Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-p9bg8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T06:41:47.241Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Production, economic viability and risks associated with switching dairy cows from drylots to compost bedded pack systems

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 August 2019

M. I. Marcondes Open the ORCID record for M. I. Marcondes [Opens in a new window] ,
W. H. Mariano  and
A. De Vries Open the ORCID record for A. De Vries [Opens in a new window]
M. I. Marcondes*
Affiliation:
Animal Science Department, Federal University of Viçosa, Avenue Peter Henry Rolfs, sn, Animal Science Department, Viçosa, MG 36570-900, Brazil
W. H. Mariano
Affiliation:
Animal Science Department, Federal University of Viçosa, Avenue Peter Henry Rolfs, sn, Animal Science Department, Viçosa, MG 36570-900, Brazil
A. De Vries
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Sciences, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL 32611, USA
*
†E-mail: [email protected]
Get access

Abstract

The use of compost bedded pack systems (CBS) has increased over the past 5 years in tropical countries, and studies associating production traits with economical outcomes of this system are warranted. Our objectives were to evaluate productive traits, economic outcomes and the risks of losses of dairy farms that switched from a drylot system (DLS) to a CBS and to compare these with similar farms that did not change their system. We collected data from 18 farms over 36 consecutive months (August 2014 to July 2017). All farms started the study as DLS, and six farms switched to CBS in the second year. The other 12 farms kept their DLS during the 36 months of evaluation. Annual technical and economic indexes per farm were collected and calculated. Additionally, a risk analysis was performed based on a 10-year historical series of milk prices. The results were analysed using a regression model including year and herd as categorical variables (fixed), system and herd size as quantitative variables (fixed), and system × herd as a random variable. Furthermore, a non-metric multidimensional scaling plot was used to evaluate producers’ profiles in each year. Milk fat, milk total solids, and somatic cell count did not change when farms switched from DLS to CBS, and averaged 3.80%, 12.04%, and 256 500 cells/ml, respectively. However, milk protein (%) decreased in CBS farms. The majority of milk production variables were not affected. Nevertheless, farms that switched to CBS increased milk production per cow by 13.3% compared with DLS farms. Total operation costs (296 076.83 $/year) were not affected by the system, and neither were the costs of concentrates, roughage, labour or medicines. Net margin per litre (0.09 $/l), operating profit (14.95%), assets per litre (398.68 $/l per day) and return on assets (10.27%) did not change when farms switched from DLS to CBS. Net margin ($/l and $/cow) and asset turnover rate increased in CBS farms. Risk analysis indicated that the risk was reduced by 38% in CBS farms. Furthermore, our analysis showed that producers who switched to CBS had similar technical and economic indexes in the first year before switching their system. In conclusion, this study demonstrates that CBS systems might be promising for producers in tropical countries who are looking for a more productive and less risky system. We did not observe improvements in animal health as previously reported in the literature.

Keywords

compost barneconomyefficiencyprofitabilitysemi-confined
Type
Research Article
Information
animal , Volume 14 , Issue 2 , February 2020 , pp. 399 - 408
Copyright
© The Animal Consortium 2019 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Astiz, S, Sebastian, F, Fargas, O, Fernández, M and Calvet, E 2014. Enhanced udder health and milk yield of dairy cattle on compost bedding systems during the dry period: a comparative study. Livestock Science 159, 161–164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barberg, AE, Endres, MI, Salfer, JA and Reneau, JK 2007. Performance and welfare of dairy cows in an alternative housing system in Minnesota. Journal of Dairy Science 90, 1575–1583.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Black, RA, Taraba, JL, Day, GB, Damasceno, FA and Bewley, JM 2013. Compost bedded pack dairy barn management, performance, and producer satisfaction. Journal of Dairy Science 96, 8060–8074.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Black, RA, Taraba, JL, Day, GB, Damasceno, FA, Newman, MC, Akers, KA, Wood, CL, McQuerry, KJ and Bewley, JM 2014. The relationship between compost bedded pack performance, management, and bacterial counts. Journal of Dairy Science 97, 2669–2679.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Breitenbach, R 2018. Economic viability of semi-confined and confined milk production systems in free-stall and compost barn. Food and Nutrition Sciences 09, 609–618.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cardoso, CS, Hötzel, MJ, Weary, DM, Robbins, JA and von Keyserlingk, MAG 2016. Imagining the ideal dairy farm. Journal of Dairy Science 99, 1663–1671.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Culotta, CP and Schmidt, GH 1988. An economic evaluation of three times daily milking of dairy cows. Journal of Dairy Science 71, 1960–1966.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Endres, MI and Barberg, AE 2007. Behavior of dairy cows in an alternative bedded-pack housing system. Journal of Dairy Science 90, 4192–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lobeck, KM, Endres, MI, Shane, EM, Godden, SM and Fetrow, J 2011. Animal welfare in cross-ventilated, compost-bedded pack, and naturally ventilated dairy barns in the upper Midwest. Journal of Dairy Science 94, 5469–5479.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Marcondes, MI, Jácome, DC, Silva, ALD, Rennó, LN and Pires, ACDS 2014. Evaluation of raw milk quality in different production systems and periods of the year. Revista Brasileira de Zootecnia 43, 670–676.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Matsunaga, M, Demehnans, PF, Toledo, PEN, Dulley, RD and Pedroso, IA 1976. Methodology to estimate cost of production. In Applied Economics Institute, pp. 123–137. Secretaria de Agricultura de São Paulo, São Paulo, SP, Brazil.Google Scholar
McKay, MD, Beckman, RJ and Conover, WJ 1979. A comparison of three methods for selecting values of input variables in the analysis of output from a computer code. Technometrics 21, 239–245.Google Scholar
Murney, R, Stelwagen, K, Wheeler, TT, Margerison, JK and Singh, K 2015. The effects of milking frequency in early lactation on milk yield, mammary cell turnover, and secretory activity in grazing dairy cows. Journal of Dairy Science 98, 305–311.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
National Research Council (NRC ) 2001. Nutrient requirements of dairy cattle, 11th revised edition. National Academies Press, Washington, DC, USA.Google Scholar
Oksanen, J, Blanchet, G, Friendly, M, Kindt, R, Legendre, P, McGlinn, D, Minchin, PR, O’Hara, RB, Simpson, GL, Solymos, P, Stevens, MHH, Szoecs, E and Wagner, H 2018. vegan: community ecology package. R package version 2.5-2. Retrieved from https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=vegan Google Scholar
Oliveira, ASD, Cunha, DDNFVD, Campos, JMDS, Vale, SMLRD and Assis, AJD 2007. Identification and quantification of benchmarks of milk production systems. Revista Brasileira de Zootecnia 36, 507–516.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pilatti, JA, Vieira, FMC, Rankrape, F and Vismara, ES 2018. Diurnal behaviors and herd characteristics of dairy cows housed in a compost-bedded pack barn system under hot and humid conditions. Animal 13, 1–8.Google Scholar
Pinedo, PJ and De Vries, A 2017. Season of conception is associated with future survival, fertility, and milk yield of Holstein cows. Journal of Dairy Science 100, 6631–6639.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Reboita, MS, Rodrigues, M, Silva, LF and Alves, MA 2016. Climate aspects in Minas Gerais state. Revista Brasileira de Climatologia 18, 307–326.Google Scholar
Rhoads, ML, Rhoads, RP, VanBaale, MJ, Collier, RJ, Sanders, SR, Weber, WJ, Crooker, BA and Baumgard, LH 2009. Effects of heat stress and plane of nutrition on lactating Holstein cows: I. Production, metabolism, and aspects of circulating somatotropin1. Journal of Dairy Science 92, 1986–1997.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schewe, RL, Kayitsinga, J, Contreras, GA, Odom, C, Coats, WA, Durst, P, Hovingh, EP, Martinez, RO, Mobley, R, Moore, S and Erskine, RJ 2015. Herd management and social variables associated with bulk tank somatic cell count in dairy herds in the eastern United States. Journal of Dairy Science 98, 7650–7665.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Schüller, L-K, Burfeind, O and Heuwieser, W 2016. Effect of short- and long-term heat stress on the conception risk of dairy cows under natural service and artificial insemination breeding programs. Journal of Dairy Science 99, 2996–3002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Spiers, DE, Spain, JN, Ellersieck, MR and Lucy, MC 2018. Strategic application of convective cooling to maximize the thermal gradient and reduce heat stress response in dairy cows. Journal of Dairy Science 101, 8269–8283.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Stelwagen, K, Phyn, CVC, Davis, SR, Guinard-Flament, J, Pomiès, D, Roche, JR and Kay, JK 2013. Invited review: reduced milking frequency: milk production and management implications. Journal of Dairy Science 96, 3401–3413.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tomaszewski, MA, van Asseldonk, MAPM, Dijkhuizen, AA and Huirne, RBM 2000. Determining farm effects attributable to the introduction and use of a dairy management information system in The Netherlands. Agricultural Economics 23, 79–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Von Keyserlingk, MAG, Amorim Cestari, A, Franks, B, Fregonesi, JA and Weary, DM 2017. Dairy cows value access to pasture as highly as fresh feed. Scientific Reports 7, 1–4.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Whitlock, LA, Martin, JG III and Armstrong, DV 2017. Large confined dairy herd systems in hot climates. In Large dairy herd management (ed. Beede, DK), pp. 83–98. American Dairy Science Association, Champaign, IL, USA.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Supplementary material: PDF

Marcondes et al. supplementary material

Tables S1-S2 and Figures S1-S2

Download Marcondes et al. supplementary material(PDF)
PDF 1.8 MB