Selecting the most suitable system for your beef farm

Summary

• Beef production in Ireland is characterised by having an array of different production systems.
• Given the range in farm systems, a clear three-to-five year plan is critical to improve the economic and environmental sustainability of beef farms.
• The beef system operated, and the ‘intensity’ at which it is farmed, will depend on a number of factors including labour availability, facilities, land area and type, and economics.
• Analysis of alternative beef systems indicated that the rise in input prices have led to average costs for suckler weanling-to-beef and dairy calf-to-beef systems of €4.50 and €4.05 per kg beef carcass, respectively.
• Of the production systems analysed, net margin per hectare was greatest for systems finishing at the end of the ‘second’ grazing season.
• Greenhouse gas emissions were lowest for dairy calf-to-beef systems and for systems finishing cattle at younger ages. 

Introduction

The Irish beef sector is one of the most important indigenous industries in Ireland with cattle production accounting for 27% of gross output from agriculture and generating beef exports of approximately €2.3 billion. Beef production is a significant enterprise on over 94,000 farms spread throughout Ireland, thereby making a key contribution to the Irish economy, particularly in rural areas.

Beef production in Ireland is characterised by having an array of different production systems. Many farms operate more than one system with others moving between systems depending on the market conditions from one year to the next. In addition to a long list of beef system options there is also a wide range of stocking rates across Irish beef farms. The majority of farms operate at low-to-modest stocking rates (< 130 kg organic N/ha) with a relatively small number requiring a Nitrates Derogation (>170 kg organic N/ha) for their farm.

Given the range in farm systems, and complexity of operating multiple systems, having a clear three-to-five year farm plan is recognised as being the first step that needs to be taken by any beef farmer who is looking to improve the economic and environmental sustainability of their farm. Choosing the most suitable beef system for your farm, including the most appropriate stocking rate, is the foundation on which this farm plan must be built. Once these decisions are made, the remaining steps of the plan, such as grassland management, animal breeding and animal health, are easier to decide.

Which beef system suits a farm or farmer, and the intensity at which it is farmed, will depend on a number of different factors. These include labour availability, facilities, land area and type, and economics. Every farm will be characterised differently when it comes to each of these factors and this will determine the choice of system and target stocking rate.

Labour availability

One of the biggest influences on choice of beef system is how much time you can devote to the farm. If you are beef farming fulltime any of the systems are manageable, but if you have a full-time off-farm job and can only commit a certain amount of hours per week to farming then it does start to influence your choices. How much stock and how many grazing groups can you comfortably ‘carry’? If your farm is fragmented, do you have the time to move cattle to and from ‘out-blocks’ or does it make sense to pick a system and a stocking rate that allows you to leave cattle on land that is away from the farmyard for much longer periods. Time availability is also linked to stress and overall farm productivity. Some people cope well under time pressure whereas others do not, which can lead to corners being cut and essential time-critical tasks on the farm being rushed or neglected. If this is the case, either the beef system needs to change and/or the level of stock needs to be reduced.

Facilities

A well-stocked farm needs to have enough winter housing accommodation, enough slurry/ farm yard manure storage and good animal handling facilities that are safe and fit for purpose. Where a farm has these already in place it gives them much greater choice when it comes to their beef system. It also allows them to increase stocking rates without the need for investing more money in the farm. However, where these are not available choices have to be made. How many cattle can be housed over the winter and, if more housing is needed, is it a case of finding the necessary funds or do you ‘cut your cloth to suit your measure’ and choose a beef system and stocking rate that matches your existing housing? There are production systems that require less housing than others. These include summer grazing, finishing heifers and steers off grass before the second winter, and finishing autumn-born calves at two years of age.

Land

Soil type, soil fertility, drainage capacity, sward type and level of farm fragmentation are all factors that will influence a farm’s choice of beef system along with the number of stock it can carry per hectare. Some of these can be improved where there is a willingness to do so but for some of them they are unlikely to change on many farms without a significant investment in time and money. Therefore, most farms have to work with what they have. Ultimately, the quantity of grass a farm can grow in a year dictates the number of cattle that farm should carry if operating a grass-based systems. A well-stocked, calf-to-steer beef system will need to grow in excess of 10 t DM per hectare annually, whereas a medium-stocked farm buying stores in the spring and selling them in the autumn might only need half this amount of grass.

Work-life balance

There is an increasing emphasis in society on ‘work-life balance’; in other words, how much time and effort is devoted to ‘work’ activities in comparison to leisure and family time. Beef farming, and indeed farming in general, is somewhat different than other occupations since most farms are family-farms so there is an overlap in farming and family pursuits. Nevertheless, a balance must be struck between these partially competing objectives.

Similar to most things in the life, the more you put into something the more you get out. Beef farming is no different. Some beef systems have very busy periods in the year compared to others and this may not suit some, for example, calving cows or rearing calves. Many beef systems need ‘top-quality’ grass silage to be profitable, whereas for others it is a case of making enough silage of average feeding quality, such as for suckler cows. Heavily-stocked farms with a rotational grazing system can benefit hugely from measuring weekly grass covers, whereas set-stocked farms with low stocking rates will get little advantage from using this management tool. Heavily-stocked farms require a greater focus on soil fertility, meeting winter forage requirements, using the latest grassland and breeding technologies, animal health, coping with adverse weather events and tighter financial management. How ‘driven’ a farmer is to improve their beef farm will often help to determine the best system of beef production they should be in and the number of stock they realistically should be aiming for.

In the following sections, we will examine the economic and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions implications of a range of production systems, bearing in mind the conditional factors noted above. Specifically, we will assess beef systems producing and finishing suckler-bred weanlings and dairy calf-to-beef production systems.

Suckler beef systems

In general suckler beef production systems can be categorised as cow-calf systems producing weanlings and weanling-to-beef systems. Integrated suckler calf-to-beef systems are less commonplace and for the purposes of this analysis we will assume separate systems for producing weanlings and finished cattle.

The Irish suckler herd is predominantly spring-calving with 75% calving between January and June and 45% calving from February to April. The objective is to align calving date, and the period of greatest nutritional demand from the cow, with the onset of the grazing season. Cows suckle their progeny over a grazing season of six-to-nine months after which calves are weaned and in most cases, sold as weanlings or, if they are retained for a period post-weaning, as ‘yearlings’/‘stores’. In these systems, replacements are typically purchased as ‘maiden’ heifers for breeding with ‘in-herd’ selection of replacements also practiced, although this is less common. There are a wide array of suckler weanling-to-beef systems primarily based on gender (steers vs. bulls) and feeding system (differing in proportional feeding of concentrates). Four typical systems are described in Table 1. Indeed, within each of these systems there are many variations and these are described in more detail on pages 24 and 208.

Given the major price perturbations that have arisen in recent years and particularly in 2022, the financial performance of the four suckler systems outlined in Table 1 were assessed. In the suckler calf-to-weanling system, a spring-calving (February) system was assumed with cows and calves turned out to pasture in mid-March. Weaning weight was 330 kg and 315 kg for male and female calves, respectively. Calves were assumed to be weaned at the end of October and sold in November. Replacements were sourced from within the herd, thereby reducing the availability of heifer weanlings for sale by approximately 20%. For the three suckler weanling-to-beef systems, weanling steers were purchased in November and ‘taken through’ to slaughter according to the systems outlined in Table 1, i.e. at the end of the second grazing season, during or towards the end of the second winter and during the third grazing season.

Table 1. Overview of four typical suckler beef production systems operated on Irish farms based on spring-born progeny

1Feed budget: % grazed grass/ grass silage/ concentrate feeds on a dry matter (DM) basis. 2Finishing steer system: Pasture = finished at pasture on grazed grass only (GG) or with concentrate (C) supplementation; Indoor = finished indoors on a grass silage (GS) diet with concentrate supplementation.

A fundamental constraining factor on beef cattle farms is forage availability. To facilitate a ‘balanced’ comparison of the four production systems outlined in Table 1, inorganic fertilizer nitrogen (N) application rates were the same for all systems with 100 kg/ha applied to grazing swards and 90 kg/ha and 70 kg/ha (plus slurry) applied to first- and second-cut silage swards, respectively. A modest contribution from clover of 50 kg N/ha was assumed in these scenarios; it is recognised, however, that well-established clover swards can contribute up to 150 kg N/ha and this is presently being assessed for suckler weanling-to-beef systems in studies at Teagasc Grange.

Given the variation in feed budget and animal category (i.e. numbers of 0-1, 1-2 and 2+ year old cattle) for each system, stocking rates varied somewhat for each system (Table 2), and systems finishing animals at older slaughter ages had fewer animals sold, because they were ‘carrying’ animals for a longer time on a fixed land area. This is particularly evident where cattle are sold at 28 months of age. All systems required a derogation from the Nitrates Directive; the 23-month weanling-to-beef system operates at the highest organic N stocking rate. In this case, total feed availability is greater than the other systems owing to higher levels of imported concentrate feed.

Net margin per hectare was greatest for the 21-month weanling-to-beef system (Table 2). This system benefits from high beef output and a high proportion of grazed grass in the total feed budget (compared to the other weanling-to-beef systems), and is also less sensitive to concentrate and fertilizer prices. The next most profitable system was the 23-month weanling-to-beef system; although production costs per kg beef output was highest for this system, the system benefits from a high level of beef output which, at current prices (base of €5.00/kg assumed), leaves this system more profitable than the 28-month system.

Given the extraordinary rise in both input and beef prices, a wide range in sensitivity values is provided. In particular, these systems show very large sensitivity to beef and weanling prices (Tables 2 and 3). For example, an increase in weanling price of 50 cent/kg changes profitability such that, rather than being considerably less profitable than the suckler weanling-to-beef systems, the suckler calf-to-weanling system is the most profitable. Clearly, the impact of sale price has a considerable impact on net margin and the ranking of systems for profitability.

Table 2. Summary of the performance, profitability and greenhouse emissions for four suckler beef systems based on a 40-hectare farm at prevailing prices

1Price assumptions: concentrate feed €440/t as fed, protected-urea €950/t, silage harvest €375/ha. 2Number of animal units per farm: sale of ‘live’ weanlings in the suckler calf-to-weanling system, steers ‘finished’ in the three suckler weanling-to-beef systems. 3Beef output: live weight for weanling system, carcass weight for weanling-to-beef systems. 4Production costs: per kg beef live weight for calf-to-weanling system, and per kg beef carcass for weanling-to-beef systems. The latter include cost of purchased weanling. Family farms are assumed, with no charge applied for land and labour.

Table 3. Summary of the profitability (net margin, €/ha) of four suckler beef systems for a range of beef and weanling price scenarios

1Beef price in €/kg carcass (R3 base), weanling price in €/kg live weight.

A further consideration is the impact of production systems on GHG emissions given the requirement for agriculture to reduce emissions by between 22% and 30% by 2030. The impact of reducing slaughter age is apparent with GHG emissions per kg beef being over 20% lower for systems finishing at 21 compared to 28 months of age (Table 2). In contrast however, of the three weanling-to-beef production systems, GHG emissions per hectare were lowest for the 28-month system.

To assess the effect of reducing stocking rate on beef output and profitability, the four suckler systems which were evaluated under a ‘moderately-high’ stocking rate of approximately 190 kg organic N/ha were compared at a ‘low’ stocking rate of 140 kg organic N/ha (Figure 1). The ‘low’ stocking rate is somewhat higher than the mean stocking rate of 116 kg organic N/ha on suckler beef farms nationally, but comparable to the Teagasc Roadmap 2027 projection for the suckler beef farming sector (https://www.teagasc.ie/media/website/ publications/2020/2027-Sectoral-Road-Map---Beef.pdf).

For the low stocking rate system fertilizer N application rates were reduced to 30 kg/ha for grazing swards; fertilizer N application on silage swards was maintained at the same level as the higher stocked systems. The effect of reducing stocking rate was to reduce animal numbers and beef output by approximately 25% and 23%, respectively, and to reduce profitability per hectare by more than 50% compared to the higher stocked systems (Figure 1).

Figure 1. Effect of stocking rate (‘low’ = 140 kg organic N/ha vs. ‘moderate’ = 190 kg organic N/ha) on beef output and net margin per hectare for four suckler (a calf-to-weanling and three steer weanling-to-beef) systems, based on a 40-hectare farm.

Suckler bull beef production

Ireland has a reputation for the production of steer beef and this is a key element of the marketing of Irish beef globally. Production systems for finishing male progeny as steers have been described above and elsewhere in this booklet (Pages 24 and 204) and these systems predominate within the beef sector. Nevertheless, there continues to be an interest in finishing male cattle as bulls to capture the natural growth and production efficiency benefits that derive from bulls when compared to steers. The beef processing industry have established guidelines for the production of young bulls and, in general, animals must be under-16-months of age at slaughter to be eligible for bonus payments on the Quality Payment Scheme (QPS; a scheme whereby farmers receive a premium above the quoted price where conformation is greater than R-grade). However, there is still some interest in producing bulls that are somewhat older (circa 18-months of age) in order to avail of a partial second grazing season before housing and finishing in late summer/early autumn.22

Finishing bulls at under-16-months of age reduced the proportion of forage in the diet and, at current prices and under the conditions assumed in this analysis, increased production costs and reduced profitability when compared to bulls slaughtered at 18 months of age or steers slaughtered at 21-months of age (Table 4). Offering bulls a period at grass in the ‘second’ grazing season increased margin per head, and was greater than all systems assessed. It is important to note, however, that these systems do not conform to the current industry specification for payment on the QPS and are potentially discounted at sale. In the case of this system, and bulls in general, a contract for sale is strongly advised. Given the low forage demand for bull systems relative to the steer beef systems presented above, these systems would typically operate alongside another systems so that the farm overall makes optimal use of grazed pasture. The low forage demand for bull systems is due to the early slaughter age and the importation of concentrate feed (approximately 1.1 t DM fed per head for both bull systems), which reduces the constraining factor of land for producing forage. This has implications for facilities and labour, both of which are often limiting factors on beef farms.

A further consideration is the ‘starting’ weight of weanlings for bull beef systems, particularly where the objective is to finish at under-16 months of age. In this analysis, bull weanlings commenced at 330 kg live weight to permit a balanced comparison with the previous weanling-to-steer scenarios; clearly a starting weight of greater than this is desirable, particularly for under-16-month bull systems, to obtain a greater carcass weight. This has implications for purchase price or, in integrated calf-to-beef systems, dam and sire genetics and creep feeding in the pre- and post-weaning periods.

Table 4. Effect of finishing male progeny as bulls compared to steers in suckler weanling-to-beef systems on diet composition, financial performance and GHG emissions intensity

Dairy calf-to-beef systems

The expansion of the dairy cow herd has given rise to a greater availability of dairy-origin calves for beef production. Production systems are broadly similar to those which pertain for suckler progeny with finishing taking place at the end of the second grazing (18 to 21-months of age), during or towards the end of the second winter (21 to 25-months of age), and during the third grazing season (25 to 29-months of age). Indeed, the earlier average calving date for the Irish dairy herd and greater use of early-maturing sires increases the opportunity for finishing before the second winter for dairy calf-to-beef systems.

In the analysis presented here (Table 5), we assume February-born early-maturing (Aberdeen Angus) beef × dairy calves were purchased at two weeks of age and finished as steers at the end of the ‘second’ grazing season (20-months of age), during the ‘second’ winter (22- and 24-months of age) and during the ‘third’ grazing season (26-months of age). Profitability was greatest for early slaughter age systems, with the 20-month slaughter system most profitable overall. This early slaughter system benefited from a higher number of animals carried and relatively low production costs. Similar to the suckler systems, the impact of beef price has a considerable impact on net margin per hectare. The effect of early slaughter age reducing GHG emissions per kg beef carcass was also evident.

Table 5. Summary of the performance, profitability and greenhouse emissions for dairy calf-to-beef steer systems based on a 40-ha farm at prevailing prices1

1Price assumptions as per Table 2; calf price €180 per head.

Conclusion

There are a number of factors which determine the production system operated on beef farms in Ireland. In particular, the part-time nature of Irish beef farming and, therefore, availability of labour can be a major constraint. Furthermore, beef farms are predominantly on more ‘marginal’ land with a greater number on Soil Type 3 (categorized as having more limited uses) when compared to other farm enterprises. A further constraining factor is availability of housing facilities; low farm incomes mitigate against investment and beef farms often operate using housing facilities that are fully depreciated. These factors have a key impact on stocking rates which in turn is an important determinant of profitability. The sharp rise in production costs is evident and, overall, the levels of profitability presented in this analysis is highly contingent on the assumed beef and weanling price.

The environmental performance of beef cattle production is under increasing scrutiny with GHG emissions of particular interest. The analysis presented here showed that the emissions from dairy calf-to-beef systems was lower than suckler systems and that age at slaughter has a large impact on emissions.

Paul Crosson, Mark McGee and Pearse Kelly

Teagasc, Grange Animal & Grassland Research and Innovation Centre, Dunsany, Co. Meath