This paper used farm income tax returns (Schedule F) data from 62 dairy farmers who milked 200 cows or fewer in western and central Maryland and southwestern Pennsylvania (hereafter, the mid-Atlantic region) to assess the relative financial performance of management-intensive grazing (MIG) and confinement dairy operations over the 15-yr period from 1995 through 2009. Data were not available from all farmers in all years; on average, the sample analyzed contained 11 MIG farms and 26 confinement farms. Management-intensive grazing operators were more profitable on a per hundredweight, per cow, and per acre basis, and no less profitable on a whole-farm basis. Even though the confinement operators had higher gross income than MIG operators, their expenses exceeded those of MIG operators. Profits of MIG operations were less variable as well, so that MIG operators faced less income risk. Increased reliance on grazing has other benefits as well. Grazing seems to be a much healthier practice for dairy cows. Veterinary, breeding, and medicine costs per cow are much less for cows that are pastured than those raised in confinement systems. Because they are healthier, cows that are grazed can be milked longer (or culled less frequently). As a result, MIG operators have a larger number of higher quality animals for sale (e.g., bred heifers). Management-intensive operations are also less labor intensive. Reductions in crop production and in the time cows spend in the barn led to significant reductions in field work and cleaning operations in the barn. Costs of hired labor were thus substantially lower in MIG operations than in confinement operations. Land requirements likely impose the principal limitation on the size of intensive grazing operations. In the mid-Atlantic, for instance, grazing operations need 1.5 to 2.0 acres of pasture for every dairy cow/calf equivalent to provide sufficient grass to support a dairy operation. Pasture land for MIG operators must be contiguous to the milking parlor and located no farther than a cow can walk to and from twice a day. That requirement likely limits the maximum size of an intensive grazing operation, especially in areas where land prices and rents are high, as they are in much of the mid-Atlantic.
Automatic milking systems (AMS) became commercially available in the early 1990s. These systems provide flexibility and improve the lifestyle of farmers installing them. Because of the larger capital cost per kilogram of milk produced, observational studies in Europe and simulation studies have shown AMS to be less profitable than milking parlor systems, although previous findings are somewhat mixed. Improved performance of newer generations of AMS, better facility design to accommodate cow behavior, and better management of these facilities have the potential to make AMS more profitable. Wage rates are also increasing and sourcing high-quality milking labor is challenging. We developed partial budget simulations to model profitability of AMS compared with parlor systems for 120-, 240-, and 1,500-cow farms. Both the 120-cow and 240-cow AMS were more profitable than the parlor systems. However, the 1,500-cow parlor system was more profitable than the AMS. Breakeven labor analysis of the 1,500-cow system showed that at a wage inflation rate of 1% and a 0.91 kg/d lower milk production with the AMS system, the breakeven labor rate was $27.02/h. If the farm is able to achieve similar milk production between the 2 systems and wage inflation averages 3% over the 30-yr time horizon, the breakeven wage rate drops to $17.11/h. The major management factors that influenced the net annual impact were changes in milking labor cost and milk production. Another significant factor affecting net annual impact was the economic life of the AMS. An economic life of 13 yr or longer was required for an AMS to have a consistently positive net annual impact (depending on milk production per cow and labor cost). For every 227-kg increase in daily milk production per AMS, net annual income increased approximately $4,100. Cost-effective ways to optimize milk per AMS are to minimize attaching and milking times and to optimize milking settings.
PurposeThis paper aims to synthesize the literature on consumer preferences for farm animal welfare (FAW), with an emphasis on characterizing consumers based on their FAW preferences. The objective is to provide insights into the salient characteristics associated with animal welfare conscious consumers.Design/methodology/approachThe authors conduct a systematic review of the results of published research on consumer preferences for FAW. Approximately 350 papers were reviewed, and 52 were included in the analysis.FindingsThe authors’ review suggests that consumers are not homogenous in their preferences for FAW. The authors identify seven themes that enabled them to characterize consumers with higher FAW preferences. These themes (i.e. age, education and income, gender, country and cross-cultural differences, attitudes and consumer and citizen functions) are grouped under four main headings (socio-demographics, ethics and attitudes, product characteristics and public roles).Research limitations/implicationsThe authors’ synthesis reflects the findings reported in the literature to this date; the identified characteristics may change with time as new evidence becomes available.Practical implicationsThe information collected in this article would be useful to farmers and food and non-food retailers interested in effective product differentiation and marketing strategies regarding FAW standards. It can also inform policymakers about the state of consumer concerns for FAW.Originality/valueTo the best of authors' knowledge, this is the first study that attempts to develop a systematic profile of consumers based on their FAW preferences.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.