online ISSN:2312-3389 print ISSN:2312-3370 DOI:10.15407/agrisp


Archive of Agricultural Science and Practice Journal issues

List of all issues / Content of issue 2019-1 / Abstract & References of Article 5
O. M. Varchenko1 , V. I. Radko2 , O. O. Rudych1 , I. V. Svynous1 , K. V. Tkachenko1

1Bila Tserkva National Agrarian University, 8/1, Soborna Sq, Bila Tserkva, 09117, Ukraine
2 National University of Life and Environmental Sciences 11, Heroiv Oborony Str, Kyiv, 03041, Ukraine


Received January 19, 2019 / Received February 27, 2019 / Accepted March 22 , 2019
Aim. To identify the main types of risks, remarkable for agricultural dairy production, to evaluate the consequences of their increase and to substantiate a comprehensive system of managing them on the level of enterprise which would promote their minimization and neutralization. Methods. Common methods and techniques were applied in the study: a combination of scientifi c techniques of abstract-logical method of elaborating theoretical provisions, deduction method while isolating specifi c risks in dairy farming from the total amount, empirical methods of investigating the activity of dairy enterprises and computer generated simulation while substantiating practical instruments of risk management in agricultural dairy production. The correlation-regression analysis was used for statistical processing of the data and study results. Results. During the investigation the following kinds of risks in dairy production were isolated: natural, ecological, technological, market-related risks. The natural risk is related to the environmental impact, fi rst and foremost, to the change in temperature regime of the environment of keeping cows, ecological component of manure utilization. The technological risk is characterized by violating the conditions of keeping cows at farms, which is manifested via loss and disposal of cows from the core herd. It has been found that currently the distribution of diseases, i.e. epizootic situation in the country, presents increased risk for farms. One of the ways to neutralize and minimize the manifestation of technological risks is improving biosafety of stock breeding complexes and developing the insurance of livestock. In addition to risks of diseases (infectious, invasion, non-contagious) and other standard risks (fi re, natural disasters, etc.), it is reasonable to insure against the following kinds of risks: interrupted production (caused by death or loss of insured animals), after which current expenses for renewal of production or forfeited profi t would be reimbursed automatically or after submission of confi rmation documents; transportation of animals, including sea, air, and railway travel; expenses to remove the remains of animals after the insured event which caused their death; reimbursing the expenses for elimination of consequences, caused by infectious diseases, which made it impossible to renew the production without prior applica- tion of disinfectants. While evaluating market-related risks, special attention should be given to the relations of producers and processors of milk. Market risks are closely related to technological risks, as milk quality has a decisive impact on the formation of procurement prices. Conclusions. The systematization of risks in dairy farming should be performed in accordance to the total system of their manifestation and to specialized identifi cation which characterizes specifi cities of this sphere. The probability of most risks, occurring in dairy production, is considerably dependent on the effi ciency of managers of agricultural enterprises and partially on legislative and executive branches of power (in the part of legisla- tive provisions). Currently the mitigation of environmental risks is possible only on condition of searching for internal reserves of ensuring the stability of dairy farming, which envisages creating conditions for production of high quality milk, minimization of expenses for its production and sale, compliance with agreements with contractors.
Key words: dairy farming, industry risk, natural risk, technological risk, ecological risk, market-related risk.

1. Samsonenko DO. The dairy cattle breeding may be profi table. Naukovyi visnyk "Askania-Nova". 2018; (11):131-5.
2. Martunyuk GP. Prospects for development of stock breeding in the agrarian formations of Zhytomyr region. Biznes inform. 2015;(7):178-85.
3. Ivanova LS. Milk succession: current status and problems of solution. AgroSvit, 2017;(22):23-7.
4. Troels Kristensen, Ole Aaes, Martin Riis Weisbjerg. Production and environmental impact of dairy cattle production in Denmark 1900-2010. Livestock Sci., 2015;178:306-12.
5. Seyedsharifi R, Ghadimi M, Evrigh NH, Seifdavati J, Boustan A, Benamar HA. Economic evaluation in traditional and industrial livestock with different levels of milk production in Ardebil province with emphasis on risk criteria. Kafkas Univ. Vet. Fak. Derg. J., 2018;24(5):681-9.
6. Varchenko OM, Krysanov DF, Shust OA. Innovations of agro-food chains in Ukraine. Agric. Sci. Pract., 2017;4(3):73-83.
7. Diakité ZR, Corson MS, Brunschwig G, Baumont R, Mosnier C. Profi t stability of mixed dairy and beef production systems of the mountain area of southern Auvergne (France) in the face of price variations: Bioeconomic simulation. Agric. Systems., 2019;171(C):126-34.
8. Zubchenko VV. Specifi cities of organizing the reproduction of dairy herd in agricultural enterprises. Ekonomika ta upravlinnia APK, 2014;(2):57-62. [In Ukrainian].
9. Denis-Robichaud J, Cerri RLA, Jones-Bitton A, LeBlanc SJ. Dairy producers' attitudes toward reproductive ma- nagement and performance on Canadian dairy farms. J. Dairy Sci., 2018;101(1):850-60.
10. Ross SA, Topp CFE, Ennos RA, Chagunda MGG. Re- lative emissions intensity of dairy production systems: Employing different functional units in life-cycle as- sessment. Animal, 2017;11:1381-8.
11. Brandt P, Herold M, Rufi no MC. The contribution of sectoral climate change mitigation options to national targets: A quantitative assessment of dairy production in Kenya. Environ. Res. Lett., 2018;13(3).
12. Hajer Amamou Mohsen, Ben Sassi, Hatem Ao uadi, Hichem Khemiri, Mokhtar Mahouachi, Yves Bec kers, Hedi Ham mami Climate change-related risks and adap- tation strategies as perceived in dairy cattle farming systems in Tunisia. Climate Risk Management. 2018; 20:38-49.
13. Rudych OO. The economic essence of risk and particular manifestations in the activities of agricultural enterprises. Ekonomika ta upravlinnja APK. 2012;93(7):59-63.
14. Ruda TP. Formation of the system of management of economic risks of dairy processing enterprises. Eko- nomika ta upravlinnja APK. 2012;95(8):118-22.
15. Korzh NV. Financial risk management methods. Inter. Electronic J. Sci., 2016;2(10), pp. 1.1-1.6.
16. Bondarevska K. State regulation as a factor of sustainable economic development. MEST J. 2014;2(2):23-31.
17. Druchek K, Shvedun V. The assessment of risks of fo- reign economic activity of the industrial enterprise in public administration. Visnik Natsionalnogo universyte- tu tsyvilnogo zahystu Ukrainy. 2017;2:106-15.
18. Terje Aven. Risk assessment and risk management: Review of recent advances on their foundation. Eur. J. Operat. Res. 2016; 253(1):1-13.
19. Edward Qian. Risk Parity and Diversifi cation. J. In- vesting. 2011;20(1):119-27.
20. Ted O'Donoghue, Jason Somerville. Modeling Risk Aversion in Economics. J. Econom. Perspect. 2018; 32(2):91-114.
21. Chinchilla-Vargas J, Jahnke MM, Dohlman TM, Roths- child MF, Gunn PJ. Climatic factors affecting quantity and quality grade of in vivo derived embryos of cattle. Anim. Reprod. Sci., 2018;192:53-60.
22. Chernenko OM, Chernenko OI, Shulzhenko NM, Bordunova OG. Biological features of cows with diffe- rent levels of stress resistance. Ukr. J. Ecol., 2018; 8(1):466-74.
23. Trajchev M, Nakov D, Andonov S. The effect of thermal environment on daily milk yield of dairy cows. Maced. Vet. Rev., 2016;39(1):185-92.
24. Borshch OO, Borshch OV, Donchenko T, Kosior L, Pirova L. Infl uence of low temperatures on behavior, productivity and bioenergy parameters of dairy cows kept in cubicle stalls and deep litter system. Ukr. J. Ecol., 2017;7(3):73-7.
25. Miniailo O, Miniailo V, Linetska Y. Milk-product subcomplex of Ukraine: trends of development. Tovary i rynky. 2018;(4):20-35. (28) 02.
26. Rudenko EV, Trishin AK, Pomitun IA, Podobed LI, Shkavro NN. Urgent issues of cattle production tech- nologies and quality ensuring development in Ukraine. Naukovo-tehnichnyi biuleten IT NAAN, 2018;(120):3-13.
27. Saegerman C, Bertagnoli S, Meyer G, Ganière J-P, Caufour P, De Clercq K, Jacquiet P, Fournié G, Hautefeuille C, Etore F, Casal J. Risk of introduction of lumpy skin disease in France by the import of vectors in animal trucks. PLoS One, 2018;13(6):e0198506.
28. Tretiak K. Agricultural insurance: foreign experience and resources for its implementation in the Ukrainian insurance practice. Efektyvna ekonomika, 2019;(1).
29. Malik M, Hudz H. Organization of insurance de- fence in agrarian enterprise - foreign experience. Bull. T. Shevchenko National University of Kyiv, 2015;8 (173):19-25.
30. Dzhedzhula VV, Jepifanova IYu, Hladka DO. Dairy mar- ket: condition and development trends. Ekonomika i suspilstvo. 2018;(18);382-8. doi: 2524-0072/2018-18-53.
31. Prilipko T, Bukalova N. Evaluation of quality and safety of milk on admission to milk-processing company from different entities. Naukovyi visnyk LNUVMBT imeni S.Z. Gzhitskogo. 2016;18(2):212-5.
32. Bogatko N, Lyasota V, Bukalova N, Artemenko L, Bogat- ko L, Salata V, Dashkovskyy O. Sanitary and hygienic assessment of milk of different producers in conformity with international requirements. Scientifi c Messenger of Lviv National University of Veterinary Medicine and Biotechnologies. Series: Veterinary Sciences publishes peer-reviewed original research articles and reviews on different aspects of veterinary medicine, 2018;20(83): 88-92.