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. 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.
    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. 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.
    4. 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.
    5. 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(1), pages 1-6.
    6. 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.
    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. 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).
    3. 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).
    4. 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. Bonamigo, Andrei & Ferenhof, Helio Aisenberg & Forcellini, Fernando Antonio, 2017. "Dairy Ecosystem Barriers Exposed - A Case Study In A Family Production Unit At Western Santa Catarina, Brazil," Organizações Rurais e Agroindustriais/Rural and Agro-Industrial Organizations, Universidade Federal de Lavras, Departamento de Administracao e Economia, vol. 19(1), January.
    2. 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).
    3. Alejandra Engler & Roberto Jara-Rojas & Carlos Bopp, 2016. "Efficient use of Water Resources in Vineyards: A Recursive joint Estimation for the Adoption of Irrigation Technology and Scheduling," Water Resources Management: An International Journal, Published for the European Water Resources Association (EWRA), Springer;European Water Resources Association (EWRA), vol. 30(14), pages 5369-5383, November.
    4. 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.
    5. Aurélie Cardona & Cristiana Carusi & Michael Mayerfeld Bell, 2021. "Engaged Intermediaries to Bridge the Gap between Scientists, Educational Practitioners and Farmers to Develop Sustainable Agri-Food Innovation Systems: A US Case Study," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(21), pages 1-13, October.
    6. 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).
    7. González-Quintero, Ricardo & van Wijk, Mark T. & Ruden, Alejandro & Gómez, Manuel & Pantevez, Heiber & Castro-Llanos, Fabio & Notenbaert, An & Arango, Jacobo, 2022. "Yield gap analysis to identify attainable milk and meat productivities and the potential for greenhouse gas emissions mitigation in cattle systems of Colombia," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 195(C).
    8. Kalaugher, Electra & Beukes, Pierre & Bornman, Janet F. & Clark, Anthony & Campbell, David I., 2017. "Modelling farm-level adaptation of temperate, pasture-based dairy farms to climate change," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 153(C), pages 53-68.
    9. 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).
    10. Khanna, Abhishek & Kaur, Sanmeet, 2023. "An empirical analysis on adoption of precision agricultural techniques among farmers of Punjab for efficient land administration," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 126(C).
    11. Cathal Buckley & Paul Murphy & David Wall, 2013. "Farm-gate N and P balances and use efficiencies across specialist dairy farms in the Republic Ireland," Working Papers 1302, Rural Economy and Development Programme,Teagasc.
    12. Karly Ann Burch & Dawn Nafus & Katharine Legun & Laurens Klerkx, 2023. "Intellectual property meets transdisciplinary co-design: prioritizing responsiveness in the production of new AgTech through located response-ability," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 40(2), pages 455-474, June.
    13. Ingram, Julie & Maye, Damian & Bailye, Clive & Barnes, Andrew & Bear, Christopher & Bell, Matthew & Cutress, David & Davies, Lynfa & de Boon, Auvikki & Dinnie, Liz & Gairdner, Julian & Hafferty, Caitl, 2022. "What are the priority research questions for digital agriculture?," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 114(C).
    14. 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.
    15. Maria, Kernecker & Maria, Busse & Andrea, Knierim, 2021. "Exploring actors, their constellations, and roles in digital agricultural innovations," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 186(C).
    16. Sadovska, V., 2018. "Sustainable value creation in the agricultural sector. A literature review," 2018 Conference, July 28-August 2, 2018, Vancouver, British Columbia 276984, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    17. Stirling, Sofía & Fariña, Santiago & Pacheco, David & Vibart, Ronaldo, 2021. "Whole-farm modelling of grazing dairy systems in Uruguay," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 193(C).
    18. An-Vo, Duc-Anh & Cobon, David & Owens, Jo & Liedloff, Adam & Cowan, Tim & Power, Scott, 2024. "Impacts of environmental feedbacks on the production of a Central Queensland beef enterprise in a future climate," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 214(C).
    19. 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.
    20. Emily Duncan & Alesandros Glaros & Dennis Z. Ross & Eric Nost, 2021. "New but for whom? Discourses of innovation in precision agriculture," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 38(4), pages 1181-1199, December.

    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.