Department of Applied Economics, University of Minnesota, St. Paul 55108.
Department of Applied Economics, University of Minnesota, St. Paul 55108.
J Dairy Sci. 2022 May;105(5):4653-4668. doi: 10.3168/jds.2021-20644. Epub 2022 Mar 10.
A dairy farm's ability to generate positive profit is dependent on the cow's response to management decisions made in conjunction with input cost management. Therefore, farm managers consider a multifaceted set of choices, managing their herd not as a homogeneous group of animals, but justifying the influence of individual cows on the farm's financial performance. We combined cow-level performance records from Minnesota DHIA and farm-level financials from the University of Minnesota Center for Farm Financial Management database FINBIN (https://finbin.umn.edu/) from 2012 to 2018 to evaluate farm- and cow-level profitability. The objective of this study was to evaluate individual cow performance matched with farm-level input expenses allocated to the cow level to measure a dairy farm's ability to be profitable over time, considering input and milk price fluctuations. Conventional Minnesota dairy farms were divided into 2 groups-financially resilient and non-resilient-based on their adjusted net farm income ratio over time. Yearly farm-level expenses and revenues were allocated to cows based on performance measures provided in monthly DHIA test data, and a cumulative lifetime break-even was calculated for all cows with consecutive farm data from 2012 to 2018. Herd-level and cow-level characteristics were analyzed to test for statistical difference between resilient and non-resilient farms as well as cows who achieved their break-even versus those that did not for resilient and non-resilient farms. Results showed that resilient farms had statistically different and lower expenses than non-resilient farms, with lower heifer raising expenses ($1,839.32 vs. $1,886.20), lifetime feed expenses ($4,197.07 vs. $4,975.39), and lifetime non-feed expenses ($2,761.63 vs. $4,502.67). Resilient farms had 38.3% of cows reach break-even, whereas non-resilient farms had 25.2% of cows break even. On average, cows who achieved their break-even remained in the herd for approximately 1 yr longer for both resilient farms (1,011 d for cows who break even and 627 d for those that do not) and non-resilient farms (1,033 d for cows who break even and 683 d for those that do not). Cows on resilient farms who achieved their lifetime break-even had an average lifetime profit of $1,613.48, which was $3,095.10 higher than the lifetime profit of -$1,481.62 of cows who never reach their break-even. Cows who reached their break-even on non-resilient farms had a lifetime profit of $1,270.51, which was $3,854.11 higher than the lifetime profit of -$2,583.60 for those who did not break even. Therefore, financially resilient dairy farms were utilizing a low-input, low-output model that proved to be successful and resulted in maintained profitability across volatile and fluctuating commodity prices.
一个奶牛场盈利能力的高低取决于奶牛对管理决策的反应，而这些决策又是与投入成本管理相结合的。因此，农场管理者需要考虑一系列多方面的选择，他们将牛群视为一个由不同个体组成的群体，而不是一个同质的动物群体，以此来证明每头牛对农场财务表现的影响。我们结合了来自明尼苏达州奶牛健康资讯服务中心（Minnesota DHIA）的奶牛个体性能记录和明尼苏达大学农场财务中心 FINBIN 数据库（https://finbin.umn.edu/）的农场层面财务数据（2012 年至 2018 年），对农场和奶牛层面的盈利能力进行了评估。本研究的目的是评估与农场层面投入费用相匹配的奶牛个体性能，以衡量奶牛场在考虑投入和牛奶价格波动的情况下长期盈利的能力。根据其调整后的净农场收入比率，将传统的明尼苏达州奶牛场分为两组：有弹性和无弹性。根据每月 DHIA 检测数据中提供的性能指标，将农场层面的费用和收入分配给奶牛，对 2012 年至 2018 年间连续有农场数据的所有奶牛进行累计终生收支平衡计算。分析了牛群和奶牛个体层面的特征，以检验有弹性和无弹性的农场以及达到收支平衡和未达到收支平衡的奶牛之间是否存在统计学差异。结果表明，有弹性的农场的支出明显低于无弹性的农场，具有更低的小母牛饲养费用（$1,839.32 与$1,886.20）、终生饲料费用（$4,197.07 与$4,975.39）和终生非饲料费用（$2,761.63 与$4,502.67）。有弹性的农场中有 38.3%的奶牛达到收支平衡，而无弹性的农场中只有 25.2%的奶牛达到收支平衡。平均而言，在有弹性的农场中，达到收支平衡的奶牛在牛群中停留的时间约长 1 年（达到收支平衡的奶牛为 1011 天，未达到收支平衡的奶牛为 627 天）；在无弹性的农场中，达到收支平衡的奶牛在牛群中停留的时间约长 1 年（达到收支平衡的奶牛为 1033 天，未达到收支平衡的奶牛为 683 天）。在有弹性的农场中达到终生收支平衡的奶牛的终生平均利润为$1,613.48，比从未达到收支平衡的奶牛的终生亏损$1,481.62高出$3,095.10。在无弹性的农场中达到收支平衡的奶牛的终生平均利润为$1,270.51，比从未达到收支平衡的奶牛的终生亏损$2,583.60高出$3,854.11。因此，有弹性的奶牛场采用了低投入、低产出的模式，这种模式被证明是成功的，并在波动和变化的商品价格下保持了盈利能力。
