AGRICULTURAL

SYSTEMS

Agricultural Systems 94 (2007) 750–762

www.elsevier.com/locate/agsy

Beef cow–calf production system integrated with sugarcane

production: Simulation model development and application in Japan
L. Gradiz a, A. Sugimoto b, K. Ujihara c, S. Fukuhara c, A.K. Kahi a,d
, H. Hirooka a,*

a
Laboratory of Animal Husbandry Resources, Division of Applied Bioscience, Graduate School of Agriculture, Kyoto University, 606-8502 Kyoto, Japan
b
National Agricultural Research Center for Kyushu Okinawa Region, Nishigoshi, 861-1192 Kumamoto, Japan
c
National Agricultural Research Center for Kyushu Okinawa Region, Nishinoomote, 891-3102 Kagoshima, Japan
d
Animal Breeding and Genetics Group, Department of Animal Sciences, Egerton University, P.O. Box 536, 20107 Njoro, Kenya

Received 10 January 2006; received in revised form 23 February 2007; accepted 15 March 2007

Abstract

The objective of this study was to develop a simulation model for the integration of a beef cow–calf production system and sugarcane
production system on Tanegashima Island. A survey was carried out to characterize and identify the role of sugarcane as an alternative
feed resource and determine the different interactions within the system. The model was divided into two sub-systems; beef cow–calf and
sugarcane and manure production sub-systems. The model is able to simulate the total requirement for energy and protein, and subse-
quent losses of nitrogen via faeces and urine, throughout the reproductive cycle of a mature cow and the growing stages of her calf. It
also estimates the area under sugarcane cultivation for feed and the area on which manure can be applied to complement inorganic fer-
tilizer. A linear programming (LP) approach was used to formulate the least-cost diet and a system simulation method was used to cal-
culate the nitrogen (N) excretion for a cow and her post-weaning calf in the different physiological stages. The model was used to evaluate
two scenarios (integrated and specialized scenarios) using production conditions on Tanegashima Island. In the integrated scenario, sug-
arcane tops were the principal roughage source and organic (manure) was used to complement inorganic fertilizer. In the specialized
scenario, Italian ryegrass was the principal feed source and manure was not used. These two scenarios were compared based on the
respective feed and fertilizer costs, and the difference between the two scenarios was evaluated as the merit of integration. Sensitivity
analyses were also performed to determine the effects of changes in nutritional and management conditions, animal genotype parameters
and manure variables on economic variables. The results showed that feed and fertilizer costs were lower in the integrated than in the
specialized scenario. Economic variables were sensitive to changes in feeding strategies, especially the metabolizability of feed, days of
availability of sugarcane tops, mature liveweight, and manure variables. Utilization of sugarcane tops and manure is economically fea-
sible under the conditions on Tanegashima Island. It is proposed that the developed model is capable of evaluating the biological and
economic interaction of beef cow–calf production and sugarcane production systems.
 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Beef cow–calf; Sugarcane tops; Integrated system; Simulation model; Least-cost diet; Manure

1. Introduction approximately 50% of the dry matter produced by food

Production of maximum potential yields at minimum
cost is the main aim of crop agriculture. Associated with
this aim is the production of considerable amounts of crop
by-products. Crop by-products and residues constitute
*
Corresponding author. Tel.: +81 75 753 6364; fax: +81 75 753 6365.
E-mail address: hirooka@kais.kyoto-u.ac.jp (H. Hirooka).
crops. Most crop by-products are fibrous in nature and
usually serve as alternative sources of feed for livestock.
The use of crop residues and/or by-products as feed for
livestock has been increasing steadily. Currently, crop–ani-
mal integrated farming systems produce more than 50%
and 90% of the world’s meat and milk, respectively (Thorn-
ton and Herrero, 2001). This may be a good avenue
through which small-scale farmers in developing countries

0308-521X/$ - see front matter  2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.agsy.2007.03.003
 L. Gradiz et al. / Agricultural Systems 94 (2007) 750–762 751

can alleviate poverty and improve their livelihood (Deven-
dra, 2002).
Among the many food crops cultivated by farmers, sug-
arcane represents an example whose by-products can be
maximally utilized. Sugarcane and its by-products (bagasse,
molasses, leaves, tops and stalks) have successfully been
used as cattle feed in intensive production systems (Kung,
1978; Kevelenge et al., 1983; Nasseven, 1986; Wanapat,
1990). Bagasse, leaves and tops are the main fibrous by-
products of sugarcane and are low in crude protein. Molas-
ses, on the other hand, are high in energy but low in fibre.
Sugarcane leaves and tops are very palatable but the palat-
ability of bagasse is classified as satisfactory (Wanapat,
1990). The nutritive value of sugarcane and its by-products
can easily be improved using simple methods that can be
adopted in tropical and subtropical areas where the produc-
tion of good quality roughage is difficult (Nasseven, 1986).
Integration of crop and animal enterprises primarily
maximizes returns from limited land and capital, minimizes
production risks, since income is diversified, provides food
security, increases land productivity and improves sustain-
ability. Exploiting these benefits by measuring such inte-
gration in terms of better crop and animal outputs has
been the goal of research for several decades. Within inte-
grated systems, models can play an important role in eval-
uating the interaction between the components (crops and
animal) of a farming system. In general, integrated beef
and sugarcane production systems are complex, consisting
of various nutritional, management and economic factors
and their interactions. Simulation models can be used to
analyze the behavior of such complex systems and demon-
strate the advantages of sugarcane (e.g. high biomass pro-
ductivity) and beef cattle (e.g. high efficiency in conversion
of biomass into human food) in the systems (Ji, 1997).
In this study, a bio-economic simulation model for a
beef cow–calf production system integrated with sugarcane
production was developed and applied to a typical produc-
tion system using biological and economic variables from
Tanegashima Island in Japan. This model does not include
any sub-model for sugarcane production and thus eco-
nomic and management analyses for sugarcane production
systems are out of the scope of this study. Instead, the
advantages of the integration system are evaluated using
the relative merits resulting from use of sugarcane tops
from sugarcane production and use of manure from beef
cattle production.
2. Characterization of the production system
Tanegashima Island is located approximately 115 km
south of Kagoshima city and has a total area of approxi-
mately 454 km2. The annual rainfall ranges between 2000
and 2190 mm and the average annual temperature is
18.9 C (Department of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisher-
ies, 2004). Beef production and sugarcane growing are
the main farming activities.
Understanding a production system is always the first
step in the development of any tool to aid in decision mak-
ing. In this study, a structured questionnaire that included
questions on sugarcane cultivation, cattle feeding systems,
agro-economic aspects and farmers’ preferences was used
to collect the necessary information on the beef cow–calf
production system integrated with sugarcane production.
The characterization of the integrated system involved
the identification of the role of sugarcane as a feed
resource, identification of alternative feed resources, and
determination of the different interactions within the pro-
duction system. Fig. 1 shows a schematic representation
of the beef cow–calf production system integrated with sug-
arcane production. A total of 64 farms were surveyed, of
which 85% were integrated. The reminder either specialized
in beef cow–calf or sugarcane production. Two main man-
agement scenarios were identified, which were determined
by the availability of sugarcane tops. Sugarcane tops are
available during harvesting, which occurs from December
to April. In the integrated system, sugarcane tops are either

Purchasing feed resources

Italian ryegrass
Other roughages
Concentrate

Input

Tops
Beef cow – calf production Sugarcane Production
System System
Manure

Integrated farm system Input

Chemical Fertilizer

Fig. 1. Illustration of the beef cow–calf production system integrated with sugarcane production.
752 L. Gradiz et al. / Agricultural Systems 94 (2007) 750–762

produced on-farm or purchased from sugarcane farmers
through barter trading. The most common and valuable
resource that is bartered for sugarcane tops is manure,
which is utilized as an organic complement of chemical fer-
tilizer in sugarcane fields. When sugarcane is not available,
Italian ryegrass hay is purchased.
3. Overview of the model
A linear programming (LP) method was used to conduct a
rapid and flexible derivation of the least-cost diet, and a sys-
tem simulation method (Dent and Blackie, 1979) was used to
calculate the nitrogen (N) excretion for a cow and her post-
weaning calf in the different physiological stages. The model
focuses on each phase of the reproductive cycle of a mature
cow and the growing stage of her calf, which are defined as
calculation units. The sequence of the simulation process is
illustrated in Fig. 2. The model simulates the continuous bio-
logical transaction (energy and protein requirements) occur-
ring in each unit in accordance with individual basic and
dynamically changing attributes, and accounts for the com-
bined and cumulative effects of the transaction on a one-day
time step basis. Two cases, namely sugarcane and Italian rye-
grass, were simulated. In the sugarcane case, feed includes
sugarcane tops. In the Italian ryegrass case, sugarcane tops
are assumed to be unavailable and Italian ryegrass is used
as a substitute. These cases correspond to two different sce-
narios (Fig. 2): the integrated scenario in which sugarcane
is supplied during harvesting (nsugar = 150 days) and comple-
mented with Italian ryegrass (ngrass = 365  nsugar), and the
specialized system where sugarcane is unavailable. The eco-
nomic evaluation is carried out based on the difference (the
feed merit and fertilizer merit) in the respective feed and fer-
tilizer costs between integrated and specialized cases. The
simulation model ignores the effect of sex of calves on their
dam’s performance. All males were assumed to be castrated
before weaning. Mating is by artificial insemination. It was
assumed that energy intake is sufficient to meet all energy
requirements and that environmental factors such as temper-
ature and rainfall had no effect on either input or outputs.
4. Elements and quantification of the model
4.1. Timing and events of the cow–calf production system
Fig. 3 illustrates the flow and animal events in a beef
cow–calf production system. Mating (nmate) is assumed to
occur at day 70 after parturition. Successful conception is

Start
(Animal and management inputs based on survey)

Calculate animal requirements

(ME, CP, DMI)

Set constraint for ME, CP and DMI

Calculate the amount of each feed that

generate the least-cost diet and
matches the nutrient requirements

TFCcow + TFCcalf Tout Tout TFCcow + TFCcalf

Sugarcane case Italian rye grass case
(Total feed cost and total (Total feed cost and total
N excretion) N excretion)

ngrass LRC
nsugar

INTEGRATED SCENARIOS SPECIALIZED SCENARIO

ECONOMIC EVALUATIONS
(Based on Feed and fertilizer costs)

nsugar is available for sugarcane tops; ngrass is days available for Italian ryegrass; TFCcow is the total
feed cost for the dam; TFCcalf is the total feed cost for post-weaning animals; Tout is the total N
excretion form the dam and the calf; LRC is the length of reproductive cycle (LRC = nmate + npr)

Fig. 2. A sequence diagram of the simulation process.

 L. Gradiz et al. / Agricultural Systems 94 (2007) 750–762 753

Mating

Pregnant cow

npr
Calving

Lactating cow Suckling calf

nwean
Weaning
nmate
nwean+100

Calf market

npr = pregnant period; nwean = days at weaning; nmate = days at mating

Fig. 3. A diagram of the flow and events in a beef cow–calf production system.

assumed and calving occurs 285 days after conception (npr). The energy intake of the animals and some of the events
The lactation period (tl) is 180 days, at the end of which the during the animal’s life were estimated from growth curves.
calf is weaned (nwean). The calf is sold 100 days later (i.e. A growth curve is determined from three animal traits:
nwean + 100). User-defined input variables are divided into birth weight (BW), weaning weight (WW), and mature live-
four different categories: biological, nutritional, manage- weight (MWT). The BW and WW of the male calf were as-
ment and economic variables, and are presented in Table sumed to be 1.07 and 1.2 times those of the female calf,
1. They are based on typical Japanese cow–calf production
systems (Hirooka et al., 1998; MAFF, 2000). The repro- Table 1
ductive cycle is defined as the interval between successive Biological, nutritional, management and economic variables used in the
conceptions. Thus, the length of the reproductive cycle model for the base situation
(LRC) is: Assumption categorya Symbol Values Male
LRC ¼ nmate þ npr : ð1Þ Biological variables
Mature animal weight (kg) MWT 480 ·1.20
Birth weight (kg) BW 28 ·1.07
4.2. Quantification of the model Weaning weight (kg) WW 160 ·1.20
Total milk yield (kg per parity) TM 970
Unless otherwise stated, energy and protein require- Wood’s parameter (Wood, 1967) b 0.073
c 0.0056
ments of beef cattle were calculated based on the recom- Pregnant period (days) npr 285
mendations of the Japanese Feeding Standard System for Lactation period (days) tl 180
beef cattle (MAFF, 2000). However, alterations in energy
Nutritional variables
and protein requirements recommended by ARC (1980) Metabolizability of sugarcane qsug 0.5
and AFRC (1993) were also incorporated. The equations Metabolizability of creep feed qcreep 0.65
used to estimate the metabolizable energy (ME; MJ/day), Metabolizability of calf diet qcalf 0.55
dry matter (DM; g/kg) and crude protein (CP; g/day) Metabolizability of maintenance qmaint 0.5
Metabolizability of production qprod 0.55
requirements for the reproductive cycle of a cow and her
growing calf are presented in Tables 2 and 3, respectively. Managemental variables
Sugarcane availability (days) nsugar 150
Italian ryegrass availability (days) ngrass 365  nsugar
4.2.1. Energy requirements Days at mating nmate 70
The daily ME intake of a cow (MEicow) is expressed as: Days at weaning nwean 180
MEicow ¼ MEm þ MEp þ MEl ðMJ=dayÞ ð2Þ N requirement for sugarcane (kg/ha) A 200
Manure substitution rate (%) S 30
where MEm is the metabolizable energy for maintenance Manure efficiency index (%) E 30
requirement, and MEp and MEl are the metabolizable en- Economic variable
ergy requirements for pregnancy and lactation, respec- Price of chemical fertilizer (¥/kg) pricechem 80
tively. The ME requirement for pregnancy (MEp) was a
Variables are representative of typical beef cattle and sugarcane pro-
calculated from 63 days before calving (MAFF, 2000). duction conditions in Japan (Hirooka et al., 1998; MAFF, 2000).
754 L. Gradiz et al. / Agricultural Systems 94 (2007) 750–762

Table 2
Equations to estimate ME (MJ/day), DM (g/kg) and CP (g/day) required for maintenance, pregnancy and lactation of the cow
Equation Variable Constraints Equations Source
0.75
(1) MEm 0.1119 · MWT · 4.184 MAFF (2000)
(2) MEpa npr  63 6 tc 6 npr 1:542  109  ðt5:45601
c  ðtc  1Þ5:45601 Þ=k p  4:184=1000 MAFF (2000)
(3) MElb 0 < tl 6 nwean (MYtl · EVl · 4.184)/kl MAFF (2000)
(4) MYtlc 0 < tl 6 nwean a  tbl ectl Wood (1967)
(5) DMcowd MEicow/18.4 · qmaint/qprod ARC (1980), AFRC (1993)
(6) CPme (4.8 · DMcow · 6.25 + 0.44 · MWT0.5 · 6.25 + 0.2 · MWT0.6)/0.51 MAFF (2000)
(7) CPpf npr  63 6 tc 6 npr NPp/0.6/0.75 MAFF (2000)
(8) NPpg TP · BW/38.5 MAFF (2000)
(9) TP TP(tc)  TP(tc  1) MAFF (2000)
(10) TP(tc) 0 6 tl 6 nwean ð1:486  104  t3c  4:247  102  t2c þ 3:173  tc  0:328Þ MAFF (2000)
ð0:323  106  t3c þ 3  104  t2c  9:430  102  tc þ 11:263Þ  6:25
(11) CPlh 0 < tl 6 nwean 53 · MYtl/0.65 MAFF (2000)
a
Where tc is the number of days from conception and kp is the efficiency of utilization of energy for pregnancy requirement (kp = 0.15).
b
Where EVl is equal to 0.815 (MAFF, 2000) and kl is the efficiency of utilization of energy for lactation (kl = 0.62).
c
Where a, b and c are parameters describing the shape of the lactation curve (Wood, 1967). Given the total milk yield of the lactation (TM), a value is
P
obtained from TM= ntlwean b ctt
¼1 tl e .
d
Where MEicow is the daily ME intake of a cow; qmain is the assumed metabolizability of the feed in the maintenance stage, qprod is the assumed
metabolizability of the feed in production stage (late period of pregnancy and lactation).
e
Taking into account fecal endogenous loss (4.8 · DMcow · 6.25), urinary endogenous loss (0.44 · MWT0.5 · 6.25) and dermal loss as scurf and hair
(0.2 · MWT0.6) (MAFF, 2000).
f
Where NPp is the net protein for pregnancy (g/day), 0.6 is a biological value and the protein digestibility is assumed to be 75% (MAFF, 2000).
g
Where TP (tc) is the daily protein deposition of the fetus (g/day) at tc days from conception, assuming a calf of 38.5 kg birth weight (MAFF, 2000).
h
Assuming a value of 65% as the digestible protein percentage.

respectively. The MWT of the male was also assumed to be
1.2 times the weight of the female (Hirooka et al., 1998;
MAFF, 2000). It was also assumed that the growth curve
may be represented by a straight line from birth to wean-
ing, and subsequently from weaning to culling by Brody’s
curve (Brody, 1945; Kahn, 1982).
The model assumes that the ME requirement of calves is
supplied by their dam’s milk until 30 days of age. Subse-
quently, both dam’s milk and dietary feed are assumed to
provide energy resources. It is assumed that dam’s milk is
completely consumed and deficiencies in energy require-
ments are met by dietary feed. When dam’s milk supplies

Table 3
Equations to estimate ME (MJ/day), DM (g/kg) and CP (g/day) required for maintenance and growth of pre- and post-weaning calves
Equation Variable Constraints Equations Source
Pre-weaning calves
(1) WTprea (0 < tl 6 nwean) BW + tl · DGpre Brody (1945), Kahn (1982)
(2) DGpre (WW  BW)/nwean Brody (1945), Kahn (1982)
(3) MEmpre 0:1067  ðWT0:75
pre Þ  4:184 MAFF (2000)
(4) MEgpreb [(0.008 · WTpre + 1.08) · DGpre · 4.184]/kfpre MAFF (2000)
(5) DMcalfc MEipre/18.4 · qcalf ARC (1980), AFRC (1993)
(6) CPgpre 188 · DGpre/0.51 MAFF (2000)
Post-weaning calves
(7) WTpost (nwean 6 t 6 nwean + 100) MWT[1  (MWT  WW)] · ek(t  nwean) Brody (1945), Kahn (1982)
(8) k [(WW  BW)/nwean]/(MWT  WW) Brody (1945), Kahn (1982)
(9) DGposta k(MWT  WTpost) Brody (1945), Kahn (1982)
(10) MEmpost 0:1067  ðWT0:75
post Þ  4:184 MAFF (2000)
(11) MEgpostd (0.0639 · (WTpost)0.75 · DGpost) · 4.184/kfpost MAFF (2000)
(12) DMcalf MEipost/18.4 · qcalf ARC (1980), AFRC (1993)
(13) CPmpost ð4:8  DMcalf  6:25 þ 0:44  WT0:5 0:5
post  6:25 þ 0:2  WTpost Þ=0:51 MAFF (2000)
(14) CPgpost DGpost · (223 – 0.293 · WTpost)/0.51 MAFF (2000)
a
Where DGpre and DGpost are the daily gain (kg) for pre- and post-weaning animals, respectively.
b
Where kfpre is the efficiency of utilization of dietary energy for growth for pre-weaning calves (0.78 · qpre + 0.006 where qpre is the metabolizability of
pre-weaning diet calculated in Appendix 1).
c
Assuming metabolizability of dam’s milk to be 0.91 (Kahn, 1982; Hirooka et al., 1998) the ME intake from dam’s milk (MEi(m)) is given by:
0.91 · EVl · MYtl.
d
Where kfpost is the efficiency of utilization of dietary energy for growth for post-weaning calves, which is calculated as it is for pre-weaning animals but
substituting qpre for qpost where qpost = 0.4213 + 0.1491 · DGpost.
 L. Gradiz et al. / Agricultural Systems 94 (2007) 750–762 755

are more than the ME requirements of calves, dietary feed (n = 6), x(j) is the quantity of ingredient j in the ration, and
ME becomes zero and dam’s milk yield is reduced. There- c(j) is the cost per unit of the ingredients j. The LP least-cost
fore, assuming a metabolizability of dam’s milk of 0.91 ration for post-weaning animals is given by:
(Kahn, 1982; Hirooka et al., 1998) the ME intake from
X
n
dam’s milk (MEi(m)) is given by: Minimize T calf ¼ ðxðjÞ  cðjÞ Þ ð8Þ
j¼1
MEiðmÞ ¼ 0:91  EVl  MYtl ð3Þ
where EVl is the energy value of milk, which is equal to where Tcalf is the total cost of the ration for post-weaning
0.815 (MAFF, 2000), and MYtl is the milk yield estimated animals. Both equations are
by Wood’s gamma lactation curve (Wood, 1967) (Table 2). X
n
The daily ME intake from dietary feed (MEi(f)) is obtained subjected to : aðijÞ xðjÞ 6 ðP; ¼ÞbðiÞ xðjÞ P 0 ð9Þ
as shown in Appendix 1. The daily ME intake for post- j¼1

weaning animals (MEipost) is given as:

where a(ij) is the quantity of nutrient i in ingredient j and
MEipost ¼ MEmpost þ MEgpost ð4Þ b(i) is the required amount of nutrient i in the ration; the
equality and inequality of the constraint is determined
where MEmpost is the ME required for maintenance and
by the nutrient of interest. A summary of means of
MEgpost is the ME required for growth (Table 3).
the ME, DM and CP contents and prices in yen (¥)
per kilogram on as-fed basis of each feed is shown in
4.2.2. Crude protein (CP) and dry matter (DM)
Table 4.
requirements
Three constraints based on animal requirements are
The daily crude protein requirement of the dam (CPcow)
included in the LP. The first and second constraints are
is calculated as:
the daily ME requirement and the voluntary DM intake
CPcow ¼ CPm þ CPp þ CPl ðg=dayÞ ð5Þ for a cow (DMcow) and her post-weaning calf (DMcalf),
respectively. The third constraint is the CP requirement
where CPm is the daily CP requirement for maintenance, for a cow and her calf. ME and DM are set to be equal
CPp is the daily CP requirement for pregnancy and CPl is to ME and DM requirements, respectively, while CP is
the daily CP requirement for lactation (Table 2). The daily set to be greater than the CP requirement.
CP requirement for a post-weaning calf (CPpost) is calcu-
lated as:
CPpost ðg=dayÞ ¼ CPmpost þ CPgpost ð6Þ
where CPmpost and CPgpost are the CP requirements for Table 4
Means of metabolizable energy (ME), dry matter (DM) and crude protein
maintenance and growth of post-weaning calves, respec-
(CP) contents and prices (¥/kg) on as-fed basis of the ingredients utilized
tively (Table 3). The equations used to estimate the DM in the formulation of the least-cost ration for a cow and her post-weaning
(g/kg) requirements for the reproductive cycle of a cow calf
and her growing calf are presented in Tables 2 and 3, Ingredients ME (MJ/kg) CP (g/kg) DM (g/kg) Pricesa (¥/kg)
respectively.
Dam’s diet
Sugarcane topsb 2.34 26.00 283.00 0.00
4.2.3. Formulation of the least-cost ration (LCR) for cows Italian ryegrassc 7.78 122.00 840.00 44.60
and post-weaning calves Rhodes grassc 1.92 31.00 160.00 34.80
The formulation of the rations for a cow and her post- Sudan grassd 1.59 23.00 150.00 32.80
Napier grassd 1.21 18.00 150.00 32.10
weaning calf takes into account the change in nutritional
Silagee 4.31 82.00 520.00 40.10
requirements of these animals. Rations have been devel- Concentratef 10.89 120.00 880.00 62.50
oped with the objective of ensuring production at minimal
Post-weaned diet
cost through accurate and rapid least-cost ration formula- Sugarcane topsb 2.34 26.00 283.00 0.00
tion, with the use of LP techniques. LP is a mathematical Italian ryegrassc 7.78 122.00 840.00 44.60
system in which the objective function is linear in the Rhodes grassd 1.92 31.00 160.00 34.80
unknowns, and the constraints also consist of linear equal- Sudan grassd 1.59 23.00 150.00 32.80
ities or inequalities or both. The LP least-cost ration for- Napier grassd 1.21 18.00 150.00 32.10
Bahia grass 2.55 37.00 240.00 36.20
mulation for the reproductive cycle of a cow is derived Concentrateg 10.89 210.00 880.00 83.30
using the following formula: a
1US $ = ¥ 115.49 in 2005.
b
X
n Used as principal roughage in sugarcane case.
c
Minimize T cow ¼ ðxðjÞ  cðjÞ Þ ð7Þ Used as principal roughage in Italian ryegrass case.
d
j¼1 Used in both cases.
e
Based on Rhode grass.
where Tcow is the total cost of the ration in a reproductive f
For pregnant and lactating animals.
g
cycle of a cow, n is the number of ingredients j in the ration For growing animals.
756 L. Gradiz et al. / Agricultural Systems 94 (2007) 750–762

4.2.4. Calculation of feed cost the only crude protein intake sources for the pre-weaning
The total feed cost for the dam (TFCcow) is calculated calf, the daily N excretion from the calf (Outpre) in grams
using the following formula: per day is derived using the following equation:
LRC X
X n
  Outpre ¼ CPintðpreÞ =6:25 þ CPl =6:38  CPgpre =6:25 ð17Þ
TFCcow ¼ xcowðjÞ  ccowðjÞ ð10Þ
i¼1 j¼1 where CPint(pre) is the daily CP intake by pre-weaning ani-
mals (g/day) and is given by:
where xcow(j) is the quantity of ingredient j for the dam’s
ration (kg), ccow(j) is the cost (¥/kg) of ingredients j for CPintðpreÞ ¼ cpcreep  DMcalf  1000=100 ð18Þ
the dam’s ration, and n is the number of ingredients in
where cpcreep is the crude protein content of creep feed
the diet (Table 4). The total feed cost for post-weaning ani-
(g/kg). The N excretion (g/day) by post-weaning animals
mals (TFCcalf) is calculated using the following formula:
(Outpost) is calculated as:
X
nwean þ100 X
n
 
TFCcalf ¼ xpostðjÞ  cpostðjÞ ð11Þ Outpost ¼ CPintðpostÞ =6:25  CPgpost =6:25 ð19Þ
i¼nwean j¼1
where CPint(post), is the CP intake of post-weaning animals
where xpost(j) is the quantity (kg) of ingredient j for the post- calculated as in Eq. (16), but using cpfeed from the
weaned animal ration, and cpost(j) is the cost (¥/kg) of ingre- post-weaning diet (Table 4). Subsequently, considering
dients j for the post-weaning animal ration (Table 4). the days available for sugarcane tops (nsugar) and Italian
The total feed costs for the sugarcane (Sugcost) and Ital- ryegrass (ngrass), the total N availability in integration sce-
ian ryegrass (Grasscost) cases are assumed to be the summa- nario (Intout), is calculated by the following equation:
tion of the TFCcow and TFCcalf (Sugcost or Grasscost =
Intout ¼ ðT out  nsugar þ T out  ngrass Þ=LRC: ð20Þ
TFCcow + TFCcalf). Therefore, the feed cost in the inte-
grated scenario (Intf(cost)) is evaluated by accounting for
the period (in days) of availability of sugarcane tops (nsugar) 4.2.6. Availability of manure and inorganic fertilizer
and Italian ryegrass (ngrass) using the following equation: Fig. 4 illustrates the procedure used to calculate the N
IntfðcostÞ ¼ ðSugcost  nsugar þ Grasscost  ngrass Þ=LRC ð12Þ supplied by manure and inorganic fertilizer. Let A be the
N requirement for sugarcane production, with a value of
The feed cost in the specialized scenario (Espf(cost)) is calcu- 200 kg/ha when only inorganic N is applied. The N supplied
lated using the following equation: by manure and chemical fertilizer can be obtained as M (kg/ha)
EspfðcostÞ ¼ ðGrasscost  365Þ=LRC: ð13Þ and C (kg/ha), respectively. When manure is applied, the N
requirement should be adjusted due to the low efficiency of
usage of organic N from manure. The substitution rate (S
4.2.5. Nitrogen (N) excretion %) of manure is assumed to be 30% of the total amount
The total N excretion from the dam and calf (Tout) is of inorganic fertilizer used in the specialized case. The rela-
given by: tive efficiency index of manure (E %) is also assumed to be
X
LRC nX
wean X
nwean þ100 30%. Considering manure emissions of N as ammonia to be
T out ¼ OutcowðiÞ þ OutpreðiÞ þ OutpostðiÞ ð14Þ 20% (Intout · 0.8), the total area (ha) on which manure can
i¼1 i¼1 i¼nwean be used (Rmanure) is derived as:
where Outcow(i) is the daily N excretion by the dam at time Rmanure ¼ Intout =ðA  pmanure Þ ð21Þ
i; Outpre(i) and Outpost(i) are the N excretion of the pre- and
post-weaning calf at time i, respectively. The daily N excre- where manure proportion (pmanure) is calculated as:
tion by a cow (Outcow) is calculated as follows: pmanure ¼ ðS=EÞ=ð1  S þ S=EÞ ð22Þ
Outcow ¼ CPint =6:25  CPp =6:25  CPl =6:38 ðg=dayÞ ð15Þ Derivation of Eq. (22) is given in Appendix 2.
where CPint is the daily CP intake, and CPp and CPl are the
CP for pregnancy and lactation requirements, respectively 4.2.7. Calculation of fertilizer cost
(Table 3). The conversion coefficients from CP to N for die- The cost of fertilizer in the integrated scenario (Intfert(cost))
tary protein and milk protein requirements are 6.25 and is calculated as:
6.38, respectively (ARC, 1980; AFRC, 1993; MAFF, IntfertðcostÞ ¼ ½Rmanure  ð1  pmanure Þ  A=0:15  pricechem ð23Þ
2000).
The daily CP intake of the cow (CPint) is calculated as: where it is assumed that inorganic fertilizer contains 15% N,
and pricechem is the price of inorganic fertilizer (80 ¥/kg).
X n
 
CPint ¼ xðjÞ  cpfeed ðg=dayÞ ð16Þ In the specialized scenario, only inorganic fertilizer is
j¼1 used, consequently the cost of fertilizer (Spefert(cost)) is
derived as:
where cpfeed is the crude protein (g/kg) content of the feed
(Table 4). Assuming that the dam’s milk and creep feed are SpefertðcostÞ ¼ ½Rmanure  1  A=0:15  pricechem : ð24Þ
 L. Gradiz et al. / Agricultural Systems 94 (2007) 750–762 757

A
(kg/ha)

Y = A × S/100

C (+) Y

C=A-Y M = Y ×100/ E

A= N requirement for sugarcane cultivation; Y= Amount of manure applied; S = Proportion of manure use (%);
M = N supplied by manure; E = Efficiency index of manure, C = N supplied by inorganic fertilizer.

Fig. 4. A procedure for calculating the N supplied by organic and inorganic fertilizer.

4.2.8. Availability of sugarcane tops
Assuming a DM content of 0.184 kg/plant for sugar-
cane, a plant density in sugarcane fields of 71,300 plants/
ha and a fresh matter content of sugarcane tops of 28%,
the area (hectares) under sugarcane cultivation that is
needed to feed a cow and her calf per sugarcane cycle
(Rsugar) is calculated as:
Rsugar ¼ DMsug =ð0:184  0:28  71; 300Þ
where DMsug is the total dry matter supply by sugarcane
tops (g/kg) in the dam’s and her calf’s diet, respectively,
and is estimated as:
X
LRC
 
DMsug ¼ xcowð1Þ  DMfeedðcowÞðsugÞ
i¼1
X
nwean þ100
 
þ xpostð1Þ  DMfeedðpostÞðsugÞ
i¼nwean
where xcow(1) and xpost(1) are the quantity of sugarcane tops
(kg) in the ration of a cow and her post-weaned calf;
DMfeed(cow)(sug) and DMfeed(post)(sug) are the DM content
(g/kg) of sugarcane tops in feed for the dam and her
post-weaning calf, respectively (Table 4).
5. Model output and evaluation
quently, the model overlooks increments in energy for
maintenance during pregnancy and lactation. During preg-
nancy and lactation, there is an increase in ME intake as a
result of an increase in MEp and MEl, respectively.
Throughout the life cycle, MEl is greater than MEp. The
trends in the ME requirement are consistent with expecta-
tions, indicating that the model can accurately predict
ð25Þ energy requirements at each step of the reproductive cycle
of a cow.
The simulated calf ME intake from milk and dietary
food and the ME requirement for both male and female
calves are given in Fig. 6. The energy intake of calves
was determined by the intake of two kinds of feed
resources: dam’s milk and creep feed. It was assumed that
the calf consumes only cow’s milk up to 30 days of age
after which creep feed is added to the diet. In this model,
ð26Þ energy intake from dam’s milk is determined by the meta-
bolizability of milk (assumed to be 0.91) and the energy
value of the milk (Eq. (3)). Consequently, the decreasing
trend in milk intake by the calf is closely linked with the
milk production of the cow. Milk intake decreases but
there is a steady increase in creep feed intake. As the milk
intake decreases, its energy should be compensated for by
the energy the calf receives from creep feed and hence there
is a steady rise in creep intake.

McCarl and Apland (1986) proposed a formal process

to evaluate models. This includes evaluation by construct
ME intake and ME requiremets

(i.e. use of a priori information to ensure representative 90

solutions by comparing simulated values with actual obser- 80
70
vations from the real system) and by results (experiments to
60
(MJ/day)

test the robustness of the model solution). In this study, the 50

evaluation procedure relied heavily on validation by con- 40
struct. This involves a subjective judgment, but the ability 30
20
of the model to simulate the performance of the real system
10
can be tested. 0
-180 -144 -108 -72 -36 0 36 72 108 144 180
5.1. ME requirements and timing of model events Days of simulation
MEi MEm MEp MEl
Fig. 5 shows the ME intake and ME requirements for Fig. 5. Metabolizable energy intake (MEi) and metabolizable energy
maintenance, pregnancy and lactation for a cow. In the requirement for maintenance (MEm), pregnancy (MEp) and lactation
present model, the animal is assumed to be housed. Conse- (MEl) of a cow.
758 L. Gradiz et al. / Agricultural Systems 94 (2007) 750–762

40 Dam
ME intake of calves (MJ/day)

Percentag es of ing redients in ra tio n (a s fed)

35 100%
30
25 80%
20
15 60%
10
5 40%
0
1 18 36 54 72 90 108 126 144 162 180
Days from calving to weaning 20%
Energy intake from milk for male and female calf
Energy intake from creep feed and roughages for male
0%
Energy intake from creep feed and roughages for female
Integrated scenario Specialized scenario
Fig. 6. Metabolizable energy intake from milk and dietary feed and Sugarcane tops Italian rye grass
metabolizable energy requirement of calves. Rhode grass Sudan grass
Napier grass Silage (Based on Rhode grass)
Concentrate

5.2. Formulation of the LCR for cows and post-weaning Calves

Percenta g es o f ea ch ing redient in ra tio n (a s fed)

100%
animals

The percentages of different ingredients in each ration 80%

calculated by the LP for the diets of the cow and post-
weaning calf in the integrated and specialized scenarios
60%
are represented in Fig. 7. Not represented in each figure
is a zero fraction of ingredients in the complete ration. Dif-
ferences in the ration ingredients in each scenario for a cow 40%
and her calf diet are observable. In the integrated scenario,
the dam and the post-weaning calf diets consisted princi-
20%
pally of sugarcane tops, Italian ryegrass and concentrates.
In addition, the dam’s diet contains 10% silage (made from
Rhode grass). The high level of sugarcane tops in both 0%
diets is in response to the model’s ability to select inputs Integrated Integrated Specialized Specialized
scenario for scenario for scenario for scenario for
that are less costly at the expense of ingredients that had male calf female calf male calf female calf
higher cost per unit. In the specialized scenario, the ration
Sugarcane Italian rye grass Rhode grass Sudan grass
ingredients for a cow and her calf principally consisted of Bahia grass Napier grass Concentrate
Italian ryegrass and concentrates. The variation in the
quantities of ingredients is caused by differing requirements Fig. 7. The percentage of different ingredients in each ration (on as fed
basis) for the dam and post-weaning calf in integrated and specialized
due to differences in the physiological status and type of
scenario.
animal. In the post-weaning calf diet, the proportions of
each ingredient are relatively consistent between heifers the specialized scenario as far as reduction in costs is
and bull calves. However, differences occur in the total concerned.
as-fed weight of each ration because of the variation in
ingredients across rations. 5.4. Sensitivity and parameter variations

5.3. Economic evaluation
Table 5 shows the simulated feed and fertilizer costs and
merits per cow–calf pair. The merits per animal pair are
simply calculated as the difference in the respective vari-
ables between integrated and specialized scenarios. The
feed cost represented approximately 97% and 93% of the
total cost in the integrated and specialized scenarios,
respectively. Generally, feed and fertilizer costs were higher
in the specialized than in the integrated scenario. This
resulted in positive total feed and fertilizer merits per ani-
mal, indicating that the integrated scenario was better than
Sensitivity analyses were carried out to assess the impact
of changing values of susceptible variables of the integrated
system (e.g. values of feeding strategies (qmaint, qprod and
nsugar), MWT, and variables (E and S) used in estimating
the N supplied by manure and inorganic fertilizer) on eco-
nomic values (feed and fertilizer cost and merits, respec-
tively), Rmanure and Rsugar.
Changes in metabolizability of feed will influence the
overall feed intake in the different physiological stages of
an animal. On Tanegashima Island, the amount of sugar-
cane tops available is determined by the season of harvest.
Usually, MWT of Japanese Black cattle is variable and the
 L. Gradiz et al. / Agricultural Systems 94 (2007) 750–762 759

Table 5 the ration ingredients causes changes in the amount of N

Feed, fertilizer and total cost per animal and feed, fertilizer and total
merits per cow–calf pair
Items Scenario
Integrated
Feed cost (¥/pair) 179,495
Fertilizer cost (¥/pair) 5949
Total (¥/pair) 185,444
Merit (¥/pair) 34,029
Feed merit (¥/pair) 25,530
Fertilizer merit (¥/pair) 8499
1US $ = ¥115.49 in 2005.
Rmanure and the Rsugar depends on specific scenario vari-
ables. Changes of ±5% with respect to the assumed values
of qmaint and qprod were considered. nsugar was assumed to
be available for between 120 and 180 days. Changes of
±15% with respect to MWT and variables (E and S) used
in estimating N supplied by manure and inorganic fertilizer
were considered (Table 6). The changes were performed
one at a time, keeping all other parameters constant. Table
6 shows the results of these sensitivity analyses. In all sce-
narios, feed and fertilizer costs were sensitive to changes
in qmaint and qprod. The high sensitivity of feed and fertilizer
cost was expected since feed represented the highest costs in
both scenarios. In order to fulfill the nutritional require-
ments of the animal the model compensates for the quality
and quantity of the diet by increasing the amounts of alter-
native feeds, which consequently leads to an increment in
the total feed and fertilizer cost. Feed and fertilizer merits
were sensitive to changes in qmaint and qprod. The Rmanure
and Rsugar were sensitive to changes in qmaint and qprod in
both scenarios because the variation in the proportion of
excretion calculated by the model.
Feed and fertilizer costs were highly sensitive to changes
in nsugar. Increasing nsugar caused a rise in the integration
Specialized merits. This was expected because sugarcane tops are free,
205,025 demonstrating the value of the integration of sugarcane in
14,448 beef cattle production. The MWT also influenced feed and
219,473 fertilizer costs, integration merits, Rmanure and Rsugar. The
Rmanure were highly sensitive to changes in manure vari-
ables including the proportion of manure use (S) and the
efficiency index of manure (E). Changes in S had no effects
on feed cost in both scenarios, but had a significant effect
on fertilizer cost and Rmanure. Considering that increments
in the proportion of manure represent a rise in the amount
of manure to utilize per unit of area, N excreted led to a
reduction in the area to which manure can be applied
and to higher cost of fertilizer. Higher E resulted in higher
Rmanure values because there is no increment in N excreted,
and therefore better quality manure is available and conse-
quently more organic fertilizer is utilized to complement
inorganic fertilizer.
6. General discussion
This paper presents a bio-economic simulation model
that illustrates the interactions of an integrated system
(beef cow–calf and sugarcane production system) with
local specialized farming systems (sugarcane or beef cattle
production systems). This model is designed to determine
the optimal combination of feed resources that minimize
feed cost, to simulate critical elements of the complex inter-
action observed between the system’s components and to
forecast the effect of alternative management decision

Table 6
Sensitivity (expressed relative to the base) of feed and fertilizer cost (¥/cow–calf pair), feed and fertilizer merits (¥/cow–calf pair) and total merit (¥/cow–
calf pair), area (ha) to which manure can be applied (Rmanure) and area (ha) needed for cultivation of sugarcane to feed a cow–calf pair (Rsugar) to changes
in feeding strategies (metabolizability, days when sugarcane is available (nsugar), mature liveweight (MWT)) and manure variables (efficiency index of
manure (E) and substitution rate of manure (S))
Alternative Integration scenario Specialized scenario Integration merits Rmanure (ha) Rsugar (ha)
Feed Fertilizer Feed Fertilizer Feed Fertilizer Total
Basea 179,495 5949 205,025 14,448 25,530 8499 34,029 0.14 0.35
Feeding strategiesb
qmaint 0.55 1.01 1.15 0.99 1.15 0.85 1.15 0.93 1.14 0.86
0.45 1.14 0.94 1.11 0.94 0.89 0.94 0.90 0.86 1.00
qprod 0.60 1.08 1.37 1.05 1.37 0.90 1.37 1.02 1.36 0.74
0.50 0.97 0.51 1.02 0.51 1.34 0.51 1.03 0.64 1.26
nsugar 180 days 0.89 0.99 1.00 1.02 1.77 1.04 1.59 1.07 1.00
120 days 1.11 1.01 1.00 0.98 0.23 0.97 0.41 0.93 1.00
Mature liveweight 552 kg 1.04 1.06 1.06 1.06 1.17 1.06 1.14 1.08 1.11
408 kg 0.96 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.83 0.94 0.86 0.92 0.89
Manure variables
Efficiency (E) 0.45 1.00 0.43 1.00 0.76 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.77 1.00
0.15 1.00 3.86 1.00 2.18 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.23 1.00
Subtitution rate (S) 0.45 1.00 1.67 1.00 1.27 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.94 1.00
0.15 1.00 0.33 1.00 0.73 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.77 1.00
a
Expressed for feed and fertilizer costs as ¥/cow–calf pair.
b
qmaint is the metabolizability of the feed at the maintenance stage; qprod is the metabolizability of the feed at the production stage. 1US $ = ¥ 115.49 in
2005.
760 L. Gradiz et al. / Agricultural Systems 94 (2007) 750–762
variables on the farmer’s gross costs within the existing
framework. The strength of this study was based on the
accuracy and detailed information provided by the survey,
which permitted the development of variables representing
key components in the integrated farming system on
Tanegashima Island.
This study has shown that in the integrated farming sys-
tem, utilization of sugarcane tops and manure (as an
organic complement of inorganic fertilizer) appears to be
the most suitable management strategy for beef cattle pro-
duction on Tanegashima Island. Efficient utilization of
local resources can lead to a more suitable system of live-
stock production (Barker and Chapman, 1998). These local
resources are potentially economically feasible for many
farmers, but a good understanding of the role of each com-
ponent of the system and its different possibilities is essen-
tial. The feed and fertilizer costs, integration merits,
Rmanure and Rsugar were highly sensitive to changes in
MWT. Heavier MWT were associated with higher feed
and fertilizer costs under both scenarios but also higher
merits of integration (Table 6). The challenge is to deter-
mine the optimal MWT of cows under the conditions of
Tanegashima Island, especially under an integrated system
of production. The optimal size of beef cows has been a
central question in animal production for some time (Ara-
ngo and Van Vleck, 2002).
Increasing the harvesting period (nsugar) caused a rise in
the merits of integration (Table 6). There has been recent
interest in the harvesting period of different sugarcane vari-
eties. Trials have been done to select sugarcane varieties
with longer harvesting periods on Tanegashima Island
and some have been exported to Thailand (Sugimoto
et al., 2003). The results of this study further strengthen
the desire of farmers for varieties that can withstand long
harvesting periods and could serve as a demonstration of
how planting these varieties will influence beef production.
In this study, it was assumed that sugarcane tops are
crop residues and can be obtained freely by beef cattle
farmers from sugarcane farmers. However, when a mone-
tary value of ¥25/kg was assumed for sugarcane tops, the
merit of the integrated scenario decreased from ¥34,029
to ¥2019 per animal pair, indicating that the merit of inte-
gration depends on prices of available feeds. With higher
prices for sugarcane tops, the specialized scenario may be
favorable in the current production circumstances. How-
ever, a monetary value for sugarcane tops is not foreseeable
in the near future.
Decision support systems for farmers are becoming
important under field conditions. Thornton and Herrero
(2001) outlined a framework for the integration of detailed
crop and livestock simulation models to assess the impact
of management practices on integrated production systems.
However, there is a limited number of successful decision
support systems under field conditions because the actual
models and the results obtained may not meet farmers’
demands and address sufficient issues that are farmer or
production system specific.
The model is generally applicable; the biological rela-
tionships and the assumptions used in the model are flexi-
ble and can be applied in a wide range of beef and
sugarcane production circumstances by changing the
inputs according to the scenario. Development of general
models is practical because such models exclude the neces-
sity of building a specific model for each individual situa-
tion. However, gaining the generalisability may cause a
sacrifice of accuracy and precision (Hirooka et al., 1998).
Therefore, it is suggested that the choice of model will differ
according to the application and the quantity and quality
of available information. The present model has taken into
account seasonal changes in feed availability and quality by
the incorporation of input variables such as period of avail-
ability and nutritional composition of the feed resources
(metabolizability, DM and CP). Thus, this model is capa-
ble of determining the respective proportions of different
feed sources and the least-cost alternative diet at any met-
abolic stage of the animals.
Finally, no simulation model can represent a real system
completely. Consequently, models should be continuously
improved by incorporating updated knowledge and infor-
mation. Some efforts should be made to refine the beef
cow–calf and sugarcane model in order to adequately pro-
vide a tool for decision support to the farmer. Refinement
of the model is required in areas such as ration formula-
tion. A difficulty that arises in ration formulation is that
animals are usually fed a diet made up principally of for-
age, such as hay and silage. The nutrient content of the diet
varies widely. As a result, the variation in nutrients should
be considered, especially for sugarcane tops, when formu-
lating the ration for cattle in the integrated system. Subse-
quently, the validation of the model in a real scenario is
necessary. This becomes especially important when the
production system under analysis is highly variable and
unpredictable, as is the case on Tanegashima.
Acknowledgements
The helpful comments and suggestions of reviewers are
gratefully acknowledged. We thank Kyoto University for
provision of facilities. The technical assistance of the Na-
tional Agricultural Research Center for Kyushu Okinawa
Region (KONARC) Department of Crop and Food Sci-
ence, especially the Laboratory of Sugarcane Breeding, is
much appreciated. We also thank the Department of Sta-
tistics of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries of Nishinoo-
mote City Hall and the Japan Science Society (JSS)
through the Sasagawa Scientific Research Grant for fund-
ing this work.
Appendix 1. Estimation of ME intake from dietary feed for
pre-weaning calves
The ME intake from dietary food can be estimated for
pre-weaning animals. Their total ME intake (MEipre) is
the sum of ME intake from milk (MEi(m)) and food (MEi(f)):
 L. Gradiz et al. / Agricultural Systems 94 (2007) 750–762
MEipre ¼ MEiðmÞ þ MEiðfÞ ðMJ=dayÞ
The metabolizability of the diet (qpre) is given by:
 
qpre ¼ qm  MEiðmÞ þ qcreep  MEiðfÞ MEipre ðMJ=dayÞ
where qm and qcreep are the metabolizability of milk (given
= 0.91 (Kahn, 1982)) and creep feed, respectively (Table 1).
The substitution of (A1) into (A2) gives:
MEipre ¼ ½ðqm  qcreep Þ=ðqpre  qcreep Þ  MEiðmÞ ðMJ=dayÞ
ðA3Þ
The energy intake (MEipre) fulfills energy requirements for
maintenance (MEmpre) and growth MEgpre (Table 3) and
can be represented as:
MEipre ¼ MEmpre þ Egpre =k fpre ðMJ=dayÞ
where Egpre is the daily energy retained in the animal body
(Table 3). Equating (A3) and (A4) gives:
MEmpre þ Egpre =k fpre ¼ ½ðqm  qcreep Þ=ðqpre  qcreep Þ  MEiðmÞ
and since kfpre = 0.78qpre + 0.006 results in:
n Agricultural Research Council, 1980. The Nutrient Requirements of
0:1067  WT0:75 2
pre  0:78  qpre þ 0:1067  WTpre
0:75
 ð0:006  0:78  qcreep Þ þ ð0:008  WTpre þ 1:8Þ  DGpre
o n
0:78ðqm  qpre Þ  MEiðmÞ  qpre  ð0:006  qcreep Þ
 
þ 0:1067  WT0:75pre  ð0:008  WTpre þ 1:8Þ  DGpre
o Applied Science Publishers Ltd., London.
qcreep  0:006ðqm  qcreep Þ  MEiðmÞ ðA6Þ
A positive solution to qpre can be obtained by solving Eq.
(A6) = 0. Let a, b and c, respectively, be equal to:
a ¼ 0:78  MEmpre
b ¼ 0:78  ðqm  qcreep Þ  MEiðmÞ þ ð0:006  0:78  qcreep Þ
 MEmpre þ Egpre
c ¼ 0:006  ðqm  qcreep Þ  MEiðmÞ  0:006  qcreep
 MEmpre  qcreep  Egpre
Then, the following quadratic equation for qpre can be ob-
tained by rearranging Eqs. (A7)–(A9):
pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
b  b2  4ac
qpre ¼ ðA10Þ
2a
Finally, The ME intake from dietary food for a pre-wean-
ing calf (MEi(f)t) is given by:
MEiðfÞ ¼ MEmpre þ ½Egpre =ð0:78  qpre þ 0:006Þ  MEiðmÞ :
ðA11Þ
Appendix 2. Calculation of the manure proportion
Fig. 4 illustrates the procedure for calculation of N sup-
plied by manure and inorganic fertilizer. Let M and C be
761
ðA1Þ the N supplied by manure (kg/ha) and chemical fertilizer
(kg/ha), respectively. They are calculated as:
M ðkg=haÞ ¼ A  S=E ðB1Þ
C ðkg=haÞ ¼ Að1  SÞ ðB2Þ
ðA2Þ
where A is the rate of N in sugarcane cultivation, S is the
proportion of manure used (%) and E is the efficiency index
of manure (%). The proportion of manure (pmanure) is cal-
culated as:
pmanure ¼ M=C þ M ðB3Þ
Substituting (B1) and (B2) into (B3) gives:
pmanure ¼ AðS=EÞ=Að1  S þ S=EÞ ðB4Þ
then, pmanure can be calculated by:
ðA4Þ pmanure ¼ ðA=EÞ=ð1  S þ S=EÞ: ðB5Þ
References
Agricultural Food Research Council, 1993. Energy and Protein Require-
ments of Ruminants. CAB International, Wallingford, UK.
ðA5Þ Arango, I., Van Vleck, L.D., 2002. Size of beef cows: early ideas, new
developments. Genet. Mol. Res. 1 (1), 51–63.
Ruminants. Livestock. Thecnical Review. Commonwealth Agricul-
tural Bureaux, Farnham Royal, UK.
Barker, R., Chapman, D., 1998. The economics of sustainable agricultural
systems in developing countries. Working papers in agricultural
economics, 88-13. Cornell University, Ithaca, NY.
Brody, S., 1945. Bioenergetics and Growth. Reinhold, New York.
Dent, J.B., Blackie, M.J., 1979. Systems Simulation in Agriculture.
Department of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries, 2004. Bulletin of
statistics. Nishinoomote City Hall, Kagoshima, Japan.
Devendra, C., 2002. Crop–animal system in Asia: implications for
research. Agric. Syst. 71, 169–177.
Hirooka, H., Groen, A.F., Hillers, J., 1998. Developing breeding
ðA7Þ objectives for beef cattle production. 1. A bio-economic simulation
model. Anim. Sci. 66, 607–621.
Ji, F., 1997. Modeling sugarcane and beef cattle production integration
system, Ph.D. Thesis, University of Hawaii.
ðA8Þ Kahn, H.E., 1982. The developing of a simulation model and its use in the
evaluation of cattle production systems. Ph.D. Thesis, University of
Reading.
ðA9Þ Kevelenge, J.E.E., Said, A.N., Kiflewahid, B., 1983. The nutritive value of
four arable farm by-products commonly fed to dairy cattle by small
scale farmers in Kenya. II. The utilization of nutrients by wither sheep.
Trop. Anim. Prod. 8, 171–179.
Kung, Jr., L., 1978. The nutritive value of chopped whole plant sugar cane
harvested at various stages of maturity and preserved as silage, M.Sc.
Thesis, University of Hawaii.
MAFF (Japanese Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries), 2000.
Japanese Feeding Standard for Beef Cattle. Agriculture, Forestry and
Fisheries Research Council Secretariat, Japan Livestock Industry
Association, Tokyo.
McCarl, B.A., Apland, J., 1986. Validation of linear programming
models. Southern J. Agric. Econ. 18, 155–164.
Nasseven, M.R., 1986. Sugarcane tops as animal feed. In: Sancoucy, R.,
Aarts, G., Preston, T.R. (Eds), Proceeding of an FAO Expert Consul-
tation on Sugarcane as Feed, FAO Publication No. 72, Santo Domingo,
Dominican Republic, Rome, Italy, 7–11 July 1986. pp. 106–122.
Sugimoto, A., Ponragdee, W., Sansayawichi, T., Kawashima, T., Thippa-
yarugs, S., Suriyaphan, P., Matsuoka, M., Lerdprasertrat, K., Prama-
nee, P., 2003. Collecting and evaluating wild relatives of sugarcane as
762 L. Gradiz et al. / Agricultural Systems 94 (2007) 750–762

breeding materials of new type of sugarcane cultivars for cattle feed in
northeast Thailand. JIRCAS Working Report, 30, pp. 55–60.
Thornton, P.K., Herrero, M., 2001. Integrated crop-livestock simulation
models for scenario analysis and impact assessment. Agric. Syst. 70,
581–602.
Wanapat, M., 1990. Nutritional Aspects of Ruminant Production in
Southeast Asia, with Special Reference to Thailand. Funny Press Ltd.,
Bangkok.
Wood, P.D.P., 1967. Algebraic model of the lactation curve in cattle.
Nature (Lond.) 216, 164–165.