optimal beef cattle management under agricultural policy reforms in finland
Clicks: 198
ID: 149855
2008
Article Quality & Performance Metrics
Overall Quality
Not rated
Combines reader engagement with the AI quality analysis. This
article has not been analysed, so there is no overall score —
reader engagement is measured and shown alongside.
Reader Engagement
Steady Performance
30.0
/100
198 views
18 readers
AI Quality Assessment
Not analyzed
Readership in this journal
SteadyRanked #72 of 141 articles by views in The American journal of clinical nutrition
Most read
Least read
Bar heights use a square-root scale. Only the 120 most-read articles are drawn; the journal has 141 in total.
Mint this article as an NFT
Not yet mintedCreate a permanent, verifiable on-chain record of this article on the Scimatic Network. The NFT is held in your Journament account, and you can withdraw it to your own wallet at any time.
5
SUSD
one-off · no wallet required
Abstract
The supply for domestic beef has been decreasing sharply since Finland joined the European Union (EU) because profitability of beef production has been low. The goal of this study is to search for optimal beef management practices that increase returns on beef production in Finland. Numerical dynamic programming (DP) is used to simultaneously optimise feeding and timing of slaughtering. The DP-algorithm is solved under alternative subsidy, output price, and silage price scenarios. At 1998 prices and subsidies, the optimal carcass weight is estimated above 250 kg. The European Agenda 2000 reform is predicted to decrease the optimal carcass weight to 200 kg, which is 50 kg lower than under the 1998 prices and subsidies. This reform will increase farmer returns significantly and its income effect depends crucially on the price of silage. The results indicate also that the reform will result in adjustment of feeding. Particularly, farmers having high silage production costs will substitute feed concentrates for roughage in the diet. A farmer is entitled to a premium subsidy of FIM 200 (e33.63), provided that the carcass weight of a culled animal exceeds 270 kg. But when the Agenda 2000 reform is fully implemented, this premium subsidy is not large enough to supply carcasses heavier than 270 kg. The results suggest that carcass weights of at least 270 kg would require a premium subsidy of FIM 400-800 (e67-134). Rearing heavy animals will significantly increase production costs and, therefore, most of the subsidy will be taken away from the farm in terms of increased costs.;
| Reference Key |
pihamaa2008agricultural
Use this key to autocite in the manuscript while using
SciMatic Manuscript Manager or Thesis Manager
|
|---|---|
| Authors | ;P. PIHAMAA;K. PIETOLA |
| Journal | The American journal of clinical nutrition |
| Year | 2008 |
| DOI |
DOI not found
|
| URL | |
| Keywords |
Citations
No citations found. To add a citation, contact the admin at info@scimatic.org
Comments
No comments yet. Be the first to comment on this article.