Economic assessments from experimental research trials of feedlot cattle health and performance: a scoping review

Aligning valid research outcomes with stakeholder values-what do they need for decision-making?

This paper is derived from a presentation given by the first author at the 2024 Symposium for the Calvin Schwabe Award, presented to Dr. Jan Sargeant for Lifetime Achievement in Veterinary Epidemiology and Preventive Medicine. Researchers must work toward ensuring validity throughout the research process, but we also should ensure that our resulting outcomes are specified to appropriately inform and enable decision-making by the end-users. Given the scope and diversity of topics addressed by veterinary researchers, the potential beneficiaries or stakeholders of our research also varies. Stakeholders or end-users may include veterinary practitioners, other researchers, livestock owners, "pet parents," government officials, corporate entities, or the general public in the case of public health or food security and safety issues. Current research in animal agriculture provides an opportunity to consider research outcomes in a sustainability framework which concurrently values social, economic, and environment impacts of animal health and management decisions. In companion animals, contemporary issues of affordability and access to care, quality of life, or compliance effects on efficacy, also extend the spectrum of relevant research outcomes. In these cases, traditional measures of animal health, such as morbidity, mortality, or weight gain, may not be the most relevant for the end-users. Furthermore, if studies are not designed and analyzed with well-defined primary outcomes that are informed by stakeholders' values, but rather post-hoc considerations of these values are made based on indirect or surrogate measures, there is the potential to incorporate error and bias into our conclusions and the end-users' decision-making processes.

Impacts of economic factors influencing net returns of beef feedlot heifers administered two implant programs and fed for differing days-on-feed from pooled randomized controlled trials

The objective of this research was to evaluate the effects of two implant programs and differing days-on-feed (DOF) on net returns of beef feedlot heifers using sensitivity analyses of key economic factors. Crossbred beef heifers [n = 10,583; initial weight 315 kg (± 20.1 SD)] were enrolled across three trials (one Kansas, two Texas feedlot trials). Heifers were blocked by arrival and randomly allocated to one of six pens, resulting in a total of 144 pens and 24 blocks. Pen was randomly assigned to treatment as a 2 × 3 factorial. Implant programs were: IH + 200-Revalor-IH at initial processing, and a terminal implant after approximately 90 DOF (Revalor-200), or, XH-a single implant at initial processing (Revalor-XH). The DOF treatments were: heifers fed to a standard baseline endpoint (BASE) or heifers fed for an additional + 21 or + 42 d beyond BASE. Pen-level partial budgets were used for economic sensitivity analyses, which varied price points of single pricing components with all other components fixed. Variable components were live-fed cattle prices, base carcass prices (i.e., dressed), Choice-Select spread (CS-spread), and feed and yardage prices (FYP). For each, a Low, Mid-Low, Middle, Mid-High, and High price was chosen. Linear mixed models were fit for statistical analyses (α = 0.05). There were no significant two-way interactions (P-values ≥ 0.14). Regardless of the variable component evaluated, XH heifers had poorer net returns than IH + 200 at all prices (P ≤ 0.04). Selling live, the + 21 and (or) + 42 heifers had lower net returns than BASE at every fed cattle price point (P < 0.01). Selling dressed, the + 21 and (or) + 42 heifers had lower returns than BASE at Low, Mid-Low, and Middle fed cattle base prices (P < 0.01); there were no significant DOF differences at Mid-High, or High prices (P ≥ 0.24). Net returns were lower for + 42 than BASE at all CS-spreads (P ≤ 0.03), while BASE and + 21 did not differ significantly. Longer DOF had lower net returns than BASE when selling live at every FYP (P < 0.01) except at the Low price (P = 0.14). Selling dressed, there was no significant effect of DOF at Low or Mid-Low FYP (P ≥ 0.11); conversely, extended DOF had lower net returns than BASE at Middle, Mid-High, and High FYP (P < 0.01). Overall, there was minimal economic evidence to support extending feedlot heifer DOF beyond the BASE endpoint, and when feeding longer, larger reductions in return were observed when marketing live as opposed to dressed.

Comparing net returns in the feedlot: Bos Taurus vs. Bos Indicus influenced steers with varying anabolic implant intensity

There are two main beef cattle breed types: Bos Taurus (BT) and Bos Indicus (BI). Past research has demonstrated various expected differences in growth, temperament, feeding behavior, and carcass characteristics between these breed types when administered varying levels of anabolic implant. However, little is known about the differences in expected economic returns between these cattle types. The objective of this research is to simulate and compare the expected net returns of BT, Angus (AN) steers and BI influenced, Santa Gertrudis (SG) steers, with moderate or high intensity levels of implants relative to a control with no implant. The animal performance and carcass data for this economic analysis was provided from a recent feeding experiment of AN and SG influenced steers. In the experiment, sixty steers were stratified by weight and breed in a 2 × 3 factorial design examining the two different breeds: AN (N = 38) or SG influenced (N = 22), and three implant strategies: no implant (N = 20), a moderate intensity implant protocol (d0 implant: Revalor-G, d56 implant: Revalor-IS, d112 implant: Revalor-S; n=20), or a high intensity implant protocol (d0 implant: Revalor-IS, d56 implant: Revalor-S, d112 implant: Revalor-200; N = 20). The steers performance and carcass data were used together with publicly available price and input costs data in the simulation of net returns per animal for each of the treatment groups. Results demonstrated that both moderate and high intensity implanted BT steers have higher expected net return (US$78.70/hd. and US$75.84/hd., respectively) compared to BI moderate and high intensity implanted steers (US$47.03/hd. and $6.98/hd., respectively). Stochastic efficiency analysis with respect to a function demonstrated when certainty equivalent values are constrained to those ≥US$0, only the moderate implanted BT steers would be included in the efficient set.