xt73xs5jbn3p https://exploreuk.uky.edu/dips/xt73xs5jbn3p/data/mets.xml   Agricultural Experiment Station, Department of Agricultural Economics, University of Kentucky 1976 journals kaes_research_rprts_26 English University of Kentucky Contact the Special Collections Research Center for information regarding rights and use of this collection. Kentucky Agricultural Experiment Station Research Report 26 : November 1976 text Research Report 26 : November 1976 1976 2014 true xt73xs5jbn3p section xt73xs5jbn3p   ®   COST  
  FOR BACKGROUNDING BEEF CATTLE
  IN CENTRAL KENTUCKY
  BY A
  Steve Rutledge,
  Garnett L. Bradford,
  and James A. Boling
 V. O
  RESEARCH REPORT 26: November 1976
University of Kentucky 1: College of Agriculture
Agricultural Experiment Station ;: Department of Agricultural Economics
 ' Lexington l

 J x
x * a
’

 i
A TABLE OF CONTENTS
ES;
List of Tables ji
List of Figures iii
Feasible Systems 1
Determining Least Cost Feeds: Procedures 2
Least Cost Feed Mixes: Programmed Results 8 V
Varying Feed Prices: Programmed Results 14
Conclusions 19
Appendix 21
O References 27

 ii
LIST OF TABLES
Table Page No.
1 Typical Backgrounding Feed Systems
Identified as Feasible 4
2 List of Restrictions for Programming
Backgrounding Systems 5
3 Comparative Feed Costs per Humdred Pounds
Gain: Non—Pasture, Mixed and Pasture Systems 9
4 Non—Pasture Systems: Optimal Feed Combinations 11 I
5 Mixed Systems: Optimal Feed Combinations 12
6 Pasture Systems: Optimal Feed Combinations 15
7 Optimal Feed Combinations for System l
Using a Simple Parametric Pricing Scheme 16
- 8 Systems 4a and 4b: Optimal Feed Combinations
Using a Simple Parametric Pricing Scheme 17
9 Comparative Feed Costs Per Hundred Pounds
Gain: Non—Pasture and Mixed Systems
Programmed at the Pg Price Level With
Pasture Systems at the P2 Level 18
Appendix
Table I Feed Prices Listed by Common Units 2l
Appendix
Table 2 Feed Activities Considered as Possible
Solutions for Each Backgrounding System 25

 iii
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure Page N0.
1 Kentucky Substate Areas for Beef Cattle
Production 3

 MINIMUM COS'I` FEEDING SYSTEMS FOR BACKGROUNDING
BEEF CATTLE IN CENTRAL KENTUCKY
by
Steve Rutledge, Garnett L. Bradford, and
james A. Boling
Techniques used to produce beef have time, it is likely to continue to be more
undergone changes in recent years. These prevalent in Area 2 than any other area of
changes have been induced by increased Kentucky.
production specialization, improved Feed costs have always comprised a
transportation, and shifts of locational substantial portion of the total cost of I
advantages. Much of the red meat now finishing beef cattle in drylots and a fairly
consumed is finished in commercial feedlots. large proportion of the cost of producing
Demand for feeder animals by commercial feeder cattle (Allen et al., 1976, pp. 10-15).
feedlots has led to the development of Indeed, feed price increases in recent years
specialized intermediate feeders, sometimes make it even more desirable that, whatever
referred to as backgrounders. the production stage, nutritional requirements
There is no precise definition of be met with low—cost feed mixes. In recent
  backgrounding. It means different things to years, many drylot producers and feed
A different producers. The basic idea, however, manufacturers have determined their own
is to grow the animals from weaning weights least·cost balanced rations. Linear
to intermediate weights of 700-850 pounds, programming techniques have been widely
more ready for feedlot conditions. used to compute these rations and to
Backgrounded animals appeal to feedlot compute changes in the rations as sources of
owners because the animals are already feed or feed prices change (Cooper and
partially accustomed to feedlot environments Steinberg, 197-}, pp. 27-28). However, linear
and rations. This reduces stress during the programming techniques have not been
initial days in the feedlot. Backgrounding employed by producers who background
functions inclttde assembling the animals, the cattle. This is largely due to the problem of
( use of effective health practices, and a proper accurately specifying the nutrient content of
grass-forage-concentrate feeding program. forages. Second, numerous systems are used
Feed sources, length of the feeding period, to background cattle; so, to specify rations
rates of gain, beginning and ending weights may have no continued meaning nor extensive
vary from system to system. application except for those few producers
Ilow extensive is backgrounding in who regularly use a given system. Third, most
Kentucky? lixact data are not available on the forages have been viewed as fixed assets; i.e.,
numbers of animals being backgrounded. they have no alternative market value.
Ilowever, l{entucky`s rate of increase in total The purpose of this report is to present
beef animal numbers has been substantially recent research findings on backgrounding in
gl`CLtler than the national average (see liigure Central Kentucky. More specifically, the
1). Further, when Browning et al. (1973) objective is to present results on least cost
divided Kentucky into three substate areas, feed mixes for each of nine backgrounding .
they found Area 2 to have the highest rate of systems identified as commonly used and
increase in beef numbers. .·\rea 2 is rich in feasible. Cost efficiency of feed utilization
forage production and grazing of animals is a among these systems is compared.
major agricultural activity. .~\s backgrounding Iscusiblc Systems
§1`<>\vS more extensive with the passing of Thmo um)l.OuC]1Cé WC,-C employed {O

 . ‘ A f 2
f · A identify feasible backgrounding systems: (I) a Mixed systems allow animals access to
  .   ( I review ofpast studies dealing with commonly pasture feed sources in addition to certain
? .   used or recommended systems; (2) concentrates, minerals and dry roughages.
* ~   ‘ . consultation with beef cattle extension System 3 was the easiest to specify since it
i ( J T specialists; and (3) a survey of selected was the most popular among the producers
_ Q ; Central Kentucky producers who background surveyed. System 3 is nonautomated and
I T _ I i beef cattle. Information obtained from the requires no special facilities, only available
( I .' . _ survey was most useful. pasture land. It is segmented into four time
I   The survey of 37 beef cattle producers periods, because available feed sources vary
» was conducted in 1974 in Madison, Lincoln, substantially with the season of the year.
A   A . T Bourbon, Scott, and Harrison Counties (see Systems 4a and 4b are quite similar. Each of
i   Figure I). The survey was aimed at those these systems is segmented into two 120-day
i T ` commercial producers who exhibited higher periods. In the initial 120-day period, system
i i * . than average levels of managem ent, those who 4a utilizes hay and grain, but no silage; system
' ` T T i presumably were not influenced to a large 4b utilizes silage, grain, but no hay. l)uring
I - extent by goals other than profit the second 120-day period (starting April lst)
( Q · maximization. These farmers were selected by both systems rely heavily on pastures with
. T   the County Agricultural Extension Agents of some protein supplements and mineral
` T , I each county. sources, available as needed. Note that
  The survey questionnaire dealt with animals gain more total pounds in mixed
  several phases of backgrounding operations. systems compared with other types.
i Information collected included animal All three pasture systems (5, 6 and 7)
i ( I description, feed sources and quantities, dates are primarily grazing systems but with protein
I f of feeding periods, market prices of feed, supplements and minerals available if needed.
· I i _ conditioning practices, average daily gain Systems 5 and 6 are summer grazing systems.
, , (ADC), growth stimulants (if used), and System 5 uses heifers, whereas system 6 uses
  description of feeding facilities. steers. Animals for system 7 utilize only
4 t Information from the survey was pasture with supplemental hay during the .
_ categorized according to these characteristics winter months. This combination of only
A . that, in effect, define the various pasture feed activities and low weight gains
i - backgrounding systems. These characteristics over a year`s duration leads some producers to
` are shown as columns in Table l. Each call this "roughing the animals through."
backgrounding system carries some degree of Note the lower average daily gain for this
I generalization, yet is specific CllOllgll to occur system——8 pounds as compared with l.l
( essentially as it is described in the table. The pounds for system 6.
systems are classified as nonpasture systems, Determining Least Cost Feeds:
mixed systems, and pasture systems. V
Procedures
Nonpasture systems do not allow the
animals access to any pastures. Three such Conventional Linear programming(LP)
systems are specified (Table 1). Grains, was used to estimate the least cost feed mix
_· silages, hay with protein supplements and and the total cost of each mix for each feed
V minerals are considered as possible feed system identified as feasible. The model for
alternatives. Systems 2a and 2b are fully each system may be expressed as:
automated. Feed equipment needs include
automatic silo unloaders, feed augers, feed . . . M ,
r T — bunks and chains and other fcedinr Mlmmlzc E CIA]
9 (   · _ .
equipment. Since hay is not handled J- 1
efficiently through automatic" feeding n
equipment, it is considered as a possible feed Subject to Z AijXi 3 Bi for i = l, 2,.:.,n
source for system I (an unautomated, drylot   = l `
i system) but not for systems 2a and 2b. and Xj 2 O for allj.

   3
EGG
I \
s to — 0
tain
gCS. 6   g
c it
Ccrs a g
and ; "\¤ `
1blc ¢ “ ?
imc     Q j`\\ Q K;
vary C [ L\_ '
(Sill'. é   3 i 1 E   .
X of   Q ) E E l<—/   ' E
day _ E ‘   1:
[cm ff § 9   : '-""·x.§`- E é F;
Lcm A F , ·· T2   3 Q E
l`iH_§{       i > · K Q E E
lst 1     , · ~ : Y`
,1111 "g Q g i 1 E 1  il SQ
cred ’ E I ` _   §
  §J§a»·:z 2
mi .     §
EN   `       2
·?> < if 1»·*\_¤    
Lcm j g 1   \ ·_;
md. _ G LL [AL. · »/hi Q
E ? >/ ¤ (\<* s I W
mS. g 5 2 g . 3,
1scs § Q   E r 3
nly   5 ,’ * fj * E
thc » . ,, E zi?
1ins ? /_ J1   ”    
s to g ; E { E
`h.°`  
this g E
1.1 ° 1 é z -
5- 2 • '\ * ’*{
, _ E
S E  
“ I >· .
X e ,, g 1 g 1
[JP) gf .   g  
nix `$ v Q E
ucd fg i   Q ,
for  
  2 ` E   3  
Q.,11

 I .·;,·
   
4 4 E > § 5 .. A
n 5 .° w :3 `
H1 9 L.
, K;. V7
. pf ..,
-9 E 2;
 
E rg °
~ D E u E "
~ .21 z S g ..
94 +:5 E5 E
4 3 ¤-· ¤_ CE
`   .: i
•* el
u‘¤ ·-· ..C
’ (E 3%   -¤ .: E
Vc >` W v? -°"@ H lu
so ;c€E°»s.% z .=; 5 5 ·· »=
f ‘ ra. ...¤   E2 =¤ U"‘ . 2   5 E -¤ *5
· ` gig BGTE .:5: vg Ei, .5.% E .,. iv L >— "‘ £ E * E;
gw ¤¤ {gg ;,¤ ¤ .4 on .»·¤¤.. .;¤¤ S E¤,.,.;3 Em
U * »,.;: nvm >,;€o ¤_§C :.-E · ‘·-· g; .C
’__‘ md;- -·-4 M MB': L<,§:._ OV|· __·:` IJ ·,_,¤ ,,
— -¤ ¤=“‘€§ §.¤ M -2 §¥··r3—·Y¤’ §.€s» 5532.aES
~ ‘r· I :·r· ‘¤ ="·¤>— "‘ c: ¤ . ‘· ¤
L 1; , E: E; J.: --5 ¤—¤ gw: QE ·;¤ E.= -» ¤E °*2 52 ZE
· A4 52‘@;·E;=E ¥==»=‘=·.2 °¤ ¤.g=1é*¤”é¤E SE *2:4
— » ¤· °—c>·,;¤‘3 é"§ Vi 2..: &5;~¤—¤€é EE “‘§¤§E.¤E‘¤
Oc:. <.`;0`°:· ‘°`i'Jm ¤ >~°     ¤.  .:'*""
gg ;·_,•yaq·0-¤•-·: *5 ¤¤·: z. va ._.¤ ·f·`L4 >w>$E-
0 Q Lamy ,\,_,·¤§;_E_ >._.y.§ SSE- fcgi
‘— 5 ` M c> °··—”¤¤¤¤·· `6 vg m.,:§¤E; ·
L4- · G, ¤ R,_,·;,.¤O... Egg u-4 5
IS G ' Q "'···E.°"E ··° BE "c*··°
r: ’“'¤. SE Egg BME
-3 >_#(5 Q Dag ;3u_C
>-< qq- O °‘°
r-4 "' Q]
Fi-} 17. ,_§ m E
1 4 é 6* K-, E)
. ¤ gp
. < .-·· ,., O · xc 5
= , ~ m 0 "‘ ua
ri CJ `E1 ¤~ O G __; E.
L2 'E °° 2 0 oo 5
> O · 4-
gp I) °° ..Z °q ·-·
  ’
: ·¤ S °° ¤ Ig  
O ~+* 3 g O in >_u
*·* L .¤ QQE
R10 0 ,` '
Ad 0 gf
U u ___.-4 wr O wg
Cj é`; I J>_'¤ G 2 S .5 ·= E
m 5§¤ .. ___¤¤ 0 0 '¤ 5 ·=
. ·: ‘.•y "‘ J an O O g-¤_§
·. ·-.44 §_ .1 »n ·¤ U
U Ego G ¤- ,,4 gg-
* 5.2 ..·· ~._, E
Q4 . U') C'.,
~ ;>» .E"'   ..4-· ‘··, °·
L-( 3 JL, DO 5,, .
‘ 5: U>. no 5 g¤
·`T" ’·* **...4 rg
-55 éi »:;’f”Z 03 W E ·»
» W ¤ .2; 535 §~ .J g;
>_ I 5.. E .
; E ~ M .. ¤ _-- ._ == · as
=- ”° x :.· W ”=.s¤ J5 ==;
N .¤ .¤ ;,. O OSL 'U u
L , m S g 4; 2 seg
..4 .-4 *¤ ··= E-E
°° 5 ¤~ EE?
¤ é` .. $:3; 5
*3* >_ y» ¤
4N O gg .». W é D4O
. ·:· ·¤ A L DB2:
°' ¤ ‘ M .. E
,: cn C 1 ** >..
2. * °2 rs *E’;
Eg m =*= § O
s§ §> 8 E 4. *`·
Q: -3 L4 :`V
ta L4 m U ·
#5 4.4 U v U Q, ..
R ';·— B t: > W 53  
VJ wsj ·¤ 2 E M . ...'¤
l L-: L4 U > m 3 —
•» =~ ~ .4 U .4 Q P $9
· a E: E ·g EZ E i tig"
:*3 G: ~ 2.: ~ ~ ¤ 9
` ¤.¤ K v··- 2 55 `°“§
V =L— 4 .2% ~· ~ E —
Q < . H ·-· ug ¤4
7 . F-¤ 1:3 45 "’ f¤ v
‘ . *0 ~•.4
   ’ LQ. ¤— : ag § 5 €é°·E
` , ,,g ““‘ 1,, Z M ¥."¤""
U) •-* 4 1
.  _ .-.1 4% as Z Q5? »
. <» Ea T3 42 ·¤:.¤
'· »L¤· u U 8  
  °‘¤.·S U5 Egg?
ri  
Z
"‘.¤
U

 5
TABLE2
List of Restrictions For Programming
Backgrounding Systems
 
` Nutritional requirements Row
(Bi) constraint
 
1. Dry Matter (DM) L (i) "
2. Total Protein (TP) G (i)
3. Digestible Protein (DP) G
4. Total Digestible Nutrients (TDN) G
5. Calcium (Ca) G
6. Phosphorus (P) `G
7. Calcium/Phosphorus (Ca/P) Range
8. Urea (u) Range

 I j .   6
· I 3 i . . it
t — yvhgrg pounds, to span the range ol average daily  
i E a" `;ll* · ·t·d f bark d
2 ; x- aeaetes amount er each feed gm`? _"""¥" ?...“"l’“° “ I ‘". ‘° ¥T°““ at
T t _] . . . . feeding. bpeeiirc baeltgiounding sx stems
, , L which will achieve some given . _ 1 I I . . . * I __ co
. . . inc utinw tie o a num >er o ee inr ais
dl belbeefanral ll"|lll I (idi’d"
~ ' U ° ' . . . ` <
l 1 all Jim y acl . m. dictate the average daily gain (Al)C»). Pr
at ( (e.g., X1 = pounds of protein _ . _I . _ ‘ I I I _ yo
I . I I - 1 t d X _ d f Backgrounding operations usually are not I
` l _ r = Supp cmcn an 2 pmm S O geared for high levels of performance such as SL
I A .I . _ COm)’ 2 pounds per day and over. 1·`eedlot operators ull
` I 1 Cj denotes the cost per unit usually prefer yearlings in thin to medium Cj‘
I ( (pounds, cwt.) of thejth feed, flesh; 2 pounds per day on calves of average CU
~ ' ( r r . . genetic ability tends to make them fat (Gay, l‘“
` Bi dcnptcs tic nutmtgonj 1973, p. 3). Only with calves of superior l"‘
V ` u?qmrFm€m` t éamoump wt genetic ability can growth gains of 2 pounds lll,
( digestible nutrients, digestible , ‘ ‘ - _- A,}
( . » . . . A per day be realued. In contrast, lightweight ·
. I I _ protein, etc., for a specified total _ I _ _
’ · . . . calves (300-500 pounds) do not have the
V . ( weight gain by each beef animal . _ I I- - tu]
t . · . . capacity to consume enough energy to gain in
( I for a certain period, and I I .' I .. _. uc
I , » excess of 1 pound per day, especially il being I 1
. Y 1 Ag denotes the estimated amount of fed only hay. Gay notes that, if a lfll
‘ ( I each nutrient for each nutritional backgrounding operation consists of wintering °  
A requirement  supplied by each and grazing phases, gains in excess of 1.5  
( feed   expressed in pounds per day during the winter will reduce   I
A percentages. the summer gains. lf
P t . . . N t'e t r· ir· *1ts the B- >f T· ble M
q Mechanrcally, this model was fitted . ll H n Squ (mu ’ ._ ¤(   Sv
I . . 2, identify rows in the A·· matrix. Supplying ·
r — using the IBM MPS-360 algorithm for each ’ . . _ U . be
t . . . . the needed nutritional requirements balances
_ · feeding system using data on: (1) nutritional . . , wt
, . . . the feed intake for the beef animals. fo
{ requirements of the beef animals for a given . . _ _ ) I . __ . ,. ge
I . . . . * maintain the proper Ca/I ratio, tuning-up
r ` avcmgc duly g‘““* (2) ““m°“” S“l°l°l‘°d by ro ramminr ireeeeitires were emnevea it ·
each feed source, (3) prices of feed sources. P g   l _ Ii ‘I Y tri
was determined, for example, that calcium S!
A Nutrztional Requirements intake cannot be more than twice as great as `_ l
` r . . . . phosphorus intake--otherwise the average W
( Nutritional requirements, the right . . . - ·   ni;
. . . B daily gain is lowered. A ratio ol 1.3 is
hand Slde (RHS OF Bil» are listed m TublC_2' preferred, but a 2 to 1 ratio is still acceptable.  
· Each of these requirements was calculated tor The range Section of the MpS_36O Ill) mgdcl IF
the beef ammal m 3 glwn backgloundlllg was used to specify this constraint (Batterlram bl?
system using standards listed in Nutrient and Hill,}-,_g)_ l"'
R€qu1.7‘€m€m?$ Of B€€’f CGUZQ 1970, PP- Certain feeds in excessive amounts may
22-25. The first six requirements were be toxic to younger beef animals. Such an
expressed in total number ofpounds required example is urea (B8). Animal nutritionists at
for the beef animal to gain the total specified the University of Kentucky point out that not
. number of pounds, on an as-fed basis. A more than one-third of the total protein
weighted average of average daily feed needs requirement should be supplied by urea
` was calculated, given a stipulated average (nonprotcin nitrogen). Hence, a range row I
` daily gain. Having determined the phase constraint was used to restrict urea to safe
(number of days) for each system, nutritional quantities.
`e tf t1·tt1i`ht·`   . . . ..
( rcqmr men S or XC 0   wclg gdm (L g ’ feed Selectzon and Nutrzents Irurnzs/ted
400 pounds) were determined based upon the
average daily needs. Each column in the Ag matrix is a feed
Three average daily weight gains source (activity), one of numerous possible
(ADG’s) were selected, i.e., .8, 1.1 and 1.65 feed sources considered available to supply
i

 7
y the necessary nutritional requirements. Feed After locating the "NRC name,” data on dry
5 ’ activities chosen for consideration fell under matter, total protein, digestible protein, total
S the large headings of concentrates (which digestible nutrients, calcium, and phosphorus
( consists of grains, processed leeds, and were obtained for each feed source on an
7 proteins), silages, mineral sources, dry as-fed basis.
{ roughages, and green forages or pastures. Of the pasture activities selected, only
S Selection of these feed activities was based about one-half could be found in the Atlas 0f
S upon a list of leeds commonly used in beef Nutritional Data on U.S. and Canadian Feeds
,1 cattle rations (Nutrient Requirements 0fBeef (1971) in the combination and stage of
C Cattle, 1970, pp. 28-47) and the researchers’ maturity in which the authors found them to
., knowledge of Kentucky feed sources, be necessary. However, each type of pasture
r potentials, and commonly used feed activities used was available in the NRC publication on
S by Kentucky beef cattle producers (see an individual basis, if not in the mixed-form. V
t Appendix 'l`able 1). Animal Science and Agronomy forage experts
C Not every feed source listed in this at the University of Kentucky provided
n table was considered as a potential feed additional information on mixed-form data.1
Q activity for `each backgrounding system Available data on pasture feed composition
`H identified as feasible. Depending upon the indicated little difference in feed composition
g characteristics of the system being considered, of most forage plants as to stage of maturity,
5 _ certain activity categories (e.g., hays or variety, and species. Accordingly, two
C silages) were deleted from a given system assumptions were made for unavailable
before it was programmed. Other feed pasture data:
C activities were deleted from backgrourrding (1) Mixed pastures (Ong grass and
Q systems as they were programmed either (mc lcqumc) always consist Of
Q because they could not be produced locally, 5060 Hlixmres and Wm remain
D were trot commonly used, or were not SO for the Specified life Of that
,, generally available for sale rn the feeding area. Pasture,
{ l·`ced composition data were obtained 9 \I_v d f d _ _
yl from the _-ltlas of Nzttritziorzal Data on Litited (*l ‘ vllic Pasmfc c€_0(;Omp?slt;;n
LS States and C(l7l(I(lI-(lll [·`r·t·tls (1971). liaclr feed “lt _1°;’m1°“S€ _? °f O E E
C source in this publication had an index n)l<¤°n Cqmpqsl 10; mul rtac
S number. This number identified the feed PASMW Il pc In t C lm} me
, source as a sole activity which carries an   tOg€th(irl’ and thlsls not
  "NRC name." liach "NRC name" consists of ildlglllcflmlli dlflcrem from the
n eight components and provides a qualitative lm llm Slmauom
feed description. '1`he components are: Accordingly, pasture feed composition data
\. _. . _. were "svnthesized" for those pastures for
. (1) Origin or parent material, _ ._   I _ _ T . l
I, _ _ _ vvhrch exact data were not av arlable.
(2) Species, variety, or kind, _
ll I·`ccc1' Prices
,t   l’art eaten,
n   1’rocess(es) and treatment(s) to _ l"€€Cl prices. are cpute unstable over
ra which the parent material or the UIUC. even during time periods that
N , (mm CMC], had bcc,] S,,bjC(.d.d, ectlnomrsts consider fairly normal. During
ic   Stwe of m·tturitv f‘1i>hlic·tble 19’2”19’J" [Or Cxiimplclhvcsmck puiduceis .
` ` °' . ` · ` ` observed how quickly upward shifts in
(mllhm lUmgCSl’ _ feedstuff prices can take place (see
(6) Cutting or crop (applicable only I_—t,(,()".[u)fv) 1974). Increased demand,
to forages), `
d   (hifulc and (luflllly (1**$l%1'1i“1°*1$» I Interviews were conducted with Dr. james Bcling,
C , Animal Scientist; and Mr. _]. K. Evans and Dr. W. C.
y Jud Templeton. Agronomy Forage Specialists.
(8) Classification.

 , J r 8
  domestic and international, for grains and question as there are forage economists. For
{ Q protein sources, coupled with very poor this study,several approaches were considered
i ( Q weather conditions during each growing including rental rates, value in hay
r ? season, have been major factors contributing equivalents, and production costs. The
: ( T i to rising feed prices. Thus, no single level of production Cost approach is fully described,
Z i ` prices is adequate to represent the feed along with pasture enterprise budget results,
i V   ( market price situation. Initially, three price in a companion publication (Rutledge et al.,
i_ _ levels were identified. However, the P1 or 1975).
» ( = lowest price level was eventually dropped Lust Cost l,ccdMixcS:
i because feed price levels increased beyond I,_ , _dR__ I _
, , , _ _. _ _. iogramme csu ts
l - , _ that level during the study period.
r · All systems were first programmed at a Contrary to conventional belief,
_ . more—or-less model price level, identified as pasture systems did not result in lowest feed
. y , _ T P2. During the summer of 1974, we studied costs per pound of gain. Comparisons of feed
i · i t . feed prices for grains, proteins, and processed cost efficiency among systems were made by
S feeds over the past five years from several calculating minimum feed cost per 100
P · . information sources, including the 1974 pounds of gain (Table 3).
_     Feedstufjk magazines and the Statistical _ Comparisons show that a mixeg
» l Reporting Service (SRS) in Louisville, system, 4a, is the most feed cost efficient.
’ Kentucky. Statistical Reporting Service (SRS) System 4a was previously identified (Table 1)
r data were quite useful, providing Kentucky as a 240-day combination drylot and summer
` feed prices for most all feed sources grazing system with a 1.65 pound average
‘ considered. To establish uniformity, all feed daily gain. System 4b costs only $0.73 more
W prices were converted to prices per 100 per 100 pounds gain. Recall that these are
( ( pounds. No real time could be established, so identical systems except for equipment and
I ` current (1974) prices were used for the base feed activities utilized. Ranking third and
Y l i or P2 price level. fourth in feed cost efficiency were a
Y Feed prices for silages are difficult to nonpasture system (1) and a pasture system
° i establish since there is no active silage market.   The remaining rank of systems according
1 Certain rules-of-thumb for valuation are to feed cost efficiency is 3, 7, 2a, 5 and 2b.
V 1 ` available (see Allen and Browning, 1974). As a group, mixed backgrounding
A However, we decided to modify their systems were found to be the most feed cost
suggested silage prices because these prices did efficient. Minimum feed costs per 100 pounds
not entirely reflect feedstuff supply and of gain were calculated on a group average to
demand situations for 1974 (sec Feedstujjs, be:
1974). The P2 price data used for silages may  
be slightly below current levels, but this can TYl’“"l“Y“‘“"‘ D""*"‘*’"‘°“"‘
be COI`I`€C[€Cl   p211'8.1'l'1C[I`lC pl“()gI`21I'I1IT1lI'lg. Nonpasture $17.50
Dry roughage or hay prices are easier to Mixsd 1403
i derive. The Statistical Reporting Service  
_ (SRS) has price information on most of the N , . _
‘ ha `n Kentuck t. TA1 o he the Central On/mstlmi `syliwns
ys 1 y s , w n
1 Kentucky backgrounding farmer survey was Table 4 summarizes programming
conducted, market prices for certain grains results, i.e., optimal feed combinations,
and hays were obtained. _____,a,_
_ Green forage and pasture values are
i extremely difficult to establish. Many
I`€SC2l1'CllCI`S 112iVC p()I1LlCI`C(l [llC (IL1CSLl()1] ()f 2 Thatris, the programmed value of the. 0bjeetiV€
what ¤¤ wc Ul resets is W<>¤*¤- ‘¤c¤¤¤·¤ Ms {21?f..i"?‘£..3‘X1§‘.$"..2¥ {B;§§Z§:I.H;";2§Ii)‘i§‘Z;;“{lI.§2;?2‘}
3.lfl'1OSI 21S many Z1ppI”O2tCl1CS to LUlSWCI‘lHg ll1lS systems being compared.

 9
i TABLE 2
J Comparative Fccd Costs Per Hundred Pounds Gain:
: Non-Pasture, Mixed, and Pasture Systems
’  
)
8 Average daily Minimum feed
System gain Phase cost per 100
(ADG) pou ds gain
 
i (p¤¤¤<1S) (days) (dollars) .
1 Non-pasture `
, Systems
}
1. 1.65 Oct. 1 — May 1 212 14.26
l
I 2a. 1.65 182 18.50
I
. 2b. 1.65 182 19.75
i Mixed Systems
I
[ 3. 1.10 Oct. 1 - Sept. 30 365 15.27
E 4a. 1.65 Dec. l — July 31 240 13.04
i 4b. 1.65 Dec. 1 — July 31 240 13.77
Q Pasture Systems
b
5. .80 April 1 — Oct. 16 190 18.82
; 6. 1.10 April 1 — Oct. l 180 14.39
7. .80 Oct. 1 — Sept. 30 364 17.62
3See Table 1 for a complete description of each system.
E

 i l `
Z W   e , ¥ for the three nonpasture systems. For contain different sets of alternative feed
j i j i example, for system 1 the least cost feeding activities in UIC fespective time periods which
  i   program consists of 3,081.9 pounds of corn make the system`s operation practical, For
.   , l silage, 14.9 pounds of deflourinated rock example, low—cost pasture activities cannot
: i A 3 phosphate, 493.1 pounds of grass hay, 457.6 supply all the nutritional requirements for a
  T ` V pounds of tall fescue hay, and 1,010.7 pounds winter feeding period. Thus, pasture activities
Y ; y   l of fescue-ladino clover hay. This is the total either were deleted or upward bounded by an
T i V A pounds of each feed, on an as—fed basis, for estimated quantity.
' i? I   the entire 212-day feeding period. No System 3 began with a fall grazing
. ~ { 4 analyses were made for shorter run segments period, with fresh fescue pasture providing
‘ j 1 _ _ _ of this period, e.g., the month of _]anuary the bulk of the forage source. Because fescue
. ` T · versus the month of April. The cost of this pasture is available only in small amounts, an
; . i A feed is shown to be $49.92 in order to allow upper bound of 344.9 pounds was stipulated
. _ , _ ` each steer calf to gain a total of 350 pounds, for the winter feeding period. This restriction
i · i i i.e., $14.26 per cwt. gain. provided that no more than 10 percent of the
T f For system 1, given the feed prices dry matter requirement for the animal during
Y i   listed in Appendix Table 1, several hay these months could be supplied by pasture
. Q   activities came close to entering the optimal activities. During the spring period grass hay
L if solution. Red clover hay or bluegrass hay was fed for 28 days in the amount of 430
, T would have increased the total cost per period pounds until forage carrying capacity was
‘ g only very slightly. large enough to allow this restriction to be
; Systems 2a and 2b are fully automated dropped. Winter wheat was fed for 30 days to
· _ feedlot systems. Therefore, hay activities were lower feed costs until forage had gained
Te y not considered as program activities. (See adequate growth. Fescue, orchardgrass and
A   E Appendix Table 2 for feed activities which are alfalfa-orehardgrass provided summer grazing.
T i - eligible to enter any optimal solution.) When Both systems 4a and 4b are 240-day
1   hay activities were restricted from combination, confinement and grazing
_ i consideration, concentrates entered the systems. Silages are not considered as
‘ T i programming results and forced the minimum alternative feed activities in the initial
i feed cost solution much higher. 120-day drylot period for system 4a. System
A Mixed Systems 4b considers. silages but not hays. Both
i systems contained identical optimal solutions
Table 5 provides a summary of optimal for the grazing phase.
- feed combinations, feed input quantities, and Mixed backgrounding systems each
minimum objective function values for mixed produce 400 pounds of total gain. With the
backgrounding systems using P2 feed price highest total feed cost of $61.07, system 3
levels. proved to be the most feed cost inefficient of
System 3 was the most popular system the three mixed systems. The system’s
in the entire backgrounding survey. inflexibility was a factor in the higher cost.
T Programming this system posed certain _
_ . . _ I _ Pasture .System.s‘
4 problems because the time period spanned
‘ one full year and all feed activities are not Table 6 presents a summary ofoptimal
· available in every season. Linear programming feed combinations, feed input quantities, and
techniques do not easily permit a single minimum feed cost values for pasture systems
programming of the entire system. To avoid using P9 feed price levels. Systems 5 and 6 are
y many special constraint rows, the year was spring-summer grazing systems; system 5 uses
` partitioned into four specially constructed heifers, whereas, system 6 uses steers.
time periods of 92, 74, 92, and 107 days. l\lidbloom orchardgrass, early bloom fescue,
Each time period was separately programmed. and midbloom alfalfa-orchardgrass entered
This procedure allowed the solution to the optimal solution for both systems. Fescuc

 Ted
lch
'Or ·°6° L 
l()[     0
Dew *
ra Sw 2
ICS ,..`6 v: 9) '
u " M ·
I1 cu og Lf)
D4 ,.4 g`
G?
mg tg "‘
Hg E
'. QJ
.T.lL   gi
dn ¤,,__·;; N
:’ ¤* :‘ cn
cd E ¤.. .3 6 Q
On   `-* 
mg ,; ...__;. ¤¤8¤
b : ··* ,,;." K 0
·-· ·. cx
C lé Us :06  
I0 ¤{•.‘
c mg
cd U Eu:
nd .... :10
I § @5 °Z¤;..u,‘\
9 ¤ a wzégd mmm
Hy gy ... O mu) U;. Md
4 5 qv) <·< °‘
L- ,_ n
w 2 23 §· z 3
he 2 @2 ·¤.·:. -== 22
:1: .;:3 ¤·;r\·. Ln ><¤. O
_g'_(LhU V1
3 é we ¤¤g¤°*$ °< J2 >‘€’
· -· ¤ ,_ m
Of .0 3;; ><··¤>;T, »— ‘s°· >< .
7 A ’U,.q¤ N .L."·x QJ
IS 'U° ·~u·-• O °’ 9]:1.0 ·· ¤0
Q) »-CQ O »—4
3,) ¤0*F$~<;¤_,;a E Xgr-· "° .2
Lz- ”¤ ¤ ¤ -¤·¤ U $"·""
¤‘¤§¤¤ W ~¤~~ E ><“’
, ,,¤_¤l,,·-a *_,,\¤> Q F
cal ¤·—·°D K1 ¤ *7-
CO u-4q; .-4 rc ·~g
.-·v¤ >< ¤ cz
‘·*···4,—3 DO   .,., ¢.»[\U·L'1
80E.-·o ¤,_m5‘¤·· ,2-~§¤g
1:11 ¤0{_"j£ ¤·§¤’;;€ w><;‘6
L" 8""6U: ¤·~"’°°
Id Duéw ¤..S;;_E
m Q 8582
I- `-1 UU
c >~
N
Cs Z
’¤
Fs. .0 °* '
P 53;;% *·‘ V.
L! D-4 ¤_ J ?
Ed 8 *0 g
N
.1c 2 S
»— OJ
m oo
E0 ¤¤
@,18 4 Lil; H
  $5 V `°Z Ly;
` ·—· EL xo
' V-:
N Q
  -
.¤
N
` n;

 , I I € 12
Y 5
-> ¤ O l\
.» mg Q
L · SM 2 ·
Q ,.,*+4
` Q 8
F-•
= QJ
Q,. •
» m
. Vt § __.
0
  `
. qa
`. ,:9.
 
` ` arg 2 76
_ E U »-• m S 5
l `E °" *8 "; · {2 G
__ , V ¤-¤ W _ Q ¤
/ U ‘_ ° E H E: . m 0
4 ¤o - r~ 3: U
r·· "‘ 6 "
I cum
¤.’g "’  
» I  OO ··* ... ~ % ¤· gd _; ‘{ A -
` •,.q N WC ‘.‘ •
un ,: ¤¤ ··‘
O $*5 mg 2 >< me #§ *‘ 2 § §
.   gg xg "‘ (5 >'?é‘ 3 QJ , ¤¤.
v»_ Am ·. r-• " -;
~ 5; svc 5,,, 3 »= ;E%. 3 {5,; F2. 1*: ><"‘€ L
m U3 vn rn In __;;,_' I E N O I ···
>_ gg um o nu WO >~ ns V J1 ··0 ·¤ E
CD ·...m ·¤[;‘,, J: > $_{‘•·· T.} ¤· Q @3* "" ...
*5... VE " 2 ·;,¤ ¤ gg ' 0 .¤• E, *·
· FU “’°° °°¤¤ '<:·$U T6 3 *°$.·:’2 "° =·.Z` eu E
‘§ -¤E B-5@§·¤>~*°§ `E   ·¤ 0,;, 3 EX ·%
¤.-‘v=¤¤—¤ ¤°°¤· W 60m ua ¤¤. ¤. Y
Oq¤¤J¤,,,°’¢U-G `·’ Q. ·-c Au · 'DNAZ 7,.
V1 HQ) U U &)• gg   v»K\ nn
U;-1..,., mos, w |..¤ ,_ X ,,