In this study profit equations for milk, veal and beef bull production were developed to obtain economic values for different traits. Veal and beef production were described in terms of fat and protein daily gain. For categorical traits, dystocia and carcass quality traits, economic values were derived using an underlying continuous scale. Parameters in the profit equations were chosen to reflect the Dutch situation for Black and White cows, but they can be changed to fit other breeds and production circumstances. The consequences of altering beef production characteristics on growth and mature weight in dairy cows are discussed in the paper but not included in the economic weights. Without product output restrictions, economic values for milk carrier, fat and protein yield were Dfl −0.082, 5.70 and 12.85 per kg, respectively. Under a multiple restriction of milk yield and fat content on herd level, economic weighhs were Dfl −0.328, 1.04 and 12.60 per kg, respectively. The economic weight of calf mortality was Dfl −3.83 per % and the marginal costs of dystocia were Dfl 59.75 per cow per unit on the underlying liability scale. The economic value for birth weight was Dfl 5.40 per kg for dairy farmers, Dfl −4.59 per kg for veal producers and Dfl −6.91 per kg for beef producers. For veal calf producers, economic weights were Dfl 0.45 for daily gain (g/day ), 25.67 for dressing percentage (%), −14.22 for mortality (%), 26.48 for fleshiness, 0.06 for fat covering and 37.44 for meat colour in veal calves. For beef bull producers, economic values were: Dfl 0.59 for daily gain, 37.35 for dressing percentage, −18.20 for mortality, 81.07 for fleshiness and 7.39 for fat covering. Sensitivity analysis of economic weights to changes in price and production circumstances showed that future economic values might change dependent on level of output and prices.
Bekman, H., & van Arendonk, J. A. M. (1993). Derivation of economic values for veal, beef and milk production traits using profit equations. Livestock Production Science, 34, 35-56. https://doi.org/10.1016/0301-6226(93)90034-F