Table 10.

Economic effects of implant use at low, medium and high levels of performance enhancement compared to no implants in Brazilian beef systems—revenue, costs, margin, return on investment and productivity per kg of HCW beef

	No implants (NI)		Low (LI)		Medium (MI)		High (HI)
	Cow-calf	Finishing	Cow-calf	Finishing	Cow-calf	Finishing	Cow-calf	Finishing
Mato Grosso
Revenuea	1.61	1.98	1.50	2.04	1.46	2.06	1.45	2.08
Cash costa	0.46	1.29	0.43	1.17	0.41	1.12	0.40	1.06
Cash cost + depreciationa	0.71	1.39	0.65	1.25	0.63	1.20	0.61	1.14
Gross margina	1.15	0.70	1.07	0.87	1.05	0.95	1.05	1.02
Net margina	0.90	0.60	0.85	0.79	0.83	0.87	0.84	0.95
Return on real investmentb	3.48	1.54	3.51	1.75	3.54	1.85	3.61	1.96
Return on real investmentc	2.26	1.43	2.30	1.63	2.33	1.72	2.37	1.83
Mato Grosso do Sul
Revenuea	1.41	2.12	1.28	2.23	1.29	2.28	1.20	2.31
Cash costa	0.40	1.80	0.36	1.73	0.36	1.70	0.33	1.66
Cash cost + depreciationa	0.72	2.19	0.65	2.10	0.65	2.06	0.60	2.02
Gross margina	1.02	0.32	0.92	0.49	0.93	0.58	0.86	0.65
Net margina	0.69	-0.07	0.63	0.13	0.64	0.22	0.60	0.30
Return on real investmentb	3.56	1.18	3.55	1.28	3.58	1.34	3.60	1.39
Return on real investmentc	1.97	0.97	1.98	1.06	1.99	1.11	2.00	1.15
Goias	Feedlot		Feedlot		Feedlot		Feedlot
Revenuea	4.85		4.99		5.05		5.11
Cash costa	4.87		4.27		4.05		3.85
Cash cost + depreciationa	4.98		4.37		4.14		3.94
Gross margina	-0.02		0.72		1.00		1.26
Net margina	-0.13		0.62		0.91		1.17
Return on real investmentb	1.00		1.17		1.25		1.33
Return on real investmentc	0.97		1.14		1.22		1.30

^a US$ per kg HCW beef.

^b Revenue/cash cost.

^c Revenue/(cash cost + depreciation).