*3.2.2. Reproductive management and performance, and production results*

Estrous synchronisation was only carried out in the 3.20% of farms held. This practice was only observed in conventional farms, since it is not permitted in organic farming. Accordingly, only 4.80% of farms opted for artificial insemination, with all of them also carrying out natural mating, such that the use of either one or another technique was not exclusive. This scarce use of these reproductive techniques is typical in low-input beef cattle farms.

Calves weaned in All Organic had lower weights than those belonging to the conventional group, and Organic 2 farms sold less weaned calves per cow in total, thus showing a lower productivity in this regard. However, Organic 2 and All Organic sold more fattened calves per cow and also sold a higher proportion of fattened calves/total calves sold. These differences were due to the fact that the Organic 2 group was composed entirely of fattening farms, while all Organic 1 farms solely marketed calves at the age of weaning. Similarly to the Organic 1 group, 83.33% of the farms belonging to the conventional group did not carry out the fattening of any of the calves that they produced. These facts about the composition of the groups also influenced the differences between these indicators for yearlings sold per cow and calf weight at weaning.

#### *3.2.3. Breeds*

**3.2. Farm structure and management**

Organic 2 vs. 80.18 in Organic 1, *p* < 0.05).

**Parameters Conv.**

Calves sold at weaning age/cow/year (N°)

adult serviced cows in the farm. 4

1 and Organic 2. 7

and level of significance.

1

The average size of farms was 268.44 ha utilized agricultural area (UAA) (**Table 2**). Organic 2 farms were larger than 'All Organic', but the high variability within the sample did not allow identifying significant differences between this group and Organic 1. With regard to herd size, All Organic farms were also similar to Conventional farms, and an important variation within farms was identified in relation to the mean cattle herd size (140.95 livestock units (LU) in

> **Org. 1 (***n* **= 22)**

Replacement rate (%)1 11.98 11.92 13.29 0.922 12.19 1.23 12.38 0.875 Cows/bull (N°) 31.01 30.67 28.29 0.844 30.42 1.68 29.88 0.740 Estrous synchronisation (%)2 6.70 0.00 0.00 0.321 3.20 – 0.00 0.132 Artificial insemination (%)3 6.70 4.50 0.00 0.592 4.80 – 3.00 0.658 Length of mating period (months) 10.40 10.70 10.14 0.922 10.46 0.29 10.52 0.846 Fertility rate (%)4 85.15 77.70 81.49 0.187 81.91 1.82 78.97 0.091 Age at first calving (month) 30.68 33.45 33.68 0.197 32.17 0.79 33.53 0.074 Calving interval (days)5 346.50 33500 343.64 0.165 341.98 2.74 337.88 0.117 Calves born/cow/year (N°) 0.85 0.78 0.81 0.187 0.82 0.02 0.78 0.091 Weaned calves/cow/year (N°) 0.81 0.71 0.65 0.061 0.75 0.03 0.69 0.025\* Age at weaning (months) 5.86 5.82 6.00 0.886 5.87 0.13 5.88 0.944 Live weight at calving (kg) 202.33a 190.91b 193.18ab 0.037\* 196.75 2.12 191.67 0.011\*

Fattened calves sold/cow/year (N°) 0.07a 0.00a 0.45b 0.000\*\*\* 0.11 0.03 0.15 0.000\*\*\* Fattened calves/total calves sold 0.09a 0.00a 0.64b 0.000\*\*\* 0.15 0.30 0.21 0.119

Annual average proportion of: live births/serviced cows. 5

**Table 2.** Reproductive management and performance, and productive orientation. Mean values, standard deviation

In relation to the various land uses and the type of ownership, it was seen that 59% of land was in property (owned area/UAA in percentages). Fifty-two percent of UAAs had tree presence.

a, b, c Mean values with different letters in the same row are significantly different. \*

proportion of cows synchronized/total adult cows in the farm. 3

days from calving to calving in the adult cows of the farms. 6

Moreover, crop areas were almost inexistent.

Calculated as the annual average proportion of heifers bred for reproduction/number adult. 2

Analysis of Variance of the groups Conventional vs. All Organic.

**Org. 2 (***n* **= 11)** **Sig. 16 Sample (***n* **= 63)**

0.63a 0.66a 0.27b 0.000\*\*\* 0.58 0.03 0.53 0.000\*\*\*

**SD All**

p<0.05, \*\* p<0.01, \*\*\* p<0.001.

Average annual proportion of inseminated cows/total

Analysis of Variance of the groups Conventional, Organic

Annual average

Annual average number of

**Organic (***n* **= 33)**

**Sig. 27**

**(***n* **= 30)**

*3.2.1. Farm and herd characteristics*

24 Livestock Science

The breed distribution of organic farms is also an important issue, as autochthonous breeds are preferable for this production model, as indicated by Regulation 834/2007 [28]. **Table 3** shows the composition by breed of the farms.


a, b Mean values with different letters in the same row are significantly different. \* p<0.05. 1 Analysis of Variance of the groups Conventional, Organic 1 and Organic 2. 2 Analysis of Variance of the groups Conventional vs. All Organic.

**Table 3.** Farm breed structure. Mean percentage values, standard deviation and level of significance.

The percentage of purebred autochthonous cows reached 41.83%, with this percentage being higher in All Organic and Organic 2 than in the conventional group. Also, All Organic and Organic 2 showed a higher presence of these purebred cows; either autochthonous or foreign ones. The main reason for this is that Organic 2 farmers were market oriented (they had contracts with supermarkets) so that they knew that more productive breeds that allow them to produce carcass of better conformation, mainly Limousine.


Note: all these indicators were measured in terms of €/ha. 1 Value of the land at market prices. This depended on the quality of the plots (grazing resources, location and tree density, among other parameters). 2 Value of infrastructure at market prices. Years of use and level of conservation/maintenance were taken into account. 3 Value of machinery (cars, trucks, etc.) at market prices. Years of use and level of conservation/maintenance were taken into account. 4 Value of all livestock present at market prices. 5 Analysis of Variance of the groups Conventional, Organic 1 and Organic 2. 6 Analysis of Variance of the groups Conventional vs. All Organic.

**Table 4.** Fixed capital according to farm groups.


a, b Mean values with different letters in the same row are significantly different. \* p<0.05, \*\* p<0.01. 1 Expenditures (purchases) made in external feedstuffs/hectare of UAA (€/ha). 2 Expenditures (purchases) made in external feedstuffs/LU (€/LU). 3 Expenditure in seeds and fertilisers/hectare of UAA (€/ha). 4 Expenditures made in veterinary and medicines/ha UAA (€/ha). 5 Expenditures made in veterinary and medicines /LU (€/LU). 6 Expenditures made in maintenance of fixed capital/ha of UAA (€/ha). 7 Expenditures made in energy/ha UAA (petrol and electricity) (€/ha). 8 Expenditures/ha UAA made in farmers' associations, lawyers, etc. (€/ha). 9 Sum of the following costs (€/ha of UAA: External feedstuffs + Veterinary services and medicines + Energy + Maintenance of machinery and infrastructure + Other goods and Services (lawyers, farmers' associations, etc.). 10Expenditures made in salaries/ha of UAA (€/ha). 11Amortization of machinery and infrastructure = Sum of (((1/20 years amortization) × Value of infrastructures) + ((1/10 years) × Value of machinery)). 12Cost of the land rented (€/ha). 13Analysis of Variance of the groups Conventional, Organic 1 and Organic 2. 14Analysis of Variance of the groups Conventional vs. All Organic.

**Table 5.** Intermediate consumption and other costs.

#### **3.3. Economic parameters**

contracts with supermarkets) so that they knew that more productive breeds that allow them

**Org. 2 (***n* **= 11)**

Land fixed capital1 5,630.07 5,194.52 5,695.62 0.788 5,489.42 310.43 5,361.56 0.669 Buildings fixed capital2 660.75 606.48 546.10 0.935 621.78 114.32 586.35 0.748 Machinery fixed capital3 215.51 138.79 107.77 0.449 169.91 35.00 128.45 0.217 Livestock fixed capital4 624.81 416.66 329.10 0.217 500.49 69.69 387.47 0.089 Total fixed capital 7,131.14 6,356.45 6,678.59 0.443 6,781.59 430.59 6,463.83 0.443

**Sig. 15 Sample (***n* **= 63)**

Analysis of Variance of the groups Conventional, Organic 1 and Organic 2.

**Sample (***n* **= 63)**

**SD All**

Value of the land at market prices. This depended on the

**SD Sig. 113 All**

p<0.05, \*\* p<0.01. 1

Expenditures (purchases) made in external

Expenditures made in energy/ha UAA (petrol and electricity) (€/ha).

**Organic (***n* **= 33)**

Value of infrastructure at

Value of machinery (cars,

**Organic (***n* **= 33)**

Expenditures

Expenditures made in

Expenditures made in veterinary

Sum of the following costs (€/ha of UAA:

Value of all

**Sig. 214**

**Sig. 26**

to produce carcass of better conformation, mainly Limousine.

**(***n* **= 30)**

Note: all these indicators were measured in terms of €/ha. 1

Analysis of Variance of the groups Conventional vs. All Organic.

**Org. 1 (***n* **= 22)**

quality of the plots (grazing resources, location and tree density, among other parameters). 2

market prices. Years of use and level of conservation/maintenance were taken into account. 3

**(***n* **= 30)**

a, b Mean values with different letters in the same row are significantly different. \*

Organic 1 and Organic 2. 14Analysis of Variance of the groups Conventional vs. All Organic.

Expenditures/ha UAA made in farmers' associations, lawyers, etc. (€/ha). 9

Expenditure in seeds and fertilisers/hectare of UAA (€/ha). 4

External feedstuffs + Veterinary services and medicines + Energy + Maintenance of machinery and infrastructure + Other goods and Services (lawyers, farmers' associations, etc.). 10Expenditures made in salaries/ha of UAA (€/ha). 11Amortization of machinery and infrastructure = Sum of (((1/20 years amortization) × Value of infrastructures) + ((1/10 years) × Value of machinery)). 12Cost of the land rented (€/ha). 13Analysis of Variance of the groups Conventional,

Expenditures made in veterinary and medicines /LU (€/LU). 6

(purchases) made in external feedstuffs/hectare of UAA (€/ha). 2

feedstuffs/LU (€/LU). 3

8

and medicines/ha UAA (€/ha). 5

maintenance of fixed capital/ha of UAA (€/ha). 7

**Table 5.** Intermediate consumption and other costs.

trucks, etc.) at market prices. Years of use and level of conservation/maintenance were taken into account. 4

**Org. 1 (***n* **= 22)**

Feed/ha UAA1 109.69a 17.55b 96.63ab 75.24 112.18 0.009\*\* 43.91 0.019\* Feed/LU2 161.59a 38.27b 220.54a 128.82 165.70 0.003\*\* 99.03 0.136 Seeds and fertilisers3 7.51 3.10 1.00 4.84 12.61 0.252 2.40 0.108 Veterinary and medicines/ha UAA4 17.87a 4.51b 4.84b 10.93 21.16 0.043\* 4.62 0.012\* Veterinary and medicines /LU5 20.32a 7.45b 11.64ab 14.31 15.14 0.006\*\* 8.84 0.002\*\* Maintenance of fixed capital6 15.74 18.95 22.60 18.06 22.68 0.681. 20.17 0.444 Energy7 24.24 22.44 18.27 22.57 22.84 0.765 21.05 0.584 Other expenditure8 24.32 20.87 21.88 22.69 33.67 0.934 21.20 0.717 Intermediate consumption9 199.38 87.42 165.22 154.32 177.86 0.077 113.36 0.054 Remuneration of employees10 60.29 42.48 61.24 54.24 100.69 0.799 48.73 0.653 Fixed capital consumption11 54.59 44.20 38.08 48.08 66.62 0.744 42.16 0.464 Land rented12 30.56 30.96 23.25 29.42 38.47 0.846 28.39 0.825

**Org. 2 (***n* **= 11)**

**Parameters Conv.**

26 Livestock Science

livestock present at market prices. 5

**Table 4.** Fixed capital according to farm groups.

**Parameters Conv.**

6

#### *3.3.1. Analysis of fixed capital*

This analysis allowed identification of similarities between organic and conventional systems (**Table 4**), with regard to infrastructure, land and animals. It is worth highlighting the high average value of land fixed capital 5489.42 €/ha that accounted for the 81% of total fixed capital (**Table 5**).


Note: Those parameters whose unit is not showed in the table are measured per ha of UAA ((€/ha). 1 Value of all the products of agricultural activities. All agricultural output was recorded except that which was solely produced by units for their own consumption. 2 It measures the value created by all agricultural output after the consumption of fixed capital. That output is valued at basic prices and intermediate consumption is valued at purchase prices. It was calculated as follows: (Gross output – Intermediate consumption – Amortisation) + (Those subsidies not related to livestock farming). 3 It measures the yield from land, capital and unpaid labour. It is the balance of the generation of income account which indicates the distribution of income between the factors of production and the general government sector. 4 Obtained by adding the interest received and then deducting rent (i.e., farm and land rents) and interest payments, measuring compensation of unpaid labour, remuneration from land belonging to units and the yield arising from the use of capital. 5 Ratio between net surplus and average capital assets, estimated from the value of total fixed capital and the value of capital. 6 Analysis of Variance of the groups Conventional, Organic 1 and Organic 2. 7 Analysis of Variance of the groups Conventional vs. All Organic.

**Table 6.** Economic and productive performance and subsidies.

**Table 6** shows the economic and productive performance of the farm groups, as well as aspects related to subsidies, where the Organic 1 group can be seen to have lower livestock sales per hectare of UAA and lower gross production.

Conventional farms proved to sell more calves per hectare and year, which is due to their shorter productive cycle and the low productivity of Organic 1. No differences were found for the remaining indicators, but some interesting results were found and therefore comments are necessary. Organic farms (especially Organic 2) revealed higher numerical values for other sales, which reflect a higher level of business diversification, something that is key in the farms' flexibility and adaptability to the changing market environment. Moreover, organic farms (especially Organic 2) tended to be more dependent on subsidies.
