Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-45l2p Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-26T07:12:55.157Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The adoption and impact of management intensive rotational grazing (MIRG) on Connecticut dairy farms

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 February 2007

Jeremy Foltz  and
Gillis Lang
Jeremy Foltz*
Affiliation:
Department of Agriculture and Applied Economics, University of Wisconsin-Madison, 427 Lorch St., Madison, WI, 53706, USA,.
Gillis Lang
Affiliation:
Department of Agriculture and Applied Economics, University of Wisconsin-Madison, 427 Lorch St., Madison, WI, 53706, USA,.
*
*Corresponding author: E-mail: jdfoltz@wisc.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Management intensive rotational grazing (MIRG) has garnered a great deal of interest in recent years as a method for returning profitability to Northeastern dairy farms. This work uses a random sample of Connecticut dairy farmers to estimate a binary choice adoption model and then cost, productivity, and profit functions that control for the adoption choice. MIRG adopters are shown to be more educated and have less rented agricultural land (a proxy for lack of access to land within a short distance of the barn). MIRG adoption had no significant effects on costs and productivity, nor did it lower profits, per cow. Evidence was found, however, to suggest that full adopters of the technology had more profitable farms than partial adopters. These results also show the importance of controlling for the different characteristics of adopters when evaluating the returns to animal grazing.

Keywords

Management intensive rotational grazingdairytechnology adoptioneconomicsproductivity
Type
Research Article
Information
Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems , Volume 20 , Issue 4 , December 2005 , pp. 261 - 266
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2005

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

1Elbehri, A. and Ford, S.A. 1995. Economic analysis of major forage systems in Pennsylvania: the role of intensive grazing. Journal of Production Agriculture 8(4): 449–507.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
2Frank, G., Klemme, R., Raj Bhandary, B., and Tranel, L. 1996. Economics of alternative dairy grazing scenarios.Annual Forage Conference, p. 69–87.Google Scholar
3Pillsbury, B.P. and Burns, P.J. 1989. Economics of adopting voisin grazing management on a Vermont dairy farm. United States Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service, Winooski, VT, USA.Google Scholar
4Emmick, D.L. and Toomer, L.F. 1991. The economic impact of intensive grazing management on 15 dairy farms in New York. American Forage and Grassland Conference.American Forage and Grassland Council, p. 19–30.Google Scholar
5Bower-Spence, K. 1995. Where are the savings in grazing? This grazier's before- and -after records pinpoint lower costs for feed, equipment and labor. Pennsylvania Farmer June:8–9.Google Scholar
6Ford, S. and Hanson, G. 1994. Intensive rotational grazing for Pennsylvania dairy farms. Cooperative Extension, College of Agricultural Sciences, Pennsylvania State University, Farm Economics, July/August.Google Scholar
7Jackson-Smith, D., Barham, B., Nevius, M., and Klemme, R. 1996. Grazing in dairyland: the use and performance of management intensive and rotational grazing among Wisconsin dairy farms. Technical Report #5, Agricultural Technology Institute and Family Farm Institute, University of Wisconsin-Madison, USA.Google Scholar
8Hanson, G.D., Cunningham, L.C., Ford, S.A. and Muller, L.D. 1998. Increasing intensity of pasture use with dairy cattle: an economic analysis. Journal of Production Agriculture 11(2): 145–179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
9Hanson, G.D., Cunningham, L., Morehart, M. and Parsons, R.L. 1998. Profitability of moderate intensive grazing of dairy cows in the northeast. Journal of Dairy Science 81 821–829.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
10Winsten, J.R., Parsons, R.L. and Hanson, G.D. 2000. A profitability analysis of dairy feeding systems in the northeast. Agricultural and Resource Economics Review 29(2): 220–228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
11Stefanides, Z and Tauer, L.W. 1999. The empirical impact of bovine somatotropin on a group of New York dairy farms. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 81: 95–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
12Greene, W.H. 1997. Econometric Analysis. Prentice Hall, New Jersey.Google Scholar
13Foltz, J.D. and Hsui-Hui, Chang 2002. The adoption of rBST on Connecticut dairy farms. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 84(4): 1021–1032.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
14Chambers, R. 1988. Applied Production Analysis. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UKGoogle Scholar