New perspectives for the change of structures
American: pastoral basis was and remains today for the breeding and rearing of; The fattening evolved in the 50’s towards total confinement. The conversion efficiency and the dilution of the unit costs of the industry (in very few hands) took the size to its maximum expression (steers of more than 600kg). There is no light consumption, no steaks, the meat is matured for 15 days and the manufacturing uses the hardest cuts and cuts (hamburger). The very extensive rearing is relegated to very marginal fields, tending to the minimum replenishment but with good reproductive indexes because to cover the requirements of the larger size the load is lowered and supplemented. The selection privileges the size, the grain and the fertility over the yields.
European: it was also pastoral base to 50 (except in winter) evolved into supplementation of intensive farming and total confinement rearing and fattening. The conversion efficiency and the unit costs of very small farms also brought them to the maximum size. There is no light consumption (except the milk specialty). All the meat matures 15 days, nor does the asadito. 60% of the production comes from heavy bellies that the more young people are paid, because they have a lot more quality than toritos, a normal condition for males. The breeding tends to maximal replenishment, because it is more profitable the less you have them (Beranger paradox). Privilege selection yields on fertility.
Sudamericano: The breeding was, and will be based pastoral, very extensive with low costs, marginal fields. It is very inefficient with poor reproductive indexes caused by high loads, incompatible with the excessive and unnecessary size of cows that fail to meet their requirements. Passing the 350kg cows in the 50 to over 550kg in the salty catchment is a mirage of American technology contrary to our scientific experience: it is more profitable to have more calves per hectare than less heavier (INTA Balcarce 1960). The selection should privilege the adaptation to the different media on any other character and to review the DEP for growth.
In marginal fields replenishment tends to be minimal, because recreating is difficult as well as the termination of rejections. Replacement generates a cost to be repaid in the greatest number of years (Graph 9). The rodeo has a higher average age and also the sale of rejections. It sells the maximum of calves.
In more agricultural fields, if a fat cow is more expensive than a pregnant heifer, replenishment is a benefit to maximize (Graph 9). Rodeo, and rejection sales would have a lower average age. If new cows were better valued, no calves would be sold. It is actually a model of breeding stock. Only females of semen or sexed embryos should be born.
At the country level, more wintering areas should be recreated by replenishment and discarded by marginal farms.
EFFICIENCY OF BREEDING.
The burden: to increase profitability per head must exceed 90% of pregnancy, which is not achieved without a fat cow, which accumulate reserves for the period of breeding and service. Either the load is lowered or fodder availability is incorporated.
Raising income: total replacement with the impact on income from the sale of all empty maximizing the sale value and the lowest pregnancy (Figure 10).
– Selling preserved, represented, with prices before 2009, 10% of total gross income for a weaning of 80% and triple for one of 50%.
– Selling them for wintering at 2010 prices the sale of vacuums represented 15% of the total gross income for a weaning of 80% and double for one of 50%.
Selling them as fat, the sale of vacuums represented 30% of the total gross income for a weaning of 80% and more than double for one of 50%. (Graph 10).
Until 2009, in the breeding fields, they were kept empty for lack of replenishment or sold as preserved to less than $ 0.25 / kg or allowed to die in the drought field. Three preserves were needed to replenish a pregnant woman. As of 2010 they could be replaced with one and a half for wintering or with a fat one. The cow began to untie but commercial policies still lack to valorize it.
In terms of efficiency, measured as the annual amount of kilos produced over maintained, the efficiency of a pregnant cow is 40%. The one of a cow with 80% of weaning, is of 35%. And the one of 60% only 25% per kilo maintained. (Graph 12). Keeping 40% empty every two years breaks down the efficiency of domestic breeding, and the profitability of farms. A local cow with its costs included, in fields with no other destination, costs about 100 kilos of bull meat per ha / year.
With 60% of weaning, selling all the empty as preserved: before 2009 there were only 40 kilos that were not enough to pay the replacement.
With 80% of weaning after 2010, selling them as wintering were 120 kilos. The triple, equivalent to 10 quintals of soybean lease.
Situations illustrated (Graph 11) comparing for different percentages of weaning the total income per cow, replacing the total of empty ones. The income increases with weaning if they are for canning, but if they are for wintering and instead paradoxically it is reversed when the empty ones are sold fat.
It is the principle of “desojización”. Not all fields allow you to recreate replenishment and fatten the cow. Those of “pig’s hair” have to change empty when pregnant. Before it was necessary 3 preserves for a pregnant woman, now, two of wintering, or a fat one.
Fattening a cow is wintering. Many years ago the cows from the farms were moved to the corn stubble (business cows). There are again cow breeders who take advantage of the change of category, even giving corn silo or grain, etc.
Rectors of pregnant heifers: there will be more and more at current prices.
EFFICIENCY OF THE WINTER
Regarding the variables that affect efficiency, such as grain / meat price relationships, buying / selling, and conversion efficiency, among the main ones, we can consider:
The efficiency of annualized production in relation to the average kilo maintained, by category: the most efficient is a steer of 700 grs./ day, with 65% for each kilo maintained. A pregnant heifer, until weaning, increases his weight and produces a calf with an efficiency of 55%, greater than that of a steer that increases 500grs / day that is 50%. (Graph 12).
The low price superiority (5%) between male and female calves from weaning to slaughter (by conversion efficiency) and very little (2%) yield when they are dry and equally finished than male calves. Although the quality of the meat is better (more tender than the young bulls of the same age), its price on foot is punished by precaution when the producer does not guarantee neither age nor pregnancy with gaggle and touch, either by liveliness or because Typing does not stimulate it.
About 500 kg of meat per ha equals a soybean of 45 quintals, of which to pay for technology, if one has the capital: 1500 U $ / ha per year. It is the floor in an agricultural field; There are those who are above 800 kg / ha of meat, far above the roofs of harvest.
Feed lots: recrían and fatten more than half of the job. In order to increase the weight of labor, compensating for the higher cost of conversion, it is a condition that the price gap between light and heavy must be reversed; It would help to have them recreated in the field.
They have come to stay, for efficiency of conversion and scale, but they will suffer the competition of field wintering that they can confine without having to buy outside grains, fiber or calves and that can substitute rations for other resources of own: silos of chopped, Rolls, prairies, green intercalated (between a corn and a soybean) and supplements. This competition will depend on the input relationships mentioned above.