IDEAS home Printed from
MyIDEAS: Log in (now much improved!) to save this article

An integrated assessment of business risk for pasture-based dairy farm systems intensification

  • Fariña, S.R.
  • Alford, A.
  • Garcia, S.C.
  • Fulkerson, W.J.
Registered author(s):

    The increasing cost/price pressures on Australian dairy farmers mean that they will need to increase on-farm productivity by producing more milk per ha from home-grown forage. Since there is a limit to the potential yield from pasture an innovative intensification system that integrates pasture and forage crops has been developed. This complementary forages system (CFS) has shown to increase milk production per ha from home-grown forage beyond pasture potential. An integrated modelling approach was used to assess the business risk of this system and compare it to a system with increased use of concentrates, the pasture plus grain (PG) system and to the initial situation, the Base system. First, based on the results of a 2-year CFS farmlet study, the systems’ milk production, forage and supplements consumption were simulated for a 140ha farm using a decision support model. Second, the systems’ operating profit was calculated using a whole-farm budgeting approach. Third, the effect of inter-annual variation in key variables related to operating profit was assessed using a stochastic budgeting technique to calculate cumulative probability of profit as a measure of business risk. The selected variables were: price of milk, concentrates, urea fertiliser and irrigation water and yields of pasture and forage crops. The inter-annual variability of these yields was simulated for 100years of daily weather data assuming limited irrigation using validated biophysical simulation models. The sum of the forage crops yields had a lower inter-annual variability than pasture yields, which were more closely associated to annual rainfall. This lower variability was due to the high water use efficiency of maize, prioritized in the irrigation. The risk analysis showed that milk price was the variable with the highest impact on operating profit followed by forage yields, whereas urea fertiliser had the lowest effect. When integrating all variables, PG showed the highest business risk, followed by Base and CFS, respectively. Very high standards were assumed for the management of forage crops, pastures and feeding and therefore these results may not apply to all dairy farmers. However, this integrative systems analysis approach highlighted the potential of intensification alternatives with a diversified home-grown forage base to reduce business risk compared to systems based on only pasture and increased use of concentrates.

    If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.

    File URL:
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.

    Article provided by Elsevier in its journal Agricultural Systems.

    Volume (Year): 115 (2013)
    Issue (Month): C ()
    Pages: 10-20

    in new window

    Handle: RePEc:eee:agisys:v:115:y:2013:i:c:p:10-20
    Contact details of provider: Web page:

    References listed on IDEAS
    Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:

    as in new window
    1. Chapman, D.F. & Kenny, S.N. & Beca, D. & Johnson, I.R., 2008. "Pasture and forage crop systems for non-irrigated dairy farms in southern Australia. 1. Physical production and economic performance," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 97(3), pages 108-125, June.
    2. John M. Antle, 1983. "Incorporating Risk in Production Analysis," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 65(5), pages 1099-1106.
    3. Marra, Michele & Pannell, David J. & Abadi Ghadim, Amir, 2003. "The economics of risk, uncertainty and learning in the adoption of new agricultural technologies: where are we on the learning curve?," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 75(2-3), pages 215-234.
    4. Pannell, D. J., 1999. "On the estimation of on-farm benefits of agricultural research," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 61(2), pages 123-134, August.
    5. Ford, Stephen A. & Ford, Beth Pride & Spreen, Thomas H., 1995. "Evaluation Of Alternative Risk Specifications In Farm Programming Models," Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, Northeastern Agricultural and Resource Economics Association, vol. 24(1), April.
    6. Chapman, D.F. & Kenny, S.N. & Beca, D. & Johnson, I.R., 2008. "Pasture and forage crop systems for non-irrigated dairy farms in southern Australia. 2. Inter-annual variation in forage supply, and business risk," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 97(3), pages 126-138, June.
    7. Cacho, O. J. & Bywater, A. C. & Dillon, J. L., 1999. "Assessment of production risk in grazing models," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 60(2), pages 87-98, May.
    8. Malcolm, Bill & Sinnett, Alex, 2007. "Future Productivity and Growth in Dairy Farm Businesses in New Zealand: the Status Quo is Not an Option," Australasian Agribusiness Perspectives 234175, University of Melbourne, Melbourne School of Land and Environment.
    9. Kingwell, R. S., 1994. "Risk attitude and dryland farm management," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 45(2), pages 191-202.
    10. Kompas, Tom & Che, Tuong Nhu, 2006. "Technology choice and efficiency on Australian dairy farms," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 50(1), March.
    11. Amir K. Abadi Ghadim & David J. Pannell & Michael P. Burton, 2005. "Risk, uncertainty, and learning in adoption of a crop innovation," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 33(1), pages 1-9, 07.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

    When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:agisys:v:115:y:2013:i:c:p:10-20. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Shamier, Wendy)

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.

    If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link to it, you can help with this form.

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis using RePEc data.