IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/agisys/v176y2019ics0308521x18313787.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Opportunities and challenges for the growth of milk production from pasture: The case of farm systems in Uruguay

Author

Listed:
  • Fariña, S.R.
  • Chilibroste, P.

Abstract

Volatility of markets and climate are driving exporting dairy industries to increase milk production from pasture. However, some regions are not able to grow due to economic, social and environmental constraints. The objective of this study was to analyse at the farm system level the opportunities and challenges for the growth of pasture-based dairy production in Uruguay. A national database of 256 dairy farms was used to compare four groups of Uruguayan farms selected according to the total milk production growth rate from 2013 to 2017. Their productivity (milk production per hectare) and profit was compared by fitting mixed models. Complementarily, the International Farm Comparison Network database was used to compare biophysical and economic indicators of typical farm systems of Argentina, Australia, Ireland, Holland, New Zealand, United States and Uruguay from 2013 to 2017. The growing groups of farms (medium and high growth; >5% per year) showed more productivity due to their higher stocking rate and achieved a higher margin over feed cost and a lower feeding cost per L of milk than the shrinking groups (medium and high decrease; <0% per year). The growing systems showed a higher consumption per hectare of home-grown forage (pasture and conserved forage) and supplements. Margin over feed cost decreased alongside milk price over the time frame analysed, with no significant interaction between group and year. Productivity in New Zealand, Australia, United States and Holland was above 10,000 L/ha whereas in Ireland, Argentina and Uruguay it was below 7000 L/ha. Consumption of home-grown forage per hectare in the former countries more than doubled the latter, which consumed approximately half the potential forage production locally reported. Home-grown forage consumption per hectare was a more likely driver of productivity than bought-in feed or feed conversion efficiency. Uruguay achieved the lowest cost of production however current low stocking rates (0.7 cows/ha for the typical farm system) limit home-grown forage consumption and productivity growth. Inter-annual variation in economic performance was larger than the variation in biophysical performance for all countries. This study showed that pasture-based farming systems in Uruguay could make a leap in milk production without losing competitiveness by doubling their home-grown forage consumption through increased stocking rates. For such growth, some future challenges will remain around managing P accumulation and runoff in intensifying farms as well as improving farm design and infrastructure to attract labour, improve its productivity and assure animal welfare.

Suggested Citation

  • Fariña, S.R. & Chilibroste, P., 2019. "Opportunities and challenges for the growth of milk production from pasture: The case of farm systems in Uruguay," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 176(C).
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:agisys:v:176:y:2019:i:c:s0308521x18313787
    DOI: 10.1016/j.agsy.2019.05.001
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0308521X18313787
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.agsy.2019.05.001?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Fariña, S.R. & Alford, A. & Garcia, S.C. & Fulkerson, W.J., 2013. "An integrated assessment of business risk for pasture-based dairy farm systems intensification," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 115(C), pages 10-20.
    2. Lizarralde, Carolina & Picasso, Valentin & Rotz, C. Alan & Cadenazzi, Monica & Astigarraga, Laura, 2014. "Practices to Reduce Milk Carbon Footprint on Grazing Dairy Farms in Southern Uruguay: Case Studies," Sustainable Agriculture Research, Canadian Center of Science and Education, vol. 3(2).
    3. Eastwood, C.R. & Chapman, D.F. & Paine, M.S., 2012. "Networks of practice for co-construction of agricultural decision support systems: Case studies of precision dairy farms in Australia," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 108(C), pages 10-18.
    4. Tarrant, Katherine A. & Armstrong, Dan P., 2012. "An economic evaluation of automatic cluster removers as a labour saving device for dairy farm businesses," AFBM Journal, Australasian Farm Business Management Network, vol. 9(01), pages 1-6.
    5. Klerkx, Laurens & Nettle, Ruth, 2013. "Achievements and challenges of innovation co-production support initiatives in the Australian and Dutch dairy sectors: A comparative study," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 40(C), pages 74-89.
    6. Nevens, F. & Verbruggen, I. & Reheul, D. & Hofman, G., 2006. "Farm gate nitrogen surpluses and nitrogen use efficiency of specialized dairy farms in Flanders: Evolution and future goals," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 88(2-3), pages 142-155, June.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Notte, Gastón & Cancela, Héctor & Pedemonte, Martín & Chilibroste, Pablo & Rossing, Walter & Groot, Jeroen C.J., 2020. "A multi-objective optimization model for dairy feeding management," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 183(C).
    2. Fariña, Santiago & Moreno, Osiris Vigil & Candioti, Francisco & Villanueva, Cristóbal & Ledezma, William Sánchez & Moscoso, Cristian J. & Cajarville, Cecilia & Charlón, Verónica & Abaunza, Luis Urbina, 2024. "Milk production systems in Latin America and the Caribbean: Biophysical, socio-economic, and environmental performance," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 218(C).
    3. Baudracco, Javier & Lazzarini, Belén & Rossler, Noelia & Gastaldi, Laura & Jauregui, José & Fariña, Santiago, 2022. "Strategies to double milk production per farm in Argentina: Investment, economics and risk analysis," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 197(C).
    4. Castagna, Andrés & Matonte, Federico & Mauttone, Antonio & Rodríguez-Gallego, Lorena & Blumetto, Oscar, 2024. "Land use planning to minimize the export of phosphorus: An optimization model for dairy production at a catchment area scale," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 138(C).
    5. Stirling, Sofía & Fariña, Santiago & Pacheco, David & Vibart, Ronaldo, 2021. "Whole-farm modelling of grazing dairy systems in Uruguay," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 193(C).

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Eastwood, C.R. & Turner, F.J. & Romera, A.J., 2022. "Farmer-centred design: An affordances-based framework for identifying processes that facilitate farmers as co-designers in addressing complex agricultural challenges," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 195(C).
    2. Selvaggi, R. & Pappalardo, G. & Zarbà, C. & Lusk, J.L., 2024. "Driving factors behind precision livestock farming tools adoption: The case of the pedometer on dairy farms," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 220(C).
    3. Nina Repar & Pierrick Jan & Thomas Nemecek & Dunja Dux & Martina Alig Ceesay & Reiner Doluschitz, 2016. "Local versus Global Environmental Performance of Dairying and Their Link to Economic Performance: A Case Study of Swiss Mountain Farms," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 8(12), pages 1-19, December.
    4. Snow, Stephen & Fielke, Simon & Fleming, Aysha & Jakku, Emma & Malakar, Yuwan & Turner, Charles & Hunter, Tammy & Tijs, Sigrid & Bonnett, Graham, 2024. "Climate services for agriculture: Steering towards inclusive innovation in Australian climate services design and delivery," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 217(C).
    5. Balaine, Lorraine & Dillon, Emma J. & Läpple, Doris & Lynch, John, 2020. "Can technology help achieve sustainable intensification? Evidence from milk recording on Irish dairy farms," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 92(C).
    6. Westbrooke, Victoria & Greer, Glen, 2017. "Pr - Processors And Farmers - Working Together To Improve Outcomes," 21st Congress, Edinburgh, Scotland, July 2-7, 2017 345810, International Farm Management Association.
    7. Van Passel, Steven & Nevens, Frank & Mathijs, Erik & Van Huylenbroeck, Guido, 2007. "Measuring farm sustainability and explaining differences in sustainable efficiency," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 62(1), pages 149-161, April.
    8. Yang, Huan & Klerkx, Laurens & Leeuwis, Cees, 2014. "Functions and limitations of farmer cooperatives as innovation intermediaries: Findings from China," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 127(C), pages 115-125.
    9. Mamiya Binte Ahsan & Guo Leifeng & Fardous Mohammad Safiul Azam & Beibei Xu & Shah Johir Rayhan & Abdul Kaium & Wang Wensheng, 2022. "Barriers, Challenges, and Requirements for ICT Usage among Sub-Assistant Agricultural Officers in Bangladesh: Toward Sustainability in Agriculture," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(1), pages 1-27, December.
    10. Zinnanti, Cinzia & Schimmenti, Emanuele & Borsellino, Valeria & Paolini, Giulio & Severini, Simone, 2019. "Economic performance and risk of farming systems specialized in perennial crops: An analysis of Italian hazelnut production," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 176(C).
    11. Srinivasan, M.S. & Jongmans, C. & Bewsell, D. & Elley, G., 2019. "Research idea to science for impact: Tracing the significant moments in an innovation based irrigation study," Agricultural Water Management, Elsevier, vol. 212(C), pages 181-192.
    12. Dillon, Emma Jane & Hennessy, Thia & Buckley, Cathal & Donnellan, Trevor & Hanrahan, Kevin & Moran, Brian & Ryan, Mary, 2014. "The Sustainable Intensification of the Irish Dairy Sector," 88th Annual Conference, April 9-11, 2014, AgroParisTech, Paris, France 169740, Agricultural Economics Society.
    13. Skaalsveen, Kamilla & Ingram, Julie & Urquhart, Julie, 2020. "The role of farmers' social networks in the implementation of no-till farming practices," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 181(C).
    14. Klerkx, Laurens & Nettle, Ruth, 2013. "Achievements and challenges of innovation co-production support initiatives in the Australian and Dutch dairy sectors: A comparative study," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 40(C), pages 74-89.
    15. Ensor, Jonathan & de Bruin, Annemarieke, 2022. "The role of learning in farmer-led innovation," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 197(C).
    16. Ton, Giel & Klerkx, Laurens & de Grip, Karin & Rau, Marie-Luise, 2015. "Innovation grants to smallholder farmers: Revisiting the key assumptions in the impact pathways," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 51(C), pages 9-23.
    17. Quirine M. Ketterings & Karl J. Czymmek & Douglas B. Beegle & Larry E. Chase & Caroline N. Rasmussen, 2012. "Systematic Nutrient (im) Balances in Dairy Farm Systems of the Northeast and Mid-Atlantic Regions of the United States," Journal of Agricultural Science, Canadian Center of Science and Education, vol. 4(11), pages 1-1, October.
    18. Langer, Greta & Schukat, Sirkka, 2022. "Die Einstellung deutscher Milchviehhalter gegenüber dem Internet der Dinge," 62nd Annual Conference, Stuttgart, Germany, September 7-9, 2022 329592, German Association of Agricultural Economists (GEWISOLA).
    19. Klerkx, Laurens & van Bommel, Severine & Bos, Bram & Holster, Henri & Zwartkruis, Joyce V. & Aarts, Noelle, 2012. "Design process outputs as boundary objects in agricultural innovation projects: Functions and limitations," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 113(C), pages 39-49.
    20. Chenyang Liu & Xinyao Wang & Ziming Bai & Hongye Wang & Cuixia Li, 2023. "Does Digital Technology Application Promote Carbon Emission Efficiency in Dairy Farms? Evidence from China," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 13(4), pages 1-23, April.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:agisys:v:176:y:2019:i:c:s0308521x18313787. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/agsy .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.