Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-dh8gc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-19T12:22:54.999Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

An economic evaluation of long-term sustainability in the dairy sector

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 August 2016

J. M. Santarossa ,
A. W. Stott ,
J. A. Woolliams ,
S. Brotherstone ,
E. Wall  and
M. P. Coffey
J. M. Santarossa*
Affiliation:
Land Economy Group, Scottish Agricultural College, Auchincruive, Ayr KA6 5HW, UK
A. W. Stott
Affiliation:
Land Economy Group, Scottish Agricultural College, Auchincruive, Ayr KA6 5HW, UK
J. A. Woolliams
Affiliation:
Genetics and Biometry, Roslin Institute, Roslin, Midlothian EH25 9PS, UK
S. Brotherstone
Affiliation:
Sustainable Livestock Systems Group, Scottish Agricultural College, Penicuik, Midlothian EH26 0PH, UK
E. Wall
Affiliation:
Sustainable Livestock Systems Group, Scottish Agricultural College, Penicuik, Midlothian EH26 0PH, UK
M. P. Coffey
Affiliation:
Sustainable Livestock Systems Group, Scottish Agricultural College, Penicuik, Midlothian EH26 0PH, UK
*
†E-mail: [email protected]
Get access

Abstract

This paper addresses the problem of assigning economic weights to heritable genetic traits of dairy cows while taking all implicit natural resource values into consideration. To do so, a deterministic bio-economic model of a dairy farm enterprise driven by input probabilities of oestrous detection and conception rates that act through the calving interval is constructed. The model further accounts for biologically limiting factors of both livestock and land within a neo-classical economics framework of profit maximization. Departing from the more customary approach of obtaining gross margins to calculate levels of return in the agricultural sector, we employ a natural resource economics methodology where returns are set against an economic point of reference specified as the value of natural assets' productivity and terminal assets' resale value. Introducing the impact of farming intensity on soil fertility enables us to obtain long-run variations in natural asset values as affected by tillage intensity. Results show that economic weights are not constant over the range of changes in genetic improvements due to the non-linearity of the system induced by diminishing marginal product of inputs and finite carrying capacity of resources employed. These values, while invariant to area farmed, are however subject to variations in resource quality and therefore will reflect the sensitivity of long-term sustainability of the system to managerial decisions on intensity of operation. Results further demonstrated that achieving optimum levels of output while precluding the impact of intensity on land productivity can seriously reduce the time horizon over which sustainability can be maintained. Inclusion of the implicit costs of land use on the other hand tended to suggest optimum levels of output below those identified when only considering accounting data.

Keywords

bio-economic modeldairy industryeconomic evaluationintegrated systems
Type
Ruminant nutrition, behaviour and production
Information
Animal Science , Volume 79 , Issue 2 , October 2004 , pp. 315 - 325
Copyright
Copyright © British Society of Animal Science 2004

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Agrawal, R. C. and Heady, E. O. 1972. Operations research methods for agricultural decisions. Iowa State University Press, Ames, IA.Google Scholar
Agricultural and Food Research Council. 1995. Energy and protein requirements of ruminants. An advisory manual prepared by the AFRC Technical Committee on Responses to Nutrients. CAB International, Wallingford, UK.Google Scholar
Amer, P. R. and Fox, G. C. 1992. Estimation of economic weights in genetic improvement using neoclassical production theory: an alternative to rescaling. Animal Production 54:341–350.Google Scholar
Amer, P. R., Kemp, R. A., Buchanan-Smith, J. G., Fox, G. C. and Smith, C. 1994. A bioeconomic model for comparing beef cattle genotypes at their optimal economic slaughter end point. Journal of Animal Science 72:38–50.Google Scholar
Arendonk, J. A. M. van. 1985. A model to estimate the performance, revenues and costs of dairy cows under different production and price situation. Agricultural Systems 16:157–189.Google Scholar
Bradford, G. E. 1999. Contributions of animal agriculture to meeting global human food demand. Livestock Production Science 59:95–112.Google Scholar
Bright, G. 1991. Economic weights from profit equations: appraising their accuracy. Animal Production 53:395–398.Google Scholar
Conrad, J. M. 1995. Bioeconomic models of the fishery. In The handbook of environmental economics (ed. Bromley, D. W.), pp. 405–432.Blackwell Publishers, Oxford, UK.Google Scholar
Debertin, D. 1986. Agricultural production economics. McMillan, New York.Google Scholar
Forbes, D., Gayton, S. and McKeogh, B. 1999. Improving the longevity of cows in the UK dairy herd. Milk Development Council, Cirencester.Google Scholar
France, J. and Thornley, J. H. M. 1984. Mathematical models in agriculture. Butterworths, London.Google Scholar
Gill, M. and Oldham, J. D. 1993. Growth. In Quantitative aspects of ruminants digestion and metabolism (ed. Forbes, J. M. and France, J.), pp. 383–403. CAB International, Wallingford, UK.Google Scholar
Hartwick, J. M. and Olewiler, N. D. 1998. The economics of natural resources use. Addison-Wesley, Reading, Massachusetts.Google Scholar
Juga, J., Mantysaari, E. and Poso, J. 1999. Economic response to toal merit selection in Finnish Ayrshire breeding. Bulletin of the International Bull Evaluation Service, vol 23, pp. 787–789.Google Scholar
McArthur, A. T. G. 1987. Weighting breeding objectives - an economic approach. Proceedings of the sixth annual conference of the Australian Association of Animal Breedings and Genetics, Perth, pp. 187–197.Google Scholar
McConnell, K. 1983. An economic model of soil conservation. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 65: 83–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Milk Development Council. 2002. British dairying, vol. 8, no. 12. WB Publishing, Welwyn, Herts, UK. (http://www.mdcdatum.org.uk/leaguetable.htm).Google Scholar
Parr, J. E., Papendick, R. I., Hornick, S. B. and Meyer, R. E. 1992. Soil quality: attributes and relationship to alternative and sustainable agriculture. American Journal of Alternative Agriculture 7:5–11.Google Scholar
Policy Commission on the Future of Farming and Food. 2002. Farming and food: a sustainable future. Cabinet Office, London.Google Scholar
Royal, M. D., Darwash, A. O., Flint, A. P. E., Webb, R., Woolliams, J. A. and Lamming, G. E. 2000. Declining fertility in dairy cattle: changes in traditional and endocrine parameters of fertility. Animal Science 70:487–501.Google Scholar
Rutherford, D. 1995. Dictionary of economics. Routledge, London, UK.Google Scholar
Santarossa, J. M. 1998. Strategic behaviour and market deregulation in the UK dairy sector. Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics, working paper series, vol. 2, p. 5. Social Science Electronic Publishing Inc., http://papersssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=86598 Google Scholar
Santarossa, J. M. 2003. Environmental and economic consequences of agricultural support policy reforms. M. Sc. dissertation, Imperial College, London University.Google Scholar
Scottish Agricultural College. 1992. Fertiliser allowances for manure and slurries. Fertiliser series, technical note no. 14. SAC, Edinburgh.Google Scholar
Scottish Agricultural College. 2002. The farm management handbook 2002/2003. SAC, Edinburgh.Google Scholar
SEERAD. 2002. Scottish agricultural census summary. Scottish Executive National Statistics Publication, Edinburgh.Google Scholar
Spreen, T. H. and Laughlin, D. H. 1986. Simulation of beef cattle production systems and its use in economic analysis. Westview Press,Boulder CO.,Google Scholar
Stott, A. W., Veerkamp, R. F. and Wassell, T. R. 1999. The economics of fertility in the dairy herd. Animal Science 68: 49–57.Google Scholar
Turner, R. K., Pearce, D. W. and Bateman, I. 1994. Environmental economics: an elementary introduction. Havester Wheatsheaf, New York.Google Scholar
Veerkamp, R., Dillon, P., Kelly, E., Cromie, A. and Groen, A. 2002. Dairy cattle breeding objectives combining yield, survival and calving interval for pasture-based systems in Ireland under different milk quota scenarios. Livestock Production Science 76:137–151.Google Scholar
Veerkamp, R. E, Hill, W. G., Stott, A. W., Brotherstone, S. and Simm, G. 1995. Selection for longevity and yield in dairy cows using transmitting abilities for type and yield. Animal Science 61:189–197.Google Scholar
Wall, E., Brotherstone, S., Woolliams, J. A., Banos, G. and Coffey, M. P. 2003. Genetic evaluation of fertility using direct and correlated traits. Journal of Dairy Science 86: 4093–4102.Google Scholar
Williams, J. R., Jones, C. A., Kiniry, J. R. and Spanel, D. K. 1989. The EPIC crop growth model. Transactions of the American Society of Agricultural Engineers 32:497–511.CrossRefGoogle Scholar