Διερεύνηση κόστους διατροφής μηρυκαστικών ζώων από ιδιοπαραγόμενες ή/και αγοραζόμενες ζωοτροφές ανάλογα με το παραγωγικό σύστημα
Authors: Σιαφάκας Σταύρος 
Published: September 2021

Cow farming for milk production is one of the most important sectors in Greek animal production. Cows’ milk production combined with beef meat production is the second most important sector of animal production after sheep farming. Animal production in Greece has also suffered from the financial “crisis” (2008) with the number of milk producing cows declining by a significant amount. The most recent studies (Valergakis, 2000, Mitsopoulos, 2012) of the cows’ milk producing sector in Greece are centered in one geographical region of the country (Central Macedonia) and they are focused on identifying and describing the main characteristics of the structure and organisation of the farms. The basic criteria for this are mainly the size, the annual milk yield per cow, the animal housing system, the nutrition, reproduction, milking and waste management methods. These studies compare the farming methods used to the results achieved, both technical and economic.Moreover, Theodoridis (2008) using primary data from the same geographical region (i.e. Central Macedonia) evaluated the results of the policies concerning cows’ milk farming after 1992 using both parametric and non-parametric methods. Data Envelopment Analysis was used to examine the level of output oriented technical efficiency. Land (in ha), labour (in hours), variable and fixed capital (in EUR) were used as inputs and gross income (in EUR) as output. The results of this study showed that the technical efficiency of the farms increases as the size of the farms increases. These results indicate that the sector’s adjustment to the new policies favours the mid and large-sized farms while small farms are declining. Also, this study showed the inadequacies in the organisation of the sector and confirmed the positive correlation between size and technical efficiency.One of the sector’s main features that differentiate the farms is whether these produce their own feedstuffs (home grown feedstuffs) or not. The object of this Ph.D. thesis was to examine the cost of milk production by milk producing cows’ farms in relation to the production system used. “Pure” farms that are not producing feedstuffs versus mixed farms (home growing feedstuffs). The productivity and the efficiency of the sector were also evaluated. The main question was whether the multiple plant production activities of the cows’ milk producing farms lead to more efficient production systems even between farms with similar technical characteristics. This study was based on primary data that cover a wider area of the country than previous studies that focused on a single geographical region and a wide spectrum of farms that operate in different soil conditions.In evaluating the data, initially the structure and the economic situation of the average farm in the current state of the sector is described, in relation to the production or not of home grown feedstuffs by the farm. In this context “pure” and mixed farms are also compared. The next step of the analysis was to create a typology with the method of Hierarchical Cluster Analysis. Finally, the technical efficiency of the farms in the sample was evaluated by using the non-parametric Data Envelopment Analysis (DEA). This evaluation investigated weaknesses in organisation and management at the farm level. Questionnaires were used to collect the data of this study, covering 78 farms from the regions of Epirus, Thessaly, Western and Central Macedonia.The (average) year the farms were established was 1990 (±9.23) for the “pure” farms and 1989 (±9.37) for the mixed farms (p>0.05). The combined average age of the farmers was 44.7 (±9.18) years. The average age of the farmer in “pure” farms was 43.63 (±8.78) years while in mixed farms it was 45.56 (±9.49) years (p>0.05). This difference was not statistically significant (α=0.05).The educational background of the farmers in “pure” farms was 27% higher education, 33% secondary education, 40% primary education while in mixed farms it was 31% higher, 36% secondary, 33% primary. The average size of farm in relation to the educational background was 132.8 (±76.26) cows (higher education), 106.7 (±62.26) cows (secondary education) and 112.9 (±92.37) cows (primary education) (p>0.05). There was also no statistically significant difference between the average milk yield per cow in relation to education as this was 7,635.3 kg (±1,653.15), 6,933.25 kg (±1,387.45) and 6,644.7 kg (±1,646.68) for higher, secondary and primary education respectively. The knowledge of management is mostly acquired empirically by the farmers which is detrimental to the productivity of the farms.The size of the farms and plant production for feedstuffs by them were compared in relation to the geographical region. In respect to the size of the farms, the number of cows per farm in the four regions was as follows: Epirus 84.6 (±53.34), Western Macedonia 74.13 (±32.39), Central Macedonia 140.1 (±81.97), Thessaly 141.7 (±94.06). The average was 116.6 (±77.89) cows (p≤0.01).The average land area per farm was 41.354 ha (Epirus), 61.913 ha (Western Macedonia), 26.328 ha (Central Macedonia) and 12.900 ha (Thessaly) (p≤0.017). The average land area owned per farm was 19.904 ha (Epirus), 37.487 ha (Western Macedonia), 8.838 ha (Central Macedonia) and 7.000 ha (Thessaly) (p≤0.001). There is also a statistically significant difference in the irrigated land available to the farms in relation to the area they operate which is 28.454 ha (Epirus), 53.538 ha (Western Macedonia), 16.297 ha (Central Macedonia) and 10.606 ha (Thessaly) (p≤0.01).The farms according to their size (cows per farm) were classified in three categories: large, 172.4 (±93.30), medium, 125.3 (±80.15) and small 77.6 (±37.42) (p=0.000). The average farm size of the “pure” farms was 123.4 (± 85.33) cows while the average size of the mixed farms was 111.6 (±72.70) with an overall average of 116.6 (± 77.98) cows (p>0.05). The technically efficient farms were larger sized than the inefficient ones with an average of 220.6 (±131.06) cows per farm versus 130.1 (±57.00) for the inefficient (p≤0.001). Plant production activities were irrespective of the farm size but the increase in size results in less total land area per cow and this difference was statistically significant.The average annual milk yield per farm amounted to 981,818 kg (±765,119) in “pure” farms versus 810,111kg (±737,914) in mixed farms (p>0.05). In respect to size, average annual milk yield for large, medium and small sized farms was 1,596,875 (±946,230.9), 964,375 (±662,897.8) and 414,833 (±208,374.2) kg respectively (p≤0,001). Efficient farms had an average annual milk yield per farm of 1,880,000 kg (±1,332,891.59) while inefficient ones had an average of 752.681 kg (±527,513.3) (p≤0.001).The average annual milk yield per cow for the farms in the sample was 7,037 kg (±1,596). In “pure” farms this average was 7,662kg (±1,310) and in mixed ones it was 6,578kg (±1,644)(p=0.002). The same average in respect to farm size was 9,123.2kg (±666.91) (large), 7,561.6 kg (±596.97) (medium) and 5,363.9 kg (±744.84) (small) (p≤0.001). Efficient farms had an average annual milk yield per cow of 7,896.3 kg (±1,570.15) while inefficient ones had an average of 6,924.6 kg (±1,576.38) (p>0.05). The increase in size results in increased annual milk yield per cow, increasing the technical efficiency.Total annual work hours (farmer labour and paid labour) per farm were on average 11,096.3 (±111.58) and were increasing as home grown feedstuffs production increased. There was no statistically significant difference between “pure” farms (11,153.0 hours) and mixed farms (12,134.5 hours) (p>0.05). The additional work hours in mixed farms are spent in plant production by the farmer himself and are substituted with paid non-specialised labour, subtracting valuable time from the animals and resulting in superficial supervising. The available work hours of the farmers for the cows amounted to 4,973.9 in the case of “pure” farms versus 4,692.7 in the case of mixed ones (p>0.05). Increasing the farm size results in reducing the necessary work hours per cow per year and this difference was statistically very significant (p≤0.001).It was calculated by the analysis of production costs that the average cost capital (variable and fixed) necessary per cow amounted to 3,453.05€ which represents 90% of the annual total expenditure. The increase in farm size results in its statistically significant reduction (p≤0.001). There is also a statistically significant difference in respect to home growing feedstuffs or not. “Pure” farms need more capital per cow. In mixed farms the fixed capital necessary is more than in “pure” farms (p≤0.001). Less variable capital is necessary in “pure” farms than in mixed ones (p≤0.01). Moreover, the increase in farm size results in the increase of variable capital necessary per cow (p≤0.001) while there is no statistically significant difference in fixed capital per cow.Time between births for the average farm in the sample was calculated at 14.2 months (426 days). The best observed was 12.8 months (385 days) and the number of necessary inseminations per gestation was 2.89. Milking period was found to have an average duration of 366.27 days. The average age of heifers at the first insemination was 16.27 months. There was no statistically significant difference between “pure” and mixed farms with regard to the above indices. There was also no statistically significant difference in relation to farm size and milk yield per cow. The farmers often do not keep records and this results in reproductive problems going undetected preventing them from being addressed timely and effectively.The percentage of cows kept up to the 4th milking period (incl.) was 82.93% for the average farm. There was a statistically significant difference in relation to home growing feedstuffs. “Pure” farms achieved a percentage of 86.66% while for mixed farms this was at 80.19%. The percentage of cows kept up to the 4th milking period (incl.) increased with the size of farms (p≤0.001). Replacement rate for the average farm was calculated to be 22% (heifer births per year to the average numbers of cows kept) with no statistically significant difference in relation to home growing feedstuffs and farm size. Large-sized farms exhibited a replacement rate of 25% (p≤0.05).The average farms that home grows feedstuffs used 53.4126 ha on average, out of which 24.133 were owned by the farmer (45%) and 29.282 were rented (55%). Also, mixed farms cultivate on average 37.726 ha of irrigated land (70.63%) and 15.689 ha of arid land (29.37%). Out of the irrigated land used by mixed farms 57% (21.577 ha) was owned by the farm while the rest (21.577 ha) was rented. Similarly 16% of the arid land (2.555 ha) was owned by the mixed farms while 84% (13.133 ha) was rented. There were 45 farms home growing feeddstuffs in the sample. The majority (73.33%) of them (33 farms) were growing only fodder. The rest of them (26.67% - 12 farms) were growing both fodder and concentrated feeds.Most commonly used feedstuffs in the farms’ animal nutrition were corn silage, alfalfa hey, wheat straw, cereals (mainly maize), wheat bran, soyabean meal, sunflower meal, cottonseed meal and compound feeds. The main plants home-grown for feedstuffs were maize (either for silage or as seeds) and alfalfa. Maize was grown for silage in 24.60% of the total arable land, for maize seeds in 7.63% of them and alfalfa in 15.92% of them. Average yield per hectare for the above home grown feedstuffs was 5,634 kg (±776.8) of maize harvested green for silage, 1,195 kg (±367.3) alfalfa hey or fodder and 1,157 kg (±318.6) of maize (seeds). The production cost was calculated at 0.048€/kg for corn silage, 0.200€/kg for maize and 0.210€/kg for alfalfa hey. The average final annual market price for these feedstuffs for the farms concerned in 2013 (the year of this study) was 0.055€/kg¹ for corn silage, 0.172€/kg for alfalfa hey and 0.192€/kg for maize. Maximising the yields per hectare would lower the production cost of home-grown feedstuffs but it would increase the necessary production factors (land, labour, capital).The diets fed were in their majority not balanced, at least where energy and crude protein were concerned. Diet formulation and daily rationing was based on the average daily milk yield of the farm. The daily ration in “pure” farms was over abundant in energy (NMP) with a surplus of 21.37% and crude protein with a surplus of 22.12% while in mixed farms these figures were greater (with no statistically significant difference observed) and amounted to 24.01% and 26.19% for energy and crude protein respectively.When the size of the cows kept increased so did the milk yield and the energy surplus was reduced (p≤0.05). The same was observed in the case of crude protein but the difference was not statistically significant. Referencing the diet balance on a yearly basis increased furthermore the surpluses in energy and crude protein.¹ Maize market price during 2013, when this study was conducted, reached the highest point in a decade (2005-2015). The average final price of this 10 year period for corn silage was 0.038-0.045€/kg.Average surpluses in “pure” farms were lower than those in mixed farms at a statistically significant level (p≤0.01). Increasing the farm size resulted in a statistically significant reduction of the energy surplus (p≤0.001) and an even more statistically significant reduction of the crude protein surplus (p≤0.001). Better organisation and use of machinery in large-sized farms results in better nutrition management therefore reducing the surpluses in energy and nutrients.The cost of nutrition per kilogram of milk produced for the average farm in the sample was 0.357€/kg. “Pure” farms achieved a cost of 0.324€/kg while in mixed farms this was 0.382€/kg. Focusing on animal production reduced the cost of nutrition per kilogram of milk produced at a statistically significant level (p≤0.001). Moreover, the increase in farm size also resulted in a statistically significant (p≤0.001) reduction of this cost.The cost of milk production for the average farm in the sample was 0.524€/kg (±0.125). “Pure” farms achieved a cost of 0.486€/kg (±0.102) while for the mixed ones this amounted to 0.552€/kg (±0.135), a difference that is statistically significant (p≤0.05). Increasing the size and the milk yield reduces the cost of milk production at a statistically significant level (p≤0.001). Large-size farms kept 172.44 cows on average and their milk yield amounted to 9,123kg per cow per year. These farms achieved a milk production cost no higher than 0.417€/kg while small farms (77.63 cows kept, 5,364kg milk/cow/year) had a cost of 0.611€/kg.Gross income, net profit, farm income, subsidies and capital effectiveness for the average farm in Euros/cow were 4,009.50, 172.94, 828.65, 249.29, 7.47% respectively. The same indices for “pure” farms were 4,066.96, 158.11, 777.79, 191.95, 10.18% while for mixed farms they were 3,963.31, 184.97, 869.96, 295.79, 5.48%. A statistically significant difference was found in farm income between the two groups (p≤0.001), mixed farms achieving a greater one. When calculating the above indices, the subsidies were taken into account. Without the subsidies the farms would have injuries instead of profit regardless of their production system. The difference in farm income was also not statistically significant if subsidies were not included in the calculations. Increasing farm size has a statistically significant effect (p≤0.001) in all the economic indices. Large-size farms achieve profits instead of injuries as is the case in medium and small size farms which, however, show a greater farm income. As the farm size increases the proportion of the subsidies in the farm income lowers, highlighting the importance of subsidies for medium and small sized farms. Increasing the farm size by reducing the plant production activities results in increasing capital effectiveness (p≤0.05).Average lower beneficial milk yield for the average farm was 5,807.1 kg per cow per year. Home growing feedstuffs resulted in its reduction to 5,287 kg per cow per year (pure farms) and 6,477 kg per cow per year (mixed farms).If the technical efficiency of Greek cows’ milk production sector is evaluated on the basis of an output-oriented production system (home-growing feedstuffs or not), in other words, whether at a given level of inputs it is possible to increase the value of production in the presence of constant and variable returns to scale, the application of CRS and VRS DEA models gives values of 0.549 and 0.676 respectively. It is possible therefore to increase the value of production in the presence of constant and variable returns to scale. Efficient farms keep on average more animals and are mostly large-sized, focusing on milk production and using the production factors more rationally. These farms do not go into plant production or use less land to do so. They manage human resources more rationally and they achieve better results. The inefficiency of farms can be partly subscribed to their involvement in plant production.The results show that the productivity and the efficiency of cow farms doesn’t differentiate between farms that home-grow feedstuffs and those that don’t. Home growing feedstuffs in dairy farms is not a catch-all solution. This kind of production is more profitable when the following conditions are met: a. there is suitable available land owned by the farmer and there is also the relevant equipment (machinery) and assets (silos, warehouses etc), b. there is suitable personnel available to replace the farmer while he is growing feedstuffs, c. plant production is focused on producing fodder, d. there is not enough capital to procure feedstuffs.The typology of the farms showed that the average milk yield per cow per year is significantly increased as the farm size increases but also as the farm is more competently managed (good workflow, proper setup and operation of site and machinery, more rational nutrition) therefore reducing the cost of milk produced. Large-sized farms, mostly “pure”, achieve: a. higher gross income, b. higher farm income, c. lower nutrition costs, d. profit instead of loss per cow.Moreover, a positive correlation was found to exist between size and technical efficiency, which confirms that large-sized farms use the production factors in a more rational way. Based on the production orientation of the farms, referring to plant production contribution in the whole production process, the system of production exhibits the characteristics of specialization.In conclusion, the large-sized farms that do not home-grow or home-grow a limited amount of feedstuffs, achieve the best economic results.Not home-growing feedstuffs in dairy farms is not the indicated solution to every situation. This activity is profitable when it is properly incorporated in the production process, the available production factors are used rationally and its main aim is to maximize the productivity and the efficiency thus ensuring the economic viability of the dairy farms.