33
AGRICULTURAL ECONOMICS REPORT No.4. 1- --. FACTORS AFFECTING .0 THE ECONOMICS OF SHEEP AND GOATS BY ANDREAS PAPAS AND STELIOS PAPACHRISTODOULOU ii, AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH INSTITUTE \ MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE AND NATURAL RESOURCES .. '" NICOSIA, -CYPRUS November, 1975.

FACTORS AFFECTING THE ECONOMICS OF SHEEP AND GOATSnews.ari.gov.cy/Publications/AER4-papas.pdfFACTORS AFFECTING THE ECONOMICS OF SHEEP AND GOATS . By . ... Costs and Returns of Goat

  • Upload
    others

  • View
    1

  • Download
    0

Embed Size (px)

Citation preview

Page 1: FACTORS AFFECTING THE ECONOMICS OF SHEEP AND GOATSnews.ari.gov.cy/Publications/AER4-papas.pdfFACTORS AFFECTING THE ECONOMICS OF SHEEP AND GOATS . By . ... Costs and Returns of Goat

AGRICULTURAL ECONOMICS REPORT No4 1- --

FACTORS AFFECTING 0 bullTHE ECONOMICS OF SHEEP bull

AND GOATS

BY

ANDREAS PAPAS AND STELIOS PAPACHRISTODOULOU

ii AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH INSTITUTE

MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE AND NATURAL RESOURCES NICOSIA -CYPRUS

November 1975

AGRICULTURAL ECONOMICS REPORT NO4

FACTORS AFFECTING THE ECONOMICS OF SHEEP AND GOATS

By

Andreas Papas and Stelios Papachristodou1ou

AGRICULTURhL RBSEhRCH INSTITUTE MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE Mill NATURAL RESOURCES

NICOSIA - CYfRUS

November 1975

bullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbull

- i -

WEIGHTS AND MEASURES

1 donum

1 metric tQn

1 kg

1 Cyprus pound (Cpound)

14400 s~uare feet 033 acre 0133 hectare

1000 kg = 09842 long ton

22 Ibs 08 oke

CURRENCY

1000 mils = 1 25 sterling pounds (pound)

265 UoS Dollars ($)

LIST OF CONTu~TS

Page

bullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbull 0000 bullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullINTRODUCTION 1 lETHOD OF ANALYSIS bullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbull 0 2

EC01JOMI C RESULTS bullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbull It 3bull 0 bull 0 0 bullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbull

A NORM SITUATIOIJ bullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbull 0 bullbullbull 0 bullbullbull middotbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbull 3 I Level of productivity and direction of production bullbull 3

Effect of intensive fattening bullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbull 5 II Level of grazing bullbullbull fJ 6bullbullbullbullbullbullbullbull e bullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbull 6 bullbullbullbull

III Size of the production unit bullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbull 7 Be ACTUAL SIWATION bullbullbullbull a 8bull 0 0 bull 0 coo 0 0 0 CI 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 bull 0 0 0 bullbull 0 bullbull

I Effect of the level of productivity bullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbull 8 II Level of grazing bullbullbullbullbullbullbull ~ bullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbull 9 III Size of the production unit bullbull 00 bullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbull 9 DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS bullbullbullbullbullbullbullbull 0 11bullbullbull 0 bullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbull

Silll11ARY bullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbull 0 130 0 bullbull 0 0 bullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbull

AC~OWLEJ)G~TS0 bull 0 bullbull 0 0 0 0 0 0 coo 0 bullbull 0 It 130 0 Igt bull 0 0 0 0 0 bullbullbullbullbullbullbullbull 0

REFERIDICES bull CI bull 0 0 I) 0 0 bull eo bullbullbull 0 bullbull 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 e 0 0 0 bull 0 bullbullbullbullbull 0 bull 0 0 bull 0 bullbull 13 AFPENDIX 15

LIST OF TABLES Table

1 Effect of Level of Productivity and Direction of Production on the Costs and Returns of Sheep and Goats (Norm) bullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbull 0 11)000 4

2 Effect of Fattening of Lambs and Kids on the Costs and Returns of Sheep and Goats (Norm) 5

3 Effect of Level of Grazing on the Costs and Returns of Sheep and Goats (Norm) 6

- ii shy

Table Page

4 Eff6ct of Size of tl1e Production Unit on the Costs and RGturns of Sheep and 003ts (Norm) bullbullbullbullbullbull 7

5 Costs and Returns of Sheep and Goats b~ Level of Productivi ty (Actual) 8

6 ~ffect of Size of the Production Unit on Costs and Returns of Sheep and Goats (Actual) bullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbull 10

App Tablfs

1 Cos1s and Ruturns of Sheep Enterprises by Size Group (Ac tual) ~ 0 bull 0 0 bull e 0 0 bull 0 bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bullbull 17

2 Costs and Returns of Goat Enterprises by Size 0 Cl 0 0 bull 0 bullbullbull Cl bull II bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bullbullGroup ( Actual) 18

3 Effect of Level of Productivity and Direction of Production on the Costs and Returns of Sheep

(1~9rm) bullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbull oooCloCooClot bullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbull 19

4~Effect of Level of Productivity and Direction of Production on the Costs and Returns of Goats

(Norm) Qooo~ ~O

5 Effect of Level of Grazing on the Costs and Returns of Sheepand Goats (Norm) 21

6 Eff8ct of the Size of th8 Production Unit on the Costs and Returns of Sheep and Goats bullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbull 22

7 Prices Received and Paid bullbullbull 23

8 Capital Investments bullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbull 23

9 Gross Revenue (CLew8) at IncreasinG Levels of Milk Yield and Larab i ng Ratio (Horiil) bullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbull 24

10 Gross Revenue (Cfgoa t ) 11 t Encr-crs i ng Lev el s of Milk Yield and Kidding Ratio (rocrn) bullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbull 24

11 Concentrates Cons~med (kgewe) Low Grazing Sys t era bullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbull CI 0 0 0 i bullbullbullbullbull 0 bull bull bull 25CI Q 0 bull bull bull bullbull

12 Concentrates Consumed (kggo8t)~ Low Grazing Systbnl OOol bullbull O bullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbull 26

13 F8ed Cost anQ Revbnue for Lamb Fattening bullbullbullbullbullbullbullbull 27

14 Feed Cost and Revenue for Kid Fattening bullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbull 28

15 Labour Requir~m8nt for 80 J~os or Goats Practicing Low or High Grazing at Increasing Lev81s of Milk Yield and Lambing or Kidding Ratios 290 bullbullbullbullbullbull 000 bullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbull

FACTORS AFF~CTIRG THB ECONOMICS OF SH~P A1l) GOATS

By

1)Andreas Papas and Stelios Papachr1stodoulou

INTRODUCTION

During the last decade substantial private and pUblic funds have been invested in sheep and goats The primary aim was to increasamp the number and improve the productivity of the animals Improvement was sought through the introduction of the Chios sheep and the Damascus goat whioh are characterized by prolificacy and high milk yieldS~l a7 Concurrently improved nutritional and managerial methods were promoted to increase production tJi The structure of the production unit however which emerged in the long process of development of this industry was far from clear Presently the sheep and goat production units vary widely in size productivity direction of production and feeding programme

In Cyprus marginal land and cereal stubble provide grazing for sheep and goats Indoor feeding is another alternative in which the size of the production unit is determined primarily by economic considerations but calls for higher feeding costs At tho same time feeding of concentrates carries a cost to the Government in subsidies and foreign exchange for imports of feed grains

The availability of skilled labour on the farm limits the size of the production unit because of the high labour involved in shepherding and milking~~ Workers with skills in animal hUsbandry are in short supply because of the difficult working conditions as the low social prestige attached to such jobs In view of the difficulties in mGchanizing milking and shepherding it is important to study the economics of alternative direotions such as all-meat production in which the skilled labour requirement is lower

1) Assistant Agricultural Research Officers

- 2 shy

In this report data collected from 63 sheep and 65 goat falm~

were used to study the economics of the existinb production units Other data fro~ the experimental farm of the Agricultural Research Ens t i tu t e the ~iargo and other Governraent farms were used to compute costs and ~eturns of norm production units varying in (i) productivity and tiirection of production Le meat andor milk (ii) level of grazing practised and (iii) s iz e

MbTliOD ur AJULYSIS

Norm situation

Costs and returns were computed using the budgeting method The basic information such as feed required per animal fo~ maintenance and production management systems (partial suckling age at weaning) etc was obtained from pUblished and non published data from the

Agricultural Research Institute and other Government farms The units studied varied in the following parameters

I Level of productivity and direction of Eroductio~Various levels of productivity in terms of sal~able milk and lambing or kidding ratio were studied The extreme combinations namely those conbining zero milk yield with high lambing or kidding ratios and high milk productlon withlow lambing or kidding ratios represented the meat and dairy directions of production respectively

II Level of graz~~~ The following three systems were studied

~ero grazi~~ All feed requirements were met by indoor feeding of cereal hay straw and concentrates Lm1 grazil~ The maintenance requirements of all adult animals were met by grazing and all others including those for fattening were met by feeding concentrate mixtures High grazi~f2 Cllhe maintenance requirements plus the equivalent of 85 kg of conc0ntr~tes for each ewe and 90 kg for each goat were met by grazing 1he baLaric e of the requirewents including all feed requirements for fattening were met by indoor feeding or concentrates

III Size of ihe production unit The fol Lov ing sizes as measured by the numbers of adult female animals were studied 80 160 and 200 animals Larger units up to 1000 animals 11-1818 considered multiples of the production unit with 200 animals with all cost items increasing linearly exoept for labour

Actual situation

The accounting method was used for computing costs and returns in the actual situation The 60 sheep and 65 goat farms studied were located in Villages of the Nicosia Larnaca Famagusta and Limassol districts The proQQcers were handed special

- 3 shy

questionnaires and were shown how to enter the raw uata A stqff member of the Agricultural Economics Section paid monthly visits to summarize the data and answer any questions raised Each production unit was treated as one observation Costs and returns were computed for each farm and group of farms The relationship of the gross revenue to tne main cost i terns was deterwined by regression anal ys i s

Details of the cowputations of costs and returns of the actual and norm proQuction units are presented in the Appendix The basic assumption under-Lydng these computations was that current prices were operative for both production units

EcmWMIC RBSULTS

J NORM SITUATION

L Level of productivity and direcmiddottion of production Sheep and goats in Cyprus serve a dual purpose namely meat and milk production with no emphasis on wool As stated earlier milking of ewes is a specialized laborious activity which cannot be easily mechanized Thus the Low availabili ty of skilled labour on farm limits the size of the family type production unit It Ls therefore important to examine the labour requirement and the economics of alternative directions of production and in particUlar the all-meat production unit in norm situations (Table 1)

The extreme situations of 200 kg milk and 08 lambs (column d) and zero milk and 26 lambs (column a) may be taken to ~epresent the dairy and meat directions resIectively while the ewes giving 120 kg and 16 lambs (column c) represent an intermediate situation The 26 lamhs in the allmiddot-meat direction can he achieved by an appropriate s ys t em which will make possible 15 lambings yearly In such system the ewes have shorter lactations and are mated soon after weaning of Lanbe 111 though not pr-ac t i s ed wiuely at present thL system Has tested in Cyprus and in other countries yeni th pr-orai s Lng

resul ts L5 J The data in Table 1 show that in a system in which the

maintenance requirements are met by grazing (low grazing) the above three directions (columns d c a) resulted in comparable gross revenue The feed costs hOilever increase wi th higher lambing ratio because all concentrate feeding was assumed for fattening The higher costs primarily for concentrates result in higher cost to the Government The labour requirement is lowest for the all-meat direction and highest for the milk direction The lower labour requirement makes possible the increase of the number of animals in the all-meat production unit

As shown in Tahle 1 the all-meat direction in goats result in slightly higher revenue than the other systems but this advantage

- 4 shy

is cancelled by the higher feeding costs The other cost and returns items show similar trends as with sheep

For the s arne number of animals the production uni ts or-Len t eu towards milk production require lowe-r feeeting but higher labour costs For the yields assumed above there is an aCivantage in net returDS to the producer and lower cost to the Government of the dual or dairy type over the all-meat direction The all-meat direction nevertheless is an economically sound aL ternative especiully in si tuations of shor-ta u in skilled labour and potential for high grazing It must however 5

be emphasized that these comparisons are made on empirically chosen yields and that the economics may change as yields and prices change

Table 1 Effect of Level of Productivity anQ Direction of Production on the Costs and Returns of Sheep and Goats (Iorm)a)

Sheep (a) (b) (c) (d) (e)

Milk yield (kgewe) 0 60 120 200 200 Lambing rati 0 26 12 16 08 16

- - -Cpoundenterprise -

Gross revenue 4019 2765 4114 3987 5175 Feed cost 1664 910 1329 1014 1530 Variable cost 1743 959 1395 1067 1604 Labour cost 364 449 534 590 592 Net profit 1265 750 1474 1586 2171 Returns to labour

(Cfworking day) 7~2 43 60 5middot9 7middot5 Returns to capital () 39middot2 269 467 521 833 Fa r m income 1780 1321 2147 2302 2910 Cost to the Government 688 373 542 407 622 Gross revenue per Cpound 171 135 132 102 120

Goats (a) (b) (c) (d) Milk yield (kggoat) 0 80 160 280 Kidding ratio 34 16 20 13

- - - - - - --Cpoundenterpriseshy - -----shyGross revenue 4688 3027 4246 4398 Feed cost 1847 1042 1434 1319 Variable cost 1934 1096 1503 1384 Labour cost 366 488 566 617 Net profit 1678 780 1386 1518 Returns to labour

(Cfworking day) 89 L1 --I bull L 5middot5 5middot5

Returns to capital (~n 493 274shy 436 480 Farm income 2202 1395 2094 2272 Cost to the Covernmen t 761 425 583 530 Gross revenue per Cf 162 140 137 121

a) Assuming 80 female adult animals and low grazing

- 5 shy

The comparison of column b (lOrl productivi ty) to columns a c d and e shows that 9 at these levels 9 the increase in returns is faster than the in6rease in costs The additional fsed costs res~ltinl

from the hiher requirements accounted for the largest part of till increase in variable costs In contrast~ the cost of labour incr8ase~

only slowly in columns c 9 d and e and decreased in column a Thi3 suggests that if the available genetic ~aterial and knowledge was

etlployed to increCise pr-oduo t i vi ty there Hould be a need for Lnc r-eas i ns cas] 8ltIJ8nlt88 for purchos i ng feed but there wouLd not be any [ignific_~L shyincrease in labour r-equ i r-eraent In con t r-as t labour avai Labi Lf ty jlay be limitinb the size of the production unit

8ffect of intensive fattening

Based on earlier work ~6 7 9 ~ it was assumed that lambs were weaned ai 35 days and kids at 70 days and that partial suckling was practised from 16th and 30th day onwards for lambs and kids respectively ThE sale of lambs at weanin~o9 20 kflS and 35 kg Livewe i ght produced revenue of Cpound 136 Cpound 200 and Cpound 306 for lambing ratio of 16 The additional expense primarily in feed costs was Cpound 29 and Cpound 77 for increases in gross revenue of Cpound 64 and Cpound 170 respectivey

Table 2 Effect oi Fat t en i ng of Lambs and Kiels OD the Costs and Returns of Sheep and Goats (Norm)a)

Goats ireanincmiddot i-reaning

35 k s(35 day~) 20 kg 35 kg (70 days) Liveweight solJ kgfemale animal 17middot4 320 560 313 63(

Revenue from lambs or kids Cpound female animal 136 200 306 244 349

Lambs or kids feed 8xpenses Cpoundfcrnale anir1al 01 29 7middot5 04 7middot5

Variable costs Crfemale animal 9middot7 126 174 114 188

Labour exrens es Cpoundfemal~ arrimaL 65 66 67 69 7middot1

Not profit Cpoundfemale ani mal 9middot3 127 184 97 17middot3

Return to capital () 265 343 470 269 434 Return to labour

CfwOrking day 40 47 60 41 61 Farm income

Cpoundfemale animal 169 206 268 177 26 ] Cost to the Gover-nmen t Cpoundfemale animal 36 47 68 -~ 2 7middot3

a) Fora product i cn unit 101i th 80 _wes producing 120 kg milk and 16 lambs or so goats produc i ng 160 kg mil and 20 kids with low level of euro-rJzing

- 6 shy

The cost to benefit ratio of 045 is sigl1ificantly lower than thb ratio of 063 which would be required to incz-eae e meat through LrL~

numbers of sheep The high differences betv een addi t i onal cost and revenue was also reflected in higher profit farm income and returns to capi tal and Labour The cost to the Governrrent would increase b~

Opound 11 and Cpound 32 respectively because fa t t erLng was based on conoentra te feeds In general the Govermnent pad d more th~n 13 of 0h~

variable costs for fattening This cost however is lower than the expense in foreign exchange for Lmpor t Ln Lamb meat at present pri c ce

It is thus concluded that fattening of lambs up to 35 kC liv8weight increases significantly the gross revenue and all return i t erue Fa ttening required only minor additional labour and no significant capital investment in shedS machinery etc but profi tabili ty of lamb and kid fattening de penua primarily on the price relationship of feeds and meat

II Level of grazing

The effect of zero low and high grazing s ys t ems on the main return and cost i terns of producti on uni ts Hi th 80 ewes or 80 goa ts ar~middot

presented in Table 3 The feed cost desreased significantly with increasing level of grazing being only half that of the zero grazing system Savings in feed costs was reflected in higher farm income returns to labour and capital and net profit for the two ayst ems wi -U

gr-az i ng as compared to indoor feeding Irr om the inputs only the- llt)oT cost was higher in the high grazing system than in the zero grazin~~

system The additional labour cost however of Cpound 144 was smaller compared to th8 saving in feed accounting to Cpound 1171 for ewes and Opound 1285 for goats in the high grazing sybtem

Table 3 Effect of Level of GraZing On the Costs and Returns of SLeeT and Goats (Norm)a)

Sheep Goats Level of grazing Zero Low High Zero Low Higt

- - - - - -ORproduction unit- - - shy

Gross revenue 4114 4114 4114 4246 4246 42-~6

Feed cost 2180 1329 1009 2392 1434 i ic Concentrates 1893 1329 1009 2110 1434 1107 Hay amp straw 287 282

Variable cost 2280 1395 1062 2500 1503 116 Labour cost 390 53- 534 422 566 5St Net profit 733 1475 1807 533 1386 1725 Return to labour

Cfworking day 46 60 70 36 55 6middot) Return to capital (~ ) 23middot5 470 592 178 436 55middot(Cost to the Government 762 542 417 847 583 4Y~

Farra income 1295 2147 2467 1135 2094 2j~C

================-==========-- a) For a unit with 80 ewes producing 120 kg milk and 16 lambs or 80

goats producing 160 kg milk and 20 kius

- 7 shy

The cost to the Government in terms of subsidies for

concentrates is almost twice as high for indoor feeding as compareu to -- high grazing s ya t em In addition zero gr2~ing involves a high expenslaquo

in foreign exchange as Cyprus is a net ili1portcr of large quanti ti83 of

feed grain Thus maxi murn use of grazing i r to the benefit of bo th tIle

LndivLduaI producer and thG national ec ouomy It is therefore 5

necessary to keep the cost d i ffer-en t i aI -1 a level which would

encourage the full utilization of grazin- aroas and allow tne opt i mum

LlSt3 of feed grain It is clifficul t to d e t e r-mine the opt i mum s i z e of this differential because of the wide variation in the availability of graamping from one part of Cyprus to the other andthe effect of the price of thE- feed grain on the price of r1any basic fOOd items

111 Size of the production unit

Data on the main cost and return items of norm production

units varying in size are presented in Table 4

Table 4 Lffect of the Size of the Production Unit on the Costs

and Returns of Sheep and Goats (Noro)a)

Female animals per farm 80

Sheep

160 200 80

Goats

160 200

Gross revenue

Feed cost

Variable costs

Labour cOstshy

Net frofi t Return to labour

Cpoundworking day

Return to capital () Farm inoome

- - shy -

4115 1329 1395

534 1475

60 467 2147

- - -

8229 2658 3000

827 3194

70middot3 510 4298

-Crproduction unital

10286 4246 8492 3322 1433 2867 3887 1503 3283 1009 566 890

1386 -

4012 3014

80 5middot5 70 510 436 47middot5 5374 2094 4192

- shy -

10615 358shy4240 1087 4328

80 518 5781

-

a) For ewes producing 120 kg milk ana 16 lambs or goats producing

160 kg milk and 20 k ide on the 10Vl crazinb s ys t em

It is ilpparent that the size of the production unit affects

costs and returns significantly Fo r the yields stated above (Table -i-) 75 ewes are requireJ to obtain farm income of Cpound 2000 As would be

expected the size required to obtain Q certain level of farm incoffib

SfiY Cpound 2000 depends on many factors such iS the productivi ty of

anioills and the level of grazing This is illustrated in the followin6

examples g For ewes producing zero mi Lk yield arid 26 lambs 90 ewesn

r-equ i r edj for 60 kg milk and 12 lambs 121 ewes for 180 kg nu Lk and

10 lambs 71 ewes For zero low and high grazing with ewes producin[

120 kg milk and 16 lambs the respective numbers rBquired to obtain

farm income of Cr 2000 are 123 75 and 65

- 8 shy

B ACTUAL SITUATIOJX

I Effect of the level of productivity

The actual data collected fr-on tile sheep and goat pr-oduc t i cn units wer( classified in thrE)e levels of productivity namely~ low medium and high on the basis of the gross revenue obtained per adult female animal The means of the main cost anci return items for each group are presented in Table 5

Table 5 Costs and Returns of Sheep and Go~ts by Level of Productivity (Actual)

Sheep Goat

Level of productivity Low Medium High Low Medium Higll

Number of farms Ewes or goats per farm Milk yield

(kgfemale animal) Lambs raised per ewe or kids per goat

Concentrates (kgfemale animal)

18 72

48

11

117

29 72

57

12

135

18 54

68

13

143

16 80

37

13

65

33 64

74

15

108

16

59

126

19

200

Gross revenue (Ctfemale animal) 194 224 273 13 3 202 31 Z

Variable costs 106 lll 110 56 65 128 Gross profit 88 113 163 7middot7 13middot7 184

The hiSher productivity in the ncdium and high levels was pr9bably due to better feeding~ superior management and better genetic material from the Chios breed and the Damascus goat ~9 lQ7

The pz-oduc t i vi ty per animal incr8ased with the aLlowan ce of conc en t r-at ea as shown by the highly s i gr Lf i carrt regression coe tfLc i en t between gross revenue Cpoundfemale aniwal (Y) and concentrates fed in kg (X) the equation being Y = 1012 + 0056X (r=057) for ewes and = 947 + 0066x (r=O56) for goats The ~dditional cost of concentrashytes accounted for most of the Lnor-eas e in variable co s t s The returns obtained from animal with higher productivity w~re significantly higher tilan the additional costs bull At present ~ therefore there are wid margins for increasing productivity at low cost The data of Table 5 show that the commercial milk yield of the production units studied may be doubled while the average lambing or kidding ratio may bb improved by 30-40 L 1 J The average milk yi 61d and 1ambing or kidding ratios recorded in this study are the same as those recorded earlier [4]

- 9 shy

Ihe deL ta in Aplenuix Ta bl GS 1 and 2 show that on the CLV8r-tmiddot 09 lambs and 11 kids were sold per female animal producing a revenu~

of Cpound 94 ani Cpound 113 respectively At the price of Cpound 0781 per k 6 liveweignt this corresponds to the production of 120 and 145 kg of liveweight r-s s peo t i vel y for each ewe or gl)[t When oompared to the norm d~ta for similar lambing or kidding rltios it is concluded that the lambs and kids Nere sold at the age of eppr-oxi mately 8 - 10 WSOK3

at Which the producers usually wean the lambs and kids This would suggest tha t for the production units studied tfHlrewas no larte scale fa ttening of Lambs or kids beyond lHaninf at the aetJ of 6-10 we ek a The majority of the producers stated that they practised partial suckLin and that thcy offered creep feed to the lambs and k i ds Fran the discussion with th6se producers it was conclueltjd that the main reasons for no large scale fa t t cn ing were tradi t i on the higher l)ricus received for baby lamb and kid and the need for cash partcularly before revenue from milk was received

II Level of grazing

The data available do not allow a detailed study of the effect of the level of grazing on the costs and returns in the actual situation

It is possihle however to drd~ some conclusions from the5~

data in comparison to the norm situation The livestock producers of this study fed on the average 132 kg of concentrates for each ewe and 120 kg for each goat In add i ti on 08 donums of green forage vlclS

cansuQed by each female aniwal and its followers Similar trends WbTB

observed in ano thez- etuuy L9 J Compar-ed to norm produo t i on units or

comparable y i elds it a ppear-s that feed requirements for maintenance arto ruet by gr-az i ng gr-e en forage and straw 9 whi l E t he r equ i r-emerrt s for production are met by concentrates For ollis 9 tlH level of grazino is hi6her than she up especiallj for production units with more than 30 female adult an imaLs as indicated by tl( lower amount of concentrates fed for comparative yields

Thl level of grazin~ practised is limited by the low ava i La hi Li ty of pas tur-es and t no abe enc e of large grazing areas There are also institutional r8gulations by 10c81 authorities limi tin~ the maximum nunrber of animals a t tendcd oy a sincle shepherd Compar-ed to the norm situation the average of grazing was slightly below the designated as low level

III Size of the production unit

Data on tho main cost and return items of actual produotion units varying in size and presented in Table 6 The regression of gross revenue (YGB) or variable oosts (Yvd on the number of adult ewes (X) revealed a sienificant linear relation the equations being

- 10 shy

A ~

2138 + 193X (r=091) YVC = 97 + 109X (r=064) For goat8~YGR = the respective equations were YGR = 1860 + 46x (r=035)A

Yvc = 4035 + 147X (r=061) Unlike [Sheep the r for the equation relating gross revenue and number of gOcits wus low This pr-o babl y

resul ted from wider vaz-La t i on in productivi ty among goat than ShbI

units It was apparent fro~ the inspectiun of the data from thE individual goat units that the per an i raaL output was par t i cu Lar-Ly

variable especially for small units

For the same data gross r-evenue and labour cost per an i mal decreQsed in lareer units especially in goats The advantag8s of

economics of size were cancelled by the decline in producticity which resulted in lower net returns per animal in the larger units The total rturns how8vGr were higher in the larger units but could have been consiclerably higher had the productivity of each animal been at the same level as in the small units

Table 6 Effect of Size of the Production Unit on the Gostsand Returns of Sheep and Goats (Actual)

Female animals per farm

Gross revenue Feed cost iTariable cost abour- cost Jet profit te tu r n to labour

Cpoundorking day eturn to capital () arm income

Sheep Goa ts

42 65 94 39 63

- -Cfenterprise unit shy - -

1037 1450 2056 1053 1247 18(9

443 690 975 701 797 1206

467 726 1026 373 471 645 342 436 529 342 436 529 135 171 324 265 235 473

22 22 26 28 24 3C 101 101 128 169 128 17 middot5

588 753 1069 694 794 IJ89

By corapa r-i ng the incremental bross revenue to the varLabl raquos ts from the low to the high level of pr-oduc t av i t y (Tah1e 5) and ~om the small to the large LeveI of s i z e (lable 6) it can be derived tat it is more profitable to increase prociuctivi ty per an i maI r-athor ~n increase their numbers

DISCUSSIOl AND COFCLUSI011S

Sheep and goat production can be Lnc r-eae ed by increasing Lt

oduc t i v i t y of the animals or by increasin~ the size of the an i maL pulation or by a combination of the two The returns to the iividual producer however~ are affecteu apart of the productivity other factors namely 1 the size of the production unit the level )i

~zing the management system and others

- 11 shy

The data in this study indicated the economic advantage 1 Jotl_ for the individual producer and the national economy of increasine the sheep and goat production by improving the productivity of the animals than by increasing the size of the population For ewes and goatB it is obvious from the comparison of actual and norm data that commer-ciiI

milk yield can be doubled and lambing ratio can increase by 30-40 by

using genetic material and knowledge already available in Cyprus The adoption of fQttening of lambs and kids at weights up to 35 kg is hindered by the strong demand for baby laUD and kid meat and the nee~

of producers for cash However these obs t acLes may be overCOJTW by eppr-opr-ia t e policy measures and consumer oduoa t ion

Th6 study of different directionG of production and in particular the all-meat versus the high milk - low meat direction showed that at the levels assumed the milk and meat direction was slightly superior to the all-meat direction in terms of net returns and lower cost to the Government Nevertheless thG all-meat direction is economically sound and may be used in s peo i aLj aed si tuations in which skilled labour is limited while good possibilities exist for high levels of grazing

The size of the production unit required to obtain a certain level of farm income J8pends on many factors such as the productivity of the animals and the level of grazing The numbers of adult female animals required to obtain farn income of Cpound 2000 are 121 and 75 for commercial milk yields of 60 and 120 kg and lambing ratioe of 12 ard

16 respectively Assuming that these yields represent roughly the Local and the Chios sheep it is apparent that any benefits from increasinb the present size of the production units would be much higher if the increase in size was coupled with higher productivity Presently the size of most sheeJ or goat production units is smal18r than the siz8 required to achi8ve farw income of Cpound 2000

The rroblem of deciding the size of the production unit has many complex aspects This is so becausu the livestock enterpris8 in most places is combined with crop production and the relative size of the two on t er-prLs ee is determined by economic and other factors In this respect the amount opound family labour~ the availability and size of grazing areas and feeds and the relative profitability of the livestOCK enterprise in comparison with pos s r ble al ternative farm enterprises weigh heavily in det er-iain i ng the size of the sheep or goat production units

From the data of thi s and an oar-Iier study L 9 ] it is suggested that op t i mum utilization of resources in a mixed type of farming requires production units with 120 - 130 animals In a norm situation for numbers up to 1000 animals the returns to size were higher than zero suggesting that at present economies of siZe have not

- 12 shy

been exploited Of course larger production units do not neces5~rily

imply larger animal population th ey may resul t also from reorganizatior

of the existing population to larger economically viaole units

The level of grazing is inversely related to the feeding costs but increases labour cost The decrease in feeding cost frod

higher level of grazing is considerably higher than the increase in

labour cost There is no doubt that higher grazing level wilen possible J is economically beneficial both to the individual producGr

and the national economy and could be easily combined with the all-~~~t

direction of production It is proposed th~t the price of concentrstcO)

presently regulated by thE Government through the system of SUbsidies be kept at such level which will encourage the optimum utilization of

straw pastures and agricultural by-products

The goat production units (actual) were more variable than sheep units in the level of productivitJ-9 direction of production feeding prograDme and size Smaller goat units tended to be more productive consumed more concentrates per female animal and producei higher returns per animal than larger units This suggests that large units Hith low producing animals practised more grazing On the averagG 9 the gross revenue was higher for sheep but net returns from goats were slightly higher These differences were primarily due to higher level of grazing for goats than for sheep This comparison if

based on the average of the production units studied ~nd could not bE extrapolated to comparison of specific breeds of sheep and goats A comparative study of the Chios sheep and Damascus goat under norm

conditions was initiated at this Institute

- 13 shy

SUIDIARY

Data from 68 sheep 65 goat private production units (actual situation) and from Gov~rnment units (norm situationr were used to coraput c costs and returns and to study the main fa c t or-s affecting tht econooics of shoGp and goats in Cyprus The main conclusions of this study can be summarized as follows

1 It is more profitable as a ~irst step to incrGasG productivity per animal rather than increase their numbers With available gonetic material ana knowledge it is possible to double tho present milk yields and increase the number of lambs or kids per female animal by 30-40

2F~ttGning of lambs or kids at prosGnt prices can increase total and net returns SUbstantially with profound ~conomic advantages for the individual producer and tho national economy

3 The study of di~ferent directions of ~roduction showed that the milk and mlat direction was slightly suporior to the all-moat directionH01iGVer thE a I Le-meat di re c t i on of production may bo a sound economic alternative mainly in situations where good possibilities exist for high lcvul of razing and skilled labour is limited

4 The feed cost for high level of grazing was only half the cost for middotindoor fcodLng The loer fe ed cost 18S ruflectcd in higher net returns for the razing systems The cost differential between cost of grazing and fecding of concentrates should be adjusted to promoto grazing 8t th8 IGvlol which will mClOt at the minimum the maintenance r-oqu i r-crucn t s of auuI t animalsmiddot

5 With present 18v~ls of productivity 168 ewes or 151 goats arc roquirlQ to produclo farm incomb of Cpound 2000 In norm situations 75 OWbS pr-oducdng 120 kg milk and 16 1(111bs could I~roduc8 thc same income For this LcvcI of productivi ty the r-espec t i v- numbers for z er-o low and high grazing nystems war_ 123 75 and 65 ewes

Th authors gratefully acknowlGdge tl1G cooperation of ahoe p and goat producers and the assistancE providod by all members of the Agricultural Economics Slction

RLFERLFCES

1 Louca A Pr-eLimanar-y r-csuI ts on tho por-formarice of pur-ebr-ed and cross-bred sllecp Paper prosGDtcd a~ the RGgional Workshop for shclp and forage improvement February 11-14 1974 in Buirut~ Lebanon

- 14 shy

2 Chimonides 1 1972 Some faotors affGoting the productivity of DamQscus goats in Cyprus MS Thesis American University of Bei r-ut L8b~~lO[

3 Planning Bureau ThE first (1962-66) the second (1967-71) and t hlaquo

third (1972-76) Five Year Plan Planning Rur~au

Nioosia Cyprus

4 Agrioulturul Research Institute 1964 Cost and Returns of Shlq

and goats Agric Res Inst Nioosia Cyprus

5 Louca A Personal c omruurri ca t i cn Agrioultural Research Institute Nioosia Cyprus

6 Hadjipanayiotou M and Louca A 1975 PhG Effeots of partial suckling on the lactation Derformance of Chios sheep and Damasous goats and the growth rate of the lambs and kids (in preparation) Agricultural Research Institute Nicosia Cyprus

7 Louca A 1972 The effect of suckling regime on grmdh rate and laotation performance of the Cyprus Fat-tailed amI Chios sheep Anim Prod 15~53-59

8 Louca A ~ Mavr-ogen i s A and Lawlor ~1J 1975 ThE effect of early weaning on the laotation performanoe of Damascus goats and the growth rate of the kidb Anim Prod 20 213-218

9 Papachristodoulou S and Papas A 1975 The bconomios of drylan~

mixed farming in Cyprus Agrioultural Research Institute Nicosia~ Cyprus

10 Papachristodoulou S 1974 (Restrioted) Dryland Mixed Farwing A technical and economic anaLys i s of some typical fnrl~

participated in the Mixed Farming Project during 1968-1972 Agricultural Research ~nstitute Nicosia Cyprus

11 Papas A 1975 Protein requirements of ewes during laotution (in IJreparation) Agrioultural REJsearch Lns t i tu t e Nicosia Cyprus

12 Papas A 1975 Protein requirements of ewes during maintenanoe (in preparation) Agricultural Res~arch Institute Nioosia Cyprus

13 Papas~ A 1975 The protein requirements of early weaned lambs (in preparation) Agricultural Researoh Institutc 9

Nioosia CYfrus

- 15 shy

lTA P P E D I x

COHPUTATION OF DnUT-OUTPUT DATA OF SHEEP MID GOATS-Gross revenue is the total value of milkmeat cUlls wool and manuree

Sheep milk was sold at Cpound 0163kg and goat milk at Cpound 0112kg In the

actual situation revenue from lambs and kids 11018 based on receipts

adjusted to current prices It was assumed that in norm situation lambs

and kids were sold at 35 kg liveweight 0547kg The prices at 20 kg

liveweight and at weaning were Cpound 0625 and Cpound 0781 respectively A 5

death rate for lambs and kids was assumed Culling was estimated at

20 each year 5 of this was assumed to represent losses and the

remaining 15 of the culls sold at Cpound 125head It was assumed that

losses were directly related to productivity for every additional 10 kg

milk yield and 01 lambing ratio losses increased by 015 and by

005 respectively The revenue from wool and manure was estimated at

Cpound 0700 and Cpound 0500animal respectively (App Tables 16)

Variable costs include feed expenses (purchased or produced) other

expenses (veterinary hired labour) and interest on operating capitale

In the actual situation feed expenses for sheep remiddotprEHHlnted

the 95 of variable costs and 54 of total costs for goats these

percentages are 94 and 44 respectively (App Tables 1 and 2) In the

norm situation feed expenses for sheep or goats comprised approximately

95 of the variable costs ranging from 42-65 of the total costs

depending on the level of productivity direction of production and the

level of grazing (App Tables 3-5) The feed expenses forslle-epandmiddot

goats as percent of variable and total costs decreased from about

95-84 and increased from about 50-53 respectively depending on the

size of production unit (App Table 6)

Interest on operating capital represents 50 of the variable

costs at 8 interest rate

Fixed costs include rent of land family labour replacement

depreciation and interest on fixed capital

In the actual situation rent of land was charged for the area

under fodder crops while in the norm situation rent was charged only for

the area occupied by sheds and the milking parlour

- 16 shy

Family labour was valued atGpound 1600__p~r -wor~i~gslaY_~Ep_

ble 15 presents the labour requirements for 80 ewes or goats pr-ac t i c i rs

w or high grazing system at increasing levels of milk yield andmiddot

Lmbing or kidding ratios Also gives the calculation of the labou~

squ i r-ement s for the zero grazing system and increasing number of aniild

n this study it was assumed that 13 labour units(LbU) were c on tr i bu

ed by family labour and any additional labour w~cs treated as hired

abour-

The replacement was estimated at 20 of the value of animals

The annual depreciation rate of shed8 was estimated at 25

while interest rate used for sheds and livestock capital was 6

Total costs is the sum of variable and fixed costs and net profit the

difference between gross revenue and total coste (App Tables 1-6)

Return to labour (Cpoundwo~king day) was calculated by adding to the net

profit all labour costs and dividing this amount by the number of

working days (App Tables 1-6)

Return to capital () was calculated by adding to the net profit the

interest on operating and fixed capital and dividing the amount by tho

capital investments (excl land capital) and multiplied by 100 (App

Tables 1-6)

Farm income consisted of pai~ or imputed rent 9 remuneration of family

and hired labour interest charges and net profit (App Tables 1-6)

Cost to the government was computed from the v~lue of concentrates fed

using the coefficients of 039 and 043 for aault and young animals

respectively These coefficients represent the increase in percentaL~

of the present value of the concentrates which Would be paid by the

producers in the form of hi~her prices if marketing of feed grains waG

not regulated These coefficients were comI~t8d on the basis of the

difference of the prices for feed grains paid lJy the Government and t~l(

livestock producers and on the content of the concentrate mixtures in

the feed grains (App Tabl~s 3-6)

----------------

- 17 shy

App Table 1 Costs and Returns of Sheep Enterprises by Size Group (Actual)

--_SizebwrltuF (No of ewes)

30-50 50-80 80gt Mean Cpoundewe-----_-_-

No of observations 17 33 18 68

Average No of ewes 42 65 94 67 Milk production (kg) 2711 3442 5348 3764 Lambs Bold or consumed (No) 39 55 85 59 ------------------_shy

Ycilk and milk products 440 569 865 614 92 40middot9 Lambs 417 573 925 627 9 418 Culls 60 94 108 89 13 5middot8 Wool 28 48 71 49 07 31 Manure 19 30 41 30 04 18 Change of capital 71 136 55 98 15 6G

Gross Revenue Cpound 1037 1450 2056 1507 225 1000

Feed purchased 221 325 493 344 53 27 ~

Feed produced 72 118 103 103 15 77 Forage produced 150 246 379 257 38 19lt5 Other 6 8 12 8 01 0~5

Interest 18 28 39 29 04 20 ----------------___

Variable Costs Cpound 467 725 1026 741 111 ------ ------------_- shy

Rent of land 45 52 92 61 Family labour 342 436 529 437 )3 -I

~ IInterest and depreciation 48 66 85 66 -

-------~---------_ _

Fixed Costs Cpound 435 554 706 564

Total Costs bpound 902 1279 1732 1305 195 --__--____-__---shyNet profit Cpound 135 171 324 202 31

43- J

Return to labour (Cpoundworking day) 22 22 26 23

Return to capital () 101 101 128 108 Return over feed expenses Cpound 594 761 1081 804 Farm income Cf 588 753 1069 795 ---------------------~---------_

- 18 shy

Table 2 Costs and Returns of Goat Enterprises by Size Group (Actual)

Size group (lITo of gegtats )

30-50 50-80 80) Mean Ci-goat

No of observations 18 28 19 65

Average No of goats Milk production (kg) Kids sold or consumed (No)

39 4034

53

63 4439

71

98 6169 100

666 4833

74

Milk and milk products Kids Culls Manure Change of capital

331 552

54 19 97

364 704 80 28 71

505 1005 102

43 154

396 60 750 113 79 12 30 0middot5

103 15

293 551 59 24 73

Gross Revenue Cishy 1053 1247 1809 1358 20middot5 100 00

Feed purchased Feed produced Forage produced Other Interest

207 35

llO

7 14

236 53

156 8

18

263 36

304 17 25

236 43

186 II 19

3middot5 06 28 02 03

224 38

18J 13 loy

Variable Costs Cf 373 471 645 495 74 474

Rent of land Family labour Interest and depreciation

25 342 48

39 436

66

77 529 85

46 437

67

07 65 10

4middot5 417

64

Fixed Costs Cf 415 541 691 550 82 526

Total Costs Cf 788 1012 1336 1045 156 1000

Net Frofi t Cf 265 235 473 313 49

Return to labour (Cpoundworking day)

Return to capital () Return over feed expenses Farm income

Cf Of

28 169

700 694

24 128

802 794

30 17middot5 1206 1189

27 153 892 882

- 19 shy

App Table 3 Effect of Level of Produotivity and Direction of a) Produotion on the Costs and Returns of Sheep (Norm)

Milk yield (kgewe)

Lambing ratio

Milk Lambs Culls

Wool Manure

Gross Revenue

Feed for ewes i) Concentrates

ii) Hay amp straw Feed for lambs

i) Concentrates Other Interest

Variable Costs

Rent Famil y labour Replacement Depreciation Interest

Fixed Costs

Total Costs

Gross Profi t

Net Profit

Return to labour (Cpoundworking day)

Return to capital () Cost to the Government

deg 60 120 200

26 12 16 08

782 3781 1748 142 139

56 56 40 40

1565 2325 128

56 40

2608 1163

120 56 40

Cpound 4019 2765 4114 3986

676 464

988 446 12 12 67 37

728

601 12 54

720

294 12 41

Cpound 1743 959 1395 1067

2 2

364 449 544 504

19 19 82 82

2

534 608 19 82

2

590 640 19 82

ce 1011 1056 1245 1333

Cpound 2754 2015 2640 2400

Cpound 2276 1606 2719 2919

Cpound 1265 750 1474 1586

72 43 60 59 392 269 46middot7 521

Cpound 688 373 542 407

a) Assuming 80 8W~S and low grazing

- 20 shy

App Table 4 Effect of Level of Productivity and Direction of a) middotmiddotmiddot----middot --Produc_tiQ[l on the Costs and Returns of Goats (Norm) bull

bull bullbullbullbull ~ __R_ ~~__bullbullbull ~ bullbullbull _

-_ ----~ bull

Milk yield (kggoat)

Kidding ratio

0

34

80

16

160

20

2$0

13

Milk Lambs Culla

4511 137

717 2136 134

1434 2652 120

2503 1743

106

Manuremiddot 40 40 40 40

Gros smiddot R-eAfnu-e- Cpound 4688 3027 4246 4398

Feed for goats ) ConcentratesJ I

ii) Hay amp straw Feed for kids

i) Concentrates Other Interest

824

1023 12 74

560

482 12 42

832

601 12 58

928 ~

391 12 53

Variable Coiits Cpound 1933 1096 1503 1384

Rent Family labour Replacement Depreciation Interestmiddot_middotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddot

2 366 608 19 82

2 488 560

19 82

2 566 688 19 82

2 617 776 19 82

Fixed Cos is Cpound 1077 1151 1357 1496

Total Cost s Cpound 3010 2247 2860 J 2880

Gross Froht Cpound 2755 1931 2743 3014

Net PI-ofit

Cpound 1678 780 1386 151[

Return to labour (Cpoundworking day)

Return to capital () 89

493 42

274 55

436 505

480 Cost to the Oovernmen t --6pound---middot761 middot425 51n __

~_~- -- _--___-~ _ M bullbullbull_ bullbull___ R bullbullbull __bullbull __ bull

o _ bullbull

~301 __

a) Assuming 80 goats and low grazing

- 21 shy

App Table 5 Effect of Level of GraZirg on the Costs and Returns of Sheep and Goats (Norm) a

Shee~ Goats Level of gra~ing Zero Low High Zero Low Rigl

Milk yield (kgfemale animal) 120 120 120 160 160 16

Lambing or kidding ratio 16 16 16 20 20 2()

Milk 1565 1565 1565 1434 1434 l434 Lambs 2326 2326 2326 2652 2652 2652 Culls 128 128 128 120 120 120 Wool 56 56 56 Manure 40 40 40 40 40 40

Gross Revenue Cpound 4115 4115 4115 4246 4246 4246

Feed for ewes or goats i) Concentrates 1292 728 408 1508 832 505

ii) Ray amp straw 288 282 Feed for lambs or kids

i) Concentrates 601 601 601 602 602 602 Other 12 12 12 12 12 12 Interest 88 54 41 96 58 45

Variable Costs Cpound 2281 1395 1062 2500 1504 116r _ _-

Rent 2 2 2 2 L 2 Family labour 390 534 534 422 566 565 Replacement 608 608 608 688 688 68P Depreciation 19 19 19 19 19 1)

Interest 82 82 82 82 82 8e

Fixed Costs Cpound 1101 1245 1245 1213 1357 1357

Total Costs Cpound 3382 2640 2307 3713 2861 252

Gross Profit Cpound 18~4 2720 3053 1746 2743 30t)2

1Tet Profit Cpound 733 1475 1808 533 1385 1725

Return to labour (Cpoundworking day) 46 60 70 36 5middot5 65

Return to capital () 232 467 588 178 436 55( Feed cost to the Government Cpound 762 542 418 847 583 456

a) Assuming 80 female adult animals

- 22 shy

App Table 6 Bffect of the Size of the Pr-oduc t ion Unit on the Costs and Returns of Sheep and Goats (NJrm)

SheGE Goats

Ewes or goatsfarm 80 160 200 80 160 2()(I

Milk yield (kgfemale animal) 120 120 120 160 160 16~)

Lambing or kidding ratio 16 16 16 20 20 2 0

Milk 1565 3130 3912 1434 2867 35[1 Lambs 2326 4651 5814 2652 5305 66jl Culls 128 256 320 120 240 300 Wool 56 112 140 Manure 40 80 100 40 80 100

Gross Revenue Cpound 4115 8229 10286 4246 8492 10615

Feed for awes or goats i) Concentrates 728 1456 1820 832 1664 208

ii) Hay amp straw Feed for lambs or kids

i) Concentrates 601 1202 1502 602 1203 1504 Hired labour 203 385 266 4f- u_)

Other 12 24 30 12 24 jC)

Interest 54 115 150 58 126 163

Variable Costs Cpound 1395 3000 3887 1504 3283 42C

Rent 2 4 5 2 4 Family labour 534 624 624 566 624 621 Replacement 608 1216 1520 688 1376 1( 2(

Depreciation 19 32 40 19 32 4C Interest 82 159 198 82 159 19t

Fixed Costs Cpound 1245 2035 2387 1357 2195 255 _ _--_ __

Total Costs Cpound 2640 5035 6274 2860 5478 6521

Gross Profit Cpound 2720 5226 6399 2743 5209 Ggt7)

net Profit Cpound 1475 319L~ 4012 1385 3014 Ll3 -

Return to labour (Cpoundworking day) 60 78 80 5middot5 70 SoU

Return to capital () 467 510 510 436 475 538 Feed cost to the Government Cpound 542 1085 1356 583 1166 145[

- 23 ~

App Table 7 Prices Received and Paid

Prices received Unit Cpound-Milk sheep kg 0163

goat kg 0112 Lamb or kid

At leaning kg 1ivQwoight 0781 At 20 kg kg 0625 At 35 kg kg II 0547

Wool Cpoundanima1 0100 Manure Cpoundanima1 0500

Prices paid

Feed roughage

Straw ton 120 Cereal hay ton 200

Concentrates

Creep feed ton 500 15 crude protein (as fed) ton 458 13 crude protein (as fed) ton 438 11 crude protein (as fed) ton 400

Labour working day 16

Rent of land donum 15

App Table 8 Capital Investments

Land

Sheds for 80 female animals

160 female animals 200 female animals

Value of animals Ewes (0 kg milk 26 lambing ratio)

(60 kg milk 12 lambing ratio) (120 kg milk 16 lambing ratio ) (200 kg milk 08 lambing ratio)

Goats( 0 kg milk 34 kidding ratio) ~ 80 kg milk 16 kidding ratio) (160 kg milk 20 kiddinB ratio) (280 kg milk 13 kidding ratio)

Operating capital (50 of variable costs)

Cpounddonum 300

Cpoundshed 1800 Cpoundahed 13500 Cpoundshed 16600

CrJeue 330

315

380

400

Cpoundgoat 380

340

400

425

vpp Table 9 Gross RevenuG (Cpoundewe) at Incr-eas Ing LeveI s of Milk Yi o Ld and Lcml~ng Rc tios (rorm)

Millt Y i e 1 d (kg eVi8)Lambing ratio 0 20 4~ 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200

08 163 208 253 298 343 388 433 ~n 8 523 568 613 10 201 246 29 ~ 1 33~6 381 426 471 516 561 606 651

12 240 284 32~9 37~4 419 464 509 554 599 644 689 16 31 6 360 40~5 45o 495 540 585 630 675 720 765 18 355 398 44~3 488 533 578 623 668 713 758 803 22 431 474 519 56~4 609 654 699 744 789 834 879

26 508 550 5915 64+ 0 658 730 775 820 865 910 955 30 584 626 67h 71~6 761 806 851 896 941 986 1034

~--

- _ N

~

App Table 10 Gross Revenue (Cpoundgoat) at Increasing LeY11s of Milk Yield and Kidding Ratios (Norm) bull

M i llt Y i e 1 d (kg L~at) IKidding ratio

middot0 40 80 l~d 160 200 240 280 320 360 400

08 148 193 237 28~~ 327 372 41 7 461 506 551 596 12 218 263 307 35~2 397 442 487 531 576 621 666 16 287 333 37-7 42l~ 467 512 55middot7 601 646 691 736 20 355 403 447 49 ~ 2 537 582 627 671 716 761 806 24 -422 473 51 7 56~ 60middot7 652 697 74middot1 786 831 876

bull 28 488 543 58~7 632 677 722 767 811 856 901 946 32 564 613 65 ~ 7 70~~ 747 792 837 881 926 971 1016 36 634 683 72~7 772- 81 7 862 907 951 996 1041 1086

I

1)App Table 11 Concentrates Consumed (kgewe) Low Grazing System

Lambi ng Y i e 1 d i n mil k (kg ewe) ratio

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200

08 568 708 848 98 8 1128 1268 1408 1548 1688 1828 1968 LO 710 850 990 1130 127middot0 1410 1550 1690 1830 1970 2110 12 852 992 1132 1272 1412 1552 1692 1332 1972 2112 2252 16 1136 1276 1416 1556 1696 1836 1976 2116 2256 2396 2536 18 1278 1418 1558 1698 1838 1978 2118 2258 2398 2538 267middot8 22 1562 1702 1842 1982 2122 2262 2402 2542 2682 2822 2962 26 1846 1986 2126 2266 2406 2546 2686 2626 2966 3106 3246 30 2130 2270 2410 2550 2690 2830 2970 311 0 325middot0 3390 3530

ro1) I~aintenancerequirement of adult animals met by grazing V1

Assumptions for grazing systems

1 07 kg feeds of 15 crude protein (as fed basis) was fed per kg milk produced or sucked [iy 2 50 kg milk was suoked by each lamb from birth to weaning at 35 days 3 In late pregnancy each ewe received on the average 36 kg concentrates above maintenance for each lamb carried 4 In zero grazing maintenance requirements during the dry period were met by 06 kg straw and 05 kg

concentrates of 11 crude protein (as fed basis) [1~ I~ late pregnancy (6 weeks before lambing) and during lactation each ewe received 06 kg cereal hay and 04 kg concentrates to meet the maintenance requirements Other requirements in concentrates were met as in low grazing syste~

App liable 12 Conoentcates Consumed (kgg02t ) i Low Grazing SJ34~OT 1)- (I

----------------------T -----------~-_--------------------------------------------------shy

M gt~_~ LL~_~iJ~_8poundatl Kidding ratio

o 40 80 120 160 200 240 280 320 360 400 -----_ ------~---~ _- ----------__--__-----shy

08 528 768 1008 1248 138 1728 1960G 2208 24Li8 2688 2928 12 792 1032 1272 1512 175middot2 1992 2232 2472 271 2 2952 3192 16 1056 129 u 6 1536 ~-77 6 20l6 2256 2496 =736 2976 3216 3456 20 1320 1560 J80o 2040 2280 2520 2760 3000 3240 3480 3720 24 1584 1[24shy 2064 2304 2-~4middot 4 27S~4 3024 32604 350middot4 3 7 11++ 3984 28 1848 2038 23 28 2568 2808 30~ 8 328f3 ~)52 8 3768 4008 42~ 8

-3 ~ 211 2 2352 2592 2832 3072 3312 3552 37902 4032 4272 +51 2

______ 36

_-__ 2379

- 2616 2856 3096

___shy__ 3336 3576

_ 3826

middot 4056 L_~

429gt6 middot

L15306 _ _

4776

1) Maintenance requirements of adult animals met-JY grazing ro 0

~~~mption for grazing system

1 06 kg feed of 15 crude protein (as fed basis) was fed per kg milk produced or suoked 2 50 kg milk was sucked by each kid from birth to wean~ng at 70 days Partial suckling was practised from the

30th day onwards 3 In late pregnancy each goat received on the average 36 kg concentrates above maintenance for each kid carried 4 In zero grazing maintenance requirements in the dry period were met by 06 kg of straw and 05 kg of

concentrates of 11 crude protein (as fed basis)

29

- 27 shy

App Table 13 Feed Cost and Revenue for Lamb Fattening

Lambing ratio

08 10 12middot 16 18 22 26

aConcentrates (kg) I

Birth to weaning Weaning to 20 kg Birth to 20 kg 20 kg to 35 kg Birth to 35 kg

09 290 299 54~0

839

1 J 13 17 20 368middot 449 618 706 37middot9 462 635 726 675 810 1080 1215

1054 1272 1715 1941

24 890 914

1485 2399

1036 106e5 175middot5 2820

Saleable Iiveweight (kg)

at weaning at 20 kg at 35 kg

87 160 280

108 200 35middot0

12~8

24middot0 420

174198 320 360 56~0 630

249 44middot0 770

290 520 910

Feed expenses

at weaning mils 45 55 65 -85 100 120 145 to 20 kg Cf 14 17 21 29 33 42 49 __ to 35 kg Cf 37 46 56 7middot5 85 10middot5 123

Revenue Cf

Lamb sale Lamb sale Lamb sale

at weaning ~~ 20 kg at 35 kg

68 100shy153shy

gt ~_ bull bullbullbullbull ~-

84 125 191

100 136 150 200 230 306middot

15middot5 225 345

194 27middot5 421

226 32 c 49 e

Assumed birthweight 47 45 42 38

a) It was assumed that the protein content of the ooncentrates mixture feed from birth to weaning was 168 and from 20 to 35 kg 143 on dry matter basis [1[

- 28 shy

App Table 15 Labour Raquire~entl) for 80 poundMes or Goats Practising Low or High Grazing at Increasing Levels of Milk Yield and Lambing or Kidding Ratios

i

Lamhing Y i e 1 d i n mil k (kg Le_we) ratio

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 280

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - Lbua)production unit - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -08 0749 0813 0869 0933 1013 1069 1109 1149 1113 1205 1229 1283 10 0150 0814 0870 0934 1014 1010 1110 1150 1114 1206 1230 1284 12 0151 0815 0811 0935 1015 1011 1111 1151 1115 1201 1231 1285 14 0152 0816 0812 0936 1016 1012 1112 1152 1116 1208 1232 1286 16 0153 0811 0813 0937 1011 1013 1113 153 1117 1209 1234 1287 18 0154 0818 0874 0938 1018 1074 1114 1154 1178 1210 1235 1288 20 0155 0819 0875 0939 1019 1015 1115 1155 1119 1211 1236 1289 22 0756 0820 0876 0940 1020 1016 1116 1156 1180 1212 1237 1290 24 26

0151 0158

0821 0822

0871 0878

0941 0942

1022 1023

1017 1018

1111 1118

1157 1158

1181 1182

1213 1214

1238 1239

1291 1292

ro -D

28 0759 0823 0879 0943 1024 1019 1119 1159 1183 1215 1240 1293 30 0760 0824 0880 0middot944 1025 1080 1120 1160 1184 1216 1241 1 294 34 0162 0826 0882 0946 1027 1082 1122 1162 middot _____middot L_ 1186 1218 1242 1295

a) 1 LbU = 300 working days

1) Low and high grazing system Calculated as followsi

Labour requirement (LbU) = 015 + (lambing ratio - 10) x 0005 +

Labour for milkin~ (days)+ X No of female animals 300

+) Assuming 6 minutesanimalday

Zero grazing system Labour requiremunt (lbU) = Low or high grazing system (LbU) - 0300 for 80 female animals

- 0550 for 160 female animals - 0650 fOr 2rl) tomcIc animals

Page 2: FACTORS AFFECTING THE ECONOMICS OF SHEEP AND GOATSnews.ari.gov.cy/Publications/AER4-papas.pdfFACTORS AFFECTING THE ECONOMICS OF SHEEP AND GOATS . By . ... Costs and Returns of Goat

AGRICULTURAL ECONOMICS REPORT NO4

FACTORS AFFECTING THE ECONOMICS OF SHEEP AND GOATS

By

Andreas Papas and Stelios Papachristodou1ou

AGRICULTURhL RBSEhRCH INSTITUTE MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE Mill NATURAL RESOURCES

NICOSIA - CYfRUS

November 1975

bullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbull

- i -

WEIGHTS AND MEASURES

1 donum

1 metric tQn

1 kg

1 Cyprus pound (Cpound)

14400 s~uare feet 033 acre 0133 hectare

1000 kg = 09842 long ton

22 Ibs 08 oke

CURRENCY

1000 mils = 1 25 sterling pounds (pound)

265 UoS Dollars ($)

LIST OF CONTu~TS

Page

bullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbull 0000 bullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullINTRODUCTION 1 lETHOD OF ANALYSIS bullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbull 0 2

EC01JOMI C RESULTS bullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbull It 3bull 0 bull 0 0 bullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbull

A NORM SITUATIOIJ bullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbull 0 bullbullbull 0 bullbullbull middotbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbull 3 I Level of productivity and direction of production bullbull 3

Effect of intensive fattening bullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbull 5 II Level of grazing bullbullbull fJ 6bullbullbullbullbullbullbullbull e bullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbull 6 bullbullbullbull

III Size of the production unit bullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbull 7 Be ACTUAL SIWATION bullbullbullbull a 8bull 0 0 bull 0 coo 0 0 0 CI 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 bull 0 0 0 bullbull 0 bullbull

I Effect of the level of productivity bullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbull 8 II Level of grazing bullbullbullbullbullbullbull ~ bullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbull 9 III Size of the production unit bullbull 00 bullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbull 9 DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS bullbullbullbullbullbullbullbull 0 11bullbullbull 0 bullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbull

Silll11ARY bullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbull 0 130 0 bullbull 0 0 bullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbull

AC~OWLEJ)G~TS0 bull 0 bullbull 0 0 0 0 0 0 coo 0 bullbull 0 It 130 0 Igt bull 0 0 0 0 0 bullbullbullbullbullbullbullbull 0

REFERIDICES bull CI bull 0 0 I) 0 0 bull eo bullbullbull 0 bullbull 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 e 0 0 0 bull 0 bullbullbullbullbull 0 bull 0 0 bull 0 bullbull 13 AFPENDIX 15

LIST OF TABLES Table

1 Effect of Level of Productivity and Direction of Production on the Costs and Returns of Sheep and Goats (Norm) bullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbull 0 11)000 4

2 Effect of Fattening of Lambs and Kids on the Costs and Returns of Sheep and Goats (Norm) 5

3 Effect of Level of Grazing on the Costs and Returns of Sheep and Goats (Norm) 6

- ii shy

Table Page

4 Eff6ct of Size of tl1e Production Unit on the Costs and RGturns of Sheep and 003ts (Norm) bullbullbullbullbullbull 7

5 Costs and Returns of Sheep and Goats b~ Level of Productivi ty (Actual) 8

6 ~ffect of Size of the Production Unit on Costs and Returns of Sheep and Goats (Actual) bullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbull 10

App Tablfs

1 Cos1s and Ruturns of Sheep Enterprises by Size Group (Ac tual) ~ 0 bull 0 0 bull e 0 0 bull 0 bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bullbull 17

2 Costs and Returns of Goat Enterprises by Size 0 Cl 0 0 bull 0 bullbullbull Cl bull II bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bullbullGroup ( Actual) 18

3 Effect of Level of Productivity and Direction of Production on the Costs and Returns of Sheep

(1~9rm) bullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbull oooCloCooClot bullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbull 19

4~Effect of Level of Productivity and Direction of Production on the Costs and Returns of Goats

(Norm) Qooo~ ~O

5 Effect of Level of Grazing on the Costs and Returns of Sheepand Goats (Norm) 21

6 Eff8ct of the Size of th8 Production Unit on the Costs and Returns of Sheep and Goats bullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbull 22

7 Prices Received and Paid bullbullbull 23

8 Capital Investments bullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbull 23

9 Gross Revenue (CLew8) at IncreasinG Levels of Milk Yield and Larab i ng Ratio (Horiil) bullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbull 24

10 Gross Revenue (Cfgoa t ) 11 t Encr-crs i ng Lev el s of Milk Yield and Kidding Ratio (rocrn) bullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbull 24

11 Concentrates Cons~med (kgewe) Low Grazing Sys t era bullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbull CI 0 0 0 i bullbullbullbullbull 0 bull bull bull 25CI Q 0 bull bull bull bullbull

12 Concentrates Consumed (kggo8t)~ Low Grazing Systbnl OOol bullbull O bullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbull 26

13 F8ed Cost anQ Revbnue for Lamb Fattening bullbullbullbullbullbullbullbull 27

14 Feed Cost and Revenue for Kid Fattening bullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbull 28

15 Labour Requir~m8nt for 80 J~os or Goats Practicing Low or High Grazing at Increasing Lev81s of Milk Yield and Lambing or Kidding Ratios 290 bullbullbullbullbullbull 000 bullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbull

FACTORS AFF~CTIRG THB ECONOMICS OF SH~P A1l) GOATS

By

1)Andreas Papas and Stelios Papachr1stodoulou

INTRODUCTION

During the last decade substantial private and pUblic funds have been invested in sheep and goats The primary aim was to increasamp the number and improve the productivity of the animals Improvement was sought through the introduction of the Chios sheep and the Damascus goat whioh are characterized by prolificacy and high milk yieldS~l a7 Concurrently improved nutritional and managerial methods were promoted to increase production tJi The structure of the production unit however which emerged in the long process of development of this industry was far from clear Presently the sheep and goat production units vary widely in size productivity direction of production and feeding programme

In Cyprus marginal land and cereal stubble provide grazing for sheep and goats Indoor feeding is another alternative in which the size of the production unit is determined primarily by economic considerations but calls for higher feeding costs At tho same time feeding of concentrates carries a cost to the Government in subsidies and foreign exchange for imports of feed grains

The availability of skilled labour on the farm limits the size of the production unit because of the high labour involved in shepherding and milking~~ Workers with skills in animal hUsbandry are in short supply because of the difficult working conditions as the low social prestige attached to such jobs In view of the difficulties in mGchanizing milking and shepherding it is important to study the economics of alternative direotions such as all-meat production in which the skilled labour requirement is lower

1) Assistant Agricultural Research Officers

- 2 shy

In this report data collected from 63 sheep and 65 goat falm~

were used to study the economics of the existinb production units Other data fro~ the experimental farm of the Agricultural Research Ens t i tu t e the ~iargo and other Governraent farms were used to compute costs and ~eturns of norm production units varying in (i) productivity and tiirection of production Le meat andor milk (ii) level of grazing practised and (iii) s iz e

MbTliOD ur AJULYSIS

Norm situation

Costs and returns were computed using the budgeting method The basic information such as feed required per animal fo~ maintenance and production management systems (partial suckling age at weaning) etc was obtained from pUblished and non published data from the

Agricultural Research Institute and other Government farms The units studied varied in the following parameters

I Level of productivity and direction of Eroductio~Various levels of productivity in terms of sal~able milk and lambing or kidding ratio were studied The extreme combinations namely those conbining zero milk yield with high lambing or kidding ratios and high milk productlon withlow lambing or kidding ratios represented the meat and dairy directions of production respectively

II Level of graz~~~ The following three systems were studied

~ero grazi~~ All feed requirements were met by indoor feeding of cereal hay straw and concentrates Lm1 grazil~ The maintenance requirements of all adult animals were met by grazing and all others including those for fattening were met by feeding concentrate mixtures High grazi~f2 Cllhe maintenance requirements plus the equivalent of 85 kg of conc0ntr~tes for each ewe and 90 kg for each goat were met by grazing 1he baLaric e of the requirewents including all feed requirements for fattening were met by indoor feeding or concentrates

III Size of ihe production unit The fol Lov ing sizes as measured by the numbers of adult female animals were studied 80 160 and 200 animals Larger units up to 1000 animals 11-1818 considered multiples of the production unit with 200 animals with all cost items increasing linearly exoept for labour

Actual situation

The accounting method was used for computing costs and returns in the actual situation The 60 sheep and 65 goat farms studied were located in Villages of the Nicosia Larnaca Famagusta and Limassol districts The proQQcers were handed special

- 3 shy

questionnaires and were shown how to enter the raw uata A stqff member of the Agricultural Economics Section paid monthly visits to summarize the data and answer any questions raised Each production unit was treated as one observation Costs and returns were computed for each farm and group of farms The relationship of the gross revenue to tne main cost i terns was deterwined by regression anal ys i s

Details of the cowputations of costs and returns of the actual and norm proQuction units are presented in the Appendix The basic assumption under-Lydng these computations was that current prices were operative for both production units

EcmWMIC RBSULTS

J NORM SITUATION

L Level of productivity and direcmiddottion of production Sheep and goats in Cyprus serve a dual purpose namely meat and milk production with no emphasis on wool As stated earlier milking of ewes is a specialized laborious activity which cannot be easily mechanized Thus the Low availabili ty of skilled labour on farm limits the size of the family type production unit It Ls therefore important to examine the labour requirement and the economics of alternative directions of production and in particUlar the all-meat production unit in norm situations (Table 1)

The extreme situations of 200 kg milk and 08 lambs (column d) and zero milk and 26 lambs (column a) may be taken to ~epresent the dairy and meat directions resIectively while the ewes giving 120 kg and 16 lambs (column c) represent an intermediate situation The 26 lamhs in the allmiddot-meat direction can he achieved by an appropriate s ys t em which will make possible 15 lambings yearly In such system the ewes have shorter lactations and are mated soon after weaning of Lanbe 111 though not pr-ac t i s ed wiuely at present thL system Has tested in Cyprus and in other countries yeni th pr-orai s Lng

resul ts L5 J The data in Table 1 show that in a system in which the

maintenance requirements are met by grazing (low grazing) the above three directions (columns d c a) resulted in comparable gross revenue The feed costs hOilever increase wi th higher lambing ratio because all concentrate feeding was assumed for fattening The higher costs primarily for concentrates result in higher cost to the Government The labour requirement is lowest for the all-meat direction and highest for the milk direction The lower labour requirement makes possible the increase of the number of animals in the all-meat production unit

As shown in Tahle 1 the all-meat direction in goats result in slightly higher revenue than the other systems but this advantage

- 4 shy

is cancelled by the higher feeding costs The other cost and returns items show similar trends as with sheep

For the s arne number of animals the production uni ts or-Len t eu towards milk production require lowe-r feeeting but higher labour costs For the yields assumed above there is an aCivantage in net returDS to the producer and lower cost to the Government of the dual or dairy type over the all-meat direction The all-meat direction nevertheless is an economically sound aL ternative especiully in si tuations of shor-ta u in skilled labour and potential for high grazing It must however 5

be emphasized that these comparisons are made on empirically chosen yields and that the economics may change as yields and prices change

Table 1 Effect of Level of Productivity anQ Direction of Production on the Costs and Returns of Sheep and Goats (Iorm)a)

Sheep (a) (b) (c) (d) (e)

Milk yield (kgewe) 0 60 120 200 200 Lambing rati 0 26 12 16 08 16

- - -Cpoundenterprise -

Gross revenue 4019 2765 4114 3987 5175 Feed cost 1664 910 1329 1014 1530 Variable cost 1743 959 1395 1067 1604 Labour cost 364 449 534 590 592 Net profit 1265 750 1474 1586 2171 Returns to labour

(Cfworking day) 7~2 43 60 5middot9 7middot5 Returns to capital () 39middot2 269 467 521 833 Fa r m income 1780 1321 2147 2302 2910 Cost to the Government 688 373 542 407 622 Gross revenue per Cpound 171 135 132 102 120

Goats (a) (b) (c) (d) Milk yield (kggoat) 0 80 160 280 Kidding ratio 34 16 20 13

- - - - - - --Cpoundenterpriseshy - -----shyGross revenue 4688 3027 4246 4398 Feed cost 1847 1042 1434 1319 Variable cost 1934 1096 1503 1384 Labour cost 366 488 566 617 Net profit 1678 780 1386 1518 Returns to labour

(Cfworking day) 89 L1 --I bull L 5middot5 5middot5

Returns to capital (~n 493 274shy 436 480 Farm income 2202 1395 2094 2272 Cost to the Covernmen t 761 425 583 530 Gross revenue per Cf 162 140 137 121

a) Assuming 80 female adult animals and low grazing

- 5 shy

The comparison of column b (lOrl productivi ty) to columns a c d and e shows that 9 at these levels 9 the increase in returns is faster than the in6rease in costs The additional fsed costs res~ltinl

from the hiher requirements accounted for the largest part of till increase in variable costs In contrast~ the cost of labour incr8ase~

only slowly in columns c 9 d and e and decreased in column a Thi3 suggests that if the available genetic ~aterial and knowledge was

etlployed to increCise pr-oduo t i vi ty there Hould be a need for Lnc r-eas i ns cas] 8ltIJ8nlt88 for purchos i ng feed but there wouLd not be any [ignific_~L shyincrease in labour r-equ i r-eraent In con t r-as t labour avai Labi Lf ty jlay be limitinb the size of the production unit

8ffect of intensive fattening

Based on earlier work ~6 7 9 ~ it was assumed that lambs were weaned ai 35 days and kids at 70 days and that partial suckling was practised from 16th and 30th day onwards for lambs and kids respectively ThE sale of lambs at weanin~o9 20 kflS and 35 kg Livewe i ght produced revenue of Cpound 136 Cpound 200 and Cpound 306 for lambing ratio of 16 The additional expense primarily in feed costs was Cpound 29 and Cpound 77 for increases in gross revenue of Cpound 64 and Cpound 170 respectivey

Table 2 Effect oi Fat t en i ng of Lambs and Kiels OD the Costs and Returns of Sheep and Goats (Norm)a)

Goats ireanincmiddot i-reaning

35 k s(35 day~) 20 kg 35 kg (70 days) Liveweight solJ kgfemale animal 17middot4 320 560 313 63(

Revenue from lambs or kids Cpound female animal 136 200 306 244 349

Lambs or kids feed 8xpenses Cpoundfcrnale anir1al 01 29 7middot5 04 7middot5

Variable costs Crfemale animal 9middot7 126 174 114 188

Labour exrens es Cpoundfemal~ arrimaL 65 66 67 69 7middot1

Not profit Cpoundfemale ani mal 9middot3 127 184 97 17middot3

Return to capital () 265 343 470 269 434 Return to labour

CfwOrking day 40 47 60 41 61 Farm income

Cpoundfemale animal 169 206 268 177 26 ] Cost to the Gover-nmen t Cpoundfemale animal 36 47 68 -~ 2 7middot3

a) Fora product i cn unit 101i th 80 _wes producing 120 kg milk and 16 lambs or so goats produc i ng 160 kg mil and 20 kids with low level of euro-rJzing

- 6 shy

The cost to benefit ratio of 045 is sigl1ificantly lower than thb ratio of 063 which would be required to incz-eae e meat through LrL~

numbers of sheep The high differences betv een addi t i onal cost and revenue was also reflected in higher profit farm income and returns to capi tal and Labour The cost to the Governrrent would increase b~

Opound 11 and Cpound 32 respectively because fa t t erLng was based on conoentra te feeds In general the Govermnent pad d more th~n 13 of 0h~

variable costs for fattening This cost however is lower than the expense in foreign exchange for Lmpor t Ln Lamb meat at present pri c ce

It is thus concluded that fattening of lambs up to 35 kC liv8weight increases significantly the gross revenue and all return i t erue Fa ttening required only minor additional labour and no significant capital investment in shedS machinery etc but profi tabili ty of lamb and kid fattening de penua primarily on the price relationship of feeds and meat

II Level of grazing

The effect of zero low and high grazing s ys t ems on the main return and cost i terns of producti on uni ts Hi th 80 ewes or 80 goa ts ar~middot

presented in Table 3 The feed cost desreased significantly with increasing level of grazing being only half that of the zero grazing system Savings in feed costs was reflected in higher farm income returns to labour and capital and net profit for the two ayst ems wi -U

gr-az i ng as compared to indoor feeding Irr om the inputs only the- llt)oT cost was higher in the high grazing system than in the zero grazin~~

system The additional labour cost however of Cpound 144 was smaller compared to th8 saving in feed accounting to Cpound 1171 for ewes and Opound 1285 for goats in the high grazing sybtem

Table 3 Effect of Level of GraZing On the Costs and Returns of SLeeT and Goats (Norm)a)

Sheep Goats Level of grazing Zero Low High Zero Low Higt

- - - - - -ORproduction unit- - - shy

Gross revenue 4114 4114 4114 4246 4246 42-~6

Feed cost 2180 1329 1009 2392 1434 i ic Concentrates 1893 1329 1009 2110 1434 1107 Hay amp straw 287 282

Variable cost 2280 1395 1062 2500 1503 116 Labour cost 390 53- 534 422 566 5St Net profit 733 1475 1807 533 1386 1725 Return to labour

Cfworking day 46 60 70 36 55 6middot) Return to capital (~ ) 23middot5 470 592 178 436 55middot(Cost to the Government 762 542 417 847 583 4Y~

Farra income 1295 2147 2467 1135 2094 2j~C

================-==========-- a) For a unit with 80 ewes producing 120 kg milk and 16 lambs or 80

goats producing 160 kg milk and 20 kius

- 7 shy

The cost to the Government in terms of subsidies for

concentrates is almost twice as high for indoor feeding as compareu to -- high grazing s ya t em In addition zero gr2~ing involves a high expenslaquo

in foreign exchange as Cyprus is a net ili1portcr of large quanti ti83 of

feed grain Thus maxi murn use of grazing i r to the benefit of bo th tIle

LndivLduaI producer and thG national ec ouomy It is therefore 5

necessary to keep the cost d i ffer-en t i aI -1 a level which would

encourage the full utilization of grazin- aroas and allow tne opt i mum

LlSt3 of feed grain It is clifficul t to d e t e r-mine the opt i mum s i z e of this differential because of the wide variation in the availability of graamping from one part of Cyprus to the other andthe effect of the price of thE- feed grain on the price of r1any basic fOOd items

111 Size of the production unit

Data on the main cost and return items of norm production

units varying in size are presented in Table 4

Table 4 Lffect of the Size of the Production Unit on the Costs

and Returns of Sheep and Goats (Noro)a)

Female animals per farm 80

Sheep

160 200 80

Goats

160 200

Gross revenue

Feed cost

Variable costs

Labour cOstshy

Net frofi t Return to labour

Cpoundworking day

Return to capital () Farm inoome

- - shy -

4115 1329 1395

534 1475

60 467 2147

- - -

8229 2658 3000

827 3194

70middot3 510 4298

-Crproduction unital

10286 4246 8492 3322 1433 2867 3887 1503 3283 1009 566 890

1386 -

4012 3014

80 5middot5 70 510 436 47middot5 5374 2094 4192

- shy -

10615 358shy4240 1087 4328

80 518 5781

-

a) For ewes producing 120 kg milk ana 16 lambs or goats producing

160 kg milk and 20 k ide on the 10Vl crazinb s ys t em

It is ilpparent that the size of the production unit affects

costs and returns significantly Fo r the yields stated above (Table -i-) 75 ewes are requireJ to obtain farm income of Cpound 2000 As would be

expected the size required to obtain Q certain level of farm incoffib

SfiY Cpound 2000 depends on many factors such iS the productivi ty of

anioills and the level of grazing This is illustrated in the followin6

examples g For ewes producing zero mi Lk yield arid 26 lambs 90 ewesn

r-equ i r edj for 60 kg milk and 12 lambs 121 ewes for 180 kg nu Lk and

10 lambs 71 ewes For zero low and high grazing with ewes producin[

120 kg milk and 16 lambs the respective numbers rBquired to obtain

farm income of Cr 2000 are 123 75 and 65

- 8 shy

B ACTUAL SITUATIOJX

I Effect of the level of productivity

The actual data collected fr-on tile sheep and goat pr-oduc t i cn units wer( classified in thrE)e levels of productivity namely~ low medium and high on the basis of the gross revenue obtained per adult female animal The means of the main cost anci return items for each group are presented in Table 5

Table 5 Costs and Returns of Sheep and Go~ts by Level of Productivity (Actual)

Sheep Goat

Level of productivity Low Medium High Low Medium Higll

Number of farms Ewes or goats per farm Milk yield

(kgfemale animal) Lambs raised per ewe or kids per goat

Concentrates (kgfemale animal)

18 72

48

11

117

29 72

57

12

135

18 54

68

13

143

16 80

37

13

65

33 64

74

15

108

16

59

126

19

200

Gross revenue (Ctfemale animal) 194 224 273 13 3 202 31 Z

Variable costs 106 lll 110 56 65 128 Gross profit 88 113 163 7middot7 13middot7 184

The hiSher productivity in the ncdium and high levels was pr9bably due to better feeding~ superior management and better genetic material from the Chios breed and the Damascus goat ~9 lQ7

The pz-oduc t i vi ty per animal incr8ased with the aLlowan ce of conc en t r-at ea as shown by the highly s i gr Lf i carrt regression coe tfLc i en t between gross revenue Cpoundfemale aniwal (Y) and concentrates fed in kg (X) the equation being Y = 1012 + 0056X (r=057) for ewes and = 947 + 0066x (r=O56) for goats The ~dditional cost of concentrashytes accounted for most of the Lnor-eas e in variable co s t s The returns obtained from animal with higher productivity w~re significantly higher tilan the additional costs bull At present ~ therefore there are wid margins for increasing productivity at low cost The data of Table 5 show that the commercial milk yield of the production units studied may be doubled while the average lambing or kidding ratio may bb improved by 30-40 L 1 J The average milk yi 61d and 1ambing or kidding ratios recorded in this study are the same as those recorded earlier [4]

- 9 shy

Ihe deL ta in Aplenuix Ta bl GS 1 and 2 show that on the CLV8r-tmiddot 09 lambs and 11 kids were sold per female animal producing a revenu~

of Cpound 94 ani Cpound 113 respectively At the price of Cpound 0781 per k 6 liveweignt this corresponds to the production of 120 and 145 kg of liveweight r-s s peo t i vel y for each ewe or gl)[t When oompared to the norm d~ta for similar lambing or kidding rltios it is concluded that the lambs and kids Nere sold at the age of eppr-oxi mately 8 - 10 WSOK3

at Which the producers usually wean the lambs and kids This would suggest tha t for the production units studied tfHlrewas no larte scale fa ttening of Lambs or kids beyond lHaninf at the aetJ of 6-10 we ek a The majority of the producers stated that they practised partial suckLin and that thcy offered creep feed to the lambs and k i ds Fran the discussion with th6se producers it was conclueltjd that the main reasons for no large scale fa t t cn ing were tradi t i on the higher l)ricus received for baby lamb and kid and the need for cash partcularly before revenue from milk was received

II Level of grazing

The data available do not allow a detailed study of the effect of the level of grazing on the costs and returns in the actual situation

It is possihle however to drd~ some conclusions from the5~

data in comparison to the norm situation The livestock producers of this study fed on the average 132 kg of concentrates for each ewe and 120 kg for each goat In add i ti on 08 donums of green forage vlclS

cansuQed by each female aniwal and its followers Similar trends WbTB

observed in ano thez- etuuy L9 J Compar-ed to norm produo t i on units or

comparable y i elds it a ppear-s that feed requirements for maintenance arto ruet by gr-az i ng gr-e en forage and straw 9 whi l E t he r equ i r-emerrt s for production are met by concentrates For ollis 9 tlH level of grazino is hi6her than she up especiallj for production units with more than 30 female adult an imaLs as indicated by tl( lower amount of concentrates fed for comparative yields

Thl level of grazin~ practised is limited by the low ava i La hi Li ty of pas tur-es and t no abe enc e of large grazing areas There are also institutional r8gulations by 10c81 authorities limi tin~ the maximum nunrber of animals a t tendcd oy a sincle shepherd Compar-ed to the norm situation the average of grazing was slightly below the designated as low level

III Size of the production unit

Data on tho main cost and return items of actual produotion units varying in size and presented in Table 6 The regression of gross revenue (YGB) or variable oosts (Yvd on the number of adult ewes (X) revealed a sienificant linear relation the equations being

- 10 shy

A ~

2138 + 193X (r=091) YVC = 97 + 109X (r=064) For goat8~YGR = the respective equations were YGR = 1860 + 46x (r=035)A

Yvc = 4035 + 147X (r=061) Unlike [Sheep the r for the equation relating gross revenue and number of gOcits wus low This pr-o babl y

resul ted from wider vaz-La t i on in productivi ty among goat than ShbI

units It was apparent fro~ the inspectiun of the data from thE individual goat units that the per an i raaL output was par t i cu Lar-Ly

variable especially for small units

For the same data gross r-evenue and labour cost per an i mal decreQsed in lareer units especially in goats The advantag8s of

economics of size were cancelled by the decline in producticity which resulted in lower net returns per animal in the larger units The total rturns how8vGr were higher in the larger units but could have been consiclerably higher had the productivity of each animal been at the same level as in the small units

Table 6 Effect of Size of the Production Unit on the Gostsand Returns of Sheep and Goats (Actual)

Female animals per farm

Gross revenue Feed cost iTariable cost abour- cost Jet profit te tu r n to labour

Cpoundorking day eturn to capital () arm income

Sheep Goa ts

42 65 94 39 63

- -Cfenterprise unit shy - -

1037 1450 2056 1053 1247 18(9

443 690 975 701 797 1206

467 726 1026 373 471 645 342 436 529 342 436 529 135 171 324 265 235 473

22 22 26 28 24 3C 101 101 128 169 128 17 middot5

588 753 1069 694 794 IJ89

By corapa r-i ng the incremental bross revenue to the varLabl raquos ts from the low to the high level of pr-oduc t av i t y (Tah1e 5) and ~om the small to the large LeveI of s i z e (lable 6) it can be derived tat it is more profitable to increase prociuctivi ty per an i maI r-athor ~n increase their numbers

DISCUSSIOl AND COFCLUSI011S

Sheep and goat production can be Lnc r-eae ed by increasing Lt

oduc t i v i t y of the animals or by increasin~ the size of the an i maL pulation or by a combination of the two The returns to the iividual producer however~ are affecteu apart of the productivity other factors namely 1 the size of the production unit the level )i

~zing the management system and others

- 11 shy

The data in this study indicated the economic advantage 1 Jotl_ for the individual producer and the national economy of increasine the sheep and goat production by improving the productivity of the animals than by increasing the size of the population For ewes and goatB it is obvious from the comparison of actual and norm data that commer-ciiI

milk yield can be doubled and lambing ratio can increase by 30-40 by

using genetic material and knowledge already available in Cyprus The adoption of fQttening of lambs and kids at weights up to 35 kg is hindered by the strong demand for baby laUD and kid meat and the nee~

of producers for cash However these obs t acLes may be overCOJTW by eppr-opr-ia t e policy measures and consumer oduoa t ion

Th6 study of different directionG of production and in particular the all-meat versus the high milk - low meat direction showed that at the levels assumed the milk and meat direction was slightly superior to the all-meat direction in terms of net returns and lower cost to the Government Nevertheless thG all-meat direction is economically sound and may be used in s peo i aLj aed si tuations in which skilled labour is limited while good possibilities exist for high levels of grazing

The size of the production unit required to obtain a certain level of farm income J8pends on many factors such as the productivity of the animals and the level of grazing The numbers of adult female animals required to obtain farn income of Cpound 2000 are 121 and 75 for commercial milk yields of 60 and 120 kg and lambing ratioe of 12 ard

16 respectively Assuming that these yields represent roughly the Local and the Chios sheep it is apparent that any benefits from increasinb the present size of the production units would be much higher if the increase in size was coupled with higher productivity Presently the size of most sheeJ or goat production units is smal18r than the siz8 required to achi8ve farw income of Cpound 2000

The rroblem of deciding the size of the production unit has many complex aspects This is so becausu the livestock enterpris8 in most places is combined with crop production and the relative size of the two on t er-prLs ee is determined by economic and other factors In this respect the amount opound family labour~ the availability and size of grazing areas and feeds and the relative profitability of the livestOCK enterprise in comparison with pos s r ble al ternative farm enterprises weigh heavily in det er-iain i ng the size of the sheep or goat production units

From the data of thi s and an oar-Iier study L 9 ] it is suggested that op t i mum utilization of resources in a mixed type of farming requires production units with 120 - 130 animals In a norm situation for numbers up to 1000 animals the returns to size were higher than zero suggesting that at present economies of siZe have not

- 12 shy

been exploited Of course larger production units do not neces5~rily

imply larger animal population th ey may resul t also from reorganizatior

of the existing population to larger economically viaole units

The level of grazing is inversely related to the feeding costs but increases labour cost The decrease in feeding cost frod

higher level of grazing is considerably higher than the increase in

labour cost There is no doubt that higher grazing level wilen possible J is economically beneficial both to the individual producGr

and the national economy and could be easily combined with the all-~~~t

direction of production It is proposed th~t the price of concentrstcO)

presently regulated by thE Government through the system of SUbsidies be kept at such level which will encourage the optimum utilization of

straw pastures and agricultural by-products

The goat production units (actual) were more variable than sheep units in the level of productivitJ-9 direction of production feeding prograDme and size Smaller goat units tended to be more productive consumed more concentrates per female animal and producei higher returns per animal than larger units This suggests that large units Hith low producing animals practised more grazing On the averagG 9 the gross revenue was higher for sheep but net returns from goats were slightly higher These differences were primarily due to higher level of grazing for goats than for sheep This comparison if

based on the average of the production units studied ~nd could not bE extrapolated to comparison of specific breeds of sheep and goats A comparative study of the Chios sheep and Damascus goat under norm

conditions was initiated at this Institute

- 13 shy

SUIDIARY

Data from 68 sheep 65 goat private production units (actual situation) and from Gov~rnment units (norm situationr were used to coraput c costs and returns and to study the main fa c t or-s affecting tht econooics of shoGp and goats in Cyprus The main conclusions of this study can be summarized as follows

1 It is more profitable as a ~irst step to incrGasG productivity per animal rather than increase their numbers With available gonetic material ana knowledge it is possible to double tho present milk yields and increase the number of lambs or kids per female animal by 30-40

2F~ttGning of lambs or kids at prosGnt prices can increase total and net returns SUbstantially with profound ~conomic advantages for the individual producer and tho national economy

3 The study of di~ferent directions of ~roduction showed that the milk and mlat direction was slightly suporior to the all-moat directionH01iGVer thE a I Le-meat di re c t i on of production may bo a sound economic alternative mainly in situations where good possibilities exist for high lcvul of razing and skilled labour is limited

4 The feed cost for high level of grazing was only half the cost for middotindoor fcodLng The loer fe ed cost 18S ruflectcd in higher net returns for the razing systems The cost differential between cost of grazing and fecding of concentrates should be adjusted to promoto grazing 8t th8 IGvlol which will mClOt at the minimum the maintenance r-oqu i r-crucn t s of auuI t animalsmiddot

5 With present 18v~ls of productivity 168 ewes or 151 goats arc roquirlQ to produclo farm incomb of Cpound 2000 In norm situations 75 OWbS pr-oducdng 120 kg milk and 16 1(111bs could I~roduc8 thc same income For this LcvcI of productivi ty the r-espec t i v- numbers for z er-o low and high grazing nystems war_ 123 75 and 65 ewes

Th authors gratefully acknowlGdge tl1G cooperation of ahoe p and goat producers and the assistancE providod by all members of the Agricultural Economics Slction

RLFERLFCES

1 Louca A Pr-eLimanar-y r-csuI ts on tho por-formarice of pur-ebr-ed and cross-bred sllecp Paper prosGDtcd a~ the RGgional Workshop for shclp and forage improvement February 11-14 1974 in Buirut~ Lebanon

- 14 shy

2 Chimonides 1 1972 Some faotors affGoting the productivity of DamQscus goats in Cyprus MS Thesis American University of Bei r-ut L8b~~lO[

3 Planning Bureau ThE first (1962-66) the second (1967-71) and t hlaquo

third (1972-76) Five Year Plan Planning Rur~au

Nioosia Cyprus

4 Agrioulturul Research Institute 1964 Cost and Returns of Shlq

and goats Agric Res Inst Nioosia Cyprus

5 Louca A Personal c omruurri ca t i cn Agrioultural Research Institute Nioosia Cyprus

6 Hadjipanayiotou M and Louca A 1975 PhG Effeots of partial suckling on the lactation Derformance of Chios sheep and Damasous goats and the growth rate of the lambs and kids (in preparation) Agricultural Research Institute Nicosia Cyprus

7 Louca A 1972 The effect of suckling regime on grmdh rate and laotation performance of the Cyprus Fat-tailed amI Chios sheep Anim Prod 15~53-59

8 Louca A ~ Mavr-ogen i s A and Lawlor ~1J 1975 ThE effect of early weaning on the laotation performanoe of Damascus goats and the growth rate of the kidb Anim Prod 20 213-218

9 Papachristodoulou S and Papas A 1975 The bconomios of drylan~

mixed farming in Cyprus Agrioultural Research Institute Nicosia~ Cyprus

10 Papachristodoulou S 1974 (Restrioted) Dryland Mixed Farwing A technical and economic anaLys i s of some typical fnrl~

participated in the Mixed Farming Project during 1968-1972 Agricultural Research ~nstitute Nicosia Cyprus

11 Papas A 1975 Protein requirements of ewes during laotution (in IJreparation) Agrioultural REJsearch Lns t i tu t e Nicosia Cyprus

12 Papas A 1975 Protein requirements of ewes during maintenanoe (in preparation) Agricultural Res~arch Institute Nioosia Cyprus

13 Papas~ A 1975 The protein requirements of early weaned lambs (in preparation) Agricultural Researoh Institutc 9

Nioosia CYfrus

- 15 shy

lTA P P E D I x

COHPUTATION OF DnUT-OUTPUT DATA OF SHEEP MID GOATS-Gross revenue is the total value of milkmeat cUlls wool and manuree

Sheep milk was sold at Cpound 0163kg and goat milk at Cpound 0112kg In the

actual situation revenue from lambs and kids 11018 based on receipts

adjusted to current prices It was assumed that in norm situation lambs

and kids were sold at 35 kg liveweight 0547kg The prices at 20 kg

liveweight and at weaning were Cpound 0625 and Cpound 0781 respectively A 5

death rate for lambs and kids was assumed Culling was estimated at

20 each year 5 of this was assumed to represent losses and the

remaining 15 of the culls sold at Cpound 125head It was assumed that

losses were directly related to productivity for every additional 10 kg

milk yield and 01 lambing ratio losses increased by 015 and by

005 respectively The revenue from wool and manure was estimated at

Cpound 0700 and Cpound 0500animal respectively (App Tables 16)

Variable costs include feed expenses (purchased or produced) other

expenses (veterinary hired labour) and interest on operating capitale

In the actual situation feed expenses for sheep remiddotprEHHlnted

the 95 of variable costs and 54 of total costs for goats these

percentages are 94 and 44 respectively (App Tables 1 and 2) In the

norm situation feed expenses for sheep or goats comprised approximately

95 of the variable costs ranging from 42-65 of the total costs

depending on the level of productivity direction of production and the

level of grazing (App Tables 3-5) The feed expenses forslle-epandmiddot

goats as percent of variable and total costs decreased from about

95-84 and increased from about 50-53 respectively depending on the

size of production unit (App Table 6)

Interest on operating capital represents 50 of the variable

costs at 8 interest rate

Fixed costs include rent of land family labour replacement

depreciation and interest on fixed capital

In the actual situation rent of land was charged for the area

under fodder crops while in the norm situation rent was charged only for

the area occupied by sheds and the milking parlour

- 16 shy

Family labour was valued atGpound 1600__p~r -wor~i~gslaY_~Ep_

ble 15 presents the labour requirements for 80 ewes or goats pr-ac t i c i rs

w or high grazing system at increasing levels of milk yield andmiddot

Lmbing or kidding ratios Also gives the calculation of the labou~

squ i r-ement s for the zero grazing system and increasing number of aniild

n this study it was assumed that 13 labour units(LbU) were c on tr i bu

ed by family labour and any additional labour w~cs treated as hired

abour-

The replacement was estimated at 20 of the value of animals

The annual depreciation rate of shed8 was estimated at 25

while interest rate used for sheds and livestock capital was 6

Total costs is the sum of variable and fixed costs and net profit the

difference between gross revenue and total coste (App Tables 1-6)

Return to labour (Cpoundwo~king day) was calculated by adding to the net

profit all labour costs and dividing this amount by the number of

working days (App Tables 1-6)

Return to capital () was calculated by adding to the net profit the

interest on operating and fixed capital and dividing the amount by tho

capital investments (excl land capital) and multiplied by 100 (App

Tables 1-6)

Farm income consisted of pai~ or imputed rent 9 remuneration of family

and hired labour interest charges and net profit (App Tables 1-6)

Cost to the government was computed from the v~lue of concentrates fed

using the coefficients of 039 and 043 for aault and young animals

respectively These coefficients represent the increase in percentaL~

of the present value of the concentrates which Would be paid by the

producers in the form of hi~her prices if marketing of feed grains waG

not regulated These coefficients were comI~t8d on the basis of the

difference of the prices for feed grains paid lJy the Government and t~l(

livestock producers and on the content of the concentrate mixtures in

the feed grains (App Tabl~s 3-6)

----------------

- 17 shy

App Table 1 Costs and Returns of Sheep Enterprises by Size Group (Actual)

--_SizebwrltuF (No of ewes)

30-50 50-80 80gt Mean Cpoundewe-----_-_-

No of observations 17 33 18 68

Average No of ewes 42 65 94 67 Milk production (kg) 2711 3442 5348 3764 Lambs Bold or consumed (No) 39 55 85 59 ------------------_shy

Ycilk and milk products 440 569 865 614 92 40middot9 Lambs 417 573 925 627 9 418 Culls 60 94 108 89 13 5middot8 Wool 28 48 71 49 07 31 Manure 19 30 41 30 04 18 Change of capital 71 136 55 98 15 6G

Gross Revenue Cpound 1037 1450 2056 1507 225 1000

Feed purchased 221 325 493 344 53 27 ~

Feed produced 72 118 103 103 15 77 Forage produced 150 246 379 257 38 19lt5 Other 6 8 12 8 01 0~5

Interest 18 28 39 29 04 20 ----------------___

Variable Costs Cpound 467 725 1026 741 111 ------ ------------_- shy

Rent of land 45 52 92 61 Family labour 342 436 529 437 )3 -I

~ IInterest and depreciation 48 66 85 66 -

-------~---------_ _

Fixed Costs Cpound 435 554 706 564

Total Costs bpound 902 1279 1732 1305 195 --__--____-__---shyNet profit Cpound 135 171 324 202 31

43- J

Return to labour (Cpoundworking day) 22 22 26 23

Return to capital () 101 101 128 108 Return over feed expenses Cpound 594 761 1081 804 Farm income Cf 588 753 1069 795 ---------------------~---------_

- 18 shy

Table 2 Costs and Returns of Goat Enterprises by Size Group (Actual)

Size group (lITo of gegtats )

30-50 50-80 80) Mean Ci-goat

No of observations 18 28 19 65

Average No of goats Milk production (kg) Kids sold or consumed (No)

39 4034

53

63 4439

71

98 6169 100

666 4833

74

Milk and milk products Kids Culls Manure Change of capital

331 552

54 19 97

364 704 80 28 71

505 1005 102

43 154

396 60 750 113 79 12 30 0middot5

103 15

293 551 59 24 73

Gross Revenue Cishy 1053 1247 1809 1358 20middot5 100 00

Feed purchased Feed produced Forage produced Other Interest

207 35

llO

7 14

236 53

156 8

18

263 36

304 17 25

236 43

186 II 19

3middot5 06 28 02 03

224 38

18J 13 loy

Variable Costs Cf 373 471 645 495 74 474

Rent of land Family labour Interest and depreciation

25 342 48

39 436

66

77 529 85

46 437

67

07 65 10

4middot5 417

64

Fixed Costs Cf 415 541 691 550 82 526

Total Costs Cf 788 1012 1336 1045 156 1000

Net Frofi t Cf 265 235 473 313 49

Return to labour (Cpoundworking day)

Return to capital () Return over feed expenses Farm income

Cf Of

28 169

700 694

24 128

802 794

30 17middot5 1206 1189

27 153 892 882

- 19 shy

App Table 3 Effect of Level of Produotivity and Direction of a) Produotion on the Costs and Returns of Sheep (Norm)

Milk yield (kgewe)

Lambing ratio

Milk Lambs Culls

Wool Manure

Gross Revenue

Feed for ewes i) Concentrates

ii) Hay amp straw Feed for lambs

i) Concentrates Other Interest

Variable Costs

Rent Famil y labour Replacement Depreciation Interest

Fixed Costs

Total Costs

Gross Profi t

Net Profit

Return to labour (Cpoundworking day)

Return to capital () Cost to the Government

deg 60 120 200

26 12 16 08

782 3781 1748 142 139

56 56 40 40

1565 2325 128

56 40

2608 1163

120 56 40

Cpound 4019 2765 4114 3986

676 464

988 446 12 12 67 37

728

601 12 54

720

294 12 41

Cpound 1743 959 1395 1067

2 2

364 449 544 504

19 19 82 82

2

534 608 19 82

2

590 640 19 82

ce 1011 1056 1245 1333

Cpound 2754 2015 2640 2400

Cpound 2276 1606 2719 2919

Cpound 1265 750 1474 1586

72 43 60 59 392 269 46middot7 521

Cpound 688 373 542 407

a) Assuming 80 8W~S and low grazing

- 20 shy

App Table 4 Effect of Level of Productivity and Direction of a) middotmiddotmiddot----middot --Produc_tiQ[l on the Costs and Returns of Goats (Norm) bull

bull bullbullbullbull ~ __R_ ~~__bullbullbull ~ bullbullbull _

-_ ----~ bull

Milk yield (kggoat)

Kidding ratio

0

34

80

16

160

20

2$0

13

Milk Lambs Culla

4511 137

717 2136 134

1434 2652 120

2503 1743

106

Manuremiddot 40 40 40 40

Gros smiddot R-eAfnu-e- Cpound 4688 3027 4246 4398

Feed for goats ) ConcentratesJ I

ii) Hay amp straw Feed for kids

i) Concentrates Other Interest

824

1023 12 74

560

482 12 42

832

601 12 58

928 ~

391 12 53

Variable Coiits Cpound 1933 1096 1503 1384

Rent Family labour Replacement Depreciation Interestmiddot_middotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddot

2 366 608 19 82

2 488 560

19 82

2 566 688 19 82

2 617 776 19 82

Fixed Cos is Cpound 1077 1151 1357 1496

Total Cost s Cpound 3010 2247 2860 J 2880

Gross Froht Cpound 2755 1931 2743 3014

Net PI-ofit

Cpound 1678 780 1386 151[

Return to labour (Cpoundworking day)

Return to capital () 89

493 42

274 55

436 505

480 Cost to the Oovernmen t --6pound---middot761 middot425 51n __

~_~- -- _--___-~ _ M bullbullbull_ bullbull___ R bullbullbull __bullbull __ bull

o _ bullbull

~301 __

a) Assuming 80 goats and low grazing

- 21 shy

App Table 5 Effect of Level of GraZirg on the Costs and Returns of Sheep and Goats (Norm) a

Shee~ Goats Level of gra~ing Zero Low High Zero Low Rigl

Milk yield (kgfemale animal) 120 120 120 160 160 16

Lambing or kidding ratio 16 16 16 20 20 2()

Milk 1565 1565 1565 1434 1434 l434 Lambs 2326 2326 2326 2652 2652 2652 Culls 128 128 128 120 120 120 Wool 56 56 56 Manure 40 40 40 40 40 40

Gross Revenue Cpound 4115 4115 4115 4246 4246 4246

Feed for ewes or goats i) Concentrates 1292 728 408 1508 832 505

ii) Ray amp straw 288 282 Feed for lambs or kids

i) Concentrates 601 601 601 602 602 602 Other 12 12 12 12 12 12 Interest 88 54 41 96 58 45

Variable Costs Cpound 2281 1395 1062 2500 1504 116r _ _-

Rent 2 2 2 2 L 2 Family labour 390 534 534 422 566 565 Replacement 608 608 608 688 688 68P Depreciation 19 19 19 19 19 1)

Interest 82 82 82 82 82 8e

Fixed Costs Cpound 1101 1245 1245 1213 1357 1357

Total Costs Cpound 3382 2640 2307 3713 2861 252

Gross Profit Cpound 18~4 2720 3053 1746 2743 30t)2

1Tet Profit Cpound 733 1475 1808 533 1385 1725

Return to labour (Cpoundworking day) 46 60 70 36 5middot5 65

Return to capital () 232 467 588 178 436 55( Feed cost to the Government Cpound 762 542 418 847 583 456

a) Assuming 80 female adult animals

- 22 shy

App Table 6 Bffect of the Size of the Pr-oduc t ion Unit on the Costs and Returns of Sheep and Goats (NJrm)

SheGE Goats

Ewes or goatsfarm 80 160 200 80 160 2()(I

Milk yield (kgfemale animal) 120 120 120 160 160 16~)

Lambing or kidding ratio 16 16 16 20 20 2 0

Milk 1565 3130 3912 1434 2867 35[1 Lambs 2326 4651 5814 2652 5305 66jl Culls 128 256 320 120 240 300 Wool 56 112 140 Manure 40 80 100 40 80 100

Gross Revenue Cpound 4115 8229 10286 4246 8492 10615

Feed for awes or goats i) Concentrates 728 1456 1820 832 1664 208

ii) Hay amp straw Feed for lambs or kids

i) Concentrates 601 1202 1502 602 1203 1504 Hired labour 203 385 266 4f- u_)

Other 12 24 30 12 24 jC)

Interest 54 115 150 58 126 163

Variable Costs Cpound 1395 3000 3887 1504 3283 42C

Rent 2 4 5 2 4 Family labour 534 624 624 566 624 621 Replacement 608 1216 1520 688 1376 1( 2(

Depreciation 19 32 40 19 32 4C Interest 82 159 198 82 159 19t

Fixed Costs Cpound 1245 2035 2387 1357 2195 255 _ _--_ __

Total Costs Cpound 2640 5035 6274 2860 5478 6521

Gross Profit Cpound 2720 5226 6399 2743 5209 Ggt7)

net Profit Cpound 1475 319L~ 4012 1385 3014 Ll3 -

Return to labour (Cpoundworking day) 60 78 80 5middot5 70 SoU

Return to capital () 467 510 510 436 475 538 Feed cost to the Government Cpound 542 1085 1356 583 1166 145[

- 23 ~

App Table 7 Prices Received and Paid

Prices received Unit Cpound-Milk sheep kg 0163

goat kg 0112 Lamb or kid

At leaning kg 1ivQwoight 0781 At 20 kg kg 0625 At 35 kg kg II 0547

Wool Cpoundanima1 0100 Manure Cpoundanima1 0500

Prices paid

Feed roughage

Straw ton 120 Cereal hay ton 200

Concentrates

Creep feed ton 500 15 crude protein (as fed) ton 458 13 crude protein (as fed) ton 438 11 crude protein (as fed) ton 400

Labour working day 16

Rent of land donum 15

App Table 8 Capital Investments

Land

Sheds for 80 female animals

160 female animals 200 female animals

Value of animals Ewes (0 kg milk 26 lambing ratio)

(60 kg milk 12 lambing ratio) (120 kg milk 16 lambing ratio ) (200 kg milk 08 lambing ratio)

Goats( 0 kg milk 34 kidding ratio) ~ 80 kg milk 16 kidding ratio) (160 kg milk 20 kiddinB ratio) (280 kg milk 13 kidding ratio)

Operating capital (50 of variable costs)

Cpounddonum 300

Cpoundshed 1800 Cpoundahed 13500 Cpoundshed 16600

CrJeue 330

315

380

400

Cpoundgoat 380

340

400

425

vpp Table 9 Gross RevenuG (Cpoundewe) at Incr-eas Ing LeveI s of Milk Yi o Ld and Lcml~ng Rc tios (rorm)

Millt Y i e 1 d (kg eVi8)Lambing ratio 0 20 4~ 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200

08 163 208 253 298 343 388 433 ~n 8 523 568 613 10 201 246 29 ~ 1 33~6 381 426 471 516 561 606 651

12 240 284 32~9 37~4 419 464 509 554 599 644 689 16 31 6 360 40~5 45o 495 540 585 630 675 720 765 18 355 398 44~3 488 533 578 623 668 713 758 803 22 431 474 519 56~4 609 654 699 744 789 834 879

26 508 550 5915 64+ 0 658 730 775 820 865 910 955 30 584 626 67h 71~6 761 806 851 896 941 986 1034

~--

- _ N

~

App Table 10 Gross Revenue (Cpoundgoat) at Increasing LeY11s of Milk Yield and Kidding Ratios (Norm) bull

M i llt Y i e 1 d (kg L~at) IKidding ratio

middot0 40 80 l~d 160 200 240 280 320 360 400

08 148 193 237 28~~ 327 372 41 7 461 506 551 596 12 218 263 307 35~2 397 442 487 531 576 621 666 16 287 333 37-7 42l~ 467 512 55middot7 601 646 691 736 20 355 403 447 49 ~ 2 537 582 627 671 716 761 806 24 -422 473 51 7 56~ 60middot7 652 697 74middot1 786 831 876

bull 28 488 543 58~7 632 677 722 767 811 856 901 946 32 564 613 65 ~ 7 70~~ 747 792 837 881 926 971 1016 36 634 683 72~7 772- 81 7 862 907 951 996 1041 1086

I

1)App Table 11 Concentrates Consumed (kgewe) Low Grazing System

Lambi ng Y i e 1 d i n mil k (kg ewe) ratio

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200

08 568 708 848 98 8 1128 1268 1408 1548 1688 1828 1968 LO 710 850 990 1130 127middot0 1410 1550 1690 1830 1970 2110 12 852 992 1132 1272 1412 1552 1692 1332 1972 2112 2252 16 1136 1276 1416 1556 1696 1836 1976 2116 2256 2396 2536 18 1278 1418 1558 1698 1838 1978 2118 2258 2398 2538 267middot8 22 1562 1702 1842 1982 2122 2262 2402 2542 2682 2822 2962 26 1846 1986 2126 2266 2406 2546 2686 2626 2966 3106 3246 30 2130 2270 2410 2550 2690 2830 2970 311 0 325middot0 3390 3530

ro1) I~aintenancerequirement of adult animals met by grazing V1

Assumptions for grazing systems

1 07 kg feeds of 15 crude protein (as fed basis) was fed per kg milk produced or sucked [iy 2 50 kg milk was suoked by each lamb from birth to weaning at 35 days 3 In late pregnancy each ewe received on the average 36 kg concentrates above maintenance for each lamb carried 4 In zero grazing maintenance requirements during the dry period were met by 06 kg straw and 05 kg

concentrates of 11 crude protein (as fed basis) [1~ I~ late pregnancy (6 weeks before lambing) and during lactation each ewe received 06 kg cereal hay and 04 kg concentrates to meet the maintenance requirements Other requirements in concentrates were met as in low grazing syste~

App liable 12 Conoentcates Consumed (kgg02t ) i Low Grazing SJ34~OT 1)- (I

----------------------T -----------~-_--------------------------------------------------shy

M gt~_~ LL~_~iJ~_8poundatl Kidding ratio

o 40 80 120 160 200 240 280 320 360 400 -----_ ------~---~ _- ----------__--__-----shy

08 528 768 1008 1248 138 1728 1960G 2208 24Li8 2688 2928 12 792 1032 1272 1512 175middot2 1992 2232 2472 271 2 2952 3192 16 1056 129 u 6 1536 ~-77 6 20l6 2256 2496 =736 2976 3216 3456 20 1320 1560 J80o 2040 2280 2520 2760 3000 3240 3480 3720 24 1584 1[24shy 2064 2304 2-~4middot 4 27S~4 3024 32604 350middot4 3 7 11++ 3984 28 1848 2038 23 28 2568 2808 30~ 8 328f3 ~)52 8 3768 4008 42~ 8

-3 ~ 211 2 2352 2592 2832 3072 3312 3552 37902 4032 4272 +51 2

______ 36

_-__ 2379

- 2616 2856 3096

___shy__ 3336 3576

_ 3826

middot 4056 L_~

429gt6 middot

L15306 _ _

4776

1) Maintenance requirements of adult animals met-JY grazing ro 0

~~~mption for grazing system

1 06 kg feed of 15 crude protein (as fed basis) was fed per kg milk produced or suoked 2 50 kg milk was sucked by each kid from birth to wean~ng at 70 days Partial suckling was practised from the

30th day onwards 3 In late pregnancy each goat received on the average 36 kg concentrates above maintenance for each kid carried 4 In zero grazing maintenance requirements in the dry period were met by 06 kg of straw and 05 kg of

concentrates of 11 crude protein (as fed basis)

29

- 27 shy

App Table 13 Feed Cost and Revenue for Lamb Fattening

Lambing ratio

08 10 12middot 16 18 22 26

aConcentrates (kg) I

Birth to weaning Weaning to 20 kg Birth to 20 kg 20 kg to 35 kg Birth to 35 kg

09 290 299 54~0

839

1 J 13 17 20 368middot 449 618 706 37middot9 462 635 726 675 810 1080 1215

1054 1272 1715 1941

24 890 914

1485 2399

1036 106e5 175middot5 2820

Saleable Iiveweight (kg)

at weaning at 20 kg at 35 kg

87 160 280

108 200 35middot0

12~8

24middot0 420

174198 320 360 56~0 630

249 44middot0 770

290 520 910

Feed expenses

at weaning mils 45 55 65 -85 100 120 145 to 20 kg Cf 14 17 21 29 33 42 49 __ to 35 kg Cf 37 46 56 7middot5 85 10middot5 123

Revenue Cf

Lamb sale Lamb sale Lamb sale

at weaning ~~ 20 kg at 35 kg

68 100shy153shy

gt ~_ bull bullbullbullbull ~-

84 125 191

100 136 150 200 230 306middot

15middot5 225 345

194 27middot5 421

226 32 c 49 e

Assumed birthweight 47 45 42 38

a) It was assumed that the protein content of the ooncentrates mixture feed from birth to weaning was 168 and from 20 to 35 kg 143 on dry matter basis [1[

- 28 shy

App Table 15 Labour Raquire~entl) for 80 poundMes or Goats Practising Low or High Grazing at Increasing Levels of Milk Yield and Lambing or Kidding Ratios

i

Lamhing Y i e 1 d i n mil k (kg Le_we) ratio

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 280

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - Lbua)production unit - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -08 0749 0813 0869 0933 1013 1069 1109 1149 1113 1205 1229 1283 10 0150 0814 0870 0934 1014 1010 1110 1150 1114 1206 1230 1284 12 0151 0815 0811 0935 1015 1011 1111 1151 1115 1201 1231 1285 14 0152 0816 0812 0936 1016 1012 1112 1152 1116 1208 1232 1286 16 0153 0811 0813 0937 1011 1013 1113 153 1117 1209 1234 1287 18 0154 0818 0874 0938 1018 1074 1114 1154 1178 1210 1235 1288 20 0155 0819 0875 0939 1019 1015 1115 1155 1119 1211 1236 1289 22 0756 0820 0876 0940 1020 1016 1116 1156 1180 1212 1237 1290 24 26

0151 0158

0821 0822

0871 0878

0941 0942

1022 1023

1017 1018

1111 1118

1157 1158

1181 1182

1213 1214

1238 1239

1291 1292

ro -D

28 0759 0823 0879 0943 1024 1019 1119 1159 1183 1215 1240 1293 30 0760 0824 0880 0middot944 1025 1080 1120 1160 1184 1216 1241 1 294 34 0162 0826 0882 0946 1027 1082 1122 1162 middot _____middot L_ 1186 1218 1242 1295

a) 1 LbU = 300 working days

1) Low and high grazing system Calculated as followsi

Labour requirement (LbU) = 015 + (lambing ratio - 10) x 0005 +

Labour for milkin~ (days)+ X No of female animals 300

+) Assuming 6 minutesanimalday

Zero grazing system Labour requiremunt (lbU) = Low or high grazing system (LbU) - 0300 for 80 female animals

- 0550 for 160 female animals - 0650 fOr 2rl) tomcIc animals

Page 3: FACTORS AFFECTING THE ECONOMICS OF SHEEP AND GOATSnews.ari.gov.cy/Publications/AER4-papas.pdfFACTORS AFFECTING THE ECONOMICS OF SHEEP AND GOATS . By . ... Costs and Returns of Goat

bullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbull

- i -

WEIGHTS AND MEASURES

1 donum

1 metric tQn

1 kg

1 Cyprus pound (Cpound)

14400 s~uare feet 033 acre 0133 hectare

1000 kg = 09842 long ton

22 Ibs 08 oke

CURRENCY

1000 mils = 1 25 sterling pounds (pound)

265 UoS Dollars ($)

LIST OF CONTu~TS

Page

bullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbull 0000 bullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullINTRODUCTION 1 lETHOD OF ANALYSIS bullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbull 0 2

EC01JOMI C RESULTS bullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbull It 3bull 0 bull 0 0 bullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbull

A NORM SITUATIOIJ bullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbull 0 bullbullbull 0 bullbullbull middotbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbull 3 I Level of productivity and direction of production bullbull 3

Effect of intensive fattening bullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbull 5 II Level of grazing bullbullbull fJ 6bullbullbullbullbullbullbullbull e bullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbull 6 bullbullbullbull

III Size of the production unit bullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbull 7 Be ACTUAL SIWATION bullbullbullbull a 8bull 0 0 bull 0 coo 0 0 0 CI 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 bull 0 0 0 bullbull 0 bullbull

I Effect of the level of productivity bullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbull 8 II Level of grazing bullbullbullbullbullbullbull ~ bullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbull 9 III Size of the production unit bullbull 00 bullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbull 9 DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS bullbullbullbullbullbullbullbull 0 11bullbullbull 0 bullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbull

Silll11ARY bullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbull 0 130 0 bullbull 0 0 bullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbull

AC~OWLEJ)G~TS0 bull 0 bullbull 0 0 0 0 0 0 coo 0 bullbull 0 It 130 0 Igt bull 0 0 0 0 0 bullbullbullbullbullbullbullbull 0

REFERIDICES bull CI bull 0 0 I) 0 0 bull eo bullbullbull 0 bullbull 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 e 0 0 0 bull 0 bullbullbullbullbull 0 bull 0 0 bull 0 bullbull 13 AFPENDIX 15

LIST OF TABLES Table

1 Effect of Level of Productivity and Direction of Production on the Costs and Returns of Sheep and Goats (Norm) bullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbull 0 11)000 4

2 Effect of Fattening of Lambs and Kids on the Costs and Returns of Sheep and Goats (Norm) 5

3 Effect of Level of Grazing on the Costs and Returns of Sheep and Goats (Norm) 6

- ii shy

Table Page

4 Eff6ct of Size of tl1e Production Unit on the Costs and RGturns of Sheep and 003ts (Norm) bullbullbullbullbullbull 7

5 Costs and Returns of Sheep and Goats b~ Level of Productivi ty (Actual) 8

6 ~ffect of Size of the Production Unit on Costs and Returns of Sheep and Goats (Actual) bullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbull 10

App Tablfs

1 Cos1s and Ruturns of Sheep Enterprises by Size Group (Ac tual) ~ 0 bull 0 0 bull e 0 0 bull 0 bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bullbull 17

2 Costs and Returns of Goat Enterprises by Size 0 Cl 0 0 bull 0 bullbullbull Cl bull II bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bullbullGroup ( Actual) 18

3 Effect of Level of Productivity and Direction of Production on the Costs and Returns of Sheep

(1~9rm) bullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbull oooCloCooClot bullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbull 19

4~Effect of Level of Productivity and Direction of Production on the Costs and Returns of Goats

(Norm) Qooo~ ~O

5 Effect of Level of Grazing on the Costs and Returns of Sheepand Goats (Norm) 21

6 Eff8ct of the Size of th8 Production Unit on the Costs and Returns of Sheep and Goats bullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbull 22

7 Prices Received and Paid bullbullbull 23

8 Capital Investments bullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbull 23

9 Gross Revenue (CLew8) at IncreasinG Levels of Milk Yield and Larab i ng Ratio (Horiil) bullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbull 24

10 Gross Revenue (Cfgoa t ) 11 t Encr-crs i ng Lev el s of Milk Yield and Kidding Ratio (rocrn) bullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbull 24

11 Concentrates Cons~med (kgewe) Low Grazing Sys t era bullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbull CI 0 0 0 i bullbullbullbullbull 0 bull bull bull 25CI Q 0 bull bull bull bullbull

12 Concentrates Consumed (kggo8t)~ Low Grazing Systbnl OOol bullbull O bullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbull 26

13 F8ed Cost anQ Revbnue for Lamb Fattening bullbullbullbullbullbullbullbull 27

14 Feed Cost and Revenue for Kid Fattening bullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbull 28

15 Labour Requir~m8nt for 80 J~os or Goats Practicing Low or High Grazing at Increasing Lev81s of Milk Yield and Lambing or Kidding Ratios 290 bullbullbullbullbullbull 000 bullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbull

FACTORS AFF~CTIRG THB ECONOMICS OF SH~P A1l) GOATS

By

1)Andreas Papas and Stelios Papachr1stodoulou

INTRODUCTION

During the last decade substantial private and pUblic funds have been invested in sheep and goats The primary aim was to increasamp the number and improve the productivity of the animals Improvement was sought through the introduction of the Chios sheep and the Damascus goat whioh are characterized by prolificacy and high milk yieldS~l a7 Concurrently improved nutritional and managerial methods were promoted to increase production tJi The structure of the production unit however which emerged in the long process of development of this industry was far from clear Presently the sheep and goat production units vary widely in size productivity direction of production and feeding programme

In Cyprus marginal land and cereal stubble provide grazing for sheep and goats Indoor feeding is another alternative in which the size of the production unit is determined primarily by economic considerations but calls for higher feeding costs At tho same time feeding of concentrates carries a cost to the Government in subsidies and foreign exchange for imports of feed grains

The availability of skilled labour on the farm limits the size of the production unit because of the high labour involved in shepherding and milking~~ Workers with skills in animal hUsbandry are in short supply because of the difficult working conditions as the low social prestige attached to such jobs In view of the difficulties in mGchanizing milking and shepherding it is important to study the economics of alternative direotions such as all-meat production in which the skilled labour requirement is lower

1) Assistant Agricultural Research Officers

- 2 shy

In this report data collected from 63 sheep and 65 goat falm~

were used to study the economics of the existinb production units Other data fro~ the experimental farm of the Agricultural Research Ens t i tu t e the ~iargo and other Governraent farms were used to compute costs and ~eturns of norm production units varying in (i) productivity and tiirection of production Le meat andor milk (ii) level of grazing practised and (iii) s iz e

MbTliOD ur AJULYSIS

Norm situation

Costs and returns were computed using the budgeting method The basic information such as feed required per animal fo~ maintenance and production management systems (partial suckling age at weaning) etc was obtained from pUblished and non published data from the

Agricultural Research Institute and other Government farms The units studied varied in the following parameters

I Level of productivity and direction of Eroductio~Various levels of productivity in terms of sal~able milk and lambing or kidding ratio were studied The extreme combinations namely those conbining zero milk yield with high lambing or kidding ratios and high milk productlon withlow lambing or kidding ratios represented the meat and dairy directions of production respectively

II Level of graz~~~ The following three systems were studied

~ero grazi~~ All feed requirements were met by indoor feeding of cereal hay straw and concentrates Lm1 grazil~ The maintenance requirements of all adult animals were met by grazing and all others including those for fattening were met by feeding concentrate mixtures High grazi~f2 Cllhe maintenance requirements plus the equivalent of 85 kg of conc0ntr~tes for each ewe and 90 kg for each goat were met by grazing 1he baLaric e of the requirewents including all feed requirements for fattening were met by indoor feeding or concentrates

III Size of ihe production unit The fol Lov ing sizes as measured by the numbers of adult female animals were studied 80 160 and 200 animals Larger units up to 1000 animals 11-1818 considered multiples of the production unit with 200 animals with all cost items increasing linearly exoept for labour

Actual situation

The accounting method was used for computing costs and returns in the actual situation The 60 sheep and 65 goat farms studied were located in Villages of the Nicosia Larnaca Famagusta and Limassol districts The proQQcers were handed special

- 3 shy

questionnaires and were shown how to enter the raw uata A stqff member of the Agricultural Economics Section paid monthly visits to summarize the data and answer any questions raised Each production unit was treated as one observation Costs and returns were computed for each farm and group of farms The relationship of the gross revenue to tne main cost i terns was deterwined by regression anal ys i s

Details of the cowputations of costs and returns of the actual and norm proQuction units are presented in the Appendix The basic assumption under-Lydng these computations was that current prices were operative for both production units

EcmWMIC RBSULTS

J NORM SITUATION

L Level of productivity and direcmiddottion of production Sheep and goats in Cyprus serve a dual purpose namely meat and milk production with no emphasis on wool As stated earlier milking of ewes is a specialized laborious activity which cannot be easily mechanized Thus the Low availabili ty of skilled labour on farm limits the size of the family type production unit It Ls therefore important to examine the labour requirement and the economics of alternative directions of production and in particUlar the all-meat production unit in norm situations (Table 1)

The extreme situations of 200 kg milk and 08 lambs (column d) and zero milk and 26 lambs (column a) may be taken to ~epresent the dairy and meat directions resIectively while the ewes giving 120 kg and 16 lambs (column c) represent an intermediate situation The 26 lamhs in the allmiddot-meat direction can he achieved by an appropriate s ys t em which will make possible 15 lambings yearly In such system the ewes have shorter lactations and are mated soon after weaning of Lanbe 111 though not pr-ac t i s ed wiuely at present thL system Has tested in Cyprus and in other countries yeni th pr-orai s Lng

resul ts L5 J The data in Table 1 show that in a system in which the

maintenance requirements are met by grazing (low grazing) the above three directions (columns d c a) resulted in comparable gross revenue The feed costs hOilever increase wi th higher lambing ratio because all concentrate feeding was assumed for fattening The higher costs primarily for concentrates result in higher cost to the Government The labour requirement is lowest for the all-meat direction and highest for the milk direction The lower labour requirement makes possible the increase of the number of animals in the all-meat production unit

As shown in Tahle 1 the all-meat direction in goats result in slightly higher revenue than the other systems but this advantage

- 4 shy

is cancelled by the higher feeding costs The other cost and returns items show similar trends as with sheep

For the s arne number of animals the production uni ts or-Len t eu towards milk production require lowe-r feeeting but higher labour costs For the yields assumed above there is an aCivantage in net returDS to the producer and lower cost to the Government of the dual or dairy type over the all-meat direction The all-meat direction nevertheless is an economically sound aL ternative especiully in si tuations of shor-ta u in skilled labour and potential for high grazing It must however 5

be emphasized that these comparisons are made on empirically chosen yields and that the economics may change as yields and prices change

Table 1 Effect of Level of Productivity anQ Direction of Production on the Costs and Returns of Sheep and Goats (Iorm)a)

Sheep (a) (b) (c) (d) (e)

Milk yield (kgewe) 0 60 120 200 200 Lambing rati 0 26 12 16 08 16

- - -Cpoundenterprise -

Gross revenue 4019 2765 4114 3987 5175 Feed cost 1664 910 1329 1014 1530 Variable cost 1743 959 1395 1067 1604 Labour cost 364 449 534 590 592 Net profit 1265 750 1474 1586 2171 Returns to labour

(Cfworking day) 7~2 43 60 5middot9 7middot5 Returns to capital () 39middot2 269 467 521 833 Fa r m income 1780 1321 2147 2302 2910 Cost to the Government 688 373 542 407 622 Gross revenue per Cpound 171 135 132 102 120

Goats (a) (b) (c) (d) Milk yield (kggoat) 0 80 160 280 Kidding ratio 34 16 20 13

- - - - - - --Cpoundenterpriseshy - -----shyGross revenue 4688 3027 4246 4398 Feed cost 1847 1042 1434 1319 Variable cost 1934 1096 1503 1384 Labour cost 366 488 566 617 Net profit 1678 780 1386 1518 Returns to labour

(Cfworking day) 89 L1 --I bull L 5middot5 5middot5

Returns to capital (~n 493 274shy 436 480 Farm income 2202 1395 2094 2272 Cost to the Covernmen t 761 425 583 530 Gross revenue per Cf 162 140 137 121

a) Assuming 80 female adult animals and low grazing

- 5 shy

The comparison of column b (lOrl productivi ty) to columns a c d and e shows that 9 at these levels 9 the increase in returns is faster than the in6rease in costs The additional fsed costs res~ltinl

from the hiher requirements accounted for the largest part of till increase in variable costs In contrast~ the cost of labour incr8ase~

only slowly in columns c 9 d and e and decreased in column a Thi3 suggests that if the available genetic ~aterial and knowledge was

etlployed to increCise pr-oduo t i vi ty there Hould be a need for Lnc r-eas i ns cas] 8ltIJ8nlt88 for purchos i ng feed but there wouLd not be any [ignific_~L shyincrease in labour r-equ i r-eraent In con t r-as t labour avai Labi Lf ty jlay be limitinb the size of the production unit

8ffect of intensive fattening

Based on earlier work ~6 7 9 ~ it was assumed that lambs were weaned ai 35 days and kids at 70 days and that partial suckling was practised from 16th and 30th day onwards for lambs and kids respectively ThE sale of lambs at weanin~o9 20 kflS and 35 kg Livewe i ght produced revenue of Cpound 136 Cpound 200 and Cpound 306 for lambing ratio of 16 The additional expense primarily in feed costs was Cpound 29 and Cpound 77 for increases in gross revenue of Cpound 64 and Cpound 170 respectivey

Table 2 Effect oi Fat t en i ng of Lambs and Kiels OD the Costs and Returns of Sheep and Goats (Norm)a)

Goats ireanincmiddot i-reaning

35 k s(35 day~) 20 kg 35 kg (70 days) Liveweight solJ kgfemale animal 17middot4 320 560 313 63(

Revenue from lambs or kids Cpound female animal 136 200 306 244 349

Lambs or kids feed 8xpenses Cpoundfcrnale anir1al 01 29 7middot5 04 7middot5

Variable costs Crfemale animal 9middot7 126 174 114 188

Labour exrens es Cpoundfemal~ arrimaL 65 66 67 69 7middot1

Not profit Cpoundfemale ani mal 9middot3 127 184 97 17middot3

Return to capital () 265 343 470 269 434 Return to labour

CfwOrking day 40 47 60 41 61 Farm income

Cpoundfemale animal 169 206 268 177 26 ] Cost to the Gover-nmen t Cpoundfemale animal 36 47 68 -~ 2 7middot3

a) Fora product i cn unit 101i th 80 _wes producing 120 kg milk and 16 lambs or so goats produc i ng 160 kg mil and 20 kids with low level of euro-rJzing

- 6 shy

The cost to benefit ratio of 045 is sigl1ificantly lower than thb ratio of 063 which would be required to incz-eae e meat through LrL~

numbers of sheep The high differences betv een addi t i onal cost and revenue was also reflected in higher profit farm income and returns to capi tal and Labour The cost to the Governrrent would increase b~

Opound 11 and Cpound 32 respectively because fa t t erLng was based on conoentra te feeds In general the Govermnent pad d more th~n 13 of 0h~

variable costs for fattening This cost however is lower than the expense in foreign exchange for Lmpor t Ln Lamb meat at present pri c ce

It is thus concluded that fattening of lambs up to 35 kC liv8weight increases significantly the gross revenue and all return i t erue Fa ttening required only minor additional labour and no significant capital investment in shedS machinery etc but profi tabili ty of lamb and kid fattening de penua primarily on the price relationship of feeds and meat

II Level of grazing

The effect of zero low and high grazing s ys t ems on the main return and cost i terns of producti on uni ts Hi th 80 ewes or 80 goa ts ar~middot

presented in Table 3 The feed cost desreased significantly with increasing level of grazing being only half that of the zero grazing system Savings in feed costs was reflected in higher farm income returns to labour and capital and net profit for the two ayst ems wi -U

gr-az i ng as compared to indoor feeding Irr om the inputs only the- llt)oT cost was higher in the high grazing system than in the zero grazin~~

system The additional labour cost however of Cpound 144 was smaller compared to th8 saving in feed accounting to Cpound 1171 for ewes and Opound 1285 for goats in the high grazing sybtem

Table 3 Effect of Level of GraZing On the Costs and Returns of SLeeT and Goats (Norm)a)

Sheep Goats Level of grazing Zero Low High Zero Low Higt

- - - - - -ORproduction unit- - - shy

Gross revenue 4114 4114 4114 4246 4246 42-~6

Feed cost 2180 1329 1009 2392 1434 i ic Concentrates 1893 1329 1009 2110 1434 1107 Hay amp straw 287 282

Variable cost 2280 1395 1062 2500 1503 116 Labour cost 390 53- 534 422 566 5St Net profit 733 1475 1807 533 1386 1725 Return to labour

Cfworking day 46 60 70 36 55 6middot) Return to capital (~ ) 23middot5 470 592 178 436 55middot(Cost to the Government 762 542 417 847 583 4Y~

Farra income 1295 2147 2467 1135 2094 2j~C

================-==========-- a) For a unit with 80 ewes producing 120 kg milk and 16 lambs or 80

goats producing 160 kg milk and 20 kius

- 7 shy

The cost to the Government in terms of subsidies for

concentrates is almost twice as high for indoor feeding as compareu to -- high grazing s ya t em In addition zero gr2~ing involves a high expenslaquo

in foreign exchange as Cyprus is a net ili1portcr of large quanti ti83 of

feed grain Thus maxi murn use of grazing i r to the benefit of bo th tIle

LndivLduaI producer and thG national ec ouomy It is therefore 5

necessary to keep the cost d i ffer-en t i aI -1 a level which would

encourage the full utilization of grazin- aroas and allow tne opt i mum

LlSt3 of feed grain It is clifficul t to d e t e r-mine the opt i mum s i z e of this differential because of the wide variation in the availability of graamping from one part of Cyprus to the other andthe effect of the price of thE- feed grain on the price of r1any basic fOOd items

111 Size of the production unit

Data on the main cost and return items of norm production

units varying in size are presented in Table 4

Table 4 Lffect of the Size of the Production Unit on the Costs

and Returns of Sheep and Goats (Noro)a)

Female animals per farm 80

Sheep

160 200 80

Goats

160 200

Gross revenue

Feed cost

Variable costs

Labour cOstshy

Net frofi t Return to labour

Cpoundworking day

Return to capital () Farm inoome

- - shy -

4115 1329 1395

534 1475

60 467 2147

- - -

8229 2658 3000

827 3194

70middot3 510 4298

-Crproduction unital

10286 4246 8492 3322 1433 2867 3887 1503 3283 1009 566 890

1386 -

4012 3014

80 5middot5 70 510 436 47middot5 5374 2094 4192

- shy -

10615 358shy4240 1087 4328

80 518 5781

-

a) For ewes producing 120 kg milk ana 16 lambs or goats producing

160 kg milk and 20 k ide on the 10Vl crazinb s ys t em

It is ilpparent that the size of the production unit affects

costs and returns significantly Fo r the yields stated above (Table -i-) 75 ewes are requireJ to obtain farm income of Cpound 2000 As would be

expected the size required to obtain Q certain level of farm incoffib

SfiY Cpound 2000 depends on many factors such iS the productivi ty of

anioills and the level of grazing This is illustrated in the followin6

examples g For ewes producing zero mi Lk yield arid 26 lambs 90 ewesn

r-equ i r edj for 60 kg milk and 12 lambs 121 ewes for 180 kg nu Lk and

10 lambs 71 ewes For zero low and high grazing with ewes producin[

120 kg milk and 16 lambs the respective numbers rBquired to obtain

farm income of Cr 2000 are 123 75 and 65

- 8 shy

B ACTUAL SITUATIOJX

I Effect of the level of productivity

The actual data collected fr-on tile sheep and goat pr-oduc t i cn units wer( classified in thrE)e levels of productivity namely~ low medium and high on the basis of the gross revenue obtained per adult female animal The means of the main cost anci return items for each group are presented in Table 5

Table 5 Costs and Returns of Sheep and Go~ts by Level of Productivity (Actual)

Sheep Goat

Level of productivity Low Medium High Low Medium Higll

Number of farms Ewes or goats per farm Milk yield

(kgfemale animal) Lambs raised per ewe or kids per goat

Concentrates (kgfemale animal)

18 72

48

11

117

29 72

57

12

135

18 54

68

13

143

16 80

37

13

65

33 64

74

15

108

16

59

126

19

200

Gross revenue (Ctfemale animal) 194 224 273 13 3 202 31 Z

Variable costs 106 lll 110 56 65 128 Gross profit 88 113 163 7middot7 13middot7 184

The hiSher productivity in the ncdium and high levels was pr9bably due to better feeding~ superior management and better genetic material from the Chios breed and the Damascus goat ~9 lQ7

The pz-oduc t i vi ty per animal incr8ased with the aLlowan ce of conc en t r-at ea as shown by the highly s i gr Lf i carrt regression coe tfLc i en t between gross revenue Cpoundfemale aniwal (Y) and concentrates fed in kg (X) the equation being Y = 1012 + 0056X (r=057) for ewes and = 947 + 0066x (r=O56) for goats The ~dditional cost of concentrashytes accounted for most of the Lnor-eas e in variable co s t s The returns obtained from animal with higher productivity w~re significantly higher tilan the additional costs bull At present ~ therefore there are wid margins for increasing productivity at low cost The data of Table 5 show that the commercial milk yield of the production units studied may be doubled while the average lambing or kidding ratio may bb improved by 30-40 L 1 J The average milk yi 61d and 1ambing or kidding ratios recorded in this study are the same as those recorded earlier [4]

- 9 shy

Ihe deL ta in Aplenuix Ta bl GS 1 and 2 show that on the CLV8r-tmiddot 09 lambs and 11 kids were sold per female animal producing a revenu~

of Cpound 94 ani Cpound 113 respectively At the price of Cpound 0781 per k 6 liveweignt this corresponds to the production of 120 and 145 kg of liveweight r-s s peo t i vel y for each ewe or gl)[t When oompared to the norm d~ta for similar lambing or kidding rltios it is concluded that the lambs and kids Nere sold at the age of eppr-oxi mately 8 - 10 WSOK3

at Which the producers usually wean the lambs and kids This would suggest tha t for the production units studied tfHlrewas no larte scale fa ttening of Lambs or kids beyond lHaninf at the aetJ of 6-10 we ek a The majority of the producers stated that they practised partial suckLin and that thcy offered creep feed to the lambs and k i ds Fran the discussion with th6se producers it was conclueltjd that the main reasons for no large scale fa t t cn ing were tradi t i on the higher l)ricus received for baby lamb and kid and the need for cash partcularly before revenue from milk was received

II Level of grazing

The data available do not allow a detailed study of the effect of the level of grazing on the costs and returns in the actual situation

It is possihle however to drd~ some conclusions from the5~

data in comparison to the norm situation The livestock producers of this study fed on the average 132 kg of concentrates for each ewe and 120 kg for each goat In add i ti on 08 donums of green forage vlclS

cansuQed by each female aniwal and its followers Similar trends WbTB

observed in ano thez- etuuy L9 J Compar-ed to norm produo t i on units or

comparable y i elds it a ppear-s that feed requirements for maintenance arto ruet by gr-az i ng gr-e en forage and straw 9 whi l E t he r equ i r-emerrt s for production are met by concentrates For ollis 9 tlH level of grazino is hi6her than she up especiallj for production units with more than 30 female adult an imaLs as indicated by tl( lower amount of concentrates fed for comparative yields

Thl level of grazin~ practised is limited by the low ava i La hi Li ty of pas tur-es and t no abe enc e of large grazing areas There are also institutional r8gulations by 10c81 authorities limi tin~ the maximum nunrber of animals a t tendcd oy a sincle shepherd Compar-ed to the norm situation the average of grazing was slightly below the designated as low level

III Size of the production unit

Data on tho main cost and return items of actual produotion units varying in size and presented in Table 6 The regression of gross revenue (YGB) or variable oosts (Yvd on the number of adult ewes (X) revealed a sienificant linear relation the equations being

- 10 shy

A ~

2138 + 193X (r=091) YVC = 97 + 109X (r=064) For goat8~YGR = the respective equations were YGR = 1860 + 46x (r=035)A

Yvc = 4035 + 147X (r=061) Unlike [Sheep the r for the equation relating gross revenue and number of gOcits wus low This pr-o babl y

resul ted from wider vaz-La t i on in productivi ty among goat than ShbI

units It was apparent fro~ the inspectiun of the data from thE individual goat units that the per an i raaL output was par t i cu Lar-Ly

variable especially for small units

For the same data gross r-evenue and labour cost per an i mal decreQsed in lareer units especially in goats The advantag8s of

economics of size were cancelled by the decline in producticity which resulted in lower net returns per animal in the larger units The total rturns how8vGr were higher in the larger units but could have been consiclerably higher had the productivity of each animal been at the same level as in the small units

Table 6 Effect of Size of the Production Unit on the Gostsand Returns of Sheep and Goats (Actual)

Female animals per farm

Gross revenue Feed cost iTariable cost abour- cost Jet profit te tu r n to labour

Cpoundorking day eturn to capital () arm income

Sheep Goa ts

42 65 94 39 63

- -Cfenterprise unit shy - -

1037 1450 2056 1053 1247 18(9

443 690 975 701 797 1206

467 726 1026 373 471 645 342 436 529 342 436 529 135 171 324 265 235 473

22 22 26 28 24 3C 101 101 128 169 128 17 middot5

588 753 1069 694 794 IJ89

By corapa r-i ng the incremental bross revenue to the varLabl raquos ts from the low to the high level of pr-oduc t av i t y (Tah1e 5) and ~om the small to the large LeveI of s i z e (lable 6) it can be derived tat it is more profitable to increase prociuctivi ty per an i maI r-athor ~n increase their numbers

DISCUSSIOl AND COFCLUSI011S

Sheep and goat production can be Lnc r-eae ed by increasing Lt

oduc t i v i t y of the animals or by increasin~ the size of the an i maL pulation or by a combination of the two The returns to the iividual producer however~ are affecteu apart of the productivity other factors namely 1 the size of the production unit the level )i

~zing the management system and others

- 11 shy

The data in this study indicated the economic advantage 1 Jotl_ for the individual producer and the national economy of increasine the sheep and goat production by improving the productivity of the animals than by increasing the size of the population For ewes and goatB it is obvious from the comparison of actual and norm data that commer-ciiI

milk yield can be doubled and lambing ratio can increase by 30-40 by

using genetic material and knowledge already available in Cyprus The adoption of fQttening of lambs and kids at weights up to 35 kg is hindered by the strong demand for baby laUD and kid meat and the nee~

of producers for cash However these obs t acLes may be overCOJTW by eppr-opr-ia t e policy measures and consumer oduoa t ion

Th6 study of different directionG of production and in particular the all-meat versus the high milk - low meat direction showed that at the levels assumed the milk and meat direction was slightly superior to the all-meat direction in terms of net returns and lower cost to the Government Nevertheless thG all-meat direction is economically sound and may be used in s peo i aLj aed si tuations in which skilled labour is limited while good possibilities exist for high levels of grazing

The size of the production unit required to obtain a certain level of farm income J8pends on many factors such as the productivity of the animals and the level of grazing The numbers of adult female animals required to obtain farn income of Cpound 2000 are 121 and 75 for commercial milk yields of 60 and 120 kg and lambing ratioe of 12 ard

16 respectively Assuming that these yields represent roughly the Local and the Chios sheep it is apparent that any benefits from increasinb the present size of the production units would be much higher if the increase in size was coupled with higher productivity Presently the size of most sheeJ or goat production units is smal18r than the siz8 required to achi8ve farw income of Cpound 2000

The rroblem of deciding the size of the production unit has many complex aspects This is so becausu the livestock enterpris8 in most places is combined with crop production and the relative size of the two on t er-prLs ee is determined by economic and other factors In this respect the amount opound family labour~ the availability and size of grazing areas and feeds and the relative profitability of the livestOCK enterprise in comparison with pos s r ble al ternative farm enterprises weigh heavily in det er-iain i ng the size of the sheep or goat production units

From the data of thi s and an oar-Iier study L 9 ] it is suggested that op t i mum utilization of resources in a mixed type of farming requires production units with 120 - 130 animals In a norm situation for numbers up to 1000 animals the returns to size were higher than zero suggesting that at present economies of siZe have not

- 12 shy

been exploited Of course larger production units do not neces5~rily

imply larger animal population th ey may resul t also from reorganizatior

of the existing population to larger economically viaole units

The level of grazing is inversely related to the feeding costs but increases labour cost The decrease in feeding cost frod

higher level of grazing is considerably higher than the increase in

labour cost There is no doubt that higher grazing level wilen possible J is economically beneficial both to the individual producGr

and the national economy and could be easily combined with the all-~~~t

direction of production It is proposed th~t the price of concentrstcO)

presently regulated by thE Government through the system of SUbsidies be kept at such level which will encourage the optimum utilization of

straw pastures and agricultural by-products

The goat production units (actual) were more variable than sheep units in the level of productivitJ-9 direction of production feeding prograDme and size Smaller goat units tended to be more productive consumed more concentrates per female animal and producei higher returns per animal than larger units This suggests that large units Hith low producing animals practised more grazing On the averagG 9 the gross revenue was higher for sheep but net returns from goats were slightly higher These differences were primarily due to higher level of grazing for goats than for sheep This comparison if

based on the average of the production units studied ~nd could not bE extrapolated to comparison of specific breeds of sheep and goats A comparative study of the Chios sheep and Damascus goat under norm

conditions was initiated at this Institute

- 13 shy

SUIDIARY

Data from 68 sheep 65 goat private production units (actual situation) and from Gov~rnment units (norm situationr were used to coraput c costs and returns and to study the main fa c t or-s affecting tht econooics of shoGp and goats in Cyprus The main conclusions of this study can be summarized as follows

1 It is more profitable as a ~irst step to incrGasG productivity per animal rather than increase their numbers With available gonetic material ana knowledge it is possible to double tho present milk yields and increase the number of lambs or kids per female animal by 30-40

2F~ttGning of lambs or kids at prosGnt prices can increase total and net returns SUbstantially with profound ~conomic advantages for the individual producer and tho national economy

3 The study of di~ferent directions of ~roduction showed that the milk and mlat direction was slightly suporior to the all-moat directionH01iGVer thE a I Le-meat di re c t i on of production may bo a sound economic alternative mainly in situations where good possibilities exist for high lcvul of razing and skilled labour is limited

4 The feed cost for high level of grazing was only half the cost for middotindoor fcodLng The loer fe ed cost 18S ruflectcd in higher net returns for the razing systems The cost differential between cost of grazing and fecding of concentrates should be adjusted to promoto grazing 8t th8 IGvlol which will mClOt at the minimum the maintenance r-oqu i r-crucn t s of auuI t animalsmiddot

5 With present 18v~ls of productivity 168 ewes or 151 goats arc roquirlQ to produclo farm incomb of Cpound 2000 In norm situations 75 OWbS pr-oducdng 120 kg milk and 16 1(111bs could I~roduc8 thc same income For this LcvcI of productivi ty the r-espec t i v- numbers for z er-o low and high grazing nystems war_ 123 75 and 65 ewes

Th authors gratefully acknowlGdge tl1G cooperation of ahoe p and goat producers and the assistancE providod by all members of the Agricultural Economics Slction

RLFERLFCES

1 Louca A Pr-eLimanar-y r-csuI ts on tho por-formarice of pur-ebr-ed and cross-bred sllecp Paper prosGDtcd a~ the RGgional Workshop for shclp and forage improvement February 11-14 1974 in Buirut~ Lebanon

- 14 shy

2 Chimonides 1 1972 Some faotors affGoting the productivity of DamQscus goats in Cyprus MS Thesis American University of Bei r-ut L8b~~lO[

3 Planning Bureau ThE first (1962-66) the second (1967-71) and t hlaquo

third (1972-76) Five Year Plan Planning Rur~au

Nioosia Cyprus

4 Agrioulturul Research Institute 1964 Cost and Returns of Shlq

and goats Agric Res Inst Nioosia Cyprus

5 Louca A Personal c omruurri ca t i cn Agrioultural Research Institute Nioosia Cyprus

6 Hadjipanayiotou M and Louca A 1975 PhG Effeots of partial suckling on the lactation Derformance of Chios sheep and Damasous goats and the growth rate of the lambs and kids (in preparation) Agricultural Research Institute Nicosia Cyprus

7 Louca A 1972 The effect of suckling regime on grmdh rate and laotation performance of the Cyprus Fat-tailed amI Chios sheep Anim Prod 15~53-59

8 Louca A ~ Mavr-ogen i s A and Lawlor ~1J 1975 ThE effect of early weaning on the laotation performanoe of Damascus goats and the growth rate of the kidb Anim Prod 20 213-218

9 Papachristodoulou S and Papas A 1975 The bconomios of drylan~

mixed farming in Cyprus Agrioultural Research Institute Nicosia~ Cyprus

10 Papachristodoulou S 1974 (Restrioted) Dryland Mixed Farwing A technical and economic anaLys i s of some typical fnrl~

participated in the Mixed Farming Project during 1968-1972 Agricultural Research ~nstitute Nicosia Cyprus

11 Papas A 1975 Protein requirements of ewes during laotution (in IJreparation) Agrioultural REJsearch Lns t i tu t e Nicosia Cyprus

12 Papas A 1975 Protein requirements of ewes during maintenanoe (in preparation) Agricultural Res~arch Institute Nioosia Cyprus

13 Papas~ A 1975 The protein requirements of early weaned lambs (in preparation) Agricultural Researoh Institutc 9

Nioosia CYfrus

- 15 shy

lTA P P E D I x

COHPUTATION OF DnUT-OUTPUT DATA OF SHEEP MID GOATS-Gross revenue is the total value of milkmeat cUlls wool and manuree

Sheep milk was sold at Cpound 0163kg and goat milk at Cpound 0112kg In the

actual situation revenue from lambs and kids 11018 based on receipts

adjusted to current prices It was assumed that in norm situation lambs

and kids were sold at 35 kg liveweight 0547kg The prices at 20 kg

liveweight and at weaning were Cpound 0625 and Cpound 0781 respectively A 5

death rate for lambs and kids was assumed Culling was estimated at

20 each year 5 of this was assumed to represent losses and the

remaining 15 of the culls sold at Cpound 125head It was assumed that

losses were directly related to productivity for every additional 10 kg

milk yield and 01 lambing ratio losses increased by 015 and by

005 respectively The revenue from wool and manure was estimated at

Cpound 0700 and Cpound 0500animal respectively (App Tables 16)

Variable costs include feed expenses (purchased or produced) other

expenses (veterinary hired labour) and interest on operating capitale

In the actual situation feed expenses for sheep remiddotprEHHlnted

the 95 of variable costs and 54 of total costs for goats these

percentages are 94 and 44 respectively (App Tables 1 and 2) In the

norm situation feed expenses for sheep or goats comprised approximately

95 of the variable costs ranging from 42-65 of the total costs

depending on the level of productivity direction of production and the

level of grazing (App Tables 3-5) The feed expenses forslle-epandmiddot

goats as percent of variable and total costs decreased from about

95-84 and increased from about 50-53 respectively depending on the

size of production unit (App Table 6)

Interest on operating capital represents 50 of the variable

costs at 8 interest rate

Fixed costs include rent of land family labour replacement

depreciation and interest on fixed capital

In the actual situation rent of land was charged for the area

under fodder crops while in the norm situation rent was charged only for

the area occupied by sheds and the milking parlour

- 16 shy

Family labour was valued atGpound 1600__p~r -wor~i~gslaY_~Ep_

ble 15 presents the labour requirements for 80 ewes or goats pr-ac t i c i rs

w or high grazing system at increasing levels of milk yield andmiddot

Lmbing or kidding ratios Also gives the calculation of the labou~

squ i r-ement s for the zero grazing system and increasing number of aniild

n this study it was assumed that 13 labour units(LbU) were c on tr i bu

ed by family labour and any additional labour w~cs treated as hired

abour-

The replacement was estimated at 20 of the value of animals

The annual depreciation rate of shed8 was estimated at 25

while interest rate used for sheds and livestock capital was 6

Total costs is the sum of variable and fixed costs and net profit the

difference between gross revenue and total coste (App Tables 1-6)

Return to labour (Cpoundwo~king day) was calculated by adding to the net

profit all labour costs and dividing this amount by the number of

working days (App Tables 1-6)

Return to capital () was calculated by adding to the net profit the

interest on operating and fixed capital and dividing the amount by tho

capital investments (excl land capital) and multiplied by 100 (App

Tables 1-6)

Farm income consisted of pai~ or imputed rent 9 remuneration of family

and hired labour interest charges and net profit (App Tables 1-6)

Cost to the government was computed from the v~lue of concentrates fed

using the coefficients of 039 and 043 for aault and young animals

respectively These coefficients represent the increase in percentaL~

of the present value of the concentrates which Would be paid by the

producers in the form of hi~her prices if marketing of feed grains waG

not regulated These coefficients were comI~t8d on the basis of the

difference of the prices for feed grains paid lJy the Government and t~l(

livestock producers and on the content of the concentrate mixtures in

the feed grains (App Tabl~s 3-6)

----------------

- 17 shy

App Table 1 Costs and Returns of Sheep Enterprises by Size Group (Actual)

--_SizebwrltuF (No of ewes)

30-50 50-80 80gt Mean Cpoundewe-----_-_-

No of observations 17 33 18 68

Average No of ewes 42 65 94 67 Milk production (kg) 2711 3442 5348 3764 Lambs Bold or consumed (No) 39 55 85 59 ------------------_shy

Ycilk and milk products 440 569 865 614 92 40middot9 Lambs 417 573 925 627 9 418 Culls 60 94 108 89 13 5middot8 Wool 28 48 71 49 07 31 Manure 19 30 41 30 04 18 Change of capital 71 136 55 98 15 6G

Gross Revenue Cpound 1037 1450 2056 1507 225 1000

Feed purchased 221 325 493 344 53 27 ~

Feed produced 72 118 103 103 15 77 Forage produced 150 246 379 257 38 19lt5 Other 6 8 12 8 01 0~5

Interest 18 28 39 29 04 20 ----------------___

Variable Costs Cpound 467 725 1026 741 111 ------ ------------_- shy

Rent of land 45 52 92 61 Family labour 342 436 529 437 )3 -I

~ IInterest and depreciation 48 66 85 66 -

-------~---------_ _

Fixed Costs Cpound 435 554 706 564

Total Costs bpound 902 1279 1732 1305 195 --__--____-__---shyNet profit Cpound 135 171 324 202 31

43- J

Return to labour (Cpoundworking day) 22 22 26 23

Return to capital () 101 101 128 108 Return over feed expenses Cpound 594 761 1081 804 Farm income Cf 588 753 1069 795 ---------------------~---------_

- 18 shy

Table 2 Costs and Returns of Goat Enterprises by Size Group (Actual)

Size group (lITo of gegtats )

30-50 50-80 80) Mean Ci-goat

No of observations 18 28 19 65

Average No of goats Milk production (kg) Kids sold or consumed (No)

39 4034

53

63 4439

71

98 6169 100

666 4833

74

Milk and milk products Kids Culls Manure Change of capital

331 552

54 19 97

364 704 80 28 71

505 1005 102

43 154

396 60 750 113 79 12 30 0middot5

103 15

293 551 59 24 73

Gross Revenue Cishy 1053 1247 1809 1358 20middot5 100 00

Feed purchased Feed produced Forage produced Other Interest

207 35

llO

7 14

236 53

156 8

18

263 36

304 17 25

236 43

186 II 19

3middot5 06 28 02 03

224 38

18J 13 loy

Variable Costs Cf 373 471 645 495 74 474

Rent of land Family labour Interest and depreciation

25 342 48

39 436

66

77 529 85

46 437

67

07 65 10

4middot5 417

64

Fixed Costs Cf 415 541 691 550 82 526

Total Costs Cf 788 1012 1336 1045 156 1000

Net Frofi t Cf 265 235 473 313 49

Return to labour (Cpoundworking day)

Return to capital () Return over feed expenses Farm income

Cf Of

28 169

700 694

24 128

802 794

30 17middot5 1206 1189

27 153 892 882

- 19 shy

App Table 3 Effect of Level of Produotivity and Direction of a) Produotion on the Costs and Returns of Sheep (Norm)

Milk yield (kgewe)

Lambing ratio

Milk Lambs Culls

Wool Manure

Gross Revenue

Feed for ewes i) Concentrates

ii) Hay amp straw Feed for lambs

i) Concentrates Other Interest

Variable Costs

Rent Famil y labour Replacement Depreciation Interest

Fixed Costs

Total Costs

Gross Profi t

Net Profit

Return to labour (Cpoundworking day)

Return to capital () Cost to the Government

deg 60 120 200

26 12 16 08

782 3781 1748 142 139

56 56 40 40

1565 2325 128

56 40

2608 1163

120 56 40

Cpound 4019 2765 4114 3986

676 464

988 446 12 12 67 37

728

601 12 54

720

294 12 41

Cpound 1743 959 1395 1067

2 2

364 449 544 504

19 19 82 82

2

534 608 19 82

2

590 640 19 82

ce 1011 1056 1245 1333

Cpound 2754 2015 2640 2400

Cpound 2276 1606 2719 2919

Cpound 1265 750 1474 1586

72 43 60 59 392 269 46middot7 521

Cpound 688 373 542 407

a) Assuming 80 8W~S and low grazing

- 20 shy

App Table 4 Effect of Level of Productivity and Direction of a) middotmiddotmiddot----middot --Produc_tiQ[l on the Costs and Returns of Goats (Norm) bull

bull bullbullbullbull ~ __R_ ~~__bullbullbull ~ bullbullbull _

-_ ----~ bull

Milk yield (kggoat)

Kidding ratio

0

34

80

16

160

20

2$0

13

Milk Lambs Culla

4511 137

717 2136 134

1434 2652 120

2503 1743

106

Manuremiddot 40 40 40 40

Gros smiddot R-eAfnu-e- Cpound 4688 3027 4246 4398

Feed for goats ) ConcentratesJ I

ii) Hay amp straw Feed for kids

i) Concentrates Other Interest

824

1023 12 74

560

482 12 42

832

601 12 58

928 ~

391 12 53

Variable Coiits Cpound 1933 1096 1503 1384

Rent Family labour Replacement Depreciation Interestmiddot_middotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddot

2 366 608 19 82

2 488 560

19 82

2 566 688 19 82

2 617 776 19 82

Fixed Cos is Cpound 1077 1151 1357 1496

Total Cost s Cpound 3010 2247 2860 J 2880

Gross Froht Cpound 2755 1931 2743 3014

Net PI-ofit

Cpound 1678 780 1386 151[

Return to labour (Cpoundworking day)

Return to capital () 89

493 42

274 55

436 505

480 Cost to the Oovernmen t --6pound---middot761 middot425 51n __

~_~- -- _--___-~ _ M bullbullbull_ bullbull___ R bullbullbull __bullbull __ bull

o _ bullbull

~301 __

a) Assuming 80 goats and low grazing

- 21 shy

App Table 5 Effect of Level of GraZirg on the Costs and Returns of Sheep and Goats (Norm) a

Shee~ Goats Level of gra~ing Zero Low High Zero Low Rigl

Milk yield (kgfemale animal) 120 120 120 160 160 16

Lambing or kidding ratio 16 16 16 20 20 2()

Milk 1565 1565 1565 1434 1434 l434 Lambs 2326 2326 2326 2652 2652 2652 Culls 128 128 128 120 120 120 Wool 56 56 56 Manure 40 40 40 40 40 40

Gross Revenue Cpound 4115 4115 4115 4246 4246 4246

Feed for ewes or goats i) Concentrates 1292 728 408 1508 832 505

ii) Ray amp straw 288 282 Feed for lambs or kids

i) Concentrates 601 601 601 602 602 602 Other 12 12 12 12 12 12 Interest 88 54 41 96 58 45

Variable Costs Cpound 2281 1395 1062 2500 1504 116r _ _-

Rent 2 2 2 2 L 2 Family labour 390 534 534 422 566 565 Replacement 608 608 608 688 688 68P Depreciation 19 19 19 19 19 1)

Interest 82 82 82 82 82 8e

Fixed Costs Cpound 1101 1245 1245 1213 1357 1357

Total Costs Cpound 3382 2640 2307 3713 2861 252

Gross Profit Cpound 18~4 2720 3053 1746 2743 30t)2

1Tet Profit Cpound 733 1475 1808 533 1385 1725

Return to labour (Cpoundworking day) 46 60 70 36 5middot5 65

Return to capital () 232 467 588 178 436 55( Feed cost to the Government Cpound 762 542 418 847 583 456

a) Assuming 80 female adult animals

- 22 shy

App Table 6 Bffect of the Size of the Pr-oduc t ion Unit on the Costs and Returns of Sheep and Goats (NJrm)

SheGE Goats

Ewes or goatsfarm 80 160 200 80 160 2()(I

Milk yield (kgfemale animal) 120 120 120 160 160 16~)

Lambing or kidding ratio 16 16 16 20 20 2 0

Milk 1565 3130 3912 1434 2867 35[1 Lambs 2326 4651 5814 2652 5305 66jl Culls 128 256 320 120 240 300 Wool 56 112 140 Manure 40 80 100 40 80 100

Gross Revenue Cpound 4115 8229 10286 4246 8492 10615

Feed for awes or goats i) Concentrates 728 1456 1820 832 1664 208

ii) Hay amp straw Feed for lambs or kids

i) Concentrates 601 1202 1502 602 1203 1504 Hired labour 203 385 266 4f- u_)

Other 12 24 30 12 24 jC)

Interest 54 115 150 58 126 163

Variable Costs Cpound 1395 3000 3887 1504 3283 42C

Rent 2 4 5 2 4 Family labour 534 624 624 566 624 621 Replacement 608 1216 1520 688 1376 1( 2(

Depreciation 19 32 40 19 32 4C Interest 82 159 198 82 159 19t

Fixed Costs Cpound 1245 2035 2387 1357 2195 255 _ _--_ __

Total Costs Cpound 2640 5035 6274 2860 5478 6521

Gross Profit Cpound 2720 5226 6399 2743 5209 Ggt7)

net Profit Cpound 1475 319L~ 4012 1385 3014 Ll3 -

Return to labour (Cpoundworking day) 60 78 80 5middot5 70 SoU

Return to capital () 467 510 510 436 475 538 Feed cost to the Government Cpound 542 1085 1356 583 1166 145[

- 23 ~

App Table 7 Prices Received and Paid

Prices received Unit Cpound-Milk sheep kg 0163

goat kg 0112 Lamb or kid

At leaning kg 1ivQwoight 0781 At 20 kg kg 0625 At 35 kg kg II 0547

Wool Cpoundanima1 0100 Manure Cpoundanima1 0500

Prices paid

Feed roughage

Straw ton 120 Cereal hay ton 200

Concentrates

Creep feed ton 500 15 crude protein (as fed) ton 458 13 crude protein (as fed) ton 438 11 crude protein (as fed) ton 400

Labour working day 16

Rent of land donum 15

App Table 8 Capital Investments

Land

Sheds for 80 female animals

160 female animals 200 female animals

Value of animals Ewes (0 kg milk 26 lambing ratio)

(60 kg milk 12 lambing ratio) (120 kg milk 16 lambing ratio ) (200 kg milk 08 lambing ratio)

Goats( 0 kg milk 34 kidding ratio) ~ 80 kg milk 16 kidding ratio) (160 kg milk 20 kiddinB ratio) (280 kg milk 13 kidding ratio)

Operating capital (50 of variable costs)

Cpounddonum 300

Cpoundshed 1800 Cpoundahed 13500 Cpoundshed 16600

CrJeue 330

315

380

400

Cpoundgoat 380

340

400

425

vpp Table 9 Gross RevenuG (Cpoundewe) at Incr-eas Ing LeveI s of Milk Yi o Ld and Lcml~ng Rc tios (rorm)

Millt Y i e 1 d (kg eVi8)Lambing ratio 0 20 4~ 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200

08 163 208 253 298 343 388 433 ~n 8 523 568 613 10 201 246 29 ~ 1 33~6 381 426 471 516 561 606 651

12 240 284 32~9 37~4 419 464 509 554 599 644 689 16 31 6 360 40~5 45o 495 540 585 630 675 720 765 18 355 398 44~3 488 533 578 623 668 713 758 803 22 431 474 519 56~4 609 654 699 744 789 834 879

26 508 550 5915 64+ 0 658 730 775 820 865 910 955 30 584 626 67h 71~6 761 806 851 896 941 986 1034

~--

- _ N

~

App Table 10 Gross Revenue (Cpoundgoat) at Increasing LeY11s of Milk Yield and Kidding Ratios (Norm) bull

M i llt Y i e 1 d (kg L~at) IKidding ratio

middot0 40 80 l~d 160 200 240 280 320 360 400

08 148 193 237 28~~ 327 372 41 7 461 506 551 596 12 218 263 307 35~2 397 442 487 531 576 621 666 16 287 333 37-7 42l~ 467 512 55middot7 601 646 691 736 20 355 403 447 49 ~ 2 537 582 627 671 716 761 806 24 -422 473 51 7 56~ 60middot7 652 697 74middot1 786 831 876

bull 28 488 543 58~7 632 677 722 767 811 856 901 946 32 564 613 65 ~ 7 70~~ 747 792 837 881 926 971 1016 36 634 683 72~7 772- 81 7 862 907 951 996 1041 1086

I

1)App Table 11 Concentrates Consumed (kgewe) Low Grazing System

Lambi ng Y i e 1 d i n mil k (kg ewe) ratio

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200

08 568 708 848 98 8 1128 1268 1408 1548 1688 1828 1968 LO 710 850 990 1130 127middot0 1410 1550 1690 1830 1970 2110 12 852 992 1132 1272 1412 1552 1692 1332 1972 2112 2252 16 1136 1276 1416 1556 1696 1836 1976 2116 2256 2396 2536 18 1278 1418 1558 1698 1838 1978 2118 2258 2398 2538 267middot8 22 1562 1702 1842 1982 2122 2262 2402 2542 2682 2822 2962 26 1846 1986 2126 2266 2406 2546 2686 2626 2966 3106 3246 30 2130 2270 2410 2550 2690 2830 2970 311 0 325middot0 3390 3530

ro1) I~aintenancerequirement of adult animals met by grazing V1

Assumptions for grazing systems

1 07 kg feeds of 15 crude protein (as fed basis) was fed per kg milk produced or sucked [iy 2 50 kg milk was suoked by each lamb from birth to weaning at 35 days 3 In late pregnancy each ewe received on the average 36 kg concentrates above maintenance for each lamb carried 4 In zero grazing maintenance requirements during the dry period were met by 06 kg straw and 05 kg

concentrates of 11 crude protein (as fed basis) [1~ I~ late pregnancy (6 weeks before lambing) and during lactation each ewe received 06 kg cereal hay and 04 kg concentrates to meet the maintenance requirements Other requirements in concentrates were met as in low grazing syste~

App liable 12 Conoentcates Consumed (kgg02t ) i Low Grazing SJ34~OT 1)- (I

----------------------T -----------~-_--------------------------------------------------shy

M gt~_~ LL~_~iJ~_8poundatl Kidding ratio

o 40 80 120 160 200 240 280 320 360 400 -----_ ------~---~ _- ----------__--__-----shy

08 528 768 1008 1248 138 1728 1960G 2208 24Li8 2688 2928 12 792 1032 1272 1512 175middot2 1992 2232 2472 271 2 2952 3192 16 1056 129 u 6 1536 ~-77 6 20l6 2256 2496 =736 2976 3216 3456 20 1320 1560 J80o 2040 2280 2520 2760 3000 3240 3480 3720 24 1584 1[24shy 2064 2304 2-~4middot 4 27S~4 3024 32604 350middot4 3 7 11++ 3984 28 1848 2038 23 28 2568 2808 30~ 8 328f3 ~)52 8 3768 4008 42~ 8

-3 ~ 211 2 2352 2592 2832 3072 3312 3552 37902 4032 4272 +51 2

______ 36

_-__ 2379

- 2616 2856 3096

___shy__ 3336 3576

_ 3826

middot 4056 L_~

429gt6 middot

L15306 _ _

4776

1) Maintenance requirements of adult animals met-JY grazing ro 0

~~~mption for grazing system

1 06 kg feed of 15 crude protein (as fed basis) was fed per kg milk produced or suoked 2 50 kg milk was sucked by each kid from birth to wean~ng at 70 days Partial suckling was practised from the

30th day onwards 3 In late pregnancy each goat received on the average 36 kg concentrates above maintenance for each kid carried 4 In zero grazing maintenance requirements in the dry period were met by 06 kg of straw and 05 kg of

concentrates of 11 crude protein (as fed basis)

29

- 27 shy

App Table 13 Feed Cost and Revenue for Lamb Fattening

Lambing ratio

08 10 12middot 16 18 22 26

aConcentrates (kg) I

Birth to weaning Weaning to 20 kg Birth to 20 kg 20 kg to 35 kg Birth to 35 kg

09 290 299 54~0

839

1 J 13 17 20 368middot 449 618 706 37middot9 462 635 726 675 810 1080 1215

1054 1272 1715 1941

24 890 914

1485 2399

1036 106e5 175middot5 2820

Saleable Iiveweight (kg)

at weaning at 20 kg at 35 kg

87 160 280

108 200 35middot0

12~8

24middot0 420

174198 320 360 56~0 630

249 44middot0 770

290 520 910

Feed expenses

at weaning mils 45 55 65 -85 100 120 145 to 20 kg Cf 14 17 21 29 33 42 49 __ to 35 kg Cf 37 46 56 7middot5 85 10middot5 123

Revenue Cf

Lamb sale Lamb sale Lamb sale

at weaning ~~ 20 kg at 35 kg

68 100shy153shy

gt ~_ bull bullbullbullbull ~-

84 125 191

100 136 150 200 230 306middot

15middot5 225 345

194 27middot5 421

226 32 c 49 e

Assumed birthweight 47 45 42 38

a) It was assumed that the protein content of the ooncentrates mixture feed from birth to weaning was 168 and from 20 to 35 kg 143 on dry matter basis [1[

- 28 shy

App Table 15 Labour Raquire~entl) for 80 poundMes or Goats Practising Low or High Grazing at Increasing Levels of Milk Yield and Lambing or Kidding Ratios

i

Lamhing Y i e 1 d i n mil k (kg Le_we) ratio

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 280

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - Lbua)production unit - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -08 0749 0813 0869 0933 1013 1069 1109 1149 1113 1205 1229 1283 10 0150 0814 0870 0934 1014 1010 1110 1150 1114 1206 1230 1284 12 0151 0815 0811 0935 1015 1011 1111 1151 1115 1201 1231 1285 14 0152 0816 0812 0936 1016 1012 1112 1152 1116 1208 1232 1286 16 0153 0811 0813 0937 1011 1013 1113 153 1117 1209 1234 1287 18 0154 0818 0874 0938 1018 1074 1114 1154 1178 1210 1235 1288 20 0155 0819 0875 0939 1019 1015 1115 1155 1119 1211 1236 1289 22 0756 0820 0876 0940 1020 1016 1116 1156 1180 1212 1237 1290 24 26

0151 0158

0821 0822

0871 0878

0941 0942

1022 1023

1017 1018

1111 1118

1157 1158

1181 1182

1213 1214

1238 1239

1291 1292

ro -D

28 0759 0823 0879 0943 1024 1019 1119 1159 1183 1215 1240 1293 30 0760 0824 0880 0middot944 1025 1080 1120 1160 1184 1216 1241 1 294 34 0162 0826 0882 0946 1027 1082 1122 1162 middot _____middot L_ 1186 1218 1242 1295

a) 1 LbU = 300 working days

1) Low and high grazing system Calculated as followsi

Labour requirement (LbU) = 015 + (lambing ratio - 10) x 0005 +

Labour for milkin~ (days)+ X No of female animals 300

+) Assuming 6 minutesanimalday

Zero grazing system Labour requiremunt (lbU) = Low or high grazing system (LbU) - 0300 for 80 female animals

- 0550 for 160 female animals - 0650 fOr 2rl) tomcIc animals

Page 4: FACTORS AFFECTING THE ECONOMICS OF SHEEP AND GOATSnews.ari.gov.cy/Publications/AER4-papas.pdfFACTORS AFFECTING THE ECONOMICS OF SHEEP AND GOATS . By . ... Costs and Returns of Goat

- ii shy

Table Page

4 Eff6ct of Size of tl1e Production Unit on the Costs and RGturns of Sheep and 003ts (Norm) bullbullbullbullbullbull 7

5 Costs and Returns of Sheep and Goats b~ Level of Productivi ty (Actual) 8

6 ~ffect of Size of the Production Unit on Costs and Returns of Sheep and Goats (Actual) bullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbull 10

App Tablfs

1 Cos1s and Ruturns of Sheep Enterprises by Size Group (Ac tual) ~ 0 bull 0 0 bull e 0 0 bull 0 bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bullbull 17

2 Costs and Returns of Goat Enterprises by Size 0 Cl 0 0 bull 0 bullbullbull Cl bull II bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bull bullbullGroup ( Actual) 18

3 Effect of Level of Productivity and Direction of Production on the Costs and Returns of Sheep

(1~9rm) bullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbull oooCloCooClot bullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbull 19

4~Effect of Level of Productivity and Direction of Production on the Costs and Returns of Goats

(Norm) Qooo~ ~O

5 Effect of Level of Grazing on the Costs and Returns of Sheepand Goats (Norm) 21

6 Eff8ct of the Size of th8 Production Unit on the Costs and Returns of Sheep and Goats bullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbull 22

7 Prices Received and Paid bullbullbull 23

8 Capital Investments bullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbull 23

9 Gross Revenue (CLew8) at IncreasinG Levels of Milk Yield and Larab i ng Ratio (Horiil) bullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbull 24

10 Gross Revenue (Cfgoa t ) 11 t Encr-crs i ng Lev el s of Milk Yield and Kidding Ratio (rocrn) bullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbull 24

11 Concentrates Cons~med (kgewe) Low Grazing Sys t era bullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbull CI 0 0 0 i bullbullbullbullbull 0 bull bull bull 25CI Q 0 bull bull bull bullbull

12 Concentrates Consumed (kggo8t)~ Low Grazing Systbnl OOol bullbull O bullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbull 26

13 F8ed Cost anQ Revbnue for Lamb Fattening bullbullbullbullbullbullbullbull 27

14 Feed Cost and Revenue for Kid Fattening bullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbull 28

15 Labour Requir~m8nt for 80 J~os or Goats Practicing Low or High Grazing at Increasing Lev81s of Milk Yield and Lambing or Kidding Ratios 290 bullbullbullbullbullbull 000 bullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbullbull

FACTORS AFF~CTIRG THB ECONOMICS OF SH~P A1l) GOATS

By

1)Andreas Papas and Stelios Papachr1stodoulou

INTRODUCTION

During the last decade substantial private and pUblic funds have been invested in sheep and goats The primary aim was to increasamp the number and improve the productivity of the animals Improvement was sought through the introduction of the Chios sheep and the Damascus goat whioh are characterized by prolificacy and high milk yieldS~l a7 Concurrently improved nutritional and managerial methods were promoted to increase production tJi The structure of the production unit however which emerged in the long process of development of this industry was far from clear Presently the sheep and goat production units vary widely in size productivity direction of production and feeding programme

In Cyprus marginal land and cereal stubble provide grazing for sheep and goats Indoor feeding is another alternative in which the size of the production unit is determined primarily by economic considerations but calls for higher feeding costs At tho same time feeding of concentrates carries a cost to the Government in subsidies and foreign exchange for imports of feed grains

The availability of skilled labour on the farm limits the size of the production unit because of the high labour involved in shepherding and milking~~ Workers with skills in animal hUsbandry are in short supply because of the difficult working conditions as the low social prestige attached to such jobs In view of the difficulties in mGchanizing milking and shepherding it is important to study the economics of alternative direotions such as all-meat production in which the skilled labour requirement is lower

1) Assistant Agricultural Research Officers

- 2 shy

In this report data collected from 63 sheep and 65 goat falm~

were used to study the economics of the existinb production units Other data fro~ the experimental farm of the Agricultural Research Ens t i tu t e the ~iargo and other Governraent farms were used to compute costs and ~eturns of norm production units varying in (i) productivity and tiirection of production Le meat andor milk (ii) level of grazing practised and (iii) s iz e

MbTliOD ur AJULYSIS

Norm situation

Costs and returns were computed using the budgeting method The basic information such as feed required per animal fo~ maintenance and production management systems (partial suckling age at weaning) etc was obtained from pUblished and non published data from the

Agricultural Research Institute and other Government farms The units studied varied in the following parameters

I Level of productivity and direction of Eroductio~Various levels of productivity in terms of sal~able milk and lambing or kidding ratio were studied The extreme combinations namely those conbining zero milk yield with high lambing or kidding ratios and high milk productlon withlow lambing or kidding ratios represented the meat and dairy directions of production respectively

II Level of graz~~~ The following three systems were studied

~ero grazi~~ All feed requirements were met by indoor feeding of cereal hay straw and concentrates Lm1 grazil~ The maintenance requirements of all adult animals were met by grazing and all others including those for fattening were met by feeding concentrate mixtures High grazi~f2 Cllhe maintenance requirements plus the equivalent of 85 kg of conc0ntr~tes for each ewe and 90 kg for each goat were met by grazing 1he baLaric e of the requirewents including all feed requirements for fattening were met by indoor feeding or concentrates

III Size of ihe production unit The fol Lov ing sizes as measured by the numbers of adult female animals were studied 80 160 and 200 animals Larger units up to 1000 animals 11-1818 considered multiples of the production unit with 200 animals with all cost items increasing linearly exoept for labour

Actual situation

The accounting method was used for computing costs and returns in the actual situation The 60 sheep and 65 goat farms studied were located in Villages of the Nicosia Larnaca Famagusta and Limassol districts The proQQcers were handed special

- 3 shy

questionnaires and were shown how to enter the raw uata A stqff member of the Agricultural Economics Section paid monthly visits to summarize the data and answer any questions raised Each production unit was treated as one observation Costs and returns were computed for each farm and group of farms The relationship of the gross revenue to tne main cost i terns was deterwined by regression anal ys i s

Details of the cowputations of costs and returns of the actual and norm proQuction units are presented in the Appendix The basic assumption under-Lydng these computations was that current prices were operative for both production units

EcmWMIC RBSULTS

J NORM SITUATION

L Level of productivity and direcmiddottion of production Sheep and goats in Cyprus serve a dual purpose namely meat and milk production with no emphasis on wool As stated earlier milking of ewes is a specialized laborious activity which cannot be easily mechanized Thus the Low availabili ty of skilled labour on farm limits the size of the family type production unit It Ls therefore important to examine the labour requirement and the economics of alternative directions of production and in particUlar the all-meat production unit in norm situations (Table 1)

The extreme situations of 200 kg milk and 08 lambs (column d) and zero milk and 26 lambs (column a) may be taken to ~epresent the dairy and meat directions resIectively while the ewes giving 120 kg and 16 lambs (column c) represent an intermediate situation The 26 lamhs in the allmiddot-meat direction can he achieved by an appropriate s ys t em which will make possible 15 lambings yearly In such system the ewes have shorter lactations and are mated soon after weaning of Lanbe 111 though not pr-ac t i s ed wiuely at present thL system Has tested in Cyprus and in other countries yeni th pr-orai s Lng

resul ts L5 J The data in Table 1 show that in a system in which the

maintenance requirements are met by grazing (low grazing) the above three directions (columns d c a) resulted in comparable gross revenue The feed costs hOilever increase wi th higher lambing ratio because all concentrate feeding was assumed for fattening The higher costs primarily for concentrates result in higher cost to the Government The labour requirement is lowest for the all-meat direction and highest for the milk direction The lower labour requirement makes possible the increase of the number of animals in the all-meat production unit

As shown in Tahle 1 the all-meat direction in goats result in slightly higher revenue than the other systems but this advantage

- 4 shy

is cancelled by the higher feeding costs The other cost and returns items show similar trends as with sheep

For the s arne number of animals the production uni ts or-Len t eu towards milk production require lowe-r feeeting but higher labour costs For the yields assumed above there is an aCivantage in net returDS to the producer and lower cost to the Government of the dual or dairy type over the all-meat direction The all-meat direction nevertheless is an economically sound aL ternative especiully in si tuations of shor-ta u in skilled labour and potential for high grazing It must however 5

be emphasized that these comparisons are made on empirically chosen yields and that the economics may change as yields and prices change

Table 1 Effect of Level of Productivity anQ Direction of Production on the Costs and Returns of Sheep and Goats (Iorm)a)

Sheep (a) (b) (c) (d) (e)

Milk yield (kgewe) 0 60 120 200 200 Lambing rati 0 26 12 16 08 16

- - -Cpoundenterprise -

Gross revenue 4019 2765 4114 3987 5175 Feed cost 1664 910 1329 1014 1530 Variable cost 1743 959 1395 1067 1604 Labour cost 364 449 534 590 592 Net profit 1265 750 1474 1586 2171 Returns to labour

(Cfworking day) 7~2 43 60 5middot9 7middot5 Returns to capital () 39middot2 269 467 521 833 Fa r m income 1780 1321 2147 2302 2910 Cost to the Government 688 373 542 407 622 Gross revenue per Cpound 171 135 132 102 120

Goats (a) (b) (c) (d) Milk yield (kggoat) 0 80 160 280 Kidding ratio 34 16 20 13

- - - - - - --Cpoundenterpriseshy - -----shyGross revenue 4688 3027 4246 4398 Feed cost 1847 1042 1434 1319 Variable cost 1934 1096 1503 1384 Labour cost 366 488 566 617 Net profit 1678 780 1386 1518 Returns to labour

(Cfworking day) 89 L1 --I bull L 5middot5 5middot5

Returns to capital (~n 493 274shy 436 480 Farm income 2202 1395 2094 2272 Cost to the Covernmen t 761 425 583 530 Gross revenue per Cf 162 140 137 121

a) Assuming 80 female adult animals and low grazing

- 5 shy

The comparison of column b (lOrl productivi ty) to columns a c d and e shows that 9 at these levels 9 the increase in returns is faster than the in6rease in costs The additional fsed costs res~ltinl

from the hiher requirements accounted for the largest part of till increase in variable costs In contrast~ the cost of labour incr8ase~

only slowly in columns c 9 d and e and decreased in column a Thi3 suggests that if the available genetic ~aterial and knowledge was

etlployed to increCise pr-oduo t i vi ty there Hould be a need for Lnc r-eas i ns cas] 8ltIJ8nlt88 for purchos i ng feed but there wouLd not be any [ignific_~L shyincrease in labour r-equ i r-eraent In con t r-as t labour avai Labi Lf ty jlay be limitinb the size of the production unit

8ffect of intensive fattening

Based on earlier work ~6 7 9 ~ it was assumed that lambs were weaned ai 35 days and kids at 70 days and that partial suckling was practised from 16th and 30th day onwards for lambs and kids respectively ThE sale of lambs at weanin~o9 20 kflS and 35 kg Livewe i ght produced revenue of Cpound 136 Cpound 200 and Cpound 306 for lambing ratio of 16 The additional expense primarily in feed costs was Cpound 29 and Cpound 77 for increases in gross revenue of Cpound 64 and Cpound 170 respectivey

Table 2 Effect oi Fat t en i ng of Lambs and Kiels OD the Costs and Returns of Sheep and Goats (Norm)a)

Goats ireanincmiddot i-reaning

35 k s(35 day~) 20 kg 35 kg (70 days) Liveweight solJ kgfemale animal 17middot4 320 560 313 63(

Revenue from lambs or kids Cpound female animal 136 200 306 244 349

Lambs or kids feed 8xpenses Cpoundfcrnale anir1al 01 29 7middot5 04 7middot5

Variable costs Crfemale animal 9middot7 126 174 114 188

Labour exrens es Cpoundfemal~ arrimaL 65 66 67 69 7middot1

Not profit Cpoundfemale ani mal 9middot3 127 184 97 17middot3

Return to capital () 265 343 470 269 434 Return to labour

CfwOrking day 40 47 60 41 61 Farm income

Cpoundfemale animal 169 206 268 177 26 ] Cost to the Gover-nmen t Cpoundfemale animal 36 47 68 -~ 2 7middot3

a) Fora product i cn unit 101i th 80 _wes producing 120 kg milk and 16 lambs or so goats produc i ng 160 kg mil and 20 kids with low level of euro-rJzing

- 6 shy

The cost to benefit ratio of 045 is sigl1ificantly lower than thb ratio of 063 which would be required to incz-eae e meat through LrL~

numbers of sheep The high differences betv een addi t i onal cost and revenue was also reflected in higher profit farm income and returns to capi tal and Labour The cost to the Governrrent would increase b~

Opound 11 and Cpound 32 respectively because fa t t erLng was based on conoentra te feeds In general the Govermnent pad d more th~n 13 of 0h~

variable costs for fattening This cost however is lower than the expense in foreign exchange for Lmpor t Ln Lamb meat at present pri c ce

It is thus concluded that fattening of lambs up to 35 kC liv8weight increases significantly the gross revenue and all return i t erue Fa ttening required only minor additional labour and no significant capital investment in shedS machinery etc but profi tabili ty of lamb and kid fattening de penua primarily on the price relationship of feeds and meat

II Level of grazing

The effect of zero low and high grazing s ys t ems on the main return and cost i terns of producti on uni ts Hi th 80 ewes or 80 goa ts ar~middot

presented in Table 3 The feed cost desreased significantly with increasing level of grazing being only half that of the zero grazing system Savings in feed costs was reflected in higher farm income returns to labour and capital and net profit for the two ayst ems wi -U

gr-az i ng as compared to indoor feeding Irr om the inputs only the- llt)oT cost was higher in the high grazing system than in the zero grazin~~

system The additional labour cost however of Cpound 144 was smaller compared to th8 saving in feed accounting to Cpound 1171 for ewes and Opound 1285 for goats in the high grazing sybtem

Table 3 Effect of Level of GraZing On the Costs and Returns of SLeeT and Goats (Norm)a)

Sheep Goats Level of grazing Zero Low High Zero Low Higt

- - - - - -ORproduction unit- - - shy

Gross revenue 4114 4114 4114 4246 4246 42-~6

Feed cost 2180 1329 1009 2392 1434 i ic Concentrates 1893 1329 1009 2110 1434 1107 Hay amp straw 287 282

Variable cost 2280 1395 1062 2500 1503 116 Labour cost 390 53- 534 422 566 5St Net profit 733 1475 1807 533 1386 1725 Return to labour

Cfworking day 46 60 70 36 55 6middot) Return to capital (~ ) 23middot5 470 592 178 436 55middot(Cost to the Government 762 542 417 847 583 4Y~

Farra income 1295 2147 2467 1135 2094 2j~C

================-==========-- a) For a unit with 80 ewes producing 120 kg milk and 16 lambs or 80

goats producing 160 kg milk and 20 kius

- 7 shy

The cost to the Government in terms of subsidies for

concentrates is almost twice as high for indoor feeding as compareu to -- high grazing s ya t em In addition zero gr2~ing involves a high expenslaquo

in foreign exchange as Cyprus is a net ili1portcr of large quanti ti83 of

feed grain Thus maxi murn use of grazing i r to the benefit of bo th tIle

LndivLduaI producer and thG national ec ouomy It is therefore 5

necessary to keep the cost d i ffer-en t i aI -1 a level which would

encourage the full utilization of grazin- aroas and allow tne opt i mum

LlSt3 of feed grain It is clifficul t to d e t e r-mine the opt i mum s i z e of this differential because of the wide variation in the availability of graamping from one part of Cyprus to the other andthe effect of the price of thE- feed grain on the price of r1any basic fOOd items

111 Size of the production unit

Data on the main cost and return items of norm production

units varying in size are presented in Table 4

Table 4 Lffect of the Size of the Production Unit on the Costs

and Returns of Sheep and Goats (Noro)a)

Female animals per farm 80

Sheep

160 200 80

Goats

160 200

Gross revenue

Feed cost

Variable costs

Labour cOstshy

Net frofi t Return to labour

Cpoundworking day

Return to capital () Farm inoome

- - shy -

4115 1329 1395

534 1475

60 467 2147

- - -

8229 2658 3000

827 3194

70middot3 510 4298

-Crproduction unital

10286 4246 8492 3322 1433 2867 3887 1503 3283 1009 566 890

1386 -

4012 3014

80 5middot5 70 510 436 47middot5 5374 2094 4192

- shy -

10615 358shy4240 1087 4328

80 518 5781

-

a) For ewes producing 120 kg milk ana 16 lambs or goats producing

160 kg milk and 20 k ide on the 10Vl crazinb s ys t em

It is ilpparent that the size of the production unit affects

costs and returns significantly Fo r the yields stated above (Table -i-) 75 ewes are requireJ to obtain farm income of Cpound 2000 As would be

expected the size required to obtain Q certain level of farm incoffib

SfiY Cpound 2000 depends on many factors such iS the productivi ty of

anioills and the level of grazing This is illustrated in the followin6

examples g For ewes producing zero mi Lk yield arid 26 lambs 90 ewesn

r-equ i r edj for 60 kg milk and 12 lambs 121 ewes for 180 kg nu Lk and

10 lambs 71 ewes For zero low and high grazing with ewes producin[

120 kg milk and 16 lambs the respective numbers rBquired to obtain

farm income of Cr 2000 are 123 75 and 65

- 8 shy

B ACTUAL SITUATIOJX

I Effect of the level of productivity

The actual data collected fr-on tile sheep and goat pr-oduc t i cn units wer( classified in thrE)e levels of productivity namely~ low medium and high on the basis of the gross revenue obtained per adult female animal The means of the main cost anci return items for each group are presented in Table 5

Table 5 Costs and Returns of Sheep and Go~ts by Level of Productivity (Actual)

Sheep Goat

Level of productivity Low Medium High Low Medium Higll

Number of farms Ewes or goats per farm Milk yield

(kgfemale animal) Lambs raised per ewe or kids per goat

Concentrates (kgfemale animal)

18 72

48

11

117

29 72

57

12

135

18 54

68

13

143

16 80

37

13

65

33 64

74

15

108

16

59

126

19

200

Gross revenue (Ctfemale animal) 194 224 273 13 3 202 31 Z

Variable costs 106 lll 110 56 65 128 Gross profit 88 113 163 7middot7 13middot7 184

The hiSher productivity in the ncdium and high levels was pr9bably due to better feeding~ superior management and better genetic material from the Chios breed and the Damascus goat ~9 lQ7

The pz-oduc t i vi ty per animal incr8ased with the aLlowan ce of conc en t r-at ea as shown by the highly s i gr Lf i carrt regression coe tfLc i en t between gross revenue Cpoundfemale aniwal (Y) and concentrates fed in kg (X) the equation being Y = 1012 + 0056X (r=057) for ewes and = 947 + 0066x (r=O56) for goats The ~dditional cost of concentrashytes accounted for most of the Lnor-eas e in variable co s t s The returns obtained from animal with higher productivity w~re significantly higher tilan the additional costs bull At present ~ therefore there are wid margins for increasing productivity at low cost The data of Table 5 show that the commercial milk yield of the production units studied may be doubled while the average lambing or kidding ratio may bb improved by 30-40 L 1 J The average milk yi 61d and 1ambing or kidding ratios recorded in this study are the same as those recorded earlier [4]

- 9 shy

Ihe deL ta in Aplenuix Ta bl GS 1 and 2 show that on the CLV8r-tmiddot 09 lambs and 11 kids were sold per female animal producing a revenu~

of Cpound 94 ani Cpound 113 respectively At the price of Cpound 0781 per k 6 liveweignt this corresponds to the production of 120 and 145 kg of liveweight r-s s peo t i vel y for each ewe or gl)[t When oompared to the norm d~ta for similar lambing or kidding rltios it is concluded that the lambs and kids Nere sold at the age of eppr-oxi mately 8 - 10 WSOK3

at Which the producers usually wean the lambs and kids This would suggest tha t for the production units studied tfHlrewas no larte scale fa ttening of Lambs or kids beyond lHaninf at the aetJ of 6-10 we ek a The majority of the producers stated that they practised partial suckLin and that thcy offered creep feed to the lambs and k i ds Fran the discussion with th6se producers it was conclueltjd that the main reasons for no large scale fa t t cn ing were tradi t i on the higher l)ricus received for baby lamb and kid and the need for cash partcularly before revenue from milk was received

II Level of grazing

The data available do not allow a detailed study of the effect of the level of grazing on the costs and returns in the actual situation

It is possihle however to drd~ some conclusions from the5~

data in comparison to the norm situation The livestock producers of this study fed on the average 132 kg of concentrates for each ewe and 120 kg for each goat In add i ti on 08 donums of green forage vlclS

cansuQed by each female aniwal and its followers Similar trends WbTB

observed in ano thez- etuuy L9 J Compar-ed to norm produo t i on units or

comparable y i elds it a ppear-s that feed requirements for maintenance arto ruet by gr-az i ng gr-e en forage and straw 9 whi l E t he r equ i r-emerrt s for production are met by concentrates For ollis 9 tlH level of grazino is hi6her than she up especiallj for production units with more than 30 female adult an imaLs as indicated by tl( lower amount of concentrates fed for comparative yields

Thl level of grazin~ practised is limited by the low ava i La hi Li ty of pas tur-es and t no abe enc e of large grazing areas There are also institutional r8gulations by 10c81 authorities limi tin~ the maximum nunrber of animals a t tendcd oy a sincle shepherd Compar-ed to the norm situation the average of grazing was slightly below the designated as low level

III Size of the production unit

Data on tho main cost and return items of actual produotion units varying in size and presented in Table 6 The regression of gross revenue (YGB) or variable oosts (Yvd on the number of adult ewes (X) revealed a sienificant linear relation the equations being

- 10 shy

A ~

2138 + 193X (r=091) YVC = 97 + 109X (r=064) For goat8~YGR = the respective equations were YGR = 1860 + 46x (r=035)A

Yvc = 4035 + 147X (r=061) Unlike [Sheep the r for the equation relating gross revenue and number of gOcits wus low This pr-o babl y

resul ted from wider vaz-La t i on in productivi ty among goat than ShbI

units It was apparent fro~ the inspectiun of the data from thE individual goat units that the per an i raaL output was par t i cu Lar-Ly

variable especially for small units

For the same data gross r-evenue and labour cost per an i mal decreQsed in lareer units especially in goats The advantag8s of

economics of size were cancelled by the decline in producticity which resulted in lower net returns per animal in the larger units The total rturns how8vGr were higher in the larger units but could have been consiclerably higher had the productivity of each animal been at the same level as in the small units

Table 6 Effect of Size of the Production Unit on the Gostsand Returns of Sheep and Goats (Actual)

Female animals per farm

Gross revenue Feed cost iTariable cost abour- cost Jet profit te tu r n to labour

Cpoundorking day eturn to capital () arm income

Sheep Goa ts

42 65 94 39 63

- -Cfenterprise unit shy - -

1037 1450 2056 1053 1247 18(9

443 690 975 701 797 1206

467 726 1026 373 471 645 342 436 529 342 436 529 135 171 324 265 235 473

22 22 26 28 24 3C 101 101 128 169 128 17 middot5

588 753 1069 694 794 IJ89

By corapa r-i ng the incremental bross revenue to the varLabl raquos ts from the low to the high level of pr-oduc t av i t y (Tah1e 5) and ~om the small to the large LeveI of s i z e (lable 6) it can be derived tat it is more profitable to increase prociuctivi ty per an i maI r-athor ~n increase their numbers

DISCUSSIOl AND COFCLUSI011S

Sheep and goat production can be Lnc r-eae ed by increasing Lt

oduc t i v i t y of the animals or by increasin~ the size of the an i maL pulation or by a combination of the two The returns to the iividual producer however~ are affecteu apart of the productivity other factors namely 1 the size of the production unit the level )i

~zing the management system and others

- 11 shy

The data in this study indicated the economic advantage 1 Jotl_ for the individual producer and the national economy of increasine the sheep and goat production by improving the productivity of the animals than by increasing the size of the population For ewes and goatB it is obvious from the comparison of actual and norm data that commer-ciiI

milk yield can be doubled and lambing ratio can increase by 30-40 by

using genetic material and knowledge already available in Cyprus The adoption of fQttening of lambs and kids at weights up to 35 kg is hindered by the strong demand for baby laUD and kid meat and the nee~

of producers for cash However these obs t acLes may be overCOJTW by eppr-opr-ia t e policy measures and consumer oduoa t ion

Th6 study of different directionG of production and in particular the all-meat versus the high milk - low meat direction showed that at the levels assumed the milk and meat direction was slightly superior to the all-meat direction in terms of net returns and lower cost to the Government Nevertheless thG all-meat direction is economically sound and may be used in s peo i aLj aed si tuations in which skilled labour is limited while good possibilities exist for high levels of grazing

The size of the production unit required to obtain a certain level of farm income J8pends on many factors such as the productivity of the animals and the level of grazing The numbers of adult female animals required to obtain farn income of Cpound 2000 are 121 and 75 for commercial milk yields of 60 and 120 kg and lambing ratioe of 12 ard

16 respectively Assuming that these yields represent roughly the Local and the Chios sheep it is apparent that any benefits from increasinb the present size of the production units would be much higher if the increase in size was coupled with higher productivity Presently the size of most sheeJ or goat production units is smal18r than the siz8 required to achi8ve farw income of Cpound 2000

The rroblem of deciding the size of the production unit has many complex aspects This is so becausu the livestock enterpris8 in most places is combined with crop production and the relative size of the two on t er-prLs ee is determined by economic and other factors In this respect the amount opound family labour~ the availability and size of grazing areas and feeds and the relative profitability of the livestOCK enterprise in comparison with pos s r ble al ternative farm enterprises weigh heavily in det er-iain i ng the size of the sheep or goat production units

From the data of thi s and an oar-Iier study L 9 ] it is suggested that op t i mum utilization of resources in a mixed type of farming requires production units with 120 - 130 animals In a norm situation for numbers up to 1000 animals the returns to size were higher than zero suggesting that at present economies of siZe have not

- 12 shy

been exploited Of course larger production units do not neces5~rily

imply larger animal population th ey may resul t also from reorganizatior

of the existing population to larger economically viaole units

The level of grazing is inversely related to the feeding costs but increases labour cost The decrease in feeding cost frod

higher level of grazing is considerably higher than the increase in

labour cost There is no doubt that higher grazing level wilen possible J is economically beneficial both to the individual producGr

and the national economy and could be easily combined with the all-~~~t

direction of production It is proposed th~t the price of concentrstcO)

presently regulated by thE Government through the system of SUbsidies be kept at such level which will encourage the optimum utilization of

straw pastures and agricultural by-products

The goat production units (actual) were more variable than sheep units in the level of productivitJ-9 direction of production feeding prograDme and size Smaller goat units tended to be more productive consumed more concentrates per female animal and producei higher returns per animal than larger units This suggests that large units Hith low producing animals practised more grazing On the averagG 9 the gross revenue was higher for sheep but net returns from goats were slightly higher These differences were primarily due to higher level of grazing for goats than for sheep This comparison if

based on the average of the production units studied ~nd could not bE extrapolated to comparison of specific breeds of sheep and goats A comparative study of the Chios sheep and Damascus goat under norm

conditions was initiated at this Institute

- 13 shy

SUIDIARY

Data from 68 sheep 65 goat private production units (actual situation) and from Gov~rnment units (norm situationr were used to coraput c costs and returns and to study the main fa c t or-s affecting tht econooics of shoGp and goats in Cyprus The main conclusions of this study can be summarized as follows

1 It is more profitable as a ~irst step to incrGasG productivity per animal rather than increase their numbers With available gonetic material ana knowledge it is possible to double tho present milk yields and increase the number of lambs or kids per female animal by 30-40

2F~ttGning of lambs or kids at prosGnt prices can increase total and net returns SUbstantially with profound ~conomic advantages for the individual producer and tho national economy

3 The study of di~ferent directions of ~roduction showed that the milk and mlat direction was slightly suporior to the all-moat directionH01iGVer thE a I Le-meat di re c t i on of production may bo a sound economic alternative mainly in situations where good possibilities exist for high lcvul of razing and skilled labour is limited

4 The feed cost for high level of grazing was only half the cost for middotindoor fcodLng The loer fe ed cost 18S ruflectcd in higher net returns for the razing systems The cost differential between cost of grazing and fecding of concentrates should be adjusted to promoto grazing 8t th8 IGvlol which will mClOt at the minimum the maintenance r-oqu i r-crucn t s of auuI t animalsmiddot

5 With present 18v~ls of productivity 168 ewes or 151 goats arc roquirlQ to produclo farm incomb of Cpound 2000 In norm situations 75 OWbS pr-oducdng 120 kg milk and 16 1(111bs could I~roduc8 thc same income For this LcvcI of productivi ty the r-espec t i v- numbers for z er-o low and high grazing nystems war_ 123 75 and 65 ewes

Th authors gratefully acknowlGdge tl1G cooperation of ahoe p and goat producers and the assistancE providod by all members of the Agricultural Economics Slction

RLFERLFCES

1 Louca A Pr-eLimanar-y r-csuI ts on tho por-formarice of pur-ebr-ed and cross-bred sllecp Paper prosGDtcd a~ the RGgional Workshop for shclp and forage improvement February 11-14 1974 in Buirut~ Lebanon

- 14 shy

2 Chimonides 1 1972 Some faotors affGoting the productivity of DamQscus goats in Cyprus MS Thesis American University of Bei r-ut L8b~~lO[

3 Planning Bureau ThE first (1962-66) the second (1967-71) and t hlaquo

third (1972-76) Five Year Plan Planning Rur~au

Nioosia Cyprus

4 Agrioulturul Research Institute 1964 Cost and Returns of Shlq

and goats Agric Res Inst Nioosia Cyprus

5 Louca A Personal c omruurri ca t i cn Agrioultural Research Institute Nioosia Cyprus

6 Hadjipanayiotou M and Louca A 1975 PhG Effeots of partial suckling on the lactation Derformance of Chios sheep and Damasous goats and the growth rate of the lambs and kids (in preparation) Agricultural Research Institute Nicosia Cyprus

7 Louca A 1972 The effect of suckling regime on grmdh rate and laotation performance of the Cyprus Fat-tailed amI Chios sheep Anim Prod 15~53-59

8 Louca A ~ Mavr-ogen i s A and Lawlor ~1J 1975 ThE effect of early weaning on the laotation performanoe of Damascus goats and the growth rate of the kidb Anim Prod 20 213-218

9 Papachristodoulou S and Papas A 1975 The bconomios of drylan~

mixed farming in Cyprus Agrioultural Research Institute Nicosia~ Cyprus

10 Papachristodoulou S 1974 (Restrioted) Dryland Mixed Farwing A technical and economic anaLys i s of some typical fnrl~

participated in the Mixed Farming Project during 1968-1972 Agricultural Research ~nstitute Nicosia Cyprus

11 Papas A 1975 Protein requirements of ewes during laotution (in IJreparation) Agrioultural REJsearch Lns t i tu t e Nicosia Cyprus

12 Papas A 1975 Protein requirements of ewes during maintenanoe (in preparation) Agricultural Res~arch Institute Nioosia Cyprus

13 Papas~ A 1975 The protein requirements of early weaned lambs (in preparation) Agricultural Researoh Institutc 9

Nioosia CYfrus

- 15 shy

lTA P P E D I x

COHPUTATION OF DnUT-OUTPUT DATA OF SHEEP MID GOATS-Gross revenue is the total value of milkmeat cUlls wool and manuree

Sheep milk was sold at Cpound 0163kg and goat milk at Cpound 0112kg In the

actual situation revenue from lambs and kids 11018 based on receipts

adjusted to current prices It was assumed that in norm situation lambs

and kids were sold at 35 kg liveweight 0547kg The prices at 20 kg

liveweight and at weaning were Cpound 0625 and Cpound 0781 respectively A 5

death rate for lambs and kids was assumed Culling was estimated at

20 each year 5 of this was assumed to represent losses and the

remaining 15 of the culls sold at Cpound 125head It was assumed that

losses were directly related to productivity for every additional 10 kg

milk yield and 01 lambing ratio losses increased by 015 and by

005 respectively The revenue from wool and manure was estimated at

Cpound 0700 and Cpound 0500animal respectively (App Tables 16)

Variable costs include feed expenses (purchased or produced) other

expenses (veterinary hired labour) and interest on operating capitale

In the actual situation feed expenses for sheep remiddotprEHHlnted

the 95 of variable costs and 54 of total costs for goats these

percentages are 94 and 44 respectively (App Tables 1 and 2) In the

norm situation feed expenses for sheep or goats comprised approximately

95 of the variable costs ranging from 42-65 of the total costs

depending on the level of productivity direction of production and the

level of grazing (App Tables 3-5) The feed expenses forslle-epandmiddot

goats as percent of variable and total costs decreased from about

95-84 and increased from about 50-53 respectively depending on the

size of production unit (App Table 6)

Interest on operating capital represents 50 of the variable

costs at 8 interest rate

Fixed costs include rent of land family labour replacement

depreciation and interest on fixed capital

In the actual situation rent of land was charged for the area

under fodder crops while in the norm situation rent was charged only for

the area occupied by sheds and the milking parlour

- 16 shy

Family labour was valued atGpound 1600__p~r -wor~i~gslaY_~Ep_

ble 15 presents the labour requirements for 80 ewes or goats pr-ac t i c i rs

w or high grazing system at increasing levels of milk yield andmiddot

Lmbing or kidding ratios Also gives the calculation of the labou~

squ i r-ement s for the zero grazing system and increasing number of aniild

n this study it was assumed that 13 labour units(LbU) were c on tr i bu

ed by family labour and any additional labour w~cs treated as hired

abour-

The replacement was estimated at 20 of the value of animals

The annual depreciation rate of shed8 was estimated at 25

while interest rate used for sheds and livestock capital was 6

Total costs is the sum of variable and fixed costs and net profit the

difference between gross revenue and total coste (App Tables 1-6)

Return to labour (Cpoundwo~king day) was calculated by adding to the net

profit all labour costs and dividing this amount by the number of

working days (App Tables 1-6)

Return to capital () was calculated by adding to the net profit the

interest on operating and fixed capital and dividing the amount by tho

capital investments (excl land capital) and multiplied by 100 (App

Tables 1-6)

Farm income consisted of pai~ or imputed rent 9 remuneration of family

and hired labour interest charges and net profit (App Tables 1-6)

Cost to the government was computed from the v~lue of concentrates fed

using the coefficients of 039 and 043 for aault and young animals

respectively These coefficients represent the increase in percentaL~

of the present value of the concentrates which Would be paid by the

producers in the form of hi~her prices if marketing of feed grains waG

not regulated These coefficients were comI~t8d on the basis of the

difference of the prices for feed grains paid lJy the Government and t~l(

livestock producers and on the content of the concentrate mixtures in

the feed grains (App Tabl~s 3-6)

----------------

- 17 shy

App Table 1 Costs and Returns of Sheep Enterprises by Size Group (Actual)

--_SizebwrltuF (No of ewes)

30-50 50-80 80gt Mean Cpoundewe-----_-_-

No of observations 17 33 18 68

Average No of ewes 42 65 94 67 Milk production (kg) 2711 3442 5348 3764 Lambs Bold or consumed (No) 39 55 85 59 ------------------_shy

Ycilk and milk products 440 569 865 614 92 40middot9 Lambs 417 573 925 627 9 418 Culls 60 94 108 89 13 5middot8 Wool 28 48 71 49 07 31 Manure 19 30 41 30 04 18 Change of capital 71 136 55 98 15 6G

Gross Revenue Cpound 1037 1450 2056 1507 225 1000

Feed purchased 221 325 493 344 53 27 ~

Feed produced 72 118 103 103 15 77 Forage produced 150 246 379 257 38 19lt5 Other 6 8 12 8 01 0~5

Interest 18 28 39 29 04 20 ----------------___

Variable Costs Cpound 467 725 1026 741 111 ------ ------------_- shy

Rent of land 45 52 92 61 Family labour 342 436 529 437 )3 -I

~ IInterest and depreciation 48 66 85 66 -

-------~---------_ _

Fixed Costs Cpound 435 554 706 564

Total Costs bpound 902 1279 1732 1305 195 --__--____-__---shyNet profit Cpound 135 171 324 202 31

43- J

Return to labour (Cpoundworking day) 22 22 26 23

Return to capital () 101 101 128 108 Return over feed expenses Cpound 594 761 1081 804 Farm income Cf 588 753 1069 795 ---------------------~---------_

- 18 shy

Table 2 Costs and Returns of Goat Enterprises by Size Group (Actual)

Size group (lITo of gegtats )

30-50 50-80 80) Mean Ci-goat

No of observations 18 28 19 65

Average No of goats Milk production (kg) Kids sold or consumed (No)

39 4034

53

63 4439

71

98 6169 100

666 4833

74

Milk and milk products Kids Culls Manure Change of capital

331 552

54 19 97

364 704 80 28 71

505 1005 102

43 154

396 60 750 113 79 12 30 0middot5

103 15

293 551 59 24 73

Gross Revenue Cishy 1053 1247 1809 1358 20middot5 100 00

Feed purchased Feed produced Forage produced Other Interest

207 35

llO

7 14

236 53

156 8

18

263 36

304 17 25

236 43

186 II 19

3middot5 06 28 02 03

224 38

18J 13 loy

Variable Costs Cf 373 471 645 495 74 474

Rent of land Family labour Interest and depreciation

25 342 48

39 436

66

77 529 85

46 437

67

07 65 10

4middot5 417

64

Fixed Costs Cf 415 541 691 550 82 526

Total Costs Cf 788 1012 1336 1045 156 1000

Net Frofi t Cf 265 235 473 313 49

Return to labour (Cpoundworking day)

Return to capital () Return over feed expenses Farm income

Cf Of

28 169

700 694

24 128

802 794

30 17middot5 1206 1189

27 153 892 882

- 19 shy

App Table 3 Effect of Level of Produotivity and Direction of a) Produotion on the Costs and Returns of Sheep (Norm)

Milk yield (kgewe)

Lambing ratio

Milk Lambs Culls

Wool Manure

Gross Revenue

Feed for ewes i) Concentrates

ii) Hay amp straw Feed for lambs

i) Concentrates Other Interest

Variable Costs

Rent Famil y labour Replacement Depreciation Interest

Fixed Costs

Total Costs

Gross Profi t

Net Profit

Return to labour (Cpoundworking day)

Return to capital () Cost to the Government

deg 60 120 200

26 12 16 08

782 3781 1748 142 139

56 56 40 40

1565 2325 128

56 40

2608 1163

120 56 40

Cpound 4019 2765 4114 3986

676 464

988 446 12 12 67 37

728

601 12 54

720

294 12 41

Cpound 1743 959 1395 1067

2 2

364 449 544 504

19 19 82 82

2

534 608 19 82

2

590 640 19 82

ce 1011 1056 1245 1333

Cpound 2754 2015 2640 2400

Cpound 2276 1606 2719 2919

Cpound 1265 750 1474 1586

72 43 60 59 392 269 46middot7 521

Cpound 688 373 542 407

a) Assuming 80 8W~S and low grazing

- 20 shy

App Table 4 Effect of Level of Productivity and Direction of a) middotmiddotmiddot----middot --Produc_tiQ[l on the Costs and Returns of Goats (Norm) bull

bull bullbullbullbull ~ __R_ ~~__bullbullbull ~ bullbullbull _

-_ ----~ bull

Milk yield (kggoat)

Kidding ratio

0

34

80

16

160

20

2$0

13

Milk Lambs Culla

4511 137

717 2136 134

1434 2652 120

2503 1743

106

Manuremiddot 40 40 40 40

Gros smiddot R-eAfnu-e- Cpound 4688 3027 4246 4398

Feed for goats ) ConcentratesJ I

ii) Hay amp straw Feed for kids

i) Concentrates Other Interest

824

1023 12 74

560

482 12 42

832

601 12 58

928 ~

391 12 53

Variable Coiits Cpound 1933 1096 1503 1384

Rent Family labour Replacement Depreciation Interestmiddot_middotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddot

2 366 608 19 82

2 488 560

19 82

2 566 688 19 82

2 617 776 19 82

Fixed Cos is Cpound 1077 1151 1357 1496

Total Cost s Cpound 3010 2247 2860 J 2880

Gross Froht Cpound 2755 1931 2743 3014

Net PI-ofit

Cpound 1678 780 1386 151[

Return to labour (Cpoundworking day)

Return to capital () 89

493 42

274 55

436 505

480 Cost to the Oovernmen t --6pound---middot761 middot425 51n __

~_~- -- _--___-~ _ M bullbullbull_ bullbull___ R bullbullbull __bullbull __ bull

o _ bullbull

~301 __

a) Assuming 80 goats and low grazing

- 21 shy

App Table 5 Effect of Level of GraZirg on the Costs and Returns of Sheep and Goats (Norm) a

Shee~ Goats Level of gra~ing Zero Low High Zero Low Rigl

Milk yield (kgfemale animal) 120 120 120 160 160 16

Lambing or kidding ratio 16 16 16 20 20 2()

Milk 1565 1565 1565 1434 1434 l434 Lambs 2326 2326 2326 2652 2652 2652 Culls 128 128 128 120 120 120 Wool 56 56 56 Manure 40 40 40 40 40 40

Gross Revenue Cpound 4115 4115 4115 4246 4246 4246

Feed for ewes or goats i) Concentrates 1292 728 408 1508 832 505

ii) Ray amp straw 288 282 Feed for lambs or kids

i) Concentrates 601 601 601 602 602 602 Other 12 12 12 12 12 12 Interest 88 54 41 96 58 45

Variable Costs Cpound 2281 1395 1062 2500 1504 116r _ _-

Rent 2 2 2 2 L 2 Family labour 390 534 534 422 566 565 Replacement 608 608 608 688 688 68P Depreciation 19 19 19 19 19 1)

Interest 82 82 82 82 82 8e

Fixed Costs Cpound 1101 1245 1245 1213 1357 1357

Total Costs Cpound 3382 2640 2307 3713 2861 252

Gross Profit Cpound 18~4 2720 3053 1746 2743 30t)2

1Tet Profit Cpound 733 1475 1808 533 1385 1725

Return to labour (Cpoundworking day) 46 60 70 36 5middot5 65

Return to capital () 232 467 588 178 436 55( Feed cost to the Government Cpound 762 542 418 847 583 456

a) Assuming 80 female adult animals

- 22 shy

App Table 6 Bffect of the Size of the Pr-oduc t ion Unit on the Costs and Returns of Sheep and Goats (NJrm)

SheGE Goats

Ewes or goatsfarm 80 160 200 80 160 2()(I

Milk yield (kgfemale animal) 120 120 120 160 160 16~)

Lambing or kidding ratio 16 16 16 20 20 2 0

Milk 1565 3130 3912 1434 2867 35[1 Lambs 2326 4651 5814 2652 5305 66jl Culls 128 256 320 120 240 300 Wool 56 112 140 Manure 40 80 100 40 80 100

Gross Revenue Cpound 4115 8229 10286 4246 8492 10615

Feed for awes or goats i) Concentrates 728 1456 1820 832 1664 208

ii) Hay amp straw Feed for lambs or kids

i) Concentrates 601 1202 1502 602 1203 1504 Hired labour 203 385 266 4f- u_)

Other 12 24 30 12 24 jC)

Interest 54 115 150 58 126 163

Variable Costs Cpound 1395 3000 3887 1504 3283 42C

Rent 2 4 5 2 4 Family labour 534 624 624 566 624 621 Replacement 608 1216 1520 688 1376 1( 2(

Depreciation 19 32 40 19 32 4C Interest 82 159 198 82 159 19t

Fixed Costs Cpound 1245 2035 2387 1357 2195 255 _ _--_ __

Total Costs Cpound 2640 5035 6274 2860 5478 6521

Gross Profit Cpound 2720 5226 6399 2743 5209 Ggt7)

net Profit Cpound 1475 319L~ 4012 1385 3014 Ll3 -

Return to labour (Cpoundworking day) 60 78 80 5middot5 70 SoU

Return to capital () 467 510 510 436 475 538 Feed cost to the Government Cpound 542 1085 1356 583 1166 145[

- 23 ~

App Table 7 Prices Received and Paid

Prices received Unit Cpound-Milk sheep kg 0163

goat kg 0112 Lamb or kid

At leaning kg 1ivQwoight 0781 At 20 kg kg 0625 At 35 kg kg II 0547

Wool Cpoundanima1 0100 Manure Cpoundanima1 0500

Prices paid

Feed roughage

Straw ton 120 Cereal hay ton 200

Concentrates

Creep feed ton 500 15 crude protein (as fed) ton 458 13 crude protein (as fed) ton 438 11 crude protein (as fed) ton 400

Labour working day 16

Rent of land donum 15

App Table 8 Capital Investments

Land

Sheds for 80 female animals

160 female animals 200 female animals

Value of animals Ewes (0 kg milk 26 lambing ratio)

(60 kg milk 12 lambing ratio) (120 kg milk 16 lambing ratio ) (200 kg milk 08 lambing ratio)

Goats( 0 kg milk 34 kidding ratio) ~ 80 kg milk 16 kidding ratio) (160 kg milk 20 kiddinB ratio) (280 kg milk 13 kidding ratio)

Operating capital (50 of variable costs)

Cpounddonum 300

Cpoundshed 1800 Cpoundahed 13500 Cpoundshed 16600

CrJeue 330

315

380

400

Cpoundgoat 380

340

400

425

vpp Table 9 Gross RevenuG (Cpoundewe) at Incr-eas Ing LeveI s of Milk Yi o Ld and Lcml~ng Rc tios (rorm)

Millt Y i e 1 d (kg eVi8)Lambing ratio 0 20 4~ 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200

08 163 208 253 298 343 388 433 ~n 8 523 568 613 10 201 246 29 ~ 1 33~6 381 426 471 516 561 606 651

12 240 284 32~9 37~4 419 464 509 554 599 644 689 16 31 6 360 40~5 45o 495 540 585 630 675 720 765 18 355 398 44~3 488 533 578 623 668 713 758 803 22 431 474 519 56~4 609 654 699 744 789 834 879

26 508 550 5915 64+ 0 658 730 775 820 865 910 955 30 584 626 67h 71~6 761 806 851 896 941 986 1034

~--

- _ N

~

App Table 10 Gross Revenue (Cpoundgoat) at Increasing LeY11s of Milk Yield and Kidding Ratios (Norm) bull

M i llt Y i e 1 d (kg L~at) IKidding ratio

middot0 40 80 l~d 160 200 240 280 320 360 400

08 148 193 237 28~~ 327 372 41 7 461 506 551 596 12 218 263 307 35~2 397 442 487 531 576 621 666 16 287 333 37-7 42l~ 467 512 55middot7 601 646 691 736 20 355 403 447 49 ~ 2 537 582 627 671 716 761 806 24 -422 473 51 7 56~ 60middot7 652 697 74middot1 786 831 876

bull 28 488 543 58~7 632 677 722 767 811 856 901 946 32 564 613 65 ~ 7 70~~ 747 792 837 881 926 971 1016 36 634 683 72~7 772- 81 7 862 907 951 996 1041 1086

I

1)App Table 11 Concentrates Consumed (kgewe) Low Grazing System

Lambi ng Y i e 1 d i n mil k (kg ewe) ratio

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200

08 568 708 848 98 8 1128 1268 1408 1548 1688 1828 1968 LO 710 850 990 1130 127middot0 1410 1550 1690 1830 1970 2110 12 852 992 1132 1272 1412 1552 1692 1332 1972 2112 2252 16 1136 1276 1416 1556 1696 1836 1976 2116 2256 2396 2536 18 1278 1418 1558 1698 1838 1978 2118 2258 2398 2538 267middot8 22 1562 1702 1842 1982 2122 2262 2402 2542 2682 2822 2962 26 1846 1986 2126 2266 2406 2546 2686 2626 2966 3106 3246 30 2130 2270 2410 2550 2690 2830 2970 311 0 325middot0 3390 3530

ro1) I~aintenancerequirement of adult animals met by grazing V1

Assumptions for grazing systems

1 07 kg feeds of 15 crude protein (as fed basis) was fed per kg milk produced or sucked [iy 2 50 kg milk was suoked by each lamb from birth to weaning at 35 days 3 In late pregnancy each ewe received on the average 36 kg concentrates above maintenance for each lamb carried 4 In zero grazing maintenance requirements during the dry period were met by 06 kg straw and 05 kg

concentrates of 11 crude protein (as fed basis) [1~ I~ late pregnancy (6 weeks before lambing) and during lactation each ewe received 06 kg cereal hay and 04 kg concentrates to meet the maintenance requirements Other requirements in concentrates were met as in low grazing syste~

App liable 12 Conoentcates Consumed (kgg02t ) i Low Grazing SJ34~OT 1)- (I

----------------------T -----------~-_--------------------------------------------------shy

M gt~_~ LL~_~iJ~_8poundatl Kidding ratio

o 40 80 120 160 200 240 280 320 360 400 -----_ ------~---~ _- ----------__--__-----shy

08 528 768 1008 1248 138 1728 1960G 2208 24Li8 2688 2928 12 792 1032 1272 1512 175middot2 1992 2232 2472 271 2 2952 3192 16 1056 129 u 6 1536 ~-77 6 20l6 2256 2496 =736 2976 3216 3456 20 1320 1560 J80o 2040 2280 2520 2760 3000 3240 3480 3720 24 1584 1[24shy 2064 2304 2-~4middot 4 27S~4 3024 32604 350middot4 3 7 11++ 3984 28 1848 2038 23 28 2568 2808 30~ 8 328f3 ~)52 8 3768 4008 42~ 8

-3 ~ 211 2 2352 2592 2832 3072 3312 3552 37902 4032 4272 +51 2

______ 36

_-__ 2379

- 2616 2856 3096

___shy__ 3336 3576

_ 3826

middot 4056 L_~

429gt6 middot

L15306 _ _

4776

1) Maintenance requirements of adult animals met-JY grazing ro 0

~~~mption for grazing system

1 06 kg feed of 15 crude protein (as fed basis) was fed per kg milk produced or suoked 2 50 kg milk was sucked by each kid from birth to wean~ng at 70 days Partial suckling was practised from the

30th day onwards 3 In late pregnancy each goat received on the average 36 kg concentrates above maintenance for each kid carried 4 In zero grazing maintenance requirements in the dry period were met by 06 kg of straw and 05 kg of

concentrates of 11 crude protein (as fed basis)

29

- 27 shy

App Table 13 Feed Cost and Revenue for Lamb Fattening

Lambing ratio

08 10 12middot 16 18 22 26

aConcentrates (kg) I

Birth to weaning Weaning to 20 kg Birth to 20 kg 20 kg to 35 kg Birth to 35 kg

09 290 299 54~0

839

1 J 13 17 20 368middot 449 618 706 37middot9 462 635 726 675 810 1080 1215

1054 1272 1715 1941

24 890 914

1485 2399

1036 106e5 175middot5 2820

Saleable Iiveweight (kg)

at weaning at 20 kg at 35 kg

87 160 280

108 200 35middot0

12~8

24middot0 420

174198 320 360 56~0 630

249 44middot0 770

290 520 910

Feed expenses

at weaning mils 45 55 65 -85 100 120 145 to 20 kg Cf 14 17 21 29 33 42 49 __ to 35 kg Cf 37 46 56 7middot5 85 10middot5 123

Revenue Cf

Lamb sale Lamb sale Lamb sale

at weaning ~~ 20 kg at 35 kg

68 100shy153shy

gt ~_ bull bullbullbullbull ~-

84 125 191

100 136 150 200 230 306middot

15middot5 225 345

194 27middot5 421

226 32 c 49 e

Assumed birthweight 47 45 42 38

a) It was assumed that the protein content of the ooncentrates mixture feed from birth to weaning was 168 and from 20 to 35 kg 143 on dry matter basis [1[

- 28 shy

App Table 15 Labour Raquire~entl) for 80 poundMes or Goats Practising Low or High Grazing at Increasing Levels of Milk Yield and Lambing or Kidding Ratios

i

Lamhing Y i e 1 d i n mil k (kg Le_we) ratio

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 280

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - Lbua)production unit - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -08 0749 0813 0869 0933 1013 1069 1109 1149 1113 1205 1229 1283 10 0150 0814 0870 0934 1014 1010 1110 1150 1114 1206 1230 1284 12 0151 0815 0811 0935 1015 1011 1111 1151 1115 1201 1231 1285 14 0152 0816 0812 0936 1016 1012 1112 1152 1116 1208 1232 1286 16 0153 0811 0813 0937 1011 1013 1113 153 1117 1209 1234 1287 18 0154 0818 0874 0938 1018 1074 1114 1154 1178 1210 1235 1288 20 0155 0819 0875 0939 1019 1015 1115 1155 1119 1211 1236 1289 22 0756 0820 0876 0940 1020 1016 1116 1156 1180 1212 1237 1290 24 26

0151 0158

0821 0822

0871 0878

0941 0942

1022 1023

1017 1018

1111 1118

1157 1158

1181 1182

1213 1214

1238 1239

1291 1292

ro -D

28 0759 0823 0879 0943 1024 1019 1119 1159 1183 1215 1240 1293 30 0760 0824 0880 0middot944 1025 1080 1120 1160 1184 1216 1241 1 294 34 0162 0826 0882 0946 1027 1082 1122 1162 middot _____middot L_ 1186 1218 1242 1295

a) 1 LbU = 300 working days

1) Low and high grazing system Calculated as followsi

Labour requirement (LbU) = 015 + (lambing ratio - 10) x 0005 +

Labour for milkin~ (days)+ X No of female animals 300

+) Assuming 6 minutesanimalday

Zero grazing system Labour requiremunt (lbU) = Low or high grazing system (LbU) - 0300 for 80 female animals

- 0550 for 160 female animals - 0650 fOr 2rl) tomcIc animals

Page 5: FACTORS AFFECTING THE ECONOMICS OF SHEEP AND GOATSnews.ari.gov.cy/Publications/AER4-papas.pdfFACTORS AFFECTING THE ECONOMICS OF SHEEP AND GOATS . By . ... Costs and Returns of Goat

FACTORS AFF~CTIRG THB ECONOMICS OF SH~P A1l) GOATS

By

1)Andreas Papas and Stelios Papachr1stodoulou

INTRODUCTION

During the last decade substantial private and pUblic funds have been invested in sheep and goats The primary aim was to increasamp the number and improve the productivity of the animals Improvement was sought through the introduction of the Chios sheep and the Damascus goat whioh are characterized by prolificacy and high milk yieldS~l a7 Concurrently improved nutritional and managerial methods were promoted to increase production tJi The structure of the production unit however which emerged in the long process of development of this industry was far from clear Presently the sheep and goat production units vary widely in size productivity direction of production and feeding programme

In Cyprus marginal land and cereal stubble provide grazing for sheep and goats Indoor feeding is another alternative in which the size of the production unit is determined primarily by economic considerations but calls for higher feeding costs At tho same time feeding of concentrates carries a cost to the Government in subsidies and foreign exchange for imports of feed grains

The availability of skilled labour on the farm limits the size of the production unit because of the high labour involved in shepherding and milking~~ Workers with skills in animal hUsbandry are in short supply because of the difficult working conditions as the low social prestige attached to such jobs In view of the difficulties in mGchanizing milking and shepherding it is important to study the economics of alternative direotions such as all-meat production in which the skilled labour requirement is lower

1) Assistant Agricultural Research Officers

- 2 shy

In this report data collected from 63 sheep and 65 goat falm~

were used to study the economics of the existinb production units Other data fro~ the experimental farm of the Agricultural Research Ens t i tu t e the ~iargo and other Governraent farms were used to compute costs and ~eturns of norm production units varying in (i) productivity and tiirection of production Le meat andor milk (ii) level of grazing practised and (iii) s iz e

MbTliOD ur AJULYSIS

Norm situation

Costs and returns were computed using the budgeting method The basic information such as feed required per animal fo~ maintenance and production management systems (partial suckling age at weaning) etc was obtained from pUblished and non published data from the

Agricultural Research Institute and other Government farms The units studied varied in the following parameters

I Level of productivity and direction of Eroductio~Various levels of productivity in terms of sal~able milk and lambing or kidding ratio were studied The extreme combinations namely those conbining zero milk yield with high lambing or kidding ratios and high milk productlon withlow lambing or kidding ratios represented the meat and dairy directions of production respectively

II Level of graz~~~ The following three systems were studied

~ero grazi~~ All feed requirements were met by indoor feeding of cereal hay straw and concentrates Lm1 grazil~ The maintenance requirements of all adult animals were met by grazing and all others including those for fattening were met by feeding concentrate mixtures High grazi~f2 Cllhe maintenance requirements plus the equivalent of 85 kg of conc0ntr~tes for each ewe and 90 kg for each goat were met by grazing 1he baLaric e of the requirewents including all feed requirements for fattening were met by indoor feeding or concentrates

III Size of ihe production unit The fol Lov ing sizes as measured by the numbers of adult female animals were studied 80 160 and 200 animals Larger units up to 1000 animals 11-1818 considered multiples of the production unit with 200 animals with all cost items increasing linearly exoept for labour

Actual situation

The accounting method was used for computing costs and returns in the actual situation The 60 sheep and 65 goat farms studied were located in Villages of the Nicosia Larnaca Famagusta and Limassol districts The proQQcers were handed special

- 3 shy

questionnaires and were shown how to enter the raw uata A stqff member of the Agricultural Economics Section paid monthly visits to summarize the data and answer any questions raised Each production unit was treated as one observation Costs and returns were computed for each farm and group of farms The relationship of the gross revenue to tne main cost i terns was deterwined by regression anal ys i s

Details of the cowputations of costs and returns of the actual and norm proQuction units are presented in the Appendix The basic assumption under-Lydng these computations was that current prices were operative for both production units

EcmWMIC RBSULTS

J NORM SITUATION

L Level of productivity and direcmiddottion of production Sheep and goats in Cyprus serve a dual purpose namely meat and milk production with no emphasis on wool As stated earlier milking of ewes is a specialized laborious activity which cannot be easily mechanized Thus the Low availabili ty of skilled labour on farm limits the size of the family type production unit It Ls therefore important to examine the labour requirement and the economics of alternative directions of production and in particUlar the all-meat production unit in norm situations (Table 1)

The extreme situations of 200 kg milk and 08 lambs (column d) and zero milk and 26 lambs (column a) may be taken to ~epresent the dairy and meat directions resIectively while the ewes giving 120 kg and 16 lambs (column c) represent an intermediate situation The 26 lamhs in the allmiddot-meat direction can he achieved by an appropriate s ys t em which will make possible 15 lambings yearly In such system the ewes have shorter lactations and are mated soon after weaning of Lanbe 111 though not pr-ac t i s ed wiuely at present thL system Has tested in Cyprus and in other countries yeni th pr-orai s Lng

resul ts L5 J The data in Table 1 show that in a system in which the

maintenance requirements are met by grazing (low grazing) the above three directions (columns d c a) resulted in comparable gross revenue The feed costs hOilever increase wi th higher lambing ratio because all concentrate feeding was assumed for fattening The higher costs primarily for concentrates result in higher cost to the Government The labour requirement is lowest for the all-meat direction and highest for the milk direction The lower labour requirement makes possible the increase of the number of animals in the all-meat production unit

As shown in Tahle 1 the all-meat direction in goats result in slightly higher revenue than the other systems but this advantage

- 4 shy

is cancelled by the higher feeding costs The other cost and returns items show similar trends as with sheep

For the s arne number of animals the production uni ts or-Len t eu towards milk production require lowe-r feeeting but higher labour costs For the yields assumed above there is an aCivantage in net returDS to the producer and lower cost to the Government of the dual or dairy type over the all-meat direction The all-meat direction nevertheless is an economically sound aL ternative especiully in si tuations of shor-ta u in skilled labour and potential for high grazing It must however 5

be emphasized that these comparisons are made on empirically chosen yields and that the economics may change as yields and prices change

Table 1 Effect of Level of Productivity anQ Direction of Production on the Costs and Returns of Sheep and Goats (Iorm)a)

Sheep (a) (b) (c) (d) (e)

Milk yield (kgewe) 0 60 120 200 200 Lambing rati 0 26 12 16 08 16

- - -Cpoundenterprise -

Gross revenue 4019 2765 4114 3987 5175 Feed cost 1664 910 1329 1014 1530 Variable cost 1743 959 1395 1067 1604 Labour cost 364 449 534 590 592 Net profit 1265 750 1474 1586 2171 Returns to labour

(Cfworking day) 7~2 43 60 5middot9 7middot5 Returns to capital () 39middot2 269 467 521 833 Fa r m income 1780 1321 2147 2302 2910 Cost to the Government 688 373 542 407 622 Gross revenue per Cpound 171 135 132 102 120

Goats (a) (b) (c) (d) Milk yield (kggoat) 0 80 160 280 Kidding ratio 34 16 20 13

- - - - - - --Cpoundenterpriseshy - -----shyGross revenue 4688 3027 4246 4398 Feed cost 1847 1042 1434 1319 Variable cost 1934 1096 1503 1384 Labour cost 366 488 566 617 Net profit 1678 780 1386 1518 Returns to labour

(Cfworking day) 89 L1 --I bull L 5middot5 5middot5

Returns to capital (~n 493 274shy 436 480 Farm income 2202 1395 2094 2272 Cost to the Covernmen t 761 425 583 530 Gross revenue per Cf 162 140 137 121

a) Assuming 80 female adult animals and low grazing

- 5 shy

The comparison of column b (lOrl productivi ty) to columns a c d and e shows that 9 at these levels 9 the increase in returns is faster than the in6rease in costs The additional fsed costs res~ltinl

from the hiher requirements accounted for the largest part of till increase in variable costs In contrast~ the cost of labour incr8ase~

only slowly in columns c 9 d and e and decreased in column a Thi3 suggests that if the available genetic ~aterial and knowledge was

etlployed to increCise pr-oduo t i vi ty there Hould be a need for Lnc r-eas i ns cas] 8ltIJ8nlt88 for purchos i ng feed but there wouLd not be any [ignific_~L shyincrease in labour r-equ i r-eraent In con t r-as t labour avai Labi Lf ty jlay be limitinb the size of the production unit

8ffect of intensive fattening

Based on earlier work ~6 7 9 ~ it was assumed that lambs were weaned ai 35 days and kids at 70 days and that partial suckling was practised from 16th and 30th day onwards for lambs and kids respectively ThE sale of lambs at weanin~o9 20 kflS and 35 kg Livewe i ght produced revenue of Cpound 136 Cpound 200 and Cpound 306 for lambing ratio of 16 The additional expense primarily in feed costs was Cpound 29 and Cpound 77 for increases in gross revenue of Cpound 64 and Cpound 170 respectivey

Table 2 Effect oi Fat t en i ng of Lambs and Kiels OD the Costs and Returns of Sheep and Goats (Norm)a)

Goats ireanincmiddot i-reaning

35 k s(35 day~) 20 kg 35 kg (70 days) Liveweight solJ kgfemale animal 17middot4 320 560 313 63(

Revenue from lambs or kids Cpound female animal 136 200 306 244 349

Lambs or kids feed 8xpenses Cpoundfcrnale anir1al 01 29 7middot5 04 7middot5

Variable costs Crfemale animal 9middot7 126 174 114 188

Labour exrens es Cpoundfemal~ arrimaL 65 66 67 69 7middot1

Not profit Cpoundfemale ani mal 9middot3 127 184 97 17middot3

Return to capital () 265 343 470 269 434 Return to labour

CfwOrking day 40 47 60 41 61 Farm income

Cpoundfemale animal 169 206 268 177 26 ] Cost to the Gover-nmen t Cpoundfemale animal 36 47 68 -~ 2 7middot3

a) Fora product i cn unit 101i th 80 _wes producing 120 kg milk and 16 lambs or so goats produc i ng 160 kg mil and 20 kids with low level of euro-rJzing

- 6 shy

The cost to benefit ratio of 045 is sigl1ificantly lower than thb ratio of 063 which would be required to incz-eae e meat through LrL~

numbers of sheep The high differences betv een addi t i onal cost and revenue was also reflected in higher profit farm income and returns to capi tal and Labour The cost to the Governrrent would increase b~

Opound 11 and Cpound 32 respectively because fa t t erLng was based on conoentra te feeds In general the Govermnent pad d more th~n 13 of 0h~

variable costs for fattening This cost however is lower than the expense in foreign exchange for Lmpor t Ln Lamb meat at present pri c ce

It is thus concluded that fattening of lambs up to 35 kC liv8weight increases significantly the gross revenue and all return i t erue Fa ttening required only minor additional labour and no significant capital investment in shedS machinery etc but profi tabili ty of lamb and kid fattening de penua primarily on the price relationship of feeds and meat

II Level of grazing

The effect of zero low and high grazing s ys t ems on the main return and cost i terns of producti on uni ts Hi th 80 ewes or 80 goa ts ar~middot

presented in Table 3 The feed cost desreased significantly with increasing level of grazing being only half that of the zero grazing system Savings in feed costs was reflected in higher farm income returns to labour and capital and net profit for the two ayst ems wi -U

gr-az i ng as compared to indoor feeding Irr om the inputs only the- llt)oT cost was higher in the high grazing system than in the zero grazin~~

system The additional labour cost however of Cpound 144 was smaller compared to th8 saving in feed accounting to Cpound 1171 for ewes and Opound 1285 for goats in the high grazing sybtem

Table 3 Effect of Level of GraZing On the Costs and Returns of SLeeT and Goats (Norm)a)

Sheep Goats Level of grazing Zero Low High Zero Low Higt

- - - - - -ORproduction unit- - - shy

Gross revenue 4114 4114 4114 4246 4246 42-~6

Feed cost 2180 1329 1009 2392 1434 i ic Concentrates 1893 1329 1009 2110 1434 1107 Hay amp straw 287 282

Variable cost 2280 1395 1062 2500 1503 116 Labour cost 390 53- 534 422 566 5St Net profit 733 1475 1807 533 1386 1725 Return to labour

Cfworking day 46 60 70 36 55 6middot) Return to capital (~ ) 23middot5 470 592 178 436 55middot(Cost to the Government 762 542 417 847 583 4Y~

Farra income 1295 2147 2467 1135 2094 2j~C

================-==========-- a) For a unit with 80 ewes producing 120 kg milk and 16 lambs or 80

goats producing 160 kg milk and 20 kius

- 7 shy

The cost to the Government in terms of subsidies for

concentrates is almost twice as high for indoor feeding as compareu to -- high grazing s ya t em In addition zero gr2~ing involves a high expenslaquo

in foreign exchange as Cyprus is a net ili1portcr of large quanti ti83 of

feed grain Thus maxi murn use of grazing i r to the benefit of bo th tIle

LndivLduaI producer and thG national ec ouomy It is therefore 5

necessary to keep the cost d i ffer-en t i aI -1 a level which would

encourage the full utilization of grazin- aroas and allow tne opt i mum

LlSt3 of feed grain It is clifficul t to d e t e r-mine the opt i mum s i z e of this differential because of the wide variation in the availability of graamping from one part of Cyprus to the other andthe effect of the price of thE- feed grain on the price of r1any basic fOOd items

111 Size of the production unit

Data on the main cost and return items of norm production

units varying in size are presented in Table 4

Table 4 Lffect of the Size of the Production Unit on the Costs

and Returns of Sheep and Goats (Noro)a)

Female animals per farm 80

Sheep

160 200 80

Goats

160 200

Gross revenue

Feed cost

Variable costs

Labour cOstshy

Net frofi t Return to labour

Cpoundworking day

Return to capital () Farm inoome

- - shy -

4115 1329 1395

534 1475

60 467 2147

- - -

8229 2658 3000

827 3194

70middot3 510 4298

-Crproduction unital

10286 4246 8492 3322 1433 2867 3887 1503 3283 1009 566 890

1386 -

4012 3014

80 5middot5 70 510 436 47middot5 5374 2094 4192

- shy -

10615 358shy4240 1087 4328

80 518 5781

-

a) For ewes producing 120 kg milk ana 16 lambs or goats producing

160 kg milk and 20 k ide on the 10Vl crazinb s ys t em

It is ilpparent that the size of the production unit affects

costs and returns significantly Fo r the yields stated above (Table -i-) 75 ewes are requireJ to obtain farm income of Cpound 2000 As would be

expected the size required to obtain Q certain level of farm incoffib

SfiY Cpound 2000 depends on many factors such iS the productivi ty of

anioills and the level of grazing This is illustrated in the followin6

examples g For ewes producing zero mi Lk yield arid 26 lambs 90 ewesn

r-equ i r edj for 60 kg milk and 12 lambs 121 ewes for 180 kg nu Lk and

10 lambs 71 ewes For zero low and high grazing with ewes producin[

120 kg milk and 16 lambs the respective numbers rBquired to obtain

farm income of Cr 2000 are 123 75 and 65

- 8 shy

B ACTUAL SITUATIOJX

I Effect of the level of productivity

The actual data collected fr-on tile sheep and goat pr-oduc t i cn units wer( classified in thrE)e levels of productivity namely~ low medium and high on the basis of the gross revenue obtained per adult female animal The means of the main cost anci return items for each group are presented in Table 5

Table 5 Costs and Returns of Sheep and Go~ts by Level of Productivity (Actual)

Sheep Goat

Level of productivity Low Medium High Low Medium Higll

Number of farms Ewes or goats per farm Milk yield

(kgfemale animal) Lambs raised per ewe or kids per goat

Concentrates (kgfemale animal)

18 72

48

11

117

29 72

57

12

135

18 54

68

13

143

16 80

37

13

65

33 64

74

15

108

16

59

126

19

200

Gross revenue (Ctfemale animal) 194 224 273 13 3 202 31 Z

Variable costs 106 lll 110 56 65 128 Gross profit 88 113 163 7middot7 13middot7 184

The hiSher productivity in the ncdium and high levels was pr9bably due to better feeding~ superior management and better genetic material from the Chios breed and the Damascus goat ~9 lQ7

The pz-oduc t i vi ty per animal incr8ased with the aLlowan ce of conc en t r-at ea as shown by the highly s i gr Lf i carrt regression coe tfLc i en t between gross revenue Cpoundfemale aniwal (Y) and concentrates fed in kg (X) the equation being Y = 1012 + 0056X (r=057) for ewes and = 947 + 0066x (r=O56) for goats The ~dditional cost of concentrashytes accounted for most of the Lnor-eas e in variable co s t s The returns obtained from animal with higher productivity w~re significantly higher tilan the additional costs bull At present ~ therefore there are wid margins for increasing productivity at low cost The data of Table 5 show that the commercial milk yield of the production units studied may be doubled while the average lambing or kidding ratio may bb improved by 30-40 L 1 J The average milk yi 61d and 1ambing or kidding ratios recorded in this study are the same as those recorded earlier [4]

- 9 shy

Ihe deL ta in Aplenuix Ta bl GS 1 and 2 show that on the CLV8r-tmiddot 09 lambs and 11 kids were sold per female animal producing a revenu~

of Cpound 94 ani Cpound 113 respectively At the price of Cpound 0781 per k 6 liveweignt this corresponds to the production of 120 and 145 kg of liveweight r-s s peo t i vel y for each ewe or gl)[t When oompared to the norm d~ta for similar lambing or kidding rltios it is concluded that the lambs and kids Nere sold at the age of eppr-oxi mately 8 - 10 WSOK3

at Which the producers usually wean the lambs and kids This would suggest tha t for the production units studied tfHlrewas no larte scale fa ttening of Lambs or kids beyond lHaninf at the aetJ of 6-10 we ek a The majority of the producers stated that they practised partial suckLin and that thcy offered creep feed to the lambs and k i ds Fran the discussion with th6se producers it was conclueltjd that the main reasons for no large scale fa t t cn ing were tradi t i on the higher l)ricus received for baby lamb and kid and the need for cash partcularly before revenue from milk was received

II Level of grazing

The data available do not allow a detailed study of the effect of the level of grazing on the costs and returns in the actual situation

It is possihle however to drd~ some conclusions from the5~

data in comparison to the norm situation The livestock producers of this study fed on the average 132 kg of concentrates for each ewe and 120 kg for each goat In add i ti on 08 donums of green forage vlclS

cansuQed by each female aniwal and its followers Similar trends WbTB

observed in ano thez- etuuy L9 J Compar-ed to norm produo t i on units or

comparable y i elds it a ppear-s that feed requirements for maintenance arto ruet by gr-az i ng gr-e en forage and straw 9 whi l E t he r equ i r-emerrt s for production are met by concentrates For ollis 9 tlH level of grazino is hi6her than she up especiallj for production units with more than 30 female adult an imaLs as indicated by tl( lower amount of concentrates fed for comparative yields

Thl level of grazin~ practised is limited by the low ava i La hi Li ty of pas tur-es and t no abe enc e of large grazing areas There are also institutional r8gulations by 10c81 authorities limi tin~ the maximum nunrber of animals a t tendcd oy a sincle shepherd Compar-ed to the norm situation the average of grazing was slightly below the designated as low level

III Size of the production unit

Data on tho main cost and return items of actual produotion units varying in size and presented in Table 6 The regression of gross revenue (YGB) or variable oosts (Yvd on the number of adult ewes (X) revealed a sienificant linear relation the equations being

- 10 shy

A ~

2138 + 193X (r=091) YVC = 97 + 109X (r=064) For goat8~YGR = the respective equations were YGR = 1860 + 46x (r=035)A

Yvc = 4035 + 147X (r=061) Unlike [Sheep the r for the equation relating gross revenue and number of gOcits wus low This pr-o babl y

resul ted from wider vaz-La t i on in productivi ty among goat than ShbI

units It was apparent fro~ the inspectiun of the data from thE individual goat units that the per an i raaL output was par t i cu Lar-Ly

variable especially for small units

For the same data gross r-evenue and labour cost per an i mal decreQsed in lareer units especially in goats The advantag8s of

economics of size were cancelled by the decline in producticity which resulted in lower net returns per animal in the larger units The total rturns how8vGr were higher in the larger units but could have been consiclerably higher had the productivity of each animal been at the same level as in the small units

Table 6 Effect of Size of the Production Unit on the Gostsand Returns of Sheep and Goats (Actual)

Female animals per farm

Gross revenue Feed cost iTariable cost abour- cost Jet profit te tu r n to labour

Cpoundorking day eturn to capital () arm income

Sheep Goa ts

42 65 94 39 63

- -Cfenterprise unit shy - -

1037 1450 2056 1053 1247 18(9

443 690 975 701 797 1206

467 726 1026 373 471 645 342 436 529 342 436 529 135 171 324 265 235 473

22 22 26 28 24 3C 101 101 128 169 128 17 middot5

588 753 1069 694 794 IJ89

By corapa r-i ng the incremental bross revenue to the varLabl raquos ts from the low to the high level of pr-oduc t av i t y (Tah1e 5) and ~om the small to the large LeveI of s i z e (lable 6) it can be derived tat it is more profitable to increase prociuctivi ty per an i maI r-athor ~n increase their numbers

DISCUSSIOl AND COFCLUSI011S

Sheep and goat production can be Lnc r-eae ed by increasing Lt

oduc t i v i t y of the animals or by increasin~ the size of the an i maL pulation or by a combination of the two The returns to the iividual producer however~ are affecteu apart of the productivity other factors namely 1 the size of the production unit the level )i

~zing the management system and others

- 11 shy

The data in this study indicated the economic advantage 1 Jotl_ for the individual producer and the national economy of increasine the sheep and goat production by improving the productivity of the animals than by increasing the size of the population For ewes and goatB it is obvious from the comparison of actual and norm data that commer-ciiI

milk yield can be doubled and lambing ratio can increase by 30-40 by

using genetic material and knowledge already available in Cyprus The adoption of fQttening of lambs and kids at weights up to 35 kg is hindered by the strong demand for baby laUD and kid meat and the nee~

of producers for cash However these obs t acLes may be overCOJTW by eppr-opr-ia t e policy measures and consumer oduoa t ion

Th6 study of different directionG of production and in particular the all-meat versus the high milk - low meat direction showed that at the levels assumed the milk and meat direction was slightly superior to the all-meat direction in terms of net returns and lower cost to the Government Nevertheless thG all-meat direction is economically sound and may be used in s peo i aLj aed si tuations in which skilled labour is limited while good possibilities exist for high levels of grazing

The size of the production unit required to obtain a certain level of farm income J8pends on many factors such as the productivity of the animals and the level of grazing The numbers of adult female animals required to obtain farn income of Cpound 2000 are 121 and 75 for commercial milk yields of 60 and 120 kg and lambing ratioe of 12 ard

16 respectively Assuming that these yields represent roughly the Local and the Chios sheep it is apparent that any benefits from increasinb the present size of the production units would be much higher if the increase in size was coupled with higher productivity Presently the size of most sheeJ or goat production units is smal18r than the siz8 required to achi8ve farw income of Cpound 2000

The rroblem of deciding the size of the production unit has many complex aspects This is so becausu the livestock enterpris8 in most places is combined with crop production and the relative size of the two on t er-prLs ee is determined by economic and other factors In this respect the amount opound family labour~ the availability and size of grazing areas and feeds and the relative profitability of the livestOCK enterprise in comparison with pos s r ble al ternative farm enterprises weigh heavily in det er-iain i ng the size of the sheep or goat production units

From the data of thi s and an oar-Iier study L 9 ] it is suggested that op t i mum utilization of resources in a mixed type of farming requires production units with 120 - 130 animals In a norm situation for numbers up to 1000 animals the returns to size were higher than zero suggesting that at present economies of siZe have not

- 12 shy

been exploited Of course larger production units do not neces5~rily

imply larger animal population th ey may resul t also from reorganizatior

of the existing population to larger economically viaole units

The level of grazing is inversely related to the feeding costs but increases labour cost The decrease in feeding cost frod

higher level of grazing is considerably higher than the increase in

labour cost There is no doubt that higher grazing level wilen possible J is economically beneficial both to the individual producGr

and the national economy and could be easily combined with the all-~~~t

direction of production It is proposed th~t the price of concentrstcO)

presently regulated by thE Government through the system of SUbsidies be kept at such level which will encourage the optimum utilization of

straw pastures and agricultural by-products

The goat production units (actual) were more variable than sheep units in the level of productivitJ-9 direction of production feeding prograDme and size Smaller goat units tended to be more productive consumed more concentrates per female animal and producei higher returns per animal than larger units This suggests that large units Hith low producing animals practised more grazing On the averagG 9 the gross revenue was higher for sheep but net returns from goats were slightly higher These differences were primarily due to higher level of grazing for goats than for sheep This comparison if

based on the average of the production units studied ~nd could not bE extrapolated to comparison of specific breeds of sheep and goats A comparative study of the Chios sheep and Damascus goat under norm

conditions was initiated at this Institute

- 13 shy

SUIDIARY

Data from 68 sheep 65 goat private production units (actual situation) and from Gov~rnment units (norm situationr were used to coraput c costs and returns and to study the main fa c t or-s affecting tht econooics of shoGp and goats in Cyprus The main conclusions of this study can be summarized as follows

1 It is more profitable as a ~irst step to incrGasG productivity per animal rather than increase their numbers With available gonetic material ana knowledge it is possible to double tho present milk yields and increase the number of lambs or kids per female animal by 30-40

2F~ttGning of lambs or kids at prosGnt prices can increase total and net returns SUbstantially with profound ~conomic advantages for the individual producer and tho national economy

3 The study of di~ferent directions of ~roduction showed that the milk and mlat direction was slightly suporior to the all-moat directionH01iGVer thE a I Le-meat di re c t i on of production may bo a sound economic alternative mainly in situations where good possibilities exist for high lcvul of razing and skilled labour is limited

4 The feed cost for high level of grazing was only half the cost for middotindoor fcodLng The loer fe ed cost 18S ruflectcd in higher net returns for the razing systems The cost differential between cost of grazing and fecding of concentrates should be adjusted to promoto grazing 8t th8 IGvlol which will mClOt at the minimum the maintenance r-oqu i r-crucn t s of auuI t animalsmiddot

5 With present 18v~ls of productivity 168 ewes or 151 goats arc roquirlQ to produclo farm incomb of Cpound 2000 In norm situations 75 OWbS pr-oducdng 120 kg milk and 16 1(111bs could I~roduc8 thc same income For this LcvcI of productivi ty the r-espec t i v- numbers for z er-o low and high grazing nystems war_ 123 75 and 65 ewes

Th authors gratefully acknowlGdge tl1G cooperation of ahoe p and goat producers and the assistancE providod by all members of the Agricultural Economics Slction

RLFERLFCES

1 Louca A Pr-eLimanar-y r-csuI ts on tho por-formarice of pur-ebr-ed and cross-bred sllecp Paper prosGDtcd a~ the RGgional Workshop for shclp and forage improvement February 11-14 1974 in Buirut~ Lebanon

- 14 shy

2 Chimonides 1 1972 Some faotors affGoting the productivity of DamQscus goats in Cyprus MS Thesis American University of Bei r-ut L8b~~lO[

3 Planning Bureau ThE first (1962-66) the second (1967-71) and t hlaquo

third (1972-76) Five Year Plan Planning Rur~au

Nioosia Cyprus

4 Agrioulturul Research Institute 1964 Cost and Returns of Shlq

and goats Agric Res Inst Nioosia Cyprus

5 Louca A Personal c omruurri ca t i cn Agrioultural Research Institute Nioosia Cyprus

6 Hadjipanayiotou M and Louca A 1975 PhG Effeots of partial suckling on the lactation Derformance of Chios sheep and Damasous goats and the growth rate of the lambs and kids (in preparation) Agricultural Research Institute Nicosia Cyprus

7 Louca A 1972 The effect of suckling regime on grmdh rate and laotation performance of the Cyprus Fat-tailed amI Chios sheep Anim Prod 15~53-59

8 Louca A ~ Mavr-ogen i s A and Lawlor ~1J 1975 ThE effect of early weaning on the laotation performanoe of Damascus goats and the growth rate of the kidb Anim Prod 20 213-218

9 Papachristodoulou S and Papas A 1975 The bconomios of drylan~

mixed farming in Cyprus Agrioultural Research Institute Nicosia~ Cyprus

10 Papachristodoulou S 1974 (Restrioted) Dryland Mixed Farwing A technical and economic anaLys i s of some typical fnrl~

participated in the Mixed Farming Project during 1968-1972 Agricultural Research ~nstitute Nicosia Cyprus

11 Papas A 1975 Protein requirements of ewes during laotution (in IJreparation) Agrioultural REJsearch Lns t i tu t e Nicosia Cyprus

12 Papas A 1975 Protein requirements of ewes during maintenanoe (in preparation) Agricultural Res~arch Institute Nioosia Cyprus

13 Papas~ A 1975 The protein requirements of early weaned lambs (in preparation) Agricultural Researoh Institutc 9

Nioosia CYfrus

- 15 shy

lTA P P E D I x

COHPUTATION OF DnUT-OUTPUT DATA OF SHEEP MID GOATS-Gross revenue is the total value of milkmeat cUlls wool and manuree

Sheep milk was sold at Cpound 0163kg and goat milk at Cpound 0112kg In the

actual situation revenue from lambs and kids 11018 based on receipts

adjusted to current prices It was assumed that in norm situation lambs

and kids were sold at 35 kg liveweight 0547kg The prices at 20 kg

liveweight and at weaning were Cpound 0625 and Cpound 0781 respectively A 5

death rate for lambs and kids was assumed Culling was estimated at

20 each year 5 of this was assumed to represent losses and the

remaining 15 of the culls sold at Cpound 125head It was assumed that

losses were directly related to productivity for every additional 10 kg

milk yield and 01 lambing ratio losses increased by 015 and by

005 respectively The revenue from wool and manure was estimated at

Cpound 0700 and Cpound 0500animal respectively (App Tables 16)

Variable costs include feed expenses (purchased or produced) other

expenses (veterinary hired labour) and interest on operating capitale

In the actual situation feed expenses for sheep remiddotprEHHlnted

the 95 of variable costs and 54 of total costs for goats these

percentages are 94 and 44 respectively (App Tables 1 and 2) In the

norm situation feed expenses for sheep or goats comprised approximately

95 of the variable costs ranging from 42-65 of the total costs

depending on the level of productivity direction of production and the

level of grazing (App Tables 3-5) The feed expenses forslle-epandmiddot

goats as percent of variable and total costs decreased from about

95-84 and increased from about 50-53 respectively depending on the

size of production unit (App Table 6)

Interest on operating capital represents 50 of the variable

costs at 8 interest rate

Fixed costs include rent of land family labour replacement

depreciation and interest on fixed capital

In the actual situation rent of land was charged for the area

under fodder crops while in the norm situation rent was charged only for

the area occupied by sheds and the milking parlour

- 16 shy

Family labour was valued atGpound 1600__p~r -wor~i~gslaY_~Ep_

ble 15 presents the labour requirements for 80 ewes or goats pr-ac t i c i rs

w or high grazing system at increasing levels of milk yield andmiddot

Lmbing or kidding ratios Also gives the calculation of the labou~

squ i r-ement s for the zero grazing system and increasing number of aniild

n this study it was assumed that 13 labour units(LbU) were c on tr i bu

ed by family labour and any additional labour w~cs treated as hired

abour-

The replacement was estimated at 20 of the value of animals

The annual depreciation rate of shed8 was estimated at 25

while interest rate used for sheds and livestock capital was 6

Total costs is the sum of variable and fixed costs and net profit the

difference between gross revenue and total coste (App Tables 1-6)

Return to labour (Cpoundwo~king day) was calculated by adding to the net

profit all labour costs and dividing this amount by the number of

working days (App Tables 1-6)

Return to capital () was calculated by adding to the net profit the

interest on operating and fixed capital and dividing the amount by tho

capital investments (excl land capital) and multiplied by 100 (App

Tables 1-6)

Farm income consisted of pai~ or imputed rent 9 remuneration of family

and hired labour interest charges and net profit (App Tables 1-6)

Cost to the government was computed from the v~lue of concentrates fed

using the coefficients of 039 and 043 for aault and young animals

respectively These coefficients represent the increase in percentaL~

of the present value of the concentrates which Would be paid by the

producers in the form of hi~her prices if marketing of feed grains waG

not regulated These coefficients were comI~t8d on the basis of the

difference of the prices for feed grains paid lJy the Government and t~l(

livestock producers and on the content of the concentrate mixtures in

the feed grains (App Tabl~s 3-6)

----------------

- 17 shy

App Table 1 Costs and Returns of Sheep Enterprises by Size Group (Actual)

--_SizebwrltuF (No of ewes)

30-50 50-80 80gt Mean Cpoundewe-----_-_-

No of observations 17 33 18 68

Average No of ewes 42 65 94 67 Milk production (kg) 2711 3442 5348 3764 Lambs Bold or consumed (No) 39 55 85 59 ------------------_shy

Ycilk and milk products 440 569 865 614 92 40middot9 Lambs 417 573 925 627 9 418 Culls 60 94 108 89 13 5middot8 Wool 28 48 71 49 07 31 Manure 19 30 41 30 04 18 Change of capital 71 136 55 98 15 6G

Gross Revenue Cpound 1037 1450 2056 1507 225 1000

Feed purchased 221 325 493 344 53 27 ~

Feed produced 72 118 103 103 15 77 Forage produced 150 246 379 257 38 19lt5 Other 6 8 12 8 01 0~5

Interest 18 28 39 29 04 20 ----------------___

Variable Costs Cpound 467 725 1026 741 111 ------ ------------_- shy

Rent of land 45 52 92 61 Family labour 342 436 529 437 )3 -I

~ IInterest and depreciation 48 66 85 66 -

-------~---------_ _

Fixed Costs Cpound 435 554 706 564

Total Costs bpound 902 1279 1732 1305 195 --__--____-__---shyNet profit Cpound 135 171 324 202 31

43- J

Return to labour (Cpoundworking day) 22 22 26 23

Return to capital () 101 101 128 108 Return over feed expenses Cpound 594 761 1081 804 Farm income Cf 588 753 1069 795 ---------------------~---------_

- 18 shy

Table 2 Costs and Returns of Goat Enterprises by Size Group (Actual)

Size group (lITo of gegtats )

30-50 50-80 80) Mean Ci-goat

No of observations 18 28 19 65

Average No of goats Milk production (kg) Kids sold or consumed (No)

39 4034

53

63 4439

71

98 6169 100

666 4833

74

Milk and milk products Kids Culls Manure Change of capital

331 552

54 19 97

364 704 80 28 71

505 1005 102

43 154

396 60 750 113 79 12 30 0middot5

103 15

293 551 59 24 73

Gross Revenue Cishy 1053 1247 1809 1358 20middot5 100 00

Feed purchased Feed produced Forage produced Other Interest

207 35

llO

7 14

236 53

156 8

18

263 36

304 17 25

236 43

186 II 19

3middot5 06 28 02 03

224 38

18J 13 loy

Variable Costs Cf 373 471 645 495 74 474

Rent of land Family labour Interest and depreciation

25 342 48

39 436

66

77 529 85

46 437

67

07 65 10

4middot5 417

64

Fixed Costs Cf 415 541 691 550 82 526

Total Costs Cf 788 1012 1336 1045 156 1000

Net Frofi t Cf 265 235 473 313 49

Return to labour (Cpoundworking day)

Return to capital () Return over feed expenses Farm income

Cf Of

28 169

700 694

24 128

802 794

30 17middot5 1206 1189

27 153 892 882

- 19 shy

App Table 3 Effect of Level of Produotivity and Direction of a) Produotion on the Costs and Returns of Sheep (Norm)

Milk yield (kgewe)

Lambing ratio

Milk Lambs Culls

Wool Manure

Gross Revenue

Feed for ewes i) Concentrates

ii) Hay amp straw Feed for lambs

i) Concentrates Other Interest

Variable Costs

Rent Famil y labour Replacement Depreciation Interest

Fixed Costs

Total Costs

Gross Profi t

Net Profit

Return to labour (Cpoundworking day)

Return to capital () Cost to the Government

deg 60 120 200

26 12 16 08

782 3781 1748 142 139

56 56 40 40

1565 2325 128

56 40

2608 1163

120 56 40

Cpound 4019 2765 4114 3986

676 464

988 446 12 12 67 37

728

601 12 54

720

294 12 41

Cpound 1743 959 1395 1067

2 2

364 449 544 504

19 19 82 82

2

534 608 19 82

2

590 640 19 82

ce 1011 1056 1245 1333

Cpound 2754 2015 2640 2400

Cpound 2276 1606 2719 2919

Cpound 1265 750 1474 1586

72 43 60 59 392 269 46middot7 521

Cpound 688 373 542 407

a) Assuming 80 8W~S and low grazing

- 20 shy

App Table 4 Effect of Level of Productivity and Direction of a) middotmiddotmiddot----middot --Produc_tiQ[l on the Costs and Returns of Goats (Norm) bull

bull bullbullbullbull ~ __R_ ~~__bullbullbull ~ bullbullbull _

-_ ----~ bull

Milk yield (kggoat)

Kidding ratio

0

34

80

16

160

20

2$0

13

Milk Lambs Culla

4511 137

717 2136 134

1434 2652 120

2503 1743

106

Manuremiddot 40 40 40 40

Gros smiddot R-eAfnu-e- Cpound 4688 3027 4246 4398

Feed for goats ) ConcentratesJ I

ii) Hay amp straw Feed for kids

i) Concentrates Other Interest

824

1023 12 74

560

482 12 42

832

601 12 58

928 ~

391 12 53

Variable Coiits Cpound 1933 1096 1503 1384

Rent Family labour Replacement Depreciation Interestmiddot_middotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddot

2 366 608 19 82

2 488 560

19 82

2 566 688 19 82

2 617 776 19 82

Fixed Cos is Cpound 1077 1151 1357 1496

Total Cost s Cpound 3010 2247 2860 J 2880

Gross Froht Cpound 2755 1931 2743 3014

Net PI-ofit

Cpound 1678 780 1386 151[

Return to labour (Cpoundworking day)

Return to capital () 89

493 42

274 55

436 505

480 Cost to the Oovernmen t --6pound---middot761 middot425 51n __

~_~- -- _--___-~ _ M bullbullbull_ bullbull___ R bullbullbull __bullbull __ bull

o _ bullbull

~301 __

a) Assuming 80 goats and low grazing

- 21 shy

App Table 5 Effect of Level of GraZirg on the Costs and Returns of Sheep and Goats (Norm) a

Shee~ Goats Level of gra~ing Zero Low High Zero Low Rigl

Milk yield (kgfemale animal) 120 120 120 160 160 16

Lambing or kidding ratio 16 16 16 20 20 2()

Milk 1565 1565 1565 1434 1434 l434 Lambs 2326 2326 2326 2652 2652 2652 Culls 128 128 128 120 120 120 Wool 56 56 56 Manure 40 40 40 40 40 40

Gross Revenue Cpound 4115 4115 4115 4246 4246 4246

Feed for ewes or goats i) Concentrates 1292 728 408 1508 832 505

ii) Ray amp straw 288 282 Feed for lambs or kids

i) Concentrates 601 601 601 602 602 602 Other 12 12 12 12 12 12 Interest 88 54 41 96 58 45

Variable Costs Cpound 2281 1395 1062 2500 1504 116r _ _-

Rent 2 2 2 2 L 2 Family labour 390 534 534 422 566 565 Replacement 608 608 608 688 688 68P Depreciation 19 19 19 19 19 1)

Interest 82 82 82 82 82 8e

Fixed Costs Cpound 1101 1245 1245 1213 1357 1357

Total Costs Cpound 3382 2640 2307 3713 2861 252

Gross Profit Cpound 18~4 2720 3053 1746 2743 30t)2

1Tet Profit Cpound 733 1475 1808 533 1385 1725

Return to labour (Cpoundworking day) 46 60 70 36 5middot5 65

Return to capital () 232 467 588 178 436 55( Feed cost to the Government Cpound 762 542 418 847 583 456

a) Assuming 80 female adult animals

- 22 shy

App Table 6 Bffect of the Size of the Pr-oduc t ion Unit on the Costs and Returns of Sheep and Goats (NJrm)

SheGE Goats

Ewes or goatsfarm 80 160 200 80 160 2()(I

Milk yield (kgfemale animal) 120 120 120 160 160 16~)

Lambing or kidding ratio 16 16 16 20 20 2 0

Milk 1565 3130 3912 1434 2867 35[1 Lambs 2326 4651 5814 2652 5305 66jl Culls 128 256 320 120 240 300 Wool 56 112 140 Manure 40 80 100 40 80 100

Gross Revenue Cpound 4115 8229 10286 4246 8492 10615

Feed for awes or goats i) Concentrates 728 1456 1820 832 1664 208

ii) Hay amp straw Feed for lambs or kids

i) Concentrates 601 1202 1502 602 1203 1504 Hired labour 203 385 266 4f- u_)

Other 12 24 30 12 24 jC)

Interest 54 115 150 58 126 163

Variable Costs Cpound 1395 3000 3887 1504 3283 42C

Rent 2 4 5 2 4 Family labour 534 624 624 566 624 621 Replacement 608 1216 1520 688 1376 1( 2(

Depreciation 19 32 40 19 32 4C Interest 82 159 198 82 159 19t

Fixed Costs Cpound 1245 2035 2387 1357 2195 255 _ _--_ __

Total Costs Cpound 2640 5035 6274 2860 5478 6521

Gross Profit Cpound 2720 5226 6399 2743 5209 Ggt7)

net Profit Cpound 1475 319L~ 4012 1385 3014 Ll3 -

Return to labour (Cpoundworking day) 60 78 80 5middot5 70 SoU

Return to capital () 467 510 510 436 475 538 Feed cost to the Government Cpound 542 1085 1356 583 1166 145[

- 23 ~

App Table 7 Prices Received and Paid

Prices received Unit Cpound-Milk sheep kg 0163

goat kg 0112 Lamb or kid

At leaning kg 1ivQwoight 0781 At 20 kg kg 0625 At 35 kg kg II 0547

Wool Cpoundanima1 0100 Manure Cpoundanima1 0500

Prices paid

Feed roughage

Straw ton 120 Cereal hay ton 200

Concentrates

Creep feed ton 500 15 crude protein (as fed) ton 458 13 crude protein (as fed) ton 438 11 crude protein (as fed) ton 400

Labour working day 16

Rent of land donum 15

App Table 8 Capital Investments

Land

Sheds for 80 female animals

160 female animals 200 female animals

Value of animals Ewes (0 kg milk 26 lambing ratio)

(60 kg milk 12 lambing ratio) (120 kg milk 16 lambing ratio ) (200 kg milk 08 lambing ratio)

Goats( 0 kg milk 34 kidding ratio) ~ 80 kg milk 16 kidding ratio) (160 kg milk 20 kiddinB ratio) (280 kg milk 13 kidding ratio)

Operating capital (50 of variable costs)

Cpounddonum 300

Cpoundshed 1800 Cpoundahed 13500 Cpoundshed 16600

CrJeue 330

315

380

400

Cpoundgoat 380

340

400

425

vpp Table 9 Gross RevenuG (Cpoundewe) at Incr-eas Ing LeveI s of Milk Yi o Ld and Lcml~ng Rc tios (rorm)

Millt Y i e 1 d (kg eVi8)Lambing ratio 0 20 4~ 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200

08 163 208 253 298 343 388 433 ~n 8 523 568 613 10 201 246 29 ~ 1 33~6 381 426 471 516 561 606 651

12 240 284 32~9 37~4 419 464 509 554 599 644 689 16 31 6 360 40~5 45o 495 540 585 630 675 720 765 18 355 398 44~3 488 533 578 623 668 713 758 803 22 431 474 519 56~4 609 654 699 744 789 834 879

26 508 550 5915 64+ 0 658 730 775 820 865 910 955 30 584 626 67h 71~6 761 806 851 896 941 986 1034

~--

- _ N

~

App Table 10 Gross Revenue (Cpoundgoat) at Increasing LeY11s of Milk Yield and Kidding Ratios (Norm) bull

M i llt Y i e 1 d (kg L~at) IKidding ratio

middot0 40 80 l~d 160 200 240 280 320 360 400

08 148 193 237 28~~ 327 372 41 7 461 506 551 596 12 218 263 307 35~2 397 442 487 531 576 621 666 16 287 333 37-7 42l~ 467 512 55middot7 601 646 691 736 20 355 403 447 49 ~ 2 537 582 627 671 716 761 806 24 -422 473 51 7 56~ 60middot7 652 697 74middot1 786 831 876

bull 28 488 543 58~7 632 677 722 767 811 856 901 946 32 564 613 65 ~ 7 70~~ 747 792 837 881 926 971 1016 36 634 683 72~7 772- 81 7 862 907 951 996 1041 1086

I

1)App Table 11 Concentrates Consumed (kgewe) Low Grazing System

Lambi ng Y i e 1 d i n mil k (kg ewe) ratio

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200

08 568 708 848 98 8 1128 1268 1408 1548 1688 1828 1968 LO 710 850 990 1130 127middot0 1410 1550 1690 1830 1970 2110 12 852 992 1132 1272 1412 1552 1692 1332 1972 2112 2252 16 1136 1276 1416 1556 1696 1836 1976 2116 2256 2396 2536 18 1278 1418 1558 1698 1838 1978 2118 2258 2398 2538 267middot8 22 1562 1702 1842 1982 2122 2262 2402 2542 2682 2822 2962 26 1846 1986 2126 2266 2406 2546 2686 2626 2966 3106 3246 30 2130 2270 2410 2550 2690 2830 2970 311 0 325middot0 3390 3530

ro1) I~aintenancerequirement of adult animals met by grazing V1

Assumptions for grazing systems

1 07 kg feeds of 15 crude protein (as fed basis) was fed per kg milk produced or sucked [iy 2 50 kg milk was suoked by each lamb from birth to weaning at 35 days 3 In late pregnancy each ewe received on the average 36 kg concentrates above maintenance for each lamb carried 4 In zero grazing maintenance requirements during the dry period were met by 06 kg straw and 05 kg

concentrates of 11 crude protein (as fed basis) [1~ I~ late pregnancy (6 weeks before lambing) and during lactation each ewe received 06 kg cereal hay and 04 kg concentrates to meet the maintenance requirements Other requirements in concentrates were met as in low grazing syste~

App liable 12 Conoentcates Consumed (kgg02t ) i Low Grazing SJ34~OT 1)- (I

----------------------T -----------~-_--------------------------------------------------shy

M gt~_~ LL~_~iJ~_8poundatl Kidding ratio

o 40 80 120 160 200 240 280 320 360 400 -----_ ------~---~ _- ----------__--__-----shy

08 528 768 1008 1248 138 1728 1960G 2208 24Li8 2688 2928 12 792 1032 1272 1512 175middot2 1992 2232 2472 271 2 2952 3192 16 1056 129 u 6 1536 ~-77 6 20l6 2256 2496 =736 2976 3216 3456 20 1320 1560 J80o 2040 2280 2520 2760 3000 3240 3480 3720 24 1584 1[24shy 2064 2304 2-~4middot 4 27S~4 3024 32604 350middot4 3 7 11++ 3984 28 1848 2038 23 28 2568 2808 30~ 8 328f3 ~)52 8 3768 4008 42~ 8

-3 ~ 211 2 2352 2592 2832 3072 3312 3552 37902 4032 4272 +51 2

______ 36

_-__ 2379

- 2616 2856 3096

___shy__ 3336 3576

_ 3826

middot 4056 L_~

429gt6 middot

L15306 _ _

4776

1) Maintenance requirements of adult animals met-JY grazing ro 0

~~~mption for grazing system

1 06 kg feed of 15 crude protein (as fed basis) was fed per kg milk produced or suoked 2 50 kg milk was sucked by each kid from birth to wean~ng at 70 days Partial suckling was practised from the

30th day onwards 3 In late pregnancy each goat received on the average 36 kg concentrates above maintenance for each kid carried 4 In zero grazing maintenance requirements in the dry period were met by 06 kg of straw and 05 kg of

concentrates of 11 crude protein (as fed basis)

29

- 27 shy

App Table 13 Feed Cost and Revenue for Lamb Fattening

Lambing ratio

08 10 12middot 16 18 22 26

aConcentrates (kg) I

Birth to weaning Weaning to 20 kg Birth to 20 kg 20 kg to 35 kg Birth to 35 kg

09 290 299 54~0

839

1 J 13 17 20 368middot 449 618 706 37middot9 462 635 726 675 810 1080 1215

1054 1272 1715 1941

24 890 914

1485 2399

1036 106e5 175middot5 2820

Saleable Iiveweight (kg)

at weaning at 20 kg at 35 kg

87 160 280

108 200 35middot0

12~8

24middot0 420

174198 320 360 56~0 630

249 44middot0 770

290 520 910

Feed expenses

at weaning mils 45 55 65 -85 100 120 145 to 20 kg Cf 14 17 21 29 33 42 49 __ to 35 kg Cf 37 46 56 7middot5 85 10middot5 123

Revenue Cf

Lamb sale Lamb sale Lamb sale

at weaning ~~ 20 kg at 35 kg

68 100shy153shy

gt ~_ bull bullbullbullbull ~-

84 125 191

100 136 150 200 230 306middot

15middot5 225 345

194 27middot5 421

226 32 c 49 e

Assumed birthweight 47 45 42 38

a) It was assumed that the protein content of the ooncentrates mixture feed from birth to weaning was 168 and from 20 to 35 kg 143 on dry matter basis [1[

- 28 shy

App Table 15 Labour Raquire~entl) for 80 poundMes or Goats Practising Low or High Grazing at Increasing Levels of Milk Yield and Lambing or Kidding Ratios

i

Lamhing Y i e 1 d i n mil k (kg Le_we) ratio

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 280

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - Lbua)production unit - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -08 0749 0813 0869 0933 1013 1069 1109 1149 1113 1205 1229 1283 10 0150 0814 0870 0934 1014 1010 1110 1150 1114 1206 1230 1284 12 0151 0815 0811 0935 1015 1011 1111 1151 1115 1201 1231 1285 14 0152 0816 0812 0936 1016 1012 1112 1152 1116 1208 1232 1286 16 0153 0811 0813 0937 1011 1013 1113 153 1117 1209 1234 1287 18 0154 0818 0874 0938 1018 1074 1114 1154 1178 1210 1235 1288 20 0155 0819 0875 0939 1019 1015 1115 1155 1119 1211 1236 1289 22 0756 0820 0876 0940 1020 1016 1116 1156 1180 1212 1237 1290 24 26

0151 0158

0821 0822

0871 0878

0941 0942

1022 1023

1017 1018

1111 1118

1157 1158

1181 1182

1213 1214

1238 1239

1291 1292

ro -D

28 0759 0823 0879 0943 1024 1019 1119 1159 1183 1215 1240 1293 30 0760 0824 0880 0middot944 1025 1080 1120 1160 1184 1216 1241 1 294 34 0162 0826 0882 0946 1027 1082 1122 1162 middot _____middot L_ 1186 1218 1242 1295

a) 1 LbU = 300 working days

1) Low and high grazing system Calculated as followsi

Labour requirement (LbU) = 015 + (lambing ratio - 10) x 0005 +

Labour for milkin~ (days)+ X No of female animals 300

+) Assuming 6 minutesanimalday

Zero grazing system Labour requiremunt (lbU) = Low or high grazing system (LbU) - 0300 for 80 female animals

- 0550 for 160 female animals - 0650 fOr 2rl) tomcIc animals

Page 6: FACTORS AFFECTING THE ECONOMICS OF SHEEP AND GOATSnews.ari.gov.cy/Publications/AER4-papas.pdfFACTORS AFFECTING THE ECONOMICS OF SHEEP AND GOATS . By . ... Costs and Returns of Goat

- 2 shy

In this report data collected from 63 sheep and 65 goat falm~

were used to study the economics of the existinb production units Other data fro~ the experimental farm of the Agricultural Research Ens t i tu t e the ~iargo and other Governraent farms were used to compute costs and ~eturns of norm production units varying in (i) productivity and tiirection of production Le meat andor milk (ii) level of grazing practised and (iii) s iz e

MbTliOD ur AJULYSIS

Norm situation

Costs and returns were computed using the budgeting method The basic information such as feed required per animal fo~ maintenance and production management systems (partial suckling age at weaning) etc was obtained from pUblished and non published data from the

Agricultural Research Institute and other Government farms The units studied varied in the following parameters

I Level of productivity and direction of Eroductio~Various levels of productivity in terms of sal~able milk and lambing or kidding ratio were studied The extreme combinations namely those conbining zero milk yield with high lambing or kidding ratios and high milk productlon withlow lambing or kidding ratios represented the meat and dairy directions of production respectively

II Level of graz~~~ The following three systems were studied

~ero grazi~~ All feed requirements were met by indoor feeding of cereal hay straw and concentrates Lm1 grazil~ The maintenance requirements of all adult animals were met by grazing and all others including those for fattening were met by feeding concentrate mixtures High grazi~f2 Cllhe maintenance requirements plus the equivalent of 85 kg of conc0ntr~tes for each ewe and 90 kg for each goat were met by grazing 1he baLaric e of the requirewents including all feed requirements for fattening were met by indoor feeding or concentrates

III Size of ihe production unit The fol Lov ing sizes as measured by the numbers of adult female animals were studied 80 160 and 200 animals Larger units up to 1000 animals 11-1818 considered multiples of the production unit with 200 animals with all cost items increasing linearly exoept for labour

Actual situation

The accounting method was used for computing costs and returns in the actual situation The 60 sheep and 65 goat farms studied were located in Villages of the Nicosia Larnaca Famagusta and Limassol districts The proQQcers were handed special

- 3 shy

questionnaires and were shown how to enter the raw uata A stqff member of the Agricultural Economics Section paid monthly visits to summarize the data and answer any questions raised Each production unit was treated as one observation Costs and returns were computed for each farm and group of farms The relationship of the gross revenue to tne main cost i terns was deterwined by regression anal ys i s

Details of the cowputations of costs and returns of the actual and norm proQuction units are presented in the Appendix The basic assumption under-Lydng these computations was that current prices were operative for both production units

EcmWMIC RBSULTS

J NORM SITUATION

L Level of productivity and direcmiddottion of production Sheep and goats in Cyprus serve a dual purpose namely meat and milk production with no emphasis on wool As stated earlier milking of ewes is a specialized laborious activity which cannot be easily mechanized Thus the Low availabili ty of skilled labour on farm limits the size of the family type production unit It Ls therefore important to examine the labour requirement and the economics of alternative directions of production and in particUlar the all-meat production unit in norm situations (Table 1)

The extreme situations of 200 kg milk and 08 lambs (column d) and zero milk and 26 lambs (column a) may be taken to ~epresent the dairy and meat directions resIectively while the ewes giving 120 kg and 16 lambs (column c) represent an intermediate situation The 26 lamhs in the allmiddot-meat direction can he achieved by an appropriate s ys t em which will make possible 15 lambings yearly In such system the ewes have shorter lactations and are mated soon after weaning of Lanbe 111 though not pr-ac t i s ed wiuely at present thL system Has tested in Cyprus and in other countries yeni th pr-orai s Lng

resul ts L5 J The data in Table 1 show that in a system in which the

maintenance requirements are met by grazing (low grazing) the above three directions (columns d c a) resulted in comparable gross revenue The feed costs hOilever increase wi th higher lambing ratio because all concentrate feeding was assumed for fattening The higher costs primarily for concentrates result in higher cost to the Government The labour requirement is lowest for the all-meat direction and highest for the milk direction The lower labour requirement makes possible the increase of the number of animals in the all-meat production unit

As shown in Tahle 1 the all-meat direction in goats result in slightly higher revenue than the other systems but this advantage

- 4 shy

is cancelled by the higher feeding costs The other cost and returns items show similar trends as with sheep

For the s arne number of animals the production uni ts or-Len t eu towards milk production require lowe-r feeeting but higher labour costs For the yields assumed above there is an aCivantage in net returDS to the producer and lower cost to the Government of the dual or dairy type over the all-meat direction The all-meat direction nevertheless is an economically sound aL ternative especiully in si tuations of shor-ta u in skilled labour and potential for high grazing It must however 5

be emphasized that these comparisons are made on empirically chosen yields and that the economics may change as yields and prices change

Table 1 Effect of Level of Productivity anQ Direction of Production on the Costs and Returns of Sheep and Goats (Iorm)a)

Sheep (a) (b) (c) (d) (e)

Milk yield (kgewe) 0 60 120 200 200 Lambing rati 0 26 12 16 08 16

- - -Cpoundenterprise -

Gross revenue 4019 2765 4114 3987 5175 Feed cost 1664 910 1329 1014 1530 Variable cost 1743 959 1395 1067 1604 Labour cost 364 449 534 590 592 Net profit 1265 750 1474 1586 2171 Returns to labour

(Cfworking day) 7~2 43 60 5middot9 7middot5 Returns to capital () 39middot2 269 467 521 833 Fa r m income 1780 1321 2147 2302 2910 Cost to the Government 688 373 542 407 622 Gross revenue per Cpound 171 135 132 102 120

Goats (a) (b) (c) (d) Milk yield (kggoat) 0 80 160 280 Kidding ratio 34 16 20 13

- - - - - - --Cpoundenterpriseshy - -----shyGross revenue 4688 3027 4246 4398 Feed cost 1847 1042 1434 1319 Variable cost 1934 1096 1503 1384 Labour cost 366 488 566 617 Net profit 1678 780 1386 1518 Returns to labour

(Cfworking day) 89 L1 --I bull L 5middot5 5middot5

Returns to capital (~n 493 274shy 436 480 Farm income 2202 1395 2094 2272 Cost to the Covernmen t 761 425 583 530 Gross revenue per Cf 162 140 137 121

a) Assuming 80 female adult animals and low grazing

- 5 shy

The comparison of column b (lOrl productivi ty) to columns a c d and e shows that 9 at these levels 9 the increase in returns is faster than the in6rease in costs The additional fsed costs res~ltinl

from the hiher requirements accounted for the largest part of till increase in variable costs In contrast~ the cost of labour incr8ase~

only slowly in columns c 9 d and e and decreased in column a Thi3 suggests that if the available genetic ~aterial and knowledge was

etlployed to increCise pr-oduo t i vi ty there Hould be a need for Lnc r-eas i ns cas] 8ltIJ8nlt88 for purchos i ng feed but there wouLd not be any [ignific_~L shyincrease in labour r-equ i r-eraent In con t r-as t labour avai Labi Lf ty jlay be limitinb the size of the production unit

8ffect of intensive fattening

Based on earlier work ~6 7 9 ~ it was assumed that lambs were weaned ai 35 days and kids at 70 days and that partial suckling was practised from 16th and 30th day onwards for lambs and kids respectively ThE sale of lambs at weanin~o9 20 kflS and 35 kg Livewe i ght produced revenue of Cpound 136 Cpound 200 and Cpound 306 for lambing ratio of 16 The additional expense primarily in feed costs was Cpound 29 and Cpound 77 for increases in gross revenue of Cpound 64 and Cpound 170 respectivey

Table 2 Effect oi Fat t en i ng of Lambs and Kiels OD the Costs and Returns of Sheep and Goats (Norm)a)

Goats ireanincmiddot i-reaning

35 k s(35 day~) 20 kg 35 kg (70 days) Liveweight solJ kgfemale animal 17middot4 320 560 313 63(

Revenue from lambs or kids Cpound female animal 136 200 306 244 349

Lambs or kids feed 8xpenses Cpoundfcrnale anir1al 01 29 7middot5 04 7middot5

Variable costs Crfemale animal 9middot7 126 174 114 188

Labour exrens es Cpoundfemal~ arrimaL 65 66 67 69 7middot1

Not profit Cpoundfemale ani mal 9middot3 127 184 97 17middot3

Return to capital () 265 343 470 269 434 Return to labour

CfwOrking day 40 47 60 41 61 Farm income

Cpoundfemale animal 169 206 268 177 26 ] Cost to the Gover-nmen t Cpoundfemale animal 36 47 68 -~ 2 7middot3

a) Fora product i cn unit 101i th 80 _wes producing 120 kg milk and 16 lambs or so goats produc i ng 160 kg mil and 20 kids with low level of euro-rJzing

- 6 shy

The cost to benefit ratio of 045 is sigl1ificantly lower than thb ratio of 063 which would be required to incz-eae e meat through LrL~

numbers of sheep The high differences betv een addi t i onal cost and revenue was also reflected in higher profit farm income and returns to capi tal and Labour The cost to the Governrrent would increase b~

Opound 11 and Cpound 32 respectively because fa t t erLng was based on conoentra te feeds In general the Govermnent pad d more th~n 13 of 0h~

variable costs for fattening This cost however is lower than the expense in foreign exchange for Lmpor t Ln Lamb meat at present pri c ce

It is thus concluded that fattening of lambs up to 35 kC liv8weight increases significantly the gross revenue and all return i t erue Fa ttening required only minor additional labour and no significant capital investment in shedS machinery etc but profi tabili ty of lamb and kid fattening de penua primarily on the price relationship of feeds and meat

II Level of grazing

The effect of zero low and high grazing s ys t ems on the main return and cost i terns of producti on uni ts Hi th 80 ewes or 80 goa ts ar~middot

presented in Table 3 The feed cost desreased significantly with increasing level of grazing being only half that of the zero grazing system Savings in feed costs was reflected in higher farm income returns to labour and capital and net profit for the two ayst ems wi -U

gr-az i ng as compared to indoor feeding Irr om the inputs only the- llt)oT cost was higher in the high grazing system than in the zero grazin~~

system The additional labour cost however of Cpound 144 was smaller compared to th8 saving in feed accounting to Cpound 1171 for ewes and Opound 1285 for goats in the high grazing sybtem

Table 3 Effect of Level of GraZing On the Costs and Returns of SLeeT and Goats (Norm)a)

Sheep Goats Level of grazing Zero Low High Zero Low Higt

- - - - - -ORproduction unit- - - shy

Gross revenue 4114 4114 4114 4246 4246 42-~6

Feed cost 2180 1329 1009 2392 1434 i ic Concentrates 1893 1329 1009 2110 1434 1107 Hay amp straw 287 282

Variable cost 2280 1395 1062 2500 1503 116 Labour cost 390 53- 534 422 566 5St Net profit 733 1475 1807 533 1386 1725 Return to labour

Cfworking day 46 60 70 36 55 6middot) Return to capital (~ ) 23middot5 470 592 178 436 55middot(Cost to the Government 762 542 417 847 583 4Y~

Farra income 1295 2147 2467 1135 2094 2j~C

================-==========-- a) For a unit with 80 ewes producing 120 kg milk and 16 lambs or 80

goats producing 160 kg milk and 20 kius

- 7 shy

The cost to the Government in terms of subsidies for

concentrates is almost twice as high for indoor feeding as compareu to -- high grazing s ya t em In addition zero gr2~ing involves a high expenslaquo

in foreign exchange as Cyprus is a net ili1portcr of large quanti ti83 of

feed grain Thus maxi murn use of grazing i r to the benefit of bo th tIle

LndivLduaI producer and thG national ec ouomy It is therefore 5

necessary to keep the cost d i ffer-en t i aI -1 a level which would

encourage the full utilization of grazin- aroas and allow tne opt i mum

LlSt3 of feed grain It is clifficul t to d e t e r-mine the opt i mum s i z e of this differential because of the wide variation in the availability of graamping from one part of Cyprus to the other andthe effect of the price of thE- feed grain on the price of r1any basic fOOd items

111 Size of the production unit

Data on the main cost and return items of norm production

units varying in size are presented in Table 4

Table 4 Lffect of the Size of the Production Unit on the Costs

and Returns of Sheep and Goats (Noro)a)

Female animals per farm 80

Sheep

160 200 80

Goats

160 200

Gross revenue

Feed cost

Variable costs

Labour cOstshy

Net frofi t Return to labour

Cpoundworking day

Return to capital () Farm inoome

- - shy -

4115 1329 1395

534 1475

60 467 2147

- - -

8229 2658 3000

827 3194

70middot3 510 4298

-Crproduction unital

10286 4246 8492 3322 1433 2867 3887 1503 3283 1009 566 890

1386 -

4012 3014

80 5middot5 70 510 436 47middot5 5374 2094 4192

- shy -

10615 358shy4240 1087 4328

80 518 5781

-

a) For ewes producing 120 kg milk ana 16 lambs or goats producing

160 kg milk and 20 k ide on the 10Vl crazinb s ys t em

It is ilpparent that the size of the production unit affects

costs and returns significantly Fo r the yields stated above (Table -i-) 75 ewes are requireJ to obtain farm income of Cpound 2000 As would be

expected the size required to obtain Q certain level of farm incoffib

SfiY Cpound 2000 depends on many factors such iS the productivi ty of

anioills and the level of grazing This is illustrated in the followin6

examples g For ewes producing zero mi Lk yield arid 26 lambs 90 ewesn

r-equ i r edj for 60 kg milk and 12 lambs 121 ewes for 180 kg nu Lk and

10 lambs 71 ewes For zero low and high grazing with ewes producin[

120 kg milk and 16 lambs the respective numbers rBquired to obtain

farm income of Cr 2000 are 123 75 and 65

- 8 shy

B ACTUAL SITUATIOJX

I Effect of the level of productivity

The actual data collected fr-on tile sheep and goat pr-oduc t i cn units wer( classified in thrE)e levels of productivity namely~ low medium and high on the basis of the gross revenue obtained per adult female animal The means of the main cost anci return items for each group are presented in Table 5

Table 5 Costs and Returns of Sheep and Go~ts by Level of Productivity (Actual)

Sheep Goat

Level of productivity Low Medium High Low Medium Higll

Number of farms Ewes or goats per farm Milk yield

(kgfemale animal) Lambs raised per ewe or kids per goat

Concentrates (kgfemale animal)

18 72

48

11

117

29 72

57

12

135

18 54

68

13

143

16 80

37

13

65

33 64

74

15

108

16

59

126

19

200

Gross revenue (Ctfemale animal) 194 224 273 13 3 202 31 Z

Variable costs 106 lll 110 56 65 128 Gross profit 88 113 163 7middot7 13middot7 184

The hiSher productivity in the ncdium and high levels was pr9bably due to better feeding~ superior management and better genetic material from the Chios breed and the Damascus goat ~9 lQ7

The pz-oduc t i vi ty per animal incr8ased with the aLlowan ce of conc en t r-at ea as shown by the highly s i gr Lf i carrt regression coe tfLc i en t between gross revenue Cpoundfemale aniwal (Y) and concentrates fed in kg (X) the equation being Y = 1012 + 0056X (r=057) for ewes and = 947 + 0066x (r=O56) for goats The ~dditional cost of concentrashytes accounted for most of the Lnor-eas e in variable co s t s The returns obtained from animal with higher productivity w~re significantly higher tilan the additional costs bull At present ~ therefore there are wid margins for increasing productivity at low cost The data of Table 5 show that the commercial milk yield of the production units studied may be doubled while the average lambing or kidding ratio may bb improved by 30-40 L 1 J The average milk yi 61d and 1ambing or kidding ratios recorded in this study are the same as those recorded earlier [4]

- 9 shy

Ihe deL ta in Aplenuix Ta bl GS 1 and 2 show that on the CLV8r-tmiddot 09 lambs and 11 kids were sold per female animal producing a revenu~

of Cpound 94 ani Cpound 113 respectively At the price of Cpound 0781 per k 6 liveweignt this corresponds to the production of 120 and 145 kg of liveweight r-s s peo t i vel y for each ewe or gl)[t When oompared to the norm d~ta for similar lambing or kidding rltios it is concluded that the lambs and kids Nere sold at the age of eppr-oxi mately 8 - 10 WSOK3

at Which the producers usually wean the lambs and kids This would suggest tha t for the production units studied tfHlrewas no larte scale fa ttening of Lambs or kids beyond lHaninf at the aetJ of 6-10 we ek a The majority of the producers stated that they practised partial suckLin and that thcy offered creep feed to the lambs and k i ds Fran the discussion with th6se producers it was conclueltjd that the main reasons for no large scale fa t t cn ing were tradi t i on the higher l)ricus received for baby lamb and kid and the need for cash partcularly before revenue from milk was received

II Level of grazing

The data available do not allow a detailed study of the effect of the level of grazing on the costs and returns in the actual situation

It is possihle however to drd~ some conclusions from the5~

data in comparison to the norm situation The livestock producers of this study fed on the average 132 kg of concentrates for each ewe and 120 kg for each goat In add i ti on 08 donums of green forage vlclS

cansuQed by each female aniwal and its followers Similar trends WbTB

observed in ano thez- etuuy L9 J Compar-ed to norm produo t i on units or

comparable y i elds it a ppear-s that feed requirements for maintenance arto ruet by gr-az i ng gr-e en forage and straw 9 whi l E t he r equ i r-emerrt s for production are met by concentrates For ollis 9 tlH level of grazino is hi6her than she up especiallj for production units with more than 30 female adult an imaLs as indicated by tl( lower amount of concentrates fed for comparative yields

Thl level of grazin~ practised is limited by the low ava i La hi Li ty of pas tur-es and t no abe enc e of large grazing areas There are also institutional r8gulations by 10c81 authorities limi tin~ the maximum nunrber of animals a t tendcd oy a sincle shepherd Compar-ed to the norm situation the average of grazing was slightly below the designated as low level

III Size of the production unit

Data on tho main cost and return items of actual produotion units varying in size and presented in Table 6 The regression of gross revenue (YGB) or variable oosts (Yvd on the number of adult ewes (X) revealed a sienificant linear relation the equations being

- 10 shy

A ~

2138 + 193X (r=091) YVC = 97 + 109X (r=064) For goat8~YGR = the respective equations were YGR = 1860 + 46x (r=035)A

Yvc = 4035 + 147X (r=061) Unlike [Sheep the r for the equation relating gross revenue and number of gOcits wus low This pr-o babl y

resul ted from wider vaz-La t i on in productivi ty among goat than ShbI

units It was apparent fro~ the inspectiun of the data from thE individual goat units that the per an i raaL output was par t i cu Lar-Ly

variable especially for small units

For the same data gross r-evenue and labour cost per an i mal decreQsed in lareer units especially in goats The advantag8s of

economics of size were cancelled by the decline in producticity which resulted in lower net returns per animal in the larger units The total rturns how8vGr were higher in the larger units but could have been consiclerably higher had the productivity of each animal been at the same level as in the small units

Table 6 Effect of Size of the Production Unit on the Gostsand Returns of Sheep and Goats (Actual)

Female animals per farm

Gross revenue Feed cost iTariable cost abour- cost Jet profit te tu r n to labour

Cpoundorking day eturn to capital () arm income

Sheep Goa ts

42 65 94 39 63

- -Cfenterprise unit shy - -

1037 1450 2056 1053 1247 18(9

443 690 975 701 797 1206

467 726 1026 373 471 645 342 436 529 342 436 529 135 171 324 265 235 473

22 22 26 28 24 3C 101 101 128 169 128 17 middot5

588 753 1069 694 794 IJ89

By corapa r-i ng the incremental bross revenue to the varLabl raquos ts from the low to the high level of pr-oduc t av i t y (Tah1e 5) and ~om the small to the large LeveI of s i z e (lable 6) it can be derived tat it is more profitable to increase prociuctivi ty per an i maI r-athor ~n increase their numbers

DISCUSSIOl AND COFCLUSI011S

Sheep and goat production can be Lnc r-eae ed by increasing Lt

oduc t i v i t y of the animals or by increasin~ the size of the an i maL pulation or by a combination of the two The returns to the iividual producer however~ are affecteu apart of the productivity other factors namely 1 the size of the production unit the level )i

~zing the management system and others

- 11 shy

The data in this study indicated the economic advantage 1 Jotl_ for the individual producer and the national economy of increasine the sheep and goat production by improving the productivity of the animals than by increasing the size of the population For ewes and goatB it is obvious from the comparison of actual and norm data that commer-ciiI

milk yield can be doubled and lambing ratio can increase by 30-40 by

using genetic material and knowledge already available in Cyprus The adoption of fQttening of lambs and kids at weights up to 35 kg is hindered by the strong demand for baby laUD and kid meat and the nee~

of producers for cash However these obs t acLes may be overCOJTW by eppr-opr-ia t e policy measures and consumer oduoa t ion

Th6 study of different directionG of production and in particular the all-meat versus the high milk - low meat direction showed that at the levels assumed the milk and meat direction was slightly superior to the all-meat direction in terms of net returns and lower cost to the Government Nevertheless thG all-meat direction is economically sound and may be used in s peo i aLj aed si tuations in which skilled labour is limited while good possibilities exist for high levels of grazing

The size of the production unit required to obtain a certain level of farm income J8pends on many factors such as the productivity of the animals and the level of grazing The numbers of adult female animals required to obtain farn income of Cpound 2000 are 121 and 75 for commercial milk yields of 60 and 120 kg and lambing ratioe of 12 ard

16 respectively Assuming that these yields represent roughly the Local and the Chios sheep it is apparent that any benefits from increasinb the present size of the production units would be much higher if the increase in size was coupled with higher productivity Presently the size of most sheeJ or goat production units is smal18r than the siz8 required to achi8ve farw income of Cpound 2000

The rroblem of deciding the size of the production unit has many complex aspects This is so becausu the livestock enterpris8 in most places is combined with crop production and the relative size of the two on t er-prLs ee is determined by economic and other factors In this respect the amount opound family labour~ the availability and size of grazing areas and feeds and the relative profitability of the livestOCK enterprise in comparison with pos s r ble al ternative farm enterprises weigh heavily in det er-iain i ng the size of the sheep or goat production units

From the data of thi s and an oar-Iier study L 9 ] it is suggested that op t i mum utilization of resources in a mixed type of farming requires production units with 120 - 130 animals In a norm situation for numbers up to 1000 animals the returns to size were higher than zero suggesting that at present economies of siZe have not

- 12 shy

been exploited Of course larger production units do not neces5~rily

imply larger animal population th ey may resul t also from reorganizatior

of the existing population to larger economically viaole units

The level of grazing is inversely related to the feeding costs but increases labour cost The decrease in feeding cost frod

higher level of grazing is considerably higher than the increase in

labour cost There is no doubt that higher grazing level wilen possible J is economically beneficial both to the individual producGr

and the national economy and could be easily combined with the all-~~~t

direction of production It is proposed th~t the price of concentrstcO)

presently regulated by thE Government through the system of SUbsidies be kept at such level which will encourage the optimum utilization of

straw pastures and agricultural by-products

The goat production units (actual) were more variable than sheep units in the level of productivitJ-9 direction of production feeding prograDme and size Smaller goat units tended to be more productive consumed more concentrates per female animal and producei higher returns per animal than larger units This suggests that large units Hith low producing animals practised more grazing On the averagG 9 the gross revenue was higher for sheep but net returns from goats were slightly higher These differences were primarily due to higher level of grazing for goats than for sheep This comparison if

based on the average of the production units studied ~nd could not bE extrapolated to comparison of specific breeds of sheep and goats A comparative study of the Chios sheep and Damascus goat under norm

conditions was initiated at this Institute

- 13 shy

SUIDIARY

Data from 68 sheep 65 goat private production units (actual situation) and from Gov~rnment units (norm situationr were used to coraput c costs and returns and to study the main fa c t or-s affecting tht econooics of shoGp and goats in Cyprus The main conclusions of this study can be summarized as follows

1 It is more profitable as a ~irst step to incrGasG productivity per animal rather than increase their numbers With available gonetic material ana knowledge it is possible to double tho present milk yields and increase the number of lambs or kids per female animal by 30-40

2F~ttGning of lambs or kids at prosGnt prices can increase total and net returns SUbstantially with profound ~conomic advantages for the individual producer and tho national economy

3 The study of di~ferent directions of ~roduction showed that the milk and mlat direction was slightly suporior to the all-moat directionH01iGVer thE a I Le-meat di re c t i on of production may bo a sound economic alternative mainly in situations where good possibilities exist for high lcvul of razing and skilled labour is limited

4 The feed cost for high level of grazing was only half the cost for middotindoor fcodLng The loer fe ed cost 18S ruflectcd in higher net returns for the razing systems The cost differential between cost of grazing and fecding of concentrates should be adjusted to promoto grazing 8t th8 IGvlol which will mClOt at the minimum the maintenance r-oqu i r-crucn t s of auuI t animalsmiddot

5 With present 18v~ls of productivity 168 ewes or 151 goats arc roquirlQ to produclo farm incomb of Cpound 2000 In norm situations 75 OWbS pr-oducdng 120 kg milk and 16 1(111bs could I~roduc8 thc same income For this LcvcI of productivi ty the r-espec t i v- numbers for z er-o low and high grazing nystems war_ 123 75 and 65 ewes

Th authors gratefully acknowlGdge tl1G cooperation of ahoe p and goat producers and the assistancE providod by all members of the Agricultural Economics Slction

RLFERLFCES

1 Louca A Pr-eLimanar-y r-csuI ts on tho por-formarice of pur-ebr-ed and cross-bred sllecp Paper prosGDtcd a~ the RGgional Workshop for shclp and forage improvement February 11-14 1974 in Buirut~ Lebanon

- 14 shy

2 Chimonides 1 1972 Some faotors affGoting the productivity of DamQscus goats in Cyprus MS Thesis American University of Bei r-ut L8b~~lO[

3 Planning Bureau ThE first (1962-66) the second (1967-71) and t hlaquo

third (1972-76) Five Year Plan Planning Rur~au

Nioosia Cyprus

4 Agrioulturul Research Institute 1964 Cost and Returns of Shlq

and goats Agric Res Inst Nioosia Cyprus

5 Louca A Personal c omruurri ca t i cn Agrioultural Research Institute Nioosia Cyprus

6 Hadjipanayiotou M and Louca A 1975 PhG Effeots of partial suckling on the lactation Derformance of Chios sheep and Damasous goats and the growth rate of the lambs and kids (in preparation) Agricultural Research Institute Nicosia Cyprus

7 Louca A 1972 The effect of suckling regime on grmdh rate and laotation performance of the Cyprus Fat-tailed amI Chios sheep Anim Prod 15~53-59

8 Louca A ~ Mavr-ogen i s A and Lawlor ~1J 1975 ThE effect of early weaning on the laotation performanoe of Damascus goats and the growth rate of the kidb Anim Prod 20 213-218

9 Papachristodoulou S and Papas A 1975 The bconomios of drylan~

mixed farming in Cyprus Agrioultural Research Institute Nicosia~ Cyprus

10 Papachristodoulou S 1974 (Restrioted) Dryland Mixed Farwing A technical and economic anaLys i s of some typical fnrl~

participated in the Mixed Farming Project during 1968-1972 Agricultural Research ~nstitute Nicosia Cyprus

11 Papas A 1975 Protein requirements of ewes during laotution (in IJreparation) Agrioultural REJsearch Lns t i tu t e Nicosia Cyprus

12 Papas A 1975 Protein requirements of ewes during maintenanoe (in preparation) Agricultural Res~arch Institute Nioosia Cyprus

13 Papas~ A 1975 The protein requirements of early weaned lambs (in preparation) Agricultural Researoh Institutc 9

Nioosia CYfrus

- 15 shy

lTA P P E D I x

COHPUTATION OF DnUT-OUTPUT DATA OF SHEEP MID GOATS-Gross revenue is the total value of milkmeat cUlls wool and manuree

Sheep milk was sold at Cpound 0163kg and goat milk at Cpound 0112kg In the

actual situation revenue from lambs and kids 11018 based on receipts

adjusted to current prices It was assumed that in norm situation lambs

and kids were sold at 35 kg liveweight 0547kg The prices at 20 kg

liveweight and at weaning were Cpound 0625 and Cpound 0781 respectively A 5

death rate for lambs and kids was assumed Culling was estimated at

20 each year 5 of this was assumed to represent losses and the

remaining 15 of the culls sold at Cpound 125head It was assumed that

losses were directly related to productivity for every additional 10 kg

milk yield and 01 lambing ratio losses increased by 015 and by

005 respectively The revenue from wool and manure was estimated at

Cpound 0700 and Cpound 0500animal respectively (App Tables 16)

Variable costs include feed expenses (purchased or produced) other

expenses (veterinary hired labour) and interest on operating capitale

In the actual situation feed expenses for sheep remiddotprEHHlnted

the 95 of variable costs and 54 of total costs for goats these

percentages are 94 and 44 respectively (App Tables 1 and 2) In the

norm situation feed expenses for sheep or goats comprised approximately

95 of the variable costs ranging from 42-65 of the total costs

depending on the level of productivity direction of production and the

level of grazing (App Tables 3-5) The feed expenses forslle-epandmiddot

goats as percent of variable and total costs decreased from about

95-84 and increased from about 50-53 respectively depending on the

size of production unit (App Table 6)

Interest on operating capital represents 50 of the variable

costs at 8 interest rate

Fixed costs include rent of land family labour replacement

depreciation and interest on fixed capital

In the actual situation rent of land was charged for the area

under fodder crops while in the norm situation rent was charged only for

the area occupied by sheds and the milking parlour

- 16 shy

Family labour was valued atGpound 1600__p~r -wor~i~gslaY_~Ep_

ble 15 presents the labour requirements for 80 ewes or goats pr-ac t i c i rs

w or high grazing system at increasing levels of milk yield andmiddot

Lmbing or kidding ratios Also gives the calculation of the labou~

squ i r-ement s for the zero grazing system and increasing number of aniild

n this study it was assumed that 13 labour units(LbU) were c on tr i bu

ed by family labour and any additional labour w~cs treated as hired

abour-

The replacement was estimated at 20 of the value of animals

The annual depreciation rate of shed8 was estimated at 25

while interest rate used for sheds and livestock capital was 6

Total costs is the sum of variable and fixed costs and net profit the

difference between gross revenue and total coste (App Tables 1-6)

Return to labour (Cpoundwo~king day) was calculated by adding to the net

profit all labour costs and dividing this amount by the number of

working days (App Tables 1-6)

Return to capital () was calculated by adding to the net profit the

interest on operating and fixed capital and dividing the amount by tho

capital investments (excl land capital) and multiplied by 100 (App

Tables 1-6)

Farm income consisted of pai~ or imputed rent 9 remuneration of family

and hired labour interest charges and net profit (App Tables 1-6)

Cost to the government was computed from the v~lue of concentrates fed

using the coefficients of 039 and 043 for aault and young animals

respectively These coefficients represent the increase in percentaL~

of the present value of the concentrates which Would be paid by the

producers in the form of hi~her prices if marketing of feed grains waG

not regulated These coefficients were comI~t8d on the basis of the

difference of the prices for feed grains paid lJy the Government and t~l(

livestock producers and on the content of the concentrate mixtures in

the feed grains (App Tabl~s 3-6)

----------------

- 17 shy

App Table 1 Costs and Returns of Sheep Enterprises by Size Group (Actual)

--_SizebwrltuF (No of ewes)

30-50 50-80 80gt Mean Cpoundewe-----_-_-

No of observations 17 33 18 68

Average No of ewes 42 65 94 67 Milk production (kg) 2711 3442 5348 3764 Lambs Bold or consumed (No) 39 55 85 59 ------------------_shy

Ycilk and milk products 440 569 865 614 92 40middot9 Lambs 417 573 925 627 9 418 Culls 60 94 108 89 13 5middot8 Wool 28 48 71 49 07 31 Manure 19 30 41 30 04 18 Change of capital 71 136 55 98 15 6G

Gross Revenue Cpound 1037 1450 2056 1507 225 1000

Feed purchased 221 325 493 344 53 27 ~

Feed produced 72 118 103 103 15 77 Forage produced 150 246 379 257 38 19lt5 Other 6 8 12 8 01 0~5

Interest 18 28 39 29 04 20 ----------------___

Variable Costs Cpound 467 725 1026 741 111 ------ ------------_- shy

Rent of land 45 52 92 61 Family labour 342 436 529 437 )3 -I

~ IInterest and depreciation 48 66 85 66 -

-------~---------_ _

Fixed Costs Cpound 435 554 706 564

Total Costs bpound 902 1279 1732 1305 195 --__--____-__---shyNet profit Cpound 135 171 324 202 31

43- J

Return to labour (Cpoundworking day) 22 22 26 23

Return to capital () 101 101 128 108 Return over feed expenses Cpound 594 761 1081 804 Farm income Cf 588 753 1069 795 ---------------------~---------_

- 18 shy

Table 2 Costs and Returns of Goat Enterprises by Size Group (Actual)

Size group (lITo of gegtats )

30-50 50-80 80) Mean Ci-goat

No of observations 18 28 19 65

Average No of goats Milk production (kg) Kids sold or consumed (No)

39 4034

53

63 4439

71

98 6169 100

666 4833

74

Milk and milk products Kids Culls Manure Change of capital

331 552

54 19 97

364 704 80 28 71

505 1005 102

43 154

396 60 750 113 79 12 30 0middot5

103 15

293 551 59 24 73

Gross Revenue Cishy 1053 1247 1809 1358 20middot5 100 00

Feed purchased Feed produced Forage produced Other Interest

207 35

llO

7 14

236 53

156 8

18

263 36

304 17 25

236 43

186 II 19

3middot5 06 28 02 03

224 38

18J 13 loy

Variable Costs Cf 373 471 645 495 74 474

Rent of land Family labour Interest and depreciation

25 342 48

39 436

66

77 529 85

46 437

67

07 65 10

4middot5 417

64

Fixed Costs Cf 415 541 691 550 82 526

Total Costs Cf 788 1012 1336 1045 156 1000

Net Frofi t Cf 265 235 473 313 49

Return to labour (Cpoundworking day)

Return to capital () Return over feed expenses Farm income

Cf Of

28 169

700 694

24 128

802 794

30 17middot5 1206 1189

27 153 892 882

- 19 shy

App Table 3 Effect of Level of Produotivity and Direction of a) Produotion on the Costs and Returns of Sheep (Norm)

Milk yield (kgewe)

Lambing ratio

Milk Lambs Culls

Wool Manure

Gross Revenue

Feed for ewes i) Concentrates

ii) Hay amp straw Feed for lambs

i) Concentrates Other Interest

Variable Costs

Rent Famil y labour Replacement Depreciation Interest

Fixed Costs

Total Costs

Gross Profi t

Net Profit

Return to labour (Cpoundworking day)

Return to capital () Cost to the Government

deg 60 120 200

26 12 16 08

782 3781 1748 142 139

56 56 40 40

1565 2325 128

56 40

2608 1163

120 56 40

Cpound 4019 2765 4114 3986

676 464

988 446 12 12 67 37

728

601 12 54

720

294 12 41

Cpound 1743 959 1395 1067

2 2

364 449 544 504

19 19 82 82

2

534 608 19 82

2

590 640 19 82

ce 1011 1056 1245 1333

Cpound 2754 2015 2640 2400

Cpound 2276 1606 2719 2919

Cpound 1265 750 1474 1586

72 43 60 59 392 269 46middot7 521

Cpound 688 373 542 407

a) Assuming 80 8W~S and low grazing

- 20 shy

App Table 4 Effect of Level of Productivity and Direction of a) middotmiddotmiddot----middot --Produc_tiQ[l on the Costs and Returns of Goats (Norm) bull

bull bullbullbullbull ~ __R_ ~~__bullbullbull ~ bullbullbull _

-_ ----~ bull

Milk yield (kggoat)

Kidding ratio

0

34

80

16

160

20

2$0

13

Milk Lambs Culla

4511 137

717 2136 134

1434 2652 120

2503 1743

106

Manuremiddot 40 40 40 40

Gros smiddot R-eAfnu-e- Cpound 4688 3027 4246 4398

Feed for goats ) ConcentratesJ I

ii) Hay amp straw Feed for kids

i) Concentrates Other Interest

824

1023 12 74

560

482 12 42

832

601 12 58

928 ~

391 12 53

Variable Coiits Cpound 1933 1096 1503 1384

Rent Family labour Replacement Depreciation Interestmiddot_middotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddot

2 366 608 19 82

2 488 560

19 82

2 566 688 19 82

2 617 776 19 82

Fixed Cos is Cpound 1077 1151 1357 1496

Total Cost s Cpound 3010 2247 2860 J 2880

Gross Froht Cpound 2755 1931 2743 3014

Net PI-ofit

Cpound 1678 780 1386 151[

Return to labour (Cpoundworking day)

Return to capital () 89

493 42

274 55

436 505

480 Cost to the Oovernmen t --6pound---middot761 middot425 51n __

~_~- -- _--___-~ _ M bullbullbull_ bullbull___ R bullbullbull __bullbull __ bull

o _ bullbull

~301 __

a) Assuming 80 goats and low grazing

- 21 shy

App Table 5 Effect of Level of GraZirg on the Costs and Returns of Sheep and Goats (Norm) a

Shee~ Goats Level of gra~ing Zero Low High Zero Low Rigl

Milk yield (kgfemale animal) 120 120 120 160 160 16

Lambing or kidding ratio 16 16 16 20 20 2()

Milk 1565 1565 1565 1434 1434 l434 Lambs 2326 2326 2326 2652 2652 2652 Culls 128 128 128 120 120 120 Wool 56 56 56 Manure 40 40 40 40 40 40

Gross Revenue Cpound 4115 4115 4115 4246 4246 4246

Feed for ewes or goats i) Concentrates 1292 728 408 1508 832 505

ii) Ray amp straw 288 282 Feed for lambs or kids

i) Concentrates 601 601 601 602 602 602 Other 12 12 12 12 12 12 Interest 88 54 41 96 58 45

Variable Costs Cpound 2281 1395 1062 2500 1504 116r _ _-

Rent 2 2 2 2 L 2 Family labour 390 534 534 422 566 565 Replacement 608 608 608 688 688 68P Depreciation 19 19 19 19 19 1)

Interest 82 82 82 82 82 8e

Fixed Costs Cpound 1101 1245 1245 1213 1357 1357

Total Costs Cpound 3382 2640 2307 3713 2861 252

Gross Profit Cpound 18~4 2720 3053 1746 2743 30t)2

1Tet Profit Cpound 733 1475 1808 533 1385 1725

Return to labour (Cpoundworking day) 46 60 70 36 5middot5 65

Return to capital () 232 467 588 178 436 55( Feed cost to the Government Cpound 762 542 418 847 583 456

a) Assuming 80 female adult animals

- 22 shy

App Table 6 Bffect of the Size of the Pr-oduc t ion Unit on the Costs and Returns of Sheep and Goats (NJrm)

SheGE Goats

Ewes or goatsfarm 80 160 200 80 160 2()(I

Milk yield (kgfemale animal) 120 120 120 160 160 16~)

Lambing or kidding ratio 16 16 16 20 20 2 0

Milk 1565 3130 3912 1434 2867 35[1 Lambs 2326 4651 5814 2652 5305 66jl Culls 128 256 320 120 240 300 Wool 56 112 140 Manure 40 80 100 40 80 100

Gross Revenue Cpound 4115 8229 10286 4246 8492 10615

Feed for awes or goats i) Concentrates 728 1456 1820 832 1664 208

ii) Hay amp straw Feed for lambs or kids

i) Concentrates 601 1202 1502 602 1203 1504 Hired labour 203 385 266 4f- u_)

Other 12 24 30 12 24 jC)

Interest 54 115 150 58 126 163

Variable Costs Cpound 1395 3000 3887 1504 3283 42C

Rent 2 4 5 2 4 Family labour 534 624 624 566 624 621 Replacement 608 1216 1520 688 1376 1( 2(

Depreciation 19 32 40 19 32 4C Interest 82 159 198 82 159 19t

Fixed Costs Cpound 1245 2035 2387 1357 2195 255 _ _--_ __

Total Costs Cpound 2640 5035 6274 2860 5478 6521

Gross Profit Cpound 2720 5226 6399 2743 5209 Ggt7)

net Profit Cpound 1475 319L~ 4012 1385 3014 Ll3 -

Return to labour (Cpoundworking day) 60 78 80 5middot5 70 SoU

Return to capital () 467 510 510 436 475 538 Feed cost to the Government Cpound 542 1085 1356 583 1166 145[

- 23 ~

App Table 7 Prices Received and Paid

Prices received Unit Cpound-Milk sheep kg 0163

goat kg 0112 Lamb or kid

At leaning kg 1ivQwoight 0781 At 20 kg kg 0625 At 35 kg kg II 0547

Wool Cpoundanima1 0100 Manure Cpoundanima1 0500

Prices paid

Feed roughage

Straw ton 120 Cereal hay ton 200

Concentrates

Creep feed ton 500 15 crude protein (as fed) ton 458 13 crude protein (as fed) ton 438 11 crude protein (as fed) ton 400

Labour working day 16

Rent of land donum 15

App Table 8 Capital Investments

Land

Sheds for 80 female animals

160 female animals 200 female animals

Value of animals Ewes (0 kg milk 26 lambing ratio)

(60 kg milk 12 lambing ratio) (120 kg milk 16 lambing ratio ) (200 kg milk 08 lambing ratio)

Goats( 0 kg milk 34 kidding ratio) ~ 80 kg milk 16 kidding ratio) (160 kg milk 20 kiddinB ratio) (280 kg milk 13 kidding ratio)

Operating capital (50 of variable costs)

Cpounddonum 300

Cpoundshed 1800 Cpoundahed 13500 Cpoundshed 16600

CrJeue 330

315

380

400

Cpoundgoat 380

340

400

425

vpp Table 9 Gross RevenuG (Cpoundewe) at Incr-eas Ing LeveI s of Milk Yi o Ld and Lcml~ng Rc tios (rorm)

Millt Y i e 1 d (kg eVi8)Lambing ratio 0 20 4~ 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200

08 163 208 253 298 343 388 433 ~n 8 523 568 613 10 201 246 29 ~ 1 33~6 381 426 471 516 561 606 651

12 240 284 32~9 37~4 419 464 509 554 599 644 689 16 31 6 360 40~5 45o 495 540 585 630 675 720 765 18 355 398 44~3 488 533 578 623 668 713 758 803 22 431 474 519 56~4 609 654 699 744 789 834 879

26 508 550 5915 64+ 0 658 730 775 820 865 910 955 30 584 626 67h 71~6 761 806 851 896 941 986 1034

~--

- _ N

~

App Table 10 Gross Revenue (Cpoundgoat) at Increasing LeY11s of Milk Yield and Kidding Ratios (Norm) bull

M i llt Y i e 1 d (kg L~at) IKidding ratio

middot0 40 80 l~d 160 200 240 280 320 360 400

08 148 193 237 28~~ 327 372 41 7 461 506 551 596 12 218 263 307 35~2 397 442 487 531 576 621 666 16 287 333 37-7 42l~ 467 512 55middot7 601 646 691 736 20 355 403 447 49 ~ 2 537 582 627 671 716 761 806 24 -422 473 51 7 56~ 60middot7 652 697 74middot1 786 831 876

bull 28 488 543 58~7 632 677 722 767 811 856 901 946 32 564 613 65 ~ 7 70~~ 747 792 837 881 926 971 1016 36 634 683 72~7 772- 81 7 862 907 951 996 1041 1086

I

1)App Table 11 Concentrates Consumed (kgewe) Low Grazing System

Lambi ng Y i e 1 d i n mil k (kg ewe) ratio

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200

08 568 708 848 98 8 1128 1268 1408 1548 1688 1828 1968 LO 710 850 990 1130 127middot0 1410 1550 1690 1830 1970 2110 12 852 992 1132 1272 1412 1552 1692 1332 1972 2112 2252 16 1136 1276 1416 1556 1696 1836 1976 2116 2256 2396 2536 18 1278 1418 1558 1698 1838 1978 2118 2258 2398 2538 267middot8 22 1562 1702 1842 1982 2122 2262 2402 2542 2682 2822 2962 26 1846 1986 2126 2266 2406 2546 2686 2626 2966 3106 3246 30 2130 2270 2410 2550 2690 2830 2970 311 0 325middot0 3390 3530

ro1) I~aintenancerequirement of adult animals met by grazing V1

Assumptions for grazing systems

1 07 kg feeds of 15 crude protein (as fed basis) was fed per kg milk produced or sucked [iy 2 50 kg milk was suoked by each lamb from birth to weaning at 35 days 3 In late pregnancy each ewe received on the average 36 kg concentrates above maintenance for each lamb carried 4 In zero grazing maintenance requirements during the dry period were met by 06 kg straw and 05 kg

concentrates of 11 crude protein (as fed basis) [1~ I~ late pregnancy (6 weeks before lambing) and during lactation each ewe received 06 kg cereal hay and 04 kg concentrates to meet the maintenance requirements Other requirements in concentrates were met as in low grazing syste~

App liable 12 Conoentcates Consumed (kgg02t ) i Low Grazing SJ34~OT 1)- (I

----------------------T -----------~-_--------------------------------------------------shy

M gt~_~ LL~_~iJ~_8poundatl Kidding ratio

o 40 80 120 160 200 240 280 320 360 400 -----_ ------~---~ _- ----------__--__-----shy

08 528 768 1008 1248 138 1728 1960G 2208 24Li8 2688 2928 12 792 1032 1272 1512 175middot2 1992 2232 2472 271 2 2952 3192 16 1056 129 u 6 1536 ~-77 6 20l6 2256 2496 =736 2976 3216 3456 20 1320 1560 J80o 2040 2280 2520 2760 3000 3240 3480 3720 24 1584 1[24shy 2064 2304 2-~4middot 4 27S~4 3024 32604 350middot4 3 7 11++ 3984 28 1848 2038 23 28 2568 2808 30~ 8 328f3 ~)52 8 3768 4008 42~ 8

-3 ~ 211 2 2352 2592 2832 3072 3312 3552 37902 4032 4272 +51 2

______ 36

_-__ 2379

- 2616 2856 3096

___shy__ 3336 3576

_ 3826

middot 4056 L_~

429gt6 middot

L15306 _ _

4776

1) Maintenance requirements of adult animals met-JY grazing ro 0

~~~mption for grazing system

1 06 kg feed of 15 crude protein (as fed basis) was fed per kg milk produced or suoked 2 50 kg milk was sucked by each kid from birth to wean~ng at 70 days Partial suckling was practised from the

30th day onwards 3 In late pregnancy each goat received on the average 36 kg concentrates above maintenance for each kid carried 4 In zero grazing maintenance requirements in the dry period were met by 06 kg of straw and 05 kg of

concentrates of 11 crude protein (as fed basis)

29

- 27 shy

App Table 13 Feed Cost and Revenue for Lamb Fattening

Lambing ratio

08 10 12middot 16 18 22 26

aConcentrates (kg) I

Birth to weaning Weaning to 20 kg Birth to 20 kg 20 kg to 35 kg Birth to 35 kg

09 290 299 54~0

839

1 J 13 17 20 368middot 449 618 706 37middot9 462 635 726 675 810 1080 1215

1054 1272 1715 1941

24 890 914

1485 2399

1036 106e5 175middot5 2820

Saleable Iiveweight (kg)

at weaning at 20 kg at 35 kg

87 160 280

108 200 35middot0

12~8

24middot0 420

174198 320 360 56~0 630

249 44middot0 770

290 520 910

Feed expenses

at weaning mils 45 55 65 -85 100 120 145 to 20 kg Cf 14 17 21 29 33 42 49 __ to 35 kg Cf 37 46 56 7middot5 85 10middot5 123

Revenue Cf

Lamb sale Lamb sale Lamb sale

at weaning ~~ 20 kg at 35 kg

68 100shy153shy

gt ~_ bull bullbullbullbull ~-

84 125 191

100 136 150 200 230 306middot

15middot5 225 345

194 27middot5 421

226 32 c 49 e

Assumed birthweight 47 45 42 38

a) It was assumed that the protein content of the ooncentrates mixture feed from birth to weaning was 168 and from 20 to 35 kg 143 on dry matter basis [1[

- 28 shy

App Table 15 Labour Raquire~entl) for 80 poundMes or Goats Practising Low or High Grazing at Increasing Levels of Milk Yield and Lambing or Kidding Ratios

i

Lamhing Y i e 1 d i n mil k (kg Le_we) ratio

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 280

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - Lbua)production unit - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -08 0749 0813 0869 0933 1013 1069 1109 1149 1113 1205 1229 1283 10 0150 0814 0870 0934 1014 1010 1110 1150 1114 1206 1230 1284 12 0151 0815 0811 0935 1015 1011 1111 1151 1115 1201 1231 1285 14 0152 0816 0812 0936 1016 1012 1112 1152 1116 1208 1232 1286 16 0153 0811 0813 0937 1011 1013 1113 153 1117 1209 1234 1287 18 0154 0818 0874 0938 1018 1074 1114 1154 1178 1210 1235 1288 20 0155 0819 0875 0939 1019 1015 1115 1155 1119 1211 1236 1289 22 0756 0820 0876 0940 1020 1016 1116 1156 1180 1212 1237 1290 24 26

0151 0158

0821 0822

0871 0878

0941 0942

1022 1023

1017 1018

1111 1118

1157 1158

1181 1182

1213 1214

1238 1239

1291 1292

ro -D

28 0759 0823 0879 0943 1024 1019 1119 1159 1183 1215 1240 1293 30 0760 0824 0880 0middot944 1025 1080 1120 1160 1184 1216 1241 1 294 34 0162 0826 0882 0946 1027 1082 1122 1162 middot _____middot L_ 1186 1218 1242 1295

a) 1 LbU = 300 working days

1) Low and high grazing system Calculated as followsi

Labour requirement (LbU) = 015 + (lambing ratio - 10) x 0005 +

Labour for milkin~ (days)+ X No of female animals 300

+) Assuming 6 minutesanimalday

Zero grazing system Labour requiremunt (lbU) = Low or high grazing system (LbU) - 0300 for 80 female animals

- 0550 for 160 female animals - 0650 fOr 2rl) tomcIc animals

Page 7: FACTORS AFFECTING THE ECONOMICS OF SHEEP AND GOATSnews.ari.gov.cy/Publications/AER4-papas.pdfFACTORS AFFECTING THE ECONOMICS OF SHEEP AND GOATS . By . ... Costs and Returns of Goat

- 3 shy

questionnaires and were shown how to enter the raw uata A stqff member of the Agricultural Economics Section paid monthly visits to summarize the data and answer any questions raised Each production unit was treated as one observation Costs and returns were computed for each farm and group of farms The relationship of the gross revenue to tne main cost i terns was deterwined by regression anal ys i s

Details of the cowputations of costs and returns of the actual and norm proQuction units are presented in the Appendix The basic assumption under-Lydng these computations was that current prices were operative for both production units

EcmWMIC RBSULTS

J NORM SITUATION

L Level of productivity and direcmiddottion of production Sheep and goats in Cyprus serve a dual purpose namely meat and milk production with no emphasis on wool As stated earlier milking of ewes is a specialized laborious activity which cannot be easily mechanized Thus the Low availabili ty of skilled labour on farm limits the size of the family type production unit It Ls therefore important to examine the labour requirement and the economics of alternative directions of production and in particUlar the all-meat production unit in norm situations (Table 1)

The extreme situations of 200 kg milk and 08 lambs (column d) and zero milk and 26 lambs (column a) may be taken to ~epresent the dairy and meat directions resIectively while the ewes giving 120 kg and 16 lambs (column c) represent an intermediate situation The 26 lamhs in the allmiddot-meat direction can he achieved by an appropriate s ys t em which will make possible 15 lambings yearly In such system the ewes have shorter lactations and are mated soon after weaning of Lanbe 111 though not pr-ac t i s ed wiuely at present thL system Has tested in Cyprus and in other countries yeni th pr-orai s Lng

resul ts L5 J The data in Table 1 show that in a system in which the

maintenance requirements are met by grazing (low grazing) the above three directions (columns d c a) resulted in comparable gross revenue The feed costs hOilever increase wi th higher lambing ratio because all concentrate feeding was assumed for fattening The higher costs primarily for concentrates result in higher cost to the Government The labour requirement is lowest for the all-meat direction and highest for the milk direction The lower labour requirement makes possible the increase of the number of animals in the all-meat production unit

As shown in Tahle 1 the all-meat direction in goats result in slightly higher revenue than the other systems but this advantage

- 4 shy

is cancelled by the higher feeding costs The other cost and returns items show similar trends as with sheep

For the s arne number of animals the production uni ts or-Len t eu towards milk production require lowe-r feeeting but higher labour costs For the yields assumed above there is an aCivantage in net returDS to the producer and lower cost to the Government of the dual or dairy type over the all-meat direction The all-meat direction nevertheless is an economically sound aL ternative especiully in si tuations of shor-ta u in skilled labour and potential for high grazing It must however 5

be emphasized that these comparisons are made on empirically chosen yields and that the economics may change as yields and prices change

Table 1 Effect of Level of Productivity anQ Direction of Production on the Costs and Returns of Sheep and Goats (Iorm)a)

Sheep (a) (b) (c) (d) (e)

Milk yield (kgewe) 0 60 120 200 200 Lambing rati 0 26 12 16 08 16

- - -Cpoundenterprise -

Gross revenue 4019 2765 4114 3987 5175 Feed cost 1664 910 1329 1014 1530 Variable cost 1743 959 1395 1067 1604 Labour cost 364 449 534 590 592 Net profit 1265 750 1474 1586 2171 Returns to labour

(Cfworking day) 7~2 43 60 5middot9 7middot5 Returns to capital () 39middot2 269 467 521 833 Fa r m income 1780 1321 2147 2302 2910 Cost to the Government 688 373 542 407 622 Gross revenue per Cpound 171 135 132 102 120

Goats (a) (b) (c) (d) Milk yield (kggoat) 0 80 160 280 Kidding ratio 34 16 20 13

- - - - - - --Cpoundenterpriseshy - -----shyGross revenue 4688 3027 4246 4398 Feed cost 1847 1042 1434 1319 Variable cost 1934 1096 1503 1384 Labour cost 366 488 566 617 Net profit 1678 780 1386 1518 Returns to labour

(Cfworking day) 89 L1 --I bull L 5middot5 5middot5

Returns to capital (~n 493 274shy 436 480 Farm income 2202 1395 2094 2272 Cost to the Covernmen t 761 425 583 530 Gross revenue per Cf 162 140 137 121

a) Assuming 80 female adult animals and low grazing

- 5 shy

The comparison of column b (lOrl productivi ty) to columns a c d and e shows that 9 at these levels 9 the increase in returns is faster than the in6rease in costs The additional fsed costs res~ltinl

from the hiher requirements accounted for the largest part of till increase in variable costs In contrast~ the cost of labour incr8ase~

only slowly in columns c 9 d and e and decreased in column a Thi3 suggests that if the available genetic ~aterial and knowledge was

etlployed to increCise pr-oduo t i vi ty there Hould be a need for Lnc r-eas i ns cas] 8ltIJ8nlt88 for purchos i ng feed but there wouLd not be any [ignific_~L shyincrease in labour r-equ i r-eraent In con t r-as t labour avai Labi Lf ty jlay be limitinb the size of the production unit

8ffect of intensive fattening

Based on earlier work ~6 7 9 ~ it was assumed that lambs were weaned ai 35 days and kids at 70 days and that partial suckling was practised from 16th and 30th day onwards for lambs and kids respectively ThE sale of lambs at weanin~o9 20 kflS and 35 kg Livewe i ght produced revenue of Cpound 136 Cpound 200 and Cpound 306 for lambing ratio of 16 The additional expense primarily in feed costs was Cpound 29 and Cpound 77 for increases in gross revenue of Cpound 64 and Cpound 170 respectivey

Table 2 Effect oi Fat t en i ng of Lambs and Kiels OD the Costs and Returns of Sheep and Goats (Norm)a)

Goats ireanincmiddot i-reaning

35 k s(35 day~) 20 kg 35 kg (70 days) Liveweight solJ kgfemale animal 17middot4 320 560 313 63(

Revenue from lambs or kids Cpound female animal 136 200 306 244 349

Lambs or kids feed 8xpenses Cpoundfcrnale anir1al 01 29 7middot5 04 7middot5

Variable costs Crfemale animal 9middot7 126 174 114 188

Labour exrens es Cpoundfemal~ arrimaL 65 66 67 69 7middot1

Not profit Cpoundfemale ani mal 9middot3 127 184 97 17middot3

Return to capital () 265 343 470 269 434 Return to labour

CfwOrking day 40 47 60 41 61 Farm income

Cpoundfemale animal 169 206 268 177 26 ] Cost to the Gover-nmen t Cpoundfemale animal 36 47 68 -~ 2 7middot3

a) Fora product i cn unit 101i th 80 _wes producing 120 kg milk and 16 lambs or so goats produc i ng 160 kg mil and 20 kids with low level of euro-rJzing

- 6 shy

The cost to benefit ratio of 045 is sigl1ificantly lower than thb ratio of 063 which would be required to incz-eae e meat through LrL~

numbers of sheep The high differences betv een addi t i onal cost and revenue was also reflected in higher profit farm income and returns to capi tal and Labour The cost to the Governrrent would increase b~

Opound 11 and Cpound 32 respectively because fa t t erLng was based on conoentra te feeds In general the Govermnent pad d more th~n 13 of 0h~

variable costs for fattening This cost however is lower than the expense in foreign exchange for Lmpor t Ln Lamb meat at present pri c ce

It is thus concluded that fattening of lambs up to 35 kC liv8weight increases significantly the gross revenue and all return i t erue Fa ttening required only minor additional labour and no significant capital investment in shedS machinery etc but profi tabili ty of lamb and kid fattening de penua primarily on the price relationship of feeds and meat

II Level of grazing

The effect of zero low and high grazing s ys t ems on the main return and cost i terns of producti on uni ts Hi th 80 ewes or 80 goa ts ar~middot

presented in Table 3 The feed cost desreased significantly with increasing level of grazing being only half that of the zero grazing system Savings in feed costs was reflected in higher farm income returns to labour and capital and net profit for the two ayst ems wi -U

gr-az i ng as compared to indoor feeding Irr om the inputs only the- llt)oT cost was higher in the high grazing system than in the zero grazin~~

system The additional labour cost however of Cpound 144 was smaller compared to th8 saving in feed accounting to Cpound 1171 for ewes and Opound 1285 for goats in the high grazing sybtem

Table 3 Effect of Level of GraZing On the Costs and Returns of SLeeT and Goats (Norm)a)

Sheep Goats Level of grazing Zero Low High Zero Low Higt

- - - - - -ORproduction unit- - - shy

Gross revenue 4114 4114 4114 4246 4246 42-~6

Feed cost 2180 1329 1009 2392 1434 i ic Concentrates 1893 1329 1009 2110 1434 1107 Hay amp straw 287 282

Variable cost 2280 1395 1062 2500 1503 116 Labour cost 390 53- 534 422 566 5St Net profit 733 1475 1807 533 1386 1725 Return to labour

Cfworking day 46 60 70 36 55 6middot) Return to capital (~ ) 23middot5 470 592 178 436 55middot(Cost to the Government 762 542 417 847 583 4Y~

Farra income 1295 2147 2467 1135 2094 2j~C

================-==========-- a) For a unit with 80 ewes producing 120 kg milk and 16 lambs or 80

goats producing 160 kg milk and 20 kius

- 7 shy

The cost to the Government in terms of subsidies for

concentrates is almost twice as high for indoor feeding as compareu to -- high grazing s ya t em In addition zero gr2~ing involves a high expenslaquo

in foreign exchange as Cyprus is a net ili1portcr of large quanti ti83 of

feed grain Thus maxi murn use of grazing i r to the benefit of bo th tIle

LndivLduaI producer and thG national ec ouomy It is therefore 5

necessary to keep the cost d i ffer-en t i aI -1 a level which would

encourage the full utilization of grazin- aroas and allow tne opt i mum

LlSt3 of feed grain It is clifficul t to d e t e r-mine the opt i mum s i z e of this differential because of the wide variation in the availability of graamping from one part of Cyprus to the other andthe effect of the price of thE- feed grain on the price of r1any basic fOOd items

111 Size of the production unit

Data on the main cost and return items of norm production

units varying in size are presented in Table 4

Table 4 Lffect of the Size of the Production Unit on the Costs

and Returns of Sheep and Goats (Noro)a)

Female animals per farm 80

Sheep

160 200 80

Goats

160 200

Gross revenue

Feed cost

Variable costs

Labour cOstshy

Net frofi t Return to labour

Cpoundworking day

Return to capital () Farm inoome

- - shy -

4115 1329 1395

534 1475

60 467 2147

- - -

8229 2658 3000

827 3194

70middot3 510 4298

-Crproduction unital

10286 4246 8492 3322 1433 2867 3887 1503 3283 1009 566 890

1386 -

4012 3014

80 5middot5 70 510 436 47middot5 5374 2094 4192

- shy -

10615 358shy4240 1087 4328

80 518 5781

-

a) For ewes producing 120 kg milk ana 16 lambs or goats producing

160 kg milk and 20 k ide on the 10Vl crazinb s ys t em

It is ilpparent that the size of the production unit affects

costs and returns significantly Fo r the yields stated above (Table -i-) 75 ewes are requireJ to obtain farm income of Cpound 2000 As would be

expected the size required to obtain Q certain level of farm incoffib

SfiY Cpound 2000 depends on many factors such iS the productivi ty of

anioills and the level of grazing This is illustrated in the followin6

examples g For ewes producing zero mi Lk yield arid 26 lambs 90 ewesn

r-equ i r edj for 60 kg milk and 12 lambs 121 ewes for 180 kg nu Lk and

10 lambs 71 ewes For zero low and high grazing with ewes producin[

120 kg milk and 16 lambs the respective numbers rBquired to obtain

farm income of Cr 2000 are 123 75 and 65

- 8 shy

B ACTUAL SITUATIOJX

I Effect of the level of productivity

The actual data collected fr-on tile sheep and goat pr-oduc t i cn units wer( classified in thrE)e levels of productivity namely~ low medium and high on the basis of the gross revenue obtained per adult female animal The means of the main cost anci return items for each group are presented in Table 5

Table 5 Costs and Returns of Sheep and Go~ts by Level of Productivity (Actual)

Sheep Goat

Level of productivity Low Medium High Low Medium Higll

Number of farms Ewes or goats per farm Milk yield

(kgfemale animal) Lambs raised per ewe or kids per goat

Concentrates (kgfemale animal)

18 72

48

11

117

29 72

57

12

135

18 54

68

13

143

16 80

37

13

65

33 64

74

15

108

16

59

126

19

200

Gross revenue (Ctfemale animal) 194 224 273 13 3 202 31 Z

Variable costs 106 lll 110 56 65 128 Gross profit 88 113 163 7middot7 13middot7 184

The hiSher productivity in the ncdium and high levels was pr9bably due to better feeding~ superior management and better genetic material from the Chios breed and the Damascus goat ~9 lQ7

The pz-oduc t i vi ty per animal incr8ased with the aLlowan ce of conc en t r-at ea as shown by the highly s i gr Lf i carrt regression coe tfLc i en t between gross revenue Cpoundfemale aniwal (Y) and concentrates fed in kg (X) the equation being Y = 1012 + 0056X (r=057) for ewes and = 947 + 0066x (r=O56) for goats The ~dditional cost of concentrashytes accounted for most of the Lnor-eas e in variable co s t s The returns obtained from animal with higher productivity w~re significantly higher tilan the additional costs bull At present ~ therefore there are wid margins for increasing productivity at low cost The data of Table 5 show that the commercial milk yield of the production units studied may be doubled while the average lambing or kidding ratio may bb improved by 30-40 L 1 J The average milk yi 61d and 1ambing or kidding ratios recorded in this study are the same as those recorded earlier [4]

- 9 shy

Ihe deL ta in Aplenuix Ta bl GS 1 and 2 show that on the CLV8r-tmiddot 09 lambs and 11 kids were sold per female animal producing a revenu~

of Cpound 94 ani Cpound 113 respectively At the price of Cpound 0781 per k 6 liveweignt this corresponds to the production of 120 and 145 kg of liveweight r-s s peo t i vel y for each ewe or gl)[t When oompared to the norm d~ta for similar lambing or kidding rltios it is concluded that the lambs and kids Nere sold at the age of eppr-oxi mately 8 - 10 WSOK3

at Which the producers usually wean the lambs and kids This would suggest tha t for the production units studied tfHlrewas no larte scale fa ttening of Lambs or kids beyond lHaninf at the aetJ of 6-10 we ek a The majority of the producers stated that they practised partial suckLin and that thcy offered creep feed to the lambs and k i ds Fran the discussion with th6se producers it was conclueltjd that the main reasons for no large scale fa t t cn ing were tradi t i on the higher l)ricus received for baby lamb and kid and the need for cash partcularly before revenue from milk was received

II Level of grazing

The data available do not allow a detailed study of the effect of the level of grazing on the costs and returns in the actual situation

It is possihle however to drd~ some conclusions from the5~

data in comparison to the norm situation The livestock producers of this study fed on the average 132 kg of concentrates for each ewe and 120 kg for each goat In add i ti on 08 donums of green forage vlclS

cansuQed by each female aniwal and its followers Similar trends WbTB

observed in ano thez- etuuy L9 J Compar-ed to norm produo t i on units or

comparable y i elds it a ppear-s that feed requirements for maintenance arto ruet by gr-az i ng gr-e en forage and straw 9 whi l E t he r equ i r-emerrt s for production are met by concentrates For ollis 9 tlH level of grazino is hi6her than she up especiallj for production units with more than 30 female adult an imaLs as indicated by tl( lower amount of concentrates fed for comparative yields

Thl level of grazin~ practised is limited by the low ava i La hi Li ty of pas tur-es and t no abe enc e of large grazing areas There are also institutional r8gulations by 10c81 authorities limi tin~ the maximum nunrber of animals a t tendcd oy a sincle shepherd Compar-ed to the norm situation the average of grazing was slightly below the designated as low level

III Size of the production unit

Data on tho main cost and return items of actual produotion units varying in size and presented in Table 6 The regression of gross revenue (YGB) or variable oosts (Yvd on the number of adult ewes (X) revealed a sienificant linear relation the equations being

- 10 shy

A ~

2138 + 193X (r=091) YVC = 97 + 109X (r=064) For goat8~YGR = the respective equations were YGR = 1860 + 46x (r=035)A

Yvc = 4035 + 147X (r=061) Unlike [Sheep the r for the equation relating gross revenue and number of gOcits wus low This pr-o babl y

resul ted from wider vaz-La t i on in productivi ty among goat than ShbI

units It was apparent fro~ the inspectiun of the data from thE individual goat units that the per an i raaL output was par t i cu Lar-Ly

variable especially for small units

For the same data gross r-evenue and labour cost per an i mal decreQsed in lareer units especially in goats The advantag8s of

economics of size were cancelled by the decline in producticity which resulted in lower net returns per animal in the larger units The total rturns how8vGr were higher in the larger units but could have been consiclerably higher had the productivity of each animal been at the same level as in the small units

Table 6 Effect of Size of the Production Unit on the Gostsand Returns of Sheep and Goats (Actual)

Female animals per farm

Gross revenue Feed cost iTariable cost abour- cost Jet profit te tu r n to labour

Cpoundorking day eturn to capital () arm income

Sheep Goa ts

42 65 94 39 63

- -Cfenterprise unit shy - -

1037 1450 2056 1053 1247 18(9

443 690 975 701 797 1206

467 726 1026 373 471 645 342 436 529 342 436 529 135 171 324 265 235 473

22 22 26 28 24 3C 101 101 128 169 128 17 middot5

588 753 1069 694 794 IJ89

By corapa r-i ng the incremental bross revenue to the varLabl raquos ts from the low to the high level of pr-oduc t av i t y (Tah1e 5) and ~om the small to the large LeveI of s i z e (lable 6) it can be derived tat it is more profitable to increase prociuctivi ty per an i maI r-athor ~n increase their numbers

DISCUSSIOl AND COFCLUSI011S

Sheep and goat production can be Lnc r-eae ed by increasing Lt

oduc t i v i t y of the animals or by increasin~ the size of the an i maL pulation or by a combination of the two The returns to the iividual producer however~ are affecteu apart of the productivity other factors namely 1 the size of the production unit the level )i

~zing the management system and others

- 11 shy

The data in this study indicated the economic advantage 1 Jotl_ for the individual producer and the national economy of increasine the sheep and goat production by improving the productivity of the animals than by increasing the size of the population For ewes and goatB it is obvious from the comparison of actual and norm data that commer-ciiI

milk yield can be doubled and lambing ratio can increase by 30-40 by

using genetic material and knowledge already available in Cyprus The adoption of fQttening of lambs and kids at weights up to 35 kg is hindered by the strong demand for baby laUD and kid meat and the nee~

of producers for cash However these obs t acLes may be overCOJTW by eppr-opr-ia t e policy measures and consumer oduoa t ion

Th6 study of different directionG of production and in particular the all-meat versus the high milk - low meat direction showed that at the levels assumed the milk and meat direction was slightly superior to the all-meat direction in terms of net returns and lower cost to the Government Nevertheless thG all-meat direction is economically sound and may be used in s peo i aLj aed si tuations in which skilled labour is limited while good possibilities exist for high levels of grazing

The size of the production unit required to obtain a certain level of farm income J8pends on many factors such as the productivity of the animals and the level of grazing The numbers of adult female animals required to obtain farn income of Cpound 2000 are 121 and 75 for commercial milk yields of 60 and 120 kg and lambing ratioe of 12 ard

16 respectively Assuming that these yields represent roughly the Local and the Chios sheep it is apparent that any benefits from increasinb the present size of the production units would be much higher if the increase in size was coupled with higher productivity Presently the size of most sheeJ or goat production units is smal18r than the siz8 required to achi8ve farw income of Cpound 2000

The rroblem of deciding the size of the production unit has many complex aspects This is so becausu the livestock enterpris8 in most places is combined with crop production and the relative size of the two on t er-prLs ee is determined by economic and other factors In this respect the amount opound family labour~ the availability and size of grazing areas and feeds and the relative profitability of the livestOCK enterprise in comparison with pos s r ble al ternative farm enterprises weigh heavily in det er-iain i ng the size of the sheep or goat production units

From the data of thi s and an oar-Iier study L 9 ] it is suggested that op t i mum utilization of resources in a mixed type of farming requires production units with 120 - 130 animals In a norm situation for numbers up to 1000 animals the returns to size were higher than zero suggesting that at present economies of siZe have not

- 12 shy

been exploited Of course larger production units do not neces5~rily

imply larger animal population th ey may resul t also from reorganizatior

of the existing population to larger economically viaole units

The level of grazing is inversely related to the feeding costs but increases labour cost The decrease in feeding cost frod

higher level of grazing is considerably higher than the increase in

labour cost There is no doubt that higher grazing level wilen possible J is economically beneficial both to the individual producGr

and the national economy and could be easily combined with the all-~~~t

direction of production It is proposed th~t the price of concentrstcO)

presently regulated by thE Government through the system of SUbsidies be kept at such level which will encourage the optimum utilization of

straw pastures and agricultural by-products

The goat production units (actual) were more variable than sheep units in the level of productivitJ-9 direction of production feeding prograDme and size Smaller goat units tended to be more productive consumed more concentrates per female animal and producei higher returns per animal than larger units This suggests that large units Hith low producing animals practised more grazing On the averagG 9 the gross revenue was higher for sheep but net returns from goats were slightly higher These differences were primarily due to higher level of grazing for goats than for sheep This comparison if

based on the average of the production units studied ~nd could not bE extrapolated to comparison of specific breeds of sheep and goats A comparative study of the Chios sheep and Damascus goat under norm

conditions was initiated at this Institute

- 13 shy

SUIDIARY

Data from 68 sheep 65 goat private production units (actual situation) and from Gov~rnment units (norm situationr were used to coraput c costs and returns and to study the main fa c t or-s affecting tht econooics of shoGp and goats in Cyprus The main conclusions of this study can be summarized as follows

1 It is more profitable as a ~irst step to incrGasG productivity per animal rather than increase their numbers With available gonetic material ana knowledge it is possible to double tho present milk yields and increase the number of lambs or kids per female animal by 30-40

2F~ttGning of lambs or kids at prosGnt prices can increase total and net returns SUbstantially with profound ~conomic advantages for the individual producer and tho national economy

3 The study of di~ferent directions of ~roduction showed that the milk and mlat direction was slightly suporior to the all-moat directionH01iGVer thE a I Le-meat di re c t i on of production may bo a sound economic alternative mainly in situations where good possibilities exist for high lcvul of razing and skilled labour is limited

4 The feed cost for high level of grazing was only half the cost for middotindoor fcodLng The loer fe ed cost 18S ruflectcd in higher net returns for the razing systems The cost differential between cost of grazing and fecding of concentrates should be adjusted to promoto grazing 8t th8 IGvlol which will mClOt at the minimum the maintenance r-oqu i r-crucn t s of auuI t animalsmiddot

5 With present 18v~ls of productivity 168 ewes or 151 goats arc roquirlQ to produclo farm incomb of Cpound 2000 In norm situations 75 OWbS pr-oducdng 120 kg milk and 16 1(111bs could I~roduc8 thc same income For this LcvcI of productivi ty the r-espec t i v- numbers for z er-o low and high grazing nystems war_ 123 75 and 65 ewes

Th authors gratefully acknowlGdge tl1G cooperation of ahoe p and goat producers and the assistancE providod by all members of the Agricultural Economics Slction

RLFERLFCES

1 Louca A Pr-eLimanar-y r-csuI ts on tho por-formarice of pur-ebr-ed and cross-bred sllecp Paper prosGDtcd a~ the RGgional Workshop for shclp and forage improvement February 11-14 1974 in Buirut~ Lebanon

- 14 shy

2 Chimonides 1 1972 Some faotors affGoting the productivity of DamQscus goats in Cyprus MS Thesis American University of Bei r-ut L8b~~lO[

3 Planning Bureau ThE first (1962-66) the second (1967-71) and t hlaquo

third (1972-76) Five Year Plan Planning Rur~au

Nioosia Cyprus

4 Agrioulturul Research Institute 1964 Cost and Returns of Shlq

and goats Agric Res Inst Nioosia Cyprus

5 Louca A Personal c omruurri ca t i cn Agrioultural Research Institute Nioosia Cyprus

6 Hadjipanayiotou M and Louca A 1975 PhG Effeots of partial suckling on the lactation Derformance of Chios sheep and Damasous goats and the growth rate of the lambs and kids (in preparation) Agricultural Research Institute Nicosia Cyprus

7 Louca A 1972 The effect of suckling regime on grmdh rate and laotation performance of the Cyprus Fat-tailed amI Chios sheep Anim Prod 15~53-59

8 Louca A ~ Mavr-ogen i s A and Lawlor ~1J 1975 ThE effect of early weaning on the laotation performanoe of Damascus goats and the growth rate of the kidb Anim Prod 20 213-218

9 Papachristodoulou S and Papas A 1975 The bconomios of drylan~

mixed farming in Cyprus Agrioultural Research Institute Nicosia~ Cyprus

10 Papachristodoulou S 1974 (Restrioted) Dryland Mixed Farwing A technical and economic anaLys i s of some typical fnrl~

participated in the Mixed Farming Project during 1968-1972 Agricultural Research ~nstitute Nicosia Cyprus

11 Papas A 1975 Protein requirements of ewes during laotution (in IJreparation) Agrioultural REJsearch Lns t i tu t e Nicosia Cyprus

12 Papas A 1975 Protein requirements of ewes during maintenanoe (in preparation) Agricultural Res~arch Institute Nioosia Cyprus

13 Papas~ A 1975 The protein requirements of early weaned lambs (in preparation) Agricultural Researoh Institutc 9

Nioosia CYfrus

- 15 shy

lTA P P E D I x

COHPUTATION OF DnUT-OUTPUT DATA OF SHEEP MID GOATS-Gross revenue is the total value of milkmeat cUlls wool and manuree

Sheep milk was sold at Cpound 0163kg and goat milk at Cpound 0112kg In the

actual situation revenue from lambs and kids 11018 based on receipts

adjusted to current prices It was assumed that in norm situation lambs

and kids were sold at 35 kg liveweight 0547kg The prices at 20 kg

liveweight and at weaning were Cpound 0625 and Cpound 0781 respectively A 5

death rate for lambs and kids was assumed Culling was estimated at

20 each year 5 of this was assumed to represent losses and the

remaining 15 of the culls sold at Cpound 125head It was assumed that

losses were directly related to productivity for every additional 10 kg

milk yield and 01 lambing ratio losses increased by 015 and by

005 respectively The revenue from wool and manure was estimated at

Cpound 0700 and Cpound 0500animal respectively (App Tables 16)

Variable costs include feed expenses (purchased or produced) other

expenses (veterinary hired labour) and interest on operating capitale

In the actual situation feed expenses for sheep remiddotprEHHlnted

the 95 of variable costs and 54 of total costs for goats these

percentages are 94 and 44 respectively (App Tables 1 and 2) In the

norm situation feed expenses for sheep or goats comprised approximately

95 of the variable costs ranging from 42-65 of the total costs

depending on the level of productivity direction of production and the

level of grazing (App Tables 3-5) The feed expenses forslle-epandmiddot

goats as percent of variable and total costs decreased from about

95-84 and increased from about 50-53 respectively depending on the

size of production unit (App Table 6)

Interest on operating capital represents 50 of the variable

costs at 8 interest rate

Fixed costs include rent of land family labour replacement

depreciation and interest on fixed capital

In the actual situation rent of land was charged for the area

under fodder crops while in the norm situation rent was charged only for

the area occupied by sheds and the milking parlour

- 16 shy

Family labour was valued atGpound 1600__p~r -wor~i~gslaY_~Ep_

ble 15 presents the labour requirements for 80 ewes or goats pr-ac t i c i rs

w or high grazing system at increasing levels of milk yield andmiddot

Lmbing or kidding ratios Also gives the calculation of the labou~

squ i r-ement s for the zero grazing system and increasing number of aniild

n this study it was assumed that 13 labour units(LbU) were c on tr i bu

ed by family labour and any additional labour w~cs treated as hired

abour-

The replacement was estimated at 20 of the value of animals

The annual depreciation rate of shed8 was estimated at 25

while interest rate used for sheds and livestock capital was 6

Total costs is the sum of variable and fixed costs and net profit the

difference between gross revenue and total coste (App Tables 1-6)

Return to labour (Cpoundwo~king day) was calculated by adding to the net

profit all labour costs and dividing this amount by the number of

working days (App Tables 1-6)

Return to capital () was calculated by adding to the net profit the

interest on operating and fixed capital and dividing the amount by tho

capital investments (excl land capital) and multiplied by 100 (App

Tables 1-6)

Farm income consisted of pai~ or imputed rent 9 remuneration of family

and hired labour interest charges and net profit (App Tables 1-6)

Cost to the government was computed from the v~lue of concentrates fed

using the coefficients of 039 and 043 for aault and young animals

respectively These coefficients represent the increase in percentaL~

of the present value of the concentrates which Would be paid by the

producers in the form of hi~her prices if marketing of feed grains waG

not regulated These coefficients were comI~t8d on the basis of the

difference of the prices for feed grains paid lJy the Government and t~l(

livestock producers and on the content of the concentrate mixtures in

the feed grains (App Tabl~s 3-6)

----------------

- 17 shy

App Table 1 Costs and Returns of Sheep Enterprises by Size Group (Actual)

--_SizebwrltuF (No of ewes)

30-50 50-80 80gt Mean Cpoundewe-----_-_-

No of observations 17 33 18 68

Average No of ewes 42 65 94 67 Milk production (kg) 2711 3442 5348 3764 Lambs Bold or consumed (No) 39 55 85 59 ------------------_shy

Ycilk and milk products 440 569 865 614 92 40middot9 Lambs 417 573 925 627 9 418 Culls 60 94 108 89 13 5middot8 Wool 28 48 71 49 07 31 Manure 19 30 41 30 04 18 Change of capital 71 136 55 98 15 6G

Gross Revenue Cpound 1037 1450 2056 1507 225 1000

Feed purchased 221 325 493 344 53 27 ~

Feed produced 72 118 103 103 15 77 Forage produced 150 246 379 257 38 19lt5 Other 6 8 12 8 01 0~5

Interest 18 28 39 29 04 20 ----------------___

Variable Costs Cpound 467 725 1026 741 111 ------ ------------_- shy

Rent of land 45 52 92 61 Family labour 342 436 529 437 )3 -I

~ IInterest and depreciation 48 66 85 66 -

-------~---------_ _

Fixed Costs Cpound 435 554 706 564

Total Costs bpound 902 1279 1732 1305 195 --__--____-__---shyNet profit Cpound 135 171 324 202 31

43- J

Return to labour (Cpoundworking day) 22 22 26 23

Return to capital () 101 101 128 108 Return over feed expenses Cpound 594 761 1081 804 Farm income Cf 588 753 1069 795 ---------------------~---------_

- 18 shy

Table 2 Costs and Returns of Goat Enterprises by Size Group (Actual)

Size group (lITo of gegtats )

30-50 50-80 80) Mean Ci-goat

No of observations 18 28 19 65

Average No of goats Milk production (kg) Kids sold or consumed (No)

39 4034

53

63 4439

71

98 6169 100

666 4833

74

Milk and milk products Kids Culls Manure Change of capital

331 552

54 19 97

364 704 80 28 71

505 1005 102

43 154

396 60 750 113 79 12 30 0middot5

103 15

293 551 59 24 73

Gross Revenue Cishy 1053 1247 1809 1358 20middot5 100 00

Feed purchased Feed produced Forage produced Other Interest

207 35

llO

7 14

236 53

156 8

18

263 36

304 17 25

236 43

186 II 19

3middot5 06 28 02 03

224 38

18J 13 loy

Variable Costs Cf 373 471 645 495 74 474

Rent of land Family labour Interest and depreciation

25 342 48

39 436

66

77 529 85

46 437

67

07 65 10

4middot5 417

64

Fixed Costs Cf 415 541 691 550 82 526

Total Costs Cf 788 1012 1336 1045 156 1000

Net Frofi t Cf 265 235 473 313 49

Return to labour (Cpoundworking day)

Return to capital () Return over feed expenses Farm income

Cf Of

28 169

700 694

24 128

802 794

30 17middot5 1206 1189

27 153 892 882

- 19 shy

App Table 3 Effect of Level of Produotivity and Direction of a) Produotion on the Costs and Returns of Sheep (Norm)

Milk yield (kgewe)

Lambing ratio

Milk Lambs Culls

Wool Manure

Gross Revenue

Feed for ewes i) Concentrates

ii) Hay amp straw Feed for lambs

i) Concentrates Other Interest

Variable Costs

Rent Famil y labour Replacement Depreciation Interest

Fixed Costs

Total Costs

Gross Profi t

Net Profit

Return to labour (Cpoundworking day)

Return to capital () Cost to the Government

deg 60 120 200

26 12 16 08

782 3781 1748 142 139

56 56 40 40

1565 2325 128

56 40

2608 1163

120 56 40

Cpound 4019 2765 4114 3986

676 464

988 446 12 12 67 37

728

601 12 54

720

294 12 41

Cpound 1743 959 1395 1067

2 2

364 449 544 504

19 19 82 82

2

534 608 19 82

2

590 640 19 82

ce 1011 1056 1245 1333

Cpound 2754 2015 2640 2400

Cpound 2276 1606 2719 2919

Cpound 1265 750 1474 1586

72 43 60 59 392 269 46middot7 521

Cpound 688 373 542 407

a) Assuming 80 8W~S and low grazing

- 20 shy

App Table 4 Effect of Level of Productivity and Direction of a) middotmiddotmiddot----middot --Produc_tiQ[l on the Costs and Returns of Goats (Norm) bull

bull bullbullbullbull ~ __R_ ~~__bullbullbull ~ bullbullbull _

-_ ----~ bull

Milk yield (kggoat)

Kidding ratio

0

34

80

16

160

20

2$0

13

Milk Lambs Culla

4511 137

717 2136 134

1434 2652 120

2503 1743

106

Manuremiddot 40 40 40 40

Gros smiddot R-eAfnu-e- Cpound 4688 3027 4246 4398

Feed for goats ) ConcentratesJ I

ii) Hay amp straw Feed for kids

i) Concentrates Other Interest

824

1023 12 74

560

482 12 42

832

601 12 58

928 ~

391 12 53

Variable Coiits Cpound 1933 1096 1503 1384

Rent Family labour Replacement Depreciation Interestmiddot_middotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddot

2 366 608 19 82

2 488 560

19 82

2 566 688 19 82

2 617 776 19 82

Fixed Cos is Cpound 1077 1151 1357 1496

Total Cost s Cpound 3010 2247 2860 J 2880

Gross Froht Cpound 2755 1931 2743 3014

Net PI-ofit

Cpound 1678 780 1386 151[

Return to labour (Cpoundworking day)

Return to capital () 89

493 42

274 55

436 505

480 Cost to the Oovernmen t --6pound---middot761 middot425 51n __

~_~- -- _--___-~ _ M bullbullbull_ bullbull___ R bullbullbull __bullbull __ bull

o _ bullbull

~301 __

a) Assuming 80 goats and low grazing

- 21 shy

App Table 5 Effect of Level of GraZirg on the Costs and Returns of Sheep and Goats (Norm) a

Shee~ Goats Level of gra~ing Zero Low High Zero Low Rigl

Milk yield (kgfemale animal) 120 120 120 160 160 16

Lambing or kidding ratio 16 16 16 20 20 2()

Milk 1565 1565 1565 1434 1434 l434 Lambs 2326 2326 2326 2652 2652 2652 Culls 128 128 128 120 120 120 Wool 56 56 56 Manure 40 40 40 40 40 40

Gross Revenue Cpound 4115 4115 4115 4246 4246 4246

Feed for ewes or goats i) Concentrates 1292 728 408 1508 832 505

ii) Ray amp straw 288 282 Feed for lambs or kids

i) Concentrates 601 601 601 602 602 602 Other 12 12 12 12 12 12 Interest 88 54 41 96 58 45

Variable Costs Cpound 2281 1395 1062 2500 1504 116r _ _-

Rent 2 2 2 2 L 2 Family labour 390 534 534 422 566 565 Replacement 608 608 608 688 688 68P Depreciation 19 19 19 19 19 1)

Interest 82 82 82 82 82 8e

Fixed Costs Cpound 1101 1245 1245 1213 1357 1357

Total Costs Cpound 3382 2640 2307 3713 2861 252

Gross Profit Cpound 18~4 2720 3053 1746 2743 30t)2

1Tet Profit Cpound 733 1475 1808 533 1385 1725

Return to labour (Cpoundworking day) 46 60 70 36 5middot5 65

Return to capital () 232 467 588 178 436 55( Feed cost to the Government Cpound 762 542 418 847 583 456

a) Assuming 80 female adult animals

- 22 shy

App Table 6 Bffect of the Size of the Pr-oduc t ion Unit on the Costs and Returns of Sheep and Goats (NJrm)

SheGE Goats

Ewes or goatsfarm 80 160 200 80 160 2()(I

Milk yield (kgfemale animal) 120 120 120 160 160 16~)

Lambing or kidding ratio 16 16 16 20 20 2 0

Milk 1565 3130 3912 1434 2867 35[1 Lambs 2326 4651 5814 2652 5305 66jl Culls 128 256 320 120 240 300 Wool 56 112 140 Manure 40 80 100 40 80 100

Gross Revenue Cpound 4115 8229 10286 4246 8492 10615

Feed for awes or goats i) Concentrates 728 1456 1820 832 1664 208

ii) Hay amp straw Feed for lambs or kids

i) Concentrates 601 1202 1502 602 1203 1504 Hired labour 203 385 266 4f- u_)

Other 12 24 30 12 24 jC)

Interest 54 115 150 58 126 163

Variable Costs Cpound 1395 3000 3887 1504 3283 42C

Rent 2 4 5 2 4 Family labour 534 624 624 566 624 621 Replacement 608 1216 1520 688 1376 1( 2(

Depreciation 19 32 40 19 32 4C Interest 82 159 198 82 159 19t

Fixed Costs Cpound 1245 2035 2387 1357 2195 255 _ _--_ __

Total Costs Cpound 2640 5035 6274 2860 5478 6521

Gross Profit Cpound 2720 5226 6399 2743 5209 Ggt7)

net Profit Cpound 1475 319L~ 4012 1385 3014 Ll3 -

Return to labour (Cpoundworking day) 60 78 80 5middot5 70 SoU

Return to capital () 467 510 510 436 475 538 Feed cost to the Government Cpound 542 1085 1356 583 1166 145[

- 23 ~

App Table 7 Prices Received and Paid

Prices received Unit Cpound-Milk sheep kg 0163

goat kg 0112 Lamb or kid

At leaning kg 1ivQwoight 0781 At 20 kg kg 0625 At 35 kg kg II 0547

Wool Cpoundanima1 0100 Manure Cpoundanima1 0500

Prices paid

Feed roughage

Straw ton 120 Cereal hay ton 200

Concentrates

Creep feed ton 500 15 crude protein (as fed) ton 458 13 crude protein (as fed) ton 438 11 crude protein (as fed) ton 400

Labour working day 16

Rent of land donum 15

App Table 8 Capital Investments

Land

Sheds for 80 female animals

160 female animals 200 female animals

Value of animals Ewes (0 kg milk 26 lambing ratio)

(60 kg milk 12 lambing ratio) (120 kg milk 16 lambing ratio ) (200 kg milk 08 lambing ratio)

Goats( 0 kg milk 34 kidding ratio) ~ 80 kg milk 16 kidding ratio) (160 kg milk 20 kiddinB ratio) (280 kg milk 13 kidding ratio)

Operating capital (50 of variable costs)

Cpounddonum 300

Cpoundshed 1800 Cpoundahed 13500 Cpoundshed 16600

CrJeue 330

315

380

400

Cpoundgoat 380

340

400

425

vpp Table 9 Gross RevenuG (Cpoundewe) at Incr-eas Ing LeveI s of Milk Yi o Ld and Lcml~ng Rc tios (rorm)

Millt Y i e 1 d (kg eVi8)Lambing ratio 0 20 4~ 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200

08 163 208 253 298 343 388 433 ~n 8 523 568 613 10 201 246 29 ~ 1 33~6 381 426 471 516 561 606 651

12 240 284 32~9 37~4 419 464 509 554 599 644 689 16 31 6 360 40~5 45o 495 540 585 630 675 720 765 18 355 398 44~3 488 533 578 623 668 713 758 803 22 431 474 519 56~4 609 654 699 744 789 834 879

26 508 550 5915 64+ 0 658 730 775 820 865 910 955 30 584 626 67h 71~6 761 806 851 896 941 986 1034

~--

- _ N

~

App Table 10 Gross Revenue (Cpoundgoat) at Increasing LeY11s of Milk Yield and Kidding Ratios (Norm) bull

M i llt Y i e 1 d (kg L~at) IKidding ratio

middot0 40 80 l~d 160 200 240 280 320 360 400

08 148 193 237 28~~ 327 372 41 7 461 506 551 596 12 218 263 307 35~2 397 442 487 531 576 621 666 16 287 333 37-7 42l~ 467 512 55middot7 601 646 691 736 20 355 403 447 49 ~ 2 537 582 627 671 716 761 806 24 -422 473 51 7 56~ 60middot7 652 697 74middot1 786 831 876

bull 28 488 543 58~7 632 677 722 767 811 856 901 946 32 564 613 65 ~ 7 70~~ 747 792 837 881 926 971 1016 36 634 683 72~7 772- 81 7 862 907 951 996 1041 1086

I

1)App Table 11 Concentrates Consumed (kgewe) Low Grazing System

Lambi ng Y i e 1 d i n mil k (kg ewe) ratio

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200

08 568 708 848 98 8 1128 1268 1408 1548 1688 1828 1968 LO 710 850 990 1130 127middot0 1410 1550 1690 1830 1970 2110 12 852 992 1132 1272 1412 1552 1692 1332 1972 2112 2252 16 1136 1276 1416 1556 1696 1836 1976 2116 2256 2396 2536 18 1278 1418 1558 1698 1838 1978 2118 2258 2398 2538 267middot8 22 1562 1702 1842 1982 2122 2262 2402 2542 2682 2822 2962 26 1846 1986 2126 2266 2406 2546 2686 2626 2966 3106 3246 30 2130 2270 2410 2550 2690 2830 2970 311 0 325middot0 3390 3530

ro1) I~aintenancerequirement of adult animals met by grazing V1

Assumptions for grazing systems

1 07 kg feeds of 15 crude protein (as fed basis) was fed per kg milk produced or sucked [iy 2 50 kg milk was suoked by each lamb from birth to weaning at 35 days 3 In late pregnancy each ewe received on the average 36 kg concentrates above maintenance for each lamb carried 4 In zero grazing maintenance requirements during the dry period were met by 06 kg straw and 05 kg

concentrates of 11 crude protein (as fed basis) [1~ I~ late pregnancy (6 weeks before lambing) and during lactation each ewe received 06 kg cereal hay and 04 kg concentrates to meet the maintenance requirements Other requirements in concentrates were met as in low grazing syste~

App liable 12 Conoentcates Consumed (kgg02t ) i Low Grazing SJ34~OT 1)- (I

----------------------T -----------~-_--------------------------------------------------shy

M gt~_~ LL~_~iJ~_8poundatl Kidding ratio

o 40 80 120 160 200 240 280 320 360 400 -----_ ------~---~ _- ----------__--__-----shy

08 528 768 1008 1248 138 1728 1960G 2208 24Li8 2688 2928 12 792 1032 1272 1512 175middot2 1992 2232 2472 271 2 2952 3192 16 1056 129 u 6 1536 ~-77 6 20l6 2256 2496 =736 2976 3216 3456 20 1320 1560 J80o 2040 2280 2520 2760 3000 3240 3480 3720 24 1584 1[24shy 2064 2304 2-~4middot 4 27S~4 3024 32604 350middot4 3 7 11++ 3984 28 1848 2038 23 28 2568 2808 30~ 8 328f3 ~)52 8 3768 4008 42~ 8

-3 ~ 211 2 2352 2592 2832 3072 3312 3552 37902 4032 4272 +51 2

______ 36

_-__ 2379

- 2616 2856 3096

___shy__ 3336 3576

_ 3826

middot 4056 L_~

429gt6 middot

L15306 _ _

4776

1) Maintenance requirements of adult animals met-JY grazing ro 0

~~~mption for grazing system

1 06 kg feed of 15 crude protein (as fed basis) was fed per kg milk produced or suoked 2 50 kg milk was sucked by each kid from birth to wean~ng at 70 days Partial suckling was practised from the

30th day onwards 3 In late pregnancy each goat received on the average 36 kg concentrates above maintenance for each kid carried 4 In zero grazing maintenance requirements in the dry period were met by 06 kg of straw and 05 kg of

concentrates of 11 crude protein (as fed basis)

29

- 27 shy

App Table 13 Feed Cost and Revenue for Lamb Fattening

Lambing ratio

08 10 12middot 16 18 22 26

aConcentrates (kg) I

Birth to weaning Weaning to 20 kg Birth to 20 kg 20 kg to 35 kg Birth to 35 kg

09 290 299 54~0

839

1 J 13 17 20 368middot 449 618 706 37middot9 462 635 726 675 810 1080 1215

1054 1272 1715 1941

24 890 914

1485 2399

1036 106e5 175middot5 2820

Saleable Iiveweight (kg)

at weaning at 20 kg at 35 kg

87 160 280

108 200 35middot0

12~8

24middot0 420

174198 320 360 56~0 630

249 44middot0 770

290 520 910

Feed expenses

at weaning mils 45 55 65 -85 100 120 145 to 20 kg Cf 14 17 21 29 33 42 49 __ to 35 kg Cf 37 46 56 7middot5 85 10middot5 123

Revenue Cf

Lamb sale Lamb sale Lamb sale

at weaning ~~ 20 kg at 35 kg

68 100shy153shy

gt ~_ bull bullbullbullbull ~-

84 125 191

100 136 150 200 230 306middot

15middot5 225 345

194 27middot5 421

226 32 c 49 e

Assumed birthweight 47 45 42 38

a) It was assumed that the protein content of the ooncentrates mixture feed from birth to weaning was 168 and from 20 to 35 kg 143 on dry matter basis [1[

- 28 shy

App Table 15 Labour Raquire~entl) for 80 poundMes or Goats Practising Low or High Grazing at Increasing Levels of Milk Yield and Lambing or Kidding Ratios

i

Lamhing Y i e 1 d i n mil k (kg Le_we) ratio

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 280

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - Lbua)production unit - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -08 0749 0813 0869 0933 1013 1069 1109 1149 1113 1205 1229 1283 10 0150 0814 0870 0934 1014 1010 1110 1150 1114 1206 1230 1284 12 0151 0815 0811 0935 1015 1011 1111 1151 1115 1201 1231 1285 14 0152 0816 0812 0936 1016 1012 1112 1152 1116 1208 1232 1286 16 0153 0811 0813 0937 1011 1013 1113 153 1117 1209 1234 1287 18 0154 0818 0874 0938 1018 1074 1114 1154 1178 1210 1235 1288 20 0155 0819 0875 0939 1019 1015 1115 1155 1119 1211 1236 1289 22 0756 0820 0876 0940 1020 1016 1116 1156 1180 1212 1237 1290 24 26

0151 0158

0821 0822

0871 0878

0941 0942

1022 1023

1017 1018

1111 1118

1157 1158

1181 1182

1213 1214

1238 1239

1291 1292

ro -D

28 0759 0823 0879 0943 1024 1019 1119 1159 1183 1215 1240 1293 30 0760 0824 0880 0middot944 1025 1080 1120 1160 1184 1216 1241 1 294 34 0162 0826 0882 0946 1027 1082 1122 1162 middot _____middot L_ 1186 1218 1242 1295

a) 1 LbU = 300 working days

1) Low and high grazing system Calculated as followsi

Labour requirement (LbU) = 015 + (lambing ratio - 10) x 0005 +

Labour for milkin~ (days)+ X No of female animals 300

+) Assuming 6 minutesanimalday

Zero grazing system Labour requiremunt (lbU) = Low or high grazing system (LbU) - 0300 for 80 female animals

- 0550 for 160 female animals - 0650 fOr 2rl) tomcIc animals

Page 8: FACTORS AFFECTING THE ECONOMICS OF SHEEP AND GOATSnews.ari.gov.cy/Publications/AER4-papas.pdfFACTORS AFFECTING THE ECONOMICS OF SHEEP AND GOATS . By . ... Costs and Returns of Goat

- 4 shy

is cancelled by the higher feeding costs The other cost and returns items show similar trends as with sheep

For the s arne number of animals the production uni ts or-Len t eu towards milk production require lowe-r feeeting but higher labour costs For the yields assumed above there is an aCivantage in net returDS to the producer and lower cost to the Government of the dual or dairy type over the all-meat direction The all-meat direction nevertheless is an economically sound aL ternative especiully in si tuations of shor-ta u in skilled labour and potential for high grazing It must however 5

be emphasized that these comparisons are made on empirically chosen yields and that the economics may change as yields and prices change

Table 1 Effect of Level of Productivity anQ Direction of Production on the Costs and Returns of Sheep and Goats (Iorm)a)

Sheep (a) (b) (c) (d) (e)

Milk yield (kgewe) 0 60 120 200 200 Lambing rati 0 26 12 16 08 16

- - -Cpoundenterprise -

Gross revenue 4019 2765 4114 3987 5175 Feed cost 1664 910 1329 1014 1530 Variable cost 1743 959 1395 1067 1604 Labour cost 364 449 534 590 592 Net profit 1265 750 1474 1586 2171 Returns to labour

(Cfworking day) 7~2 43 60 5middot9 7middot5 Returns to capital () 39middot2 269 467 521 833 Fa r m income 1780 1321 2147 2302 2910 Cost to the Government 688 373 542 407 622 Gross revenue per Cpound 171 135 132 102 120

Goats (a) (b) (c) (d) Milk yield (kggoat) 0 80 160 280 Kidding ratio 34 16 20 13

- - - - - - --Cpoundenterpriseshy - -----shyGross revenue 4688 3027 4246 4398 Feed cost 1847 1042 1434 1319 Variable cost 1934 1096 1503 1384 Labour cost 366 488 566 617 Net profit 1678 780 1386 1518 Returns to labour

(Cfworking day) 89 L1 --I bull L 5middot5 5middot5

Returns to capital (~n 493 274shy 436 480 Farm income 2202 1395 2094 2272 Cost to the Covernmen t 761 425 583 530 Gross revenue per Cf 162 140 137 121

a) Assuming 80 female adult animals and low grazing

- 5 shy

The comparison of column b (lOrl productivi ty) to columns a c d and e shows that 9 at these levels 9 the increase in returns is faster than the in6rease in costs The additional fsed costs res~ltinl

from the hiher requirements accounted for the largest part of till increase in variable costs In contrast~ the cost of labour incr8ase~

only slowly in columns c 9 d and e and decreased in column a Thi3 suggests that if the available genetic ~aterial and knowledge was

etlployed to increCise pr-oduo t i vi ty there Hould be a need for Lnc r-eas i ns cas] 8ltIJ8nlt88 for purchos i ng feed but there wouLd not be any [ignific_~L shyincrease in labour r-equ i r-eraent In con t r-as t labour avai Labi Lf ty jlay be limitinb the size of the production unit

8ffect of intensive fattening

Based on earlier work ~6 7 9 ~ it was assumed that lambs were weaned ai 35 days and kids at 70 days and that partial suckling was practised from 16th and 30th day onwards for lambs and kids respectively ThE sale of lambs at weanin~o9 20 kflS and 35 kg Livewe i ght produced revenue of Cpound 136 Cpound 200 and Cpound 306 for lambing ratio of 16 The additional expense primarily in feed costs was Cpound 29 and Cpound 77 for increases in gross revenue of Cpound 64 and Cpound 170 respectivey

Table 2 Effect oi Fat t en i ng of Lambs and Kiels OD the Costs and Returns of Sheep and Goats (Norm)a)

Goats ireanincmiddot i-reaning

35 k s(35 day~) 20 kg 35 kg (70 days) Liveweight solJ kgfemale animal 17middot4 320 560 313 63(

Revenue from lambs or kids Cpound female animal 136 200 306 244 349

Lambs or kids feed 8xpenses Cpoundfcrnale anir1al 01 29 7middot5 04 7middot5

Variable costs Crfemale animal 9middot7 126 174 114 188

Labour exrens es Cpoundfemal~ arrimaL 65 66 67 69 7middot1

Not profit Cpoundfemale ani mal 9middot3 127 184 97 17middot3

Return to capital () 265 343 470 269 434 Return to labour

CfwOrking day 40 47 60 41 61 Farm income

Cpoundfemale animal 169 206 268 177 26 ] Cost to the Gover-nmen t Cpoundfemale animal 36 47 68 -~ 2 7middot3

a) Fora product i cn unit 101i th 80 _wes producing 120 kg milk and 16 lambs or so goats produc i ng 160 kg mil and 20 kids with low level of euro-rJzing

- 6 shy

The cost to benefit ratio of 045 is sigl1ificantly lower than thb ratio of 063 which would be required to incz-eae e meat through LrL~

numbers of sheep The high differences betv een addi t i onal cost and revenue was also reflected in higher profit farm income and returns to capi tal and Labour The cost to the Governrrent would increase b~

Opound 11 and Cpound 32 respectively because fa t t erLng was based on conoentra te feeds In general the Govermnent pad d more th~n 13 of 0h~

variable costs for fattening This cost however is lower than the expense in foreign exchange for Lmpor t Ln Lamb meat at present pri c ce

It is thus concluded that fattening of lambs up to 35 kC liv8weight increases significantly the gross revenue and all return i t erue Fa ttening required only minor additional labour and no significant capital investment in shedS machinery etc but profi tabili ty of lamb and kid fattening de penua primarily on the price relationship of feeds and meat

II Level of grazing

The effect of zero low and high grazing s ys t ems on the main return and cost i terns of producti on uni ts Hi th 80 ewes or 80 goa ts ar~middot

presented in Table 3 The feed cost desreased significantly with increasing level of grazing being only half that of the zero grazing system Savings in feed costs was reflected in higher farm income returns to labour and capital and net profit for the two ayst ems wi -U

gr-az i ng as compared to indoor feeding Irr om the inputs only the- llt)oT cost was higher in the high grazing system than in the zero grazin~~

system The additional labour cost however of Cpound 144 was smaller compared to th8 saving in feed accounting to Cpound 1171 for ewes and Opound 1285 for goats in the high grazing sybtem

Table 3 Effect of Level of GraZing On the Costs and Returns of SLeeT and Goats (Norm)a)

Sheep Goats Level of grazing Zero Low High Zero Low Higt

- - - - - -ORproduction unit- - - shy

Gross revenue 4114 4114 4114 4246 4246 42-~6

Feed cost 2180 1329 1009 2392 1434 i ic Concentrates 1893 1329 1009 2110 1434 1107 Hay amp straw 287 282

Variable cost 2280 1395 1062 2500 1503 116 Labour cost 390 53- 534 422 566 5St Net profit 733 1475 1807 533 1386 1725 Return to labour

Cfworking day 46 60 70 36 55 6middot) Return to capital (~ ) 23middot5 470 592 178 436 55middot(Cost to the Government 762 542 417 847 583 4Y~

Farra income 1295 2147 2467 1135 2094 2j~C

================-==========-- a) For a unit with 80 ewes producing 120 kg milk and 16 lambs or 80

goats producing 160 kg milk and 20 kius

- 7 shy

The cost to the Government in terms of subsidies for

concentrates is almost twice as high for indoor feeding as compareu to -- high grazing s ya t em In addition zero gr2~ing involves a high expenslaquo

in foreign exchange as Cyprus is a net ili1portcr of large quanti ti83 of

feed grain Thus maxi murn use of grazing i r to the benefit of bo th tIle

LndivLduaI producer and thG national ec ouomy It is therefore 5

necessary to keep the cost d i ffer-en t i aI -1 a level which would

encourage the full utilization of grazin- aroas and allow tne opt i mum

LlSt3 of feed grain It is clifficul t to d e t e r-mine the opt i mum s i z e of this differential because of the wide variation in the availability of graamping from one part of Cyprus to the other andthe effect of the price of thE- feed grain on the price of r1any basic fOOd items

111 Size of the production unit

Data on the main cost and return items of norm production

units varying in size are presented in Table 4

Table 4 Lffect of the Size of the Production Unit on the Costs

and Returns of Sheep and Goats (Noro)a)

Female animals per farm 80

Sheep

160 200 80

Goats

160 200

Gross revenue

Feed cost

Variable costs

Labour cOstshy

Net frofi t Return to labour

Cpoundworking day

Return to capital () Farm inoome

- - shy -

4115 1329 1395

534 1475

60 467 2147

- - -

8229 2658 3000

827 3194

70middot3 510 4298

-Crproduction unital

10286 4246 8492 3322 1433 2867 3887 1503 3283 1009 566 890

1386 -

4012 3014

80 5middot5 70 510 436 47middot5 5374 2094 4192

- shy -

10615 358shy4240 1087 4328

80 518 5781

-

a) For ewes producing 120 kg milk ana 16 lambs or goats producing

160 kg milk and 20 k ide on the 10Vl crazinb s ys t em

It is ilpparent that the size of the production unit affects

costs and returns significantly Fo r the yields stated above (Table -i-) 75 ewes are requireJ to obtain farm income of Cpound 2000 As would be

expected the size required to obtain Q certain level of farm incoffib

SfiY Cpound 2000 depends on many factors such iS the productivi ty of

anioills and the level of grazing This is illustrated in the followin6

examples g For ewes producing zero mi Lk yield arid 26 lambs 90 ewesn

r-equ i r edj for 60 kg milk and 12 lambs 121 ewes for 180 kg nu Lk and

10 lambs 71 ewes For zero low and high grazing with ewes producin[

120 kg milk and 16 lambs the respective numbers rBquired to obtain

farm income of Cr 2000 are 123 75 and 65

- 8 shy

B ACTUAL SITUATIOJX

I Effect of the level of productivity

The actual data collected fr-on tile sheep and goat pr-oduc t i cn units wer( classified in thrE)e levels of productivity namely~ low medium and high on the basis of the gross revenue obtained per adult female animal The means of the main cost anci return items for each group are presented in Table 5

Table 5 Costs and Returns of Sheep and Go~ts by Level of Productivity (Actual)

Sheep Goat

Level of productivity Low Medium High Low Medium Higll

Number of farms Ewes or goats per farm Milk yield

(kgfemale animal) Lambs raised per ewe or kids per goat

Concentrates (kgfemale animal)

18 72

48

11

117

29 72

57

12

135

18 54

68

13

143

16 80

37

13

65

33 64

74

15

108

16

59

126

19

200

Gross revenue (Ctfemale animal) 194 224 273 13 3 202 31 Z

Variable costs 106 lll 110 56 65 128 Gross profit 88 113 163 7middot7 13middot7 184

The hiSher productivity in the ncdium and high levels was pr9bably due to better feeding~ superior management and better genetic material from the Chios breed and the Damascus goat ~9 lQ7

The pz-oduc t i vi ty per animal incr8ased with the aLlowan ce of conc en t r-at ea as shown by the highly s i gr Lf i carrt regression coe tfLc i en t between gross revenue Cpoundfemale aniwal (Y) and concentrates fed in kg (X) the equation being Y = 1012 + 0056X (r=057) for ewes and = 947 + 0066x (r=O56) for goats The ~dditional cost of concentrashytes accounted for most of the Lnor-eas e in variable co s t s The returns obtained from animal with higher productivity w~re significantly higher tilan the additional costs bull At present ~ therefore there are wid margins for increasing productivity at low cost The data of Table 5 show that the commercial milk yield of the production units studied may be doubled while the average lambing or kidding ratio may bb improved by 30-40 L 1 J The average milk yi 61d and 1ambing or kidding ratios recorded in this study are the same as those recorded earlier [4]

- 9 shy

Ihe deL ta in Aplenuix Ta bl GS 1 and 2 show that on the CLV8r-tmiddot 09 lambs and 11 kids were sold per female animal producing a revenu~

of Cpound 94 ani Cpound 113 respectively At the price of Cpound 0781 per k 6 liveweignt this corresponds to the production of 120 and 145 kg of liveweight r-s s peo t i vel y for each ewe or gl)[t When oompared to the norm d~ta for similar lambing or kidding rltios it is concluded that the lambs and kids Nere sold at the age of eppr-oxi mately 8 - 10 WSOK3

at Which the producers usually wean the lambs and kids This would suggest tha t for the production units studied tfHlrewas no larte scale fa ttening of Lambs or kids beyond lHaninf at the aetJ of 6-10 we ek a The majority of the producers stated that they practised partial suckLin and that thcy offered creep feed to the lambs and k i ds Fran the discussion with th6se producers it was conclueltjd that the main reasons for no large scale fa t t cn ing were tradi t i on the higher l)ricus received for baby lamb and kid and the need for cash partcularly before revenue from milk was received

II Level of grazing

The data available do not allow a detailed study of the effect of the level of grazing on the costs and returns in the actual situation

It is possihle however to drd~ some conclusions from the5~

data in comparison to the norm situation The livestock producers of this study fed on the average 132 kg of concentrates for each ewe and 120 kg for each goat In add i ti on 08 donums of green forage vlclS

cansuQed by each female aniwal and its followers Similar trends WbTB

observed in ano thez- etuuy L9 J Compar-ed to norm produo t i on units or

comparable y i elds it a ppear-s that feed requirements for maintenance arto ruet by gr-az i ng gr-e en forage and straw 9 whi l E t he r equ i r-emerrt s for production are met by concentrates For ollis 9 tlH level of grazino is hi6her than she up especiallj for production units with more than 30 female adult an imaLs as indicated by tl( lower amount of concentrates fed for comparative yields

Thl level of grazin~ practised is limited by the low ava i La hi Li ty of pas tur-es and t no abe enc e of large grazing areas There are also institutional r8gulations by 10c81 authorities limi tin~ the maximum nunrber of animals a t tendcd oy a sincle shepherd Compar-ed to the norm situation the average of grazing was slightly below the designated as low level

III Size of the production unit

Data on tho main cost and return items of actual produotion units varying in size and presented in Table 6 The regression of gross revenue (YGB) or variable oosts (Yvd on the number of adult ewes (X) revealed a sienificant linear relation the equations being

- 10 shy

A ~

2138 + 193X (r=091) YVC = 97 + 109X (r=064) For goat8~YGR = the respective equations were YGR = 1860 + 46x (r=035)A

Yvc = 4035 + 147X (r=061) Unlike [Sheep the r for the equation relating gross revenue and number of gOcits wus low This pr-o babl y

resul ted from wider vaz-La t i on in productivi ty among goat than ShbI

units It was apparent fro~ the inspectiun of the data from thE individual goat units that the per an i raaL output was par t i cu Lar-Ly

variable especially for small units

For the same data gross r-evenue and labour cost per an i mal decreQsed in lareer units especially in goats The advantag8s of

economics of size were cancelled by the decline in producticity which resulted in lower net returns per animal in the larger units The total rturns how8vGr were higher in the larger units but could have been consiclerably higher had the productivity of each animal been at the same level as in the small units

Table 6 Effect of Size of the Production Unit on the Gostsand Returns of Sheep and Goats (Actual)

Female animals per farm

Gross revenue Feed cost iTariable cost abour- cost Jet profit te tu r n to labour

Cpoundorking day eturn to capital () arm income

Sheep Goa ts

42 65 94 39 63

- -Cfenterprise unit shy - -

1037 1450 2056 1053 1247 18(9

443 690 975 701 797 1206

467 726 1026 373 471 645 342 436 529 342 436 529 135 171 324 265 235 473

22 22 26 28 24 3C 101 101 128 169 128 17 middot5

588 753 1069 694 794 IJ89

By corapa r-i ng the incremental bross revenue to the varLabl raquos ts from the low to the high level of pr-oduc t av i t y (Tah1e 5) and ~om the small to the large LeveI of s i z e (lable 6) it can be derived tat it is more profitable to increase prociuctivi ty per an i maI r-athor ~n increase their numbers

DISCUSSIOl AND COFCLUSI011S

Sheep and goat production can be Lnc r-eae ed by increasing Lt

oduc t i v i t y of the animals or by increasin~ the size of the an i maL pulation or by a combination of the two The returns to the iividual producer however~ are affecteu apart of the productivity other factors namely 1 the size of the production unit the level )i

~zing the management system and others

- 11 shy

The data in this study indicated the economic advantage 1 Jotl_ for the individual producer and the national economy of increasine the sheep and goat production by improving the productivity of the animals than by increasing the size of the population For ewes and goatB it is obvious from the comparison of actual and norm data that commer-ciiI

milk yield can be doubled and lambing ratio can increase by 30-40 by

using genetic material and knowledge already available in Cyprus The adoption of fQttening of lambs and kids at weights up to 35 kg is hindered by the strong demand for baby laUD and kid meat and the nee~

of producers for cash However these obs t acLes may be overCOJTW by eppr-opr-ia t e policy measures and consumer oduoa t ion

Th6 study of different directionG of production and in particular the all-meat versus the high milk - low meat direction showed that at the levels assumed the milk and meat direction was slightly superior to the all-meat direction in terms of net returns and lower cost to the Government Nevertheless thG all-meat direction is economically sound and may be used in s peo i aLj aed si tuations in which skilled labour is limited while good possibilities exist for high levels of grazing

The size of the production unit required to obtain a certain level of farm income J8pends on many factors such as the productivity of the animals and the level of grazing The numbers of adult female animals required to obtain farn income of Cpound 2000 are 121 and 75 for commercial milk yields of 60 and 120 kg and lambing ratioe of 12 ard

16 respectively Assuming that these yields represent roughly the Local and the Chios sheep it is apparent that any benefits from increasinb the present size of the production units would be much higher if the increase in size was coupled with higher productivity Presently the size of most sheeJ or goat production units is smal18r than the siz8 required to achi8ve farw income of Cpound 2000

The rroblem of deciding the size of the production unit has many complex aspects This is so becausu the livestock enterpris8 in most places is combined with crop production and the relative size of the two on t er-prLs ee is determined by economic and other factors In this respect the amount opound family labour~ the availability and size of grazing areas and feeds and the relative profitability of the livestOCK enterprise in comparison with pos s r ble al ternative farm enterprises weigh heavily in det er-iain i ng the size of the sheep or goat production units

From the data of thi s and an oar-Iier study L 9 ] it is suggested that op t i mum utilization of resources in a mixed type of farming requires production units with 120 - 130 animals In a norm situation for numbers up to 1000 animals the returns to size were higher than zero suggesting that at present economies of siZe have not

- 12 shy

been exploited Of course larger production units do not neces5~rily

imply larger animal population th ey may resul t also from reorganizatior

of the existing population to larger economically viaole units

The level of grazing is inversely related to the feeding costs but increases labour cost The decrease in feeding cost frod

higher level of grazing is considerably higher than the increase in

labour cost There is no doubt that higher grazing level wilen possible J is economically beneficial both to the individual producGr

and the national economy and could be easily combined with the all-~~~t

direction of production It is proposed th~t the price of concentrstcO)

presently regulated by thE Government through the system of SUbsidies be kept at such level which will encourage the optimum utilization of

straw pastures and agricultural by-products

The goat production units (actual) were more variable than sheep units in the level of productivitJ-9 direction of production feeding prograDme and size Smaller goat units tended to be more productive consumed more concentrates per female animal and producei higher returns per animal than larger units This suggests that large units Hith low producing animals practised more grazing On the averagG 9 the gross revenue was higher for sheep but net returns from goats were slightly higher These differences were primarily due to higher level of grazing for goats than for sheep This comparison if

based on the average of the production units studied ~nd could not bE extrapolated to comparison of specific breeds of sheep and goats A comparative study of the Chios sheep and Damascus goat under norm

conditions was initiated at this Institute

- 13 shy

SUIDIARY

Data from 68 sheep 65 goat private production units (actual situation) and from Gov~rnment units (norm situationr were used to coraput c costs and returns and to study the main fa c t or-s affecting tht econooics of shoGp and goats in Cyprus The main conclusions of this study can be summarized as follows

1 It is more profitable as a ~irst step to incrGasG productivity per animal rather than increase their numbers With available gonetic material ana knowledge it is possible to double tho present milk yields and increase the number of lambs or kids per female animal by 30-40

2F~ttGning of lambs or kids at prosGnt prices can increase total and net returns SUbstantially with profound ~conomic advantages for the individual producer and tho national economy

3 The study of di~ferent directions of ~roduction showed that the milk and mlat direction was slightly suporior to the all-moat directionH01iGVer thE a I Le-meat di re c t i on of production may bo a sound economic alternative mainly in situations where good possibilities exist for high lcvul of razing and skilled labour is limited

4 The feed cost for high level of grazing was only half the cost for middotindoor fcodLng The loer fe ed cost 18S ruflectcd in higher net returns for the razing systems The cost differential between cost of grazing and fecding of concentrates should be adjusted to promoto grazing 8t th8 IGvlol which will mClOt at the minimum the maintenance r-oqu i r-crucn t s of auuI t animalsmiddot

5 With present 18v~ls of productivity 168 ewes or 151 goats arc roquirlQ to produclo farm incomb of Cpound 2000 In norm situations 75 OWbS pr-oducdng 120 kg milk and 16 1(111bs could I~roduc8 thc same income For this LcvcI of productivi ty the r-espec t i v- numbers for z er-o low and high grazing nystems war_ 123 75 and 65 ewes

Th authors gratefully acknowlGdge tl1G cooperation of ahoe p and goat producers and the assistancE providod by all members of the Agricultural Economics Slction

RLFERLFCES

1 Louca A Pr-eLimanar-y r-csuI ts on tho por-formarice of pur-ebr-ed and cross-bred sllecp Paper prosGDtcd a~ the RGgional Workshop for shclp and forage improvement February 11-14 1974 in Buirut~ Lebanon

- 14 shy

2 Chimonides 1 1972 Some faotors affGoting the productivity of DamQscus goats in Cyprus MS Thesis American University of Bei r-ut L8b~~lO[

3 Planning Bureau ThE first (1962-66) the second (1967-71) and t hlaquo

third (1972-76) Five Year Plan Planning Rur~au

Nioosia Cyprus

4 Agrioulturul Research Institute 1964 Cost and Returns of Shlq

and goats Agric Res Inst Nioosia Cyprus

5 Louca A Personal c omruurri ca t i cn Agrioultural Research Institute Nioosia Cyprus

6 Hadjipanayiotou M and Louca A 1975 PhG Effeots of partial suckling on the lactation Derformance of Chios sheep and Damasous goats and the growth rate of the lambs and kids (in preparation) Agricultural Research Institute Nicosia Cyprus

7 Louca A 1972 The effect of suckling regime on grmdh rate and laotation performance of the Cyprus Fat-tailed amI Chios sheep Anim Prod 15~53-59

8 Louca A ~ Mavr-ogen i s A and Lawlor ~1J 1975 ThE effect of early weaning on the laotation performanoe of Damascus goats and the growth rate of the kidb Anim Prod 20 213-218

9 Papachristodoulou S and Papas A 1975 The bconomios of drylan~

mixed farming in Cyprus Agrioultural Research Institute Nicosia~ Cyprus

10 Papachristodoulou S 1974 (Restrioted) Dryland Mixed Farwing A technical and economic anaLys i s of some typical fnrl~

participated in the Mixed Farming Project during 1968-1972 Agricultural Research ~nstitute Nicosia Cyprus

11 Papas A 1975 Protein requirements of ewes during laotution (in IJreparation) Agrioultural REJsearch Lns t i tu t e Nicosia Cyprus

12 Papas A 1975 Protein requirements of ewes during maintenanoe (in preparation) Agricultural Res~arch Institute Nioosia Cyprus

13 Papas~ A 1975 The protein requirements of early weaned lambs (in preparation) Agricultural Researoh Institutc 9

Nioosia CYfrus

- 15 shy

lTA P P E D I x

COHPUTATION OF DnUT-OUTPUT DATA OF SHEEP MID GOATS-Gross revenue is the total value of milkmeat cUlls wool and manuree

Sheep milk was sold at Cpound 0163kg and goat milk at Cpound 0112kg In the

actual situation revenue from lambs and kids 11018 based on receipts

adjusted to current prices It was assumed that in norm situation lambs

and kids were sold at 35 kg liveweight 0547kg The prices at 20 kg

liveweight and at weaning were Cpound 0625 and Cpound 0781 respectively A 5

death rate for lambs and kids was assumed Culling was estimated at

20 each year 5 of this was assumed to represent losses and the

remaining 15 of the culls sold at Cpound 125head It was assumed that

losses were directly related to productivity for every additional 10 kg

milk yield and 01 lambing ratio losses increased by 015 and by

005 respectively The revenue from wool and manure was estimated at

Cpound 0700 and Cpound 0500animal respectively (App Tables 16)

Variable costs include feed expenses (purchased or produced) other

expenses (veterinary hired labour) and interest on operating capitale

In the actual situation feed expenses for sheep remiddotprEHHlnted

the 95 of variable costs and 54 of total costs for goats these

percentages are 94 and 44 respectively (App Tables 1 and 2) In the

norm situation feed expenses for sheep or goats comprised approximately

95 of the variable costs ranging from 42-65 of the total costs

depending on the level of productivity direction of production and the

level of grazing (App Tables 3-5) The feed expenses forslle-epandmiddot

goats as percent of variable and total costs decreased from about

95-84 and increased from about 50-53 respectively depending on the

size of production unit (App Table 6)

Interest on operating capital represents 50 of the variable

costs at 8 interest rate

Fixed costs include rent of land family labour replacement

depreciation and interest on fixed capital

In the actual situation rent of land was charged for the area

under fodder crops while in the norm situation rent was charged only for

the area occupied by sheds and the milking parlour

- 16 shy

Family labour was valued atGpound 1600__p~r -wor~i~gslaY_~Ep_

ble 15 presents the labour requirements for 80 ewes or goats pr-ac t i c i rs

w or high grazing system at increasing levels of milk yield andmiddot

Lmbing or kidding ratios Also gives the calculation of the labou~

squ i r-ement s for the zero grazing system and increasing number of aniild

n this study it was assumed that 13 labour units(LbU) were c on tr i bu

ed by family labour and any additional labour w~cs treated as hired

abour-

The replacement was estimated at 20 of the value of animals

The annual depreciation rate of shed8 was estimated at 25

while interest rate used for sheds and livestock capital was 6

Total costs is the sum of variable and fixed costs and net profit the

difference between gross revenue and total coste (App Tables 1-6)

Return to labour (Cpoundwo~king day) was calculated by adding to the net

profit all labour costs and dividing this amount by the number of

working days (App Tables 1-6)

Return to capital () was calculated by adding to the net profit the

interest on operating and fixed capital and dividing the amount by tho

capital investments (excl land capital) and multiplied by 100 (App

Tables 1-6)

Farm income consisted of pai~ or imputed rent 9 remuneration of family

and hired labour interest charges and net profit (App Tables 1-6)

Cost to the government was computed from the v~lue of concentrates fed

using the coefficients of 039 and 043 for aault and young animals

respectively These coefficients represent the increase in percentaL~

of the present value of the concentrates which Would be paid by the

producers in the form of hi~her prices if marketing of feed grains waG

not regulated These coefficients were comI~t8d on the basis of the

difference of the prices for feed grains paid lJy the Government and t~l(

livestock producers and on the content of the concentrate mixtures in

the feed grains (App Tabl~s 3-6)

----------------

- 17 shy

App Table 1 Costs and Returns of Sheep Enterprises by Size Group (Actual)

--_SizebwrltuF (No of ewes)

30-50 50-80 80gt Mean Cpoundewe-----_-_-

No of observations 17 33 18 68

Average No of ewes 42 65 94 67 Milk production (kg) 2711 3442 5348 3764 Lambs Bold or consumed (No) 39 55 85 59 ------------------_shy

Ycilk and milk products 440 569 865 614 92 40middot9 Lambs 417 573 925 627 9 418 Culls 60 94 108 89 13 5middot8 Wool 28 48 71 49 07 31 Manure 19 30 41 30 04 18 Change of capital 71 136 55 98 15 6G

Gross Revenue Cpound 1037 1450 2056 1507 225 1000

Feed purchased 221 325 493 344 53 27 ~

Feed produced 72 118 103 103 15 77 Forage produced 150 246 379 257 38 19lt5 Other 6 8 12 8 01 0~5

Interest 18 28 39 29 04 20 ----------------___

Variable Costs Cpound 467 725 1026 741 111 ------ ------------_- shy

Rent of land 45 52 92 61 Family labour 342 436 529 437 )3 -I

~ IInterest and depreciation 48 66 85 66 -

-------~---------_ _

Fixed Costs Cpound 435 554 706 564

Total Costs bpound 902 1279 1732 1305 195 --__--____-__---shyNet profit Cpound 135 171 324 202 31

43- J

Return to labour (Cpoundworking day) 22 22 26 23

Return to capital () 101 101 128 108 Return over feed expenses Cpound 594 761 1081 804 Farm income Cf 588 753 1069 795 ---------------------~---------_

- 18 shy

Table 2 Costs and Returns of Goat Enterprises by Size Group (Actual)

Size group (lITo of gegtats )

30-50 50-80 80) Mean Ci-goat

No of observations 18 28 19 65

Average No of goats Milk production (kg) Kids sold or consumed (No)

39 4034

53

63 4439

71

98 6169 100

666 4833

74

Milk and milk products Kids Culls Manure Change of capital

331 552

54 19 97

364 704 80 28 71

505 1005 102

43 154

396 60 750 113 79 12 30 0middot5

103 15

293 551 59 24 73

Gross Revenue Cishy 1053 1247 1809 1358 20middot5 100 00

Feed purchased Feed produced Forage produced Other Interest

207 35

llO

7 14

236 53

156 8

18

263 36

304 17 25

236 43

186 II 19

3middot5 06 28 02 03

224 38

18J 13 loy

Variable Costs Cf 373 471 645 495 74 474

Rent of land Family labour Interest and depreciation

25 342 48

39 436

66

77 529 85

46 437

67

07 65 10

4middot5 417

64

Fixed Costs Cf 415 541 691 550 82 526

Total Costs Cf 788 1012 1336 1045 156 1000

Net Frofi t Cf 265 235 473 313 49

Return to labour (Cpoundworking day)

Return to capital () Return over feed expenses Farm income

Cf Of

28 169

700 694

24 128

802 794

30 17middot5 1206 1189

27 153 892 882

- 19 shy

App Table 3 Effect of Level of Produotivity and Direction of a) Produotion on the Costs and Returns of Sheep (Norm)

Milk yield (kgewe)

Lambing ratio

Milk Lambs Culls

Wool Manure

Gross Revenue

Feed for ewes i) Concentrates

ii) Hay amp straw Feed for lambs

i) Concentrates Other Interest

Variable Costs

Rent Famil y labour Replacement Depreciation Interest

Fixed Costs

Total Costs

Gross Profi t

Net Profit

Return to labour (Cpoundworking day)

Return to capital () Cost to the Government

deg 60 120 200

26 12 16 08

782 3781 1748 142 139

56 56 40 40

1565 2325 128

56 40

2608 1163

120 56 40

Cpound 4019 2765 4114 3986

676 464

988 446 12 12 67 37

728

601 12 54

720

294 12 41

Cpound 1743 959 1395 1067

2 2

364 449 544 504

19 19 82 82

2

534 608 19 82

2

590 640 19 82

ce 1011 1056 1245 1333

Cpound 2754 2015 2640 2400

Cpound 2276 1606 2719 2919

Cpound 1265 750 1474 1586

72 43 60 59 392 269 46middot7 521

Cpound 688 373 542 407

a) Assuming 80 8W~S and low grazing

- 20 shy

App Table 4 Effect of Level of Productivity and Direction of a) middotmiddotmiddot----middot --Produc_tiQ[l on the Costs and Returns of Goats (Norm) bull

bull bullbullbullbull ~ __R_ ~~__bullbullbull ~ bullbullbull _

-_ ----~ bull

Milk yield (kggoat)

Kidding ratio

0

34

80

16

160

20

2$0

13

Milk Lambs Culla

4511 137

717 2136 134

1434 2652 120

2503 1743

106

Manuremiddot 40 40 40 40

Gros smiddot R-eAfnu-e- Cpound 4688 3027 4246 4398

Feed for goats ) ConcentratesJ I

ii) Hay amp straw Feed for kids

i) Concentrates Other Interest

824

1023 12 74

560

482 12 42

832

601 12 58

928 ~

391 12 53

Variable Coiits Cpound 1933 1096 1503 1384

Rent Family labour Replacement Depreciation Interestmiddot_middotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddot

2 366 608 19 82

2 488 560

19 82

2 566 688 19 82

2 617 776 19 82

Fixed Cos is Cpound 1077 1151 1357 1496

Total Cost s Cpound 3010 2247 2860 J 2880

Gross Froht Cpound 2755 1931 2743 3014

Net PI-ofit

Cpound 1678 780 1386 151[

Return to labour (Cpoundworking day)

Return to capital () 89

493 42

274 55

436 505

480 Cost to the Oovernmen t --6pound---middot761 middot425 51n __

~_~- -- _--___-~ _ M bullbullbull_ bullbull___ R bullbullbull __bullbull __ bull

o _ bullbull

~301 __

a) Assuming 80 goats and low grazing

- 21 shy

App Table 5 Effect of Level of GraZirg on the Costs and Returns of Sheep and Goats (Norm) a

Shee~ Goats Level of gra~ing Zero Low High Zero Low Rigl

Milk yield (kgfemale animal) 120 120 120 160 160 16

Lambing or kidding ratio 16 16 16 20 20 2()

Milk 1565 1565 1565 1434 1434 l434 Lambs 2326 2326 2326 2652 2652 2652 Culls 128 128 128 120 120 120 Wool 56 56 56 Manure 40 40 40 40 40 40

Gross Revenue Cpound 4115 4115 4115 4246 4246 4246

Feed for ewes or goats i) Concentrates 1292 728 408 1508 832 505

ii) Ray amp straw 288 282 Feed for lambs or kids

i) Concentrates 601 601 601 602 602 602 Other 12 12 12 12 12 12 Interest 88 54 41 96 58 45

Variable Costs Cpound 2281 1395 1062 2500 1504 116r _ _-

Rent 2 2 2 2 L 2 Family labour 390 534 534 422 566 565 Replacement 608 608 608 688 688 68P Depreciation 19 19 19 19 19 1)

Interest 82 82 82 82 82 8e

Fixed Costs Cpound 1101 1245 1245 1213 1357 1357

Total Costs Cpound 3382 2640 2307 3713 2861 252

Gross Profit Cpound 18~4 2720 3053 1746 2743 30t)2

1Tet Profit Cpound 733 1475 1808 533 1385 1725

Return to labour (Cpoundworking day) 46 60 70 36 5middot5 65

Return to capital () 232 467 588 178 436 55( Feed cost to the Government Cpound 762 542 418 847 583 456

a) Assuming 80 female adult animals

- 22 shy

App Table 6 Bffect of the Size of the Pr-oduc t ion Unit on the Costs and Returns of Sheep and Goats (NJrm)

SheGE Goats

Ewes or goatsfarm 80 160 200 80 160 2()(I

Milk yield (kgfemale animal) 120 120 120 160 160 16~)

Lambing or kidding ratio 16 16 16 20 20 2 0

Milk 1565 3130 3912 1434 2867 35[1 Lambs 2326 4651 5814 2652 5305 66jl Culls 128 256 320 120 240 300 Wool 56 112 140 Manure 40 80 100 40 80 100

Gross Revenue Cpound 4115 8229 10286 4246 8492 10615

Feed for awes or goats i) Concentrates 728 1456 1820 832 1664 208

ii) Hay amp straw Feed for lambs or kids

i) Concentrates 601 1202 1502 602 1203 1504 Hired labour 203 385 266 4f- u_)

Other 12 24 30 12 24 jC)

Interest 54 115 150 58 126 163

Variable Costs Cpound 1395 3000 3887 1504 3283 42C

Rent 2 4 5 2 4 Family labour 534 624 624 566 624 621 Replacement 608 1216 1520 688 1376 1( 2(

Depreciation 19 32 40 19 32 4C Interest 82 159 198 82 159 19t

Fixed Costs Cpound 1245 2035 2387 1357 2195 255 _ _--_ __

Total Costs Cpound 2640 5035 6274 2860 5478 6521

Gross Profit Cpound 2720 5226 6399 2743 5209 Ggt7)

net Profit Cpound 1475 319L~ 4012 1385 3014 Ll3 -

Return to labour (Cpoundworking day) 60 78 80 5middot5 70 SoU

Return to capital () 467 510 510 436 475 538 Feed cost to the Government Cpound 542 1085 1356 583 1166 145[

- 23 ~

App Table 7 Prices Received and Paid

Prices received Unit Cpound-Milk sheep kg 0163

goat kg 0112 Lamb or kid

At leaning kg 1ivQwoight 0781 At 20 kg kg 0625 At 35 kg kg II 0547

Wool Cpoundanima1 0100 Manure Cpoundanima1 0500

Prices paid

Feed roughage

Straw ton 120 Cereal hay ton 200

Concentrates

Creep feed ton 500 15 crude protein (as fed) ton 458 13 crude protein (as fed) ton 438 11 crude protein (as fed) ton 400

Labour working day 16

Rent of land donum 15

App Table 8 Capital Investments

Land

Sheds for 80 female animals

160 female animals 200 female animals

Value of animals Ewes (0 kg milk 26 lambing ratio)

(60 kg milk 12 lambing ratio) (120 kg milk 16 lambing ratio ) (200 kg milk 08 lambing ratio)

Goats( 0 kg milk 34 kidding ratio) ~ 80 kg milk 16 kidding ratio) (160 kg milk 20 kiddinB ratio) (280 kg milk 13 kidding ratio)

Operating capital (50 of variable costs)

Cpounddonum 300

Cpoundshed 1800 Cpoundahed 13500 Cpoundshed 16600

CrJeue 330

315

380

400

Cpoundgoat 380

340

400

425

vpp Table 9 Gross RevenuG (Cpoundewe) at Incr-eas Ing LeveI s of Milk Yi o Ld and Lcml~ng Rc tios (rorm)

Millt Y i e 1 d (kg eVi8)Lambing ratio 0 20 4~ 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200

08 163 208 253 298 343 388 433 ~n 8 523 568 613 10 201 246 29 ~ 1 33~6 381 426 471 516 561 606 651

12 240 284 32~9 37~4 419 464 509 554 599 644 689 16 31 6 360 40~5 45o 495 540 585 630 675 720 765 18 355 398 44~3 488 533 578 623 668 713 758 803 22 431 474 519 56~4 609 654 699 744 789 834 879

26 508 550 5915 64+ 0 658 730 775 820 865 910 955 30 584 626 67h 71~6 761 806 851 896 941 986 1034

~--

- _ N

~

App Table 10 Gross Revenue (Cpoundgoat) at Increasing LeY11s of Milk Yield and Kidding Ratios (Norm) bull

M i llt Y i e 1 d (kg L~at) IKidding ratio

middot0 40 80 l~d 160 200 240 280 320 360 400

08 148 193 237 28~~ 327 372 41 7 461 506 551 596 12 218 263 307 35~2 397 442 487 531 576 621 666 16 287 333 37-7 42l~ 467 512 55middot7 601 646 691 736 20 355 403 447 49 ~ 2 537 582 627 671 716 761 806 24 -422 473 51 7 56~ 60middot7 652 697 74middot1 786 831 876

bull 28 488 543 58~7 632 677 722 767 811 856 901 946 32 564 613 65 ~ 7 70~~ 747 792 837 881 926 971 1016 36 634 683 72~7 772- 81 7 862 907 951 996 1041 1086

I

1)App Table 11 Concentrates Consumed (kgewe) Low Grazing System

Lambi ng Y i e 1 d i n mil k (kg ewe) ratio

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200

08 568 708 848 98 8 1128 1268 1408 1548 1688 1828 1968 LO 710 850 990 1130 127middot0 1410 1550 1690 1830 1970 2110 12 852 992 1132 1272 1412 1552 1692 1332 1972 2112 2252 16 1136 1276 1416 1556 1696 1836 1976 2116 2256 2396 2536 18 1278 1418 1558 1698 1838 1978 2118 2258 2398 2538 267middot8 22 1562 1702 1842 1982 2122 2262 2402 2542 2682 2822 2962 26 1846 1986 2126 2266 2406 2546 2686 2626 2966 3106 3246 30 2130 2270 2410 2550 2690 2830 2970 311 0 325middot0 3390 3530

ro1) I~aintenancerequirement of adult animals met by grazing V1

Assumptions for grazing systems

1 07 kg feeds of 15 crude protein (as fed basis) was fed per kg milk produced or sucked [iy 2 50 kg milk was suoked by each lamb from birth to weaning at 35 days 3 In late pregnancy each ewe received on the average 36 kg concentrates above maintenance for each lamb carried 4 In zero grazing maintenance requirements during the dry period were met by 06 kg straw and 05 kg

concentrates of 11 crude protein (as fed basis) [1~ I~ late pregnancy (6 weeks before lambing) and during lactation each ewe received 06 kg cereal hay and 04 kg concentrates to meet the maintenance requirements Other requirements in concentrates were met as in low grazing syste~

App liable 12 Conoentcates Consumed (kgg02t ) i Low Grazing SJ34~OT 1)- (I

----------------------T -----------~-_--------------------------------------------------shy

M gt~_~ LL~_~iJ~_8poundatl Kidding ratio

o 40 80 120 160 200 240 280 320 360 400 -----_ ------~---~ _- ----------__--__-----shy

08 528 768 1008 1248 138 1728 1960G 2208 24Li8 2688 2928 12 792 1032 1272 1512 175middot2 1992 2232 2472 271 2 2952 3192 16 1056 129 u 6 1536 ~-77 6 20l6 2256 2496 =736 2976 3216 3456 20 1320 1560 J80o 2040 2280 2520 2760 3000 3240 3480 3720 24 1584 1[24shy 2064 2304 2-~4middot 4 27S~4 3024 32604 350middot4 3 7 11++ 3984 28 1848 2038 23 28 2568 2808 30~ 8 328f3 ~)52 8 3768 4008 42~ 8

-3 ~ 211 2 2352 2592 2832 3072 3312 3552 37902 4032 4272 +51 2

______ 36

_-__ 2379

- 2616 2856 3096

___shy__ 3336 3576

_ 3826

middot 4056 L_~

429gt6 middot

L15306 _ _

4776

1) Maintenance requirements of adult animals met-JY grazing ro 0

~~~mption for grazing system

1 06 kg feed of 15 crude protein (as fed basis) was fed per kg milk produced or suoked 2 50 kg milk was sucked by each kid from birth to wean~ng at 70 days Partial suckling was practised from the

30th day onwards 3 In late pregnancy each goat received on the average 36 kg concentrates above maintenance for each kid carried 4 In zero grazing maintenance requirements in the dry period were met by 06 kg of straw and 05 kg of

concentrates of 11 crude protein (as fed basis)

29

- 27 shy

App Table 13 Feed Cost and Revenue for Lamb Fattening

Lambing ratio

08 10 12middot 16 18 22 26

aConcentrates (kg) I

Birth to weaning Weaning to 20 kg Birth to 20 kg 20 kg to 35 kg Birth to 35 kg

09 290 299 54~0

839

1 J 13 17 20 368middot 449 618 706 37middot9 462 635 726 675 810 1080 1215

1054 1272 1715 1941

24 890 914

1485 2399

1036 106e5 175middot5 2820

Saleable Iiveweight (kg)

at weaning at 20 kg at 35 kg

87 160 280

108 200 35middot0

12~8

24middot0 420

174198 320 360 56~0 630

249 44middot0 770

290 520 910

Feed expenses

at weaning mils 45 55 65 -85 100 120 145 to 20 kg Cf 14 17 21 29 33 42 49 __ to 35 kg Cf 37 46 56 7middot5 85 10middot5 123

Revenue Cf

Lamb sale Lamb sale Lamb sale

at weaning ~~ 20 kg at 35 kg

68 100shy153shy

gt ~_ bull bullbullbullbull ~-

84 125 191

100 136 150 200 230 306middot

15middot5 225 345

194 27middot5 421

226 32 c 49 e

Assumed birthweight 47 45 42 38

a) It was assumed that the protein content of the ooncentrates mixture feed from birth to weaning was 168 and from 20 to 35 kg 143 on dry matter basis [1[

- 28 shy

App Table 15 Labour Raquire~entl) for 80 poundMes or Goats Practising Low or High Grazing at Increasing Levels of Milk Yield and Lambing or Kidding Ratios

i

Lamhing Y i e 1 d i n mil k (kg Le_we) ratio

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 280

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - Lbua)production unit - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -08 0749 0813 0869 0933 1013 1069 1109 1149 1113 1205 1229 1283 10 0150 0814 0870 0934 1014 1010 1110 1150 1114 1206 1230 1284 12 0151 0815 0811 0935 1015 1011 1111 1151 1115 1201 1231 1285 14 0152 0816 0812 0936 1016 1012 1112 1152 1116 1208 1232 1286 16 0153 0811 0813 0937 1011 1013 1113 153 1117 1209 1234 1287 18 0154 0818 0874 0938 1018 1074 1114 1154 1178 1210 1235 1288 20 0155 0819 0875 0939 1019 1015 1115 1155 1119 1211 1236 1289 22 0756 0820 0876 0940 1020 1016 1116 1156 1180 1212 1237 1290 24 26

0151 0158

0821 0822

0871 0878

0941 0942

1022 1023

1017 1018

1111 1118

1157 1158

1181 1182

1213 1214

1238 1239

1291 1292

ro -D

28 0759 0823 0879 0943 1024 1019 1119 1159 1183 1215 1240 1293 30 0760 0824 0880 0middot944 1025 1080 1120 1160 1184 1216 1241 1 294 34 0162 0826 0882 0946 1027 1082 1122 1162 middot _____middot L_ 1186 1218 1242 1295

a) 1 LbU = 300 working days

1) Low and high grazing system Calculated as followsi

Labour requirement (LbU) = 015 + (lambing ratio - 10) x 0005 +

Labour for milkin~ (days)+ X No of female animals 300

+) Assuming 6 minutesanimalday

Zero grazing system Labour requiremunt (lbU) = Low or high grazing system (LbU) - 0300 for 80 female animals

- 0550 for 160 female animals - 0650 fOr 2rl) tomcIc animals

Page 9: FACTORS AFFECTING THE ECONOMICS OF SHEEP AND GOATSnews.ari.gov.cy/Publications/AER4-papas.pdfFACTORS AFFECTING THE ECONOMICS OF SHEEP AND GOATS . By . ... Costs and Returns of Goat

- 5 shy

The comparison of column b (lOrl productivi ty) to columns a c d and e shows that 9 at these levels 9 the increase in returns is faster than the in6rease in costs The additional fsed costs res~ltinl

from the hiher requirements accounted for the largest part of till increase in variable costs In contrast~ the cost of labour incr8ase~

only slowly in columns c 9 d and e and decreased in column a Thi3 suggests that if the available genetic ~aterial and knowledge was

etlployed to increCise pr-oduo t i vi ty there Hould be a need for Lnc r-eas i ns cas] 8ltIJ8nlt88 for purchos i ng feed but there wouLd not be any [ignific_~L shyincrease in labour r-equ i r-eraent In con t r-as t labour avai Labi Lf ty jlay be limitinb the size of the production unit

8ffect of intensive fattening

Based on earlier work ~6 7 9 ~ it was assumed that lambs were weaned ai 35 days and kids at 70 days and that partial suckling was practised from 16th and 30th day onwards for lambs and kids respectively ThE sale of lambs at weanin~o9 20 kflS and 35 kg Livewe i ght produced revenue of Cpound 136 Cpound 200 and Cpound 306 for lambing ratio of 16 The additional expense primarily in feed costs was Cpound 29 and Cpound 77 for increases in gross revenue of Cpound 64 and Cpound 170 respectivey

Table 2 Effect oi Fat t en i ng of Lambs and Kiels OD the Costs and Returns of Sheep and Goats (Norm)a)

Goats ireanincmiddot i-reaning

35 k s(35 day~) 20 kg 35 kg (70 days) Liveweight solJ kgfemale animal 17middot4 320 560 313 63(

Revenue from lambs or kids Cpound female animal 136 200 306 244 349

Lambs or kids feed 8xpenses Cpoundfcrnale anir1al 01 29 7middot5 04 7middot5

Variable costs Crfemale animal 9middot7 126 174 114 188

Labour exrens es Cpoundfemal~ arrimaL 65 66 67 69 7middot1

Not profit Cpoundfemale ani mal 9middot3 127 184 97 17middot3

Return to capital () 265 343 470 269 434 Return to labour

CfwOrking day 40 47 60 41 61 Farm income

Cpoundfemale animal 169 206 268 177 26 ] Cost to the Gover-nmen t Cpoundfemale animal 36 47 68 -~ 2 7middot3

a) Fora product i cn unit 101i th 80 _wes producing 120 kg milk and 16 lambs or so goats produc i ng 160 kg mil and 20 kids with low level of euro-rJzing

- 6 shy

The cost to benefit ratio of 045 is sigl1ificantly lower than thb ratio of 063 which would be required to incz-eae e meat through LrL~

numbers of sheep The high differences betv een addi t i onal cost and revenue was also reflected in higher profit farm income and returns to capi tal and Labour The cost to the Governrrent would increase b~

Opound 11 and Cpound 32 respectively because fa t t erLng was based on conoentra te feeds In general the Govermnent pad d more th~n 13 of 0h~

variable costs for fattening This cost however is lower than the expense in foreign exchange for Lmpor t Ln Lamb meat at present pri c ce

It is thus concluded that fattening of lambs up to 35 kC liv8weight increases significantly the gross revenue and all return i t erue Fa ttening required only minor additional labour and no significant capital investment in shedS machinery etc but profi tabili ty of lamb and kid fattening de penua primarily on the price relationship of feeds and meat

II Level of grazing

The effect of zero low and high grazing s ys t ems on the main return and cost i terns of producti on uni ts Hi th 80 ewes or 80 goa ts ar~middot

presented in Table 3 The feed cost desreased significantly with increasing level of grazing being only half that of the zero grazing system Savings in feed costs was reflected in higher farm income returns to labour and capital and net profit for the two ayst ems wi -U

gr-az i ng as compared to indoor feeding Irr om the inputs only the- llt)oT cost was higher in the high grazing system than in the zero grazin~~

system The additional labour cost however of Cpound 144 was smaller compared to th8 saving in feed accounting to Cpound 1171 for ewes and Opound 1285 for goats in the high grazing sybtem

Table 3 Effect of Level of GraZing On the Costs and Returns of SLeeT and Goats (Norm)a)

Sheep Goats Level of grazing Zero Low High Zero Low Higt

- - - - - -ORproduction unit- - - shy

Gross revenue 4114 4114 4114 4246 4246 42-~6

Feed cost 2180 1329 1009 2392 1434 i ic Concentrates 1893 1329 1009 2110 1434 1107 Hay amp straw 287 282

Variable cost 2280 1395 1062 2500 1503 116 Labour cost 390 53- 534 422 566 5St Net profit 733 1475 1807 533 1386 1725 Return to labour

Cfworking day 46 60 70 36 55 6middot) Return to capital (~ ) 23middot5 470 592 178 436 55middot(Cost to the Government 762 542 417 847 583 4Y~

Farra income 1295 2147 2467 1135 2094 2j~C

================-==========-- a) For a unit with 80 ewes producing 120 kg milk and 16 lambs or 80

goats producing 160 kg milk and 20 kius

- 7 shy

The cost to the Government in terms of subsidies for

concentrates is almost twice as high for indoor feeding as compareu to -- high grazing s ya t em In addition zero gr2~ing involves a high expenslaquo

in foreign exchange as Cyprus is a net ili1portcr of large quanti ti83 of

feed grain Thus maxi murn use of grazing i r to the benefit of bo th tIle

LndivLduaI producer and thG national ec ouomy It is therefore 5

necessary to keep the cost d i ffer-en t i aI -1 a level which would

encourage the full utilization of grazin- aroas and allow tne opt i mum

LlSt3 of feed grain It is clifficul t to d e t e r-mine the opt i mum s i z e of this differential because of the wide variation in the availability of graamping from one part of Cyprus to the other andthe effect of the price of thE- feed grain on the price of r1any basic fOOd items

111 Size of the production unit

Data on the main cost and return items of norm production

units varying in size are presented in Table 4

Table 4 Lffect of the Size of the Production Unit on the Costs

and Returns of Sheep and Goats (Noro)a)

Female animals per farm 80

Sheep

160 200 80

Goats

160 200

Gross revenue

Feed cost

Variable costs

Labour cOstshy

Net frofi t Return to labour

Cpoundworking day

Return to capital () Farm inoome

- - shy -

4115 1329 1395

534 1475

60 467 2147

- - -

8229 2658 3000

827 3194

70middot3 510 4298

-Crproduction unital

10286 4246 8492 3322 1433 2867 3887 1503 3283 1009 566 890

1386 -

4012 3014

80 5middot5 70 510 436 47middot5 5374 2094 4192

- shy -

10615 358shy4240 1087 4328

80 518 5781

-

a) For ewes producing 120 kg milk ana 16 lambs or goats producing

160 kg milk and 20 k ide on the 10Vl crazinb s ys t em

It is ilpparent that the size of the production unit affects

costs and returns significantly Fo r the yields stated above (Table -i-) 75 ewes are requireJ to obtain farm income of Cpound 2000 As would be

expected the size required to obtain Q certain level of farm incoffib

SfiY Cpound 2000 depends on many factors such iS the productivi ty of

anioills and the level of grazing This is illustrated in the followin6

examples g For ewes producing zero mi Lk yield arid 26 lambs 90 ewesn

r-equ i r edj for 60 kg milk and 12 lambs 121 ewes for 180 kg nu Lk and

10 lambs 71 ewes For zero low and high grazing with ewes producin[

120 kg milk and 16 lambs the respective numbers rBquired to obtain

farm income of Cr 2000 are 123 75 and 65

- 8 shy

B ACTUAL SITUATIOJX

I Effect of the level of productivity

The actual data collected fr-on tile sheep and goat pr-oduc t i cn units wer( classified in thrE)e levels of productivity namely~ low medium and high on the basis of the gross revenue obtained per adult female animal The means of the main cost anci return items for each group are presented in Table 5

Table 5 Costs and Returns of Sheep and Go~ts by Level of Productivity (Actual)

Sheep Goat

Level of productivity Low Medium High Low Medium Higll

Number of farms Ewes or goats per farm Milk yield

(kgfemale animal) Lambs raised per ewe or kids per goat

Concentrates (kgfemale animal)

18 72

48

11

117

29 72

57

12

135

18 54

68

13

143

16 80

37

13

65

33 64

74

15

108

16

59

126

19

200

Gross revenue (Ctfemale animal) 194 224 273 13 3 202 31 Z

Variable costs 106 lll 110 56 65 128 Gross profit 88 113 163 7middot7 13middot7 184

The hiSher productivity in the ncdium and high levels was pr9bably due to better feeding~ superior management and better genetic material from the Chios breed and the Damascus goat ~9 lQ7

The pz-oduc t i vi ty per animal incr8ased with the aLlowan ce of conc en t r-at ea as shown by the highly s i gr Lf i carrt regression coe tfLc i en t between gross revenue Cpoundfemale aniwal (Y) and concentrates fed in kg (X) the equation being Y = 1012 + 0056X (r=057) for ewes and = 947 + 0066x (r=O56) for goats The ~dditional cost of concentrashytes accounted for most of the Lnor-eas e in variable co s t s The returns obtained from animal with higher productivity w~re significantly higher tilan the additional costs bull At present ~ therefore there are wid margins for increasing productivity at low cost The data of Table 5 show that the commercial milk yield of the production units studied may be doubled while the average lambing or kidding ratio may bb improved by 30-40 L 1 J The average milk yi 61d and 1ambing or kidding ratios recorded in this study are the same as those recorded earlier [4]

- 9 shy

Ihe deL ta in Aplenuix Ta bl GS 1 and 2 show that on the CLV8r-tmiddot 09 lambs and 11 kids were sold per female animal producing a revenu~

of Cpound 94 ani Cpound 113 respectively At the price of Cpound 0781 per k 6 liveweignt this corresponds to the production of 120 and 145 kg of liveweight r-s s peo t i vel y for each ewe or gl)[t When oompared to the norm d~ta for similar lambing or kidding rltios it is concluded that the lambs and kids Nere sold at the age of eppr-oxi mately 8 - 10 WSOK3

at Which the producers usually wean the lambs and kids This would suggest tha t for the production units studied tfHlrewas no larte scale fa ttening of Lambs or kids beyond lHaninf at the aetJ of 6-10 we ek a The majority of the producers stated that they practised partial suckLin and that thcy offered creep feed to the lambs and k i ds Fran the discussion with th6se producers it was conclueltjd that the main reasons for no large scale fa t t cn ing were tradi t i on the higher l)ricus received for baby lamb and kid and the need for cash partcularly before revenue from milk was received

II Level of grazing

The data available do not allow a detailed study of the effect of the level of grazing on the costs and returns in the actual situation

It is possihle however to drd~ some conclusions from the5~

data in comparison to the norm situation The livestock producers of this study fed on the average 132 kg of concentrates for each ewe and 120 kg for each goat In add i ti on 08 donums of green forage vlclS

cansuQed by each female aniwal and its followers Similar trends WbTB

observed in ano thez- etuuy L9 J Compar-ed to norm produo t i on units or

comparable y i elds it a ppear-s that feed requirements for maintenance arto ruet by gr-az i ng gr-e en forage and straw 9 whi l E t he r equ i r-emerrt s for production are met by concentrates For ollis 9 tlH level of grazino is hi6her than she up especiallj for production units with more than 30 female adult an imaLs as indicated by tl( lower amount of concentrates fed for comparative yields

Thl level of grazin~ practised is limited by the low ava i La hi Li ty of pas tur-es and t no abe enc e of large grazing areas There are also institutional r8gulations by 10c81 authorities limi tin~ the maximum nunrber of animals a t tendcd oy a sincle shepherd Compar-ed to the norm situation the average of grazing was slightly below the designated as low level

III Size of the production unit

Data on tho main cost and return items of actual produotion units varying in size and presented in Table 6 The regression of gross revenue (YGB) or variable oosts (Yvd on the number of adult ewes (X) revealed a sienificant linear relation the equations being

- 10 shy

A ~

2138 + 193X (r=091) YVC = 97 + 109X (r=064) For goat8~YGR = the respective equations were YGR = 1860 + 46x (r=035)A

Yvc = 4035 + 147X (r=061) Unlike [Sheep the r for the equation relating gross revenue and number of gOcits wus low This pr-o babl y

resul ted from wider vaz-La t i on in productivi ty among goat than ShbI

units It was apparent fro~ the inspectiun of the data from thE individual goat units that the per an i raaL output was par t i cu Lar-Ly

variable especially for small units

For the same data gross r-evenue and labour cost per an i mal decreQsed in lareer units especially in goats The advantag8s of

economics of size were cancelled by the decline in producticity which resulted in lower net returns per animal in the larger units The total rturns how8vGr were higher in the larger units but could have been consiclerably higher had the productivity of each animal been at the same level as in the small units

Table 6 Effect of Size of the Production Unit on the Gostsand Returns of Sheep and Goats (Actual)

Female animals per farm

Gross revenue Feed cost iTariable cost abour- cost Jet profit te tu r n to labour

Cpoundorking day eturn to capital () arm income

Sheep Goa ts

42 65 94 39 63

- -Cfenterprise unit shy - -

1037 1450 2056 1053 1247 18(9

443 690 975 701 797 1206

467 726 1026 373 471 645 342 436 529 342 436 529 135 171 324 265 235 473

22 22 26 28 24 3C 101 101 128 169 128 17 middot5

588 753 1069 694 794 IJ89

By corapa r-i ng the incremental bross revenue to the varLabl raquos ts from the low to the high level of pr-oduc t av i t y (Tah1e 5) and ~om the small to the large LeveI of s i z e (lable 6) it can be derived tat it is more profitable to increase prociuctivi ty per an i maI r-athor ~n increase their numbers

DISCUSSIOl AND COFCLUSI011S

Sheep and goat production can be Lnc r-eae ed by increasing Lt

oduc t i v i t y of the animals or by increasin~ the size of the an i maL pulation or by a combination of the two The returns to the iividual producer however~ are affecteu apart of the productivity other factors namely 1 the size of the production unit the level )i

~zing the management system and others

- 11 shy

The data in this study indicated the economic advantage 1 Jotl_ for the individual producer and the national economy of increasine the sheep and goat production by improving the productivity of the animals than by increasing the size of the population For ewes and goatB it is obvious from the comparison of actual and norm data that commer-ciiI

milk yield can be doubled and lambing ratio can increase by 30-40 by

using genetic material and knowledge already available in Cyprus The adoption of fQttening of lambs and kids at weights up to 35 kg is hindered by the strong demand for baby laUD and kid meat and the nee~

of producers for cash However these obs t acLes may be overCOJTW by eppr-opr-ia t e policy measures and consumer oduoa t ion

Th6 study of different directionG of production and in particular the all-meat versus the high milk - low meat direction showed that at the levels assumed the milk and meat direction was slightly superior to the all-meat direction in terms of net returns and lower cost to the Government Nevertheless thG all-meat direction is economically sound and may be used in s peo i aLj aed si tuations in which skilled labour is limited while good possibilities exist for high levels of grazing

The size of the production unit required to obtain a certain level of farm income J8pends on many factors such as the productivity of the animals and the level of grazing The numbers of adult female animals required to obtain farn income of Cpound 2000 are 121 and 75 for commercial milk yields of 60 and 120 kg and lambing ratioe of 12 ard

16 respectively Assuming that these yields represent roughly the Local and the Chios sheep it is apparent that any benefits from increasinb the present size of the production units would be much higher if the increase in size was coupled with higher productivity Presently the size of most sheeJ or goat production units is smal18r than the siz8 required to achi8ve farw income of Cpound 2000

The rroblem of deciding the size of the production unit has many complex aspects This is so becausu the livestock enterpris8 in most places is combined with crop production and the relative size of the two on t er-prLs ee is determined by economic and other factors In this respect the amount opound family labour~ the availability and size of grazing areas and feeds and the relative profitability of the livestOCK enterprise in comparison with pos s r ble al ternative farm enterprises weigh heavily in det er-iain i ng the size of the sheep or goat production units

From the data of thi s and an oar-Iier study L 9 ] it is suggested that op t i mum utilization of resources in a mixed type of farming requires production units with 120 - 130 animals In a norm situation for numbers up to 1000 animals the returns to size were higher than zero suggesting that at present economies of siZe have not

- 12 shy

been exploited Of course larger production units do not neces5~rily

imply larger animal population th ey may resul t also from reorganizatior

of the existing population to larger economically viaole units

The level of grazing is inversely related to the feeding costs but increases labour cost The decrease in feeding cost frod

higher level of grazing is considerably higher than the increase in

labour cost There is no doubt that higher grazing level wilen possible J is economically beneficial both to the individual producGr

and the national economy and could be easily combined with the all-~~~t

direction of production It is proposed th~t the price of concentrstcO)

presently regulated by thE Government through the system of SUbsidies be kept at such level which will encourage the optimum utilization of

straw pastures and agricultural by-products

The goat production units (actual) were more variable than sheep units in the level of productivitJ-9 direction of production feeding prograDme and size Smaller goat units tended to be more productive consumed more concentrates per female animal and producei higher returns per animal than larger units This suggests that large units Hith low producing animals practised more grazing On the averagG 9 the gross revenue was higher for sheep but net returns from goats were slightly higher These differences were primarily due to higher level of grazing for goats than for sheep This comparison if

based on the average of the production units studied ~nd could not bE extrapolated to comparison of specific breeds of sheep and goats A comparative study of the Chios sheep and Damascus goat under norm

conditions was initiated at this Institute

- 13 shy

SUIDIARY

Data from 68 sheep 65 goat private production units (actual situation) and from Gov~rnment units (norm situationr were used to coraput c costs and returns and to study the main fa c t or-s affecting tht econooics of shoGp and goats in Cyprus The main conclusions of this study can be summarized as follows

1 It is more profitable as a ~irst step to incrGasG productivity per animal rather than increase their numbers With available gonetic material ana knowledge it is possible to double tho present milk yields and increase the number of lambs or kids per female animal by 30-40

2F~ttGning of lambs or kids at prosGnt prices can increase total and net returns SUbstantially with profound ~conomic advantages for the individual producer and tho national economy

3 The study of di~ferent directions of ~roduction showed that the milk and mlat direction was slightly suporior to the all-moat directionH01iGVer thE a I Le-meat di re c t i on of production may bo a sound economic alternative mainly in situations where good possibilities exist for high lcvul of razing and skilled labour is limited

4 The feed cost for high level of grazing was only half the cost for middotindoor fcodLng The loer fe ed cost 18S ruflectcd in higher net returns for the razing systems The cost differential between cost of grazing and fecding of concentrates should be adjusted to promoto grazing 8t th8 IGvlol which will mClOt at the minimum the maintenance r-oqu i r-crucn t s of auuI t animalsmiddot

5 With present 18v~ls of productivity 168 ewes or 151 goats arc roquirlQ to produclo farm incomb of Cpound 2000 In norm situations 75 OWbS pr-oducdng 120 kg milk and 16 1(111bs could I~roduc8 thc same income For this LcvcI of productivi ty the r-espec t i v- numbers for z er-o low and high grazing nystems war_ 123 75 and 65 ewes

Th authors gratefully acknowlGdge tl1G cooperation of ahoe p and goat producers and the assistancE providod by all members of the Agricultural Economics Slction

RLFERLFCES

1 Louca A Pr-eLimanar-y r-csuI ts on tho por-formarice of pur-ebr-ed and cross-bred sllecp Paper prosGDtcd a~ the RGgional Workshop for shclp and forage improvement February 11-14 1974 in Buirut~ Lebanon

- 14 shy

2 Chimonides 1 1972 Some faotors affGoting the productivity of DamQscus goats in Cyprus MS Thesis American University of Bei r-ut L8b~~lO[

3 Planning Bureau ThE first (1962-66) the second (1967-71) and t hlaquo

third (1972-76) Five Year Plan Planning Rur~au

Nioosia Cyprus

4 Agrioulturul Research Institute 1964 Cost and Returns of Shlq

and goats Agric Res Inst Nioosia Cyprus

5 Louca A Personal c omruurri ca t i cn Agrioultural Research Institute Nioosia Cyprus

6 Hadjipanayiotou M and Louca A 1975 PhG Effeots of partial suckling on the lactation Derformance of Chios sheep and Damasous goats and the growth rate of the lambs and kids (in preparation) Agricultural Research Institute Nicosia Cyprus

7 Louca A 1972 The effect of suckling regime on grmdh rate and laotation performance of the Cyprus Fat-tailed amI Chios sheep Anim Prod 15~53-59

8 Louca A ~ Mavr-ogen i s A and Lawlor ~1J 1975 ThE effect of early weaning on the laotation performanoe of Damascus goats and the growth rate of the kidb Anim Prod 20 213-218

9 Papachristodoulou S and Papas A 1975 The bconomios of drylan~

mixed farming in Cyprus Agrioultural Research Institute Nicosia~ Cyprus

10 Papachristodoulou S 1974 (Restrioted) Dryland Mixed Farwing A technical and economic anaLys i s of some typical fnrl~

participated in the Mixed Farming Project during 1968-1972 Agricultural Research ~nstitute Nicosia Cyprus

11 Papas A 1975 Protein requirements of ewes during laotution (in IJreparation) Agrioultural REJsearch Lns t i tu t e Nicosia Cyprus

12 Papas A 1975 Protein requirements of ewes during maintenanoe (in preparation) Agricultural Res~arch Institute Nioosia Cyprus

13 Papas~ A 1975 The protein requirements of early weaned lambs (in preparation) Agricultural Researoh Institutc 9

Nioosia CYfrus

- 15 shy

lTA P P E D I x

COHPUTATION OF DnUT-OUTPUT DATA OF SHEEP MID GOATS-Gross revenue is the total value of milkmeat cUlls wool and manuree

Sheep milk was sold at Cpound 0163kg and goat milk at Cpound 0112kg In the

actual situation revenue from lambs and kids 11018 based on receipts

adjusted to current prices It was assumed that in norm situation lambs

and kids were sold at 35 kg liveweight 0547kg The prices at 20 kg

liveweight and at weaning were Cpound 0625 and Cpound 0781 respectively A 5

death rate for lambs and kids was assumed Culling was estimated at

20 each year 5 of this was assumed to represent losses and the

remaining 15 of the culls sold at Cpound 125head It was assumed that

losses were directly related to productivity for every additional 10 kg

milk yield and 01 lambing ratio losses increased by 015 and by

005 respectively The revenue from wool and manure was estimated at

Cpound 0700 and Cpound 0500animal respectively (App Tables 16)

Variable costs include feed expenses (purchased or produced) other

expenses (veterinary hired labour) and interest on operating capitale

In the actual situation feed expenses for sheep remiddotprEHHlnted

the 95 of variable costs and 54 of total costs for goats these

percentages are 94 and 44 respectively (App Tables 1 and 2) In the

norm situation feed expenses for sheep or goats comprised approximately

95 of the variable costs ranging from 42-65 of the total costs

depending on the level of productivity direction of production and the

level of grazing (App Tables 3-5) The feed expenses forslle-epandmiddot

goats as percent of variable and total costs decreased from about

95-84 and increased from about 50-53 respectively depending on the

size of production unit (App Table 6)

Interest on operating capital represents 50 of the variable

costs at 8 interest rate

Fixed costs include rent of land family labour replacement

depreciation and interest on fixed capital

In the actual situation rent of land was charged for the area

under fodder crops while in the norm situation rent was charged only for

the area occupied by sheds and the milking parlour

- 16 shy

Family labour was valued atGpound 1600__p~r -wor~i~gslaY_~Ep_

ble 15 presents the labour requirements for 80 ewes or goats pr-ac t i c i rs

w or high grazing system at increasing levels of milk yield andmiddot

Lmbing or kidding ratios Also gives the calculation of the labou~

squ i r-ement s for the zero grazing system and increasing number of aniild

n this study it was assumed that 13 labour units(LbU) were c on tr i bu

ed by family labour and any additional labour w~cs treated as hired

abour-

The replacement was estimated at 20 of the value of animals

The annual depreciation rate of shed8 was estimated at 25

while interest rate used for sheds and livestock capital was 6

Total costs is the sum of variable and fixed costs and net profit the

difference between gross revenue and total coste (App Tables 1-6)

Return to labour (Cpoundwo~king day) was calculated by adding to the net

profit all labour costs and dividing this amount by the number of

working days (App Tables 1-6)

Return to capital () was calculated by adding to the net profit the

interest on operating and fixed capital and dividing the amount by tho

capital investments (excl land capital) and multiplied by 100 (App

Tables 1-6)

Farm income consisted of pai~ or imputed rent 9 remuneration of family

and hired labour interest charges and net profit (App Tables 1-6)

Cost to the government was computed from the v~lue of concentrates fed

using the coefficients of 039 and 043 for aault and young animals

respectively These coefficients represent the increase in percentaL~

of the present value of the concentrates which Would be paid by the

producers in the form of hi~her prices if marketing of feed grains waG

not regulated These coefficients were comI~t8d on the basis of the

difference of the prices for feed grains paid lJy the Government and t~l(

livestock producers and on the content of the concentrate mixtures in

the feed grains (App Tabl~s 3-6)

----------------

- 17 shy

App Table 1 Costs and Returns of Sheep Enterprises by Size Group (Actual)

--_SizebwrltuF (No of ewes)

30-50 50-80 80gt Mean Cpoundewe-----_-_-

No of observations 17 33 18 68

Average No of ewes 42 65 94 67 Milk production (kg) 2711 3442 5348 3764 Lambs Bold or consumed (No) 39 55 85 59 ------------------_shy

Ycilk and milk products 440 569 865 614 92 40middot9 Lambs 417 573 925 627 9 418 Culls 60 94 108 89 13 5middot8 Wool 28 48 71 49 07 31 Manure 19 30 41 30 04 18 Change of capital 71 136 55 98 15 6G

Gross Revenue Cpound 1037 1450 2056 1507 225 1000

Feed purchased 221 325 493 344 53 27 ~

Feed produced 72 118 103 103 15 77 Forage produced 150 246 379 257 38 19lt5 Other 6 8 12 8 01 0~5

Interest 18 28 39 29 04 20 ----------------___

Variable Costs Cpound 467 725 1026 741 111 ------ ------------_- shy

Rent of land 45 52 92 61 Family labour 342 436 529 437 )3 -I

~ IInterest and depreciation 48 66 85 66 -

-------~---------_ _

Fixed Costs Cpound 435 554 706 564

Total Costs bpound 902 1279 1732 1305 195 --__--____-__---shyNet profit Cpound 135 171 324 202 31

43- J

Return to labour (Cpoundworking day) 22 22 26 23

Return to capital () 101 101 128 108 Return over feed expenses Cpound 594 761 1081 804 Farm income Cf 588 753 1069 795 ---------------------~---------_

- 18 shy

Table 2 Costs and Returns of Goat Enterprises by Size Group (Actual)

Size group (lITo of gegtats )

30-50 50-80 80) Mean Ci-goat

No of observations 18 28 19 65

Average No of goats Milk production (kg) Kids sold or consumed (No)

39 4034

53

63 4439

71

98 6169 100

666 4833

74

Milk and milk products Kids Culls Manure Change of capital

331 552

54 19 97

364 704 80 28 71

505 1005 102

43 154

396 60 750 113 79 12 30 0middot5

103 15

293 551 59 24 73

Gross Revenue Cishy 1053 1247 1809 1358 20middot5 100 00

Feed purchased Feed produced Forage produced Other Interest

207 35

llO

7 14

236 53

156 8

18

263 36

304 17 25

236 43

186 II 19

3middot5 06 28 02 03

224 38

18J 13 loy

Variable Costs Cf 373 471 645 495 74 474

Rent of land Family labour Interest and depreciation

25 342 48

39 436

66

77 529 85

46 437

67

07 65 10

4middot5 417

64

Fixed Costs Cf 415 541 691 550 82 526

Total Costs Cf 788 1012 1336 1045 156 1000

Net Frofi t Cf 265 235 473 313 49

Return to labour (Cpoundworking day)

Return to capital () Return over feed expenses Farm income

Cf Of

28 169

700 694

24 128

802 794

30 17middot5 1206 1189

27 153 892 882

- 19 shy

App Table 3 Effect of Level of Produotivity and Direction of a) Produotion on the Costs and Returns of Sheep (Norm)

Milk yield (kgewe)

Lambing ratio

Milk Lambs Culls

Wool Manure

Gross Revenue

Feed for ewes i) Concentrates

ii) Hay amp straw Feed for lambs

i) Concentrates Other Interest

Variable Costs

Rent Famil y labour Replacement Depreciation Interest

Fixed Costs

Total Costs

Gross Profi t

Net Profit

Return to labour (Cpoundworking day)

Return to capital () Cost to the Government

deg 60 120 200

26 12 16 08

782 3781 1748 142 139

56 56 40 40

1565 2325 128

56 40

2608 1163

120 56 40

Cpound 4019 2765 4114 3986

676 464

988 446 12 12 67 37

728

601 12 54

720

294 12 41

Cpound 1743 959 1395 1067

2 2

364 449 544 504

19 19 82 82

2

534 608 19 82

2

590 640 19 82

ce 1011 1056 1245 1333

Cpound 2754 2015 2640 2400

Cpound 2276 1606 2719 2919

Cpound 1265 750 1474 1586

72 43 60 59 392 269 46middot7 521

Cpound 688 373 542 407

a) Assuming 80 8W~S and low grazing

- 20 shy

App Table 4 Effect of Level of Productivity and Direction of a) middotmiddotmiddot----middot --Produc_tiQ[l on the Costs and Returns of Goats (Norm) bull

bull bullbullbullbull ~ __R_ ~~__bullbullbull ~ bullbullbull _

-_ ----~ bull

Milk yield (kggoat)

Kidding ratio

0

34

80

16

160

20

2$0

13

Milk Lambs Culla

4511 137

717 2136 134

1434 2652 120

2503 1743

106

Manuremiddot 40 40 40 40

Gros smiddot R-eAfnu-e- Cpound 4688 3027 4246 4398

Feed for goats ) ConcentratesJ I

ii) Hay amp straw Feed for kids

i) Concentrates Other Interest

824

1023 12 74

560

482 12 42

832

601 12 58

928 ~

391 12 53

Variable Coiits Cpound 1933 1096 1503 1384

Rent Family labour Replacement Depreciation Interestmiddot_middotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddot

2 366 608 19 82

2 488 560

19 82

2 566 688 19 82

2 617 776 19 82

Fixed Cos is Cpound 1077 1151 1357 1496

Total Cost s Cpound 3010 2247 2860 J 2880

Gross Froht Cpound 2755 1931 2743 3014

Net PI-ofit

Cpound 1678 780 1386 151[

Return to labour (Cpoundworking day)

Return to capital () 89

493 42

274 55

436 505

480 Cost to the Oovernmen t --6pound---middot761 middot425 51n __

~_~- -- _--___-~ _ M bullbullbull_ bullbull___ R bullbullbull __bullbull __ bull

o _ bullbull

~301 __

a) Assuming 80 goats and low grazing

- 21 shy

App Table 5 Effect of Level of GraZirg on the Costs and Returns of Sheep and Goats (Norm) a

Shee~ Goats Level of gra~ing Zero Low High Zero Low Rigl

Milk yield (kgfemale animal) 120 120 120 160 160 16

Lambing or kidding ratio 16 16 16 20 20 2()

Milk 1565 1565 1565 1434 1434 l434 Lambs 2326 2326 2326 2652 2652 2652 Culls 128 128 128 120 120 120 Wool 56 56 56 Manure 40 40 40 40 40 40

Gross Revenue Cpound 4115 4115 4115 4246 4246 4246

Feed for ewes or goats i) Concentrates 1292 728 408 1508 832 505

ii) Ray amp straw 288 282 Feed for lambs or kids

i) Concentrates 601 601 601 602 602 602 Other 12 12 12 12 12 12 Interest 88 54 41 96 58 45

Variable Costs Cpound 2281 1395 1062 2500 1504 116r _ _-

Rent 2 2 2 2 L 2 Family labour 390 534 534 422 566 565 Replacement 608 608 608 688 688 68P Depreciation 19 19 19 19 19 1)

Interest 82 82 82 82 82 8e

Fixed Costs Cpound 1101 1245 1245 1213 1357 1357

Total Costs Cpound 3382 2640 2307 3713 2861 252

Gross Profit Cpound 18~4 2720 3053 1746 2743 30t)2

1Tet Profit Cpound 733 1475 1808 533 1385 1725

Return to labour (Cpoundworking day) 46 60 70 36 5middot5 65

Return to capital () 232 467 588 178 436 55( Feed cost to the Government Cpound 762 542 418 847 583 456

a) Assuming 80 female adult animals

- 22 shy

App Table 6 Bffect of the Size of the Pr-oduc t ion Unit on the Costs and Returns of Sheep and Goats (NJrm)

SheGE Goats

Ewes or goatsfarm 80 160 200 80 160 2()(I

Milk yield (kgfemale animal) 120 120 120 160 160 16~)

Lambing or kidding ratio 16 16 16 20 20 2 0

Milk 1565 3130 3912 1434 2867 35[1 Lambs 2326 4651 5814 2652 5305 66jl Culls 128 256 320 120 240 300 Wool 56 112 140 Manure 40 80 100 40 80 100

Gross Revenue Cpound 4115 8229 10286 4246 8492 10615

Feed for awes or goats i) Concentrates 728 1456 1820 832 1664 208

ii) Hay amp straw Feed for lambs or kids

i) Concentrates 601 1202 1502 602 1203 1504 Hired labour 203 385 266 4f- u_)

Other 12 24 30 12 24 jC)

Interest 54 115 150 58 126 163

Variable Costs Cpound 1395 3000 3887 1504 3283 42C

Rent 2 4 5 2 4 Family labour 534 624 624 566 624 621 Replacement 608 1216 1520 688 1376 1( 2(

Depreciation 19 32 40 19 32 4C Interest 82 159 198 82 159 19t

Fixed Costs Cpound 1245 2035 2387 1357 2195 255 _ _--_ __

Total Costs Cpound 2640 5035 6274 2860 5478 6521

Gross Profit Cpound 2720 5226 6399 2743 5209 Ggt7)

net Profit Cpound 1475 319L~ 4012 1385 3014 Ll3 -

Return to labour (Cpoundworking day) 60 78 80 5middot5 70 SoU

Return to capital () 467 510 510 436 475 538 Feed cost to the Government Cpound 542 1085 1356 583 1166 145[

- 23 ~

App Table 7 Prices Received and Paid

Prices received Unit Cpound-Milk sheep kg 0163

goat kg 0112 Lamb or kid

At leaning kg 1ivQwoight 0781 At 20 kg kg 0625 At 35 kg kg II 0547

Wool Cpoundanima1 0100 Manure Cpoundanima1 0500

Prices paid

Feed roughage

Straw ton 120 Cereal hay ton 200

Concentrates

Creep feed ton 500 15 crude protein (as fed) ton 458 13 crude protein (as fed) ton 438 11 crude protein (as fed) ton 400

Labour working day 16

Rent of land donum 15

App Table 8 Capital Investments

Land

Sheds for 80 female animals

160 female animals 200 female animals

Value of animals Ewes (0 kg milk 26 lambing ratio)

(60 kg milk 12 lambing ratio) (120 kg milk 16 lambing ratio ) (200 kg milk 08 lambing ratio)

Goats( 0 kg milk 34 kidding ratio) ~ 80 kg milk 16 kidding ratio) (160 kg milk 20 kiddinB ratio) (280 kg milk 13 kidding ratio)

Operating capital (50 of variable costs)

Cpounddonum 300

Cpoundshed 1800 Cpoundahed 13500 Cpoundshed 16600

CrJeue 330

315

380

400

Cpoundgoat 380

340

400

425

vpp Table 9 Gross RevenuG (Cpoundewe) at Incr-eas Ing LeveI s of Milk Yi o Ld and Lcml~ng Rc tios (rorm)

Millt Y i e 1 d (kg eVi8)Lambing ratio 0 20 4~ 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200

08 163 208 253 298 343 388 433 ~n 8 523 568 613 10 201 246 29 ~ 1 33~6 381 426 471 516 561 606 651

12 240 284 32~9 37~4 419 464 509 554 599 644 689 16 31 6 360 40~5 45o 495 540 585 630 675 720 765 18 355 398 44~3 488 533 578 623 668 713 758 803 22 431 474 519 56~4 609 654 699 744 789 834 879

26 508 550 5915 64+ 0 658 730 775 820 865 910 955 30 584 626 67h 71~6 761 806 851 896 941 986 1034

~--

- _ N

~

App Table 10 Gross Revenue (Cpoundgoat) at Increasing LeY11s of Milk Yield and Kidding Ratios (Norm) bull

M i llt Y i e 1 d (kg L~at) IKidding ratio

middot0 40 80 l~d 160 200 240 280 320 360 400

08 148 193 237 28~~ 327 372 41 7 461 506 551 596 12 218 263 307 35~2 397 442 487 531 576 621 666 16 287 333 37-7 42l~ 467 512 55middot7 601 646 691 736 20 355 403 447 49 ~ 2 537 582 627 671 716 761 806 24 -422 473 51 7 56~ 60middot7 652 697 74middot1 786 831 876

bull 28 488 543 58~7 632 677 722 767 811 856 901 946 32 564 613 65 ~ 7 70~~ 747 792 837 881 926 971 1016 36 634 683 72~7 772- 81 7 862 907 951 996 1041 1086

I

1)App Table 11 Concentrates Consumed (kgewe) Low Grazing System

Lambi ng Y i e 1 d i n mil k (kg ewe) ratio

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200

08 568 708 848 98 8 1128 1268 1408 1548 1688 1828 1968 LO 710 850 990 1130 127middot0 1410 1550 1690 1830 1970 2110 12 852 992 1132 1272 1412 1552 1692 1332 1972 2112 2252 16 1136 1276 1416 1556 1696 1836 1976 2116 2256 2396 2536 18 1278 1418 1558 1698 1838 1978 2118 2258 2398 2538 267middot8 22 1562 1702 1842 1982 2122 2262 2402 2542 2682 2822 2962 26 1846 1986 2126 2266 2406 2546 2686 2626 2966 3106 3246 30 2130 2270 2410 2550 2690 2830 2970 311 0 325middot0 3390 3530

ro1) I~aintenancerequirement of adult animals met by grazing V1

Assumptions for grazing systems

1 07 kg feeds of 15 crude protein (as fed basis) was fed per kg milk produced or sucked [iy 2 50 kg milk was suoked by each lamb from birth to weaning at 35 days 3 In late pregnancy each ewe received on the average 36 kg concentrates above maintenance for each lamb carried 4 In zero grazing maintenance requirements during the dry period were met by 06 kg straw and 05 kg

concentrates of 11 crude protein (as fed basis) [1~ I~ late pregnancy (6 weeks before lambing) and during lactation each ewe received 06 kg cereal hay and 04 kg concentrates to meet the maintenance requirements Other requirements in concentrates were met as in low grazing syste~

App liable 12 Conoentcates Consumed (kgg02t ) i Low Grazing SJ34~OT 1)- (I

----------------------T -----------~-_--------------------------------------------------shy

M gt~_~ LL~_~iJ~_8poundatl Kidding ratio

o 40 80 120 160 200 240 280 320 360 400 -----_ ------~---~ _- ----------__--__-----shy

08 528 768 1008 1248 138 1728 1960G 2208 24Li8 2688 2928 12 792 1032 1272 1512 175middot2 1992 2232 2472 271 2 2952 3192 16 1056 129 u 6 1536 ~-77 6 20l6 2256 2496 =736 2976 3216 3456 20 1320 1560 J80o 2040 2280 2520 2760 3000 3240 3480 3720 24 1584 1[24shy 2064 2304 2-~4middot 4 27S~4 3024 32604 350middot4 3 7 11++ 3984 28 1848 2038 23 28 2568 2808 30~ 8 328f3 ~)52 8 3768 4008 42~ 8

-3 ~ 211 2 2352 2592 2832 3072 3312 3552 37902 4032 4272 +51 2

______ 36

_-__ 2379

- 2616 2856 3096

___shy__ 3336 3576

_ 3826

middot 4056 L_~

429gt6 middot

L15306 _ _

4776

1) Maintenance requirements of adult animals met-JY grazing ro 0

~~~mption for grazing system

1 06 kg feed of 15 crude protein (as fed basis) was fed per kg milk produced or suoked 2 50 kg milk was sucked by each kid from birth to wean~ng at 70 days Partial suckling was practised from the

30th day onwards 3 In late pregnancy each goat received on the average 36 kg concentrates above maintenance for each kid carried 4 In zero grazing maintenance requirements in the dry period were met by 06 kg of straw and 05 kg of

concentrates of 11 crude protein (as fed basis)

29

- 27 shy

App Table 13 Feed Cost and Revenue for Lamb Fattening

Lambing ratio

08 10 12middot 16 18 22 26

aConcentrates (kg) I

Birth to weaning Weaning to 20 kg Birth to 20 kg 20 kg to 35 kg Birth to 35 kg

09 290 299 54~0

839

1 J 13 17 20 368middot 449 618 706 37middot9 462 635 726 675 810 1080 1215

1054 1272 1715 1941

24 890 914

1485 2399

1036 106e5 175middot5 2820

Saleable Iiveweight (kg)

at weaning at 20 kg at 35 kg

87 160 280

108 200 35middot0

12~8

24middot0 420

174198 320 360 56~0 630

249 44middot0 770

290 520 910

Feed expenses

at weaning mils 45 55 65 -85 100 120 145 to 20 kg Cf 14 17 21 29 33 42 49 __ to 35 kg Cf 37 46 56 7middot5 85 10middot5 123

Revenue Cf

Lamb sale Lamb sale Lamb sale

at weaning ~~ 20 kg at 35 kg

68 100shy153shy

gt ~_ bull bullbullbullbull ~-

84 125 191

100 136 150 200 230 306middot

15middot5 225 345

194 27middot5 421

226 32 c 49 e

Assumed birthweight 47 45 42 38

a) It was assumed that the protein content of the ooncentrates mixture feed from birth to weaning was 168 and from 20 to 35 kg 143 on dry matter basis [1[

- 28 shy

App Table 15 Labour Raquire~entl) for 80 poundMes or Goats Practising Low or High Grazing at Increasing Levels of Milk Yield and Lambing or Kidding Ratios

i

Lamhing Y i e 1 d i n mil k (kg Le_we) ratio

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 280

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - Lbua)production unit - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -08 0749 0813 0869 0933 1013 1069 1109 1149 1113 1205 1229 1283 10 0150 0814 0870 0934 1014 1010 1110 1150 1114 1206 1230 1284 12 0151 0815 0811 0935 1015 1011 1111 1151 1115 1201 1231 1285 14 0152 0816 0812 0936 1016 1012 1112 1152 1116 1208 1232 1286 16 0153 0811 0813 0937 1011 1013 1113 153 1117 1209 1234 1287 18 0154 0818 0874 0938 1018 1074 1114 1154 1178 1210 1235 1288 20 0155 0819 0875 0939 1019 1015 1115 1155 1119 1211 1236 1289 22 0756 0820 0876 0940 1020 1016 1116 1156 1180 1212 1237 1290 24 26

0151 0158

0821 0822

0871 0878

0941 0942

1022 1023

1017 1018

1111 1118

1157 1158

1181 1182

1213 1214

1238 1239

1291 1292

ro -D

28 0759 0823 0879 0943 1024 1019 1119 1159 1183 1215 1240 1293 30 0760 0824 0880 0middot944 1025 1080 1120 1160 1184 1216 1241 1 294 34 0162 0826 0882 0946 1027 1082 1122 1162 middot _____middot L_ 1186 1218 1242 1295

a) 1 LbU = 300 working days

1) Low and high grazing system Calculated as followsi

Labour requirement (LbU) = 015 + (lambing ratio - 10) x 0005 +

Labour for milkin~ (days)+ X No of female animals 300

+) Assuming 6 minutesanimalday

Zero grazing system Labour requiremunt (lbU) = Low or high grazing system (LbU) - 0300 for 80 female animals

- 0550 for 160 female animals - 0650 fOr 2rl) tomcIc animals

Page 10: FACTORS AFFECTING THE ECONOMICS OF SHEEP AND GOATSnews.ari.gov.cy/Publications/AER4-papas.pdfFACTORS AFFECTING THE ECONOMICS OF SHEEP AND GOATS . By . ... Costs and Returns of Goat

- 6 shy

The cost to benefit ratio of 045 is sigl1ificantly lower than thb ratio of 063 which would be required to incz-eae e meat through LrL~

numbers of sheep The high differences betv een addi t i onal cost and revenue was also reflected in higher profit farm income and returns to capi tal and Labour The cost to the Governrrent would increase b~

Opound 11 and Cpound 32 respectively because fa t t erLng was based on conoentra te feeds In general the Govermnent pad d more th~n 13 of 0h~

variable costs for fattening This cost however is lower than the expense in foreign exchange for Lmpor t Ln Lamb meat at present pri c ce

It is thus concluded that fattening of lambs up to 35 kC liv8weight increases significantly the gross revenue and all return i t erue Fa ttening required only minor additional labour and no significant capital investment in shedS machinery etc but profi tabili ty of lamb and kid fattening de penua primarily on the price relationship of feeds and meat

II Level of grazing

The effect of zero low and high grazing s ys t ems on the main return and cost i terns of producti on uni ts Hi th 80 ewes or 80 goa ts ar~middot

presented in Table 3 The feed cost desreased significantly with increasing level of grazing being only half that of the zero grazing system Savings in feed costs was reflected in higher farm income returns to labour and capital and net profit for the two ayst ems wi -U

gr-az i ng as compared to indoor feeding Irr om the inputs only the- llt)oT cost was higher in the high grazing system than in the zero grazin~~

system The additional labour cost however of Cpound 144 was smaller compared to th8 saving in feed accounting to Cpound 1171 for ewes and Opound 1285 for goats in the high grazing sybtem

Table 3 Effect of Level of GraZing On the Costs and Returns of SLeeT and Goats (Norm)a)

Sheep Goats Level of grazing Zero Low High Zero Low Higt

- - - - - -ORproduction unit- - - shy

Gross revenue 4114 4114 4114 4246 4246 42-~6

Feed cost 2180 1329 1009 2392 1434 i ic Concentrates 1893 1329 1009 2110 1434 1107 Hay amp straw 287 282

Variable cost 2280 1395 1062 2500 1503 116 Labour cost 390 53- 534 422 566 5St Net profit 733 1475 1807 533 1386 1725 Return to labour

Cfworking day 46 60 70 36 55 6middot) Return to capital (~ ) 23middot5 470 592 178 436 55middot(Cost to the Government 762 542 417 847 583 4Y~

Farra income 1295 2147 2467 1135 2094 2j~C

================-==========-- a) For a unit with 80 ewes producing 120 kg milk and 16 lambs or 80

goats producing 160 kg milk and 20 kius

- 7 shy

The cost to the Government in terms of subsidies for

concentrates is almost twice as high for indoor feeding as compareu to -- high grazing s ya t em In addition zero gr2~ing involves a high expenslaquo

in foreign exchange as Cyprus is a net ili1portcr of large quanti ti83 of

feed grain Thus maxi murn use of grazing i r to the benefit of bo th tIle

LndivLduaI producer and thG national ec ouomy It is therefore 5

necessary to keep the cost d i ffer-en t i aI -1 a level which would

encourage the full utilization of grazin- aroas and allow tne opt i mum

LlSt3 of feed grain It is clifficul t to d e t e r-mine the opt i mum s i z e of this differential because of the wide variation in the availability of graamping from one part of Cyprus to the other andthe effect of the price of thE- feed grain on the price of r1any basic fOOd items

111 Size of the production unit

Data on the main cost and return items of norm production

units varying in size are presented in Table 4

Table 4 Lffect of the Size of the Production Unit on the Costs

and Returns of Sheep and Goats (Noro)a)

Female animals per farm 80

Sheep

160 200 80

Goats

160 200

Gross revenue

Feed cost

Variable costs

Labour cOstshy

Net frofi t Return to labour

Cpoundworking day

Return to capital () Farm inoome

- - shy -

4115 1329 1395

534 1475

60 467 2147

- - -

8229 2658 3000

827 3194

70middot3 510 4298

-Crproduction unital

10286 4246 8492 3322 1433 2867 3887 1503 3283 1009 566 890

1386 -

4012 3014

80 5middot5 70 510 436 47middot5 5374 2094 4192

- shy -

10615 358shy4240 1087 4328

80 518 5781

-

a) For ewes producing 120 kg milk ana 16 lambs or goats producing

160 kg milk and 20 k ide on the 10Vl crazinb s ys t em

It is ilpparent that the size of the production unit affects

costs and returns significantly Fo r the yields stated above (Table -i-) 75 ewes are requireJ to obtain farm income of Cpound 2000 As would be

expected the size required to obtain Q certain level of farm incoffib

SfiY Cpound 2000 depends on many factors such iS the productivi ty of

anioills and the level of grazing This is illustrated in the followin6

examples g For ewes producing zero mi Lk yield arid 26 lambs 90 ewesn

r-equ i r edj for 60 kg milk and 12 lambs 121 ewes for 180 kg nu Lk and

10 lambs 71 ewes For zero low and high grazing with ewes producin[

120 kg milk and 16 lambs the respective numbers rBquired to obtain

farm income of Cr 2000 are 123 75 and 65

- 8 shy

B ACTUAL SITUATIOJX

I Effect of the level of productivity

The actual data collected fr-on tile sheep and goat pr-oduc t i cn units wer( classified in thrE)e levels of productivity namely~ low medium and high on the basis of the gross revenue obtained per adult female animal The means of the main cost anci return items for each group are presented in Table 5

Table 5 Costs and Returns of Sheep and Go~ts by Level of Productivity (Actual)

Sheep Goat

Level of productivity Low Medium High Low Medium Higll

Number of farms Ewes or goats per farm Milk yield

(kgfemale animal) Lambs raised per ewe or kids per goat

Concentrates (kgfemale animal)

18 72

48

11

117

29 72

57

12

135

18 54

68

13

143

16 80

37

13

65

33 64

74

15

108

16

59

126

19

200

Gross revenue (Ctfemale animal) 194 224 273 13 3 202 31 Z

Variable costs 106 lll 110 56 65 128 Gross profit 88 113 163 7middot7 13middot7 184

The hiSher productivity in the ncdium and high levels was pr9bably due to better feeding~ superior management and better genetic material from the Chios breed and the Damascus goat ~9 lQ7

The pz-oduc t i vi ty per animal incr8ased with the aLlowan ce of conc en t r-at ea as shown by the highly s i gr Lf i carrt regression coe tfLc i en t between gross revenue Cpoundfemale aniwal (Y) and concentrates fed in kg (X) the equation being Y = 1012 + 0056X (r=057) for ewes and = 947 + 0066x (r=O56) for goats The ~dditional cost of concentrashytes accounted for most of the Lnor-eas e in variable co s t s The returns obtained from animal with higher productivity w~re significantly higher tilan the additional costs bull At present ~ therefore there are wid margins for increasing productivity at low cost The data of Table 5 show that the commercial milk yield of the production units studied may be doubled while the average lambing or kidding ratio may bb improved by 30-40 L 1 J The average milk yi 61d and 1ambing or kidding ratios recorded in this study are the same as those recorded earlier [4]

- 9 shy

Ihe deL ta in Aplenuix Ta bl GS 1 and 2 show that on the CLV8r-tmiddot 09 lambs and 11 kids were sold per female animal producing a revenu~

of Cpound 94 ani Cpound 113 respectively At the price of Cpound 0781 per k 6 liveweignt this corresponds to the production of 120 and 145 kg of liveweight r-s s peo t i vel y for each ewe or gl)[t When oompared to the norm d~ta for similar lambing or kidding rltios it is concluded that the lambs and kids Nere sold at the age of eppr-oxi mately 8 - 10 WSOK3

at Which the producers usually wean the lambs and kids This would suggest tha t for the production units studied tfHlrewas no larte scale fa ttening of Lambs or kids beyond lHaninf at the aetJ of 6-10 we ek a The majority of the producers stated that they practised partial suckLin and that thcy offered creep feed to the lambs and k i ds Fran the discussion with th6se producers it was conclueltjd that the main reasons for no large scale fa t t cn ing were tradi t i on the higher l)ricus received for baby lamb and kid and the need for cash partcularly before revenue from milk was received

II Level of grazing

The data available do not allow a detailed study of the effect of the level of grazing on the costs and returns in the actual situation

It is possihle however to drd~ some conclusions from the5~

data in comparison to the norm situation The livestock producers of this study fed on the average 132 kg of concentrates for each ewe and 120 kg for each goat In add i ti on 08 donums of green forage vlclS

cansuQed by each female aniwal and its followers Similar trends WbTB

observed in ano thez- etuuy L9 J Compar-ed to norm produo t i on units or

comparable y i elds it a ppear-s that feed requirements for maintenance arto ruet by gr-az i ng gr-e en forage and straw 9 whi l E t he r equ i r-emerrt s for production are met by concentrates For ollis 9 tlH level of grazino is hi6her than she up especiallj for production units with more than 30 female adult an imaLs as indicated by tl( lower amount of concentrates fed for comparative yields

Thl level of grazin~ practised is limited by the low ava i La hi Li ty of pas tur-es and t no abe enc e of large grazing areas There are also institutional r8gulations by 10c81 authorities limi tin~ the maximum nunrber of animals a t tendcd oy a sincle shepherd Compar-ed to the norm situation the average of grazing was slightly below the designated as low level

III Size of the production unit

Data on tho main cost and return items of actual produotion units varying in size and presented in Table 6 The regression of gross revenue (YGB) or variable oosts (Yvd on the number of adult ewes (X) revealed a sienificant linear relation the equations being

- 10 shy

A ~

2138 + 193X (r=091) YVC = 97 + 109X (r=064) For goat8~YGR = the respective equations were YGR = 1860 + 46x (r=035)A

Yvc = 4035 + 147X (r=061) Unlike [Sheep the r for the equation relating gross revenue and number of gOcits wus low This pr-o babl y

resul ted from wider vaz-La t i on in productivi ty among goat than ShbI

units It was apparent fro~ the inspectiun of the data from thE individual goat units that the per an i raaL output was par t i cu Lar-Ly

variable especially for small units

For the same data gross r-evenue and labour cost per an i mal decreQsed in lareer units especially in goats The advantag8s of

economics of size were cancelled by the decline in producticity which resulted in lower net returns per animal in the larger units The total rturns how8vGr were higher in the larger units but could have been consiclerably higher had the productivity of each animal been at the same level as in the small units

Table 6 Effect of Size of the Production Unit on the Gostsand Returns of Sheep and Goats (Actual)

Female animals per farm

Gross revenue Feed cost iTariable cost abour- cost Jet profit te tu r n to labour

Cpoundorking day eturn to capital () arm income

Sheep Goa ts

42 65 94 39 63

- -Cfenterprise unit shy - -

1037 1450 2056 1053 1247 18(9

443 690 975 701 797 1206

467 726 1026 373 471 645 342 436 529 342 436 529 135 171 324 265 235 473

22 22 26 28 24 3C 101 101 128 169 128 17 middot5

588 753 1069 694 794 IJ89

By corapa r-i ng the incremental bross revenue to the varLabl raquos ts from the low to the high level of pr-oduc t av i t y (Tah1e 5) and ~om the small to the large LeveI of s i z e (lable 6) it can be derived tat it is more profitable to increase prociuctivi ty per an i maI r-athor ~n increase their numbers

DISCUSSIOl AND COFCLUSI011S

Sheep and goat production can be Lnc r-eae ed by increasing Lt

oduc t i v i t y of the animals or by increasin~ the size of the an i maL pulation or by a combination of the two The returns to the iividual producer however~ are affecteu apart of the productivity other factors namely 1 the size of the production unit the level )i

~zing the management system and others

- 11 shy

The data in this study indicated the economic advantage 1 Jotl_ for the individual producer and the national economy of increasine the sheep and goat production by improving the productivity of the animals than by increasing the size of the population For ewes and goatB it is obvious from the comparison of actual and norm data that commer-ciiI

milk yield can be doubled and lambing ratio can increase by 30-40 by

using genetic material and knowledge already available in Cyprus The adoption of fQttening of lambs and kids at weights up to 35 kg is hindered by the strong demand for baby laUD and kid meat and the nee~

of producers for cash However these obs t acLes may be overCOJTW by eppr-opr-ia t e policy measures and consumer oduoa t ion

Th6 study of different directionG of production and in particular the all-meat versus the high milk - low meat direction showed that at the levels assumed the milk and meat direction was slightly superior to the all-meat direction in terms of net returns and lower cost to the Government Nevertheless thG all-meat direction is economically sound and may be used in s peo i aLj aed si tuations in which skilled labour is limited while good possibilities exist for high levels of grazing

The size of the production unit required to obtain a certain level of farm income J8pends on many factors such as the productivity of the animals and the level of grazing The numbers of adult female animals required to obtain farn income of Cpound 2000 are 121 and 75 for commercial milk yields of 60 and 120 kg and lambing ratioe of 12 ard

16 respectively Assuming that these yields represent roughly the Local and the Chios sheep it is apparent that any benefits from increasinb the present size of the production units would be much higher if the increase in size was coupled with higher productivity Presently the size of most sheeJ or goat production units is smal18r than the siz8 required to achi8ve farw income of Cpound 2000

The rroblem of deciding the size of the production unit has many complex aspects This is so becausu the livestock enterpris8 in most places is combined with crop production and the relative size of the two on t er-prLs ee is determined by economic and other factors In this respect the amount opound family labour~ the availability and size of grazing areas and feeds and the relative profitability of the livestOCK enterprise in comparison with pos s r ble al ternative farm enterprises weigh heavily in det er-iain i ng the size of the sheep or goat production units

From the data of thi s and an oar-Iier study L 9 ] it is suggested that op t i mum utilization of resources in a mixed type of farming requires production units with 120 - 130 animals In a norm situation for numbers up to 1000 animals the returns to size were higher than zero suggesting that at present economies of siZe have not

- 12 shy

been exploited Of course larger production units do not neces5~rily

imply larger animal population th ey may resul t also from reorganizatior

of the existing population to larger economically viaole units

The level of grazing is inversely related to the feeding costs but increases labour cost The decrease in feeding cost frod

higher level of grazing is considerably higher than the increase in

labour cost There is no doubt that higher grazing level wilen possible J is economically beneficial both to the individual producGr

and the national economy and could be easily combined with the all-~~~t

direction of production It is proposed th~t the price of concentrstcO)

presently regulated by thE Government through the system of SUbsidies be kept at such level which will encourage the optimum utilization of

straw pastures and agricultural by-products

The goat production units (actual) were more variable than sheep units in the level of productivitJ-9 direction of production feeding prograDme and size Smaller goat units tended to be more productive consumed more concentrates per female animal and producei higher returns per animal than larger units This suggests that large units Hith low producing animals practised more grazing On the averagG 9 the gross revenue was higher for sheep but net returns from goats were slightly higher These differences were primarily due to higher level of grazing for goats than for sheep This comparison if

based on the average of the production units studied ~nd could not bE extrapolated to comparison of specific breeds of sheep and goats A comparative study of the Chios sheep and Damascus goat under norm

conditions was initiated at this Institute

- 13 shy

SUIDIARY

Data from 68 sheep 65 goat private production units (actual situation) and from Gov~rnment units (norm situationr were used to coraput c costs and returns and to study the main fa c t or-s affecting tht econooics of shoGp and goats in Cyprus The main conclusions of this study can be summarized as follows

1 It is more profitable as a ~irst step to incrGasG productivity per animal rather than increase their numbers With available gonetic material ana knowledge it is possible to double tho present milk yields and increase the number of lambs or kids per female animal by 30-40

2F~ttGning of lambs or kids at prosGnt prices can increase total and net returns SUbstantially with profound ~conomic advantages for the individual producer and tho national economy

3 The study of di~ferent directions of ~roduction showed that the milk and mlat direction was slightly suporior to the all-moat directionH01iGVer thE a I Le-meat di re c t i on of production may bo a sound economic alternative mainly in situations where good possibilities exist for high lcvul of razing and skilled labour is limited

4 The feed cost for high level of grazing was only half the cost for middotindoor fcodLng The loer fe ed cost 18S ruflectcd in higher net returns for the razing systems The cost differential between cost of grazing and fecding of concentrates should be adjusted to promoto grazing 8t th8 IGvlol which will mClOt at the minimum the maintenance r-oqu i r-crucn t s of auuI t animalsmiddot

5 With present 18v~ls of productivity 168 ewes or 151 goats arc roquirlQ to produclo farm incomb of Cpound 2000 In norm situations 75 OWbS pr-oducdng 120 kg milk and 16 1(111bs could I~roduc8 thc same income For this LcvcI of productivi ty the r-espec t i v- numbers for z er-o low and high grazing nystems war_ 123 75 and 65 ewes

Th authors gratefully acknowlGdge tl1G cooperation of ahoe p and goat producers and the assistancE providod by all members of the Agricultural Economics Slction

RLFERLFCES

1 Louca A Pr-eLimanar-y r-csuI ts on tho por-formarice of pur-ebr-ed and cross-bred sllecp Paper prosGDtcd a~ the RGgional Workshop for shclp and forage improvement February 11-14 1974 in Buirut~ Lebanon

- 14 shy

2 Chimonides 1 1972 Some faotors affGoting the productivity of DamQscus goats in Cyprus MS Thesis American University of Bei r-ut L8b~~lO[

3 Planning Bureau ThE first (1962-66) the second (1967-71) and t hlaquo

third (1972-76) Five Year Plan Planning Rur~au

Nioosia Cyprus

4 Agrioulturul Research Institute 1964 Cost and Returns of Shlq

and goats Agric Res Inst Nioosia Cyprus

5 Louca A Personal c omruurri ca t i cn Agrioultural Research Institute Nioosia Cyprus

6 Hadjipanayiotou M and Louca A 1975 PhG Effeots of partial suckling on the lactation Derformance of Chios sheep and Damasous goats and the growth rate of the lambs and kids (in preparation) Agricultural Research Institute Nicosia Cyprus

7 Louca A 1972 The effect of suckling regime on grmdh rate and laotation performance of the Cyprus Fat-tailed amI Chios sheep Anim Prod 15~53-59

8 Louca A ~ Mavr-ogen i s A and Lawlor ~1J 1975 ThE effect of early weaning on the laotation performanoe of Damascus goats and the growth rate of the kidb Anim Prod 20 213-218

9 Papachristodoulou S and Papas A 1975 The bconomios of drylan~

mixed farming in Cyprus Agrioultural Research Institute Nicosia~ Cyprus

10 Papachristodoulou S 1974 (Restrioted) Dryland Mixed Farwing A technical and economic anaLys i s of some typical fnrl~

participated in the Mixed Farming Project during 1968-1972 Agricultural Research ~nstitute Nicosia Cyprus

11 Papas A 1975 Protein requirements of ewes during laotution (in IJreparation) Agrioultural REJsearch Lns t i tu t e Nicosia Cyprus

12 Papas A 1975 Protein requirements of ewes during maintenanoe (in preparation) Agricultural Res~arch Institute Nioosia Cyprus

13 Papas~ A 1975 The protein requirements of early weaned lambs (in preparation) Agricultural Researoh Institutc 9

Nioosia CYfrus

- 15 shy

lTA P P E D I x

COHPUTATION OF DnUT-OUTPUT DATA OF SHEEP MID GOATS-Gross revenue is the total value of milkmeat cUlls wool and manuree

Sheep milk was sold at Cpound 0163kg and goat milk at Cpound 0112kg In the

actual situation revenue from lambs and kids 11018 based on receipts

adjusted to current prices It was assumed that in norm situation lambs

and kids were sold at 35 kg liveweight 0547kg The prices at 20 kg

liveweight and at weaning were Cpound 0625 and Cpound 0781 respectively A 5

death rate for lambs and kids was assumed Culling was estimated at

20 each year 5 of this was assumed to represent losses and the

remaining 15 of the culls sold at Cpound 125head It was assumed that

losses were directly related to productivity for every additional 10 kg

milk yield and 01 lambing ratio losses increased by 015 and by

005 respectively The revenue from wool and manure was estimated at

Cpound 0700 and Cpound 0500animal respectively (App Tables 16)

Variable costs include feed expenses (purchased or produced) other

expenses (veterinary hired labour) and interest on operating capitale

In the actual situation feed expenses for sheep remiddotprEHHlnted

the 95 of variable costs and 54 of total costs for goats these

percentages are 94 and 44 respectively (App Tables 1 and 2) In the

norm situation feed expenses for sheep or goats comprised approximately

95 of the variable costs ranging from 42-65 of the total costs

depending on the level of productivity direction of production and the

level of grazing (App Tables 3-5) The feed expenses forslle-epandmiddot

goats as percent of variable and total costs decreased from about

95-84 and increased from about 50-53 respectively depending on the

size of production unit (App Table 6)

Interest on operating capital represents 50 of the variable

costs at 8 interest rate

Fixed costs include rent of land family labour replacement

depreciation and interest on fixed capital

In the actual situation rent of land was charged for the area

under fodder crops while in the norm situation rent was charged only for

the area occupied by sheds and the milking parlour

- 16 shy

Family labour was valued atGpound 1600__p~r -wor~i~gslaY_~Ep_

ble 15 presents the labour requirements for 80 ewes or goats pr-ac t i c i rs

w or high grazing system at increasing levels of milk yield andmiddot

Lmbing or kidding ratios Also gives the calculation of the labou~

squ i r-ement s for the zero grazing system and increasing number of aniild

n this study it was assumed that 13 labour units(LbU) were c on tr i bu

ed by family labour and any additional labour w~cs treated as hired

abour-

The replacement was estimated at 20 of the value of animals

The annual depreciation rate of shed8 was estimated at 25

while interest rate used for sheds and livestock capital was 6

Total costs is the sum of variable and fixed costs and net profit the

difference between gross revenue and total coste (App Tables 1-6)

Return to labour (Cpoundwo~king day) was calculated by adding to the net

profit all labour costs and dividing this amount by the number of

working days (App Tables 1-6)

Return to capital () was calculated by adding to the net profit the

interest on operating and fixed capital and dividing the amount by tho

capital investments (excl land capital) and multiplied by 100 (App

Tables 1-6)

Farm income consisted of pai~ or imputed rent 9 remuneration of family

and hired labour interest charges and net profit (App Tables 1-6)

Cost to the government was computed from the v~lue of concentrates fed

using the coefficients of 039 and 043 for aault and young animals

respectively These coefficients represent the increase in percentaL~

of the present value of the concentrates which Would be paid by the

producers in the form of hi~her prices if marketing of feed grains waG

not regulated These coefficients were comI~t8d on the basis of the

difference of the prices for feed grains paid lJy the Government and t~l(

livestock producers and on the content of the concentrate mixtures in

the feed grains (App Tabl~s 3-6)

----------------

- 17 shy

App Table 1 Costs and Returns of Sheep Enterprises by Size Group (Actual)

--_SizebwrltuF (No of ewes)

30-50 50-80 80gt Mean Cpoundewe-----_-_-

No of observations 17 33 18 68

Average No of ewes 42 65 94 67 Milk production (kg) 2711 3442 5348 3764 Lambs Bold or consumed (No) 39 55 85 59 ------------------_shy

Ycilk and milk products 440 569 865 614 92 40middot9 Lambs 417 573 925 627 9 418 Culls 60 94 108 89 13 5middot8 Wool 28 48 71 49 07 31 Manure 19 30 41 30 04 18 Change of capital 71 136 55 98 15 6G

Gross Revenue Cpound 1037 1450 2056 1507 225 1000

Feed purchased 221 325 493 344 53 27 ~

Feed produced 72 118 103 103 15 77 Forage produced 150 246 379 257 38 19lt5 Other 6 8 12 8 01 0~5

Interest 18 28 39 29 04 20 ----------------___

Variable Costs Cpound 467 725 1026 741 111 ------ ------------_- shy

Rent of land 45 52 92 61 Family labour 342 436 529 437 )3 -I

~ IInterest and depreciation 48 66 85 66 -

-------~---------_ _

Fixed Costs Cpound 435 554 706 564

Total Costs bpound 902 1279 1732 1305 195 --__--____-__---shyNet profit Cpound 135 171 324 202 31

43- J

Return to labour (Cpoundworking day) 22 22 26 23

Return to capital () 101 101 128 108 Return over feed expenses Cpound 594 761 1081 804 Farm income Cf 588 753 1069 795 ---------------------~---------_

- 18 shy

Table 2 Costs and Returns of Goat Enterprises by Size Group (Actual)

Size group (lITo of gegtats )

30-50 50-80 80) Mean Ci-goat

No of observations 18 28 19 65

Average No of goats Milk production (kg) Kids sold or consumed (No)

39 4034

53

63 4439

71

98 6169 100

666 4833

74

Milk and milk products Kids Culls Manure Change of capital

331 552

54 19 97

364 704 80 28 71

505 1005 102

43 154

396 60 750 113 79 12 30 0middot5

103 15

293 551 59 24 73

Gross Revenue Cishy 1053 1247 1809 1358 20middot5 100 00

Feed purchased Feed produced Forage produced Other Interest

207 35

llO

7 14

236 53

156 8

18

263 36

304 17 25

236 43

186 II 19

3middot5 06 28 02 03

224 38

18J 13 loy

Variable Costs Cf 373 471 645 495 74 474

Rent of land Family labour Interest and depreciation

25 342 48

39 436

66

77 529 85

46 437

67

07 65 10

4middot5 417

64

Fixed Costs Cf 415 541 691 550 82 526

Total Costs Cf 788 1012 1336 1045 156 1000

Net Frofi t Cf 265 235 473 313 49

Return to labour (Cpoundworking day)

Return to capital () Return over feed expenses Farm income

Cf Of

28 169

700 694

24 128

802 794

30 17middot5 1206 1189

27 153 892 882

- 19 shy

App Table 3 Effect of Level of Produotivity and Direction of a) Produotion on the Costs and Returns of Sheep (Norm)

Milk yield (kgewe)

Lambing ratio

Milk Lambs Culls

Wool Manure

Gross Revenue

Feed for ewes i) Concentrates

ii) Hay amp straw Feed for lambs

i) Concentrates Other Interest

Variable Costs

Rent Famil y labour Replacement Depreciation Interest

Fixed Costs

Total Costs

Gross Profi t

Net Profit

Return to labour (Cpoundworking day)

Return to capital () Cost to the Government

deg 60 120 200

26 12 16 08

782 3781 1748 142 139

56 56 40 40

1565 2325 128

56 40

2608 1163

120 56 40

Cpound 4019 2765 4114 3986

676 464

988 446 12 12 67 37

728

601 12 54

720

294 12 41

Cpound 1743 959 1395 1067

2 2

364 449 544 504

19 19 82 82

2

534 608 19 82

2

590 640 19 82

ce 1011 1056 1245 1333

Cpound 2754 2015 2640 2400

Cpound 2276 1606 2719 2919

Cpound 1265 750 1474 1586

72 43 60 59 392 269 46middot7 521

Cpound 688 373 542 407

a) Assuming 80 8W~S and low grazing

- 20 shy

App Table 4 Effect of Level of Productivity and Direction of a) middotmiddotmiddot----middot --Produc_tiQ[l on the Costs and Returns of Goats (Norm) bull

bull bullbullbullbull ~ __R_ ~~__bullbullbull ~ bullbullbull _

-_ ----~ bull

Milk yield (kggoat)

Kidding ratio

0

34

80

16

160

20

2$0

13

Milk Lambs Culla

4511 137

717 2136 134

1434 2652 120

2503 1743

106

Manuremiddot 40 40 40 40

Gros smiddot R-eAfnu-e- Cpound 4688 3027 4246 4398

Feed for goats ) ConcentratesJ I

ii) Hay amp straw Feed for kids

i) Concentrates Other Interest

824

1023 12 74

560

482 12 42

832

601 12 58

928 ~

391 12 53

Variable Coiits Cpound 1933 1096 1503 1384

Rent Family labour Replacement Depreciation Interestmiddot_middotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddot

2 366 608 19 82

2 488 560

19 82

2 566 688 19 82

2 617 776 19 82

Fixed Cos is Cpound 1077 1151 1357 1496

Total Cost s Cpound 3010 2247 2860 J 2880

Gross Froht Cpound 2755 1931 2743 3014

Net PI-ofit

Cpound 1678 780 1386 151[

Return to labour (Cpoundworking day)

Return to capital () 89

493 42

274 55

436 505

480 Cost to the Oovernmen t --6pound---middot761 middot425 51n __

~_~- -- _--___-~ _ M bullbullbull_ bullbull___ R bullbullbull __bullbull __ bull

o _ bullbull

~301 __

a) Assuming 80 goats and low grazing

- 21 shy

App Table 5 Effect of Level of GraZirg on the Costs and Returns of Sheep and Goats (Norm) a

Shee~ Goats Level of gra~ing Zero Low High Zero Low Rigl

Milk yield (kgfemale animal) 120 120 120 160 160 16

Lambing or kidding ratio 16 16 16 20 20 2()

Milk 1565 1565 1565 1434 1434 l434 Lambs 2326 2326 2326 2652 2652 2652 Culls 128 128 128 120 120 120 Wool 56 56 56 Manure 40 40 40 40 40 40

Gross Revenue Cpound 4115 4115 4115 4246 4246 4246

Feed for ewes or goats i) Concentrates 1292 728 408 1508 832 505

ii) Ray amp straw 288 282 Feed for lambs or kids

i) Concentrates 601 601 601 602 602 602 Other 12 12 12 12 12 12 Interest 88 54 41 96 58 45

Variable Costs Cpound 2281 1395 1062 2500 1504 116r _ _-

Rent 2 2 2 2 L 2 Family labour 390 534 534 422 566 565 Replacement 608 608 608 688 688 68P Depreciation 19 19 19 19 19 1)

Interest 82 82 82 82 82 8e

Fixed Costs Cpound 1101 1245 1245 1213 1357 1357

Total Costs Cpound 3382 2640 2307 3713 2861 252

Gross Profit Cpound 18~4 2720 3053 1746 2743 30t)2

1Tet Profit Cpound 733 1475 1808 533 1385 1725

Return to labour (Cpoundworking day) 46 60 70 36 5middot5 65

Return to capital () 232 467 588 178 436 55( Feed cost to the Government Cpound 762 542 418 847 583 456

a) Assuming 80 female adult animals

- 22 shy

App Table 6 Bffect of the Size of the Pr-oduc t ion Unit on the Costs and Returns of Sheep and Goats (NJrm)

SheGE Goats

Ewes or goatsfarm 80 160 200 80 160 2()(I

Milk yield (kgfemale animal) 120 120 120 160 160 16~)

Lambing or kidding ratio 16 16 16 20 20 2 0

Milk 1565 3130 3912 1434 2867 35[1 Lambs 2326 4651 5814 2652 5305 66jl Culls 128 256 320 120 240 300 Wool 56 112 140 Manure 40 80 100 40 80 100

Gross Revenue Cpound 4115 8229 10286 4246 8492 10615

Feed for awes or goats i) Concentrates 728 1456 1820 832 1664 208

ii) Hay amp straw Feed for lambs or kids

i) Concentrates 601 1202 1502 602 1203 1504 Hired labour 203 385 266 4f- u_)

Other 12 24 30 12 24 jC)

Interest 54 115 150 58 126 163

Variable Costs Cpound 1395 3000 3887 1504 3283 42C

Rent 2 4 5 2 4 Family labour 534 624 624 566 624 621 Replacement 608 1216 1520 688 1376 1( 2(

Depreciation 19 32 40 19 32 4C Interest 82 159 198 82 159 19t

Fixed Costs Cpound 1245 2035 2387 1357 2195 255 _ _--_ __

Total Costs Cpound 2640 5035 6274 2860 5478 6521

Gross Profit Cpound 2720 5226 6399 2743 5209 Ggt7)

net Profit Cpound 1475 319L~ 4012 1385 3014 Ll3 -

Return to labour (Cpoundworking day) 60 78 80 5middot5 70 SoU

Return to capital () 467 510 510 436 475 538 Feed cost to the Government Cpound 542 1085 1356 583 1166 145[

- 23 ~

App Table 7 Prices Received and Paid

Prices received Unit Cpound-Milk sheep kg 0163

goat kg 0112 Lamb or kid

At leaning kg 1ivQwoight 0781 At 20 kg kg 0625 At 35 kg kg II 0547

Wool Cpoundanima1 0100 Manure Cpoundanima1 0500

Prices paid

Feed roughage

Straw ton 120 Cereal hay ton 200

Concentrates

Creep feed ton 500 15 crude protein (as fed) ton 458 13 crude protein (as fed) ton 438 11 crude protein (as fed) ton 400

Labour working day 16

Rent of land donum 15

App Table 8 Capital Investments

Land

Sheds for 80 female animals

160 female animals 200 female animals

Value of animals Ewes (0 kg milk 26 lambing ratio)

(60 kg milk 12 lambing ratio) (120 kg milk 16 lambing ratio ) (200 kg milk 08 lambing ratio)

Goats( 0 kg milk 34 kidding ratio) ~ 80 kg milk 16 kidding ratio) (160 kg milk 20 kiddinB ratio) (280 kg milk 13 kidding ratio)

Operating capital (50 of variable costs)

Cpounddonum 300

Cpoundshed 1800 Cpoundahed 13500 Cpoundshed 16600

CrJeue 330

315

380

400

Cpoundgoat 380

340

400

425

vpp Table 9 Gross RevenuG (Cpoundewe) at Incr-eas Ing LeveI s of Milk Yi o Ld and Lcml~ng Rc tios (rorm)

Millt Y i e 1 d (kg eVi8)Lambing ratio 0 20 4~ 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200

08 163 208 253 298 343 388 433 ~n 8 523 568 613 10 201 246 29 ~ 1 33~6 381 426 471 516 561 606 651

12 240 284 32~9 37~4 419 464 509 554 599 644 689 16 31 6 360 40~5 45o 495 540 585 630 675 720 765 18 355 398 44~3 488 533 578 623 668 713 758 803 22 431 474 519 56~4 609 654 699 744 789 834 879

26 508 550 5915 64+ 0 658 730 775 820 865 910 955 30 584 626 67h 71~6 761 806 851 896 941 986 1034

~--

- _ N

~

App Table 10 Gross Revenue (Cpoundgoat) at Increasing LeY11s of Milk Yield and Kidding Ratios (Norm) bull

M i llt Y i e 1 d (kg L~at) IKidding ratio

middot0 40 80 l~d 160 200 240 280 320 360 400

08 148 193 237 28~~ 327 372 41 7 461 506 551 596 12 218 263 307 35~2 397 442 487 531 576 621 666 16 287 333 37-7 42l~ 467 512 55middot7 601 646 691 736 20 355 403 447 49 ~ 2 537 582 627 671 716 761 806 24 -422 473 51 7 56~ 60middot7 652 697 74middot1 786 831 876

bull 28 488 543 58~7 632 677 722 767 811 856 901 946 32 564 613 65 ~ 7 70~~ 747 792 837 881 926 971 1016 36 634 683 72~7 772- 81 7 862 907 951 996 1041 1086

I

1)App Table 11 Concentrates Consumed (kgewe) Low Grazing System

Lambi ng Y i e 1 d i n mil k (kg ewe) ratio

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200

08 568 708 848 98 8 1128 1268 1408 1548 1688 1828 1968 LO 710 850 990 1130 127middot0 1410 1550 1690 1830 1970 2110 12 852 992 1132 1272 1412 1552 1692 1332 1972 2112 2252 16 1136 1276 1416 1556 1696 1836 1976 2116 2256 2396 2536 18 1278 1418 1558 1698 1838 1978 2118 2258 2398 2538 267middot8 22 1562 1702 1842 1982 2122 2262 2402 2542 2682 2822 2962 26 1846 1986 2126 2266 2406 2546 2686 2626 2966 3106 3246 30 2130 2270 2410 2550 2690 2830 2970 311 0 325middot0 3390 3530

ro1) I~aintenancerequirement of adult animals met by grazing V1

Assumptions for grazing systems

1 07 kg feeds of 15 crude protein (as fed basis) was fed per kg milk produced or sucked [iy 2 50 kg milk was suoked by each lamb from birth to weaning at 35 days 3 In late pregnancy each ewe received on the average 36 kg concentrates above maintenance for each lamb carried 4 In zero grazing maintenance requirements during the dry period were met by 06 kg straw and 05 kg

concentrates of 11 crude protein (as fed basis) [1~ I~ late pregnancy (6 weeks before lambing) and during lactation each ewe received 06 kg cereal hay and 04 kg concentrates to meet the maintenance requirements Other requirements in concentrates were met as in low grazing syste~

App liable 12 Conoentcates Consumed (kgg02t ) i Low Grazing SJ34~OT 1)- (I

----------------------T -----------~-_--------------------------------------------------shy

M gt~_~ LL~_~iJ~_8poundatl Kidding ratio

o 40 80 120 160 200 240 280 320 360 400 -----_ ------~---~ _- ----------__--__-----shy

08 528 768 1008 1248 138 1728 1960G 2208 24Li8 2688 2928 12 792 1032 1272 1512 175middot2 1992 2232 2472 271 2 2952 3192 16 1056 129 u 6 1536 ~-77 6 20l6 2256 2496 =736 2976 3216 3456 20 1320 1560 J80o 2040 2280 2520 2760 3000 3240 3480 3720 24 1584 1[24shy 2064 2304 2-~4middot 4 27S~4 3024 32604 350middot4 3 7 11++ 3984 28 1848 2038 23 28 2568 2808 30~ 8 328f3 ~)52 8 3768 4008 42~ 8

-3 ~ 211 2 2352 2592 2832 3072 3312 3552 37902 4032 4272 +51 2

______ 36

_-__ 2379

- 2616 2856 3096

___shy__ 3336 3576

_ 3826

middot 4056 L_~

429gt6 middot

L15306 _ _

4776

1) Maintenance requirements of adult animals met-JY grazing ro 0

~~~mption for grazing system

1 06 kg feed of 15 crude protein (as fed basis) was fed per kg milk produced or suoked 2 50 kg milk was sucked by each kid from birth to wean~ng at 70 days Partial suckling was practised from the

30th day onwards 3 In late pregnancy each goat received on the average 36 kg concentrates above maintenance for each kid carried 4 In zero grazing maintenance requirements in the dry period were met by 06 kg of straw and 05 kg of

concentrates of 11 crude protein (as fed basis)

29

- 27 shy

App Table 13 Feed Cost and Revenue for Lamb Fattening

Lambing ratio

08 10 12middot 16 18 22 26

aConcentrates (kg) I

Birth to weaning Weaning to 20 kg Birth to 20 kg 20 kg to 35 kg Birth to 35 kg

09 290 299 54~0

839

1 J 13 17 20 368middot 449 618 706 37middot9 462 635 726 675 810 1080 1215

1054 1272 1715 1941

24 890 914

1485 2399

1036 106e5 175middot5 2820

Saleable Iiveweight (kg)

at weaning at 20 kg at 35 kg

87 160 280

108 200 35middot0

12~8

24middot0 420

174198 320 360 56~0 630

249 44middot0 770

290 520 910

Feed expenses

at weaning mils 45 55 65 -85 100 120 145 to 20 kg Cf 14 17 21 29 33 42 49 __ to 35 kg Cf 37 46 56 7middot5 85 10middot5 123

Revenue Cf

Lamb sale Lamb sale Lamb sale

at weaning ~~ 20 kg at 35 kg

68 100shy153shy

gt ~_ bull bullbullbullbull ~-

84 125 191

100 136 150 200 230 306middot

15middot5 225 345

194 27middot5 421

226 32 c 49 e

Assumed birthweight 47 45 42 38

a) It was assumed that the protein content of the ooncentrates mixture feed from birth to weaning was 168 and from 20 to 35 kg 143 on dry matter basis [1[

- 28 shy

App Table 15 Labour Raquire~entl) for 80 poundMes or Goats Practising Low or High Grazing at Increasing Levels of Milk Yield and Lambing or Kidding Ratios

i

Lamhing Y i e 1 d i n mil k (kg Le_we) ratio

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 280

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - Lbua)production unit - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -08 0749 0813 0869 0933 1013 1069 1109 1149 1113 1205 1229 1283 10 0150 0814 0870 0934 1014 1010 1110 1150 1114 1206 1230 1284 12 0151 0815 0811 0935 1015 1011 1111 1151 1115 1201 1231 1285 14 0152 0816 0812 0936 1016 1012 1112 1152 1116 1208 1232 1286 16 0153 0811 0813 0937 1011 1013 1113 153 1117 1209 1234 1287 18 0154 0818 0874 0938 1018 1074 1114 1154 1178 1210 1235 1288 20 0155 0819 0875 0939 1019 1015 1115 1155 1119 1211 1236 1289 22 0756 0820 0876 0940 1020 1016 1116 1156 1180 1212 1237 1290 24 26

0151 0158

0821 0822

0871 0878

0941 0942

1022 1023

1017 1018

1111 1118

1157 1158

1181 1182

1213 1214

1238 1239

1291 1292

ro -D

28 0759 0823 0879 0943 1024 1019 1119 1159 1183 1215 1240 1293 30 0760 0824 0880 0middot944 1025 1080 1120 1160 1184 1216 1241 1 294 34 0162 0826 0882 0946 1027 1082 1122 1162 middot _____middot L_ 1186 1218 1242 1295

a) 1 LbU = 300 working days

1) Low and high grazing system Calculated as followsi

Labour requirement (LbU) = 015 + (lambing ratio - 10) x 0005 +

Labour for milkin~ (days)+ X No of female animals 300

+) Assuming 6 minutesanimalday

Zero grazing system Labour requiremunt (lbU) = Low or high grazing system (LbU) - 0300 for 80 female animals

- 0550 for 160 female animals - 0650 fOr 2rl) tomcIc animals

Page 11: FACTORS AFFECTING THE ECONOMICS OF SHEEP AND GOATSnews.ari.gov.cy/Publications/AER4-papas.pdfFACTORS AFFECTING THE ECONOMICS OF SHEEP AND GOATS . By . ... Costs and Returns of Goat

- 7 shy

The cost to the Government in terms of subsidies for

concentrates is almost twice as high for indoor feeding as compareu to -- high grazing s ya t em In addition zero gr2~ing involves a high expenslaquo

in foreign exchange as Cyprus is a net ili1portcr of large quanti ti83 of

feed grain Thus maxi murn use of grazing i r to the benefit of bo th tIle

LndivLduaI producer and thG national ec ouomy It is therefore 5

necessary to keep the cost d i ffer-en t i aI -1 a level which would

encourage the full utilization of grazin- aroas and allow tne opt i mum

LlSt3 of feed grain It is clifficul t to d e t e r-mine the opt i mum s i z e of this differential because of the wide variation in the availability of graamping from one part of Cyprus to the other andthe effect of the price of thE- feed grain on the price of r1any basic fOOd items

111 Size of the production unit

Data on the main cost and return items of norm production

units varying in size are presented in Table 4

Table 4 Lffect of the Size of the Production Unit on the Costs

and Returns of Sheep and Goats (Noro)a)

Female animals per farm 80

Sheep

160 200 80

Goats

160 200

Gross revenue

Feed cost

Variable costs

Labour cOstshy

Net frofi t Return to labour

Cpoundworking day

Return to capital () Farm inoome

- - shy -

4115 1329 1395

534 1475

60 467 2147

- - -

8229 2658 3000

827 3194

70middot3 510 4298

-Crproduction unital

10286 4246 8492 3322 1433 2867 3887 1503 3283 1009 566 890

1386 -

4012 3014

80 5middot5 70 510 436 47middot5 5374 2094 4192

- shy -

10615 358shy4240 1087 4328

80 518 5781

-

a) For ewes producing 120 kg milk ana 16 lambs or goats producing

160 kg milk and 20 k ide on the 10Vl crazinb s ys t em

It is ilpparent that the size of the production unit affects

costs and returns significantly Fo r the yields stated above (Table -i-) 75 ewes are requireJ to obtain farm income of Cpound 2000 As would be

expected the size required to obtain Q certain level of farm incoffib

SfiY Cpound 2000 depends on many factors such iS the productivi ty of

anioills and the level of grazing This is illustrated in the followin6

examples g For ewes producing zero mi Lk yield arid 26 lambs 90 ewesn

r-equ i r edj for 60 kg milk and 12 lambs 121 ewes for 180 kg nu Lk and

10 lambs 71 ewes For zero low and high grazing with ewes producin[

120 kg milk and 16 lambs the respective numbers rBquired to obtain

farm income of Cr 2000 are 123 75 and 65

- 8 shy

B ACTUAL SITUATIOJX

I Effect of the level of productivity

The actual data collected fr-on tile sheep and goat pr-oduc t i cn units wer( classified in thrE)e levels of productivity namely~ low medium and high on the basis of the gross revenue obtained per adult female animal The means of the main cost anci return items for each group are presented in Table 5

Table 5 Costs and Returns of Sheep and Go~ts by Level of Productivity (Actual)

Sheep Goat

Level of productivity Low Medium High Low Medium Higll

Number of farms Ewes or goats per farm Milk yield

(kgfemale animal) Lambs raised per ewe or kids per goat

Concentrates (kgfemale animal)

18 72

48

11

117

29 72

57

12

135

18 54

68

13

143

16 80

37

13

65

33 64

74

15

108

16

59

126

19

200

Gross revenue (Ctfemale animal) 194 224 273 13 3 202 31 Z

Variable costs 106 lll 110 56 65 128 Gross profit 88 113 163 7middot7 13middot7 184

The hiSher productivity in the ncdium and high levels was pr9bably due to better feeding~ superior management and better genetic material from the Chios breed and the Damascus goat ~9 lQ7

The pz-oduc t i vi ty per animal incr8ased with the aLlowan ce of conc en t r-at ea as shown by the highly s i gr Lf i carrt regression coe tfLc i en t between gross revenue Cpoundfemale aniwal (Y) and concentrates fed in kg (X) the equation being Y = 1012 + 0056X (r=057) for ewes and = 947 + 0066x (r=O56) for goats The ~dditional cost of concentrashytes accounted for most of the Lnor-eas e in variable co s t s The returns obtained from animal with higher productivity w~re significantly higher tilan the additional costs bull At present ~ therefore there are wid margins for increasing productivity at low cost The data of Table 5 show that the commercial milk yield of the production units studied may be doubled while the average lambing or kidding ratio may bb improved by 30-40 L 1 J The average milk yi 61d and 1ambing or kidding ratios recorded in this study are the same as those recorded earlier [4]

- 9 shy

Ihe deL ta in Aplenuix Ta bl GS 1 and 2 show that on the CLV8r-tmiddot 09 lambs and 11 kids were sold per female animal producing a revenu~

of Cpound 94 ani Cpound 113 respectively At the price of Cpound 0781 per k 6 liveweignt this corresponds to the production of 120 and 145 kg of liveweight r-s s peo t i vel y for each ewe or gl)[t When oompared to the norm d~ta for similar lambing or kidding rltios it is concluded that the lambs and kids Nere sold at the age of eppr-oxi mately 8 - 10 WSOK3

at Which the producers usually wean the lambs and kids This would suggest tha t for the production units studied tfHlrewas no larte scale fa ttening of Lambs or kids beyond lHaninf at the aetJ of 6-10 we ek a The majority of the producers stated that they practised partial suckLin and that thcy offered creep feed to the lambs and k i ds Fran the discussion with th6se producers it was conclueltjd that the main reasons for no large scale fa t t cn ing were tradi t i on the higher l)ricus received for baby lamb and kid and the need for cash partcularly before revenue from milk was received

II Level of grazing

The data available do not allow a detailed study of the effect of the level of grazing on the costs and returns in the actual situation

It is possihle however to drd~ some conclusions from the5~

data in comparison to the norm situation The livestock producers of this study fed on the average 132 kg of concentrates for each ewe and 120 kg for each goat In add i ti on 08 donums of green forage vlclS

cansuQed by each female aniwal and its followers Similar trends WbTB

observed in ano thez- etuuy L9 J Compar-ed to norm produo t i on units or

comparable y i elds it a ppear-s that feed requirements for maintenance arto ruet by gr-az i ng gr-e en forage and straw 9 whi l E t he r equ i r-emerrt s for production are met by concentrates For ollis 9 tlH level of grazino is hi6her than she up especiallj for production units with more than 30 female adult an imaLs as indicated by tl( lower amount of concentrates fed for comparative yields

Thl level of grazin~ practised is limited by the low ava i La hi Li ty of pas tur-es and t no abe enc e of large grazing areas There are also institutional r8gulations by 10c81 authorities limi tin~ the maximum nunrber of animals a t tendcd oy a sincle shepherd Compar-ed to the norm situation the average of grazing was slightly below the designated as low level

III Size of the production unit

Data on tho main cost and return items of actual produotion units varying in size and presented in Table 6 The regression of gross revenue (YGB) or variable oosts (Yvd on the number of adult ewes (X) revealed a sienificant linear relation the equations being

- 10 shy

A ~

2138 + 193X (r=091) YVC = 97 + 109X (r=064) For goat8~YGR = the respective equations were YGR = 1860 + 46x (r=035)A

Yvc = 4035 + 147X (r=061) Unlike [Sheep the r for the equation relating gross revenue and number of gOcits wus low This pr-o babl y

resul ted from wider vaz-La t i on in productivi ty among goat than ShbI

units It was apparent fro~ the inspectiun of the data from thE individual goat units that the per an i raaL output was par t i cu Lar-Ly

variable especially for small units

For the same data gross r-evenue and labour cost per an i mal decreQsed in lareer units especially in goats The advantag8s of

economics of size were cancelled by the decline in producticity which resulted in lower net returns per animal in the larger units The total rturns how8vGr were higher in the larger units but could have been consiclerably higher had the productivity of each animal been at the same level as in the small units

Table 6 Effect of Size of the Production Unit on the Gostsand Returns of Sheep and Goats (Actual)

Female animals per farm

Gross revenue Feed cost iTariable cost abour- cost Jet profit te tu r n to labour

Cpoundorking day eturn to capital () arm income

Sheep Goa ts

42 65 94 39 63

- -Cfenterprise unit shy - -

1037 1450 2056 1053 1247 18(9

443 690 975 701 797 1206

467 726 1026 373 471 645 342 436 529 342 436 529 135 171 324 265 235 473

22 22 26 28 24 3C 101 101 128 169 128 17 middot5

588 753 1069 694 794 IJ89

By corapa r-i ng the incremental bross revenue to the varLabl raquos ts from the low to the high level of pr-oduc t av i t y (Tah1e 5) and ~om the small to the large LeveI of s i z e (lable 6) it can be derived tat it is more profitable to increase prociuctivi ty per an i maI r-athor ~n increase their numbers

DISCUSSIOl AND COFCLUSI011S

Sheep and goat production can be Lnc r-eae ed by increasing Lt

oduc t i v i t y of the animals or by increasin~ the size of the an i maL pulation or by a combination of the two The returns to the iividual producer however~ are affecteu apart of the productivity other factors namely 1 the size of the production unit the level )i

~zing the management system and others

- 11 shy

The data in this study indicated the economic advantage 1 Jotl_ for the individual producer and the national economy of increasine the sheep and goat production by improving the productivity of the animals than by increasing the size of the population For ewes and goatB it is obvious from the comparison of actual and norm data that commer-ciiI

milk yield can be doubled and lambing ratio can increase by 30-40 by

using genetic material and knowledge already available in Cyprus The adoption of fQttening of lambs and kids at weights up to 35 kg is hindered by the strong demand for baby laUD and kid meat and the nee~

of producers for cash However these obs t acLes may be overCOJTW by eppr-opr-ia t e policy measures and consumer oduoa t ion

Th6 study of different directionG of production and in particular the all-meat versus the high milk - low meat direction showed that at the levels assumed the milk and meat direction was slightly superior to the all-meat direction in terms of net returns and lower cost to the Government Nevertheless thG all-meat direction is economically sound and may be used in s peo i aLj aed si tuations in which skilled labour is limited while good possibilities exist for high levels of grazing

The size of the production unit required to obtain a certain level of farm income J8pends on many factors such as the productivity of the animals and the level of grazing The numbers of adult female animals required to obtain farn income of Cpound 2000 are 121 and 75 for commercial milk yields of 60 and 120 kg and lambing ratioe of 12 ard

16 respectively Assuming that these yields represent roughly the Local and the Chios sheep it is apparent that any benefits from increasinb the present size of the production units would be much higher if the increase in size was coupled with higher productivity Presently the size of most sheeJ or goat production units is smal18r than the siz8 required to achi8ve farw income of Cpound 2000

The rroblem of deciding the size of the production unit has many complex aspects This is so becausu the livestock enterpris8 in most places is combined with crop production and the relative size of the two on t er-prLs ee is determined by economic and other factors In this respect the amount opound family labour~ the availability and size of grazing areas and feeds and the relative profitability of the livestOCK enterprise in comparison with pos s r ble al ternative farm enterprises weigh heavily in det er-iain i ng the size of the sheep or goat production units

From the data of thi s and an oar-Iier study L 9 ] it is suggested that op t i mum utilization of resources in a mixed type of farming requires production units with 120 - 130 animals In a norm situation for numbers up to 1000 animals the returns to size were higher than zero suggesting that at present economies of siZe have not

- 12 shy

been exploited Of course larger production units do not neces5~rily

imply larger animal population th ey may resul t also from reorganizatior

of the existing population to larger economically viaole units

The level of grazing is inversely related to the feeding costs but increases labour cost The decrease in feeding cost frod

higher level of grazing is considerably higher than the increase in

labour cost There is no doubt that higher grazing level wilen possible J is economically beneficial both to the individual producGr

and the national economy and could be easily combined with the all-~~~t

direction of production It is proposed th~t the price of concentrstcO)

presently regulated by thE Government through the system of SUbsidies be kept at such level which will encourage the optimum utilization of

straw pastures and agricultural by-products

The goat production units (actual) were more variable than sheep units in the level of productivitJ-9 direction of production feeding prograDme and size Smaller goat units tended to be more productive consumed more concentrates per female animal and producei higher returns per animal than larger units This suggests that large units Hith low producing animals practised more grazing On the averagG 9 the gross revenue was higher for sheep but net returns from goats were slightly higher These differences were primarily due to higher level of grazing for goats than for sheep This comparison if

based on the average of the production units studied ~nd could not bE extrapolated to comparison of specific breeds of sheep and goats A comparative study of the Chios sheep and Damascus goat under norm

conditions was initiated at this Institute

- 13 shy

SUIDIARY

Data from 68 sheep 65 goat private production units (actual situation) and from Gov~rnment units (norm situationr were used to coraput c costs and returns and to study the main fa c t or-s affecting tht econooics of shoGp and goats in Cyprus The main conclusions of this study can be summarized as follows

1 It is more profitable as a ~irst step to incrGasG productivity per animal rather than increase their numbers With available gonetic material ana knowledge it is possible to double tho present milk yields and increase the number of lambs or kids per female animal by 30-40

2F~ttGning of lambs or kids at prosGnt prices can increase total and net returns SUbstantially with profound ~conomic advantages for the individual producer and tho national economy

3 The study of di~ferent directions of ~roduction showed that the milk and mlat direction was slightly suporior to the all-moat directionH01iGVer thE a I Le-meat di re c t i on of production may bo a sound economic alternative mainly in situations where good possibilities exist for high lcvul of razing and skilled labour is limited

4 The feed cost for high level of grazing was only half the cost for middotindoor fcodLng The loer fe ed cost 18S ruflectcd in higher net returns for the razing systems The cost differential between cost of grazing and fecding of concentrates should be adjusted to promoto grazing 8t th8 IGvlol which will mClOt at the minimum the maintenance r-oqu i r-crucn t s of auuI t animalsmiddot

5 With present 18v~ls of productivity 168 ewes or 151 goats arc roquirlQ to produclo farm incomb of Cpound 2000 In norm situations 75 OWbS pr-oducdng 120 kg milk and 16 1(111bs could I~roduc8 thc same income For this LcvcI of productivi ty the r-espec t i v- numbers for z er-o low and high grazing nystems war_ 123 75 and 65 ewes

Th authors gratefully acknowlGdge tl1G cooperation of ahoe p and goat producers and the assistancE providod by all members of the Agricultural Economics Slction

RLFERLFCES

1 Louca A Pr-eLimanar-y r-csuI ts on tho por-formarice of pur-ebr-ed and cross-bred sllecp Paper prosGDtcd a~ the RGgional Workshop for shclp and forage improvement February 11-14 1974 in Buirut~ Lebanon

- 14 shy

2 Chimonides 1 1972 Some faotors affGoting the productivity of DamQscus goats in Cyprus MS Thesis American University of Bei r-ut L8b~~lO[

3 Planning Bureau ThE first (1962-66) the second (1967-71) and t hlaquo

third (1972-76) Five Year Plan Planning Rur~au

Nioosia Cyprus

4 Agrioulturul Research Institute 1964 Cost and Returns of Shlq

and goats Agric Res Inst Nioosia Cyprus

5 Louca A Personal c omruurri ca t i cn Agrioultural Research Institute Nioosia Cyprus

6 Hadjipanayiotou M and Louca A 1975 PhG Effeots of partial suckling on the lactation Derformance of Chios sheep and Damasous goats and the growth rate of the lambs and kids (in preparation) Agricultural Research Institute Nicosia Cyprus

7 Louca A 1972 The effect of suckling regime on grmdh rate and laotation performance of the Cyprus Fat-tailed amI Chios sheep Anim Prod 15~53-59

8 Louca A ~ Mavr-ogen i s A and Lawlor ~1J 1975 ThE effect of early weaning on the laotation performanoe of Damascus goats and the growth rate of the kidb Anim Prod 20 213-218

9 Papachristodoulou S and Papas A 1975 The bconomios of drylan~

mixed farming in Cyprus Agrioultural Research Institute Nicosia~ Cyprus

10 Papachristodoulou S 1974 (Restrioted) Dryland Mixed Farwing A technical and economic anaLys i s of some typical fnrl~

participated in the Mixed Farming Project during 1968-1972 Agricultural Research ~nstitute Nicosia Cyprus

11 Papas A 1975 Protein requirements of ewes during laotution (in IJreparation) Agrioultural REJsearch Lns t i tu t e Nicosia Cyprus

12 Papas A 1975 Protein requirements of ewes during maintenanoe (in preparation) Agricultural Res~arch Institute Nioosia Cyprus

13 Papas~ A 1975 The protein requirements of early weaned lambs (in preparation) Agricultural Researoh Institutc 9

Nioosia CYfrus

- 15 shy

lTA P P E D I x

COHPUTATION OF DnUT-OUTPUT DATA OF SHEEP MID GOATS-Gross revenue is the total value of milkmeat cUlls wool and manuree

Sheep milk was sold at Cpound 0163kg and goat milk at Cpound 0112kg In the

actual situation revenue from lambs and kids 11018 based on receipts

adjusted to current prices It was assumed that in norm situation lambs

and kids were sold at 35 kg liveweight 0547kg The prices at 20 kg

liveweight and at weaning were Cpound 0625 and Cpound 0781 respectively A 5

death rate for lambs and kids was assumed Culling was estimated at

20 each year 5 of this was assumed to represent losses and the

remaining 15 of the culls sold at Cpound 125head It was assumed that

losses were directly related to productivity for every additional 10 kg

milk yield and 01 lambing ratio losses increased by 015 and by

005 respectively The revenue from wool and manure was estimated at

Cpound 0700 and Cpound 0500animal respectively (App Tables 16)

Variable costs include feed expenses (purchased or produced) other

expenses (veterinary hired labour) and interest on operating capitale

In the actual situation feed expenses for sheep remiddotprEHHlnted

the 95 of variable costs and 54 of total costs for goats these

percentages are 94 and 44 respectively (App Tables 1 and 2) In the

norm situation feed expenses for sheep or goats comprised approximately

95 of the variable costs ranging from 42-65 of the total costs

depending on the level of productivity direction of production and the

level of grazing (App Tables 3-5) The feed expenses forslle-epandmiddot

goats as percent of variable and total costs decreased from about

95-84 and increased from about 50-53 respectively depending on the

size of production unit (App Table 6)

Interest on operating capital represents 50 of the variable

costs at 8 interest rate

Fixed costs include rent of land family labour replacement

depreciation and interest on fixed capital

In the actual situation rent of land was charged for the area

under fodder crops while in the norm situation rent was charged only for

the area occupied by sheds and the milking parlour

- 16 shy

Family labour was valued atGpound 1600__p~r -wor~i~gslaY_~Ep_

ble 15 presents the labour requirements for 80 ewes or goats pr-ac t i c i rs

w or high grazing system at increasing levels of milk yield andmiddot

Lmbing or kidding ratios Also gives the calculation of the labou~

squ i r-ement s for the zero grazing system and increasing number of aniild

n this study it was assumed that 13 labour units(LbU) were c on tr i bu

ed by family labour and any additional labour w~cs treated as hired

abour-

The replacement was estimated at 20 of the value of animals

The annual depreciation rate of shed8 was estimated at 25

while interest rate used for sheds and livestock capital was 6

Total costs is the sum of variable and fixed costs and net profit the

difference between gross revenue and total coste (App Tables 1-6)

Return to labour (Cpoundwo~king day) was calculated by adding to the net

profit all labour costs and dividing this amount by the number of

working days (App Tables 1-6)

Return to capital () was calculated by adding to the net profit the

interest on operating and fixed capital and dividing the amount by tho

capital investments (excl land capital) and multiplied by 100 (App

Tables 1-6)

Farm income consisted of pai~ or imputed rent 9 remuneration of family

and hired labour interest charges and net profit (App Tables 1-6)

Cost to the government was computed from the v~lue of concentrates fed

using the coefficients of 039 and 043 for aault and young animals

respectively These coefficients represent the increase in percentaL~

of the present value of the concentrates which Would be paid by the

producers in the form of hi~her prices if marketing of feed grains waG

not regulated These coefficients were comI~t8d on the basis of the

difference of the prices for feed grains paid lJy the Government and t~l(

livestock producers and on the content of the concentrate mixtures in

the feed grains (App Tabl~s 3-6)

----------------

- 17 shy

App Table 1 Costs and Returns of Sheep Enterprises by Size Group (Actual)

--_SizebwrltuF (No of ewes)

30-50 50-80 80gt Mean Cpoundewe-----_-_-

No of observations 17 33 18 68

Average No of ewes 42 65 94 67 Milk production (kg) 2711 3442 5348 3764 Lambs Bold or consumed (No) 39 55 85 59 ------------------_shy

Ycilk and milk products 440 569 865 614 92 40middot9 Lambs 417 573 925 627 9 418 Culls 60 94 108 89 13 5middot8 Wool 28 48 71 49 07 31 Manure 19 30 41 30 04 18 Change of capital 71 136 55 98 15 6G

Gross Revenue Cpound 1037 1450 2056 1507 225 1000

Feed purchased 221 325 493 344 53 27 ~

Feed produced 72 118 103 103 15 77 Forage produced 150 246 379 257 38 19lt5 Other 6 8 12 8 01 0~5

Interest 18 28 39 29 04 20 ----------------___

Variable Costs Cpound 467 725 1026 741 111 ------ ------------_- shy

Rent of land 45 52 92 61 Family labour 342 436 529 437 )3 -I

~ IInterest and depreciation 48 66 85 66 -

-------~---------_ _

Fixed Costs Cpound 435 554 706 564

Total Costs bpound 902 1279 1732 1305 195 --__--____-__---shyNet profit Cpound 135 171 324 202 31

43- J

Return to labour (Cpoundworking day) 22 22 26 23

Return to capital () 101 101 128 108 Return over feed expenses Cpound 594 761 1081 804 Farm income Cf 588 753 1069 795 ---------------------~---------_

- 18 shy

Table 2 Costs and Returns of Goat Enterprises by Size Group (Actual)

Size group (lITo of gegtats )

30-50 50-80 80) Mean Ci-goat

No of observations 18 28 19 65

Average No of goats Milk production (kg) Kids sold or consumed (No)

39 4034

53

63 4439

71

98 6169 100

666 4833

74

Milk and milk products Kids Culls Manure Change of capital

331 552

54 19 97

364 704 80 28 71

505 1005 102

43 154

396 60 750 113 79 12 30 0middot5

103 15

293 551 59 24 73

Gross Revenue Cishy 1053 1247 1809 1358 20middot5 100 00

Feed purchased Feed produced Forage produced Other Interest

207 35

llO

7 14

236 53

156 8

18

263 36

304 17 25

236 43

186 II 19

3middot5 06 28 02 03

224 38

18J 13 loy

Variable Costs Cf 373 471 645 495 74 474

Rent of land Family labour Interest and depreciation

25 342 48

39 436

66

77 529 85

46 437

67

07 65 10

4middot5 417

64

Fixed Costs Cf 415 541 691 550 82 526

Total Costs Cf 788 1012 1336 1045 156 1000

Net Frofi t Cf 265 235 473 313 49

Return to labour (Cpoundworking day)

Return to capital () Return over feed expenses Farm income

Cf Of

28 169

700 694

24 128

802 794

30 17middot5 1206 1189

27 153 892 882

- 19 shy

App Table 3 Effect of Level of Produotivity and Direction of a) Produotion on the Costs and Returns of Sheep (Norm)

Milk yield (kgewe)

Lambing ratio

Milk Lambs Culls

Wool Manure

Gross Revenue

Feed for ewes i) Concentrates

ii) Hay amp straw Feed for lambs

i) Concentrates Other Interest

Variable Costs

Rent Famil y labour Replacement Depreciation Interest

Fixed Costs

Total Costs

Gross Profi t

Net Profit

Return to labour (Cpoundworking day)

Return to capital () Cost to the Government

deg 60 120 200

26 12 16 08

782 3781 1748 142 139

56 56 40 40

1565 2325 128

56 40

2608 1163

120 56 40

Cpound 4019 2765 4114 3986

676 464

988 446 12 12 67 37

728

601 12 54

720

294 12 41

Cpound 1743 959 1395 1067

2 2

364 449 544 504

19 19 82 82

2

534 608 19 82

2

590 640 19 82

ce 1011 1056 1245 1333

Cpound 2754 2015 2640 2400

Cpound 2276 1606 2719 2919

Cpound 1265 750 1474 1586

72 43 60 59 392 269 46middot7 521

Cpound 688 373 542 407

a) Assuming 80 8W~S and low grazing

- 20 shy

App Table 4 Effect of Level of Productivity and Direction of a) middotmiddotmiddot----middot --Produc_tiQ[l on the Costs and Returns of Goats (Norm) bull

bull bullbullbullbull ~ __R_ ~~__bullbullbull ~ bullbullbull _

-_ ----~ bull

Milk yield (kggoat)

Kidding ratio

0

34

80

16

160

20

2$0

13

Milk Lambs Culla

4511 137

717 2136 134

1434 2652 120

2503 1743

106

Manuremiddot 40 40 40 40

Gros smiddot R-eAfnu-e- Cpound 4688 3027 4246 4398

Feed for goats ) ConcentratesJ I

ii) Hay amp straw Feed for kids

i) Concentrates Other Interest

824

1023 12 74

560

482 12 42

832

601 12 58

928 ~

391 12 53

Variable Coiits Cpound 1933 1096 1503 1384

Rent Family labour Replacement Depreciation Interestmiddot_middotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddot

2 366 608 19 82

2 488 560

19 82

2 566 688 19 82

2 617 776 19 82

Fixed Cos is Cpound 1077 1151 1357 1496

Total Cost s Cpound 3010 2247 2860 J 2880

Gross Froht Cpound 2755 1931 2743 3014

Net PI-ofit

Cpound 1678 780 1386 151[

Return to labour (Cpoundworking day)

Return to capital () 89

493 42

274 55

436 505

480 Cost to the Oovernmen t --6pound---middot761 middot425 51n __

~_~- -- _--___-~ _ M bullbullbull_ bullbull___ R bullbullbull __bullbull __ bull

o _ bullbull

~301 __

a) Assuming 80 goats and low grazing

- 21 shy

App Table 5 Effect of Level of GraZirg on the Costs and Returns of Sheep and Goats (Norm) a

Shee~ Goats Level of gra~ing Zero Low High Zero Low Rigl

Milk yield (kgfemale animal) 120 120 120 160 160 16

Lambing or kidding ratio 16 16 16 20 20 2()

Milk 1565 1565 1565 1434 1434 l434 Lambs 2326 2326 2326 2652 2652 2652 Culls 128 128 128 120 120 120 Wool 56 56 56 Manure 40 40 40 40 40 40

Gross Revenue Cpound 4115 4115 4115 4246 4246 4246

Feed for ewes or goats i) Concentrates 1292 728 408 1508 832 505

ii) Ray amp straw 288 282 Feed for lambs or kids

i) Concentrates 601 601 601 602 602 602 Other 12 12 12 12 12 12 Interest 88 54 41 96 58 45

Variable Costs Cpound 2281 1395 1062 2500 1504 116r _ _-

Rent 2 2 2 2 L 2 Family labour 390 534 534 422 566 565 Replacement 608 608 608 688 688 68P Depreciation 19 19 19 19 19 1)

Interest 82 82 82 82 82 8e

Fixed Costs Cpound 1101 1245 1245 1213 1357 1357

Total Costs Cpound 3382 2640 2307 3713 2861 252

Gross Profit Cpound 18~4 2720 3053 1746 2743 30t)2

1Tet Profit Cpound 733 1475 1808 533 1385 1725

Return to labour (Cpoundworking day) 46 60 70 36 5middot5 65

Return to capital () 232 467 588 178 436 55( Feed cost to the Government Cpound 762 542 418 847 583 456

a) Assuming 80 female adult animals

- 22 shy

App Table 6 Bffect of the Size of the Pr-oduc t ion Unit on the Costs and Returns of Sheep and Goats (NJrm)

SheGE Goats

Ewes or goatsfarm 80 160 200 80 160 2()(I

Milk yield (kgfemale animal) 120 120 120 160 160 16~)

Lambing or kidding ratio 16 16 16 20 20 2 0

Milk 1565 3130 3912 1434 2867 35[1 Lambs 2326 4651 5814 2652 5305 66jl Culls 128 256 320 120 240 300 Wool 56 112 140 Manure 40 80 100 40 80 100

Gross Revenue Cpound 4115 8229 10286 4246 8492 10615

Feed for awes or goats i) Concentrates 728 1456 1820 832 1664 208

ii) Hay amp straw Feed for lambs or kids

i) Concentrates 601 1202 1502 602 1203 1504 Hired labour 203 385 266 4f- u_)

Other 12 24 30 12 24 jC)

Interest 54 115 150 58 126 163

Variable Costs Cpound 1395 3000 3887 1504 3283 42C

Rent 2 4 5 2 4 Family labour 534 624 624 566 624 621 Replacement 608 1216 1520 688 1376 1( 2(

Depreciation 19 32 40 19 32 4C Interest 82 159 198 82 159 19t

Fixed Costs Cpound 1245 2035 2387 1357 2195 255 _ _--_ __

Total Costs Cpound 2640 5035 6274 2860 5478 6521

Gross Profit Cpound 2720 5226 6399 2743 5209 Ggt7)

net Profit Cpound 1475 319L~ 4012 1385 3014 Ll3 -

Return to labour (Cpoundworking day) 60 78 80 5middot5 70 SoU

Return to capital () 467 510 510 436 475 538 Feed cost to the Government Cpound 542 1085 1356 583 1166 145[

- 23 ~

App Table 7 Prices Received and Paid

Prices received Unit Cpound-Milk sheep kg 0163

goat kg 0112 Lamb or kid

At leaning kg 1ivQwoight 0781 At 20 kg kg 0625 At 35 kg kg II 0547

Wool Cpoundanima1 0100 Manure Cpoundanima1 0500

Prices paid

Feed roughage

Straw ton 120 Cereal hay ton 200

Concentrates

Creep feed ton 500 15 crude protein (as fed) ton 458 13 crude protein (as fed) ton 438 11 crude protein (as fed) ton 400

Labour working day 16

Rent of land donum 15

App Table 8 Capital Investments

Land

Sheds for 80 female animals

160 female animals 200 female animals

Value of animals Ewes (0 kg milk 26 lambing ratio)

(60 kg milk 12 lambing ratio) (120 kg milk 16 lambing ratio ) (200 kg milk 08 lambing ratio)

Goats( 0 kg milk 34 kidding ratio) ~ 80 kg milk 16 kidding ratio) (160 kg milk 20 kiddinB ratio) (280 kg milk 13 kidding ratio)

Operating capital (50 of variable costs)

Cpounddonum 300

Cpoundshed 1800 Cpoundahed 13500 Cpoundshed 16600

CrJeue 330

315

380

400

Cpoundgoat 380

340

400

425

vpp Table 9 Gross RevenuG (Cpoundewe) at Incr-eas Ing LeveI s of Milk Yi o Ld and Lcml~ng Rc tios (rorm)

Millt Y i e 1 d (kg eVi8)Lambing ratio 0 20 4~ 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200

08 163 208 253 298 343 388 433 ~n 8 523 568 613 10 201 246 29 ~ 1 33~6 381 426 471 516 561 606 651

12 240 284 32~9 37~4 419 464 509 554 599 644 689 16 31 6 360 40~5 45o 495 540 585 630 675 720 765 18 355 398 44~3 488 533 578 623 668 713 758 803 22 431 474 519 56~4 609 654 699 744 789 834 879

26 508 550 5915 64+ 0 658 730 775 820 865 910 955 30 584 626 67h 71~6 761 806 851 896 941 986 1034

~--

- _ N

~

App Table 10 Gross Revenue (Cpoundgoat) at Increasing LeY11s of Milk Yield and Kidding Ratios (Norm) bull

M i llt Y i e 1 d (kg L~at) IKidding ratio

middot0 40 80 l~d 160 200 240 280 320 360 400

08 148 193 237 28~~ 327 372 41 7 461 506 551 596 12 218 263 307 35~2 397 442 487 531 576 621 666 16 287 333 37-7 42l~ 467 512 55middot7 601 646 691 736 20 355 403 447 49 ~ 2 537 582 627 671 716 761 806 24 -422 473 51 7 56~ 60middot7 652 697 74middot1 786 831 876

bull 28 488 543 58~7 632 677 722 767 811 856 901 946 32 564 613 65 ~ 7 70~~ 747 792 837 881 926 971 1016 36 634 683 72~7 772- 81 7 862 907 951 996 1041 1086

I

1)App Table 11 Concentrates Consumed (kgewe) Low Grazing System

Lambi ng Y i e 1 d i n mil k (kg ewe) ratio

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200

08 568 708 848 98 8 1128 1268 1408 1548 1688 1828 1968 LO 710 850 990 1130 127middot0 1410 1550 1690 1830 1970 2110 12 852 992 1132 1272 1412 1552 1692 1332 1972 2112 2252 16 1136 1276 1416 1556 1696 1836 1976 2116 2256 2396 2536 18 1278 1418 1558 1698 1838 1978 2118 2258 2398 2538 267middot8 22 1562 1702 1842 1982 2122 2262 2402 2542 2682 2822 2962 26 1846 1986 2126 2266 2406 2546 2686 2626 2966 3106 3246 30 2130 2270 2410 2550 2690 2830 2970 311 0 325middot0 3390 3530

ro1) I~aintenancerequirement of adult animals met by grazing V1

Assumptions for grazing systems

1 07 kg feeds of 15 crude protein (as fed basis) was fed per kg milk produced or sucked [iy 2 50 kg milk was suoked by each lamb from birth to weaning at 35 days 3 In late pregnancy each ewe received on the average 36 kg concentrates above maintenance for each lamb carried 4 In zero grazing maintenance requirements during the dry period were met by 06 kg straw and 05 kg

concentrates of 11 crude protein (as fed basis) [1~ I~ late pregnancy (6 weeks before lambing) and during lactation each ewe received 06 kg cereal hay and 04 kg concentrates to meet the maintenance requirements Other requirements in concentrates were met as in low grazing syste~

App liable 12 Conoentcates Consumed (kgg02t ) i Low Grazing SJ34~OT 1)- (I

----------------------T -----------~-_--------------------------------------------------shy

M gt~_~ LL~_~iJ~_8poundatl Kidding ratio

o 40 80 120 160 200 240 280 320 360 400 -----_ ------~---~ _- ----------__--__-----shy

08 528 768 1008 1248 138 1728 1960G 2208 24Li8 2688 2928 12 792 1032 1272 1512 175middot2 1992 2232 2472 271 2 2952 3192 16 1056 129 u 6 1536 ~-77 6 20l6 2256 2496 =736 2976 3216 3456 20 1320 1560 J80o 2040 2280 2520 2760 3000 3240 3480 3720 24 1584 1[24shy 2064 2304 2-~4middot 4 27S~4 3024 32604 350middot4 3 7 11++ 3984 28 1848 2038 23 28 2568 2808 30~ 8 328f3 ~)52 8 3768 4008 42~ 8

-3 ~ 211 2 2352 2592 2832 3072 3312 3552 37902 4032 4272 +51 2

______ 36

_-__ 2379

- 2616 2856 3096

___shy__ 3336 3576

_ 3826

middot 4056 L_~

429gt6 middot

L15306 _ _

4776

1) Maintenance requirements of adult animals met-JY grazing ro 0

~~~mption for grazing system

1 06 kg feed of 15 crude protein (as fed basis) was fed per kg milk produced or suoked 2 50 kg milk was sucked by each kid from birth to wean~ng at 70 days Partial suckling was practised from the

30th day onwards 3 In late pregnancy each goat received on the average 36 kg concentrates above maintenance for each kid carried 4 In zero grazing maintenance requirements in the dry period were met by 06 kg of straw and 05 kg of

concentrates of 11 crude protein (as fed basis)

29

- 27 shy

App Table 13 Feed Cost and Revenue for Lamb Fattening

Lambing ratio

08 10 12middot 16 18 22 26

aConcentrates (kg) I

Birth to weaning Weaning to 20 kg Birth to 20 kg 20 kg to 35 kg Birth to 35 kg

09 290 299 54~0

839

1 J 13 17 20 368middot 449 618 706 37middot9 462 635 726 675 810 1080 1215

1054 1272 1715 1941

24 890 914

1485 2399

1036 106e5 175middot5 2820

Saleable Iiveweight (kg)

at weaning at 20 kg at 35 kg

87 160 280

108 200 35middot0

12~8

24middot0 420

174198 320 360 56~0 630

249 44middot0 770

290 520 910

Feed expenses

at weaning mils 45 55 65 -85 100 120 145 to 20 kg Cf 14 17 21 29 33 42 49 __ to 35 kg Cf 37 46 56 7middot5 85 10middot5 123

Revenue Cf

Lamb sale Lamb sale Lamb sale

at weaning ~~ 20 kg at 35 kg

68 100shy153shy

gt ~_ bull bullbullbullbull ~-

84 125 191

100 136 150 200 230 306middot

15middot5 225 345

194 27middot5 421

226 32 c 49 e

Assumed birthweight 47 45 42 38

a) It was assumed that the protein content of the ooncentrates mixture feed from birth to weaning was 168 and from 20 to 35 kg 143 on dry matter basis [1[

- 28 shy

App Table 15 Labour Raquire~entl) for 80 poundMes or Goats Practising Low or High Grazing at Increasing Levels of Milk Yield and Lambing or Kidding Ratios

i

Lamhing Y i e 1 d i n mil k (kg Le_we) ratio

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 280

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - Lbua)production unit - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -08 0749 0813 0869 0933 1013 1069 1109 1149 1113 1205 1229 1283 10 0150 0814 0870 0934 1014 1010 1110 1150 1114 1206 1230 1284 12 0151 0815 0811 0935 1015 1011 1111 1151 1115 1201 1231 1285 14 0152 0816 0812 0936 1016 1012 1112 1152 1116 1208 1232 1286 16 0153 0811 0813 0937 1011 1013 1113 153 1117 1209 1234 1287 18 0154 0818 0874 0938 1018 1074 1114 1154 1178 1210 1235 1288 20 0155 0819 0875 0939 1019 1015 1115 1155 1119 1211 1236 1289 22 0756 0820 0876 0940 1020 1016 1116 1156 1180 1212 1237 1290 24 26

0151 0158

0821 0822

0871 0878

0941 0942

1022 1023

1017 1018

1111 1118

1157 1158

1181 1182

1213 1214

1238 1239

1291 1292

ro -D

28 0759 0823 0879 0943 1024 1019 1119 1159 1183 1215 1240 1293 30 0760 0824 0880 0middot944 1025 1080 1120 1160 1184 1216 1241 1 294 34 0162 0826 0882 0946 1027 1082 1122 1162 middot _____middot L_ 1186 1218 1242 1295

a) 1 LbU = 300 working days

1) Low and high grazing system Calculated as followsi

Labour requirement (LbU) = 015 + (lambing ratio - 10) x 0005 +

Labour for milkin~ (days)+ X No of female animals 300

+) Assuming 6 minutesanimalday

Zero grazing system Labour requiremunt (lbU) = Low or high grazing system (LbU) - 0300 for 80 female animals

- 0550 for 160 female animals - 0650 fOr 2rl) tomcIc animals

Page 12: FACTORS AFFECTING THE ECONOMICS OF SHEEP AND GOATSnews.ari.gov.cy/Publications/AER4-papas.pdfFACTORS AFFECTING THE ECONOMICS OF SHEEP AND GOATS . By . ... Costs and Returns of Goat

- 8 shy

B ACTUAL SITUATIOJX

I Effect of the level of productivity

The actual data collected fr-on tile sheep and goat pr-oduc t i cn units wer( classified in thrE)e levels of productivity namely~ low medium and high on the basis of the gross revenue obtained per adult female animal The means of the main cost anci return items for each group are presented in Table 5

Table 5 Costs and Returns of Sheep and Go~ts by Level of Productivity (Actual)

Sheep Goat

Level of productivity Low Medium High Low Medium Higll

Number of farms Ewes or goats per farm Milk yield

(kgfemale animal) Lambs raised per ewe or kids per goat

Concentrates (kgfemale animal)

18 72

48

11

117

29 72

57

12

135

18 54

68

13

143

16 80

37

13

65

33 64

74

15

108

16

59

126

19

200

Gross revenue (Ctfemale animal) 194 224 273 13 3 202 31 Z

Variable costs 106 lll 110 56 65 128 Gross profit 88 113 163 7middot7 13middot7 184

The hiSher productivity in the ncdium and high levels was pr9bably due to better feeding~ superior management and better genetic material from the Chios breed and the Damascus goat ~9 lQ7

The pz-oduc t i vi ty per animal incr8ased with the aLlowan ce of conc en t r-at ea as shown by the highly s i gr Lf i carrt regression coe tfLc i en t between gross revenue Cpoundfemale aniwal (Y) and concentrates fed in kg (X) the equation being Y = 1012 + 0056X (r=057) for ewes and = 947 + 0066x (r=O56) for goats The ~dditional cost of concentrashytes accounted for most of the Lnor-eas e in variable co s t s The returns obtained from animal with higher productivity w~re significantly higher tilan the additional costs bull At present ~ therefore there are wid margins for increasing productivity at low cost The data of Table 5 show that the commercial milk yield of the production units studied may be doubled while the average lambing or kidding ratio may bb improved by 30-40 L 1 J The average milk yi 61d and 1ambing or kidding ratios recorded in this study are the same as those recorded earlier [4]

- 9 shy

Ihe deL ta in Aplenuix Ta bl GS 1 and 2 show that on the CLV8r-tmiddot 09 lambs and 11 kids were sold per female animal producing a revenu~

of Cpound 94 ani Cpound 113 respectively At the price of Cpound 0781 per k 6 liveweignt this corresponds to the production of 120 and 145 kg of liveweight r-s s peo t i vel y for each ewe or gl)[t When oompared to the norm d~ta for similar lambing or kidding rltios it is concluded that the lambs and kids Nere sold at the age of eppr-oxi mately 8 - 10 WSOK3

at Which the producers usually wean the lambs and kids This would suggest tha t for the production units studied tfHlrewas no larte scale fa ttening of Lambs or kids beyond lHaninf at the aetJ of 6-10 we ek a The majority of the producers stated that they practised partial suckLin and that thcy offered creep feed to the lambs and k i ds Fran the discussion with th6se producers it was conclueltjd that the main reasons for no large scale fa t t cn ing were tradi t i on the higher l)ricus received for baby lamb and kid and the need for cash partcularly before revenue from milk was received

II Level of grazing

The data available do not allow a detailed study of the effect of the level of grazing on the costs and returns in the actual situation

It is possihle however to drd~ some conclusions from the5~

data in comparison to the norm situation The livestock producers of this study fed on the average 132 kg of concentrates for each ewe and 120 kg for each goat In add i ti on 08 donums of green forage vlclS

cansuQed by each female aniwal and its followers Similar trends WbTB

observed in ano thez- etuuy L9 J Compar-ed to norm produo t i on units or

comparable y i elds it a ppear-s that feed requirements for maintenance arto ruet by gr-az i ng gr-e en forage and straw 9 whi l E t he r equ i r-emerrt s for production are met by concentrates For ollis 9 tlH level of grazino is hi6her than she up especiallj for production units with more than 30 female adult an imaLs as indicated by tl( lower amount of concentrates fed for comparative yields

Thl level of grazin~ practised is limited by the low ava i La hi Li ty of pas tur-es and t no abe enc e of large grazing areas There are also institutional r8gulations by 10c81 authorities limi tin~ the maximum nunrber of animals a t tendcd oy a sincle shepherd Compar-ed to the norm situation the average of grazing was slightly below the designated as low level

III Size of the production unit

Data on tho main cost and return items of actual produotion units varying in size and presented in Table 6 The regression of gross revenue (YGB) or variable oosts (Yvd on the number of adult ewes (X) revealed a sienificant linear relation the equations being

- 10 shy

A ~

2138 + 193X (r=091) YVC = 97 + 109X (r=064) For goat8~YGR = the respective equations were YGR = 1860 + 46x (r=035)A

Yvc = 4035 + 147X (r=061) Unlike [Sheep the r for the equation relating gross revenue and number of gOcits wus low This pr-o babl y

resul ted from wider vaz-La t i on in productivi ty among goat than ShbI

units It was apparent fro~ the inspectiun of the data from thE individual goat units that the per an i raaL output was par t i cu Lar-Ly

variable especially for small units

For the same data gross r-evenue and labour cost per an i mal decreQsed in lareer units especially in goats The advantag8s of

economics of size were cancelled by the decline in producticity which resulted in lower net returns per animal in the larger units The total rturns how8vGr were higher in the larger units but could have been consiclerably higher had the productivity of each animal been at the same level as in the small units

Table 6 Effect of Size of the Production Unit on the Gostsand Returns of Sheep and Goats (Actual)

Female animals per farm

Gross revenue Feed cost iTariable cost abour- cost Jet profit te tu r n to labour

Cpoundorking day eturn to capital () arm income

Sheep Goa ts

42 65 94 39 63

- -Cfenterprise unit shy - -

1037 1450 2056 1053 1247 18(9

443 690 975 701 797 1206

467 726 1026 373 471 645 342 436 529 342 436 529 135 171 324 265 235 473

22 22 26 28 24 3C 101 101 128 169 128 17 middot5

588 753 1069 694 794 IJ89

By corapa r-i ng the incremental bross revenue to the varLabl raquos ts from the low to the high level of pr-oduc t av i t y (Tah1e 5) and ~om the small to the large LeveI of s i z e (lable 6) it can be derived tat it is more profitable to increase prociuctivi ty per an i maI r-athor ~n increase their numbers

DISCUSSIOl AND COFCLUSI011S

Sheep and goat production can be Lnc r-eae ed by increasing Lt

oduc t i v i t y of the animals or by increasin~ the size of the an i maL pulation or by a combination of the two The returns to the iividual producer however~ are affecteu apart of the productivity other factors namely 1 the size of the production unit the level )i

~zing the management system and others

- 11 shy

The data in this study indicated the economic advantage 1 Jotl_ for the individual producer and the national economy of increasine the sheep and goat production by improving the productivity of the animals than by increasing the size of the population For ewes and goatB it is obvious from the comparison of actual and norm data that commer-ciiI

milk yield can be doubled and lambing ratio can increase by 30-40 by

using genetic material and knowledge already available in Cyprus The adoption of fQttening of lambs and kids at weights up to 35 kg is hindered by the strong demand for baby laUD and kid meat and the nee~

of producers for cash However these obs t acLes may be overCOJTW by eppr-opr-ia t e policy measures and consumer oduoa t ion

Th6 study of different directionG of production and in particular the all-meat versus the high milk - low meat direction showed that at the levels assumed the milk and meat direction was slightly superior to the all-meat direction in terms of net returns and lower cost to the Government Nevertheless thG all-meat direction is economically sound and may be used in s peo i aLj aed si tuations in which skilled labour is limited while good possibilities exist for high levels of grazing

The size of the production unit required to obtain a certain level of farm income J8pends on many factors such as the productivity of the animals and the level of grazing The numbers of adult female animals required to obtain farn income of Cpound 2000 are 121 and 75 for commercial milk yields of 60 and 120 kg and lambing ratioe of 12 ard

16 respectively Assuming that these yields represent roughly the Local and the Chios sheep it is apparent that any benefits from increasinb the present size of the production units would be much higher if the increase in size was coupled with higher productivity Presently the size of most sheeJ or goat production units is smal18r than the siz8 required to achi8ve farw income of Cpound 2000

The rroblem of deciding the size of the production unit has many complex aspects This is so becausu the livestock enterpris8 in most places is combined with crop production and the relative size of the two on t er-prLs ee is determined by economic and other factors In this respect the amount opound family labour~ the availability and size of grazing areas and feeds and the relative profitability of the livestOCK enterprise in comparison with pos s r ble al ternative farm enterprises weigh heavily in det er-iain i ng the size of the sheep or goat production units

From the data of thi s and an oar-Iier study L 9 ] it is suggested that op t i mum utilization of resources in a mixed type of farming requires production units with 120 - 130 animals In a norm situation for numbers up to 1000 animals the returns to size were higher than zero suggesting that at present economies of siZe have not

- 12 shy

been exploited Of course larger production units do not neces5~rily

imply larger animal population th ey may resul t also from reorganizatior

of the existing population to larger economically viaole units

The level of grazing is inversely related to the feeding costs but increases labour cost The decrease in feeding cost frod

higher level of grazing is considerably higher than the increase in

labour cost There is no doubt that higher grazing level wilen possible J is economically beneficial both to the individual producGr

and the national economy and could be easily combined with the all-~~~t

direction of production It is proposed th~t the price of concentrstcO)

presently regulated by thE Government through the system of SUbsidies be kept at such level which will encourage the optimum utilization of

straw pastures and agricultural by-products

The goat production units (actual) were more variable than sheep units in the level of productivitJ-9 direction of production feeding prograDme and size Smaller goat units tended to be more productive consumed more concentrates per female animal and producei higher returns per animal than larger units This suggests that large units Hith low producing animals practised more grazing On the averagG 9 the gross revenue was higher for sheep but net returns from goats were slightly higher These differences were primarily due to higher level of grazing for goats than for sheep This comparison if

based on the average of the production units studied ~nd could not bE extrapolated to comparison of specific breeds of sheep and goats A comparative study of the Chios sheep and Damascus goat under norm

conditions was initiated at this Institute

- 13 shy

SUIDIARY

Data from 68 sheep 65 goat private production units (actual situation) and from Gov~rnment units (norm situationr were used to coraput c costs and returns and to study the main fa c t or-s affecting tht econooics of shoGp and goats in Cyprus The main conclusions of this study can be summarized as follows

1 It is more profitable as a ~irst step to incrGasG productivity per animal rather than increase their numbers With available gonetic material ana knowledge it is possible to double tho present milk yields and increase the number of lambs or kids per female animal by 30-40

2F~ttGning of lambs or kids at prosGnt prices can increase total and net returns SUbstantially with profound ~conomic advantages for the individual producer and tho national economy

3 The study of di~ferent directions of ~roduction showed that the milk and mlat direction was slightly suporior to the all-moat directionH01iGVer thE a I Le-meat di re c t i on of production may bo a sound economic alternative mainly in situations where good possibilities exist for high lcvul of razing and skilled labour is limited

4 The feed cost for high level of grazing was only half the cost for middotindoor fcodLng The loer fe ed cost 18S ruflectcd in higher net returns for the razing systems The cost differential between cost of grazing and fecding of concentrates should be adjusted to promoto grazing 8t th8 IGvlol which will mClOt at the minimum the maintenance r-oqu i r-crucn t s of auuI t animalsmiddot

5 With present 18v~ls of productivity 168 ewes or 151 goats arc roquirlQ to produclo farm incomb of Cpound 2000 In norm situations 75 OWbS pr-oducdng 120 kg milk and 16 1(111bs could I~roduc8 thc same income For this LcvcI of productivi ty the r-espec t i v- numbers for z er-o low and high grazing nystems war_ 123 75 and 65 ewes

Th authors gratefully acknowlGdge tl1G cooperation of ahoe p and goat producers and the assistancE providod by all members of the Agricultural Economics Slction

RLFERLFCES

1 Louca A Pr-eLimanar-y r-csuI ts on tho por-formarice of pur-ebr-ed and cross-bred sllecp Paper prosGDtcd a~ the RGgional Workshop for shclp and forage improvement February 11-14 1974 in Buirut~ Lebanon

- 14 shy

2 Chimonides 1 1972 Some faotors affGoting the productivity of DamQscus goats in Cyprus MS Thesis American University of Bei r-ut L8b~~lO[

3 Planning Bureau ThE first (1962-66) the second (1967-71) and t hlaquo

third (1972-76) Five Year Plan Planning Rur~au

Nioosia Cyprus

4 Agrioulturul Research Institute 1964 Cost and Returns of Shlq

and goats Agric Res Inst Nioosia Cyprus

5 Louca A Personal c omruurri ca t i cn Agrioultural Research Institute Nioosia Cyprus

6 Hadjipanayiotou M and Louca A 1975 PhG Effeots of partial suckling on the lactation Derformance of Chios sheep and Damasous goats and the growth rate of the lambs and kids (in preparation) Agricultural Research Institute Nicosia Cyprus

7 Louca A 1972 The effect of suckling regime on grmdh rate and laotation performance of the Cyprus Fat-tailed amI Chios sheep Anim Prod 15~53-59

8 Louca A ~ Mavr-ogen i s A and Lawlor ~1J 1975 ThE effect of early weaning on the laotation performanoe of Damascus goats and the growth rate of the kidb Anim Prod 20 213-218

9 Papachristodoulou S and Papas A 1975 The bconomios of drylan~

mixed farming in Cyprus Agrioultural Research Institute Nicosia~ Cyprus

10 Papachristodoulou S 1974 (Restrioted) Dryland Mixed Farwing A technical and economic anaLys i s of some typical fnrl~

participated in the Mixed Farming Project during 1968-1972 Agricultural Research ~nstitute Nicosia Cyprus

11 Papas A 1975 Protein requirements of ewes during laotution (in IJreparation) Agrioultural REJsearch Lns t i tu t e Nicosia Cyprus

12 Papas A 1975 Protein requirements of ewes during maintenanoe (in preparation) Agricultural Res~arch Institute Nioosia Cyprus

13 Papas~ A 1975 The protein requirements of early weaned lambs (in preparation) Agricultural Researoh Institutc 9

Nioosia CYfrus

- 15 shy

lTA P P E D I x

COHPUTATION OF DnUT-OUTPUT DATA OF SHEEP MID GOATS-Gross revenue is the total value of milkmeat cUlls wool and manuree

Sheep milk was sold at Cpound 0163kg and goat milk at Cpound 0112kg In the

actual situation revenue from lambs and kids 11018 based on receipts

adjusted to current prices It was assumed that in norm situation lambs

and kids were sold at 35 kg liveweight 0547kg The prices at 20 kg

liveweight and at weaning were Cpound 0625 and Cpound 0781 respectively A 5

death rate for lambs and kids was assumed Culling was estimated at

20 each year 5 of this was assumed to represent losses and the

remaining 15 of the culls sold at Cpound 125head It was assumed that

losses were directly related to productivity for every additional 10 kg

milk yield and 01 lambing ratio losses increased by 015 and by

005 respectively The revenue from wool and manure was estimated at

Cpound 0700 and Cpound 0500animal respectively (App Tables 16)

Variable costs include feed expenses (purchased or produced) other

expenses (veterinary hired labour) and interest on operating capitale

In the actual situation feed expenses for sheep remiddotprEHHlnted

the 95 of variable costs and 54 of total costs for goats these

percentages are 94 and 44 respectively (App Tables 1 and 2) In the

norm situation feed expenses for sheep or goats comprised approximately

95 of the variable costs ranging from 42-65 of the total costs

depending on the level of productivity direction of production and the

level of grazing (App Tables 3-5) The feed expenses forslle-epandmiddot

goats as percent of variable and total costs decreased from about

95-84 and increased from about 50-53 respectively depending on the

size of production unit (App Table 6)

Interest on operating capital represents 50 of the variable

costs at 8 interest rate

Fixed costs include rent of land family labour replacement

depreciation and interest on fixed capital

In the actual situation rent of land was charged for the area

under fodder crops while in the norm situation rent was charged only for

the area occupied by sheds and the milking parlour

- 16 shy

Family labour was valued atGpound 1600__p~r -wor~i~gslaY_~Ep_

ble 15 presents the labour requirements for 80 ewes or goats pr-ac t i c i rs

w or high grazing system at increasing levels of milk yield andmiddot

Lmbing or kidding ratios Also gives the calculation of the labou~

squ i r-ement s for the zero grazing system and increasing number of aniild

n this study it was assumed that 13 labour units(LbU) were c on tr i bu

ed by family labour and any additional labour w~cs treated as hired

abour-

The replacement was estimated at 20 of the value of animals

The annual depreciation rate of shed8 was estimated at 25

while interest rate used for sheds and livestock capital was 6

Total costs is the sum of variable and fixed costs and net profit the

difference between gross revenue and total coste (App Tables 1-6)

Return to labour (Cpoundwo~king day) was calculated by adding to the net

profit all labour costs and dividing this amount by the number of

working days (App Tables 1-6)

Return to capital () was calculated by adding to the net profit the

interest on operating and fixed capital and dividing the amount by tho

capital investments (excl land capital) and multiplied by 100 (App

Tables 1-6)

Farm income consisted of pai~ or imputed rent 9 remuneration of family

and hired labour interest charges and net profit (App Tables 1-6)

Cost to the government was computed from the v~lue of concentrates fed

using the coefficients of 039 and 043 for aault and young animals

respectively These coefficients represent the increase in percentaL~

of the present value of the concentrates which Would be paid by the

producers in the form of hi~her prices if marketing of feed grains waG

not regulated These coefficients were comI~t8d on the basis of the

difference of the prices for feed grains paid lJy the Government and t~l(

livestock producers and on the content of the concentrate mixtures in

the feed grains (App Tabl~s 3-6)

----------------

- 17 shy

App Table 1 Costs and Returns of Sheep Enterprises by Size Group (Actual)

--_SizebwrltuF (No of ewes)

30-50 50-80 80gt Mean Cpoundewe-----_-_-

No of observations 17 33 18 68

Average No of ewes 42 65 94 67 Milk production (kg) 2711 3442 5348 3764 Lambs Bold or consumed (No) 39 55 85 59 ------------------_shy

Ycilk and milk products 440 569 865 614 92 40middot9 Lambs 417 573 925 627 9 418 Culls 60 94 108 89 13 5middot8 Wool 28 48 71 49 07 31 Manure 19 30 41 30 04 18 Change of capital 71 136 55 98 15 6G

Gross Revenue Cpound 1037 1450 2056 1507 225 1000

Feed purchased 221 325 493 344 53 27 ~

Feed produced 72 118 103 103 15 77 Forage produced 150 246 379 257 38 19lt5 Other 6 8 12 8 01 0~5

Interest 18 28 39 29 04 20 ----------------___

Variable Costs Cpound 467 725 1026 741 111 ------ ------------_- shy

Rent of land 45 52 92 61 Family labour 342 436 529 437 )3 -I

~ IInterest and depreciation 48 66 85 66 -

-------~---------_ _

Fixed Costs Cpound 435 554 706 564

Total Costs bpound 902 1279 1732 1305 195 --__--____-__---shyNet profit Cpound 135 171 324 202 31

43- J

Return to labour (Cpoundworking day) 22 22 26 23

Return to capital () 101 101 128 108 Return over feed expenses Cpound 594 761 1081 804 Farm income Cf 588 753 1069 795 ---------------------~---------_

- 18 shy

Table 2 Costs and Returns of Goat Enterprises by Size Group (Actual)

Size group (lITo of gegtats )

30-50 50-80 80) Mean Ci-goat

No of observations 18 28 19 65

Average No of goats Milk production (kg) Kids sold or consumed (No)

39 4034

53

63 4439

71

98 6169 100

666 4833

74

Milk and milk products Kids Culls Manure Change of capital

331 552

54 19 97

364 704 80 28 71

505 1005 102

43 154

396 60 750 113 79 12 30 0middot5

103 15

293 551 59 24 73

Gross Revenue Cishy 1053 1247 1809 1358 20middot5 100 00

Feed purchased Feed produced Forage produced Other Interest

207 35

llO

7 14

236 53

156 8

18

263 36

304 17 25

236 43

186 II 19

3middot5 06 28 02 03

224 38

18J 13 loy

Variable Costs Cf 373 471 645 495 74 474

Rent of land Family labour Interest and depreciation

25 342 48

39 436

66

77 529 85

46 437

67

07 65 10

4middot5 417

64

Fixed Costs Cf 415 541 691 550 82 526

Total Costs Cf 788 1012 1336 1045 156 1000

Net Frofi t Cf 265 235 473 313 49

Return to labour (Cpoundworking day)

Return to capital () Return over feed expenses Farm income

Cf Of

28 169

700 694

24 128

802 794

30 17middot5 1206 1189

27 153 892 882

- 19 shy

App Table 3 Effect of Level of Produotivity and Direction of a) Produotion on the Costs and Returns of Sheep (Norm)

Milk yield (kgewe)

Lambing ratio

Milk Lambs Culls

Wool Manure

Gross Revenue

Feed for ewes i) Concentrates

ii) Hay amp straw Feed for lambs

i) Concentrates Other Interest

Variable Costs

Rent Famil y labour Replacement Depreciation Interest

Fixed Costs

Total Costs

Gross Profi t

Net Profit

Return to labour (Cpoundworking day)

Return to capital () Cost to the Government

deg 60 120 200

26 12 16 08

782 3781 1748 142 139

56 56 40 40

1565 2325 128

56 40

2608 1163

120 56 40

Cpound 4019 2765 4114 3986

676 464

988 446 12 12 67 37

728

601 12 54

720

294 12 41

Cpound 1743 959 1395 1067

2 2

364 449 544 504

19 19 82 82

2

534 608 19 82

2

590 640 19 82

ce 1011 1056 1245 1333

Cpound 2754 2015 2640 2400

Cpound 2276 1606 2719 2919

Cpound 1265 750 1474 1586

72 43 60 59 392 269 46middot7 521

Cpound 688 373 542 407

a) Assuming 80 8W~S and low grazing

- 20 shy

App Table 4 Effect of Level of Productivity and Direction of a) middotmiddotmiddot----middot --Produc_tiQ[l on the Costs and Returns of Goats (Norm) bull

bull bullbullbullbull ~ __R_ ~~__bullbullbull ~ bullbullbull _

-_ ----~ bull

Milk yield (kggoat)

Kidding ratio

0

34

80

16

160

20

2$0

13

Milk Lambs Culla

4511 137

717 2136 134

1434 2652 120

2503 1743

106

Manuremiddot 40 40 40 40

Gros smiddot R-eAfnu-e- Cpound 4688 3027 4246 4398

Feed for goats ) ConcentratesJ I

ii) Hay amp straw Feed for kids

i) Concentrates Other Interest

824

1023 12 74

560

482 12 42

832

601 12 58

928 ~

391 12 53

Variable Coiits Cpound 1933 1096 1503 1384

Rent Family labour Replacement Depreciation Interestmiddot_middotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddot

2 366 608 19 82

2 488 560

19 82

2 566 688 19 82

2 617 776 19 82

Fixed Cos is Cpound 1077 1151 1357 1496

Total Cost s Cpound 3010 2247 2860 J 2880

Gross Froht Cpound 2755 1931 2743 3014

Net PI-ofit

Cpound 1678 780 1386 151[

Return to labour (Cpoundworking day)

Return to capital () 89

493 42

274 55

436 505

480 Cost to the Oovernmen t --6pound---middot761 middot425 51n __

~_~- -- _--___-~ _ M bullbullbull_ bullbull___ R bullbullbull __bullbull __ bull

o _ bullbull

~301 __

a) Assuming 80 goats and low grazing

- 21 shy

App Table 5 Effect of Level of GraZirg on the Costs and Returns of Sheep and Goats (Norm) a

Shee~ Goats Level of gra~ing Zero Low High Zero Low Rigl

Milk yield (kgfemale animal) 120 120 120 160 160 16

Lambing or kidding ratio 16 16 16 20 20 2()

Milk 1565 1565 1565 1434 1434 l434 Lambs 2326 2326 2326 2652 2652 2652 Culls 128 128 128 120 120 120 Wool 56 56 56 Manure 40 40 40 40 40 40

Gross Revenue Cpound 4115 4115 4115 4246 4246 4246

Feed for ewes or goats i) Concentrates 1292 728 408 1508 832 505

ii) Ray amp straw 288 282 Feed for lambs or kids

i) Concentrates 601 601 601 602 602 602 Other 12 12 12 12 12 12 Interest 88 54 41 96 58 45

Variable Costs Cpound 2281 1395 1062 2500 1504 116r _ _-

Rent 2 2 2 2 L 2 Family labour 390 534 534 422 566 565 Replacement 608 608 608 688 688 68P Depreciation 19 19 19 19 19 1)

Interest 82 82 82 82 82 8e

Fixed Costs Cpound 1101 1245 1245 1213 1357 1357

Total Costs Cpound 3382 2640 2307 3713 2861 252

Gross Profit Cpound 18~4 2720 3053 1746 2743 30t)2

1Tet Profit Cpound 733 1475 1808 533 1385 1725

Return to labour (Cpoundworking day) 46 60 70 36 5middot5 65

Return to capital () 232 467 588 178 436 55( Feed cost to the Government Cpound 762 542 418 847 583 456

a) Assuming 80 female adult animals

- 22 shy

App Table 6 Bffect of the Size of the Pr-oduc t ion Unit on the Costs and Returns of Sheep and Goats (NJrm)

SheGE Goats

Ewes or goatsfarm 80 160 200 80 160 2()(I

Milk yield (kgfemale animal) 120 120 120 160 160 16~)

Lambing or kidding ratio 16 16 16 20 20 2 0

Milk 1565 3130 3912 1434 2867 35[1 Lambs 2326 4651 5814 2652 5305 66jl Culls 128 256 320 120 240 300 Wool 56 112 140 Manure 40 80 100 40 80 100

Gross Revenue Cpound 4115 8229 10286 4246 8492 10615

Feed for awes or goats i) Concentrates 728 1456 1820 832 1664 208

ii) Hay amp straw Feed for lambs or kids

i) Concentrates 601 1202 1502 602 1203 1504 Hired labour 203 385 266 4f- u_)

Other 12 24 30 12 24 jC)

Interest 54 115 150 58 126 163

Variable Costs Cpound 1395 3000 3887 1504 3283 42C

Rent 2 4 5 2 4 Family labour 534 624 624 566 624 621 Replacement 608 1216 1520 688 1376 1( 2(

Depreciation 19 32 40 19 32 4C Interest 82 159 198 82 159 19t

Fixed Costs Cpound 1245 2035 2387 1357 2195 255 _ _--_ __

Total Costs Cpound 2640 5035 6274 2860 5478 6521

Gross Profit Cpound 2720 5226 6399 2743 5209 Ggt7)

net Profit Cpound 1475 319L~ 4012 1385 3014 Ll3 -

Return to labour (Cpoundworking day) 60 78 80 5middot5 70 SoU

Return to capital () 467 510 510 436 475 538 Feed cost to the Government Cpound 542 1085 1356 583 1166 145[

- 23 ~

App Table 7 Prices Received and Paid

Prices received Unit Cpound-Milk sheep kg 0163

goat kg 0112 Lamb or kid

At leaning kg 1ivQwoight 0781 At 20 kg kg 0625 At 35 kg kg II 0547

Wool Cpoundanima1 0100 Manure Cpoundanima1 0500

Prices paid

Feed roughage

Straw ton 120 Cereal hay ton 200

Concentrates

Creep feed ton 500 15 crude protein (as fed) ton 458 13 crude protein (as fed) ton 438 11 crude protein (as fed) ton 400

Labour working day 16

Rent of land donum 15

App Table 8 Capital Investments

Land

Sheds for 80 female animals

160 female animals 200 female animals

Value of animals Ewes (0 kg milk 26 lambing ratio)

(60 kg milk 12 lambing ratio) (120 kg milk 16 lambing ratio ) (200 kg milk 08 lambing ratio)

Goats( 0 kg milk 34 kidding ratio) ~ 80 kg milk 16 kidding ratio) (160 kg milk 20 kiddinB ratio) (280 kg milk 13 kidding ratio)

Operating capital (50 of variable costs)

Cpounddonum 300

Cpoundshed 1800 Cpoundahed 13500 Cpoundshed 16600

CrJeue 330

315

380

400

Cpoundgoat 380

340

400

425

vpp Table 9 Gross RevenuG (Cpoundewe) at Incr-eas Ing LeveI s of Milk Yi o Ld and Lcml~ng Rc tios (rorm)

Millt Y i e 1 d (kg eVi8)Lambing ratio 0 20 4~ 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200

08 163 208 253 298 343 388 433 ~n 8 523 568 613 10 201 246 29 ~ 1 33~6 381 426 471 516 561 606 651

12 240 284 32~9 37~4 419 464 509 554 599 644 689 16 31 6 360 40~5 45o 495 540 585 630 675 720 765 18 355 398 44~3 488 533 578 623 668 713 758 803 22 431 474 519 56~4 609 654 699 744 789 834 879

26 508 550 5915 64+ 0 658 730 775 820 865 910 955 30 584 626 67h 71~6 761 806 851 896 941 986 1034

~--

- _ N

~

App Table 10 Gross Revenue (Cpoundgoat) at Increasing LeY11s of Milk Yield and Kidding Ratios (Norm) bull

M i llt Y i e 1 d (kg L~at) IKidding ratio

middot0 40 80 l~d 160 200 240 280 320 360 400

08 148 193 237 28~~ 327 372 41 7 461 506 551 596 12 218 263 307 35~2 397 442 487 531 576 621 666 16 287 333 37-7 42l~ 467 512 55middot7 601 646 691 736 20 355 403 447 49 ~ 2 537 582 627 671 716 761 806 24 -422 473 51 7 56~ 60middot7 652 697 74middot1 786 831 876

bull 28 488 543 58~7 632 677 722 767 811 856 901 946 32 564 613 65 ~ 7 70~~ 747 792 837 881 926 971 1016 36 634 683 72~7 772- 81 7 862 907 951 996 1041 1086

I

1)App Table 11 Concentrates Consumed (kgewe) Low Grazing System

Lambi ng Y i e 1 d i n mil k (kg ewe) ratio

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200

08 568 708 848 98 8 1128 1268 1408 1548 1688 1828 1968 LO 710 850 990 1130 127middot0 1410 1550 1690 1830 1970 2110 12 852 992 1132 1272 1412 1552 1692 1332 1972 2112 2252 16 1136 1276 1416 1556 1696 1836 1976 2116 2256 2396 2536 18 1278 1418 1558 1698 1838 1978 2118 2258 2398 2538 267middot8 22 1562 1702 1842 1982 2122 2262 2402 2542 2682 2822 2962 26 1846 1986 2126 2266 2406 2546 2686 2626 2966 3106 3246 30 2130 2270 2410 2550 2690 2830 2970 311 0 325middot0 3390 3530

ro1) I~aintenancerequirement of adult animals met by grazing V1

Assumptions for grazing systems

1 07 kg feeds of 15 crude protein (as fed basis) was fed per kg milk produced or sucked [iy 2 50 kg milk was suoked by each lamb from birth to weaning at 35 days 3 In late pregnancy each ewe received on the average 36 kg concentrates above maintenance for each lamb carried 4 In zero grazing maintenance requirements during the dry period were met by 06 kg straw and 05 kg

concentrates of 11 crude protein (as fed basis) [1~ I~ late pregnancy (6 weeks before lambing) and during lactation each ewe received 06 kg cereal hay and 04 kg concentrates to meet the maintenance requirements Other requirements in concentrates were met as in low grazing syste~

App liable 12 Conoentcates Consumed (kgg02t ) i Low Grazing SJ34~OT 1)- (I

----------------------T -----------~-_--------------------------------------------------shy

M gt~_~ LL~_~iJ~_8poundatl Kidding ratio

o 40 80 120 160 200 240 280 320 360 400 -----_ ------~---~ _- ----------__--__-----shy

08 528 768 1008 1248 138 1728 1960G 2208 24Li8 2688 2928 12 792 1032 1272 1512 175middot2 1992 2232 2472 271 2 2952 3192 16 1056 129 u 6 1536 ~-77 6 20l6 2256 2496 =736 2976 3216 3456 20 1320 1560 J80o 2040 2280 2520 2760 3000 3240 3480 3720 24 1584 1[24shy 2064 2304 2-~4middot 4 27S~4 3024 32604 350middot4 3 7 11++ 3984 28 1848 2038 23 28 2568 2808 30~ 8 328f3 ~)52 8 3768 4008 42~ 8

-3 ~ 211 2 2352 2592 2832 3072 3312 3552 37902 4032 4272 +51 2

______ 36

_-__ 2379

- 2616 2856 3096

___shy__ 3336 3576

_ 3826

middot 4056 L_~

429gt6 middot

L15306 _ _

4776

1) Maintenance requirements of adult animals met-JY grazing ro 0

~~~mption for grazing system

1 06 kg feed of 15 crude protein (as fed basis) was fed per kg milk produced or suoked 2 50 kg milk was sucked by each kid from birth to wean~ng at 70 days Partial suckling was practised from the

30th day onwards 3 In late pregnancy each goat received on the average 36 kg concentrates above maintenance for each kid carried 4 In zero grazing maintenance requirements in the dry period were met by 06 kg of straw and 05 kg of

concentrates of 11 crude protein (as fed basis)

29

- 27 shy

App Table 13 Feed Cost and Revenue for Lamb Fattening

Lambing ratio

08 10 12middot 16 18 22 26

aConcentrates (kg) I

Birth to weaning Weaning to 20 kg Birth to 20 kg 20 kg to 35 kg Birth to 35 kg

09 290 299 54~0

839

1 J 13 17 20 368middot 449 618 706 37middot9 462 635 726 675 810 1080 1215

1054 1272 1715 1941

24 890 914

1485 2399

1036 106e5 175middot5 2820

Saleable Iiveweight (kg)

at weaning at 20 kg at 35 kg

87 160 280

108 200 35middot0

12~8

24middot0 420

174198 320 360 56~0 630

249 44middot0 770

290 520 910

Feed expenses

at weaning mils 45 55 65 -85 100 120 145 to 20 kg Cf 14 17 21 29 33 42 49 __ to 35 kg Cf 37 46 56 7middot5 85 10middot5 123

Revenue Cf

Lamb sale Lamb sale Lamb sale

at weaning ~~ 20 kg at 35 kg

68 100shy153shy

gt ~_ bull bullbullbullbull ~-

84 125 191

100 136 150 200 230 306middot

15middot5 225 345

194 27middot5 421

226 32 c 49 e

Assumed birthweight 47 45 42 38

a) It was assumed that the protein content of the ooncentrates mixture feed from birth to weaning was 168 and from 20 to 35 kg 143 on dry matter basis [1[

- 28 shy

App Table 15 Labour Raquire~entl) for 80 poundMes or Goats Practising Low or High Grazing at Increasing Levels of Milk Yield and Lambing or Kidding Ratios

i

Lamhing Y i e 1 d i n mil k (kg Le_we) ratio

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 280

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - Lbua)production unit - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -08 0749 0813 0869 0933 1013 1069 1109 1149 1113 1205 1229 1283 10 0150 0814 0870 0934 1014 1010 1110 1150 1114 1206 1230 1284 12 0151 0815 0811 0935 1015 1011 1111 1151 1115 1201 1231 1285 14 0152 0816 0812 0936 1016 1012 1112 1152 1116 1208 1232 1286 16 0153 0811 0813 0937 1011 1013 1113 153 1117 1209 1234 1287 18 0154 0818 0874 0938 1018 1074 1114 1154 1178 1210 1235 1288 20 0155 0819 0875 0939 1019 1015 1115 1155 1119 1211 1236 1289 22 0756 0820 0876 0940 1020 1016 1116 1156 1180 1212 1237 1290 24 26

0151 0158

0821 0822

0871 0878

0941 0942

1022 1023

1017 1018

1111 1118

1157 1158

1181 1182

1213 1214

1238 1239

1291 1292

ro -D

28 0759 0823 0879 0943 1024 1019 1119 1159 1183 1215 1240 1293 30 0760 0824 0880 0middot944 1025 1080 1120 1160 1184 1216 1241 1 294 34 0162 0826 0882 0946 1027 1082 1122 1162 middot _____middot L_ 1186 1218 1242 1295

a) 1 LbU = 300 working days

1) Low and high grazing system Calculated as followsi

Labour requirement (LbU) = 015 + (lambing ratio - 10) x 0005 +

Labour for milkin~ (days)+ X No of female animals 300

+) Assuming 6 minutesanimalday

Zero grazing system Labour requiremunt (lbU) = Low or high grazing system (LbU) - 0300 for 80 female animals

- 0550 for 160 female animals - 0650 fOr 2rl) tomcIc animals

Page 13: FACTORS AFFECTING THE ECONOMICS OF SHEEP AND GOATSnews.ari.gov.cy/Publications/AER4-papas.pdfFACTORS AFFECTING THE ECONOMICS OF SHEEP AND GOATS . By . ... Costs and Returns of Goat

- 9 shy

Ihe deL ta in Aplenuix Ta bl GS 1 and 2 show that on the CLV8r-tmiddot 09 lambs and 11 kids were sold per female animal producing a revenu~

of Cpound 94 ani Cpound 113 respectively At the price of Cpound 0781 per k 6 liveweignt this corresponds to the production of 120 and 145 kg of liveweight r-s s peo t i vel y for each ewe or gl)[t When oompared to the norm d~ta for similar lambing or kidding rltios it is concluded that the lambs and kids Nere sold at the age of eppr-oxi mately 8 - 10 WSOK3

at Which the producers usually wean the lambs and kids This would suggest tha t for the production units studied tfHlrewas no larte scale fa ttening of Lambs or kids beyond lHaninf at the aetJ of 6-10 we ek a The majority of the producers stated that they practised partial suckLin and that thcy offered creep feed to the lambs and k i ds Fran the discussion with th6se producers it was conclueltjd that the main reasons for no large scale fa t t cn ing were tradi t i on the higher l)ricus received for baby lamb and kid and the need for cash partcularly before revenue from milk was received

II Level of grazing

The data available do not allow a detailed study of the effect of the level of grazing on the costs and returns in the actual situation

It is possihle however to drd~ some conclusions from the5~

data in comparison to the norm situation The livestock producers of this study fed on the average 132 kg of concentrates for each ewe and 120 kg for each goat In add i ti on 08 donums of green forage vlclS

cansuQed by each female aniwal and its followers Similar trends WbTB

observed in ano thez- etuuy L9 J Compar-ed to norm produo t i on units or

comparable y i elds it a ppear-s that feed requirements for maintenance arto ruet by gr-az i ng gr-e en forage and straw 9 whi l E t he r equ i r-emerrt s for production are met by concentrates For ollis 9 tlH level of grazino is hi6her than she up especiallj for production units with more than 30 female adult an imaLs as indicated by tl( lower amount of concentrates fed for comparative yields

Thl level of grazin~ practised is limited by the low ava i La hi Li ty of pas tur-es and t no abe enc e of large grazing areas There are also institutional r8gulations by 10c81 authorities limi tin~ the maximum nunrber of animals a t tendcd oy a sincle shepherd Compar-ed to the norm situation the average of grazing was slightly below the designated as low level

III Size of the production unit

Data on tho main cost and return items of actual produotion units varying in size and presented in Table 6 The regression of gross revenue (YGB) or variable oosts (Yvd on the number of adult ewes (X) revealed a sienificant linear relation the equations being

- 10 shy

A ~

2138 + 193X (r=091) YVC = 97 + 109X (r=064) For goat8~YGR = the respective equations were YGR = 1860 + 46x (r=035)A

Yvc = 4035 + 147X (r=061) Unlike [Sheep the r for the equation relating gross revenue and number of gOcits wus low This pr-o babl y

resul ted from wider vaz-La t i on in productivi ty among goat than ShbI

units It was apparent fro~ the inspectiun of the data from thE individual goat units that the per an i raaL output was par t i cu Lar-Ly

variable especially for small units

For the same data gross r-evenue and labour cost per an i mal decreQsed in lareer units especially in goats The advantag8s of

economics of size were cancelled by the decline in producticity which resulted in lower net returns per animal in the larger units The total rturns how8vGr were higher in the larger units but could have been consiclerably higher had the productivity of each animal been at the same level as in the small units

Table 6 Effect of Size of the Production Unit on the Gostsand Returns of Sheep and Goats (Actual)

Female animals per farm

Gross revenue Feed cost iTariable cost abour- cost Jet profit te tu r n to labour

Cpoundorking day eturn to capital () arm income

Sheep Goa ts

42 65 94 39 63

- -Cfenterprise unit shy - -

1037 1450 2056 1053 1247 18(9

443 690 975 701 797 1206

467 726 1026 373 471 645 342 436 529 342 436 529 135 171 324 265 235 473

22 22 26 28 24 3C 101 101 128 169 128 17 middot5

588 753 1069 694 794 IJ89

By corapa r-i ng the incremental bross revenue to the varLabl raquos ts from the low to the high level of pr-oduc t av i t y (Tah1e 5) and ~om the small to the large LeveI of s i z e (lable 6) it can be derived tat it is more profitable to increase prociuctivi ty per an i maI r-athor ~n increase their numbers

DISCUSSIOl AND COFCLUSI011S

Sheep and goat production can be Lnc r-eae ed by increasing Lt

oduc t i v i t y of the animals or by increasin~ the size of the an i maL pulation or by a combination of the two The returns to the iividual producer however~ are affecteu apart of the productivity other factors namely 1 the size of the production unit the level )i

~zing the management system and others

- 11 shy

The data in this study indicated the economic advantage 1 Jotl_ for the individual producer and the national economy of increasine the sheep and goat production by improving the productivity of the animals than by increasing the size of the population For ewes and goatB it is obvious from the comparison of actual and norm data that commer-ciiI

milk yield can be doubled and lambing ratio can increase by 30-40 by

using genetic material and knowledge already available in Cyprus The adoption of fQttening of lambs and kids at weights up to 35 kg is hindered by the strong demand for baby laUD and kid meat and the nee~

of producers for cash However these obs t acLes may be overCOJTW by eppr-opr-ia t e policy measures and consumer oduoa t ion

Th6 study of different directionG of production and in particular the all-meat versus the high milk - low meat direction showed that at the levels assumed the milk and meat direction was slightly superior to the all-meat direction in terms of net returns and lower cost to the Government Nevertheless thG all-meat direction is economically sound and may be used in s peo i aLj aed si tuations in which skilled labour is limited while good possibilities exist for high levels of grazing

The size of the production unit required to obtain a certain level of farm income J8pends on many factors such as the productivity of the animals and the level of grazing The numbers of adult female animals required to obtain farn income of Cpound 2000 are 121 and 75 for commercial milk yields of 60 and 120 kg and lambing ratioe of 12 ard

16 respectively Assuming that these yields represent roughly the Local and the Chios sheep it is apparent that any benefits from increasinb the present size of the production units would be much higher if the increase in size was coupled with higher productivity Presently the size of most sheeJ or goat production units is smal18r than the siz8 required to achi8ve farw income of Cpound 2000

The rroblem of deciding the size of the production unit has many complex aspects This is so becausu the livestock enterpris8 in most places is combined with crop production and the relative size of the two on t er-prLs ee is determined by economic and other factors In this respect the amount opound family labour~ the availability and size of grazing areas and feeds and the relative profitability of the livestOCK enterprise in comparison with pos s r ble al ternative farm enterprises weigh heavily in det er-iain i ng the size of the sheep or goat production units

From the data of thi s and an oar-Iier study L 9 ] it is suggested that op t i mum utilization of resources in a mixed type of farming requires production units with 120 - 130 animals In a norm situation for numbers up to 1000 animals the returns to size were higher than zero suggesting that at present economies of siZe have not

- 12 shy

been exploited Of course larger production units do not neces5~rily

imply larger animal population th ey may resul t also from reorganizatior

of the existing population to larger economically viaole units

The level of grazing is inversely related to the feeding costs but increases labour cost The decrease in feeding cost frod

higher level of grazing is considerably higher than the increase in

labour cost There is no doubt that higher grazing level wilen possible J is economically beneficial both to the individual producGr

and the national economy and could be easily combined with the all-~~~t

direction of production It is proposed th~t the price of concentrstcO)

presently regulated by thE Government through the system of SUbsidies be kept at such level which will encourage the optimum utilization of

straw pastures and agricultural by-products

The goat production units (actual) were more variable than sheep units in the level of productivitJ-9 direction of production feeding prograDme and size Smaller goat units tended to be more productive consumed more concentrates per female animal and producei higher returns per animal than larger units This suggests that large units Hith low producing animals practised more grazing On the averagG 9 the gross revenue was higher for sheep but net returns from goats were slightly higher These differences were primarily due to higher level of grazing for goats than for sheep This comparison if

based on the average of the production units studied ~nd could not bE extrapolated to comparison of specific breeds of sheep and goats A comparative study of the Chios sheep and Damascus goat under norm

conditions was initiated at this Institute

- 13 shy

SUIDIARY

Data from 68 sheep 65 goat private production units (actual situation) and from Gov~rnment units (norm situationr were used to coraput c costs and returns and to study the main fa c t or-s affecting tht econooics of shoGp and goats in Cyprus The main conclusions of this study can be summarized as follows

1 It is more profitable as a ~irst step to incrGasG productivity per animal rather than increase their numbers With available gonetic material ana knowledge it is possible to double tho present milk yields and increase the number of lambs or kids per female animal by 30-40

2F~ttGning of lambs or kids at prosGnt prices can increase total and net returns SUbstantially with profound ~conomic advantages for the individual producer and tho national economy

3 The study of di~ferent directions of ~roduction showed that the milk and mlat direction was slightly suporior to the all-moat directionH01iGVer thE a I Le-meat di re c t i on of production may bo a sound economic alternative mainly in situations where good possibilities exist for high lcvul of razing and skilled labour is limited

4 The feed cost for high level of grazing was only half the cost for middotindoor fcodLng The loer fe ed cost 18S ruflectcd in higher net returns for the razing systems The cost differential between cost of grazing and fecding of concentrates should be adjusted to promoto grazing 8t th8 IGvlol which will mClOt at the minimum the maintenance r-oqu i r-crucn t s of auuI t animalsmiddot

5 With present 18v~ls of productivity 168 ewes or 151 goats arc roquirlQ to produclo farm incomb of Cpound 2000 In norm situations 75 OWbS pr-oducdng 120 kg milk and 16 1(111bs could I~roduc8 thc same income For this LcvcI of productivi ty the r-espec t i v- numbers for z er-o low and high grazing nystems war_ 123 75 and 65 ewes

Th authors gratefully acknowlGdge tl1G cooperation of ahoe p and goat producers and the assistancE providod by all members of the Agricultural Economics Slction

RLFERLFCES

1 Louca A Pr-eLimanar-y r-csuI ts on tho por-formarice of pur-ebr-ed and cross-bred sllecp Paper prosGDtcd a~ the RGgional Workshop for shclp and forage improvement February 11-14 1974 in Buirut~ Lebanon

- 14 shy

2 Chimonides 1 1972 Some faotors affGoting the productivity of DamQscus goats in Cyprus MS Thesis American University of Bei r-ut L8b~~lO[

3 Planning Bureau ThE first (1962-66) the second (1967-71) and t hlaquo

third (1972-76) Five Year Plan Planning Rur~au

Nioosia Cyprus

4 Agrioulturul Research Institute 1964 Cost and Returns of Shlq

and goats Agric Res Inst Nioosia Cyprus

5 Louca A Personal c omruurri ca t i cn Agrioultural Research Institute Nioosia Cyprus

6 Hadjipanayiotou M and Louca A 1975 PhG Effeots of partial suckling on the lactation Derformance of Chios sheep and Damasous goats and the growth rate of the lambs and kids (in preparation) Agricultural Research Institute Nicosia Cyprus

7 Louca A 1972 The effect of suckling regime on grmdh rate and laotation performance of the Cyprus Fat-tailed amI Chios sheep Anim Prod 15~53-59

8 Louca A ~ Mavr-ogen i s A and Lawlor ~1J 1975 ThE effect of early weaning on the laotation performanoe of Damascus goats and the growth rate of the kidb Anim Prod 20 213-218

9 Papachristodoulou S and Papas A 1975 The bconomios of drylan~

mixed farming in Cyprus Agrioultural Research Institute Nicosia~ Cyprus

10 Papachristodoulou S 1974 (Restrioted) Dryland Mixed Farwing A technical and economic anaLys i s of some typical fnrl~

participated in the Mixed Farming Project during 1968-1972 Agricultural Research ~nstitute Nicosia Cyprus

11 Papas A 1975 Protein requirements of ewes during laotution (in IJreparation) Agrioultural REJsearch Lns t i tu t e Nicosia Cyprus

12 Papas A 1975 Protein requirements of ewes during maintenanoe (in preparation) Agricultural Res~arch Institute Nioosia Cyprus

13 Papas~ A 1975 The protein requirements of early weaned lambs (in preparation) Agricultural Researoh Institutc 9

Nioosia CYfrus

- 15 shy

lTA P P E D I x

COHPUTATION OF DnUT-OUTPUT DATA OF SHEEP MID GOATS-Gross revenue is the total value of milkmeat cUlls wool and manuree

Sheep milk was sold at Cpound 0163kg and goat milk at Cpound 0112kg In the

actual situation revenue from lambs and kids 11018 based on receipts

adjusted to current prices It was assumed that in norm situation lambs

and kids were sold at 35 kg liveweight 0547kg The prices at 20 kg

liveweight and at weaning were Cpound 0625 and Cpound 0781 respectively A 5

death rate for lambs and kids was assumed Culling was estimated at

20 each year 5 of this was assumed to represent losses and the

remaining 15 of the culls sold at Cpound 125head It was assumed that

losses were directly related to productivity for every additional 10 kg

milk yield and 01 lambing ratio losses increased by 015 and by

005 respectively The revenue from wool and manure was estimated at

Cpound 0700 and Cpound 0500animal respectively (App Tables 16)

Variable costs include feed expenses (purchased or produced) other

expenses (veterinary hired labour) and interest on operating capitale

In the actual situation feed expenses for sheep remiddotprEHHlnted

the 95 of variable costs and 54 of total costs for goats these

percentages are 94 and 44 respectively (App Tables 1 and 2) In the

norm situation feed expenses for sheep or goats comprised approximately

95 of the variable costs ranging from 42-65 of the total costs

depending on the level of productivity direction of production and the

level of grazing (App Tables 3-5) The feed expenses forslle-epandmiddot

goats as percent of variable and total costs decreased from about

95-84 and increased from about 50-53 respectively depending on the

size of production unit (App Table 6)

Interest on operating capital represents 50 of the variable

costs at 8 interest rate

Fixed costs include rent of land family labour replacement

depreciation and interest on fixed capital

In the actual situation rent of land was charged for the area

under fodder crops while in the norm situation rent was charged only for

the area occupied by sheds and the milking parlour

- 16 shy

Family labour was valued atGpound 1600__p~r -wor~i~gslaY_~Ep_

ble 15 presents the labour requirements for 80 ewes or goats pr-ac t i c i rs

w or high grazing system at increasing levels of milk yield andmiddot

Lmbing or kidding ratios Also gives the calculation of the labou~

squ i r-ement s for the zero grazing system and increasing number of aniild

n this study it was assumed that 13 labour units(LbU) were c on tr i bu

ed by family labour and any additional labour w~cs treated as hired

abour-

The replacement was estimated at 20 of the value of animals

The annual depreciation rate of shed8 was estimated at 25

while interest rate used for sheds and livestock capital was 6

Total costs is the sum of variable and fixed costs and net profit the

difference between gross revenue and total coste (App Tables 1-6)

Return to labour (Cpoundwo~king day) was calculated by adding to the net

profit all labour costs and dividing this amount by the number of

working days (App Tables 1-6)

Return to capital () was calculated by adding to the net profit the

interest on operating and fixed capital and dividing the amount by tho

capital investments (excl land capital) and multiplied by 100 (App

Tables 1-6)

Farm income consisted of pai~ or imputed rent 9 remuneration of family

and hired labour interest charges and net profit (App Tables 1-6)

Cost to the government was computed from the v~lue of concentrates fed

using the coefficients of 039 and 043 for aault and young animals

respectively These coefficients represent the increase in percentaL~

of the present value of the concentrates which Would be paid by the

producers in the form of hi~her prices if marketing of feed grains waG

not regulated These coefficients were comI~t8d on the basis of the

difference of the prices for feed grains paid lJy the Government and t~l(

livestock producers and on the content of the concentrate mixtures in

the feed grains (App Tabl~s 3-6)

----------------

- 17 shy

App Table 1 Costs and Returns of Sheep Enterprises by Size Group (Actual)

--_SizebwrltuF (No of ewes)

30-50 50-80 80gt Mean Cpoundewe-----_-_-

No of observations 17 33 18 68

Average No of ewes 42 65 94 67 Milk production (kg) 2711 3442 5348 3764 Lambs Bold or consumed (No) 39 55 85 59 ------------------_shy

Ycilk and milk products 440 569 865 614 92 40middot9 Lambs 417 573 925 627 9 418 Culls 60 94 108 89 13 5middot8 Wool 28 48 71 49 07 31 Manure 19 30 41 30 04 18 Change of capital 71 136 55 98 15 6G

Gross Revenue Cpound 1037 1450 2056 1507 225 1000

Feed purchased 221 325 493 344 53 27 ~

Feed produced 72 118 103 103 15 77 Forage produced 150 246 379 257 38 19lt5 Other 6 8 12 8 01 0~5

Interest 18 28 39 29 04 20 ----------------___

Variable Costs Cpound 467 725 1026 741 111 ------ ------------_- shy

Rent of land 45 52 92 61 Family labour 342 436 529 437 )3 -I

~ IInterest and depreciation 48 66 85 66 -

-------~---------_ _

Fixed Costs Cpound 435 554 706 564

Total Costs bpound 902 1279 1732 1305 195 --__--____-__---shyNet profit Cpound 135 171 324 202 31

43- J

Return to labour (Cpoundworking day) 22 22 26 23

Return to capital () 101 101 128 108 Return over feed expenses Cpound 594 761 1081 804 Farm income Cf 588 753 1069 795 ---------------------~---------_

- 18 shy

Table 2 Costs and Returns of Goat Enterprises by Size Group (Actual)

Size group (lITo of gegtats )

30-50 50-80 80) Mean Ci-goat

No of observations 18 28 19 65

Average No of goats Milk production (kg) Kids sold or consumed (No)

39 4034

53

63 4439

71

98 6169 100

666 4833

74

Milk and milk products Kids Culls Manure Change of capital

331 552

54 19 97

364 704 80 28 71

505 1005 102

43 154

396 60 750 113 79 12 30 0middot5

103 15

293 551 59 24 73

Gross Revenue Cishy 1053 1247 1809 1358 20middot5 100 00

Feed purchased Feed produced Forage produced Other Interest

207 35

llO

7 14

236 53

156 8

18

263 36

304 17 25

236 43

186 II 19

3middot5 06 28 02 03

224 38

18J 13 loy

Variable Costs Cf 373 471 645 495 74 474

Rent of land Family labour Interest and depreciation

25 342 48

39 436

66

77 529 85

46 437

67

07 65 10

4middot5 417

64

Fixed Costs Cf 415 541 691 550 82 526

Total Costs Cf 788 1012 1336 1045 156 1000

Net Frofi t Cf 265 235 473 313 49

Return to labour (Cpoundworking day)

Return to capital () Return over feed expenses Farm income

Cf Of

28 169

700 694

24 128

802 794

30 17middot5 1206 1189

27 153 892 882

- 19 shy

App Table 3 Effect of Level of Produotivity and Direction of a) Produotion on the Costs and Returns of Sheep (Norm)

Milk yield (kgewe)

Lambing ratio

Milk Lambs Culls

Wool Manure

Gross Revenue

Feed for ewes i) Concentrates

ii) Hay amp straw Feed for lambs

i) Concentrates Other Interest

Variable Costs

Rent Famil y labour Replacement Depreciation Interest

Fixed Costs

Total Costs

Gross Profi t

Net Profit

Return to labour (Cpoundworking day)

Return to capital () Cost to the Government

deg 60 120 200

26 12 16 08

782 3781 1748 142 139

56 56 40 40

1565 2325 128

56 40

2608 1163

120 56 40

Cpound 4019 2765 4114 3986

676 464

988 446 12 12 67 37

728

601 12 54

720

294 12 41

Cpound 1743 959 1395 1067

2 2

364 449 544 504

19 19 82 82

2

534 608 19 82

2

590 640 19 82

ce 1011 1056 1245 1333

Cpound 2754 2015 2640 2400

Cpound 2276 1606 2719 2919

Cpound 1265 750 1474 1586

72 43 60 59 392 269 46middot7 521

Cpound 688 373 542 407

a) Assuming 80 8W~S and low grazing

- 20 shy

App Table 4 Effect of Level of Productivity and Direction of a) middotmiddotmiddot----middot --Produc_tiQ[l on the Costs and Returns of Goats (Norm) bull

bull bullbullbullbull ~ __R_ ~~__bullbullbull ~ bullbullbull _

-_ ----~ bull

Milk yield (kggoat)

Kidding ratio

0

34

80

16

160

20

2$0

13

Milk Lambs Culla

4511 137

717 2136 134

1434 2652 120

2503 1743

106

Manuremiddot 40 40 40 40

Gros smiddot R-eAfnu-e- Cpound 4688 3027 4246 4398

Feed for goats ) ConcentratesJ I

ii) Hay amp straw Feed for kids

i) Concentrates Other Interest

824

1023 12 74

560

482 12 42

832

601 12 58

928 ~

391 12 53

Variable Coiits Cpound 1933 1096 1503 1384

Rent Family labour Replacement Depreciation Interestmiddot_middotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddot

2 366 608 19 82

2 488 560

19 82

2 566 688 19 82

2 617 776 19 82

Fixed Cos is Cpound 1077 1151 1357 1496

Total Cost s Cpound 3010 2247 2860 J 2880

Gross Froht Cpound 2755 1931 2743 3014

Net PI-ofit

Cpound 1678 780 1386 151[

Return to labour (Cpoundworking day)

Return to capital () 89

493 42

274 55

436 505

480 Cost to the Oovernmen t --6pound---middot761 middot425 51n __

~_~- -- _--___-~ _ M bullbullbull_ bullbull___ R bullbullbull __bullbull __ bull

o _ bullbull

~301 __

a) Assuming 80 goats and low grazing

- 21 shy

App Table 5 Effect of Level of GraZirg on the Costs and Returns of Sheep and Goats (Norm) a

Shee~ Goats Level of gra~ing Zero Low High Zero Low Rigl

Milk yield (kgfemale animal) 120 120 120 160 160 16

Lambing or kidding ratio 16 16 16 20 20 2()

Milk 1565 1565 1565 1434 1434 l434 Lambs 2326 2326 2326 2652 2652 2652 Culls 128 128 128 120 120 120 Wool 56 56 56 Manure 40 40 40 40 40 40

Gross Revenue Cpound 4115 4115 4115 4246 4246 4246

Feed for ewes or goats i) Concentrates 1292 728 408 1508 832 505

ii) Ray amp straw 288 282 Feed for lambs or kids

i) Concentrates 601 601 601 602 602 602 Other 12 12 12 12 12 12 Interest 88 54 41 96 58 45

Variable Costs Cpound 2281 1395 1062 2500 1504 116r _ _-

Rent 2 2 2 2 L 2 Family labour 390 534 534 422 566 565 Replacement 608 608 608 688 688 68P Depreciation 19 19 19 19 19 1)

Interest 82 82 82 82 82 8e

Fixed Costs Cpound 1101 1245 1245 1213 1357 1357

Total Costs Cpound 3382 2640 2307 3713 2861 252

Gross Profit Cpound 18~4 2720 3053 1746 2743 30t)2

1Tet Profit Cpound 733 1475 1808 533 1385 1725

Return to labour (Cpoundworking day) 46 60 70 36 5middot5 65

Return to capital () 232 467 588 178 436 55( Feed cost to the Government Cpound 762 542 418 847 583 456

a) Assuming 80 female adult animals

- 22 shy

App Table 6 Bffect of the Size of the Pr-oduc t ion Unit on the Costs and Returns of Sheep and Goats (NJrm)

SheGE Goats

Ewes or goatsfarm 80 160 200 80 160 2()(I

Milk yield (kgfemale animal) 120 120 120 160 160 16~)

Lambing or kidding ratio 16 16 16 20 20 2 0

Milk 1565 3130 3912 1434 2867 35[1 Lambs 2326 4651 5814 2652 5305 66jl Culls 128 256 320 120 240 300 Wool 56 112 140 Manure 40 80 100 40 80 100

Gross Revenue Cpound 4115 8229 10286 4246 8492 10615

Feed for awes or goats i) Concentrates 728 1456 1820 832 1664 208

ii) Hay amp straw Feed for lambs or kids

i) Concentrates 601 1202 1502 602 1203 1504 Hired labour 203 385 266 4f- u_)

Other 12 24 30 12 24 jC)

Interest 54 115 150 58 126 163

Variable Costs Cpound 1395 3000 3887 1504 3283 42C

Rent 2 4 5 2 4 Family labour 534 624 624 566 624 621 Replacement 608 1216 1520 688 1376 1( 2(

Depreciation 19 32 40 19 32 4C Interest 82 159 198 82 159 19t

Fixed Costs Cpound 1245 2035 2387 1357 2195 255 _ _--_ __

Total Costs Cpound 2640 5035 6274 2860 5478 6521

Gross Profit Cpound 2720 5226 6399 2743 5209 Ggt7)

net Profit Cpound 1475 319L~ 4012 1385 3014 Ll3 -

Return to labour (Cpoundworking day) 60 78 80 5middot5 70 SoU

Return to capital () 467 510 510 436 475 538 Feed cost to the Government Cpound 542 1085 1356 583 1166 145[

- 23 ~

App Table 7 Prices Received and Paid

Prices received Unit Cpound-Milk sheep kg 0163

goat kg 0112 Lamb or kid

At leaning kg 1ivQwoight 0781 At 20 kg kg 0625 At 35 kg kg II 0547

Wool Cpoundanima1 0100 Manure Cpoundanima1 0500

Prices paid

Feed roughage

Straw ton 120 Cereal hay ton 200

Concentrates

Creep feed ton 500 15 crude protein (as fed) ton 458 13 crude protein (as fed) ton 438 11 crude protein (as fed) ton 400

Labour working day 16

Rent of land donum 15

App Table 8 Capital Investments

Land

Sheds for 80 female animals

160 female animals 200 female animals

Value of animals Ewes (0 kg milk 26 lambing ratio)

(60 kg milk 12 lambing ratio) (120 kg milk 16 lambing ratio ) (200 kg milk 08 lambing ratio)

Goats( 0 kg milk 34 kidding ratio) ~ 80 kg milk 16 kidding ratio) (160 kg milk 20 kiddinB ratio) (280 kg milk 13 kidding ratio)

Operating capital (50 of variable costs)

Cpounddonum 300

Cpoundshed 1800 Cpoundahed 13500 Cpoundshed 16600

CrJeue 330

315

380

400

Cpoundgoat 380

340

400

425

vpp Table 9 Gross RevenuG (Cpoundewe) at Incr-eas Ing LeveI s of Milk Yi o Ld and Lcml~ng Rc tios (rorm)

Millt Y i e 1 d (kg eVi8)Lambing ratio 0 20 4~ 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200

08 163 208 253 298 343 388 433 ~n 8 523 568 613 10 201 246 29 ~ 1 33~6 381 426 471 516 561 606 651

12 240 284 32~9 37~4 419 464 509 554 599 644 689 16 31 6 360 40~5 45o 495 540 585 630 675 720 765 18 355 398 44~3 488 533 578 623 668 713 758 803 22 431 474 519 56~4 609 654 699 744 789 834 879

26 508 550 5915 64+ 0 658 730 775 820 865 910 955 30 584 626 67h 71~6 761 806 851 896 941 986 1034

~--

- _ N

~

App Table 10 Gross Revenue (Cpoundgoat) at Increasing LeY11s of Milk Yield and Kidding Ratios (Norm) bull

M i llt Y i e 1 d (kg L~at) IKidding ratio

middot0 40 80 l~d 160 200 240 280 320 360 400

08 148 193 237 28~~ 327 372 41 7 461 506 551 596 12 218 263 307 35~2 397 442 487 531 576 621 666 16 287 333 37-7 42l~ 467 512 55middot7 601 646 691 736 20 355 403 447 49 ~ 2 537 582 627 671 716 761 806 24 -422 473 51 7 56~ 60middot7 652 697 74middot1 786 831 876

bull 28 488 543 58~7 632 677 722 767 811 856 901 946 32 564 613 65 ~ 7 70~~ 747 792 837 881 926 971 1016 36 634 683 72~7 772- 81 7 862 907 951 996 1041 1086

I

1)App Table 11 Concentrates Consumed (kgewe) Low Grazing System

Lambi ng Y i e 1 d i n mil k (kg ewe) ratio

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200

08 568 708 848 98 8 1128 1268 1408 1548 1688 1828 1968 LO 710 850 990 1130 127middot0 1410 1550 1690 1830 1970 2110 12 852 992 1132 1272 1412 1552 1692 1332 1972 2112 2252 16 1136 1276 1416 1556 1696 1836 1976 2116 2256 2396 2536 18 1278 1418 1558 1698 1838 1978 2118 2258 2398 2538 267middot8 22 1562 1702 1842 1982 2122 2262 2402 2542 2682 2822 2962 26 1846 1986 2126 2266 2406 2546 2686 2626 2966 3106 3246 30 2130 2270 2410 2550 2690 2830 2970 311 0 325middot0 3390 3530

ro1) I~aintenancerequirement of adult animals met by grazing V1

Assumptions for grazing systems

1 07 kg feeds of 15 crude protein (as fed basis) was fed per kg milk produced or sucked [iy 2 50 kg milk was suoked by each lamb from birth to weaning at 35 days 3 In late pregnancy each ewe received on the average 36 kg concentrates above maintenance for each lamb carried 4 In zero grazing maintenance requirements during the dry period were met by 06 kg straw and 05 kg

concentrates of 11 crude protein (as fed basis) [1~ I~ late pregnancy (6 weeks before lambing) and during lactation each ewe received 06 kg cereal hay and 04 kg concentrates to meet the maintenance requirements Other requirements in concentrates were met as in low grazing syste~

App liable 12 Conoentcates Consumed (kgg02t ) i Low Grazing SJ34~OT 1)- (I

----------------------T -----------~-_--------------------------------------------------shy

M gt~_~ LL~_~iJ~_8poundatl Kidding ratio

o 40 80 120 160 200 240 280 320 360 400 -----_ ------~---~ _- ----------__--__-----shy

08 528 768 1008 1248 138 1728 1960G 2208 24Li8 2688 2928 12 792 1032 1272 1512 175middot2 1992 2232 2472 271 2 2952 3192 16 1056 129 u 6 1536 ~-77 6 20l6 2256 2496 =736 2976 3216 3456 20 1320 1560 J80o 2040 2280 2520 2760 3000 3240 3480 3720 24 1584 1[24shy 2064 2304 2-~4middot 4 27S~4 3024 32604 350middot4 3 7 11++ 3984 28 1848 2038 23 28 2568 2808 30~ 8 328f3 ~)52 8 3768 4008 42~ 8

-3 ~ 211 2 2352 2592 2832 3072 3312 3552 37902 4032 4272 +51 2

______ 36

_-__ 2379

- 2616 2856 3096

___shy__ 3336 3576

_ 3826

middot 4056 L_~

429gt6 middot

L15306 _ _

4776

1) Maintenance requirements of adult animals met-JY grazing ro 0

~~~mption for grazing system

1 06 kg feed of 15 crude protein (as fed basis) was fed per kg milk produced or suoked 2 50 kg milk was sucked by each kid from birth to wean~ng at 70 days Partial suckling was practised from the

30th day onwards 3 In late pregnancy each goat received on the average 36 kg concentrates above maintenance for each kid carried 4 In zero grazing maintenance requirements in the dry period were met by 06 kg of straw and 05 kg of

concentrates of 11 crude protein (as fed basis)

29

- 27 shy

App Table 13 Feed Cost and Revenue for Lamb Fattening

Lambing ratio

08 10 12middot 16 18 22 26

aConcentrates (kg) I

Birth to weaning Weaning to 20 kg Birth to 20 kg 20 kg to 35 kg Birth to 35 kg

09 290 299 54~0

839

1 J 13 17 20 368middot 449 618 706 37middot9 462 635 726 675 810 1080 1215

1054 1272 1715 1941

24 890 914

1485 2399

1036 106e5 175middot5 2820

Saleable Iiveweight (kg)

at weaning at 20 kg at 35 kg

87 160 280

108 200 35middot0

12~8

24middot0 420

174198 320 360 56~0 630

249 44middot0 770

290 520 910

Feed expenses

at weaning mils 45 55 65 -85 100 120 145 to 20 kg Cf 14 17 21 29 33 42 49 __ to 35 kg Cf 37 46 56 7middot5 85 10middot5 123

Revenue Cf

Lamb sale Lamb sale Lamb sale

at weaning ~~ 20 kg at 35 kg

68 100shy153shy

gt ~_ bull bullbullbullbull ~-

84 125 191

100 136 150 200 230 306middot

15middot5 225 345

194 27middot5 421

226 32 c 49 e

Assumed birthweight 47 45 42 38

a) It was assumed that the protein content of the ooncentrates mixture feed from birth to weaning was 168 and from 20 to 35 kg 143 on dry matter basis [1[

- 28 shy

App Table 15 Labour Raquire~entl) for 80 poundMes or Goats Practising Low or High Grazing at Increasing Levels of Milk Yield and Lambing or Kidding Ratios

i

Lamhing Y i e 1 d i n mil k (kg Le_we) ratio

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 280

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - Lbua)production unit - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -08 0749 0813 0869 0933 1013 1069 1109 1149 1113 1205 1229 1283 10 0150 0814 0870 0934 1014 1010 1110 1150 1114 1206 1230 1284 12 0151 0815 0811 0935 1015 1011 1111 1151 1115 1201 1231 1285 14 0152 0816 0812 0936 1016 1012 1112 1152 1116 1208 1232 1286 16 0153 0811 0813 0937 1011 1013 1113 153 1117 1209 1234 1287 18 0154 0818 0874 0938 1018 1074 1114 1154 1178 1210 1235 1288 20 0155 0819 0875 0939 1019 1015 1115 1155 1119 1211 1236 1289 22 0756 0820 0876 0940 1020 1016 1116 1156 1180 1212 1237 1290 24 26

0151 0158

0821 0822

0871 0878

0941 0942

1022 1023

1017 1018

1111 1118

1157 1158

1181 1182

1213 1214

1238 1239

1291 1292

ro -D

28 0759 0823 0879 0943 1024 1019 1119 1159 1183 1215 1240 1293 30 0760 0824 0880 0middot944 1025 1080 1120 1160 1184 1216 1241 1 294 34 0162 0826 0882 0946 1027 1082 1122 1162 middot _____middot L_ 1186 1218 1242 1295

a) 1 LbU = 300 working days

1) Low and high grazing system Calculated as followsi

Labour requirement (LbU) = 015 + (lambing ratio - 10) x 0005 +

Labour for milkin~ (days)+ X No of female animals 300

+) Assuming 6 minutesanimalday

Zero grazing system Labour requiremunt (lbU) = Low or high grazing system (LbU) - 0300 for 80 female animals

- 0550 for 160 female animals - 0650 fOr 2rl) tomcIc animals

Page 14: FACTORS AFFECTING THE ECONOMICS OF SHEEP AND GOATSnews.ari.gov.cy/Publications/AER4-papas.pdfFACTORS AFFECTING THE ECONOMICS OF SHEEP AND GOATS . By . ... Costs and Returns of Goat

- 10 shy

A ~

2138 + 193X (r=091) YVC = 97 + 109X (r=064) For goat8~YGR = the respective equations were YGR = 1860 + 46x (r=035)A

Yvc = 4035 + 147X (r=061) Unlike [Sheep the r for the equation relating gross revenue and number of gOcits wus low This pr-o babl y

resul ted from wider vaz-La t i on in productivi ty among goat than ShbI

units It was apparent fro~ the inspectiun of the data from thE individual goat units that the per an i raaL output was par t i cu Lar-Ly

variable especially for small units

For the same data gross r-evenue and labour cost per an i mal decreQsed in lareer units especially in goats The advantag8s of

economics of size were cancelled by the decline in producticity which resulted in lower net returns per animal in the larger units The total rturns how8vGr were higher in the larger units but could have been consiclerably higher had the productivity of each animal been at the same level as in the small units

Table 6 Effect of Size of the Production Unit on the Gostsand Returns of Sheep and Goats (Actual)

Female animals per farm

Gross revenue Feed cost iTariable cost abour- cost Jet profit te tu r n to labour

Cpoundorking day eturn to capital () arm income

Sheep Goa ts

42 65 94 39 63

- -Cfenterprise unit shy - -

1037 1450 2056 1053 1247 18(9

443 690 975 701 797 1206

467 726 1026 373 471 645 342 436 529 342 436 529 135 171 324 265 235 473

22 22 26 28 24 3C 101 101 128 169 128 17 middot5

588 753 1069 694 794 IJ89

By corapa r-i ng the incremental bross revenue to the varLabl raquos ts from the low to the high level of pr-oduc t av i t y (Tah1e 5) and ~om the small to the large LeveI of s i z e (lable 6) it can be derived tat it is more profitable to increase prociuctivi ty per an i maI r-athor ~n increase their numbers

DISCUSSIOl AND COFCLUSI011S

Sheep and goat production can be Lnc r-eae ed by increasing Lt

oduc t i v i t y of the animals or by increasin~ the size of the an i maL pulation or by a combination of the two The returns to the iividual producer however~ are affecteu apart of the productivity other factors namely 1 the size of the production unit the level )i

~zing the management system and others

- 11 shy

The data in this study indicated the economic advantage 1 Jotl_ for the individual producer and the national economy of increasine the sheep and goat production by improving the productivity of the animals than by increasing the size of the population For ewes and goatB it is obvious from the comparison of actual and norm data that commer-ciiI

milk yield can be doubled and lambing ratio can increase by 30-40 by

using genetic material and knowledge already available in Cyprus The adoption of fQttening of lambs and kids at weights up to 35 kg is hindered by the strong demand for baby laUD and kid meat and the nee~

of producers for cash However these obs t acLes may be overCOJTW by eppr-opr-ia t e policy measures and consumer oduoa t ion

Th6 study of different directionG of production and in particular the all-meat versus the high milk - low meat direction showed that at the levels assumed the milk and meat direction was slightly superior to the all-meat direction in terms of net returns and lower cost to the Government Nevertheless thG all-meat direction is economically sound and may be used in s peo i aLj aed si tuations in which skilled labour is limited while good possibilities exist for high levels of grazing

The size of the production unit required to obtain a certain level of farm income J8pends on many factors such as the productivity of the animals and the level of grazing The numbers of adult female animals required to obtain farn income of Cpound 2000 are 121 and 75 for commercial milk yields of 60 and 120 kg and lambing ratioe of 12 ard

16 respectively Assuming that these yields represent roughly the Local and the Chios sheep it is apparent that any benefits from increasinb the present size of the production units would be much higher if the increase in size was coupled with higher productivity Presently the size of most sheeJ or goat production units is smal18r than the siz8 required to achi8ve farw income of Cpound 2000

The rroblem of deciding the size of the production unit has many complex aspects This is so becausu the livestock enterpris8 in most places is combined with crop production and the relative size of the two on t er-prLs ee is determined by economic and other factors In this respect the amount opound family labour~ the availability and size of grazing areas and feeds and the relative profitability of the livestOCK enterprise in comparison with pos s r ble al ternative farm enterprises weigh heavily in det er-iain i ng the size of the sheep or goat production units

From the data of thi s and an oar-Iier study L 9 ] it is suggested that op t i mum utilization of resources in a mixed type of farming requires production units with 120 - 130 animals In a norm situation for numbers up to 1000 animals the returns to size were higher than zero suggesting that at present economies of siZe have not

- 12 shy

been exploited Of course larger production units do not neces5~rily

imply larger animal population th ey may resul t also from reorganizatior

of the existing population to larger economically viaole units

The level of grazing is inversely related to the feeding costs but increases labour cost The decrease in feeding cost frod

higher level of grazing is considerably higher than the increase in

labour cost There is no doubt that higher grazing level wilen possible J is economically beneficial both to the individual producGr

and the national economy and could be easily combined with the all-~~~t

direction of production It is proposed th~t the price of concentrstcO)

presently regulated by thE Government through the system of SUbsidies be kept at such level which will encourage the optimum utilization of

straw pastures and agricultural by-products

The goat production units (actual) were more variable than sheep units in the level of productivitJ-9 direction of production feeding prograDme and size Smaller goat units tended to be more productive consumed more concentrates per female animal and producei higher returns per animal than larger units This suggests that large units Hith low producing animals practised more grazing On the averagG 9 the gross revenue was higher for sheep but net returns from goats were slightly higher These differences were primarily due to higher level of grazing for goats than for sheep This comparison if

based on the average of the production units studied ~nd could not bE extrapolated to comparison of specific breeds of sheep and goats A comparative study of the Chios sheep and Damascus goat under norm

conditions was initiated at this Institute

- 13 shy

SUIDIARY

Data from 68 sheep 65 goat private production units (actual situation) and from Gov~rnment units (norm situationr were used to coraput c costs and returns and to study the main fa c t or-s affecting tht econooics of shoGp and goats in Cyprus The main conclusions of this study can be summarized as follows

1 It is more profitable as a ~irst step to incrGasG productivity per animal rather than increase their numbers With available gonetic material ana knowledge it is possible to double tho present milk yields and increase the number of lambs or kids per female animal by 30-40

2F~ttGning of lambs or kids at prosGnt prices can increase total and net returns SUbstantially with profound ~conomic advantages for the individual producer and tho national economy

3 The study of di~ferent directions of ~roduction showed that the milk and mlat direction was slightly suporior to the all-moat directionH01iGVer thE a I Le-meat di re c t i on of production may bo a sound economic alternative mainly in situations where good possibilities exist for high lcvul of razing and skilled labour is limited

4 The feed cost for high level of grazing was only half the cost for middotindoor fcodLng The loer fe ed cost 18S ruflectcd in higher net returns for the razing systems The cost differential between cost of grazing and fecding of concentrates should be adjusted to promoto grazing 8t th8 IGvlol which will mClOt at the minimum the maintenance r-oqu i r-crucn t s of auuI t animalsmiddot

5 With present 18v~ls of productivity 168 ewes or 151 goats arc roquirlQ to produclo farm incomb of Cpound 2000 In norm situations 75 OWbS pr-oducdng 120 kg milk and 16 1(111bs could I~roduc8 thc same income For this LcvcI of productivi ty the r-espec t i v- numbers for z er-o low and high grazing nystems war_ 123 75 and 65 ewes

Th authors gratefully acknowlGdge tl1G cooperation of ahoe p and goat producers and the assistancE providod by all members of the Agricultural Economics Slction

RLFERLFCES

1 Louca A Pr-eLimanar-y r-csuI ts on tho por-formarice of pur-ebr-ed and cross-bred sllecp Paper prosGDtcd a~ the RGgional Workshop for shclp and forage improvement February 11-14 1974 in Buirut~ Lebanon

- 14 shy

2 Chimonides 1 1972 Some faotors affGoting the productivity of DamQscus goats in Cyprus MS Thesis American University of Bei r-ut L8b~~lO[

3 Planning Bureau ThE first (1962-66) the second (1967-71) and t hlaquo

third (1972-76) Five Year Plan Planning Rur~au

Nioosia Cyprus

4 Agrioulturul Research Institute 1964 Cost and Returns of Shlq

and goats Agric Res Inst Nioosia Cyprus

5 Louca A Personal c omruurri ca t i cn Agrioultural Research Institute Nioosia Cyprus

6 Hadjipanayiotou M and Louca A 1975 PhG Effeots of partial suckling on the lactation Derformance of Chios sheep and Damasous goats and the growth rate of the lambs and kids (in preparation) Agricultural Research Institute Nicosia Cyprus

7 Louca A 1972 The effect of suckling regime on grmdh rate and laotation performance of the Cyprus Fat-tailed amI Chios sheep Anim Prod 15~53-59

8 Louca A ~ Mavr-ogen i s A and Lawlor ~1J 1975 ThE effect of early weaning on the laotation performanoe of Damascus goats and the growth rate of the kidb Anim Prod 20 213-218

9 Papachristodoulou S and Papas A 1975 The bconomios of drylan~

mixed farming in Cyprus Agrioultural Research Institute Nicosia~ Cyprus

10 Papachristodoulou S 1974 (Restrioted) Dryland Mixed Farwing A technical and economic anaLys i s of some typical fnrl~

participated in the Mixed Farming Project during 1968-1972 Agricultural Research ~nstitute Nicosia Cyprus

11 Papas A 1975 Protein requirements of ewes during laotution (in IJreparation) Agrioultural REJsearch Lns t i tu t e Nicosia Cyprus

12 Papas A 1975 Protein requirements of ewes during maintenanoe (in preparation) Agricultural Res~arch Institute Nioosia Cyprus

13 Papas~ A 1975 The protein requirements of early weaned lambs (in preparation) Agricultural Researoh Institutc 9

Nioosia CYfrus

- 15 shy

lTA P P E D I x

COHPUTATION OF DnUT-OUTPUT DATA OF SHEEP MID GOATS-Gross revenue is the total value of milkmeat cUlls wool and manuree

Sheep milk was sold at Cpound 0163kg and goat milk at Cpound 0112kg In the

actual situation revenue from lambs and kids 11018 based on receipts

adjusted to current prices It was assumed that in norm situation lambs

and kids were sold at 35 kg liveweight 0547kg The prices at 20 kg

liveweight and at weaning were Cpound 0625 and Cpound 0781 respectively A 5

death rate for lambs and kids was assumed Culling was estimated at

20 each year 5 of this was assumed to represent losses and the

remaining 15 of the culls sold at Cpound 125head It was assumed that

losses were directly related to productivity for every additional 10 kg

milk yield and 01 lambing ratio losses increased by 015 and by

005 respectively The revenue from wool and manure was estimated at

Cpound 0700 and Cpound 0500animal respectively (App Tables 16)

Variable costs include feed expenses (purchased or produced) other

expenses (veterinary hired labour) and interest on operating capitale

In the actual situation feed expenses for sheep remiddotprEHHlnted

the 95 of variable costs and 54 of total costs for goats these

percentages are 94 and 44 respectively (App Tables 1 and 2) In the

norm situation feed expenses for sheep or goats comprised approximately

95 of the variable costs ranging from 42-65 of the total costs

depending on the level of productivity direction of production and the

level of grazing (App Tables 3-5) The feed expenses forslle-epandmiddot

goats as percent of variable and total costs decreased from about

95-84 and increased from about 50-53 respectively depending on the

size of production unit (App Table 6)

Interest on operating capital represents 50 of the variable

costs at 8 interest rate

Fixed costs include rent of land family labour replacement

depreciation and interest on fixed capital

In the actual situation rent of land was charged for the area

under fodder crops while in the norm situation rent was charged only for

the area occupied by sheds and the milking parlour

- 16 shy

Family labour was valued atGpound 1600__p~r -wor~i~gslaY_~Ep_

ble 15 presents the labour requirements for 80 ewes or goats pr-ac t i c i rs

w or high grazing system at increasing levels of milk yield andmiddot

Lmbing or kidding ratios Also gives the calculation of the labou~

squ i r-ement s for the zero grazing system and increasing number of aniild

n this study it was assumed that 13 labour units(LbU) were c on tr i bu

ed by family labour and any additional labour w~cs treated as hired

abour-

The replacement was estimated at 20 of the value of animals

The annual depreciation rate of shed8 was estimated at 25

while interest rate used for sheds and livestock capital was 6

Total costs is the sum of variable and fixed costs and net profit the

difference between gross revenue and total coste (App Tables 1-6)

Return to labour (Cpoundwo~king day) was calculated by adding to the net

profit all labour costs and dividing this amount by the number of

working days (App Tables 1-6)

Return to capital () was calculated by adding to the net profit the

interest on operating and fixed capital and dividing the amount by tho

capital investments (excl land capital) and multiplied by 100 (App

Tables 1-6)

Farm income consisted of pai~ or imputed rent 9 remuneration of family

and hired labour interest charges and net profit (App Tables 1-6)

Cost to the government was computed from the v~lue of concentrates fed

using the coefficients of 039 and 043 for aault and young animals

respectively These coefficients represent the increase in percentaL~

of the present value of the concentrates which Would be paid by the

producers in the form of hi~her prices if marketing of feed grains waG

not regulated These coefficients were comI~t8d on the basis of the

difference of the prices for feed grains paid lJy the Government and t~l(

livestock producers and on the content of the concentrate mixtures in

the feed grains (App Tabl~s 3-6)

----------------

- 17 shy

App Table 1 Costs and Returns of Sheep Enterprises by Size Group (Actual)

--_SizebwrltuF (No of ewes)

30-50 50-80 80gt Mean Cpoundewe-----_-_-

No of observations 17 33 18 68

Average No of ewes 42 65 94 67 Milk production (kg) 2711 3442 5348 3764 Lambs Bold or consumed (No) 39 55 85 59 ------------------_shy

Ycilk and milk products 440 569 865 614 92 40middot9 Lambs 417 573 925 627 9 418 Culls 60 94 108 89 13 5middot8 Wool 28 48 71 49 07 31 Manure 19 30 41 30 04 18 Change of capital 71 136 55 98 15 6G

Gross Revenue Cpound 1037 1450 2056 1507 225 1000

Feed purchased 221 325 493 344 53 27 ~

Feed produced 72 118 103 103 15 77 Forage produced 150 246 379 257 38 19lt5 Other 6 8 12 8 01 0~5

Interest 18 28 39 29 04 20 ----------------___

Variable Costs Cpound 467 725 1026 741 111 ------ ------------_- shy

Rent of land 45 52 92 61 Family labour 342 436 529 437 )3 -I

~ IInterest and depreciation 48 66 85 66 -

-------~---------_ _

Fixed Costs Cpound 435 554 706 564

Total Costs bpound 902 1279 1732 1305 195 --__--____-__---shyNet profit Cpound 135 171 324 202 31

43- J

Return to labour (Cpoundworking day) 22 22 26 23

Return to capital () 101 101 128 108 Return over feed expenses Cpound 594 761 1081 804 Farm income Cf 588 753 1069 795 ---------------------~---------_

- 18 shy

Table 2 Costs and Returns of Goat Enterprises by Size Group (Actual)

Size group (lITo of gegtats )

30-50 50-80 80) Mean Ci-goat

No of observations 18 28 19 65

Average No of goats Milk production (kg) Kids sold or consumed (No)

39 4034

53

63 4439

71

98 6169 100

666 4833

74

Milk and milk products Kids Culls Manure Change of capital

331 552

54 19 97

364 704 80 28 71

505 1005 102

43 154

396 60 750 113 79 12 30 0middot5

103 15

293 551 59 24 73

Gross Revenue Cishy 1053 1247 1809 1358 20middot5 100 00

Feed purchased Feed produced Forage produced Other Interest

207 35

llO

7 14

236 53

156 8

18

263 36

304 17 25

236 43

186 II 19

3middot5 06 28 02 03

224 38

18J 13 loy

Variable Costs Cf 373 471 645 495 74 474

Rent of land Family labour Interest and depreciation

25 342 48

39 436

66

77 529 85

46 437

67

07 65 10

4middot5 417

64

Fixed Costs Cf 415 541 691 550 82 526

Total Costs Cf 788 1012 1336 1045 156 1000

Net Frofi t Cf 265 235 473 313 49

Return to labour (Cpoundworking day)

Return to capital () Return over feed expenses Farm income

Cf Of

28 169

700 694

24 128

802 794

30 17middot5 1206 1189

27 153 892 882

- 19 shy

App Table 3 Effect of Level of Produotivity and Direction of a) Produotion on the Costs and Returns of Sheep (Norm)

Milk yield (kgewe)

Lambing ratio

Milk Lambs Culls

Wool Manure

Gross Revenue

Feed for ewes i) Concentrates

ii) Hay amp straw Feed for lambs

i) Concentrates Other Interest

Variable Costs

Rent Famil y labour Replacement Depreciation Interest

Fixed Costs

Total Costs

Gross Profi t

Net Profit

Return to labour (Cpoundworking day)

Return to capital () Cost to the Government

deg 60 120 200

26 12 16 08

782 3781 1748 142 139

56 56 40 40

1565 2325 128

56 40

2608 1163

120 56 40

Cpound 4019 2765 4114 3986

676 464

988 446 12 12 67 37

728

601 12 54

720

294 12 41

Cpound 1743 959 1395 1067

2 2

364 449 544 504

19 19 82 82

2

534 608 19 82

2

590 640 19 82

ce 1011 1056 1245 1333

Cpound 2754 2015 2640 2400

Cpound 2276 1606 2719 2919

Cpound 1265 750 1474 1586

72 43 60 59 392 269 46middot7 521

Cpound 688 373 542 407

a) Assuming 80 8W~S and low grazing

- 20 shy

App Table 4 Effect of Level of Productivity and Direction of a) middotmiddotmiddot----middot --Produc_tiQ[l on the Costs and Returns of Goats (Norm) bull

bull bullbullbullbull ~ __R_ ~~__bullbullbull ~ bullbullbull _

-_ ----~ bull

Milk yield (kggoat)

Kidding ratio

0

34

80

16

160

20

2$0

13

Milk Lambs Culla

4511 137

717 2136 134

1434 2652 120

2503 1743

106

Manuremiddot 40 40 40 40

Gros smiddot R-eAfnu-e- Cpound 4688 3027 4246 4398

Feed for goats ) ConcentratesJ I

ii) Hay amp straw Feed for kids

i) Concentrates Other Interest

824

1023 12 74

560

482 12 42

832

601 12 58

928 ~

391 12 53

Variable Coiits Cpound 1933 1096 1503 1384

Rent Family labour Replacement Depreciation Interestmiddot_middotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddot

2 366 608 19 82

2 488 560

19 82

2 566 688 19 82

2 617 776 19 82

Fixed Cos is Cpound 1077 1151 1357 1496

Total Cost s Cpound 3010 2247 2860 J 2880

Gross Froht Cpound 2755 1931 2743 3014

Net PI-ofit

Cpound 1678 780 1386 151[

Return to labour (Cpoundworking day)

Return to capital () 89

493 42

274 55

436 505

480 Cost to the Oovernmen t --6pound---middot761 middot425 51n __

~_~- -- _--___-~ _ M bullbullbull_ bullbull___ R bullbullbull __bullbull __ bull

o _ bullbull

~301 __

a) Assuming 80 goats and low grazing

- 21 shy

App Table 5 Effect of Level of GraZirg on the Costs and Returns of Sheep and Goats (Norm) a

Shee~ Goats Level of gra~ing Zero Low High Zero Low Rigl

Milk yield (kgfemale animal) 120 120 120 160 160 16

Lambing or kidding ratio 16 16 16 20 20 2()

Milk 1565 1565 1565 1434 1434 l434 Lambs 2326 2326 2326 2652 2652 2652 Culls 128 128 128 120 120 120 Wool 56 56 56 Manure 40 40 40 40 40 40

Gross Revenue Cpound 4115 4115 4115 4246 4246 4246

Feed for ewes or goats i) Concentrates 1292 728 408 1508 832 505

ii) Ray amp straw 288 282 Feed for lambs or kids

i) Concentrates 601 601 601 602 602 602 Other 12 12 12 12 12 12 Interest 88 54 41 96 58 45

Variable Costs Cpound 2281 1395 1062 2500 1504 116r _ _-

Rent 2 2 2 2 L 2 Family labour 390 534 534 422 566 565 Replacement 608 608 608 688 688 68P Depreciation 19 19 19 19 19 1)

Interest 82 82 82 82 82 8e

Fixed Costs Cpound 1101 1245 1245 1213 1357 1357

Total Costs Cpound 3382 2640 2307 3713 2861 252

Gross Profit Cpound 18~4 2720 3053 1746 2743 30t)2

1Tet Profit Cpound 733 1475 1808 533 1385 1725

Return to labour (Cpoundworking day) 46 60 70 36 5middot5 65

Return to capital () 232 467 588 178 436 55( Feed cost to the Government Cpound 762 542 418 847 583 456

a) Assuming 80 female adult animals

- 22 shy

App Table 6 Bffect of the Size of the Pr-oduc t ion Unit on the Costs and Returns of Sheep and Goats (NJrm)

SheGE Goats

Ewes or goatsfarm 80 160 200 80 160 2()(I

Milk yield (kgfemale animal) 120 120 120 160 160 16~)

Lambing or kidding ratio 16 16 16 20 20 2 0

Milk 1565 3130 3912 1434 2867 35[1 Lambs 2326 4651 5814 2652 5305 66jl Culls 128 256 320 120 240 300 Wool 56 112 140 Manure 40 80 100 40 80 100

Gross Revenue Cpound 4115 8229 10286 4246 8492 10615

Feed for awes or goats i) Concentrates 728 1456 1820 832 1664 208

ii) Hay amp straw Feed for lambs or kids

i) Concentrates 601 1202 1502 602 1203 1504 Hired labour 203 385 266 4f- u_)

Other 12 24 30 12 24 jC)

Interest 54 115 150 58 126 163

Variable Costs Cpound 1395 3000 3887 1504 3283 42C

Rent 2 4 5 2 4 Family labour 534 624 624 566 624 621 Replacement 608 1216 1520 688 1376 1( 2(

Depreciation 19 32 40 19 32 4C Interest 82 159 198 82 159 19t

Fixed Costs Cpound 1245 2035 2387 1357 2195 255 _ _--_ __

Total Costs Cpound 2640 5035 6274 2860 5478 6521

Gross Profit Cpound 2720 5226 6399 2743 5209 Ggt7)

net Profit Cpound 1475 319L~ 4012 1385 3014 Ll3 -

Return to labour (Cpoundworking day) 60 78 80 5middot5 70 SoU

Return to capital () 467 510 510 436 475 538 Feed cost to the Government Cpound 542 1085 1356 583 1166 145[

- 23 ~

App Table 7 Prices Received and Paid

Prices received Unit Cpound-Milk sheep kg 0163

goat kg 0112 Lamb or kid

At leaning kg 1ivQwoight 0781 At 20 kg kg 0625 At 35 kg kg II 0547

Wool Cpoundanima1 0100 Manure Cpoundanima1 0500

Prices paid

Feed roughage

Straw ton 120 Cereal hay ton 200

Concentrates

Creep feed ton 500 15 crude protein (as fed) ton 458 13 crude protein (as fed) ton 438 11 crude protein (as fed) ton 400

Labour working day 16

Rent of land donum 15

App Table 8 Capital Investments

Land

Sheds for 80 female animals

160 female animals 200 female animals

Value of animals Ewes (0 kg milk 26 lambing ratio)

(60 kg milk 12 lambing ratio) (120 kg milk 16 lambing ratio ) (200 kg milk 08 lambing ratio)

Goats( 0 kg milk 34 kidding ratio) ~ 80 kg milk 16 kidding ratio) (160 kg milk 20 kiddinB ratio) (280 kg milk 13 kidding ratio)

Operating capital (50 of variable costs)

Cpounddonum 300

Cpoundshed 1800 Cpoundahed 13500 Cpoundshed 16600

CrJeue 330

315

380

400

Cpoundgoat 380

340

400

425

vpp Table 9 Gross RevenuG (Cpoundewe) at Incr-eas Ing LeveI s of Milk Yi o Ld and Lcml~ng Rc tios (rorm)

Millt Y i e 1 d (kg eVi8)Lambing ratio 0 20 4~ 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200

08 163 208 253 298 343 388 433 ~n 8 523 568 613 10 201 246 29 ~ 1 33~6 381 426 471 516 561 606 651

12 240 284 32~9 37~4 419 464 509 554 599 644 689 16 31 6 360 40~5 45o 495 540 585 630 675 720 765 18 355 398 44~3 488 533 578 623 668 713 758 803 22 431 474 519 56~4 609 654 699 744 789 834 879

26 508 550 5915 64+ 0 658 730 775 820 865 910 955 30 584 626 67h 71~6 761 806 851 896 941 986 1034

~--

- _ N

~

App Table 10 Gross Revenue (Cpoundgoat) at Increasing LeY11s of Milk Yield and Kidding Ratios (Norm) bull

M i llt Y i e 1 d (kg L~at) IKidding ratio

middot0 40 80 l~d 160 200 240 280 320 360 400

08 148 193 237 28~~ 327 372 41 7 461 506 551 596 12 218 263 307 35~2 397 442 487 531 576 621 666 16 287 333 37-7 42l~ 467 512 55middot7 601 646 691 736 20 355 403 447 49 ~ 2 537 582 627 671 716 761 806 24 -422 473 51 7 56~ 60middot7 652 697 74middot1 786 831 876

bull 28 488 543 58~7 632 677 722 767 811 856 901 946 32 564 613 65 ~ 7 70~~ 747 792 837 881 926 971 1016 36 634 683 72~7 772- 81 7 862 907 951 996 1041 1086

I

1)App Table 11 Concentrates Consumed (kgewe) Low Grazing System

Lambi ng Y i e 1 d i n mil k (kg ewe) ratio

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200

08 568 708 848 98 8 1128 1268 1408 1548 1688 1828 1968 LO 710 850 990 1130 127middot0 1410 1550 1690 1830 1970 2110 12 852 992 1132 1272 1412 1552 1692 1332 1972 2112 2252 16 1136 1276 1416 1556 1696 1836 1976 2116 2256 2396 2536 18 1278 1418 1558 1698 1838 1978 2118 2258 2398 2538 267middot8 22 1562 1702 1842 1982 2122 2262 2402 2542 2682 2822 2962 26 1846 1986 2126 2266 2406 2546 2686 2626 2966 3106 3246 30 2130 2270 2410 2550 2690 2830 2970 311 0 325middot0 3390 3530

ro1) I~aintenancerequirement of adult animals met by grazing V1

Assumptions for grazing systems

1 07 kg feeds of 15 crude protein (as fed basis) was fed per kg milk produced or sucked [iy 2 50 kg milk was suoked by each lamb from birth to weaning at 35 days 3 In late pregnancy each ewe received on the average 36 kg concentrates above maintenance for each lamb carried 4 In zero grazing maintenance requirements during the dry period were met by 06 kg straw and 05 kg

concentrates of 11 crude protein (as fed basis) [1~ I~ late pregnancy (6 weeks before lambing) and during lactation each ewe received 06 kg cereal hay and 04 kg concentrates to meet the maintenance requirements Other requirements in concentrates were met as in low grazing syste~

App liable 12 Conoentcates Consumed (kgg02t ) i Low Grazing SJ34~OT 1)- (I

----------------------T -----------~-_--------------------------------------------------shy

M gt~_~ LL~_~iJ~_8poundatl Kidding ratio

o 40 80 120 160 200 240 280 320 360 400 -----_ ------~---~ _- ----------__--__-----shy

08 528 768 1008 1248 138 1728 1960G 2208 24Li8 2688 2928 12 792 1032 1272 1512 175middot2 1992 2232 2472 271 2 2952 3192 16 1056 129 u 6 1536 ~-77 6 20l6 2256 2496 =736 2976 3216 3456 20 1320 1560 J80o 2040 2280 2520 2760 3000 3240 3480 3720 24 1584 1[24shy 2064 2304 2-~4middot 4 27S~4 3024 32604 350middot4 3 7 11++ 3984 28 1848 2038 23 28 2568 2808 30~ 8 328f3 ~)52 8 3768 4008 42~ 8

-3 ~ 211 2 2352 2592 2832 3072 3312 3552 37902 4032 4272 +51 2

______ 36

_-__ 2379

- 2616 2856 3096

___shy__ 3336 3576

_ 3826

middot 4056 L_~

429gt6 middot

L15306 _ _

4776

1) Maintenance requirements of adult animals met-JY grazing ro 0

~~~mption for grazing system

1 06 kg feed of 15 crude protein (as fed basis) was fed per kg milk produced or suoked 2 50 kg milk was sucked by each kid from birth to wean~ng at 70 days Partial suckling was practised from the

30th day onwards 3 In late pregnancy each goat received on the average 36 kg concentrates above maintenance for each kid carried 4 In zero grazing maintenance requirements in the dry period were met by 06 kg of straw and 05 kg of

concentrates of 11 crude protein (as fed basis)

29

- 27 shy

App Table 13 Feed Cost and Revenue for Lamb Fattening

Lambing ratio

08 10 12middot 16 18 22 26

aConcentrates (kg) I

Birth to weaning Weaning to 20 kg Birth to 20 kg 20 kg to 35 kg Birth to 35 kg

09 290 299 54~0

839

1 J 13 17 20 368middot 449 618 706 37middot9 462 635 726 675 810 1080 1215

1054 1272 1715 1941

24 890 914

1485 2399

1036 106e5 175middot5 2820

Saleable Iiveweight (kg)

at weaning at 20 kg at 35 kg

87 160 280

108 200 35middot0

12~8

24middot0 420

174198 320 360 56~0 630

249 44middot0 770

290 520 910

Feed expenses

at weaning mils 45 55 65 -85 100 120 145 to 20 kg Cf 14 17 21 29 33 42 49 __ to 35 kg Cf 37 46 56 7middot5 85 10middot5 123

Revenue Cf

Lamb sale Lamb sale Lamb sale

at weaning ~~ 20 kg at 35 kg

68 100shy153shy

gt ~_ bull bullbullbullbull ~-

84 125 191

100 136 150 200 230 306middot

15middot5 225 345

194 27middot5 421

226 32 c 49 e

Assumed birthweight 47 45 42 38

a) It was assumed that the protein content of the ooncentrates mixture feed from birth to weaning was 168 and from 20 to 35 kg 143 on dry matter basis [1[

- 28 shy

App Table 15 Labour Raquire~entl) for 80 poundMes or Goats Practising Low or High Grazing at Increasing Levels of Milk Yield and Lambing or Kidding Ratios

i

Lamhing Y i e 1 d i n mil k (kg Le_we) ratio

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 280

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - Lbua)production unit - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -08 0749 0813 0869 0933 1013 1069 1109 1149 1113 1205 1229 1283 10 0150 0814 0870 0934 1014 1010 1110 1150 1114 1206 1230 1284 12 0151 0815 0811 0935 1015 1011 1111 1151 1115 1201 1231 1285 14 0152 0816 0812 0936 1016 1012 1112 1152 1116 1208 1232 1286 16 0153 0811 0813 0937 1011 1013 1113 153 1117 1209 1234 1287 18 0154 0818 0874 0938 1018 1074 1114 1154 1178 1210 1235 1288 20 0155 0819 0875 0939 1019 1015 1115 1155 1119 1211 1236 1289 22 0756 0820 0876 0940 1020 1016 1116 1156 1180 1212 1237 1290 24 26

0151 0158

0821 0822

0871 0878

0941 0942

1022 1023

1017 1018

1111 1118

1157 1158

1181 1182

1213 1214

1238 1239

1291 1292

ro -D

28 0759 0823 0879 0943 1024 1019 1119 1159 1183 1215 1240 1293 30 0760 0824 0880 0middot944 1025 1080 1120 1160 1184 1216 1241 1 294 34 0162 0826 0882 0946 1027 1082 1122 1162 middot _____middot L_ 1186 1218 1242 1295

a) 1 LbU = 300 working days

1) Low and high grazing system Calculated as followsi

Labour requirement (LbU) = 015 + (lambing ratio - 10) x 0005 +

Labour for milkin~ (days)+ X No of female animals 300

+) Assuming 6 minutesanimalday

Zero grazing system Labour requiremunt (lbU) = Low or high grazing system (LbU) - 0300 for 80 female animals

- 0550 for 160 female animals - 0650 fOr 2rl) tomcIc animals

Page 15: FACTORS AFFECTING THE ECONOMICS OF SHEEP AND GOATSnews.ari.gov.cy/Publications/AER4-papas.pdfFACTORS AFFECTING THE ECONOMICS OF SHEEP AND GOATS . By . ... Costs and Returns of Goat

- 11 shy

The data in this study indicated the economic advantage 1 Jotl_ for the individual producer and the national economy of increasine the sheep and goat production by improving the productivity of the animals than by increasing the size of the population For ewes and goatB it is obvious from the comparison of actual and norm data that commer-ciiI

milk yield can be doubled and lambing ratio can increase by 30-40 by

using genetic material and knowledge already available in Cyprus The adoption of fQttening of lambs and kids at weights up to 35 kg is hindered by the strong demand for baby laUD and kid meat and the nee~

of producers for cash However these obs t acLes may be overCOJTW by eppr-opr-ia t e policy measures and consumer oduoa t ion

Th6 study of different directionG of production and in particular the all-meat versus the high milk - low meat direction showed that at the levels assumed the milk and meat direction was slightly superior to the all-meat direction in terms of net returns and lower cost to the Government Nevertheless thG all-meat direction is economically sound and may be used in s peo i aLj aed si tuations in which skilled labour is limited while good possibilities exist for high levels of grazing

The size of the production unit required to obtain a certain level of farm income J8pends on many factors such as the productivity of the animals and the level of grazing The numbers of adult female animals required to obtain farn income of Cpound 2000 are 121 and 75 for commercial milk yields of 60 and 120 kg and lambing ratioe of 12 ard

16 respectively Assuming that these yields represent roughly the Local and the Chios sheep it is apparent that any benefits from increasinb the present size of the production units would be much higher if the increase in size was coupled with higher productivity Presently the size of most sheeJ or goat production units is smal18r than the siz8 required to achi8ve farw income of Cpound 2000

The rroblem of deciding the size of the production unit has many complex aspects This is so becausu the livestock enterpris8 in most places is combined with crop production and the relative size of the two on t er-prLs ee is determined by economic and other factors In this respect the amount opound family labour~ the availability and size of grazing areas and feeds and the relative profitability of the livestOCK enterprise in comparison with pos s r ble al ternative farm enterprises weigh heavily in det er-iain i ng the size of the sheep or goat production units

From the data of thi s and an oar-Iier study L 9 ] it is suggested that op t i mum utilization of resources in a mixed type of farming requires production units with 120 - 130 animals In a norm situation for numbers up to 1000 animals the returns to size were higher than zero suggesting that at present economies of siZe have not

- 12 shy

been exploited Of course larger production units do not neces5~rily

imply larger animal population th ey may resul t also from reorganizatior

of the existing population to larger economically viaole units

The level of grazing is inversely related to the feeding costs but increases labour cost The decrease in feeding cost frod

higher level of grazing is considerably higher than the increase in

labour cost There is no doubt that higher grazing level wilen possible J is economically beneficial both to the individual producGr

and the national economy and could be easily combined with the all-~~~t

direction of production It is proposed th~t the price of concentrstcO)

presently regulated by thE Government through the system of SUbsidies be kept at such level which will encourage the optimum utilization of

straw pastures and agricultural by-products

The goat production units (actual) were more variable than sheep units in the level of productivitJ-9 direction of production feeding prograDme and size Smaller goat units tended to be more productive consumed more concentrates per female animal and producei higher returns per animal than larger units This suggests that large units Hith low producing animals practised more grazing On the averagG 9 the gross revenue was higher for sheep but net returns from goats were slightly higher These differences were primarily due to higher level of grazing for goats than for sheep This comparison if

based on the average of the production units studied ~nd could not bE extrapolated to comparison of specific breeds of sheep and goats A comparative study of the Chios sheep and Damascus goat under norm

conditions was initiated at this Institute

- 13 shy

SUIDIARY

Data from 68 sheep 65 goat private production units (actual situation) and from Gov~rnment units (norm situationr were used to coraput c costs and returns and to study the main fa c t or-s affecting tht econooics of shoGp and goats in Cyprus The main conclusions of this study can be summarized as follows

1 It is more profitable as a ~irst step to incrGasG productivity per animal rather than increase their numbers With available gonetic material ana knowledge it is possible to double tho present milk yields and increase the number of lambs or kids per female animal by 30-40

2F~ttGning of lambs or kids at prosGnt prices can increase total and net returns SUbstantially with profound ~conomic advantages for the individual producer and tho national economy

3 The study of di~ferent directions of ~roduction showed that the milk and mlat direction was slightly suporior to the all-moat directionH01iGVer thE a I Le-meat di re c t i on of production may bo a sound economic alternative mainly in situations where good possibilities exist for high lcvul of razing and skilled labour is limited

4 The feed cost for high level of grazing was only half the cost for middotindoor fcodLng The loer fe ed cost 18S ruflectcd in higher net returns for the razing systems The cost differential between cost of grazing and fecding of concentrates should be adjusted to promoto grazing 8t th8 IGvlol which will mClOt at the minimum the maintenance r-oqu i r-crucn t s of auuI t animalsmiddot

5 With present 18v~ls of productivity 168 ewes or 151 goats arc roquirlQ to produclo farm incomb of Cpound 2000 In norm situations 75 OWbS pr-oducdng 120 kg milk and 16 1(111bs could I~roduc8 thc same income For this LcvcI of productivi ty the r-espec t i v- numbers for z er-o low and high grazing nystems war_ 123 75 and 65 ewes

Th authors gratefully acknowlGdge tl1G cooperation of ahoe p and goat producers and the assistancE providod by all members of the Agricultural Economics Slction

RLFERLFCES

1 Louca A Pr-eLimanar-y r-csuI ts on tho por-formarice of pur-ebr-ed and cross-bred sllecp Paper prosGDtcd a~ the RGgional Workshop for shclp and forage improvement February 11-14 1974 in Buirut~ Lebanon

- 14 shy

2 Chimonides 1 1972 Some faotors affGoting the productivity of DamQscus goats in Cyprus MS Thesis American University of Bei r-ut L8b~~lO[

3 Planning Bureau ThE first (1962-66) the second (1967-71) and t hlaquo

third (1972-76) Five Year Plan Planning Rur~au

Nioosia Cyprus

4 Agrioulturul Research Institute 1964 Cost and Returns of Shlq

and goats Agric Res Inst Nioosia Cyprus

5 Louca A Personal c omruurri ca t i cn Agrioultural Research Institute Nioosia Cyprus

6 Hadjipanayiotou M and Louca A 1975 PhG Effeots of partial suckling on the lactation Derformance of Chios sheep and Damasous goats and the growth rate of the lambs and kids (in preparation) Agricultural Research Institute Nicosia Cyprus

7 Louca A 1972 The effect of suckling regime on grmdh rate and laotation performance of the Cyprus Fat-tailed amI Chios sheep Anim Prod 15~53-59

8 Louca A ~ Mavr-ogen i s A and Lawlor ~1J 1975 ThE effect of early weaning on the laotation performanoe of Damascus goats and the growth rate of the kidb Anim Prod 20 213-218

9 Papachristodoulou S and Papas A 1975 The bconomios of drylan~

mixed farming in Cyprus Agrioultural Research Institute Nicosia~ Cyprus

10 Papachristodoulou S 1974 (Restrioted) Dryland Mixed Farwing A technical and economic anaLys i s of some typical fnrl~

participated in the Mixed Farming Project during 1968-1972 Agricultural Research ~nstitute Nicosia Cyprus

11 Papas A 1975 Protein requirements of ewes during laotution (in IJreparation) Agrioultural REJsearch Lns t i tu t e Nicosia Cyprus

12 Papas A 1975 Protein requirements of ewes during maintenanoe (in preparation) Agricultural Res~arch Institute Nioosia Cyprus

13 Papas~ A 1975 The protein requirements of early weaned lambs (in preparation) Agricultural Researoh Institutc 9

Nioosia CYfrus

- 15 shy

lTA P P E D I x

COHPUTATION OF DnUT-OUTPUT DATA OF SHEEP MID GOATS-Gross revenue is the total value of milkmeat cUlls wool and manuree

Sheep milk was sold at Cpound 0163kg and goat milk at Cpound 0112kg In the

actual situation revenue from lambs and kids 11018 based on receipts

adjusted to current prices It was assumed that in norm situation lambs

and kids were sold at 35 kg liveweight 0547kg The prices at 20 kg

liveweight and at weaning were Cpound 0625 and Cpound 0781 respectively A 5

death rate for lambs and kids was assumed Culling was estimated at

20 each year 5 of this was assumed to represent losses and the

remaining 15 of the culls sold at Cpound 125head It was assumed that

losses were directly related to productivity for every additional 10 kg

milk yield and 01 lambing ratio losses increased by 015 and by

005 respectively The revenue from wool and manure was estimated at

Cpound 0700 and Cpound 0500animal respectively (App Tables 16)

Variable costs include feed expenses (purchased or produced) other

expenses (veterinary hired labour) and interest on operating capitale

In the actual situation feed expenses for sheep remiddotprEHHlnted

the 95 of variable costs and 54 of total costs for goats these

percentages are 94 and 44 respectively (App Tables 1 and 2) In the

norm situation feed expenses for sheep or goats comprised approximately

95 of the variable costs ranging from 42-65 of the total costs

depending on the level of productivity direction of production and the

level of grazing (App Tables 3-5) The feed expenses forslle-epandmiddot

goats as percent of variable and total costs decreased from about

95-84 and increased from about 50-53 respectively depending on the

size of production unit (App Table 6)

Interest on operating capital represents 50 of the variable

costs at 8 interest rate

Fixed costs include rent of land family labour replacement

depreciation and interest on fixed capital

In the actual situation rent of land was charged for the area

under fodder crops while in the norm situation rent was charged only for

the area occupied by sheds and the milking parlour

- 16 shy

Family labour was valued atGpound 1600__p~r -wor~i~gslaY_~Ep_

ble 15 presents the labour requirements for 80 ewes or goats pr-ac t i c i rs

w or high grazing system at increasing levels of milk yield andmiddot

Lmbing or kidding ratios Also gives the calculation of the labou~

squ i r-ement s for the zero grazing system and increasing number of aniild

n this study it was assumed that 13 labour units(LbU) were c on tr i bu

ed by family labour and any additional labour w~cs treated as hired

abour-

The replacement was estimated at 20 of the value of animals

The annual depreciation rate of shed8 was estimated at 25

while interest rate used for sheds and livestock capital was 6

Total costs is the sum of variable and fixed costs and net profit the

difference between gross revenue and total coste (App Tables 1-6)

Return to labour (Cpoundwo~king day) was calculated by adding to the net

profit all labour costs and dividing this amount by the number of

working days (App Tables 1-6)

Return to capital () was calculated by adding to the net profit the

interest on operating and fixed capital and dividing the amount by tho

capital investments (excl land capital) and multiplied by 100 (App

Tables 1-6)

Farm income consisted of pai~ or imputed rent 9 remuneration of family

and hired labour interest charges and net profit (App Tables 1-6)

Cost to the government was computed from the v~lue of concentrates fed

using the coefficients of 039 and 043 for aault and young animals

respectively These coefficients represent the increase in percentaL~

of the present value of the concentrates which Would be paid by the

producers in the form of hi~her prices if marketing of feed grains waG

not regulated These coefficients were comI~t8d on the basis of the

difference of the prices for feed grains paid lJy the Government and t~l(

livestock producers and on the content of the concentrate mixtures in

the feed grains (App Tabl~s 3-6)

----------------

- 17 shy

App Table 1 Costs and Returns of Sheep Enterprises by Size Group (Actual)

--_SizebwrltuF (No of ewes)

30-50 50-80 80gt Mean Cpoundewe-----_-_-

No of observations 17 33 18 68

Average No of ewes 42 65 94 67 Milk production (kg) 2711 3442 5348 3764 Lambs Bold or consumed (No) 39 55 85 59 ------------------_shy

Ycilk and milk products 440 569 865 614 92 40middot9 Lambs 417 573 925 627 9 418 Culls 60 94 108 89 13 5middot8 Wool 28 48 71 49 07 31 Manure 19 30 41 30 04 18 Change of capital 71 136 55 98 15 6G

Gross Revenue Cpound 1037 1450 2056 1507 225 1000

Feed purchased 221 325 493 344 53 27 ~

Feed produced 72 118 103 103 15 77 Forage produced 150 246 379 257 38 19lt5 Other 6 8 12 8 01 0~5

Interest 18 28 39 29 04 20 ----------------___

Variable Costs Cpound 467 725 1026 741 111 ------ ------------_- shy

Rent of land 45 52 92 61 Family labour 342 436 529 437 )3 -I

~ IInterest and depreciation 48 66 85 66 -

-------~---------_ _

Fixed Costs Cpound 435 554 706 564

Total Costs bpound 902 1279 1732 1305 195 --__--____-__---shyNet profit Cpound 135 171 324 202 31

43- J

Return to labour (Cpoundworking day) 22 22 26 23

Return to capital () 101 101 128 108 Return over feed expenses Cpound 594 761 1081 804 Farm income Cf 588 753 1069 795 ---------------------~---------_

- 18 shy

Table 2 Costs and Returns of Goat Enterprises by Size Group (Actual)

Size group (lITo of gegtats )

30-50 50-80 80) Mean Ci-goat

No of observations 18 28 19 65

Average No of goats Milk production (kg) Kids sold or consumed (No)

39 4034

53

63 4439

71

98 6169 100

666 4833

74

Milk and milk products Kids Culls Manure Change of capital

331 552

54 19 97

364 704 80 28 71

505 1005 102

43 154

396 60 750 113 79 12 30 0middot5

103 15

293 551 59 24 73

Gross Revenue Cishy 1053 1247 1809 1358 20middot5 100 00

Feed purchased Feed produced Forage produced Other Interest

207 35

llO

7 14

236 53

156 8

18

263 36

304 17 25

236 43

186 II 19

3middot5 06 28 02 03

224 38

18J 13 loy

Variable Costs Cf 373 471 645 495 74 474

Rent of land Family labour Interest and depreciation

25 342 48

39 436

66

77 529 85

46 437

67

07 65 10

4middot5 417

64

Fixed Costs Cf 415 541 691 550 82 526

Total Costs Cf 788 1012 1336 1045 156 1000

Net Frofi t Cf 265 235 473 313 49

Return to labour (Cpoundworking day)

Return to capital () Return over feed expenses Farm income

Cf Of

28 169

700 694

24 128

802 794

30 17middot5 1206 1189

27 153 892 882

- 19 shy

App Table 3 Effect of Level of Produotivity and Direction of a) Produotion on the Costs and Returns of Sheep (Norm)

Milk yield (kgewe)

Lambing ratio

Milk Lambs Culls

Wool Manure

Gross Revenue

Feed for ewes i) Concentrates

ii) Hay amp straw Feed for lambs

i) Concentrates Other Interest

Variable Costs

Rent Famil y labour Replacement Depreciation Interest

Fixed Costs

Total Costs

Gross Profi t

Net Profit

Return to labour (Cpoundworking day)

Return to capital () Cost to the Government

deg 60 120 200

26 12 16 08

782 3781 1748 142 139

56 56 40 40

1565 2325 128

56 40

2608 1163

120 56 40

Cpound 4019 2765 4114 3986

676 464

988 446 12 12 67 37

728

601 12 54

720

294 12 41

Cpound 1743 959 1395 1067

2 2

364 449 544 504

19 19 82 82

2

534 608 19 82

2

590 640 19 82

ce 1011 1056 1245 1333

Cpound 2754 2015 2640 2400

Cpound 2276 1606 2719 2919

Cpound 1265 750 1474 1586

72 43 60 59 392 269 46middot7 521

Cpound 688 373 542 407

a) Assuming 80 8W~S and low grazing

- 20 shy

App Table 4 Effect of Level of Productivity and Direction of a) middotmiddotmiddot----middot --Produc_tiQ[l on the Costs and Returns of Goats (Norm) bull

bull bullbullbullbull ~ __R_ ~~__bullbullbull ~ bullbullbull _

-_ ----~ bull

Milk yield (kggoat)

Kidding ratio

0

34

80

16

160

20

2$0

13

Milk Lambs Culla

4511 137

717 2136 134

1434 2652 120

2503 1743

106

Manuremiddot 40 40 40 40

Gros smiddot R-eAfnu-e- Cpound 4688 3027 4246 4398

Feed for goats ) ConcentratesJ I

ii) Hay amp straw Feed for kids

i) Concentrates Other Interest

824

1023 12 74

560

482 12 42

832

601 12 58

928 ~

391 12 53

Variable Coiits Cpound 1933 1096 1503 1384

Rent Family labour Replacement Depreciation Interestmiddot_middotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddot

2 366 608 19 82

2 488 560

19 82

2 566 688 19 82

2 617 776 19 82

Fixed Cos is Cpound 1077 1151 1357 1496

Total Cost s Cpound 3010 2247 2860 J 2880

Gross Froht Cpound 2755 1931 2743 3014

Net PI-ofit

Cpound 1678 780 1386 151[

Return to labour (Cpoundworking day)

Return to capital () 89

493 42

274 55

436 505

480 Cost to the Oovernmen t --6pound---middot761 middot425 51n __

~_~- -- _--___-~ _ M bullbullbull_ bullbull___ R bullbullbull __bullbull __ bull

o _ bullbull

~301 __

a) Assuming 80 goats and low grazing

- 21 shy

App Table 5 Effect of Level of GraZirg on the Costs and Returns of Sheep and Goats (Norm) a

Shee~ Goats Level of gra~ing Zero Low High Zero Low Rigl

Milk yield (kgfemale animal) 120 120 120 160 160 16

Lambing or kidding ratio 16 16 16 20 20 2()

Milk 1565 1565 1565 1434 1434 l434 Lambs 2326 2326 2326 2652 2652 2652 Culls 128 128 128 120 120 120 Wool 56 56 56 Manure 40 40 40 40 40 40

Gross Revenue Cpound 4115 4115 4115 4246 4246 4246

Feed for ewes or goats i) Concentrates 1292 728 408 1508 832 505

ii) Ray amp straw 288 282 Feed for lambs or kids

i) Concentrates 601 601 601 602 602 602 Other 12 12 12 12 12 12 Interest 88 54 41 96 58 45

Variable Costs Cpound 2281 1395 1062 2500 1504 116r _ _-

Rent 2 2 2 2 L 2 Family labour 390 534 534 422 566 565 Replacement 608 608 608 688 688 68P Depreciation 19 19 19 19 19 1)

Interest 82 82 82 82 82 8e

Fixed Costs Cpound 1101 1245 1245 1213 1357 1357

Total Costs Cpound 3382 2640 2307 3713 2861 252

Gross Profit Cpound 18~4 2720 3053 1746 2743 30t)2

1Tet Profit Cpound 733 1475 1808 533 1385 1725

Return to labour (Cpoundworking day) 46 60 70 36 5middot5 65

Return to capital () 232 467 588 178 436 55( Feed cost to the Government Cpound 762 542 418 847 583 456

a) Assuming 80 female adult animals

- 22 shy

App Table 6 Bffect of the Size of the Pr-oduc t ion Unit on the Costs and Returns of Sheep and Goats (NJrm)

SheGE Goats

Ewes or goatsfarm 80 160 200 80 160 2()(I

Milk yield (kgfemale animal) 120 120 120 160 160 16~)

Lambing or kidding ratio 16 16 16 20 20 2 0

Milk 1565 3130 3912 1434 2867 35[1 Lambs 2326 4651 5814 2652 5305 66jl Culls 128 256 320 120 240 300 Wool 56 112 140 Manure 40 80 100 40 80 100

Gross Revenue Cpound 4115 8229 10286 4246 8492 10615

Feed for awes or goats i) Concentrates 728 1456 1820 832 1664 208

ii) Hay amp straw Feed for lambs or kids

i) Concentrates 601 1202 1502 602 1203 1504 Hired labour 203 385 266 4f- u_)

Other 12 24 30 12 24 jC)

Interest 54 115 150 58 126 163

Variable Costs Cpound 1395 3000 3887 1504 3283 42C

Rent 2 4 5 2 4 Family labour 534 624 624 566 624 621 Replacement 608 1216 1520 688 1376 1( 2(

Depreciation 19 32 40 19 32 4C Interest 82 159 198 82 159 19t

Fixed Costs Cpound 1245 2035 2387 1357 2195 255 _ _--_ __

Total Costs Cpound 2640 5035 6274 2860 5478 6521

Gross Profit Cpound 2720 5226 6399 2743 5209 Ggt7)

net Profit Cpound 1475 319L~ 4012 1385 3014 Ll3 -

Return to labour (Cpoundworking day) 60 78 80 5middot5 70 SoU

Return to capital () 467 510 510 436 475 538 Feed cost to the Government Cpound 542 1085 1356 583 1166 145[

- 23 ~

App Table 7 Prices Received and Paid

Prices received Unit Cpound-Milk sheep kg 0163

goat kg 0112 Lamb or kid

At leaning kg 1ivQwoight 0781 At 20 kg kg 0625 At 35 kg kg II 0547

Wool Cpoundanima1 0100 Manure Cpoundanima1 0500

Prices paid

Feed roughage

Straw ton 120 Cereal hay ton 200

Concentrates

Creep feed ton 500 15 crude protein (as fed) ton 458 13 crude protein (as fed) ton 438 11 crude protein (as fed) ton 400

Labour working day 16

Rent of land donum 15

App Table 8 Capital Investments

Land

Sheds for 80 female animals

160 female animals 200 female animals

Value of animals Ewes (0 kg milk 26 lambing ratio)

(60 kg milk 12 lambing ratio) (120 kg milk 16 lambing ratio ) (200 kg milk 08 lambing ratio)

Goats( 0 kg milk 34 kidding ratio) ~ 80 kg milk 16 kidding ratio) (160 kg milk 20 kiddinB ratio) (280 kg milk 13 kidding ratio)

Operating capital (50 of variable costs)

Cpounddonum 300

Cpoundshed 1800 Cpoundahed 13500 Cpoundshed 16600

CrJeue 330

315

380

400

Cpoundgoat 380

340

400

425

vpp Table 9 Gross RevenuG (Cpoundewe) at Incr-eas Ing LeveI s of Milk Yi o Ld and Lcml~ng Rc tios (rorm)

Millt Y i e 1 d (kg eVi8)Lambing ratio 0 20 4~ 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200

08 163 208 253 298 343 388 433 ~n 8 523 568 613 10 201 246 29 ~ 1 33~6 381 426 471 516 561 606 651

12 240 284 32~9 37~4 419 464 509 554 599 644 689 16 31 6 360 40~5 45o 495 540 585 630 675 720 765 18 355 398 44~3 488 533 578 623 668 713 758 803 22 431 474 519 56~4 609 654 699 744 789 834 879

26 508 550 5915 64+ 0 658 730 775 820 865 910 955 30 584 626 67h 71~6 761 806 851 896 941 986 1034

~--

- _ N

~

App Table 10 Gross Revenue (Cpoundgoat) at Increasing LeY11s of Milk Yield and Kidding Ratios (Norm) bull

M i llt Y i e 1 d (kg L~at) IKidding ratio

middot0 40 80 l~d 160 200 240 280 320 360 400

08 148 193 237 28~~ 327 372 41 7 461 506 551 596 12 218 263 307 35~2 397 442 487 531 576 621 666 16 287 333 37-7 42l~ 467 512 55middot7 601 646 691 736 20 355 403 447 49 ~ 2 537 582 627 671 716 761 806 24 -422 473 51 7 56~ 60middot7 652 697 74middot1 786 831 876

bull 28 488 543 58~7 632 677 722 767 811 856 901 946 32 564 613 65 ~ 7 70~~ 747 792 837 881 926 971 1016 36 634 683 72~7 772- 81 7 862 907 951 996 1041 1086

I

1)App Table 11 Concentrates Consumed (kgewe) Low Grazing System

Lambi ng Y i e 1 d i n mil k (kg ewe) ratio

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200

08 568 708 848 98 8 1128 1268 1408 1548 1688 1828 1968 LO 710 850 990 1130 127middot0 1410 1550 1690 1830 1970 2110 12 852 992 1132 1272 1412 1552 1692 1332 1972 2112 2252 16 1136 1276 1416 1556 1696 1836 1976 2116 2256 2396 2536 18 1278 1418 1558 1698 1838 1978 2118 2258 2398 2538 267middot8 22 1562 1702 1842 1982 2122 2262 2402 2542 2682 2822 2962 26 1846 1986 2126 2266 2406 2546 2686 2626 2966 3106 3246 30 2130 2270 2410 2550 2690 2830 2970 311 0 325middot0 3390 3530

ro1) I~aintenancerequirement of adult animals met by grazing V1

Assumptions for grazing systems

1 07 kg feeds of 15 crude protein (as fed basis) was fed per kg milk produced or sucked [iy 2 50 kg milk was suoked by each lamb from birth to weaning at 35 days 3 In late pregnancy each ewe received on the average 36 kg concentrates above maintenance for each lamb carried 4 In zero grazing maintenance requirements during the dry period were met by 06 kg straw and 05 kg

concentrates of 11 crude protein (as fed basis) [1~ I~ late pregnancy (6 weeks before lambing) and during lactation each ewe received 06 kg cereal hay and 04 kg concentrates to meet the maintenance requirements Other requirements in concentrates were met as in low grazing syste~

App liable 12 Conoentcates Consumed (kgg02t ) i Low Grazing SJ34~OT 1)- (I

----------------------T -----------~-_--------------------------------------------------shy

M gt~_~ LL~_~iJ~_8poundatl Kidding ratio

o 40 80 120 160 200 240 280 320 360 400 -----_ ------~---~ _- ----------__--__-----shy

08 528 768 1008 1248 138 1728 1960G 2208 24Li8 2688 2928 12 792 1032 1272 1512 175middot2 1992 2232 2472 271 2 2952 3192 16 1056 129 u 6 1536 ~-77 6 20l6 2256 2496 =736 2976 3216 3456 20 1320 1560 J80o 2040 2280 2520 2760 3000 3240 3480 3720 24 1584 1[24shy 2064 2304 2-~4middot 4 27S~4 3024 32604 350middot4 3 7 11++ 3984 28 1848 2038 23 28 2568 2808 30~ 8 328f3 ~)52 8 3768 4008 42~ 8

-3 ~ 211 2 2352 2592 2832 3072 3312 3552 37902 4032 4272 +51 2

______ 36

_-__ 2379

- 2616 2856 3096

___shy__ 3336 3576

_ 3826

middot 4056 L_~

429gt6 middot

L15306 _ _

4776

1) Maintenance requirements of adult animals met-JY grazing ro 0

~~~mption for grazing system

1 06 kg feed of 15 crude protein (as fed basis) was fed per kg milk produced or suoked 2 50 kg milk was sucked by each kid from birth to wean~ng at 70 days Partial suckling was practised from the

30th day onwards 3 In late pregnancy each goat received on the average 36 kg concentrates above maintenance for each kid carried 4 In zero grazing maintenance requirements in the dry period were met by 06 kg of straw and 05 kg of

concentrates of 11 crude protein (as fed basis)

29

- 27 shy

App Table 13 Feed Cost and Revenue for Lamb Fattening

Lambing ratio

08 10 12middot 16 18 22 26

aConcentrates (kg) I

Birth to weaning Weaning to 20 kg Birth to 20 kg 20 kg to 35 kg Birth to 35 kg

09 290 299 54~0

839

1 J 13 17 20 368middot 449 618 706 37middot9 462 635 726 675 810 1080 1215

1054 1272 1715 1941

24 890 914

1485 2399

1036 106e5 175middot5 2820

Saleable Iiveweight (kg)

at weaning at 20 kg at 35 kg

87 160 280

108 200 35middot0

12~8

24middot0 420

174198 320 360 56~0 630

249 44middot0 770

290 520 910

Feed expenses

at weaning mils 45 55 65 -85 100 120 145 to 20 kg Cf 14 17 21 29 33 42 49 __ to 35 kg Cf 37 46 56 7middot5 85 10middot5 123

Revenue Cf

Lamb sale Lamb sale Lamb sale

at weaning ~~ 20 kg at 35 kg

68 100shy153shy

gt ~_ bull bullbullbullbull ~-

84 125 191

100 136 150 200 230 306middot

15middot5 225 345

194 27middot5 421

226 32 c 49 e

Assumed birthweight 47 45 42 38

a) It was assumed that the protein content of the ooncentrates mixture feed from birth to weaning was 168 and from 20 to 35 kg 143 on dry matter basis [1[

- 28 shy

App Table 15 Labour Raquire~entl) for 80 poundMes or Goats Practising Low or High Grazing at Increasing Levels of Milk Yield and Lambing or Kidding Ratios

i

Lamhing Y i e 1 d i n mil k (kg Le_we) ratio

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 280

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - Lbua)production unit - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -08 0749 0813 0869 0933 1013 1069 1109 1149 1113 1205 1229 1283 10 0150 0814 0870 0934 1014 1010 1110 1150 1114 1206 1230 1284 12 0151 0815 0811 0935 1015 1011 1111 1151 1115 1201 1231 1285 14 0152 0816 0812 0936 1016 1012 1112 1152 1116 1208 1232 1286 16 0153 0811 0813 0937 1011 1013 1113 153 1117 1209 1234 1287 18 0154 0818 0874 0938 1018 1074 1114 1154 1178 1210 1235 1288 20 0155 0819 0875 0939 1019 1015 1115 1155 1119 1211 1236 1289 22 0756 0820 0876 0940 1020 1016 1116 1156 1180 1212 1237 1290 24 26

0151 0158

0821 0822

0871 0878

0941 0942

1022 1023

1017 1018

1111 1118

1157 1158

1181 1182

1213 1214

1238 1239

1291 1292

ro -D

28 0759 0823 0879 0943 1024 1019 1119 1159 1183 1215 1240 1293 30 0760 0824 0880 0middot944 1025 1080 1120 1160 1184 1216 1241 1 294 34 0162 0826 0882 0946 1027 1082 1122 1162 middot _____middot L_ 1186 1218 1242 1295

a) 1 LbU = 300 working days

1) Low and high grazing system Calculated as followsi

Labour requirement (LbU) = 015 + (lambing ratio - 10) x 0005 +

Labour for milkin~ (days)+ X No of female animals 300

+) Assuming 6 minutesanimalday

Zero grazing system Labour requiremunt (lbU) = Low or high grazing system (LbU) - 0300 for 80 female animals

- 0550 for 160 female animals - 0650 fOr 2rl) tomcIc animals

Page 16: FACTORS AFFECTING THE ECONOMICS OF SHEEP AND GOATSnews.ari.gov.cy/Publications/AER4-papas.pdfFACTORS AFFECTING THE ECONOMICS OF SHEEP AND GOATS . By . ... Costs and Returns of Goat

- 12 shy

been exploited Of course larger production units do not neces5~rily

imply larger animal population th ey may resul t also from reorganizatior

of the existing population to larger economically viaole units

The level of grazing is inversely related to the feeding costs but increases labour cost The decrease in feeding cost frod

higher level of grazing is considerably higher than the increase in

labour cost There is no doubt that higher grazing level wilen possible J is economically beneficial both to the individual producGr

and the national economy and could be easily combined with the all-~~~t

direction of production It is proposed th~t the price of concentrstcO)

presently regulated by thE Government through the system of SUbsidies be kept at such level which will encourage the optimum utilization of

straw pastures and agricultural by-products

The goat production units (actual) were more variable than sheep units in the level of productivitJ-9 direction of production feeding prograDme and size Smaller goat units tended to be more productive consumed more concentrates per female animal and producei higher returns per animal than larger units This suggests that large units Hith low producing animals practised more grazing On the averagG 9 the gross revenue was higher for sheep but net returns from goats were slightly higher These differences were primarily due to higher level of grazing for goats than for sheep This comparison if

based on the average of the production units studied ~nd could not bE extrapolated to comparison of specific breeds of sheep and goats A comparative study of the Chios sheep and Damascus goat under norm

conditions was initiated at this Institute

- 13 shy

SUIDIARY

Data from 68 sheep 65 goat private production units (actual situation) and from Gov~rnment units (norm situationr were used to coraput c costs and returns and to study the main fa c t or-s affecting tht econooics of shoGp and goats in Cyprus The main conclusions of this study can be summarized as follows

1 It is more profitable as a ~irst step to incrGasG productivity per animal rather than increase their numbers With available gonetic material ana knowledge it is possible to double tho present milk yields and increase the number of lambs or kids per female animal by 30-40

2F~ttGning of lambs or kids at prosGnt prices can increase total and net returns SUbstantially with profound ~conomic advantages for the individual producer and tho national economy

3 The study of di~ferent directions of ~roduction showed that the milk and mlat direction was slightly suporior to the all-moat directionH01iGVer thE a I Le-meat di re c t i on of production may bo a sound economic alternative mainly in situations where good possibilities exist for high lcvul of razing and skilled labour is limited

4 The feed cost for high level of grazing was only half the cost for middotindoor fcodLng The loer fe ed cost 18S ruflectcd in higher net returns for the razing systems The cost differential between cost of grazing and fecding of concentrates should be adjusted to promoto grazing 8t th8 IGvlol which will mClOt at the minimum the maintenance r-oqu i r-crucn t s of auuI t animalsmiddot

5 With present 18v~ls of productivity 168 ewes or 151 goats arc roquirlQ to produclo farm incomb of Cpound 2000 In norm situations 75 OWbS pr-oducdng 120 kg milk and 16 1(111bs could I~roduc8 thc same income For this LcvcI of productivi ty the r-espec t i v- numbers for z er-o low and high grazing nystems war_ 123 75 and 65 ewes

Th authors gratefully acknowlGdge tl1G cooperation of ahoe p and goat producers and the assistancE providod by all members of the Agricultural Economics Slction

RLFERLFCES

1 Louca A Pr-eLimanar-y r-csuI ts on tho por-formarice of pur-ebr-ed and cross-bred sllecp Paper prosGDtcd a~ the RGgional Workshop for shclp and forage improvement February 11-14 1974 in Buirut~ Lebanon

- 14 shy

2 Chimonides 1 1972 Some faotors affGoting the productivity of DamQscus goats in Cyprus MS Thesis American University of Bei r-ut L8b~~lO[

3 Planning Bureau ThE first (1962-66) the second (1967-71) and t hlaquo

third (1972-76) Five Year Plan Planning Rur~au

Nioosia Cyprus

4 Agrioulturul Research Institute 1964 Cost and Returns of Shlq

and goats Agric Res Inst Nioosia Cyprus

5 Louca A Personal c omruurri ca t i cn Agrioultural Research Institute Nioosia Cyprus

6 Hadjipanayiotou M and Louca A 1975 PhG Effeots of partial suckling on the lactation Derformance of Chios sheep and Damasous goats and the growth rate of the lambs and kids (in preparation) Agricultural Research Institute Nicosia Cyprus

7 Louca A 1972 The effect of suckling regime on grmdh rate and laotation performance of the Cyprus Fat-tailed amI Chios sheep Anim Prod 15~53-59

8 Louca A ~ Mavr-ogen i s A and Lawlor ~1J 1975 ThE effect of early weaning on the laotation performanoe of Damascus goats and the growth rate of the kidb Anim Prod 20 213-218

9 Papachristodoulou S and Papas A 1975 The bconomios of drylan~

mixed farming in Cyprus Agrioultural Research Institute Nicosia~ Cyprus

10 Papachristodoulou S 1974 (Restrioted) Dryland Mixed Farwing A technical and economic anaLys i s of some typical fnrl~

participated in the Mixed Farming Project during 1968-1972 Agricultural Research ~nstitute Nicosia Cyprus

11 Papas A 1975 Protein requirements of ewes during laotution (in IJreparation) Agrioultural REJsearch Lns t i tu t e Nicosia Cyprus

12 Papas A 1975 Protein requirements of ewes during maintenanoe (in preparation) Agricultural Res~arch Institute Nioosia Cyprus

13 Papas~ A 1975 The protein requirements of early weaned lambs (in preparation) Agricultural Researoh Institutc 9

Nioosia CYfrus

- 15 shy

lTA P P E D I x

COHPUTATION OF DnUT-OUTPUT DATA OF SHEEP MID GOATS-Gross revenue is the total value of milkmeat cUlls wool and manuree

Sheep milk was sold at Cpound 0163kg and goat milk at Cpound 0112kg In the

actual situation revenue from lambs and kids 11018 based on receipts

adjusted to current prices It was assumed that in norm situation lambs

and kids were sold at 35 kg liveweight 0547kg The prices at 20 kg

liveweight and at weaning were Cpound 0625 and Cpound 0781 respectively A 5

death rate for lambs and kids was assumed Culling was estimated at

20 each year 5 of this was assumed to represent losses and the

remaining 15 of the culls sold at Cpound 125head It was assumed that

losses were directly related to productivity for every additional 10 kg

milk yield and 01 lambing ratio losses increased by 015 and by

005 respectively The revenue from wool and manure was estimated at

Cpound 0700 and Cpound 0500animal respectively (App Tables 16)

Variable costs include feed expenses (purchased or produced) other

expenses (veterinary hired labour) and interest on operating capitale

In the actual situation feed expenses for sheep remiddotprEHHlnted

the 95 of variable costs and 54 of total costs for goats these

percentages are 94 and 44 respectively (App Tables 1 and 2) In the

norm situation feed expenses for sheep or goats comprised approximately

95 of the variable costs ranging from 42-65 of the total costs

depending on the level of productivity direction of production and the

level of grazing (App Tables 3-5) The feed expenses forslle-epandmiddot

goats as percent of variable and total costs decreased from about

95-84 and increased from about 50-53 respectively depending on the

size of production unit (App Table 6)

Interest on operating capital represents 50 of the variable

costs at 8 interest rate

Fixed costs include rent of land family labour replacement

depreciation and interest on fixed capital

In the actual situation rent of land was charged for the area

under fodder crops while in the norm situation rent was charged only for

the area occupied by sheds and the milking parlour

- 16 shy

Family labour was valued atGpound 1600__p~r -wor~i~gslaY_~Ep_

ble 15 presents the labour requirements for 80 ewes or goats pr-ac t i c i rs

w or high grazing system at increasing levels of milk yield andmiddot

Lmbing or kidding ratios Also gives the calculation of the labou~

squ i r-ement s for the zero grazing system and increasing number of aniild

n this study it was assumed that 13 labour units(LbU) were c on tr i bu

ed by family labour and any additional labour w~cs treated as hired

abour-

The replacement was estimated at 20 of the value of animals

The annual depreciation rate of shed8 was estimated at 25

while interest rate used for sheds and livestock capital was 6

Total costs is the sum of variable and fixed costs and net profit the

difference between gross revenue and total coste (App Tables 1-6)

Return to labour (Cpoundwo~king day) was calculated by adding to the net

profit all labour costs and dividing this amount by the number of

working days (App Tables 1-6)

Return to capital () was calculated by adding to the net profit the

interest on operating and fixed capital and dividing the amount by tho

capital investments (excl land capital) and multiplied by 100 (App

Tables 1-6)

Farm income consisted of pai~ or imputed rent 9 remuneration of family

and hired labour interest charges and net profit (App Tables 1-6)

Cost to the government was computed from the v~lue of concentrates fed

using the coefficients of 039 and 043 for aault and young animals

respectively These coefficients represent the increase in percentaL~

of the present value of the concentrates which Would be paid by the

producers in the form of hi~her prices if marketing of feed grains waG

not regulated These coefficients were comI~t8d on the basis of the

difference of the prices for feed grains paid lJy the Government and t~l(

livestock producers and on the content of the concentrate mixtures in

the feed grains (App Tabl~s 3-6)

----------------

- 17 shy

App Table 1 Costs and Returns of Sheep Enterprises by Size Group (Actual)

--_SizebwrltuF (No of ewes)

30-50 50-80 80gt Mean Cpoundewe-----_-_-

No of observations 17 33 18 68

Average No of ewes 42 65 94 67 Milk production (kg) 2711 3442 5348 3764 Lambs Bold or consumed (No) 39 55 85 59 ------------------_shy

Ycilk and milk products 440 569 865 614 92 40middot9 Lambs 417 573 925 627 9 418 Culls 60 94 108 89 13 5middot8 Wool 28 48 71 49 07 31 Manure 19 30 41 30 04 18 Change of capital 71 136 55 98 15 6G

Gross Revenue Cpound 1037 1450 2056 1507 225 1000

Feed purchased 221 325 493 344 53 27 ~

Feed produced 72 118 103 103 15 77 Forage produced 150 246 379 257 38 19lt5 Other 6 8 12 8 01 0~5

Interest 18 28 39 29 04 20 ----------------___

Variable Costs Cpound 467 725 1026 741 111 ------ ------------_- shy

Rent of land 45 52 92 61 Family labour 342 436 529 437 )3 -I

~ IInterest and depreciation 48 66 85 66 -

-------~---------_ _

Fixed Costs Cpound 435 554 706 564

Total Costs bpound 902 1279 1732 1305 195 --__--____-__---shyNet profit Cpound 135 171 324 202 31

43- J

Return to labour (Cpoundworking day) 22 22 26 23

Return to capital () 101 101 128 108 Return over feed expenses Cpound 594 761 1081 804 Farm income Cf 588 753 1069 795 ---------------------~---------_

- 18 shy

Table 2 Costs and Returns of Goat Enterprises by Size Group (Actual)

Size group (lITo of gegtats )

30-50 50-80 80) Mean Ci-goat

No of observations 18 28 19 65

Average No of goats Milk production (kg) Kids sold or consumed (No)

39 4034

53

63 4439

71

98 6169 100

666 4833

74

Milk and milk products Kids Culls Manure Change of capital

331 552

54 19 97

364 704 80 28 71

505 1005 102

43 154

396 60 750 113 79 12 30 0middot5

103 15

293 551 59 24 73

Gross Revenue Cishy 1053 1247 1809 1358 20middot5 100 00

Feed purchased Feed produced Forage produced Other Interest

207 35

llO

7 14

236 53

156 8

18

263 36

304 17 25

236 43

186 II 19

3middot5 06 28 02 03

224 38

18J 13 loy

Variable Costs Cf 373 471 645 495 74 474

Rent of land Family labour Interest and depreciation

25 342 48

39 436

66

77 529 85

46 437

67

07 65 10

4middot5 417

64

Fixed Costs Cf 415 541 691 550 82 526

Total Costs Cf 788 1012 1336 1045 156 1000

Net Frofi t Cf 265 235 473 313 49

Return to labour (Cpoundworking day)

Return to capital () Return over feed expenses Farm income

Cf Of

28 169

700 694

24 128

802 794

30 17middot5 1206 1189

27 153 892 882

- 19 shy

App Table 3 Effect of Level of Produotivity and Direction of a) Produotion on the Costs and Returns of Sheep (Norm)

Milk yield (kgewe)

Lambing ratio

Milk Lambs Culls

Wool Manure

Gross Revenue

Feed for ewes i) Concentrates

ii) Hay amp straw Feed for lambs

i) Concentrates Other Interest

Variable Costs

Rent Famil y labour Replacement Depreciation Interest

Fixed Costs

Total Costs

Gross Profi t

Net Profit

Return to labour (Cpoundworking day)

Return to capital () Cost to the Government

deg 60 120 200

26 12 16 08

782 3781 1748 142 139

56 56 40 40

1565 2325 128

56 40

2608 1163

120 56 40

Cpound 4019 2765 4114 3986

676 464

988 446 12 12 67 37

728

601 12 54

720

294 12 41

Cpound 1743 959 1395 1067

2 2

364 449 544 504

19 19 82 82

2

534 608 19 82

2

590 640 19 82

ce 1011 1056 1245 1333

Cpound 2754 2015 2640 2400

Cpound 2276 1606 2719 2919

Cpound 1265 750 1474 1586

72 43 60 59 392 269 46middot7 521

Cpound 688 373 542 407

a) Assuming 80 8W~S and low grazing

- 20 shy

App Table 4 Effect of Level of Productivity and Direction of a) middotmiddotmiddot----middot --Produc_tiQ[l on the Costs and Returns of Goats (Norm) bull

bull bullbullbullbull ~ __R_ ~~__bullbullbull ~ bullbullbull _

-_ ----~ bull

Milk yield (kggoat)

Kidding ratio

0

34

80

16

160

20

2$0

13

Milk Lambs Culla

4511 137

717 2136 134

1434 2652 120

2503 1743

106

Manuremiddot 40 40 40 40

Gros smiddot R-eAfnu-e- Cpound 4688 3027 4246 4398

Feed for goats ) ConcentratesJ I

ii) Hay amp straw Feed for kids

i) Concentrates Other Interest

824

1023 12 74

560

482 12 42

832

601 12 58

928 ~

391 12 53

Variable Coiits Cpound 1933 1096 1503 1384

Rent Family labour Replacement Depreciation Interestmiddot_middotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddot

2 366 608 19 82

2 488 560

19 82

2 566 688 19 82

2 617 776 19 82

Fixed Cos is Cpound 1077 1151 1357 1496

Total Cost s Cpound 3010 2247 2860 J 2880

Gross Froht Cpound 2755 1931 2743 3014

Net PI-ofit

Cpound 1678 780 1386 151[

Return to labour (Cpoundworking day)

Return to capital () 89

493 42

274 55

436 505

480 Cost to the Oovernmen t --6pound---middot761 middot425 51n __

~_~- -- _--___-~ _ M bullbullbull_ bullbull___ R bullbullbull __bullbull __ bull

o _ bullbull

~301 __

a) Assuming 80 goats and low grazing

- 21 shy

App Table 5 Effect of Level of GraZirg on the Costs and Returns of Sheep and Goats (Norm) a

Shee~ Goats Level of gra~ing Zero Low High Zero Low Rigl

Milk yield (kgfemale animal) 120 120 120 160 160 16

Lambing or kidding ratio 16 16 16 20 20 2()

Milk 1565 1565 1565 1434 1434 l434 Lambs 2326 2326 2326 2652 2652 2652 Culls 128 128 128 120 120 120 Wool 56 56 56 Manure 40 40 40 40 40 40

Gross Revenue Cpound 4115 4115 4115 4246 4246 4246

Feed for ewes or goats i) Concentrates 1292 728 408 1508 832 505

ii) Ray amp straw 288 282 Feed for lambs or kids

i) Concentrates 601 601 601 602 602 602 Other 12 12 12 12 12 12 Interest 88 54 41 96 58 45

Variable Costs Cpound 2281 1395 1062 2500 1504 116r _ _-

Rent 2 2 2 2 L 2 Family labour 390 534 534 422 566 565 Replacement 608 608 608 688 688 68P Depreciation 19 19 19 19 19 1)

Interest 82 82 82 82 82 8e

Fixed Costs Cpound 1101 1245 1245 1213 1357 1357

Total Costs Cpound 3382 2640 2307 3713 2861 252

Gross Profit Cpound 18~4 2720 3053 1746 2743 30t)2

1Tet Profit Cpound 733 1475 1808 533 1385 1725

Return to labour (Cpoundworking day) 46 60 70 36 5middot5 65

Return to capital () 232 467 588 178 436 55( Feed cost to the Government Cpound 762 542 418 847 583 456

a) Assuming 80 female adult animals

- 22 shy

App Table 6 Bffect of the Size of the Pr-oduc t ion Unit on the Costs and Returns of Sheep and Goats (NJrm)

SheGE Goats

Ewes or goatsfarm 80 160 200 80 160 2()(I

Milk yield (kgfemale animal) 120 120 120 160 160 16~)

Lambing or kidding ratio 16 16 16 20 20 2 0

Milk 1565 3130 3912 1434 2867 35[1 Lambs 2326 4651 5814 2652 5305 66jl Culls 128 256 320 120 240 300 Wool 56 112 140 Manure 40 80 100 40 80 100

Gross Revenue Cpound 4115 8229 10286 4246 8492 10615

Feed for awes or goats i) Concentrates 728 1456 1820 832 1664 208

ii) Hay amp straw Feed for lambs or kids

i) Concentrates 601 1202 1502 602 1203 1504 Hired labour 203 385 266 4f- u_)

Other 12 24 30 12 24 jC)

Interest 54 115 150 58 126 163

Variable Costs Cpound 1395 3000 3887 1504 3283 42C

Rent 2 4 5 2 4 Family labour 534 624 624 566 624 621 Replacement 608 1216 1520 688 1376 1( 2(

Depreciation 19 32 40 19 32 4C Interest 82 159 198 82 159 19t

Fixed Costs Cpound 1245 2035 2387 1357 2195 255 _ _--_ __

Total Costs Cpound 2640 5035 6274 2860 5478 6521

Gross Profit Cpound 2720 5226 6399 2743 5209 Ggt7)

net Profit Cpound 1475 319L~ 4012 1385 3014 Ll3 -

Return to labour (Cpoundworking day) 60 78 80 5middot5 70 SoU

Return to capital () 467 510 510 436 475 538 Feed cost to the Government Cpound 542 1085 1356 583 1166 145[

- 23 ~

App Table 7 Prices Received and Paid

Prices received Unit Cpound-Milk sheep kg 0163

goat kg 0112 Lamb or kid

At leaning kg 1ivQwoight 0781 At 20 kg kg 0625 At 35 kg kg II 0547

Wool Cpoundanima1 0100 Manure Cpoundanima1 0500

Prices paid

Feed roughage

Straw ton 120 Cereal hay ton 200

Concentrates

Creep feed ton 500 15 crude protein (as fed) ton 458 13 crude protein (as fed) ton 438 11 crude protein (as fed) ton 400

Labour working day 16

Rent of land donum 15

App Table 8 Capital Investments

Land

Sheds for 80 female animals

160 female animals 200 female animals

Value of animals Ewes (0 kg milk 26 lambing ratio)

(60 kg milk 12 lambing ratio) (120 kg milk 16 lambing ratio ) (200 kg milk 08 lambing ratio)

Goats( 0 kg milk 34 kidding ratio) ~ 80 kg milk 16 kidding ratio) (160 kg milk 20 kiddinB ratio) (280 kg milk 13 kidding ratio)

Operating capital (50 of variable costs)

Cpounddonum 300

Cpoundshed 1800 Cpoundahed 13500 Cpoundshed 16600

CrJeue 330

315

380

400

Cpoundgoat 380

340

400

425

vpp Table 9 Gross RevenuG (Cpoundewe) at Incr-eas Ing LeveI s of Milk Yi o Ld and Lcml~ng Rc tios (rorm)

Millt Y i e 1 d (kg eVi8)Lambing ratio 0 20 4~ 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200

08 163 208 253 298 343 388 433 ~n 8 523 568 613 10 201 246 29 ~ 1 33~6 381 426 471 516 561 606 651

12 240 284 32~9 37~4 419 464 509 554 599 644 689 16 31 6 360 40~5 45o 495 540 585 630 675 720 765 18 355 398 44~3 488 533 578 623 668 713 758 803 22 431 474 519 56~4 609 654 699 744 789 834 879

26 508 550 5915 64+ 0 658 730 775 820 865 910 955 30 584 626 67h 71~6 761 806 851 896 941 986 1034

~--

- _ N

~

App Table 10 Gross Revenue (Cpoundgoat) at Increasing LeY11s of Milk Yield and Kidding Ratios (Norm) bull

M i llt Y i e 1 d (kg L~at) IKidding ratio

middot0 40 80 l~d 160 200 240 280 320 360 400

08 148 193 237 28~~ 327 372 41 7 461 506 551 596 12 218 263 307 35~2 397 442 487 531 576 621 666 16 287 333 37-7 42l~ 467 512 55middot7 601 646 691 736 20 355 403 447 49 ~ 2 537 582 627 671 716 761 806 24 -422 473 51 7 56~ 60middot7 652 697 74middot1 786 831 876

bull 28 488 543 58~7 632 677 722 767 811 856 901 946 32 564 613 65 ~ 7 70~~ 747 792 837 881 926 971 1016 36 634 683 72~7 772- 81 7 862 907 951 996 1041 1086

I

1)App Table 11 Concentrates Consumed (kgewe) Low Grazing System

Lambi ng Y i e 1 d i n mil k (kg ewe) ratio

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200

08 568 708 848 98 8 1128 1268 1408 1548 1688 1828 1968 LO 710 850 990 1130 127middot0 1410 1550 1690 1830 1970 2110 12 852 992 1132 1272 1412 1552 1692 1332 1972 2112 2252 16 1136 1276 1416 1556 1696 1836 1976 2116 2256 2396 2536 18 1278 1418 1558 1698 1838 1978 2118 2258 2398 2538 267middot8 22 1562 1702 1842 1982 2122 2262 2402 2542 2682 2822 2962 26 1846 1986 2126 2266 2406 2546 2686 2626 2966 3106 3246 30 2130 2270 2410 2550 2690 2830 2970 311 0 325middot0 3390 3530

ro1) I~aintenancerequirement of adult animals met by grazing V1

Assumptions for grazing systems

1 07 kg feeds of 15 crude protein (as fed basis) was fed per kg milk produced or sucked [iy 2 50 kg milk was suoked by each lamb from birth to weaning at 35 days 3 In late pregnancy each ewe received on the average 36 kg concentrates above maintenance for each lamb carried 4 In zero grazing maintenance requirements during the dry period were met by 06 kg straw and 05 kg

concentrates of 11 crude protein (as fed basis) [1~ I~ late pregnancy (6 weeks before lambing) and during lactation each ewe received 06 kg cereal hay and 04 kg concentrates to meet the maintenance requirements Other requirements in concentrates were met as in low grazing syste~

App liable 12 Conoentcates Consumed (kgg02t ) i Low Grazing SJ34~OT 1)- (I

----------------------T -----------~-_--------------------------------------------------shy

M gt~_~ LL~_~iJ~_8poundatl Kidding ratio

o 40 80 120 160 200 240 280 320 360 400 -----_ ------~---~ _- ----------__--__-----shy

08 528 768 1008 1248 138 1728 1960G 2208 24Li8 2688 2928 12 792 1032 1272 1512 175middot2 1992 2232 2472 271 2 2952 3192 16 1056 129 u 6 1536 ~-77 6 20l6 2256 2496 =736 2976 3216 3456 20 1320 1560 J80o 2040 2280 2520 2760 3000 3240 3480 3720 24 1584 1[24shy 2064 2304 2-~4middot 4 27S~4 3024 32604 350middot4 3 7 11++ 3984 28 1848 2038 23 28 2568 2808 30~ 8 328f3 ~)52 8 3768 4008 42~ 8

-3 ~ 211 2 2352 2592 2832 3072 3312 3552 37902 4032 4272 +51 2

______ 36

_-__ 2379

- 2616 2856 3096

___shy__ 3336 3576

_ 3826

middot 4056 L_~

429gt6 middot

L15306 _ _

4776

1) Maintenance requirements of adult animals met-JY grazing ro 0

~~~mption for grazing system

1 06 kg feed of 15 crude protein (as fed basis) was fed per kg milk produced or suoked 2 50 kg milk was sucked by each kid from birth to wean~ng at 70 days Partial suckling was practised from the

30th day onwards 3 In late pregnancy each goat received on the average 36 kg concentrates above maintenance for each kid carried 4 In zero grazing maintenance requirements in the dry period were met by 06 kg of straw and 05 kg of

concentrates of 11 crude protein (as fed basis)

29

- 27 shy

App Table 13 Feed Cost and Revenue for Lamb Fattening

Lambing ratio

08 10 12middot 16 18 22 26

aConcentrates (kg) I

Birth to weaning Weaning to 20 kg Birth to 20 kg 20 kg to 35 kg Birth to 35 kg

09 290 299 54~0

839

1 J 13 17 20 368middot 449 618 706 37middot9 462 635 726 675 810 1080 1215

1054 1272 1715 1941

24 890 914

1485 2399

1036 106e5 175middot5 2820

Saleable Iiveweight (kg)

at weaning at 20 kg at 35 kg

87 160 280

108 200 35middot0

12~8

24middot0 420

174198 320 360 56~0 630

249 44middot0 770

290 520 910

Feed expenses

at weaning mils 45 55 65 -85 100 120 145 to 20 kg Cf 14 17 21 29 33 42 49 __ to 35 kg Cf 37 46 56 7middot5 85 10middot5 123

Revenue Cf

Lamb sale Lamb sale Lamb sale

at weaning ~~ 20 kg at 35 kg

68 100shy153shy

gt ~_ bull bullbullbullbull ~-

84 125 191

100 136 150 200 230 306middot

15middot5 225 345

194 27middot5 421

226 32 c 49 e

Assumed birthweight 47 45 42 38

a) It was assumed that the protein content of the ooncentrates mixture feed from birth to weaning was 168 and from 20 to 35 kg 143 on dry matter basis [1[

- 28 shy

App Table 15 Labour Raquire~entl) for 80 poundMes or Goats Practising Low or High Grazing at Increasing Levels of Milk Yield and Lambing or Kidding Ratios

i

Lamhing Y i e 1 d i n mil k (kg Le_we) ratio

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 280

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - Lbua)production unit - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -08 0749 0813 0869 0933 1013 1069 1109 1149 1113 1205 1229 1283 10 0150 0814 0870 0934 1014 1010 1110 1150 1114 1206 1230 1284 12 0151 0815 0811 0935 1015 1011 1111 1151 1115 1201 1231 1285 14 0152 0816 0812 0936 1016 1012 1112 1152 1116 1208 1232 1286 16 0153 0811 0813 0937 1011 1013 1113 153 1117 1209 1234 1287 18 0154 0818 0874 0938 1018 1074 1114 1154 1178 1210 1235 1288 20 0155 0819 0875 0939 1019 1015 1115 1155 1119 1211 1236 1289 22 0756 0820 0876 0940 1020 1016 1116 1156 1180 1212 1237 1290 24 26

0151 0158

0821 0822

0871 0878

0941 0942

1022 1023

1017 1018

1111 1118

1157 1158

1181 1182

1213 1214

1238 1239

1291 1292

ro -D

28 0759 0823 0879 0943 1024 1019 1119 1159 1183 1215 1240 1293 30 0760 0824 0880 0middot944 1025 1080 1120 1160 1184 1216 1241 1 294 34 0162 0826 0882 0946 1027 1082 1122 1162 middot _____middot L_ 1186 1218 1242 1295

a) 1 LbU = 300 working days

1) Low and high grazing system Calculated as followsi

Labour requirement (LbU) = 015 + (lambing ratio - 10) x 0005 +

Labour for milkin~ (days)+ X No of female animals 300

+) Assuming 6 minutesanimalday

Zero grazing system Labour requiremunt (lbU) = Low or high grazing system (LbU) - 0300 for 80 female animals

- 0550 for 160 female animals - 0650 fOr 2rl) tomcIc animals

Page 17: FACTORS AFFECTING THE ECONOMICS OF SHEEP AND GOATSnews.ari.gov.cy/Publications/AER4-papas.pdfFACTORS AFFECTING THE ECONOMICS OF SHEEP AND GOATS . By . ... Costs and Returns of Goat

- 13 shy

SUIDIARY

Data from 68 sheep 65 goat private production units (actual situation) and from Gov~rnment units (norm situationr were used to coraput c costs and returns and to study the main fa c t or-s affecting tht econooics of shoGp and goats in Cyprus The main conclusions of this study can be summarized as follows

1 It is more profitable as a ~irst step to incrGasG productivity per animal rather than increase their numbers With available gonetic material ana knowledge it is possible to double tho present milk yields and increase the number of lambs or kids per female animal by 30-40

2F~ttGning of lambs or kids at prosGnt prices can increase total and net returns SUbstantially with profound ~conomic advantages for the individual producer and tho national economy

3 The study of di~ferent directions of ~roduction showed that the milk and mlat direction was slightly suporior to the all-moat directionH01iGVer thE a I Le-meat di re c t i on of production may bo a sound economic alternative mainly in situations where good possibilities exist for high lcvul of razing and skilled labour is limited

4 The feed cost for high level of grazing was only half the cost for middotindoor fcodLng The loer fe ed cost 18S ruflectcd in higher net returns for the razing systems The cost differential between cost of grazing and fecding of concentrates should be adjusted to promoto grazing 8t th8 IGvlol which will mClOt at the minimum the maintenance r-oqu i r-crucn t s of auuI t animalsmiddot

5 With present 18v~ls of productivity 168 ewes or 151 goats arc roquirlQ to produclo farm incomb of Cpound 2000 In norm situations 75 OWbS pr-oducdng 120 kg milk and 16 1(111bs could I~roduc8 thc same income For this LcvcI of productivi ty the r-espec t i v- numbers for z er-o low and high grazing nystems war_ 123 75 and 65 ewes

Th authors gratefully acknowlGdge tl1G cooperation of ahoe p and goat producers and the assistancE providod by all members of the Agricultural Economics Slction

RLFERLFCES

1 Louca A Pr-eLimanar-y r-csuI ts on tho por-formarice of pur-ebr-ed and cross-bred sllecp Paper prosGDtcd a~ the RGgional Workshop for shclp and forage improvement February 11-14 1974 in Buirut~ Lebanon

- 14 shy

2 Chimonides 1 1972 Some faotors affGoting the productivity of DamQscus goats in Cyprus MS Thesis American University of Bei r-ut L8b~~lO[

3 Planning Bureau ThE first (1962-66) the second (1967-71) and t hlaquo

third (1972-76) Five Year Plan Planning Rur~au

Nioosia Cyprus

4 Agrioulturul Research Institute 1964 Cost and Returns of Shlq

and goats Agric Res Inst Nioosia Cyprus

5 Louca A Personal c omruurri ca t i cn Agrioultural Research Institute Nioosia Cyprus

6 Hadjipanayiotou M and Louca A 1975 PhG Effeots of partial suckling on the lactation Derformance of Chios sheep and Damasous goats and the growth rate of the lambs and kids (in preparation) Agricultural Research Institute Nicosia Cyprus

7 Louca A 1972 The effect of suckling regime on grmdh rate and laotation performance of the Cyprus Fat-tailed amI Chios sheep Anim Prod 15~53-59

8 Louca A ~ Mavr-ogen i s A and Lawlor ~1J 1975 ThE effect of early weaning on the laotation performanoe of Damascus goats and the growth rate of the kidb Anim Prod 20 213-218

9 Papachristodoulou S and Papas A 1975 The bconomios of drylan~

mixed farming in Cyprus Agrioultural Research Institute Nicosia~ Cyprus

10 Papachristodoulou S 1974 (Restrioted) Dryland Mixed Farwing A technical and economic anaLys i s of some typical fnrl~

participated in the Mixed Farming Project during 1968-1972 Agricultural Research ~nstitute Nicosia Cyprus

11 Papas A 1975 Protein requirements of ewes during laotution (in IJreparation) Agrioultural REJsearch Lns t i tu t e Nicosia Cyprus

12 Papas A 1975 Protein requirements of ewes during maintenanoe (in preparation) Agricultural Res~arch Institute Nioosia Cyprus

13 Papas~ A 1975 The protein requirements of early weaned lambs (in preparation) Agricultural Researoh Institutc 9

Nioosia CYfrus

- 15 shy

lTA P P E D I x

COHPUTATION OF DnUT-OUTPUT DATA OF SHEEP MID GOATS-Gross revenue is the total value of milkmeat cUlls wool and manuree

Sheep milk was sold at Cpound 0163kg and goat milk at Cpound 0112kg In the

actual situation revenue from lambs and kids 11018 based on receipts

adjusted to current prices It was assumed that in norm situation lambs

and kids were sold at 35 kg liveweight 0547kg The prices at 20 kg

liveweight and at weaning were Cpound 0625 and Cpound 0781 respectively A 5

death rate for lambs and kids was assumed Culling was estimated at

20 each year 5 of this was assumed to represent losses and the

remaining 15 of the culls sold at Cpound 125head It was assumed that

losses were directly related to productivity for every additional 10 kg

milk yield and 01 lambing ratio losses increased by 015 and by

005 respectively The revenue from wool and manure was estimated at

Cpound 0700 and Cpound 0500animal respectively (App Tables 16)

Variable costs include feed expenses (purchased or produced) other

expenses (veterinary hired labour) and interest on operating capitale

In the actual situation feed expenses for sheep remiddotprEHHlnted

the 95 of variable costs and 54 of total costs for goats these

percentages are 94 and 44 respectively (App Tables 1 and 2) In the

norm situation feed expenses for sheep or goats comprised approximately

95 of the variable costs ranging from 42-65 of the total costs

depending on the level of productivity direction of production and the

level of grazing (App Tables 3-5) The feed expenses forslle-epandmiddot

goats as percent of variable and total costs decreased from about

95-84 and increased from about 50-53 respectively depending on the

size of production unit (App Table 6)

Interest on operating capital represents 50 of the variable

costs at 8 interest rate

Fixed costs include rent of land family labour replacement

depreciation and interest on fixed capital

In the actual situation rent of land was charged for the area

under fodder crops while in the norm situation rent was charged only for

the area occupied by sheds and the milking parlour

- 16 shy

Family labour was valued atGpound 1600__p~r -wor~i~gslaY_~Ep_

ble 15 presents the labour requirements for 80 ewes or goats pr-ac t i c i rs

w or high grazing system at increasing levels of milk yield andmiddot

Lmbing or kidding ratios Also gives the calculation of the labou~

squ i r-ement s for the zero grazing system and increasing number of aniild

n this study it was assumed that 13 labour units(LbU) were c on tr i bu

ed by family labour and any additional labour w~cs treated as hired

abour-

The replacement was estimated at 20 of the value of animals

The annual depreciation rate of shed8 was estimated at 25

while interest rate used for sheds and livestock capital was 6

Total costs is the sum of variable and fixed costs and net profit the

difference between gross revenue and total coste (App Tables 1-6)

Return to labour (Cpoundwo~king day) was calculated by adding to the net

profit all labour costs and dividing this amount by the number of

working days (App Tables 1-6)

Return to capital () was calculated by adding to the net profit the

interest on operating and fixed capital and dividing the amount by tho

capital investments (excl land capital) and multiplied by 100 (App

Tables 1-6)

Farm income consisted of pai~ or imputed rent 9 remuneration of family

and hired labour interest charges and net profit (App Tables 1-6)

Cost to the government was computed from the v~lue of concentrates fed

using the coefficients of 039 and 043 for aault and young animals

respectively These coefficients represent the increase in percentaL~

of the present value of the concentrates which Would be paid by the

producers in the form of hi~her prices if marketing of feed grains waG

not regulated These coefficients were comI~t8d on the basis of the

difference of the prices for feed grains paid lJy the Government and t~l(

livestock producers and on the content of the concentrate mixtures in

the feed grains (App Tabl~s 3-6)

----------------

- 17 shy

App Table 1 Costs and Returns of Sheep Enterprises by Size Group (Actual)

--_SizebwrltuF (No of ewes)

30-50 50-80 80gt Mean Cpoundewe-----_-_-

No of observations 17 33 18 68

Average No of ewes 42 65 94 67 Milk production (kg) 2711 3442 5348 3764 Lambs Bold or consumed (No) 39 55 85 59 ------------------_shy

Ycilk and milk products 440 569 865 614 92 40middot9 Lambs 417 573 925 627 9 418 Culls 60 94 108 89 13 5middot8 Wool 28 48 71 49 07 31 Manure 19 30 41 30 04 18 Change of capital 71 136 55 98 15 6G

Gross Revenue Cpound 1037 1450 2056 1507 225 1000

Feed purchased 221 325 493 344 53 27 ~

Feed produced 72 118 103 103 15 77 Forage produced 150 246 379 257 38 19lt5 Other 6 8 12 8 01 0~5

Interest 18 28 39 29 04 20 ----------------___

Variable Costs Cpound 467 725 1026 741 111 ------ ------------_- shy

Rent of land 45 52 92 61 Family labour 342 436 529 437 )3 -I

~ IInterest and depreciation 48 66 85 66 -

-------~---------_ _

Fixed Costs Cpound 435 554 706 564

Total Costs bpound 902 1279 1732 1305 195 --__--____-__---shyNet profit Cpound 135 171 324 202 31

43- J

Return to labour (Cpoundworking day) 22 22 26 23

Return to capital () 101 101 128 108 Return over feed expenses Cpound 594 761 1081 804 Farm income Cf 588 753 1069 795 ---------------------~---------_

- 18 shy

Table 2 Costs and Returns of Goat Enterprises by Size Group (Actual)

Size group (lITo of gegtats )

30-50 50-80 80) Mean Ci-goat

No of observations 18 28 19 65

Average No of goats Milk production (kg) Kids sold or consumed (No)

39 4034

53

63 4439

71

98 6169 100

666 4833

74

Milk and milk products Kids Culls Manure Change of capital

331 552

54 19 97

364 704 80 28 71

505 1005 102

43 154

396 60 750 113 79 12 30 0middot5

103 15

293 551 59 24 73

Gross Revenue Cishy 1053 1247 1809 1358 20middot5 100 00

Feed purchased Feed produced Forage produced Other Interest

207 35

llO

7 14

236 53

156 8

18

263 36

304 17 25

236 43

186 II 19

3middot5 06 28 02 03

224 38

18J 13 loy

Variable Costs Cf 373 471 645 495 74 474

Rent of land Family labour Interest and depreciation

25 342 48

39 436

66

77 529 85

46 437

67

07 65 10

4middot5 417

64

Fixed Costs Cf 415 541 691 550 82 526

Total Costs Cf 788 1012 1336 1045 156 1000

Net Frofi t Cf 265 235 473 313 49

Return to labour (Cpoundworking day)

Return to capital () Return over feed expenses Farm income

Cf Of

28 169

700 694

24 128

802 794

30 17middot5 1206 1189

27 153 892 882

- 19 shy

App Table 3 Effect of Level of Produotivity and Direction of a) Produotion on the Costs and Returns of Sheep (Norm)

Milk yield (kgewe)

Lambing ratio

Milk Lambs Culls

Wool Manure

Gross Revenue

Feed for ewes i) Concentrates

ii) Hay amp straw Feed for lambs

i) Concentrates Other Interest

Variable Costs

Rent Famil y labour Replacement Depreciation Interest

Fixed Costs

Total Costs

Gross Profi t

Net Profit

Return to labour (Cpoundworking day)

Return to capital () Cost to the Government

deg 60 120 200

26 12 16 08

782 3781 1748 142 139

56 56 40 40

1565 2325 128

56 40

2608 1163

120 56 40

Cpound 4019 2765 4114 3986

676 464

988 446 12 12 67 37

728

601 12 54

720

294 12 41

Cpound 1743 959 1395 1067

2 2

364 449 544 504

19 19 82 82

2

534 608 19 82

2

590 640 19 82

ce 1011 1056 1245 1333

Cpound 2754 2015 2640 2400

Cpound 2276 1606 2719 2919

Cpound 1265 750 1474 1586

72 43 60 59 392 269 46middot7 521

Cpound 688 373 542 407

a) Assuming 80 8W~S and low grazing

- 20 shy

App Table 4 Effect of Level of Productivity and Direction of a) middotmiddotmiddot----middot --Produc_tiQ[l on the Costs and Returns of Goats (Norm) bull

bull bullbullbullbull ~ __R_ ~~__bullbullbull ~ bullbullbull _

-_ ----~ bull

Milk yield (kggoat)

Kidding ratio

0

34

80

16

160

20

2$0

13

Milk Lambs Culla

4511 137

717 2136 134

1434 2652 120

2503 1743

106

Manuremiddot 40 40 40 40

Gros smiddot R-eAfnu-e- Cpound 4688 3027 4246 4398

Feed for goats ) ConcentratesJ I

ii) Hay amp straw Feed for kids

i) Concentrates Other Interest

824

1023 12 74

560

482 12 42

832

601 12 58

928 ~

391 12 53

Variable Coiits Cpound 1933 1096 1503 1384

Rent Family labour Replacement Depreciation Interestmiddot_middotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddot

2 366 608 19 82

2 488 560

19 82

2 566 688 19 82

2 617 776 19 82

Fixed Cos is Cpound 1077 1151 1357 1496

Total Cost s Cpound 3010 2247 2860 J 2880

Gross Froht Cpound 2755 1931 2743 3014

Net PI-ofit

Cpound 1678 780 1386 151[

Return to labour (Cpoundworking day)

Return to capital () 89

493 42

274 55

436 505

480 Cost to the Oovernmen t --6pound---middot761 middot425 51n __

~_~- -- _--___-~ _ M bullbullbull_ bullbull___ R bullbullbull __bullbull __ bull

o _ bullbull

~301 __

a) Assuming 80 goats and low grazing

- 21 shy

App Table 5 Effect of Level of GraZirg on the Costs and Returns of Sheep and Goats (Norm) a

Shee~ Goats Level of gra~ing Zero Low High Zero Low Rigl

Milk yield (kgfemale animal) 120 120 120 160 160 16

Lambing or kidding ratio 16 16 16 20 20 2()

Milk 1565 1565 1565 1434 1434 l434 Lambs 2326 2326 2326 2652 2652 2652 Culls 128 128 128 120 120 120 Wool 56 56 56 Manure 40 40 40 40 40 40

Gross Revenue Cpound 4115 4115 4115 4246 4246 4246

Feed for ewes or goats i) Concentrates 1292 728 408 1508 832 505

ii) Ray amp straw 288 282 Feed for lambs or kids

i) Concentrates 601 601 601 602 602 602 Other 12 12 12 12 12 12 Interest 88 54 41 96 58 45

Variable Costs Cpound 2281 1395 1062 2500 1504 116r _ _-

Rent 2 2 2 2 L 2 Family labour 390 534 534 422 566 565 Replacement 608 608 608 688 688 68P Depreciation 19 19 19 19 19 1)

Interest 82 82 82 82 82 8e

Fixed Costs Cpound 1101 1245 1245 1213 1357 1357

Total Costs Cpound 3382 2640 2307 3713 2861 252

Gross Profit Cpound 18~4 2720 3053 1746 2743 30t)2

1Tet Profit Cpound 733 1475 1808 533 1385 1725

Return to labour (Cpoundworking day) 46 60 70 36 5middot5 65

Return to capital () 232 467 588 178 436 55( Feed cost to the Government Cpound 762 542 418 847 583 456

a) Assuming 80 female adult animals

- 22 shy

App Table 6 Bffect of the Size of the Pr-oduc t ion Unit on the Costs and Returns of Sheep and Goats (NJrm)

SheGE Goats

Ewes or goatsfarm 80 160 200 80 160 2()(I

Milk yield (kgfemale animal) 120 120 120 160 160 16~)

Lambing or kidding ratio 16 16 16 20 20 2 0

Milk 1565 3130 3912 1434 2867 35[1 Lambs 2326 4651 5814 2652 5305 66jl Culls 128 256 320 120 240 300 Wool 56 112 140 Manure 40 80 100 40 80 100

Gross Revenue Cpound 4115 8229 10286 4246 8492 10615

Feed for awes or goats i) Concentrates 728 1456 1820 832 1664 208

ii) Hay amp straw Feed for lambs or kids

i) Concentrates 601 1202 1502 602 1203 1504 Hired labour 203 385 266 4f- u_)

Other 12 24 30 12 24 jC)

Interest 54 115 150 58 126 163

Variable Costs Cpound 1395 3000 3887 1504 3283 42C

Rent 2 4 5 2 4 Family labour 534 624 624 566 624 621 Replacement 608 1216 1520 688 1376 1( 2(

Depreciation 19 32 40 19 32 4C Interest 82 159 198 82 159 19t

Fixed Costs Cpound 1245 2035 2387 1357 2195 255 _ _--_ __

Total Costs Cpound 2640 5035 6274 2860 5478 6521

Gross Profit Cpound 2720 5226 6399 2743 5209 Ggt7)

net Profit Cpound 1475 319L~ 4012 1385 3014 Ll3 -

Return to labour (Cpoundworking day) 60 78 80 5middot5 70 SoU

Return to capital () 467 510 510 436 475 538 Feed cost to the Government Cpound 542 1085 1356 583 1166 145[

- 23 ~

App Table 7 Prices Received and Paid

Prices received Unit Cpound-Milk sheep kg 0163

goat kg 0112 Lamb or kid

At leaning kg 1ivQwoight 0781 At 20 kg kg 0625 At 35 kg kg II 0547

Wool Cpoundanima1 0100 Manure Cpoundanima1 0500

Prices paid

Feed roughage

Straw ton 120 Cereal hay ton 200

Concentrates

Creep feed ton 500 15 crude protein (as fed) ton 458 13 crude protein (as fed) ton 438 11 crude protein (as fed) ton 400

Labour working day 16

Rent of land donum 15

App Table 8 Capital Investments

Land

Sheds for 80 female animals

160 female animals 200 female animals

Value of animals Ewes (0 kg milk 26 lambing ratio)

(60 kg milk 12 lambing ratio) (120 kg milk 16 lambing ratio ) (200 kg milk 08 lambing ratio)

Goats( 0 kg milk 34 kidding ratio) ~ 80 kg milk 16 kidding ratio) (160 kg milk 20 kiddinB ratio) (280 kg milk 13 kidding ratio)

Operating capital (50 of variable costs)

Cpounddonum 300

Cpoundshed 1800 Cpoundahed 13500 Cpoundshed 16600

CrJeue 330

315

380

400

Cpoundgoat 380

340

400

425

vpp Table 9 Gross RevenuG (Cpoundewe) at Incr-eas Ing LeveI s of Milk Yi o Ld and Lcml~ng Rc tios (rorm)

Millt Y i e 1 d (kg eVi8)Lambing ratio 0 20 4~ 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200

08 163 208 253 298 343 388 433 ~n 8 523 568 613 10 201 246 29 ~ 1 33~6 381 426 471 516 561 606 651

12 240 284 32~9 37~4 419 464 509 554 599 644 689 16 31 6 360 40~5 45o 495 540 585 630 675 720 765 18 355 398 44~3 488 533 578 623 668 713 758 803 22 431 474 519 56~4 609 654 699 744 789 834 879

26 508 550 5915 64+ 0 658 730 775 820 865 910 955 30 584 626 67h 71~6 761 806 851 896 941 986 1034

~--

- _ N

~

App Table 10 Gross Revenue (Cpoundgoat) at Increasing LeY11s of Milk Yield and Kidding Ratios (Norm) bull

M i llt Y i e 1 d (kg L~at) IKidding ratio

middot0 40 80 l~d 160 200 240 280 320 360 400

08 148 193 237 28~~ 327 372 41 7 461 506 551 596 12 218 263 307 35~2 397 442 487 531 576 621 666 16 287 333 37-7 42l~ 467 512 55middot7 601 646 691 736 20 355 403 447 49 ~ 2 537 582 627 671 716 761 806 24 -422 473 51 7 56~ 60middot7 652 697 74middot1 786 831 876

bull 28 488 543 58~7 632 677 722 767 811 856 901 946 32 564 613 65 ~ 7 70~~ 747 792 837 881 926 971 1016 36 634 683 72~7 772- 81 7 862 907 951 996 1041 1086

I

1)App Table 11 Concentrates Consumed (kgewe) Low Grazing System

Lambi ng Y i e 1 d i n mil k (kg ewe) ratio

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200

08 568 708 848 98 8 1128 1268 1408 1548 1688 1828 1968 LO 710 850 990 1130 127middot0 1410 1550 1690 1830 1970 2110 12 852 992 1132 1272 1412 1552 1692 1332 1972 2112 2252 16 1136 1276 1416 1556 1696 1836 1976 2116 2256 2396 2536 18 1278 1418 1558 1698 1838 1978 2118 2258 2398 2538 267middot8 22 1562 1702 1842 1982 2122 2262 2402 2542 2682 2822 2962 26 1846 1986 2126 2266 2406 2546 2686 2626 2966 3106 3246 30 2130 2270 2410 2550 2690 2830 2970 311 0 325middot0 3390 3530

ro1) I~aintenancerequirement of adult animals met by grazing V1

Assumptions for grazing systems

1 07 kg feeds of 15 crude protein (as fed basis) was fed per kg milk produced or sucked [iy 2 50 kg milk was suoked by each lamb from birth to weaning at 35 days 3 In late pregnancy each ewe received on the average 36 kg concentrates above maintenance for each lamb carried 4 In zero grazing maintenance requirements during the dry period were met by 06 kg straw and 05 kg

concentrates of 11 crude protein (as fed basis) [1~ I~ late pregnancy (6 weeks before lambing) and during lactation each ewe received 06 kg cereal hay and 04 kg concentrates to meet the maintenance requirements Other requirements in concentrates were met as in low grazing syste~

App liable 12 Conoentcates Consumed (kgg02t ) i Low Grazing SJ34~OT 1)- (I

----------------------T -----------~-_--------------------------------------------------shy

M gt~_~ LL~_~iJ~_8poundatl Kidding ratio

o 40 80 120 160 200 240 280 320 360 400 -----_ ------~---~ _- ----------__--__-----shy

08 528 768 1008 1248 138 1728 1960G 2208 24Li8 2688 2928 12 792 1032 1272 1512 175middot2 1992 2232 2472 271 2 2952 3192 16 1056 129 u 6 1536 ~-77 6 20l6 2256 2496 =736 2976 3216 3456 20 1320 1560 J80o 2040 2280 2520 2760 3000 3240 3480 3720 24 1584 1[24shy 2064 2304 2-~4middot 4 27S~4 3024 32604 350middot4 3 7 11++ 3984 28 1848 2038 23 28 2568 2808 30~ 8 328f3 ~)52 8 3768 4008 42~ 8

-3 ~ 211 2 2352 2592 2832 3072 3312 3552 37902 4032 4272 +51 2

______ 36

_-__ 2379

- 2616 2856 3096

___shy__ 3336 3576

_ 3826

middot 4056 L_~

429gt6 middot

L15306 _ _

4776

1) Maintenance requirements of adult animals met-JY grazing ro 0

~~~mption for grazing system

1 06 kg feed of 15 crude protein (as fed basis) was fed per kg milk produced or suoked 2 50 kg milk was sucked by each kid from birth to wean~ng at 70 days Partial suckling was practised from the

30th day onwards 3 In late pregnancy each goat received on the average 36 kg concentrates above maintenance for each kid carried 4 In zero grazing maintenance requirements in the dry period were met by 06 kg of straw and 05 kg of

concentrates of 11 crude protein (as fed basis)

29

- 27 shy

App Table 13 Feed Cost and Revenue for Lamb Fattening

Lambing ratio

08 10 12middot 16 18 22 26

aConcentrates (kg) I

Birth to weaning Weaning to 20 kg Birth to 20 kg 20 kg to 35 kg Birth to 35 kg

09 290 299 54~0

839

1 J 13 17 20 368middot 449 618 706 37middot9 462 635 726 675 810 1080 1215

1054 1272 1715 1941

24 890 914

1485 2399

1036 106e5 175middot5 2820

Saleable Iiveweight (kg)

at weaning at 20 kg at 35 kg

87 160 280

108 200 35middot0

12~8

24middot0 420

174198 320 360 56~0 630

249 44middot0 770

290 520 910

Feed expenses

at weaning mils 45 55 65 -85 100 120 145 to 20 kg Cf 14 17 21 29 33 42 49 __ to 35 kg Cf 37 46 56 7middot5 85 10middot5 123

Revenue Cf

Lamb sale Lamb sale Lamb sale

at weaning ~~ 20 kg at 35 kg

68 100shy153shy

gt ~_ bull bullbullbullbull ~-

84 125 191

100 136 150 200 230 306middot

15middot5 225 345

194 27middot5 421

226 32 c 49 e

Assumed birthweight 47 45 42 38

a) It was assumed that the protein content of the ooncentrates mixture feed from birth to weaning was 168 and from 20 to 35 kg 143 on dry matter basis [1[

- 28 shy

App Table 15 Labour Raquire~entl) for 80 poundMes or Goats Practising Low or High Grazing at Increasing Levels of Milk Yield and Lambing or Kidding Ratios

i

Lamhing Y i e 1 d i n mil k (kg Le_we) ratio

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 280

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - Lbua)production unit - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -08 0749 0813 0869 0933 1013 1069 1109 1149 1113 1205 1229 1283 10 0150 0814 0870 0934 1014 1010 1110 1150 1114 1206 1230 1284 12 0151 0815 0811 0935 1015 1011 1111 1151 1115 1201 1231 1285 14 0152 0816 0812 0936 1016 1012 1112 1152 1116 1208 1232 1286 16 0153 0811 0813 0937 1011 1013 1113 153 1117 1209 1234 1287 18 0154 0818 0874 0938 1018 1074 1114 1154 1178 1210 1235 1288 20 0155 0819 0875 0939 1019 1015 1115 1155 1119 1211 1236 1289 22 0756 0820 0876 0940 1020 1016 1116 1156 1180 1212 1237 1290 24 26

0151 0158

0821 0822

0871 0878

0941 0942

1022 1023

1017 1018

1111 1118

1157 1158

1181 1182

1213 1214

1238 1239

1291 1292

ro -D

28 0759 0823 0879 0943 1024 1019 1119 1159 1183 1215 1240 1293 30 0760 0824 0880 0middot944 1025 1080 1120 1160 1184 1216 1241 1 294 34 0162 0826 0882 0946 1027 1082 1122 1162 middot _____middot L_ 1186 1218 1242 1295

a) 1 LbU = 300 working days

1) Low and high grazing system Calculated as followsi

Labour requirement (LbU) = 015 + (lambing ratio - 10) x 0005 +

Labour for milkin~ (days)+ X No of female animals 300

+) Assuming 6 minutesanimalday

Zero grazing system Labour requiremunt (lbU) = Low or high grazing system (LbU) - 0300 for 80 female animals

- 0550 for 160 female animals - 0650 fOr 2rl) tomcIc animals

Page 18: FACTORS AFFECTING THE ECONOMICS OF SHEEP AND GOATSnews.ari.gov.cy/Publications/AER4-papas.pdfFACTORS AFFECTING THE ECONOMICS OF SHEEP AND GOATS . By . ... Costs and Returns of Goat

- 14 shy

2 Chimonides 1 1972 Some faotors affGoting the productivity of DamQscus goats in Cyprus MS Thesis American University of Bei r-ut L8b~~lO[

3 Planning Bureau ThE first (1962-66) the second (1967-71) and t hlaquo

third (1972-76) Five Year Plan Planning Rur~au

Nioosia Cyprus

4 Agrioulturul Research Institute 1964 Cost and Returns of Shlq

and goats Agric Res Inst Nioosia Cyprus

5 Louca A Personal c omruurri ca t i cn Agrioultural Research Institute Nioosia Cyprus

6 Hadjipanayiotou M and Louca A 1975 PhG Effeots of partial suckling on the lactation Derformance of Chios sheep and Damasous goats and the growth rate of the lambs and kids (in preparation) Agricultural Research Institute Nicosia Cyprus

7 Louca A 1972 The effect of suckling regime on grmdh rate and laotation performance of the Cyprus Fat-tailed amI Chios sheep Anim Prod 15~53-59

8 Louca A ~ Mavr-ogen i s A and Lawlor ~1J 1975 ThE effect of early weaning on the laotation performanoe of Damascus goats and the growth rate of the kidb Anim Prod 20 213-218

9 Papachristodoulou S and Papas A 1975 The bconomios of drylan~

mixed farming in Cyprus Agrioultural Research Institute Nicosia~ Cyprus

10 Papachristodoulou S 1974 (Restrioted) Dryland Mixed Farwing A technical and economic anaLys i s of some typical fnrl~

participated in the Mixed Farming Project during 1968-1972 Agricultural Research ~nstitute Nicosia Cyprus

11 Papas A 1975 Protein requirements of ewes during laotution (in IJreparation) Agrioultural REJsearch Lns t i tu t e Nicosia Cyprus

12 Papas A 1975 Protein requirements of ewes during maintenanoe (in preparation) Agricultural Res~arch Institute Nioosia Cyprus

13 Papas~ A 1975 The protein requirements of early weaned lambs (in preparation) Agricultural Researoh Institutc 9

Nioosia CYfrus

- 15 shy

lTA P P E D I x

COHPUTATION OF DnUT-OUTPUT DATA OF SHEEP MID GOATS-Gross revenue is the total value of milkmeat cUlls wool and manuree

Sheep milk was sold at Cpound 0163kg and goat milk at Cpound 0112kg In the

actual situation revenue from lambs and kids 11018 based on receipts

adjusted to current prices It was assumed that in norm situation lambs

and kids were sold at 35 kg liveweight 0547kg The prices at 20 kg

liveweight and at weaning were Cpound 0625 and Cpound 0781 respectively A 5

death rate for lambs and kids was assumed Culling was estimated at

20 each year 5 of this was assumed to represent losses and the

remaining 15 of the culls sold at Cpound 125head It was assumed that

losses were directly related to productivity for every additional 10 kg

milk yield and 01 lambing ratio losses increased by 015 and by

005 respectively The revenue from wool and manure was estimated at

Cpound 0700 and Cpound 0500animal respectively (App Tables 16)

Variable costs include feed expenses (purchased or produced) other

expenses (veterinary hired labour) and interest on operating capitale

In the actual situation feed expenses for sheep remiddotprEHHlnted

the 95 of variable costs and 54 of total costs for goats these

percentages are 94 and 44 respectively (App Tables 1 and 2) In the

norm situation feed expenses for sheep or goats comprised approximately

95 of the variable costs ranging from 42-65 of the total costs

depending on the level of productivity direction of production and the

level of grazing (App Tables 3-5) The feed expenses forslle-epandmiddot

goats as percent of variable and total costs decreased from about

95-84 and increased from about 50-53 respectively depending on the

size of production unit (App Table 6)

Interest on operating capital represents 50 of the variable

costs at 8 interest rate

Fixed costs include rent of land family labour replacement

depreciation and interest on fixed capital

In the actual situation rent of land was charged for the area

under fodder crops while in the norm situation rent was charged only for

the area occupied by sheds and the milking parlour

- 16 shy

Family labour was valued atGpound 1600__p~r -wor~i~gslaY_~Ep_

ble 15 presents the labour requirements for 80 ewes or goats pr-ac t i c i rs

w or high grazing system at increasing levels of milk yield andmiddot

Lmbing or kidding ratios Also gives the calculation of the labou~

squ i r-ement s for the zero grazing system and increasing number of aniild

n this study it was assumed that 13 labour units(LbU) were c on tr i bu

ed by family labour and any additional labour w~cs treated as hired

abour-

The replacement was estimated at 20 of the value of animals

The annual depreciation rate of shed8 was estimated at 25

while interest rate used for sheds and livestock capital was 6

Total costs is the sum of variable and fixed costs and net profit the

difference between gross revenue and total coste (App Tables 1-6)

Return to labour (Cpoundwo~king day) was calculated by adding to the net

profit all labour costs and dividing this amount by the number of

working days (App Tables 1-6)

Return to capital () was calculated by adding to the net profit the

interest on operating and fixed capital and dividing the amount by tho

capital investments (excl land capital) and multiplied by 100 (App

Tables 1-6)

Farm income consisted of pai~ or imputed rent 9 remuneration of family

and hired labour interest charges and net profit (App Tables 1-6)

Cost to the government was computed from the v~lue of concentrates fed

using the coefficients of 039 and 043 for aault and young animals

respectively These coefficients represent the increase in percentaL~

of the present value of the concentrates which Would be paid by the

producers in the form of hi~her prices if marketing of feed grains waG

not regulated These coefficients were comI~t8d on the basis of the

difference of the prices for feed grains paid lJy the Government and t~l(

livestock producers and on the content of the concentrate mixtures in

the feed grains (App Tabl~s 3-6)

----------------

- 17 shy

App Table 1 Costs and Returns of Sheep Enterprises by Size Group (Actual)

--_SizebwrltuF (No of ewes)

30-50 50-80 80gt Mean Cpoundewe-----_-_-

No of observations 17 33 18 68

Average No of ewes 42 65 94 67 Milk production (kg) 2711 3442 5348 3764 Lambs Bold or consumed (No) 39 55 85 59 ------------------_shy

Ycilk and milk products 440 569 865 614 92 40middot9 Lambs 417 573 925 627 9 418 Culls 60 94 108 89 13 5middot8 Wool 28 48 71 49 07 31 Manure 19 30 41 30 04 18 Change of capital 71 136 55 98 15 6G

Gross Revenue Cpound 1037 1450 2056 1507 225 1000

Feed purchased 221 325 493 344 53 27 ~

Feed produced 72 118 103 103 15 77 Forage produced 150 246 379 257 38 19lt5 Other 6 8 12 8 01 0~5

Interest 18 28 39 29 04 20 ----------------___

Variable Costs Cpound 467 725 1026 741 111 ------ ------------_- shy

Rent of land 45 52 92 61 Family labour 342 436 529 437 )3 -I

~ IInterest and depreciation 48 66 85 66 -

-------~---------_ _

Fixed Costs Cpound 435 554 706 564

Total Costs bpound 902 1279 1732 1305 195 --__--____-__---shyNet profit Cpound 135 171 324 202 31

43- J

Return to labour (Cpoundworking day) 22 22 26 23

Return to capital () 101 101 128 108 Return over feed expenses Cpound 594 761 1081 804 Farm income Cf 588 753 1069 795 ---------------------~---------_

- 18 shy

Table 2 Costs and Returns of Goat Enterprises by Size Group (Actual)

Size group (lITo of gegtats )

30-50 50-80 80) Mean Ci-goat

No of observations 18 28 19 65

Average No of goats Milk production (kg) Kids sold or consumed (No)

39 4034

53

63 4439

71

98 6169 100

666 4833

74

Milk and milk products Kids Culls Manure Change of capital

331 552

54 19 97

364 704 80 28 71

505 1005 102

43 154

396 60 750 113 79 12 30 0middot5

103 15

293 551 59 24 73

Gross Revenue Cishy 1053 1247 1809 1358 20middot5 100 00

Feed purchased Feed produced Forage produced Other Interest

207 35

llO

7 14

236 53

156 8

18

263 36

304 17 25

236 43

186 II 19

3middot5 06 28 02 03

224 38

18J 13 loy

Variable Costs Cf 373 471 645 495 74 474

Rent of land Family labour Interest and depreciation

25 342 48

39 436

66

77 529 85

46 437

67

07 65 10

4middot5 417

64

Fixed Costs Cf 415 541 691 550 82 526

Total Costs Cf 788 1012 1336 1045 156 1000

Net Frofi t Cf 265 235 473 313 49

Return to labour (Cpoundworking day)

Return to capital () Return over feed expenses Farm income

Cf Of

28 169

700 694

24 128

802 794

30 17middot5 1206 1189

27 153 892 882

- 19 shy

App Table 3 Effect of Level of Produotivity and Direction of a) Produotion on the Costs and Returns of Sheep (Norm)

Milk yield (kgewe)

Lambing ratio

Milk Lambs Culls

Wool Manure

Gross Revenue

Feed for ewes i) Concentrates

ii) Hay amp straw Feed for lambs

i) Concentrates Other Interest

Variable Costs

Rent Famil y labour Replacement Depreciation Interest

Fixed Costs

Total Costs

Gross Profi t

Net Profit

Return to labour (Cpoundworking day)

Return to capital () Cost to the Government

deg 60 120 200

26 12 16 08

782 3781 1748 142 139

56 56 40 40

1565 2325 128

56 40

2608 1163

120 56 40

Cpound 4019 2765 4114 3986

676 464

988 446 12 12 67 37

728

601 12 54

720

294 12 41

Cpound 1743 959 1395 1067

2 2

364 449 544 504

19 19 82 82

2

534 608 19 82

2

590 640 19 82

ce 1011 1056 1245 1333

Cpound 2754 2015 2640 2400

Cpound 2276 1606 2719 2919

Cpound 1265 750 1474 1586

72 43 60 59 392 269 46middot7 521

Cpound 688 373 542 407

a) Assuming 80 8W~S and low grazing

- 20 shy

App Table 4 Effect of Level of Productivity and Direction of a) middotmiddotmiddot----middot --Produc_tiQ[l on the Costs and Returns of Goats (Norm) bull

bull bullbullbullbull ~ __R_ ~~__bullbullbull ~ bullbullbull _

-_ ----~ bull

Milk yield (kggoat)

Kidding ratio

0

34

80

16

160

20

2$0

13

Milk Lambs Culla

4511 137

717 2136 134

1434 2652 120

2503 1743

106

Manuremiddot 40 40 40 40

Gros smiddot R-eAfnu-e- Cpound 4688 3027 4246 4398

Feed for goats ) ConcentratesJ I

ii) Hay amp straw Feed for kids

i) Concentrates Other Interest

824

1023 12 74

560

482 12 42

832

601 12 58

928 ~

391 12 53

Variable Coiits Cpound 1933 1096 1503 1384

Rent Family labour Replacement Depreciation Interestmiddot_middotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddot

2 366 608 19 82

2 488 560

19 82

2 566 688 19 82

2 617 776 19 82

Fixed Cos is Cpound 1077 1151 1357 1496

Total Cost s Cpound 3010 2247 2860 J 2880

Gross Froht Cpound 2755 1931 2743 3014

Net PI-ofit

Cpound 1678 780 1386 151[

Return to labour (Cpoundworking day)

Return to capital () 89

493 42

274 55

436 505

480 Cost to the Oovernmen t --6pound---middot761 middot425 51n __

~_~- -- _--___-~ _ M bullbullbull_ bullbull___ R bullbullbull __bullbull __ bull

o _ bullbull

~301 __

a) Assuming 80 goats and low grazing

- 21 shy

App Table 5 Effect of Level of GraZirg on the Costs and Returns of Sheep and Goats (Norm) a

Shee~ Goats Level of gra~ing Zero Low High Zero Low Rigl

Milk yield (kgfemale animal) 120 120 120 160 160 16

Lambing or kidding ratio 16 16 16 20 20 2()

Milk 1565 1565 1565 1434 1434 l434 Lambs 2326 2326 2326 2652 2652 2652 Culls 128 128 128 120 120 120 Wool 56 56 56 Manure 40 40 40 40 40 40

Gross Revenue Cpound 4115 4115 4115 4246 4246 4246

Feed for ewes or goats i) Concentrates 1292 728 408 1508 832 505

ii) Ray amp straw 288 282 Feed for lambs or kids

i) Concentrates 601 601 601 602 602 602 Other 12 12 12 12 12 12 Interest 88 54 41 96 58 45

Variable Costs Cpound 2281 1395 1062 2500 1504 116r _ _-

Rent 2 2 2 2 L 2 Family labour 390 534 534 422 566 565 Replacement 608 608 608 688 688 68P Depreciation 19 19 19 19 19 1)

Interest 82 82 82 82 82 8e

Fixed Costs Cpound 1101 1245 1245 1213 1357 1357

Total Costs Cpound 3382 2640 2307 3713 2861 252

Gross Profit Cpound 18~4 2720 3053 1746 2743 30t)2

1Tet Profit Cpound 733 1475 1808 533 1385 1725

Return to labour (Cpoundworking day) 46 60 70 36 5middot5 65

Return to capital () 232 467 588 178 436 55( Feed cost to the Government Cpound 762 542 418 847 583 456

a) Assuming 80 female adult animals

- 22 shy

App Table 6 Bffect of the Size of the Pr-oduc t ion Unit on the Costs and Returns of Sheep and Goats (NJrm)

SheGE Goats

Ewes or goatsfarm 80 160 200 80 160 2()(I

Milk yield (kgfemale animal) 120 120 120 160 160 16~)

Lambing or kidding ratio 16 16 16 20 20 2 0

Milk 1565 3130 3912 1434 2867 35[1 Lambs 2326 4651 5814 2652 5305 66jl Culls 128 256 320 120 240 300 Wool 56 112 140 Manure 40 80 100 40 80 100

Gross Revenue Cpound 4115 8229 10286 4246 8492 10615

Feed for awes or goats i) Concentrates 728 1456 1820 832 1664 208

ii) Hay amp straw Feed for lambs or kids

i) Concentrates 601 1202 1502 602 1203 1504 Hired labour 203 385 266 4f- u_)

Other 12 24 30 12 24 jC)

Interest 54 115 150 58 126 163

Variable Costs Cpound 1395 3000 3887 1504 3283 42C

Rent 2 4 5 2 4 Family labour 534 624 624 566 624 621 Replacement 608 1216 1520 688 1376 1( 2(

Depreciation 19 32 40 19 32 4C Interest 82 159 198 82 159 19t

Fixed Costs Cpound 1245 2035 2387 1357 2195 255 _ _--_ __

Total Costs Cpound 2640 5035 6274 2860 5478 6521

Gross Profit Cpound 2720 5226 6399 2743 5209 Ggt7)

net Profit Cpound 1475 319L~ 4012 1385 3014 Ll3 -

Return to labour (Cpoundworking day) 60 78 80 5middot5 70 SoU

Return to capital () 467 510 510 436 475 538 Feed cost to the Government Cpound 542 1085 1356 583 1166 145[

- 23 ~

App Table 7 Prices Received and Paid

Prices received Unit Cpound-Milk sheep kg 0163

goat kg 0112 Lamb or kid

At leaning kg 1ivQwoight 0781 At 20 kg kg 0625 At 35 kg kg II 0547

Wool Cpoundanima1 0100 Manure Cpoundanima1 0500

Prices paid

Feed roughage

Straw ton 120 Cereal hay ton 200

Concentrates

Creep feed ton 500 15 crude protein (as fed) ton 458 13 crude protein (as fed) ton 438 11 crude protein (as fed) ton 400

Labour working day 16

Rent of land donum 15

App Table 8 Capital Investments

Land

Sheds for 80 female animals

160 female animals 200 female animals

Value of animals Ewes (0 kg milk 26 lambing ratio)

(60 kg milk 12 lambing ratio) (120 kg milk 16 lambing ratio ) (200 kg milk 08 lambing ratio)

Goats( 0 kg milk 34 kidding ratio) ~ 80 kg milk 16 kidding ratio) (160 kg milk 20 kiddinB ratio) (280 kg milk 13 kidding ratio)

Operating capital (50 of variable costs)

Cpounddonum 300

Cpoundshed 1800 Cpoundahed 13500 Cpoundshed 16600

CrJeue 330

315

380

400

Cpoundgoat 380

340

400

425

vpp Table 9 Gross RevenuG (Cpoundewe) at Incr-eas Ing LeveI s of Milk Yi o Ld and Lcml~ng Rc tios (rorm)

Millt Y i e 1 d (kg eVi8)Lambing ratio 0 20 4~ 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200

08 163 208 253 298 343 388 433 ~n 8 523 568 613 10 201 246 29 ~ 1 33~6 381 426 471 516 561 606 651

12 240 284 32~9 37~4 419 464 509 554 599 644 689 16 31 6 360 40~5 45o 495 540 585 630 675 720 765 18 355 398 44~3 488 533 578 623 668 713 758 803 22 431 474 519 56~4 609 654 699 744 789 834 879

26 508 550 5915 64+ 0 658 730 775 820 865 910 955 30 584 626 67h 71~6 761 806 851 896 941 986 1034

~--

- _ N

~

App Table 10 Gross Revenue (Cpoundgoat) at Increasing LeY11s of Milk Yield and Kidding Ratios (Norm) bull

M i llt Y i e 1 d (kg L~at) IKidding ratio

middot0 40 80 l~d 160 200 240 280 320 360 400

08 148 193 237 28~~ 327 372 41 7 461 506 551 596 12 218 263 307 35~2 397 442 487 531 576 621 666 16 287 333 37-7 42l~ 467 512 55middot7 601 646 691 736 20 355 403 447 49 ~ 2 537 582 627 671 716 761 806 24 -422 473 51 7 56~ 60middot7 652 697 74middot1 786 831 876

bull 28 488 543 58~7 632 677 722 767 811 856 901 946 32 564 613 65 ~ 7 70~~ 747 792 837 881 926 971 1016 36 634 683 72~7 772- 81 7 862 907 951 996 1041 1086

I

1)App Table 11 Concentrates Consumed (kgewe) Low Grazing System

Lambi ng Y i e 1 d i n mil k (kg ewe) ratio

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200

08 568 708 848 98 8 1128 1268 1408 1548 1688 1828 1968 LO 710 850 990 1130 127middot0 1410 1550 1690 1830 1970 2110 12 852 992 1132 1272 1412 1552 1692 1332 1972 2112 2252 16 1136 1276 1416 1556 1696 1836 1976 2116 2256 2396 2536 18 1278 1418 1558 1698 1838 1978 2118 2258 2398 2538 267middot8 22 1562 1702 1842 1982 2122 2262 2402 2542 2682 2822 2962 26 1846 1986 2126 2266 2406 2546 2686 2626 2966 3106 3246 30 2130 2270 2410 2550 2690 2830 2970 311 0 325middot0 3390 3530

ro1) I~aintenancerequirement of adult animals met by grazing V1

Assumptions for grazing systems

1 07 kg feeds of 15 crude protein (as fed basis) was fed per kg milk produced or sucked [iy 2 50 kg milk was suoked by each lamb from birth to weaning at 35 days 3 In late pregnancy each ewe received on the average 36 kg concentrates above maintenance for each lamb carried 4 In zero grazing maintenance requirements during the dry period were met by 06 kg straw and 05 kg

concentrates of 11 crude protein (as fed basis) [1~ I~ late pregnancy (6 weeks before lambing) and during lactation each ewe received 06 kg cereal hay and 04 kg concentrates to meet the maintenance requirements Other requirements in concentrates were met as in low grazing syste~

App liable 12 Conoentcates Consumed (kgg02t ) i Low Grazing SJ34~OT 1)- (I

----------------------T -----------~-_--------------------------------------------------shy

M gt~_~ LL~_~iJ~_8poundatl Kidding ratio

o 40 80 120 160 200 240 280 320 360 400 -----_ ------~---~ _- ----------__--__-----shy

08 528 768 1008 1248 138 1728 1960G 2208 24Li8 2688 2928 12 792 1032 1272 1512 175middot2 1992 2232 2472 271 2 2952 3192 16 1056 129 u 6 1536 ~-77 6 20l6 2256 2496 =736 2976 3216 3456 20 1320 1560 J80o 2040 2280 2520 2760 3000 3240 3480 3720 24 1584 1[24shy 2064 2304 2-~4middot 4 27S~4 3024 32604 350middot4 3 7 11++ 3984 28 1848 2038 23 28 2568 2808 30~ 8 328f3 ~)52 8 3768 4008 42~ 8

-3 ~ 211 2 2352 2592 2832 3072 3312 3552 37902 4032 4272 +51 2

______ 36

_-__ 2379

- 2616 2856 3096

___shy__ 3336 3576

_ 3826

middot 4056 L_~

429gt6 middot

L15306 _ _

4776

1) Maintenance requirements of adult animals met-JY grazing ro 0

~~~mption for grazing system

1 06 kg feed of 15 crude protein (as fed basis) was fed per kg milk produced or suoked 2 50 kg milk was sucked by each kid from birth to wean~ng at 70 days Partial suckling was practised from the

30th day onwards 3 In late pregnancy each goat received on the average 36 kg concentrates above maintenance for each kid carried 4 In zero grazing maintenance requirements in the dry period were met by 06 kg of straw and 05 kg of

concentrates of 11 crude protein (as fed basis)

29

- 27 shy

App Table 13 Feed Cost and Revenue for Lamb Fattening

Lambing ratio

08 10 12middot 16 18 22 26

aConcentrates (kg) I

Birth to weaning Weaning to 20 kg Birth to 20 kg 20 kg to 35 kg Birth to 35 kg

09 290 299 54~0

839

1 J 13 17 20 368middot 449 618 706 37middot9 462 635 726 675 810 1080 1215

1054 1272 1715 1941

24 890 914

1485 2399

1036 106e5 175middot5 2820

Saleable Iiveweight (kg)

at weaning at 20 kg at 35 kg

87 160 280

108 200 35middot0

12~8

24middot0 420

174198 320 360 56~0 630

249 44middot0 770

290 520 910

Feed expenses

at weaning mils 45 55 65 -85 100 120 145 to 20 kg Cf 14 17 21 29 33 42 49 __ to 35 kg Cf 37 46 56 7middot5 85 10middot5 123

Revenue Cf

Lamb sale Lamb sale Lamb sale

at weaning ~~ 20 kg at 35 kg

68 100shy153shy

gt ~_ bull bullbullbullbull ~-

84 125 191

100 136 150 200 230 306middot

15middot5 225 345

194 27middot5 421

226 32 c 49 e

Assumed birthweight 47 45 42 38

a) It was assumed that the protein content of the ooncentrates mixture feed from birth to weaning was 168 and from 20 to 35 kg 143 on dry matter basis [1[

- 28 shy

App Table 15 Labour Raquire~entl) for 80 poundMes or Goats Practising Low or High Grazing at Increasing Levels of Milk Yield and Lambing or Kidding Ratios

i

Lamhing Y i e 1 d i n mil k (kg Le_we) ratio

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 280

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - Lbua)production unit - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -08 0749 0813 0869 0933 1013 1069 1109 1149 1113 1205 1229 1283 10 0150 0814 0870 0934 1014 1010 1110 1150 1114 1206 1230 1284 12 0151 0815 0811 0935 1015 1011 1111 1151 1115 1201 1231 1285 14 0152 0816 0812 0936 1016 1012 1112 1152 1116 1208 1232 1286 16 0153 0811 0813 0937 1011 1013 1113 153 1117 1209 1234 1287 18 0154 0818 0874 0938 1018 1074 1114 1154 1178 1210 1235 1288 20 0155 0819 0875 0939 1019 1015 1115 1155 1119 1211 1236 1289 22 0756 0820 0876 0940 1020 1016 1116 1156 1180 1212 1237 1290 24 26

0151 0158

0821 0822

0871 0878

0941 0942

1022 1023

1017 1018

1111 1118

1157 1158

1181 1182

1213 1214

1238 1239

1291 1292

ro -D

28 0759 0823 0879 0943 1024 1019 1119 1159 1183 1215 1240 1293 30 0760 0824 0880 0middot944 1025 1080 1120 1160 1184 1216 1241 1 294 34 0162 0826 0882 0946 1027 1082 1122 1162 middot _____middot L_ 1186 1218 1242 1295

a) 1 LbU = 300 working days

1) Low and high grazing system Calculated as followsi

Labour requirement (LbU) = 015 + (lambing ratio - 10) x 0005 +

Labour for milkin~ (days)+ X No of female animals 300

+) Assuming 6 minutesanimalday

Zero grazing system Labour requiremunt (lbU) = Low or high grazing system (LbU) - 0300 for 80 female animals

- 0550 for 160 female animals - 0650 fOr 2rl) tomcIc animals

Page 19: FACTORS AFFECTING THE ECONOMICS OF SHEEP AND GOATSnews.ari.gov.cy/Publications/AER4-papas.pdfFACTORS AFFECTING THE ECONOMICS OF SHEEP AND GOATS . By . ... Costs and Returns of Goat

- 15 shy

lTA P P E D I x

COHPUTATION OF DnUT-OUTPUT DATA OF SHEEP MID GOATS-Gross revenue is the total value of milkmeat cUlls wool and manuree

Sheep milk was sold at Cpound 0163kg and goat milk at Cpound 0112kg In the

actual situation revenue from lambs and kids 11018 based on receipts

adjusted to current prices It was assumed that in norm situation lambs

and kids were sold at 35 kg liveweight 0547kg The prices at 20 kg

liveweight and at weaning were Cpound 0625 and Cpound 0781 respectively A 5

death rate for lambs and kids was assumed Culling was estimated at

20 each year 5 of this was assumed to represent losses and the

remaining 15 of the culls sold at Cpound 125head It was assumed that

losses were directly related to productivity for every additional 10 kg

milk yield and 01 lambing ratio losses increased by 015 and by

005 respectively The revenue from wool and manure was estimated at

Cpound 0700 and Cpound 0500animal respectively (App Tables 16)

Variable costs include feed expenses (purchased or produced) other

expenses (veterinary hired labour) and interest on operating capitale

In the actual situation feed expenses for sheep remiddotprEHHlnted

the 95 of variable costs and 54 of total costs for goats these

percentages are 94 and 44 respectively (App Tables 1 and 2) In the

norm situation feed expenses for sheep or goats comprised approximately

95 of the variable costs ranging from 42-65 of the total costs

depending on the level of productivity direction of production and the

level of grazing (App Tables 3-5) The feed expenses forslle-epandmiddot

goats as percent of variable and total costs decreased from about

95-84 and increased from about 50-53 respectively depending on the

size of production unit (App Table 6)

Interest on operating capital represents 50 of the variable

costs at 8 interest rate

Fixed costs include rent of land family labour replacement

depreciation and interest on fixed capital

In the actual situation rent of land was charged for the area

under fodder crops while in the norm situation rent was charged only for

the area occupied by sheds and the milking parlour

- 16 shy

Family labour was valued atGpound 1600__p~r -wor~i~gslaY_~Ep_

ble 15 presents the labour requirements for 80 ewes or goats pr-ac t i c i rs

w or high grazing system at increasing levels of milk yield andmiddot

Lmbing or kidding ratios Also gives the calculation of the labou~

squ i r-ement s for the zero grazing system and increasing number of aniild

n this study it was assumed that 13 labour units(LbU) were c on tr i bu

ed by family labour and any additional labour w~cs treated as hired

abour-

The replacement was estimated at 20 of the value of animals

The annual depreciation rate of shed8 was estimated at 25

while interest rate used for sheds and livestock capital was 6

Total costs is the sum of variable and fixed costs and net profit the

difference between gross revenue and total coste (App Tables 1-6)

Return to labour (Cpoundwo~king day) was calculated by adding to the net

profit all labour costs and dividing this amount by the number of

working days (App Tables 1-6)

Return to capital () was calculated by adding to the net profit the

interest on operating and fixed capital and dividing the amount by tho

capital investments (excl land capital) and multiplied by 100 (App

Tables 1-6)

Farm income consisted of pai~ or imputed rent 9 remuneration of family

and hired labour interest charges and net profit (App Tables 1-6)

Cost to the government was computed from the v~lue of concentrates fed

using the coefficients of 039 and 043 for aault and young animals

respectively These coefficients represent the increase in percentaL~

of the present value of the concentrates which Would be paid by the

producers in the form of hi~her prices if marketing of feed grains waG

not regulated These coefficients were comI~t8d on the basis of the

difference of the prices for feed grains paid lJy the Government and t~l(

livestock producers and on the content of the concentrate mixtures in

the feed grains (App Tabl~s 3-6)

----------------

- 17 shy

App Table 1 Costs and Returns of Sheep Enterprises by Size Group (Actual)

--_SizebwrltuF (No of ewes)

30-50 50-80 80gt Mean Cpoundewe-----_-_-

No of observations 17 33 18 68

Average No of ewes 42 65 94 67 Milk production (kg) 2711 3442 5348 3764 Lambs Bold or consumed (No) 39 55 85 59 ------------------_shy

Ycilk and milk products 440 569 865 614 92 40middot9 Lambs 417 573 925 627 9 418 Culls 60 94 108 89 13 5middot8 Wool 28 48 71 49 07 31 Manure 19 30 41 30 04 18 Change of capital 71 136 55 98 15 6G

Gross Revenue Cpound 1037 1450 2056 1507 225 1000

Feed purchased 221 325 493 344 53 27 ~

Feed produced 72 118 103 103 15 77 Forage produced 150 246 379 257 38 19lt5 Other 6 8 12 8 01 0~5

Interest 18 28 39 29 04 20 ----------------___

Variable Costs Cpound 467 725 1026 741 111 ------ ------------_- shy

Rent of land 45 52 92 61 Family labour 342 436 529 437 )3 -I

~ IInterest and depreciation 48 66 85 66 -

-------~---------_ _

Fixed Costs Cpound 435 554 706 564

Total Costs bpound 902 1279 1732 1305 195 --__--____-__---shyNet profit Cpound 135 171 324 202 31

43- J

Return to labour (Cpoundworking day) 22 22 26 23

Return to capital () 101 101 128 108 Return over feed expenses Cpound 594 761 1081 804 Farm income Cf 588 753 1069 795 ---------------------~---------_

- 18 shy

Table 2 Costs and Returns of Goat Enterprises by Size Group (Actual)

Size group (lITo of gegtats )

30-50 50-80 80) Mean Ci-goat

No of observations 18 28 19 65

Average No of goats Milk production (kg) Kids sold or consumed (No)

39 4034

53

63 4439

71

98 6169 100

666 4833

74

Milk and milk products Kids Culls Manure Change of capital

331 552

54 19 97

364 704 80 28 71

505 1005 102

43 154

396 60 750 113 79 12 30 0middot5

103 15

293 551 59 24 73

Gross Revenue Cishy 1053 1247 1809 1358 20middot5 100 00

Feed purchased Feed produced Forage produced Other Interest

207 35

llO

7 14

236 53

156 8

18

263 36

304 17 25

236 43

186 II 19

3middot5 06 28 02 03

224 38

18J 13 loy

Variable Costs Cf 373 471 645 495 74 474

Rent of land Family labour Interest and depreciation

25 342 48

39 436

66

77 529 85

46 437

67

07 65 10

4middot5 417

64

Fixed Costs Cf 415 541 691 550 82 526

Total Costs Cf 788 1012 1336 1045 156 1000

Net Frofi t Cf 265 235 473 313 49

Return to labour (Cpoundworking day)

Return to capital () Return over feed expenses Farm income

Cf Of

28 169

700 694

24 128

802 794

30 17middot5 1206 1189

27 153 892 882

- 19 shy

App Table 3 Effect of Level of Produotivity and Direction of a) Produotion on the Costs and Returns of Sheep (Norm)

Milk yield (kgewe)

Lambing ratio

Milk Lambs Culls

Wool Manure

Gross Revenue

Feed for ewes i) Concentrates

ii) Hay amp straw Feed for lambs

i) Concentrates Other Interest

Variable Costs

Rent Famil y labour Replacement Depreciation Interest

Fixed Costs

Total Costs

Gross Profi t

Net Profit

Return to labour (Cpoundworking day)

Return to capital () Cost to the Government

deg 60 120 200

26 12 16 08

782 3781 1748 142 139

56 56 40 40

1565 2325 128

56 40

2608 1163

120 56 40

Cpound 4019 2765 4114 3986

676 464

988 446 12 12 67 37

728

601 12 54

720

294 12 41

Cpound 1743 959 1395 1067

2 2

364 449 544 504

19 19 82 82

2

534 608 19 82

2

590 640 19 82

ce 1011 1056 1245 1333

Cpound 2754 2015 2640 2400

Cpound 2276 1606 2719 2919

Cpound 1265 750 1474 1586

72 43 60 59 392 269 46middot7 521

Cpound 688 373 542 407

a) Assuming 80 8W~S and low grazing

- 20 shy

App Table 4 Effect of Level of Productivity and Direction of a) middotmiddotmiddot----middot --Produc_tiQ[l on the Costs and Returns of Goats (Norm) bull

bull bullbullbullbull ~ __R_ ~~__bullbullbull ~ bullbullbull _

-_ ----~ bull

Milk yield (kggoat)

Kidding ratio

0

34

80

16

160

20

2$0

13

Milk Lambs Culla

4511 137

717 2136 134

1434 2652 120

2503 1743

106

Manuremiddot 40 40 40 40

Gros smiddot R-eAfnu-e- Cpound 4688 3027 4246 4398

Feed for goats ) ConcentratesJ I

ii) Hay amp straw Feed for kids

i) Concentrates Other Interest

824

1023 12 74

560

482 12 42

832

601 12 58

928 ~

391 12 53

Variable Coiits Cpound 1933 1096 1503 1384

Rent Family labour Replacement Depreciation Interestmiddot_middotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddot

2 366 608 19 82

2 488 560

19 82

2 566 688 19 82

2 617 776 19 82

Fixed Cos is Cpound 1077 1151 1357 1496

Total Cost s Cpound 3010 2247 2860 J 2880

Gross Froht Cpound 2755 1931 2743 3014

Net PI-ofit

Cpound 1678 780 1386 151[

Return to labour (Cpoundworking day)

Return to capital () 89

493 42

274 55

436 505

480 Cost to the Oovernmen t --6pound---middot761 middot425 51n __

~_~- -- _--___-~ _ M bullbullbull_ bullbull___ R bullbullbull __bullbull __ bull

o _ bullbull

~301 __

a) Assuming 80 goats and low grazing

- 21 shy

App Table 5 Effect of Level of GraZirg on the Costs and Returns of Sheep and Goats (Norm) a

Shee~ Goats Level of gra~ing Zero Low High Zero Low Rigl

Milk yield (kgfemale animal) 120 120 120 160 160 16

Lambing or kidding ratio 16 16 16 20 20 2()

Milk 1565 1565 1565 1434 1434 l434 Lambs 2326 2326 2326 2652 2652 2652 Culls 128 128 128 120 120 120 Wool 56 56 56 Manure 40 40 40 40 40 40

Gross Revenue Cpound 4115 4115 4115 4246 4246 4246

Feed for ewes or goats i) Concentrates 1292 728 408 1508 832 505

ii) Ray amp straw 288 282 Feed for lambs or kids

i) Concentrates 601 601 601 602 602 602 Other 12 12 12 12 12 12 Interest 88 54 41 96 58 45

Variable Costs Cpound 2281 1395 1062 2500 1504 116r _ _-

Rent 2 2 2 2 L 2 Family labour 390 534 534 422 566 565 Replacement 608 608 608 688 688 68P Depreciation 19 19 19 19 19 1)

Interest 82 82 82 82 82 8e

Fixed Costs Cpound 1101 1245 1245 1213 1357 1357

Total Costs Cpound 3382 2640 2307 3713 2861 252

Gross Profit Cpound 18~4 2720 3053 1746 2743 30t)2

1Tet Profit Cpound 733 1475 1808 533 1385 1725

Return to labour (Cpoundworking day) 46 60 70 36 5middot5 65

Return to capital () 232 467 588 178 436 55( Feed cost to the Government Cpound 762 542 418 847 583 456

a) Assuming 80 female adult animals

- 22 shy

App Table 6 Bffect of the Size of the Pr-oduc t ion Unit on the Costs and Returns of Sheep and Goats (NJrm)

SheGE Goats

Ewes or goatsfarm 80 160 200 80 160 2()(I

Milk yield (kgfemale animal) 120 120 120 160 160 16~)

Lambing or kidding ratio 16 16 16 20 20 2 0

Milk 1565 3130 3912 1434 2867 35[1 Lambs 2326 4651 5814 2652 5305 66jl Culls 128 256 320 120 240 300 Wool 56 112 140 Manure 40 80 100 40 80 100

Gross Revenue Cpound 4115 8229 10286 4246 8492 10615

Feed for awes or goats i) Concentrates 728 1456 1820 832 1664 208

ii) Hay amp straw Feed for lambs or kids

i) Concentrates 601 1202 1502 602 1203 1504 Hired labour 203 385 266 4f- u_)

Other 12 24 30 12 24 jC)

Interest 54 115 150 58 126 163

Variable Costs Cpound 1395 3000 3887 1504 3283 42C

Rent 2 4 5 2 4 Family labour 534 624 624 566 624 621 Replacement 608 1216 1520 688 1376 1( 2(

Depreciation 19 32 40 19 32 4C Interest 82 159 198 82 159 19t

Fixed Costs Cpound 1245 2035 2387 1357 2195 255 _ _--_ __

Total Costs Cpound 2640 5035 6274 2860 5478 6521

Gross Profit Cpound 2720 5226 6399 2743 5209 Ggt7)

net Profit Cpound 1475 319L~ 4012 1385 3014 Ll3 -

Return to labour (Cpoundworking day) 60 78 80 5middot5 70 SoU

Return to capital () 467 510 510 436 475 538 Feed cost to the Government Cpound 542 1085 1356 583 1166 145[

- 23 ~

App Table 7 Prices Received and Paid

Prices received Unit Cpound-Milk sheep kg 0163

goat kg 0112 Lamb or kid

At leaning kg 1ivQwoight 0781 At 20 kg kg 0625 At 35 kg kg II 0547

Wool Cpoundanima1 0100 Manure Cpoundanima1 0500

Prices paid

Feed roughage

Straw ton 120 Cereal hay ton 200

Concentrates

Creep feed ton 500 15 crude protein (as fed) ton 458 13 crude protein (as fed) ton 438 11 crude protein (as fed) ton 400

Labour working day 16

Rent of land donum 15

App Table 8 Capital Investments

Land

Sheds for 80 female animals

160 female animals 200 female animals

Value of animals Ewes (0 kg milk 26 lambing ratio)

(60 kg milk 12 lambing ratio) (120 kg milk 16 lambing ratio ) (200 kg milk 08 lambing ratio)

Goats( 0 kg milk 34 kidding ratio) ~ 80 kg milk 16 kidding ratio) (160 kg milk 20 kiddinB ratio) (280 kg milk 13 kidding ratio)

Operating capital (50 of variable costs)

Cpounddonum 300

Cpoundshed 1800 Cpoundahed 13500 Cpoundshed 16600

CrJeue 330

315

380

400

Cpoundgoat 380

340

400

425

vpp Table 9 Gross RevenuG (Cpoundewe) at Incr-eas Ing LeveI s of Milk Yi o Ld and Lcml~ng Rc tios (rorm)

Millt Y i e 1 d (kg eVi8)Lambing ratio 0 20 4~ 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200

08 163 208 253 298 343 388 433 ~n 8 523 568 613 10 201 246 29 ~ 1 33~6 381 426 471 516 561 606 651

12 240 284 32~9 37~4 419 464 509 554 599 644 689 16 31 6 360 40~5 45o 495 540 585 630 675 720 765 18 355 398 44~3 488 533 578 623 668 713 758 803 22 431 474 519 56~4 609 654 699 744 789 834 879

26 508 550 5915 64+ 0 658 730 775 820 865 910 955 30 584 626 67h 71~6 761 806 851 896 941 986 1034

~--

- _ N

~

App Table 10 Gross Revenue (Cpoundgoat) at Increasing LeY11s of Milk Yield and Kidding Ratios (Norm) bull

M i llt Y i e 1 d (kg L~at) IKidding ratio

middot0 40 80 l~d 160 200 240 280 320 360 400

08 148 193 237 28~~ 327 372 41 7 461 506 551 596 12 218 263 307 35~2 397 442 487 531 576 621 666 16 287 333 37-7 42l~ 467 512 55middot7 601 646 691 736 20 355 403 447 49 ~ 2 537 582 627 671 716 761 806 24 -422 473 51 7 56~ 60middot7 652 697 74middot1 786 831 876

bull 28 488 543 58~7 632 677 722 767 811 856 901 946 32 564 613 65 ~ 7 70~~ 747 792 837 881 926 971 1016 36 634 683 72~7 772- 81 7 862 907 951 996 1041 1086

I

1)App Table 11 Concentrates Consumed (kgewe) Low Grazing System

Lambi ng Y i e 1 d i n mil k (kg ewe) ratio

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200

08 568 708 848 98 8 1128 1268 1408 1548 1688 1828 1968 LO 710 850 990 1130 127middot0 1410 1550 1690 1830 1970 2110 12 852 992 1132 1272 1412 1552 1692 1332 1972 2112 2252 16 1136 1276 1416 1556 1696 1836 1976 2116 2256 2396 2536 18 1278 1418 1558 1698 1838 1978 2118 2258 2398 2538 267middot8 22 1562 1702 1842 1982 2122 2262 2402 2542 2682 2822 2962 26 1846 1986 2126 2266 2406 2546 2686 2626 2966 3106 3246 30 2130 2270 2410 2550 2690 2830 2970 311 0 325middot0 3390 3530

ro1) I~aintenancerequirement of adult animals met by grazing V1

Assumptions for grazing systems

1 07 kg feeds of 15 crude protein (as fed basis) was fed per kg milk produced or sucked [iy 2 50 kg milk was suoked by each lamb from birth to weaning at 35 days 3 In late pregnancy each ewe received on the average 36 kg concentrates above maintenance for each lamb carried 4 In zero grazing maintenance requirements during the dry period were met by 06 kg straw and 05 kg

concentrates of 11 crude protein (as fed basis) [1~ I~ late pregnancy (6 weeks before lambing) and during lactation each ewe received 06 kg cereal hay and 04 kg concentrates to meet the maintenance requirements Other requirements in concentrates were met as in low grazing syste~

App liable 12 Conoentcates Consumed (kgg02t ) i Low Grazing SJ34~OT 1)- (I

----------------------T -----------~-_--------------------------------------------------shy

M gt~_~ LL~_~iJ~_8poundatl Kidding ratio

o 40 80 120 160 200 240 280 320 360 400 -----_ ------~---~ _- ----------__--__-----shy

08 528 768 1008 1248 138 1728 1960G 2208 24Li8 2688 2928 12 792 1032 1272 1512 175middot2 1992 2232 2472 271 2 2952 3192 16 1056 129 u 6 1536 ~-77 6 20l6 2256 2496 =736 2976 3216 3456 20 1320 1560 J80o 2040 2280 2520 2760 3000 3240 3480 3720 24 1584 1[24shy 2064 2304 2-~4middot 4 27S~4 3024 32604 350middot4 3 7 11++ 3984 28 1848 2038 23 28 2568 2808 30~ 8 328f3 ~)52 8 3768 4008 42~ 8

-3 ~ 211 2 2352 2592 2832 3072 3312 3552 37902 4032 4272 +51 2

______ 36

_-__ 2379

- 2616 2856 3096

___shy__ 3336 3576

_ 3826

middot 4056 L_~

429gt6 middot

L15306 _ _

4776

1) Maintenance requirements of adult animals met-JY grazing ro 0

~~~mption for grazing system

1 06 kg feed of 15 crude protein (as fed basis) was fed per kg milk produced or suoked 2 50 kg milk was sucked by each kid from birth to wean~ng at 70 days Partial suckling was practised from the

30th day onwards 3 In late pregnancy each goat received on the average 36 kg concentrates above maintenance for each kid carried 4 In zero grazing maintenance requirements in the dry period were met by 06 kg of straw and 05 kg of

concentrates of 11 crude protein (as fed basis)

29

- 27 shy

App Table 13 Feed Cost and Revenue for Lamb Fattening

Lambing ratio

08 10 12middot 16 18 22 26

aConcentrates (kg) I

Birth to weaning Weaning to 20 kg Birth to 20 kg 20 kg to 35 kg Birth to 35 kg

09 290 299 54~0

839

1 J 13 17 20 368middot 449 618 706 37middot9 462 635 726 675 810 1080 1215

1054 1272 1715 1941

24 890 914

1485 2399

1036 106e5 175middot5 2820

Saleable Iiveweight (kg)

at weaning at 20 kg at 35 kg

87 160 280

108 200 35middot0

12~8

24middot0 420

174198 320 360 56~0 630

249 44middot0 770

290 520 910

Feed expenses

at weaning mils 45 55 65 -85 100 120 145 to 20 kg Cf 14 17 21 29 33 42 49 __ to 35 kg Cf 37 46 56 7middot5 85 10middot5 123

Revenue Cf

Lamb sale Lamb sale Lamb sale

at weaning ~~ 20 kg at 35 kg

68 100shy153shy

gt ~_ bull bullbullbullbull ~-

84 125 191

100 136 150 200 230 306middot

15middot5 225 345

194 27middot5 421

226 32 c 49 e

Assumed birthweight 47 45 42 38

a) It was assumed that the protein content of the ooncentrates mixture feed from birth to weaning was 168 and from 20 to 35 kg 143 on dry matter basis [1[

- 28 shy

App Table 15 Labour Raquire~entl) for 80 poundMes or Goats Practising Low or High Grazing at Increasing Levels of Milk Yield and Lambing or Kidding Ratios

i

Lamhing Y i e 1 d i n mil k (kg Le_we) ratio

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 280

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - Lbua)production unit - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -08 0749 0813 0869 0933 1013 1069 1109 1149 1113 1205 1229 1283 10 0150 0814 0870 0934 1014 1010 1110 1150 1114 1206 1230 1284 12 0151 0815 0811 0935 1015 1011 1111 1151 1115 1201 1231 1285 14 0152 0816 0812 0936 1016 1012 1112 1152 1116 1208 1232 1286 16 0153 0811 0813 0937 1011 1013 1113 153 1117 1209 1234 1287 18 0154 0818 0874 0938 1018 1074 1114 1154 1178 1210 1235 1288 20 0155 0819 0875 0939 1019 1015 1115 1155 1119 1211 1236 1289 22 0756 0820 0876 0940 1020 1016 1116 1156 1180 1212 1237 1290 24 26

0151 0158

0821 0822

0871 0878

0941 0942

1022 1023

1017 1018

1111 1118

1157 1158

1181 1182

1213 1214

1238 1239

1291 1292

ro -D

28 0759 0823 0879 0943 1024 1019 1119 1159 1183 1215 1240 1293 30 0760 0824 0880 0middot944 1025 1080 1120 1160 1184 1216 1241 1 294 34 0162 0826 0882 0946 1027 1082 1122 1162 middot _____middot L_ 1186 1218 1242 1295

a) 1 LbU = 300 working days

1) Low and high grazing system Calculated as followsi

Labour requirement (LbU) = 015 + (lambing ratio - 10) x 0005 +

Labour for milkin~ (days)+ X No of female animals 300

+) Assuming 6 minutesanimalday

Zero grazing system Labour requiremunt (lbU) = Low or high grazing system (LbU) - 0300 for 80 female animals

- 0550 for 160 female animals - 0650 fOr 2rl) tomcIc animals

Page 20: FACTORS AFFECTING THE ECONOMICS OF SHEEP AND GOATSnews.ari.gov.cy/Publications/AER4-papas.pdfFACTORS AFFECTING THE ECONOMICS OF SHEEP AND GOATS . By . ... Costs and Returns of Goat

- 16 shy

Family labour was valued atGpound 1600__p~r -wor~i~gslaY_~Ep_

ble 15 presents the labour requirements for 80 ewes or goats pr-ac t i c i rs

w or high grazing system at increasing levels of milk yield andmiddot

Lmbing or kidding ratios Also gives the calculation of the labou~

squ i r-ement s for the zero grazing system and increasing number of aniild

n this study it was assumed that 13 labour units(LbU) were c on tr i bu

ed by family labour and any additional labour w~cs treated as hired

abour-

The replacement was estimated at 20 of the value of animals

The annual depreciation rate of shed8 was estimated at 25

while interest rate used for sheds and livestock capital was 6

Total costs is the sum of variable and fixed costs and net profit the

difference between gross revenue and total coste (App Tables 1-6)

Return to labour (Cpoundwo~king day) was calculated by adding to the net

profit all labour costs and dividing this amount by the number of

working days (App Tables 1-6)

Return to capital () was calculated by adding to the net profit the

interest on operating and fixed capital and dividing the amount by tho

capital investments (excl land capital) and multiplied by 100 (App

Tables 1-6)

Farm income consisted of pai~ or imputed rent 9 remuneration of family

and hired labour interest charges and net profit (App Tables 1-6)

Cost to the government was computed from the v~lue of concentrates fed

using the coefficients of 039 and 043 for aault and young animals

respectively These coefficients represent the increase in percentaL~

of the present value of the concentrates which Would be paid by the

producers in the form of hi~her prices if marketing of feed grains waG

not regulated These coefficients were comI~t8d on the basis of the

difference of the prices for feed grains paid lJy the Government and t~l(

livestock producers and on the content of the concentrate mixtures in

the feed grains (App Tabl~s 3-6)

----------------

- 17 shy

App Table 1 Costs and Returns of Sheep Enterprises by Size Group (Actual)

--_SizebwrltuF (No of ewes)

30-50 50-80 80gt Mean Cpoundewe-----_-_-

No of observations 17 33 18 68

Average No of ewes 42 65 94 67 Milk production (kg) 2711 3442 5348 3764 Lambs Bold or consumed (No) 39 55 85 59 ------------------_shy

Ycilk and milk products 440 569 865 614 92 40middot9 Lambs 417 573 925 627 9 418 Culls 60 94 108 89 13 5middot8 Wool 28 48 71 49 07 31 Manure 19 30 41 30 04 18 Change of capital 71 136 55 98 15 6G

Gross Revenue Cpound 1037 1450 2056 1507 225 1000

Feed purchased 221 325 493 344 53 27 ~

Feed produced 72 118 103 103 15 77 Forage produced 150 246 379 257 38 19lt5 Other 6 8 12 8 01 0~5

Interest 18 28 39 29 04 20 ----------------___

Variable Costs Cpound 467 725 1026 741 111 ------ ------------_- shy

Rent of land 45 52 92 61 Family labour 342 436 529 437 )3 -I

~ IInterest and depreciation 48 66 85 66 -

-------~---------_ _

Fixed Costs Cpound 435 554 706 564

Total Costs bpound 902 1279 1732 1305 195 --__--____-__---shyNet profit Cpound 135 171 324 202 31

43- J

Return to labour (Cpoundworking day) 22 22 26 23

Return to capital () 101 101 128 108 Return over feed expenses Cpound 594 761 1081 804 Farm income Cf 588 753 1069 795 ---------------------~---------_

- 18 shy

Table 2 Costs and Returns of Goat Enterprises by Size Group (Actual)

Size group (lITo of gegtats )

30-50 50-80 80) Mean Ci-goat

No of observations 18 28 19 65

Average No of goats Milk production (kg) Kids sold or consumed (No)

39 4034

53

63 4439

71

98 6169 100

666 4833

74

Milk and milk products Kids Culls Manure Change of capital

331 552

54 19 97

364 704 80 28 71

505 1005 102

43 154

396 60 750 113 79 12 30 0middot5

103 15

293 551 59 24 73

Gross Revenue Cishy 1053 1247 1809 1358 20middot5 100 00

Feed purchased Feed produced Forage produced Other Interest

207 35

llO

7 14

236 53

156 8

18

263 36

304 17 25

236 43

186 II 19

3middot5 06 28 02 03

224 38

18J 13 loy

Variable Costs Cf 373 471 645 495 74 474

Rent of land Family labour Interest and depreciation

25 342 48

39 436

66

77 529 85

46 437

67

07 65 10

4middot5 417

64

Fixed Costs Cf 415 541 691 550 82 526

Total Costs Cf 788 1012 1336 1045 156 1000

Net Frofi t Cf 265 235 473 313 49

Return to labour (Cpoundworking day)

Return to capital () Return over feed expenses Farm income

Cf Of

28 169

700 694

24 128

802 794

30 17middot5 1206 1189

27 153 892 882

- 19 shy

App Table 3 Effect of Level of Produotivity and Direction of a) Produotion on the Costs and Returns of Sheep (Norm)

Milk yield (kgewe)

Lambing ratio

Milk Lambs Culls

Wool Manure

Gross Revenue

Feed for ewes i) Concentrates

ii) Hay amp straw Feed for lambs

i) Concentrates Other Interest

Variable Costs

Rent Famil y labour Replacement Depreciation Interest

Fixed Costs

Total Costs

Gross Profi t

Net Profit

Return to labour (Cpoundworking day)

Return to capital () Cost to the Government

deg 60 120 200

26 12 16 08

782 3781 1748 142 139

56 56 40 40

1565 2325 128

56 40

2608 1163

120 56 40

Cpound 4019 2765 4114 3986

676 464

988 446 12 12 67 37

728

601 12 54

720

294 12 41

Cpound 1743 959 1395 1067

2 2

364 449 544 504

19 19 82 82

2

534 608 19 82

2

590 640 19 82

ce 1011 1056 1245 1333

Cpound 2754 2015 2640 2400

Cpound 2276 1606 2719 2919

Cpound 1265 750 1474 1586

72 43 60 59 392 269 46middot7 521

Cpound 688 373 542 407

a) Assuming 80 8W~S and low grazing

- 20 shy

App Table 4 Effect of Level of Productivity and Direction of a) middotmiddotmiddot----middot --Produc_tiQ[l on the Costs and Returns of Goats (Norm) bull

bull bullbullbullbull ~ __R_ ~~__bullbullbull ~ bullbullbull _

-_ ----~ bull

Milk yield (kggoat)

Kidding ratio

0

34

80

16

160

20

2$0

13

Milk Lambs Culla

4511 137

717 2136 134

1434 2652 120

2503 1743

106

Manuremiddot 40 40 40 40

Gros smiddot R-eAfnu-e- Cpound 4688 3027 4246 4398

Feed for goats ) ConcentratesJ I

ii) Hay amp straw Feed for kids

i) Concentrates Other Interest

824

1023 12 74

560

482 12 42

832

601 12 58

928 ~

391 12 53

Variable Coiits Cpound 1933 1096 1503 1384

Rent Family labour Replacement Depreciation Interestmiddot_middotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddot

2 366 608 19 82

2 488 560

19 82

2 566 688 19 82

2 617 776 19 82

Fixed Cos is Cpound 1077 1151 1357 1496

Total Cost s Cpound 3010 2247 2860 J 2880

Gross Froht Cpound 2755 1931 2743 3014

Net PI-ofit

Cpound 1678 780 1386 151[

Return to labour (Cpoundworking day)

Return to capital () 89

493 42

274 55

436 505

480 Cost to the Oovernmen t --6pound---middot761 middot425 51n __

~_~- -- _--___-~ _ M bullbullbull_ bullbull___ R bullbullbull __bullbull __ bull

o _ bullbull

~301 __

a) Assuming 80 goats and low grazing

- 21 shy

App Table 5 Effect of Level of GraZirg on the Costs and Returns of Sheep and Goats (Norm) a

Shee~ Goats Level of gra~ing Zero Low High Zero Low Rigl

Milk yield (kgfemale animal) 120 120 120 160 160 16

Lambing or kidding ratio 16 16 16 20 20 2()

Milk 1565 1565 1565 1434 1434 l434 Lambs 2326 2326 2326 2652 2652 2652 Culls 128 128 128 120 120 120 Wool 56 56 56 Manure 40 40 40 40 40 40

Gross Revenue Cpound 4115 4115 4115 4246 4246 4246

Feed for ewes or goats i) Concentrates 1292 728 408 1508 832 505

ii) Ray amp straw 288 282 Feed for lambs or kids

i) Concentrates 601 601 601 602 602 602 Other 12 12 12 12 12 12 Interest 88 54 41 96 58 45

Variable Costs Cpound 2281 1395 1062 2500 1504 116r _ _-

Rent 2 2 2 2 L 2 Family labour 390 534 534 422 566 565 Replacement 608 608 608 688 688 68P Depreciation 19 19 19 19 19 1)

Interest 82 82 82 82 82 8e

Fixed Costs Cpound 1101 1245 1245 1213 1357 1357

Total Costs Cpound 3382 2640 2307 3713 2861 252

Gross Profit Cpound 18~4 2720 3053 1746 2743 30t)2

1Tet Profit Cpound 733 1475 1808 533 1385 1725

Return to labour (Cpoundworking day) 46 60 70 36 5middot5 65

Return to capital () 232 467 588 178 436 55( Feed cost to the Government Cpound 762 542 418 847 583 456

a) Assuming 80 female adult animals

- 22 shy

App Table 6 Bffect of the Size of the Pr-oduc t ion Unit on the Costs and Returns of Sheep and Goats (NJrm)

SheGE Goats

Ewes or goatsfarm 80 160 200 80 160 2()(I

Milk yield (kgfemale animal) 120 120 120 160 160 16~)

Lambing or kidding ratio 16 16 16 20 20 2 0

Milk 1565 3130 3912 1434 2867 35[1 Lambs 2326 4651 5814 2652 5305 66jl Culls 128 256 320 120 240 300 Wool 56 112 140 Manure 40 80 100 40 80 100

Gross Revenue Cpound 4115 8229 10286 4246 8492 10615

Feed for awes or goats i) Concentrates 728 1456 1820 832 1664 208

ii) Hay amp straw Feed for lambs or kids

i) Concentrates 601 1202 1502 602 1203 1504 Hired labour 203 385 266 4f- u_)

Other 12 24 30 12 24 jC)

Interest 54 115 150 58 126 163

Variable Costs Cpound 1395 3000 3887 1504 3283 42C

Rent 2 4 5 2 4 Family labour 534 624 624 566 624 621 Replacement 608 1216 1520 688 1376 1( 2(

Depreciation 19 32 40 19 32 4C Interest 82 159 198 82 159 19t

Fixed Costs Cpound 1245 2035 2387 1357 2195 255 _ _--_ __

Total Costs Cpound 2640 5035 6274 2860 5478 6521

Gross Profit Cpound 2720 5226 6399 2743 5209 Ggt7)

net Profit Cpound 1475 319L~ 4012 1385 3014 Ll3 -

Return to labour (Cpoundworking day) 60 78 80 5middot5 70 SoU

Return to capital () 467 510 510 436 475 538 Feed cost to the Government Cpound 542 1085 1356 583 1166 145[

- 23 ~

App Table 7 Prices Received and Paid

Prices received Unit Cpound-Milk sheep kg 0163

goat kg 0112 Lamb or kid

At leaning kg 1ivQwoight 0781 At 20 kg kg 0625 At 35 kg kg II 0547

Wool Cpoundanima1 0100 Manure Cpoundanima1 0500

Prices paid

Feed roughage

Straw ton 120 Cereal hay ton 200

Concentrates

Creep feed ton 500 15 crude protein (as fed) ton 458 13 crude protein (as fed) ton 438 11 crude protein (as fed) ton 400

Labour working day 16

Rent of land donum 15

App Table 8 Capital Investments

Land

Sheds for 80 female animals

160 female animals 200 female animals

Value of animals Ewes (0 kg milk 26 lambing ratio)

(60 kg milk 12 lambing ratio) (120 kg milk 16 lambing ratio ) (200 kg milk 08 lambing ratio)

Goats( 0 kg milk 34 kidding ratio) ~ 80 kg milk 16 kidding ratio) (160 kg milk 20 kiddinB ratio) (280 kg milk 13 kidding ratio)

Operating capital (50 of variable costs)

Cpounddonum 300

Cpoundshed 1800 Cpoundahed 13500 Cpoundshed 16600

CrJeue 330

315

380

400

Cpoundgoat 380

340

400

425

vpp Table 9 Gross RevenuG (Cpoundewe) at Incr-eas Ing LeveI s of Milk Yi o Ld and Lcml~ng Rc tios (rorm)

Millt Y i e 1 d (kg eVi8)Lambing ratio 0 20 4~ 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200

08 163 208 253 298 343 388 433 ~n 8 523 568 613 10 201 246 29 ~ 1 33~6 381 426 471 516 561 606 651

12 240 284 32~9 37~4 419 464 509 554 599 644 689 16 31 6 360 40~5 45o 495 540 585 630 675 720 765 18 355 398 44~3 488 533 578 623 668 713 758 803 22 431 474 519 56~4 609 654 699 744 789 834 879

26 508 550 5915 64+ 0 658 730 775 820 865 910 955 30 584 626 67h 71~6 761 806 851 896 941 986 1034

~--

- _ N

~

App Table 10 Gross Revenue (Cpoundgoat) at Increasing LeY11s of Milk Yield and Kidding Ratios (Norm) bull

M i llt Y i e 1 d (kg L~at) IKidding ratio

middot0 40 80 l~d 160 200 240 280 320 360 400

08 148 193 237 28~~ 327 372 41 7 461 506 551 596 12 218 263 307 35~2 397 442 487 531 576 621 666 16 287 333 37-7 42l~ 467 512 55middot7 601 646 691 736 20 355 403 447 49 ~ 2 537 582 627 671 716 761 806 24 -422 473 51 7 56~ 60middot7 652 697 74middot1 786 831 876

bull 28 488 543 58~7 632 677 722 767 811 856 901 946 32 564 613 65 ~ 7 70~~ 747 792 837 881 926 971 1016 36 634 683 72~7 772- 81 7 862 907 951 996 1041 1086

I

1)App Table 11 Concentrates Consumed (kgewe) Low Grazing System

Lambi ng Y i e 1 d i n mil k (kg ewe) ratio

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200

08 568 708 848 98 8 1128 1268 1408 1548 1688 1828 1968 LO 710 850 990 1130 127middot0 1410 1550 1690 1830 1970 2110 12 852 992 1132 1272 1412 1552 1692 1332 1972 2112 2252 16 1136 1276 1416 1556 1696 1836 1976 2116 2256 2396 2536 18 1278 1418 1558 1698 1838 1978 2118 2258 2398 2538 267middot8 22 1562 1702 1842 1982 2122 2262 2402 2542 2682 2822 2962 26 1846 1986 2126 2266 2406 2546 2686 2626 2966 3106 3246 30 2130 2270 2410 2550 2690 2830 2970 311 0 325middot0 3390 3530

ro1) I~aintenancerequirement of adult animals met by grazing V1

Assumptions for grazing systems

1 07 kg feeds of 15 crude protein (as fed basis) was fed per kg milk produced or sucked [iy 2 50 kg milk was suoked by each lamb from birth to weaning at 35 days 3 In late pregnancy each ewe received on the average 36 kg concentrates above maintenance for each lamb carried 4 In zero grazing maintenance requirements during the dry period were met by 06 kg straw and 05 kg

concentrates of 11 crude protein (as fed basis) [1~ I~ late pregnancy (6 weeks before lambing) and during lactation each ewe received 06 kg cereal hay and 04 kg concentrates to meet the maintenance requirements Other requirements in concentrates were met as in low grazing syste~

App liable 12 Conoentcates Consumed (kgg02t ) i Low Grazing SJ34~OT 1)- (I

----------------------T -----------~-_--------------------------------------------------shy

M gt~_~ LL~_~iJ~_8poundatl Kidding ratio

o 40 80 120 160 200 240 280 320 360 400 -----_ ------~---~ _- ----------__--__-----shy

08 528 768 1008 1248 138 1728 1960G 2208 24Li8 2688 2928 12 792 1032 1272 1512 175middot2 1992 2232 2472 271 2 2952 3192 16 1056 129 u 6 1536 ~-77 6 20l6 2256 2496 =736 2976 3216 3456 20 1320 1560 J80o 2040 2280 2520 2760 3000 3240 3480 3720 24 1584 1[24shy 2064 2304 2-~4middot 4 27S~4 3024 32604 350middot4 3 7 11++ 3984 28 1848 2038 23 28 2568 2808 30~ 8 328f3 ~)52 8 3768 4008 42~ 8

-3 ~ 211 2 2352 2592 2832 3072 3312 3552 37902 4032 4272 +51 2

______ 36

_-__ 2379

- 2616 2856 3096

___shy__ 3336 3576

_ 3826

middot 4056 L_~

429gt6 middot

L15306 _ _

4776

1) Maintenance requirements of adult animals met-JY grazing ro 0

~~~mption for grazing system

1 06 kg feed of 15 crude protein (as fed basis) was fed per kg milk produced or suoked 2 50 kg milk was sucked by each kid from birth to wean~ng at 70 days Partial suckling was practised from the

30th day onwards 3 In late pregnancy each goat received on the average 36 kg concentrates above maintenance for each kid carried 4 In zero grazing maintenance requirements in the dry period were met by 06 kg of straw and 05 kg of

concentrates of 11 crude protein (as fed basis)

29

- 27 shy

App Table 13 Feed Cost and Revenue for Lamb Fattening

Lambing ratio

08 10 12middot 16 18 22 26

aConcentrates (kg) I

Birth to weaning Weaning to 20 kg Birth to 20 kg 20 kg to 35 kg Birth to 35 kg

09 290 299 54~0

839

1 J 13 17 20 368middot 449 618 706 37middot9 462 635 726 675 810 1080 1215

1054 1272 1715 1941

24 890 914

1485 2399

1036 106e5 175middot5 2820

Saleable Iiveweight (kg)

at weaning at 20 kg at 35 kg

87 160 280

108 200 35middot0

12~8

24middot0 420

174198 320 360 56~0 630

249 44middot0 770

290 520 910

Feed expenses

at weaning mils 45 55 65 -85 100 120 145 to 20 kg Cf 14 17 21 29 33 42 49 __ to 35 kg Cf 37 46 56 7middot5 85 10middot5 123

Revenue Cf

Lamb sale Lamb sale Lamb sale

at weaning ~~ 20 kg at 35 kg

68 100shy153shy

gt ~_ bull bullbullbullbull ~-

84 125 191

100 136 150 200 230 306middot

15middot5 225 345

194 27middot5 421

226 32 c 49 e

Assumed birthweight 47 45 42 38

a) It was assumed that the protein content of the ooncentrates mixture feed from birth to weaning was 168 and from 20 to 35 kg 143 on dry matter basis [1[

- 28 shy

App Table 15 Labour Raquire~entl) for 80 poundMes or Goats Practising Low or High Grazing at Increasing Levels of Milk Yield and Lambing or Kidding Ratios

i

Lamhing Y i e 1 d i n mil k (kg Le_we) ratio

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 280

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - Lbua)production unit - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -08 0749 0813 0869 0933 1013 1069 1109 1149 1113 1205 1229 1283 10 0150 0814 0870 0934 1014 1010 1110 1150 1114 1206 1230 1284 12 0151 0815 0811 0935 1015 1011 1111 1151 1115 1201 1231 1285 14 0152 0816 0812 0936 1016 1012 1112 1152 1116 1208 1232 1286 16 0153 0811 0813 0937 1011 1013 1113 153 1117 1209 1234 1287 18 0154 0818 0874 0938 1018 1074 1114 1154 1178 1210 1235 1288 20 0155 0819 0875 0939 1019 1015 1115 1155 1119 1211 1236 1289 22 0756 0820 0876 0940 1020 1016 1116 1156 1180 1212 1237 1290 24 26

0151 0158

0821 0822

0871 0878

0941 0942

1022 1023

1017 1018

1111 1118

1157 1158

1181 1182

1213 1214

1238 1239

1291 1292

ro -D

28 0759 0823 0879 0943 1024 1019 1119 1159 1183 1215 1240 1293 30 0760 0824 0880 0middot944 1025 1080 1120 1160 1184 1216 1241 1 294 34 0162 0826 0882 0946 1027 1082 1122 1162 middot _____middot L_ 1186 1218 1242 1295

a) 1 LbU = 300 working days

1) Low and high grazing system Calculated as followsi

Labour requirement (LbU) = 015 + (lambing ratio - 10) x 0005 +

Labour for milkin~ (days)+ X No of female animals 300

+) Assuming 6 minutesanimalday

Zero grazing system Labour requiremunt (lbU) = Low or high grazing system (LbU) - 0300 for 80 female animals

- 0550 for 160 female animals - 0650 fOr 2rl) tomcIc animals

Page 21: FACTORS AFFECTING THE ECONOMICS OF SHEEP AND GOATSnews.ari.gov.cy/Publications/AER4-papas.pdfFACTORS AFFECTING THE ECONOMICS OF SHEEP AND GOATS . By . ... Costs and Returns of Goat

----------------

- 17 shy

App Table 1 Costs and Returns of Sheep Enterprises by Size Group (Actual)

--_SizebwrltuF (No of ewes)

30-50 50-80 80gt Mean Cpoundewe-----_-_-

No of observations 17 33 18 68

Average No of ewes 42 65 94 67 Milk production (kg) 2711 3442 5348 3764 Lambs Bold or consumed (No) 39 55 85 59 ------------------_shy

Ycilk and milk products 440 569 865 614 92 40middot9 Lambs 417 573 925 627 9 418 Culls 60 94 108 89 13 5middot8 Wool 28 48 71 49 07 31 Manure 19 30 41 30 04 18 Change of capital 71 136 55 98 15 6G

Gross Revenue Cpound 1037 1450 2056 1507 225 1000

Feed purchased 221 325 493 344 53 27 ~

Feed produced 72 118 103 103 15 77 Forage produced 150 246 379 257 38 19lt5 Other 6 8 12 8 01 0~5

Interest 18 28 39 29 04 20 ----------------___

Variable Costs Cpound 467 725 1026 741 111 ------ ------------_- shy

Rent of land 45 52 92 61 Family labour 342 436 529 437 )3 -I

~ IInterest and depreciation 48 66 85 66 -

-------~---------_ _

Fixed Costs Cpound 435 554 706 564

Total Costs bpound 902 1279 1732 1305 195 --__--____-__---shyNet profit Cpound 135 171 324 202 31

43- J

Return to labour (Cpoundworking day) 22 22 26 23

Return to capital () 101 101 128 108 Return over feed expenses Cpound 594 761 1081 804 Farm income Cf 588 753 1069 795 ---------------------~---------_

- 18 shy

Table 2 Costs and Returns of Goat Enterprises by Size Group (Actual)

Size group (lITo of gegtats )

30-50 50-80 80) Mean Ci-goat

No of observations 18 28 19 65

Average No of goats Milk production (kg) Kids sold or consumed (No)

39 4034

53

63 4439

71

98 6169 100

666 4833

74

Milk and milk products Kids Culls Manure Change of capital

331 552

54 19 97

364 704 80 28 71

505 1005 102

43 154

396 60 750 113 79 12 30 0middot5

103 15

293 551 59 24 73

Gross Revenue Cishy 1053 1247 1809 1358 20middot5 100 00

Feed purchased Feed produced Forage produced Other Interest

207 35

llO

7 14

236 53

156 8

18

263 36

304 17 25

236 43

186 II 19

3middot5 06 28 02 03

224 38

18J 13 loy

Variable Costs Cf 373 471 645 495 74 474

Rent of land Family labour Interest and depreciation

25 342 48

39 436

66

77 529 85

46 437

67

07 65 10

4middot5 417

64

Fixed Costs Cf 415 541 691 550 82 526

Total Costs Cf 788 1012 1336 1045 156 1000

Net Frofi t Cf 265 235 473 313 49

Return to labour (Cpoundworking day)

Return to capital () Return over feed expenses Farm income

Cf Of

28 169

700 694

24 128

802 794

30 17middot5 1206 1189

27 153 892 882

- 19 shy

App Table 3 Effect of Level of Produotivity and Direction of a) Produotion on the Costs and Returns of Sheep (Norm)

Milk yield (kgewe)

Lambing ratio

Milk Lambs Culls

Wool Manure

Gross Revenue

Feed for ewes i) Concentrates

ii) Hay amp straw Feed for lambs

i) Concentrates Other Interest

Variable Costs

Rent Famil y labour Replacement Depreciation Interest

Fixed Costs

Total Costs

Gross Profi t

Net Profit

Return to labour (Cpoundworking day)

Return to capital () Cost to the Government

deg 60 120 200

26 12 16 08

782 3781 1748 142 139

56 56 40 40

1565 2325 128

56 40

2608 1163

120 56 40

Cpound 4019 2765 4114 3986

676 464

988 446 12 12 67 37

728

601 12 54

720

294 12 41

Cpound 1743 959 1395 1067

2 2

364 449 544 504

19 19 82 82

2

534 608 19 82

2

590 640 19 82

ce 1011 1056 1245 1333

Cpound 2754 2015 2640 2400

Cpound 2276 1606 2719 2919

Cpound 1265 750 1474 1586

72 43 60 59 392 269 46middot7 521

Cpound 688 373 542 407

a) Assuming 80 8W~S and low grazing

- 20 shy

App Table 4 Effect of Level of Productivity and Direction of a) middotmiddotmiddot----middot --Produc_tiQ[l on the Costs and Returns of Goats (Norm) bull

bull bullbullbullbull ~ __R_ ~~__bullbullbull ~ bullbullbull _

-_ ----~ bull

Milk yield (kggoat)

Kidding ratio

0

34

80

16

160

20

2$0

13

Milk Lambs Culla

4511 137

717 2136 134

1434 2652 120

2503 1743

106

Manuremiddot 40 40 40 40

Gros smiddot R-eAfnu-e- Cpound 4688 3027 4246 4398

Feed for goats ) ConcentratesJ I

ii) Hay amp straw Feed for kids

i) Concentrates Other Interest

824

1023 12 74

560

482 12 42

832

601 12 58

928 ~

391 12 53

Variable Coiits Cpound 1933 1096 1503 1384

Rent Family labour Replacement Depreciation Interestmiddot_middotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddot

2 366 608 19 82

2 488 560

19 82

2 566 688 19 82

2 617 776 19 82

Fixed Cos is Cpound 1077 1151 1357 1496

Total Cost s Cpound 3010 2247 2860 J 2880

Gross Froht Cpound 2755 1931 2743 3014

Net PI-ofit

Cpound 1678 780 1386 151[

Return to labour (Cpoundworking day)

Return to capital () 89

493 42

274 55

436 505

480 Cost to the Oovernmen t --6pound---middot761 middot425 51n __

~_~- -- _--___-~ _ M bullbullbull_ bullbull___ R bullbullbull __bullbull __ bull

o _ bullbull

~301 __

a) Assuming 80 goats and low grazing

- 21 shy

App Table 5 Effect of Level of GraZirg on the Costs and Returns of Sheep and Goats (Norm) a

Shee~ Goats Level of gra~ing Zero Low High Zero Low Rigl

Milk yield (kgfemale animal) 120 120 120 160 160 16

Lambing or kidding ratio 16 16 16 20 20 2()

Milk 1565 1565 1565 1434 1434 l434 Lambs 2326 2326 2326 2652 2652 2652 Culls 128 128 128 120 120 120 Wool 56 56 56 Manure 40 40 40 40 40 40

Gross Revenue Cpound 4115 4115 4115 4246 4246 4246

Feed for ewes or goats i) Concentrates 1292 728 408 1508 832 505

ii) Ray amp straw 288 282 Feed for lambs or kids

i) Concentrates 601 601 601 602 602 602 Other 12 12 12 12 12 12 Interest 88 54 41 96 58 45

Variable Costs Cpound 2281 1395 1062 2500 1504 116r _ _-

Rent 2 2 2 2 L 2 Family labour 390 534 534 422 566 565 Replacement 608 608 608 688 688 68P Depreciation 19 19 19 19 19 1)

Interest 82 82 82 82 82 8e

Fixed Costs Cpound 1101 1245 1245 1213 1357 1357

Total Costs Cpound 3382 2640 2307 3713 2861 252

Gross Profit Cpound 18~4 2720 3053 1746 2743 30t)2

1Tet Profit Cpound 733 1475 1808 533 1385 1725

Return to labour (Cpoundworking day) 46 60 70 36 5middot5 65

Return to capital () 232 467 588 178 436 55( Feed cost to the Government Cpound 762 542 418 847 583 456

a) Assuming 80 female adult animals

- 22 shy

App Table 6 Bffect of the Size of the Pr-oduc t ion Unit on the Costs and Returns of Sheep and Goats (NJrm)

SheGE Goats

Ewes or goatsfarm 80 160 200 80 160 2()(I

Milk yield (kgfemale animal) 120 120 120 160 160 16~)

Lambing or kidding ratio 16 16 16 20 20 2 0

Milk 1565 3130 3912 1434 2867 35[1 Lambs 2326 4651 5814 2652 5305 66jl Culls 128 256 320 120 240 300 Wool 56 112 140 Manure 40 80 100 40 80 100

Gross Revenue Cpound 4115 8229 10286 4246 8492 10615

Feed for awes or goats i) Concentrates 728 1456 1820 832 1664 208

ii) Hay amp straw Feed for lambs or kids

i) Concentrates 601 1202 1502 602 1203 1504 Hired labour 203 385 266 4f- u_)

Other 12 24 30 12 24 jC)

Interest 54 115 150 58 126 163

Variable Costs Cpound 1395 3000 3887 1504 3283 42C

Rent 2 4 5 2 4 Family labour 534 624 624 566 624 621 Replacement 608 1216 1520 688 1376 1( 2(

Depreciation 19 32 40 19 32 4C Interest 82 159 198 82 159 19t

Fixed Costs Cpound 1245 2035 2387 1357 2195 255 _ _--_ __

Total Costs Cpound 2640 5035 6274 2860 5478 6521

Gross Profit Cpound 2720 5226 6399 2743 5209 Ggt7)

net Profit Cpound 1475 319L~ 4012 1385 3014 Ll3 -

Return to labour (Cpoundworking day) 60 78 80 5middot5 70 SoU

Return to capital () 467 510 510 436 475 538 Feed cost to the Government Cpound 542 1085 1356 583 1166 145[

- 23 ~

App Table 7 Prices Received and Paid

Prices received Unit Cpound-Milk sheep kg 0163

goat kg 0112 Lamb or kid

At leaning kg 1ivQwoight 0781 At 20 kg kg 0625 At 35 kg kg II 0547

Wool Cpoundanima1 0100 Manure Cpoundanima1 0500

Prices paid

Feed roughage

Straw ton 120 Cereal hay ton 200

Concentrates

Creep feed ton 500 15 crude protein (as fed) ton 458 13 crude protein (as fed) ton 438 11 crude protein (as fed) ton 400

Labour working day 16

Rent of land donum 15

App Table 8 Capital Investments

Land

Sheds for 80 female animals

160 female animals 200 female animals

Value of animals Ewes (0 kg milk 26 lambing ratio)

(60 kg milk 12 lambing ratio) (120 kg milk 16 lambing ratio ) (200 kg milk 08 lambing ratio)

Goats( 0 kg milk 34 kidding ratio) ~ 80 kg milk 16 kidding ratio) (160 kg milk 20 kiddinB ratio) (280 kg milk 13 kidding ratio)

Operating capital (50 of variable costs)

Cpounddonum 300

Cpoundshed 1800 Cpoundahed 13500 Cpoundshed 16600

CrJeue 330

315

380

400

Cpoundgoat 380

340

400

425

vpp Table 9 Gross RevenuG (Cpoundewe) at Incr-eas Ing LeveI s of Milk Yi o Ld and Lcml~ng Rc tios (rorm)

Millt Y i e 1 d (kg eVi8)Lambing ratio 0 20 4~ 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200

08 163 208 253 298 343 388 433 ~n 8 523 568 613 10 201 246 29 ~ 1 33~6 381 426 471 516 561 606 651

12 240 284 32~9 37~4 419 464 509 554 599 644 689 16 31 6 360 40~5 45o 495 540 585 630 675 720 765 18 355 398 44~3 488 533 578 623 668 713 758 803 22 431 474 519 56~4 609 654 699 744 789 834 879

26 508 550 5915 64+ 0 658 730 775 820 865 910 955 30 584 626 67h 71~6 761 806 851 896 941 986 1034

~--

- _ N

~

App Table 10 Gross Revenue (Cpoundgoat) at Increasing LeY11s of Milk Yield and Kidding Ratios (Norm) bull

M i llt Y i e 1 d (kg L~at) IKidding ratio

middot0 40 80 l~d 160 200 240 280 320 360 400

08 148 193 237 28~~ 327 372 41 7 461 506 551 596 12 218 263 307 35~2 397 442 487 531 576 621 666 16 287 333 37-7 42l~ 467 512 55middot7 601 646 691 736 20 355 403 447 49 ~ 2 537 582 627 671 716 761 806 24 -422 473 51 7 56~ 60middot7 652 697 74middot1 786 831 876

bull 28 488 543 58~7 632 677 722 767 811 856 901 946 32 564 613 65 ~ 7 70~~ 747 792 837 881 926 971 1016 36 634 683 72~7 772- 81 7 862 907 951 996 1041 1086

I

1)App Table 11 Concentrates Consumed (kgewe) Low Grazing System

Lambi ng Y i e 1 d i n mil k (kg ewe) ratio

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200

08 568 708 848 98 8 1128 1268 1408 1548 1688 1828 1968 LO 710 850 990 1130 127middot0 1410 1550 1690 1830 1970 2110 12 852 992 1132 1272 1412 1552 1692 1332 1972 2112 2252 16 1136 1276 1416 1556 1696 1836 1976 2116 2256 2396 2536 18 1278 1418 1558 1698 1838 1978 2118 2258 2398 2538 267middot8 22 1562 1702 1842 1982 2122 2262 2402 2542 2682 2822 2962 26 1846 1986 2126 2266 2406 2546 2686 2626 2966 3106 3246 30 2130 2270 2410 2550 2690 2830 2970 311 0 325middot0 3390 3530

ro1) I~aintenancerequirement of adult animals met by grazing V1

Assumptions for grazing systems

1 07 kg feeds of 15 crude protein (as fed basis) was fed per kg milk produced or sucked [iy 2 50 kg milk was suoked by each lamb from birth to weaning at 35 days 3 In late pregnancy each ewe received on the average 36 kg concentrates above maintenance for each lamb carried 4 In zero grazing maintenance requirements during the dry period were met by 06 kg straw and 05 kg

concentrates of 11 crude protein (as fed basis) [1~ I~ late pregnancy (6 weeks before lambing) and during lactation each ewe received 06 kg cereal hay and 04 kg concentrates to meet the maintenance requirements Other requirements in concentrates were met as in low grazing syste~

App liable 12 Conoentcates Consumed (kgg02t ) i Low Grazing SJ34~OT 1)- (I

----------------------T -----------~-_--------------------------------------------------shy

M gt~_~ LL~_~iJ~_8poundatl Kidding ratio

o 40 80 120 160 200 240 280 320 360 400 -----_ ------~---~ _- ----------__--__-----shy

08 528 768 1008 1248 138 1728 1960G 2208 24Li8 2688 2928 12 792 1032 1272 1512 175middot2 1992 2232 2472 271 2 2952 3192 16 1056 129 u 6 1536 ~-77 6 20l6 2256 2496 =736 2976 3216 3456 20 1320 1560 J80o 2040 2280 2520 2760 3000 3240 3480 3720 24 1584 1[24shy 2064 2304 2-~4middot 4 27S~4 3024 32604 350middot4 3 7 11++ 3984 28 1848 2038 23 28 2568 2808 30~ 8 328f3 ~)52 8 3768 4008 42~ 8

-3 ~ 211 2 2352 2592 2832 3072 3312 3552 37902 4032 4272 +51 2

______ 36

_-__ 2379

- 2616 2856 3096

___shy__ 3336 3576

_ 3826

middot 4056 L_~

429gt6 middot

L15306 _ _

4776

1) Maintenance requirements of adult animals met-JY grazing ro 0

~~~mption for grazing system

1 06 kg feed of 15 crude protein (as fed basis) was fed per kg milk produced or suoked 2 50 kg milk was sucked by each kid from birth to wean~ng at 70 days Partial suckling was practised from the

30th day onwards 3 In late pregnancy each goat received on the average 36 kg concentrates above maintenance for each kid carried 4 In zero grazing maintenance requirements in the dry period were met by 06 kg of straw and 05 kg of

concentrates of 11 crude protein (as fed basis)

29

- 27 shy

App Table 13 Feed Cost and Revenue for Lamb Fattening

Lambing ratio

08 10 12middot 16 18 22 26

aConcentrates (kg) I

Birth to weaning Weaning to 20 kg Birth to 20 kg 20 kg to 35 kg Birth to 35 kg

09 290 299 54~0

839

1 J 13 17 20 368middot 449 618 706 37middot9 462 635 726 675 810 1080 1215

1054 1272 1715 1941

24 890 914

1485 2399

1036 106e5 175middot5 2820

Saleable Iiveweight (kg)

at weaning at 20 kg at 35 kg

87 160 280

108 200 35middot0

12~8

24middot0 420

174198 320 360 56~0 630

249 44middot0 770

290 520 910

Feed expenses

at weaning mils 45 55 65 -85 100 120 145 to 20 kg Cf 14 17 21 29 33 42 49 __ to 35 kg Cf 37 46 56 7middot5 85 10middot5 123

Revenue Cf

Lamb sale Lamb sale Lamb sale

at weaning ~~ 20 kg at 35 kg

68 100shy153shy

gt ~_ bull bullbullbullbull ~-

84 125 191

100 136 150 200 230 306middot

15middot5 225 345

194 27middot5 421

226 32 c 49 e

Assumed birthweight 47 45 42 38

a) It was assumed that the protein content of the ooncentrates mixture feed from birth to weaning was 168 and from 20 to 35 kg 143 on dry matter basis [1[

- 28 shy

App Table 15 Labour Raquire~entl) for 80 poundMes or Goats Practising Low or High Grazing at Increasing Levels of Milk Yield and Lambing or Kidding Ratios

i

Lamhing Y i e 1 d i n mil k (kg Le_we) ratio

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 280

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - Lbua)production unit - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -08 0749 0813 0869 0933 1013 1069 1109 1149 1113 1205 1229 1283 10 0150 0814 0870 0934 1014 1010 1110 1150 1114 1206 1230 1284 12 0151 0815 0811 0935 1015 1011 1111 1151 1115 1201 1231 1285 14 0152 0816 0812 0936 1016 1012 1112 1152 1116 1208 1232 1286 16 0153 0811 0813 0937 1011 1013 1113 153 1117 1209 1234 1287 18 0154 0818 0874 0938 1018 1074 1114 1154 1178 1210 1235 1288 20 0155 0819 0875 0939 1019 1015 1115 1155 1119 1211 1236 1289 22 0756 0820 0876 0940 1020 1016 1116 1156 1180 1212 1237 1290 24 26

0151 0158

0821 0822

0871 0878

0941 0942

1022 1023

1017 1018

1111 1118

1157 1158

1181 1182

1213 1214

1238 1239

1291 1292

ro -D

28 0759 0823 0879 0943 1024 1019 1119 1159 1183 1215 1240 1293 30 0760 0824 0880 0middot944 1025 1080 1120 1160 1184 1216 1241 1 294 34 0162 0826 0882 0946 1027 1082 1122 1162 middot _____middot L_ 1186 1218 1242 1295

a) 1 LbU = 300 working days

1) Low and high grazing system Calculated as followsi

Labour requirement (LbU) = 015 + (lambing ratio - 10) x 0005 +

Labour for milkin~ (days)+ X No of female animals 300

+) Assuming 6 minutesanimalday

Zero grazing system Labour requiremunt (lbU) = Low or high grazing system (LbU) - 0300 for 80 female animals

- 0550 for 160 female animals - 0650 fOr 2rl) tomcIc animals

Page 22: FACTORS AFFECTING THE ECONOMICS OF SHEEP AND GOATSnews.ari.gov.cy/Publications/AER4-papas.pdfFACTORS AFFECTING THE ECONOMICS OF SHEEP AND GOATS . By . ... Costs and Returns of Goat

- 18 shy

Table 2 Costs and Returns of Goat Enterprises by Size Group (Actual)

Size group (lITo of gegtats )

30-50 50-80 80) Mean Ci-goat

No of observations 18 28 19 65

Average No of goats Milk production (kg) Kids sold or consumed (No)

39 4034

53

63 4439

71

98 6169 100

666 4833

74

Milk and milk products Kids Culls Manure Change of capital

331 552

54 19 97

364 704 80 28 71

505 1005 102

43 154

396 60 750 113 79 12 30 0middot5

103 15

293 551 59 24 73

Gross Revenue Cishy 1053 1247 1809 1358 20middot5 100 00

Feed purchased Feed produced Forage produced Other Interest

207 35

llO

7 14

236 53

156 8

18

263 36

304 17 25

236 43

186 II 19

3middot5 06 28 02 03

224 38

18J 13 loy

Variable Costs Cf 373 471 645 495 74 474

Rent of land Family labour Interest and depreciation

25 342 48

39 436

66

77 529 85

46 437

67

07 65 10

4middot5 417

64

Fixed Costs Cf 415 541 691 550 82 526

Total Costs Cf 788 1012 1336 1045 156 1000

Net Frofi t Cf 265 235 473 313 49

Return to labour (Cpoundworking day)

Return to capital () Return over feed expenses Farm income

Cf Of

28 169

700 694

24 128

802 794

30 17middot5 1206 1189

27 153 892 882

- 19 shy

App Table 3 Effect of Level of Produotivity and Direction of a) Produotion on the Costs and Returns of Sheep (Norm)

Milk yield (kgewe)

Lambing ratio

Milk Lambs Culls

Wool Manure

Gross Revenue

Feed for ewes i) Concentrates

ii) Hay amp straw Feed for lambs

i) Concentrates Other Interest

Variable Costs

Rent Famil y labour Replacement Depreciation Interest

Fixed Costs

Total Costs

Gross Profi t

Net Profit

Return to labour (Cpoundworking day)

Return to capital () Cost to the Government

deg 60 120 200

26 12 16 08

782 3781 1748 142 139

56 56 40 40

1565 2325 128

56 40

2608 1163

120 56 40

Cpound 4019 2765 4114 3986

676 464

988 446 12 12 67 37

728

601 12 54

720

294 12 41

Cpound 1743 959 1395 1067

2 2

364 449 544 504

19 19 82 82

2

534 608 19 82

2

590 640 19 82

ce 1011 1056 1245 1333

Cpound 2754 2015 2640 2400

Cpound 2276 1606 2719 2919

Cpound 1265 750 1474 1586

72 43 60 59 392 269 46middot7 521

Cpound 688 373 542 407

a) Assuming 80 8W~S and low grazing

- 20 shy

App Table 4 Effect of Level of Productivity and Direction of a) middotmiddotmiddot----middot --Produc_tiQ[l on the Costs and Returns of Goats (Norm) bull

bull bullbullbullbull ~ __R_ ~~__bullbullbull ~ bullbullbull _

-_ ----~ bull

Milk yield (kggoat)

Kidding ratio

0

34

80

16

160

20

2$0

13

Milk Lambs Culla

4511 137

717 2136 134

1434 2652 120

2503 1743

106

Manuremiddot 40 40 40 40

Gros smiddot R-eAfnu-e- Cpound 4688 3027 4246 4398

Feed for goats ) ConcentratesJ I

ii) Hay amp straw Feed for kids

i) Concentrates Other Interest

824

1023 12 74

560

482 12 42

832

601 12 58

928 ~

391 12 53

Variable Coiits Cpound 1933 1096 1503 1384

Rent Family labour Replacement Depreciation Interestmiddot_middotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddot

2 366 608 19 82

2 488 560

19 82

2 566 688 19 82

2 617 776 19 82

Fixed Cos is Cpound 1077 1151 1357 1496

Total Cost s Cpound 3010 2247 2860 J 2880

Gross Froht Cpound 2755 1931 2743 3014

Net PI-ofit

Cpound 1678 780 1386 151[

Return to labour (Cpoundworking day)

Return to capital () 89

493 42

274 55

436 505

480 Cost to the Oovernmen t --6pound---middot761 middot425 51n __

~_~- -- _--___-~ _ M bullbullbull_ bullbull___ R bullbullbull __bullbull __ bull

o _ bullbull

~301 __

a) Assuming 80 goats and low grazing

- 21 shy

App Table 5 Effect of Level of GraZirg on the Costs and Returns of Sheep and Goats (Norm) a

Shee~ Goats Level of gra~ing Zero Low High Zero Low Rigl

Milk yield (kgfemale animal) 120 120 120 160 160 16

Lambing or kidding ratio 16 16 16 20 20 2()

Milk 1565 1565 1565 1434 1434 l434 Lambs 2326 2326 2326 2652 2652 2652 Culls 128 128 128 120 120 120 Wool 56 56 56 Manure 40 40 40 40 40 40

Gross Revenue Cpound 4115 4115 4115 4246 4246 4246

Feed for ewes or goats i) Concentrates 1292 728 408 1508 832 505

ii) Ray amp straw 288 282 Feed for lambs or kids

i) Concentrates 601 601 601 602 602 602 Other 12 12 12 12 12 12 Interest 88 54 41 96 58 45

Variable Costs Cpound 2281 1395 1062 2500 1504 116r _ _-

Rent 2 2 2 2 L 2 Family labour 390 534 534 422 566 565 Replacement 608 608 608 688 688 68P Depreciation 19 19 19 19 19 1)

Interest 82 82 82 82 82 8e

Fixed Costs Cpound 1101 1245 1245 1213 1357 1357

Total Costs Cpound 3382 2640 2307 3713 2861 252

Gross Profit Cpound 18~4 2720 3053 1746 2743 30t)2

1Tet Profit Cpound 733 1475 1808 533 1385 1725

Return to labour (Cpoundworking day) 46 60 70 36 5middot5 65

Return to capital () 232 467 588 178 436 55( Feed cost to the Government Cpound 762 542 418 847 583 456

a) Assuming 80 female adult animals

- 22 shy

App Table 6 Bffect of the Size of the Pr-oduc t ion Unit on the Costs and Returns of Sheep and Goats (NJrm)

SheGE Goats

Ewes or goatsfarm 80 160 200 80 160 2()(I

Milk yield (kgfemale animal) 120 120 120 160 160 16~)

Lambing or kidding ratio 16 16 16 20 20 2 0

Milk 1565 3130 3912 1434 2867 35[1 Lambs 2326 4651 5814 2652 5305 66jl Culls 128 256 320 120 240 300 Wool 56 112 140 Manure 40 80 100 40 80 100

Gross Revenue Cpound 4115 8229 10286 4246 8492 10615

Feed for awes or goats i) Concentrates 728 1456 1820 832 1664 208

ii) Hay amp straw Feed for lambs or kids

i) Concentrates 601 1202 1502 602 1203 1504 Hired labour 203 385 266 4f- u_)

Other 12 24 30 12 24 jC)

Interest 54 115 150 58 126 163

Variable Costs Cpound 1395 3000 3887 1504 3283 42C

Rent 2 4 5 2 4 Family labour 534 624 624 566 624 621 Replacement 608 1216 1520 688 1376 1( 2(

Depreciation 19 32 40 19 32 4C Interest 82 159 198 82 159 19t

Fixed Costs Cpound 1245 2035 2387 1357 2195 255 _ _--_ __

Total Costs Cpound 2640 5035 6274 2860 5478 6521

Gross Profit Cpound 2720 5226 6399 2743 5209 Ggt7)

net Profit Cpound 1475 319L~ 4012 1385 3014 Ll3 -

Return to labour (Cpoundworking day) 60 78 80 5middot5 70 SoU

Return to capital () 467 510 510 436 475 538 Feed cost to the Government Cpound 542 1085 1356 583 1166 145[

- 23 ~

App Table 7 Prices Received and Paid

Prices received Unit Cpound-Milk sheep kg 0163

goat kg 0112 Lamb or kid

At leaning kg 1ivQwoight 0781 At 20 kg kg 0625 At 35 kg kg II 0547

Wool Cpoundanima1 0100 Manure Cpoundanima1 0500

Prices paid

Feed roughage

Straw ton 120 Cereal hay ton 200

Concentrates

Creep feed ton 500 15 crude protein (as fed) ton 458 13 crude protein (as fed) ton 438 11 crude protein (as fed) ton 400

Labour working day 16

Rent of land donum 15

App Table 8 Capital Investments

Land

Sheds for 80 female animals

160 female animals 200 female animals

Value of animals Ewes (0 kg milk 26 lambing ratio)

(60 kg milk 12 lambing ratio) (120 kg milk 16 lambing ratio ) (200 kg milk 08 lambing ratio)

Goats( 0 kg milk 34 kidding ratio) ~ 80 kg milk 16 kidding ratio) (160 kg milk 20 kiddinB ratio) (280 kg milk 13 kidding ratio)

Operating capital (50 of variable costs)

Cpounddonum 300

Cpoundshed 1800 Cpoundahed 13500 Cpoundshed 16600

CrJeue 330

315

380

400

Cpoundgoat 380

340

400

425

vpp Table 9 Gross RevenuG (Cpoundewe) at Incr-eas Ing LeveI s of Milk Yi o Ld and Lcml~ng Rc tios (rorm)

Millt Y i e 1 d (kg eVi8)Lambing ratio 0 20 4~ 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200

08 163 208 253 298 343 388 433 ~n 8 523 568 613 10 201 246 29 ~ 1 33~6 381 426 471 516 561 606 651

12 240 284 32~9 37~4 419 464 509 554 599 644 689 16 31 6 360 40~5 45o 495 540 585 630 675 720 765 18 355 398 44~3 488 533 578 623 668 713 758 803 22 431 474 519 56~4 609 654 699 744 789 834 879

26 508 550 5915 64+ 0 658 730 775 820 865 910 955 30 584 626 67h 71~6 761 806 851 896 941 986 1034

~--

- _ N

~

App Table 10 Gross Revenue (Cpoundgoat) at Increasing LeY11s of Milk Yield and Kidding Ratios (Norm) bull

M i llt Y i e 1 d (kg L~at) IKidding ratio

middot0 40 80 l~d 160 200 240 280 320 360 400

08 148 193 237 28~~ 327 372 41 7 461 506 551 596 12 218 263 307 35~2 397 442 487 531 576 621 666 16 287 333 37-7 42l~ 467 512 55middot7 601 646 691 736 20 355 403 447 49 ~ 2 537 582 627 671 716 761 806 24 -422 473 51 7 56~ 60middot7 652 697 74middot1 786 831 876

bull 28 488 543 58~7 632 677 722 767 811 856 901 946 32 564 613 65 ~ 7 70~~ 747 792 837 881 926 971 1016 36 634 683 72~7 772- 81 7 862 907 951 996 1041 1086

I

1)App Table 11 Concentrates Consumed (kgewe) Low Grazing System

Lambi ng Y i e 1 d i n mil k (kg ewe) ratio

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200

08 568 708 848 98 8 1128 1268 1408 1548 1688 1828 1968 LO 710 850 990 1130 127middot0 1410 1550 1690 1830 1970 2110 12 852 992 1132 1272 1412 1552 1692 1332 1972 2112 2252 16 1136 1276 1416 1556 1696 1836 1976 2116 2256 2396 2536 18 1278 1418 1558 1698 1838 1978 2118 2258 2398 2538 267middot8 22 1562 1702 1842 1982 2122 2262 2402 2542 2682 2822 2962 26 1846 1986 2126 2266 2406 2546 2686 2626 2966 3106 3246 30 2130 2270 2410 2550 2690 2830 2970 311 0 325middot0 3390 3530

ro1) I~aintenancerequirement of adult animals met by grazing V1

Assumptions for grazing systems

1 07 kg feeds of 15 crude protein (as fed basis) was fed per kg milk produced or sucked [iy 2 50 kg milk was suoked by each lamb from birth to weaning at 35 days 3 In late pregnancy each ewe received on the average 36 kg concentrates above maintenance for each lamb carried 4 In zero grazing maintenance requirements during the dry period were met by 06 kg straw and 05 kg

concentrates of 11 crude protein (as fed basis) [1~ I~ late pregnancy (6 weeks before lambing) and during lactation each ewe received 06 kg cereal hay and 04 kg concentrates to meet the maintenance requirements Other requirements in concentrates were met as in low grazing syste~

App liable 12 Conoentcates Consumed (kgg02t ) i Low Grazing SJ34~OT 1)- (I

----------------------T -----------~-_--------------------------------------------------shy

M gt~_~ LL~_~iJ~_8poundatl Kidding ratio

o 40 80 120 160 200 240 280 320 360 400 -----_ ------~---~ _- ----------__--__-----shy

08 528 768 1008 1248 138 1728 1960G 2208 24Li8 2688 2928 12 792 1032 1272 1512 175middot2 1992 2232 2472 271 2 2952 3192 16 1056 129 u 6 1536 ~-77 6 20l6 2256 2496 =736 2976 3216 3456 20 1320 1560 J80o 2040 2280 2520 2760 3000 3240 3480 3720 24 1584 1[24shy 2064 2304 2-~4middot 4 27S~4 3024 32604 350middot4 3 7 11++ 3984 28 1848 2038 23 28 2568 2808 30~ 8 328f3 ~)52 8 3768 4008 42~ 8

-3 ~ 211 2 2352 2592 2832 3072 3312 3552 37902 4032 4272 +51 2

______ 36

_-__ 2379

- 2616 2856 3096

___shy__ 3336 3576

_ 3826

middot 4056 L_~

429gt6 middot

L15306 _ _

4776

1) Maintenance requirements of adult animals met-JY grazing ro 0

~~~mption for grazing system

1 06 kg feed of 15 crude protein (as fed basis) was fed per kg milk produced or suoked 2 50 kg milk was sucked by each kid from birth to wean~ng at 70 days Partial suckling was practised from the

30th day onwards 3 In late pregnancy each goat received on the average 36 kg concentrates above maintenance for each kid carried 4 In zero grazing maintenance requirements in the dry period were met by 06 kg of straw and 05 kg of

concentrates of 11 crude protein (as fed basis)

29

- 27 shy

App Table 13 Feed Cost and Revenue for Lamb Fattening

Lambing ratio

08 10 12middot 16 18 22 26

aConcentrates (kg) I

Birth to weaning Weaning to 20 kg Birth to 20 kg 20 kg to 35 kg Birth to 35 kg

09 290 299 54~0

839

1 J 13 17 20 368middot 449 618 706 37middot9 462 635 726 675 810 1080 1215

1054 1272 1715 1941

24 890 914

1485 2399

1036 106e5 175middot5 2820

Saleable Iiveweight (kg)

at weaning at 20 kg at 35 kg

87 160 280

108 200 35middot0

12~8

24middot0 420

174198 320 360 56~0 630

249 44middot0 770

290 520 910

Feed expenses

at weaning mils 45 55 65 -85 100 120 145 to 20 kg Cf 14 17 21 29 33 42 49 __ to 35 kg Cf 37 46 56 7middot5 85 10middot5 123

Revenue Cf

Lamb sale Lamb sale Lamb sale

at weaning ~~ 20 kg at 35 kg

68 100shy153shy

gt ~_ bull bullbullbullbull ~-

84 125 191

100 136 150 200 230 306middot

15middot5 225 345

194 27middot5 421

226 32 c 49 e

Assumed birthweight 47 45 42 38

a) It was assumed that the protein content of the ooncentrates mixture feed from birth to weaning was 168 and from 20 to 35 kg 143 on dry matter basis [1[

- 28 shy

App Table 15 Labour Raquire~entl) for 80 poundMes or Goats Practising Low or High Grazing at Increasing Levels of Milk Yield and Lambing or Kidding Ratios

i

Lamhing Y i e 1 d i n mil k (kg Le_we) ratio

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 280

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - Lbua)production unit - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -08 0749 0813 0869 0933 1013 1069 1109 1149 1113 1205 1229 1283 10 0150 0814 0870 0934 1014 1010 1110 1150 1114 1206 1230 1284 12 0151 0815 0811 0935 1015 1011 1111 1151 1115 1201 1231 1285 14 0152 0816 0812 0936 1016 1012 1112 1152 1116 1208 1232 1286 16 0153 0811 0813 0937 1011 1013 1113 153 1117 1209 1234 1287 18 0154 0818 0874 0938 1018 1074 1114 1154 1178 1210 1235 1288 20 0155 0819 0875 0939 1019 1015 1115 1155 1119 1211 1236 1289 22 0756 0820 0876 0940 1020 1016 1116 1156 1180 1212 1237 1290 24 26

0151 0158

0821 0822

0871 0878

0941 0942

1022 1023

1017 1018

1111 1118

1157 1158

1181 1182

1213 1214

1238 1239

1291 1292

ro -D

28 0759 0823 0879 0943 1024 1019 1119 1159 1183 1215 1240 1293 30 0760 0824 0880 0middot944 1025 1080 1120 1160 1184 1216 1241 1 294 34 0162 0826 0882 0946 1027 1082 1122 1162 middot _____middot L_ 1186 1218 1242 1295

a) 1 LbU = 300 working days

1) Low and high grazing system Calculated as followsi

Labour requirement (LbU) = 015 + (lambing ratio - 10) x 0005 +

Labour for milkin~ (days)+ X No of female animals 300

+) Assuming 6 minutesanimalday

Zero grazing system Labour requiremunt (lbU) = Low or high grazing system (LbU) - 0300 for 80 female animals

- 0550 for 160 female animals - 0650 fOr 2rl) tomcIc animals

Page 23: FACTORS AFFECTING THE ECONOMICS OF SHEEP AND GOATSnews.ari.gov.cy/Publications/AER4-papas.pdfFACTORS AFFECTING THE ECONOMICS OF SHEEP AND GOATS . By . ... Costs and Returns of Goat

- 19 shy

App Table 3 Effect of Level of Produotivity and Direction of a) Produotion on the Costs and Returns of Sheep (Norm)

Milk yield (kgewe)

Lambing ratio

Milk Lambs Culls

Wool Manure

Gross Revenue

Feed for ewes i) Concentrates

ii) Hay amp straw Feed for lambs

i) Concentrates Other Interest

Variable Costs

Rent Famil y labour Replacement Depreciation Interest

Fixed Costs

Total Costs

Gross Profi t

Net Profit

Return to labour (Cpoundworking day)

Return to capital () Cost to the Government

deg 60 120 200

26 12 16 08

782 3781 1748 142 139

56 56 40 40

1565 2325 128

56 40

2608 1163

120 56 40

Cpound 4019 2765 4114 3986

676 464

988 446 12 12 67 37

728

601 12 54

720

294 12 41

Cpound 1743 959 1395 1067

2 2

364 449 544 504

19 19 82 82

2

534 608 19 82

2

590 640 19 82

ce 1011 1056 1245 1333

Cpound 2754 2015 2640 2400

Cpound 2276 1606 2719 2919

Cpound 1265 750 1474 1586

72 43 60 59 392 269 46middot7 521

Cpound 688 373 542 407

a) Assuming 80 8W~S and low grazing

- 20 shy

App Table 4 Effect of Level of Productivity and Direction of a) middotmiddotmiddot----middot --Produc_tiQ[l on the Costs and Returns of Goats (Norm) bull

bull bullbullbullbull ~ __R_ ~~__bullbullbull ~ bullbullbull _

-_ ----~ bull

Milk yield (kggoat)

Kidding ratio

0

34

80

16

160

20

2$0

13

Milk Lambs Culla

4511 137

717 2136 134

1434 2652 120

2503 1743

106

Manuremiddot 40 40 40 40

Gros smiddot R-eAfnu-e- Cpound 4688 3027 4246 4398

Feed for goats ) ConcentratesJ I

ii) Hay amp straw Feed for kids

i) Concentrates Other Interest

824

1023 12 74

560

482 12 42

832

601 12 58

928 ~

391 12 53

Variable Coiits Cpound 1933 1096 1503 1384

Rent Family labour Replacement Depreciation Interestmiddot_middotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddot

2 366 608 19 82

2 488 560

19 82

2 566 688 19 82

2 617 776 19 82

Fixed Cos is Cpound 1077 1151 1357 1496

Total Cost s Cpound 3010 2247 2860 J 2880

Gross Froht Cpound 2755 1931 2743 3014

Net PI-ofit

Cpound 1678 780 1386 151[

Return to labour (Cpoundworking day)

Return to capital () 89

493 42

274 55

436 505

480 Cost to the Oovernmen t --6pound---middot761 middot425 51n __

~_~- -- _--___-~ _ M bullbullbull_ bullbull___ R bullbullbull __bullbull __ bull

o _ bullbull

~301 __

a) Assuming 80 goats and low grazing

- 21 shy

App Table 5 Effect of Level of GraZirg on the Costs and Returns of Sheep and Goats (Norm) a

Shee~ Goats Level of gra~ing Zero Low High Zero Low Rigl

Milk yield (kgfemale animal) 120 120 120 160 160 16

Lambing or kidding ratio 16 16 16 20 20 2()

Milk 1565 1565 1565 1434 1434 l434 Lambs 2326 2326 2326 2652 2652 2652 Culls 128 128 128 120 120 120 Wool 56 56 56 Manure 40 40 40 40 40 40

Gross Revenue Cpound 4115 4115 4115 4246 4246 4246

Feed for ewes or goats i) Concentrates 1292 728 408 1508 832 505

ii) Ray amp straw 288 282 Feed for lambs or kids

i) Concentrates 601 601 601 602 602 602 Other 12 12 12 12 12 12 Interest 88 54 41 96 58 45

Variable Costs Cpound 2281 1395 1062 2500 1504 116r _ _-

Rent 2 2 2 2 L 2 Family labour 390 534 534 422 566 565 Replacement 608 608 608 688 688 68P Depreciation 19 19 19 19 19 1)

Interest 82 82 82 82 82 8e

Fixed Costs Cpound 1101 1245 1245 1213 1357 1357

Total Costs Cpound 3382 2640 2307 3713 2861 252

Gross Profit Cpound 18~4 2720 3053 1746 2743 30t)2

1Tet Profit Cpound 733 1475 1808 533 1385 1725

Return to labour (Cpoundworking day) 46 60 70 36 5middot5 65

Return to capital () 232 467 588 178 436 55( Feed cost to the Government Cpound 762 542 418 847 583 456

a) Assuming 80 female adult animals

- 22 shy

App Table 6 Bffect of the Size of the Pr-oduc t ion Unit on the Costs and Returns of Sheep and Goats (NJrm)

SheGE Goats

Ewes or goatsfarm 80 160 200 80 160 2()(I

Milk yield (kgfemale animal) 120 120 120 160 160 16~)

Lambing or kidding ratio 16 16 16 20 20 2 0

Milk 1565 3130 3912 1434 2867 35[1 Lambs 2326 4651 5814 2652 5305 66jl Culls 128 256 320 120 240 300 Wool 56 112 140 Manure 40 80 100 40 80 100

Gross Revenue Cpound 4115 8229 10286 4246 8492 10615

Feed for awes or goats i) Concentrates 728 1456 1820 832 1664 208

ii) Hay amp straw Feed for lambs or kids

i) Concentrates 601 1202 1502 602 1203 1504 Hired labour 203 385 266 4f- u_)

Other 12 24 30 12 24 jC)

Interest 54 115 150 58 126 163

Variable Costs Cpound 1395 3000 3887 1504 3283 42C

Rent 2 4 5 2 4 Family labour 534 624 624 566 624 621 Replacement 608 1216 1520 688 1376 1( 2(

Depreciation 19 32 40 19 32 4C Interest 82 159 198 82 159 19t

Fixed Costs Cpound 1245 2035 2387 1357 2195 255 _ _--_ __

Total Costs Cpound 2640 5035 6274 2860 5478 6521

Gross Profit Cpound 2720 5226 6399 2743 5209 Ggt7)

net Profit Cpound 1475 319L~ 4012 1385 3014 Ll3 -

Return to labour (Cpoundworking day) 60 78 80 5middot5 70 SoU

Return to capital () 467 510 510 436 475 538 Feed cost to the Government Cpound 542 1085 1356 583 1166 145[

- 23 ~

App Table 7 Prices Received and Paid

Prices received Unit Cpound-Milk sheep kg 0163

goat kg 0112 Lamb or kid

At leaning kg 1ivQwoight 0781 At 20 kg kg 0625 At 35 kg kg II 0547

Wool Cpoundanima1 0100 Manure Cpoundanima1 0500

Prices paid

Feed roughage

Straw ton 120 Cereal hay ton 200

Concentrates

Creep feed ton 500 15 crude protein (as fed) ton 458 13 crude protein (as fed) ton 438 11 crude protein (as fed) ton 400

Labour working day 16

Rent of land donum 15

App Table 8 Capital Investments

Land

Sheds for 80 female animals

160 female animals 200 female animals

Value of animals Ewes (0 kg milk 26 lambing ratio)

(60 kg milk 12 lambing ratio) (120 kg milk 16 lambing ratio ) (200 kg milk 08 lambing ratio)

Goats( 0 kg milk 34 kidding ratio) ~ 80 kg milk 16 kidding ratio) (160 kg milk 20 kiddinB ratio) (280 kg milk 13 kidding ratio)

Operating capital (50 of variable costs)

Cpounddonum 300

Cpoundshed 1800 Cpoundahed 13500 Cpoundshed 16600

CrJeue 330

315

380

400

Cpoundgoat 380

340

400

425

vpp Table 9 Gross RevenuG (Cpoundewe) at Incr-eas Ing LeveI s of Milk Yi o Ld and Lcml~ng Rc tios (rorm)

Millt Y i e 1 d (kg eVi8)Lambing ratio 0 20 4~ 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200

08 163 208 253 298 343 388 433 ~n 8 523 568 613 10 201 246 29 ~ 1 33~6 381 426 471 516 561 606 651

12 240 284 32~9 37~4 419 464 509 554 599 644 689 16 31 6 360 40~5 45o 495 540 585 630 675 720 765 18 355 398 44~3 488 533 578 623 668 713 758 803 22 431 474 519 56~4 609 654 699 744 789 834 879

26 508 550 5915 64+ 0 658 730 775 820 865 910 955 30 584 626 67h 71~6 761 806 851 896 941 986 1034

~--

- _ N

~

App Table 10 Gross Revenue (Cpoundgoat) at Increasing LeY11s of Milk Yield and Kidding Ratios (Norm) bull

M i llt Y i e 1 d (kg L~at) IKidding ratio

middot0 40 80 l~d 160 200 240 280 320 360 400

08 148 193 237 28~~ 327 372 41 7 461 506 551 596 12 218 263 307 35~2 397 442 487 531 576 621 666 16 287 333 37-7 42l~ 467 512 55middot7 601 646 691 736 20 355 403 447 49 ~ 2 537 582 627 671 716 761 806 24 -422 473 51 7 56~ 60middot7 652 697 74middot1 786 831 876

bull 28 488 543 58~7 632 677 722 767 811 856 901 946 32 564 613 65 ~ 7 70~~ 747 792 837 881 926 971 1016 36 634 683 72~7 772- 81 7 862 907 951 996 1041 1086

I

1)App Table 11 Concentrates Consumed (kgewe) Low Grazing System

Lambi ng Y i e 1 d i n mil k (kg ewe) ratio

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200

08 568 708 848 98 8 1128 1268 1408 1548 1688 1828 1968 LO 710 850 990 1130 127middot0 1410 1550 1690 1830 1970 2110 12 852 992 1132 1272 1412 1552 1692 1332 1972 2112 2252 16 1136 1276 1416 1556 1696 1836 1976 2116 2256 2396 2536 18 1278 1418 1558 1698 1838 1978 2118 2258 2398 2538 267middot8 22 1562 1702 1842 1982 2122 2262 2402 2542 2682 2822 2962 26 1846 1986 2126 2266 2406 2546 2686 2626 2966 3106 3246 30 2130 2270 2410 2550 2690 2830 2970 311 0 325middot0 3390 3530

ro1) I~aintenancerequirement of adult animals met by grazing V1

Assumptions for grazing systems

1 07 kg feeds of 15 crude protein (as fed basis) was fed per kg milk produced or sucked [iy 2 50 kg milk was suoked by each lamb from birth to weaning at 35 days 3 In late pregnancy each ewe received on the average 36 kg concentrates above maintenance for each lamb carried 4 In zero grazing maintenance requirements during the dry period were met by 06 kg straw and 05 kg

concentrates of 11 crude protein (as fed basis) [1~ I~ late pregnancy (6 weeks before lambing) and during lactation each ewe received 06 kg cereal hay and 04 kg concentrates to meet the maintenance requirements Other requirements in concentrates were met as in low grazing syste~

App liable 12 Conoentcates Consumed (kgg02t ) i Low Grazing SJ34~OT 1)- (I

----------------------T -----------~-_--------------------------------------------------shy

M gt~_~ LL~_~iJ~_8poundatl Kidding ratio

o 40 80 120 160 200 240 280 320 360 400 -----_ ------~---~ _- ----------__--__-----shy

08 528 768 1008 1248 138 1728 1960G 2208 24Li8 2688 2928 12 792 1032 1272 1512 175middot2 1992 2232 2472 271 2 2952 3192 16 1056 129 u 6 1536 ~-77 6 20l6 2256 2496 =736 2976 3216 3456 20 1320 1560 J80o 2040 2280 2520 2760 3000 3240 3480 3720 24 1584 1[24shy 2064 2304 2-~4middot 4 27S~4 3024 32604 350middot4 3 7 11++ 3984 28 1848 2038 23 28 2568 2808 30~ 8 328f3 ~)52 8 3768 4008 42~ 8

-3 ~ 211 2 2352 2592 2832 3072 3312 3552 37902 4032 4272 +51 2

______ 36

_-__ 2379

- 2616 2856 3096

___shy__ 3336 3576

_ 3826

middot 4056 L_~

429gt6 middot

L15306 _ _

4776

1) Maintenance requirements of adult animals met-JY grazing ro 0

~~~mption for grazing system

1 06 kg feed of 15 crude protein (as fed basis) was fed per kg milk produced or suoked 2 50 kg milk was sucked by each kid from birth to wean~ng at 70 days Partial suckling was practised from the

30th day onwards 3 In late pregnancy each goat received on the average 36 kg concentrates above maintenance for each kid carried 4 In zero grazing maintenance requirements in the dry period were met by 06 kg of straw and 05 kg of

concentrates of 11 crude protein (as fed basis)

29

- 27 shy

App Table 13 Feed Cost and Revenue for Lamb Fattening

Lambing ratio

08 10 12middot 16 18 22 26

aConcentrates (kg) I

Birth to weaning Weaning to 20 kg Birth to 20 kg 20 kg to 35 kg Birth to 35 kg

09 290 299 54~0

839

1 J 13 17 20 368middot 449 618 706 37middot9 462 635 726 675 810 1080 1215

1054 1272 1715 1941

24 890 914

1485 2399

1036 106e5 175middot5 2820

Saleable Iiveweight (kg)

at weaning at 20 kg at 35 kg

87 160 280

108 200 35middot0

12~8

24middot0 420

174198 320 360 56~0 630

249 44middot0 770

290 520 910

Feed expenses

at weaning mils 45 55 65 -85 100 120 145 to 20 kg Cf 14 17 21 29 33 42 49 __ to 35 kg Cf 37 46 56 7middot5 85 10middot5 123

Revenue Cf

Lamb sale Lamb sale Lamb sale

at weaning ~~ 20 kg at 35 kg

68 100shy153shy

gt ~_ bull bullbullbullbull ~-

84 125 191

100 136 150 200 230 306middot

15middot5 225 345

194 27middot5 421

226 32 c 49 e

Assumed birthweight 47 45 42 38

a) It was assumed that the protein content of the ooncentrates mixture feed from birth to weaning was 168 and from 20 to 35 kg 143 on dry matter basis [1[

- 28 shy

App Table 15 Labour Raquire~entl) for 80 poundMes or Goats Practising Low or High Grazing at Increasing Levels of Milk Yield and Lambing or Kidding Ratios

i

Lamhing Y i e 1 d i n mil k (kg Le_we) ratio

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 280

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - Lbua)production unit - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -08 0749 0813 0869 0933 1013 1069 1109 1149 1113 1205 1229 1283 10 0150 0814 0870 0934 1014 1010 1110 1150 1114 1206 1230 1284 12 0151 0815 0811 0935 1015 1011 1111 1151 1115 1201 1231 1285 14 0152 0816 0812 0936 1016 1012 1112 1152 1116 1208 1232 1286 16 0153 0811 0813 0937 1011 1013 1113 153 1117 1209 1234 1287 18 0154 0818 0874 0938 1018 1074 1114 1154 1178 1210 1235 1288 20 0155 0819 0875 0939 1019 1015 1115 1155 1119 1211 1236 1289 22 0756 0820 0876 0940 1020 1016 1116 1156 1180 1212 1237 1290 24 26

0151 0158

0821 0822

0871 0878

0941 0942

1022 1023

1017 1018

1111 1118

1157 1158

1181 1182

1213 1214

1238 1239

1291 1292

ro -D

28 0759 0823 0879 0943 1024 1019 1119 1159 1183 1215 1240 1293 30 0760 0824 0880 0middot944 1025 1080 1120 1160 1184 1216 1241 1 294 34 0162 0826 0882 0946 1027 1082 1122 1162 middot _____middot L_ 1186 1218 1242 1295

a) 1 LbU = 300 working days

1) Low and high grazing system Calculated as followsi

Labour requirement (LbU) = 015 + (lambing ratio - 10) x 0005 +

Labour for milkin~ (days)+ X No of female animals 300

+) Assuming 6 minutesanimalday

Zero grazing system Labour requiremunt (lbU) = Low or high grazing system (LbU) - 0300 for 80 female animals

- 0550 for 160 female animals - 0650 fOr 2rl) tomcIc animals

Page 24: FACTORS AFFECTING THE ECONOMICS OF SHEEP AND GOATSnews.ari.gov.cy/Publications/AER4-papas.pdfFACTORS AFFECTING THE ECONOMICS OF SHEEP AND GOATS . By . ... Costs and Returns of Goat

- 20 shy

App Table 4 Effect of Level of Productivity and Direction of a) middotmiddotmiddot----middot --Produc_tiQ[l on the Costs and Returns of Goats (Norm) bull

bull bullbullbullbull ~ __R_ ~~__bullbullbull ~ bullbullbull _

-_ ----~ bull

Milk yield (kggoat)

Kidding ratio

0

34

80

16

160

20

2$0

13

Milk Lambs Culla

4511 137

717 2136 134

1434 2652 120

2503 1743

106

Manuremiddot 40 40 40 40

Gros smiddot R-eAfnu-e- Cpound 4688 3027 4246 4398

Feed for goats ) ConcentratesJ I

ii) Hay amp straw Feed for kids

i) Concentrates Other Interest

824

1023 12 74

560

482 12 42

832

601 12 58

928 ~

391 12 53

Variable Coiits Cpound 1933 1096 1503 1384

Rent Family labour Replacement Depreciation Interestmiddot_middotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddot

2 366 608 19 82

2 488 560

19 82

2 566 688 19 82

2 617 776 19 82

Fixed Cos is Cpound 1077 1151 1357 1496

Total Cost s Cpound 3010 2247 2860 J 2880

Gross Froht Cpound 2755 1931 2743 3014

Net PI-ofit

Cpound 1678 780 1386 151[

Return to labour (Cpoundworking day)

Return to capital () 89

493 42

274 55

436 505

480 Cost to the Oovernmen t --6pound---middot761 middot425 51n __

~_~- -- _--___-~ _ M bullbullbull_ bullbull___ R bullbullbull __bullbull __ bull

o _ bullbull

~301 __

a) Assuming 80 goats and low grazing

- 21 shy

App Table 5 Effect of Level of GraZirg on the Costs and Returns of Sheep and Goats (Norm) a

Shee~ Goats Level of gra~ing Zero Low High Zero Low Rigl

Milk yield (kgfemale animal) 120 120 120 160 160 16

Lambing or kidding ratio 16 16 16 20 20 2()

Milk 1565 1565 1565 1434 1434 l434 Lambs 2326 2326 2326 2652 2652 2652 Culls 128 128 128 120 120 120 Wool 56 56 56 Manure 40 40 40 40 40 40

Gross Revenue Cpound 4115 4115 4115 4246 4246 4246

Feed for ewes or goats i) Concentrates 1292 728 408 1508 832 505

ii) Ray amp straw 288 282 Feed for lambs or kids

i) Concentrates 601 601 601 602 602 602 Other 12 12 12 12 12 12 Interest 88 54 41 96 58 45

Variable Costs Cpound 2281 1395 1062 2500 1504 116r _ _-

Rent 2 2 2 2 L 2 Family labour 390 534 534 422 566 565 Replacement 608 608 608 688 688 68P Depreciation 19 19 19 19 19 1)

Interest 82 82 82 82 82 8e

Fixed Costs Cpound 1101 1245 1245 1213 1357 1357

Total Costs Cpound 3382 2640 2307 3713 2861 252

Gross Profit Cpound 18~4 2720 3053 1746 2743 30t)2

1Tet Profit Cpound 733 1475 1808 533 1385 1725

Return to labour (Cpoundworking day) 46 60 70 36 5middot5 65

Return to capital () 232 467 588 178 436 55( Feed cost to the Government Cpound 762 542 418 847 583 456

a) Assuming 80 female adult animals

- 22 shy

App Table 6 Bffect of the Size of the Pr-oduc t ion Unit on the Costs and Returns of Sheep and Goats (NJrm)

SheGE Goats

Ewes or goatsfarm 80 160 200 80 160 2()(I

Milk yield (kgfemale animal) 120 120 120 160 160 16~)

Lambing or kidding ratio 16 16 16 20 20 2 0

Milk 1565 3130 3912 1434 2867 35[1 Lambs 2326 4651 5814 2652 5305 66jl Culls 128 256 320 120 240 300 Wool 56 112 140 Manure 40 80 100 40 80 100

Gross Revenue Cpound 4115 8229 10286 4246 8492 10615

Feed for awes or goats i) Concentrates 728 1456 1820 832 1664 208

ii) Hay amp straw Feed for lambs or kids

i) Concentrates 601 1202 1502 602 1203 1504 Hired labour 203 385 266 4f- u_)

Other 12 24 30 12 24 jC)

Interest 54 115 150 58 126 163

Variable Costs Cpound 1395 3000 3887 1504 3283 42C

Rent 2 4 5 2 4 Family labour 534 624 624 566 624 621 Replacement 608 1216 1520 688 1376 1( 2(

Depreciation 19 32 40 19 32 4C Interest 82 159 198 82 159 19t

Fixed Costs Cpound 1245 2035 2387 1357 2195 255 _ _--_ __

Total Costs Cpound 2640 5035 6274 2860 5478 6521

Gross Profit Cpound 2720 5226 6399 2743 5209 Ggt7)

net Profit Cpound 1475 319L~ 4012 1385 3014 Ll3 -

Return to labour (Cpoundworking day) 60 78 80 5middot5 70 SoU

Return to capital () 467 510 510 436 475 538 Feed cost to the Government Cpound 542 1085 1356 583 1166 145[

- 23 ~

App Table 7 Prices Received and Paid

Prices received Unit Cpound-Milk sheep kg 0163

goat kg 0112 Lamb or kid

At leaning kg 1ivQwoight 0781 At 20 kg kg 0625 At 35 kg kg II 0547

Wool Cpoundanima1 0100 Manure Cpoundanima1 0500

Prices paid

Feed roughage

Straw ton 120 Cereal hay ton 200

Concentrates

Creep feed ton 500 15 crude protein (as fed) ton 458 13 crude protein (as fed) ton 438 11 crude protein (as fed) ton 400

Labour working day 16

Rent of land donum 15

App Table 8 Capital Investments

Land

Sheds for 80 female animals

160 female animals 200 female animals

Value of animals Ewes (0 kg milk 26 lambing ratio)

(60 kg milk 12 lambing ratio) (120 kg milk 16 lambing ratio ) (200 kg milk 08 lambing ratio)

Goats( 0 kg milk 34 kidding ratio) ~ 80 kg milk 16 kidding ratio) (160 kg milk 20 kiddinB ratio) (280 kg milk 13 kidding ratio)

Operating capital (50 of variable costs)

Cpounddonum 300

Cpoundshed 1800 Cpoundahed 13500 Cpoundshed 16600

CrJeue 330

315

380

400

Cpoundgoat 380

340

400

425

vpp Table 9 Gross RevenuG (Cpoundewe) at Incr-eas Ing LeveI s of Milk Yi o Ld and Lcml~ng Rc tios (rorm)

Millt Y i e 1 d (kg eVi8)Lambing ratio 0 20 4~ 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200

08 163 208 253 298 343 388 433 ~n 8 523 568 613 10 201 246 29 ~ 1 33~6 381 426 471 516 561 606 651

12 240 284 32~9 37~4 419 464 509 554 599 644 689 16 31 6 360 40~5 45o 495 540 585 630 675 720 765 18 355 398 44~3 488 533 578 623 668 713 758 803 22 431 474 519 56~4 609 654 699 744 789 834 879

26 508 550 5915 64+ 0 658 730 775 820 865 910 955 30 584 626 67h 71~6 761 806 851 896 941 986 1034

~--

- _ N

~

App Table 10 Gross Revenue (Cpoundgoat) at Increasing LeY11s of Milk Yield and Kidding Ratios (Norm) bull

M i llt Y i e 1 d (kg L~at) IKidding ratio

middot0 40 80 l~d 160 200 240 280 320 360 400

08 148 193 237 28~~ 327 372 41 7 461 506 551 596 12 218 263 307 35~2 397 442 487 531 576 621 666 16 287 333 37-7 42l~ 467 512 55middot7 601 646 691 736 20 355 403 447 49 ~ 2 537 582 627 671 716 761 806 24 -422 473 51 7 56~ 60middot7 652 697 74middot1 786 831 876

bull 28 488 543 58~7 632 677 722 767 811 856 901 946 32 564 613 65 ~ 7 70~~ 747 792 837 881 926 971 1016 36 634 683 72~7 772- 81 7 862 907 951 996 1041 1086

I

1)App Table 11 Concentrates Consumed (kgewe) Low Grazing System

Lambi ng Y i e 1 d i n mil k (kg ewe) ratio

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200

08 568 708 848 98 8 1128 1268 1408 1548 1688 1828 1968 LO 710 850 990 1130 127middot0 1410 1550 1690 1830 1970 2110 12 852 992 1132 1272 1412 1552 1692 1332 1972 2112 2252 16 1136 1276 1416 1556 1696 1836 1976 2116 2256 2396 2536 18 1278 1418 1558 1698 1838 1978 2118 2258 2398 2538 267middot8 22 1562 1702 1842 1982 2122 2262 2402 2542 2682 2822 2962 26 1846 1986 2126 2266 2406 2546 2686 2626 2966 3106 3246 30 2130 2270 2410 2550 2690 2830 2970 311 0 325middot0 3390 3530

ro1) I~aintenancerequirement of adult animals met by grazing V1

Assumptions for grazing systems

1 07 kg feeds of 15 crude protein (as fed basis) was fed per kg milk produced or sucked [iy 2 50 kg milk was suoked by each lamb from birth to weaning at 35 days 3 In late pregnancy each ewe received on the average 36 kg concentrates above maintenance for each lamb carried 4 In zero grazing maintenance requirements during the dry period were met by 06 kg straw and 05 kg

concentrates of 11 crude protein (as fed basis) [1~ I~ late pregnancy (6 weeks before lambing) and during lactation each ewe received 06 kg cereal hay and 04 kg concentrates to meet the maintenance requirements Other requirements in concentrates were met as in low grazing syste~

App liable 12 Conoentcates Consumed (kgg02t ) i Low Grazing SJ34~OT 1)- (I

----------------------T -----------~-_--------------------------------------------------shy

M gt~_~ LL~_~iJ~_8poundatl Kidding ratio

o 40 80 120 160 200 240 280 320 360 400 -----_ ------~---~ _- ----------__--__-----shy

08 528 768 1008 1248 138 1728 1960G 2208 24Li8 2688 2928 12 792 1032 1272 1512 175middot2 1992 2232 2472 271 2 2952 3192 16 1056 129 u 6 1536 ~-77 6 20l6 2256 2496 =736 2976 3216 3456 20 1320 1560 J80o 2040 2280 2520 2760 3000 3240 3480 3720 24 1584 1[24shy 2064 2304 2-~4middot 4 27S~4 3024 32604 350middot4 3 7 11++ 3984 28 1848 2038 23 28 2568 2808 30~ 8 328f3 ~)52 8 3768 4008 42~ 8

-3 ~ 211 2 2352 2592 2832 3072 3312 3552 37902 4032 4272 +51 2

______ 36

_-__ 2379

- 2616 2856 3096

___shy__ 3336 3576

_ 3826

middot 4056 L_~

429gt6 middot

L15306 _ _

4776

1) Maintenance requirements of adult animals met-JY grazing ro 0

~~~mption for grazing system

1 06 kg feed of 15 crude protein (as fed basis) was fed per kg milk produced or suoked 2 50 kg milk was sucked by each kid from birth to wean~ng at 70 days Partial suckling was practised from the

30th day onwards 3 In late pregnancy each goat received on the average 36 kg concentrates above maintenance for each kid carried 4 In zero grazing maintenance requirements in the dry period were met by 06 kg of straw and 05 kg of

concentrates of 11 crude protein (as fed basis)

29

- 27 shy

App Table 13 Feed Cost and Revenue for Lamb Fattening

Lambing ratio

08 10 12middot 16 18 22 26

aConcentrates (kg) I

Birth to weaning Weaning to 20 kg Birth to 20 kg 20 kg to 35 kg Birth to 35 kg

09 290 299 54~0

839

1 J 13 17 20 368middot 449 618 706 37middot9 462 635 726 675 810 1080 1215

1054 1272 1715 1941

24 890 914

1485 2399

1036 106e5 175middot5 2820

Saleable Iiveweight (kg)

at weaning at 20 kg at 35 kg

87 160 280

108 200 35middot0

12~8

24middot0 420

174198 320 360 56~0 630

249 44middot0 770

290 520 910

Feed expenses

at weaning mils 45 55 65 -85 100 120 145 to 20 kg Cf 14 17 21 29 33 42 49 __ to 35 kg Cf 37 46 56 7middot5 85 10middot5 123

Revenue Cf

Lamb sale Lamb sale Lamb sale

at weaning ~~ 20 kg at 35 kg

68 100shy153shy

gt ~_ bull bullbullbullbull ~-

84 125 191

100 136 150 200 230 306middot

15middot5 225 345

194 27middot5 421

226 32 c 49 e

Assumed birthweight 47 45 42 38

a) It was assumed that the protein content of the ooncentrates mixture feed from birth to weaning was 168 and from 20 to 35 kg 143 on dry matter basis [1[

- 28 shy

App Table 15 Labour Raquire~entl) for 80 poundMes or Goats Practising Low or High Grazing at Increasing Levels of Milk Yield and Lambing or Kidding Ratios

i

Lamhing Y i e 1 d i n mil k (kg Le_we) ratio

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 280

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - Lbua)production unit - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -08 0749 0813 0869 0933 1013 1069 1109 1149 1113 1205 1229 1283 10 0150 0814 0870 0934 1014 1010 1110 1150 1114 1206 1230 1284 12 0151 0815 0811 0935 1015 1011 1111 1151 1115 1201 1231 1285 14 0152 0816 0812 0936 1016 1012 1112 1152 1116 1208 1232 1286 16 0153 0811 0813 0937 1011 1013 1113 153 1117 1209 1234 1287 18 0154 0818 0874 0938 1018 1074 1114 1154 1178 1210 1235 1288 20 0155 0819 0875 0939 1019 1015 1115 1155 1119 1211 1236 1289 22 0756 0820 0876 0940 1020 1016 1116 1156 1180 1212 1237 1290 24 26

0151 0158

0821 0822

0871 0878

0941 0942

1022 1023

1017 1018

1111 1118

1157 1158

1181 1182

1213 1214

1238 1239

1291 1292

ro -D

28 0759 0823 0879 0943 1024 1019 1119 1159 1183 1215 1240 1293 30 0760 0824 0880 0middot944 1025 1080 1120 1160 1184 1216 1241 1 294 34 0162 0826 0882 0946 1027 1082 1122 1162 middot _____middot L_ 1186 1218 1242 1295

a) 1 LbU = 300 working days

1) Low and high grazing system Calculated as followsi

Labour requirement (LbU) = 015 + (lambing ratio - 10) x 0005 +

Labour for milkin~ (days)+ X No of female animals 300

+) Assuming 6 minutesanimalday

Zero grazing system Labour requiremunt (lbU) = Low or high grazing system (LbU) - 0300 for 80 female animals

- 0550 for 160 female animals - 0650 fOr 2rl) tomcIc animals

Page 25: FACTORS AFFECTING THE ECONOMICS OF SHEEP AND GOATSnews.ari.gov.cy/Publications/AER4-papas.pdfFACTORS AFFECTING THE ECONOMICS OF SHEEP AND GOATS . By . ... Costs and Returns of Goat

- 21 shy

App Table 5 Effect of Level of GraZirg on the Costs and Returns of Sheep and Goats (Norm) a

Shee~ Goats Level of gra~ing Zero Low High Zero Low Rigl

Milk yield (kgfemale animal) 120 120 120 160 160 16

Lambing or kidding ratio 16 16 16 20 20 2()

Milk 1565 1565 1565 1434 1434 l434 Lambs 2326 2326 2326 2652 2652 2652 Culls 128 128 128 120 120 120 Wool 56 56 56 Manure 40 40 40 40 40 40

Gross Revenue Cpound 4115 4115 4115 4246 4246 4246

Feed for ewes or goats i) Concentrates 1292 728 408 1508 832 505

ii) Ray amp straw 288 282 Feed for lambs or kids

i) Concentrates 601 601 601 602 602 602 Other 12 12 12 12 12 12 Interest 88 54 41 96 58 45

Variable Costs Cpound 2281 1395 1062 2500 1504 116r _ _-

Rent 2 2 2 2 L 2 Family labour 390 534 534 422 566 565 Replacement 608 608 608 688 688 68P Depreciation 19 19 19 19 19 1)

Interest 82 82 82 82 82 8e

Fixed Costs Cpound 1101 1245 1245 1213 1357 1357

Total Costs Cpound 3382 2640 2307 3713 2861 252

Gross Profit Cpound 18~4 2720 3053 1746 2743 30t)2

1Tet Profit Cpound 733 1475 1808 533 1385 1725

Return to labour (Cpoundworking day) 46 60 70 36 5middot5 65

Return to capital () 232 467 588 178 436 55( Feed cost to the Government Cpound 762 542 418 847 583 456

a) Assuming 80 female adult animals

- 22 shy

App Table 6 Bffect of the Size of the Pr-oduc t ion Unit on the Costs and Returns of Sheep and Goats (NJrm)

SheGE Goats

Ewes or goatsfarm 80 160 200 80 160 2()(I

Milk yield (kgfemale animal) 120 120 120 160 160 16~)

Lambing or kidding ratio 16 16 16 20 20 2 0

Milk 1565 3130 3912 1434 2867 35[1 Lambs 2326 4651 5814 2652 5305 66jl Culls 128 256 320 120 240 300 Wool 56 112 140 Manure 40 80 100 40 80 100

Gross Revenue Cpound 4115 8229 10286 4246 8492 10615

Feed for awes or goats i) Concentrates 728 1456 1820 832 1664 208

ii) Hay amp straw Feed for lambs or kids

i) Concentrates 601 1202 1502 602 1203 1504 Hired labour 203 385 266 4f- u_)

Other 12 24 30 12 24 jC)

Interest 54 115 150 58 126 163

Variable Costs Cpound 1395 3000 3887 1504 3283 42C

Rent 2 4 5 2 4 Family labour 534 624 624 566 624 621 Replacement 608 1216 1520 688 1376 1( 2(

Depreciation 19 32 40 19 32 4C Interest 82 159 198 82 159 19t

Fixed Costs Cpound 1245 2035 2387 1357 2195 255 _ _--_ __

Total Costs Cpound 2640 5035 6274 2860 5478 6521

Gross Profit Cpound 2720 5226 6399 2743 5209 Ggt7)

net Profit Cpound 1475 319L~ 4012 1385 3014 Ll3 -

Return to labour (Cpoundworking day) 60 78 80 5middot5 70 SoU

Return to capital () 467 510 510 436 475 538 Feed cost to the Government Cpound 542 1085 1356 583 1166 145[

- 23 ~

App Table 7 Prices Received and Paid

Prices received Unit Cpound-Milk sheep kg 0163

goat kg 0112 Lamb or kid

At leaning kg 1ivQwoight 0781 At 20 kg kg 0625 At 35 kg kg II 0547

Wool Cpoundanima1 0100 Manure Cpoundanima1 0500

Prices paid

Feed roughage

Straw ton 120 Cereal hay ton 200

Concentrates

Creep feed ton 500 15 crude protein (as fed) ton 458 13 crude protein (as fed) ton 438 11 crude protein (as fed) ton 400

Labour working day 16

Rent of land donum 15

App Table 8 Capital Investments

Land

Sheds for 80 female animals

160 female animals 200 female animals

Value of animals Ewes (0 kg milk 26 lambing ratio)

(60 kg milk 12 lambing ratio) (120 kg milk 16 lambing ratio ) (200 kg milk 08 lambing ratio)

Goats( 0 kg milk 34 kidding ratio) ~ 80 kg milk 16 kidding ratio) (160 kg milk 20 kiddinB ratio) (280 kg milk 13 kidding ratio)

Operating capital (50 of variable costs)

Cpounddonum 300

Cpoundshed 1800 Cpoundahed 13500 Cpoundshed 16600

CrJeue 330

315

380

400

Cpoundgoat 380

340

400

425

vpp Table 9 Gross RevenuG (Cpoundewe) at Incr-eas Ing LeveI s of Milk Yi o Ld and Lcml~ng Rc tios (rorm)

Millt Y i e 1 d (kg eVi8)Lambing ratio 0 20 4~ 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200

08 163 208 253 298 343 388 433 ~n 8 523 568 613 10 201 246 29 ~ 1 33~6 381 426 471 516 561 606 651

12 240 284 32~9 37~4 419 464 509 554 599 644 689 16 31 6 360 40~5 45o 495 540 585 630 675 720 765 18 355 398 44~3 488 533 578 623 668 713 758 803 22 431 474 519 56~4 609 654 699 744 789 834 879

26 508 550 5915 64+ 0 658 730 775 820 865 910 955 30 584 626 67h 71~6 761 806 851 896 941 986 1034

~--

- _ N

~

App Table 10 Gross Revenue (Cpoundgoat) at Increasing LeY11s of Milk Yield and Kidding Ratios (Norm) bull

M i llt Y i e 1 d (kg L~at) IKidding ratio

middot0 40 80 l~d 160 200 240 280 320 360 400

08 148 193 237 28~~ 327 372 41 7 461 506 551 596 12 218 263 307 35~2 397 442 487 531 576 621 666 16 287 333 37-7 42l~ 467 512 55middot7 601 646 691 736 20 355 403 447 49 ~ 2 537 582 627 671 716 761 806 24 -422 473 51 7 56~ 60middot7 652 697 74middot1 786 831 876

bull 28 488 543 58~7 632 677 722 767 811 856 901 946 32 564 613 65 ~ 7 70~~ 747 792 837 881 926 971 1016 36 634 683 72~7 772- 81 7 862 907 951 996 1041 1086

I

1)App Table 11 Concentrates Consumed (kgewe) Low Grazing System

Lambi ng Y i e 1 d i n mil k (kg ewe) ratio

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200

08 568 708 848 98 8 1128 1268 1408 1548 1688 1828 1968 LO 710 850 990 1130 127middot0 1410 1550 1690 1830 1970 2110 12 852 992 1132 1272 1412 1552 1692 1332 1972 2112 2252 16 1136 1276 1416 1556 1696 1836 1976 2116 2256 2396 2536 18 1278 1418 1558 1698 1838 1978 2118 2258 2398 2538 267middot8 22 1562 1702 1842 1982 2122 2262 2402 2542 2682 2822 2962 26 1846 1986 2126 2266 2406 2546 2686 2626 2966 3106 3246 30 2130 2270 2410 2550 2690 2830 2970 311 0 325middot0 3390 3530

ro1) I~aintenancerequirement of adult animals met by grazing V1

Assumptions for grazing systems

1 07 kg feeds of 15 crude protein (as fed basis) was fed per kg milk produced or sucked [iy 2 50 kg milk was suoked by each lamb from birth to weaning at 35 days 3 In late pregnancy each ewe received on the average 36 kg concentrates above maintenance for each lamb carried 4 In zero grazing maintenance requirements during the dry period were met by 06 kg straw and 05 kg

concentrates of 11 crude protein (as fed basis) [1~ I~ late pregnancy (6 weeks before lambing) and during lactation each ewe received 06 kg cereal hay and 04 kg concentrates to meet the maintenance requirements Other requirements in concentrates were met as in low grazing syste~

App liable 12 Conoentcates Consumed (kgg02t ) i Low Grazing SJ34~OT 1)- (I

----------------------T -----------~-_--------------------------------------------------shy

M gt~_~ LL~_~iJ~_8poundatl Kidding ratio

o 40 80 120 160 200 240 280 320 360 400 -----_ ------~---~ _- ----------__--__-----shy

08 528 768 1008 1248 138 1728 1960G 2208 24Li8 2688 2928 12 792 1032 1272 1512 175middot2 1992 2232 2472 271 2 2952 3192 16 1056 129 u 6 1536 ~-77 6 20l6 2256 2496 =736 2976 3216 3456 20 1320 1560 J80o 2040 2280 2520 2760 3000 3240 3480 3720 24 1584 1[24shy 2064 2304 2-~4middot 4 27S~4 3024 32604 350middot4 3 7 11++ 3984 28 1848 2038 23 28 2568 2808 30~ 8 328f3 ~)52 8 3768 4008 42~ 8

-3 ~ 211 2 2352 2592 2832 3072 3312 3552 37902 4032 4272 +51 2

______ 36

_-__ 2379

- 2616 2856 3096

___shy__ 3336 3576

_ 3826

middot 4056 L_~

429gt6 middot

L15306 _ _

4776

1) Maintenance requirements of adult animals met-JY grazing ro 0

~~~mption for grazing system

1 06 kg feed of 15 crude protein (as fed basis) was fed per kg milk produced or suoked 2 50 kg milk was sucked by each kid from birth to wean~ng at 70 days Partial suckling was practised from the

30th day onwards 3 In late pregnancy each goat received on the average 36 kg concentrates above maintenance for each kid carried 4 In zero grazing maintenance requirements in the dry period were met by 06 kg of straw and 05 kg of

concentrates of 11 crude protein (as fed basis)

29

- 27 shy

App Table 13 Feed Cost and Revenue for Lamb Fattening

Lambing ratio

08 10 12middot 16 18 22 26

aConcentrates (kg) I

Birth to weaning Weaning to 20 kg Birth to 20 kg 20 kg to 35 kg Birth to 35 kg

09 290 299 54~0

839

1 J 13 17 20 368middot 449 618 706 37middot9 462 635 726 675 810 1080 1215

1054 1272 1715 1941

24 890 914

1485 2399

1036 106e5 175middot5 2820

Saleable Iiveweight (kg)

at weaning at 20 kg at 35 kg

87 160 280

108 200 35middot0

12~8

24middot0 420

174198 320 360 56~0 630

249 44middot0 770

290 520 910

Feed expenses

at weaning mils 45 55 65 -85 100 120 145 to 20 kg Cf 14 17 21 29 33 42 49 __ to 35 kg Cf 37 46 56 7middot5 85 10middot5 123

Revenue Cf

Lamb sale Lamb sale Lamb sale

at weaning ~~ 20 kg at 35 kg

68 100shy153shy

gt ~_ bull bullbullbullbull ~-

84 125 191

100 136 150 200 230 306middot

15middot5 225 345

194 27middot5 421

226 32 c 49 e

Assumed birthweight 47 45 42 38

a) It was assumed that the protein content of the ooncentrates mixture feed from birth to weaning was 168 and from 20 to 35 kg 143 on dry matter basis [1[

- 28 shy

App Table 15 Labour Raquire~entl) for 80 poundMes or Goats Practising Low or High Grazing at Increasing Levels of Milk Yield and Lambing or Kidding Ratios

i

Lamhing Y i e 1 d i n mil k (kg Le_we) ratio

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 280

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - Lbua)production unit - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -08 0749 0813 0869 0933 1013 1069 1109 1149 1113 1205 1229 1283 10 0150 0814 0870 0934 1014 1010 1110 1150 1114 1206 1230 1284 12 0151 0815 0811 0935 1015 1011 1111 1151 1115 1201 1231 1285 14 0152 0816 0812 0936 1016 1012 1112 1152 1116 1208 1232 1286 16 0153 0811 0813 0937 1011 1013 1113 153 1117 1209 1234 1287 18 0154 0818 0874 0938 1018 1074 1114 1154 1178 1210 1235 1288 20 0155 0819 0875 0939 1019 1015 1115 1155 1119 1211 1236 1289 22 0756 0820 0876 0940 1020 1016 1116 1156 1180 1212 1237 1290 24 26

0151 0158

0821 0822

0871 0878

0941 0942

1022 1023

1017 1018

1111 1118

1157 1158

1181 1182

1213 1214

1238 1239

1291 1292

ro -D

28 0759 0823 0879 0943 1024 1019 1119 1159 1183 1215 1240 1293 30 0760 0824 0880 0middot944 1025 1080 1120 1160 1184 1216 1241 1 294 34 0162 0826 0882 0946 1027 1082 1122 1162 middot _____middot L_ 1186 1218 1242 1295

a) 1 LbU = 300 working days

1) Low and high grazing system Calculated as followsi

Labour requirement (LbU) = 015 + (lambing ratio - 10) x 0005 +

Labour for milkin~ (days)+ X No of female animals 300

+) Assuming 6 minutesanimalday

Zero grazing system Labour requiremunt (lbU) = Low or high grazing system (LbU) - 0300 for 80 female animals

- 0550 for 160 female animals - 0650 fOr 2rl) tomcIc animals

Page 26: FACTORS AFFECTING THE ECONOMICS OF SHEEP AND GOATSnews.ari.gov.cy/Publications/AER4-papas.pdfFACTORS AFFECTING THE ECONOMICS OF SHEEP AND GOATS . By . ... Costs and Returns of Goat

- 22 shy

App Table 6 Bffect of the Size of the Pr-oduc t ion Unit on the Costs and Returns of Sheep and Goats (NJrm)

SheGE Goats

Ewes or goatsfarm 80 160 200 80 160 2()(I

Milk yield (kgfemale animal) 120 120 120 160 160 16~)

Lambing or kidding ratio 16 16 16 20 20 2 0

Milk 1565 3130 3912 1434 2867 35[1 Lambs 2326 4651 5814 2652 5305 66jl Culls 128 256 320 120 240 300 Wool 56 112 140 Manure 40 80 100 40 80 100

Gross Revenue Cpound 4115 8229 10286 4246 8492 10615

Feed for awes or goats i) Concentrates 728 1456 1820 832 1664 208

ii) Hay amp straw Feed for lambs or kids

i) Concentrates 601 1202 1502 602 1203 1504 Hired labour 203 385 266 4f- u_)

Other 12 24 30 12 24 jC)

Interest 54 115 150 58 126 163

Variable Costs Cpound 1395 3000 3887 1504 3283 42C

Rent 2 4 5 2 4 Family labour 534 624 624 566 624 621 Replacement 608 1216 1520 688 1376 1( 2(

Depreciation 19 32 40 19 32 4C Interest 82 159 198 82 159 19t

Fixed Costs Cpound 1245 2035 2387 1357 2195 255 _ _--_ __

Total Costs Cpound 2640 5035 6274 2860 5478 6521

Gross Profit Cpound 2720 5226 6399 2743 5209 Ggt7)

net Profit Cpound 1475 319L~ 4012 1385 3014 Ll3 -

Return to labour (Cpoundworking day) 60 78 80 5middot5 70 SoU

Return to capital () 467 510 510 436 475 538 Feed cost to the Government Cpound 542 1085 1356 583 1166 145[

- 23 ~

App Table 7 Prices Received and Paid

Prices received Unit Cpound-Milk sheep kg 0163

goat kg 0112 Lamb or kid

At leaning kg 1ivQwoight 0781 At 20 kg kg 0625 At 35 kg kg II 0547

Wool Cpoundanima1 0100 Manure Cpoundanima1 0500

Prices paid

Feed roughage

Straw ton 120 Cereal hay ton 200

Concentrates

Creep feed ton 500 15 crude protein (as fed) ton 458 13 crude protein (as fed) ton 438 11 crude protein (as fed) ton 400

Labour working day 16

Rent of land donum 15

App Table 8 Capital Investments

Land

Sheds for 80 female animals

160 female animals 200 female animals

Value of animals Ewes (0 kg milk 26 lambing ratio)

(60 kg milk 12 lambing ratio) (120 kg milk 16 lambing ratio ) (200 kg milk 08 lambing ratio)

Goats( 0 kg milk 34 kidding ratio) ~ 80 kg milk 16 kidding ratio) (160 kg milk 20 kiddinB ratio) (280 kg milk 13 kidding ratio)

Operating capital (50 of variable costs)

Cpounddonum 300

Cpoundshed 1800 Cpoundahed 13500 Cpoundshed 16600

CrJeue 330

315

380

400

Cpoundgoat 380

340

400

425

vpp Table 9 Gross RevenuG (Cpoundewe) at Incr-eas Ing LeveI s of Milk Yi o Ld and Lcml~ng Rc tios (rorm)

Millt Y i e 1 d (kg eVi8)Lambing ratio 0 20 4~ 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200

08 163 208 253 298 343 388 433 ~n 8 523 568 613 10 201 246 29 ~ 1 33~6 381 426 471 516 561 606 651

12 240 284 32~9 37~4 419 464 509 554 599 644 689 16 31 6 360 40~5 45o 495 540 585 630 675 720 765 18 355 398 44~3 488 533 578 623 668 713 758 803 22 431 474 519 56~4 609 654 699 744 789 834 879

26 508 550 5915 64+ 0 658 730 775 820 865 910 955 30 584 626 67h 71~6 761 806 851 896 941 986 1034

~--

- _ N

~

App Table 10 Gross Revenue (Cpoundgoat) at Increasing LeY11s of Milk Yield and Kidding Ratios (Norm) bull

M i llt Y i e 1 d (kg L~at) IKidding ratio

middot0 40 80 l~d 160 200 240 280 320 360 400

08 148 193 237 28~~ 327 372 41 7 461 506 551 596 12 218 263 307 35~2 397 442 487 531 576 621 666 16 287 333 37-7 42l~ 467 512 55middot7 601 646 691 736 20 355 403 447 49 ~ 2 537 582 627 671 716 761 806 24 -422 473 51 7 56~ 60middot7 652 697 74middot1 786 831 876

bull 28 488 543 58~7 632 677 722 767 811 856 901 946 32 564 613 65 ~ 7 70~~ 747 792 837 881 926 971 1016 36 634 683 72~7 772- 81 7 862 907 951 996 1041 1086

I

1)App Table 11 Concentrates Consumed (kgewe) Low Grazing System

Lambi ng Y i e 1 d i n mil k (kg ewe) ratio

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200

08 568 708 848 98 8 1128 1268 1408 1548 1688 1828 1968 LO 710 850 990 1130 127middot0 1410 1550 1690 1830 1970 2110 12 852 992 1132 1272 1412 1552 1692 1332 1972 2112 2252 16 1136 1276 1416 1556 1696 1836 1976 2116 2256 2396 2536 18 1278 1418 1558 1698 1838 1978 2118 2258 2398 2538 267middot8 22 1562 1702 1842 1982 2122 2262 2402 2542 2682 2822 2962 26 1846 1986 2126 2266 2406 2546 2686 2626 2966 3106 3246 30 2130 2270 2410 2550 2690 2830 2970 311 0 325middot0 3390 3530

ro1) I~aintenancerequirement of adult animals met by grazing V1

Assumptions for grazing systems

1 07 kg feeds of 15 crude protein (as fed basis) was fed per kg milk produced or sucked [iy 2 50 kg milk was suoked by each lamb from birth to weaning at 35 days 3 In late pregnancy each ewe received on the average 36 kg concentrates above maintenance for each lamb carried 4 In zero grazing maintenance requirements during the dry period were met by 06 kg straw and 05 kg

concentrates of 11 crude protein (as fed basis) [1~ I~ late pregnancy (6 weeks before lambing) and during lactation each ewe received 06 kg cereal hay and 04 kg concentrates to meet the maintenance requirements Other requirements in concentrates were met as in low grazing syste~

App liable 12 Conoentcates Consumed (kgg02t ) i Low Grazing SJ34~OT 1)- (I

----------------------T -----------~-_--------------------------------------------------shy

M gt~_~ LL~_~iJ~_8poundatl Kidding ratio

o 40 80 120 160 200 240 280 320 360 400 -----_ ------~---~ _- ----------__--__-----shy

08 528 768 1008 1248 138 1728 1960G 2208 24Li8 2688 2928 12 792 1032 1272 1512 175middot2 1992 2232 2472 271 2 2952 3192 16 1056 129 u 6 1536 ~-77 6 20l6 2256 2496 =736 2976 3216 3456 20 1320 1560 J80o 2040 2280 2520 2760 3000 3240 3480 3720 24 1584 1[24shy 2064 2304 2-~4middot 4 27S~4 3024 32604 350middot4 3 7 11++ 3984 28 1848 2038 23 28 2568 2808 30~ 8 328f3 ~)52 8 3768 4008 42~ 8

-3 ~ 211 2 2352 2592 2832 3072 3312 3552 37902 4032 4272 +51 2

______ 36

_-__ 2379

- 2616 2856 3096

___shy__ 3336 3576

_ 3826

middot 4056 L_~

429gt6 middot

L15306 _ _

4776

1) Maintenance requirements of adult animals met-JY grazing ro 0

~~~mption for grazing system

1 06 kg feed of 15 crude protein (as fed basis) was fed per kg milk produced or suoked 2 50 kg milk was sucked by each kid from birth to wean~ng at 70 days Partial suckling was practised from the

30th day onwards 3 In late pregnancy each goat received on the average 36 kg concentrates above maintenance for each kid carried 4 In zero grazing maintenance requirements in the dry period were met by 06 kg of straw and 05 kg of

concentrates of 11 crude protein (as fed basis)

29

- 27 shy

App Table 13 Feed Cost and Revenue for Lamb Fattening

Lambing ratio

08 10 12middot 16 18 22 26

aConcentrates (kg) I

Birth to weaning Weaning to 20 kg Birth to 20 kg 20 kg to 35 kg Birth to 35 kg

09 290 299 54~0

839

1 J 13 17 20 368middot 449 618 706 37middot9 462 635 726 675 810 1080 1215

1054 1272 1715 1941

24 890 914

1485 2399

1036 106e5 175middot5 2820

Saleable Iiveweight (kg)

at weaning at 20 kg at 35 kg

87 160 280

108 200 35middot0

12~8

24middot0 420

174198 320 360 56~0 630

249 44middot0 770

290 520 910

Feed expenses

at weaning mils 45 55 65 -85 100 120 145 to 20 kg Cf 14 17 21 29 33 42 49 __ to 35 kg Cf 37 46 56 7middot5 85 10middot5 123

Revenue Cf

Lamb sale Lamb sale Lamb sale

at weaning ~~ 20 kg at 35 kg

68 100shy153shy

gt ~_ bull bullbullbullbull ~-

84 125 191

100 136 150 200 230 306middot

15middot5 225 345

194 27middot5 421

226 32 c 49 e

Assumed birthweight 47 45 42 38

a) It was assumed that the protein content of the ooncentrates mixture feed from birth to weaning was 168 and from 20 to 35 kg 143 on dry matter basis [1[

- 28 shy

App Table 15 Labour Raquire~entl) for 80 poundMes or Goats Practising Low or High Grazing at Increasing Levels of Milk Yield and Lambing or Kidding Ratios

i

Lamhing Y i e 1 d i n mil k (kg Le_we) ratio

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 280

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - Lbua)production unit - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -08 0749 0813 0869 0933 1013 1069 1109 1149 1113 1205 1229 1283 10 0150 0814 0870 0934 1014 1010 1110 1150 1114 1206 1230 1284 12 0151 0815 0811 0935 1015 1011 1111 1151 1115 1201 1231 1285 14 0152 0816 0812 0936 1016 1012 1112 1152 1116 1208 1232 1286 16 0153 0811 0813 0937 1011 1013 1113 153 1117 1209 1234 1287 18 0154 0818 0874 0938 1018 1074 1114 1154 1178 1210 1235 1288 20 0155 0819 0875 0939 1019 1015 1115 1155 1119 1211 1236 1289 22 0756 0820 0876 0940 1020 1016 1116 1156 1180 1212 1237 1290 24 26

0151 0158

0821 0822

0871 0878

0941 0942

1022 1023

1017 1018

1111 1118

1157 1158

1181 1182

1213 1214

1238 1239

1291 1292

ro -D

28 0759 0823 0879 0943 1024 1019 1119 1159 1183 1215 1240 1293 30 0760 0824 0880 0middot944 1025 1080 1120 1160 1184 1216 1241 1 294 34 0162 0826 0882 0946 1027 1082 1122 1162 middot _____middot L_ 1186 1218 1242 1295

a) 1 LbU = 300 working days

1) Low and high grazing system Calculated as followsi

Labour requirement (LbU) = 015 + (lambing ratio - 10) x 0005 +

Labour for milkin~ (days)+ X No of female animals 300

+) Assuming 6 minutesanimalday

Zero grazing system Labour requiremunt (lbU) = Low or high grazing system (LbU) - 0300 for 80 female animals

- 0550 for 160 female animals - 0650 fOr 2rl) tomcIc animals

Page 27: FACTORS AFFECTING THE ECONOMICS OF SHEEP AND GOATSnews.ari.gov.cy/Publications/AER4-papas.pdfFACTORS AFFECTING THE ECONOMICS OF SHEEP AND GOATS . By . ... Costs and Returns of Goat

- 23 ~

App Table 7 Prices Received and Paid

Prices received Unit Cpound-Milk sheep kg 0163

goat kg 0112 Lamb or kid

At leaning kg 1ivQwoight 0781 At 20 kg kg 0625 At 35 kg kg II 0547

Wool Cpoundanima1 0100 Manure Cpoundanima1 0500

Prices paid

Feed roughage

Straw ton 120 Cereal hay ton 200

Concentrates

Creep feed ton 500 15 crude protein (as fed) ton 458 13 crude protein (as fed) ton 438 11 crude protein (as fed) ton 400

Labour working day 16

Rent of land donum 15

App Table 8 Capital Investments

Land

Sheds for 80 female animals

160 female animals 200 female animals

Value of animals Ewes (0 kg milk 26 lambing ratio)

(60 kg milk 12 lambing ratio) (120 kg milk 16 lambing ratio ) (200 kg milk 08 lambing ratio)

Goats( 0 kg milk 34 kidding ratio) ~ 80 kg milk 16 kidding ratio) (160 kg milk 20 kiddinB ratio) (280 kg milk 13 kidding ratio)

Operating capital (50 of variable costs)

Cpounddonum 300

Cpoundshed 1800 Cpoundahed 13500 Cpoundshed 16600

CrJeue 330

315

380

400

Cpoundgoat 380

340

400

425

vpp Table 9 Gross RevenuG (Cpoundewe) at Incr-eas Ing LeveI s of Milk Yi o Ld and Lcml~ng Rc tios (rorm)

Millt Y i e 1 d (kg eVi8)Lambing ratio 0 20 4~ 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200

08 163 208 253 298 343 388 433 ~n 8 523 568 613 10 201 246 29 ~ 1 33~6 381 426 471 516 561 606 651

12 240 284 32~9 37~4 419 464 509 554 599 644 689 16 31 6 360 40~5 45o 495 540 585 630 675 720 765 18 355 398 44~3 488 533 578 623 668 713 758 803 22 431 474 519 56~4 609 654 699 744 789 834 879

26 508 550 5915 64+ 0 658 730 775 820 865 910 955 30 584 626 67h 71~6 761 806 851 896 941 986 1034

~--

- _ N

~

App Table 10 Gross Revenue (Cpoundgoat) at Increasing LeY11s of Milk Yield and Kidding Ratios (Norm) bull

M i llt Y i e 1 d (kg L~at) IKidding ratio

middot0 40 80 l~d 160 200 240 280 320 360 400

08 148 193 237 28~~ 327 372 41 7 461 506 551 596 12 218 263 307 35~2 397 442 487 531 576 621 666 16 287 333 37-7 42l~ 467 512 55middot7 601 646 691 736 20 355 403 447 49 ~ 2 537 582 627 671 716 761 806 24 -422 473 51 7 56~ 60middot7 652 697 74middot1 786 831 876

bull 28 488 543 58~7 632 677 722 767 811 856 901 946 32 564 613 65 ~ 7 70~~ 747 792 837 881 926 971 1016 36 634 683 72~7 772- 81 7 862 907 951 996 1041 1086

I

1)App Table 11 Concentrates Consumed (kgewe) Low Grazing System

Lambi ng Y i e 1 d i n mil k (kg ewe) ratio

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200

08 568 708 848 98 8 1128 1268 1408 1548 1688 1828 1968 LO 710 850 990 1130 127middot0 1410 1550 1690 1830 1970 2110 12 852 992 1132 1272 1412 1552 1692 1332 1972 2112 2252 16 1136 1276 1416 1556 1696 1836 1976 2116 2256 2396 2536 18 1278 1418 1558 1698 1838 1978 2118 2258 2398 2538 267middot8 22 1562 1702 1842 1982 2122 2262 2402 2542 2682 2822 2962 26 1846 1986 2126 2266 2406 2546 2686 2626 2966 3106 3246 30 2130 2270 2410 2550 2690 2830 2970 311 0 325middot0 3390 3530

ro1) I~aintenancerequirement of adult animals met by grazing V1

Assumptions for grazing systems

1 07 kg feeds of 15 crude protein (as fed basis) was fed per kg milk produced or sucked [iy 2 50 kg milk was suoked by each lamb from birth to weaning at 35 days 3 In late pregnancy each ewe received on the average 36 kg concentrates above maintenance for each lamb carried 4 In zero grazing maintenance requirements during the dry period were met by 06 kg straw and 05 kg

concentrates of 11 crude protein (as fed basis) [1~ I~ late pregnancy (6 weeks before lambing) and during lactation each ewe received 06 kg cereal hay and 04 kg concentrates to meet the maintenance requirements Other requirements in concentrates were met as in low grazing syste~

App liable 12 Conoentcates Consumed (kgg02t ) i Low Grazing SJ34~OT 1)- (I

----------------------T -----------~-_--------------------------------------------------shy

M gt~_~ LL~_~iJ~_8poundatl Kidding ratio

o 40 80 120 160 200 240 280 320 360 400 -----_ ------~---~ _- ----------__--__-----shy

08 528 768 1008 1248 138 1728 1960G 2208 24Li8 2688 2928 12 792 1032 1272 1512 175middot2 1992 2232 2472 271 2 2952 3192 16 1056 129 u 6 1536 ~-77 6 20l6 2256 2496 =736 2976 3216 3456 20 1320 1560 J80o 2040 2280 2520 2760 3000 3240 3480 3720 24 1584 1[24shy 2064 2304 2-~4middot 4 27S~4 3024 32604 350middot4 3 7 11++ 3984 28 1848 2038 23 28 2568 2808 30~ 8 328f3 ~)52 8 3768 4008 42~ 8

-3 ~ 211 2 2352 2592 2832 3072 3312 3552 37902 4032 4272 +51 2

______ 36

_-__ 2379

- 2616 2856 3096

___shy__ 3336 3576

_ 3826

middot 4056 L_~

429gt6 middot

L15306 _ _

4776

1) Maintenance requirements of adult animals met-JY grazing ro 0

~~~mption for grazing system

1 06 kg feed of 15 crude protein (as fed basis) was fed per kg milk produced or suoked 2 50 kg milk was sucked by each kid from birth to wean~ng at 70 days Partial suckling was practised from the

30th day onwards 3 In late pregnancy each goat received on the average 36 kg concentrates above maintenance for each kid carried 4 In zero grazing maintenance requirements in the dry period were met by 06 kg of straw and 05 kg of

concentrates of 11 crude protein (as fed basis)

29

- 27 shy

App Table 13 Feed Cost and Revenue for Lamb Fattening

Lambing ratio

08 10 12middot 16 18 22 26

aConcentrates (kg) I

Birth to weaning Weaning to 20 kg Birth to 20 kg 20 kg to 35 kg Birth to 35 kg

09 290 299 54~0

839

1 J 13 17 20 368middot 449 618 706 37middot9 462 635 726 675 810 1080 1215

1054 1272 1715 1941

24 890 914

1485 2399

1036 106e5 175middot5 2820

Saleable Iiveweight (kg)

at weaning at 20 kg at 35 kg

87 160 280

108 200 35middot0

12~8

24middot0 420

174198 320 360 56~0 630

249 44middot0 770

290 520 910

Feed expenses

at weaning mils 45 55 65 -85 100 120 145 to 20 kg Cf 14 17 21 29 33 42 49 __ to 35 kg Cf 37 46 56 7middot5 85 10middot5 123

Revenue Cf

Lamb sale Lamb sale Lamb sale

at weaning ~~ 20 kg at 35 kg

68 100shy153shy

gt ~_ bull bullbullbullbull ~-

84 125 191

100 136 150 200 230 306middot

15middot5 225 345

194 27middot5 421

226 32 c 49 e

Assumed birthweight 47 45 42 38

a) It was assumed that the protein content of the ooncentrates mixture feed from birth to weaning was 168 and from 20 to 35 kg 143 on dry matter basis [1[

- 28 shy

App Table 15 Labour Raquire~entl) for 80 poundMes or Goats Practising Low or High Grazing at Increasing Levels of Milk Yield and Lambing or Kidding Ratios

i

Lamhing Y i e 1 d i n mil k (kg Le_we) ratio

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 280

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - Lbua)production unit - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -08 0749 0813 0869 0933 1013 1069 1109 1149 1113 1205 1229 1283 10 0150 0814 0870 0934 1014 1010 1110 1150 1114 1206 1230 1284 12 0151 0815 0811 0935 1015 1011 1111 1151 1115 1201 1231 1285 14 0152 0816 0812 0936 1016 1012 1112 1152 1116 1208 1232 1286 16 0153 0811 0813 0937 1011 1013 1113 153 1117 1209 1234 1287 18 0154 0818 0874 0938 1018 1074 1114 1154 1178 1210 1235 1288 20 0155 0819 0875 0939 1019 1015 1115 1155 1119 1211 1236 1289 22 0756 0820 0876 0940 1020 1016 1116 1156 1180 1212 1237 1290 24 26

0151 0158

0821 0822

0871 0878

0941 0942

1022 1023

1017 1018

1111 1118

1157 1158

1181 1182

1213 1214

1238 1239

1291 1292

ro -D

28 0759 0823 0879 0943 1024 1019 1119 1159 1183 1215 1240 1293 30 0760 0824 0880 0middot944 1025 1080 1120 1160 1184 1216 1241 1 294 34 0162 0826 0882 0946 1027 1082 1122 1162 middot _____middot L_ 1186 1218 1242 1295

a) 1 LbU = 300 working days

1) Low and high grazing system Calculated as followsi

Labour requirement (LbU) = 015 + (lambing ratio - 10) x 0005 +

Labour for milkin~ (days)+ X No of female animals 300

+) Assuming 6 minutesanimalday

Zero grazing system Labour requiremunt (lbU) = Low or high grazing system (LbU) - 0300 for 80 female animals

- 0550 for 160 female animals - 0650 fOr 2rl) tomcIc animals

Page 28: FACTORS AFFECTING THE ECONOMICS OF SHEEP AND GOATSnews.ari.gov.cy/Publications/AER4-papas.pdfFACTORS AFFECTING THE ECONOMICS OF SHEEP AND GOATS . By . ... Costs and Returns of Goat

vpp Table 9 Gross RevenuG (Cpoundewe) at Incr-eas Ing LeveI s of Milk Yi o Ld and Lcml~ng Rc tios (rorm)

Millt Y i e 1 d (kg eVi8)Lambing ratio 0 20 4~ 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200

08 163 208 253 298 343 388 433 ~n 8 523 568 613 10 201 246 29 ~ 1 33~6 381 426 471 516 561 606 651

12 240 284 32~9 37~4 419 464 509 554 599 644 689 16 31 6 360 40~5 45o 495 540 585 630 675 720 765 18 355 398 44~3 488 533 578 623 668 713 758 803 22 431 474 519 56~4 609 654 699 744 789 834 879

26 508 550 5915 64+ 0 658 730 775 820 865 910 955 30 584 626 67h 71~6 761 806 851 896 941 986 1034

~--

- _ N

~

App Table 10 Gross Revenue (Cpoundgoat) at Increasing LeY11s of Milk Yield and Kidding Ratios (Norm) bull

M i llt Y i e 1 d (kg L~at) IKidding ratio

middot0 40 80 l~d 160 200 240 280 320 360 400

08 148 193 237 28~~ 327 372 41 7 461 506 551 596 12 218 263 307 35~2 397 442 487 531 576 621 666 16 287 333 37-7 42l~ 467 512 55middot7 601 646 691 736 20 355 403 447 49 ~ 2 537 582 627 671 716 761 806 24 -422 473 51 7 56~ 60middot7 652 697 74middot1 786 831 876

bull 28 488 543 58~7 632 677 722 767 811 856 901 946 32 564 613 65 ~ 7 70~~ 747 792 837 881 926 971 1016 36 634 683 72~7 772- 81 7 862 907 951 996 1041 1086

I

1)App Table 11 Concentrates Consumed (kgewe) Low Grazing System

Lambi ng Y i e 1 d i n mil k (kg ewe) ratio

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200

08 568 708 848 98 8 1128 1268 1408 1548 1688 1828 1968 LO 710 850 990 1130 127middot0 1410 1550 1690 1830 1970 2110 12 852 992 1132 1272 1412 1552 1692 1332 1972 2112 2252 16 1136 1276 1416 1556 1696 1836 1976 2116 2256 2396 2536 18 1278 1418 1558 1698 1838 1978 2118 2258 2398 2538 267middot8 22 1562 1702 1842 1982 2122 2262 2402 2542 2682 2822 2962 26 1846 1986 2126 2266 2406 2546 2686 2626 2966 3106 3246 30 2130 2270 2410 2550 2690 2830 2970 311 0 325middot0 3390 3530

ro1) I~aintenancerequirement of adult animals met by grazing V1

Assumptions for grazing systems

1 07 kg feeds of 15 crude protein (as fed basis) was fed per kg milk produced or sucked [iy 2 50 kg milk was suoked by each lamb from birth to weaning at 35 days 3 In late pregnancy each ewe received on the average 36 kg concentrates above maintenance for each lamb carried 4 In zero grazing maintenance requirements during the dry period were met by 06 kg straw and 05 kg

concentrates of 11 crude protein (as fed basis) [1~ I~ late pregnancy (6 weeks before lambing) and during lactation each ewe received 06 kg cereal hay and 04 kg concentrates to meet the maintenance requirements Other requirements in concentrates were met as in low grazing syste~

App liable 12 Conoentcates Consumed (kgg02t ) i Low Grazing SJ34~OT 1)- (I

----------------------T -----------~-_--------------------------------------------------shy

M gt~_~ LL~_~iJ~_8poundatl Kidding ratio

o 40 80 120 160 200 240 280 320 360 400 -----_ ------~---~ _- ----------__--__-----shy

08 528 768 1008 1248 138 1728 1960G 2208 24Li8 2688 2928 12 792 1032 1272 1512 175middot2 1992 2232 2472 271 2 2952 3192 16 1056 129 u 6 1536 ~-77 6 20l6 2256 2496 =736 2976 3216 3456 20 1320 1560 J80o 2040 2280 2520 2760 3000 3240 3480 3720 24 1584 1[24shy 2064 2304 2-~4middot 4 27S~4 3024 32604 350middot4 3 7 11++ 3984 28 1848 2038 23 28 2568 2808 30~ 8 328f3 ~)52 8 3768 4008 42~ 8

-3 ~ 211 2 2352 2592 2832 3072 3312 3552 37902 4032 4272 +51 2

______ 36

_-__ 2379

- 2616 2856 3096

___shy__ 3336 3576

_ 3826

middot 4056 L_~

429gt6 middot

L15306 _ _

4776

1) Maintenance requirements of adult animals met-JY grazing ro 0

~~~mption for grazing system

1 06 kg feed of 15 crude protein (as fed basis) was fed per kg milk produced or suoked 2 50 kg milk was sucked by each kid from birth to wean~ng at 70 days Partial suckling was practised from the

30th day onwards 3 In late pregnancy each goat received on the average 36 kg concentrates above maintenance for each kid carried 4 In zero grazing maintenance requirements in the dry period were met by 06 kg of straw and 05 kg of

concentrates of 11 crude protein (as fed basis)

29

- 27 shy

App Table 13 Feed Cost and Revenue for Lamb Fattening

Lambing ratio

08 10 12middot 16 18 22 26

aConcentrates (kg) I

Birth to weaning Weaning to 20 kg Birth to 20 kg 20 kg to 35 kg Birth to 35 kg

09 290 299 54~0

839

1 J 13 17 20 368middot 449 618 706 37middot9 462 635 726 675 810 1080 1215

1054 1272 1715 1941

24 890 914

1485 2399

1036 106e5 175middot5 2820

Saleable Iiveweight (kg)

at weaning at 20 kg at 35 kg

87 160 280

108 200 35middot0

12~8

24middot0 420

174198 320 360 56~0 630

249 44middot0 770

290 520 910

Feed expenses

at weaning mils 45 55 65 -85 100 120 145 to 20 kg Cf 14 17 21 29 33 42 49 __ to 35 kg Cf 37 46 56 7middot5 85 10middot5 123

Revenue Cf

Lamb sale Lamb sale Lamb sale

at weaning ~~ 20 kg at 35 kg

68 100shy153shy

gt ~_ bull bullbullbullbull ~-

84 125 191

100 136 150 200 230 306middot

15middot5 225 345

194 27middot5 421

226 32 c 49 e

Assumed birthweight 47 45 42 38

a) It was assumed that the protein content of the ooncentrates mixture feed from birth to weaning was 168 and from 20 to 35 kg 143 on dry matter basis [1[

- 28 shy

App Table 15 Labour Raquire~entl) for 80 poundMes or Goats Practising Low or High Grazing at Increasing Levels of Milk Yield and Lambing or Kidding Ratios

i

Lamhing Y i e 1 d i n mil k (kg Le_we) ratio

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 280

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - Lbua)production unit - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -08 0749 0813 0869 0933 1013 1069 1109 1149 1113 1205 1229 1283 10 0150 0814 0870 0934 1014 1010 1110 1150 1114 1206 1230 1284 12 0151 0815 0811 0935 1015 1011 1111 1151 1115 1201 1231 1285 14 0152 0816 0812 0936 1016 1012 1112 1152 1116 1208 1232 1286 16 0153 0811 0813 0937 1011 1013 1113 153 1117 1209 1234 1287 18 0154 0818 0874 0938 1018 1074 1114 1154 1178 1210 1235 1288 20 0155 0819 0875 0939 1019 1015 1115 1155 1119 1211 1236 1289 22 0756 0820 0876 0940 1020 1016 1116 1156 1180 1212 1237 1290 24 26

0151 0158

0821 0822

0871 0878

0941 0942

1022 1023

1017 1018

1111 1118

1157 1158

1181 1182

1213 1214

1238 1239

1291 1292

ro -D

28 0759 0823 0879 0943 1024 1019 1119 1159 1183 1215 1240 1293 30 0760 0824 0880 0middot944 1025 1080 1120 1160 1184 1216 1241 1 294 34 0162 0826 0882 0946 1027 1082 1122 1162 middot _____middot L_ 1186 1218 1242 1295

a) 1 LbU = 300 working days

1) Low and high grazing system Calculated as followsi

Labour requirement (LbU) = 015 + (lambing ratio - 10) x 0005 +

Labour for milkin~ (days)+ X No of female animals 300

+) Assuming 6 minutesanimalday

Zero grazing system Labour requiremunt (lbU) = Low or high grazing system (LbU) - 0300 for 80 female animals

- 0550 for 160 female animals - 0650 fOr 2rl) tomcIc animals

Page 29: FACTORS AFFECTING THE ECONOMICS OF SHEEP AND GOATSnews.ari.gov.cy/Publications/AER4-papas.pdfFACTORS AFFECTING THE ECONOMICS OF SHEEP AND GOATS . By . ... Costs and Returns of Goat

1)App Table 11 Concentrates Consumed (kgewe) Low Grazing System

Lambi ng Y i e 1 d i n mil k (kg ewe) ratio

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200

08 568 708 848 98 8 1128 1268 1408 1548 1688 1828 1968 LO 710 850 990 1130 127middot0 1410 1550 1690 1830 1970 2110 12 852 992 1132 1272 1412 1552 1692 1332 1972 2112 2252 16 1136 1276 1416 1556 1696 1836 1976 2116 2256 2396 2536 18 1278 1418 1558 1698 1838 1978 2118 2258 2398 2538 267middot8 22 1562 1702 1842 1982 2122 2262 2402 2542 2682 2822 2962 26 1846 1986 2126 2266 2406 2546 2686 2626 2966 3106 3246 30 2130 2270 2410 2550 2690 2830 2970 311 0 325middot0 3390 3530

ro1) I~aintenancerequirement of adult animals met by grazing V1

Assumptions for grazing systems

1 07 kg feeds of 15 crude protein (as fed basis) was fed per kg milk produced or sucked [iy 2 50 kg milk was suoked by each lamb from birth to weaning at 35 days 3 In late pregnancy each ewe received on the average 36 kg concentrates above maintenance for each lamb carried 4 In zero grazing maintenance requirements during the dry period were met by 06 kg straw and 05 kg

concentrates of 11 crude protein (as fed basis) [1~ I~ late pregnancy (6 weeks before lambing) and during lactation each ewe received 06 kg cereal hay and 04 kg concentrates to meet the maintenance requirements Other requirements in concentrates were met as in low grazing syste~

App liable 12 Conoentcates Consumed (kgg02t ) i Low Grazing SJ34~OT 1)- (I

----------------------T -----------~-_--------------------------------------------------shy

M gt~_~ LL~_~iJ~_8poundatl Kidding ratio

o 40 80 120 160 200 240 280 320 360 400 -----_ ------~---~ _- ----------__--__-----shy

08 528 768 1008 1248 138 1728 1960G 2208 24Li8 2688 2928 12 792 1032 1272 1512 175middot2 1992 2232 2472 271 2 2952 3192 16 1056 129 u 6 1536 ~-77 6 20l6 2256 2496 =736 2976 3216 3456 20 1320 1560 J80o 2040 2280 2520 2760 3000 3240 3480 3720 24 1584 1[24shy 2064 2304 2-~4middot 4 27S~4 3024 32604 350middot4 3 7 11++ 3984 28 1848 2038 23 28 2568 2808 30~ 8 328f3 ~)52 8 3768 4008 42~ 8

-3 ~ 211 2 2352 2592 2832 3072 3312 3552 37902 4032 4272 +51 2

______ 36

_-__ 2379

- 2616 2856 3096

___shy__ 3336 3576

_ 3826

middot 4056 L_~

429gt6 middot

L15306 _ _

4776

1) Maintenance requirements of adult animals met-JY grazing ro 0

~~~mption for grazing system

1 06 kg feed of 15 crude protein (as fed basis) was fed per kg milk produced or suoked 2 50 kg milk was sucked by each kid from birth to wean~ng at 70 days Partial suckling was practised from the

30th day onwards 3 In late pregnancy each goat received on the average 36 kg concentrates above maintenance for each kid carried 4 In zero grazing maintenance requirements in the dry period were met by 06 kg of straw and 05 kg of

concentrates of 11 crude protein (as fed basis)

29

- 27 shy

App Table 13 Feed Cost and Revenue for Lamb Fattening

Lambing ratio

08 10 12middot 16 18 22 26

aConcentrates (kg) I

Birth to weaning Weaning to 20 kg Birth to 20 kg 20 kg to 35 kg Birth to 35 kg

09 290 299 54~0

839

1 J 13 17 20 368middot 449 618 706 37middot9 462 635 726 675 810 1080 1215

1054 1272 1715 1941

24 890 914

1485 2399

1036 106e5 175middot5 2820

Saleable Iiveweight (kg)

at weaning at 20 kg at 35 kg

87 160 280

108 200 35middot0

12~8

24middot0 420

174198 320 360 56~0 630

249 44middot0 770

290 520 910

Feed expenses

at weaning mils 45 55 65 -85 100 120 145 to 20 kg Cf 14 17 21 29 33 42 49 __ to 35 kg Cf 37 46 56 7middot5 85 10middot5 123

Revenue Cf

Lamb sale Lamb sale Lamb sale

at weaning ~~ 20 kg at 35 kg

68 100shy153shy

gt ~_ bull bullbullbullbull ~-

84 125 191

100 136 150 200 230 306middot

15middot5 225 345

194 27middot5 421

226 32 c 49 e

Assumed birthweight 47 45 42 38

a) It was assumed that the protein content of the ooncentrates mixture feed from birth to weaning was 168 and from 20 to 35 kg 143 on dry matter basis [1[

- 28 shy

App Table 15 Labour Raquire~entl) for 80 poundMes or Goats Practising Low or High Grazing at Increasing Levels of Milk Yield and Lambing or Kidding Ratios

i

Lamhing Y i e 1 d i n mil k (kg Le_we) ratio

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 280

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - Lbua)production unit - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -08 0749 0813 0869 0933 1013 1069 1109 1149 1113 1205 1229 1283 10 0150 0814 0870 0934 1014 1010 1110 1150 1114 1206 1230 1284 12 0151 0815 0811 0935 1015 1011 1111 1151 1115 1201 1231 1285 14 0152 0816 0812 0936 1016 1012 1112 1152 1116 1208 1232 1286 16 0153 0811 0813 0937 1011 1013 1113 153 1117 1209 1234 1287 18 0154 0818 0874 0938 1018 1074 1114 1154 1178 1210 1235 1288 20 0155 0819 0875 0939 1019 1015 1115 1155 1119 1211 1236 1289 22 0756 0820 0876 0940 1020 1016 1116 1156 1180 1212 1237 1290 24 26

0151 0158

0821 0822

0871 0878

0941 0942

1022 1023

1017 1018

1111 1118

1157 1158

1181 1182

1213 1214

1238 1239

1291 1292

ro -D

28 0759 0823 0879 0943 1024 1019 1119 1159 1183 1215 1240 1293 30 0760 0824 0880 0middot944 1025 1080 1120 1160 1184 1216 1241 1 294 34 0162 0826 0882 0946 1027 1082 1122 1162 middot _____middot L_ 1186 1218 1242 1295

a) 1 LbU = 300 working days

1) Low and high grazing system Calculated as followsi

Labour requirement (LbU) = 015 + (lambing ratio - 10) x 0005 +

Labour for milkin~ (days)+ X No of female animals 300

+) Assuming 6 minutesanimalday

Zero grazing system Labour requiremunt (lbU) = Low or high grazing system (LbU) - 0300 for 80 female animals

- 0550 for 160 female animals - 0650 fOr 2rl) tomcIc animals

Page 30: FACTORS AFFECTING THE ECONOMICS OF SHEEP AND GOATSnews.ari.gov.cy/Publications/AER4-papas.pdfFACTORS AFFECTING THE ECONOMICS OF SHEEP AND GOATS . By . ... Costs and Returns of Goat

App liable 12 Conoentcates Consumed (kgg02t ) i Low Grazing SJ34~OT 1)- (I

----------------------T -----------~-_--------------------------------------------------shy

M gt~_~ LL~_~iJ~_8poundatl Kidding ratio

o 40 80 120 160 200 240 280 320 360 400 -----_ ------~---~ _- ----------__--__-----shy

08 528 768 1008 1248 138 1728 1960G 2208 24Li8 2688 2928 12 792 1032 1272 1512 175middot2 1992 2232 2472 271 2 2952 3192 16 1056 129 u 6 1536 ~-77 6 20l6 2256 2496 =736 2976 3216 3456 20 1320 1560 J80o 2040 2280 2520 2760 3000 3240 3480 3720 24 1584 1[24shy 2064 2304 2-~4middot 4 27S~4 3024 32604 350middot4 3 7 11++ 3984 28 1848 2038 23 28 2568 2808 30~ 8 328f3 ~)52 8 3768 4008 42~ 8

-3 ~ 211 2 2352 2592 2832 3072 3312 3552 37902 4032 4272 +51 2

______ 36

_-__ 2379

- 2616 2856 3096

___shy__ 3336 3576

_ 3826

middot 4056 L_~

429gt6 middot

L15306 _ _

4776

1) Maintenance requirements of adult animals met-JY grazing ro 0

~~~mption for grazing system

1 06 kg feed of 15 crude protein (as fed basis) was fed per kg milk produced or suoked 2 50 kg milk was sucked by each kid from birth to wean~ng at 70 days Partial suckling was practised from the

30th day onwards 3 In late pregnancy each goat received on the average 36 kg concentrates above maintenance for each kid carried 4 In zero grazing maintenance requirements in the dry period were met by 06 kg of straw and 05 kg of

concentrates of 11 crude protein (as fed basis)

29

- 27 shy

App Table 13 Feed Cost and Revenue for Lamb Fattening

Lambing ratio

08 10 12middot 16 18 22 26

aConcentrates (kg) I

Birth to weaning Weaning to 20 kg Birth to 20 kg 20 kg to 35 kg Birth to 35 kg

09 290 299 54~0

839

1 J 13 17 20 368middot 449 618 706 37middot9 462 635 726 675 810 1080 1215

1054 1272 1715 1941

24 890 914

1485 2399

1036 106e5 175middot5 2820

Saleable Iiveweight (kg)

at weaning at 20 kg at 35 kg

87 160 280

108 200 35middot0

12~8

24middot0 420

174198 320 360 56~0 630

249 44middot0 770

290 520 910

Feed expenses

at weaning mils 45 55 65 -85 100 120 145 to 20 kg Cf 14 17 21 29 33 42 49 __ to 35 kg Cf 37 46 56 7middot5 85 10middot5 123

Revenue Cf

Lamb sale Lamb sale Lamb sale

at weaning ~~ 20 kg at 35 kg

68 100shy153shy

gt ~_ bull bullbullbullbull ~-

84 125 191

100 136 150 200 230 306middot

15middot5 225 345

194 27middot5 421

226 32 c 49 e

Assumed birthweight 47 45 42 38

a) It was assumed that the protein content of the ooncentrates mixture feed from birth to weaning was 168 and from 20 to 35 kg 143 on dry matter basis [1[

- 28 shy

App Table 15 Labour Raquire~entl) for 80 poundMes or Goats Practising Low or High Grazing at Increasing Levels of Milk Yield and Lambing or Kidding Ratios

i

Lamhing Y i e 1 d i n mil k (kg Le_we) ratio

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 280

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - Lbua)production unit - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -08 0749 0813 0869 0933 1013 1069 1109 1149 1113 1205 1229 1283 10 0150 0814 0870 0934 1014 1010 1110 1150 1114 1206 1230 1284 12 0151 0815 0811 0935 1015 1011 1111 1151 1115 1201 1231 1285 14 0152 0816 0812 0936 1016 1012 1112 1152 1116 1208 1232 1286 16 0153 0811 0813 0937 1011 1013 1113 153 1117 1209 1234 1287 18 0154 0818 0874 0938 1018 1074 1114 1154 1178 1210 1235 1288 20 0155 0819 0875 0939 1019 1015 1115 1155 1119 1211 1236 1289 22 0756 0820 0876 0940 1020 1016 1116 1156 1180 1212 1237 1290 24 26

0151 0158

0821 0822

0871 0878

0941 0942

1022 1023

1017 1018

1111 1118

1157 1158

1181 1182

1213 1214

1238 1239

1291 1292

ro -D

28 0759 0823 0879 0943 1024 1019 1119 1159 1183 1215 1240 1293 30 0760 0824 0880 0middot944 1025 1080 1120 1160 1184 1216 1241 1 294 34 0162 0826 0882 0946 1027 1082 1122 1162 middot _____middot L_ 1186 1218 1242 1295

a) 1 LbU = 300 working days

1) Low and high grazing system Calculated as followsi

Labour requirement (LbU) = 015 + (lambing ratio - 10) x 0005 +

Labour for milkin~ (days)+ X No of female animals 300

+) Assuming 6 minutesanimalday

Zero grazing system Labour requiremunt (lbU) = Low or high grazing system (LbU) - 0300 for 80 female animals

- 0550 for 160 female animals - 0650 fOr 2rl) tomcIc animals

Page 31: FACTORS AFFECTING THE ECONOMICS OF SHEEP AND GOATSnews.ari.gov.cy/Publications/AER4-papas.pdfFACTORS AFFECTING THE ECONOMICS OF SHEEP AND GOATS . By . ... Costs and Returns of Goat

29

- 27 shy

App Table 13 Feed Cost and Revenue for Lamb Fattening

Lambing ratio

08 10 12middot 16 18 22 26

aConcentrates (kg) I

Birth to weaning Weaning to 20 kg Birth to 20 kg 20 kg to 35 kg Birth to 35 kg

09 290 299 54~0

839

1 J 13 17 20 368middot 449 618 706 37middot9 462 635 726 675 810 1080 1215

1054 1272 1715 1941

24 890 914

1485 2399

1036 106e5 175middot5 2820

Saleable Iiveweight (kg)

at weaning at 20 kg at 35 kg

87 160 280

108 200 35middot0

12~8

24middot0 420

174198 320 360 56~0 630

249 44middot0 770

290 520 910

Feed expenses

at weaning mils 45 55 65 -85 100 120 145 to 20 kg Cf 14 17 21 29 33 42 49 __ to 35 kg Cf 37 46 56 7middot5 85 10middot5 123

Revenue Cf

Lamb sale Lamb sale Lamb sale

at weaning ~~ 20 kg at 35 kg

68 100shy153shy

gt ~_ bull bullbullbullbull ~-

84 125 191

100 136 150 200 230 306middot

15middot5 225 345

194 27middot5 421

226 32 c 49 e

Assumed birthweight 47 45 42 38

a) It was assumed that the protein content of the ooncentrates mixture feed from birth to weaning was 168 and from 20 to 35 kg 143 on dry matter basis [1[

- 28 shy

App Table 15 Labour Raquire~entl) for 80 poundMes or Goats Practising Low or High Grazing at Increasing Levels of Milk Yield and Lambing or Kidding Ratios

i

Lamhing Y i e 1 d i n mil k (kg Le_we) ratio

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 280

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - Lbua)production unit - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -08 0749 0813 0869 0933 1013 1069 1109 1149 1113 1205 1229 1283 10 0150 0814 0870 0934 1014 1010 1110 1150 1114 1206 1230 1284 12 0151 0815 0811 0935 1015 1011 1111 1151 1115 1201 1231 1285 14 0152 0816 0812 0936 1016 1012 1112 1152 1116 1208 1232 1286 16 0153 0811 0813 0937 1011 1013 1113 153 1117 1209 1234 1287 18 0154 0818 0874 0938 1018 1074 1114 1154 1178 1210 1235 1288 20 0155 0819 0875 0939 1019 1015 1115 1155 1119 1211 1236 1289 22 0756 0820 0876 0940 1020 1016 1116 1156 1180 1212 1237 1290 24 26

0151 0158

0821 0822

0871 0878

0941 0942

1022 1023

1017 1018

1111 1118

1157 1158

1181 1182

1213 1214

1238 1239

1291 1292

ro -D

28 0759 0823 0879 0943 1024 1019 1119 1159 1183 1215 1240 1293 30 0760 0824 0880 0middot944 1025 1080 1120 1160 1184 1216 1241 1 294 34 0162 0826 0882 0946 1027 1082 1122 1162 middot _____middot L_ 1186 1218 1242 1295

a) 1 LbU = 300 working days

1) Low and high grazing system Calculated as followsi

Labour requirement (LbU) = 015 + (lambing ratio - 10) x 0005 +

Labour for milkin~ (days)+ X No of female animals 300

+) Assuming 6 minutesanimalday

Zero grazing system Labour requiremunt (lbU) = Low or high grazing system (LbU) - 0300 for 80 female animals

- 0550 for 160 female animals - 0650 fOr 2rl) tomcIc animals

Page 32: FACTORS AFFECTING THE ECONOMICS OF SHEEP AND GOATSnews.ari.gov.cy/Publications/AER4-papas.pdfFACTORS AFFECTING THE ECONOMICS OF SHEEP AND GOATS . By . ... Costs and Returns of Goat

- 28 shy

App Table 15 Labour Raquire~entl) for 80 poundMes or Goats Practising Low or High Grazing at Increasing Levels of Milk Yield and Lambing or Kidding Ratios

i

Lamhing Y i e 1 d i n mil k (kg Le_we) ratio

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 280

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - Lbua)production unit - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -08 0749 0813 0869 0933 1013 1069 1109 1149 1113 1205 1229 1283 10 0150 0814 0870 0934 1014 1010 1110 1150 1114 1206 1230 1284 12 0151 0815 0811 0935 1015 1011 1111 1151 1115 1201 1231 1285 14 0152 0816 0812 0936 1016 1012 1112 1152 1116 1208 1232 1286 16 0153 0811 0813 0937 1011 1013 1113 153 1117 1209 1234 1287 18 0154 0818 0874 0938 1018 1074 1114 1154 1178 1210 1235 1288 20 0155 0819 0875 0939 1019 1015 1115 1155 1119 1211 1236 1289 22 0756 0820 0876 0940 1020 1016 1116 1156 1180 1212 1237 1290 24 26

0151 0158

0821 0822

0871 0878

0941 0942

1022 1023

1017 1018

1111 1118

1157 1158

1181 1182

1213 1214

1238 1239

1291 1292

ro -D

28 0759 0823 0879 0943 1024 1019 1119 1159 1183 1215 1240 1293 30 0760 0824 0880 0middot944 1025 1080 1120 1160 1184 1216 1241 1 294 34 0162 0826 0882 0946 1027 1082 1122 1162 middot _____middot L_ 1186 1218 1242 1295

a) 1 LbU = 300 working days

1) Low and high grazing system Calculated as followsi

Labour requirement (LbU) = 015 + (lambing ratio - 10) x 0005 +

Labour for milkin~ (days)+ X No of female animals 300

+) Assuming 6 minutesanimalday

Zero grazing system Labour requiremunt (lbU) = Low or high grazing system (LbU) - 0300 for 80 female animals

- 0550 for 160 female animals - 0650 fOr 2rl) tomcIc animals

Page 33: FACTORS AFFECTING THE ECONOMICS OF SHEEP AND GOATSnews.ari.gov.cy/Publications/AER4-papas.pdfFACTORS AFFECTING THE ECONOMICS OF SHEEP AND GOATS . By . ... Costs and Returns of Goat

App Table 15 Labour Raquire~entl) for 80 poundMes or Goats Practising Low or High Grazing at Increasing Levels of Milk Yield and Lambing or Kidding Ratios

i

Lamhing Y i e 1 d i n mil k (kg Le_we) ratio

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 280

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - Lbua)production unit - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -08 0749 0813 0869 0933 1013 1069 1109 1149 1113 1205 1229 1283 10 0150 0814 0870 0934 1014 1010 1110 1150 1114 1206 1230 1284 12 0151 0815 0811 0935 1015 1011 1111 1151 1115 1201 1231 1285 14 0152 0816 0812 0936 1016 1012 1112 1152 1116 1208 1232 1286 16 0153 0811 0813 0937 1011 1013 1113 153 1117 1209 1234 1287 18 0154 0818 0874 0938 1018 1074 1114 1154 1178 1210 1235 1288 20 0155 0819 0875 0939 1019 1015 1115 1155 1119 1211 1236 1289 22 0756 0820 0876 0940 1020 1016 1116 1156 1180 1212 1237 1290 24 26

0151 0158

0821 0822

0871 0878

0941 0942

1022 1023

1017 1018

1111 1118

1157 1158

1181 1182

1213 1214

1238 1239

1291 1292

ro -D

28 0759 0823 0879 0943 1024 1019 1119 1159 1183 1215 1240 1293 30 0760 0824 0880 0middot944 1025 1080 1120 1160 1184 1216 1241 1 294 34 0162 0826 0882 0946 1027 1082 1122 1162 middot _____middot L_ 1186 1218 1242 1295

a) 1 LbU = 300 working days

1) Low and high grazing system Calculated as followsi

Labour requirement (LbU) = 015 + (lambing ratio - 10) x 0005 +

Labour for milkin~ (days)+ X No of female animals 300

+) Assuming 6 minutesanimalday

Zero grazing system Labour requiremunt (lbU) = Low or high grazing system (LbU) - 0300 for 80 female animals

- 0550 for 160 female animals - 0650 fOr 2rl) tomcIc animals