Research Article

Costs analysis of feed production and fattening of beef cattle on the example of a selected individual farm

Hubert Piszcz, Sławomir Piotrowski, Anna Milczarek  

Institute of Animal Science and Fisheries, Siedlce University of Natural Sciences and Humanities, B. Prusa 14, 08-110 Siedlce, Poland

Abstract. The paper analyses the costs of production of roughage and nutritive fodder and fattening HF and Limousine crossbreds of feeder cattle. The costs of growing fodder for feeder cattle were calculated per one hectare. The cost of producing one tonne of feed was determined based on the farm’s mean crop yield. The calculation included the cost of maintenance, including the cost of feeding 14 animals over 22 months. The animals were kept untethered in stalls with deep litter from the body weight of 36.86 kg to 812.14 kg on the selling date. The feeder cattle were fed according to the nutritional recommendations, and their feed rations were based on feedstock produced on the farm, except post-extraction meals and the mineral and vitamin mix Dolfos BO. It was demonstrated that the cost of producing one tonne of roughage ranged from PLN 66.98 (maize silage) to PLN 265.98 (hay), while that of grain oscillated from PLN 261.22 (rye) to approximately PLN 371 (oats and wheat). It was found that maize silage generated the highest cost in feeder cattle feeding. This fact should be associated with its largest share in feed rations, which as a result corresponded to nearly 5.5 tonnes per animal. As regards nutritive fodder, the highest cost was generated by nutritive fodder 2, which was also linked to its amount per animal. Throughout the fattening period, each animal consumed more than 10 tonnes of feed and its cost could be estimated at PLN 27,939.53. To sum up, the farm received PLN 1,616.75 of income from breeding one animal.

Keywords: beef cattle, rations, costs

INTRODUCTION

Production of beef in Poland is continuously increasing. According to data from Statistics Poland, 4,698.8 thousand tonnes of slaughter cattle were produced in 2005, and in 2019 this figure was already 7,107.3 thousand tonnes. The produced beef mostly derives from dairy breeds, but a considerable part of the population of these cows are inseminated by beef breed bulls. A small yet increasing number of feeder animals are cattle of the utility beef type [Litwińczuk and Grodzki 2014Litwińczuk, Z., Grodzki, H. (2014). Stan hodowli i chowu bydła w Polsce oraz czynniki warunkujące rozwój tego sektora [The state of cattle breeding and farming in Poland and the factors determining the development of this sector]. Przeg. Hod., 6, 1–5 [in Polish]. Google Scholar]. Nogalski and Wroński [2011]Nogalski, Z., Wroński, M. (2011). Doskonalenie technologii opasu bydła [Improving cattle fattening technology]. Przeg. Hod., 4, 17–20 [in Polish]. Google Scholar claim that slaughter cattle breeding is an alternative to dairy farms. This mainly refers to farms that have a large surface area of grassland or wasteland and livestock buildings but do not want to or can’t produce milk.

Profitability of slaughter cattle breeding depends on many factors, including balanced and efficient nutrition as feed has an impact on both weight gain and health and welfare of animals [Bilik et al. 2009Bilik, K., Węglarzy, K., Choroszy, Z. (2009). Wpływ intensywności żywienia buhajków rasy limousine na wskaźniki produkcyjne i właściwości dietetyczne mięsa [Effect of feeding intensity of Limousin bulls on production parameters and dietetic properties of meat]. Rocz. Nauk. Zootech., 36(1), 63–73 [in Polish]. Google Scholar, Bilik and Strzetelski 2014Bilik, K., Strzetelski, J., (2014). Żywienie bydła mięsnego w warunkach chowu ekologicznego [Feeding beef cattle in an organic production system in the context of research conducted at the national research institute of animal production]. Wiad. Zootech., 3, 23–44 [in Polish]. Google Scholar, Sablik et al. 2017Sablik, P., Szewczuk, M., Januś, E., Błaszczyk, P., Rudzińska, M. (2017). Profitability analysis of Limousin cattle organic farming compared to the conventional cattle management system. Acta Sci. Pol. Zootechnica, 16(4), 57–62. https://doi.org/10.21005/asp.2017.16.4.09, Skarżyńska 2017Skarżyńska, A. (2017). Produkcja wołowiny w Polsce oraz czynniki determinujące jej opłacalność [Beef production and determinants its profitability in Poland]. Roczniki Naukowe Ekonomii Rolnictwa i rozwoju obszarów wiejskich, 104(4), 112–124 [in Polish]. https://doi.org/10.22630/RNR.2017.104.4.36, Park et al. 2018Park, S.J, Beak, S.-H., Jung, D.J.S., Kim, S.Y., Jeong, I.H., Piao, M.Y., Kang, H.J., Fassah, D.M., Na, S.W., Yoo, S.P., Baik, M. (2018). Genetic, management, and nutritional factors affecting intramuscular fat deposition in beef cattle – A review. Asian-Australas. J. Anim. Sci., 31(7), 1043–1061. https://doi.org/10.5713/ajas.18.0310, Mwangi et al. 2019Mwangi, F.W., Charmley, E., Gardiner, C.P., Malau-Aduli, B.S., Kinobe, R.T., Malau-Aduli, A.E.O. (2019). Diet and Genetics Influence Beef Cattle Performance and Meat Quality Characteristics. Foods, 8(12), 648. https://doi.org/10.3390/foods8120648]. It is estimated that expenditure on feeding accounts for about 60–70% of the costs of animal production. Many researchers [Juszczyk and Rekojarski 2007Juszczyk, S., Rekojarski, M. (2007). Koszty bezpośrednie pasz łąkowo-pastwiskowych w gospodarstwach mlecznych województwa Łódzkiego. Roczniki Nauk Rolniczych, Seria G, 94(1), 35–45 [in Polish]. Google Scholar, Bilik and Strzetelski 2014Bilik, K., Strzetelski, J., (2014). Żywienie bydła mięsnego w warunkach chowu ekologicznego [Feeding beef cattle in an organic production system in the context of research conducted at the national research institute of animal production]. Wiad. Zootech., 3, 23–44 [in Polish]. Google Scholar, Radkowski and Radkowska 2015Radkowski, A., Radkowska, I. (2015). Przyrosty masy ciała bydła mięsnego rasy Limousine w zależności od udziału koniczyny białej (Trifolium repens L.) w runi pastwiskowej [Body weight gains of Limousin beef cattle depending on the proportion of white clover (Trifolium repens L.) in pasture sward]. Wiad. Zootech., 53(4), 3–9 [in Polish]. Google Scholar, Park et al. 2018Park, S.J, Beak, S.-H., Jung, D.J.S., Kim, S.Y., Jeong, I.H., Piao, M.Y., Kang, H.J., Fassah, D.M., Na, S.W., Yoo, S.P., Baik, M. (2018). Genetic, management, and nutritional factors affecting intramuscular fat deposition in beef cattle – A review. Asian-Australas. J. Anim. Sci., 31(7), 1043–1061. https://doi.org/10.5713/ajas.18.0310] claim that feeding systems used in slaughter cattle production should be primarily low-cost. Therefore, feeding should be based on natural forage and roughage with a minimised share of nutritive fodder. This is possible due to the fact that cattle are ruminants, meaning that their digestive system, in addition to the true stomach – the abomasum, is composed of three other compartments – the rumen, reticulum, and omasum. These three additional compartments contain bacteria and protozoans living in symbiosis and facilitate the conversion of nutrients from fibrous feeds. Nutrients supplied with feed should provide maintenance of vital functions (basic life needs), energy for physical activity, growth of the animal, and maintenance of proper health and welfare of animals [Litwińczuk et al. 2013Litwińczuk, Z., Żółkiewski, P., Chabuz, W., Florek, M. (2013). Przyrosty dobowe i wartość rzeźna buhajków opasanych paszami z trwałych użytków zielonych i kiszonką z kukurydzy z uwzględnieniem wartości pokarmowej skarmianych pasz [Daily weight gain and slaughter value of young bulls fattened on fodders from permanent grassland and maize silage, taking into account the nutritional value of the fodder]. Rocz. Nauk. PTZ, 9(4), 27–35. [in Polish]. Google Scholar, Gołębiewski 2016Gołębiewski, M. (2016). Zalecenia dotyczące doboru cieląt oraz prowadzenia opasu [Recommendations for calf selection and fattening management]. Centrum Doradztwa Rolniczego w Brwinowie Oddział w Poznaniu. [in Polish]. https://cdr.gov.pl/images/wydawnictwa/2016/2016-ZALECENIA-DOTYCZACE-DOBORU-CIELAT-ORAZ-PROWADZENIA-OPASU.pdf Google Scholar]. Bilik and Strzetelski [2014]Bilik, K., Strzetelski, J., (2014). Żywienie bydła mięsnego w warunkach chowu ekologicznego [Feeding beef cattle in an organic production system in the context of research conducted at the national research institute of animal production]. Wiad. Zootech., 3, 23–44 [in Polish]. Google Scholar claim that roughage and agri-food semi-finished products can considerably reduce rearing costs without any negative impact on the amount of supplied nutrients. Such a feeding system improves animal breeding profitability given the increasing costs of production and decreasing animal selling prices. In turn, Barszczewski et al. [2017]Barszczewski, J., Wróbel, B., Balcerak, M. (2017). The efficiency of feeding beef cattle using silage of various content of leguminous plants. Journal of Research and Applications in Agricultural Engineering, 62(3)1, 21–25. Google Scholar demonstrated that feeding efficiency can be improved when grass silage with legumes is added to the feed ration. In turn, Sakowski et al. [2001]Sakowski, T., Dasiewicz, K., Słowiński, M., Oprządek, J., Dymnicki, E., Wiśnioch, A., Słoniewski, K. (2001). Jakość mięsa buhajków ras mięsnych [Quality of meat of beef breeds bulls]. Med. Wet., 57(10), 748–752 [in Polish]. Google Scholar, Nogalski and Kijak [2001]Nogalski, Z., Kijak, Z. (2001). Fattening performance and slaughter value of the offspring of Black and White cows and Welsh Black bulls. Czech J. Anim. Sci., 46(2), 68–73. Google Scholar and McNamee et al. [2015]McNamee, A., Keane, M.G., Kenny, D.A., Moloney, A.P., Buckley, F., O'Riordan, E.G. (2015). Beef production from Holstein-Friesian, Norwegian Red x Holstein-Friesian and Jersey x Holstein-Friesian male cattle reared as bulls or steers. Livest. Sci., 173, 95–105. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.livsci.2014.12.009 found that beef breeds and their hybrids show the best production performance, which is also reflected in satisfying the needs of consumers buying culinary beef sourced from such animals. Choroszy et al. [2009]Choroszy, B., Choroszy, Z., Topolski, P. (2009). Analiza składu tkankowego tusz buhajków rasy simentalskiej w zależności od uzyskanej klasy umięśnienia w systemie EUROP [Analysis of the tissue composition of Simmental bull carcasses according to EUROP muscling grade]. Rocz. Nauk. Zootech., 36(1), 17–23 [in Polish]. Google Scholar report that depending on the weight of five basic cuttings, the carcasses are subject to EUROP grid classification. The higher the class on this scale is, the higher the price of carcass and – as a result – breeding profitability. After slaughter we can accurately determine carcass weight. Knowing the weight of the carcass and the animal’s pre-slaughter body weight we can calculate the dressing percentage. The dressing percentage rate is closely linked to: breed, sex of the animal, nutrition, pre-slaughter transportation and pre-slaughter handling conditions [Młynek and Guliński 2007Młynek, K., Guliński, P. (2007). The effect of growth rate and at slaughter on dressing percentage and colour, pH48 and microstructure of longissimus dorsi muscle in Black-and White (BW) bulls vs commercial crossbreds of BW with beef breeds. Anim. Sci. Pap. Rep., 25(2), 65–71. Google Scholar, Albertí et al. 2008Albertí, P., Panea, B., Sañudo, C., Olleta, J.L., Ripoll, G., Ertbjerg, P., Christensen, M., Gigli, S., Failla S., Concetti, S., Hocquette, J.F., Jailler, R., Rudel, S., Renand, G., Nute, G.R., Richardson, R.I., Williams, J.L. (2008). Live weight, body size and carcass characteristics of young bulls of fifteen European breeds. Livestock Science, 114(1), 19–30. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.livsci.2007.04.010, Litwińczuk et al. 2013Litwińczuk, Z., Żółkiewski, P., Chabuz, W., Florek, M. (2013). Przyrosty dobowe i wartość rzeźna buhajków opasanych paszami z trwałych użytków zielonych i kiszonką z kukurydzy z uwzględnieniem wartości pokarmowej skarmianych pasz [Daily weight gain and slaughter value of young bulls fattened on fodders from permanent grassland and maize silage, taking into account the nutritional value of the fodder]. Rocz. Nauk. PTZ, 9(4), 27–35. [in Polish]. Google Scholar, Semenov et al. 2019Semenov, V., Baimukanov, D., Tyurin, V., Kuznetsov, A., Tsarevsky, I., Nikitin, D. Efimova, I. (2019). Features of adaptation and meat qualities of Aberdeen-Angus bulls on the background of immunostimulation. IOP Conf. Series: Earth and Environmental Science 433 (2020) 012024. https://doi.org/10.1088/1755-1315/433/1/012024].

Analysing the cost of production, except animal purchasing cost, Wilczyński [2018]Wilczyński, A. (2018). Wpływ systemu produkcji na koszty i dochód gospodarstw produkujących żywiec wołowy [Costs and income of beef farms in different production systems]. Folia Pomer. Univ. Technol. Stetin., Oeconomica, 347(93)4, 103–112 [in Polish]. https://doi.org/10.21005/oe2018.93.4.09 points out that costs in cash are lower (by 20%) on farms rearing slaughter cattle of beef breeds compared to farms feeding dairy cattle. In addition, surveys show that costs to the greatest extent (in more than 60%) affecting the cost of beef livestock production are the costs of feeding and machinery maintenance costs, so they should be specially examined by agricultural producers, since they may turn out to be the determinants of profitability of beef livestock production.

The paper aimed to analyse the cost of feed production and fattening beef cattle using the example of a selected private farm in the district of Siemiatycze in Podlaskie voivodeship.

Table 1. The farm machinery

Item

Purchase cost along with parts and service costs, PLN

Estimated working time

Labor cost, PLN

Labor time (min/ha)

Tractors:



1 h


New Holland T5.110 (107 kM)

300 000

10000 h

30.00

Ursus 5714 (80 kM)

150 000

10000 h

15.00

Ursus 3512 (47 kM)

100 000

10000 h

10.00

Machinery:



1 ha


Plow (Unia TUR)

30000

1000 ha

30.00

60

Grubber (Unia KOS S 2.1)

25000

1000 ha

25.00

45

Disc cultivator (Unia ARES T)

30000

1000 ha

30.00

30

Seeding machine 1(Agro Masz sr300)

40000

1000 ha

40.00

45

Seeding machine 2(Rauch MDS 17.1)

15000

2000 ha

7.50

30

Sprayer (Krukowiak Heros 800 HX)

60000

3000 ha

20.00

30

Rotary mower (Famarol Z-105/1)

15000

600 ha

25.00

90

Hay turner (Mesko Z-275)

15000

1000 ha

15.00

45

Hay rake (Kuhn GA 300 GM)

15000

1000 ha

15.00

45

Spike-tooth harrow (POM U 348/1)

10000

1000 ha

10.00

20

Volok (AGRO FACTORY U854/1)

5000

1000 ha

5.00

20

Combine harvester (Bizon Sampo 2020)

200000

20000

100.00

60

Wrapping machine (SIPMA TEKLA)*

7000

5000 pc.

21.00

60

Baling press (Metal-Fach Z-562)*

60000

10000 bales

90.00

45

Front loader (Hydrometal AT200)

20000

20 years

17 PLN/year/pc


Spreader (Gilibert Helix 8)

70000

20 years

58 PLN/year/pc


Trailer Autosan D-55 (6 t) – 2 pieces

60000

20 years

50 PLN/year/pc


* – calculation for 15 bales/ha.

Table 2. Composition (kg) of beef cattle rations

Age

Maize silage

Haylage

Meadow hay

Concentrated feed 1

Concentrated feed 2

CJ for
Calves

Cow milk

day 0 – 7

6

day 8 – 14

0.2

0.5

6

day 14 – 28

0.5

1

7

day 29 – 42

1

1.5

5

day 43 – month 3

1.5

2

month 3 – 6

2

3

month 6 – 9

3

2.5

3

month 9 – 12

6

4

3

month 12 – 14

10

6

3.5

month 14 – 18

14

7

4

month 18 – 22

20

10

5

Table 3. Composition (%) of concentrated feed

Item

Concentrated feed 1

Concentrated feed 2

Winter wheat

20

18

Oats

40

30

Winter triticale

18

20

Rye

10

Extracted rapeseed meal (min. 34% protein)

10

20

Extracted soybean meal (min. 46% protein)

10

Mineral and vitamin supplement Dolfos BO

2

2

Table 4. Total feed consumption of one fattening over the entire period

Age

Maize silage

Haylage

Meadow hay

Concentrated feed 1

Concentrated feed 2

CJ for
calves

Cow milk

day 0 – 7

42

day 8 – 14

1.4

3.5

42

day 14 – 28

7

14

98

day 29 – 42

14

21

70

day 43 – month 3

72

96

month 3 – 6

180

270

month 6 – 9

270

225

270

month 9 – 12

540

360

270

month 12 – 14

600

360

210

month 14 – 18

1680

840

480

month 18 – 22

2400

1200

600

Total

5490

2760

499.4

636

1560

38.5

252

Table 5. Costs of growing 1 hectare of maize, including storage

Treatment or activity

Cost type

Cost, PLN

Post-harvest work with sowing aftercrops

Fuel 10l

42.80

Lupin seeds 100 kg

200.00

Ursus 5714 (80 kM)

7.50

Seeding machine 2

7.50

New Holland T5.110 (107 kM)

15.00

Disc cultivator

30.00

Work

25.00

Winter plowing

Fuel 15 l

64.20

New Holland T5.110 (107 kM)

30.00

Plow

30.00

Work

25.00

Harrowing

Fuel 5 l

21.40

Ursus 3512 (47 kM)

3.33

Harrow

10.00

Work

8.33

Fertilization with manure1, 2 (30 t per ha)

Fuel 25 l

107.00

New Holland T5.110 (107 kM)

30.00

Ursus 5714 (80 kM)

15.00

Work

50.00

Mineral fertilization (twice)

Fuel 8 l

34.24

Fertilizer "Urea" 200kg

264.00

Fertilizer "potassium salt" 200 kg

276.00

Ursus 5714 (80 kM)

15.00

Seeding machine 2

15.00

Work

25.00

Pre-sowing cultivation

Fuel 12 l

51.36

New Holland T5.110 (107 kM)

15.00

Disc cultivator

30.00

Work

12.50

Sowing maize with fertilizer

Sowing service

130.00

Seeds

460.00

Fertilizer "Polidap" 200 kg

348.00

Weed control treatment

Fuel 5 l

21.40

Herbicides: "Zeagran 340 SE", "Ikanos 040 OD"

102.54

Ursus 5714 (80 kM)

7.50

Sprayer

20.00

Work

12.50

Harvesting with a forage harvester with transport and compaction

Harvest service

900.00

Cover with foil and protective nets2

Fuel 4l

17.12

Foil

184.10

Ursus 5714 (80 kM)

15.00

Work

25.00

Sum

3703.32

1 – the work of the front loader (Hydrometal AT20) mounted on the Ursus 5714 tractor is included in Table 10.
2 – the work of the spreader (Gilibert Helix 8) is included in Table 10.

Table 6. Production costs of haylage and hay from 1 ha of meadow when mowed three times

Treatment or activity

Haylage

Hay

Cost type

Cost, PLN

Cost type

Cost, PLN

Fertilization with chicken manure1, 2

Fuel 20 l

85.60

Fuel 20 l

85.60

Droppings

300.00

Droppings

300.00

New Holland T5.110 (107 kM)

30.00

New Holland T5.110 (107 kM)

30.00

Ursus 5714 (80 kM)

15.00

Ursus 5714 (80 kM)

15.00

Work

50.00

Work

50.00

Stringing

Fuel l

21.40

Fuel 5 l

21.40

Ursus 5714 (80 kM)

5.00

Ursus 5714 (80 kM)

5.00

Volok

5.00

Volok

5.00

Work

8.33

Work

8.33

Mineral fertilization

Fuel 4 l

17.12

Fuel 4 l

17.12

Fetilizer "Ultra 8" 200 kg

316.00

Fetilizer "Ultra 8" 200 kg

316.00

Ursus 5714 (80 kM)

7.50

Ursus 5714 (80 kM)

7.50

Seeding machine 2

7.50

Seeding machine 2

7.50

Work

12.50

Work

12.50

Mowing (set of 3 times)

Fuel 18 l

77.04

Fuel 18 l

77.04

Ursus 3512 (47 kM)

45.00

Ursus 3512 (47 kM)

45.00

Rotary mower

75.00

Rotary mower

75.00

Work

112.50

Work

112.50

Tedding (set of 3 times, 3 times each)

Fuel 10 l

42.80

Fuel 45 l

192.60

Ursus 3512 (47 kM)

22.50

Ursus 3512 (47 kM)

67.50

Hay turner

45.00

Hay turner

135.00

Work

56.25

Work

168.75

Raking (set of 3 times)

Fuel 12 l

51.36

Fuel 12 l

51.36

Ursus 3512 (47 kM)

22.50

Ursus 3512 (47 kM)

22.50

Hay rake

45.00

Hay rake

45.00

Work

56.25

Work

56.25

Baling (3 times)

Fuel 22 l

94.16

Fuel 18 l

77.04

Twine

81.60

Twine

64.00

New Holland T5.110 (107 kM)

67.50

New Holland T5.110 (107 kM)

67.50

Baling press

270.00

Baling press

240.00

Work

56.25

Work

56.25

Loading and transport (3 times)

Fuel 17 l

72.76

Fuel 14 l

59.92

Ursus 5714 (80 kM)

30.00

Ursus 5714 (80 kM)

30.00

Work

50.00

Work

50.00

Wrapping and setting (3 times)

Fuel 13 l

55.64



Foil

510.00



Ursus 3512

30.00



Wrapping machine

63.00



Work

75.00



Positioning in the warehouse (3 times)



Fuel 6 l

25.68

Ursus 5714

22.50

Work

37.50

Sum

2988.06


2659.84

1 – the work of the front loader (Hydrometal AT20) mounted on the Ursus 5714 tractor is included in Table 10.
2 – the work of the spreader (Gilibert Helix 8) is included in Table 10.

Table 7. The cultivation costs of 1 ha of winter wheat and winter triticale

Treatment or activity

Winter wheat

Winter triticale

Cost type

Cost, PLN

Cost type

Cost, PLN

Post-harvest work

Fuel 5 l

21.40

Fuel 5 l

21.40

New Holland T5.110 (107 kM)

15.00

New Holland T5.110 (107 kM)

15.00

Disc cultivator

30.00

Disc cultivator

30.00

Work

12.50

Work

12.50

Mineral fertilization

Fuel 4 l

17.12

Fuel 4 l

17.12

Fertilizer Ultra 8" 250 kg

395.00

Fertilizer "Ultra 8" 200 kg

316.00

Ursus 5714 (80 kM)

7.50

Ursus 5714 (80 kM)

7.50

Seeding machine 2

7.50

Seeding machine 2

7.50

Work

12.50

Work

12.50

Deep tillage

Fuel 12 l

51.36

Fuel 15 l

64.20

New Holland T5.110 (107 kM)

22.50

New Holland T5.110 (107 kM)

22.50

Grubber

25.00

Grubber

25.00

Work

18.75

Work

18.75

Soil dressing and sowing

Fuel 10 l

42.80

Fuel 10 l

42.80

Seed material

220.80

Seed material

286.00

New Holland T5.110 (107 kM)

15.00

New Holland T5.110 (107 kM)

15.00

Disc cultivator

30.00

Disc cultivator

30.00

Ursus 5714 (80 kM)

11.25

Ursus 5714 (80 kM)

11.25

Seeding machine 1

40.00

Seeding machine 1

40.00

Work

31.25

Work

31.25

Weed control treatment (autumn)

Fuel 5 l

21.40

Fuel l

21.40

Herbicyd "Expert Met 56 WG". "Legato 500 SC"

132.97

Herbicyd "Expert Met 56 WG", "Legato 500 SC"

132.97

Ursus 5714 (80 kM)

7.50

Ursus 5714 (80 kM)

7.50

Sprayer

20.00

Sprayer

20.00

Work

12.50

Work

12.50

Mineral fertilization (spring)

Fuel 8 l

34.24

Fuel 8 l

34.24

Fertilizer "Kiserit" 100 kg

130.00

Fertilizer "Kiserit" 80 kg

104.00

Fertilizer "ZakSan 33" 200 kg

204.00

Fertilizer "ZakSan 33" 180 kg

183.60

Ursus 5714 (80 kM)

7.50

Ursus 5714 (80 kM)

7.50

Seeding machine 2

15.00

Seeding machine 2

15.00

Work

12.50

Work

12.50

Fungicide protection and regulation of T1 and R1

Fuel 5 l

21.40

Fuel 5 l

21.40

Fungicide "Wirtuoz 520 EC"
Growth regulator"Moddus 250 EC"

219.76

Fungicide – Fungicyd "CINDO PLUS 50EW" "TARCZA ŁAN EXTRA"
Growth regulator "Moddus 250 EC"

208.00

Ursus 5714 (80 kM)

7.50

Ursus 5714 (80 kM)

7.50

Sprayer

20.00

Sprayer

20.00

Work

12.50

Work

12.50

Mineral fertilization

Fuel 4 l

17.12

Fuel 4 l

17.12

Fertilizer "ZakSan 33" 250 kg

255.00

Fertilizer "ZakSan 33" 200 kg

204.00

Ursus 5714 (80 kM)

7.50

Ursus 5714 (80 kM)

7.50

Seeding machine 2

7.50

Seeding machine 2

7.50

Work

12.50

Work

12.50

Fungicide protection T2

Fuel – Paliwo 5 l

21.40

Fuel – Paliwo 5 l

21.40

Fungicide "Praxior"

148.60

Fungicide "SYRIUS 250EW"

58.60

Ursus 5714 (80 kM)

7.50

Ursus 5714 (80 kM)

7.50

Sprayer

20.00

Sprayer

20.00

Work

12.50

Work

12.50

Grain harvesting and transport

Fuel 20 l

85.60

Fuel 18 l

77.04

Ursus 5714

15.00

Ursus 5714

15.00

Combine harvester

100.00

Combine harvester

100.00

Work

50.00

Work

50.00

Sum

2666.22


2457.54

Table 8. Costs of growing 1 ha of oats and rye

Treatment or activity

Oats

Rye

Cost type

Cost, PLN

Cost type

Cost, PLN

Fertilization with chicken
manure1, 2 10t



Fuel 20 l

85.60



Droppings

300.00



New Holland T5.110

30.00



Ursus 5714 (80 kM)

15.00



Work

50.00

Post-harvest work

Fuel 5 l

21.40


21.40

New Holland T5.110

15.00

New Holland T5.110

15.00

Disc cultivator

30.00

Disc cultivator

30.00

Work

12.50

Work

12.50

Tillage

Fuel 17 l

72.76

Fuel 12 l

51.36

New Holland T5.110

30.00

New Holland T5.110

30.00

Plow

30.00

Plow

30.00

Work

25.00

Work

25.00

Mineral fertilization

Fuel 8 l

34.24

Fuel 4 l

17.12

Fertilizer "Ultra 8" 200 kg

316.00

Fertilizer "Ultra 8" 150 kg

237.00

Fertilizer "Mocznik" 150 kg

198.00

Ursus 5714 (80 kM)

15.00

Ursus 5714 (80 kM)

7.50

Seeding machine 2

15.00

Seeding machine 2

7.50

Work

25.00

Work

12.50

Soil dressing and sowing

Fuel 10 l

42.80

Fuel 10 l

42.80

Seed material

120.00

Seed material

476.00

New Holland T5.110

15.00

New Holland T5.110

15.00

Disc cultivator

30.00

Disc cultivator

30.00

Ursus 5714 (80 kM)

7.50

Ursus 5714 (80 kM)

7.50

Seeding machine 1

40.00

Seeding machine 1

40.00

Work

31.25

Work

31.25

Herbicide

Fuel 5 l

21.40

Fuel 5 l

21.40

Herbicide "MUSTANG FORTE 195 SE"

53.60

Herbicide "LENTIPUR 500SC"

52.00

Ursus 5714 (80 kM)

7.50

Ursus 5714 (80 kM)

7.50

Sprayer

20.00

Sprayer

20.00

Work

12.50

Work

12.50

Regulation R1

Fuel 5 l

21.40

21.40

Growth regulator "Moddus 250 EC"

63.20

79.00

Ursus 5714 (80 kM)

7.50

Ursus 5714 (80 kM)

7.50

Sprayer

20.00

Sprayer

20.00

Work

12.50

Work

12.50

Grain harvesting and transport

Fuel 16 l

64.48

Fuel 18 l

77.04

Ursus 5714 (80 kM)

15.00

Ursus 5714 (80 kM)

15.00

Combine harvester

100.00

Combine harvester

100.00

Work

50.00

Work

50.00

Sum

1595.53

2115.87

1 – the work of the front loader (Hydrometal AT20) mounted on the Ursus 5714 tractor is included in Table 10.
2 – the work of the spreader (Gilibert Helix 8) is included in Table 10.

Table 9. The cost of the production of 1 t of concentrated feed 1 and 2

Item

Raw material cost

Concentrated feed 1

Concentrated feed 2

Amount, kg ·t–1

Cost, PLN

Amount, kg ·t–1

Cost, PLN

Raw materials






Winter wheat

370.31

200

72.67

180

65.40

Oats

346.13

400

144.47

300

108.35

Winter triticale

371.05

180

61.03

200

67.82

Rye

261.22

100

25.64

Extracted rapeseed meal (min. 34% protein)

1215.00

100

125.50

200

243.00

Extracted soybean meal (min. 46% protein)

1860.00

100

186.00

Mineral and vitamin supplement Dolfos BO

4750.00

20

95.00

20

95.00

Others

70.00

70.00

Total

1000

755.80

1000

678.83

Table 10. Costs of rearing 1 fattening for a period of 22 months

Item

Feed amount, t

Cost of 1 t of feed, PLN

Total, PLN

Feed costs

Maize silage

5.4900

66.98

361.90

Haylage

2.7600

97.65

260.38

Meadow hay

0.4994

265.98

116.46

Concentrated feed 1

0.6360

755.80

479.97

Concentrated feed 2

1.5600

678.83

1053.33

CJ for calves

0.0385

2000

77.00

Cow milk

0.2520

1400

352.80

Sum

11.2359

2739.53

Other costs

Straw

20 bales

25 PLN per bale

500.00

Veterinary care

100.00

Fuel costs for feeding and manure removal (40 l)

171.20

Electricity

52.00

Water

150.00

Cowshed depreciation

229.16

Trailer Autosan D-55 (6t) – 2 pieces

91.67

Front loader (Hydrometal AT200)

31.10

Spreader (Gilibert Helix 8)

106.30

Work with the handling of animals

550.00

Sum

1981.43

The sum of all costs

4720.96

Table 11. Economic account of the production of slaughter cattle on a farm

Item

Unit cost, PLN

Expenses, PLN

Revenues, PLN

Purchase of calves

650

9100

The cost of the feed

2739.53

38353.42

Other costs

1981.43

27740.02

Land tax

87.44

699.52


Subsidies to ha*




– area payment

483.79


3870.32

– for greening

323.85


2590.80

– additional payment

182.02


1456.16

– young farmer

256.62


2052.96

– ONW

179.00


1432.00

Disposable for slaughter cattle

326.76


4574.64

Sale of 1 kg of live cattle

7.8

82550.52

Total

75892.96

98527.40

Balance


+22634.44

*– the area (8 ha) necessary for the production of own fodder for 14 slaughter cattle was taken into account.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

The surveys were carried out on a private farm consisting of 60 ha of agricultural land, including 15 ha of grassland. All field work on the farm is carried out using the farmer's own equipment (Table 1), except sowing and harvesting maize.

We calculated the cost of growing one hectare of fodder (maize silage, grass silage, hay, wheat, triticale, oats and rye) fed to cattle. In calculating the cost of machinery, the purchasing cost was taken into account together with the cost of spare parts and maintenance services. During respective field works the consumption of fuel and average working time were measured. The cost of labour at respective stages of the survey was consistent with the current hourly rates.

The feeding analysis covered 14 animals that were HF and Limousine crossbreds. The calves – aged from three to seven days – were purchased from local farms in November 2018. The average buying price of the calves was 650 zloty per animal. The animals were kept in stalls with deep litter for 22 months from the body weight of 36.86 kg to 812.14 kg on the selling date. During the rearing period animals received feed rations prepared according to the Nutritional Recommendations for Ruminants and Tables of Nutritive Value of Feed [IZ PIB 2014IZ PIB (2014). Zalecenia Żywieniowe dla Przeżuwaczy i Tabele wartości pokarmowej pasz [Nutritional Recommendations for Ruminants and Tables of Nutritive Value of Feed]. (Eds) J.A. Strzetelski, F. Brzóska, Z.M. Kowalski, S. Osięgłowski. Instytut Zootechniki PIB [in Polish]. Google Scholar]. Feed fed to the cattle was almost completely produced on the farm. Basic feeds used in feed rations included: maize silage, grass silage with clover, pasture hay and two types of nutritive fodder (Table 2).

Until 6 weeks of age the calves received cow’s milk only (from cows kept on the farm) and CJ mix (purchased). The ingredients of nutritive fodder are listed in Table 3.

Based on the ingredients of feed rations and the duration of respective feeding periods the conversion of feed per animal was calculated for the whole feeding period (Table 4).

We calculated the costs of production of nutritive fodders for feeder cattle. The calculations were based on market prices of respective ingredients given on invoices for purchases made by the farm.

The cost of feeding was calculated based on the following costs of other feeds:

  1. average prices (based on invoices) of purchased feeds:

    • post-extraction rapeseed meal, PLN 1215 · t–1,
    • post-extraction soybean meal, PLN 1860 · t–1,
    • mineral and vitamin mix Dolfos Dolmix BO, PLN 4750 · t–1,
    • CJ mix for calves, PLN 2000 · t–1,
  2. average prices of other feeds produced on the farm:

    • cow's milk, PLN 1400 · t–1,
    • straw, PLN 25 per bale.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Tables 5–8 show the calculation of growing one tonne of roughage (maize silage, grass silage and hay) and cereal grains (wheat, triticale, rye and oats) for feeder cattle. The costs of production of Fabrikant and Robletto maize silage with winter wheat as the preceding crop are presented in Table 5.

The average yield of maize silage per hectare was 57 tonnes. Assuming 3% losses in storage, the amount of feed was 55.29 tonnes, hence the cost of producing one tonne of maize silage was PLN 66.98.

Grass silage and hay were prepared from meadow grass (grass with clover). To reduce the cost of fertilization chicken manure was used in the amount of 10 t · ha–1, supplemented with mineral fertilizers (Table 6).

The average yield of grass silage harvested three times a year is 51 bales weighing about 600 kg, which corresponds to 30.6 t · ha–1, thus the cost of producing 1 tonne of grass silage was PLN 97.65. On the other hand, the average yield of hay harvested three times a year is 40 bales weighing about 250 kg each, which corresponded to 10 t · ha–1, thus the cost of producing 1 tonne was PLN 265.98. The cost of producing both types of feed included three-time mowing. According to the Statistics Poland [2020]Statistics Poland (2020). Statistical Yearbook of Agriculture. Warsaw 2020. Google Scholar hay yield per hectare of a meadow or pasture is more than half lower.

Winter wheat was sown after winter rape in a no-tillage system to reduce the cost and loss of water (Table 7). Qualified sowing material of the Delawar variety was used – the sowing standard was 320 grains · m–2 at the optimum time. Qualified winter triticale of the Dinaro variety was sown after maize harvested for silage in the standard amount of 300 grains · m–2 at the optimum time.

The average yield of winter wheat in 2020 was 7.2 t · ha–1, so the cost of producing one tonne of grain amounted to PLN 370.31. On the other hand, the average yield of winter triticale was 7.1 t · ha–1, which resulted in the cost of producing one tonne of grain amounting to PLN 346.13.

Barley of Bingo variety was sown after winter rye in the standard amount of 400 plants per square metre using seeds from own crops. On the other hand, winter rye of the hybrid variety Helltop was sown after barley in the amount of two sowing units per hectare, with a slight delay. Table 8 presents the calculation of costs of barley and rye.

The average yield of barley in 2020 amounted to 4.3 tonnes per hectare, hence the cost of producing one tonne of grain was PLN 371.05. In turn, the average yield of winter rye was 8.1 tonne per hectare, so the cost of producing one tonne of grain equalled PLN 261.22. The farm’s actual grain yield was higher than indicated in the Statistical Yearbook of Agriculture (2020). The mean wheat yield was higher by 2.81 t · ha–1, and for triticale by 3.61 t · ha–1, for rye by 5.38 t · ha–1, and for oats by 2.06 t · ha–1.

The costs of nutritive fodders 1 and 2 were determined based on the calculation of costs for their respective components (Table 9).

The introduction of rye and elimination of soybean meal from nutritive fodder 2 reduced its cost by PLN 76.97 · t–1.

The costs of rearing one animal were determined based on the calculation of respective feeds used in feed rations (Table 10).

The cost of feed per animal amounted to PLN 2,793.53, which as the cost of producing 100 kg of livestock was nearly by half that indicated by Szumiec [2014]Szumiec, A. (2014). Efektywność ekologicznego chowu bydła mięsnego [Efficiency of organic beef farming]. Wiad. Zootech., 52(3), 73–81 [in Polish]. Google Scholar. This fact should be associated with the rearing efficiency measured with the rate of feed conversion per 100 kg of weight gain in livestock. The feeder animals converted about 10 dt of maize silage and grass and clover silage and about 2.7 dt of nutritive fodder (1 and 2) per 100 kg of body weight. Skarżyńska [2017]Skarżyńska, A. (2017). Produkcja wołowiny w Polsce oraz czynniki determinujące jej opłacalność [Beef production and determinants its profitability in Poland]. Roczniki Naukowe Ekonomii Rolnictwa i rozwoju obszarów wiejskich, 104(4), 112–124 [in Polish]. https://doi.org/10.22630/RNR.2017.104.4.36 reports that on the best farms the conversion of nutritive fodder and silage (including grass silage) per 100 kg of weight gain is – respectively – 1.98 dt and 8.81 dt, and on the weakest ones – 3.94 dt and 14.3 dt. Ryschawy et al. [2012]Ryschawy, J., Choisis, N., Choisis, J., Joannon, A., Gibon, A. (2012). Mixed crop-livestock systems: an economic and environmental-friendly way of farming? Animal 6(10), 1722–1730. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1751731112000675 and Wilczyński [2018]Wilczyński, A. (2018). Wpływ systemu produkcji na koszty i dochód gospodarstw produkujących żywiec wołowy [Costs and income of beef farms in different production systems]. Folia Pomer. Univ. Technol. Stetin., Oeconomica, 347(93)4, 103–112 [in Polish]. https://doi.org/10.21005/oe2018.93.4.09 confirm that the basic feedstock used in cattle fattening is maize silage, hay silage, and cereal grains supplemented with protein feeds. In addition, Wilczyński [2018]Wilczyński, A. (2018). Wpływ systemu produkcji na koszty i dochód gospodarstw produkujących żywiec wołowy [Costs and income of beef farms in different production systems]. Folia Pomer. Univ. Technol. Stetin., Oeconomica, 347(93)4, 103–112 [in Polish]. https://doi.org/10.21005/oe2018.93.4.09 underlines that, next to machinery maintenance costs, animal feeding is the factor having the largest impact on the production cost.

No animal died or was prematurely sold during the rearing period. All 14 animals were sold in September 2020 at a gross price of PLN 7.80 per kg of live weight (Table 11). The overall body weight of all animals amounted to 11,380 kg, which corresponded to 812.86 kg per animal. The live body weight was reduced by 7% accounting for the weight of feed and droppings that were still in the digestive tract, so the body weight adopted for calculation was 10,583.4 kg.

The farm generated 1,616.75 zloty of income from rearing one animal. The calculation takes into account all the expenses (purchase of animals, cost of feed, veterinary care, sowing material, fertilisers, pesticides, third-party services, fuel, water, electricity, own labour, depreciation of buildings and machinery, maintenance of land, and insurance) and revenues (direct payments, and breeding subsidies). Wilczyński [2018]Wilczyński, A. (2018). Wpływ systemu produkcji na koszty i dochód gospodarstw produkujących żywiec wołowy [Costs and income of beef farms in different production systems]. Folia Pomer. Univ. Technol. Stetin., Oeconomica, 347(93)4, 103–112 [in Polish]. https://doi.org/10.21005/oe2018.93.4.09 claims that revenue from the sales of beef cattle is to the largest extent determined by the cattle buying price. These results were corroborated by the results of the study carried out by Gaworski and Poletyło [2011]Gaworski, M., Poletyło, T. (2011). Ekonomiczno-technologiczna efektywność chowu bydła opasowego [Economic and technological efficiency of beef cattle raising]. Problemy Inżynierii Rolniczej, 2, 107–115 [in Polish]. Google Scholar who emphasize that beef cattle breeding and beef production is an activity with a slow capital turnover. However, ultimately, considering the assumptions concerning prices, production factors and beef prices, the balance is positive, which – in combination with the forecast of an increasing requirement for high-quality beef – is a promising trend for the future of beef production.

CONCLUSION

To sum up, it should be concluded that feeding cost is a major component (with a share of more than 60%) of the cattle fattening cost. Considering all the expenses and revenues, the farm earned about PLN 1,616.75 from rearing one animal (over 22 months) up to the body weight of 812 kg.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

This research was funded by the Ministry of Science and Higher Education of Poland (Project no. 116/20/B).

REFERENCES

  1. Albertí, P., Panea, B., Sañudo, C., Olleta, J.L., Ripoll, G., Ertbjerg, P., Christensen, M., Gigli, S., Failla S., Concetti, S., Hocquette, J.F., Jailler, R., Rudel, S., Renand, G., Nute, G.R., Richardson, R.I., Williams, J.L. (2008).
    Live weight, body size and carcass characteristics of young bulls of fifteen European breeds.
    Livestock Science, 114(1), 19–30.
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.livsci.2007.04.010
  2. Barszczewski, J., Wróbel, B., Balcerak, M. (2017).
    The efficiency of feeding beef cattle using silage of various content of leguminous plants.
    Journal of Research and Applications in Agricultural Engineering, 62(3)1, 21–25.
    Google Scholar
  3. Bilik, K., Strzetelski, J., (2014).
    Żywienie bydła mięsnego w warunkach chowu ekologicznego [Feeding beef cattle in an organic production system in the context of research conducted at the national research institute of animal production].
    Wiad. Zootech., 3, 23–44 [in Polish].
    Google Scholar
  4. Bilik, K., Węglarzy, K., Choroszy, Z. (2009).
    Wpływ intensywności żywienia buhajków rasy limousine na wskaźniki produkcyjne i właściwości dietetyczne mięsa [Effect of feeding intensity of Limousin bulls on production parameters and dietetic properties of meat].
    Rocz. Nauk. Zootech., 36(1), 63–73 [in Polish].
    Google Scholar
  5. Choroszy, B., Choroszy, Z., Topolski, P. (2009).
    Analiza składu tkankowego tusz buhajków rasy simentalskiej w zależności od uzyskanej klasy umięśnienia w systemie EUROP [Analysis of the tissue composition of Simmental bull carcasses according to EUROP muscling grade].
    Rocz. Nauk. Zootech., 36(1), 17–23 [in Polish].
    Google Scholar
  6. Gaworski, M., Poletyło, T. (2011).
    Ekonomiczno-technologiczna efektywność chowu bydła opasowego [Economic and technological efficiency of beef cattle raising].
    Problemy Inżynierii Rolniczej, 2, 107–115 [in Polish].
    Google Scholar
  7. Gołębiewski, M. (2016).
    Zalecenia dotyczące doboru cieląt oraz prowadzenia opasu [Recommendations for calf selection and fattening management].
    Centrum Doradztwa Rolniczego w Brwinowie Oddział w Poznaniu. [in Polish]. https://cdr.gov.pl/images/wydawnictwa/2016/2016-ZALECENIA-DOTYCZACE-DOBORU-CIELAT-ORAZ-PROWADZENIA-OPASU.pdf
    Google Scholar
  8. IZ PIB (2014).
    Zalecenia Żywieniowe dla Przeżuwaczy i Tabele wartości pokarmowej pasz [Nutritional Recommendations for Ruminants and Tables of Nutritive Value of Feed].
    (Eds) J.A. Strzetelski, F. Brzóska, Z.M. Kowalski, S. Osięgłowski. Instytut Zootechniki PIB [in Polish].
    Google Scholar
  9. Juszczyk, S., Rekojarski, M. (2007).
    Koszty bezpośrednie pasz łąkowo-pastwiskowych w gospodarstwach mlecznych województwa Łódzkiego.
    Roczniki Nauk Rolniczych, Seria G, 94(1), 35–45 [in Polish].
    Google Scholar
  10. Litwińczuk, Z., Grodzki, H. (2014).
    Stan hodowli i chowu bydła w Polsce oraz czynniki warunkujące rozwój tego sektora [The state of cattle breeding and farming in Poland and the factors determining the development of this sector].
    Przeg. Hod., 6, 1–5 [in Polish].
    Google Scholar
  11. Litwińczuk, Z., Żółkiewski, P., Chabuz, W., Florek, M. (2013).
    Przyrosty dobowe i wartość rzeźna buhajków opasanych paszami z trwałych użytków zielonych i kiszonką z kukurydzy z uwzględnieniem wartości pokarmowej skarmianych pasz [Daily weight gain and slaughter value of young bulls fattened on fodders from permanent grassland and maize silage, taking into account the nutritional value of the fodder].
    Rocz. Nauk. PTZ, 9(4), 27–35. [in Polish].
    Google Scholar
  12. McNamee, A., Keane, M.G., Kenny, D.A., Moloney, A.P., Buckley, F., O'Riordan, E.G. (2015).
    Beef production from Holstein-Friesian, Norwegian Red x Holstein-Friesian and Jersey x Holstein-Friesian male cattle reared as bulls or steers.
    Livest. Sci., 173, 95–105.
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.livsci.2014.12.009
  13. Młynek, K., Guliński, P. (2007).
    The effect of growth rate and at slaughter on dressing percentage and colour, pH48 and microstructure of longissimus dorsi muscle in Black-and White (BW) bulls vs commercial crossbreds of BW with beef breeds.
    Anim. Sci. Pap. Rep., 25(2), 65–71.
    Google Scholar
  14. Mwangi, F.W., Charmley, E., Gardiner, C.P., Malau-Aduli, B.S., Kinobe, R.T., Malau-Aduli, A.E.O. (2019).
    Diet and Genetics Influence Beef Cattle Performance and Meat Quality Characteristics.
    Foods, 8(12), 648.
    https://doi.org/10.3390/foods8120648
  15. Nogalski, Z., Kijak, Z. (2001).
    Fattening performance and slaughter value of the offspring of Black and White cows and Welsh Black bulls.
    Czech J. Anim. Sci., 46(2), 68–73.
    Google Scholar
  16. Nogalski, Z., Wroński, M. (2011).
    Doskonalenie technologii opasu bydła [Improving cattle fattening technology].
    Przeg. Hod., 4, 17–20 [in Polish].
    Google Scholar
  17. Park, S.J, Beak, S.-H., Jung, D.J.S., Kim, S.Y., Jeong, I.H., Piao, M.Y., Kang, H.J., Fassah, D.M., Na, S.W., Yoo, S.P., Baik, M. (2018).
    Genetic, management, and nutritional factors affecting intramuscular fat deposition in beef cattle – A review.
    Asian-Australas. J. Anim. Sci., 31(7), 1043–1061.
    https://doi.org/10.5713/ajas.18.0310
  18. Ryschawy, J., Choisis, N., Choisis, J., Joannon, A., Gibon, A. (2012).
    Mixed crop-livestock systems: an economic and environmental-friendly way of farming? Animal 6(10), 1722–1730.

    https://doi.org/10.1017/S1751731112000675
  19. Radkowski, A., Radkowska, I. (2015).
    Przyrosty masy ciała bydła mięsnego rasy Limousine w zależności od udziału koniczyny białej (Trifolium repens L.) w runi pastwiskowej [Body weight gains of Limousin beef cattle depending on the proportion of white clover (Trifolium repens L.) in pasture sward].
    Wiad. Zootech., 53(4), 3–9 [in Polish].
    Google Scholar
  20. Sablik, P., Szewczuk, M., Januś, E., Błaszczyk, P., Rudzińska, M. (2017).
    Profitability analysis of Limousin cattle organic farming compared to the conventional cattle management system.
    Acta Sci. Pol. Zootechnica, 16(4), 57–62.
    https://doi.org/10.21005/asp.2017.16.4.09
  21. Sakowski, T., Dasiewicz, K., Słowiński, M., Oprządek, J., Dymnicki, E., Wiśnioch, A., Słoniewski, K. (2001).
    Jakość mięsa buhajków ras mięsnych [Quality of meat of beef breeds bulls].
    Med. Wet., 57(10), 748–752 [in Polish].
    Google Scholar
  22. Semenov, V., Baimukanov, D., Tyurin, V., Kuznetsov, A., Tsarevsky, I., Nikitin, D. Efimova, I. (2019).
    Features of adaptation and meat qualities of Aberdeen-Angus bulls on the background of immunostimulation.
    IOP Conf. Series: Earth and Environmental Science 433 (2020) 012024.
    https://doi.org/10.1088/1755-1315/433/1/012024
  23. Skarżyńska, A. (2017).
    Produkcja wołowiny w Polsce oraz czynniki determinujące jej opłacalność [Beef production and determinants its profitability in Poland].
    Roczniki Naukowe Ekonomii Rolnictwa i rozwoju obszarów wiejskich, 104(4), 112–124 [in Polish].
    https://doi.org/10.22630/RNR.2017.104.4.36
  24. Statistics Poland (2020).
    Statistical Yearbook of Agriculture.
    Warsaw 2020.
    Google Scholar
  25. Szumiec, A. (2014).
    Efektywność ekologicznego chowu bydła mięsnego [Efficiency of organic beef farming].
    Wiad. Zootech., 52(3), 73–81 [in Polish].
    Google Scholar
  26. Wilczyński, A. (2018).
    Wpływ systemu produkcji na koszty i dochód gospodarstw produkujących żywiec wołowy [Costs and income of beef farms in different production systems].
    Folia Pomer. Univ. Technol. Stetin., Oeconomica, 347(93)4, 103–112 [in Polish].
    https://doi.org/10.21005/oe2018.93.4.09
 

 

This Article

Received: 12 Feb 2022

Accepted: 28 Mar 2022

Published online: 27 Aug 2022

Accesses: 508

How to cite

Piszcz, H., Piotrowski, S., Milczarek, A., (2022). Costs analysis of feed production and fattening of beef cattle on the example of a selected individual farm. Acta Sci. Pol. Zootechnica, 21(1), 17–28. DOI: 10.21005/asp.2022.21.1.03.