Strategies to double milk production per farm in Argentina: Investment, economics and risk analysis

Autores
Baudracco, Javier; Lazzarini, Belén; Rossler, Noelia; Gastaldi, Laura Beatriz; Jauregui, José Martí­n; Fariña, Santiago
Año de publicación
2022
Idioma
inglés
Tipo de recurso
artículo
Estado
versión publicada
Descripción
Context: Demand for dairy products is expected to continue driving intensification in dairy systems. Little is known about the productive and economic performance and risk of intensification strategies either within grazing systems or confinement dairy systems in Argentina. Objective: This study investigated four strategies to double milk production for the average grazing dairy system of Argentina (BASE), using either grazing or confinement systems. Physical and economic performance and risk associated with each alternative was explored using a modelling approach. Investment of capital required to establish each alternative was estimated. Methods: Four scenarios that double milk production per farm from a BASE scenario were designed and modelled using a whole-farm model named e-Dairy: two grazing dairy systems with different milk yield per cow per year: GR6750 (6750 L/cow per year) and GR7500 (7500 L/cow per year) and two confinement systems, an open dry yard (DRYLOT) and a compost bedded pack (COMPOST). Stochastic budgeting was used to model the combined influence of variation in milk, price and crops yield. Outputs of the stochastic analysis are shown in the form of cumulative distribution functions (CDF). Results and conclusions: All the intensification alternatives increased milk production per ha from 7800 L, in BASE system, to 18,209 and 26,758 L in grazing and confinement systems, respectively. Intensified scenarios required an investment of capital between two and three times higher than the BASE scenario. All scenarios had positive economic results. The BASE scenario showed both the lowest farm operating profit and the lowest return on assets ($99/ha per year and 4.1%, respectively). Intensified grazing systems had the highest return on assets (above 12%), while the COMPOST system showed the highest farm operating profit ($1121/ha per year) and the lowest return on assets (7.5%) of the intensification alternatives explored. According to stochastic simulations, the COMPOST and DRYLOT scenarios would expose farmers to a greater maximum loss than BASE and grazing scenarios when negative farm operating profit occurred. However, cumulative distribution functions of profit showed that they would have higher profit than BASE and grazing scenarios along most of the CDF curve.
EEA Rafaela
Fil: Baudracco, Javier. Universidad Nacional del Litoral. Facultad de Ciencias Agrarias; Argentina
Fil: Baudracco, Javier. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas; Argentina
Fil: Lazzarini, Belén. Universidad Nacional del Litoral. Facultad de Ciencias Agrarias; Argentina
Fil: Rossler, Noelia. Universidad Nacional del Litoral. Facultad de Ciencias Agrarias; Argentina
Fil: Gastaldi, Laura. Instituto Nacional de Tecnología Agropecuaria (INTA). Estación Experimental Agropecuaria Rafaela; Argentina.
Fil: Jauregui, José Martí­n. Universidad Nacional del Litoral. Facultad de Ciencias Agrarias; Argentina
Fil: Fariña, Santiago. Instituto Nacional de Investigación Agropecuaria (INIA); Uruguay
Fuente
Agricultural Systems 197 : 103366 (March 2022)
Materia
Leche
Producción
Modelos Estocásticos
Granjas Lecheras
Análisis de Riesgos
Inversiones
Argentina
Milk
Production
Stochastic Models
Dairy Farms
Risk Analysis
Investment
Leche Doble
Double Milk
Nivel de accesibilidad
acceso restringido
Condiciones de uso
Repositorio
INTA Digital (INTA)
Institución
Instituto Nacional de Tecnología Agropecuaria
OAI Identificador
oai:localhost:20.500.12123/11243

id INTADig_f43b55c81e32af34c499c59473e4e202
oai_identifier_str oai:localhost:20.500.12123/11243
network_acronym_str INTADig
repository_id_str l
network_name_str INTA Digital (INTA)
spelling Strategies to double milk production per farm in Argentina: Investment, economics and risk analysisBaudracco, JavierLazzarini, BelénRossler, NoeliaGastaldi, Laura BeatrizJauregui, José Martí­nFariña, SantiagoLecheProducciónModelos EstocásticosGranjas LecherasAnálisis de RiesgosInversionesArgentinaMilkProductionStochastic ModelsDairy FarmsRisk AnalysisInvestmentLeche DobleDouble MilkContext: Demand for dairy products is expected to continue driving intensification in dairy systems. Little is known about the productive and economic performance and risk of intensification strategies either within grazing systems or confinement dairy systems in Argentina. Objective: This study investigated four strategies to double milk production for the average grazing dairy system of Argentina (BASE), using either grazing or confinement systems. Physical and economic performance and risk associated with each alternative was explored using a modelling approach. Investment of capital required to establish each alternative was estimated. Methods: Four scenarios that double milk production per farm from a BASE scenario were designed and modelled using a whole-farm model named e-Dairy: two grazing dairy systems with different milk yield per cow per year: GR6750 (6750 L/cow per year) and GR7500 (7500 L/cow per year) and two confinement systems, an open dry yard (DRYLOT) and a compost bedded pack (COMPOST). Stochastic budgeting was used to model the combined influence of variation in milk, price and crops yield. Outputs of the stochastic analysis are shown in the form of cumulative distribution functions (CDF). Results and conclusions: All the intensification alternatives increased milk production per ha from 7800 L, in BASE system, to 18,209 and 26,758 L in grazing and confinement systems, respectively. Intensified scenarios required an investment of capital between two and three times higher than the BASE scenario. All scenarios had positive economic results. The BASE scenario showed both the lowest farm operating profit and the lowest return on assets ($99/ha per year and 4.1%, respectively). Intensified grazing systems had the highest return on assets (above 12%), while the COMPOST system showed the highest farm operating profit ($1121/ha per year) and the lowest return on assets (7.5%) of the intensification alternatives explored. According to stochastic simulations, the COMPOST and DRYLOT scenarios would expose farmers to a greater maximum loss than BASE and grazing scenarios when negative farm operating profit occurred. However, cumulative distribution functions of profit showed that they would have higher profit than BASE and grazing scenarios along most of the CDF curve.EEA RafaelaFil: Baudracco, Javier. Universidad Nacional del Litoral. Facultad de Ciencias Agrarias; ArgentinaFil: Baudracco, Javier. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas; ArgentinaFil: Lazzarini, Belén. Universidad Nacional del Litoral. Facultad de Ciencias Agrarias; ArgentinaFil: Rossler, Noelia. Universidad Nacional del Litoral. Facultad de Ciencias Agrarias; ArgentinaFil: Gastaldi, Laura. Instituto Nacional de Tecnología Agropecuaria (INTA). Estación Experimental Agropecuaria Rafaela; Argentina.Fil: Jauregui, José Martí­n. Universidad Nacional del Litoral. Facultad de Ciencias Agrarias; ArgentinaFil: Fariña, Santiago. Instituto Nacional de Investigación Agropecuaria (INIA); UruguayElsevier2022-02-22T15:53:12Z2022-02-22T15:53:12Z2022-03info:eu-repo/semantics/articleinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersionhttp://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_6501info:ar-repo/semantics/articuloapplication/pdfhttp://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12123/11243https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0308521X220000260308-521Xhttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.agsy.2022.103366Agricultural Systems 197 : 103366 (March 2022)reponame:INTA Digital (INTA)instname:Instituto Nacional de Tecnología Agropecuariaenginfo:eu-repo/semantics/restrictedAccess2025-11-13T08:47:06Zoai:localhost:20.500.12123/11243instacron:INTAInstitucionalhttp://repositorio.inta.gob.ar/Organismo científico-tecnológicoNo correspondehttp://repositorio.inta.gob.ar/oai/requesttripaldi.nicolas@inta.gob.arArgentinaNo correspondeNo correspondeNo correspondeopendoar:l2025-11-13 08:47:07.251INTA Digital (INTA) - Instituto Nacional de Tecnología Agropecuariafalse
dc.title.none.fl_str_mv Strategies to double milk production per farm in Argentina: Investment, economics and risk analysis
title Strategies to double milk production per farm in Argentina: Investment, economics and risk analysis
spellingShingle Strategies to double milk production per farm in Argentina: Investment, economics and risk analysis
Baudracco, Javier
Leche
Producción
Modelos Estocásticos
Granjas Lecheras
Análisis de Riesgos
Inversiones
Argentina
Milk
Production
Stochastic Models
Dairy Farms
Risk Analysis
Investment
Leche Doble
Double Milk
title_short Strategies to double milk production per farm in Argentina: Investment, economics and risk analysis
title_full Strategies to double milk production per farm in Argentina: Investment, economics and risk analysis
title_fullStr Strategies to double milk production per farm in Argentina: Investment, economics and risk analysis
title_full_unstemmed Strategies to double milk production per farm in Argentina: Investment, economics and risk analysis
title_sort Strategies to double milk production per farm in Argentina: Investment, economics and risk analysis
dc.creator.none.fl_str_mv Baudracco, Javier
Lazzarini, Belén
Rossler, Noelia
Gastaldi, Laura Beatriz
Jauregui, José Martí­n
Fariña, Santiago
author Baudracco, Javier
author_facet Baudracco, Javier
Lazzarini, Belén
Rossler, Noelia
Gastaldi, Laura Beatriz
Jauregui, José Martí­n
Fariña, Santiago
author_role author
author2 Lazzarini, Belén
Rossler, Noelia
Gastaldi, Laura Beatriz
Jauregui, José Martí­n
Fariña, Santiago
author2_role author
author
author
author
author
dc.subject.none.fl_str_mv Leche
Producción
Modelos Estocásticos
Granjas Lecheras
Análisis de Riesgos
Inversiones
Argentina
Milk
Production
Stochastic Models
Dairy Farms
Risk Analysis
Investment
Leche Doble
Double Milk
topic Leche
Producción
Modelos Estocásticos
Granjas Lecheras
Análisis de Riesgos
Inversiones
Argentina
Milk
Production
Stochastic Models
Dairy Farms
Risk Analysis
Investment
Leche Doble
Double Milk
dc.description.none.fl_txt_mv Context: Demand for dairy products is expected to continue driving intensification in dairy systems. Little is known about the productive and economic performance and risk of intensification strategies either within grazing systems or confinement dairy systems in Argentina. Objective: This study investigated four strategies to double milk production for the average grazing dairy system of Argentina (BASE), using either grazing or confinement systems. Physical and economic performance and risk associated with each alternative was explored using a modelling approach. Investment of capital required to establish each alternative was estimated. Methods: Four scenarios that double milk production per farm from a BASE scenario were designed and modelled using a whole-farm model named e-Dairy: two grazing dairy systems with different milk yield per cow per year: GR6750 (6750 L/cow per year) and GR7500 (7500 L/cow per year) and two confinement systems, an open dry yard (DRYLOT) and a compost bedded pack (COMPOST). Stochastic budgeting was used to model the combined influence of variation in milk, price and crops yield. Outputs of the stochastic analysis are shown in the form of cumulative distribution functions (CDF). Results and conclusions: All the intensification alternatives increased milk production per ha from 7800 L, in BASE system, to 18,209 and 26,758 L in grazing and confinement systems, respectively. Intensified scenarios required an investment of capital between two and three times higher than the BASE scenario. All scenarios had positive economic results. The BASE scenario showed both the lowest farm operating profit and the lowest return on assets ($99/ha per year and 4.1%, respectively). Intensified grazing systems had the highest return on assets (above 12%), while the COMPOST system showed the highest farm operating profit ($1121/ha per year) and the lowest return on assets (7.5%) of the intensification alternatives explored. According to stochastic simulations, the COMPOST and DRYLOT scenarios would expose farmers to a greater maximum loss than BASE and grazing scenarios when negative farm operating profit occurred. However, cumulative distribution functions of profit showed that they would have higher profit than BASE and grazing scenarios along most of the CDF curve.
EEA Rafaela
Fil: Baudracco, Javier. Universidad Nacional del Litoral. Facultad de Ciencias Agrarias; Argentina
Fil: Baudracco, Javier. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas; Argentina
Fil: Lazzarini, Belén. Universidad Nacional del Litoral. Facultad de Ciencias Agrarias; Argentina
Fil: Rossler, Noelia. Universidad Nacional del Litoral. Facultad de Ciencias Agrarias; Argentina
Fil: Gastaldi, Laura. Instituto Nacional de Tecnología Agropecuaria (INTA). Estación Experimental Agropecuaria Rafaela; Argentina.
Fil: Jauregui, José Martí­n. Universidad Nacional del Litoral. Facultad de Ciencias Agrarias; Argentina
Fil: Fariña, Santiago. Instituto Nacional de Investigación Agropecuaria (INIA); Uruguay
description Context: Demand for dairy products is expected to continue driving intensification in dairy systems. Little is known about the productive and economic performance and risk of intensification strategies either within grazing systems or confinement dairy systems in Argentina. Objective: This study investigated four strategies to double milk production for the average grazing dairy system of Argentina (BASE), using either grazing or confinement systems. Physical and economic performance and risk associated with each alternative was explored using a modelling approach. Investment of capital required to establish each alternative was estimated. Methods: Four scenarios that double milk production per farm from a BASE scenario were designed and modelled using a whole-farm model named e-Dairy: two grazing dairy systems with different milk yield per cow per year: GR6750 (6750 L/cow per year) and GR7500 (7500 L/cow per year) and two confinement systems, an open dry yard (DRYLOT) and a compost bedded pack (COMPOST). Stochastic budgeting was used to model the combined influence of variation in milk, price and crops yield. Outputs of the stochastic analysis are shown in the form of cumulative distribution functions (CDF). Results and conclusions: All the intensification alternatives increased milk production per ha from 7800 L, in BASE system, to 18,209 and 26,758 L in grazing and confinement systems, respectively. Intensified scenarios required an investment of capital between two and three times higher than the BASE scenario. All scenarios had positive economic results. The BASE scenario showed both the lowest farm operating profit and the lowest return on assets ($99/ha per year and 4.1%, respectively). Intensified grazing systems had the highest return on assets (above 12%), while the COMPOST system showed the highest farm operating profit ($1121/ha per year) and the lowest return on assets (7.5%) of the intensification alternatives explored. According to stochastic simulations, the COMPOST and DRYLOT scenarios would expose farmers to a greater maximum loss than BASE and grazing scenarios when negative farm operating profit occurred. However, cumulative distribution functions of profit showed that they would have higher profit than BASE and grazing scenarios along most of the CDF curve.
publishDate 2022
dc.date.none.fl_str_mv 2022-02-22T15:53:12Z
2022-02-22T15:53:12Z
2022-03
dc.type.none.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/article
info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion
http://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_6501
info:ar-repo/semantics/articulo
format article
status_str publishedVersion
dc.identifier.none.fl_str_mv http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12123/11243
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0308521X22000026
0308-521X
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agsy.2022.103366
url http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12123/11243
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0308521X22000026
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agsy.2022.103366
identifier_str_mv 0308-521X
dc.language.none.fl_str_mv eng
language eng
dc.rights.none.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/restrictedAccess
eu_rights_str_mv restrictedAccess
dc.format.none.fl_str_mv application/pdf
dc.publisher.none.fl_str_mv Elsevier
publisher.none.fl_str_mv Elsevier
dc.source.none.fl_str_mv Agricultural Systems 197 : 103366 (March 2022)
reponame:INTA Digital (INTA)
instname:Instituto Nacional de Tecnología Agropecuaria
reponame_str INTA Digital (INTA)
collection INTA Digital (INTA)
instname_str Instituto Nacional de Tecnología Agropecuaria
repository.name.fl_str_mv INTA Digital (INTA) - Instituto Nacional de Tecnología Agropecuaria
repository.mail.fl_str_mv tripaldi.nicolas@inta.gob.ar
_version_ 1848680508717793280
score 12.742515