Table 9.
Economic costs of Brazilian beef production per kg HCW beef conferred by implant use at low, medium or high levels of performance enhancement compared to a control (no implants) scenario
No implants (NI) | Low (LI) | Medium (MI) | High (HI) | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Cow-calf | Finishing | Cow-calf | Finishing | Cow-calf | Finishing | Cow-calf | Finishing | |
Mato Grosso | ||||||||
Administration | 0.05 | 0.02 | 0.04 | 0.02 | 0.04 | 0.02 | 0.04 | 0.02 |
Purchase of animals | 0.05 | 1.09 | 0.04 | 0.97 | 0.04 | 0.93 | 0.03 | 0.89 |
System maintenance | 0.02 | 0.01 | 0.02 | 0.01 | 0.02 | 0.01 | 0.02 | 0.01 |
Feed | 0.15 | 0.11 | 0.14 | 0.10 | 0.13 | 0.10 | 0.13 | 0.09 |
Fuel | 0.04 | 0.02 | 0.04 | 0.01 | 0.03 | 0.01 | 0.03 | 0.01 |
Labor | 0.14 | 0.03 | 0.13 | 0.03 | 0.12 | 0.03 | 0.12 | 0.03 |
Veterinary medicines | 0.02 | 0.01 | 0.01 | 0.01 | 0.01 | 0.01 | 0.01 | 0.01 |
Implantsa | - | - | 0.01 | 0.02 | 0.01 | 0.02 | 0.01 | 0.01 |
Mato Grosso do Sul | ||||||||
Administration | 0.05 | 0.10 | 0.04 | 0.09 | 0.04 | 0.09 | 0.04 | 0.09 |
Purchase of animals | 0.04 | 1.32 | 0.03 | 1.26 | 0.04 | 1.23 | 0.03 | 1.21 |
System maintenance | 0.04 | 0.02 | 0.04 | 0.02 | 0.04 | 0.02 | 0.03 | 0.02 |
Feed | 0.08 | 0.14 | 0.07 | 0.14 | 0.07 | 0.14 | 0.07 | 0.13 |
Fuel | 0.06 | 0.04 | 0.05 | 0.04 | 0.05 | 0.04 | 0.05 | 0.03 |
Labor | 0.11 | 0.16 | 0.10 | 0.15 | 0.10 | 0.15 | 0.09 | 0.15 |
Veterinary medicines | 0.02 | 0.01 | 0.02 | 0.01 | 0.02 | 0.01 | 0.02 | 0.01 |
Implantsa | - | - | 0.01 | 0.02 | 0.01 | 0.02 | 0.01 | 0.02 |
Goias | Feedlot | Feedlot | Feedlot | Feedlot | ||||
Administration | 0.04 | 0.03 | 0.03 | 0.03 | ||||
Purchase of animals | 3.41 | 3.03 | 2.89 | 2.76 | ||||
System maintenance | 0.02 | 0.02 | 0.01 | 0.01 | ||||
Feed | 1.30 | 1.10 | 1.02 | 0.95 | ||||
Fuel | 0.02 | 0.02 | 0.02 | 0.02 | ||||
Labor | 0.09 | 0.08 | 0.07 | 0.07 | ||||
Veterinary medicines | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | ||||
Implantsa | - | 0.01 | 0.01 | 0.01 |
a See Table 6 for implant costs per head.