Tackling the future challenges of Organic Animal Husbandry - vTI

More documents

Recommendations

Info

! Agriculture and Forestry Research, Special Issue No 362 (Braunschweig, 2012) ISSN 0376-0723 Download: www.vti.bund.de/en/startseite/vti-publications/landbauforschung-special-issues.html 266 Economic Evaluation of Longevity in Organic Dairy Farming MARCO HORN 1 , WILHELM KNAUS 1 , LEOPOLD KIRNER 2 AND ANDREAS STEINWIDDER 3 1 University of Natural Resources and Life Sciences-Division of Livestock Sciences, Austria, www.boku.ac.at, eMail: marco.horn@boku.ac.at and wilhelm.knaus@boku.ac.at 2 Federal Institute of Agricultural Economics-Division of Market and Food Economics, Austria, www.agraroekonomik.at, eMail: leopold.kirner@awi.bmlfuw.gv.at Abstract 3 Agricultural Research and Education Centre Raumberg-Gumpenstein, Institute of Organic Farming and Farm Animal Biodiversity, Austria, www.raumberg-gumpenstein.at, andreas.steinwidder@raumberg-gumpenstein.at The aim of this study was to highlight the economic importance of longevity in organic dairy cattle husbandry. Performance and reproductive data of 44,976 Austrian organic Simmental dairy cows were analysed by applying a bio-economic model. A farm scenario as well as different market situations were modelled. Overall costs declined with increasing longevity, due to dropping replacement costs. Annual profit was influenced considerably by milk yield and longevity. Short-lived animals needed substantially higher annual milk yields than long-lived animals to achieve equal annual profits. The applied market scenarios showed an increasing importance of longevity in situations of increasing economic pressure (+20% of concentrate price). It has been proven that extending longevity allows lower milk yield levels without decreasing profitability. Lower use of concentrates and reduced dependence on off-farm inputs and market fluctuations are further benefits. Key words: lifespan, profitability, costs, dairy cow, sustainability Introduction Animal health and welfare, sustainability and minimal off-farm inputs are crucial principles of organic dairy farming. In contrast, maximizing milk yield per cow and early maturity have been main breeding goals during recent decades in dairy cow breeding. As there are several negative genetic correlations between performance and fitness traits as well as between milk production level and animal health, increasing milk performance has led to serious declines in fitness and health as well as animal welfare and therefore longevity (Essl 1996, Fleischer et al. 2001, Knaus 2009, Oltenacu and Broom 2010). The stated developments and the changes in diets resulted in a sharp increase of feeding, replacement and veterinary costs. Therefore the high-performance strategy is very questionable from both an ecological and an economic point of view. The aim of this study was to highlight the economic importance of longevity for organic dairy cattle husbandry. Material and methodology Performance and reproductive data of all Austrian organic dual-purpose Simmental dairy cows (n=44,976) included in the national recording program and culled between 2000 and 2010 formed the data set for a bio-economic model. Animals were grouped according to completed lactations (culled after 1, 2, 3…10 lactations) and within these lactation groups into performance groups according to lifetime energy-corrected milk (ECM) performance (average, 5,000 best, 1,000 best, 500 best and 50 best animals). Model assumptions were made in order to represent an average Austrian organic dairy farm with 150,000 kg annual milk quota. Ascertainment of profits was done by full cost accounting including the following parameters:
RAHMANN G & GODINHO D (Ed.) (2012): Tackling the Future Challenges of Organic Animal Husbandry. Proceedings of the 2 nd OAHC, Hamburg/Trenthorst, Germany, Sep 12-14, 2012 Profit (€ year -1 ) = revenues (milk, culling, calves) – costs (feed, replacement, veterinary treatment, insemination, building occupancy, factor costs) + subsidies (environmental subsidies, livestock aid, single farm payment) A precise description of the methods used and model assumptions was reported by Horn (2011). In short, to estimate annual feed costs rations were modelled taking into account milk yield and milk composition, life weight and life weight gain as well as nutrient mobilisation. During lactation rations contained forages (grass silage, hay, pasture and corn silage) and concentrates for energy and protein supplementation, but rations composition was adjusted according to milk yield. During the dry period ration consisted of forages only. Annual feed costs were calculated as full costs taking the maintenance of grassland and harvesting activities, manure application as well as fence building and maintenance costs for pasture into account. Corn silage and concentrates were assumed to be purchased. Costs for heifers needed for replacement, revenues of calves as well as costs for insemination and veterinary treatments were estimated depending on milk yield potential. Annual building occupancy and factor costs were estimated based on official reference values and included barn and storage charges as well as land use, milk quota and labour wage rate. Milk price was set according to Austrian organic milk market data. Culling revenue was estimated based on life weight at the end of the animal’s productive life, carcass yield and slaughter price. Subsidies included in the calculations were single farm payments, livestock aid and environmental subsidies pursuant to European and Austrian regulations for organic agriculture. To estimate how future market developments and changing production costs might affect farm profit, varying costs of concentrates (+/-20% price) were tested under ceteris paribus conditions. Results The description of the results excludes intermediate performance groups and focuses on the average and 50 best animals of each lactation group. Costs Annual mean total dry matter feed intake of the average cows was 5,402 kg (± 207) and 6,531 kg (± 214) for the 50 best animals respectively. It rose with increasing milk yield, as did concentrate intake. Annual concentrate consume of average animals was calculated 787 kg (± 81), while the mean concentrate intake of the 50 best animals was 2,087 kg (± 226). Cows´ feed and replacement costs constituted the largest proportion to total costs. Feed costs of cows increased with annual milk production and were € 906 (± 31) and € 1,657 (± 160) for average and best 50 animals, respectively. Feed costs seemed to react disproportionately in comparison with annual milk yield increase, for example for animals culled after four lactations, they increased by 96 % while annual milk yield increased 60 %. When comparing total annual costs, they increased with rising milk yield and were € 1,864 (± 225) and € 2635 (± 398) for average and best 50 animals respectively. With advanced longevity, replacement costs clearly declined and dropped by 74 % comparing animals with one and five completed lactations. Total annual costs rose with increasing milk yield, but declined with rising longevity. Revenues Milk revenue constituted the largest share and follows annual milk yield. Culling revenues declined with increasing longevity. Higher yielding groups had substantially higher total revenues than average cows, € 4,082 (± 322) and 2,779 (± 64), respectively. Total revenues rose until the 4 th lactation for average animals, and the 3 rd lactation for the 50 best cows. Profit in farm model scenario The number of cows and the acreage required declined with rising milk yield. In contrast, total profit increased and was clearly higher for the 50 best animals than for the average cows. By increasing longevity, profits increased up to the 6 th lactation for the average and up to the 5 th lactation for the 267
Page 1 and 2:
Sonderheft 362 Special Issue Tackli
Page 3:
Landbauforschung vTI Agriculture an
Page 7 and 8:
Foreword Organic animal husbandry s
Page 9 and 10:
RAHMANN G & GODINHO D (Ed.) (2012):
Page 11 and 12:
Content RAHMANN G & GODINHO D (Ed.)
Page 13 and 14:
Page 15 and 16:
Page 17 and 18:
Page 19 and 20:
Page 21 and 22:
Introduction RAHMANN G & GODINHO D
Page 23 and 24:
Page 25 and 26:
Page 27 and 28:
Page 29 and 30:
Page 31 and 32:
Page 33 and 34:
Page 35 and 36:
References RAHMANN G & GODINHO D (E
Page 37 and 38:
Page 39 and 40:
Page 41 and 42:
Page 43 and 44:
Page 45 and 46:
Page 47 and 48:
Page 49 and 50:
Abstract RAHMANN G & GODINHO D (Ed.
Page 51 and 52:
Page 53 and 54:
Page 55 and 56:
Page 57 and 58:
Page 59 and 60:
Page 61 and 62:
Page 63 and 64:
Page 65 and 66:
Page 67 and 68:
Discussion RAHMANN G & GODINHO D (E
Page 69 and 70:
Page 71 and 72:
Page 73 and 74:
Page 75 and 76:
Page 77 and 78:
Page 79 and 80:
Page 81 and 82:
Page 83 and 84:
Page 85 and 86:
Page 87 and 88:
Page 89 and 90:
Page 91 and 92:
Factors Plant Height (cm) RAHMANN G
Page 93 and 94:
Page 95 and 96:
Page 97 and 98:
Page 99 and 100:
Page 101 and 102:
Page 103 and 104:
Page 105 and 106:
Page 107 and 108:
Page 109 and 110:
Page 111 and 112:
Page 113 and 114:
Page 115 and 116:
Page 117 and 118:
Page 119 and 120:
Page 121 and 122:
Page 123 and 124:
Page 125 and 126:
Page 127 and 128:
Page 129 and 130:
Page 131 and 132:
Page 133 and 134:
Page 135 and 136:
Page 137 and 138:
Page 139 and 140:
Page 141 and 142:
Page 143 and 144:
Page 145 and 146:
Page 147 and 148:
Page 149 and 150:
Page 151 and 152:
Page 153 and 154:
Page 155 and 156:
Page 157 and 158:
Page 159 and 160:
Page 161 and 162:
Page 163 and 164:
Page 165 and 166:
Page 167 and 168:
Page 169 and 170:
Page 171 and 172:
Page 173 and 174:
Page 175 and 176:
Page 177 and 178:
Page 179 and 180:
Page 181 and 182:
Page 183 and 184:
Page 185 and 186:
Page 187 and 188:
Page 189 and 190:
Page 191 and 192:
Page 193 and 194:
Page 195 and 196:
Page 197 and 198:
Page 199 and 200:
Page 201 and 202:
Page 203 and 204:
Page 205 and 206:
Page 207 and 208:
Page 209 and 210:
Page 211 and 212:
Page 213 and 214:
Page 215 and 216:
Page 217 and 218:
Page 219 and 220:
Page 221 and 222: RAHMANN G & GODINHO D (Ed.) (2012):
Page 233 and 234: Results RAHMANN G & GODINHO D (Ed.)
Page 243 and 244: Abstract RAHMANN G & GODINHO D (Ed.
Page 249 and 250: FEC adjusted for dry matter 12000 1
Page 267 and 268: Conclusions RAHMANN G & GODINHO D (
Page 271: RAHMANN G & GODINHO D (Ed.) (2012):
Page 277 and 278: Results RAHMANN G & GODINHO D (Ed.)
Page 323 and 324:
Page 325 and 326:
Page 327 and 328:
Page 329 and 330:
Page 331 and 332:
Page 333 and 334:
Page 335 and 336:
Page 337 and 338:
Page 339 and 340:
Page 341 and 342:
Page 343 and 344:
Page 345 and 346:
Page 347 and 348:
Page 349 and 350:
Page 351 and 352:
Page 353 and 354:
Page 355 and 356:
349 Table 1. Breeding information o
Page 357 and 358:
Page 359 and 360:
Page 361 and 362:
Page 363 and 364:
Page 365 and 366:
Page 367 and 368:
Page 369 and 370:
Page 371 and 372:
Page 373 and 374:
Page 375 and 376:
Page 377 and 378:
Page 379 and 380:
Page 381 and 382:
Page 383 and 384:
Page 385 and 386:
Page 387 and 388:
Page 389 and 390:
Page 391 and 392:
Page 393 and 394:
Page 395 and 396:
Page 397 and 398:
Page 399 and 400:
Page 401 and 402:
Page 403 and 404:
Page 405 and 406:
Page 407 and 408:
Page 409 and 410:
Page 411 and 412:
Page 413 and 414:
Page 415 and 416:
Page 417 and 418:
Page 419 and 420:
Page 421 and 422:
Page 423 and 424:
Page 425 and 426:
Page 427 and 428:
Page 429 and 430:
Page 431 and 432:
Page 433 and 434:
Page 435 and 436:
Page 437 and 438:
Page 439 and 440:
Page 441 and 442:
Page 443 and 444:
Page 445 and 446:
Kg liveweight (mean) RAHMANN G & GO
Page 447 and 448:
Page 449 and 450:
Page 451 and 452:
Page 453 and 454:
Results RAHMANN G & GODINHO D (Ed.)
Page 455 and 456:
Page 457 and 458:
Page 459 and 460:
Page 461 and 462:
Page 463 and 464:
Page 465 and 466:
Page 467 and 468:
Page 469 and 470:
Page 471 and 472:
Page 473 and 474:
Page 475 and 476:
Page 477 and 478:
Page 479 and 480:
Page 481 and 482:
Page 483 and 484:
Page 485 and 486:
Page 487 and 488:
Page 489:
348 Herwart Böhm (Hrsg.) (2011) Op
show all

Tackling the future challenges of Organic Animal Husbandry - vTI

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?