Acta Univ. Agric. Silvic. Mendelianae Brun. 2018, 66(3), 707-715 | DOI: 10.11118/actaun201866030707

Assessment of Profitability and Break-Even Points in Suckler Cow Herds

Jan Syrůček1, Luděk Bartoň1, Jindřich Kvapilík1, Mojmír Vacek2, Luděk Stádník2
1 Department of Cattle Breeding, Institute of Animal Science, Přátelství 815, 104 00 Prague 10 - Uhříněves, Czech Republic
2 Department of Animal Husbandry, Faculty of Agrobiology, Food and Natural Resources, Czech University of Life Sciences Prague, Kamýcká 129, 165 21 Prague 6 - Suchdol, Czech Republic

Suckler cow enterprises comprise an important segment of Czech agriculture, and the number of suckler cows has been steadily increasing in recent years. The objective of this study was to assess the profitability of suckler cow herds in the Czech Republic based upon data collected for 2014, 2015, and 2016 using a questionnaire covering production, reproduction, and economic traits. The average yearly costs reached 30,583 CZK per cow. When subsidies in the average amount of 14,347 CZK per cow were included, profitability of 8.3, 8.7, and 6.3 % was observed in 2014, 2015, and 2016, respectively. Feed, labour, depreciation, and overheads were the largest cost items and together comprised 66 % of total yearly costs. The data obtained proved the economy of scale. Average break-even points were determined for the number of weaned calves, calving interval, and selling price of calves (75 calves, 465 days, and 56 CZK/kg live weight, respectively). A sensitivity analysis identified the number of weaned calves, price of calves, calving interval, and amount of subsidies as the most influential parameters.

Keywords: break-even point, costs, economies of scale, profitability, sensitivity analysis, subsidies, suckler cows
Grants and funding:

This research was supported by project of the Ministry of Agriculture of the Czech Republic [MZE-RO0718], project of the National Agency for Agricultural Research of the Czech Republic [NAZV QJ1510191], and by the Ministry of Education, Youth and Sports of the Czech Republic ["S" grant].

Published: June 28, 2018  Show citation

ACS AIP APA ASA Harvard Chicago IEEE ISO690 MLA NLM Turabian Vancouver
Syrůček, J., Bartoň, L., Kvapilík, J., Vacek, M., & Stádník, L. (2018). Assessment of Profitability and Break-Even Points in Suckler Cow Herds. Acta Universitatis Agriculturae et Silviculturae Mendelianae Brunensis, 66(3), 707-715. doi: 10.11118/actaun201866030707
Share...
Download citation
  • BibTeX (.bib)
  • Bookends (.ris)
  • EasyBib (.ris)
  • EndNote (.enw)
  • EndNote 8 (.xml)
  • ISI WoS (.isi)
  • Medlars (.medlars)
  • Mendeley (.ris)
  • MODS (.xml)
  • Papers (.ris)
  • RefWorks (.txt)
  • RefManager (.ris)
  • RIS (.ris)
  • MS Word (.xml)
  • Zotero (.ris)
    • Open full article

    References

    1. BERGER, A. 2014. Cow Depreciation - A Hidden Significant Non-Cash Expense for Cow-Calf Producers. [Online]. University of Nebraska-Lincoln. Available at: http://newsroom.unl.edu/announce/beef/3616/20970 [Accessed: 2017, September 5].
    2. BOUDNÝ, J. and JANOTOVÁ, B. 2012. Economics of breeding beef cattle during 2008-2010 [in Czech: Ekonomika chovu masného skotu v letech 2008-2010]. Náš chov, 72(5): 36-39.
    3. CROSSON, P., O'KIELY, P., O'MARA, F. P. and WALLACE, M. 2006. The development of a mathematical model to investigate Irish beef production systems. Agr. Syst., 89(2-3): 349-370. DOI: 10.1016/j.agsy.2005.09.008 Go to original source...
    4. CZECH STATISTICAL OFFICE. 2017a. Livestock Survey [in Czech: Soupis hospodářských zvířat]. [Online]. Czech Statistical Office. Available at: https://www.czso.cz/csu/czso/soupis-hospodarskych-zvirat-k-1-4-2017 [Accessed: 2017, September 12].
    5. CZECH STATISTICAL OFFICE. 2017b. Key Macroeconomic Indicators [in Czech: Hlavní makroekonomické ukazatele]. [Online]. Czech Statistical Office. Available at: https://www.czso.cz/csu/czso/hmu_cr [Accessed: 2017, September 12].
    6. DAVIES, B. L., ALFORD, A. R. and GRIFFITH, G. R. 2009. Economic effects of alternate growth path, time of calving and breed type combinations across southern Australian beef cattle environments: feedlot finishing at the New South Wales experimental site. Anim. Prod. Sci., 49(5-6): 535-541. DOI: 10.1071/EA08265 Go to original source...
    7. EUROSTAT. 2017. Number of cattle. Eurostat. [Online]. Available at: http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/web/agriculture/data/main-tables [Accessed: 2017, September 12].
    8. GAJOS, E. and DYMNICKI, E. 2012. Beef production based on a suckling system as an alternative to milk production at the example of Polish Red cattle. Anim. Sci. Pap. Rep., 30(4): 353-361.
    9. HOLMGREN, L. and FEUZ, D. 2015. Costs and Returns for a 200 Cow, Cow-Calf Operation, Northern Utah. [Online]. Utah State University. Available at: http://digitalcommons.usu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1716&context=extension_curall[Accessed: 2017, February 28].
    10. JAHRESBERICHT 2013. 2014. Annual Report 2013 [in German: Jahresbericht 2013]. [Online]. Bayerische Landesanstalt für Landwirtschaft Institut für Betriebswirtschaft und Agrarstruktur. Available at: https://www.lfl.bayern.de/mam/cms07/iba/dateien/lfl-iba_jahresbericht-2013.pdf [Accessed: 2017, March 15].
    11. JONES, J. V. H. 2007. The use of relevant cost analysis to assess production viability following the decoupling of support payments in England. International Farm Management Association, 16(3): 412-421.
    12. KVAPILÍK, J. 2016. Comparison of economic indicators of breeding dairy cows and suckler cows [in Czech: Porovnání ekonomických ukazatelů chovu dojených a nedojených krav]. Náš chov, 76(6): 25-29.
    13. KVAPILÍK, J. and SYRŮČEK, J. 2012. Calculation of gross margin and the full cost [in Czech: Kalkulace příspěvku na úhradu a úplných nákladů]. Náš chov, 72(3): 22-26.
    14. KVAPILÍK, J. and ZAHRÁDKOVÁ, R. 2007. Selected indicators of suckler cow herds [in Czech: Vybrané ukazatele chovu krav bez tržní produkce mléka]. Náš chov, 67(10): 23-27.
    15. KVAPILÍK, J., PYTLOUN, J., ZAHRÁDKOVÁ, R. and MALÁT, K. 2006. Breeding of suckler cows, methodical guide for advisers [in Czech: Chov krav bez tržní produkce mléka, metodická příručka pro poradce]. Prague: Institute of Animal Science.
    16. LOSOSOVÁ, J., SVOBODA, J. and ZDENĚK, R. 2016. Comparison of Operational Subsidies on Less Favoured Areas in EU Countries. Acta Universitatis Agriculturae et Silviculturae Mendelianae Brunensis, 64(3): 979-992. DOI: 10.11118/actaun201664030979 Go to original source...
    17. MICHALIČKOVÁ, M., KRUPOVÁ, Z. and KRUPA, E. 2015. Economic evaluation of cow-calf herds. I. Calculation methods. Anim. Sci. Pap. Rep., 33(3): 257-266.
    18. MICHALIČKOVÁ, M., SYRŮČEK, J., KRUPOVÁ, Z. and KRUPA. E. 2016. Economy of suckler cow herds [in Slovak: Ekonomika chovu kráv bez trhovej produkcie mlieka]. Náš chov, 76(4): 44-47.
    19. MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE. 2017. Subsidies [in Czech: Dotace]. [Online]. Ministry of Agriculture. Available at: http://eagri.cz/public/web/mze/dotace [Accessed: 2017, February 7].
    20. MÜNCHHAUSEN, S. 2014. Efficiency of beef cattle farming and potential for influencing quality [in German: Wirtschaftlichkeit der Fleischrinderhaltung und Einflussmö glichkeiten auf die Qualität]. Eberswalde, Germany: Hochschule für nachhaltige Entwicklung Eberswalde (FH).
    21. NAYIGIHUGU, V., SCHLEICHER, A. D., KOCH, D. W., HELD, L. J., FLAKE, J. W., and HESS, B. W. 2007. Beef cattle production, nutritional quality, and economics of windrowed forage vs. baled hay during winter. Agron. J., 99(4): 944-951. DOI: 10.2134/agronj2006.0023 Go to original source...
    22. NOVOTNÁ, M. and VOLEK, T. 2016. The Significance of Farm Size in the Evaluation of Labour Productivity in Agriculture. Acta Universitatis Agriculturae et Silviculturae Mendelianae Brunensis, 64(1): 333-340. DOI: 10.11118/actaun201664010333 Go to original source...
    23. PETERKOVÁ, J., RÁDLOVÁ, L., and BOUDNÝ, J. 2017. Economy of beef cattle breeding in ecological and conventional mode [in Czech: Ekonomika chovu masného skotu v ekologickém a konvenčním režimu]. Náš chov, 77 (3): 39-43.
    24. POLÁČKOVÁ, J., BOUDNÝ, J., JANOTOVÁ, B. and NOVÁK, J. 2010. Methodology for calculating costs and revenues in agriculture [in Czech: Metodika kalkulací nákladů a výnosů v zemědělství]. Prague: Institute of Agricultural Economics and Information.
    25. SACHER, M. and DIENER, K. 2004. Profitability of suckler cows in 2002/03 [in German: Wirtschaftlichkeitsbericht Mutterkühe 2002/03]. [Online]. Sächsische Landesanstalt für Landwirtschaft. Available at: https://publikationen.sachsen.de/bdb/artikel/15274. [Accessed: 2017, February 9].
    26. SKUNMUN, P., CHANTALAKHANA, C., PUNGCHAI, R., POONDUSIT, T. and PRUESASRI, P. 2012. Comparative feeding of male dairy, beef cattle and swamp buffalo I. Economics of beef production. Asian Austral. J. Anim., 15(6): 878-883. DOI: 10.5713/ajas.2002.878 Go to original source...
    27. STŘELEČEK, F. and KOLLAR, P. 2002. Searching the proportional level of operating costs - specification of the minimum volume of production. Agricultural Economics - Czech, 48(3): 106-116. DOI: 10.17221/5457-AGRICECON Go to original source...
    28. SYRŮČEK, J. and KVAPILÍK, J. 2015. Depreciation of suckler cows [in Czech: Odpisy krav bez tržní produkce mléka]. Náš chov, 75(9): 92-94.
    29. SYRŮČEK, J., KRPÁLKOVÁ, L., KVAPILÍK, J., and VACEK, M. 2017a. Calculation of economic indicators in cattle breeding [in Czech: Kalkulace ekonomických ukazatelů v chovu skotu]. Certified methodology. Prague: Institute of Animal Science.
    30. SYRŮČEK, J., KVAPILÍK, J., BARTOŇ, L., VACEK, M., and STÁDNÍK, L. 2017b. Economic efficiency of suckler cow herds in the Czech Republic. Agr. Econ.-Czech, 63(1): 34-43. Go to original source...
    31. TAYLOR, D. B., MOON, R. D., and MARK, D. R. 2012. Economic Impact of Stable Flies (Diptera: Muscidae) on Dairy and Beef Cattle Production. J. Med. Entomol., 49(1): 198-209. DOI: 10.1603/ME10050 Go to original source...
    32. ÚZEI. 2015. Costs of Agricultural Products [in Czech: Nákladovost zemědělských výrobků]. [Online]. Institute of Agricultural Economics and Information. Available at: http://www.uzei.cz/data/usr_001_cz_soubory/2015.pdf [Accessed: 2017, September, 12].
    33. VEYSSET, P., LHERM, M., ROULENC, M., TROQUIER, C. and BEBIN, D. 2015. Productivity and technical efficiency of suckler beef production systems: trends for the period 1990 to 2012. Animal, 9(12): 2050-2059. DOI: 10.1017/S1751731115002013 Go to original source...
    34. WEBER, S. and KVAPILÍK, J. 2016. Indicators of suckler cows in Mecklenburg-Vorpommern [in Czech: Ukazatele chovu krav bez TPM ve spolkové zemi Mecklenburg-Vorpommern]. Beef cattle magazine, 3: 30-32.
    35. WOLFOVÁ, M., WOLF, J., ZAHRÁDKOVÁ, R., PŘIBYL, J., DANO, J. and KICA, J. 2004. Main sources of the economic efficiency of beef cattle production systems. Czech Journal of Animal Science, 49(8): 357-372. DOI: 10.17221/4320-CJAS Go to original source...
    36. WOLFOVÁ, M., PŘIBYL, J., WOLF, J. and ZAHRÁDKOVÁ, R. 2006. Effect of subsidy regimes on economic values of functional traits in beef cattle breeding. J. Anim. Breed. Genet.,123: 97-104. DOI: 10.1111/j.1439-0388.2006.00573.x Go to original source...
    37. WOLFOVÁ, M., WOLF, J., ZAHRÁDKOVÁ, R., PŘIBYL, J., DANO, J., KRUPA, E. and KICA, J. 2015. Breeding objectives for beef cattle used in different production systems: 2. Model application to production systems with the Charolais breed. Livest. Prod. Sci., 95(3): 217-230. DOI: 10.1016/j.livprodsci.2004.12.019 Go to original source...

    This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License (CC BY NC ND 4.0), which permits non-comercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original publication is properly cited. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.


    Return to the content