IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/agisys/v153y2017icp157-171.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Resource use and economic impacts in the transition from small confinement to pasture-based dairies

Author

Listed:
  • Rojas-Downing, M. Melissa
  • Harrigan, Timothy
  • Nejadhashemi, A. Pouyan

Abstract

In recent years, many livestock farms have transitioned from total confinement housing to a pasture-based system in an effort to reduce labor and production costs and improve profitability. There is a growing interest in biogas recovery among livestock producers to reduce energy costs and manure odors but the economic benefits of anaerobic digestion (AD) on small farms is not well known. A comprehensive analysis was conducted using the Integrated Farm System Model (IFSM), to describe, evaluate and compare the farm performance and economic impacts of representative dairy farms in Michigan transitioning from conventional confinement to seasonal- and pasture-based systems, and evaluate the potential for integration of an AD in the confinement and seasonal pasture systems. The results in farm performance present higher milk production per kilogram of feed in the confinement systems, followed by the seasonal pasture and the annual pasture systems. In the economic analysis, the annual pasture-based system had the greatest net return to management and unpaid factors followed by the seasonal pasture and confinement systems. The addition of an AD on a 100-cow, total confinement dairy decreased the net return to management and unpaid factors by 20%. When anaerobic digestion was added to the seasonal pasture with an increased land base for cash crop production and an imported manure volume equivalent to a 500-cow dairy, the net return to management and unpaid factors increased 269% compared to the seasonal pasture dairy alone.

Suggested Citation

  • Rojas-Downing, M. Melissa & Harrigan, Timothy & Nejadhashemi, A. Pouyan, 2017. "Resource use and economic impacts in the transition from small confinement to pasture-based dairies," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 153(C), pages 157-171.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:agisys:v:153:y:2017:i:c:p:157-171
    DOI: 10.1016/j.agsy.2017.01.013
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0308521X1630364X
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.agsy.2017.01.013?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. William F. Lazarus & Margaretha Rudstrom, 2007. "The Economics of Anaerobic Digester Operation on a Minnesota Dairy Farm," Review of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 29(2), pages 349-364.
    2. Nott, Sherrill B., 2003. "Evolution Of Dairy Grazing In The 1990'S," Staff Paper Series 11493, Michigan State University, Department of Agricultural, Food, and Resource Economics.
    3. William F. Lazarus & Margaretha Rudstrom, 2007. "The Economics of Anaerobic Digester Operation on a Minnesota Dairy Farm," Review of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 29(2), pages 349-364.
    4. Clark P. Bishop & C. Richard Shumway, 2009. "The Economics of Dairy Anaerobic Digestion with Coproduct Marketing," Review of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 31(3), pages 394-410, September.
    5. Chen, Yu & Yang, Gaihe & Sweeney, Sandra & Feng, Yongzhong, 2010. "Household biogas use in rural China: A study of opportunities and constraints," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 14(1), pages 545-549, January.
    6. Liebrand, Carolyn Betts & Ling, K. Charles, 2009. "Cooperative Approaches for Implementation of Dairy Manure Digesters," Research Reports 280105, United States Department of Agriculture, Rural Development.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Cowley, Cortney & Brorsen, B. Wade, 2018. "Anaerobic Digester Production and Cost Functions," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 152(C), pages 347-357.
    2. Namuli, R. & Pillay, P. & Jaumard, B. & Laflamme, C.B., 2013. "Threshold herd size for commercial viability of biomass waste to energy conversion systems on rural farms," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 108(C), pages 308-322.
    3. Willeghems, Gwen & Buysse, Jeroen, 2016. "Changing old habits: The case of feeding patterns in anaerobic digesters," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 92(C), pages 212-221.
    4. DeVuyst, Eric A. & Pryor, Scott W. & Lardy, Greg & Eide, Wallace & Wiederholt, Ron, 2011. "Cattle, ethanol, and biogas: Does closing the loop make economic sense?," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 104(8), pages 609-614, October.
    5. Kay Camarillo, Mary & Stringfellow, William T. & Jue, Michael B. & Hanlon, Jeremy S., 2012. "Economic sustainability of a biomass energy project located at a dairy in California, USA," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(C), pages 790-798.
    6. Qingbin Wang & Laurel Valchuis & Ethan Thompson & David Conner & Robert Parsons, 2019. "Consumer Support and Willingness to Pay for Electricity from Solar, Wind, and Cow Manure in the United States: Evidence from a Survey in Vermont," Energies, MDPI, vol. 12(23), pages 1-13, November.
    7. Li, Xue & Mupondwa, Edmund, 2018. "Commercial feasibility of an integrated closed-loop ethanol-feedlot-biodigester system based on triticale feedstock in Canadian Prairies," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 97(C), pages 401-413.
    8. Benavidez, Justin & Thayer, Anastasia W., 2018. "Poo Power: Revisiting Energy Generation from Biogas on Dairies in Texas," 2018 Annual Meeting, February 2-6, 2018, Jacksonville, Florida 266636, Southern Agricultural Economics Association.
    9. Robert C. Anderson & Alfons Weersink, 2014. "A Real Options Approach for the Investment Decisions of a Farm-Based Anaerobic Digester," Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics/Revue canadienne d'agroeconomie, Canadian Agricultural Economics Society/Societe canadienne d'agroeconomie, vol. 62(1), pages 69-87, March.
    10. Megan Swindal & Gilbert Gillespie & Rick Welsh, 2010. "Community digester operations and dairy farmer perspectives," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 27(4), pages 461-474, December.
    11. Di Corato, Luca & Moretto, Michele, 2011. "Investing in biogas: Timing, technological choice and the value of flexibility from input mix," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 33(6), pages 1186-1193.
    12. Key, Nigel & Sneeringer, Stacy, 2012. "Carbon Emissions, Renewable Electricity, and Profits: Comparing Policies to Promote Anaerobic Digesters on Dairies," Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 41(2), pages 139-157, August.
    13. Ciliberti, Carlo & Jordaan, Sarah M. & Smith, Stephen V. & Spatari, Sabrina, 2016. "A life cycle perspective on land use and project economics of electricity from wind and anaerobic digestion," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 89(C), pages 52-63.
    14. Siegmeier, Torsten & Blumenstein, Benjamin & Möller, Detlev, 2015. "Farm biogas production in organic agriculture: System implications," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 139(C), pages 196-209.
    15. T. Chen & M. Liu & Y. Takahashi & J.D. Mullen & G.C.W. Ames, 2016. "Carbon emission reduction and cost--benefit of methane digester systems on hog farms in China," Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 59(6), pages 948-966, June.
    16. White, Andrew J. & Kirk, Donald W. & Graydon, John W., 2011. "Analysis of small-scale biogas utilization systems on Ontario cattle farms," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 36(3), pages 1019-1025.
    17. Liebrand, Carolyn Betts & Ling, K. Charles, 2009. "Cooperative Approaches for Implementation of Dairy Manure Digesters," Research Reports 280105, United States Department of Agriculture, Rural Development.
    18. Anderson, Robert C. & Hilborn, Don & Weersink, Alfons, 2013. "An economic and functional tool for assessing the financial feasibility of farm-based anaerobic digesters," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 51(C), pages 85-92.
    19. Benavidez, Justin R. & Thayer, Anastasia W. & Anderson, David P., 2019. "Poo Power: Revisiting Biogas Generation Potential on Dairy Farms in Texas," Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 51(4), pages 682-700, November.
    20. Thompson, Ethan & Wang, Qingbin & Li, Minghao, 2013. "Anaerobic digester systems (ADS) for multiple dairy farms: A GIS analysis for optimal site selection," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 61(C), pages 114-124.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:agisys:v:153:y:2017:i:c:p:157-171. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    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 CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc 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 RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/agsy .

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

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.