations, extent, and future prospects. Vet Clin North Am Food Anim Pract 2003;2:397-417.

Åby BA, Aass L, Sehested E, Vangen O. A bio-economic model for calculating economic values of traits for intensive and extensive beef cattle breeds. Lives Sci 2012;143:259-269.

Nasca J, Feldkamp CR, Arroquy JI, Colombatto D. Efficiency and stability in subtropical beef cattle grazing systems in the northwest of Argentina. Agric Syst 2015;133:85-96.

Ruviaro CF, Costa JS, Florindo TJ, Rodrigues W, Medeiros GIB, Vasconcelos BS. Economic and environmental feasibility of beef production in different feed management systems in the Pampa biome, southern Brazil. Ecol Indic 2016;60:930-939.

Siqueira TTS, Duru M. Economics and environmental performance issues of a typical Amazonian beef farm: a case study. J Clean Prod 2016;112:2485-2494.

Carvalho PCF, Batello C. Access to land, livestock production and ecosystem conservation in the Brazilian Campos biome: the natural grasslands dilemma. Livest Sci 2009;120:158-162.

Instituto Nacional de Meteorologia (INMET). 2016. http://www.inmet.gov.br Consultado: 10 Ago, 2016.

Carvalho PCF. Pasture country profile: Brazil. In: Plant production and protection division. Food and Agriculture Organization 2006 http://www.fao.org Accessed Jan 11, 2019.

Lowman BG, Scott NA, Somerville SH. Condition scoring of cattle. In: Agric Anim Prod, East Scotland Coil 1976;6.

Pang H, Makarechian M, Basarab JA, Berg RT. Structure of a dynamic simulation model for beef cattle production systems. Can J Anim Sci 1999;79:409-417.

Braz SP, Urquiaga S, Alves BJR, Jantalia CP, Guimarães APP, Santos SC, Pinheiro EFM, Boddey RM. Soil carbon stocks under productive and degraded pastures in the Brazilian Cerrado. Soil Sci Soc Am J 2019;77:914-928.

Dill MD, Emvalomatis G, Saatkamp H, Rossi JA, Pereira GR, Barcellos JOJ. Factors affecting adoption of economic management practices in beef cattle production in Rio Grande do Sul state, Brazil. J Rural Stud 2015;52:21-28.

Silva RO, Barioni LG, Hall JAJ, Matsuura MF, Albertini TZ, Fernandes FA, Moran D. Increasing beef production could lower greenhouse gas emissions in Brazil if decoupled from deforestation. Nat Clim Change 2016;6:493–497.

Scaglia G, Rodriguez J, Gillespie J, Bhandari B, Wang JJ, Mc Millin KW. Performance and economic analyses of year-round forage systems for forage-fed beef production in the Gulf Coast. J Anim Sci 2014;92:5704-5715.

Vaz RZ, Lobato JFP, Restle J. Analysis of the economic efficiency of cow-calf systems with different ages of weaning. Biosci J 2014;6:1837-1845.

Oaigen RP, Barcellos JOJ, Christofari LF, Neto JB, Oliveira TE, Prates ER. Internal competitiveness in beef cattle activity in the State of Rio Grande do Sul. Ciênc Rural 2011;6:1002-1007.

Pini TRM, Alencar SAS, Lucas LS, Brumatti RC, Franco GL, Mourão GB, Silva SL. Economic analysis of beef cattle production systems. B Indústr Anim 2014;71:47-57.

Escola Superior de Agricultura Luiz de Queiroz-Centro de estudos avançados em economia aplicada (ESALQ-CEPEA). Production costs in livestock. 2016 http://cepea.esalq.usp.br/boi. Consultado 13 Jun, 2016.

Mc Hugh N, Fahey AG, Evans RD, Berry DP. Factors associated with selling price of cattle at livestock marts. Animal 2010;8:1378-1389.

Turner BL, Rhoades RD, Tedeschi LO, Hanagriff RD, Mc Cuistion KC, Dunn BH. Analyzing ranch profitability from varying cow sales and heifer replacement rates for beef cow-calf production using system dynamics. Agric Syst 2013;114:6-14.

Publicado

11.04.2022

Cómo citar

Gil Sessim, A., Andrighetto Canozzi, M. E., Ribas Pereira, G., Madeira Castilho, E., & Jardim Barcellos, J. O. (2022). Financial performance and opportunistic commercialization of beef production systems in southern Brazil. Revista Mexicana De Ciencias Pecuarias, 13(1), 127–144. https://doi.org/10.22319/rmcp.v13i1.5888
Metrics
Vistas/Descargas
  • Resumen
    643
  • PDF
    315
  • PDF
    152
  • Full text
    166

Número

Sección

Artículos

Métrica

Artículos más leídos del mismo autor/a