TITLE

Kars ve Erzurum İlleri Entansif Sığır Besi İşletmelerinin Ekonomik Analizi

AUTHOR(S)
AYDIN, Erol; SAKARYA, Engin
PUB. DATE
November 2012
SOURCE
Kafkas Universitesi Veteriner Fakultesi Dergisi;2012, Vol. 18 Issue 6, p997
SOURCE TYPE
Academic Journal
DOC. TYPE
Article
ABSTRACT
This study was conducted for the purpose of determining the resource utilization effectiveness of intensive cattle fattening enterprises in the provinces of Kars and Erzurum and determining the profitability and productivity of these enterprises. The material of the study consists of data obtained in the year 2009 and year 2010 fattening periods from intensive cattle fattening enterprises in the provinces of Kars and Erzurum through the face-to-face questionnaire method and data pertaining to the TAR-ET project of the Meat and Fish Institution Erzurum Meat Combine. The data was analyzed through the utilization of the Microsoft Excel and SPSS 12.0 programs. Productivity analyses have been evaluated with the Cobb-Douglas type production function and profitability analyses have been evaluated through profitability rations. In a total of 143 intensive cattle fattening enterprises examined under the scope of the study, the established capacity was determined as 7554 head, capacity utilization rate as 60.2±3.48%, average enterprise size as 31.8±2.06 head, fattening initiation LW as 200.7±2.44 kg, fattening finalization LW as 454.8±5.31 kg, daily LWI as 1123±9.55 g, fattening period as 225.8±3.05 days, feed consumption in terms of dry substances for 1 kg in LWI as 8.981±0.10 kg, warm carcass weight as 258.7±3.42 kg, and carcass productivity as 61.7±0.16%. In all of the enterprises, within the overall total of costs the share of fattening costs have been determined respectively as 50.56%, feed costs as 27.33%, labor costs as 11.08%, veterinary health expenditure as 1.23%, maintenance repair expenditure as 1.24%, other expenditure as 6.07% and 1 kg carcass cost has been determined as 12.29 TL ($8.09), 1 kg LWI cost as 5.84 TL ($3.84), 1 kg LW cost as 6.99 TL ($4.60), financial profitability as 11.26%, economic profitability as 10.36%, profitability factor as 9.65%, partial feed technical productivity as 0.117 kg carcass, partial labor technical productivity as 23.47 kg/day carcass, and output/input rate as 1.11. Within the scope of the study, according to the Cobb-Douglas production function, the productivity of the scale has been determined as 0.956 and the determination coefficient has been determined as 0.97. For all of the enterprises, the calculated MVP values are 0.5558 TL for fattening material, 2.9090 TL for feed, -1.0459 TL for labor, 6.9290 TL for veterinary health expenditure, and 0.9546 TL for other cost elements.
ACCESSION #
83415507

 

Related Articles

  • High input prices indicate the need to work on business. DAVIS, WALT // Nebraska Farmer;Feb2014, Vol. 156 Issue 2, pBP7 

    In this article, the author discusses the economic aspects of agricultural production by referring to cattle business in the U.S. Topics discussed include aspects of agricultural economists in managing financial factors associated with agricultural productivity, impact of additional feed and...

  • Is there any good news? Corah, Larry // High Plains Journal;11/21/2016, Vol. 134 Issue 47, p19B 

    The article reports on the good news behind the slow growth of the fed cattle in the market such as the potential impact of forage production to the adequate feed supplies, the lower production costs for weak grain market and the strong demand of beef.

  • Animals eat veggies, too. Smothers, Pamela // Child Life;Oct/Nov96, Vol. 75 Issue 7, p24 

    Presents information on the meals of several animals. Diet supplements; Health aspects; Fruits.

  • Determining winter hay needs: How much is enough? Scharabok, Ken // Countryside & Small Stock Journal;Nov/Dec94, Vol. 78 Issue 6, p63 

    Presents guidelines on determining how much hay livestock need during winter. Approximate pounds of hay per animal per day; Ruminants' consumption of body weight; Stall feeding with no access to pasture; Variables in the hay; Recommendation for extra hay supply in case of emergency.

  • Feeding our way to a shortage.  // Farmers Weekly;1/14/2011, Vol. 154 Issue 2, p48 

    This article features the experience of farmers in feeding livestock in Northumberland, England.

  • Early dent to forage stock.  // Farmers Weekly;1/14/2011, Vol. 154 Issue 2, p48 

    This article features the experience of livestock farmers in foraging stock in Devon, England.

  • Time for smarter feeding strategies. MILLER, ZEN // Wisconsin Agriculturist;Jul2011, Vol. 242 Issue 7, p22 

    The article offers tips on how to achieve smart feed strategies in Wisconsin including avoiding wastage, checking on inventories and comparing prices of items.

  • Pasture management: Winter feeding. Scharabok, Ken // Countryside & Small Stock Journal;Jan/Feb93, Vol. 77 Issue 1, p64 

    Prescribes economical ways of winter hay feeding for livestock. Purchase from direct producers and storage of hay over buying in retail; Ration of standing hay with nutrient supplements; Feed banking; Winter annual seeding in warm-season forage; Double cropping on cropland; Gleaning of eared...

  • Can I cure my dog of pulling on leash? Thornton, Gus W. // Animals;Nov/Dec93, Vol. 126 Issue 6, p31 

    Presents a question-and-answer advisory on animal care and feeding. Dog's habit of pulling on leash; Trimming a guinea pig's nails; Cats' ear mites; Regular feeding of dogs; Giardia parasite; Use of invisible fences; Polydactyl cats; Seizures from lead poisoning.

Share

Read the Article

Courtesy of THE LIBRARY OF VIRGINIA

Sorry, but this item is not currently available from your library.

Try another library?
Sign out of this library

Other Topics