Performance Analysis of Dairy Farms Transitioning to Environmentally Friendly Grazing Practices: The Case Study of Santa Catarina, Brazil
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Methods
2.1. Case Study and Sample
2.2. Data Collection
2.3. Accounting Method
2.4. Economic Analysis
2.5. Statistical Analyses
3. Results
3.1. Based on Farmer’s Perceptions
3.1.1. Environmental Aspects
3.1.2. Social Aspects
3.2. Based on Accounting Project Information
3.2.1. General Farm System Characteristics
3.2.2. Income Statement and Balance Sheet Results
4. Discussion of the Results
5. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
References
- FAOSTAT. Data on Agriculture, Land Use and Emissions for 2015 and 2016. Available online: http://www.fao.org/faostat/en/#data (accessed on 12 August 2018).
- Steffen, W.; Richardson, K.; Rockström, J.; Cornell, S.E.; Fetzer, I.; Bennett, E.M.; Biggs, R.; Carpenter, S.R.; de Vries, W.; de Wit, C.A.; et al. Planetary boundaries: Guiding human development on a changing planet. Science 2015, 347, 6223. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations—FAO. How to Feed the World in 2050. Available online: http://www.scp-knowledge.eu/sites/default/files/knowledge/attachments/How%20to%20Feed%20the%20World%20in%202050.pdf (accessed on 12 November 2016).
- Handmer, J.; Honda, Y.; Kundzewicz, Z.W.; Arnell, N.; Benito, G.; Hatfield, J.; Yamano, H. Changes in impacts of climate extremes: Human systems and ecosystems. In Managing the Risks of Extreme Events and Disasters to Advance Climate Change Adaptation: Special Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2012; pp. 231–290. [Google Scholar]
- Mariconda, P.R. Technological Risks, Transgenic Agriculture and Alternatives. Sci. Stud. 2014, 12, 75–104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Garnett, T.; Appleby, M.; Balmford, A. Sustainable intensification in agriculture: Premises and policies. Science 2013, 341, 33–34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- De Schutter, O. Report of the Special Rapporteur on the Right to Food, Olivier de Schutter (Final Report): The Transformative Potential of the Right to Food. Available online: https://digitallibrary.un.org/record/766914 (accessed on 9 February 2022).
- U.N. Human Rights Council. Report of the Special Rapporteur on the Right to Food A/HRC/34/48. United Nations, 2017. Available online: http://www.refworld.org/docid/58ad94584.html (accessed on 25 September 2017).
- Machado, L.C.P. Pastoreio Racional Voisin: Tecnologia Agroecológica Para o Terceiro Milênio, 2nd ed.; Expressão Popular: São Paulo, Brasil, 2010. [Google Scholar]
- Melado, J. Pastoreio Racional Voisin: Fundamentos, Aplicações e Projetos; Aprenda Fácil: Viçosa-MG, Brasil, 2003. [Google Scholar]
- Voisin, A. Grass Productivity, 2nd ed.; Island Press: Washington, DC, USA, 1988. [Google Scholar]
- Winsten, J.; Parsons, R.L.; Hanson, G.D. A profitability analysis of dairy feeding systems in the northeast. Agric. Resour. Econ. Rev. 2000, 29, 220–228. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Murphy, B. Greener Pastures on Your Side of the Fence: Better Farming with Voisin Management Intensive Grazing, 3rd ed.; Arriba Publishing: Colchester, UK, 1994. [Google Scholar]
- Federação da Indústria do Estado do Tocantins. Carne Bovina: Plano Estratégico Para as Cadeias Produtivas do Agronegócio no Estado do Tocantins 2018–2027. 2018. Available online: File:///C:/Users/ANDREA/Downloads/FietoCadeiasProdutivasCarneBovina.pdf (accessed on 17 January 2022).
- Braga, G.B. Caracterização dos Sistemas de Criação de Bovinos com Atividade Reprodutiva e Estimativa de Prevalência da Brucelose Bovina na Região Centro-Sul do Brasil. Master Dissertation, Medicina Veterinária e Zootecnia, Universidade de São Paulo, São Paulo, Brasil, 2010. [Google Scholar]
- De Campos, A.T. Agronegócio do Leite. Available online: http://www.agencia.cnptia.embrapa.br/Agencia8/AG01/arvore/AG01_153_21720039244.html (accessed on 22 August 2018).
- Alvez, J.P.; Luiz, A.; Fo, S.; Farley, J.C.; Erickson, J.D. Agroecology and sustainable food systems transition from semi-confinement to pasture-based dairy in Brazil: Farmers’ view of economic and environmental performances. Agroecol. Sustain. Food Syst. 2013, 2015, 37–41. [Google Scholar]
- Dartt, B.A.; Lloyd, J.W.; Radke, B.R.; Black, J.R.; Kaneene, J.B. A comparison of profitability and economic efficiencies between management-intensive grazing and conventionally managed dairies in Michigan. J. Dairy Sci. 1999, 82, 2412–2420. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gillespie, J.; Nehring, R.; Hallahan, C.; Sandretto, C. Pasture-based dairy systems: Who are the producers and are their operations more profitable than conventional dairies? Aust. J. Agric. Resour. Econ. 2009, 34, 412–427. [Google Scholar]
- Hanson, J.C.; Johnson, D.M.; Lichtenberg, E.; Minegishi, K. Competitiveness of management-intensive grazing dairies in the Mid-Atlantic Region from 1995 To 2009. J. Dairy Sci. 2013, 96, 1894–1904. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Parker, J.; Muller, L.D.; Buckmaster, D.R. Management and economic implications of intensive grazing on dairy farms in the northeastern states. J. Dairy Sci. 1992, 75, 2578–2597. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Alvez, J.P. Livestock Management, Ecosystem Services, and Sustainable Livelihoods. Ph.D. Dissertation, Natural Resource, University of Vermont, Burlington, VT, USA, 2012. [Google Scholar]
- Tauer, L.W.; Mishra, A.K. Dairy farm cost efficiency. J. Dairy Sci. 2006, 89, 4937–4943. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Meurer, F.G. Percepção dos Produtores de Leite a Respeito dos Serviços Ambientais Resultantes da Adoção do Pastoreio Voisin. Undergraduate Thesis, Ciências Agronômicas, Universidade Federal de Santa Catarina, Santa Catarina, Brazil, 2008. [Google Scholar]
- Bauer, E. Produção de Leite na Grande Florianópolis: Percepção dos Agricultores Familiares Sobre a Transição do Semi-confinamento Tradicional Para o Pastoreio Voisin. Undergraduate Thesis, Ciências Agronômicas, Universidade Federal de Santa Catarina, Florianópolis-SC, Brazil, 2009. [Google Scholar]
- Bolland, M.D.A.; Guthridge, I.F.; Blincow, G. Response of intensively grazed ryegrass dairy pastures to fertilizer phosphorus and potassium. Nutr. Cycling Agroecosyst. 2011, 90, 281–298. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- DeRamus, H.A.; Clement, T.C.; Giampola, D.D.; Dickison, P.C. Methane emissions of beef cattle on forages: Efficiency of grazing management systems. J. Environ. Qual. 2003, 32, 269–277. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Goulding, K.; Jarvis, S.; Whitmore, A. Optimizing nutrient management for farm systems. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 2008, 363, 667–680. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Farley, J.; Schmitt, F.A.; Alvez, J.; De Freitas, N.R., Jr. How valuing nature can transform agriculture. Solut. Sustain. Desirable Future 2012, 2, 64–73. [Google Scholar]
- Myers, N.; Mittermeier, R.A.; Mittermeier, C.G.; da Fonseca, G.A.B.; Kent, J. Biodiversity hotspots for conservation priorities. Nature 2000, 403, 853–858. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Joly, C.A.; Metzger, J.P.; Tabarelli, M. Tansley review experiences from the Brazilian Atlantic Forest: Ecological findings and conservation initiatives. New Phytol. 2014, 204, 459–473. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- EPAGRI/CEPA. Síntese Anual da Agricultura de Santa Catarina 2013–2014. Available online: http://docweb.epagri.sc.gov.br/website_cepa/publicacoes/Sintese_2014.pdf (accessed on 12 November 2014).
- Worldatlas. Economics. Available online: https://www.worldatlas.com/economics/ (accessed on 25 August 2018).
- EPAGRI/CEPA. Tabelas de Produção. Available online: http://www.epagri.sc.gov.br/?page_id=2623 (accessed on 15 January 2018).
- Instituto Brasileiro De Geografia E Estatística—IBGE. Pecuária 2013—Santa Catarina. Available online: http://www.ibge.gov.br/estadosat/temas.php?sigla=sc&tema=pecuaria2013 (accessed on 13 March 2018).
- Instituto Brasileiro De Geografia E Estatística—IBGE. Censo Agropecuário de 2006. Available online: https://biblioteca.ibge.gov.br/visualizacao/periodicos/51/agro_2006.pdf (accessed on 28 March 2018).
- Brasileiro-Assing, A.C.B.; Sattler, C.; Schröter, B.; Alvez, J.P.; Sinisgalli, P.A.d.A.; Schmitt Filho, A. Social-Ecological System Transformation and Learning: The case of Santa Rosa de Lima’s dairy system, Brazil. Ambient. Soc. 2021, 24, 1–23. [Google Scholar]
- Brugnara, D. Estudo de Viabilidade Econômica na Implantação do Pastoreio Racional Vosin no Sítio Santa Lúcia—SC. Undergraduate Thesis, Centro de Ciências Agrárias, Universidade Federal de Santa Catarina, Florianópolis-SC, Brazil, 2015. [Google Scholar]
- Dias, A.H. Planejamento, Implantação e Avaliação de um Sistema de Pastoreio Racional Voisin com Gado de Leite Orientado à Agricultura Familiar. Undergraduate Thesis, Ciências Rurais, Universidade Federal de Santa Catarina, Curitibanos-SC, Brazil, 2014. [Google Scholar]
- Machado, L.C.P. Jeito de ganhar mais: Pastoreio Racional Voisin. Cultivar. Bovinos. 2004, 5, 26–27. [Google Scholar]
- Hoffmann, V.; Probst, K.; Christinck, A. Farmers and researchers: How can collaborative advantages be created in participatory research and technology development? Agric. Hum. Values 2007, 24, 355–368. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rech, L.M.; City Hall, Santa Rosa de Lima-S.C, Brazil. Personal communication, 2013.
- Instituto Brasileiro De Geografia E Estatística—IBGE. Desenvolvimento Sustentável Brasil. 2010. Available online: http://www.ibge.gov.br/home/geociencias/recursosnaturais/ids/ids2010.pdf (accessed on 28 March 2018).
- Brasileiro-Assing, A.C.B. Agroecology: A Proposal for Livelihood, Ecosystem Services Provision and Biodiversity Conservation for Small Dairy Farms in Santa Catarina. Ph.D. Thesis, Instituto de Energia e Ambiente, Universidade de São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil, 2018. [Google Scholar]
- Francisco, F. Pagamento por Serviços Ecossistêmicos Para os Custos do Cumprimento da Legislação Ambiental em Pequenas Propriedades Familiares do Entorno do Parque Estadual Serra do Tabuleiro-SC. Undergraduate Thesis, Ciências Agronômica, Universidade Federal de Santa Catarina, Florianópolis-SC, Brazil, 2012. [Google Scholar]
- Jeremias, V. Success Factors and Constrains of Community Based Ecosystem Management: A Case Study of the Voisin Rotation Grazing System in a Rural Community in Brazil. Master’s Thesis, Environmental Systems Analysis, Wageningen University, Wageningen, The Netherlands, 2012. [Google Scholar]
- Longo, C.; Schmitt Filho, A.L.; Hotzel, M.J.; Farley, J. A visão dos produtores dos Laticínios do Sul de Santa Catarina sobre a transição para o sistema de pastoreio Voisin. Cad. De Agroecol. 2013, 8, 1–6. [Google Scholar]
- Comitê de Pronunciamentos Contábeis—CPC. Pronunciamentos Técnicos Contábeis. Available online: http://www.cpc.org.br/CPC/Documentos-Emitidos/Pronunciamentos (accessed on 22 August 2018).
- Garrison, R.H.; Noreen, E.W.; Brewer, P.C. Managerial Accounting, 14th ed.; McGraw-Hill: New York, NY, USA, 2011. [Google Scholar]
- Martins, E. Contabilidade de Custos, 11th ed.; Atlas: São Paulo, Brazil, 2015. [Google Scholar]
- Archer, E.; Pavela, G.; Lavie, C.J. The inadmissibility of what we eat in America and NHANES dietary data in nutrition and obesity research and the scientific formulation of national dietary guidelines. Mayo Clin. Proc. 2015, 90, 911–926. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Galt, R.E. The moral economy is a double-edged sword: Explaining farmers’ earnings and self-exploitation in community-supported agriculture. Econ. Geogr. 2013, 89, 341–365. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Averkamp, H. Net Income. Available online: http://www.accountingcoach.com/blog/what-is-net-income (accessed on 15 April 2016).
- Averkamp, H. Opportunity Cost. Available online: http://www.accountingcoach.com/terms/O/opportunity-cost (accessed on 1 January 2016).
- Embrapa. Gado de Corte. 2018. Available online: https://cloud.cnpgc.embrapa.br/sac/2012/09/14/como-faco-para-calcular-quantos-ua%c2%b4sha-ou-lotacao-animal/#:~:text=Para%20calcular%20quantas%20UAs%20tem,vaca%20seca%20de%20450%20kg (accessed on 30 January 2022).
- Fritz, C.O.; Morris, P.E.; Richler, J.J. Effect size estimates: Current use, calculations, and interpretation. J. Exp. Psychol. Gen. 2012, 141, 2–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Lindenau, J.D.-R.; Guimarães, L.S.P. Calculando o tamanho de efeito no SPSS. Rev. HCPA 2012, 32, 363–381. [Google Scholar]
- Tilman, D.; Downing, J.A. Biodiversity and stability in grasslands. Nature 1994, 367, 363–365. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Soder, K.J.; Rotz, C.A. Economic and environmental impact of four levels of concentrate supplementation in grazing dairy herds. J. Dairy Sci. 2001, 84, 2560–2572. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sheriff, G. Efficient waste? why farmers over-apply nutrients and the implications for policy design. Appl. Econ. Perspect. Policy 2005, 27, 542–557. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ledgard, S.F.; Penno, J.W.; Sprosen, M.S. Nitrogen inputs and losses from clover/grass pastures grazed by dairy cows, as affected by nitrogen fertilizer application. J. Agric. Sci. 1999, 132, 215–225. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lechenet, M.; Dessaint, F.; Py, G.; Makowski, D.; Munier-Jolain, N. Reducing pesticide use while preserving crop productivity and profitability on arable farms. Nat. Plants 2017, 3, 17008. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Undersander, D.J.; Albert, B.; Cosgrove, D.; Johnson, D.; Peterson, P. Pastures for Profit: A guide to Rotational Grazing; Cooperative Extensiton Publications, University of Wisconsin-Extension: Madison, WI, USA, 2002. [Google Scholar]
- Capellesso, A.J.; Cazella, A.A.; Schmitt Filho, A.L.; Farley, J.; Martins, D.A. Economic and environmental impacts of production intensification in agriculture: Comparing transgenic, conventional and agroecological maize crops. Agroecol. Sustain. Food Syst. 2015, 40, 215–236. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bezemer, D.; Hudson, M. Finance is not the economy: Reviving the conceptual distinction. J. Econ. Issues 2016, 50, 745–768. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- EPAGRI/CEPA. Preço Terra. 2016. Available online: https://cepa.epagri.sc.gov.br/index.php/produtos/mercado-agricola/precos-de-terra-agricola/ (accessed on 18 October 2016).
Variables | Voisin (n = 15) | Conventional (n = 12) | p-Value | Effect Size | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Percentage | Percentage | r1 | PS 2 (%) | ||
Use of chemical fertilizer on pasture area | 80% | 35% | 0.004 † | 0.45 | 76 |
Use of herbicides | 50% | 25% | 0.107 | ||
Farmers that perceived improvement of soil porosity | 75% | 15% | <0.0001 † | 0.67 | 90 |
Farmers that perceived improvement of soil moisture | 85% | 20% | <0.0001 † | 0.70 | 91 |
Farmers that perceived improvement of soil biodiversity | 55% | 35% | 0.064 † | 0.29 | 66 |
Farmers that perceived improvement of animal health | 95% | 40% | <0.0001 † | 0.66 | 89 |
Variables | Voisin (n = 15) | Conventional (n = 12) | p-Value | Effect Size | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Percentage/Average | Percentage/Average | r1 | d2 | PS 3 (%) | ||
Winter overseeding | 95% | 10% | <0.0001 † | 0.84 | 98 | |
Improvement of pasture | 100% | 65% | 0.004 † | 0.45 | 76 | |
Variety of grasses | 3.58 | 2.3 | 0.008 † | 0.94 | 75 | |
Variety of leguminous plants | 1.76 | 1.3 | 0.026 † | 0.72 | 69 |
Variables | Voisin (n = 15) | Conventional (n = 12) | p-Value | Effect Size | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Percentage/Average | Percentage/Average | r1 | PS 2 | ||
Decrease of workload | 10% | 50% | 0.074 † | 0.28 | 65 |
Income from other sources | 0.95 | 1.4 | 0.151 |
Variables | Voisin (n = 15) | Conventional (n = 12) | p-Value | Effect Size | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Average | SD 3 | Average | SD | d1 | PS 2 | ||
Rations (Kg/cow and heifer/day) | 1.65 | 1.24 | 1.05 | 0.96 | 0.181 | ||
Silage (Kg/cow and heifer/day) | 6.49 | 3.72 | 8.84 | 2.27 | 0.067 † | 0.76 | 70 |
Variables | Voisin (n = 15) | Conventional (n = 12) | p-Value | Effect Size | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Average | SD 1 | Average | SD | d2 | PS 3 | ||
Dairy farm area (Ha) | 15.85 | 5.88 | 12.29 | 3.92 | 0.084 † | 0.71 | 69 |
Pasture area (Ha) | 11.45 | 5.82 | 8.75 | 2.67 | 0.126 | ||
Cropped land (Ha) | 4.4 | 3.2 | 3.54 | 1.74 | 0.411 | ||
Number of animals (cows, heifers, steers, calves, and bulls) | 48.47 | 14.89 | 32.75 | 14.35 | 0.010 † | 1.07 | 78 |
Total animal units (AU) | 35.9 | 12.11 | 25.22 | 13.44 | 0.040 † | 0.83 | 72 |
Number of cows | 23.33 | 9.58 | 12.92 | 5.99 | 0.003 † | 1.30 | 82 |
Stocking rate of pasture area (animal/ha) | 4.92 | 2.16 | 3.54 | 1.74 | 0.196 | ||
Stocking rate of pasture area (AU/ha) | 3.63 | 1.77 | 3.14 | 2.02 | 0.508 | ||
Stocking rate of dairy farm area (animal/ha) | 3.36 | 1.54 | 2.87 | 1.37 | 0.392 | ||
Stocking rate of dairy farm area (AU/ha) | 2.49 | 1.32 | 2.27 | 1.49 | 0.692 |
Variables | Voisin (n = 15) | Conventional (n = 12) | p-Value | Effect Size | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Average | SD 1 | Average | SD | d2 | PS 3 | ||
Expenditures 4 (USD/hectare/month) | 89.93 | 71.42 | 55.47 | 30.59 | 0.132 | ||
Expenditures (USD liter/month) | 0.21 | 0.04 | 0.25 | 0.08 | 0.181 | ||
Expenditures (USD/AU/month) | 34.39 | 15.79 | 26.67 | 10.69 | 0.160 | ||
Total costs 5 (USD/hectare/month) | 186.71 | 103.77 | 142.50 | 54.10 | 0.194 | ||
Total costs (USD/liter/month) | 0.51 | 0.24 | 0.70 | 0.31 | 0.089 † | 0.67 | 68 |
Total costs (USD/AU/month) | 75.43 | 20.55 | 75.57 | 36.64 | 0.990 | ||
Unpaid labor (USD/hectare/month) | 72.33 | 29.87 | 75.45 | 27.08 | 0.781 | ||
Unpaid labor (USD/liter/month) | 0.24 | 0.19 | 0.38 | 0.17 | 0.053 † | 0.79 | 70 |
Unpaid labor (USD/AU/month) | 31.25 | 12.25 | 41.52 | 20.44 | 0.144 | ||
Paid labor (USD/hectare/month) | 0.34 | 0.35 | 0.31 | 0.55 | 0.880 | ||
Paid labor (USD/liter/month) | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.952 | ||
Paid labor (USD/AU/month) | 0.16 | 0.18 | 0.10 | 0.14 | 0.358 | ||
Rations (USD/hectare/month) | 49.58 | 58.87 | 21.69 | 16.03 | 0.125 | ||
Rations (USD/liter/month) | 0.10 | 0.04 | 0.09 | 0.05 | 0.590 | ||
Rations (USD/AU/month) | 17.46 | 11.78 | 9.90 | 6.41 | 0.057 † | 0.79 | 70 |
Fertilizer (USD/hectare/month) | 7.10 | 3.87 | 9.63 | 9.60 | 0.406 | ||
Fertilizer (USD/liter/month) | 0.02 | 0.01 | 0.04 | 0.02 | 0.039 † | 0.92 | 74 |
Fertilizer (USD/AU/month) | 3.13 | 1.84 | 3.65 | 2.56 | 0.355 | ||
Herbicides (USD/hectare/month) | 1.33 | 0.94 | 0.71 | 0.61 | 0.058 † | 0.78 | 70 |
Herbicides (USD/liter/month) | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.934 | ||
Herbicides (USD/AU/month) | 0.53 | 0.21 | 0.42 | 0.47 | 0.495 | ||
Total feed (USD/hectare/month) | 80.40 | 66.12 | 50.62 | 29.31 | 0.161 | ||
Total feed (USD/liter/month) | 0.18 | 0.04 | 0.22 | 0.09 | 0.190 | ||
Total feed (USD/AU/month) | 30.65 | 14.92 | 24.23 | 11.14 | 0.227 | ||
Medication costs (USD/hectare/month) | 3.92 | 5.33 | 1.56 | 0.89 | 0.113 | ||
Medication costs (USD/liter/month) | 0.01 | 0.01 | 0.01 | 0.00 | 0.893 | ||
Medication costs (USD/AU/month) | 1.54 | 2.22 | 0.87 | 0.63 | 0.323 | ||
Opportunity costs (USD/hectare/month) | 78.97 | 32.21 | 80.39 | 29.62 | 0.907 | ||
Opportunity costs (USD/liter/month) | 0.25 | 0.19 | 0.41 | 0.17 | 0.046 † | 0.81 | 71 |
Opportunity costs (USD/AU/month) | 33.89 | 12.02 | 43.92 | 21.04 | 0.160 |
Variables | Voisin (n = 15) | Conventional (n = 12) | p-Value | Effect Size | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Average | SD 1 | Average | SD | d2 | PS 3 | ||
Cow productivity (liter/cow/day) | 12.38 | 4.43 | 10.06 | 2.80 | 0.128 | ||
Milk(liter)/hectare | 426.78 | 303.20 | 237.24 | 172.31 | 0.066 † | 0.76 | 70 |
Revenue (USD/hectare/month) | 198.55 | 132.30 | 123.84 | 77.93 | 0.096 † | 0.68 | 68 |
Revenue (USD/AU/month) | 78.05 | 31.09 | 60.52 | 26.13 | 0.131 | ||
Milk sales (% of total sales) | 0.94 | 0.08 | 0.86 | 0.18 | 0.149 | ||
Animal sales (% of total sales) | 0.06 | 0.08 | 0.14 | 0.18 | 0.149 | ||
Coefficient of milk production variation | 0.196 | 0.079 | 0.243 | 0.084 | 0.146 |
Variables | Voisin (n = 15) | Conventional (n = 12) | p-Value | Effect Size | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Average | SD 1 | Average | SD | d2 | PS 3 | ||
Assets (USD) | 194,676.70 | 57,435.24 | 154,310.27 | 55,685.42 | 0.078 † | 0.71 | 69 |
Debts (USD) | 24,887.38 | 20,655.61 | 4398.25 | 6911.96 | 0.002 † | 1.33 | 82 |
Balance (assets − debts) (USD) | 169,789.32 | 60,169.21 | 149,912.02 | 56,320.33 | 0.389 |
Variables | Voisin (n = 15) | Conventional (n = 12) | p-Value | Effect Size | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Average | SD 1 | Average | SD | d2 | PS 3 | ||
Gross Profit (USD/hectare/month) | 108.62 | 64.01 | 68.36 | 54.54 | 0.096 † | 0.67 | 68 |
Gross Profit (USD/liter/month) | 0.27 | 0.06 | 0.29 | 0.16 | 0.537 | ||
Gross Profit (USD/AU/month) | 43.66 | 18.10 | 33.84 | 23.46 | 0.231 | ||
Net Profit (USD/hectare/month) | 11.83 | 55.41 | −18.67 | 63.36 | 0.194 | ||
Net Profit (USD/liter/month) | −0.04 | 0.23 | −0.16 | 0.34 | 0.292 | ||
Net Profit (USD/AU/month) | 2.62 | 26.00 | −15.05 | 39.10 | 0.172 | ||
Gross ROA | 0.10 | 0.07 | 0.06 | 0.04 | 0.081 † | 0.72 | 69 |
Net ROA | 0.01 | 0.05 | −0.02 | 0.06 | 0.068 † | 0.73 | 69 |
Gross BCR | 2.38 | 0.67 | 2.40 | 0.90 | 0.946 | ||
Net BCR | 1.06 | 0.35 | 0.91 | 0.43 | 0.356 |
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2022 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Brasileiro-Assing, A.C.B.; Kades, J.; de Almeida Sinisgalli, P.A.; Farley, J.; Schmitt-Filho, A. Performance Analysis of Dairy Farms Transitioning to Environmentally Friendly Grazing Practices: The Case Study of Santa Catarina, Brazil. Land 2022, 11, 294. https://doi.org/10.3390/land11020294
Brasileiro-Assing ACB, Kades J, de Almeida Sinisgalli PA, Farley J, Schmitt-Filho A. Performance Analysis of Dairy Farms Transitioning to Environmentally Friendly Grazing Practices: The Case Study of Santa Catarina, Brazil. Land. 2022; 11(2):294. https://doi.org/10.3390/land11020294
Chicago/Turabian StyleBrasileiro-Assing, Andréa Castelo Branco, Jini Kades, Paulo Antônio de Almeida Sinisgalli, Joshua Farley, and Abdon Schmitt-Filho. 2022. "Performance Analysis of Dairy Farms Transitioning to Environmentally Friendly Grazing Practices: The Case Study of Santa Catarina, Brazil" Land 11, no. 2: 294. https://doi.org/10.3390/land11020294
APA StyleBrasileiro-Assing, A. C. B., Kades, J., de Almeida Sinisgalli, P. A., Farley, J., & Schmitt-Filho, A. (2022). Performance Analysis of Dairy Farms Transitioning to Environmentally Friendly Grazing Practices: The Case Study of Santa Catarina, Brazil. Land, 11(2), 294. https://doi.org/10.3390/land11020294