UNTIL now there have been no population-based studies of the reproductive performance of commercial breeding herds in northern Australia, or of the major factors affecting performance in these herds.
But thanks to the CashCow project, producers now have information on commercially achievable levels of performance for the major beef breeding regions of northern Australia.
Even more importantly, CashCow will enable producers to focus management changes and investment on those factors that have been shown to be the highest contributors to herd reproductive outcomes.
The bona fides of this blueprint for better gross margins lie in the scope and methodology of the research.
The CashCow study was constructed to record the reproductive performance of more than 78,000 cows in 142 breeding mobs on 72 commercial beef cattle properties stretching from the Queensland/NSW border throughout Queensland, the top end of the Northern Territory, the Kimberley and into the Pilbara region.
Observations and data recording spanned three to four years from 2008 to 2011 under conditions and circumstances that many observers initially thought would prove an insurmountable barrier to the success of the project.
But succeed it did, with the publication of the final report in January 2014. Running to more than 300 pages, the report represents something of a challenge for the casual reader, so it was an enlightening to hear the work explained first-hand by project leader professor of livestock medicine in the School of Veterinary Science at the University of Queensland Michael McGowan, in Brisbane on Friday.
Professor McGowan explained the project sought answers to two fundamental questions: Why do some cows conceive readily after calving, while others take much longer; and why do some cows which are confirmed pregnant, subsequently wean a calf, while others do not?
As the study progressed, it took a more holistic approach to consider the wider question of: How is a breeding herd performing in relation to what is practicably achievable in this environment?
To answer this question, key performance indicators (KPIs) were generated and project members developed a tool that enabled good estimates of KPIs to be generated from on-property records.
Geoff Fordyce, fellow CashCow lead researcher, coined the term BRICK (Beef – Rough Indication Calculator of KPIs).
Rather than a rough indicator, Professor McGowan said that, in fact, it turned out to be a pretty good indicator.
Critically, it provided cost of production and perhaps the best KPI, operating margin.
And that ability to assess the prevailing situation of the beef breeding enterprise forms the recommended starting point for assessing the impact on whole-of-business gross margins or partial returns per cow in response to consideration of risk factors identified in the CashCow project.
Professor McGowan said the next step was to determine how much beef was produced from the beef breeding enterprise.
In the study, beef production from enrolled breeding mobs was calculated using three different measures: weaner production, annual net liveweight production per (retained) cow, and annual net liveweight production/average liveweight of cattle in the paddock over a cattle year.
Weaner production is an easily derived measure and it was shown to be a useful indicator of annual liveweight production from breeding mobs.
“This is the first time we actually have measures of what is a typical level of beef production from beef breeding enterprises and importantly what is commercially achievable,” Professor McGowan said.
“Another very important finding from CashCow is that we were able to demonstrate that there is a strong relationship between measures of beef production from the breeding enterprise and annual steer growth.”
The next step was how to achieve a higher level of beef production and with reproductive performance one of the key drivers of beef production, this brought us to the heart of the CashCow findings.
The measures used to define the performance of the CashCow mobs were percentage pregnant within four months of calving (P4M), annual pregnancy rate, percentage foetal/calf loss, and annual percentage of pregnant cows missing (an estimate of mortality rate).
For each measure of performance, the impact of about 83 selected management, environmental, nutritional, and infectious disease factors was assessed.
In presenting this information, the study proposed that for each factor, the relevant value of either the 75th or 25th percentile mob or cow be regarded as the commercially achievable level of performance.
The percentile value is simply the level below which the nominated percentage of observations occurs.
To put that into perspective, the study found the 75th percentile value for P4M in Northern Forest country was 47pc, whereas the existing median or mid-range value was a low 26pc.
Therefore, the study suggested that 47pc was a commercially achievable target representing a lot of scope for improvement to bring the median value (26pc) up closer to that level.
The major factors affecting performance of the CashCow mobs and the predicted impact of each on performance are prominently listed in the report which can be found on the MLA website.
In summing up, Professor McGowan acknowledged the support of the late John Cox in setting up the project and the work of contributing veterinarian the late Alastair Henderson. He concluded that this project would not have occurred without the enormous commitment and input from a wide range of people, in particular the CashCow project team, producers, cattle veterinarians plus the wide ranging support of government and non-government
institutions.