Profitability analysis of compost barn and free stall milk-production systems: a comparison

Abstract

The objective of this study was to comparatively analyse the profitability of compost barn and free stall milk-production systems as a means of helping producers and technicians choose the type of facility most suitable for each farm. Data collected from four farms from January to December 2016 were analysed; the data were distributed equally among compost barn and free stall systems. The cost of milk production was estimated according to the operating cost methodology and considering the milk production cost centre, which involved both lactating and dry cows. Additionally, gross and net margins were estimated as indicators of profitability. The results showed that the average gross and net margins were not influenced by the type of facility; they were positive in both of the production systems analysed. Among the components of the net operating cost, the proportion of the "medications" item was lower in the compost barn properties, while the cost of bedding for the cows was lower in the free stall farms. Depreciation and total operating cost were similar in the two systems. Milk sales made up a higher percentage of the revenue in the free stall farms, despite the high standard deviation, while the expectations of revenues from wastes were similar in the two production systems. Given that there were no significant economic differences between the types of facility, it is concluded that ease in management, productivity, reproductive performance, animal health (hoof injuries and mastitis), environmental issues, and availability of water and bedding material should be the motivators for choosing one system over the other.

Impact of environmentally friendly technologies on costs and cost-effectiveness of a dairy cattle confinement system

“…The average of total fixed assets, without land and animal values, was R$ 6,353,700.50 in 2016 and 2017 (Table 1). It corresponded to 45.19% of the investments made on the farm and very similar to that of the study of Silva et al (2019) (46.74%).…”

“…Milk yield had the greatest contribution to total revenue (95.48 and 95.14% in 2016 and 2017, respectively). These were above the 93.15% observed by Silva et al (2019), but below the 98.16% by Santos andLopes (2012, 2014). Moreover, sales of biofertilizers had an average contribution of 2.415%.…”

“…As for other investments made by the rancher in the milk production process, "land ownership" stood out for being, on average, 35.11% of the total fixed assets (Table 1) in 2016 and 2017. This percentage was near the 38.21% obtained by Lopes et al (2012), but below the 42.32% by Santos and Lopes (2014) and the 53.26% by Silva et al (2019). These differences may be due to land value variation with location, soil type, and tillage intensification level.…”

Invited review: Compost-bedded pack barns for dairy cows

“…Brito (2016) found that construction costs for CBP in Brazil were R$4,275.69 (R$1 = US$0.24). More recently, Silva et al (2019) analyzed capital invested in Brazilian dairy farms and showed that farms with CBP have a lower percentage of total capital invested in farm facilities than those with FS (55.31% vs. 58.79%). In the same study, the mean construction costs for CBP and FS were reported to be R$3,501.10 and R$3,763.11 per cow place, respectively.…”

“…Brito (2016), in Brazilian CBP, observed values from R$30.00 to R$38.00 spent on bedding per animal housed per month. Silva et al (2019) compared the contribution of bedding cost with the total production cost of milk in Brazil and found that CBP farms had a higher bedding cost contribution than FS farms (1.49% vs. 0.42%).…”