Modelling the impact of increasing supplementary feed allowance on predicted sheep enterprise production, profit and financial risk across southern Australia

Context Supplementary feeding may alter sheep enterprise production and profit margin, but use may vary across regions, sheep breeds and mating seasons. Supplementary feeding is a means of ensuring adequate nutrition but increases operating costs. Modelling has previously indicated the most profitable sheep enterprises optimise stocking rate and target lamb production, whereas those that minimise supplementary feeding incur the least financial risk. Aims To explore the impact of increasing supplementary feed allowance on production, profit and financial risk. Methods Seventy-two sheep farm enterprises were simulated across eight southern Australian locations, including three breeds and three mating seasons. For each enterprise a low grain allowance (LGA) of 30 kg/head.year (threshold used in previous modelling) was compared to a high grain allowance (HGA) of 35 kg/head.year and 42 kg/head.year for Merino and non-Merino ewes (current industry recommendations), respectively. The financial risk of each enterprise was determined via Conditional Value at Risk of gross margins over 30 years, exploring downside risk in the worst 20% of scenarios. Key results A HGA increased production and profit in 32% of farm enterprises, but financial risk was often increased. Merino enterprises were generally the most profitable, least risky and consumed the greatest amount of supplementary feed, followed by Composite and then Maternal enterprises. Summer and autumn mating was often most profitable, but high supplement consumption in autumn-mated enterprises increased financial risk. Conclusions Increasing supplementary feeding may improve production and profit but may also increase financial risk using the parameters examined. Implications Producers may be able to improve the production, profit and financial risk of an enterprise through increased supplementary feeding, but this will be dependent on breed, input costs, commodity prices and location.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Animal Production Science
Published
2024-10-24
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1071/an24309
Primary Topic
Pasture and Agricultural Systems
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00

Funders

Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Modelling the impact of increasing supplementary feed allowance on predicted sheep enterprise production, profit and financial risk across southern Australia

Gordon Refshauge, Shawn McGrath, MB Allworth, Amy L. Bates et al.
Animal Production Science
Pasture and Agricultural Systems
article

Modelling the impact of increasing supplementary feed allowance on predicted sheep enterprise production, profit and financial risk across southern Australia

Gordon Refshauge, Shawn McGrath, MB Allworth, Amy L. Bates, Susan Robertson
article en

Abstract

Context Supplementary feeding may alter sheep enterprise production and profit margin, but use may vary across regions, sheep breeds and mating seasons. Supplementary feeding is a means of ensuring adequate nutrition but increases operating costs. Modelling has previously indicated the most profitable sheep enterprises optimise stocking rate and target lamb production, whereas those that minimise supplementary feeding incur the least financial risk. Aims To explore the impact of increasing supplementary feed allowance on production, profit and financial risk. Methods Seventy-two sheep farm enterprises were simulated across eight southern Australian locations, including three breeds and three mating seasons. For each enterprise a low grain allowance (LGA) of 30 kg/head.year (threshold used in previous modelling) was compared to a high grain allowance (HGA) of 35 kg/head.year and 42 kg/head.year for Merino and non-Merino ewes (current industry recommendations), respectively. The financial risk of each enterprise was determined via Conditional Value at Risk of gross margins over 30 years, exploring downside risk in the worst 20% of scenarios. Key results A HGA increased production and profit in 32% of farm enterprises, but financial risk was often increased. Merino enterprises were generally the most profitable, least risky and consumed the greatest amount of supplementary feed, followed by Composite and then Maternal enterprises. Summer and autumn mating was often most profitable, but high supplement consumption in autumn-mated enterprises increased financial risk. Conclusions Increasing supplementary feeding may improve production and profit but may also increase financial risk using the parameters examined. Implications Producers may be able to improve the production, profit and financial risk of an enterprise through increased supplementary feeding, but this will be dependent on breed, input costs, commodity prices and location.

Animal Production ScienceVol. 64(16)
Charles Sturt University (AU), New South Wales Department of Primary Industries (AU), Department of Primary Industries and Regional Development (AU), Central Queensland University (AU)
Meat and Livestock Australia, South Australian Research and Development Institute, NSW Department of Primary Industries
Openalex Percentile: Top 74%
Pasture and Agricultural Systems
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.