Innovative Technology and Sustainable Development of Organic - 1.

level for AMS compared to CMS farms had other reasons. The milking frequency is lower than the
milking frequency found in a study for conventional herds with AMS done in 2006 which showed an
average of 2.8 (±0.3). The reason for the somewhat lower milking frequency among organic farms with
AMS could be the grazing (Ketelaar-De Lauwere et al., 2000).
3.3.2 Economic Performance
Annual milk yield delivered to the dairy per cow was higher for AMS than for CMS farms (P = 0.003,
see Table 2). However, economic indicators did not differ between AMS and CMS farms. In addition,
all costs were calculated per kilogram of milk produced and delivered, but no differences were found
between AMS and CMS farms, reflecting the large variation between farms.
Table 2. Mean results of economic indicators for dairy farms with an automatic milking system (AMS)
and a conventional milking system (CMS) in 2005 (SD in parentheses)
Indicator Dimension AMS CMS P value
Milk yield, delivered
1)
ECM per cow 8,539 (557) 7,302 (880) 0.003*
2)
Financial result € × 1,000 161 (54) 123 (69) 0.21
3)
Gross margin € per cow 2,719 (385) 2,258 (532) 0.27
Unit (variable)costs € per cow 1,253 (428) 1,023 (428) 0.24
Fixed costs € per cow 1,221 (367) 1,275 (278) 0.73
4)
Financing costs € per cow 620 (259) 723 (329) 0.47
Debts % of net worth 46 (18) 56 (13) 0.26
1)
ECM: energy corrected milk, milk yield standardized for fat and protein content
(see Sjaunja et al., 1990).
2)
Financial result is the gross income (from milk, animals, meat, and other
production) minus fixed costs (maintenance, wages, energy) plus unit costs
(feed, fertilizer, contract work).
3)
Gross margin is total income per cow minus the unit costs per cow and
unit costs for the young stock necessary to maintain the herd.
4)
Financing costs are interest costs on loans and investments and depreciation.
Fixed costs did not differ between AMS and CMS farms, neither per cow (P = 0.73), nor per hectare
(P = 0.48), nor per kilogram of milk produced (P = 0.46). This was rather surprising, as AMS is
generally assumed to be costly compared with CMS. Maintenance and service costs can be higher
because of technical and novelty problems, and updates. In addition, feeding costs have been reported
to be higher per cow on AMS farms (Wegge et al., 2007), but the unit costs per cow measured in this
study, which were the same for CMS and AMS farms, do not indicate this. Financial result and gross
margin per cow did not differ between AMS and CMS farms. In many other studies not concerned with
organic dairy, the AMS farms’ economic results were inferior to the CMS farms’ results (Rotz et al.,
2003; Meijering et al., 2004), although they are mainly based on model studies. Table 1 shows that
stocking rate of AMS farms had a tendency to be lower than CMS farms (P = 0.16). Nicholas et al.
(2004) found that a low stocking rate was associated with better economic performance. In this study,
however, a correlation between financial result and stocking rate was not found (R 2 = 0.01); possibly it
Thesis Frank W. Oudshoorn 47