Cost Analysis of Cattle Feedlot Designs
2012
- 1,309Usage
Metric Options: CountsSelecting the 1-year or 3-year option will change the metrics count to percentiles, illustrating how an article or review compares to other articles or reviews within the selected time period in the same journal. Selecting the 1-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year. Selecting the 3-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year plus the two years prior.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Metrics Details
- Usage1,309
- Downloads1,180
- 1,180
- Abstract Views129
Report Description
A cost analysis of fixed and non-fixed costs of gain was conducted on 3 cattle feedlot designs. The three facility designs compared were conventional open pens (OPN), open pens with shelter over the feeding area (OS), and a monoslope confinement barn (MON). The OPN design was the least expensive facility to build and operate. However, because of poorer cattle performance (P < 0.05), it was not the most cost effective. The MON design had significantly higher operating costs when compared to the OPN or OS designs, especially for the tractor/spreader (P < 0.05), skid loader (P < 0.10), labor (P < 0.05), and straw (P < 0.05). The operating and fixed costs, combined, made the MON design the most expensive cost of gain design (P < 0.05). The OS design was the most expensive facility to build but with current feed prices and the cattle performance, it was the most cost effective cattle feeding design.
Bibliographic Details
Provide Feedback
Have ideas for a new metric? Would you like to see something else here?Let us know