Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-c47g7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-16T14:04:57.660Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A stochastic bio-economic pig farm model to assess the impact of innovations on farm performance

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 October 2017

B. M. Ali ,
P. B. M. Berentsen ,
J. W. M. Bastiaansen  and
A. Oude Lansink
B. M. Ali*
Affiliation:
Business Economics Group, Wageningen University & Research, Hollandseweg 1, 6706 KN, Wageningen, The Netherlands
P. B. M. Berentsen
Affiliation:
Business Economics Group, Wageningen University & Research, Hollandseweg 1, 6706 KN, Wageningen, The Netherlands
J. W. M. Bastiaansen
Affiliation:
Wageningen University & Research Animal Breeding and Genomics, P.O. Box 338, 6700 AH, Wageningen, The Netherlands
A. Oude Lansink
Affiliation:
Business Economics Group, Wageningen University & Research, Hollandseweg 1, 6706 KN, Wageningen, The Netherlands
*
†E-mail: beshir.ali@wur.nl
Get access

Abstract

Recently developed innovations may improve the economic and environmental sustainability of pig production systems. Generic models are needed to assess the impact of innovations on farm performance. Here we developed a stochastic bio-economic farm model for a typical farrow-to-finish pig farm to assess the impact of innovations on private and social profits. The model accounts for emissions of greenhouse gases from feed production and manure by using the shadow price of CO2, and for stochasticity of economic and biological parameters. The model was applied to assess the impact of using locally produced alternative feed sources (i.e. co-products) in the diets of finishing pigs on private and social profits of a typical Brazilian farrow-to-finish pig farm. Three cases were defined: a reference case (with a standard corn–soybean meal-based finishing diet), a macaúba case (with a macaúba kernel cake-based finishing diet) and a co-products case (with a co-products-based finishing diet). Pigs were assumed to be fed to equal net energy intakes in the three cases. Social profits are 34% to 38% lower than private profits in the three cases. Private and social profits are about 11% and 14% higher for the macaúba case than the reference case, whereas they are 3% and 7% lower for the co-products case, respectively. Environmental costs are higher under the alternative cases than the reference case suggesting that other benefits (e.g. costs and land use) should be considered to utilize co-products. The CV of farm profits is between 75% and 87% in the three cases following from the volatility of prices over time and variations in biological parameters between fattening pigs.

Keywords

pigsbio-economic modelenvironmental impactstochasticityprofit
Type
Research Article
Information
animal , Volume 12 , Issue 4 , April 2018 , pp. 819 - 830
Copyright
© The Animal Consortium 2017 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Agriness 2016. Dados consolidados por região (Consolidated data by region). Retrieved on 8 July 2017 from www.melhoresdasuinocultura.com.br Google Scholar
Ali, BM, van Zanten, HHE, Berentsen, PB, Bastiaansen, JWM, Bikker, P and Oude Lansink, A 2017. Environmental and economic impacts of using co-products in the diets of finishing pigs in Brazil. Journal of Cleaner Production 162, 247–259.Google Scholar
Belhouchette, H, Louhichi, K, Therond, O, Mouratiadou, I, Wery, J, Van Ittersum, M and Flichman, G 2011. Assessing the impact of the nitrate directive on farming systems using a bio-economic modelling chain. Agricultural Systems 104, 135–145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Buysse, J, Van Huylenbroeck, G, Vanslembrouck, I and Vanrolleghem, P 2005. Simulating the influence of management decisions on the nutrient balance of dairy farms. Agricultural Systems 86, 333–348.Google Scholar
Cherubini, E, da Silva, VP Jr, Zanghelini, GM, Alvarenga, RA, Galindro, BM, de Léis, CM and Soares, SR 2014. Comparison of different calculation procedures and emission factors in the manure management systems of swine production. Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Life Cycle Assessment in the Agri-Food Sector, 8–10 October, San Francisco, CA, USA, pp. 226–232.Google Scholar
Cherubini, E, Zanghelini, GM, Alvarenga, RAF, Franco, D and Soares, SR 2015. Life cycle assessment of swine production in Brazil: a comparison of four manure management systems. Journal of Cleaner Production 87, 68–77.Google Scholar
Diesel, F, Miranda, C and Perdomo, C 2002. Coletânea de tecnologias sobre dejetos de suínos. Embrapa Suínos e Aves e Emater-RS, 31p. Boletim Informativo de Pesquisa, Concórdia, Brazil.Google Scholar
Dourmad, JY, Pomar, C and Massé, D 2003. Mathematical modelling of manure production by pig farms: effect of feeding and housing conditions. In Proceedings of the Eastern nutrition conference, 8–9 May 2003, Québec City, Canada, pp. 111–125.Google Scholar
Embrapa Swine and Poultry Centre 2016. Custo de produção de suínos. Retrieved on 13 October 2016 from www.cnpsa.embrapa.br/cias/dados/custo.php Google Scholar
Gunjal, K and Legault, B 1995. Risk preferences of dairy and hog producer in Quebec. Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics 43, 23–35.Google Scholar
Gurgel, AC and Paltsev, S 2014. Costs of reducing GHG emissions in Brazil. Climate Policy 14, 209–223.Google Scholar
Houška, L, Wolfová, M and Fiedler, J 2004. Economic weights for production and reproduction traits of pigs in the Czech Republic. Livestock Production Science 85, 209–221.Google Scholar
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) 2006. Emissions from livestock and manure management, chapter 10. Retrieved on 8 March 2016 from http://www.ipcc-nggip.iges.or.jp/public/2006gl/pdf/4_Volume4/V4_10_Ch10_Livestock.pdf Google Scholar
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) 2015. Climate change 2014. Synthesis Report. Retrieved on 5 June 2015 from http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/syr/SYR_AR5_FINAL_full.pdf Google Scholar
Janssen, S and van Ittersum, MK 2007. Assessing farm innovations and responses to policies: a review of bio-economic farm models. Agricultural Systems 94, 622–636.Google Scholar
Kanis, E, De Greef, KH, Hiemstra, A and Van Arendonk, JAM 2005. Breeding for societally important traits in pigs. Journal of Animal Science 83, 948–957.Google Scholar
Kruseman, G and Bade, J 1998. Agrarian policies for sustainable land use: bio-economic modelling to assess the effectiveness of policy instruments. Agricultural Systems 58, 465–481.Google Scholar
Kunz, A, Miele, M and Steinmetz, RLR 2009. Advanced swine manure treatment and utilization in Brazil. Bioresource Technology 100, 5485–5489.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Louhichi, K, Kanellopoulos, A, Janssen, S, Flichman, G, Blanco, M, Hengsdijk, H, Heckelei, T, Berentsen, P, Lansink, AO and Van Ittersum, M 2010. FSSIM, a bio-economic farm model for simulating the response of EU farming systems to agricultural and environmental policies. Agricultural Systems 103, 585–597.Google Scholar
Martins, FM, dos Santos Filho, JR, Sandi, AJ, Miele, M, Lima, G, Bertol, T, Amaral, A, Morés, N, Kich, J and Dalla Costa, OA 2012. Coeficientes técnicos para o cálculo do custo de produção de suínos, 2012. Comunicado Técnico, Embrapa Suínos e Aves, Concórdia, Brazil.Google Scholar
Monteiro, AN, Garcia-Launay, F, Brossard, L, Wilfart, A and Dourmad, JY 2016. Effect of feeding strategy on environmental impacts of pig fattening in different contexts of production: evaluation through life cycle assessment. Journal of Animal Science 94, 4832–4847.Google Scholar
Nguyen, TLT, Hermansen, JE and Mogensen, L 2010. Fossil energy and GHG saving potentials of pig farming in the EU. Energy Policy 38, 2561–2571.Google Scholar
Nguyen, TLT, Hermansen, JE and Mogensen, L 2012. Environmental costs of meat production: the case of typical EU pork production. Journal of Cleaner Production 28, 168–176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Omogbenigun, FO, Nyachoti, CM and Slominski, BA 2004. Dietary supplementation with multienzyme preparations improves nutrient utilization and growth performance in weaned pigs. Journal of Animal Science 82, 1053–1061.Google Scholar
Price, R, Thornton, S and Nelson, S 2007. The social cost of carbon and the shadow price of carbon: what they are, and how to use them in economic appraisal in the UK. Retrieved on 16 May 2017 from www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/243825/background.pdf Google Scholar
Rezitis, AN and Stavropoulos, KS 2009. Modeling pork supply response and price volatility: the case of Greece. Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics 41, 145–162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rigolot, C, Espagnol, S, Pomar, C and Dourmad, JY 2010. Modelling of manure production by pigs and NH3, N2O and CH4 emissions. Part I: animal excretion and enteric CH4, effect of feeding and performance. Animal 4, 1401–1412.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Röös, E, Sundberg, C, Tidåker, P, Strid, I and Hansson, PA 2013. Can carbon footprint serve as an indicator of the environmental impact of meat production? Ecological Indicators 24, 573–581.Google Scholar
Saintilan, R, Brossard, L, Vautier, B, Sellier, P, Bidanel, J, Van Milgen, J and Gilbert, H 2015. Phenotypic and genetic relationships between growth and feed intake curves and feed efficiency and amino acid requirements in the growing pig. Animal 9, 18–27.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Serenius, T, Muhonen, P and Stalder, K 2008. Economic values of pork production related traits in Finland. Agricultural and Food Science 16, 79–88.Google Scholar
Skorupski, MT, Garrick, DJ, Blair, HT and Smith, WC 1995. Economic values of traits for pig improvement. I. A simulation model. Crop and Pasture Science 46, 285–303.Google Scholar
Tol, RS 2008. The social cost of carbon: trends, outliers and catastrophes. Economics: The Open-Access, Open-Assessment E-Journal 2, 2008–2025.Google Scholar
United States Department of Agriculture 2014. Livestock & poultry: world markets and trade. United States Department of Agriculture. Retrieved on 25 February 2015 from http://apps.fas.usda.gov/psdonline/circulars/livestock_poultry.pdf Google Scholar
Van Milgen, J, Valancogne, A, Dubois, S, Dourmad, JY, Sève, B and Noblet, J 2008. InraPorc: a model and decision support tool for the nutrition of growing pigs. Animal Feed Science and Technology 143, 387–405.Google Scholar
Supplementary material: File

Ali et al supplementary material

Ali et al supplementary material 1

Download Ali et al supplementary material(File)
File 49 KB