Advertisement
Article| Volume 82, ISSUE 11, P2412-2420, November 01, 1999

A Comparison of Profitability and Economic Efficiencies Between Management-Intensive Grazing and Conventionally Managed Dairies in Michigan

Open ArchiveDOI:https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(99)75492-5
A Comparison of Profitability and Economic Efficiencies Between Management-Intensive Grazing and Conventionally Managed Dairies in Michigan
Previous ArticleChanges in Milk Protein Fraction as Affected by Subclinical Mastitis
Next ArticleMonitoring Daily Milk Yields with a Recursive Test Day Repeatability Model (Kalman Filter)
      This paper is only available as a PDF. To read, Please Download here.

      Abstract

      A retrospective cohort study was designed to determine differences in profitability, asset efficiency, operating efficiency, and labor efficiency between Michigan dairy farms implementing management-intensive grazing (MIG) and conventionally managed dairy farms. Financial information and labor use data for the calendar year 1994 were collected with surveys and personal interviews from 35 MIGdairies and 18 conventionally managed dairies. Because the geographic distribution of MIG and conventionally managed farms in this study did not include Michigan's “dairy belt,” extrapolation of these results to an average Michigan or Midwest dairy should be made with care. Within the areas represented, however, multivariate linear regression indicated that MIG dairies had more economic profit than conventionally managed dairies. They captured this profit by being more efficient in asset use, operating practices, and labor use. These results suggest that MIG could provide a sustainable alternate management tool for portions of Michigan's dairy industry.

      Key words

      Abbreviation key:

      ATO (asset turnover), MIG (management-intensive grazing), NFI% (net farm income percent), aNFI (accounting net farm income per cow), eNFI (economic net farm income per cow), VFP (value of farm production per labor hour)

      References

      1. Bokemeier, J., E. Allensworth, and A. Skidmore. 1995. Decisions for the Future: Dairy Farming in Michigan. Michigan State Univ. Agric. Exp. Stn. Res. Rep. 540, Michigan State Univ., East Lansing, MI.

      2. Connor, L., L. Hamm, S. Nott, D. Darling, W. Bickert, R. Mellenberger, H. A. Tucker, O. Hesterman, J. Partridge, and J. Kirk. 1989. Michigan Dairy Farm Industry: Summary of the 1987 Michigan State University Dairy Farm Survey. Michigan State Univ. Agric. Exp. Stn. Spec. Rep. 498, Michigan State Univ., East Lansing, MI.

        • Emmick D.L.
        • Toomer L.F.
        The economic impact of intensive grazing management on fifteen dairy farms in New York state.
        Proc. Am. Forage Grassl, Council, Columbia, MO1991 (Page 7)

      4. Financial Guidelines for Agricultural Producers. 1995. Farm Financial Standards Council, Naperville, IL.

      5. Ford, S., and G. Hanson. 1994. Intensive rotational grazing for Pennsylvania dairy farms. Penn State Coop. Ext. Farm Economics. May/June issue. Pennsylvania State Univ., State College, PA. P. 3.

        • Garcia P.
        • Sonka S.T.
        • Yoo M.S.
        Farm size, tenure and economic efficiency in a sample of Illinois grain farms.
        Am. J. Agric. Econ. 1982; 64: 119-123
        • Greene W.H.
        Econometric Analysis.
        2nd ed. MacMillan Publishing Co., New York, NY1993
        • Halvorsen R.
        • Palmquist R.
        The interpretation of dummy variables in semilogarithmic equations.
        Am. Econ. Rev. 1980; 70: 474-475
        • Hanson G.D.
        • Cunningham L.C.
        • Morehart M.J.
        • Parsons R.L.
        Profitability of moderate intensive grazing of dairy cows in the Northeast.
        J. Dairy Sci. 1998; 81: 821-829

      10. Connor, L., L. Hamm, S. Nott, D. Darling, W. Bickert, R. Mellenberger, H. A. Tucker, O. Hesterman, J. Partridge, and J. Kirk. 1989. Michigan Dairy Farm Industry: Summary of the 1987 Michigan State University Dairy Farm Survey. Michigan State Univ. Agric. Exp. Stn. Spec. Rep. 498, Michigan State Univ., East Lansing, MI.

        • Klemme R.
        Profitability in Wisconsin dairying—reduced input costs: an economic comparison of grass-based and confinement dairying in Wisconsin.
        in: Proc. of the Wisconsin Forage Council's 18th Forage Production and Use Symposium, Madison, WI1993 (Page 77)
        • Michigan Agricultural Statistics
        Michigan Agricultural Statistics Service.
        Michigan Dept. of Agric., Lansing, MI1995
        • Michigan Agricultural Statistics
        Michigan Agricultural Statistics Service.
        Michigan Dept. of Agric., Lansing, MI1993

      14. Nott, S. N. 1994. Business analysis summary for specialized Michigan dairy farms. Agric. Econ. Report No. 583. Dept. of Agric. Econ., Michigan State Univ., E. Lansing, MI.

        • Rust J.W.
        • Sheaffer C.C.
        • Eidman V.R.
        • Moon R.D.
        • Mathison R.D.
        Intensive rotational grazing for dairy cattle feeding.
        Am. J. Alt. Agric. 1995; 10: 147-151

      16. Smith, S. 1994. Moderate size farms can be successful. Page 2 in Agricultural Update: Farm Business and Financial Management. Vol. 4, No.4. Cornell Coop. Ext., Cornell Univ., Ithaca, NY.

      17. StataCorp. 1997. Stata Statistical Software: Release 5.0. Stata Corporation, College Station, TX.

      18. U. S. Dept. of Treasury. 1998. Treasury constant maturities, 30-year, weekly. [Online] Available http://www.bog.frb.fed.us/releases/h15/data/wf/tcm30y.txt.(Accessed June 12, 1998).

        • White H.
        A heteroskedasticity-consistent covariance matrix estimator and a direct test for heteroskedasticity.
        Econometrica. 1980; 48: 817-838

      Article Info

      Publication History

      Accepted: June 10, 1999
      Received: February 17, 1999

      Identification

      DOI: https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(99)75492-5

      Copyright

      © 1999 American Dairy Science Association. Published by Elsevier Inc.

      User License

      Elsevier user license |
      How you can reuse Information Icon
      Elsevier user license

      Permitted

      For non-commercial purposes:

      • Read, print & download
      • Text & data mine
      • Translate the article

      Not Permitted

      • Reuse portions or extracts from the article in other works
      • Redistribute or republish the final article
      • Sell or re-use for commercial purposes

      Elsevier's open access license policy

      ScienceDirect

      Access this article on ScienceDirect
      We use cookies to help provide and enhance our service and tailor content. To update your cookie settings, please visit the for this site.
      Copyright © 2022 Elsevier Inc. except certain content provided by third parties. The content on this site is intended for healthcare professionals.


      RELX